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

Duplicitous Dunne’s Smoke and Mirrors

Filed under: General,Men's Health — blamemenforall @ 11:01 am Thu 14th August 2008

The United Future (UF) policy is in some ways positive. Legal recognition of the concept of a “presumption of shared parenting” after separation is a step forward. Acknowledgement is welcome of the growing research showing that fatherlessness is perpetuated through current family law but is very bad for children. Those who have slaved away for years in he men’s and fathers’ movement need to pat themselves on the back because some of their efforts have trickled in to wider awareness.

However, published details so far show UF is hardly moving in the direction that fathers know will be better for children and for society.

For example, the “shared parenting” proposal does not equate to a presumption of equal shared care as called for by fathers’ groups. (In fact, Judy Turner gets it quite wrong when she claims that “sole custody” is granted. The concept of “custody” is no longer a part of the law and at present both parents remain guardians regardless of the amount of time the child spends between them. The current presumption is already shared care but “primary day-to-day care” is usually awarded to the mother and fathers are otherwise too readily restricted from children’s lives.) Without specifying equal share care, the UF policy is likely to mean, even when there are no allegations of risk, that mum gets 70% and Dad 30%, still enabling mum to be the only parent receiving the DPB and all child tax. Little different from the present situation.

Even more importantly, it’s easy for United Future to add “unless there are good reasons why it should not be”, without specifying the reasons that might be seen as sufficient to disallow shared care. The Republic of NZ Party policy specifies there should be limited grounds and these should impose high goal posts. For example, allegations of violence or other behaviour presenting an unacceptable risk will need to be recent, significant and proven beyond reasonable doubt before they can be allowed to influence this decision. Even serious parental mental illness or addiction will need to be shown to present an actual and serious risk if it is to reduce the time that parent has with the children. The Republicans believe that children need to be protected from injury and abuse, but that the benefits of child-parent bonding outweigh most parental imperfections. The current Kangaroo Court damages parent-child relationships as a default option when allegations are uttered, and is much more ready to accept what women allege and to disregard men’s accounts in line with decades of feminist propaganda. Judy Turner’s policy shows no awareness of what the current problems really are, and without specifying the grounds on which shared care could be disallowed is unlikely to lead to much change.

Similarly, Turner’s call for the Family Court to be allowed to order DNA paternity tests falls well short of the fathers’ demands that DNA testing occur either routinely for all children or on the request of either parent. Giving the Family Court the right to order a test may make little difference if that Court is left to decide whether it will or won’t make such orders, because we know whose wishes the Court will usually pamper and it won’t be the father’s. A law that obliged the Court to order a DNA test on application by either parent would show some real commitment to fathers’ concerns; Turner’s policy does not.

The third policy is even more mealy-mouthed. Calling for a “review” of the child support system could mean anything. In his next breath Duplicitous Dunne happily uses the term “deadbeat dads” (ignoring the fact that liable mothers are more likely than fathers to default), usually fails to mention that child support debt is primarily made up of vicious administrative penalties, and has recently been responsible for changes that allow agents of the state to share more information about fathers and to treat them as criminals without trial at our borders. Any proposed review organized by Dunne seems unlikely to be aimed at improving fathers’ ability to be involved meaningfully in their children’s lives. Indeed, there is no mention of that aim at all by Dunne. Instead, he wants to make the scheme “responsive” to such things as the income levels of both parents and the “costs of raising children”. This is just as likely to make things worse for fathers.

Adding a list of consequences of father absence gives the impression that the policies are aimed at increasing fathers’ roles and becoming fairer to fathers, but this is misleading. The policies are unlikely to achieve those outcomes and don’t actually seem to be designed to do so.

More significantly, no mention is made of keeping families together in the first place. No mention is made of the importance of changing the DPB system in order to stop it encouraging family break-up and fatherless pregnancies. No mention is made of preventing the government from redefining terms such as “family” and “marriage” to mean any group of people who happen to cohabit for a while.

Turner’s claim that her party is “the only party working to make sure children continue to enjoy the support and care of their entire family” is arrogant and wrong. The policies announced are little more than smoke and mirrors and go nowhere near what has to be done to bring about that claimed goal. The Republic of New Zealand Party however is committed to that goal and unlike the Dunne party has policies capable of fulfilling it.


  1. There are a lot of good points there but lets not loose sight of what has been achieved… recognition that things need to change.

    Now we just need to let the public know – send out a press release! I say that to all political parties including UF and the Republic NZ Party.

    Let’s not dismiss the fact that it has come out of the woodwork instead of being cooped up behind governmental doors.


    Comment by Tigerseye — Thu 14th August 2008 @ 11:45 am

  2. united future, no thanks.. (too vague, too clueless, too evil)

    it doesn’t matter what a child may cost to care for, if the liable parent does not have the income, where does the money come from mr dunne ? (i am one that will not ever work again, each to their own though)
    Mr Dunne, you show no concern for the fatherlessness that afflicts NZ children, fuck your money grabbing schemes and get with the programme sir, the real problem is fatherless children, not one being a few dollars out of pocket you moron. Call yourself a christian, then you should know that money is the root of all evil, United Future is a lame duck people. Don’t waste your vote.
    I didn’t want to work. It was as simple as that. I distrusted work, disliked it. I thought it was a very bad thing that the human race had unfortunately invented for itself.

