This year we have raised concerns in submissions and in the media about the dangers to constitutional integrity when politicians give themselves the power to make direct public funding decisions or to enable non-transparent access to natural assets.
The Auditor-General has recently used his position as a public watchdog to also address these concerns. He has launched an inquiry into how ministers handled conflicts of interest when it came to fast-tracked projects. And in early October he wrote to the Director-General of Health, on the outcome of the decision to provide funding to a supplier (I am Hope Foundation) without an open transparency and competitive procurement process. He says:
“Public money must be spent prudently and with due attention to transparency, integrity, accountability, and value for money. In particular, for public procurement there should be a clear and documented reason for why services are needed, why the provider was the best placed or only provider to deliver those services, and why the amount paid to the provider was appropriate. These principles help to maintain public trust and ensure that New Zealanders get the best possible outcomes and value for money from procurement spending.” (AG Letter to Director-General, 9 October 2024)
Skirting around these principles, which underpin the Government Procurement Rules emboldens anti-competitive behaviour. Where ‘special gains’ are available, it also encourages adverse lobbying and electoral funding practices.
