9. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Does he stand by his statement that his ministry has a zero tolerance policy for fraud?
Why would he have confidence in his officials’ ability to implement a zero tolerance policy for fraud, when 3 years ago they first noticed a discrepancy in the benefit being paid to Wayne Patterson, who went on to defraud the taxpayer of $3.4 million; and can he confirm that it was a bank worker, not his officials, who eventually raised the alarm?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I would point out to the member that that case has not gone to trial.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Sentencing has not been—[ Interruption] Unlike that member, I am not about to risk compromising a successful prosecution and recovery by making any comments about the matter.
Can the Minister confirm that, although his ministry first noticed a discrepancy with Patterson’s benefit soon after he started offending 3 years ago, were it not for the conscientiousness of a bank worker, Patterson would still be collecting $27,000 a week from New Zealand taxpayers—a crime for which he has been convicted?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I repeat for the member that I will not risk prejudicing good recovery by talking about the details of any case currently before the court.
Madam SPEAKERDoes the Minister have confidence in the Ministry of Social Development’s fraud detection, when Wayne Patterson’s $3.4 million scam was discovered only because of a conscientious banker, when prisoners have been ripping off StudyLink, when $35 million has been defrauded or overpaid in the last year alone, and when a study to determine the extent of benefit fraud has been declined by his ministry; just how many frauds will it take for him to consider that his zero tolerance policy for fraud is simply nothing more than spin?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
It might help the member if I elaborate on the meaning of zero tolerance. I would have thought most people would understand it, but I will attempt to make it clearer for her. Zero tolerance means that the ministry is clear that benefit fraud is a crime and is unacceptable in every circumstance. That means that the ministry investigates every instance or allegation of fraud, pursues recovery of all money that has been overpaid, and prosecutes in accordance with the Solicitor-General’s guidelines.
Why has his ministry blocked a proposal made by its general manager of benefit integrity services for a study to reliably determine the extent of benefit fraud?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
It is clearly an operational decision that I would neither know about nor have any interest in, but I will say that I am completely satisfied that the ministry has made appropriate decisions with regard to the management of fraud. Indeed, I know from questions asked in this House last week that the member is aware that benefit fraud has dropped by around 11 percent in the last year.
If it was not considered necessary for the Minister’s ministry to conduct a study to reliably determine the extent of benefit fraud in this country, then why did his general manager of benefit integrity services call for such a study; if the Minister does not know the answer, why does he not know it?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not believe that the Minister made even the slightest attempt to address that question. Could you ask him to elaborate?