Women More Likely to Be Convicted Of Fraud

[Banjo]

Women find themselves convicted of fraud

Women are more likely to be convicted of social security fraud, a University of Wollongong study has found.

The study looked at 56 case files from Legal Aid Wollongong from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010.

The study, Centrelink Prosecutions at the Employment/Benefit Nexus, was carried out by the researchers Dr Freda Hui, Dr Lee Moerman and Dr Kathy Rudkin from the Social Accounting and Accountability Research Centre at the Faculty of Commerce.

One of the major findings of the study was that females dominate cases of social security fraud of criminal cases that are brought to Wollongong court. Of the defendants in criminal social security fraud cases 57% are female. This is an over-representation given that the percentage of female offenders in criminal courts of all cases is about 21%.

While social security fraud occurs when employment income is under reported, this study did not concern itself with the reasons the defendants had for incorrectly reporting their income. It did, however, note that 99% of prosecutions for social security fraud were successful.

The study also provides a breakdown of social security fraud convictions based on the type of benefit. Parenting payments, single and partnered, top the list with 40%. The remainder is made up of Newstart allowance (38%), Disability allowance (12%), other (6%) and Youth Allowance (4%).

“It can be surprisingly easy for a social security recipient to find themselves under reporting income given that Australia has one of the highest rates of casual employment in the developed world with research claiming more than two million being casually employed,” according to researcher Dr Lee Moerman.

“While business claims this flexibility of employment is beneficial the inconsistent nature of employment can lead to problems when it comes to reporting income to Centrelink.

“Also, for many of these people in precarious employment their lives can be massively disrupted by a sudden reduction in their income -- be it temporary or permanent.”

While the maximum penalty for social security fraud is five years imprisonment the bulk of offenders (58%) received a good behaviour bond. Of the remainder (26%) received a community service order and 16% were imprisoned.

“Welfare recipients can often be stigmatised and stereotyped in the media and other public forums making it appear that social security fraud is rampant,” Dr Moerman said.

“However, research suggests that 0.04% of the 6.5 million welfare recipients are convicted of fraud annually.”

The study also targeted ways to reduce social security fraud. At present Centrelink matches data of benefit recipients with details they have supplied to the Australian Taxation Office and acts on any inconsistencies. This is a secondary prevention measure, which targets people only after an overpayment has taken place. The study suggests this same data matching technology could be used in other ways to help ensure overpayment does not occur in the first place.

Findings

• Majority of criminal of social security defendants are female

• The majority of civil and criminal cases involved individuals between 36-40

• The majority (77%) of these people had a social security debt of less than $10,000

• Most common areas of employment for defendants is nursing for civil cases and hospitality for criminal cases

Recommendations

• Using existing data matching technology with the Australian Taxation Office to stop fraud before it happens

• Trail this data management system with at least one large employ, the ATO and Centrelink

• Creating a more flexible Centrelink income reporting cycle

• An education program for those receiving the benefits

The Social Accounting and Accountability Research Centre will be presenting their findings to the Wollongong Legal Aid office on 27 October at 4.30pm at the University of Wollongong.

For more information contact Dr Lee Moerman on [phone] or Kimberley Humphries on [phone] or 0417 473 842.

www.healthcanal.com/public-health-safety/22135-Women-find-themselves-convicted-fraud.html

[spaceyone]

According to their own statistics, there is something abnormal about this number of women facing court.

Could it be that they were just trying to keep a roof over their children's head, when SPP or Newstart fell far short of the real cost of living?

Could it be that lots of casual employees are offered cash in hand, to save the employer red tape and tax? Therefore, in order to get the job, the welfare recipient has to agree to being paid that way, and then cannot report the earnings to Centrelink without getting their boss into trouble with the tax office?

Could it be that JH promised to provide more money to single mothers when their children became teenagers, acknowledging that they have higher costs, and then never did so?

Is it because JH and KR both promised that if the single mothers went out to work, they would be allowed to keep more of what they earned, to make it worth their while, and then did not keep that promise?

Obviously there would be some straight out fraudsters in the number of those charged. However, how many were forced into what they did by circumstance? A mother will defy anything which stands in her way of providing for her family, especially if she is doing it all on her own.


For those of us who will be forced to find part-time work, even though we have serious barriers to being able to hold down a job, having an ABN number is an advantage. You can apply online, and give yourself a 'company name'. You can only declare cash you have earned to Centrelink if you have a ABN or ACN number to go along with the declaration. Once you have your ABN number, you can use that to do so.

