Letters to the Editor

All-corps patrols don’t qualify infantry
Naughty dog taken down
Corps loyalties
Old scheme’s loss

HOW TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED

All-corps patrols don’t qualify infantry

I WOULD like to correct a few misconceptions I have noticed creeping in to some letters in relation to the all-corp responsibilty of patrolling.
Because you patrol an AO on operations does not mean you are doing the same work as an infantryman, although I have seen this suggested on the letters page (Maj Scheidl, Army February 23).

All-corp patrolling as part of counter insurgency operations has been a tactic employed since the time of the ancient Romans when supply columns provided their own security while moving through occupied parts of the empire. This is why patrolling is part of all-corp promotion courses (Sub 1). The tactics, techniques and procedures taught on these courses are nothing like those on an infantry Sub 2 for example, and nor should they be.

I wish they were, because I would really have liked to sleep on a stretcher in a shed at Canungra as the field phase of my Sub 2 for Sergeant instead of in a pit at Singleton in winter.

When you can walk 15 to 20km through close country with marching order heavy, occupy a company FUP and co-ordinate fire support for, and conduct a company night attack you can start claiming to do the same job as infantry.

Because these types of higher-level operations are not occuring does not mean that all and sundry can claim to conduct them, any more than I can claim to be an expert on cavarly operations because I have had heaps of rides in LAV 25s.

That is why Infantry units carry out tasks like Op Slipper and Secdet, which suit their skill sets and work in conjunction with specialists from other corps and vice versa.

There is enough mission creep in the Army without us inventing new roles for ourselves.

I would like to close by offering my professional admiration to all those non arms-corps soldiers who make operations possible.
Sgt Freddy Warren
2 Cdo Coy
Fort Gellibrand.

TOP

Naughty dog taken down

• I HAVE just read the March 9 “Say again, over” and am disappointed with the winning entry.
  Despite the disclaimer that views in Army newspaper are not necessarily those of Defence or Army, Army does provide a lead to values and culture.
  
  On first reading, the winning entry appeared amusing, more for its transposition of action, than anything else.
  However, in the current environment of equity and harassment, I am concerned that an editor allowed a caption that appears to condone the sort of activities that Defence is trying to stamp out.
  Call me pedantic but, I believe the goal of eliminating harassment can only be achieved if there is alignment in values.
  Other than that, Army newspaper is a very good read.
  
  Sqn-Ldr S. Foster
  RCLO
  Sydney
  Editor’s response – I too recognised the immediate humour in the winning entry and chose to publish it on its merits. However, I accepted your crossover-with-Army-values argument and as such have taken steps to ensure the canine in question is appropriately counselled.
  

TOP

Corps loyalties

BEING an Infantry Operations Clerk (ECN 055), I received a “Christmas present” stating that we are now to become RAAOC.
I joined the Army in 1988 and have resigned several times. During my 15 years’ combined service there has always been the threat of infantry clerks and storemen being moved to RAAOC, which is now going to occur.
Little or no detail was released in the December 15 signal announcing the decision, other than it is going to happen and that, “CA has directed DGPers-A develop a detailed transition plan by June 2006. The plan will ensure that soldiers are given a range of options, will not be financially disadvantaged or forced to change corps”.
I am now fully qualified for sergeant, but I have a bad feeling from previous experience (Arty and Sigs changeover) that I will be put to the bottom of the pile for promotion with RAAOC and further delay any prospect of promotion.
How do we expect to maintain our soldier base with the further culling of members’ conditions of service?
Obviously more information is going to flow, and more briefings and details will follow and, I may be leaping head first before decisions and plans are made, but why are we revolving back to the old service corps from 20 to 30 years ago?
I’m not against RAAOC as they have their place, but I joined the Infantry Corps and changed over to the clerical trade because I enjoy the work and enjoy the comradeship and spirit within the corps. I’m an infantryman at heart and strongly wish to stay one.
I’m sorry CA, but I can’t see anything good about this change. Plenty will say it will bring more postings, more promotions, but I don’t see the benefits of destroying our entitlements and careers.
Cpl Nick Jago
16RWAR
Irwin Barracks

Lt-Col David McKerral, Director Personnel Capability-Army, responds:
FIRSTLY, you do not have to corps transfer to RAAOC. As you point out, the signal stated that no soldier would be “forced to change corps”. If you want to transfer back to being a rifleman, you may apply. You may also remain an infantry clerk.
The December 15 signal gave the intent and the details will be provided when a robust, equitable and well-researched plan is compiled. As you have correctly noted, more information will be provided. The first draft has been produced and is currently being reviewed.
I would suggest that before you decide on your course of action, you should read the Manual of Army Employment (MAE) and Employment Category Standing Orders (ECSO) for your current trade and then read the RAAOC clerical trade MAEs and ECSOs. Compare the trade structures, posting opportunities and TIR requirements. That will help you to make an informed decision.
If you have time, please take the opportunity to talk with some of your RAAOC counterparts and you will find that they are able to point out potential benefits. You may find that no corps has a monopoly on mateship and espirt de corps.
Should you elect to transfer to RAAOC, you would be able to continue with the work that you enjoy, and by requesting postings to infantry battalions, you can maintain a close connection with infantry. You would also have the opportunity to compete for postings in locations where there are no infantry battalions.
Secondly, I am concerned that you do not have faith in the transparent PAC process that is applied at SCMA. If you are unsure of how that occurs, please discuss it with your Career Manager at your next meeting. You will compete for promotion on merit. Being fully qualified and being competitive for promotion is not the same thing.
In relation to your concern about culling of conditions of service – there has been no discussion of changes to conditions of service and none are being targeted.
Army is not creating a service corps, but is rationalising a trade and trying to provide capability which the structurally unsustainable infantry trades could not adequately meet.
This move by Army is focused on ensuring that a vital capability is well manned and well managed. It will not destroy your career and certainly does not destroy your entitlements.

TOP

 

Old scheme’s loss

• I WRITE in response to the answer given to Cpl Kent Mikelsons letter of July 28 from The Director Housing and Removals Policy.
  
  In his letter, Cpl Mikelsons states, “The whole DFRDB scheme has been abolished (much to everyone’s disgust)”. In his reply, Adrian Wellspring makes reference to the Military Superannuation Review conducted in 1990.
  I think it is high time that people making reference to these changes and the subsequent advent of the MSBS scheme told the whole truth.
  
  The main change requested by the contributors up to that time was that members who did not serve to the magical 20-year mark, be given back their contributions and “some interest”, as some of these contributors had been paying compulsory contributions for 15 years.
  
  The review panel just took it many steps further to introduce the MSBS scheme and to get rid of the unfunded DFRDB scheme, which was the real aim. At the time, it seemed suitable to have an unfunded politicians’ superannuation scheme, but to have one for military personnel was not. It was just one step in the Government’s plan to reduce its unfunded superannuation liability. To continually suggest it was changed because, “It no longer met service objectives or provided the right incentives for career Defence personnel”, is nonsense.
  It is a done deal now and cannot be turned back, but if you are someone making reference to it, at least tell the whole truth.
  WO1 John Still
  TTSS-NT
  Robertson Barracks
  
  Heather Gill, Acting Director Military Superannuation Policy, responds:
  WO1 Still’s letter raises the issue of the reason for the closure of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefit (DFRDB) Scheme in 1991.
  In May 1989 the Government announced that a full review of the DFRDB Scheme would be carried out. Sir
  
  William Cole chaired the external-to-Defence review board and the terms of reference were:
  
• the suitability of the DFRDB Scheme (and the 3 per cent productivity benefit) for the employer (the Commonwealth), the ADF and members of the Defence Force;
  
• recommend changes to the DFRDB Scheme or, if applicable, creation of a new scheme and a final form of application of the 3 per cent benefit; and
  
• the feasibility of providing serving members with the option of transferring to any new scheme.
  
  The review board was also required to comply with the Government’s decision that all public sector superannuation and retirement benefit schemes must comply with the Occupational Superannuation Standards (OSS) which at that time regulated all superannuation schemes.
  
  Service representatives and organisations made representation to the review board on many issues of the DFRDB Scheme including the lack of investment return on contributions for those members that left the scheme with less than 20 years service. The review board acknowledged their concerns and considered them all in reaching its final recommendation.
  
  The review board determined that any proposal to overcome the obvious deficiencies in the DFRDB Scheme would have involved substantial additional cost without the possibility of any offsetting savings. This would have been contrary to the terms of reference and to the Government’s requirement that any new scheme not be more expensive than the DFRDB Scheme in budgetary terms.
  
  The review board concluded that it was not possible to build a superannuation scheme on the foundations of the 1973 DFRDB Scheme that would serve the needs of both the ADF and its members into the future. Therefore, a totally new scheme, the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme, which has an unfunded employer component and a member contribution component, was proposed and agreed.
  

TOP

 

HOW TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED

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