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

IRD Public Opinion?

Filed under: Child Support,General — Downunder @ 3:26 pm Fri 14th December 2007

From Stuff.

Why not just make unpaid Child Support work the same as unpaid court fines?? Treat them like unpaid fines – clamp the non-paying parents’ cars, seize goods and in the end if they still don’t pay, have them hauled before a judge to be treated like fine defaulters. Put the non-paying parents’ names with debt collecting firms to ensure they no longer get credit to buy their big screen TV etc instead of paying for their own kids.
Mark Miller

Inland Revenue have a possessed toy by the same name, don’t they?


  1. I totally agree with you on this. As a paying parent for child support it really gets up my nose that there are people who don’t live up to their obligation. As a paying parent I know that the IRD system and the way they calculate child support is unfair and that there are alot of issues that should be resolved by IRD, but that doesn’t give the right for people to neglect their child support payments.

    I have recently gotten remarried and have her children living with us. The Father of her children takes no responsibility and doesn’t care that he is not paying. In the mean time who is suffering? The father of the kids does not care.

    He has recently come back to NZ for Christmas and IRD does not want to know anything about it.

    Comment by Jonathan Baker — Fri 14th December 2007 @ 3:53 pm

  2. Those of Mark Miller’s mentality would say that you did not have the right to get married again when you are paying child support.
    The IRD have many possessed toys that are generally thought of as ‘idiots’.
    Press them and they squeak.

    Comment by rosie — Fri 14th December 2007 @ 5:02 pm

  3. Dear Jonathan,
    I refer to your statement

    As a paying parent I know that the IRD system and the way they calculate child support is unfair and that there are alot of issues that should be resolved by IRD


    So perhaps then, if a fair, just and equitable situation was in place initially there would be less abscondees from liability than being like yourself and toeing a line of injustice.
    FAIR, JUST AND EQUITABLE for all parties is the Doctrine put forward by IRD Child Support.
    What monetray value does the Government itself place upon a child/ren?
    Current figures extracted from Work and Income New Zealand

    Women alone (single adult)$185.92
    Sole parent $255.65
    You may also be able to get family tax credit or extra allowances as well.

    Child Support
    When you are a sole parent, any Child Support the other parent pays goes to the Government to help cover what you get from us.

    Child /ren are worth just under $70.00 per week.
    Coffer replenishment and Spousal maintenance would seem to be prioritised in the guise of legislation.

    Many people have varying reasons for not adhering to the legislative system proscribed by IRD Child Support, a minority of these are selfish buggers, however the majority care about their children and cannot meet these outrageous demands and supplement this injustice.

    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    (09) 940 6236
    Women’s Refuge staff near ‘burn out’ as demand soars
    Perhaps the other side of the coin should speak.

    Comment by Paul Catton — Fri 14th December 2007 @ 8:59 pm

  4. Mark Miller

    One would perceive the gentleman is the same.

    Comment by Paul Catton — Fri 14th December 2007 @ 9:34 pm

  5. When Helen Clark was sorting out a list of dangerous breeds of dogs,she should have added Mark Miller to her list cos he sounds far more dangerous than a pitbull.My husband’s ex wife should be on the list too.How human is a person who says things like “you deserved to get cancer and it’s a pity that you didn’t die”
    Paul what you told Jonathan about children only being worth $70 a week from winz is what annoys me most about the CS system.Children of parents,who are ill through no fault of their own,are only worth $70 while fathers are having to pay up to $400 a week in CS.But try explaining that to politicians.They are all either incredibly stupid or have deaf ears.
    Most of them just like greedy ex’s look upon children now only as dollar signs.

    Comment by rosie — Sat 15th December 2007 @ 10:23 am

  6. Maybe the costs of imprisoning thousands of future attackers and murderers may influence the government not to change the CS laws like that. If fathers are cornered and not treated with compassion in very emotional situations, ANYTHING can and WILL happen !

    Comment by swashy — Sun 16th December 2007 @ 3:40 pm

  7. The CS money is used by the government for things that are of most importance to them, MPs and judges’ pensions, employing even more consultants, grants to undeserving feminist groups, not to projects that benefit the people or families!

    Comment by swashy — Sun 16th December 2007 @ 6:20 pm

  8. I heard a rumour that yur Mr Miller was, in fact, himself a DPB receiver.

    So, while he raised his kids, we taxpayers paid for him to become a qualified legal worker.

    Again, by default, we taxpayers have allowed him to become this abusive menace to our children’s well being.

    Who would have thought?

    Comment by Ethos — Wed 19th December 2007 @ 3:30 pm

  9. A message to the Minisrty of Social Terrorism of The Women’s Republic of New Zealand.

    What you have created in New Zealand isn’t depression requiring medication but oppression requiring liberation!

    “But when a long train of abuses & usurpations begun at a distinguished period and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, & to provide new guards for their future Security.”
    (Declaration of Independence)

    Comment by Peter — Thu 27th December 2007 @ 1:30 am

  10. My evil ex told our ten year old son, “You were meant to have been a girl”

    It is Femnazi doctrine that the eldest child should be a girl (if not all of them) then theoreticaly they will then dominate their siblings (or can be trained to). Nevermind that our son is gentle and kindhearted.

    Typical of fascist Femnazi soldiers, she does not have any reguard for the rights or emotional wellbeing of others. She is extremely self centred and cares above all else for money, status, power and uses the FEMINIST INQUISTION to hide her bullying, greed, corruption, oppression and SOCIAL TERRORISM.

    Comment by Peter — Fri 28th December 2007 @ 5:35 pm

  11. Personally, I have to take issue with both “Mark Miller” (who I, apparently like many here, suspect is one and the same legally-trained Rottweiler employed by the IRD) and with Jonathan Baker:

    I totally agree with you on this. As a paying parent for child support it really gets up my nose that there are people who don’t live up to their obligation.

    What “obligation” I want to know?

    First, Let’s get one thing clear: The Child Support Act is basically a fraud. To call it ‘unfair’ is to be “Oh, so nice!” It’s a rort and a fraud, like so much of our modern post-feminist era legislation.

    There is nothing in the Child Support Act to ensure, or even to suggest, that the money extorted (obtained by force, threats, or other unfair means, as per the dictionary definition) from non-custodial parents (i.e. fathers in about 95% of cases) ever goes to supporting their children.
    Because, at the end of the day, after all the nastiness and destructiveness of Family Court shenanigans (i.e. secret or dishonest activities), many parents’ once-loving relationships are utterly destroyed, and replaced by deep seated resentments and even fierce hatred, “inciting” (or should I say “inviting” or even, encouraging) many mothers to exploit their position as custodial parents receiving Destroyed Family Tax payments, to use that money purely and solely for their own pleasure. They use it as a way to continue hurting the father of their children, rubbing acid deep into the wounds. Further, they often continue to use all the other anti-family, anti-male legislation this country so loves, to deny, disrupt, minimise and prevent “access” between the father and his children. (I know it’s now called “contact” but it’s only marginally less demeaning a term, so let’s be real about it. They chose the word “access” as a way to depersonalise the relationship and its importance, and hey, they have succeeded.)

    So, my question is, why should a father, who would willingly have had his children 30, 40 or even 50 percent of the time, (and who even requested that but was denied it on completely spurious griounds), and who would have paid his share and more, be forced to pay for children who are, in reality, no longer his, that he can barely see, and whose relationships with same have been systematically, deliberately and unceremoniously destroyed, continue paying money that the mother will simply squander on her own luxuries purely to spite him?



    If so many fathers no longer bother paying Child Support, it makes perfect sense to me. But if many fathers no longer care about their children, why is that?

    One thing that has amazed me, in all the years I have now been involved in this disgraceful regime, is just how much fathers do love their children. I can understand how mothers, who carry their babies in their wombs, feel so attached to their children, but what I don’t understand is why so many fathers have so much real, palpable love for them. We all know that love is good. The fact that so much love is being systematically destroyed by the New Zealand Government surely reveals it as an agent of evil?

    Why should I support something so evil? Think about that!

    Isn’t it true that you only continue to pay, to save yourself the trouble of having to fight for what is right? Jonathan Baker, I suggest you climb down from your moral high horse and take a closer look at the whole purpose of the “Child Support” legislation, and the situations of those fathers who now refuse to pay.

    Isn’t the whole “Child Support Debt” issue just ANOTHER way
    to discredit men as a gender?

    Have you noticed the recent rise in anti-male advertising in NZ? Did you see the ads about the empty toilet roll, suggesting that men are so lazy and irresponsible that they can’t even replace the empty roll?

    It’s about time Herman Greer spoke up, I think. Or is he too busy simply “making money”?


    Comment by Anonymouse — Wed 2nd January 2008 @ 12:50 pm

  12. We must fight against it all, the government is just screwing dads to save money

    Comment by Perseus — Wed 2nd January 2008 @ 10:00 pm

  13. There is a cell phone available in New Zealand at the moment which comes with a ring tone, ‘women’. When you select it your phone rings whine-whine, or perhaps wine-wine.
    I mention this because of the toilet roll comment above. Inter-gender tit for tat is a distraction that masks more subversive and destructive suggestion and imagery.

    We often hear the term fatherless society, and on observation it is, but on analysis it is a de-fathered society. The absent father is a deliberate consequence. Now take the word absent, elsewhere, missing, away without excuse. Yes in some cases, but how many are not absent, but excluded fathers. Deadbeat dads or downtrodden and desperate dads. Fatherless children or children raised under state enforced parental segregation.

    Child support is a culture of misinformation and obfuscation which allows women to live without accountability or responsibility for their behaviour and without accountability for the consequences for those children involved.

    In terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of the “child support” administration, it succeeds more in the punishment of those that are excluded rather than inclusion of those that are absent.

    Who is responsible for this mess? Right now it is Peter Dunne. Would I hang him for it? No, I would put a rope around his neck and dangle him 6 inches off the ground, so his last lesson in life would be desperation exclusion and slow suffocation, something similar to his political contribution to family and society in New Zealand.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 3rd January 2008 @ 9:31 am

  14. We have just found out that my husband’s ex wife ‘does cashies’ at home on top of receiving c/support $1k pm from us, income from her minimal hrs she CHOOSES to work AND ‘top up’s from Aunty Helen. We have 50/50 shared care (so shouldnt the govt force her to go and get fulltime employment now like my husband and I need to, to survive)… and are still forced to pay her $1k a month…oh and the great news is that figure will be going up in April 08!!! So how does one let the govt know she is ‘ripping’ the system off………..pretty hard to prove when the cash isnt going into her account????? We receive $62 a mth off her for c/support…Id like to see what the true figure would be if she declared ALL her income….In fact we are not interested in her money…..all we want is for no c/support to be paid – but the costs of having the children are ours/hers when they are in our care……seems so logical – YEAH RIGHT

    Comment by Karen — Thu 3rd January 2008 @ 4:05 pm

  15. Of course, what Mark Miller fails to mention is that the big screen tv a separated father buys will be enjoyed by his children when they come to stay with him. He tries to provide some incentives to keep his children keen to visit, because he knows their mother might seize upon any reluctance on their part in order to sabotague the father-child relationship and the access arrangement. And if he wants them to spend meaningful time with him he has to keep a house with children’s bedrooms just as the mother does, yet he has to pay for her extra rooms as well as his own.

