- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Mon 3rd May 2010

Child support and the Key Cabinet (Act 1)

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 9:48 pm

Peter Dunne advises:

 “I can tell you that substantial work has recently been undertaken on aspects of the child support system, such as considering the income of both parents and the costs of raising children in New Zealand.  However, Cabinet for the time being has decided to defer further consideration of the issues. In light of that decision I am currently giving further consideration to the matter and hope to be in a position to submit  fresh proposals to the Cabinet in the next little while.”  Hon Peter Dunne

Its important you understand what the Cabinet is:

Cabinet is the central decision making body of executive government. It reconciles Ministers’ individual responsibilities with their collective responsibility and is the ultimate arbiter of all government policy.

 Or as the Cabinet Manual States

Cabinet is the central decision-making body of executive government. It is a collective forum for Ministers to decide significant government issues and to keep colleagues informed of matters of public interest and controversy.

 We know that Cabinet for the time being has decided to defer further consideration of the issues.  Put bluntly after years of dicking us around Dunne has failed, despite repeated promises, to deliver a fair and reasonable Child Support system.

It is safe to assume that for the Cabinet needs motivation to  “consider the issues”.

As the old saying goes don’t bother with the monkey go to the organ grinder. The Cabinet need motivating and I have a plan……

We have patiently waited and nothing has been done. If Cabinet is ignoring Child Support – doesn’t matter if your a liable or custodial parent – the status quo will prevail. The current scheme is fundamentally flawed and does not produce a fair and reasonable outcome.

What would you do to encourage Cabinet to do something?

I will post Act two tomorrow evening.

Regards

Scrap

49 Responses to “Child support and the Key Cabinet (Act 1)”

  1. amfortas says:

    Guy Fawkes had the right idea.

  2. Roger says:

    I just received a letter from Dunne spouting the same blurb word for word so clearly this is a standard response when asking for answers as to why such an inequitable system exists.

    I asked how is it that the paying parent must pay till the “child’s” 19th birthday when the state ceases paying for the same said “child’s” dental work at age 18!? Why isn’t the custodial parent’s income taken into account when assessing the payments for said “child” and why isn’t the demands made on the alienated parents capped, when do they get to have a life? How is it the IRD can state that estranged parents should front up to their parental responsibility on the one hand and then say they are not accountable for what happens to the money you pass over!? How is it that if I want to contest the payments that if it goes to mediation I must give my ex-spouse a copy of my income and outgoings? What happened to my right to privacy!?

    There were nine questions in all. The letter was addressed to John Key since answers were not forth coming from Dunne. Copies were sent to Dunne, Goff, CSA, Commissioner of the IRD, IRD complaints Dept. Key or his office never replied. Dunne said he would be in touch. Complaints dept phoned and said I would have a response in two weeks. CSA never replied, IRD Commission never replied, Goff replied saying he passed my letter to his IRD clone mp for Labour.

    Six weeks later… Complaints division have not responded any further. Dunne responded stating the same as in Scrap’s quote plus he went on to say he could not answer my questions due to the political sensitivities involved and would pass my concerns onto the commission.

    So much for these mongrels representing the voters. Seems they like to pick and choose their scraps. No wonder National never put one of their own in charge of the role.

    Useless…

  3. Skeptik says:

    Don’t they have a legal obligation to repond?

  4. Roger says:

    Well only Dunne responded for all it was worth.

  5. glenn says:

    Dunne has a 100% success rate.

    Vis a vis – “If you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time.”

  6. Robert says:

    Sent: Wednesday, 9 September 2009 11:03 a.m.
    To: Jan Pryor
    Subject: 50/50 Shared Care Arrangements

    I am a Father of 2 children, a 6 year old son and an 8 year old daughter. The children’s Mother and I separated 12 months ago. We share the care of the children 50/50. This was an arrangement by mutual agreement. I pay the Mother an amount every week in accordance with the IRD calculations. As the mother only works 29 hours a week and earns less than myself I have to pay her a sum of money that I find difficult to earn myself. I am having to work 43 hours per week just to survive myself. The kids are happy and well looked after by both parents. There mother entered a relationship with another man shortly after we separated. She commenced living with her new partner about 10 months ago. I have no problem with this and I believe he is treats my kids well.

