Letters
to the Editor
Sounds
high-powered
In response
to Capt Greg Sheppard’s letter ‘Down the Barrel’ (Army,
Feb 27), obviously the author is a technical expert in small arms, and
has a wealth of knowledge on terminology and categorisation.
No debate
there.
But his
criticism of the terminology relating to the M16 is somewhat askew.
Under the
UN Mandate on Weapons Disposal in Bougainville, endorsed by the UN Security
Council and supported by the PMG, all weapons belonging to ex-combatants
that are collected for containment are categorised.
When collection
of weapons varies from home made shotguns, WW2 Arisaka rifles, 60-year-old
machine guns and pistols made of water pipe, an M16A1 is, without a
doubt, high powered.
The PMG,
the UN, DFAT and LHQ all use this terminology because it unambiguously
classifies the weapons in this particular circumstance.
The author
of the original article was reporting on what is the accepted terminology
in an operational theatre, and not what comes out of an obscure technical
manual.
“Disappointing
lack of knowledge on behalf of the captionwriter?”
Sounds
like glass houses to me.
Capt Gerry McGowan
PMG Rotation 16A Weapon Disposal Officer
Op Bel Isi II
PMKeys
fails again
The subject
of PMKeys is without doubt exhausted until this week (February 27) when
once again this mismanaged waste of money and time has failed to work.
Soldiers
are being asked “how much leave did you have?” and “your
pay may not be correct due to the fact that it is still not working.”
But be
warned – if a soldier is issued too much leave or pay they are
responsible, not the system.
It is impossible
to hit a soldier any harder where it hurts – leave, pay, service
numbers.
If something
is broken, fix it or maybe if something works, leave it well alone.
PMKeys
equals NYC.
Cpl R. Ingram
F2806703
Kapooka, NSW
Military
history site
I am coordinating
the unofficial military history website called Digger History at www.diggerhistory.info
It attempts
to cover all services and all conflicts. At 1091 pages it is only just
starting. It is a massive but necessary task.
This is
a request to your readers to consider whether they have any historical
matter, especially photos, from any conflict from The Sudan in 1855
to East Timor to contribute.
Please
note it must be historical, not current.
Ted Harris (ex 1RAR)
tedharris@ozemail.com.au
24 Kingston Ave
Alexandra Hills, QLD 4161
(07) 3824 0359
Missing
a key word
Defence
is understandably keen to contain manpower costs, but is injecting deploying
troops with Anthrax a kosher strategy?
Maj Blue Phillips
LHQ
Victoria Barracks, NSW
Editor’s note: The caption on the front page in the February
27 edition should have made it clear, as the accompanying story did,
that personnel on Op Bastille were innoculated with the Anthrax vaccine.
Army apologises for this error but stands by the accuracy of the story.
Credit
for Plumbob
The ADF
was involved in Op Trek, which involves peacekeeping duties in the Solomon
Islands.
Op Plumbob
was the forerunner to Op Trek and HMAS Tobruk and Manoora with their
joint Navy/Army crews participated in both operations.
I am writing
to question the apparent difference in Conditions of Service (COS) between
the two operations. Op Trek has been recognised with the appropriate
COS but only the initial days of Op Plumbob have been equally recognised.
In June
2000 HMAS Tobruk conducted a much-publicised Services Assisted Evacuation
(SAE) of about 480 Australian and approved foreign nationals from the
Solomon Islands.
This is
thought to be the first SAE conducted by the RAN/Army in a great many
years.
Shortly
after HMAS Tobruk delivered her valuable cargo to Australia, the ship
returned to the Solomon Islands for what was then thought to be a short
period (10-14 days) to provide a secure, neutral venue for the signing
of a cease-fire agreement between the two warring factions and assist
where necessary.
The stated
short period was constantly increased due to the slow and fluid nature
of the cease-fire negotiations.
A cease-fire
agreement was signed in early August and HMAS Tobruk immediately sailed
for Australia.
It is this
period of Op Plumbob that I believe is not being duly considered in
the determining of COS.
The time
spent by HMAS Tobruk and her combined Navy/Army crew in the Solomon
Islands was undertaken with extreme professionalism and dedication.
HMAS Tobruk
not only provided a safe, neutral venue for the cease-fire talks but
also secure transport to and from the ship for delegates of the talks
and other persons, often to very distant and isolated parts of the main
and surrounding islands.
The ship
also provided a means of evacuation if this was again required, a safe
haven for those Australians who remained on the island after the evacuation
and emergency medical assistance if required.
It has
been reported, even in Navy News, that on many occasions personnel would
sight armed patrols and see and hear gunfire ashore as the warring parties
continued fighting.
It was
also a common occurrence to see houses burned and to hear reports of
kidnappings, acts of sabotage, murders, bashings and other deeds associated
with a breakdown in civil order.
On one
memorable occasion a running gun battle between the two factions took
place as two boats traded shots whilst circling HMAS Tobruk.
It is with
this in mind I wonder why the outstanding service provided by HMAS Tobruk,
her crew and attached personnel has not received the recognition I believe
it deserves.
The conduct,
professionalism and attitude of all personnel involved was exemplary.
The actions of those involved brought credit, not only to themselves,
but to the entire ADF.
I would
also like to ask who is responsible for determining conditions of service
and if the conditions currently being applied to the majority of Op
Plumbob are being or can be reconsidered.
I eagerly
await your reply either directly or through the service newspapers.
Tpr S. Brown
Aviation Training Centre
Oakey, QLD
Military
precision?
I am the
wife of a soldier. For 10 years my children and I have supported my
husband, and by extension the Army, in his career choices. We have had
to put up with things no civilian family has to, and done so gladly.
My reason
for writing to you is to ask one simple question. Why, in 10 years,
has my husband never been able to tell me until the last minute when
he is coming home?
It doesn’t
matter if it’s an exercise, a course or, as is currently the case,
an overseas deployment.
Not once
has the Army been able to conduct planning accurate enough to allow
my husband to tell me exactly when he was coming home until he was about
to walk through the door!
I find
myself chortling with amusement when I watch the news and hear that
a bank robbery was carried out with ‘military precision’.
This obviously
means the robbers went to the wrong building, accepted a cheque, left
their account details, and raced outside to find their get away car
being towed away.
My husband
always tells me that plans change and we need to be flexible.
What rubbish!
If a viable
plan existed in the first place it would be adhered to – clearly
there isn’t one. We’ve been rolling people in and out of Timor
every six months now since 1999 but still all I’ve got is ‘I’ll
be home sometime in April or May.’
Not good
enough!
J.L. Davies
Puckapunyal, VIC
Recognition
slug
As a member
who is currently in an RA (rental assistance) accommodation I have recently
discovered that, should I make my current fiancée a recognised
dependant in the eyes of the Army (defacto), I will be slugged an extra
$46 a pay for contribution.
I haven’t
moved house nor have I been promoted or had a pay increase. Why then
should I be punished (hardly a reward is it?) simply because I wish
to have a recognised dependant?
I realise
that my rent ceiling will increase as a result of this change of categorisation
but does that mean I will be entitled to removal to move into a better
house? Somehow I don’t think so.
In fact,
I’ve recently had a chat to DHA (Don’t Help Anyone) and they
gave me the old “it’s a Defence policy there’s nothing
we can do about it” speech.
It’s
a wonder that families are put under such stress because of these attitudes.
Also, for
the readers’ information, the contributions for MWOD will be increasing
again next year to be 90 per cent of the MWD contributions, so look
out for a rent hike. Bet they won’t tell us that until it’s
introduced.
Sgt P. Holder
Defence Force School of Signals,
Simpson Barracks, VIC
Ken
Thornton , Communication Manager, DHA, replies:
The role
of Defence Housing Authority is to provide housing in accordance with
Defence policy. Over 15 years of operation DHA has significantly raised
the standard of accommodation for ADF members across the country.
It remains
a fact that the rent contributions and rent ceilings DHA apply derive
from the Pay and Conditions Manual (PACMAN) and that those figures
are determined by Defence.
Your
reader may be interested to know that during the period from November
2002 - January 2003 DHA managed 8296 relocations with a very low national
complaint rate of 0.37 per cent.
Also,
our most recent Customer Satisfaction KPI across all relocation and
tenancy services achieved the agreed Defence target of 75 per cent
or greater, and in most cases was closer to 85 per cent.
Who
pays? I do
I was recently
reading my latest MSBS Statement for financial year 2001/2002 and was
appalled to discover the interest rate of negative 8.9 per cent.
That’s
correct, negative.
Basically
it means that out of my $2217.90 in my contributions to the fund for
this financial year, I will only recieve $778.75 (at age 55).
Where did
the other $1439.15 go? Presumably to pay for the poor performance of
MSBS investment.
Why should
I have to foot the bill for the poor performance of a fund I was compulsorily
enrolled into?
This has
now cost me almost $1500 this year, not to mention prospective future
interest.
Is the
government going to make up my shortfall?
Surely
there is a responsibility for those in government who introduced this
scheme and then made it mandatory to have some sort of safety net that
guarantees at least a break-even result?
Every other
MSBS member is in the same boat.
Now I know
what some will say and, yes, our Employer Contributions I am told continues
to claim 23 per cent interest.
So what?
I’m still $1500 out of pocket.
The fund
has now seen its interest rates drop 22.5 per cent since June 30, 2000,
and this during a time when we are told Australia’s economy is
doing well.
What if
this trend continues and next year its a total of $3000?
What action
is being taken to rectify this or prevent it from happening again?
To top
it all off, should I leave the Defence force I cannot continue to contribute
but can roll over my contributions and interest only.
My employer
contributions must remain in MSBS until age 55.
I am led
to believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the only
fund in Australia with this lack of portability.
Isn’t
there a law against this kind of monopolisation?
I recall
a local university facing investigation for forcing its students to
belong to an organisation and while some may say it’s not the same
thing – well, on the surface it appears to be.
At the
end of the day I am still $1500 short and I want it back.
If I borrowed
the same from a bank and then gambled it away they would demand it back.
But then
that would be my choice, wouldn’t it?
Sgt J. Muller
9 Tpt Sqn, 3CSSB
Lavarack Barracks, QLD
No
thanks for digger
I refer
to the letter sent in to Army by Capt Iain Watts titled ‘How or
not to farewell’ in the February 13 edition.
I can honestly
completely agree with everything that was said by him.
My husband
retired in late 2000 where as he gave 25 years of his life to the ARA,
the last 20 of those in RACT.
I know
how proud he was when he received his 300,000km Safe Driving Certificate.
He retired
as a lance corporal (which has been a recognised rank for several years),
but I felt very embarrassed for him to think that his last unit did
not even give him a farewell.
The corps
did not even send him a letter saying thank you for the time, effort
and loyalty he displayed during his time.
I have
been told he may be possibly be entitled to a Certificate of Service
or Appreciation from the corps.
After almost
three years later I am still waiting but not holding my breath for him.
Rhonda Barnett
A very disappointed ex-transport
driver’s wife
Canungra, Qld
|
