Wall Louisa: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16785. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):I am a member of the Social Services Committee but unfortunately I cannot remember hearing the submissions on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. I was not in the select committee at the time but it is my pleasure to inform the House that Labour does support the bill which is having its second reading. But we have grave reservations. I want to pick up on what Phil Heatley the previous speaker said which was that we need a welfare system that helps people when they are in need. We actually see this bill as beneficiary bashing and I will provide a context not only for the House but for the people at home who are listening.When you look at the problem definition in terms of this piece of legislation it seems that the problem is that there is $20 million of spouse/partner beneficiary fraud in New Zealand—so that is the context. From our perspective we have looked at I guess a parallel issue which is tax fraud which is a deliberate act and that totals $141 million. So we question why this Government always seeks to attack and criminalise those who are the most vulnerable which is the point that my colleague Rajen Prasad raised earlier. So from our perspective this is a piece of legislation that is going to target and stigmatise those who are the most vulnerable. Picking up a statistic from my colleague Jan Logie who also sits on the Social Services Committee we are talking of about a third of the fraud that is committed within the social welfare budget.One of the big issues that we have—and I would like to quote from our minority view in the select committee report and it actually comes from the New Zealand Law Society—is that “it is fundamentally unjust for a beneficiary’s spouse or partner to be liable for the full excess amount that the beneficiary obtained by fraud regardless of the spouse or partner’s benefit and that limiting recovery to the amount by which the beneficiary’s spouse or partner benefited would provide a more equitable outcome for relationship fraud.” From our perspective to link the fraud of an individual—because in New Zealand only an individual can receive a benefit—to fraud perpetrated by that individual’s spouse or partner is fundamentally unjust. We say that it is fundamentally unjust because it actually departs from general principles of criminal law. So from a legal perspective there has to be a positive act to then determine that a criminal activity has taken place and there has to be knowledge of or failure to report another’s offending which is another ground for it to be seen as a criminal offence. Our contention is that there are already a number of existing criminal offences that cover the criminal liability of spouses or partners of beneficiaries.Some of the things that beneficiaries’ spouses or partners have to do in terms of that positive act include agreeing with the beneficiary that the beneficiary will commit a fraud. So we are actually talking about collusion between two people for a fraud to take place. They have to encourage or assist the beneficiary to make false statements in order to obtain a benefit or rate of benefit by fraud. They have to make false statements for the purpose of assisting the beneficiary to obtain a benefit. They have to omit to inform the Ministry of Social Development when questioned on matters.This then points to the submission by Kay Brereton who is the co-convenor of the Beneficiary Advocacy Federation of New Zealand who said: “While we support the idea of making both parties to a fraud liable for any debt relating to fraud where a relationship in the nature of marriage is proven we are very concerned at the removal of the requirement for investigators to first seek information from the parties under investigation.” So in terms of a natural justice perspective we are really concerned that there is no investigation now. If we deem that benefit fraud has taken place and if you are the partner of the beneficiary who has committed that fraud you are all of a sudden linked to that crime and you have no recourse. The presumption of innocence actually is a legal principle so I do want to highlight that in terms of my kōrero tonight—that the burden of proof should be on the ministry not on the person who has been charged with the criminal offence.This for us is a deterioration of the relationship that the State has with beneficiaries. People who seek assistance from the State do not do so I believe because it is a lifestyle choice. I believe that they need support from the State because they find themselves in circumstances beyond their control where they need income so they can pay their rent put food on the table and fundamentally look after not only themselves but in many instances their children. This piece of legislation I contend should not have been a priority of this Government. It would have been a much better prioritisation of this House’s resources if we had actually looked at the $141 million in tax fraud that is committed every year. That is a deliberate act by wealthy people to not pay their fair share.The context of this piece of legislation is the most vulnerable people who are receiving support from this State being penalised for circumstances that they find themselves in. I think that is the biggest critique of this piece of legislation. The biggest critique I can make about this Government is that it likes to kick the most vulnerable. It likes to stigmatise them traumatise them and make them feel like they are undeserving.Tim Macindoe: You know that’s not true Louisa.LOUISA WALL: It is actually—it is. If you look at whether it is a just treatment of beneficiaries or whether this process creates a genuine respect for the people who find themselves needing welfare the answer is no. It is absolutely no. So the prioritisation of this Government always should come into question when pieces of legislation like this come into the House.It seems to me that if we wanted to pursue fraudsters we would go after those who are committing tax fraud. But that is not a priority of this Government because that would be a lot of people it knows—wealthy people—Hon Trevor Mallard: Their mates.LOUISA WALL: Its mates—that is right. And that is the issue that I have and that our side has with pieces of legislation like this. At the end of the day people in need need to be supported. People in need do not need to be further traumatised and stigmatised through pieces of legislation like this. So I will continue as a representative of communities most in need to ensure that we have respectful working engagements with them.We as a Labour Party are supporting this bill because we believe that those who commit fraud should be held accountable. But the equity that we seek in terms of holding people accountable should extend to the fraudsters who are committing tax evasion. Kia ora. Thank you.