Subscription price rise is not justified

How can you justify a rise in the Navy News from $26 to $39, that is a rise of 50%?

What do we get: a lot of PR stories which is to my mind is a lot of hogwash. What I would like to read more about is the real Navy, not someone getting a certificate for his/her job.

When I was in the Royal Navy, there was no such thing as a song and dance in doing your job, you just got on with it.

Even in the 2nd World War, there was many a brave act that went without recognition, but with our naval personnel, all they want are certificates, medals and fancy titles.

I have just been watching Australian Story, a story about Henry Cowan, a pilot flying Hudson bombers in PNG WWII. Did he get any awards for his bravery? No, the Australian Government knocked it back.

Finally why do the sailors get an award for going to sea?

Geoff Williamson,
Rockingham, WA.
PS: You cannot justify a 50 per cent rise in your subscription price.
I hope you print this letter.

CAPT Malcolm Wright, Director General Navy Communication and Coordination, replies:

As Joint Editorial Board Chairperson I am very proud of the content of Navy News. The stories typically range from a two-page spread recognising the gallantry of those who survived HMAS Kuttabul's sinking 60 years ago, through to news from our forces in the Gulf, in Timor and conducting border protection duties.

We also put in news on sport, exercises we are taking part in overseas, and yes, stories on how well many of our fine people are doing. Times have changed and we do honour people for achievement these days.

A quick check around the mess decks tells me that our sailors and officers like to read about how well their mates have performed. We should all be proud of each other's achievements in meeting the Navy's mission. Whether that be firing a missile, or providing the excellent victuals to keep the ship's company alive, well and in good cheer.

Recent NEWSPOLL surveys (May 2002) tell us that 80 per cent of Australians think that the Navy is doing a good job for Australia. That is a very good result for any organisation in this day and age.

I am proud to recognise the efforts of all those in Navy who help contribute to this recognition. It is not certificates and medals for the sake of it - it is recognition for a job well done. Navy News will continue to recognise shipmates' good work whenever we can.

The $26 subscription was subsidised by the Commonwealth. We are now working on a cost recovery basis. A $39 subscription takes us to break even, we make no profit - Ed.

More kudos for Supply branch

It is a sad fact that the Supply branch has for years failed to give due recognition of its personnel through Navy News.

In every issue we see officers, birdies and techo rates doing and achieving great things, but what do people within the Supply branch achieve during the year to merit mention in this the sailors' paper? Very little if we looked back over previous issues.

So it was great to see in the June 24 issue, two stories on our hard-working and often under-staffed cooks.

The only problem with the articles was that in both stories the Supply officers did all the talking. There was no mention of the CPO/POCK's who would've been in charge of the galleys and therefore right in the midst of all the problems and triumphs that would've come their way.

Also there was no recognition of the two cooks in the photo from Manoora. Again they're doing all the hard work and long hours yet the SO gives the story and gets his name in print.

If officers are going to write articles about Supply personnel, may I suggest that they actually speak to the people themselves and not to a Supply officer while in the wardroom?

I believe a greater effort should be made by Supply management to showcase, through Navy News, some of the great people working for the branch.

Shelley McMahon,
ex-POSTD,
Bray Park, QLD.

For namesake

I note on page 11 of the July 8 edition of Navy News a photo spread on the deployment of HMA Ships Canberra and Newcastle to the Gulf.

In a well-meaning but (to me) slightly silly nod at 'security awareness', sailors pictured are identified by rank and first name only (see also page 9, HMAS Arunta). So far so (slightly silly) good.

However, I then note that the two photographers, who were obviously aboard HMA Ships Canberra and/or Newcastle for the deployment are identified by rank, first name and (gasp) last name.

One wonders how secure LSPH Damien and LSPH Tracy now feel having been identified to the world's terrorist network via the pages of Navy News.

For good measure, should not the gentleman in the funny-coloured suit pictured in the bottom photo have been identified simply as 'LTGEN Peter'?

G. Wilson,
Russell Offices,
Canberra.

Hand signals

I was disappointed to see VADM Shackleton on the television and now on the front page of the Navy News (July 8) with his hands in his No.5s' jacket pockets.

I have read a lot in past letters to the editor regarding falling dress and grooming standards in the RAN. How can the Service expect to maintain standards if its leaders don't set the example?

If a junior sailor was standing on the quarterdeck with his hands in his pockets, I presume someone would have corrected him. How about the same rules for all?

I recall one CPOSTD who used to subtly correct officers in the Cerberus wardroom if they were lounging around with hands in their pockets. Her rationale was that the stewards were required to look smart, so why not the officers? Why not indeed?

Peter C. Murray,
Winthrop, WA.

The highs and lows of military superannuation

As a MSBS member, I read the article 'Global economy hits military super' (July 8, P3) with interest.
Although it is apparent that superannuation funds have suffered due to world economic matters, and this is put forward as the reason MSBS has a negative credit rating of 10%, I would have appreciated reading how MSBS is comparing to other funds.

The Sun Herald's Investor dated July 7 reports that Australia's largest fund expects to pay its members a positive return of 3-4%, and the bottom five superannuation funds are between -7.2 and -8.9%.

It maybe these figures are not directly comparable, but a general comparison is worth considering to allow members to determine how their scheme is performing.

Richard Scott,
HMAS Watson.

Charles Kiefel, Chairman Military Super, replies:

As most readers will be aware, superannuation funds have performed poorly in the last 12 months, following strong returns in previous years. In looking at the comparative performance of MSBS, it is important to note a couple of points.

Firstly, no two superannuation funds are the same. They vary in scheme design according to the make-up of their membership. As a result, investment strategies vary widely between funds.

MSBS is designed specifically for military members. It has a high employer contribution (18-28%), which is Government guaranteed and not affected by investment performance. The scheme has excellent in-built death and disability entitlements, attractive lump sum/pension conversion rates and no administration fees or charges. These features are not available in most other funds.

MSBS is managed by a board of trustees made up of a mix of investment experts, employer and employee representatives. Members' contributions are invested by the board through a number of appointed fund managers in investment portfolios, and based on a wide range of professional investment advice.

The board has determined that a long-term strategy is the most appropriate, so the fund has a high allocation to growth assets (Australian and international shares). MSBS members have benefited from that strategy with good returns since inception (October 1991).

MSBS Crediting Rate
Financial Year Rate
1995 - 96 9.0%
1996 - 97 20.0%
1997 - 98 8.7%
1998 - 99 8.3%
1999 - 00 13.6%
2000 - 01 2.7%
2001 - 02 -8.9%

There was a very broad range of returns declared by superannuation funds for last year and straight-forward comparison of returns is difficult. With the poor performance of the share markets (-4.5% for Australian shares and -23.5% for international shares), the higher a fund's allocation to growth assets, the lower the return would have been.

The benchmark that is the most comparable with the MSBS asset allocation is the group of super funds reported in the Intech Performance Survey of High Growth Funds. The 12-month returns for this group at 30 June 2002 ranged from -4.6% to -12.2%.

InTech performance survey
of high growth funds: 2001-02 returns

AM Corporation -10.5%
AMP Diversified Share -12.2%
Macquarie -4.6%
MLC Aust & Int'l -11.3%
MLC Growth -6.7
TOWER -7.3
Vanguard -6.5
Westpac -6.6
Zurich -9.0

Source: InTech Research Pty Ltd. Returns are expressed net of tax and ongoing fees.
Disclaimer: Past performance is no indication of future performance. InTech has relied on data supplied to them by third parties.

However, this is not an optimal benchmark in that the sample number of funds is quite small and the asset allocations will vary from that of the MSBS fund, so care needs to be taken, particularly when reading recent media reports about returns.

Whilst the MSBS fund has suffered the impact of a negative investment environment this past year, the fund has produced strong returns for members since the scheme's inception, and the trustees are confident that the fund's strategy is appropriate to achieve its long-term investment objectives.

Details of the Military Super Board's Investment Strategy are outlined in the annual report and also in the Military Super Fund Investment Policy Booklet, copies of which are available from the Military Super web site or by phoning ComSuper's national mailing house on 02-6269 1020.

Further information on the fund's investment performance is available from the web site www.militarysuper.gov.au, or send an enquiry by email to military.members@comsuper.gov.au or call the Military Contact Centre on 13 23 66. Overseas members can telephone 61 2 6272 9000.