If your partner defrauds MSD National wants you to be responsible.
Partners of DPB fraudsters may be targeted to make repayments
Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows, who has responsibility for welfare fraud, said there was a gender imbalance with the repayment of domestic purposes benefit (DPB) fraud because most people on that benefit were women.
If a woman receiving the DPB was in a relationship, her partner was benefiting from that fraud.
“We are looking at how we can treat that person as a party to the offense because it is completely unfair that the woman has to carry the full weight of that debt,” he told Parliament’s social services committee.
More gender lunacy from National. Key and his party are really stuck in the women is victim man is perpetrator mode. This is just another example of an ongoing pattern.
another way to hold men responsible for womens actions..if a woman enters a relationship it is up to her to cancel her dpb..she is the one fraudulently claiming the money..when i first started going out with my x she was on the dpb and winz decided to put us on the dole as a married couple…seeing she was in receipt of the dpg they said it was easier for them to put her down as the main earner and just transfer her name over to the other benefit..that made me the child carer and i recieved part of the dole and family support even though the children at that time were not mine..at the end of the financial year ,as she hadnt received family support herself she claimed nearly $2500 and i got a bill for approx $2200..i pointed out to the tax dept that we had collected the money as a fasamily unit and they told me what she had done was nothing short of fraud but seeing the debt was in my name i was expected to cough up..after a few more ph calls and got a sympahetic ear from someone they wrote the whole amount off.
youll also find that in these situations the women uses all her dpb on her cost of living and expects the male to give her money as well(board etc) so the male dosent really get any of the dpb monies but looks like he’ll get the bill for it instead
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the only path to true equality – namely, holding women to account for their actions as equally as men – is being abandoned wholesale right across the Western world.
Women are not as accountable as men for murder, reproductive responsibility, honest conduct in business, and sexual behaviour right across the globe – and it is getting more and more pronounced as time goes by, in spite of double-talking language that is trying its best to make you not notice this and make you think the opposite.
One can only reflect on what it is that enables this trend of such blatant lying, even at national levels, and the best I can come up with is an endemic malady of judgment – a sickness of the male mind that is being exploited.
I will hazard a description of this illness – it appears to me to be an addiction.
From the moment we men are born, we are exposed to a fairy-tale message of the necessity for female approval – the need for a female in our lives – that we cease to be critical of this influence from a young age. By the time we hit 20, most of us are lost causes. We accept as given that any man without a woman is a loser, any man that cannot please a woman is a loser, and any man that is the subject of a woman’s disapproval is a loser.
What, though, are the classic signs of addiction?
1) suggest to the addicted that it is actually possible to live without the addictive substance, and you will be greeted with howls of derision
2) dependence on the addictive substance will have been transformed into a ‘test of manhood’
3) life with the addictive substance is strangely unsatisfying – it preserves itself solely on the terror of life without it
4) there is a massive industry that depends on your continuing addiction
5) continuing participation in the addiction is accompanied by financial ruin and loss of social status, loss of personal autonomy and diminution of self-esteem
Life was never promised us a wonderful experience, but there are certain patterns that keep re-expressing themselves: those who take heed of the past tend to do a better job of avoiding life’s perils than those who do not.
In every story of men’s woe that I read, I see the same recurring pattern of men caught in addiction (ie repeating behaviours not in accordance with the main actor’s well-being, along with an institutionalised need for men to act this way).
We are as much in collusion with women’s interests as they are.
In essence you’re talking about cunt-struck white knights giving women the pussy pass. Stupidly, been there, done that, and got the scars to prove it.
#3..i find myself at times being a blubbery fool around good looking women..a woman i know a few weeks ago asked me for sometging i beforehand wasnt prepared to do but wjen she asked i went into some kind of mental short circut and gave her whati had said to myself i wouldnt..i kicked myself afterwards and really dont know why or how i let myself cave to her request..i see myself as a man trying to undo years of negative mental programming
So do we all brother – at least those of us prepared to face the ugly truth of it.
i blame my mother for alot of it by always encouraging me to back down and turn the other cheek when it came to my sister ..give way to women..sick of that shit
Wow, Chester Borrows trying to earn some brownie points from feminists. I guess he feels he needs to after previous gaffes that earned him a reputation as a bumbling misogynist.
Now there’s some impressive femi-speak if I ever heard it! Why on earth would ‘gender imbalance’ in the frequency of offending be any reason to punish the opposite gender? The same reasoning could be applied to any offence that men commit more often, like firearm crimes, but imagine the outcry if women partners of gun-toting crims were also punished for their partner’s offending! And the armed robber’s partner will be at least as culpable as the DPB fraudster’s partner; after all, she chose to mate with a bad boy who clearly had bad mates, she probably knew he was committing or going to commit some serious offences but did nothing about it, and she probably benefited from the proceeds of any successful armed robberies her man committed.
It’s important to realise that underlying Chester Borrows’ idiotic idea is a more sinister belief: ‘new male partners of separated mothers are required to be financially responsible for them’. If the woman maintains an independent income through DPB fraud and thereby relieves the new male partner to some extent of having to support her financially, then he will be made to pay up anyway.
