Letters
to the Editor
Army’s
two big issues
As most
members are, I’m a great fan of reading the Letters to the Editor
section in Army newspaper.
It’s
a great format for legitimate gripes for those whose mates and superiors
are sick of listening to them or just to have a laugh at how uptight
people get over the latest ASODs amendment, etc.
In that
spirit, I’d like to nominate what I think are the two most fundamentally
wrong things with the Army, and see if others agree.
In the
finest traditions of whingeing, these problems don’t have a clearly
foreseeable solution and have logical (defensible) reasons behind them,
and yet also seem so fundamentally unfair.
Drum-roll
please.
Nomination 1: Diggers have to pay at least twice as much for a beer
in Frontline as a SNCO or Officer pays in a mess.
(We all know it – we see it on Anzac Day).
Nomination
2: Members get two or three times as much cash in allowances for flying
Qantas to an interstate meeting than they would if they were busting
their humps out bush working around the clock.
I know
I’m singing to the choir, but does anyone disagree?
Apart from
those two I think the rest are just details, and I reckon we are generally
on a pretty good wicket (give or take a combat boot or breaching capability).
Capt Mick Hall
SME
Steele Barracks, NSW
(By the way boss and workmates – yes, I am writing this in my lunch
hour, no need to pay me out at mornos.)
Recruiting
wastage
At present
the ADF spends a lot of money on the Defence Recruiting Organisation
(DRO), some of which could be better spent.
ADFRUs
pay for potential civilians to travel, pay for overnight accommodation
and meal allowance so that this person may attend – given that
only about 25 per cent of people get through, that is a lot of money.
The point
is we are the only organisation to do this – QPS, BHP and such
companies would not dream of it, it is bad business.
Another
issue is the chase-up letters. In Brisbane on one day in February, the
Army sent 32 letters to customers because they had not followed through
with inquires – that is $16.
I did not
see the RAN or RAAF letters, but over all ADFRUs it must be a staggering
figure. I would be interested to know the annual bill – again it
would be bad business sense for a civilian company to conduct the same
practice.
The second
point is how targets are decided in Canberra. I know for a fact that
the RAAOC Parachute Rigger trade is screaming for people, they have
even cancelled IET courses, but ADFRUs cannot target potential recruits
for this trade, because we are told they are closed. I had three people
who wanted to do Para Rigger trade course, but I could only recruit
them into RAAOC Clerk Admin.
I may be
cynical but it seems laughable to me.
Sgt Col Bishop
Careers Adviser
ADFRU-B
No
need for Brut 33
I read
with pleasure of an Aussie soldier in Iraq manning a checkpoint wearing
shorts and unshaven, while the US Army apparently still shaves daily
despite water shortages.
I wonder
whether this commonsense measure is only extended to the SAS on operations,
or has the Army come up with a morale-boosting decision for all soldiers
on operations and field exercises?
The only
practical reason for shaving would be to avoid compromising the efficiency
of the Nuclear and Biochemical protection suit.
The shaving
is good for discipline argument never held any water and should be flicked
along with polishing brass and ‘spittied’ boots.
Graham Egan
Bracken Ridge, Qld
Don’t
complain
After several
months (yes months), visits to their web site and lots of e-mails to
a civilianised area of Defence (trying to order some specialised stationary
items) without any success, I finally cracked.
I sent
them an e-mail in which I complained about their lack of service and
made a sarcastic remark about them actually getting paid for it.
The result
you ask – an official complaint has been made to my Battalion about
me.
So there
you have it, folks, the civilians hired supposedly to assist and support
us can stuff you around for months, but complain just once about it
and expect to be standing on the mat.
Is it any
wonder I am counting down the days, this is not the Army I joined.
Cpl Dennis McLean
HQ 51 MP Pl (SIB)
Gallipoli Barracks, Qld
Trooper
is right
I am responding
to Tpr Sean Brown’s letter (Army, March 13) in reference to Conditions
of Service (COS) for those who served under Op Plumbob (Solomon Islands)
in 2000.
I also
served in both operations mentioned (Trek and Plumbob) as the OC Ship’s
Army Detachment HMAS Tobruk.
Tpr Brown
is correct in that the relevant COS requirements for non-warlike service
were met under Op Plumbob.
The two
primary requirements that come to mind were the conduct of an SAE and
use of the Tobruk as a neutral platform during cease fire/peace negotiations.
