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

Child Support laws in spotlight on TV

Filed under: Child Support — JohnPotter @ 7:54 pm Thu 23rd March 2006

‘Leading family law expert’ Raylee Harley and Mark Shipman from Parents for Children were interviewed for TV1 Breakfast News today by Paul Henry. Mark did an excellent job and presented the most important messages effectively. Well done mate!

Watch the video Child Support laws in spotlight (04:57min streaming .wmv)

Raylee Harley has told the Select Committee 0n the Child Support Amendment Bill that Inland Revenue should have the power to take money directly from a liable parent’s bank account. As Shipman revealed, that already happens.

Henry asked Shipman:

“Are you happy with that? Because one of your biggest concerns were that there are always outstanding payments that are under dispute.

Mark Shipman - TV1 Breakfast

Mark replied:

“Yes there are and the Commissioner does have the power and he does exercise it. We know of several people who have had money taken from their account recently. He can do that without needing to know what bank account can be accessed. I don’t see a purpose in this other than increasing the government’s ability to recover benefits.”

“There is nothing that I am aware of being sought that is not available to the powers that be now.”

Henry then asked Harley:

“What is the subtle difference that you are after?”

She said:

“The moment, that is the day after a payment is not made, the Commissioner will immediately access that bank account, and that a liable parent has an obligation to provide to the commissioner on an ongoing basis the relevant details of those bank accounts.”

Henry challenged Shipman:

“Isn’t it reasonable to say that if you are a liable parent, the authorities should be able to do anything at all to get the money from you? You are a liable parent.”

Shipman responded:

“Yes, but we’re tinkering with something that is fundamentally flawed anyway. This is the fourth Amendment to a Bill. Australia are now looking to make significant reforms in this area, and I’m struggling to figure out why we are tinkering with something that has so many fundamental flaws in it.”

“We’d like a review of the current regime, with a view to reform – not just tinkering.”

“It is not better [than it used to be in the past]. It fails the children. The 400-odd thousand that are affected by this – they are not aided by the Act.”


  1. If ever women are the bulk of liable parents the law will soften and be more sensitive to the plight of the non-custodial parent…….

    Comment by Yup — Thu 23rd March 2006 @ 8:20 pm

  2. what is wrong with you people, that woman was demanding dictatorial powers, you should have been tearing her to pieces, i would,
    i will post on my site, i will form trusts for men to hold their property away from the feminist state, i have good credentials, you can easily outmanoevre mad bitshes as appeared on that tv show,
    excellent reception here of the tv repeat,

    Comment by peterquixote — Thu 23rd March 2006 @ 9:22 pm

  3. I found these comments of the spokesperson for the Family Law Section of the New Zealand Law Society frightening. They seemed a clear illustration of the cynical way in which lawyers from the divorce industry make a living from the current harsh and punitive approach to child support payments. Indeed it turns out that these lawyers want an even more harsh and punitive system.

    Raylee did not even bother pretending to be neutral or impartial, but made plain the Law Society’s one-sided advocacy for ‘custodian parents’. And lack of interest in representing alienated parents or their children.

    What a convenient, corrupt partnership; Greedy lawyers and greedy custodial mothers cosying up, greasing each other’s palms, and doing their damndest to keep non-custodial dads and the kids who need them estranged from each other.

    Comment by Paul — Thu 23rd March 2006 @ 10:48 pm

  4. Why waste time attacking a person and miss the oppurtunity to promote the real message.

    The Child Support Act is fundementally flawed – Tinkering wont work – Complete review and reform is needed – It fails 400,000 children.

    Mark presented a a clear and reasoned message.Bloody well done mate. Hope the 5:00am rise was worth it.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 23rd March 2006 @ 10:55 pm

  5. I re-iterate, do not bother with them,
    protect yourself, form company and trust now,
    with me or however, do not hold assets or money in your own name,

    Comment by peterquixote — Thu 23rd March 2006 @ 10:57 pm

  6. “I re-iterate, do not bother with them,
    protect yourself, form company and trust now,
    with me or however, do not hold assets or money in your own name,”

    Shortly at the behest of the comissioner, a review of your fiannicial position will be able to be investigated. This includes the ability to lift the corporate viel and look into any structure he chooses.

    It will be successfully argued by the comissioner that you are essentially avoiding child support by creating structures designed to do so. The Comissioner will be able to create a child support income and therfore your assessment increased.

    This is one of the many draconian measures in the Child Support Amendment Bill (No4)

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 23rd March 2006 @ 11:10 pm

  7. Are there any other Canterbury Dads on this list giving verbal submissions to select committee regarding the Child Support Amendment next Wednesday 29 March via video link ??

