Parliament finds MBIE officials in contempt over cancelled IT project

A powerful parliamentary committee has ruled that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) deliberately misled MPs and committed a contempt of Parliament over a bungled biometric upgrade IT project. In findings delivered on 25 August 2026, the Privileges Committee — the body that investigates breaches of Parliament's rules — found that MBIE's incomplete answers to the Education and Workforce Committee were intentional. The committee said 'the limited manner in which the ministry answered questions... was intentional' (RNZ).

The issue dates back to a select committee appearance in March 2026. MBIE chief executive Nic Blakeley and former Immigration New Zealand head Alison McDonald failed to tell MPs that the biometric upgrade programme 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 public servant was aware they could have requested to give evidence in private or in secret. Under New Zealand parliamentary practice, it is a contempt 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 sanction for Blakeley or McDonald. It did not recommend further punishment 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).

The committee's finding on the private-session option is significant for officials and select committee staff. 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). 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 tension between commercial negotiation timelines and Parliament's expectation that 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 problem 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.

For those watching the political and public service landscape, two threads are worth following. 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.