By waging "war" on the local construction sector, Prime Minister Patrick Manning is engaging in an all-too-trans- parent attempt to divert attention from the major issue of the day: his and his Government's handling of the alleged involvement of Calder Hart and his wife in awarding an $820 million contract to a company in which the close relatives of Mrs Hart are said to be directors. Moreover, it is an attempt by the Prime Minister at cheap politicking: selecting an area of great need, public housing, and attempting to work people into a frenzy over a commodity in short supply. Having blasted the local contractors two years ago, Prime Minister Manning returned to the subject some time later and seemed to hold out an olive branch. In fact he prefaced the attempt to make peace by noting that the revenue situation of the country had changed and it was time for the local contractors to come fully on board in the Government's massive construction portfolio, a damning indictment in itself.
But now that the heat has been turned up on what is being seen as Government's inefficiencies, at best, on the Udecott/Mr Hart issue and the award of contracts, and the general discomfort that large segments of the population have about Udecott, the Prime Minister has returned to tagging the construction sector. At the same time he does so he continues to identify Udecott's and Mr Hart's stewardship as golden, ignoring the many overruns in cost and time on Udecott projects. This newspaper is surely not of the view that the local construction industry is perfect, far from it, but it certainly questions this approach of conducting warfare with the sector as the best means of bringing rigour and quality to the operations of local contractors. The Government would certainly have served the national good far more efficiently and effectively if it had taken the local industry into its confidence from the start and worked out a plan that would have seen foreign expertise come together with the local industry to develop its expertise and capacity rather than conflict.
Training, exposure, partnering with foreign contractors on major projects in a constructive rather than confrontational manner would certainly have left the industry in a far better position after the expenditure of billions of dollars. Instead, the Government went about its business, giddy with the billions in the Treasury and its dream of massive, showcase pieces. But even if the Prime Minister is correct in his claims of shoddy work by local contractors, the Government cannot escape its own responsibility in such matters. The Government has and continues to have a major supervisory role in the expenditure of hundreds of millions on the housing projects identified. Indeed, the Prime Minister admitted to the inefficiency of the Cabinet carrying out its supervisory role by stating that it is now putting effective management procedures in place.
These housing projects that are now showing serious contractor shortcomings were not built by another government, they were constructed under the supervision of the Patrick Manning administration. Therefore he cannot come eight years after the fact to act as if his Government had nothing to do with it. But Prime Minister Manning must be comprehensive in his assessment of the housing projects. He must identify the severe water, electricity and security problems faced by the tenants. These are serious deficiencies in the services provided by Government and its agencies. Instead of adopting this war, from which there is little possibility of a constructive plan emerging to enhance the quality of work of the local contracting industry, Mr Manning and his Government must engage in constructive discussion with the contractors associations that may lead to a new beginning that redounds to the country's benefit.