Letters
to the Editor
Non-custodial
issues alive
I wish
to address an issue that would impact on a significant number of ADF
members – the role of a non-custodial parent. Like many others,
I have a child from a former relationship; however, due to the nature
of service life, I have been posted to a location away from the child
for a number of years.
As I am
seperated pending divorce proceedings, I am categorised as MWOD. I believe
the entire categorisation process requires review as the child, in my
opinion, remains a dependent both financially and emotionally.
How does
this situation differ from the member catergorised MWD(S)? Referring
to the Macquarie dictionary, a family is defined as “parents and
their children, whether dwelling together or not”. If this is the
case, non-custodial parents should be categorised as MWD. Regardless
of the relationship between the parents, the child is dependent on both
mother and father.
Equally,
the non-custodial parent is still responsible for their children. This
view is supported by the Family and Community Services Department, the
Child Support Agency and the Family Court of Australia.
If we consider
the benefits available to MWD(S) members compared to non-custodial parents,
the difference is significant. The MWD(S) member is entitled to six
reunion travel visits per year, whereas the non-custodial parent receives
one recreational leave entitlement per year. The MWD(S) member receives
accommodation and meals free of cost, whereas the non-custodial parent
categorised as MWOD is required to pay for accommodation and meals.
I acknowledge
that the non-custodial parent often does not have the burden of maintaining
a home for the child when posted interstate, therefore, I cannot see
a requirement for free accommodation and meals. However, the need to
maintain contact through regular visits remains the same.
We often
hear our military and political leaders extolling the role of the family
within the military community, yet we fail to recognise the family situation
of non-custodial parents. It is my belief that an immediate review of
the categorisation process is required to address this anomaly.
Furthermore,
I suggest that the conditions of service entitlements for reunion travel
be reviewed in order for non-custodial parents to receive a similar
entitlement to MWD(S) members. I acknowledge that six visits per year
may be seen as extravagant. The alternative should be to provide the
non-custodial parent to four visits per year in-lieu of the current
entitlement for one free travel per year to a nominated leave address.
As with
the current reunion travel entitlement, an option could be for the child
to come to the parent. This would provide for custodial visits timed
to coincide with the school holiday periods throughout a year without
impacting on a child’s education.
Having
made inquiries into this area, I would be interested in a public response
from DPE and also public comment from the Defence Community Organisation.
WO2 Mick Cracknell
53 MP Pl (Special Investigation Branch)
Blamey Barracks, Kapooka NSW
Gp-Capt
Chris Stunden, Director Service Conditions, Personnel Policy and Employment
Conditions Branch, DPE, responds:
First, let me say that there is no deficiency in current ADF policy
prescriptions relating to categorisation of members – as either
members with dependants (MWD) or members without dependants (MWOD).
Rather
than a simple recognition of whether or not a member has ‘dependants’,
Defence categorisation properly seeks to distinguish between members
who maintain a household for dependants in which the member also normally
resides (MWD) and those who do not maintain such a household (MWOD).
This distinction
is necessary primarily for the purpose of housing, relocation and associated
entitlements.
Having
said that, I acknowledge that there remains the concern which is central
to the writer’s letter. That is, to what extent should Defence
accept liability to provide assisted travel to a non-custodial (MWOD)
parent to facilitate reunion visits to a dependant child who no longer
resides in the member’s normal household?
This is
a matter of particular personal concern to me. It was highlighted again
to me by ArFFA at the June meeting of the Defence Personnel Working
Group.
In order
to address the concerns that are held by a significant number of ADF
members, my staff are currently developing a policy proposal about reunion
travel for non-custodial parents to put to the three Services for their
consideration.
I wish
to emphasise to all members who are in these circumstance that we are
now moving to address the issue.
However,
I am unable to anticipate the final outcome of the consultation and
approval processes.
New
troop needs memoribilia
16 Tpt
Coy, 8 CSSB, has raised a new troop in their Sydney depot at Timor Barracks,
Dundas.
In order
to create ‘esprit de corps’ in their new home it is hoped
that ex-members of the unit, or ex-RACT members as a whole, may have
excess memorabilia at home that they wish to donate for the troop’s
new operations room. In the few months since its conception the troop
has a proper command structure and morale is high.
It is hoped
that such memorabilia would enhance the atmosphere of the troop and
create the proper trucking place of work.
Contact
with the unit can be made to: 8CSSB, Timor Barracks, cnr Kissing Point
Rd and Stewart St, Dundas NSW 2117.
