COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE

Official Committee Hansard

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

(Consideration of Estimates)

TUESDAY, 17 JUNE 1997

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA 1997 CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 17 JUNE

Department of Defence— Program 4—Air Force ...... 573 Program 5—Intelligence ...... 574 Program 8—Defence personnel executive ...... 580 Program 10—Science and technology ...... 617 Program 11—Defence estate ...... 623 Program 12—Corporate information ...... 632 Program 13—Corporate support ...... 632 Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 571

SENATE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Portfolios: Foreign Affairs and Trade; Defence (including Veterans’ Affairs) Members: Senator Troeth (Chair), Senators Bourne, Cook, Eggleston, Ferris and Hogg Participating members: Senators Abetz, Bolkus, Brown, Brownhill, Calvert, Colston, Faulkner, Forshaw, Harradine, Margetts, Murphy, Neal, Ray, Schacht and West

The Committee met at 7.32 p.m. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE Proposed expenditure, $10,937,163,000 (Document A). Consideration resumed from 12 June 1997. In Attendance Senator Newman, Minister for Social Security Defence Headquarters Vice Admiral Chris Barrie, Vice Chief of the Defence Force Rear Admiral David Campbell, Head, Strategic Logistics (designate) Major General Peter Abigail, Assistant Chief of the Defence Force (Policy and Strategic Guidance) Air Vice Marshal Dave Rogers, Assistant Chief of the Defence Force (Force Capability Development) Air Vice Marshal Graeme Moller, Surgeon General Commodore Russ Shalders, Director General, Operations Policy and Plans Air Commodore John Kindler, Director General, Capability Policy and Plans Mr Hugh White, Deputy Secretary, Strategy & Intelligence Mr Robert Tonkin, Deputy Secretary, Budget and Management Dr Ian Williams, First Assistant Secretary, Force Development and Analysis Mr Allan Behm, First Assistant Secretary, International Policy Mr Terry Smith, Assistant Secretary, Program Coordination and Development Dr Graham Kearns, Assistant Secretary, Regional Engagement Policy and Programs Mr David Templeman, Assistant Secretary, Corporate Management Mr Ed David, General Manager Operations, Defence Housing Authority Navy Rear Admiral Chris Oxenbould, Deputy Chief of Navy Mr Les Wallace, Assistant Secretary, Resource Planning—Navy

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 572 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Army Major General John Hartley, Deputy Chief of Army Major General Paul Stevens, Assistant Chief of Army, Personnel Mr Peter Lush, Assistant Secretary, Resource Planning—Army Air Force Air Vice Marshal Errol McCormack, Deputy Chief of Air Force Air Vice Marshal Robert Richardson, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff Personnel Resource Management Air Commodore David Leach, Acting Head, Industry Services and Contracting Group Mr Tony Preston-Stanley, Assistant Secretary Resources Planning—Air Force Intelligence Mr Hugh White, Deputy Secretary, Strategy and Intelligence Support Command Major General Des Mueller, Commander Support (designate) Joint Education and Training Commodore John Lord, Head, Joint Education and Training (designate) Defence Personnel Executive Brigadier Peter Dunn, Head, Defence Personnel Executive (designate) Air Vice Marshal Frank Cox, Assistant Chief of the Defence Force (Personnel) Brigadier William Traynor, Director-General Personnel Policy and Plans Air Commodore Nick Ford, Director-General Defence Force Pay and Conditions Colonel Rod Margetts, Acting Director-General Force Recruiting Mr David Barritt-Eyles, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Human Resources and Management Mr Claude Neumann, Assistant Secretary, Compensation, Rehabilitation and Superannuation Mr Felix Bleeser, Director, Program Resources and Management Ms Gwen Wharton, Director, Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Acquisition Dr Susanne Pearce, Acting Deputy Secretary, Acquisition Rear Admiral Peter Purcell, Assistant Chief of Navy, Materiel Major General John Kingston, Assistant Chief of Army, Materiel Air Vice Marshal Doug Riding, Assistant Chief of Air Force, Materiel Mr Ron Bonighton, First Assistant Secretary, Defence Materiel Mrs Merrilyn McPherson, First Assistant Secretary, Capital Equipment Program Dr Gary Ashton, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Industry Involvement and Contracting Mr Maurice Hermann, Assistant Secretary, International Materiel Science and Technology Dr Richard Brabin-Smith, Chief Defence Scientist Mr Murray Domney, Assistant Secretary, Science Corporate Management Defence Estate Mr Rod Corey, First Assistant Secretary, Facilities and Property

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 573

Corporate Information Mr Phil Huntley, Acting Head, Corporate Information Corporate Support Mr Peter Sharp, Head, Corporate Support (designate) Finance and Inspector General Mr Frank Lewincamp, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Resources and Financial Planning Mr George Veitch, Assistant Secretary, Budgets and Estimates Mr Ken Moore, Assistant Secretary, Resources Policy and Programs Mr Garry Ryle, Acting Assistant Secretary, General Investigations and Review Department of Finance— Mr Jeff Hurst Mr Doug Rankin Mr Geoff Ross CHAIR—I declare open this meeting of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. I welcome again the minister and the officers of the Department of Defence. On Thursday, the committee completed programs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9. This evening we will continue considering program 4 and then consider the remaining programs in sequential order. I remind colleagues that the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee has been tasked by the Senate to inquire into and report on the format of the portfolio budget statements. As we go through the documents, you may wish to put on the Hansard record your thoughts on the PBS—where they are clear and helpful or where they are confusing or hard to follow. I call for further questions on program 4. [7.33 p.m.] Program 4—Air Force Senator Newman—First of all, Madam Chairman, it was Defence’s understanding that the Air Force—which is program 4—had finished. I think that the last of the questions were placed on notice. CHAIR—We had marked down to continue with program 4. Are Air Force not here? Senator Newman—I understand that someone is here but didn’t Senator Hogg agree to the last of his questions being put on notice for the Air Force? That was what I thought. Senator HOGG—No, no. Senator Newman—It was certainly the understanding of Defence. Senator HOGG—If there is a question, it is only one or two that would be outstanding. If they cannot be answered, they can be answered on notice. Senator Newman—All right. CHAIR—Could you please proceed then, Senator Hogg. Senator HOGG—I just want to revisit the issue I raised the other day in respect of Tindal, and the storage of the Sandline equipment at Tindal. Do we have any idea what the materiel being stored there is? Vice Adm. Barrie—The equipment that is being stored at Tindal from Sandline International comprises some helicopters and some small arms and ammunition.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 574 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator HOGG—I am not sure if I asked this question the other day. Is anyone paying for the storage costs there, or is that something that we are bearing ourselves? Vice Adm. Barrie—At present, no charges for storage has been levied. The problem with the Sandline equipment is the question of ownership. Once that is decided then I am sure that issue will be addressed. Senator HOGG—I think that is program 4 out of the way. [7.35 p.m.] Program 5—Intelligence CHAIR—We will move to any questions on program 5. I must say that there can be only general questions on this. Senator HOGG—Yes. CHAIR—Do you have any questions on that? Senator HOGG—Just a question on the fact that there is an estimated saving, as I understand, of $16 million in that area. Is that part of the efficiency dividend? Mr White—No; there is, as you have observed, an increase from $124 million to $136 million against this function, if you compare it with 5.3 in the old program structure. That does not reflect any change in general approach to the intelligence function or policy priority. As a broad proposition, intelligence function has been regarded as the sharp end rather than the blunt end in the overall defence portfolio and has tended to be a beneficiary of the savings available, rather than a source of savings—in both the previous budgets, savings options of $125 million a year. That has been the approach taken to the DER. Senator HOGG—Just within the confines of the defence efficiency review, are we able to identify what is happening in this area? Whilst I understand the secure nature of it, are we able to identify what is going to happen to personnel in that area, or will that be something that is subsumed into the program? Mr White—The government has traditionally taken a restrictive view of the information provided on the intelligence function within the portfolio. I believe it would continue to be the government’s intention not to provide much more information on that function that is provided in the PBS for this year. Senator HOGG—I think for the first time in a long time we have had a little bit more information. When I was referring to the $16 million one-off savings, I was referring actually to the defence efficiency review. We do have some indication there of what is happening in terms of numbers and what the potential further savings are. Whilst I understand what you are trying to say to me, I am not trying to ask you to give away any national secrets. Mr White—Senator, I am sorry. Can I address that in the light of what you have just mentioned to me. The entry there in annex C, against strategy and intelligence, for savings of $16 million in the current year, actually relate primarily to changes in defence cooperation, which has been a component of the old strategy and intelligence program—that is the old program I used to run under the old system, rather than to program 5—the intelligence program which has been set up under the new structure. Senator HOGG—That is why I was asking you the question. I am just trying to sort out what is what in this conglomerate. Mr White—That reflects a one-off reduction in DC which was a part of the DER savings. It does not affect the intelligence function at all.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 575

Senator SCHACHT—So the $16 million, which is strategy and intelligence, is a one-off saving that is all out of strategy. Mr White—It is out of defence cooperation, which fell within the old strategy and intelligence program. Senator SCHACHT—So there is defence— Mr White—This is defence cooperation. Senator SCHACHT—This is the international program? Mr White—That is right. It fell under the old strategy and intelligence program, and it now falls under program 1, the defence headquarters program, so it does not relate to the intelligence function. Senator SCHACHT—The defence cooperation program has not been cut; it has just been transferred off you out of strategy to somewhere else: is that right? Mr White—It has actually been transferred off me out of strategy and intelligence to me under defence headquarters. Senator SCHACHT—It has been taken off you as strategy and put back to you as strategy and intelligence; is that what you are telling me? Mr White—Senator, my old program—strategy and intelligence—has been cut in two. Half of it has become a separate intelligence program—that is, program 5 under the present structure—and half of it now comprises, roughly speaking, half of the new defence headquarters, program 1, which Admiral Barrie and I jointly manage. The DC component is part of my old program, which has gone to the defence headquarters. Senator SCHACHT—I am not quite sure I understand all of that. Senator HOGG—Neither am I. I am not trying to be difficult. I wonder how we will relate those figures to whatever proposed savings you are hoping to make at a future time. Mr White—I shall attempt to explain more clearly what has happened to my program, and then go onto the next bit. My old program had four components. One of those components was intelligence, 5.3. That was in the old structure. That has become a separate intelligence subprogram in accordance with the recommendations of the defence efficiency review. Somewhat confusingly, that is now numbered program 5. Senator SCHACHT—Intelligence is now part of intelligence and strategy— Mr White—No. Intelligence is now a separate intelligence program by itself. It used to be a subprogram. Senator SCHACHT—I am just reading the title, but the title is out of date, is it? Mr White—No. Senator SCHACHT—Deputy Secretary of Strategy and Intelligence? Mr White—My title has not changed—at least, not so far. Senator SCHACHT—On 1 July, what will your title be? Mr White—Unless Tony has something to tell me, it will be the same. Senator HOGG—I have a bit of an idea now what is happening. What you are trying to tell us is that under program 5—intelligence—there has been a $12 million increase? Mr White—Yes. Senator HOGG—In the order of $12 million?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 576 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Mr White—Yes, roughly speaking. Senator HOGG—And the other changes that are outlined in annex C— Mr White—Relate to defence cooperation—which is the old— Senator HOGG—And those would be reflected under program 1? Mr White—That is right. Senator HOGG—So at some stage in the future, those changes that are in annex C will be reflected under program 1? Mr White—That is correct. Senator HOGG—According to the DER, there will be cost savings there, and there will obviously be some personnel reductions. Mr White—Yes, that is right. Senator HOGG—I presume that those personnel changes will occur over the same time line as the rest of the DER? Mr White—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—You just mentioned in answer to a question by Senator Hogg that intelligence had only been increased by $12 million. Is that correct? Mr White—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—Pardon me if I have missed something, but can you show me where that is described on page 77? Mr White—It is not described by itself on page 77. Page 77 gives the figure of $136 million—nearly $137 million. The comparison with the outcome for subprogram 5.3 under the old structure, which was on page 190, was an outcome of $124 million. Senator SCHACHT—Will you have with the new section a first assistant secretary in charge of intelligence? Mr White—No, the program has two subprograms. One is the Defence Signals Directorate, which is run by a director. He is at deputy secretary level. Senator SCHACHT—DSD is deputy secretary. Mr White—Yes, and the other is DIO, whose present head is, and has for some time been, a two-star military officer. Senator SCHACHT—The head of DSD is a deputy secretary who reports to you? Mr White—Yes; he is a lower level deputy secretary than me. I would not put it that way. Senator SCHACHT—Is there one less button on his tie or something? Mr White—Something like that, yes. Senator SCHACHT—How do you tell the difference? Mr White—Hierarchies are like that, Senator. We understand one another. Senator SCHACHT—In the SES band, what are you—a one or two? Mr White—I am a band 3 upper and he is a band 3 lower. Senator SCHACHT—Sounds like you are all on Speed or something or something out of Eton school—an upper and a lower fifth form. Pardon my ignorance on these matters; has the DIO always been a two-star officer?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 577

Mr White—Not always. It had been a civilian position. I think the first two-star—that is, military—head of DIO was General Baker, now CDF, and he would have taken over the job in about 1988. Senator SCHACHT—This is the way we say to the two-stars at the back, ‘If you want to end up as head of ADF, go through DIO.’ You are going to tell me that I cannot ask any other questions as to how you spend $136 million. Mr White—I will not answer them anyway. Senator SCHACHT—I thought that was the case. CHAIR—As there are no further questions on program 5, we will move on to program 8— Defence Personnel Executive. Senator SCHACHT—Before you go, Mr White, remind me how the independent auditing goes. The parliament is not able to check how the $136 million is spent. What is the title of the person who audits the $136 million so it does not all end up in a bag of money in Monaco or somewhere? Someone must check the money. Is it internal within Defence, or is there also an audit office classified section that checks your monetary expenditure? Mr White—Yes, it is subject to normal departmental audit arrangements. Also the ANAO has some access to defence intelligence. Senator SCHACHT—Some access. Mr White—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—But they have to take it blind as well? Do they have a choice of what they have access to or do you tell them that they cannot have access to something under the act? Mr White—To be honest, I am not sure of the answer to that. We do have audits undertaken by ANAO, but I am not quite sure to what extent it is their choice or our specification. Senator SCHACHT—Can you take that on notice? Mr White—Yes, no problem. Senator SCHACHT—If there is any of this that you do not want to put back in the public domain, if you want to put it before the committee in camera in one form or another, you can go— CHAIR—It is not possible. Senator SCHACHT—I know that it is not possible for the estimates committee, but the legislative committee of this committee is able to take evidence in camera, as it is in ERCA as we have done with— CHAIR—You mean as a separate hearing? Senator SCHACHT—As a separate hearing, or the advice can come back and then be sent to us as members of the legislative committee of this committee. Mr White—Madam Chair, I would be very surprised if we could not answer the particular question that has been taken on notice. Senator SCHACHT—You cannot really explain those processes about how the audit office can sort out what they are able to audit, but is there within Defence some independent arrangement, separate from your division, that is able to move in and say, because they have all had classification and security clearances and goodness knows what else, that they can

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 578 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 check that the money is being properly expended and that the books are being audited—and if you are up to some hanky-panky they are able to point that out to you. Mr Lewincamp—Yes. The intelligence program is subject to our normal internal audit processes. The program expenditure is a normal part of our financial statements that are audited at the end of each year and that we sign off on. Senator SCHACHT—I am sorry, Mr Lewincamp, but could you speak a bit louder, please. Mr Lewincamp—I am sorry, I am losing my voice. The intelligence program is subject to our normal audit and financial processes within the department and we have suitably cleared officers who can conduct those processes. Senator SCHACHT—And they are outside the intelligence branch. Mr Lewincamp—Yes. They are. Senator SCHACHT—Their report is made available to the secretary to the department? Mr Lewincamp—Yes. The secretary signs off our financial statements each year. Senator SCHACHT—Is he the only one who has access to the complete reporting of the auditing of the intelligence branch? Mr Lewincamp—No. Under our normal audit processes internally, those would be available to the appropriate senior officers, which would include of course the program manager, in this instance the Chief of Defence Force. Senator SCHACHT—Mr Lewincamp, are you one of those? Mr Lewincamp—Yes. I sign the financial statements with the secretary each year. Senator SCHACHT—How many other officers have got access to that? Mr Lewincamp—I could not answer that question. Senator SCHACHT—Will you take that on notice? Mr Lewincamp—I am not sure what the point of the question is. Senator SCHACHT—The point of the question is I just want to find out. I am not trying to make a political point; I am just trying to get myself briefed. Sitting suspended from 7.52 p.m. to 7.58 p.m. Mr Lewincamp—Senator, in answer to your last question, somewhere between 10 and 20 people would have access to those documents. Senator SCHACHT—Have they access to those documents? Mr Lewincamp—The audit reports on the intelligence. Senator SCHACHT—What if an officer is found to have been carrying out some activity that is outside the rules and there has been some misappropriation or even some inefficiency that has affected the operation? Elsewhere in the public service, there are obviously some open and transparent arrangements—people can defend themselves, appeal, even get the union involved to represent them, et cetera. What happens in this area under the guise of secrecy? How does a person defend themself in relation to a report done by the auditor or by the general internal management? How can they defend themselves if they dispute a finding when they are not able to call on access to—if they have to—the normal public— Senator Newman—Senator, I understand there has been no change since the change in government in the procedures that were there before. Do you really want to go through all that again, when you have been the government until just very recently.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 579

Senator SCHACHT—Yes, I do. You pointed out to me, quite rightly, Minister, I was not the Minister for Defence. I have not been on this committee for five years and I am getting myself up to speed on this area. Senator Newman—Perhaps that is more appropriately by way of a briefing than by canvassing this. We are looking here at the budget of the government. This is hardly a budgetary measure. Senator SCHACHT—Hang on; this mob is spending $136 million. That is a fair whack of money. I am just asking what happens if it goes wrong. Do you even know about it, as Minister for Defence? What is the level of accountability? Even though the $136 million is secret—I was going to get to the question, because I do not know—I want to know about the accountability. If I choose to have a secret briefing, or just a briefing— Senator Newman—No, just a briefing, rather than have all these people sitting here while you are being briefed now. Senator SCHACHT—I am not being briefed now. I am just asking— Senator Newman—It is effectively what you are asking. Senator SCHACHT—I am just asking about the process. You have probably taken up more time than if I had actually finished on this one, because then I probably would have asked— Senator Newman—That would be impossible. You take up so much time. Senator SCHACHT—You are provoking me now, Minister. We will probably now be here tomorrow or Friday. Senator Newman—That’s how naughty boys behave! Go and stand in the corner! Senator SCHACHT—No, no. Just— CHAIR—Senator, I do not know whether it is possible for you to profitably pursue this line of questioning. Senator SCHACHT—Well, you never know your luck in a big city—or even a small city like Canberra. CHAIR—Well, I wouldn’t hold your hopes too high. By all means attempt it, but if you don’t get an answer— Senator SCHACHT—If both of you had shut up and let me ask my last three questions, I would have moved on. If you really want to provoke me I will keep you going right through to whenever you like. Senator Newman—That is just being stupid. You have a whole lot of witnesses here as to how childishly you are behaving, Senator. Senator SCHACHT—You just take Bronwyn Bishop. You didn’t worry when Bronwyn Bishop kept people going for three days, did you? Senator Newman—This is just a nonsense; this is not the budgetary— Senator SCHACHT—Just let me finish a couple of questions. We would have been finished by now. I just want to ask: how does that person get their protection in having their case heard. What are the arrangements that are different because of the secrecy of the intelligence section? Over to you, Mr White. Mr White—Madam Chair, there are two aspects to the answer of that question. The first is that people working in the intelligence function within the defence portfolio are public servants employed under the Public Service Act in a perfectly normal way—and members of

