Letters to the Editor

Leave well overdue

Disturbance settled

Call to bring back Frontline Pay Plan

HOW TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED

Leave well overdue

IT WAS pleasing to note the recent increase in paid maternity leave for uniformed members of the ADF from 12 to 14 weeks.

Unfortunately it took more than two years to reflect the change that occurred for APS members of the Department of Defence, on January 1, 2004.

To date I am not aware of equity being achieved in the area of parental leave, which provides paid leave for APS members for two weeks and for ADF members one week. These entitlements were also the same for both groups until January 1, 2004.

Why, when ADF and APS members of the Department achieve the same pay outcomes, based on productivity, does it take over two years (and still counting) to maintain equity in such basic entitlements?

Any suggestion that pay and conditions for ADF members are not linked is trite and does not reflect the reality from the soldiers’ point of view. Knowing what was on the agenda during workplace bargaining negotiations leading up to the APS agreement would have allowed DPE to put forward a case to the CDF to change the ADF entitlement concurrently with APS changes.

If it is justifiable for ADF members to get paid for 14 weeks maternity leave in 2006, why not on January 1, 2004, when their APS colleagues were awarded it? I am sure that all those ADF members who took maternity leave between January 2004 and January 2006 would also be interested to know, though I suspect most would be unaware that the APS conditions were different and only changed in 2004.
Lt-Col Nick Read
RHSU
Victoria Barracks, Brisbane

Bob Jones, Acting Assistant Director Domestic Conditions Policy, responds:
LT-COL Read asks about parental leave. While this response was being drafted, ADF parental leave increased from one week to two weeks. This came into effect on May 14.

Lt-Col Read also raises concerns about the relationship between ADF leave and Defence APS leave.

ADF members and Defence APS employees are on the same team. However, they contribute in different ways and their conditions of service work differently.

To provide some background, the ADF’s conditions of service package covers three main areas:
1. Military operations. These are unique to the ADF.

2. Recognition of the special nature of military service. Service allowance, family support and housing assistance are just three examples of this. The APS does not have these conditions.

3. Basic conditions of service common to the wider community. Pay, leave and relocations provisions fall into this area. However, just as in the wider community, specific provisions are not always the same. In some areas ADF members will have a higher entitlement and in some areas APS employees may be ahead.

In this third area, productivity-based pay outcomes are shared across the ADF and APS, but some other conditions are not.

ADF leave provisions are quite different from APS leave. Several types of ADF leave do not have an APS equivalent. Additional recreation leave for field, flying or seagoing service, and war service leave are like this.

ADF commanders can also approve extra recreation leave and short absence from duty.
APS employees only have a limited amount of sick leave; ADF members have no limit on the amount of leave available if they are injured or sick. These differences recognise the special nature of ADF service.

Over the past year Defence has been reviewing ADF leave provisions. Maternity and parental leave have been increased as part of this review. ADF members can also now take carer’s leave without losing compassionate leave.

Details of ADF leave provisions are available at http://intranet.defence.gov.au/pac and http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac – click the link to “Pacman V2” and look in Chapter 5, or use the Alpha Index to find a specific type of leave.

TOP

Disturbance settled

• AN “AGREEMENT” between DHA and CSIG contract managers allows DHA to both erode MWODs conditions of service and disregard the Pacman.
  
  According to the Pacman, MWODs on their seventh or subsequent removal are entitled to $880 in Disturbance Allowance (DA) and the associated transfer of vehicle registration and reconnection of telephone etc. However, DHA has determined that soldiers cannot be trusted and just in case they change their mind mid-relocation they will only be paid half of their DA entitlement and also withhold their telephone reconnection payment. Apparently this makes the whole process easier for DHA to administer? Examination of process recovery versus partial payment shows the partial payment process requires more administration and more documentation.
  
  The Pacman does not allow any scope for partial payment nor does it discuss the DHA throwaway comment in regards to occupation of residence. This “agreement” doesn’t seem to apply to MWDs even if they relocate without an address. After examining seven years of determinations affecting the Pacman and DA, no effort has been made to adjust the Pacman to support this so-called “agreement”.
  
  DHA does not inform members undergoing the removal that they have made part payment of members’ entitlements – it is definitely not included on the DHA travel itinerary.
  
  After a submission to Directorate of Entitlements (DE) to have that organisation direct DHA to adhere to the reference, I was told that DE could not direct DHA to adhere, even though the Pacman clearly shows DE as having the approval authority in regards to this allowance, even if this is delegated. Further submission has been made to DE and clarification has been sought from DPE.
  
  This issue is sufficient enough to make it a matter of record regardless of the outcomes as it affects a significant number of soldiers’ entitlements. MWODs should approach DHA and ensure that they are/have not been disadvantaged.
  
  How can either DHA or CSIG simply disregard the Pacman? Why hasn’t DHA, DE or CSIG attempted to have the Pacman amended to reflect this approach? Why won’t DE assert its authority and direct DHA to adhere to the Pacman? How many members have never sought the additional entitlement as they were unaware of the partial payment? Does DHA make the payment by default or must soldiers request payment?
  WO1 Terry Southall
  DJFHQ
  Gallipoli Barracks
  
  Bob Jones, Acting Assistant Director Domestic Conditions Policy, responds:
  WO1 Southall’s case shows how members can help with policy development. Pacman has been carefully drafted and checked, but occasionally there is a scenario or possible interpretation that we haven’t considered.
  DA compensates members for some of the costs involved in a Commonwealth removal to a new dwelling within Australia.
  
  For MWODs, the rate depends on whether the member is moving from living-out to living-out, living-in to living-in, or from one type of accommodation to the other.
  
  When an unaccompanied member below the rank of lieutenant colonel moves from living-out to living-out, he or she must use service accommodation for transit accommodation if it is available. DHA was interpreting the disturbance allowance policy to mean that when a member did this, the allowance should be paid in two instalments. First, when the member moved into living-in transit accommodation, DHA paid the living-out to living-in rate. Later, when the member found other accommodation and moved out, DHA paid the balance of the disturbance allowance rate for members moving from living-out to living-out.
  
  DHA were trying to avoid overpaying members. This would occur if a member who had initially intended to live-out at the new location subsequently decided to remain living-in. The member would then have to pay back some of the DA.
  WO1 Southall questioned this interpretation. As a result, the policy was reviewed and it was decided that DA should be paid at the higher rate in one instalment. Our thanks go to WO1 Southall for his help on this issue.
  
  The Pacman has since been amended to make this policy clear. Members who believe they have not been paid the appropriate rate of DA on removal should contact their unit administration cell.
  
  Defence welcomes feedback from members on the policy contained in the Pacman. If you have feedback, pass it through your chain of command.
  

TOP

Call to bring back Frontline Pay Plan

IT HAS come as a surprise to a lot of people to hear that the Frontline Pay Plan ceased as at May 31.
We hear this is due to the top brass wanting more food and beverages provided by Frontline (food and beverages are cheaper at a civilian supermarket than Frontline). A lot of Defence families, me included, use this system to buy products they need or replace broken items quickly if they do not have the cash to pay up front.
The Frontline Pay Plan has been around for a few years now and has provided a very good service to Defence personnel. Sure, the items may be a bit more expensive than from a civilian electrical store but the convenience of the payments coming out of your pay each fortnight outweighs the extra cost.
To me this seems to be another privilege Defence members had that has been taken away from us. If you want cheap food and beverages go to Coles. Let’s get the Pay Plan back; it was a good system that provided a great service to Defence members.
Cpl David Sterck
School of Armour
Puckapunyal

Lt-Col Phillip Moses, SO1 Corporate Services, DLog-A, responds:
FRONTLINE is a Commonwealth Authority within the Defence portfolio that provides amenities to Army and Air Force. Frontline has its own board that makes decisions independent of Army.
Pay Plan was a service available to members implemented by Frontline. For commercial reasons Frontline decided to discontinue the Pay Plan scheme on May 19.
While Frontline’s board is independent, Army and Air Force are engaged in ongoing discussions with Frontline to achieve the right mix of services for members into the future. These discussions are focused on the changing amenity requirements of Army.
Army members are reminded about the loan facility that exists through the AMFRTF.  It has two categories of loans:
Relief Loans: Loans are intended to assist applicants in solving financial problems without having to borrow money at high interest rates or depend on consumer credit.
General Loans: These higher level loans will be known as “General” Loans and will be available to all eligible members and those reservists on full time duty. A range of fixed amounts will be offered from $500 to $5000, repayable over predetermined terms.
More information is available on the Defence intranet at http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dpsa/amfrtf.htm.

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