REGARDING
the article on alcohol testing in the ADF (Air Force News, June
19), I wonder whether the new policy is really meant to provide
a safe work place or is it just another piece of political window
dressing?
What statistics have driven this new assault on our ever-decreasing
rights?
While I do agree that there are individuals with alcohol problems,
for the most part I believe that the current system is coping
with them adequately.
As an NCO with 18 years’ service, should I suspect a work
colleague of having such a problem I would encourage them to seek
help. Should they not be willing and their problem appears to
be jeopardising their safety and that of others I would refer
the matter to my superiors.
And what of the hundreds of civilian technicians currently servicing
our aircraft all over the country; who makes sure they are not
drug- or alcohol-affected? Is our safety not also dependent on
them as much as it is on us?
CPL W.J. Clarke
RAAFSCST
RAAF Base Wagga
Official Response:
THANK you for your letter in which you raise some valid questions
with regard to the soon to be introduced policy, Alcohol Testing
in the Australian Defence Force.
Under the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment)
Act 1991, the ADF has a legal obligation to secure and promote
health, safety and welfare at work. Consequently, the ADF has
a duty of care to its personnel to maintain a safe work place.
The policy on alcohol testing will further protect your right
to a safe working environment, rather than denuding any extant
personal rights.
The decision to implement a testing regime within safety critical
areas was taken by the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC); their
deci-sion has the full support of the Armed Forces Federation
of Australia.
COSC arrived at its decision having con-sidered, among other things,
the hidden costs relating to misuse of alcohol; namely, the loss
of operational capability, the burgeoning social costs, the ADF’s
OH&S obligations and the monetary costs to the services. COSC
deter-mined that there was a need to implement a testing program
within the ADF in order to minimise these hidden costs, while
ensuring that the wellbeing and welfare of all our per-sonnel
was looked after.
The new policy is not a tool to catch people out, rather it will
ensure that personnel who attend work are safe to do so. Where
testing determines that an individual within the work place is
unsafe the policy focus is on education and rehabilitation with
the intent being to help that individual continue on as a productive
and valuable member of the ADF. To this end pro-fessional counsellors
are being recruited and will support the existing ADF Alcohol
Man-agement Program in achieving this aim.
Your point about the current system is taken but I need to point
out that testing is not intended to replace current management
responsibilities. Rather it should be seen as complementing what
is currently in place. There is still a need for section commanders,
flight commanders and commanding officers to be vigilant and assist
or deal with members suspected of having a problem.
The ADF is not alone in introducing an alcohol-testing policy
to support its OH&S ob-ligations. Alcohol testing of employees
is now conducted in many civilian organisations.
I am not aware of whether contractors within the ADF conduct any
form of testing of their work place or whether they intend to.
However, it should be noted that the contrac-tors have a duty
of care similar to that of the ADF, to secure and promote health,
safety and welfare at work.
GPCAPT Bob Cooper
Director
Military Personnel Policy
Scuba club goes under
THE recent articles (May 22 and June 19) detailing the ADF Sports
Council listing of “inappropriate sport” for Defence
members has left me astounded.
As a direct result of the new policy a number of Defence sports
associations and clubs are no longer permitted to be sponsored
by Welfare or receive Defence funding.
I am a member of the RAAF Base Amberley Scuba Club (RASC) that
has now ceased to operate. The RAAF Amberley Waterski Club has
also ceased to operate as a direct result of this policy.
The benefits of Defence associations or clubs operating for members
are numerous, e.g. equipment available for use at a reduced cost,
(negating the requirement for expensive purchases until a commitment
to the sport is made); training and advice from experienced members;
supervised activities conducted with a high regard for the safety
of the participants.
Further, there is an opportunity for service members, Defence
civilians and contractors to participate in sport outside of the
work environment.
Scuba diving is my primary area of interest so I have done some
research into scuba diving-related accidents. I have contacted
Dr Doug Walker, well known for his diving medical research.
He has provided figures from 1950 to 1998. He advised that two
service persons died from scuba diving in this period.
The first was in 1956, during training –
“equipment and training, and understanding of the safety
protocols, were very different then”. The second was in 1992
during a night dive “where advice from a (civilian) diving
instructor concerning the project was undervalued”.
Dr Walker stated: “To disband [ADF] support for its scuba
diving clubs on grounds of mortality or morbidity is unjustifiable
on available data.”
I have also contacted Divers Alert Network (DAN) and viewed their
latest report (2003). Although this is based on American figures
it can readily be related to Australian statistics.
Their figures show 50 per cent of fatalities are in the over-50
age group. I can’t see this applying to a lot of Defence
members.
The DAN report has more than 30 per cent of fatalities occurring
in the first year after qualification and over 40 per cent being
open water divers.
Two of the aims of the RASC are to promote safe diving and encourage
further training, i.e. the majority of members undertake dives
with the club and obtain an advanced certification within the
first year.
The RASC has a 50 per cent conversion rate to Advanced Scuba diver
status, better that the 30 per cent figure provided by PADI. In
principle, it is safer to dive with a dive club than “go
it alone”.
It would be interesting to see the figures for the injuries to
Defence members who have participated in scuba diving.
From my personal experiences (more than 30 years of diving), I
know of very few instances where a member has been absent from
work due to a diving-related incident. I have no knowledge of
a service member who has died from recreational diving.
Further, are there any figures available for scuba diving-related
compensation?
Service personnel are recruited for their “smarts” and
their training teaches them to recognise and deal with risk. This
policy is effectively a slap in the face for Defence members.
Where is the “People First” in this policy?
David Bell
SRSPO
RAAF Base Amberley
Editor’s note: To view the ADF Sports Policy visit http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/home/documents/DATA/ADFPUBS/DIG/GP14_02.PDF
(available from the DRN)
Having a drink proves costly
WHEN I joined the ADF many moons ago, other recruits and I were
shown around 1 RTB (yes I am ex-Army, but don’t hold it against
me) and told what each and every building was.
We finally got to AAFCANS, as it was called back then, and were
told “this is the canteen, buy everything from here as it’s
cheaper than anywhere else” – and being good little
recruits we did, as they looked after us. But now with it being
Frontline I don’t know how anybody could even think for one
second that the organisation is looking after us.
While Frontline sought to justify its pricing structure in its
response to a letter in the May 22 edition, the fact remains that
prices at Frontline outlets are often too high, particularly for
a supposedly a non-profit organisation.
For example, I recently purchased a six-pack of Jim Beam and Cola
cans from my local Frontline and was charged $25; the price at
an outlet in town is $16.95. A 30-can box of XXXX Gold cost $39
at Frontline and $30 in town. Of two work colleagues, one bought
a video camera from Frontline and the other bought the exact same
camera from a different outlet – the price different was
$800!
The staff do an excellent job and provide a great service as most
of them are spouses of serving members, so there is no need to
give them a hard time about the prices as the prices come from
higher up.
The only reason I can see for the higher prices is that Frontline
has a captive audience. No one is going to drive a 30 or so kilometre
round trip into town when they can get what ever they need just
down the road; it might cost a bit more, but what can they do
about it?
LAC Nicholas Eaton
322CSS
RAAF Base Tindal
Official response:
LET me thank LAC Eaton for taking the time to write to us with
his concerns as they are important and we value all comments from
our customers.
The two areas of complaint are:
(1) Video camera pricing:
I am not in the position to answer the discrepancy on video camera
pricing as no information has been provided on the detail of specific
models, locations or date purchased.
These products experience price fluctuations on every shipment
brought into Australia due to exchange rates and ongoing changes
to product specifications, which makes comparisons impossible
without the precise details of the video camera in question.
We would welcome the opportunity to further investigate this issue
and ask that specific details be provided direct to us either
in writing or via www.frontlineonline.com.au,
attention to me.
(2) Alcohol price comparison:
We perform, on a regular basis, price comparison surveys between
Frontline pricing and that of our competitors. Our latest survey
data on the two products mentioned is:
|
XXXX
Gold 30-can pack |
Crown
Lager 6-pack |
FDS
Tindal
|
$32.50 |
$14.10 |
Katherine
Hotels
|
$32.95 |
$16 |
Katherine
RSL
|
$34 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jim
Beam and Cola Cans (6-pack)
|
| FDS
Tindal |
$22 |
|
| Katherine
Hotels |
$17.99 |
|
At the time of this survey Frontline pricing was the cheapest
in the area for XXXX Gold and Crown Lager.
Local marketing and pricing activity will, of course, always create
movement and price discrepancies between all retailers on a day
to day basis. Competitors at times will elect to sell at below
cost as a loss leader. This is not an uncommon retail tactic.
A longer term view of pricing activity over a ‘basket of
goods’ will give a more complete picture of pricing structure
for the total liquor beverage market, and across the broad spectrum
of pricing Frontline guarantees a fair market price will often
be cheaper than our competitors.
Michael Hume
Managing Director
Frontline Defence Services
HAVE YOUR SAY
The letters page is an ideal forum for readers to express their
views on issues relating to the Air Force or to provide feedback
on items that have appeared in Air Force News.
- Keep
letters to 250 words.
- Include
your name, unit (where applicable), location and contact details.
- Send
letters to: The Editor, Air Force News, R8-LG-043, Russell Offices,
ACT 2600; or raafnews@defencenews.gov.au
(note: this is not part of the DRN, so include “Sec: Unclassified”
in the subject field).
Letters
will be edited for spelling and grammar.
Where appropriate, responses will be sought through official channels
to enable queries to be answered.
