Review of issues related to the acquisition and management of container accommodation in the Northern Territory and the management of ACMS on prescribed communities 

At present, and compounded by recent events, there is a generalised, but significant lack of confidence and trust in the way senior management is seen by many GBMs and I think CEBs.  This was forcefully demonstrated at the recall day I attended in Darwin on 15 May 2008.

The immediate focus for that resentment, which was directed at the messengers who were in an almost impossible position, was the decision not to immediately provide the CETEC test data which GBMs and CEBs believed they had been promised.  Despite the explanation that the data needed to be analysed to make any sense, the failure to provide the raw data was seen as indicating that it probably established a real health risk and as management going back on its undertaking.

In my opinion the underlying dissatisfaction for many of the officers involved goes beyond the issues relating to the fumes and reflect a perception of a failure by management particularly in the Operations Centre to accept responsibility for the GBMs (and CEBs).  In large part, I think the lack of trust stems from a lack of consultation and from communication failures.

Whilst unrelated to accommodation but reflective of similar communication problems, a recent cause of concern for the GBMs (and perhaps the CEBs) is the decision to require them to reapply for their jobs.  In the absence of any established system for appraising current performance it is difficult to see how any process other than an open selection process would meet the needs for objectivity and transparency.  Presumably however those GBMs who are regarded as having performed well and who wish to be reappointed should or will have a competitive advantage in any such process.  The problems for those GBMs who have expressed their frustration at the process is the lack of any structured feedback on performance, the potential loss of experience inherent in the process, the perceived failure to make any attempt to establish those who do wish to continue in the role and those who don’t, and a lack of confidence in management to 'get it right'.

The imminent transfer of responsibility for GBMs from the Operations Centre to the NTO provides an opportunity to establish a new and different set of relationships with GBMs.  In my opinion a key to that relationship would be a clearer identification of what is expected of GBMs and an understanding of how their individual performance is to be appraised.   To be credible any new management would need to build on the experience of the management of the GBM role to date and desirably involve GBMs (or their representatives) in a consultative role in the design of the structure.  Based on the experience to date the Department should consider new approaches to the management of GBMs.

An issue raised with me by both GBMs and CEBs is the management of their respective roles on communities.  The general view appears to be that the GBM needs to be across anything and everything related to Commonwealth Government involvement in the community.  Any limitation on the sharing of reports and information with the GBMs was seen as impinging on that role, as having the potential to adversely affect personal relations and as being generally counter productive.  Despite the provisions set out in the GBMs handbook I am informed that there are some situations where officers are being directed not to share information.  Obviously this is an issue that needs to be resolved between departments having regard to the overall best interests of the Commonwealth in the context of the intervention but in the circumstances I  recommend that it be addressed as a matter of some urgency.

Another issue raised with some asperity at the Darwin recall is the different conditions that apply to GBMs and CEBs working in the same community.  The examples given ranged from different approaches to leave to attend medical examinations related to the exposure to container fumes, the different approach to allowances and reunion visits, through to different approaches to the fitting of winches to vehicles used in comparable ways on comparable roads.  There would seem to be advantages in minimising, as far as possible, the differences in conditions applying to persons living in and under similar conditions.  I recommend that consideration be given to establishing common conditions to apply to Commonwealth Officers working in communities as part of the NTER.

Having laid some stress on the need for consultation, in concluding this report I should add that, as was to be expected, the reactions amongst GBMs (and CEBs) to the accommodation problems varied.  Of those I spoke with:

1. Most just wanted to be enabled to get on with the job;
2. Almost all expressed great enthusiasm for the work;
3. Some regarded the direction to vacate as an over reaction (a view I don’t share) and wanted to get back into the containers as soon as possible; and
4. Most thought the containers were very satisfactory accommodation for a posting of say up to twelve months or so, at least once the 'defects' were fixed.