Letters to the Editor

Tenure up for WA’s AWM

The Army Museum of Western Australia (AMWA), a sub unit of the Army History Unit, celebrated it’s 25 anniversary this year and also received news from Defence that could well lead to its demise.

With the forced change in plans by Defence from selling the heritage listed site outright to handing it over to the State Government as a Centenary gift, Defence have now reneged on paying a rent to the state to ensure the future tenure of the Army Museum.

The AMWA has three ARes members and a considerable number of civilian supporters who give freely of their time to collect, preserve and display the Military Heritage of Western Australia.

Although the museum is well regarded by all who have visited and has a committed staff, it is not enough to prevent the budgetary axe from falling; wielded by cashstrapped Army.

(This is in spite of a planned $40million expenditure in WA over the next four years).

Sad to realise that a duplicitous department has again forced the Army into a situation of being its own executioner.
One has to wonder what it’s ultimate goal is.

Kevin Bovill,
Civilian Member,
AHU,
Army Museum of Western Australia

Response by Lt-Col David Galbraith, SO1 F&TA, AHQ:
Mr Bovill is one of the highly valued civilian volunteers at the Army Museum of Western Australia (AMWA) who has worked hard to help establish the Army Museum as an excellent institution, with an extensive collection of military memorabilia.

There are a number of allegations and inaccuracies in Mr Bovill’s letter that unfortunately appear to detract from the genuine efforts of all to achieve a satisfactory outcome for the retention of the AMWA at Artillery Barracks in Fremantle.

I would like to point out up front that it is not a Defence responsibility to fund service museums, this is a single-service responsibility. In providing funding for about 50 Army museums, the Army must balance capability requirements against heritage requirements.

It is true that at a time when the Army’s budget is stretched to meet capability requirements, heritage requirements can not always be fully funded irrespective of the Army’s desire to do so.

In late 1999, Defence identified that Artillery Barracks was surplus to Defence requirements. Following community concerns on the proposed future sale of the barracks, and in line with a recommendation by the Senate, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee as a result of its ‘Inquiry Into The Disposal of Defence Property: Artillery Barracks, Fremantle,’ it was announced by the Parliamentary Secretary in January 2001 that negotiations would commence for the transfer of the barracks to the WA Government.

The barracks, including a number of ancillary properties, are to be transferred to the WA Government at a nominal cost of $1.

The retention of the AMWA at the barracks was a condition of the transfer to the State and, contrary to Mr Bovill’s assertion, at no stage has the Commonwealth or Defence agreed terms for the payment of rent to the State for the retention of the AMWA at the barracks.

The arrangements for the retention of the AMWA were to be the subject of negotiations between the Commonwealth and the State Governments.

The Commonwealth and WA Governments, along with the City of Fremantle, jointly funded a feasibility study and business plan for the Fremantle Artillery Barracks site in February 2002.

A Steering Committee was formed and a consultant engaged to undertake the study. The consultants, Ernst & Young, are due to report to the Steering Group by the end of June 2003. Once the details of this report have been made available to the Commonwealth, site transfer arrangements will be finalised, including with respect to any ongoing Army and Defence support for the barracks.

Defence and the Army values its heritage but must balance this with its current and future capability needs. The Commonwealth, through Defence, will provide a contribution to keep the AMWA at the barracks in its current form. As a minimum, the Army will continue to support the AMWA in its current form and will not reduce the Army’s current funding commitment. Assertions that the “budgetary axe” has fallen as a result of a “duplicitous department” forcing the Army to be “its own executioner” are not correct.

Up you go sport

I refer to the Australian Government solicitor decision and the ADF’s acceptance of perceived high risk hazardous sporting activities.

This decision has, as is evident in the latest Navy News, angered a minority of personnel within Defence who participate in these activities previously with COs approval.

I am perplexed as to this decision due to a variety of factors:

1. Statistical evidence on the Defence Safety Management Authority (DSMA) website depict graphical evidence to prove the major cause of sporting injuries within Defence are related directly to service organised sport ie rugby union, league, etc.

Most high-risk sporting activities have strict operating procedures and guidelines and safety practices for the respective participants whereas any member of Defence can literally run onto a rugby or soccer pitch. Safety standards are highly developed in these avenues of sporting endeavour and this should be taken into account by our managers.

2. When doing the Hazard Risk Index (HRI) although the consequences are serious (plus), the probability and exposure are substantially reduced therefore reducing the overall hazard itself to approximately the same HRI that would be reflective of the aforementioned sports if not further.

An example of this could be golf. The WANGS golf team play regularly so the exposure is high, the probability is still low, but being struck in the head because a social golfer is following and does not know golf etiquette remains serious (plus).

3. Most sporting bodies external to Defence have insurance policies covering personnel who register with them.
Therefore in the event of an incident taking place and the participant becoming injured, Defence could in turn mitigate the cost of Return to Work/Compensation costs as is practice within the civilian sector re workers compensation insurers (NRMA, Allianz etc).