    However where I do have a problem is that I should have to pay my ex wife any money at all. I pay all the costs associated with the children when in my care and I also contribute 50% of all other costs associated with the children. Therefore I believe it unjust that I should also have to contribute toward my ex wife’s cost of caring for our children when they are in her care. I mentioned to her that she now had a new partner and that she really had no right to expect me to pay to cover her costs when the children were in her care. She then informed me that her new partner had 3 children of his own who live 100% of the time with his ex wife. He pays full child support for his own children so therefore they need my money to cover there own cost of living. (ie because her new partner has significant costs of child support I HAVE TO PAY $$ so that my ex wife and her new partner can have a life). My ex wife’s partners separation problems have by default become both mine and my children’s financial problem. (ie. Saving for my children’s future now becomes increasingly difficult for me)

    This situation is impacting adversely on my life. I am becoming increasingly tired, having to work the long hours both at work and at home to make the current arrangement work I have no one to pick up my children from school and sports etc when they are in my care and can’t afford after school care, not to mention school holidays, so I have to leave work early and make up time when the children are not with me. To be fair it is really tiring me out. I love my children very much and it is right that they live 50% of there lives with there dad. My ex has no such problems as her new partner helps her out in these situation’s.

    The whole ‘Shared Care Policy’ needs to be reviewed to stop these situation’s occurring. The current policy is both unfair and unreasonable on a parent such as myself in my situation. Why should I have to pay twice? Once when I cover all the costs associated with my children when in my care and again when they are in my ex wife’s care. It is not my fault that she doesn’t earn as much as me or work as long hours as myself. (NB. The long hours I have to work reduce the amount of time I have to enjoy being with my children as I am often required to do house work etc that can’t be done when I’m at work) It is also not my fault that my ex wife chose to live with someone who earns average wages and has to pay child support for 3 children of his own, which his ex wife cares for 100% of the time. Finally it was my ex wife’s choice to leave me, I suggested we go to counciling, but she didn’t want to go. It seem’s to me that she gets an unfair advantage under the current ‘Shared Care’ policy.

    It’s time for a change and if nothing is done soon I will be forced to go to the media. Maybe TV One or TV3.

    Here’s hoping for a fairer system in the future.

  7. Rippey says:

    Robert, I am in a very similar position to you, and agree it is very unfair to have to pay twice. I earn pretty good money, have my two kids 50% of the time, pay for half of all shared costs (like school fees, after school activities etc) and yet because my ex has chosen to work only two days a week, I have to pay her a whole lot of money each week.

    She also has a new partner who earns good money – they have two children together, and my money pays for her to enjoy the at home mum lifestyle for most of the week.

    The response of some would be – well why don’t you work two days a week? Because of course with shared care we claim off each other, and that would even things out somwhat. The answer is I am still better off working 5 days a week financially than 2, so thats what I choose to do.

    But why should I be penalised for electing to do what the majority of adults in NZ do, work a full-time job? And why should my ex be rewarded for choosing to work less than 5 days a week by being given some of my hard-earned money? Just one example of why the Child Support Act needs to change (one of many).

    By the way, you may already know, but with shared care according to the IRD calculations you do get to claim off your ex, even if she earns below the threshold, as there is a minimum amount she has to pay (its about $800/year).

  8. Dave says:

    These examples come back to the fact that the current scheme drives from a fundamentally flawed ideology. The whole concept is that the man should pay the woman to keep her in the life style she enjoyed while they were married. Indeed any increase in wages the man earns should go to benefit the divorced woman as well. I can quote many examples of the act and rationale for amendments to illustrate that the system is designed and implemented exactly as intended.

    The ideology that should reign is that it is up to the parents to decide how much of their money they will send on their children. Child support should only be based on the minimum requirements to feed and support a child. Basically it should be the same as a benefit. So if the benefit will pay $100 per week for a child then that is what child support should also be set to. Even this should be split between both parents depending on how the care is shared.

