The latest independent study of the immigration section of the Labour Department will provide little reassurance that this troubled service has shed itself of its manifest problems.
Auditor-general Kevin Brady points to an earlier State Services Commission inquiry which found the then director, who currently faces fraud and dishonesty charges, had failed to appropriately manage conflicts and her section was deficient in handling both visa applications and allegations of abuse of them.
But he further points out that the commission itself had little knowledge of the allegations, and successive ministers of immigration only limited briefings on what was being handled as an employment issue.
This surely suggests two possibilities: that there was an attempt by the section to conceal or contain information, or that the commission's own ability to know what was happening under its charge is distressingly limited.
In specific terms, the Auditor-general has concluded the section, under extreme pressure, was processing as many visas as possible to meet target numbers without worrying about quality of service.
Inevitably perhaps, this meant staff were approving visas and permits rather than declining them, for the latter decision would require a greater depth of risk assessment and potentially cause a bigger backlog, some of which were years long.
He did not conclude that this led to widespread integrity issues, but it is obvious the work culture in the section was such that staff with concerns would not raise them with their managers, and that the problems were worse in the Pacific division, which he said operated in isolation from the rest of the service and where "adherence to proper processes was sometimes poor".
The department, he concluded, did not deal with them effectively or early enough.
Although Mr Brady made a number of recommendations about how visa applications were handled, about staff hiring and about ensuring quality of visa approvals, along with better support systems and processes, it is reassuring to learn that the new minister, Jonathan Coleman, believes much more is needed.
That suggests an overhaul of processes and a change of culture in the service, long overdue, might finally now begin to happen.
He intends fixing a timetable for the job, and the public should be keen to hold him to it.
Mr Brady's report was initiated under the Clark government, but it will be the National-led Government that must fix the problems long identified.
Among these are the grounds for approving or declining applicants for entry to this country, since it is obvious from his report that these are so variable, and so subjective, as to be nonsensical in some cases.
It is especially concerning that some branches had invented their own risk profiles rather than using the service's standard assessment guide.
Some might also find it quite extraordinary that in the year 2009, the service's computer system cannot store basic identity and verification information, such as photographs and scanned copies of passports, or that the majority of our overseas posts that process visa applications cannot access the system.
This means, according to Mr Brady, that nearly 40,000 visa applications a year are processed without access to the applicant's application history and travel history, or to any warnings or alerts stored in the service's computer.
Also, officers have to rely on paper files, a time-consuming, wasteful and inefficient procedure.
None of this is new: as we learned last year when the Mary-Ann Thompson scandal became public, the service has been inadequately supervised for years with management bungling and irregularities at senior level being carefully papered over with secret internal inquiries and ministers hiding behind the State Sector Act which requires them to keep out of "employment" matters.
The problem for Dr Coleman is not just to be certain that his anticipated improvements to the service are real and not merely what he is told by his public servants, but that they go sufficiently far to restore trust in the service for which he is ultimately answerable.
The perception here and - more importantly - overseas has been created that the immigration "playing field" is by no means as level as it is supposed to be.
Add historic corruption to this notion and suddenly we find that what was once a proud and honourable state function has descended into a Third World shambles where the suspicion is that backhanders and influence peddling are required to smooth the path through the official maze.
Entry to New Zealand should be a great privilege for visitor and residency applicant alike; it is Dr Coleman's duty to ensure it.
