One part day of hearings is not adequate to assess “the operation and management of the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) …”. Particularly a department with over 1,000 people and covering a wide and diverse range of services.
While DPS Senior management’s answers in terms of both content and demeanour did not give comfort, some witnesses relied on unsubstantiated opinions. Clearly emotions are involved and people with a legacy of feeling hurt. Whether that is due to the current management of DPS or witnesses’ attachments to their perceptions and opinions of past events is not clear.
A witness in the in-camera hearings raised issues that lead to important questions about a past incident and the way people have been treated. Other members of our committee agreed with some of my perceptions of, and conclusions about, that witness’ testimony. I will take this further with the committee and explore options for further investigating.
I acknowledge the Secretary Sarah Redden for her helpful counsel and other senators willing to listen to, and advise on, my concerns.
The inquiry raises questions about the value of senate hearings and I will discuss these further with the committee about one issue raised in the hearings. Options could include some or all of the following: further research of past events and hearings including senate estimates since parliament has previously examined the specific core issue involving security services; referral of one incident to another body; a private briefing; and/or other options.
While not being able to endorse the committee’s recommendations due to the foregoing comments, these are submitted as Additional Comments not as a dissenting opinion.
The above comments mean that I cannot concur with the committee’s first recommendation. I do acknowledge though from experience that DPS contains many fine people clearly dedicated to serving parliament house, members of parliament and our staff yet we have no costings or adequate measures against which to assess performance, particularly in regard to the leadership provided to people employed within DPS and the efficiency or otherwise of DPS systems.
While the second recommendation is vague, I concur with the third recommendation.
The CPSU raised issues, some of potential concern and consistent with a culture of dissatisfied employees yet there remains little to indicate whether these are objective or widespread, or indeed more than a legacy of past changes upsetting the status quo six years ago.
Given that, in my experience, systems and leadership clearly drive behaviour and that in turn behaviour shapes attitudes and ultimately culture, there is a need to understand clearly the department’s recent history, current systems and leadership.
I note that there seems to be within some DPS staff heightened expectations as to what this inquiry has the ability to do yet that does not imply there is nothing we can do. I note that DPS’ survey results were not provided in context with the surveys’ purpose, design or implementation.