The government’s commitment to expand the Australian Defence Force by about a third — from 60,000 to 80,000 — is a sensible response both to a more uncertain international environment and the political reality that the ADF is now seen as a go-to resource for crisis management regardless of its fitness for the role.
No one has done more to promote the latter idea — or, now, been bitten on the backside by it — than Scott Morrison.
The massive expansion, though, is not guaranteed. Personnel retention has been a major problem for decades — the Australian National Audit Office devoted a report to the ADF’s retention policies more than 20 years ago. Before the pandemic it was performing better on retention. Then it experienced a bump in applications during the early stages of the pandemic, but most were subsequently withdrawn as the job market recovered quickly.
The Royal Australian Navy — with about 15,000 personnel — has particularly struggled with finding enough crews for its vessels. A key reason for an east coast submarine base is the difficulty the RAN has in attracting people to live in Perth to work at HMAS Stirling. And that’s with the existing Collins-class subs. Any of the nuclear-powered boats under consideration will need more than twice the crews required by the existing fleet.
So when the government flags that it will cost $38 billion over two decades, you can believe it — especially if the Australian labour market remains tight. We’re an ageing society that increasingly relies on importing temporary migrant workers to fill our labour shortages.
Where the work is
At least the government is thinking about workforce planning, and looking at the cost of making sure it has enough workers. Strange, then, that it refuses to do anything about a far more urgent workforce planning issue, that of the aged care sector, where the need for extra staff even to maintain existing care standards runs into the hundreds of thousands between now and 2050.
But at the moment, according to ABS figures, the residential care workforce (which also includes the much smaller residential disability care workforce) has shrunk more than 10% since 2019.
The irony is, the only workforce decision in relation to aged care made by the government recently has been to deploy a small number of ADF personnel into facilities — illustrating the kind of reliance on the ADF as a scrabble-blank solution to crises that is partly driving its expansion.
The lack of aged care workforce planning isn’t for lack of advice. There’s an Aged Care Workforce Industry Council, an aged care workforce strategy, a strategy taskforce… not to mention the aged care royal commission workforce recommendations around pay, training and career structure.
What’s lacking is money. The government remains unwilling to commit any funding to additional remuneration for aged care workers. There’s no $38 billion to make aged care more attractive; there’s not even $38 million. The government’s plan seems to be the same one that has been used for two decades — import as many temporary workers as possible.
Maybe it can do that for the ADF, too. Especially if we have governments that continue to use the ADF to address any problem that comes along, from aged care to flood recovery.
It’s not going to get any better relying upon Australia’s permanent workforce or working age population which, although counter intuitive vs. media immigrant agitprop, has passed the ‘demographic sweet spot’; this is manifested in over 70s being the fastest growing electoral cohort.
https://data.oecd.org/pop/working-age-population.htm
As the article says, bringing in migrant workers is one solution. If China is willing to supply the crew for our nuclear submarines and some extra battalions for the ADF that should be wonderful for mending fences between our nations. Surely a win-win?
Or just have them build and staff the base, supply the vessels & crew and generously continue you to accept such of our resources as they choose,supply such of our toys as they choose.
All the while, protecting us from any enemy who would interfere with our trade & supply lines with them.
Simples. And cheaper too!
…”…generously continue
youto accept…”Indeed, all in the spirit of the great Milo Minderbinder and his wonderful syndicate.
Why not ,they have in the past manufactured the camouflage material for the ADF. Rumor (tongue in cheek) with the special glasses the wearer of the clothing glows in the dark and in the day time an illuminated target appears on their chest
I think you forget in all the analysis some basic public service facts. Simple economics. The Defence Force broadly speaking is demoralised. That is why they were slow to respond to the flooding crisis. They couldn’t get enough real volunteers so they volunteered them “German style”. Salaries and conditions for our defence personnel have been going backwards for years and in the public service it is worse in any respects though an overall comparison is difficult to quantify. Old Defence superannuation schemes have been abolished which were generous. In the public service the CSS and PSS both defined benefit schemes were replaced by the risky, glorifies bank account PSSap. Similar to what happened to NSW State superannuation schemes were abolished in July 1992 and replaced by First State – a vastly inferior product. It is all money really. That will infuriate people, especially the “bean counters” among the Crikey readership and those of a conservative ilk but it is London to a brick that absenteeism would be sky high among those “volunteered” to do natural or national disaster relief. And think of the life!! Having to move locations every 2 or 7 years. To another State, another town. For most of us it doesn’t bear thinking about and it would take a fearful toll on family life. Defence used to be a bachelor’s profession. Now it is open to people of all gender and identifications so the pain is spread.
The facts have to be faced. Defence can’t and doesn’t have the legal authority or the capability to staff itself with temporary migrants. You have to be a permanent resident at least. Anything else is academic. If you want disaster relief you need to have a virtual full time designated authority with full time staff under public service conditions – not the military who can be called away for other duties and need to orient itself to perform duties which are not its headline. They have the equipment and the tools but these were designed for the battlefield – to pull stuck tanks out of the mud, to shift destroyed or wrecked vehicles, to put out fires, to cross bridges or waterways, to advance over ground not over water so much. If this new authority doesn’t operate under public service rules or if Defence establishes for itself such a disaster relief section within it, a 4th defence unit if you like, it won’t be fully effective as it will operate under Defence rules and not engage with public service agencies so much, retain its culture, will be slow to respond and unanswerable to others.
if was is declared here in Australia, half the defence forces will be off on sick leave
Imagine the abuse temporary workers/ defence force members would suffer if such a scheme got up. The temporary worker scheme is riddled with abuse. Most of their pay would be siphoned off to an agent in their home country, a government lackey, a corrupt pollie. It boggles the mind this stuff