Concerns the Defence Department is now too poor to defend the nation may be alleviated at the news it has found an estimated $400,000 to attend a glamorous human resources conference.
Crikey has discovered that 127 Defence staff — including an impressive 64 from the Air Force — are pressing the flesh at the “HRIZON — New World Thinking” conference, which finishes in Melbourne tomorrow.
Delegates are listening to HR whizzes Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) and Olympic champion Cathy Freeman, after whooping it up at a gala dinner on Wednesday (we hear Jessica Mauboy sang up a storm and the “wine flowed freely”). HR does not come cheap; registration for the conference costs about $2000 a pop.
Defence’s multiflanked invasion of the conference has raised eyebrows in the sector, with some private-sector attendees wondering why so many bureaucrats need attend, and asking how the department is justifying the cost from its not insignificant $28.445 billion annual budget.
Defence buffs have been crying poor as the Gillard government trims the budget from 1.8% of GDP to 1.56%. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has raised concerns that Australia will be caught short by the cuts, and vowed to increase the Defence budget by 3% a year in real terms (if he wins, and when he feels he has the money to do so).
Crikey has attempted to work out how much taxpayers are stumping up for the junket from the notoriously secretive Defence media bunker, to no avail. According to this list of attendees, there are at least 127 Defence staff attending (some insiders say it’s more like 150 as not all those going have listed their workplace):
- Defence Department: 36
- Defence Materiel Organisation: 26
- RAAF: 64
- Army: 1
As to the cost, this was Defence’s response to Crikey:
“The decision to send ADF personnel and Defence employees to this conference has been managed by individual Groups and Services within Defence. Associated costs will be drawn from those Groups and Services’ existing budgets. As nominations have not been centrally administered, and costs are being borne by the individual Groups and Services, no whole of Defence information is available.”
Perhaps those who could provide the information were all busy at the conference?
So Crikey set about estimating the cost. Based on information supplied by the ATO (also attending the conference), the cost for registration was $1943 per person, while accommodation and flights came out at $1422 per interstate person. Based on an estimation that 110 of the 127 staff are coming from interstate (well, Defence won’t tell us) that gives a total cost for Defence of $403,054. If Defence gets back to us with their figure, we’ll let you know.
While these costs may seem high to those slogging it out in HR in the private sector, the conference is seen as legitimate and important — it’s a global affair hosted by the Australian Human Resources Institute, and hasn’t been held in Australia for 20 years.
Greg Bamber, expert in human resources and employment relations at Monash University’s management department, defended Defence’s blanket attendance. “Sending Defence people to participate in it is a better investment in people than sending them off to Iraq or Afghanistan,” Bamber told Crikey. “Melbourne is much more congenial destination than Iraq or Afghanistan.”
Bamber added the conference was world class, featured people from 44 countries, and would be beneficial for those attending.
But Kelly Magowan, a Melbourne-based private-sector career consultant, queried the value of a networking event “if everyone there is from the same department”.
“It’s a very expensive team-building exercise … I’m not sure how much the organisation’s going to benefit from all these people attending,” Magowan told Crikey. She says most corporate firms would consider sending one or a few delegates, who would then return and brief remaining staff. Conversely, there was a trend for government departments to flood such conferences.
Corporates would also generally insist staff keen to go to conferences submit a business case outlining whether they were going to network, glean information, or seek motivation. “I’d love to see the business cases from all these people,” Magowan said of the Defence attendees.
Janine Walker, from the Griffith Business School’s department of employment relations and human resources, says 127 people seems “highly excessive” and is “pretty unlikely” to offer value for money for Defence.
“Conferences like this are an opportunity to network with other people like yourself, make contacts for your next job and hear some of the international superstar speakers who will be charging large fees to promote their latest book. Attendees are not likely to learn anything amazing or very new but attendance is often seen more as a reward than an opportunity to learn much,” she said.
“There will be lots of suppliers pitching their wares — IT systems, coaching and consulting — to lots of people who are too junior in their organisation to make decisions about purchasing them. These conferences are a modern version of the old ‘works picnic’. The staff attending from Defence probably ticked this conference in the development column of their last performance review.”
One Ol’School RSM would be cost effective just by lifting his eyebrow. Send the lot to Tunneling School.
Sorry Crikey, but this feels like an unnecessary beat up.
Are individual Defence employees required to undertake continuining professional development as part of their employment? Do their various employment contracts include CPD allowances each year? If so, then Defence is fulfilling its obligations to individual employees by helping then attend a ‘once-in-20-year’ CPD event.
The Defence presence seems reasonable – 127 of 81 000 is 0.16%. This is a relatively small investment for such a rare opportunity, especially given the importance of looking after your people when you expect them to risk their life. Even the RAAF, at 64/18 000, 0.3%, attendence is a pretty good return.
I attended the HRIZONs conference, as a self employed HR specialist, investing in my annual HR professional development – so I totally appreciate that $2K was a justifable and reasonable investment one-off cost in a senior HR professionals annual development. What I can’t believe is that anyone thinks that sending 127 HR specialists to the SAME conference, at the SAME time, at that high end cost – tax payers money – is OK! From my observation, I think at least 75% of the attendee’s were from the public sector – and the cost of that is huge! Corporate Australia couldn’t justify that investment – money, time, or god forbid! – the backlash of their shareholders. The position above about 0.16% of a total work force is not an appropriate equation. It’s the proportion of HR specialists sent that is relevant, and to send everyone of them is hard to fathom. I believe the ATO also sent over 30 delegates, and the Federal Police and many local councils also had delegates. Compare it to corporates … the big 4 banks in Australia employee between 30,000 – 40,000 staff, and have large HR teams – but they only sent a handful of representatives to the conference, who then went back to their HR teams and share the key learning’s and findings. BP, Optus and other national companies did likewise – which seems like smart, responsible and commercially astute HR practice to me!