The federal government has come under fire for awarding a contract worth over $100,000 to a New Zealand company for climate data services, despite being offered the same data for free by a local firm. Exemplary Energy, an energy consultancy based in Fadden, claims that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) overlooked their offer, resulting in unnecessary taxpayer expenditure and delays.
Exemplary Energy’s executive director, Trevor Lee, stated that his company had already completed the necessary updates to the solar radiation and weather files required for the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) software. Lee offered these updates to the department at no cost, aiming to expedite the process.
“We had already done it … we couldn’t charge honourably for work that we had already done,” Mr. Lee said. “We told [the department] that we’d already done it. So we will just give you the files and you can update the NatHERS software without any delay and without any substantial cost.”
Government’s Justification and Procurement Process
Despite the offer from Exemplary Energy, the department awarded the contract to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), a Crown Research Institute in New Zealand. The department confirmed that NIWA was engaged in February 2025 to update the climate data essential for NatHERS.
The department defended its decision, emphasizing that price was not the sole consideration in determining value for taxpayers. The procurement was conducted through a “limited tender” under condition 10.3(e) of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which allows departments to approach a single supplier for additional deliveries of goods or services intended as extensions of existing systems.
The rule is designed to prevent incompatibility or technical difficulties that might arise from changing suppliers, ensuring data consistency and maintaining high standards.
Criticism and Concerns Over Public Spending
Trevor Lee criticized the decision as a “waste” of public funds, arguing that the local expertise was unnecessarily bypassed. Meanwhile, the department maintained that its “value for money” assessment was appropriate, considering factors beyond cost, such as service quality, supplier performance, and proposal suitability.
Following complaints from a competitor about the procurement process, the department conducted a review and stood by its decision. In correspondence reviewed by The Canberra Times, Deputy Secretary Luise McCulloch acknowledged Mr. Lee’s dissatisfaction, advising him to contact the Procurement Coordinator at the Department of Finance or the Commonwealth Ombudsman for further action.
Implications and Future Considerations
This controversy highlights the ongoing debate over government procurement practices, particularly the balance between cost efficiency and maintaining quality standards. The decision to engage NIWA reflects a broader strategy of ensuring continuity and reliability in climate data management, a critical component of national environmental policy.
As the government continues to face scrutiny over its spending decisions, this case may prompt a reevaluation of procurement rules and the role of local expertise in public contracts. The situation underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in government dealings, especially when public funds are at stake.
Looking forward, stakeholders in the energy and environmental sectors will be watching closely to see how the government addresses these concerns and whether changes to procurement policies will be considered to foster greater inclusion of domestic capabilities.