Of course, partners of men who offend are not made to pay. Look at the Versalko case. His wife was allowed to keep her entire share of the matrimonial property other than what was further accumulated from the time he started ripping off his employer. The fact that she benefited from some of the money her husband was stealing is left out of the equation. And what’s more, his prostitute was allowed to keep a large proportion of the assets bought with the $2.25 million he gave her even though all that money was stolen.
Chester Borrows is now a lead contender for the Miss Andry Award for 2012. He will be receiving some feedback from the Ministry of Men’s Affairs…
Reply to Hans…Good post Hans
It will be interesting Hans on what Chester Burrows reply will be like to the Ministry of Men’s Affairs”¦ ..
Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last
dont get involved with women and especially not with a womsn with kids..a man is certainly setting himself up for a rough time if he does
there are a few men out there on the dpb..if its found out they are dating a working/non beneficiary female..will she be made to pay or will some excuse be found to make her seem like a ‘victim’ because all i see is ‘he made me do it’ in both scenarios
I earn $60K. I pay some $15K in tax; and $8K in child support.
I will not share that with any woman currently on DPB. she can take a hike. I will only date women with similar assets and similar income. Stuff the freeloaders.
So-called ‘child support’ is really child suprort. In most cases only a fraction of the extorted money goes to child costs while most of it is used, and was always intended to be used, by the mother to pay rent, utilities, car costs etc, i.e. to pay for the doubling-up of costs of a second household allowing her to live ‘independently’ from the discarded father of her children. Paying fathers then will need to spend additional money to buy things directly for their children if they want them to have those things that children in intact families tend to have. To make fathers pay towards their ex-wives’ rent etc is nothing short of theft, given that he still needs to pay for all those same things in his own life if he is to transport his children and to have a place where his children can stay with him at all, and he will usually be more than happy to have the children with him at least half the time.
Back in the dark times when I was with the ex we had seperated and she was on the DPB
We got back together and she claimed to have stopped the Benefit.
I then continued to get 3 months of child tax claimed from IRD when we were together.
I sent them statements, invoices, bills etc for the 3 months and stubbornly refused to pay the child tax for the disputed 3 months.
The ex claimed innocence and that it must be a IRD mistake.
Not long after, she then left for good and surprise surprise it came out that she had been claiming the DPB for the disputed 3 months when we were together and I saw none of it.
Penalties mounting on the disputed debt. I informed IRD on what she had done and suggested they take it up with winz as she had obviously defrauded them as well.
Not our problem was their reply. Pay up as its for the children. Not that they ever saw any of it.
Upshot is I find my eftpos card declined one day when fueling the car (ironically for a trip to see the kids ) and find IRD have had enough of my truculent attitude to paying the disputed amount so had simply helped themselves, emptying my account.
No one cared that she had defrauded the benefit, IRD and myself obviously it was all “for the good of the children”
This attempt to make predominantly men pay for the dishonesty of predominantly females shows the pandering done for them. These paragons of virtue cant be expected to go to all the trouble of actually being honest. The effort would be to much
#13..having to contribute to a womens rent and utilities is complete rubbish considering she would have to pay those wether she had kids or not
I can’t even follow Chester Borrows’ rationale.
“We are looking at how we can treat that person as a party to the offence because it is completely unfair that the woman has to carry the full weight of that debt,” he told Parliament’s social services committee.
How is it in anyway unfair that the woman has to carry the full weight of that debt?
She stole money, she has to pay it back.
Did I miss something?
I can’t follow his arguement at all.
Is he taking his meds?
“If a woman receiving the DPB was in a relationship, her partner was benefiting from that fraud. ”
How in earth did he reach that conclusion?
How did he get from her stealing money to an assumption the money benefited someone who also contributed to her expenses?
Did he even offer a single supporting arguement that women stealing money from the government are giving it to their partners? Did he een show that their partners were even aware the woman was stealing money? Did he even offer a single anecdotal case? Maybe even a rumour of a case? No?
The Government wanted to “spread the liability around”.
If you didn’t want everyone paying for these women’s life style choices then you woldn’t maintain the DPB. You are already speading the liability around everywhere.
“However, he said there were legal issues because the debt was owed by one person. ”
Well no shit Sherlock!!
Is this guy retarded?
I don’t follow his logic at all.
What I can see is that any man who has a relationship with a New Zealand woman should have his head read. Never have a relationship with a New Zealand woman. If you absolutely have to, make sure she has more assests than you and a similar income. Make very certain she has more to loose than you.
Unjust enrichment, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unjust enrichment is a legal term denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing.
1. n. A benefit by mistake or chance. Morally and ethically the one who gains a benefit that he or she has not paid or worked for should not keep it to the rightful owner’s detriment. The party that received money, services or property that should have been delivered to or belonged to another must make restitution to the rightful owner. A court may order such restitution in a lawsuit brought by the party who should rightly have the money or property.
2. n. A general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another’s expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained.
