Nearly $12 million for two related Child Support contractors: families question child support outsourcing as cost-of-living pressure bites

As Australian families struggle with rising rents, mortgages, energy prices and grocery bills, scrutiny is growing over how public money is being spent inside the child support system — and whether outsourced decision-making is delivering fairness, accuracy, or value for money.Procurement records reviewed by NewsCop show that since 2019, almost $12 million in Commonwealth contracts have been awarded to two individuals — Daniel Jolliffe and Sarah Jolliffe, both of affluent Shell Cove, NSW, to provide contracted child support decision-making services on behalf of Services Australia.What has raised further concern among parents and advocates is that the two contractors share the same surname and are publicly associated with the same location, Shell Cove, NSW, a coastal suburb widely regarded as affluent.NewsCop is not alleging wrongdoing by association. However, families are asking whether the concentration of such a large volume of public contracts in the hands of two apparently related individuals warrants closer scrutiny — particularly when those contractors are exercising delegated statutory powers that can dramatically affect families’ finances.

A formula-based system — so why the extraordinary cost?

Under Australian law, child support assessments are intended to be largely formulaic. Income is defined by statute, adjusted through prescribed mechanisms, and applied through legislated formulas designed to produce consistent outcomes.Change of Assessment decisions allow for limited discretion, but critics argue that this discretion is not intended to replace basic arithmetic with assumptions, nor to justify invented income components, unsupported extrapolations, or opaque “grossing-up” exercises.Parents contacting NewsCop are asking a blunt question:How does Services Australia justify nearly $12 million in payments to two related contractors to perform work that is, in principle, administrative, formula-driven, and reliant on basic arithmetic and bookkeeping?“This isn’t advanced financial modelling,” one parent said. “It’s applying a formula. If it’s wrong, families pay — but the contractors still get paid.” Another said “how are these people being paid over a million a year, its disgraceful.”Publicly available documents show Mr Daniel Leslie Jolliffe as the owner of a multi-million dollar property in Shell Cove.

Allegations of basic errors with life-altering consequences

Across complaints reviewed by NewsCop, families allege recurring issues that are strikingly simple in nature but severe in effect:

• gross income treated as if it were net disposable income
• tax concepts effectively applied twice when figures are “grossed up”
• discretionary spending added without itemised evidence
• business cashflow treated as personal income
• arithmetic inconsistencies that materially inflate outcomes

Parents say these are not nuanced legal disagreements, but basic calculation and bookkeeping errors that would not be accepted in ordinary accounting contexts — yet are being used to justify long-term increases in child support liability.NewsCop is not asserting these allegations are proven. However, the volume and consistency of complaints raise serious questions about quality control and oversight.

Related contractors, concentrated power, and probity questions

The fact that two related individuals have received almost $12 million in child support decision-making contracts over a relatively short period has prompted broader questions about:

• concentration of decision-making power
• conflict-of-interest risk (actual or perceived)
• adequacy of contract oversight
• whether sufficient rotation, auditing and independent review mechanisms exist

Even if all contractual requirements have technically been met, critics argue that public confidence is undermined when so much discretionary authority — and so much public money — is concentrated in so few hands.They ask whether Services Australia has adequately addressed probity considerations and whether it can demonstrate that performance monitoring, auditing, and corrective action mechanisms are robust and effective.

Inconsistent naming raises transparency questions

NewsCop has also reviewed multiple documents issued by Services Australia in which the same contracted decision-maker appears to be referred to under different names, including “Daniel”, “Dan”, and “Daniel Jolliffe”.While it is not uncommon for informal and formal names to be used interchangeably in internal correspondence, the repeated variation across official decision letters and related documents has raised questions among families and advocates about transparency and traceability in decision-making.To any reasonable observer, inconsistent naming of an individual exercising delegated statutory power may have the effect of obscuring accountability, particularly where decisions are later challenged, audited, or subjected to public scrutiny. Parents who contacted NewsCop say it becomes more difficult to identify who made which decision, to track patterns of decision-making, or to raise concerns about repeat conduct.NewsCop is not asserting that this inconsistency was deliberate, nor that it was intended to mislead. However, families are asking whether Services Australia has adequate controls to ensure clear attribution of decisions — and whether the use of multiple name variants could have the unintended effect of masking an individual’s involvement across numerous matters.In a system where transparency, accountability and trust are critical — especially when decisions can affect family finances for years — critics argue that consistent identification of decision-makers should be the minimum standard, not an optional administrative detail.

Whistleblower alleges toxic internal culture

NewsCop has spoken with a whistleblower, also a currently admitted lawyer. The whistleblower alleges a toxic internal culture in which decision-makers — including contractors — operate with little fear of consequence.The whistleblower alleged “they (decision makers) dont care about the legislation, they will do whatever they think is appropriate, they think they are untouchable”, they went on to say “sometimes they know that the evidence doesn’t support their decisions, they dont care, if they dont like someone, or hear a sob story they will go after the other parent and laugh about it. They are fully aware of the conflict they are creating in families lives.”.The whistleblower further alleges that some practices may breach the Commonwealth’s fraud and corruption control framework, particularly where decisions are knowingly made using assumptions that cannot be substantiated.These allegations have not been tested in court, but they raise serious governance questions when considered alongside the scale of public expenditure involved.

APS values, abuse of delegated authority, and public trust

Although contracted decision-makers are not public servants, their contracts require conduct consistent with Australian Public Service values, including integrity, accountability, care, diligence, and ethical use of delegated authority.Parents who contacted NewsCop argue that repeatedly inflating income figures through flawed arithmetic or unsupported assumptions amounts to an abuse of position, particularly when those decisions are long-lasting and punitive in effect.Trust in Services Australia, they say, is eroded when families feel punished by opaque administrative processes rather than assessed fairly under the law.

Oversight gaps extend to agency lawyers

Concerns are not limited to contractors. Parents have also raised issues about Child Support Agency lawyers, including senior legal staff involved in objections and litigation.A recurring complaint is that complaints against Commonwealth lawyers are effectively excluded from state Legal Services Commission oversight, unless made by another lawyer. For self-represented parents, this creates what critics describe as an accountability vacuum.

Children bear the consequences

Family law experts have long warned that prolonged, high-conflict child support disputes harm children’s emotional wellbeing, stability, and sense of security.Parents who spoke to NewsCop say inflated or unsustainable assessments fuel enforcement action, resentment, and ongoing conflict — outcomes that directly affect children caught in the middle.“When the system becomes punitive instead of fair,” one parent said, “it doesn’t just hurt parents — it hurts kids.”

Calls for transparency, audits and value-for-money scrutiny

As cost-of-living pressures intensify, families and advocates are calling for serious scrutiny of whether outsourcing child support decision-making represents appropriate government spending.Among the reforms being sought are:

• independent audits of outsourced decision-making
• publication of anonymised calculation examples
• stronger probity controls where related contractors are engaged
• consistent methodology applied to both parents
• clear accountability when arithmetic or evidentiary errors occur

If nearly $12 million can be spent outsourcing decisions that are meant to be formula-driven, critics argue, then the public deserves assurance that those decisions are accurate, impartial, and subject to meaningful oversight.

Right of reply

NewsCop has sought comment from Services Australia however received no response at the time of publication.