Chapter 2
Progress in responding to committee's previous inquiry and the senior
management structure
Response to the committee's previous inquiry
2.1
The committee considered DPS' progress in implementing the
recommendations of the committee's 2012 reports. Set out below are an overview
of the responses by DPS, the government and the Presiding Officers to the
recommendations in the committee's interim and final reports, tabled in June (2012
interim report) and November 2012 (2012 final report), respectively. Chapters 3 and 4
of this report consider DPS' responses to individual recommendations in more
detail.
Response to the 2012 interim report
2.2
The 2012 interim report contained one recommendation, namely, that the
Commonwealth Government provide DPS with a one-off additional appropriation of
$100,000 to be used, together with the existing DPS allocation of funds, for
the completion of the document, The Architect's Design Intent for Parliament
House, Canberra: Central Reference Document (CRD), by Ms Pamille Berg.
2.3
The CRD was commissioned by the Joint House Department (JHD), the predecessor
to DPS which had responsibility for maintaining Parliament House and managing
its facilities. The intention of the CRD was that it 'should stand as a basic
record of the Architect's design intent to be utilized in the assessment and
management of proposals for change and maintenance for the specified 200-year
lifespan of the Parliament House building'.[1]
2.4
The history of the development of the CRD was outlined in the 2012 interim
report.[2]
To summarise, following commissioning of the CRD in 1999 a draft document was
completed in 2004, consisting of 31 chapters. At the time the committee tabled
the interim report in June 2012, the CRD was still not complete. Ms Berg
estimated that there was still a substantial amount of work to be done on the
CRD which would take approximately two years.[3]
2.5
The government response to the committee's recommendation in the 2012
interim report on the completion of the CRD was:
Any proposal for this purpose brought forward by the
Presiding Officers, in the 2014-15 Budget context, would be considered at that
time.[4]
2.6
In its submission, DPS stated that it 'does not intend to complete the
CRD at this stage'.[5]
At the public hearing on 17 November 2014 the then Secretary of DPS, Ms Carol Mills,
advised that DPS had applied for additional funding for the completion of the
CRD, but had not been successful in obtaining that funding. Subsequently, DPS
had set aside funding for the completion of the CRD, but has prioritised the
completion of other documentation in relation to heritage management above the
completion of the CRD.[6]
2.7
The CRD remains uncompleted. Further discussion on the CRD is set out in
Chapter 3 in the context of the broader heritage management issues at Parliament
House.
Response to the 2012 final report
2.8
The 2012 final report made 23 recommendations. In February 2013, DPS
tabled its response to the 2012 final report, stating it supported 20 of the 23 recommendations.[7]
Of the remaining three recommendations DPS indicated:
-
the Presiding Officers would consider matters in relation to the
oversight of funding and administration of DPS (Recommendation 1);
-
DPS would consult with the Australian National Audit Office
(ANAO) in relation to the Auditor-General undertaking an audit of DPS' contract
development and management (Recommendation 20); and
-
consideration of exempting DPS from further additional efficiency
dividends was a matter for government (Recommendation 23).
2.9
The responses to Recommendation 1, 20 and 23 are discussed below, before
moving on to consideration of DPS' progress in responding to the remaining 20 recommendations
in the 2012 final report.
Oversight of funding and
administration of DPS (Recommendation 1)
2.10
Recommendation 1 of the 2012 final report recommended that the funding
and administration of DPS should 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 should be amended as
appropriate.
