MBIE is keeping under wraps details of an alleged transgression by a staff member.

A ministry staffer alleged to have wrongly helped a foreign company prepare an application for an exploration permit has left their job.

But officials are refusing to say if the public servant faced any disciplinary action and have shrouded the issue in secrecy.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is refusing to disclose the name of the company or the country it came from, saying withholding the information is in the public interest by maintaining the confidentiality of applications to encourage investment here.

It also cited the need to avoid prejudicing the applicant's commercial position.

READ MORE:

* MBIE launches investigation into Chinese steel dumping

* NZ Steel confirms Chinese steel dumping concerns

* China threatens reprisals on NZ dairy, wool and kiwifruit

* Ministry spends $140,000 on screen, installs hair straightener

* Ministry's $260,000 roof deck, $23,000 'food and drink unit' put under the spotlight

But it says it has policies in place emphasising staff must not support companies in completing applications.

Stuff has been informed by a credible source the home country of the applicant, but has been unable to verify it.

MBIE has also cited privacy reasons for refusing to identify the applicant's country, because it says that would make the identification of the staff member "relatively easy".

The incident was uncovered in August 2015 and took place earlier in 2015.

When Stuff first approached MBIE a spokesman said it "operates across a number of jurisdictions in New Zealand and across the world where staff are required to handle commercially sensitive information that could provide unfair commercial advantage".

"We take this responsibility very seriously and probity is an upmost priority. We have robust systems in place and set clear rules on how this information is handled. We also trust our staff and in exchange we expect them to act with the upmost integrity when handling this information.

"In regards to individual employment matters, these are confidential and I won't comment on them."

After further queries to MBIE it disclosed that in 2015 it became aware of an instance "when inappropriate guidance may have been provided to an applicant, to support their application. We can assure you that no confidential (eg. not already publicly available) information was leaked or sold".

After an appeal to the Ombudsman by Stuff, MBIE general manager of Energy and Resources Markets James Stevenson-Wallace has released further details including that "inappropriate guidance may have been provided to an applicant (a foreign entity) that was seeking an exploration permit under the Crown Minerals Act 1991".

The issue was identified by another staff member when assessing whether the application met regulatory requirements.

"Once the issue was identified, the Ministry took immediate action to ensure the applicant received no advantage in the consideration of its application and fully investigated the matter."

Stevenson-Wallace said the permit was not granted and the foreign applicant holds no other interests in permits in New Zealand.

"A subsequent investigation found no evidence that the staff member received any consideration, perks or gifts in exchange for assisting the applicant," he said.

"The staff member no longer works for the Ministry. Aside from that, this is an employment matter which we will not comment on further."

Labour economic development spokesman David Clark said the reasons for withholding information were "tenuous" and he contrasted the way a corporate was treated with leaks - sometimes deliberate - of private individuals' information under this Government.

"Assuming that in this instance things were sorted out and no advantage given, it's hard to imagine how reputation will be damaged by disclosing the parties involved. Protecting the name of the country and the fate of the staff member doesn't meet the sniff test," Clark said.

"If there's nothing to hide, and no serious breach, it seems hard to believe that transparency about the nature of the breach and the parties involved shouldn't prevail."