|
|||
|
|||
|
          |
 |
Annual Report 2008–09You are currently viewing: Annual Report
Clerk’s review
IntroductionThe 2008–09 financial year represents the midpoint of the parliamentary cycle for the Forty‑second Parliament. The changes to procedure in the Chamber following the 2007 election have been implemented. The House, its committees and its members are now focused on debating legislation, conducting inquiries and attending to our relationships with the public and other parliaments. The role of our staff is now to manage high volumes of work efficiently and effectively. The House has debated major pieces of legislation such as the industrial relations changes and the emissions trading scheme. Budgets and the economic debate now reflect the effects of the financial crisis. Many committee inquiries are now at the report-drafting stage—an intense period as staff respond to committees’ deliberations and timelines. These high volumes flow through the entire organisation. The Serjeant-at-Arms’ Office, information systems and publishing, interparliamentary relations, public liaison and information, finance, people strategies, Chamber support and committee support areas—all are contributing to the services that we provide to members. This level of activity will continue into 2009–10. Corporate prioritiesThe department is continuing to implement its priorities for 2007–10, as expressed in the corporate plan. The plan was developed in consultation with our staff. It sets out our purpose, values and business goals and recognises that it is through our people that we deliver our services and improve our productivity. The department’s priorities under the plan are to improve our ability to serve our clients; to develop our people; to sustain our capability; and to maintain strong relationships within the department, the Parliament and beyond. As in previous years, I will address our performance in these areas. Service—ensuring strong client serviceOne of the department’s most important roles is to serve the members of the House of Representatives and give them the advice and services that enable them to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The department has always had a strong service culture, and members regularly advise us that our staff have taken extra effort to meet their particular requirements. These informal communications are very important and I am pleased that our staff have continued to develop and maintain good working relationships with members. In addition, the department conducts a members’ survey each year as a formal procedure for monitoring our service standards. We conducted this year’s survey in May and June 2009 and members confirmed that the department provides a high level of service. Further details are in Appendix 12. People—developing leaders and professionalsThe formal centrepiece of the department’s personnel strategy over the past eight years has been our accreditation with the Investors in People management system, which considers that an organisation’s success is based substantially on the knowledge, skills and motivation of its people. The department was assessed in May 2009 as continuing to meet the Investors in People standard and is operating at a high level against the system’s benchmarks. I am grateful to the members of the department who assisted in the interviews and other requirements of this process. Also, I am grateful to the staff as a whole for embracing the concepts of planning, performing, evaluating and self‑development that being an Investors in People agency represents. Consistent with its commitment to the Investors in People standard, the department seeks to assess leadership and management practices. The department conducts an annual staff survey, from which very helpful data and indices can be developed and results over time identified. The June 2009 survey showed ratings by staff in relation to questions about leadership of over 80 per cent. This is certainly a respectable level of performance. However, we are analysing the results of the survey to find avenues for further improvement. More detail on the survey can be found on pages 56–7. Another regular event is the department’s planning day, which was held in March 2009. The discussion topics this year were whether the department should continue with its Investors in People accreditation, and looking ahead to 2020 to examine some of the challenges that the department will face. On the first topic, the consensus was that the department should retain its involvement with the Investors in People program. The second discussion raised a number of issues that we have factored into our planning. An important task for any organisation is to improve the breadth of skills and expertise among its people. One way in which the department continues to do this is the regular presentations on parliamentary issues and debriefs. These give staff the opportunity to reflect on recent notable work matters and enable all of us to learn from their experiences. Another way is the movement of staff between various parts of the department. For example, we have deployed non‑procedural staff as Deputy Clerks‑at‑the‑Table in the Main Committee. I believe there are further benefits to be obtained by similarly judicious risk taking. A recent innovation in our people strategy has been the in‑house leadership development program for middle level staff, which commenced in the second half of 2008. It introduces staff to management principles at the point in their career when they are beginning to accept responsibility for management and leadership. I attended the final session of the program and was impressed by the candour and enthusiasm of the staff at the course. The program appears to be successful in giving these staff a foundation for their role as current and future leaders. Sustainability—people and resourcesThe major sustainability issue for the department is its finances. The various funding rules used in the Budget, including the efficiency dividend, set a very high benchmark for agencies to find efficiencies. The application of these funding rules on a long-term basis now means that the department is projected to incur losses from 2009–10, leading to substantial losses in 2011–12. Unless the department receives significant, ongoing additional funding, it will need to reduce either its services or the quality of those services. I support the requirement for agencies to continually find savings. Indeed, the department has regularly implemented efficiencies. Examples are flattening the management structure, the innovative use of information technology, and consolidating committee secretariats as well as undertaking many additional tasks and functions without resource supplementation. The department is currently exploring the amalgamation of back-office functions with those of the other parliamentary departments. Since 2000, the department’s budget has declined by 11 per cent in real terms and its staffing level has fallen by nearly 18 per cent. The difficulty is that the rate of reduction of agencies’ real budgets far exceeds the rate at which true efficiencies can be found. Indeed, the department will commence cutting back some services in 2009–10 such as printing and travel in order to manage its finances in the short term. Our staff have made significant contributions to identifying and achieving these smaller scale, short-term savings and I would like to thank them for this work. In July 2008, the department made its submission to the inquiry into the efficiency dividend, conducted by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. In August, I gave oral evidence with a number of colleagues from the department for that inquiry. The committee tabled its report in December 2008 and recommended that a parliamentary commission be established to set the budgets for parliamentary departments. I support greater parliamentary involvement in parliamentary budget setting, which is the practice in many other countries. The other key event during the year was the negotiation of a new, two-year workplace agreement. As was the case with previous agreements, it was negotiated, after consultation with staff, between the department and staff representatives drawn from across the department. I would like to thank all parties for conducting the negotiations successfully and in good faith. Relationships—within the department, the Parliament, and beyondThe Podger review and the creation of the Department of Parliamentary Services have increased the opportunities for us to work with the other parliamentary departments. We are more closely involved both in the approval and in the implementation of projects funded by that department. We also are examining efficiencies in combined back-office operations of the three parliamentary departments. While there is room for improvement, I am encouraged by the achievements of the past twelve to eighteen months. The governance framework surrounding the relationships between the parliamentary departments has been strengthened considerably, and the department has played a positive role in putting that framework into place. Our department also has a role in promoting the work of the Parliament generally to the community. Two major projects on which we have been a driving force have been a review of the public display strategy at Parliament House and the commencement of a project to redesign the Parliament of Australia website. There is little doubt that our website and electronic communications will become increasingly important, and I appreciate the initiative displayed by our information systems and publishing staff with their regular innovations. We also take the parliament to the people. The Speaker, members and our staff continue to participate in a number of seminars and presentations, both in Australia and overseas. These occasions allow us to promote our work and build relationships that support an exchange of information between legislatures. OutlookThe major issue facing the department in future is its financial position. If the department does not secure significant, ongoing additional funding, there will need to be a major reassessment of its role and major reductions in the level or quality of its services. Of course, agencies such as the department do not have a right to a particular level of funding. They must make a case for spending public money. However, I believe that the department’s services are central to our democracy and to the public debate that contributes to effective policy. Falling as it does towards the end of the maximum life of the Forty‑second Parliament, the year 2009–10 would be expected to see a high level of demand for departmental services as work on legislative, committee and interparliamentary activities is progressed prior to an expected election. A high priority will continue to be given to staff training and development, to the improvement of systems and to working with colleagues in the Department of the Senate and the Department of Parliamentary Services to advance the development of common services. At the end of 2009, the statutory period of my tenure as Clerk will conclude. The appointment of a new Clerk will open up many opportunities, as a new chief executive officer will bring new perspectives and a fresh approach to the position. This upcoming event brings to mind three important considerations. The first is that my time with the department has been enriched and supported by the professionalism and goodwill of my colleagues. To reflect the sentiments expressed by the late Professor Chris O’Brien, AO, it is a privilege to work with highly talented and committed people, at various stages of their parliamentary lives. The second and third considerations are closely related. I was initially attracted to work in the House of Representatives in the light of the possibility of working for representatives chosen by the people of Australia from all political affiliations, or without political affiliation. This remains a major attraction for working in the House. Finally, I consider that the department’s role is to serve one of the most important institutions in our democracy, the Parliament. Although our work is vital to the day-to-day operations of the Parliament, in a sense our most important role is to look after the institution for the next generation. I believe that the capacity and efficiency of the department have continued to improve over time and I owe a great debt to the people of the department who, in their totality, have brought this about.
Photo: Participants in a course run by the Centre for Democratic Institutions attending a
You are currently viewing: Annual Report
|
|
Clerk’s review