2.11
In response, DPS stated that it supported 'an appropriate level of
scrutiny and advocacy for its role within the parliamentary system'.[8]
DPS then outlined four layers of parliamentary accountability under which DPS
operates, namely:
-
the direct line of accountability between the Presiding Officers
and the Secretary of DPS, as well as advisory committees such as the Security
Management Board, the Joint Library Committee and the Parliamentary Information
and Communications Technology (ICT) Advisory Board;
-
the Joint House Committee, comprising the separate House
committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
-
this committee, the Senate Finance and Public Administration
Legislation committee; and
-
the Parliament itself, under the statute and resolutions
requiring the Parliament to be involved in parliamentary administration and the
activities of DPS.[9]
2.12
DPS' response concluded:
In this context the Presiding Officers will consider whether
alternative mechanisms for both accountability and advocacy should be
established either along the lines recommended by the Committee or as a stand-alone
arrangement. In the Interim, the Presiding Officers will continue to affect
accountability on the Department Secretary as specified in the [Parliamentary
Service Act 1999] and will closely monitor the performance of the Secretary
in the delivery of her duties.[10]
2.13
The then President of the Senate, Senator the Hon John Hogg, in
responding to the 2012 final report indicated that, in the first instance, Recommendation
1 would be considered by the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee. The
President stated that he would bring the recommendation to the attention of
that committee for its consideration.[11]
2.14
The Appropriations and Staffing Committee considered the matter in a
meeting on 15 May 2013. The President advised the Appropriations and
Staffing Committee that the Senate's House Committee 'would be convened to
undertake oversight of the provision of services to Senators by the Department
of Parliamentary Services and the Department of the Senate'.[12]
2.15
On 14 May 2013, the House Committee met and received a
briefing from the Secretary of DPS. A report of that meeting states the
President called the meeting following the tabling of the committee's report of
the previous inquiry into the performance of DPS:
In particular, this meeting would be a useful mechanism for
Senators to raise concerns about services and facilities which could then be
forwarded to the Joint House Committee.[13]
2.16
The Secretary of DPS briefed the House Committee on various aspects of
services and facilities provided by DPS, including progress made in relation to
heritage issues.[14]
2.17
The House Committee met again on 11 February 2014 and received another
briefing by the Secretary of DPS. The House Committee's report of this meeting
states:
As part of this briefing, [the Secretary of DPS] noted that
DPS is under significant financial pressure and that while...
The [House] Committee noted the importance of all
parliamentary departments being adequately funded to carry out their primary
function of supporting the Parliament.[15]
2.18
The committee understands there has been no formal steps to implement
the oversight of DPS' funding and administration as set out in Recommendation 1
of the 2012 final report. Further discussion about budget-setting for DPS is in
Chapter 5.
Audit by the Australian National
Audit Office (Recommendation 20)
2.19
Recommendation 20 of the 2012 final report recommended DPS consider
approaching the Auditor-General to undertake an audit of DPS' contract
development and management.
2.20
In its response, while not stating that it supported the recommendation,
DPS indicated it would 'approach the Auditor-General to seek his views on the
best way to undertake an evaluation of DPS contract development and management,
including a potential timetable for the evaluation'.[16]
2.21
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) subsequently conducted an
audit of DPS' management of contracts and assets at Parliament House and a
report for the audit was tabled in February 2015.[17]
The then Auditor-General, Mr Ian McPhee AO PSM and ANAO officers appeared at a
public hearing on 2 March 2015 to discuss the ANAO's report with the committee.
The committee's first interim report, tabled in May 2015, discussed the ANAO's
report and evidence at the public hearing in some detail. The committee does
not intend to repeat at length that material in this report, however, the
committee will refer to the ANAO's report where it is relevant to specific
matters discussed in this report.
Exemption from one-off, additional
efficiency dividends (Recommendation 23)
2.22
Recommendation 23 of the 2012 final report recommended that the government
exempt DPS from any future one-off, additional efficiency dividends. DPS gave
in-principle support for the recommendation, but noted that it was a matter for
the government to respond.[18]
The government response to the committee's report did not support this
recommendation, stating that 'Budget decisions are a matter for government
consideration at the relevant time'.[19]
Progress in addressing remaining
recommendations
2.23
DPS' submission to the inquiry in September 2014 outlined progress
against the recommendations from the previous inquiry. At that stage, although
work was underway in addressing the recommendations, it was clear that there
was still substantial work to be done to fully complete the work pursuant to the
recommendations.
2.24
DPS' submission highlighted difficulties as a result of a lack of
funding in addressing some recommendations, but noted that additional funding
from the
2014-15 Budget would assist in accelerating changes.[20]
2.25
As noted in the committee's first interim report, the ANAO considered
DPS' efforts to address the recommendations in the 2012 interim and final
report.[21]
The ANAO acknowledged the 'considerable resources' that DPS had invested in
responding to the committee's reports. However, the ANAO was critical of the
changes which had occurred. For example, the ANAO stated that changes to
heritage management practices 'lacked continuity, and the department was unable
to demonstrate broad or systemic consideration of cultural or heritage value in
making changes to the building[.]'[22]
In relation to contract management, the ANAO commented there had been 'little
improvement in the department's contract management framework, processes or
capability since the [2012 final report]'.[23]
2.26
In May 2015 DPS provided the committee with an update of its progress against
the committee's recommendations from the last inquiry. A copy of that update is
available at Appendix 4.
2.27
That update identified three items still outstanding at that time:
-
the Presiding Officers tabling of a biennial 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 (Recommendation 13);
-
DPS undertaking an audit of fire safety in Parliament House and
consider reviewing the standard of building documentation (Recommendation 15);
and
-
The Security Management Board reviewing the criteria for the
issue of photographic security passes for Parliament House (Recommendation 21).
Committee view
2.28
The committee has previously expressed its frustration at DPS' slow rate
of progress in addressing the recommendations from the committee's 2012
reports. While DPS now reports that it has completed its response to all but
three of the committee's recommendations, the committee has reservations. In
the following chapters of this report the committee will consider DPS' response
to specific recommendations from the previous inquiry.
Senior management structure of DPS
2.29
There have been significant changes to DPS' executive structure since Ms Mills
took up the position of Secretary of DPS in May 2012. These changes to the
management structure took place alongside, and in some cases as part of, DPS'
implementation of its response to the committee's previous inquiry.
2.30
In October 2012, Ms Mills addressed the committee at the
Supplementary Budget Estimates hearing foreshadowing plans to change the
executive structure of the department:
I very much see [DPS] as a service department. We are here to
provide services to and for the parliament, both directly to members, senators,
staffers and residents of this building and electorate offices, and to others
more broadly, but also the wider Australian community, which has a vested
interest in the performance of parliament. We do that in a number of different
ways. It is my belief that the way the organisation was structured was not
enabling us to provide those services to best effect and I have commenced a realignment
of the functions inside the organisation. That will proceed over the next few
months. It has commenced with some changes to our executive structure. There is
an interim arrangement for a leadership team. A number of [Senior Executive
Service (SES)] officers left the department recently as part of those changes.[24]
2.31
In the Secretary's review for the 2012-13 DPS Annual Report,
Ms Mills provided an update on the 'transformational change agenda to
reshape DPS into a more professional, outward-looking and service-focused
department'.[25]
Ms Mills wrote:
Appointments to the new senior leadership team were made
throughout 2012–13, enabling us to begin our structural realignment and to put
in place the organisational building blocks for the transformation of DPS. This
included the appointment of the first Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the
Parliament. Work units have been regrouped to improve clarity of function and strengthen
strategic planning, project delivery and reporting capabilities...
New measures brought in to realign DPS management structures,
strengthen ethical behaviour in the workplace, and refresh corporate planning
processes took shape throughout the year...[26]
2.32
At the Additional Estimates hearing in February 2014 the committee
sought further information about changes Ms Mills had made to the executive
structure of the department. On notice, DPS advised there had been a net
increase of five Senior Executive Service (SES) positions.[27]
2.33
DPS gave the following explanation for the increase in SES positions
These changes were introduced to improve the performance of
[DPS] by bringing business areas into clearer functional alignments; increase
levels of accountability; drive performance improvements; target specific areas
of weakness in ICT, security, heritage and contract management. The changes
also addressed the findings of the Senate Finance and Public Administration
Legislation Committee report [in November 2012] – particularly with regard to
leadership weaknesses – and the Roche Review – which led to the transfer of ICT
functions from the chamber departments and the Department of Finance to DPS.[28]
Figure 1: DPS Departmental Structure as at 30 June
2012,
![>Figure 1: DPS Departmental Structure as at 30 June
2012](~/media/Committees/fapa_ctte/DPS_2014/Final_Report/c02_1.jpg)
Source: DPS Annual Report 2011-12, October 2012,
p. 7.
(Names of individuals holding positions have been removed)
Figure 2: DPS Departmental Structure as at 30 June 2014
![Figure 2: DPS Departmental Structure as at 30 June 2014](~/media/Committees/fapa_ctte/DPS_2014/Final_Report/c02_2.jpg)
Source: DPS Annual Report 2013-14, October 2014, pp 16-17.
(Names
of individuals holding positions have been removed)
2.34
The additional cost of the five SES positions was approximately $1.3
million per annum and was partly covered by the transfer of $22 million in
funding for ICT to DPS and 'more than offset by a range of measurable
efficiency and effectiveness benefits'.[29]
The committee had previously been told, prior to the implementation of the new
executive structure, there would be no net cost increase for the new SES
positions:
From July 2013, DPS' structure will be somewhat different
from what it was in July 2012. However, it is too early in the change process
to identify the specific staffing profile for 2013-14 – other than the changes
at the [SES] level, which will be at no net cost increase, as positions created
have replaced positions abolished.[30]
2.35
Since February 2014, it would appear that two further SES positions have
been added to the DPS organisational structure, namely the position of Chief
Operating Officer and the Assistant Secretary, Program Delivery Branch.[31]
2.36
In February 2015 the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) noted, as
part of its audit of the management of contracts and assets at Parliament
House, there had been a delay in recruiting people to some of the key executive
positions.[32]
At the public hearing on 2 March 2015 Ms Mills outlined some of
the difficulties in recruiting to some positions:
There are a variety of reasons that we have not been able to
recruit to these jobs including the time it takes in government and, I have to
say, partly the reputation of the department and the challenge of people
wanting to come here and tackle a department that had had such a negative
report released in November [2012].[33]
2.37
However, Ms Mills spoke highly of the executives that had been
recruited:
Although it has taken time, having taken that time I am very
comfortable to say here today that the management team that sits around me is a
strong one and one dedicated to making the changes—not just committing to them,
but actually achieving them.[34]
2.38
The ANAO noted the delay in recruiting appropriately skilled staff had
slowed the implementation of some initiatives to address recommendations in the
2012 final report.[35]
Committee view
2.39
The committee accepts that the management structure for DPS prior to
May 2012 was in need of restructure. In fact, in its final report of the
previous inquiry the committee noted:
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.[36]
2.40
Unfortunately, it appears the expectation the committee had for an
improvement in the image of DPS has not come to fruition. As Ms Mills noted in
her evidence, DPS has had difficulty in attracting suitably qualified people to
work for the department. Presumably, the recent ANAO report and additional
attention on DPS as a result of issues pursued during this inquiry would not
have assisted DPS' image with prospective employees.
2.41
On this point, the committee agrees with the observation by Mr Ian
McPhee AO PSM, then Auditor-General, at the public hearing on 2 March 2015:
While having the right governance structures and processes in
place is important, it is an entity's people who achieve excellence and drive
change. A vital role for senior executives is to set the right tone at the top
and to reinforce entity values, enthusiasm for good governance and a focus on
performance and accountability. More work also needs to be done to build
cohesion and engagement between DPS management and staff over the longer term
to encourage constructive working relationships within an environment of
ongoing parliamentary and public scrutiny.[37]
2.42
On a separate issue, the committee notes that the current DPS management
structure has up to seven more SES positions than in May 2012. While the
management structure prior to May 2012 would appear to have been inadequate,
the committee does not believe that the addition of many more SES positions has
necessarily brought a commensurate improvement in management within DPS.
2.43
Given the impending consultations on the position of the Secretary and
the structural review of DPS, the committee has decided it will not comment
further on the changes made to the DPS senior management since May 2012 in this
report.
2.44
However, the committee intends to follow the progress of the structural
review and any changes made to the senior management structure of DPS as a
result. To this end, the committee would like DPS to provide it with
information about any changes to the senior management structure, including the
movement of personnel, prior to each estimates hearing. The provision of this
information is consistent with information provided by other parliamentary
departments, namely the Department of the Senate and the Parliamentary Budget
Office, which both provide the committee with updates on particular administrative
matters prior to estimates hearings.
Recommendation 1
2.45
The committee recommends that prior to each estimates hearing, DPS
provide an update on the senior management structure of the department,
including an organisational chart indicating changes to the personnel in senior
executive staff positions.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page