Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  64
Division/Agency:	Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Topic:				Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Organisational 
	Review/Recruitment.
Hansard Page ECITA:	 Written Question on Notice
Senator Carr asked:
(a)	Is the Minister aware the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (the Trust) has undertaken and organisation review?

(b)	Were the Trust Board Members formally advised of the decision to conduct an organisational review?

(c)	Were the Trust Board Members formally advised of the subsequent outcomes of the organisational review?

(d)	Were Trust staff advised at a staff meeting that the organisational review was not for the purposes of reducing the number of jobs within the organisation?

(e)	Were staff on extended leave or maternity leave formerly advised of the decision to conduct an organisational review?

(f)	Were staff on extended leave or maternity leave given an opportunity to contribute to the organisation review?

(g)	Were staff on extended leave or maternity leave advised of the impacts (if any) the review may have on their employment?

Answer/s:
(a)	No. This was a routine internal re-structuring of the organisation to better meet the priorities of the Trust. There was no particular reason to involve the Minister.

(b)	Yes.

(c)	Yes.

(d)	Yes.

(e)	Yes, advised by the Human Resources Manager.

(f)	Yes.

(g)	Yes.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  65
Division/Agency:	Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Topic:				Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Organisational 
	Review/Recruitment.
Hansard Page ECITA:	 Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)	What was the procurement method for the provision of services relating to an organisational review?

(b)	What was the expected value of the procurement? 

(c)	Are the Consultancy services deemed a ‘Covered Procurement’ requiring compliance with Mandatory Procurement Procedures – Division 2 of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines – January 2005?

(d)	How many companies tendered on the provision for consultancy services relating to an organisational review? 

(e)	Is the Company carrying out the consultancy services one of the companies that tendered on the consultancy services?

(f)	Is there a contract with the company conducting the organisational review and are there extension options beyond the completion of the review? 

(g)	Does the consultant have a prior relationship with any of the executive staff of the Trust?

(h)	What was the brief (statement of requirements) given to the consultant and the time frame for conducting the organisational review? 

(i)	When did the consultant commence the organisational review? Is it complete and has it met the specific time frame? 

(j)	What is the total expenditure to date for consultancy services in relation to the organisational review?

Answer/s:
(a)	Select tender – 3 firms were invited to submit tender proposals.

(b)	Under $50,000.
(c)	No.

(d)	Three.

(e)	Yes – Hays Personnel PLC carried out stage 1 of the review. The subsequent phase was carried out by the consultant who carried out phase one of the review. 
(f)	Yes. Yes.

(g)	During 1993 to 1994 the consultant worked at the Sydney Cove Authority (SCRA) as Manager of Human Resources and Administration. The Executive Director of the Trust formerly worked at the SCRA responsible for planning, heritage and architecture from 1990 until 1999 and in this respect knew the consultant.

(h)	The consultant was required to assess the operational effectiveness, structure and functional capacity of the trust against the overall mission and objectives of the Trust for the future. The time frame for first phase of the review was 6 to 9 weeks with an anticipated completion date for phase 2 of the end of February 2006.

(i)	The Consultant commenced assignment on 25 July 2005. Yes. Yes.

(j)	$45,200, including GST.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  66
Division/Agency:	Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Topic:				Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Organisational 
	Review/Recruitment.
Hansard Page ECITA:	 Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a).	What consultative mechanisms were implemented to ensure workplace participation, in accordance with the staff determination for employees and employee representatives, during the organisational review?

(b).	What steps were taken to ensure compliance with Australian Public Service (APS) best practice for conducting organisational review?

(c).	Were Comcare’s guidelines in relation to occupational health and safety, specifically the prevention of physiological stress considered or adopted whilst conducting the organisational review?
(d).	Was there a person independent to the organisational review available to assist and provide support to staff during the organisational review?

(e).	Was there a Manager of Human Resources on staff during the organisational review?

(f).	If No, is there now are Manager of human resources on staff?

(g).	Were the same procedures used in conducting the organisational review applied to each department of the Trust?

Answer/s:
(a).	There was extensive consultation throughout the review including one on one meetings with staff, departmental meetings and general staff meetings pursuant to Part 4 of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, Terms and Conditions of Employment, Determination No. 1 of 2004, subsections 30 to 36.

(b).	The Trust’s Determination, which takes into consideration APS best practice, was followed throughout the review.

(c).	Yes

(d).	Yes.

(e).	Yes. For the whole part of phase one. No for phase 2.

(f).	Open position, to be filled.

(g).	Yes

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  67
Division/Agency:	Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Topic:				Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Organisational 
	Review/Recruitment.
Hansard Page ECITA:	 Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)	How many positions were made redundant as a result of the organisational review? Please provide details of which positions were made redundant.

(b)	What was the number of Redundancies per department?

(c)	How many new positions were created as a result of the organisational review?

(d)	What was the number of new positions per department?

(e)	What was the total salary value of the positions made redundant versus the total salary value of new positions?

(f)	How many staff were displaced as a result of the organisational review?

(g)	What steps were taken to assist displaced staff?

(h)	How many staff were redeployed within the Trust?

(i)	What redeployment options were offered to employees who were displaced or considered excess?

(j)	How many positions were upgraded?

(k)	How many displaced employees were successful in their application for the upgraded positions?

(l)	Were any positions considered for downgrading?

(m)	Were any positions for which staff were on extended or maternity leave made redundant? If yes, were they formally advised and did they receive termination pay?

(n)	How many staff whose positions were made redundant received four weeks notice as provided for in the staff determination?

(o)	Was the consultation process in relation to redundancy (excess) employees followed in accordance with the staff determination?

(p)	What was the number of part-time positions (per department) prior to the commencement of the organisational review versus the current number of part-time positions per department?

(q)	How many resignations have been submitted since the commencement of the organisational review?

(r)	How many departments have been amalgamated?

(s)	Has the organisational review had an impact on productivity? If so, has that impact been positive or negative?

(t)	Will the target expenditure for capital works be achieved for the 2005/2006 financial year?

Answer/s:
(a)	Four positions. Assistant Accounts Officer Level 1-2, one Administrative Officer Level 1-2 position, Receptionist Position Level 1-2 and Contracts Administrator Level 6. 
(b)	Corporate Services = 4 positions, Property Marketing and Management = 0 positions, Communications = 0 positions, Planning and Projects = 0 positions, Executive Office = 0 positions.
(c)	Fifteen positions.
(d)	Corporate Services = 7, Property Marketing and Management = 2, Communications = 2, Executive office = 2 position, Projects and Planning = 2 positions.
(e)	Total salary value for positions made redundant = $194,000. Total salary value of the new positions = $1,135,000. 
(f)	Five.
(g)	Displaced staff were assessed against criteria for newly created positions or vacant positions within the Trust. Appropriate discussions and interviews were conducted where displaced staff expressed interest in a position. Relevant staff were also advised of their options for severance payments.
(h)	Four.
(i)	Where appropriate they were considered for newly created roles or vacant positions.
(j)	Ten.
(k)	Three.
(l)	Two.
(m)	No.
(n)	Four were paid four weeks pay in lieu of the termination notice period.
(o)	Yes.
(p)	Property Marketing and Management:  Before = 0, After = 0
Corporate Services:  Before = 3, After = 0 
Projects Department:  Before = 0, After Amalgamation with Planning Department = 0.
Planning Department:  Before = 2, After Amalgamation with Projects Department = 2
Communications Department:  Before = 1, After = 1
Executive Office:  Before = 0, After = 0
(q)	Two.
(r)	Two.
(s)	Yes, positive.
(t)	No.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  68
Division/Agency:	Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Topic:				Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Organisational 
	Review/Recruitment.
Hansard Page ECITA:	 Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)	What recruitment process was adopted during the organisational review?

(b)	Was the same recruitment process applied to all positions, or did they differ between department?

(c)	In accordance with APS recruitment guidelines, by what means were all persons eligible for APS employment given that opportunity regarding vacancies within the Corporate Services department at SHFT?

(d)	How many positions were advertised in the Public Service Gazette?

(e)	Were there any positions not advertised externally?

(f)	Did any member of any interview panel declare an actual, potential or potentially perceived conflict of interest during the recruitment process?

(g)	Does any member, of any interview panel, have a previous association (directly or indirectly) with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)?

(h)	How many positions have been filled with persons with a previous association (directly or indirectly) with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)?

(i)	Of the successful applicants with a previous association (directly or indirectly) with HREOC, were any approached by any member of any interview panel, prior to the applicants making formal application for the positions and/or the positions being advertised?

(j)	Did all the successful applicants meet the essential criteria for each of the positions advertised?

Answer/s:

(a)	The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust’s policy regarding recruitment.

(b)	The same policy was followed for all vacant positions.

(c)	SHFT is not an APS employer and follows its own recruitment policy. This policy was followed for all vacancies in the Corporate Services department.

(d)	Nil.

(e)	No.

(f)	No. There was no conflict of interest.

(g)	Yes.

(h)	Four.

(i)	Yes.

(j)	Yes