Part 4—Report on performance



Overview

Performance information and reporting model

The DPS Outcome and Program Framework consists of four programs—with subprograms—and administered work programs. The framework is summarised in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1—Relationship between Outcome and ProgramsRelationship between Outcome and Programs
Figure 4.2—Subprogram 2.1—Security services—quality indicators

Figure 4.2—Subprogram 2.1—Security services—quality indicators

Figure 4.3—Subprogram 2.1—Security services—quantity indicators

Figure 4.3—Subprogram 2.1—Security services—quantity indicators

Performance indicators for each program are established in the Department of Parliamentary Services Portfolio Budget Statements 2010–11. The indicators cover the quality, quantity and price aspects of the department’s programs or services.

In this part of the annual report, performance results and explanatory comments are provided against each of the department’s subprograms.

Program cost attribution

DPS operates through a branch structure that is aligned to its program structure.

Each branch comprises a number of cost centres that collect all direct operating costs. The internal overheads attribution process is completed in a number of steps. First, the costs of all corporate cost centres are allocated to subprograms. Then, the cost of providing internal services (IT, communications and accommodation) is attributed to those subprograms that receive the services. This methodology ensures that the department reports the total cost of services provided to clients for each subprogram.

Effectiveness in achieving the planned Outcome

The Outcome statement of DPS is that:

'Occupants of Parliament House are supported by integrated services and facilities, Parliament functions effectively and its work and building are accessible to the public.'

Occupants of Parliament House are supported by integrated services and facilities, …

DPS provides occupants and other users of Parliament House with a wide range of services and facilities. These are described in general terms in Parts 2 and 3 of this Annual Report. The performance reports in Part 3 (Parliamentary Library) and this part 4 measure and discuss the DPS performance in delivering those services and facilities. Environmental performance is discussed in Part 5.

The results demonstrate success in a variety of areas but a need for more work in others. Because of the ongoing nature of the outcome, and the scope for providing our services more efficiently and effectively, DPS will continue to look for further improvements.

...Parliament functions effectively …

Parliament’s operations have continued to run smoothly to the extent that this is the responsibility of DPS. Our contribution includes:

  1. ensuring the security of the building, including the Chambers in particular, and of building occupants;
  2. providing a suitable venue for parliamentary activity through building maintenance and provision of building services and information and communications technology services; and
  3. providing Library and Hansard services to enable members of Parliament to contribute effectively to parliamentary activities.

… and its work and building are accessible to the public.

In 2010–11, DPS facilitated access for the general public to the work of the Parliament and its building by:

  1. providing 1,138 hours of Chamber broadcasts;
  2. providing 1,961 hours of committee broadcasts;
  3. providing print-ready Hansard transcripts on the DPS internet site and the web interface to ParlInfo; and
  4. hosting approximately 820,000 visitors.

The effectiveness of our services is assessed through a customer satisfaction survey conducted each Parliament that collects customer views on:

  1. the appropriateness of, and satisfaction with, existing services;
  2. problems with service delivery;
  3. identification of service gaps; and
  4. the extent to which services and facilities are appropriately and conveniently integrated and accessible to assist the user.

Program 1—Library services

Program 1 is the provision of an effective knowledge centre for the Parliament through the provision of information, analysis and advice.

Performance reports for the Parliamentary Library subprograms 1.1 and 1.2 are set out in Part 3 of this annual report.

Program 2—Building and occupant services

Introduction

Program 2 of the DPS Outcome and Programs Framework is the provision of an efficiently functioning, safe and secure environment for Senators, Members, other building occupants and visitors.

Two subprograms, Security services and Facilities services, contribute to Program 2.

Subprogram 2.1—Security services

DPS provides security and emergency services to occupants of, and visitors to, Parliament House.

Indicator—Extent to which security procedures are followed

During 2010–11, there were 194 reported security incidents. Of these incidents, 188 were dealt with in accordance with established procedures. In the remaining six incidents, information on the correct procedure was reiterated and promulgated across the security section and there have been no further similar incidents.

Indicator—Extent to which each validation was successful

Security validation exercises are conducted monthly by the Parliamentary Security Service (PSS) and Australian Federal Police—Uniform Protection (AFP-UP) to test how well security procedures work and how officers respond to those procedures. The results of each exercise are reviewed by the Security Management Board (SMB).

As a result of lessons learned from exercises conducted in 2010–11, security procedures and annual training programs were updated to address the issues identified.

Indicator—Validation of security procedures

All scheduled validation exercises were conducted in 2010–11. In total, 19 exercises were conducted, including five joint exercises between the PSS and AFP-UP.

Indicator—Security incidents

Security incident reports are completed in response to events that may require follow-up action such as protests, threatening telephone calls, non-compliance with security screening and unattended or suspect items. Reports are completed by PSS or AFP-UP staff.

Indicator—Security services

The number of PSS hours used each month varies depending on the number of parliamentary sitting days and, to a lesser extent, the number of functions held in Parliament House.

The number of PSS internal guarding hours for 2010–11 remained in line with the previous year following the implementation of the new security roster in 2009. Daily external guarding hours (AFP-UP) did not drop below the required minimum staff levels.

Two emergency evacuation exercises were scheduled and conducted in 2010–11. One full evacuation was held on a sitting day in November 2010, with a partial building evacuation occurring (after hours) in April 2011.

Some parliamentary and non-parliamentary functions require additional security resources from the PSS. The definition of a parliamentary function includes functions in support of the whole of Parliament, but excludes specific political party or executive government functions. Official visits include ‘Guests of Government’ and ‘Guests of Parliament’ delegations.

Indicator—Cost of security services

The overall costs for security services in 2010–21 remained stable in comparison to the previous year.

Figure 4.4—Subprogram 2.1—Security services—Number of parliamentary, non-parliamentary functions and official visits requiring additional security resources

Figure 4.4—Subprogram 2.1—Security services—Number of parliamentary, non-parliamentary

Figure 4.5—Subprogram 2.1—Security services—price indicator

Figure 4.5—Subprogram 2.1—Security services—price indicator

Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services

DPS provides facilities, health and well-being, and visitor services to occupants of, and visitors to, Parliament House. The Facilities section continues to focus on facilities contract management, efficiency improvements, and both cost and revenue management. We also continue to assess and improve the services and experience for building occupants and visitors to Parliament House.

Quality indicators

The term ‘customer’ refers to Parliament House building occupants, whilst the term ‘visitor’ is taken to mean members of the public visiting Parliament House.

Indicator—Customer satisfaction

The catering complaints generally related to the range of menu selections, pricing and portion sizes. All matters were referred to the catering contractor for corrective action and where necessary resolution with the individual concerned.

Indicator—Visitor satisfaction

The complaints regarding the Guide Service generally related to tour times and, as a result, advertising material was updated. The complaint regarding The Parliament Shop was about a stock item. The catering complaints generally related to menu selections, pricing and portion sizes, and were referred to the catering contractor for corrective action.

Indicator—Facilities

DPS finalised the three remaining licence arrangements, which were outstanding from the previous year’s licence renewal program. The licence for the physiotherapist was modified to include remedial massage services and the licence for the childcare centre was extended for a further three years. The panel for new audiovisual service providers was tendered with four companies appointed. DPS also coordinated the refurbishment of the Aussies General Store kitchen and two Press Gallery suites.

Indicator—Nurses Centre

The Nurses Centre focuses on the delivery of a range of health services to both visitors and occupants of Parliament House. There was a small increase in the number of incidents, accidents and requests for first aid services responded to by the Nurses Centre for 2010–11.

The annual influenza vaccination program delivered nearly 100 more vaccinations than the previous year.

The ‘Health Promotion Program’ continued throughout the year. The program hosted presentations from various speakers on health awareness topics such as diabetes, asthma and kidney disease to building occupants. The programs were well received.

Indicator—Health and Recreation Centre

The Health and Recreation Centre (HRC) provides recreation and sporting facilities at Parliament House, as well as direct services for building occupants such as fitness classes and assessments.

Total membership of the HRC increased by 8% in 2010–11, offset by a slight decrease in casual visits. Class attendance has seen a 21% increase compared to last financial year, which can be attributed to the introduction of new exercise classes such as yoga, Zumba, and stretching classes. These classes were introduced following feedback from the 2008–09 customer survey.

Indicator—Community engagement with Parliament House

DPS finalised a review of visitor services and has developed a program of improvements to the visitor services program. These improvements will be implemented throughout 2011–12 and will provide additional options for visitors to experience Parliament House, improved information for visitors and a capacity to support increasing numbers in visiting school groups.

During 2010–11, there was a decrease in the number of visitors to Parliament House, which is attributed to the Federal election and the extended period between Parliaments. This had a corresponding effect on the number of people participating in public tours. The number of special tours was also lower than the previous years due to a reduction in requests for these types of tours.

The increase in garden tour participants is related to a change in the way the tours were promoted and availability of qualified staff to provide the tours. The gardens tours are scheduled to coincide with Floriade and will continue to feature as a tour option for visitors. DPS continued to recognise the importance of community engagement and, during 2010–11, developed renewed partnerships with tourism bodies including the Canberra Convention Bureau and ACT Tourism.

Indicator—The Parliament Shop

The Parliament Shop is a gift and souvenir retail outlet, run by DPS for the benefit of visitors and building occupants. The Parliament Shop had 279,759 visitors in 2010–11. Around 22% of Parliament Shop visitors went on to make a purchase.

As in previous years, The Parliament Shop hosted a number of book launches, which helped promote book sales and uphold the expectations of The Parliament Shop as a provider of quality parliamentary reference and Australian literature.

Indicator—Facilities services

Gross revenue increased with the partial introduction of the new agreements for press gallery and retail licensees. These increases will be fully realised in 2011–12. Catering contract revenue is lower than the previous two years due to the quieter Federal election period. The slight increase in management fees for catering contracts is associated with new contractual arrangements for the Staff Dining Room and Queen’s Terrace Café. Financial performance of the Health and Recreation Centre was consistent with the performance reported in the years prior to 2009–10. The result for The Parliament Shop was marginally under target due to lower-than-expected revenue figures combined with an increase in inventory costs.

The overall cost of facilities services in 2010–11 remained stable in comparison to the previous year.

Figure 4.6—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—quality indicators

Figure 4.6—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—quality indicators

Figure 4.7—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—quantity indicators

Figure 4.7—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—quantity indicators

Figure 4.7—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—quantity indicators (continued)

Figure 4.7—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—quantity indicators (continued)

Figure 4.8—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—Parliament House Visitors 1988–2011

Figure 4.8—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—Parliament House Visitors 1988–2011

Figure 4.9—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—price indicator

Figure 4.9—Subprogram 2.2—Facilities services—price indicator

Program 3—Infrastructure services

Introduction

Program 3 of the DPS Outcome and Programs Framework is the supply of integrated services and facilities through the provision of maintenance, infrastructure and support services.

This program comprises two subprograms—Building infrastructure services and IT infrastructure services.

Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services

This subprogram involves the provision of building infrastructure, maintenance services and landscape services, as well as utility services (electricity, gas, water and sewerage).

Figure 4.10—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—quality indicators

Figure 4.10—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—quality indicators

Explanation of indicators

The Building Condition Index (BCI) measures the current condition of the building fabric of Parliament House, expressed as a percentage of the original condition.

The Landscape Condition Index (LCI) measures the current condition of the landscape surrounding Parliament House, expressed as a percentage of the total possible condition.

The Design Integrity Index (DII) measures the current condition of Parliament House and the precincts expressed as a percentage of the original built form. In particular it measures the extent to which change within Parliament House and the precincts impacts upon the original design intent.

The Engineering Systems Condition Index (ESCI) measures the current operation and condition of the engineering systems in Parliament House against the expected decline of those systems through their life cycles. The system of scoring has been designed so that the optimum target of 90% is achieved if all systems are ageing through their life cycle as expected.

Indicator—Extent to which building condition is maintained

Parliament House is divided into seven zones, as shown in Figure 4.11, to measure the BCI. The seven zones have different condition targets that combine to give an overall score for the BCI. The target range of 89–92% has been determined, based on external benchmarks, as the optimum balance of condition and cost.

Figure 4.11—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—Building Condition Index score by zone

Figure 4.11—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—Building Condition Index score

There has been a decrease of 0.1% in the overall building condition when compared to 2009–10, which reflects the effects of ageing and use since the building opened in 1988.

Figure 4.12—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—Design Integrity Index score by zone

Figure 4.12—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—Design Integrity Index score

The contributing factors to the drop in the BCI score are as follows.

Public areas

  1. Parquetry floor maintenance on the first floor of the Marble Foyer has been delayed until the trial of the alternative finish to the timber handrails is assessed.
  2. Repairs to the plaster ceiling and walls in the Great Hall skylight have not been done due to a project which is investigating a solution for the light truss system that will prevent further damage.
  3. Damage to plaster ceiling tiles in the Marble Foyer and public areas as a result of cracking of paint and plaster during the removal and handling of tiles for access to ceiling services.

Senate wing

  1. Limited opportunity for painting during the year.
  2. Wear and tear of the Senate entry security area due to the large number of people using the entrance and its single entry/exit point layout.

Plant rooms

  1. Limited maintenance carried out during the year.
Figure 4.13—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—quantity indicators

Figure 4.13—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—quantity indicators

Indicator—Extent to which landscape condition is maintained

The parliamentary landscape has been divided into eight zones for the purpose of measuring the Landscape Condition Index (LCI). The zones have different targets that combine to give an overall score. The LCI is measured during October each year.

There was a 1% increase in LCI in 2010–11. The increase is due to returfing of courtyards, planting of annuals in the Formal Gardens and the reinstatement of some water features.

The LCI score of 79% is 11% below the target of 90% due to the following at the time the LCI was measured:

  1. Parliament Drive did not have turf cover and Ministerial viewing strips were only turfed on 28 January 2011.
  2. Not all identified water features recommissioning had been completed and installation of permanent covers had not commenced.
  3. Granite paths in peripheral gardens were rated low as re-topping had not commenced.

The LCI is expected to increase further next year due to further landscape recovery, especially lawn planting, undertaken since October 2010.

Indicator—Extent to which design integrity is maintained

For the purpose of measuring the DII, Parliament House is divided into eight zones, as shown in Figure 4.12. In each zone, the components of language, symbolism, design order, change and the overall impression are examined and given a score from one to five.

The outcomes for each component are added together to obtain a zone score. The zone scores are added to obtain a building score. This score is then expressed as a percentage of the total possible score.

The DII for 2010–11 is assessed at 90.2%. The 2010–11 DII results remain above the 90% threshold.

The areas with improved scores are the landscape, the Chamber departments and the building facades. This is as a result of the reactivation of water features, improved care of the furniture and spaces by the Chamber departments and the extensive facade cleaning project. Building-wide issues that adversely affected the overall DII rating included the increased number of business machines throughout the circulation spaces and the increasing quantity of non-standard furniture.

New security measures in the carparks along with accommodation solutions have negatively impacted on the DII. However it is noted that security and accommodation are complex challenges that the Parliament faces into the future and some of the initiatives such as the barriers in the Public Carpark are temporary. It is expected that scores will improve as a more permanent solution is implemented.

Indicator—Condition and ageing of engineering systems

To calculate the ESCI, 83 engineering and structural systems—including airconditioning, hydraulic, power, fire and security systems—are scored for reliability, life cycle progress and actual versus expected condition.

The overall ESCI score of 87.5% reflects the ageing of the building, including a number of ageing electrical and mechanical systems that have been identified for replacement. These systems include the kitchen equipment, fire system upgrades and conditioned air distribution upgrades. In 2010–11, the following works were completed:

  1. cooling tower upgrade;
  2. exterior and carpark lighting;
  3. chilled water plant refurbishments; and
  4. toilet refurbishments.

Indicator—Performance of security systems

The card management system, electronic doors and alarms are connected to a security network. The closed circuit television system (CCTV) and radio network are connected to a separate network. Overall, the security networks remain stable, and there is a range of built-in redundancies to ensure the systems continue to function in the event of equipment failure.

Standard security foot patrols are backed up by daily camera coverage checks and weekly camera maintenance. Performance checks are conducted on all CCTV cameras to ensure they are operational. Intermittent problems occurred with the introduction of a new camera management system and there have been occasions where CCTV cameras have been unavailable for short periods; but this does not detract from the overall performance of the new equipment and CCTV system.

Indicator—Managing the potential impact on the environment

Environmental performance reporting information is in Part 5 of the annual report. Part 5 includes information on managing the potential impact on the environment.

Indicator—Maintenance of plant and building fabric

The Maintenance Services section achieved 89% of the planned maintenance for 2010–11 against a target of 85%.

Indicator—Maintenance Help Desk requests

The number of reported calls to the Maintenance Services Help Desk this year substantially increased. This is due to a new practice of all requests for cleaning matters and changes to the time program for lighting and airconditioning for functions and cleaning being logged as maintenance requests.

In 2010, DPS made changes to contract management practices, including a renewed focus on inspections and education of building occupants on the standards of cleaning to be expected. This resulted in additional rectification and ad-hoc requests being issued to the relevant cleaning contractor.

Indicator—Maintenance cost

The target of 1.25% reduction in costs was not met due to a salary increase, a CPI increase in maintenance contracts and increases in utilities charges.

The increase in external cleaning costs is attributable to cleaning the external facade of the building, which hadn’t been carried out for a number of years, partly due to ACT water restrictions.

The reduction in costs of additional labour under the cleaning contract is due to responsibility for many tasks being transferred to the catering contractor.

Indicator—Energy cost

In 2010–11, energy consumption decreased by 1% and energy cost increased by 9.7% from the previous year.

The Federal election in August 2010 meant fewer sitting days in 2010–11, resulting in overall reduced energy consumption compared to the previous year. Despite this reduction, natural gas consumption increased, due to significantly lower autumn temperatures in 2011.

Indicator—Water cost

Parliament House has over 4,500 rooms on a site of 32ha, of which 23ha is landscaped. The total cost of water and sewerage use for Parliament House in the 2010–11 year was $1,023,020, which is an increase of 1.15% from 2009–10. This increase is due to a rise in service charges. In contrast to the increase in cost, total water consumption decreased overall by 5.2% from the previous year.

Indicator—Total cost of subprogram

‘Total cost of subprogram’ is a costing measure based on a combination of indirect expenses proportional to staffing and direct expenses. For 2010–11, subprogram 3.1 was allocated reduced indirect expenses resulting in a decrease in ‘total cost’ despite an increase in direct costs. This was primarily due to a proportionally greater decrease in staffing relative to the whole of DPS.

The total cost of providing building infrastructure services has decreased by 3.9% compared to 2009–10.

Figure 4.14—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—price indicators

Figure 4.14—Subprogram 3.1—Building infrastructure services—price indicators

Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services

IT infrastructure services provided include the maintenance of information technology, broadcasting and telecommunications infrastructure, and customer support for these services.

Figure 4.15—Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services—quality indicators

Figure 4.15—Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services—quality indicators

Indicator—High level of critical systems availability

Critical systems availability is defined as critical systems being operational and useable during scheduled service hours. Availability of the email services on a 24/7 basis is now an expected service standard.

The following have been the major contributors to the IT infrastructure unavailability.

  1. In September 2010, there was an outage due to power problems in the computer room. This led to a project to enhance power supply to the Basement Computer Room.
  2. In December 2010, there was an outage due to a major hardware failure and disk corruption.
  3. In April 2011, there was an outage due to security issues. This has been remedied through changes to the network.

A number of projects, including server virtualisation, upgrades to Hansard, email systems, and the Basement Computer Room (to provide more reliable services such as power and cooling) were completed. Other projects are well underway, to improve robustness, in line with the 24/7 service now expected.

Indicator—Timeliness of incident resolution

Service standards for resolution of Client Support 2020 Support Desk requests for all categories were met.

Figure 4.16—Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services—Registered PCN users

Figure 4.16—Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services—Registered PCN users

Figure 4.17—Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services—quantity indicators

Figure 4.17—Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services—quantity indicators

Case study—Internet and email access for handheld devices

Craig Marshal

In late 2010, new hand-held communication devices became available, notably the iPad. Many DPS clients, including Senators and Members, wish to connect these devices to the parliamentary computing network (PCN).

Craig Marshall and his team in the Projects Branch were tasked with trialling iPads and iPhones with a view to evaluating how these tools could be connected to the secure PCN.

The primary objective of the project was to establish a system that would allow defined PCN services to be securely accessed
from any internet connected device, in any location.

Based on the success of the trial, DPS has been able to progressively connect iPads and iPhones to the PCN to receive email
and calendar information in real time. Stage 2 of the project will allow users to access selected PCN services and the intranet via
a secure connection to a virtual desktop.

Indicator—Support services

Most support service outcomes were in line with the previous year’s services. Areas that materially decreased were the number of consultations, emails transmitted and number of facsimiles sent. The reduction in consultations and facsimiles can be attributed to the election. The reduction in emails transmitted is due to increased spam filtering and decreased demand for services during the election. Increases occurred in the volume of online storage and external web accesses from the PCN. The storage increases were due to new projects, including the Camera System as well as the virtual infrastructure storage requirements and new Exchange infrastructure.

Indicator—Volume of IT services required

The number of PCN users has decreased by 2.7% (132 users) from 2009–10. Senators, Members and their staff accounted for the majority of the reduction in registered PCN users.

Figure 4.18—Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services—price indicators

Figure 4.18—Subprogram 3.2—IT infrastructure services—price indicators

Indicator— Total cost of subprogram 3.2

The reduction in the costs associated with telecommunications infrastructure is in part due to reduced call volumes combined with a reduction in the costs of some of the services. DPS has also engaged with the on-site Telecommunications facility manager to deliver the technical support with reduced attended support.

The increase in costs for IT support infrastructure can be attributed to the commissioning of a large number of new IT systems and the upgrading of core systems infrastructure throughout the year. This included the new virtual server infrastructure, a new system for the production of Hansard, a new Digital audio system, upgrades to the data storage infrastructure, new fax gateway services, new systems monitoring software and enhancements to the testing environment.

Figure 4.19—Subprogram 4.1—Broadcasting services—quality indicator

Figure 4.19—Subprogram 4.1—Broadcasting services—quality indicator

Figure 4.20—Subprogram 4.1—Broadcasting services—quantity indicator

Figure 4.20—Subprogram 4.1—Broadcasting services—quantity indicator

Program 4—Parliamentary records services

Introduction

Program 4 of the DPS Outcome and Programs Framework is access to the work of the Parliament through the provision of audiovisual and Hansard records of parliamentary proceedings.

Two subprograms, Broadcasting services and Hansard services, contribute to Program 4.

Subprogram 4.1—Broadcasting services

Figure 4.21—Subprograms 4.1 and 4.2—Broadcasting and Hansard—Chambers Hours 1993–94 to 2010–11

Figure 4.21—Subprograms 4.1 and 4.2—Broadcasting and Hansard—Chambers Hours 1993–94 to

Figure 4.22—Subprograms 4.1 and 4.2—Broadcasting and Hansard—Committee Hours 1993–94 to 2010–11

Figure 4.22—Subprograms 4.1 and 4.2—Broadcasting and Hansard—Committee Hours 1993–94 to

Broadcasting services involve the production of audiovisual records of parliamentary proceedings (including committees) which are available for broadcasting and archiving.

Case study—Knowledge management

Mike Cable

Mike Cable has worked in Parliament House for 16 years. For the past five years, he has been in the Knowledge Management section. Some people may find information management a dry subject; Mike finds satisfaction helping DPS staff find that important piece of information, which they believe has gone missing. 'You can't help but smile seeing the look of relief on someone's face when you find what they've been looking for' says Mike.

Mike's major focus has been to implement an Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS). The system is designed to make it easier for staff to manage departmental information. According to Mike, 'It was a bit daunting at first, knowing we were going to change the way people have been working for years, and some people can be apprehensive about change'.

The EDRMS is fully operational and, for many staff, it is the normal way to do things. For Mike and his team, the next challenge will be finding ways to improve the system; making it easier to use while still meeting legislative requirements.

Mike has conducted training sessions for the new system and reckons he has met nearly everyone in the department. Mike says, 'It has been a pleasure working with so many people from all sorts of backgrounds and experiences. I've met some very interesting people and made many new friends!'

Indicator—Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction surveys are conducted once per Parliament. The next survey is due to be completed in 2011–12.

All video footage of parliamentary proceedings, including committees, recorded since 1991 until the present, has been digitised and will be available via the APH website once the Audio Visual Asset Management and Archiving (AVAMA) project is completed at the end of 2011.

During 2010–11, Broadcasting services received one formal complaint. The single complaint was due to a human error and standard procedures were revised to minimise the risk of recurrence.

Figure 4.23—Subprogram 4.1—Broadcasting services—price indicators

Figure 4.23—Subprogram 4.1—Broadcasting services—price indicators

Indicator—Broadcasting services (quantity)

Chambers

There were 1,138 hours of Chamber proceedings broadcast (television and audio) in 2010–11. This is 203 hours fewer than 2009–10 (1,341 hours) but a 44% increase in the activity levels of the previous election year (2007–08: 929 hours).

Committees

In 2010–11, 1,961 hours of parliamentary committee hearings were recorded. While this is a decrease compared with 2009–10 (2,191 hours) it is 81% higher than the preceding election year, 2007–08 (1,208 hours).

As in previous years, Senate Estimates hearings (Estimates) placed considerable pressure on broadcasting resources. During each week of Estimates, four Senate committees generally sit concurrently from 9am until 11pm. This is in addition to sittings of the House of Representatives, the Main Committee of the House of Representatives and, on occasion, House of Representatives Standing Committees. In 2010–11, some Estimates committees again made use of the spillover provisions, resulting in additional days of hearings.

In May–June 2011, 18 House of Representatives Committees sat concurrently with the Estimates hearings, a small increase from the 16 of the previous year. This was a particular challenge for Broadcasting and, in order to meet the demand for broadcasting services, additional personnel were drawn from Broadcasting’s temporary employment register.

The majority of parliamentary committee interstate hearings were supported by a single officer. Broadcast officers use 3G technology to send live audio of committee hearings back to Parliament House in Canberra. The use of a single broadcast officer means a Hansard editor does not need to attend all committee hearings, leaving more time free for transcription.

Other productions

In addition to the core business of broadcasting parliamentary activities, DPS also provides audiovisual and production services on a cost-recovery basis. These services are subject to availability of staff not otherwise engaged on primary parliamentary broadcasting duties. There were 742 other productions in 2010–11. This is an 18% decrease compared with 2009–10 productions (909).

Audiovisual services

In 2010–11, Broadcasting provided 1,190 stand-alone audiovisual services—a reduction from the previous year (1,352). This service mostly involves providing audiovisual equipment to clients in Parliament House. It also includes sound reinforcement and recording services for functions, meetings, seminars and special events.

Master control services

Master control services involve Broadcasting staff connecting external media organisations to the broadcast of selected parliamentary proceedings and other special events inside, and in the grounds outside, Parliament House. In 2010–11, the number of master control services increased significantly from 1,582 in 2009–10 to 1,878.

Requests for extracts of parliamentary broadcast material

DPS received 1,462 requests for extracts of parliamentary broadcast material, most of which were for Chamber proceedings and committee hearings. This is a large increase when compared with the 2009–10 financial year (1,162). Requests for this service came primarily from Senators and Members.

Indicator—Broadcasting services (price)

The increased cost per hour of material captured on the audiovisual record for Chambers is due to the decrease in broadcast hours compared with 2009–10, salary increases and replacement of a number of relatively low value assets. A largely fixed cost structure for broadcasting services plus a decrease in hours captured, results in an increase in cost per hour. The cost per hour of material captured on the audiovisual record for interstate committee hearings increased by 53% in 2010–11 due to a 41% decrease in the number of hours captured. For the same reason, cost per hour of ACT committee hearings decreased due to the increase in total hours of ACT hearings.

Overall the total cost for broadcasting services in 2010–11 increased by 5%, largely due to increases in salary costs.

Cost of other productions

In 2010–11, the cost to DPS of other productions increased by 32% to $488,156. This was as a result of Broadcasting’s fixed cost structure.

Cost recovery from other productions

DPS recovered $355,981 through charging for services provided to clients for non-parliamentary business. Revenue increased by approximately 1% due to a slight increase in demand for production services from external clients.

DPS does not recover the cost of services provided to clients for parliamentary business.

Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services

Figure 4.24—Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services—quality indicators

Figure 4.24—Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services—quality indicators

Figure 4.24—Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services—quality indicators (continued)

Figure 4.24—Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services—quality indicators (continued)

Hansard services comprise transcribing and publishing reports of proceedings in the Senate, the House of Representatives and all parliamentary committees. Hansard also provides transcription services for some ministerial or Parliament-related conferences.

A decline in performance of transcript delivery times in 2010–11 was due to an ageing Hansard Production System and teething problems resulting from the commissioning of the new Hansard Production System (2 May 2011), and the subsequent upgrade of operating systems and software packages.

Indicator—Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction surveys are conducted once per Parliament. The next survey is due to be completed in 2011–12.

As a result of the implementation of the new Hansard Production System, a number of innovations will become available during 2011–12. One example is the new Hansard data streaming function. Data streaming displays snapshots of Hansard as it is being processed. This service will be accessed through the Senators’ and Members’ Services Portal.

Hansard received four customer complaints during 2010–11, in respect of 3,099 hours of transcribed proceedings. One complaint related to a Senate speech being incorrectly attributed and this was corrected as soon as advised. Another error was made in a House of Representatives transcript, which was corrected after receiving a query from the Member. The third was regarding a Senate Estimates transcript which was not produced and loaded onto the internet in the required reporting time. The transcript was one day late. This complaint can be attributed to the implementation of the new Hansard Production System and supporting operating system. The fourth was in reference to a Member of Parliament being incorrectly attributed as tabling a Petition.

As issues arise—and on an ongoing basis—Hansard continues to review and streamline its processes to improve services to the parliament.

Indicator—Accuracy of transcription

Hansard error rates are based on the number of corrections to draft Chamber speeches returned by Senators and Members, or corrections to committee transcripts made by witnesses, and accepted as Hansard errors. In 2010–11, the error rate for Chambers (3.9 errors per 100 pages) increased, as did committee error rates (6.2 errors per 100 pages). Both figures increased as we approached the end of life of the old Hansard Production System and implemented the new Hansard Production System, creating delays and system errors which needed to be worked around.

Indicator—Timeliness of transcription

Chambers

The service delivery standards for Chamber transcripts are in five categories, as listed at Figure 4.24. As the delivery of draft speeches gives Senators and Members their first opportunity to review the draft Hansard transcript, delivery time is critical. Hansard achieved an 83.2% result against the standard. This was below the 95% target and down on the 96.2% achieved in 2009–10.

The service standard for publishing electronic proof Hansard reports within three hours of the Chamber adjourning was met on 73% of occasions; down on the 2009–10 result of 94.2% and below the target of 95%. Delays were experienced due to initial installation difficulties with the new Hansard Production System. The delivery standard for hard-copy proof Hansard reports delivered to Parliament House was met on 98.8% of sitting days.

Publishing the electronic Official Hansard (Officials)—76.4% within the delivery standard—and delivery of the hard-copy Official Hansard to the publisher—67.4% within the delivery standard—were down compared with the 2009–10 results of 100% and 100% respectively. Primarily, the reason for Hansard not meeting these targets in 2010–11 related to the difficulties that were experienced with both the old and new Hansard Production Systems. These difficulties led to timeliness issues for the delivery of transcripts that then impacted the preparation and delivery of the electronic and hard-copy Official Hansards.

Committees

The service delivery standards for committee transcripts are in four categories: within 24 hours (priority), within 1–3 days (priority), within 3–5 days and over 5 days. Delivery times for priority hearings are negotiated with the relevant Clerk Assistant, Committees.

The performance result is the percentage of transcripts delivered within the agreed deadlines. For the 24-hour category, 76.2% of transcripts were delivered on time compared with 100% in 2009–10. For the 1–3 day category, 63.8% of transcripts were delivered on time compared with 99% in 2009–10. In the 3–5 day category, 68.9% of transcripts were delivered on time compared with 100% in 2009–10. All targets were met for the first half of 2010–11. As the previous production system was coming to end of life and as the new system was introduced, agreed deadlines were not always achieved during the second half of the year. Adding to this situation was the limited ability to use external providers to assist with the workload as they were also becoming familiar with the new system and not all were operational. Committee transcripts with a delivery standard of over five days were delivered on time on all occasions in 2010–11, which was consistent with the 2009–10 result.

Indicator—Transcription services

Chambers

The figures for transcription services reflect those reported for the broadcasting activity. The figure of 1,138 Chamber hours for 2010–11 (an election year) is higher (18%) than the 929 Chamber hours in 2007–08 (the previous election year).

Transcripts were provided to occupants of Parliament House in hard copy and were available electronically through ParlInfo Search, the parliamentary database. Senators and Members are also able to access transcripts through the Senators’ and Members’ Services Portal.

Transcripts were provided to the general public through:

  1. the Australian Parliament House website;
  2. libraries and educational institutions; through the Legal Deposit and Commonwealth Library Deposit; and Free Issue Schemes; and
  3. direct subscriptions.

Committees

There were 1,961 hours of committee hearings transcribed in 2010–11. This is a 10% decrease when compared with 2,191 hours in the 2009–10 year, but a 38% increase on 1,208 hours in 2007–08 (the previous election year). Senate Estimates hearings again took place concurrently with House of Representatives and Main Committee sittings. This presented significant workload challenges for Hansard.

Senate committee hearings, including Estimates hearings, made up 70% of the total committee workload, slightly down from 74% in 2009–10. House of Representatives committees made up 16% (up from 14% in 2009–10) and joint committees 14% (up from 12% in 2009–10).

In 2010–11, Hansard continued to use external providers to manage its peak workload and, to further assist, increased the use of casual employees. External providers are engaged on occasion to transcribe parliamentary committee hearings held interstate and to assist with the transcription of committee hearings in the ACT. This is particularly helpful during the busy Senate Estimates hearings and with the increased committee activity during parliamentary sitting weeks. Notwithstanding the issues experienced during 2010–11 with the Hansard Production Systems, Hansard could not meet its delivery standards during peak times without the assistance of external providers and casual employees. Without these methods, Hansard would need additional permanent staff to cover peak workloads, resulting in excess transcription capacity at other times and additional ongoing costs.

Indicator—Questions on Notice

In 2010–11, 966 pages of answers to Questions on Notice or Questions in Writing were included in proof Hansards. This is a 42% decrease compared with 1,675 in 2009–10.

Indicator—Hansard services (price)

Notwithstanding the use of external providers and casual employees, many of the costs at Hansard are relatively inflexible. Consequently, even though total costs decreased, the cost per hour of service increased, as set out in figure 4.28. The hourly cost for Chamber and committee transcription in 2010–11 rose (52% and 46% respectively) compared with 2009–10. The 2010–11 transcription costs per hour of Chamber sittings ($3,587:1,138 hours) increased slightly compared with those of 2007–08 ($3,374:929 hours)—the previous election year.

ACT committee hearings in 2010–11 ($2,669) reported a decrease in costs per hour when compared with $2,942 in the previous election year of 2007–08. This was as a result of an increase in committee hearing hours by 611 compared to 785 in 2007–08.

The transcription cost of interstate committee hearings increased as a result of the reduction in hours that were transcribed. The 2010–11 transcription cost of interstate committee hearings of $2,769 per hour (565 hours) is a marked decrease of 14% on the 2007–08 cost of $3,229 (the previous election year: 423 hours); however, it was a 41% increase on the 2009–10 cost of $1,958 (956 hours).

Figure 4.25—Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services—quantity indicators

Figure 4.25—Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services—quantity indicators

Figure 4.26—Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services—price indicators

Figure 4.26—Subprogram 4.2—Hansard services—price indicators

Program 5—Parliament House works programs

Administered items

Introduction

DPS uses administered funds to plan, develop and deliver into service:

  1. a building works program; and
  2. an artworks conservation and development program.

While the structure of Parliament House was designed and constructed to have a life of some 200 years, after 22 years of operation there are significant reasons why continuing investment in a building works program is required, including:

  1. many components within the building are reaching the end of their economic service life and have worn out (or are very close to wearing out), including electrical, mechanical and plumbing equipment;
  2. new technologies that enable improved services are becoming available, such as more efficient lighting and energy systems, often reducing long-term support costs and/or enabling better environmental performance; and
  3. new investments are required to meet compliance and regulatory requirements such as safety, security and disability access.

The building works program supports the operation of Parliament into the future, while at the same time preserving the design integrity of the architecture, engineering systems, art collections and landscape that make up Parliament House.

Indicator—Extent to which building works projects meet objectives

During 2010–11, 16 projects were substantially completed, with all projects meeting or exceeding agreed business objectives.

Three proposed projects were stopped during the evaluation process as one was no longer necessary and two did not represent value for money.

Indicator—Extent to which building works projects are completed on time

Of the 16 projects substantially completed in 2010–11, 14 were delivered within the agreed timeline. Two projects were delayed to meet planning and consultation requirements.

Indicator—Extent to which building projects are completed on budget

All projects were completed within their allocated budget.

Indicator—Extent to which administered funds are expended on building projects

Increased capacity and capability in the Building and Security Projects team resulted in an increased level of administered funding being spent on building projects, with preparations well underway to nearly double that effort in 2011–12. With the increased budget for required projects in the 2011–13 years—significantly due to NPP security funds—the Building and Security Projects team increased capacity to deliver the larger program. The spend was $20m, and a similar level of production is required in 2012–13.

Case study—Art services

Case study—Art services

A rewarding project for DPS Art Services during 2010–11 was its involvement in the exhibition Lines that speak: Architectural drawings of Romaldo Giurgola. This exhibition was held in the Presiding Officers' Exhibition Area in Parliament House from 3 September to 31 October 2010 and coincided with the Parliament House Open Day.

The exhibition featured the architectural drawings of the principal design architect of Parliament House, Romaldo ('Aldo') Giurgola AO. The exhibition was initiated by Pamille Berg AO, who worked with Aldo Giurgola as the Art/Craft Program Coordinator on the design and construction of Parliament House. The exhibition was developed as a collaboration between the three parliamentary service departments and the National Archives of Australia. The exhibition brought together drawings from several of his architectural projects, including Parliament House in Canberra and St Patrick's Cathedral in Parramatta, New South Wales. Also displayed were several of Aldo Giurgola's personal sketchbooks.

DPS Art Services supported the exhibition by undertaking the mounting and framing of the drawings and installation of the exhibition. This involved close liaison with the curator about how 28 drawings would be best presented, looking at factors such as frame size and mount style. The task was especially challenging as the drawings were working documents that were never intended to be displayed in an exhibition space. Many were on lightweight material and large in scale, making them difficult to securely mount and frame. The fact that most drawings had been rolled or folded for many years also posed additional challenges for DPS Art Services staff to resolve.

The finished exhibition highlighted the skill of Aldo Giurgola to render 'by hand' complex architectural ideas, from the earliest conceptual stages of a project. He used drawing throughout his projects to develop and convey his thinking about building design. The exhibition also highlighted the extent to which Aldo Giurgola envisaged his designs, not in isolation, but as part of the larger environment.

The exhibition launch coincided with Aldo Giurgola's 90th birthday on 2 September 2010. An illustrated catalogue, Lines that speak: Architectural drawings of Romaldo Giurgola, (pictured above with artworks officer Colin Grant) was also launched at the exhibition opening, a copy of which is held in the Parliamentary Library.

Indicator—Extent to which the art collection is developed

The focus for art acquisitions continued to be on areas of the collection that are under-represented and on increasing the number of artworks suitable for display in Senators’ and Members’ suites. The Art Advisory Committee only met once in 2010–11, because of the 2010 election. One acquisition proposal submitted to the committee was not approved.

A total of 84 new artworks by 42 different artists were purchased. Of those 42 artists, 24 are Indigenous, and 21 are women.

Four new artwork gifts were accepted into the collection, including an early European map presented by the European Parliament.

One new portrait for the Historic Memorials Collection (HMC) was finalised, of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Harry Jenkins MP.

All art collection development tasks were completed on time.

Indicator—Extent to which the art collection is conserved

In 2010–11, 30 artworks were subject to conservation treatment. Continuing work that commenced in the previous year, a number of older portraits from the HMC received treatment to repair damage and deterioration to their ornate gilded frames. Work also commenced on conservation of the Great Hall Tapestry. The

tapestry is generally in very good condition, but has been on continuous display in the Great Hall for over 20 years. Detailed analysis was required to assess whether any light fading or insect damage has occurred and to determine the most appropriate method for cleaning this important artwork. The second stage of this work will be undertaken in 2011–12.

Indicator—Extent to which administered funds are expended on the art collection

Costs attributed to art collection development and conservation include the purchase price of individual artworks, as well as payments for delivery, custom framing, art consultancy services and contracted conservation services.

Figure 4.27—Administered items—Building works—quality, quantity and price indicators

Figure 4.27—Administered items—Building works—quality, quantity and price indicators

Figure 4.28—Administered items—Artworks—quality, quantity and price indicators

Figure 4.28—Administered items—Artworks—quality, quantity and price indicators




Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print