While unaware how widespread such behaviour is in the public service, Stanford claims the Government has encountered \u201cdifficulty\u201d in implementing IT projects and believes questions need to be asked about how that can be improved. <\/p>\n
Mbie chief executive Nic Blakeley accepts his ministry has \u201cfallen short of the Government and public\u2019s expectations\u201d and will be reviewing all major technology projects.<\/p>\n
Stanford presented a report to a Parliament select committee this morning detailing the project\u2019s plagued history.<\/p>\n
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford is appearing before a Parliament select committee today. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell <\/p>\n
The Biometric Capability Update (BCU) project was intended to upgrade Immigration NZ\u2019s identity management platform, which relied on a 2012 algorithm and was considered expensive and complex, resulting in higher levels of manual processing.<\/p>\n
It was paired with another initiative to replace a biometric enrolment system, named the In Person Enrolment (IPE), which had repeatedly failed and posed risks to border security.<\/p>\n
The report, Stanford said, showed the project was \u201cdoomed from the start\u201d thanks to a \u201cvery poor business case\u201d and then was made effectively undeliverable because of an early change in scope.<\/p>\n
Stanford, who had analysed briefings to her former Labour immigration ministers Kris Faafoi and Andrew Little, said officials had secured additional funding at several points, however Stanford wasn\u2019t certain whether ministers were made fully aware of the project\u2019s issues, noting Little had declined one funding increase proposal.<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t until March 2024 when officials requested the project\u2019s budget increase from $35m to almost $40m that it was interrogated further, given it had exceeded the $35m threshold to be considered by Cabinet.<\/p>\n
It was proposed the funding increase be added to an unrelated Cabinet paper, which was due to be lodged just days after the proposal was given to Stanford.<\/p>\n
When this was refused, officials divided the project so it fell under the Cabinet consideration threshold, a decision made without appropriate governance. Stanford claimed this was intended to avoid scrutiny, saying officials had since admitted to her that this \u201ccreative accounting\u201d was done intentionally.<\/p>\n
\u201cKnowingly avoiding Cabinet scrutiny by making a decision to separate out costs \u2026 is very serious.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s pretty galling to know in the background they were doing creative accounting to keep it out of out of Cabinet while telling me, \u2018Don\u2019t worry, we can claw [costs] back and we can do this and it\u2019s all good\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
Stanford also pointed to an Mbie update at that time that stated an independent assurance review of the project in September 2023 found it was \u201csound and robust, the build is achievable and the risk management practice is effective\u201d.<\/p>\n
Carolyn Tremain is the former chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell <\/p>\n
Stanford later found out the review had in fact highlighted the project\u2019s \u201cpoor delivery history and its inability to meet agreed milestones\u201d, expressing doubts the project would \u201cin fact deliver at all and we question its continuation\u201d.<\/p>\n
Stanford said she was later told by MBIE the interpretation of the review had been made by a \u201cjunior staffer\u201d.<\/p>\n
In April 2024, Stanford considered the project\u2019s future and ultimately decided to continue it in light of a projected $31m loss in sunk cost and break fees, as well as the project being near completion and the risks posed by a \u201cvery unstable\u201d current system.<\/p>\n
Stanford then sought to establish enhanced oversight, involving then MBIE chief executive Carolyn Tremain to oversee the project and introducing an independent consultant to assess its progress.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s understood Tremain, a renowned public service boss, became intimately involved, including travelling overseas to meet with the project\u2019s vendor.<\/p>\n
However, the project was plagued by \u201cdefects\u201d and while many issues were resolved, it led to more defects arising, delaying the project into late 2025.<\/p>\n
\u201cEven our independent [consultant] said, \u2018It\u2019s deliverable, it\u2019s deliverable, it\u2019s deliverable\u2019 \u2026 but meanwhile more and more defects were popping up, \u201c Stanford said.<\/p>\n
Asked why she persisted with the project, Stanford again referenced the potential cost while quoting assurances she was given the project was close to completion, saying she was told in August 2025 it would be operational the following month.<\/p>\n
