Letters
to the Editor
Dealing
with double dipping
A number
of letters to Army News have criticised the changes to Defence’s
civilian employment policy as it relates to former members of the of
the ADF.
I wish
to respond to a number of points raised by your correspondents.
An ADF
member used to be able to commence in an APS position in the Department
prior to a member’s application for discharge taking effect. This
was known as dual employment and was for a maximum period of three months.
Over the
years the Ombudsman’s office received a small but constant number
of complaints from ADF members about the maximum period of dual employment.
In August
2000, the Ombudsman asked me to examine the legality of the dual employment
arrangement and whether persons in that arrangement were receiving two
sets of Commonwealth funded benefits for the same work simultaneously.
Our investigations
revealed that persons in the dual employment situation were able to
doubly accrue recreation leave, long service leave and receive two lots
of employer funded superannuation contributions in respect of their
ADF service and APS employment simultaneously. As a matter of principle,
the-then CDF and I decided that it was untenable to continue such double
dipping.
One option
to deal with the problem of double benefits would be to establish separate
dates for commencement of employment in the APS, and the commencement
of entitlements. The entitlements, however, are regulated by legislation
or legal documents such as the Defence Employees Certified Agreement
2002-2003. A simpler approach was needed to deal with the issues raised
by the Ombudsman than changing legislation and the DECA.
The ADF
may choose to discharge members in less than the minimum time. Where
a member is the successful applicant for an APS position in the Department,
the ADF career management areas have been asked to consider processing
discharges from full-time service in less than the minimum period where
feasible.
It had
been common practice under the former dual employment policy for those
who wished, to proceed on leave, pending discharge in order to take
up APS employment. If a member cannot be spared, this would be the case
under either the old or new policy.
As the
employer of public servants in Defence I have made a commitment that,
where an ADF member is the preferred applicant for a Departmental employment
opportunity, the position is to be made available at the end of the
minimum discharge period.
The only
exception to this is where the provisions in the Department’s Certified
Agreement require redeployment of excess staff. The use of the phrase
minimum discharge period acknowledges that the minimum discharge time
varies depending on rank, employment category and Service.
The Public
Service Act 1999 requires that merit is the primary reason for the selection
of a candidate for an APS position. That legal requirement cannot be
ignored on the ground of filling a job quickly. The commitment from
me ensures the original objective of the dual employment policy is maintained.
There has
been some misunderstanding about the Leave Without Pay (LWOP) option
in the new policy. It is up to each affected individual to see if this
option suits them.
There is
no intention that ADF members be coerced into a LWOP situation or made
to believe that they will be treated less favourably unless they are
able to take up the APS employment opportunity promptly.
As part
of my practical commitment to ensure that exiting ADF personnel consider
the APS as a second career, a booklet titled The Other Side: A Guide
to ADF Members who are Exploring a Civilian Career in Defence has been
released and is available on the Defence Personnel Executive website.
I commend
the booklet to your readers as it provides valuable advice on APS employment
in Defence.
I trust
that this letter explains why we’ve had to make the change and
answers the concerns of your readers.
Allan Hawke
Secretary of Defence
Russell Offices, ACT
See also ArFFA column
Hunting
to buy
I AM a
current home owner in my posting location. I have just completed my
application for removal through DHA (and they have processed it very
efficiently). I was contacted by DHA Wagga suggesting I contact my gaining
DHA office and ask for approval for a house hunting trip, as I plan
to purchase in my new location.
This was
suggested to avoid having to stay in TAASA for what could turn out six-to-10
weeks, not to mention having my furniture in storage, depending on how
fast I can find a suitable house and finalise the contracts with the
vendor.
I thought
what a great idea, surf the net, find some houses to look at, go on
a house hunting trip for three days with houses already in mind and
decide on one to buy a couple of months before arriving in my new location,
thus allowing a door to door removal. Yeah right!
The entitlement
for house hunting trips for members that wished to purchase their own
home was stopped back in June this year. Which leaves me two options.
1. Take
an MQ in my new location, unpack everything and then once I purchase
a home (more than likely within a couple of months) apply for another
removal. Not to mention change the kids school if we buy in another
suburb.
Wife was very keen on this option – not!
2. Don’t
take an MQ and hope we can purchase a house before our entitlement in
TAASA runs out.
If we do not find a house in that time we then get stuck with what ever
MQs are leftover, if any, and then revert back to option one.
The point
I am trying to make is that Defence members are encouraged to purchase
their own homes these days yet something like a house hunting trip for
legitimate home-buyers is not available.
Surely
you do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out the money that
would be saved by Defence if members purchased a home in their new location
prior to arrival.
There would
be no storage costs, reduced TAASA, no need for a second removal, saving
on disturbance allowance, and less burden on MQs.
If other
home owners have faced the same problem, please write into the editor
and maybe things will change.
Sgt D. Morley
RTC ARTC,
Kapooka, NSW
Lost in forest
IT WOULD
seem that the office copy of ASOD has gone walkies once again –
I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone refer to my beret colour
as “forest” green before (“Pivotal role of citizen soldiers”
– Army, August 1, 2002).
Certainly
from a professional competence point of view but also out of common
courtesy for anyone that’s ever served with the Royal Australian
Regiment and particularly so that its newest members at least know the
correct colour of their own beret, please spend a little more time on
the seven Ps. I would almost guarantee (hope) that whoever wrote the
article knew that something was wrong, even as they were typing that
particular line.
As should
always be the case – when in doubt, check the pam! Just for future
reference, ASOD Vol 2, Part 3, Chap 1, Table 1-1, serial 7.
The correct
colour is, of course, rifle green.
Sgt A. Heller
RMC Duntroon,
ACT
Eye
surgery DOC
I am replying
to an article on refractive surgery published in Edition 1054, page
21, stating that:
“There
is insufficient evidence to justify the expense to the ADF of funding
refractive surgery to those who may benefit.”
As myopia,
astigmatism and hyperopia are all medical-related conditions. I would
think the ADF would be providing the best health care as part of our
conditions of service to treat these conditions.
Spectacles
and/or contacts do not fix these optical abnormalities however they
are seen as the primary long-term solution so the ADF doesn’t have
to justify the expenditure for refractive Surgery. Health Bulletin 2/2002
actually states in par 14 that “over the medium to long term, the
cost of the procedure can be recouped through not requiring glasses,
contact lenses and repeated visits to optometrists and opthalmologisgts.
The ADF
is simply disregarding its duty of care towards ADF personnel in not
allowing the option of this procedure to rectify documented cases of
these medical conditions.
Of course
with any procedure there are risks involved which is why there are strict
guidelines for refractive surgery but to use the reasoning that you
cannot justify the expense is simply a way to say “We are not interested
in providing quality health care”.
LAC
Adrian Kinsella
382 Exp Combat Spt Sqn
RAAF Amberley, QLD
Insane
to proceed
I am writing
about the current HPSEA in regard to the sale of a property.
On consulting
the recently published “Member’s Guide to ADF Pay and Conditions
of Service 2002 edition” I am advised to seek further advice from
my unit’s office to see if I am eligible for HPSEA.
My unit
office pointed me in the direction of the Pay and Conditions manual
which still left me in a grey area due to my personal circumstances,
so I e-mailed the office of the Director of Entitlements with my case.
After a
few e-mails back-and-forth from the directors office, I recieved an
e-mail stating that “eligibility for HPSEA on sale cannot be determined
until the sale has occurred and an application is submitted.”
As I have
been through this sort of process before and ended up thousands of dollars
out of pocket due to miscommunication with other departments within
the Army over the years, it would be insane for me to proceed without
having written confirmation of my entitlements before proceeding with
the sale of my house.
It is a
little bit late to discover that you are a few thousand dollars out
of pocket after you have sold your house and you are not eligible for
the entitlement.
Cpl T. Busch
ADF School of Signals
Simpson Barracks, Victoria
Twice
the citizen
Thank you
for your contribution, Sir (Capt. I.K. Cossart. Army, August 15), to
discussion on what is a very complex situation.
Our recruit
course GRes platoon was told by an old Warrant Officer that those of
us there, “only for the money” would not last. He was correct.
In my current
posting, as a part-time, GRes member in a full-time unit, I work beside
full-time members, who have identical worn rank and ECN, and do identical
work. DPE’s CEVAM shows (generalised) my cohorts earning each workday
about $233 ($54,073 pa / 232 work days pa). The same day’s work
pays me $86.52.
Being paid
does influence my continued involvement in a great job with fantastic
people. Pay, however, is only a minor factor, and therefore, the descriptor
“tax-free” is immaterial (mind you, that $146 a day removed
in adjustment for taxation would be handy).
I don’t
ask that full-time members lose any benefits, but for recognition, where
due, for all ADF members.
GRes members
might have two careers, but the US Army Reserve once used the motto
“Twice the Citizen”.
Are members
of the Australian part-time Army simply hewers of wood and carters of
water?
Or, are
we valuable members of the ADF, and to be treated as such?
Cpl Malcolm Woodside (B.Tech, M.Eng.Tech.)
ADFRU-B,
Toowoomba
Certificate
issue
I have
a mate who when considering discharge found out through other government
agencies that he would not be considered for a position until he was
in receipt of a discharge certificate.
It makes
a mockery of the days when a soldier could take LSL, complete his (Police)
training then discharge.
It also
puts our soldiers up high and dry if they fail to receive that position,
especially if they have a family.
Surely,
someone could have looked after the most important asset the Army owns,
the soldier, a little better.
Sgt C. Bishop
RP Sgt, 6RAR,
Enoggerra, QLD
The
mote in his eye
I am writing
in response to the reply provided by Murray Domney to Maj Nicholl’s
comments on DCM 5/02 (Army, July 18).
Mr Domney’s
statement that “There was really no other choice but to make the
change” shows a complete lack of imagination.
Members
of the ADF transferring to the APS do not accrue two lots of Commonwealth
leave. The leave that the member is on, whether Rec Leave or LSL, while
transferring to the APS pending discharge, has already been earned during
the member’s service in the ADF. You could argue that the member
would accrue a couple of days extra while on leave but then it is simply
a matter of not starting to accrue leave within the APS until such time
as the member’s discharge is completed, as is the case with superannuation.
He also
states that he doesn’t think there’s a problem – he obviously
has no concept of the realities of the situation.
From a
public servant’s point of view there isn’t a problem, but
from an ADF member’s point of view, this policy effectively prevents
a member from taking up (or even applying for) an APS position, at least
not without serious risk.
The fact
that the Secretary has instructed delegates to make the job available
to an ADF member at the end of the discharge period, where the member
is the preferred candidate, is irrelevant – the Secretary is not
going to be sitting on the selection boards and therefore has no way
enforcing that decision and, secondly, an ADF member is unlikely to
be nominated as the preferred candidate unless he can prove that he
can fill the position in a shorter time than the six months discharge
process. Or is he suggesting that the APS is willing keep a vacancy
open for six months in order for the ADF member to take up the position?
I think not.
This policy
was instigated, ostensibly, to prevent double-dipping in areas where
it does not exist, except in a minor matter of a couple of days leave,
which could be resolved in a far simpler and more equitable manner.
Its effect
is to prevent ADF members taking up APS positions – could this
possibly be the real reason for instigating this new policy? Is the
double-dipping argument that has been put forward just a smoke screen?
While we
are talking about double-dipping, I would refer Mr Domney to Matthew
7 : 3
WO2 P. Barrett
DMO
Melbourne
Employer
of choice?
I have
recently read a number of responses from Defence to concerned ADF members
about the new policy (CM 5/2002) which, in effect, will force a number
of ADF members who wish to transition to Defence (APS) using Leave Without
Pay to lose three weeks pay.
In the
responses I have seen (including a number of personal responses), all
have them have specifically ignored one central point, the loss of three
weeks pay.
It seems
incredulous to me that Defence is presently pursuing an ‘Employer
of Choice’ benchmark, and as such has hired consultants, Hewitts,
to assess how we rate against other organisations – when at the
very same time, we are placing barriers to ADF members re-joining Defence.
These two
events just don’t reconcile with one another.
Surely
if the Defence Personnel Executive’s role is, “to provide
policies and services to attract, recruit, develop, retain, and transition
the right people” and Defence is wishing to embrace the emblem
of ‘Employer of Choice’, we should be actively reducing barriers
to entry across the organisation – not putting them up.
Maj D. Caldwell
DPE
Russell Offices, Canberra
Recognition
deserved
Well done
Pte Tim Lowndes!
Its is
nice to see you receive the recognition you so richly deserve for your
dedication and effort.
Cpl A. Fitzmaurice
HQ 1 Bde,
Robertson Barracks, NT
Another
signature
I fear
the forest may have obscured the trees. The legislation pertaining to
long service leave is not in itself defective – when it applies
to continuation of service within a 12-month period.
The issue
is rather that the administrative procedures undertaken on discharge
or re-enlistment are defective. It is not satisfactory to state that
reasonable efforts are made by recruiting staff to ensure the members’
needs are met.
On discharge
or transfer to Inactive Reserve members should formally acknowledge
the LSL provisions and legislation as part of a routine administrative
process.
It’s
just another signature – but at least the services can then be
satisfied that members are leaving or transferring knowing all that
they need too.
Capt P. Graham
DRSC-Victoria
|
