Annual Report 2003–04
Outcome 1—Effective provision of services
The Department of the Senate ensures that the Senate, its committees, the President of the Senate, Senators and the public are provided with a broad range of advisory and support services. The department is responsible to the Senate and all senators, and maintains complete impartiality in serving equally senators from all political parties and independent senators.
The department’s four main areas of service provision are reflected in the following intermediate outcomes derived from the corporate plan:
- effective support for the Senate chamber
- public awareness of the Senate and its work
- effective support for Senate and certain joint committees
- effective office and information technology support services for senators in their Parliament House offices.
Overall performance results
The department’s performance in achieving Outcome 1 is assessed using indicators that cover all the department’s activities, as well as indicators that are specific to particular output groups.
The department-wide assessment indicators covering quality, timeliness, quantity and price are outlined in the table below. Each output group chapter begins with a similar table, describing the group’s planned outputs, performance indicators and results in 2003–04
| Performance indicators | Performance results |
|---|---|
| Quality | |
| The degree of satisfaction of the President, Deputy President and senators, as expressed through formal and informal feedback mechanisms, with the accuracy, quality and timeliness of advice and support and the achievement of key tasks. | Informal feedback—for example,
comments made in Senate debates—confirmed senators’
high levels of satisfaction with the quality and timeliness
of support. The department’s regular survey of senators—the main formal feedback mechanism—will next be conducted in March 2005. |
| Timeliness | |
| Advice or material given on request of
senator in time to be used for the purpose for which it was
required. Key business documents for the Senate and its committees, including minutes, agendas, messages and schedules of amendments and reports, produced in accordance with predetermined requirements and the requirements of the Senate and its committees. |
All business documents were produced in accordance with predetermined requirements and agreed timeframes, in time to serve the purposes for which they were prepared. |
| Quantity | |
| On the basis of recent experience, in 2003–04 the department would expect to support the Senate on approximately 70 sitting days and committees in accordance with their requirements. | The department supported the Senate on 71 sitting days and estimates committees on 17 days, and other committees in accordance with their requirements. |
| Price | |
| The total price of the department’s outputs in 2003–04 is estimated to be $35.6 million. | The actual cost of the department’s outputs in 2003–04 was $36.1 million. |
Analysis
Operational performance
In 2003–04, the department continued to provide comprehensive, timely, high-quality and cost-effective support for the operations of the Senate and its committees.
The performance indicator for quantity is based on days of sitting in a normal non‑election year. The number of sitting days rose during 2003–04, and the total was closer to the long-term average than in the previous financial year, although sitting days continued to be unevenly distributed between a heavier sitting pattern in the first half of the year and a lighter pattern in the second half.
Estimates committee hearings were again concentrated in the second half of the year. Procedural, advisory and legislative support services provided by the department continued to be highly concentrated on those sitting and estimates hearing days, but the department maintained its high levels of efficiency in delivering a range of services throughout the year, including on the many days when committees met.
The department provided advice on a broad range of subjects, both in response to and in anticipation of senators’ requirements, to facilitate senators’ performance of their roles. Further details are provided in the report on Output Group 1.
The department’s support for the Senate’s conduct of its business and for the broader legislative process was timely and accurate. Documentation for meetings of the Senate was produced in advance of each sitting, and minutes of proceedings were generally published within an hour of the Senate’s adjournment each day. Amendments were drafted for non-government senators in accordance with their requirements; and schedules of amendments with accompanying messages relating to the consideration of bills were produced to uniform high standards, notwithstanding the unusually large volumes of business transacted at the end of each period of sittings, as reported under Output Group 2 and Output Group 3.
The department supported Senate and certain joint committees as they conducted and reported on a large number and wide range of inquiries, including many time-critical inquiries on bills, and many lengthy estimates hearings. Details of this work are provided principally in the report on Output Group 4 but also in the reports on output groups 1, 2 and 3.
In 2003–04, the department continued to provide senators with a wide range of logistical and information technology support in their Parliament House offices. Security measures were enhanced in response to instructions from the Presiding Officers, made on the advice of the interdepartmental SecurityManagement Board. Details of this work are provided in the report on Output Group 5.
The range of activities undertaken by the department to promote public awareness of parliamentary democracy in general, and the Senate and its committees in particular, continued during 2003–04. Programs conducted by the Parliamentary Education Office for school students, teachers and community groups continued to be relevant, innovative and well received. Likewise, the seminar, lecture, exhibition, fellowship and publications programs conducted by the Procedure Office provided audiences with appropriate information about parliamentary government. These activities were complemented by the efforts of individual staff members in writing articles for publication and making presentations to academic, professional and community groups. Further details of this work are provided in the report on Output Group 3 and in appendices 4 and 5.
Financial performance
In 2003–04, total expenses for the department were $36.1 million, compared to $31.9 million in 2002–03. The proportion of expenses dedicated to security decreased from 35.7 per cent in 2002–03 to 34.3 per cent in 2003–04 despite an overall increase in security costs of $1.0 million. The department made an operating surplus of $0.5 million compared to a deficit of $0.3 million in 2002–03. More details are provided in Table 1.
| Budget estimate (price) ($’000) | Actual expenses (cost) ($’000) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Administered expenses | ||
| Senators’ salaries, allowances and entitlements | 11,760 | 11,708 |
| Office-holders’ support | 665 | 726 |
| Citizenship Visits Program | 633 | 603 |
| Total administered | 13,058 | 13,037 |
| Departmental price of outputs | ||
| Output Group 1—Clerk’s Office | 998 | 1,107 |
| Output Group 2—Table Office | 2,672 | 2,622 |
| Output Group 3—Procedure Office | 4,839 | 5,280 |
| Output Group 4—Committee Office | 9,116 | 9,186 |
| Output Group 5—Black Rod’s Office | ||
| Output 5.1—Senators’ services | 5,970 | 5,515 |
| Output 5.2—Security | 11,997 | 12,397 |
| Total price/cost of outputs | 35,592 | 36,107 |
| Total resources | 48,650 | 49,144 |
| Expected ASL | Actual ASL | |
| Average staffing level (ASL) | 227 | 186 |
Variations to performance targets
There were no variations to performance targets during 2003–04.
Purchaser–provider arrangements
Last year, the department reported that it jointly funded several services, together with the Department of the House of Representatives, and that it was participating in the development of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) setting out financial arrangements for the provision of security services. In 2003–04, the following services continued to be jointly funded by the chamber departments.
- The Parliamentary Education Office was staffed by the Department of the Senate, with all operating costs shared by the chamber departments.
- The Parliamentary Relations Office was staffed by the Department of the House of Representatives, with all operating costs shared equally by the chamber departments.
- The cost of the Citizenship Visits Program, funded as an administered item, was shared equally by the two chamber departments.
In September 2003, the two chamber departments signed an MOU, covering the provision of security services, with the Department of Parliamentary Services. The total value of the MOU was capped at $19.3 million. Australian Protective Service was also appointed a provider of security services, under a separate MOU, within the overall financial cap agreed with the Department of Parliamentary Services. The MOU was dispensed with at the end of the financial year when new financial arrangements came into effect (see the Clerk’s review, and ‘Developments that may affect future operations’).
Evaluation
The biennial survey of senators’ satisfaction with services provided by the department was last conducted in February and March 2003 and will next be conducted in the first half of 2005. In the absence of formal feedback from senators, the department relied on informal feedback, often provided during debates in the Senate or in response to particular events. Informal feedback continued to indicate a high level of senators’ satisfaction with the services provided by the department. Mechanisms for evaluating educational and information programs continued to provide overwhelmingly positive feedback.
The Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing scrutinises the department’s annual appropriation and considers proposals for changes to the structure and responsibilities of the parliamentary departments. The committee’s thirty-ninth report, Review of aspects of parliamentary administration, was tabled on 23 June 2003, in response to the Podger review.
On 18 August 2003, the Senate considered the committee’s report andagreed to a resolution abolishing the Joint House Department, the Department of the Parliamentary Library and the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, with effect from 31 January 2004, and establishing a new service department, the Department of Parliamentary Services, with effect from 1 February 2004.
The committee’s fortieth report, Senate Departmental Budget 2004–05, made significant recommendations (discussed in more detail below) affecting the future role of the Department of the Senate in relation to security funding and oversight.
The Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee examined the department’s activities through its questioning of departmental officers at the supplementary 2003–04 budget estimates hearings in November 2003, the 2003–04 additional estimates hearings in February 2004 and the 2004–05 budget estimates hearings on 24 May 2004. Major issues considered were the arrangements relating to the visits to Parliament House of the presidents of the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China in October 2003; the amalgamation of the parliamentary departments; security funding issues; and senators’ printing entitlements.
Senators participating in the 2004–05 budget estimates hearings suggested that the department transfer responsibility for aspects of senators’ printing to the Department of Finance and Administration, to avoid the difficulties associated with departmental officers having to vet senators’ newsletters for compliance with the Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations. At the end of the year, such a transfer was under investigation. More details are provided in the report on Output Group 5.
The department’s activities are evaluated through both internal and external audits. The Audit and Evaluation Committee is an important part of the department’s evaluation strategy. The findings and recommendations of reviews conducted during the year are tabled at each Audit and Evaluation Committee meeting, and recommendations agreed to by the committee are incorporated in the department’s practices and procedures.
The department’s Strategic Internal Audit Plan 2003–2006 focuses on areas of highest risk and areas where management feels the greatest value can be added. The audit program includes a combination of compliance reviews and comprehensive reviews.
The planned internal audit program for 2004–05 will be finalised in consultation with the executive and scrutinised by the Audit and Evaluation Committee in July 2004.
The department is also covered by the program of the Australian National Audit Office and may be involved in some cross-portfolio audits or benchmarking activities.
Developments that may affect future operations
The need to fund enhanced security measures for Parliament House continued to put the department’s budget under pressure during 2003–04. The department received $29.4 million in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 2004–05, having received $30.3 million under the 2003–04 legislation.
This decrease was attributed to the savings measures imposed on the department in the 2003–04 Budget to ‘offset’ the costs of enhanced security for Parliament House. These required savings measures amounted to $1.2 million in 2004–05, rising to reach $1.3 million in 2006–07, and were to be achieved either by the implementation of the Podger review’s recommendation to amalgamate the joint departments or by other savings.
In its fortieth report, the Appropriations and Staffing Committee did not accept the legitimacy of those measures, given that the department had no access to or control over any savings that might be achieved by the amalgamation. As discussed in last year’s report, the committee raised concerns about the increase in security costs, for which the department would be only partially supplemented in future years, and its impact on the department’s ability to continue to provide existing levels of services to senators, the Senate and its committees.
The 2004–05 budget legislation provided some indirect relief to the department by appropriating an additional $1.3 million to the Department of Parliamentary Services as part of a package of security-related budget measures. The government’s intention was that the Department of Parliamentary Services would be in a position to reduce the amount charged to each of the chamber departments for security services by $0.65 million (for 2004–05 only).
At the additional estimates hearings on 16 February 2004, the President indicated that any cuts to pay for security expenditure should be attributed to the Department of Parliamentary Services, as the department responsible for security, and as the department in which any savings resulting from the Podger amalgamation would be realised. The President therefore accepted a recommendation by the Department of the Senate that the $1.2 million cut in the department’s budget be transferred in its entirety to the Department of Parliamentary Services.
In conjunction with this decision, however, the President considered that, given the Department of Parliamentary Services would absorb all of the savings required to pay for increases in security expenditure, that department should also have the ability to manage the available security funding. The President therefore also decided, in consultation with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, that the purchaser–provider arrangement for security services should cease and that the funding for security personnel and equipment should be appropriated directly to the Department of Parliamentary Services.
One rationale of the purchaser–provider arrangement had been to safeguard the involvement of senators, the Appropriations and Staffing Committee and the Department of the Senate in overseeing the security system through shared control and oversight of security funding. As an interim measure, following the decision to suspend the purchaser–provider arrangement, the President determined to issue a direction that advice on security affecting senators, Parliament House or the parliamentary precincts would not be regarded as satisfactory advice to him unless signed by the appropriate officer of the Department of the Senate.
The Appropriations and Staffing Committee also recommended in its fortieth report that the following safeguards be adopted:
- that the committee’s terms of reference be amended to give it responsibility for the oversight of security expenditure and administration of security measures affecting the Senate
- that the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 be amended to formally establish the Security Management Board, on a statutory basis, to advise the Presiding Officers on security management and policy issues.
The Senate agreed to the committee’s recommendations on 16 June 2004. At the end of the financial year, the department was preparing for the transfer of its security budget, security assets and an appropriate amount of depreciation reserves to the Department of Parliamentary Services, to be complete by 1 July 2004.
In 2003–04, funding for security expenditure accounted for 34 per cent of the department’s budget. Whether the absence of this significant budget item will affect the department’s ability to flexibly deliver a range of services to senators, the Senate and its committees, while retaining and attracting qualified staff, will be closely monitored in 2004–05.
