It occurs to me that a moderator might like some evidence of claims I made in my earlier comment.

Misuse of work computer : https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=940245 (included misleading headline by NZ Herald)

Rex Haig: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11947848

David Bain: https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/bain-compensation-raw-data-binnie-reports-fisher-report-judith-collins-statement-ck-133945

I wonder if it’s the same Justice Fisher who resigned from the Bench after he was caught watching porn at work and on work computer.
The same (now ex-judge) who went on to write a number of papers telling the Govt what it wanted to hear (how astonishing) when the Govt faced financial jeopardy in the advent of wrongful conviction.
Recommendations to refuse compensation was his speciality, His work on Rex Haig case and D Bain spring to mind.

This comment deserves to be widely read. Thankyou WINZ advocate. The Fisher rules sit there on the WINZ site and confuse and intimidate.
The judicial process is quite the wrong one for these investigations.
It was heartening to see the Greens in the weekend launch their campaign with the fifth major ask being ‘a just system of individual needs’ so that people can move to relationships without losing financial independence

Through a friend of mine I became aware of a case where a young woman who at the time was training to join a profession here in NZ entered into a relationship with a young man she met overseas. He eventually moved to New Zealand to be with her and they resided together. As a result of a great deal of confusion as to his status and the advice she honestly provided to WINZ about her partner and their living arrangements it transpired that her benefit was increased beyond what it should have been.

A WINZ investigator turned up at her address and brought the matter to the young woman’s attention. She answered all the questions asked and when she realised that she had been overpaid she agreed to refund the money which the WINZ investigator thanked her for and the necessary papers were signed. Here’s the kicker – a week later WINZ charged her with fraud with the result that she received a conviction.

This case is not in the same category as what Susan St John is talking about because there was no “dobbing in” by a former partner but it illustrates the attitude and culture of WINZ who ruthlessly pursue people who make errors or who are subjected to the whim of a bitter former partner.

WINZ should look at its own systems including analysing what checks and balances they have (obviously none) to ensure over-payments are not generated in the first place because the result is exactly what Susan St John has highlighted – creating an environment for lies and deceit from “anonymous” bitter former partners and turning good people into convicted dishonest criminals.

Good idea

spot on

why not make it when two people declare themselves to be in such a relationship. If they are they are joint owners of marital assets

3. real fraud is when someone uses multiple names or applies for the benefit when working full time. These cases are rare and can and should be uncovered in other ways. Having more people to look for fraud is dangerous- they have to justify their existence.

The list of things on the Work and Income website under “think about” is what used to be referred to as Fisher’s rules; because they are a list compiled by Justice Fisher in High Court case called Thompson v Department of Social Welfare. He rightly warned they are not to be used as a “checklist” or in “tick the box” style approach.

I have supported numerous people through relationship investigations with MSD. Their investigators are not well trained and have a poor understanding of the proper legal test for a marriage like relationship. Worse yet, somebody who is prosecuted often gets a legal aid lawyer with no understanding of this area of law and who is just told to plead guilty. I have seen several people who pled guility and they were very likely not. Some of the evidence I have seen MSD rely on is extremely poor and if I had the opportunity to examine the Investigator about I have no doubt it would show they did not know what they were doing, or probably before that, would excluded as inadmissiable.

The other problem is MSD can charge people under the Crimes Act with dishonestly using a document and the question of whether they were in a relationship in the nature of marriage never comes up in the District Court. The person often by then beleives they were in a relationship because MSD have been on and on at them about it and they just give up and believe it because nobody has properly explained the legal test to them. MSD do not charge people under s 127 of the Social Security Act 1964 which concerns knowningly making a false statement to them because that is much harder to prove.

This system needs to change desperately; it is so unfair and really almost amounts to misue of judicial process.

I feel blame lies entirely with WINZ themselves over folks using WINZ.

You want people to stop committing fraud? Then don’t provid the product.