Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 1:23:15 to 2:45:04
Examination of Parliament House gym operations, the department's procedures for code of conduct investigations, and office renovation costs.
Topics: Public service staffing, Integrity, Procurement
Speakers: Nicola Hinder PSM, Paul Pak Poy, James Paterson, Hon Sue Lines, Hon Jane Hume, David Pocock, Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM, Hon James McGrath, Jaala Hinchcliffe, Jason Lucas, Karen Grogan, Steven Fox, Vance Khan
>> I'd like to ask about the gym. Uh clearly uh I don't go to the gym, so uh bit of self-reflection there. >> We can tour. Uh so um >> I'm told it's somewhere that way near uh Aussies.
>> I think definitely part of the tour on
Friday. >> Uh so um so I'm asking this on behalf of of some people who do go to the gym, namely staff in this building. So um I understand that you're going to cut staffed hours of the health and recreation center which is otherwise known as the gym. >> If you could take us through what what the plans are there, please.
>> Senator, I'll ask Mr. Lucas to come forward to talk to that matter
>> because I think one of the things is we are concerned about the health and wellbe well wellbeing of everybody in this building but particularly our staff particularly those who work long hours and their ability to to go to the the the gym at suitable times uh is good for their physical health and and mental health. So, um, over to you.
>> We do spoken.
>> I would make a very good union shop steward in a different life. President,
>> Senator, Mr. Lucas, >> maybe we should chat.
>> No, no, that ship's sailed a long time.
Thank you, Senator, for your question. Uh, Jason Lucas, deputy chief operating officer. Um, we're currently considering and working through staff consultation on a change in staff hours. Certainly we are not seeking to change the hours of the gym. Uh a few years back that was transitioned to a 24/7 gym for u members of the gymnasium to use uh whenever they they would like. Uh in addition to that um but we are sorry we are looking at the efficiency of how that gym operates. Uh certainly uh through the statistics that I've seen uh and the statistics that we're working on, around about 92% of people visiting the gym visit between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Uh so as we run a uh a a a sort of business operation as part of Parliament House, we are considering uh the most efficient way to to run that gym, noting that it is a 24/7 and available for staff or members of the gym uh at all times.
>> So you you'd be looking at cutting staff or cutting back the staffed hours then. Uh
the consideration at the moment is is looking at uh the staffed hours. So we'd look uh currently the gym is open uh for the majority of days uh between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Uh we're considering the option of reducing that to from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. So a reduction of 2 hours.
>> Okay. And what what impact will that have on on services that are available to to uh people in this building go to the
>> So members of the gym um because you need to be a member to uh access that facility. Uh access to the gymnasium will uh remain 24/7. Um should individuals should that proposal uh progress forward, should individuals want to uh avail themselves of the uh sort of more bespoke services of that facility such as working through uh programs uh nutritional advice and so forth. Obviously that would come forward in the uh hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00
>> What about um apparently there's a sauna here. Um what about um people who want
moment uh under the 24/7 access arrangements is turned off or was is shut during the um uh outside of staffed hours. Now uh we're looking at options on how we might be able to to put appropriate measures in place and mitigance to uh have additional access beyond the staffed hours.
>> Well, based on on my notes here um which have been underlined and bold, I think that would be very positive or certainly keep my office happy. Certainly there is
there is quite a um culture of using the sauna in Parliament House Senator and we're looking at options to um at how how we can mitigate sort of risks to support that.
>> In terms of the staff though, would the staff be let go or or how would that happen?
>> There's no plans to um reduce our staffing numbers uh in the gym. Uh the gym has a mixture of permanence, so full-time permanence, part-time and casual staff. Of course, a change in um staffed hours may see us uh looking at how uh those people are rosted on, including um uh timing for casual staff. >> Should that option be implemented?
>> Uh I think that's all I've got here on this area. So um
followup questions on the gym. If you don't mind just before we go to the break is that certainly please go ahead
and senator >> if you are leaving I too have raised similar questions to you and the depart ask the department in particular to make sure their consultation is broad and also with the union involved for staff so we've been active on it as well.
>> Thank you. Sorry just how how many members of the gym are there in this in
the building? Uh happy to provide the correct number on notice but it's around a thousand members. Um from memory around 250 of those are members of the other parliamentary departments parliamentarians in their staff with around 700 that have uh department of parliamentary services.
>> Goodness. Yeah, if you could on on notice is fine. Thank you.
>> Just on that, do you have data about how many people access the gym after hours?
>> Uh we do. uh it's around 8% of the uh members uh access the gym uh post the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
>> I'm not sure whether anybody at the table accesses the gym and I don't want to get into the intricacies of that but I have noticed a very strange anomaly in the gym uh which is that condoms are provided in the women's changing room. Are you aware of this?
>> I was not aware of that. Senator,
>> did you know that they're not provided in the men's changing room?
>> I was not aware of that. Senator,
>> do you think that's a strange anomaly?
>> Uh, Senator, I believe it's absolutely wonderful that women are taking care of their own sexual health.
>> I agree with you, Miss Hinder. I just wonder why men aren't taking responsibility as well.
>> That's a good question, Senator Hume, and we'll discuss it further with DPS.
Thank you for bringing it to our
attention.
>> Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you.
>> Question. Um, with that we will suspend for a short break uh and resume with the Department of Parliamentary Services at 10:45. >> Welcome back. Um, we are, uh, returning with the Department of Parliamentary Services. Um, and we will go to Senator Hume first.
>> Thank you, Senator Green. I promise I don't need any props for this line of questioning. You'll be pleased to know.
