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

Child Support Data Matching – Submissions Needed

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 9:23 pm Mon 11th June 2007

Look what Mr Cullen, with full knowledge and agreement of Peter Dunne, Minister responsible for Child Support and United Future Leader, is trying to slip through.

This is laying the groundwork to stopping by tax-police at the boarder. Not for the commission of any crime but because they are a member of a group of people who allegedly owe child support tax. No Court just tax officials, no trail just detention, and collection of Child Tax

Its the precursor to further draconian collection methods and yet again ignoring the root cause /s of the problem. Then will come the name and shame websites, then the pizza boxes and the imprisonment.

It will be like the good old USA! Check out Support The Movie Look at the disaster that similar systems are causing in the USA. This is reflected the world over. The system creates the debt, its flawed and produces debt as an outcome (About 70% of Liable Parents are in debt!)

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Business Taxation, KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill introduces the new R&D tax credit, company tax rate transitional and consequential changes, the KiwiSaver employer tax credit and compulsory employer contributions, tax incentives to promote charitable giving, liberalisation of a range of tax penalties, and child support data matching between Inland Revenue and the NZ Customs Service. For information on these and the many other changes in the bill see the Commentary on the bill.

Submissions please. One Page is Fine, Just get them in and request to be heard by the select committee.




  1. This isn’t news to me.
    I recall the IRD making threats that I’d get stopped at the airport when I left nz 5 years ago and was trying to make arrangements for a final lump sum payment of ‘child support’ before leaving.
    The gall of those people to threaten me like that when I was going out of my way to conform to their sick regime left a very sour taste in my mouth.
    It proved, yet again, that child ‘support’ is just a way of filching money from men (usually) to create wealth transfer to women (usually) in the feminzt shithole I left behind.
    As for Peter Dunne, I can think of nothing he’s done that’s slowed down the remarkable disintegtation of the nuclear family and fathering in nz.
    The guy is fake and his ‘family commission’ a pathetic joke set up as a smokescreen by Clarke and her cronies so they can go about creating the socialist-feminist society they stupidly believe in – an amazon culture spun out of control

    Comment by Stephen — Mon 11th June 2007 @ 10:30 pm

  2. Hi Jim, can you guide me to the relevant part of the act – I can’t find it. Cheers Viv

    Comment by Viv Roberts — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 12:56 pm

  3. Why is it that men have such a problem with paying what they should for their kids…I mean what the hell!! I suppose you think it should be paid when and where you want and how ever much you decide…yer right.

    Comment by Sharon Jones — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 2:29 pm

  4. What really is the problem here Sharon, the cost of the kids or the cost of batteries. That is not what child support is for.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 3:11 pm

  5. Hey Sharon… do you work??
    do you also allow equal access to the child’s father?

    if you allow child and father equla access in true sense then why can’t you take care of expenses when the kid is with you and let the father take careof expenses when the kid is with him??

    or do you have a court order not giving equl access to the father hence you whining??

    Comment by starr — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 3:31 pm

  6. Where are other women in this debate to support Sharon? Why not defend the views on this site that separate the necessities of protection for children? These debates are ot held in parliament (or not that I have read in the Hansard so far) and one would think because of the legislation as it comes out the other end in the Select Committees. Surely what this means is that our legislature is just swallowing what they are told to eat – pies – sweeties or burger rings – Why would the representatives of bureaucraracy stay away and leave one woman alone to defend against teh arguments of many? Are these people for their absense in debate not simply cowards who exploit the laws as they exist whether or not they are damning of the relationship necessary to be protected between a son and daughter and their biological father?

    Where are the statistical data proud reinforcements?


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 4:20 pm

  7. Viv as below

    Key features
    New section 280J-L of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 allows information sharing
    of child support information between Inland Revenue and Customs. Section 81 of the
    Tax Administration Act 1994 is also being amended.
    Inland Revenue will provide Customs with the names and other identifying
    information of certain parents who have outstanding child support debts. An
    information match will occur by Customs, comparing identifying information against
    arrival and departure information it holds on liable parents. Customs will then supply
    Inland Revenue with information on liable parents identified by the information
    This information will give Inland Revenue the opportunity to take the administrative
    and legal steps, where appropriate, to recover outstanding debt from liable parents
    while they are located in New Zealand and, if necessary, stop liable parents from
    subsequently leaving New Zealand to avoid meeting their child support obligations.
    The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Chief Executive of Customs may enter
    into an agreement to determine the frequency, form and method for the exchange of
    Schedule 3 of the Privacy Act 1993 is also being amended.
    At present, outside of its reciprocal agreement with Australia, New Zealand has
    limited authority to enforce payment from liable parents who are overseas. This
    highlights the importance of Inland Revenue being able to contact liable parents
    whenever they are back in New Zealand to make arrangements for payment of their
    outstanding child support liability.
    Urgent recovery action is often required while the liable parent is still in New
    Zealand. Inland Revenue currently has the ability to obtain an arrest warrant to detain
    non-compliant liable parents who attempt to leave New Zealand to avoid child
    support liabilities. However, this power is limited because it relies on third parties
    advising Inland Revenue when a liable parent has arrived in, or is about to leave, New
    Zealand. In addition, Inland Revenue often does not have any New Zealand contact
    information for liable parents living overseas.
    The government agreed to investigate introducing information sharing to help Inland
    Revenue track the New Zealand movements of liable parents living overseas. Under
    the proposed changes, if a liable parent living overseas is known to be visiting New
    Zealand, effective steps can be taken to recover outstanding liabilities before the person attempts to leave the country.

    see PDF

    pg 131



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 12th June 2007 @ 5:31 pm

  8. Starr, believe me, it doesn’t matter if the father has equal access. If Sharon is on the benefit, the father still pays OTT in child support. And you can guarantee that the kids don’t see it!!

    Comment by pomcat — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 5:06 pm

  9. Hi Pomcat. i know hence my indirect way of telling Sharon “get a job take responsibility and quit bludging for gods sake”. go your own way and leave your ex in peace to go his. why make life a hell for him and the kid in question by acting vindictively while freeloading off someone elses efforts. Share the kid between the two equally rather than opt for sole custody and expect the other to pay for one persons adamant vindictive behaviour to ‘own’ the child.

    Comment by starr — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 5:21 pm

  10. We’d love that to be true. We have 50/50 care and still have to pay for her freeloading. Unfortunately some women seem to see it as their right to bludge off the system, and somehow it never works both ways,

    Comment by pomcat — Thu 14th June 2007 @ 5:31 pm

  11. Sharon,

    Get a life. You bludging parasites are ruining my country.

    It is far past the time when you need to take responsibility for your actions.

    You chose to have children; now step up, get a job and raise those children into decent, law-abiding, responsible adults.

    Stop believing that you have any more “right” to government support than anyone else.

    Norman Kirk made an ENORMOUS mistake when he removed the requirement for a person to be “of good standing in the community” in order to qualify for a Social Security benefit.

    Remember that the benefit [be it unemployment or otherwise] is only there as a stop-gap measure to provide a level of “social” security (i.e. stop Mum, Dad and the kids going hungry) in the event of something unforeseen happening.

    It never was a right; it never will be. In order to qualify for a benefit, you need to WORK. Anyone else is just a leech-like, blood-sucking parasite.

    So get the broomstick out of your rear-end and step up your game. Because, at the moment, you are FAILING your children abysmally.

    And, think on this: the DPB bill for you and all of your leech-mates is 2.4 BILLION DOLLARS every year. Don’t you think this is a bit OTT?

    All us responsible people believe it is more than just “a bit” OTT; we believe it is criminal that you and your ilk are allowed to continue to STEAL from law-abiding, responsible citizens of New Zealand.


    Comment by Sparx — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 12:56 pm

  12. Sparx,

    you say “my country”. Now before you “sparx”, what eaxctly do you mean?

    What is yours?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 3:56 pm

  13. Let’s get this into perspective though. I am presuming that no-one here has a problem with the fine defaulters being stopped at the border? Nor the crims that have committed nasty, violent crimes and owe reparation to their victims and choose to plead poverty whilst swanning off on expensive holidays?
    This is supposed to be the same sort of thing. It’s not about persecuting joe average who is struggling with child support and has fallen a couple of months behind. This is about the low-lifes (of both sexes) that disappear from the system and feel that they don’t owe their children anything. It’s meant to be purely to get hold of those people that don’t want to face up to the fact that they should be paying something towards the upkeep of their children. In essence, it should catch up with those people that father countless children and have no intention of paying for them because the mothers believe that the rest of us law abiding citizens will support them by continuing to pay our taxes towards their benefits.
    It all comes back to why we should pay through the nose for those that simply can’t be bothered and in reality be expected to pay not only for our children but the other kids whose parents believe that the DPB is their rightful wage.

    Comment by Pomcat — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 8:48 pm

  14. I have a problem with my personal information being passed between IRD and customs.

    According to your words “It’s not about persecuting joe average who is struggling with child support and has fallen a couple of months behind.”

    The current threshold that they will seek warrants to stop parents at the border is $2000. They have been known to ask the custodial mum to give flight details of the liable dads flights to them so they can arrest him when he arrives.

    According to IRD he was 2600 in debt, despite having paid them as requested.Two months child support was 2600. 600 past the threshold.

    This will impact ordinary kiwi parents who through no fault of their own as the result of a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation end up owing “child support debt”.

    About 70% of current liable parents are in debt. This measure reinforces the repeated legislative position of ignoring the reality that this piece of legislation produces exceptionally high numbers of liable parents who are “in debt”.

