Editorial: Limiting anti-fraud move to welfare spouses unfair

5:30 AM Saturday Feb 23, 2013

Photo / File

There has been only muted criticism of the Government's latest welfare initiative, which sees people facing a $5,000 fine or a year in jail if it is found they were aware their partner was fraudulently claiming a benefit.

The response is understandable enough. Beneficiaries attract little public sympathy at the best of times, and many people will see little wrong in both parties who profited from a crime being punished, and the losses being split between them.

But if they accept that premise, they should also consider its wider implications. If there is to be a level playing field, should this not also apply to the wife of the businessman who lives the high life on the back of her husband's fraudulent activities, of which she is well aware?

Chester Borrows, the Associate Minister for Social Development, gave no indication this was also in his mind when he trumpeted the Government's tackling of welfare fraud this week.

Misrepresenting a relationship as a means of receiving the domestic purposes benefit or sole-parent support is, of course, usually a decision taken by both partners. But there will be occasions when that is not so.

In such cases, a great deal of time, money and energy will be expended in the pursuit of an innocent party. And all because this so-called relationship fraud is said to be costing the Government $20 million-plus a year.

That is a paltry sum, and hardly justification for a law that singles out beneficiaries' partners in an unnecessarily heavy way.

Barry Eastwood (Epsom) | 10:47AM Sunday, 24 Feb 2013

The writer makes the comment 'in pursuit of an innocent party' which is patently incorrect. In the vast majority of cases investigated the partner would have been very much aware of the fraudulent behaviour. Neither are the sums paltry. Would the NZ Herald allow a staff member to escape prosecution because the sum that they embezzled was paltry? I think not - rather a case of double standards in the haste to criticise a long overdue initiative by the Government.

Of course the partners of corporate criminals should be pursued but that is a matter for a different Minister to pursue.

Adam () | 10:47AM Sunday, 24 Feb 2013

Yes, agreed partners in on business cons should also be pinged. But to be "fair" then at the white collar end of the scale that alone wont be enough, lets also make it easier to take back the proceeds of business cons that have been tucked away in family trusts.

Westie Bryan (Glen Eden) | 10:48AM Sunday, 24 Feb 2013

I think this policy of targeting beneficiares' "partners" is a great idea and long overdue. It will be good for preventing bludging no hopers from using girls/women trying to make a life on the DPB. These are the very ones who should be targeted immediately.

They rarely contribute any financial or moral support and just drag down and destroy those they are sponging off. They use them as cheap providers of accommodation and sex while spending their own benefits on drugs and booze. Come down heavy on them and help the affected women and families to escape their clutches.

I see this problem constantly within my own wider family and it dismays and disgusts me that nothing is done to eliminate these useless parasites. Your contention that this should also extend to fraud at the other end of the spectrum also has great merit. Bring it on. Get tough on all criminals.