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

Child Support Collection Across The Ditch

Filed under: Child Support,General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 4:44 pm Wed 25th April 2007

Fathers made to pay in child support blitz

By Patricia Karvelas

April 23, 2007 12:00am

A crack team of investigators will spy on divorced dads

who cry poor , using photographic and video evidence to expose them driving around in expensive cars and living in affluent suburbs.

About 120 people will be employed to undertake the intensive investigation work to force money from divorced parents who are using elaborate ways of covering up their real incomes

The shape of things to come here!!




  1. I hope that the same degree of scrutiny will be given to the beneficiaries of child support and to beneficiaries of government handouts (this includes legal workers!). I am aware of more such people that need checking, than fathers paying child support.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 6:21 pm

  2. Too right Murray,
    Personally I find it exraordinarily difficult to accept the lavish style which my x-partner achieved simply by abducting our child and going on the DPB.
    What can be achieved by recipients of the DPB? She can afford to dress our son almost exclusively in Pumpkin Patch clothing, go on an overseas holiday, pay $200 to have her car groomed and go shopping for clothes and shoes almost weekly while I baby-sit our son in near poverty. And, after 3 years on the DPB and using a demonic specialist family court barrister to #*&% me over and sell my home quickly, she actually has the deposit to buy her own house. Should any one who has recieved a benifit for years suddenly be able to outlay a large sum of cash to buy a house?
    Is IRD’s main priority to collect tax or to screw over men? I am currently being hounded by IRD to pay child support for the period of time SINCE we started equal shared parenting, despite the fact that the mother earns more than me.
    IRD investigators are knocking on the wrong doors.

    Comment by xsryder — Wed 25th April 2007 @ 9:06 pm

  3. meanwhile accross the ditch feral girls are acting up bigtime like they’ve been doing for some time in NZ.
    Grrrrrl power!
    It just ‘feels right’.

    Comment by Stephen — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 10:14 am

  4. Child Support Employee == Gestapo Officer

    Bring on the Great Darkness!

    Comment by Sparx — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 11:58 am

  5. Really chaps! We in NZ have no need of such subterfuge…

    …instead we simply pass an amendment to the law that makes the commissioner of IR the police, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner.

    Really makes Hitler look a lot like a Kindergarten Teacher in comparison and Mrs Clark look like Mother Theresa.

    Comment by Ethos — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 3:37 pm

  6. My x asked me to foot the cost of braces for my girl.I told her to use some of the $10,000 net she gets off me each year.The only good part of the great aussie experience is a 24% CS rebate if you have your offspring 1 day a week; I would even have her 2 days a week at 48%;crikey.

    Comment by keith — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 4:41 pm

  7. Hi Murray,

    It would be nice to think they would apply the same level of effort to stopping benefit fraud.

    Perhaps they should also look at our esteemed members of parliament and the gratuitous salaries and perks these people receive at the expense of the hard-working tax-payer?

    Some of us would really like to see what benefit we receive for the excessive money we expend.

    Comment by Mark Shipman — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 6:02 pm

  8. with the 24% cut in place fathers will now have to fight harder to gain access even one day a week as guess what the next action of sym-pathetic femine caughts would be?? yes dats right ensure that even one day a week with the father does not happen or become highly impossible to obtain/grant.

    Comment by starr — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 6:50 pm

  9. I think what infuriates me the most about this whole Child Support, WINZ, IRD thing is that the DPB is set at an amount that affords a primary caregiver to provide a child with a “prescribed” bottom-line standard of living. This allows the Domestic Purposes Benificiary, unlike any other benifit, to have a good standard of living, in fact so good that they often CHOOSE to remain a benificiary.
    In contrast, due to child support payments, legal costs, separation “recovery” costs and MOST of the same costs that the primary caregiver will pay towards the child’s care (rent, clothing, food, toys, education resources, entertainment, transport), the child may be living below the “prescribed” bottom-line standard of living while in the care of the non-custodial parent….and IRD, WINZ and the government simply look the other way.
    Shouldn’t a child’s “prescribed” bottom-line standard of living be guarenteed at both homes he/she will be living and growing up in?

    Comment by xsryder — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 8:59 pm

  10. Subject: News-n-Debate > Australia – Changes To The Child Support Scheme

    Australia: Changes To The Child Support Scheme

    16 April 2007
    Article by Andrew McCormack

    Originally Published December 2006


    The original Child Support Scheme established under the Child Support
    Act 1988 has recently been subjected to review and criticism from
    several areas. A number of parliamentary committees and at least one
    taskforce have examined the Child Support Scheme in depth and have
    made recommendations in respect of shared parenting.

    These recommendations included a change to the child support formula
    and cultural changes within the Child Support Agency (“CSA”). As the
    Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 has
    now been implemented, the changes to the Child Support Scheme are
    designed to foster shared parenting and to ensure that parents share
    equally the cost of bringing up children.

    To read this article in full please click here


    The changes to the child support system, in particular changes to the
    formulae, are very complex. The CSA has advised that it is presently
    writing new versions of the online calculators to take into account
    the changes in the formulae. It envisages that these calculators will
    be operational by 2008, to ensure that sufficient time is available
    for them to be tested.

    It would appear from the reading of the legislation that it will be
    imperative to take into account the time a client will spend with
    their children when calculating what child support liability they
    will face.

    It would appear from rough calculations that child support assessment
    may be reduced and parents may share such things as the family tax
    benefit where the level of contact of a non-parent equates to 5
    nights out of 14 nights.

    Hopefully, the changes to how child support assessments are
    calculated will bring about some equality in respect of assessments
    and there will be some incentives for parents to enter into and
    remain in shared parenting arrangements in order to minimise child
    support liability.

    When advising clients, all practitioners should be mindful of the
    amount of time that children will spend with each parent, and should
    suggest that the client at least consider a shared parenting option.
    It will also be necessary to provide clients with advice as to how
    their child support liability will be affected if they wish to
    partake in regular care of their children.

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Fri 27th April 2007 @ 6:47 am

  11. All please note that Officals and Breaucrats are the originators of these untested changes and Australian Child Support reformers believe that long term the situation will get worse under the amended formula,not better!



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 27th April 2007 @ 1:04 pm

  12. Xsryder,

    Surely you jest?

    Are you suggesting that paying a parent a FULL-TIME salary for doing PART-TIME work is not the right thing to do?

    Shame on you!

    It recently came to light that when parents who have been on the DPB for a significant period of time no longer qualify for the benefit, they find themselves in financial poverty.

    Wimminz refuge and Bradford looked into this “sad” state of affairs and established that the poverty arises from the parents having “no significant assets” (ie no savings, no house etc) when the benefit ceases.

    They then went on to make the deductive leap that this means the DPB is not paying enough or parents would be able to SAVE for their retirement.

    Silly me! I hear you say, Now why didn’t we think of that reason?

    Of course they give no consideration to the FACT that, when a DPB parent saves money, their benefit is quickly “abated”. For us simpler types this means the DPB payment gets smaller the more they save.

    Of course they give no consideration to the FACT that, in almost every case, the DPB receiver cannot enter the work-force and earn anywhere near the salary that the DPB provides.

    Elsewhere on MENZ I recall seeing a DPB receiver with 2 children receiving in excess of $35,000 per annum [after tax]. For a worker such as you and I, this is a salary in excess of $55,000 per annum [before tax].

    In my experience, the people who get salaries like that do a lot of FULL-TIME, very hard work in return for their salary.

    Something rotten in the FemiNAZI state of New Zealand? HELL YES!

    I found a link to a site where they talk about support for children being based on “essential needs”. I’m not sure from the blurb exactly what this means, but the examples they give seem to be much fairer on everyone than what we have now.

    Not sure if they have the answer, but the status quo certainly is not working so we definitely need to look at other options.

    My apologies if the parody was too much, but the opportunity was just too good….

    Comment by Ethos — Mon 30th April 2007 @ 2:33 pm

  13. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Not satisfied with remaking NZ in her own [u**y] visage, the Anti-Clark was on telly tonight stating they have given us [through an extension of daylight saving] “more sunlight hours”.

    WooHoo! as the fat yellow dude would say!

    I’d chance a small wager that Johannes Keppler thinks differently to the fascist twit that heads the FemiNAZI Labour Party…

    …surely this must mean the Anti-Clark is sooooooooo POWERFUL that she can actually SLOW DOWN the passage of the Earth around the Sun between September and April…

    …boy-oh-boy do I want to see that with my own eyes!

    Comment by Sparx — Mon 30th April 2007 @ 6:44 pm

  14. I am a victim of bureaucratic blunders and anti male assumptions. My child support arrears are a comedy of errors and I am inundated with computor generated demands monthly even though I have been trying to contest it for over 3 years. I seems for some reason IRD NZ was able to take money automatically from me twice for the same children in NZ and Australia at the same time but neither agency wants to give that money back to me.
    Does anyone know who can I ask for help – they call it Dual Liability and I think lots of men must be in the same boat as they had to have special policy discussions to work out what to do – but they say they don’t have the right legislation to either investigate the validity of the debt attributed to me Only the ability to deduct it automatically. (all the so called debts date back to 1994-1998 before there was even a agreement between the countries it doesn’t seem just.)

    Comment by Daniel — Sat 22nd September 2007 @ 3:47 pm

  15. Hey. I got a 502 gateway error earlier today when I tried to access this page. Anyone else had the problem?

    Comment by Sherron Laing — Fri 25th December 2009 @ 6:40 am

  16. this is spam, a form of internet virus

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 25th December 2009 @ 7:47 am

  17. I personally knew several women on Waiheke Island, Auckland who bought houses whilst on the DPB. SOme of those houses were valued back then (80s – 90s) at over $300,000. God knows what they’d sell for now.
    One of them had 5 abortions to keep her brood down to only 2 kids!
    She jetted off to Christchurch to be with family twice a year and ran a big 4×4 SUV, regularly had new clothes, hairdos, cosmetics, lattes and cakes, beaches all day (and parties at night) whilst the kids were in state sponsored childcare.
    I, like other honest hardworking taxpayers could only look on dumbfounded at the largesse of the system which was doling out lifestyle options to legions of similar women with MY TAX MONEY.
    DPB. Yeah right.

    Comment by NZ Sucks for men — Fri 25th December 2009 @ 2:20 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