    High debt levels are consistently seen seen world-wide in similar schemes.

    This is very much about joe average liable parent as he is the one who is going to be on the receiving end.

    Continuing to ignore the debt crises by letting the IRD pass information with customs where no court order exists, but where they are on a fishing expedition with a drift net. Thats not state intrusion ?

    It is important to note that there exists in the public service a belief that personal information can be freely passed between government agencies and that is acceptable. Where do I live? China? Russia?

    I am forced to supply information to IRD and now the Tax police will arrest me at the border after sharing their information with customs.

    Now this has got to be BORA material.

    Hey, why not do it for unpaid doctors fees or better still sell the franchise to baycorp so they can arrest debtors at the border.

    In essence, it should catch up with those people that father countless children and have no intention of paying for them because the mothers believe that the rest of us law abiding citizens will support them by continuing to pay our taxes towards their benefits

    Why do you consider parents “in debt” to IRD as irresponsible and criminal like?

    If the government wants to pay a benefit to a parent thats the governments choice. like you I pay tax and that tax goes to paying benefits. Then I have the privilege to be taxed again with child tax.

    No, this legislation is a drift net and will have major impacts on liable parents. Its part of an ongoing campaign, (Katherine rich started it and Judge Judy keeps it going) targeted at more draconian powers to recover debt.

    Yes I do object to this piece of legislation .

    Regards Scrap

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 11:22 pm

  15. In the US, it’s become quite frequent that women are naming men other than the real father in order to qualify for welfare. They have obvious motives for doing so; they may have had an affair that they don’t want discovered, or the real father may be dangerous, or they don’t want the real father to be involved any further in their lives.
    All they need to do is name some poor sap, provide an old address, and hope the court order sent to him doesn’t get to him before he runs out of time to contest it. Once he’s legally recorded as the father, he’s up for Child Support for the next 18 years, and fighting this appalling abuse is a major costly business.

    I don’t know if the situation is as bad as that here yet, but I’ve heard a few stories of guys being named as fathers and being forced to expend significant sums to pay for DNA tests and have their names removed from the child’s birth certificate. The mothers can lie with impunity, and suffer no consequences when caught out.

    Until the law demonstrates a willingness to redress such obvious omissions of justice, I don’t want to see it given any greater power.

    Indeed, I suspect the law’s greatest strength, which is our willingness to abide by it, is severely eroded by measures such as this.

    Comment by Rob Case — Sat 16th June 2007 @ 12:36 am

  16. Yes James, it is BORA material. s.18 (3) Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand. This is only applicable if someone was prepared to pick up that challenge. The justification would be under s.4 as Rob pointed out before. The advantage for the applicant would be that it is directly consistent with s.6 which states that any meaning that can be given that is consistent with the BORA SHALL be preferred. There is a lot of weight in the word Shall. However, as I have the experience the muscle in the debate will come down to the either the position of the judge or other adjudicator. If the Minstry of Justice has put in a report under s.7 on the introduction of the Bill which I haven’t researched but is easy enough these days, then the weight of the argument would rest with the Crown. If not then the issue of justifiable limitations comes into effect and I’m pretty sure that the judge would rule in favour of the defence or in a suit in the High Court the challenge. Diesengauging from this although you will find case law in this on a flag burning case a couple of years ago, you get left in the place where inquiries with the Ministry will eventually be passed on to the Minister, which is where my inquiries are at teh moment. He will reply: That the Bill of Rights is not supreme law. At such an end he has no other choice. This means that at the end argument of our governments protection to impliment in democracy they in order to do what it is they want to do must diengage fromt he primary principle of democracy. That being that they are reprepsentative of the people. They are not. They represent what they want to put into place even if it is corrupted against our own set of guiding principles. But again and aside from how the Minister would be bound to respond there is another element of the argument that would be traversed by a judge which is the content of any report or opinion that challenged the consistency of an act against the BORA. That is that the Crown have the power under precedent to include any component of inconsistency with the BORA in legislation that they so want. This is the freedom I described previously as allegedly enshrined in Atricle 9 of the English Bill of Rights. The flaw and it does exist as described in Westco Lagan & Co vs AG 2002 (I think is the year) is that the executive are bound to the due process of manner and form. If they make a mistake on how they make the law then this creates an unprecedented problem. This happened in the introduction of the Care of Children Bill. The report was put in a day late on its consistency with the BORA. This is the instrument that will disassemble the injustice. No other instrument is as powerful and I have nearly done the work necessary for it to be used, yet while there isn’t an acceptance that it has merit or there arent the effective individuals to weild its power, it resides with me and my ability to use its implication and pressure.

    On the issue of deadbeats or non contributers to the economy the status quo comprehensively concludes with you James that there needs to be separations in society where the contributers are entitled to withdraw from their loyalty and contribution to the state purse. But it isn’t as easy as this as I am challenging Sparx to explore. Just to wash away an issue as if its principles and foundations do not matter because common thought is popular enough to excuse any test doesn’t wash it. And you get a backlash from the great unwashed.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 16th June 2007 @ 1:12 pm

  17. Absolutely Rob,

    the alternatives however exist. The economic frame under which we have evolved, however, will require restructuring. We come back then to a constitution where that constitution in this country is tied to its history. This is to say that the clever people can tell that they are living in a shonky building but noone wants to pass the authority on to the landlord to have it fixed because of what we all might find under the carpet.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 16th June 2007 @ 1:20 pm

  18. Scrap, I don’t believe that I said parents in debt were criminal like or irresponsible. We too have the privelage of paying child tax. I asked the question that no-one here has any objections to the criminals that were at present being stopped at the borders for not paying reparation to their victims. This was not in any way meant to mean parents in debt as I’m sure you must realise. I apologise if you mistook what I meant.
    If this is going to be used and abused as Rob has said then hey, it definately should not be brought in.

    Comment by pomcat — Mon 18th June 2007 @ 3:00 pm

  19. Pomcat,

    Your clarification is welcome.

    I am not a fan of data exchanging between government departments. Where does it stop? Theres always another group you can add to the list and before long they are exchanging volumes of information and using it for purposes considerably different than the original information was intended for.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 18th June 2007 @ 9:20 pm

  20. can anyone tell me if this bill passed in parliament??

    Comment by karanjiharr — Mon 29th June 2009 @ 8:48 pm

  21. karanjiharr (reply # 20): Yes, it passed. See the Customs and Excise Act 1996:

    section 280K Disclosure of arrival and departure information for purposes of Child Support Act 1991(1) The purpose of this section is to facilitate the exchange of information between the Customs and the Department for the purpose of assisting the Commissioner to–

    (a) locate any person who is in serious default in the payment of any financial support debt; and

    (b) take appropriate debt recovery action against that person.

    (2) For the purpose of this section, the Commissioner may supply any identifying information to the Chief Executive.

    (3) If, in relation to a person who is in serious default, identifying information is supplied in accordance with subsection (2), the Chief Executive may compare that information with any arrival and departure information held by the Customs that may relate to that person.

    (4) If the Customs has arrival or departure information relating to a person who is in serious default, the Chief Executive may, for the purpose of this section, supply to the Commissioner any of the following information held by the Customs:

    (a) the person’s name:

    (b) the person’s date of birth:

    (c) the person’s tax file number:

    (d) the time and date on which the person arrived in New Zealand or, as the case may be, departed from New Zealand:

    (e) information provided by the person when arriving in New Zealand or, as the case may be, departing from New Zealand.

    (5) The Chief Executive and the Commissioner may, for the purpose of this section, determine by written agreement between them–

    (a) the frequency with which information may be supplied:

    (b) the form in which information may be supplied:

    (c) the method by which information may be supplied.


    section 280L Direct access to arrival and departure information for purposes of Child Support Act 1991(1) The purpose of this section is to facilitate the Department’s access to information stored in a database for the purpose of assisting the Commissioner to–

    (a) locate any person who is in serious default in the payment of any financial support debt:

    (b) take appropriate debt recovery action against that person.

    (2) The Chief Executive may, for the purpose of this section, allow the Commissioner to access a database in accordance with a written agreement entered into by the Chief Executive and the Commissioner.

    (3) In accessing a database for the purpose of this section, the Commissioner–

    (a) may only search for arrival or departure information relating to preselected persons who are of interest to the Commissioner; and

    (b) must not search for–

    (i) any information other than arrival or departure information:

    (ii) any information about a person who is not in serious default.

    (4) The Commissioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure that–

    (a) only persons with appropriate powers delegated to them by the Commissioner–

    (i) have access to the database; and

    (ii) use the database; and

    (b) a record is kept of–

    (i) every occasion on which persons access a database; and

    (ii) the reason for accessing the database; and

    (iii) the identity of the person who accessed the database; and

    (c) every person who accesses a database for the purpose of this section complies with subsection (3).

    (5) In this section,–

    access a database includes remote access to a database

    database means any information recording system used by the Customs to store arrival or departure information.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 1:14 pm

  22. It is not a law but a policy. You will be picked up at the airport if you owe money. If you a visitor from overseas you will need to sort out something with IRD to go home.

    Best thing to do is sort out something before you try to fly out of NZ.

    Comment by julie — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 1:23 pm

  23. Thanks Hans, you have saved me going to the trouble to find out how they did this.

    Comment by julie — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 1:27 pm

  24. thanks guys..

    Comment by karan jiahrr — Tue 30th June 2009 @ 6:23 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