|
|
|
|
NEWS UPDATE
|
NZ Immigration told to clean up corruption among staff
By Mathew Dearnaley - November 30, 2004
The Immigration Service is under growing pressure to root out staff corruption after finding at least 15 more cases of dishonesty in the year to June.
The number of complaints upheld against immigration staff was up from nine cases the year before, when two local officials at overseas posts were sacked for taking bribes.
The revelations brought a sharp rebuke yesterday from Parliament's finance and expenditure select committee, which said it was concerned to learn that 95 allegations of misconduct were made last year against immigration officials.
Although 55 were unsubstantiated, the committee said any corrupt activities by individuals employed by a New Zealand Government department were "completely unacceptable." It said it expected the Labour Department, of which the Immigration Service is part, "to give high priority to addressing deficiencies in its control environment to resolve this issue".
The service's chief operating officer, Brendan Quirk, said last night that it had introduced better systems at its branches worldwide to guard against corruption.
It was also educating all overseas staff to fend off improper approaches from families and friends.
Asked about the greater number of complaints and proven cases of misconduct last year, he said the service had hired a former policeman as an internal investigator to assist local managers, and noted that applicants had become more aware of how to raise concerns.
Although the select committee report said individuals had received money illegally in "a small number of cases", Mr Quirk could point to only two instances of outright bribery.
These included a case in Bangkok last year when a Thai staff member was caught swindling thousands of dollars from Cambodian visa applicants.
Mr Quirk believed the other was in New Delhi, but could not be sure as he was at home and did not have the relevant file.
Other cases involved staff doing favours without financial reward. And one in Suva last year involved an "inappropriate advance" by a staff member from the local community towards an applicant.
Mr Quirk would not say just what that was, but confirmed the employee had been dismissed, as had most of the other 14 staff caught out last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal Counselor
|
