Matt Smith: Government’s favourite term that covers up everything
When you don’t want to answer a question, the State Government has a handy few words to duck and hide, writes Matt Smith. But if you don’t stop spinning problems, eventually you’ll fall over.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
It is hard to imagine a more frustrating term in political spin than the term ‘commercial in confidence’ particularly when it comes to taxpayers money.
At least the term “it is before the courts” points to issues that could alter criminal proceedings.
In a perfect example this week the Department of Infrastructure and Transport has refused to answer questions about an alleged offer to reward unsuccessful bidders to a lucrative rail operations contract.
It is understood the bidders, who have thought about pulling out, were offered up to $1 million to stay involved with the process.
On the surface it all sounds very questionable – a $1 million loser payment paid for by the taxpayers of South Australia.
Despite asking about the issue on Thursday both the department and new Infrastructure Minster Corey Wingard were not only remaining coy, they pulled out the good ol’ trump card – commercial in confidence.
For those of us that have been reacquainted with board games in 2020 the best way to describe ‘commercial confidence’ it is like a ‘get out of jail free’ card in Monopoly.
It is the perfect remedy when you have questions you don’t want to answer.
In some cases it has merit.
Government departments should never release so much information that it would in fact cost taxpayers the best deal possible.
And in a state like South Australia, with a reputation of being pioneers in the past and readily adapting to new industries for the future, it would be ludicrous to do anything that would diminish the intellectual property of government clients.
In this case the existence of a $1 million loser payment does not affect the integrity of a competitive bid either way.
If it is justified, it should be discussed and explained.
But as this case has highlighted, commercial in confidence is too often used to have a blanket ban on any discussion about contracts awarded using taxpayer money.
The alleged $1 million ‘loser’ payout is possibly defendable.
I will have a punt at answering the question under both possible scenarios.
The first could be “No – it is incorrect that any payment has been offered to bidders to ensure they continue to show interest in the contract.”
The second could be “Yes – it is correct we have offered a payment of up to $1 million to keep bidders in the process because COVID-19 has changed the circumstances in which people can investigate and interrogate the merits of the contract.”
Treasurer Rob Lucas fronted television cameras and confirmed the ‘loser’ payments after The Advertiser published the story on Friday morning.
Mr Lucas happily confirmed Labor used them on a number of occasions in government arguing it was evidence that they were “bloody hypocrites”.
Labor argued that Mr Lucas was not comparing apple with apples because, they say, the provisions were built into tender documents, not a last-minute decision were bidders were threatening to leave the table.
Either way, it is fair to say when it comes to the ‘commercial in confidence’ trump card Labor were happy to have plenty at their disposal when needed.
It should be pointed out that this particular contract – for a private enterprise to operate the state’s passenger rail service – is a politically-charged issue.
The State Opposition have vowed to tear up the contract if they win government.
Labor will go to the next election screaming ‘privatisation’ at every chance they get.
But in the same week The Advertiser obtained a leaked memo that revealed the transport department would be setting up a new ‘public affairs’ unit aimed at better communication with the public it appears to still be in the slow lane.
In a ‘nothing to see here’ type response the department downplayed the significance of the unit that could include at least one role with annual salary nudging $350,000 a year.
One job has already been filled by Liberal Minister David Ridgway’s chief of staff Andrew Ockenden who lost his job when his then-boss resigned two weeks ago following revelations he signed blank time sheets for his former driver.
The Advertiser asked if the new role filled by Mr Ockenden, had been advertised.
The department spruiked Mr Ockenden’s resume and said it was a “short term contract.”
It still never answered the question.
Maybe they should have just said commercial in confidence – it would not be the first time and won’t be the last.
