October depaNews

The Government, principally the Department of Premier and Cabinet, has an unsavoury history of keeping things confidential in the merging of councils that should be public, or at the very least, available to Council staff and their unions.

From a politically-motivated early proclamation to get the ball rolling (forced through Cabinet by the Premier in the face of others wanting to delay the amalgamations until after the Federal election) everyone was on the back foot and, despite the best endeavours of the unions, there were still those in Government committed to keeping all the important stuff secret. Particularly the Government’s performance measures for the newly merged entities, the reporting mechanisms that were being sent to each Council to ensure compliance with this dictated regime and process, and top secret “savings targets”.

In our June issue we announced the operations of the Employment Matters Working Party.  We thought, as did LGNSW and the other unions, that this was a positive development, reflecting an acknowledgement by the Government that the local government unions and employers knew what they were doing and had got it right for decades, and it made sense for the Government to consult and learn from those who knew what they were doing.

By the time we’d announced it, the Reference Group, as it was subsequently known, had met four times but there quickly emerged a reluctance by Government to tell us what was going on. Despite our helpful role at the first meeting back on 18 April to fix poorly drafted documents (not being specific, because the cloak of secrecy extends to the functioning of this mysterious secret group) with a turnaround of 24 hours.

We accepted that the politically-motivated announcement meant that neither DPC, nor OLG, were ready and were chasing their tails to catch up.

But despite the Terms of Reference of the Reference Group acknowledging that “the primary purpose of the Employment Matters Reference Group is to identify and advise on matters impacting on the statutory and policy framework governing employment by councils”, DPC representing Government was reluctant to commit in the same way that LGNSW and the three unions were committing to the functioning of the body. Yes yes yes, we’ll keep it all confidential but you people have to do something as well.

We found out more about what the Government was doing with timeframes and targets and cost savings by documents mysteriously appearing in our office, clearly marked “Confidential – Not for Distribution”, but having significant effects on employment in the industry. We asked, when we saw media about immediate cost savings already realised, how were those figures obtained? No response, so lucky for us that some kind person sent us the first document of the Governments KPIs and how each of the merged councils compared to them.

We helpfully forwarded that to the members of the Employment Matters Reference Group and now that document, prepared on a monthly basis from fortnightly data, was provided by DPC to all members of the Reference Group. But, when this became monthly reporting, the proposed template was not referred to anyone for input despite the employment issues contained within it and, no one knew anything at all about how “cost savings” had been identified for each merged Council, what those anticipated cost savings were, both immediately and over a longer term, and how those cost savings were proposed to be delivered. Again, some helpful person provided a copy of this to us, but it was still not raised with the Reference Group.

So, not being fond of governments committing to transparent processes and then not delivering on that commitment, nor governments establishing Reference Groups or consultative mechanisms, and neither referring things, nor consulting properly, we did something about it.

We wrote to the Minister for Local Government with twelve questions about the “cost savings” targets. Clearly if the Government labelled everything “Confidential - Not for Distribution”, then councils were being prevented from disclosing that information to people who should be told. In particular, because these proposed cost savings and activities had an impact on employment, and in a way that fitted within the definition of “significant effects” under clause 39 Workplace Change and Redundancy, then the Council was at risk of breaching their obligations under the Award.

Then we wrote to the 19 Interim General Managers giving them until midday Friday to agree to disclose to us the documentation they all possessed from the DPC containing their “cost savings” and how those cost savings were to be realised - invariably by reducing staff.

For us, this was setting up a win:win scenario - either the Government agreed the documents that were marked “Confidential – Not for Distribution” would have that confidentiality and embargo lifted, or we would file an industrial dispute pursuing the Councils for not disclosing things that were happening, which would have “significant effects” on employees and the councils were not advising the employees affected, nor the unions to which they belong, as they are obliged to do under clause 39.

And when we filed a dispute we would press the Commission to stick it up the Government for putting councils in this position. It was hard to choose which of these possibilities would be better. Or more fun.

So, on Wednesday 6 October, the day before the deadline on the 19 councils, DPC emailed all the interim general managers making reference to our requests and agreeing that the documents could be disclosed to whomever the Council wanted. Just what we wanted - although it’s hard not to be a bit disappointed that we couldn’t charge our way into the IRC, with the 19 merged councils gagged by the Government, and seek the Commission’s support to remove the gag. Not a good look for a Government and a Premier increasingly on the nose.

You can see our letter to the Minister and our pro forma to the IGMs here but the email exchanges between DPC, from Steve Orr, Executive Director, Local Government Reform, and depa make even more interesting reading. We are still not sure how much of that we can publish under the agreed Terms of Reference.  Why we honour those Terms and the Government doesn’t, does make you wonder …

The website Modern Heritage Matters defines Facadism as usually referring to “the trend towards preserving the facade of an historical building while erecting new buildings behind or around it.” It’s something that gives a nod to history, or legitimacy, but which hides something else. Like a movie set or a faux consultative mechanism established by Government to placate aggrieved organisations under the impression they were being genuinely consulted.

There is no doubt that the Government’s construction of the Employment Matters Reference Group is a facade aimed at hiding practices quite contrary to the espoused intention behind its construction.

The question for us is how much longer we are prepared to put up with participating in something where the Government itself doesn’t comply with its own Terms of Reference.

We exposed DPC for not distributing the fortnightly Stronger Councils Stronger Communities Status Update (covering 11 July to 24 July) by distributing the document to members of the Reference Group when DPC had failed to do so. The document dealt with a whole range of employment issues and how progress was being made in the merged councils in weeks 9 and 10 after the proclamations and, by any measure should have been distributed every fortnight to the Reference Group.

But when it was argued at the next meeting of the Reference Group that we should have this information, all the DPC would say was that they would have a “conversation” with the Minister for Local Government, because it was his call whether we should see copies. DPC chose to do nothing in the time between us distributing the document and the next meeting of the Reference Group and if they really needed to have a conversation with a bloke more interested in transparency than they are, they should have had it before we all met. It was like getting blood from a stone.

In the end it was agreed that we would get it, but we haven’t had all of them, we weren’t consulted when it went to a monthly rather than a fortnightly report, nor on the template proposed to measure progress, nor on the secret documents containing “cost savings” targets, nor on pretty much anything else.

Given the cloak of secrecy under which the Reference Group operated, it’s hard to be too explicit, but suffice to say there has been no attempt to properly refer matters, nor to consult on a range of things including employment templates; OLG’s decision not to continue investigations into councillors with code of conduct complaints now they were no longer councillors after a merger; the seemingly fruitless and repeated requests for a list of facilitators working for DPC “assisting” councils comply with the Government’s requirements, and that after they did disclose the facilitators, a further one was recruited and that wasn’t disclosed either; complaints emails unanswered and then, yesterday, to find that the Local Government Reform Program Status Report to the end of September had been circulated last week but again, not to the Reference Group.

The continued failure to distribute the Status Report must surely be the last straw.

DPC is the problem here. Seemingly incapable of understanding the concept of what should be referred to the Reference Group, they are also incapable of responding to things like the twelve specific questions in our letter to the Minister for Local Government on the “savings targets” and the two undertakings we have repeatedly sought to allow us to determine whether we should continue to legitimise this facade or whether it will genuinely become a Reference Group to which things are referred by the Government and consulted upon.

You’ve got our letter to the Minister with the twelve questions, the two undertakings we are seeking are:

• DPC and OLG will provide all information that falls within the Terms of Reference of the Reference Group, in the broadest terms, electronically, to members of the Reference Group between meetings or, if the timeframe is acceptable, at the meetings, and
• the templates already circulated in the industry, purporting to formalise a transfer of employees who were employees at the time of the proclamations be withdrawn by OLG.

When DPC replied on behalf of the Minister for Local Government in response to our twelve questions, they replied with a broad summary of what they have been doing and didn’t address the twelve questions, one-by-one, as they should have. DPC will argue that in their own obscurantist way they covered off on most of it but there is absolutely no doubt they didn’t answer the question, “why didn’t DPC and OLG consult with the unions on targets that are specifically derived from salary savings and workforce efficiencies prior to reaching agreement with individual councils?”

The next meeting of the Reference Group is scheduled to be held on 29 November. Whether we remain members to attend that meeting will depend on the Government’s response to legitimate concerns about the functioning of the Reference Group and the Government’s own commitment to its Terms of Reference.

Despite the hypocrisy, the Group has assisted in opening doors into OLG and we do have issues about things like the employment provisions of the Act, what to do about senior staff now that the SES has transitioned public servants off term contracts and other issues that mean we should keep the communication channels open. But at what price…

Heavenly chorus waiting ...

It was always going to be a sad day if the integrated Industrial Court and Industrial Relations Commission were torn apart and that happened on 12 October when the Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Bill passed both through both houses of the NSW Parliament.

While it seems likely that early December will see the ascension of the President of the IRC the Hon Justice Michael Walton to the Supreme Court we know that his ascension will be accompanied by a heavenly chorus and the sort of welcome he deserves.

No appointment has been made yet to the newly created position of Senior Commissioner, who will preside over the other four members of the remainders of the IRC, so if the President is ascending in five or so weeks, they had better hurry up.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s 130-year-old fig trees planted to commemorate the Anzacs, or Federation houses to make way for WestConnex, or a more than a century old venerable and esteemed institution, there is just something the Premier doesn’t like about the start of the 20th century.

The Government’s response to the Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005 was released in September. If you are accredited by the BPB, you should have a look at it.

150 recommendations and a significant number of them about the integrity of the system and anxieties about the conflict of interest of a developer paying for their own certifier.

The Government has committed to tightening up fire safety - principally responding to failures in the private certification that resulted in the September 2012 Bankstown apartment block fire.

Someone should have mentioned the inherent conflict of interest to Government back in the 1990’s when that boofhead Craig Knowles introduced the system!