It is also handy when you are offered a job which is cash in hand, you have the chance to state that you can instead contract to that company and bill them using your ABN number. Again, allowing you to be able to declare same to Centrelink. However, I have found that lots of potential employers will still reject this offer, and instead keep looking for someone who will work, without leaving a paper trail.

[zorro1]

"Could it be that JH promised to provide more money to single mothers when their children became teenagers, acknowledging that they have higher costs, and then never did so?"

My own mother did this when I was a young teen working as a waitress a few nights a week cash in hand as did all the waitresses there weather on benefits or not.
Apart from no red tape, tax, holiday pay or super for the employer the other benefit was the cash in hand workers tend to work harder with no sick days and less lateness after all they can be terminated on the spot without 3 warnings and 3 letters.
Its a good point spacey that single mothers should have their support adjusted when their children hit the teens. The cost of raising teens goes through the roof and not because they are eating more. Mothers who lived on a pension alone would often see their kids hit the streets and drop out of school, a perfectly logical unfortunate development IMO

[spaceyone]

Thanks Zorro. Yes, if you cannot afford to treat teenagers to the movies or rolling skating on the weekends, they will drift off to hang out with the others with no money and nothing constructive to do.

Also being able to afford music lessons, or put them into some kind of hobby to occupy their time and their minds, also helps to keep kids out of trouble.

The cost of insurance and petrol makes it hard to keep your child into sports, if you can find the time to drive them there, and yet we still wonder why the youngsters are going off the rails.

[zorro1]

"we still wonder why the youngsters are going off the rails".

I was one of them. Catch 22 ,even though mum did her best it meant no supervision at night which was a big no no for me. Society being the way it is dictates that we all like to be around people like ourselves hence black with blacks same for whites and rich with rich poor with poor etc etc. I can tell there are more poor with poor kids out at midnight than the rich.

let me put it this way what we didn't have we stole trawling shopping centers. Very glad I got caught early! fingerprinted, mug shot and children's court. 2year bond. Apart from speeding tickets it was the only time I broke the law. The rest were not all so fortunate including my main partner in crime which I saw for the first time several years back on the gold coast on weekend release from bogo rd Jail. As a child he grew up with an invalid mum to sick for a bit of work on the side

The age IMO for boys would be around 13 to 16 an impressionable time where they would need extra support ,girls a bit younger. Considering the amount of money the govt would spend on processing them through the courts and jail time would be enormous not to mention many of them end up in a life time of crime again enormous cost.

Would they all be saved if support was increased? of course not but even a small number would make a positive difference to society as a whole.

[Banjo]

I think that while women do tend to drift towards this type of low paid cash in hand work, many men do "odd job" type work... a lot harder to get caught.
I knew a guy with a ute who had all the work he needed clearing yards and houses for neighbours, family and local real estate agents.
How do they catch someone like that?

Edit: Incidentally, if the Tax department catch someone like that it's usually a case of pay the tax with a fine.
Centrelink send them to jail.

[spaceyone]

Yes, I grew up with a mother who worked two jobs. She had divorced dad when I was six because he used to use her as a boxing bag when he drank too much. We were fortunate in that, once he had calmed down, he gave her the almost paid for house, and all the furnishings. We didn't do it tough financially as mum had material desires and the energy to go for it.

However, we didn't have much parental supervision. I was the youngest of four and was inducted into early adult life by a bunch of kids constantly partying at our house, while mum was at one of her jobs.

I chose to stay home with my kids at first, and later because I could not even get an interview for the jobs I applied for. But I am still glad that I did. We created a life on welfare in small country towns, where rent was cheap, and so life was enjoyable. My kids grew up swimming in creeks and the ocean.

When we moved to civilisation, for me to be able to find work and comply with the work for welfare laws, we were all stunned at what the city kids were like. Selfish, greedy and totally prepared to steal anything they didn't already have. The police don't even bother to arrest them anymore, since juevenile detentions are all full, and cause more damage than good in the long run.

The problem stems from the fact that there is no longer a parent stationed in the home. I am all for women being allowed to choose to work. But again, most are now forced to, to be able to even afford a house and family, even in a partnership.

Not only should single mothers be encouraged to be there for their kids outside of school hours, we should be making it possible for either one of a two parent family, to stay at home and bring up emotionally and physically healthy human beings. They are the future, and at the moment, most of us tremble when we see some of them walking towards us.

Governments now want to tax our fatnesses because it is costing them too much medically. Why not just free up some working mums to be able to stay home and cook, instead of relying on takeout to get a meal on the table?