The ADF
Pay and Conditions Manual (Part 1) reinforces this by stating COS eligibility
as “...military observer activities with the tasks of monitoring
ceasefires, re-directing and alleviating ceasefire tensions, providing
‘good offices’ for negotiations and the impartial verification
of assistance or ceasefire agreements, and other like activities...”
I notice
that Annex F of the Manual categorises Plumbob as non-warlike service
over the period June 8 to 24, 2000 (when the SAE of Australian and Approved
Foreign Nationals occurred), and that Part 1 continues to detail eligibility
for the COS package as applicable to members who “serve within
the prescribed operational area for conditions of service purposes;
is assigned for duty as part of the deployed force; and serve within
the prescribed start and finish dates.”
Hence,
I support Tpr Brown’s ‘quest for an answer’ given that
he hasn’t seen the full COS package he believes he is entitled
to ie: he may have received allowances but not necessarily the ‘ASM’
component of the package (ie: M & Ms).
I understand
his frustration given that in many recent operations, force-assigned
personnel are eligible for the AASM after 24 hours in theatre
I am aware
that general policy for the ASM seems to be 30 days continuous service
– which infers that it is ‘harder’ to get an ASM than
an AASM in some respects. This 30 day qualification period also seems
to conflict with policy stated above (serves within the prescribed start
and finish dates).
I am aware
that policy states that the ASM may be awarded for non-warlike service,
however, I was awarded the gongs for TREK as well as East Timor, but
felt more at ‘risk’ during the conduct of the SAE in the Solomons.
I think
it important to provide Tpr Brown and his Navy/Army peers with a credible
explanation of how policy has been applied in this instance.
Maj Dave Buller
Land Development Branch Capability Systems
Russell Offices, ACT
Leadership
test
After 16
years of being ‘green’, the time has come for Polly to call
it a day.
During
my service in the Army I have had the honour and privilege to work with
some exceptional men and women, (and some not so exceptional types!)
in a variety of positions. While the list could be large, I wish to
name a few who I believe have shown me the leadership and personal qualities
that I wish to embody as I progress in my new career in the RAAF.
Former
1 Sig Regt COs, Lt-Col ( now Brig) Maurice McNarn and Lt-Col Gary Barnes,
RSM-A WO Brian Boughton while RSM 1 Div for his guidance and help while
I was posted as the DJFHQ storeman, WO1 Barry Martin (RASigs) for a
stern word and clip across the ears when needed, and WO1 Peter Shearim,
1 Armd Regt, for keeping me sane during the most difficult posting I
have had.
To all
the friends that I have made, and those that I have met and served with,
keep on leading from the front and keep on soldiering. Good luck and
farewell.
Flg-Off Mark ‘Polly’ Farmer
(formerly WO2 - RASigs/RAAOC) RAAF
What
reggie no.?
In reference
to the letter from Sgt MacPhail that appeared in the May 8, 2003, edition
of Army (“And now for the good news”), I have one small comment.
The obviously
very far-from gruntled Sgt MacPhail states that his “regimental
number is now worth spit.” I have to inform Sgt Mac that neither
he, nor any member of the Australian Army now serving or serving since
1961 has or had a “regimental number.”
The Australian
Army did away with regimental numbers (i.e. numbers issued at unit level
from unit block) in 1961 and replaced them with Army numbers, (i.e.,
numbers issued at Army level).
One of
the minor (and admittedly transistory) pleasures of my life as an ARA
warrant officer was the look of bewilderment on the faces of orderly
room clerks when, in response to that time honoured Army question “What’s
your reggy number, sir?”, I replied “I haven’t got one!”
So, Mac,
sympathise with your complaints but, sorry, since you never had a ‘regimental
number’ then you can’t really miss it.
Graham Wilson
WO2 (rtd)
Member, Military Historical Society of Australia
Removal
costs
I wrote
last year of the advantages of Part Time Leave Without Pay. Unfortunately
my unit rescinded the PTLWOP leaving me with the option of working full-time
or resigning.
I chose
to resign and while working out what to do next, am entitled to RA while
on LSL.
Knowing
individuals who have received storage at public expense I queried DHA
on this.
They state
that “under PACMAN provisions there is no entitlement to storage
at departmental expense on a discharge removal”.
I would
have thought paying $20 per week for storage as opposed to $180 per
week RA plus ACA for Darwin members would make good financial sense.
Possibly,
as with my situation, the saving is only about $5000, it is considered
too small a drop to worry about in the Defence budget ocean.
Also, why
does one have to have their contents stored in the discharge location?
