Letters
to the Editor
Review
DHA's procedures
I WISH
to raise my concerns and frustration over the current process of DHA
Housing Allocations, and request that a review of these procedures be
conducted. I am due to be posted to Canberra in 2004 and my relocation
dates are planned in Canberra from early January 2004.
I have
had access to HomeFind since August 13, but have not so far had any
houses to review.
My concerns
are that I have three children I need to re-locate to new schools. The
youngest is due to start primary school and I already have had some
Catholic primary schools close their enrolments for 2004 due to no vacancies.
The sooner
I can confirm the area I will be living in will allow me to get my children
allocated in an acceptable school.
Schools
are also reluctant to take any registration until confirmation of an
address as they are bound by zoning.
Childcare
arrangements also require early notice, which I am unable to give at
this time, due to not knowing where I will be living.
DHAs comments
include that I must wait until people have submitted their paperwork
in order for them to come visible on Homefind. I find this situation
unacceptable. DHA receive all posting orders and should know which houses
are likely to come available, albeit not to the exact date.
I also
find it difficult to fathom that so many Defence personnel have been
slow to submit their removals documentation. It is also unacceptable
that I am only allowed to see those houses within 28 days before and
seven days after my removal date.
All houses
should be visible to me and I would change my removal dates to be given
the opportunity of a house in my chosen suburb.
DHA also
noted that my search criteria cannot be widened, as I may disadvantage
others in that entitlement group!
This causes
further frustration when I know the group below (Group B) my entitlement
have an overwhelming number of choices, albeit at the four-bedroom standard,
where I have duly been told I am only entitled to a three-bedroom house.
I have
also been told that an attempt for RA at this early stage would not
be accepted.
Where are
my options from here? I do not believe late September is too early to
be planning for next year and to have some confirmation of living and
schooling arrangement.
This indication
that there is "plenty of time until I move" does nothing for
mine and my family's stress levels.
I request
that DHA review their current procedures of housing allocations and
also give some early options for a "stress-free" removal to
Canberra in January 2004.
Maj Juliana Cassie
SO2 Separations, SCMA
Fort Queenscliff, VIC
Keith Lyon, managing director of DHA, responds:
The difficulties experienced by this ADF member underline the need for
Service personnel to submit their Application for Removal (AFR) as soon
as convenient and practical, depending on their individual circumstances.
DHA understands
the importance to families of the need to secure a new Service Residence
well ahead of the scheduled move. The advantages of securing a house
early in relation to accessing schools and partner employment have been
experienced first-hand by many DHA staff.
In some
parts of Australia, Canberra especially, our role in providing housing
is complicated by an overall shortage in the housing market. In fulfilling
our role we must also meet our obligation to control costs to Defence
by avoiding unnecessary housing vacancies. This means that DHA staff
have to carefully balance outgoing and incoming movements. We can best
do this when we have early notice of the intention to move as it allows
us to offer the house to an incoming member early in the posting cycle.
DHA has
only had responsibility for allocations, together with relocations,
for a couple of years. We have introduced a number of features including
the facility to pre-select houses, a case management approach and the
online HomeFind system. With further experience we will be able to make
more improvements.
DHA recently
began a review of housing allocation practices and policies, precisely
to establish if changes can be made to improve the options for members
who wish to finalise their choice of a new home well ahead of their
scheduled posting. In doing so, we recognise the concerns of members
who need to make arrangements for new schools for their children as
well as the importance of consulting Defence about any proposal changes.
As part of the review we would welcome any suggestions to improve our
services.
Any members
with particular concerns to contact their local Housing Management Centre
so that a Case Manager can be appointed to assist them to find an appropriate
housing solution.
ADF members
who wish to offer suggestions for improvements to the current relocation
service delivery model are invited to write to the Director of Relocations,
DHA Head Office, 26 Brisbane Avenue, Barton ACT 2600.
How
to lessen the back-log
IT APPEARS
that the Honours and Awards area of Defence has a back-log.
I appreciate
that this is largely to do with an increased operational tempo and I
am not having a bleat: what I have is a suggestion to slightly lessen
the load, however, I am unsure whether I have enough info to put forward
this proposal.
The suggestion
is this: any additional award involving a clasp/rosette for length of
service should be available in clothing stores; it is, simply, an acknowledgment
of time served and I would imagine most who are due to receive these
would rather simplify the process as opposed to lengthy delays (no,
I am not waiting; however, I have known a lot of entitled members who
have received their clasp/rosette long after they were due to receive
the items).
I do not
know what is required admin-wise with respect to how the criteria for
issue of the clasp is acknowledged and then sent to the member. As the
rosette is available in most stores (they break/fall off, etc), why
not the clasp? As far as I know it is not unique and one size fits all.
If required, a print off from PMKeys could be provided by the member
which indicated their enlistment date.
WO2 Wally Meurant
JLU(N)
Darwin, NT
Identity
factor
I AGREE
with the comments made by WO2 Tidey in his letter titled "Slip,
slip sliding away" in the October 9 edition of Army. I also believe
the majority of members would like to be recognised as soldiers and
not as airmen - after all, a little identity would be nice.
I also
believe that the average soldier would be able to distinguish between
the Major and WO2 rank without the inclusion of the black box; however,
at a glance it could be mistaken.
Even though
this may seem like a small issue in the grand scheme of things, it is
obviously one that members feel strongly about. I am surprised that
members' views (from a diverse cross-section of serving members) were
not requested during the initial stages of this project. If so, I am
not aware of anyone who knew this was occurring.
I would
also like to reply to Maj Stanton's response that the principal factor
in including Australia on the rank slide is "still related to operational
requirements". I still cannot see how this is the case. I believe
that our current DPCUs combined with our personal weapons and field
equipment make for a fairly distinguishable uniform and that the inclusion
of Australia on our rank slides is still not justified.
After all,
I have not yet seen a British or American soldier with Britain or US
on their slides. I say this because I think their uniform is more similar
in regards to pattern and colour than ours is to?
I wonder
how many members feel the same?
Lt S.O. Dove
4th Fd Regt
Lavarck Barracks, Townsville QLD
The
final two drops
GIVEN that
the debate over MQ water charges can, and probably will, continue for
some time, I have a few final questions and comments for Director of
Housing and Removals Policy, Adrian Wellspring.
When was
Defence Determination 2003/25 made? Though not doubting the authority
based on the Defence Act 1903, looking at the title it would appear
to be a decision made this year.
Is this
assumption correct and if so, has it been made in response to questions
raised by myself and others? Can Mr Wellspring advise the date on which
the determination was made, when it took effect and, if made this year,
what retrospectivity applies.
If there
is no provision for retrospective application, would it be correct to
suggesting that charges made prior to the determination are not covered
by it and would therefore be open to challenge?
Mr Wellspring
also indicates that, if a user-pays system were introduced, charges
in different locations would be vary and members may find they pay more
for water in some locations than they pay in others.
Such variations
also apply to other utilities such as gas and electricity and are dependant
upon the type of supplier (government/private), the degree of competition
between suppliers, demand for the product and, for total charges, the
volume used.
In other
words, normal market forces (or a case of swings and roundabouts?) I
note also that Mr Wellspring has used the swings and roundabouts argument
in comparing the water charges to MQ rents/contributions.
I would
suggest that flat-rate MQ rents provide a national advantage to all
MQ tenants, unlike the water contribution which sees some members effectively
overcharged in order to provide benefit to others.
Mr Wellspring
notes that DHA only recover from Defence the actual costs of water used
in Defence properties. Defence funds this through the collection of
MQ Water Contributions.
Though
noting that DHA only recover actual total costs, this still does not
address the issue of some members being charged amounts greater that
their actual consumption costs.
That, I think, is the heart of the issue. I will leave it to other members
to decide if that issue has been addressed.
Sgt Darryl King
DFSS
Simpson Barracks, Macleod VIC
Adrian Wellspring, Director, Housing and Removals Policy, responds:
Defence Determination 2003/25 was signed on September 5, 2003 and took
effect on and from September 11, 2003.
The Determination
gives legal effect to changes in the rates of allowances and charges
arising from the 2003 annual review of housing-related allowances and
charges. It is the latest of a number of Determinations made under Section
58B of the Defence Act 1903 extending back over at least 10 years which
give legal effect to the requirement that members make a contribution
for water usage.
Sgt King
implies that the comparison I made between water charges and Service
Residence (SR) contributions is not valid because the flat-rate SR contribution
provides an advantage to all (my emphasis) Service Residence (SR) tenants.
The advantage arises because housing costs vary between posting localities.
A single rate contribution for each rank group insulates members from
the variation in housing costs from locality to locality. The SR contribution
is a proportion of average national Defence housing costs in each rank
group. Members in high cost posting localities are being subsidised
by those in lower cost localities. This is because the averaging at
a national level generally produces a figure higher than the average
for a low housing cost locality.
If the
housing system set SR contributions on the basis of housing costs in
each posting locality, some members would probably pay less than currently,
assuming no change in the proportion of the member's housing subsidy.
Some members would, however, have to pay more, which means that there
would be a financial penalty as a consequence of being posted to various
localities. This is contrary to the fundamental principle that underpins
our housing system: that is, the cost of Service housing to the member
for their rank in one locality should be the same as any other.
Members
move between high and low-housing-cost localities and the flat rate
contribution for each rank group is a pragmatic swings and roundabouts
that works to the overall advantage of the member and Defence. Much
the same can be said for the flat-rate water contribution.
Editor's Note:
After a healthy exchange of letters over the past few months, this is
the end of the debate on water contributions.
Rank
recognition
WO2 Tideys'
letter "Slip, Slip sliding away" (Army, Edition 1084, October
9) uses examples from the British Army in his argument, however, as
a recently transferred member of the British Army (past two months)
I can inform him that he is wrong in his assumptions.
The British
Army officially adopted the system of wearing their rank on the chest
with the introduction of the Combat '95 clothing system (obviously in
1995) and is only worn on that form of dress. This move has meant that
personnel can now be identified by their rank whilst wearing their field
kit. However there has been, and it remains, confusion between the ranks
of Major and Warrant Officer. My old regiment has taken to instructing
the Warrant Officers to resume the wearing of their ranks on their forearm,
thus removing the confusion and mis-guided salutes.
The introduction
of the rank slide worn in such a manner has proved, on the whole, to
be a welcome tool in rank recognition for all ranks of the Army and
I would encourage all ranks of the Australian Army to embrace it as
such.
Capt Iain Hendry-Adams
CTC
Lavarck Barracks, Townsville QLD
Levy
or tax
WITH all
the recent whingeing about the compulsory 24 cents a day ($88 a year)
ambulance levy in Queensland, enough!
It is a
state government tax which has been clearly defined. I do hope that
future pages of Army will not be occupied by whinges about members without
kids whingeing about their taxs funding schools or members without cars
complaining about their taxes funding roads and wanting a rebate.
As has
been stated, only two things in life are certain; death and taxes. Perhaps
we could make that three, perennial whingeing through the pages of Army
from people that in the scheme of things are pretty well off.
WO1 Chris Ross
LHQ
Victoria Barracks, Paddington, NSW
Housing
issues at Pucka
HAVING
spent the past two years squeezed into a three-bedroom shoebox in Puckapunyal,
I was shocked to hear of the latest moves by the Corporate Services
and Infrastructure Group (CSIG) to stop the proposed construction of
new four-bedroom homes here.
CSIG is
advocating that only three-bedroom houses should be built.
In our
poorly constructed shoebox we have gone without a lounge room, as we
need that space for a study. We cannot fit our car into the garage as
the garage is used to store everything that doesn't fit into the house.
We are even denied the potential for extra space offered by the patio
as it remains uncovered and exposed to the elements.
For the
past two years, the battle for new and suitable housing in Puckapunyal
has been fought at many levels and for one reason or another, construction
is continually delayed. In this instance, CSIG's intervention means
the proposed development has missed the last Public Works Committee
(PWC) meeting for the year.
Now it
will not be considered until the next PWC meeting in February 2004.
Yet another delay.
CSIG, please
do not insult us with your financial accounting reasons as the basis
for this decision. Families posted to Puckapunyal are entitled to the
same standard of new housing as those posted to places like Brisbane
and Townsville.
Why is
CSIG promoting a course of action that will only further deteriorate
the conditions of service for those personnel and their families posted
to Puckapunyal?
Clare Webster
Puckapunyal, Victoria
Editor's Note:
This letter has been sent to CSIG for a response which will be published
in the next edition.
Thanks
to HQ 5 Avn Regt
I WOULD
like to take this opportunity to thank all the girls in HQ 5 Avn Regt.
I have been in the Army now for 12 years and nearly as many units. In
my time in other units I have unfortunately been hung out to dry with
regards to allowances and pay.
I have
been in 5 Avn Regt now for five years. I have found this unit to be
one of the best as far as support to the serving member is concerned.
My wife Luanne and I would like to pass on our thanks for the support
we have been given over the past few very trying years from the HQ group.
Maybe we
might see some of you next year in Darwin. Many other units in the ADF
could take a leaf out of 5 Avn's book. Maintain the rage.
Cpl Rod Stone
C Sqn
5 Avn Regt, RAAF Townsville QLD
From
the kids...
 |
G'Day
I don't agree with the war and I don't know if you do but I still
believe you are extremely courageous. Thank you for risking your
life so that we don't have to! I don't blame you for the war.
I don't really want to talk about that kind of stuff. So I won't.
How
is the weather there? I am in Melbourne so it is the same as usual!
Five seasons in one day. He he, that's a boring subject so yeh
... Collingwood are playing Essendon at the MCG. GO BOMBERS! What
did you have for dinner? I had pasta and it was YUMMY. I think
that as long as you have your vegemite you'll be okey dokey. Not
like the Yanks with their portable bloody buffets. Anyways I hope
you come home soon cause it sucks that you are there and not here
and yeh!
Love
Daniel.
|
|
