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

Round 5

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 12:00 pm Mon 9th October 2006

You can understand what they mean by box on……

To: “Margaret Denny”
Subject: Re: Child Support OIA
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:54:38 +1300
Status: normal
From: [email protected]
Reply-to: [email protected]

No, that was not the question I asked. That was how the
question was rewritten. It is petty people that make
politics a silly game.

Bevan Berg.
Republic if NZ Party.

> Dear Mr Berg
> Thank you for your further Official Information Act
> request of 8 October 2006.
> The Minister’s previous response included the information
> you asked for in your Official Information request of 7
> September. In this you asked:
> “I make reference to question for written answer 04501 in
> relation to child support. Could you please confirm this
> information for me and update the 2005 figures to their
> current level. Could you please extend this information to
> include the numbers and the values where child support was
> recovered from the deceased estates during the same
> period”
> You have now asked “please extend this table to include
> the number of estates from which child support has been
> recovered and the amounts, for each year”.
> Your email was received in this office on 9 October 2006.
> Kind regards.
> Margaret Denny
> Private Secretary
> Office of Hon Peter Dunne
> DDI 4719 920
> Fax 4958 442


  1. I have seen a number of posts from you now Bevan that is your email correspondence. This is a great website, but you are effectively spamming it – i don’t know why you insist in posting all your emails…

    i can suggest two things.

    1) If you must, put all your ongoing emails in one post – if you feel like adding more, post them as comments in that thread.

    2) You are rather uncharitable naming the public servant that is attending to your request. Bad enough posting the email at all, let alone posting the name and number of that official who is obviously doing a job. Pretty unprofessional conduct and unnecessary.

    Comment by Doug — Mon 9th October 2006 @ 6:01 pm

  2. Doug.

    I do not post all my emails, a few of recent that relate to child support. As for being uncharitable, the uncharitable person here is the one that requires a public servant to behave unprofessionally, because it suits that persons political purposes. Exposing dominative unprofessionalism makes me unprofessional? I think you need to rethink that one. That’s the type of thinking that erodes our administrative integrity. Are some feeling uncomfortable – so they should.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 9th October 2006 @ 7:52 pm

  3. bevan,

    i don’t understand you for being so anti others. firstly, i spoke with my ex-husband about him also supporting you and he is and has been in business for a long time and worked with cops. never have i met a businessman work with people like you do. in fact i have an international drug officer to talk for your cause but i can see that is a waste of time. why are you and your party so anti people? do you not know that is the best way to fail?

    sorry mate, but i cannot back you up. although i wish you the best.

    Comment by julie — Tue 10th October 2006 @ 7:51 pm

  4. Dear Doug & Julie,

    It is beneficial to all liable parents the information that Bevan is unearthing regarding IRD Child Support and bringing this out into the public arena.
    Public Officials that are required to provide information are, and should continue to be, under public scrutiny in respect of both, their performance to carry out this function and their willingness /ability to provide factual content.

    I believe I am in a position to say that Bevan is not anti-people,(he dislikes corruption and its practitioners, though, don’t we all?) and neither is any member of the Republican Party anti-people, in fact a growing number of the population now consider it is to be the most viable party for “all the people”.

    Kindest Regards

    Comment by Paul Catton — Tue 10th October 2006 @ 9:08 pm

  5. Paul,

    I don’t understand how you come to the conclusion that the republic party is for all the people. Isn’t that exactly what all parties say and even the femenist. “What we do will benefit women, men and children”

    Have you ever sat down with these men that are in politics and asked them if they understand where you are coming from? Do they acknowledge the struggles of (some) men paying child support? (I say some because not all are paying above a fair amount)

    If they acknowledge this, what do they think would be a way of solving the problem?

    Or have they just said, “Tough, we don’t care?”

    As for getting the information, well, it seems they did give the information and within reasonable time. One of the problems with society today is that people want everything now. Sometimes that isn’t appropriate.

    Comment by julie — Wed 11th October 2006 @ 8:17 am

  6. Julie it is not us that is behind the 8 Ball, it is you! You are correct in that the last time the request was made it was answered in what would be the legal time frame. What you haven’t understood is that the question that was asked was re written slightly, so that the information supplied was not what was asked for, and that this was the fourth the request had been made. Now it is the fifth time and we have asked the same question that hasn’t been answered. I am sorry if I haven’t met your expectations, but as you see other people are not meeting mine. There is something wrong with the way I do business? If I behaved like this in the real world I would be in front of the commerce commission or on fair go by now.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 11th October 2006 @ 10:23 am

  7. Bevan,

    You can handle the abuse and I have to give you credit for that although you don’t deserve it anymore than the people you give it to.

    I have been feeling a guilty for throwing out hateful words so easily at you in my last commment.

    This is what I don’t get:

    Why can’t we just say:

    By this time next year (11th october 2007)we want the child support act changed or dismantled and through the 3 readings.

    Now how do we do that?

    I can’t see how we will get anything changed without being a fox?

    Comment by julie — Thu 12th October 2006 @ 7:23 pm

  8. Politicians live for what they might be remembered for. Do you think one of them might sit there with an eraser and wipe out 650 million, no matter how illegal or immoral its creation might be? That is the States claim in penalties on the current child support arrears. It is never going to be collected. Even if every cent was collected the child support act will do more damage than 650 million will ever repair. It is not that it will be changed in a period of time; it is a bigger confrontation than that. It is just, that it will be changed!

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 12th October 2006 @ 8:02 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