Chapter 10
Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
10.1
By its nature, the committee's inquiry, and the submissions received,
focussed on the deficiencies and failures of the Department of Parliamentary
Services. However, the committee would like to acknowledge the contribution
made by the vast majority of DPS staff members in undertaking their roles
within the department. These staff are exemplified by their professionalism,
their dedication to the support of the Parliament and their commitment to preserving
Parliament House and its contents for the next 175 years and beyond.
10.2
However, it is obvious that some decisions made since the establishment
of DPS have not provided a sound, long-term strategic approach to the
management of Parliament House. In addition, the committee considers that the
department has lacked strong leadership and vision. Poor employment practices
have been allowed to flourish and become entrenched and projects have been
undertaken which have threatened the design integrity and heritage values of
Parliament House.
10.3
This chapter draws together the evidence presented in the previous
chapters and provides the committee's conclusions and recommendations on its
inquiry into the performance of the Department of Parliamentary Services.
Accountability and transparency
10.4
As noted in chapter 9 of this report, the Presiding Officers have joint
powers in administering DPS. The committee notes the primary and ultimate
authority that the Presiding Officers have in the administration of the
Parliament through the Parliamentary Service Act 1999.
10.5
A range of bodies advise and assist the Presiding Officers in most aspects
of the work of DPS. However, to a large extent the Presiding Officers, and
indeed the bodies assisting and advising the Presiding Officers, rely on the
senior executive of DPS to have the capability, the expertise and the
commitment to act in a way so that informed decisions can be made and the
Parliament is kept fully apprised of matters affecting the services provided by
DPS. The committee noted in its interim report that this has not always been
the case: DPS provided the President with answers to questions on notice in
relation to the heritage assessment of the billiard tables which contained
misleading information.
10.6
The committee is firmly of the view that many of the problems identified
during its inquiry have arisen because of lack of adequate oversight of the
actions of DPS. The committee does not in any way wish to diminish the progress
already made by the new Secretary in restructuring the department and
strengthening internal processes. However, the committee considers that for too
long the stewardship of Parliamentary assets, the maintenance of the design
intent of the building, the provision of vital services to the Parliament and
the strategic direction of DPS have been poorly monitored by the Parliament.
10.7
The committee acknowledges that work is underway in many areas to
enhance transparency, increase accountability and improve the provision of
information. In this regard, the committee points to both the implementation of
the Roche Review recommendations which will address key issues with the
provision of ICT services and the development of a conservation management
plan. However, there are deficiencies in other areas, including performance
reporting, transparency in reporting on the condition of the building and
project management, which still need to be addressed. These areas are detailed
below.
10.8
The committee considers that it is only because of the discovery of the
inappropriate sale of the billiard tables from the Staff Recreation Room in
2010, and the subsequent committee inquiry, that real change is taking place in
DPS. However, the committee remains concerned that, along with these changes, a
new mechanism for the continuing oversight DPS must be implemented.
10.9
The committee believes that the Parliament needs to be better informed
about the actions of DPS, the provision of services by DPS and the maintenance
of the building and its contents. In addition, the Parliament needs to be
confident that DPS has a clear understanding of it goals and responsibilities
in relation to stewardship and service provision as well as DPS being
adequately and appropriately staffed.
10.10
The committee notes that while senators and members are members of
various advisory boards and committees, there is no one overarching parliamentary
committee providing oversight or advocacy for DPS. The committee notes that the
Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee and the House Appropriations and
Administration Committee consider administration and funding of the respective
chamber departments. The committee considers that these two committees, acting
as a joint committee in relation to DPS, could consider the administration and
funding of DPS, including considering estimates of funding required and
determining amounts for the inclusion in the annual and additional
appropriation bills.
10.11
The House standing orders already provide for the House Appropriations
and Administration Committee to confer with the Senate Appropriations and
Staffing Committee. However, no similar provision is contained in the Senate
standing orders for the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee and an
amendment to the standing orders will be required for the committees to meet
jointly. The committee recommends that the Presiding Officers implement this arrangement.
Recommendation 1
10.12
The committee recommends that the funding and administration of the
Department of Parliamentary Services be overseen by the Senate Appropriations
and Staffing Committee and the House Appropriations and Administration
Committee meeting jointly for that purpose, and that standing orders be amended
as necessary.
