Quicklinks
to Letters
Volume 11, No. 46, June 29, 2006
Tripped up by unit’s policy on travelling
Grappling with unarmed combat
Swipe at meal deal
Termites’ LIA tucker
Looking for the perfect move
Too many
conditions
sacrificed
Give ARA members more incentive
HOW
TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED
Tripped up by unit’s policy on travelling
AFTER 22 years in the regular Army and now a further four as a reservist I thought I had heard it all.
I recently attended a promotion course in Sydney and decided to drive my own vehicle to the course. I made this decision as I was aware of the unit policy of granting four travel days for members to drive both ways.
As a serving civilian police officer I am more that aware of the dangers of fatigue when driving so I stopped overnight both ways.
Upon my return and after three months of trying to get paid I was informed that I would be paid equal to the cheapest way of getting people to Sydney. The result: I was paid one day. This was for travel from Brisbane to Sydney and return.
This, I was informed, was now the unit policy. The unit continues to grant four days’ travel to ARA members travelling to Sydney on courses. Looks like there are two policies. Can someone please explain this further?
Sgt Brian Johnson
1 Topo Svy Sqn
Enogerra
Bob Jones, Acting Assistant Director Domestic Conditions Policy, responds:
I WILL not comment on SGT Johnson’s particular case. However, this is a good opportunity to look at some of the rules for duty travel and hopefully clear up any confusion.
When members travel on temporary duty, they have several entitlements. These are found in the ADF Pacman.
The normal means of travel (also called the “most economical means”) is detailed in Pacman Ch 9 Pt 1. For a Brisbane member travelling to Sydney on temporary duty, it is by air.
A member’s CO may approve travel by another means, taking into account the interests of the ADF and the member. The member’s safety is obviously an important factor in this decision.
If a member is approved to travel by private car, he/she does not get any additional travelling time. This means a member on continuous full-time service has to take recreation leave for the excess travelling time (if it is on a working day). A member on reserve service does not get salary for the excess travelling time.
As an example, say a member has to travel from Brisbane to Sydney, to start a course on a Wednesday. The travelling time by air would be one day only – the Tuesday. If he/she chose to drive, leaving on Monday, the extra day is excess travelling time. A member on reserve service would get paid for the Tuesday, but not for the Monday. Similarly, a member on continuous full-time service would have to take recreation leave on the Monday. Pacman Ch 9 Pt 6 Clause 9.6.11.2 is the reference for this.
There is such a thing as travelling leave but it cannot be granted for travel on temporary duty. See Pacman Ch 5 Pt 7 Clause 5.7.16.
If a member is approved to travel by private vehicle, the member will also be entitled to vehicle allowance and payment of travel costs – up to a limit. The limit is detailed in Pacman Ch 9 Pt 6 Clause 9.6.27.
Members who believe they have not received the correct entitlements should try to resolve the issue informally, through their chain of command. If this is unsuccessful, they may seek a formal review under the redress of grievance process.
Members can access Pacman online by clicking the Pacman V2 link at http://intranet.defence.gov.au/pac or http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac
TOP
Grappling with unarmed combat
- I AM quietly expectant at the prospect of a hardened and networked Army, however I have some concerns about the MUC (MSD) aspect of hardening the Army.
As an enthusiast of martial arts I know from much experience that unarmed or open-hand fighting is something that, like weapons-handling skills, requires a regular and committed training regime to even achieve a basic level of understanding and proficiency.
I understand that the CA is very interested in incorporating some unarmed combat training in the Army as a direct result of having seen the US Marines undergoing unarmed combat training. I applaud the CA and the Comd TC-A for trying to address this great anomaly within Defence and the Army.
In almost 25 years of service I have seen many attempts to take up this issue fail, with myriad excuses ranging from “the soldiers may take it on the streets and injure civilians” to “Australian soldiers are physically tough, we’ll teach them self defence just before they get deployed” to “well the SF guys are the only ones who really need it”.
To me it has been and still is a real travesty that we teach our soldiers to be experts in their personal weapons, but do not teach them a basic and fundamental soldier skill such as MSD or unarmed combat skills.
The Americans’ experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Pakistanis in Somalia should have told us straight away that whatever peacekeeping or warlike conflict we become involved in, there may be a time and a place to employ close-quarter fighting skills. As has happened in those deployments, the logistic and support soldiers are most often the ones targeted by militant groups or enemy forces.
You might say that CA and Comd TC-A have said we are going to train our people in these techniques, so what’s the problem?
First, as a Project Manager at Doctrine Wing, LWDC, I know that there is at present no substantial doctrine for this area of training and it will take at least 12 months to develop and write a suitable publication to deal with training. By the time we are ready to actually start training our people it’s quite likely that the CA and the Comd TC-A will have both moved on. Will their successors place the same priority on this training?
Second, the training bill to incorporate this training into our already full military training schedule would be considerable in time, effort and money. Third, will this training be given to all officers and enlisted men or only to front line troops or logistic and support staff? Will the training be given right from recruit training at Kapooka? How often should training be conducted? An examination of some of our Asia-Pacific neighbours will show they train daily or weekly. MSD or any martial training needs to be conducted at least twice a week.
Whatever training is taught at basic training, corps schools and unit level must be based on an appropriate combat art. The selection of this art must be done the same as we would do any selection of a new weapon system or a maintenance contract – tender for an appropriate combat training system, award it to the most suitable system and implement and adopt it with gusto and enthusiasm.
Finally, whatever system is adopted, there must be a component of philosophy attached that passes on to our soldiers the understanding, the knowledge and the conscience to know that this training is special and that the control and self-discipline of the teaching is paramount.
Maj Micheal Renfrey
LWDC
Puckapunyal
Maj-Gen Neil Wilson, Comd TC-A, responds:
MAJ Renfrey clearly has a good understanding of Military Unarmed Combat (MUC) and Military Self-Defence (MSD) matters and responding to the pertinent issues he raises also provides the opportunity for a more general update on the subject.
Army has already started down the path of incorporating MSD into training. As of July, members on the 2/06 Basic PTI Course will be trained to be MSD supervisors and, in time, instructors. A MUC Cell of seven, headed by a major, has been established under the direction of ALTC and individuals will be posted into these positions from January 2007.
Equipment will also be purchased later this year and held in the major base locations at Darwin (Robertson), Townsville (Lavarack), Brisbane (Gallipoli), Sydney (Holsworthy), Canberra (RMC) and HMAS Cerberus (ADF PTIS). Additionally, from January 2007, MSD will become part of the RMC PT program so that graduates will be trained as MSD exponents.
Army’s MSD plan already addresses many of Maj Renfrey’s points. The MUC Cell will develop TMP (based on the current MSD course that utilises techniques from several styles of martial arts), contribute to doctrine development and provide “fly-away” teams to assist with MSD training in units. In a relatively short time, the combination of trained PTIs, RMC graduates, fly-away teams and regional pools of equipment will increase units’ capacity to conduct MSD courses and continuation training. At this stage, it is not intended that recruits receive MSD training due to existing training program pressures and other issues related to physical fitness.
MSD will be increasingly available to all Army personnel as the capacity to conduct the training grows in the coming years. At the same time, however, and as is the case now, anybody with an interest and the support of their commanders, will have the opportunity to advance within the MSD continuum.
To become an MSD instructor, personnel are first required to complete the exponent course before completing the supervisor course. An MSD supervisor is then required to maintain a competency logbook to gain sufficient experience supervising training under the observation and guidance of an MSD instructor.
While currently you can be granted instructor status based on demonstrated ability and experience, as assessed by experienced instructors, finalising the Training Management Package and determining competencies for MSD instructors is a priority task for the MUC Cell from January 2007.
Maj Renfrey’s point about the philosophy associated with martial arts training is acknowledged as fundamental and, as such, Army’s MSD will be founded on the principles of self-discipline, compassion, determination and courage. These attributes remain absolutely critical for the Australian soldier of the 21st Century and were an important part of the reason for the CA’s decision to develop an MSD capability in Army in the first place.
TOP
Swipe at meal deal
I AM a live-in member at Keswick Barracks and usually eat at the ORs mess.
Recently I went there for dinner and was told that I am no longer permitted to swipe my ID card for a meal to be deducted from my pay unless I am on duty.
From now on I am to pay cash for my meals. As I did not have cash on me at the time, I missed out on dinner and breakfast the following morning.
I was recently on course at Bonegilla where I swiped my ID card daily for three meals. I have also done this at previous messes throughout Australia.
According to the contractor at Keswick, they have the right to refuse a soldier a meal. The idea of the swipe card system was so that soldiers could get a meal anytime and anywhere within Australia and have that meal deducted from his/her income.
Why is this not possible at Keswick? Are there any other members at other units experiencing the same problem as I am?
Pte Richard Rodway
KBMC
Keswick Barracks
Brig Elizabeth Cosson, DGRB, responds:
I APPRECIATE this feedback from Pte Rodway and would like to assure all members that CSIG is currently developing a national solution to meet the concept suggested in his letter that “soldiers can get a meal anytime and anywhere within Australia and have that meal deducted from his/her income”.
This National All Messes Swipe Card project will allow all members to obtain a meal and have that meal deducted from their pay.
There are some regions that currently have this facility but unfortunately it was not effectively implemented in SA. Pending the completion of the project the SA regional office is working with the local contractor to ensure users of the messes are able to obtain meals.
I regret that Pte Rodway was unable to obtain the meals outlined in his letter but I am assured the contractor has introduced arrangements to prevent this happening again. All members in SA can show their ID card and sign for meals in a log book provided and then payment for the meal will be arranged in consultation with the member through a pay debit or with cash..
TOP
Termites’ LIA tucker
 |
Making a meal of it: The storeroom under the stairs |
| |
 |
termite damage in close-up at Larrakeyah Barracks.
|
PLEASE don’t believe that all live-in accommodation in Darwin is of the high standard that soldiers of 1 Bde enjoy.
These photos show the state of at least one of the buildings where soldiers and sailors are required to live in at Larrakeyah Barracks. Yes, that is termite damage in that doorway.
Members are also required to pay for the privilege of living in these buildings as it is determined that this is level 2 standard accommodation. This determination was made in 2004 so either these building have deteriorated very fast or this is the required standard for level 2.
To rub salt into the wounds, the rate of contribution for this level of accommodation increased with all others on December 15, 2005, and as you would expect all living-in members from this unit were far from happy with that.
While it is true that these buildings have been identified for attention as a project in 2007, this has been the case for some time, meanwhile the members are expected to pay to live in this accommodation until they are fixed or replaced.
Why is this still accepted as level 2 accommodation? Surely with the very obvious, and quite possibly dangerous, problems shown in the photos this building should be declared as below standard and the members either found suitable live-in accommodation elsewhere, be entitled to full RA, or be allowed to live in without having to contribute.
Capt Steve Bovey
Norforce
Larrakeyah Barracks
Lt-Col James Brownlie, SO1 Facility Management, responds:
AHQ acknowledges issues in the ORs living-in accommodation (LIA) at Larrakeyah Barracks, particularly in relation to termite-damaged buildings.
Termites are an ever-present part of the ecology in NT and are one of the many challenges faced by facilities managers in the Top End. While aesthetically the buildings identified by Capt Bovey appear to be in an advanced state of disrepair, the termite damage and concrete spalling outlined does not pose a significant safety threat.
All buildings in question have been formally certified as structurally sound by contracted industry experts with remedial works programmed in the region’s 2006-07 Facility Operations Works Program.
The region is devising a technical solution to “termite-proof” the building as part of the planned works.
Additionally, other works related to LIA and messing on Larrakeyah Barracks in FY 2006/07 include the installation of airconditioning in the ORs kitchen and dining rooms and the upgrade of three LIA buildings to Level 3 accommodation. It should also be noted that in the past year CSI-NT/K has installed air-conditioning into LIA and insect proofing of all windows to address occupants immediate comfort.
The LIA located on Larrakeyah enjoys an occupancy rate of more than 90 per cent throughout the year due to their proximity to waterfront activities and Darwin.
LIA is given a classification only if it is assessed as being suitable for long-term occupancy. This assessment is made having regard to the structural integrity of the building and any health issues. If an assessment is made by local management that an LIA building is no longer suitable for long-term occupancy, then the classification of the building is removed. CSI-NT/K has seen no reason to do that.
Only those members who are required to live in must occupy the LIA at Larrakeyah. Members who are not required to live in may apply for either full or partial rent allowance, depending on their circumstances..
TOP
Looking for the perfect move
IN RESPONSE to Sgt Woodhall (Army, June 1), it sounds like the problem is not DHA but actually his frustration at being relocated three times in three years – this in itself highlights a few concerns.
Most of what Sgt Woodall is complaining about is set by Defence in Pacman. DHA does not have its own book of entitlements and it also relies on information given to it by Defence about members; this is a point I continually find myself explaining to members.
Also DHA does not physically move, this is Toll’s job, so his letter should have referred to “incompetence with DHA and Toll”.
Personally my experiences with DHA have been good – not always perfect but good.
WO2 Brett Neale
1 Armd Regt
Robertson Barracks
TOP
Too many
conditions
sacrificed
IN NOVEMBER, the current ADF Workplace Relations Arrangement (WRA) expires.
Defence is again beginning negotiations for a new agreement that will deliver us pay rises for the next three years.
Our last pay rise was 10 per cent over 30 months (March 04-November 06) and to get that pay rise we were required to make “productivity and/or efficiency gains”. That is, doing more with less or tightening our belts – pick any phrase you find most comforting.
This 10 per cent pay rise was about $4000 (about $1400 a year) for a Pte-P PG 4 and similar up the ranks. Taking into account that the CPI (the measure of inflation within Australia) rose by 6.5 per cent, our real wage increase was 3.5 per cent ($1400) over three years. This works out to be a real pay increase of $10 a week.
My concern is that for an extra $10 a week (before tax), we traded away movement cells and introduced a complicated travel system with a heavy individual and unit administrative burden.
I do not understand why we are required to trade away job conditions (everyone should be able to expect to have their movements and travel organised effectively by a professional staff) for cost-of-living increases (6.5 per cent of our last WRA) and fear for what we will trade away for a pay rise in the next three years.
Defence personnel are once again running faster in order to stand still.
Maj Dan Hayes
21 Const Regt
Gallipoli Lines
Will Van Weerdenburg, Assistant Director Industrial Policy, responds:
MAJ Hayes is correct that ADF-wide pay increases must be based on Defence productivity and efficiency gains. This has been government policy for ADF pay since 1992.
The WRA is the means by which ADF members receive regular increases in salary and salary-related allowances in return for improved productivity. In addition to the WRA, members may also receive pay increases through employment category reviews, allowance reviews and the payment of retention and completion bonuses.
Maj Hayes compares salary increases under the current WRA to movement in the CPI. This is a valid comparison and Maj Hayes correctly notes that ADF salaries have increased faster than the cost of living as shown by the CPI.
Defence is committed to the implementation of travel reform through the introduction of the Defence Travel Card, an online booking system and other measures. In the development of the current WRA (2004-2006), travel reform was accepted as one of a number of productivity measures that underpinned the pay rises awarded.
Development of the next WRA (2006-2009) is progressing well. The WRA consultation road show has already started. At the road show, members can learn about the current proposal and have their say. Members should check the web site (see below) for places and times.
The productivity initiatives that will underpin the proposed pay increases for the next WRA are still being finalised. However, they will reflect ongoing organisational reform and service-specific initiatives such as the hardened and networked Army. There is no plan to cash out any existing ADF conditions of service in return for pay increases.
ADF members are invited to provide their views on the WRA and can do so through the chain of command.
Members can also provide feedback directly by clicking the “Workplace Remuneration Arrangement” link on http://intranet.defence.gov.au/pac or http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/, or calling 1800 DEFENCE.
TOP
Give ARA members more incentive
I HOLD no grudge against the reserves, in fact bravo for a well thought out incentive scheme (“Radical reserve plan funded”, Army, May 18), but what about an incentive for the full-time ADF?
If you want retention, if you want a professional force capable of dealing with the war on terrorism, peacekeeping, peacemaking, humanitarian relief, cyclone relief, earthquake assistance, and any other activity you throw their way, give the ADF a pay rise comparable with the pay rates of skilled people in civilian employment.
These days the ADF is one of the most highly skilled workforces the government has. Who else can do what we do?
If you want to retain those highly trained and capable people, create a retention scheme for the full-time ADF. Make all ADF pay and allowances tax-free. The cost for the government in these times of enormous budget surpluses would be negligible.
Create a housing loan that is useful in today’s housing market. Start at $250,000 at a fixed rate of 5 per cent administered by an existing entity that has no interest in profiteering and go from there. Make a portion of the loan available for investment purposes.
The initial outlay will rapidly be made up in the repayments and in time would earn the government more revenue than the tax it lost out on if ADF pay was given tax-free status. Tier the loan to time served and active service to further reduce the financial burden on the government.
Some US units have a great incentive scheme, a $100,000 tax-free gratuity every four years. Tier this to unit roles, combine this with the loan scheme above and the government would not be out of pocket a single cent.
These incentives would make the ADF a very competitive employer.
Sgt James Crvelin
Perth
Lt-Col Sue Smith, SO1 Retention, DGPers-A, responds:
THANK you for your letter and your positive comments regarding the initiatives currently being undertaken to improve the conditions of reservists.
The issue of retention of uniformed personnel, both regular and reserve, is attracting a high profile in the current climate and any suggestions on possible retention initiative will be warmly welcomed.
While your suggestions with respect to tax free pay and allowances for members of the regular army are interesting (and provocative) they represent a significant departure from the current wage setting arrangements established by legislation. Because of the legislative framework in which we work, any significant changes to the current pay system, such as those you have suggested, would take a substantial amount of time to work up.
As a result, the three Services have tended to approach the issue of financial incentives for retention via specific, targeted allowances. Your support for a more general retention incentive along the US lines is noted and is certainly worth looking into. You may not be aware that DPE are currently considering ways to make the home loan scheme more marketable and flexible and I suggest you keep your eye on the DPE webpage for more information on what is being proposed.
TOP
|
