Volume
11, No. 56, November 16, 2006
Quicklinks to Letters
Looming decline in oil gives fuel for thought
Wheels of bureaucracy
turn slowly
after theft
Impressive facilities
An unhappy
outlook on
IT support
Costly pay slip
Reservist struggles with the burden of proof
HOW
TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED
Looming decline in oil gives fuel for thought
GLOBAL oil production is expected to peak sometime in the next few years, before gradually, but terminally, declining.
This will force the price of oil ever higher and will result in significant global economic and social upheaval and conflict.
The Army and ADF will not be immune from the effects of the peak in oil. The majority of our equipment is large and heavy, thus it requires large quantities of fuel. This is a cause for concern for two reasons.
The first is training. As the price of fuel increases, the Army will need to spend an increasingly large proportion of our budget on fuel or, alternatively, use our vehicles and equipment less.
The second reason is force protection. The non-linear battlefield means that our logistic support is increasingly vulnerable. As has been demonstrated in Iraq, logistic convoys are particularly vulnerable to attack and this has led to US commanders calling for equipment such as solar panels and wind turbines to provide electricity and reduce the demand on convoys transporting fuel for generators.
For these reasons, the Army needs to consider the impacts in both our equipment acquisition processes (increased energy efficiency, alternative fuels and power generation equipment) and operating procedures (fuel as a critical vulnerability).
Failure to do so will risk lives on operations and the ability to train in peace time.
Capt Cameron Leckie
136 Sig Sqn
Gallipoli Barracks.
TOP
Wheels of bureaucracy
turn slowly
after theft
- AS we reach the time when many Service personnel are conducting removals, I would like to ask who under the current system is responsible for removals damage and loss compensation?
I recently filled out removals paperwork for the transport of my motorcycle from Melbourne to Brisbane, despite the fact that I am still not in possession of the bike from when it was moved last year.
This is due to the fact that my bike was stolen from the depot of the company contracted by Toll to carry out the relocation (Toll Autotrans Australia) in January.
The bike was subsequently recovered by police and I was forced to prove that I owned the bike, that it had been in the possession of another party at the time of the theft and that the bike was in fact stolen in the first place. I was then required to deal with Toll Autotrans’ insurer to fix the bike due to damage inflicted by the thief (an ongoing issue).
During my saga, I discovered that Toll is not responsible as the removal is contracted to another party.
Furthermore, the removal company is not responsible because, and I quote, “[The company] acts under terms and conditions which state that [they] will only pay damages for the direct loss or damage to goods and will not pay any indirect or consequential loss or damage including loss of profits, business or anticipated savings or other economic loss even if Toll knows they are possible or otherwise foreseeable.”
Surely the removals system is flawed if a member can be without the primary means of transport for almost an entire working year with no compensation from those who have failed to deliver, and little to no assistance from Toll, particularly given removals is an unavoidable part of life in Defence.
Capt A.M. Tracey
ADF School of Languages
RAAF Williams
Jon Festorazzi, Contract Manager Removal Services, Directorate of Relocations and Housing, responds:
PACMAN 6.5.3 - Private vehicle - loss or damage, states: “A member is not entitled to compensation for loss or damage to a private vehicle or towable item removed or stored at Commonwealth expense in Australia.” Note: Members may obtain private insurance to cover any such loss or damage.
The Toll Transitions Defence Easy Move Guide, Edition 6, Section 2 draws attention to the fact that the arrangements with Defence do not provide for insurance on vehicles etc.
Section 2 also provides advice on what options are available via the vehicle carrying company or via your existing vehicle insurer. The guide also states in bold: “Any decision to take up insurance for a vehicle must be undertaken prior to day of uplift.”
Section 5 of the Defence Easy Move Guide, What Happens if Your Items are Lost or Damaged? states: “We will not repair or pay you for any loss or damage to or caused by vehicles and towable items.”
It is important to note that when personnel submit their Request for Removal and Request for Relocation of a Motor Vehicle they sign a declaration stating they agree to the terms and conditions in the Toll Transitions Easy Move Guide under which their removal will be arranged.
Advice received from Toll Transitions via Autotrans indicates that some delays with the return of the motorcycle were caused by the police service having concerns over the ownership of the motorcycle. Apparently the vehicle was stolen in January, however, ownership had not transferred to Capt Tracey until February 10.
The motorcycle was returned to Capt Tracey and repairs affected by Autotrans’ insurer. Advice indicates all repairs were completed this month, however, there were some delays in authorising the repairs due to the insurer awaiting repairer invoices.
Toll Transitions has indicated that Capt Tracey did not take out appropriate insurance cover and this may have contributed to the delays experienced by the member.
