- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
This is another of the lemon deals we got from Dunne. Is the country finally coming to its senses?
Significant reforms of the Families Commission have been passed into law.
The Government’s had the numbers to pass legislation enacting the changes.
It sees the Commission cut to just one Commissioner and removes over $14 million of its funding.
That cash will be used to fund a new social policy evaluation unit
What is a social policy evaluation unit?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
…is the country coming to it’s senses? Or have they just run out of families to deal to?
Comment by Bruce S — Wed 19th March 2014 @ 8:37 pm
A social policy evaluation unit is a collection of people mostly bureaucrats of Wellington discussing matters about which they know little and care even less.
Comment by andrew — Wed 19th March 2014 @ 9:34 pm
NZ has underspent on social research and underspent on social policy analysis, through all of our history. This is shown in repeated high cost disasters, that could have been avoided by sensible spending before decisions were taken.
As well as underspending, social research and policy analysis have been seen as very low priority. The wages offered have been far lower than what Treasury offers its policy analysts.
So, if we offer much higher salaries for financial and economic analysts and relatively subsistence pay for social policy analysts, then the higher salaries jobs have tended to go to the testosterone surplus individuals, who competed harder at university. The testosterone challenged analysts got jobs doing social policy analysis. (The people who wanted to be social science researchers got jobs at university or failed to breed due to starvation. The testosterone surplus individuals wanted to be able to support a family. The testosterone short individuals didn’t see so much need to support a family.)
Then we end up with a sad situation where the social policy analysts are all female and perhaps a bit bitter at their siblings on much higher salaries (who are no better than them – except for bloody testosterone)…
So, who is surprised?
Solution – put significantly more money into social policy research and into staff training at universities. Put much of the funding for policy analysis into Government Departments and also a significant proportion into outside, relatively independent consultants – to challenge the Government staffs.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 20th March 2014 @ 9:35 am
Human Rights – from the United Nations….
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Yet did you know that NZ Govt refused to pass a bill that would protect NZers Rights to own Property…
http://www.parliament.nz/resource/0000061465
So perhaps now you can see why the Constitution of NZ is being changed and why they have REFUSED to bring NZ into line with what even the UN states in its Human Rights policy – a right to own property………so why would they REFUSE to enact such a simply right for NZers – because they want to take your property to keep the machine going for a bit longer……..
I can now see clearly why I have been subjected to such abuses by Child Support – they know they can do what they like, they can enforce orders and demands on you, because we are being stripped of ALL OUR RIGHTS – just like the Constitutional rights in the US are being systematically destroyed and IGNORED with impunity – we are seeing the same things here – and because they ATTACK individuals ALONE – they get away with it…….and will continue to do so……..so ask your Local MP, why did we refuse to enshrine in the BILL OF RIGHTS in NZ – the right of the people to OWN property and to be compensated if this was taken away……….???????????????
Comment by hornet — Thu 20th March 2014 @ 10:07 am
Hey who really understands the new child support formula effective from 1 April 2014?
Can they explain it in detail?
?
Comment by kiranjiharr — Tue 25th March 2014 @ 8:01 pm
Yes kiranjiharr the changes are easy to understand.
No changes at all not even the simple easy bits. The new system is too complex for IRD to administer and testing showed their computer systems were not up to it and the government did not want another NOVOPAY so they decided to put all changes on hold for 12 months.
This despite former revenue minister Dunne saying for years the system was unfair and not suited to modern NZ society.
We await to see if 1 April 2015 brings any changes.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 25th March 2014 @ 9:56 pm
Election YEAR – the changes are so drastic and draconian – they could NOT afford the political fallout in election year…..and if and when ALL PARENTS understand what they have in store – there would be an OUTRAGE…….
1. Charge BOTH parents a COST OF LIVING TAX – for each CHILD = $$$$ Amount UNDEFINED – so pick a number.
2. Ensure there are NO rights left to you to protect any assets you may own – so if and when you cant afford to pay the maximums demanded – they want the ability to take and sell your personal property……to support their debt creation scheme……
3. SECRET – Constitutional change – you have NO RIGHTS – Bill of Rights, Human Rights act – COMPLAINTS are REFUSED – and a then you also have a DIRECT REFUSAL to sign up to Private members bill defining the rights of a citizen to OWN PROPERTY and to be compensated if that property is taken by the state – as defined by Article 17 in the United Nations – so why would NZ NOT want to sign up to that same principal……… BECAUSE they WANT TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY without consequence……
4. Never forget – what we have here is a GOOD CAUSE = CORRUPTED for Profit and Revenue – and there is NOT a single politician with the guts to bring this to a head and change it for the better – you cant keep CREATING MASSIVE DEBT in forced PENALTIES with excessive demands ( it happens now – parents are demanded to pay more than their income supports – especially if they have property of value ) – then they BORROW against this deliberately created DEBT and will force parents into POVERTY to support it all – it is NOT a recipe for LONG term growth and success for this country……
But it is a very good formula for deliberately destroying the wealth and prosperity of Parents in NZ……all under the banner of CHILD SUPPORT………it should be renamed – Deliberate Debt creation.
Never forget the Agenda – Divide and Rule, and make you POOR, so you can never challenge the system – ever……that is the plan – its deliberate. At some time in History – these thugs, bullies and those corrupted by power will be held to account…..by the people….. TRUTH and FACTS = destroy Tyrranny and lies…….EVERYTIME………the world is waking up…….in large numbers to the lies……
That is why its been put off for a year……….
Comment by hornet — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 6:42 am
7 can’t argue with that.
Comment by Scott B — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 9:51 am
@ Alan .. Interesting because their website STILL talks about the new formula being effective from 1 April 2014….
Comment by kiranjiharr — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 1:28 pm
New formula
“¢Child support will be based on the costs of raising children. The new formula will acknowledge the additional costs of teenagers.
1 April 2015
“¢The care a parent provides for their child will be included in the child support calculation when it is 28% or more.
1 April 2015
“¢There will be new allowances, allocated to both parents, to acknowledge the parent’s own living costs and any other children they have.
1 April 2015
Non-parent carers
There will be different rules for the way we calculate child support when someone is caring for a child who is not their own. 1 April 2015
Income
“¢Both parents incomes will be used to calculate child support.
1 April 2015
“¢The definition of income for child support purposes will change to include more types of income.
1 April 2016
“¢Both parents will be able to estimate their income if it reduces 15%, and new rules will apply.
1 April 2015
Qualifying age for children
Children will cease to be eligible for child support when they turn 18, unless they are still attending school. 1 April 2016
Qualifying payments
Payments made outside the child support system for the direct benefit of the child may credited against liability. 1 April 2016
Compulsory deductions from employment income
It will be compulsory for liable parents to have their child support deducted from employment income. 1 April 2016
Penalties
The initial late payment penalty will be charged in two stages, and there will be changes to incremental penalties when a parent has long-term debt. 1 April 2016
New administrative review ground
A new administrative review ground to consider the costs of one parent re-establishing themselves after separation. 1 April 2016
Comment by Downunder — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 2:19 pm
Edited by me…
New formula
“¢Child support will be based on the costs of raising children. The new formula will acknowledge the additional costs of teenagers. But no acknowledgement of the lesser costs of younger children.
1 April 2015
“¢The care a parent provides for their child will be included in the child support calculation when it is 28% or more. Therefore there will be a lot of fathers (and some mothers) who will see their children even less.
1 April 2015
“¢There will be new allowances, allocated to both parents, to acknowledge the parent’s own living costs and any other children they have… but you’re still gonna get screwed, this is just to make you think we’re being fair.
1 April 2015
Non-parent carers
There will be different rules for the way we calculate child support when someone is caring for a child who is not their own. We plan on screwing you too.
1 April 2015
Income
“¢Both parents incomes will be used to calculate child support. Yet we will still steal more from fathers.
1 April 2015
“¢The definition of income for child support purposes will change to include more types of income. We want more than we already get, you see?
1 April 2016
“¢Both parents will be able to estimate their income if it reduces 15%, and new rules will apply. And as usual we will ignore this and bankrupt you.
1 April 2015
Qualifying age for children
Children will cease to be eligible for child support when they turn 18, unless they are still attending school. We are considering counting University as school too.
1 April 2016
Qualifying payments
Payments made outside the child support system for the direct benefit of the child may credited against liability. May be, but won’t be. Heck, why do you think we’ll change? Oops… we’re pretending we are, aren’t we?
1 April 2016
Compulsory deductions from employment income
It will be compulsory for liable parents to have their child support deducted from employment income. Haha! Good luck getting your money back that we illegally charge you now suckers!
1 April 2016
Penalties
The initial late payment penalty will be charged in two stages, and there will be changes to incremental penalties when a parent has long-term debt. We’re still coming after you for our fictional penalties.
1 April 2016
New administrative review ground
A new administrative review ground to consider the costs of one parent re-establishing themselves after separation. We’ll make sure she gets EVERYTHING!
In essence the new formula is the same as the old… we’ll just make it up!
Sound about right?
Comment by Scott B — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 2:36 pm
Scott your editing I find unhelpful. Some of your additions are fair, most are not.
The problem IRD have is their conveying information to paying and receiving parents. Your post just obscures matters.
The new formula is quite different from the old. It should not be made up other than at Admin Review where the formula can go out the window (and precedent from Family Court should be followed). It may sound to you like they just make it up but I suspect that is beaci=use you don’t invest the time to understand or you are confused by your own preconceptions.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 2:48 pm
Child Support Debt
Note the sudden change in the wording, it is not fathers, dead-beat dads anymore
But what else happened here to get from 2.45 billion to 3 billion in a year. Did a whole lot people stop paying child support or did IRD add a massive dose of penalties?
Comment by Downunder — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 3:43 pm
The debt is mainly penalties. Grows at about 30% a year. The Auditor General’s Office have done a report pointing out that these penalties drive non-compliance. One of the good things about the expected (now delayed never never) changes is an ability for IRD to write off debt that is uncollectable. Just watch some future Minister of Revenue wave their magic wand and for this “problem” to disappear with the stroke of several bureaucrats pens.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 4:45 pm
Every ‘parent’ who doesn’t have a will that requires the IRD to go to court for an order to write off the penalties (and there must be a fair few of those) but is there any incentive for the IRD to do that?
How much of the debt is dead fathers?
Comment by Downunder — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 4:49 pm
Gentlemen and ladies, – all I see here is a complex – deliberately confusing form of calculating what should be very simple and clearly defined – and it should be before any such new formula is introduced – parents should be made aware NOW as to what their obligations will be in a monetary sense $$$$$ so they can budget – thats just for starters……..this should not be some open ended program where varying amounts can be determined by a single review person like they get away with now, while ignoring all your rights – because as I have seen first hand – this will become a PROPERTY grab…..if you have assets they want them sold …….
Dont kid youself Alan – they never want to get rid of DEBT – DEBT is the only way Govts create Currency to play with – CREATE MORE DEBT…..DEBT for them is good……….it matters not that the Currency being created has no monetary value – its all about DEBT creation, so you can be demanded more -especially penalties – thats a great scam – so that you have to give up your property ( which is actually worth something _ in exchange…….
Its also interesting that Family court orders – can be summarily overruled by a single Review lawyer – based entirely on the opinion of a disgruntled ex …….. while facts as to your actual income as filed in tax returns are deliberately ignored …….
Parents of NZ – you are in for some terrible times ahead – BOTH of you……… . especially since NO $$$$ value has been defined and or capped………
Comment by hornet — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 6:09 pm
Hornet I agree with you as usual. It’s all about growing more debt. The IRD want more money, not less.
Alan, once again you know nothing about me or how much I know and very little about my experience(s). I would once again thank you to not make assumptions. I am sick of people like you. Making assumptions and lies about a person and completely ignoring/devaluing their experiences. I expect that of feminists, not of someone who claims to want to help people.
Comment by Scott B — Wed 26th March 2014 @ 8:55 pm