Letters
to the Editor
Why
is SDSS v4 so sick?
AS MY unit's
Tech sergeant, I rely entirely on SDSS to manage my CO's stores account.
Since the
release of Version Four, most stores account managers and workshop technical
managers have encountered difficulties performing even the most basic
transactions.
Some of
these problems may be related to procedural errors and lack of understanding
of individuals.
But there
are still too many users having problems for this to be the only reason
we are experiencing problems with the new version.
Version
Three, while generally unpopular, was at least relatively free from
bugs - Version 4 is riddled with them.
That tells
me one thing.
The new
version wasn't adequately tested before it was released.
The list
of work-arounds designed by the rollout team to overcome these bugs
grows daily - not to mention the unpublished work-arounds account managers
are using.
There have
been so many calls to the help desk they regularly release a list of
common errors, primarily to reduce the number of complaints flooding
them.
Was Version
Four tested prior to release, and if so, why are there so many problems?
The problems
with the new version are exacerbated by inadequate servers, switches
and trunk lines for the number of users.
The servers
at Enoggera were designed for about 1000 users. There are currently
more than 3000 users at Enoggera.
While it
is unlikely (impossible) for all those users to log on at the same time,
the number of global programmes we are using is placing an unreasonable
strain of the systems currently in place.
Of the
time I spend on SDSS, I lose close to 50 per cent waiting for the processes
to complete.
For every
15 or so transactions I receive the system overloaded/time out message
and about half of these will log me out.
What is
Defence's plan to overcome the shortfalls in the current situation with
regard to servers, switches and trunk lines?
Sgt K. Greathead
TQMS, 2CER,
Gallipoli Barracks,
Enoggera,
Queensland
Ambulance levy unfair
I AM currently posted to a unit in the Brisbane area and recently I
received my electricity bill. On it is a component for the Queensland
Ambulance Service (QAS).
This has
been implemented in Queensland to prop-up the struggling essential service.
My wife
is a civilian member so I believe that I should be contributing 50 per
cent of the cost of this Levy, and so on if I have children.
I currently
live in an ADF married quarter, so I believe that I should be exempt.
This would
also hold true for married/defacto members without children who are
both serving military members who are also in this situation.
My point
is that under the medical package we have in the military, if I ever
need to utilise the services of the QAS the ADF will be billed, so therefore
I am paying for cover that I already have.
Is the
Army newspaper aware of any way that members in this situation are able
to recover this expense, or is the ADF looking at exemptions for ADF
personnel in Queensland, similar to the Medicare levy?
I have
not offered a solution, as there are numerous ways of dealing with this.
I merely
wanted to bring it to the attention of the ADF community, if they are
not already acutely aware of this problem.
I would
also invite any comment from ADF Health Services.
I am happy
for this letter to be published and encourage debate.
Capt John Hymus
2HSB
Gallipoli Barracks,
Enoggera,
Queensland
Editor's Note:
I have sent this letter to Queensland Premier Peter Beattie for a response.
Mr Beattie has not yet responded to the letter from Ms Sandy Beattie,
of Kirwan, whose letter on the same issue was published in Army on September
11.
Drips
and drops
THE letters
from Sgt Darryl King and Sgt Steve Houldsworth, Army newspaper, September
11, ask a number of questions about the weekly contribution for water
paid by members occupying service residences.
Sgt Houldsworth
asks how DHA charges for water in his posting locality where the council
still charges for excess water.
In recent
years, most water supply agencies have moved to a "user-pays"
system, with previously "free" amounts of water and specific
"excess-water" charges disappearing.
In these
circumstances, landlords are responsible for water-supply charges, not
water-usage charges.
Typically,
water usage is now billed on a sliding scale of charges - with the amount
payable increasing when water usage exceeds a set level.
In areas
where a council still charges for excess water, the landlord is not
responsible for the excess water charges.
In this
situation, and under the current arrangements between Defence and DHA,
the only charges that are passed on to Defence are excess water charges
.
Regardless
of the water charging arrangements in a given locality, DHA recovers
only that amount from Defence that represents actual water usage by
members.
The current
averaged water charge is a pragmatic swings and roundabouts system in
much the same way that the single rate contribution for each rank group
in the GRS housing system is also a pragmatic swings and roundabouts.
Sgt King
has proposed a user pays system whereby members organise connection
and billing of water when they move into a service residence, just as
they do for gas, electricity, telephone, etc.
It is important
to note that the method of charging for water can vary from locality
to locality.
Some members
might pay less under an actual user-pays regime.
The potential
for other members to be paying more because the charging regime - as
distinct from a member's consumption pattern - differs between States
should not be overlooked.
Sgt King
also raises concerns regarding the legal authority for the water contribution.
The legal
authority is Defence Determination 2003/25, made under Section 58B of
the Defence Act 1903.
It is Commonwealth
law. The Australian Constitution provides that Commonwealth law prevails
over State law to the extent of any inconsistency.
Adrian Wellspring
Director Housing and Removals Policy
Campbell Park Office,
ACT
A
flat-fee water cost
TO FURTHER
the debate with regard to charging of excess Married Quarters water.
The current
MQ I reside in is within the South Pine Shire in Brisbane, Queensland,
who do not charge water rates but a one-off fee (about $800 to $1000),
which is paid by the owner of the property.
I am sure
there are other shires across Australia with the same policy.
Sgt Michael Dwyer
1 Fd Regt
Gallipoli Barracks,
Enoggera,
Queensland
Lack
of facilities
I AM undergoing
a posting to Townsville, a posting that I am looking forward to, however,
after looking at the availability of Class A housing there, I was astounded
by the lack of basic facilities in the Married Quarters.
Firstly,
according to DHA Townsville, a small TV outlet on the wall is "not
a basic consideration" when married quarters are chosen for Defence
personnel.
What age
do we live in when a TV outlet is not a simple, if not basic, amenity
to have in any Married Quarter? Maybe not an antenna, but surely at
least an outlet.
Secondly,
I recently purchased a new dishwasher and have been told that it is
not a consideration that I be able to use my own whitegoods. DHA Townsville
have told me that I will have to place my dishwasher into storage for
the duration of my posting if we are not 'lucky' enough to find a house
with a space.
Just because
of my allocation by rank, are my family forced to live at a lower standard
than they have become accustomed to over my eight years of military
service?
Lastly,
only two of the three bedrooms are air-conditioned in almost all of
the Class A houses I have looked at, so am I forced to explain to one
of my children that they drew the "short-straw" and have to
sleep in the heat, while the other can sleep comfortably?
I have
to assess from these responses from DHA Townsville, that my wife and
children are to be more disadvantaged by this move than usual.
Surely
a fairer system would have housing entitlements based on time served
in the military, not purely on rank structure, or perhaps common sense
and a combination of the two?
Pte Paul Carolan
AHQ
Russell Offices,
ACT
Editor's Note:
DHA and the Directorate of Removals and Housing Policy will provide
a response in the next issue.
Appropriate?
I REFER
to Army, Edition 1081 August 28, 2003 (Centrefold).
Given recent
operations in the Gulf and the concerns, right or wrong, by many with
compliance with Geneva conventions and human rights in regard to displaying
prisoners, etc, in what could be conceived as humiliating situation
(by both Iraqi and coalition forces), is it appropriate that in Army
newspaper we display Harold Keke in custody, which in itself could be
seen by some Solomon Islanders in a negative way and what effect could
this have towards a successful outcome to our operations supporting
the government of the Solomon Islands.
Does this
image portray the wrong message considering the concerns among some
elements within the Pacific Region as to Australia being a colonial
power. Hearts and minds?
Mark Winter (ex-WO2)
Army Marine,
AASSPO Sydney
Garden Island,
NSW
Not
in spirit
The August
28, 2003 edition of Army newspaper recently ran a photo of Harold Keke
caged up in the back of a vehicle, and I wonder how this fits in with
a request from the Department of Defence sent to media organisations
in March this year.
I realise
that we are not at war with the Solomon Islands, but I do not think
that the photo you showed was in the spirit of the Geneva Convention.
Does the
Department of Defence condone one set of rules for the civilian press
and another for Army news?
Gerard Corkeron (Ex-ARA)
Narre Warren South,
Victoria
Editor's Response:
Harold Keke was arrested in relation to allegations of major crimes
in the Solomons Islands. As the Australian-led RAMSI force was invited
by the Solomons Islands Government to re-establish law and order, a
state of war, which would see the invocation of the Geneva Convention
articles governing depictions of prisoners of war, does not exist.
Therefore, the photographs of Mr Keke, published in Army newspaper
and provided by Defence on its free, public-access image gallery, are
appropriate in depicting the work of RAMSI because Mr Keke is not a
prisoner of war. He has been taken in custody because of serious allegations
of criminal activity and therefore can be said to be helping the Royal
Solomons Island Police with their inquiries. There are no conflicts
with the Geneva Convention.
Defence applied a strict clearance process, which in the case of RAMSI,
was cleared in theatre by DFAT and ADF personnel, before posting the
photo in the image gallery.
This image was used by civilian media organisations before Army
newspaper published it.
Not
taketh away
THE following
advice is provided in response to the letter titled "Giveth and
taketh away" that was published in Army newspaper on August
28.
It is Defence
policy that housing and related charges are reviewed annually. This
year, increases in housing and related charges occurred shortly after
the 3 per cent ADF pay increase that took effect on July 3. This coincidence,
however, was foreseen some time ago and the relationship between the
Workplace Remuneration Arrangement outcomes and likely GRS/LIA increases
was highlighted during the WRA consultation phase.
The current
ADF Workplace Remuneration Arrangement provides for a total 6 per cent
pay rise, implemented on November 7, 2002 and July 3, 2003. The July
3 increment increased military salary by about $1250 for a private and
about $2450 for a lieutenant-colonel before tax.
For members
with dependants, the annual adjustment for service residence contributions
produced an increase of about $265 annually for a private/corporal,
to about $490 annually for a colonel/brigadier.
For members
without dependants, the effect of the annual adjustment for LIA contributions
produced - using Level 3 LIA as an example - an increase ranging from
about $245 annually for a private/corporal to about $335 annually for
a major and above.
Your correspondent
implies that when the percentage increase in GRS/LIA contributions is
compared with the percentage increase in salary on July 3, the benefit
of the pay rise has been wiped out.
It is,
however, the dollar increases for salary and GRS/LIA contributions that
need to be compared, to give an accurate picture of the overall financial
impact of the increases for members. Such a comparison does not support
a conclusion that Defence has taken away all the salary rise with an
increase in GRS/LIA contributions.
Further
information on the calculation of the housing and related charges and
allowances is available on the DPE website in the Housing section at
http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/dpe/
or by sending an e-mail to dpe.feedback@defence.gov.au
Adrian Wellspring
Director Housing and Removals Policy
Campbell Park Offices,
ACT
A
non-tactical corps
I NOTICED
a small photo of a "bandie" from 1RAR in a recent edition
of the Army newspaper with caption that said it was the first time since
Vietnam that "bandies" had deployed on operations.
As Band
Corps was formed from Corps and Regimental Bands in 1968 and "deemed"
a non-combatant corps, forcing the RAR battalions to form their own
Infantry Pipe Bands, one could argue that this is possible the first
time AABC personnel have ever been on operations.
Call me
cynical, as well, but I find it ironic that we have a corps in this
day and age that does not have a tactical purpose.
Sgt Colin Bishop
ADFRU-Brisbane
Pipes
and drums are not AABC
I HAVE
been a member of the Royal Australian Regiment for 16 years.
For 32
years, there have been Pipes and Drums in the Royal Australian Regiment.
At present,
2RAR, 3RAR and 5/7RAR all have Pipes and Drums.
There are
also 10 part-time bands, all of which, with the exception of the RACT
Pipes and Drums, are fully-qualified infantry members of the battalions.
In 2RAR,
these members are the unit's DFSW Platoon. In 3RAR, they are qualified
Combat First Aiders (CFA) and work directly with the sections. In 5/7RAR,
members of Pipes and Drums are qualified CFAs and are the battalion's
APC ambulance drivers.
Soldiers
in the RAR Pipes and Drums are not members of the Australian Army Band
Corps, as described at www.defencejobs.gov.au/careers.
Please
do your homework.
WO2 J. Ferguson
Senior Instructor Pipes and Drums
Rules
haven't changed
It saddens
me to see the extent that the ADF has now become an extremely reactive
"society". The ADF's Rules For A Fair Go are applicable and
relevant, as is, however, a training pam from 1983 titled "Character
Training", which details how to train ourselves, and our people,
to abide by the rules.
Perhaps
if we made people aware of appropriate publications, the money saved
from constant reprints of Rules For A Fair Go/Codes of Conduct would
enable a section commander to conduct more warfighting training.
Sgt M.A. Mahoney
Comms Wing,
School of Armour,
Puckapunyal,
Victoria
Tax-free
commitment
LCpl Elmore
(Army, August 14), isn't the "commitment and service"
provided by reserve members adequately rewarded by tax-free pay and
other allowances?
Sgt J. Bannerman
1 Int Bn
Gallipoli Barracks,
Enoggera,
Queensland
Unrealistic
comparisons
IN RESPONSE
to LCpl Lindsay Elmore's comment regarding Reserve Forces Day, Army,
August 14.
I acknowledge
the role of Reserve Forces Day in recognising the commitment of Reserve
Forces to the ADF, but let's not justify it by unrealistic comparisons
to operational service.
Your comparison
of Reserve Forces Day to Long Tan or Kapyong Day is tenuous at best,
if not outright insulting.
These days
acknowledge significant engagements Australian forces have been involved
in, and died in, during operations.
They provide
the opportunity for those members, both reserve and permanent, to remember
and pay their respects.
Hardly
comparable to parade nights and field exercises.
As for
Capt Thorley's comments, his point remians valid. There is no ARA Day
to recognise the service of ARA personnel, nor do I advocate one.
Occasions
such as Anzac Day, Kapyong Day, et. al., remain rightly focused on acknowledging
and remembering those who have deployed on operations in the service
of the nation.
Capt Wade Morris
ADFWC
RAAF Williamtown,
NSW
Mistaken
identity
I WAS surprised
to note on page 10 of Army news, September 11, the photo and
caption at the bottom of the page : "CO HMAS Manoora, Cmdr Martin
Brooker....".
Only a
couple of editions ago Army news ran a full page on 'Know your
Ranks' and yet your WO2 can't correctly identify the person or the rank.
Perhaps he needs to read your paper more often.
C.Sloate
c.sloate@yahoo.com
Assessment
issues
I AM currently
employed by the Army, and have been now for a period of 13 years. I
hold the position of platoon sergeant with 3RAR.
I am writing
to you for some guidance and a possible answer or two.
I really
don't know where to start with my questions so I guess I'll start from
the beginning.
I have
been separated and divorced now for almost three years. There are two
children to that marriage and I currently pay child support through
the Child Support Agency (CSA). The CSA Assessment is based on taxable
income and includes fringe benefits.
I have
recently re-married and my wife and I have a young daughter.
I have
no problems with the CSA, however, I believe there are Defence entitlements
that should not be included in the Child Support Assessment.
The following
are:
• Uniform Maintenance Allowance (UMA). Obviously this allowance
is for the upkeep of uniforms.
• Separation Allowance. As stated, I have remarried, this allowance
maybe used for such this as my wife calling a contractor for the upkeep
of lawns, etc.
• Service Allowance. As stated in the 2003-2004 ADF Pay and Conditions
Manual, this allowance is paid to recognise how being in the ADF is
special compared to being a civilian, including things like; the need
to work hours that can be long, irregular, and include weekends; regular
postings; service discipline; lack of choice in your working life; and
uncomfortable working conditions.
The following
are Fringe Benefits that have been included in my Child Support Assessment
by the CSA.
• Travel/Vehicle Allowance - this is paid to meet the costs of
meals, accommodation and use of personal vehicle.
• Removals - postings.
• Defence Assisted Study Scheme - further my education.
To the
normal person in the ADF, yes, these are a free entitlements, however,
to the person paying child support they are not.
I have
had the CSA including Rental Assistance (RA) into their calculations.
I advised the CSA that RA is a Defence entitlement and gave it paperwork,
which stated in black and white, that it could not be included into
the Child Assessment.
By the
CSA including RA into my assessable income my assessment went from $42,000
to $53,000.
Nobody
in the ADF to whom I spoke could help and it was left up to me to take
the CSA to the Family Law Court to have the matter settled.
The outcome
of this was the CSA had to refund me the monies it had taken from my
pay. The most annoying thing about this is it was left entirely up to
me to have this matter sorted out.
I have
been in contact with the CSA numerous times and asked why the above
mentioned are included in Child Support Assessments and I have been
informed every time that they go off the taxable amount and the Defence
Force is no different to any other job.
Myself
and other men from 3RAR believe that only salary component should be
used as the assessable amount.
I am available
for futher talk on this matter, however, I don't know if I'm talking
to the right people.
Sgt Steve Scanlon
3RAR
Holsworthy Barracks,
NSW
Editor's Note:
Army newspaper contacted the CSA and requested a response to
this letter.
This generated an article from the CSA which is published on page 24
of this edition.
Ask
for $88
SANDIE
Beatty, Army newspaper, September 11, asked for comment as to
why Queensland residents with private health insurance offering ambulance
cover should not be exempted from the Queensland Community Ambulance
levy.
The Queensland
Government would no doubt stick to the line put forward on its website
and suggest that those in Ms Beatty's situation should seek a reduction
in the premium charged by their health fund.
So what
does Defence Health say?
First,
Defence Health was created to ensure that military families could retain
their cover and not suffer fluctuating premiums as they moved frequently
between States.
We have
been true to this policy for 50 years. It means that premiums are averaged
and no discrimination occurs - no matter whether actual costs to Defence
Health are higher or lower. This practice gives certainty to families
facing the costs and difficulties of relocating.
Bear in
mind that we operate on a not-for-profit basis so we don't have to use
savings to satisfy shareholders and investors.
Second,
Defence Health will continue to cover Queensland members where required.
We cover
100 per cent of the costs of all services provided by registered ambulance
services in Australia.
This includes
air ambulance, interstate repatriations and transfers and private ambulance
services.
Third,
Queensland residents who are members of Defence Health have not gained
by the imposition of this levy.
We encourage
them to write to their local member pointing out this fact and seeking
a refund of the $88.
David Lynch
Chief Executive Officer,
Defence Health
Quashing
rumours
THERE are
rumours circulating that a member who has completed 20 years as a regular
soldier will be required to complete an additional five years of service
as a reserve soldier.
Is there
a written policy ordocument to provide an answer to this question.
Sgt Steven Lamont
7 Sig Regt
Borneo Barracks, QLD
Lt-Col Greg Flinn, DGPers-A, replies:
Only members enlisting after July 1, 2003 are required to compulsory
transfer to the Standby Reserve on completion of Regular/Permanent or
Active Reserve service obligations.
For
more information, see Defgram 574/2002. The details of tenure, etc,
are covered in DPR 2002 Regs 63-70. There is no retrospectivity.
Naming
the dangers
IT WAS
with much interest that I noted Defgram 453/2003 and an associated flyer
(Defence Security Issue 2 Winter 2003), which highlights the dangers
of putting our names and units in open publications.
So please
don't print my name or unit at the end of this letter. Or, in fact,
the names of anyone you ever do a story on, or take a photo of ever
again.
Come to
think of it, every civilian that works for Defence can see our entire
posting plot on the Intranet so we better remove that too.
Cpl Dennis McLean,
51 MP Pl,
Gallipoli Barracks,
Enoggera,
Queensland
IT
costing me my sanity
I AM a
computer gumby, yet my work revolves around that grey box. My life would
be considerably easier if someone would standardise access.
I log on
using three variations of my name and/or two position titles, depending
on the system/application I am using.
I have
five passwords that change at different time periods, changing password
to access the DRN or DSN than requires me to manually change program
passwords because they can no longer share a log on.
Having
logged on to the DRN (thereafter all actions are attributable/traceable
to me), I need another name/password to access netcache and another
to access DLMS - why?
And don't
start me on the Outlook/Notes debate, I need both programs to access
databases on the same system.
Someone
please clean this up, now, it is costing Defence money and me my sanity.
Capt David Gough
JALO
Orchard Hills,
NSW
|
