Sharp appealed to the Ombudsman, who sided with the Ministry of Transport, which argued that releasing its estimated cost for the project would “have the greatest potential to impact ongoing negotiations”.
“For example, a $10m difference in availability payments equates to $250m over the life of the contract, which can be quite impactful,” the ministry said.
NZTA argued that releasing the BCR could “create uncertainty amongst respondents if it brings into question the Government’s decision to proceed to procurement, and as such could undermine the competition amongst bidders and/or quality of bids”.
The agency also argued releasing the BCR would weaken the Crown’s commercial value for money, as the private sector could see opportunities to increase their return at the expense of the Crown’s value.
Sharp said the fact the BCR was not released suggested it was relatively low, meaning the benefits did not stack up against the costs.
“If the project was good, they’d be saying ‘here’s what the benefit-cost is – they’d be waving it around and saying ‘look how awesome this road is’,” he said.
Transport Minister Chris Bishop said the Government was “committed to being as transparent as possible within the bounds of the law and commercial confidentiality.
“Taxpayers also expect us to achieve good value for money, which can at times require confidential negotiations. I note the Ombudsman agrees, and I am comfortable with the approach taken,” Bishop said.
The Green Party’s transport spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter, an opponent of the road, said the public deserved to see the cost of the road, and the benefits the Government believed it would provide.
“The Minister of Transport has said hard choices will have to be made about transport projects.
“I urge him to be transparent about relative costs and benefits of all the RONS, and not to sign the country up to an unaffordable PPP, when there are better options for improving the resilience and transport options for Northland,” she said.
“National campaigned on this project assuming a much lower cost of the whole highway programme.
“Now the fossil fuel crisis means the cost of building it will be even higher, right at a time when we need alternatives to diesel and petrol to move people and goods,” she said.
The conflict takes place against the backdrop of growing concerns about the cost of large transport projects.
The Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Plan, which was welcomed by Bishop, was critical about the cost of large “megaprojects”, defined as projects that cost $1 billion or more.
It warned the dominance of megaprojects threatens to “crowd out other priorities like essential maintenance and renewals”.
A Ministry of Transport spokesman said: “We acknowledge the public interest in releasing the Benefit Cost Ratio, and the need for transparency around Government decision-making.
“However, we reiterate the points made in the Ombudsman’s response that releasing this information would prejudice commercial confidence while NZTA’s Public Private Partnership procurement process is underway.
“We consider that this information can be released following the completion of these commercial negotiations”.
