|
|
Letters
to the Editor
And
now for the good news
Over
the last few years I have read a lot of letters in Army that are very
negative.
Everyone seems to be disheartened, fed up, disillusioned and just plain
had enough.
The main areas of concern and complaint seem to be that:
- The Army
is now run by civilians.
- The PMKeys
system is flawed and is extremely time consuming.
- The new
TASMIS system makes hard work of what used to be an easy process.
- Nothing
that you have done previously in your career matters if it has not been
recognised and given a civilian accreditation.
- You now
have to confirm with DHA if it’s alright to accept a posting to
a different locality because they might have to actually find accommodation
for you.
- Your
regimental number is now worth spit.
If it’s
not politically correct don’t say it as it may offend someone and
so on and so on and so on.
Well, I’m sick of hearing it all and wanted to put forward some
good things that are happening within Defence like … um …
and …. ah … and then there’s ….
Sgt Dave MacPhail
1 Coy
1 Cdo Regt
Make
it happen
In regards to the article in Army news edition 1070, dated March 27, page
17, titled “Perfecting PMKeyS process” from
DGPers-A:
I would firstly argue the point made that PMKeyS gives the Army unprecedented
global visibility of its pers asset.
What PMKeyS does give the Army is a collection of data that is unusable
at the unit level, which then requires hours to days of reworking to become
useable and then only after a 100 per cent audit as the initial data is
usually discreetly incorrect.
I would suggest PMKeyS is left wanting in all areas. This is why the majority
of units are using spreadsheets etc as their master pers tools and PMKeyS
is a secondary cousin that is input into, as a requirement.
I am of the belief the majority of PMKeyS inaccuracies are from the data
migration process.
Unit chief clerks require the ability to correct incorrect data. Why wait
until it is out of control, and then assemble a group of clerks from units,
(they are a rare commodity) and centralise them to rectify the problems?
To add to this, units have not had the time or manpower to conduct a 100
per cent audit of the data that migrated across.
Can anyone explain why a unit cannot extract onto a spreadsheet an authorised
SED showing all authorised positions and personnel in those positions
and be confident that it is accurate (AIRN Report, Leave Report, etc)?
Last, I respectfully request an answer as to why the administrative workload
has increased, laboriously long (short notice) manual returns through
the Chain of Command and data input into PMKeyS (including manual backup
at unit).
Surely if the system can achieve what it is meant to achieve, manual returns
would cease tomorrow, as HQ units at all levels can simply get what ever
personnel return they wish from PMKeyS!
PMKeyS has the potential, make it happen.
WO2 S.M. Bradley
ADJT 2CER
Reunion
for 11 Bde
At the end of WW2, a number of officers of the 11th Infantry Bde agreed
to hold regular reunions in order to stay in touch after the war. Those
reunions continue today and have included many post-war officers of the
brigade to carry on the tradition.
All current and past officers of 11 Bde are invited to attend the 2003
reunion along with their partners.
It will be a formal dinner to be held at the United Service Club in Brisbane
on August 16 .
A stimulating after dinner lecture will be presented.
At this stage we hope to have a presentation by Commander 1 Div and DJFHQ,
Maj-Gen Mark Evans.
Please circulate information on this reunion to all officers associated
with 11 Bde now or in the past. Anyone interested in attending can be
placed on the mailing list for an invitation.
Contact for the reunion is:
Maj Jenny Walker
Phone: 0414 678 259
Email: jwalker@consultancybureau.com.au
Leave in perspective
Interesting exchange between ARTC staff in relation to leave management
(Army,. editions 1069 and 1070). Credit to Sgt Fogg – it takes a
fair measure of maturity to issue an honest response publicly.
Nevertheless, don’t we pay people to manage our administration so
that soldiers, whatever their trade, can go about their daily business
confident that their affairs are being properly managed, including a correct
leave balance?
Leave, along with pay is a fundamental entitlement and soldiers have a
reasonable expectation that both are receiving due care and attention.
The ‘rules’ for data migration to PMKeyS were based on proper
administration of leave in our legacy system, AUSMIS.
The rollout of PMKeyS has exposed poor and/or lazy leave accounting practices
in AUSMIS and it has fallen to the Army PMKeyS Cell, with assistance from
LCOMD and some clever technical support, to address mal-administration
of leave in AUSMIS.
This effort, albeit an onerous undertaking, is required to establish a
firm base in PMKeyS for all.
Frankly, the standard of some leave administration, on show through correction
requests received by the APC, is pitiful.
It displays a toxic mix of lack of understanding of leave policy, poor
supervision and a disturbing lack of attention to detail.
Wherever leave was well administered in AUSMIS, transfer of records to
PMKeyS was generally successful (about 92 per cent of the permanent force).
Conversely, poor AUSMIS data translated to corrupt PMKeyS records. To
quote an agricultural analogy, ‘you reap what you sow’.
It’s convenient to pass blame to a new software program; takes some
courage to look to the person tickling the keyboard.
Finally, we (APC) are hot on the trail of the root cause of Army’s
leave problems.
Seems to be a rogue administrator out there who goes by the name, ‘predecessor’.
WO1 Simon Wilson
Overpaid leave clerk
Army PMKeyS Cell
Northbourne House, ACT
Uniform question
I, as with a good many members of the ADF and wider Australian community,
have been paying keen interest to the media coverage from operations in
Iraq.
I have noted what is to me, a disturbing trend among journalists the world
over.
The trend of which I speak relates to reporters appearing in battledress
uniforms.
Where does a reporter stand with respect to the combatant/non-combatant
issue, when he/she appears in military camouflage, sporting military body
armour and helmets?
What would be the outcome if such a journalist was mistaken for a soldier
by the opposition and shot/captured?
What would be the degree of culpability/responsibility befalling the host
army?
I am of the opinion, and am happy to stand corrected, that the distinctions
are being blurred as a consequence of this condoned practice.
Surely this is not a good thing?
Maj Ian Thomason
ALTC
South Bandiana,
Vic
We’re
the ones in sandals
The reply
from Maj Loton to my letter in Army, April 24, contained some inaccuracies
and interesting spin.
He states that it is understood that my demand was satisfied from another
source in EM. Not understood by me. The demand was not and has not been
satisfied. We searched SDSS and discovered that no boots of the appropriate
size were available anywhere and that there was no method of determining
when there might be.
Maj Loton then goes on to explain that allowing non-issue equipment to
be used may result in a potential inability to sustain soldiers and a
decrease in operational effectiveness. The fact is that the system I am
forced to use was and remains, the cause of the inability to sustain this
particular soldier on operations and the continued use of worn out equipment
by same. As always the issue of the almighty dollar is raised.
Where was the concern for the public purse through the more than a decade
of designs, trials and re-trials that have produced an item of equipment
that still cannot fulfil its basic purpose?
What version of the ‘most advanced combat boot in the world’
are we up to now?
The facts quite simply are as follows. Let’s keep it easy and just
think about the boots. The ‘system’ is unable to provide the
most basic of equipment to soldiers that is adequate to the task, reliable
and easily resupplied. No expense is spared on testing and trials, with
exactly the same results every time. A sub-standard item is introduced
into service, constantly re-modelled, upgraded, re-shaped and re-released
and the item still isn’t much good.
The real tragedy to my way of thinking is we can’t even admit that
there is a problem.
To Maj Loton’s final point. That the use of non-issue equipment
may even complicate the identification of own troops. Not a chance of
that happening now. We’ll be the ones wearing the Ho Chi Min sandals.
WO2 K.R. Davies
4CSSB
Broadmeadows VIC
Tool
for comparison
Cpl Fowler (Army, Letters, March 27) provided some constructive comments
on ADF remuneration.
His comments have been noted, but perhaps it might be useful to add to
a couple of points he made.
As a 10-year corporal on Pay Group 5, he commented that his pay group
was not ‘even close to $50,000’ and found the Comparative
Value Adjustable Model (CEVAM) figures ‘hard to believe’.
An unfavourable comparison was made to a ‘Sydney Council parking
inspector’ on $47,000 pa (it wasn’t clear whether this was
inclusive of superannuation or not).
It’s worth noting that all CEVAM does is add up the applicable salary,
allowances and other benefits a member would receive, based on information
he or she enters.
For example, the base salary for a corporal pay group 5 (two years-plus)
is currently $39,611 per annum. Add service allowance ($7321) and UMA
($415) and that gives you $47,347 pa, assuming no other salary related
allowances.
CEVAM then calculates the employer-provided superannuation value: in this
case $10,794 (assuming 10 years service in MSBS). A total of $58,141 per
annum, which would be the minimum remuneration package value you’d
need to be looking at for comparative purposes.
Depending on your circumstances, CEVAM might also add the value of any
housing assistance and ADF medical.
If the member in the example had dependents and is in a MQ or receives
RA, CEVAM does not assume any additional medical or dental benefit to
the Medicare levy exemption (in this example, $355).
The MQ/RA benefit for Sydney would be an estimated $6327. If the above
applied, the CEVAM total value in this example would be $64,824.
When it adds various financial benefits to base pay, CEVAM is merely specifying
the transfer value of these benefits as a package.
It is just a tool to indicate what would you have to be paid to gain a
comparable financial outcome elsewhere.
It’s not saying the additional entitlement aren’t justified
for valid service related reasons, or that the demands of service life
that the benefits provide for should be ignored.
Nor can it measure comparable entitlements such as leave policies or working
hours, nor comparable levels of potential advancement, or job satisfaction
and security, etc.
These all have to be assessed on a case by case basis.
CEVAM is useful in stressing the need to look at the whole financial package
on offer, so that like is compared with like.
Too often, the other elements of the ADF remuneration and entitlement
package in addition to base pay can be overlooked when comparisons are
made, with members realising the real financial implications of a possible
change too late.
Both CEVAM and further information on ADF entitlements are available from
the DPE web site on either the intranet : (http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/dpe/)
or the Internet (http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/).
Capt Marcus Peake (RAN)
Director Salary and Allowances,
DPE, Russell Offices, ACT
Fire
for Effect
Thanks,
5 Avn Regt
My wife recently experienced a difficult time due to the loss of her mother
to cancer. This letter is not to dwell on our loss, rather to thank the
5 Avn Regt personnel that made this difficult time a lot less stressful
and to reassure soldiers in similar circumstances that the system works.
While on duty I received a phone call from my wife stating that her mother
was given only a short time left to live after a lengthy period of being
hospitalised. I contacted my chain of command, which got the ball rolling.
Before long (much to her surprise) my wife and three children were presented
with a full itinerary of movements from our location to her critically
ill mother. Within hours my wife went from a nervous wreck wondering how
and when she was going to see her mother prior to her imminent death to
comforting her mother prior to her passing away.
If it wasn’t for entitlements such as compassionate travel and RLLT
(Remote Locality Leave Travel) we couldn’t have achieved the journey
financially, creating another stress for my wife, which she didn’t
need.
So again I would like to thank the Q staff, clerks and hierarchy of both
Logistic Support Squadron and Regimental Headquarters, 5 Avn Regt, RAAF
Base Townsville, for your swift and timely response during my family’s
difficult time, for this my wife and I are grateful.
Cpl A. Feltham
5 Avn Regt.
RAAF Townsville, Qld
Economies of scale
Currently the Army employs many different embellishments and badges for
the many orders of dress at varying costs to the taxpayer.
I will use the Pilot, Aircrew and Parachute Jump Instructors as an example.
Currently, personnel are issued with three types of brevet, cloth (about
$2.50) for service dress, pewter metal (about $10) for polyesters and
Bullion (about $50) for mess kit.
This comes in at $62.50 for each individual at taxpayers expense. If we
qualify one hundred pilots, aircrew and PJIs of Senior NCO or officer
rank a year that come to about $625 000
My point is that we could abolish all but the pewter metal brevet for
use on all forms of dress, although possibly gold plate them, this would
save $5050 per year on my example, which could purchase 5000 rounds for
training our soldiers at the sharp end.
Sgt Col Bishop
CA
ADFRU-B, Qld
Up there, sub-editor
I read with interest the backpage headline in the April 10 edition of
Army News – “Flying High in the Sky –- 17 Years undefeated
for Army AFL side”.
While this is undoubtedly an outstanding acheivement, I was always under
the impression that the AFL (the Australian Footbal League) only had 16
teams, I now find that a 17th has been added, the Army AFL team no less!
Is AFL boss Wayne Jackson aware of this? Where do I get my membership
and reserved seats at the MCG? How are they coping with the M$6.5 salary
cap?
I assume that your reporters meant to say that the Army Australian rules
football side (or Aussie Rules if you prefer) had remained undefeated.
Or maybe, just maybe, the Army team is looking to step up to the AFL?
WO2 Bill Donnelly
Defence Force School of Signals
Simpson Barracks, Vic
Editor’s response: WO2 Donnelly is quite correct. It should have
read the Army Australian Football side, not AFL team. Given the performance
of some AFL teams, the Army ‘AFL team’ may be able to step
up to the big league!
A pipe up Saddam
We all recently watched the toppling of the stature in Bagdad.
A question then for the technically minded sappers – why was the
reinforcing of Saddam’s stature steel pipe, rather then the traditional
I beam or other steel section?
Peter Weingott (Ex-sapper)
Building Officer
Brisbane Catholic Education
pweingott@bne.catholic.edu.au
|
|
.
|
|
