Annual Report 2005–06
PDF
808 KBOutcome 1—Effective provision of
services
Outcome
The Department of the Senate has a single overarching outcome.
Outcome 1—Effective provision of services to support the functioning of the Senate as a House of the Commonwealth Parliament.
To achieve this, the department ensures that the Senate, Senate committees, the President of the Senate, other senators, and members of 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:
- 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
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.
| Outcome 1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Effective provision of services to support the functioning of the Senate as a House of the Commonwealth Parliament. | ||
| 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. | Feedback from the President, Deputy
President, committee members and senators about the quality
and timeliness of advice and the achievement of key tasks indicated
ongoing high levels of satisfaction. All advices, documents, publications and draft reports remained of a high standard and none was shown to be inaccurate. |
| Timeliness | Advice or material given on request
of a 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, and advice was given, 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 2005–06 the department would expect to support the Senate on approximately 60 sitting days and committees in accordance with their requirements. | The department supported the Senate on 58 sitting days, in a continuing trend of fewer sittings. The department supported estimates committees on 18 days (below the expected 20 days) and other committees in accordance with their requirements. |
| Price | The total price of the department’s outputs in 2005–06 is estimated to be $24.9 million. | The actual cost of the department’s outputs in 2005–06 was $21.7 million. |
Analysis
Operational performance
In 2005–06, the department continued to provide comprehensive, timely, high‑quality and cost‑effective support for the operations of the Senate and its committees.
Many of the performance indicators for quantity are based on the expected number of sitting days. We have previously reported a reduction in the number of sitting days. While the long‑term average for a normal, non‑election year has been around 70 days, this year’s indicators were based on an expected 60 days. The actual number was 58.
Similarly, the number of days set aside for estimates hearings and the requirements of individual committees relating to their other inquiries determine much of the demand for our services. For instance, procedural and advisory support services provided by the department are highly concentrated on estimates hearing days. The number of estimates days, expected to be 20, was 18. 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 help senators perform their roles. The quantum of advice sought and given, and the level of satisfaction with that advice, remained high. Further details are provided in the report on Output Group 1.
The department’s support for the conduct of the business of the Senate met all indicators for accuracy and timeliness. We produced documentation for meetings of the Senate before each sitting and published minutes of proceedings promptly in accordance with requirements. We continued to produce documents to expedite the Senate’s consideration of legislation and processed legislation to exacting standards. Amendments were drafted for non‑government senators in accordance with their requirements, as were other procedural documents. We also provided research services, as required, produced information documents on the work and role of the Senate and its committees and published comprehensive statistics on the business of the Senate. These matters are reported under Output Group 2 and Output Group 3.
We supported Senate and certain joint committees as they conducted and reported on inquiries, including many time‑critical inquiries on bills and lengthy estimates hearings. Tight deadlines and an uneven workload required increased flexibility in deploying secretariat staff. These matters are principally set out in the report on Output Group 4. The reports of output groups 1, 2 and 3 also contain details of relevant committee support.
In 2005–06, the department continued to provide senators with a wide range of logistical and information technology support in their Parliament House offices. We also implemented new corporate information systems and helped upgrade the parliamentary computing platform. The intake of 14 new senators at the beginning of the year made demands on advisory and support services across the department. This was particularly reflected in the work of the Black Rod’s Office in providing office services and information technology support and assisting senators to settle in. Further details are provided in the report on Output Group 5.
During the year we also continued to promote public awareness of parliamentary democracy in general, and the Senate and its committees in particular. Programs conducted by the Parliamentary Education Office for schools, teachers and students continued to be relevant, innovative and well received. The seminar, lecture, exhibition, fellowship and publications programs conducted by the Procedure Office provided 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 are provided in the report on Output Group 3 and in appendices 4 and 5.
Financial performance
In 2005–06, total expenses for the department were $21.7 million, representing a decrease in costs compared to the $22.5 million recorded in 2004–05. This decrease is attributable to a fall in general administrative costs, including asset‑related expenses such as depreciation and write‑downs. More details are provided in Table 1.
The department made an operating surplus of $3.4 million, showing a small increase compared to $2.7 million in 2004–05. Further details are available in the Financial Statements beginning on page 93.
| (1) Budget 2005–06a $’000 |
(2) Actual expenses 2005–06 $’000 |
Variation (column 2 minus column 1) $’000 |
Budget 2006–07b $’000 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administered expenses | ||||
| Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 | 1,574 | 1,317 | (257) | 1,592 |
| Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 | 158 | 161 | 3 | 164 |
| Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990 | 11,864 | 11,112 | (752) | 12,251 |
| Citizenship Visits Program | 768 | 749 | (19) | – |
| Total administered expenses | 14,364 | 13,339 | (1,025) | 14,007 |
| Price of departmental outputs | ||||
| Output Group 1—Clerk’s Office | 1,109 | 1,016 | (93) | 1,129 |
| Output Group 2—Table Office | 2,638 | 2,425 | (213) | 2,685 |
| Output Group 3—Procedure Office | 6,031 | 5,525 | (506) | 6,139 |
| Output Group 4—Committee Office | 8,928 | 8,178 | (750) | 9,088 |
| Output Group 5—Black Rod’s Office | 6,192 | 4,557 | (1,635) | 6,303 |
| Total price of outputs | 24,898 | 21,701 | (3,197) | 25,344 |
| TOTAL FOR OUTCOME
1 (Total price of outputs and administered expenses) |
39,262 | 35,040 | (4,222) | 39,351 |
| Average staffing level | 2005–06 | 2006–07 | ||
| 152 | 158 | |||
a Full-year budget, including additional estimates.
b Budget
before additional estimates.
Evaluation
Satisfaction with services
The principal medium for formal evaluation of the services provided by the department is the survey of senators’ satisfaction, last conducted in early 2005 and due to be conducted again in early 2007.
The report of that survey is tabled in the Senate and reported upon in the department’s annual report. As previously reported, the survey consistently reports high levels of satisfaction with the advice and services provided by the department and very few negative comments are received. Any such comments are drawn to the attention of the responsible program manager for follow‑up, and the period between surveys is used to respond to identified shortcomings.
In recommending the payment of the final salary increase under the department’s certified agreement, the Clerk reported to the President in April 2006 on the achievement of performance, productivity and cost reduction goals. The link between the 2005 survey and productivity improvements was explicitly recognised in the criteria against which the Clerk reported, which included the ‘extent to which the results from the senators’ satisfaction survey have been reviewed and, where needed, changes implemented to improve services’. The Clerk reported our success in meeting this and other performance and productivity criteria. That report was also subject to scrutiny by the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing as part of its oversight of the administration of the department.
Another important mechanism for evaluation is the appearance of senior departmental officers at estimates hearings, which are scheduled three times a year. These hearings are used by senators both to scrutinise, and to provide comment on, the activities of the department. Further details are provided under ‘Scrutiny of activities’, below.
There are also significant formal and informal feedback opportunities involving the President, Deputy President and other senators in their daily dealings with the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, program managers, committee secretariats and departmental staff at all levels.
Feedback continued to indicate high levels of satisfaction.
The performance of individual staff members was evaluated through the performance communication scheme, in accordance with the certified agreement. All departmental staff were assessed overall as ‘effective or better’.
Scrutiny of activities
The department’s annual appropriations and proposals for changes to the structure and responsibilities of the parliamentary departments continued to be scrutinised by the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing.
Departmental officers were questioned on the department’s activities by members of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee at the supplementary budget estimates hearings on 31 October 2005, the additional budget estimates hearings on 13 February 2006 and the 2006–07 budget estimates hearings on 22 May 2006. Major issues considered were the role of the Clerk of the Senate, parliamentary privilege, Senate inquiries and courts, royal commissions and other commissions of inquiry, the cost of reconvening the Senate, party status in the Senate, the banning of a photographer from the chamber, rules relating to the conduct of estimates committee hearings, and the transfer of the administration of the Citizenship Visits Program.
The department’s activities also continued to be scrutinised by our internal auditors and the Australian National Audit Office. Much of the department’s Audit and Evaluation Committee’s work revolved around reviewing some of the department’s major control mechanisms. For further details, see ‘Audit and Evaluation Committee’ and ‘External scrutiny’ in the ‘Management and accountability’ section.