Privilege — Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—Misleading Evidence Given to Education and Workforce Committee

I move, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning evidence given by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to the Education and Workforce Committee be noted.

I rise as chair of the Privileges Committee to present and speak to the committee’s report on the question of privilege concerning evidence given by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to the Education and Workforce Committee. The matter came before the Privileges Committee following a ruling by the Speaker on 24 June 2026. The Speaker determined that a question of privilege arose from evidence given by MBIE officials to the Education and Workforce Committee on 4 March 2026 and referred the matter to us for consideration.

The question the Speaker identified was whether MBIE had attempted to deliberately mislead the committee. This was a significant inquiry, and it goes to the heart of one of Parliament’s most fundamental functions: holding the executive to account through effective scrutiny. It also went to the relationship between Parliament and the Public Service, a relationship that depends on honesty, transparency, and respect for the important role of select committees.

The background is relatively straightforward. On 4 March, during a hearing held as part of the Education and Workforce Committee’s regular scrutiny of Immigration New Zealand, questions were asked by the Hon Phil Twyford about the Biometric Capability Upgrade project, known as the BCU project. Officials acknowledged there have been risks around delivery and referred to work being done on the future direction of the identity programme. They did not, however, disclose that the BCU project had, in fact, been terminated in December 2025. Subsequently, in written responses to the committee, the ministry, again, referred to work undertaken in response to reviews and to a changed approach being taken, but did not disclose that the project had already ended. That position became public only on 16 June, when the Minister of Immigration tabled a review of the project. The committee then learned that the project had been terminated months earlier, that there had been severe governance and delivery problems, and that Budget 2026 included $31.2 million to write off the failed project.

The question before the Privileges Committee was not whether the project itself had failed, nor was it our role to examine the broader management of the project. We were not tasked with relitigating operational decisions or pursuing questions of policy. The task was much narrower, but constitutionally important—whether Parliament had been misled. We approached that responsibility with some care. We heard written and oral evidence from the two officials whose statements were under examination, Nic Blakeley, the ministry chief executive, and Alison McDonald, the former Deputy Secretary for Immigration. We also heard evidence from the Hon Phil Twyford, who raised the original complaint. We received advice from the Office of the Clerk, reviewed documentary evidence, and provided those who might be subject to adverse findings with an opportunity to respond before we finalised our report.

The evidence we received was helpful and candid in many respects. Mr Blakeley accepted that the evidence provided to the committee had been incomplete. He apologised and acknowledged that the ministry had been inadequately prepared for questions concerning the project. He told us there had been no deliberate decision not to share information and explained that officials were concerned about commercial and budget sensitivities while negotiations relating to the project’s termination were under way. Miss McDonald similarly explained she understood the questioning in a broader context and that concerns about commercial sensitivity influenced how she responded. She also accepted that a fuller response should have been provided, potentially through a confidential process.

The committee considered those explanations carefully. We accepted that there were genuine concerns about commercially sensitive information. We also accepted that neither witness appeared motivated by malice or personal gain. The crucial point is that officials appearing before Parliament do not have the option of providing the answers that they know will create a false impression. If there are constraints on what can be disclosed, those constraints must be stated openly and clearly to the committee. As our report notes, it’s not unusual for officials to be unable to discuss particular matters in public. Committees deal with these regulations regularly, as colleagues in the House will know. Witnesses may indicate that information is subject to commercial sensitivity, budget sensitivity, Cabinet processes, or other constraints. Committees can consider private evidence, secret evidence, or other arrangements that enable parliamentary scrutiny to continue while protecting legitimate interests.

What happened here was different. The committee found that the ministry did not tell the Education and Workforce Committee that its answers were constrained by commercial or budget sensitivities. Instead, the evidence presented conveyed the impression that the project was continuing and evolving, when, in reality, it had already been terminated. After considering all the evidence, the committee reached two key findings.

First, we found that the Education and Workforce Committee was in fact misled. The information it received was incomplete and gave an inaccurate impression of the status of the project. That incomplete information inevitably affected the committee’s ability to perform its scrutiny function.

