Worm-Man Dunne speaks on Child Support
Peter, the worm- man, Dunne is at it agaian. He probably even believes what his Child Support gestapo are telling him.
Media statement
For immediate release
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Worm-Man Dunne speaks on Child Support Revenue:
Minister Peter Dunne is welcoming initial figures that suggest the Government’s newly-implemented measures to ensure liable parents meet their obligations to their children are working.
The Child Support Amendment Act took effect in September 2006 and allowed for a write-off of penalties each six months proportionate to the amount of child support debt paid by liable parents who have agreed to and maintained a debt repayment schedule.
Mr Dunne said “Of the 33,684 liable parents who benefited from the new arrangement, the majority — 26,954 — had been struggling with debt for a year or more.
“Analysis of those 26,954 people shows that between 2005 and 2006, 13,430 debtors had increased their debt and 13,524 had reduced their debt.
“But after the Act came into force, between 2006 and 2007, only 7,443 increased their debt and 19,511 reduced their debt.
“Between 2005 and 2006, the total debt owed by the same group of people increased by $6.9 million, but fell by $22.8 million between 2006 and 2007.
“Furthermore, Inland Revenue has recorded 67,000 qualifying arrangements as at 31 December 2007.
“From 26 September 2006 and 31 December 2007, those liable parents had paid $162.2 million and $23.7 million in incremental penalties had been written off.
Mr Dunne said “The trend is still emerging but it seems clear that more and more liable Kiwi parents are paying more and more money to the children they are responsible for.”
There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
Comment by Alastair — Fri 29th February 2008 @ 4:42 pm
I’m not suurpised at the $. I pay $1850/month CS for 2 children, after tax I am left with $3100/month from which I must pay $350/week rent to have suitable 3 bedroom accomadation close to their schools for the children to stay each Wednesday and every 2nd weekend plus provide clothes toys etc as the ex does not believe she should supply anything whilst in my care, not even allowing the children to bring their bikes to play on. She refuses to settle the property matters even thou we had a pre nup and a trust set up before I married her.
Have been trying to get to the court since March last year fro a shared care agreement but the system says my children are not at risk as I dont beat them and the ex is not a druggie etc so I have to wait whist all the time she is twisting them into not wanting a shared care agreement any more. No wonder guys loose it.
Comment by Bruce — Fri 29th February 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Mr Dunne’s conclusion would more accurately read:
“More and more liable Kiwi fathers are paying more and more money to reimburse government for its incentive scheme to promote father-removal, and/or towards maintaining the independent lifestyles of their ex-partners without any reciprocal obligation.”
I support
– as-generous-as-possible DPB for primary child-carers who have been abandoned financially by the other parent.
– as-generous-as-possible DPB for primary child-carers who have been victims of domestic violence recently (say in the last two years) as shown by a relevant criminal conviction in a District Court beyond reasonable doubt.
– For other primary child-carers who wish to receive the DPB, a six-month stand-down period to ensure that the DPB does not act as an incentive to break up families. The DPB benefit to be paid out of general taxation as is the case for other benefits.
– For all couples who separate, a rebuttable presumption of shared care without any further financial obligation between the parties. Where one parent does not wish to provide equal shared care, that parent to be liable to pay the other parent a proportion of his/her after-tax earnings (with a reasonable minimum baseline) for the service of rearing the child(ren) and for normal child-related expenses, on a pro-rata basis depending on the relative amounts of time the parents care for the child(ren). Similarly when one parent has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be incapable of safely undertaking equal shared care.
– the sharing of a standard DPB between both parents engaged in shared care.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 29th February 2008 @ 8:17 pm
‘A worm is an animal with a soft body and no backbone that makes its way with twisting movements.’
What better way could you describe Peter Dunne.
Comment by rosie — Sat 1st March 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Just to clarify my recommendations:
For primary care-givers who have been financially abandoned by the other parent, or have been recent victims of proven domestic violence, an immediate DPB.
For others, a six-month standown for the DPB.
DPB paid out of general taxes, but those parents who don’t wish to provide equal shared care will be required to pay the government or the primary care-giver a fair amount for children’s expenses and for the service of rearing children.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 1st March 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Hans,
Where do the children go for 6 months?
How will half the DPB cover costs when the full DPB hardly does?
Comment by julie — Sat 1st March 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Hans I agree with your recommendations to a certain extent,but where do couples go to for help in sorting out their problems during those six months? The only way that it could work is for the government to introduce free counselling because the cost of counsellors now is beyond what most families can afford.