If I am
the one paying for the storage and am entitled to one uplift, travel
to and delivery in the location of my choice, how does the storage location
matter?
I look
forward to having my curiosity satisfied.
Capt Larissa Zimmerman
CSI NT/K
Use
common sense
Having
just read the ‘Inappropriate Sports Listing’ as created by
the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS), I find myself at odds with
the solicitors’ decision making processes.
I am heartened
to see that yet another Government body (AGS) has managed to fantasise
about the relevant safety aspects of sports they know little or nothing
about. There is a difference between perceived danger, real danger and
fool hardy.
Most, if
not all, organised sports must meet stringent safety requirements, and
are obligated to meet the imposed safety precautions of their respective
sporting controlling body, else they are not covered by the insurance
they must seek to enable their event to proceed as per government requirements.
I am further
rewarded for my faith in the AGS and now the ADF Sports Council by the
non-specific grouping and inferred grouping of various sports.
The mention
of illegal sports such as ‘base jumping’ (unless the inference
is only cliff ‘base jumping’ and not the much publicised yet
illegal tower, building or bridge ‘base jumping’) merely shows
the depth of perceived integrity the AGS has in making such a broad
statement.
It would
seem the AGS is willing to run with this type of mere semantics and
grouping of various sports, yet I feel they would be unwilling to be
grouped with legal secretaries and file clerks as merely part of the
legal profession.
The Army
promotes perceived dangerous sports and activities, by including them
in the various ‘adventure training’ programs, it would seem
that now when a member wishes to continue the activity the ADF will
not sanction it.
The term
‘Motor Velocity Sports’ appears to be an all-encompassing
statement, with no specifics to create a reference from, or indeed any
guidelines.
The word
‘racing’ could be construed to include ‘rallying’,
the word ‘rally’ could be used to encompass ‘Vintage
Car Rallies.’ I now wait for someone to come back with “Use
a bit of common sense”.
Unfortunately
the AGS has just taken the common sense factor out of the equation by
using all-encompassing headings that most commanders feel obliged to
accept as written because of the source.
Should
we include the ‘ADF Equestrian Team’ (if we still have one)
within the ‘Miscellaneous Sports/Activities’ because by its
very nature it is ‘horse riding’?
Sport by
definition infers ‘competition’, where is the competition
in ‘bungie jumping’? ‘fixed-wing racing’ is known
as ‘pylon racing’, but research into the subject would have
told them that, wouldn’t it?
We advertise
and promote the Army within various forms of motorsport (several formulas).
Accidents
where injuries result are rare and safety equipment is mandated to a
high standard, only to inform the members at a later date that the advertising
medium used to lure them into Defence is not a sport sanctioned by the
ADF.
This would
seem to be somewhat hypocritical, don’t you think?
The AGS
and ADF seem to have no problem promoting sports that have a higher
potential to be career threatening due to the enforcement of AIRN such
as the football codes, netball, basketball, touch, and hockey.
The ADF
loses more members through injury and death on the roads every year
than they are likely to loose or have lost in any given year on a race
track.
Sgt Mark Winter
Aviation Support Group Workshop
Oakey, QLD
Knee-jerk
policy
Capt Allan
Gray’s letter (Army 24 April) is, surprisingly, the first letter
I have read regarding the knee-jerk and apparently poorly informed advice
from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) in relation to participation
in allegedly ‘high-risk’ sports.
Are ADF
members really aware of the ramifications of the advice? Members involved
in some of these sports should be justifiably angry.
Most ADF
members will have participated in one or more of these activities as
part of unit training and as Capt Gray points out, there is a much greater
risk of injury when participating in some of the approved ADF ball sports.
The failure
of the ADF to promulgate a mature policy on the matter leads me to think
that perhaps the issues haven’t really been considered.
Capt Gray
raises the issue of the ADF’s breathtaking hypocrisy in seeking
to take the publicity outcomes of ADF members engaged in ‘inappropriate
sports’ on one hand, but not supporting their involvement on the
other.
Probably
not deliberate, but it illustrates that the ADF really hasn’t yet
come to terms with how to deal with this unreasonable advice from the
AGS.
Is there
real and documented evidence of the risk of some of the activities or
is it just a perception of risk? And why are sports being singled out?
Is scuba
diving actually a higher risk when compared to say, an ADF member on
a learner permit riding a motorcycle to work (and therefore on duty
for the purposes of Commonwealth compensation) along a country road
at night?
