Logie Jan: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17456. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with sadness that I rise again to oppose another ill-conceived piece of welfare legislation that is passing through this House. The Green Party opposes the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill without apology or prevarication. This bill essentially does three things: it creates new fraud offences it makes the partner liable for fraud debt and it requires the Crown to recover debt and reduces its discretion on how—this is the point that we find most offensive.Before anyone on that side of the House starts to yell that the Greens are soft on fraud or crime or any other rubbish like that I would like to remind the House that we already have a rigorous fraud detection and prosecution system in this country. This bill is just adding extra offences and penalties that are even tougher than in other related laws with no evidence that it will have any deterrent effect on fraud because that does not necessarily have anything to do with the drivers of welfare fraud. The Greens take stewardship of our collective resources very seriously. That is why we want to use our resources in a way that will most effectively deliver our goal of a New Zealand where everyone has the essentials so that we can guarantee the opportunities.We are working for a social security system that provides everyone with enough income to fully participate in their communities and to live safe healthy lives. This would be what a real investment approach would look like and it would save us money in the long run. We support policies that are sufficient to ensure this simple to understand and access universal in their application and equitable within a wider social context. We oppose this bill as it is not consistent with these values or this vision. Webelieve that this bill will further stigmatise the most marginalised people in this country and put more barriers in the way of people trying to get out of poverty without making any tangible difference in relation to serious intentional fraud.However there is an aspect of this bill where I believe the intention is positive and where we share the concern of submitters and others in this House. We do acknowledge that the current system of reclaiming the entire debt from the beneficiary—usually the woman—when the partner has also benefited from that money directly or indirectly is unjust. We are also concerned that currently violent partners are regularly using the threat of informing on a woman as a tool of abuse. This is easy for them because the consequences currently fall entirely on the woman holding the benefit. However we would like to see developed a policy or legislative response to this problem based on the experiences of those women and those beneficiaries who have been affected and that also involves Women’s Refuge to ensure that we have an approach that is fair and safe. This law has not been developed on that basis and there is concern that it may actually have the reverse effect.I would really like to mention that in his opening speech the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows spoke about the point where somebody goes from being able to be in a relationship with somebody and receive a benefit like the DPB to the point where the relationship moves over into being one that they need to report. I would like to ask anyone in this House how they know when it has reached that point. The law defines the point where you no longer can be on the DPB as when you are in a relationship in the nature of marriage. That is defined quite specifically by our courts as a relationship where—let me just find that in my notes—there is financial and emotional commitment and where you are willing to pay the other person’s bills.I have never been in a relationship where that relationship has got to a point where I have gone: “Now has my commitment reached a level where I am willing to pay their bills?”. That has never happened to me and yet we are talking about giving people criminal convictions for not identifying that point and reporting it to an agency. The supposed point of fairness in this bill is based around that expectation. It is unrealistic. That has very very real-life consequences for people in our communities. I just do not think that is good law. I do not think it is fair.The Green Party also shares the New Zealand Law Society’s concern regarding joint and several liability which means that both parties will be liable for the whole debt should both parties be accountable for the debt arising from the fraud. The New Zealand Law Society believes this may lead to unfair or disproportionate outcomes. In its view liability should be shared on the basis of attribution of benefits as per the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. This has been dismissed as a policy in part due to the cost or potential increase in reviews and appeals. The Green Party believes it is essential that our laws are fair proportionate and open to appeal. To decide on a legislative pathway to reduce the possibility of people appealing is not founded on a strong concept of justice.This bill also creates an offence for partners to knowingly or recklessly benefit from fraud committed by their partner which is punishable by a fine of up to $5000 or a 12-month imprisonment. The Greens do not believe this is necessary and that attributing criminal liability on the basis of determinations of relationship status is—as I have already outlined—incredibly problematic and may well create perverse results and that is being kind.The aspect of the bill that we find the most difficult actually is the change in this bill that requires the Ministry of Social Development to recover debt. I need to make sure that this House and New Zealand are aware that we are not talking about fraud here. We are talking about advances that people have had to get because the benefitlevels were consciously set below the poverty line and they were not enough for people to survive on. We know that people on basic benefits cannot afford well-balanced diets and that they cannot afford to heat their houses or to stop themselves or their children getting sick. Most of them cannot afford new clothing for their children cannot afford to replace shoes when they get holes in them cannot afford to repair their bikes or cars if they break down and cannot even where I live in Porirua afford the bus or the train from Porirua into Wellington. They certainly cannot afford sports fees or club fees or being able to get admissions into places of education within our city—Mike Sabin: So that justifies fraud does it?JAN LOGIE: We are not talking about fraud Mr Sabin. This is debt where benefits are set so low that people have to get advances which they have to pay back to be able to put food on the table and to be able to put their power on through winter. I have even heard of people being refused advances to buy blankets to try to have a cheaper option to keep themselves and their children warm. The heart of the problem with this bill is that it does not acknowledge the fact that we are putting people into poverty which is harming them and their children. This bill is seeking to take money out of the pockets of those very people who are just trying to provide the very essentials of life and that is unconscionable.