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

Confirmation of the rumour …..

Filed under: Child Support — golfa @ 10:07 pm Mon 11th March 2013

Changes to Child Support were supposed to be implemented on 1 April THIS year, now it’s been put off to next year. Way to go Mr Dunnothing.


  1. This has been known since at least early February! No surprise that the decision to delay its implementation did not receive the same fan fare as Dunne’s original platitudes about the proposed changes.(Far too embarrassing for all concerned.) While the current system is a crock the new one will introduce its own wider problems, so the delay suits me!!! I would like to know how the IRD plan to pay for the costs of the new IT system that will be needed (another Novopay debacle given the need for ‘proving’ any new software?) to get it up and running? This may drag on some time yet!!!!!

    Comment by Non Custodial Dadnz — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 6:24 am

  2. No surprise the NZ Herald editor gave this job to Shuttleworth – any respectable newspaper would tell her to go and apply for a job with a women’s magazine. Oh, that’s right, the NZ Herald is a women’s magazine, silly me.

    New Zealander Paul Jenkins killed himself in Australia last year after receiving a demand for over $53,000 of child support arrears relating to his daughter from a previous relationship.

    As I recall the previous article in the Herald at the time of this suicide the man did NOT kill himself when he received a demand. He killed himself when Human Services (that’s what they call it across the ditch, rather ironic don’t you think) revenue collectors started taking whatever amount of money that suited them out of HIS bank account and if I recall the details correctly it was on three separate occasions in the week before he killed himself.

    That has nothing to do with the receipt of a demand or the size of the demand and everything to do with the manner and process which is employed in gathering child tax, a person’s ability to function in a financial system and the loss of integrity in the financial the relationships within the arena of that person’s life.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 7:52 am

  3. There is nothing to stop the changes to penalties being implemented this year.Dunne Nothing cares about his revenue collection not dads driven to death by the collection nazis. Allan, any chance of a UOF press release calling for penalty relief now? It should be configurable parameters and a simple percentage change. Very easy IT change.

    The formula changes will be a nova pay. I note that Bill Aitkens pointed out that caculating your child tax will be so complicated you will need a computer to work it out.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 10:12 am

  4. What I’m curious about is Dunne being quoted saying ‘Interest and Penalties.’

    What exactly does that mean?

    Change its name and charge the same amount.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 10:40 am

  5. @ scrap – If you change the status of the child support to the same as income tax then who is the calculator really for -individuals of wage offices.

    Is the general direction here to push child support problems into the wages office and out of the electorate office?

    Is the big duck shove by MP’s onto employers?

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 11:02 am

  6. My understanding,

    Penalties are the ammount charged – interest is the per annum percentage.

    Yes IRD by deducting at source the problems with incorrect deduction will become employer/employee relationsip problems as oppossed to IRD errors. Bit like payroll admins bear the brunt of nova pay stuff ups not the MOE.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 1:07 pm

  7. I was wondering if they were going down the path of charging interest to be passed on to the receiving parent so IRD could use the use of money rates for benefit recovery. That way they would lose out from the penalty reduction.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 1:40 pm

  8. youtube is a good medium

    Comment by kiranjiharr — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 2:16 pm

  9. Have just read the nz herald piece on delays to child support. Where do they get their info from? The journalistic abilities of both writer and editor are pathetic! So many holes in it that it could be used as a colander! Sweeping generalisations abound. I for one am glad that the new proposals are delayed as under them I would be significantly worse off than I am under the current system!
    BUT no one seems to have commented on the related article that says a 19 year old man is the father of 13 different children to different women! Is that a joke? If not, and assuming he pays the minimum for each child, his monthly CS liability is about $1000.00 is it not (haven’t done an accurate calculation)? How up to date is he? I suspect he is in severe arrears and therefore one of the major contributors to the $2.6 billion ‘debt’ that is always bandied about. No doubt all the mothers to his children are bludging off the DPB! Other caring loving fathers who are trying to do the right thing by their children and struggling to do so should be the first to condemn the irresponsible p….k since we all get tarred with the same brush………

    Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 2:19 pm

  10. Link

    This article here? I think you will find the rogue Dad with all the kids is just the name of the birth certificate. It’s just a different way of protesting about child support – looking after the bros South Auckland style.

    We should stop calling these people feminist journalists when all they do is look for some way to write in support of a cause – they might be getting paid for it but that doesn’t make it journalism, it is not even the news, it is just them having a bitch because the world isn’t the way they want it.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 12th March 2013 @ 3:00 pm

  11. @Scrap I haven’t had a chance to look and see if the protected net income is part of the Protection of Wages Act (which it probably is) but I was wondering, have you come across anyone assessed in an admin review for more than 40% of net income?

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 16th March 2013 @ 7:43 pm

  12. Why do they call Dunne The Poodle. A poodle in the House of the Bitch – do they call all their prospects poodles or is that his gang name.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 17th March 2013 @ 9:47 am

  13. @11 I am not sure what you mean with regards to whether anyone has been assessed for more than 40% of net income.

    If you have an admin review they will decide on an income for you. This is not related in any way to your actual income.

    I am currently paying just under 90% of my net income. Where does the money come from? I am owed money from a loan which is being paid back. When this runs out my payments will end. There is just nothing left to get.

    Comment by rogered — Sun 17th March 2013 @ 3:42 pm

  14. That is precisely my point. Being assessed for an amount and having it deducted from protected income. Are self employed people not being afforded the legal protection of protected net income simply because the IRD have learnt they can bully those people by deducting whatever from their bank account.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 17th March 2013 @ 4:39 pm

  15. You should not deduct the full amount of child support if this leaves an employee with less than 60% of their net earnings. However, this protection applies only to child support payments. If there are other deductions from an employee’s salary (for example, student loan repayments, insurance, superannuation and union fees), these will then need to be taken out of the protected 60% of their net earnings.

