12. Question No. 12—ImmigrationERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 12—Immigration12. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: How many if any accredited employers have had their accreditation removed by Immigration New Zealand and how many if any job tokens have been issued by Immigration New Zealand following an approved job check application from an accredited employer that is under investigation by Immigration New Zealand?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Immigration): In response to the first part of the member's question six employers have had their accreditation revoked by Immigration New Zealand and 11 have been suspended and there are currently 185 investigations under way. To the second part of the question there are currently 15 open job check applications covering 87 positions where the employer is under active investigation. Once a job check has been approved the employer or their representative issues the job token to the migrant. If an employer has had their accreditation revoked or suspended these job tokens expire and cannot be issued. Where an employer is under investigation but has not been informed Immigration New Zealand ring-fences all work visa applications so that no further action can be taken in relation to them until the investigation is concluded.Erica Stanford: When the Minister said on Radio New Zealand that Every employer applying for accreditation was required to undergo a number of checks—that they were in business that the business was viable" but that not all of those businesses were undergoing the checks that should have been made what is his understanding of what those checks were and how they should have been carried out?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The advice I have had is that there is a set of routine checks that should take place and that those checks have not been taking place.Erica Stanford: Can the Minister confirm that the routine checks at the accreditation stage that Immigration New Zealand were carrying out were not actual checks but simply a declaration form that businesses filled in online that did not require any actual documentation evidenced in his quote to this House a couple of weeks ago when he said "The advice [that] I've had is that employers are to provide a declaration in relation to the standards that they have to meet which includes employment standards … about their business."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member hasn't got it quite right. There are a number of requirements that the employer has to meet. Some of those requirements are checked on an automated basis. So for example checking the name of the employer against the database that Immigration New Zealand and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have against a list of employers who have either infringements against their name prosecutions or other negative checks. Then there are checks carried out at a human level to make sure that the documentation is in order. But not all of those checks according to information received from staff members of Immigration New Zealand appear to have been carried out. That is why I've commissioned a review an independent review through the Public Service Commission to ascertain just what the quality of the processing is of those applications.Erica Stanford: Did officials inform the Minister about a general instruction from the Deputy Secretary of Immigration New Zealand telling staff to skip checks on almost all applications under the scheme as reported in Stuff this week in order to get as many workers in the country as quickly as possible?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not aware of any such instruction being given by senior officials of Immigration New Zealand but that is why I have asked the Public Service Commission to arrange an independent review. That's in the process of being put in place at the moment. But I do want to remind the member of her position just two months ago on this matter where she called for a process that was streamlined and did not have bureaucratic tape in the cost out. And I just say this to the rest of the House too—why I think the National Party is weeping crocodile tears on this—that in addition to wanting no bureaucracy at all in this they voted against worker protection legislation earlier this year that is about giving officials more power to chase up bad employers."