    Agatha Christie (1890-1976)

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 14th August 2008 @ 12:14 pm


    Howabout getting more kids with their dad’s ???
    Gravy Train Court is not the answer..
    International accountability and reporting procedures

    Of these instruments, the three core human rights treaties (ICCPR, CAT and UNCROC) provide for international review by a United Nations committee of experts through a reporting procedure. The committee’s reports provide a measure of how well a country is observing its international obligations.

    The ICCPR also guarantees (in Article 3(a)) that a person is entitled to an effective remedy for a violation of the rights and freedoms in the ICCPR. An Optional Protocol to ICCPR allows individuals to complain directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) about a rights violation if they have exhausted all their domestic options for remedy.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sat 16th August 2008 @ 1:13 am

  4. It seems no coincidence that this policy from the Dunne Party comes a week after the commencement of Dunne’s persecution of alleged child tax defaulters (see Scrap’s posting on 5 August entitled “United Future’s first step to arresting dads at the border”). The fact that this conveniently-timed policy is also hollow and designed to be ineffectual suggests it is mainly a damage control ploy to distract fathers from Dunne’s major assault on their civil liberties, and to try to create a false impression that his party cares a damn about fathers.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 16th August 2008 @ 12:03 pm

  5. yes Hans, a classical “red herring” in the making, the work of the devil, haha, no future… (destination – no where)

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sat 16th August 2008 @ 12:14 pm

  6. Bull,
    I find your comments about homosexuals, transgendered people and CPAG offensive.
    What point is served by your headline to post number 3? To me it just meant I was less likely to read what else you said. We need to argue using reason not emotive language that gets us dismissed as nutters.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Sat 16th August 2008 @ 2:57 pm

  7. “Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.”

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sat 16th August 2008 @ 6:53 pm

  8. To which Don Quixote replied, “Wounds received in battle confer honour instead of taking it away; and so, friend Panza, say no more, but, as i told thee before, get up as well as thou canst and put me on top of thy beast in whatever fashion pleases thee best, and let us go hence ere night come on and surprise us in these wilds.”

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sat 16th August 2008 @ 7:39 pm

  9. However, Hi-Jinx Aside.., Government And The Judiciary Have A Lot To Learn…


    Confucius said in The Analects:
    “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself”. Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sat 16th August 2008 @ 8:10 pm

    I find homosexuals, transgendered people and child poverty offensive, because none of these are in the public interest. I say this because; child poverty need not exist under an elected fit and proper government – so what is Labour up to by promoting such baloney on a government website,
    If you make your self appear as a do gooder, to a problem that need not exist – then it is likely you are just after public support. You are therefore promoting a lie to the public as is exactly what the Labour government of New Zealand has done. In regards to ones sexuality, this is of no importance whatsoever to the general public of New Zealand, somewhat like the Spencer Trust, if you get my drift.
    So, it is about time the journalists of New Zealand confronted the real issues facing New Zealand. Number 1 headline on the New Zealand Herald or the six o’clock news should be “Why are there so many fatherless children in New Zealand today?”
    The answer is because many thousands of New Zealand men are being defamed in the Family Court by means of a lack of real and proper justice, bring on the revolution i say, Boshier and his cronies should look for alternative employment because their nazi like 3rd reich has had it’s day. Constantly every day in New Zealand men’s human rights are being denied by lack of real and proper justice, hearsay..
    (where is reference on to this breach of human rights i say ?)
    Could someone in this country in government explain to me why my son (12 years of age) has been denied any contact with myself for ten years to date. Is that not in the public interest ? No – it isn’t to the Labour government, the Spencer Trust hold’s our gaze as the only item current to the public interest at present.
    However, society is composed of individuals, and the public interest must be calculated with regard to the interests of its members. There is wide-ranging debate about whether the public interest requires or destroys the idea of human rights, about the degree to which the ends of society are the ends of its individual members, and the degree to which people should be able to fulfill their own ambitions even against the public interest. The public interest is a crucial, if ill-defined, concept in much political philosophy.

    United States

    Main article: Hearsay in United States law

    Unless one of the many exceptions applies, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 7:39 am

  11. Hitl-ER / Boshi-ER …

    Comment by incarnate — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 9:03 am

  12. ER (Biblical name)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search

    This article discusses close relatives of Judah. Er is also a name listed by the Gospel of Luke’s version of the genealogy of Jesus.

    In the Biblical Book of Genesis, Er (Hebrew: ???, Standard ?Er Tiberian ??r ; City (?)) was the eldest son of Judah, and is described as marrying Tamar[1]; according to the text, Yahweh killed Er because he was wicked, although it doesn’t give any further details[2]

    Comment by incarnate — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 9:21 am

  13. If there are any pregnant women reading this who want a much better life, and would like justice to come to us poor bastards trying to make sense of this tripe – point your finger at Dunne and announce him the father of your child!

