The Immigration Department’s bungling of a more than $30 million project was revealed, appropriately enough, during Parliament’s scrutiny week.
The biometrics project was supposed to have modernised and future-proofed the department’s ability to identify non-New Zealanders. It would have upgraded a system initiated in 2012 and introduced in 2016 which was using outdated technology resulting in more manual processing than originally intended.
These included poor governance and critical decisions made without documentation or appropriate scrutiny, poor record keeping, ignoring red flags, and reporting to the minister, which was inconsistent, overly optimistic, and occasionally misrepresented the true status of the project. Even establishing an accurate view of the total project costs had proved difficult, he said.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford expects at least $32m will be written off on the project and the current ‘‘unstable’’ system will stay in place.
While Mr James’ report said he had not detected any deliberate attempt to mislead ministers, he found the messaging to them had largely been generic and had not reflected the reality of what was happening with the project.
But a furious Ms Stanford has been scathing about the communications with the various ministers since the project began, also accusing officials of creative accounting to separate costs out to avoid Cabinet scrutiny. At the same time as this was occurring she was being given reassurances about the project.
Ms Stanford has also raised the issue of staff expressing concern about the project’s viability being moved on, something Mr James’ report mentioned. He pointed out during its duration the project went through at least 12 project managers, three programme or project directors, and six project sponsors, with widespread turnover across most professional disciplines.
Turnover at the governance level was also high. While some attrition was inevitable, effective succession and continuity planning were essential, and neither appeared evident, Mr James said. Also, the sustained level of staff turnover was a clear indicator of deeper issues and contributed to the project’s ongoing instability.
His message about multi-year projects requiring a stable workforce needs to be heeded by the government which wants to reduce numbers in the public service and to explore use of artificial intelligence. Shoddy record-keeping would not have helped the project either.
Mr James said minutes of the Delivery Governance Board, related to the project, were so succinct it was impossible to tell what actually happened at its meetings. Poorly documented key decisions were made by executives outside this group and the project steering committee.
How often does that behaviour occur across our agencies?
Governance, as Mr James says, should operate as a mechanism for timely intervention, not merely as a procedural formality.
There are many questions about the oversight of this project, including whether the mega ministry model, something the government is keen to pursue, can have the effect of diluting focus on looming failures.
It seems bizarre that in November 2023, the situation was serious enough for three Ministry of Business Immigration and Employment deputy secretaries to meet urgently to review the project’s financial position and consider options for remediation but failed to properly explore the option of full project shutdown.
It is not clear why it took so long for the Public Service Commission to get involved, or even if questions have been asked of the Audit Office. Reports on problems with the project had aired on RNZ in 2024.
Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche launched an investigation this week into the issues of integrity but seems to have been kept in the dark before now.
If all that happens as a result of that is a few heads rolling and everyone moving on, an opportunity will have been lost to ensure future government projects do not suffer the same fate.
