Letters
to the Editor
Woof!
Back on base
I would
like to respond to CPL Russ’s comments in Army, October 10, relating
to banning domestic dogs from the Holsworthy base due to a perceived
lack of common sense and compassion.
The initial
decision to ban domestic dogs from Holsworthy Base was made after the
IRR raised concerns to my staff in relation to their possible adverse
affect on the health of the unit’s Explosive Detection Dogs (EDD)
and the unauthorised use of the EDD agility course.
A number
of domestic dogs had been seen inside the base without obvious control
by their owners. Some domestic dogs have been seen using the EDD agility
obstacle which has inherent safety risks for the untrained.
Some of the owners were also failing to remove their dog’s excrement
which may transmit life threatening diseases to the EDDs.
All these
factors, plus the inability to know whether these dogs were properly
vaccinated, formed an unacceptable risk to the health of our operationally
important and very expensive EDD.
The risks
to the EDD health and also to the domestic dogs that have been using
the agility course were the primary reasons for the ban.
The ban
was certainly not the result of a complaint by an officer about the
barber’s dog, as was stated by Cpl Russ in his letter.
However,
after taking the decision to ban the dogs, in order to protect the EDDs,
I immediately arranged a follow up review of the policy in the interests
of base personnel.
Subsequent
advice from the IRR caused me to amend the situation to allow members
to bring their pet dogs into Holsworthy Barracks provided they follow
a set of guidelines designed for the benefit of all.
These guidelines
were forwarded to Holsworthy units on September 17. The barber will
also be advised.
Dog owners
are now free to bring their dogs on base provided they clean away their
dog’s excrement, have their dogs registered and avoid the agility
course.
Of course,
health regulations will always restrict dogs in other parts of the base
such as medical centres, messes and where food is sold.
Col R. Wright
Liverpool Military Area Army Representative,
HQ 5 Bde, Malaya Lines,
Holsworthy, NSW.
An
explosive issue
Yet again
the can of worms, about who can do what, has been opened.
I have
a number of points regarding the “Ammo techs vital” article
(Army, September 11) that need to be addressed.
The phrase
“we belong to RAAOC and explosive ordnance disposal is the main
part of our trade” is technically incorrect.
RAAOC does
indeed conduct EOD operations, mainly in support of civil police (IED
disposal) and the recovery of military ordnance that has been souvenired.
The corps
is also responsible for the disposal of service ammunition that is unserviceable
(depot demolitions) or has malfunctioned in some manner, disposal of
malfunctioned explosive ordnance.
The phrase
“We have also been destroying all of the WW2 explosive ordnance
found on the island” is technically incorrect.
While the
corps does have the charter to dispose of ex-military ordnance, DI(A)
Ops 25-1 precludes RAAOC from conducting ordnance disposal activities
within an AO – East Timor is such an AO.
This raises
another question, what types of ordnance was the corps destroying?
If these
items included air delivered ordnance, guided weapons or chemical munitions,
they are once again operating outside of their charter IAW DI(A) Ops
25-1.
Items of
this nature are only to be dealt with by suitably qualified RAE EOD
Technicians and Navy Clearance Divers.
The phrase
“While we’re on operation(s), we do everything the engineers
do when it comes to weapon disposal” is technically incorrect.
RAAOC Ammo
Techs (AT) and ammo tech officers (ATO) are not trained in the render
safe or dispose of aerial-delivered weapons, guided weapons (other than
those that are in land service with the ADF), chemical munitions or
foreign ordnance.
While RAAOC
is responsible for the disposal of captured enemy ammunition facilities/stockpiles,
the corps is again in clear contravention of DI(A) Ops 25-1.
Additionally,
RAAOC members are not trained de-miners nor are they trained in the
rendering safe of foreign munitions, both of which lie outside of their
charter in accordance with DI(A) Ops 25-1.
While I
have, over the years worked with many AT/ATO I find it unbelievable
that we are still going on about who can do what, given that the reference
that I have frequently mentioned, clearly describes each corps/trade’s
responsibilities.
In short,
the members cannot do everything that engineers can do on operations.
It is my
fervent desire that this reply to the subject story be printed as I
know that there is going to be a lot said regarding the content.
WO2 W. Schoer
SSM CBRR Sqn, IRR,
EOD Manager,
Holsworthy Barracks, NSW
We’re
not a business
Units issued
with ABNs, service numbers replaced by employer IDs, hiring new recruits/officers
instead of enlisting/or appointing new soldiers, and contracting a majority
of our logistical support to name a few issues on how the ADF has lost
its capability of being a Defence Force.
Army’s
motto is “Serving the Nation”. It is the concern of many soldiers
and my opinion that the Army and the ADF is trying to be run like a
large business.
I think
we need to take a step back and realise that the Army and the ADF as
a whole is not a business but an organisation to protect and serve the
nation in defence.
This cannot
be achieved when we run it like a business.
Businesses
will not fight wars or go on operations when it involves loss of life.
We need
to concentrate on the asset, being the uniformed personnel of the ADF,
enabling them to do their job.
This includes
the training and the equipment to let them do their job.
With the
events happening around the world today (especially near Australia’s
doorstep!) we may learn this the hard way.
Let’s
hope we don’t.
Cpl B.L. Verco
ARTC,
Kapooka, NSW
Parity
and equity
In response
to Cpl Allen and Capt Thomason (Army, October 24), I certainly am proud
of the fact that I served in Bougainville and did indeed enjoy immense
personal satisfaction doing the job I have trained many years for.
I would
also suggest that the operations they served on should be considered
in any move to bring parity to the award of service or mission specific
medals.
What is
interesting to note is that the only replies to my original letter to
date are from personnel who served on operations who also did not receive
the sort of recognition, whether it be through awards, media/government
interest, or public awareness that locations such as Timor or Afghanistan
have.
I would
still be interested to receive a reply to my original question which
is, “what happened to the proposal put forward by two Commanders
PMG, then Brigs Roberts and Silverstone, and supported by then Maj-Gen
Cosgrove for a mission specific award for the PMG?”.
At the
same time, an answer on any additional awards for Capt Thomason and
Cpl Allen’s operations could be provided.
Yes, the
ribbons may look pretty (I think it was a pretty big tongue in your
cheek, Capt Thomason), our operational tempo may be high and recognition
may be a case of “take what you can get” but I do believe
that parity/equity is an issue and there are personnel who have served,
but whose service may not have been considered “sexy” enough.
It took
more than 25 years, but even Vietnam veterans were finally given a degree
of recognition that many, before and since, enjoyed – without the
fight.
Cpl D. King
103 Sig Sqn,
Lavarack Barracks, QLD
Dry
our eyes
In regard
to Cpl King’s letter, (Army, October 10) his memory serves him
incorrectly. Soldiers serving in the 1RAR Bn Gp with Unified Task Force
(UNITAF) Somalia received a single decoration – the AASM.
The 1RAR
Bn Gp was also awarded the Chief of the General Staff Commendation,
for the battalion group’s outstanding service in Somalia.
The commendation
is a piece of paper that hangs in BHQ 1RAR and other units within the
group were given a photocopy of it to hang in their units.
For the
soldiers of the group, if they wanted a copy they had to photocopy their
own.
I think
as soldiers we should not be concerned by how many medals we are going
to get, and why am I only getting the ASM and not the AASM by doing
the job we are paid to do.
If people
are so concerned with this and not the lack of decent field equipment
to perform our duties, I think it is time we dried our eyes and got
on with our job.
I favour
the one medal for one operation. If no decoration is struck (UN, INTERFET,
MFO) then the ASM or AASM should be awarded.
Sgt C.R. Cook
2 Cav Regt,
Robertson Barracks, NT
Save
RAAF’s money
The comments
of Flt-Sgt Brasher (Army, October 10) lead me to ask the question of
why the RAAF has not outsourced the ADG roll – they are only there
to guard airfields, are they not?
The other
skills the flight sergeant spoke of would also be prime targets to save
the RAAF some dollars and contract out.
May be
this could free up some of the places ADG sergeants take at the School
of Infantry and give the infantry sergeants a shot at some courses.
A question
for the flight sergeant – why are your ADG officers receiving training
at RMC ?
I think
some of your boys should try infantry IET training and see if they can
last.
Sgt G. Fletcher
Sergeant Ammunition Technician,
EOD Control Centre,
JALO Regional Services,
Holsworthy Barracks, NSW
Spanish
inquisition
Thank you,
Army, for publishing my letter regarding Frontline (Army, October 10).
Thank you Andrew Williams (General Manager – Marketing and Operations,
Frontline) for not answering my question. You made it obvious in your
response to my, and Cpl Pitt’s letter, how hard it is to get a
straight answer. It has prompted me to do some more research although
I did not get far.
According
to Smartlicence and the Department of Fair Trading, Frontline is not
registered as a non-profit organisation.
This means
that I cannot find out any more information on the major supplier to
Defence canteens.
I would
like to know who sits on the board of directors? For no other reason
than to see if there is a single soldier, airman or sailor representing
the people for whom this great company was created.
If, as
they say, it is for the soldiers, then there should be some kind of
information about the company somewhere.
I cannot
even find out the projected topics of discussion at board meetings.
I asked for a copy of the constitution/contract between Frontline and
Defence.
After the
Spanish inquisition, I was stonewalled. There are a lot of people disgruntled
by the service that Frontline provides – how do these people get
something done?
You would
have to add 30 pages devoted to Letters to the Editor if they all wrote
to Army.
If each
person wrote a minute to their OC/CO, they would be inundated with letters
and I doubt it would be effective.
If you
are reading this letter and have any clue how to change this situation,
could you write into Army and let us all know.
Editor:
Have you received a reply on the profit from East Timor yet?
Cpl G. Frew
162 Recce Sqn,
Lavarack Barracks, QLD
Editor’s
Response: CA Lt-Gen Peter Leahy has passed on to me the royalty payment
report from Frontline for the April to June quarter of the 2001-2002
financial year.
This will be turned into a story for next edition.
The Frontline web site, www.frontlineds.com.au, has the 2000 annual
report on it as a PDF document.
This contains a list of the directors, accurate as of that report’s
date of publication.
Looking
elsewhere
I would
like to add to the letters written by Cpl Frew and Cpl Pitt (Army, October
10) in reference to Frontline.
It uses
the excuse that it is not a big enough chain to match pricing with the
bigger stores.
I find
it sad that prices back in Australia are cheaper with tax than what
you can buy from Frontline in East Timor duty-free.
What is
stopping Frontline going to some of the bigger chains and inquiring
if these large chains can provide Frontline with these products for
the same price, or is that too logical?
I’m
sure Harvey Norman or any of the big chains would do this as it also
boosts their sales.
Even the
takeaway foods at the canteens have become excessive, for example, $2.20
for a bottle of Coke and the service station out the front of base sells
them for $2 – I could go on but we all get the idea.
It seems
to me that it has become to hard for Frontline to look after the soldier
so the soldier has to look elsewhere.
Cpl T. Gibson
MOVCON Oecussi,
East Timor
Competitive
... not
CPL Pitt’s
comments regarding Frontline in edition 1061 (Army October 10) have
prompted me to ask a question along similar lines.
His comments
outlined his difficulties in receiving a competitive price from Frontline
when purchasing a new computer.
My situation
relates to 1JAU in East Timor.
I am still
serving in East Timor and took advantage of 1JAU to purchase a Microsoft
XBox, plus games and accessories.
I appreciate
that 1JAU are not in place to provide the lowest price possible, however,
their goods are supposed to be duty free.
Two purchases
I have made bring this into question.
Specifically,
I purchased a memory card and extra controller for my XBox.
1JAU charged
$75 for the memory card (which retails in Australia for about $50),
and nearly $70 for the controller (retailing in Australia for about
$55).
How can
these prices then claim to be GST-exempt?
Surely
Australian retailers are not selling their goods at a tremendous loss,
purely to increase sales?
I know
that 1JAU does not set the prices, but I fail to see how $75 is duty-free,
when $50 is retail.
Taking
into account that the freepost mail from Australia is actually quicker
than a specific order from JAU, is it any wonder that they have now
lost a customer?
I would
suggest that the system needs to look into their pricing.
Just because
we are on East Timor allowances, doesn’t mean we should be throwing
it away.
Cpl T. Schmidt
DCP,
East Timor
Clarification
I refer
to the article headlined “Once were warriors” written by WO2
Graham McBean in the October 24 edition of Army, in which I was
interviewed as part of 25/49RQR’s participation in Exercise Suman
Warrior.
My actual
words, or to the best of my recollections of what I said, was that my
father served in the Army during the time of the Vietnam conflict.
He served
as a sapper from 1970 to 1973. To further clarify this, as like most
of us, he was keen to deploy on operations. He
missed out on his opportunity for deployment, to marry my mother.
As someone
said, it was probably lucky for me. I might not be here today as the
person who replaced him for that deployment sat on a mine.
After that
rotation, the war scaled down and the opportunity to deploy was missed.
I understand
how what I said might have been confused and I apologise to any Vietnam
veterans who might be offended.
My grandfather
served as an assault pioneer in Borneo with the 1st Bn, 2AIF.
Lt S. McNamara
25/49RQR,
Oakey, QLD.
|
