At least $35 million of taxpayer money was wasted on Immigration New Zealand's biometric capability upgrade before the project was stopped in 2025, following years of red flags, delays, and missed milestones that officials allegedly concealed from their minister.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford has revealed that her officials "deliberately withheld" information from both her and the previous government about the failing IT project, known as the Biometric Capability Upgrade (BCU). Stanford released documents to RNZ that she would normally withhold under the "free and frank" provision of the Official Information Act, citing significant public interest in the circumstances (RNZ).

The Immigration department sits within the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE). The identity management platform the BCU project was intended to replace was originally built in 2012 (NZ Herald). In March 2024, MBIE officials asked Stanford to increase the BCU project's funding from $35 million to $40 million (NZ Herald). The $35 million figure was the financial threshold at which government IT projects must be considered by Cabinet (NZ Herald).

How the deception unfolded

A timeline document developed by Stanford's specialist ministerial advisor Kara Isaac covers the period from 21 February to 30 April 2024. It reveals a pattern of officials providing reassuring written briefings while independent quality assurance (IQA) reports told a substantially different story.

On 19 March 2024, a project update to the minister stated that the latest IQA confirmed the project approach was "sound and robust," the build was "achievable," and risk management was "effective." Nine days later, on 28 March 2024, the minister's office received the IQAs in full and found they actually stated: "we have doubts as to whether the project will in fact deliver at all, and we question its continuation."

Stanford's office had made five requests for previous IQA reports to be sent in full. It took six days for the ministry to provide just two of them.

The gap between what was briefed and what the IQAs contained came to light in stages. Kara Isaac produced an aide memoire on 28 March 2024 detailing that Stanford was briefed in writing on 19 March that the project was tracking well, but in a meeting on 25 March, officials verbally advised that the previous IQA report was "damning." That same day, Isaac contacted acting chief executive Nic Blakely to formally raise the misleading advice given to the minister.

In a closed-door meeting on 28 March 2024, Stanford raised "concerning significant discrepancies" with Blakely. She was told the issue would be raised with chief executive Carolyn Tremain upon her return from leave (RNZ).

Investigation underway

Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche has appointed Michael Heron KC to investigate "integrity concerns" at Immigration NZ in relation to the BCU project (RNZ).

The investigation will examine whether officials' conduct in briefing the minister and the previous government met the standards expected under the Public Service Act. Stanford's decision to release documents normally protected by the "free and frank" convention signals the weight she places on public accountability for how the project was managed and reported upward.

What this means

The BCU case raises familiar questions about the threshold at which agencies must escalate major IT projects to Cabinet, and what happens when that threshold effectively becomes a target to stay beneath rather than a governance safeguard. The fact that officials sought a $5 million increase to $40 million — above the Cabinet consideration threshold — only after the project was already at $35 million invites scrutiny of how agencies structure funding approvals for large technology programmes.

More pointedly, the documents released by Stanford describe a pattern in which written advice to the minister contradicted the content of independent reviews that officials held but did not pass on in full. The nine-day gap between a briefing telling the minister the project was "achievable" and the revelation that IQA authors questioned whether it would "deliver at all" sits at the centre of Heron's investigation. For those who work in government IT delivery and ministerial services, the case turns on a basic obligation: that officials provide ministers with advice that is complete and faithful, not selectively reassuring. The Public Service Commissioner's decision to appoint a King's Counsel rather than handle the matter internally signals the seriousness with which the allegations are being treated.

The BCU project was ultimately stopped in 2025. The platform it was meant to replace, built in 2012, remains in operation.