|
| |
|
| |
Rent rise inequitable
I ATTENDED a New Housing Classification Policy brief recently in which we were informed that, under the new scheme, IETs and diggers all the way up to staff sergeants will be lumped into the one band (Rent Band 1) with lieutenants and all of these ranks will pay the same amount for housing.
When we questioned the fairness of this at the brief we were given two answers:
- the changes don’t start for two more years and will then be phased in over 10 years to “ease the pain”; and
- “innumerable” surveys showed that ORs were “willing to pay more for a higher standard of housing”.
Neither of these answers is satisfactory in my opinion.
First, sneaking the increases in over 10 years may make the changes more palatable for those currently affected (after all, the majority of current ORs will be seniors or discharged in 12 years’ time) but, using my trade (ECN 256) as an example, it doesn’t change the fact that an IET earning $30,015 will be paying the same for housing as a sergeant who is earning $50,924-$52,481.
These figures do not include allowances. (A lieutenant can earn anywhere from $41,967 to $79,934).
Secondly, according to surveys, ORs are “willing to pay more for a higher standard of housing”, which is worded as though we’ll be able to choose to pay more.
I’d be interested in the survey results if the question were worded more accurately as: “Do you think all ORs should be forced to pay as much as sergeants, staff sergeants and junior officers for a slightly higher standard of housing?”
I applaud the goals of these changes but I think the implementation is inequitable and flawed.
Sig Matthew Lindfield-Seager
17 Sig Regt
Holsworthy Barracks |
| |
Single life comes at a high cost
CORRECT me if I’m wrong, but a single living-in member pays $127.60 a fortnight to live in level 5 by themselves.
What about those single members posted to remote areas without living-in accommodation? Those areas include Weipa, Thursday Island, Mt Isa and Gove, just to name a few.
These members have no choice but to live in service residences because private rentals are impossible due to lack of housing and cost.
DHA provides housing in three- or four-bedroom houses, with a huge yard. This sounds great initially, but then you have to consider the maintenance of such a large house and the yard, which you would not have as a living-in member.
And then there’s the cost. A reasonable assumption would be that you would only have to pay the same contribution as a living-in member, because you have no choice but to live out. Currently single members pay $237.20 a fortnight, $109.60 a fortnight more than level 5 live-in accommodation.
Then there is the cost of cleaning and yard maintenance. If you don’t own a mower, you are expected to buy one, or pay for someone to mow for you, and no entitlement exists to reimburse the cost incurred.
In Weipa it costs between $35-$45, depending on the size of your yard, and during the wet season a weekly mow is a necessity.
Then there is the cost of cleaning equipment – mops, buckets, vacuum etc – or you can pay someone to clean your house, around $50 for two hours.
Stop whingeing, you say, you get Grade E district allowance of $219.21 a fortnight.
Well, the district allowance compensates for isolation, harsh climate and high cost of living. In other words the system recognises that you will pay more for your food and fuel etc. Just quietly, $219.60 doesn’t even cover the extra cost of food in place like this, but it’s a good starting point.
And then there is the RLLT entitlements. In Weipa, a married person is entitled to a return trip to the nearest capital city and a further entitlement to a capital city of choice.
A single member in Weipa is entitled to their normal entitlement to next of kin, and a further one RLLT entitlement. Therefore, a single member in Weipa is being discriminated against for been single.
How about a fair go for remote single members: give them housing at living-in rates, pay for their mowing, pay a portion of their cleaning supplies and utilities, and give them the same travel entitlements as a married member.
Cpl Timothy Harris
51FNQR
Weipa |
| |
Support glut
READING the Defence Magazine I noticed the article on “International Women’s Day – a global celebration”. It was an interesting read and the table of APS Defence personnel to ADF members piqued my curiosity.
I decided to do a little number crunching. It would appear that to support a total ADF of 50,902 members it requires 19,309 APS personnel.
Breaking it down further it appears that we require one APS EL1 or above for management in support of every 10.6 ADF members. Further to this we require one APS level 1-6 for every 3.5 ADF members. This gives us the overall requirement of one APS for every 2.6 ADF members.
I am making the assumption that these figures do not include the brethren from the likes of Spotless or SERCO or any of the help line organisations.
How can a bureaucracy silo successfully function as a service organisation with separate C2 structures?
Given this plethora of overarching management personnel in support of ADF goals I am moved to ask: “Are we getting value for money or are we just creating another bureaucracy that requires excessive personnel to manage it.”
Perhaps it would be timely to revisit the disbandment of the RAASC.
Capt Peter Collins
LWC NQ
Lavarack Barracks
|
| |
Thanks for help on emotional journey
I HAVE recently been to Timor to visit the memorial to Cpl Stuart “Monsta” Jones and would like to thank everyone involved in organising the trip.
Logistics is one thing, but the care and compassion I received from all involved was above and beyond duty. First, I would like to thank my CO, Lt-Col David Thomae, and Adjt Capt Richard Mouthaan at 9RQR for guiding this through from idea to itinerary.
Thanks to Lt-Col Andrew Gallaway and the soldiers from 1RAR for their care in-country and for organising a truly moving and memorable service.
To Chaplain Charles Vesely, WO2 Jason Thies, WO2 Phil Hay, and especially to my escort, Cpl Karen Smith, I thank you for sharing my emotional journey.
My gratitude for your time, kindness and compassion cannot be expressed in mere words.
These are the values Stu loved about the Army and I sincerely thank you all for helping me to realise my need to walk the ground where his life ended.
Sgt Suzie Sheather
9RQR
Gallipoli Barracks |
| |
Rwanda service revisited
I AM writing regarding my service in Rwanda some years back.
Recently I was contacted by Honours and Awards to inform me that I was required to hand back the ASM that I received for the deployment and then it would be replaced by clasps for the AASM that I have for having been deployed to Timor.
The deployment to Rwanda was deemed to be warlike service some 10 years after the last Australian soldiers left that country. Does this also mean that the pay and allowances for the trip will be revisited and the additional money being paid to soldiers on warlike service will be compensated to all those who deployed on either UNAMIR 1 or 2?
The next question that I have is why has it taken so long for this realisation that there was a greater danger than first thought at the time? I ask these questions with the greatest of respect to your readers and the higher ranking personnel who may be asked to address these question.
WO2 Paul Davey
2/17RNSWR
Sydney
|
| |
Bunfight over mess charges
I AM writing about the letter by WO2 Norm Davis and the reply from Maj John Kerrison (Army, July 26).
My experience as PMC of a mess is now a couple of years old, but I believe the areas in question have not changed.
Maj Kerrison is correct in stating that you are paying a “full cost recovery”, however, the logic behind this stance by Defence is questionable.
When the contract was drawn up between Defence and the contractor, the staffing of the mess was based on a number of bands.
By way of an example, Band 1 is frequently up to 50 people dining. The contractor is paid by Defence for the staffing required to adequately serve these people.
If 60 people were to dine at that time, an additional charge would be made by the contractor to Defence as more staff would be required. Hence, unless the number of people dining exceeds the bandwidth, there is no additional labour cost to the Commonwealth. Of course there is still the cost of the food consumed, which is not covered by Defence.
In general it is my experience that on a cost basis the quality of meals does not compare favourably to those in a number of restaurants that have to pay all their own labour costs and provide their own building and equipment.
This matter has been raised before by PMCs with the Business Improvement Program and it appears the Department is satisfied with the current arrangements.
On the issue of the public servant access to meals in the mess, the DECA (para F27–1b) provides for “casual meals at service messes at the same rate as ADF members”. It should be noted that casual meals here refers to the Defence Casual Meal, which is the meal subsidised by the Commonwealth and the rate for these meals is determined by the Chief Finance Officer of the Department and not the mess committee.
Maj John Wright
AHU
Victoria Barracks, Brisbane
|
|
