THE RECENT PROHIBITIONS IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8487, 11 February 1891, Page 5

THE RECENT PROHIBITIONS IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

INTERVIEW WITH MR. SEDDON. [BY TKLKQIIAPH.-OWN* CORIIESPOKDKST.] Weijjhcton, Tuesday. The Hon. Mr. Seddon, in response to questions pitt by ft representative of one of the newspapers, gives the following reasons for prohibiting sub-contracts and piece Work in Government contracts. The scope and tenor of the general conditions has always been against piece work and subletting, but the evasion lias been winked at, and now it has almost been recognised. For instance a large contract was let recently, and after the contractor signed the contract he advertised nearly the whole work for letting under sub-contracts. , The cost of supervision is much greater. The work is not nearly so well done, and in lieu of having the contractor solely to deal with, the several sub contractors each from time to time require particulars and details; and their work requires to be passed by the officer in charge before the contractor pays them. The sub-contractors generally take the work at Such low rates that slumming is inevitable ; then they get behind the time, and the work is delayed. If the principle were sound, the State would let all contracts in small subdivisions. Take, for instance, the Porirua Asylum contract. The earthworks and foundations one contract, the buildings another, the fittings another, and the painting a It is Wf-ong for the State to encourage the sweating system, which by putting the artizans and labouring men ohe against the other is bound to ensue, the condition of each not . being equal. A man that is hard up and suffering extreme proverty will take work at any price. In regard to factories and With private persons employing labour, the State with a firm hand puts down the sweating system, yet in times past, in regard to Government works, it has been the greatest offender. Again, tradespeople who supply food, tools, etc., make serious losses, and the construction of a public work, which should prove a benefit to a locality, only entails loss and injury, the only one who really benefits being the contractor. It will nob increase the cost of the works. Recently the experiment has been tried, and the Mokihinui railway formation was divided into small sections, which were let separately, no deposit or tenders even being required, the result being that several contracting firms, who invariably do their work by employing wages men are doing ' the work, whilst three sections that were tendered for by working men have been thrown up, the contractors refusing to sign the agreement. This entails a loss on the State by having to call fresh tenders, besides delaying the works. Had the Mokihinui Railway been tendered for as a whole, I feel satisfied it would have been taken at a lower rate than as now divided, and that the works would have been done by employing men on day wages, which would have been much better for the men than working as they will be for themselves at lower rates, owing to their want of knowledge and capital.