MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Prosecuting Partners of DPB Fraudsters

Filed under: Gender Politics,General,Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:04 am Thu 21st February 2013

Media Release: Prosecuting Partners of Benefit Fraudsters

This proposed legislation reaches a new low in the financial exploitation of men and also represents a giant backward step for women to a past patriarchal era in which men were held legally responsible for their spouses’ behaviour.

A Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) fraudster commits an offence by signing a legal document affirming (s)he is not in a marriage-type relationship. The partner committed no offence but Chester Borrows wants to make the partner pay for the beneficiary’s offending even if that partner in no way encouraged it. Borrows’ law will only apply to the partners of DPB and “Sole Parent Support’ fraudsters not to other types of benefit fraud, and his public statements have made it clear this distinction is based on the gender of the beneficiaries concerned. The intention of the law is to make men pay for female offending.

There is no comparable legislation to prosecute and seize assets from female partners of male burglars, robbers, receivers, drug dealers or white collar criminals even though those female partners benefited financially from that offending. Most female partners of male criminals know the dishonest source of the money their partners bring home. Unless those women did something illegal that supported or contributed to the offending, it would be totally unacceptable to New Zealand voters for a law to hold them responsible for their male partners’ offending or to make women pay half the reparation for their partners’ behaviour. However, Borrows believes that society won’t mind men being treated with the same unfairness.

The Ministry of Men’s Affairs is a community group because successive governments have failed to protect the welfare and interests of men.



PO Box 13130
Tauranga 3141
[email protected]

Contact: Hans Laven (07)5712435 or (0274)799745
or Kerry Bevin (09)4247762

21 February 2013


  1. Well said Hans.

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 10:10 am

  2. The reality is that a solo mother can easily hide benefit fraud from her partner.

    Even if he does suspect something, he is in no position to discover the truth.

    Here is but one simple example. She may be working part time and not declaring that income while she also takes the DPB. He may have no idea she is also collecting the DPB at all. How would he know? The poor smuck is problably giving her some of his own pay check as well.

    The whole problem is with the DPB in the first place. The system was originally well intended but it is an unmitigated failure in practice. The DPB needs to be scraped. At the minimum a person should not be allowed to draw down more than 5 years worth of DPB during their lifetime. It is up to them to choose a better life style.

    Comment by Vman — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 11:40 am

  3. It would be economic abuse for a partner to interfer with his partners income. Under legislation soon to be enacted that will result in a protection order for such “violence”. I have had this situation come out in FC many times where one party accuses the other of DPB fraud but the FC is blind to this crime and it’s mention is seen as psychological abuse to a poor inocent party.
    Maybe if Chester Burrows did some educating of FC judges that we taxpayers may also be victims of economic abuse that might be better use of his time and salary.

    I have one case where she was routing the DPB for 15 years and hoovering up over half his salary. It continues today that she is on the DPB but she is currently looking for her next victim for the payroll theft as her last sucker shot the gap for Aussie last month.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 12:24 pm

  4. Call me paranoid but why do I get the feeling that us exes will also be liable somehow?

    Comment by Scott B — Thu 21st February 2013 @ 6:15 pm


    Comment by golfa — Sat 23rd February 2013 @ 8:24 am

  6. I read this article and thought ‘wow’ another way for the GOVT to take money from men who earn it because of women who steel it.

    I dissagree with the begining of this post that said there aren’t any other rule in comparison for women though. With new drug laws the adults living in the homes can all be prosecuted. I’ve worked with women who are in jail because of thier partners criminal activities. Of course I tell them they benefitted from it so are just as guilty.

    A co-worker informed me of her recieving some benefit and claiming she no longer lived with her husband and they are both as guilty as each other so should be convicted together. Hopefully this law will make more of it’s kin to trap other illegal activities of women.

    I personally believe that welfare needs an overhaul.

    Comment by Too Tired — Sun 24th February 2013 @ 3:57 am

  7. My son’s then partner was determined to go on the DPB while Pregnant an living together, many seek the benefit as a better source of income, an never take into account, the child support the father has to pay..

    Comment by Mum of Sons — Mon 25th February 2013 @ 7:51 am

  8. Im one of those guys that years ago lived with a woman who was in reciept of the DPB. At the time she was my wife and we had got back together after a seperation where she had signed up and got the DPB. When we got back together and I was the sole breadwinner it was a prerequisite that she got off the DPB as I abhor that benifit more than any other and wanted no part of it. IRD kept sending child tax demands which I refused to pay as she told me she had signed off the benefit and it must be a administrative error.
    Lo and behold IRD took the money after several months straight from my Bank without notice leaving me with a declined eftpos card, ironically at a gas station where I was fueling up to go and see my kids as she had buggered off again. I showed IRD invoices, bills, cheques all that showed I was supporting my ex and children over the disputed time. “Not our problem, they said take it up with WINZ”
    “Not our problem”, said WINZ, “take it up with IRD”.
    People from both departments agreed with me that it looks as though she had defrauded the DPB for over 3 months when we were clearly together but IRD got their child tax and WINZ handed over the DPB so no problem there. Cost me over $800 for her ride on the benifit so I for one wouldnt support this sort of legislation.
    I agree that when 2 people are knowingly committing the fraud they should be both charged but I have little faith in our judicial system actually investigating to find the, predominantly, male innocent when the female is rorting the system

    Comment by Mits — Mon 25th February 2013 @ 10:57 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar