Volume 11, No. 53, October 05, 2006
Quicklinks
to Letters
Mess dress stress
Tenant ticked off
at rent deduction
Setting
record
straight
Pay deal’s real measure
Card criticisms
HOW
TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED
Mess dress stress
I HAVE recently been commissioned as a 2Lt into the Army Reserve. As part of a range of things that I’m trying to get organised is my new mess kit.
I was appalled to find out on advice from the Q-store that there is only one contractor in the entire Sydney region where we can go and get our measures taken for this. On calling the contractor to make an appointment, I was informed that they do not work on weekends, 8.30am is the earliest one can be there and that 3.30pm is the latest they will book you in so (and I quote) “the tailor can go home at 4pm”.
Additional to this, although I realise this might affect relatively few people, is the fact that the contractor is located in Miranda (not exactly a central location) and nowhere near a train station (I do not drive), so effectively, I need to organise time off work to do this.
It didn’t help the fact that some older members who’ve been around the system longer than I have, informed me that in the past one could go to any Fletcher Jones or David Jones to have one’s measures taken and the info went to the right place for the uniform to be made.
Is there any reason why this is organised in what appears to be a particularly non user-friendly way?
2Lt M.G. Prino
155 Sig Sqn
Timor Barracks
Lt-Col Jason Walk, SO1 Log Ops, AHQ, responds:
MEMBERS who require a mess jacket or any other tailored garment have two options available to them.
They are able to obtain an off-the-shelf item from an area clothing store or, if off-the-shelf stock does not fit, are able to obtain a made-to-measure garment through a contracted tailor.
Travel to obtain a made-to-measure garment is the responsibility of the member. 2Lt Prino does not indicate whether he explored the first option of obtaining his uniform through a clothing store. This may have presented a more convenient option for this member.
For all personnel seeking made to measure uniforms, the policy is that the contracted tailor takes the measurements and produces the uniform. This ensures that if an incorrectly fitting uniform is provided by the contractor, it is their responsibility to fix at their expense. Measurements provided by a clothing store tailor or alternate contractor remove sole accountability from the contracted tailor for providing a correctly fitting uniform.
TOP
Tenant ticked off
at rent deduction
- IN 2005 I was posted away from my spouse and moved into the mess at my new location. In 2006 my spouse was posted to my current locality.
DHA informed my spouse that because the posting was hers, then all documentation and removals must be done in her name. Right from the start we informed DHA that I would be moving out of the mess and living in the MQ with my family. My rank and name was on the paperwork submitted by my spouse.
On our march-in day we were informed by the DHA Puckapunyal rep that “as it was my spouse’s posting the rent would be paid at her rank equivalent etc”. This was reflected in the already drawn up tenancy agreement, which was signed by my spouse and endorsed by the DHA rep.
Since moving into our MQ, my spouse has not paid a single cent in rent. Why? Because DHA decided to take it from my wage instead, without any authority or notice.
I rang DHA only to be informed that Pacman states that the higher ranking person must pay the rent. While I don’t dispute this fact, I do dispute the way it was done.
When I reminded them that they drew up the tenancy agreement for my spouse not myself, I was informed by DHA Melbourne that the agreement was not a binding document, just a common law agreement.
Maybe the employees of DHA should be made aware that Pacman is not the only manual from which to find a reference. The DHA tenant handbook states that the tenancy agreement is a legal binding Commonwealth agreement between the tenant and DHA.
The question I ask is this: who gives DHA or Defence Pay the right to remove money from a person’s bank account without their authority? Chapter 26 of the ADF Pay Manual states that it is DHA who provides the authority to ADF Pay as to who pays rent. If the person being posted is the authority then any deviation from this should be promptly notified to the posted member.
I am quite happy to be the one paying rent as per Pacman, but the admin process and the lack of comprehension shown by DHA was poor. They failed to advise, correct and apologise timely and appropriately, which I took as a slap in the face.
In the meantime, my spouse still wonders if she will receive a letter one day telling her she is not paying rent and that she is not the key tenant of the MQ she signed for.
WO2 Kel Haley
CATC HQ
Puckapunyal
Kevin O’Brien, General Manager, Operations DHA, responds:
DEFENCE, through DHA, provide Service Residences for members and their families.
Members make a contribution to the cost of providing this accommodation.
The Defence policy is that the GRE and rent are set at the level of the higher ranked member.
The authority to deduct this rent from a member’s pay is provided via the Uniform Tenancy Agreement, which tenants are required to sign when taking occupancy of a Service Residence.
In WO2 Haley’s case, DHA made an error in preparing the tenancy agreement in the name of his spouse – a lower ranked member.
As WO2 Haley acknowledges in his letter, this administrative error would have resulted in rent being paid at a lower rate than appropriate had DHA not rectified this error.
WO2 Haley was advised of the error in February, and informed that the rent contributions would be changed to reflect the correct (higher) rent contribution.
We have apologised for our error, and have requested that WO2 Haley sign a tenancy agreement in his name and hence pay the correct rent according to Defence policy.
TOP
Setting
record
straight
- I’D LIKE to clarify a few points arising from the article “Revival of the 39th” (Army, July 27).
The 39th Bn was the only unit to be awarded the battle honour Kokoda because it was the only unit to fight at Kokoda.
Your report states that the unit was disbanded on its return to mainland Australia and “its remaining members dispersed among other AIF units”. Actually, the unit was a militia unit, not AIF, and not all unit personnel chose to transfer to the Second AIF; some chose to remain in the militia and thereby transferred to the 36th Bn, albeit by stealth.
It is the case, though, that the militia was the major recruiting ground for the Second AIF with more than 200,000 militia members choosing to enter the AIF.
Finally, as the 39th Bn was a militia infantry battalion, its memory would best be served by raising an Army Reserve infantry battalion in its stead. Indeed the re-numbering of a full-time service support unit as the 39th flies in the face of the intent of the Senior Officers Conference of 1920s and the mid-1960s reorganisation of the land component whereby the then militia/CMF was to retain its heritage and links with the past.
Further, the historical link between the “new” and “old” 39th Bn is non-existent, which begs the question: how was the 39th Inf Bn’s colour patch authorised to be worn by a full-time service support unit?
Maj Bruce Atkinson
Technical Staff Wing
ADFA
TOP
Pay deal’s real measure
PAGE 2 of the August 10 edition of Army presented what appears to be a positive move for the ADF regarding our next pay case.
A closer examination of the economic reality, however, shows that this “pay increase” will be a backward step for us.
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) makes a statement on monetary policy each month and the latest statement (August 2006) can be accessed at
http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/StatementsOnMonetaryPolicy/Aug2006/inflation_trends_prospects.html
According to this authoritative document, CPI (inflation) over the past year was 4 per cent and is forecast to be 4 per cent over the next year. The longer term prospects are for CPI to hover around 3 per cent.
If the RBA forecasts are accurate – and the RBA should be the leading adviser to the government - then our DFRT proposal would see us accepting a net reduction in pay over the next three years. Accordingly, the headline figure of 12.6 per cent is misleading when compared to CPI.
Given the current focus upon retention, it would appear that a serious revisit of the case to be put to the DFRT must be made. As things stand, it appears that our case simply positions us to be a follower of CPI.
Maj Dave Lavers
DGPP-A
Russell Offices
Sqn-Ldr Jason Briggs, Industrial Policy, Directorate of Military Salaries and Allowances (Policy), responds:
MAJ Lavers raises an interesting issue. However, when we look at the effect of CPI movements on the real value of the proposed WRA pay increases we need to keep an eye on the context: government policy and community wage increases.
First, let’s look at what CPI really is. The Consumer Price Index measures quarterly changes in the price of a fixed “basket” of goods and services which account for a high proportion of expenditure by Australian metropolitan households. It is measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which provides the information to the Reserve Bank. The “basket” covers a wide range of goods and services, grouped into: food, alcohol and tobacco, clothing and footwear, housing, household contents and services, health, transportation (including fuel costs), communication, recreation, education,
and financial and insurance services.
The price of several items in the “basket” can change markedly due to seasonal and volatile factors. The ABS reports that “while increases in the price of fruit was a significant contributor to an increase in the CPI in the June quarter, there are likely to be offsetting falls in the CPI in future quarters as their supply and price return to normal” (see the website below).
For this reason Treasury prefer to rely on underlying inflation. This measures inflationary pressures in the economy that are mainly caused by market forces (as opposed to seasonal variations in fruit prices etc). This is generally more stable because it takes out a number of the seasonally volatile goods from the “basket”. The Reserve Bank and Treasury both agree that the underlying rate of inflation will remain at or below 2-3 per cent.
Now let’s look at government policy. It does not allow inflation to be used to justify pay increases. Government policy requires that across the board pay increases within organisations must be underpinned by improvements in productivity. These link general pay increases and conditions of employment to increased productivity and/or improved efficiency, through formal agreements between employers and employees on pay increases and achievements.
This principle applies to all Australian employees. It has been in place since 1992 and was introduced by the Federal Government to help combat the high inflation rates of the 1980s. This is why the ADF only uses CPI as a “sideways glance” to ensure we are keeping pace.
Lastly, we can look at community wage increases. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations records the average pay increase in federal wage agreements, called the Average Annualised Wage Increase. This is currently 4 per cent across all industries. The WRA is therefore slightly ahead of average community movements in pay.
To find out more about CPI click on “Consumer Price Index” at http://www.abs.gov.au.To find out more about the WRA, click on “Workplace Remuneration Arrangement” on the Defweb at http://intranet.defence.gov.au/pac/ or the Internet at http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/.
TOP
Card criticisms
I WOULD like to respond to Mr Michael Gahan, Director of Business Management-Army, who replied to Capt Joe Lavery’s letter (Army, July 13).
I agree with Capt Lavery that the Defence Travel Card (DTC) is a source of frustration. I would like to point out to Mr Gahan that only a limited number of military personnel have access to DRN computers and to the online campus for the Defence Travel Card training. A majority of soldiers, especially from the private to sergeant level, do not have access.
The prime example would be units which cannot provide computers to their 600 personnel, such as infantry units in Townsville and Darwin. These personnel are also the people who receive limited to no training in Defence Financial Management.
Second, although our Army values will be upheld by our soldiers, the issue still remains that not all personnel are or will be adequately trained in the use of the DTC. This makes the card only really suitable for personnel who frequently travel away on business (e.g. the senior leadership group). Most personnel from privates to captains generally only travel on courses and on leave once a year, and they will generally rely on their units’ clerical staff as the primary source of movements control.
It is my hope that the card will be reviewed, as travel requirements for military members should not be left to the individual to interpret and calculate.
This responsibility should remain that of the clerical staff. They are adequately trained in ensuring that members receive the correct allowances when they travel, which leaves less room for error in entitlements and ensures that all members receive the correct entitlement owing to them before travel.
Having qualified clerical staff organise Defence travel will also save money, as there are less people to train and it will reduce the misappropriation of Defence funds due to incorrect interpretation and lack of formal training.
Does the soldier need to also interpret and understand the ever-changing Pacman and Chief Executive Instructions to have a complete and proper understanding of the correct use of the DTC and of their travel entitlements? I think not: this again should be the responsibility of unit clerical staff.
In our current operational tempo should a soldier (especially our personnel either preparing for operations or who are on operations) be concerned in trying to learn how to understand and use a DTC or should their priorities in training be on operational readiness?
Sgt Ben Verco
ADFA
Canberra
MICHAEL Gahan’s response to Capt Lavery’s letter is indicative of the ivory tower approach to managing soldiers.
Yes, the DTC may have saved a small amount of money on paper, however think of the hours now lost by soldiers all over the country. Now every time someone travels they have to go to a Travelex to get the exact amount of allowances they are owed, alternatively they can round up the amount to the nearest ATM-issuable amount then BPAY back the difference. Can I ask what was wrong with getting it put directly in to your bank account?
Also, if you only travel a few times a year it is quite a long process to go through logging in and acquitting your travel and usually requires the assistance of someone who actually knows how to do it properly, and sometimes requires password resets, all of which is inefficient use of time that could be better spent on core business.
I have heard that some units are even reverting to the old way of doing things where DTCs are locked in the orderly room safe and only when people need to travel do they sit down with clerical staff who help them through the booking process. This is totally against the intent of the DTC system, however the DTC system was never thought through at a real soldier level. It only works for office worker regular travellers, it is not a system that should ever have been imposed on anyone in an Army unit and it should stay at a higher HQ level.
The ADF needs to focus more on the soldiers and the reason that the ADF exists, and not burden individuals with conducting their own administration. We need to look at why our processes were the way they were in the first place, and not be short-sighted and see the money-saving option of removing an orderly room function and personnel by putting things like travel in the hands of soldiers at the expense of their training time.
The DTC is only one of many initiatives that are eroding capability under the guise of efficiency.
Capt Matthew Clinch
Monash University Regt
Mt Waverley
WITH regards to the letter “Defence Travel Card a source of frustration”, I found Michael Gahan’s response as frustrating as the whole concept of the DTC.
How can Mr Gahan say “the travel card has produced significant savings” – to who? Certainly not the units.
Has the Business Management Group actually sat down to work out the entire cost to Defence of the hours and hours wasted from all ranks and trades from private to brigadier and beyond who have to cease doing their primary duties to arrange for their own travel and subsequent incidental payments? The DTC concept is still inconceivable to me when I see all ranks going through the frustration of compiling a Travel Budget Calculator and then having to spend more hours reconciling after the travel is complete.
And what about the days spent by CMS supervisors chasing members down in order for them to complete the required reconciliation; yet another cost that has no doubt been overlooked when calculating the “significant savings”.
Please, before you use such throwaway lines as “significant savings”, I ask you to do us a favour and do all the calculations of time spent away from our primary roles in order to do what a travel clerk could do in a matter of minutes.
Maj Lisa Fewster
LWC (Tas)
Anglesea Barracks
Brad Osborn, Director Travel Management, responds:
TRAVEL is an emotive subject. It has a personal impact and people feel strongly about how it is managed.
It is important, however, that we do not lose sight of the fact that the primary reason for travel is to allow members to do their jobs, to get from A to B to perform a function, whatever that may be.
The Defence Travel Card (DTC), as an integral part of the new Defence Travel Model (DTM), is designed to make this task both simple and flexible. It enables a direct connection between the traveller and Defence’s Travel Management Company for efficient booking and confirmation, and ensures members have a flexible and secure method of covering the costs of their trip. Yes, it has also brought about change, such as the need to verify transactions made against the card, but again we have designed the support systems to make this task as simple as possible.
The implementation of the new travel model and the DTC has been going on for over three years focusing on business travel only, however the need for further change management and education in the field is clear. In response to this need, Defence Support Group (DSG) is not only reviewing information packs, reference materials and on-line tools, but also preparing to hit the road once again to help members understand how the model can help them to do their jobs.
The Interactive Traveller Awareness Program will begin in October and will see DSG staff visiting bases around the country, providing system demonstrations and one-on-one assistance where necessary to help members make the most of the system. In addition we are working with the Service newspapers to put together articles to help explain and communicate to members more on the DTC and the travel model.
TOP
|