    Government needs to understand that they can’t force parents to parent according to government ideology. All governments can do is protect children from poverty. What governments can do is give incentives for parents to stay involved with their children and actually care about whether Johnny learns guitar or plays soccer. However it is up to the parents if they are willing to pay for it – the government can not force this to occur.

    By trying to force this to occur the government has engineered the opposite effect.

    What really needs to happen is a more open and factual based discussion on main stream media. Failing that just get talking to separated fathers everywhere. They wont raise the subject but they will all be experiencing the same issues.

    What I would like to see would be an invite sent out to all paying parents inviting them to join a union. A union that would work just like a trade union. That would be a very powerful force. If such a union formed and most separated fathers were members then a whole host of changes to government policies would be forced to occur.

  9. Dave says:

    Thumbs up for this comment!

  10. Rippey says:

    I would join your union Dave, and be actively involved as well (well as much as a guy with two ex wives and four kids can be!).

    Not sure about the $100 idea though. What about those fathers that want no involvement with their kids, should they be able to walk away and leave them with the mother, along with her taking on virtually all the cost?

    There are so many different scenarios when marriages split up, its a huge challenge to find a system that is fair in every case.

    I think the starting point for any split should be an assumption of (and a right to) 50/50 shared care, and no money going from one parent to another. From there, if either parent wants less than 50% care, then at a level of reduction(say below 40%) they need to compensate the other parent financially. the less time they have, the more compensation they must give. Not sure how much, this is theoretical.

    There would be other adjustments to deal with very young children (i.e. at what age is 50/50 appropriate), or in cases where physical abuse has occurred, etc.

  11. Dave says:

    Not sure about the $100 idea though. What about those fathers that want no involvement with their kids, should they be able to walk away and leave them with the mother, along with her taking on virtually all the cost?

    The answer is yes. Keep in mind the figure of $100 per week was plucked out of the air. I don’t know what the cost to provide the bare basics to raise a child is. Most likely it is less than $100 per week. I just did some research and it turns out I was about right.

    The unemployment benefit for a single person is $221.85 per week. For a sole parent it is $322.98 per week. So the state has determined that a child costs $101.13 per week to raise. Therefore the child support scheme should be set at $101.13 per week.

    If a father is not willing to provide any more than that for his own child then that is his parenting decision. The government can’t force people to make good parenting decisions because it is impossible to define a rule to suit every situation. All the government can do is force parents to provide the absolute minimum payment.

    Keep in mind that about 40% of fathers see no future in their relationship with their kids. They see their kids 4 times per year or less. Usually they want more but they are well aware they would get more grief if they tried.

    Also it has been proven that the more time fathers are allowed to spend with their kids they more willing they are to pay towards their children’s’ upbringing.

    If you reduce child support to a minimum and at the same time give incentives for fathers to be more involved then 2 things happen.

    Firstly the mothers have powerful incentives to keep the fathers involved in their children’s lives. Divorce is not such an attractive option at all and neither is lengthy divorce proceedings. Mothers will quickly realise they are much better off to stay married or divorce on good terms. Once they are divorced mother have a powerful incentive to involve the father if they want an easier life. An involved father will be sharing the costs of raising the child.

    Secondly by giving incentives to fathers to stay involved with their kids the numbers of fathers ‘walking away’ will greatly reduce. This is not 1960. Fathers do actually care if they are made to feel that they are needed and not just walking wallets. In addition once they are more involved it has been proven that fathers pay more and more towards the upbringing of their own children.

    Also you have to give it time. If a child grows up almost in poverty but sees his father has a lavish lifestyle – don’t you think social pressure is going to come to bare on the father? Of course it will. Over time people learn it is better to be involved and pay for all the extras voluntarily.

    If you look at the current system the majority of liable parents pay about $15 per week. The current system is a tax and there is every incentive to avoid this tax mostly because it is not reasonable. We need to rethink the ideology and make it a minimum contribution only.