2Lt Joshua Beran
8CSSB
Timor Barracks, Dundas NSW
The
final word
In answer
to Maj B. Hayes, Sgt MacPhail and Mr Wilson’s letters concerning
Regimental/PMKeyS numbers, I hope the following can be of assistance.
Pre-1917
Regimental Numbers were issued by individual units starting with 1 and
simply continuing. The reason for the individual units issuing numbers
was due to Territorial enlistment. Eg, 12 Bn was from Launceston.
At that
time officers didn’t have numbers so number one was issued to the
Senior NCO of each unit and succeeding numbers to each enlistee.
Other units
issued the numbers by Company, one to the SNCO, two-31 HQ and MG Coy,
32-200 A Coy, etc. The method of issuing being determined by the CO.
Considering
there were 60 battalions and 14 Light Horse Regiments, 74 men could
have the same number. Added to this each Corps had six men with the
same number (one from each State). This meant that any given number
could have up to 80 men or more with the same number.
From 1917
onward Territorial enlistment direct into a unit was discontinued and
General Service Reinforcements were created.
These troops
were issued with Army Numbers issued in blocks by AHQ to specific AIF
Reinforcement Camps in the individual States. Between the Wars PMF numbers
were issued on a State basis, eg, AAO 167/38 issues the block 4901-5900
to NSW.
While Militia
numbers were issued by state for small units or formation for large
units, eg, AAO285/35 issues the block 411001-421000 to 11 Mixed Brigade.
WW2 saw
numbers again issued in blocks released by AHQ either to specific units
or specific Recruit Reception Depots or General Details Depots or in
the case of the CMF individual units.
The post-war
period saw numbers again issued by AHQ in blocks to each military district,
with certain blocks being issued to different categories, eg, RAS(A),
Apprentices and CMF. The important point being that they were issued
by AHQ, which makes them Army Numbers.
Kevin Canny
Central Army Records Office,
Melbourne,
Vic
Landlord
‘rules’
I am writing
in reply to “Drop of Water”(Army, August 14). In particular
the line ‘Of course, members must continue to use water, and it
is necessary that they continue to pay for the water that is used.’
I understand
that members must use water, what I do not understand is why MQ water
contributions are collected by DHA for normal consumption of water by
tenants.
As a landlord
myself, my six-monthly rates notices from the council have a water levy
on them as part of the total rates.
The tenant
does not pay this, I do, as I am the owner of the property. The only
time the tenant pays for water is when they use an amount above what
the council sets as the normal amount consumers can use, a water excess.
Therefore,
how can DHA charge tenants for normal usage when they are the landlord/property
owner? Don’t the normal landlord rules apply to them?
What about
those properties that are leased back for management by DHA? Do the
owners pay the water contribution of the rates notice? Does DHA give
them money from the MQ water contribution to offset the amount on the
rates notice?
The only
time DHA tenants should pay for water is when they use an excess amount
and the local council notifies the property owner of this.
Sgt Steve Houldsworth
DFSS-EW Wing
Cabarlah,
Qld
Review
needed
I was interested
to read Mr Adrian Wellspring’s response to my letter on overcharging
of MQ water charges. Much of it was a rehash of the response to WO1
Golden in the previous edition of Army.
However,
Mr Wellspring did acknowledge that the current system would see some
members overcharged. He described this as “a pragmatic swings and
roundabouts system”. He also noted that the overcharging could
be overcome by the institution of a “user-pays” system.
Apparently
such a system would be too costly for Defence to introduce and administer.
What of
the option of allowing members to organise connection and billing of
water when we move into our married quarters, just as we do for gas,
electricity, telephone, etc?
I know
that members in my locality living in private rentals do exactly this.
By members taking on this task, as part of their normal march in, Defence
would not have to issue bills, etc.
The occupant
would recieve billing direct from the supplier and simply pay for what
they use. It may require a simple approval from Defence/DHA, as the
‘Landlord’, for the water supplier to issue bills direct to
the tenant, but there would be no cost to Defence!
Or, using
Mr Wellspring’s “Swings and Roundabouts” argument, should
Defence centralise the billing for gas, electricity and telephones,
then pass on an averaged fee to MQ tenants?
Advice
from the Victorian Tenants Union indicates that, by law in Victoria,
tenants are only responsible for their actual useage of water where
they are occupying a separately metered property. My MQ has such a meter.
Advice
also indicates that Tenancy Laws are State based, so various State laws
would appear to be applicable to Defence/DHA.
Therefore,
I would like Mr Wellspring to tell us by what legislative instrument
Defence is able to average the billing in this manner.
Additionally,
if there is no legislative allowance for this process, will those MQ
tenants who have been overcharged by this system, since it’s inception,
see a refund of the excess charges?
I know
that I am not alone in my objection to the current method, noting that
almost every person I have worked with for the past three years has
complained about this system.
Most of
my colleagues see it is a “rip-off” and a “cash cow”
for Defence. Is it time to review the whole process and come up with
a system that is truly fair?
Sgt Darryl King
Defence Force School of Signals
Simpson Barracks,
Macleod,
Vic
Editor’s Note: As a result of the letters on this issue, Adrian
Wellspring, Director Housing Policy, will be providing an interim response
before a detailed response can be made.
Medals
returned
Thank you
for the article that appeared in the recent addition of Army about my
hobby of returning lost medals.
I’m
pleased to report that since writing and publication of the article,
I have located the families of Lt Gillespie and Pte Cathels, MM, and
the medals have been returned.
I would
like to clarify one point. I am not a medal collector. All medals in
my possession, including those I purchase, are being researched with
the aim of retuning them all to the rightful owner.
Maj Glyn Llanwarne
DGLD
Russell Offices,
ACT
Unfair
QLD levy
As a Defence
spouse, I am wondering if anyone can shed some light (no pun intended)
on why those of us living in Queensland have the compulsory ambulance
levy imposed upon us through our electricity bills?
I know
that Defence members will never use the Queensland Ambulance Service
as they are covered Federally.
What about
those families, like ourselves, who are covered by Defence Health or
another private health fund?
I find
it hard to understand why the Queensland Government has not given people
like us an exemption.
We are
never going to use the Queensland Ambulance Service so why are we being
forced to pay for it?
Some may
say that $88 a year is not much but who wants to pay for something twice?
Families
can use that money elsewhere, after all, we have done the right thing,
taken our health as our own responsibilty and paid for it through Defence
Health.
Is Defence
lobbying the Queensland Government for an exemption on our behalf?
Is anything
in the pipeline? Any answers, comments ... anyone?
Sandie Beatty
Kirwan,
Qld
Editor’s Note: this letter has been forwarded to the office of
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie for a response.
A
whistle that worked
If I may
add my two cents to the whistleblower debate. I was recently contacted
in response to a complaint to the scheme. I answered some very relevant
questions regarding my involvement with the issue in question.
Taking
the view of the whistleblower I can see how the complaint seemed justified.
What I
do believe, however, is that an outside agency took a close look at
the incident and was able to ratify the processes and procedures, used
at the time, and the response to the incident in question.
I do not
believe the chain of command was undermined. A good hard look was taken
and the chain of command was, in fact, supported.
Our procedures
should be able to withstand scrutiny and we should be held accountable
for our actions.
The scheme
does no more than ensure this.
WO2 K.R. Davies
4CSSB,
Broadmeadows,
Vic
Hey,
we’re ARA too
I would
like to bring to the attention of Maj Nothards Letter “End of the
loc” [Army, August 14] in his response to the article “FET
for praise by CA”, that as an ARA soldier in an ARA unit in Victoria
that his unit is not the only ARA unit here.
I am sure
that SCMA, HQ CATC, SOArty, SOArm, 53 Fd Bty and LWDC, to name a few,
would like to know if they were not ARA units, what are they, and if
they are not in Victoria, where are they?
Sgt Wayne Morris
Arty Dev,
HQ CATC,
Puckapunyal,
Vic
Water
rebate in Brisbane
I am writing
in reply to the letter and response to the topic of excess water charges
to those in Defence Married Quarters.
I understand,
from the response, that the charges are made on averages across the
board.
As a member
posted to Brisbane I rang Brisbane City Council about the excess charges
they make to owners. They charge 0.87 cents per kilolitre.
A kilolitre
of excess water can be assessed, as is a tap, on full for one hour.
The $9.60
I pay a fortnight equates to 11.03 kilolitres of excess water a fortnight
– if I do use that it is probably from the dodgy washers DHA use
in their taps.
Brisbane
City Council also gives rebates if a residence does not use its full
quota of water.
Sgt Colin Bishop
ADFRU-Brisbane
|
