Letters to the Editor

Pacman site a sore point
Medics miss out on SOA
2 Div marks 90th anniversary
Are we equipped for change?
Disgust at commission document

WRITE TO US

Pacman site a sore point

Pacman Defweb site

I WAS shocked and disgusted when I discovered that the Pacman on the Defweb has been rendered completely and utterly useless.

In an attempt to make the Pacman "digger-friendly", the people at DPE have in fact made it near impossible to navigate the document.

I was given the task of locating the writing for the entitlement of Private Proficient by my supervisor. After looking through numerous defence instructions, my search lead me to the Pacman.

Clicking the link, I was not prepared for what appeared on my screen. Gone was the familiar layout of the Pacman, listing each chapter and title.

What I saw were headings such as Your Pay and Allowances, Military Salary and Allowance Policy, and Your Working Environment.

After clicking a link at random I also found that many sub-headings (cunningly disguised as links to areas of the Pacman) lead absolutely nowhere.

As a clerk, I am supposed to be able to find information and provide advice to both the soldiers and my supervisors. And working at an APA there is a greater need to be able to find the required information which pertains to a soldiers career management.

How am I supposed to do my job when someone with nothing better to do in Canberra decides to make a Defence document (and I would like to stress that the Pacman should still be a document and not a web site in its own right) "digger-friendly"?

What is Defence coming to when the soldier who actually does the work cannot perform a simple task because someone else has to justify their employment by changing a resource that was perfectly fine in the first place?

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. And so is changing something simply because it keeps someone employed.

Pte Jason Kennedy
APA
Brisbane

Sue Parr, DGPECC, replies:

The new Pacman web site is meant to be "digger-friendly" for good reasons. Soldiers often had trouble finding out about their pay and conditions so the Pacman team asked ADF personnel of all levels what needed improving as a basis for improving online accessibility and navigation.

We also engaged an independent evaluator to find out how easy people found the old website to use - the answer was "not very'"

The main frame of the web site is designed for soldiers and families, who do not usually want to go straight to the Pacman. This part of the web site (which is not the Pacman) will be continually improved over time based on user feedback.

For people who need answers from the Pacman, the contents page is still there, in the same place it was before. Simply click the "Pacman" link in the left-hand frame. You can then find the chapter you need in the main screen.

To make things easier, the new Pacmate section has a complete alphabetical index (Part 2 of Pacmate). Click this link and, for example, look under "Private Proficient" and you get the exact reference straight away.

We plan to add more links to the index to make it even more useful in future. Ensuring the Pay and Conditions website meets our users' needs is a priority for DPE. Users are encouraged to access the "Contact us" page to send us any problems or suggestions.

TOP

Medics miss out on SOA

CAN someone explain why the medics at 4RAR don't receive the Specialists' Operational Allowance?

We support all SF tasks, patrol in the field and participate in all commando insertions as well as perform our own medical tasks in the field, yet we do not receive the support members' allowance of $5769 as do our medic counterparts in other SF units.

In comparison, the activities in which we participate with the commandos are no less dangerous, the hours we work are not fewer, the time that we spend away from our families is no less and the after-work hours we spend doing medical administration tends to be longer.

It does not appear to be simply a case of not being commando qualified. The signallers in the platoon from 126 Sig Sqn receive the support members' allowance and perform exactly the same support work as our medics at 4RAR, only with a different skill set. This has left medics scratching their heads (and even when medics are commando-qualified we still receive no extra pay).

No wonder our medical corps has trouble recruiting and retaining medics at SF units: the pay versus work commitments just doesn't add up.

I look forward to hearing the standard "this pay issue is currently under review" which seems to be the Army response when querying pay issues, with the real issues not being addressed.

As most of us do enjoy our daily work and strive to do our best, it is disappointing that our pay does not match our work commitment. The only incentive provided is to transfer to our counterpart units which receive fair pay for similar work commitments.

I hope that equality and fairness continue to be appreciated as corps values by both the Army and those who serve in it.

Cpl C Atkins
4RAR RAP
Holsworthy Barracks

Capt S.P. Golden, SO2 Pers SOHQ, replies:

I would like to address the issues raised by Cpl Atkins in relation to the payment of Specialist Operations Allowance (SOA). Unfortunately, I can not go into great detail as many aspects of the allowance are classified Restricted or higher. I am available to discuss these issues with Cpl Atkins, particularly the applicability to other SOCOMD units, should his chain-of-command not be fully conversant.

The payment of SOA is administered in accordance with Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT) Determination 19/2002 and amendments therein. Currently, there are 24 "items" under the banner of SOA, each with its own applicability to employment within SOCOMD. Allowances specific to 4RAR (Cdo) are covered under Part 1, Items 1-5.

The payment of Support Member Allowance (SMA) to members posted to 4RAR (Cdo) is restricted to non-commando qualified support staff who are in direct support of the Tactical Assault Group (East) - TAG(E). The allowance is paid to recognise that members in direct support of TAG(E) are required to be on a continual reduced notice to move and have restrictions imposed on them with regard to local leave boundaries. Support personnel posted to 4RAR (Cdo), but not to TAG(E), have no entitlement to SMA at this time.

The medics posted to TAG(E) are entitled to be paid under Item 4A of Part 1 of SOA. This allowance, currently $10 959 pa, is paid in recognition of the elements of SMA previously identified and a combination of contributing factors related to service in TAG(E).

Cpl Atkins articulates that the signallers posted to 126 Sig Sqn receive SMA. This is not quite correct as not all signallers in 126 Sig Sqn receive SMA. Again, only those posted to designated positions in support of TAG(E) are entitled to the allowance.

Signallers posted to 126 Sig Sqn who complete the Special Forces Communicators Course are entitled to the payment of Item 4, Part 1 of SOA, currently $7499 pa. This allowance recognises the unique nature of Special Forces communications systems and equipment.

All members of 4RAR (Cdo), regardless of corps or trade, who complete the requisite training to be a "Trainee Commando" are entitled to be paid under Item 2A of Part 1 of SOA. The training required is detailed in Pacman.

The DFRT review of SAFA and SOA is scheduled for mid to late 2006. SOCOMD is preparing this case and is some way down the track. The payment to "Support Members" is very high on the agenda and is fully supported by SOCAUST and DSOCAUST.

TOP

2 Div marks 90th anniversary

2 Division celebrates its 90th birthday on July 26.

To commemorate the occasion, CO 2 Div Maj-Gen Paul Irving will host a parade at Victoria Barracks, Sydney on July 30 at 2pm.

As well, a wreath-laying ceremony will be held at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Australian War Memorial on July 26 at 10am.

Anyone wishing to attend either of these events should contact Captain Michael Magyar on (02) 9349 0332 or Michael.Magyar1@defence.gov.au.

TOP

Are we equipped for change?

THE article "Lessons that our Anzacs taught us" in Army (May 21) made a good point about the importance of looking after your mates on Anzac Day.

At the same time, it claimed to show the safety lessons of Anzacs using the periscope and timed-firing devices.

Dare I suggest that anyone these days would be pilloried for modifying their weapon, or making unauthorised attachments to the trigger mechanism? By the time DMO had considered the user requirements, prepared a request for tender and had LEA carry out acceptance tests, those systems would have been brought into service just in time for the AMTG.

And don't even think about doing the hazard assessment on jam-tin bombs.

Capt Scott Davidson
5/6 RVR
Melbourne

Lt-Col N. Stanton, Secretary APEC, replies:

The author draws a pretty long bow here between the Army's proud tradition of looking after your mates and the illegal and unsafe practice of modifying weapons and/or ammunition. The main driver behind the implementation of the Army's Technical Regulatory Framework was to ensure that all our land materiel (including weapons and ammunition) is safe, fit for purpose and environmentally compliant. We are all to comply with the TRF, so this policy is looking after our mates on a grand scale.

I might add that the modifications made in the trenches of Gallipoli were driven from an urgent operational need generated by a new form of warfare. Considering the number of recorded incidents of hands, fingers and eyes lost by the throwers of jam-tin bombs, the technical support and acquisition structure we have today is a far better situation.

With respect to procurement, when driven by operational requirement, mission essential equipment can be rapidly developed and provided to the deployed forces. When the AMTG organisation was stood up and requests for different capabilities were submitted, DMO in conjunction with Defence Industry, did an outstanding job in equipping and supporting the requests. Over 30 unique items - rifle slings, radios, mossie domes, torches, Off-Axis Viewing Device (modern version of the periscope sight - see story), protective enhancements for A and B vehicles, enhanced combat body armour were just some of the items delivered in a very tight timeframe by DMO. However the point is that all appropriate checks, tests and risk assessments were conducted to ensure that the kit was safe, fit for purpose and environmentally compliant. This is looking after our mates and just as important, making sure the right tools are available at the sharp end.

Maj A. G. Duus, DDCOORD-A, also replies:

Before I got minutely involved on the far perimeter of the AMTG preparation, I too was as naive and cynical as Capt Davidson. I had spent all my time outside of Canberra, far from the world of AHQ, DMO and polyester uniforms. I, too, was as completely uninformed and unaware of the process of acquiring new equipment as Capt Davidson.

Now, after seeing the amount and variety of equipment asked for and rapidly procured by the ADF for the AMTG, I am a little bit wiser as to the world outside of my small sphere of influence. If you are at the sharp end and you ask for something you really need, you'll get it. And when you get it, it will be as safe as it can be given the operational requirement allows.

Disgust at commission document

I HAVE received the commission of one of the officers of my unit and I am disgusted at both the appearance of the document and the length of time that it has taken to arrive.

The officer concerned was commissioned in July 2002 under the Army SNCO and WO Scheme and he has had to wait until April 2005 to receive his commission document.

However, what really has prompted this letter is the uninspiring appearance of the actual commission document. It has the appearance of being churned out by a word processor and has a cheap and nasty look about it. It certainly bears no resemblance to the impressive looking commissions I have been looking at in a variety of offices over the last 30- odd years I have worked within the Army environment.

I am pleased that the warrant I received over 17 years ago looked a lot better that the document Army is giving its officers today. Does this mean that warrant officers are also now getting a similar cheaplooking piece of paper.

The commission is A4 size, in portrait format and printed in what appears to be "good old" Times New Roman font. The word "commission" is in what looks to be 12 or 14 point, in upper case and is lost in the general mess of the document.

This might seem a trivial matter, but I am sure most of the readers of Army would agree that an officer's commission is probably one of his or her most treasured possessions. I wonder what Army's newly commissioned officers might think when they compare what they have to hang on their wall compared to what they are likely to see hanging on their commanding officer's wall. Even the certificate given to those leaving the service is a more impressive document than the current commission.

Is this really the best we can do for our newest leaders?

Brian Manns
Deputy Head
Army History Unit

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)