Editorial: Immigration had better clean up act

The Immigration Service can hardly object if it is regarded as being a law unto itself. Several occurrences this year suggest it has an impulsive, and highly improper, approach to episodes that might sully its reputation, or that of a staff member - it puts up the shutters and indulges in a self-serving spot of self-policing. First, there was the "lie in unison" memo relating to Ahmed Zaoui, and the service's subsequent contemptuous attitude to the Ombudsman. Now it has been found to have kept in-house the case of a staff member who asked for sexual favours from a young woman seeking residency. The man was dismissed; astoundingly, however, this seemingly blatant example of attempted bribery was not referred to the police.

The service's explanation is as disingenuous as the finding of the internal investigation that cleared its staff of any collusion to lie, or deceive the Ombudsman, over the Zaoui memo. General manager Andrew Lockhart said the matter had not been taken to the police because the complainant had not indicated that was her wish. What he did not say was whether the young woman had even been made aware of that option.

As a prospective resident, she would have required considerable guidance. In all likelihood she would have understood little, if anything, of New Zealand procedures. She would not have known, for example, that the Crimes Act stipulates that any official who attempts to obtain a bribe is liable to up to seven years' imprisonment. Yet if she had been sufficiently upset, and courageous enough, to complain about the official's action, it seems likely she would have welcomed a sterner response than that provided by the service's internal disciplinary process.

Mr Lockhart was also keen to portray the incident as an employment matter of sexual harassment. It was, in fact, far more serious. This appears to have been nothing less than corrupt behaviour by an official who wielded powerful influence over those seeking residency. It was not up to the service to decide whether there was enough evidence to warrant going to the police. Any complaint from a member of the public that could have substance should be referred to the police. They, not the Immigration Service, should determine the severity of the offence and whether there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity to warrant prosecution - or how that evidence might be obtained. The decision to deal with the matter through internal investigation can be interpreted only as an attempt to keep it out of the public arena.

Belatedly, the error of the service's way appears to have dawned on the Immigration Minister. On Tuesday Lianne Dalziel was backing the decision not to involve the police. Yesterday, however, she was singing a different tune. She said a police "sting" operation should have been set up "so we could have got enough evidence against this guy to have him prosecuted under the criminal law". Ms Dalziel revealed also that while the official sought sexual favours from one woman, there had been two other complaints against him, including one after he was dismissed. Although the other cases might have involved only inappropriate sexual language, they make the service's kid-gloves handling of the official even more untenable.

Ms Dalziel said that complaints of a sex-for-residency nature would henceforth be referred to the police. That is stating the obvious. What should be equally apparent is the need for a throughgoing culture change in the Immigration Service. Arrogant and disdainful behaviour ill-befitting an arm of the public service can no longer be tolerated. Matters of public interest must be handled transparently, and staff must be accountable. Such examples of abject and utterly inappropriate behaviour must be met with the full force of the law.