Chapter 2
ANAO report on managing assets and contracts at Parliament House
2.1
On 26 February 2015 the ANAO's report on the management of assets and
contracts at Parliament House (ANAO Report) was tabled in the House of
Representatives.[1]
The ANAO made six recommendations in its report relating to strengthening DPS'
asset management (including heritage management) and contract management
arrangements.
2.2
The committee was particularly interested in the ANAO's findings on some
key areas of concern identified in the committee's 2012 report, namely:
contract management arrangements; the management of heritage assets; and
management arrangements in DPS.[2]
Contract management
2.3
The ANAO outlined the extent and importance of DPS' contracting
activities:
DPS administered some 190 contracts, involving expenditure of
$62.8 million in 2013–14. DPS also managed over 30 press gallery and retail
licences, which generated around $1.6 million in annual revenue for the
department. The breadth and focus of its contracted activities reflect DPS'
role as steward of a large building of public significance and heritage value,
as well as its financial and other legislative responsibilities.[3]
2.4
While DPS has established a contract management framework which includes
a range of policies, procedures and systems 'to encourage structured and
consistent management of contracted activities', the ANAO found:
[S]everal systemic gaps and weaknesses have led to
inconsistent, and at times non‐compliant,
contracting practices across the entity. Out‐of‐date guidance material,
inadequate training, poor record keeping practices, and weaknesses in DPS'
systems underpinning its contract management functions have, collectively,
adversely impacted on the department's contracting activities, and ultimately
its ability to demonstrate effectiveness of its contracting activities and financial
accountability.[4]
2.5
Overall, the ANAO concluded there has been little improvement in DPS'
contract management framework, processes or capability since the committee's
2012 report.[5]
Management of heritage assets
2.6
The ANAO referred to the concerns in the committee's 2012 report about
heritage management at Parliament House:
DPS has also invested considerable resources in responding to
[the committee's] concerns about the need for better heritage management
through changes to management arrangements and assessment processes. However,
these changes have lacked continuity, and the department was unable to
demonstrate broad or systematic consideration of cultural or heritage value in
making changes to the building through its capital works program or in storing
or disposing of assets in 2013 and 2014.[6]
2.7
The ANAO report noted that in November 2011, DPS had established a
Heritage Management Framework, but following the criticism by the committee in
its previous inquiry, this framework was disbanded in October 2012. In its place
DPS is developing a Conservation Management Plan (CMP), however this is not
scheduled for completion until mid-2015.[7]
2.8
At the public hearing, Mr Andrew Morris, Executive Director, Performance
Audit Services Group, ANAO, acknowledged that the absence of any framework for
guiding heritage management has had an impact:
By the time we went to do the audit, we would have expected
to see quite a sophisticated system in place for heritage management; or at
least be able to have good visibility about what the policies and procedures
were, how they had gone about making assessments, what the criteria were for an
assessment and then what the assessments had found. Nevertheless, [DPS] did
have a heritage management team and they had a precursor to that team. We
really would have expected more consistency across capital works and the
particular heritage items. We were looking for some sort of evaluation of the
heritage management and some repository of heritage assessments. We could not
see that. I know that they are building towards this at this time. But that
lack of a framework for the 18 months or two years really has stopped their
progress.[8]
2.9
Mr Morris observed:
I think there was a tendency once there was criticism of the
framework to think, 'We had better get a comprehensive new plan, a big new
plan, in place that will be able to fix it once and for all very
comprehensively.' So in their work towards bringing that about there seemed to
be a reluctance, perhaps, to be putting policies and procedures in place that
may not be consistent with what the new conservation management plan might
prefer. There just seemed to be an absence of coordinated work.[9]
Management arrangements in DPS
2.10
The ANAO noted that from mid-2012, when Ms Mills joined DPS as
Secretary, there had been a process to 'transform' DPS. That transformation
process included 'an organisational restructure, the recruitment of senior
executives to key leadership roles, and the conduct of reviews of capability,
processes, practices and systems across many major functions of the department,
including asset and contract management'.[10]
However:
At the time of the audit...a number of these reviews had yet to
be completed and recommended changes implemented. Until such changes are
embedded, the department's processes do not exhibit the discipline required to
provide assurance that assets and contracts are being effectively managed.[11]
2.11
At the public hearing on 2 March 2015, Mr Ian McPhee, the
Auditor-General stated:
[W]hen introducing change agendas it is very important to
prioritise work to make sure the general management of the department or
organisation continues to perform at a reasonable level. But to get some early
successes up, and to build on those successes and the change program, you need
to bring people along; it is not an easy task but it needs to be done.[12]
2.12
The committee sought an example from the Auditor-General of an 'early
success' in DPS' change program. Mr McPhee acknowledged that it was not clear
that there were early successes on which to build.[13]
2.13
Mr Morris also admitted it was difficult to identify any successes:
Probably the most positive thing that we could see coming out
of the report was the responses from the parliamentarians that did respond to
our survey about their satisfaction with the services at Parliament House...
[Parliamentarians] were not happy with the food. No, that was
at the bottom of the list. They were happy with some of the other elements. But
I do take your point: apart from that, we were finding it difficult to find
successes.[14]
2.14
In terms of the rate of progress in transforming DPS since mid-2012 the
Auditor-General observed:
[T]hat progress has been 'measured'—and others might say it
has been at [the] slower end—in this space and there is a serious job to be
done to address all of the matters required by this department [DPS].[15]
Committee view
2.15
It has now been almost two-and-a-half years since this committee tabled
its final report for its previous inquiry into the performance of DPS. The
committee notes the Secretary's evidence that DPS is prioritising and working
very hard on a number of the committee's recommendations and that the systems
in place were much worse than she had anticipated when she took up the position
in mid-2012.[16]
2.16
However, the committee believes that the ANAO Report demonstrates that
there is little evidence of significant change in DPS since the committee
tabled its final report in November 2012. In the committee's view, the
Auditor-General has been generous in his assessment of DPS' progress in
implementing the recommendations as at the 'slower end'.
Anne Zahalka Photography Commission
2.17
At the Supplementary Budget Estimates hearings in October 2014 the
committee questioned the Secretary of DPS about a contract for $30,000 for
photographic works for the 25th Anniversary of Parliament House
which was awarded to Ms Anne Zahalka.
2.18
Initially, Ms Mills informed the committee:
Ms Zahalka was chosen because of her international reputation
and experience in photographic commissions. She is represented in major
national and international art collections and in the Parliament House art
collection. The process for procuring her was along the same model as we use
for historic memorials collection. The contract...was based on the standard fee
and was inclusive of associated travel and material costs and attendance by Ms
Zahalka at a launch event. The project commissioned her to produce a folio of
six to 10 large-scale photographic prints which would become part of the
Parliament House art collection and which were brought into the collection at
the approval of the [Art Advisory] committee at its most recent meeting.[17]
2.19
However, Ms Mills subsequently revealed she knew Ms Zahalka 'a little'.[18]
When pressed further on this point, Ms Mills informed the committee:
I know her because we live in the same neighbourhood in
Sydney and I have met her a couple of times at Christmas functions.[19]
2.20
The fact that Ms Mills personally knew the artist who was commissioned
to carry out $30,000 worth of work for DPS, led the committee to further
inquire into the nature of the process to select Ms Zahalka.[20]
2.21
To summarise, in late 2012 DPS was involved in discussions with the then
Prime Minister's office regarding events for the celebration of the 25th
Anniversary of Parliament House.[21]
In January 2013, the then Director of Art Services at DPS prepared a draft
brief for the photographic commission setting out a shortlist of nine artists
for the commission, including Ms Zahalka.[22]
The Presiding Officers were provided with a brief on 5 March 2013, outlining
the proposed activities to celebrate the 25th Anniversary, including
'a photographic history record of the twenty-fifth anniversary activities held
this year that would form part of the Parliament House Art Collection'.[23]
On 14 June 2013, an officer of DPS contacted Ms Zahalka to ascertain her
interest in the project. The contract with Ms Zahalka was finalised on
22 August 2013.[24]
2.22
The committee was informed there is a period of three months in the
commissioning process, from early March to early June 2013 where 'there has
been quite a lapse in the documentation process' and no documents exist for
that period.[25]
2.23
During that three month period, Ms Zahalka became the 'preferred
tenderer' for the work, however DPS was unable to provide the committee with
any documentation as to how that decision was made.[26]
Further, there is 'very limited recollection from the staff members involved as
to what the process was in arriving at the decisions to approach Ms Zahalka'
over the other eight artists who were identified as potentially suitable for
the project in January 2013.[27]
2.24
Ms Mills informed the committee that she did not make any formal written
declaration of a conflict of interest regarding the fact that she knew
Ms Zahalka in a personal capacity. Ms Mills' evidence was that she had
provided verbal advice through the process, from January 2013 onwards, that one
of the suggested artists was a person 'known a little to me', but that no
formal conflict of interest disclosure had been made:
I did not believe at that time, and I still think this is right,
that I had a relationship of a type that warranted full conflict of interest
recognition, because I only know the person very briefly. I really know them
through their work more than anything. And I felt that advising people that
this was someone familiar to me was sufficient information for them, given the
very tenuous nature of my relationship.[28]
2.25
Ms Mills did admit discussing the potential commission with
Ms Zahalka 'probably over Christmas' in 2012, prior to DPS briefing the
Presiding Officers or receiving funding to go ahead with the commission.[29]
Ms Mills' evidence to the committee was that, as far as she was aware, apart
from this conversation, no one from DPS discussed the project with Ms Zahalka
prior to 14 June 2013. Ms Mills agreed that 'it would have been a
surprise' to Ms Zahalka to be contacted by a DPS officer in June 2013, some six
months after the conversation at Christmas, to inquire as to whether she would
be interested in undertaking the photographic commission.[30]
2.26
However, it also came to the committee's attention that in May 2013,
prior to DPS contacting Ms Zahalka to inform her that she was the preferred
tenderer, the following interview with Ms Zahalka was published:
What is next for Anne Zahalka?
In collaboration with performance and multimedia artist
Silvia Schwenk, I have undertaken a residency with HMAS Penguin to create an
artwork for their centenary to be exhibited at the Mosman Art Gallery. A case
study on my work currently at Lake Macquarie City Gallery features key works
(including The New Bathers), and I have been invited to do a commission about
the public and private areas of Parliament House for their forthcoming
anniversary...[31]
2.27
The ANAO Report provided the following assessment of the commissioning
process:
The ANAO identified weaknesses in DPS' record keeping in
relation to this matter. In particular, the department had not retained records
outlining its consultation with the curatorial staff of the National Portrait
Gallery, which was the agreed approach for selecting the artist, and thereafter
deciding to only approach and commission Ms Anne Zahalka.
While the Commonwealth Procurement Rules allow limited
tenders for procurements below the $80 000 threshold, there are clear benefits
for a department approaching more than one provider, particularly as the
estimated cost of services increases. In this light, the procurement process
and decision could have placed greater emphasis on the procurement principles
of contestability and value for money. Further, the decision would have been more
transparent had DPS maintained complete records covering its consultation and
decision making processes. In this regard, it would also have been prudent for
the Secretary of DPS to have documented an approach to manage any potential conflict
of interest arising from her prior acquaintance with Ms Zahalka.[32]
Committee view
2.28
In the committee's opinion, the commissioning of the photographs to mark
the 25th Anniversary of Parliament House epitomises the failings
that still exist within DPS. Crucially, DPS are unable to produce documents for
a three-month period during the commissioning process. As former Senator John
Faulkner summed up the situation:
We do not know why [Ms Zahalka] was chosen, we do not know
who chose her and we do not know when she was chosen—but we know that, as a
result of her being chosen, $40,000 of Commonwealth money was provided to her
after 12 photographs were provided to the Department of Parliamentary Services.[33]
2.29
In addition to this three-month period of missing documentation, there is
the issue of the Secretary's failure to declare the perceived conflict of
interest, given her prior association with the artist who was selected for the
commission. As the ANAO states, such a declaration in the circumstances would
have been 'prudent'. To compound this situation, Ms Mills has admitted that she
was reticent to inform the committee that she knew Ms Zahalka when the matter
was first discussed at that Supplementary Estimates hearing on 20 October 2014
on the basis that 'people [might] jump to a false conclusion that I might know
her well as a result'.[34]
2.30
Finally, there is the unexplained situation where, aside from a
conversation between Ms Mills and Ms Zahalka in or around December 2012, no one
from DPS has discussed the commission with Ms Zahlaka, yet in May 2013 Ms
Zahalka effectively announced that she has been invited to do the photographic
commission for the 25th Anniversary of Parliament House. While
the committee does not have any evidence of wrongdoing, the fact that this
situation has arisen in an already flawed process, does not reassure the
committee that DPS is developing a strong culture of probity and
accountability.
2.31
While the committee has spent some considerable time investigating the
process for the photographic commission for the 25th Anniversary of
Parliament House, it still has further matters to pursue on this matter during
the remainder of this inquiry.
Inquiry into the use of CCTV material at Parliament House
2.32
On 5 December 2014 the Privileges Committee tabled its report into the
use of CCTV material in Parliament House. In its report the Privileges
Committee highlighted an apparent contradiction in evidence between statements Ms
Mills made at the Budget Estimates hearings and the submission and additional
documents that were provided by DPS to the Privileges Committee during the
course of its inquiry. The Privileges Committee referred to the evidence that
Ms Mills provided on 26 May 2014:
The DPS Secretary told the [Finance and Public Affairs
Legislation Committee (F&PA Committee)] estimates hearing in May 2014 that
the matter now referred to the Privileges Committee had only come to her
attention on the day of that hearing, on the basis of inquiries she made after
questions were asked of the Senate department.
[The Secretary's] evidence was that it was "possible DPS
has breached the code [of practice] in investigating a case to do with a staff
member", and she explained the apparent breach as "an inadvertent
conflict between staff management issues and the protocol of the protection of
members' and senators' rights to do business in the building". The Secretary
told the hearing that "there may have been an inadvertent and ancillary
breach of the statement of purpose" because the CCTV footage "may
have captured [the employee] doing other activities in the building besides the
one for which the CCTV footage was released".
When asked whether the activities she had referred to
involved a person or people providing information to Senator Faulkner, Ms Mills
replied "That is what I am looking into. That is the issue that was
brought to my attention today..."[35]
2.33
In contrast, DPS's submission to the Privileges Committee stated that
the discovery of footage showing the employee placing an envelope under a
senator's office door was communicated to the Secretary on 27 February 2014,
three months prior to the Budget Estimates hearing. The Privileges Committee
noted:
[DPS'] submission did not suggest that there had been an
inadvertent conflict. Instead it is founded on the Secretary’s response, given
the same day [27 February 2014], "that 'contact by individuals with
parliamentarians is not something we monitor...' ". The [DPS] submission
asserts that:
Accordingly, the footage relating to the visit to the
Senator's office was not investigated further and Employee X was not questioned
in any way in relation to her attendance at the Senator's office.
The submission contends that the Secretary "made a
conscious decision not to take action in respect of Employee X's
approach to Senator Faulkner by effectively instructing that DPS could not
consider that conduct and had no interest in the matter."[36]
2.34
Additional documents provided to the Privileges Committee by DPS also 'demonstrate[d]
that the Secretary was made aware of all aspects of the incident as it
transpired [in relation to the use of CCTV by DPS officers]'.[37]
In particular, the Privileges Committee stated:
[T]he documents show:
-
that when Ms Mills approved a
preliminary code of conduct investigation on 25 February she also approved the
release of still photographs from security cameras
-
that the request which Ms Mills
approved on 25 February informed her that the CCTV system had already been used
to gather information on the matter
-
that the discovery of footage
showing the employee placing an envelope under Senator Faulkner's office door
was communicated to Ms Mills on 27 February.[38]
2.35
In respect of this contradictory evidence, the Privileges Committee
concluded:
The submission and additional documents cast considerable
doubt upon the evidence given by the Secretary [during the F&PA Committee
estimates hearing]. The [Privileges Committee] has not been able to reconcile
the evidence given at the estimates hearing with the submission and documents
which DPS has subsequently provided, and considers that the Finance and Public
Administration Legislation Committee was misled about the Secretary's knowledge
of the events that led to this inquiry.
The committee has determined that it is appropriate in the
circumstances to publish the relevant documents so that they are available to
the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee in its oversight of
the Department of Parliamentary Services.[39]
2.36
The Privileges Committee recommended:
That the attention of the Finance and Public Administration
Legislation Committee be drawn to the matters...relating to the misleading
evidence given at its estimates hearing on 26 May 2014.[40]
Secretary's response
2.37
Following the tabling of the Privileges Committee report, the committee
wrote to the Secretary, noting the recommendations of the Privileges Committee,
and invited Ms Mills to provide a submission outlining any further material or
evidence for the committee to consider in its deliberations on this matter.