\u201cA minister is only as good as the information that we receive,\u201d Stanford said, adding that officials, an independent consultant and Tremain all said \u201chey, we can deliver this, we\u2019re really close\u201d.<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t until November 2025 when then-acting MBIE chief executive Suzanne Stew, who replaced Tremain after she had left the mega-ministry in September 2025, said the project should be terminated.<\/p>\n
Stanford believed Tremain had \u201cdesperately tried to deliver the project\u201d and was confident her independent consultant gave advice based \u201con the information that he was given\u201d.<\/p>\n
Despite her earlier concerns about the potential cost and risks of cancelling the project, Stanford said it was expected at least $32m would be written off and the current \u201cunstable\u201d system would remain in place.<\/p>\n
Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche will be launching a review. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell <\/p>\n
Pointing to the impending reviews and the high turnover of staff associated with the project, Stanford wouldn\u2019t be drawn on whether resignations were warranted.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think we\u2019ve got a good way to go before that happens, or if at all, depending on the [Public Service Commission] report. I don\u2019t want to wade into that.\u201d<\/p>\n
She acknowledged the commission\u2019s review would include establishing if the project\u2019s former staff were still employed in the public service.<\/p>\n
Stanford said it was understood staff who had previously expressed concerns about the project\u2019s viability had been moved on. <\/p>\n
Asked whether any former project staff should answer for its failures, Stanford responded: \u201cIt depends where they are now\u201d.<\/p>\n
Stanford, who accepted it was possible the saga would also prompt a select committee inquiry, said she was \u201cfurious\u201d at the circumstances and believed officials\u2019 actions appeared \u201cdeliberate\u201d and \u201cco-ordinated\u201d, even claiming today\u2019s critical report tabled in select committee hadn\u2019t been given to her for two months.<\/p>\n
\u201cOf course, I\u2019m hugely disappointed and I\u2019ve lost confidence in the advice that they give me because of this.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is almost deception by omission, by not sitting down and being like, \u2018Hello, brand new minister, here is the history of this project and all of the steps along the way\u2019, \u2026 rather than piecemeal bits of information, omissions, misleading me in a Cabinet paper, trying to slip things in through a Cabinet process.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe integrity of MBIE and immigration will be called into question.\u201d<\/p>\n
She couldn\u2019t say how prevalent such activity was in the public service but did point to successive governments\u2019 difficulties in executing IT projects.<\/p>\n
\u201cI hope this is not endemic \u2026 but certainly if you look back over time and IT projects delivered by governments, the same type of thing seems to crop up, so there are questions to be asked about how we can deliver IT projects much better in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n
What does Stanford\u2019s report say? <\/p>\n
The report detailed a review of the biometric projects, involving examining more than 400 documents and conducting 43 interviews. <\/p>\n
It found:<\/p>\n
The project\u2019s original objectives were clear but its business case was \u201coverly optimistic and insufficiently evidenced\u201d. Governance structures were established late, several early decisions lacked adequate documentation and escalations \u201cfrequently occurred outside formal governance channels\u201d. Ministry leaders allowed significant risks to persist without timely intervention. High levels of staff turnover across the project compounded delivery and continuity issues. The project\u2019s completion date was repeatedly delayed, leading to \u201csignificant cost overruns\u201d. The relationship with the vendor was \u201cdifficult and characterised by ongoing challenges\u201d. Ministerial reporting was inconsistent and at times \u201coverly optimistic or misleading\u201d. <\/p>\n
The review referenced a letter of apology sent by Tremain to Stanford in April 2024, which conceded there was a \u201cclear mismatch\u201d between what Mbie officials understood about the project and what explained to Stanford. <\/p>\n
Tremain said Mbie\u2019s summary of the September 2023 assurance review of the project had been \u201cincorrect and misleading\u201d but she claimed she had found no evidence of a \u201cdeliberate intention to mislead\u201d. <\/p>\n
The letter said the summary had been compiled by a \u201crelatively junior staffer and this was not picked up in subsequent reviews\u201d. <\/p>\n
Tremain acknowledged officials\u2019 recommendation to add the project\u2019s funding increase at the last-minute to a Cabinet paper was also a failure. <\/p>\n
\u201cAs is often the case, when there are time pressures the likelihood of making process or judgment mistakes increases.\u201d<\/p>\n
The review, completed by a management consultant, acknowledged Tremain hadn\u2019t found evidence of a deliberate intent to mislead. <\/p>\n
However, it established the information received by Stanford \u201cwas not supported by any of the artifacts in place\u201d. <\/p>\n
It also referenced Stanford\u2019s concerns about \u201ccreative accounting\u201d in splitting the project, which the review found was \u201clargely driven by efforts to avoid exceeding the Cabinet-level funding threshold\u201d.<\/p>\n
Ministry CEO admits failure, commits to reviews<\/p>\n
In a statement, Blakeley was frank his ministry had fallen short of the Government\u2019s and the public\u2019s expectations. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe independent review has strongly criticised Mbie for being overly optimistic about delivery, the lack of appropriate governance processes and ignoring advice from quality assurance reviews and staff that questioned the viability of the project.\u201d <\/p>\n
In response to the review, Mbie would be undertaking stocktake of all major technology projects, strengthening the ministry\u2019s technology project systems and processes, and seeking independent assurance that they are \u201cappropriate and best practice\u201d. <\/p>\n
In select committee, he said the review showed there were \u201cintegrity issues\u201d within the ministry. He also committed to undertaking employment investigations depending on what subsequent reviews found.<\/p>\n
Speaking to reporters after the select committee, Stanford wouldn\u2019t explicitly express confidence in Blakeley as chief executive. She said she wouldn\u2019t be drawn on those matters until after the various reviews were completed but did note Blakeley had only taken on the role in January. <\/p>\n
Blakeley told reporters he didn\u2019t offer his resignation, nor did he intend to. He said he was committed to implementing the findings from the reviews. <\/p>\n
Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche confirmed in a statement he would be appointing an independent investigator to inquire into the integrity matters raised in the report and recommend any actions required in response.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe integrity matters highlighted by the report are serious and concerning,\u201d Roche said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey go to the core of the behaviours and ethics required of public servants, and the ability of Ministers to have confidence in the advice they receive from officials.\u201d<\/p>\n
Adam Pearse is the Deputy Political Editor and part of the NZ Herald\u2019s Press Gallery team based at Parliament in Wellington. He has worked for NZME since 2018, reporting for the Northern Advocate in Whang\u0101rei and the Herald in Auckland.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"While unaware how widespread such behaviour is in the public service, Stanford claims the Government has encountered \u201cdifficulty\u201d…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":479289,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[5344,7818,534,17094,42833,682,6727,33118,121383,170265,1364,917,157267,1743,5840,1132,4380,6722,76566,2510,111,43,139,69,10711,1523,3263,1517,4764,763,21674,202,138039,1361,13797,195163,1530],"class_list":["post-479288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-zealand","tag-accounting","tag-allegedly","tag-amid","tag-avoid","tag-avoided","tag-being","tag-cabinet","tag-creative","tag-doomed","tag-furious","tag-her","tag-immigration","tag-knowingly","tag-launched","tag-least","tag-million","tag-millions","tag-minister","tag-misled","tag-multiple","tag-new-zealand","tag-news","tag-newzealand","tag-nz","tag-officials","tag-over","tag-project","tag-reveals","tag-revelations","tag-reviews","tag-scrutiny","tag-seven","tag-spanned","tag-that","tag-used","tag-wasted","tag-years"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/479288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=479288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/479288\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/479289"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=479288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=479288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=479288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}