Dear Sirs,

I wish to place before you for your consideration the following submission
regarding your Inquiry.

My submission concerns the Royal Australian Navy and covers both retention and
recruitment issues.

1.   Retention
My son entered the RAN in September 1996 as a Recruit Signalman. At the time of
entry there was no suggestion that the Signalman Branch would be later combined
with Radio Operators.

When informed the amalgamation was to take place my son (at that time), while
wishing to remain in the RAN, did not wish to be part of the amalgamated Branch.
Having read various Navy publications that promoted the Navy as a "career
service" he decided to remain in the Navy, but to transfer to the Photography
Branch.

He undertook various aptitude tests and was informed he was a suitable candidate
for the Photography Branch.

However, when he applied for a transfer he was informed that as the Signals
Branch was underborne at the time, his transfer could not be supported. He was
then informed to submit a transfer 12 months later.

The 12 month period coincided with the end of his four year engagement. He did
reapply for transfer and on this occasion his transfer from Signals was
supported but there were no Photography courses planned at that time. He was
prepared to continue in the Navy on the proviso that his transfer could be
guaranteed. He was told this could not be done.

While accepting that the organisation must retain the overall responsibility of
how it deploys its personnel, it appears to me that there is an overarching
policy of short-sightedness and lack of flexibility in the current system. In
support of this view I point out the following :

   The only way a sailor may be employed as a Photographer, a Physical Trainer
   or a Naval Police Coxswain is to transfer from an existing category (there is
   no direct recruitment to these categories)
   Therefore, the Navy accepts it will lose from one category to sustain another
   By circumventing a transfer that appeared in the Navy's interests (my son was
   considered a suitable candidate) the Navy lost a person upon whom it had
   already outlayed considerable funds
   While sailors continue to see examples such as the above it is difficult to
   imagine they will accept the Navy as a "career service"
   The overriding tenet for postings appears to be filling particular billets at
   all costs, with individual career aspirations coming a poor last .

The example used above is not an isolated example. It has been provided as
illustrative of the existing system.

Recently, the Navy has come up with an HRM Plan. The concept and goals and
objectives are in my view excellent. However, my concern is that at the present
time Navy does not have the tools to enable the HRM Plan to be successful.

Navy is a very large organisation and its HRM has been largely placed in the
hands of well-meaning, but nevertheless peole who are not specialist HRM
managers. This, in my view, is exacerbated by the regular post-in/post-out
routine that sees personnel in HRM positions for usually a maximum of 2 year
periods.

In my experience large organisations with complex HRM issues employ staff who
are HRM specialists.

2.   Recruitment Issues

At the present time the RAN is well short of its recruitment targets.

I put forward the following for consideration :

   It should be automatic for personnel separating from the RAN to be placed on
   the Reserve List for 5 years (other than personnel the Navy deems unsuitable)
   Under the present system those separating have to elect to be on the Reserve
   List. By not doing so within a very short time of separation these personnel
   are considered very much as "new entries" and the time between volunteering
   for Reserve service and the system allowing them to do so is long and
   protracted.
   Placing personnel automatically on the Reserve List is cost neutral. There is
   no detriment to personnel as they retain the right to refuse any offers of
   Reserve employment
   Former personnel who decide to re-enter the RAN are kept waiting inordinately
   long periods before acceptance. I know personally of one case where a sailor
   who separated in September 2000 and reapplied in February 2001 is still
   awaiting acceptance in mid May 2001. These people should be "fast-tracked",
   particularly as they are already trained and in most cases could commence
   real work almost immediately.
   Given the current shortfall in recruiting, measures must be taken to
   significantly reduce the time between initial interest of an applicant an
   final acceptance. I am not in a position to comment on whether current long
   delays are a result of shortages in processing personnel or slow bureaucratic
   systems or both. However, if Navy is serious about recruiting it has to
   realise that it is in a competitive labour market. Each day of delay
   represents an opportunity for some other employer to engage the person Navy
   wishes to employ.

I trust the above comments are of some use and interest to your deliberations.

Yours sincerely,

16 May 2001