The Australian Government Department of Defenceskip navigation links |

Minister | Navy | Army | Air Force | Department

Defending Australia and its National Interests

Corporate Services and Infrastructure Group

Career enhancing or career limiting? ADF personnel in CSIG

Photograph: caption follows

CSIG's Joint Operations Support Staff facilitate the ADF emergency response to incidents such as this fire at the Duntroon Dairy.

By Alan Henderson

Side story: Native title and land rights - challenges for Defence

In the March 2005 edition of Defence, I introduced CSIG's strategic theme of developing and sustaining workforce capability. It may surprise many to know that about 30 per cent of CSIG's workforce comes from the ADF. CSIG counts on these personnel to help us support Defence capability. However, we are also conscious that a posting to CSIG is seldom seen as a highlight in an ADF career.

We expect that ADF members prefer to work in Army, Navy or Air Force or in joint commands. However, we also expect that the Services need people in CSIG for their own reasons - either to develop their technical skills, to provide shore relief or surge capacity. The contribution that ADF personnel make to CSIG's work may seem to be incidental but in so doing these ADF members support their fellow ADF colleagues. The contribution they make is critical, not only to CSIG delivering against its responsibilities, but also to those in Defence who depend on CSIG's services.

A stint in CSIG has the potential to enhance a member's career, depending on a number of factors. These include how suitable the posting is and how well we understand what their parent Service expects of them. From both the Service and individual member's viewpoint it certainly helps to know what contribution their work in CSIG will make to capability.

Jointly with the three Services we have been reviewing arrangements for ADF personnel employed in CSIG. These reviews are being conducted so that we can assess whether needs on all sides are being met. Our goal is to take a fresh look at the processes for embedding military personnel and to identify how the arrangements can be made more effective.

What have these reviews revealed? One of the positives we have identified is that, for some trade specialisations, work in CSIG is absolutely essential to developing the experience that ADF personnel need for the operational environment. For example, CSIG's Directorate of Engineering Services and Technical Regulation in National Operations Division is responsible for providing technical capability to support the operation and maintenance of critical airfield infrastructure including aircraft pavements, airfield lighting, aircraft arrester systems, control towers and navigational aids. Airfield Engineers employed in this Directorate and in CSIG regions achieve one of the few opportunities to gain technical knowledge and experience of critical airfield infrastructure.

There are also prospects for work in CSIG that provide exposure to some activities not found elsewhere. For example, a posting in Joint Operations Support offers the chance to work with Government agencies, emergency services and be involved in the execution of military training activities or exercises and support to the civil community. A posting to Infrastructure Division provides ADF members with the opportunity to manage multi-million dollar infrastructure projects such as the development of the new Headquarters Joint Operations Command at Bungendore. Defence Legal Division provides the bulk of legal postings for all three Services.

Similar opportunities exist for other trade groups. To name some, ADF personnel in CSIG work in engineering, range management and control, management and maintenance of facilities, logistics and supply, communications and information systems support, catering, contract management, base planning, education, fire and rescue, garrison services, training area management, purchasing, clerical, records management and military personnel administration.

The reviews have also made it clear that neither the Services nor CSIG are completely happy with current arrangements. A few of the issues that have been revealed include:

  • There can be mismatches between the technical competency of the job and the person posted into it. Imagine the prospect of a Marine Technician without a driver's licence being posted as a driver, or a Combat Systems Operator working as a legal clerk!
  • There has been only one review of the arrangements since the Defence Reform Program and insufficient attention has been paid to the employment of ADF personnel in CSIG, a situation we are keen to remedy.
  • The reasons behind a CSIG posting are not always apparent and some ADF members have been employed in ways that don't maintain their technical skills. This perception often results in a posting to CSIG being afforded the lowest priority. Air Force and CSIG are therefore discussing ways in which the individual skill levels of Air Force personnel can be maintained or enhanced through a CSIG posting, thereby allowing Air Force to better meet its capability directives.
  • There is an imbalance of resources. For example, about twice as many Cooks are posted to Richmond as are needed, while there are too few in other locations. Newly trained Stewards can be posted to locations with insufficient work to gain their competencies, but they are not able to work at a nearby Defence site where contractors are paid to carry out the same function. In some locations we have more Sergeants and Corporals than Aircraftmen/woman who, as a consequence, are very highly supervised.

The reviews have been useful in cementing the relationships between the Services and CSIG, in increasing our understanding of other organisations and in finding solutions to the problems of embedded personnel in non-Service Groups. We are confident that, in future, employment of ADF personnel in CSIG will be a more attractive prospect.

[ top of page ]

|

Native title and land rights - challenges for Defence

By Duncan Ashby

The existence of native title and land rights claims over areas of Defence property could have a signficant impact on Defence capability. Defence has not always managed these issues effectively and the effect on Defence capabilities may have been underestimated.

Defence is one of Australia's largest landholders with a real estate portfolio of approximately 3 million hectares. This vast estate contains approximately 2.3 million hectares of Defence owned and leased property that may be subject to a native title claim and a proportion of which may be subject to an Aboriginal land claim. Many of the facilities affected by these potential claims are key assets upon which important Defence capabilities are based. If handled well Defence can maintain capability and enhance its standing with Indigenous groups through the development of cooperative solutions.

Coming to terms...

When referring to the land rights of Indigenous Australians the terms 'native title' and 'Aboriginal land rights' are often used interchangeably. This is incorrect as they give rise to two distinctly different types of claim.

Native title is the legal recognition of the rights and interests that Indigenous peoples have in land and waters according to their traditions, laws and customs. A successful native title claim results in a determination that sets out the rights and interests of the native title holders over the relevant piece of land. A key aspect of native title is the future acts regime under the Native Title Act. A future act is an act done after 1 January 1994 that affects native title. The requirements of the Native Title Act are potentially triggered whenever departments or agencies undertake activities or projects, or authorise others to undertake activities or projects on land or waters where native title may exist.

Aboriginal land rights arise under statutory schemes set up by Federal, State and Territory parliaments. Statutory rights under these schemes are generally held by organisations representing the traditional owners of land. The concept of land rights for Aboriginal people provides a statutory basis whereby Aboriginal organisations can acquire title to land. It developed from the recommendation of Justice Woodward, Royal Commissioner into Aboriginal Land Rights, that lands be transferred to Indigenous peoples. The recommendation was applied in an inconsistent manner across the States and Territories, giving rise to the range of legislation that exists today. The land rights legislation in place in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALRA) provides the strongest form of tenure for Aboriginal people, if successful as claimants. It provides inalienable Aboriginal freehold title to the land and the near exclusive power to control development; however, it can be leased with the informed consent of traditional owners.

Claim Resolution

The most important form of claim resolution available is an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA). This is a voluntary agreement made with native title parties about the use and management of land that can also encompass land rights lands. An ILUA can generally allow a future act to be done. In return for agreeing to the use of the land, the native title party will generally receive some form of benefits for consent, such as employment and/or financial payments. An ILUA does not extinguish native title, nor is it recognition that it exists, but it does encourage a constructive ongoing working relationship. It requires a great deal of initial administrative work for Defence but ultimately provides a solution that is mutually beneficial for both parties.

The negotiation of the Bradshaw ILUA - the most significant agreement to be concluded by the Commonwealth under the Native Title Act - demonstrates that native title and land rights issues can be successfully managed and resolved. Signed in July 2003, the Bradshaw ILUA covers Northern Territory land that will be used as a training area for 1 Brigade and, as such, represents an important capability for Defence.

The ILUA was negotiated with the Northern Land Council, who represented the traditional owners. It allows for the granting of a Defence Purpose lease to the Commonwealth, under which the traditional owners consent to the construction of some infrastructure and the use of Bradshaw as a field training area. It also ensures that the traditional owners are respected, consulted regularly, allowed access and have their sacred sites protected. A number of other ILUAs have been successfully negotiated to support important Defence projects including RAAF Base Townsville and Navy's ammunition facilities at Twofold Bay.

The extent of Defence facilities affected by native title and land claims highlights the importance of successful future negotiations. Defence must be aware of the issues at hand, and the scale of the administrative work required, for a successful conclusion that maintains good relations with Indigenous communities.

For further information, please contact Leigh Edwards on (02) 626 62817.

Duncan Ashby is a graduate working with the Directorate of Property Services, Technical & Facilities Services Branch in CSIG.

[ top of page ]