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 580 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 the ADF employed under the Defence Act normal defence force recruitment and personnel provisions. They therefore have the same rights and procedures as anybody else. In addition, where circumstances arise which make this more appropriate, they have access to the functions of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security as—I am not quite sure if this is the right word—an ombudsman to handle personnel issues and things that are difficult to handle through other processes because of security arrangements. They fall under the inspector general in that respect, as do people employed by the other intelligence agencies. Senator SCHACHT—Would it be automatic that on such issues the minister would be informed? If there was a problem with administration and some money was maladministered, or whatever, because of the sensitive nature of the division would a note normally go through to the minister? Mr White—We would, of course, inform the minister of anything which we believed had particular sensitivity—and, I guess, in particular, had the chance or likelihood of impacting on operational security or capability. As to what, beyond those considerations, the arrangements for notification of the minister of those sorts of cases are, I would not be the most expert person here to say. Senator SCHACHT—Thank you, that is all I have. CHAIR—We will now move on to program 8—Defence Personnel Executive. [8:04 p.m.] Program 8—Defence personnel executive CHAIR—Senator Hogg, do you have questions on this section? Senator HOGG—I just want a point of clarification before we start. We are looking at new program 8. What is the old program number? Vice Adm. Barrie—Program 1, and program 7, which is Budget and Management. Program 1, Forces Executive, covers ADF aspects; program 7 would cover civilian aspects. Senator HOGG—All right. I presume this is the correct place then to ask a question about a situation which would come about as a result of the efficiency review. Whilst it is specific to Army, I presume it could apply right across the services. Have any officers, either permanent or reserve, above the rank of colonel been sent letters seeking their views on voluntary redundancies as a result of the efficiency review? Brig. Dunn—I am the designate head of the defence personnel executive, responsible for setting up the new personnel organisation. The process at this stage is that consideration is being given to put into effect the reductions on senior officers by some 20 per cent, both military and civilians, and that process is under way at the moment. Senator HOGG—So I can presume from your answer that letters would have been sent to those above the rank of colonel, seeking their views on voluntary redundancies. Brig. Dunn—Madam Chair, at this stage we are in the process of putting together the new structures. Some officers have certainly been contacted with regard to their future. Senator HOGG—Do you have any indications of how many officers are likely to accept a voluntary redundancy at this stage? Brig. Dunn—As I said, we are moving to a 20 per cent reduction of senior officers—that is, colonel equivalent and above in the military and senior office and above on the civilian side.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 581

Senator HOGG—You did say though that some people had indicated that they may be interested. How many people are interested at this stage? As I understand it in the overall process under the defence efficiency review, we are looking at some 4,743 military personnel, of whom I understand 20 per cent—if that is correct— Brig. Dunn—Madam Chair, the military positions were clearly stated in the review as approximately half of that figure that you just quoted moving back into the combat force. The senior officers that you are referring to are collectively being reduced by the numbers that I have just given you. So we are not talking about that 4,700; we are talking about the 20 per cent of senior officers across the board brought about by the rationalisation, co-location and integration, and the formation of new structures. Senator HOGG—How many is that 20 per cent? How many people are we physically looking at? Brig. Dunn—I will seek advice on that. Vice Adm. Barrie—We would have to take the precise figures on notice. Senator HOGG—I will put up with a ballpark figure. Vice Adm. Barrie—There are two issues here. First, to my knowledge I do not think any officers above the rank of colonel have been written to and offered voluntary redundancies. The second issue is that the precise numbers have yet to be properly determined. They will be in the order—from my memory—of eight two-star officers and up to 15 or so one-star officers, but those numbers have not been finally determined with precision. Senator Newman—Madam Chair, I think we are covering old ground. It was a number of days ago now, but there were questions asked about this very area. I do not know whether you were here then, Senator—in some detail I might say. Senator HOGG—I think I might have been. I am just looking for some clarification to find out if people had been written to as opposed to— Senator Newman—I heard that question, which was new, but this question about going through the numbers of the 20 per cent I think has been aired. Senator HOGG—What I want to find out is how many people at this stage have indicated a preparedness to accept a redundancy. Are we being flooded with offers? Is it five, is it 10, is it 20? Or are people just sitting back waiting to see the structure as it unfolds? Vice Adm. Barrie—I think the answer to that is that that some people have embraced an offer of a voluntary redundancy quite willingly and some other people are still in a negotiating position. That is one of the reasons why I think we cannot answer with precision what the numbers look like right now. Let me just say though that the ADF is committed to achieving its 20 per cent reductions in senior officer numbers at colonel rank and above. Senator HOGG—So when could one expect a picture of what is happening to the numbers who are prepared to accept voluntary redundancies, as opposed to those who may well be requested to further consider their position. Vice Adm. Barrie—I think the final outcome of that deliberation would take us the next 12 months or so. Senator HOGG—So we would not be in a better position by additional estimates to know how many people are prepared to accept voluntary redundancy.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 582 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Vice Adm. Barrie—Certainly I expect some people by then will have accepted their redundancy packages, but the finalisation of the 20 per cent reductions will not be in place until July next year. Senator HOGG—I clearly understand that. I am not trying to get that. Will this entail then a blanket letter to those of the rank of colonel and above, inviting them to pursue a redundancy? I gather that that letter has not been sent at this stage. Brig. Dunn—Not to pursue a redundancy, but certainly everyone in the service in the senior officer ranks that we are talking about is well aware that there are going to be major restructurings, and everyone is being kept informed on all the new structures that are being put in place. Those structures stand up on 1 July and so there is a process of making sure that everyone is well aware of the changes that are occurring and the targets that are being set. Senator HOGG—The next issue I want to address briefly is the issue of recruitment and I presume this again is the correct place. What are the recruitment targets for the various services this year? Vice Adm. Barrie—I will invite the director-general of recruiting to respond to that question. Col. Margetts—The total target for this year for the regular force is 3,969. That is comprised of 1,229 navy targets, 1,983 army targets and 757 air force targets. Senator HOGG—Are all of those targets at the general entry level into the forces? Col. Margetts—Just let me clarify something, Senator: are you asking for the targets for the coming period, the new financial year? Senator HOGG—Yes. The new financial year. Col. Margetts—They are the ones I have given you. They are a combination of officer and general entry targets. They break down into the following: for Navy, 222 officers, 1,007 general entry; for Army, 425 officers, 1,458 general entry; and for Air Force, 358 officers, 399 general entry. Senator HOGG—Are we recruiting actively in all states, in all parts of Australia? Col. Margetts—Yes, we are. Senator HOGG—I heard recently of a case in Canberra where a member of the public was told in response to a call about recruitment for the army, that the army had stopped recruiting. Do we know if any of the services have stopped recruiting in any states or in any particular sectors? Col. Margetts—I would assume that would be for the current year targets as opposed to those next year targets. In relation to the current year targets, certainly in general entry for all three services the achievement for 1996-97 is in the mid-90 per cent range. If it was a general entry inquiry the inquirer could well have been told that the entries for this year are closed because of numbers and he could well have been directed to re-apply. Senator HOGG—That leads me on to this. Seeing you have got a recruitment figure there for the Air Force, how many of those being recruited are in the area of pilots? Do we know? Col. Margetts—As an indication, for 1996-97 the pilot target was 22 and that target for 1997-98 is 33 at this stage. Senator HOGG—Twenty-two last year, 33 this year. Col. Margetts—The coming year.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 583

Senator HOGG—Is that an indication that our retention bonus scheme is not working or is there a greater demand for pilots? Col. Margetts—I cannot answer that, Senator. We are responding to work force planning figures from the personnel managers, and they are the targets that we are required to achieve in that recruiting period. Senator HOGG—Just moving on to the issue of the retention bonus scheme, do we know how many pilots, for example, were offered the opportunity to access the scheme last year? Col Margetts—I do not know that, Senator. Mr Lewincamp—I can answer that question: 256 pilots took up the offer during 1996-97. That is our forecast outcome to the end of the financial year. Senator HOGG—How many are subject to that offer in 1997-98? Mr Lewincamp—We are estimating at the moment 136 will take up the offer. Senator HOGG—How will that see our strength in terms of operating the various aircraft that we need to operate? Mr Lewincamp—That is a question for Air Force. Senator HOGG—Is that really a question for Air Force? Mr Lewincamp—Yes, it is. Senator HOGG—If it cannot be answered, could someone take that on notice and give me some sort of response. Vice Adm. Barrie—We will take that question on notice. Senator HOGG—Can I take you to the PBS at page 91. Where would I find the retention benefit indicated in the figures there? There is an allowance made for the MSBS retention benefit. I understand what that element is. Am I unable to isolate the— Mr Lewincamp—Yes, you are unable to isolate it. It would be included in running costs, the top item on the page. Senator HOGG—How much would we spend on the retention benefit? Mr Lewincamp—Estimated for this next year, $15.6 million. Senator HOGG—Are there any other people subject to the retention bonus—other than maybe air traffic controllers—in the Defence Force? Vice Adm. Barrie—My understanding is that it is applicable to some pilots in Army and Navy. Senator HOGG—Would they all have the same scheme applied to them equally? Mr Lewincamp—Senator, the figures I gave you were for all three services. Senator HOGG—All right. On the issue of pilots, there was a report recently in one of the media, the Adelaide Advertiser of 28 November last year. It was header ‘Training plea to airlines over RAAF pilot exodus’. It said: Commercial airlines will be asked to help train Royal Australian Air Force pilots in a bid to keep the nation’s front line fighters in the air. The airlines would pay part of the $7 million in costs to train a fighter pilot under a concept revealed yesterday by the Defence Force Chief, General John Baker. Is that correct? Vice Adm. Barrie—That is correct in the sense that the ADF over the last year or so has been looking at conducting some of its flying training by contracting out. The airlines that are

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 584 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 referred to in that article sound to me like flying schools, as opposed to what we would call regular airlines. Army already use such a scheme to provide fixed wing flying training. Finalisation of a new approach to that should occur in the next few months. Senator HOGG—Is this going to see a greater contracting out of pilot training? Vice Adm. Barrie—The option is to contract out parts of the basic flying training where that makes sense on efficiency grounds. Senator HOGG—That would fall within the defence efficiency review necessarily? Vice Adm. Barrie—It would certainly help us with defence efficiency review outcomes but it was actually an initiative that was started last year. Senator SCHACHT—With the contracting out, would that involve employing, for example, some of those at the flying school that is at Parafield in South Australia, to do basic training? Vice Adm. Barrie—That is the sort of concept, Senator. I think the army use the flying school at Tamworth in New South Wales and I think are very satisfied with it. Senator HOGG—My next question concerns page 22 of the PBS. I presume this comes under this particular area. In the top table, just above items 181, 182, 183 and 184 there is an item that says ‘Grants to Independent Organisations and Individuals to Promote Defence Related Activities’. Did we have an explanation of that earlier? Mr Lewincamp—Yes, I gave an explanation of that last Tuesday. Senator HOGG—The next issue relates to ADF assistance with the purchasing of homes. Am I in the right area? Mr Lewincamp—Yes. Senator HOGG—I understand that there is assistance with expenses when purchasing a home. Is that correct? Vice Adm. Barrie—In certain circumstances, yes. Senator HOGG—What would those circumstances be? Vice Adm. Barrie—I will ask Air Vice Marshal Cox, the Assistant Chief of the Defence Force (Personnel), to respond. Air Vice Marshal Cox—There are two schemes presently available for assistance in home purchase for the ADF; one is the Defence Service homes loan and the other is a home owners scheme. Senator HOGG—I presume that under either of those schemes, a person purchasing a home is eligible to claim certain expenses. What expenses are they paid? Air Vice Marshal Cox—If you are looking for expenses, Senator, there is another arrangement, which is the home purchases and sales expenses allowance. In fact, the home owner scheme is assistance with mortgage arrangement, whereas the home purchases and sales expenses allowance is assistance with buying and selling costs. Senator HOGG—Sorry, that last one was titled? Air Vice Marshal Cox—Home purchases and sales expenses allowance—HPSEA. Senator HOGG—I knew you would have an acronym for it. I presume you would have to apply for the HPSEA if you buy and then you would have to apply separately if you sell.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 585

Air Vice Marshal Cox—Madam Chair, the aim of the HPSEA is to assist members who are mobile if they own their own homes. So if a person has their own home and is posted, they can claim some form of assistance with their rehousing. Senator HOGG—What would happen in the case—if I move to a specific case—of a person who did not get the assistance to purchase the home but was then given a posting, wherever it might be, and sought the assistance? Can someone get it without having first received the assistance to purchase the home or is there a precondition such as that? Air Vice Marshal Cox—There is a precondition, and I am just trying to recall which way it is. I think you have to own your own home before you can claim it for a subsequent use; There is not the assistance in the first instance. I think that is the way it is applied. But there are preconditions on how you can get assistance. Senator HOGG—There are preconditions? Air Vice Marshal Cox—Yes, there are. Senator HOGG—Could you take on notice a question asking for a response on what the preconditions are and how those conditions necessarily operate. The next question I would like to go to is the wonderful issue of EEO. Senator West would have loved to have been here this evening, but finds that she is unable to be here. Have there been any general compensation payments by way of references to HREOC or any other tribunals? Air Vice Marshal Cox—My understanding of the arrangement is that there are occasionally compensation payments made. These compensation payments, if and when they are made, remain confidential as part of the arrangement. It is not always obvious whether compensation payments have been made or not. Senator HOGG—Do we know how many such claims would have been settled in the last 12 months? Air Vice Marshal Cox—No, I do not. Senator HOGG—And we would not know which service those particular claims were to be found in. Air Vice Marshal Cox—Not to my knowledge. Senator HOGG—On the last occasion we met, I asked a question following on from a question Senator West had asked in February this year. I just want to go back for a moment to get a few things clarified. At the estimates hearing of 25 September 1996, Senator West asked: does the air force have any program comparable to the navy’s good working relations program? The answer that was given—and I will only read part thereof—was: The Air Force Equal Employment Opportunity Program Implementation Plan (the EEO PIP), which was introduced in 1994 is directly linked to actively fostering RAAF values throughout the Air Force and promoting the Air Force ‘One Team’ goal. It went on to say: The first PIP, which has a three-year time frame, involves three primary phases: education . . . training . . . and practising EEO... In the response at that stage it said: Specific EEO related content has been developed and incorporated in all Service officer and other rank education and training courses. In response to a question by Senator West on 27 February, we were advised—and this was in respect of the resignation of a person by the name of Katherine Williams—that the RAAF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 586 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 reserve legal officer was appointed to investigate the incident. We were then told that the investigation report concluded that no disciplinary or formal administrative action was warranted. Nevertheless, it identified the absence of a formal ongoing education program on equal employment opportunity. I then asked a question at the last supplementary additional estimates as to where you were with the program. I was informed that there was indeed another program in existence as well. I am just now, having got those three answers, a little bit confused about what actually is operating in terms of an EEO program within Air Force. This program that was said to have operated from 1994—is it still operating? As I understand, there is a second program which was to be implemented at RAAF Richmond during this year. I was given an indication that that second program had now taken off. Could I get an update, for the record, of where we are at with those two programs, please? Air Vice Marshal Cox—Madam Chair, the difficulty here is that those specific programs within the service program are not overarching policy issues which I can speak about from an ADF perspective under personnel. Senator HOGG—If that is the case, could those questions be taken on notice? I understood that this was the correct place to ask those. Vice Adm. Barrie—Yes; I think in the interests of getting you an accurate response it would be better to take that on notice and give you an up-to-date answer. Senator HOGG—In addition— Senator Newman—I think you are a victim perhaps also of the changes to the programs. Senator HOGG—We are all victims of that, Minister. Senator Newman—I am just trying to help you. I think in the future this will be the place, but I may not even be right. But at the moment this is the new program coming into being. Senator HOGG—The difficulty is to get the colour right. Senator Newman—I know what you are up to. Senator HOGG—Whilst we are on that tack—these can all be taken on notice—could I be given more details about the PIP scheme? What is the implementation time frame and on what basis it has now been conducted? Has it worked? If it has not worked, why has it not worked? Has there been any evaluation? In respect of the second program which was outlined on the last occasion as operating out of RAAF Richmond, is an assessment being made of that program? If so, when can we have some outcomes of the success or otherwise of that program? When were trained EEO contact officers first established throughout the RAAF? Moving on to the response that was given to the question taken on notice on 27 February, in that response it says: The investigation report concluded that no disciplinary or formal administrative action was warranted. Then it goes on to say in respect of the Katherine Williams case— Sitting suspended from 8.35 p.m. to 8.40 p.m. Senator WEST—I would like to follow on from where Senator Hogg had got to in relation to the Katherine Williams case. In the article it said that basically the investigation of the report concluded that no disciplinary or formal administrative action was warranted, yet in the article that appeared in the Sun-Herald the person alleges that ‘a male co-worker grabbed me from behind with both his arms and pressed his body against mine, and it happened again three

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 587 weeks later’. I would have thought that that type of activity was in one of the categorisations of sexual harassment. I find that at odds with the finding that no disciplinary or formal administrative action was required. Vice Adm. Barrie—I have not got the detail of the case. I would agree with you that if that was a substantiated affair, there would certainly be some concerns under sexual harassment or even sexual assault laws. But we would have to take it on notice to get a proper answer. Senator WEST—I am happy for you to do that, because it brings me to another question I asked in estimates about alleged cases at ADFA. The response I got is that some complaints had been referred to the AFP and one had been passed on to the DPP. But it talks about the complainants being unwilling to name the alleged offender and receiving extensive counselling, and in fact being referred to a rape crisis centre. This is in an answer that was given to me following on from the estimates of 27 February. You said that, with respect to the withdrawal of complaints, should a complainant choose not to proceed with their complaint, that choice does not leave the way open for the matter to be dealt with under the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act. A whole lot of the evidence in the Swan inquiry and a whole lot of material on Clare Burton and other material relating to sexual assault and harassment shows that in cases of sexual assault very few actually ever get to a court of law because the victim of the alleged assault becomes the victim every time they have to tell the story and every time it goes to court. Most of them just do not feel like facing that trauma again. I know that sexual assault is part of a continuum of harassment and abuse, starting with just the lewd comment, the unwelcome comment, and going right through to aggravated assault. In these sorts of cases, has Defence investigated the ability to look for a lesser charge to see if there has not been some other type of behaviour that, whilst it may not be sexual assault, certainly can be categorised as harassment and behaviour that is not acceptable to the Department of Defence or the Defence Force? CHAIR—Senator, do you have a question? Senator WEST—Yes. CHAIR—Would you please proceed to it. Senator WEST—What is Defence doing to ensure that in cases like this, where the complainant does not want to proceed with a full blown sexual assault case, for justifiably valid reasons, they are not missing out on activities and behaviour that is of a lesser severity but still warrants— Vice Adm. Barrie—As you may recall from the presentations on sexual harassment that I gave you, the first problem we face in any allegation of sexual assault is that it is a criminal behaviour. Therefore, it is a matter for the police and once that is brought to management’s attention there is no alternative under law but to refer it to the police. That, by itself, implies that in our management education program there are two principal things we need to do. Firstly, management has to keep its eyes and ears open to try to prevent those sorts of incidents occurring. Secondly, the manner in which sexual harassment, which is not a criminal behaviour, is managed within the Defence Force relies a lot on workplace management attention and, of course, victims knowing what they can have done about any unwelcome behaviours. Those imperatives are emphasised throughout the training programs. The problem we face is that where a sexual assault is initially alleged it gets handed to police. For all sorts of reasons, those issues are not proceeded with sometimes and it then puts

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 588 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 both the victims and the process in a very difficult situation of where to head next. To be frank, the best way to deal with it is to prevent it happening in the first place and that is part of the ongoing management education program. Senator WEST—I realise that. But is the Defence Force looking at the situation that will arise in probably 80 per cent of sexual assault cases whereby the victim does not wish to pursue the criminal code? Are you ensuring that they do have Defence Force disciplinary procedures that they can follow at a lesser— Vice Adm. Barrie—Our problem is that as soon as there is an allegation which constitutes a criminal behaviour, we are not in control to decide that we cannot proceed with it. It is a matter of law that it must be sent to the police for proper handling. Senator WEST—But, when the person withdraws that claim, is there any way that you can be looking at other forms of behaviour? Vice Adm. Barrie—Yes, we can and we do. Senator WEST—Did this happen in the ADFA cases? Vice Adm. Barrie—I cannot speak for the particulars of those cases. Senator WEST—If you have some pieces of paper that indicate that that is the normal practice, I would like to see those pieces of paper. Vice Adm. Barrie—Let me re-emphasise that where an allegation of sexual assault does not proceed through the police channels, and there are practices which are unacceptable behaviour by our standards, we do proceed to deal with those properly. Senator WEST—It just did not appear to happen in these particular cases. Vice Adm. Barrie—I cannot answer the particulars. Senator WEST—I want some idea that some procedures are in place to stop this from happening. It is an issue that not only the Defence force has to face but a lot of others have to face too. How do we stop alleged perpetrators from sliding out from underneath and getting away with it? Can someone give us an update on what is happening with the Tindal cases? I am sure the minister remembers those. Vice Adm. Barrie—I believe the matter still rests with the air force program. I do not have the knowledge. Senator WEST—These are ones that are now fitting between different categories. Senator Newman—We mentioned it before you came in. Air Vice Marshal McCormack—The Tindal incident that you are referring to is still with the Attorney-General’s Department. It is sub judice so we cannot say anything about it at the moment. Senator WEST—How long has it been there? Air Vice Marshal McCormack—A long time. Senator WEST—Yes, I know, because the statute of limitations for the Defence Force Disciplinary Act has well and truly expired. That is something that I recall a previous senator being very concerned about at estimates. Air Vice Marshal McCormack—The last we had was some advice coming from Attorney- General’s on the next step. That is all. There is no finalisation of that incident yet.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 589

Senator WEST—The incident happened many years ago. It has to be closer to four years ago because the Defence Force statute of limitations has expired. CHAIR—Do you have another question, Senator? Senator SCHACHT—I am not aware of the details of this particular case but is it true that the actual incident took place four or five years ago? Air Vice Marshal McCormack—It was 3 October 1993. Senator SCHACHT—Has air force put a rocket into Attorney-General’s to say, ‘This is dragging on. Are there any reasons why there is a delay in preparing a case or a finalisation of whether a prosecution should be launched?’ Air Vice Marshal McCormack—There has been a lot of correspondence between Attorney- General’s and air force on this matter. Senator SCHACHT—You said it is sub judice. Has someone actually been charged? Air Vice Marshal McCormack—No, we are awaiting advice from the Attorney-General’s on where to go from here. Senator SCHACHT—If no-one has been charged, how can it be sub judice? You said it is sub judice, I may not have the legal definition, I am not a lawyer— Air Vice Marshal McCormack—I may have it wrong too. Vice Adm. Barrie—It does sound to me like this is another one of those issues where the detail is going to be very important, and we need to get this right. I have some information here that says there was an initiative at the end of April on our part to try and get closure, without success. I think the detail would be better answered on that. Senator Newman—It is not just a question of criminal sanctions, it is a question of civil law as well. I am intervening to alert you to that. Vice Adm. Barrie—It is compensation on liability as I understand; that is the big issue. Senator SCHACHT—Are you waiting advice from Attorney-General’s as to whether a prosecution should be launched? Vice Adm. Barrie—We need to get advice from Attorney-General’s as to the Commonwealth’s position in terms of liability and what we ought to do. It is getting that advice which is holding up proceedings. We tried in April to get an answer on that matter but we still have not received one. Senator SCHACHT—I am sorry I come to this matter with no previous knowledge but every time you give me an answer I think of two more questions. Does that mean that the defence forces have accepted some liability and that therefore you are asking what compensation may be paid? Have you accepted liability? Vice Adm. Barrie—No. My understanding is that when the issue of liability arose, the Ombudsman’s report said the Commonwealth should fight the issue of liability. There is a whole sequence of authorities playing in the issue of whether the Commonwealth is liable in any sense and that matter is now with the Attorney-General. I think the reason that it is such a complex issue would be better taken on notice. Senator SCHACHT—It is separate from the issue of compensation. I do not know what the incident at Tindal was, someone performed a criminal act against somebody or whatever. Senator West might be able to help me later. Is there a possibility that someone could be charged under some various law of Australia for criminal activity?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 590 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Vice Adm. Barrie—My understanding is that the criminal activity issues, which first arose back then, have been resolved. The issue now is one of liability and compensation for other matters. Senator SCHACHT—Was someone found guilty or not guilty? Vice Adm. Barrie—I am not in a position because I do not remember the outcome. Senator WEST—I do not think it has got that far yet; has it? Vice Adm. Barrie—No. Senator SCHACHT—So it has not got to court. No-one has even been charged for a criminal act? Air Vice Marshal McCormack—That is true, no-one has been charged. Senator SCHACHT—So we are trying to determine— Senator Newman—But there have been a couple of inquiries, not only the Ombudsman’s. It is a terribly complicated issue. If you really want to follow it, go back and read the Hansard of some of the estimates. I really do not know that you are going to get very far by trying to go through this now. Senator SCHACHT—The officer at the table used the word sub judice but, if there is not a court case, I do not think that applies. Vice Adm. Barrie—Again, we would have to wait to see the detail. My understanding is that there is a claim which has been laid against the Commonwealth and against which the Commonwealth is getting its advice. It is the complexity of the case and the involvement of the ombudsman on at least two occasions which has confounded resolution. Senator WEST—And there has been disagreement between— Senator SCHACHT—But that claim has been lodged against the Commonwealth even though someone has not been charged or found guilty under either military law or civil law for some illegality. Is that correct? Vice Adm. Barrie—I do not know the answer to that question because the criminal behaviours were resolved some time ago. Senator SCHACHT—When you say it was resolved, did they go to gaol? Did someone get penalised? Senator Newman—No, nobody has been charged, you have been told that. Perhaps Senator West could give you a briefing after! Senator SCHACHT—Okay. I will quietly retire back here and read a book. CHAIR—Are there any further questions on program 8? Senator WEST—Yes, please. I am interested to know what the future is for some of your EEO and service good working relationships programs are, given that this is now going to become purple rather than blue, white and green. Vice Adm. Barrie—It will be managed under the personnel executive and the head of personnel executive designate will be very pleased to answer the question, Senator. Brig. Dunn—We will be bringing those organisations together into an integrated structure. The aim of that is to actually provide, as with all of the new structures, a much better service throughout the whole of the ADF and, indeed, into the civilian work force as well. It will

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 591 give us the opportunity to ensure consistent policies in the first instance, and it should continue at an accelerated pace the improvements that have been occurring over a number of years. Senator WEST—Does that mean you will be looking at the implementation of some of the recommendations out of the Burton report? Brig. Dunn—Most certainly. Senator WEST—So I can start to ask you in August what is happening with those, can I? Brig. Dunn—Yes. Senator WEST—As you are only designate, I do not want to pre-empt something that people tell me is too early to ask you yet. Concerning good working relations, was that going to be up for review after three years? Vice Adm. Barrie—In the broadest of contexts, I think good working relations is up for review all the time. In that sense let me say that only recently we have been making some changes to the fundamental instructions and the way they apply to cover issues such as staff- student relationships and other matters like that. Senator WEST—How is the implementation of a single personnel policy going to impact upon the programs within the three services, because I do not think you could say they are all at the same level? Brig. Dunn—Are you asking that directly in relation to good working relations and other EEO issues? Senator WEST—Yes. The navy has had good working relations plus everything else working for some time now. Air force, from some of the stuff we have had, is still introducing things. And I have not asked army precisely what army is up to. Brig. Dunn—The impact of the new structure will be to take from all of the programs those areas where there have been particular successes and to transport them very much more rapidly into the other programs. You are right, there have been differences in approach across all the programs. By bringing them together and actually co-locating and integrating those staffs, we will be able to pull best practice from each of those and deploy that right across the ADF. Senator WEST—I have had a complaint from a female soldier who is now no longer in the army. At the local unit level that she was at, the sexual harassment army training—it could not be the equivalent of good working relations—was done with role plays. It was treated as a joke, as a bit of a laugh because it was almost like a Rugby mock wedding type of thing where the males were role-playing females. She was very critical of it for several reasons: she felt uncomfortable because it was treated by the males as a joke; they did not behave the way that females normally behaved; and, to cap it off, the unit photographer was there taking photos and they appeared in the year book. Do you know of that sort of thing happening? Brig. Dunn—I cannot answer that question in terms of that specific incident. Obviously, that is not something that we would condone. Indeed, the new structure, coming back to the point of your initial question, is designed to put more horsepower into the whole policy and training focus. We cannot guarantee instantly that that will permeate the whole of the ADF. Similarly, that cannot be guaranteed in any other civilian workplace or the like. But should that incident be raised, then that would not be condoned. Senator WEST—Do the units have their own annual year books or some sort of magazine for each year?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 592 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Brig. Dunn—Some units do. It is not something that will occur in every unit. It depends on the focus of the unit. Senator WEST—That was where this person said that the photos ended up and they were all captioned. She just felt that they were inappropriate. Maybe a tip is to have a look at some of the units. Vice Adm. Barrie—Certainly, we would all sympathise with that. If we had the right climate, young women who felt like that would be able to say so and have something done about it. It is unacceptable behaviour by any description that we would use. The trick, of course, is to make sure they can get management’s attention to get that problem solved. Senator WEST—Is the 1800 number still in use? Vice Adm. Barrie—I think it is. Brig. Dunn—Yes, it is, Senator. Senator WEST—Whereabouts is it displayed? Brig. Dunn—The numbers are displayed in various locations throughout units—orderly rooms and the like. Senator WEST—Again, when I talked about the 1800 number, I just got a blank face. She did not know about the 1800 number. Vice Adm. Barrie—I would have to check. I think that it is also in the service newspapers and those sorts of areas as well. Senator WEST—I thought that it had been too, but I had not seen any in recent times. It was an issue that was of concern to me. I was talking to someone who was now a former soldier with at least two years in the army, who did not go in as an 18-year-old recruit, who did not know the 1800 number, who thought it might have been in the orderly room but, certainly, was not in a position to access that easily in a situation where she could do it confidentially and privately. Brig. Dunn—She can access it. The issue here is actually getting the number. There is no requirement for her to access it in the orderly room. It is displayed in various places throughout units—in newspapers, brochures and the training literature that is circulated. The fact that she did not get to it would point to an area that perhaps needs to be looked at—but they are very definitely in place and functioning. Senator WEST—I was most concerned when she said she did not know there was a 1800 number. I had assumed that somebody of her length of service would have certainly known about it. In relation to progress of personnel, do you monitor the progress of all the students of merit? If you have students of merit, do you monitor their progress after they have done a course? Brig. Dunn—It is really a question for training. However, those records are retained. They form part of the dossier on that person. Quite clearly, students of merit would have that raised when they are considered for appointments, promotions and the like. Senator WEST—Do you know how many of your students of merit are getting out early or getting out at the bare minimum of their service time? Brig. Dunn—I cannot answer that question. Senator WEST—The person I have been referring to was a student of merit who ended up going AWOL, I think, before she got out. Her unit was having difficulty accessing further training and that sort of thing.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 593

Brig. Dunn—There are many different categories of students of merit. By that I mean there are various courses in which hard work is rewarded with that title or something similar to it. It would depend on, in terms of the import of that categorisation, what course that was awarded on. Senator WEST—The first course after their post basic, when they are sent out to the specialty area. CHAIR—Senator West, if you could frame your questions as questions, rather than comments, I think it would speed the process up. Senator WEST—Thank you Madam Chair. I would presume that that was a level at which you would be wanting to monitor their careers, because it is the first major hurdle out of— Brig. Dunn—Students of merit are important people. The records do mean something and that is taken into account when their career progressions are being developed. Senator WEST—How many of your students of merit leave after less than three years or leave at three years? Brig. Dunn—As I said before, I cannot answer that question. Senator WEST—What can you tell us about people who are separating from the ADF in a very short period after they have joined? Are you monitoring those separations? Brig. Dunn—Yes, we do monitor separations, but in particular, what aspect do you wish to question, Senator? Senator WEST—With your students of merit and those that would have been categorised as high fliers very early in the piece, how many of those are not lasting particularly long distances? If you are looking at separations, I would have thought that was one of the things you would have been monitoring when people were separating. Brig. Dunn—As you are well aware, there are many things that go to cause a separation to occur and we do monitor those. We conduct separation surveys and the like. Vice Adm. Barrie—If I get the drift here, management would always be concerned when a very good student, for whatever reason, decides to leave the ADF because frankly, that is our future. It might be helpful in this particular case, because I sense there is a case that needs to be looked at here, if we could get some details and give you a proper answer to why these things happen. Senator WEST—I am happy to do that. Vice Adm. Barrie—I just recognise there might be some privacy issues here. It might be better off-line outside the committee process. Senator WEST—That is why I am trying to be cautious too and generalise it. Vice Adm. Barrie—I honestly think, if we are able to, we could look at the whole case and then come back to you. Senator WEST—The person is now no longer with the ADF. You have lost here. Vice Adm. Barrie—That probably does not matter. If it is a name that needs to be protected, then we should do that. Senator WEST—Yes. The other thing that I can recall that came out of Swan was that females should not be posted to areas on their own. Can people assure me that women are not being posted to places on their own, such as army ground crews for the helicopters? Where there are women, are there more than one woman? If the three forces can tell me, are there

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 594 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 postings being undertaken where women are being sent in isolation to postings and to units? I am happy for you to take that one on notice. Senator Newman—Madam Chair, could I just intervene at this stage? We have got a lot of programs left and I presume you are going to close down at 11 p.m. CHAIR—Yes, I am. Senator Newman—Can we get an indication if there are any programs that will not have any questions, so that we could let officers go and get a better idea for planning for the remainder? CHAIR—It has been indicated that there are questions on each remaining program. Senator Newman—Are we nearly finished program 8? Senator HOGG—No, not at all. CHAIR—I would remind you that we have less than two hours and I will be adjourning at 11 o’clock as the program indicates. Senator SCHACHT—Adjourning till when? CHAIR—I am adjourning the committee tonight at 11 o’clock. Senator SCHACHT—If we haven’t finished, do we come back at a later stage this week? CHAIR—No. We have already got one extension, Senator. I am most unwilling to get another one. However, this is not the place to argue that. We will proceed with program 8. Senator SCHACHT—I have some questions related to the Black Hawk tragedy near Townsville and the decision of the Minister of Defence, Industry, Science and Personnel, Mrs Bishop, about the new military compensation scheme. I take it from the statement that Senator Bishop has put out that approval of the new increases in compensation will require an amendment to the Defence Act. compensation. Is that correct? Vice Adm. Barrie—I believe that is correct. Senator SCHACHT—Is the Defence Act being amended because you want to separate it from the civilian side? According to the remarks of Mrs Bishop, there are special and peculiar circumstances for service personnel different from others in the public sector and public service. Therefore, the way to separate that from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is to amend the Defence Act rather than that act. Is that correct? Vice Adm. Barrie—No, I do not think that is the intent. My understanding is that it was the Defence Act which is to be amended as opposed to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, which applies to people who return from operational service. Mr Neumann—The defence— Senator SCHACHT—Where are you from? Mr Neumann—From compensation, rehabilitation and superannuation. Senator SCHACHT—Just out of curiosity, are you actually in program 8 or are you in transition from somewhere to somewhere? Mr Neumann—I will be from 1 July. Senator SCHACHT—Where are you now? Mr Neumann—I am in the old program 7, which is Budget and Management, but I deal with compensation.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 595

Senator SCHACHT—In dealing with compensation, do you have any involvement with the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988? Mr Neumann—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—Excuse my ignorance, but is that a purely Defence piece of legislation or is that general? Mr Neumann—No, that applies to civilian public servants as well. Senator SCHACHT—Civilian public servants, but you look after it as far as it affects Defence, both service— Mr Neumann—No. Civilians in the Department of Defence are under the SRCA, but they are dealt with by Comcare. Military—ADF—members are dealt with by my staff under delegation from Comcare. Senator SCHACHT—Okay, very clever. Senator Newman—Well, isn’t it? Senator SCHACHT—Absolutely. Senator Newman—That is the way you do that. Senator SCHACHT—I just want to make sure about the amendment to the Defence Act to establish this special arrangement and special compensation for the service personnel. If it requires an amendment to the Defence Act, do we have to wait till the Defence Act is amended by parliament before this increased compensation can be paid? Mr Neumann—The advice we received from the Attorney-General’s Department is that we can probably use section 58B of the Defence Act as it is. Senator SCHACHT—To pay the increase? Mr Neumann—To pay the increase. But there are two aspects to this. The first aspect is that the Black Hawk people are paid under ex gratia payment—there is specific mention of that—and then any others, going back to 7 April 1994, will be paid on application under the Defence Act. Senator SCHACHT—So the unfortunate Black Hawk victims will get theirs as an ex gratia payment approved by the finance minister? Mr Neumann—Automatically, ex gratia. We are in the process of requesting an advance from the Minister for Finance. Senator SCHACHT—When the money is paid as an ex gratia payment, will he pay that out of his line or will you refund that later on out of your own appropriation? Mr Neumann—The decision is that Defence will actually fund these additional payments. Whether they are paid under the Defence Act or as for the Black Hawk people, Defence will fund this portion of it. Normal SRC payments are below the line items. Senator SCHACHT—But the finance minister has to approve these ex gratia payments to the Black Hawk people? Mr Neumann—We have to have an authority against which we can pay. Senator SCHACHT—And that is the authority you are going to get from the finance minister? Mr Neumann—Yes.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 596 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator SCHACHT—Would that ex gratia payment be paid out of a finance department fund and would you then refund it at a later stage? Or are you going to send the money over first, and then the minister signs it off and sends it back? Mr Lewincamp—The previous arrangement was that Defence funded those payments and then was supplemented for that by the Department of Finance. The government decision on this occasion is that the increased cost as a result of this last decision will be borne by Defence. So we will absorb the cost of that within our outlays. Senator SCHACHT—And how long do we expect it will take for these ex gratia payments to the Black Hawk victims to be paid? Mr Neumann—As soon as we can get the appropriate cover for it. We are already in the process of getting— Senator SCHACHT—The ‘appropriate cover’? Mr Neumann—We need to get the appropriate authority against which to make the payments and we would just— Senator SCHACHT—That is the finance minister’s signature? Mr Neumann—Yes. And then we will do that— Senator SCHACHT—And you have got that paperwork shuffling through the system with great speed at the moment, have you? Mr Neumann—We hope it is with great speed, yes. Senator SCHACHT—I think everyone else hopes it is with great speed. Can we anticipate these people being paid within a month? Mr Neumann—If it all goes smoothly, I do not see why not. Senator SCHACHT—Fine. How was the term ‘severe injury’, which is used in the minister’s statement, defined? There was some mention of quadriplegics and paraplegics. Mr Neumann—It concerned paraplegia, quadriplegia or like injuries, and 80 per cent whole- person impairment. Senator SCHACHT—I presume there is a definition of ‘whole person’. Senator WEST—Is there a sliding scale on that? Mr Neumann—It is in the Comcare guidelines. Senator WEST—What a finger, leg, toe or the whole bit is worth! Senator SCHACHT—Does it include subsequent conditions developing, such as stress, et cetera? Mr Neumann—No. The people we are really talking about are generally those who will have physical injuries, I think, to get to that 80 per cent mark. Senator SCHACHT—But if someone has a physical injury of only 30 per cent—which is probably still pretty severe for most of us—but subsequently it is shown that their life has been dramatically affected in some form or other by that injury and they develop stress and other associated psychological problems which affect their ability to get a job and live a normal life, are they then able to appeal anywhere to prove the case? Mr Neumann—They can come back for reconsideration. I do not think someone at 30 per cent will actually get up to the 80 per cent mark. Senator SCHACHT—Okay. Let us make it 50.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 597

Mr Neumann—But if you were at the 70 per cent mark, you might be able to get up to 80. Senator SCHACHT—Who does the appeal in this case? Mr Neumann—There is a reconsiderations delegation in my area already, under the SRCA. An initial decision is made and, if people are unhappy, they can come back for reconsideration internally. The delegate who has actually done the initial consideration, obviously, normally does not do the reconsideration. Ultimately, if they are still unhappy, they can go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senator SCHACHT—The minister has stated, and it is retrospective from— Mr Neumann—From 7 April 1994. Senator SCHACHT—That is when the other act was amended. What arrangements are going to be put into place so that those claims from others, other than the Black Hawk incident, can be assessed from this period going back to 1994? Mr Neumann—The decision was made that that would be by application, so it is up to the applicant to apply. Senator SCHACHT—Do we have any idea, because of the number of accidents from 1994 until the present time that have occurred in the defence forces, of how many potential applicants there would be? Mr Neumann—We do not have a precise figure, but in the working group report we have used five severely injured, as an average, per annum. In one year you might get none, and in another year you might get 10. Senator SCHACHT—So you have just done a statistical analysis? You have not gone back and checked the records, saying, ‘In May 1995, an F18 disappeared’? One F18 did disappear, unfortunately. So is that family eligible for increased compensation for that F18 that disappeared in Cape York somewhere? Mr Neumann—Depending upon the date. If it was after 7 April 1994, yes, they would get the increased death benefit. Senator SCHACHT—But you have done no analysis to go back and check your own records in Defence of these series of accidents— Mr Neumann—The records we used, in fact, were Comsuper records to do the statistical analysis because that was the best source. But we have not used this definition before. The way our records are structured is that we would not easily be able to pull out those who are likely to meet the 80 per cent whole person impairment. At the moment, the records are distributed around Australia. Senator SCHACHT—There is no central record in Defence itself of these— Mr Neumann—The medical records are held by each service, and the delegations are held within each state capital and in a few other centres. If people move, for example, from Victoria to Queensland, they move to the Brisbane office from the Melbourne office. Senator SCHACHT—Is there not a data system of information on this? Mr Neumann—No. We are working on developing a comprehensive data system but there is not one up and running at the moment, and we have not used this definition before. So there would have been no marking of them even if we had had a central base—

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 598 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator SCHACHT—I know your definition is about 80 per cent, but put it around the other way: do you not have a list somewhere so that each of the services at least can pull them out of their own data system, even though they are not all connected and working in an integrated way? Could you not say to the three services, ‘Provide us with a list of all the serious accidents you had, where people have been killed or very seriously injured, going back to 1994’? It seems odd that you cannot do so. Mr Neumann—I do not believe there is one. The other thing is, it is not just simply being killed, it has got to be killed in compensable circumstances. Somebody who is off duty and gets killed is not covered, so you have got that other element. The services can provide you with the number of deaths that have occurred. Senator SCHACHT—But haven’t the services kept records, separating someone who is on leave or at home and unfortunately gets killed in a car accident, and someone working at loading an army truck where the truck backs over them and kills them? Surely you must have some record of that. Vice Adm. Barrie—They are the rather obvious ones, Senator, and I am sure the services have those records. The only factor I would raise, in terms of knowing precisely those, are some of the cases I am aware of where a deterioration in circumstances has occurred after departure from the service and it is handled under different arrangements. I refer there particularly to those who end up with psychological and other sorts of traumas. Senator SCHACHT—Mr Neumann, you are saying that, on average, from the statistical analysis through Comsuper that there might be about five a year— Mr Neumann—Severely injured, and 13 deaths in compensable circumstances. Senator SCHACHT—What does it add up to if they all claim the extra compensation, which I would be surprised if they did not? Mr Neumann—Probably about $2 million a year. Senator SCHACHT—For each of those years? Mr Neumann—When you go back it would be extra. Senator SCHACHT—And that appropriation will be in a supplementary appropriation for the extra $6 million or $8 million for these last three or four years? Mr Lewincamp—We will not be supplemented for those additional costs. Senator SCHACHT—You won’t be? Where is the money? Mr Lewincamp—We will offset that within defence outlays. We will find the money. Senator SCHACHT—Why did you not provide those savings anyway as part of a good, efficient, administered service? Suddenly something new has turned up so you say, ‘Oh well, we’ll be able to find that anyway as a further saving.’ Mr Lewincamp—It was a government decision that we find the cost of it. Senator SCHACHT—It was a government decision? Mr Lewincamp—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—I see. I am sorry. I am not blaming you then, Mr Lewincamp. It is the meanness of this government which imposes it. What would it be; between $6 million and $8 million if everybody claimed on the statistical analysis? Mr Lewincamp—Something of that order and then about $2 million a year ongoing.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 599

Senator SCHACHT—Ongoing? Mr Lewincamp—Yes. Sitting suspended from 9.26 p.m. to 9.43 p.m. CHAIR—We will have further questions on program 8, please. Senator WEST—In this provision for child care initiatives of $514,000, I would like to know what those initiatives are and where we are likely to see more child care centres and what sorts of hours they are going to be operating. I am happy for it to come on notice. Air Vice Marshal Cox—I can probably give you some of the answers here. The additional funding being used has brought new child care initiatives, such as before and after school care, vacation care and limited hours care, and it is expanding the opportunities for families to put their children in care. Senator WEST—Okay. Can you give me some details about the locations and numbers please? I would appreciate that. I take it that it has been very popular? Air Vice Marshal Cox—Yes. I believe so. Senator WEST—On the same page, page 25, and then over to page 27, in relation to the reclassification of family service functions to grants to independent organisations and individuals, there is minus $600,000 on page 25 and a plus $600,000 on page 27. Could I have some details about that please? Mr Lewincamp—I recall answering that question last week. It was done after a discussion with the Department of Finance. They would prefer to see that under the classification of grants, so we have moved it out— Senator WEST—Okay. Are the family service organisation grants annual affairs? Air Vice Marshal Cox—Family support funding? Senator WEST—Yes. Air Vice Marshal Cox—They are annual. The process takes place around this period for the subsequent year. Senator WEST—I am sorry, there is a conversation taking place nearby, I missed the last. Air Vice Marshal Cox—The bids are called for on an annual basis. Senator WEST—When are the bids called for? Air Vice Marshal Cox—The bids were called for in April and they are being processed now for payment in the next financial year. Senator WEST—Do you know when they are going to be announced? Air Vice Marshal Cox—That will be at the discretion of the minister. Senator WEST—And the criteria for the allocation, has that changed at all? Air Vice Marshal Cox—It is various. They must be worthwhile and useful programs which will assist ADF families and spouses. Senator WEST—So there is no additional funding to that? Air Vice Marshal Cox—There was some additional funding. The amount of money went up from a potential maximum of $20,000 to a maximum of $50,000. Senator WEST—But the global budget, that $600,000, that has not been increased? Mr Lewincamp—It has almost doubled.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 600 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Vice Adm. Barrie—An amount of $1.3 million has been allocated in the next budget year and applications for grants closed on 30 April. Senator WEST—I will have to wait until the grants come out to ask for a breakdown of where they are. Thank you. Senator HOGG—I would like to go through Audit Report No. 34, ‘Australian Defence Force Health Services’. I would like to find out where we are with some of the recommenda- tions. Vice Adm. Barrie—I will ask the Surgeon General Australian Defence Force, Air Vice Marshal Moller, to come to the table. Senator HOGG—This report was tabled on 27 May. Just in broad overview, how does this particular report dovetail in with Report of the Defence Efficiency Review and the DRP? Air Vice Marshal Moller—It dovetails quite nicely with many of the DER recommenda- tions simply because both of those inquiries were running concurrently. The ANAO report was being done virtually at the same time as the DER process. Senator HOGG—I am going to go through a number of these recommendations because I want a brief indication of where we are at and where we are going in respect of a number of these particular recommendations. Starting with recommendation 1, it refers there to establishing the minimum level of health services resources essential to meet military operational requirements. Have we established those levels? I understand this was only handed down on 27 May, but given that the DER was operating prior to that, have we actually established these levels yet? Air Vice Marshal Moller—Not as yet, Senator, that is currently a process that is going on right now. Senator HOGG—When will we see those levels available? Vice Adm. Barrie—My guess is it will certainly be completed by the end of this year. Senator HOGG—That is looking at the combined services, I would presume, not as a minimum level of health services by service. Air Vice Marshal Moller—No, all ADF members. Senator HOGG—So it is collective. Recommendation 2 states that defence assess the merits and possible implications of a member contribution for any health services additional to those required. Has this been part of an ongoing process, or is this a new process? Air Vice Marshal Moller—That, to my understanding, is a new process and it really will be with the new personnel executive for that to be determined. Senator HOGG—So that particular recommendation would not have been commenced yet whereas recommendation 1 would have? Air Vice Marshal Moller—Correct. Senator HOGG—Recommendation 3 refers to giving a higher priority to the development and implementation of common standards and processes associated with ADF health care. Has that been implemented and why a higher priority? Brig. Dunn—The Defence Health Service, as it is known, has been put in place as part of the new Defence personnel executive. That will see the common focus and the ability to either accelerate or extend limits and levels throughout the whole of the ADF in a consistent fashion.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 601

Senator HOGG—Will we be able to see the cost benefits coming out of this process reflected in your reports? Brig. Dunn—Yes. The whole exercise of establishing the Defence Health Service, both from a DRP perspective and from the ANAO report, will lead us down to a structure that allows exactly that to occur. Senator HOGG—Given that we are in a transitional stage, and I understand that, how will we as senators on this estimates committee be able to recognise where the benchmarks are, where you have started from and where you are going to end up? Brig. Dunn—By an examination of the budget figures presented. Senator HOGG—But will it be clear so that we do not have to read between copious numbers of lines to find the answer? That has been the problem with this whole exercise to date. Brig. Dunn—On previous questions, on previous nights, we have dealt with a similar issue. The purpose of establishing the Defence Health Service, which is going to be a unique organisation, is to allow us to more accurately predict our costs of delivery of health care and to monitor the changes of new initiatives. Senator HOGG—Let us move to recommendation 7. It says Defence should review the attraction and retention of medical and dental officers and examine the present medical officer structure. Am I to assume that that proposes changes to the structure? Air Vice Marshal Moller—It has to be taken in context because it reads on to include the employment of specialist medical officers and promotion in the general practice, in that sense. Senator HOGG—I did not read on but, in that sense, will there be a change in the structure? Air Vice Marshal Moller—That is being addressed now. I cannot say there will be. That issue is being addressed at this time. Senator HOGG—What are our attraction and retention rates for medical and dental officers? You can take that on notice. Air Vice Marshal Moller—In terms of the shortfall, as was said in a previous hearing, the greatest is in the captain equivalent rank level in the army. At the major equivalent level, or the squadron leader level, it is in the air force. The navy staffing for medical officers is reasonable. The army has the significant shortfall at the captain level and the air force has a shortfall at the squadron leader level. The focus has primarily been on attracting medical officers to join the force and, coincident with that, there are other retention issues, again, being addressed. If you want the exact numbers, I can give you those. Senator HOGG—I will take those on notice. I would prefer to get through to the other questions. Let us move to recommendation 9. It refers there to undertaking a detailed costing of all ADF hospitals and medical centres. I would imagine that that in itself is an enormous task if it has not already been undertaken. At what stage are we at there? Air Vice Marshal Moller—It has not been undertaken for some years. It was last undertaken in the 1980s. We will probably have to get external consultants to assist in that regard. We do not have the expertise to do that, I do not believe. Senator HOGG—When can we expect this to, I presume, go out to tender to consultants? Air Vice Marshal Moller—If it goes to a consultant, certainly it would have to do that.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 602 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Brig. Dunn—There will be priorities laid down once the new defence health service is established to identify the key cost drivers. Those priorities will be applied to determine the figures that we need to do our forward projections on in the future. Senator HOGG—I thank you for that answer because what I am trying to establish is the relevance of the ANAO report to what you are doing in the DRP. What I am trying to establish is whether or not we are going to lose some of the ANAO recommendations or will they gain a lesser priority as a result of this massive change that seems to be taking place. Vice Adm. Barrie—I think from my perspective I can alleviate any fears you have there. In my view that ANAO report which we have had for just a few weeks now certainly establishes some performance measures against the performance in the personnel executive and what we need to achieve over the next year to 18 months. Senator HOGG—One could really view some of these recommendations as the criteria to be achieved by Defence? Vice Adm. Barrie—Absolutely. The difficulty I think we have got is, with all the other priorities for change going on at the moment, that anticipating when we might let a contract to a consultant to do that particular work is a little difficult. But certainly we have to do that work because we have to seek the efficiencies from the health system that we want to feed back into the processes. Senator HOGG—That is why I am trying to link all of this together. If I can then move to recommendation 11, the ANAO report refers there to examining the cost and benefits of either contracting out pathology services or centralising the conduct of all routine pathology screening in an existing ADF laboratory. I would assume, again, that has not started. Is that the sort of exercise that would be put out to consultants? Air Vice Marshal Moller—No. I think that will be an issue that is market tested with the CSP, the staff in the department and that will be a standard market testing of that particular function. Senator HOGG—Are there any disadvantages to outsourcing that type of arrangement? Air Vice Marshal Moller—The way that reads it may be taken as all encompassing. The intent of the recommendation is for routine pathology not pathology that supports in-patients within ADF facilities. The only risk would be if you contracted out pathology that you required in the support of patients in your own facilities. That refers to routine pathology. Senator WEST—It is not meant to apply in situations where you have got an army medical field hospital bringing in critically injured and you need haemoglobin and all that sort of stuff done? Air Vice Marshal Moller—No. Not at all. In fact the exercise of field equipment and the training on that equipment is fundamental to our operational role. Senator WEST—That is what I would have thought. I thought that looked like it was at cross purposes with what that role should be. Senator HOGG—I take you over to page 20, recommendation 12, which talks about developing systems to monitor and control all expenditure. Is this a new IT system to be developed? If so, is it being developed in-house? Brig. Dunn—There is a current project running. This must now also be included in the purview of an overall information system for HR and financial activities.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 603

Senator HOGG—If it is an existing program will it have to be modified as a result of the changes that are being brought about? Brig. Dunn—I would expect so, Senator. Senator HOGG—Will that be an additional cost? Brig. Dunn—I would expect to find that the net result will be greater efficiency rather than greater cost. Senator HOGG—Recommendation 13 refers to examining the health services provided to the civilian community by the ADF in order to determine those circumstances in which costs should be recovered and to develop and implement effective cost recovery procedures. Can I assume this is going to be one of those that will be outsourced to a consultant or is that already proceeding? Air Vice Marshal Moller—There is an element of cost recovery already and the recommendations within the body of the report refer to those elements that are not currently addressed and they need to be costed. However, whoever is best placed to do those costings will determine what we do. This has not been done as yet. Senator HOGG—So the exercise has not been done as yet. Then we go to recommendation 14 which talks about according a high priority to the development of effective ADF-wide health information systems, et cetera. Where is that different from recommendation 12? Pardon me, I might not have picked it up in my reading of the— Air Vice Marshal Moller—The two are related and— Senator HOGG—I know it says ‘see recommendation 12’, but is there some subtle nuance that I should— Air Vice Marshal Moller—I think it is a focus that the ANAO placed that at the moment the financial issues in relation to health care are not visible at the office of the Surgeon General level and they wish to place a focus on that. Recommendation 14 refers to a system that was in the process of being developed. Senator HOGG—Recommendation 15(b) mentions developing both short- and long-term strategies aimed at reducing the levels of injuries and illness. I commend that highly. Is that part of an ongoing program? Air Vice Marshal Moller—Yes. Senator HOGG—Does the fact that this appeared in the ANAO report imply that there was some deficiency in what the defence forces were doing previously? Air Vice Marshal Moller—I do not know if it was a deficiency that was highlighted rather than the fact that those injuries and illnesses are the prime drivers of health care costs. Senator WEST—This is your occupational health and safety. Air Vice Marshal Moller—Correct. Senator WEST—Who has responsibility for occupational health and safety? Brig. Dunn—Under the new organisation, that will move into, again, a co-located organisation. That will increase the capacity of the organisation to develop policy and then to deliver OH&S aspects of that policy out into the ADF and the civilian side. Senator WEST—So occupational health and safety is not part of the Surgeon General’s responsibility? Brig. Dunn—No, it will be part of the civilian personnel operations.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 604 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator WEST—Is the occupational health and safety area going to employ medical specialists in the area of occupational health and safety and RNs who have expertise in that area as well—and physiotherapists and occupational therapists? Brig. Dunn—The combination of the existing OH&S organisation into the one organisation will allow, as I have said, a better focus. They will then decide, under the purview of the Defence personnel executive, the best way to deliver what to us is a key element of preventing the costs escalating from injuries and the like. Senator WEST—That is good to prevent the costs from escalating, but I am wondering if you are not risking some overlap there with the role of the Surgeon General and the health services that are provided through that route. Brig. Dunn—The fact that the Surgeon General’s organisation, or the Defence Health Services, as it will become known, is in the personnel executive itself. The OH&S, within another component of the personnel executive, is designed very much to allow close linkage between those two, but also to allow the separate focuses of the two to run parallel. Senator WEST—So you do not think that the OH&S is not the same or would not be running some of the same programs as the Surgeon General’s area? Brig. Dunn—No. That is exactly the duplication that we wish to eliminate and take those programs which are clearly best practice and accelerate it or improve the way that they are delivered. Senator WEST—Why not make the Surgeon General responsible for the lot—one medical group? Air Vice Marshal Moller—The intention was to co-locate occupational health and safety, compensation and rehabilitation, along with the deaf care project, which was alluded to before, in one area to get that synergy that comes from that co-location. The decision has been made that it will be in the personnel executive, to which we will have direct access in developing policies and working with them. Senator WEST—I am glad they are co-located, but I am not sure the minister is not on a bit of policy issue. I do not have time to pursue that tonight, but I do have some concerns about the fact that there are two separate structures, albeit they are co-located. Brig. Dunn—That is within the Defence personnel executive though, so it is now for the first time within the same program. Senator WEST—That is a start. CHAIR—Further questions on program 8? Senator HOGG—Yes, there are three more recommendations I want to refer to. Recommendation 16 mentions reviewing the ADF dental services, the number of dental personnel and the standard of treatment given. When is that review likely to commence, or has it commenced already? Air Vice Marshal Moller—I would recommend that that review commence as soon as we are structured into the new organisation. It would be one of the early reviews that needs to be addressed. Senator HOGG—Why is that so necessary? Air Vice Marshal Moller—Simply because, within the content of the report, both the staffing and the costs attributed to the dental service need to be addressed in view of the ANAO’s recommendations.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 605

Senator HOGG—Have we an insufficient number of staff? Air Vice Marshal Moller—No. We have, in the ANAO’s opinion, perhaps more staff. Senator WEST—Can I just ask about recommendation 18, which is the review of the present arrangements for dispensing and issuing of pharmaceuticals. What are the possible medico-legal ramifications of some of the practices that might be occurring? Or is this to improve some of those issues? Air Vice Marshal Moller—That is to improve issues as the ANAO saw it. Presently we are working on policies to bring that into effect, so that is actually happening now. The policy in respect of the nursing management of pharmaceuticals has been in existence for some time—that is, ward dispensing and imprest management. The policy for the management of medications by medical assistants is currently being referred—as of the last couple of days—to the printer. That is a triservice policy that covers the legal aspects and requirements and duty of care requirements for other than medical, dental and pharmacists handling medications. Senator WEST—Thank you. I will await with interest to see that when it hits the deck, please. Senator HOGG—Recommendation 19 refers to entering into negotiations with the prime vendor to amend the standing offer contract, et cetera. Has that started? Brig. Dunn—That is a support command issue. I cannot answer that directly other than to say that we have already started to establish links with support command to ensure that things such as that are covered in the new structure. Senator HOGG—I have just one general question. Whilst there seems to be a fair deal of focus in this report on cost effectiveness and cost efficiencies and having an efficient delivery of health service, what measures are being taken to ensure that the overall delivery of service to ADF personnel is not in some way downgraded as a result of being overly sensitive to some of these recommendations? Brig. Dunn—Again, the key issue here is the placement of the defence health service into the personnel executive so that it now forms part of a holistic approach to managing our personnel to ensure that they contribute to AF capability. This is the first time we have linked those two together. I am quite confident that, in the new organisation I am going to head, we will actually have the right focus and that changes such as these that are recommended and those recommended in the DRP are going to assist us in the development of capability, rather than hinder us. Senator SCHACHT—My questions relate to the compensation decision announced by Minister Bishop last week. I commented before, as is in the statement, that this will be retrospective until April 1994 at the start of the current military compensation scheme. Does one anticipate that, by making it retrospective to that date, even though it is linked to the start of the current military compensation scheme, there may be service people who, during 1993 or 1992, up till that date, are on the wrong side of the date, and people who have been victims of similar accidents will start pressing that they should get access to the compensation because the gap between what they got and what is available now will be quite significant? Have you done any studies of the fact that, in the previous two or three years before 1994, you would have significant claims? Mr Neumann—It is unfortunate that, with compensation or anything that is beneficial, there will always be people who fall either side of whatever date is chosen. We do know that there are one or two in the early 1990s, for example, who would probably fulfil the severe injury

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 606 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 criteria or be excluded simply because of the date. The date was actually chosen largely because it was the start of the military compensation scheme but also because, around that date, there were not people just immediately before it. If you go back far enough, there will be. Senator SCHACHT—There obviously will be? Mr Neumann—I can think of one in 1990, for example, who has already made representations. Senator SCHACHT—When the new scheme started in 1994—or the current military compensation scheme—was that a significant increase in compensation available prior to that date? Mr Neumann—No. It put people under the SRCA rather than the veterans entitlements scheme. Senator SCHACHT—Right. One can imagine that you will get some complaints. I accept that you have a particular date. But when you make it retrospective for three years, it does weaken the argument to say that there is a cut-off point if it starts from the day of the announcement. Mr Neumann—The only way, in order not to do this, would have been to make it retrospective to the start of federation, and that comes a bit unmanageable. Senator SCHACHT—But most of those that go back to federation or the First World War are now dead, except for the last 30 brave Anzacs, who are over 100 and still going. We ought to give them the money anyway for lasting so long in my view. Mr Neumann—We did have a claim recently, I understand, from somebody who fell off a horse in 1929. Senator SCHACHT—He fell off a horse in 1929? Mr Neumann—Yes, in 1929. Senator SCHACHT—We were not at war then, were we? Mr Neumann—No, this compensation is for peacetime service. Senator SCHACHT—Yes, I know. Did you grant the claim? Mr Neumann—No. It was for a hip replacement. I understand that we refused the claim. Senator SCHACHT—The horse was not available for the evidence, I presume. Mr Neumann—We never did find out what happened to the horse. Senator SCHACHT—Will the $50,000 lump sum payment for each child be held in trust or will it be paid to the parents—and they can do with it what they like? Mr Neumann—No; it will not be held in trust. Senator SCHACHT—So the parent gets the $50,000 and that is it—they can choose to spend it however they like? Did the government give consideration to putting it in trust or putting it in a way in which the money would clearly be spent to the benefit of the child for, say, education expenses and other related expenses? Mr Neumann—It becomes a policy issue. In the review period, we did think about putting it in trust. The problem with putting things in trust is that it can in fact be in trust for a long time and— Senator SCHACHT—Until you are 18 or something.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 607

Mr Neumann—There are administrative costs involved. You are talking about people in the ADF who are generally very young when they have these unfortunate accidents and, therefore, you can be looking at it for 15 years—you can have a baby. Senator SCHACHT—I understand the administrative view that it is a cost and that it impinges on the reputation or the commitment of the parents in the present example of the Black Hawk tragedy. However, I would not like to see, in a few years time, an example where a child is in a pretty bad state and, through no fault of its own, the money—the $50,000—has been blown on a gambling episode, or whatever, and you have an appeal because the kid is still suffering. CHAIR—Senator, is that a question or a statement? Senator SCHACHT—It is a question. I just wanted to ask whether these things were taken into account. CHAIR—I am getting rather tired of some of these meandering conversations. Mr Neumann—We cannot answer that, Senator. That is for the government to decide. Senator SCHACHT—The minister is at the table. Senator Newman—The official has already told you that you are in a policy area there. Senator SCHACHT—Minister, you are here. Senator Newman—You did not ask me. Senator SCHACHT—You are all at the table together. I just take it as said that, whenever you want to— Senator Newman—I am sorry; we are so used to the sound of your voice droning on and on that we really switch off. Senator SCHACHT—I made an offer a while ago to the chairman that we would knock off this evening but, if you want to be antagonistic and keep it going past tonight, that is fine. Senator Newman—If you want to be self-indulgent, as you have been all this time, then let that be on the record, too. Senator SCHACHT—I wanted to ask a question, which I did, about whether there was a trust fund—whether the money would be paid into a trust. The officer gave some indication and I then raised an example. You are the minister, it is a policy issue, I suspect you could probably answer it. Was there any consideration given to putting in a trust, as a policy term, to deal with the situation where if the money is, unfortunately, so-called blown—in the Australian term—by the parent, and the child has nothing left, that there will be claims that this is being a bit unfair on the kid? Were these sorts of considerations taken into account in policy terms? Senator Newman—This has been treated the same as any other compensation arrangements. I do not think that there is anything that you can pursue behind it. Senator SCHACHT—Perhaps you can tell me, Minister—I may be wrong—as it is not clear from the statement, I do not think, what is this $50,000 as a lump sum payment to the child? Is that a new lump sum payment, or is that an increase on a previous lump sum payment? Mr Neumann—It is not to the child. Senator SCHACHT—No—for the child. Mr Neumann—For each dependent child, and in fact those $50,000 are new.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 608 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator SCHACHT—They are new. Senator Newman—And they are in the minister’s statement. Senator SCHACHT—That is what I wanted to get— Senator Newman—Well, read it. Senator SCHACHT—Sometimes you have to read very carefully, and I just wanted to get clarification. Senator Newman—It would be better if you spent more time reading and less time talking. Senator SCHACHT—Now I am getting it. You could say, by deduction, that the $50,000 might be new. It was not clear that it was a brand new payment. I wanted to get that clear. Seeing it is a brand new payment—it is not an increase on a previous payment—that is why I am asking the question. Therefore, it is a new policy initiative. No-one is arguing about the reason to pay the sum. I am asking, Minister, because it is a completely new payment— compensation for the child to be paid to the parent—was consideration given to make sure that the child may actually get some benefit from the money? The only way to do that is to put it into trust. Were these issues taken into account? Senator Newman—The minister made her decision based on the assessment of what has been happening in the past with what was believed to be an inadequate payment to the family after the loss of an income earner. I really do not think your questioning is taking you anywhere. I do not know what you are wanting to get out of that. It is pointless. Senator SCHACHT—I just wanted to find out what the view of the government is in policy terms—no-one is arguing about the $50,000 payment— Senator Newman—These families needed better support. That is the black and white of it. What else is there? Senator SCHACHT—The very simple thing is about administration. Is it for the kid or is it for the family? Senator Newman—It is a recognition, surely—the officials will correct me if I am wrong— of the needs of the various family members having been deprived of, usually, a father. But not only a father, of course— Senator SCHACHT—Of a parent. Senator Newman—The breadwinner usually in the household—the main breadwinner. Senator SCHACHT—The main breadwinner. It is pretty clear now, at least by omission, that on the one aspect, the trust thing was considered. But it was considered too difficult to administer, the cost was too difficult— Senator Newman—The official has already answered that specifically. Senator SCHACHT—Yes, and then I went on to the other issue, that if the money is spent, unfortunately, in an ill-advised way, there will be obviously, at some stage, I suspect, criticism. Nevertheless, the government has made its decision. You have made that clear, that that was not a consideration. Senator Newman—It is a typical compensation payout arrangement. There is nothing strange or unusual about this. Senator SCHACHT—This is a new compensation payment. The $50,000 was not previously paid for the child. CHAIR—Could we have the next question, please?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 609

Senator SCHACHT—Certainly. Is it possible, because of the payments to the Black Hawk victims, that, in similar circumstances in a civilian accident, that they will be paid more than those who have been injured serving overseas? Or will they all now be eligible for the same payment? Mr Neumann—They will all be eligible for the same payment. Senator SCHACHT—It has been raised that, for example, the SAS service members, in their normal payment, do get an element of danger money. Is that correct? Mr Neumann—If you are referring to the special action forces allowance, that is an element of skill and disability payment; for example, the disability element there includes being on call. Senator SCHACHT—There was no consideration given that this was not seen in any way as a double compensation, that they already got some payment? Mr Neumann—That certainly was argued during the review. Senator SCHACHT—It was argued during the review, but the government did not accept it? Obviously. Senator Newman—Really. Vice Adm. Barrie—But I think there is a distinction there, as I understand that response. That is, the disability payment rolled into salary by way of a special allowance includes an element for risk. But risk could never be compensation in the event of an accident. Senator SCHACHT—I understand that the report of the IDC initiated by the minister was not agreed to by all the various officials who served on the IDC. Do we have any indication what those areas of disagreement were? Mr Neumann—Yes, it was not agreed. Yes, I can indicate what the areas were. The areas were that the report did not show there were inadequacies in the level of benefits provided under the current arrangements in terms of providing appropriate compensation for service personnel in general. They went on to note that the— Senator Newman—Mr Neumann, I understand that the report has not yet been made public. It is in the process of being made public, but it is not appropriate, I think, in those circumstances for the official to answer those questions. Senator SCHACHT—A good try, Mr Neumann. You tried to be helpful but 45 seconds later, crash. That means, Minister, that it is planned by the government to make the report public? Senator Newman—That is what I just said. Senator SCHACHT—Good. That is all I have on that. CHAIR—No more questions on program 8? Senator HOGG—I just want to go briefly through audit report No. 17, work force planning in the Australian Defence Force. That was tabled on 27 November 1996. I mainly want to find out where these recommendations find their way into the DER and the DRP because they get, I would imagine, fairly much to the bone of what the DER and DRP are about. Were they used as the basis of the DER? Brig. Dunn—No. Those recommendations were not specifically used as the basis for the DER. Again, they were areas of investigation by ANAO that were taken account of by the DER. What will happen in the new personnel executive is that we will again be forming for

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 610 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 the first a strategic work force planning organisation which will have the facility to conduct across the ADF all of the aspects of a strategic work force plan. Senator HOGG—Is that the group that is referred to in recommendation 3 as the common cell? Brig. Dunn—That is the main thrust—to allow strategic work force planning to be conducted not only with skilled personnel, but with the proper data that they need to make the necessary projections for the ADF and, indeed, into some of the aspects of the civilian side, as well. Senator HOGG—If I could just briefly turn to recommendation 7, whilst I have read the paragraph that it came from in 3.71, the proceeding paragraph, it talks about services revising their guidance to work force managers to state that militarisation of positions should be considered where knowledge, skills, discipline or deployment flexibility require a military member or where a military option is less costly. How is that to be achieved as part of the DER? I understood the DER was doing away with a number of military positions and yet this seems to be talking about the militarisation of some civilian positions, given a number of caveats to that. Brig. Dunn—This obviously applies to strategic work force planning. Civilianisation and militarisation can go either way. The key point is that we are giving impetus to the broad thrust of that ANAO report by establishing, for the first time, a strategic work force planning organisation. All of those issues will be taken up commencing with the stand up of the organisation on 1 July. Senator HOGG—I will move on to recommendation 11 which, whilst it refers specifically to the navy, is part of this audit report. It says, ‘Take steps such as adjusting recruiting training or job design to reduce the requirement for structural overlay,’ and it says, ‘the reduction of structural overlay which presently costs some $40 million per year.’ Could you give me more of an outline as to where the savings are there? Brig. Dunn—Again, what we have there are some specific indications of where our strategic work force planners will be driving. The key point with the DER and the DRP was that we needed to establish a strategic focus on our work force planning. That has been done and, similar to the answers we were giving in relation to the ANAO audit on health care, we now have the facility to actually investigate those recommendations and, where appropriate, start to make significant changes to reap the efficiencies, or to get a more effective work force. Senator HOGG—So that $40 million is not necessarily reflected in this table C? Brig. Dunn—The specific figure is not one that is assigned within the DER and the DRP. There are collective figures in there but it is further evidence, if you like, of the correct focus of the DER, and now the DRP, to set up the structures that allow us to achieve those savings. Senator HOGG—Of all the reports, and recommendations out of the reports, that I have read this evening and at other stages throughout, this is the only one which focuses on and homes in on a specific amount. I was curious as to why. Is there something particularly identifiable— Vice Adm. Barrie—I think I can quickly close that off and say that structural overlay, in navy terms, results from the implications of having a sea to shore ratio and a rank and category structure. The inference in that is that, by being more careful about strategic work force planning, there are opportunity costs of up to $40 million if you can reduce the level of structural overlay required.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 611

Senator HOGG—I think I follow that so I will look at that answer again in Hansard and if I need to I will come back to you later. Senator WEST—Again on program 8, I presume? CHAIR—I have been saying program 8 for some time, Senator. I am presuming we are still on program 8. Senator WEST—Yes, I know, I am still there. FIND: how is it going? I am happy for this to go on notice about the number of calls, the breakdown of the types of calls, if there has there been any change, any plans or evaluations proposed for the program? I want just a general statement of how it is progressing. I am quite happy to have that on notice, given the time of the day. Brig. Dunn—We will take that on notice. Senator WEST—Do medals come in this area? Brig. Dunn—Yes. Senator WEST—Minister Bishop, in a question without notice on 28 May, said that the Australian Service Medal could not be awarded to those people who served in the Korean war, the Malayan emergency and the Indonesian confrontation. Can somebody give me a date, please, as to when Minister Bishop decided that this could not happen or when she first received the advice? Minister, that may have to come from you. Senator Newman—Sorry, what was the last bit of that question? Senator WEST—When did Minister Bishop first receive advice that the Australian Service Medal, the 1945-75 Star, could not be awarded to Korean war veterans, Malayan emergency and Indonesian confrontation personnel? Senator Newman—I am not able to answer that for you. I am sorry, I do not know. Senator WEST—Could you take that on notice, please? Senator Newman—Yes. Senator WEST—The minister has said that that required a change by Her Majesty to the regulations to allow the ASM to be awarded for active services and that the minister had instigated the process to obtain that concurrence. I am wondering when that first contact was made to undertake that. It could be taken on notice. Senator Newman—I do not know whether I can give you the details of that but, if we can, we will. Senator WEST—Thank you. Has Defence received advice, and when did they receive it? Vice Adm. Barrie—I am just a bit confused about the detailed information you require on both those issues. Senator WEST—I am wanting to know whether it was the minister or Defence who initiated the contact with Her Majesty. When? Has any advice been received? You may or may not choose to give me the answer—that is fine. Senator Newman—We will look at whether or not we can. I do not know. Senator WEST—Arising from that, there may well be former personnel who would prefer to trade in their imperial medal to get a wholly Australian medal. Is that an option? I am quite happy for that to go on notice as well. Vice Adm. Barrie—An option to trade in an imperial award already worn—for some offer?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 612 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator Newman—Is that what you are suggesting? We are not quite clear about what you mean. Senator WEST—The minister’s answer talks about dual medalling—double medalling. Senator Newman—The potential for it. Senator WEST—To remove that potential for double medalling, if people feel very strongly about being awarded the Australian Service Medal, 45 to 75—given the amount of correspondence we get, some people do—is there a possibility there for them to trade in their imperial medal for an ASM? Senator Newman—I do not know the answer to that. I do not know whether anybody else here does. Vice Adm. Barrie—I can only answer for the Defence Force, Senator. I think the idea that we might trade in medals is a bit abhorrent, frankly. The fact is that our service in campaigns has been recognised through imperial awards. That has now been overtaken by some Australian service medals. I think that is just a matter of tradition and history. Certainly, we could not contemplate trading in medals, as that might suggest—hand one in and get another one back. Senator Newman—I would like to put something on the record about all this business of imperial medals. They may technically have been called imperial medals but, let there be no doubt about it, they were medals awarded to Australian servicemen on the recommendations of successive Australian governments, and they have always been treated as Australia honouring its men and women who have served in the war. I think the focus that is currently on imperial medals, as though they are something foreign and second rate, is a cruel thing to those who have been proud to wear those medals. I think it is a misunderstanding of those medals as part of our history. It is very good that we now directly award our own medals, but the medals that men and women have received in previous campaigns are very much Australian medals. I am not lecturing you; I am putting it on the record. I am sick and tired of hearing people talk about imperial medals as though they are something foreign. Senator WEST—Minister, I am not writing letters to me, I can assure you, but somebody is writing them. Senator Newman—It is separate from what you were saying. Senator WEST—I guess you are not going to answer this but who made the ultimate decision not to award the ASM—the minister or the palace? I guess you will not answer that one but I will ask it anyway and you can decide. Senator Newman—No. Senator HOGG—Still under program 8, what are the entitlements under the Defence Force home loans assistance scheme? Air Vice Marshal Cox—Under the defence home owners scheme, there is a maximum amount that can be borrowed of $80,000. Senator HOGG—What are the entitlements under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918? Air Vice Marshal Cox—The maximum amount that can be borrowed is $25,000. Senator HOGG—Is Defence aware that former full-time members of the ADF, who transfer to the reserve and perform eight years service, fulfilling all their obligations, qualify for Defence Force home loan assistance scheme, except where members are covered by the Defence Service Homes Act 1918?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 613

Air Vice Marshal Cox—We are aware of divisions in eligibility among members of the ADF. Senator HOGG—If there is an anomaly, what will the ADF be doing about the anomaly? Air Vice Marshal Cox—The ADF will be following government policy. Senator HOGG—So, it is a matter that we need to raise with the government as a matter of policy. Minister, it seems that there is an anomaly, as I have just outlined to Air Vice Marshal Cox, between the Defence Force home loan assistance scheme and the Defence Service Homes Act 1918. It seems as if it is a matter of policy to overcome that anomaly. Senator Newman—I imagine that it is government policy, but I am not sure exactly which anomaly you are claiming. Senator HOGG—As I understand it, persons who are full-time members of the ADF and who transfer to the reserve and perform eight years of service, fulfilling all of their obligations, qualify for the Defence Force home loan assistance scheme, except where members are covered by the Defence Service Homes Act 1918. Senator Newman—You are really talking about a question of differences of entitlement; you are not talking about an anomaly, as such. Senator HOGG—With respect, I think that it is an anomaly. If persons fulfil all of the requirements, but because they are covered by a different act they become eligible for a different— Senator Newman—Because they have other eligibilities. Vice Adm. Barrie—That is right. My understanding is that the Defence Service homes scheme was closed on 15 May 1985 by an act of the former government. Senator HOGG—I will look at that again and come back to it if I need to. I will just go to a general issue that arises under 8.2, page 87—civilian personnel policy. I would like to find out what the ADF policy is in relation to Australian workplace agreements and how they will apply under this particular program. Senator Newman—I am getting advised that this has been addressed before. Senator HOGG—Has it? CHAIR—Yes. We addressed this last week, if I remember. Senator Newman—I am afraid that it seems so long ago that I am beginning to forget. Senator HOGG—If it has been addressed, that is fine. What were the other two programs at the back? You said programs 1 and 7— CHAIR—You are talking about section 4. Mr Lewincamp—Yes. The 1996-97 programs relevant to this were 1 and 7. Senator HOGG—At the bottom of page 201 we have defence property disposals mentioned under budget management. Mr Lewincamp—That does not go to program 8; that is under defence estate. Senator HOGG—That is what I was thinking. That would be under program 8, wouldn’t it? Mr Lewincamp—Defence estate is program 11. Vice Admiral Barrie—Program 11. Mr Lewincamp—It is only parts of programs 1 and 7 that came into the new program 8.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 614 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator HOGG—So, we will have the odd exception such as that? Mr Lewincamp—We certainly will. Senator SCHACHT—On the medal issue, I noticed in the minister’s statement headed ‘Government delivers on medals and awards commitment’, the minister said: I am pleased to announce that the government’s policy is largely in place with the Governor-General having all the approved changes to the determination for the medals under his authority. Her Majesty’s assent is being sought for other changes. It is not clear from the statement exactly what Her Majesty’s assent is being sought for and what other changes there were. Can I just get that clear on the record? What was Her Majesty’s assent being sought for? What were the other changes? Senator Newman—I am advised that it was for a couple of items, but it was largely for the Australian Service Medal to be awarded for warlike service. Senator SCHACHT—For warlike service. Any particular period? Senator Newman—Generally. Senator SCHACHT—And has Her Majesty’s assent been given so far? Senator Newman—I do not know if that is so or not. I do not think we have got that information. Senator SCHACHT—In the statement it says, ‘Her Majesty’s assent is being sought’. That is in this statement and I cannot see the date on this statement. Senator Newman—I have taken some questions on notice from Senator West about this whole process. I do not know how much I am able to be of—I think the passage of correspondence between a minister and the monarch is not something which is necessarily available to estimates committees and I will double check the situation for you. Senator SCHACHT—Yes, I know. I understand that in many circumstances, I could appreciate that protocol, but when the minister in her statement says, ‘Her Majesty’s assent is being sought for other changes’, she puts it on the public record. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for those details and you have given one part of it. The second part of it is, ‘Has the assent been given to those?’ It has been sought, but the statement does not say that it has been granted. Senator Newman—I do not believe it has at this stage and I cannot give you any more information than that. Senator SCHACHT—Is Her Majesty’s assent being sought as head of state of Australia? Vice Adm.—I think I am correct in saying, Senator, that the issue of correspondence between the Australian government and Her Majesty concerning medals is a matter for the Department of Administrative Services. CHAIR—I hope that answers your question, Senator. Senator SCHACHT—Even service medals? Vice Adm. Barrie—For anything in connection with medals, yes. Senator SCHACHT—Why is Senator Bishop issuing this statement saying that Her Majesty’s assent is being sought? Why isn’t that statement being issued by the Minister of Administrative Services? Senator Newman—I guess that is because she is the person who defence personnel and ex- personnel look to for information on this matter.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 615

Senator SCHACHT—I cannot see any mention— Senator Newman—DAS serves an administrative support function and of course there is a whole lot of other medals which are not service medals, which certainly in the past have been awarded with the approval of the monarch. Senator SCHACHT—But, Senator Newman, you have just said or the vice admiral has just said that it is a matter for the administrative services minister. But in this area of service, you are quite right, the expectation of ordinary citizens would be that the service medals will be handled by either the defence minister or the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. Senator Newman—That is all right. Ordinary citizens have a lot of trouble knowing exactly which arm of government to go to. Some people write to state ministers about social security matters. Senator SCHACHT—It seems to me that Senator Bishop was quite willing to put in her own statement— Senator Newman—Mrs Bishop. Senator SCHACHT—Mrs Bishop, I am sorry. After putting up with her on a lot of estimates committees, I find it is still indelibly printed in my mind. I apologise for the mistake. But Mrs Bishop herself put it as being sought. So explain to me: from this department, not from Administrative Services, it was— Senator Newman—I gather that was something to do with a speech she was giving at the RSL, if that is any help to you. Senator SCHACHT—It says that the government delivers on— Senator Newman—But it was in conjunction with a speech that she had been giving. Senator SCHACHT—It is put out here as a statement anyway. It does not matter. She is on the public record. Senator Newman—But it was in that context that she had been talking to ex-servicemen about an issue that was very important to them. She is perfectly entitled as a minister. Senator SCHACHT—All I can say is that you have clarified one thing, but I think you have probably made it a bit more confusing for ordinary mortals to understand that actually Mr Jull is in charge of medals. Senator Newman—The administrative support for the— Senator SCHACHT—Is that right? Senator Newman—I understand it is for the administrative support of the issuing of medals. Senator SCHACHT—But does Mr Jull have the policies— Senator Newman—No. I understand no. But Mr Jull, like previous ministers for administrative services, has had the responsibility of dealing with this. Senator SCHACHT—Okay, he may have administrative responsibility, but the policy decision about the medal issue is actually in the hands of Mrs Bishop? Senator Newman—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—I think that what is happening here is that, presumably, Mr Jull, on her behalf, has written to the Queen? Senator Newman—On behalf of the government, I would imagine.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 616 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator SCHACHT—On behalf of the government— Senator Newman—I imagine that, but I cannot speak from personal knowledge. I believe that would have been the case. It is the normal practice, I believe. Senator SCHACHT—We would appreciate you taking that on notice. The simple question I was starting with was: has Mr Jull or the government had indication back from Her Majesty that assent has been granted for what was being sought? Senator Newman—And I answered that before, saying that I am not certain but I believe not. CHAIR—Senator, this discussion is going around in circles. Senator SCHACHT—No, it is not going around in circles. Senator Newman—It is an extension of the questions that were being asked by Senator West a while ago. I have already said, in a general sense, that if there are questions that I can answer, I will take them on notice and answer them; but if there are not, I will not. Senator SCHACHT—There is one other question. It does not matter if Mr Jull or Mrs Bishop writes to Her Majesty. Was Her Majesty’s assent to this issue sought because she is Australia’s head of state—irrespective of who wrote to her? Senator Newman—I am sorry, you are obviously wanting a legal definition here as to— Senator SCHACHT—I am just— Senator Newman—No, you do. You are asking us whether she is the head of state, whether she is exercising her capacity as head of state—whether that is how she is applied to. I cannot give you that answer. I have got a law degree. I would have to go and research in what capacity she approves these things. But I can tell you that traditionally, for generations, Australians have had their medals approved by the monarch of the day. The system has changed in the last 20-odd years and I do not know quite what the arrangements are today. But that was the capacity in the past. Because we are talking here about medals that were awarded prior to about 1975, I think, they have to go to her for approval, as they did in the past to previous monarchs. That is the best I can give you. If you want a legal opinion about her status, I cannot tell you. Senator SCHACHT—Okay. Take it on notice then to the minister. It does not matter which minister, and you might choose not to answer it. Is the Queen performing this function as head of state? I presume that is the position. Senator Newman—I am presuming. She certainly has been approached as the monarch. Senator SCHACHT—And is that under the constitution or is it because the Queen, as head of state, is in effect the titular head of our armed forces which the Governor-General represents in Australia? Vice Adm. Barrie—I think we are getting very confused here. I would have thought the Queen’s responsibility in administering what we might call imperial awards is fairly absolute. It is traditional that the Queen’s assent to make any change to the award of imperial awards would be required. For Australian awards, I think there is a different regime in place. Senator SCHACHT—Are the Australian awards issued under the authority of just the Governor-General? Vice Adm. Barrie—I am not absolutely certain about that, but I think it is Administrative Services.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 617

Senator Newman—I think you will have to go to DAS to ask some of these questions. Senator SCHACHT—You think it is Administrative Services? Senator Newman—Yes. CHAIR—Senator, we established that point some five minutes ago. Senator SCHACHT—I am trying to sort out which one has got the policy intent here and there seems to be some confusion in the government. Senator Newman—You are asking questions about administration there and they are matters for the Department of Administrative Services. This government has not changed the process. It is one that your government and previous governments— Senator SCHACHT—You made a big promise before the election and now you have had to back down because apparently, so far, you cannot tell me whether the Queen has given her assent. Senator Newman—You mean that, because I cannot give you an answer tonight, there has somehow been a breach of commitment. Senator SCHACHT—I would have thought you might have been better briefed, Minister. This issue has not exactly been lying dormant around the place in the last few weeks. CHAIR—Senator, could we have the next question on program 8, if you have one. Senator SCHACHT—I do not have any more on program 8. CHAIR—In that case we will move on to program 10, Science and technology. [10.50 p.m.] Program 10—Science and technology Senator SCHACHT—I notice that in program 10, under ‘Policy Command’ in (c), the priorities include mention of the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar. Has the fact that Telstra has had to pull out of running the contract for Jindalee in any way affected your research work for the development of Jindalee? That is, as I understand it, going back many years, one of the success stories of DSTO’s research scientists. Dr Brabin-Smith—The short answer is not significantly, but I will elaborate on that by saying that one of our responsibilities is to support the project office— Senator SCHACHT—Support the what? Dr Brabin-Smith—Support the JORN project office. Therefore, to the extent that the project office had its problems with the prime contractor, that has had some effect on the support that we have been required to give to the project office. Senator SCHACHT—You said that there has been some impact, and implied, I think, that it was not a big impact. Have you been able to quantify that in costs of resources or financial terms? Dr Brabin-Smith—No. Senator SCHACHT—Is that a figure that you would be able to quantify? I do not think it is a matter that I want you to take on notice or to spend a lot of time trying to work out, but is it possible to quantify that with a reasonable use of your resources? Dr Brabin-Smith—No. Senator SCHACHT—All right. I am not going to labour that point. On the development of the Jindalee over-the-horizon—JORN—project, Telstra, in other estimates hearings, has

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 618 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 admitted that it ran into, shall we say, some problems in managing the project. I thought that was a very polite and euphemistic way to describe what was a major problem for them. In other estimates hearings they have indicated that the losses to them—not to the defence department—would run into several hundred million dollars. I just wondered whether DSTO has at any stage in recent time, because of the problem that Telstra ran into in managing the project and keeping up to date with the time scale that was supposed to be in place, looked at going back and assessing the project, assessing the contract itself that was let at the time to Telstra to see that in the future—as good as the intentions may have been—you are able to better detect the project management deficiencies that have clearly become evident within Telstra in managing this project. Dr Brabin-Smith—That responsibility lies with the acquisition program—the defence acquisition organisation—and I cannot answer for them. I do believe, however, that they have thought about the lessons learnt from this particular contract, and other contracts as well— Senator SCHACHT—That is the acquisitions part of Defence? Dr Brabin-Smith—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—Correct me if I get this wrong, but when the contract was let, I think in the very late 1980s, the major advantage Telstra suggested they could provide is that they would provide a digital technology for the operation of Jindalee or JORN, when up to that time the pilot plant and development work had been with an analog technology. Did DSTO have any view—looking back in hindsight—as to whether it was wise to let a contract go into a new technology when the pilot work and research work had apparently overwhelmingly been done in analog? Dr Brabin-Smith—Again, the question is more appropriately put, I believe, to the defence acquisition organisation. My recollection is that large parts of Jindalee were and are digital rather than analog. My recollection is that the proposal to make the front end receivers and preamplifiers digital was an initiative that came from Telstra, or perhaps from the principal subcontractor. I cannot recall whether that suggestion came before or after they were awarded the contract. I would rather leave it there because, as I say, the responsibility of the project lies with another part of the portfolio. Senator SCHACHT—Just one last question. As I said in my opening remarks on this particular matter, Dr Brabin-Smith, I think again DSTO scientists ought to be congratulated for their work over many years in developing the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar. But I want to ask one thing. Were the DSTO scientists of the day attracted to the fact that Telstra was offering a higher level of digital technology, and was that advice provided to the Department of Defence in the assessment of the contracts, the tenders? Dr Brabin-Smith—I personally do not know, and I think at this stage it would be difficult to dig out the past. Senator SCHACHT—In the PBS, at page 104, you provide a breakdown under three subprograms, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, of the budget estimate for 1997-98 of what the expenditure will be. Again, it is not a matter that I would push, even on notice, but I wondered if it is possible that you could break down the figures. For example, under the priorities you list from (a) to (e) could you break down approximately what the expenditure would be for 1997-98 for each of those particular projects as listed in priority. Take it on notice. I do not know whether it is too difficult or time-consuming to break it down that way, but I would find it useful to know what your expenditure is under those five priority projects listed under ‘Policy and Command’ on page 101.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 619

Dr Brabin-Smith—Are you asking specifically for me to map that part of those expenditures in the table on page 104 into just the policy and command part of where we do work on the top of page 101? Senator SCHACHT—Sorry, on page 104 you have got it broken down into three areas: 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, aeronautical and maritime research—a major subprogram; electronics and surveillance research; and then executive and support. I was wondering whether each of these programs is in a different part of one of those three programs—I presume, obviously, by definition. Each of those subprograms or sub-subprograms is listed (a) down to (e). For example, for the work under (c), how much expenditure would there be in that program for 1997-98—for priority (c) of that program? Dr Brabin-Smith—You are talking about the entry under policy and command, (c), ‘Undertaking systematic evaluation...’? Senator SCHACHT—Yes. Dr Brabin-Smith—I should explain that the entry there under policy and command takes something between 25 and 30 per cent of our annual resources. While you have the right to ask the question, I am not quite sure where it is leading. Senator SCHACHT—I just want to get a simple outline. These are your priority areas under policy and command. How much are you expending in what you consider under that area are your five priority areas out of your total budget? Dr Brabin-Smith—I am happy to do that, but the figures will not be particularly precise. Senator SCHACHT—That is fine. When you have got a budget of $230 million I obviously expect a bit of latitude in definition. I do not want a great amount of work done; I just want to get a general picture, an approximation, for your priority areas. Senator Newman—Madam Chairman, could I intervene at this stage and draw your attention to the fact that it is now 11 o’clock. I am afraid I cannot remain with the committee any longer. I point out to you that officers are not able to answer questions of policy, and I ask that you see to it that that is implemented. I would also like to point out before I go that this committee has taken three days on Defence. The Chief Defence Scientist, for example, has been here for three days. We have had a mass of officers here at enormous expense waiting as witnesses. We have had a mass of questions taken on notice, which also will be of great cost to the department. I have asked the department, in responding to your request for comments on the PBS that you asked for on the first day, which seems so long ago, to also give your committee the information about what the cost of this department being here for three days has meant, and what the cost of the questions taken on notice will actually amount to. It will be something which I think your committee will need to take into account when they are assessing the success or otherwise of the PBS and the use that has been made of it by the committee. Can I also draw your attention to the fact that committee members were offered briefings by the Department of Defence. Some senators took up the offer; others chose not to. That has led, in my view, to inadequacy in the questioning which need never have been something that officers should have been subjected to. If people had been prepared to put the work in to getting on top of the issues that will be in the PBS, then their questioning would have been more focused and more useful to themselves and less wasteful of public money. I do urge the committee to look at these questions to see where the self-discipline and better management of their own time could be organised in the future. I am not in any way criticising

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 620 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 you, Madam Chairman, but I do point out that other committees seem to have been able to manage their time more effectively than this committee, and I am sorry that I cannot stay with you longer. Senator HOGG—Madam Chair, I would like to respond to that, because I think, in the first instance, it should be noted that this committee was set to start at 9.00 am and never got under way till 1.30 p.m: that is the first thing. The progress of this committee was impeded to start off with. The second thing is in terms of the briefing. The briefing that was offered was not an in-depth meeting in terms of anything other than to give us an outline of how the various programs as set out now relate to what was there previously. I was in attendance at that briefing and that briefing lasted one-half to three-quarters of an hour, I suppose. Mr Lewincamp—One hour. Senator HOGG—In that time, it was a matter of coming to grips with the new set-out, the new format, of what was in the PBS. I understand where you are coming from, but that certainly was not the basis on which I understood the briefing to have been given, because one has seen that throughout this whole proceeding it has not been easy to find one’s way around the PBS. I think it would be quite unfair to compare the proceedings that have taken place here with other portfolios where they have not undergone the dramatic change that we have had to experience here. Let me assure you, Minister, that on my part, and I am sure on the part of my colleagues, there has been nothing other than trying to find our way through a number of documents that are interrelated, namely the defence efficiency review—understanding that in the first instance. Then it was a matter of understanding the DRP and trying to find out where that fits with this, and then there are a number of other related reports which give a completeness to the examination of the estimates that we have before us. I just want my comments noted. It is late in the evening and it certainly is our intention, if we can possibly do it this evening, to complete this matter. It has not been our intention to delay the various officers under the various subprograms, but that has inevitably taken place, I would suggest, at the outset, because of our late start. Senator Newman—Just as I am going, I thank Senator Hogg for his contribution. I appreciate the fact that he was prepared to make himself available for at least that much of a briefing. I recognise that he has been pretty focused in his questioning and I am sorry that the cabinet meeting, and my presence required at it, prevented starting at the beginning of the first day. Nevertheless, this committee has been meeting for three days, and I am afraid I cannot stay longer. CHAIR—Thank you, Minister. Senator HOGG—I know you are walking out the door but I suggest to you that this is something that should be looked at in the report. CHAIR—Order! Senator Hogg, in order not to waste any further time, I would like to proceed with questions. Before I do proceed with questions, though, as chairman could I simply note that I as chairman and the other coalition senators found the briefing that we had of great value. I did appreciate it very much and I consider that better use should have been made of it, especially as the officers involved were kind enough to put their telephone numbers on it so that more information could have been sought. Could we now proceed with questions on program 10.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 621

Senator SCHACHT—For the record, if it is going to be in Hansard, I did not attend the briefing. Because of shadow ministerial changes I came late to this committee. I explained at the very beginning. I have been off this committee for five years. I did not go to the briefing. I have to say, in one sense, the briefing is a situation where you could actually compromise yourself as a shadow minister, because if you have a briefing like that and you start asking questions, then the staff members quite rightly say, ‘It is a policy issue. We can’t answer that.’ What is extraordinary about this—and I do not blame the officers; there is always a difficulty—is that you have got a PBS that is trying to take account of a dramatic change in structure. On the very first day here, even though I came late to this committee, Mr Lewincamp agreed that one of the ideas he would take on board and take on notice is at the beginning where all these so-called variations take place. There is no information given of whether the variations take place just because the program is running out or whether there has actually been a change or a mistake made or some difficulty has arisen. Mr Lewincamp very kindly offered to say that he would take that on notice and address that issue in the PBS next time around. That came about in a genuine discussion here. I would also have to say that I sat through my own shadow ministry portfolio of communications. We did it on time, and I left there on time, though there were many more controversial issues being dealt with than some of the ones that are being dealt with here. I left on time because the first thing is there was not the major restructuring of the PBS that the officers here have had to deal with. That made it much easier for people to deal with a structure that had previously existed. I find—and there is no blame to the officers—dealing with the PBS and the efficiency review in particular, and starting to synergise them together, extremely difficult. I do not blame the officers for it. It is just a function of this time round. I hope next time it can be shorter but I would also have to say the defence portfolio is $10 billion. It has got a range of issues and structures in it that just means it will be longer than most other departments. I would say that ought to be taken as an account of the respect that we have for this portfolio. It would be a joke if we did it all over in a few hours. It may be useful for people to leave the room, but it would be a joke on the Senate estimates committee if we said, ‘Oh, well, we’ll fix this all up in three or four hours and come back in 12 months time.’ I know Senator Newman’s remarks, without naming me, were directed at me—that I did not go to the briefing, and was wandering off and asking questions. Every time I asked these questions—some of them very quickly—sooner or later other information came out that previously was not available. CHAIR—All right, Senator Schacht, I think we understand the tenor of your remarks. We now have something like 50 minutes by your estimation. Senator SCHACHT—And who offered to end tonight by 12 o’clock? We did. CHAIR—Let us see some evidence of it, please. Could we please proceed with program 10. Any more questions on program 10? Senator SCHACHT—Yes, I have just got a couple to finish with. This is on science and technology. Dr Brabin-Smith, could you take this on notice. On page 103, under ‘Industry and External Relations’, what is the expenditure for 1997-98 anticipated for that part of the budget at DSTO? Dr Brabin-Smith—May I take it on notice?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 622 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator SCHACHT—Okay. It does mention there at the bottom paragraph of that section ‘placing R&D contracts and licensing arrangements with industry’. I see over on page 105, under ‘Total defence receipts’—this is in your area, I presume—the figure $3.1 million. Are those receipts the licensing fees or royalties you get back from industry, or is that a separate figure? Dr Brabin-Smith—That figure of $3.1 million is not the income we expect from industry. Last year we got an income of something like $850,000 from doing work for industry, royalties and so on. We find it is very difficult to assess in advance what the income will be; therefore we do not state it. Senator SCHACHT—Last year it was $800,000. Dr Brabin-Smith—It was $850,000. Senator SCHACHT—That is for industry assistance. Does that also include licensing fees, royalties? Dr Brabin-Smith—Yes, it does. Industry assistance is perhaps the wrong term; it is where industry places a contract with us and we do work for industry. For example, we did work on fatigue testing the C130J flaps that Hawker de Havilland, I think, was making for Lockheed. Senator SCHACHT—So you got payment for that? Dr Brabin-Smith—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—Another estimates committee covered industry and science, CSIRO. I am just trying to compare it—just to get it clear in my own mind. When you did that work for—who was it? Dr Brabin-Smith—Hawker de Havilland in that particular case. Senator SCHACHT—Did you class that as a licence fee or paid time to do some specific work, or was there actually a royalty for some intellectual property that DSTO has a patent on, has control of? Dr Brabin-Smith—That particular case was fee for service. We also get royalties, for example, for intellectual property. A couple of examples are the licence we give to Helitech of Brisbane, which has a licence to market the boron crack patching. Another example is ADI, where they market some of our mine counter-measures technologies. Senator SCHACHT—Over recent years has the $800,000 been a pretty consistent figure that you have been getting? Dr Brabin-Smith—It fluctuates. Senator SCHACHT—Does it fluctuate by a million, or by $50,000—just to get a rough idea? Dr Brabin-Smith—I think sometimes it has been 50 per cent higher than that; it depends on what industry wants us to do. Senator SCHACHT—The total defence receipts are $3.1 million. What else is in there that is income? If it is $800,000, approximately, they anticipate— Dr Brabin-Smith—Perhaps we can take that on notice. Senator SCHACHT—Fine. So long as it does not compromise any commercial-in- confidence arrangement, could you take it on notice to provide the breakdown of your royalties, et cetera—the income you get from royalties and licence fees?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 623

Dr Brabin-Smith—I will provide some information. Some of it will be potentially commercial in-confidence. Some of them are very small. Perhaps you will be satisfied with the principal ones. Senator SCHACHT—I will leave to your judgment of what you provide. But I do not want to compromise your commercial-in-confidence material. Dr Brabin-Smith—Thank you. Senator SCHACHT—That is all I have. CHAIR—That completes program 10. Thank you very much. We move to program 11— Defence estate. Are there any questions on program 11? [11.15 p.m] Program 11—Defence estate Senator SCHACHT—This is a parochial South Australian question about the efficiency review, but I am unashamedly going to ask it. There has been a lot of publicity in Adelaide about the disposal of the Torrens parade ground, as it is called, in the Adelaide parklands just behind Government House and by the River Torrens. There is considerable speculation in South Australia that as the defence department got it for free in the first place, apparently, it is claimed—I do not know whether that is correct—in 1903 to 1905, the people of South Australia should get it back. I do not know whether these claims are correct, but I wondered if you could provide a defence department perspective. As I understand it, it was a South Australian military piece of land before Federation and was handed over. I just wondered whether you have any comment about a matter which is of considerable public interest in South Australia—about the disposal of this land and what it would be used for, and whether you are going to charge the SA government $7 million, $8 million, $9 million or $10 million before you dispose of it or hand it back? Mr Corey—The Torrens parade ground was acquired by the Department of Defence early this century. It has been the subject of considerable correspondence. It is surplus to defence requirements, and in accordance with our policy, which has been endorsed by this government and the previous government, defence properties will be disposed of at the highest and best value. That will be subject to community consultation and consultation with the respective state governments, and that process will commence with the Torrens parade ground. Senator SCHACHT—But suppose the consultations and everything do not work out, and there is a difference of opinion between the South Australian government, the Adelaide City Council and Defence. Suppose someone comes along in the private sector and says, ‘We’ll offer you $10 million and we are going to build a car park on it,’ and you use your defence proposals to say, ‘We have the right to overrule state planning powers under the Defence Act, et cetera.’ This would be, I must say, a pretty controversial decision to take, but in the end, if you cannot reach agreement, will Defence dispose of it to the highest bidder? Mr Corey—No, that will be a decision that the government will take at the time, after we have gone through the process. We have gone through and disposed of 200 properties perhaps in the last five years, and we have never reached that situation yet. Senator SCHACHT—So you would accept that there is—I do not know whether this is the correct term—a heritage value, a parklands value on where the site is.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 624 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Mr Corey—We will not necessarily accept anything, Senator. We will go through the process and we will negotiate a position, and then it will be a matter for the government to decide upon. Senator SCHACHT—So the final decision on the disposal of that property, whatever price it is, or whether it is given back as a gift with caveats on it to the state government, will be a matter for the minister to decide? Mr Corey—The minister and the Minister of Administrative Services, who has the delegation under the Lands Acquisition Act. Senator SCHACHT—So that is quite clear. In the end, there is going to be a ministerial decision about it? Mr Corey—That is quite clear. Senator SCHACHT—On that particular matter, I have got no further questions other than this. The building on the site was built by the defence department after they took over the site, I presume? It does not look as though it is 100 years old. Mr Corey—That is correct. It is probably getting close to it, but it is not 100 years old. Senator SCHACHT—But you built it? Mr Corey—Well, I didn’t! Senator SCHACHT—But the defence department built it. Mr Corey—The defence organisation did. I’m fairly old, but I’m not quite that old. CHAIR—Are there further questions on program 11? Senator HOGG—Is this the correct place to ask about the clean-up of Cockatoo Island? Mr Corey—Yes. Senator HOGG—What was the cost of the clean-up of Cockatoo Island? Is that in the PBS? Mr Corey—Cockatoo Island has not been cleaned up yet. Senator HOGG—What is the projected cost? Do we know? Mr Corey—They vary. There are estimates around of what it is going to cost but the cost really depends upon what its future use is going to be. The extent of the clean-up will depend upon the future use. There can be a cost to contain contamination—that can be one level of cost—but if it was going to be used for residential accommodation, it would be a totally different level of cost. The estimates range from small amounts to tens of millions of dollars. Senator HOGG—I have a feeling, because this document is so disparate, that there is a figure in here somewhere. I just cannot put my figure on it at this very moment. Mr Corey—There is a figure in there for expenditure in 1997-98 of some $4 or $5 million. We have spent $4.34 million to date and there is $1 million identified for expenditure in 1997- 98. Senator HOGG—So that does not take into account any projected costs for even the maxima or minima. Mr Corey—We have done some minimum works to contain some contamination that was leaching out of the side on one side of the island. That is why the expenditure to date has been minimal. There has been some clean-up of loose asbestos and other contamination on the site. But generally, it has been restricted to a minimum at the moment.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 625

Senator HOGG—If there is to be a clean-up, when will that decision be taken as to what grade of clean-up it will be? Mr Corey—As I explained to Senator Schacht in relation to Torrens parade ground. Cockatoo Island is probably a more difficult property to dispose of than Torrens parade ground. We will go through a process of consultation with the state and other interested parties and reach some agreement with all the stakeholders as to the way ahead. There is an estimate in the PBS, on page 225, of $51.316 million. That would be getting near the maximum expenditure you would expect to clean the property up in its entirety. Senator HOGG—There already is an allocation. Mr Corey—That is an estimate. Senator HOGG—An estimate. Mr Corey—Yes. Defence would be very reluctant to spend $51 million cleaning up an island which we would not get any revenue from. Senator HOGG—Is that coming out of the defence budget? Mr Corey—It is. Senator SCHACHT—That money is already committed. Mr Corey—No, it is not. There has been no decision on the extent of clean-up on Cockatoo Island to date. Senator SCHACHT—Is that $51 million figure anywhere in the forward estimates, if it is not in this year? Mr Corey—It is probably projected in the five-year program. But it is only an estimate of what it may cost us. Senator HOGG—As I understand it, that is a change from the situation that faced Defence a few years ago where there was no obligation on the defence budget for any clean-up costs associated with Cockatoo Island. Is that correct? Mr Corey—It depends how far you go back. It probably was an obligation on us back in the late 1980s. At that time it was transferred to the asset sales task force who were going to dispose of the island. They discovered it was a fairly difficult exercise. Last year it was handed back to Defence. In that hand-back, the discussion on who would pay for the clean-up was left pretty much in abeyance until this year. The government decided that Defence would bear the cost of any remediation of the island but would receive any revenue. Under the previous arrangement, revenue was going back to the budget rather than to Defence; under the new arrangement, revenue will come to Defence and clean-up costs be borne by Defence. Senator HOGG—So that will be a full recovery of the realised sale price. Mr Corey—Only if we get agreement on what the property can be used for. That will determine how much we spend on remediation and it will also determine what revenue we get from it. Senator WEST—Can I ask about proposals for sandmining at Garden Island in Western Australia. What is the status of those proposals? Mr Corey—We have opposed them, Senator. Senator WEST—The proposals are still around, are they? Mr Corey—Yes, they are still floating around.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 626 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator WEST—You cannot tell me what DAS’s views are on the proposal? Mr Corey—DAS does not have a view on the sandmining of Garden Island; it is a defence issue. Senator WEST—So it is Defence’s view that is the important view? Mr Corey—Defence and the environment view is that it should not be mined. But the Defence view, from a defence viewpoint, is that it should not be mined—it interferes with what we want to do at the island. Senator WEST—I presume from an environment point of view it would also be opposed. Mr Corey—We would oppose it on environmental grounds as well. Senator WEST—So you cannot give me more information as to what the current status of the situation is except that it is still around. Mr Corey—My last read-out on it was about the Western Australian mining warden. The mining warden was going to lodge the case in court, but it has not been lodged yet. Senator SCHACHT—This was an issue that I raised with Mr Lewincamp. I mentioned it to you before in response to the minister’s remarks. Appendix 7 on page 223 to 225 gives information about the program of works, some of which are in your area, Mr Corey. I think in the project of works you mentioned the Cockatoo Island area. I just put this to Mr Lewincamp again. What we discussed last week is that when you have got in the column ‘Total Estimated Cost’ for any of these items, that was a figure that has been already approved; and then you have got what is going to be spent as part of that program in 1997-98 and so on. There is no indication in this—it is like the variations at the beginning—about any of these figures. In fact, most of them I suspect are all in accordance and are on plan, within budget, et cetera. I just wondered again, as a consideration for the next PBS, that actually you differentiate; otherwise you have to go down through every one of these asking, ‘Is the Enoggera major works on budget, in line, going according to plan?’ and you say, ‘Yes,’ and then you go to the next one. Mr Corey—I can tell you, Senator, without going through them all, that they are all on budget and they are all on time. Senator SCHACHT—I think that that ought to be given as an explanation, even in the introductory remarks. It is implied that it is, and, of course, if someone gets evidence or information that it may not be then they will raise the question. I just think it is easier to outline that these are all in accordance. Of course, I would ethically expect you, if you have got a couple of problems with a couple, to make a special note of it. If the budget was blowing out, if there had been a delay for whatever reason in the project, I hope that would be explained. At the moment they all look okay. I think that is just a suggestion. Mr Lewincamp—We will look at that for next time. Senator SCHACHT—Can I just turn now to what I call the thick volume, the efficiency review, on page 249 through to 251. In relation to the ongoing defence property disposal plan, it lists disposal from 1996-97 right through until 2002-2003. Were all of these already identified by Defence as being available for disposal, or did a number of them come up as part of the efficiency review assessment—that they could also be, that these are some of theirs as well? Mr Corey—The ongoing defence property disposal plan principally arose from the force structure review in 1990-91, and they have been ongoing since that time. It has taken some

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 627 time to vacate the properties and position them. But they have all been identified, principally out of the force structure review. Senator SCHACHT—The force structure review. Mr Corey—From 1991. Senator SCHACHT—So none of these were— Mr Corey—None of them came out of the defence efficiency review. Senator SCHACHT—Do you have any estimate from 1996 onwards in broad terms? Has Finance asked you to give an estimation of what these properties will bring into Defence? Mr Corey—No, they have not. Senator SCHACHT—Have you got a rough estimate yourself? Mr Corey—We have a program provision. We expect to get somewhere in excess of $500 million. CHAIR—Any further questions on program 11? Senator HOGG—Yes. Just while Senator Schacht is finding his spot, I have a couple of questions that go to page 201 on the PBS, to start off with. There is a revised program of property disposals, including Gipps Street, Hurstville, Nirimba and Lonsdale—$0.568 million. Mr Corey—We have something like 50-odd properties for disposal this year. The original estimates were based on estimates of the revenue at that time. As we have taken them through the disposal process they have varied. All that reflects is a variation amongst a whole lot of projects. Senator HOGG—Can I take you back to page 31, where there are some larger amounts at the top. Under ‘Defence Property Disposals’, it refers to increased proceeds from property disposal, including, Zetland, Laverton, Randwick and Rydalmere. That is $19½ million. Mr Corey—That is the estimates of revenue projections for 1996-97—a comparison of what we thought we would get in 1996-97 and what we expect to get in 1997-98. There is an increase of $20 million. We are expecting to sell $20 million more in value of properties in 1997-98 than we sold this year. Senator HOGG—That is on those four properties. Mr Corey—Principally those four properties. Senator HOGG—So that figure covers a range of properties. Mr Corey—There were 38 properties last year and 50-odd this year. Senator HOGG—It is a little bit misleading when we get four properties named. Mr Corey—For commercial-in-confidence reasons we cannot give you a list of the properties and the projected disposal because it tells the industry what we think we are trying to get for them. We are trying to give you as much information as we can. Senator HOGG—I accept that. It is not a trick question. It is just that it named four properties. Mr Corey—They are the principal contributors to the in-costs. Senator HOGG—Have any of those properties been sold? Mr Corey—Zetland has been sold. We are still negotiating the final contract details, but it has been sold.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 628 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator HOGG—Zetland is sold. Laverton? Mr Corey—Laverton has not sold yet. Senator HOGG—Randwick? Mr Corey—Randwick is not sold; it is going through a zoning process. Rydalmere is also going through a zoning process. Senator HOGG—In respect of Zetland, it achieved a bit of notoriety in the Weekend Australian, where there was a claim that the Department of Defence had bungled the disposal of a huge redevelopment site it owned in Sydney. Mr Corey—That was an article that was fed to the Australian by one of the unsuccessful bidders. Senator HOGG—That is why I wanted to clarify it. Senator SCHACHT—Will you name the bidders? Mr Corey—No, I will not name them. They know who they are. Senator HOGG—I raised that because it was something that was in the public domain. Mr Corey—When the sale is finalised we will produce a press statement that will put the position on the public record. Senator HOGG—That is what I wanted to clarify. Senator SCHACHT—In the thick volume resulting from the defence efficiency review, further to your disposal, there is a long list of ongoing disposal from 1991, which suggests it is over 10 years. They have added a further list which are listed on page 229—short-term proposals within five years; mid-term proposals by 2006; and long-term proposals by 2011. Earlier in these hearings, last week, the senior officers said that the recommendations in what I call the thin report of the review, I think at about page 70—other than for three—had been accepted by the government. But they said that these much more detailed ones—over 230—in what is called the secretariat papers, or the thick volume, were being worked through in accordance. I certainly would not expect you to be able to say so far, in view of the time you have had, but do you have a view that most of the recommendations on further property disposals, as listed on page 229 and 231 in particular, are achievable and are reasonable in the main? Mr Corey—Subject to some further detailed study of the benefits and costs of moving out of some of these facilities, I expect that the bulk of these will be for disposal. But that is still subject to a government decision once we have gone through the process. Senator SCHACHT—Yes, of course. Mr Corey—But in some cases some of these will clearly be disposed of because they are assets that we no longer require. Senator SCHACHT—On page 229, above that first list within five years, it says ‘giving an estimated net revenue of $55m to $60m and operating cost savings of some $10m per annum.’ From your knowledge of this area, do you find that those figures are within the ballpark? Mr Corey—We have not subjected them to any detailed analysis yet but they are probably in the ballpark. Senator SCHACHT—I think that Mr Lewincamp and Mr Tonkin and others, when we discussed these recommendations in the thick volume, said they anticipated that by the time

