Letters to the Editor

Children deserve the best care
Banking on home loan rate discount
How combined is arms approach?

WRITE TO US

Children deserve the best care

I WAS horrified to discover that I was not in fact reading the "Only joking" column when I read the article entitled "Child care as easy as ABC" (Army, May 5).

In particular I am deeply concerned by the statement from Janet Stodulka, Director General DCO that, "There will be no diminution of services to our families as a result of this new program - ABC Corporate Care is required to meet, at minimum, all existing regulatory, licensing and accreditation requirements." I should certainly hope so, however I resent the inference that the bare minimum standard by law is good enough for my daughter.

After recently becoming a father and considering the options available for my partner to return to work as an APS employee of the ADO, we are now looking at the possibility of her staying at home to look after our daughter after hearing negative reports about ABC Corporate Care.

I have no doubt that they were the lowest bidder when the contract was let as the reports I have heard about their cost-cutting measures paint a picture of a company that is aiming to achieve a profit by minimising costs.

I have been told that ABC hires most of its staff on a casual basis so that it is able to send staff home if they are in excess of the minimum required and will move staff between centres during the day to cover local peaks in attendance. Similarly, I have heard reports that the centres move basic equipment from one centre to another to cover unexpected numbers of babies or younger age children on particular day.

I have had numerous people comment that the staff present at the end of the day were rarely the same as those when a child was dropped off. The lack of continuity of care cannot be good for a child's welfare.

No doubt we Defence families will receive good service from ABC, but only until the initial contract review period is over. I am resigned to the fact that my equipment will always come from the lowest bidder, I cannot accept however, that the care given to my children must also.

I acknowledge that service-provided child-care is not a right, nor is it the sole option, however due to two-to three-year posting cycles and the restricted number of child care places available, not only to Defence but in the wider community, it can become the only means for Defence families to get child care.

Defence does have a number of retention issues, not least of which is the need for soldiers, sailors and airmen to choose between service to their country or their family. I have chosen the service life, and my partner has chosen to live it with me. Our child should not have to make sacrifices before she can speak.

Capt S. West
SME
Steele Barracks

Dr Le Neve Groves, CEO - Education, ABC Learning Centres, replies:

I would like to address issues raised in relation to the appointment of ABC Corporate Care to manage the Department of Defence's child care centres and to reassure Defence members that ABC has a history of, and is dedicated to, providing the highest quality of child care.

At ABC, we are not only committed to providing early learning opportunities for young children but also to participating and assisting the communities in which we operate.

Each ABC Learning Centre has a clear set of goals based on a philosophy established from a sound knowledge of early childhood education theories and practices, which is the basis of each classroom's program.

All our centres offer excellence in early childhood developmental programs, a warm and friendly environment, a variety of extracurricular activities and extensive play and developmental facilities. Families with school-aged children can also access Before and After School Care and Vacation Care programs at many of our centres.

Continuity of care is a primary objective and is managed within a program which accommodates each centre's hours of operation and availability of team members.

Our early childhood personnel are employed according to the relevant state and federal awards, and are dedicated to providing quality care and education.

ABC is proud of the fact that our early childhood professional retention rate is the best in the child care industry. While the industry generally has an attrition rate of 40 per cent, at ABC our annual rate is closer to 8 per cent. While we do have some casual personnel, ABC was one of the first companies to put personnel on full-time or permanent part-time status.

In addition to the required personnel child ratio, ABC also employs area managers who oversee a number of centres to ensure that the high standard of care, which ABC is known for, is maintained in all ABC Learning Centres.

All ABC Learning Centres operate within the State and Territories regulatory framework and the Commonwealth's National Childcare Accreditation system. Over and above these legislative requirements, ABC has its own national quality assurance program, the ABC Quality Assurance Certification, which is designed to enhance the quality of care provided to our children and their families. Each centre is assessed on at least a quarterly basis and training of personnel is ongoing.

Most importantly, at ABC Learning Centres our children are our first priority and we work closely with all our parents to ensure the needs of each child are not only met but enhanced to ensure each child reaches his/her full potential.

We look forward to working with Defence families to ensure that their children are given the best possible environments where they can feel happy and secure in a stimulating learning environment.

Defence families are encouraged to visit an ABC Centre to experience the supportive, learning environment we pride ourselves on providing our children and families.

TOP

Banking on home loan rate discount

I noticed in Army (June 2) that MilitarySuper has ended its financial arrangement with Member's Equity Bank that allowed members of DFRDB and MSBS to benefit from a discount to their standard variable home loan rate.

Currently the Member's Equity web site lists both DFRDB and MSBS as eligible super funds. My question is: does this decision mean that neither fund will be eligible in the future (as opposed to just MSBS) and, if this is the case, why are DFRDB members being penalised to achieve potentially higher returns for MSBS members?

Lt-Col James Evans
LHQ
Victoria Barracks

John McCullagh, General Manager MilitarySuper, replies:

In response to your inquiry I can say that several years ago MilitarySuper made a significant investment in Super Member Home Loans (now Members Equity Bank). As an ancillary benefit to that investment, members of MilitarySuper were offered access to a discounted home loan rate (ie standard rate less 0.25 per cent) which applied only to SMHL's variable loan rate. SMHL extended that offer to include members of the DFRDB Scheme, notwithstanding that DFRDB could make no similar investment.

As trustees of the MSB Fund the MSB Board has a primary responsibility to provide the best possible investment return on members' monies which comprise the MSB Fund. Where for any reason any investment consistently fails to meet its return objective then the board has a responsibility to review and if necessary terminate that investment in the interests of all MSB members.

Notwithstanding the termination of MilitarySuper's investment, members of the MSBS (and DFRDB) are still able to access competitive home loan products through Members Equity on their normal terms and conditions and of course existing clients of the bank are unaffected by the Fund's decision.

In response to your letter to the editor I should note that members of the DFRDB Scheme obtained access to the special discount rate on variable home loans only as a result of MilitarySuper's investment in SMHL. Therefore during the period of the investment DFRDB members have had access to a benefit which they would not otherwise have been able to access but for that investment by members of MSBS.

Like your inquirer, I note that both MSBS and DFRDB remain eligible super funds on Members Equity's website. It is for the bank to decide whether or when to remove one or both Schemes from that list of eligible funds.

TOP

How combined is arms approach?

Think over tanks: The Abrams tank is being introduced to meet the demands of combined arms close combat. At this stage, it is considered premature to invest in specialist engineering tanks.

WHEN procuring battlefield equipment, it would appear that we approach it in an ad hoc and corps-based rather than combined arms fashion.

The Leopard tank was procured with rollers and ploughs but no engineer variant, which is needed in order to address other battlefield mobility issues likely to be encountered.

The procurement of the Abrams tanks would appear to have been made with no rollers and ploughs and again no engineer variant.

There is a LAV engineer variant available that could address ASLAV battlefield mobility issues; however, that was not purchased and is likely not to have even been considered.

The only in-service mine-breaching equipment is the "non-armoured" handheld fibreglass hand prodder.

Is the procurement process linked to the overall battlefield effect required and is the announcement of the procurement of an Armoured Engineer Vehicle imminent, or is it an inability of the Engineer Corps to "sell" the need and so it's not even in the procurement plan cycle?

Capt D. Bergman
3CER
Lavarack Barracks

Brig J.D. Kelly, DGFLW, replies:

Capt Bergman raises a number of interesting points in his letter which questions whether Army is approaching procurement from a "combined arms" perspective.

Army defines combined arms teams as "a case-by-case mix of combat, combat support and combat service support elements configured in response to a specific combination of threat, task and terrain".

The mineploughs and rollers presently operated by 1 Armd Regt were procured through an Army minor project in the mid-1980s. Strategic guidance at that time directed Army to prepare for conventional conflict on the Australian mainland. The ploughs and rollers were obtained to provide a basis for the retention of skills in mechanical minefield breaching - an activity that was reasonably associated with that conflict environment.

Therefore the combined arms team of the time needed a mechanised breaching capability and was provided with the kernel of one that could be further developed within the strategic warning time laid down by government.

ASLAV was procured in response to the 1987 White Paper for operations in northern Australia. Although a nuisance mining threat was possible, mechanised breaching was not seen as necessary. The ASLAV-based combined arms team had no requirement for a specialist engineer variant and one was not sought.

More broadly, the array of combat engineering tasks in the DOA 87 environment would not have greatly benefited from a specialised combat engineer AFV.

M1A1 is being introduced to meet the demands of combined arms close combat in the complex warfighting environment. Detailed examination of the roles to be performed by combat engineers in this environment will take place within the Army Experimental Framework over the next couple of years and appropriate force development initiatives will flow from that work.

The most likely way forward for combat engineers is in assisting the operations of small modular combat teams in urban terrain. Investing in specialist engineering tanks at present would therefore be premature.

On face value, the need for the type of in-stride mechanised breaching capability provided by ploughs and rollers is not associated with the complex warfighting environment and therefore the retention of skills in this activity would seem to be a low priority.

TOP

WRITE TO US

Preference is given to letters of fewer than 300 words. Letters will be rejected if they are too long, abusive 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; or email: armynews@defencenews.gov.au (include Sec: Unclassified in the subject line)