Advertisement

Security Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 569–584 | Cite as

Reducing welfare fraud: An Australian case study

  • Tim PrenzlerEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This article evaluates the factors behind changes in welfare fraud referrals and convictions in Australia from 2009–2010 to 2012–2013. Official numbers of cases referred to the public prosecutor and those proven fell by approximately 75 per cent across the 3-year period. As a rate per customer, referrals fell 82 per cent. The evidence indicates that initially this was less a case of successful planned crime prevention than an effect of changes in institutional policy and practice. It appears that a major shift in enforcement practices was adopted by Centrelink and the public prosecutor, in part as a result of a legal case reducing customer liability for non-reporting of changes in their circumstances. Centrelink also adopted a new two-pronged strategy: focusing investigations and prosecutions on more serious cases, while also initiating an ‘early contact’ system to communicate more effectively with customers about their reporting obligations to prevent error and debt. The article reports on a number of other aspects of welfare fraud in Australia, including gender and sentencing.

Keywords

welfare fraud crime prevention fraud prevention early intervention 

References

  1. Berkovic, N. (2013) High court challenge over Centrelink changes casts doubt on welfare fraud convictions. The Australian 25 July, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/high-court-challenge-casts-doubt-onwelfare-fraud-convictions/story-fn59niix-1226434535944#, accessed 16 December 2013.
  2. Blais, E. and Bacher, J. (2007) Situational deterrence and claim padding: Results from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology 3(4): 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgess, N. (2013) Fiction and certainty in social security prosecutions: DPP (Cth) v Keating. Opinions on High, http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/07/25/burgess-keating/, accessed 16 December 2013.
  4. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. (2012) Applying Behavioural Insights to Reduce Fraud, Error and Debt. London: Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team.Google Scholar
  5. Carr, K. (2012) Media Release: Prevention Better than Cure for Social Security System. Canberra, Australia: Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  6. CDPP. (2010) Annual report 2009–2010. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.Google Scholar
  7. CDPP. (2011) Annual report 2010–2011. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.Google Scholar
  8. CDPP. (2012) Annual report 2011–2012. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.Google Scholar
  9. CDPP. (2013) Annual report 2012–2013. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.Google Scholar
  10. Centrelink. (2011) Annual report 2010–2011. Canberra, Australia: Centrelink.Google Scholar
  11. Coorey, P. (2011) Government rushes to close costly welfare loophole. The Sydney Morning Herald 24 June: 1.Google Scholar
  12. Cornish, D. and Clarke, R. (2003) Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. In: M. Smith and D. Cornish (eds.) Theory for Situational Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 41–96.Google Scholar
  13. Deery, S. (2013) Mum wins fraud fight. Herald Sun 25 July: 14.Google Scholar
  14. Department for Work and Pensions. (2010) Tackling Fraud and Error in the Benefit and Tax Credit Systems. London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
  15. Department for Work and Pensions. (2013) Fraud and Error in the Benefit System: Preliminary 2012/13 Estimates (Great Britain). London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
  16. DHS. (2012a) Annual report 2011–12. Canberra, Australia: Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  17. DHS. (2012b) Compliance program 2012–13. Canberra, Australia: Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  18. DHS. (2013a) Annual Report 2012–13. Canberra, Australia: Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  19. DHS. (2013b) Compliance program 2013–15. Canberra, Australia: Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  20. DHS. (2014) Personal Communication. Canberra, Australia: Department of Human Services, 27 March.Google Scholar
  21. Green, K. (2008) Child poverty and welfare reform. Presentation to Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Melbourne, Australia, 7 April.Google Scholar
  22. Green, B. and Pearce, I. (2002) The Criminalisation of Women: The Impact and Implications of Financial Abuse. Sydney, Australia: Bankstown Women’s Refuge and Resource Centre.Google Scholar
  23. Greenberg, D.H., Wolf, D.A. and Pfiester, J. (1986) Using Computers to Combat Welfare Fraud. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Hockley, C. (2011) Court backs ruling to clear woman of fraud. The Advertiser 27 October: 27.Google Scholar
  25. Hui, F., Moerman, L. and Rudkin, K. (2011) Centrelink Prosecutions at the Employment/Benefit Nexus: A Case Study of Wollongong. Wollongong, Australia: Social Accounting and Accountability Research Centre, University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
  26. Knutsson, J. and Kuhlhorn, E. (1997) Macro-measures against crime: The example of check forgeries. In: R.V. Clarke (ed.) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston, pp. 113–121.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhlhorn, E. (1997) Housing allowances in a welfare society: Reducing the temptation to cheat. In: R.V. Clarke (ed.) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 235–241.Google Scholar
  28. Larkin, P. (2007) The ‘criminalization’ of social security law: Towards a punitive welfare state? Journal of Law and Society 34(3): 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levi, M. (2008) Combating identity and other forms of payment fraud in the UK. Crime Prevention Studies 23: 111–131.Google Scholar
  30. Lindley, J., Jorna, P. and Smith, R.G. (2012) Fraud against the Commonwealth 2009–10: Annual Report to the Government. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  31. Marston, G. and Walsh, T. (2008) A case of misrepresentation: Social security fraud and the criminal justice system in Australia. Griffith Law Review 17(1): 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McMahon, A. (2000) Understanding the welfare state. In: A. McMahon, J. Thomson and C. Williams (eds.) Understanding the Australian Welfare State: Key Documents and Themes. Melbourne, Australia: Tertiary Press, pp. 6–16.Google Scholar
  33. Office of the Inspector General. (2013) Semiannual Report to Congress, April 1, 2013–September 30, 2013. Baltimore, MD: Social Security Administration.Google Scholar
  34. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2011) Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2011, Explanatory Memorandum, Senate. Canberra, Australia: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Prenzler, T. (2012) Responding to Welfare Fraud: The Australian Experience. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  36. Reeve, G. (2006) Human services administration: A more intelligent approach to reducing benefit fraud. Public Administration Today January/March: 37–45.Google Scholar
  37. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. (2008) Unemployment Benefit Fraud: Motives, Extent and Preventive Measures. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.Google Scholar
  38. Today Tonight. (2013) Centrelink’s secret room. 9 April, http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/latest/article/-/16643851/centrelinks-secret-room/.
  39. Tunley, M. (2011) Need, greed or opportunity? An examination of who commits benefit fraud and why they do it. Security Journal 24(4): 302–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wong, J. (2013) Changes in circumstances and Centrelink fraud. Law Society Journal (October): 42–43.Google Scholar

Cases

  1. DPP (Cth) v Poniatowska. (2011) HCA 43 (26 October).Google Scholar
  2. DPP (Cth) v Keating. (2013) HCA 20 (8 May).Google Scholar
  3. Poniatowska v DPP (Cth). (2010) SASCFC 19 (2 August).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations