Letters
to the Editor
Fair
day’s pay for RAInf
I must
admit that I was taken aback when my CQMS handed me an e-mail he received
about the most recent remuneration proposal being considered for RAInf
clerks and storemen.
As most
of your readers would be aware, clerks and storemen in the infantry
are required to achieve all infantry promotion competencies (less range
quals) to qualify for promotion up to and including sergeant.
In acknowledgment
of this condition of service and upon successful completion of the Supervisor
Infantry Operations – Section course, they receive Pay Group 4.
Consider
my amazement when I read in the latest case to be put forward that not
only is there a proposal to increase the level of infantry competence
to include WO2, that they will never progress past Pay Group 3 (woo
hoo!).
As part
of this new proposal the infantry will recognise two rifleman specialist
streams. One will be made up of the traditional specialist quals of
mortars, signals, DFSW, etc, and the other of clerks and storemen. One
will be paid Pay Group 4 and the other will not.
Now some
readers from that “other” corps may say “so what, I’m
a clerk and I only get Pay Group 3”. Let’s not forget that
infantry clerks and storemen do not start out as such. They all start
their respective careers as riflemen and later choose, for what ever
reason, to become clerks and op sups.
Additionally,
and as I have already explained, they must continue to demonstrate competency
as riflemen to qualify for advancement.
This is
significantly different from Ordnance where clerks and op sups proliferate.
These members
are received and trained as clerks and storemen first and foremost and
infantry competency is confined to assessment on the all-corps Sub 1
course.
Now don’t
get me wrong, I am not sledging clerks and op sups from Ordnance. A
thing is what it is. All I am saying is that a bloke deserves a fair
day’s pay for a fair day’s work and I would not be surprised
if there are infantry clerks and op sups everywhere saying “what
the?”
Duty First.
WO2 Andrew J Emery
12/40RTR
Youngtown Depot, Tasmania
We’re
owed too
The front-page
article “Time to Pay” in Army, June 19, certainly caught my
attention.
The whole
emphasis of the article deals with the debt owed by Defence personnel,
such as overpayment of allowances, with the possibility of these debtors
facing legal action.
How about
we take a step back and look at the overdue debt that is owed to Defence
personnel, (it would be an interesting comparison to see how this figure
stacks up against the quoted $4.6 million debt owed to the Commonwealth).
Two examples
from within my section immediately come to mind. The first being a soldier
(among several others) who waited approximately a year for field allowances
from Exercise Tandem Thrust 2001.
The second
being another soldier who is still awaiting payment of incidentals from
a deployment to Darwin in December last year.
Without
investigating it any further, I am sure that there would be many more
instances Defence-wide that are of similar circumstance.
With the
shoe on the other foot, I now ask the question, are the people who are
responsible for the late payment of these allowances to be subjected
to the same legal action as to those members who are late in paying
a debt?
Cpl S. D. Edwards
5 Avn Regt
Townsville, QLD
Fair
go?
While endorsing
the need for bad debtors to give the system a fair go, (“Time to
Pay” Army, June 19) Defence must first ensure its own house is
in order.
After getting
an Accounts Receivable Invoice recently for a debt accrued more than
three years ago, and after several other experiences, I suspect Defence’s
records.
If it takes
that long to identify an alleged debtor (who has been in the mainstream
pay system throughout) it appears possible that there are weaknesses
in the system.
When I
rang to query the invoice my suspicions were reinforced by a second
alleged debt.
In this
instance I had identified and promptly repaid the bill 12 months before.
I have
always been proactive with debt because I know Defence has a long, slow
and at times imperfect ‘memory’.
Fortunately
my SVAs supported my claims in this case. Unfortunately, simple staff
checks don’t seem to be part of the debt recovery system.
I have
also just received an incorrect notification that my operational service
reunion travel was a fringe benefit!
Finally,
I am not impressed with system-initiated debt recoveries, which can
give less than 48 hours notice of an impending deduction. This is not
enough time to rearrange financial matters, at least not for a single-income
family.
Given the
strong evidence of system weakness (and I know my situation is not unique),
the apparently default setting of ‘member to pay’, indefinite
statute of limitations on Defence members’ debts and the degree
of warning of a salary deduction do not constitute a ‘Fair Go’.
And before
Financial Services check my 1999 debt, I am still allegedly a bad debtor
because I am more confident in my approach to bills and memory of that
repayment than I am in the system.
Lt-Col John A. Symons
LSD Melbourne
You
can fight it
Reference
the hyped-up article on debt recovery, I don’t understand the point
of it.
If you
have been overpaid or incur a debt then Defence has the ability to garnish
your wages to recover the debt.
Sometimes,
however, these overpayments are not the members fault and there are
methods by which you can pay the debt back in instalments.
My family
has, in the past, been hit by a non-fair-wear debt (NFW) after vacating
a married quarter.
The majority
of the NFW claimed in this debt was the result of a vastly overzealous
march-out inspection, which Buckingham Palace would have been lucky
to get past.
I fought
the debt, which eventually had to go through a Redress of Grievance
process and had the debt substantially reduced.
My point
is this – if you owe the Commonwealth money through a fair debt
then pay up, if not, then Defence has systems in place to allow you
to fight unfair debts.
WO2 Frank DeCorrado
7CSSB Enoggera QLD
The
system works
I am writing
to says thanks to a few people. At 8am on June 28 my step-brother rang
me from Sydney to let me know he had taken my father to hospital suffering
a heart attack. My step-mother is in the Army Reserve and was participating
in a range practice at Singleton at the time.
Thanks
to the efforts of WO2 Stein, Duty Officer RMC-A, WO2 Molinari, 12/16HRL,
and the Director of Practice at Singleton, we were talking to my step-mother
at 8.30am. 12/16HRL then arranged movements for my step-mother. Let’s
all hope the system works this well if ever needed.
Capt Anna Llanwarne
RMC-A, Canberra
Waste
of money
RECENTLY
all TC-A units were directed to complete a TC-A Code of Conduct Audit
to ensure that all staff and trainees were aware of the Fair Go Hotline
and the Equity Chain. To do this, my unit has scheduled an additional
parade night to ensure compliance.
Looking
at general resource figures, this will cost Defence $6996 in ARTDs,
and more in attendance allowance, and that is for one average-sized
unit.
For what
purpose? What will TC-A do with this information once the hundreds of
man-hours produce the statistics? So a staff officer can display yet
another glossy table full of irrelevant information for the weekly brief?
Or so we can receive another public accolade for our ongoing compliance
with workplace equity.
I may be
old-fashioned, but how about this solution – Commander TC-A tells
his COs to ensure compliance, and they do it. Last time I looked, that’s
how the chain of command worked.
Let’s
break this costly and labour-intensive management cycle and get back
to soldiering before we implode under pointless paperwork.
Capt Gerry McGowan
Adjutant QUR
St Lucia, QLD
Spending
choices
Although
no-one can begrudge the excellent efforts of our Special Forces in Afghanistan
and more recently in Iraq, I wonder if the Defence Department’s
funding for SF is being influenced by the glowing PR gained from such
activities.
The recent
allocation of $80 million to buy, amongst other things, Javelin AT missiles
for SASR in one example. While the “niche”capabilities that
were so hyped during the conflict in Iraq are all well and good, niche
capabilities don’t win wars.
One wonders
who would face the largest armoured threat in a conflict – a four-man
SASR patrol or a 600-man infantry battalion who have to rely on 40-year-old
Carl Gustavs with a negligible penetration capability (if any), given
the standard of armoured protection on today’s Main Battle Tanks.
Perhaps
Defence should start looking at upgrading the Army’s traditional
offensive capabilities, ie, infantry, armour, etc, rather than relying
purely on our Special Forces to conduct the offensive operations on
the battlefield.
I understand
that deploying SF elements maybe faster and cheaper (given their relatively
small size and level of readiness) than company or battalion groups,
but there will always be situations for which SF are unsuited and in
which properly equipped infantry groups are, and will, continue to be
ideal.
Cpl Daniel Sells
16 AD Regt
Woodside Barracks, SA
Help
wanted on Pilatus
I am from
a NZ company, Skydive Auckland, operating a Pilatus Porter PC6/B1-H2
as part of our skydiving fleet. A recent check showed the aircraft to
weigh about 400 lbs more than the standard aircraft.
This aircraft
was owned by the Australian Army from January 16, 1969, to December
22, 1992, and we suspect that the armour plating, which was added to
the aircraft accounts for the extra weight.
However,
Pilatus cannot confirm where this plating was fitted in the aircraft
as their records have been lost or destroyed. We are seeking anyone
who might have some information about this plating as to which part
of the aircraft it has been fitted to and how to remove it.
Specific
aircraft details are as follows:
Serial No A14-693. Built in 1968. Bought by the Australian Army, January
16, 1969. Sold in 1993 from Essendon to Skydive Express in Perth as
VH-REL. With Australian Army Aviation Corps’ 161 Independent Reconnaissance
Flight (IRF), 163 IRF, 171 Air Cavalry Flight, 173 General Support Sqn.
and the Army Aviation School.
Libby Lyver
Skydive Auckland, e-mail: info@skydiveauckland.com
|
