House of Representatives Annual Report 2002: Management and Accountability

Annual Report 2001–02

You are currently viewing: Annual report > Management and Accountability
< - previous : next - >

Management of human resources

The department continued to have in place structures, systems and procedures to provide assurance to the Clerk that the departments staff were being managed efficiently, effectively and ethically. The most significant of those structures and plans and their relationship to the departments broader planning and evaluation framework are identified in Figure 10.

Investor in People

The department gained accreditation as an Investor in People employer during the year. National Association of Testing Authorities Certification Services International awarded the accreditation, in July 2001, following a comprehensive audit inspection. The audit involved an assessment of relevant human resources processes and individual interviews with 39 people representing a cross-section of departmental staff. The accreditation followed the departments committing to a detailed program to develop our leadership, communication, staff development, and planning and evaluation practices.

Investor in People is an international quality standard that sets a level of good practice for improving performance through people. The standard provides a basis for continuous improvement of both the department and its people. The Investor in People standard is based on four key principles:

making a commitment to invest in people to achieve business goals
planning how individuals and teams will be developed to achieve those goals
taking action to develop and use necessary skills in a welldefined and continuing program directly tied to business objectives, and
evaluating success through measuring progress towards goals, value achieved and future needs.

These four principles are supported by 12 indicators that tell the department and a qualified independent assessor whether the standard is being met. Reassessment is conducted annually.

The direct effects of embracing the principles of the Investor in People standard are improved productivity, reduced staff turnover, improved staff motivation and attitude, improved customer service, more effective communication, better understanding of corporate goals and improved corporate image.

Workforce planning

During 200102, the departments Executive considered the departments future workforce needs. In particular, the Executive sought to establish whether there would be any significant gaps between expected staffing needs at middle and senior management levels and the supply of staff to fill those positions over the next five years. The Executive considered the current staffing profile, potential superannuation choices for staff and levels of attrition. A workforce plan is still to be finalised.

Certified agreements

The departments two certified agreements are designed to produce employment conditions that are attractive to current and future staff and to enable current and emerging requirements to be met. They enable the department to better serve the House and the Parliament.

Administrative Agreement

The Department of the House of Representatives Certified Agreement 200203 (the Administrative Agreement) certified in January 2002, covers all staff in the department, except SES and operational security staff. The agreement is comprehensive in that it replaced all pre-existing references to staff conditions of employment, including awards and agreements. The agreement has a nominal expiry date of 31 December 2003, and the following major features:

an eight-level classification structure, below SES level, to help avoid demarcation issues and improve mobility (the classification titles of Parliamentary Service (PS) levels 16 and Executive bands 12 are used)
broadbanded classification levels at PS levels 13 and PS levels 46, to increase flexibility and streamline higher duties, incremental salary advancement and selection processes
salary packaging
improved performance management processes, achieved by tying salary advancement and staff development needs to performance assessment and feedback for staff
improved flexibility in hours of duty, including options for overtime and extra duty allowances, and
a 4 per cent pay increase, effective from 1 January 2002, and a further 4 per cent increase, effective from 1 January 2003.

The current administrative staff salary scales, by classification, available under the certified agreement and any applicable Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) are set out in Table 7.

Table 7 Administrative staff salary scales
Classification	Salary scale
Executive Band 2	$76,37284,820
Executive Band 1	$62,76870,186
PS Level 6	$49,79956,787
PS Level 5	$45,87948,663
PS Level 4	$41,21944,686
PS Level 3	$37,18540,028
PS Level 2	$32,92436,050
PS Level 1	$28,97531,809

Security Agreement

The Parliamentary Security Operational Staff Certified Agreement 200103 (the Security Agreement), which covers security staff, was developed in conjunction with the Parliamentary Security Services joint employer, the Department of the Senate. The agreement has resulted in more stable and productive security arrangements, less absenteeism and greater flexibility in staffing arrangements.

A 3 per cent pay rise was paid to staff employed under the Security Agreement in January 2002. This followed an assessment of how the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of the Senate had met certain performance indicators set out in the agreement.

The current security staff salary scales, by classification, available under the certified agreement and any applicable AWAs are set out in Table 8.

Table 8 Parliamentary Security Service salary scales
Classification	Salary scale
Parliamentary Security Service Level 3	$36,16738,142
Parliamentary Security Service Level 12	$28,31034,770

Australian Workplace Agreements

All SES staff continued to be covered by individual AWAs, the conditions of which were in keeping with the provisions applying to other staff under the certified agreements. The nature and amount of remuneration and conditions of service for SES staff are determined by agreement between each individual and the Clerk through the AWAs. Under arrangements outlined in their AWAs, the four SES staff shared in $25,000 of performance bonuses during the year.

Four replacement AWAs were finalised during the year, along with nine other AWAs covering staff below the SES level, including those for new parliamentary assistants.

Salaries expenditure

In 200102 salaries and allowances totalled $12.3 million, unchanged from expenditure in 200001.

Training and development

The departments leadership survey in 2001 was similar to surveys of staff conducted in 1998 and 1999. The survey questionnaire asked staff to rate their current supervisors and the Executive against 13 leadership characteristics that had been developed in consultation with staff. The overall ratings, as in past years, were satisfactory.

In February and March 2002 the department conducted two leadership workshops to provide opportunities for staff to develop ideas for improving our leadership development program and enhancing our leadership capability. The workshops explored a number of ways in which the department could incorporate leadership as an important departmental capability. One outcome of the workshops was the development of a leadership statement that integrated the departments preferred leadership characteristics with the performance of core work, the Parliamentary Service Values and Code of Conduct and a shared understanding of what factors contribute to successful leadership.

The departments training and development expenditure as a percentage of salaries expenditure and person days spent on training in 200001 and 200102 is set out in Table 9. The average number of training days for staff decreased from 6.8 days to 5.3 days off-the-job training per person per year. The decrease was largely due to a reduction in information technology training for security staff offset by an increase in parliamentary procedural training and a reduction in leadership training throughout the department.

Table 9 Expenditure on training and development programs^(a,b)
	200001	200102
Expenditure as percentage of annual payroll	4.8	2.7^(c)
Average training days per person	6.8	5.3
Average staffing level	232	222

^(a) All figures exclude staff of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker.

^(b) All figures exclude staff undertaking secondments and internal and external placements.

^(c) Expenditure does not include a notional amount for the information technology training provided free of charge by the Client Services Centre of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff.

The attendance of staff at training courses in 200001 and 200102 is set out in Table 10.

Table 10 Attendance at training courses, by classification and gender of staff member
Classification^(a)	200001		200102		200001	200102
	Total training days				Average total training days
	male	female	male	female
SES	20	5	26	5	4.2	7
Exec 2	66	44	52	63	6	4.9
Exec 1	72	49	49	14	3.4	1.8
PS 6	33	88	20	56	4.6	3.5
PS 5	1	7		16	1.8	3
PS 4	41	40	25	12	6.1	3.8
PS 3	38	55	49	70	2.6	4.5
PS 2	24	46	80	41	2	4.3
PS 1	1				3.1
PSS 12	909	42	519	68	17.4	11.2
Totals	1205	376	820	345	6.8	5.3

^(a) The following terms are abbreviated in the table: Senior Executive Service (SES); Executive (Exec); Parliamentary Service (PS); Parliamentary Security Service (PSS).

Security staff

Specialist training for security staff included formal courses in Security Guarding (Certificate II and III) and courses on various aspects of first aid treatment.

Studybank

Sixteen staff (13 in 200001) participated in the departments Studybank scheme. Financial assistance of $10,108 ($10,363 in 200001) was provided to them, along with some study leave on full pay.

Occupational health and safety

The departments policy and agreement with relevant staff representatives was originally formulated in 1991 under the terms of section 74 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 (the OH&S Act). The agreement was reviewed in 1996 and again in 2001. The departments policy places specific OH&S responsibilities on all managers and staff. During 200102 those responsibilities continued to be met.

In 200102 there were no dangerous occurrences that required notification under section 68 of the OH&S Act. No investigations were carried out and no directions or notices were given by the department in relation to sections 30, 45, 46 or 47 of the OH&S Act.

The departments OH&S committee met once during the year. A summary of the meeting was made available to staff through the staff bulletin.

The number of claims for compensation was smaller than in 200001, and no additional OH&S issues were identified, during 200102.

Critical incident support was provided to security staff following a personal tragedy involving a member of the public.

An OH&S audit was conducted by Comcare during the year. It resulted in additional emphasis being given to the training of staff in OH&S principles and the provision of appropriate OH&S documentation. Table 11 illustrates the injury groups and claims incidence for the department for the past three policy periods.

Table 11 Claims incidence by injury group
Injury group	Mar 1999 Feb 2000	Mar 2000 Feb 2001	Mar 2001 Feb 2002
	Incidence^(a)
Back	3	1	2
Fracture excluding back	1
Strain excluding back	2	6	4
Open wounds	1
Contusion/crush		1	1
Other injuries
Occupational overuse syndrome	1
Stress
Other diseases		1
Totals	8	9	7

^(a) The department renews its policy annually in March.

Performance assessment processes

Administrative staff participated in the 200102 cycle of the ongoing work performance management process that entails setting annual work and development objectives, conducting annual assessments of work performance, providing upwards feedback from staff to their supervisors and setting individual development plans for all staff.

An audit of the work performance management process was completed in September 2001. The audit involved interviewing a random selection of administrative staff and the supervisors of those staff. Analysis of the results of the audit indicated that most staff understood and used the process well. Some fine-tuning of the process was developed in consultation with staff and implemented prior to commencement of the current annual assessment cycle period on 1 November 2001. It is expected that a broader review of the work performance management process will be undertaken before the next cycle commences.

In 200102 all security staff completed their second ever work performance assessment cycle and commenced their third cycle. An additional requirement this financial year was that staff members provide feedback on their supervisors.

Recruitment and retention of staff

The department advertised to fill 39 ongoing vacancies during 200102 (eight in 200001), 21 of which were filled by internal applicants. Of the 18 successful external applicants, six were women (in 200001 two of the three successful external applicants were women).

During the year, the Security Controllers Office recruited 15 non-ongoing staff. This recruitment replaced staff who had left to take up either secondments to other parliamentary departments or permanent employment elsewhere.

In 200102, as an alternative to the traditional recruitment process, requiring the applicant to provide an application and referee reports and to attend an interview, the department trialled the use of an assessment centre as part of the selection process for Executive band 1 vacancies in the department. The assessment centre involved group discussions by candidates and the completion of written exercises, along with the more traditional personal interview and referee assessments.

Although the report on the trial has not been finalised, initial indications are that both the selection panel and the applicants found the process to be of value. In particular, the panel members were impressed by the fact that they were able to get to know the applicants better and were able to assess them using more than one form of assessment.

SES managers continued to conduct exit interviews with staff leaving the department in 200102. Consistent with last years results, the results indicated that the department did not have any significant staff retention difficulties. A further strengthening of the process to allow for the electronic lodgment of an exit interview form is under way. Table 28 in Appendix 10 shows reasons for separation of staff in 200102.

You are currently viewing: Annual report > Management and Accountability
< - previous : next - >