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

National’s Father Bashing

Filed under: Child Support,General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:11 am Thu 13th March 2008

National MP Judith Collins is at it again sweeping up further hatred towards men by using the derogatory term “deadbeat dads”, conveniently failing to mention that liable mothers are at least as likely as fathers to default on paying child support. She based her latest male-bashing bigotry on one alleged case the details of which simply did not add up. If as she claimed this father of two earned $100,000 and had not paid child support for ten years, he would now owe around $950,000 including penalties rather than the $20,000 she cited. Of course, she also failed to mention that average children would never cost that much to run, and that the child support regime is largely intended to make men pay for the independent lifestyles of the women who started families with them, relieving those women of any further reciprocal obligation.

National through John Keys is shooting itself in the foot almost every day, and the concern is this will give Labour the opportunity to govern yet again with parties that support its feminist aims or are prepared to turn a blind eye to them. There is no reason to believe that either Labour or National will do anything to help men or to stop the ongoing process of increasing exploitation and state abuse of men in favour of women. I challenge anyone to point to one policy or initiative from either Labour or the current National party that is respectful or helpful towards men. Then I encourage voters to find out which parties show any awareness of men’s plight and have male-friendly policies aimed at true gender equality. That is why I am standing as the Tauranga candidate for the Republic of NZ party.


  1. The day Ms Collins starts talking about compensating the victims of state sponsored parental alienation we might start thinking that she has more concern about children than the dollar signs in the eyes of jealous women.

    I got this from a press release at

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 12:52 pm

  2. Hans, have you heard about Kobus?
    Thismorning he posted a mayday on paul’s news,
    Aparently he has been arrested.

    Comment by Wayne Fergusson — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 6:22 pm

  3. Hans,

    Why are you standing for an electorate, when the chances of gaining the seat are usually unfavourable for minor parties? Is your party planning on representing itself nationally at the next election on the list?

    Comment by Rob Case — Thu 13th March 2008 @ 7:00 pm

  4. Hi Rob:

    The Republic of NZ party hopes it might gain seats either through electorates or through list votes within the next few elections.

    My main aim in standing is to increase public awareness of issues that I have discussed here in postings over the last few years. For example I have found that most men have a sense that they are being shafted but it is not until someone explains how they are being shafted that they clarify this consciously and allow themselves to oppose what’s happening.

    Having said that, the Tauranga electorate has been unpredictable for example by voting in the Peters party. There is always a possibility however small that it could become inspired by a local boy from another minor party but this time with genuine rather than expedient policies.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 14th March 2008 @ 12:07 am

  5. Rob, every Republican candidate stands in an electorate, and we do intend to be in parliament this election. You want to help?

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 14th March 2008 @ 6:29 am

  6. Bevan,

    I would be delighted to help, but my labour being finite and the demands upon it otherwise, only in this small capacity for the moment:

    The Republican Party page needs a ‘Donate’ button plastered all over its home page that leads to a simple html document that lists your party’s public bank account number. This lets the general public – viewers of this board for example – donate to your party from their internet bank accounts using ‘One Off Payments’ (or however your bank may call it).

    For an example, take a look at the The Libertarianz Party here. They managed to relieve me of some ready cash by this simple means.

    The simpler one makes things, the more likely they are to be done.

    Comment by Rob Case — Fri 14th March 2008 @ 3:56 pm

  7. Actually, I have done a more careful calculation of this alleged man’s liability. For two children his monthly liability would be $1737.00. Each month that he did not pay there would be an immediate 10% penalty on that amount and thereafter 2% penalty interest on the total outstanding total each month. After ten years he would owe more than $950,000, or almost as much as he earned. Check out a compounding interest calculator that allows regular additions to the principal, but you will need to use its “years” as months, in this case 119 months (ten years beginning after the first month’s payment was missed).

    Note that if this man truly owed only $20,000 that means he will have paid his child tax fully for about 9 years 4 months, in which case he would have paid at least $193,851. What a deadbeat! His children must have been seriously deprived (of stretch limos and world travel).

    The figures are staggering, unbelievable, but ladies and gentlemen meet our child tax system, also referred to as father-removal tax, spousal support, government coffer replenishment contribution, divorce promotion levy and, least honestly of all, child support.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 18th March 2008 @ 11:56 pm

  8. When my husband and his ex were still married,she said they couldn’t afford to have holidays even tho he earned $70-000 and she was working too.That was back in 2004.Now in 2008 when he is paying her $294 a week,she can afford one holiday after the other.
    I hope she noticed his job that was advertised in our local newspaper today and makes the most of her last Easter bludging holiday.

