Quicklinks
to Letters
Remuneration
agitation
Balance sought on pay issues
We need armoured engineer vehicles
Crash survivor’s gratitude
New view of old kit
WRITE
TO US
Remuneration
agitation
COULD someone
please tell me why members who live in married quarters should receive
a better remuneration package than members who live in their own home?
I refer to the CEVAM model (http://aurora.cbr.defence.gov.au/cypmain.htm)
offered on the Defweb, in which members can enter all relevant information
pertaining to themselves and their job and the model presents a figure
that represents the financial value of being employed in the ADF compared
to civvie street.
As a corporal on pay group five living in the Brisbane region, I can
own my own home and receive $66325 in remuneration from Defence or choose
to live in a married quarter and receive $75178 in remuneration. How
can this be justified?
Would it not be fairer to offer an amount to members and they can then
choose to put it toward rent assistance or into their home mortgage.
The Defence Force is struggling to retain members as it is, and yet
improving their financial standing is a higher goal for personnel as
they move into family life.
The whole DFRDB superannuation scheme has been abolished (much to everyone’s
disgust), and so, it is now up to members to set themselves up for life
after service, but how can this be achieved if the ADF disadvantages
members for trying to secure themselves for retirement?
Cpl Kent Mikelsons
1JSU
Gallipoli Barracks
Adrian Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, replies:
Cpl Mikelsons asks a number of questions about the Comparative Employment
Value Adjustable Model (CEVAM) and the comparative results it generates
for members who live in service residences and members who live in their
own home.
CEVAM has now been developed into a web-based tool that is known as
Compare Your Package (CYP).
There are limitations to the extent to which CYP can be used when comparing
remuneration packages.
The first limitation is that CYP is designed solely to help ADF members
to broadly compare their remuneration package with that which may be
available to them in employment outside of the ADF.
CYP is not designed to provide a detailed comparison of differences
in conditions of service within the ADF. For example, CYP does not provide
a detailed comparison of the different conditions of service packages
that may apply to members on different deployments. The different financial
conditions of service regarding deployments produce different net remuneration
levels among various members of the ADF.
The second limitation is that CYP can only prepare an assessment of
an ADF member’s remuneration package based on predictable entitlements
and deductions.
Assistance provided to members choosing to own their own home is variable
and can include:
-
A subsidy on the interest on a housing loan provided under the Defence
HomeOwner Assistance Scheme (DHOS).
-
A taxable grant to help with the first time a member buys a house
when in service with the ADF.
-
Reimbursement of costs associated with buying or selling a home subject
to meeting certain criteria.
The
financial help available to members who choose to own their own home
is not captured by CYP. Therefore, a completely accurate comparison
of a member’s remuneration package cannot be produced in this situation.
CYP is valuable for helping members to broadly compare their conditions
of service package with that available in other employment. It cannot,
however, precisely calculate every condition of service variable of
a member’s package.
Members should be aware of the limitations of CPY and seek qualified
advice when making financial decisions rather than relying solely on
the information provided by CYP.
With regard to Cpl Micklesons comments on the closure of the DFRDB Scheme,
the Director of Military Superannuation has advised that in 1990, a
review into the scheme found that it no longer met Service objectives
or provided the right incentives for career Defence personnel. At that
time Government concluded that the DFRDB Scheme was “no longer
appropriate for the majority of the members of the ADF.” The 2002
Nunn Review into ADF Remuneration concluded that existing MSBS arrangements
“provide suitable and generous benefits to ADF members upon retirement
– benefits that are substantially above the community norm.”
Members requiring general advice concerning their superannuation scheme
are encouraged to contact ComSuper on 13 23 66.
TOP
Balance
sought on pay issues
I
HAVE been waiting for my pay group three pay to be added to my pay and
have been waiting for the last two years.
The pay system is something that I am having problems understanding and
I hope that it can be simplified so that we all can understand how it
works.
The issue that I am trying to bring up is that of when a soldier owes
the Army money for a mistake – in my case I was not paying rent for
a married quarters that I was in for three months, which was the fault
of DHA.
I was made to pay back the whole amount, which I am doing, and was expected
to do it straight away.
But in the case where a soldier is owed money – in my case my pay
group three which I have been waiting for, for two years – there
seems to be no urgency to pay the money that is owed to us and when we
do finally get backpaid for the mistakes of the Defence Force we are expected
to pay tax on money that is rightfully ours.
So the way I see it we are being punished for a mistake that was not our
fault. I think that this is a problem and I know that I am not the only
one in this position. I think that the pay system needs to be addressed
and looked at to make large improvements in the way that it is run and
organised.
Pte Michael Welsh
CTC OPFOR
Lavarack Barracks
Col Mike Milford, Director of Personnel - Army, replies:
I have looked into Pte Welsh’s concerns and have ensured they have
been fixed. There are some points raised in the letter that I would like
to address.
Firstly, Army is required by law to recover debts to the Commonwealth
as soon as they are identified. That is not something the Army has any
choice in, and we seek to do what is required in a consistent and reasonable
fashion. The same applies for the application of taxation and is beyond
our control.
Improvements to the pay and admin systems are ongoing and PMKeyS Payroll
is due for implementation in 2007, which will see the pay process flow
automatically as part of PMKeyS.
In addition, the Manual of Army Employment (MAE) and Employment Category
Standing Orders (ECSO) have been placed on the Defence web to enable soldiers
to check when their increments and promotions may be due (http://intranet.defence.gov.au/armyweb/Sites/DGPERSA
– go to Publications and orders and select either MAE or ECSO). While
not every soldier has the ability to access a computer, web-based information
can be accessed through your unit orderly room, your local Defence Library
or Regional Training Centre.
Significant work has been conducted over the last year to simplify trade
structures and ensure all soldiers are being administered correctly, and
soldiers’ support is critical to ensuring this is achieved.
Irrespective of the specific problem a soldier encounters in relation
to his or her administration, the solution is the same. First and foremost,
use your chain of command to raise your concerns, with the vast majority
of issues able to be addressed at unit level.
TOP
We
need armoured engineer vehicles
AS
a tactics instructor, I was surprised to read Brig Kelly’s comments
(Army, June 30) about the lack of requirement for specialist armoured
engineer equipment within the complex warfighting environment.
Mines, booby traps, improvised explosive devices (IED) and unexploded
ordnance have been present in nearly every conflict over the last century.
The requirement for such a vehicle should not be in question.
Recent images of mines denying routes on Highway 8 near Baghdad Airport
and disrupting key infrastructure in Afghanistan continue to highlight
the importance of specialist armoured engineer vehicles.
CA intends to develop an Army that is capable of complex warfighting,
using combined arms effects at the small team level to generate capability
for close combat in complex terrain.
The armoured engineer vehicle serves as a work room, bunker, power tool
and fighting platform for the combat engineer as part of this combined
arms team. Armoured engineer vehicles provide battlefield flexibility
and protection. They can be rapidly converted from a mine-clearing vehicle
into a dozer, assist in the reduction of obstacles or be used to support
detection and neutralisation of IEDs.
Sappers must be able to clear routes through heavily defended fire zones,
giving other members of the combined arms team freedom of manoeuvre. Expecting
dismounted sappers to clear obstacles or routes subject to enemy interdiction
in close combat without protected mobility, firepower and situational
awareness is exposing our commanders to high levels of operational risk
and, more importantly, our soldiers to undue physical risk.
Maj J.N. Carey
Combat Command Wing
School of Armour
Col Freeman, A/DGFLW, replies:
IT APPEARS that Maj Carey has selectively read Brig Kelly’s reply.
Brig Kelly quite clearly stated that: “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.”
Some of this experimentation has already occurred and more will occur
as time progresses. Army has never stated that there is a lack of requirement
for specialist armoured engineer equipment in the combined arms close
combat environment. Army is not willing to be drawn into a process of
impulse purchasing of armoured engineer equipment. Army is committed to
the Army Experimental Framework, the Future Land Operational Concept -
Complex Warfighting, lessons learned from operations and close collaboration
with our allies collectively informing our force development initiatives
and priorities. The requirement and justification for any future armoured
engineering capability will be determined and prioritised in this fashion.
Army has in the past introduced interim specialised engineer vehicles
such as the South African Chubby as a part of the Rapid Route and Area
Mine Neutralisation System. This capability was introduced into service
for Timor-Leste. Fortunately the requirement for that capability never
eventuated. An upgraded Chubby is currently in service in Afghanistan
with US forces.
It is important to realise that equipment will not be introduced without
a requirement. As a result of our SF experience in Afghanistan, the need
for a Protected Hazard Reduction Capability was realised and this project
(Land 144) is likely to deliver an Armoured Dozer with a Mine Rake System.
Land 144 will also deliver improved handheld mine detection systems and
an explosive line clearance charge system.
Engineers have a vital role to play in the complex warfighting environment
and will be provided with equipment that experimentation and close study
of experiences of our allies indicates is most appropriate given our ability
to afford and support such equipment.
My advice to you is to continue to generate discussion and participate
in the experimentation process. This will ensure that the capabilities
you and your corps deem essential are clearly articulated, as are the
risks associated with failing to procure and maintain those capabilities.
TOP
Crash
survivor’s gratitude
I AM one
of the two survivors from the Sea King Shark 02 crash on Nias Island
on April 2.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude
and thanks to all personnel in the Defence Force for their support and
assistance after the accident.
Throughout this trying time there is one thing that has stood out and
that is how all three services can work together to achieve a common
goal. From the CDF to the lowest rank in each service, I have experience
nothing but professionalism and sincerity from all involved.
Even though we lost nine of our mates in the accident, and no words
can express that loss, I can honestly say that I could not be more proud
of them and the fact that we were a part of such a professional organisation.
Although we sling-off each other with banter for being in different
branches of the services, when it comes down to it, the response from
everyone involved proves that in the end we are all one, wearing the
same uniform.
After experiencing this professionalism and unity first hand, I would
like to say how proud and grateful I am to work beside you all and on
behalf of myself and family I would like to say a heartfelt thank you
for all the support we have received.
LAC Scott Nichols
2ATHS
RAAF Base Williamtown
TOP
New
view of old kit
IT WAS
with interest that I read the article on the Off-Axis Viewing Device
(Army, July 14).
I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who recognised the similarities
between the newly issued device being used by our troops in Iraq and
the ingenious old periscope rifle used at Gallipoli.
My congratulations goes to the DSTO project team that got this elementary
bongo into service. I’m sure our Anzac forefathers would be having
a laugh at the evolution of the original bit of kit and would be impressed
with the fact that the scientific re-invention of this trench warfare
life-saver has found a very relevant place in modern urban warfare.
I’m sure the lads on the ground in Iraq would agree.
Capt Sharryn Parker
DOPS-A
Russell Offices
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)
|
