The Press THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1943. Public Buildings

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23940, 6 May 1943, Page 4

The Press THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1943. Public Buildings

Three weeks ago, the Southland Hospital Board, which had been officially directed to submit the plans and specifications of a nurses’ home to nominated builders for a price to be fixed under the schedule system, decided not to do so, on the chairman’s motion, but to call for tenders. Its reason was supplied by a letter from an Invercargill builder, who desired to tender for the work but would have no opportunity, his name not being on the list. The chairman asked the board to “ take a stand ” against a method of allocating work which, he said, was “ developing into a ramp.” Other boards, as he had been informed, had found that prices submitted under the schedule system were “thousands of pounds in ex- “ cess of estimates.” That, of course, even if true, in itself .proves nothing. Estimates may be inaccurate; they can be thrown out by the movement of prices, if there 's a delay between estimating and pricing. But the board’s action, the reason for it, and the sequel make a sufficient occasion to , say that public uneasiness over the obscurity of the system, deepened by current reports of its operation in specific cases, is such as Parliament cannot afford to ignore. The sequel was reported yesterday. The Minister of Health, accompanied by the Commissioner of Works, Mr J. Fletcher, met the board in committee. Afterwards the Minister announced that, because “ condi- “ tions in Invercargill were not “ nearly so complex as in most “ northern centres ” and a suitable tender might be obtained, he had agreed to permit the board to call for tenders. The board, then, has taken its stand successfully. By authorising the board to follow the usual system of letting a contract the Minister has acknowledged that it was not necessary to apply the schedule system, which in two respects weakens the proper safeguards on the expenditure of public money. It limits the field of competition; and it minimises the effectiveness of competition in that limited field. But what the Minister has conceded in Invercargill there may be equally good cause to concede elsewhere. His discussion with the board was private. The public 'does not know the full strength of the board’s case. It does not know why this case is to be regarded as exceptional, except on the Minister’s word that it is so. This is an unsatisfactory position. Most people understand that the system was adopted in order to make the most effective use of the building industry’s resources. It is time to let them see how it works, and with what results. It can be justified only by success, as the national interest defines and demands success, or by steady progress towards success.