The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1961. Secrecy On Tenders

Press, Volume C, Issue 29509, 10 May 1961, Page 14

The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1961. Secrecy On Tenders

The statement by the Minister of Works, Mr Goosman, about publishing the names of successful tenderers and the prices accepted for large Government contracts will justifiably have disappointed those who looked to the Government to implement without delay the National Party’s election pledge on this question. Mr Goosman gave an assurance that the promise would be implemented; but he said that “ considerable thought ” was being given to how this should be done. The matter had been referred to a Cabinet committee for a report, he added. It is not difficult to conclude that the Government is meeting difficulties from the sources which called down the veil of secrecy over tenders and tenderers in 1951. Otherwise, a longstanding practice that was altered by a Cabinet instruction could surely have been restored by the same simple, direct method. The change was made by the former National Party Government in 1951 on the representations of the departments concerned. According to inquiries made recently by our Parliamentary reporter the departments have the same objections to full publication now as they had then. The departments contend that publication of tender prices alone would be incomplete and unfair because matters such as the financial and technical capacity of contractors

must be taken into account. Awarding a contract to other than the lowest tenderer might necessitate comment by the department (to justify its action) that would be embarrassing to the business prospects of a tenderer, or tenderers, passed over. These are unconvincing reasons when set beside the advantages of disclosure that most Governments recognise to a greater extent than New Zealand’s. Few Governments go as far as Canada’s, which has the names of tenderers and the amounts of all tenders announced at a public tender opening; but a summary of reports on how the Governments of other countries announce the letting of contracts, which was printed in “ The Press ” last November, shows few Governments disposed to give as little publicity to tenders or information about them as the Government of New Zealand. When it prepared its General Election manifesto the National Party apparently had no doubts about the procedure New Zealand should follow: “publication of the names “of all tenderers and the “ amounts of tenders where “ large Government con- “ tracts are involved ”. The Government should not allow a departmental desire for secrecy, however innocent in intention, to override—or to delay for much longer—the implementation of so unequivocal an undertaking.