Letters
to the Editor
More
money ... not
I find it quite comical that we are given a 3 per cent payrise in accordance
with the current workplace arrangement.
When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it all, one of my soldiers
(pay group five) is actually $1.25 better off a fortnight than myself
(sergeant pay group five, increment two). Maybe we should all go back
to being diggers to reap the benefits of the pay rise with no responsibility.
Sgt Paul Klieve
ADFCAL
RAAF Edinburgh SA
Giveth and taketh away
Why have we been given a 3 per cent pay rise, only to have DHA conduct
their annual housing review and increase housing by 4.7 per cent?
Once again Defence is showing us how they are a business and not a military.
Give with one hand, take with the other.
Cpl Nick Jago
4 RAR(Cdo)
Holsworthy Barracks, NSW
Less water, more dollars
I would like to thank Mr Adrian Wellspring, Director, Housing Policy,
(“Drop of Water”, Army, August 14) for his reply. It is encouraging
to see that because we (Service personnel) are being responsible and
meeting our community obligations that Defence has taken to reduce the
charges this year.
I hope that by seeing this we (Service personnel) can continue to use
less water on a yearly basis and maybe further reductions can be realised.
After all, more dollars in the diggers’ pockets is what we all
want at the end of the day.
WO1 Ken Golden
RSM TC-A
Victoria Barracks, Sydney NSW
Silence is deafening
I wrote a letter a number of months ago titled “AirCon-Con”
(published June, 5). My initial belief was that the Army letters to
the editor section published (in part) soldier grievances and these
were subsequently answered by people in the position of knowledge/influence.
Sadly I have discovered writing to Army results in the silence experienced
when broaching the subject directly with DPE. Total silence results
in absolute frustration. It was a simple question requesting explanation
of an unfair policy.
Capt B. Robertson
HQ 1 Bde
Robertson Barracks, NT
‘Reggie’
numbers were just a pay tool
I am writing in response to Maj B.J. Hayes’ letter in the July
31 edition of Army.
In his letter, Maj Hayes takes me to task for not researching my “facts
more thoroughly” in my letter referring to “reggie numbers.”
My response to Maj Hayes is that when I enlisted in the CMF (that dates
me a tad!) in 1970, I also was issued with a number taken out of a big
book of sequential numbers.
But, the fact remains that those numbers, both mine and the one issued
to Maj Hayes, were not “regimental numbers”.
In those pre-computer days, CARO issued blocks of Army numbers to CMF
formations and units and these Army numbers were allocated to new recruits
on enlistment.
When the unit ran out, another block of Army numbers was issued. The
stated fact remains unchanged, i.e., the Australian Army has not used
“regimental numbers” since 1962.
If I can be permitted to comment on my original letter. I was most certainly
not taking a shot at the soldier who wrote complaining about erosion
of conditions of service.
My point, apparently quite badly put, for which I apologise, was that
soldiers should complain long and loud about erosion of real conditions,
but not get “wrapped around the axles” over essentially ephemeral
things such as personal numbers.
Numbers change.
So what? Take a look at the nominal roll of members of 3RAR.
Some of those soldiers had been allotted as many as five separate numbers
(all of different types) during their military service.
Another point to bear in mind is the reason for numbers in the first
place.
Regimental numbers were first introduced into the British Army in the
early 19th century as a pay accounting tool only.
Numbers were introduced simply to keep track of soldier’s pay accounts
and to stop COs, QMs and paymasters from fiddling with the books! And
that remains the only reason why we continue to have personal numbers.
While on the subject, perhaps we can spare a thought for the poor old
Yanks who did away with “serial numbers” in the 1980s and
now use the soldier’s Social Security Number (which is issued to
every US citizen on their 16th birthday) as the service number!
So please, by all means, continue to fight for the conditions that matter.
But ignore the trivia, because life goes on (whether we like it or not).
Graham (2151240/739-72353/8019339) Wilson
Directorate of Honours and Awards
Tuggeranong, ACT
Overcharged?
Further to WO1 K.Golden’s letter in Army, June 3, we pay a “MQ
Water Contribution”.
