GISBORNE SOUTHWARDS LINE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3998, 31 July 1913, Page 5

GISBORNE SOUTHWARDS LINE

CRITICISM ON SYSTEM OF SMALL CONTRACTS. MINISTER MAKES A CONVINCING REPLY. £BY TELEGEA.PH —PA.BMAMENTAE ? COEBESPONDENT’’ WELLINGTON, July 30. In the House to-night Mr W*. D. S. MacDonald condemned the Government’s recently-introduced small contract system for carrying out public works as being by no' means preferable to the co-operative system. All tfye small contracts on the Gisborne southwards line bad been let to one contractor at a total sum of £3706. Now he would—being a business man —employ only the best men obtainable, but the men on the co-operative works were not the class of men who could be employed by a contractor. They were admittedly unable to earn 10s a day, but only 6s or 7s a day. and the contractor was compelled by the law to pay the same wages to everybody. He pointed out several discrepancies in the prices at which contracts were let, and he asked whether the contracts had always been let to the lowest tenderer without regard to whether he was able to do the work or not? The Government said that owing to the huge committants of the last Government they could not acton the co-operative workers’ scheme, and these workers were being discharged all over the country. He declared that it was not because of the committments —some of which would not be required for a considerable time—that the public works could not bo carried on by the Government at a reasonable rate. An analysis of the facts of the position showed that this was an absolute myth. In reference to what Mr MacDonald had said about three small contracts in the Gisborne district being let to one man, the Minister for PublicWorks said that one contract was for £IOO7. The successful tenderer was £23 below the engineer’s estimate. The other tenderers were respectively £3OO and £SOO above the successful tenderer. In the ca.se of the second contract the successful tenderer was £6O below the engineer’s estimate. In the case of the third contract the successful tenderer was £2 10s below the engineer’s estimate. The three other tenderers were respectively £530. £6OO, and £9OO above the successful tenderer. Under the circumstances, the Minister contended, he could have done nothing else than he had done. The contracts would have to be carried out simultaneously, and the small contract system, the Minister declared, was better than the co-operative system, though work under the latter system was being done better now than it was some years ago.