• Air 5402 Air-to-Air Refuelling Project Director Luke Brown and engineering manager and project technical lead, SQNLDR Damien Maldon discuss the project. For all aspects of the engineering workforce, whether they be uniformed, APS or defence industry, Defence needs an employment framework that encourages mobility amongst academia, the broader research community and defence industry. Credit Defence.
    Air 5402 Air-to-Air Refuelling Project Director Luke Brown and engineering manager and project technical lead, SQNLDR Damien Maldon discuss the project. For all aspects of the engineering workforce, whether they be uniformed, APS or defence industry, Defence needs an employment framework that encourages mobility amongst academia, the broader research community and defence industry. Credit Defence.
Close×

Senate Report: Defence must address fragile PSE workforce

5 May 2016
Comments Comments

Patrick Durrant | Sydney

A Senate Committee has released its report on Defence’s physical science and engineering (PSE) workforce capability, highlighting the urgent need to address its continuing decline and fragility.

Some of the areas covered by the inquiry, conducted by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, were the importance of the PSE to projects, the current capability within the Australian Defence Organisation (ADO), its ability to attract and retain a highly skilled PSE workforce, and its ability to meet future technological needs.

The Committee noted, “Defence appears to have been given objectives which include reducing its workforce head count while increasing its engineering and scientific capabilities”. The Committee also received evidence that “some Defence PSE workforce capabilities had been significantly reduced through lack of recruitment, a lack of investment in skills development and a lack of succession planning for those leaving Defence”.

 

"Defence, in responding to a series of repeated efficiency measures from government, has permitted its in-house PSE capabilities to decline to critical levels."

 

David Smith, executive officer, Australian Government Group of Professionals Australia said it was “almost mind boggling” that Defence was undermining its internal expertise for projects critical to Australia's ongoing defence capability with “a significant cost to the taxpayer”.

Referring to the situation where to his knowledge there were only three APS civilian engineers with senior expertise in submarine naval architecture (two of which had been offered redundancies), Smith said “we are going from a position where, 10 years ago, we had probably about 95 years’ worth of experience in naval architecture – if both of these senior engineers take redundancy, we will have no experience and we will have no internal expertise”.

A key concern is that Defence, in responding to a series of repeated efficiency measures from government, has permitted its in-house PSE capabilities to decline to critical levels.

The Committee pointed to the “relatively functional nature” of Defence aerospace engineering which it saw as a result of the right of the Director General of Technical Airworthiness “to grant, grant-with-conditions or refuse delegated engineering authority to officers regardless of their notional suitability for the role as determined by their job family”. It recommended a nominated regulator be appointed to adopt this regulatory approach more broadly within the Defence procurement and sustainment workforce.

Committee member Liberal Senator David Fawcett told ADM the PSE workforce is becoming fragile because the way Defence manages workforce at the moment has been from a generalist approach.

“If we’re going to be a smart buyer, then we need to make sure that people are competent for the particular task that they are being asked to fulfil,” Senator Fawcett said. 

“If Defence can’t field a candidate, whether uniformed or APS with the requisite qualifications and experience, then they may have to go out into the market,” Senator Fawcett said.

The Committee suggested a complement to Project Suakin (delivering a flexible ‘total workforce model for Defence) should be considered to allow for enhanced workforce arrangements for the existing PSE workforce.

“The focus should be on establishing an employment framework that encourages mobility amongst academia and the broader research community as well as the defence industry,” the report stated. Another priority would be to create a framework of incentives for skilled personnel to join and stay with the Department.

Senator Fawcett said he was hopeful the government could now address these issues – whereas previously there had not been a framework, now the Centre for Defence Industry Capability (CDIC) had been given a task to run an assessment process to determine what strategic industry capabilities Defence should have.

“I’m actually very positive – not only do we have this wave of work coming towards us but we have this framework the Defence Industry Policy Statement has put in place that says industry is a FIC, what does that mean and how do we strategically manage it – it puts us on a better path to success.”

The Committee called for clarification that the Government would not seek the absorption of DST Group into CASG in the future, as recommended by the First Principles Review – in fact it was the only recommendation of 76 which the Government demurred upon and the White Paper indicated the Government would further consider this recommendation.

“There are both practical and symbolic benefits to maintaining a clearly separate identity for the science and technology group within Defence,” the report stated.

ASPI director of research Dr Andrew Davies in his submission identified a risk that “tasking Defence science with becoming a technical advisor will detract from its core defence research effort”.

The Committee was of the view that DST Group should not be the prime agency responsible for technical risk assessments (a role it thought more suited to Defence test and Evaluation Organisation) but rather be tasked to providing advice on specific technologies which may be the subject of a technical risk assessment being undertaken by Defence.

comments powered by Disqus