Government's soon-to-be-tendered banking contract with Westpac costs taxpayers approximately NZ$4 mln a year, Treasury says

Government's soon-to-be-tendered banking contract with Westpac costs taxpayers approximately NZ$4 mln a year, Treasury says

The Government’s master banking contract held by Westpac costs taxpayers approximately NZ$4 million a year, according to Treasury.

Treasury Deputy CEO Andrew Kibblewhite made the comment at Wednesday’s Finance and Expenditure Select Committee hearing in response to questions from Green Party co-leader Russel Norman on whether the Government was looking to put the contract out for a competitive tender after not doing so for 21 years.

Finance Minister Bill English confirmed at the select committee that the Ministry of Economic Development’s procurement team was moving to put the contract out to tender.

During the discussion, Kibblewhite, who was accompanying English at the select committee, mentioned the contract was "worth in the order of NZ$4 million". A spokesman for the Treasury confirmed to interest.co.nz this was the approximate annual cost of the contract.

The issue of the master banking contract, thought to be the single biggest banking contract in the country, arose after the Green Party asked English in December last year whether the contract had been put up for a competitive tender like other government contracts with the private sector.

The contract covers the banking requirements of government departments, but not State Owned Enterprises or Crown Entities.

Norman raised the idea of Kiwibank taking over the Government’s banking, although a spokesman for Kiwibank at the time told interest.co.nz the state owned bank was not big enough, and it would take 10 years for it to be able to bid for the contract.

In December English’s office told interest.co.nz that the Government was committed to a future procurement process for the contract, which had been re-signed in 2004 and, since 2005, the Crown had negotiated price reductions for the contract with Westpac.

At the time a spokesman for English said the contract had not been put out for a competitive tender to date because the costs of doing so outweighed the expected benefits, "given the complexity of arrangements with departments and the price reductions negotiated under the existing contract".

Last week, the Green Party released a list of Parliamentary Written Questions where it had asked government ministers whether they had accepted corporate hospitality from Westpac - with the findings showing various ministers and their staff had accepted corporate hospitality from Westpac in the last year at its Westpac Stadium box and at the exclusive White House restaurant in Wellington.

After releasing the answers to the written questions, the Green Party again demanded the Government put the contract out for a competitive tender, and questioned whether the process would be fair given the corporate hospitality offered to ministers and their staff.

Kibblewhite told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the process of tendering the contract began with the Ministry of Economic Development's procurement team, which would give Treasury its information on the bids. Treasury would review the risks of the respective bids then give the Finance Minister its unambiguous opinion as to who the contract should be awarded to.

English said the final decision of who would be awarded the contract would be a Cabinet decision.

"It's not something I would deal with on my own," he said.

It is still uncertain as to the time-line of the tender process.

This article was first published in our email for paid subscribers this morning. See here for more details and to subscribe.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

6 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

The economics of banking is counterfeiting. We have been deceived into thinking that we were lent other depositor’s deposited funds. Banksters cause us to think that if we do not pay back those funds, the bank and its depositors will be out the cash.

and its depositors will be out the cash. Remember, all you borrowed was monetized credit, which your

signature created – probably about $100,000.00 – 10% of which they extended back to you. You lent

yourself the funds. Why are you paying back anyone? Ask a banker about this, as I did, and watch him stop

breathing 

 

 

Too busy trying not to laugh at you I suspect

They got your number Seph...from here on it'll be clicking on the phone and strange people taking pictures outside your window at night...you are stuffed Seph...and the savings you stashed away in that account...one fat finger and it's gone Seph....

Yes there is nothing controversial about it. Our own Reserve Bank is only too open about it, they see nothing wrong with how the system works.

"But to turn to the substance of the matter. It is suggested that there is something very wrong about the fact that most of our money supply is bank-created. Clearly, I disagree.

But to turn to the substance of the matter. It is suggested that there is something very wrong about the fact that most of our money supply is bank-created. Clearly, I disagree.

Note that I’m not disagreeing that “money” is bank-created: a bank loan does typically leads to a new bank deposit, and those bank deposits do make up the bulk of our statistical measures of the “money supply”.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/speeches/0108922.html

but a mistake that monetary reformers make is to miss that the banks aren't the only beneficiaries of the transaction. Its two sided after all and the loan also creates deposits, some of which the recipient is able to save and share a portion of the interest payment that the borrower pays. As savers tend to be amongst the more affluent section of the population and since interest contributes significantly to their income, they have a major stake in the system.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is

accepted as self-evident. – Arthur Schopenhauer Philosopher, 1788-1860

 

Yawn  - so you are doing stage one political philosophy as well as economic conspiracy theories 101...cant wait to read your thesis if you actually make it through the next three years without having a breakdown.