    Let’s face it girls, you would have a wonderfull life living off child support. He can’t deny it and if he did, who would listen? He can’t ask for a DNA test now can he. And best of all he would be spending the next 19 years swallowing his own poison.

    Lets fight fire with fire!!

    Comment by Tigerseye — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 9:59 am

    Open Letter to the Editor 20 July, 2001

    Family Lawyers Write in Support of Family Court
    We are a group of senior family lawyers who practise throughout New Zealand. We view with concern the recent attacks upon the Family Court and the Judges appointed to the Court, much of it ill-founded and ill-informed.

    On 1 October this year the Family Court will have been in existence as a specialist jurisdiction for 20 years. In that time it has established an enviable reputation, not only in New Zealand but internationally. It deals with wide and diverse areas of jurisdiction. It is perhaps significant that it is only in respect of custody and access of children – that criticism is leveled.

    Each of us has had lengthy experience acting as counsel for men, women and children in the resolution of custody and access disputes before the Court. We are members of a specialist bar who of necessity work closely with psychologists, psychiatrists and other professionals in our day-to-day working lives.

    A Family Court Judge is appointed after the most rigorous investigation. It is not our experience that those appointed have preconceived ideas or biases that interfere with their decision-making. Of course there will be occasions when we, as counsel, feel aggrieved about the nature of a decision that we may feel is wrong. That falls far short of a suggestion that the presiding Judge was improperly motivated.

    The expertise of the Courts’ Judges has been well recognised in several judgments of the Court of Appeal and the High Court and led directly to a change to the manner of hearing appeals two years ago. Previously the High Court was required to rehear the case in its entirety. Now an appeal proceeds on the conventional basis of a party needing to demonstrate that the Judge was wrong, or based his or her decision on a wrong legal principle. On many occasions an appeal from the Family Court is heard by a Court of at least two Judges. This in itself is an important constitutional safeguard to those who feel aggrieved by the Family Court process or decision. It would be interesting to know how many of those so vociferously complaining exercised their right of appeal to the High Court – statistics would suggest there are few.

    We are very concerned for those who may need to turn, to the Family Court for support and assistance. We are aware of some people who may have been seriously distressed by what we view as mischievous and misleading statements being published in the media. The facts are these. Last year the Court dealt with 11,300 cases involving the care of children after parents separated. Of that number only 1,150 remained unresolved after the Court had guided parties through a careful counselling and mediation process. Of the 1,150 remaining, a number would have settled before the Court was required to adjudicate.

    The Court is criticized as being “secret”, thereby by implication hiding some sinister truth from the public. The accusation is a useful obsession for some. The truth is that we are not practising in a criminal court. We practise in a Court which regards it as a priority to protect the vulnerable – and none of us feel we should have to defend that principle. The truth also is that a large number of practitioners and Family Court Judges support a liberalising of the rules relating to publication, and we are working towards that. The issue is complicated, however, by a number of factors and deserves careful, not knee-jerk, reaction. In particular the interests of children, whose welfare is the first and paramount consideration of the Court, must be taken into account.

    Groups representing the views of some fathers loudly protest that their place in the family is not appropriately recognised by the Court. In the past it has been a commonly expressed concern that not enough fathers take an active role in their children’s lives. We are therefore delighted that the very important role of fathers is being highlighted. We cannot, however, agree with many of the unmeasured and melodramatic statements which amount to misrepresentation and which serve no useful purpose. In every custody/access case which comes before the Family Court there is scope for consideration of a shared parenting regime. There is nothing particularly new about the concept. Many considerations, however, lead the Court to make an educated decision as to the best arrangement for the child – not the best arrangement for the adults. These considerations include the wishes of the child, the views of the child’s own lawyer, the child psychologist, attachment and bonding issues, the availability of each parent at important times, the age and ability of the child to cope with moving from home to home, the child’s current arrangements and so on. None of these are gender issues – they are issues involving consideration of expert opinion and fact which focus on the child’s needs.

    For some critics the easiest form of attack is personal, and so attention has been turned to individual Judges. Judges have a difficult and, at times, thankless task. They are men and women chosen for their expertise in what is now a very specialised field of work. Each of us would recall cases where we may have thought a Judge “got it wrong”, but it would be difficult to point to a decision which we could conclude was founded on gender bias. As family court lawyers we would never tolerate that approach. The criticism is unfair and self-serving.

    We remain positive about a unique court which we believe is attuned to the best interests of children. Perhaps therein lies the rub – in the business of the Family Court we are not dealing with commercial contracts, traffic offences, or business deals gone wrong – we are dealing with human dynamics and interpersonal relations at a time of high emotional intensity. To those people the Court freely offers counselling assistance – for some, pain is most easily relieved by criticizing the institution which happens to be at the end of the line.

