From the people who unwittingly follow the unlawful orders of those on high, just as German soldiers obeyed the orders of their commanders to execute millions of innocent people because of physical or mental disability, religious belief or opposition to the NAZI menace.
My story starts nearly 14 years ago.
The Child Support Agency or IRD - however you paint it, the beast is still a behemoth with only one intent: increasing crown revenue - allege I have a "liability" to pay for my children.
They do not consider that their mum moved away and took our children with them. She then took out a protection order and a trespass notice making it impossible for me have any contact with our children. I have no idea how my kids have grown up nor what they think of their dad.
But, back to the IRD - this makes no difference to them...in typical monolithic fashion, they keep herding "liable parents" to the gas oven that is child "support" in New Zealand.
During the past decade and a half, I have tried on numerous occassions to engage the people there to sit down with me and work out how we can reach an agreement that does not send me to the poor-house or, at the least, lets me see my children in return for what I am extorted to pay. Let's face it: this is a TAX ON CHILDREN. Nothing more and nothing less.
Eventually, I arranged to meet Heather Styris at the IRD offices in Manukau, Auckland. It turns out that Heather Styris is second only to David Udy, National Manager, Child Suport Agency.
Heather Styris is head of the "Enforcement" part of child support in the IRD.
Enforcement? Just what does "enforcement" have to do with child "support"?
Quite a lot, it seems.
My alleged "liability" has become complicated with a small amount of penalties added by child "support" when I have been unable to pay the amound they have "assessed".
This means my total alleged "debt" is now well over $100,000...now, while you are all struggling for breath at the size of the number, just remember that most of this is PENALTIES levied by Heather Styris and David Udy and their accomplices in crime for non-payment of child "support" that should never have been "assessed" in the first place.
Now, I feel I am a reasonable man and I did my best to be dad to my children, but this system sucks!
So, back to the Dragon Styris.
We meet in a VERY large room. I am ushered in by the receptionist and seated at one end of a VERY long table. She asks if I would like something to drink and returns with my coffee and a plate with a biscuit! Man, I'm on a winner here.
Soon after in comes the Dragon Lady (also known as Heather Styris, Manager of Enforcement), but she is not alone - no problem.
BUT then Dragon Lady and her entourage sit down at the OTHER END OF THE TABLE. Styris is presented with some papers, asks some questions, looks once down the table, signs the papers, stands up and leaves....followed by her entourage.
Shortly after that, the receptionist comes back in and tells me I need to leave now - the meeting is over. Really??????
Over 12 years have elapsed now and the situation didn't improve, but they gave me a "case manager" at the Takapuna Office of Child Support. Now we're getting somewhere?
Then I had to stop self-employment and re-enter the waged force in order to retrain in modern practice for my industry.
When I had been at work nearly a week, the boss approached me and showed me an "order" from the IRD (from Dragon Lady's Gestapo) informaing him that he was to take "any and all monies owed" to me and pay them instead to the IRD (read the child "support" agency).
What could he do? It turns out he was breaking the law by paying them that much because it was an "unlawful" order, but for failing to act on an order from IRD the penalties are HUGE. I don't blame him - he was just doing what he understood was required by law.
However, my case "manager" (who told me on the telephone that, just because they could, they were going to do me over in court - there were a few F-words thrown in for good measure) and her "team leader" (Dean, you know who you are) and their "mis-Manager" who is one Val Raggett. Oh, and I forgot to mention the Dragon Lady herself, David Cunliffe the then Minister of Child "support" and his esteemed leader Mr Michael Cullen and, of course, the inestimable Mrs Clark.
I'm completely stuffed now. I can't work because I won't be paid. I have an alleged "debt" that is more than most people's mortgage that I don't believe is legal.
Heater Styris is not human. She obviously has no compassion, no reasonableness and no humanity. She deserves to be treated like a mongrel dog - just how she treats other people.
As a public servant, she has failed to serve her public - me and all the other parents she messes up.
She and David Udy and Val Raggett should be fired. They don't deserve to be public servants - after all they are only tax collectors - those despicable people who extorted tithes from the good people of Sherwood Forest. But, alas, where is Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men?
It's late and this will be enough for you to edit (if it is too rude or too confrontational), but, regardless of what you do or don't publish, all the best with your website. All of these mongrels deserve to be exposed for the frauds they really are: TAX COLLECTORS.
7 comments:
I am IMPRESSED!
How on Earth do you stand it?
What has been done to recompense you for the unnecessary stress and trauma you have suffered at the hands of the IRD?
Why has Mr Cullen not intervened and straightened all of this out?
OOps! I forgot - your "debt" is part of the $600 MILLION of child support penalties included in his budget.
And, get a life, what is this Styris woman? The modern-day New Zealand MAFIA?
Our prayers and thoughts go out to you where-ever you may be. God bless and God speed.
Hmmmm, it sounds like you have embellished your story somewhat. I have dealt with all of the people mentioned in your fairytale and although I didnt particularly care for their comments or their actions, there was no way they were as bad as what you have described. When you post a comment on this site, please be completely truthful otherwise it makes it hard to believe anyones comments. Even though I didnt like the final decision in my case, my case manager explained and pointed out all the legislation involved. She was very sympathetic and even admitted that she agreed with my plight however neither she, nor her area manager were able to help. No matter how angry I am, I know not to shoot the messenger. The problem lies within legislation, it is parliament we should be taking our complaints to, not shooting the messenger.
To: Anonymous
You raise a couple of interesting issues. Honesty also means being willing to name yourself.
With regard to the "Child Support Agency" and your comment about "not shooting the messenger", your perception is quite different from mine. My personal perception has been built up whilst providing advocacy and support to a very large number of parents who are struggling with the IRD (AKA the Child Support Agency).
At a general level, I agree with not shooting the messenger, but, in this case, there are some pretty good reasons to deviate from this policy.
The "Child Support Agency" are the group who operate within the overall umbrella of the Department of Inland Revenue to administer the Child Support Act (1991).
Because they administer the Child Support Act, they have a duty of care to ALL the 175,000 people directly affected by the Act.
The CS Agency do have a "National Office" and one of their responsibilities is to identify issues in the legislation and make recommendations to the policy makers in this regard.
The primary intent of this very badly named legislation is to collect "benefit recovery" tax. This means that the government use this unlawful law to tax over 100,000 parents TWICE for social security benefits paid to their ex-partners (once through income tax and GST and then twice through this law).
An interesting comment is made in the original post about what part "enforcement" plays in the Child Support Agency. Why, in fact, do we need "enforcement" at all in this area?
The Agency will tell you it is because of "non-compliance" or to "ensure compliance". So, rather than establishing why so many parents are unable or unwilling to comply, they make a bigger and bigger stick with which to metaphorically beat these parents into "compliance".
Now, to some facts: there is currently slightly over $1 BILLION of "child support debt". That is, by any measure, a lot of money.
Of this amount, over $600 MILLION are penalties levied by the Agency.
Penalties are CROWN REVENUE - your children will never see even one cent of any penalty you pay! Instead, it is used to fund parliamentary superannuation, overseas jumkets, over-inflated government salaries etc.
And, this seems to be the crux of the matter: the Agency are simply tax collectors. They either have lost the ability/desire to administer the Act or they are acting on instructions [from government] to collect the money.
Goverment recently passed the 4th amendment to the Act. This gives the Commissioner of Inland Revenue VERY broad powers in terms of collecting child "support" including the ability for the Commissioner to arrest or detain at the border where an alleged debt exists.
Combine this with the internal restructuring of the Department of Inland Revenue into "National Streams of Specialisation" where the "social policy" function of child "support" will disappear completely as all of the Agency's functions are made part of the Crown Revenue function of Inland Revenue.
This will mean an even stronger focus on collecting the money and even less care than is presently provided.
Putting all else aside, the most pressing question for me arising from this Dad's story is: how on Earth did the Agency allow this alleged debt to build to over $100,000 without much earlier intervention unless their sole intent is to generate revenue for the crown?
Regards,
Mark Shipman
National President
Parents for Children
hi ,i do agree how unfair partners can be ,im in a similar case, the only differance is that iam a mother of three,and am inneed of more surport,my xpartner if you could call him that,has never been surportive with the careing of my three children or his other four child,financially or emotinally,yet he works doesnt have a place to stay,violent,drug addic and alcohlic(excusse my spelling)didnt want to be registered as the childrens father because he doesnt want to pay child surport to help us,but still he has fathers rights,because its in the best interest of the children cant make sence of it,iv been wanting to relocate to Australia by my mother who me and my children can be best surpported by also a better future for my children there,but had compromised with their father about access to my children, he disagrees,so i sort of know were your coming from but im of the oppisite sex,not that it means anything to me,i just know how it feels coming from a similar experiance.
also im living on the dpb at 240pw seen lawyers about a parternity it seems to be taking its time,also the father of my children would only be about 7000 behind for child surport iv informed them of were hes working still nothing has been done.
Good for people to know.
I totally agree that our 'Child Support' legislation is only a revenue gathering exercise for the IRD and the government. I was custodian of our youngest child, my ex-partner had child support taken from his wages regularly and since I too worked, his payments went into my bank account. However, it seemed that IRD wanted more money from him for so-called arrears and late payment penalties! His wage was regularly deducted every fortnight by his employer yet IRD insisted that he was behind in payments...and then they would miss paying my own bank account (even though nothing had changed with his payday deductions) and when I rang them to ask why child support didn't go in as usual IRD would tell me he was 'late' making payments - that was totally false! He showed me his payslip which still had child support payments deducted as usual! Anyway, to cut to the chase, my ex-partner was becoming so stressed out with these constant letters from IRD and demands for penalty payments that he told me he had no choice but to quit his job and go on unemployment so they could only take out the minimum child support payment from him! I knew they were ripping him off mercilessly so I rang them, told them I was giving custody of our youngest child to my ex-partner and no longer required child support. They then asked my ex-partner if he wanted to claim child support from ME!! He said No...she can't afford to pay it (knowing how badly they rippred him off) and now he has custody and neither of us needs to pay IRD for child support!
Post a Comment