    That is one of the main failings of the current spousal support system. The contributions the father makes to the children are treated as irrelevant. In fact, if he is too generous to them this can be used as evidence that he isn’t paying enough spousal support and that he should be ordered to pay more than the IRD formula assessed him to pay.

    A better lifestyle for either parent will directly benefit children if those children spend significant time with both parents. So-called ‘deadbeat dads” who refuse, for philosophical or other reasons, to co-operate with this state-enforced slavery in favour of women, often contribute extensively to their children. Any increase in what they have to pay the state or their children’s mothers will reduce what they are able to provide directly to their children. Consistent with slavery, their contribution is then hidden, taken for granted and not attributed to their own labour. Their children fail to recognise the father’s contribution because it seems to be the mother who is spending the money. In some cases, mothers do not spend much of the money on their children at all and it would have been much better for those children if the father simply bought their clothes etc rather than providing money for the mother to do so.

    As has long been recommended to the deaf ears of feminist government, most problems related to spousal support would be overcome with a policy of rebuttable shared care. As well, this would reduce family break ups both directly (because the prospect of sharing care would counter some of the aims of those seeking to separate) and indirectly (because both parents would be expected to earn their own living). In this arrangement there is little need for spousal support. If one parent has more resources than the other, the children will benefit fully regardless.

    Recently I discussed the problems of the DPB system with some acquaintances and I suggested that a stand-down period for the DPB (except when the primary child-rearer has been financially abandoned by the primary earner, or where there has been recent proven domestic physical violence) might reduce the incentive the DPB provides to break up families unnecessarily. One woman in my group saw that as “punishing” those who want to escape marriages when they are unhappy. Of course there’s no punishment, just a somewhat higher hurdle for those intending to trash their children’s family units. However, the discussion highlighted a currently accepted feminist reasoning: “I am unhappy, therefore the state should pay me to live.” I’m often unhappy myself, so under this reasoning I should also be able to discard my current source of income and expect the state to pay me. But in fact if I do leave my unhappy job the state will impose a long stand-down period before they pay me any unemployment benefit, and even then they will asset-test me first. I now realise that I am being badly punished. Everyone who is unhappy should be paid a living by the state, right?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 7th January 2008 @ 12:58 pm

  16. Karen, like you are finding, the CS does not allow for those parents who have 50/50 care of their children. We get the minimal $62 from her, and have to pay $200 to her pm. Why? My husband is still considered the “non-custodial parent” despite the fact that we have his son weekabout.
    Things may change very soon as she is supposedly going out into the workforce. However, the money grabber still wants to go through the IRD just in case we are considered to be earning more than she is and then she can still get money out of us. It’s like having to pay twice, we pay our share to look after his son and then we still have to pay for her.
    Here’s hoping the smug ex ends up owing us some money, wouldn’t that make a pleasant change?!
    Men are still getting penalised whatever they do. How can the IRD possibly say that the child/ren require more money when in the mother’s care when we pay the same, no more, than she does for his upkeep. We don’t get all the extra top-ups from Aunty Helen, so we are actually worse off than the ex, having to pay the full amount for everything inc childcare, housing, etc. We would rather not have to pay anything, but that is not our choice, it is still down to her if she wishes to sign the form to tell IRD that she is prepared to give up our hard earned cash.
    The whole system is so very wrong.

    Comment by pomcat — Mon 7th January 2008 @ 1:23 pm

  17. Pomcat – IRD also say there are so many dads out their defaulting and/or not having contact with their children. Why would dad’s have more contact (like 50/50) when they still have to pay out so much each week AND have the same costs as the mother when the children are in their care…if IRD looked at being fairer(esp in 50/50 cases) then this would help the kids out immensely because the dad’s wouldnt be penalised (thru c/support) for spending more time with them. It would make these mother’s who sit back and happily collect from Aunty Helen & the ‘ex husbands/partners get into the real world and get a job!!Mind you the ex Im dealing with thought it would be a good idea for my husband and I to purchase another house that when she had the kids for a week she could live in it and when we had them for the week we could live in it…..OH and I bet ya she wasnt going to help pay for the mtg…..Her mentality has a lot to be desired.Its amazing these poor guys leave or have been left yet they still have to pay for their mistake of ever meeting these bitter women.

    Comment by Karen — Mon 7th January 2008 @ 2:43 pm

  18. The following is just a small sample of the softer subversive abuse used by the FEMNAZI soldiers in enforcing their oppression.

    Using female police officers to harass fathers when they pick their children up from school.

    Ficticious reports to the Police FEMBOTS.

    Manipulating school children and sports team members to victimise your children.

    IRD stealing all of your bank account funds even though your child support is fully paid. Then holding those funds.

    Refusing to allow you to see any reports.

    Teachers victimising your children.

    Repeatedly, blocking bank accounts and false accusations of fraud.

    Endless media repressing men and boys to eternal blokedom (this is the kiwi way).

    All this while I was the primary care giver, paying for most of the children’s expenses plus having at least $1400 (net) deducted from my pay each fortnight.

    But then my ex is a long serving IRD Manager and this is the Women’s Republic of New Zealand.

    I protected the children from all of this so that they could continue to have a good childhood. Inevitabily, after five years I am now broke (the IRD keep looking for money that doesn’t exist) and I haven’t been allowed any contact with the children for well over a year now.

    I shouldn’t have expected any better given the sick actions of my own mother.

    Comment by Peter — Mon 7th January 2008 @ 5:47 pm

  19. One thing that the IRD havn’t taken into account is the rising cost of fuel.We live in a rural area and already my husband is spending $100 a week for petrol to get to work.If he was to retire now we would be debt free and be more comfortably off collecting from Aunty Helen.
    It’s not too hard to find a bit of cash on the side these days either.
    It may not be from a job that a man likes,but to exist he needs money to survive.
    When money is stolen from men’s wages,they are left with no other choice than to be as dishonest as those who steal from them.

    Comment by rosie — Mon 7th January 2008 @ 7:43 pm

  20. Hans your comments were spot on.
    I know how much we all loathe the IRD but can you tell us why ex wives are so bitter and why they have a need to involve the IRD when some of them were already receiving child support through private agreements?
    What is wrong with a woman who tosses her husband out for no reason apart from the fact that she is bored,and then stirs holy shit when he meets someone else?
    Months ago I had to change my cell phone number because of the abusive text messages from my husband’s ex,now I am going to have to change our land line number.The cards that we had printed for our future B&B have now had to be thrown out.That is money that we can ill afford,wasted.

    Comment by rosie — Tue 8th January 2008 @ 6:54 pm

  21. I have just obtained shared care and have been working out my future budget. My conclusion is that by the time i pay Petrol (90km pd), Child Care and Child Support, i will be better off unemployed, when i will no longer have to pay those 3 things. The mothers have the choice to do just that. Is that the best course to follow ? What do other Dads think ?

    Comment by perseus — Wed 9th January 2008 @ 2:53 pm

  22. I’m not a dad but my advice for you would be to go on the DPB.
    You’ll get accommodation assistance,rates relief,soon electricity relief,a food parcel when you need it. The list goes on and on.
    Why should fathers have to work anymore?
    There are plenty of women out there who can do their jobs for them now.Helen has made sure of that.So let them work their arses off and enjoy the quality time that you have with your children at their expense.

    Comment by rosie — Wed 9th January 2008 @ 6:43 pm

  23. Perseus – but you might find WINZ very reluctant to give you the DPB for shared care. Certainly, as long as I can remember WINZ has given the DPB to the mother but not the father even in shared care. I recall some recent policy change allowing both parents to get the DPB, but I would appreciate it if you made enquiries and let us know how you got on.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 10th January 2008 @ 1:35 am

  24. The recent policy change that Hans mentions is a small window. The basic rule is whoever gets on DPB first gets the benift. What was reluctantly changed by WINZ is what they call “Split custody”. This is when one child is with one parent and anothetr with the other. Then (and reluctantly after high court and Humans rights comission legal action) two parents can both be on DPB.

    The offical rule is 60% care for DPB (and hence no shared care and lower child support for daddy). With 50-60% care the WINZ Office Manager has discretion but Daddy’s need to push very hard for it to be exercised in their favour.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 10th January 2008 @ 9:22 pm

  25. I have been advised to work part-time, not working in the time that I have care of my daughters. This will reduce my petrol costs, child care and child support costs. Another thing is that the ex-wife (on DPB) will have to pay ME child support directly, but I will pay child support to IRD ! I almost fell off my chair when i heard that. I will get all the usual subsidies, accommodation, working family’s tax credit etc , so i expect to be ONLY a little worse off but will be able to spend full time with girls when they are in my care! Certainly better off financially than if working full-time with the high associated costs, all i have to do now is to persuade my employers.

    Comment by perseus — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 9:38 am

  26. Thanks for that information Allan. It certainly seems to be an example of institutionalized sexism. Although a few fathers might be the first to get on the DPB, existing social conventions mean that it will almost always be women who get in first. Then, if a father wants to get the DPB he has to have the children 60% of the time while their mother only needs to have them 41% of the time in order to maintain her entitlement. And I would bet that if a father were receiving the DPB and the mother then applied because she had commenced 50:50 shared care, there would be a good chance she would be put on the DPB and the father removed from it. After a long struggle by any such father prepared and able to mount an effective correspondence campaign, WINZ might eventually concede they made an administrative error but somehow the mother would still get the DPB.

    By the way, it seems that DPB beneficiaries typically receive a lot more in the way of accomodation and other supplements than do other beneficiaries. Is this correct?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 12:04 pm

  27. I know that we look to what is in the best of ourselves as parents when we break-up. It is only natural and I think if people are saying they are putting the children first; they are lying. Not outright but somewhere in the back of the mind comes the rule of survival.

    For my time on this site I started seeing the other parent’s view and started caring for him also. After all 2 parents and children is a family no matter what the circumstances. And after all, we chose this other parent for some benefit.

    For some time it seemed unfair but I stuck in their being nice and working as a team more than saying, “Hey, this is your responsibility” or “Hey, you wanted this last week but this week you don’t and if you want it make your mind up” or “Hey, you are not doing your side of the bargain”.