    Comment by Peter Burns — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 7:43 am

  8. So called “Child Support” is a Parent TAX to cover up generation of NZ Parliaments cock-ups in Family Law and Social Policy.

    DON’t PAY It.

    HandsOnEqualParent your Kids from Conception and get rid of the Bureacrats who weaken our Biological Families.


    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 7:44 am

  9. bothers, it is essential when you are in the midst of this movement that you realize that it is here where men are most badly treated.
    for this reason you are despoindant nd you see the way the law is framed against us, i repeat take heart, I am 58, I was in the men’s movement in the eighties and late seventies, you must be
    proactive, that is pc for do something about it now, it works, the men who recover properly take action,
    believe me the commissioner has to prove that actions are other than proper trust actions, he wouldn’t stand the pace with me in court,

    Comment by peterquixote — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 9:58 am

  10. further strategy brothers,
    salary will always be obvious we are unable to get round this fact, but if you are still think of the future,

    if you are self employed, believe me you can clean things up in a few months, believe me, i can do it for you, if you are self emplyed,
    if you are not self employed , try to get there fast as possible,

    you have to place yourself first for the future, it is the only way to look after your children, by being in a good position yourself,

    Comment by peterquixote — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 10:05 am

  11. Why did Mark Shipman say the children are losing out?

    Comment by julie — Fri 24th March 2006 @ 11:21 am

  12. Julie,

    If you check the transcript, I think you will find Mark indicated the act does not aid children. This is something we know anyway, because the act is simply a means for the government to recover excessive benefit payments and, when no benefit is paid, to collect domestic spousal maintenance.

    If you doubt this, check out the legislation and, in particular, the intent as described in the objects of the act.

    Comment by Ethos — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 11:38 am

  13. Thank-you Ethos. I thought that’s what he mean’t and the situation. I needed someone else’s point of view. Just checking, but is the problem that the money is intrusted to the other parent to use the money as they feel fit? And that this can cause abuse of the money?

    Comment by julie — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 4:38 pm

  14. The laws are indeed unjust.

    Studies have shown the costs of raising children.
    I don’t have any figures, but in simply terms, we all know that what it costs to raise e.g. a 17 year old solid male differs vastly from e.g. a 3 year old toddler girl.

    Yet child support demands the same financial contribution.

    One simple example that makes a mockery of the supposed fairness of the system.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 26th March 2006 @ 5:06 pm

  15. Peter Burns – I will be making a verbal submission via video link this Wednesday if you want to make contact 0212269764 – Paul Sapsford

    Comment by Paul — Tue 28th March 2006 @ 2:40 pm

  16. Dear Paul,
    Unfortunately my health could not accommodate my busy schedule of late and I could not join in the option offered by Select Committee to present my verbal submission after accepting my wish to speak. Anyway I was trying to further endorse the unlawful gender discrimination in my written submission. I endured bias and prejudice after instructing Family Court as the Applicant to authorise an IRD to conduct an administration revue into child support payments for my two lost daughters. The revue lasted for nearly two years? This investigation by IRD included asking my poor sad mother how many times the ex and I had sex a week when we living together as a Family. This was not fair. My mum died a heartbroken Paternal Grand Mother last November. However last Monday 27 March 2006 I successfully got Judge Couch to dismiss a police charge of intimidation after a stressful 2 hour Hearing in Ashburton District Court. I had been on police bail since 6th July last year for this malicious charge. I was instructed by Judge Somerville in the Christchurch Family Court 16 March 2006 to file affidavit and list of lawyers, police and various others to the Court so they can given a Court subpoena by Friday 31st March. I am finally the Applicant in Discharge of Protection Orders x 6 – Two-hour fixture Christchurch Family Court — Armagh 1 – 1st May 2006. I have written today to seek an adjournment on all Appeal of Convictions at it is scheduled to proceed – 12th April 2006 in Christchurch High Court. As a pro se litigant I am stuffed mate and can’t be bothered with the whole lot as I got to see my daughters last Sunday. They said — when is this nightmare going to stop Daddy. I said I don’t know girls. They were thankful for the clothes I brought them, as they had no others to wear. They said they cry every time they got to travel the two-hour journey see their lawyer as they got drive past “ Dads place “. We all cried and cuddled each other. Dam all the corruption and prejudices from those who have made innocent victims of my beautiful mother and daughters. How many people have made money of the Burns case through clouding the TRUTH.

    Comment by Peter Burns — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 2:45 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar