Ms Burke asked the Speaker, upon notice, on 4 February 2003:

(1) How many staff were employed in each of the parliamentary departments on 1 February (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001, (e) 2002 and (f) 2003.

(2) How many staff members ceased employment with each parliamentary department in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001, (e) 2002 and (f) 2003.

(3) For each parliamentary department from which staff ceased employment, how many of these staff (a) resigned, (b) were dismissed, (c) retired or (d) were made redundant.

(4) Is it the practice of any of the parliamentary departments to offer voluntary redundancy packages; if so, how many were made in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001, (e) 2002 and (f) 2003 in each department.

(5) Have any staff members who were made redundant been subsequently re-employed by any parliamentary department in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001, (e) 2002 and (f) 2003.

(6) If staff have been made redundant and subsequently re-employed, what was the cumulative cost in each year of payments associated with these redundancies.

(7) How many positions that were the subject of redundancies in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001, (e) 2002 and (f) 2003 have been filled through (a) redeployment, (b) promotion or (c) external recruitment.

The SPEAKER —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

The departments have supplied the following information in relation to Ms Burke's request for information:

(1) The following table details the staffing numbers employed in each parliamentary department. Except for 1 February 2003, staffing figures for 30 June of each year have been used. This is the latest published, and therefore readily available, information for the years concerned.

(2) The following table details the staff ceasing employment in each department for the years requested.

* The Department of the Senate introduced a new HRMIS system in July 1999. As a consequence, that department is unable now to report the numbers of staff who ceased employment in 1998 and the first half of 1999.

(3) The following table details the number of staff across the parliamentary departments who have ceased employment by the methods of separation requested. It should be noted that a further 751 staff have ceased duty since 1998 for other reasons such as transfer to other agencies, end of non-ongoing employment, etc.

(4) Yes, all of the departments are able to offer redundancy packages, under the terms and conditions of the respective certified agreements. These terms and conditions allow the departments to address excess staff situations. In addition, the certified agreement of the Department of the House of Representatives has an early retirement scheme, inserted into the agreement at the suggestion of industrial organisations. This provision allows for staff with particular skills to be replaced by staff with different skills. Staff leaving the Department under these provisions are not made redundant. The following table details the number of staff made redundant in each department over the period requested. The figures do not include the Department of the House of Representatives' early retirees (insignificant except for the period ending in February 2003, when the total on a one-off basis was 16), as these terminations of service were not caused by an excess staff or redundancy situation.

* The one case in 2003 for the Department of the Senate, although technically a retirement under section 37 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, has been reported as a retrenchment for the purpose of the question.

(5) The individual departments are not aware of any staff made redundant being subsequently re-employed by any other parliamentary department. The following table details the numbers of staff re-employed by the same department.

(6) The following details are provided in relation to any cumulative costs associated with redundancy and re-employment.

Department of the Senate

Not applicable.

Department of the House of Representatives

Of the staff that were made redundant between 1998 and 2003, one staff member was subsequently re-employed on a casual, part-time basis to perform the work the staff member did as a full-time, ongoing employee. The staff member was made redundant because performance of the duties on a full-time, ongoing basis was no longer required. The employment occurred two months after the staff member was made redundant. The staff member was made redundant on 25 March 2002 with a severance benefit and payment in lieu of notice totalling $33,654. The cumulative total cost of salary has been $23,101.

Department of the Parliamentary Library

Not applicable.

Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff

Of the staff that were made redundant between 1998 and 2003, one staff member was subsequently re-employed on a casual basis for 21 days to cover for staff absences. The employment occurred 17 months after the staff member was made redundant. His severance benefit and payment in lieu of notice totalled $38,776. The cumulative total paid in 2002-03 was $3,728.14.

Joint House Department

Not applicable

(7) The following details are provided in relation to filling redundant positions.

Department of the Senate

There were no instances of redundant positions being filled in any year and by any of the methods described in the question.

Department of the House of Representatives

There were no instances of redundant positions being filled in any year and by any of the methods described in the question.

Department of the Parliamentary Library

There were no instances of redundant positions being filled in any year and by any of the methods described in the question.

Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff

Between 1998 and 2003, two people were employed in jobs that the previous occupant left through voluntary redundancy. Before being filled, the jobs in each case were significantly changed to include broader responsibilities and greater technical skills.

Joint House Department

On one occasion in 2001 {(d) as per the question} another staff member was promoted {(b) as per the question} to fill a vacancy caused by the redundancy of a person who could not be employed effectively because of technological or other changes in the nature, extent or organisation of the functions of the Department.