    So if a review assigns an unrealistically high income to you, then, according to that rule, they should leave you with at least 60% of that unrealistically high income?

    Who monitors whether the IRD follows or breaks these rules?

    What action can be taken if it can be demonstrated that they have broken a rule?

    Comment by Ted — Sun 17th March 2013 @ 6:31 pm

  16. @Ted. Yes, that is another way of looking at. Does protected income apply to actual income or assessed income?

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 17th March 2013 @ 6:35 pm

  17. Seen today at The Spearhead website –

    “When looking at our family law regime from such a perspective, it is hard to see it as anything other than a systematic program of forced dependence. Single mothers rely on government largesse, divorced fathers play the role of conscripts or forced laborers, and children belong, for all intents and purposes, to the state. Men are turned out of their homes by decrees that are enforced by armed henchmen, their pay is seized without a hearing and turned over to the state for disbursement. And all in the name of equality.

    Family law in the US is an expression of the logic of power. Feminism is merely a convenient tool. The goal is not to empower women – single mothers are amongst the most miserable of all our citizens, after all – but to shatter the power of the people in general by breaking the family. It may not be a conscious decision, but it doesn’t have to be. If bureaucrats can figure out how to squeeze another one percent of revenue out of men by enacting this or that policy, they do it. If a politician can more effectively create a base of support by fostering dependence, he’ll happily do so. The consequences to the people don’t matter – what’s important is that the people on the make keep the system working for them.”

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 18th March 2013 @ 10:52 am

  18. Hi all,
    I have come out the end of the NZ family court system, in trying to get shared care of my daughter…..To be honest it was already decided before I arrived. I would not recommend to anyone pursuing time with their kids to use the court system to achieve this.
    I was bullied by the child lawyer (Sara Vyle) ” you are only here for the money” in a meeting at the court just before it started.

    The mother even assaulted my son who stays with me full time, she even admitted this and Judge Rogers says, If the police did not prosecute then it is not a serious assault.

    The assault: My son landed on his neck on a trampoline, I spent the night with him in middlemore hospital, getting checked for a broken neck…He came out with a very sore neck but no broken bones…the next morning my ex picked him up to spend some time with her…he was naughty and was hit very hard you guessed it right in the neck…

    The police was later involved and I requested that she not be prosecuted due to the court process that already started.

    Apparently the ruling is if there is a serious assault the police act on it anyway…they did not which is why the judge said this type of assault is of no concern…

    This explains why NZ kids are beaten because the judges in the family court allow it. Judge Rogers you should be ashamed.

    So I lost getting shared care because my daughter is doing well???? That was it.

    So now the time used to get is also reduced. To keep me at 39% shared care just below the IRD requirement. I have tried admin reviews etc…another waste of time.

    So now I have to pay for everything in my house for her as well as in hers…as I am living off credit cards at the moment I asked the mother whether she was able to pay for a school holiday programme as I don’t have the ability to take time off work for the school holidays. Her reply “no, if you don’t want her then Ill have her”

    The $1300 dollars I pay a month, is not for spending on the child obviously just there to punish the fathers. I have her 39% but IRD still make me pay as though I have her 0%.

    She earns a lot more than I do, as you are already aware what she earns is not taken into account.

    I am surprised the only thing we can do is write on here and complain, in this case “the pen is not mightier than the sword”

    To the point where people are committing suicide.

    A child costs x amount, end of story and should be split between both parents relative to the time spent with each parent. If the people in our government or IRD can not work it out, then they should F%*% off at get someone in that can do the job.


    Comment by Gary — Sun 7th April 2013 @ 3:23 pm

  19. I agree with you, GOVT should leave it to the Adults involved.

    There shouldn’t be a thing called child support. It should be up to the parents to decide all aspects of thier own lives.

    As my ex put it she wouldn’t let me see the kids if I didn’t pay something. So there’s my choice do I want to see the kids? Of course I do so I pay, does she want to get paid? Of course she does so we have an agreement on the amount to allow the best result for the children.

    Not everyone will come up with the same answers to questions about divorce, so why are we all tarred with the same brush!.

    Only time will change our fates, eventually children grow up and we no longer pay CS. But what we really paid in those years will last a life time. I for one hate the IRD and GOVT. But I do take ownership of my life.

    Comment by Too Tired — Sun 7th April 2013 @ 11:00 pm

  20. Can anyone tell me ….on my children’s birth certificates it has my surname but on all correspondence it has my ex partners surname ….why do the IRD do this ? Can I change it ?

    Comment by Trying — Sat 18th May 2013 @ 1:44 pm

  21. Yeah, I had that too. Was tempted to ignore the CS tax notices, because they didn’t name a legally-existant child.
    Sad reality is we know it’d never wash. Seems IRD can change a child’s name at whim, in support of the mother”s claims to possession.
    Still, it should make for great data matching further down the track when the child starts earning money, or is themself a beneficiary, and they exist under two different names on IRD’s systems ….

    Comment by omg you're &^%*$% — Sat 18th May 2013 @ 1:57 pm

  22. My childrens last names don’t show up t all they use first and middle only on my correspondance, seems they are too scared to pick a side! But it has nothing to do with sides, I told the ex if she changes there names they’re be hell to pay.

    Comment by Too Tired — Sat 18th May 2013 @ 10:03 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