MEDIA RELEASE

29 August 2007

No corruption by Immigration officials, independent report finds

An independent investigation has found no evidence to support allegations of corruption by Immigration officials.

“In late 2005, the Hon Tuariki Delamere made serious allegations of corruption by staff of the New Zealand Immigration Service, and a subsequent cover up of any wrongdoing,” Acting Secretary of Labour Graham Fortune said.

“The Department initiated an independent review into the allegations.

“I am very pleased to say that the independent author of the review concluded there was no corruption or cover up by staff,” Mr Fortune said.

Mr Delamere stated that during 2002 a number of applications had been processed within a seven day period and the only way this could have occurred is if staff had improperly intervened and given them priority.

In response to these allegations the Department of Labour commissioned law firm Buddle Findlay to assess whether the applications were handled according to normal standards, whether there was any evidence that officials were influenced by external forces and whether officials involved with processing the cases had behaved appropriately.

The report author concluded that:

 All relevant applications were handled according to normal standards within the Business Migration Branch at the time;

 There was no evidence that officials were influenced by external forces, i.e. corruption or bribery;

 Officials behaved appropriately according to the standards of the time.

“The report author noted that the manager accused of covering things up by Mr Delamere himself did a review in 2002 which identified some issues of quality and pressure now highlighted by this report,” Mr Fortune said.

The author also noted there was a significant backlog and therefore significant pressures on staff at the time and that the quality of processing may not have been of a standard expected today. NZIS identified these issues itself (via the manager’s review) and took action. Processes including verification are at a different level today.

The author also noted that the number of applications processed within one week in 2002 represented just 1.4% of all applications processed and, with one exception, these applications involved a number of agents and a number of case officers.

In relation to the one exception, the former case officer who processed 25 of 50 applications, the author concluded from discussions and interviews that he was satisfied that the person is honest and straightforward and not involved in anything untoward or unlawful.

A copy of the full report can be found at http://dol.govt.nz/publications/general/business-migration/. A summary of key points follows.

ENDS

BACKGROUND

Findings of independent investigation

The Business Migration Unit was established in 1999 with two staff to process two new types of immigration applications – long term business visas / permits and Investor applications (LTBV and Investor). Initially there were very few applications but by 2000, the numbers had increased dramatically, more staff were hired, and the Unit became the Business Migration Branch.

By early 2002, the backlog of applications had built up to approximately 3000 –4000, with a further 200 applications each week. Applicants were predominantly from Asia.

The work environment was busy and pressured.

On 20 November 2002, LTBV and Investor policies changed and there was an immediate reduction in the number being lodged.

Number of applications

Mr Delamere raised concerns about 91 applications processed within seven days during 2002. This number was provided by the Department who advised Mr Delamere that 31 investor and 60 LTBV applications were processed.

A subsequent review found that the total number of applicants was actually 89 (30 Investor and 59 LTBV).

Processing time

At that time, applicants were advised that processing could take three months, but there was no average time as staff relied on the quality of documentation provided, the speed with which an applicant replied to requests for further information and the amount of further verification necessary.

Approved and declined applications

Of the 89 applications, 82 were approved (56 LTBV and 26 Investor) and seven declined. The seven decline decisions were, in this context, of no concern.

Replacement applications

There were 24 applications (19 LTBV and 5 Investor) that were replacement applications and on which a substantive decision had already been made. These were not distinguished from new applications in 2002. The report author noted that it was not unusual for a replacement application to be assessed on the same day and a favourable decision made. These applications were of no concern.

Spouse Applications

A further 6 of the 56 applications were from spouses of applicants. The report author noted that once a decision has been made about the principal applicant a spouse applicant can be processed quickly, assuming they have good quality documentation. These applications were of no concern.

Section 18A

An application to cancel requirements imposed on an investors residence permit was included. Removing these requirements is not a complex matter and could be decided quickly. This application was of no concern.

General work visa

An application for a work visa was received and decided by the Paris Office of the NZIS. The author of the report noted that this decision was made in two days and this was not an unusually quick decision. This application should not have been counted in the original number.

Summary of number of applications

89 applications, minus

7 declined

24 replacement applications

6 spouse applications

1 under section 18A

1 general work visa

= 50 (30 LTBV and 20 Investor)

Nationality of 50 remaining applicants

There were 22 from China, 16 South Koreans, 3 British, 3 American, and one each from Pakistan, Japan, Tonga, Thailand, Fiji and Hong Kong.

There were 38 applications from China and South Korea, making up 76% of the applications. Of these, 20 Chinese applicants were assisted by agent and 16 Koreans had agents.

Of the 40 applications on which agents acted, there were 22 different agents from 19 different agencies.

Summary of applications assessed by Business Migration Branch

There were 14 staff members involved in the processing of the 50 applications. Of those, 13 processed 1-5 applications each. The remaining staff member processed 25 applications.

Applications were filed chronologically. Team leaders chose which applications to provide to his or her team members. Team leaders were focused on dealing with an increasing backlog of between 3000 and 4000 applications.

Some allocations were made on the basis of the agent pursing the application, based on the quality of the applications produced by those agents in the past. The report author noted that based on the desire to reduce the number of applications this wasn’t an unreasonable way to allocate.

It was not uncommon for team leaders to prioritise allocation of applications they perceived as being of better quality and therefore more likely to succeed. This was in order to meet targets and reduce backlog.

Applications which the Branch perceived to be of potentially high value to New Zealand or appeared to be from an impressive candidate were sometimes prioritised.

The report author noted that it appears to have been routine during 2002 for applications to be allocated and assessed on a non-chronological basis. Given the circumstances that existed within the BMB, the various approaches taken were not surprising.

Only one staff member had statistics of note, processing 25 of the 50 applications. That staff member processed between 300 and 400 applications during 2002, so the 25 applications would make up about 7% of the applications processed by this officer.

The officer was interviewed twice by the report author, and background research conducted. The author concluded that the case officer was nothing other than honest and trustworthy and was not involved in any unlawful or inappropriate activity as described by Mr Delamere.

ENDS

© Scoop Media