Part 1: Introduction

Department of Labour: Management of immigration identity fraud.

1.1
In this Part, we describe:

  • why we undertook the audit;
  • the purpose of the audit;
  • our expectations;
  • how we conducted the audit; and
  • what was outside the scope of the audit.

Why we undertook the audit

1.2
The Department of Labour (the Department) has responsibility for helping the migration to New Zealand of skilled migrants that meet our country’s identified labour needs, and the resettlement of refugees that help fulfil our international humanitarian obligations.

1.3
The Department also has responsibilities for helping to maintain the security of New Zealand’s borders. This requires a balance between making the entry of people with the appropriate authority as smooth as possible and preventing the entry of those without the appropriate authority, as well as the detection and removal of those who have entered fraudulently.

1.4
A person using a false identity can pose significant risks to the country, including financial, terrorism, health, legal, or criminal risks. We wanted to examine whether the Department has effective systems, processes, and procedures for the prevention, detection, and investigation of people who seek to enter New Zealand with a false identity within the skilled migrant and United Nations quota refugee (UN-quota refugee) categories.

1.5
The two entry categories have different immigration aims, objectives, entry requirements, and processes. We selected the skilled migrant category because skilled migrants represent a high value to New Zealand’s labour force and there is a high demand for places, and we selected the UN-quota refugee category because refugees from certain countries of origin may pose a high risk of immigration fraud.

Purpose of our audit

1.6
The purpose of our audit was to assess the Department’s systems, processes, and procedures for the prevention, detection, and investigation of immigration identity fraud within two important entry categories.

1.7
In this report, immigration identity fraud means the use of a false identity. This includes the use of a false name or date of birth, or failure to declare in an immigration application other names that a person is known by.

Our expectations

1.8
To assess the Department’s immigration identity fraud systems, processes, and procedures, we set up audit criteria (or expectations). We considered best practice and guidance material from New Zealand and overseas. In particular, we referred to:

  • Fraud Control in Australian Government Agencies – Better Practice Guide, from the Australian Federal Government’s Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian National Audit Office;
  • Good Practice in Tackling External Fraud, from the National Audit Office and HM Treasury in the United Kingdom; and
  • work by the Department of Internal Affairs on the Evidence of Identity Standard.

1.9
We expected the Department to have:

  • comprehensive systems, processes, and procedures for the prevention of immigration identity fraud;
  • effective systems, processes, and procedures for the detection of immigration identity fraud; and
  • targeted systems, processes, and procedures for the investigation of immigration identity fraud, once detected.

1.10
We set out our expectations in more detail in Parts 3, 4, and 5.

1.11
The Department noted that investment in security measures, such as the management of identity fraud, needs to be balanced against other economic and societal pressures, such as the need to attract skilled migrants and resettle refugees.

1.12
The Department also noted that identity management was an integral part of its work, and that prevention, detection, and investigation activities were conducted by various teams within the Department. We recognised this, and as a result we looked at all the Department’s immigration roles and responsibilities for evidence of work that would meet our expectations.

How we conducted the audit

1.13
To assess the Department’s systems, processes, and procedures for the prevention, detection, and investigation of immigration identity fraud, we reviewed the Department’s strategies, plans, and guidance documents. We interviewed staff at the Department’s head office and at Immigration New Zealand branch offices in Wellington and Auckland, and teams working in locations such as airports in New Zealand.

1.14
We interviewed the following stakeholders:

  • the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;
  • the Department of Internal Affairs;
  • the New Zealand Police; and
  • the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment.

1.15
We also communicated with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) regional office in Canberra.

Outside the scope of the audit

1.16
Our audit considered immigration identity fraud. We did not examine any other types of immigration fraud – such as false qualifications, false job and false marriage offers, or fraud committed by international students, employees of the Department, or third parties such as immigration consultants.

1.17
Our assessment of the Department’s systems, processes, and procedures for the prevention, detection, and investigation of immigration identity fraud considered only the skilled migrant and UN-quota refugee entry categories. We did not examine the management of immigration identity fraud in other entry categories.

1.18
Our assessment of the Department’s investigation of immigration identity fraud considered how the Department looks into suspected fraud once it is discovered. We did not consider or assess later stages of the investigation process, such as the revocation of residence permits, or deportation or removal of people who have entered New Zealand with a false identity.

1.19
Because we focused on the Department’s systems, processes, and procedures, we did not examine any individual applications for skilled migrant status or individual UN-quota refugee cases.

1.20
The UNHCR decides which refugees are in greatest need of resettlement and makes recommendations for resettlement countries, such as New Zealand, to accept them. We did not specifically examine the UNHCR’s systems, processes, or procedures for making resettlement decisions.

1.21
The Government has recently started a programme of change for immigration. Our report notes aspects of the change programme that are relevant to the scope of the audit. However, as most aspects of the programme are yet to be fully implemented, it was too early to examine the effect of these changes as part of this audit.

1.22
At the beginning of 2006/07, the Department had a reduced budget for immigration activities, partly because some fixed-term funding ended. Although budget considerations will affect the resources available to manage immigration identity fraud, the Department’s budget management arrangements were not considered as part of the audit.

page top