General Publications
Review of the practices of the Business Migration Branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service during 2002
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
OPERATION OF THE BMB DURING 2002
General observations
As outlined at the commencement of this report, the environment in the BMB during 2002 was pressured and busy, and, for many of the staff, stressful. There was pressure on those staff, in many forms, to reduce the backlog of applications as quickly as possible.
As indicated above, each week, up to a further 200 applications were lodged and, at any given point throughout 2002, the backlog stood at somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 applications. The sheer volume of documentation was significant and, on occasions, when a large quantity of applications were received, case officers had to assist the support team with the lodgement process.
It is common ground amongst members of both teams that:
- their working space was tight and less than ideal;
- there was a constant flow of enquiries and complaints from both agents and applicants about their applications and, in particular, processing time;
- there was pressure from Service Leaders to get through the applications that had been allocated to them;
- there was pressure on the Service Leaders to perform and to reduce the backlog;
- the role of Mr Hendrikx's team was to speed up the reduction of the backlog.
It is not clear to me precisely why, how, or by whom Mr Hendrikx's team was selected or what entirely its role was. In this regard, I have received various comments from a number of people, not all of which were consistent. (I note here also that it was suggested to me that there was some tension between the two teams.) Members of Mr Hendrikx's team considered they had more business experience and therefore were in a better position to work through applications quickly and efficiently. I am not in a position to make any assessment of the accuracy or appropriateness of this view, and nor is it necessary that I do so.
I asked all staff members that I spoke with whether they were aware that some applicants were apparently paying large sums of money to agents for the agents' services in preparing and progressing their applications. Most said that they were aware of the stories and referred to various figures. However, some were not sure about when they had heard these stories. I do not think the fact of large payments, or BMB staff members' knowledge of such payments, advances my inquiry in any conclusive way in relation to Mr Delamere's serious allegations.
Receipt and allocation of applications
From my interviews with members of both teams, I have concluded that applications were, generally speaking, processed in the following way:
Initial receipt
- Application received in the BMB;
- A support team officer (as opposed to a case officer) made a file for the application, date stamped the application, recorded the receipt of the application on the AMS, and sent a letter confirming receipt of the application to the applicant or his or her agent;
- The support team officer filed the application in chronological order.
Allocation for processing
Each Service Leader chose which applications to allocate to his or her team members. This choice was made according to a variety of factors, which are set out in detail below.
It is difficult to identify any document or particular decision that led to allocations being dealt with other than chronologically. However, based on all I have seen and heard, it is clear to me that the sheer numbers of the applications put pressure on all concerned, from the case officers to their managers and their managers, and that the prevailing view was that it was necessary to process allocations quickly, thereby reducing the backlog and the constant flow of enquiries and complaints that went with that backlog. I understand that more staff were employed throughout 2002 and that even nightshifts were considered.
I have set out below various methods by which, and the reasons why, applications were allocated, all of which involve allocation on a non-chronological basis.
Allocation based on identity of the agent
Various applications were allocated to team members, predominantly members of Mr Hendrikx's team, based on the identity of the agent pursuing the application, and the BMB's view of the quality of the applications produced by those agents in the past. Based on the BMB's desire to reduce the backlog, such an allocation model would, subject to appropriate assessment of each application, appear to be reasonable.
Mr Hendrikx says that this approach was consistent with practice already present within NZIS. He refers to the Christchurch branch granting certain immigration consultants preferential treatment based on a proven track record with the NZIS and the production of good quality applications in the past. I have not pursued that line of inquiry further but, as outlined above, the approach itself is unremarkable.
Further, and consistent with this approach, it appears that members of Mr Hendrikx's team were being allocated and were processing a higher number of applications than Ms Parton's team.
Monthly and yearly targets
I was advised that, as a result of monthly and yearly processing targets, it was not uncommon for Service Leaders to prioritise the allocation of applications they perceived as being of better quality, and therefore more likely to succeed. While this was clearly not best practice, in the circumstances BMB were facing, it is not surprising.
Improving morale/Experience of team members
Ms Parton advised that she would, at times, search for applications that she thought were higher in quality, or which were, for other reasons, more likely to be approved or be easier to process. This was to improve the morale of the team.
In addition, it seems that on occasions Service Leaders allocated better quality applications to less experienced members of their teams as a means of giving them experience and lifting their confidence.
Agent/applicant enquiries
I was advised by a number of case officers within both teams that enquiries from applicants and agents were time-consuming and sometimes difficult, and, in the environment in which they were working, sometimes the easiest way forward for the applications subject to such enquiries was to assess the application and, where appropriate, process it. I received conflicting views about how such enquiries were dealt with, with some team members saying only Service Leaders dealt with phone calls and others saying that they dealt with phone calls themselves. I do not think anything turns on this.
Perceived benefit to New Zealand
I was also advised that applications were sometimes prioritised if the business proposed appeared to be of potentially high value to New Zealand or if the applicant appeared to be an impressive candidate. There was a perception amongst some members of the BMB that these "high-value" applications should not be left waiting, and therefore could be processed ahead of applications that had been lodged earlier in time. I saw nothing to suggest that this happened very often.
Self-allocation
It appears that, in most cases, case officers did not allocate applications to themselves. However, I was advised by some case officers that there was nothing stopping them from choosing applications themselves, and from time to time they did so to improve their personal statistics. Again, while not ideal, this is not particularly surprising in the prevailing circumstances, and I saw nothing to suggest that it occurred very often.
Ringfencing
At some point in 2002, a decision was made to ringfence certain applications. This meant, at that point, all applications before that date were considered to be part of the backlog. For a period, Ms Parton's team worked on the backlog only, and Mr Hendrikx's team worked on new applications only.
Summary
Through these various means, and no doubt other one-off situations, it appears to have been routine during 2002 for applications to be allocated and assessed on a non-chronological basis. As indicated above, given the circumstances that existed within the BMB, the various approaches taken are not surprising. Nor is it my role to make detailed assessments or judgements about those approaches, unless they were, for instance, obviously reckless or unlawful.
However, based on the nature of the complaint received from Mr Delamere, it is my role to assess whether there was anything untoward about those applications which were processed within a very short timeframe (ie within one week). The fact that applications were processed on a non-chronological basis at least raises a question about the motives behind that approach and whether it was appropriate or, as is alleged, for unlawful purposes - specifically, that the person making the allocation, or the person processing the application, was being paid to ensure an application went through quickly.
As I have indicated on a number of occasions, I have not seen or heard anything that supports that contention and, in assessing it, I have had to rely, in large part, on a statistical analysis to see if any patterns emerge which in turn lead to further enquiries, or enable me to draw conclusions.
By way of overview, it is important to note that, throughout 2002, the BMB processed in excess of 3500 LTBV and Investor applications (3085 LTBV and 417 Investor) and, for present purposes, we are looking at 50 applications or about 1.4% of all applications processed in 2002. Put another way, only about 1.4% of the applications processed were processed within a week.
Secondly, the 50 applications in question came from 22 different agents (plus 2 agents who could not be identified) within 19 different agencies, with, in my view, no one agent having such a large number of applications to cause any concern or require further enquiry.
Thirdly, within the BMB the 50 applications were processed by 14 individuals across 2 teams and, other than one individual, no one staff member processed more than 5 of the applications in question. On average, these staff members each processed 2 applications.
Only one staff member, a member of Mr Hendrikx's team, has statistics which are worthy of note. This staff member processed 25 of the 50 applications. These figures need to be put into context. This case officer processed probably somewhere between 300 and 400 applications during 2002. Working from an average of 350, the 25 applications in question would make up about 7% of the applications processed by this case officer.
As part of this investigation, this case officer was spoken to and provided detailed information on request. The case officer appeared nothing other than straightforward, and was very helpful. Subsequently, and when these statistics became apparent, I re-interviewed this case officer. Based on the views held by others within NZIS about this case officer and the officer's background, previous roles and roles within the community, and my assessment of the case officer and the officer's responses to me, I am comfortable concluding that the case officer is nothing other than honest and trustworthy, and was not involved in any unlawful activity as described by Mr Delamere.
Further, other than the statistics, which in themselves do not appear remarkable, I have very little to rely upon to even begin to develop the view that this case officer, or indeed any other case officer, was involved in something untoward or dishonest in relation to the processing of these applications.