On the Record
On this page, we set the record straight to correct any inaccuracies in media reporting of Defence issues.
29 June 2009
Letter to the Editor - Weekend Australian, 27-28 June 09
Dear Editor,
Your article in the Weekend Australian 27-28 June, (credit spree was ‘navy culture’) by Drew Warne-Smith is inaccurate. The circumstances in relation to Geoffrey Smith are a matter of ongoing inquiry for the Independent Commission Against Corruption and I will not add speculation while this important investigative body is in the middle of its review. I do however take exception to the quite ridiculous suggestion by the unnamed source that our Navy’s senior officer’s culture breeds a dangerous sense of entitlement. There are strict rules around the use of credit cards in Defence and there are procedures in place to monitor usage and ensure compliance. Where appropriate, individuals are subject to disciplinary or administrative proceedings for non-compliance. All Navy personnel are required to undertake regular fraud awareness training. Our people accept this because they understand responsibility and ethics and that the nature and demands of the job that they do for our country places higher expectations upon them.
Command at sea has nothing to do with entitlements; it is about responsibility and leadership, particularly given the complex operational context in which our people today contribute to our national security. Sea command is the most demanding assignment in the Navy and is not taken on by those seeking so-called entitlements, rather by those officers who demonstrate solid leadership qualities and accept the responsibility and burden of a job that is unique and special.
The fundamental importance of responsibility and leadership is at the heart of our Navy culture. Your readers can be proud of their Navy.
Yours sincerely
R. H. Crane VADM, RAN
Chief of Navy
12 June 2009
Letter to the Editor - Daily Telegraph, 11 June 09
Dear Editor
There were a number of errors of fact in Mr Ian McPhedran’s article in your newspaper on page 7 titled ‘Meals the real deal as submarine cooks earn far more than the SAS’.
These errors may have been the result of misinterpreting the salary and allowance information available on the public record, and arise from assuming that allowances are available to all personnel all the time at the maximum rate. There are also ‘one off’ allowances and retention bonuses that require a return of service obligation and are only available for a fixed time.
For example Navy’s submariners receive either the Submarine Service Allowance if posted to a seagoing submarine, or Sea Going Allowance if posted to a seagoing ship – never both. These allowances also are paid in a sliding scale depending on years of sea time.
The figures Mr McPhedran quotes are correct for the 6-11 years sea service bracket, however an Able Seaman submariner would normally be paid the $15,953 per year submarine service allowance, not the $48,957 proposed by Mr McPhedran.
While submarine cooks are designated a critical category and there is an individual retention bonus of up to $50,000 per year, none of our cooks have ever been offered the bonus at this rate. The maximum paid to submarine cooks has been $20,000 per year with an obligation to serve for a period of two years.
Similarly submarine sailors are eligible for the Navy Capability Allowance of $60,000 paid over a period of 18 months for effective service, otherwise payments are forfeited. Applications for this allowance close in 2010. All the return of service obligations for these temporary allowances and bonuses are cumulative.
A submarine has one Leading Seaman cook and one Able Seaman cook.
Without the temporary retention bonuses, typically an Able Seaman cook will receive $67,429 per year or $83,382 if posted to a seagoing submarine. Similarly, a Leading Seaman cook on promotion receives pay without bonuses of $71,663 or typically $93,917 if posted to a seagoing submarine.
If eligible, sailors might also receive a critical category bonus in return for undertaking a further service period of up to two years. If eligible they might also receive the ‘once only’ Navy Capability Allowance in return for further service of 18 months.
In short, Submarine cooks posted to seagoing submarines do not earn more than their rank equivalents in the SAS who are operationally deployed – let alone those of superior rank.
D.R. THOMAS
Rear Admiral, RAN
Deputy Chief of Navy
26 May 2009
Letter To the Editor – ‘Adelaide Advertiser’ 21 May 09, ‘Herald Sun’ 22 May 09
Dear Editor
I refer to Mr Ian McPhedran’s article titled ‘Substandard – just one sub left to patrol our 36,000km coastline’ on page 5 of your 21 May 2009 edition (Adelaide Advertiser) ‘Subs sink to new depths – security fears and a multi-million –dollar bill’ on page 28 of your 22 May 2009 edition(Herald Sun).
Unfortunately Mr McPhedran’s statements about the availability of our submarines for operations and their current maintenance activities are misleading.
These misperceptions may arise from a misunderstanding of the management of submarines within their maintenance cycle and the meaning of unit ready days.
HMAS Farncomb is not “our only seaworthy submarine”. HMAS Collins is presently at sea conducting work-up and is available for operational tasking within its readiness notice. Collins is not “out of active service” as stated. HMAS Waller is not “tied up for urgent battery repairs”, but is undergoing a routine maintenance docking.
It is important to note that the force structure of six submarines is designed to allow two submarines to be deployed to operations at relatively short notice, two to be kept at longer notice (conducting training or maintenance) to allow force rotation and the final two in deeper-level maintenance and upgrade to allow sustainment of the capability over the longer term.
These broad principles of readiness, rotation and sustainment apply to all ADF capabilities, and are common to Navies and military forces worldwide. Submarine force activity levels, manning and maintenance are managed in the short term to ensure that the capability is sustainable over the long term and is able to surge to higher activity levels in the future, if directed by Government. It is clear therefore that in a force structure of six submarines there will never be six at sea at the same time.
Submarine crewing shortages have had a negative impact on activity levels in the submarine force. Longer-term sustainability of the submarine workforce is currently more important than short-term crewing of all submarines.
There are three submarines that are currently sustainably crewed, operating in various parts of their maintenance cycle and available for deployment within their readiness notice if required. There are a further three submarines in or awaiting long term maintenance. One of these will complete long term maintenance and return to operations early next year, and another will commence its maintenance. Long-term maintenance and upgrade provides the sustainability needed to keep the submarines deployed in a rotating pattern if required by Government in the future.
Unit ready days are forecast by the Submarine Force Element Group based on the number of submarines that are crewed and materially available for sea. Recent and current projections are directly related to well-known personnel shortages, but also vary with the amount of maintenance planned during each financial year. FY09/10 URD forecast is higher that FY08/09 simply because the operating submarines are scheduled for less docking maintenance in this year.
This submarine crewing situation has been stabilised and is expected to trend up with the implementation of remedial measures I recently announced.
The defence of Australia is the primary task of the Submarine force and I can assure you that Navy takes this seriously and is managing submarine activity closely to deliver the right balance of short-term readiness and long-term sustainability.
Yours sincerely
R.H. CRANE, AM, CSM
Vice Admiral, RAN
Chief of Navy
26 May 2009
Letter To the Editor, ‘Herald Sun’ 23 May 09
To the Editor
A number of points made in your article “Accused lashed out” on page 15 of the Herald Sun on Saturday 23 May 2009, compel me to respond on behalf of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).
As the circumstances of the incident involving the officer are still subject to court proceedings I am not at liberty to discuss those details specifically.
However, I can confirm that the officer involved in the reported incident was not on a ‘pre-retirement junket’, nor was he engaged in ‘poaching’ personnel from the Royal Navy. LCDR George is participating in a legitimate visit to the United Kingdom endorsed by me to expedite the administration of personnel from the Royal Navy who have previously applied to join the RAN under the auspices of an established lateral entry program.
As the Staff Officer Overseas Appointments, LCDR George has been the main point of contact for this program and is central to its success. He is an officer who has already given many years of valuable service to the RAN, and he has the capacity and commitment to serve the Navy until his current Compulsory Retirement Age (60 yrs) and beyond.
The RAN’s lateral entry program operates under a labour agreement between the ADF and the Commonwealth, represented by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). This program enables the recruitment of specific occupational groups specified within that agreement to enter the ADF. The current arrangement and its predecessors have been in place now for a considerable number of years. It essentially provides a mechanism to fill gaps within the ADF workforce which cannot otherwise be filled. Applicants have previously entered from the UK, Canada, the United States of America, New Zealand and a number of other nations.
Staff from the Navy’s career management agencies first visited the United Kingdom in March 2007. Following on from the success of the 2007 visit, a team is currently deployed to the UK to assess candidates’ background/qualifications and skills to ensure the applicants are of the appropriate calibre and to accelerate the entry process into the RAN by providing them with specific and detailed information about lateral entry and immigration processes.
As the RAN already has a large number of applicants for this program, the focus of the current team in the UK is to concentrate on existing applicants rather than attracting new ones. The Royal Navy 1st has been briefed on the intent of this current visit, which I consider to be a key element of the New Generation Navy plan to expeditiously resolve RAN personnel shortfalls prior to the introduction of new maritime capabilities foreshadowed at the latest Defence White Paper.
R.H. CRANE, AM, CSMVice Admiral, RAN
Chief of Navy
Letter to the Editor, Hobart Mercury
In reference to the story title "Stoush over air control upgrade" published on Tuesday 5 May (Page 9), I would like to set the record straight on several issues.
Defence and Airservices Australia have an excellent working relationship. Together we established Project Genesis to investigate the viability of integrating some aspects of military and civil air traffic control. Some of the initiatives proved neither viable, nor value for money for Defence or Airservices Australia and were not able to be progressed. However, many underpinning concepts have been embraced and developed in the Defence Air Traffic Control Reform Program.
Defence remains committed to the continued development of a seamless national air traffic management system that is interoperable and interfaced to facilitate maximum safety, efficiency and flexibility for both military and civilian aviation within Australian airspace.
There are major differences between Defence and civil Air Traffic Control. Military airspace management is primarily concerned with national security and is focussed on the management of airspace in a complex, contested or deployed environment. Australian military Air Traffic Controllers have provided vital support in Iraq, East Timor, Somalia, Banda Aceh and the Solomon Islands. Civil airspace management is primarily concerned with the provision of Air Traffic Services in a benign environment and is provided on a commercial basis.
Air Force is firmly committed to continue finding efficiencies where possible. However, it is in Defence's and Australia's interests that a robust national and operationally deployable military Air Traffic Control capability is maintained.
Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force
5 May 2009
02 April 2009
Glenn Burge
The Editor
Australian Financial Review
200 Sussex Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Amid much inaccurate reporting this week on Defence, your editorial of 31 March is way off track. It is based on a set of false premises.
Despite your editorial’s assertion that “rogue intelligence specialists” are spying on the Minister for Defence, it remains the case that we have seen no evidence to back this claim. The investigation by the Defence Security Authority is continuing and we look forward to the report of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security into this matter.
We can also assure you that our relationship is anything but “dysfunctional”. In fact we have an extremely close and effective working relationship, which even the most cursory inquiry by your editorial writer would have found.
We collaborate very closely on all key Defence decisions and policy recommendations, as we do with our Ministers and the Government more generally. It has underpinned the development of a reform program for Defence that will modernise our military forces and our management systems.
Yours sincerely
[SIGNED]
Nick Warner
Secretary
April 2009
[SIGNED]
A. G. HOUSTON AC, AFC
Air Chief Marshal
Chief of the Defence Force
April 2009
02 March 2009
Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to the article ‘A case of rank service’ by Mike O’Connor published in your newspaper today.
The article is inaccurate and I believe the public record needs to be corrected.
Mike O'Connor claims that Army did nothing in regards to the Special Forces pay issue and that it lied to the Minister for Defence. This is not true.
Defence has been working hard on rectifying the Special Forces pay issue since it was first raised at the Estimates hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade last October.
At the time, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Army undertook to investigate and resolve the problem, and steps were taken to implement the Minister’s direction to cease debt recovery.
The welfare of ADF members is Defence’s highest priority. Suggestions that Defence does not care about its soldiers and that, somehow, it would purposefully place its members in financial hardship are ridiculous.
As explained last week at the latest Senate Estimates hearings, the issues surrounding changes to the administration of Special Forces pay are complex.
The Chief of Army issued a directive that clearly lays out the plan and milestones to remediate all Special Forces trade competencies and pay anomalies. This document is publicly available on the Defence website at: www.defence.gov.au/publications/CA_Directive_06_09-SF_Remuneration_Remediation.pdf
It states there is no longer any debt incurred as a result of the implementation of these Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal determinations. Soldiers will be remunerated at the same levels they were before the implementation of the determinations. Any soldier who has previously had money deducted through this process will have that money reimbursed.