Second, and more significantly, we found that the ministry deliberately misled the committee. The evidence showed that officials knew the information they were providing was incomplete and intentionally chose a way of answering that withheld the fact that the project had ended. The committee concluded that the Ministry would have been aware that this approach was certain to leave members with a false understanding of the project’s status. On that basis, we found that a contempt of Parliament had occurred.

That is a serious finding. The Privileges Committee does not make such findings lightly, nor should anyone regard them as routine. The contempt jurisdiction exists because Parliament cannot fulfil its constitutional responsibilities if committees cannot rely on the truthfulness of evidence given to them. The report we’ve issued therefore emphasises a broader principle. Financial scrutiny is one of the principal ways in which Parliament holds the Government and the Public Service accountable for the expenditure of public money. That accountability depends on accurate, complete, and truthful information. When information is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the ability of committees to fulfil their constitutional role is diminished. For that reason, the committee states clearly that officials appearing before select committees have an absolute obligation to tell the truth. Truthfulness, responsibility, and good faith are foundational obligations of the Public Service and essential to the proper functioning of our democracy.

The committee was also concerned that senior officials appeared unaware of the mechanisms available for providing sensitive information. Extensive guidance exists from the Public Service Commission, the Department of the Prime Minster and Cabinet, the Office of the Clerk, and committee staff. The committee considered it troubling that these options were not properly understood or indeed utilised.

Finally, the question arose as to what sanction, if any, should follow. The ministry apologised to both the Privileges Committee and the Education and Workforce Committee. We consider these apologies carefully. We concluded that, while a contempt had been committed, no further sanction was necessary. The finding itself is a serious matter. We consider that publication of the report and the House’s consideration of it in this debate this afternoon would provide an appropriate and sufficient consequence. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.

I rise to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in this debate. On 4 March this year, Nic Blakeley and Alison McDonald from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) came along to Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee to answer questions about Immigration New Zealand. I asked them questions about the department’s Biometric Capability Upgrade, an IT project that I understood had been having problems. Alison McDonald, then Deputy Secretary of Immigration, said that there were risks around delivery and that the ministry was exploring whether there might be a better all-of-Government solution.

I then asked why the independent review reports had not been released publicly. Nic Blakeley, the ministry’s chief executive, replied by offering to look into that and explained that “We’re in the process of working out what the programme looks like going forward.” Following that hearing, the committee asked the department in writing, “What work has Immigration New Zealand done in response to the findings of reviews into delivery risks for a major biometric and identity technology upgrade?” The Ministry responded in writing, “Extensive work has been undertaken in response to reviews that have identified risks. This work has positively guided a change in the approach to upgrading MBIE’s identity management technology as part of a wider programme of work.”

Two months later, Minister Erica Stanford appeared before the committee and told us that the Biometric Capability Upgrade had actually been shut down four months earlier in December, and that an independent investigation that she commissioned discovered poor project governance, significant delays, rushed decision making, and unclear project requirements. She told the committee that she had been misled by the department about the project’s viability, and that, in her words, creative accounting practises had been used to keep costs below the mandated threshold that required Cabinet approval—$31 million had been written off.

Parliament’s Privileges Committee, investigating my complaint, found the incompleteness of the ministry’s responses caused the Education and Workforce Committee to be misled. On the crucial issue of intent, the committee found the ministry knew that the information it provided to the Education and Workforce Committee was incomplete, and that the limited manner in which the ministry answered our questions about the BCU project was intentional. The committee found the ministry would have been aware that in choosing to answer as it did, it was certain that the committee would have been misled as to the status of the project. On this basis, the Privileges Committee found that the ministry deliberately misled the Education and Workforce Committee and, in doing so, committed a contempt.

To quote the Privileges Committee, “Financial scrutiny is one of the few mechanisms available to select committees to hold the executive accountable for the public money it administers. Accountability requires the provision of truthful information. Inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information impedes select committees in their ability to carry out their essential task of scrutiny of the executive.” The Privileges Committee goes on to say, “We wish to be very clear: officials appearing before select committees have an absolute obligation to tell the truth. Being truthful, responsible, and acting in good faith is the very essence of public service. To fail to meet these obligations is an insult to the entire public service.”

