Skip directly to content

Jenny Macklin - New Start Allowance (pension) is inadequate to survive on.

Like us on fb

Lukes Dad's picture
on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 06:39
Fight Child Protection Department Corruption: 
Jenny Macklin - New Start Allowance (pension) is inadequate to survive on.

http://www.lukesarmy.com/content/aust-public-servants-code-conduct-worki...

 

Honourable Jenny Macklin

And

Honourable Kim Carr

And

Other Parliamentary Members cc

And Community Members Bcc

 

 

In the current musings that $34 per day New Start Allowance (pension) is inadequate to survive on.

 

Ministers what do you have to say when your department unlawfully and unconstitutionally reduces separated fathers $34 per day New Start and Disability Pension down to $14.14 per day to live on?  For separated fathers only while for example the mother gifts the property settlement car and then commits herself to a $20,000 replacement car on her sole parent pension?  Affordable to her only because of your cohorts unlawfully plundering on her behalf the fathers New Start $34 per day pension by $19.86 per day.  Please explain you acceptance and protect Commonwealth Officers serial non compliance with case facts and legislation and Public Service Code of Conduct?

 

In spite of you both and your department being frequently complained to for more than the past year of this outrageous and unlawful plunder of you have done nothing in your ministerial responsibilities to bring these outrageous Commonwealth Officers into legal compliance.  Because the current reviews of these fathers remains unaltered except the deductions are increased.  This unlawful overcharge of child support and the departmental plunder of their ‘untouchable’ self support pensions still goes on in spite of our complaints because you allege falsely the matter has been attended to by CSA while the unlawfulness continues unchanged from year to year.

 

Of course Human Services Minister Carr you also denied to me that you are the Human Services Minister when in fact you are.  In this inhuman impost under your ministerial control that you are indeed fully aware of is causing so many unnecessary suicides.  It is the Australian modern-day equivalent of Nazism of WW2 so it is not discourteous to refer to you as a pair of Galoots.  With your eyes shut and allowing EMILY’s List and Feminism to govern by proxy and run a division of their ‘ideological’ gender war against men out of CSA and SSAT and Family Services.  Of course EMILY’s List Minister Macklin could survive on $34 per day as hundreds of Australians have to but she and you Minister Carr expect separated fathers (and likely too some mothers) to be proactive parents on only $14.14 per day.  That buys two meat pies and a coke per day with no clothing or accommodation while the mother drives a $20,000 motor car and uses CSA and SSAT and their unlawful activities to strip him of his pension to support her extravert lifestyle.

 

Below is an extract of my posting to ‘fathers4equality’ site and many community organizations and individual members that will suffice for further explanation of your ghoulish misandary attitude towards men and fathers in particular.

 

No one seems interested in their politicians’ law compliance responsibilities to their constituents and parliament of the unlawful activities that causes some 1,600 father suicides a year from CSA and SSAT overcharging fathers.  Because these fathers are never in any position to earn or afford the overcharges their Government Pensions has no hope of covering.  And that by law their self support pensions were never legislated to afford.  It is also the harassment by CSA and SSAT collecting the unaffordable overcharges that is driving these victimised fathers into unbearable poverty and consequent suicide.

 

Australian Government Officers behind these suicides cause multiple more times Australian male deaths than do the Taliban.  Now isn’t that a proud statistic – for the feminists insurgency?

Robert E Kennedy    Coordinator     NT Office Status of Family, PO Box 988 Palmerston, NT 0831.     Ph  08 8932 3339 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

All politicians are more interested in Peter Slipper for solely political spites and a few thousand dollars of misappropriation of Taxpayers Resources with the same politicians seemingly for only misandary reasons refusing to do anything about this multi million dollar a year fraud by Government Officers explained to you here yet once again.  Whereby such Government Officers (a) behave unlawfully in office to create an overcharge (b) unlawfully use Taxpayers Resources to transfer the overcharge to and (c) pay the overcharge to a person not lawfully entitle to it (d) leaving the overcharged victim on less than the Government decreed ‘survival’ or ‘self support’ pension financially destitute and desperate enough that some 1,600 suicide annually.

