Parliamentary Departments
2.1
The committee took evidence from the parliamentary departments on
Monday, 25 May 2009.
Department of the Senate
Level of committee activity and
change in committee structure
2.2
A discussion of the level of committee activity, raised during an
additional estimates hearing in February 2009, was continued at this hearing.
The President advised that the Department of the Senate was expecting a deficit
of approximately $300,000 for the financial year. This was largely attributed
to the sustained higher activity levels of the Senate committees.[1]
Statistics supplied to the committee by the Clerk of the Senate indicated that
in the 2008 calendar year there were 111 matters referred to the committees,
which was the highest number in the 15 years covered by the data.[2]
2.3
In the context of this discussion, it was asked if the recent change to
the committee system would increase staffing costs. In response, the Clerk of
the Senate, Mr Harry Evans stated:
No. Basically our costs are due to the level of committee
activity rather than the forums in which that activity takes place. I think it
would be true to say it is marginally more expensive to run select committees
rather than references to standing committees, but basically the cost is due to
the level of activity—the number of inquiries to be undertaken and the number
of reports to be done and so on. So we do not expect a great increase or
decrease in the costs as a result of the change in the committee structure. Basically,
as you know, it aims to avoid so many select committees and make it a bit more
efficient in relation to the use of senators' time as well as staff time.[3]
Accessibility of Senate documents
for people with disabilities
2.4
The committee sought further information on the Department's response to
a motion in the Senate concerning access for people with disabilities to
documents of the Senate. The Department advised that discussions were
continuing with Vision Australia about new technology that could potentially be
used to provide greater access.[4]
2.5
Other matters of interest discussed by the committee included the
process undertaken in conducting staff redundancies and the relationship
between the Presiding Officers Information Technology Advisory Group and the
President of the Senate.
Department of Parliamentary Services
Budgetary pressures
2.6
The Department of Parliamentary Services informed the committee that
they would need to find approximately $4.5 million worth of savings to remain
within their budget. Reasons for this included an increase in electricity
costs, rising insurance premiums, IT efficiency requirements arising from the
Gershon IT review, staff wage increases and the recent announcement that
Australian Federal Police security costs will significantly increase.[5]
Security arrangements at Parliament
House
2.7
The committee examined the decision to reduce the number of security
staff employed by approximately 25. The Department explained that security
costs accounted for about a third of its budget, and that the reduction
represented a return to the security staffing levels of 200506. In response to
concerns that this may represent a threat to the safety of building occupants,
the Department Secretary, Mr Alan Thompson stated:
Our assessment is that we can deliver a comparable level of
security. This building is open for public visitation during normal hours but
we actually have some staff in and around the building 24 hours a day seven
days a week, and our assessment is that we can still provide a very high level
of security.[6]
2.8
There was also a continuation of discussion from the February additional
estimates about whether a need existed to screen members and senators on entry
to Parliament House, and access to the parliamentary slip roads. The Department
reported that the number of pass-holders with access to the slip roads had been
reduced from 8000 to 1400.[7]
Hansard Production System
2.9
The Department reported on plans to upgrade the existing Hansard
Production System which is approximately 10 years old. According to the
Department, the upgrade is necessary to provide improved service levels and
because the technology used in the old system is no longer supported. The
budget for this system is approximately $3.5 million and is expected to be
implemented in approximately 12 months' time.[8]
2.10
Other issues discussed with the Department included the recommissioning
of select water features at Parliament House, proposed changes to a greener
air-conditioning system, continued couch grass trials, businesses within
Parliament and artworks administered by the Department.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page