    Anita Chan (Family Law Section Chair) (Dunedin)
    Simon Maude (Deputy Chair) (Wellington)
    David Burns (Auckland)
    Fiona Mackenzie (Tauranga)
    Mary O’Dwyer (Christchurch)
    Maureen Southwick (Auckland)
    Gray Cameron (Auckland)
    Pete O’Donnell (Christchurch)
    Fenella Devlin (Wanganui)
    Anna Skellern (Auckland)
    Norman Elliott (Auckland)
    Deborah Hollings (Auckland)
    Stephen Coyle (Tauranga)
    Stephen McCarthy (Auckland)
    Simon Mitchell (Auckland)
    Rosemary Riddell (Dunedin)
    Adrienne Edwards (Christchurch)
    James Wildling (Christchurch)
    Dorothy Bodgers (Hamilton)
    Penny Clothier (Palmerston North)
    Kathryn Buchanan (Dunedin)

    Welcome to the Family Court propaganda machine, now in the mainstream media. It is probably the finest NZ propaganda machine that ever has been. It is slick, very attractive, and extremely deceptive. It lies with superb confidence. And it kills with a smile on its face.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 10:09 am

  15. Maybe in some cases this letter holds truth. How many NCP’s can afford the costs of going to the FC in the first place let alone going to the high court?

    By hitting the NCP’s in the pocket offering services and options that a large number just can’t afford we can reduce the figure of questionable judgements to around 1,150.

    The less time we get to spend with our children because of the whim and anger of the CP who is supported by the FC, the more out of touch with knowing how to father we become. The less like a father we become, despite efforts to the cotrary, the more an NCP is looked on as being a bad influence/parent and more fuel is added to the CP’s fire to not only keep full time custody of the child but loose nothing in child support.

    Well done, oh omnipotent judges, well done. You really have your finger on the pulse of the human dynamic.

    Comment by Tigerseye — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 10:49 am

  16. # 10, a trust (spencer trust) is a private matter, just like one’s sexuality, AGAIN – why is Labour promoting Fags and Weirdo’s on ? could you answer this question please Helen or could your husband maybe give the public a better answer ?

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 10:53 am

  17. Isn’t freedom wonderful?

    The movie The Flying Scotsman details the sporting life of Graeme Obree, the Scotsman who set the world hour record (1993) – a crown jewel of bike racing – on a bike built from old bikes and the spare parts of a washing machine. This was an amazing feat, more so considering that his competitor’s bike was built using the latest technology and materials.

    The governing body that certifies the widely recognized hour record did not like the riding position that Obree adopted. The body changed its rules in order to disqualify Obree’s bike from further competition. The technophiles shouted conspiracy! They claimed that the governing body banned the bike under pressure from bike manufacturers. Sure, that makes for good Hollywood, but the consumer runs the show (even in Hollywood). The consumers of bicycle racing wanted bikes to remain like the bikes of old.

    In this instance, the traditionalists were in the majority and the widely recognized governing bodies of cycling intervened. They changed the rules of their sport to exclude radical changes to the shape of the bike. Certainly, bikes continue to improve, but bikes in the more widely recognized events look much the same as bikes did a century ago. The fans are happy and the sport lives on.

    Bicycle racing settled its issue; now a similar one is brewing in the sport of swimming.

    The new Speedo LZR RACER swimsuit reduces both water resistance and times. World records are being churned at an astounding pace, mostly attributed to the new swimsuit. Just as in cycling, the traditionalists are crying foul while the tech savvy and the speed deficient are cheering the advancement. Although it is too early to find resolution here, I bet that the new suit remains and becomes another part of competitive swimming. Of course, and as always, the consumer – the fans of swimming – will decide this issue according to their wants and desires.

    What does any of this have to do with Liberty? Simple: sports are private activities. If someone does not think the rules are fair, he can start his own alternate governing body (of course, I cannot claim to be the Tour de France or Olympic champion due to current trademark and licensing laws). This happens all the time. In bicycling, there are governing bodies that allow the Obree bike in competitions. These organizations also crown “hour” record holders. That these “hour” records do not carry the same significance as those granted by the more widely recognized organization is not a matter of fairness; it is simply the market deciding in favor of the majority of fans (think Microsoft versus Apple).

    Regardless, the free market allows competing definitions of sports to exist side by side.

    The free market allows competing definitions to exist side by side.

    Consider the alternative: a system where government decides who can lay claim to a record or the right to call oneself, for example, an engineer. In this world, competing ideas and values are replaced by the overbearing rules and regulations of the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. All this is done in the name of fairness, equity, or the latest political ideal. A system is created where bureaucrats and elected officials decide all matters, with no recourse, legal or private.

    Sure, I think it unfair that no one else recognizes my athletic feats, but I still have the ability to live outside the system. I also have the ability to try to sway the crowd that my feats exceed the feats of those competing in the more-recognized events.

    This means that I can still lay claim to all of my 100 world records, with each being just as valid as any other record. You do not have to agree, which is fine. We can live in peace, with my claiming a record that you feel is meaningless. Isn’t freedom wonderful?

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 11:14 am

  18. The bird that would soar above the level plain of tradition and prejudice must have strong wings.

    Kate Chopin (1851-1904)

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 12:01 pm

  19. new zealand family court lawyers and judges at work…

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 2:06 pm

  20. Bull,
    If you need help with Court process why not ask for help. Contact with your child is probably just an application away. Lots here can help.
    Send me a private e-mail setting out the details of your case. [email protected]

    Comment by allan Harvey — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 7:10 pm

  21. I’M AT WAR WITH THE GOVERNMENT (like many of us out there…)
    Detective Jubi Ieremia (Protection Squad, for Prime Minister) vistied me in December 2005, claiming they had information i was going to blow the Beehive up with a bomb. I have no intention of using explosives, only expletives. I was not charged as i have never made that claim to anyone. We have met Allan (Mr parking meter freedom fighter) Harvey, you used to live in Auckland and i would attend UFO meetings. I have a good legal team if anyone tries to mess with me over my freedom of expression. Take care, i have good support and your offer is appreciated, but at this stage i will pass, thank you. Sorry, for hogging the airwaves today, just want Dunne and others to get the message that current content on is a government red herring and the family court is not legitamate.

    Criticism of Bureaucracy

    As Max Weber himself noted, real bureaucracy will be less optimal and effective than his ideal type model. Each of Weber’s seven principles can degenerate:[citation needed]

    * Vertical hierarchy of authority can become chaotic, some offices can be omitted in the decision making process, there may be conflicts of competence;
    * Competences can be unclear and used contrary to the spirit of the law; sometimes a decision itself may be considered more important than its effect;
    * Nepotism, corruption, political infighting and other degenerations can counter the rule of impersonality and can create a recruitment and promotion system not based on meritocracy but rather on oligarchy;
    * Officials try to avoid accountability and seek anonymity by avoiding documentation of their procedures (or creating extreme amounts of chaotic, confusing documents, see also: transparency)

    Even a non-degenerated bureaucracy can be affected by common problems:

    * Overspecialization, making individual officials not aware of larger consequences of their actions
    * Rigidity and inertia of procedures, making decision-making slow or even impossible when facing some unusual case, and similarly delaying change, evolution and adaptation of old procedures to new circumstances;
    * A phenomenon of group thinking – zealotry, loyalty and lack of critical thinking regarding the organisation which is perfect and always correct by definition, making the organisation unable to change and realise its own mistakes and limitations;
    * Disregard for dissenting opinions, even when such views suit the available data better than the opinion of the majority;
    * A phenomenon of Catch-22 (named after a famous book by Joseph Heller) – as bureaucracy creates more and more rules and procedures, their complexity rises and coordination diminishes, facilitating creation of contradictory and recursive rules
    * Not allowing people to use common sense, as everything must be as is written by the law.

    In the most common examples bureaucracy can lead to the treatment of individual human beings as impersonal objects.

    This process has been criticised by many philosophers and writers (Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Hannah Arendt) and satirized in the comic strip Dilbert,TV show The Office, Franz Kafka’s novels The Trial and The Castle , Douglas Adams’ story The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and the films Brazil and Office Space.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 7:48 pm

  22. Hi Bull,
    You have me confused with Allan Candy. I live in Wellington.
    Being at war with anyone is not good for children. I think the Family Court is perfectly legitimate. We need some institution to resolve issues for children when parents cannot agree.
    Perhaps if you were not at war and could focus on a 12 year old the world might look different to you? The world does look different to children. To a 12 year old, ten years without a loving parent is for ever. Kids need their parents when young, soon your son will not need you as he proceeds through the arrogance of youth and he will not see fathering as an essential role for himself in adulthood. Is that the example you wish to give.
    Long after this Labour Goverment has gone and Helen Clark is a memory your child will ask; “Why was my daddy absent when I needed him?” No war is worth that cost to a 12 year old child.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Sun 17th August 2008 @ 10:42 pm

  23. Resolve Issues

    At ACC we aim to provide a high standard of customer service at all times. If you’re unhappy about how you have been dealt with or with a decision that has been made, please let us know. We want to resolve things fairly and as quickly as possible.

    Issues are often cleared up quickly and easily when they are raised with the people who understand the details of your situation. So please contact the person you have been dealing with or their manager. If you don’t feel comfortable doing this, or have tried discussing the matter and are still not satisfied, you can contact our Customer Support Service. For more information, see our brochure on ‘How we can help with concerns and complaints (ACC2393)’ (PDF 439K).

    If you do make a complaint or ask for a review ACC will:
    – take your concern, complaint or review seriously
    – be committed to settling it in a fair, open and respectful manner
    – resolve it as quickly as possible
    – treat you with courtesy
    – keep you informed at all stages
    – take responsibility for working with you until the issue is settled
    – not discriminate against you because of it. You will not be disadvantaged in any way.

