John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

I am particularly interested in the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which has just been presented, but of course have a great deal of interest in the other reports, which I will read with interest at a later stage. In noting the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to the change in leadership of the Department of Parliamentary Services, in particular to some comments made to the committee by the Acting Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Mr Russell Grove.

After the retirement of Mr Alan Thompson as Secretary of DPS, Mr Grove served as acting secretary of the department from 10 March until 26 May this year. Mr Grove has a very interesting background with over 40 years experience with the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, including over 21 years as clerk. That experience really was of benefit to our committee. This afternoon I would particularly like to draw attention to the evidence Mr Grove gave to our committee's inquiry into the performance of DPS and that evidence was provided on Wednesday, 2 May 2012.

When Mr Grove came before our committee, I asked him about whether he had examined the issue of misleading evidence provided to the committee on the sale of billiard tables. Mr Grove said in response—which you might find on page 22 of the relevant committee Hansard, that he had spoken:

... with officers about the appalling situation that the department found itself in—never to be repeated—and the lessons learnt from that, to provide accurate and fulsome information to any committee which asks for it. But it is unfortunate that, had the committee not been misled and lied to, we probably would not have needed to have spend $92,000—

And so he went on. You would find on page 27 of the Hansard record comments about the same matter. In fact, I said this:

You see, I happen to think—this is perhaps very old-fashioned, Mr Grove—that parliamentary departments, whether they be chamber departments or DPS, ought to be exemplars of best practice. They should lead the way in terms of their responses on these sorts of issues. And, to my knowledge, it is almost unprecedented to have a situation where evidence is created and fabricated ex post facto and then provided deliberately in answers to questions on notice to a parliamentary committee. It is almost unprecedented. I find it extraordinary that this would have occurred from a parliamentary department.

Mr Grove responded:

I can only agree. It beggars belief that that would happen.

Because of the time pressures in the chamber, I propose to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard further extracts of the Hansard transcript of the same hearing. These particular extracts focus on the findings of the 2011 DPS staff survey conducted by ORIMA Research. I indicate to the Senate that the usual courtesies have been extended around the chamber in relation to these Hansard extracts, so I now seek leave to incorporate those extracts in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The extracts read as follows—

Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee:

Public Hearing 2 May 2012-06-26

Inquiry into the Performance of the Department of Parliamentary Services

FROM PAGE 33 OF THE HANSARD TRANSCRIPT.

Senator FAULKNER: I hope it is not like a small family. If it is, it is a pretty dysfunctional one, that is all I can say. I do hope that is not the case. What we have is the Department of Parliamentary Services 2011 Staff Survey conducted by ORIMA Research. Can you and I agree that that is a serious survey undertaken by a reputable, independent, outside organisation, that it is comparatively recent and that perhaps it is worth focusing on some of their findings?

Mr Grove: Certainly.

Senator FAULKNER: If you go to page 60, it talks about the DPS senior executive performance. Before we get to bullying, we will just talk about the DPS senior executive performance. On page 60 you will see a footnote, footnote 17, defining what the DPS senior executive is as far as the ORIMA Research organisation is concerned. Let me quote it and you can confirm that I am quoting it correctly. It says: DPS Senior Executive was defined in the survey to include the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the Parliamentary Librarian. Do you confirm that?

Mr Grove: Yes.

Senator FAULKNER: This particular survey, I think, had some very worrying findings. I could spend all afternoon on this, but I am not going to. Go to the next page—page 61. Question 16a asked in the ORIMA survey is: Members of the Executive act in accordance with the Parliamentary Service Values and Code of Conduct. Fifty-five per cent of staff in DPS agreed with that in 2011—less than the number that agreed with it in 2009, which was 57 per cent. But compare that to the APS-wide figure, which is 84 per cent. Problem?

Mr Grove: Perhaps a problem of communication.

Senator FAULKNER: But it is a problem, first of all?

Mr Grove: Yes, certainly.

Senator FAULKNER: It is a real problem, isn't it?

Mr Grove: The comparison is odious. It shows a problem.

Senator FAULKNER: According to this survey, the percentage of DPS staff who believe that 'senior executive exemplify personal drive and integrity' is 36 per cent—compared with 42 per cent, which is abysmal anyway, in 2009. Problem?

Mr Grove: I would imagine, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you. I think it is a problem too, Mr Grove. These are not created by me. You say 'let's depend on something more substantive'. Under 'demonstrate high quality leadership', 35 per cent of the staff of the department think the senior executive staff do that. 'Provide clear and consistent guidance': 31 per cent of staff. All these figures are down from the 2009 levels, which were abysmal in their own right. When I read this, I must admit that it did not fill me full of a great deal of confidence, but it is, as we have discussed, a document produced by an independent group. I might return to that at a later stage in these hearings. Let's go to page 70: 'DPS Senior Executive Performance'. Has anyone drawn these figures to your attention, Mr Grove?

Mr Grove: Yes, I have read the review.

Senator FAULKNER: What was your view? You are here, you have come in—I think many of us would appreciate this—in a temporary capacity, an acting capacity. You have had long experience in the service of the Parliament of New South Wales. I am really asking you, taking a step back: what are your thoughts when you read these sorts of statistics? This is the view of the staff of the Department of Parliamentary Services about the senior executives. How do you respond to this?

Mr Grove: My initial response is, firstly, it is not good, as you observe; secondly, you should address it and do something about it. I think one of the big problems is the way people communicate with one another.

Senator FAULKNER: Is it the way the senior executive service communicate with the rest of the department, or is the problem with the staff of the department who fail to communicate effectively with the DPS senior executive—or both?

Mr Grove: Potentially there is a two-way track, but the former is the more important issue: leadership communicating down through the next rung of leadership and down the line so that people understand where people's responsibilities lie, where accountabilities lie and where support needs to be, with that communication coming up through the ranks as well.

Senator FAULKNER: I am only making the point here that there does seem to be a problem. I am not laying blame at anyone's feet. These are very unusual figures and very surprising figures to me. Are they surprising to you?

Mr Grove: They are surprising.

Senator FAULKNER: You had a long and distinguished career in the New South Wales parliament. You would be pretty displeased, I suspect, if your own leadership at that time had been judged in that way, wouldn't you?

Mr Grove: Not quite as bad, but probably there was room for improvement. There is always room for improvement.

Senator FAULKNER: I think you would have been pretty disappointed. Let's move on to page 76 of this report, which talks about experiences of bullying or harassment. Take figure 28: 'During the past 12 months have you been subjected to bullying or harassment at DPS?' Basically, one-third-32 per cent—of staff indicated they had witnessed bullying and/or harassment at DPS in the last 12 months and this was above the 27 per cent recorded in 2009. That is a statistic from the people DPS got to conduct the 2011 staff survey. What am I to make of that statistic? It seems to me to be a high level and increasing.

Mr Grove: It is evidenced by the facts.

Senator FAULKNER: This is the point. I think the facts are telling us a story here. You said to me 10 or 15 minutes ago: 'Let's focus on the facts! These are facts. They are not happy facts, though, are they?

Mr Grove: It is a statistic, isn't it?

Senator FAULKNER: It is a statistic, yes.

Mr Grove: Which potentially can be different to the fact. It is a raw figure.

Senator FAULKNER: It is a raw figure, but you were concerned about ensuring that we look at these issues with the best evidence that we have available to us. I cannot comment about all the statistical basis for this—I have read the report—but the statistics are concerning and consistent, aren't they?

Mr Grove: They seem to be, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: And from 2009 to 2011 there is an increase. What is the committee to make of that? If it is not a problem, why did the new Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services make the statement that she did about bullying?

Mr Grove: I cannot answer that question.

Senator FAULKNER: Perhaps I will have to ask her when she first appears before the committee. I appreciate you cannot answer it, but you mentioned to all of us here on this side of the table in your opening statement that this was positive. I agree with you: it is positive.

Mr Grove: I think no-one is denying that something does need to be done about this issue and positive steps taken. We are preparing an action plan to do something about that so people have the opportunity to speak up without being afraid.

Senator FAULKNER: Let's go to page 80 of this ORIMA report. Halfway down the page it refers to figure 32: Compared with 2009, staff who reported bullying and/or harassment in 2011 continue to indicate low levels of satisfaction with how their report of the incident was handled. In 2011, around one in five relevant DPS staff were satisfied (17%)— Which is a bit under one in five, The report continues: This was down from 27% in 2009 and below 38% for medium APS agencies. That is very poor, isn't it, Mr Grove?

Mr Grove: It is.

Senator FAULKNER: It is very poor. Are we to be concerned about that?

Mr Grove: I would imagine so, yes.

FROM PAGE 36 OF THE HANSARD TRANSCRIPT.

Mr Grove: Which specific instances of alleged bullying?

Senator FAULKNER: I am going to go through a few of these. Instances of alleged bullying are taken seriously: 21.3 per cent said they neither agree nor disagree but 17.3 per cent said they disagree and 13.7 per cent said they strongly disagree, The way I add it up, that means 31 per cent disagree that alleged bullying is taken seriously by management. What about this next one? Workers feel confident to speak up about inappropriate behaviour: 24.9 per cent neither agree nor disagree but 28.9 per cent disagree and 15.3 per cent strongly disagree. I am asked by Mr Grove to get a statistical basis for this. That is pretty ordinary isn't it, Mr Grove?

Mr Grove: It would appear to be, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: It is a shocker. Managers lead by example to prevent workplace bullying: 22.9 per cent neither agree nor disagree but 16.9 per cent disagree and 20.1 per cent strongly disagree. That is pretty bad too, isn't it?

Mr Grove: Yes, it is not a good figure.

Senator FAULKNER: For the record, the 16.9 per cent are 42 people and the 20.1 per cent are 50 employees at DPS. Can't you see why committee members are so concerned about the issue of bullying?

Mr Grove: I recognise that, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: And not only is the situation abysmal, on all the evidence available from independent sources the ORIMA survey and the Comcare survey, it is getting worse, isn't it?

Mr Grove: That is what the statistics indicate.

Senator FAULKNER: Yes. Now I think it is pretty reasonable for the committee to start drawing conclusions from some of these reports that have been provided to us. I am certainly starting to draw conclusions and they are unhappy conclusions. They could not be otherwise could they?

Mr Grove: No, they could not. I agree with what you say but what I have attempted to put before the committee, which I hope the committee will accept, is that DPS is attempting to do something about this issue.

Senator FAULKNER: Well I would hope so. It would be appalling to think they are not trying to do something about it. It is so shocking. I do not derive any comfort from that. It would be more extraordinary if you were not trying to do something about it. But it does not appear that whatever has been done over recent years has not been successful.

Mr Grove: That would appear to be the case, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: Yes, and it also appears that when you compare, as the ORIMA Research document does, the record in DPS to medium-sized APS agencies the comparisons are terrible, aren't they?

Mr Grove: The statistics appear to indicate that, yes. Take on board the fact that, when the Comcare audit which shows these figures was brought to the attention of DPS, an action plan was prepared, which was submitted to them and accepted by them. A recent audit, as late as yesterday, says that, yes, the implementation of the plan seems to be on track and they are reasonably comfortable with the approach that has been taken. Is that a positive?

Senator FAULKNER: Sorry?

Mr Grove: That is a positive, surely.

Senator FAULKNER: Let us hope so. I think we are long overdue for a few positives.

Mr Grove: I would agree.

On page 27 about the same matter, Hansard records I said:

Senator FAULKNER: "You see, I happen to think—this is perhaps very old-fashioned, Mr Grove—that parliamentary departments, whether they be chamber departments or DPS, ought to be exemplars of best practice. They should lead the way in terms of their responses on these sorts of issues. And, to my knowledge, it is almost unprecedented to have a situation where evidence is created and fabricated ex post facto and then provided deliberately in answers to questions on notice to a parliamentary committee. It is almost unprecedented. I find it extraordinary that this would have occurred from a parliamentary department".

Mr Grove responded:

Mr Grove: "I can only agree It beggars belief that that would happen".

Mr President, I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard further extracts of the Hansard transcript of the same hearing. These extracts focus on the findings of the 2011 DPS Staff Survey conducted by ORIMA research.

Incorporation

Mr President, I commend Mr Groves clear statements of concern about the issues canvassed in the ORIMA research and the DPS and the billiard table's debacle.

I sincerely hope his wise counsel is heeded in the future.

In noting the report of the Senate Finance and Administration Legislation Committee, I would like draw to the attention of the Senate the change of leadership in the Department of Parliamentary Services and some comments made to our Committee by the Acting Secretary of DPS, Mr Russell Grove.

After the retirement of Mr Alan Thompson, as Secretary of DPS, Mr Grove served as Acting Secretary from the 10th of March until the 26th of May this year.

Mr Grove's background of over 40 years experience with the NSW Legislative Assembly, including over 21 years as Clerk of the NSW Legislative Assembly, was of benefit to our Committee, and this afternoon I would like draw the Senate's attention to evidence he gave to us during the Committee's inquiry into the performance of DPS on Wednesday the rd of May, 2012.

When I asked Mr Grove about whether he had examined the issue of misleading evidence provided to the Committee on the sale of billiard tables, Mr Grove said, in response — see on page 22 of the Hansard transcript that he had spoken:

"with officers about the appalling situation that the department found itself in—never to be repeated—and the lessons learnt from that, to provide accurate and fulsome information to any committee which asks for it. But it is unfortunate that, had the committee not been misled and lied to, we probably would not have needed to have spend $92,000" and so on.

I thank the Senate. I will just conclude my very brief remarks on this matter by commending Mr Grove's clear statements of concern about the issues canvassed in the ORIMA research in relation to the Department of Parliamentary Services billiard table sale debacle. And I say to the Senate that I sincerely hope his wise counsel on these matter is heeded in the future.