    Comment by rosie — Wed 19th March 2008 @ 7:57 pm

  9. I am willing to have a PUBLIC debate with Judith Collins regarding the issue of Child Support and in particular my case which will be aired in the High Court Wellington Monday and Tuesday 31/3 and 1/4.
    IT IS TEN YEARS SINCE I HAVE BEEN DIVORCED. I Have paid my ex $400,000.00. I had substantial assets befor marriage,while my ex had a car and fridge( being paid off).
    On settling 10 years ago an agreement was ratified in court stating my ex would make no further claims against me and it’s still going,being driven by IRD/Crown Law.
    My ex also took my two children out of the country illegially but on return wanted more.

    I am in my 61st year. WHEN DOES IT STOP? NEVER!!!!!!I,m a male in a women dominated country.

    Incidentially ALL those taking the case against me including Crown Law are barren dykes.

    Comment by Agrieved Father — Sat 29th March 2008 @ 1:30 pm

  10. Hi there
    Are you saying that your ex got half of your assets when your marriage split up and now she wants the rest.But this time she is claiming every thing that you have left in the world for child support?

    Comment by rosie — Sat 29th March 2008 @ 6:09 pm

  11. YES.
    It’s not quite as simplistic as that.
    After disappearing to UK and around the world for two and a half years she came back found that my wife and I had just sold a property and went for an immediate review.
    The Review officer Penny Weaver PN assessed me based on the amount the property was sold for, invested at 7%,with no consideration for my now wife’s 50% share,nor the fact that we had purchased another property and the money was spent.
    I appealed the Review,got turned down,then went for another under another sec of the act. This was heard but the Review Officer refused to make a decision and asked that it go to the family Court.
    The night before the case,at 5.30pm,the IRD and Crown Law jumped in on the act,serving papers on me at that hour.
    I was taking the case myself and was able to have the case adjourned so I could get Legal help since Crown Law became involved,but not before Judge Hikaka took a dislike to me wanting it adjourned,made a personal attack upon my health, and ordered me to pay Crown Law and my ex’s costs.
    Since that time 2years ago Crown Law have driven it to the High Court.
    So far it has cost me many thousands of dollars yet I am up against the might of the Tax payers unlimited resources.

    My former wife is unbelieviably vindictive,very calculating and devious.

    Two former incidents come to mind.
    While she was an exchange student in Singleton Aust she lived with a family whose husband was in charge of the local police station.She became very close to this family and referred to them as Mum and Dad long after returning to NZ.Not long before I married this woman the Policeman husband found his wife was having an affair so he went home and shot her.He got 3years.
    This shook my ex considerably and there were often references to the incident.
    Well prior to her leaving me she was having an affair and while I had suspicions I couldn’t prove it until after she left and much later,the then jilted boyfriend told me the whole story.

    The second incident happened while I was married in Wanganui.My ex was laid off her job in a draughting firm.She took a dislike to one of the Principals, who was a top Architect,so she persuaded a 16year old girl in the firm to lay a charge of sexual harrassment against this Principal with my ex acting as a supporting witness.
    Thanks to Mike Lance QC now Judge Lance this gentleman settled it out of court for a minimal amount.My ex even had me convinced until much later I found out the truth.
    How’s that for vindictiveness.

    I have put up with more crap from this woman in the past 10 years than it would believe to be possible. Fortunately I now have an exceptional wife and all I can say is that my ex must be very unhappy to not be able to get on with life.
    She has always said she will hound me until I die and see that I have nothing to do with the children. It ain’t happening.

    Comment by Agrieved Father — Sat 29th March 2008 @ 8:01 pm

  12. My husband’s ex wife is also unbelievably vindictive,calculating and devious.
    Can I discuss this with you further privately?
    My email address is [email protected]

    Comment by rosie — Sat 29th March 2008 @ 10:22 pm

  13. That’s fine Rosie however it may have to wait until after thursday next week as I’m off to Wellington now for this Court Case.
    All I can say is that I had better not lose as it’s a Test Case and could make things far worse than it is now for those paying child support.

    Comment by Agrieved Father — Sun 30th March 2008 @ 7:04 am

  14. Another warning.
    Don’t any of you guys waste your time in going for admin reviews.
    You’ll get a jumped up jerk,in most cases dressed in a skirt,who will always side with the devious and cruel partner.
    Even if you have to pay double child support payments,once through a private agreement and secondly through IRD,the heinous creatures that the IRD employ for admin reviews,will twist things around to make it appear that it is you who is in the wrong.
    Be like the women who get away with everything.Become a nominated person on their IRD files.All you need to know is their IRD number,their birthdate and address and then get one of your girl friends to phone them.She’ll get a letter addressed to her in response,but if you make sure she’s at work, she won’t receive it.
    Then you’re set up for life.You can change her address at any time you wish.It’s even easier if you get an info express pin in her name.All you have to do then is click on a few buttons on your phone.
    You will always be believed because the IRD never make mistakes.

    Comment by rosie — Mon 31st March 2008 @ 7:15 pm

  15. Although I can symathise with the sentiments Rosie I have been very successful in my last four admin reviews. First one set matters at $630 a month, then it went down to 600, then 300, then 220 and most recent review set matters at 101 a month. I’m more than satisfied with my review officer who wore trousers but the first two reductions were done by skirt wearers.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 31st March 2008 @ 10:05 pm

  16. Dear Ian (Agrieved Father)

    I apologise for my Woosh phone being sporadic.
    Your reservations about your legal advocate and his disclosure give you the right to terminate his services at this time, Advise the Court that you are to be a self litigant and as it being far advanced in proceedings you wish an adjournment of at least 90 days.
    I would advise you make this option, obtain the adjournment citing matters of parliamentary disclosure and your witness summonsing needing to be considered being favourable to this challenge of Child Support enforcement of a retrospective nature

    You are to summon to Court both Judith Collins and Peter Dunne, further you should also have application within this Court an Application for Publication.
    Take digital photographs of the players (barren lesbians) perhaps, I misquoted.
    Anyway, take digital photographs of the opposition, ask them to smile, as it will look more aesthetic in the final publication when granted by the Court.

    Kindest Regards

    Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 31st March 2008 @ 11:23 pm

  17. What did my husband do that was so wrong then?
    When he got a dick head of a review officer who wasn’t able to distinguish one financial year from another,he didn’t exactly have a lot going in his favour did he?
    His ex wife said that he didn’t pay enough CS for the financial year ending 31-3-07 when in fact this is the year that ends today.Tomorrow he will be paying CS for the financial year that ends on 31-3-2008.He can’t pay for the financial year that ends on 31-3-09 because he doesn’t know what he will earn before then.
    He may even be dead before then.

    Comment by rosie — Mon 31st March 2008 @ 11:23 pm

  18. Its really hard reading all of this it is just truly such an emotional issue. I am a female. I am raising a child with no financial support at all on my own. I have no family to help me. But I do wish I had support. I just get so wound up by the constant stress. I feel underneath it all he ( the father) does not want me any better off its actually not about our child but a perception that I may benefit. I just want my child to be supported thats all. I dont want this huge chunk of income I just want a contribution for food, for clothing ….where I am going with this I suppose I have seen the Australian system change and it is now father centric in terms of child support. But the sytem was changed becasue of rhetoric that is on this site of the system being unfair for men. I just keep on thinking well what about the children…agian I acknowledge it is painful for everyone so much anger. But I suppose I am just here to say some of those women out there me included…just want some money for food, shelter and clothing. ( And yes some of us WOMEN also look at our ex’s living in nice houses going on holidays and wonder gee…this is just not fair still working on how to come to terms with that as I cant seem to afford a house nor holidays sigh….thats life aye)

    Yes I could go for child support and I would be 140 dollars better off a week sorry it just sounds so attractive and would make a huge difference to child care bills, food bills, clothing bills…but then my ex argues we can say good bye to seeing him ever again….
    YEP and there are more out there as silly as me no doubt….

    Sorry this is …this is just written by someone who just once more tried to go well I would like you to pay child support followed by a big angry burst including me…..but am still reluctant to subject what ever we have to the system…but then isnt it my son that loses out because I am tryign to be nice….just keep going through this in my head…

    Comment by Jane — Tue 1st April 2008 @ 12:44 pm

  19. Jane – Sorry to hear you are struggling financially, a terrible stress most of us have experienced and that I would wish on nobody. I don’t think anyone here would argue that both parents should not be responsible for contributing to the costs of rearing their own children. Some argue that their contribution should be associated with some right to maintain a meaningful parental relationship with the child(ren) concerned, and I agree with this to a limited extent although there would need to be exceptions such as where the parent has been properly proven to present a risk to the child(ren) that outweighs benefits from the full relationship. Many here would argue that both parents’ day-to-day contributions to the children should be calculated in, such as the clothing and food they provide during “access” visits and indeed the costs of maintaining such visits if such costs have been brought about by the other parent’s decisions, e.g. to move far away from the other’s residence. I agree with these ideas also, but there would need to be some reasonable criteria for what can be claimed as contributions; for example, I wouldn’t agree that buying expensive toys, fast food, theme park tickets etc need to be included because such things are discretionary on either parent’s part. However, basic food and clothing, and perhaps a limited budget allowed for recreational items and activities, could be included and this would seem fair to liable parents and more importantly would benefit children by encouraging liable parents to participate fully in their lives.

    The current child support system is dishonest because if liable parents work hard and earn more, they soon pay amounts that exceed any reasonable costs for children. How many children would cost $400 plus per week to run? Such amounts can only be meant as spousal support, or more usually as compensation to the government for its spousal support costs. The current system also imposes ridiculous compounding penalties that soon create an impossible hurdle for those liable parents who fall behind in their payments for any reason.

    Surely, the average cost of specifically child expenses – food, clothing, health, education, would not amount to more than, say, $150 per week per child. If liable parents were required to pay a half share of such a realistic amount, and their direct contributions towards those expenses were taken into account, few would complain or default. (In an ongoing welfare state, a sliding scale up to such realistic amounts could still be employed for liable parents who are beneficiaries or low income earners, with the shortfall provided as a means-tested benefit to the primary caregiver parent.)

    Also, as long as a no-fault separation policy is in place it will be difficult to avoid massive injustice. Personally, I believe that if the main economic provider chooses to leave the main child-carer with ongoing primary responsibility for looking after the children, then spousal support is appropriate, a half share of an average basic lifestyle cost. If in these cases the parents share the care of the children equally, such support should be considerably lower.

    I don’t think it’s useful to compare one’s lifestyle, holidays etc with that of one’s ex-partner. If one’s ex partner does well, this will also benefit the children. As independent adults we have to leave each other to their own fate.

    Have you thought of asking your child’s father for a reasonable amount actually related to your son’s costs, or to pay a half share of those costs directly? Many men are frightened of becoming involved with the machine-like child-support bureaucracy, receiving constant threatening correspondence and so forth, and would jump at the opportunity for a private arrangement that was reasonable towards them. I respect the priority you place on our child’s relationship with his father. However, if he is not prepared to contribute at all financially one wonders whether his commitment to the child will be reliable anyway. I don’t think it’s a good idea to bow down to threats to abandon the child; if he carries that out he is responsible for his own choice and you are not. Your responsibility is to facilitate his contact with your child and for managing your own life. It has to be reasonable to ask for a realistic financial contribution towards his child. Anyway, these are my opinions.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 1st April 2008 @ 2:15 pm

  20. I think we are coming to some sort of arrangment at the moment ( is e-mail the best way to communicate) but it is based on my childs father buying ‘things.’ So he has said he will buy the clothes for our child. Or will help out with the food bill directly. Sorry I wish I could warrant your thoughtful reply with something a little more but a bit tired at the moment.

    However I think that 150 dollars a week is a little low. Not that I am suggesting I would be after 150 dollars I actually suggested 50 dollars as my childs father does have to travel to see us.

    I say that 150 dollars is a little low as I pay 165 dollars a week in child care bills. But this is part of the problem I am a middle income earnier ( with student loan which escalated when on the DPB yes more bitterness opps I choose food but found out what interest rates means). So without clothes or bills added in my son costs me 315 dollars a week to run, sorry made him out to sound like a car. Again this is all so personal and each situation is different. But at the end of the week yes I still have 80 dollars in my hand. ( But at the same time this also means doctors and dentists are to be avoided at all costs and I think staff members here think I am trying to look grungy and cool with my attire.) SO after a very long rant I suppose and I have been on this soap box before without family I am extremely reliant on child care…which is a huge cost. There is also a rumour going round my child care that after care costs the same at school…so I might be looking at changing that 5am start to a 4am start…in the morning…but it could work out fine.

    Comment by Jane — Tue 1st April 2008 @ 3:52 pm

  21. Hi Jane
    I understand what you’re saying.I brought up my three children alone with not one cent of help from their father.
    That was years ago and now I am in a totally different situation,married to a man who has to pay over $300 a week in child support this year.
    He was paying child support through a private agreement.The sum that his ex stipulated was $200 a week.That suited her fine when he was paying more than he would have had to if she had gone through IRD.
    But when we got married his ex saw red.She threatened to destroy our wedding day and she told my husband that she would make things as difficult as she could for us.As her own lawyer said “she didn’t want him but she didn’t want anyone else to have him either”
    Since then she has kept to her word in trying to destroy us.
    She seems to think that part of our new home should belong to her as well.
    A huge chunk of it was payed from the sale of my own home and from my late daughter’s insurance policy.
    This ex wife stoops to low measures to further her financial gains.
    When she decided to kick my husband out of her and his children’s lives,she made herself a nominated person on his IRD files.She even changed his address to her address on his files a few weeks after we were married.Then three days after we bought our new home,she approached the IRD for child support,but she didn’t tell my husband that she’d done that and she didn’t tell the IRD that she was already receiving child support payments.
    So she got payed twice.
    And she is allowed to keep that.
    We put our house on the market yesterday and I cryed myself to sleep last night.
    Our dream was to have a B&B.
    Now my dream is to get as far as possible away from her.
    My husband once made the foolish mistake of telling her how much I loved my animals.
    We’ve heard nothing but that ever since.
    We should not have spent money on having Leah cremated neither should we spend money on an operation for Winston.
    Fuck her I absolutely hate her

    Comment by rosie — Tue 1st April 2008 @ 7:41 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