I WRITE
in response to Capt Brian Tuohy’s letter “Farewell, old Fred”
and the below average and sarcastic reply from Maj Justin Bayley (Army,
Oct 6).
To Capt
Tuohy – a good letter full of wit and humour and one that I also
concur with, having eaten ration packs for the past 30 years.
The Fred
was the first accidentally introduced multi-tool long before the Leatherman
was some brainiac’s bright idea.
Obviously the Logistic Manager/Senior Inspector Foodstuffs, ADF Catering
Fleet, has lost his sense of humour or can’t see the funny side
over the stacks of self-saucing puddings. My god, what next: caviar
and pate with water crackers? We can join our rat packs together and
have ourselves a dining-in night out in the field after night-time stand
down, hey?
Maj Bayley
talks about cost, and I’m sure that everybody in the Army is familiar
with costs in one way or another. You only have to look around the coffee
tables and waiting areas around Defence to see how money gets wasted;
how much does Army spend on different brochures, publications and magazines,
let alone probably a long list of other money drainers?
I acknowledge
that ration packs have come a long way and each one gets better and
better. Change is inevitable. Full points to the people who have achieved
this advance in bush culinary delights. Personally, I still liked the
old type: ham and egg, steak and egg, candy creamy fudge, corn beef
hash and my Fred. Whatever is in the pack I eat. Strewth, the mouth
is watering just reminiscing.
To Maj
Bayley: the good work your outfit has done over the years has been tarnished
by your sarcastic response.
To Capt Tuohy: mate, when you run out of Freds, look me up and I’ll
have a few spare in the draw for you. Next exercise I might get the
battalion to save them up and have them available for those who run
out.
Maj Gary Jiear
1 RAR
Lavarack Barracks
TOP
IT WAS
with dismay that I read the letter by Capt Tuohy regarding the removal
of the Fred from our ration packs.
While I
am disappointed with the decision, my dismay was further deepened by
the manner of Maj Bayley’s reply to the concerns expressed by a
member of the Defence Force. While Capt Tuohy’s letter may have
contained sarcasm, I believe Maj Bayley, as a senior officer, should
not have reciprocated the sarcasm in his reply.
For myself,
the Fred has always been a important tool in the field. As stated by
Capt Tuohy, it was used widely, including the opening of cans to, importantly,
the cleaning of weapons and other things limited by one’s own imagination
or needs.
From Maj
Bayley’s reply, it may appear that it has been some time since
he has spent an extended period of time in the field, especially with
the newer ration packs, and has not considered the potential negative
impact that these changes will have on soldiers in the field. My experience
with plastic spoons has been that they melt with the first brew you
make or break with the first portion of cheese you try to dig out.
In addition,
while I am unaware of which cans in the menu will be ring-pull, the
last time I attempted to heat a ring-pull can resulted in a mess whereby
the can was launched over a single-storey house!
The old
cans allowed meals to be cooked concurrently while carrying out other
tasks. Would the new ring-pull cans mean that meals will need to be
tended to and constantly stirred so that multi-tasking is not possible?
Will the introduction of the ring-pull can mean the end of simple and
safe field dinners, one of the few pleasures available to soldiers in
the field?
Maj Bayley
states in his reply that the Fred is a piece of equipment that has been
used for many decades. Maybe there is a reason for its prolonged use
and it reflects it utility, practicality and popularity among soldiers.
From the Major’s response, this change seems to be driven more
by dollars rather than the stated needs of soldiers. Is this an example
of fixing something because it is broken or because it is cheaper?
Pte Raymond Khoo
ADF School of Lang
RAAF Base Williams
TOP
Shock,
Fred has gone. On reading the letter I immediately went to the back
yard and buried my current Fred.
A few words
were said and tears glistened in my eyes, as Fred had been my faithful
companion for more than 30 years.
Fred is
gone and it is time to move on. With the extra space now available in
my webbing I have some choices to make as to what I should carry in
Fred’s place.
Perhaps
an extra ration of self raising pudding, or an extra helping of beef
jerky, or flavouring for the cheese.
As well,
I, and all of you, will need once again to become inventive. Can a ring
pull off the can be used as a screwdriver? Or as a fingernail cleaner,
or as a cleaning tool to scrape mud off our boots?
These thoughts
will vex me until I am given the chance to experiment. I can’t
wait: what exciting times we live in.
Of course
my wife will never again look at me with that same loving look on return
from the field – the crosses we bear for progress.
Seriously,
I applaud the efforts that are being made to improve our ration packs,
which have come a long way from the canned ham and eggs of yesteryear.
Maj
K.T. Cook
ALTC
Bandiana South
TOP
Lt-Col
Sean Ryan, DCOORD-Army, replies:
We certainly
welcome comments and debate about the state of ration packs and again
would encourage constructive and well argued suggestion and questions
be sent to CRP.Feedback@defence.gov.au.
The
removal of the Fred is not a solely money driven issue. The fact is
the Fred is redundant in the modern ration pack.
Modern
technology has meant that the Army can take advantage of more innovative
packaging solutions, such as the ring-pull cans, to give the soldier
in the field greater culinary delights and simpler preparation.
Hence
the Fred has become redundant and been replaced by better packaging
and a spoon.
The
use of new technology, such as boil-in-the-bag meals, means soldiers
can boil water for a brew and shave, and heat a meal while cleaning
their rifle. This is the ultimate in soldier multi-tasking.
So when
it is all said and done, the demise of the Fred is not just a dollars
driven thing. The Fred has become a redundant device in the modern ration
pack, much like Luncheon Meat Type C.
TOP
AFTER
reading “Renumeration agitation” (Letters, July 28), I felt
compelled to ask a few questions that I don’t think were covered.
Are members
that can’t qualify for HPSEA, HPAS or a subsidised loan because
they already own property being disadvantaged? They cannot qualify for
the mentioned entitlements but can disqualify the member from a housing
entitlement if they are posted to the locality in which they are owned.
This of
course is only if the home is deemed to be suitable. This process consists
of counting the bedrooms.
It is not
always a soldier’s choice to be posted. I wonder what my career
manager would say if I told him my reason for not wanting a posting
is because I own a rental property in a certain location?
There are
some pretty serious financial implications in being posted to a locality
where you own a rental property. In my current situation, being posted
from a location without an own home to a location where I have an investment
property will cost me about $250 a week. A fair amount in anyone’s
book.
It also
fails to take into consideration the type, location and state of repair
the house is in. Even if I can afford the extra $250 a week, I still
may have to spend to make the house habitable, though there is no writing
to take this into account. Or is the Army not only dictating the terms
of my leases, release clauses, but that I maintain my rental properties
to a Defence standard – the standard I would be entitled if I didn’t
own a property?
Does the
Army scrutinise share investors as well? Perhaps they should inform
members which companies have the right ethos for Army investors.
I just
can’t help feeling like I am lost somewhere between policy and
the reality of today’s lifestyle.
I am glad
my neighbour can invest his pay in holidays, a new car or smokes and
booze while retaining his housing entitlement. I am just not sure why
I am being disadvantaged for planning for my future.
It is likely
that I will sell the house and retain my entitlement – I can’t
afford not to. I guess I should start looking for a new car and planning
a holiday.
Cpl
Gary Waddell
171 Avn Sqn
Lavarack Barracks
TOP
Adrian
Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals-Policy, replies:
Cpl
Waddell raises a number of issues relating to the impact of home ownership
on his eligibility to Defence provided housing assistance that may otherwise
be available to him.
The
principle goal of Defence housing policy is to provide members with
housing assistance in response to the requirement to relocate frequently
in support of the on-going effective and efficient operation of the
ADF.
Defence
supports this goal through the provision of subsidised rent for housing
provided by DHA to members with dependants, rental allowance to members
with dependants where suitable housing is not available through DHA
and to members not required to live in, subsidised living in accommodation
charges, and a range of entitlements associated with removal and relocation
costs.
Defence
housing policy also recognises that members choosing to purchase and
occupy their own home incur costs as a result of the requirement to
relocate frequently. As Cpl Waddell has noted, this assistance is available
through the Defence HomeOwner Scheme, Home Purchase Assistance Scheme
for the first time an ADF member buys a house while in service and Home
Purchase and Sale Expense Allowance for costs incurred in the subsequent
purchase or sale of a home on relocation.
Subject
to the policy, it is available to members to choose which type of housing
assistance they will access and the decision will be based on their
personal circumstances as well the requirements arising from their service
in the ADF.
Similarly,
the decision to invest in housing is also a personal decision. Defence
expects that members will take into account the impact any decision
to invest in housing will have on their eligibility to housing assistance
in much the same way that they take into account various taxation, superannuation
and family assistance support laws when considering personal investment
strategies.
Defence
does not seek to unreasonably impact on members’ legitimate investment
plans. Rather it attempts to provide ADF members with assistance that
is equitable, available to members when it is required and in response
to the requirement to relocate frequently in support of an efficient
and effective Defence Force.
TOP
