Assurance review of the operation of the Accredited Employer Work

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Assurance review of the operation of the

Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme

February 2024

 
 
[UNCLASSIFIED] 
[UNCLASSIFIED] 
Contents 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 4 
Context .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 
Is the Scheme being administered appropriately? ........................................................................................... 5 
What are the next steps for improvement? ..................................................................................................... 9 
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 10 
Context for this Review ................................................................................................................................... 10 
IRREGULAR MIGRATION AND MIGRANT EXPLOITATION .............................................................................. 11 
What Constitutes Irregular Migration and Migrant Exploitation? .................................................................. 11 
How does Migrant Exploitation manifest? ..................................................................................................... 11 
Indicators of the Extent of Migrant Exploitation in New Zealand .................................................................. 13 
Changes to Migration Patterns ....................................................................................................................... 14 
THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM – ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................................................... 15 
THE POLICY AND DESIGN OF AEWV ...................................................................................................... 17 
The Policy Design ............................................................................................................................................ 17 
THE OPERATIONALISATION OF AEWV ................................................................................................... 24 
Decisions made at the launch of AEWV .......................................................................................................... 24 
Policy changes impacting Immigration Instructions for AEWV ....................................................................... 25 
Decision to amend risk tolerances .................................................................................................................. 26 
General Instructions ........................................................................................................................................ 27 
Managing risk .................................................................................................................................................. 31 
The introduction of the ADEPT IT System ....................................................................................................... 33 
Constantly changing AEWV operating procedures ......................................................................................... 35 
Immigration Officers’ discretion to conduct manual checks .......................................................................... 36 
Employer Reaccreditation ............................................................................................................................... 38 
Post-decision assurance through AERMR ....................................................................................................... 38 
Declines, Suspensions and Revocations .......................................................................................................... 40 
Quality Assurance and Control........................................................................................................................ 41 
Success Measures and processing targets and their impacts ......................................................................... 42 
Concerns raised internally post-implementation of AEWV ............................................................................ 45 
Public-facing evidence of risks emerging post-implementation of AEWV...................................................... 47 
FINDINGS - WAS MBIE’S ADMINISTRATION OF AEWV CARRIED OUT APPROPRIATELY........................................ 49 
Main findings ................................................................................................................................................... 49 
Detailed findings ............................................................................................................................................. 50 
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 53 
APPENDIX A – TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................................... 57 

[UNCLASSIFIED]

APPENDIX B- METHODOLOGY / APPROACH FOLLOWED ............................................................................. 60

Interviewee identification ............................................................................................................................... 60

Information gathering ..................................................................................................................................... 60

Numbers of submitters/interviewees ............................................................................................................. 61

Data analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX C - AEWV TIMELINE .......................................................................................................... 62

APPENDIX D - DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS .................................................................... 64

GI 1 – To Clear Current Job Check Queue ....................................................................................................... 66

GI 2 - TO ENHANCE ACCREDITED EMPLOYER WORK VISA PROCESSING ........................................................ 69

Proposed Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX E - AEWV PROCESSING VOLUMES TO DATE ............................................................................... 75

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................................................................ 78

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Executive Summary

Context

1. In March 2020 New Zealand closed its borders due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Immigration New

Zealand (INZ) made a number of operational changes in response to the border closures, including

reducing its visa processing capability largely through the closure of some of its offshore offices.

2. The Government announced a phased re-opening of the borders in February 2022, and subsequently

announced the acceleration of the same bringing the full opening forward to July 2022 from the

originally planned October 2022 date. At the time of re-opening, there were unprecedented labour

shortages in New Zealand with very low unemployment, a shortage of skilled workers across many

occupations, and pent-up demand for migrant labour resulting from the border closure. Enabling an

increase in the available workforce was a priority for the government and for employers.

3. Contemporaneously, and in that context, the Government introduced its new temporary work visa: The

Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV), which sought to bring the previous 6 work-related visa

categories into a single visa product. The policy development work on the AEWV scheme had been

undertaken between 2017 and 2019, prior to the pandemic, with planning for the implementation

occurring while the borders were closed. The Scheme was designed to reorient the focus of

employment visas from a migrant led system, which relied on aspirant migrants to collate the relevant

material and submit applications, to an employer led system. Under the new system the onus would be

on the aspirant employer to provide assurance that they operated a financially sustainable business

able to offer genuine employment, and that the need for the migrant worker was genuine. The migrant

worker would then be required to provide assurance that they were of good character and health, and

appropriately skilled/qualified to perform the job offered. The design of the Scheme included three

processing gateways:

a. The Employer Accreditation gateway, which required employers to provide declarations relating

to basic requirements associated with being a valid business and a good employer. A successful

application resulted in them being accredited to use the AEWV scheme to hire migrant workers.

b. The Job Check gateway, which checked the job requirements of applications received from

accredited employers to ensure that no New Zealander was available to fill the position being

recruited to, and that the terms and conditions of employment were consistent with

Immigration Rules; and

c. The Work Visa gateway, which checked that the migrant was of good character and health and

was suitably qualified to do the job offered by the accredited employer.

4. A key feature of the policy design of the AEWV Scheme was that it was to be a “high trust” model. This

meant that the front-end of the application process (that is, the first two gateways), was designed to

rely heavily on the declarations made by employers. The main mechanism for checking the validity of

those assurances was through system rules and risk integration functions built into the visa processing

technology platform called Advanced Digital Employer-led Processing and Targeting (ADEPT), and

through post-decision checks. Checks were to occur through:

[UNCLASSIFIED]

a. Accredited Employer Risk Monitoring and Review (AERMR). This involved conducting desk and

site-based checks of a percentage of accredited employers, some targeted and some randomly

selected, to identify and address non-compliance; and

b. Re-accreditation. Employers were required to renew their accreditation status after a certain

period of time. The reaccreditation process involved checking that accredited employers were

acting consistently with the declarations and commitments they had previously made.

5. In addition to informing the accreditation decisions in individual cases, AERMR and the reaccreditation

process were designed to generate robust intelligence and feed into a continuous learning system.

6. The AEWV scheme went live in three stages between May and July 2022 and has now been operational

for almost two years.

7. The AEWV scheme is administered by INZ, which is a business unit within the Ministry of Business,

Innovation and Employment (MBIE). To process AEWV applications, Immigration Officers at INZ have

been using the automated visa processing platform, ADEPT. ADEPT automates the initial process of

checking employer declarations using several system rules. Where ADEPT identifies risk factors or

possible areas of concern, Immigration Officers are alerted to the issue. The system is designed to allow

Immigration Officers to take a light touch approach to checking aspects of applications, taking much

information at face value whilst targeting their attention towards higher risk applications.

8. From April 2023 concerns were raised with MBIE, the Minister of Immigration, and through the media,

about the operation of the AEWV scheme. At a high level the concerns related to how the Scheme was

being administered by INZ, particularly at the first two gateways, potentially resulting in opportunities

for misuse and exploitation by third parties. To provide independent assurance as to the operation of

the Scheme, the former Minister of Immigration asked the Public Service Commissioner to undertake

this review.

9. This review took place between August 2023 and February 2024 (with the investigation phase of the

Review being undertaken between September and December 2023). Its purpose has been two-fold:

a. To consider whether Immigration New Zealand’s administration of the AEWV scheme is being

carried out appropriately, including but not limited to, consideration of operational efficiency,

risk management, and the external post-COVID context; and

b. To identify any appropriate next steps for improvement in the administration of the AEWV

scheme, with a focus on mitigating the risk of migrant exploitation and irregular migration.

Is the Scheme being administered appropriately?

10. To answer this question, it is necessary to look back at the circumstances surrounding the initial

implementation of the AEWV scheme. As a result of the unusual circumstances eventuating from COVID-

19, the new scheme went live in extremely challenging circumstances. There was a “perfect storm” of

adverse conditions, namely:

a. The implementation of a new policy that merged 6 previous employer visas into one new

scheme.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

b. Implementing necessarily new business processes (the three gateways, plus the post-decision

checks).

c. The introduction of a new technology platform, ADEPT, that was not fully operational at the time

of launch and had not been subject to user-testing resulting from resourcing challenges and the

acceleration of the border opening.

d. Adopting published standard processing times that could not been tested for operational

feasibility prior to go-live.

e. Implementation by an almost entirely new visa operations team (200 people were recruited in

2022 to process AEWV applications); and

f. Under immense pressure from the Government, employers, and the New Zealand community

more generally, to get migrant workers into the country quickly.

11. Considering these unique and challenging circumstances, INZ executed the initial establishment of

processing operations and commencement of processing AEWV applications well.

12. Perhaps not surprisingly given the circumstances, a number of issues emerged almost immediately. Of

particular note, it quickly became apparent that the volumes of applications were exceeding INZ’s

capacity to process them in accordance with the published timeframes. In response to this situation, to

increase the volume of applications able to be processed and to bring visa application processing

within published processing timeframes, INZ gave General Instructions that modified the order and

manner of application processing by Immigration Officers for the second and third gateways reducing

the amount of checking of applications Immigration Officers were required to undertake. The initial

intention of the General Instructions was that they were to be an interim approach, would be

reassessed four weeks from implementation, and adjusted as appropriate. They remained in place and

largely intact until mid 2023.

13. Following the identification of abuse being observed in the Scheme from April 2023, in June and August

2023, INZ made operational changes to tighten up on how applications were being processed in the

final two gates of AEWV. INZ advise they have continued to make operational changes to strengthen the

Scheme subsequently.

14. It is critical that New Zealanders have trust and confidence in the AEWV scheme and its administration.

Its integrity is of high public importance, given the potential impact on vulnerable migrants.

15. The majority of New Zealand businesses are good employers seeking and offering genuine employment

to migrant workers. Unfortunately, the relatively small proportion of bad actors in the system, both off-

and on-shore, will always seek and exploit weakness in immigration systems and policy. The Review

accepts that no immigration system can mitigate all risk to migrants, but there are additional steps that

INZ should take to minimise the risks of irregular migration and migrant exploitation, and to ensure

trust and confidence in New Zealand’s immigration system. Further action is required as described in

the section on recommendations below.

16. In terms of whether the AEWV scheme is being administered appropriately, the review makes a series of

general and detailed findings and recommendations. Consistent with the timeframe of the

investigation phase of the Review being undertaken, the Review has focused largely on the period the

[UNCLASSIFIED]

launch of AEWV to December 2023 to inform its findings and recommendations. The findings include

that:

a. During the period July 2022 – June 2023 changes made to operational settings did not include

sufficient risk assessments.

b. The immigration risk associated with the operation of the AEWV scheme increased between 27

July 2022 and 30 June 2023. This was the result of General Instructions 1, 2, 3 and 4. General

Instructions 1 and 2 (given by INZ in July and August 2022), had the effect of temporarily limiting

several application checks by Immigration Officers undertaken at the Job Check and Work Visa

Gateways, thereby exposing the Scheme to increased risk of abuse. This situation was extended

through General Instructions 3 and 4, which were given by the Incident Management Team (IMT)

in November 22 and February 2023. General Instruction 5 (given in June 2023) re-introduced

some checks to reduce the risk exposure to the Scheme in response to multiple examples of

immigration risks materialising and being observed by INZ. General Instruction 6 continued the

re-introduction of checks in August 2023.

c. The Review considers the giving of General Instructions 1 and 2 were reasonable in the

circumstances, given the need to increase processing volumes and reduce visa processing times

to alleviate the pressure on the border at the time of re-opening. When approved and given, the

intention was that the General Instructions would be introduced for a short period of time and

their use reviewed before consideration of their extension. In approving the General Instructions

INZ accepted the changes would increase the immigration risks. However, prior to their approval

INZ did not undertake a structured risk assessment to fully understand the impact of the change

on the overall risk profile and to ensure that key people could be made aware of the impact prior

to the decisions being made. In future, if similar changes to the operational settings are

required, structured risk assessments including establishing risk tolerances and mitigations

should be undertaken. Similarly, and consistent with the original approval, the IMT operating at

the time should have undertaken a structured review and risk assessment to understand the

specific risks being accepted before extending the General Instructions alongside the limited risk

and verification activity that was undertaken at the time. Again, there is a need for decision-

makers and Ministers to be fully appraised of the shifting immigration risks and any limitations

around their assessment, particularly when changes to the risk settings are being made.

Concerns raised by staff have not been given adequate attention

17. Immigration staff spoken to by the Review indicated they raised concerns with INZ senior leadership

from April 2023 regarding the observed risk presenting at the various gateways (but in particular at Job

Check and Work Visa), and indicated they felt responses by senior INZ leadership did not adequately

address those concerns.

18. Discussions with INZ leadership indicate that, at the time,there was limited evidence of visa system

abuse presenting through INZ’s risk monitoring activity, which was consistent with their belief that

nothing in the General Instructions given required immigration officers to ignore risk, and that concerns

were largely reflective of some staff not necessarily understanding the policy and operational settings

relating to the Scheme.

19. As well as this disconnect above being demoralising for some staff, this was a missed opportunity for

[UNCLASSIFIED]

the system to learn, improve, and mitigate further harm, based on the intelligence gathered at the

frontline.

20. The Review acknowledges that since September 2023, INZ leadership has made a number of changes to

its staff communication and engagement and that this continues to be a priority.

Post-Decision Verification & Review checks are not fully operational yet

21. The AEWV Scheme was designed to be a learning system implemented over three years. It was

designed to utilise intelligence and insights from post-decision verification and review to inform future

changes to the Scheme design and operations in response to both changes in the external policy

environment and operational learnings observed.

22. The de-scoping of the development of ADEPT’s business analytics and intelligence modules has

reduced the ability of the AEWV operations team to analyse system and scheme performance and to

inform operational decision-making and review.

23. The Cabinet-delayed employer reaccreditation process means that verification of employer measures

to minimise migrant exploitation have not yet been carried out, including for high-risk employers. It is

scheduled to commence in the second quarter of 2024.

24. The diversion of AERMR resources to manage immigration risk in other areas of the immigration system

during the second half of 2022 and early 2023 resulted in significant delays to the implementation of

AERMR and post-decision review. This compromised INZ’s understanding of the performance of the

visa scheme and, whilst aspects of AERMR implementation are nearing completion, some aspects

remain behind schedule.

25. The Review understands INZ has continued to make operational changes to its administration of AEWV

consistent with the Scheme’s design as a learning system in the period post when the Review’s

investigative work was conducted. The Review acknowledges INZ has a number of changes underway

to continue to improve many of the issues identified and discussed since this review began in August

2023.

There is no clear picture of the extent of possible system abuse

26. It is difficult to compare trends of complaints and investigations between years, due to changed visa

products, effects of COVID-19 and border closures, however the increase in the number of complaints

and investigations relating to AEWV in recent months, may be possible indicator of increased system

abuse. It also needs to be acknowledged that work being done by MBIE to make it easier to report

migrant exploitation since 2020, the significant increase in working migrant numbers since the borders

reopened, as well as the financial incentives resulting from the financial support package agreed by the

former Minister, may be influencing the number of complaints received.

27. MBIE do not appear to have a methodology or approach through which they regularly are able to

calibrate the extent or nature of migrant exploitation, relying largely on lag indicators of system

abuse/non-compliance. Whilst reliance on their internal Risk and Verification activity is useful to

determine the extent of non-compliance detected through review, the need to develop a wider

intelligence model with greater lead indicators seems evident and would provide wider insights and

intelligence than appears to be the case currently.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Key communications with frontline staff have been confusing

28. The numerous changes to General Instructions, Standard Operating Processes (SOPs) and Immigration

Guidelines, coupled with complex documentation, and the lack of integration into a single set of

operating instructions increased complexity for Immigration Officers and created confusion regarding

the correct and current interpretation and processing practice.

29. The focus on visa processing standard timeframes, and the lack of focus on changed risk profile,

resulted in undue emphasis on visa processing volumes and approvals, which was experienced by visa

processing staff spoken to by the Review as disempowering and frustrating.

30. The introduction of ADEPT, the three-gateway system, and the inclusion of automation of a number of

risk rules represented a significant change in visa processing practice in INZ. This change was not well

communicated, and inadequate change management support was provided to visa processing staff to

operate in the new system.

31. The full set of main and detailed findings is set out at the back of this report, grouped with reference to

the topics that the terms of reference required this Review to consider.

What are the next steps for improvement?

32. As indicated above, AEWV is designed to operate as a learning system with operational scrutiny, risk

tolerance and policy requirements constantly being adjusted to respond to environmental changes and

competing priorities, including improving the experience for customers paying for INZ’s services whilst

minimising risks to migrants. In line with this model, and in response to issues identified by this Review,

MBIE and INZ have made a number of changes to improve the administration of the AEWV scheme.

33. The recommendations section at the end of this report begins with a summary of work underway

grouped into three main objectives:

a. Reduce the risk of migrant exploitation and improve immigration system responsiveness

through the development of an integrated compliance and system monitoring model that

balances employer, migrant and workforce needs.

b. Improve intelligence gathering and system learning opportunities; and

c. Work under way to reset the relationship between INZ’s senior leaders and frontline staff.

34. The Review recommends MBIE continue to progress work planned and underway towards achieving

these three objectives and makes 10 specific recommendations for areas of focus. Recognising that a

number of the changes recommended require a dedicated programme of work which will take time to

implement, the Review considers both work already underway and the changes once implemented, will

strengthen the performance of the Scheme, enabling MBIE and INZ to provide the necessary assurances

to the public and Ministers and further reduce the risk of harm to migrants.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Introduction

Context for this Review

35. The Review wishes to acknowledge the extraordinary challenge that the Ministry of Business,

Innovation and Employment (MBIE) faced in reopening the borders post COVID-19. With New Zealand’s

borders having been closed to non-nationals for approximately 2 years, the demand for visas to work,

study and visit was extreme. The demand from employers for migrant workers, from educational

institutions to allow international students to return, and from the tourism and wider New Zealand

community to allow visitors into the country, placed MBIE under extreme pressure to process an

unprecedented number of visas in short timeframes, post opening of the borders. MBIE and

Immigration New Zealand (INZ) also experienced direct operational impacts from COVID-19, with

revenue significantly reduced due to fewer applications, and staff levels impacted by the effects of

lockdown and mandatory isolation requirements.

36. At the time of reopening, there were unprecedented labour shortages in New Zealand with very low

unemployment, a shortage of skilled workers across many occupations, and pent-up demand for

migrant labour resulting from the border closure. Enabling an increase in the available workforce,

international students, as well as visitors and family, to flow into the country was a priority for the

government, and for New Zealanders

37.

In September 2023 concerns were raised with the

then

Minister of Immigration about the operation

of the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme (AEWV), which was launched contemporaneously

with the border re-opening. At a high level, the concerns related to the Scheme’s administration by

Immigration New Zealand (INZ) and the potential resultant opportunities

for misuse and

exploitation of migrants by third parties.

38.

It is critical that New Zealanders have trust and confidence in the AEWV scheme and its

administration. Its integrity is of high public importance, given the potential impact on vulnerable

migrants. To provide independent assurance as to the operation of the Scheme, the Minister asked

the Public Service Commissioner to undertake a review.

39. The objective of the Review is to determine whether INZ’s administration of the Scheme is being carried

out appropriately and to identify any possible improvements, with a focus on mitigating the risk of

migrant exploitation and irregular migration.

40. The full Terms of Reference for the Review are included in Appendix A of the Report.

41. The Methodology applied, including written submissions and interviews between September and early

November 2023, is outlined in Appendix B of the Report.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Irregular Migration and Migrant Exploitation

What Constitutes Irregular Migration and Migrant Exploitation?

42. Irregular migration is considered to be “the movement of persons that takes place outside the laws,

regulations, or international agreements governing the entry into or exit from the State of origin, transit

or destination”

. In the context of this review, this would include persons who, by way of deception or

fraudulent activity either by them, the proposed employer, or an agent working on either theirs or the

employer’s behalf, obtained a Work Visa that permitted entry to New Zealand.

43. Migrant exploitation is considered to have occurred when harm is caused, or the risk of harm is

increased, to the economic, social, and physical well-being of a migrant worker. Migrant workers are

considered vulnerable to exploitation because they may be less aware of their rights, may have limited

English language skills, can lack independent financial or other means of support, face high

expectations from family members back in their home country, and are often reluctant to report

exploitation for fear of losing their job, visa, and/or risk deportation. Consequently, it is understood that

the extent of migrant exploitation is under-reported globally.

44. The nature of exploitation experienced by migrants in New Zealand takes many forms - from workplace

exploitation, which involves breaches of minimum standards and entitlements under employment and

immigration legislation, to serious workplace exploitation, which involves coercion or deception and

abuses of power. At its most extreme, migrant exploitation relates to offences under the Immigration

Act (2009) and the Crimes Act (1961), which include forced labour where victims are trapped in jobs that

they were coerced or deceived into, and trafficking in persons, which is the recruitment, transportation,

transfer, harbouring, or receipt of a person through coercion or deception

45. Irregular migration and migrant exploitation are not mutually exclusive and in fact have a high degree

of intersect. The Review heard numerous reports of migrants who had paid offshore agents large

amounts of money to secure a Work Visa, which itself is illegal and constitutes irregular migration.

Those people have often secured visas with employers who go on to exploit migrants, potentially by

either not offering employment consistent with the contracts committed to as part of the visa

application process, and/or failing to provide employment at all. It cannot be assumed that a migrant

realises that their actions result in activity considered to be irregular migration in the New Zealand

context. For example, in many source countries, the payment of large fees for jobs may be considered

normal practice and so an individual may not realise that in a New Zealand context this falls foul of

immigration rules and regulation and employment law.

46. Regrettably, irregular migration and migrant exploitation are not new problems in New Zealand or

globally and certainly not something that has resulted from the introduction of the AEWV Scheme.

While historical evidence indicates that it applies to only a small percentage of the migrants who

choose to travel to work in New Zealand, the impacts on the individual being exploited are potentially

profound and should not be under-estimated.

How does Migrant Exploitation manifest?

47. While not unique to migrant workers who hold an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV), the following

types of exploitation have been described to the Review in association with the AEWV scheme:

[UNCLASSIFIED]

a. On arriving in New Zealand, or soon after arrival, the migrant’s employment may not exist. This

may be because the job never existed, is no longer available, employment documents were

falsified, or exploitation of the 90-day rule whereby employers can terminate employment of a

new employee, by employers.

b. Offshore agents, potentially aided by on-shore actors, commanding significant fees for migrant

workers ($14,000-$50,000 NZD), causing heavy debt and increased vulnerability (and which

constitutes irregular migration).

c. Migrant workers being under-or-not paid (for example work for free, extended hours, or paying

money back to the employer).

d. Instances of culturally integrated migrant exploitation where migrants from the same home

country as the employer are subject to exploitation resulting from strong dependency and

vulnerability for the migrant worker. This is particularly prevalent where the migrant cannot

speak English, has low or no skills, and or cultural settings that prevent the migrant speaking out

against their employer.

e. Migrant workers not being offered employment that is consistent with the employment contract

provided by the employer as a requirement of visa.

f. Employers controlling living conditions, movement, and communication; and

g. Migrant workers being forced to work illegally as part of organised crime networks, either in

breach of their visa, or in unlawful activities.

48. By the time a migrant worker has entered New Zealand, they may have invested heavily, both

financially and emotionally, potentially having disposed of property, borrowed to fund their migration

(either legal or illegal costs) and given up employment in their home country. They may be proposing

to be separated from family and friends for considerable periods of time to realise the benefits available

from migrant work.

Irregular Migration International Organisation for Migration (IOM) definition of Irregular Migration relied upon by INZ.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2020). Temporary migrant worker exploitation review – final proposals (Cabinet paper

proactively released) Temporary migrant worker exploitation review – final proposals (mbie.govt.nz)

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Indicators of the Extent of Migrant Exploitation in New Zealand

49. Gaining an accurate picture of the extent of migrant exploitation is difficult. In 2018 and 2019 the

Labour Inspectorate and INZ reported that they were seeing increasingly complex cases of migrant

exploitation, and evidence suggested that exploitation is a serious issue in New Zealand. In 2018, 8

percent of temporary migrants who responded to New Zealand’s Migrant Survey said they had not

received one or more of their minimum employment rights or had been asked to pay money to their

employer to get or keep their job (a “job premium”). Extrapolated out this was estimated to mean

around 20,000 temporary workers may be being exploited

. The same survey found that some

industries present a higher risk of exploitation than others, for example nearly one in five migrants

working in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and retail industries indicated they had not received at least

one of their minimum employment rights or had been asked to pay a job premium. This correlates with

lower-skilled workers from low-income source countries being more vulnerable to exploitation, or

migrant workers who have significant debt.

50. In 2011/12, INZ received exploitation allegations involving 31 individuals and businesses. In 2018/19 this

had increased to 390

, indicating an increase in the level of exploitation. The number of allegations

involving at least one employer has been climbing, with 421 in 2020, 590 in 2021, 467 in 2022, and as of 4

December 2023, 1552, complaints against Accredited Employers where one or more migrants have

reported instances of migrant exploitation.

51. In August 2020 the Government announced new measures to better protect temporary migrant workers

from exploitation. The measures included the creation of the Migrant Exploitation Protection Visa

(MEPV) to support migrants to leave an exploitative situation quickly and remain lawfully in New

Zealand. The visa is valid for up to six months to allow the migrant to find alternative employment. Also

included in the measures were:

a. a dedicated 0800 number and web form to make it easier to report migrant worker exploitation.

b. increased funding for a joint compliance and enforcement approach through Employment New

Zealand and INZ to better respond to reports of exploitation.

c. a liaison service to support exploited migrant workers; and

d. proactive information and education to prevent exploitation.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2020). Temporary migrant worker exploitation review – final proposals (Cabinet paper

proactively released) Temporary migrant worker exploitation review – final proposals (mbie.govt.nz)

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2020). Temporary migrant worker exploitation review – final proposals (Cabinet paper proactively

released) Temporary migrant worker exploitation review – final proposals (mbie.govt.nz)

[UNCLASSIFIED]

52. The final piece of the 2020 Temporary Migrant Worker Exploitation Review to be implemented is

legislative change through the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. This will amend

the Immigration Act 2009, the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Companies Act 1993 by

introducing an offence and penalty regime including disqualifying people convicted of migrant

exploitation and people-trafficking, from managing or directing a company. This legislation came into

effect on 6 January 2024 and is expected to be in force by the end of March 2024. The level of

applications and approvals for eligibility of the MEPV is another indicator of exploitation. In 2021 when

it was first introduced (for a half year – July-December), 63 MEPVs were issued. A further 125 were

issued in 2022, and in the first ten months of 2023, 652 MEPVs were issued. The measures to better

protect temporary migrant workers from exploitation, including the MEPV, means that there is now a

means for increased reporting of migrant exploitation. However, even with the MEPV available, for

those workers in exploitative positions it can be difficult to come forward and many people choose to

stay in their current situation rather than register for the MEPV. Reasons include fear of losing their visa,

facing deportation or other barriers, or concern regarding being unable to find alternative employment

during the 6-month term of the visa. This means that the number of MEPVs issued cannot be taken as a

measure of the extent of migrant exploitation in New Zealand, however, the increase in the number of

people applying for the MEPV can be seen as an indicator of a wider picture of migrant exploitation in

New Zealand.

Changes to Migration Patterns

53. The fact that over 236,000 Job Tokens have been issued over 15 months to the end of October 2023,

representing almost 3 times the regular annualised rate of migration, and with approximately 130,000

of those Job Tokens yet to be redeemed/converted into Working Visas and/or expiring unfilled,

suggests the potential for unusual migration activity, even when considering the pent-up demand as a

consequence of border closures and the exit of migrant labour over the Covid period. It’s unclear

what’s driving the increase in job token numbers however, it may be reflective the newness of the policy

and a tendency of employers to over-estimate the number of migrant workers required and therefore

increase the number of job tokens being sought to provide greater flexibility to respond to pressures

within their business.

54. The economic downturn experienced, and recent early indications of increasing unemployment rates

tend to indicate that the labour market demand is currently saturated in certain areas/sectors,

particularly relating to low/no skilled workers.

55. INZ have confirmed that the percentage of Work Visas granted to low/no skilled workers under AEWV

has significantly increased when compared to the previous work visa categories AEWV replaced and is

currently at 62% of Work Visas granted. This is approximately 20% higher than under the previous work

visas in place.

56. Post-COVID 19 pandemic, New Zealand continues to be a desirable destination for migrant workers and

is promoted as a safe country with good pay rates and the ability to get permanent residence quickly.

Early indications suggest a post-COVID pattern of a greater number of applicants with higher-risk

profiles applying for visas now than before as nationals from several countries experience a range of on-

going impacts post COVID-19, cost of living crises, and other pressures in their home country.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

The Immigration system – roles and responsibilities

The Minister of Immigration

57. The Minister of Immigration (and associate Minister(s) of Immigration under delegation from the

Minister) is responsible for the development of all immigration policy and legislation. Unlike most other

areas of government, the Minister also has decision-making powers about individual non-citizens.

58. The Immigration portfolio includes two pieces of primary legislation:

a. The Immigration Act 2009, which covers the immigration regulatory system; and

b. The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, which governs occupational licensing for providers

of immigration advice.

59. The legislation relevant to this review is the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act), which amongst other things

provides for “the development of immigration instructions (which set rules and criteria for the grant of

visas and entry permissions) to meet objectives determined by the Minister.”

MBIE and INZ

60. The administration and regulation of New Zealand’s immigration system is separated into multiple

units within MBIE. INZ is one of eight business units within MBIE. INZ administers the core operational

functions for visa processing. INZ is led by the Deputy Secretary Immigration, who reports to the

Secretary and Chief Executive of MBIE and is a member of the MBIE Senior Leadership Team.

61. The structure of the immigration system at MBIE is as follows:

a. INZ administers the core operational function.

b. The Employment Skills and Immigration Policy Branch within the Labour, Science and Enterprise

group, provides policy advice across the Immigration Policy teams.

c. The Immigration Advisers Authority within the Te Whakatairanga Service Delivery group provides

services to license people who provide New Zealand immigration advice and immigration

compliance and investigations, and includes the Labour Inspectorate, which enforces and

monitors minimum employment standards and the MBIE Customer Service Centre.

d. Lawyers from Legal, Ethics, and Privacy Team provide specialist first instance legal advice to

support immigration decision-making; and

e. The Digital, Data and Insights branch lead IT systems including ADEPT.

Immigration Act 2009 s3(b)

[UNCLASSIFIED]

The following diagram represents the organisational structure of MBIE and INZ:

[UNCLASSIFIED]

The policy and design of AEWV

62. As outlined in the Terms of Reference for this review (Appendix A), the policy underpinning the

development of the AEWV Scheme is outside of the scope of the Review and consequently the focus of

the Review has been on the implementation of the policy. However, for the purposes of discussing the

implementation of the Scheme, the policy objectives and settings are outlined below, including the

history and timeline of its development. A full timeline for the development and implementation of

AEWV is included in Appendix C.

63. Work on the development of a new working visa scheme commenced in 2017. The work was intended

to bring together the six existing visa categories into one: Essential Skills Work Visa; Essential Skills

Work Visa – approved in principle; Talent (Accredited Employer) Work Visa; Long Term Skill Shortage

List Work Visa; Silver Fern Job Search Visa (closed 7 October 2019); and Silver Fern Practical Experience

Work Visa.

64. Key policy objectives approved by Cabinet

underpinning the design of the Scheme were:

a. To provide increased certainty for employers in exchange for upfront checks.

b. Streamlined processes for genuine higher skill shortages.

c. A simplified system achieved through a reduction in visa categories.

d. Recognition that regions and sectors have different labour market needs.

e. An overall lift in the minimum standards for employing foreign workers.

f. Improved incentives on employers to recruit and train New Zealanders and to respond to skill

and labour shortages; and

g. Improved compliance and treatment of foreign workers and reduced exploitation risk.

The Policy Design

65. Following policy development work by MBIE Immigration Policy between 2017 and 2019, Cabinet

approved the design of a scheme to meet the policy objectives above, in August 2019. The Scheme was

known as the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) Scheme.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2019). A new approach to employer-assisted work visas and regional workforce planning: Paper

One – Employer Gateway system and related changes (Cabinet paper proactively released). A new approach to employer-assisted work visas and

regional workforce planning: paper one - employer gateway system and related changes (mbie.govt.nz)

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Employer-Led Scheme

66. The AEWV Scheme reoriented the focus of employment visas from migrant-led systems, which placed

responsibility on the aspirant migrant worker to collate and complete the visa application, to an

employer-led system where the onus is on the employer to provide assurance that they are a sound

business and that the need for a migrant is genuine, and in doing so requiring employers to provide

additional information about their businesses.

Three Gateway System

67. The AEWV Scheme design introduced three sequential processing gateways: the Employer

Accreditation gateway, the Job Check gateway, and the Work Visa gateway:

a. The Employer Accreditation gateway is where employers are required to satisfy basic

requirements associated with being a valid business and good employer, resulting in them being

accredited to hire migrants.

b. The Job Check gateway checks the job requirements of applications from accredited employers

to ensure that no New Zealander can fill the position being recruited to and that the terms and

conditions of employment are consistent with the Immigration Rules; and

c. The Work Visa gateway is where checks are made that the migrant is of good character and

health and is suitably qualified to do the job offered by the accredited employer.

68. The following diagram outlines the Three Gateway System and the information required at each phase,

complete with the linkage to the Accredited Employer Risk and Monitoring Review activity described in

later sections.

Table 1 – AEWV Gateway process overview

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Gate 1 – the Employer Accreditation Gateway

69. The Employer Accreditation gateway was designed to achieve the following three standards:

a. That an employer must be operating a genuine business or other legitimate organisation.

b. The employer and key officers must have no recent history of regulatory non-compliance; and

c. The employer must take steps to minimise the risk of migrant exploitation. This includes

declaring they will: provide information to migrant workers about living and working in New

Zealand; provide migrants with time during paid work hours to complete online modules on

employment rights; pay all costs and fees for the recruitment of migrant workers both in and

outside of New Zealand; and not charge any fees to migrants outside of the country that would

be unlawful if charged in New Zealand.

It was intended that assurance activity to determine the

level of compliance with these requirements would be undertaken post-decision.

70. As part of the approval of the three gateways, in 2019 Cabinet also approved the establishment of three

categories of Accredited Employer, recognising the different labour market needs and risk profiles

associated with different employer groupings, namely:

a. Standard Employers – employers seeking five or fewer migrant workers in a twelve-month

period.

b. High-Volume Employers – employers seeking more than five migrant workers in a twelve-month

period and subject to further scrutiny as opposed to Standard Employers; and

c. High-Risk Employers – to cover Labour Hire companies with no limit on the number of migrants

an employer may seek to employ but with the greatest involved scrutiny required in the

accreditation process.

71. In 2021 the Minister agreed to a range of considerations that were required to be taken into account in

considering an employer’s ability to meet the standards outlined above. This included that INZ will

primarily rely on declarations from employers, supported by automated checks where possible, for

example, if organisation or key people are on the employer stand-down list, or if key people have been

banned from being involved with the management of a business in New Zealand. In meeting the

standard of a genuine employer, where specific risk indicators are flagged (e.g., the business has been

trading for less than 12 months), further documentation may be requested to verify that the employer is

a genuinely operating business. Other verification was to be carried out as part of post-decision

assurance.

72. Employers falling into the high-risk business model definition, which was expanded in 2021 to include

all triangular employment arrangements and franchisees, were subject to further scrutiny that included

their accreditation only lasting for 12 months, being subject to site visits, greater up-front verification

scrutiny, and more post-decision verification.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (23 March 2021). Briefing to Minister of Immigration – Employer Assisted Temporary Work Visa

Reforms – Employer Gateway proposals.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

73. High-risk employers additionally had to demonstrate that they were only contracting migrant workers

to compliant businesses (i.e. those who meet employment standards consistent with those committed

to by the accredited employer), that they have good systems in place to monitor employment and

safety conditions on site, and that they have a history of contracts for placing New Zealand workers

Gate 2 - Job Check Gateway

74. The design intention underpinning the Job Check gateway was that migrant labour was only to be used

to supplement the available New Zealand labour market and that labour market risks, such as

underinvestment in training, displacement of New Zealanders, and wage suppression, be reduced.

75. The Job Check gateway design incorporated a requirement that a labour market check be undertaken

to ascertain whether a New Zealander was available to do the work. The design involved both a

requirement that the job be advertised, and that the employer provide evidence that no suitable New

Zealander was available. Initially it was contemplated that where the employment involved lower-

skilled roles, information from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) was required to ensure that

the role was not suitable for clients under its Job Seeker category.

In December 2021 Cabinet

introduced the median wage threshold for AEWV visas. This higher threshold meant MSD’s role was

redundant as it was intended MSD would only be reviewing roles below the median wage. A decision

was taken to exclude sector agreement roles below the median wage as well as these were areas of

agreed shortage.

76. Under the 2019 Cabinet paper

three pathways were to be available under the Job Check gateway: The

Highly Paid Migrant pathway, the Regionalised Labour Market pathway, and the Sector Agreement

pathway. Regardless of pathway, employers were expected to ensure that the job being offered paid at

least the current market rate.

77. The Highly Paid pathway would apply where the remuneration for the job being sought was over 200%

of the median wage and as a result an exemption from labour market testing would apply. The key

principle behind this was that high remuneration rates generally reflect a genuine skills shortage. Later

in 2022, the Green List (priority occupations for New Zealand) was created and effectively added to this

pathway.

78. The Sector Agreements pathway sought to acknowledge that certain sectors systemically have a high

reliance on migrant workers. This pathway was intended to provide a basis for recruitment of migrant

workers based on agreed and standardised conditions between government and sectors to meet policy

objectives such as:

a. improving wages and conditions.

b. reducing reliance on lower-skilled migrant workers; and

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2019). (Cabinet paper proactively released). A new approach to employer-assisted work visas and

regional workforce planning: paper one - employer gateway system and related changes (mbie.govt.nz)

www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/jobseeker-support.html

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2019). (Cabinet paper proactively released). A new approach to employer-assisted work visas

and regional workforce planning: paper two - the job gateway (mbie.govt.nz)

[UNCLASSIFIED]

c. incentivising the employment, training, and upskilling of domestic workers in order to provide a

balance between employing New Zealanders and migrant workers.

79. The Regionalised Labour Market test pathway was intended to provide greater opportunities to

potential New Zealand workers, whilst at the same time easing restrictions on employers employing

migrant workers, where the risk of domestic job displacement through wage suppression was small.

80. This pathway was intended to be coupled with a strengthened Labour Market Test that included

ensuring that the employer is accredited, has met obligations under sector agreements, advertised the

role sufficiently, committed to paying market rates, and have verification from MSD that no New

Zealander was available to fill the role. As noted above, in December 2021 the median wage threshold

was introduced, making the MSD check redundant.

81. Accordingly, a Briefing was provided to the Minister and Associate Minister of Immigration outlining key

criteria

82. Any employer applying for a Job Check was required to provide key information about the job, for

example:

a. minimum and maximum pay rate for the job.

b. proposed employment agreement.

c. evidence of advertising and a declaration only from the employer that no/not enough suitable

New Zealanders applied.

d. MSD vacancy number (if below median wage) – this requirement was removed under the

Immigration Rebalance in December 2021 (see below paras 83-84); and

e. A Job Check application might include an application for multiple roles and/or positions.

Assuming a Job Check application is approved, a Job Token or multiple Job Tokens may be

issued allowing the employer to progress to recruit a suitable migrant worker.

83. As referenced above, in December 2021, Cabinet agreed to an Immigration Rebalance, with changes for

employer-assisted workers and partners.

These changes were designed to ensure immigration

settings were balanced correctly as the country moved from near-zero inward migration through the

COVID-19 pandemic to open borders.

84. Perhaps the most significant change made under the Immigration Rebalance was the introduction of

the requirement that AEWV roles be paid above the median wage. This effectively removed the need for

the involvement of MSD in consideration of whether a New Zealander was available for a role as they

were only checking roles under the median wage.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (22 June 2021). Briefing to the Minister of Immigration and Associate Minister of Immigration:

Employer-assisted temporary work visa reforms – job and migrant worker check proposals.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Dec 2021). (Cabinet paper proactively released). Immigration Rebalance: options for employer-

assisted workers and partners (mbie.govt.nz)

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Gate 3 – Work Visa Gateway

85. The Work Visa gateway was designed to verify the identity, health status, and character of the migrant

and validate their ability to meet the qualifications and experience requirement for the role where

applicable.

86. The AEWV Scheme design contemplated that should a Work Visa holder wish to change their employer,

subject to the new employer being accredited and having a valid Job Token approved, the migrant

worker could apply to vary employment conditions on their visa

High Trust Model

87. A key feature of the policy design of the AEWV Scheme was that it was to be a “high trust” model.

88. The high trust model contemplated that the Employer Accreditation and Job Check gateways relied

significantly on employer declaration-based information for visa processing considerations. Assurance

relating to the validity of employer declarations was designed to be obtained through a post-decision

process called the Accredited Employer Risk Monitoring and Review (AERMR), which would in turn

inform the Employer Re-accreditation process. The review understands the high trust model differed

from previous work visa categories in this regard and was a significant departure from previous visa

category designs requiring a different approach to implementation of the policy.

Reaccreditation and Accredited Employer Risk Monitoring and Review (AERMR)

89. AEWV was designed with the need to carry out employer reaccreditation to provide INZ with assurance

that employers’ declarations were compliant with the declaration commitments made. For example,

the completion of employment standards, learning modules and settlement support activities.

Reaccreditation is an important aspect of the AEWV’s assurance designed to minimise migrant

exploitation.

90. The policy intent was for most employers to have a shorter first accreditation period of 12 months, with

renewals every 24 months after that for compliant employers. High-risk employers (franchisees and

those using triangular employment arrangements) would be required to renew their accreditation every

12 months, reflecting the historically higher risk of migrant exploitation associated with these business

models.

91. The initial policy intent as outlined to Cabinet

was for employers operating high-risk business models

to have upfront site visits as part of the employer accreditation process, and for this to also be a

requirement for any employers identified as higher risk under the standard and high-volume categories.

During more detailed design in 2021, the then Minister for Immigration agreed to remove this

requirement, noting instead that INZ will develop a risk-based prioritisation process that priorities

higher risk employers for more robust assessment and more site visits.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (22 June 2021). Briefing to the Minister of Immigration and Associate Minister of Immigration:

Employer-assisted temporary work visa reforms – job and migrant worker check proposals

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2019). (Cabinet paper proactively released). A new approach to employer-assisted work visas

and regional workforce planning: paper one - employer gateway system and related changes (mbie.govt.nz).

[UNCLASSIFIED]

92. Treatment of risks for AEWV were operationalised into pre-decision and post-decision. The pre-decision

risk and verification activities that INZ traditionally deploys during a visa assessment were limited in the

Employer Accreditation gateway because INZ held limited data on employers to inform employer risk

identification and analysis.

93. The AEWV Scheme design therefore relies on post-decision checks to ensure employers are complying

with accreditation requirements, with the ability to revoke accreditation if they are not. As well as

reaccreditation, the intent was to use post-decision risk monitoring through AERMR and other risk

monitoring and review to collect data and intelligence in the first year to build the data INZ holds on

employers.

94. AERMR activities were designed to be a combination of desk-based and site-based checks. Desk-based

checks leverage MBIE’s information holdings and open-source information to assess the accuracy of

employer declarations provided through the employer accreditation gateway and identify any

additional indicators of immigration risk.

95. The desk-based checks included information relating to the viable and genuinely operating business or

operational criteria, as well as compliance with specific employment, immigration and business

standards and settlement support activities. AERMR would also conduct site-based checks either from a

recommendation from a desk-based check, or by prescription for Triangular and Franchisee accredited

employers.

96. This Risk Monitoring and Review model was intended to ensure monthly post-decision reviews of

employers by INZ’s Risk and Verification function to ensure that data was captured to inform ongoing

risk analysis and findings and reported through to INZ’s risk governance groups to inform risk tolerance

and controls.

This approach was intended to ensure a circular risk management approach was

embedded into the system, in other words, a ‘learning system’.

97. INZ designed the AERMR process to conduct post-decision checks on 16 percent of employers in the

first year. Checks were specified as a combination of desk -based checks across a random selection of

employers as well as targeted site based checks on a sample of all accredited employer types with a

focus on franchisee and triangular employers and any business that have been referred through a

complaint or issue raised. The implementation of AERMR was deferred for six months as an operational

decision to move resources to address risk presenting elsewhere in the immigration system.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (10 May 2022). (Internal memorandum). Risk Monitoring and Review Governance Group

Submission Paper: Pre-decision Immigration Risk Management Approach to the Accreditation Gateway for the Accredited Employer Work Visa.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

The Operationalisation of AEWV

Decisions made at the launch of AEWV

98. INZ made final operational policy decisions in the weeks before implementation, including decisions on

the visa processing standards for each gate. Visa processing standards were set at:

a. 10 working days for the Employer Accreditation gateway.

b. 10 working days for the Job Check gateway; and

c. 20 working days for the Working Visa gateway.

99. One of the key features of the AEWV system consistent with the High Trust design was an automated

visa processing platform called Advanced Digital Employer-led Processing and Targeting (ADEPT). The

system was designed to automate checking of employer declarations through several system rules

described in further detail below. This allowed for low touch where appropriate while allowing targeted

scrutiny and challenge where there were risk factors or concerns. However, because the development

of ADEPT was not completed sufficiently in advance of the commencement of AEWV operations,

processing times outlined above were not able to be tested and as such the operational impacts of

meeting the processing standards could not be understood by INZ.

Opening the Christchurch office

100. The launch of AEWV occurred at a time when MBIE, and within it INZ, were under immense pressure to

enable movement of people across the New Zealand border post the COVID-19 border closure.

Pressure on the Government and subsequently on MBIE, not only from the business community but

also from the wider New Zealand community, to allow migrant workers, students, and visitors to travel

to New Zealand was extreme. This translated into a requirement for urgency and timeliness of visa

processing, and also unprecedented volumes as a result of pent-up demand.

101. Due to the pandemic, and the Government’s decision to close the borders, INZ made the decision to

close additional offshore offices responding to the flow-on impacts of border closures and reduction in

revenue. This resulted in a loss of visa processing capability and capacity and created further pressure

on the operations as it planned to support the reopening of the border. Consequently, to operationalise

AEWV, and as part of its response to reopening the border, INZ made the decision to establish a new

Visa operations team in Ōtautahi Christchurch, to be ready for the launch of the Employer Accreditation

gateway.

102. During the period from March 2022 to November 2022, 200 people were recruited into the Christchurch

offices to process AEWV applications.

What happened when AEWV was launched?

103. On 23 May 2022, the first gateway for Employer Accreditation was launched at which time only the front

end of the system of ADEPT, the part that received and lodged the application was operational.

104. Within three days of opening 1,151 Employer Accreditation applications were received. The back end of

the system, where the application is processed, was not operational for another week.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

105. The Job Check gateway opened to applications on 20 June 2022. The design of this gateway required

several activities to be undertaken by Immigration Officers, a key feature of which was new for INZ. The

issuing of job tokens in response to an approved Job Check application was an entirely new activity.

This resulted in delays in processing times as Immigration Officers were required, under the policy

settings, to complete extensive assessment of draft employment agreements. This compounded

processing time delays. These issues, coupled with the high volume of applications, resulted in

significant slowing of visa processing beyond the 10-day commitment.

106. The Work Visa gateway was launched on 4 July 2022. There was a deliberate decision to allow migrants

to apply with their job token through ADEPT, but to operate a hybrid model of processing in AMS for a

short period of time. This was to ensure that full development of functionality and testing of the

solution was undertaken before going live and that customers had a seamless interaction with the

system. This is more fully outlined below.

107. Due to the challenges and delays outlined above, initial processing times for AEWV were slow and did

not meet the published processing standards. As of 27 July 2022, the Job Check gateway had been

operational for just over 5 weeks. In that time 2896 Job Check applications had been received but only

329 (11%) had been completed. Similarly, as of 23 August 2022, the Work Visa gateway had been open

for just over 7 weeks with 2284 applications received, of which only 139 (6%) had been completed.

Policy changes impacting Immigration Instructions for AEWV

108. Visa processing relies on a range of tools and instruments, some of which are statutory while others are

operational.

109. Immigration Instructions are the statutory tool whereby the rules associated with a Visa Product are set

and give effect to the policy setting for the visa product. Immigration Instructions are established under

section 22 and 23 of the Immigration Act 2009. They are certified by the Minister of Immigration and

must be published and publicly available. The changes documented below respond to policy changes

approved either by Cabinet or by the Minister. To support the launch of AEWV, Immigration Instructions

relating to the Scheme were made publicly available prior to go-live. They became operational on the

date of issue, indicated below:

a. Employer Accreditation Gateway 23/05/2022

b. Job Check Gateway 20/06/2022

c. Work Visa Gateway 04/07/2022

110. The Immigration Instructions relating to the Job Check gateway were amended on 31 October 2022, to

reflect the first six sector agreements (for care workforce, construction and infrastructure, meat

processing, seafood, seasonal snow, and adventure tourism).

111. On 5 December 2022 the Job Check Immigration Instruction was introduced so that migrant workers

who wished to change their employer were not tied to their original employer.

112. A further amendment to the Job Check Immigration Instruction was issued on 26 April 2023 reflecting

the seventh sector agreement (transport).

113. In October 2023, an amendment to the Job Check Immigration Instructions reflected the ban of the 90-

day trial period being included in employment contracts for migrant workers under AEWV.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

114. Despite these changes, the three substantive Immigration Instructions issued for each of the gateways

remain largely unchanged.

Decision to amend risk tolerances

115. Given the pressure to allow workers into New Zealand and challenges being experienced by INZ in

meeting published visa processing time standards resulting in delays in visa approvals, it quickly

became apparent that further changes were needed. Three options for resolution of these delays were

considered by INZ:

a. further automation in the ADEPT system.

b. additional processing resource; and

c. changes to risk tolerance.

116. Documents provided to the Review indicate that INZ considered neither automation nor increasing

resources to be practical options within the required timeframes. For further automation to be

developed into ADEPT additional data to support the development of risk rules was required. Given the

short operating time of the system there was deemed to be insufficient data to proceed with this

option. In addition, the lack of availability of technical resources to undertake any development in the

system meant that further automation was not a viable option.

117. The option of increasing processing resources was also dismissed due to the lead times resulting from

recruitment and training requirements and the demand on the other parts of the immigration system

associated with reopening the border.

118. Consequently, the option left to INZ, to adjust the risk tolerance to accept more risk, was deemed the

most pragmatic option available at the time. This was enabled through the giving of General

Instructions.

119. In selecting this option, INZ considered that the risk trade-off from reducing the extent of Immigration

Officer scrutiny of applications across the Job Check and Work Visa gates could be mitigated as follows:

a. by the post-decision reviews (AERMR), designed to identify risk trends and inform risk settings

over time, which were to commence as soon as possible.

b. by increased Risk Management and Review to be undertaken by INZ’s Risk & Verification Team.

c. by the reaccreditation of employers, which was to be undertaken after the first 12 months; and

d. by the proposed reduction in processing scrutiny being in place for only a short period of time,

namely two months per the original proposal.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (25 July 2022) Internal Memo: Operational Levers to Clear Current Job Check Queue

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (30 September 2022) Internal Memo: Review of Operational Levers to Enhance Accredited

Employer, Job Check and Work Visa Processing

[UNCLASSIFIED]

120. While the immediate solution applied by INZ was to change risk tolerances, additional solutions were

pursued in the following months, including moving additional staff from other visa category processing.

General Instructions

121. Under Section 26(4) of the Immigration Act 2009, the Chief Executive may give General Instructions. The

Chief Executive has the ability to delegate this action and has established delegations to the Deputy

Secretary of INZ and the Chief Operating Officer, INZ.

122. In accordance with the Act the Chief Executive or delegate may give General Instructions to Immigration

Officers on the order and manner of processing any visa application. The intention behind the

introduction of the General Instructions of AEWV applications was to improve processing times by

reducing some of the manual checking required, to focus the attention of immigration officers to areas

where risk was thought most likely to be present, and to make operational changes to better

manage risk following the first few weeks of processing.

123. The six General Instructions given for AEWV to date are outlined in Table 2 below:

Table 2- Summary of General Instructions given

General Instruction

No. and Gateways

impacted

Summary of the eect of the General Instruction

Period over which the General

Instruction was in place

Changes to settings

1 – Job Check Gateway

This General Instruction limited, for some cases:

checking of the employer regarding acceptability

of the employment; the requirement to calculate

remuneration; the requirement to determine the

genuineness of the vacancies; and the

requirement to determine that suitable labour

market testing had been undertaken.

Authorised by the Deputy

Secretary INZ and given on 27

July 2022 and was to be reviewed

aer four weeks. Was superseded

by GI 3 on 6 October

2 – Work Visa Gateway

This General Instruction limited, for some cases,

the job check validation step to considering the

job check validation letter against the migrant’s

oer of employment only rather than also

validating consistency with the employment

agreement.

Authorised by the Deputy

Secretary INZ and given on 23

August 2022 and was due to be

reviewed at the end of

September 2022. Was

superseded by GI 3 on 6 October

3 – Job Check and

Work Visa Gateways

This General Instruction extended the instructions

in the previous 2 General Instructions. It noted

that the previous two GIs were to have been

reviewed, however, whilst data was available to

indicate improved processing time there was

insuicient data available to enable a clear

understanding of the risk impacts of the Gis. This

was not considered a reason not to extend the

General Instructions.

Authorised by the IMT Controller

under delegation from the Chief

Executive MBIE and given on 6

October 2022 for the period to 2

December 2022 to align with the

intended end date of the MBIE

Reconnecting New Zealand

Incident Management Team.

Superseded by GI 4 on 28

February 2023

4– Job Check and

Work Visa Gateways

This General Instruction was also presented as a

review of the operational levers applied in the

previous General Instructions and was dated

three months aer the 2 December deadline

agreed in the previous General Instruction.

General Instruction 4 noted that Risk Monitoring

and Review activity suggested that the presence

of untreated risks (specifically relating to the Job

Authorised by the Chief

Operating Oicer, INZ and given

28 February 2023. Superseded by

GI 5 on 30 June 2023.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

General Instruction

No. and Gateways

impacted

Summary of the eect of the General Instruction

Period over which the General

Instruction was in place

Check) and risks not managed (relating to the

Work Visa) were within INZ’s risk appetite. To

inform this decision, Risk Monitoring and Review

sampling undertaken by INZ Risk and Verification

indicated that of 1,225 applications sampled, 83

or 6.8% of applications were assessed as not

having the AEWV risk adequately managed. This

rate was considered within tolerances and

comparable with historical levels.

These General Instructions were extended by a

delegate of the Deputy Secretary of Immigration

until the end of June 2023, with a condition that

Risk and Verification conduct “further, more

comprehensive review activity by mid-June

2023.”

Tightening of settings

5 – Job Check and

Work Visa Gateways

This General Instruction sought to reintroduce

verification regarding labour market testing in the

form of advertising. It also required checking of

location of employment, legal entity of the

employer, employment type and role information

declared matches that on the employment

agreement, and where relevant, the advertising.

Authorised by the Deputy

Secretary INZ and given on 30

June 2023. Superseded by GI 6

on 16 August 2023

6 – Job Check and

Work Visa Gateways

This General Instruction replaced General

Instruction 5. It sought to exclude high volume

accredited employers and construction sector

roles from the instruction to apply only face value

checks when determining genuine employment,

and included advice from Risk and Verification as

a criterion for conducting additional verification

at the work visa gateway

Authorised by the Deputy

Secretary INZ and given on 18

August 2023

124. A detailed analysis of the effect of the various General Instructions is contained in Appendix D.

Standing up the Incident Management Team (IMT)

125. Soon after the giving of the first two General Instructions by the Deputy Secretary INZ, the Chief

Executive directed the establishment of a Reconnecting New Zealand Incident Management Team

(IMT). MBIE regularly uses IMTs as a mechanism to bring wider enterprise resources to an issue or task.

126. The logic underpinning the establishment of the IMT was that significant concern was being raised by

key external stakeholders, MBIE and INZ leadership and employers across the NZ labour market that

AEWV, Student and Visitor visas were not being processed in timeframes that met the expectations of

customers.

IMT Controller Preliminary Scoping

[UNCLASSIFIED]

127. The intent of the IMT was to ensure that resources from the wider organisation would support INZ to

process visa applications more rapidly. The scope of the IMT was to deliver improvements across visa

products, to expedite, manage risk at pace, and meet re-opening expectations. The IMT ran from 25

August 2022 through to 24

March 2023, at which point the delegated IMT functions returned to INZ

under business as usual. The IMT was governed by 5 Deputy Chief Executives from across MBIE

including the Deputy Secretary INZ.

128. An IMT Controller was appointed. The IMT Controller held the following authorities and delegations:

a. Authority to direct the adjustment of (visa) risk levels.

b. Authority to direct the adjustment of quality checks of visa products.

c. Authority to direct change processes to the manner in which all visa products are processed

(including giving General Instructions); and

d. Authority to reallocate employees from any branch as required.

129. The review of the General Instructions was the responsibility of the IMT while it was operational

between August 2022 and March 2023. Consequently, the giving of the third General Instruction

(essentially an extension) was agreed by the IMT Controller, with instructions for the extension to align

with the timing of the completion of the IMT (which at that point was expected to be 2 December 2022)

and that further extensions would need to be submitted to the Deputy Secretary, Immigration.

130. The next review of the General Instructions was carried out in February 2023 when the core activity of

the IMT was in the process of transitioning to business as usual. At this point, the Chief Operating Officer

and acting IMT Controller, approved the further extension of the General Instructions, noting that a

more comprehensive review of immigration risk was to be carried out before any further extensions

were approved.

In making this decision it was recognised that there was limited information available

from which to identify data trends arising from implementation of the General Instructions, but that the

risks appeared to be within INZs risk parameters for other visa categories.

131. Table 3 below documents the General Instructions that were given, and under what authority.

Table 3 – Dates of issue, duration and authorising party of General Instructions

AEWV Launched

23/05/22

Controlled by

INZ

MBIE via IMT

INZ

General Instruction

3 (extension)

4 (extension)

(amendment)

Dates

27/7/22-

6/10/22

23/8/22-

06/10/22

6/10/22 –

28/2/23

28/2/23 –

30/6/23

30/6/23 –

30/11/23

18/8/23 until

present

Approved by

(under delegation

from the Chief

Executive, MBIE)

Deputy

Secretary

Immigration

Deputy

Secretary

Immigration

IMT Incident

Controller

IMT Incident

Controller

Deputy

Secretary

Immigration

Deputy

Secretary

Immigration

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (27 February 2023). Internal Memo: Review of operational levers to enhance Accredited Employer

Job Check and Work Visa processing.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

132. The Review understands that for the period of operation of the IMT, the IMT assumed responsibility for

implementing changes to improve processing timeframes and management of risk consistent with the

delegations established under the IMT Terms of Reference and in doing so replacing INZ’s standing risk

governance groups. Consequently, those groups were not actively involved in the governance and

review of risk over this period. General Instructions 3 & 4 were given under the delegation to the IMT

Controller. The IMT Governance Group are not mentioned as having been consulted or their approval

sought prior to the approval of these, although it is assumed they were aware of the extension in their

governance capacity.

133. The IMT was formally closed on 24 March 2023, by which time it was reported that better processes

were in place for responding to surges in application volumes across visa products, contingency plans

were in place, a new system for operational oversight and monitoring was in place led by the new role

Deputy Chief Operating Officer, and that work was underway to design and implement an adaptive

workforce plan.

The General Instructions and Risk Identification

134. Prior to implementation of General Instructions 1 & 2, INZ did not undertake a structured risk

assessment to assess the change in risk profile and consequent impact on the risk of immigration visa

system abuse, nor did it establish or have a mechanism to establish risk tolerances relating to the

changed risk profile. The Review considers it would have been appropriate to conduct a structured risk

assessment to understand what, if any, immigration system abuse may result both in relation to the

introduction and subsequent extension of the General Instructions.

135. General Instructions 1 & 2 were authorised to be given as an interim approach to facilitate faster

processing times. The potential reputational and political risks associated with INZ not consistently

checking evidence were acknowledged, as they were in later internal reviews. The approvals noted that

targeted post decision risk monitoring and review would be developed to identify any unintended

consequences of the changes and that ILT would be regularly updated on results and receive a

substantive summary report on immigration risks that may arise because of the interim streamlining

approach.

136. On the 28

August after issuing General Instruction 2, Terms of Reference for post-decision monitoring

and review were approved specifying that initial weekly risk sampling be undertaken until the end of

September 2022. 735 applications were sampled from 8,952 applications decided between 23 August –

18 September 2022. Findings were not formally reported to ILT or IMT. Due to delays in obtaining data,

risk monitoring activity was not available in time to input into the approval of General Instruction 3

(extension). However, a summary report was completed on 6 October 2022 and identified some

immigration risks, for example non-compliant employment agreements, and employment agreements

offering lower remuneration rates to job check conditions. The report did not make any conclusions or

recommendations about the acceptability or otherwise of this immigration risk.

137. Further risk monitoring and review activity was used to inform General Instruction 4 (review of 1225

work visa applications decided between August and December 2022). 6.8 percent that were found to

have not had risk effectively managed which was slightly below the rate across INZ’s overall offshore

temporary visa caseload, which was assessed at 6 percent over the same period.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

138. From the documentation seen by the Review, INZ’s risk assessment activity confirmed the presence of

abuse of the visa system which resulted in the decision to introduce General Instruction 5 in June 2023.

In its decision to reverse some of the reductions on processing introduced in previous General

Instructions, the Review concludes that INZ was not comfortable with the increased immigration risk

observed as presenting at the time. The options considered by the Deputy Secretary of Immigration at

this time were either to revert to “BAU” settings (i.e. the removal of General Instructions altogether),

maintain the General Instructions in place prior to 30 June 2023 in their totality, or maintain the General

Instructions in place prior to 30 June 2023 with some increased tightening. A key consideration

outlined in the document was the impact on visa operations and processing times and the observation

that the visa category was performing within expected timeframes. The review notes that due to the

limited time operating under BAU (i.e. no General Instructions), the impact of removing the General

Instructions in totality on processing times was not well understood.

139. The reports provided to the review demonstrate a level of risk monitoring activity, however, the review

has not received evidence that they were undertaken consistent with an overarching risk framework

that responded to an assessed change in risk profile and/or risk tolerance settings, rather that there

reflects a more reactive approach in consideration of the higher known risk areas and risks considered

to be emerging.

140. The Review understands and supports INZ’s decision to reduce the nature and extent of checking of

visa applications via the General Instructions in response to the unique circumstances surrounding the

border reopening. However, the Review does not consider it appropriate that, understanding the

increased immigration risk it was exposing the visa system to (and later observed occurring) that, INZ

did not undertake a structured risk assessment in parallel with the issuing of General Instructions, or

develop a risk assessment framework against which to undertake risk activity. The Review

acknowledges INZ did produce a series of Risk Reports considering aspects of the Scheme to inform

possible extensions of the use of the General Instructions but considers these to be largely ad hoc and

reactive.

141. In addition, the Review has asked for evidence that the potential immigration risks were clearly

described to the Minister of Immigration. Senior MBIE and INZ officials have responded to the Review

that Ministers were fully appraised of the risks (as they were known by MBIE and INZ at the

time) through oral briefings throughout the implementation of AEWV and that at times during the

implementation, daily processing volume information was provided to Ministers to provide assurance

regarding performance. Senior MBIE and INZ officials advise no written briefings of these risk or file

notes of oral briefings exist.

Managing risk

142. INZ operates in a dynamic risk environment and as such requires an ongoing analysis of outcomes to

ensure the immigration system is achieving the desired outcomes. Risk governance across the

Immigration system includes a Risk Monitoring and Review Governance Group (RMRGG) and a Risk

Control Group (RCG), both of which report through to the Immigration Leadership Team (ILT). INZ

report these groups reassumed risk governance responsibility once the IMT was stood down in March

2023.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

143. The RMRGG is responsible for setting the risk appetite and is Chaired by the General Manager,

Immigration Risk and Border. The Risk Control Group, chaired by the Chief Operating Officer Branch,

decides the risk rules underpinning visa decisions. The latter is supported by a Triage Stakeholder

Group, comprising a cross-agency group of risk and verification subject matter experts. The Review was

advised that MBIE’s Enterprise Risk and Assurance Committee has not considered AEWV as part of its

programme.

144. Risk Briefs and Risk Reports are prepared by the Risk and Verification Group to report on Risk

Monitoring and Review activities.

145. The identification and treatment of immigration risks associated with the AEWV were well considered in

the lead up to the border re-opening and the implementation of the AEWV and leading to the

development of the Immigration Instructions issued in 2022 specifying the rules and criteria, evidence

and processes to be followed under the AEWV scheme. From as early as November 2021, INZ’s Risk

Monitoring and Review Governance Group (RMRGG) were being briefed on risk identification and

treatment to inform policy settings and Immigration Instructions for the Employer Accreditation

gateway.

146. Prior to the General Instructions, in May and June 2022, the RMRGG agreed to the identification and

management of pre-decision risk for each of the Gateways. Key immigration risks within the AEWV were

identified including migrant exploitation, sustainability of employment, employer phoenixing

(obscuring previous non-compliance under another identify), non-compliance with immigration law,

role or salary inflation, non-genuine job offers, non-genuine advertising, payments of premiums for

employment, non-genuine work experience, national security, character, and identity. These risks were

mapped against each of the Gateways, as ‘The Gateways Risk Model.’ The model was expected to

evolve to reflect new immigration risks and treatment across gateways as further data, insights and

intelligence was gathered.

147. The high trust design incorporated into AEWV and system rules-based ICT system, ADEPT, meant that

some degree of pre-decision risk was accepted. This included that:

a. Accreditation is likely to be granted to some businesses that do not meet the intent of the policy

in the first 12 months while INZ focusses on establishing the post-decision RMR process.

b. It is likely that some businesses will incorrectly self-identify and as a result will not be identified

as triangular, franchise or new businesses that would be subject to additional scrutiny and

requirements; and

c. It is possible that accreditation will be granted to some businesses that are not financially

sustainable and those businesses may be more likely to adopt or apply exploitative practices as

a result of their financial circumstances.

148. Risk treatments were also identified, for example for the employer accreditation gate, a referral step

was required for Risk and Verification to ensure all evidence is appropriately considered and

deconfliction with open investigations occurs, that triangular and franchisee accreditation and all

businesses who have been operating for less than 12 months be treated as high risk and thorough risk

management practices be implemented, that all relevant officers complete training in identifying and

treating risk, and that a specialist team of Immigration Officers be formed and assigned to process

triangular, franchise and new business accreditation.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

149. As has already been described, the General Instructions allowed for a departure from these agreed risk

management approaches.

The introduction of the ADEPT IT System

150. The introduction of ADEPT represented a significant change to the approach to processing of visas by

MBIE. ADEPT is the first technology platform whereby, once fully developed, MBIE will have the ability

to process a visa entirely through an automated system with no human intervention. Automation of the

system is supported by the use of risk rules in Azure BRE (Business Rules Engine), which automatically

alerts a task for manual assessment when risk is present.

How ADEPT applies system and risk rules

151. Two types of rules are used to assess the acceptability and risk of an application - system rules and risk

rules. System rules are rules that are binary rules based on the instructions that are in place for that

particular product. The information that drives the system rules can be driven by declaration from the

applicant or employer or by integration with AMS (previous visa type held). Risk rules are created in a

Business Rules Engine (BRE). These are created by the Risk and Verification team and go through a

governance and approval process before being implemented.

152. The result is that information submitted in an application is run through the BRE which then informs the

creation of risk assessment by ADEPT in determining whether manual assessment by an immigration

officer is required.

153. Risk rules are complex rules that are built by using historical data and data points to identify where risk

might be present. The need for a risk rule typically is a response to an environmental change, an

identified presenting or emerging risk, or based on a legal requirement. Once the rules are run, they

trigger a triage level of low/medium/high risk. In ADEPT, where there are medium or high-risk rules

triggered, this will create a manual assessment for an immigration officer to assess. Risk rules for AEWV

have only been subject to minor change to date. It is expected that as more data is created (specifically

on adverse outcomes and from AERMR insights) this will inform amendments to existing rules or new

rules to be created.’

How ADEPT Integrated into MBIE and external sources

154. ADEPT uses information from multiple sources to determine whether any manual interventions are

required. For example, at the employer accreditation gateway, ADEPT has integrations with a number of

external data sources. These include the NZBN, the Insolvency Register and the Companies Officer

database. ADEPT also uses updated tables for information such as the Labour Inspectorate Standdown

list and the Immigration Offences List.

155. The following diagram shows, for each gateway, which aspects of AEWV application processing were

carried out in ADEPT or in AMS (or part thereof) at various dates in the roll out of AEWV. It demonstrates

the extent to which immigration officers were required to operate between and across the two systems

in the course of considering visa applications and the frequency with which those operating practices

were changed as the ADEPT system implementation progressed.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Table 4 – AEWV lodging and processing in ADEPT/AMS

Problems with the implementation of ADEPT

156. Whilst the vision for ADEPT seems consistent with a modern compliance system and progressive

approach to visa processing, its implementation to date has been problematic for several reasons:

a. Given the need to launch the system in time for the revised border reopening dates, the IT

system development was not complete before it was put into production. It was implemented in

stages as work progressed on the AEWV gates, but it was also being built as it was being used.

For example, although it could accept Work Visa applications, initially their processing occurred

in the AMS system. These two systems, ADEPT and AMS, were not fully integrated, requiring

users to work across two systems to manage the integration manually. Furthermore, user testing

was not able to be conducted prior to it being deployed in a live environment.

b. Not all risk alerts were synchronised across ADEPT and AMS, INZ’s legacy visa processing system

– requiring users to be aware (and remember) that they had to conduct a manual check across

both systems.

c. Training on the new system when AEWV was launched was time constrained and User

Acceptance Testing was not possible due to tight deadlines. The Review understand the training

environment has now improved.

d. The User Manual did not reflect the system’s current functionality, at times noting how the

system should function, but not how it did function, which created confusion and frustration.

e. ADEPT was changing constantly as bugs were fixed and new functionality was added. Changes

were poorly communicated, often “last-minute” and without clear rationale, leaving staff with

little or no time to prepare and a lack of understanding of the reason for the change or its impact

ahead of working with the changes in the system. The constant change, coupled constantly

changing documentation, caused confusion and stress amongst staff as noted above.

Work Visa

(ADEPT - split releases)

Job CheckEmployer

Accreditation

Lodge Application

Assess Application

Decide Application

Front end

Back end

AEWV - lodging and processing applications - ADEPT/AMS

4 July 2022 19 September 2022

Release 1 Release 2 Release 3

18 July 202223 May 2022 20 June 2022

ADEPT

AMS

Key to symbols

[UNCLASSIFIED]

f. Furthermore, ADEPT behaved according to the Immigration Instructions it was designed to give

effect to (i.e., was not modified to respond to the General Instructions in place at the time). The

consequence of this once the General Instructions were given was that the system continued to

create assessment activities consistent with Immigration Instructions that were not applicable

under the General Instructions. Users were then required to record the assessment activities as

complete in ADEPT, even though they had not been undertaken at all. This contributed to

confusion, frustration and mistrust of the ADEPT system amongst some frontline staff.

g. Teams were given little technical support when using ADEPT (this has now improved); and

h. Initially, there were issues with the reliability of ADEPT operational data. Dashboards could not

be relied upon, with staff having to compile the data manually, resulting in challenges in

understanding system performance. This appears to have improved somewhat over the

operation of the Scheme to date.

157. The prevalent sentiment from frontline staff interviewed by the Review was that, at the time of launch,

ADEPT was not ready, not fit for purpose, and staff described this period as “hell, chaotic and

frustrating.”

158. Frontline staff have advised that many of the technical challenges they experienced in ADEPT have

largely been addressed over the intervening period and that ADEPT is now largely operating to

requirements, albeit it with some manual work arounds still required.

159. The ADEPT system was originally intended to provide rich data through its reporting functions and was

a key feature in the selection of the platform by INZ. However, this functionality was not fully developed

by INZ and was largely descoped during the development of the system. Staff were also not given

training in how to utilise the limited reporting functionality still available in ADEPT. This represents a

missed opportunity to achieve built-in system performance information as an input to inform INZ’s

management of the Scheme.

160. The Review understands that work is underway in MBIE to further improve both ADEPT and the risk

analytics system and that MBIE plan to provide investment advice in mid-August 2024.

Constantly changing AEWV operating procedures

161. The Review heard a consistent theme of frustration from Immigration Officers, Technical Advisors, and

Immigration Managers in relation to the frequent and seemingly ad hoc changes to both policy and

settings. The resultant changes to operating procedures for AEWV processing, the manual nature of

those instructions, and the lack of a single, integrated set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

presented a challenging operating environment for visa processing staff.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

162. A core element of an Immigration Officer’s role is to comply with Immigration Instructions consistent

with their warrant. Standard Operating Procedures and Immigration Guidelines are issued by INZ to

provide guidelines and interpretation assistance to Immigration Officers to support consistency and

quality of decision making. In the case of AEWV, General Instructions were also given by the Deputy

Secretary of Immigration and delegates. The Review understands the dynamic nature of the

immigration system and that government policy and operational settings are constantly under revision

across all visa categories. The introduction of AEWV contemporaneously with the reopening of borders

could reasonably be expected to see significant, rapid, and fluid changes to settings. An unfortunate

consequence of the constant changes to operational and processing settings was the resultant stress

and frustration experienced by some staff as they tried to operate in this ever-changing operating

environment.

163. While Immigration Instructions are issued by the Minister and do not typically change frequently,

Immigration Guidelines and SOPs are intended be changed by INZ management in response to

operational settings. Since the launch of AEWV, weekly Visa Paks have contained changes to General

Instructions, Immigration Guidelines and SOPs. The Visa Paks outline changes both in ADEPT and

changes required to be operationalised manually by the processing teams.

164. Immigration Officers commented to the Review that the way in which changes to General Instructions,

Immigration Guidelines and SOPs were communicated, and the lack of a “single source of truth,” made

it extremely challenging to maintain an up to date and consistent understanding of the SOPs,

instructions, and guidelines in place at any point in time. The Review considered a range of materials

from INZ, which included multiple sources of instructions that Immigration Officers were expected to

consider in the discharge of their duties and observed Immigration Officers consulting the various

operating instructions in the pursuance of their considerations. Overall, the operating instructions for

Immigration Officers were disparate and risked confusion and/or error and/or inconsistent application.

Immigration Officers’ discretion to conduct manual checks

165. INZ management have consistently expressed to the Review their view that nothing in the General

Instructions or any other guidance provided to visa processing staff overrode the responsibilities of

Immigration Officers to consider risk and that they were operating under the expectation that this was

the case. The Review accepts management’s view and acknowledges this is explicitly stated in the Visa

Pak issued to staff announcing the initial General Instruction given (#1). However, one of the most

consistent themes brought to the attention of the Review by a significant number of frontline staff who

contacted the Review, including Immigration Officers, Technical Advisors and Verification Officers, was

that their ability to do what they believe would be adequate checks at each gateway consistent with the

discharge of their responsibilities as an Immigration Officer, was constrained by the General

Instructions, the Immigration Guidelines that give effect to them, and management’s expectations of

their interpretation. The Review received several written submissions from frontline staff on this topic

and explored the issue in many of its interviews with frontline staff as well as discussing it at length with

senior management. The Review accepts there may have been some conflation of issues relating to

policy (namely the high trust model) and operational settings relating to the gateways at play here.

However, at the time of the interviews with staff there appeared to remain a difference of opinion

between senior managers and frontline staff spoken to regarding an Immigration Officer’s authority to

investigate concerns presenting and the extent to which this was constrained by the General

Instructions. Discussions with senior leaders within MBIE indicate they accept this may have been an

issue for some frontline staff and that it is an area of focus for the organisation coming out of the

Review.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

166. Immigration Officers reported to the Review that the instruction from managers was not to investigate

anything that was not raised as a risk in ADEPT and that they needed to “trust the system.” The idea

that the risk rules built into the ADEPT system were sufficient to identify aspects of possible non-

compliance did not sit well with Immigration Officers and that was frequently conveyed to the Review.

It was not clear to the Review whether the frontline officers interviewed held this belief solely resulting

from the impact of the General Instructions in place, or whether this reflected a conflation of issues

relating to a discomfort with the underlying policy settings relating to the “high trust model”.

167. The mistrust of the ADEPT system and frustration expressed to the Review by frontline staff appears to

have resulted from:

a. the as-designed role of ADEPT in detecting possible non-compliance being a new feature for visa

processing for MBIE. The Employer Accreditation gateway is the first process to have a fully

automated response deployed via ADEPT consistent with the “high trust” policy design. As such

it represents a significant change in approach for Immigration Officers, and while not an

operational or implementation issue per se, it did have an impact on Immigration Officers’

confidence in the system.

b. the fact that ADEPT continued to operate its system and risk rules in accordance with the

Immigration Instructions not the General Instructions requiring Immigration Officer to mark

tasks as completed to navigate the system where they in fact were directed not to complete

them under the General Instructions.

c. the issuance of the General Instructions, which changed the extent and nature of checking of

applications that Immigration Officers were directed to undertake, leaving Immigration Officers

feeling restricted in their ability to perform their role; and

d. the pressurised context in which AEWV was rolled out, which meant that communication and

change management regarding the Scheme and ADEPT’s role in managing risk were not well

communicated by INZ, leaving many frontline staff feeling unsupported.

168. A further factor the Review considers contributed to mistrust in the system amongst visa processing

staff was the activity-based allocation of tasks across the three gateways. In ADEPT applications for a

particular gateway and or subtask associated with that Gateway are randomly allocated to Immigration

Officers. Each Immigration Officer considers the task presented to them by ADEPT and, in the case of

the Employer Accreditation and Job Check gateways, may see the application to the conclusion of that

gateway, however they are highly unlikely to consider or be allocated the same case or application

across all three gateways.

169. Consequently, Immigration Officers have no ability to oversee an entire case across the three gates

from end-to-end, so are unlikely to be aware of risks highlighted at previous gates and which may have

a bearing on the application they are tasked with considering. Whilst the task-based approach was part

of the design of the Scheme, operational concerns raised by Immigration Officers regarding the lack of

visibility across the three gateways were further compounded by the immigration guidelines, which

encouraged Immigration Officers not to “go back” or consider previously processed aspects of the

application, even where that could have informed the task currently under consideration. The Review

understands the policy decision to disaggregate the three gateways was as an intentional shift away

from the more traditional end-to-end processing by an Immigration Officer, both to facilitate processing

efficiency and to avoid the bias risk of Immigration Officers becoming too close to applications or

applicant. However, the Review heard examples of Immigration Officers who felt unable to address risks

at the Work Visa gate because the issues identified related to previous gates. The Review therefore

[UNCLASSIFIED]

makes the observation that the task-based design is resulting in an artificial separation between the

applications in respect of each of the gateways which is resulting in operational challenges to identify

and consider risk for Immigration Officers.

170. Whist no single issue significantly compromises the ability of Immigration Officers to perform their role,

the Review considers that the cumulative effect of the reduced level of manual checking of applications

resulting from automation in ADEPT, the General Instructions, and the instructions not to consider

information provided at prior gateways, reduced the ability for Immigration Officers to discharge their

responsibilities.

Employer Reaccreditation

171. In December 2022, Cabinet agreed to extend all employer accreditations applied for before 4 July 2023

by 12 months. This was agreed as a one-off extension to support employers while they were still getting

used to the new system and was a Ministerial decision in response to business feedback.

172. Planning for the first round of reaccreditation is due to get under way in early 2024 ahead of the July

2024 start date. However, the practical impact of the extension is that all employers who received

Employer Accreditation have had an extended accreditation period. Consequently, they have not been

subjected to the review anticipated in the original design of the AEWV scheme after the initial 12-month

period.

173. This has also reduced MBIE’s visibility of the extent and/or nature of compliance by employers with

their gateway declaration and in doing so delayed informing any changes to risk settings.

174. In addition, the Review understands that to date, no validation of the application of the automation in

Gate 1 has been undertaken to verify that it is working as designed and appropriately identifying risk

factors that manually require an Immigration Officer’s consideration.

Post-decision assurance through AERMR

175. The planned implementation of AERMR was delayed by six months. The Review was informed that this

was primarily due to diverting resources to support general reopening work, including risk monitoring

and review activity, across high-risk Visitor Visa activities.

176. Initial desk-based AERMR activity began between December 2022 and February 2023, and direct

employer contact commenced in July/August 2023. Although requests for information were ready for

employers, some as early as January 2023, direct employer contact could not commence until other

aspects of readiness were developed, such as response letters, legal review, training, ADEPT processing

capability, outcome actions, full health and safety considerations for staff, and field work testing.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

177. The Review was provided with samples of dashboard reporting

within the ADEPT system that

included AERMR activity reporting for the months of May, June, and July 2023. For the period from 23

May 2023 to 3 July 2023 (the July report) there were 1736 Employer Accreditations assigned for review

(an increase on 1250 from the month prior) and 453 unassigned (down from 922 the previous month),

with 436 completed AERMR activities (up from 257), all of which resulted in no concerns. The MBIE

dashboard commentary makes it clear that this is not an indication of an overarching lack of concerns,

rather it is the result of low-concern activities being faster to complete.

178. INZ have identified four targets for AERMR by the end of January 2024:

a. 16 percent of all Accredited Employers who have supported a migrant in the first year have

AERMR activity.

b. 100 percent of all Franchisee and Triangular Employer Accreditation types receive desk-based

activity.

c. 50 percent of all Franchisee and Triangular Employer Accreditation types receive a site-based

activity; and

d. remainder of activity to achieve the 16 percent will be conducted across High Volume and

Standard accreditation types.

179. As of early December 2023, INZ reported that they are generally on track to reach these targets, except

for site visits, which are below target.

180. Moreover, as of December 2023, of the completed AERMR activities (as per the AERMR model design), no

concerns have been identified for 77 percent of the Accredited Employers who were sampled.

Significant concerns have been identified for 9% of the completed AERMR activities, with the

accreditation types having the highest percentage of concerns being Triangular and High Volume

(noting the number of completed AERMR activities on Standard, High-Volume Franchise and Triangular

are significantly lower than the volumes across other accreditation types).

181. However, as of December 2023 the randomised 'system health check' contemplated by the original

design was not underway, with activity currently only drawing on employers referred through a

complaint or check. Therefore, these results may not be an accurate reflection of the entire Employer

Accreditation pool.

182. A process for internal referrals has also recently commenced and was confirmed to be operational in

September 2023. The process is intended to apply when INZ staff may be concerned about an employer

who has already been granted accreditation, but where there are sufficient concerns that additional

scrutiny is required to ensure compliance with accreditation requirements. Or it may be that the

concerns are unresolvable at the time of application, for example, the employer is relatively new and

has little financial background.

MBIE internal Accreditation employer Interim Reporting - Accredited Employer Risk Monitoring & Review: May, June, July 2023

[UNCLASSIFIED]

183. In contrast, frontline staff told the Review that they understood that this referral process was already in

place and were encouraged to refer applications to AERMR as early as August 2022. As part of key

messaging, they had been told that AERMR would pick up concerns they may have of unmanaged risks.

INZ has confirmed that prior to the AERMR internal referral process being deployed in ADEPT late in

2023, staff were asked to send any potential employer concerns to the NPP mailbox for AERMR.

184. From the perspective of frontline staff the Review spoke with, the progress on the roll out of AERMR has

been frustrating. In large part, this frustration comes from the expectation set by management that

AERMR would consider concerns raised by frontline staff in relation to individual applications and

underpin the streamlined upfront checks resulting from the introduction of the General Instructions.

185. The expectation set with staff represents a fundamentally different role for AERMR to that originally

contemplated. AERMR was originally conceptualised to inform ongoing risk analysis and findings,

enabling AEWV to become a ‘learning system’. Frontline staff, and in particular Risk and Verification

officers, were clearly told that AERMR would pick up concerns they may have of unmanaged risks at the

Accredited Employer and Job Check gates providing essentially a second line of defense function.

186. While AERMR activity has ramped up and the process for internal referrals was implemented in late

2023, the Review notes that the target for high-risk employer site visits is behind schedule and the

randomised system health check component is yet to be implemented. Therefore, the function as a

critical input to AEWV as a 'learning system' is yet to be fully implemented. It also appears to the Review

that AERMR activities risks being deployed as a risk control tool to address other issues rather than a

risk assurance measure as originally contemplated by the design.

187. Concerns and frustration amongst some frontline staff have grown as a result of the delay to the

implementation of the AERMR programme, the internal referrals processes only becoming operational

in October 2023 and the necessary sensitivity surrounding processes to suspend or revoke approvals.

This risk undermining the confidence of some frontline staff in the AEWV scheme’s risk control and

assurance processes. There remains a lack of clarity regarding AERMR’s role and reach amongst MBIE

staff spoken to by the Review.

Declines, Suspensions and Revocations

188. In exercising their regulatory role, Immigration Officers can decline visa applications. However, the

process of declining an application is significantly slower than the process of approving one. While the

approval process is highly automated and fully templated, in order to decline an application increased

justification and explanation is required to meet natural justice and fairness obligations. Due to the

circumstantial nature of the reasons for declining, it is not possible to provide the same level of

templated support for Immigration Officers, and while some standardised paragraphs are provided,

Immigration Officers are required to perform more manual drafting in order to appropriately document

a decline process. All declines also require a Quality Control check.

189. The level of declines across all three gateways when compared to the decline rates of previous work

visa categories which AEWV replaced is markedly different. Acknowledging that AEWV is a different visa

product and therefore not directly comparable, the Review notes that the decline rate for AEWV Work

Visa in 2023 was 2.15 percent and for Essential Skills, the most similar product, in 2019 (pre-COVID) was

8.42 percent (see Table 5).

Table 5. Decline Rates across Essential Skills Visa and AEWV Work Visa, the most comparable visa products

MBIE (27 January 2022) Internal Memo to the Risk Control Group: RCG Memo AEWV Visa Rules Review.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Year

Visa product

Approved

Declined

Withdrawn

Decline rate

2019

Essenal skills

49920

4713

1353

8.42%

2020

Essenal skills

34247

1657

1303

4.45%

2021

Essenal skills

44192

600

1133

1.31%

2022

Essenal skills

AEWV - WV

19831

22202

238

526

297

1.16%

0.31%

2023

AEWV - WV

78954

1783

2041

2.15%

2024

AEWV - WV

4722

175

124

3.49%

190. Revocation (or suspension) of Employer Accreditation is similarly an important part of the accreditation

system. The expectation conveyed to the Minister of Immigration in July 2023

was that if, through the

AERMR activity, it is shown that an employer is not complying with the accreditation standards, their

accreditation can be immediately revoked.

191. All revocations and suspensions are considered by a committee that meets regularly. The most recently

publicly available data from INZ states that as of 2 February 2024, 136 employers have had their

accreditation revoked and 51 have had their accreditation suspended.

192. A further issue associated with this is the question of what is recorded against an employer under

investigation in the ADEPT system. Frontline staff interviewed indicated that unless information about

complaints and/or investigations is entered into ADEPT, they do not necessarily have access to

information that would bring this to their attention while processing an application. Consequently, they

may be processing applications for Job Checks and/or Work Visas unaware of investigatory actions

underway against the employer. Additionally, if a suspension notice is put in place against the

employer, it is unclear how Immigration Officers are to respond so as not to jeopardise the

investigation, and/or respond to the employer in the interim. The Review understands the imperative

to maintain the confidentiality surrounding investigations so as not to compromise the investigations,

however the competing priorities of maintaining confidentiality versus mitigating the potential for

further harm do not appear to have been reconciled to date. This is one area of visa processing where

the rules are not well documented and further resolution is required.

Quality Assurance and Control

193. MBIE undertakes Quality Assurance and Control over all its visa products and applies a common

statistical methodology designed to provide a 95% confidence level to all products. Consistent with

this methodology AEWV Quality Assurance is focused on the migrant check/work visa gate and 60

decisions are sampled per quarter. The sample size appears to have remained constant over the time

AEWV has been operating.

MBIE (12 July 2023) Briefing to Minister and Associate Minister of Immigration: Options for duration of employer accreditation following the end of

one-off extensions.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

194. The first sampling quarter for AEWV was reported in December 2022 (for the period of Jul-Sep 2022) for

which the Quality Assurance target of 90 percent compliance with quality assurance targets was met.

However, over the subsequent two quarters (Oct-Dec 2022 and Jan-Mar 2023) the Quality Assurance

rate was low for AEWV, falling to 63.3 percent of targets met in Oct-Dec quarter. The main issues related

to risk errors where some risks were not identified, and where expected information was not found (i.e.,

job descriptions). The Quality Assurance report concluded that this was due to a misalignment

between what is measured at the Quality Control stage, carried out by INZ Technical Advisors, versus

what is measured at the Quality Assurance stage. For the April-June 2023 quarter (reported on in

October 2023), there was an increase to 81.7 percent, which was credited to fewer risk treatment errors

and clearer instructions for when information (i.e., job description) is required.

195. Quality Control is focused on the decisions of Immigration Officers. For example, are instructions

complied with, is risk identification and mitigation appropriate, have processes been properly followed,

and are reasons for any decisions recorded. It does not consider the outcome of the application.

196. For all new Immigration Officers working on Employer Accreditation and Job Check gateways, at least

their first ten decisions (at each gate) are Quality Control checked by a Technical Advisor. For the

Employer Accreditation and Job Check gateways, Quality checks are conducted on site by Technical

Advisors. Once the first ten decisions have been checked, the regular Quality Control is for two checks

per Immigration Officer per month. Immigration Officers can self-select which two are checked. In line

with the INZ Success Measures, an Immigration Officer is expected to deliver within a productivity

range. The Review understands that Immigration Officers working within the productivity range could

be processing between 160-200 applications per month (based on 8-10 per day), which translates to a

sampling of just under 1% of applications processed. All success measures are agreed between MBIE

and the PSA.

197. For the Work Visa gateway, Quality Control is managed through ADEPT. The level of meaningful data

available through that process is not apparent. For example, only yes/no answers are provided against

what the system has asked, not what the officer did, and the two applications checked monthly are

picked up randomly, not per officer. INZ has confirmed that further work is being done to address this

as part of the continuous improvement plan for ADEPT.

198. The Review has been told that a quality assurance and control system is intended for Risk and

Verification, including AERMR, but is yet to be established.

Success Measures and processing targets and their impacts

199. As previously outlined, the processing time standards for each gate of the AEWV were established prior

to the Scheme’s launch and for straightforward applications were set at 10 working days to process an

Employer Accreditation, 10 working days to process a Job Check application and issue any job tokens,

and 20 working days to process a Work Visa application. Due to time constraints and ADEPT not being

operational prior to go live, no testing of the achievability of these targets was undertaken ahead of

their adoption.

200. The rationale underpinning the establishment of the processing times standards appears to have been

a desire by INZ to establish a clear customer service expectation, and a belief that as a paid service

employers should be entitled to achieve timely responses. Reviewing INZ’s monitoring of visa

processing performance, the ILT regularly monitored the following performance metrics in relation to

AEWV:

[UNCLASSIFIED]

a. Customer Satisfaction.

b. Volumes of applications received and completed.

c. Timeliness of processing.

d. Call Centre Sentiment.

e. Complaints; and

f. Quality Assurance score (provided quarterly).

201. The performance monitoring dashboard reports viewed relating to January 23 – August 23 did not

include any metrics relating to immigration risk. The Review considers it might have been useful for the

dashboard to have included information on irregular activity that may be possible indicators of

immigration risk. For example, declines against benchmarked levels, profile of skilled to non-skilled

migrants, numbers of job tokens and/or work visas granted against forecast volumes. INZ management

agree with this and have confirmed work is underway to develop improved reporting on risk indicators.

202. Application processing times are provided on the INZ website. Current information at the time of

writing (February 2024) indicates that the average processing time for employer accreditation

applications is, on average, 33 weekdays, with 90% processed within 47 weekdays. We heard from a

range of individuals or organisations interviewed that Employer Accreditation approval times vary

significantly, with some being approved within hours, some five days, and some up to six weeks.

According to the INZ website, Job Check applications are, on average, processed in 36 weekdays and 90

percent of applications are processed within 49 weekdays. A Work Visa application is, on average,

processed in 15 weekdays, and 90 percent of applications are processed within 62 weekdays.

203. Currently, INZ recommends employers allow at least 6 weeks to apply for an accreditation and 6 weeks

to apply for a Job Check, a consequence of the recent tightening of the Job Check General Instructions.

The Review understands that processing times have increased significantly since the giving of General

Instructions 5 & 6, which increased the level of Immigration Officer scrutiny of applications. This

demonstrates the very clear connection between quality, risk, the extent of application checking, and

processing timeframes, and the balance MBIE is consistently assessing.

204. In the period immediately after the launch of AEWV post the borders reopening, the external targets

were a key driver for setting the expectations of applicants. These became a core element of INZ’ s

Success Measures, a set of metrics that INZ considered, if met, would constitute successful visa system

performance.

205. Processing targets (i.e., the Immigration Officer’s productivity range for any visa product) were, and

continue to be, set quarterly by Visa Operations Managers for their teams, with the approval of Heads of

Operations. Processing queues are actively monitored by Visa Operations Managers and Immigration

Managers, and staff performance against decision targets is closely monitored by both.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

206. Success measures are in place and agreed between MBIE and the PSA. These state that immigration

officers are expected to make between 5-9 work visa decisions per day. Early in the AEWV

implementation daily reporting of visa processing numbers was required for Ministerial and agency

performance reporting. While that is no longer the case, the frontline staff the Review spoke with talked

about high expectations of processing, for example 50 applications per week. Operational leaders

acknowledge that the current success measures require review, although the 5 decisions per day is

being largely achieved and remains reasonable.

207. While internal success measures include a range of attributes including customer service, quality,

managing immigration risk, being productive and living the MBIE values, during the period immediately

after the reopening of the border, the need to process visa applications and in sufficient volumes was

clearly understood to be the primary success measure by the frontline staff we spoke too. Some staff

spoken to conveyed how they were encouraged to “ring the bell” at the completion of an application

while others reported feeling “named and shamed” if they missed processing targets or managers using

“league tables” of processing volumes in team meetings. The Review acknowledges the intent of some

managers may have been to create momentum and delivery on the wider success measures including

meeting customer satisfaction measures, but to many of the staff spoken to these activities contributed

to their belief that processing volumes were the primary measure of success.

208. A further matter raised by frontline staff interviewed related to the targets being purely on the decisions

made and did not make any allowance for the complexity of individual applications, the increased time

required to decline applications or time spent on training or other organisational activity. Given the

relative newness of the Christchurch visa processing operation, the introduction of AEWV as a visa

product, the launch of ADEPT as a new processing platform and the pressure INZ was under to support

the reopening of the border, it is not surprising that frontline staff felt under pressure as there was very

little established practice or process for either frontline staff or the wider INZ management to fall back

on initially.

209. Despite these concerns being raised through relevant channels (reporting lines and subject matter

experts) frontline staff felt that nothing changed, leading them to conclude that achieving processing

volumes was all that mattered. When asked where they believed the pressure on processing volumes

was coming from, interviewees were clear that their perception was that it came from senior

management and that line and office managers were under pressure to deliver against the Success

Measures and published processing timeframes.

210. While the Review acknowledges that the General Instructions given did not remove the ability to

address risk when it was observed consistent with immigration officer’ warrant, the culmination of

factors at play to ensure the borders could be reopened successfully, reinforced the view for staff that

achieving processing volumes was all that mattered at this time. While there doesn’t appear to be a

single point of failure in communication or management, senior leaders do accept that this is what staff

experienced during this period and this will be a key area of focus coming out of this review.

211. Communication across multiple layers of management, coupled with the dominant focus on processing

times and volumes, distorted the messaging to frontline staff. Further, despite these concerns being

raised directly with some line managers, through staff forums and in questions directly to the Deputy

Secretary, Immigration, Immigration staff interviewed, and submissions received by the Review

indicate that some staff felt their concerns were not adequately addressed by INZ management

generally, that there was little to no feedback when concerns were raised, and that explanations

provided by senior leadership in all staff hui did not allay their concerns.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Concerns raised internally post-implementation of AEWV

212. INZ have multiple avenues for staff to raise concerns, including staff hui (Ask me Anything), ‘No

Surprises Fact Sheets’, regular visits by senior INZ leaders across sites with town-hall meetings and

leader check-ins, an MBIE Integrity Team, and via the management line.

213. The frontline staff the Review interviewed were clear they have been raising concerns about risks they

were seeing throughout the implementation of AEWV. The earliest documentary evidence the Review

has received indicates staff were beginning to raise concerns to senior managers in early 2023, although

frontline staff interviewed reported concerns had been raised with managers relating to individual

cases prior to this. The Review accepts that concerns relating to individual cases may not have been

interpreted as relating to operational settings and may not have been escalated. The Review also notes

that no reports to MBIE’s wider Integrity Team appear to have been made in relation to AEWV.

214. INZ’s No Surprises Fact Sheets are designed for raising emerging risks and issues. INZ’s No Surprises

Advisory Group meets weekly to discuss and escalate emerging risks. The Group includes

representatives from every INZ branch as well as subject matter experts.

215. During interviews, multiple frontline staff made mention of completing No Surprises Fact Sheets to

raise issues such as employers receiving accreditation despite being ineligible, migrant workers arriving

and not getting paid, migrant workers receiving scripted responses on arrival to conceal the fact that

significant fees had been paid to secure job token and visa, businesses applying for incorrect

accreditation categories, and employers utilising AEWV instead of Recognised Seasonal Employer Visa.

In each example, staff indicated it was unclear what happened to the submitted No Surprises Fact

Sheets and felt that they had not received a response.

216. In late November 2022, the Deputy Secretary Immigration all-staff email referred to the importance of

raising emerging risks and issues through the No Surprises Advisory Group. Staff were reminded of what

kind of issues should be referred, for example: other Government agencies or foreign governments are

involved; high-profile individuals or companies are involved; there has been, or there is likely to be,

media attention; the issue involves serious injury or threat to life or wellbeing of our people or

customers, including self-harm; where there are serious unintended consequences arising from

immigration instructions (e.g. there is potential for an undesirable precedent to be set or there appears

to be a systemic issue); and involvement of vulnerable people (e.g. exploited migrants, children, and

protected person/refugees/asylum claimants).

217. The ILT lead an all-staff hour-long monthly webinar, which alternates between a hui with questions and

answers in the last part of the session, and a dedicated question and answer forum known as Ask Me

Anything. This initiative was introduced by the Deputy Secretary of Immigration and demonstrates a

commitment to the practice of obtaining feedback from frontline staff and a facilitated process for it.