>> I'm all disappointed [laughter] about
that. Um, Secretary, I want you to to to explain to the committee if you can how the department conducts codes of conduct investigations and whether they're conducted by another member of staff or whether they're an independent person.
>> Thank you, Senator. Um, the department can conduct um code of conduct investigations in a number of different ways. We have a procedure in relation to conducting of of code of conducts. Um in some matters it may be appropriate to have um uh someone internal investigating and being the decision maker on breach and sanction but in other matters it might not be appropriate to do it that way and it might be appropriate to have an independent investigator and independent breach member u breach maker and an
entirely on the circumstances. Nothing to do with the uh the employment level of the person whose conduct is
being considered. It might have um the employment level might um be reflective of that because there's then um there's a matter of fairness about having it dealt with completely independent from uh the department because the uh the people who could be the investigator or the breach um uh decision maker or the sanctioned decision maker um are all uh people who have been uh connected to that person. And so in order to for fairness to have it completely external.
>> I understand. Can you explain for the committee then how you how do you go about tendering the role for an independent investigator for a suspected breach of a code of conduct for
whether um the investigator is from um an investigation uh uh agency like um there's a number of independent investigation agencies where uh you can use panels to be able to source them or whether you are sourcing um a legal firm to do that work for you. If you are sourcing a legal firm, then it goes through the panel arrangements that are established by AGD. Um, if it's through a um a another firm, it's through usually the panel arrangements that they've um already been
>> And who makes that decision?
>> Uh, the decision may be made by me. It may be made by uh the chief operating officer. It might be made by the deputy
it may be made by any of you but is there a sort of a protocol as to who would make that final decision?
>> Uh I think it would depend on the circumstances. Um Senator there's some matters where um it doesn't need to be considered by me. There are some matters where it should be considered by me.
>> So how many companies or individuals do you currently have under tender or contract to a to act as investigators?
Uh, Senator, I wouldn't it it's not so much a case that you are contracting people to act as an investigator in all circumstances. Um, as the secretary has indicated, um, the department has trained investigation staff within the department. They undertake investigations from time to time using the legal services panel. uh legal firms are contracted to be able to provide advice and support to the department to progress code of conduct matters. Underneath some of those legal panel arrangements, there are arrangements in place to have an investigator appointed working with the legal firm to undertake the investigation.
>> So who is it that then is it the legal firm that appoints the panel or is it >> no senators that appoints the panel?
There's no there's no panel set up per se,
>> right? So, sorry. When you say panel, you're not talking about numerous people investigating the one incident. You're talking about somebody that is on a panel that can be chosen.
>> No, Senator, what I'm saying is that if you're doing this through a legal service panel, you are engaging the legal service provider through the panel. >> Right. Yes. underneath the legal services. A number of the legal firms have um investigators that they have worked with previously or depending upon the type of investigation that needs to be conducted can make a recommendation to the delegate as to the appointment of
that person. So if you choose a legal firm from the panel, they make a recommendation as to who the investigator would be. Or do you say I would like Joe Blogs? He did a good for job for us last time. Or
>> Senator, highly unusual that you'd pick someone like Joe Blogs like that. It would it would it would depend upon the circumstances of the case and whether or not there would be people that you would approach to undertake that investigation, the breach decision or the sanction decision depending upon their expertise, their knowledge of the environment, their involvement.
So, how many companies or individuals are currently under tender or contract to act as investigators?
>> Uh, Senator, for the code of conduct matters that the department has underway at the moment, um, I believe that HWLE lawyers is providing advice to the department on one ma or maybe two matters. Clayton UTS, as I indicated at the last hearing, is also providing support to the department in the progress of a number of other code of conduct investigations.
>> On notice, could you provide the tender numbers for all current contracts and the names of any investigators who have undertaken work since the 1st of July
2022? Senator, I'm happy to be able to do so, but I will also note that the department has provided a full listing of its contract tenders in response to a previous question on notice, and that also does include the details of those that have been contracted under the legal service arrangements.
>> Good. That should then be easy to access. Commissioner, I noticed that in the determination that you that you signed on March last year under the Parliamentary Services Act, that section 9 requires that the investigator must be and appears to be independent and While that sort of speaks for itself, I think it's probably worth reiterating
>> You asked me.
>> Yes, Commissioner. Sorry.
>> Yeah. Sorry. I thought you I thought you were looking at
>> No, sorry. I was
>> uh Yes, Senator. Sorry. Gordon Deau, Parliamentary Service Commissioner. And that's that's in accord with those
directions. And your determination, Commissioner, that is it's delegated legislation, but it's still it's still law. Is that that's right?
>> I I believe so, Senator.
>> Okay. So, what would be the consequences of breaching that law aside from being a breach of the code for starters?
>> Well, I think Sorry, I think what breach
are you talking about? If there was a breach of that law that determined that uh an investigator must be and appear to be independent and unbiased and appointing somebody that wasn't
>> I think well any of those matters senator there'd be people would raise that and then the matter would be uh examined
>> right >> um >> so it would be examined if there was a personal relationship between the investigator and a senior executive involved in one part of a code of conduct that could be perceived as breaching uh that law or not meeting that test that would be something that would be reported to you.
>> Uh the way you become aware of these things is that people would would raise a matter for example if they thought that it wasn't if it wasn't conducted fairly and they would raise that matter which is and those sorts of things happen.
>> Right. Okay. Thank you. Uh I uh I have another question around if if it's all right with you chair or Yes, that's fine.
>> thank you, Chair. Um, thank you for your time uh this morning. Um, I've got questions about bunch of different things, so I might jump around um a little bit. Um, I might just start with an update on the number of sponsored passes if that's all right.
Uh, Senator, I think we actually have got that included in our activity report that we provided to uh the committee last week. I think um at the moment, Senator, as at the 26th of January, 2025, um active AP access cards within the sponsored category requiring significant regular business requirement is now at 2,204.
>> Thank you. And um I understand that parliamentarians now receive weekly reports on after hours movement of their staff and signins and then not only have to swipe but also have to physically sign in after 11 p.m.
>> Uh Senator, we'll ask Mr. Khan to join us at the table, but that's actually not uh it might be a new requirement in so far that it's been formalized. It has been in place now for quite some time.
>> Senator Kopi assist. It was a trial and then we made it permanent.
>> Sure. And can you maybe just give us an update on on these changes and if you have any statistics on the number of of swipes after 11 p.m.?
>> Uh Senator Vance Khan um first assistant president um mentioned that uh was a
trial for a number of uh years uh as we administrated it through. Um the hours that it applies to the select staff are between 11:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. Uh we get reports back which we send through um regularly. Uh I'll have to take on notice the exact numbers just in the recent times we do have them. I don't have them directly at hand there. Senator,
separately from from past can you ask some questions about um events at Parliament House. This am I correct in saying this the Albanesei government said that you couldn't have fundraising events at Parliament House anymore and that is a a new rule
>> and that was a policy of the presiding officers
>> presiding officers. Thank you president. Um I'm saying in December last year the um the launch of the parliamentary friends of Orcus was reported to be sponsored by lobbying firm Precision Public Affairs and it's been reported that it cost $100 ahead to to attend an event in Mural Hall. I'm just wondering if this is within the rules of the the parliamentary friends of groups and and with AP access and event rules. Well,
that um that's a shared responsibility. The presiding officers uh we have since becoming presiding officers reviewed the terms and conditions for friends groups I think they needed reviewing and tightening up. We have tightened them. Um I'm not aware of I'm aware that there is an Orcus friendship group. It's fairly newly established. I think we signed off on it earlier this year. Happy to be correct on that. Um I'm not aware of it charging um admission or tickets or um whatever but um if you want to give me the details I'm happy to follow it up but I'm certainly not I have no knowledge of that Senator PCO because we our role is to approve the friendship groups within the um procedures and policies that we've set down about why and how >> yeah so I don't have any knowledge further than that.
>> So president this has been so publicly reported on in um in the news um and the the deputy prime minister was actually asked about it on on Sky News by Andrew Glennel. So I'm just said what what's the process? Who's actually infor it's it's it's great that we have these rules. I think you know that's probably in line with community expectation that there aren't fundraising events in a building that is paid for by the public. Um and so given there's this alleged um breach uh one that uh it seems from my reading very clear that um parliamentary friends of groups can't be sponsored by third parties um and two you can't charge for access to an event at um Parliament House who who actually looks
into it. As I said, Senator PCO, I'm I'm not across the details. Um, and I would happil I'm happy to take it on notice, but I'm genuinely not across the details of of that event. >> Um, in terms of if they hired, if a room was hired, that goes to DPS and there's policies and procedures around room hire. the establishment of friendship groups um comes across my desk as the president and as I say we have tried to tighten up the the guidelines around what constitute a friendship group but if there was room hire involved that's a DPS matter
>> well I might ask ask um the secretary then um secretary then secretary do you know where the money raised from the event went
>> uh no senator I'm not aware of this event I'm not aware um whether there was fundraising in relation to it or not. Um, I'm happy to take it on notice.
>> Okay. Are you investigating the event? I
>> I wasn't aware of this this event until you raised it here today. So, I'm happy to take on notice um of what's occurred from the DPS perspective.
>> What is the What is the process though? Like, if something's in the news, I assume there's someone in DPS who's looking at news reporting and potentially mentions of Parliament House. is there
>> uh senator there is but um this one hasn't come across uh come to my attention so thank you for raising it
>> So what is the what is the process then like who how do you investigate what's the it's it's one thing having rules but
>> well there there's publicly available policies on room hire in this building. So if you want to hire a room that is uh under the purview of DPS, it would go through that process. There are there are other venues in the parliament that uh are the purview of the house or the senate and what we've been trying to do is standardize those policies along with the DPS policies. But that I understand that's a work in progress. So we would have to ascertain um one if it was a DPS hire and there is a form that we fill out that's publicly available. There's a policy on room I genuinely have no information and no knowledge about the event other than I did sign off on the establishment of the Orcus group. Um, so we would happy if you give us more detail, but we I'm we couldn't even say at this point whether it was a house room that was hired, whether it was the Senate room, or whether it was a room that comes under the DPS policy.
>> Where's Mural Hall?
>> Uh, Mural Hall is our >> comes within DPS.
>> Sure. And so what what are the consequences if someone >> essentially charges for access to an event at Mural? Are are there any
need to um have a look at what's actually happened in um in this situation and consider that in line with the the events policy and with what was provided in relation to the um uh the the form to hire the the venue.
>> Secretary, how many people do you have in your media team sort of monitoring
>> uh Senator? It is a very very small team and it's not just involved in undertaking media monitoring. I think it's around about five or six but it's not media.
>> It's not small when you're talking to
>> uh but senator they also do that team has also got the graphic designer that's in them that's responsible for the formatting and all of the things that happen. They're responsible for the website the website design and information. They're responsible for internal communication.
>> Sure.
>> The media side of of this department is
quite small. It just concerns me that there was there was public reporting this in December and it seems to go to some you know some of the core responsibilities of DPS ensuring that events in Parliament House are in line with not just community expectation but the actual rules of Parliament House both the presiding officers and then DPS's rules and you not even aware of
>> Senator um there are I I'm not I'm genuinely not making excuses about this however ever. There are many hundreds of functions that are held in AP every month
>> and how many of them appear in the news saying that a lobbying firm was charging access to an event at Mural Hall.
>> Senator Poker, I think we've been really transparent here. We were unaware of that. Um, we have both agreed, I've agreed as the president to take your question on notice and I would appreciate some more detail from you and the DPS secretary has uh taken it on agreed to take it on notice as well
>> and thank you president. Maybe just on notice any sort of I know guidelines on what actually happens if someone's found to have breached >> of course >> these rules. Thank you. Thanks.
>> Chair if I may. Sen Senator PCO uh you asked about numbers of staff that have um accessed uh in the last 6 months of uh 2025 there were 26 entries after 11:00 at night.
>> And for total transparency, one of those staff was mine cuz I left my iPad behind when we had the late sitting and she got she got held up by the policy. So it was really good to see the policy in action. So thank you Mr. Khan. Uh, Senator Him, back to you.
>> Thank you, chair. Uh, Commissioner, I'm going to come back to you. The Parliamentary Services Act uh mirrors in large part the Public Services Act. That's correct.
>> That's right. With some significant differences, but but in large part, yes, they mirror each other.
>> So, is it correct to say that the reason that the two are separate rather than having one act is because parliamentary service is a service that's not attached to the executive. It's attached to the legislature.
>> That's right, Senator. And it's the presiding officers that uh are the key decision makers within the parliamentary service act.
>> Okay. However, it is very similar in order to maintain the similar levels of integrity and accountability as you'd see in the public in the public service. Is that correct? >> Yes, senator. Right. So, in the last parliament commissioner, there were amendments made to the public services act that provided you the powers to selfinitiate code of conduct inquiries into agency heads. Correct.
>> Uh I I think the there was a change to the public service act that clarified that former agency heads could be examined on the own motion power of the commissioner of the public service commissioner. So, it had always been in the public service act. Uh it was clear that um a current agency head could be uh uh investigated by
>> it was previous. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Excellent. So was similar ma um amendments made to the parliamentary services act at the same time that mirrored those changes?
>> No. No senator. the the parliamentary service act. One of the big differences between the two acts is that um the under the public service act the public service commissioner has own motion powers and has particular particular powers to do to to investigate uh and and quite a range of powers. Uh the parliamentary service act is very different. The role of the parliamentary service commissioner is to support the presiding officers in in their duties. Uh and it doesn't there's no own motion powers.
>> Right. Okay. So the current arrangements then prevent an investigation into a former secretary given that without changes to that APS the APS might not have been able to oh sorry let me try that again. Can the current arrangements prevent an investigation into a former secretary given that without the changes to uh the APS? Um without those changes, the APS might not have been able to investigate form agency heads. Is that correct? So that's why the change has been made.
>> So I I think the this is the public
service act you're talking about.
>> Sorry. We're here for the parliamentary service act. But under the public service act >> uh and it's been we've been very clear about this. Yes. We acted on the basis that the the particular sections in the public service act allowed for a former agency head to be examined. That came under question during the robo debt inquiry and the parliament clarified that that was the case and there was there was an amendment to the public service act to be explicit and to clarify that the public service commissioner could investigate a former agency head.
>> Right. Okay. Thank you. So the secretary of the department of parliamentary services like all employees under the parliamentary services act is subject to the relevant code of conduct clearly. However there's an is this awkward position in the act that they're subject to the code but also named as a person that would refer others. So who would be able to refer a secretary for a breach of the code?
It's a it's a matter for the presiding officers officers to do that and that's that actually is set out in um >> okay >> section 41 of the parliamentary services act.
>> So you can't self initiate right that's what I wanted to be very clear on. Thank you. I have one question on uh security in the building. Um and this is probably better directed to the secretary. Secretary, in in recent years, obviously the department's been provided a lot of increased funding for security upgrades uh and the expansion of staff. Can you provide to the committee, whether it be in front of you or on notice, how many security staff you currently employ in terms of um
uh Senator, I can give you those numbers on a headcount basis.
>> Headcount, but not FTE. Uh no, but I can
come back and confirm whether or not those numbers are different on notice, but on a headcount basis um PSS officers um at the moment in total are 187.
>> 187. Okay. If you could on notice provide the number of security staff that are employed as an FTE and also as a headcount basis or ASL basis for each financial year for the last five years. I think that that would be very helpful to the committee. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator. And I'm sorry, Senator, the total for the security operations branch, which includes the PSS officers and others, our training management supports 215.
>> 215. >> Yes. Right. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chair.
>> thank you. Um, I want to return to uh issue the issue of the Greens Party Room if the relevant officials are available.
>> Yes, Senator. I'll just ask u Miss Sims and Mr. Poy to come to the table. Thank
Uh Mr. Pak poy, you'll remember our discussion on this topic from December round of Senate estimates and one of the issues we discussed was trying to get to the bottom of the total cost of the Greens party room renovations. Um, we'd heard in a quan originally in July 2025 that the cost was $886,052. You then ran through some costs with me over several financial years which added up to about $1.6 million. Is that consistent with your memory?
>> Uh thank you Senator Paul Pac, assistant secretary property services branch. Yes.
