Legislative Failure of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
The issue
1. Executive Summary
This submission identifies a critical structural defect at the intersection of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and the Family Law Act 1975.
Under current administrative operations, Services Australia and the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) must calculate assessments based strictly on the "actual physical reality of care." By ignoring the conduct behind a reduction in time, this strict legislative rule facilitates family violence, control, and system abuse. It allows a gatekeeping parent—statistically and usually the mother—to unilaterally withhold children from a capable parent to secure an immediate 100% financial windfall.
This flaw rewards abusive behavior while extensive, prolonged family court proceedings stall the paramount purpose of promoting the best interests of the children.
2. Facilitating Coercive Control under the Family Law Acr 1975
Section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 explicitly defines family violence to include behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a family member, or causes the family member to be fearful.
The federal child support system directly subverts these protections. When one parent cuts off the other parent’s contact with their child, they exert severe psychological control over the other parent and the children.
Because the federal Act forces the ART to look only at physical nights, the administrative system validates this coercive control and rewards it with increased child support payments.
3. The Compounding Failure of Protracted Family Court Proceedings
The current legislative framework forces an artificial separation between child support metrics and the child's best interests. When a parent unilaterally alters an established care routine for financial leverage:
* Administrative Impotence: The ART cannot intervene or adjust percentages based on bad-faith gatekeeping.
* Court Delays: The targeted parent is forced into the family law system. However, family court proceedings are extensive, complex, and notoriously long.
* The Gap: During the many months spent waiting for an interim or final court hearing, the withholding parent successfully uses the child support system to institutionalize an artificial "status quo."
This delay directly violates the paramount principle that the best interests of the children must be protected and the family violence protection framework.
The law allows children to be weaponized as economic tools, keeping them separated from a willing, safe, and loving parent while the state subsidizes the withholding behaviour.
4. Proposed Legislative Remedies
To align the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 with the Family Law Act 1975 to protect the best interests of children and prevent family violence controlling behaviour, the following structural amendments are submitted:
* Family Violence Overrides: Introduce a legislative mechanism where a proven history of equal care cannot be adjusted downward administratively if the targeted parent lodges a dispute demonstrating unilateral withholding that aligns with definitions of coercive control under the Family Law Act 1975.
* Mandatory Care Assessment Freezes: If a parent rejects a forced schedule change at mediation and obtains a Section 60I certificate, the child support assessment must be legally frozen at the historical pre-separation care rate for up to 6 months. This removes the immediate financial incentive to withhold children while court applications are finalised.
* Streamlined Inter-Agency Intervention: Empower administrative decision-makers to pause 100% care assessments the moment family court proceedings are initiated, preventing the financial exploitation of legal delays.
* Introduce a Show-Cause Process: If child care routines drop significantly, particularly post separation, and the other parent disputes it, Services Australia must issue an immediate "Show Cause" notice to the parent withholding the children. This administrative action is triggered by a drastic change in established care arrangements.
5. Conclusion
The current child support legislation fails Australian families by operating in a vacuum. It rewards unilateral gatekeeping, facilitates coercive control, and allows extensive court delays to punish loving parents.
We urge the relevant authorities to recommend reforms that stop the child support formula from being used as a weapon of sanctioned economic and emotional violence.
34
The issue
1. Executive Summary
This submission identifies a critical structural defect at the intersection of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and the Family Law Act 1975.
Under current administrative operations, Services Australia and the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) must calculate assessments based strictly on the "actual physical reality of care." By ignoring the conduct behind a reduction in time, this strict legislative rule facilitates family violence, control, and system abuse. It allows a gatekeeping parent—statistically and usually the mother—to unilaterally withhold children from a capable parent to secure an immediate 100% financial windfall.
This flaw rewards abusive behavior while extensive, prolonged family court proceedings stall the paramount purpose of promoting the best interests of the children.
2. Facilitating Coercive Control under the Family Law Acr 1975
Section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 explicitly defines family violence to include behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a family member, or causes the family member to be fearful.
The federal child support system directly subverts these protections. When one parent cuts off the other parent’s contact with their child, they exert severe psychological control over the other parent and the children.
Because the federal Act forces the ART to look only at physical nights, the administrative system validates this coercive control and rewards it with increased child support payments.
3. The Compounding Failure of Protracted Family Court Proceedings
The current legislative framework forces an artificial separation between child support metrics and the child's best interests. When a parent unilaterally alters an established care routine for financial leverage:
* Administrative Impotence: The ART cannot intervene or adjust percentages based on bad-faith gatekeeping.
* Court Delays: The targeted parent is forced into the family law system. However, family court proceedings are extensive, complex, and notoriously long.
* The Gap: During the many months spent waiting for an interim or final court hearing, the withholding parent successfully uses the child support system to institutionalize an artificial "status quo."
This delay directly violates the paramount principle that the best interests of the children must be protected and the family violence protection framework.
The law allows children to be weaponized as economic tools, keeping them separated from a willing, safe, and loving parent while the state subsidizes the withholding behaviour.
4. Proposed Legislative Remedies
To align the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 with the Family Law Act 1975 to protect the best interests of children and prevent family violence controlling behaviour, the following structural amendments are submitted:
* Family Violence Overrides: Introduce a legislative mechanism where a proven history of equal care cannot be adjusted downward administratively if the targeted parent lodges a dispute demonstrating unilateral withholding that aligns with definitions of coercive control under the Family Law Act 1975.
* Mandatory Care Assessment Freezes: If a parent rejects a forced schedule change at mediation and obtains a Section 60I certificate, the child support assessment must be legally frozen at the historical pre-separation care rate for up to 6 months. This removes the immediate financial incentive to withhold children while court applications are finalised.
* Streamlined Inter-Agency Intervention: Empower administrative decision-makers to pause 100% care assessments the moment family court proceedings are initiated, preventing the financial exploitation of legal delays.
* Introduce a Show-Cause Process: If child care routines drop significantly, particularly post separation, and the other parent disputes it, Services Australia must issue an immediate "Show Cause" notice to the parent withholding the children. This administrative action is triggered by a drastic change in established care arrangements.
5. Conclusion
The current child support legislation fails Australian families by operating in a vacuum. It rewards unilateral gatekeeping, facilitates coercive control, and allows extensive court delays to punish loving parents.
We urge the relevant authorities to recommend reforms that stop the child support formula from being used as a weapon of sanctioned economic and emotional violence.
The Decision Makers
Supporter voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 11 August 2026