Williams Poto: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):Kia orana Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. It is my pleasure to take a short call on the second reading of the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill which we support with some reservations. We have reservations because of course we are hoping that at some point this Government will realise that the recovery needs to be shared out amongst our people—that we all deserve a fair share of these prosperous times the Government is telling us about.I believe it is important to be very clear about the principles and the values that you stand on when you debate a serious issue like this. I want to state categorically that fraud and in this case fraud of taxpayer-funded institutions is abhorrent. When fraud is proven those most at fault must be punished. It is important to remember that as a general principle and that it should be and could be applied in other areas where the taxpayer can be impacted. It is the most basic form of accountability back to the New Zealand taxpayer—that their hard-earned money is being used appropriately and wisely. Thank goodness we have a backstop when we are vulnerable when we are unable to manage with our current resources when we need a helping hand. Some of our people need more help than others and I for one am very happy to live in a country where the vulnerable and those who are having a difficult time are supported. However we do need a certain level of accountability about how we use State support. When we misuse it and when that is discovered and proven then we must ensure that those involved experience the full extent of punishment to remedy the situation.I want to quote back to Melissa Lee when she spoke a little earlier this evening when she talked about domestic violence being one of those things tested for. That would mean that people in domestic violence situations if they come up for these particular offences will be tested and not have these cases charged against them. Melissa Lee also said the Ministry of Social Development was competent at testing the women who would come under the domestic violence provisions in order to recognise domestic violence. Well I would want to know what that test actually looks like. Women who present with domestic violence issues are very vulnerable and potentially can be revictimised if they are required to sit a test to prove they are in a violent relationship. I would hope that this House would relook at this particular test and see it as continuing to victimise women who are already under pressure of domestic violence.I want to quote what the Social Services Committee said. I commend the select committee. It would have been interesting being on the select committee and listening to the submitters who presented. The select committee stated that the amendments were designed “to make clearer the criteria for liability on the part of a beneficiary’s spouse or partner who knowingly or otherwise benefits from an amount obtained by fraud. To be liable the spouse or partner must know or be ‘reckless’ as to whether the amount obtained is in excess of what the beneficiary is entitled to”. That requires a certain amount of knowledge and when I go back and quote situations where people are potentially in domestic violence situations I would challenge that that is actually a test that could be met by many of our families.The bill also presupposes that some administrative error or similar has not occurred and caused the beneficiary to be put in a position of being overpaid. We have already heard several members in this House talk about that situation happening and I understand that the level of administration work required to ensure that the declaration of income data for part-time work is adequately captured in a timely way is actually quite huge. So how can we ensure that beneficiaries are not inadvertently thrown into an overpayment situation? The beneficiary advocate Kay Brereton was quoted as saying that currently the majority of people being punished for relationship fraud were women. I have to go back to my previous statement about how we are inadvertently victimising a section of our community without having good tests to prove that they are actually not being overly pressured by the men in their violent relationships. I want to also quote the Minister Chester Borrows from February 2013—