2.38
In correspondence to the committee the Secretary rejected the conclusion
by the Privileges Committee that she or other DPS officers provided misleading
evidence at the Budget Estimates hearing. Ms Mills stated that, following a
'series of broad questions about the CCTV operating policy' to the Department
of the Senate on the morning of 26 May 2014, and an indication from the
committee that they intended to take the issue up with DPS later in the day,
she had sought to investigate what the questioning might relate to:
At the time I appeared before [the committee] I had not been
able to establish that. There was nothing in the line of questioning that
morning [to the Department of the Senate] that would reasonably suggest that I
should have been able to make a connection between the use of CCTV and a case
early in the year where I had very clearly stated that 'contact by individuals
with parliamentarians is not something we monitor'.[41]
2.39
Ms Mills insisted that nothing in her investigations on the morning of
26 May 2014 caused her to make the connection between the CCTV case
earlier in the year with the line of questioning that the committee had taken
with the Department of the Senate:
This includes advice I sought from the Clerk of the Senate to
ascertain what the Senator might be referring to that morning. The Clerk advised
me of the existence of a report relating to disciplining an officer for contact
with a Senator's office. I was not aware of any such report.[42]
2.40
The Secretary argued the description that the Clerk gave was such that
she was unable to make the connection with the matter which was subsequently
referred to the Privileges Committee:
It must be emphasised that the investigation which was the
subject of the referral to the Privileges Committee was not an investigation
into contact with a Senator, but into a very different circumstance of
harassment of another employee of my Department. Knowing no further detail at
the time of my evidence there was simply no way for me to directly connect that
description to the case that was ultimately the subject of the referral to the
Privileges Committee.[43]
Correspondence from the Clerk of
the Senate
2.41
Following publication of Ms Mills' response on the committee's website,
the committee received correspondence from the Clerk of the Senate, Dr Rosemary
Laing. The Clerk disputed Ms Mills' recollection of their meeting on 26 May
2014:
Ms Mills' account does not accord with my recollection of
events on the morning of 26 May 2014.
As soon as I returned to my office at approximately 10.30am
on that morning from giving evidence to the committee, my executive assistant
informed me that Ms Mills wished to see me as soon as possible, to which I
agreed. When Ms Mills came into my office I said to her words to the effect of,
"you haven't been using CCTV for internal disciplinary matters,
surely?" When Ms Mills denied it, I informed her that I had seen a draft
report confirming that to be the case and that it raised highly problematic
issues in this environment because of the potential impact on senators carrying
out their functions.[44]
2.42
Contrary to Ms Mills' account of the meeting, the Clerk states that 'I
neither perceived nor described the draft report as relating to contact with a
senator but as concerning alleged dealings between DPS employees'.[45]
2.43
The Clerk informed the committee:
I was in no doubt that Ms Mills was aware of the particular
case because, although she denied having seen the draft report, she referred in
my office to the victim of the alleged harassment by name and gave an account
of how much the incident had upset the victim, coming on top of some personal
issues.[46]
2.44
The Clerk also addressed Ms Mills' claim that she only became aware of
the matters which were referred to the Privileges Committee on the morning of
26 May 2014:
Some time, possibly weeks, later, I recall being puzzled by
Ms Mills' claim that these matters had only come to her attention on the
morning of the [Budget Estimates] hearing because I had a niggling recollection
of her referring on another occasion to DPS staff being "caught"
providing information to senators. Eventually, I sourced the recollection to a
meeting of the heads of the parliamentary departments held on 28 February 2014.
These meetings are held on a quarterly basis but that was the only heads'
meeting Ms Mills attended in 2014. On checking the papers I located an email
from Ms Mills, sent on 27 February 2014 at 1.08pm, asking to add to our agenda
"a discussion on how parliamentary departments generally deal with issues
like the unauthorised disclosure of information by their staff – not privileges
but internal departmental information"...[47]
2.45
The Clerk noted that Ms Mills' email at 1.08pm on 27 February 2014,
adding the agenda item, was sent 'a few minutes after a response by Ms Mills to
an email informing her that investigation of the particular disciplinary matter
involving alleged harassment had located additional CCTV footage showing the
person under investigation placing a "brown envelope" under Senator
Faulkner's door'.[48]
Committee view
2.46
Ms Mills explanation contained in her letter of 20 February 2015
provides no reassurance to the committee that it was not misled at the Budget
Estimates hearing on 26 May 2014. In fact, in the committee's view, the
explanation that Ms Mills has provided further contradicts the evidence she
gave to the committee on 26 May 2014.