>> And have there been any other costs since that would increase that figure
>> Possibly there has been some minor costs since then. Um I'd need to check that to be honest senator. Um and we did uh provide on notice um a range of costs associated with that work which were to do with the services upgrades.
>> Um because in a questional notice that you provided me following the last round of estimates, it has a itemized list of all uh expenses associated with the project. And rather than $1.6 $6 million. It in fact adds up to $2.2 million. Uh $2,217,962 specifically. >> Does that sound right to you?
>> Uh yes, Senator.
>> Right. So the total cost is not $886,000. It's not 1.6 million. It's in fact 2.2 million.
>> That's that's the total cost of uh two projects. one which is called the fourth party room project which is the one I was talking to you about at the last estimates hearing uh and the other project or sub project is the services upgrades project. So that project is where um we take advantage of being in an in an area and having demolished that area to upgrade any of the services infrastructure. Uh for example the um system or the um fire irrigation that
>> Yeah. So those costs would not have been incurred if it weren't for proceeding with the party room renovations.
Uh, I can't be definitive on that, Senator, because there would be times when we would do them um on their own. We don't we try not to obviously um that sort of work is something that we'll we will need to continue to do across the building. Uh and to do it at the moment, what we're doing is taking that uh opportunistic approach, but at some point in the future, some of that work will need to be done potentially on its own. But uh our intention is not to do that, but rather to uh package it up with other work.
>> Yeah. Okay. Some of the individual itemized cost as part of this now $2.2 million project really leapt out at me. Um in particular, $50,000 spent on carpet. $50,000 of carpet in one room is a mind-blowing num number to spend on carpet in a single room. the most lavage home renovation wouldn't spend $50,000 on carpet and maybe it was a handwoven or some special cotton or something, but how on earth did it cost $50,000 to carpet a single room?
>> So, the the carpet purchases, there's actually two in that project, one for um 20,000, one for just under 30,000. The $20,000 uh component is for custommade building includes the design of finishes like carpet and what they need to look like. Uh what patterns uh colors loom etc. to source that carpet. Uh because didn't at the time. We had to go through a process with carpet manufacturers whereby our design integrity team works with the manufacturer to who produces uh samples for us. Those samples have to be approved and registered uh before we can move to purchasing them. So the the cost of the carpet isn't like going to Floors or Us and buying a loom of carpet off the the showroom floor. In this case, that particular part of the carpet needed to be custom made. Um the other component uh relates to if you recall I think I mentioned or um Miss Cinder might have mentioned that the fourth party room project occurred after we had demolished a large part of that ground floor area as well as moving uh other offices to other parts of the building. The other carpet which is not custom made which we purchased was intended to be used across both the edges of the fourth party room as well has been and it will I think I I can some of that in stock and that'll be it's appropriate.
>> Sure. And I understand the unique requirements of this building and the moral rights holder and all of those things that you have to navigate when making changes to this building. But, you know, I won't advertise the individual services of different floor companies available. But, you know, you can go to a floor company or carpet company and get very nice carpet for a room of that size for $5,000, maybe $10,000. I mean, $50,000 is orders of magnitude more. Wasn't it possible to get commercially available carpet that closely matched the color in Parliament House? That wasn't a radical departure from the color in Parliament House at a fraction of the $50,000 cost.
>> Uh without being difficult, Senator, I would say no, it wasn't possible to do that. We went through a process uh as I said and engaged both through my team and the design integrity team of approaching the market uh to see who would be willing to and able to supply the carpet and then um and I I'm happy to get a lot more information on notice about the actual process um dates and times and that sort of thing. Um but it's not a simple process. I I think a
taxpayer watching this who was told that it's just not possible to spend any less than $50,000 to carpet one room would find that to be an incredulous answer.
>> The the $50,000 was carpet for that room
>> I hope it covers a lot of other rooms if it's $50,000 worth. How many other rooms we're going to get out of this $50,000
outlay? I I'd have to take that on notice in terms of how many other rooms, but the two purchases were approximately 200 square meters and 300 square meters.
>> how many square meters is this room?
>> The fourth party room. I don't have the exact square meterage >> 50 to 70 perhaps square meters.
>> Okay. Um I heard evidence at the previous round of estimates that a big reason for the blowout in costs was uh issues identified in the roof. Um you've now provided a detailed breakdown of the costs and which itemizes each expenditure. For the record, how much did the roof and associated costs contribute to the total spend?
So the the services upgrades project which we reported on in that question on notice that is uh services infrastructure in both the the ceiling the walls and the basement below the four the the fourth party room. I don't actually have the ceiling component itemized senator um but that's what that space. the um the sort of work that was undertaken was in the ceiling void. Uh there were some of the the main rises for the services infrastructure needed to be um replaced but most of that work was in the ceiling void including on the the HVAC system, installing new variable air volume uh devices, new controllers for those devices. We we had to upgrade the fire sprinkler and fire detection across the room to meet current compliance standards.
>> Do you have the quan accessible or >> just add? >> Yes, please.
>> Mr. Poy's question. Um and I will correct myself if I am wrong. Um but there are two capital work packages. The first one was the fourth party room. The construction costs for that were around 1.6 million which you've already indicated. The second was the services upgrade at a cost of approximately $600,000.
>> Yes. Um uh which gets us to the 2.2 million. Um >> do you have access to the attachment or the quan? Uh Mr. Packpoint.
>> Uh I believe I have that in front of me. Yes.
>> Um can you go down the list and find the itemized reference to the roof or
Uh, Sandra, I think we'd probably have to pull that apart even more because I would expect there would be architectural feature costs as well associated with the room that could be caught up in both. >> But very happy to be able to provide that detail on notice.
>> Okay. I've got an itemized list in front of me which refers to the partition and ceilings. It's in table 7 and the total cost is 139,865.
that's what we've reported. However, that's also the construction. That's the actual construction costs. It may not be the mechanics of what is going into the ceiling works.
>> Well, I mean, I can only rely on the information you give me. Um, and if you have different information, it should have been provided in the quan.
>> Um, but Senator, it has we've completed with electrical services, mechanical services, fire services. All of those things are the mechanics of what goes into the ceiling.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. So what's the total cost of the
>> Uh Senator the total cost as I understand it and again I will correct that I'm wrong of the ceiling works under fire compliance and building renewal is $600,000.
>> Okay. So um even if we exclude the ceiling costs >> sorry Senator
ceiling work it will also include a small amount for as I said some of the rises in the walls >> and some of the infrastructure in the basement.
>> Okay. Well if on notice you could isolate the ceiling cost that will be helpful but um we now understand that of the total $2.2 million cost about 600,000 was for the ceiling works. So it doesn't explain the blowout from the $886,000 to $1.6 million. We're talking about an extra $600,000 on top of the 1.6 million. So it's $1.6 million spent on this room without getting into the complications of the ceiling works. Uh
>> uh as I think I answered previously, Senator, the 800,000 that you're referring to, that was one year's cost. It wasn't the budget for the project. project budget was um originally set in 2023.
>> Senator, just in the interest of time, we'll take that on notice. If we can provide it to you while we're still
here, we will. Well, I understand uh that it was in 2023 the initial budget was $500,000. Does that sound right,
>> Senator? Senator, I think we've answered that in one of the qus. Can you just remind us what that mean?
>> Well, I just want to make sure we're in agreement. Um and I understand it was later revised to $764,000 in September 2024 and that was approved by the president or the presiding
officers. Senator, if that's what our quan says, and I'm sorry, I just can't find it here, then that's the information that we have. The president um approved the um the proposal for the fourth party room. She didn't approve the budget for it. That's a matter for the department as an operational matter.
>> Well, but was the budget in the brief that went to the president?
>> The the budget was in the brief,
>> right? president the amount and that was
the amount that was put in there as the as the amount but we but this the president was not being asked to approve the amount she was being asked to
>> sure approve the proposal if the presiding officers get a brief for a project which has a and they asked to sign off on that brief so the project can proceed and the brief includes the cost whether they are literally approving the cost uh or not they are approving the project informed of the cost isn't that right
>> I I don't disagree with that, Senator. I just, as I said, I've made the point that uh the matter of the costings were a matter for the department rather than for the president.
>> Okay. So, we've had a blowout in the planned costs from 764,000 up to 1.6 million even if we exclude the complications of the roof that we was and the ceiling work that we were talking about. How do you have a doubling more than doubling of the cost of a project even without the complications that we've heard about in
just jump in at the beginning, I think one of the things that we discussed um at the last hearing as well is the actual uh complications or difficulties associated with doing construction at Parliament House. One of the reasons why the costs increased towards the later part of that project was because we had arrangements in place with the managing contractors that were awarded the jobs to undertake construction activities at Parliament House in a manner that did not interrupt the operations of the Senate and also did not interrupt the operations of the Parliamentary Budget Office which were immediately above. That meant, Senator, that we had construction basically occurring for around about 3 hours a day between about 6:00 in the morning or 5:00 in the morning through to 9:00 in the morning. >> Construction then had to cease and then recommence on weekends when it was getting to the point that we needed to be able to respond to a request that we received >> to have the fourth party room open and in operation by the opening of the parliament. As we outlined at the last hearing, we increased the construction time and build to be able to complete that work.
>> Sure. But Miss Cinder, none of this was unknown, right? This is not when at the time the budget was done, you knew you were doing operations in Parliament House. You knew that there would be potential disruption to users of the building. This is not the first renovation done in Parliament House. So, it contingencies like that should have been able to be allowed for in the budget, should they not?
>> Senator, I'm not going to disagree with that. But what I am going to say as well is that the people that were responsible for drawing together the budget, the planning, the design, the approval processes are not the current leadership here at DPS.
>> The way that we are >> That's totally irrelevant, Missinda. I got to say that's just totally
>> Senator, I don't believe that it is. We are doing everything that we can to increase transparency to this committee and to the parliament, including by providing accurate amalgamated.
>> I'm grateful for that. But you're the responsible officers. You are here to answer questions on behalf of the department. buck passing to say that someone else approved this a few years ago. It's not your fault response.
>> I am certainly not passing the buck. It is an obligation of all public servants, parliamentary servants to provide information relevant and accurate at that time. >> Okay. >> What I am saying is that I cannot explain the reason as to why the budget was set in that paper to the presiding offices at that point. There has to be flexibility associated with the budgets though for any of the capital works projects at Parliament House. We are working very very hard to be able to make sure that we can provide this committee parliamentarians and the presiding officers with forward notice of construction and also the ability at any point at the start of that process to say no the construction costs associated with that are not defensible find another way.
>> Right? So contingencies are normal in building projects. They're often standard 10 or 20% of a contract. We're now talking about a 100% blowout at least not including the $600,000 ceiling project that you talked about. So, um this is not just a standard, you know, uh blowout. This is a extraordinary blowout in percentage terms. I mean, for example, the joinery cost $153,000 according to your quant. How do you spend $153,000 on joinery in one room?
Before I answer that, Senator, can I just go back the when the department briefed the president uh on the the the project, we noted that the cost estimate at that point in time was $764,000 as as you've said. Yep. >> We also noted the project is still at the initial design stage. The cost estimate excludes all base building services, upgrades, and furniture costs. This cost will be quantified once the project design reaches the 50% milestone. >> I don't have uh what the next brief was um and and I don't think we did brief the president again after that but I think we were trying to be as uh open as we could at that point that this wasn't uh a cost estimate that we at that point in time because there was still a lot of design work to be done that we could be
confident in. Well, what's the value of providing a cost estimate if in your own words you don't have confidence in it? How can the president or the presiding officers be um adequately informed about the decision they're making if you're not giving them a number that's going to accurately reflect the cost? I
>> I guess from my point of view in trying to be as open as as we can, providing that that number at that point in time with that caveat was the most open we could be. We then I think I went through this uh at the last uh sitting. The the design process starts at u initiation or concept. It then goes through a fairly formal design process where it moves to 30% 50% 80% and 100% design for construction. That means that up up until 50% um particularly for design processes in this building where things can and do change quite a lot through the design process. Um your cost estimates are less accurate at the start and as you move through the design process because you know that you you're going to need carpet of a certain loom with a certain pattern in it that you you need to source and have custom made. you know that the um the joinery that you're going to need, you know what the specification is, you know what type of wood it needs to be made out of, you know what the um particular joinery approach needs to be to making that joinery. So at the start of a project, our estimates are what they are. As we move through the design process, they get better.
>> Sure. So,
>> Senator Paterson, just um in with 25 minutes late, which is fine. Um just in terms of uh advising people who are uh further down the agenda, do we have any sense of
>> Thanks, chair. Um this is my only item and I'm getting towards the end of it. I can't speak to my colleagues. They may
>> one question which I should have asked in the previous easy nobody. >> Um thanks
>> Mr. P. I mean that sounds to me like you're saying that the presiding officers should have known that there would have been a significant increase in that cost that was presented to them given the advice that was provided. Is that fair?
>> Uh I think the presiding officers would have known that that was an estimate at that point in time that we thought would change.
>> Right. So they shouldn't be surprised that it was going to escalate significantly.
>> They shouldn't be not a question for the that's not a question for Mr. a bit
uncomfortable with me being talked about in the third person. So if you want to ask me a question, please go ahead. I
>> I'm first trying to establish what advice is provided to you and then very happy.
was provided, Senator Paterson.
>> Yeah. Um Miss Hinder said before that um you know the department is conscious of what is publicly defensible. President, do you think spending $2.2 million in total, $1.6 million in specific renovating one room in Parliament House is publicly defensible? I I'm not going
to comment on the operational matters of DPS, Senator Paterson. You have directed your questions to them and that is the appropriate place to do that.
>> You just objected to me asking questions about you in the third person and then when offered a question, you didn't answer.
>> Questions to me about what I signed off on are absolutely relevant. Questions about operational matters are questions for the department. What I can say to you in my experience, the design integrity and the moral rights um are very firm about how the parliament ought look and that does increase significantly the cost of this place and that fourth party room is in line with uh all uh if we were building the suites. Um again the moral rights committee will have a view about the furniture. I'm very optimistic if Miss Hinder thinks she can move the moral rights committee on furniture. That hasn't been my experience. So, it does increase the costs because it has to be particular wood, particular threads of carpet and so on and so forth. Um it might I mean maybe one of the things the committee would like to consider is to get a brief about the moral rights committee um and what we are required to do um in terms of design integrity. Uh my main concern about the fourth party room and this is this did add to the cost because I said to Miss Hinder it had to be ready for the opening of parliament. As I said in the last estimates, this was commenced when you were in government and it seemed to me it had been dragged out. The cost would have changed and so on. And I I did hammer Miss Hinder about uh which you took gracefully about making sure it opened along with the parliament.
>> Sure. So, President, you you signed a brief that approved the proceeding of this work when you were told the cost was 764,000. Had you known that they'd be 1.6 million or $2.2 million, would you have approved
it? I can't speculate in hindsight. Senator Paterson,
>> you don't you can't say whether you think that's a reasonable use of taxpayers money for which you are a publicly accountable and responsible.
>> I am accountable, but operational matters go to DPS. I'm very clear on what my responsibilities are and my responsibilities are to make sure that a fourth party room after many years given it started when you were in government was finally made available. That is where I think
>> surely but not at any cost. Surely
>> I as Miss uh Hinchcliffe has said the operational matters were matters for DPS. I was not informed. My main concern was to make sure that that party room was made available at the start of the new parliament.
>> But President, this is public money which you are accountable to the parliament for the expenses of. You really don't have a view about whether this is a good use of public money, about whether this is a good example of construction costs in Parliament House or whether you're concerned it would happen again?
>> Senator Paterson, I haven't been briefed on um every aspect of the design work and the costs that have gone into it. What I do know and what I informed the Senate of last time is there are significant ceiling works that have to occur in this building to bring us up to code and to make this building function in the way that it should. they will be very big costs. And so what the development of the fourth party room in that whole corridor and hopefully you will see this on Friday if you're able to go to the on the tour showed us was that we can create some economies of scale because that was really one of the first times we'd looked at the ceiling. Um so those are matters that I concern myself with. they are the proper matters and um I wasn't informed of cost updates. So asking me to comment in retrospect on a cost um when I wasn't informed of of increased costs is
>> Sure. Sure. But this is taxpayers money. You will face other decisions like this in the future as a presiding officer. I think taxpayers are entitled to know what approach you will take to that uh stewarding their public money. Well, I
am vigilant in the expenditure of public monies where it is my responsibility. Absolutely.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you. Um I I feel your suggestion for getting a brief on the moral rights committee would would be very useful. Um and Miss Hinder, I wish you all the very best um in uh in your endeavors there.
Um we'll go to Senator Hume.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just one final question. And I'm sure I should have covered off on this. I was just reading your opening statement uh secretary and I just wanted to I know that you have referenced the cler many times in this opening statement with regards to the definition of parliamentary privilege. I'm wondering if you consulted the clerk in preparing the statement.
>> Uh Senator, I did not consult the the cler in preparing the opening statement. Um I uh have taken the words that he gave to all of us publicly in um estimates in uh in October um and have uh use those uh quoted those in the opening statement.
>> So you you did not consult the cler in the definition of >> parliamentary privilege
>> in in terms of the opening statement. No senator and in terms of my submission to the privileges committee um which you discussed with the cler this morning I did not consult with the cler on my submission uh because I didn't want to conflict him. It is really important that he is available to provide advice to that committee about parliamentary privilege and if I had consulted him on my submission it would have put him in a conflicted position which I did not want
to do. Mr. Secretary, I I have I think you've misinterpreted my question. I have asked you now numerous times on your understanding of the definition of parliamentary privilege, whether you have consulted the cler on your understanding of the definition of parliamentary privilege. I asked you >> at a previous estimates hearing. I have said quite specifically that I will not be raising issues that are being discussed in other inquiries in this estimates hearing. I just am flabbergasted that once again on your interpretation of parliamentary privilege that you have presented to this hearing that you haven't consulted the cler again
because senator it's important for the cler to be able to provide advice to this committee and I'm not going to conflict him. Um I have you you're interested in what my understanding is and I've provided you with my understanding.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you Senator Chair. If I may just come back to one thing so I can clear up a question on notice that the department doesn't have to answer. >> Thank you. >> Senator McGrath, I said I'd come back to you in relation to the timing of the website outage for the Dynamic Red. Um the website outage which impacted the Dynamic Red commenced at 11:12 a.m. and was resolved by 5:02 p.m.
>> Thank Thank you, Chair. As a matter of interest, did did the department advise I mean I knew it was down because I rely on it. Did the department advise senators that of the outage?
>> So senator fairly soon after the outage um came through there was an information circular an ICT information circular that was circulated to all advising that the website was experiencing issues um and that the department was working to resolve it and when it was resolved in the afternoon I believe that advice went out to say the issue has been resolved.
>> Okay. I have a different light a couple of questions from a different area. It's a topic we've discussed previously which is the change to the the reading room for what was on on the ground floor
>> the library reading room.
>> Uh my understanding was that it was supposed to be finished some time ago and if anything it seems that the building works have encroached onto the corridor. So, can we get an update as to what is going on with in that area? Uh, how much it's costing? Have there been cost overruns? And when is the finish date? Because I'm pretty sure the finish date was supposed to be the end of last year, if not the year before. I I just
>> So, I just asked Mr. Pac to provide you with an update on that. And I note that the parliamentary librarian, Mr. Fox, is here as well that he can also add any
>> Uh, thank you, Senator. Um so the the work that you've uh just mentioned that you've seen is the hoarding that uh has gone up to allow the construction uh proper to be undertaken. Um the current uh plan is for that to be completed around August um of this year. So what were the other parts of your question?
>> So when was it previously due to be finished? cuz I'm pretty sure 2026 it was supposed to be completed before this this year.
>> Uh Senator, I believe that it was. Um I also believe though as well that there were a concurrent number of issues impacting the construction of that space that was beyond um DPS control because it backs into areas which are controlled by the ministerial wing and some um construction considerations there that I I I'm I'm not comfortable to discuss
What what what was the original budgeted cost for for the work and and where is the budget now at?
>> Uh Senator, I'll have to take that on notice. I don't I genuinely don't have that information, but I'm very happy to take it on notice along with the time
>> And it will be completed by by August,
>> I think, Senator. That's the plan at the moment. >> All things uh all things being equal, we will we will hit that date.
>> And you can't recall when it was supposed to be finished by originally. I
>> uh Senator, I'm sorry. I can't, but I will take it on notice.
>> There were issues and I'll take this on notice to see how much information we can give you. There were issues um with the ministerial wing um and there were design changes there which impacted on the the reading room. Um the good news is it will be a bookable space um and um Mr. The Fox has very kindly been keen on that because bookable spaces are hard to come by in this office in this place. So, I don't know if you want to add anything which will create some challenges with design, but it'll be a really good bookable space cuz it's very accessible.
>> Thanks, President. Uh Steven Fox, parliamentary librarian. Um yes, look, it's it's a smaller space. It will be a smaller space than what was previously the ground floor waiting room. Um because of the the the development of a skiff um which is effectively just to fill in the gaps there. There's been there was when I arrived there were still negotiations going on with agencies about construction matters. Um and uh so the new space or the space that will be as we're calling the ground floor library um will be as the Senate uh president says will be a flexible space. Um it will be there will showcase the library products and services uh as well as being a bookable space after hours for parliamentarians to use.
>> So I won't take that on notice because Mr. Fox has kindly informed you what the hold up was.
>> Okay. Um the I will follow up with questions in the the the budget estimates too to see how we're progressing, but I look forward to to those other answers on notice. I thank
>> Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your attendance this morning. We do appreciate it. Uh we will let you go and we will actually take a very short break while we ask the National Indigenous Australia Agency to Thank you.