4. Defence currently sponsors these infrequent sporting activities, ie alpine skiing, scuba diving etc, and with their removal from active participation would therefore tunnel those into the everyday sporting activities further exacerbating existing compensation costs and loss of productivity.

To address this issue they need to look at strategic risk management and its application to Defence and then mitigation of a workers compensation overhead that is soaring out of control as in evident in the civilian work force.

Do not limit the activities that personnel partake in but investigate the sports for possible cost recapture should misfortune fall upon its participants.

PO Stephen Plant
Safety Practitioner

No more medalling

I agree with Sgt Connell, Letters to the Editor, “Still waiting, waiting.”

Army, March 27, states that the 12-month maximum waiting period for medal issue is currently being exceeded.
In November 2001 I applied for the issue of the ASM with clasp ‘Irian Jaya’ and was promptly informed by the Army Medals Section personnel that there was a considerable backlog of medal applications to be processed, and also that this particular clasp was still waiting the Governor-General’s approval (subsequently given in February 2002).

In November 2002, I again wrote to the Army Medals Section seeking a report on the progress of my application.

To date, I have not received a reply. I don’t mind waiting my turn while WW2, Korea, Vietnam and other veterans receive their medals on a priority basis, but when letters go unanswered for five months, something is wrong with the system. Clearly, the Army Medals Section is understaffed and cannot process applications within the expected 12 months period as required.

Dr Gary Hunter
Seaford, Vic

Fighting fit furor

Over the past few years I have been hearing the grumblings from one individual or another about the standard of fitness of our new soldiers.

Today I learned first hand what those grumblings were about. My unit has a soldier who has been in the Army for one year and he has never passed a BFA.

What? What about Kapooka, what about his IET training? No, never.

The soldier was given 30 days for remedial training and he failed.

He was admin warned then given another 90 days for remedial training, and again he failed.

Where does the blame lie for this kind of poor performance?

Certainly the individual must take responsibility for his fitness, but how is he to know what to do if he has never been taught?

I joined the Army in 1986 and remember being flogged during PT at both Kapooka and Singleton.

At Kapooka we could not even buy a company T-shirt until we had achieved an A pass on the PTT.

The same for Singleton and the battalion.

In the mean time the individual had to wear a white T-shirt to all PT sessions.

The thing here is that we were taught fitness. It was a requirement to at least pass a PTT (BFA) to march out.

I’ve been told that a soldier who does not pass a BFA at Kapooka will be picked up at their IET school or when they get to their unit. This is wrong.

The units are so busy these days with training, exercises and operational deployments that this is a liability that they can do without.

I believe in my heart of hearts that the Army needs to do some serious soul searching in this regard.

Given the modern training techniques, and time, I believe that we can achieve this at Kapooka.

Make it mandatory to pass a BFA at recruit and IET training before an individual is given the privilege of serving in a regular Army unit.

I’m 36 and my fitness isn’t the greatest, but I can still pass a BFA.

My wife is 37 and has just transferred from the RAAF and she had to pass an Army BFA in order to service transfer.

So why don’t we demand it of our recruits?

This situation is appalling. I hate to ask this, but aren’t we training people for war?

Isn’t warfare physically demanding? Doesn’t it involve hardship and sacrifice?

C’mon Army, stop bean counting and get serious with the quality control of your product.

Cpl R.B. Knox
Tp Sgt
ATp
171 OSS
1 Avn Regt

End of the loc

I would like to point out an inaccuracy on the back page of your “Welcome Home” edition. The article “FET for praise by CA” notes “Puckapunyal-based 26 Tpt Coy, 10 FSB”.

26 Tpt Sqn is indeed a Puckapunyal-based unit – in fact, the only ARA unit in Victoria.
The squadron has a long and proud history dating back to 1916, and while the unit was once known as 26 Tpt Coy, this has not been the case for over 25 years.

Secondly, 26 Tpt Sqn is a sub-unit of 9FSB (not 10FSB). Just wanted to set the record straight.

Maj Paul Nothard
OC 26 Tpt Sqn

Broadens my outlook

I read with interest your article entitled “Kits for kids” (22/5).

It is always good to see leaders such as CDF Gen Peter Cosgrove taking a step forward by launching such education program, as mentioned in Army [May 22].

As a member of the Australian Army Cadet Corps, I have learnt a lot about the way the ADF operates in the past two years. This has helped broaden my outlook in general and better understand what goes on behind the scenes.

Hopefully with this initiative, the wider public can also participate in constructive discussions on Defence issues.

On another note, I enjoy reading your newspaper and looking at the cool pictures of Leopard tanks and the like. Keep up the great work!

Sukrit Sabhlok
Melbourne Grammar School Cadet Unit
Bulleen, Vic

Thanks Trooper X

TROOPER X, congratulations on your wonderful gallantry. There are too few genuine and memorable heroes these days, sorry your exceptional deeds in Iraq have to remain anonymous.

I would be more than twice your age, but applaud the courage and strength of your youthful patriotic exploits. It gives me optimistic hope for the future and continues the extraordinary Australian tradition.

This is from three generations of my family and our thoughts are with you.

Rod Milgate
NSW

Congratulations Eve

I note with interest the back page of Army newspaper Edition 1078 which features participants in the ADF Bodybuilding and Figure Competition.

The photo of Pte Kawana shows (if I an not mistaken) body jewellery in contrast to policy dictated in ASOD Vol 1, 3.53 regarding body piercing.

Does the ADF waiver ASOD requirements for sporting activities?

Or perhaps it isn’t body piercing at all; maybe the photograph is deceiving; maybe its just jewellery attached by Tarzan’s Grip!

Actually, you know what.... I think I am mistaken., looks like a bead of sweat to me.

Congratulations Pte Kawana, keep up the hard work.

WO2 S. Gregory
1 Psych Unit
Randwick

PTE Eve Kawana’s photo in your recent edition became quite a talking point within my unit, unfortunately not just for her well developed and sculptured body.

May I pass on my whole heartened congratulations for the work she must of put in to achieve this result.

The main point of discussion was “is that a belly button ring you can just see in the photo?”

If it is, and she is purporting to be a soldier within the ADF Bodybuilding Championships, then I would like to know why was she allowed to wear it.

Army can not afford to have two standards and as far as I am concerned, this stinks of it.

Maybe the events organiser can shine a light for all of us or newsaper staff could give us a photo from a front view.

WO1 Mark Barber
RSM 11 Bde
Townsville Qld

RSM Ceremonial Army, WO1 Peter Zajac replies:
Organisers of the 2003 Natural Bodybuilding and Figure Titles have advised that female participants were encouraged to wear body adornments in accordance with competition guidelines established by the International Natural Bodybuilding Association (INBA).

The winner was pictured in Army wearing an imitation body piercing adornment.
WO1 Barber is correct that Army policy prevents body piercing adornments on duty and on Defence establishments.

Organisers have been advised that AHQ approval would be required prior to Army participants being authorised to wear body piercing adornments in future events.

Army policy in relation to body piercing adornments was introduced to protect members from unnecessary injury that may result due to the physical nature of our employment and is in keeping with our duty of care obligations for our members.

More on PMKeyS

In response to WO2 (rtd) G. Wilson’s letter of reply to Sgt MacPhail’s comment on PMKeyS versus regimental numbers.

I would just like to make comment in regard to Mr Wilson’s reply.

He should research his facts more thoroughly as prior to enlisting in the ARA in 1977 I spent 12 months in the ARes in 5FER.

I was issued with a regimental number as it was issued to me out of a big book of numbers that were allocated to individual ARes units.

I can still remember the recruiting WO2 at 5FER writing my particulars against the regimental number ‘137693’.

Regimental numbers ran consecutively down the left hand side of the pages, with room to write the new enlistees particulars on the right side of the page.

It was a big leather bound book and to a 19 year old ARes Recruit, it looked impressive

Maj B.J. HAYES
OC HQ SQN
1 Avn Regt

Maternity debate

AS A pregnant soldier due to give birth to my first baby in November, I have taken an interest in some previously published letters regarding the issue of maternity leave.

I’d like to know why Defence civilians are offered the opportunity to take six months maternity leave at half pay, while ADF members are limited to three months at full pay.

I thought there were meant to be some advantages for serving your country!

Now, I know women are entitled to 12 months unpaid maternity leave regardless, so some may argue that the issue is irrelevant. And, of course, there are other options – but that’s not the point.

Yes, yes, I know it was my and my husband’s choice to have a baby. I know that I joined the Army and the Army didn’t join me – I could rattle off a whole list of outdated and boring clichés.

But I won't bother. I just think that the issue, which, funnily enough, seems to matter very little to senior commanders, should be taken more seriously if retention remains an area of sour taste.

Cpl A.Welch
Canberra ACT

HOW TO WRITE TO ARMY NEWS

It is the right of all soldiers to correspond with Army. Soldiers wishing to air their views through letters to the editor have access to the newspaper without using the chain of command. Letters will be edited for spelling, grammatical errors and newspaper style and may be edited for space. Preference is given to typed letters of fewer than 300 words. Letters will be rejected where they are too long, abusive, cover a subject that has been exhausted or can be answered in the author’s unit. They will be published only when they include the author’s name, unit (where applicable), location and contact number.
Send letters to: The Editor, Army Newspaper, R8-LG-029, Russell Offices, Dept of Defence, Canberra, ACT, 2600. Phone (02) 6266 7612, fax (02) 6265 6690 or e-mail
armynews@defencenews.gov.au (Please note this is not an internal e-mail address and therefore requires Sec: Unclassified in the subject box when sending from a Defence-network terminal)

The opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not represent the views of the editor or the Army.