Agencies need to apply the Rules appropriately, and there are accountability measures in place to manage both non-compliance and poor practice.
Agencies that do not apply the Rules appropriately are subject to a range of accountability measures that are the basis of New Zealand’s public sector accountability framework. Aside from potential legal action by an aggrieved supplier, procurement practices can also be reviewed/audited by the Office of the Auditor General and Comptroller, resulting in a report tabled in Parliament or by an Ombudsman.
Procurement processes and spend are often raised during Parliamentary Select Committee hearings, especially during Estimates and Scrutiny Weeks. This is where Chief Executives are subjected to scrutiny by Members of Parliament of past and future spend. In some cases, these sessions are open to the public. Agencies’ procurement processes are also scrutinised through other parliamentary processes, such as written and oral Parliamentary questions.
Agencies’ procurement processes and spend are the subject of Official Information Act 1982 and Privacy Act 2020. The information from these responses often results in media scrutiny and attention.
Non-compliance with the Rules and poor procurement practices will bring criticism to the agency, its Chief Executive and even possibly, the responsible Ministers. It will result in damage to an agency’s reputation, both nationally and internationally. Agencies with negative reputations may struggle to attract staff, reliable, value-for-money suppliers and will erode the public’s trust in government.
Officials responsible for procurement are likely to be bound to the Public Service Commission’s Standards of Integrity and Conduct (the Code). In many cases, it will be part of the official’s employment contract. If a breach of the Rules also breaches the Code, there may be adverse employment consequences. Similarly, there may be judicial action if an official’s actions violate criminal or administrative laws.