Letters to the Editor

Remember, it's a way to say thanks
Let us have our day
A taxing issue
Matter of grave concern
Eagle quest
Drawing the line
Here's a serve
Incentive needed
Life is so inequitable

How to write to Army News

Remember, it's a way to say thanks

I AM writing in response to WO1 Wicks' letter Army, November 18) asking why we insist on having so many marches every year for wars and battles that the ADF has been involved in.

WO1 Wicks suggested that we have only the one day, Anzac Day. I disagree.

It's not a matter of being one Army or one Defence force.

It's a matter of remembering those who gave the supreme sacrifice for their country; taking the time to think about what it is we have and at the same time making the general public remember. More and more these days the general public are learning less and forgetting more about how they have the freedoms that they do.

We don't march for the sake of it and neither has anyone I've ever served with. We march with the old and bolds to not only remember but to say thank you.

Thank you for giving your life, your time, your left arm, your right eye, your ability to walk properly. Thank you for enduring unimaginable horrors so that we can all live in the beautiful free country that we do. Thank you for giving us freedom of speech even though some people abuse it and offend the very men and women who fought to secure it.

For WO1 Wicks to suggest that olds and bolds might get stroppy over his letter is obtuse. My niece gets stroppy when she can't have ice cream. Veterans that fought for their country get angry to say the least when someone suggests that they should take away their hard won right to parade in front of a nation and be honoured for what they did for that nation.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them. As many times a year as we need to, to allow them not to be forgotten and to continue to say thank you.

Bdr Troy Charters
B Det Comd
105 Fd Bty
1 Fd Regt

TOP

Let us have our day

IT IS rare, if ever, that I am moved to respond to letters in newspaper columns, however WO1 Wicks, has moved me to respond.

Vietnam veterans' organisations could provide a more comprehensive reply, but from a purely personal perspective, I fail to see the correlation between Anzac Day and Vietnam Veterans' Day.

There is no march on Vietnam Veterans' Day (formerly Long Tan Day). It is a day of quiet reflection and remembrance. It is not a day of pomp and ceremony.

I marched on some Anzac Days after my return from 'Nam. It was a day where certain types could tell a forward scout that I didn't fight in a real war. It was a day where WAR (Women Against Rape) could throw human waste at Vietnam vets.

Like many Vietnam vets I stopped participating in Anzac Day marches. I still admired the real diggers who fought in the real wars, and I cheered for them from a distance.

Today I just want a time to reflect on a time that I spent with my brothers. Some time for peace and reflection. Some time to reflect on the mates who didn't come back, or the mates who continue to relive Vietnam every day of their lives, or the mates who are slowly dying from the poisons of Vietnam.

For more than 30 years we were isolated and vilified. Is it so surprising that many of us would prefer to have our own day?

When there was a threat of protest against our returning soldiers from Afghanistan, many Vietnam vets came out to march. We respect all soldiers, sailors and airmen who have donned the uniform.

But Vietnam vets are different. The politics of the day made us different. We don't interfere with any other day of remembrance. Leave ours alone, or at least get the name right - it stopped being known as Long Tan Day many years ago.

Bob Wood
ex-3 RAR, Vietnam 1971
Canberra

TOP

A taxing issue

I MAY be able to shed some light for CC 2 HSB's letter (Army, November 18) regarding his deployment to EM under tax ruling 23AG.

Deployments on "warlike operations" fall under ruling 23AD, which provides total tax exemption on all monies paid during the deployment. The exemption during these deployments is so total that payments which would normally attract income tax are also exempt (including MSBS Retention Benefit). 23AG caused great confusion when the ADF adopted it - so much so that I have found that even the ATO does not completely understand the theory behind it.

Defgram 317/2001outlines tax ruling 23AG in a reasonably clear way (including the fine print), but highlights that the tax liability on income received during the deployment is to the foreign government - not Australia. The current procedure to accommodate this policy is quite simple. Tax is paid on all monies during the deployment. Upon RTA, members complete a declaration which is sent to DEFPAC in Melbourne.

DEFPAC calculates how much they were paid during their deployment, and their taxable income is reduced by that amount.

When calculating tax liability, the rate of tax members pay is calculated including the money they received on deployment, but that rate is applied only to the reduced taxable income. As an example: a soldier's group certificate shows $60,000 for the financial year, which includes the $35,000 he earnt overseas. Tax liability is calculated by working out the average rate of tax payable (using tax brackets) on $60,000, and applying this rate to the $25,000 earnt in Australia. Therefore the income earnt overseas is tax exempt, but the soldier pays a higher rate of tax on the income earnt in Australia. This is what resulted in CC 2 HSB's tax liability when he did his tax.

What this adds up to is that 23AG cannot strictly be described as "tax exempt", and I can understand CC 2 HSB's frustration that it was probably explained to him as such.

Sgt T. Schmidt
UPR 2 Cav Regt
Robertson Barracks

TOP

Matter of grave concern

I AM working on a project to repair the privately-owned graves of service personnel buried in Toowong Cemetery.

There are some 149 graves there, including a VC winner from the Maori War, and some of the graves are in a very poor state of repair.

I am seeking assistance from people who have relatives buried in the cemetery in order to get written permission to repair these graves.

I am also in the process of raising funds to repair the graves.

It would be appreciated if anyone who can donate funds or who have ideas on fund-raising could contact me as well.

Please contact me on 0438 813 745 if you can help in this matter.

Pte Anna Florance
25/49RQR
Gallipoli Barracks

TOP

Eagle quest

Does anyone out there hold a copy of Eagles Alighting, a history of Australian military parachuting?

If I remember correctly, either the Airborne Association or the Australian Paratroopers Association produced the book around 1999-2000.

There were only limited quantities and the book is no longer in print.

If anyone has a copy that they would wish to part with, contact me on (02) 4964 7065 or david.macphail@defence.gov.au.

Sgt Dave MacPhail
Army FAC Section
RAAF Base Williamtown

TOP

Drawing the line

RECENTLY I was tasked to be the unit representative for a young digger marching into the Gallipoli Barracks OR live-in lines.

Having personally seen inside the newly refurbished OR livein lines I assured the digger that his new home was one he would enjoy spending time in.

It was not until we arrived at the assigned building that I realised he was in fact allocated a building next door, still awaiting refurbishment. The Spotless accommodation representative told me that the lines allocated were deemed Level 2.

We conducted a march-in inspection with us all in agreement that the overall condition of the lines to be fair/poor condition. I asked the accommodation representative how much less the digger would be paying for Level 2 and was told it was exactly the same cost as Level 1.

How can this be the case? Defence has admitted these lines require refurbishment, although when I asked for a completion date none could be given. When inquired about getting the flyscreens in the windows repaired I was told that most likely it would be knocked back as the money spent on the lines was generally limited to more major repairs although being bitten all night by mosquitoes seems major to me).

The refurbished building next door, besides being clean, tidy and damage-free, has access to broadband internet and a telephone, another service not available to soldiers paying the same accommodation element next door.

I ask the following questions: What is the criteria for Level 2? How poor must the condition be before they are deemed Level 3, qualifying the occupants for a deduction in accommodation charges? If there is no difference in accommodation charges a soldier pays between Level 1 and Level 2 why not make them all Level 1? Why go to the bother of refurbishing Level 2 accommodation?

I equate this situation to paying for front row seats but being seated in the second row - totally unfair and something we would all complain about. Our private soldiers are being let down by the Army for letting this happen to them. Does the same thing happen in the Sergeants' Mess or the Officers' Mess? Our young keen soldiers need to be looked after, not taken advantage of.

Cpl A. Smyth
7 CSSB
Gallipoli Barracks

Adrian Wellspring, Director, Housing and Removals Policy, replies:

Living in accommodation (LIA) is classified as Levels 1 to 5, with Level 1 being the lowest and Level 5 the highest. Members occupying Level 1 and Level 2 LIA pay the same contribution, which is the lowest contribution payable (currently $40.60 a week for a member of the rank of corporal or lower). The charges increase for Levels 3, 4 and 5. The member CPL Smyth has referred to is occupying Level 2 and is therefore paying the lowest possible contribution.

When separate contributions for Levels 1 to 5 were introduced on July 8, 1999, the decision was taken to combine the contributions for Levels 1 and 2, and to reduce them to below the amounts initially intended. This decision was taken because of the quality of those levels of LIA and the limited access to rent allowance. This situation has not changed significantly since then.

The poor condition of many LIA rooms is recognised and significant efforts are being made to correct the situation. On May 11, 2004, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence announced Project Single LEAP (Living Environment and Accommodation Precinct). Single LEAP aims to deliver a quality total living environment for ADF members who are required to live-in. The government has approved funding of $113.2m over four years to provide new or renovated LIA rooms for those required to live-in on a permanent basis.

TOP

Here's a serve

AS SOMEONE who is privileged to wear the Soldiers' Medallion, I was surprised to see your publication of the 2004 list of awards refer to the recipients as servants (Army, December 16). The award was introduced to recognise outstanding service by those soldiers who would not normally gain recognition in the Australian Honours System. The term servant, according to The Macquarie Concise Dictionary, is defined as "someone employed in domestic duties" or "someone in the service of another".

Eligibility for the medallion is restricted to soldiers of the rank of corporal and below who have given exemplary service well above that expected of soldiers in the performance of their duties and who have not been recognised by another award.

Arguably, none of the 2004 recipients received the award for their finesse in wielding a feather duster or dexterity in mopping the floor. And, acknowledging that all ADF members are "in the service of another", I don't believe that too many would refer to themselves as servants.

Before anyone starts to split hairs about being public servants, unlike the non-uniformed members, uniformed members of the ADF are required to take an oath or affirmation upon enlistment or appointment. Kudos for recognising the 2004 medallion recipients, but don't detract from their exemplary service.

Maj A. Carroll-Keays
SO2 Tpt
(CSS BOS) FDG

Editor's note: The words "Well done, good and faithful servants" are used in a Biblical parable. As the parable is about exemplary service, the headline writer thought the words were fitting and no offence was intended.

TOP

Incentive needed

MY LETTER relates to a signal from Army HQ - "Delays in applications for removals being submitted" dated 080422Z November 04.

This message calls for members to quickly return their Applications for Removals (AFR), in order that DHA and Toll can ensure removal arrangements are provided in a timely manner. The signal also states that the submission of an AFR is a trigger for listing properties on Homefind and providing a larger selection of houses.

Wouldn't this be nice, to have a large number of houses available. It has been my experience in the past that this is not the case. Perhaps an incentive-based initiative, legitimately giving early submissions a wider selection of MQs is the answer. I know I'd appreciate being rewarded.

Capt B.M.R. Edwards
RSO

TOP

Life is so inequitable

PRAISE be to WO2 Tony Mackay and his efforts to combat the display of inappropriate images wherever he may find them (Army, December 16). I, too, am something of a crusader in the equity campaigns.

I was recently outraged to discover a television network had displayed images of traditionally dressed Papuan tribesmen wearing their kotekas, or penis gourds. Their buttocks were clearly displayed, too.

I immediately telephoned the network. "This is an affront to decency!" I cried. "I demand you televise me in a costume such as these tribesmen!"

The receptionist wasn't particularly helpful (she'd obviously not done any equity training), so I was forced into a situation where my wife had to videotape me, in our backyard, wearing a koteka. I belted out a cultural number after some traditional Tooheys Olds to complete this televisual feast. The offending network will receive the tape, along with my letter detailing their responsibilities.

I was likewise offended by the sight of a woman's breast on prime time news; she was undergoing a mammogram.

"Why don't they show the breasts of females who aren't undergoing mammograms?" I demanded of my wife. "This is discriminatory."

The receptionist at this network wasn't very helpful either. Why, her response to my request for a broader range of situations involving the display of breasts bordered on hostile!

It is not an easy road we travel, we Knights of the Order of Equity, but if we don't defend political correctness, then who will?

Sgt Matthew Johns
7 Sig Regt

TOP

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 and 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; 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 line when sending from a DRN terminal)

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