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

Unpaid Child Support

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 6:55 pm Sun 17th November 2013

The girls having a chat about how things is.

Make sure you have some form of safety device holding you into your computer chair before listening to Paula Bennett on this one.


  1. Wow! Few things there I agree with from Bennett. That doesn’t happen often. Who’s the dumb blonde, anyway? What an attitude problem!

    Comment by Rachel — Wed 20th November 2013 @ 6:47 am

  2. harpoon the fat one and sack the blonde one

    Comment by iani — Wed 20th November 2013 @ 1:04 pm

  3. The blonde bitch with the bad attitude is Rachel Smalley – presenter of the weekend current affairs programme ‘The Nation’ which screens on TV3 but is made by an independent production company.

    The independent production company is Front Page which is owned by Richard Harman, who writes himself up as follows;

    Richard Harman is one of the country’s most experienced TV current affairs journalists.

    Richard [I know how to make a buck, call every man a bastard] Harman, thinks this is good journalism.

    We can only hope for a day when no-one wants to buy this feminist rubbish off him anymore.

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 20th November 2013 @ 2:04 pm

  4. I am not at all a Bennett fan but I thought much she says here makes sense.
    The frightening statistic is that 60% of teen parents remain on DPB after 10 years.
    Ms Smalley is badly informed about Child Support debt. The so called 2.8 Billion is nearly 75% made up of fees and interest that are in themselves a disincentive to payment (that was the Auditor Generals conclusion).
    Ms Smalley does herself no credit with this interview; however I don’t see why she is called a bitch. That is the same kind of petty “playing the man” labeling she is guilty of.
    Ms Smalley laments there is “nothing to stop men” but 19 years paying 18-40% of your income in Child Support seems a pretty good stick to me. I also percieve the energy of avoiding work or living in NZ is an even bigger cost to liable parents. Bennett at least sees the two sides to Child Support matters and that enforcing payment is only one of the issues to be addressed.

    Watch in the next 2-3 years when so Minister of Revenue will be trumpeting the demolishing of the so called CS debt mountain. The new legislation and changes will allow some future Minister to parade a 50-75% reduction in “debt” when IRD wipe payments that never existed in reality and are just smoke and mirrors of 10% initial penalties, 2% incremental penalties all adding up to 38& interest in year one and 27% every subsequent year.

    When we wipe the debt of the top five taxpayers CS “debt” that alone will wipe a million dollars off the mythical mountain. My money is that the great political chameleon Peter Dunne will not be that minister and he will in future be doing nothing sitting on boards and quangos drawing an even bigger stipend than he does currently as leader of United Future. That sometimes registered party finally got 30 people to their National Conference a few weekends back. Considering it was held in the same building and 2 doors down from his electorate office I suppose about half those attendees were either family or employees. 500 signatures certainly was a big ask for Mr Dunne nothing.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 20th November 2013 @ 5:26 pm

  5. In the above I meant to say the energy of avoiding work or living OUTSIDE NZ is a bigger cost to liable parents than engaging with CS and paying the tax.
    Work provides dignity, identity, satisfaction and we men are good at it. Those who argue they benefit from fleeing to parts foreign loos the possibility of contact with their children and that, in my view, is a huge loss to everyone. Primarily the children but also Dad, his extended family and definitely to the rest of us left behind who need to pick up the pieces of fatherlessness and the vicious circle it perpetuates.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 20th November 2013 @ 5:31 pm

  6. Ms Smalley does herself no credit with this interview; however I don’t see why she is called a bitch. That is the same kind of petty ‘playing the man’ labelling she is guilty of.

    No it’s not. She is not just ill informed about child support, she is an arrogant bitch.

    Sitting in her ivory tower saying that every child being raised on the sole parent benefit is the child of a loser, who is not paying for his child. She doesn’t consider for a moment, that just one of those ‘teenagers’ they are referring to actually wanted that child but simply cannot complete against the funding regime of the State.

    If she wants to go on national TV in support of the feminist brigade and label New Zealand men emotionally-retarded losers, fine, I’ll call it for what it is –

    Rachel Smalley is a bigoted, sexist, arrogant bitch.

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 20th November 2013 @ 6:01 pm

  7. How come they didn’t cover the topic of child support abuse by women

    Comment by kiranjiharr — Thu 21st November 2013 @ 6:01 pm

  8. #6, Hi Bevan,
    If you listen to the interview you first hear Bennett say “we must sat a few…”, then she contradicts herself and says a “high proportion”. Even Smalley uses the words “some losers”. She may be arrogant but you mis-quote her and I think show yourself to be unnecessarily rude.

