Letters
to the Editor
Help,
not hinder, RAPs
I write
in response to Terry Knox’s reply to WO2 Giuliana in relation to
the introduction of HealthKeys (Army, December 19).
“The
RAP 5/7 RAR is to promote health, prevent disease and treat illness
and injury, both in barracks and on deployment in order to increase
battalion operational capability.”
Let me
assure Mr Knox and the Defence Health Services this is not and will
not be achieved by HealthKeys, but by the provision of personnel and
effective training of those personnel to this and other ADF units. HealthKeys
in whatever form it eventually materialises into in the Land Army will
only be another tool by which we monitor readiness, maintain records
and collect statistics.
In an operationally
focused environment and with the current varied operations that the
ADF finds itself committed to, we must be able to provide timely, responsive
and flexible health care in order to maintain the fighting force and
hence the conservation of manpower.
Technological
advances are upon us and I too am willing to accept those changes as
long as it allows me to meet my mission statement and do so in a timely,
responsive and flexible manner.
A HealthKeys
presentation at 1 Bde during 2002 left me with little confidence in
the ability of Health Keys to do anything but become a cumbersome administrative
process. I also remain extremely cynical as to where the additional
IT resources will come from in order for medical facilities to manage
this system.
5/7RAR
does not spend 12 months a year sitting in a lush barracks environment.
The provision of Health care (including completing AHA’s, CPHE’s,
vaccinations and normal routine medical appointments) must be managed
to suit the often extremely busy training program of the Battalion.
A commander’s ability to train his soldiers should not be delayed
or hindered by medical administrative processes.
The RAP
5/7RAR prides itself on ensuring soldiers being referred to the RMO
are seen in a timely fashion regardless of the condition being urgent
or routine. As alluded to in WO2 Giuliana‘s letter, waiting times
will grow and be unacceptable to health staff and commanders while medics,
nurses and doctors struggle to come to terms with the implementation
of HealthKeys. Medics must be allowed to get on with the job of being
medics and not become office bound particularly as we struggle with
serious manning shortfalls of 031 Medical Assistants.
Various
data bases maybe ad-hoc and local, but they work and do not hinder my
RAP staff (not HealthKeys) in providing quality health care to the Battalion.
WO2 Stephen Smith
RAAMC
5/7RAR Bn Gp
East Timor
Same
service
Despite
any sexual persuasion I may be, as an ARA officer, I am in full support
of the concept of equality in entitlements and rights for ADF personnel
in a same-sex relationship.
It took
the ADF long enough to ‘allow’ its personnel to be openly
gay without fear of reprisal but at least it happened.
The ADF
can be an archaic organisation in some matters and leaps ahead of the
civilian employment sector in others.
The ADF
takes discrimination and harrassment very seriously, (as it should),
so mabye a bit of ‘practicing what you preach’ should apply.
A gay couple
should be able to apply to be recognised de-facto by the ADF under the
same criteria as a heterosexual couple.
If a gay
couple can prove this criteria, why should this be any different from
a different-sex couple applying for the same thing?
I have
seen several professional, hard-working and dedicated soldiers, SNCOs
and officers dishcharge from the military due to this indescretion.
I have
seen them become increasingly frustrated about not having the same entitlements
as their heterosexual counterparts and even the demise of their relationships
because of the lack of support/entitlements that the ADF is so good
at giving de-facto/married couples.
Capt Rebekah Beaumont
1JSU
Gallipoli Barracks, Enoggera, QLD
Correct
patch detail
Though
retired for almost 10 years I still enjoy reading Army and congratulate
you on a broad cross-section of interest.
However,
as a military historian specialising in the Royal Australian Artillery
I must point out that Colour Patch Corner by Cpl Philip Blackwell on
page 28 of the December 19, 2002, issue has an error concerning the
4 Fd Regt/A Fd Bty patch – it derives from WW2 not WW1.
The colour
patch of 4 Fd Regt is that of its recognised historical predecessor,
the 2/4th Fd Regt AIF of 7 Div Artillery.
Whilst
the red and blue diamond is the same as that of the original 4 Aust
Fd Arty Bde from the Great War, the grey background of the 2/4th patch
identifies it as a WW2 unit. I was the commanding officer who drafted
the submission for this patch in 1987 and am now the honorary historian
to 4 Fd Regt.
For the
record, it would be appreciated if this error could be rectified in
a subsequent issue, and perhaps a little more of the background to the
patch included.
Col Arthur Burke RAA (Rtd)
Honorary Historian, 4 Fd Regt
Aspley, QLD
Backyard
choice
I note
with dismay the continuing poor investment performance of our superannuation
fund. Last financial year the crediting rate (rate of interest earned
on our money) was minus 8.9 per cent. With inflation running at 2.9
per cent, the real rate of return – interest less inflation –
was minus 11.8 per cent.
Unfortunately
2001/2 was not an isolated case. In 2000/2001, a negative real return
of minus 3.3 per cent was achieved. This year is proving to be little
better: as November 19, a 4.5 per cent loss was being experienced by
the fund.
While it
must be acknowledged that over the long term negative returns may occur,
three consecutive years of negative real returns is sub-standard by
any objective measure.
It must
also be of real concern to members who are leaving the Defence Force
to see their superannuation contributions being frittered away by poor
investment decisions.
The fact
is that whilst the MSBS philosophy of pursuing high growth assets over
the long term is undoubtedly basically correct, this must be tempered
with some common sense and flexibility in poor investment conditions.
Unfortunately
the MSBS Board and fund managers have displayed neither the required
short-term investment savvy nor flexibility in thinking to deal with
current economic circumstances.
In short,
they are backing losers and continue to do so.
The proposed
introduction of Member Investment Choice in July 2003 seems to be a
tacit admission by the MSBS Board that their investment strategies are
deeply flawed.
It is recognition
that low-risk investment strategies will yield a positive real return
on our money.
For members
concerned that the investment strategy they choose won’t outstrip
the performance of MSBS – don’t despair – since July
2000 burying your contributions in your back yard would have achieved
a significantly better result than MSBS.
Cpl R. Drake
7 Sig Regt,
Cabarlah, QLD
No
farewell hurts
I read
with interest the letter in the February 13 issue of the soldiers’
newspaper from Capt Iain Watt, in which no farewell was given to a WO1
from his section after 23 years of service.
I was in
the same boat, after 27 years service in the army, in such corps as
RAA, RAAOC and finally RAAPC.
I received
no handshake, no farewell or discharge ceremony. It has been nearly
two years now since I have left the service and I still feel let down.
It makes
me wonder how many other such cases are out there. I only hope there
are not too many.
Ex-Cpl Terry(Tex) Morton
RAAPC
A
serious mistake
I am aware
that numerous Comsuper statements were issued with inaccurate data.
When compared to my statement from the previous year, this year’s
statement informs me that I worked over 500 days last financial year
(If only my SVA would reflect that!), as well as significant inaccuracies
about contributions.
Discussions
with peers indicate that this is not just a one-off incident, but possibly
a wide spread incident due to the migration of data onto a new system’.
My concern
is that if this is a systematic fault, why haven’t units been contacted
to advise members not to make career decisions based upon these inaccurate
official statements?
I believe
this to be a serious issue as I know of several DFRDB members in their
19th year of service who would be severely financially disadvantaged
if they were to base their discharge date on the information contained
in the Comsuper statement.
Sgt M. Pitt
110 Sig Sqn
Holsworthy Barracks, NSW
The
horse speaks
Here is
the correct history of Canungra straight from the horse’s mouth,
the current Comd, RTC, Brig J. E. Hammond.
For all
the non-military types on your paper’s staff, and others too young
to remember, you will note that Canungra was called JTC from 1954 to
1975, inclusive!
Let’s
have no more incorrect info from your paper and indeed from current
staff at RTC Canungra who should know better!
Maj Bernie McGurgan (Rtd)
Doing
the same job
As a Defence
civilian, Army Reservist, and former PMG member, I think I’m well
placed to respond to Sgt Falconer’s letter.
There are
two main issues raised in the letter with the first being that civilians
are paid more than military personnel and their pay is tax free. I agree
that this does seem unfair and I’m not sure why this occurs. I
can only assume it’s compensation for civilians not getting service
allowance throughout their career.
It’s
an unfortunate fact of life though that people are not always paid the
same for doing similar jobs and I don’t condone this. For example,
the civilians in Bougainville receive different amounts of pay depending
on which department they’re from.
Another
good example is East Timor. I know of a number of military personnel
that spent time in East Timor, in uniform, but for a number of reasons
they were not eligible for the medals or the $125-a-day tax-free pay.
With regard
to the entitlement for an ASM, I think Sgt Falconer should ask himself
a few questions.
Do the
civilians in Bougainville belong to the PMG, wear the uniform, live
in the same conditions, patrol to the same villages, face the same threats
to safety, participate in the same security piquets, comply with the
30-day qualifying criteria etc, just like the uniformed personnel?
The answer
is yes. So why on earth should they not receive the same recognition?
The official Government Honours and Awards website says the ASM is to
“recognise military and other service in prescribed peacekeeping
but non-warlike operations”.
Going by
Sgt Falconer’s logic there should be a separate medal for National
Servicemen who served in Vietnam. They did the same job but, because
they weren’t the same as the Regulars, should they be singled out?
Of course not.
Brad Palmer
Attache Manager, Strategic and International Policy Division
Russell Offices, ACT
Down
the barrel
The caption
“Capt Jeff Ashton ... takes possession of a...high-powered M16
rifle...” (Army Dec 19, 2002, p 14) shows a disappointing lack
of knowledge on the part of the caption writer.
It may
be inevitable that the firearms-illiterati of the commercial media automatically
use the emotive term “high-powered” in relation to any firearm
from an air rifle upwards. It is disappointing that a journal of the
profession of arms should likewise lower its standards.
Without
going into chapter and verse, the M16A1 pictured is chambered for the
US 5.56mm M193 round, one of a class known as “Intermediate”
cartridges.
Intermediate,
that is, between a typical pistol/SMG (eg. 9mm or .45” ACP) round
and a full-blown military rifle round of the WW2 era – such as
the .303” British, US .30” or German 7.92x54mm et al, themselves
merely mid-powered cartridges as small arms ammunition goes.
The intermediate
cartridge and the small arms that fired them evolved during WW2, as
it was recognised that an infantry rifle didn’t need to be effective
much over 300m. The class of weapons, typically selective fire with
high-magazine capacity, became known as Assault Rifles (literal translation
of the German Sturm Gewehr).
High-powered?
I don’t think so. Bit like a “sniper” with a shotgun!
Capt Greg Sheppard
SO2, Fire Support Systems Program
Melbourne, VIC
Grand
dad’s army
Over the
years the body of an active uniformed person in the ADF deteriorates
to the point that one physically needs more and more time to recuperation
after strenuous exercise/activity. I know when I left the force, in
the early 1990s after 27 years, many aches and pains subsided to the
point that even though I can not class myself as fully fit, I certainly
enjoy a pain-free existence.
I am in
my mid-50s and am confident that I could still perform mentally, as
I did whilst serving but I would suggest that by lacking physical fitness
I could not really be confident in my overall performance should the
balloon go up or if I was called upon to serve in an active area of
operations.
The recent
article indicating the raising of the military OR retirement age to
65 years is of concern. Sure it is difficult to maintain good, trained
personnel in the services but to know that, even if it restricts the
old fogies to desk jobs, not being able to exercise the latest techniques/tactics
developed, is disturbing.
What sort
of respect would be offered from younger fitter, more modern trained,
personnel who have to wait longer to gain promotion or positions of
importance. Raising of the retirement age would have a negative effect
on keeping personnel in uniform.
Also, the
idea of personnel (who join after July 1, 2002) on leaving the force
being required to continue a five-year stand-by Reserve service, is
also a dream.
If personnel
were enjoying their career they wouldn’t leave anyhow. Sure, there
will be a handful that leave for personal reasons and may be keen to
retain ties but, most will leave due to dissatisfaction and to seek
a more stable lifestyle, so a five-year retention commitment is not
attractive.
The catchcry
of the pollies on the hill to entice people to work till 70 years is
also pie in the sky stuff. Society needs alert, active and fit young
personnel to maintain progress – not old fuddy duddies set in their
ways and unapproachable to change.
It’s
about time Defence sought a more man-on-the-ground opinion and not develop
process/ideas based on what an outside consultant can dream up.
Dee Hebden (WO1 retired)
POPABX - DCC
Lt-Col
Denis Ausling, SO1 Pers Regs Project Team, DGPers-A, replies:
It is disappointing that the writer has chosen to take a negative view
of the new regulations, especially when the views expressed are in ignorance
of the facts.
The new
Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002 (DPR) are an amalgamation of those
parts of the previous disparate single service acts and regulations
that related to personnel matters. They are the result of a couple of
years of painstaking work and services-wide consultation conducted by
service experts (not a consultant in sight) to provide a single set
of comprehensive, modern and common regulations applicable to all three
services.
With the
exception of Chaplains, there has been no change to the compulsory retirement
age (CRA) for members of the permanent force. The CRA for members of
the Reserve has been standardised at 60. This will provide more flexibility
for Service Chiefs to utilise the Reserves and fits in with the new
requirement of automatic transfer to the Standby Reserve (formerly Inactive
Reserve) for a minimum of five years after completing service in the
permanent force (this is not a ‘dream’ but is fixed in the
new regulations and will apply to anyone joining after July 1, 2003).
There is
no annual service obligation for the Standby Reserve unless there is
a need for call-out during a time of war or in a Defence emergency.
Under the
DPR, Service Chiefs have the power to extend the retirement age of an
individual in any increment up to a maximum of 65. This gives the Service
Chief the flexibility of being able to continue to utilise the services
of specialists such as surgeons, legal officers and chaplains.
This power
will be used very sparingly and there will only ever be a very limited
number of members who will be approved to serve to 65.
The writer
has made way too much of the possible maximum retirement age and linking
age to fitness to do the job.
From my
observation, there are many older members of the Army who can do a lot
better than many of their younger counterparts in BFAs, for example.
Statistically, the majority of members leave the ARA or Active Reserve
(AR) before they are 55. There is no reason why this should change in
the future. In the end, no matter what the age of the individual, they
have to comply with AIRN requirements to remain in the ARA or Reserves.
|
