OTIRA CONTRACT.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 205, 27 August 1920, Page 4

OTIRA CONTRACT.

GOVERNMENT ADVISER'S POSITION. MX. WILFORD ASKS QUESTIONS. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. Information regarding tenders for the electrification of the Otira tunnel wao sought by Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt). He referred to the newspaper reports regarding this question, and went on to say that there were two tenders for the work. One was the National Electric Co. of New Zealand, started in Dunedin, and with all the shareholders New Zealanders. The other was an English electrical company, a combination of British firms, which Mr. Evan Parry went Homo to manage. He wished to ask the Minister of Works if it was correct that before Mr. Parry left New Zealand he had specifications prepared by the National Co. for this work in his hands. Was it not correct also that when he left New Zealand he still retained the position of consulting adviser to the Government, and when tenders were called for this work he was still adviser to the Government in electrical matters? Would the Minister of Works tell the House whether, prior to leaving the country, Mr. Parry was in consultation with and knew the specifications, or some of them, of the National Electric Co.? Mr. Wilford said lie wished the House to have full particulars, and that both tenders be laid on the table of the House. He also wished to know if Sir Arnold Gridley, for whose military and patriotic record he had the greatest respect, had been Mr. Parry's emissary in connection with this matter, and also whether Mr. Parry was still adviser to the Government, or whether his services were dispensed with before the tender was dealt with. The Minister of World? declared that there were only two tenders, and there was nothing unfair. The tenders were considered by the Tenders Board which went into the important point of the efficiency of the machinery. Both tenders were eubmitted :n splendid style- and great detail. The board worked on a system of marks in ascertaining the result. It.was a question of having a thoroughly efficient reliable job, and the English Electric Company had the better scheme. When it came to the question of price it was found that the English Company was slightly less than the lAmerican company, which admitted it had iiad a fair run. He believed the negotiations were completed. . The National Electric -Company did over three fourths of the Coler'dge scheme with absolutely satisfactory results. One of the conditions was that the tenderers should be manufacturers, but the National Electric Company wae not, though this was waived. As to Mr. Parry's position, ho was not the Governments consulting engineer. Mr. Wilford: S'nee when. Mr Coates: He has never been consult ing engineer, this position being held by the London flrm of Carrcthus and Elliott. We pay Mr. Parry lOOgs a year for hie advice, but we never asked hit- advice over the tenders. The Minister went on to cay that ths value of Mr. Parry's advice would be on the general question of wh:.t New Zealand should do on general lines of policy. If there was any possibility of Mr. Parry's influence being used in connection with any partcular company the arrangement would cease.