What should we make of this? First, this is serious. A contempt of Parliament is any act or omission that obstructs or impedes the Parliament in the performance of its functions. Parliament cannot do its job of holding the executive accountable if public servants come along to select committees and don’t properly answer questions. This should be a wake-up call to all public servants who come to Parliament and appear before select committees. If you do that, you must properly answer the questions. Second, let’s acknowledge that the way our system works means that public servants are often under huge pressure not to say or do anything that will upset their Minister. The control of information and the timing of its public release is at the heart of the day-to-day contest of political life. It is central to the shared work of Ministers and senior officials. Parliament must assert its right to get answers, to be briefed properly, regardless of the list of reasons Ministers and officials may have to be less than forthcoming—a list that may include Budget secrecy, commercial sensitivity, matters under consideration, or things that are just plain embarrassing. This Privileges Committee finding, in upholding my complaint, does assert that right.

Finally, the issue now is about accountability and whether we MPs deal with this issue in a way that strengthens or undermines public trust in our institutions. We should do everything we can to protect and preserve a Public Service that New Zealanders can be proud of—a Public Service that stands for honesty and integrity. What should happen now? Should Nic Blakeley remain in his job? The Public Service Commissioner, Sir Brian Roche, declined Nic Blakeley’s offer of resignation, saying it would not be fair nor proportionate. He said that accountability is fixing the problem and that Blakeley had only been in the job for six weeks at the time he misled the committee. Immigration Minister, Erica Stanford, says she has confidence in Nic Blakeley and that he is the right person to turn the situation in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) around. I have every reason to believe that Nic Blakeley is a good person, and many of my colleagues who have dealt with him professionally regard him as a good public servant.

With all due respect, none of those things is material here. The Privileges Committee has found a senior public servant deliberately misled this Parliament. What are the public to think if that public servant continues in his role? That it’s OK for public servants to mislead those who they’re accountable to? That you’ll get a telling-off if you do that, but it’s OK to carry on in your job? Nic Blakeley’s position as chief executive of MBIE is untenable. It’s Labour’s view that the seriousness of the Privileges Committee finding requires the Public Service Commission to now demonstrate accountability by implementing a formal disciplinary process with a view to releasing him from his position. We are disappointed the Public Service Commissioner did not undertake a formal process and has already announced that Mr Blakeley will remain in his position. We think this was the wrong process and the wrong result.

It is impossible to imagine any more junior employee in the Public Service having deliberately misled those that that person is accountable to and then remaining in their role. It’s unthinkable. Anything short of a formal disciplinary process by the Public Service Commission now fails to do justice to the seriousness of the contempt and sends a message to the public and to everyone who works in Government that accountability doesn’t matter. That is not a message that this Parliament should send.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This call is on behalf of the Green Party in relation to the question of privilege concerning evidence given by MBIE, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to the Education and Workforce Committee. Previous members have outlined the timeline of events, and I think there’s not much point in labouring the timeline, as it’s been well canvassed. Instead, I will focus on, from our perspective, why Parliament being deliberately misled on this specific issue is of particular concern to us.

Any incident, of course, in which senior public officials deliberately mislead Parliament—particularly during an act of accountability, as was the case in the session that occurred on the 4 March—is concerning. The particular concern we have, in this specific case, comes from the fact that, already, there was public reporting over the fact that the biometric capability upgrade and its connection to the Migration Five pact was shrouded in secrecy. The context of the specific subject area was one that related to this ministry basically trying to comply with our Migration Five pact obligations, or commitments rather, to automate the sharing of people’s biometric information with the likes of the United States or the United Kingdom.

This is not just any IT upgrade that would have seen just simply an interface change. This is an IT upgrade to do with the sharing of people’s biometric information, and in this specific case, it had to do with the sharing off biometric information of asylum seekers and refugees that would have been passed on to regimes that do not have a particularly good track record when it comes to human rights and the treatment of those groups, which is why the fact that Parliament was deliberately misled, as we found in the Privileges Committee, is, I think, even more shocking and is why I echo the calls from the Hon Phil Twyford of further accountability for the people involved in misleading Parliament.

