Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Senate Additional Estimates – 1 March 2017 ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE Department of Defence Topic: Middle East Coalition – Nature of contributions by countries Question reference number: 1 Senator: Farrell Type of question: asked on Wednesday, 1 March 2017, Hansard page 12 Date set by the committee for the return of answer: 21 April 2017 Question: Senator FARRELL: The minister mentioned additional countries. You have talked about the variety of contributions you can make. Have those new countries also been actually providing military forces or are they countries that are supplying financial contributions? Senator Payne: Some of them do; some of them don’t. We will take on notice to provide, as is available publicly, a list for the committee. [Defence tabled a list of countries, but not the breakdown between military force and financial contribution] Answer: Sixty five states are members of the coalition to counter Daesh, which are listed on the website for the global coalition against Daesh: www.state.gov/s/seci. Three organisations are also partners in the coalition; the Arab League, the European Union and INTERPOL. In addition to military contributions, members of the coalition support its efforts to counter Daesh’s finance, messaging, foreign fighter flows, and support coalition stabilisation activities. The following table lists those states and multinational organisations that are making a military or a non-military contribution: Military Non-Military Canada Egypt The United States Libya Australia Morocco New Zealand Nigeria Singapore Somalia Belgium Tunisia Denmark Panama France Afghanistan Germany Japan Italy Malaysia The Netherlands South Korea Poland Taiwan Spain Albania Turkey Austria The United Kingdom Bosnia and Herzogovina Iraq Bulgaria Jordan Croatia Saudi Arabia Cyprus The United Arab Emirates The Czech Republic Norway Estonia Sweden Finland Georgia Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Kosovo Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Moldova Montenegro Portugal Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Ukraine Bahrain Kuwait Lebanon Oman Qatar The Arab League The European Union INTERPOL Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Senate Additional Estimates – 1 March 2017 ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE Department of Defence Topic: Adequate Funding for the Force and Infrastructure Question reference number: 2 Senator: Fawcett Type of question: asked on Wednesday, 1 March 2017, Hansard page 14 Date set by the committee for the return of answer: 21 April 2017 Question: Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. Can I also take you to table 12, which is for resources across the department. It is a fairly broad question. You obviously have an incremental increase in funding against each of the outcomes over the forward estimates. I take you back to the work done by Pappas, where he was trying to quantify cost growth pressures for existing assets, personnel and equipment as well as allowing for new acquisition. I am happy for you to take this on notice. I am just wondering if you can give the committee an understanding of how much of Pappas’s work has been included in this to make sure that the force in being and the infrastructure in being is adequately funded in these increases to make sure they are sustained at a suitable level of readiness and capability as well as, obviously, funding for new measures that are coming in? Senator Payne: Just to clarify, Senator, are you in 1.5, table 12? Senator FAWCETT: This is page 33 of the budget statement, table 12. Senator Payne: There is actually a summary for program 1.4, Air Force capabilities. Senator FAWCETT: No, this is page 33, table 12. It is entitled, ‘Total Budgeted Resources Available for Outcome 1’. Mr Prior: Of the additional estimates document? Senator FAWCETT: No, this is the portfolio budget statement, not additional estimates. Senator Payne: I just wanted to make sure we were all working from the same table 12. Senator FAWCETT: That is fine. This was not updated as part of the additional estimates. Mr Prior: We can have a look at that and take it on notice. Answer: The program budgets in the 2016-17 Defence Portfolio Budget Statements at Table 12 (page 33) has been updated in the 2016-17 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements at Table 16 (page 27). Resources available by program are updated at each Budget milestone, including updated information on each of the programs. The 2016 Defence White Paper has rebalanced the Defence budget to meet the Government's long-term plan for Australia’s defence. This rebalance has provided increased investment in Defence capability (including major capital equipment, facilities, infrastructure and information and communication technologies) and includes a review of key economic assumptions and indexation parameters for each major program in the Defence budget. Costs continue to be reviewed to assess the impact of any variability, especially with respect to indexation. In addition, Government has directed Defence to include a report in its annual Portfolio Budget Submission on Defence White Paper performance and risk management, to demonstrate the extent to which the Defence White Paper implementation meets Government priorities and expectations. Funding for new measures will be considered as part of the annual Defence Budget process, which is transparent through the Commonwealth reporting framework. Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Senate Additional Estimates - 1 March 2017 ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE Department of Defence Topic: APS Indigenous recruitment and retention Question reference number: 3 Senator: Carr Type of question: asked on Wednesday, 1 March 2017, Hansard page 16 Date set by the committee for the return of answer: 21 April 2017 Question: Senator KIM CARR: That was the point I was going to. It has been put to me that while you are recruiting quite successfully, retention is a more complex problem. Mr Richardson: It is. But any suggestion that we are simply replacing the people who leave is sheer nonsense. Three years ago 0.7 per cent of the APS workforce were Indigenous. Today it is two per cent. Senator KIM CARR: Is there an exit interview process for people leaving the service? Ms Kelley: We are looking at a number of strategies for improving our retention. Some of that is looking at career development opportunities and progression, improving our supervisor awareness and support, and cultural awareness. I will let Justine clarify whether we are actually doing exit interviews at the moment. Ms Greig: With the increase in the number of Indigenous trainees, which has been particularly high in the last year or so, as the secretary mentioned, we certainly work very closely with the trainees. If we start to get any indicators with this group that they may not be comfortable, happy, challenged or enjoying the workplace, we take a close interest. For those in that group that we have unfortunately lost for whatever reason, we have worked closely with them all the way through from commencement right to when they decide or elect to leave the organisation. We do put particular focus on the trainee group. They are a young group. They have different driving factors to many other parts of the workforce. So whilst they are not formal exit interviews, we do it in a more individualised fashion. Senator KIM CARR: So how many people who you have recruited have subsequently left? Ms Greig: I think we would rather come back to you with the exact numbers. Senator KIM CARR: Okay. Ms Greig: It is important also to break that down in terms of who from that trainee group we have done a lot of work with, to try and really look at what it is that we can do further to support, versus other cohorts or groups in the department. Senator KIM CARR: Thank you. I appreciate that. Answer: Separation Rates From 1 February 2016 to 1 February 2017, 48 Indigenous Australian Public Servants have left the Department. As at 1 February 2017, the separation rate for Indigenous Australian Public Servants is 14.17 per cent. Increasing Retention Defence is currently placing a significant focus on increasing the retention of Indigenous Australian Public Servants. Defence recently undertook two studies with our Indigenous Australian Public Service employees to determine their motivation to join and remain in Defence. In response to the findings of these studies, Defence established a dedicated team focused on Indigenous employee retention. The team will continue to work on a range of initiatives, including: Retention benchmarking - Further benchmarking against like organisations to analyse the drivers for Indigenous retention rates within Defence. This, and the previous mentioned studies, will inform the development of the public service Indigenous Retention Plan. Regular check-ins - with Indigenous trainees, cadets and their supervisors to ensure early action on potential issues. Indigenous Career Pathway - Learning and development guide assisting all Indigenous employees to both identify their current skills and mapping their career development and training opportunities over a three year period. Defence Indigenous Mentoring Program – Defence has launched the Indigenous Mentoring program, initially targeting entry level program employees. This program provides participants with an experienced mentor within Defence. Defence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Network – Five regional networks have been established across Australia