Employment issues in DPS
10.13
The committee considers that the employment culture within DPS is less
than exemplary for a parliamentary department. The committee has received
evidence which pointed to wide spread bullying and/or harassment. This evidence
has been supported by the CPSU staff survey, the Comcare audit and the 2011
ORIMA staff survey. The results of those surveys are damning: the ORIMA survey
reported that nearly a quarter of DPS staff indicated that they had suffered
bullying and/or harassment and around one-third of staff reported that they had
witnessed such behaviour. The CPSU survey indicated that a third of respondents
had experienced bullying while the Comcare audit found only 31 per cent of
staff were confident to speak up about bullying and less than half of the respondents
felt that the incidence of bullying in the department was taken seriously by
management.
10.14
Worryingly, only 20 per cent of staff who had experienced bullying
and/or harassment indicated that they had reported it. The committee believes
that this lack of reporting reflects perceptions by staff that reports of
bullying were not dealt with in a satisfactory manner and that the fear that
reporting inappropriate behaviour may lead to further victimisation or be
detrimental to career progression.
10.15
The CPSU argued that DPS management was defensive in relation to
concerns about bullying and harassment. The committee would go further and
considers that the management of DPS was responsible for fostering a toxic work
environment. The 2009 staff survey clearly showed high levels of bullying and
harassment. However, it appears that DPS made little attempt to address this
issue in an effective manner as a later staff survey in 2011 again produced
very worrying results in relation to bullying and harassment.
10.16
The staff survey findings point to the lack of importance placed on this
issue by DPS management. This was exemplified by comments at estimates hearings
that some incidents of bullying were not evident until being reported in staff exit
interviews. The committee finds this very difficult to understand given the
results of the 2009 staff survey and the issue being raised regularly by the
CPSU. It is obvious that DPS management made little, if any, effective attempts
to address this very disturbing situation.
10.17
Such lack of leadership was underscored by the results of the 2011 staff
survey with few staff expressing confidence in the DPS senior management team
(the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the Parliamentary Librarian). What was
of considerable concern was that only 36 per cent of staff felt that senior
management exemplified personal drive and integrity and only just over half (55
per cent) felt that they acted in accordance with the Parliamentary Service
Values and Code of Conduct. The committee has already stated in its interim
report that the Parliament should be able to expect only the highest levels of conduct
in the parliamentary service; the leadership that has been the norm in DPS for
some time is far from what the Parliament expects.
10.18
The committee welcomes the statements of the new Secretary, Ms Carol Mills,
in relation to staffing issues including bullying and harassment and looks
forward to sustained leadership on this issue and improved processes to address
unacceptable behaviour in DPS.
Recommendation 2
10.19
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
implements appropriate training programs for managers in relation to bullying
and harassment and ensures that adequate processes are in place so that all
employees are confident in reporting bullying and harassment.
Recommendation 3
10.20
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
develop a bullying register to record information about bullying such as
details of the incident, where it happened and what action that has been taken
so that any trends can be quickly and easily identified.
Recommendation 4
10.21
The committee recommends that if areas with systemic bullying issues are
identified, that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake a
pre-emptive investigation of the area rather than wait until formal complaints
are received.
Recommendation 5
10.22
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
approach Comcare to undertake a further audit, including a survey of all staff,
before the end of 2013 to measure improvements, if any, in the management of
bullying and inappropriate workplace behaviour in the Department of
Parliamentary Services.
10.23
Other employment matters examined by the committee also pointed to
undesirable practices including nepotism, patronage and the influencing of selection
processes. While DPS provided information which appears to counter claims in
relation to some cases of nepotism brought to the committee's attention, it is
disturbing that this perception has grown amongst DPS staff and is regularly
stated as fact. This points to the lack of employee confidence in selection
processes within DPS.
10.24
The committee considers that DPS should work to improve selection
processes through ensuring that staff involved in recruitment undertake training,
that processes are reviewed regularly and appropriate tools such as templates
are available to selection panel members. The committee notes that the Merit
Protection Commissioner may establish independent selection advisory committees
to fill vacancies at the job classification levels of APS 2 to 6. The use of
independent selection advisory committees:
...provide streamlined, cost-effective and timely merit-based
selection processes. They can be used for selection processes of any size but
are especially useful for large or sensitive processes where the maintenance of
good workplace relations may be placed at risk if the process is not seen to be
independent and impartial.[1]
10.25
The committee considers that DPS may wish to consider approaching the
Merit Protection Commissioner to establish such panels as a way of
re-establishing confidence in DPS recruitment practices.
Recommendation 6
10.26
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
ensure that all recruitment processes are open, transparent and based on merit.
Recommendation 7
10.27
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
ensures that all staff involved in the conduct of selection processes receive adequate
training and that a review of recruitment processes and tools be undertaken to
ensure that they are relevant and appropriate.
Recommendation 8
10.28
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
investigate the use of systems, including electronic recruitment, to better
manage recruitment and ensure efficient processes.
Recommendation 9
10.29
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services approaches
the Merit Protection Commissioner to establish independent selection advisory
committees for forthcoming recruitment processes.
10.30
A further indicator of the employment culture in DPS is found in
workforce trends. The committee notes increased use of non-ongoing employees,
high turnover rates and low satisfaction with work-life balance in DPS. The
change in the DPS workforce, in part, reflects the tighter fiscal environment
and restructuring of various branches in order gain efficiencies. It appears
that some of this restructuring has had an adverse impact on DPS employees with
evidence of increased workloads and decreasing availability of resources. This
has led to concerns about the health and welfare of staff and the incidence of
stress-related illness and overuse injuries.
10.31
The committee considers that the responses received from DPS in relation
to workforce trends and their effect on employees were less than adequate and
reflect little attempt to provide a rigorous analysis of issues. The committee
therefore considers that it would be of benefit if a further analysis of
workforce trends is undertaken to identify any underlying causes so that action
can be taken to mitigate their impact.
Recommendation 10
10.32
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
review rates of personal leave in order to identify any underlying causes of the
high levels of personal leave taken in the department.
Recommendation 11
10.33
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake
a work health and safety audit within Hansard services to identify any factors
contributing to overuse injuries.
10.34
The committee is mindful that the inquiry has cast many employment practices
in DPS in a less than favourable light. Media coverage has also focussed on the
deficiencies of the past. If DPS is to move forward, it must attract
appropriately qualified staff. Improvements in processes and the new structure
being implemented by Ms Mills will go far in improving the image of DPS. The
committee also considers that the Secretary has a role in promoting DPS as a positive
working environment and the importance of serving the Parliament and supports
any actions she may take in this regard.
Heritage management of Parliament House
10.35
In 2013, Parliament House will be 25 years old. As Mr Giurgola
explained, the building is neither so very new that change will be resisted nor
so old to be innately and widely valued for considered, careful preservation.
Indeed, the committee is very concerned that inadequate attention has been paid
in the recent past to design integrity and heritage management in Parliament
House.
10.36
The building will inevitably be subject to change over its lifespan,
nevertheless the committee considers that the preservation of the overarching
design integrity, the intricate symbolism and the vision of the building as the
symbol of Australian democracy must be held central in any plans to alter the
building. While some changes to the building and in the precincts require
approval of the Parliament and/or the National Capital Authority, work within
the building does not require either of these approvals.[2]
In effect, the responsibility for the vast majority of change to the building,
and the maintenance of heritage values, has been left to DPS.
10.37
The committee considers that DPS has not undertaken this important role
to the standard required by the Parliament, with the building being subject to
many largely unchecked decisions relating to architectural changes, configuration,
design, décor, furniture selection and disposal. There has been a lack of
proper regulated heritage assessment policies and a misunderstanding of the
intrinsic value of some items to the building and overarching design integrity.
The committee points to projects, such as the Staff Accommodation project,
which have undermined key elements of the design integrity of the building and
the House of Representatives Chamber Enhancement project where the tensions
between heritage management staff and project staff were pronounced.
10.38
It is apparent from the evidence viewed by the committee that, when
design integrity issues have been raised by relevant staff in DPS, these issues
have often been ignored or overridden by other concerns such as cost and
project timing needs. Similarly, when design integrity issues have been raised
by the building architect, Mr Romaldo Giurgola, it appears that DPS did
little to adequately consider these concerns. In the case of the Staff
Accommodation project, the timing of the notification of Mr Giurgola was so
late that DPS had no choice but to proceed with the project as originally envisaged
despite Mr Giurgola's grave concerns. The committee believes that this has
contributed to degradation of heritage values in some areas of Parliament House
and should not have occurred.
10.39
Generally, the committee has also found that DPS's consultations with
the building architect have been less than satisfactory, and could even be
viewed as disrespectful, dismissive and contravening the requirements of the Copyright
Act 1968. In addition, the committee considers that Mr Giurgola has
continued, despite difficulties, to provide DPS with constructive input to
projects. Often this appears to have taken a great deal of his time and has
been provided without charge to DPS. The committee welcomes Ms Mill's commitment
to changing the style of engagement with Mr Giurgola and looks forward to
a significant improvement in the relationship between DPS and Mr Giurgola,
and, indeed, all moral rights holders.
10.40
The committee considers that the Parliament should recognise Mr
Giurgola's contribution to Parliament House not only for his initial design of
the building but also his continuing role in the maintenance of Parliament
House as the symbol of Australian democracy. In addition, recognition should be
given to all those who were involved in the planning, design and construction
of the building.
Recommendation 12
10.41
The committee recommends that the Presiding Officers arrange for the
installation of a plaque within the Parliamentary Precincts, during the
building's 25th anniversary, commemorating the contribution made by
Mr Romaldo Giurgola, as well as all those who worked on the planning, design
and construction of Parliament House.
10.42
The committee also notes a significant shift in the way in which DPS intends
to approach its responsibility for the building: Ms Mills indicated that a
heritage type approach would be taken to planning and the overarching design of
the building.[3]
Ms Mills also indicated that under the new structure for DPS a position to
oversee management of the building has been created. Ms Mills commented that,
as one of the 'most important and iconic working and public buildings in the
country', Parliament House needs an appropriate level of strategic and
operational focus.[4]
10.43
The committee welcomes this approach. It contrasts to that prevailing
previously in DPS management where heritage and design integrity concerns were
apparently often dismissed or downgraded and it appears that important
decisions have been made by inexperienced and/or inadequately qualified staff.
10.44
As part of this move to a heritage approach, the committee notes that
DPS is developing a conservation management plan (CMP) for Parliament House
with the assistance of an expert advisory committee. This is a very significant
development and the committee sees the CMP as a means to strengthen the maintenance
of the heritage values of Parliament House. It will also address concerns
raised in evidence about the lack of rigor in the Parliament House Heritage
Management Framework and the lack of consultation with heritage experts in the
formulation of the Framework.
10.45
One of the major areas of concern exposed by the inquiry is the lack of
transparency in DPS's management of the building. There are various mechanisms
currently in place which require DPS to consult and/or inform both the
Presiding Officers and committees or advisory groups. For example, the Joint
House Committee was briefed on the Staff Accommodation project. However, the
committee is doubtful that the briefing would have included design integrity
considerations such as alterations to the use of the space. Indeed, DPS did not
even consider that moral rights consultations were required for this project.
10.46
The Parliament also relies on annual reports and Senate estimates processes
to oversight the operations of DPS. Analysis of DPS annual reports points to a
lack of transparency and lack of information about projects being undertaken. The
annual reports have not contained a frank assessment of performance, or indeed
adequate information to make any assessment of performance, and are therefore
of little use in ensuring accountability. The committee welcomes Ms Mills's commitment
to improving the quality of DPS annual reports and will closely monitor them in
the future.
10.47
The performance of DPS officers during estimates has also been far from
satisfactory. The committee found senior officers less than forthright with their
answers. In many instances, the information provided was confused, inaccurate
and, in relation to the billiard tables, misleading. The committee is unsure
whether this was a planned response to undermine committee processes, to cover
up mistakes or a reflection of poor leadership skills. Committee members have had
to pursue some matters over a number of estimates rounds in order to try to
gain an accurate picture of events. Even so, the committee suspects that the
information provided is not true or accurate reflection of DPS processes and
dealings and that more intensive investigations would be required to get to the
bottom of some matters.
10.48
The committee considers that it has not been possible in the past for
the Parliament to rely on the information provided by DPS to accurately gauge
the performance of the department in relation to range of matters, most
particularly heritage management of Parliament House. The committee has no
doubt that the structures being developed, and the changes implemented, by Ms
Mills will improve this aspect of the work of DPS. However, the committee
considers that there are other avenues to ensure greater transparency of
matters related specifically to the building and its contents. In this regard,
the committee believes that the Presiding Officers should table a biennial
report devoted to the building and its preservation and use. Such a report should
include a frank assessment of the condition of the building and its contents,
costs of upkeep of the building, alterations undertaken or proposed, heritage
concerns and any other related matter so as to fully inform the Parliament and
the public about the building.
Recommendation 13
10.49
The committee recommends that the Presiding Officers table in both Houses,
on a biennial basis, a report devoted specifically to the building and its
contents including information on the condition of the building and its
contents, costs of upkeep of the building, heritage concerns and any other
related matter so as to fully inform the Parliament and the public about the
building.
10.50
The committee is concerned that the Parliament has not taken an adequate
role in oversighting developments in the building. The committee considers that
a biennial report specifically about the building will assist in addressing
this matter. However, the committee is also concerned that the Parliament has
not ensured that the governance arrangements for DPS are such that it can be
confident that a clear vision for the preservation of the building will
continue in the long term.
Maintenance and project management
10.51
The inquiry has examined in detail a number of project and maintenance
practices undertaken by DPS in recent years. The committee has already
addressed the adequacy of consultations with moral rights holders, particularly
Mr Giurgola. However, other areas of concern have been identified:
- there was a pattern of disregard for design integrity and the input
of heritage management staff;
- turnover of staff has resulted in inexperienced project staff
supervising major alterations to the building;
- there is a lack of in-house technical expertise within DPS;
-
the building is not compliant with the Building Code of Australia
and there are significant concerns regarding fire safety;
- poor initial planning has required revision of work, for example
changing Parliament Drive into a one-way road;
- inadequate attention to access requirements, for example
disability access in basement public car park during security work; and
- DPS does not provide adequate information in order to access
whether projects are completed within original budgets.
10.52
The committee notes Ms Mills's comments concerning the loss of technical
expertise. However, it is apparent that the loss of specialist staff is a
significant issue particularly in relation to fire safety and project
management. It appears to the committee that poor project management has
resulted in additional costs being incurred through revision of work that is
not compliant with standards such as road safety and disability access. The
committee also notes comments in the end of project report for the Staff Dining
Room project that indicated that costs increased because work that was not
compliant with design integrity had to be redone. The end of project report
also pointed to potential dangers to workers because of lack of accurate
documentation and non-compliance of previous construction work. The committee
considers that DPS should undertake capability reviews in technical areas such
as fire safety, engineering services, design integrity and project management
in order to ascertain whether DPS has the correct skill set in staff to
adequately maintain the building and provide DPS management with appropriate
advice.
Recommendation 14
10.53
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
undertake capability reviews in relation to design integrity, project
management and technical areas including fire safety and engineering services.
10.54
The committee is also concerned that the loss of specialist staff has
resulted in systems such as the fire safety system and building documentation
not being updated. This is a significant concern and may pose a significant
danger to building occupants and those who undertake construction work in the
building.
Recommendation 15
10.55
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake
an audit of fire safety in Parliament House and consider reviewing the standard
of building documentation.
10.56
The committee considers that DPS has also not been transparent about
costs of projects and maintenance of the building. In relation to the final
costs of projects, the committee found that the information provided in the
annual report was meaningless. All projects are reported as meeting the target
of 100 per cent in relation to completing within 'approved' budget. This does
not show whether the project met or was under, within, or over, the initial
estimate. The committee notes that the new website project was initially
estimated to cost $1.15 million but the final cost was $3.1 million and is
now being upgraded again at a cost of 'some hundreds of thousands'. Were it not
for questioning at estimates, the Parliament would not have been informed of
this significant increase in costs.
10.57
The committee recognises that the building contains many unique and
custom built elements. To replace these assets, or to ensure that new work
meets the original standard, will no doubt add to costs but to do so may save
expenditure in the future. DPS, in its submission, implied that additional
costs to meet Parliament House standards was precluded by the Financial
Management and Accountability Act 1997. The committee does not agree with this
view. Rather, careful consideration will need to be given to what can be
achieved given the present budget constraints. If the DPS appropriation is
inadequate to ensure the maintenance of the building and its contents, the
committee does not believe it is for DPS to undertake action that may diminish
the design integrity of the building. Rather, the Parliament must be fully informed
of the consequences of any lack of adequate funding to maintain the building at
the appropriate standard as well as the long-term effects on design integrity
and heritage values.
