Parliament finds MBIE officials in contempt for misleading MPs about cancelled IT project

The Privileges Committee has found the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) committed a contempt of Parliament by deliberately misleading the Education and Workforce Committee about a cancelled biometric upgrade programme. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, stops short of recommending any further sanction against MBIE chief executive Nic Blakeley or former Immigration New Zealand head Alison McDonald, both of whom had already publicly apologised. (RNZ)

The contempt arose from a March select committee appearance. Select committees are small groups of MPs who scrutinise government departments and their work. Blakeley and McDonald were questioned about the progress of the biometric upgrade programme, but neither disclosed that the project had already been cancelled. The Privileges Committee, a cross-party group that investigates breaches of Parliament's rules, found that the narrow way MBIE answered questions was intentional. The officials would have known their incomplete answers would leave MPs with a false impression. (RNZ)

Under New Zealand parliamentary practice, deliberately misleading Parliament means giving inaccurate information to the House or a committee on a matter that matters. The Privileges Committee decides whether a delay in correcting an inaccurate statement amounts to contempt, and its jurisdiction covers any complaint about a breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament. (Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand; Privileges Committee guidance; Parliamentary Practice)

When giving evidence to the Privileges Committee in July, Blakeley admitted the ministry got it wrong but denied any deliberate attempt to mislead. He said officials believed they could not reveal the cancellation because MBIE was still negotiating a final payment with Japanese technology company NEC. The committee was not persuaded. It found the limited answers were deliberate and that the officials would have understood the false impression created. (RNZ)

McDonald is the now-retired head of Immigration New Zealand, which sat within MBIE's portfolio. Blakeley took over as MBIE chief executive in January 2026; his predecessor was paid in excess of $600,000 a year. (RNZ)

The committee declined to recommend further punishment because the officials had already publicly apologised. The finding of contempt stands on its own as the committee's formal verdict. (RNZ)

Separately, MBIE's conduct surrounding the failed project is under investigation by former Solicitor-General Michael Heron KC, at the behest of the Public Service Commission. That inquiry is examining whether MBIE was fully upfront with ministers over the project's seven-year timeline and whether it engaged in what has been described as "creative accounting." (RNZ)

The broader context here is one of accountability levers running in parallel rather than in sequence. The Privileges Committee's remit is narrow: it deals with conduct toward Parliament and its committees. It does not adjudicate whether a ministry was straight with its minister, or whether financial reporting was sound. Those questions fall to the Heron KC investigation, which operates under the Public Service Commission's authority and covers ground the Privileges Committee was never designed to reach.

For officials and their legal advisers, the ruling reinforces a point that has been tested in New Zealand parliamentary practice before. The Privileges Committee's recorded history includes a 1982 report relating to an alleged deliberate misleading of the House by a member. The standard has long been that providing information to a committee that is inaccurate in a material particular can constitute contempt, and that the committee itself determines whether a delay in correction crosses that threshold. What this case makes clear is that selective answering, even when officials believe they have commercial or contractual reasons for restraint, can meet the threshold for contempt if the effect is to leave MPs with a false impression. (Parliamentary Practice)

The NEC negotiation argument is the one that failed to carry weight with the committee. Blakeley's position was that ongoing commercial sensitivity around a final payment settlement justified withholding the cancellation from the committee. The committee's finding that the limited answers were intentional effectively rejects that justification as insufficient grounds for leaving MPs uninformed about a project's fundamental status. Whether a contractual dispute can ever override the obligation to be forthcoming with a select committee is a question the ruling does not settle in principle. But the practical signal to chief executives is that the committee will weigh the effect on Parliament's ability to scrutinise, not just the motivation behind the silence.

The absence of a recommended sanction beyond the contempt finding itself is consistent with Privileges Committee practice where accountability has already been acknowledged through apology. But the finding remains on the record, and it will carry weight in any future assessment of how officials handle sensitive or commercially constrained information in the committee setting.