In my parent’s days there was no such thing as the DPB and they had no other choice but to stay together.Although I loved them both dearly,their continual arguing was hard on us kids.
What would your suggestions be?
Comment by rosie — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 7:41 am
Thanks for the good questions and discussion.
My response: (Sorry it’s a bit long.)
There may be some specified circumstances other than proven recent domestic violence or financial abandonment that should give rise to an immediate DPB, but I can’t think of any.
If a parent really feels in dire need to separate due to “unhappiness” etc, that parent will be able to find some way of doing this without the DPB for six months, e.g. receiving help from family, friends or charitable organisations. To me, if it’s not important enough to go to that trouble, it’s not important enough to deprive the children of the security and identity of their family unit.
A presumption of shared care will allow both parents equal time to earn money, as well as greatly reducing damage to children who are currently threatened with the loss or major reduction in their relationship with one parent. So, in answer to the question “where do the children go for the six months?”, they stay with the parents on an equal shared care basis. If one parent does not want to provide equal shared care, then that parent pays for the children’s care depending on the number of days (s)he does maintain care of the children.
In a situation of equal shared care, both parents will have equal time to earn money. I support the provision of sharing the DPB where the parents’ incomes are low, to assist them. There may be other ways to achieve such income support where necessary, but this seems as good as any.
I support an increase in the basic amount of the DPB so that it does provide realistically for a sole parent and children. I believe that the policies I have proposed will significantly reduce family separation as well as teenage pregnancy for careers on the DPB, and therefore will reduce the number of DPB beneficiaries overall, so the DPB can be increased for the remainder who qualify.
I realise there is no perfect approach to deal with the issue of family separation. However, I believe the government should encourage biological parents to stay together while their children are still dependent on them, and conversely should do nothing to facilitate separation except in circumstances of the most grave justification. The current common belief seems to be “I feel unhappy, therefore the state should provide for me and charge the other parent accordingly.” I don’t believe that is a desirable expectation. Otherwise, why not apply the same reasoning to everyone else? E.g. “I feel unhappy having to work for an employer, therefore the state should provide for me and charge someone else for this.”
In my opinion, a family situation needs to be severly abusive before this outweighs the damage caused to children by separation. The loss of the identity and security of one’s family unit causes great damage that has been measured endlessly in worldwide research, contrary to long-promoted feminist myths such as “children cope fine with separation as long as it’s not acrimonious” and “children are better without a family if one of the parents feels unhappy”. Current child-protection policies grossly underestimate the importance of maintaining family units, and fail to weigh up the damage caused by separation against the damage caused by family dysfunction.
Of course, continual parental arguing is hard on kids, but trashing the family unit is usually a whole lot harder on them. Relationship- and parenting-support programmes need to be continued and increased to help parents find better ways of fulfilling their roles and for dealing with adult issues separately from the children.
There is free relationship counselling available through the Family Court and I support that as a positive aspect of that system. Unfortunately, recently proposed law changes will reduce the confidentiality of that counselling and will enable counsellors to influence Court proceedings, bringing to this whatever ideological bias they hold. I support the continuation and extension of highly confidential and professional counselling to assist parents to deal with problems, improve relationships and enhance their fulfillment of responsibilities towards children.
In discussing my proposed policies I don’t mean to blame individuals. Many people have separated under current rules, and I don’t blame them for doing so; the government has invited and encouraged this and people have responded accordingly. However, I strongly believe the rules need to be changed. The state needs to make it more attractive, relative to other options, for parents to participate genuinely in counselling towards improving relationships and families, and the state needs to encourage attitudes of dogged commitment to maintaining family units. Once adults have brought children into the world, the state’s policies should no longer encourage them to prioritize their personal adult quests for happiness, fulfillment, novelty, exitement etc over their responsibilities to children.
Finally, I support a range of major initiatives to protect and to support bioligical family units. For example, child-care and babysitting services need to be encouraged, subsidized and organised by the state. Communities need to be strengthened, extended family and communal living situations encouraged to avoid the stress of living in isolated nuclear families. Our society and workplaces need to become much more inclusive towards children generally. I also support a policy of significant tax reductions for families as a reward for staying together for certain periods of time, e.g. after 5, 10 and 15 years. (This would be a great thing for families to look forward to, making it progressively easier to maintain mortgages, children’s education costs etc. It will also provide an incentive for skilled people to remain in NZ with their families.)
These are my suggestions; they won’t be perfect and other people may have additional or better ones. But sadly, I haven’t heard much on offer.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Hans, I like your enthusiasm.
Good luck with your work towards election.
Comment by julie — Sun 2nd March 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Hans, I have changed my mind from just saying something nice about what you are doing because I am wondering how things will work if you do get a seat. After all, hard work has achieved many things in life.
Things ARE changing for men’s rights. Research has not had funding for men’s studies over the years. But that is slowly changing and things are expected to change greatly in the next decade with focus more on men and fathers.
The CSA doesn’t work well for many parents on both ends. And yet some are having a great life on it while others are in poverty while paying.
If I was looking to stand as a politician I would start at the bottom and learn how everything works from the community first. Yet, I understand that things are so bad for men at the moment that you and others have to step in at the top and learn as you go.
This worries me for I feel and think you will be spending the first 4 years just learning how things work and catching up on what is going on. So much work is done behind the scenes.
If you were to propose any of your opinions you would be shot down immediately because your views are not consistent with reality of what is going on.
You can find the research you want which promotes non smacking if you looked in the right places. Most parenting groups would have access to this. Sometimes you just have to know where to look for information.
Equal parenting will put many in the poverty bracket. How do you propose to sort that out? Having parents working half weeks so to take care of children is not as easy as it is in theory.
Expecting biological parents to have the say puts all step parents in a vulnerable position and this is not something that is new. This is 40 years of change you are proposing to change.
The average age for parents having children in NZ is 38. How do you propose grandparents who are old start taking reponsibility? And what about all the parents who have families overseas. How do you expect them to contribute to 2 parent families and single parents families?
And what about refugees? We have so many that have come in and are coming in. And some are using trusts and facilities to start a new life and others separate as in the wife goes one way and the husband goes another when they get off the plane.
And how do you propose community and charity groups take up the slack from benefits?
What exactly are you going into politics for? What law do you want to make or what law do you want to amend? After all, that is what politicians do. Make laws.
All this socializing is coming from another place. All these policies for WINZ and IRD are not coming from the politicians. They need to be targetted differently.
I don’t mean to be confrontational but politics is going to the dogs. We need people that know what is going on. Not people who are going to make tons of mistakes and then get it. And by the time they get it, children are in state care, neither dads nor mums have rights and nearly every one is under mental healths care.
Comment by julie — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:35 am
I need to change this statement. A lot of change in these areas does come from politicians. Yet there is far more to the picture.
Comment by julie — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 10:44 am
Julie,
Your assumptions and mis-information are astounding.
This statement has no basis in fact and no evidence to support it.
Your evidence once again is lacking! List and examples.
Why should step parents have any say in the parenting of someone elses children?
You do mean to be confrontational, own it Julie.!
Your statement fits well with the great kiwi clobbering machine and your assumption that Hans and the Republicans are unfit for election because they are going to make tons of mistakes reflects your ignorance.
Given Nationals appalling track record of mistakes in politics I assume (by your own criteria) you can’t vote for your friends either.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 1:23 pm
Scrap, if you are going to quote me please use the whole context. Picking out one sentence is putting things differently.
There is more to this.
So what do you propose to MAKE ALL parents do. It is not just men and women who are on good incomes that are affected. What about the security guards and men and women who work for companies that make them travel overseas? What about the men and women working in shops or in factories blah, blah, blah?
Do what you want how you want. You represent a group of people out there and I guess that is what MMP is all about. My parenting days are over. This doesn’t affect me any more. This is a new era and I wasn’t modern. But most new parents are.
Comment by julie — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 6:01 pm
Julie,
I am asking you to justify with fact your statement upon which you base your argument.
This statement has no basis in fact and is a myth.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Scrap, I did write a couple of comments before I got to this one.
This is something I needed to give deep thought to and consider what the HRC and the feminised Unions are doing.
I think you are right. It is a myth. Sweden has equal parenting and they have free childcare for age 1.
We are going this way and it is good that you can make it faster. Many men want this.
Comment by julie — Mon 3rd March 2008 @ 7:51 pm
What’s happened to freedom of speech in this country?
It’s obvious that Peter Dunne doesn’t like me very much.
I posted on his website that if Judy Turner was the leader of United Future I would vote for her.My post has been deleted.
Comment by rosie — Sat 14th June 2008 @ 11:16 pm