Rights are not being trampled in the area of benefit
fraud, writes PETER HUGHES*, the chief executive responsible for Work and Income.
A number of serious allegations about Work and Income were made by Ms Abernethy in a Dialogue article. They painted an untrue picture of our organisation and our staff.
Readers of that article will recall that Ms Abernethy outlined the story of Marilyn Monroe's dealings with Work and Income. To recap, Marilyn was paid $32,000 that she should not have been paid because she falsely ticked "yes" on an application form that asked her to tell us whether or not she was caring for her child.
She later admitted doing this in court. Marilyn was convicted. Her barrister said it was an outrage that Winz was making her repay the money.
Ms Abernethy said that Winz was out of control, that it behaved as if it needed to generate income, and that it was failing in its duty to hold hearings into debts when asked to.
I have reviewed the two real-life files that make up bits of Ms Abernethy's story. While I would like to, I cannot comment on these because there are certain aspects of both cases that have yet to be finally determined by the judicial system.
If I were able to comment, this would be a very simple and straightforward article. However, I can say that parts of Ms Abernethy's tale simply do not add up.
For example, dyslexia is a reading disability. It does not, as far as I am aware, affect someone's ability to tell the truth. To get the domestic purposes benefit in Marilyn's case, she would have to have told us she had the care of her child.
Marilyn filled out forms on more than three occasions stating that she was caring for her son. She also applied for other financial assistance during this period. Marilyn admitted she knew that she had to tell Work and Income if her child left her care. She pleaded guilty to falsely claiming she was looking after her child and was convicted by the District Court.
Ms Abernethy portrays us as being mean for taking Marilyn's hard-earned wages into account and believes that we should have ignored them because what she earned was almost within the amount she was allowed to earn.
As anyone who has been convicted of any offence knows, being almost within the law is not good enough. Our clients have a legal duty to tell us about any change in their circumstances that might affect their benefits.
Staff of Work and Income and I also have a legal duty to deal with income declared to us in accordance with the law laid down by Parliament. There are no ifs or buts about that. We must apply the law. And we have to do that without fear of favour. That does not make us out of control.
I note, too, that $6000 is not almost within $4160. It is almost $2000 over it.
We are not interested in generating income or behaving in some sort of inappropriate corporate fashion. Why would we want to? Why shouldn't Marilyn be expected to tell us about her earnings? Marilyn was treated entirely in accordance with the law. She did not get any more or less than she should have. That is our job. That is what we did.
As to the bigger question of whether fraudulently received benefits should be repaid, I suspect this is not a hard question for most New Zealanders.
The Government's policy is that fraudulent debts should be recovered to the fullest extent that this is realistically possible. The law does not allow me to do what Ms Abernethy suggests.
She says that someone who has deliberately defrauded the taxpayer should be given a backdated benefit for the same period. This backdated benefit should then be set off against the fraud debt, thus substantially reducing the debt.
How would I explain the fairness of this to the unfortunate few who apply for benefits only to discover that they were eligible to apply earlier but are ineligible for backpay because the law requires a person to apply for a benefit before they can be paid it? Winz staff are required to follow the law.
Ms Abernethy should reflect on a judgment this month of Justice Rhys Harrison in the High Court, when he threw out a case which has similarities to Marilyn's. As reported by the Herald, he observed: "She relied upon extracts from the works of Charles Dickens, the French Algerian philosopher Albert Camus, and the Czechoslovakian author Franz Kafka to support a submission that Winz was using the machinery of the state to oppress or tyrannise the rights of the individual. Regrettably, I am bound to determine this claim by following the more prosaic path of legal principle and analysis."
As for the other tyrannies that Ms Abernethy alleges are routine, the real story is similarly prosaic. Were just ordinary people here trying to do our best. There is no millionaires club and has not been for some years. And all of the recommendations of the Joychild Report have either been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.
On the issue of delays in holding review hearings, Ms Abernethy is absolutely right. It is unacceptable to make clients wait as long as they have. That is why we are developing a new automated system. We need to do better on this and we will. I would expect to see improvements made in this area before the end of the year.
Ms Abernethy says that the next time Marilyn goes into a Winz world of benefits she should wear a cloak of invisibility. Actually there is a lot more to Work and Income than just benefits. We also offer assistance in training opportunities, work start grants and a range of help to keep people supported in work.
So I have a better suggestion. Why not just tell us the truth and ask for our help? If Marilyn had done this, I know we would have been in a far better position to help her to participate fully in our society.
Who knows? If she sought the help she was legally entitled to, she might even be in the movies one day. And wouldn't that be fantastic.
* Peter Hughes is the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
Waitangi Tribunal turns, 50 but there’s no cause to celebrate - John Tamihere
The Waitangi Tribunal turns 50 - happy birthday to you.