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 629 we come back for the next round of estimates, which is the beginning of the Spring session, they would be able, if not beforehand, be it by government announcement, to give a lot more detail on notice. I presume you would be in the same position by three or four months time? Mr Corey—Probably not. We probably will have some of them identified quite clearly for disposal and some time frames on them, but some of them will require some detailed work. With some of them, we have got to find out whether we can get them rezoned, whether they are contaminated. There is a whole lot of work that has to go into them before you can actually realise revenue. But we will have more idea in three months time than we have got now. Senator WEST—Is Defence acquiring land around HMAS Albatross? Mr Corey—Defence is acquiring land around HMAS Albatross. Senator WEST—Is it for Army, Navy or RAAF? Mr Corey—It is for Defence. It is a multi-user base. It is used by all three services. Most of the land is to protect the integrity of the base and also to allow some increased activity in relation to storage of ammunition and some increased noise zones for activities with helicopter training. Senator WEST—How much land? Can you say? Mr Corey—We are buying it on an opportunity basis to actually satisfy our needs and we are going through a process of negotiating with a whole lot of landowners. I guess it is pretty much how much of the holding the landowner has that we are impinging upon. Where we impinge upon 10 per cent of a landowner’s property, we have a requirement to buy the totality of the landowner’s property if they want to sell it. Senator WEST—Some of the lots around there are not terribly large. Mr Corey—No, they are not. Senator WEST—Will compulsory acquisition be considered? Mr Corey—We have not compulsorily acquired anything for a long time. We tend to get a negotiated outcome. Senator WEST—Then this is not linked in any way to a possible relocation of units from Holsworthy? Mr Corey—No. Senator WEST—Okay, thank you. Senator HOGG—Just a further question on program 11. You mentioned before that likely projected sales will—I am not holding you to the figure in the longer term—save $500 million. How much of that will actually be returned to the Defence budget and how much will go into consolidated revenue? Mr Corey—It will all go to the Defence budget. Senator HOGG—It all goes to the Defence budget, right. Senator WEST—The land at Marrangaroo near Lithgow: what is the situation there? Mr Corey—The land at Marrangaroo is an ex-armaments depot. It has been used for lots of purposes over the time we have had it. It has just had a contamination survey done on it which suggests that it is going to cost significant dollars to clean it up. We are now going through a process of determining what re-use can be made of it and to what extent we have to clean it up.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 630 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator WEST—So when will that report be down? Mr Corey—That report is out now and we are about to send it to the local council. Senator WEST—Is it possible to have a copy of the report? Mr Corey—I do not see why not. Senator WEST—Thank you. What accommodation facilities are there on the site, on the land? Mr Corey—At Marrangaroo? Senator WEST—Yes. Mr Corey—There is some working accommodation; there is some not very high standing living accommodation; there is a whole lot of ammunition storage facilities. Senator WEST—Is the personnel accommodation used—not the accommodation for the ammunition storage? Mr Corey—I think there is only a caretaker there at the moment. Senator WEST—So there is nobody visiting it over weekends and staying over weekends and having holidays? Mr Corey—No, not for holidays. There is some explosive detonation done by some army units that go up there and use it. It is used still by Defence, not on a continuing basis but on a fairly regular basis. Senator WEST—A copy of the report would be appreciated, please. Senator SCHACHT—Mr Corey, do you think the remarks made about reducing defence exposure to high-cost married quarters are reasonable and a matter to be taken seriously? Mr Corey—I have no comment to make on that, Senator. I have an opinion, but I have no comment to make. Senator SCHACHT—Do you want me to ask your opinion? Mr Corey—You will not get an answer, either. Senator SCHACHT—The minister is not here to answer any policy questions—and you will get back to us on this—but I notice here where it says: Sell the prestige representational houses ‘Tresco’ and Tighnabruaich’, giving a one-off revenue of $10m and an ongoing annual saving to Defence of $0.37m. Where are Tresco and Tighnabruaich? Mr Corey—Tresco is a waterfront property on Elizabeth Bay that we have owned since the last century. Tighnabruaich is at Indooroopilly on the river in Brisbane. Senator SCHACHT—What is a representational house? Is it being used for cocktail parties or does someone actually live in it? Vice Adm. Barrie—I think all of the above is the answer to that. They are the principal focus for representation in large urban areas. Senator SCHACHT—Does anyone actually live there? Vice Adm. Barrie—Certainly in Tresco’s case, until last week. Senator SCHACHT—It is going to be changed, irrespective of the issue itself? Mr Corey—Tresco is to be disposed of. Senator SCHACHT—It has been agreed to be disposed of?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 631

Mr Corey—It has. Senator SCHACHT—I see. And that was happening irrespective of this review? Mr Corey—No, I think happened as a result of this review. Senator SCHACHT—So you have moved quickly? Mr Corey—Yes. Senator SCHACHT—And Tighnabruaich? Mr Corey—It is occupied by the divisional commander—a major-general of the army is occupying it. Senator SCHACHT—There is the figure of the ongoing savings to the department of $370,000. I presume that, because these are old houses, they have a high cost of maintenance as well as their size and gardens et cetera? Mr Corey—No, it is principally the rental and fringe benefit tax costs. The Defence Housing Authority manages these properties for us. We rent them back from the Defence Housing Authority at a commercial rental. Senator SCHACHT—Fringe benefits? Mr Corey—We pay fringe benefits tax— Senator SCHACHT—I know you pay, but that is one of the major components of $370,000? Mr Corey—It meets a large component of it. Senator WEST—Who used to reside at Tresco? Vice Adm. Barrie—The formal occupant was the naval support commander in Sydney. Senator WEST—So where is the naval support commander going to reside? Vice Adm. Barrie—That is a very good question. I do not know at this stage. Senator WEST—There is a certain standard that is required of housing to go with that position, isn’t there? Vice Adm. Barrie—That is correct, although I do not think it is clear at this stage who will be the navy’s representative in Sydney. My expectation is that that will become the maritime commander. Senator SCHACHT—In relation to the bottom dot point about the review of the use of heritage married quarters, again, these are buildings that the defence forces, for various reasons, have inherited and have been in ownership for a long time. Do they have a higher cost of maintenance because of their heritage nature? Mr Corey—They certainly do. Senator SCHACHT—When you dispose of Tresco, has that got any sort of heritage listing on it? Mr Corey—It certainly has. Senator SCHACHT—That means that you have got to meet that compliance of disposal and the people who are buying it accept the fact that there is a heritage caveat on it and it affects the use. Mr Corey—What they can do with it, yes.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 632 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Senator SCHACHT—I look forward to getting your response about the high cost of married quarters at the next estimates, or in this minister’s statement, when it is appropriate. CHAIR—Are there any further questions on program 11? If not, thank you very much. We will move on to program 12, corporate information. [11.45 p.m.] Program 12—Corporate information Senator HOGG—Mr Lewincamp, you might assist me. Program 12 seems vacuous— nothing. Mr Lewincamp—It is built into every other program. Senator HOGG—Is it built into every other one? Mr Lewincamp—It is corporate administrative systems and, yes, it comes out of all eight programs almost. Senator HOGG—Thank you; that was very helpful indeed. CHAIR—I call for questions on program 12. Senator HOGG—I have none. Senator WEST—There was only a question I was going to ask about the time bug threatening military navigation, but I think that was answered earlier. CHAIR—I thank those officers very much. I had understood that there were questions on program 12. Senator HOGG—Yes, so did I. My apologies to those officers. [11.46 p.m.] Program 13—Corporate support Senator HOGG—Has the Department of Defence completed its investigation into the death in July 1996 of Lance Corporal Richard Ralphs? Vice Adm. Barrie—I am at a bit of a loss; I do not understand what that has got to do with corporate support. Senator HOGG—I understood that this was the area where it was supposed to be asked, for some reason. Is it not there? Vice Adm. Barrie—The death of a lance corporal would be a matter for the Army. Major Gen. Hartley—The Army has completed its investigation, but the investigation is yet to go to the minister and has not been therefore released. Senator HOGG—That solves my question. CHAIR—Are there any further questions on program 13? Senator HOGG—Again I might be in the wrong area. Have there been any claims by private companies against either the office of the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel? Mr Lewincamp—In relation to what? Senator HOGG—Non-payment of accounts by the department. Have there been any? Mr Lewincamp—Could we take a slightly more detailed question on notice, so that we know what you are referring to?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 633

Senator HOGG—I am not sure that anything has happened. I cannot be overly specific. You know my questions: if I have got the question— Vice Adm. Barrie—Certainly in my experience—if I got the tenor of that correctly, there was a claim against the minister or— Senator HOGG—I understood there was a claim against either the minister or the department for unpaid media contracts. Is that correct? Mr Lewincamp—There were discussions with one company which supplied media information to the minister’s office. After some discussion about the payment of the bill, the payment was made. Senator HOGG—Why did that occur? Was it something to do with the tendering process? Mr Lewincamp—No. It was not a tendering process. It was due to a misunderstanding, basically, about the basis upon which a request was made for the media information to be supplied. Senator HOGG—So there was some form of dispute. Was it a large amount that was at risk or at stake in this? Mr Lewincamp—It was not a particularly large amount, something of the order of $50,000. Senator HOGG—Did it go to court? Mr Lewincamp—No, it did not. Senator HOGG—What was the exact nature of the claim? What did they supply? Mr Lewincamp—The claim was for the provision of media extracts on particular subjects of defence interest. Senator HOGG—How did the misunderstanding occur, do we know? Mr Lewincamp—My understanding is that it arose because a member of staff in the minister’s office agreed to an unsolicited offer from the company to provide the information, not understanding that that would then incur a substantial cost. Senator HOGG—That would not be a standard practice, of course, within the minister’s office, I would imagine. Mr Lewincamp—No, that would not be. Senator HOGG—So this is some ‘slip-up’ that has occurred? Mr Lewincamp—Yes, it is. Senator HOGG—And the matter has now been settled? Mr Lewincamp—Yes, it has. CHAIR—Are there any further questions on program 13? Senator Schacht, do you have any? Senator SCHACHT—No. Senator WEST—Was this where we suggested we could ask about Woomera? I refer to pages 22 and 26, on the Woomera Village operating expenses. For some reason I have written this down and taken it down as program 13. CHAIR—If you would ask your question, perhaps we could then make a judgment. Senator WEST—There are a number of figures in there for ‘Woomera Village—operating expenses’. I am after some details on those, please.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 634 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997

Vice Adm. Barrie—Senator, my understanding is that they are the costs of operating a small township facility at the Woomera base which is used by the Defence Force for test and evaluation purposes on an ad hoc basis. Senator WEST—Is the ADF pulling out of Woomera? Vice Adm. Barrie—No. I see a continued use for the Woomera facilities for quite some time ahead. Senator SCHACHT—Once the Nurrungar joint facility closes—I think it closes in the year 2000; I think that is the announcement from the Americans, that after that the joint facility will not be required by them—I think that takes 600 to 700 personnel living in Woomera out of the township. After that happens, will the Woomera township just have maintenance people there and no operational activity at all? Vice Adm. Barrie—No. I think there will be operational activity at Woomera. As I said, I think the ADF foresees ongoing use of Woomera facilities for test and evaluation. Senator SCHACHT—Do you have any calculation—you might have to take this on notice—about how many staff, after the Americans pull out and the Nurrungar joint operation comes to an end, would be required to be permanently living at Woomera to maintain the level of defence activity? Vice Adm. Barrie—The answer to that at this time is that we would not know the answer to that question. It will depend on what the predicted use of the facilities is for R&D purposes and other things. Senator SCHACHT—Has any decision been taken on the disposal of the equipment—the domes and dishes and radar equipment particularly—at Nurrungar itself, once the Americans’ joint Nurrungar operation comes to an end? Vice Adm. Barrie—The answer is no. Senator SCHACHT—Has it been raised with you that that equipment—the dishes, in particular—could be used for scientific work such as radio astronomy, space tracking, space satellites, et cetera? Vice Adm. Barrie—I think those issues have been very broadly canvassed, but again a detailed proposal about what we might do is still some way off. Senator SCHACHT—When the Americans leave, as it is a joint facility are they just going to leave it all there and do we as the other half of the joint facility get whatever they leave there as ours, or do you pay them a peppercorn amount—two and sixpence—and say to them, ‘Goodbye’? Vice Adm. Barrie—Again it is too early to say. If it mirrors the experience in Harold E. Holt, for example, where we went through a similar process five years ago, there will be very detailed negotiations on precisely how it will occur, who will get what and what we will do with the remaining facilities. But I think the one thing that is clear from a policy perspective is that we will need to have ongoing access to the Woomera facilities for our test and evaluation. Any way we can use the remaining facilities after all that is over, we would be delighted about. Senator SCHACHT—In my former role as minister in the industry portfolio, responsible for the space program—which was hit right over the head in last year’s budget—I found it a bit distressing to visit what were then built as the ELDO launch pads and find that they had been used for target practice by the SAS, I understand, and also to test explosives. I just make

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Tuesday, 17 June 1997 SENATE—Legislation FAD&T 635 a quiet appeal: could you tell them to go somewhere else for a while? You never know our luck; in the next 10 or five years, even as shell-marked as they are, they may still be used. I have to say that it is a long shot—pardon the pun—but I just wonder if you could encourage them— Vice Adm. Barrie—I understand your concerns and I feel we will take those matters into account when we develop the plan. Senator SCHACHT—I refer to what is called rangehead. It is 40 kilometres out from the township and is where all the old facilities are for launching a range of small to middle sized defence rockets. On my visit there three years ago, I noticed that the command centre, which is quite outdated but still there from the early 1970s, was having some money spent on it to keep it in some operational form. Is it still the policy of Defence to keep that actual building at a stage where it is marginally operational? Vice Adm. Barrie—When I last saw it, I recognised that it was in that state of care and maintenance and potential use. We have conducted some firings there over the last couple of years. I am not certain whether or not that particular facility was being used and whether it was even adequate for today’s experimentation. Senator SCHACHT—If you could take it on notice, I would appreciate any information. I ask a question on Woomera, on the dreaded issue of low-level nuclear waste, and its use as a temporary site. Have you had any indication from the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism which is responsible for Lucas Heights and so on, as to when they will shift that low- level nuclear waste from its temporary storage, which it clearly is—that was the agreement and I was involved in it—from Woomera to a permanent site for low-level nuclear waste? Vice Adm. Barrie—I understand the question but I do not know the answer. I would have to get back to you. Mr Barritt-Eyles—Could you just repeat that question, Senator? Senator SCHACHT—Has the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, science section, ANSTO, and anyone else involved in the issue—Department of Primary Industries and Energy as well—given any indication of when they expect to shift the present low-level nuclear waste that came from ANSTO at Lucas Heights and from St Marys, also in Sydney? When will that be shifted from its temporary storage at the Woomera site to a permanent, wherever it may be, repository for low-level nuclear waste? I have to say that it is very low level. In fact, I am told by someone that it will not even register on a geiger counter. Mr Barritt-Eyles—Yes, it is very low level. The short answer to your question is no, they have not give us any indication. We have certainly indicated that we would like it removed as soon as possible. As I understand it, it is tied up with looking at the possible locations for the permanent site. There are, as I understand it, about eight locations that are being looked at. Senator SCHACHT—And you have made it clear that you, Defence, will not accept Woomera as a permanent site? Mr Barritt-Eyles—We have indicated that we would not see it as an appropriate location for a site. Senator SCHACHT—I would agree with that. The last one: have you ever been approached about having Woomera or any part of Woomera used for a repository, even temporarily, for high-level nuclear waste? I am referring to the rods from ANSTO, the returned material that has been sent off to Windscale for reprocessing. Have you had any approach from any

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE FAD&T 636 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 17 June 1997 government department about whether they would want to use Woomera for either a temporary storage for high-level nuclear waste or even a permanent one? Mr Barritt-Eyles—Not that I am aware of. Senator HOGG—I would just like to follow on from Senator Schacht, in a slightly different vein— CHAIR—Order! As it is now approaching midnight, I am about to propose that the committee adjourn and that all further questions in program 13, program 14 and section 4 be placed on notice. I understand that there are some questions on notice from Senator Hogg and from Senator West. Do you have any questions that you wish to read into Hansard so that they can be placed on notice? If so, please do so now. Senator HOGG—Yes, there are some. This is in respect of the water supply at Woomera and Nurrungar. CHAIR—They have been put on notice. Senator HOGG—In that case I have no further questions. CHAIR—I propose that the committee do now adjourn. Senator HOGG—Are you aware, Madam Chair, that we have got no questions on 14? CHAIR—I take exception to that, Senator. At an earlier stage this evening I particularly asked whether there would be questions on that program so that we could ask the officers to remain. I hope that you are cognisant of the fact that you have succeeded in getting those officers to remain for two hours. Senator HOGG—Madam Chair, we have tried to expedite this by cutting questions out. CHAIR—Order! I propose that the committee do now adjourn. Committee adjourned at 12.01 a.m. (Wednesday)

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE