Quicklinks
to Letters
Call
for RLLT break
Imperfect system
Seeking a better deal over fuel
Praise for refreshing reply
Happy with standards at ABC
Op Gold service deserves ASM
WRITE
TO US
Call
for RLLT break
FOR soldiers
with families in the Northern Territory, who as a condition of service
are able to use the RLLT system to take a welcome break each year to
head south, why is it now that if you want to fly to another capital
city, that you have to pay up front and then get reimbursed?
I know from personnel experience that members with large families simply
cannot afford to pay anywhere up to $4000-$5000 up front for plane fares
in the peak season. I have been told by the orderly room that this is
a new way to get RLLT and supposed to curb fraud.
This is just making it so much harder for Defence families to take a
break once a year.
Those families who elect to receive RLLT also feel the sting through
fringe benefits by having to up their income estimates to Centrelink
and the single soldier who takes RLLT is not affected by fringe benefits,
all because we receive Part A & B for having a family.
My questions are: who made this decision to change the way we receive
RLLT, what was the justification and why does the dollar amount vary,
being at its lowest amount during the peak leave period in December?.
Cpl J.Belgrave
1 CSSB
Darwin
TOP
Imperfect
system
THINKING of a posting to Darwin: beware, RLLT may not be what you envisage.
RLLT is one condition of service that has a big bearing on a member’s
decision to take a posting to Darwin.
You can say that the service’s needs override that of the individual
and a member will be posted to Darwin anyway: ever wonder why we have
manning shortfalls and retention issues?
The new and improved version of Pacman (and that really depends on what
side of the fence you sit and is a totally different matter) seeks to
clarify this emotive issue and the policy makers are doing their best
to see the system gets the benefits and not the member.
The following example is one of a thousand variants but highlights the
inflexibility of the system.
Being posted to Darwin normally means you are a long way from your extended
family. A grandparent of your spouse dies and as a family of one income
and two children you can’t afford the $1000 to fly your spouse to
Melbourne to the funeral: no worries, use your RLLT entitlement.
Then come your Christmas leave you want to drive to Melbourne for your
holidays. Seems simple enough, however, your spouse cannot drive with
you as they have used their RLLT entitlement and are not allowed by the
system to freeload a lift in your vehicle – that is classed as fraud
as they have already travelled using the RLLT entitlement.
Your spouse could always fly down and meet you there at your cost. Hang
on, the financial situation has not changed and you still can’t afford
an airfare.
Outcome: your spouse stays at home while you have a holiday.
You could always fly your kids south to stay with relatives and take a
boys’ week away at some stage to use your entitlement, just don’t
envisage a family holiday unless you have the cash in the bank to back
it up.
As a family with one income and receiving Centrelink payments expect them
to be less as the value of your RLLT is rounded up and added to your assessable
income for the year as FBT. Also, if you make child support payments you
will be paying more: can you still afford to take a holiday?
There was a proposal to change the RLLT entitlement to a cash payment
on anniversary of entitlement the same as the Public Service. Two of the
three services said yes, no prizes for guessing which service said no.
RLLT is a very complex entitlement that now leans in favour of the system
and not the member due to current determinations. You have been warned.
WO2 Nick Gould
1 Armd Regt
Robertson Barracks
Gp-Capt John Price, Director of Service Conditions, replies:
RLLT is a very flexible entitlement, but it does serve specific purposes.
It provides travel for members and dependants to take a break from the
climate and isolation, and access the facilities of a major city.
The standard way to do this is to fly to the nearest capital city (or
Adelaide, for Northern Territory-based members). This is why you can book
door-to-door travel through your unit or administrative centre without
paying a cent.
If you book through your unit more than 30 days before your travel, on
the Defence Qantas contract you can get a “30 Day Advance Purchase
Concession” ticket to almost any Qantas destination rather than just
the nearest capital city.
This ticket can cost up to the amount of the return RLLT fare to your
nearest capital city. You can potentially go a lot further, and since
your door-to-door travel is arranged through your unit, you pay nothing.
You may choose to use RLLT to travel by buying a package holiday. If you
do this, you are responsible for the costs in the first instance.
The financial rules in Defence’s Chief Executive Instructions determine
how you can be reimbursed. If you are buying a package, you can get money
back by presenting your receipts for money you have already spent. You
cannot be “reimbursed” money you have not spent.
The RLLT rates are set in March each year based on Defence’s Qantas
contract airfares.
The entitlement is no lower over Christmas than at any other time. You
should consider the cost of travel to your planned holiday destination
before you book your trip. You will not get more money than the cost of
travel to the designated nearest capital city or your holiday destination
if this is cheaper.
The flexibility is there but you must weigh up the consequences before
using RLLT for something other than travel to your nearest capital city.
Federal tax laws mean that RLLT is subject to Fringe Benefits Tax. Defence
pays this for you, but the grossed-up value of RLLT has to be included
on your Payment Summary. This can affect Centrelink benefits and child
support payments.
TOP
Seeking
a better deal over fuel
WITH
the posting cycle quickly approaching I was wondering whether the vehicle
travelling allowance would be reviewed in line with the recent dramatic
increase in the cost of vehicle travel, specifically the cost of fuel.
As most Defence personnel are aware, fuel prices have increased to unbelievable
amounts: where this time last year you were paying less than 75c a litre
at the pump, this year you are paying in some places of the country up
to $1.20 a litre.
At the moment I believe that the current allowance rate, as set out in
Pacman Vol 2 Chapter 9, Part 6, is set at either 52c a kilometre for a
vehicle with less than 1600cc to the maximum of 63c a kilometre for a
vehicle of 2600cc or over.
What the Pacman doesn’t tell you is when the allowance was last reviewed
and whether it will be reviewed before the next posting cycle is complete.
I wonder if the allowance is not reviewed if Defence will accept a claim
for additional expenses?
For personnel to move a short distance this amount shouldn’t be a
factor of discontent, but for personnel who have to move a long distance
the amount might be quite considerable.
I do appreciate that Defence has a budget to stick to but it is hoped
this will not stop the review of an allowance that will sooner or later
affect all of us.
WO2 Wayne Jellatt
ALTC
Gaza Ridge Barracks
Gp-Capt John Price, Director of Service Conditions, replies:
Defence updates vehicle allowance rates each year in line with advice
received from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR).
The rates were last changed in February 2005.
DEWR calculates these rates to take into account the full range of costs
associated with running a motor vehicle. These include registration, insurance,
maintenance, repairs, and depreciation – and petrol costs. In fact,
petrol costs account for a fairly small proportion of the total allowance.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the 12 months to
March 2005, the cost of fuel rose by an average 9 per cent. In that time,
the overall cost of running a motor vehicle only increased by 3 per cent.
This shows that the cost increase at the petrol station doesn’t have
the expected impact on the total cost of running a motor vehicle.
Vehicle allowance will next be updated in February 2006, taking into account
the changing cost of running a motor vehicle – including petrol prices.
TOP
Praise
for refreshing reply
I WOULD
like to make comment on the reply by Col Gallasch, CO SCMA, to the letter
from Cpl Jorna in the letters section in the August 11 edition.
Ma’am, your response was well researched, informative, relevant
and had empathy for the soldier.
For what it is worth, I thought it most refreshing.
For officers in positions of policy that respond to Army letters, please
take note.
WO1 Stephen Ellis
SME
Steele Barracks
TOP
Happy
with standards at ABC
RE Capt
West’s letter on ABC childcare (Army, June 30), I can assure Defence
parents that the ABC childcare centre that my two-year-old attends is
a very well run, clean, friendly, and stimulating facility that my wife
and I are very happy with.
In fact, we removed our child from a privately run child-care centre
only minutes from home and were lucky enough to place him in an ABC
centre a short drive from my work.
Why? The centre we removed my son from had dirty and half-chewed toys,
poor facilities and was not overly stimulating.
ABC, due to its large structure and buying power, are able to provide
the best toys and learning equipment, and the staff are trained by ABC.
I have noticed that they tend to be young, enthusiastic, happy, caring,
well trained and very attached to the children they care for.
Importantly, the number of additional places that will be provided to
Defence families by ABC means that your child might actually get a spot
somewhere. And to top it off, if you can get a place at an ABC centre
that is classified as a “Defence Corporate” centre (a high
population of Defence families) then you will be able to salary sacrifice
your child-care fees.
I fully understand Capt West’s reservations (I thought the same)
but suggest he go and pay an unannounced visit to an ABC centre and
see for himself.
Leigh Stevenson
TTC (SQ)
Gallipoli Barracks
TOP
Op
Gold service deserves ASM
I READ
with interest the response to the letter (Army, May 19) concerning service
in ANARE detachments, in particular the description concerning when
the ASM may be awarded.
The criteria where it may be awarded included: “Casualties could
occur but are not expected. The types of operations may include peacekeeping
and hazardous activities above and beyond normal peacetime duty such
as mine avoidance and clearance, weapons inspections and destruction
and Defence Aid to the Civil Power.”
If we reflect back on Defence’s support to the Sydney Olympics
it had all these criteria except for a declaration from the Governor-General.
At the time Defence spent many millions to bring the latest search and
IED disposal methods into Australia. For the first time to my knowledge
we used shortened methods to purchase the latest technology so it would
be available. It was the first time the Prime Minister became concerned
about CBR threats to Australia. We brought the first CBR capability
into the country.
There was a real chance that some terrorist activities may have occurred
at the Games. This operation, which involved thousands of Defence members,
was support to the civil power and there was some chance that casualties
could occur, yet none were awarded an ASM.
Why so? Was it because our focus was on Interfet? Was it because the
majority of the members involved were reservists? Like many, I felt
insulted when at the end of a year away from work and six months spent
away from home I was given a medallion.
We helped to make the Games “the best ever” and arguably the
safest of modern times, yet were given lip service to the many sacrifices
made. Most worked around the clock carrying out the multitude of thankless
tasks.
Less than one year after the Games the world witnessed the tragedy of
September 11, which arguably could have happened here as well. Imagine
if a 747 had crashed into any of the icons of Sydney?
Many reservists gave up their civilian jobs to support Defence at this
very busy operational period. If they had not done so, would Defence
have coped? I would be interested to know why this operational service
was ignored.
Lt-Col R.K. Williamson
APA-B
Victoria Barracks
Irene Wilson, Director Honours and Awards, replies:
In the lead-up to Operation Gold, consideration was given to recognising
members who took part in the operation.
However, as it was not a prescribed warlike or non-warlike operation,
there was no basis on which to award the Australian Service Medal. A
commemorative medallion was awarded instead.
This decision is consistent with the strong tradition and principles
underpinning the Australian system of honours and awards that are longstanding
and have been protected by a number of successive governments.
These principles are that medals remain reserved for recognition of
gallantry in operations, distinguished or long and effective service,
and service in specific military warlike or non-warlike operations.
Peacetime activities such as Operation Gold do not meet these criteria.
TOP
|
