Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Take a look at the RAN mate. Are the vessels the LHD and AWD (neither vessel has been selected YET) unmanned?AD if what you said is true then the RAN doesnt have a future and the so called purchases IE BPEs and F100s, that i have laid out in several of my threads from governmental sources are a lie.
Therefore to conclude i will have to say i completely disagree with your argument. If you read my thread properly you would have seen that i mentioned that the RAN WOULD have to make recruitment drives in order to start making its objectives by 2013. Im not understating the problem. Its an issue worldwide in fact. A man with common sense and wisdom such as yourself would obviously recognise this. Hopefully.??
The LPA's, Tobruk and FFG crews will transition onto their replacement vessels.
What I was referring to was crewing additional ships BEYOND our existing assets. We currently have 11x operational surface combatants and we are struggling to man THEM. When HMAS Newcastle comes out of it's upgrade program the situation will be worse.
Arguing that we will somehow magically be able to man an ADDITIONAL 3 major surface combatant WITHOUT a massive turnaround in retention AND recruiting rates is ridiculous.
Massive recruitment drives, bonuses etc have been tried before. Most recently with the "special allowances" and rentention bonuses for Submariners.
And yet the exodus continues. It's not money they need to throw at Sailors, but DECENT conditions of service and supportive leadership that the Sailors want to work for IMHO.
Army is similar. Until the management culture inherent within it changes, droves of experience soldiers will continue to leave. It's that simple.
Army and Navy will never match the money available in private enterprise so they need to do things "differently". So far all I read is more of the same.
X amount of millions thrown into bonuses and "snazzy advertising". It's been tried before too.
Look how wonderfully it works...
I can see you are a pessimist. You are hollering in the current moment of problems with resourcing without you yourself making any positive suggestions about what can be done. This in itself speaks volumes to me of a character who at the so called level of command should be retired immediatly with a golden handshake. The reason is because you dont have the ability to look at this objectively and take positively this issue in the right way and especially in light of the government report of personel retention.
You need to look at the bigger picture here than the one you have portraited below. Im not saying that you are wrong, but you are portraiting this very negatively considering the resources the Australian government has to correct this problem. In the bigger picture i think you have missed the point completely.
Money is a big enticement to our personel if they are studying within the armed forces towards a career. Throwing money at the situation doesnt fix it and i agree but using the armed services as a motivating factor does give our young people a security base on which they can pin there hopes of good career on.
No mate, you are are taking this whole picture in the opposite direction despite what the government is proposing in its defence budget in maintaining its personel.
I suggest a reread of the document i have laid out on my latest thread will convince you again that the government is serious about staff retention. I know it was a terribly long one to read and you probably stopped reading it at some point as it was too long. I can understand that, makes you tired. But for your own benefit and positive input i am hoping you will start to grab the essence of what is happening and what has been proposed.
You need to look at the bigger picture here than the one you have portraited below. Im not saying that you are wrong, but you are portraiting this very negatively considering the resources the Australian government has to correct this problem. In the bigger picture i think you have missed the point completely.
Money is a big enticement to our personel if they are studying within the armed forces towards a career. Throwing money at the situation doesnt fix it and i agree but using the armed services as a motivating factor does give our young people a security base on which they can pin there hopes of good career on.
No mate, you are are taking this whole picture in the opposite direction despite what the government is proposing in its defence budget in maintaining its personel.
I suggest a reread of the document i have laid out on my latest thread will convince you again that the government is serious about staff retention. I know it was a terribly long one to read and you probably stopped reading it at some point as it was too long. I can understand that, makes you tired. But for your own benefit and positive input i am hoping you will start to grab the essence of what is happening and what has been proposed.
Aussie digger is just telling it how it is. The government is very serious about staff retention and thowing money at it but according to defencne members I have spoken to (Captain RAN level) the situation is dire. The mining boom is WA is paying more than defence can match and, to be honest, the living conditions on war ships are pretty crappy given this is your home for most of the year.
This will change with the new ships to be built but from my own time as a single officer in the RAN we tried to live ashore so we could have a life outside work, but at our own cost. In places like Sydney and Fremantle rental costs are quite high and unless you qualfiy for a married quarter it all comse out of your pocket. Housing loan incentives are a good start in this area but they still don't match the old scheme whicih would pay for a house not just part of it (mind you houses cost only $40000 in those days). The problem is the amount of $40000 remained static from about 1975 to the mid eighties (not a lot of use).
Recruiting processes are clumsy and I don't think as much is being made out of the reserves as could be. (I.e. a skills data base that is updated to to reflect the skills of RANR memebers as these change to allow this to be drawn upon).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I'm not, and most likely won't ever be, in the ADF, but I would suggest looking at some of the various posts by Australian Def Pros that have been in the service, or are currently. From what I've gathered, there are apparently a number of artificial impediments to joining up and I think it logical to assume that if there are such impediments to join, then there would likely be similar sorts issues with staying in the service. And as far as these issues are concerned, money is irrelevant.