    But then after this time and yes it has taken time things have come together better than ever. Dad, Mum and both children are well physically, mentally and spiritually. I can be jealous and say to myself or bitch to others that I don’t have what he has because I made more sacrafice but as a team the children get far more in the long run now.

    If parents could get over thinking in just the short run and started thinking about the long run the children will benefit. After all, that is the responsibility we have.

    Anyhow, just my 2 cents worth. And BTW, you have to be able to bitch to others. That is what gets you through and stops the relationship from being contaminated and deteriorating.

    Comment by julie — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 12:07 pm

  28. What annoys me is how the system discrimates against full time working fathers (and some mothers too, it has to be said), men pay 66% of the tax in NZ, although they are 50% of the workforce.
    It seems mad that my income will be significantly more if I have 50% of my current salary (taking into account child support, child care)

    Comment by perseus — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 12:14 pm

  29. Perseus you need to take great care in reducing your income. IRD reserve the right to leave your child suport unchanged. If she applies for an admin review against you that is an almost certain expectation. Perhaps consult Scrap or myself before you take any actions that may end up costing you significantly.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 12:49 pm

  30. I would not be “deliberately” reducing my income, it would be simply because I have no choice, in order to look after the daughters ! It is a factor imposed on me, would this not be acceptable, the advisor who suggested this, said it would be OK

    Comment by perseus — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 1:42 pm

  31. I had a talk to WINZ today. They have been working on something for fathers over the last few years and it seems that they are ahead of themselves. They said that things would not be in place for a few more years but they are giving fathers the same DPB as mothers for shared parenting now.

    Comment by julie — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 6:56 pm

  32. So when a man dies through natural causes or kills himself because of the way he is being hounded by the IRD,who pays his child support?

    Comment by rosie — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 7:30 pm

  33. Julie, Don’t be fooled by WINZ their rules are still that only one parent can be on DPB. I attempted to push that issue with an Integrated services co-ordinator on Wedneswday and she said there was no movement on existing policy.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 9:31 pm

  34. Re Item 30. You should be Ok lowering income for that purpose but it really depends how vexatious your ex wants to get and who the review officer you get lumbered with.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 11th January 2008 @ 9:34 pm

  35. Allan, I was also down at WINZ today discussing it after I read a comment here. . I think different people in different departments know different things. Gee, that sounds funny. I knew they were looking into something but they were looking at a solution a few years from now along with IRD.

    But what is an Integrated service co-ordinator? Sounds important.

    I know who would know. The budget advisors. I think it might be worth while double checking since we are both receiving different answers.

    Comment by julie — Sat 12th January 2008 @ 12:03 am

  36. Integrated Service Co-ordinator is a WINZ officer who helps disfunctional families with children. They link Police, Women’s Refuge, Union of Fathers (in Kapiti anyway, Housing NZ, IRD, CYPS, Mental Health, local GP’s, and Integretity Services (WINZ’s fraud department). They can bend WINZ rules to their maximum extent and provide intense support. For example they try to have a policy of seeing clients that same day rather than the normal appointment system. They can also help by driving people around different agencies or bringing the agencies together at the WINZ office for meetings a bit like strengthening familes but at earlier intervention stages.

    An example that has been told to me is a woman drawing a DPB for several years who gets refered by Police or Women’s Refuge for a DV matter with her partner of several years. The Integrated Service Co-ordinator arranges with Integrity Services that her illegally obtained benefit for the past few years doesn’t get chased up too quickly for the “undeclared partner”. Seemed to me to be a complete lack of integrity to the poor taxpayer I thought but never mind.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 12th January 2008 @ 11:46 am

  37. Wow.

    An example that has been told to me is a woman drawing a DPB for several years who gets refered by Police or Women’s Refuge for a DV matter with her partner of several years. The Integrated Service Co-ordinator arranges with Integrity Services that her illegally obtained benefit for the past few years doesn’t get chased up too quickly for the “undeclared partner”. Seemed to me to be a complete lack of integrity to the poor taxpayer I thought but never mind.

    Since when did they start doing this. I have never once heard of this particular situation happening. But yeah, that is someone pretty important.

    I guess she is on the board of Women’s refuge and CYFS also. hehehe

    So what are you getting for fathers in shared care situations?

    Comment by julie — Sat 12th January 2008 @ 4:28 pm

  38. I think we all agree that some families need help no matter what the fraud comitted but let me speculate that such fraud is commented at a ration of 10:1 female to male. I understand the Integrated Services Positions are a new feature of WINZ’s range of positions.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 12th January 2008 @ 11:36 pm

  39. I understand the Integrated Services Positions are a new feature of WINZ’s range of positions.

    It might have a new name or some new jobs to do but I doubt much that fraud is caught through women’s refuges. Or through the police or even through CYFS unless you have a ruthless case worker.

    Women’s refuge would not do it because it would keep the clients away. The majority of clients would be coming from troubled families as you say and that means families on benefits and such. Drug and alcohol problems and gang problems.

    Comment by julie — Sun 13th January 2008 @ 4:33 am

  40. You can find out information about the DPB at Winz’s website.
    Usually only one parent can get the DPB.
    You can get the DPB if you are not being adequately maintained by a partner or are a woman alone aged 50 or over.
    You can also get a training incentive allowance.
    It doesn’t mention anything about men who are over 50.They must have to wait until they are 65 and qualify for super.That will be 67 soon and if Helen could have her way it would be 80.

