Michael Heron heads inquiry into whether officials misled ministers over failed $33m project
Tuesday, 23 June 2026
As a KC probes whether MBIE officials misled ministers over its failed $33m tech project, attention has also now turned to a March select committee where it’s alleged officials didn’t mention the project had been axed despite questions about its future.
The Public Service Commissioner on Tuesday announced the appointment of Michael Heron KC to head a probe into whether officials withheld information and misled ministers over Immigration NZ’s axed $33 million Biometric Capability Update project.
The findings sparked the launch of the inquiry into integrity concerns by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche.
Read more:
Calculator: How the Green Party’s tax policy would impact you
Watchdog involved after $33m tech project collapses, delivering nothing
“It goes to the trust and confidence of ministers who must be able to rely on advice they receive from officials,” said Roche.
“The conduct and integrity of public servants is also fundamental to the trust and confidence New Zealanders have in their public service.”
Meanwhile, Labour MP Phil Twyford believes officials misled Parliament, claiming they did not answer questions on the project as recently as three months ago - and after the project had been canned.
Labour MP Phil Twyford, who was at the Education and Workforce Committee meeting and asked questions about the project, said he had looked at the transcript and believed Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [MBIE] officials were doing everything they could to not give a straight answer.
Twyford had asked at the time: “We understand independent reviews have warned about [the project’s] delivery risks. I wonder if you could tell us what the key risks are … and whether any milestones have slipped in implementation so far?”
Twyford said officials had misled Parliament with their response as, “We now know that at that time the project had been disestablished, and those MBIE [Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment] officials had already apologised to the minister for the fiasco.
“…I'm going to be discussing that with the select committee this week.”
Twyford said he would leave what should happen next to the committee.
“I think we want to consider what our options are, but it looks to me as if, you know, one of the biggest and most powerful government departments treated Parliament and Parliament's Education and Workforce committee with the same contempt that they did their minister and that's not good enough.”
He said the committee could get officials back in and do an inquiry “armed with the knowledge that we have now” separate to the commission’s investigation.
“This is a separate issue. This is about Parliament, and it's one of our main jobs as parliamentarians to hold government agencies to account for public money that they spend, so I think it's worthwhile raising this with the committee.”
Senior cabinet minister Winston Peters said the situation was “staggering”.
“I mean, you're in front of the select committee to give over the facts, you don't withhold them, so, I was actually quite shocked to learn that, but then again, perhaps not.”
What Michael Heron QC will investigate
Barrister Heron was a former solicitor-general.
“He has extensive legal experience and has been involved in a number of independent investigations for government agencies,” Roche said.
Heron, assisted by barrister Jane Barrow, will investigate, make findings and report to the Public Service Commissioner on:
What advice the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) gave ministers – how it was prepared, approved, what it said, when it was given, and whether it was consistent.
What MBIE knew, or should have known, about the project at the time, and whether this matched the advice given to ministers and agencies.
Whether MBIE’s actions met the public service code of conduct, public service principles, and cabinet manual guidance, including the ‘no surprises’ principle.
Claims of ‘creative accounting,’ and whether MBIE’s investment decisions followed cabinet rules and guidance.
What may have led to any deficiencies with MBIE’s advice, for example – including organisational, governance, cultural, system issues, or external pressures.
Concerns raised about the project, how MBIE handled them, and whether the response was appropriate.
How MBIE handled its independent review – including the advice given to ministers and when the final report was shared.
Any other matters needed to meet the purpose of the inquiry.
The Public Service Commission anticipated the investigation would take several months to complete.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford told media on Tuesday morning it was up to the Public Service Commission to determine whether ministers had been misled about the project.
It was reported by RNZ that the head of Immigration NZ had failed to tell Parliament three months ago that the IT project had been cancelled, telling MPs there was no public review about its progress.
Stanford was asked about this, saying she was not at the select committee and did not watch it but noted “obviously everything now is under investigation”.
“I’m not going to pass judgment. It is very serious if there were misleading comments that were made, I need to go back and look at them but the Public Service Commissioner overall is going to be responsible for that.”