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

I rise to take note of the Department of Defence report for 2004-05. I have spoken previously on the issue of retention and recruitment within the Australian Defence Force and how important that is. This evening, though, I want to turn to a probably not often read page of the annual report but one that I have read previously and asked Defence for explanations on. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you will be interested in this. It is part of their accounts, note 15, on executive remuneration. The table on executive remuneration sets out the remuneration bands in, it seems, almost $10,000 lots and lists the number of executives who fall into each of those bands.

A number of years ago when I raised this issue at the Senate estimates hearing I think it caused a little bit of consternation. There was a bit of concern on the part of Defence that, firstly, they could not find a proper explanation for what was happening. To their credit, they eventually came up with an explanation. Secondly, there were what seemed to be major shifts taking place within the bands. That is the concern that I, again, have on this occasion when reading the 2004-05 report. With respect to the executive remuneration and the band that covers the individuals—and I never sought the identity of the individuals—I have been concerned about the shift in the bands more than anything else. The calculation includes salary and allowances, accrued superannuation, redundancy payments, accrued leave, car parking, motor vehicle costs and fringe benefits taxes.

In addition, for Australian Defence Force members it includes the value of health and housing subsidy and a number of other miscellaneous allowances, including field allowances, career transition training and separation and retention allowances. It covers a wide range, particularly for those who are active serving members of the Australian Defence Force. The comparison is interesting to look at between 2004 and 2005. In the report for 2004-05 we see that a new band has crept in—that is, the band from $470,000 to $479,999; $560,000 to $569,999; and, $590,000 to $599,999. Indeed, they are not insignificant amounts. In 2004, there were no persons in these categories at all, but there were persons in the following categories: $400,000 to $409,999; $420,000 to $429,999; and, $440,000 to $449,999. There was one person in each of those categories.

It seems to me that those people have now been moved up into what I would say are substantially higher categories. Whilst there may have been a change in some of the circumstances of these people, it would be interesting to find out how much of that impact is brought about by salary and how much is brought about by other aspects of the remuneration package and what aspects are significant in what I believe to be a significant shift. If one could simply translate someone from the lowest level of what I quoted into what is now the lowest level then there is in the order of a 30 per cent increase in the value of remuneration. It must be of concern. There is no explanation, and I think that the table itself does not serve Defence well. Whilst it is common in many annual reports, it does not serve Defence well. I think that if Defence could provide a better explanation of the meaning of this table, it would take away many of the concerns that I would have and certainly a lot of other Australians would have about the remuneration for some of the people in our Defence Force. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.