Price
rises an ‘erosion of benefits’
ONCE
again Defence giveth and DHA taketh away.
Hot on the heels of the Defence 3 per cent pay rise, DHA reviews
and raises the burden on personnel contribution to housing and
meals (although meal allowances for travel are also raised,
this is a once in a blue moon consideration for most personnel).
Although it is stated, “The annual adjustments are not
linked to pay increases and take place annually regardless of
whether or not there has been a pay increase”, I have not
found a single example when member contributions have actually
reduced due to a superfluous rental market.
I find it curious that DHA would commit a whole paragraph in
the message to explain the price rise versus pay rise relationship,
explaining that the price rise is only about a quarter of your
wage increase – of course they use the pre-tax figure so
in reality it is more like half.
On the explained basis that product prices rise in relation
to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and as personnel will have
to wear the burden of rising costs, then one way to avoid the
price hike would be to go out and buy your own property. Just
apply via the Defence Home Owner Scheme and go out and buy a
property.
The problem with that is that since its inception in the mid-1980s,
housing prices have risen 400+ per cent, yet the scheme has
remained stagnant regardless of CPI and the like.
Continual erosion of the benefits that support service life
are surely detrimental to retention and recruitment.
In speeches from every member of Defence senior leadership,
from the Prime Minister to Service Chiefs, it is stated that
people are the greatest asset that Defence has. The latest is
yet another indication that this is truly not the case.
It is just like in big business where profit – or in the
case of Defence (and its contractors), “shrewd” financial
management – at the cost of personnel is the be all and
end all.
CPL Mick Pender
Strategic Planning
DGPP-AF
Aerospace Centre
Official
Response...
A
NUMBER of housing issues have been raised by CPL Pender.
First, it is important that members are aware it is Defence
that reviews member contributions for housing assistance, it
is Defence who collects those contributions and it was Defence
who advised members, via Service-wide signal of the impending
annual adjustments to contributions.
The Defence Housing Authority is essentially Defence’s
“housing management agent”, and is contracted to provide
and manage several services on behalf of Defence, the most obvious
of these to most members being housing and relocations.
It is Defence policy that housing and related charges are reviewed
annually, based on movement in our housing stock – that
is the movement in the market rents of the housing that DHA
manages. This is equivalent to what the general community experiences
and that is the basis of the statement in the Service-wide signal
that advised of the contribution adjustments.
While the rents in most localities increase, some do decrease,
but it is the movement in rents in aggregate terms that is used
to adjust member contributions. As members would be aware, contributions
are the same for a given rank regardless of where a member is
posted.
This year, increases in housing and related charges occurred
shortly after the 3 per cent ADF pay increase that took effect
on July 3. The coincidence, however, was foreseen some time
ago and the relationship between the WRA outcomes and likely
GRS/LIA increases was highlighted during the WRA consultation
phase.
CPL Pender comments on the deceptive nature of using pre-tax
amounts of the pay rise in comparison to the increases in contributions.
The pre-tax value of the pay rise was used in relation to the
value of the increase to member contributions as these are known
figures and they more amply illustrate the distinction between
the value of the pay rise (6 per cent of a member’s pay),
against the increase in contributions
(3 per cent of the existing contribution).
There was no intention to deceive members of the annual adjustments,
and for this reason, dollar amounts were used to illustrate
the impact on members.
CPL Pender also comments on the Defence Home Owner Scheme (DHOS).
There are a number of Defence arrangements in place to assist
members with home purchase – the original Defence Service
Home Loan, the current DHOS, the Home Purchase Assistance Scheme
and the Home Purchase and Sale Expenses Allowance.
Eligible members can also access the Government’s First
Home Owner’s Grant. All of these schemes are designed to
assist with home purchase, not to meet the majority of the purchase
price or associated costs with buying a home.
Further information on the calculation of the housing and related
charges and allowances is available on the DPE web site in the
Housing section at http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/dpe/
or by sending an email to
dpe.feedback@
defence.gov.au
Peter
Redston
Assistant Director Housing and Removals Policy
Caption just didn’t fit
I
TAKE this opportunity to point out an error in the September
11 edition of Air Force News.
The photo on page 11 shows a Hornet being preparing for Croc
03.
However the caption under the photo identifies the ground crew
as “Armament Fitters from 3SQN”.
The old ARMFITT trade disappeared in 1992 with the introduction
of the new Technical Trade Structure (TTS), which (among other
things) created the AVTECH and ATECH trade groups.
So either the photo hails from archives pre-1992, or the ground
crew are actually AV/ATECHs who are members of the Explosive
Ordnance Employment Stream (EOES). If the situation is the latter,
then the more appropriate way of referring to them would to
call them AVTECH (Ordnance) or ATECH (Ordnance).
The EOES was introduced in January this year to rectify the
TTS’s inability to adequately grow and sustain the EO skills
and experience required in our technical workforce. Approximately
330 technicians have transitioned to the EOES and now, while
still being AVTECHs and ATECHs, are growing their specialised
EO skills to provide a robust, effective and multi-skilled workforce
into the future.
Graeme
Davies
Wing Commander
Project Leader
Defence Explosive Ordnance Training
In
favour of ‘adversity’
REGARDING
the new interpretation of the Air Force’s Latin motto Per
ardua ad astra (Air Force News, July 31), I must say I am in
awe that it has been changed.
The change may be but a single word, but I have lived with that
word for some time now.
While my time in service has had far less adversity than others
(if any, truth be told), I love the motto. As a son and grandson
of Air Force members, and a serving member myself (albeit of
only 12 and a bit years), I feel I have the right to vent my
frustration at this alteration.
Not to get too sentimental, but “Through adversity to the
stars” is one of the things that inspires me when I’m
feeling low.
What was wrong with “adversity”? I’m all for
change, as long as it serves a purpose. I can’t see one
behind this decision.
And what’s more, nobody asked my opinion, or that of any
Air Force members that I’ve asked as to what they thought
of changing the motto.
SGT
Ben Garfath
DSD, Russell Offices
Canberra
No
struggling
I
CAN’T understand the thinking behind the change of the
RAAF motto wording from “adversity” to “struggle”.
The word “struggle” implies to me that the Air Force
finds it hard to cope with its responsibilities. The use of
“adversity” implies the ability to succeed despite
any hardship.
From my experience as a Craftsman in the Army back in 1980 the
Air Force never struggled to achieve their goal in Ambon, Indonesia,
on a survey operation. The support provided was always timely
and I thought they were very
cool and confident people.
The Air Force were viewed by Army as a very necessary cog in
the wheel of what we needed to achieve during this time and
were thoroughly respected for their professionalism.
I could be delivered within a few hours to a survey site to
repair NAVSTAR equipment upon detection of equipment fault.
From there I was able to get the survey team operating again
then return to base camp.
During this op I was on a Caribou from No. 38 Squadron “No
sweat airlines” which decided it didn’t want to fly
any more – the starboard engine had seized.
Despite the adversity our RAAF blokes exuded confidence. I never
felt the need to panic as Blackie the loadmaster, Jamie the
English exchange officer and Mat the pilot simply did their
job as the aircraft lost speed and altitude, while reassuring
us all the time. The ramp door was lowered and the loady started
to calmly throw out our fridges, VCRs, TVs, washing machines
etc. After talking to Blackie, my only concern was about my
repair parts worth $100,000 (in 1980 dollars) being thrown out
the back door.
Panic only hit me after we landed and talked to the pilots Mat
and Jamie. Apparently the heat from the tropical seas was the
only thing that was giving us the lift necessary to land at
Ambon.
Our RAAF crew overcame the adverse conditions. “Very cool
... despite everything” should be the motto if your crews
still react in the same way these days.
Does the RAAF want to advertise themselves as a “struggler”?
Despite any changes to the motto I know that the Air Force will
preserve the proud heritage of service.
Thanks to the flying taxis – you were much more than a
taxi to me!
Geoff
Somerville
Bethania, Queensland
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 the pages of Air Force News.