Recommendation 16
10.58
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
provide more accurate, meaningful and transparent information, including
information about costs and construction projects undertaken in Parliament
House, in its annual report.
Asset management
10.59
The committee has detailed the disposal of items of heritage and
cultural value in both its interim report and this report. While changes to DPS
disposal practices are welcome, this has occurred only after the loss of some
significant items including the billiard tables and Bertoia chairs. The
committee also considers that there may have been many other items disposed of
inappropriately in the past, because of the lack of rigorous practices in DPS, which
have not been identified. Such practices display a cavalier attitude to the
concept of stewardship of assets on behalf of the Parliament–these were not DPS
assets, rather, they were Parliamentary assets and should have been treated as
such.
10.60
A major outcome the committee's inquiry has been changes to DPS asset
management policies and practices. These include changes to the policy for the
disposal of public property which make clear the requirements for disposal of
assets both on the Parliament House Art Collection database and those that are
not but which may nevertheless have cultural or heritage significance. Ms Mills
provided the committee with an example of a recent disposal which was
undertaken using the new policy. This is a welcome development. However, the
committee reasserts that DPS is the steward of items on behalf of the
Parliament and the people of Australia; the disposal of administered and
heritage items is the antithesis of preserving them for the future. In
addition, the committee considers that any disposal policy will only be
effective if all those undertaking disposal processes possess a sound
understanding of what constitutes 'possible heritage or cultural value' and a
continued awareness of the importance of items to the Parliament and the
building.
10.61
The committee notes the development of the list of new assets of
heritage or cultural value that has been established and a review and
validation of this list will be undertaken by an independent consultant. This
is a significant improvement. However, the committee considers that the process
of adding new items to the list must continue into the future.
10.62
One area that the committee received little evidence was in relation to
the Parliament House furniture collection. The committee notes that the
Parliament House Heritage Management Framework includes the furniture
collection. The committee believes that furniture should be treated as other
art and crafts works in Parliament House. The committee therefore considers
that it would be beneficial if a full audit of the status A and B furniture be
undertaken in relation to condition, conservation measures, use of and disposal
of that furniture.
Recommendation 17
10.63
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake
a full audit of the Parliament House status A and B furniture with particular
regard to condition, conservation measures, use of furniture, and past disposal
practices.
Contract management
10.64
The information provided in relation to contract development and
management in DPS is concerning. The committee acknowledges that some of these
contracts were inherited from the Joint House Department and have therefore
been in place for many years. However, more recent contracts seem to be equally
problematic; for example, cost overruns on the new Parliament House website
being blamed on the vendor's lack of understanding of the complexity of the
system and security issues. The website is now undergoing a further upgrade at
substantial cost only eight months after being launched. The committee
considers that this points to more fundamental problems in the initial contract
stages including poor consultation with stakeholders, and the possibility that the
development of requirements and contract negotiations were undertaken by
inexperienced or inadequately qualified staff. The committee anticipates that,
in relation to general IT issues, the appointment of the Chief Information
Officer will bring greater focus on, and a higher standard of delivery of, all
IT services.
10.65
The evidence received in relation to both project construction and
service contracts is also disturbing. In relation to the Staff Accommodation
project, the End Project Report commented on the lack of liquidated damages
clauses, that DPS could not enforce time restrictions and that the contract did
not allow DPS to stop the contractor changing the construction crew as the
project neared completion causing the project to suffer. The limited
information provided regarding the cleaning and catering contract also points
to poor contract implementation and management. The committee considers that
DPS should look to revising the way in which it negotiates and manages
contracts including the type of legal assistance received, the engagement of
experienced contract negotiators, and the performance management regime
included in contracts. DPS should also ensure that staff are adequately trained
and have the appropriate skills in contract development and management, for example
through training provided by the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
Recommendation 18
10.66
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
ensures that all staff involved in contract development and management have
relevant skills and receive appropriate training where necessary.
10.67
The committee believes that it would be beneficial for DPS to approach
the Auditor-General to seek assistance in reviewing contract development and
management including contracts already in place pursuant to section 20 of the Auditor-General
Act 1997. Section 20 of the Act provides:
(1) The Auditor-General may
enter into an arrangement with any person or body:
(a) to audit financial statements of the person or body;
or
(b) to conduct a performance audit of the person or body;
or
(c) to provide services to the person or body that are of
a kind commonly performed by auditors.
(2) An arrangement may
provide for the payment of fees to the Auditor‑General. The fees are to be
received by the Auditor‑General
on behalf of the Commonwealth.
(3) The Auditor‑General must not
perform functions under this section for a purpose that is outside the
Commonwealth’s legislative power.
Recommendation 19
10.68
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
review the way in which it develops and manages contracts.
Recommendation 20
10.69
The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services
consider approaching the Auditor-General to undertake an audit by arrangement
of DPS contract development and management.
Security arrangements
10.70
The committee's review of security at Parliament House canvasses security
projects, restructuring of the PSS and breaches of security. The committee
acknowledges that Ms Mills quickly instituted a review after the breach in August
this year. However, the committee considers that there still remain areas of
concern with the security arrangements at Parliament House:
- reliance on expensive security 'enhancement' projects which
appear to have been implemented with little consideration for design integrity
issues;
- construction of security enhancements which do not comply with
access requirements or traffic requirements;
- lack of systems to track visitors within Parliament House; and
- changes to PSS roster arrangements which appear to be based
solely on cost saving rather than more effective security arrangements.
10.71
The committee also notes the increase in numbers of photographic
security passes issued over the last 12 months and considers that a review of
the criteria for the issue of passes is warranted.
Recommendation 21
10.72
The committee recommends that the Security Management Board review the
criteria for the issue of photographic security passes for Parliament House.
ICT issues
10.73
The committee notes that DPS is now responsible for IT for
parliamentarians' electorate offices. This is a welcome development and the
committee considers that many problems experienced in the past due to
fragmentation of the provision of services will be addressed. The committee
also believes that the implementation of the recommendations of the Roche
review, including the creation of the position of Chief Information Officer in
DPS, will significantly improve the provision of ICT services to the
Parliament. However, one matter still outstanding is the Department of Finance
and Deregulation's retention of responsibility for multifunction and mobile
devices such as BlackBerries. The committee acknowledges that discussions have
commenced with the Special Minister of State for the transfer of this responsibility.
However, the committee considers that, as a matter of priority, arrangements
should be completed for the transfer of all ICT equipment to DPS.
Recommendation 22
10.74
The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, arrangements
should be completed for the transfer of responsibility for mobile and
multifunction devices to the Department of Parliamentary Services.
Budget considerations
10.75
The committee is concerned that, in the current tight fiscal
environment, DPS may find it difficult to ensure that adequate maintenance and
asset replacement is undertaken. The committee is also concerned about the continued
increase in workloads due to Chamber and committee activity and the effect on
staff delivering services to Parliament. The committee notes that the
Government has provided additional funding to DPS in recognition of increased
activity of the House of Representatives and its committees.
10.76
While the committee is mindful of poor management of resources in the
past, the continued imposition of the efficiency dividend on DPS is of concern.
The committee notes that certain cultural institutions and courts and tribunals
were exempt from the additional 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend imposed in
2012–13. The committee considers that DPS should also have been exempt.
Recommendation 23
10.77
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth exempt the Department of
Parliamentary Services from any future one-off, additional efficiency dividends.
10.78
In addition, the committee considers that DPS should actively pursue
discussions with the Department of Finance and Deregulation concerning the
funding requirements to ensure that DPS can maintain heritage values in all areas
of Parliament House. Further, the committee considers that the Presiding
Officers should keep the Parliament apprised of the outcomes of these
discussions.
10.79
The committee also considers the need to seek funding from Government
for the Parliament is a matter which requires review. There is a need to ensure
that the budget for DPS is such that services required by the Parliament are
sustainable in the long term. The committee considers that it is time for
further deliberations on the appropriate model of funding for DPS.
10.80
Finally, the committee would again like to thank all those who made
submissions or appeared before the committee during this inquiry. The committee
would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided in the latter half of
the inquiry by the new Secretary of DPS, Ms Carol Mills.
Senator
Helen Polley
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page