Letters
to the Editor
Questions
of awards
In response
to Col Ross Boyds’ letter [Army, November 21]. In my opinion there
exists a systemic managerial problem, one that portrays to their clients
and public at large incompetence and ineptitude.
I have
raised the issue of long delays in awarding medals and entitlements
with the Manager of the Honours and awards section, the Acting Director-General
of Career Management and Policy (Col Ross Boyd) and the Manager of DPE.
In response to my concerns I received replies that detailed the processes
involved, all of which I was not interested in, as a client I was only
interested in outcomes. The fact is Honours and Awards cannot deliver.
It is purported
that the delays in some cases are several months. From my own experience
and from the large number of people I have spoken to the delays are
more like years, especially for ex-service and GRes personnel. Forty
per cent of medals issued are for serving members with the aim to reduce
waiting periods to eight weeks, all at the expense of the other 60 per
cent of the client base who wait years.
Changes
to the qualifying criteria for existing awards and the subsequent increase
in the number of recipients was not a secret and was widely publicised
in all forms of media. Honours and Awards simply took a reactive approach
when suddenly overwhelmed with applications.
For the
Honours and Awards section their customer service and communications
skills are limited. Initially applications are acknowledged, and then
nothing more is heard for years, e-mails are not answered. I know of
one case where a person has been in contact directly with the Manager
of Honours and Awards attempting to find out where his medal is, he
has been given a number of deadlines all of which have come and gone
and still no medal.
I strongly
suggest despite limited resources, the problem lies with management,
a management with limited Public Service core competencies, particularly
business planning, customer service and communication skills. This needs
to be addressed.
Bryan Nelson
ALTC-MW
Ross Island, QLD
Col
Ross Boyd, Acting/Director-General, Career Management Policy, responds:
Mr Nelson has been a frequent correspondent to the Directorate of
Honours and Awards with suggestions on how we might do better. Contrary
to his assertion, each of his e-mails has been responded to in a timely
manner, either by the Director of Honours and Awards, myself, my predecessor
or the former HDPE now VCDF. Interestingly, the suggestions made by
Mr Nelson, such as more staff and the use of overtime had already
been considered and implemented much earlier – reinforcing my
point that there are no quick and easy solutions to the medal processing
delays.
In earlier
correspondence, Mr Nelson was also given comprehensive advice on the
initiatives under way to address the medals backlog problem. Some
of these were briefly outlined in my letter to Army news on November
21. To reiterate, they include the centralisation of the Directorate
of Honours and Awards in a single location, the use of the Defence
Service (Call) Centre, the design and implementation of a new IT support
system and streamlining those aspects of processing and approval involving
others outside of Defence.
For the
record, the longest waiting period for any category of awards to be
processed is 12 months – a reduction from 15 months earlier this
year. There is no intention to achieve the eight-week target for serving
ADF medal recipients, at the expense of medal recipients in the ex-service
community, as has been stated by Mr Nelson. The target will be met
through the improvements to the process described above and will in
fact, result in a reduction in the waiting time for all medal recipients.
Mr Nelson
is entitled to his opinion; however, I can assure him and your readers
that my staff do care deeply about meeting and indeed exceeding customer
expectations. This is despite the huge number of medals applications
received and the unwarranted and ill-informed criticism they sometimes
attract.
A
very costly transfer
I have
a concern with regards the sale of a home on transfer from the Regular
Army to the Army Reserve.
I built
a home in Wodonga in 1984 and qualified under the Home Purchase Scheme
for a rebate of expenses ($999.50).
The following
year (1985) I was posted to Adelaide and returned to Bandiana in 1986
and moved back into my home.
Another
posting saw me posted to Melbourne at the end of 1987.
In December
1991 I again returned to Bandiana and reoccupied my own home. In May
2002 I reached 55 and transferred to the Army Reserve on an age extension
until 2004.
Two weeks
before my 55th birthday I moved from Wodonga to my new home at Baranduda
a distance of 14km.
On transfer
from the ARA I was entitled to a full removal on termination of service.
I gathered
together all the receipts to claim the reimbursement on sale of the
home purchased under HPSEA.
The claim
was subsequently refused, as I had not left my posting locality.
I did not
leave the posting locality because my Army Reserve posting was also
in Bandiana.
However,
if I had moved 30km and not the 14, I would have been paid the full
allowance.
Where is
the equity in that decision – it doesn’t seem to make any
sense at all? So much for 38 years service.
I paid
$26.17 and obtained under FOI the 1983 Defence (Conditions of Service)
Steering Committee Agendum Papers and Minutes.
This was
real interesting reading and revealed just where the “bean counters”
stand with regards to payment of allowances.
One might
rationally think that I had saved the Department many thousands of dollars
by owning my own home and not needing a MQ for 12 years and with all
the costs involved with maintenance, silly of me I should have moved
30km.
I provide
this advice not as a travel warning, but as a sales warning to others
“free” of charge.
Maj Graham Docksey
AHU
Bandiana
Spelling
evolution
Vman02’s
rather tired and humourless dig at officers in a cartoon titled ‘Evolution’
[Army, November 21] was somewhat undermined by his inability to correctly
spell the word ‘sergeant’.
What does this possibly tell us about his place in the evolutionary
chain?
Lt Adam Jessep
TTC (W)
Simpson Barracks, VIC
Peel
my banana
I would
like to respond to the Soldiers Five cartoon published in edition 1064
entitled “Evolution”:
A bit of
a joke is always good for morale, however, I must use one of the catch-cries
that we’ve all come to loathe in the last few years of political
correctness and dare to label the cartoon “inappropriate”.
Having
put my banana down to type this letter, I would like to express my offence
that the artist “Vman02” (what’s that about?) has chosen
to depict the digger as a monkey – a bit off, maybe we should train
monkeys who display a sense of humour how to draw cartoons. They couldn’t
do a worse job.
And as
for the depiction of SNCOs, well I don’t know too many with four
fingers on each hand, how about a bit of accuracy Vman!
Seriously,
that cartoon was rubbish. Ook! Ook!
Capt Mick Hall
SME
Steele Barracks, NSW
Show
me the money
In the
words of Jerry Maguire – show me the money!
After just
receiving my Comsuper report I was a little dismayed to see that my
benefit was down (several thousand actually).
Not withstanding
the obligatory preamble in the included glossy about how the market
is down (I wonder how much the CD-rom cost me),
I was concerned
even more when a fellow member still in DFRDB posted a several thousand
dollar profit.
This leads
me to advocate that perhaps we should move in line with civilian practices
when it comes to the members contribution; and allow members to move
their contributions into a management plan of their own choosing (you
can buy a lot of house for $30,000).
Food for
thought, this could solve a lot of gripes within our organisation and
would allow members to better position themselves for future lifestyles.
Sgt
R.S Bailey
IRR
Holsworthy, NSW
Reunion
call
I am trying
to organise a class reunion of children of Army personnel who attended
5th grade at Holsworthy Public School in 1973.
Some of
them or their families could possibly read your publication.
Specifically,
the children (who would now be aged about 40) were:
Stephen
Larsen, Geoffrey Darby, Gary Mason, Colin Willcox, Mark Dewhurst, Scott
Bovey, Tony Tennyson, Glen Malste, Jimmy Fulton, Cathy Bassan, Sandra
Wilson, Natalie Baker, Leanne Robinson, David Woods, Michael Armstrong,
Shane Donnelly, Karen Sunderland, Terry Casey, Karen Schuberth, Tracey
May, Leanne Walker, Louise Boothby, Delvene Greene, Robert Williams,
Glen Dyer, Allan Kilby, Gary Barnett and Mark Jordan.
If anyone
is interested, they can contact me on my e-mail: dibates@bigpond.com.
I was their class teacher and am helping a fellow ex-student, Greg Hixon,
organise the reunion which will be held in December.
Thank you
in anticipation of any assistance you can render.
Dianne (Di) Bates
http://www.users.bigpond.com/billcon
don/di.html
Software
stuff-ups
I was not
surprised to see an article in the Age dated November 19 detailed the
IT problems of the SSDS system used by the ADF Logistic supply system
(National Audit Office report). Workers at the coalface will tell you,
that’s what you get when you use off the shelf items and try to
fudge them into a Defence environment.
Great software,
but it is not flexible to fit into the various Defence business processes,
lacks internal IT support (because we outsource IT support) by people
familiar with ADF logistic supply systems.
It seems
we made the same mistakes with other IT software recently installed
into the ADF. PMKeyS was installed with undefined business processes
and confused guidelines on who does what. Input of AIRN details is a
prime example. Shopfront and unit orderly rooms are still trying to
work out who files and who inputs.
This is
compounded by the problem that many of the out-sourced admin staff doesn’t
have access to input the updates anyway.
If an audit
of the AIRN data was done, I am sure that you would find many units
did waivers on their members because they could not input the data to
update the AIRN details.
This month
sees the roll out of HealthKEYS in Victoria. Once again, a good off
the shelf item is being massaged into the medical centres without any
visible prior consultation with the people that count. The medical staff
and the patients. What do they want HealthKEYS to do? Collect data or
provide a better standard of care for our ADF members. Sick parade times
are doubling as doctors, medics and nurses struggle with the many computer
data screens required to be “workflowed” around the system
that is supposed to make their job easier. Guess what? It doesn’t.
When the
audit team comes to visit and write down all the things that are wrong
(and right) with these new IT solutions to an “unbroken process”.
Can someone read it, fix it and not just tell us to “make it work
because that’s how things are done outside”.
No, take
it back. Issue us with a paper form and a box of pens until the new
and improved software suits our work practices, conforms to our SOPs,
is compatible to other in-service software and most of all, provides
a better service to the ADF member.
I am happy
to embrace the new technologies and equipment, but it must function
properly and not to the detriment of the consumer.
WO2 Tony Giuliani
Area Health Services – Victoria
6 Hosp Laverton
Terry
Knox, Director HealthKEYS Project, responds:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your reader’s letter
regarding the introduction of HealthKEYS.
Across
the Defence Health Service there are a myriad of local work practices
and SOPs which would be undesirable and impossible to replicate in
a computerised system.
Most
of the 12 currently recognised health IT systems are ad-hoc, local
or inadequately supported, and often result in wasteful double entry
of data.
Unfortunately,
in many respects, the current system is ‘broken’ with differing
work practices generating large overheads and impacting on the quality
of care being provided to our patients.
To remedy
this, the Defence Health Service is dedicated to the introduction
of a standard tri-Service process for the delivery of health care
to the ADF.
This
will be based on HealthKEYS, which is a military specific application
that can be configured, within limitations, to suit local conditions.
During
the pilot roll-out in Victoria, some unexpected issues came to light
and the application was not functioning properly, these shortcomings
will be rectified. The sentiments in the last sentence of the readers
letter are totally agreed with, the system must function properly
and not to the detriment of the patient.
However,
this will be achieved within a standard framework which will ultimately
improve patient care.
Log
book jam
I have
a concern regarding the Competency Log Books (CLB) required to be raised
at all levels for members.
I have
found that it remains quite difficult to keep these logs up to date,
especially within an integrated battalion environment where I have the
added task of trying to keep up with the constantly changing circumstances
of GRes members.
Firstly,
the current Statement of Attainment format which is being adopted does
not specify which weapon systems that have been taught to the member
while on the course.
For example,
on a 343-0 RIO-B GRes Infantry IET course the statement does not specify
which pyrotechnics the member has been trained in the use of. Yet a
current CLB requires higher to sign off on specific weapon systems,
stating the date the qualification was given. Can’t this be included
in the Statement of Attainment in future?
A solution
may be to adopt a database and print-out format at all levels, which
concentrates solely on what courses the member has qualified on and
the weapon systems which he/she is trained in.
This would
make life so much more bearable for all, and would more than likely
help maintain a higher standard of CLB within all units.
In closing,
I would like to add my thoughts that computers were introduced to ease
some of the paperwork burden.
If that
is the case, why does it seem that most of my time is spent behind the
unco-operative thing instead of conducting Infantry training, which
is what I joined the Army to do?
How about
we try to simplify things a little and start concentrating more on soldiering
than computer screens.
Cpl Christopher Saunders
C Coy 25/49RQR
Gallipoli Barracks, QLD
What
did it cost?
A quick
comment on the Your Say survey (edition three – November 2002)
that was enclosed in ARMY November 7.
It looks
pretty. The format the data has been presented in is inadequate and
raises as many questions as it purports to answer (which is typical
of most interpretations of statistics).
So I must
ask, how much did this cost and did someone find the results useful/cost
effective?
Capt Jack Partridge
HQ 16 Bde (Avn)
Gallipoli Barracks, QLD
Justine
Greig, Director, Strategic Personnel Planning and Research, DPE, responds:
Commissioned by the CDF and Secretary, the Your Say surveys serve
to gather information on how the attitudes and opinions of Defence
personnel change over time, and to obtain feedback on the concerns
of ADF and civilian members and how they may be best addressed.
The results
are widely used by Defence, as some examples provided below demonstrate,
and are critical to ensuring policy development includes the best
understanding of the requirements of its people.
The results
are in turn communicated in a number of different ways. The Your Say
publication serves to present feedback to members, while more in depth
reports and analysis are provided to Defence leadership, policy makers
and planners.
The core
items that are common to each survey provide benchmarks across Defence
and identify trends that may require greater attention. For example,
the downward trend reported in July in terms of how senior leaders
were communicating with personnel has been attended to through a number
of leadership initiatives, and indeed the November publication shows
improvement in this area.
The additional
“hot” topics contained in each issue are used to assist
the organisation in prioritising, planning and decision-making regarding
the direction of future personnel policy. The first special topic,
personnel initiatives, was used to evaluate the current personnel
planning initiatives, in particular retention and redirect future
initiatives to better reflect member’s priorities.
For instance,
the results were integral to initiating the review of remote locality
leave travel.
The aim
of the Your Say publication is to provide members with such results,
both the overall trends and responses to specific questions, while
not over burdening the reader with masses of data.
Indeed,
we have received a lot of feedback, both positive and negative. A
number of readers have expressed less interest in the overall trends
where average scores are presented, and wish more attention be given
to specific item breakdowns and comparison by for instance rank groups.
Such input will continue to be used to improve the way we are presenting
the information to members.
The cost
effectiveness of the Your Say surveys and publication is an important
question. It would be at a very great cost if people in Defence were
not given an arena in which to voice their opinions and, thereby,
have an impact on the directions of policy and planning within Defence.
Quite simply it is worth while investing some money to find out what
Defence people think about important issues.
It is
important to us that Defence personnel receive feedback on what are
important issues and have the opportunity to see how others across
Australia view their Service. We will continue to work to ensure that
we achieve this through the best possible mediums: including Your
Say surveys.
You
might do it
In reply
to LCpl Gardner’s last offering in Army, and readers’ disappointment
with Channel Ten’s portrayal of the service, I wish to offer the
following words of encouragement.
He is correct
in saying that the British Army has a policy called Keeping the Army
in the Public Eye (KAPE). This has included organised parades, band
displays, school fetes etc. Regiments and corps have their own display
teams which are an honour and a prize tour for any soldier.
Sadly,
the overstretch of forces and financial constraints have meant the end
or amalgamation of most parachute/ driving/motorcycle/trade display
teams. Now the biggest showcase for Defence (British and ours), the
Royal Tournament has also been lost. If after 120 years, the RT had
to end, you know things are changing from the “good old days”.
But it’s
not all bad news. Interest in Anzac Day is rising every year, participation
in peacekeeping operations means Defence plays a positive role in society
and industry sees Defence as a trainer of disciplined professionals.
The best
we can do to promote Defence is not to raise press gangs but to look
and be smart, act professionally and not get drawn into debate when
dignified silence would be more appropriate.
Meanwhile,
why not approach your CO about an informal school visit? You might find
you do the best advertising.
Sgt Tony Scott
RAEME (ex-British Army, 3 Cdo Bde)
Enoggera, QLD
Retention
the issue
SGT Armstrong’s
letter, [Army, September 11], highlights the growing frustration of
serving Army members with the way that they perceive ‘the service’
and importantly, their service, being represented to the wider community.
However,
Sgt Armstrong’s argument and Lt-Col Mahy’s response do little
to pinpoint the real underlying issue. We should not focus on a specific
advertising campaign, regardless of how insipid it is.
People
join the Army for a variety of reasons – of which one specific
ad campaign cannot completely address.
Nor is
it solely about attaining recruiting requirements.
Who is
to say that 106 per cent of the Army’s GE target will not have
discharged from the Army within the next four years, disillusioned with
the many problems that we face in day-to-day life in our Army?
The real
issue is about the continued sustainment and development of the Army
– in short, retention.
Successful
armies have had their roots well founded in the development of the junior
NCO and junior officer.
This development
equips commanders at all levels with the skills and knowledge required
to effectively deal with the most dangerous of human endeavours.
Essentially,
intuitive tactical, technical and logistic leadership and planning,
take time and patience to develop and master.
This development
requires the dedicated support of an effective administration and the
sustainment of Conditions of Service that acknowledge the difficulties
of service life.
CSP and
bureaucratic processes have dangerously eroded these mechanisms over
the past 10 years.
There are
no ‘retentive’ benefits in wasting time and effort on a continued
program of recruitment, only to have those recruits leave Army prematurely
– disillusioned by systemic bureaucratic failing.
Nor are
there any ‘retentive’ benefits in having existing soldiers
and officers frustrated by overtly public representation that does not
highlight the unique challenges of our profession – the Profession
of Arms.
Only by
striking a balance between adequately representing Army’s ethos
to its members and the wider community, retaining essential support
systems and conditions of service, and (most importantly) keeping the
focus of current and potential soldiers and officers, orientated toward
the key concept of warfighting, can we achieve what the real aim should
be – Army’s continued sustainment and development.
Capt Michael Bye
School of Armour
Hopkins Barracks, Puckapunyal, VIC
Think
of the future
As Australia
is looking at being in drought for the foreseeable future, has Defence
considered updating all its water fixtures to incorporate reuse of grey
water on all bases, water efficient taps and showerheads as well as
permanent timing restrictions on use of sprinklers and reticulation
systems?
This would
cost dollars in the short term but in the long term, would reduce Defence’s
considerable water bill, as well as improving Defence’s environmental
record.
Many companies
are now taking advantage of some of the big carmakers ability to provide
LPG-only vehicles. As Defence has a large civilian vehicle fleet, the
lower cost per kilometre of LPG could considerably reduce fuel expenditure
for Defence once refuelling points are made available on bases.
Capt Dennis Maddock,
26 Tpt Sqn,
Puckapunyal, VIC
|