Apparently, this fee is levied to ensure we actually have access to
water while occupying a married quarter. Given the fee charged, I would
be required to use 13,026 litres of water per fortnight in order to
get my money’s worth.
That comes to an annual figure of 338,694 litres. All billed at the
Yarra Valley Water rate of 75.23 cents per kilolitre. Given that billing
for my married quarter for the period February 13 to May 15 saw me use
a total of 51,000 litres, totalling $38.37 in charges from Yarra Valley
Water, and Defence charged me about $68 over the same period (allowing
for billing periods falling between pay periods), it appears I have
been overcharged about $30 by Defence.
To have received my money’s worth, I would have had to use 84,669
litres. Over a year, this overbilling may grow to a total of $100 or
more, depending on seasonal useage.
Am I entitled to a refund of the overbill amounts? If not, why not?
It may be administratively easier to levy a flat rate against all DHA
properties, but is it lawful, just or right to retain monies in excess
of the amount required to pay for a members water useage?
I asked these sorts of questions of Defence Entitlements last year and
was told by the Naval Commander I spoke to that, since I was paying
for it, I may as well go ahead and just use the water.
Such a throw-away line, given the drought conditions much of the country
has been enduring for the past few years, could be seen as socially
(and morally) irresponsible.
Especially given that, at the time, I was posted to Townsville and hadn’t
seen rain since late March.
I have no objection to paying for water I use. Being charged for water
I did not use, however, grates. Further, I believe the retention of
amounts in excess of a member’s liability is fundamentally wrong.
Maybe Defence/DHA simply need to allow members to receive water bills
and pay as we go.
Note that the figures shown here were obtained from DHA’s accounts
section in Canberra and sourced from original bills received for my
MQ.
There will also be the the imposition of Stage Two water restrictions
in Victoria with effect in August. This will see watering of private
lawns banned, washing of vehicles restricted to bucket/watering can
or high pressure cleaner use only.
Punishments for breaches of these restrictions, for a first offence,
are a maximum of $2000 or three months imprisonment.
Given the enforced reduction in use of water across the board in Victoria,
will MQ tenants start to see a reduction in the fees paid for MQ water
access, and will we see reimbursement of fees already collected?
Sgt D. King
Defence Force School of Signals
Simpson Barracks, Macleod VIC
Adrian
Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, responds:
Late last year, the MQ excess water deduction on members’ salary
variation advices was amended to “MQ water contribution”.
The title now reflects the actual nature of the deduction.
DHA pays all water charges for service residences and recovers the amount
from Defence that represents actual water usage by members. Defence
then recovers that amount from members in service residences by means
of an averaged charge (a pragmatic swings and roundabouts system).
The charge, which reflects the actual water consumption in service residences
nationally, is reviewed annually. From the Defence perspective this
system is simple, efficient and cost effective.
However, it is acknowledged that any system that uses a national average
will result in some members subsidising others and this could be overcome
by a user pays system.
The system whereby members pay a single rental contribution rate for
a service residence regardless of locality also results in some members
subsidising others.
A preliminary review in 1997 indicated that a user-pays system to recover
water charges from service residence tenants would be expensive to introduce
and administer. Such a system would require periodic accounts to be
sent to members, money collected, accounts reconciled and a method introduced
to follow up slow payers.
Water restrictions have been in force for some time in many areas in
Australia and actual water usage in service residences has fallen. However,
members must continue to use water, and must contribute for the water
that is used.
The annual review of accommodation-related allowances and charges has
just been completed, and the water charge will be reduced from $4.90
per week to $3.80 per week with effect from September 11.
This reduction reflects the reduction in water usage during the previous
year and demonstrates the responsible attitude being taken by Defence
families in response to the water restrictions.
Fair
question
In response to WO2 Paddy McFarlane, “Maternity Debate”, in
Army, August 14.
Cpl Welch has asked one simple question. Why have I not got the option
to take six months MTL at half-pay as compared to my publicly funded
civilian counterpart?
Some would contend that her entitlements are far greater than that in
the broader civilian community. That may be so, however, her issue is
a perception of inequity in her work place. Paid MTL in the civilian
community is currently being addressed by the ACTU.
