SENATE

Monday, 27 February 2017 Senate Page 29
Senator WONG: You have chosen to set those levels. These are new positions, are they not?
Mr Cooper: But the function they are undertaking, the service that they provide, is not new.
Senator WONG: What is an APS 3?
Mr Cooper: An APS 3 can be someone who has been trained with additional skills, such as in security
communications─operating some of our electronic security and so forth.
Senator WONG: It is a higher level of security skills. Is that right, would you agree with that?
Mr Cooper: I would agree that it is additional skills, yes. I do not want to be derogatory towards people who
are not APS 3s. They will do a good job.
Senator WONG: I am not suggesting they will not, but I am asking what job you are asking them to do. Did
you describe the APS 1 and APS 2 jobs as admin?
Mr Cooper: No.
Senator WONG: Administrative jobs?
Mr Cooper: No.
Senator WONG: What are people at the APS 1 and APS 2 level then?
Mr Cooper: They are the people that we see manning points and doing security inspections walking through
the building─and first aid.
Senator WONG: What security qualifications are they required to have?
Mr Cooper: They undergo an in-house security training program and they have to pass that training to
successfully be appointed to the job, and we have ongoing refresher training.
Senator WONG: In your initial new policy proposal, when you put in your bid for funding, what was the
configuration of staffing that underpinned the costing—how many APS 1s, how many APS 2s and how many
APS 3s? If it has changed since 2010, can you tell me how? If it has changed, I would like to know the basis for
those changes.
Mr Creagh: I can take that on notice.
Senator WONG: Mr Cooper, employing more people at the lower levels, the lower skill levels—how would
you like me to describe it: 'lower classification levels'?
Mr Cooper: Yes.
Senator WONG: You do not have any concerns about employing people at those lower classification levels
rather than employing APS 3s?
Mr Cooper: I do not have any particular concerns. Part of the reason is that, as I mentioned the last time we
met, we have a functional review of security underway, and that may change the nature of our staffing. There is
no hidden agenda there, but that is an opportunity for us to determine whether we have the right people in the
right places at the right levels.
Senator WONG: Mr Stefanic, I think on the last occasion you told me you were funded for an additional 32
full-time equivalents in relation to the capital works. That was departmental funding for additional personnel
associated with the new requirements resulting from the capital works that included the guardhouse in the
ministerial wing, checkpoints et cetera. Do you remember that evidence?
Mr Stefanic: No, I do not.
Senator WONG: It is on page 32 of the Hansard. I am telling you the truth. It reads:
Senator Wong: Mr President, when the fairly significant amounts of money were spent on the capital works to give the
ministers a guard house externally and to include four checkpoints in the ministerial wing, was the need for additional
recurrent funding for staffing to staff those sought and obtained?
The President: Yes, it has been.
… … …
Mr Stefanic : It is my understanding that we are funded for an additional 32 full-time equivalents.
What I want to know is: do you have the 32 for those six checkpoints, and are they included in the 50?
Mr Stefanic: I do not have that information in front of me. I will have to take that on notice.
Senator WONG: Can we just try and get on notice, then, some clarity around additional security staff? I have
tried it at a couple of estimates now. Is that okay?
Mr Stefanic: Yes.
FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE