Money not only issue

ALTHOUGH I welcome retention initiatives, is throwing money the solution? We need to investigate why soldiers are leaving.

I know of a soldier who is discharging and he is not happy with what is happening within the Army. He joined to serve his country and fulfil his ambition.

During his short career he received a shoulder injury which was mismanaged by the specialist who attended to it. As a result he was downgraded to Class 2 and unable to transfer to the corps he would like to as the corps changed its criteria not long after his shoulder injury to accept only soldiers who are Class 1. Had he been given to chance to prove himself he may have continued his service to the Army.

It is every soldier’s ambition to serve on an overseas deployment. Why is it that these deployments are limited to some and not to all?

There have been some soldiers who have been deployed a number of times and in some instances to the same locality.

Why not give all soldiers regardless of rank or corps an opportunity to be deployed on overseas deployments, similar to our allies? This would allow soldiers to put their training into practice.

Exercises are good training ground, but overseas deployment is the ultimate test of objectives. By giving them this opportunity, they in turn become the future instructors.

Talking about military instructors, I note that there also is a military instructor’s allowance. In some training institutions, instructors work 16- to 18-hour days for a number of weeks. The additional $5000 annually is an incentive for instructors, but what they really need is gratitude and respect, not additional obstructions such as not lowering the flag within a number of strokes while duty NCO.

With increasing numbers leaving the ADF I suggest an independent person/corps be involved in conducting exit interviews.

Psychology staff are involved in the initial enlistment, so why not use them to assist in the reasons of their departure? This should be conducted as a face-to-face discussion/interview and not as a survey questionnaire. Information gathered from this would be of value to all in command and may assist in the retention of personnel.
Capt David Czerkies
Health Services Army Reserve – NSW
Sydney

Maj Geoffrey Young, A/SO1 Retention, DGPers-A, responds:
THE current round of bonuses was always intended to be a short-term retention benefit to stabilise numbers until we introduce longer term plans to retain members in uniform.

We were fortunate to have the Government agree to our pay reform program, which will benefit a large number of people across all ranks.

I would like to address the pertinent points you raise individually. Army is currently looking at the how we manage our medically unfit soldiers. Army understands that we need to retain our experienced soldiers who may have been injured at work. We in DGPers-A are in the process of reviewing all policy documents relating to medical classifications.
On the issue of deployments, CA has stipulated to his senior leadership group that they need to ensure they deploy the right people for the job at hand.

In addition, allocation procedures have changed recently to allow deployments to be opened up to non-LHQ personnel. It is hoped that this will help relieve the current pressures on LHQ personnel.
Glad you like the Military Instructor bonus; it was introduced to attract people to Training Command positions, as well as recognise their workload. It is important for all in leadership positions to display gratitude and respect to their staff in order to make a difference.

The staff within DGPers-A are aware that the exit interview process is vexed, as a member in the process of exiting the Army will not always provide beneficial responses. You might like to visit the DVA website at http://www.dva.gov.au/ to highlight your concerns.

Retention contention

LIKE most members of the Army who have proven their commitment to Defence through long service and career progression, I am annoyed that the government is using a bandaid measure to retain junior members.

The provision of a retention benefit for members who have served minimal time purely to allow government KPIs for personnel numbers to be met is an insult to members who have already shown their commitment.

I understand that retaining members at certain rank levels is important and hard to achieve, however, instead of paying a blanket retention benefit to those members it would make more sense to provide junior members with real incentive to achieve higher positions.

This could have been achieved by paying a promotion bonus and increasing wages for more senior positions.

Where is the incentive for a sergeant, who with the retention benefit is earning the same amount as a warrant officer, to do courses, be promoted and take on greater responsibility? If that member was to be promoted to warrant officer there would be no bonus paid and the promotion would attract a 12-month return of service obligation. Call me crazy but that sounds like performance punishment.

A parting thought, the best retention incentive we ever had was DFRDB.
WO1 Tony Mackay
Land Systems Division, DMO
Victoria Barracks, Victoria

Maj Geoffrey Young, A/SO1 Retention, DGPers-A, responds:
THE bonuses were the result of a number of internal and external studies which indicated the ranks and time in rank requirements for Army to increase in size in order to be an effective capability in the future.

The government, in the last Budget, agreed to fund more comprehensive changes to pay that it is hoped will benefit a large number of people, including warrant officers. This reform is focused on new pay structures for all three categories; ORs, WO1s and officers.

The intent of the reform is to increase the pay differentials between ranks and pay groups. This structural change has been developed to recognise the increase in work value between ranks and also to provide the financial incentive for soldiers to seek promotion. These new structures should be in place by next year. To explain these new structures DGPers-A staff are in the process of conducting roadshows.

Unfortunately the DFRDB scheme you refer to is no longer available. The scheme did not comply with updated superannuation legislation used for the rest of the Australian community and it is considered unlikely that government will agree to return to a situation where the military has a different super arrangements to those enjoyed by the rest of the community.

That said a super review is under way and you can make submissions to http://intranet.defence.gov.au/militarysuperreview/.

Thirsting for water system

WITH keeping water up to our troops becoming more and more critical every day, why aren’t hydration systems (Camelbaks etc) being released as general issue?

The current items are restricted to operations and SF. The hydration and welfare of all soldiers should be paramount to all those who command.

As part of obligatory training we are made aware of heat and its implications as to how we conduct activities. Why do units have to expend DUF to try to overcome this problem?

Our operational and SF activities should be paramount, but every soldier should have a safe and healthy existence.
Soldiers are our greatest asset and if we fail them where do we really stand in the scheme of things? Do we saddle them with a plethora of water bottles? We must do all in our power to sustain our soldiers whether they are overseas, on ops, SF or just plain Joe/Jane.
Cpl Bob Goodworth
QUR
St Lucia, Queensland

Maj Russell Pryor, SO2 Clothing AHQ, replies:
AHQ, in consultation with LHQ, is currently undertaking a fundamental review into all Block Scales that involve field and combat clothing and equipment.

The intent is to consolidate and broaden the basic issue (DP1) and make it more contemporary to needs. Subsequently, emerging equipment requirements will be incorporated into the basic issue.

One of many additional pieces of equipment that has been identified to be included as standard DP1 is a hydration system that will be compatible with the Land 125 suite of equipment.

Once the revised Block Scale is approved, your Unit Q Store will be able to demand for the hydration system and the other additional equipment added to the entitlement. Personnel should anticipate a delay in the availability of this equipment until sufficient stock is acquired to meet demand.

Fuel for thought

Sturdy: A Bushmaster on patrol in Iraq. Photo by Cpl Rob Nyffenegger

WHEN several Bushmasters were on display at Russell Offices, I had a cursory look and noticed the diesel fuel tank (toward the front of vehicle) appeared to be made of plastic and otherwise had no visible ballistic protection on the sides or underneath (except for a steel strip forming a horizontal supporting bracket).

On querying this design one explanation was that extra armour around the fuel tank would increase vehicle weight somewhat and a reserve fuel holding tank (in the engine bay) would be sufficient to get vehicle back to base (if close enough).

What then happens if an opponent targets the fuel tank area on these vehicles as a means of if not completely disabling the vehicle, at least limiting its response range and requiring immediate back to base fuel tank replacement?

Isn’t there relatively light armour around (even body armour) that could be fitted around the fuel tank (blanket or plate fashion) to afford some ballistic protection? I’m interested in the design thinking.

Greg Jarosch
Deputy Director
Process Improvements & Procurement
Capability Development Executive

Lt-Col Sam McPhee, SO1 Armoured Vehicle Implementation Team AHQ responds:
THE Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicle (IMV) has been acquired to provide protected mobility for Army and RAAF users and is not classified as an armoured fighting vehicle.

For a light armoured vehicle in its weight class, the IMV provides an excellent level of protection for its occupants against small arms fire and fragmentation and mine threats by employing several novel design concepts.

If engaged by enemy, the IMV is designed to be able to move away to a secure area using internal fuel, with any punctured tyres being kept viable for movement at reduced speed through the use of run flat inserts and a central tyre inflation system.

Components that could be damaged in an enemy contact, such as the external fuel tank, storage bins, wheels, windscreen and windows, are designed to be replaced by unit maintenance personnel in the area of operations.

The V-shaped hull of the IMV is designed to deflect the energy of a mine blast away from the vehicle’s occupants and internal components, with external items such as the bins and fuel tank able to be sacrificed as part of this process.

The plastic external fuel tank also has some inherent self-sealing capability and its internal pick-up draws fuel from the bottom of the tank, maximising the use of fuel stored in this tank even if it is penetrated.

Fitting armour protection to external components such as the fuel tank would both reduce the effectiveness of the vehicle’s mine blast protection system (by trapping the energy from the blast and transferring it into the hull and occupants) and also reduce the weight budget available for IMV enhancements such as the recently-introduced Protected Weapon System.

Let’s recycle more

THE Defence Department has come along way in relation to environmental management over the past few years, but it still has a long journey ahead of it.

When I first joined the Army you could go on exercise and deforest as much as you felt like. Misuse of resources was not uncommon, from a range shoot which cleared a grid square to armoured vehicles running over everything in their path.

The next challenge for Defence is an holistic approach to preserving our vital resources through a solid recycling policy for objects such as paper, cardboard, plastic, glass, metal scraps, furniture and so on. To date, it has been up to individual units to organise recycling at their bases. I have been to units which do not recycle anything at all, as well as to other units that organise what they can to help the environment.

Defence employs more than 90,000 personnel. How many of them do not recycle? How quickly are we expediting the filling of Australian landfills?

In a previous unit I organised recycling bins. Yet personnel were still throwing paper into the rubbish bin. I would then put signs up and advise everyone of their “duty of care”. Most people in Defence do not grasp the importance of doing our bit for the environment.

I would like to know what Defence is doing to address our waste of limited resources? Also, what policies is it looking to employ and how will it govern them? Most importantly, we need to be made accountable for our actions. We need to have “peace of mind” that we are doing our part.
Sgt Peter Magers
155 Sig Sqn
Dundas Training Depot

Maj Susan Hickey, SO2 Environment and Heritage AHQ, responds:
AS you correctly point out, Army has altered its ways in regards to training and the environment.

This approach has been reinforced by the issue of DI(A) Admin 70-7, which provides clear guidance on the planning, conduct and completion of training to ensure our conduct contributes to the sustainment of training areas, not degradation.

While our training and operational tempo has increased, it is expected that each soldier should follow the community ethic in reducing our waste and support energy and water initiatives.

Army fully supports the Defence Support Group (DSG) in its endeavours to implement policies and strategies that provide guidance and the means to reduce waste, including options for recycling. Each DSG regional manager has the responsibility and authority to implement waste projects, in accordance with the Defence Waste Minimisation Policy. This policy outlines the Defence commitment to, and strategies to achieve, waste minimisation.

Each Defence Region is implementing Regional Waste Minimisation Plans. These can be as simple as the separation and recycling of materials on barracks for contractor removal.

Units are encouraged to implement their waste minimisation projects using these Regional Plans as they link all estate waste management requirements in that region.

I encourage you to visit the DSG website, as it has a Defence Waste Site with links to the full range of waste strategies, a toolbox and links to Regional Energy and Sustainability Managers (RESM). I would strongly recommend you contact your respective RESM to confirm their waste projects and determine how to integrate your own projects.

There are two RESM in Sydney; one for Sydney Central and one for Sydney Southwest, covering Barracks, Depots and the Holsworthy Military Area. Their details are:

• DS-Region Sydney Central – Sally Edwards on (02) 9377 2250.
  
• DS-Region Sydney Southwest – Dennis Shanahan on (02) 8777 5127.

I fully appreciate your interest and efforts in this area, as the community does expect Army to contribute fully to a sustainable future and waste minimisation is a practical way to support it.

Pay cut on promotion?

AS a member of the ADF a visit to the Australian Department of Defence Pay and Conditions website should be a regular occurrence for all.

After examining two documents on this website, I believe that if you are a WO2 in Pay Group 6-2, and you take a promotion to WO1 on or after August 9, your salary will be reduced.

Determination No 22 Remuneration Reform Project – Salary Rates for Other Ranks (approved March 29, released April 12), Schedule 6, Part 1 indicates that a WO2 Pay Group 6-2 (from August 9) is on a salary of $65,092.

However, the ADF Workplace Remuneration Arrangement 2006-2009 and Star Ranks Remuneration Arrangement 2006-2009 document, Schedule 2B indicates that a WO1 Pay Group 2-0, being the pay group that I’m on, receives an annual salary of $63,134.

As can be seen, taking a promotion to WO1 after August 9, in this example, a member will take a pay cut of $1958. Another way of looking at this is if you are a WO1 on the lowest increment, a WO2 on the highest increment will be getting paid more than you.

Am I interpreting these documents correctly and, if so, why the pay cut? Please do not bore readers with a regurgitation of the role, or duty statement, of the Defence Pay and Conditions website or Pacman; I’m sure that they are only interested in this oversight, if it exists. The monetary benefit or incentive to be promoted to WO1 is just not there.
WO1 Kevin Trimble
Battlespace Comms Operations Group
Victoria Barracks, Melbourne

Lt-Col Lionel Haynes, IR Officer, responds:
I COMMEND you for recommending that all members take the time to keep abreast of information regarding entitlements and issues that affect them.

The Defence Pay and Conditions website is an excellent source of information for members to avail themselves on latest information on a wide range of issues.

On the issue you raised, that WO2 on promotion to WO1 will lose money, I can assure you this will not occur. The documents you have looked at are technically correct, however, what is missing is the rationale for the placement of WO1 into the new WO1 pay structure.

The ADF is in the process of developing and presenting a case to the DFRT for WO1(E)s that will see them move away from the current common scale into a graded structure that recognises differing levels of work value to differentiate between WO1 employment groups. The Defence Pay and Conditions website has the following information listed in reference to the submission;

“In July the ADF will propose to the DFRT that the WO1(E) pay structure be reduced to eight pay grades with the steps between pay grades set at $4100 to make them consistent and substantial. As the nature of WO1 work is generally trade or trade-related, placement will be based on the member’s employment category. That is, on promotion from WO2 initial placement in the WO1 structure will be informed by prior salary placement in the OR structure. The ADF will also put forward a proposal for further pay progression for WO1s employed in higher management jobs not directly related to their trade. The ADF will present a pay case to the DFRT prior to August 9 to ensure that all WO2 receive additional remuneration on promotion to WO1.”

With the WO1 structure being refined to eight pay grades, one should not assume that PG6 as a WO2 will automatically line up with PG6 as a WO1. At this stage, I am unable to articulate the methodology being developed to achieve placement, suffice to say that the ADF model ensures that all WO2s on promotion to WO1 will receive an increase in remuneration. Further advice will be made available to members.