Letters to the Editor

What’s the password?
Show some dress sense
Scheme’s a real bonus for some
Leste we forget
Seeking a sporting chance
Removal rule takes its toll

WRITE TO US

What’s the password?

CAPT Sharryn Parker’s article on passwords (Army, August 25) raised some good points but failed to mention the proliferation of password-protected online Defence resources.

I work an average desk job within DMO and I use no less than nine password-protected online Defence resources, only two of which are attributable to my DMO environment.

I don’t use any systems above restricted, so I’m sure the bulk of Army staff officers manage more passwords than this. These passwords are on top of 20-plus personal ones I have for email, banking, telephone, etc at home.

Each online resource supposedly requires a separate “strong” password. Some require this to be entered repeatedly during the day and most require routine password changes during the year.

If we are to truly protect each and every Defence online resource with an ever-changing strong p@5sWQrD, then the only way of remembering them is by either making (and trying to keep) them all the same, writing them down, or keeping them blindingly simple, none of which are favourable according to security mantra. All the policy or advice on strong/weak passwords amounts to naught if the masses can’t realistically follow the rules.

The number of online resources in Defence is growing. Defence needs to assess which ones actually need individual password protection (e.g. does Internet Explorer really need it?), and the type of password required (e.g. a strong, ever-changing password for each Defence network and perhaps a single non-changing one for all Defence resources accessed through these networks).

A single system, perhaps involving my supposedly bullet-proof Defence ID card matched with a fingerprint scan would provide the simplicity really required. If security policy writers believe all Defence staff are actually following policy for their 10-plus Defence passwords, they are misguided.

Maj Matt Shepley
Land Engineering Agency
Melbourne

TOP

Show some dress sense

HAVING seen a number of signals recently with respect to different dress requirements upon march-in for members being posted – which seems unnecessary as ASODs stipulate that dress 2E (polys general duty) is to be worn – I would suggest that putting as per ASOD Vol 1 Chap 3 para 3.9 (f) in the sigs would remove any doubt and ensure conformity (or even uniformity) across the board.

WO2 Walter Meurant
2FSB
Derwent Barracks

TOP

Scheme’s a real bonus for some

IN MY previous job as a staff officer on a brigade HQ, I became aware of the Employer Support Payment (ESP) Scheme, set up as a means of recognising the efforts of employers who release employees for reserve service.

This, in essence, sounds like a good way to reimburse employers for releasing members for reserve service while providing a financially-based assistance measure to offset the costs and possible losses associated with the absence of reservists on Defence service.

The basis for payment is that the member must parade for five consecutive days or more. This brings in to question members who are on full-time service (FTS). This was set up to employ reservists in a full-time capacity to satisfy the needs of the service. By the current writing, these members are also entitled to the ESP payments, and rightly so, if they fill a critical position for a short period that can not be filled by an ARA soldier.

The only problem with this line of thought is what about the soldier who has moved from unit to unit looking for a job to fill on FTS? Members who have completed two-four years or more fill these “critical” positions.

If a member can afford to fill these positions for a number of years then we must question why an employer would allow the member to be absent for such a period. If it was warranted to pay his employer (who in some cases is the actual member) then surely we must do this only for short periods, not for two-four year periods.

We must question the legality of this procedure when Defence is faced with cost cuts across the board. These members receive their normal fortnightly pay as well as an extra bonus made up of ESP payments. This in some cases can be as much as $800 extra a fortnight.

If this is one Army, as we are all led to believe, then why is it that an ARA soldier, who may run a small business, is not able to receive the same “bonus” as well?

Maj G. Lofthouse
JLC
RAAF Williams, Laverton

Doug Stedman, Director Employer Support Payment Scheme, replies:

The ADF Reserves Employer Support Payment (ESP) Scheme was established in June 2001 as one of the Government’s initiatives to enhance the contribution made by reservists to ADF capability.

The scheme provides a financially-based assistance measure to employers who release employees for reserve service. Payments are also available to self-employed reservists after they meet additional eligibility criteria and show they have a bona fide operating/trading business that has provided their principal source of income over a continuous period of at least six months.

Provision of these payments has provided real benefits to ADF capability by supporting reservists’ service on operational deployments, training exercises and courses, and in undertaking other Defence duties.

For example, recent deployments of ADF medical specialists to Iraq and other operational areas would have been much more difficult without employer support payments to help hospitals cope with the absence of their reservist doctors (or, in the case of the self-employed reserve medical specialists, to meet their ongoing civil practice costs).
In the case of both employers and self-employed reservists, the employer support payments can be used to hire replacement staff or to meet other costs.

If entitled, claimants receive payments aligned to average weekly earnings (as detailed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics). Currently, the payment rate is $991.20 per week. In certain cases, higher level payments may be made.
The scheme covers reserve service on training days and full-time service. To be eligible, service must be in periods of five or more consecutive days, after completion of an annual qualifying period.

These payments are legally authorised by a Defence Determination, drafted by the Attorney-General’s Department and signed by the Minister. They are certainly lawful.

Self-employed reservists must establish that they meet the eligibility criteria every three years (by proving that they still have a bona fide operating/trading business that has provided their principal source of income over a new continuous period of at least six months). This precludes reservists undertaking consecutive periods of full-time service that go beyond the three-year point.

I would add that no reservist has an entitlement to fill a position on full-time service – when this occurs, it is because of a need for the position to be filled and the member is supporting ADF capability by filling the position.

Maj Lofthouse has also queried why an ARA soldier, who may run a small business, is not able to receive such payments.

The ESP Scheme was established by the Government to enhance the contribution made by reservists to ADF capability. An essential element of the scheme is that reservists are released from their civil employment. ARA soldiers are not released from their civil employment to do their Defence service – they are employed as ADF members on a full-time basis and are required to be available for service 365 days per year (and are paid for each day of the year). In comparison, reservists are only paid for days worked and then return to their civil life.

While self-employed reserve members on full-time service are paid their military salary and allowances on the same basis as ARA members, they remain reservists and eventually return to their civil employment. If they dispose of their business or transfer to the ARA, their entitlement to employer support payments ceases. As mentioned earlier, it also ceases if they do not re-establish their eligibility every three years.

TOP

Leste we forget

I SERVED in East Timor for the second time with 6RAR last year and was just recently awarded the ASM with the East Timor clasp.

It is my understanding that a few years before my deployment in ’04, the country of East Timor had voted successfully for independence and renamed their new country Timor-Leste. I remember all the orders I ever received or gave never mentioned East Timor but only Timor-Leste.

Wouldn’t it be more fitting and more respectful to the Timorese people to award the clasp Timor-Leste?

Cpl Billing
Trade Trainee
Latchford Barracks

TOP

Seeking a sporting chance

CAN somebody please explain the following policy ref ADF Sport approval/participation to me.

DI(G) Pers 14-2 Annex I para 5 states “all members who seek approval to play sport in military or civilian rep teams are to have a medical assessment to check for pre-existing medical conditions. Members who have a medical restriction are not to participate in ADF sport or receive approval to participate in civilian club/competition sport.”

This means that only MEC1 persons should be considered for approval to play sport – this is the way that I and my unit RAP read this para.

My dilemma is that as someone who is categorised as MEC201(and can’t get an operation/upgrade) I will not get approval to play in a civilian comp (lawn bowls). This said, I can still be deployed on operations at any time, participate in unit exercises and training, attend courses and be promoted. In other words I have a full military career open to me.

Is this policy discriminatory to those classified MEC2? Does the para also apply to Thursday sporties?

As I am BFA run exempt/run own pace I know my limitations and can work within them, as I do for PT. Surely I can work within them for sport.

Sig S. Houldsworth
7 Sig Regt
Borneo Barracks

TOP

Removal rule takes its toll

IT IS with great joy upon reading Army (May 19) with reference to the two-page spread on the Your Attitude Survey results, that more incentive will be placed on delivering information about entitlements and initiatives.

But when doing so there must be a broader spread of information incorporating all aspects of some on the entitlements and initiatives.

For example, recently, upon deciding to purchase and build a new home (using HPAS), I only by chance discovered from DHA that from the time I take ownership of my new house (or settlement), I have only seven days to move from my married quarters to my new house before incurring the equivalent civilian rent on my married quarters.

There are up to seven stages to building a new home and all are at the mercy of weather and ever changing contractual obligations. I find it hard to understand why I have to deliver 28 days’ notice to DHA for removals purposes through Toll Transitions, which in turn eventually provides me with removal dates depending on contractor agreed removal dates.

This matter needs to be addressed to allow the same amount of time of notice required for removal to reflect that allowed to move from MQ to newly built residence. May I suggest that this info be forwarded with relevant documentation as a note with HPAS applications.

Sgt D. Kelly
25/49RQR
Enoggera Barracks

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, 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