 

By laws of the Constitution, The Government cannot take anything out of the decreed minimal support amount or Commonwealth Pensions however somehow CSA started deducting $5 per week that was tolerated is now $380 per year maximum.  But in the typical way of CSA there is ‘administrative creep’ to deduct higher amounts.  I am the representative of two current CSA pensioner clients on New Start and Disability Pension.  You will be aware of the current out crying that New Start of $34 per day is inadequate to live on and disability pension is about $38 - $40 per day.

 

You must now realize the full reality this unlawful impact of CSA and SSAT fraudulence has upon individual victims.

 

The Disability Pensioner since 2009 property settlement has notwithstanding complaints made has since had many thousands of dollars deducted from his disability pension of about $20,000 per year or $54 per day on which he should be charged only $380 per year child support.  Given there is no legislation or authority or case fact reasons for CSA to do so they are for 2013 ‘setting his’ income in their misleading ‘administrative’ speak without law at $45,000 per year on which to massively ‘overcharge’ him. He has no other income than the disability pension and this is the example of CSA ‘clerks’ without legislation simply ‘making it up’ personally.  They are simply sequestrating his portion of his property settlement while CSA and SSAT disregard the mother’s proportion.  There are also other unlawful hypotheticals CSA impose on him but we will skip that for clarity of this pathway.

 

This fellow is deprived of his legislated self support disability pension unlawfully reduced to below New Start of $34 per day.

 

The next fellow has been on New Start Allowance since his formal family separation in 2009 and is on the $35 dollars a day self support on which he should be charged a maximum of $380 per year child support.  Instead he is being charged $5,000 a year child support that reduces his new start by $13 per day leaving him only $22.74 a day balance.  Further he drives 908 klm per month for his children’s contact for which the CSA officer allows him $186 a month for fuel only.  But if the same CSA officer were to use his private vehicle the Taxpayer would reimburse him $307.72 is the true cost this father should be allowed as ‘Cost of Contact’.

 

Thus contact with his children consequently reduces his $22.74 per day by a further $8.60 per day leaving a daily balance of $14.14 a day or $98.98 per week.  While she purchases and runs a $20,000 motor car on her Government Pension that is a clear breach of s114 of choosing a life style beyond her financial means which CSA and SSAT disregard solely on the basis of parent gender..

 

If women successfully complain they cannot survive on $34 per day how can it be lawful for The Government who sets self support (minimum to survive) pensions at $57.50 per day to lawfully expect proactive fathers to survive on $14.14 per day?  Notwithstanding the most minimum amount of $34 per day is reduced to $14.14 unlawfully within Government Administration by Commonwealth Government Officers.  NOT BY ANY LEGISLATION BUT BY INDIVIDUAL “CLERKS” MAKING IT UP IRRESPECTIVE OF CASE FACTS OR LEGISLATION.

 

When a father is asset stripped by the family court and left on his moral and financial arse to be supported by generous Taxpayers and The Government then allows the feminist element of The Public Service to take that financial support away and give it to so frequently dishonest mothers.  Then the “banished tribesman syndrome” and depression kicks in and suicide is the only way relief for such severely victimised fathers..

 

Macklin and Carr could you if left with nothing including most cases no home and forced apart from your family live on $14.14 a day?  What would YOU do if you were unlawfully put into that position?  I guess claim via the law?  Well the job you have undertaken is to ensure for yours and all other constituents the Public Service runs Government Departments and Agencies according to the laws of The Legislature.  Please Fix

 

We have world’s best family law and child support legislation and service delivery system but it is being run on the feminist misandary ideology by the feminist insurgency lurking in Government and its Administration dispensing its own sole gender ideology instead of being gender impartial as The Legislature decreed.  CSA and SSAT must be returned to compliance to the decree of the legislature that will return The Legislature’s safety net to this class of unfortunate male victims.  Seldom are in such a predicament because of their own decision making.  But begins when it is 73% women who end relationships and are left to remain in the former family home and police simply ‘male blame’ in heterosexual relationships with restraining orders makes most fathers immediately homeless without any domestic support.  For the family court to then give ‘her’ 70% of the assets and he as on new start has to live on $14.14 and sometimes less per day.  In a society laden with misandary attitudes makes an environment truly of the ‘banished tribesman’ depression and suicides.

You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

Comments

Lukes Dad's picture

Warning of economic impact on struggling households in the United Kingdom.

Record numbers of children are likely to be taken away from their families this year as parents struggle to cope with the effects of public-sector cuts and benefits changes, a senior child protection figure has warned.

Anthony Douglas, chief executive of Cafcass, which safeguards the welfare of children involved in family court proceedings, said he expected to see a leap in child neglect cases as thousands of struggling families were pushed over the financial edge in the coming months.

Mr Douglas warned that the number of cases could rise by up to eight per cent, involving hundreds of children, putting further strain on the already-stretched child protection system. Cases of "cumulative long-term neglect" are increasing with the removal of small but vital services, such as play schemes and new mothers' groups.

Last year Cafcass dealt with record numbers of care applications, including a total of 7,278 cases between April and November – an 8.3 per cent increase on the same period in 2011.

Mr Douglas said: "Given what we know about the association between poverty deprivation and care, the increase in economic difficulties can take away the margins of support for people who are just managing to keep things together.

"Often quite small amounts of support can make all the difference. So I think that there is a risk of underestimating the way in which this support can keep some families going."

His warning comes amid evidence that the Government's benefits squeeze is hitting public sector professionals just as hard as its professed target – the work-shy and "scroungers".

Figures produced by the Children's Society ahead of a vote in the House of Commons tomorrow over a below-inflation rise in benefits and tax credits show that nearly 500,000 nurses, soldiers and primary and nursery school teachers will see their income slashed by the changes.

The Coalition's Bill to cap increases in a catalogue of benefits, including child benefit and tax credits, at one per cent until 2015, will cost a lone-parent nurse with two children £424 a year and a junior Army NCO with three children, who earns £470 per week, a total of £552 per annum.

A coalition of 27 organisations, including the RNIB and Barnardo's, yesterday published an open letter condemning the up-rating Bill as a "hardship penalty" on millions of working families. It said: "Families already struggling to pay for food, fuel, rent and other basics will see their budgets further squeezed."

The evidence that government policy will bite hard on working families forms a backdrop to a sharpened debate on the links between poverty and neglect for those further on the margins of society. Amy Waddell, spokeswoman for Action for Children, said: "We do know that growing poverty and deterioration in parenting skills are some of the main concerns that professionals do have about the reasons for child neglect."

Mr Douglas said the increasing numbers of young people entering the care system will have significant "resource implications" for the child protection system.

He said: "This is the first time in the history of British childcare, certainly in the last 30 years, that there has been an unbroken increase. To some extent we can predict a four to eight per cent increase next year but we can't be sure. But we are pretty sure it will continue to be significant.

"Equally we think we will stay on top of it – which is important because there were fears that the system would creak or collapse."

The rise in neglect cases began in November 2008 as local authorities reacted to the death of Peter Connelly by intervening earlier in cases rather than risk leaving children in potentially harmful situations. Peter was a 17-month-old boy from north London who was killed despite being seen by childcare authorities.

Mr Douglas, who conceded that more needs to be done tackle an "unacceptable culture of delay" which can still leave children waiting more than a year for care proceedings to go through the courts, said prolonged neglect was now the predominant reason for children coming into the system.

He said: "There has been a permanent shift in the threshold. Previously children who were not doing very well but who were not in a critical state were left at home, were monitored and were given some early help services.

"But many of that group have now been in that situation for so long – several years in some cases – that local authorities have called time on neglect. They have reviewed them more strongly and decided that it's just not acceptable for children to go on living like that."

But he warned that the harsh economic climate and public service cuts were also fuelling the increase, arguing that struggling families could fall apart if benefits or public services were withdrawn.

Calling for greater recognition of the role played by modest amounts of support, he said: "Things like mums' clubs for new mothers, play schemes and community groups. There is a danger of just ignoring that universal level of provision."

Case study: Tom, 11, found in house with no food

When social workers visited the home that 11-year-old Tom shared with his mother and 13-year-old sister, they found a house without food. Checks in cupboards, the fridge and freezer revealed nothing for the children to eat or drink, not even teabags.

Volunteers from Action for Children, a charity which works with struggling families, said the situation was an extreme example of the growing cycle of deprivation and extreme poverty against a background of abuse and neglect are on the rise.

Tom had been referred to the charity by his family's GP last year following concerns about his behaviour at the family home in Wales. The charity said circumstances similar to those in which the he was found are increasingly common. A spokeswoman added: "Families are facing more severe needs, caused by deprivation and reduced incomes."