Top officials misled Parliament about a cancelled IT project, committee says

A parliamentary committee has ruled that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) deliberately misled MPs and broke Parliament's rules over a bungled IT project. The ruling was delivered on 25 August 2026 by the Privileges Committee, which investigates when Parliament's rules are broken. The committee found that MBIE's vague answers to MPs were given on purpose, saying 'the limited manner in which the ministry answered questions... was intentional' (RNZ).

The problem began at a meeting in March 2026. MBIE chief executive Nic Blakeley and former Immigration New Zealand head Alison McDonald appeared before a group of MPs called a select committee. The select committee is where MPs examine government work and ask officials questions. Blakeley and McDonald did not tell the MPs that an upgrade project involving biometric technology — such as fingerprint or facial recognition systems — had already been cancelled. The Privileges Committee said the officials would have known their incomplete answers would leave MPs with a false impression (RNZ).

When giving evidence to the Privileges Committee in July, Blakeley admitted the ministry got it wrong but denied a deliberate attempt to mislead. Blakeley told MPs officials believed they could not reveal the project's cancellation because MBIE was still negotiating a final payment with Japanese technology company NEC (RNZ).

The committee described it as 'alarming' that neither senior official was aware they could have asked to give evidence in private or in secret. Under New Zealand parliamentary practice, it is a contempt — a breach of Parliament's rules — to divulge the proceedings or report (including a draft report) of a select committee or subcommittee (Parliamentary Practice). The 2023 edition of Parliamentary Practice uses the term 'consideration' to describe the private internal discussions of a select committee (Parliamentary Practice).

Speaker Gerry Brownlee had earlier indicated the conduct could amount to deliberately attempting to mislead a committee, which is a contempt of Parliament (RNZ). This followed the opening of a second investigation into claims that senior Immigration officials kept MPs in the dark over a failing IT project (RNZ).

The Privileges Committee stopped short of recommending further punishment for Blakeley or McDonald. It did not do so because the officials had already publicly apologised, stating its findings would be 'of sufficient consequence on their own' (RNZ).

Blakeley took over as chief executive of MBIE in January 2026 (RNZ).

MBIE's conduct surrounding the failed project is also being investigated by former Solicitor-General Michael Heron KC at the behest of the Public Service Commission. That investigation is examining whether MBIE was fully upfront with ministers over the project's seven-year timeline and whether it engaged in 'creative accounting' (RNZ).

Under Speakers' rulings, unauthorised disclosure of select committee matters to any person could result in a charge of contempt, and all immediate support staff must be thoroughly briefed on this (Speakers' Rulings). The fact that two of the public service's most senior leaders were unaware of the mechanisms available to them for handling commercially sensitive information raises questions about how well agencies understand parliamentary procedure when commercial confidentiality collides with the obligation to be forthcoming with select committees.

The broader context here is the clash between commercial negotiations and Parliament's expectation that government agencies be open with its committees. Blakeley's explanation that officials felt constrained from disclosing the project's cancellation because of ongoing payment negotiations with NEC speaks to a tension select committees encounter regularly: agencies withholding information on commercial-sensitivity grounds, sometimes past the point where Parliament would accept that justification. The Privileges Committee's finding of intent sets a clear marker that incomplete answers, even when motivated by commercial concerns, can meet the threshold for contempt when they leave MPs with a false impression.

Two threads are worth watching. The first is the Heron KC investigation, which could shed further light on whether the issues identified by Parliament extend to MBIE's dealings with its ministers, not just with select committees. The second is whether the contempt finding, standing alone as sufficient consequence, satisfies Parliament or generates pressure for stronger enforcement mechanisms in future cases.