People Who Live in Glass Houses…………

The relatively new General Manager of Corrections Inmate Employment has made a written complaint to CANZ regarding comments I recently made to the media. The letter of complaint alleges that the comments I made were inaccurate and that I “misrepresented the facts of the matter”. Whilst I disagree entirely, I acknowledge that Mr. Motu is entitled to his opinion. In passing though, I find it somewhat amusing to note that on each and every occasion that I make comment to the media, management representatives of the implicated service always seem to respond with the contention that my comments are inaccurate. Go figure!

The main issue of contention though, is the claim that I have breached the CANZ/CIE protocol. Mr. Motu actually credits me with the authorship of the protocol, but he is being far too generous. The document was, in fact, a joint effort that was developed well before his time. I did document the points of agreement on the whiteboard, but I would like to think that all who were present at that meeting have the intestinal fortitude required to take part ownership. If not, then I’ll gladly accept full responsibility.

You see, the protocol in question was an implied agreement between a proactive Union (CANZ) and a General Manager (David Bremner) who gave his word to all employees affected by the formation of the new Service (CIE) that their job security was guaranteed for the foreseeable future. He told staff in attendance at “Road show” meetings that the new CIE would be much bigger that the old Corrlands. He told them that if their current industries were not commercially viable, they would be transferred into vibrant new industries that would be self-sufficient and provide meaningful inmate training. He guaranteed them that if they volunteered to transfer to CIE (many were holding permanent positions in PPS), they would not be disadvantaged as a result of the move in the foreseeable future!

As you are most painfully aware, the current management structure gives no such guarantees. On the contrary, we are faced with what appears to be a “slash and burn” mentality that is driven more by a desire to turn a profit than provide meaningful inmate training. To be blunt, they appear to have lost the plot and, accordingly, it is my contention that the protocol is no longer valid.

This view appears to be shared by CIE management, because when they were shown copies of the minutes of past meetings that contained the assurances given by Mr. Bremner, I am given to understand that their response was: “That was then and this is now. Things have changed!” This statement appears to support the contention that “all bets are off” in terms of the perceived protocol. Let’s be fair; we can’t choose which bits of it we want to enforce and which bits we want to ignore. CIE would do well to remember that fact the next time they implement the “management of change” process in a manner that also doesn’t comply with the provisions of the protocol!

Whilst we’re talking about management of change, I find it somewhat bizarre that a Service that’s in the business of providing training and rehabilitation for inmates (that is their core business, isn’t it?) are able to dispense with the services of many Instructors with many years of experience as both tradesmen and inmate trainers. At a time when the Department is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on outside contractors and labourers for the maintenance of institutions, surely the skills of such people should be at a premium? It is my contention that a professional and proactive CIE should be developing the systems and procedures required to maximise the skills of these people and the potential benefits in terms of inmate training that is both productive and cost-effective.

In closing I would like to make the following offer:

If the new CIE management structure would like to develop a new protocol that;
1. Is based on current circumstances
2. Has realistic objectives
3. Helps develop new industries (that’s what the old one was supposed to do!)
4. Is actually documented and signed by the parties

…we would be only too happy to cooperate. In the meantime, I respectfully refer you back to the beginning:
People who live in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones!

Regards,
Brian Davies
National Organiser