WO2 McFarlane advances the dotted line principle, ie, you joined the
Army, the Army didn’t join you.
He refers her to DI (G) Pers 36-3, not very helpful to the question
at hand, but does reinforce his dotted line principle. He then, by reason
of geography, suggests she arrange an appointment with the RSM(A).
With the utmost respect to the RSM-A, I believe her concerns would be
better raised with DPE staff.
Cpl Welch’s question relates to time, and I fail to reconcile any
obvious financial burden (post partum). The only significant implication
that I can foresee is one of unit operational effectiveness. WO2 McFarlane
has simply muddied the waters on this debate by introducing extraneous
issues, probably resulting in Cpl Welch feeling ungrateful or unworthy.
This verbal spanking has probably galvanised her view, and possibly
others, that elements within the ADF are uncaring.
On the face, I believe her question to be legitimate and should be addressed
through her unit using the appeals/AROG process.
Sgt B.W. Hardy
School of Infantry
Singleton, NSW
Musorian
dress
I’d like to raise an issue on what is the accepted Army standard
for the dress to be worn by personnel playing enemy during training
activities. Is there any doctrine or guidance on the issue?
I know the scenarios used by exercise OICs obviously vary, but is there
an accepted standard for your typical Musourian section conducting fighting
patrols on your standard IMT excercise?
I know this is a pretty specific question and I could probably solve
it with a bit of research on my behalf, but perhaps it is worth raising
in this forum so that a subject matter expert from the School of Boots
or the CTC can publish a reply to reach a wider audience than the usual
boring DI’s, etc.
It just seems a little untidy to me that we dress our enemy in whatever
cams we can get our hands on, regardless of the confusion to trainees
or embarrassment to visiting foreign exchange personnel.
Would it be worth the money to design a unique Musourian cam, or should
we continue with the current ad-hoc (and probably pretty realistic)
arrangements?
If a SNCO can point me to a chapter in ASODs on this topic, it would
really make my day!
Capt Mick Hall
SME
Steele Barracks, Moorebank NSW
The
great divide hurts us all
I am a civilian who has been working for the Department of Defence,
with Army, for over eight years. I have really enjoyed my time with
Defence but a lot of changes have happened in the past few years that
are starting to sour my Defence experience.
Eight years ago, I felt there was a greater sense of unit or family,
where civilians were included as part of the ‘team’.
We were invited and encouraged to join in PT, sporting events, lunches,
etc, without having to use flex time.
We were also invited to join an appropriate mess by our work colleagues.
These were benefits for working as a public servant for the Department
of Defence.
These benefits have slowly been eroded and civilians are no longer allowed
to join in any sporting activities unless they use flex and I have heard
of some units asking civilians to use flex for branch/unit lunch time
functions..
This does not create any sense of team and leaves the civilians feeling
like they are not valued members.
Military messes are also less welcoming towards civilians, which is
sad as this is a good opportunity for members of other units/branches,
both civilian and military, to socialise and build up work relationships.
I am also starting to hear a lot of military people referring to the
DECA (Defence Employees Certified Agreement) as a document that gives
civilians a “myriad of benefits”.
These benefits would be considered fairly standard across the public
service and are achieved from trade- offs for productivity gains.
Are we not entitled to try and negotiate better conditions for ourselves?
This is the same way military members negotiated for themselves and
recently achieved a rise in Service Allowance (very much deserved I
might add!)
It is crazy to even attempt to compare the DECA and Military Conditions
of Service as civilians and military members are employed to perform
completely different roles.
On the whole, it makes me feel like a great divide is starting to build
between our military members and civilians, which should not be the
case.
I have a great respect for our military members as they put on a uniform
and do a job I know I couldn’t do.
They do get moved around a lot, work long hours, serve in rough conditions
and I am grateful that they do it for us.
Just remember that civilians will always be there to keep things ticking
over, providing continuity and support, and for that, we deserve a little
respect.
Georgina Watkins
HQTC-A
Victoria Barracks – Sydney
