Procurement’s concrete barriers

So, there I was, preparing to engage in big people business this week with a commentary on the procurement law fiasco. Then came one of the more eminently sensible public voices, in the form of Helen Drayton … right here on this very page last Sunday. You can skip me and find her column.

What more can I add, I thought. Ms Drayton argued in favour of sound, rational law-making in order “to foster good governance, accountability, transparency, integrity, value for money, efficiency, fairness, equity, and public confidence.”

That her perspectives are now being only marginally noted signals a sad absence from the independent benches of our parliament, with all due respect to the incumbents. Yet, thankfully, this voice of reason prevails through the devices of a free press. Ditto the more strident efforts of Afra Raymond, aligned to the necessity for greater transparency.

But before I get to some of the more substantial offerings of these two citizens, Ms Drayton in particular, I offer a perspective to consider. If, as I argued three years ago, legislation to govern state procurement is not accompanied by an uncompromising commitment – through legislation, convention, or regulated practice – to a higher level of transparency it would amount to nothing more than inconvenient, fanciful adornments.

Additionally, throughout the various debates and public discussions when the subject became fashionable, I was reminded of a classroom many years ago with Dr Daphne Phillips-Gaskin at the front explaining the true meaning of authoritarian societies, including the adoption of such mindsets and practices by hapless subjects.

This makes it is easy to understand why when traffic needs to be diverted, a concrete culvert instead of a more forgiving obstruction is routinely considered. The words of a late colleague who had just lost a daughter on one of our highways linger: “Concrete? It had to be concrete? Not a cable, a plastic barrier. Concrete?”

Why, after all, use plastic or cable when a single slab of concrete would do?

I kept counting occasions such as these when enlightened, weighted, nuanced solutions were being thrown in the fire in exchange for legislative concrete and steel with sharp edges.

So, a public threat is observed. Spurn precision and professional judgment for a state of public emergency with all attendant risks associated with suspending a wide swathe of human rights. So even as I ranted over its unlawful application back in 2011, there was in the background to this outrage, broad public advocacy for steel-reinforced concrete.

More recently, people wanted pepper spray. Take pepper spray. Enter a regime of requirements befitting far more harmful instruments of violence. How many pepper spray permits have been granted since then?

Three years ago, I saw it coming. Politicians in and out of parliament, civil society organisations (including well-resourced business chambers), social commentators – all desiring the application of a sledge-hammer – however desirable the expected outcome.

Ms Drayton kindly ridicules a notion of “teething problems” and notes “a failure to understand the full implications of meaningful procurement law and a lack of preparedness.” Indeed, fully in keeping with the “culture” to which I constantly allude, the former senator notes “suspicious public ‘jammin’ to proclaim the law.”

I recognised nothing “suspicious” though. Only an authoritarian culture working its way through the complexities of democracy. Early on, I turned to an influential business executive and asked whether the business community understand what it was asking for. This was not meant to be an insult, but simply to sound an alert at the approaching menace of a sightless, legislative sledgehammer.

Now, as usual, we have to set about repairing some damage and Ms Drayton’s prescriptions sound absolutely fitting.

They are repeated here because they will unfold as critical areas for consideration in the coming days. There has to be a temporary stay on the requirements of the Public Depository. Private sector players ought to have sounded much earlier, urgent alerts on this, but there we go.

The other point made by Ms Drayton relates heavily to my constant harping on the imperatives of real, non-cosmetic e-governance. Why should it be that there is a concern about the “ease of navigation” of the Depository website? Where are the experts on such matters?

Then there is, and more closely aligned to my own inexpert observation, the need to impose a sensible "spending threshold for public service accounting officer and the CEOs of other public entities within the law.” Why is it necessary to say this at this stage?

Finally, Ms Drayton proposes a six-month period “to improve the system” especially since there are close to 33,000 “lines of business pending prequalification.” She is a woman of boundless faith.