    Kiranjiharr, Ms Bennett also reports some of the complaints her electoral office receive about how Child Support is abused (and miss-used) by receiving parents. There was at least a little balance that the system isn’t perfect.


    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 22nd November 2013 @ 1:52 pm

  9. I have been told there are parents who push their girls to go out and have babies so that they can claim benefit.There are families with 3rd generation on sole parent benefit…and they want the tradition to continue. So there are some looser girls and families out there. So it is those girls preying on innocent men.

    Comment by kumar — Fri 22nd November 2013 @ 3:02 pm

  10. You first hear Smalley say;

    ‘The likes of you and I are paying for this.’

    Then shortly after;

    ‘If you can’t stop the men who are on benefits or whatever, who are running around fathering children everywhere.’

    This woman is a couple of sandwiches short of the picnic but maybe that’s why Harman employs her.

    Harman must be an absolute malevolent dickhead if he thinks ‘one of the country’s most experienced TV current affairs journalists’ would deliver a piece of totally un-researched or deliberately misleading junk like this to nationwide television.

    He did it, because he knew he could get away with it. He doesn’t have to take any responsibility for the content, so he churned out a load of feminist propaganda and got paid for it.

    So they got their money out of it – good for them, but neither of them will be getting any respect from me for what they’ve done here.

    Unnecessarily rude? I don’t think so. (The standard of this program is enough to make you question whether he is picking up back handers from the IRD.)

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 22nd November 2013 @ 3:27 pm

  11. Rachel Smalley is a bigoted, sexist, arrogant bitch.

    Actually (and as a feminist who raised her child on DPB) I have to agree with the sentiment although I’m a little hesitant to go past ‘dumb blonde’. It was present not only in her words, but in her body language too.

    She flew her colours proudly from start to finish – and made it clear that she was unprepared to take any part in Bennett’s apologies for the men who were clearly doing the best they could. Her feminazi view was evident immediately, and I wondered for a moment if it was because it was White Ribbon month and she knew the girls would be wriggling with power and hanging off every word. Bigoted.

    She was dismissive and contemptuous, even going so far as to use a flick of her hand to show the ‘insignificance’ (in her opinion, not mine) of absent fathers – as though all fathers who were unable to totally share in their child’s welfare did so deliberately. Arrogant.

    She lumped all fathers in together, and made no allowance for alternative situations (as Bennett went out of her way to do). She certainly forgot to make any mention of the number of guys who raise their child(ren) as a single father. That was sexist.

    Then again, I’ve been told on many occasions that I’m a bitch so maybe I should sit down and shut up now. Have a nice weekend! 🙂

    Comment by Rachel — Sat 23rd November 2013 @ 7:18 pm

  12. Yes, you’re so right about the body language – it’s a sad world isn’t it. One day, it’s all going to get too much for Santa Claus; I see him leaping from his sleigh and terminating the spirit of Christmas with a belly flop on the ice.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 24th November 2013 @ 7:52 am

  13. I have heard their is likely to be a North Pole revolution and Mother Christmas should take over the task. Much too unsafe to allow children to sit on Father Christmas’s knee, to allow him to groom children year after year with gifts. IATA are concerned that underage elves have been seen sitting next to a man on the sleigh and that is a gross breach of unaccompanied minor rules.
    Let’s not terminate Christmas but some changes are needed that is for sure!!!

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 24th November 2013 @ 10:41 am

  14. The generalisations here are appalling. There are plenty of young women in New Zealand that have multiple children to multiple fathers but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are actually looking after those children. They have a child and leave it with the father and move on.

    These are guys that work and pay for that child and don’t receive any child support.

    Likewise there are women on the benefit who may have four or five children but only be looking after one or two because the others are with their fathers.

    There might be only 11% of fathers on the solo parent benefit but that doesn’t tell the true story about ‘women that are running around all over the place dropping children all around the place’.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 24th November 2013 @ 12:56 pm

  15. ‘women that are running around all over the place dropping children all around the place’ – Downunder

    So it is those girls preying on innocent men. – kumar

    Uh huh… and lots of them. Why work, after all, when someone else can pay for you to stay home. It was common practice back in the late 80’s. Holy crap did some of those guys get set up. And if it turned out they didn’t have as much money as initially thought for the ‘behind the scenes’ deals so they could visit their kids – off to Auckland for a quick ‘miscarriage’. Poor bastards didn’t know what hit them.

    If the numbers are as high as Bennett says they are – there’s a good chance nothing’s changed much in the last 25 years. And all those women I knew back then are now in my age bracket and will still be playing the same game, just with a different pack of cards.

    Comment by Rachel — Sun 24th November 2013 @ 2:40 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