A common example is when a party contracts to provide a service, but the contract is terminated prematurely due to a breach, and the contractor unjustly receives no compensation for partial services rendered.
Determination of liability
Liability under the principle of unjust enrichment is wholly independent of liability for wrongdoing. Claims in unjust enrichment do not depend upon proof of any wrong. However, it is possible that on a single set of facts a claim based on unjust enrichment and a claim based on a wrong may both be available. A claim based on unjust enrichment always results in an obligation to make restitution. A claim based on a wrong always results in an obligation to make compensation but may additionally result in an obligation to make restitution. For discussion of restitution for wrongs, see the page on restitution.
At common law, a claim based on unjust enrichment can be submitted to five stages of analysis. These can be summarized in the form of the following questions:
Was the defendant enriched?
Was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?
Was the enrichment unjust?
Does the defendant have a defense?
What remedies are available to the claimant?
Was the enrichment unjust?
There are two established approaches to this issue. Traditionally, common law systems such as those of England and the US have proceeded on the basis of what may be termed the ‘unjust factor’ approach. Traditionally, civil law systems such as those of France and Germany have proceeded on the basis of what may be termed the ‘absence of basis’ approach. More recently, many common law systems have showed signs of a possible move towards the ‘absence of basis’ approach (see for example the law of North Dakota in the section on the United States below). Both approaches will be discussed.
The ‘unjust factors’ approach requires the claimant to point to one of a number of factors recognized by the law as rendering the defendant’s enrichment unjust. English law clearly recognises at least the following unjust factors:
Mistake of fact
Mistake of law
Total failure of consideration
Miscellaneous policy-based unjust factors such as ‘withdrawal within the locus poenitentiae’
It is at least arguable that English law also recognizes the following unjust factors, but some controversy surrounds each:
Partial failure of consideration
Absence of consideration
‘Absence of consideration’ is particularly controversial because the cases that support its existence as an unjust factor can also be used to support the view that English law has begun to favour the ‘absence of basis’ approach (see next paragraph).
The ‘absence of basis’ approach does not deal in individual unjust factors. Instead it seeks to identify enrichments with no legitimate explanatory basis. Imagine that A contracts with B that A will pay $150 up front for B to clean his house. A pays the money. B’s enrichment has a legitimate explanatory basis – he was paid under a valid contract. However, let us now change the example and assume that the contract was in fact void. This is discovered after A has paid the money but before B cleans the house. B’s enrichment no longer has a legitimate explanatory basis so B must repay the $150 to A.
Notice that in the example just given, exactly the same conclusion would be reached using the ‘unjust factors’ approach. Under that approach, A would not be able to point to an unjust factor provided that the contract was valid, but could point to the unjust factor of total failure of consideration once we assume that it was void. In the vast majority of cases, a properly developed ‘unjust factors’ approach and a properly developed ‘absence of basis’ approach will reach the same result.
What remedies are available to the claimant?
It is necessary to distinguish personal remedies from proprietary remedies. A personal remedy asserts that the defendant must pay the claimant a sum of money. By contrast, a proprietary remedy asserts that some property in the defendant’s possession belongs to the claimant, either at common law or in equity. There are several arguable examples in the English case law of the courts giving a proprietary remedy in an unjust enrichment claim. However, some commentators maintain that, in English law, unjust enrichment only ever triggers a personal remedy.
There are several reasons why it may be important for the claimant to seek a proprietary rather than a personal remedy. The most obvious is that showing that one is entitled to a proprietary interest in some property means that one need not compete with the defendant’s unsecured creditors in the event of his insolvency. It is also generally accepted, although with little justification, that a claimant who is entitled to a personal remedy only will be restricted to simple interest, while a claimant who is entitled to a proprietary remedy can get compound interest. The availability or non-availability of a proprietary remedy may also have consequences for limitation periods and for the conflict of laws.
English law gives effect to restitutionary proprietary interests (assuming that it does at all) through a number of devices. One of these devices will be discussed and another two will be mentioned briefly.
The most important battleground in this controversial area of law is that of resulting trusts. One view, whose most notable proponent is William Swadling, holds that a resulting trust will arise either because of a presumed declaration of trust in the transferor’s favour by the transferor (consent), or when created by a court if a trust fails (for uncertainty of objects, for example)–the so-called ‘automatic’ resulting trust (according to Swadling we do not know what event causes this: it ‘defies legal analysis’). Either way, they do not arise in response to unjust enrichment. The opposing view, whose principal proponents have been Peter Birks and Robert Chambers, argues the contrary, that resulting trusts arise in response to unjust enrichment. It is possible to cite English cases in support of both views. There is a good deal of discussion of presumptions in the cases, which might be thought to lend particular support to the Swadling view. However, Birks and Chambers explain that discussion by suggesting that the presumption in question is not a presumption of intention to create a trust but a presumption of lack of intention to benefit the recipient (or to make the recipient an express trustee for a third party).
If a partner has shared in the gain from illegally taking a benefit from Government, and should have known that the benefit should not have been taken, then it seems that they should bear the liability for repayment.