    So we really need to get away from this mentality that it is unfair that a father or a mother can walk away and leave the other parent will only $100 per week. If you don”t want that to happen don’t have children with someone likely to do that. It may seem harsh but in fact over time the majority of children will be better off by making it a low minimum payment.

  12. Downunder says:

    Dunne is the willing patsy, a political convenience, (political wreak worse than a public convenience).
    Either we have to take Dunne out so the cabinet has to put one of their own in there, or (we wait for act two and see)

  13. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Well put Dave.

    Cost shared – Time acknowledged child support that meets the basic needs of children.

    Cabinet is ignoring parents and penalising children by letting this go on.

    Regards

    Scrap

  14. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Did he do any thing – or does he continue to do nothing?

  15. julie says:

    Hi Scrap,

    I just want to say you’re awesome for putting aside the disappointments with MP Peter Dunne and looking at the needs of the cause the way you are.

    Mr Dunne, as the politician in charge of child support, let you down for years while you gave everything you could to care for fathers and child support. You gave your time and expertise to walk 100’s if not 1000’s of fathers through their own personal journeys, paid for phone bills to anyone in the country, as well as represented fathers paying child support on TV arguing against MPs, and took the courageous stand to become a politician yourself. You also did this while having a job and caring for a child.

    I’ll never forget the Taupo newspaper over a decade ago sharing how many men were committing suicide over CS payments. I don’t know what happened for them to do that, but I think you have been wonderful to stand up for these fathers and even more wonderful to put aside MP Peter Dunne’s denial and fear to deal with this.

    I’m not sure if there is a greater test than this on a person’s character. I think you are a terrific leader because there is no better leader than someone who serves, IMO.

  16. Victoria says:

    Start a “company”, work for yourself and you too can get your child support down to just $20 a week 🙂

  17. julie says:

    Pathetic. (rolls eyes in embarrassment to be associated with this woman as a sex)

  18. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Look up Commissioner Initiated Administrative Review – structures offer minimal protection since the last law change.

    IRD have the power to go after your structure without the other parent requestin the review.

    Regards

    Scrap.

  19. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Julie – I have never stood for Parliament.

    Regards
    Scrap

  20. julie says:

    Sincere apology. Everything else I said counts.

  21. Skeptik says:

    I can appreciate that as in many other areas of NZ culture men get the short end of the stick when it comes to child support issues. The misandry is ripe there which is why there are hundreds of thousands of defathered kiwi kids.
    I can also appreciate there are those who are trying to get a fairer system in place for men so that they can get to father their kids without undue duress due to exhorbitant child tax.
    I think trying to get anything helpful for fathers from Peter Dunne is basically pissing into the wind.
    It’s a relief to get the expression out but it just ends up messing your metaphoric shoes and causes a stench.
    However having thought about the situation I think there’s an elephant in the room that’s being overlooked.
    The elephant in the room is ‘no fault’ divorce which is the raison d’etre there’s SO MUCH marriage dissolution in teh first place.
    Jesus wept! from what I can see initiating a divorce in NZ is practically as easy as registering a car or paying a TV license!
    And who initiates divorce the vast majority of times there? Women.
    Why? Because they can, and because there’s a nice safety net for them when they do (unlike for men some who suicide it’s so traumatic). Indeed for many women divorce is so incentivized it’s a lifestyle choice. Hypergamous females ditching hubbies and getting married to the state instead.
    I thank those who work dilligently to get a better deal for men going through divorce and seperation AND I tell NZ men who’re thinking of getting married there – JUST DON’T DO IT!

  22. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Interesting obersvation down. Dunne has done nothing – it would be nice to have a minister who did something.

    Regards

    Scrap

  23. julie says:

    There are not 400,000 children fatherless in NZ. You seriously need to ask Jim Bagnall where he got this idea from.

    It came from IRD stats which I am working on updating. Even if there are on average 2 children per family using child support, it doesn’t mean the children don’t have fathers in their lives. It just means these adults didn’t stay together.

  24. Gerry says:

    Guy Fawkes…the only man to ever enter parliament with honest intentions.

  25. Pete says:

    Yes, this is an excellent scheme in the many cases where a mummy makes false allegations and manipulates the children in order to get back at dad, all with the support of a pathetic system which requires him to prove that her allegations are lies.

  26. Downunder says:

    It is simplistic (and wrong imo) to suggest that we should only consider fatherless as the total absence of the father. We do not consider fatherhood as the simple presence of a father any more than we do mothering the simply presence of a mother. Surely it should be considered in degrees. If the financial constraints of a child support system impede fatherhood to any degree, then we should be asking the question from the child’s point of view. How much of the father has the child lost. Is the father being taxed to the detriment of the child? There is a great list of the consequences of fatherlessness, which is generally a blame and shame on fathers for not being there regardless of the reason or even necessity for their absence, and generates a sympathetic response for the state to garnish the fathers wages. Child Support is not actually a tax on the father. Yes it is the father who is paying the money, but it is actually a tax on a child, hiding behind the veil of a label called child support. Surely we should be quantifying fatherless to prove the point rather than allowing it to be just a negative stereotype.

  27. Cazz says:

    Hi Rippey,
    Your comment below –
    By the way, you may already know, but with shared care according to the IRD calculations you do get to claim off your ex, even if she earns below the threshold, as there is a minimum amount she has to pay (its about $800/year).

    I have not heard of this. We used to pay $540.00 pm CS and now with 50/50 share care arrangement we pay the IRD $340.00 CS. The MOC does not pay anything, and she works 4 days a week. The MOC certainly does not contribute $800/year.

    🙁

  28. Dave says:

    The reality is that the current scheme gives every incentive for people to do all they can to avoid paying. Why pay an unfair income tax that has nothing to do with your children? All the current scheme does is remove your ability to provide for your children yourself.
    I really can’t criticise people that do this. The current scheme has conditioned people to react this way.

  29. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    One of the fundemental flaws the attempt to maintain some uproven therorectical concept of income equalisation (equalize the living standard of the households of the custodial and non-custodial parentsafter divorce, providing both spousal and child support, under the auspices of child support.)

  30. Dave says:

    You are quite right. I don’t have it to hand but a recent study found 40% of fathers in Australia have contact with their kids 4 times or less per year (i.e. not at all). Yet their system is better than ours. I expect the figures in NZ are worse. This is fatherlessness. I have never seen a study that showed any significant numbers of fathers did not WANT more time with their kids. They simply see there are too many hoops to jump through. Many have tried and regretted it.

  31. Hans Laven says:

    I agree with your suggested system Rippey. A rebuttable right to 50/50 care would (a) reduce separation in the first place, (b) reduce the deep anxiety and trauma often experienced by the non-custodial parent when the family unit is trashed, (c) allow both parents to maintain as full as possible relationships with the children, (d) increase the security and wellbeing of children subjected to having their family trashed, (e) allow both parents an equal opportunity to develop their own economic situation that the children will benefit from, (f) reduce the resentment and sense of financial exploitaiton felt by the paying parent because this will only occur if that parent chooses to care for the children less than 50% of the time, (g) help separated parents to work together amicably, and (h) justify payment for the greater-caring parent’s time as well as the basic needs of the children.

    Unfortunately, government shows little interest in the best interests of children and the quality of children’s relationships with both parents. Government, as usual, will be more interested in extracting as much as possible for its coffers from anyone they can.

  32. JohnPotter says:

    There have been a number of comments deleted from this page, both by Scrap and now myself.

    Slack moderation in the past on my part has not provided a good demonstration of how the rules of the MENZ site should operate.

    Any comment that does not relate directly to the Post subject ie: Child Support and the current political situation, is NOT on-topic.

    Note that discussions about moderation are specifically prohibited.

    We all have an interest in making this website useful. I fully support Scrap’s efforts to keep this and other conversations focused on the specific topic, and I ask you all to do the same.

  33. Alastair says:

    That was Jim Bagnall Julie,

  34. julie says:

    Hi Alistair,

    That was Jim Bagnall Julie,

    You are right. Jim Bagnall did stand as a politician and also did as Scrap and his charity group did.

    I have often been amazed how far men go when there’s no funding involved.

  35. Downunder says:

    “If Cabinet is ignoring Child Support”: Asking the Auditor General to investigate why IRD has such a large amount of uncollected child support is not ignoring child support. What they are ignoring is anyone who wants the system changed. Speaks volumes for Dunne’s level of self respect, or should that be self respectlessness.

  36. Skeptik says:

    Downunder,
    I agree with your analysis.
    The question then becomes with the powers that be ignoring those who want to change the child support system what next?

  37. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Down,

    Auditor General is only interested inmaximising collection of child tax (you are correct) there is no will to change the system.

    Regards

  38. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Direct non violent action targeting John Key and his Cabinet Ministers – they ignore everything that does not create a media presence that can impact the opinion polls.

    Regards

    Scarp

  39. Skeptik says:

    Scrap,

    On the one hand you say quote “there is no will to change the system” (I agree with that, several have tried before you to get the child support sytem changed and gotten nowhere).
    Then on the other hand you advocate non-violent direct action toward John Key and his cabinet.
    The two ideas seem at odds with one another.
    I would have thought that with there being “no will to change the system” writing polite letters to cabinet would prove a waste of time. I’m afraid they’ll simply give you the standard reply of ‘we’ve considered your views and blah, blah, humbug, blah’ and ignore you as they’ve ignored others.
    So really whilst I think your heart is in the right place what’s needed to draw PUBLIC attention to the issue is something that’s non-violent but far more radical. And that’s where we part company.

  40. DownUnder says:

    Perhaps the two Ministers you should target are Health and ACC. The demonising behaviour of the IRD, I suggest, would collectively cost their budgets more than is ever recovered from child support. While you might include costs to education there are obvious reasons to separate those issues.

  41. Skeptik says:

    Scrap et al,
    After the Govt ignores many hundreds of thousands petitioning against the stupid anti-smacking laws you believe a letter writing campaighn will budge them one iota on teh issue of child support?
    Whoa!!!

  42. julie says:

    Skeptic,

    Scrap et al,

    Not sure if I fit this et al?

    After the Govt ignores many hundreds of thousands petitioning against the stupid anti-smacking laws you believe a letter writing campaighn will budge them one iota on teh issue of child support?
    Whoa!!!

    This is different since you can’t get enough sides to agree and since we don’t have just 2 parties in parliament, National was never able to do something about the smacking bill. That’s why the organisers against have gone down another route.

    I think you need to ask yourself, “Who will be followed?” I think ‘radical’ can means lots of things but if I was to plan an event I would first ask myself, “Who am I looking for to get involved?” I think the broader the answer, the more groups you can turn to.

    Next I’d ask myself, “Who am I eliminating?” I’d ask because if I had a very narrow view of who is good enough, I’d get a very small amount of people involved – thus eliminating the majority of men.

    It seems to me radicals in the MM have a tiny market available to them because they express their want of a mountain when they don’t even have a teaspoon of earth. How would what you or other radicals go at getting people involved from major websites? How would you get charity groups and other community organisations involved?

    Even if you found 20 men in the country having the same extreme views at the beginning, how would that affect the public when they heard the extreme views?

    What is the public supposed to do if they see a radical group of men on TV saying ‘women should, women shouldn’t’?

    No-one has tried anything that will bring lots of men in the fold, let alone women.

  43. Skeptik says:

    Julie,
    National is in power ALONE now. Not part of a coalition. Yet they still refuse to listen to many thousands of people who signed the anti-smacking law petition.
    What does that say about National’s ability to listen to the NZ populace?
    it looks like that ‘radical’ event might just be happening too as marriage rates are DOWN. Word is out on the street that marriage is a bad deal for men there I suppose. Who doesn’t know a man that’s been shafted by femily caught and child support by now? Are NZers that removed from reality or thick? I don’t think so.

    I think it’s right to challenge the Child Support Act.
    I’ve seen it used to CRUSH good men, buddies of mine I’ve seen depressed and close to suicide as they’re hidebound by a system which stops them fathering their own kids. Soul destroying stuff.
    I just think I’m (finally!) enough of a political realist to assess that John Key’s government (please bear in mind he’s a son of a solo Mom too) will do diddly squat for fathers there.
    By all means go ahead and prove me wrong, however I’m afraid it ALSO needs something as radical as a marriage/relationship strike to make the buggers wake up and take notice of the elephant in the room – no fault divorce.
    This doesn’t have to be a polarizing issue for those in the Men’s rights movement. It’s not an either or situation.
    There can be both the petitioning of parliament (Scrap et al’s route) AND a marriage/relationship strike (the route of myself, John Dutchie and others) running concordantly.

  44. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Skeptik

    Parliament i.e the Prime Minister and Cabinet make/change law. Men and woman affected by child tax want law change.

    There can be both the petitioning of parliament (Scrap et al’s route)

    Please refrain from telling people what my route is – you have no idea.

    Regards

    Scrap

  45. Skeptik says:

    Scrap,
    No need to take umbrage.
    I’m simply saying you’re organizing letter writing stuff (known in English language as the verb ‘petitioning’). You’ve alluded to that much yourself on threads here. It’s not like it’s news.
    Also it’s all well and good to state the role of Prime Minister and Cabinet IN THEORY. Political reality is another animal though n’est pas?
    For example how much Did Rob Muldoon and his cabinet listen to those who didn’t want a Springbok tour. How much did Helen Clarke and her cabinet listen to thousands of folks who signed and presented a petition against Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law?

    Having said that, good luck with your campaign.

  46. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Skeptik,

    Im not taking umbrage. Im asking you not to tell me what the campaign is – you know step 1 not the whole campaign.

    Regards

    Scrap

  47. Disappointed NCP says:

    Peter Dunne will not do anything, I have written so many letters and always got a standart reply, I think he should step downa nd let someone else make the chnages to the NZ child support unfair and unworkable system, How dare he takes so long, I am so disappointed that I will not be voting next year. the child tax changes is in the pipe line, but the pipe is very long…………..shame minister

  48. Ms IRD Officer says:

    What pipe?
    The only pipe Dunne Nothing uses is full of S**t.
    Good S**T I am sure. How else do you think he can smile and prtend such sincerity when he knows that he has been the greatest impediment to change for the past 6 years.
    Plenty of BS from his office and you are a dreamer if you think there will be any change before the end of 2011.
    We workers would like a few changes but our Minister is just duck shuffing and blowing smoke rings.

  49. Dad says:

    Hello, I have alot I could type about but will keep it short, a lady from NZ IRD rang me this morning and nicely told me she could take my house as payment for the NZ$680- I owe for child support, which is really only AU$112- but thats another of many stories.

    15 years ago I lost the lady I loved and she took my wonderful daughter with her. Just for sh#ts and giggles I had to pay (child support) for my loss?? If thats not funny enough, every one of those 15 years I spent around 80 hours minimum of my own time with CSA or the NZ IRD trying to get my assessments correct! I have ALWAYS said “if my daughters mum cant afford her she should send her back home to New Zealand!!!”

    Its nothing to do with the money that annoys me about child support its the way CSA and NZ IRD staff treat me like I was the one who ruined our family – quilty untill proven innocent – should be there slogon.

    * I was in advance with my child support twice in my sentence – i mean assessment periods but every time I was in advance CSA grabbed it and gobbled it up, it just so happened that my child support was conveniently due to go up both times?? so no I am not in advance any more…

    I am sending a check to CSA tomorrow for the AU$112- arrears, I hope my daughters Mother enjoys it 🙂
    I was lost for a long time after the shock of my family falling apart I have never had any more kids as I DO NOT ever want a split family again! so to all of you at CSA and NZ IRD please realise that not all us Dads do the runner, sometimes the lady’s leave!?

    I wish I was a better writer then I could start my own novel about the way I have been treated over the years!!

    I feel no one cares for the fathers who have lost so much, I love my daughter!

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar