Logie Jan: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:16951. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise to speak to the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. I want to just pick up on some of the points that Chester Borrows has just been making. I would like to speak maybe a bit later about that point that this is all about fraud when in actual fact it is not; it is also about debt recovery and debt recovery from some of the poorest people in this country. This bill will require the State to recover money that was lent to those people advanced to those people for just the basic essentials of life. We oppose that and are quite happy to oppose that because to us that does not meet the principle of fairness that I believe that most New Zealanders uphold. We are quite happy to oppose that.I want to speak now though to an aspect of the bill that is rather more complicated—and we have a rather more complicated perspective on it—and that the Minister was also covering. This is the recovery of debt from a partner of a beneficiary when that debt has arisen from fraud and they knew—or they knew there was a risk—that they were benefiting from that fraud. Initially the first proposal of this bill required the partner to know the precise entitlement or the nature of the excess amount but this requirement has been removed in this iteration of the bill effectively broadening the scope of it. It is also creating a criminal offence specific to spouses or partners so that it is an offence for them to know or be reckless about knowing whether they are benefiting from a beneficiary’s fraud.There were not that many submissions on this bill—only 13 in total. Some did raise concern around this aspect of the bill on two key points. One is that the changes to make partners and spouses criminally and civilly liable have the potential to increase risks of domestic violence and I will address further the Minister’s comments in relation to this. I know from having worked in Women’s Refuge that the threat of dobbing in a woman for receiving the DPB is a real dynamic in violent relationships. This bill has the potential to reduce that dynamic in the relationships because you are not going to threaten to dob somebody in for something that you may be held accountable for. So that has a very real appeal to me as does that sense of fairness. If somebody is benefiting from an income then it seems fair that there is some kind of joint liability around that but I guess it is just that we do have concerns that it is not that simple and this bill is not necessarily the answer to that problem.We would have much rather seen a collaborative response of the Government going out to say Women’s Refuge and consulting in the first place around how this system is operating at the moment for victims of domestic violence. We know that the courts do not see violent relationships as being in the nature of marriage so therefore technically victims of domestic violence should not be held accountable for a debt in that scenario. However that is not the experience that we are hearing about consistently from women who have been through the system and who have been investigated by Work and Income for fraud.I do thank the Minister for engaging in a conversation around this and enabling us to meet with officials and to talk with them about the debt and fraud investigation process. What we heard from them is that they actually have a fairly high threshold for what they will consider a violent relationship. Also some of the evidence they use for allegations of fraud is untested and includes accusations that have come from partners through Child Youth and Family which it just treats as fact even though it has not been investigated or upheld. This means that currently women now are being subjected to these fraud investigations basically through vexatious complaints by their partners and that might not go away with this process. We certainly have very real concerns about the way that the process is working for victims. When the threshold for acknowledging a violent relationship is as high as it is at the moment that leaves a very significant risk for victims of domestic violence as the process works at the moment.The Salvation Army asked that the debt recovery process be undertaken in a way that ensures the safety and integrity of both partners. Similarly the Beneficiary Education Advisory Service asked that the risk of domestic violence be taken into account when making partners liable. We are yet to be convinced that that thinking has been done. All we have heard from the Minister and the officials is that there is a system in place that acknowledges that and they talk about the court ruling. That is not matching the experiences that we are hearing about from women in the community and we do not have confidence that there are enough protections in place to be able to protect those who need it.We believe that the Government needs to develop a policy or a legislative response to problems based on the experience of women and beneficiaries who have been affected that also involves Women’s Refuge to ensure that the approach is fair and also ensures the safety of all involved. We are saddened that the Government seems to have prioritised this legislation over a comprehensive considered and safer approach but we are certainly open to talking more with the Minister about options for maybe having the investigation process audited by Women’s Refuge to make sure that it is best practice in order to make sure that if we are going ahead with this process—and it seems by the voting that we are—that we are doing everything we can to protect people through that process.I will just speak a little bit more too about the point of this creating an offence. Other concerns were raised by submitters that it is unnecessary and that there is little likelihood of a fine of $5000 being paid by people who are on the lowest incomes in this country. When you are struggling to buy a loaf of bread $5000 is a pretty unimaginable amount of money and it is pretty unlikely that that is going to get paid. So then the jail sentence I guess will come in at that stage and we also have concerns around what that is going to mean for our kids. Those kids may lose their parents because of an attempt by those parents to put more food on the table because the benefit levels are so low. That to us does not really meet the sense of justice and fairness that we expect most people in this country uphold.Again I would like to echo the Law Society’s concerns 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 society believes that 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. This was dismissed through the select committee process in part due to the cost and potential increase of reviews and appeals. Well the Green Party believes that it is essential that our laws are fair proportionate and open to appeal. Those principles for us override any potential slowing-down of the process through legal wrangling. I think most people would prefer to have their rights upheld rather than necessarily have an efficient system from the Government’s perspective.Finally I do want to speak again to that point around the fact that this is not dealing with just fraud. This bill is also dealing with debt recovery and taking away the ability of the State to waive debt.