2.47
The committee finds it implausible that Ms Mills now argues that on the
morning of 26 May 2014, at the time she appeared before the
committee, she effectively had not been able to connect the events of the
matter which became the subject of the referral to the Privileges Committee
with the preliminary code of conduct investigation which she had approved some
three months earlier. This is despite Ms Mills informing the committee on 26
May 2014:
-
that the matter involved a potential code of conduct case against
a DPS staff member;[49]
and
-
that this was the only code of conduct investigation that she was
aware of in which CCTV footage was authorised to be accessed.[50]
2.48
The committee also notes the correspondence from the Clerk of the Senate
which disputes Ms Mills' explanation in her letter of 20 February 2015. In
particular, the Clerk indicates that at the time Ms Mills met with her on 26
May 2014, Ms Mills was aware that the matter involved a code of conduct dispute
and, in fact, spoke specifically about the events which led to the instigation
of the code of conduct investigation.
2.49
The committee intends to take up these inconsistencies, as well as the contradictory
evidence identified by the Privileges Committee in its report, with Ms Mills
during the remainder of the inquiry.
Conclusion
2.50
None of the evidence in this inquiry to date, or the material covered in
the Privileges Committee and ANAO reports, gives the committee any comfort that
DPS has made significant progress in terms of addressing the shortcomings which
were identified in the committee's final report of November 2012.
2.51
DPS drew the committee's attention to the several reviews it is
undertaking pursuant to the recommendations in the committee's 2012 report.[51]
The committee notes that these reviews have been undertaken by external
providers at significant cost and, in many cases, the outcomes of many of these
reviews are yet to be implemented. DPS also referred to the recruitment of
staff to key positions and a restructure of the management of the department.[52]
However, this recruitment appears to have taken DPS much longer than
anticipated and, as the Secretary admitted, DPS' poor reputation means it
struggles to attract staff.[53]
Further, there was also evidence to the committee of an ongoing problem of low
staff morale in areas of DPS.[54]
2.52
The committee strongly disagrees with the Secretary of DPS, Ms Mills,
that this lack of progress reflects the 'timeframe with which DPS has had to
make the changes'.[55]
DPS has had two-and-a-half years in which to address the recommendations and
effect some change. Frankly, the complete lack of progress is unacceptable.
2.53
The ANAO report supports the committee's view of the lack of progress by
DPS. The ANAO was highly critical of DPS and as the Auditor-General stated, the
report is 'at the more critical end' of ANAO reports.[56]
2.54
The committee notes that the six recommendations in the ANAO Report go
largely to the review and further development of policies and ongoing training
for department staff. The committee made similar recommendations in its 2012
report and the ANAO report highlighted 'inadequate staff training and
out-of-date guidance material' were particular areas of concern in the audit.[57]
Unfortunately, given that DPS has thus far been unable to implement the
committee's recommendations from 2012, the committee holds little hope that DPS
will be able to effectively implement the ANAO's recommendations.
2.55
Overall, the evidence to the committee so far demonstrates that DPS, as
currently managed, is deeply dysfunctional.
2.56
Furthermore, the committee has no confidence in the evidence provided to
date by Ms Mills to explain the contradictory evidence outlined in the
Privileges Committee report or her role in the commissioning of the
photographic works by Ms Zahalka. While the committee intends to provide
Ms Mills with a further opportunity to explain at a hearing, in the
committee's view, this situation has seriously eroded her standing as a witness
before the committee and casts doubt over other evidence provided by Ms Mills.
2.57
As the committee has noted, some of the matters in this interim report
remain unresolved and the committee intends to continue to pursue these issues.
However, the committee is also of the view that it is now time to look more
broadly at the role, functions and structure of DPS within the current
framework. The committee intends through the remainder of this inquiry to work
with both Presiding Officers with a view to improving the management and operation
of DPS.
2.58 After the committee drafted this report, and prior to its tabling, the
committee was advised that Ms Mills ceased employment as Secretary of DPS.
Senator Cory Bernardi
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page