Volume
11, No. 54, October 19, 2006
Quicklinks to Letters
Water
charge doesn’t wash
Allowances are a bonus
Rank
goes up and so does the rent
Make
pay tax-free
Savings
come at a cost for members
Pack
of problems
Transit
requirement should be removed
HOW
TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED
Water
charge doesn’t wash
I RECENTLY
observed the latest increase in the MQ Water Contribution from $6.60
to $7.90 with some amazement.
While I acknowledge that the enormous figure of $1.30 is nothing to
sell the family silver over, many personnel utilising married quarters
may like to understand how, with the majority of the country on severe
water restrictions, DHA can justify this 20 per cent increase in this
levy.
I understand the concept of minimising the cost to members by stretching
the cost of excess water charges across the wider Defence population,
however. I believe many object on principle that they need to be mandated
to pay this levy, let alone a 20 per cent increase.
Many Defence personnel in service accommodation cannot, through local
authority decree, use what would be considered a normal entitlement
of water, let alone breach into excess.
Perhaps if Defence instructed DHA to provision all Service-owned residences
with rainwater tanks to minimise metered water usage then this increase
would appear justified, except it would appear that many are forced
to pay for the extravagances of a few.
I would happily pay a $10 MQ water contribution if it meant that I could
wash my vehicle in the driveway and not pay $20 for the privilege of
having to do it elsewhere.
Maj Andy Scanlan
LHQ
Victoria Barracks, Sydney
Alan McClelland, Director Relocations and Housing, responds:
THE contribution for water payable by members in Service residences
reflects the water consumption in Service residences nationally.
The contribution is a water usage charge, not an excess water charge.
DHA pays all water charges for Service residences in the first instance
and Defence pays DHA the amount that represents actual water usage by
members. Defence then recovers that amount from members in Service residences
by means of the averaged water contribution.
Defence reviews the contribution annually on the basis of the water
bills for the previous 12-month period.
Water charge increases over the past two years have been caused by increases
in costs of the water supplied and a reduction in water usage allowance
in most areas.
Maj Scanlan makes a good point regarding rainwater tanks.
In many areas around Australia, it is now a requirement to install a
rainwater tank in new houses. DHA complies with this requirement.
In other areas, as new houses are being constructed, rainwater tanks
are considered as part of the development and where feasible these are
included in the new houses.
Over a period of time, the majority of Service residences should end
up with rainwater tanks in them.
TOP
Allowances
are a bonus
- A NUMBER
of issues seemed to get tangled up in the course of Cpl Waterford’s
letter (“Money’s not the only incentive”, Army, July
27).
First, to the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a respite
posting in the Army. The term “respite posting” is a misnomer
and I defy anyone to find a list of “respite postings” at
SCMA or DOCM-A.
The statement that “if we do take a non-corps posting we are required
to take a cut in pay of $6000” is nonsense. Judging from the author’s
unit, my guess is that this $6000 is flying allowance and the author
has completed more than four but less than six years’ service.
The important point here is that this is an allowance. According to
the Macquarie Dictionary (referred to in Pacman Vol 1, Ch 1, Para 1.3.2)
allowance is defined as “an addition on account of some extenuating
or qualifying circumstance”.
The point which appears to have been missed is that all allowances are
short-term and cease when the activity for which they are paid ceases.
This goes for deployment as well as at home allowances such as flying
allowance, field allowance etc.
These allowances are attached to positions, not ECNs, and this is the
reason members’ overall pay would reduce upon taking a non-corps
posting, not because Army is requiring members to take a pay cut. If
members want to take a posting with a slower tempo, but are not prepared
to forego flying allowance (because they are no longer flying), then
the issue rests with individual members, not Army.
Where does this issue of “financial disadvantage” end? Using
the logic upon which this letter is based, do we expect to see members
serving on operations overseas refuse to return to Australia because
they will suffer financial disadvantage when their allowances cease?
By this logic also, returning from a field exercise results in financial
hardship, but I would be very surprised to see anyone refuse to return
home after being out bush.
Be thankful that you get the allowances while you do, as there are many
who also work long, thankless hours without any allowance at all.
Cpl Aaron Pollard
LHQ
Victoria Barracks, Sydney.
TOP
Rank
goes up and so does the rent
- IT was
fantastic that after 16 years’ service I was finally promoted to
sergeant, and I feel very honoured to reach this rank.
However, what I was soon to find out was that I will lose 50 per cent
of the pay rise from corporal to sergeant to the Defence Housing Authority.
Now that I am a sergeant, I have to pay about $52 more rent, even though
I won’t be changing MQ. Come on DHA, when is enough enough?
I’m all for maintaining standards and I am positive in my ideas
for retention in the Army, and recently responded to a call from RSM-A
in reference to non-monetary retention ideas. But come on, let’s
be brutally honest, there are several organisations currently profiteering
off the backs of the hard-working Australian soldier and this is blatantly
wrong, yet we all sit by and continue to allow it to occur.
Every time we have an ADF pay rise, DHA does a MQ rent review and everyone’s
rent increases, thus nullifying any pay rise to soldiers. I have witnessed
this over the past six years, and have previously written to Army about
it.
I would appreciate a non-political answer, i.e. don’t quote Pacman,
as I am fully conversant with the said manual; what I would like to
see is a human response.
I would like to leave all the readers with this last thought: “We
may have the best gear and new equipment, but if we don’t have
the soldiers, we don’t have an Army.”
Sgt Nick Jago
16RWAR
Irwin Barracks
Adrian Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, responds:
MEMBERS housed at entitlement are not required to pay more for their
Service residence when they are promoted.
If members are living in a Service residence above their entitlement,
and not paying the full contribution for the residence, then their contribution
is increased on promotion to the contribution for their new rank group.
All the housing-related allowances and charges for ADF members –
including the contributions payable for Service residences, living-in
accommodation and rent allowance – are reviewed annually by Defence.
There is no correlation between these annual reviews and ADF pay rises.
The reviews are conducted by Defence and the revised charges and allowances,
including their date of effect, are advised to DHA for implementation.
From 2007, it is planned to adjust housing-related allowances and charges,
including the contributions for Service residences and rent allowance,
in July each year.
It is Defence policy that the rent costs for housing members should
be shared on a 50:50 basis. This is known as the 50 per cent housing
subsidy.
DHA provides high-quality, contemporary homes for eligible members.
Defence works with DHA to manage housing costs and to keep member contributions
at reasonable levels.
The contributions compare very favourably with the cost of renting similar
standards of housing in the community.
TOP
Make
pay tax-free
THE current
crisis with pay, retention and recruiting are all linked together in
my opinion.
The latest carrot to be dangled in front of all of us is a 12 per cent
pay rise over three years.
To me this means in three years time I will have an extra $80 in my
pay per fortnight. Even though I will welcome it, it means little when
you are trying to raise a family and pay off a mortgage and bills on
a single income. And it’s almost guaranteed in three years’
time the interest rates will rise yet again.
This leads into retention, as many members leave the ADF because of
the lure of more money to be made on the outside and no real incentive
to stay in. Which leads into recruiting, which is at an all-time low
as we can’t replace the rate of members leaving, let alone bolster
the numbers needed to make a full-strength ADF. And there is talk about
lowering the standard to increase the intake of more recruits.
My solution: full-time ADF members should be paid tax-free like the
GRes. I am pretty sure the retention rate would double, if not more.
And recruiting would increase due to the lure of a tax-free wage.
We should not lower the standards; we should keep the recruiting standards
as they are.
Cpl Adam Bedggood
42RQR
Rockhampton
IF
Defence senior leadership and the Ministry are serious about solving
the problem of recruiting and retention in the ADF then I have the perfect
solution – make all regular ADF income non-taxable in line with
our Reserve counterparts.
This would provide a net increase to Defence pay which would make it
highly competitive to outside employment in any comparative field, ensuring
that Defence employment is more attractive than civilian alternatives.
It would also make many who are contemplating separation think twice
about the financial benefits of alternative employment.
I am sure our APS partners would expect equity in this matter –
and they can have it when they put a uniform on and offer to go on operations
with the rest of us. Until then perhaps they could share some of their
allowances like SDLA (remember the IEA we had to give up for our last
pay rise?).
The beauty of this idea is that it will cost Defence nothing from its
own budget but instead create only a minute dent in the Government’s
tax revenue. This might seem a drastic step but this might be what is
required to achieve the levels of manning we require.
With the ever-increasing complexities of our modern force, it is becoming
more important to retain skills and knowledge, which take a long time
and cost a lot of money to achieve, making them difficult and expensive
to replace.
While I realise that the issues surrounding recruiting and retention
are more complex than pay alone, I am confident that, like me, the majority
of servicemen and women would be willing to work through these issues
if they are able to provide a better standard of living for themselves
and their families. At the end of the day, money talks.
Capt Cameron Stephenson
AAvnTC
Oakey
Lt-Col Susan Smith, SO1 Retention, DGPers-A, responds:
I AGREE with your assessment that while recruiting and retention are
more complex than pay issues alone, financial rewards do assist in recognising
the efforts of our people in a way that they can share with their families.
Financial benefits, particularly bonuses, also have the advantage of
being deployed fairly quickly. The recent implementation of a range
of targeted bonuses is assisted by the fact that Defence has a degree
of discretion over remuneration of its people in this area.
Unfortunately Defence is not in the same position with respect to taxation
issues, which are the responsibility of the Treasury Department. Defence
has no discretion in the area of taxation and as a result it is not
an area we can influence for the purposes of either recruiting or retention.
I assure you that the senior leadership is serious about recruiting
and retention and that Army does not underestimate the importance of
financial rewards. DGPers-A is currently working on a range of new financial
incentives that will be put to the Minister in November. If approved,
you should expect to see a few announcements on additional financial
incentives for Army personnel on the Army’s birthday in March.
TOP
Savings
come at a cost for members
BETWEEN
the shortfalls of personnel in the ADF, members looking after their
own AIRN compliancy, reading current publications, instructions and
orders in relation to all facets of their military career, doing pre-course
etc, now members have to look after the Defence Travel Card (DTC).
I’m just wondering when a member has time to do their corps role.
As stated in Capt Clinch’s letter (Army, October 5), most members
don’t travel a lot on business except for those in senior positions.
So those who do not travel all the time actually need to speak with
a clerk when they are managing their DTC. So in fact you now have two
people tied up doing the one job.
This is why we have corps and ECNs in the Army so that personnel specialised
in a particular skill-set look after that role for the unit they are
posted to.
I can understand that the bean counters want to save the most money
they can so that the ADF can be provided with the best equipment that
we can get. However, this needs to be weighed up with the cost of personnel
not performing their core jobs.
I suppose that the next big saving will come about when they get rid
of the movers’ positions.
With members doing their own business travel and PMCC doing the travel
for members going on courses, there will remain no in-barracks role
for them, only operational roles.
Perhaps their roles might even be civilianised. It seems to have worked
on the other trades when the ’97 white paper came out – not.
(No offence meant toward the movers).
Cpl Scott Lobegeiger
10FSB
Lavarack Barracks
TOP
Pack
of problems
PACMAN
Ch 17, Pt 5 & 6 states that MWODs in receipt of RA are to vacate
their living-out accommodation on posting to deployments six months
or longer.
According to Pacman, deployed members, once receiving their deployment
orders, are to effect a removal through DHA as if getting posted. We
all know what a painful experience this is. All belongings are to be
put in storage while the members are away.
I believe this puts unnecessary hardship on members as they have to
organise a removal through DHA before they deploy, on top of normal
pre-deployment training and other personal matters that need to be taken
care of. Members have to pack up everything they own, cancel lease agreements
and organise normal end-of-lease property inspections, i.e. cleaning.
On their RTA they have to find a place to live. I have been deployed
before, and one of the best feelings on RTA is to drop your gear at
your own place without having to stuff around finding a pillow for the
night. I couldn’t think of anything worse than having to be accommodated
in transit lines, while all your belongings are in storage, and then
having to find a new place and move in – all the while going through
a post-deployment debriefing.
The ADF currently has an issue with retention of experienced soldiers
and officers. This policy further enhances the decision of members to
discharge as it puts an additional burden on their already disruptive
lifestyle. If the Government decides to send troops overseas then it
should be willing to support the deployed members to the fullest.
If the decision to pass this policy was a money-saving venture, I don’t
see the Government saving money in the long run. The Commonwealth has
to pay for two removals, storage costs, including vehicles, and the
administration of a removal. The policy might also be a contributing
factor for discharge, thus costing the Government the investment of
a trained soldier or officer.
Previously, any deployed member had their RA contribution frozen if
longer than six months. I am sure members would be happy to pay the
contribution in order to keep their home.
Capt Mark Tamblyn
1CSSB
Robertson Barracks
Adrian Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, responds:
THE accommodation and removal arrangements for MWOD proceeding on deployment
for six months or more have been identified for review early in 2007.
In particular, the current arrangements need to be reviewed in light
of the newliving-in policy that was introduced in December 2004.
TOP
Transit
requirement should be removed
COULD
someone explain to me, not just recite Pacman, as to why MWODs who are
in receipt of RA are required to live in transit accommodation during
the removal process?
In the current environment when soldiers are encouraged to live out,
some consideration should be given to these soldiers.
For example, two soldiers of the same rank and pay live in the same
suburb some 35km from the nearest barracks. One soldier is married,
no children, with a service spouse. On removal this soldier is entitled
to accommodation near his residence in order to be able to supervise
pre-pack, uplift and cleaning.
The single soldier is required to live on barracks during this process,
therefore adding travel to and from the base to the stress of removal.
This is significantly increased if the soldier has his vehicle removed
before his last day in his old location.
Having seen the accommodation on offer at Holsworthy and the transit
lines in Townsville, I think that is inequitable to require a soldier
to live in an ATCO hut while his married counterparts live in serviced
apartments based purely on the member’s marital state.
WO2 David Haynes
1HSB
Holsworthy Barracks
Adrian Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, responds:
HELP with housing and removals is provided to ADF members on the basis
of the needs of both Defence and the member.
The aim of the policy is that members are not out of pocket and that
the accommodation provided is both suitable and cost-effective.
During the course of a removal, members sometimes need temporary accommodation.
Temporary accommodation may be provided in the form of hotel or serviced
apartment accommodation, and the payment of Temporary Accommodation
Allowance (TAA/TAASA), or by the provision of Living-In Accommodation
(LIA).
LIA is not designed for families. It is for this reason that the policy
states that a member accompanied by his or her dependants is eligible
to occupy a hotel or serviced apartment and be paid TAA/TAASA.
If a member is in transit, including during the course of a removal,
Defence policy requires that members of the rank of major or below occupy
LIA if they are not accompanied by dependants. Subject to the availability
of LIA that is suitable for the member, LIA is considered to be appropriate
and cost-effective accommodation for any member of these ranks who is
unaccompanied.
The current poor condition of much of the LIA stock is acknowledged.
Programs are in place to improve the accommodation and to provide sufficient
accommodation at appropriate levels to meet requirements.
Any level of LIA can be used for transit purposes. In the end state
there will be only three levels of LIA. As existing LIA is progressively
replaced by new and refurbished accommodation, the available accommodation,
including that for transit purposes, will constitute a significant improvement
on the current stock.
TOP
|