    Comment by rosie — Sun 13th January 2008 @ 7:59 am

  41. Rosie, this bit is interesting.

    You can get the DPB if you are not being adequately maintained by a partner or are a woman alone aged 50 or over.

    I know a single mother who had her benefit cut off once her youngest child left school who is in her mid 50’s. They said she could not get the DPB any more and now she really struggles.

    But I know a single father who is going to be happy to hear this is still available. His youngest son has just turned 17 and he is early 50’s and was looking forward to this. I thought it was scrapped through the single mother’s experience. And I do believe that Don Brash wanted this scrapped from the last elections.

    Personally, I do not see WINZ discriminating against fathers on DPBs who have full time day to day care or the most and they do not discriminate if there are 2 or more children and the mother and father have one child each. It is when they each have 50/50 care that is the problem. They both need a home and furniture and food and so forth to care for that child.

    And I do see fathers losing out having 50% care because mothers need to have 60% to be on a benefit. Or vice versa. However, I do know that they can make other arrangements for these situations. I will find out more about both parents on DPBs with one child tomorrow and let you know. Not everything that goes on is on their website.

    Comment by julie — Sun 13th January 2008 @ 10:02 am

  42. The only way to have both parents on a DPB is for what WINZ call split custody.
    That needs two kids, one where mum has custody and the other where dad has custody. It is a very unusual situation and WINZ resist having two parents on DPB very very actively.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 13th January 2008 @ 11:51 am

  43. Julie

    Do you know of any cases where shared care is happening and that IRD have agreed that no money now needs to be passed to each parent.My husband and I work fulltime. My husband’s ex ‘chooses’ to work minimal hrs, thanks to ‘top up’s her 20 hrs of wk each week and our c/support of $260 a week. Weve heard it all before if we get a letter from the other party to say she doesnt want our money then IRD will stop it……We have more chance of winning lotto (and thats very slim) than having a bitter woman sign to say she no longer wants to accept our payslip… We have now been informed she does ‘cashies’ at home as a hairdresser…bet IRD wouldnt give a rats if we told them!!! The kids ARE the most important people here….it isnt their fault for the parents split and family break down etc however we feel we could do more with them etc if we didnt pay out so much a month when we had them ALSO for 2 weeks of that month!!!!

    Comment by Karen — Sun 13th January 2008 @ 5:21 pm

  44. Hi Karen,

    CS is not my area and I would be kidding myself to think I could help with the Act side.

    But what I am seeing is people unable to sort these things out themselves and I can’t quite figure why so many? I remember when I was young and my boyfriends friend had a child come to the door to reach out to his father who knew nothing of him until that day. The wife of this guy was beside herself. What should she do?, she asked.

    Well, it was not for her to choose. That was a relationship previous to her.

    If these children are what is most important then I would suggest you all start getting along. Maybe you can’t see it in yourself but this situation seems to be making you also bitter and you need to ask yourself what that is about. I am sure it is not intentional but maybe if you worked on you things will rub off on her. I am yet to find a person who was born bitter.

    And what about the piggie in the middle of all this? Is he also bitter?

    Sorry to be so blunt but I do want for you to have a good life. So she doesn’t live the right life in your eyes. So what? She is the mother of your partners children. Maybe you are going to need to get clever because things don’t look to change in the short run.

    Maybe after the next elections some of the men can start changing a few things to suit fathers. It might be a good idea for you to vote Republicans.

    Comment by julie — Mon 14th January 2008 @ 4:49 am

  45. Julie

    Thanks for your comments. Getting along IS ALL WE WANT!!!! even just being civil when she drops the children off to my husband would be a BONUS!!!! That way they dont have to be ‘included’ in the nastiness. As for my life, I have a loving husband 4 wonderful children (2 step children and 2 of my own) and I have a great ex husband ….You are right, the children ARE the important people in this ugly equation…Thankfully my husband and I have a great relationship with my exhusband. He and I make sure our children have 2 loving homes even though mum and dad no longer live in the same house. We attend school sports,school trips and bdays together. He lives in Rot and us in TGA and every ftn the children spend a weekend with him. He picks them up Fri and I go and collect them Sun and we usually have a coffee before we leave… you a preaching to the converted when you say ‘you should all try getting along’ We encourage the kids about their dad and vice versa and I cannot see why this shouldnt happen in all separations.. Our kids are paramount over and above all the bitterness etc that parents go thru in a divorce etc. I was talking to my 9 yr old son about a month ago. We were talking about one of his school mates and how his parents were too divorced. I said to him how nice it was that the mum and dad came and supported him at sport and how they got on so well..and he said mum ‘Yeah and you and dad get on really well too’ and you know what how prouder can you be as a parent when your child acknowledges that!!! Im not bitter, I feel sorry for her and for ‘piggie’ in the middle he says to me and you wonder why I left…. all we want is equality when it comes to child support and 50/50 shared care cases.

    Comment by Karen — Mon 14th January 2008 @ 9:01 am

  46. Julie you are being very blunt and very rude.Karen and her husband(the piggie in the middle)are obviously caring parents who want the best for their children.Karen isn’t bitter.She’s angry about the unfairness of the CS act where both her and her husband are working long hours to support his ex wife’s life style.
    As for telling people that they should try to get along…Have you ever had to try to get along with Attila the Hun the second?
    Even the counsellor who my husband and his ex saw when they were seperating,described her as “A nasty piece of works and I have never met anyone like her in my life”
    I know it is sad for children to be in this situation but it is also hard on my husband and myself.
    I have told him that if I’d known what she was like,I would never have married him.All I wish for is to once again have a peaceful life.