I can assure the Australian public, Defence is working to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
Further, Mike O’Connor also asserts that the Chief of the Defence Force was forced to travel to a Conference in Hawaii on Jetstar.
The Chief of the Defence Force chose to fly Jetstar as it was the most timely and convenient service available which enabled him to meet his duties and responsibilities.
Yours sincerely,
[SIGNED]
B.R. DAWSON
BRIGADIER
DIRECTOR GENERAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS
02 March 2009
Letter to the Editor – Newcastle Herald
The story “Radar display off for a week” published on 27 February selectively quoted information regarding air traffic management at RAAF Williamtown during the military operational stand-by period.
The story did not include two very important facts that were provided to the Newcastle Herald on 23 February.
Firstly, the Certified Air/Ground Radio System does not rely on radar situational awareness in order to operate safely and effectively.
Secondly, while one radar was shut down for a short period for vital scheduled servicing, your story did not include the fact that RAAF personnel operating the CA/GRS had access to three other radar feeds.
Therefore, at no stage was public safety compromised.
Williamtown is a military airfield and Air Force personnel continue to provide quality air traffic control services.
Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force
27 February 2009
Editor
Daily Telegraph
20 January 2009
In reference to your article “No armour for VC hero” (20 January 2009), I write to clarify that Trooper Mark Donaldson VC was wearing body armour during the ambush on 2 September 2008.
As Chief of Army, I can assure your readers that the body armour our soldiers use is of world class.
Ken Gillespie
Lieutenant General
Chief of Army
Editor
Herald Sun
20 January 2009
In reference to your article “Light VC hero” (20 January 2009), I write to clarify that Trooper Mark Donaldson VC was wearing body armour during the ambush on 2 September 2008.
As Chief of Army, I can assure your readers that the body armour our soldiers use is of world class.
Ken Gillespie
Lieutenant General
Chief of Army
Editor
Adelaide Advertiser
20 January 2009
In reference to your article “No body armour” (20 January 2009), I write to clarify that Trooper Mark Donaldson VC was wearing body armour during the ambush on 2 September 2008.
As Chief of Army, I can assure your readers that the body armour our soldiers use is of world class.
Ken Gillespie
Lieutenant General
Chief of Army
Editor
Hobart Mercury
20 January 2009
In reference to your article “VC hero fought without body armour” (20 January 2009), I write to clarify that Trooper Mark Donaldson VC was wearing body armour during the ambush on 2 September 2008.
As Chief of Army, I can assure your readers that the body armour our soldiers use is of world class.
Ken Gillespie
Lieutenant General
Chief of Army
15 January 2009
THE EDITOR, THE AUSTRALIAN
ARTICLE DATED 15 JANUARY 2009 – WAR TRAUMA OVERLOOKED
I refer to your article of the 15th of January concerning PTSD in ADF members returning from active service. Your article refers to a lack of consistency in the academic literature for the use of cut-offs for PTSD diagnosis using the current screening tool. Your article also suggests between 57 and 95 extra members would undergo a psychological assessment if the threshold were lowered. These claims are taken in isolation and ignore the comprehensive ADF processes for the screening, assessment and treatment of PTSD and other mental health conditions.
The ADF uses a comprehensive suite of tools including post-deployment one-on-one interviews conducted by mental health providers to identify personnel at risk. This is conducted on two separate occasions.
The reviewed cut-offs to which you refer do not constitute a clinical assessment of PTSD; they are simply a guide for the mental health provider. They indicate that it would be prudent to conduct further examination of the individual who may be at risk of a mental health condition, not just PTSD. The mental health provider always utilises an extensive array of additional information gathered during the interview process along with individual item responses from multiple assessment tools.
The ADF continuously reviews its mental health strategy to ensure it reflects advances in the management of mental health conditions. These reviews are done internally and also by independent external experts. Indeed, the ADF’s Mental Health Strategy has been independently assessed to compare favourably with mental health strategies in military forces in other countries and in other Australian workplaces.
The ADF has close links with the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (ACPMH) to ensure its policies reflect national best practice
Yours sincerely
Paul Alexander
Major General
Surgeon General Australian Defence Force
Review Letters to the Editor for 2008
Review Letters to the Editor for 2007