I think the report speaks for itself when it comes to the fact that there were multiple attempts by members of Parliament to ascertain the status of the biometric capability upgrade. I acknowledge that, in the heat of exchanges in a public hearing, sometimes people may not be able to articulate their answers in a way that is fulsome or maybe as transparent as they would have liked. That’s still not OK, but that’s why the post-hearing question process can be used to seek further clarity. In this specific case, there were attempts to use the post-hearing question process to actually elucidate the status of this project and, perhaps, maybe seek clarification of oral answers that may have not been sufficient. It wouldn’t be the first time, I think, that an MP has sought clarification through this process from officials or a Minister, when perhaps the answer we were given just didn’t feel like it was as close to the truth or factually correct as we were aware, or had been told of, or perhaps through whistleblowers—or whatever.

I think the fact that there were multiple attempts made this all the more egregious. The fact that, on top of that, this Privileges Committee report was parallel to incidents in which the immigration Minister herself was also commenting on the fact that she felt like she was misled by her own ministry when it comes to the information that was provided to her on the status of the biometric capability upgrade speaks of broader concerns as to whether the people at the top of the ministry had been forthcoming, not just to the members of the Education and Workforce Committee but to their own Minister, as well.

In my view, it is the combination of those facts that makes the findings salient moving forward, because ultimately the context in which the biometric capability upgrade was going on still exists, and I think there is a lot of answers that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) need to give to members of Parliament of how they have been conducting themselves and their approach to meeting their commitments to the Migration Five pact. So far, what I feel we’ve seen has been a systemic and deliberate attempt to not be fully transparent with the provision of information in relation to this project.

I am concerned that this is part of a broader attempt at not being forthcoming over how MBIE is handling our relationship to this pact and the nations involved in it. As has been actually publicly canvassed, as much as this may sound like alarmist, by journalists of the likes of Gill Bonnett, who has done extremely good and thorough coverage of this issue over the past year or so, highlighting that already, since before 4 March, concerns were held in relation to the status of the biometric capability upgrade. So it’s not the case that on 4 March these concerns magically appeared; these were concerns that were raised through media reporting way prior to that, which adds fuel to the fire of the fact that I don’t think it’s credible—and it clearly wasn’t for the members of the Privileges Committee—that MBIE could have hid itself from providing full transparent information, that they could have not foreseen that perhaps there was a level of public interest on this issue and that they should have been better prepared to actually be truthful and fulsome in their answers to the committee.

I think, in scrutiny of the executive and the ministries, this report, in my view, should be a wake-up call also to the processes that we have and use to ensure that we get fulsome answers from ministry officials. I think, too, often we’ve used the theatre of the public sessions as an excuse for a lack of adequate answers or exchanges. Sometimes, that is due to the limited time that these sessions are afforded, which does not by any means excuse deliberately misleading Parliament. I think it further adds to the fact that I think these exercises should be treated as a genuine space for accountability, than rather for “Gotcha!” moments.

If what we had was a case where members were genuinely trying in good faith to ascertain information about the project, and we instead just get the merry-go-around from officials over, for example, whether this was just commercially sensitive information when, as others have already outlined, if this had been the case, they could have sought different recourses for that information to be provided to us. Because we did have public officials with quite a bit of experience in front of us at the time—not just Nic Blakeley; we had Alison McDonald, who was a very experienced and very senior public servant. I think, again, it just makes it not credible that neither of them knew or sought advice on what other avenues they could have provided this information to us through. If it had been the case that it was so commercially sensitive, they could have just said so.

Lastly, I just think, also, that simply telling us that the project had been discontinued and that they couldn’t perhaps tell us further details because those details were commercially sensitive could have been something that could have told us. I just think the fact that misleading Parliament under the guise of commercial sensitivity actually sets a terrible precedent, and that is something that is very, very concerning.

I also want just to reflect on the consequences that were afforded to Nic Blakeley and Alison McDonald in relation to the broader issue of deliberately misleading Parliament. There’s been a bar being set today, and this kind of touches on the comments from the Hon Phil Twyford around what is the level of acceptable consequences. Often, I think members have concerns about whether even other MPs maybe deliberately mislead Parliament or otherwise. I think the judgment that we have used for Alison McDonald and Nic Blakeley is one that I hope we all reflect on when we perhaps accuse each other of the same thing, because I think the accusation of deliberately misleading Parliament is one that does get sort of thrown around a lot. I think if the Privileges Committee is going to set a bar for senior public servants, we should reflect, also, on the sort of bar that we set for members of Parliament, as well.

