John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the very brief time that is available to me to discuss the Department of Defence annual report for 2004-05 this evening—460 pages; no hope—I want to focus on a very specific issue, which I believe has very great importance for our defence forces—that is, the issue of retention and recruitment within our defence forces. When I went to the annual report to try to seek a consolidated view as to how this issue is proceeding within Defence, I found it was not very easy to find a great deal of information. Nonetheless, I will make some reference to the report in the short time available.

It is useful to note that at page 90 of the annual report, under the heading ‘Workforce Overview’, a comment is made about staffing average strength. It says:

The Permanent Force average strength in 2004-05 was 51,813, or 482 less then the revised estimate.

It goes on to say:

This was due primarily to emerging recruitment and retention challenges and a slower than anticipated substitution of Reservists undertaking full-time service roles.

Later on the same page the same words are used, ‘emerging difficulties in recruitment and retention’. I think that is an absolute nonsense. The whole key to this is that there have been recruitment and retention problems within the Australian defence forces over a period of time. The nature of the problem may have changed over time but, nonetheless, there has been a significant problem. It has been addressed by a number of inquiries of this parliament.

The unfortunate thing is that on many occasions—on all occasions, almost—the Department of Defence has ignored the recommendations of the inquiries that have taken place. Going back to 1986, there was the Hamilton report; in 1988 there was the Cross report; and so on. They were external inquiries, but there have been a number of internal inquiries as well. I know that, as a result of the Department of Defence’s concern about specific recruitment issues within areas of Defence, another internal inquiry was undertaken during 2005-06. I have not seen the outcome of that inquiry yet, but it continues to highlight the difficulties of maintaining strength in certain areas of our defence forces.

Turning to the various parts of the report on the outcomes at Defence, particularly those dealing with Navy capabilities, under the heading ‘Personnel’, it says:

Significant recruiting shortfalls in technical trades outweighed improvements with pilots, seaman officers and combat system operators. Under-achievement in technical trade categories is a reflection of the competition between Defence and other organisations for this diminishing labour force. Of particular concern are electronics technicians, doctors, and marine and electrical engineering officers.

With due deference to Defence, they use the argument in the annual report that there are competing forces out there in other places. Nonetheless, there are still very critical shortages which exist within the defence forces. The same happens with the Army. The report draws attention to the fact that there was a downturn in recruiting achievement from the previous year and an increase in the separation rate. It says:

This has increased pressure on key personnel areas such as medical professionals, linguists and technical trades.

The same occurs when one looks at the Air Force. The Air Force has had, the report says:

... higher retention rates for logistics officers and aerospace engineers and an improved retention rate for legal officers.

Whilst that is welcome, there are, however, significant problems being experienced by Defence. I would like to see in the Defence report—and I know it is probably too late now—a better, more concise view of what has happened in this area in the last 12 months. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.