Letters
to the Editor
Soldier’s
Five by Vman02
Unfair
ambulance levy
The Premier
of Queensland, Peter Beattie, has recently announced the introduction
a new levy to help fund the Queensland Ambulance Service. The collection
of revenue will be via your electricity account at the rate of $88 a
year.
What’s this got to do with Army you may ask? Nothing, if you live
outside of Queensland, you will still receive all of your conditions
of service. If you reside in the Sunshine State, you will be forced
to pay for a condition of service which is detailed in DI(G) 16-1.
I have contacted the Minister for Emergency Service’s office and
furnished them with a copy of the relevant DI(G) and the response was
unimpressive to say the least.
I was informed that the State Government had not thought about this
situation and that it may represent a problem.
From my perspective, the only problem is ADF personnel paying for something
and receiving nothing in return.
I appeal to the Defence Senior Leaders on behalf of all ADF personnel
posted to Queensalnd to have an exemption from this levy granted.
If an exemption is not secured, this policy will discriminate, as personnel
posted outside Queensland would still retain all of their conditions
of service.
This discrimination extends further between personnel who live off barracks
in service accommodation (MQ’s) and members who live on barracks.
Those members who live on barracks do not receive an electricity bill,
so they will never pay this levy.
In my case, both my wife and I are permanent members of the Army and
our child has private health insurance with ambulance cover. The best
the Minister’s office could offer me was to ask my insurer for
a reduction in premiums. I will drop dead if Defence Health drop my
premium by $88 a year.
Furthermore, if a soldier had to pay the levy and had an accident that
required him to use an ambulance, the bill would be paid by Defence.
Clearly, this would be a case of double dipping. Alternatively, if four
soldiers rented a house, the electricity account would be in one name
and the burden would be shared amongst the tenants who are only paying
$22 annually. The family with only one Defence member would pay an extra
$66 even if they had private health insurance for their family.
As this issue will affect thousands of ADF personnel, I request that
it be given immediate attention.
I strongly believe that if this exemption is denied, it should be tested
in the courts.
WO2 Wayne Tripcony
5 Avn Regt
RAAF Townsville, Qld
The
missing item
My purpose with this letter is to debunk a favourite Army-wide myth.
That is ‘You can’t use/wear civilian-type clothing and equipment
because if needs to be replaced, the system will only be able to provide
issue items.’
This arguement has been used over the years to justify the refusal to
allow soldiers to use anything that is superior to the issue item.
I am in Timor. My boots need replacing. I left my civilian equivalent
at home.
The system cannot provide me with boots because mine happen to be a
‘popular size’.
Half my soldiers are in the same predicament.
I have expressed a willingness many times over the years to use my UMA
to purchase decent boots but of course we can’t do that because
the system can’t replace non-issue items.
It now appears the system can’t replace issue items either.
So now I can’t get the issue item, I can’t wear anything else.
Could someone solve this little problem for me before my runners and
thongs wear out completely?
Sgt K.R. Davies
5/7RAR Bn Gp
Batugade, East Timor
Maj Brenden Loton, SO2 Equipment Management, Directorate of Logistics
– Army, replies:
Unfortunately, from time to time, Q-Stores do run low on stock of
some items, in your case one of the 43 sizes of combat boot.
While the inability of your servicing Q-Store to provide your boots
from one of the 43 stock sizes available is regrettable it is understood
that your demand was satisfied with stock from another source in EM.
Such cross levelling of stores is an acceptable means to meet short-term
deficiencies due to delays in provisioning or increased rates of demand.
It is, however, a practice Army prefers to keep to a minimum.
You also raised an interesting point as to why soldiers are encouraged
to wear issue items rather than an item of personal choice.
The reason is simple; it relates to standardisation and safety.
A lack of standardisation across Army may result in a potential inability
to sustain soldiers while deployed and expose personnel to unnecessary
risk.
It may also result in unnecessary clothing and equipment being introduced
or retained in service, which places additional strain on an already
stretched Defence budget.
Additionally, the use of non-standard clothing and equipment within
an operational environment has the potential for the operational effectiveness
of the combat force to be decreased and may even complicate the identification
of own troops in conditions of extreme stress.
No PPs for PMG
I am writing with a question regarding entitlements to be issued: Male
and Female Personal Packs.
I believe that the Personal Packs (PPs) kicked off as a mass production
for East Timor.
At that time Op Bel Isi had been going for about two years and to the
best of my knowledge there was no issue of PPs to this operation, with
PPs first issued approximately December 2001.
As I submit this query, we have been informed that the order of PPs
for this op has been redirected and that the next delivery is expected
around mid-May 2003.
Given the ongoing operational activities the ADF are involved in, the
system should by now be geared up and proactive enough to ensure that
there are adequate supplies to meet these demands.
I appreciate that higher profile operations are likely to take priority
when specialist and specific items are needed, however, this operation
has been issued PPs for some time now, as have other operations and
to that end there is no reason I can see as to why this op should be
disadvantaged in this regard.
Bottom line – is if it is an entitlement then the soldiers/sailors/airmen/women
and Defence civilians who are entitled to these should receive their
entitlement.
WO2 W. Meurant
Warrant Officer Logistic Support Team,
PMG Bougainville, Op Bel Isi
What is at risk?
I have recently had my attention drawn to the Defweb ADF Sports Council
lists of ‘Recognized Sports’ and the associated ‘Inappropriate
Sports listing’.
The Australian Government Solicitor has advised of sports that are too
‘high risk’ and therefore member participation is considered
inappropriate for CO authorization.
This now means those members who were previously able to be authorized
at unit level to participate in sports such as motor sports, rock climbing,
abseiling, scuba diving, etc, are now not able to be authorised by their
CO and are therefore not covered in the event of injury for any compensation.
I really would not have a problem with this if the ADF were consistent
in its approach to all sports.
The Defweb reveals that Athletics, Touch Football and Rugby have the
three highest incidences of sports injuries in the ADF but they do not
appear on the “too risky” list.
I am a member of the Australian Parachute Federation with over 3000
jumps. According to the ADF Sports Council, I can only be approved to
parachute if I am a member of the ADF Parachute Association. Why does
being a member of the ADFPA make me an acceptable risk?
If I restricted my parachuting to ADFPA-approved activities only, I
would be regarded as relatively uncurrent and at risk of injury and
certainly should not be able to teach parachuting, but I am asked to
teach parachuting for Unit Adventure Training each year.
Shouldn’t the risk of injury and compensation for all sports focus
on the training received and the individuals ability to maintain fitness
and currency in the sport, and therefore reducing the risk? Most injuries
occur to those who are not trained properly or who participate infrequently.
Until recently, Defence Force Careers paid a Sprintcar driver $20,000
per year in sponsorship because it was good PR. They will now no longer
sponsor the soldier but would like him to maintain the Defence logo
on his car – yeah right! The back page of Army, February 27, has
a photo of Bdr Jeff Brown racing a motor bike with his training quoted
as ‘you basically learn as you go’.
We want these types of sports for their PR value but we won’t accept
the risk. I guess putting a set of lawn bowls in a recruitment ad wouldn’t
have quite the same effect.
Capt Allan Gray
QM, 16 AD Regt
Woodside Barracks, SA
MSBS
is a victim of world trends in the share market
The last
few issues of Army have included letters from disappointed members regarding
the performance of MSBS investments.
I am a pay rep, and while I am not a huge fan of the way MSBS operates
(although I elected to change over from DFRDB), I feel that they are
worthy of some defence here.
The negative return on MSBS investments has little – if anything
– to do with the competence of the funds investors. All you have
to do is pay attention to the financial report on the news every night
to see that share markets the world over are declining. MSBS placed
a significant sum in the share market and the financial loss they are
experiencing is due to world trends.
What about a few years back, when MSBS was returning 18 per cent and
19 per cent?
Other compliant funds were only returning their investors in the vicinity
of 10 per cent. While I am experiencing similar financial losses to
others out there, I am remaining confident that over the long term,
MSBS’s returns will out-perform other funds. The share market is
not an investment that returns a profit to every investor every year.
Having just returned from my East Timor ‘dash for cash’, and
having sold a house on posting, I have had signifcant funds to invest.
Unfortunately, there are currently few investment options out there
with any decent risk vs return. Other soldiers who have invested their
EM funds will probably be experiencing losses of their own.
My advice (although I must stress I am not a financial adviser) is to
wait out the storm. If you disagree with me, visit a civilian financial
adviser.
You can always reduce your MSBS to 5 per cent and put more money into
something else. But I think that when you add up the fees, along with
the losses you will still see with another fund, MSBS won’t seem
quite so bad.
Cpl T. Schmidt
26 Tpt Sqn,
Puckapunyal, Vic
Fire
for Effect
Thanks
Army readers
Thanks
Army readers
Last year I wrote to Army enlisting the help of readers in an attempt
to locate two Vietnam War Veterans; Mr Simon Whitehead and Mr Kevin
Thomson, so that I could return their medals.
Within days of that letter appearing in Army, I had found Mr Whitehead
and I was able to return his medals as well as his father’s WW2
Military Cross group.
I have recently located Mr Thomson’s widow and I’ve arranged
the return of his medals.
I would like to thank all those readers of Army who provided me with
information that assisted with my search.
The medals are now where they belong, with the family.
Maj Glyn Llanwarne
SO Joint Theatre Distribution
Land Development Branch,
Russell Offices, ACT
glyn.llanwarne@defence.gov.au
llanwarne80@hotmail.com
Call
for OTS, OCTUS
I am hoping
to write the history of WW2 OTS and OCTU.
I would like to contact ex-instructors and graduates.
Please contact me at (02) 9579 5295 or 80 Myall St,Oatley, NSW 2223
or e-mail at nairb1@bigpond.com
Brian Boyle
Oatley, NSW
Advertising
concern
I, like
thousands of soldiers across the Army, look forward to my perusal of
the Army newspaper.
Imagine then, my surprise and delight when last week for no additional
cost, I was able to not only digest the newspaper proper but was afforded
the ‘unique’ opportunity of educating myself on the benefits
of ‘Being Smart and Buying Smart’.
A noteworthy article on prudent financial management you may ask –
no, a glossy piece of ‘propaganda’ for a housing development
on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland.
I take it this cheery and stylised brochure was purely an advertisement
and Army was in no way endorsing the product offered?
No one associated with the paper has any pecuniary interest in the afore
mentioned development?
I don’t want to harp and I understand Army has traditionally carried
a variety of advertising but the presence of such a prominent brochure
in the last issue bordered on inappropriate, potentially raised uncomfortable
questions of propriety and frankly, was off-putting.
Take this letter for what it is worth but I certainly was not the only
person in my unit to express some unease at ‘Be Smart, Buy Smart’.
Maj Scott McRae
LWDC
Puckapunyal, Vic
Editor’s
Response:
I can
assure Maj McRae that no member of Army has any pecuniary interest associated
with the development featured in the advertising brochure.
I can also assure him that the brochure was as it appeared – advertising.
Buying advertising space or paying for an adversting insert does not
imply any endorsement by Army, the Army or the Department of Defence.
This is as per every other newspaper.
Fire your
well-aimed shots at a deserving target through the Fire For Effect column.
Keep them short and snappy. Longer letters will be edited.