TOP
Impressive facilities
- IN reference to the story “This is not an urban myth” (Army, November 2), I must bring to your attention another similar project that has been under way with far less time, far less funding I suspect, and has achieved a far greater outcome.
The Combined Arms Training Centre (CATC) has in the past 12 months produced, completely independently, two Urban Operations Training Facilities. Innovative training funds came from a number of sources and constructive effort was sourced from a variety of units and integrated into their training activities to produce the following outcomes:
u A 38-container dismounted training facility at the School of Inf, completed inside six months, five months ahead of schedule, for less than $270,000. The facility incorporates up to four levels of access over an area of some two hectares. 17 Const Sqn provided the heavy construction effort on their annual Exercise Warrior Bear, with the remaining internal augmentation conducted primarily by the School of Inf Training Support Platoon and training, design and technical support from SME. The facility also incorporates a 60m Hesco-Bastion vehicle check point (VCP), which is a far cry from the standard ADF practice from doing VCP training with a couple of empty fuel drums and some barbed wire.
u A 38-container mounted and dismounted training facility in the Puckapunyal training area, which also allows for the deployment and firing of tanks and artillery is due to be ready for mounted training and limited dismounted in early December and completion in mid-March 2007. The main construction effort has come from 22 and 21 Const Regts, along with SME, which has also provided training, design and technical support.
Funding for the facilities has come from TC-A, SFTC, LWC-V and CATC’s own training funds. Technical support and project management has been provided to the project as an additional duty for staff at the SME.
While these two facilities do not have the same whiz-bang technical features as the JCTC facilities, they offer the environment for the personnel most at risk in an urban environment – the soldier on the ground.
The real benefit of these facilities is that they are available at the schools of three of the four combat arms training schools for initial employment training, inculcating a culture of urban close combat from the early stages of training, as identified as a need in the Future Land Operations Concept – Complex Warfighting.
Capt Saul West
Project Manager
Urban Operations Training Facility Project
CATC.
TOP
An unhappy
outlook on
IT support
I HAVE two issues to raise, both involving computer support.
First, a major part of Puckapunyal was recently migrated from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook. We received several emails directing us to prepare for the migration by carrying out archiving/culling tasks.
The migration was to start on the Friday evening and there was to be no disruption to our day-to-day business. However, on the Monday we all logged on and have since had one problem after another.
The main issues seem to be with the personal contact lists. I have had my issues dealt with but many have not. Even though people are tearing their hair out in every office, the people conducting the migration released an email on the Monday stating that they had successfully migrated 3500 accounts across over the weekend. I beg to differ and suggest the spin doctors re-evaluate their claim.
The question is by what benchmarks or goals did these guys measure success. Obviously not by the number of follow-up issues that have occurred.
The second issue I have is potentially more serious. A number of jobs have been logged lately with the DRN support desk and they have then been closed before being fixed. On inquiry, it would appear that the jobs do not have a ready solution, are therefore deemed too difficult and closed without remedy.
Apart from an email saying “Job number has been closed”, there is no communication with the originator of the job until he or she complains and gets it re-opened.
I have also been told that the help desk organisation receives remuneration for every job it closes. If that is the case, I consider it wrong to receive payment for a job that was not fixed.
I would urge every person who has problems in the above areas to log jobs with the help desk ASAP, so there is a record of
follow-up issues.
WO2 Robert Varcoe
CATC
Puckapunyal
TOP
Costly pay slip
IT was with great interest that I read the article in Army (October 19) about the new pay structure for officers and warrant officers.
The information in the article actually explained the reasons why my pay suddenly dropped $10,000 and also why I suddenly found myself with system-initiated debts, despite the article stating that the new pay scale changes would not be noticed by members.
Thankfully I have access to the PMKeys self-service site and became aware of the system debts very quickly and my local pay clerk (who was apologetic) is attempting to rectify my pay issues. However, this issue has raised three mains concerns for me regarding pay:
How can errors like this occur?
Why is there no checking mechanism or cross-referencing for members’ pay when new pay systems or pay scales are implemented?
Why do system debts just appear on payslips without explanation? Is there a system whereby ADF pay could be updated to explain system debts or could an email be sent to members explaining why they will not be paid?
As I write this letter, my pay scale has still not been rectified. I understand the fortnightly pay cut off adjustments and realise that while they could vary my annual salary in an instant, it can take weeks to fix. Thankfully, my financial circumstances will allow me to survive for a little while on a zero deposited fortnightly pay, but in reality, I shouldn’t have to use my savings when the system has failed.
Lt Margaret Nichols
1JPAU
Fyshwick
Lt-Col Lionel Haynes, SO1 Industrial Relations and Remuneration, responds:
IN answering your letter I have responded to each of the three points which you raised as follows:
How can errors like this occur?
