Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like the opportunity to address a report that is not on the list but that I had anticipated would be on the list from last week’s sitting. I seek leave to speak to the Auditor-General’s Audit Report No. 1 of 2008-09, Employment and management of locally engaged staff: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Employment and management of locally engaged staff is the first such report that the Auditor-General has undertaken for quite a period of time—15 years. It covers the 1,491 locally employed staff spread over 91 diplomatic posts who constitute 73 per cent of DFAT’s overseas staff. They clearly make up a very significant part of Australia’s overseas representation. As the Auditor-General notes in the report, they make a very valuable contribution to Australia’s representation overseas. As the report notes, they have knowledge of local culture and geography; language skills which might not otherwise be available to the embassy; local networks; and of course a corporate knowledge which is most valuable to our missions overseas. All are a necessary and very valuable part of the success of our missions across the world.

As with most ANAO reports, the Auditor-General reaches conclusions which are both complimentary and critical. The complimentary side of this report recognises that the management of LES is a complex matter and acknowledges that for the most part DFAT manages these people effectively—hardly a ringing endorsement, but at least a tick for its management. It also notes that the department undertook a fundamental review of LES in 2000 and that resulted in some changes in the way it managed those staff.

On the critical side, however, there is a series of sharp criticisms of DFAT’s procedures. I find these rather disturbing. Many may not amount to administrative delinquency, but they certainly reflect some poor management practices and perhaps, one might say, an inattention to organisational health. More importantly—and I think this is the thrust of the report—they betray signs of a department under considerable pressure. The report refers to: inadequate briefings of new LES on the role and structure of DFAT, the operation and function of posts and other matters; a failure to comply with the need for pre-employment medicals; a noticeable weakness in recruitment practices; poor monitoring of LES employment; and a lack of rigour in performance estimates. Perhaps none of these are so troublesome as to warrant severe sanction or anything like that, but, at the very least, it seems to me, they suggest inattentiveness to the management of the LES. To its credit, DFAT have recognised these shortcomings and, of the four recommendations that are contained in the Auditor-General’s report, agreed to implement three fully and the fourth for the most part. So DFAT are on the way to reform and change.

The report raises some wider questions in my mind about DFAT staffing, and I find these rather disquieting. The report seems to highlight a trend which goes to the core of Australia’s diplomatic representation overseas. There are three elements of this trend, and the report is quite explicit in dealing with them. The first of these is that DFAT staff numbers overseas have been on a perilous decline over a long period of time. In 1980, we had 2,948 members of staff overseas; in 2007, we only have 2,039. LES as a proportion of these numbers are now around 73 per cent of employees overseas. The decline in staff and the shift to reliance upon LES have both occurred during a time when there has been an increased workload for DFAT staff overall. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the LES management was found wanting. Perhaps the mystery is that things are not worse than the Auditor-General reported them to be.

These trends lead to an ineluctable conclusion about DFAT—and that is that it is a department under considerable stress. I think the point is that we cannot continue to run our foreign service on this basis and expect high levels of professionalism from our diplomats. If we put them under constant pressure then we can expect their performance to decline. They are consummate professionals. Any of us who have had any contact with our DFAT staff overseas would say that they do more than is expected of them to perform their representational responsibilities effectively. But we have reached a point—and I think the LES report of the Auditor-General underscores this proposition—where DFAT staff in general are under considerable stress. This is a valuable report because it highlights the experience of the LES, but I think we have probably reached the stage where the Auditor-General might usefully turn his forensic skills on DFAT management overall, because that is where the need is. That is where the Rudd government needs to pay considerable attention to increasing resources, to increasing the budget, and to the staffing matters of the department.

Question agreed to.