Has the
AGS taken into account the positive aspects of participation in sport
as stated in the relevant DI?
What I
want to know is, is the ADF now going to ban all of the approved sporting
and recreational clubs that exist on every base in Australia for activities
such as abseiling, rock-climbing, scuba diving and water skiing?
What is
the legal status of these clubs now?
Where will
the trend trying to protect ADF members from themselves end?
One certain
outcome of reactionary policy making will be the loss of more experienced
and valuable personnel, jaded and embittered at yet another erosion
to their conditions of service and another unnecessary restriction on
their lives.
What a
ridiculous situation. Smokers had better watch out, they’ll surely
be next.
Flg-Off Matt Doyle
DPO-AF PROM1E
Russell Offices, ACT
Clipping
my wings
I have
read with interest Sgt Cooke’s letter “Sport, play it at your
own peril” in the April 10 edition of the Army newspaper.
I have
a vested interest in a response to his request for clarification on
rulings by the ADF Sports Council, (ADFSC) as to why a particular sport
is listed as inappropriate.
My vested
interest is, I am a paraglider pilot and, as of this year, paragliding
has been deemed inappropriate.
This surprises
me, as I have found over the six years that I have been involved in
this sport that there are relatively few people who know what a paraglider
is and even fewer who realise the capabilities of this particular aircraft.
Make no
mistake this is an aircraft, a foot launched aircraft which allows the
pilot depending on conditions, to either slope soar the mountains and
hills, or use the rising thermals like eagles to climb up to the clouds
and travel vast distances.
The current
world record for distance is held in Australia.
This involved
a seven-and-a-half hour flight from Manilla (NSW) to Dalby (Qld) some
450km.
Flights
of this nature just don’t happen but are the result of meticulous
planning and countless critical decisions throughout the flight.
I only
mention this to give an indication of what can be achieved in this sport.
Some background
on the gliders – gliders are rated DHV1 through to DHV3. DHV being
the German certification process all gliders are tested against.
DHV1 is
a beginner glider which requires very little input from the pilot to
fly, to a DHV 3, which is classed as a performance glider and requires
an extremely experienced pilot to fly.
The gliders
of today bare very little resemblance to those first paragliders 10
years ago, which were modified parachutes.
On the
world scene paragliding is a young sport but indications are that paragliding
is the fastest growing aviation sport, not only in Australia but the
world.
Finally
in the words of Leonardo da Vinci, “Once you have flown you will
walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been
and there you will long to return.”
For now
I will turn my eyes down to the Army newspaper eagerly awaiting an answer.
Capt Robert Wilton
RTC-SQ
Kokoda Barracks, Canungra, QLD
ADF
Sports Council responds to concerns and explains policy
– page 32
We
need respite postings
Both my
husband and I are serving members, with more than 27 years of unrestricted
service between us.
All our
postings have been to field force units except one for my husband to
logistics which saw him on the road for 26 days a month anyway!
We have
recently been blessed with the arrival of a son who we love dearly but
it appears the Army requires one of us to make a choice – an Army
career or a career as a parent?
Our problem
is that we are both posted to field force units within the same brigade.
This means
we are both required out bush at the same time, this has never been
a problem before.
Now I am
forced to ask if consideration can be given to families by giving one
parent a pogue position currently given to CSP as a respite posting
in the same locality to minimise field time requirements?
This would
allow for unrestricted service to be given to the Army during those
vital young years of a child's development keeping the outsourcing of
their care to a minimum, and keep skilled and experience soldiers in
the Army.
This problem
shouldn't just be left to SCMA to solve. They do what they can with
what they have got to work with. It is a structure problem – there
should be more “respite postings” available to facilitate
retention and keep families together.
Defence
families are no different to any other 21st-century family, serving
or non-serving who wish to have financial security in later life and
have a mortgage to pay.
That is
why there is Home Purchase Assistance Scheme, isn't it?
We have
no family in posting locality and what family we do have in far off
states have their own busy lives and families, but they will take our
child into their homes if a worst-case scenario ever arose, but this
should not be considered the norm.
We have
some very good friends here in locality, but to deal with sleep deprivation,
midnight feeding and teething issues night after night just so Mum or
Dad can keep their job is asking a lot of any friend, besides the guilt
complex of palming off your child to someone else to look after just
doesn't cut it.
I love
my job, no, I really do, so I guess that makes me a rarity, but please
don't make me choose between careers.
Cpl KM Clark
1 Bde, Darwin, NT
|