    The Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights is about how ACC works with claimants. If you are unhappy about the service you have received from ACC you can make a complaint under the ACC Code.

    You can apply for a review regarding any ACC decision you are unhappy with. You can also appeal a decision made by the reviewer except for any issued about decisions made under the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights.


    ACC staff are on a salary, family court lawyers and family court judges are crooks, they steal ten fold from the tax payer coffers, therefore the family court is not legitamate. There is a conflict of interest within the family court. The Family Court needs to be scrapped in it’s entirity and a new system put in place. It has had its day. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 9:39 am

    stealing money is not perfectly legitamate allan

    the family court could be best described as a “bureaucractic bungle”, National in power would dissolve the family court i hear, under John Key and replace it with something that actually worked where family court lawyers would not be necessary.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 9:53 am

  25. Bull,
    What is Judith Collins profession before she became a National Party MP. She is number seven on their rankings? A senior Family Lawyer who you accuse above.
    Judith Collins has a well declared agenda to make men pay. She is the most vociverous Delingient Dad accuser in the house.
    At the recent Family Court Matters Bill Select Committee hearings she was the most anti-male MP given her lack of attention and occasional questions.

    Do turkeys vote for an early christmas?
    National will produce even more misery for New Zealand families. John Key will save none of us.

    However Bull, take note of my comments above and get on with some parenting yourself before another generation is lost to the honourable role of fatherhood in your own family.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 12:04 pm

  26. Bull,
    What is Judith Collins profession before she became a National Party MP. She is number seven on their rankings? A senior Family Lawyer who you accuse above.
    Judith Collins has a well declared agenda to make men pay. She is the most vociverous Delingient Dad accuser in the house.
    At the recent Family Court Matters Bill Select Committee hearings she was the most anti-male MP given her lack of attention and occasional questions.

    Do turkeys vote for an early christmas?
    National will produce even more misery for New Zealand families. John Key will save none of us.

    However Bull, take note of my comments above. The battlefield is much closer to your own home. Get on with some parenting yourself before another generation is lost to the honourable role of fatherhood in your own family.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 12:08 pm

  27. I have my own agenda, (intrinsic motivation) No thanks allan : )

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 12:16 pm

  28. (fucking lies !!!)
    What are human rights?

    Human rights represent common values drawn from the world’s diverse spiritual, religious, humanist, political and cultural beliefs. They underlie our expectations about life, education, health, work, our personal security, equal opportunity and fair treatment, and our systems of government.

    Human rights are inherent, inalienable, universal, indivisible and interdependent. They are inherent, in that they belong to everyone because of their common humanity. They are inalienable, in that people cannot give them up or be deprived of them by governments. They are universal, in that they apply regardless of distinctions such as race, sex, language or religion. They are indivisible, in that no right is superior to another. They are interdependent, in that realisation of one right contributes to the realisation of other rights.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 4:35 pm

    shame on you
    The father is defined as the male parent of an offspring.[1] The adjective “paternal” refers to father, parallel to “maternal” for mother. According to the anthropologist Maurice Godelier, the parental role assumed by human males is a critical difference between human society and that of humans’ closest biological relatives – chimpanzees and bonobos – who appear to be unaware of their “father” connection.[2][3]

    The father-child relationship is the defining factor of the fatherhood role.[4][5] “Fathers who are able to develop into responsible parents are able to engender a number of significant benefits for themselves, their communities, and most importantly, their children.”[6] For example, children who experience significant father involvement tend to exhibit higher scores on assessments of cognitive development, enhanced social skills and fewer behavior problems.[7][8][9]

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 4:55 pm

  30. We’ve Got A Bigger Problem Now (under labour)

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 5:01 pm

  31. you wanna make some progress in the family court… BAN THE AFFIDAVIT, yeah right, dreams are free, nightmares you pay for…

    BAN THE BOMB, But Only in Iran.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 18th August 2008 @ 7:36 pm


    Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 9:24 am

  33. howabout a referendum to dissolve the family court ?

    (bring down the berlin wall, many a child, thy chief advocate in essence)

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 9:43 am

  34. Bull,
    Larry Baldock from the kiwi party had a petition requesting an inquiry into family breakdown by Citizen initiated referendum. Seems to me you could have coat-tailed on that for your campaign against the FC. Larry got close with his anti-smacking but the second one was not as well supported.
    I’m interested in whatever intrinsic motivation is so self destructive in yourself. Surely working together is better than individual anarchy.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 10:00 am

  35. i am not a fan of inquiry, sorry. I aim for pie in the sky. The Family Court i honestly believe has no value in kiwi society and should be dissolved. All i need is support and then i can build an army. (i think now that the nz family court is equal to the length of time that the berlin wall stood, this is not good at all for the future of children of new zealand, you only have to speak to these childen to confirm my suspicions)

    The wall separated East Berlin and West Berlin for 28 years, from the day construction began on August 13, 1961 until it was dismantled in 1989, and was considered to be a longtime symbol of the Iron Curtain.

    Lighten up allan, all opinions are valid, even if far ranging, look what Dads Army achieved for England during WW II or howabout The Flying Scotsman, Graeme Obree, the Scotsman who set the world hour record on a bike built from old bikes and the spare parts of a washing machine.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 10:09 am

  36. Advance Australia Fair (Ban The Affidavit)
    The concept is to bring as many cases to an informal court setting as quickly as possible, and to eliminate inflammatory and costly affidavit material. The hope is that such early intervention will limit costly affidavits and facilitate resolutions.

    And old Mc Boshier wants his cronies to wear gowns / robes in the court. I don’t care what they wear, they ain’t gonna get no respect from anyone, their time is up, dissolve the family court. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT.

    Comment by davit affi — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 2:23 pm

  37. Old MacBoshier had a court, E-I-E-I-O.
    And in that court he had a Judge, E-I-E-I-O,
    With Lawyers – that did not care – stealing tax payer cash from everywhere,
    Here a BMW, there a BMW, everywhere a BMW
    Old MacBoshier had a court, E-I-E-I-O.

    With a moo moo here and a moo moo there
    Here a moo, there a moo, everywhere a moo moo
    Old MacBoshier had a court, E-I-E-I-O.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 3:16 pm

  38. : )

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 3:20 pm

  39. Post 36 reads a like the PHP (Parenting Hearings Programme) being experimented with in Wellington, Tauranga, and two other courts.
    Sounds like Farmer Boshier has listened to you Bull.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 8:39 pm

  40. oh well, giddy up then, rawhide.., get those kids along to their dads, eh…

    The typical Rawhide story involved drovers, portrayed by Eric Fleming (Trail Boss Gil Favor) and Clint Eastwood (ramrod Rowdy Yates), coming upon people on the trail and getting drawn into solving whatever problem they presented or were confronting. Sometimes one of the members of the cattle drive or some of the others would venture into a nearby town and encounter some trouble or other from which they needed to be rescued. Rowdy Yates was a young hothead in the earliest episodes and Favour had to keep a tight rein on him. There were still Indians about, though often not that wild, some still wanted cattle as payment for going through their land.

    (think i need to take a breather from this site for a while, go like the wind nick willis tommorrow morning, 2:50 a.m. in the 1500 m final)

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 9:09 pm

  41. I thought Brokeback Mountain would be more to your
    liking bull en a china shop.

    Comment by dad4justice — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 9:35 pm

  42. Heath Ledger in “Lords of Dogtown” only…

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Wed 20th August 2008 @ 12:37 am

  43. I’m no legal genius by any stretch of the imagination but is it possible to file a civil law action against a govt department? What I am suggesting is getting a number of people together who have the same beef with the family court (each action would have to deal with one very specific issue and gather as many people as possible to contribute financially and give weight to the argument). This seems logical and so I’m sure it is out of the question but applying this logic it should be possible to file action after action, backed by varying combinations of alienated parents for each action.

    I’m sure this has already been discussed and found to be impossible but surely large numbers with the same issue can apply legal pressure. The key would be to list every action to be taken and maintain a register of those who want to be a part of the proceedings. Tell me I’m crazy!!!

    Comment by Aussie-In-NZ — Wed 20th August 2008 @ 11:04 pm

  44. Aussie-in-NZ,

    You be right – Many of us have had similar ideas over many years – The important issue that has been exposed is **How to get enough Kiwi Men to work together** – I and many others are still pondering it – ???

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 8:17 am

  45. # 43 FUCK

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 1:42 pm

  46. # 43 again, simply put – “best interest of the child” – is always reliant on the affidavit of each parent (you can call it a game of two halves in essence, sorry mr veitch) Just BAN THE AFFIDAVIT and have measure’s in place that deal with the process on an automatic basis, like when you get a W.O.F. for your car. Some parents are waiting longer than the length of WW II to have any contact with their children, all because of the AFFIDAVIT. Justice delayed is Justice denied, so we’re taught.

    “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a legal cliché meaning that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all. This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because it is unfair for the injured party to have to sustain the injury with little hope for resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues either because the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favor.

    [edit] Origin

    There are conflicting accounts of who first coined the phrase. According to Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, it is attributable to William Gladstone but such attribution was not verifiable.[1] Alternately, it may be attributable to William Penn, although not in its current form.[2]

    The phrase may alternatively be traced to the Magna Carta, clause 40 of which reads, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

    Mr Rick Barker, you are a fucking moron.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 2:02 pm

  47. Rick Barker and Boshier can take a deep bow in this matter.
    Parental Hearing Programme is in theory wonderful. Applications in, standard 21 days to respond, in theory into Court for 15 mins before Judge in 2 weeks time to decide if PHP is appropriate, 2 weeks later a hearing of 2-3 hours where most matters are resolved. If further info needed matter set down for 8 weeks later and decision.
    If a defense is filed immediately after service matters can be before a Judge in 3 weeks time and resolved in 5 weeks.
    The good thing is it’s the same Judge all the way, lawyers are minimised, everything said is on oath and counts as evidence (even the snigger of disbelief which often says it all to the Judge).
    Arguably rough justice but fairly speedy and no rougher than our experience to date and much less expensive than than a BMW for her counsel, an Alfa for his and a compact Mercedes for L4C. Judge of course already has his limo but he/she is still workiong on gold plating it..

    Comment by allan Harvey — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 6:20 pm

  48. I can get a W.O.F. for my car in 30 minutes if the car is safe to drive, Old Mac Boshi-ER and Rick Bark-ER (incarnates of Hitl-ER) have full control of the gravy train. They are in charge of the Hellbound Express otherwise known as the Family Court.
    I can see you are more educated on these matters than me allan, I understand and appreciate your comments, thanks for being tolerant to my brash manner at times.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 21st August 2008 @ 8:50 pm

  49. Family Court foundations are built on “hocus pocus”, there is no reason for a lengthy waiting period of any kind to address parent separation and child care issues. Ministry of Transport should step in and do the job as it is logistics based. Employ someone from a trucking firm or air/sea freight forwarding to boost the number for customer satisfaction. Again, the Family Court as it is today is New Zealands biggest scam and a failed experiment. I can’t remember the last time i had to produce an affidavit to obtain a W.O.F. for my car…

    I will speak of one man… that went about in King James his time… who called himself, The Kings Majesties most excellent Hocus Pocus, and so was he called, because that at the playing of every Trick, he used to say, Hocus pocus, tontus talontus, vade celeriter jubeo, a dark composure of words, to blinde the eyes of the beholders, to make his Trick pass the more currently without discovery, because when the eye and the ear of the beholder are both earnestly busied, the Trick is not so easily discovered, nor the Imposture discerned.

    – Thomas Ady, A Candle in the Dark, 1656

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Fri 22nd August 2008 @ 7:39 am

  50. Well said Bull – Onward – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 22nd August 2008 @ 7:50 am

  51. THE COMIC SPEAKS.. (Mac Boshier gives us something to laugh about..)


    Bloodshed fears over weapons in courts
    5:00AM Friday August 22, 2008
    By Andrew Koubaridis
    One week’s worth of weapons seized at the Manukau District Court. Photo / Supplied

    Thousands of weapons are being seized at New Zealand courts every year and a senior judge is warning that security needs to be strengthened to “prevent bloodshed”.

    In just one week at the Manukau District Court, in March this year, staff seized dozens of weapons including a gun, knuckleduster and several long-bladed knives.

    Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier told a family violence conference in Napier yesterday that security in New Zealand courts was “woefully inadequate” when compared with those overseas.


    Comment by bull en a china shop — Fri 22nd August 2008 @ 10:27 am

  52. Bloodshed fears over weapons in courts, YEAH RIGHT …

    This link will show you the people who are most valuable to New Zealand society, shame on the Family Court system, FAMILY COURT HAS NO VALUE TO NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY WHEN OTHERS MUST SUFFER…
    Great reporting by Michelle Coursey (NZ Herald)

    ED clinical director Dr Tim Parke, 45, who has run this section of the hospital for the past three years.
    “It’s important to get across that we do take this seriously,” he explains.
    “People [medical staff] don’t just sit about, we really do try… and if we don’t mop up a lot of this stuff, then nobody does, really.”

    The family court in comparison is no better than a jewish concentration camp, as it has all the ill intended evil’s that any failed experiment may exhibit..

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 24th August 2008 @ 10:08 pm

  53. ORIGIN OF THE PROTECTION ORDER – without trial or judicial process –
    The second Nazi concentration camps were greatly expanded in Germany after the Reichstag fire in 1933, and were intended to hold political prisoners and opponents of the regime. They grew rapidly through the 1930s as political opponents and many other groups of people were incarcerated without trial or judicial process.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Sun 24th August 2008 @ 10:34 pm

  54. Allan. Thanks for your evaluation of the Parental Hearing Programme. We need to remember that positive steps are possible and that many such steps may even lead to a system that most agree is good.

    However, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Positive spin is plentiful when it comes to the Family Court, while the truth of its operation is often tantamount to child abuse.

    I’m not sure there is any good system that is based on lawyers (this includes judges) making decisions about children’s “best interests”. I don’t believe lawyers have any place to be doing so; it’s undeserved arrogance and patronization on their part.

    Comment by blamemenforall — Mon 25th August 2008 @ 11:03 am

  55. Bull, sadly I think your Nazi analogy is all too accurate when it comes to family law and the Courts established to forward it. There has been a constant abandonment of those fundamental principles of justice required for a fair and just society. The abuse and harm caused through these laws is not measured; instead, propaganda machines are established to hide the atrocities and to manufacture further justification for even greater departures from justice.

    Comment by blamemenforall — Mon 25th August 2008 @ 11:06 am

  56. Right On Brother !!!

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Mon 25th August 2008 @ 3:38 pm

  57. great post hope to see some additional comments here…

    Comment by Tatiana — Wed 5th November 2008 @ 5:26 am

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