Annual Report 2004–05
PDF
636 KBOutput Group 4—Committee Office
| Outputs | ||
|---|---|---|
| Provision of secretariat support to the Senate legislative and general purpose standing committees, select committees and certain joint committees. | ||
| Performance indicators | Performance results | |
| Quality | The degree of satisfaction of the President, Deputy President,
committee members and senators, as expressed through formal
and informal feedback mechanisms, with the quality and timeliness
of advice and support and the achievement of key tasks. Advice, documentation, publications and draft reports are accurate and of a high standard. |
Senators who participated in the 2005 survey of senators
expressed very high levels of satisfaction with all aspects
of the support provided by the department to Senate and certain
joint committees. This satisfaction was also expressed in informal
feedback and in comments during debates on committee reports
in the Senate. Comments in the survey on the support provided by committee secretariats included ‘first class’, ‘highly professional’ and similar. Staff were said to perform extremely well, at times under great pressure and, more often than not, to tight deadlines. There was some comment that the number of staff was not always adequate to meet the workload and that this placed an additional burden on secretariats. In particular, senators commended: - the standard of analysis and quality of drafting - the efficiency with which inquiries were organised and public hearings arranged - the sensitivity and effectiveness with which staff dealt with witnesses - the timeliness and accuracy of advice provided to senators and their staff. |
| Timeliness | Meetings held, documentation provided and reports produced
within timeframes set by the Senate or the committee, as relevant. Tabling deadlines met in all but extraordinary circumstances. |
Despite the complexity of some inquiries, secretariats consistently
met the organisational, procedural and briefing requirements
of their committees. Within the constraints of the availability of senators, meetings, hearings, briefings and other committee activities were conducted in a timely and effective manner. Reports were drafted and presented to the Senate in accordance with timelines set by committees and deadlines set by the Senate. |
| Quantity | Documentation is sufficient for committee purposes and material available to the public is available promptly, electronically or in hard copy. | Secretariats provided documents in accordance with committee
requirements and orders of the Senate to committee members,
witnesses and others, and in response to requests from the
public. Upon tabling, reports were promptly made available to senators and members of the public in both printed and electronic forms. |
Analysis
During 2004–05, the Committee Office provided effective support for Senate and certain joint committees by:
- giving accurate and timely procedural advice and administrative support to facilitate and expedite the work of committees
- arranging meetings and hearings in accordance with committee decisions in a responsive and timely manner
- providing comprehensive and timely briefings and research papers
- drafting quality reports which accurately canvass and analyse the evidence from submissions and hearings and reflect the requirements of committees (and assisting, as necessary, in the drafting of minority reports)
- communicating effectively with witnesses and members of the general public
- being proactive in anticipating requirements of committees and chairs.
The workload during the year settled down to a normal pattern after the exceptionally busy year described in the 2003–04 annual report. The workload in 2004–05 was not as consistently demanding, as a result of the election period before and after the 9 October 2004 elections and a light sitting pattern in the first half of 2005. During the year, Committee Office staff drafted 133 reports, almost the same number as the 134 drafted in the previous year. However, 27 of these were short interim reports on references to be completed in the new parliament or reports recommending that certain matters be re-referred in the new parliament. Excluding these, there were approximately 106 substantial reports, comparable to the 100 drafted in 2002–03.
The return to a more usual workload pattern is evident in statistics for the numbers of hearings and meetings held: 711 in 2002–03; 773 in 2003–04; and 536 in 2004–05. The total numbers of witnesses heard in each year were 6,789 in 2002–03, 6,931 in 2003–04 and 5,011 in 2004–05.
Although in the previous year staff resources had been stretched, with weekend and regular night work often the norm, staff in 2004–05 were not usually subjected to the same pressures. The exception arose in relation to a small number of committee inquiries which had to be completed by 30 June 2005—the last date of membership of 14 outgoing senators involved in some of the inquiries, and the last day of a non-government majority in the Senate.
The election break provided an opportunity for secretariat staff to do some housekeeping tasks, such as archiving records from completed inquiries (other than material already tabled); to undertake longer-term projects; and, in a number of instances, to take some much-needed and long-delayed leave.
In the Forty-first Parliament, the Committee Office continues to be structured as set out in previous annual reports: a joint secretariat for each pair of legislative and general purpose standing committees, and secretariats for each select committee and the three joint committees administered by the Committee Office, with some overlap of staff depending on workloads. Heading the Committee Office is the Clerk Assistant (Committees), supported by the Senior Clerk of Committees, both of whom also perform duty as clerks at the table in the Senate chamber, as does one committee secretary. Figure 19 shows the structure of the office.
The full-time equivalent staffing level for the Committee Office during the year was 58, down marginally from the 62 in 2003–04, but the same as the level in 2002–03. Most were ongoing staff members, supplemented with a few non-ongoing staff to fill temporary vacancies or to provide additional resources for particular inquiries. The Committee Office also benefited from the work of participants in the department’s Working in the Senate (WISE) program, who spent much of their year attached to committee secretariats.
The cost of the Committee Office in 2004–05 was $8.8 million, comprising $4.8 million for staffing costs and $4.0 million for the administrative costs of committee operations. These administrative costs include staff travel and accommodation and venue hire. They also include the costs of some non-government witnesses and the costs of consultants engaged with the approval of the President. The costs of senators attending hearings are not included, as these are met by the Department of Finance and Administration.
As a representative example, the average direct cost of supporting a pair of legislative and general purpose standing committees during the year was $510,000, slightly higher than $465,000 in the previous year.
| Executive | ||
|---|---|---|
| John Vander Wyk, Clerk
Assistant Brenton Holmes, Senior Clerk Procedural advice Planning and coordination Secretariat staffing and resources Statistics and records |
||
| Legislative and general purpose standing committee (legislation and references) secretariats | Select committee secretariats | Joint statutory committee secretariats |
| Community Affairs Elton Humphrey Economics Peter Hallahan Employment, Workplace Relations and Education John Carter Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Louise Gell Finance and Public Administration Alistair Sands Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Kathleen Dermody Legal and Constitutional Owen Walsh Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Maureen Weeks |
Free Trade Agreement between Australia
and the United States of America Brenton Holmes Lindeberg Grievance Alistair Sands Scrafton Evidence Alistair Sands Administration of Indigenous Affairs Jonathan Curtis Mental Health Ian Holland |
Australian Crime Commission Jonathan Curtis Corporations and Financial Services Anthony Marinac Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account Jonathan Curtis |
Note: Secretaries are shown as at 30 June 2005 or, in the case of select committees, as at the completion of the relevant inquiry.
Procedural changes and advice
Secretaries continued to provide procedural and strategic advice to committee chairs and members. On a number of occasions this advice was supplemented by advice from the Clerk, Deputy Clerk, Clerk Assistant (Committees) or Senior Clerk of Committees. The advice, both oral and written, covered a wide variety of issues in the area of parliamentary privilege and other matters, such as the protection of witnesses, the power of committees to call witnesses and order the production of documents, claims of confidentiality for government documents, the ability of chairs to rule on questions to witnesses, and adverse reflections on persons made in evidence. Of the senators surveyed in 2005, 95 per cent rated the advice they received about committee matters as very satisfactory (49 per cent) or satisfactory (46 per cent).
Legislative and general purpose standing committees
The 16 legislative and general purpose standing committees are divided into two groups—eight legislation committees and eight references committees. The committees are established pursuant to standing order 25 as permanent committees, which exist for the life of a parliament and are re-established at the commencement of each new parliament. Legislation committees inquire into and report on bills, estimates of proposed expenditure, annual reports and the performance of government departments and agencies. References committees report on other matters referred by the Senate (usually subject-oriented inquiries).
During 2004–05, legislation committees had referred to them 52 matters, including 43 bills or packages of bills, and tabled 64 reports. Details are shown in Figure 20. The committees sat for a total of 159 hours, and conducted hearings mainly in Canberra but also in interstate centres. In the previous year, legislation committees had referred to them 75 matters, including 53 bills or packages of bills, and they tabled 77 reports. These statistics, and those in Figure 20, do not include data relating to legislation committees considering estimates, which are detailed separately in Figure 21.
Figure 20 Legislation committees—activity
Legislation committees considering the estimates of proposed expenditure of Australian Government departments and agencies sat for a total of 520 hours for the 2004–05 budget cycle. This cycle commenced with budget estimates in May and June 2004 and continued with supplementary hearings and additional estimates in February 2005. Normally, the supplementary hearings would have been held separately in November 2004, but because of the election they were combined with the additional estimates in February. Legislation committees considering estimates produced 16 reports. For details see Figure 21.
At the May–June 2005 budget estimates hearings for the 2005–06 financial year, the legislation committees sat for 352 hours, and senators asked an estimated 35,000 questions, with another 3,589 questions placed on notice (an increase of more than 50 per cent on the 2,260 placed on notice in May–June 2004).
During the year, the numbers of questions on notice asked at estimates hearings that remained unanswered after the deadlines for answers set by the Senate and the committees was highlighted to senators. The Committee Office periodically updated tables listing the numbers of answers outstanding, and distributed the listings to all senators.
The most recent listing, which was tabled in the Senate by the President on 14 June 2005, showed that a total of 90 questions had not been answered as at 10 June 2005. Of these unanswered questions, 51 had been lodged during the May–June 2004 budget estimates, 19 during November–December 2004 (pursuant to a resolution of the Senate authorising the lodging of questions on notice in lieu of the supplementary hearings), and 20 during the February 2005 additional estimates. The departments with the greatest numbers of questions remaining unanswered were Treasury, Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, and Prime Minister and Cabinet (or their associated agencies).
Figure 21 Legislation committees considering estimates—activity
References committees had 28 matters referred to them, sat for 403 hours and conducted hearings in Canberra, all state and territory capitals and several regional and country centres. These committees tabled 41 reports (including 19 interim reports and reports recommending the re-referral of references). Details are shown in Figure 22. In the previous year, the references committees had 13 matters referred to them, sat for 601 hours and tabled 21 reports.
Figure 22 References committees—activity
Select committees
Select committees are ad hoc committees created to inquire into and report on specific matters. A select committee usually has a limited life and ceases to exist on the presentation of its final report.
Five select committees existed, and were supported by the Committee Office, during the year. Four of these were established in the previous parliament (the first three before 1 July 2004 and the fourth on 30 August 2004):
- the Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America, which tabled its final report on 5 August 2004
- the Select Committee on the Lindeberg Grievance, which reported on 15 November 2004 (report tabled in the Senate on 16 November)
- the Select Committee on the Administration of Indigenous Affairs (reappointed on 17 November 2004, in the current parliament; report tabled on 8 March 2005)
- the Select Committee on the Scrafton Evidence (reappointed on 18 November 2004; report tabled on 9 December 2004).
The only new select committee to be appointed in the current parliament was the Select Committee on Mental Health, established on 8 March 2005 and due to report on 6 October 2005.
During the year, select committees held 42 meetings (public and private), involving a total of 108 hours; received 993 submissions; and heard 231 witnesses. The comparable figures for the previous year were 89 meetings, involving 241 hours, with 946 submissions received and 498 witnesses heard.
Joint committees
During 2004–05, the Committee Office supported three statutory joint committees, which comprise both senators and members of the House of Representatives. They were the parliamentary joint committees on Corporations and Financial Services, the Australian Crime Commission, and Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account.
The three committees held 48 meetings (public and private), involving a total of 58 hours, received 87 submissions and heard 69 witnesses. The comparable figures for the previous year were 93 meetings, involving 160 hours, with 186 submissions received and 298 witnesses heard.
Meeting venues
Secretariats supported 536 meetings and hearings during the year, which was a 25 per cent reduction on the 711 held in 2002–03, and a 30 per cent reduction on the 773 held in the peak activity year of 2003–04.
Although most committee meetings and hearings were held at Parliament House, committees endeavoured to meet in the states or territories when they could. Details of interstate meetings are shown in Figure 23. The distribution of meetings between Canberra and the states and territories was similar to that of previous years.
Figure 23 Committee meetings, 2004–05, by location
Significant changes in functions and services
All the standing, select and joint committees in existence at the end of the previous parliament were re-established at the commencement of the new parliament. To the extent that unfinished inquiries permitted, opportunities were taken during the election period to move some staff members to different secretariats for development purposes (bearing in mind some senators’ concerns about continuity of secretariat memory and expertise). Such moves enable staff members to work in new subject areas, with new challenges, which helps them stay interested and focused.
The Committee Office also encouraged staff development by providing seminars and training in practical areas, such as report writing and ways to improve media interest in committee work. These were offered in addition to the department’s regular seminar series on constitutional, procedural and electoral issues.
Because no new committees were established (apart from one select committee) and there were no changes in committee functions, there was little opportunity for change in secretariat functions and services during 2004–05. In the next financial year, however, change is expected to occur in the way secretariats handle routine administrative functions in support of committees. The Committee Office is developing, with an external provider, a web-based information management system which should deliver substantial efficiencies and allow easier website management and on-line communication with submitters and witnesses.
The system will facilitate the receipt of electronic submissions (hard-copy submissions will continue to be accepted), and will enable witnesses, particularly those from organisations which are regularly or periodically represented before committees, to automatically update contact details. It will improve the ability of secretariats to acknowledge and process all submissions promptly (particularly important for inquiries that attract hundreds of submissions), to establish lists of submitters and witnesses, to largely automate the production of inquiry statistics, and to send out ‘alert’ emails.
Already in place, and referred to in previous annual reports, is the use of report templates to standardise the layout and formatting of committee reports, and the use of standard covers for legislation and references committee reports. A Committee Office style manual, soon to be introduced, will help ensure that all Senate committee reports adopt similar approaches to the citation of evidence, the organisation of standard material common to most inquiries (for example, lists of witnesses and submitters), and so on. These measures will make reference to the reports easier and increase the efficiency of secretariats.
The more that relatively routine processes can be expedited by using information technology and taking a common approach across secretariats, the more resources can be freed up for the important work of research and analysis.
The Committee Office also commenced producing compact disc (CD) versions of Senate committee reports during 2004–05. Each tabled report is now reproduced on a CD as well as in print. The CD version also includes the submissions and transcripts of evidence for that inquiry, thus providing all relevant material in one handy package. Any senator, witness or member of the public who requires a copy of a report will be able to choose to receive it in hard copy or on a CD. Production of CD versions of reports and related material should result in lower printing and copying costs and minimise handling and postage.
Reports, submissions and evidence are also available on committee websites: reports are placed on websites as soon as possible after tabling, and public evidence and submissions are loaded progressively during an inquiry. Because of storage limitations, submissions and evidence may not always be maintained on those sites beyond six months after the tabling of the relevant report. The CD copy of the report and related material will provide a useful alternative to keeping voluminous paper copies.
Factors, events and trends influencing performance
As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the heavy workloads dealt with by secretariats in 2003–04 did not continue in the new parliament, and thus the need for a resources review, referred to in the previous annual report, has abated. However, the Committee Office will keep workloads under review. If there is a trend towards the level of load experienced in 2003–04, the issue of adequate staffing will need to be revisited.
The workloads experienced in 2003–04 also caused some health problems, including occupational overuse injury and, for some staff, a dip in morale because of the unrelenting pressure to produce, with its concomitant demand for long hours and regular weekend work. Close attention is being paid to both issues to ensure that, in future, staff health is not adversely affected and morale remains positive.
The inquiries into issues with great personal sensitivity, such as those into military justice, children in institutional care and mental health, posed particular challenges for all concerned—committee members, secretariat staff and witnesses. In preparation for the inquiry into mental health, staff and some committee members attended a special workshop on how to deal with people in crisis. At hearings for some of the other inquiries, the relevant secretariat arranged for a counsellor to be present to assist witnesses if required.
The proportion of submissions lodged electronically with committees continued to increase, as did email correspondence to committees. Committees were mindful of the privacy of submitters and the relative ease with which personal information on the internet can be misused. In many cases, committees determined that contact details—such as the postal address, email address and phone numbers of the submitter—should be removed from submissions before they are placed on the internet. In the coming year, the Committee Office will strive to have a uniform approach to this issue adopted by all committees.
Evaluation
The principal means of evaluating the performance of the department in supporting Senate and certain joint committees is the biennial survey of senators. The 2005 survey showed high levels of satisfaction with the work of secretariats.
Senators were, on the whole, very satisfied with the quality of briefing papers, background research and preparation of draft reports: 54 per cent were satisfied and 43 per cent were highly satisfied. Senators were similarly satisfied with the timeliness of the provision of documents, although one senator expressed concern that minority groups did not always have sufficient time to draft a minority or dissenting report after receiving the chair’s draft of the majority report. While it was acknowledged that such timing was often not within a secretariat’s control, the senator felt that more could be done about setting and meeting deadlines.
Senators were also very satisfied with the organisation of hearings and meetings (95 per cent were satisfied or very satisfied), and with secretariats’ coordination with the senators’ offices (94 per cent were satisfied or very satisfied).
The survey attracted several comments on the calling of meetings, including about the short notice given for some meetings or for alterations in meeting times, and the need for better coordination of meeting times between committees. Again, acknowledgement was made that there were usually factors beyond a secretariat’s control, and the comments were partly a reaction to over-busy meeting schedules in sitting weeks. One senator proposed that more committees should have regular weekly meeting times, instancing one committee which did so.
Senators were happy with the work done by secretariats and the diligence and dedication of staff. There was some concern about whether staff resources were adequate for the workload, and about staff movements causing some loss of expertise and ‘local knowledge’ in particular secretariats.
In general, senators were highly positive. Some of their comments are shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24 Senators’ comments on Output Group 4 secretariats
- ‘The secretariats are exceptionally good—they get through an awful lot of work … they do a good job under difficult circumstances.’
- ‘I can’t speak too highly of the staff—I’m a member of a committee that produces many reports, under enormous pressure on people working in the committee and the secretariat—to ridiculous deadlines. I don’t know how they meet them but they do. All praise to them.’
- ‘They have worked highly efficiently, in a pleasant manner, under great pressure, and highly professionally.’
- ‘Wonderful support.’
- ‘Excellent overall service.’
- ‘Consistent high performance.’
- ‘Helpful, incredibly hard-working and considerate.’
Another important group which has regular dealings with secretariats is that of witnesses and potential witnesses. While the department did not survey witnesses on their views about the assistance provided by secretariat staff, informal feedback was almost uniformly positive. This was particularly the case in relation to complex and difficult inquiries, such as the now complete inquiries on military justice, children in institutional care, and hepatitis C and the blood supply, and the current inquiries into the delivery of services and treatment options for cancer, and mental health.
The department’s focus on performance during the year included regular meetings between committee secretaries, as a group, and the Clerk Assistant (Committees) and Senior Clerk, held to discuss procedural issues and administrative matters connected with the effective functioning of secretariats, including initiatives to improve secretariat services and performance. Individual secretaries also met with the Clerk Assistant (Committees) to discuss their performance. Committee secretaries held regular meetings with secretariat teams, and with individual members of their teams, for similar purposes. The individual meetings were held pursuant to the department’s performance communication scheme established under its certified agreement. During the year, all staff were assessed as ‘effective or better’.
Performance outlook
The Committee Office will continue to provide effective secretariat support services to Senate committees and those joint committees supported by the Department of the Senate. The office comprises committed and skilled research and administrative staff who will be able to adapt readily, without loss of service to committees, should any changes result from the fact that after 1 July 2005 the government will have a majority in the Senate.
As set out above, the Committee Office expects that the introduction of its web-based information management system will improve and streamline administrative processes, and release additional resources for the important research and analytical work on which committees depend in considering submissions and evidence and preparing draft reports. The office will continue to seek out other benefits which might be offered through better use of information technology, and in doing so will seek to improve its performance incrementally but continuously.
The key resource which the office supplies to committees is its people. The Committee Office will continue to recruit high-calibre staff, and to improve their performance through ongoing training and development.