Letters to the Editor

MQ water usage determination
Big Mac fans: user group needs you
Seeing red over cadet sash
Safety action draws fire
Extend salary sacrifice choice
Lavarack power issue resolved

WRITE TO US

MQ water usage determination

INTERESTING to see complaints re water charges from an RA tenant (Army, April 7).

As Mr Wellspring points out, Defence charges an averaged fee to all MQ tenants, this is administratively easier (read "cost saving") and tenants in private rental (in receipt of RA or not) are legally responsible for their individual usage.

All in accordance with relevant state rental legislation and quite a reasonable assertion, given the private nature of RA rentals.

What he failed to address was that, until Defence Determination 25/2003, the possibility existed that the averaged charging for MQ tenants may have been unlawful, as some state legislation required that tenants on separately metered properties could only be charged (legally) for the volume of water they used.

Interesting given that members may often be charged more in water fees than the cost of water they actually consume each year (drought, water restrictions, small families all having an impact on usage).

When I raised this in letters to Army in 2002/03, I was informed of the abovementioned Defence determination. This determination was made under the Defence Act - a Commonwealth Act -which allows for Commonwealth legislation to override inconsistencies in state legislation (such as state tenancy/rental acts).

Mr Wellspring never did advise the effective date of Defence Determination 25/2003, nor did he advise if retrospectivity had been included in the determination. Possibly interesting points to note, given that the averaged water charging predates 2003 by several years.

Sgt Darryl King
School of Sigs
Simpson Barracks

Adrian Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, replies:

I replied to Sgt King's various concerns about the water contribution charge in September 2003.

In his most recent letter, Sgt King suggests that the water contribution charge may have been unlawful prior to 2003 because the Defence Determination I cited in my reply of September 2003 had that year in its title.

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 was, at that time, the latest of a number of Determinations made under section 58B of the Defence Act which continued to give legal effect to the requirement that members make a contribution for water usage and the rate of that contribution.

There was no need for Defence Determination 2003/25 to create a law in 2003 that took effect in the past so that the Defence action in receiving a water contribution from members before 2003 was legal.

The lawful authority to levy the contribution had been put in place by a previous determination nearly 20 years ago.

TOP

Big Mac fans: user group needs you

COME on Mac users - you know who you are and I know there are a lot of you out there. I'm establishing a users group for ADF members who prefer to use Apple Macintosh computers. Nothing flash at this stage - perhaps an email newsletter and then a web bulletin board.

A forum to share experience, insights, advice and frustrations. Please contact me via narnold@bigpond.net.au for more information.

Sgt Nick Arnold
1 Cdo Regt
Randwick Barracks

TOP

Seeing red over cadet sash

I AM a cadet warrant officer serving at 226 ACU, as CSM.

I believe that it is not the right of cadets to wear the red sash at Anzac day commemorations. I believe that this honour should be reserved only for those eligible within the ADF and not cadets. This is because of the history behind the sash.

I do not see how a soldier should have to work so hard to achieve that honour when a cadet can so easily brandish the sash.

I understand, on Anzac Day, that it is a cadet's job to represent the military and its traditions. However, the red sash, holding such importance, should not be so easily worn by those undeserving.

WO2 Joel Zugai (AAC),
226 ACU
Normanhurst

Brig N.G. Miller, Comd AAC, replies:

The wearing of the scarlet sash by certain members of the AAC is authorised by the Commander AAC through the AAC Policy Manual 2004. Cadet Sgt, Cadet SSgt and Cadet WO2 are authorised to wear the sash on ceremonial occasions only. Anzac commemoration services are such occasions.

The scarlet sash has been worn by Army Cadets since before Federation in 1901. Cadet WO2 Zugai should feel proud of the fact that he deserves to wear the scarlet sash for two reasons. Firstly, because he has completed the training for the rank of Cadet WO2 and been appointed to the prestigious position of CSM of 226 ACU. Secondly, because he is able to continue the tradition of Army Cadets wearing this item of uniform as has been done for over 100 years.

TOP

Safety action draws fire

Blast: What can happen if soldiers don't check webbing and magazines for ball ammunition before firing.

IT WAS with great bewilderment that I read a recently released signal from AHQ prohibiting the use of nonissue webbing for range practices, and exercises involving live or blank ammunition due to the danger of ammunition contamination.

On face value this timely response by AHQ appears to have addressed the issue of the poor Safety Officer trying to clear "Pte Baldrick's" webbing with a multitude of pouches.

Of course I, as with many other RAINF soldiers, have been issued with chest webbing with a multitude of pouches, which by design allows the individual to move pouches to suit the user's preference.

Perhaps we should stop blaming the system and start expecting our soldier to take on the responsibility of their rank and appointment and start doing their job. I have never had trouble spending the extra 20 seconds to clear the chest webbing of a soldier.

Operational experience has proven the value of chest webbing, in fact Edition 1119 of Army has a fine article on 2RAR Recon PL training, "What webbing are they wearing and why". Train for war, men, but don't train in the equipment you will wear in war.

WO2 Gus Logue
Senior Range Instructor
Robertson Barracks

Lt-Col David Harris, Deputy Director Occupational Health and Safety, replies:

I would like to thank WO2 Gus Logue for the opportunity to explain the series of events that led to the issue of the Safety Safety Safety signal on May 12 and its subsequent modification and reissue on May 13. For those not familiar with the details, a formal Comcare investigation into a ball/blank contamination incident concluded that a soldier had both ball and blank ammunition in a magazine as a result of an inadequate range clearance and the use of non-issue webbing.

A live round was retained in the nonissue chest webbing after a live shoot and was subsequently reloaded when the soldier next inserted a magazine containing blank ammunition into the chest webbing. Army's SATO investigators found that, given the same circumstance, the round fed into the magazine two out of three times - the webbing in question is not issued by the Army and in our opinion raises the likelihood of ammunition contamination and other safety incidents.

In response to the Comcare recommendations the DOHS-A staff issued the signal to which WO2 Logue took issue. Similar concerns to WO2 Logue's were raised by other AHQ staff and the offending paragraphs were withdrawn and Range Safety Officers were reminded of their range clearance responsibilities under M-L-W 292.

The Left Field View: If a soldier modifies his or her car and does not inform the insurance company's head office, the insurance company can discount, to varying degrees, its responsibility for any accident associated with the vehicles nonauthorised modifications. So where does the soldier with non-issue webbing stand if the webbing contributes to an OHS incident? Where do the soldier's supervisors stand in relation to their responsibilities to the soldier? Where do those supervisors stand in relation to their responsibilities to the CA if they have condoned the use of such webbing and not factored that into their risk assessment for the activity?

As a result of this issue I would advise all Range Safety Appointees to now factor this risk into their risk assessment and subsequent risk management strategies.

As a side issue, we have checked the RODUM data base and found only four RODUM raised on webbing pouches between August 1988 and May 18, 2005.

TOP

Extend salary sacrifice choice

I THINK it is great that the Army now allows members to salary sacrifice for items such as cars. Well done to the people responsible.

However, I was wondering if those responsible for these decisions would consider adding extra items to that list. As the Army has increasing environmental commitments added by both legislation and public pressure, I believe that we should offer Army members a range of choice.

For those personnel that may choose to use public transport, for example, I believe that they should be offered the choice to purchase in bulk public transport passes to allow them to also take advantage of the benefits of salary sacrificing.

Currently, I believe it is slightly unfair and not in the spirit of the salary sacrifice arrangements to limit a member's choice to one mode of transport.

Perhaps bicycles, motorbikes and other modes should also be considered. This would also improve the Army's environmental image and let the organisation be seen as one that encourages its personnel to make sustainable decisions.

Capt Dennis Maddock
RAEME
Melbourne

Rod Guthrey, Directorate of Workplace Relations, replies:

Defence offers salary sacrificing to members as a legitimate way of buying certain items out of pre-tax dollars. Members must pay any Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) applying to such purchases.

Defence offers items that attract no FBT (such as a notebook computer) or reduced FBT such as a car). When full FBT applies, it is generally not cost effective to salary sacrifice.

Items such as bus fares, bicycles, mortgage payments, school fees and so on attract the full rate of FBT. Motorbikes, and commercial vehicles that can carry more than 1 tonne or nine passengers, also attract the full rate of FBT. Salary sacrificing any of these items would result in the member paying 48.5 per cent FBT, plus SmartSalary's fees.

The Defence-approved list of items that can be bought under salary sacrificing arrangements is available from SmartSalary.

Members are strongly encouraged to get financial advice before entering into a salary sacrifice arrangement. These fees are able to be salary sacrificed.

For more information call SmartSalary on 1800 632 496 or check their web site, www.smartsalary.com.au (log-in using Employer Code A100).

TOP

ELavarack power issue resolved

Clean start: Pte Caris O'Dea uses the laundry facilities at Lavarack Barracks following the decision to restore power to the washing machines and dryers during the day. Photo by Cpl Shane Gidall

IN A letter to the editor in the May 19 edition, a soldier raised the issue of power cuts to living-in accommodation laundries within Lavarack Barracks between 0900 and 1600 daily.

Defence has considered and continues to consider a range of energy savings measures to accord with the Defence Energy Efficiency Program. The switching off of power to LIA laundries between 0900 and 1600 on weekdays was one of these initiatives.

Defence has recently reviewed the energy savings measures within Lavarack Barracks. A significant outcome of this review was the recommendation that the power to washing machines and dryers remain connected at all times. This recommendation has been adopted with effect from June 1.

Defence remains committed to the Defence Energy Efficiency Program and encourages all members to contribute ideas and practical ways to conserve energy. Such ideas and the efforts of Defence and its members have improved capability, amenity and reduced waste.

Lt-Col Sean Ryan
DCOORD-A
AHQ

TOP

WRITE TO US

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 by 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-037, Russell Offices, Canberra, ACT 2600; fax (02) 6265 6690 or email: armynews@defencenews.gov. au (note this is not an internal email 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.