A Dunne Deal.
Nation’s Children are the winners, by Peter Dunne, which I have found in Friday December 2, issue of Harbour News, gives the Revenue Minister’s opinion on Child Support.
The main thrust of the article is to outline the financial efficiencies intended as a consequence of the child support amendment bill, and that is what we should expect from a Revenue Minister – financial efficiency. The article concludes with a veiled suggestion that fathers should shut up, pay up, and the state will see to it that the nations children will get the financial support they are entitled to.
If I was to draw conclusions from parallel legislation in other countries, then I would expect that the consequences of this legislation will be:
- An increased number of men refusing to participate in society.
- A further increase in male suicide.
- Fathers being criminalized and jailed for failing to comply with discriminatory legislation.
- A further decrease in our live birth rate.
- Increasing numbers of men permanently leaving NZ.
- An increase in gender violence.
- An increase in child neglect cases.
It should be remembered that this is the man who took the stage at the opening of Union of Fathers, to tell us how he would make a difference. The man who told the country he would support family values, and conveniently left other more blatant anti family clauses from the amendment out of his article.
I certainly hope that the media will familiarise his Wellington Electorate with the content of both his article, and the bill he supports. They need to made aware that Mr Dunne has turned his back on Fathers and Families.
Surely the United Future Party must be questioning his credibility and his leadership.
From the United Future Website.
United Future supporting children through reform of the child support system:
- Ensure that the child support system better recognises shared parenting arrangements.
- Ensure that child support payments are made directly to DPB recipients, and that their benefit is reduced by the appropriate amount, to attach greater significance to liable parent contributions.
- Allow the state to apply for child support if the sole parent on the DPB refuses.
- Allow contributions towards overdue child support payments to be deducted from the liable parent’s pay or benefit, and do not allow them to leave the country with debt outstanding.
- Increase the minimum child support payment from the current $12.75 per week, to better reflect the costs of raising a child.
- Task the Families Commission to investigate how government policy affects step-families.
Email United Future at [email protected]
Financial efficiency ?? I can fix that ! No more outrageous Child Tax laws.
Or is it just another scam like Student Loans ? I am curious to know whether the “Government” considers this money owing to them as money in thier bank.
I still bewilders me as to why the “Govenment” cannot see why all our skilled workers are leaving NZ….. And why there are 40,000 less Men in NZ as there are females…
Comment by Moose — Tue 6th December 2005 @ 9:59 pm
Moose,
If you were Cold-Fish-Cullen would you not have half-a-billion [of child
supporttax penalties to be recovered] as a significant part of your budget? How else will you be able to fund the student loanbribeelection promise?Would you also not, given the need to collect this alleged “debt” [quickly] in order to fund your budget, provide a “collection bonus” in the remuneration of senior IRD Child Support Agency people?
If you were paid a “collection bonus”, would it not be in your direct interest to ensure some of your “liable” parents went into “debt” or even went further into debt? How else can you explain the plumber whose alleged “debt” has been allowed to grow [in spite of his attempts to work with the IRD] to a little over $150,000 during a period of more than twelve (12) years?
How else do you explain the alleged $25,000 “debt” [accrued over 4 short years] owed by a dedicated Dad when the IRD accepted an invalid application because his ex was not the person providing primary care for their daughter?
How do you explain the IRD allowing the “debt” to grow to this excessive level without appropriate and timely intervention?
Comment by Ethos — Fri 9th December 2005 @ 2:30 pm
Ethos,
Quite simply:
“Cold-Fish-Cullen” (I like it) is simply a money-grubbing communist who wants to make the proletariat (aka the Labour Party) richer than it already is while oppressing those who wish to work harder to better their situation by taking their wealth and giving it to the comrades who are either unable or unwilling to better their situation.
Wait until the
LabourFascist party bring in “[anti-]hate speech” laws this year which will mean any of us may be charged, sentenced and jailed simply for exercising our right to free speech.Mrs Clark and her pussy-whipped funny-boys have almost succeeded in turning our country into a police state……the Child Support Amendment Bill which Cun[silent T]liffe introduced recently and the proposed hate speech laws will bring it a giant leap closer.
While I understand your questioning of the reasons behind government’s actions over the last 6 years, the time has come to take more direct action. Start by writing to your local MP and complaining about the discriminatory practices of our government; how the government are in direct breach of their own Bill of Rights. Ask your MP what he/she intends to do to stop this tyranny; if you don’t like the answer, write again and tell them you are not satisfied with their answer and that as your elected representative you expect them to represent you properly and fairly.
If that still fails, it may be time to sell up and vote with our feet….because Mrs Clark’s vision of Nirvana (a Marxist Police State) is certainly not mine.
Comment by Sparx — Fri 9th December 2005 @ 5:48 pm
The [anti-]hate speech laws seem rediculous, and scary.
Firstly, why bring in this law when there is no need ? Or is this just an initial step the “Government” plans to take, so they can subsequently decide for themselves what they consider hate speeches to be ?
I guess to Uncle Helengrad, a hate speech will be any speaking out against her gender-biased laws – Maybe this website….?
It seems (I hate to say) a rather impressive strategy : Impose your outrageous beliefs on society, and before any group disadvantaged by this has the potential to threaten you, simply bring in another law which gags them.
Comment by Moose — Sat 10th December 2005 @ 11:17 pm
I can only say that if any of the readers out there failed to see Peter Dunne for the power hungry political charlatan that he so blatantly is, then heaven help us. The man must have so many fence palings up his backside I’m surprised he can walk.
Remember, that this avowed rogernome’s party (whose 8 MPs were put there largey by the Christian conservative vote) gave confidence and supply to the previous Labour (liberal fascist) government (2002-2005) thus enabling that party to institute some of the most extreme social reforms this country has known.
When it came to the Civil Unions bill doublespeak-Dunne resumed his perch on the fence saying he opposed it but supported its sister bill the Relationships Statutory References bill. It was this second bill that really conferred the power on government (and their lackeys in the public service): So you’ve chosen not to get married right now? Well we don’t care about your choice, we’re going to treat you as though you are (or were) anyway (overnight your live-in girlfriend (“in” as in your house) obtains a statutory entitlement to your half house, money, superannuation, car, boat. If you’ve also been looking after her kids, well, there’s also every chance that Child Support will come knocking).
Did you know that this same government (to whom this f#%*wit gave confidence and supply) also amended the meaning of the term “penis” in the Crimes Act to now include that hideous strip of stomach fat that extreme lesbians have surgically cut, rolled, stitched, and dropped between their legs in a vain (and admittedly courageous) attempt to have their very own schlong(“analogous to a naturally occurring penis” so says the Act). This is the sort of legislative insanity that went on with the tacit approval of that beady-eyed doublecrossing git.
If you didn’t, and you gave him your vote, you’re reaping what you’ve sown.
Comment by John Self — Sun 11th December 2005 @ 11:31 pm
The Child Support Act is the most criminal piece of legislation currently in use in New Zealand, and encourages the anonymous so called “Child Support Officers” to manipulate the system for personal gain or simply the thrill of control, by uncontrolled abuse of power and process. I’ve spent most of the last year paying Child Support
for my son (almost 17) who has been in my custody and care almost all his life (with no assistance of any sort, state or otherwise). The support stems from a couple of months of time out with his mother last year, when the department decided I should be paying, while claiming falsely that mother (already receiving a benefit for another child from a different relationship) had applied for the money. Department refused to accept I was solely responsible for the finance, even when the boy was, as he has now been since July at least, back in my care. Child Support officers T.Brown, C.Kennedy and F.Jump each determined separately in October their inquiries revealed the mother was still eligible to receive the Child Support I pay – Brown and Kennedy both stating their inquiries had revealed the mother was “still” the one providing the care. Truth is, never had provided anything, in 13 years since parental separation.
My inquiries show none made any inquiry at all, breaching the law, which states if there is no success in immediate attempts to contact the relevant party, a letter must be sent. No response in 10 days, and my position should have been accepted(in that pure and obvious physical evidence was not enough). Anyone else had a similar experience, particularly with the above three clowns.
Comment by angryman — Fri 6th January 2006 @ 12:13 am
Hi angryman, you’re on the right track – if what you say is bourne out then there is simply no way that you could be deemed the liable parent under the Child Support Act. You must persist in your fight against the Child Support Ageny – good on you for naming those nitwits responsible for the thoroughly bad and corrupt decisions they have made.
I think you’ll find that while the original underlying intent of the Act was sound the pure injustice of its application is a result of the way David Udy and Ian Webber choose to administer it. Mr Udy (who shares a teletubby likeness with Marion Hobbs) in particular thinks he’s clever – but he’s not. Glazed with the totalitarianism of his petty feminist empire he had the gall to once try to pull the wool over the eyes of a High Court judge. The judge thankfully saw right through Mr Udy’s attempt to mislead and he was suitably admonished.
I personally think that this website should act as a forum for boycotting the other services of all those persons who contract with the IRD to do administrative reviews on behalf of the CSA. Something needs to be done and what better form of protest than a boycott of their other services.
Keep us updated.
Comment by john self — Fri 6th January 2006 @ 10:52 am