CHAIR --Are there any questions on program 3?

Senator MARGETTS --In relation to training, are there lists or information kept of overseas personnel who have ever been trained by the Australian Department of Defence?

Major Gen. Hartley --Lists of people who have attended individual training courses would certainly be available. But people who undertake collective training--in other words, who come here as units--would be not be recorded as such.

Senator MARGETTS --What is the exact name of the document that compiles such information?

Major Gen. Hartley --I doubt that the list is actually collated in any one area. It is probably information that is retained by individual schools on course reports.

Senator MARGETTS --When you say `doubt' and `probably', could you be more specific? Is there someone who could tell me that?

Major Gen. Hartley --As to individuals, if I could use an example, a student who would go to our staff college, for instance, would be recorded in the list of students who attended the staff college that year. But that information is not collated across all schools in one report anyway.

Senator MARGETTS --Not necessarily in one report, but is there a document file that would compile such information?

Major Gen. Hartley --Not centrally. I think, to gain that information, we probably would have to go to each of those individual schools.

Senator MARGETTS --Are you absolutely sure about that?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, I am.

Senator MARGETTS --So you have gone from `probably' to `absolutely sure'.

Major Gen. Hartley --As far as I am aware, that is the case.

Senator MARGETTS --No. I am asking you a question, and there might be someone here who can tell me: is there a document where there are lists and information kept of overseas personnel who have been trained?

Major Gen. Hartley --As far as I am aware, there is no single document anywhere that has the lists of all people who were attending courses from overseas.

Senator MARGETTS --And there is no-one here who would be able to clarify that?

Major Gen. Hartley --No-one would know better than that.

Senator MARGETTS --So you would say that, if there are lists, there are lists of the attendees from particular courses?

Major Gen. Hartley --As I said, people who are attending individual schools would have their name listed as people who attended courses in those schools. But they would be contained within the individual schools, and relate to individual courses in those schools.

Senator MARGETTS --What kind of information would be kept on those lists?

Major Gen. Hartley --The name of the person concerned and when they are attended the course.

Senator MARGETTS --No rank?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, the name and rank, most likely.

Senator MARGETTS --Most likely?

Major Gen. Hartley --The name would include the rank, the initials and the surname of the person concerned.

Senator MARGETTS --Does the department hold any information on overseas military personnel trained by Australian forces in their own country?

Major Gen. Hartley --I would very much doubt that that is the case. We certainly have a number of overseas training teams. But I do not think they would come away with the names of those people whom they have trained, no.

Senator MARGETTS --Could you please check that for me?

Major Gen. Hartley --I certainly can. But I am certain that what I have said is right.

Senator MARGETTS --So you do not know whether there is any document; you are saying that, as far as you are aware, there is no document that compiles that information?

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct.

Senator MARGETTS --And you can check that for me as well?

Major Gen. Hartley --I certainly can.

Senator MARGETTS --What reporting, if any, is done on the issue of whether overseas military personnel taught by Australian Department of Defence employees are, or have been, involved in human rights abuses?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am not aware of any report along those lines.

Senator MARGETTS --Do Australian personnel in other countries ever receive information about operatives from other countries who may have been associated with human rights abuses?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am not aware of any reports.

Senator MARGETTS --So Australian personnel do not know of people who are involved, or there is no document at all kept?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am not aware of any documentation.

Senator MARGETTS --Is information on training of overseas personnel kept electronically?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am certain that there would be some electronic recording of overseas personnel who have trained in Australia. But it would be along the lines of what I have just described: it would held individually by the schools and courses where that training took place.

Senator MARGETTS --If it is held electronically, in what form would it be held: computer tape, discs?

Major Gen. Hartley --I cannot answer that question, I am sorry. I will take that on notice.

Senator MARGETTS --Thank you. Why has Defence removed a number of its files tabled under standing orders which require twice a year an indexed list of departmental file titles to be tabled?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am sorry, I do not understand the question.

Senator MARGETTS --Twice yearly a list of indexed files from each department is required to be tabled. The question is: why has Defence removed a number of its files tabled under standing orders which require tabling twice a year?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am sorry, I cannot answer the question.

Senator Newman --I am not sure whether it is program 1, but it is certainly not an army program.

CHAIR --Senator Margetts, that would have been a general question.

Senator MARGETTS --No, I do not think so.

CHAIR --I think it is unreasonable to expect army personnel to answer that.

Mr Lewincamp --We would be happy to take it on notice, but I think we need a little more detail in order to be able to answer it.

Senator MARGETTS --If I could give you the full question, I would be happy for you to take it on notice. My understanding is that this largely was an army issue.

Mr Lewincamp --We will do that.

Senator MARGETTS --There seems to be a national security classification on some files which have been removed from the twice yearly file names which are tabled under standing orders. Why have these files been deleted? What is the national security reason for these files being deleted? Do any of these files refer to biographical data of overseas personnel trained in Australia? What is the nature of the data marked `national security' in the index lists of departmental file titles?

Mr Lewincamp --We will take that on notice with the earlier question.

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --If Senator Margetts has any questions of a general nature on that and if she has anything specific for the army, rather than take them on notice, we can continue.

Senator MARGETTS --I am sure as we go along those kinds of questions can be identified. We will certainly do that. I refer to pages 58-60 of the PBS under army. What is the reason for the strong concentration of defence exercises based on the SAS?

Major Gen. Hartley --The exercises which are tabled on pages 58 through to page 60 are joint exercises which involve more than one service. These are not all the exercises which army conducts. Because they involve more than one service, a large number of those will actually be recorded against the Special Air Service. So it is a way in which they are recorded more than a suggestion that there is a concentration on special forces exercises. It is just that those which are recorded as joint exercises require more than two services to be involved.

Senator MARGETTS --In the previous years, to my understanding, these exercises have not been included in the PBS. Can you give me an explanation of why they are in there now and were not in previous years? I am not complaining.

Major Gen. Hartley --I do not know the reason for that. I was not even aware that was the issue.

Senator MARGETTS --Does anybody know why?

Mr Lewincamp --I am only aware of the last two PBSs and we have included that information. If that is a departure from previous years, it must be in the interests of providing more information for senators.

Senator MARGETTS --That is a jolly good reason, I would have thought, if that is the reason. Is there an increase in the SAS training from previous years?

Major Gen. Hartley --No, I do not believe that is the case.

Senator MARGETTS --Can you give me a comparison of numbers, costs and extent of exercises in 1997-98 to 1995-96 and 1996-97 involving the SAS?

Major Gen. Hartley --I could not be precise about that. My feeling is that it is roughly the same level of exercise activity.

Senator MARGETTS --Are any of these exercises specifically to do with training for the Olympics?

Major Gen. Hartley --I have trouble answering that question because I think that some of the techniques that are practised in some of the exercises would be relevant to that. But I am not aware of any exercise that is specifically aimed at preparing people for the Olympics.

Senator MARGETTS --What about Project Bluefin?

Major Gen. Hartley --Project Bluefin is not an exercise; it is the acquisition of equipment.

Senator MARGETTS --Many of the exercises mentioned give technical skills--parachuting and deploying from submarines. However, some exercises aim to provide skills which are difficult to master and maintain and, if not maintained, can be difficult to exercise. Is that a reasonable assessment?

Major Gen. Hartley --I think so. Some of these skills require high levels of performance and must be constantly exercised to maintain that level of performance.

Senator MARGETTS --What does the reference `Aid to the Civil Power' describe?

Major Gen. Hartley --Could you refer specifically to an exercise, please? I suspect that that is counterterrorist training, but I would probably have to take it on notice if you wanted more detail than that.

Senator MARGETTS --If you are taking that on notice, could you check whether it might be a reference to counterterrorist activity?

Major Gen. Hartley --Certainly.

Senator MARGETTS --There are two references in the exercises covering the SAS role in protecting offshore resource installations in the Bass Strait and the North West Shelf. How is it determined that the SAS be given this role?

Major Gen. Hartley --That is an issue I would prefer not to talk about in this forum, thank you.

Senator MARGETTS --Are attacks on offshore resource installations a likely threat that the Defence Force should be planning to meet?

Major Gen. Hartley --They are potential targets for terrorists and, therefore, there is a degree of preparation required.

Senator MARGETTS --It seems that some categories of joint exercises have not been listed--and you have mentioned that not all exercises are listed. Why have not all categories of joint exercises been listed?

Major Gen. Hartley --All categories of joint exercises have been listed, but most units have internal exercises which do not involve another service. There are literally hundreds of them and they are not listed. These are essentially training activities.

Senator MARGETTS --Have there been any financial problems precluding joint infantry and headquarter exercises for 1997-98?

Major Gen. Hartley --A number of exercises are cancelled. Some are cancelled because there are resource problems at the time--in other words, air hours might have been anticipated which were not forthcoming for a particular reason--but that is quite a regular activity. There would be dozens of exercises each year which are cancelled.

Some were cancelled because they are no longer needed. Some were cancelled because the information on which they were developed a year before was no longer found to be correct. Some are combined with other exercises and so on.

Senator MARGETTS --Will there be training in amphibious operations, infantry, army engineering, signals or other army formations being deployed in our vessels?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, there will be training in all those areas.

Senator MARGETTS --Will there be army units deployed on training using RAAF tactical transport aircraft?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, there would be.

Senator MARGETTS --Have the costs of providing regional infantry exercises precluded any major joint infantry training in Australia in the next financial year?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am not aware of any. I am not even sure that I quite understand that question.

Senator MARGETTS --I understand there has been a substantial growth in the costs of providing regional infantry exercises.

Major Gen. Hartley --No, I am not aware of any.

Senator MARGETTS --Are there any unifying criteria for these exercises--the prioritisation or strategic plan?

Major Gen. Hartley --There is a Defence Corporation program which certainly gives guidance as to the sorts of training that we might do, but that would be the basis of it.

Senator MARGETTS --Would you not think that would be a reasonable thing to suggest? Exercises obviously are very expensive, but would you not normally be putting a plan together to try to find how to best use the scarce resources in terms of your planning criteria? Is there not any such document that would do that?

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct. Indeed, I think what you are seeing on pages 59 to 60 is a reflection of that.

Senator MARGETTS --No, I am seeing a series of lists of plans, but I do not see any unifying criteria.

Major Gen. Hartley --What you are trying to see is what each of those exercises seeks to achieve. Is that correct?

Senator MARGETTS --There is a short comment on that, yes.

Major Gen. Hartley --No exercise is mounted without an objective in mind.

Senator MARGETTS --I am talking about anything where you have scarce resources and want to get to an end point. How do you work out your strategic plan and prioritisation? Is there any document that does that?

Major Gen. Hartley --There would be a series of documents. It is one of those cascading requirements. The chief of army would issue a directive to the land commander. He in turn would issue directives to his subordinate commanders, and that is how this exercise program would be developed.

Senator MARGETTS --On pages 60 to 62, there are 33 combined training army exercises mentioned involving special forces between Australia and other countries in the region. This is one I would appreciate being taken on notice. For each of those can you detail the countries involved, the type of training given to these forces, where and when the exercises took place, the costs of the exercise, how many years they have been running and whether the government plans to continue with them in future years and which years?

Major Gen. Hartley --I can certainly take that on notice.

Senator MARGETTS --Thank you. I would appreciate it if you could list the names of all overseas personnel involved in these exercises so that non-government organisations can check whether there are human rights abusers amongst them in their home countries. Could the government guarantee that none of those soldiers are human rights abusers in their own country and will not use their training to repress their own people when they return?

Can the government get a commitment from each of the countries from which we train their specialist troops to get such a guarantee? Would the government subject training to the same defence guidelines that exist for the approval of defence exports with a strong human rights impact component? Under SIDCDE, we are not permitted to export military equipment which could be used for these purposes. There is a process, but is training, especially the export of training, subjected to the same kinds of criteria?

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --The training provided for our allies in Australia and friends is generally that which is provided to the ADF. The courses that we structure are generally those which we train our own people in. Our regional neighbours take advantage of the training and the quality that we were able to offer them in a spirit of cooperation within the region. I do not think it is fair that we should demand, as you suggest, a guarantee. I do not think anybody could demand such a guarantee as to what you are seeking.

Senator MARGETTS --I think there is a reasonable expectation that, if we export military equipment or materiel, it goes through a process to ascertain whether it is likely to be used in a way that is involved with human rights abuses. That is the law and that is the expectation. I mean, a gun is a gun unless it is in the hands of someone who might use it, as most people would realise, for a purpose that some of us might find abhorrent. Training could also potentially be used in similar ways, one would think.

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --I think that could be said of any form of training, but I think that is an issue you should take up with the minister.

Senator MARGETTS --This is the process by which I ask the minister. Senator Newman in this particular case is the minister. Senator Newman, why does the government not subject training, especially the export or provision of training, to the same defence guidelines that exist for the approval of defence exports with a strong human rights impact component?

Senator Newman --I will have to take that up with the minister for you.

Senator MARGETTS --I refer to page 62, and I note that Exercise Kookaburra is a joint training exercise with Kopassus troops. Could you please define where and when this exercise will take place, at what cost and the nature of the training?

Major Gen. Hartley --The exercise will take place in Australia in June next year. The costs are about $60,000. Those costs relate to administration, ammunition and rations as opposed to salaries.

Senator MARGETTS --Thank you. How many Kopassus troops are involved?

Major Gen. Hartley --Between 30 and 35.

Senator MARGETTS --Who made the decision to train with Kopassus?

Major Gen. Hartley --I think I will have to take that on notice.

Senator MARGETTS --Is the training at the request of the Indonesian government?

Major Gen. Hartley --I cannot answer that question, I am sorry.

Senator MARGETTS --Would you be able to take that on notice?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

Senator MARGETTS --Thank you. You mention that it will be $60,000, so to a certain extent it adds a user-pays course?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

Senator MARGETTS --And $60,000 is the total extent of the Australian subsidy of the training?

Major Gen. Hartley --Correct.

Senator MARGETTS --Thank you. For how many years has this exercise been going on?

Major Gen. Hartley --I do not know. I will take that one on notice as well.

Senator MARGETTS --For how many future years does the government envisage continuing this training? Could you take that on notice as well?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

Senator MARGETTS --Has there been any resistance or conscientious objection within Australia's special forces to training Kopassus?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator MARGETTS --None at all?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator MARGETTS --None officially? None that you have heard of?

Major Gen. Hartley --I have heard of no opposition.

Senator MARGETTS --You have heard none? Would you normally hear?

Major Gen. Hartley --I can tell you that there has been none.

Senator MARGETTS --None? I guess you are expecting this question: can you please name the overseas personnel involved so that non-government organisations can check if there are human rights abuses among them in their home countries?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator MARGETTS --Can the government guarantee that none of these soldiers are human rights abusers in their own countries and will not use their training to oppress their own people when they return?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator Newman --This has been asked, I think, two or three times in the course of the last couple of days, Senator--

Senator MARGETTS --I asked them for details of different training and so I will keep asking. But, yes, I am happy if you say no--I will just write down `no'. I am not happy that you say no, but it is an answer. The last one was: can the government guarantee that none of these soldiers are human rights abusers in their own countries and will not use their training to oppress their own people when they return? I think you answered no to that one. Will the government get a commitment from each of the countries in which we trained their specialist troops to get such a guarantee?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator MARGETTS --No? Why won't the government subject training to the same defence guidelines that exist for the approval of defence exports with a strong human rights impact component? I have already asked that. Which special forces does Night Komodo train?

Major Gen. Hartley --Night Komodo is a reciprocal exercise where Australia is deployed to Indonesia.

Senator MARGETTS --Are Kostrad and/or Kopassus involved?

Major Gen. Hartley --Elements of both, I would think.

Senator MARGETTS --What type of training is given to these forces?

Major Gen. Hartley --It is essentially conventional operations, long-range reconnaissance and surveillance.

Senator MARGETTS --Where and when will these exercises take place?

Major Gen. Hartley --Komodo will be April next year. I am not sure that the location has been identified, but it will probably be Central Java.

Senator MARGETTS --What are the costs for these exercises?

Major Gen. Hartley --Seventy-eight thousand dollars.

Senator MARGETTS --For how many years have they been running?

Major Gen. Hartley --I cannot answer that question.

Senator MARGETTS --Perhaps you could take on notice with that whether the government plans to continue with them in future years and in which years? Will the government provide the names of all overseas personnel involved in Night Komodo so that NGOs can check if there are human rights abuses amongst them in their home countries?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator MARGETTS --Can the government guarantee that none of these soldiers are human rights abusers in their own countries and will not use their training to oppress their own people when they return?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator MARGETTS --Will the government get a commitment from each of these countries from which we train specialist troops to get such a guarantee?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator MARGETTS --I note Exercise Night Falcon is with the Papua New Guinea Defence Force. Are these exercises part of the government's deal with Papua New Guinea to increase training provision if the mercenary contract were ceased?

Major Gen. Hartley --Could you repeat that question, please?

Senator MARGETTS --I note Exercise Night Falcon is with the Papua New Guinea Defence Force. Are these exercises a part of the government's deal with Papua New Guinea to increase training provision if the mercenary contract ceased?

Major Gen. Hartley --I do not think that there is any connection at all with the mercenary contract.

Senator MARGETTS --No connection?

Major Gen. Hartley --No.

Senator MARGETTS --You are sure about that?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

Senator MARGETTS --Can you list--perhaps this could be taken on notice--any further training which will be occurring overseas with descriptions of the nature of the training and the place, personnel and costs involved?

Major Gen. Hartley --Are you talking about any specific type of training?

Senator MARGETTS --I think largely involving special forces.

Major Gen. Hartley --I think that what is listed in this document, in fact, contains the full description of those exercises.

Senator MARGETTS --Thank you. What is the total cost of the provision of combined training since 1991? Obviously I would be happy for this to be taken on notice. That is, for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 on to 1997-98. So, those years from 1991-92 to 1997-98. Would that be possible on notice?

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --Senator, I think that that sort of data would be very difficult to extract. I often wonder at the value of that sort of thing right now.

Senator MARGETTS --The value is, I guess, with us rather than you. But surely there would be some item of combined training, some budget item, that would give you--

Senator Newman --Senator, could we just look at it and see how much work is involved in what you are asking--how costly it will be and how time consuming? What we can give you we will give you.

Senator MARGETTS --Thank you. I do not have any more questions on that.

Senator HOGG --I have a few short questions on program 3. I refer to: Army HQLC Materiel Management Agency, SSPT Group and Office Requisites purchases. I have the reference number, since you might have to take this on notice: 26700610--$46,605 worth of propylene loose-leaf binder. We want to know how many were purchased and how long that order lasts. We have an even better one shortly.

Senator Newman --We won't be able to supply that kind of detail today.

Senator HOGG --I am putting it on notice.

Senator Newman --That's all right.

Senator HOGG --And how long before another order needs to be placed?

Major Gen. Hartley --We will take that on notice.

Senator HOGG --I am sure. I hope you don't take the third question on notice. The second question I have relates to an incident recently with exploding batteries. There is an article here in the Northern Territory News of 21 May, indicating Canberra as the place from which the article has come. It says that hundreds of army radio batteries have been withdrawn across Australia after one mysteriously exploded during a field exercise.

It then goes on to say what action the minister has taken as a precaution. Mr McLachlan said:

As a precaution a safety instruction has been issued to all users of this battery, suspending the use of batteries manufactured prior to 1994.

What is the current status of the investigations into that exploding battery? I note that a number of people were taken to hospital but were released without treatment. What is the future status of those batteries within the army service?

Major Gen. Hartley --Brigadier Grant will answer this.

Brig. Grant --This year three primary batteries out of the Raven radio systems have either vented or exploded. One of these incidents in February received a great deal of publicity. The army's maintenance engineering agency in Melbourne is conducting the investigation in conjunction with the manufacturers, Siemens Plessey Electronic Systems Australia. Army's Technological and Engineering Agency and the CSIRO are involved, and the army is treating the investigation as a high priority. A report is due on 30 June to the minister, explaining the circumstances related to these batteries.

Senator HOGG --Right. Have we taken action to replace the existing batteries at this stage?

Brig. Grant --No, we have not. These are considered to be isolated incidents--the three of them. In fact, only one has exploded; the others have vented inside their containers. They are housed inside a container which contains the explosion. It is not a violent explosion, as you would think of it as a firecracker. These people were taken to hospital just to be checked out.

Senator WEST --They are lithium batteries, aren't they?

Brig. Grant --The primary batteries are a lithium sulfur-dioxide disposable battery. That is correct.

Senator WEST --So do they emit fumes or toxic liquids or--

Brig Grant --No, there are no toxic liquids. There are some fumes that come out. I think the newspaper report said something about acids breaking out, but that is not true.

Senator WEST --Lithium is a drug that is used for manic depressives, but I don't think that you keep manic depressives in the army. Army Randwick Logistics Co. spent $18,348 on reference JODOT. That was for condoms from Romeo and Juliet Imports New South Wales.

Senator HOGG --We want to know what colour.

Senator WEST --Why is the army spending $18,000 of the taxpayers' money on condoms?

Major Gen. Hartley --I think it is a perfect question to ask the Surgeon General.

Senator WEST --It was army that bought them, Major-General.

Senator HOGG --And we want to know why the other forces are not issued with them also.

Senator WEST --That's right.

Air Vice Marshal Moller --The army is a single service purchaser of all medical and dental materiel under class 8 supplies and it would be their responsibility to buy those condoms under that arrangement for the three services.

Senator WEST --So not only do you provide them with football jerseys and sandals; you now provide them with condoms. Do you provide the female service personnel with condoms as well?

Air Vice Marshal Moller --The condoms are freely available from pharmacies throughout the Australian Defence Force to whoever seeks them.

Senator WEST --So these are for sale?

Air Vice Marshal Moller --They are not for sale.

Senator WEST --They are given away?

Air Vice Marshal Moller --Correct.

Senator WEST --And it is part of a safe sex program?

Air Vice Marshal Moller --Correct. I believe the army also uses them to protect equipment in the field, but that is not the purpose we would recommend.

Senator HOGG --Who bears the responsibility in the case of failure? We are quite serious. In the case of the failure, who bears the liability? Is there a liability on the part of the forces, having purchased them and made them available? Is there a liability there, should one be faulty and someone contracts a disease or whatever it might be--a pregnancy? Is there a liability on the army as the provider? And is there a disclaimer put out by the three forces?

Senator Newman --Can we take it on notice, because we are going to require some legal advice on this. I do not think we have it here.

Senator HOGG --Yes.

Senator WEST --We are quite serious about this.

Senator HOGG --We are quite serious about this. What ranks does this apply to--all ranks?

Senator Newman --All ranks of both genders, obviously.

Senator WEST --Both genders, that is right. As long as there is discrimination there.

Senator HOGG --What about the women?

Senator WEST --No, a woman can use--I won't go into explanations of this. I presume they are not for contraceptive purposes but for safe sex purposes? Because if they are for contraceptive purposes, what contraceptives are you actually providing for females? They are easily procured.

Air Vice Marshal Moller --The reason that they would be sought by any member of the force is because they are generally freely available in such a way as to allow a member to receive that product without embarrassing that member or asking any particular questions. I do not think it is the purpose of a pharmacist to ask the reason for use, rather to supply them in good faith. There are contraceptives available for females within the inventory.

Senator WEST --My other concern is that they have been acquired from Romeo and Juliet Imports New South Wales. That implies to me that they are actually imported. I want to know why we are not using Australian made.

Air Vice Marshal Moller --They would meet an Australian standard. There is an Australian standard.

Senator WEST --Yes, but I still want to know why we are not using Australian-made when allegedly Australian mades, I am told, are of a very high quality, are reliable and everting else like that whereas some of the imported models are not quite so reliable. We will not go into the thing of colours and types, but any further information you can get us about this on notice would be greatly appreciated.

Air Vice Marshal Moller --Yes.

Senator WEST --What else do you do with the safe-sex campaigns that you run?

Air Vice Marshal Moller --The safe-sex campaigns were started many years ago, as you know, with a video in particular in respect of HIV, which was the beginning of the program on safe sex. That was an ADF program, which was a video produced for the ADF from entrance right through the service. At every opportunity of a consultation, be it in a medical or nursing setting or any other contact with the health professionals, if that issue was an issue for an individual member, safe sex would be raised in terms of both HIV and hepatitis B, which would be the greatest concerns we would have.

Senator WEST --Okay, thank you.

Senator HOGG --Just further to that issue, how often are the purchases made, so that they are not getting stock that is old?

Air Vice Marshal Moller --I am afraid I cannot answer that. That would be a question for army logistical command, which manages the single service logistic management.

Major Gen. Hartley --We will take that question on notice.

Senator HOGG --I will not ask the obvious question though. I also understand there is another item under Army HQLC Materiel Management Agency, General Stores ADE. It refers to a billiard table and accessories. I will give you the reference number and again you will have to take this on notice--2570056AC--for $39,031. As Senator West has just said, not a bad billiard table. Can we find out whom it was purchased for and why?

Major Gen. Hartley --I will take that on notice.

Senator HOGG --My next question is in respect of the South Queensland and Logistics Group Facilities Support, oval maintenance and the reference is F6E377.3. Again, $33,398. Where do we have an oval that requires maintenance to the tune of $33,398, and why? I suspect I know where it is. I will give you a hand. I think it is at Victoria Barracks in Brisbane. I suspect that, while it is described as an oval, it is not an oval. I suspect it is a tennis court. When you are making your investigations on that question on notice, would you please find out why such a substantial amount of money is spent in that area?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

CHAIR --Are there further questions on program 3?

Senator WEST --In early March of this year in New Zealand there was an accidental explosion of a 155 millimetre round which killed two Singaporean soldiers. Did army conduct a check of our 155 millimetre rounds?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am certain that the results of the investigation carried out in New Zealand would have been made available to us. That is assuming that investigation is completed. But more than that, I will have to take on notice.

Senator WEST --Right. I would have thought that, if there were rounds accidentally exploding, we would have immediately gone and undertaken some examination of our rounds to see about it.

Major Gen. Hartley --Absolutely. If there is any indication that it is a similar batch of ammunition, or that it could affect our rounds, that would be automatically carried out.

Senator WEST --Okay.

Senator HOGG --Just on Holsworthy, I understand that there is a new field hospital there, and there is also a new field hospital at Enoggera in Brisbane. I understand they were completed at or about the same time. There has been an official opening of the Enoggera field hospital but, as I understand, no such event has taken place at the Holsworthy one. Why would that be the case?

Major Gen. Hartley --There certainly has been an official opening of the field hospital in Enoggera--I can confirm that. I thought that the hospital at Holsworthy had been officially opened as well. If it has not been, there is no particular reason why that is not the case. It is just simply a matter of timing and the right arrangement being in place to allow it to happen.

Mr Lewincamp --I refer you to page 224:

. . . significant expenditure on the field hospital at Holsworthy in this coming financial year . . .

So it is not yet complete.

Senator HOGG --I understood that it was complete. I understood that the facility was operating in spite of some questions from the local member who has been trying to find out why it has not been opened.

Major Gen. Hartley --It may not be completed. I think Mr Corey would be in a better position to answer that question.

Mr Corey --The hospital at Holsworthy is completed and operating. It has not been officially opened yet. That is not unusual; we schedule openings sometimes a long time after the hospital or facility has been completed.

Senator WEST --When did it go into operation?

Mr Corey --I am not sure. I would have to take that on notice.

Senator WEST --Could you please find out? When did Enoggera go into operation?

Mr Corey --I am not sure when they went into operation.

Senator WEST --Take that on notice, please. When was Enoggera officially opened?

Mr Corey --I would have to take that on notice too.

Major Gen. Hartley --Certainly this year; in the last three months, I think.

Senator WEST --The total estimated cost for Holsworthy is $21.754 million and this year's estimated budget expenditure is $181,000. What is that $181,000 about?

Mr Corey --That is a provision for the defects liability period. Once the hospital or any building is completed there is provision to do anything that has to be done in the wash-up of the project. That is an estimated expenditure; it may not be incurred.

Senator WEST --Is there a similar expense for Enoggera?

Mr Corey --You will find it for most projects. Most facilities projects will have a spin-off into the next year. It is not unusual.

Senator WEST --I do not see it for Enoggera. I would appreciate any information. What number of beds do they both have?

Mr Corey --I think they are both 20 beds, but again I would have to take that on notice. We build quite a number of medical facilities around the country and I do not keep that sort of information in my head.

Senator HOGG --Is the ADF conducting a review of ADF airfields as a result of the government's decision to consider Holsworthy as Sydney's second airport?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

Senator HOGG --What stage is that review at?

Major Gen. Hartley --This is an EDF question rather than a purely army question, but the review is ongoing with an expected release of the findings in about October this year.

Mr Corey --I can add to that. We have put a submission into the department of transport's environmental impact assessment process.

Senator HOGG --Has that submission gone in?

Mr Corey --It has gone in and the minister has agreed that it can become public when the EIS becomes a public document.

Senator HOGG --When did that submission go in?

Mr Corey --About two weeks ago.

Senator WEST --In relation to that EIS and the Holsworthy airport plans and configurations, what is the relationship between the two runway configurations proposed and the hospital at Holsworthy?

Mr Corey --Under one of the options at least the Holsworthy hospital is impacted by noise.

Senator WEST --What sort of noise level would it be under?

Mr Corey --That again is still subject to detailed study, but under the preliminary noise forecasts the hospital is under the flight path of one of those.

Senator WEST --You must have some idea as to whether it is in the 25 ENF range or--

Mr Corey --No, they have not been finalised yet. Some concept designs and some initial forecasts have been done by the department of transport and they will not have finalised those for a month.

Senator WEST --How close to the proposed configuration would the hospital be?

Mr Corey --I would have to take that on notice as well because it is very much a conceptual design that has been done for the runway layouts. To actually get an accurate measure of distance I would have to take that on notice.

Senator WEST --They have several options, haven't they?

Mr Corey --There are two options at Holsworthy, a southern and a northern option.

Senator WEST --Which option affects the hospital worse?

Mr Corey --The northern option.

Senator WEST --You have no estimate as to how far away the hospital would be from the flight path? I presume that when you say it would be affected by noise, it is actually under the direct flight path?

Mr Corey --Flight paths vary. At an international airport they cover a big area. It is not as if the planes take off in one direction. I would have to take that on notice to assess that. We are still looking at the detailed implications of both runway options. While we have put in an initial statement to the department of transport, we still have more work to do and we have indicated to the department of transport that we will be doing that.

Senator WEST --There comes a certain time when an aircraft is landing that it has to be lined up with the runway. You cannot come in at a 90 degree angle and sit it down above the airfield. It is not a helicopter we are talking about here. You get the spaghetti junction-like effect in Sydney if you are north of the harbour, basically, but if you are south of the harbour going into KSA you are fairly much funnelled by that stage. Would the hospital be in that funnelled area or is it likely to be outside in a spaghetti junction type area?

Senator Newman --The officer has already said that they are dealing with conceptual arrangements. It is unfair to ask him to make a specific response to something he has already given his best shot to answer at this stage. It is early days. There is no certainty as to what will prevail even if Holsworthy were the site. To be asking these questions--

Senator WEST --There is an EIS under way so presumably the department has a fairly narrow range of options as to what the possibilities are going to be. I am trying to--

Senator Newman --It is not a Defence EIS.

Senator WEST --I know it is not a Defence EIS but Defence is going to be impacted upon.

Senator Newman --You are coming to one of the other departments that have a role in this but not the prime carriage. You are asking for detail that we cannot necessarily give you.

Senator WEST --Transport has finished. The question may well be, then: how clear is it to Defence and army in particular where and what the possible configurations are going to be, or are they still very nebulous options and concepts?

Senator Newman --It is not as conceptual.

Mr Corey --We are aware that there will be a noise impact on the hospital from at least one of the options, and we are looking at the implications of that. We are looking at the implications in detail of all the rest of our facilities at Holsworthy. While we have put in an initial submission to the department of transport, we are still going back and validating that. As we get more information on the noise contours and the alignments of their transport infrastructure, we are assessing in more detail the impacts on our facilities at Holsworthy.

Senator WEST --I will be interested to get more information on notice as the time goes on. Can you tell me the number of patients that have been treated since it has been operating?

Mr Corey --Yes.

CHAIR --I am calling an afternoon tea break at this stage.

Sitting suspended from 3.31 to 3.54 p.m.

CHAIR --I would like to give some indication of how we will deal with the rest of the program for today. Between now and 6.30 p.m., we will proceed to deal with the rest of program 3 dealing with the army. I then propose to bring on programs 6 and 7 as there are officers here who are either interstate for the day or are dealing with other matters. So, in that case, those officers involved with programs 10 to 14 would be able to leave if they wish. The overflow program for Defence will be dealt with next Tuesday evening at 7.30 p.m. From 6.30 p.m. tonight onwards, the committee will be dealing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Before the break, we were dealing with questions on army.

Senator HOGG --I might just go back to where I was a while ago on the review committee of the various airfields. Who comprises the review panel?

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --Senator, is this the review of ADF airfields that has been referred to?

Senator HOGG --Yes.

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --That particular study is nearing completion. The report should be with VCDF in about two or three weeks. There is a steering committee and a working group. The working group is chaired by Group Captain Alan Crow who works in the strategic policy and plans area of Defence headquarters. The steering group involves the vice chief, a number of the two-star officers of the services and headquarters ADF as it is now.

Senator HOGG --Are there any outside consultants on those committees?

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --There has been a great deal of consultation undertaken by the working group in the working of their particular analysis.

Senator HOGG --Any consultants as such? I am not talking about consultation.

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --I do not think we have employed any consultants, as such.

Senator HOGG --It is all in-house.

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --Yes. The reasons why we put certain units at a certain place are strategic and good reasons for security rather than just putting them where we think anybody else would.

Senator HOGG --What was the actual criteria on which that review committee operated? Did they have a set of criteria that they had to address?

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --They were given terms of reference. I cannot explain exactly what the terms of reference were now. I can give you a copy of the terms of reference if it is able to be released in terms of classification.

Senator HOGG --Will this review cover issues such as the possibility of Holsworthy were it to be selected as the airport for Sydney?

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --Yes. The whole study is looking at where we can relocate some of the ADF units in the aerial sense in the future. As to what economies we can meet, you may recall in the DER there was reference to it. They said that we did not look at this because it is being looked at by a review within Defence itself. For example, those airfields that are being listed in the DER for possible closure--those aspects are being taken into account as to where we would locate units and still retain the tactical and strategic advantage we need.

Senator HOGG --I understand Richmond is one of those within the ongoing five years.

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --I do not think it is within the five-year cycle. Richmond is one on the longer term list.

Senator HOGG --There is a list of them in--

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --Remember that is the secretariat papers.

Senator HOGG --I understand that, but there is a list here. It might not be set in concrete, but I understand that Richmond was one of those.

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --I answered a question at the last estimates hearing, you may recall, on the inference that the second Sydney airport was located in either Badgerys Creek or the Holsworthy area. The question was relating to the impact on Richmond operations. I said it would be minor, that we could accommodate that.

Senator WEST --What will be the impact on Holsworthy if the second Sydney airport goes there?

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --That is a matter for the submission to the EIS process, which we have discussed.

Senator WEST --So we have to wait to see what speculation there is about what units might need to be moved, relocated, et cetera. How much will that cost? Would that be in the EIS submission, or you cannot tell me?

Mr Tonkin --I cannot tell you.

Senator WEST --I shall wait.

Senator HOGG --Is there an impact from Holsworthy, if it were to be the airport, on the airspace of Bankstown?

Mr Tonkin --It is not a matter for Defence.

Senator Newman --I am afraid you must ask the Department of Transport and Regional Development, Senator.

Senator WEST --I suppose you will tell us that the impact on live firing will also be something in the EIS, too. Is that correct?

Mr Tonkin --That is correct.

Senator WEST --We understand the EIS has been extended for a further two months. Would Transport have to tell us that?

Mr Tonkin --Yes, the same answer.

Senator HOGG --Are there any decontamination costs associated with Holsworthy, if it were to become the--

Mr Tonkin --The same answer.

Senator HOGG --Do we know the date when we are going to find all this out?

Mr Tonkin --That is a matter for the Department of Transport and Regional Development.

Senator WEST --I have some questions about the ready reserve. At the time of the announcement, how many ready reservists were actually in the army?

Major Gen. Hartley --Senator, you asked me that question last time, and I had all the answers. I do not have them with me. I would have to take that on notice. I am sorry.

Senator WEST --How many have sought transfer to the full-time force?

Major Gen. Hartley --There are 428.

Senator WEST --Have the 428 actually transferred or have some of them been somewhere else?

Major Gen. Hartley --They have all transferred.

Senator WEST --How many went to the general reserve?

Major Gen. Hartley --There are two categories, I guess, that went to the general reserve: those who went and continued to have their same conditions of employment, 1,795; and those who transferred to the general reserve with the conditions that the general reserve has, 173.

Senator WEST --So how are you going to run them in the general reserve if they are under the same conditions as if they were still in the ready reserve?

Major Gen. Hartley --Those who transfer to the general reserve maintaining their ready reserve conditions of employment will generally operate in sub-units, usually company groups of about 100. So they will be able to continue to operate in a general reserve battalion as almost an independent sub-unit.

Senator WEST --That means they will be getting more service. Is that correct?

Major Gen. Hartley --Generally, yes. I should also add that a fair percentage of them will continue with their present conditions of employment but will also work in general reserve units, in many cases as non-commissioned officers. Many of them--because of their length of service and, in particular, the continuous service that they had in that first year--are now ready to approach the time when they could be promoted as non-commissioned officers.

Senator WEST --That is in the reserve?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

Senator WEST --I just wondered what the impact is. Basically you are going to have two sorts of reserves, aren't you?

Major Gen. Hartley --We have right from the start made every attempt to continue the service of as many ready reservists as possible and to have them transferred to the general reserve. As I have said, they will work in the general reserve really under two very broad categories. There will work in sub-units, where they are almost entirely former ready reservists, or in general reserve units as non-commissioned officers. That categorisation presents no problems.

Senator WEST --So there will be another group who will just continue in the ordinary general reserve. So you are actually going to have three categories, aren't you?

Major Gen. Hartley --Correct, yes. The third category is a very small category, though. That tends to be people who have completed their five years of service but want to continue serving--therefore, they have none of those special ready reserve conditions to carry forward--or people who are now living in remote localities where they do not have access to a unit which would have former ready reservists in it.

Senator WEST --When did the ready reserves start?

Major Gen. Hartley --In 1991.

Senator WEST --So there are some who have completed their full time?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

Senator WEST --They cannot elect to remain in the ready reserve?

Major Gen. Hartley --No, the ready reserve scheme as such wound up in February this year.

Senator WEST --What about these ones who are going into the special areas in the general reserve? That will only stay in operation until they have finished their training.

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct, yes.

Senator WEST --Their standard of preparedness and their level of readiness would be superior to the general reserve.

Major Gen. Hartley --By and large, yes. They came from units which were on 90-days notice to deploy on combat operations. Many of the units they are joining are considerably less than that.

Senator WEST --So it is too early to tell whether you are getting any drop out from this group because they are finding that they are not as occupied, there is not as much happening, there is not as much training and it is generally a bit ho-hum?

Major Gen. Hartley --It is too early to make that assessment because the ready reserve brigade only ceased operation in February this year. In a year's time I think we will be able to make a better assessment. With the 4th Brigade, for instance, which I know most about, certainly there has been a very high level of interest from former ready reservists to continue to serve. This is a brigade which has particularly gone out of its way to seek to develop former ready reservists to become NCOs. Indeed they have even attracted back some people who had left the ready reserve previously. The dropout rate will certainly be no less than it was under the ready reserve scheme and might even improve in some areas.

Senator WEST --How many left the army?

Major Gen. Hartley --Some 533 elected discharge when they were given the option in February of moving either to the regular army or into a general reserve unit.

Senator WEST --Have there been any cost savings to date from the abolition of the ready reserve?

Major Gen. Hartley --The costs which were associated with the ready reserve have in fact been ploughed back into general reserve units and the result has been for instance an increase in the number of training days that general reservists have.

Senator WEST --If the savings have gone back into the general reserve, how much has been ploughed back into the general reserve?

Major Gen. Hartley --We certainly have that information available. I will take it on notice. Over three years I think it was of the order $120 million.

Senator WEST --When will the ready reserve capability be fully replaced?

Major Gen. Hartley --It is being replaced under a number of different arrangements. It is difficult to give an answer to that question. The ready reserve subunits for instance, which were amalgamated with general reserve units, will continue to carry with them the same degree of preparedness that they previously had. In other words, companies that have deployed to general reserve units will continue to be on 90 days notice. In other areas, the soldiers who become NCOs will be very much part of the process of raising the standard of the general reserve unit. It is very difficult to actually make that comparison.

Senator HOGG --Are you saying that you are going to have two different groups within the one unit who are going to have a different state of readiness?

Major Gen. Hartley --That will certainly be the case in the short term. What we would want to do of course is raise that level of that element of the unit which was at a lower readiness to the same readiness level as the ready reserve. That is the plan that we have in place to undertake in this restructuring of the army process.

Senator HOGG --I have seen in a publication put out by the army that they list the various current army readiness for the various elements of the army. The ready reserve is at 90 and short of, I think it is the 3rd Brigade in Townsville and the special forces, all the others seem to be 180 days or more. So what you are saying is that you are going to be able to retain that element of 90 days from the ready reserve even though there has been a wastage of people who have decided not to stay on within the army. How are you going to bring the other brigades down to the same standard?

Major Gen. Hartley --In the period between now and 1999 we are going through this process of restructuring the army. You had the publication I saw the other day. The first stage of that process is to put a brigade, the 4th brigade in Victoria, which is a ready reserve brigade, through a series of trials to endeavour to determine what are the best measures we can have to raise the standard of general reserve units. That is an approach which covers a wide range of issues.

Already, for instance, we are starting with a range of experiments into initial training. Previously, general reserve units did two weeks initial training followed some period later by two further weeks before the deployment of a unit. The first part of this experiment is now to put all general reserve soldiers in this brigade through six weeks of initial training and gradually to do the same training for them that we do for the regular soldiers who were going through a recruit training course. That is one element of an experiment.

Over the next 2 1/2 years we will be experimenting against a number of performance indicators to identify what is the best way that we can in fact raise the standard of a general reserve unit. It also involves having a much larger regular cadre in the unit as well as re-equipping the unit and conducting collective training under different regimes. So it is a wide ranging trial and already we are starting to see some positive results from that process.

Senator Newman --As you can see, those elements that the general was speaking about all cost money to some degree or other. It is for that sort of reason that the defence efficiency review was established so that it was not a question of ironmongering; it was also a question of raising the readiness of the defence forces across the board as much as possible. It was our combat capability in terms of the efficiency and professionalism of our troops.

Senator HOGG --I presume that six weeks is six weeks of block training?

Major Gen. Hartley --That is right--continuous training.

Senator HOGG --What about the difficulties of getting release for people to attend that training? As I understand it there are difficulties in the current environment let alone worrying about going for a six-week period.

Major Gen. Hartley --The interesting thing is that this is part of the trial to see where those difficulties might be. Over the Christmas period we enlisted and trained, through six weeks of continuous training in Victoria, 550 soldiers. There was no problem getting that number. It is a different sort of soldier perhaps. We are getting a large number of people who are between the end of high school and the start of university training or people who are in fact doing it during their semesters of university training. But certainly with the experiment in Victoria over Christmas we had no trouble filling the requirement, which was 550 soldiers.

Senator WEST --How does the fact that that is usually the stand-down period when a lot of the training facilities would be closed and a lot of the trainers themselves would be on stand-down impact upon that?

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct. The traditional block leave period for the army has been the December-January period. However, if we want to have a revitalised reserve with the sorts of numbers we need, we have to do this under different arrangements. We did that for this Christmas.

Senator WEST --So what happened to the people who would normally have been on stand-down?

Major Gen. Hartley --They will take their stand-down under different arrangements.

Senator WEST --How does that impact upon their personnel entitlements?

Major Gen. Hartley --It is something that people can plan for. It means that they take their leave periods at other times, for instance, when families are on school holidays and that sort of thing.

Senator WEST --That is the big school holiday period, though.

Major Gen. Hartley --It is, I agree. But, by the same token, if we want a revitalised reserve and that is the time that we are going to attract people to do that sort of training, then that is the process we have to go through.

Senator WEST --How does having people on stand-down through other parts of the year impact upon the regulars' training program?

Major Gen. Hartley --It has to be managed, but it can be. We have to concentrate a number of schools, people in training command, to do that. We also have to bring in people from the combat units to support some of that training as well. It is an issue of management as much as anything.

Senator WEST --I would like to know how many people who would have reasonably expected to go on stand-down over the last Christmas break did not go on stand-down and when they are going to be able to take their stand-down. I would like to know the impact upon other combat units and stuff of that happening in terms of people having to stand in for other people or some training may be deferred?

Major Gen. Hartley --I certainly can do that, but I can also say--

Senator WEST --I give it to you on notice.

Major Gen. Hartley --I can probably explain it. The area which was primarily involved with this was the recruit training battalion at Kapooka, which trains roughly for about 50 weeks of the year anyway. They train right up to Christmas and immediately after Christmas. The entire unit does not do that; within the unit people will have periods off.

The other part of the equation is that at least half of this training was also done in the general reserve training group. These are reservists doing training and training fellow reservists. Their regime very often has them training through periods of block leave, for instance. So the impact was not great.

Senator WEST --I would still like more details.

Senator HOGG --I go back to the 550 or thereabouts, how many of those people were new to the army, if any, and how many of those were existing?

Major Gen. Hartley --The 533 who elected discharge--

Senator HOGG --Sorry, I mean in the training exercise. My apologies.

Major Gen. Hartley --How many of those were new to the army?

Senator HOGG --Yes.

Major Gen. Hartley --All of them were enlisted to do their recruit training, I think, in late November and early December.

Senator WEST --What is the normal recruit training for a reservist?

Major Gen. Hartley --Until recently, apart from this experiment, it has been two weeks.

Senator WEST --So at this stage you do not know how long you need to do initial recruit training for a reservist to get them up to--

Senator HOGG --How many days to get them to the 90 day?

Major Gen. Hartley --The 90 days also involves an element of collective training. The regime that we ideally would prefer--and which we are now working through to see whether we can actually manage--is six weeks of initial training as a recruit followed by a further six weeks--either a six-week block or modules, preferably not less than two weeks--of what we call initial employment training, which is the training they do when they go to a specific arm of the service or corps.

So an infantryman would do six weeks of initial training followed by six weeks of training to make him a proficient infantryman. That just about brings him to the standard of his regular counterpart.

Senator HOGG --In what period of time?

Major Gen. Hartley --The first six weeks--that is the recruit training--we would like to have done as a complete period, without a break. In relation to the second period of six weeks, we have to design courses which are sufficiently flexible to allow for the individual not to do it in less than three lots of two weeks but also to give the individual if he or she has the opportunity to do it in a block of six weeks.

Senator WEST --In what time frame, though?

Senator HOGG --That is right--one, two or three years?

Major Gen. Hartley --Ideally, the following year, but it could go for longer.

Senator HOGG --So you are looking for someone to have 12 weeks off whatever they normally would do--

Major Gen. Hartley --Ideally, in the first two years. But the second six weeks, as I said, can be done flexibly and may go for longer.

Senator WEST --If you are going to be able to do that for the reservists, I presume you will be able to rethink your whole basic training at Kapooka and get the general trainees through in a lot shorter time, too?

Major Gen. Hartley --Absolutely. Indeed, right now we are on the verge of training our regulars in eight weeks at Kapooka.

Senator WEST --What is the readiness of the regular units?

Major Gen. Hartley --Regular units vary. The 3rd Brigade, for instance, is on very short notice with elements being on seven days--

Senator WEST --That is in Townsville, is it?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, in Townsville.

Senator WEST --They are the ones we haul out and send whenever we need them in an emergency.

Major Gen. Hartley --Exactly, yes.

Senator WEST --The SAS are on immediate--

Major Gen. Hartley --They are on very short notice as well. Elements of the 1st Brigade in Darwin are also on very short notice. Even though they are shown as a brigade being at 180-days notice, there are elements which are much shorter than that.

Senator WEST --This does not break it down into terribly clear figures. It seems crazy to me that it looks from these figures that you will have reserves on shorter readiness than you will your regulars. There is a little bit of incongruity there to me, given that your regulars are supposed to be practising being soldiers 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 48 weeks of the year and that your reservists practise being soldiers for six weeks a year full time or something like that. I find that a bit incredible.

Major Gen. Hartley --I may have explained it badly. But, by and large, regular units are certainly in higher degrees of notice. They may not be shown quite like that on that diagram that you have got, but generally that is the case.

Senator WEST --I think you had better give us a better diagram.

Senator HOGG --Could we get a better appreciation of it?

Major Gen. Hartley --What we have talked about is brigade groups. By and large, brigade groups very broadly can be declared to be on that degree of notice. Within those brigade groups, particularly the regular brigades, there are units which are on very much shorter notice.

Senator WEST --What size units?

Major Gen. Hartley --Italian type units, units with 600 or 700 people in them.

Senator WEST --I think we had better have a very thorough breakdown of the size of the units we are talking about and their readiness as well as that of the reservists. I find it totally incredible that we look like we are going to have reserve units less ready than our regulars.

Major Gen. Hartley --That is not meant to be the case. I can certainly take that on notice and give you a briefing, which I suspect would probably be better, or present you with something in writing.

Senator HOGG --I want to return to the people you trained at Christmas. How many of those people were in a form of full-time employment other than defence forces?

Major Gen. Hartley --I can certainly get you that information. A large percentage were students. There were a number of unemployed and there were a number that were employed, but the largest percentage of them would be students.

Senator HOGG --Your trial so far revolves around people who notionally have free time at that particular time of the year. What about those people who are in regular employment? What has been the reaction from their employer where, under this new regime, they face six weeks in the first year and a further six weeks in the second year? Has there been employer resistance? If so, to what degree and how is it being overcome?

Major Gen. Hartley --We have another full-time six-week trial a little later this year. I think it is about August. Part of the process will be to make some judgment on that very issue, to see, firstly, whether we can attract the same numbers of people and, secondly, to determine if we cannot the reasons for it. One of the reasons, if that is the case, will certainly be employer resistance.

Senator WEST --August will also be outside semester break for university students.

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct. We are looking for a completely different element of recruits.

Senator WEST --What ratio of full- to part-time combat personnel is the army aiming at?

Major Gen. Hartley --At least 60 per cent of combat to non-combat--is that what you are asking?

Senator WEST --Part time to full time.

Major Gen. Hartley --Both.

Senator WEST --So you are aiming at 60 per cent combat personnel to 40 per cent non-combat personnel, and 60 per cent part time to 40 per cent full time or 60 per cent full time to 40 per cent part time?

Major Gen. Hartley --Can you rephrase that, please?

Senator WEST --What is the ratio of full-time to part-time combat personnel that the army is aiming at? You can take it on notice if you wish.

Major Gen. Hartley --I can give you some statistics. Combined right now we have 28,000 in the combat force, of whom regulars number 13,300.

Senator WEST --The combat force is 28,000 and regulars are 13,000.

Major Gen. Hartley --Of that regulars number 13,300.

Senator WEST --So nearly 15,000 are part time?

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct.

Senator WEST --What are comparable overseas full-time to part-time combat ratios?

Senator Newman --Do you think we could take that on notice?

Senator WEST --Yes, I am quite happy for that to happen. I want to know what the overseas experience is, such as the UK and Canada. I also want to know how we arrived at this ratio and how they arrived at theirs.

Senator Newman --We will do our best, but it sounds like it could be an expensive answer unless it is kept a bit constrained.

Senator WEST --I would have thought that we would have readily available what everybody's full-time, part-time combat personnel ratio was.

Major Gen. Hartley --I can certainly give you the statistics very easily. It might be a bit more difficult for the reasoning.

Senator HOGG --What we also want to look at is the impact of moving to a number of reservists who are part time. Are we going to impact on the ratio from full time to part time, and thereby deplete our capacity to operate because we have gone too far down the path of part-time personnel?

Major Gen. Hartley --Certainly.

Senator HOGG --Are you aware that, with changes to the Workplace Relations Act from 1 July next year, all existing defence leave clauses in awards will be removed as part of that act? It may make it harder for some people to achieve leave from their employers.

Major Gen. Hartley --I am aware of the issue.

Senator HOGG --Have you addressed it?

Major Gen. Hartley --This is probably best approached on a Defence-wide issue rather than just a single service.

Senator HOGG --All right.

Air Vice Marshal Cox --I must admit that I am not aware that this leave and these entitlements will be lost under workplace arrangements, if that was the question.

Senator HOGG --Yes. It is no longer one of the allowable matters.

Air Vice Marshal Cox --The arrangements for the ADF are being refined in concert and discussion with the Department of Industrial Relations, but to my knowledge the loss of leave is not one of those issues.

Senator WEST --There were 20 rock solid, cast in gold things that could be discussed or varied. The rest of it could not be varied.

Air Vice Marshal Cox --But there is a difference between having it up for negotiation and losing it.

Senator HOGG --No, they can be just written out of awards.

Air Vice Marshal Cox --They could be, but it does not mean they would be.

Senator HOGG --They will no longer be an allowable matter after 1 July.

Air Vice Marshal Cox --My understanding--it is not perfect, of course--is that the Chief of the Defence Force, for example, will specify the employment conditions for the members of the ADF.

Senator WEST --But this is not the ADF personnel; this is the reservists who come in when they are negotiating their awards with their civilian employer.

Air Vice Marshal Cox --Okay. Yes, I understand. I am sorry. I thought you were talking about ADF conditions.

Senator WEST --Sorry, no.

Senator HOGG --We are talking about the obstacle that it might place in your path.

Senator WEST --Your part-timers will not, under the AWAs, be able to negotiate defence leave because it is not one of the things that can be negotiated.

Air Vice Marshal Cox --Madam Chair, I now understand the aspect which the senator is talking about. All I can say in response to that observation is that the conditions under which the reservists serve is being reviewed, and we are, in fact, looking at matters such as the release of potential reservists and actual reservists from their employers as an item.

Senator HOGG --What protection is there for reservists in respect of their civilian employment rights in joining the reserve?

Major Gen. Hartley --There is no formal protection.

Senator HOGG --No formal protection at all?

Major Gen. Hartley --There is no legislation which protects them.

Senator HOGG --As I understand it there is an army document--I do not know the source of it, but it is chapter 4 wherever it comes from--containing questions and answers for reservists; 403 asks if there is a law in Australia protecting reservists' civilian employment. The answer given is no for peacetime training. It says that the Australian government has opted for a voluntary rather than a legislative approach to protect the civilian employment of reservists. Having said that, if one turns to the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965, part II--which is `Protection in relation to civil employment'--under the heading `Interpretation', it says:

"Defence service" means:

(a)continuous full-time service in a part of the Emergency Forces or of the Reserve Forces.

I will skip (b) and (c), but it goes on to say:

. . . but does not include service rendered by a member of a part of the Emergency Forces or of the Reserve Forces by virtue of a voluntary undertaking by him to render continuous full-time service for a period for which he is not otherwise bound . . .

As I read that, this comes down to the ability of the reservist, when joining, to sign away their right of protection under that particular act. Am I correct?

Major Gen. Hartley --I am not sure that that is correct. Looking at the date of that, though, it may well have had something to do with the introduction of the two-year national service scheme. Options were given to national servicemen or prospective national servicemen to serve for a period in the reserve. Equally, a number of reservists who were then in the Citizen Military Force were able to transfer for periods of service with the regular army. I suspect it has got more to do with that era and the concept of national service than anything that we can translate into reality today. But I would have to take that on notice. I could not say more than that.

Senator HOGG --No, I appreciate that. Whilst doing so, I refer you to another document which I understand is signed by reservists and which looks at various support measures. It refers to the support measures required for section 1--deployment duration less than six months/six months or greater. I think the reservist is required to tick the various aspects. Item 10 on that particular sheet reads `Protection of civilian employment', and then it has got `Res only' in brackets. The person has to sign down the bottom, for part-time personnel: `I acknowledge that in the event of call-out I am obliged to render continuous full-time service even if the Army is not able to provide any of the support outlined above.'

I am concerned that, as we are heading down this path of having more reservists, people may be unwittingly signing away rights which were not deliberately designed by yourselves to be signed away but which may well exist under this particular act--the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965. Whilst it might not exist in the general psyche of some of the army documentation, my conclusion it that it seems to be there. I would ask you to look at that, take it on notice and duly get back to us.

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, we are certainly very much aware of that issue. Call-out, of course, will require an act of parliament. With call-out would have to come legislation which protected the rights of those soldiers to be re-employed after the period of national emergency.

Senator HOGG --Is there still in operation a Defence Reserve Support Committee? I understood there was one at one stage.

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct, yes. There is still a committee of that nature.

Senator HOGG --Who is on that committee now, in a more general sense? I do not want the names of the people, but if you could give me--

Major Gen. Hartley --I will see if one of my colleagues can answer that. Can we take that on notice, please?

Senator HOGG --Can you take that on notice? Also, how that committee is working in with your program to virtually change the face of the army?

Major Gen. Hartley --Certainly that committee receives regular briefings from us. Indeed, in the trialling in Victoria we will have an opportunity to comment on those issues. The senior reserve officers in most states are members of those committees, and through them we are able to advise that committee quite clearly what we are doing.

Air Vice Marshal Rogers --Senator, I think that question may be best answered in program 8, Defence Personnel Executive, who look after the policy side of the Defence reserves.

Senator HOGG --That's fine. I don't mind if they are not able to answer it today; they can take it on notice for us.

Senator WEST --How many officers and instructors of cadets did the army employ in 1996-97 or in the last year? I know you had 682 officers and instructors of cadets, according to the PBS on page 179. That is an estimate. I want to know how many.

Major Gen. Hartley --Officers and instructors of cadets: 1,013.

Senator WEST --Wow! Well, there is a bit of a blue in the PBS on page 179, because it says 682.

Major Gen. Hartley --The figures that I have--and these are quite recent--show that there are two types of cadet units: one employs 697 officers and instructors of cadets, and the other employs 316.

Senator WEST --What are the two types of cadet unit?

Major Gen. Hartley --There is a full support unit, which is community based, and a limited support unit, which is a school based type of cadet unit.

Senator WEST --So the community support ones are like the air training corps and the--

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct.

Senator WEST --Is it possible to have a breakdown as to where they are employed.

Major Gen. Hartley --In what sort of category?

Senator WEST --I mentioned the school category but also the army--

Senator Newman --Did this change in the last 12 months? I cannot imagine that that will have changed much since--

Senator WEST --I also want to know what the cost is to the army. I am interested to know how many cadets you have and how many of them actually end up joining the ADF.

Major Gen. Hartley --Okay. We have a total within the last month of 17,400 cadets in both categories. The cost to the army over the last financial year was $5.6 million.

Senator WEST --If they have 17,000 in both categories, that is 34,000. How many of the 34,000 actually join the ADF?

Major Gen. Hartley --I'm sorry. The 17,000 was the total of both categories.

Senator WEST --How many of that 17,000 would you expect to join the ADF?

Major Gen. Hartley --I will take that on notice. I feel that about 60 per cent of those who serve have had cadet experience. That is a figure I have had quoted to me.

Senator WEST --I am wanting to come at it the other way. I am wanting to know many of the 17,000 cadets actually end up in paid uniform rather than cadet uniform.

Major Gen. Hartley --I will take that on notice.

Senator WEST --And are there any studies that conclude that cadets are actually a benefit to Defence recruiting?

Major Gen. Hartley --That is correct. We have recently had a major study called the Brewer report, prepared and compiled by Colonel Brewer. He certainly comes to that conclusion. I would like a copy of that, if it is possible, please.

Senator WEST --I am wondering how many of the school cadets are actually private single-sex boys schools. You can take that on notice. If that is the case, it ties in very well with some of the work of Clare Burton. She identified problems that would be compounded if you get a large number of those males who have spent six years being institutionalised in a single-sex school and have been given a set of values that may not be the norm of the community as far as relationships with females go and are not used to relating and working with females. They then come into the armed forces and it again is male dominated. I am just wondering how much of a problem that is. I would like to look at some of those numbers so I can--

Senator Newman --You didn't fix all that for the last 13 years.

Senator WEST --We tried, Minister, we tried.

Senator Newman --No, you didn't.

Senator WEST --We tried. I am expecting you to continue the work we started.

Senator Newman --But I think you will find that a high proportion of those kids are coming from the community cadet units anyway these days.

Senator WEST --The community cadet units are a different--

Senator Newman --I know. That is what I am saying. A high proportion of your 17,000--I do not know what it would be--

Senator WEST --That is the sort of breakdown of figures I am trying to get--which cadet units they are coming out of and how many are actually joining. If you are only getting 2,000 or 3,000 joining, what is your cost benefit?

Senator HOGG --I would like to progress now to the issue of the army's involvement with the Aboriginal communities. I understood that in here there are--and I just cannot lay my hands on it at the moment--some six or eight programs under consideration for the coming financial year. Is it possible to give some idea of what those programs are, what they will entail and, before we do so, could we have some assessment of the success of the existing program to date?

Senator Newman ----If you are concerned about, for instance, the assistance the army gave Aboriginal communities in far north-western Australia, I was in Western Australia talking to the aboriginal affairs and housing minister the other day and he was so full of praise for what the army had done and saying how much the Aboriginal community had valued the contribution that it had made to their community. He could not have spoken more highly.

Senator HOGG --I accept that, Minister.

Major Gen. Hartley --That is the one project that is now complete. It was a community of 375 people north-west of Wyndham. The name of the community is Oombulgurri and the project involved reconstructing a barge landing that had been destroyed by a cyclone and improving sewerage and the road system. As the minister has said, that received high acclaim from the local community. Seven other projects are now being considered. They are in various stages of development. Part of the process involves identifying them in the first place, a reconnaissance and then the actual construction. No other project has yet started with a construction phase but a number have had their initial reconnaissance.

Senator HOGG --I have heard that the funds for that are provided out of your own budget. Are they? Is there no additional funding for them?

Major Gen. Hartley --For the use of materials and for the transportation of material and people, that is provided by ATSIC. The only funding that we provide are the wages and salaries of the people involved.

Senator HOGG --Right. That comes out of your normal budget anyway?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, that is correct.

Senator HOGG --Is there a monitoring group to oversee the projects?

Major Gen. Hartley --There is a combined working party that involves ATSIC, Army and Health. They certainly are involved in identifying the projects, making some of the early liaison with the communities and clearly they will also be in a position to assess the value or otherwise of this project when it is completed.

Senator HOGG --Whilst ATSIC is involved, is there involvement also of the local community? Is there an involvement of the local community once you have identified the project and you start to move in?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, very much so.

Senator HOGG --What sort of resources will that take out of Army in this coming 12 months? Can that be identified within the PBS? Oh, it can't?

Major Gen. Hartley --I do not believe so.

Mr Lewincamp --No, it can't be.

Senator HOGG --I know this is a question that probably is not properly directed to you, but are other elements of the defence forces involved?

Major Gen. Hartley --At this stage, it is purely an Army project with both regular and reserve elements of the army involved. It is largely based on engineer units.

Senator HOGG --What is the basis on which the communities are selected. Is that from a recommended list from ATSIC?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes ATSIC, or the working group, I should say, has a list of factors. They work their way through these factors. They deal with isolation, the standard of the community itself--there are five or six categories of consideration that they go through to arrive at this list.

Senator HOGG --Who ends up making the final decision on which projects get across the line and those that might not?

Major Gen. Hartley --I can only really speak from Army's point of view. Our involvement, of course, is to assess whether we can actually do the project and, from that point of view, we have delegated that function to the chief engineer in land command.

Senator HOGG --Thank you. I have a question in this area that I want to pursue. It is something that has the army's name on it--I presume because Army is the appropriate place for the ordering to be done. It comes under the army headquarters materiel division--`supply of inflatable medical tents for the RAAF'. It was RTF No. G5700524. You may well have to take this on notice but the successful tenderer there was Trelleborg Industri AB Sweden at a total contract price of $3.691 million. However there was an unsuccessful Australian company, by the name of PJP Aerospace and Defence Industries, at a lower price. They were informed that their application did not comply fully with the tender and that they were unsuccessful. It is my understanding that they were not very happy with the outcome of that tender process. Do you know anything about that particular tender? I have a couple of questions that relate to that.

Brig. Grant --Is the statement you are reading from the Bulletin article? Is that where you became aware of this?

Senator HOGG --Sorry?

Brig. Grant --Is this out of the Bulletin article that you are talking about?

Senator HOGG --I am just trying to find it now, as a matter of fact.

Brig. Grant --I can tell you a little bit about it. There is indeed a tender that was put on the street some time ago for the procurement of tents for the air force. They are medical tents for the RAAF medical units. The agency that handled the contract following the tender assessment was the Directorate of Capital Procurement in Melbourne, which comes under my control. The contract was awarded to Trelleborg. Mr Pool raised a number of issues that have been communicated to the minister. At her direction, I have been conducting a review of that tender assessment. Today she was advised of the results of those and I have just been advised that there is some action that she wants me to take.

Senator HOGG --So a review of the tender process has been conducted?

Brig. Grant --Correct.

Senator HOGG --Just singly, by yourself?

Brig. Grant --No, it was done by my staff in Melbourne.

Senator HOGG --The result of that has been transmitted to the minister?

Brig. Grant --That is correct.

Senator HOGG --We can await further action.

Brig. Grant --That is correct.

CHAIR --Are there further questions on program 3?

Senator WEST --On Army assistance to Aboriginal communities, it has always been written up as `army' assistance. Have there been any other ADF personnel involved?

CHAIR --That question has been asked.

Senator HOGG --Yes, I asked that but they said there was none.

Senator WEST --That is rubbish, with all due respect. There was a photo in the Sydney Morning Herald. The Sydney Morning Herald did funny things with it. In the bush we got an early addition and it was headlined `The army comes to town.' There was a photo of a female officer in `can't see me' gear with an Aboriginal child and she was a naval lieutenant.

Major Gen. Hartley --I think that is probably not part of the projects that we are talking about now. That probably related to a joint medical team that went to Bathurst Island last year, which certainly was tri-service.

Senator WEST --And that was not part of these projects?

Major Gen. Hartley --It was not part of these eight projects that are presently being developed to improve the supply of water, for instance, in Aboriginal settlements. This was another exercise.

Senator WEST --How many of those exercises take place?

Major Gen. Hartley --It is an annual exercise that is based upon largely reserve medical units. It has been going for about three or four years.

Senator WEST --The Sydney Morning Herald got it wrong. In the later edition they had dropped the word `army'.

Major Gen. Hartley --It was certainly largely an army component but, for instance, in the Bathurst Island exercise they were transported there by naval landing craft and certainly there were medical officers from at least the navy.

Senator WEST --That was certainly a female naval lieutenant. I get a bit rusty on some of my rank and insignia but I know what a naval lieutenant's insignia looks like. They just called her lieutenant and named her. They got the rank right but it was not army.

Major Gen. Hartley --Those exercises are known as `Northern explorer'. I think they have been going about three or four years. They are based largely upon the reserve medical hospital in Adelaide.

Senator WEST --I would like to repeat a question I asked Navy: what impact will the DER and the cut in the number of bases have on rotation rostering, rotations and posting rates? It will not affect you because you do not have a ship to shore ratio. Does it mean people are going to stay longer in second postings?

Senator HOGG --Is the emphasis under Army 21 in the north going to reduce the opportunity for people to work their way back to more pleasant climes?

Major Gen. Hartley --The move of Army to the north has just about reached its conclusion. We have about a further 1,000 soldiers to transfer and that will probably see the end of the move of Army to the north. Therefore we are talking about another 1,000 soldiers being there. I thought the question you were going to ask me in fact related to the number of women who might be disadvantaged as the combat force gets larger--

Senator WEST --I had not quite got to that one, General, but that is on the list.

Major Gen. Hartley --I am sorry, do you wish to pursue the first question?

Senator WEST --Yes.

Major Gen. Hartley --One thousand people out of a force of say 25,000 is not going to make such a great impact in terms of the ratio of troops that we have in the north as opposed to those who are presently in the south. It is also fair to say that as the restructuring of the army program proceeds there will be larger numbers of regular soldiers posted to what are presently reserve brigades. We are certainly going to see more opportunities than presently exist for regular soldiers to be posted in the southern states in a number of areas. I am not sure I can say much more than that.

Senator WEST --What is the average length of posting now?

Major Gen. Hartley --In the north?

Senator WEST --No, Army wide. In fact all three services can take this one on notice, if you like. It used to be two years and then it went to three years to try to get back to backs.

Senator Newman --We didn't do it for three years.

Senator WEST --I know. What has happened with those attempts? What is the average length people are serving in one location now?

Major Gen. Hartley --Movement tends to be much more in the officer area; in the combat force the bulk of soldiers probably stay in the same unit for four or five years.

Senator WEST --Is that having a positive effect on separation rates?

Major Gen. Hartley --It is difficult to make that comparison. Our separation rates have been steadily coming down now for a couple of years. In the regular army it is now just over 10 per cent, which is the best that we have had for quite some time. In the reserve army it is down to 16.1 per cent, which I think must almost be an all-time record. Ten years ago we were complaining, `If only we could get it down below 25 per cent.'

Senator WEST --I have recollections about this.

Senator Newman --You can see how pleased I am. It shows that people realise that we are serious about--

Senator WEST --You have only been there for a bit over 12 months, Minister. It happened over 10 years.

Senator Newman --We have turned things around, haven't we?

Senator WEST --We must have done some good things in the previous nine.

Senator Newman --No, you were going the other way.

Senator WEST --I will get back to my questions for the general. Let us deal with the issue of women in the army when there is this preference for and this aiming at having personnel basically at the pointy end.

Major Gen. Hartley --Certainly the trend is to have more people in the combat force. The combat force has two elements: the combat force and the support force in the combat area, if you like. To give you a feel for how we are now, in the regular element of the army we have 13,300 in the combat force, of which some 6,800 positions are available to be filled by women. In the total combat force--regular and reserve--which totals 28,000, that figure is about 11,000.

As we move people into the forward area, a percentage--we have not yet got to the stage where we can quantify that percentage, but certainly a significant percentage, maybe even half--will end up in the combat support area, which of course is open to women. We are very conscious of the issue. We do not want in any way to reduce the number of women that are in the army. We are going to have to review a number of areas to see that we can keep that ratio up.

Senator WEST --So you have not yet any plans, schemes or programs to take this into account?

Major Gen. Hartley --No, I think that that would be a very good question to ask in a year's time, when we can see more clearly what the impact of the move into the combat force is going to be.

Senator WEST --I have grave concerns. I think Army is going to be one of the hardest placed to keep its percentage of women in the ADF to what it currently is and to keep it rising, because you have got so many areas that are actually combat direct, not just combat support. I think I used the phrase the other day that--I think it is in Clare Burton's book--preference is given to people who have served in combat areas.

Major Gen. Hartley --I think the words she uses are something like `operationally main areas' or something.

Senator WEST --You know what I mean.

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes, I do.

Senator WEST --Are you looking at areas in the army that women can serve in so that they do actually have the ability to rise above that ceiling of colonel and get into the star ranks?

Major Gen. Hartley --As you are aware, there are four female colonels in the army. The process which has allowed them to reach that rank is a fairly new process. As you look further down the army list, particularly at lieutenant colonels and majors, there are many more officers in those rank levels than there were in the past. Therefore, in time--promotion in the army requires a certain element of time--that issue is going to become more pronounced in terms of being able to identify more women who will serve inincreasingly senior appointments.

Senator WEST --`Privileging of operational background' are the words.

Major Gen. Hartley --That, I am afraid, is always going to be a problem with the army. We want our senior commanders to have had operational backgrounds. That is what we are on about--fighting wars. So there is always going to be that issue. But we are going to have to work hard at it and make sure that the women in the army do feel that they have a good career opportunity.

Senator WEST --Are there areas within Army that, whilst they are not quite at the bang, bang end, in the support area would be classified almost as operational background?

Major Gen. Hartley --I think in the communications areas, soldiers serving in communication units do so very close to the front.

Senator WEST --So do nurses.

Major Gen. Hartley --Absolutely. That is also the case in intelligence and certainly all the logistic areas. They go right down to the front line.

Senator WEST --So there are those areas, although they are more restricted in number?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes. The classification of support is fairly arbitrary, because a front line can be very fluid and support areas can very quickly find themselves at the fighting end. The direct combat, though, are units which are actually very much trained and geared to engage in absolutely direct personal contact--sticking a bayonet into someone. So we have really kept that definition very clearly in mind when we have identified direct combat units.

Senator WEST --I will be continuing to pursue the issue. It is not going to go away. I suppose that goes for every one of the forces. Have you got any women involved in the teams that are working through the implementation of these reviews?

Major Gen. Hartley --Yes.

Senator WEST --One of the things that Clare Burton did say was that where there are reviews being undertaken, there should be females as well.

Major Gen. Hartley --A major review is the Logistics 21 review; that is actually headed by a female colonel.

CHAIR --Are there any further questions on program 3?

Senator WEST --I will raise with you people the problems I had on with Navy on all of those exercises--the joint ones, et cetera. There is no commonality. It is so difficult to find out which ones are dovetailing together, which you are doing with the navy and with the RAAF, without tearing the pages apart and sitting down and doing them individually. Where do medals come in?

Senator Newman --Personnel, I am told.

Senator WEST --I think we can say thank you to Army.

CHAIR --Thank you. That concludes program 3 with the army. I will now call on program 6, support command.