218. The Review heard through the interviews with staff that from the end of Q1 2023 onwards, staff had

been using the Ask Me Anything forum to raise concerns relating to AEWV but felt that the responses

were dismissive and that issues raised were “swept under the carpet.” Information provided to the

Review indicated that of the approximately 133 questions put to the ILT through the forum 26 (approx.

20%) related to the AEWV Scheme or issues being experienced associated with the Scheme

219. Questions to the Ask Me Anything forum from March / April 2023 onwards show staff were raising

concerns relating to INZ’s management and monitoring of immigration risk. Areas of concern

expressed related to a range of topics, some of which relate to AEWV policy while others referred to

INZ’s operationalisation of the policy and potentially have broader application to other visa categories.

Examples of the types of questions raised include:

[UNCLASSIFIED]

a. Question relating to progress of system assurance of ADEPT given the heavy reliance on systems

rules.

b. Alignment between the requirement to keep borders safe and the perceived lowering of risk

setting and verification activity in visa processing.

c. Question whether ILT was concerned about the high approval rates; and

d. Question relating to the balance of quantity over quality of visa processing.

220. As part of INZ’s continued review of staff communication’s practice in May 2023 the Deputy Secretary

communicated to staff a change in practice for Ask Me Anything forums to require submitters to identify

themselves. Senior management told the Review the change was made to ensure that matters raised

were able to be properly considered and followed up as the previous practice of anonymous questions

being submitted made it hard for the ILT to respond appropriately without adequate context and/or no

ability to follow up with the submitter. The unfortunate consequence of the timing of this change is

that it was interpreted by some staff as constraining their ability to freely raise concerns. INZ senior

management confirm they are increasing efforts to highlight the range of communication channels

available to staff consistent with their desire to improve communication across the organisation.

221. In July 2023, again in response to media reporting about AEWV, questions were asked as to the

effectiveness of the General Instructions and whether they should have been extended. Frustration

about issues with ADEPT was also raised.

222. These questions were repeated in August 2023, again in response to the media reporting, this time

regarding reporting of the Indian and Bangladeshi nationals in Auckland living in overcrowded and

unsanitary conditions across six Auckland homes and with no jobs or income. Questions also related to

the treatment of hidden agents, why it is so difficult to get an application declined, revoked, or

suspended, how risk mitigation could be considered at each gateway, and how loopholes are being

addressed. The Review has been informed that responses were given, including assurance that all

cases where detail emerged, cases would be referred for investigation.

223. The Review received copies of Risk Briefs from August 2023 that began to cover issues with employers

going into liquidation, fraudulently obtained job offers, and offshore agents commanding significant

charges from migrant workers.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Public-facing evidence of risks emerging post-implementation of AEWV

224. INZ has multiple avenues for the public to raise concerns and report issues. Public complaints can be

made (e.g., via Crimestoppers), these and others get channeled through the MBIE National Prioritisation

Process (NPP). Complaints are also received through MBIE’s Migrant Exploitation channels (e.g.,

helpline), and these are collectively triaged for action (for example to either the Labour Inspectorate or

to INZ).

225. The media is also often a source of information for INZ. Issues relating to AEWV were reported in March

2023 by an immigration lawyer suggesting the new work visa has “prompted a free-for-all”, with

migrants from India, Vietnam and elsewhere paying up to NZ$40,000 to overseas agents and New

Zealand employers.

226. In June 2023 there were similar media reports, and in early July 2023, several stories ran of migrant

workers left jobless after paying significant sums for AEWV Work Visas from different countries,

including India, Nepal, South America, and China. The workers ranged across hospitality, beauty

therapy, farming, and construction, and all were reported as paying anything from NZ$14,000 to

$30,000 (incurring substantial loans) by unregulated, unlicensed, offshore agents for a work visa.

227. In response, in July 2023 INZ stated that similar scams existed prior to borders being closed due to the

Covid-19 pandemic, but recognised this was at a larger scale, is coming from multiple countries, and is

being taken extremely seriously.

228. In mid-August 2023 media reported on dozens of Indian nationals living in squalid conditions and

without work, leading to immigration investigators speaking with 115 Indian and Bangladeshi nationals

who had arrived in New Zealand on AEWVs with the promise of employment when they arrived.

Individuals indicated they paid a substantial amount for the visa and a job, yet most are still waiting for

any paid work.

229. Further stories have since emerged involving migrant workers from different nationalities, including

China and the Philippines.

230. The impacts of these issues have been described as many-tentacled, with multiple parts of the MBIE

system and wider New Zealand social support systems being affected.

231. Beginning at the border, as has been reported in the media, border staff were instructed to take any

AEWV at face value, and only to address any new information that became available after the issuing of

the visa. This is not a new practice and is consistent with INZ practice for other visa categories.

232. As of 28 October 2023, over 65,700 AEWV holders have arrived onshore. Since July 2022, 18 AEWV

holders have been refused entry, with the majority coming from Vietnam and India. This number does

not include AEWV holders interdicted offshore. The border turnarounds are due to a near equal share of

character concerns, lack of experience and training to fulfil the intended job, lack of knowledge about

the role and what it entails, the employer is in liquidation, and the offer of employment is withdrawn.

'Held to ransom': Immigration boss targets growing migrant scam, hundreds affected | Stuff.co.nz

[UNCLASSIFIED]

233. MBIE Investigations report currently facing a significant number of complaints affecting migrant

workers from many different countries, including Vietnam, China, and India. As of 7 November 2023, 880

allegations had been received by MBIE involving at least one employer, and 426 allegations had

proceeded to investigations, with a further 58 unassigned. This is an increase from 2022 where 138 of

467 allegations had investigations were underway. In 2021 there were 257 allegations that proceeded to

investigations, and in 2020 there were 81 investigations. Investigations numbers are not specific to

Accredited Employers only. As of 2 February 2024, 1,958 complaints had been received against

Accredited Employers. While these raw numbers suggest substantial increases in complaints and

investigations, the context of improved migrant exploitation support (i.e., reporting, MEPV etc) must be

considered, as so must the disruption of COVID-19 and border closures.

234. Voluntary migrant worker support services that the Review spoke with also reported huge increases (in

the order of 600% in some instances) in the numbers of individuals coming forward for support, and

their experience indicates to them that the numbers coming forward do not represent the full extent of

the issue due to the concerns held by migrant workers regarding making complaints. The Review

understands the previous government had increased focus on migrant exploitation in 2021 including

providing improved channels for reporting, increased safeguards (such as the Migrant Exploitation

Protection Visa). It is not possible to conclude to what extent these interventions may have changed

the pattern of reporting of migrant exploitation as opposed to changes in the underlying instance

occurring.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Findings - Was MBIE’s administration of AEWV carried

out appropriately

Main findings

235. The Review makes five main findings relating to INZ’s administration of AEWV.

236. Firstly, it was reasonable in the circumstances, namely the opening of the borders post-Covid-19 in

June 2022, for the Deputy Secretary of Immigration to give General Instructions 1 & 2 with the aim of

reducing visa processing times across the AEWV gate settings, given the pressure to allow movement

across the border and in particular the need from employers to access migrant labour.

237. Secondly, prior to giving General Instructions 1 & 2, INZ should have undertaken a structured risk

assessment specifically to understand the change in risk profile from that which applied to the

Immigration Instructions. While this General Instruction was appropriate, it would have been

preferable to indicate the risks being accepted to ensure that key people could be made aware of this

prior to the decisions being taken.

238. Thirdly, MBIE, operating through the IMT, should have undertaken a dedicated risk assessment to

understand the specific risk being accepted in extending the general instructions, alongside the

targeted risk monitoring and review that was undertaken.

239. Fourthly, when in March/April of 2023, visa processing staff and risk and verification staff starting raised

concerns regarding the observed risk presenting at the various gateways (but in particular at Job Check

and Work Visa), that senior INZ leadership did not pay adequate attention to those concerns, instead

rationalising that:

a. staff did not understand the automation of risk management integrated through ADEPT.

b. there was inadequate evidence of visa system abuse presenting through INZ’s risk monitoring

activity; and

c. Immigration officers are required under the Immigration Act to actively consider and exercise

their discretion when dealing with applications and in doing so to respond appropriately where

they perceive risk.

240. The consequence of the above was that immigration risk associated with the AEWV scheme increased

between 27 July 2022 and 30 June 2023 until General Instruction 5 re-introduced some increased

checking of applications.

241. Fifthly, General Instruction 5, in June 2023 (and subsequently General Instruction 6 issued in August

2023), responded to multiple examples of immigration risk observed by visa processing staff and the

Risk and Verification unit of INZ, reintroducing checking of aspects of applications to reduce the risk of

immigration harm occurring in the short to medium long term. These changes have had an expected

and commensurate impact on processing times, slowing the time taken to issue Job Checks and Work

Visas. This reflects the ongoing challenge faced by INZ to balance quality, resourcing, processing time

and risk management.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Detailed findings

Service Delivery, Efficiency and Performance

242. The visa processing standards set for the Job Check and Work Visa gateways of AEWV could not be

tested prior to the launch and proved to be unachievable without reductions in the extent and nature of

checking of applications at those gateways.

243. The focus on visa processing standards and the lack of focus on changed risk profile resulted in undue

emphasis of visa processing volumes and approvals.

244. With the phasing for the reopening of the border being brought forward, ADEPT was not able to be fully

operational in time for the launch of each of the gateways. The non-integration of ADEPT at the launch

with other INZ processing systems, coupled with the lack of user testing, meant frontline staff

experienced numerous bugs and manual work arounds, particularly in the early months of AEWV. This

created increased frustration and pressure on staff working on AEWV.

245. The numerous changes to General Instructions, SOPs and Immigration Guidelines, the complex

documentation, and the lack of integration into a single set of operating instructions increased

complexity for Immigration Officers and created confusion in relation to current interpretation and

processing practice. This likely contributed to the poor-Quality Control results for AEWV during the

latter part of 2022 and early part of 2023.

246. The as designed task-based approach coupled with the General Instructions and guidelines not to

review information of considerations contained in previous gateway decisions limited the ability of

Immigration Officers to assess the merits and/or risks associated with the task associated with

applications under consideration.

247. The de-scoping of the development of ADEPT’s business analytics and intelligence modules has

reduced the ability of the AEWV operations team to analyse performance and inform operational

decision making.

248. The Cabinet delayed reaccreditation process means that verification of employer measures to minimise

migrant exploitation have not yet been carried out, including for high-risk employers.

249. The delayed implementation of the Post Decision Verification or AERMR means that there is little

verification of AEWV decision outcomes to date and the learning system objectives are yet to be

realised.

Operational Decision Making

250. INZ executed the establishment of processing operations and commencement of processing AEWV

applications well in difficult circumstances and with limited lead times.

251. INZ’s implementation of the Employer Accreditation gateway was as designed and operated within

performance parameters from the outset.

252. The General Instructions given to Immigration Officers relating to Job Check instructing them to take

certain parts of the application at face value reduced the effectiveness of checking for the need for the

job being sought, and the genuineness of employment being offered.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

253. The limitation of checking at the Work Visa gate to aspects of the characteristics of the migrant

applicant and their fit with Job Token requirements meant that if system abuse had been missed at the

previous two gates, Immigration Officers had no authority/ability to review and/or decline applications

at the final gate.

254. The delay of the introduction of AERMR further extended the potential for abuse of the system by

removing the element of Post Decision Verification as designed. Furthermore, while AERMR is now

ramping up, activity is yet to be operationalised as designed and is yet to contribute to the Learning

System as intended under the Scheme design.

Verification and Monitoring

255. The increase in the number of complaints and investigations relating to AEWV in recent months is a

possible indicator of system abuse, however, it is difficult to compare trends between years due to

changed visa products, effects of COVID-19 and border closures, and relatively recent efforts to improve

migrant exploitation reporting. The delay to Post Decision Verification has meant that the extent of any

increase in system abuse is not yet established.

256. INZ do not appear to have a methodology or approach against which they regularly are able to calibrate

the extent or nature of migrant exploitation, relying largely on lag indicators of system abuse/non-

compliance. Whilst reliance on their internal Risk and Verification activity is useful to determine the

extent of non-compliance detected through review, the need to develop a wider intelligence model

with greater lead indicators seems evident and would provide wider insights and intelligence than

appears to be the case currently.

Resourcing and Capability

257. The introduction of ADEPT, the three-gateway system, and the inclusion of automation of a number of

risk rules, represented a significant change in visa processing practice in INZ. This change was not well

communicated, and inadequate change management was provided to visa processing staff to support

them to operate in the new system.

258. The diversion of AERMR resource to manage immigration risk in other areas of the immigration system,

resulted in significant delays to the implementation of AERMR and post-decision review. This

compromised INZ’s understanding of the performance of the visa scheme and is yet to be implemented

in a way that is consistent with the design of this function.

Other Matters

259. The administration of AEWV by INZ including the perceived limitation of Immigration Officers’ ability to

perform their role, the perceived lack of recognition of increased risk and the focus on process volumes

has resulted in a number of staff who inputted into the review both feeling unsupported by their

managers and having reduced trust and confidence in the leadership and management of the

organisation.

260. Despite senior INZ and MBIE officials having provided numerous verbal briefings to Ministers regarding

the administration of AEWV and the risks associated with introduction of General Instructions, no

documentary evidence of the same exists. As such, it is not possible for the Review to conclude the

extent to which Ministers were advised of the risks. The Review would have expected some written

record to have been made of key advice given and Ministerial decisions, given the significance of the

General Instructions and the fluidity of the operating context.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

261. The Review considers that the impact of the General Instructions in place between 27 July 2022 and 30

June 2023 was to increase the exposure of the AEWV system to abuse. In some instances of visa system

abuse reported to the Review, instances of migrant exploitation have also been observed. The Review

has not attempted to draw any conclusions relating to the extent of either the visa abuse or the migrant

exploitation occurring over this period.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Recommendations

262. The Review acknowledges that AEWV is designed to operate as a learning system with operational

scrutiny, risk tolerance and policy requirements constantly being adjusted to respond to environmental

changes and competing priorities, including improving the experience for customers paying for INZ’s

services whilst minimising risks to migrants. The Review also acknowledges that MBIE is only 2 years

into the originally planned three-year programme of implementing that system of learning.

263. Throughout the Review and in response to issues identified both by MBIE and the Review, MBIE have

made numerous changes to operational settings around AEWV to improve issues with the

implementation of the Scheme which have made significant improvements to how the Scheme is

operating. These changes by MBIE and INZ broadly support three main objectives for improvement as

outlined below:

264. To reduce the risk of migrant exploitation and improve immigration system responsiveness

through the development of an integrated compliance and system monitoring model that balances

employer, migrant and workforce needs MBIE has:

a. Implemented a policy change to increase the proportion of the workforce in high-risk areas

that must be New Zealanders to 35 percent (from 15 percent) for labour hire companies in

the construction sector.

b. Begun to implement an infringement regime and the immigration standdown list (enacted

in the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Act 2023.

c. Commenced work on development of an end-to-end integrated compliance and system

monitoring model.; and

d. Worked underway to remove remaining General Instructions relating to the AEWV scheme.

265. To improve intelligence gathering and system learning opportunities, INZ has:

a. Developed a model for using lessons learnt from the rollout of AEWV in the roll-out of ADEPT

across other visa categories (such as Visitor Visas and Permanent Resident Visas) through

Regular surveys are being undertaken with staff to check in during the first couple months

of rollout; and

b. Begun a rapid review of outstanding job tokens, as requested by this review.

266. To reset the relationship between INZ’s senior leaders and frontline staff over the past year, INZ

has:

a. Conducted regular pulse and engagement surveys with staff and introduced numerous staff

engagement forums including monthly hui, Ask-Me-Anything sessions, a People Leader

forum, regular Korero Series from INZ leadership, and the introduction of an INZ People

Committee.

b. Made structural changes to realign visa product leadership under the Chief Operating

Officer Immigration, to allow more time for operational leaders to create a people-centred

environment; and

[UNCLASSIFIED]

c. Put out clearer guidance to staff on how to escalate issues.

267. In support of these objectives, the Review makes the following 10 Recommendations to build upon the

work already underway by MBIE and INZ above:

1. The Review recommends MBIE continues to progress work in relation to the

objectives highlighted above and that INZ continue work on, and fully implement,

the ‘consolidated end-to-end’ integrated compliance model and system reporting

prompted by this Review and ensure that includes the following measures:

a. A system- wide focus on assurance around the health of the immigration

system, coupled with an integrated operational approach to risk and

compliance.

b. An operational framework guiding the use of General Instructions, their

duration, content, review and use.

c. A consolidated risk model focusing on both system risk and migrant

exploitation risk.

d. The development of indicators, measures, and triggers of system abuse

and/or migrant exploitation to better inform INZ’s decision making and

wherever possible use lead indicators to decrease reliance on lag

indications; and

e. Further embed appropriate and effective governance structures to

provide governance oversight across the system model outlined above. 

2. The Review recommends that, to ensure the level of scrutiny undertaken at each of

the AEWV gateways matches the risks associated with the relevant application,

INZ:

a. Continue work on whether current settings are appropriate for known

high-risk categories and whether the weighting of information

requirements and verification activities is adequately informed by the

risks observed in the Scheme to date.

b. Introduce a priority lane and processing pathway for Green List

applications; and

c. Review the achievability of currently published processing times

recognising the need to balance resourcing and risk considerations and

service standard considerations.

3. The Review recommends that, to enable INZ and the public to have a more “real

time view” of the nature and extent of migrant exploitation in New Zealand, INZ: 

a. Strengthen existing and consider developing further formal feedback

loops with Non-Government Organisations and community groups

working with migrant communities.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

b. Use wider system and community intelligence in addition to internal

intelligence to develop a system for monitoring migrant exploitation; and

c. Explore the options for regular public reporting on the extent of migrant

exploitation and how it changes over time.

4. The Review recommends that INZ continue to explore how best to utilise ADEPT,

AERMR, and MBIE’s wider intelligence system to support the gathering of insights

and intelligence by:

a. Implementing ADEPT as it was originally designed to maximise ADEPT’s

potential as an intelligence gathering tool which will support a modern

compliance system.

b. Completing the Implementation of AERMR as it was originally designed.

c. Considering further integration of functionality of legacy systems into

ADEPT: and

d. Undertaking further targeted remedial review activities as required,

specifically relating to high-risk employer accreditation.

5. The Review recommends that INZ set a clear expectation for managers to reinforce

the importance of frontline staff being supported to fulfil their regulatory

obligations in the exercise of their duties. This expectation should be supported by

further training for managers, as well as regular audit checks in the future to ensure

management practices on the ground are aligned to this. 

6. The Review recommends that INZ establish and maintain a single, integrated set of

standard operating procedures for Immigration Officers in relation to AEWV, which

includes:

a. Putting in place a process to ensure that ADEPT functionality and its User

Manual are always consistent with the standard operating procedures and

implementation.

b. Ensuring frontline staff have adequate training and development on both

policy and operational settings.

7. The Review recommends that INZ consider ways to increase Immigration Officer

engagement and provide improved change management support for processes

involving changes to the AEWV operating system.

8. The Review recommends that INZ continue to develop existing and potentially new

forums for staff to engage with INZ leadership could be modified/created to

continue focusing of building trust and confidence in the relationship between

front line staff and senior leadership.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

9. The Review recommends that MBIE provide further policy advice to Ministers that

specifically includes:

a. The risk of domestic job displacement through AEWV, together with policy

options to mitigate that risk, which may include consultation with MSD

about exploring the potential reintroduction of a Labour Market Test.

b. Removing the requirement for a new Job Check if a migrant changes

employer. The requirement to conduct a new Job Check if a migrant

changes employer is a barrier that limits mobility of employment and

increases the risk of migrant exploitation.

c. Development of formal risk notification system to ensure end-to-end

transparency to better articulate the changes of risk tolerances to all key

decision makers, as a result of changes to operational settings.

d. Introducing a differential Employer Accreditation model that rewards low

risk and good employer practices for employers.

10. The Review further recommends that INZ provide regular reports to the Minister on

its progress in addressing recommendations 1 to 9 of this review. The first of these

reports should be provided to the Minister within 3 months and should set out INZ’s

intended programme of work, including proposed reporting, costs, resourcing and

milestones to be agreed with the Minister.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Appendix A – Terms of Reference

Assurance review of the operation of the Accredited Employer

Work Visa scheme

Background

Immigration New Zealand is a business unit within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and

Employment (the Ministry).

In May 2022 the Government introduced a new temporary work visa: The Accredited Employer Work

Visa (AEWV). The AEWV scheme, administered by Immigration New Zealand, consists of three steps,

which each have a distinct range of checks that are completed:

− The Employer Accreditation Step is where employers are accredited to enable them to hire

migrant.

−

The Job Check Step is where the job is checked to ensure that a New Zealander is not available

to fill the job being recruited.

− The Migrant Step is where checks are made that the migrant is of good character and

health and

is suitably qualified to do the work offered.

The three steps are supported by a post-decision assurance process. This is comprised of a mix of

desk and site-based reviews that allow Immigration New Zealand to test an employer’s compliance

with all accreditation requirements post decision. This evidence is then used to support re-

accreditation decisions.

The AEWV and the three-step process became compulsory from 4 July 2022. To support transition,

employers were able to submit accreditation and job check applications from 23 May 2022 and 20

June 2022 respectively.

Concerns have been raised with the Minister of Immigration about the operation of the AEWV

scheme. At a high level, the concerns relate to how the Scheme is being administered by

Immigration New Zealand particularly at steps one and two, potentially resulting in opportunities

for misuse and exploitation by third parties. The Ministry is itself investigating over 160 accredited

employers following complaints of worker exploitation and breaches of the AEWV scheme.

It is critical that New Zealanders have trust and confidence in the AEWV scheme and its

administration. Its integrity is of high public importance, given the potential impact on vulnerable

migrants. To provide independent assurance as to the operation of the Scheme, the Minister has

asked the Public Service Commissioner to undertake a review.

Purpose

The purpose of this review is to:

Consider whether Immigration New Zealand’s administration of the AEWV scheme is being

carried out appropriately, including but not limited to, consideration of operational

efficiency, risk management, and the external post-COVID context.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Identify any appropriate next steps for improvement in the administration of the AEWV

scheme with a focus on mitigating the risk of migrant exploitation and irregular

migration.

Scope

This review is to consider, make findings, and report on the appropriateness of all aspects of the

employer accreditation and job check processes undertaken by Immigration New Zealand as part of

the AEWV scheme. This will include consideration of:

•

service delivery performance

•

operational decision-making including management and internal controls

•

verification and monitoring

•

resourcing and capability

•

any other matter considered relevant to achieving the purpose of the review.

Out of scope

This review will not:

•

examine the appropriateness of the policy settings

•

consider the merits of any individual accreditation or job check decisions, except in so far

as they relate to any wider issues of process

•

examine decisions made during the Migrant Step of the process

•

make recommendations in relation to any individual cases

•

make findings or recommendations as to criminal, civil or disciplinary liability.

Process

This review will request and consider all relevant and available documentation from Immigration New

Zealand and the wider Ministry. This will include the results of the Ministry’s internal investigations

into complaints by migrant workers into the actions of accredited employers. The reviewer may also

discuss the operation of the Scheme with representatives from Immigration New Zealand and other

Ministry employees. Further, the Reviewer may develop a process for hearing from other interested

parties, as considered necessary to achieve the purpose of the review.

The Reviewer will provide a draft of the report to the Public Service Commissioner and the

Secretary for Business, Immigration and Employment before it is finalised and take into account any

comments received. The Reviewer will also meet any natural justice obligations.

The Public Service Commissioner’s functions and powers

Under section 44 of the Public Service Act 2020 the Public Service Commissioner has the following

general functions:

to promote integrity, accountability, and transparency throughout agencies in the State

Services, including by setting standards and issuing guidance

a. to act as the employer of public service chief executives, including by— to the extent relevant in

each case, reviewing the performance of the public service agency that the chief executive leads

[UNCLASSIFIED]

or carries out some functions within.

The Commissioner may conduct a review to assist in exercising these functions. The

Commissioner’s jurisdiction includes public service agencies but does not include Ministers.

Appointment and delegation

The Public Service Commissioner appoints Ms Jenn Bestwick to undertake this review (the

Reviewer).

Under schedule 3, clause 6 of the Public Service Act 2020, and for the purposes of this review, the

Public Service Commissioner delegates his functions and powers under schedule 3, clauses 2 to 4 of

the Public Service Act to the Reviewer, with effect from the date of the appointment of the Reviewer.

Deliverables, timeframe and reporting

This review will commence immediately on the appointment of the Reviewer and must be carried

out

as soon as practicable with an indicative reporting date of 15 December 2023.

The intention is for the final report to be made publicly available.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Appendix B- Methodology / Approach followed

268. The methods used in this review are:

a. Interviews with nominated Immigration NZ and MBIE staff involved with the administration

of the Scheme.

b. interviews with MBIE and Immigration NZ staff who sought an interview with the Review.

c. wider staff feedback sessions.

d. interviews with parties external to Immigration NZ and MBIE.

e. consideration of emailed submissions from a range of interested stakeholders.

f. document review; and

g. thematic analysis, providing a multi-faceted understanding of the situation.

Interviewee identification

269. Interviewees were identified both by the Ministry and the Review and included:

a. key management staff.

b. key operational staff.

c. email submitters requesting an interview; and

d. heads of associated system external agencies.

Information gathering

270. Information was gathered in several ways through:

a. email submissions from INZ and MBIE staff, and from external parties involved with migrant

workers in New Zealand.

b. interviews conducted with selected INZ and MBIE staff, with other public agencies with an

interest in the operationalisation of the AEWV scheme, with community agencies involved

with migrant workers, and with email submitters who requested an interview.

c. feedback sessions with AEWV teams (peers) who contacted the Review team via the Review

email.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

d. observing operational staff as they processed AEWV applications across the three gateways

and discussing the process with them.

e. targeted information gathering sessions regarding operational roles (e.g., Technical

Advisor, Verification Officer), or processes regarding IT system functioning; and

f. review of AEWV-related documentation, including establishment documentation,

operational / change documentation, and status reports and other documents provided to

the Review by INZ.

Numbers of submitters/interviewees

271. 24 written submissions plus seven email requests for interview only, from a mix of internal and

external stakeholders between September to early November 2023.

272. In total the Review interviewed 74 people in 43 separate interviews conducted over September and

October 2023.

Data analysis

273. A thematic analysis using the constant comparative method was used to analyse data from

submissions, interviews, and staff feedback sessions to build up of a broad picture of the system

and, through which themes were identified that capture the essence of the data gathered. The

themes are reflected in the findings:

a. Emerging themes were reflected back to, and tested with, interviewees and senior INZ and

MBIE leadership throughout the evidence gathering phase to assist with calibration and

further information gathering; and

b. Data from documents was used to create a quantitative view of the situation (e.g., volumes

of applications processed / job tokens outstanding).

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Appendix C - AEWV Timeline

PAGE 1

10/12/18

Cabinet agrees to

consult on changes

to employer-assisted

visas

03/02/22

Phased border

reopening announced

by the Government

09/06/22

INZ informs the Minister

of Immigration ho w the job

check gateway would be

implemented

03/06/22

Deputy Secretary - Immigration

approves automation criteria

for applications at the job

check stage (gateway two), and

notes other implementation

considerations including quality

checking regime

06/05/22

Deputy Secretary - Immigration

approves automation crit eria

for applications at the employer

accreditation s tage (gateway one),

and notes other implementation

considerations, including the proposed

approach to post-decision verification

and quality checking regime

LEGEND – ACCREDITED EMPLOYER WORK VISA SYSTEM

CABINET DECISION

AEWV GO LIVE

INDEPENDENT REVIEW

PUBIC CONSULTATION

MINISTERIAL DECISION

BORDER OPEN/CLOSED

MBIE DECISION

TOP HALF

LOWER HALF

18/12/18

MBIE undertakes public

consultation on a new

employer-assisted gateway

framework to replace

six existing t emporary

work visa categories

11/03/20

Cabinet agrees to a suite

of changes to prevent

migrant exploitation ,

such as the new migrant

exploitation prevention

visa and infringement

regime

16/02/22

Cabinet agrees fee

structure and fee

levels for AEWV,

including resourcing

levels for post-

decision checks

26/03/21

Minister of Immigration agr ees to the

detailed requirements that employers

need to meet for accreditation ; inc l udi ng

requirements for standard accreditation,

high-volume accreditation and f or

high-risk business models (triangular

and franchisee employers)

19/04/22

Cabinet takes further detailed Rebalance

decisions on sector agreement areas

(differing median wage requirement) and

Green List occupation s (speci f ying which

occupation s w ould be eligible for residence

and exempted from AEWV advertisi ng

requirements)

19/04/22

Cabinet decides to bring

forward the full reopening of

New Zealand’s borders from

October to July

19/03/20

New Zealand’s

borders closed

28/08/19

Cabinet agrees to new

employer-led work visa

(includes three stages

– employer accreditation ,

job check and work visa –

and the requirement for

a new IT system)

18/03/2019

Public consultation on ne w

employer-assisted gateway

framework closes

20/12/21

Cabinet agrees to

Immigration R ebalance

package including setting

the median wage as a

minimum skill threshold

for the AEWV

12/07/21

Cabinet agrees to defer

the implementation of

the AEWV until mi d- 2022

10/12/21

Minister of Immigration

agrees to the defini tion

a franchisee employer for

the AEWV

26/06/21

Minister of Immigration

agrees to the detailed design

of the job and migrant checks

under the newly named

Accredited Employer Work

Visa (AEWV) system

23/05/2022

Dedicated employer phone

line established for the

employer accreditation and

job check gateways (gateways

one and two)

19/05/22

INZ informs the Minister of

Immigration ho w the employer

accreditation g ateway would be

implemented

23/05/22

AEWV gateway one

goes live

(employer accreditation )

20/06/22

AEWV gateway two

goes live (job check)

MBIE | September 2023

26/03/21

MBIE advises Minister of Immigration ,

that Immigration N ew Zealand (INZ)

would develop a risk-based approach

that prioritis

d the highest risk

employers for more robust assessment

and more site visits.

INZ committed to providing further

advice as implementation pr ogressed

on the ratio of emp l o yers holding

high-risk business model accreditation

that would receive a site visit

26/03/21

Minister of Immigration agr ees to

delay implementation of the new

employer-led work visa policy; to

be phased in from mid-September

2021 and made compulsory from

1 November 2021

202120202018 2019

Accredited Employer Work Visa tim

l ine

2022

[UNCLASSIFIED]

PAGE 2

18/08/22

DPMC Implementation Uni t r eports

back on the Immigration R ebalance

Conting ency Planning

23/08/22

Deputy Secretary - Immigration

makes a general instructio

adj us ting

how immigration of fice

s assess work

visa application s ( gateway three)

31/10/22

First six sector agreements

implemented; immigration

instructio

s ame nded

25/08/22

Reconnecting New Zealand

Incident Management Team

(IMT) established to ensure full

Ministry of Business, Innovation

and Employment support for

reopening the borders

26/04/23

Transport sector agreement

implemented, immigration

instructio

s ame nded

28/02/23

Chief Operating Of fice

- Immi g r ation

extends the general instructions

regarding how immigration officers

assess job check and work visa

application s, with a review of risk

settin

s t o be undertaken before

any further extension

Duration : t o end of June 2023

06/10/22

The IMT Incident Controller extends the

general instructions regarding how immigration

officers assess job check and work visa

application s ( gateways two and three)

Duration : un til February 2023

18/10/22

MBIE-commissioned external review into

AEWV begins, with a focus on whether the

operation al pol icy nee ded to deliver the

underlying policy intent was appropriately

set up, and to generate lessons learned for

the design of future policy changes

26/07/22

Cabinet directs the DPMC

Implementation Uni t t o begin

a rapid assessment into INZ’s

readiness for reopening the

border

10/08/22

Cabinet agreement to first

six sector agreements:

– care workforce

– constructio

and in frastructure

– meat processing

– seafood

– seasonal snow, and

– adventure tourism

01/12/22

Minister of Immigration agr ees criteria for

AEWV holders to vary the condition s of the ir

visa, to allow change of employment

(known as a Job Change), with immigration

instructio

s e ffective 5 December 2022

12/12/22

Cabinet agrees to extend all employer

accreditation under the AEWV which

were applied for before 4 July 2023

by 12 months, to support employers

while they are adjusting t o the new

system and to introduce a transport

sector agreement

24/07/23

Minister of Immigration agr ees

to not make permanent changes

to the duration of accreditation

for employers

05/04/23

Cabinet agreement to extend

AEWV duration t o five years,

and introduce a maximum

continuous stay for people

not on a residence pathway

(with implementation in

November 2023)

04/09/23

Cabinet agreement

to ban use of 90-day

trial periods for AEWV

(implementation in

October 2023)

24/03/23

Reconnecting New Zealand IMT

formally closed

30/06/23

Deputy Secretary - Immigration agr ees to an

amended general instruction r egarding how

immigration of fice rs assess job check and work

visa application s, with changes enacted to tigh ten

up the risk setting s; g eneral instruction s upda ted

and extended until 30 N ovember 2023

29/08/23

Public Service Commission

announces review into

the administration of the

AEWV scheme

18/08/23

Deputy Secretary - Immigration agr ees to an

amended general instruction r egarding how

immigration of fice rs assess job check and work

visa application s, with further changes enacted

to tighten up the risk settings at the job check

stage (particularly in relation to high volume

employers and construction sector roles) and

further pre-verification a t the work visa stage

29/06/22

INZ informs the Minister

of Immigration ho w the

work visa gateway would be

implemented

31/07/22

New Zealand borders fully reopened

21/06/22

Chief Operating Of fice r - Immigration

approves automation crit eria for

application s a t the work visa stage,

and notes other implementation

considerations including quality

checking regime

27/07/22

Deputy Secretary - Immigration ma k es

a general instructio

unde r Section 26

of the Immigratio

Ac t 2009 , adjusting

the manner in which immigration

offic

r s assess job check application s

(gateway two)

04/07/22

Actin

De puty Secretary - Immigration

approves conting ency plan for manual

processing of work visa application s

on INZ’s legacy IT platform until ful l

deployment in ADEPT

04/07/22

Actin

De puty Secretary - Immigration

approves a revised approach to a split-release

for the work visa gateway (deploy front end

and back end systems separately)

04/07/22

AEWV stage three goes live (work visa)

29/11/22

MBIE-commissioned external

review into AEWV reports back

– outlining lessons learned and

suggesting a numb er of shor t -

and long-term recommendation s

2023

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Appendix D - Detailed Analysis of General Instructions

274. There have been six General Instructions (GIs) given that impact the processing of AEWV applications

against Immigration Instructions. These apply only to the Job Check and Work Visa gateways. A

summary of the GIs is provided, followed by details of each GI, the relevant Immigration Instruction,

and the significance of the GI.

275. GIs introduced changes to application processing alongside frequent ICT system changes and

periodic amendments to the Immigration Instructions, as follows:

a. 31 October 2022 – the first six sector agreements were implemented.

b. 5 December 2022 – the Job Change provision was implemented.

c. 26 April 2023 – the Transport Sector agreement was implemented; and

d. 29 October 2023 – the ban on the 90-day trial period was implemented.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Summary of the General Instructions

Gates

impacted

Gate2

Gate 3

Gates 2 and 3

General

Instruction

3 (extension)

4 (extension)

(amendment)

6 (amendment)

Aim

Clear JC queue

Enhance WV

processing

(extending GIs 1 and

(further extension of

GIs 1 and 2)

Tighten risk

settings

Tighten JC risk settings -

especially for high volume

employers and construction

sector roles. Further WV pre-

verification.

Dates

27/7/22

23/8/22

6/10/22 – 28/2/23

28/2/23 – 30/6/23

30/6/23 –

30/11/23

18/8/23

Approved by

Deputy

Secretary

Deputy

Secretary

IMT Incident

Controller

Delegate of Deputy

Secretary

Deputy Secretary

Memo

25/7/22

OPERATIONAL

LEVERS TO

CLEAR

CURRENT JOB

CHECK QUEUE

19/8/22

OPERATIONAL

LEVERS TO

ENHANCE

ACCREDITED

EMPLOYER

WORK

VISA

PROCESSING

30/9/22

REVIEW OF

OPERATIONAL

LEVERS TO

ENHANCE

ACCREDITED

EMPLOYER JOB

CHECK AND WORK

VISA PROCESSING

27/2/23

REVIEW OF

OPERATIONAL

LEVERS TO ENHANCE

ACCREDITED

EMPLOYER JOB

CHECK AND WORK

VISA PROCESSING

29/6/23

REVIEW OF

OPERATIONAL

LEVERS TO

ENHANCE

ACCREDITED

EMPLOYER JOB

CHECK AND

WORK VISA

18/8/23

GENERAL INSTRUCTION ON

MANNER OF PROCESSING

ACCREDITED EMPLOYER

JOB CHECK AND WORK VISA

APPLICATIONS – HIGH

VOLUME EMPLOYERS AND

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

ROLES

GIs 1 – 4 (original, extensions)

GIs 2 – 4 (original, extensions)

27 July 2022

23 August 2022

GI 5 (tighten)

30 June 2023 30 Nov 202318 August 2023

GI 6 (tighten)

GI 6 (further pre-verification)

GATE 2 - JC

GATE 3 - WV

General Instructions

[UNCLASSIFIED]

GI 1 – To Clear Current Job Check Queue

276. These instructions were initiated on 27/7/2022 and remained in force (via two GI extensions) until

30/6/2023.

277. This GI represented a temporary adjustment to the way immigration officers assess applications against

Immigration Instructions for Job Check applications, to recognise the pressures in the labour market

environment and the effort required to support the reopening of New Zealand to migrant workers.

278. Notes: Adverse declaration means the applicant has answered 'no' to a question in the application

form that indicates they do not meet the policy.

279. If ADEPT presents Assessment Activities for any of the requirements excluded by the General

Instruction, they will be marked as ‘requirement met’ by the Immigration Officer.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

GI 1 - Details of change in the GI – Job Check

Immigration Instructions – to check…

Significance

Advertising

(as per

Policy advice

to Minister)

Excluded from the requirement to advertise:

Guidance is already in place [i.e., even before this

GI was introduced] for sta that Green list and

highly paid roles that earn twice the median

salary should not be checked.

For all [other] roles immigration oicers will

check the advertising for the salary

requirement. Noting that the employer will

have declared in the application form that they

have included salary, if it is found that they have

not, request PPI.

For any other issues with the advertising (e.g.

not advertised for full period, advert being

closed) immigration oicers should educate

rather than enforce.

- That minimum requirements for the job include the

requirements of the occupation on the Green List

- That advertising was completed nationally via a national

general job listing website or by other means so that suitable

NZ citizens or residence class visa holders could apply.

- That advertising includes:

- job description detailing tasks and responsibilities;

- key terms and conditions of employment incl. min/max

rates of pay or estimated earnings if actual earnings are

not guaranteed.

- minimum guaranteed hours.

- location of job

- minimum qualifications; and

- work experience, skills, or other specifications of the

job

- That minimum qualifications, work experience, skills, or

other specifications required for the job are restricted to

those necessary to perform the job.

- That the vacancy was listed for 14 days

- That advertising closed within 90 days of Job Check

application submission.

- That the job was advertised in multiple means or platforms

- Were the details of the job consistent across all platforms?

- Is the job to be carried out in one location only?

- Is the job carried out remotely?

- Did any NZ citizen or residence class via holders apply for the

role? If so, were any suitable/available?

Of the requirements

listed, salary is the

only requirement that

is checked and must

be consistent

between the

application and the

advertisement.

Beyond checking the

advertisement was

placed and consistent

with the key

employment terms

and conditions, no

further validation of

advertising or

application process

was required to be

considered.

Employment

agreements

Group 1: Triangular or franchises business

models, roles that are paid by piece rates, or any

other roles of concern or where INZ holds

adverse information on the employer: the check

of the employment agreement will be limited

to immigration related aspects:

• Hours

• Pay and deductions

• Location

These instructions only checked for Group 1:

- Proposed employment is full time (at least 30 guaranteed

hours per week for every week worked)?

- Proposed employment agreement does not pass costs for

recruitment or fees onto the migrant, including any

unreasonable deductions?

- Proposed employment agreement includes changing

locations, and if so, do the terms and conditions regarding

changing locations disadvantage or exploit the migrant?

No applications are

fully vetted - checks of

the Employment

Agreement on all

applications are

limited in some way,

as indicated.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

GI 1 - Details of change in the GI – Job Check

Immigration Instructions – to check…

Significance

• Job description.

(Roles of concern: Cook/Chef Retail Manager /

Supervisor Hotel Managers / Hospitality

managers Café/Restaurant Manager Dairy Farm

Workers/Managers Any other role of concern)

Group 2: All others - accept all claims in

application form at face value.

- Proposed employment agreement has a pay period that is

no longer than one month?

- Employer guarantees each hour of pay will be at least the

minimum pay rate provided for each pay cycle and any leave

will be paid at that rate?

- Are the hours of work included in the employment

agreement considered variable?

- Does the remuneration include other employment related

allowances, deductions, piece rates and bonuses?

The following instructions are not checked on any applications:

- The employer (organisation) who holds the accreditation is

the direct employer who is named on the employment

agreement.

- Employment agreement is for a single accredited employer.

- Proposed employment agreement is compliant with all

relevant NZ employment laws in force.

- Proposed employment agreement includes terms and

conditions that oer no less than those oered in the NZ

market for that occupation, including the rate of pay and

notice periods.

- Is the job check for self-employment, or for the planting,

maintaining, harvesting, or packing crops in the horticulture

or viticulture industries?

- Does the proposed employment agreement include the

migrant working overnight?

- Is the job check to support a foreign crew of a fishing vessel?

It was recognised by

INZ (and validated by

external review) that it

was not appropriate

for Immigration

Oicers to be fully

assessing

Employment

Agreements for

compliance with

relevant NZ law.

Number of

roles in a

Job

Check

The number of roles requested in a Job Check

application from employers in the health and

education sectors will be accepted at face value

based on declarations in the application form.

For the construction sector, all Job Check

applications for up to 50 roles will be accepted

face value based on declarations in the

application form.

Except for the Standard application type that had a limit of 5 Job

Tokens, there was no Immigration Instruction limiting the number

of Job Tokens an employer could apply for.

There is no requirement that the employer provide evidence of the

need for these roles, had the ability to support them, and that the

roles are needed now.

This GI introduced a

tightening up of the

rules around numbers

of Job Tokens that

could be applied for.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

GI 1 - Details of change in the GI – Job Check

Immigration Instructions – to check…

Significance

For other sectors, all Job Check applications for

up to 30 roles will be accepted at face value,

based on declarations in the application form

unless it is an industry or business that is

unlikely to need that many roles e.g. chef.

For other sectors (including construction),

where the number of roles exceeds the advice

above, all Job Check applications will follow the

guidance already in place (which is being

adjusted to align with these new thresholds).

Salary

All declarations of salary in the application form

will be accepted at face value, except for,

Triangular or franchises business models, roles

that are paid by piece rates, or any other roles of

concern, or where INZ holds adverse

information on the employer.

Employer guarantees each hour of pay will be at least the minimum

pay rate provided for each pay cycle and any leave will be paid at

that rate?

Salary requirements

checked for the

exception group only.

GI 2 - TO ENHANCE ACCREDITED EMPLOYER WORK VISA PROCESSING

280. These instructions were initiated on 23/8/2022 and remained in force (via two GI extensions) until 30/6/2023.

281. This GI represented a temporary adjustment to the manner in which immigration officers assess applications against immigration instructions for Work

Visa applications to recognise the pressures in the labour market environment and the effort required to support the reopening of New Zealand to migrant

workers.

Proposed Approach

(Ref: the GI memo noted in the summary above)

23. INZ will take a facilitative approach to work visa applications in the short term. We will review this approach at the end of September [2022] and make appropriate

adjustments at that point. During this period, INZ will take a pragmatic risk-based approach to decision making. This approach accepts more risk for a limited period

to ensure that work visas are processed within a timeframe that reflects the current labour market shortages.

24. Officials have considered the following to implement a pragmatic, manual “educate over enforce” approach:

All applications must meet identity, health, and character components of the work visa application.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

50. The proposed streamlining will accept more documentation regarding skills, qualification, and experience at face value. The Christchurch site visit

indicated a high risk of immigration officers spending long periods trying to confirm skills for low-risk applicants so streamlining is appropriate. The skill test was also

more important for below median wage roles that are no longer available to migrants, but it remains important for detecting migrant inflation and justifying the

collection of evidence in the first instance. However, the interim proposals are acceptable.

Notes: Adverse declaration means the applicant has answered 'no' to a question in the application form that indicates they do not meet the policy

If ADEPT presents Assessment Activities for any of the requirements excluded by the General Instruction, they will be marked as ‘requirement met’ by the Immigration

Officer.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

GI 2 - Details of change in the GI – Work Visa

Processing

Impacts

Significance

Job check

validation

Check that details provided in the application match the Job Check Letter:

For all applications the INZ job check approval letter will be used to ensure that:

• The location and job title of the role are the same as what was approved in the job check;

• The job description matches the job title of the role;

• The rate of pay is within the range declared by the employer in the job check;

• The hours of work are the same as declared by the employer in the job check.

Check that details in application / Job Check Letter / Applicant’s Employment Agreement

match:

Exception Group: For applications in the following categories, the key points above should be

checked against the same details in the provided employment agreement signed by the applicant.

Further verification should only be carried out if there are other risks that are evident as a result of

this check. This applies to employees:

• of triangular employers including labour hire companies;

• of franchise business models;

• whose remuneration includes a piece rate component;

• whose applications trigger an alert or warning or for whom INZ holds adverse information.

Not checking

for self-

employment or

employment of

a family

member

This step was

automated on 19

September 2022 (except

for Triangular or

Franchisee employers).

Accepts all declarations

at face value that visa is

not for self-employment

or for a family member.

The Employment

Agreement signed by

the applicant is only

checked for the

exception group.

Worker

eligibility

For the worker eligibility component of the application, immigration oicers will refer to the triage

rating (low, medium, high) and the relevant SOP under “Assess Temporary Visas” to determine next

steps for an application with that triage rating.

Risk rules (Triage Rating)

Low-risk applications do not require any verification unless a specific risk is identified. The following

applications will be treated as low risk despite triaging:

• Health and education roles;

• All roles that require registration;

• All tier 1 Green List roles;

• All migrants paid at 200 per cent of the median wage.

Medium-risk applications do not require any verification unless a specific risk is identified though a

risk rule triggering.

For the four groups

treated as low risk

despite triaging, they

will be accepted. For

these positions it is

assumed that the

Employer will have

verified their suitability

for the role.

GIs 5 & 6 - TIGHTENING OF RISK SETTINGS

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Requirement under

JOB CHECK

immigration

instructions (WA3)

GI 5 adds some checks back

GI 6 – how is it dierent to GI 5

Determining the employer

meets

the requirements for

labour market testing set

out at (WA3.20)

Base the assessment on the declarations made in the

application form, but for all assessments check:

• that the advertisement is for the role that the Job Check

has been applied for;

• the key terms of the employment are consistent with

the employment agreement and other information

included in the Job Check application, including:

• The minimum and maximum rate of pay or

salary; and

• That position has not been advertised as casual

or part time; and

• The location of the job.

Same as 5

Determining whether the

employer meets the

requirements for

acceptable employment

set out at WA3.15 related

to the proposed

employment agreement

Calculating the

remuneration as set

out in WA3.30

For all assessments, check:

• the location on the declaration matches the location on

the employment agreement and the advertising;

• the legal entity declared in the Job Check application

matches that on the employment agreement;

• the employment type (permanent or fixed

term/seasonal) declared matches that on the employment

agreement;

• where the proposed employment is for an occupation

that is exempt from the median wage threshold (Appendix

14), the job description provided matches the description

of the work for the declared ANZSCO code.

For all other assessment activities, proceed to base the

assessment on the declarations made in the application

form, only, unless any of the below criteria is met:

• all or part of the payment for the proposed employment is

calculated by piece rates;

• the employer holds accreditation as a franchisee

employer or an employer who places Accredited Employer

Work Visa holders in triangular employment arrangements;

Same as 5

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Requirement under

JOB CHECK

immigration

instructions (WA3)

GI 5 adds some checks back

GI 6 – how is it dierent to GI 5

• the employer has made an adverse declaration in the

application form;

• INZ holds any relevant adverse information about the

employer (such as a warning of where an application

triggers a risk rule); or

• the role is of concern.

Where the above applies, also check:

• the remuneration of the employment, including the

hours of work, details of pay and any deductions; and

• the job description.

Determining whether the

number of positions

requested in a Job Check

application are for genuine

vacancies as required by

WA3.15(l)

Determine [assume] that this requirement is met without

assessing or requesting additional evidence, where the

proposed employment is:

• in the health or education sector; or

• In the construction sector – face value up to 50 positions

• all others – face value up to 30 positions

EXCEPT WHERE: -

- Franchisee employer

- Or triangular

- Or calculates pay by piece rates

- Or INZ holds adverse information about

employer

- Or role not in health, education, or

construction and is in an industry unlikely to

require the number of positions requested

- Or the employer has had more than 50

previous job checks

- Or the role is of concern

Largely the same as GI 5 but excludes high volume accredited

employers and construction sector roles from the instruction to apply

only face value checks when determining genuine employment.

Determine [assume] that this requirement is met without assessing or

requesting additional evidence, where the proposed employment is

EITHER:

• in the health or education sectors, unless:

o the employer holds accreditation as a franchisee employer

or an employer who places Accredited Employer work visa

holders in triangular employment arrangements; or

o INZ holds adverse information about the employer;

• oered by an employer who holds Standard Accreditation, unless:

o INZ holds adverse information about the employer; or

o the remuneration is calculated by piece rates; or

o the role is in an industry that is unlikely to require the

number of positions requested; or

o the role is in the construction industry; or

o the role is of concern.

For all other Job Checks, use standard processes to consider whether

the positions requested in a Job Check application are for genuine

vacancies.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Requirement under

Work visa

immigration

instructions (WA4)

GI 5 – adds some checks back in

GI 6 – how is it

dierent to GI 5

Determining whether an

applicant holds an oer of

employment that meets

the requirements of

WA4.10.1

For all applications, check that the remuneration on the employment agreement oered [IEA] is the

same as that included in the AEWV meta data. If a range was approved in the Job Check application, the

remuneration stated in the IEA must fall within the approved range.

Ensure that the hourly rate entered in ADEPT matches what is stated in the IEA and approved Job

Check application.

[The remainder is as per GI 2]

For all applications if there is a Job Check validation activity, the Job Check validation powerBI will be

used to ensure that:

• The location and job title of the role are the same as what was approved in the Job Check;

• The job description matches the job title of the role;

• The hours of work are the same as or more favourable than that declared by the employer in the Job

Check

• The direct employer is the same as in the Job Check.

For applications in the following categories, the key points above should be checked against the

same details in the provided employment agreement signed by the applicant.

Further verification should only be carried out if there are other risks that are evident as a result of this

check. This applies to employees:

• Of triangular employees including labour hire companies;

• Of franchise business models;

• Whose remuneration includes a piece rate component;

• Whose applications trigger an alert of warning or for whom INZ holds adverse information;

Same as 5 but adds in an

additional bullet point at

the end:

• Where guidance

provided by Risk and

Verification as a result of

pre-screening advises

that verification is

appropriate

Determining whether the

applicant meets the

requirements for

applicants as set out in

W.2.10.1(b)

As per GI 2

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Appendix E - AEWV processing volumes to date

282. Since the introduction of the AEWV Scheme, the following volumes of applications under the three

gates have been processed by INZ.

283. As at 11 November 2023, the number of Employer Accreditation applications submitted, approved,

withdrawn and declined, broken down by month, was:

Month

Total

Submitted

Total

Approved

Total

Withdrawn

Total

Declined

May 2022

2,186

150

June 2022

3,364

3,938

July 2022

2,559

3,189

August 2022

2,203

2,107

September 2022

1,823

2,176

October 2022

1,578

1,581

November 2022

1,699

1,499

December 2022

1,279

1,237

January 2023

1,342

1,263

February 2023

1,662

1,428

March 2023

2,048

2,298

April 2023

1,534

1,573

May 2023

1,713

1,745

June 2023

1,669

1,485

July 2023

1,401

1,539

August 2023

1,383

1,075

September 2023

1,220

663

October 2023

1,043

782

November 2023

339

330

Total

32,045

30,058

337

284. As at 11 November 2023, the number of Job Check applications submitted, approved, withdrawn and

declined, broken down by month, was:

Month

Total

Submitted

Total

Approved

Total

Withdrawn

Total

Declined

June 2022

674

July 2022

2,690

967

August 2022

3,707

4,748

September 2022

3,235

3,696

October 2022

3,280

2,975

November 2022

3,604

3,094

December 2022

2,786

2,943

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Month

Total

Submitted

Total

Approved

Total

Withdrawn

Total

Declined

January 2023

2,666

2,908

February 2023

3,398

3,234

March 2023

3,832

3,814

April 2023

3,306

3,135

May 2023

4,128

3,720

June 2023

3,748

4,229

July 2023

3,604

3,372

August 2023

3,789

2,743

September 2023

3,028

1,378

October 2023

2,985

1,754

November 2023

1,001

1,044

Total

55,461

49,754

677

285. As at 11 November 2023, the number of job tokens requested, approved, withdrawn and declined,

broken down by month, was:

Month

Total

Requested

Total

Approved

Total

Withdrawn

Total

Declined

June 2022

4,267

July 2022

17,698

6,914

August 2022

25,772

31,427

481

September 2022

16,588

19,727

207

October 2022

15,607

14,356

479

November 2022

18,755

15,850

487

December 2022

13,280

14,775

January 2023

14,368

14,481

February 2023

19,121

17,448

1,182

March 2023

16,510

16,904

109

513

April 2023

13,779

11,892

170

May 2023

16,393

15,522

516

June 2023

15,689

16,867

447

July 2023

14,831

14,525

154

105

August 2023

14,413

11,045

405

September 2023

5,518

4,759

October 2023

2,772

6,265

288

November 2023

237

3,621

174

Total

245,598

236,378

5,252

907

[UNCLASSIFIED]

286. As at 13 November 2023, the number of approved job tokens, broken down by month and ANZCO skill

level, was:

287. As at 11 November 2023, the number of Working Visa applications submitted, approved, withdrawn and

declined, broken down by month, was:

Month

Total

Submitted

Total

Approved

Total

Withdrawn

Total

Declined

July 2022

297

August 2022

3,536

1,119

September 2022

7,272

3,978

October 2022

6,897

2,984

November 2022

8,409

7,125

December 2022

7,017

7,001

105

January 2023

6,629

7,755

February 2023

11,478

7,404

121

March 2023

6,983

11,015

200

104

April 2023

6,414

6,846

148

135

May 2023

8,124

8,720

208

134

June 2023

7,083

7,312

166

118

July 2023

6,622

5,877

175

152

August 2023

6,715

6,623

205

239

September 2023

4,780

5,544

241

220

October 2023

4,159

4,076

198

240

November 2023

1,576

1,286

Total

103,991

94,667

2,106

1,558

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Glossary of Terms

Accredited Employer Risk

Monitoring and Review

(AERMR)

Post-accreditation employer checks across 15% of employers carried out

by INZ in a combination of desk and site-based checks to inform risk

tolerances and controls.

Accredited Employer Work

Visa (AEWV)

Employers can get accreditation to use the Accredited Employer Work Visa

(AEWV) to hire migrants on visas for up to 5 years. Employers must pay at

least the NZ median wage, unless the role is on an exemption list, and

show that there are no New Zealanders able to fill the role. The AEWV is a

3-step process requiring: Employer Accreditation, Job Check and Work

Visa.

ADEPT

Advanced Digital Employer-led Processing and Targeting (ADEPT) is the

Immigration Online ICT system, which includes the Accredited Employer

Work Visa processing.

AMS

Application Management System (AMS) is Immigration New Zealand’s

legacy visa processing system, which is still in use for most visas.

Chief Executive

Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Employer Accreditation

Gate 1 of the 3 step AEWV process. An employer applies for accreditation to

be able to hire migrants for temporary employment.

General Instructions

General instructions are matters of rule and practice of the Department

and relate to the order and manner of processing applications

(Immigration Act 2009 s26).

Green List

Priority roles that, if a migrant worker has the has the qualifications

registration or experience required, may be able to get residence

immediately or after 2 years of working in New Zealand.

Immigration Instructions

The statutory tool whereby the rules associated with a Visa Product are

set. These may be certified by the Minister of Immigration and are

statements of Government policy (Immigration Act 2009 s22).

Immigration Officer

Responsible for assessing and deciding visa applications in accordance

with immigration law, and through the effective administration of

immigration policy and procedures.

Immigration Rebalance

Cabinet agreed changes for employer-assisted workers and partners,

designed to ensure immigration settings were balanced correctly as the

country moved to reopening borders following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Irregular migration

The movement of persons that takes place outside the laws, regulations,

or international agreements governing the entry into or exit from the State

of origin, transit or destination.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Job Check

Gate 2 of the 3 step AEWV process. The accredited employer requests job

tokens for current needs where there are no New Zealanders able to fill the

role.

Job token

Under the Job Check, an employer may apply for multiple roles under one

application if the jobs are all subject to the same labour market test. These

are issued as Job tokens.

Migrant exploitation

When harm is caused, or the risk of harm is increased, to the economic,

social, and physical well-being of a migrant worker.

Migrant Exploitation

Protection Visa (MEPV)

A temporary visa available since 2021 to support migrants to leave an

exploitative situation quickly and remain lawfully in New Zealand to find

alternative employment within a 6-month period.

Reaccreditation

The process by which employers apply for a renewal of their accreditation

every 24 months or every 12 months for employment models that present

higher immigration risk. Reaccreditation requires employers to

demonstrate compliance with the declaration commitments made, for

example, the completion of employment standards, learning modules and

settlement support activities.

Reconnecting New

Zealand

The planned re-opening of New Zealand following the border closures

during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risk and Verification

Onshore and offshore teams within the Immigration Risk and Border

function of Immigration New Zealand. Offshore teams are responsible for

providing specialist advice for the region within which they operate, and

onshore teams provide risk advice to Immigration Operations as well as

complex or advanced verification activity.

Technical Advisor

Roles within Immigration New Zealand, providing specialist, technical

support in relation to the assessment of visa applications, ensuring quality

and consistency, and providing subject matter expertise across visa

applications.

Triangular employers

Triangular includes labour hire companies but also includes employers

who send employees on secondments to a third party, and a parent or

umbrella companies who place their employees with a third party such as

a subsidiary company, or with a branch of their business that has a

separate legal entity.

Verification Officer

Roles within Immigration New Zealand providing specialist verification

activities including interviews, document verification and third-party

checks to support immigration decisions.

Visa Processing staff

The Review use this term to describe front-line Immigration New Zealand

staff involved in processing visas. This includes Immigration Officers,

Technical Advisors, and Verification Officers.

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Work Visa

Gate 3 of the 3 step AEWV process: A temporary visa that a potential

migrant worker may apply for if there is a job offer from an accredited

employer and they have the skills and qualifications for the job.