Hogg, Sen John

Senator Hogg: The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1 On 9 June 2011, Senator Faulkner gave notice of his Question (#682) to the President of the Senate. Question 682 was divided into seven parts—and each of those parts was also divided into several sub-parts. 2 As a preliminary to the detailed answer to each question, the following overview of DPS procedures and some history is provided as background information. Heritage and asset management 3 DPS is responsible for management of thousands of Commonwealth assets within the Parliament House building and precincts. This responsibility was inherited primarily from the former Joint House Department, Department of Parliamentary Reporting Staff, and the Department of the Parliamentary Library in 2004 and, before that, the Parliament House Construction Authority (PHCA). 4 Not all assets and items of heritage value (or potential heritage value) located within Parliament House are the responsibility of DPS. Some are controlled by the Chamber departments and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Some of the assets for which DPS has (temporary) stewardship are on loan. 5 Heritage value changes over time—an item that may be assessed as having no heritage value at any given point in time could later be assessed as having major heritage value and significance. Different people will also hold different views about the relative importance of items and their priority for preservation. The challenges associated with determining heritage significance are identified in work done under the auspices of the Collection Council of Australia's Significance Methodology1 (Attachment A). The Significance Methodology is now widely used across the cultural heritage sector, and within DPS, and was refined over a ten-year period (originally released in 2001, and then substantially reviewed and re-released in 2009). The methodology provides a standard set of criteria for defining "the meaning and values of a cultural heritage item or collection". However, the authors also note that significance is "relative, contingent and dynamic". 6 There is a very broad framework of governance and policy and procedural documents that apply to this asset and heritage management role for DPS. These documents range from 'whole-of-government' instruments—such as legislation, regulations, Finance Minister's Orders and Department of Finance guidelines—through to specific DPS policies, procedures and guidelines. A number of these are outlined in more detail in the responses that follow. 7 This governance and policy framework is not static. The approach across the Commonwealth to accounting for and managing assets—including cultural heritage assets—has evolved over the past decade or so. 8 There are a number of control mechanisms in place to support this governance framework. DPS is audited annually by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) as part of annual reporting processes. Additionally, the DPS Executive approves an annual internal audit program that is overseen by the Audit Committee of DPS. The Audit Committee has an independent Chair. 9 DPS takes its asset management role very seriously, as well as its responsibility for upholding heritage values inherent in the building (and embodied in moveable objects within the building). The resource implications of managing and maintaining this extensive collection of assets are significant. Judgements will always have to be exercised about the relative priority of the range of tasks to be undertaken, as well as the relative value of the assets requiring our care and attention. This is particularly difficult in the context of an operating budget that is progressively diminishing in real terms and the expectations of the community about prudent financial management in the public sector. DPS must also strike a balance between the sometimes competing requirements of managing heritage issues and satisfying building occupants' requirements for a functional, efficient and safe workplace. 10 In relation to the classification of heritage items as cultural heritage assets (and consequent implications for disposal of those assets), the Finance Minister's Orders relating to Heritage and Cultural Assets state2: (a) 37.1 Heritage and cultural items must only be recognised as assets where they meet the asset definition and recognition criteria set out in AASB 116 or AASB 138. (b) 37.2 Only assets that are primarily used for purposes that relate to their cultural, environmental or historical significance are to be accounted for as heritage and cultural assets. (c) 37.51P Heritage and cultural items do not include structures constructed to assist with the display, transport or storage of the asset. For example, backdrops, hanging apparatus, storage racks or protective cases are not captured by the definition of a heritage or cultural asset unless the item has such value in its own right or is an integral part of the item. An example of an asset being an integral part of a heritage and cultural asset might be the original frame surrounding a painting that is classified as a heritage and cultural asset. Asset Recognition Criteria (d) 37.71G Not all heritage or cultural items will meet the accounting definition of assets despite having intrinsic heritage value. Only items that are useful to the entity in achieving its objectives and have a financial value that can be reliably measured are recognised as assets. (e) 37.72G Where a heritage and cultural asset is irreplaceable and has no market price, it is unlikely that its value can be reliably measured. Heritage and Cultural Items (f) 37.73G The AAS contemplate indefinite useful lives for some assets and non-depreciation in circumstances where assets have indefinite useful lives. (g) 37.74G Heritage and cultural assets are assets used for the community's benefit, and represent, in part, Australia's cultural and historic background. Generally such assets attract funding from the budget for preservation, curation and restoration activity, ensuring these assets remain part of Australia's heritage for as long as possible. (h) 37.75G Heritage and cultural items are buildings, other structures, works of art, artefacts, collectables, historical treasures, nature reserves, national parks, or similar items, which are used for their cultural, environmental or historical significance. Heritage and cultural assets will generally be: used for public exhibition, education or research; and/or protected, cared for and preserved. (i) 37.77G One example of an item subject to section 37.2 is buildings of historical interest that are used primarily to provide office accommodation. These should not be accounted for as heritage and cultural assets. 11 Based on the Finance Minister's Orders, the following comprise the Heritage and Cultural assets over which DPS has stewardship. (a) rotational art collection; (b) architectural commissions (which comprise artworks commissioned during the design of the building, including some furniture); (c) Historical Memorials Collection; (d) Official Gift Collection; (e) constitutional documents; and (f) archive materials. 12 These collections had a total value of some $77.4 million at mid-2010 and are frequently referred to as the Parliament House Art Collection. 13 Classification and listing of other items that might have heritage or historic value has been an iterative process, and, in many cases, DPS (and the previous Joint House Department) inherited responsibility for items that were not registered as assets, or items that were registered as assets but were very poorly described and controlled. Over a number of years, there has been significant work done to improve the quality and accuracy of asset registers. 14 Decisions about the retention or disposition of assets with some historic or heritage significance require an awareness of the resource implications and sustainability of retention of the material. In particular, classification of items as cultural heritage assets carries an obligation to store and preserve that material for indefinite periods in accordance with relevant standards. This incurs a significant cost for the Commonwealth. This issue is reflected in the Finance Minister's Orders [see para 10(f)–(g) above]. In the last decade or so, this point has also been reinforced by the ANAO in its 19983 (Attachment B) and 20054 (Attachment C) performance audits relating to safeguarding national collections. In particular, the 1998 audit report made the following note. The ANAO recommends that, in order to ensure the continuing quality of their collections, all institutions allocate a high priority to identifying items for possible disposal, except those items covered by legal deposit obligations or equivalent. 15 The authors of Significance also note that "significance assessment is vital to make the best use of scarce resources for collecting, conserving, documenting and digitising". 16 Since 2006, DPS has made useful progress in managing cultural heritage items and other building related assets, including the following. (a) Systems and procedures have been progressively developed for management of the Parliament House Art Collection (including the Historic Memorials Collection and Official Gifts Collection, and art furniture). Many important items were either not previously listed as part of the collection, or their listing was incomplete or inaccurate. Artworks and gifts have been fully catalogued and described; independent formal valuations have been conducted; and policies and guidelines relating to their care and use developed and implemented. This has also led to better conservation and maintenance outcomes, and improved inventory control for these items. (b) Refinement of the DPS approach to capital works, to take account of heritage and design integrity considerations. (c) Environmental management and performance targets—such as energy consumption reductions and implementation of water restrictions—have been achieved without long-term impact on the building and precincts Where there is impact (such as by turning-off water features), other compensatory measures have been put in place. 17 The building itself, and the most important objects and artworks within it—such as Magna Carta, the Tom Roberts painting, and the Great Hall Tapestry—are regularly evaluated and independently confirmed as being in very good condition. 18 Nevertheless, we recognise the need for continual improvement and have taken the opportunity—following the May Budget Estimates hearings—to initiate a number of new measures including an internal audit investigation into the disposal of two billiard tables; a review of asset disposal policies; and a survey to identify and assess items with potential heritage values (beyond the Parliament House Art Collection). These activities will supplement work that DPS had already commenced to finalise a Heritage Management Framework for Parliament House. Answer (1) (a) As at 23 June 2011, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) by classification is detailed in the following table. It should be noted that FTE varies from fortnight to fortnight as a result of the use of casual employees. The FTE figure at 23 June reflects payments to casuals employed during the May/June sitting weeks. Classification FTE PSL1 12.59 PSL1/2 126.74 PSL2 47.54 PSL2/3 31.00 PSL3 48.89 PSL4 107.13 PSL4/5 12.00 PSL5 49.55 PSL5/6 59.80 PSL6 90.65 PEL1 122.25 PEL2 42.00 SES1 7.00 SES3 1.00 Parl Librarian 1.00 Secretary 1.00 TOTAL 760.14 (b) The Average Staffing Level (ASL), or average FTE for 2010-11 was 721. The projected number of ASL or average FTE for 2011-2012 is 724. No projections have been made on associated classifications for 2011-12. No projections have been made on numbers and classifications for 2012-13 and 2013-14. (c) (i) and (ii) The number of staff separations and method of separation for calendar year 2005 to 23 June 2011 are detailed in the table over the page Method of separation 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Deceased 1 1 2 1 End of non-ongoing employment 21 19 39 29 32 27 10 Resignation 81 70 49 34 41 46 14 Retirement—age 12 10 6 12 10 15 6 Retirement—invalidity 1 2 4 1 Redundancy—voluntary 6 42 37 15 31 16 5 Termination 1 1 4 2 Transfer or promotion (within Parliamentary Service or APS) 21 31 34 20 25 30 14 Grand Total 143 173 168 115 143 139 50 (iii) DPS's Exit Interview records refer to 'workplace harassment' OR workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination'—bullying is not specified separately. Below is listed the number of incidents of workplace harassment-type incidents reported to or recorded by DPS. when reported / recorded? 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 during employment only 1* at Exit Interview only5 1 4 1 3 16 5 at Exit Interview and said then that it had been previously reported6 3 6 5 5 5* 3 * The instance in 2010–11 led to a formal investigation. Formal investigations were conducted for 2 of the 5 instances in 2009–10. (d) DPS deals with complaints and incidents of workplace harassment and bullying in the following ways: Policies on appropriate workplace behaviour DPS has incorporated its commitment to the Parliamentary Service Values and Code of Conduct in the following key corporate documents: DPS Strategic Plan (Attachment D) People Strategy (Attachment E) DPS also has the following policies and guidelines that govern behaviour in specific contexts: Governance papers No. 24 External Communications ( Attachment F ) Personnel/HR papers No. 4 Workplace Diversity ( Attachment G ) No. 8 Behaviour outside the workplace ( Attachment H ) No. 9 Performance Management ( Attachment I ) No. 24 Performance Management for SES ( Attachment J ) No. 34 Internet and email use ( Attachment K ) People Management Paper 1.1 No 1.1—Procedures—Procedures for investigating and determining breaches of the Code of Conduct (includes Parliamentary Service Values and Parliamentary Service Code of Conduct) (Attachment L) OHS papers No. 6 Workplace harassment and bullying ( Attachment M ) The potential consequences of not following these policies/guidelines are clearly articulated. Performance Management Expectations of appropriate behaviour and adherence to the Parliamentary Service Values and Code of Conduct are integrated into performance agreements and reviews. Refer to Personnel/HR Paper No 9-Performance Management ( Attachment I ) and Personnel/HR Paper No 24-Performance Management: Senior Executive Service ( Attachment J ). Informal processes to resolve issues If an employee believes that they are being, or have been, harassed in the workplace, there are a number of informal avenues available to resolve the situation including: Approaching the person immediately and directly. Writing a personal confidential letter to any individual perceived harasser. Seeking confidential advice and support from a Harassment Contact Officer, their supervisor, the Director HR Services, their union/staff association or the DPS Employee Assistance Program. These informal avenues are outlined in OHS Paper 6–Policy–Workplace harassment and bullying ( Attachment M ) . Formal processes to resolve issues If informal approaches fail to resolve the situation, or if the alleged harassment is serious in nature, the following formal processes are available: Lodging an application for review in accordance with Division 7.3-7.4 of Parliamentary Service Determination 2003/2. Lodging a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. Seeking legal advice. These formal processes are outlined in OHS Paper 6–Policy–Workplace harassment and bullying ( Attachment M ). Principles for managing workplace behaviour The Workplace harassment and bullying policy includes principles for managing workplace behaviour to ensure procedural fairness. Record keeping and access to records The Workplace harassment and bullying policy states that proper records of every complaint and any action taken are to be maintained in the event that the complaint leads to further processes or misconduct. Education and Awareness programs DPS has education and awareness programs aimed at developing an awareness of what desirable behaviours are and how to encourage a culture of respect, as well as an awareness of what negative and unacceptable workplace behaviours are (ie bullying and harassment) and the consequences of the inappropriate behaviour. Examples of these training programs, provided regularly and corporately funded, are listed below: Bullying and Harassment: Creating Awareness Bullying and Harassment: Case Study and Skills Application OHS for DPS Supervisors OHS Awareness for employees Parliamentary Security Service Induction/Revalidation Being Professional in the Australian Parliamentary Service Results through People Giving and Receiving Performance Feedback Managing for Improved Performance Conversations that Count (e) The exit interview survey asks if a respondent has ever experienced or observed workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination. The number of times that question is answered in the affirmative is provided in the table above. Where a former employee provides sufficient detail to identify any incident of alleged bullying, the processes and procedures outlined in OHS Paper 6—Policy—Workplace harassment and bullying ( Attachment M ) are followed. (f) DPS analyses data collected through the following mechanisms for indicators of likely workplace issues and measures of success: (i) Staff satisfaction surveys (ii) Customer satisfaction surveys (iii) Comparisons to other agencies (annual State of the Service reports) (iv) Staff retention/turnover rates and unusual patterns of internal movements (v) Rates of sick leave and other unscheduled absences (vi) Information from exit interviews with specific questions about experiencing and witnessing harassment and bullying (vii) The number, type and cost of compensation claims (viii) Quarterly reports from DPS's Employee Assistance Provider, Davidson Trahaire Corpsych; (ix) Number of staff attending targeted training (x) Discussion at DPS Harassment Contact Officer Network meetings (2) (a) Other furniture, fittings and fixtures from the former staff recreation room (in addition to billiard tables). (i) pool table: sold at auction. (ii) ping pong tables: one relocated to Health and Recreation Centre, and one in storage. (iii) dartboard and cupboard: relocated to DPS Building Fabrics Services (BFS)for storage and future reuse in APH. (iv) trophy cabinet and trophies: cabinet brass: returned to DPS BFS for future reuse in APH (spares). medium density fibreboard carcass and glass: disposed to scrap. trophies: returned to DPS BFS for storage. (v) piano: relocated to childcare centre for use with the children. (vi) tables: relocated to furniture store for storage and future reuse in APH. (vii) chairs: relocated to furniture store for storage and future reuse in APH. (viii) light fixtures—down lights: reinstalled in Staff Dining Room. —pendant lights: 4 x returned to DPS Electrical for future reuse in APH (spares) 1 x returned to DPS Building Information for records. 16 x disposed to scrap. (ix) carpet: Staff Dining Room: most carpet retained in place; but, where replaced with parquetry, the carpet was disposed to landfill (being too worn for re-use) Staff Recreation Room: disposed to landfill (being too worn for re-use) (x) accessories: Snooker Table rules: relocated to NG 61 (new office area that incorporates former Staff Recreation Room) to be hung on wall. (xi) other items: skirting brass trim: 50% retained and reinstalled in NG 61 and Staff Dining Room. Balance returned to DPS BFS for refurbishment and future reuse in APH. medium density fibreboard skirting: disposed to scrap. door & cupboard hardware: handles, hinges, screws, locks, strikers: returned to DPS BFS for refurbishment and future reuse in APH. full-height cupboard doors and hardware (doors, hinges, screws): 7 x retained and reinstalled in NG 61 2 x returned to DPS Building and Security Projects (BSP) for possible future reuse in APH. Stored in Plant Room 9. doors and window in external curved walls: —bottom panels: retained for refurbishment, modification and reinstalled in NG 61 —top panels: disposed to scrap. louvres in external curved wall: —top panels: retained for refurbishment, modification and reinstalled in NG 61 —bottom panels: disposed to scrap. linear air diffusers: 1 x returned to Building Information for records balance: disposed to scrap. Emergency Warning Intercommunication System (EWIS) speakers: recovered by DPS Communications for future reuse in APH. clocks: recovered by DPS Communications for future re-use in APH. data outlets: recovered by DPS Communications for future re-use in APH (spares). House Monitoring System outlets: recovered by DPS Communications for future re-use in APH (spares). House Monitoring System board: recovered by DPS Communications for future re-use in APH (spares). parquetry: returned to DPS BSP for possible future reuse in APH (spares). Stored in Plant Room 9. plastic surrounds of multi-service channels (ports): returned to DPS Electrical for future reuse in APH (spares). air handling units: disposed to scrap. solid core door, excluding brass: disposed to scrap. glass and timber doors (x 2), excluding brass: disposed to scrap. glass and timber partition wall: disposed to scrap. ceiling tiles (plaster): disposed to landfill. sprinkler heads: disposed to scrap. power outlets: soft grey surround: reinstalled in NG 61. other outlets: disposed to scrap. (b) (i) The existing internal guidelines for DPS in CEP 4.3 make provision for consultation with DPS Art Services before disposal of any items with possible cultural and heritage values. However, none of the subject items for disposal were listed in the cultural and heritage asset class in the DPS asset registers. (ii) The billiard tables and pool table were sold by auction. All other disposals (outlined above) went to scrap or landfill. (iii) AllBids, for the auction items. (iv) 2 x Billiard Tables original value $5,800 ea. No value recorded for the pool table or accessories. (v) At time of sale, the billiard tables had a value of $1,500 each—the valuation was provided in June 2010 by the Australian Valuation Office. (vi) Billiard tables each had a reserve of $2,500; pool table had a reserve of $2,000. (vii) $2,500 for each billiard table; $2,000 for pool table. (AllBids initially underpaid DPS by $11.12 for the second billiard table.) (vii) The items sold were administered assets and, as such, the funds realised by the sale were returned to the Official Public Account. (ix) The sale of all three tables was settled on 6 September 2010. Records available to DPS indicated that the billiard tables were purchased by the PHCA for Parliament House and, prior to the 2010 sale, were owned by DPS. DPS has found no records about the acquisition of the pool table. AllBids does not disclose the identity of the purchaser. Subsequently, a DPS staff member has stated that he bought one of the billiard tables. (c) See answers to (a) above. (d) No, Old Parliament House (OPH) was not contacted before the sale of the billiard tables. Records showed that these tables were purchased new by the PHCA. It is noted that two other billiard tables had been returned to OPH in the year 2000. (3) (a) 18 (b) Displaced staff were from the Governance and Business Management (GBM), and Strategy sections. GBM staff are currently in the new accommodation (NG 61)—which includes the site of the former Staff Recreation Room. Strategy staff are now permanently located in S1 118 as a result of a series of office moves that were facilitated by the creation of office space in NG 61. (c) The new NG 61 accommodation has facilities for 65 staff. By late 2011, it will be fully occupied by staff from the Projects Branch, including the Art Services section. GBM and Strategy staff will be located, next to the DPS Executive, in space vacated as a result of a series of moves made possible by the transfer of Projects and Art Services staff to NG 61. Amongst other matters, consolidation of Projects staff and Art Services staff in NG 61 will release space in the Parliamentary Library for possible use by the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office. (4) Information relating specifically to the Parliament House Art Collection (PHAC) (which includes the Gifts Collection and commissioned art furniture) is provided first in response to sub-questions—(a)–(f)—followed by information relating to other (non-PHAC) assets managed by DPS. Parliament House Art and Gifts Collections (a) Policies specifically related to management of the Parliament House Art Collection include the following. (i) Operating Policy and Procedure No. 17—Parliament House Art Collection (incorporates the Rotational Collection Acquisition Policy) (AttachmentN); (ii) Operating Policies and Procedures No. 19—Allocation of artworks to Members of Parliament (Attachment O) (iii) Official Gifts Collection Policy (Attachment P) (iv) Historic Memorials Collection: Guidelines for the selection of artists and processes for the procurement of portraits (Attachment Q) (v) Parliament House Art Collection De-accessioning Policy (Attachment R) (vi) Art Advisory Committee Terms of Reference (Attachment S) (vii) Parliament House Art Collection—Stocktake procedures (Attachment T) (b) The PHAC De-accessioning policy (Attachment R) defines procedures for PHAC disposals. The PHAC is independently re-valued every four years (most recent valuations—in 2005 and 2009—were conducted by the AVO). (c) The PHAC De-accessioning policy states that: "Where appropriate, the Presiding Officersmay require any person or organisation arranging the sale of the de-accessioned item to keep its provenance confidential." (d) The Art Services section of DPS maintains a collection management system (catalogue database), which records comprehensive details about the PHAC (including sub-collections such as the Historic Memorials Collection, Official Gifts Collection, commissioned Art Furniture, and archival materials designated for retention as part of the PHAC). Collection items are registered in the system by staff at the time of their acquisition (whether by purchase or gift) and updated as appropriate (for example, movement/location details are updated every time an item is moved). There are currently over 6000 records in the database; but not all 6000 records represent individual items. Some records represent 'parent' and 'child' components of items; and some items are listed for tracking and information management purposes, but are not assets that belong to DPS. Examples of these are the Tom Roberts painting, which is owned by the Royal Collection; and the Yirrkala Petitions, which are owned by the Department of the House of Representatives. The PHAC itself encompasses around 5000 artworks assets that are owned by DPS. (e) A sample stocktake (equating to 10% of the Collection) is conducted each year by Art Services staff. The last 100% stocktake of the collection was conducted in 2005. The practice of undertaking annual 100% stocktakes of the PHAC has been discontinued, as it was very resource-intensive relative to the levels of risk, and had a major impact on normal service delivery. An additional factor considered in moving to a sample approach is that the PHAC has very high mobility/visibility (eg high volumes of movement of artworks such as after an election). This process serves as a substantial stocktake and it can be quickly noted if items are missing—or some 'missing' items can be found to have just been mislocated (see table below). The sample stocktake approach is consistent with findings by the ANAO in the 2004–05 Audit Report Safe and Accessible National Collections7, (AttachmentC)and uses similar methodology to the Australian War Memorial, which was cited by the ANAO (in the 2004–05 audit report) as representing best practice. Stocktake results for the last five years are summarised in the table below. Period Stocktake sample rate No. mislocated item s 8 No. missing items 2006 10% 11 0 2007 + 10% (556 items) 7 0 2008 10% (433 items) 0 0 2009 + 10% (543 items) 1 0 2010 10% (523 items) 3 0 (f) Details of items disposed of or de-accessioned from the PHAC since 2000 are summarised in the table below. Many of the de-accessioning actions listed date from between 2003 and 2005—this relates to the progressive introduction (between 2001 and 2004) of a comprehensive catalogue database of items in the PHAC, and implementation of more rigorous stocktake procedures. Consequently it was identified that a number of items had been 'registered' in the collection prior to (or in) 1988, but had either been missing for sometime, or had never been physically transferred to Parliament House (some were also listed in asset registers of other cultural agencies). In addition to items listed in the table below, there are a number of items that are currently listed as 'pending' for de-accessioning by DPS Art Services. These items include: (i) a glass plate and a ceramic bowl that have been damaged beyond repair; (ii) three items that were identified as missing in the 2002 and 2004 stocktakes (one craft item, one photograph, and one furniture item); and (iii) a number of items that have been identified as highly suitable for transfer to the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House. These items originate from Old Parliament House (and some are physically located there), and records suggest they were never intended for permanent transfer to the new Parliament House, but final decisions were held off until the ongoing status of Old Parliament House was resolved. Items that are identified as 'pending' de-accessioning will be referred to the Presiding Officers for consideration in due course, in accordance with the PHAC de-accessioning policy. Date Title/Description Reason / notes Value Disposal Method 2003 Painting: "Sydney Harbour from Cremorne" by Fred Leist Item was listed as part of Historic Memorials Collection. Transferred to the National Gallery of Australia based on records substantiating that it was actually their asset. (Records show HMC occasionally purchased artworks for the 'national collection' in the first part of the 20th century, prior to establishment of the National Gallery. Most of these artworks were transferred to the National Gallery in the 1980s or earlier). $25,000 (2002 valuation) Transfer to National Gallery of Australia 2003 Study for HMC portrait of Paul Keating The study (sketch) portrait was produced in 1997, and approved by the Visual Arts Board, but was never delivered to Parliament House with the final portrait. JHD staff investigated and neither the artist nor Mr Keating were able to confirm its whereabouts so in 2003 the item was formally de-accessioned. The finished portrait is still held as part of the Historic Memorials Collection. $7,500 (2002 estimation of value) Not known (removed from asset register). If portrait study ever resurfaced, Commonwealth should be able to assert its ownership. 2003? Portrait of Sir John Quick by Portia Geach Item was listed as part of Gifts collection, but was physically located at the National Library of Australia. Transferred to the National Library based on records substantiating that it was actually their asset. $25,000 (2002 valuation) Transfer to National Library of Australia 2003 Display base for casket Item was listed as part of Gifts Collection—associated with a casket presented to WM Hughes c1916. The casket was transferred to Parliament House in 1988, and the base (stand) was lost sometime between 1988 and 1998. The base was de-accessioned in 2003. $500 (2002 valuation) Not known. (Removed from asset register). 2003 Etching: "Watch the red" by John R Neeson Item was purchased for the PHAC in 1985, but never sighted at Parliament House. File records suggest it was lost prior to the move to this building. Item was formally de-accessioned in 2003 on the basis it had not been seen since 1986. $1,000 (2002 estimation of value) Not known. (Removed from asset register). 2003 Wooden bowl by Richard Raffan Item was purchased for the PHAC in 1985, and was recorded as being located in a Senator's office in 1991, but could not be found in 1998 or 2001 stocktakes. Records indicate it was removed from general asset registers in 1999, but was not formally de-accessioned until 2003. $250 (1993 valuation) Not known. (Removed from asset register). 2003 Ceramic bowl by Joy Warren Item was purchased for the PHAC in 1988, and was recorded as being located in a Member's office in 1993, but could not be found in 1998 or 2001 stocktakes. Records indicate it was removed from general asset registers in 1996, but was not formally de-accessioned until 2003. $600 (2002 estimation of value) Not known. (Removed from asset register). 2003 Photograph by David Moore (showing sculptor Robert Klippel). Item was accessioned as part of a group of photos acquired for the PHAC in 1988, but recorded as 'mislocated' in 1989, and could not be found in 1998 or 2001 stocktakes. A file note suggests it may never have been intended for inclusion in the PHAC and it was formally de-accessioned in 2003. $1,650 (2002 estimation of value) Not known. (Removed from asset register). 2003 Photograph by Max Dupain Item was accessioned as part of a group of photos acquired for the PHAC in 1988, but could not be found in 1998 or 2001 stocktakes. No description exists of its subject matter or dimensions, so it may be a 'ghost' entry. It was formally de-accessioned in 2003. $3,200 (2002 estimation of value) Not known. (Removed from asset register). 2004 Poster: Earthworks Poster Collective 1976 (protest poster depicting Malcolm Fraser) This item was found in general storage by JHD staff in 2001. The poster was offered to the National Portrait Gallery on the basis it would be more suitable for its collection (no evidence exists suggesting it was ever intended for acquisition or gift to the PHAC). No formal valuation recorded. Transfer to the National Portrait Gallery 2005? Book: History of Ballarat Item was listed as one of a group of rare books transferred from Australia House in 1949. According to PHAC database it was sold by the Parliamentary Library in about 2004-05 $500 (2002 valuation) Sold (no details re sale method recorded with Art Services) 2005 13 plans for subdivisions of Canberra City and district by Harry Mouat Items were listed as part of Gifts Collection, but were physically located at the National Archives of Australia. Records indicate that Presiding Officers approved formal transfer to the National Archives in 1995, but items were not actually de-accessioned until 2005. $39,000 (2005 valuation) Transfer to the National Archives of Australia 2005 Model of site for federal capital city by Charles Scrivener Item was listed as part of Gifts Collection but was physically located at the National Archives of Australia. Records indicate that Presiding Officers approved formal transfer to the National Archives in 1995, but item was not actually de-accessioned until 2005. $10,000 (2005 valuation) Transfer to the National Archives of Australia 2005 Photo of earth from the moon, + moon fragments and Australian flag (associated with Apollo XI mission) Items were listed as part of Gifts Collection but were physically located at the National Archives of Australia. Transferred to the National Archives, based on records substantiating that the gift was also listed as archival material under control of PM&C. $24,000 (2002 valuation) Transfer to the National Archives of Australia 2010 Citation signed by Edward VII ("Oliver Land Deed") This item was found in general storage by JHD staff in 2001. In 2010, the National Museum of Australia provided evidence that it was actually its asset, and had been loaned to the Department of the House of Representatives for temporary exhibition at Old Parliament House in 1987. Item was returned to the National Museum. $5,300 (2009 valuation) Transfer to the National Museum of Australia [Part 2 of Answer to (4)] Non-PHAC assets (a) DPS has asset accounting policies and procedures that comply with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA) and Regulations, the Finance Minister's Orders and the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards. Governance arrangements are set out in a range of documents (attached) including a set of DPS Chief Executive Instructions (CEIs) (Financial Paper No. 3—Chief Executive Instructions—Attachment U), which underpin the internal financial management practices of DPS; and Chief Executive Procedures (CEPs), which expand and underlie some of the CEIs. There is a specific CEP (4.3) (Attachment V) governing disposal of public property. (b) The policy for disposal of assets is covered in the documents listed above. Valuations are conducted regularly—in accordance with attached DPS Financial Paper No. 2—Accounting Policy 2.1 Property, Plant and Equipment and Intangibles (Attachment W)—by independent, appropriately qualified valuers. DPS engages the Australian Valuation Office for the purpose of carrying out its valuations. (c) For any items sold through AllBids, AllBids has advised that they do not disclose provenance of the items being disposed. However, items such as broadcast equipment may be sold through industry magazines or business contacts and origin may be known in these instances. CEP 4.3 does not contain any references to a requirement to disclose provenance of items to be disposed of. The practice of not disclosing the provenance of items has been in place for some years. A similar approach is taken by some comparable public sector agencies. DPS senior management acknowledges some advantages to this approach; but can also see disadvantages. DPS proposes to reconsider this matter, in light of the recommendations of the internal audit into the sale of the billiard tables. (d) DPS maintains an asset register in accordance with the FMA Act and DPS Accounting Policy document 2.1 (Attachment W). Items are recorded in their appropriate asset class, with most items being recorded individually and others being recorded as part of a group asset. There are 17 specific classes of assets. Five of these classes relate to administered assets, one of which is the Cultural and Heritage class, where items that are determined as having cultural or heritage significance are recorded. All artworks in Parliament House are recorded in this class. Records are updated as required for: new acquisitions, retirements/disposals, revaluations and (through an asset movement advice form) a change to the location or the responsible person. Any discrepancies found in asset stocktakes are also accounted for in the asset register. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) performs audits on the asset ledger records and accounting controls in place every year as part of the interim and annual financial statements audits. There are some 6,000 Administered asset records and 6,000 Departmental asset records in the assets register. (e) DPS has an obligation to prepare accurate financial statements and the asset register is a source of information for those statements. Stocktakes ensure that the DPS asset register is a true representation of its asset holdings for the purpose of financial reporting. The objectives of a stocktake are to: (i) ensure that all assets controlled by DPS are accurately recorded in the asset register; (ii) ensure all assets that are recorded in the register do, in fact, exist; (iii) ensure assets are recorded in the correct location; and (iv) identify assets that are surplus to requirements, obsolete or damaged. Stocktakes are conducted in accordance with Accounting Policy Document 2.1 (Attachment W) and with the stocktake schedule in Financial Paper No 4—Chief Executive's Procedures CEP 4.5.1—Stocktaking framework (AttachmentAV). Stocktakes are undertaken by DPS staff. The DPS Assets Official takes responsibility for coordinating and completing the annual stocktakes and amending the asset ledger records as required. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audits stocktake results, as part of its annual audit of financial statements. As part of the internal audit program, the internal auditor of DPS, WalterTurnbull, conducted an audit in May 2010 of DPS Financial Processing and Assets Stocktakes. The audit's overall objective was to examine and report on the effectiveness of key controls over DPS's main financial processing functions, including: evaluation of policies and procedures relating to the asset stocktakes being performed in March/April 2010. In the audit report's conclusion, WalterTurnbull stated: We note no findings in relation to the asset stocktake policies procedures. We find the method of stocktaking currently being undertaken (including asset barcoding and scanning) to be robust. Various stocktakes have been undertaken in 2010–11; but these are yet to be audited. The last completed audit of DPS assets was for 2009–10, which was conducted by the ANAO, as part of the audit of the Annual Financial Statements. The outcome of the audit was that there were no material findings and DPS had unqualified financial statements. DPS has achieved unqualified financial statements since its establishment in 2004. Audited stocktakes for the following assets were undertaken at various times in 2009–10. (i) Art Collection (see page 14 for more details); (ii) Parliamentary Library Collection; (iii) The Parliament Shop inventory; (iv) Administered items; (v) Items on personal issue; (vi) Systems assets; and (vii) Departmental individual items. The results of the stocktakes (except the Art Collection stocktake) are detailed below. A list of items identified as missing in the stocktakes (iv), (v) and (vii) above is at Attachment AW. Parliamentary Library Collection The Library stocktake policy is outlined in Operating Policies and Procedures No.11—Library Collection Stocktake (Attachment AX). This document sets out the sampling methodology used in the collection stocktake. Staff of the Parliamentary Library commenced the 2009–10 stocktake on 16 April 2010. Of the 107,272 asset items then in the Library Collection (net book value of over $5.5 million), 897 were sampled, representing a value of $40,859. Six items, with a total value of $297, were listed as missing. Of those items—one lending book, one reference book and four media items (eg CD-ROM)—two have been written off and the rest remain missing. Any items identified as missing are recorded as such in the catalogue and the shelves are checked regularly to determine if they have been located. The Parliament Shop inventory The Parliament Shop staff perform a stocktake twice a year, in January and June. The June 2010 100% stocktake of 59,492 items in the Shop inventory (total value of around $225,000) identified a stocktake variance with 852 items, with a total value of $8,588. Stocktake variances include damaged stock, missing stock and recording errors. Administered Assets Administered assets / asset groups include 474 office machines and furniture assets, 414 plant and equipment (P&E) assets, and 121 building assets. (i) The office machines and furniture category includes purpose-built furniture such as lounges (individually listed), Cabinet Room assets (individually listed) and ministerial suites assets (grouped per suite). (ii) P&E assets include such items as commercial kitchen equipment (listed individually). (iii) Building assets include items that are part of the infrastructure of the building that are not easily removed such as chillers, boilers, water fountains etc. Given that these assets are fixed to the building and the risk of their being lost, misplaced or stolen is unlikely, they are not subject to stocktake. Each year, DPS Finance staff undertake a stocktake of around 20% of Administered assets on a rolling program to ensure all items are covered once in five years. In 2009–10, 180 Administered assets (out of the 888 office machines and furniture, and P&E categories) were selected for the December 2010 stocktake. Out of the 180 assets / asset groups selected (total net book value of $3.28 million), five items were identified as missing, with a net book value of $3,167. Often it is difficult to identify an Administered asset—particularly furniture—based on the descriptions of the asset, because different people may use different descriptions. We have now implemented a process for recording all new Administered furniture purchased. A photo of the item is linked to the asset record in the financial management information system to make it easier to identify the asset in the future. Items on Personal Issue In the second and fourth quarters of each financial year, DPS Finance staff undertake a 100% stocktake of items on personal issue (over 300 items, at a total net book value of $154,798). These are items that are personally assigned to DPS officials and can include 'assets' (items over $2,000 in value) such as laptops, and/or 'portable and attractive items' (items between $500 and $2,000 value) such as mobile phones, iPads and BlackBerrys. The first stocktake for 2009–10 was conducted in December 2009, with six items identified as missing. Three of these items have since been found and three have been written off. The second stocktake commenced in May 2010. Of the 11 items identified as missing, two items have since been found. A subsequent investigation revealed no evidence of fraud and the remaining nine items were written off. Total net book value of written-off items is $6,982. Items that have not been located in the first stocktake are marked as 'missing', with follow-up action in succeeding stocktakes to locate these items. If an item has been missing for two or more stocktakes, the item is removed and written off. As a result of the 2009–10 stocktake, procedures were changed and a more secure room with restricted access was selected for storing laptops. In addition, all laptop movements are documented in greater detail and every laptop is assigned to a position or officer, and must be signed for. IT Systems Assets Systems assets (total net book value of $37.7 million) include software, IT hardware, servers etc. (Note that the Systems Assets stocktakes are also used to reassess their remaining useful life. Hardware items, such as PCs, may also be included in the Departmental assets and personal issues lists and stocktakes.) DPS Finance staff perform a 100% stocktake on Departmental IT systems assets each year. The July 2010 stocktake of 1,048 systems assets did not identify any missing items. A new process has since been implemented. When a systems asset is being replaced as part of a project, the project proposal now includes the information about the old asset it is replacing. This information is then picked up by the assets area in Finance and the asset record is updated accordingly. Departmental Assets Departmental assets can include any physical departmental asset with a barcode such as desktop IT hardware, printers, photocopiers, office furniture and broadcasting equipment. DPS Finance staff perform a 100% stocktake of Departmental individual item assets each year. In 2009–10, there were 5,664 assets included in this stocktake with a total net book value of some $6.33 million. The initial stocktake exercise (March–April 2010) and subsequent follow-up work identified 76 missing items. Of these, 16 were written off (they had been identified as missing in 2008–09); 24 have been since found; and 36 are still missing. Out of the 2009–10 stocktake, the total net book value of still missing and written-off departmental individual items is $5,935. Locating missing assets When items are noted as missing in one stocktake, attempts are made to locate them in various ways. (i) Whilst the stocktake is under way, any item initially noted as missing in one location is looked for (and often found) in subsequent stocktake locations. (ii) Sometimes during a stocktake, an asset from another location is found within the location being checked. Details of the mislocated asset are cross-checked on the financial management information system and the record is updated accordingly. (iii) After the stocktake is completed, branches are requested to check the items on issue to the branch against the missing items list. Some items may not be in the location expected due to office moves, but can be located later in the year once staff have settled in to a new location. (iv) The list of missing items is regularly checked against disposal forms. A final attempt to locate the items is undertaken in the following year's stocktake. If the asset cannot be located at that time, the asset is then written off in the financial management information system. (f) Asset information acquired from PHCA and maintained prior to 2004 by the former parliamentary departments is incomplete. This may be due to different accounting policies at that time. It may also be because we are not able to access old records because, in the majority of cases, the paper records have not been kept beyond the mandatory seven years retention period. In addition, we are not able to access the legacy Financial Management Information Systems that were used by the former departments. Available records show that, since 2000, the following original Parliament House items, which came from OPH, were gifted back to OPH: (i) two billiard tables (2000) and (ii) a barber's chair (2009). (g) Furniture in Parliament House is classified into 3 status groups. Status A All areas of Public and/or VIP status which require a unique and comprehensive design service for loose furniture and furnishings. These areas will lend themselves to the accommodation of highly crafted, custom-made and specialised furniture items. Status A areas include: the Chambers, Members ' Hall, Reception Hall, Foyer, the Cabinet Rooms and Committee Room No. 1, the private Members ' and Guests ' Dining Rooms, Party and Party Committee Rooms. The following suites are also included in this category: the Presiding Officers, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Status B Status B areas include all other Ministerial offices, Members ' and Senators ' offices and areas which require special design and/or selection services for a limited range of standard items of loose furniture and furnishings that will be duplicated within all areas of similar status throughout the building. Status C All areas throughout the building except those listed as Status A and B. In these areas, there are ready-manufactured items that provide a range of standard elements for loose furniture and furnishings within each area of similar status. Such office spaces within this classification are the House of Representatives Department office spaces, Senate Department office spaces, Parliamentary Library and other DPS office spaces. The range of standard elements will also include some light industrial items for use in plant rooms, stores, workshops and printing rooms. General office furniture under Status C is replaced as required for OHS and functional reasons, due to deterioration associated with age. There would have been many items disposed/retired over many dates. Much of the old outdoor furniture has been disposed of, mostly for OHS reasons, but also as these items were becoming corroded or were becoming expensive to maintain. (i) and (ii) Known Status B and C furniture replacements, and the reason for replacement, undertaken in the building since 1988 are as follows. Outdoor Bertoia Chairs See details provided in response to Q682 (5) Black Leather Lounges Black leather lounges were replaced in two stages for a total cost of $255,614. Stage one (2002–03) consisted of 65 lounges (60 single–seaters and 5 two-seaters). Stage two (2003–04) consisted of 32 Lounges (28 single-seaters and 4 two-seaters) at a final cost of $83,512. The existing lounges were replaced because the leather and cushioning were in poor condition and in need of replacement. Cabinet Suite Executive Chairs A total of 64 chairs—36 high-back and 28 low-back chairs—were replaced in 2006, at a total cost of $179,656. The Cabinet Suite flood in 2004 damaged many of the Cabinet Suite Executive Chairs. The remaining chairs were in poor condition and it was more cost effective to replace all of the chairs at the same time. $94,315 was recovered from the insurance claim—leaving a cost to DPS of $85,341. MG 63 Meeting Room Chairs 16 Wilkhahn committee room chairs were replaced in 2010, due to poor condition, notably the deterioration of the chair upholstery. They were replaced with 18 Wilkhahn chairs @ a total cost of $51,700. Status C furniture From 2008–09 to 2010–11, DPSspent $735,862 on StatusC furniture replacement in existing work areas as indicated in the following table. Workstations were replaced for either OHS or for functional reasons (ie where the functional role of an area had substantially changed). Chairs were replaced because they were worn out and where repair was not economical. The budget for 2011–12 is $200,000. Asset Name Deprec.Start Qty Curr.acq.value WORKSTATIONS SCHIAVELLO FITOUT MB235 Workstations, mobile drawer units, partitioning and bookcases 01/09/2009 17 36,533. WORKSTATIONS SCHIAVELLO FITOUT CFO BRANCH Workstations, mobile drawer units, partitioning and bookcases 01/05/2009 4 23,027. WORKSTATIONS SCHIAVELLO FITOUT CFO BRANCH Workstations, mobile drawer units, partitioning and bookcases 01/05/2009 4 16,685 WORKSTATIONS SCHIAVELLO FITOUT CFO BRANCH Workstations, mobile drawer units, partitioning and bookcases 01/05/2009 3 12,434 WORKSTATIONS SCHIAVELLO FITOUT CFO BRANCH Workstations, mobile drawer units, partitioning and bookcases 01/05/2009 5 22,232 WORKSTATION SCHIAVELLO FITOUT FADT Workstations (electric lift)and mobile drawer units 01/08/2009 9 20,240 WORKSTATION SCHIAVELLO FITOUT ECIR Workstations (electric lift) and mobile drawer units 01/08/2009 9 20,976 WORKSTATION SCHIAVELLO FITOUT SP Workstations (electric lift) and mobile drawer units 01/08/2009 5 11,123 WORKSTATION SCHIAVELLO FITOUT LBD Workstations (electric lift) and mobile drawer units 01/08/2009 12 35,979 WORKSTATION SCHIAVELLO FITOUT Research EXEC Workstations, mobile drawer units and credenza 01/08/2009 2 3,481 WORKSTATION SCHIAVELLO FITOUT PPA Workstations (electric lift), mobile drawer units and credenza 01/08/2009 8 17,624 WORKSTATION SCHIAVELLO FITOUT STER Workstations, mobile drawer units and credenza 01/08/2009 2 3,873 WORKSTATIONS SCHIAVELLO FITOUT Workstations, partitioning, mobile drawer units and credenza 01/05/2010 8 43,359 PURCHASE OF LIBRARY WORKSTATIONS X 3 01/05/2011 7,934 HANSARD FURNITURE REPLACEMENT 01/06/2010 82 377,031 TABLE CONFERENCE SCHIAVELLO LAMINATE FLIP 01/08/2010 18 16,416 OFFICE CHAIRS HANSARD STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 102 44,320 OFFICE CHAIRS BROADCASTING CONTENT STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 13 5,648 OFFICE CHAIRS MECHANICAL CONTENT STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 9 3,910 OFFICE CHAIRS PMAS STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 4 1,738 OFFICE CHAIRS 2020 SLS STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 4 1,738 OFFICE CHAIRS LOADING DOCK STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 2 870 OFFICE CHAIRS RB EXEC STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 8 3,476 OFFICE CHAIRS IAB EXEC STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 8 3,476 OFFICE CHAIRS BLD & SEC PROJ STURDY FRAMAC 01/08/2009 4 1,740 (iii) The press reporting on 21 May 2011 related to the replacement of office furniture by the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives. The articles included a statement that new staff furniture in Parliament House would have a "common and consistent" theme. The three parliamentary departments have all agreed to use an 'Office Furniture Style Guide' (Style Guide) (Attachment X) prepared in consultation with the three departments. DPS will use the Style Guide in selecting any office furniture it purchases for use within Parliament House. Furniture acquired for the fit-out of the new accommodation behind the Staff Dining Room is consistent with the Style Guide. The Style Guide is intended to assist departments as a model to follow for the procurement of standard office furniture. The Style Guide has been developed so …"that there should be a consistent and common approach to procurement across Parliament House—a 'One Parliament House' model for furniture procurement." The intent is to …"restrict furniture provision to one design by many suppliers (prepared to meet the design requirement)." The Style Guide refers only to office furniture (Status C furniture) for parliamentary staff, including Ministers', Senators' and Members' staff. This furniture is located in the administrative spaces within the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate and the Department of Parliamentary Services. (iv) This information would need to be provided by the Departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives—refer to paragraph (iii) above. (v) This information would need to be provided by the Departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives—refer to paragraph (iii) above. (vi) This information would need to be provided by the Departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives—refer to paragraph (iii) above. (vii) This information would need to be provided by the Departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives—refer to paragraph (iii) above. (viii) Chapter 21 (Attachment Y) of The Architect's Design Intent for Parliament House Canberra: Central Reference Document (Central Reference Document) discusses the Parliament House Furniture Program. The Parliament House Furniture Collection recognises the classifications as outlined in the Central Reference Document; however, the Central Reference Document and the PH Furniture Collection operate with slightly different classifications. Office Furniture (Status C) requires a selection of ready‐manufactured items to form a single range of standard elements for loose furniture and furnishings within each area of similar status. The Style Guide (refer to 4(g)(iii) above) provides guidance on the look and feel of replacement administrative office furniture within Parliament House. The quality and design of replacement furniture is intended to be consistent with the original furniture. Some adjustments have been made to contain costs (eg thinner solid edges on timber tops). The new furniture will not be bespoke, but of comparable quality. The colours continue the chromatic selection of materials and finishes of the original furniture, using commercially available materials. The style is consistent with the original Status C furniture and in harmony with the building design (eg simple detailing, reserved form of expression and use of natural materials). The design of the new furniture provides improved adjustability and flexibility to accommodate contemporary work practices. The design aims to standardise components to simplify the management of office furniture. Procurement of administrative office furniture by DPS staff will be based on the requirements of the Style Guide (Attachment X). (5) (a) According to available records, the original outdoor furniture (and their locations) consisted of: two styles of Bertoia chairs (in the courtyards and on balconies); metal-legged jarrah tables (in the courtyards and on the balconies); jarrah benches (near the tennis courts); and teak benches—gift of the Burmese Government and People (on the Queen's Terrace). The Bertoia items were not listed in the heritage and cultural assets class on the asset register. No heritage assessment was undertaken before disposal. (i) Sale by public online auction or destroyed. (ii) Sales using DOLA (Dominion Online Auctions) and AllBids auction houses. (iii) Over 400 of the Bertoia plastic coated chairs were purchased by the Parliament House Construction Authority (PHCA) for Parliament House. There were two types of chair—the Side (dining) Chair and the Diamond (lounge) Chair. Bertoia chairs had been standard furniture items manufactured by Knoll Inc. of the USA. The chairs purchased by the PHCA were made in Australia by George Pockett and Sons (under licence from Knoll Inc). They each cost $185.60 and $241.60, respectively, according to PHCA records. (iv) There were no valuations performed on these items as they had not been included on the asset register. These items were not recorded on the asset register by the former department (JHD) and, as such, were not transferred on to the DPS asset register. (v) There was no reserve set on items put up for sale. (vi) June 2008 sale of 42 chairs realised $154. January 2009 sale of 92 chairs realised $625. March 2009 sale of 13 chairs realised $43. July 2009 sale of 27 chairs realised $600. March 2011 sale of 49 Side chairs realised $873. March 2011 sale of 19 Diamond chairs realised $1,514. June 2011 sale of 3 chairs realised $78. (vii) The proceeds from the sales were returned to the Official Public Account. (viii) Sale dates are provided under (vii) above. The original outdoor furniture was purchased new by PHCA for Parliament House and, prior to the 2010 sale, was under the stewardship of DPS. The identity of any purchaser is not provided to DPS, although it is understood that a former DPS staff member had purchased several of the chairs. (b) DPS has retained one Diamond (lounge) chair and 23 Bertoia Side (dining) chairs. The one Diamond chair and 16 of the Side chairs are now held in the Furniture Store. These have been kept as part of the furniture collection to reference the original design of the chairs. Another five Side chairs are in use on a Senate tearoom balcony and two weathered Side chairs are located in the Gardeners compound. The original jarrah tables and benches remain in use (courtyards, balconies and/or near tennis courts), as do the teak benches on the Queen's Terrace. (c) In November 2007, 370 outdoor Hee Hay dining chairs and 30 outdoor Hee Hay lounge chairs were purchased to replace the Bertoia chairs, for a total price of $106,470. These chairs were selected as they matched the evaluation criteria well and were significantly cheaper than other short-listed proposals. (d) Most of the following information relates to both the Bertoia Diamond (lounge) and Side (dining) chairs. Only records for March 2011 define whether the chairs sold were Side or Diamond style. (i) A total of 245 Bertoia outdoor chairs have been sold; 198 were destroyed. The 245 chairs were sold because, even though they were still stable, their condition was deteriorating (specifically, they had elements of rust and some of the plastic coating had come off). The 198 were destroyed because they were assessed as unstable and unsafe; specifically, they had large amounts of rust, and/or their frames and/or joints were broken. (ii) June 2008 sale of 42 chairs realised $154. January 2009 sale of 92 chairs realised $625. March 2009 sale of 13 chairs realised $43. July 2009 sale of 27 chairs realised $600. March 2011 sale of 49 Side chairs realised $873. March 2011 sale of 19 Diamond chairs realised $1,514. June 2011 sale of 3 chairs realised $78. (iii) The assets were sold at public auction. DPS is satisfied that value for money was achieved. (iv) These items were not listed in the heritage and cultural assets class on the asset register. No heritage assessment was undertaken before disposal/retirement of these items. (v) N/A. (6) (a) Any DPS-owned terracotta pot plant holders that were removed from Senators' and Members' suites are currently in storage within Parliament House. They are located in rooms: 9B.B.004; 16.1.003 and in the Landscape Services area. These pots will be kept in storage in case they are required again in the future. (b) There has been no program to dispose of pots and DPS has no record of any disposal. However, there are several hundred pots and it is possible that one or two have been broken and scrapped over the years. (c) The total of the values listed for the original terracotta pots in the PHCA Register of Furniture for New Parliament House is $234,928. The terracotta pots were not recorded on the asset register as transferred to DPS in accordance with the accounting policy of the former Joint House Department. As the pots are not on the DPS assets register, no valuation has been made. (7) (a) DPS records identify several proposals for heritage listing of Parliament House. DPS file records indicate that a proposal made in July 1995 by the Australian Heritage Commission to include Parliament House on the Register of the National Estate was not supported by the then Presiding Officers on the grounds that the Joint House Department was in the process of establishing its own internal procedures for protecting the design integrity of the building. A proposal made in October 2003 by Mr Tom Harley, Chair of the Australian Heritage Commission, for Parliament House to be included on the Register of the National Estate was not supported by the then Presiding Officers on the grounds that the Commission and its enabling legislation were about to be replaced. Parliament House and surrounds were nominated for the National Heritage List by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects—ACT National in June 2004. A preliminary assessment of Parliament House was completed by the Australian Heritage Council (AHC) (Attachment Z) in 2005. The AHC formally agreed that the place [Parliament House] might have one or more National Heritage values and one or more Commonwealth Heritage values. In correspondence from the AHC chairman in April 2005 (Attachment AA), the AHC requested Presiding Officer comments on whether Parliament House should be included in the National Heritage List and Commonwealth Heritage List. The Presiding Officers (Senator the Hon Paul Calvert and the Hon David Hawker MP) responded to the AHC chairman on 12 May 2005, stating that they were not in a position to respond until legal advice had been obtained about the effects of including the building on the Heritage lists (AttachmentAB). Senator the Hon Ian Campbell (the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) wrote to the Presiding Officers on 22 Dec 2005 asking for a response to the AHC and for future correspondence to be forwarded to him directly (Attachment AC). Following advice from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS), the Presiding Officers wrote to Minister Campbell on 2 March 2006, stating that "we are of the view that it is both undesirable and unnecessary for Parliament House to be listed at this stage" (Attachment AD). Minister Campbell wrote to the Presiding Officers on 20 April 2006 stating that the AHC had made arguments for heritage listing and that Parliament House is subject to the Commonwealth Agency provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (AttachmentAE). The Presiding Officers wrote to Minister Campbell on 10 May 2006 "confirming the view that heritage listing of Parliament House would impose an inappropriate constraint on the management of Parliament House." They also stated that they would not have concerns if senior officers from the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) contacted the Secretary DPS to discuss concerns (Attachment AF). DEH wrote to the Secretary DPS on 1 August 2006 to clarify concerns raised by the Secretary during a meeting in July 2006. DEH informed the Secretary DPS that legal advice indicated that Parliament House was already subject to the provisions of the EPBC Act in relation to actions on Commonwealth land (s26), actions by a Commonwealth Agency (s28), and the requirement to prepare a heritage strategy (Attachment AG). Further details after August 2006 are provided as part of the answer in paragraph (b) below. (b) The EPBC Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation covering environmental and heritage matters. DPS reports against its environmental EPBC responsibilities in its Annual Report, and also to the Department of Climate Change and Environmental Efficiency. DPS is not aware of any instance where responsibilities under the Act were not met. With regard to heritage considerations, in January and March 2006, AGS provided legal advice to DPS in relation to heritage listing and obligations under the EPBC Act. The AGS advice included that Parliament House would be subject to the Heritage provisions of the EPBC Act and that the Secretary DPS is probably a "Commonwealth agency" (under the EPBC Act) and has control of Parliament House. The then Secretary DPS, Hilary Penfold QC, was concerned that, if accepted, the AGS advice would effectively transfer decision-making authority from Parliament to an arm of executive government. This issue was also discussed with the then Presiding Officers: Speaker, the Hon David Hawker MP and President, Senator the Hon Paul Calvert, who concurred with the Secretary ' s concerns. Nevertheless, and broadly in accordance with the AGS advice, officers from DPS were tasked with preparing a Heritage Strategy. This was in line with obligations under the EPBC Act that require Commonwealth agencies to prepare heritage strategies . The draft heritage strategy was developed using the normal DEWHA template and in May 2008 the draft was provided to the AHC for review. In August 2008, DPS received the AHC response. The new Secretary DPS reviewed the draft Heritage Strategy in November 2008 and was concerned at the possible transfer of decision-making from the Parliament to executive government . The Secretary sought a clarifying legal opinion from Blake Dawson lawyers. The Blake Dawson response included the following advice. (i) Parliament House is under the control and management of the Presiding Officers ( not DPS, nor the Secretary DPS ). (ii) The Presiding Officers are not " Commonwealth agencies " and are therefore not subject to some of the EPBC Act obligations on Commonwealth agencies (including the obligation to prepare a Heritage Strategy). (iii) " actions " may be undertaken without approval under the EPBC Act if those actions fall within the scope of Parliament's right to administer its internal affairs. (iv) Parliament has the right to " administer its own affairs " and this takes precedence over the EPBC Act. The relevant existing Parliamentary legislation is the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988 and the Parliament Act 1974." In January 2010, DPS summarised the Blake Dawson advice for the Presiding Officers. In response, the Presiding Officers considered that the obligations under the EPBC Act for Parliament House were an issue for the management of heritage in the building and asked the three parliamentary service departments to develop a broad definition of parliamentary administration to clarify the authority of the Presiding Officers in relation to heritage management. The Presiding Officers also reserve the option of seeking amendments to the EPBC Act to exempt Parliament House from its most onerous heritage provisions. DPS has subsequently consulted with the Chamber departments about the definition of parliamentary administration and a draft Heritage Management Framework, accountable to the Presiding Officers. Version 2 of the framework is currently being reviewed and is receiving—prior to finalisation—valuable input from stakeholders, including Commonwealth agencies and their heritage management staff ( Attachment AH ). (c) DPS has numerous control and monitoring systems in place that assist in the management and preservation of the design integrity at Parliament House. These include the following. (i) Annual inspection and reporting against key performance indicators including: the Building Condition Index (BCI), the Landscape Condition Index (LCI) and the Design Integrity Index (DII).9 (ii) All capital works projects are required to meet the requirements of DPS Strategic plans. (iii) Maintenance and asset replacement programs must take into consideration design integrity requirements. The attached Central Reference Document10 is used as a resource to ensure the original design elements of Parliament House are maintained. The Central Reference Document expresses the Architect's intent in the design of the building and its surroundings. (iv) Governance Paper No 25—Request Approval Process (RAP) (AttachmentAJ) provides a central mechanism for initiating, prioritising and approving all customer requests for new, improved or modified services. The process includes a mechanism for addressing impact on design integrity of the infrastructure (architectural alignment, design integrity risks). (v) Governance paper 26—Intellectual Property Policy (Attachment AK) provides for the protection of moral rights and intellectual property at APH and ensures that appropriate consultation is undertaken prior to undertaking any action that may impact the design integrity. (vi) Governance paper 33—Caring for Parliament's Assets (Attachment AL) outlines the Asset Management Principles for DPS, including the maintenance of the design integrity and heritage values of this building, and the preservation of cultural heritage assets that have unique national historic significance. (vii) The DPS Standard for Project Documentation and the Parliament House Site Book (Attachment AM) include procedures requiring compliance with heritage principles. (d) Copies of the following documents were provided to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee as part of DPS's responses to Questions on Notice that came out of the Budget Estimates process in May 2011. (i) Draft 1 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2009 written by Heritage Management Consultants, received from consultant 23 November 2006 (ii) Draft 2 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2010 written by Heritage Management Consultants, received from consultant 23 November 2006 (Draft 2 submitted same day consisted of Draft 1 with minor changes) (iii) Draft 3 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2010 written by Heritage Management Consultants, received from consultant 5 December 2006 (iv) Draft 4 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2010 written by Heritage Management Consultants, received from consultant 11 January 2007 (v) Draft 5 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2010 written by Heritage Management Consultants, received from consultant 22 January 2007 (vi) Draft 6 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2010 written by Heritage Management Consultants, received from consultant 1 February 2007 (vii) Draft 7 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2010 written by Heritage Management Consultants, received from consultant 5 February 2007 (viii) Draft 8 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2010 written by Heritage Management Consultants, received from consultant 12 February 2007 (ix) (Draft 9—unable to locate) (x) Draft 10 Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services—Heritage Strategy 2007-2010 written by Heritage Management Consultants, submitted to Assistant Secretary 13 April 2007 (xi) Heritage Strategy for Australian Parliament House version 11 draft—written by Heritage Management Consultants, prepared for submission to A/Secretary 3 March 2008 (xii) Heritage Strategy for Australian Parliament House version 12 draft—written by heritage Management Consultants, last saved 30 April 2008 (xiii) Heritage Strategy for Australian Parliament House version 13 draft—written by Heritage Management Consultants, last saved 26 February 2009 (xiv) Heritage Strategy for Australian Parliament House version 14 draft—written by Heritage Management Consultants, last saved 5 May 2009 (xv) Heritage Strategy for Australian Parliament House version 15 draft—written by Heritage Management Consultants, last saved 27 May 2009 (xvi) Draft Parliament House Heritage Management Framework v1—authored by Tristan Hoffmeister, Assistant Director Strategy and Communication Section, Department of Parliamentary Services, May 2011 (xvii) Draft Parliament House Heritage Management Framework v2—authored by Tristan Hoffmeister, Assistant Director Strategy and Communication Section, Department of Parliamentary Services, June 2011 (e) The following people and organisations where consulted in the preparation of the draft Heritage Strategy . (i) Duncan Marshall, Heritage Management Consultants Pty Ltd (ii) Mike Pearson, Heritage Management Consultants Pty Ltd (iii) President of the Senate, Senator the Hon Paul Calvert (iv) Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon David Hawker MP (v) Senior General Counsel, Australian Government Solicitor, Susan Reye (vi) Australian Heritage Council Chairman, Tom Harley (vii) Acting First Assistant Secretary, Heritage Division, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Theo Hooy (viii) Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Ian Campbell (ix) Blake Dawson lawyers (x) Department of Parliamentary Services Secretaries: Hilary Penfold QC, Alan Thompson (xi) Assistant Secretaries, Strategy and Business Services, Department of Parliamentary Services: Val Barrett, Terry Crane and Heather Chapman (xii) Deputy Secretary, Acting Secretary: David Kenny (xiii) Senior Design Integrity Officers, Strategy and Business Services, Department of Parliamentary Services: Helen Maas, Gowrie Waterhouse, Jonathan Everett (xiv) Building Fabrics Officer, Strategy and Business Services, Department of Parliamentary Services: Robyn Stewart The following people and organisations were consulted in the preparation of the draft Heritage Management Framework: (i) Usher of the Black Rod, Department of the Senate, Brien Hallett (ii) Serjeant-at-Arms, Department of the House of Representatives, Robyn McClelland (iii) Director Governance and Business Management (later Director Strategy and Communication Section), Department of Parliamentary Services: Kathryn Dolan (iv) Director Strategy and Communication Section, Department of Parliamentary Services: Judith Tahapehi (v) Senior Researcher, Parliamentary Library, Department of Parliamentary Services: Morag Donaldson (vi) Various staff in the Department of Parliamentary Services in Facilities, Building and Security Projects, Maintenance Services, Building Information, Art Services, Landscape Services sections and the Parliamentary Library (vii) Head of Facilities Management, National Gallery of Australia, Dean Marshall (viii) Head of Building Services, Australian War Memorial, Stewart Mitchell (ix) Deputy Director, Business and Operations, National Portrait Gallery, Ruth Paterson (x) Project Manager, Design and Accommodation, National Museum of Australia, Michel Staring (xi) Manager Heritage and IT, Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House, Ree Kent (xii) Chief Operating Officer, High Court of Australia, Jeff Smart (xiii) DPS Secretary, Deputy Secretary and members of the Strategy and Finance Committee and Executive Committee. The President of the Senate, Senator the Hon John Hogg and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Harry Jenkins, MP have also noted the draft framework. (f) The Strategy and Communication Section of DPS has responsibility for strategic heritage management and has two officers who are assigned duties that range from maintaining building fabric plans through to providing high-level policy, administrative or technical advice on heritage management. The two staff in the Strategy and Communications section who have heritage-related responsibilities are an Assistant Director (PEL1) and a PSL6 Building Fabrics Officer. The Duty Statement and Selection Criteria for each of these roles are attached (Attachments AN and AO). The Assistant Director Strategy who has responsibility for heritage management has a Graduate diploma in Applied Science Cultural Heritage Management and a Bachelor of Arts Degree and is responsible for providing high-level policy, administrative and technical advice on heritage management. The Building Fabrics Officer has a Certificate in Architectural Drafting. This role works with staff in the Project Branch and Infrastructure Services Branch to ensure that design integrity standards and specifications are maintained throughout the building. Additionally, the staff of the Art Services section provide expertise related to care and management of cultural heritage items in the Parliament House Art Collection, and provide advice on collection management and art related matters to other areas of DPS, the Presiding Officers, the Chamber Departments and individual members and senators as required. The Director Art Services has tertiary qualifications in Visual Arts, and has extensive experience (25 years) working in a number of the major national collecting institutions in Canberra. It is a general requirement for all Art Services positions that staff have either relevant tertiary qualifications or comparable work experience with cultural heritage collections (and most staff in the section have both). Art Services staff have excellent working relationships with professional colleagues in other institutions and are able to seek assistance with more complex collection management issues. [Examples include both formal and informal mechanisms—such as input provided by the National Library and National Archives conservation staff in relation to preservation of Magna Carta (covered by MOU); input of the National Portrait Gallery in relation to the Historic Memorials Collection, and participation in the DISACT group (Secretary is a signatory to the DISACT agreement) and the National Collections Preservation Committee]. Art Services also contracts specialist services (eg, for complex conservation treatments) as needed. The Duty Statement and Selection Criteria for Director Art Services are attached. (Attachment AP) DPS uses a robust project management process, which includes significant consideration and management of heritage or design integrity issues. DPS also consults with the original building architects—details are provided in the answer to question (i) below. Under the proposed Heritage Management Framework, a heritage advisory board will be established to provide advice to the Presiding Officers. It is proposed that the deliberations of the board be assisted by input by officers of the National Capital Authority and the Heritage Branch of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. (g) DPS retains a range of spare building materials, fixtures and fittings for future use provided by the PHCA. (i) Locks and Hardware—approximately 4000 items (such as handles, hinges , latches, mortise locks, striker plates, and pull and push plates). Cost is unknown as no records were handed over from the Parliament House Construction Authority. (ii) Spare furniture items, including: Description Quantity Purchase cost $ Total Staff Dining Room tables 26 764 19,864 Tub Chairs (suites) 50 817 40,850 Timber coffee tables (suites) 34 528 17,952 Stone and bronze coffee tables 34 595 20,230 Members' Guests Dining Room chairs 17 468 7,956 Staff Dining Room chairs 300 343 102,900 Total 209,752 (iii) Timber. Approximately 2 cubic metres of Silver Ash. $4,000 in value. (iv) Critical electrical spares and Stock spares—listed in the attached spreadsheets. (Attachments AQ and AR) (v) bathroom hardware (basins X 50, pans X 60 and tapware X 50 basin sets) that have been replaced to keep as spares for other areas, (vi) ceilingtiles, (vii) spares of the ceremonial door handles, (viii) Alimak gearbox and clutch replacement equipment (for the flagpole lift) (ix) Loading Dock truck stopper gate gearbox and cog replacement components, and (x) some glazed link door spares. (h) In 2007, a number of spare Troffer lights were disposed of because they were rusty. DPS has no record of the disposal of other spare original building components. As advised in answers (2) and (7)(g), DPS retains a range of spare building materials, fixtures and fittings for future use.. (i) DPS procedures for developing and managing projects are documented in various papers, with attention to heritage aspects in the following specific references. Governance Paper No. 33—Caring for Parliament's Assets (Attachment AL) notes: For the next 200 years (at least), it is the intention of the Australian Parliament to base itself in the new Parliament House. New Parliament House is recognised as a design icon and is part of Australia's heritage. This should not be compromised. This leads to the asset management principle: Protect what we have—we need to maintain the design integrity and heritage values of this building and preserve cultural heritage assets that have unique national historic significance. Governance Paper No. 25 (Attachment AJ) describes the Request Approval Process (RAP). The RAP process aims to ensure: (a) the prioritisation and selection of projects is based on their alignment and contribution to the Parliament's strategies and objectives; (b) customers are engaged in the process to support effective decision-making; and (c) all customer requests follow a consistent and transparent assessment process which has a whole-of-Parliament perspective. The evaluation process for a proposed project requires consideration of the impact on design integrity of the infrastructure (architectural alignment, design integrity risks). Historically, DPS staff, from time to time, have held discussions with Mr Giurgola and GMB Architects (which comprises a number of the original APH architects) about Parliament House design issues. This has now been formalised with regular meetings to provide a forum for DPS to advise Mr Giurgola and/or GMB Architects of projects identified for inclusion on the Capital Works Program (CWP). Additional discussions are scheduled on particular projects where necessary at the Concept drawing stage and sometimes at later design stages if there are particular issues to consider. This consultation is conducted in addition to the 'Notice to Author of Artistic Work', pursuant to Section 195AT (3A) of the Copyright Act 1968 Regulation 25AA (2) (Moral Rights) which, if required, is provided once the project has commenced and a design is available for review. Project Management Paper No. 1—Policy—Project Management in DPS (Attachment AS) provides guidance on the management and delivery of projects. The Building and Security Projects (BSP) Section is responsible for managing the delivery of building, engineering and physical security projects related to refurbishment, modification, upgrade, replacement or new works in Parliament House and the Parliamentary Precincts. BSP Staff use a checklist (Attachment AT) to ensure that significant governance and reporting requirements are met. The list includes steps to manage heritage aspects of the work including the engagement with the original building architect during each project when required. DPS uses the PRINCE2 project management methodology for projects valued at over $80,000. An essential step in this methodology is the development of a business case for approval of new projects by the DPS Strategy and Finance Committee. The Business Case development process (noted in Business Case template—Attachment AU) includes consideration of heritage aspects covering design integrity, constraints, and critical decisions. Only once the SFC has approved the Business Case does the project start up and initiating stage commence. DPS has produced a comprehensive checklist for use on large projects (which can also be used as appropriate for small projects). This checklist (Attachment AT), which is based on the PRINCE2 methodology, is divided into five main sections to cover all main stages of a project from Project Start-up to Defects Liability and Completion. Parts of the checklist with specific reference to heritage or design integrity issues are detailed below. BSP checklist (2.8) requires that, in preparing a Functional Design Brief (FDB), the Project Manager must consult: Heritage Officer / Design Integrity input—identify possible salvage items (and their significance) early. As well as an outline of the project (aim, background), the FDB template contains a range of other checks—see extract below. Design integrity 9. Parliament House was constructed to exacting standards with a design life of 200+ years. Consequently, all works projects are to be designed and constructed to maintain the design integrity of this national landmark and contemporary heritage building and its diverse landscape. 10. Parliament House was designed and detailed according to a system of order which took account of the varying functions and areas of significance of the place. 11. Overarching design principles relevant to the project are outlined within the following chapters of the Central Reference Document (Refer to Attachment {insert if appropriate}): {insert if appropriate or state not applicable} 12. Further relevant reading can be found in The Design Integrity and Management of Change Guidelines (1995). This and the Central Reference Document should be consulted with reference to any change likely to impact on the building's design integrity. Moral Rights 13. This work has been identified as not being {delete as applicable} being subject to notification and other actions in accordance with the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000. Works within the Parliamentary Precincts 14. This project is/is not {delete as applicable} subject to approval by the Presiding Officers and the Parliament of Australia, or works approval by the National Capital Authority in accordance with the Parliament Act 1974 and the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988. Design Deliverables Performance The key elements of the Consultant's performance include: … (b) development of a design resolution that best meets the functional, building and operational requirements of this brief; (c) the consideration of the identified project risks, Design Integrity, quality, safety and environmental requirements; Parliament House Site Book 28. The Consultant must comply with the requirements of the current edition of the Parliament House Site Book. Copies are available on the Internet at www.aph.gov.au/dps/Tenders.htm and from the DPS Project Manager. Specification 31. All specifications are to be prepared using the national building specification system NATSPEC. Some sections of NATSPEC have been updated by DPS to include requirements specific to Parliament House. The technical specification prepared by the consultant, is to reference these standard Parliament House Standards and Specifications and only include information that is specific to the project. 32. The current editions of all Parliament House Standards and Specifications are available from Building Information. Drawings in the design phase of a project are generally reviewed at Concept, 80%, 100%, For Tender and For Construction stages. BSP Checklist (3.4) Design Options Phase. Contact original design agent if "Moral Rights" applicable—commence informal consultation (present concepts). This activity is identified as a part of the discussions with Mr Giurgola indicated above. BSP Checklist (3.5) 80% Stage. Formalise "Moral Rights" notification if applicable. The Director BSP writes formally to Mr Giurgola (or other Moral Rights holder) enclosing a formal notice and also the 80% plans. The letter includes the statement: As part of our obligations under the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000 we are informing you of our intention to undertake this work. Under the Act, you may request access to the building in order to make a record (for example, by way of photographs or sketches) and/or consult with DPS, concerning any aspect of the proposed changes that you consider may be prejudicial to your honour or reputation as an author of the building. This provides an additional opportunity to comment on specific issues with the design. Should the Moral Rights holder not agree with the plans, we arrange meetings to identify the key issues and possible alternative approaches. However, the regular meetings between the Director, BSP and Mr Giurgola, and additional informal discussions with GMB Architects are intended to reduce areas of concern at this stage of the design. BSP Checklist (3.6) Arrange Parliamentary Approval if applicable, then NCA advised of Parliamentary Approval (note consultation already conducted earlier). BSP Checklist (4.3) BSP Project Manager to arrange for Heritage Management to have access to undertake archival pictorial record prior to construction (or agree to carry out for Heritage). BSP Checklist (4.5) Contractor to submit dilapidation report for approval —send copy to DPS Heritage for review/noting. BSP Checklist (4.12) Take archival photos of site regularly throughout construction and at key hold points (demolition, pre-sheet, pre-pour etc). Alternatively, arrange for Design Integrity (DI) to have site access to conduct. Specifications and Standards Some heritage aspects are met by ensuring DPS specifications and standards are used. The requirement to use these specifications and standards is highlighted and checked throughout the design and construction phases, and finally during the handover process from BSP to the end user. However, many of these specifications and standards can result in very high costs. As a Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 Agency, DPS is required to ensure it manages public resources efficiently, effectively and ethically. To ensure the efficient and effective use of public money DPS evaluates alternative solutions and considers the application of the specifications and standards in relation to the significance of the space, fitness for purpose and cost implications. (j) (i) The Project Manager is required to ensure that architects comply with the overall project governance framework outlined above, including response to design integrity and heritage considerations. (ii) Refer to (j)(i) above. Full list of documents attached to support responses to Q. 682 (Attachments are available from the Senate Table Office) [See note on page 31 re copies of documents already provided to Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee as part of DPS's responses to Questions on Notice that came out of the Budget Estimates process in May 2011.] Attach. Document A Significance Methodology B ANAO 1998–99 audit report No. 8 C ANAO 2004–05 audit report No. 59 D DPS Strategic Plan E DPS People Strategy F Governance Paper No. 24—External Communications G Personnel/HR Paper No 4—Workplace diversity H Personnel/HR Paper No. 8—Behaviour outside the workplace I Personnel/HR Paper No 9—Performance management J Personnel/HR Paper No. 24—Performance management for SES K Personnel/HR Paper No 34—Internet and email use L People Management Paper No 1.1—Procedures—Procedures for investigating and determining breaches of the Code of Conduct (includes Parliamentary Service Values and Parliamentary Service Code of Conduct) M OHS Paper No 6—Policy—Workplace harassment and bullying N Operating Policies and Procedures No. 17—Parliament House Art Collection (incorporates the Rotational Collection Acquisition Policy); O Operating Policies and Procedures No. 19—Allocation of artworks to Members of Parliament P Official Gifts Collection Policy Q Historic Memorials Collection: Guidelines for the selection of artists and processes for the procurement of portraits R Parliament House Art Collection De-accessioning Policy S Art Advisory Committee Terms of Reference T Parliament House Art Collection—Stocktake procedures U Financial Paper No. 3—Chief Executive Instructions V Financial Paper No. 4—CEP 4.3—Disposal of Public Property W Financial Paper No.2—Accounting Policy Doc 2.1—Property, plant and equipment and intangibles X Parliament House Office Furniture Style Guide Y The Architect's Design Intent for Parliament House Canberra: Central Reference Document (Central Reference Document)(Chapter 21) Z Australian Heritage Council Assessment for the Nomination of Parliament House to the National Heritage List—2005 AA Letters to Senator the Hon Paul Calvert and to the Hon David Hawker MP (Presiding Officers) from Tom Harley (AHC Chairman)—19 April 2005 AB Letter to AHC chairman from Presiding Officers—12 May 2005 AC Letter to Presiding Officers from Senator the Hon Ian Campbell (Minister for Environment and Heritage)—22 December 2005 AD Letter to Minister Campbell from the Presiding Officers—2 March 2006 AE Letter to Presiding Officers from Minister Campbell—20 April 2006 AF Letter to Minister Campbell from Presiding Officers—10 May 2006 AG Letter to Hilary Penfold QC (former DPS Secretary) from Theo Hooy A/First Assistant Secretary, Heritage Division, Department of Environment and Heritage—1 August 2006 AH Draft Parliament House Heritage Management Framework—June 2011 v2 AI Department of Parliamentary Services, Annual Report 2009–10 AJ Governance Paper No 25 —Request Approval Process—13 May 2008 AK Governance Paper No 26 —Intellectual Property Policy—1 February 2011 AL Governance Paper No 33 —Caring for Parliament ' s Assets—30 August 2010 AM Parliament House Site Book AN Duty Statement / Selection Criteria: Assistant Director Strategy and Communications (PEL1) AO Duty Statement / Selection Criteria: Building Fabrics Officer (PSL6) AP Duty Statement / Selection Criteria: Director Art Services AQ Critical electrical spares list AR Stock spares list AS Project Management Paper No. 1—Policy—Project Management in DPS AT Building and Security Projects Large Project Check List AU Business Case template AV Financial Paper No 4—Chief Executive's Procedures CEP 4.5.1—Stocktaking framework AW 2009–10 stocktakes—Items identified as missing AX Operating Policies and Procedures No.11—Library Collection Stocktake —————— 1See Significance 2.0 published in 2009—available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/significance2-0 2http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/finance-ministers-orders/docs/2010-11-FMOs-including-Policy-and-Guidance.pdf—pages 60–61 3http://anao.gov.au/~/media/Uploads/Documents/1998%2099_audit_report_8.pdf 4http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Uploads/Documents/2004%2005_audit_report_59.pdf (see Chapter 3—Collection Management) 5—Exit Interview questionnaire in 2005 and 2006 asked re ‘any problems with workplace harassment: Yes/No. If Yes, was Harassment Contact Officer (HCO) consulted: Yes/No. —In 2008 and 2009, asked if ever experienced or observed workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination: Yes/No. If Yes, was HCO consulted: Yes/No; was supervisor consulted: Yes/No. —In 2010, additional question asked if workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination observed, was it reported: Yes/No. 6Although some reports at Exit Interviews of workplace harassment said that the incidents had been previously reported to someone, not all such reports could be confirmed as having been made. 7Report is online at http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2004-05_Audit_Report_59.pdf The audit included the National Library of Australia, the National Museum of Australia, the National Gallery of Australia, the National Archives of Australia and the Australian War Memorial. 8Mislocations are items with incorrect location details recorded. All mislocations reported are subsequently corrected. 9DPS Annual Report 2009–10 (Attachment AI) p47–50 10The Central Reference Document is approximately 1,000 pages in size. It is available at DPS on request.