An administrative error was made in the letter of offer to you to transfer to the General Service Officer (GSO) category on appointment. This error was perpetuated when your details were entered into PMKeys. On your appointment to lieutenant, ADF Pay ignored this administrative error and paid you at the correct Special List Schedule 3 rate up until the changeover to the Graded Officers Pay Structure (GOPS).
PMKeys is the authority for ADF Pay. At the changeover to the new pay system PMKeys data was used by ADF Pay to migrate ADF GSO and Special List officers in the rank of colonel to 2 lieutenant from the officer common pay scale to the new GOPS. In your case, PMKeys directed ADF Pay to pay you at the GOPS 2 rate instead of the higher and correct Special List rate under Schedule 3.
Why is there no checking mechanism or cross-referencing for members’ pay when new pay systems or pay scales are implemented?
The introduction of the GOPS was a major change from the way in which ADF officers have been remunerated since 1947. Several ADF agencies worked on the change management processes and many resources were committed to try to prevent errors like the one which affected you.
We conducted various checks to try to anticipate and prevent unintended consequences of the change impacting on members’ pay. We implemented contingency plans to correct pay errors if and when they occurred. For example, a Defence Force Salary and Allowances Accounting Circular, DEFSAAC 20/2006, was developed and circulated to all pay staff to provide guidance on what to do if members reported pay problems as a result of the changeover to the new system.
Unfortunately, the circumstance surrounding your particular situation was not anticipated and for that I apologise.
Why do system debts just appear on payslips without explanation? Is there a system whereby ADF pay could be updated to explain system debts or could an email be sent to members explaining why they will not be paid?
The system initiated debt appeared on your account because your pay was incorrectly reduced from Schedule 3 to GOPS 2. The flow-on effect resulted in insufficient funds being available in your account to meet your allotments. Nevertheless, the system paid the allotments and generated the corresponding “debt”. Your payslip included a line “Change gazetted corps” in the Adjustments this Fortnight field. This was the transaction that amended your pay group and reduced your pay.
Defpac has arranged an out-of-cycle payment of $208.96, paid on November 8. Your pay group has been amended back to Special List on ADF Pay and your entitlements and deductions will be corrected for payday November 16.
TOP
Reservist struggles with the burden of proof
I AM an ex-regular serving member, and now manage my own business.
In July I was part of an instructional team for a Direct Fire Support Weapons Course at Cultana Training Area west of Adelaide.
On submitting my claim for the Employer Support Scheme benefits, I was informed in writing that I was not eligible to receive the benefit due to the fact that I had not supplied financial details.
Anyone who has had dealings with this form will understand the process and other items of proof required to gain the sought-after benefit.
After numerous phone calls, and no joy, even the fact I had explained that my financial details belong to me, my business partner, the tax man – anyone in business for themselves can tell you that the tax man is very interested in your Business Activity Statement, which is directly linked to your business name and registration – and my accountant.
The problem is, in not providing my financial details, I have not proved that my business is my primary source of income.
Please, could someone explain to me how this can be if I am self-employed, have a registered business and am not in receipt of any other financial means?
WO2 Dale Jenssen
12/40RTR
Derwent Barracks
Doug Stedman, Director ESP Scheme, responds:
THE ADF Reserves Employer Support Payment (ESP) Scheme was established in June 2001 as one of the Government’s initiatives to enhance the contribution made by reservists to ADF capability.
The scheme provides a financially-based assistance measure to employers who release their employees for Reserve service. Payments are also available to self-employed reservists after they meet additional eligibility criteria.
Provision of these payments has provided real benefits to ADF capability by supporting reservists’ service on operational deployments, training exercises and courses, and in undertaking other Defence duties.
The ESP Scheme is governed by Defence (Employer Support Payments) Determination 2005, made under the Defence Act (1903). To be entitled to receive an employer support payment, a claimant must meet the eligibility criteria detailed in this Defence Determination.
Self-employed reservists, such as WO2 Jenssen, must provide proof of a number of elements to show that they are entitled to payments.
These elements include proof that the member has a bona fide business which is operating or trading. Another required element, detailed in the determination, is proof that the member’s business has provided their principal source of income for at least the previous six months.
Without providing proof of income, a claimant cannot establish entitlement. If a claimant does not provide financial details, the delegate will be unable to determine the claimant’s eligibility to receive employer support payments and thus will be unable to approve the claim.
WO2 Jenssen has stated that he is self-employed, has a registered business and is not in receipt of any other financial means. Given this, he may well be able to satisfy the eligibility criteria in order to be entitled to receive employer support payments. However, as with any other claimant under a Government payments scheme, he must provide the information that is required to show his eligibility.
TOP
|