With that, the Green Party welcomes the report. We welcomed the call from the Hon Phil Twyford for a greater accountability process and disciplinary process to happen, as well. I think that is fair and just. I say this well knowing that, at the end of the day, MBIE holds a huge amount of power in the immigration space over people’s livelihoods. It’s not just a matter of whether the interface is good enough.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the report presented by the Privileges Committee. I would like to start by saying that this is a very serious issue, and I would like to make it clear why it’s such a serious issue, because, ultimately, it is about trust. It is about people’s trust in Parliament, people’s trust in the Public Service, but, also, Parliament’s trust in our public servants. So it’s a very, very important issue and when this matter was referred to the Privileges Committee, the Privileges Committee had one very straightforward question in front of it, and that was: did the ministry deliberately mislead the committee?

The Privileges Committee did thorough work on this. After considering all the evidence, the answer to that question was yes. The select committee found that the ministry deliberately misled the committee and, in doing so, committed a contempt of Parliament. This is a very serious finding. When officials, when public servants appear before a select committee, basically they are appearing before Parliament, and it is the select committee’s job to scrutinise our public servants, to scrutinise Government’s work and all the spending for Parliament. It is important that the information that select committees receive, they can fully trust. In this case, we were told that the way the information was presented was because the correct information was commercially sensitive and they didn’t want to talk about it.

Now, we know that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is a large ministry, and they have a huge amount of experience in appearing before select committees—they’ve appeared before so many select committees. I’m actually quite surprised to see that they didn’t know that they could actually ask for a closed session instead of it being a public session. It could have been a private or secret, depending on the level of sensitivity, but they did not do that. They should have expected that there would be questions about this project, the biometric capability upgrade project, and when those questions came up, instead of saying that the project is already terminated—this was in March, when they appeared before the Education and Workforce Committee—they gave the impression that the project is still ongoing, whereas the project was terminated in December 2025.

I also want to note that Nic Blakeley, the ministry, has apologised to the Education and Workforce Committee and to the Privileges Committee, as well, but this apology doesn’t take away the underlying issue here. The underlying issue here is to differentiate between a mistake and deliberately misleading. Mistakes happen; mistakes happen by public servants, by Ministers. We know here in this House that many times when Ministers give a response to a question later on, if they see that the response given wasn’t correct, they come back and correct their response. Similarly, MPs make mistakes. At the end of the day, everybody is a human being and people make mistakes, but it is quite different from when Parliament is being deliberately misled, and it is quite actually sad to see that our public servants thought that they could get away with this.

The issue was not of a simple communication failure; it was a lot more than that. They had ample opportunity to come back and correct that, if for some reason they didn’t have full information when they appeared before the Education and Workforce Committee, but they didn’t do that. There was no justification there, for them to say that it was commercially sensitive information, and that’s why they didn’t want to talk about it. They could have simply said that they didn’t want to talk about it because it is commercially sensitive information, and people would have understood.

I also want to acknowledge that public servants have a difficult job. Yes, they have to deal with a lot of complex issues. They have to deal with a lot of different kinds of situations, confidential information as well. I recognise all that, but it is really important that our public servants are honest to Parliament. They must understand their obligation. I hope this case sends a very strong message to our whole Public Service and they understand the magnitude of this issue that has come up, and I’m glad that this came up. I want to acknowledge the Hon Phil Twyford as well, for writing to you, Mr Speaker.

Ultimately, what I want to say is that this issue is bigger than this project, the Biometric Capability Upgrade (BCU) project. It’s bigger than MBIE; it’s bigger than individuals involved, because this is ultimately about our democracy, and Parliament scrutiny should be respected. Parliament must be told what is true and should be provided with information that is complete as well.

The finding of the Privileges Committee that yes, they have committed a contempt of Parliament, in my view is a black mark on Nic Blakeley and Alison McDonald’s CVs, and their careers. I hope that this sends a very, very strong message to all public servants, and I really hope that this doesn’t happen again.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning evidence given by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to the Education and Workforce Committee be noted.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill.