Letters to the Editor

Give us a reason to stay
Property wrangle
Legacy thanks
Does ARA service count?

WRITE TO US

Give us a reason to stay

I WOULD like to know the reason for putting more houses in the Puckapunyal area when at least half the people do not wish to live in this location.

Giving people the option to either live in Seymour or Melbourne would increase the likelihood of people staying here longer.

Now we all now about the fuel prices and the distance Army regulations state, but maybe this should be changed to keep people serving longer.

Living in this area is so much more expensive than living in a big town, i.e. distance to decent shopping centres, electric bills doubled, phone bill doubled and a heating bill that wasn’t there before. This may seem like a whinge but these simple things may save recruiting money.

Also, maybe the ADF/Government could look at giving Frontline the ability to sell big-ticket items such as TVs or other large electrical items to military members tax free as an incentive to be in the forces.

Also, a tax-free card for life at the 20-year mark might help retention if you want people to serve longer, which saves money in other areas such as recruiting and training and people discharging because of undesired locations.
Everyone needs a reason for staying in and it needs to be competitive with not being in the ADF.

Cpl C.P. Sharrett
ASTO
Puckapunyal

Alan McClelland, Director Relocations and Housing, CSIG, responds:

I will respond to the comments about housing. By way of background, CSIG regularly meets with representatives from Service Headquarters to ensure Defence plans and DHA’s construction and purchasing arrangements are consistent with Navy, Army and Air Force needs.

At Puckapunyal DHA is currently building new housing to replace the old and substandard stock. The decision to provide this housing on-base was made after consultation between Army and CSIG. Provision of this housing at Seymour and Melbourne was considered but not accepted.

Advice to CSIG from Army, DHA and from our own staff was that Seymour is considered by members to be an unattractive location and Melbourne requires members to travel considerable distances to and from work.
Puckapunyal is considered by many members to be an undesirable posting location and Cpl Sharrett may be correct in his assessment of member satisfaction with the area. To many members, on-base housing is essential if they are posted to Puckapunyal. However, some members do choose to live in Melbourne as a lifestyle choice, making use of RA. Current arrangements appear to be a reasonable balance.

There are still quite a number of houses to be replaced at Puckapunyal and CSIG could adjust the current housing balance if requested by Army. However, once the houses are built flexibility is, of course, reduced..

TOP

Property wrangle

CPL Waddell’s letter “Home ownership impacts on assistance eligibility” (Army, October 20) and the ensuing response by Mr Wellspring has caused me to re-think my investment strategy.

First, I fully appreciate that subsidised housing is not an entitlement. For almost 20 years I believed it was but I am now educated to the facts. Subsidised housing is not an entitlement.

Having clarified that old chestnut, please allow me to indulge.

If I choose to purchase an investment property within my posting locality, and I elect not to avail myself of the benefits (?) of the Defence HomeOwner Scheme through HPAS, would I still be eligible for housing assistance in the form of a Married Quarter or Rental Allowance?

Further, if I purchased an investment property not within my current posting locality (obviously not receiving any assistance from Defence for the purchase) and was subsequently posted to that locality, what is my circumstance as far as housing assistance is concerned?

An example of this would be if I, being a Sydneysider now, purchased an investment property in Stafford (Brisbane suburbs, near Enoggera) and subsequently was posted to an Enoggera-based unit, would I be afforded housing assistance?

I would suggest your answer will still be no.

So now we find ourselves in a bind. No assistance for the purchase, no assistance through DHA in the new locality.

If Mr Wellspring, or anyone for that matter, can explain to me how this is “equitable” I would like to know. If I was to invest in shares Defence could not make me live in them. As that is the case, why then, if I choose to invest in property, am I discriminated against?

Capt Scott Golden
SOHQ
HMAS Kuttabul

IT was with disappointment but not surprise when I read Adrian Wellspring’s reply to Cpl Gary Waddell’s letter about the impact of investment property ownership upon assistance eligibility.

I say this about the reply because it is the same old rhetoric and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo that has been trotted out by our Canberra policy makers (and keepers) for many years when faced with trying to explain outdated policies to our junior financially astute officers and soldiers.

When is the system going to wake up to the fact that the soldiers, sailors and airmen of today’s ADF invest in bricks and mortar (as well as shares and bonds to make a balanced investment portfolio), often before marriage and children?

When is the system going to acknowledge that the financial habits of our members are different to that of our comrades in arms of 80-odd years ago when this legislation was first promulgated?

The spirit of the policy should be the driving factor here, and that is “financial assistance for housing should be available to all ADF personnel regardless of their investment choices.”

Come on Canberra, let’s recognise the difference between bricks and mortar as an investment choice and bricks and mortar as a housing choice.

Maj Craig Madden
Op Acolyte
Victoria Barracks

Adrian Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, responds:

I refer to letters from Cpl Waddell, Capt Golden and Maj Madden about how Defence’s home ownership policies can impact upon a member’s decision to purchase a house for investment purposes.

My reply of October 21 to Cpl Waddell answers the points raised by the members in terms of existing policy.

The idea that ownership of an investment property in the member’s posting location be disregarded for the purpose of determining eligibility to occupy a Service Residence or receiving Rent Allowance represents a fundamental shift in the basis upon which housing assistance would be provided.

My section, however, will examine the idea. I expect that it will take some time to assess all the implications.

A change in policy of this nature would require the approval of the Minister for Defence. Unless the Minister agrees to change existing policy, the policy regarding the eligibility of ADF members for housing assistance as published in the ADF Pay and Conditions Manual will continue to apply.

Members would be advised in a timely manner if there is to be any change in current policy.

TOP

Legacy thanks

I AM writing to publicly express my appreciation for the efforts of members of 1 Div who were actively involved in raising significant amounts of money for the 2005 Legacy Appeal.

I want to mention two units in particular – 1JSU, which raised almost $90,000 in one day in Brisbane, and 3RAR, which raised about $92,000 in Sydney.

Members from all brigades of 1 Div have raised in excess of $300,000 on Legacy Day alone through the efforts of soldiers “holding out their hand” and the public generously giving. The public continues to demonstrate its support for the Defence Force through its generous donations.

The recent death of WO2 Nary reminds us of Legacy’s wonderful work through support to those left behind when partners die as a result of service to their country, whether in training or on operations.

WO1 Stephen Ward
RSM 1 Div

TOP

Does ARA service count?

MY military career started off in the ARes. After 15 years in the ARA, I transferred back to the reserves in March.

I recently received a letter from APA-M stating it had conducted the 2005 PAC for ACSC(R). It stated, “The PAC determined that due to your lack of 2004 PAR coupled with your short period of reserve service, you are currently not as competitive as your peers.”

Now I don’t have a problem with the first point; I was on leave for most of 2004 and fully understand where they are coming from. However, I am perplexed by the last comment.

What has my “short period of reserve service” got to do with it? I didn’t realise there was an APA-enforced qualifying period for ex-ARA personnel. I’d certainly like to see the policy regarding this.

I was assured by my career manager a few weeks prior in a telecon that there is no bias when assessing ex-ARA personnel for competitiveness with fellow reservists. Does this mean that other ex-ARA personnel who have recently transferred will face the same bias? Do they ignore the (more extensive) ARA experience? I have spoken to another ex-ARA member (class mates at RMC and transferred at same time) who also received a similar letter – and he’d already been accepted into the ARA CSC prior to transferring.

I have sent a query to APA-M but have not received a reply as yet. Ironically, only last week I received a posting order for next year … as the Career Manager Logistics at APA-M!

Maj C. Bruhn
RTC
Victoria

Lt-Col H. L. Barnes, DDAPA-M, responds:

This year, APA-M conducted a formal PAC to identify nominations to DOCM-A for attendance at ACSC(R) in 2006. PAC consideration was IAW the management principles outlined in DI(A) PERS 47-2 Career Management of Australian Army Reserve Officers, and the following factors played a part:

• Comparative merit based on raw PAR score and WIRM across the region and within each corps.
  
• Completion of or progress on the appropriate suite of courses.
  
• Sufficient residual service after the anticipated completion date of the course.
  
• AIRN status.
  
• PAR recommendations.
  
• Experience – a mix of corps, staff and training postings at the current rank level.
  
• PAR word pictures.
  
• Unit, corps and regional priorities.

Most of these are similar to the considerations in the ARA PAC, albeit on a much smaller scale. However, the final factor listed above is a significant one for the Reserves. The reduced mobility of reserve service means that careful planning must occur to ensure that regions can “grow” officers with the right corps and regimental backgrounds to fulfil appointments at higher ranks – including Command appointments. This consideration was a major determining factor in the 2005 ACSC(R) SR PAC.

Paras 123-135 of DI(A) PERS 47-2 refer to management considerations/principles for officers transferring from the ARA to the Active Reserve. Particular attention should be paid to para 130 and para 135. Para 130 specifies that APA are to consider the demands placed on long-term serving members of the ARA upon transfer to the reserves and commencement of civilian employment. Many officers find the demands of their civilian job far greater than they anticipated and are not able to commit to reserve service in the initial stages of their transition. Para 135 refers to promotion considerations – and while attendance at ACSC is not a strict promotion, it is considered in the same vein. This para states that officers are not normally considered for promotion until they have received at least one PAR from their new CO (in their ARes unit). It is for these reasons, IAW extant policy, that the PAC briefly considered length of reserve service of former long-term serving members of the ARA.

I have addressed the authors specific concerns with him personally and would encourage other officers to voice any concerns directly to the Agency.

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