|
| |
|
| |
The money’s not the issue
I READ with interest Maj de Boer’s letter (“Plenty to think about”, Army, August 23) where he comments on the attitude of soldiers who focus on retention payments rather than current pay rates and conditions of service.
I too joined the ADF with the focus to serve my country and (as it was then) maybe get a trip somewhere, if I was lucky. Back in “the good ol’ days”, you joined the Army because you wanted to be in the Army, not because it was a job that paid well, and set you up for your life once you left.
The Army used to be concerned with setting the standard of the soldier they wanted and only accepting those who met that standard. We had a decent sized Army, and it was full of people who wanted to be there to serve their country, despite any grievances about pay. The problem is that in recent times, this is no longer the main motivation for recruiting. The day the ADF chose to focus its recruiting pitch on salary and training, including the civil recognition of qualifications, is the day that attitudes changed.
The issues affecting retention are not about money, they are about treatment. Most soldiers would continue to serve if the little things were taken care of in lieu of retention bonuses. I recently spent three days stuck in Bandiana at the completion of a course, because the system is not flexible enough to change flights and allow members to return home to their families early. This is the kind of issue that needs to be addressed – not more and more lump sum payments, which affect many soldiers with Child Support, Family Tax Supplement, etc. Retention is not an issue that can be countered by throwing cash at soldiers.
Name and rank supplied
SASR
Campbell Barracks
|
| |
Call to get tanked
I APPROACHED the local DHA office to ask a question about saving water in MQs by getting a water tank.
I was told: “Unfortunately this is not something that DHA are able to install. As your house is on base, this is something that Defence would have to fund as a project and probably be looked at for all houses on base rather than on an individual basis.”
Given that South East Queensland has moved to Level 5 water restrictions with Level 6 possible soon and Level 7 in March 2008 unless the region’s water supplies change dramatically, what is Defence doing to save water through installing water tanks in MQs?
My other question is about compulsory excess water charges for MQ residents.
Surely now that we are being rationed to 150-litres of water a person a day then the notion that we are being charged excess water in our MQs is ludicrous. I know the age-old response is that “water charges are levied across the whole of the ADF and we all contribute”, but there has to be a massive reduction in water usage across ADF MQs given the constant reminders by governments for everyone to reduce water consumption.
I look forward to paying excess water charges in the future when we are drinking recycled sewage.
WO1 Ken Golden
LWC
Kokoda Barracks
DURING the past seven years, Defence families in Queensland and NSW have had heavy water restrictions imposed upon them by state governments and have continued to ask the question why DHA charges for “excess water” in a service-provided MQ.
I would like DHA to publicly publish the excess water bill for MQs for 2006 (not water rates, just the excess water charges, by state) vs the amount of money collected from Defence families for excess water usage.
I’m posted to Brisbane, where the government has enforced Level 5 water restrictions. These restrictions heavily impact the ability of members to maintain gardens, clean outdoor areas or other needs.
I would like to suggest that, just like the air-conditioning scheme in the NT several years ago where DHA installed many air-conditioners to MQs that did not have this facility, that DHA uses the money collected from the excess water charge and associated funding to install rain and grey-water tanks at all DHA properties in the water-restricted regions of Australia.
This project in itself would show serving members that DHA is actively using this controversial water charge for the benefit of families during this dry period and to the greater community that Defence is being proactive in assisting its serving personnel by providing them with the ability to save water and maintain properties for investors and DHA.
I’m sure this is not in the too hard basket for DHA and most Defence members would welcome this proactive approach to the drought.
Capt Lance Johnson
HQ 1 Div
Gallipoli Barracks
Mr Rob McKellar, Director DHRP, responds:
I WOULD like to dispel the myth that DHA levies excess water charges.
The water charge on a member’s SVA relates to general water usage rather than excess water usage and is a charge generated by Defence.
Several years ago DHA declined to become involved in recovering water consumption charges from Service Residence (SR) tenants. A preliminary review in 1997 indicated that an individually assessed user-pays system to recover water consumption charges from Defence SR tenants would be expensive to introduce and administer. Such a system would require periodic accounts to be sent to members, money collected, accounts reconciled and a method introduced to follow up the inevitable slow payers. DHA would bill Defence for this administrative service.
As a result, Defence continues to use a system where water charges for all SRs nationally are split equally among SR tenants in the form of the water contribution charge. Under this system, DHA pays all water charges for service residences and recovers the amount from Defence that represents actual water usage by members. Defence then recovers that total amount by means of an averaged charge deducted fortnightly from the pay of SR tenants. This pragmatic system means that some, at a particular point in time, may pay more and some may pay less than their actual usage. From the Defence perspective, however, this system is the most simple, efficient and cost-effective approach.
As a result of drought conditions over recent years we have all had to come to grips with water restrictions. Local and state governments have imposed restrictions relevant to their areas across Australian communities. Defence recognises this need and encourages Defence personnel to adhere to local restrictions.
Capt Johnson and WO1 Golden both suggest installation of water tanks in service residences as a measure to encourage greater water efficiency. All new constructions by DHA meet four-star energy ratings and include installation of rain water tanks where required by local laws or development covenants. While rain water tanks are generally considered an environmentally friendly measure, their practicality is tempered by varying requirements for reticulation and other plumbing regulations imposed by local governments across the country. These differing requirements make the large-scale installation a challenging task. Nonetheless, Defence is considering inclusion of water tanks and is working with DHA to scope the issue, including the impact on rent paid by members through the Group Rent Scheme. |
| |
This system’s a buddy nuisance
I WRITE in regards to the “buddy system” to be used during weapons handling.
It is a sad indictment on our modern military that we need another member of the military to deem our personal weapon clear or watch our drills to ensure we do not make a mistake.
If it has been identified that weapon-handling skills are poor and safety is not being sufficiently adhered to, would it not be better to order that weapons training and testing be conducted by all units on a more regular basis? As a further disincentive to mishandle your weapon I would suggest even harsher punishments and rigorous extra training be adopted.
We are soldiers and not children and, as such, should not be wrapped in cotton wool. Soldiers are expected to be able to operate in harsh environments, where the soldier’s life and his or her mate’s life could be threatened and, in such circumstances, nothing but 100 per cent confidence in each other’s weapon drills should be accepted. If we allow these basic drills to slip then what comes next?
Let’s stop all the political correctness and rather than watering down our drills, let’s fix the problem in a confident and positive manner.
Sgt Rodger Mackereth
‘A’ Fd Bty
Holsworthy Barracks
Col Mark J. Holmes, Commandant CATC (OHS Adviser ADF Small Arms Training and Training Adviser ADF Small Arms), responds:
SGT Mackereth raises some interesting points on the implementation of the “buddy system” and is not likely to be alone in his concerns of “political correctness” when it comes to weapon handling.
Rest assured this is not the case at all; the buddy system in different forms has existed in armies throughout the world since time immemorial. A scan through the pages of Working Paper No. 128 “Not-So Friendly Fire: An Australian Taxonomy of Fratricide”, by Lt-Col Robert C. Stevenson, or the US Army “Safety Alert” June 2007 will quickly provide the reader with a list of accidental injuries and deaths as a result of Negligent Discharges (NDs). It is for this reason that the buddy system has been formalised into ADF doctrine. It is not a case of doubting the professionalism of our soldiers or “watering down our drills”, as the weapon operator is required to correctly conduct their drills and ensure that their weapon is cleared. It is a case of ensuring that our people are able to complete their mission without becoming needless casualties.
The buddy system is a set of very simple procedures which ensures our mates will not be killed, or injured, by a ND. It is applied by the weapon operator with assistance from a person who is weapon qualified to ensure that the drills are correct and the weapon is cleared.
There is no doubt that more weapon handling will assist in the reduction of NDs. However, the fact remains that, no matter how professional the soldier is, when they are tired or fatigued, accidents can, do and have occurred. It is for this reason that the Special Forces Training Centre ensures that the buddy system is enforced during their training. At the recent RAInf Corps Conference, the Commanding Officers from 3RAR and 6 RAR [based on experience as Battle Group Commanders] stated that the strictly enforced buddy system contributed to the safety and success of their respective missions in Timor-Leste. It was not negotiable. It worked.
I will liken the buddy system to the actions carried out by Sgt Mackereth’s own corps – the RAA. Prior to any call for fire leaving the observation post, the details are checked. At the command post and on the gun line, all commands and drills are independently checked. Why? To ensure safety. The same is conducted on a small-arms range and when reversing vehicles. The Australian soldier of today is no less professional than those of the past. The fact is that tired soldiers do make mistakes; the buddy system will ensure no one dies as a result of a momentary lapse in concentration. |
| |
Review should get the boot
WITH reference to the article “Boot review” (Army, July 26), after I stopped laughing at the headline I actually took time to read the article.
Are Army and DMO for real? How long are we going to go around this old chestnut before somebody in the system starts listening to the Defence members who actually use the boot?
The article says the aim is to “undertake an independent technical review of the combat boot”. What this actually means is that a company whose existence is dependent on consultation dollars will take an extraordinary amount of time and money to conduct the review, do “online surveys”, form a review committee (of people who have no idea of what the combat boot does) and then ignore any advice from the junior members of the ADF because some boffin thinks his science degree outweighs commonsense and experience.
How much is this going to cost in both time and money? Who is going to represent DMO in this nebulous trial that will probably have some rocket scientist recycling the Leopard tanks into the hob-nailed, blast-proof boot that he thinks will be a good force protection measure?
“The combat boot review team will consult with personnel, senior leadership and relevant industry experts.” Here’s a tip, the only senior leader that needs to be consulted is the bloke who lets us know how much money we can spend – first, to pay off the consultancy company, which will save money and time in the long run, and, secondly, to go and buy several hundred thousand pairs of Altama boots (ask anyone who has worn these) from the US Army and continue to buy COTS extreme cold weather boots.
There are good things that Defence could be spending taxpayers’ money on: this is not one them.
Name and rank supplied
SASR
Campbell Barracks
Maj Russell Pryor, SO2 Clothing AHQ, responds:
IN May 2006 the Defence Minister commissioned a review to investigate the problems associated with the procurement of ADF clothing and personnel equipment and provide recommendations into suggested solutions. This review is commonly known as the Harding Report.
This comprehensive review identified as one of its recommendations that the Deputy Chief of Army and Head Land System Division within DMO commission an independent review of the combat boot, including independent expert podiatry advice.
Army insisted upon the inclusion of extensive user feedback as a key component of this review. This was achieved through a web-based questionnaire and visits to key military areas.
The review team visited Puckapunyal, Holsworthy, Singleton and Townsville and spoke with a range of personnel whose military experience covered a wide spectrum, from trainees to those who had just returned from operational service. Their feedback was frank and honest and I can assure you that their views and opinions will be given due consideration in the findings of the review. The nature of the questions contained within the online survey and those raised at the forums provided an opportunity for soldiers to express not only their level of dissatisfaction but a preference for alternative boots to be identified.
The resources expended upon this review are necessary to conduct a fair, unbiased and robust examination of the combat boot.
Your suggestion to identify a replacement boot based on an anecdotal recommendation is only satisfactory for those who share your preference. The best means of making a useful contribution to this review is to provide your input and influence the outcome. It is hoped you took the opportunity to positively contribute to an issue you feel so passionately about. |
| |
Bushed in quest for help
I AM an assistant producer for BBC television in the UK and am doing some research for a long-running series presented by UK-based bushcraft specialist Ray Mears.
We have filmed in Australia on several occasions over the past few years. The subject of my research are two individuals who served in World War II in the Australian Army but worked closely with aircrew sharing their bushcraft skills.
One is Kenneth Murray Marshall, who apparently as an English officer had a distinguished World War I record. His Australian record appears to start in June 1942 (but he may have served under another name prior to this).
He served much of his time in the NT teaching survival training and bushcraft skills to Air Force pilots and crew. He also actively took part and led searches for missing planes and crew.
He was killed on May 17, 1945, while serving with the “Z” Special Unit.
The other person I’m trying to find out about is Richard (Dick) Harry Graves who also served in WWI and went on to serve again in WWII.
He, too, apparently had extensive knowledge of bushcraft skills and used them during active service with the Australian Jungle Rescue Detachment.
I’m not clear where this was based and where he served but it is mentioned in the publicity on a book about bushcraft he had published after the war.
If any of your readers know anything about these individuals I would be interested to hear from them. Perhaps some readers were either taught by them, served alongside them or were rescued by them or their colleagues.
I can be contacted at sally.dyas@bbc.co.uk or at BBC Television, Whiteladies Rd, Bristol, BS8 2LR
Sally Dyas
Bristol, England
|
| |
Send all eBay rats packing
LIKE many ADF personnel, I don’t mind doing a bit of shopping on eBay.
I also like to have a look at what military equipment is being sold because it’s quite interesting the amount of current in-service items being sold on a daily basis.
One particular item regularly appearing for sale is the good old ration pack, both canned and patrol. My understanding was that these items were not available for sale to the public. According to the sellers, they purchased the ration packs from disposal stores and they get defensive when you start asking questions, although when these sellers are from areas such as Townsville and the Hunter Valley, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out there could be something sus.
I work in the same area as an Inspector Foodstuff and bought this situation to his attention. He then went and reported it to the Senior Inspector Foodstuff.
Ration Packs have a shelf life and if consumed past this life can cause serious illness or even death.
I am interested to receive a reply that can explain what processes are in place to address this problem as there appears to be none, and if there are processes in place they are not working because one seller has sold 12 PR1M in the past two months on eBay.
WO2 Darren Morley
ALTC
Latchford Barracks
Lt-Col Craig Donohue, SO1 LOG POL, AHQ, responds:
YOU are correct, in that Defence policy (Supman 4 Edition 6, Chapter One Para 124) requires the approval of the National Fleet Manager Foodstuffs and the Senior Inspector Foodstuffs before combat ration packs (CRP) may be sold.
While there is no longer a Senior Inspector Foodstuffs, the WO1 Inspector Foodstuffs, ADF Catering Fleet, Victoria Barracks, Melbourne, has confirmed that DMO has not approved the sale of CRPs to disposal stores. Furthermore, CRPs are normally only given or sold to agencies such as the emergency services. As CRPs remain the property of the ADF, there should be no circumstance where they are offered for sale by individuals or private companies.
The policy for sale of military equipment on eBay and similar web sites is currently under review by a number of ADF agencies to formalise the process for the identification of ADF material posted for sale. Current policy states that: “Generally, the Australian military retains ownership over items issued to Defence Force members and as such these items can only be sold on e-ay with the written authority of the Minister for Defence or a person authorised in writing by the Minister. Any listing for Defence Force items must clearly show this written authority.”
Breaches of this policy are reported by eBay to the Service Police Central Records Office, which investigates the matter where appropriate. Please note that not all CRPs listed on eBay are sourced from the ADF and we do not have the authority to interfere with legitimate trading.
This matter has been reported to the Provost Marshal ADF and an investigation has begun. |
|