    Comment by rosie — Mon 14th January 2008 @ 10:01 am

  47. Hey Rosie

    Maybe our husband’s ex’s are sisters……:-)

    Comment by Karen — Mon 14th January 2008 @ 11:23 am

  48. They are very similar Karen.A bit like those two sisters of Cinderella.

    Comment by rosie — Mon 14th January 2008 @ 7:42 pm

  49. Hi Rosie, You say I am being blunt. And yet you say I am being rude.

    Do you want me to not be blunt? Why would you want less from me. How can I help anyone at all if I lie.

    You can help me understand a few things and hopefully Karen can help too. Both of you are in a relationship with a male who has an ex and with children.

    How did you not know the bitterness or ugliness of this parent? How did you get into these relationships without meeting the ex?

    Comment by julie — Mon 14th January 2008 @ 8:46 pm

  50. Hi Julie
    Of course I met my husband’s ex and she told me how nice it was to meet me.But what I failed to see was the knife in her hand aimed at my back.I never realised what lengths a sick and twisted woman would go to to try to destroy the relationship of a man that she no longer wanted but didn’t want anyone else to have either.
    You can’t help anyone if you have no understanding of the wrath of a woman scorned.

    Comment by rosie — Mon 14th January 2008 @ 9:17 pm

  51. Hi Rosie,
    Your story is is not rare. This happens a lot. My ex has a girlfriend and I let them stay overnight at my house once in the lounge on a mattress. I couldn’t sleep as this was an awkward situation for me. I noticed it was not easy for my ex either. Anyhow, I went out and came home just before the children woke up the next day. But I like her. We get along well and respect each other as mother and step mother. The kids like her a lot too especially her cooking.

    I do understand how hard it is for you and for Karen. Yet I can’t help but wonder if there is any way to resolve it without both females seeming to be in a boxing ring.

    After all, IRD is not looking to change soon.

    Comment by julie — Tue 15th January 2008 @ 10:46 am

  52. Julie

    For 4 yrs Ive been civil to this person – so her children could see a healty interaction between their mum and step mother.Unfortunately her bitterness has always got in front of that and the continual hate for my husband rares its ugly head daily.People kept saying when she finds another partner she will be happy and will change – well she found a partner and he left her too (prob because her life was consumed with hate for her ex husband) I was once told by a psychologist to stop hoping she will change because she wont…so here’s to 2008. A new year and a new thought process… When she turns up at my door and cannot even say hello – Karen is no longer the peace maker and the first to say hello – I cant be bothered. as far as Im concerned as long as my family are happy then thats all one wants in life. My children also have a great step mum who loves them dearly and takes very good care of them when they visit them in Rot. She luvs to cook and her and the kids made us and my parents cookies for Xmas. I too could be like my husband’s ex and be bitter and nasty to my ex and his lady – not send clothes to his house when he has the kids, demand xtra money over above the c/s he gives the children, make life difficult in when he can and cannot see them and the ultimate sin ‘talk badly about my ex in front of our children’ but whats the point life’s too short and too much effort to be bitter and twisted. In the kids eyes both parents should be put on a pedestal no matter what happened in their relationship.

    Comment by Karen — Tue 15th January 2008 @ 12:05 pm

  53. I am sure that you are more content and at peace with yourself than the bitter ex who is still consumed with hate. Well done Karen you are doing the right thing, it is her who will come off worst (shouldn’t that be obvious to her too ?)

    Comment by perseus — Tue 15th January 2008 @ 12:57 pm

  54. I agree with Perseus. She will be her own worst enemy.

    You sound like a good person Karen and have tried and tried. We had one female who was bitter in our group and she has never returned after hearing our views. She lived with a guy and he didn’t want a baby because he already had a few from his last relationship. He broke off the relationship because she insisted on having a baby and somehow she deliberately became pregnant. She was adamant she was gong to take him for as much as she could. In her eyes, “How dare he. She was entitled to a child from him for going out with him”.

    I hope that other females step up and tell your partners ex off. She needs a good serving of reality.

    Comment by julie — Tue 15th January 2008 @ 8:11 pm

  55. I am amazed by reading this.All these years I thought that guy Mark Miller was some kind of normal lawyer,independent of the IRD and gave people a fair hearing.When he interviewed me in 2003 he totally ignored everything i told him.I showed him doctors certificates etc of how I had been unable to work.He decided I should have to pay CS on $60,000 when I had earnt about $10,000 that year.He failed to mention the doctors certificates in his report.The next year 2004 I got him again and was abusive.He made the same decision again and again refused to mention the certificates.Because of that I am still on their books owing money which I have no ability or intention to pay.It makes me feel so much better to have found that others have had similar experiences with this guy.
    I have unconditional love for Mark and trust that when he reads these comments about him he will make changes.I am sure that he is a good person deep down but just suffers from lack of information.

    Comment by whanga — Fri 21st March 2008 @ 5:56 pm


    There is a Test Case about to take place in the High Court Wellington on Monday 31 March and Tuesday 1 April 2008 which if lost will give IRD the power to make assessments based on assets not income and a claim were Admin Review claims could be made retrospective.

    This case is being driven by IRD and Crown Law, Maria Deligiannis and her team.
    IRD/Crown Law even paid the $2700 court useage fees.

    I or someone else will post more details about this High Court Case later, but this could make National News.
    All this has been happening over the past two years and started from an Admin Review.


    Comment by Agrieved Father — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 12:51 pm

  57. Can we get some other groups into this case as parties or is it too late?
    The precedent that assetts need to be used to gain income is well established by Review and presumably court test cases but the concept that assett alone is fair game is a new one for them to try on.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 2:15 pm

  58. Allan,

    Call me for details


    Most dangerous aspect to this case is the attempt to get a precedent for retrospective departure orders. Combined with IRD’s power to initiate admin reviews, retrospective departure orders are really worrying.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 3:14 pm

  59. Allan, you may possibly involve uof with the courtcase through a matter of public interest.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 5:01 pm

  60. I have just heard that if this case goes in favour of Katherine Ellery and the IRD there may be a National incident affecting parties involved.

    Comment by Agrieved Father — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 6:28 pm

  61. Is the subject of Mark Miller still open for debate?
    IRD have just been sent a response to an Admin Review he did in October. He is the devil incarnate. How has he been able to remain in this role for this long?
    He makes his own rules up and thinks that he can make calls on situations that are still under litigation in the family court.

    Comment by Toni — Wed 22nd December 2010 @ 8:17 pm

  62. Yes Toni, Mark Miller is still at it. He has been doing reviews for two of our members and has taken to secretly recording the reviews because his reputation is so poor and there have been so many complaints made against him. This of course is not only quite improper but a breach of illegal ethics as a practising solicitor.

    We woujld suggest you write to Inland Revenue seeking under the Official Information Act the number of complaints which have been made against Mark Miller so we can put this information out there. Looking at this individual there is a history of complaints about him dating back many years. So many people cannot be all wrong.

    – JB for GerryMen.

    Comment by GerryMen — Tue 23rd August 2011 @ 7:31 pm

  63. I have just had a review from Mr Miller. He assessed my income at close to $200k. And he backdated it. So I have 30 days to find a lot of money. And no, I don’t make that much money. I had one good year 3 years ago – and that’s what he focused on.

    He calculated the mothers income based on what she told him. But for me he dug up every IRD record he could find.

    He made stuff up in the report. Like saying that the poor mother had to soldier on in the face of great hardship and it is a testament to her courage that she managed. Right – she travels to Europe most years and has a lot more wealth than most.

    I think he is probably a failed lawyer and this is probably the only type of work he can get.

    I am going to pursue this through the courts and discredit him. He’s dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this type of thing considering the damage he can do to peoples lives.

    Comment by The Devil — Sat 4th February 2012 @ 4:13 pm

  64. Reply to # 63. Devil, I suggest you make contact with Jim Bagnall at the Men’s Centre North Shore or better still, go to a meeting this Monday night. A link to the address is in the “Support for men” box at the top right of the page. Jim had a recent metting with Mark Miller and I’m sure he would be happy to relay it to you.

    Comment by golfa — Sat 4th February 2012 @ 6:28 pm

  65. Thanks golfa – much appreciated. I will contact Jim.

    Comment by The Devil — Sun 5th February 2012 @ 1:35 pm

  66. With regards to Mark Miller, he is a maggot. He behaves like God and abuses his power. We should take some time to take him out of the system so that he does not do any harm to anyone else any more. I know how you all feel because I have also had him as my administrative review officer, it was bad news. He will not listen and his report was full of crap. How did he ever last for so long in the system? Did we all allow him to be there? If you have an issue with this miller, write to the IRD Complaint Department. If we all write in together, the numbers will tell the bosses in IRD that he is a problem, I assure you they will listen. Because he interviewed us and he is paid by the government (public servant), there is some connection there as if we actually pay him. As his client, we can complain to the Law Society. Together we stand, divided, he has an upper hand because he is an arrogant lawyer. All the best people. Go for it!!! Justice prevails!

    Comment by John — Wed 29th February 2012 @ 2:42 pm

  67. Mr Miller is clearly incompetent. He is obviously biased and this affects his ability to do his job.

    In the review I had he missed important facts that were clearly laid out to him but he either deliberately chose to ignore them or he just didnt read the material provided. Either way it is unacceptable.

    We wouldn’t accept someone in real estate making obvious or deliberate mistakes. Or a lawyer or accountant. And we shouldn’t accept someone in Mr Millers position doing this either.

    Those days are over and now Mr Miller needs to be exposed for the shoddy practitioner that he is.

    Based on what people are saying and my own experience he is ruining peoples lives through either bias or incompetence. He appears to be operating under the assumption that he can get away with it time and time again without any repercussions.

    Not anymore.

    The time has come for Mr Miller to be exposed and the time is right for a campaign to show his shoddy practices to the IRD and to all concerned. I have decided to start this process and I am not going to rest until it is done.

    Mr Miller operates by knowing that most of the people he targets don’t have the resources or energy to do anything about it. Most people are under immense stress from breaking up, from going out of business and can barely survive. I’m in a fortunate position where I have time, motivation, connections and resources. And so this is my next project.

    Mr Miller, I know you read this site. I want you to know that this person is committed to exposing your incompetence. Legally of course. But this person will not rest until you are exposed for the fraud you are. Promise.

    The time will come when I will look for support from people interested in joinng me.

    The devil

    Comment by The devil — Wed 29th February 2012 @ 9:01 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