If the only manning issue the ADF had was compensation, the increasing the pay, or other compensation schemes could work. What seems to be happening is that the competition the ADF has for job seekers isn't the only reason why the numbers of personnel have been either declining or recruitment not keeping pace with retirements and discharges. IIRC some of the threads by some of the newer members from Oz indicate needing to wait several months while paperwork is done, before they can join up. I could be wrong on that, but that sort of a lag time between when someone attempts to join and then actually are allowed to could dampen people's interestes.
As for retention issues, pay increases as mentioned are good, but speaking from experience, depending on the work environment, pay increases could be irrelevant if the personnel don't enjoy what they do, etc. I expect this thought isn't anything new to someone who's ever had a job that they hated. And from what I understand, the company/organization tasked (or is it contracted?) to provide the "Human Resources" functions for the ADF is Manpower and have been a bear to work with.
I'd think to hear what those current and former members of the ADF think of what I've written.
-Cheers
Fair commentsTodjaeger.
I think Markus is right that the government seems to be very serious about dealing with the problem and it is throwing a lot of money into trying to solve it. However, IMO, if it is to have any hope of successfully solving the issue of retention in particular, it must immediately start talking with and listening to people in the service, those who have decided to leave and those who have recently left, to find out just what it is that is causing the high turnover. It is obvious to me that the existing recruiting system is unsatisfactory (the comments in this forum mentioned by Todjaeger demonstrate the frustrations facing potential new recruits) but the Australian defence professional members of DT are consistently stating that retention is an even bigger problem than recruiting.
Let's hope that the Defence Minister will find ways of getting to the bottom of this. I was heavily involved in dealing with recruitment and retention issues in isolated and difficult to staff schools during my last five years in the Tasmanian Education Department and I know that seemingly impossible retention problems can be solved. The first step is to get rid of preconceived ideas and listen to what the issues really are. That means that people still in the service must be able to speak their minds about this issue without fear of any recrimination.
If that is done and combined with the demonstrated willingness of the government to spend heavily in this area I believe the problem can be solved and the navy will be able to man its new ships. I hate to contemplate what will happen if experienced personnel continue to leave the service at the present rate.
Cheers
Having myself come out of a career with the RNZN i myself was dogged with pay issues in relation to shore leave and duty time. This was a disadvantage to many of those who i knew and got to know in the service, yet it was interesting to note that many were that keen to be part of the RNZN that they didnt care, due to their involvement in something they believed in.
Actually it does come to this. When you join the services it is something you have to believe in and use its potential to its greater advantage despite the short comings. So there is a lot of give and take. Its not for everyone, but i am firm in the belief that the Australian Government so far has taken this seriously enough to take this issue into the next 6 years. (2013).
What i have included here is an article written by a Petty Officer in the RAN in 2001 that laid out some of the retention issues facing the RAN and i do find this very interesting. Read and enjoy. Cheers.
ISSUES AFFECTING RECRUITING AND RETENTION
In response to the request for submissions on issues affecting recruiting and retention in the ADF, I would like to discuss some points from a naval perspective as a Petty Officer Combat Systems Supervisor with 12 years service (so far), nine of those at sea on DDG’s and FFG’s. The topics I will be discussing are:
• Greater pay increase when promoted from Junior Sailor to Senior Sailor level.
• The affect of losing Sea Going Allowance (SGA) when posting ashore.
• Poor implementation of changes.
• Low confidence in current service equipment.
1. When promoted to the rank of Petty Officer (PO) from Leading Seaman (LS), the pay increase amounts to approximately $50 per fortnight. I do not believe this accurately reflects or remunerates the extra responsibilities assumed when a PO is a supervisor, training instructor, OH&S facilitator, divisional officer, mentor etc, etc.
By the time a sailor has reached the rank of PO they have completed numerous courses that enhance their category specific skills as well as leadership, management and equity and diversity skills. In my last sea posting I was directly responsible for 14 combat systems sailors as an Operations Room Supervisor and indirectly for a further 14 more (my duties also continued out side the hours of “nine to five”). A civilian supervisor with this type of increase in responsibility on promotion I believe would be paid more than an extra $50 a fortnight.
The disproportionate exodus of experienced senior sailors throughout the last few years (through SCRS, CSP and numerous other changes) has I believe resulted in a “corporate loss” of specialist knowledge that has been detrimental to overall junior sailor skill levels fleet-wide. The short fall in senior sailor numbers have been compensated by the early promotion of less experienced sailors into these vacant positions, exacerbating a situation where these newly promoted senior sailors must quickly improve their proficiency whilst at the same time develop and nurture the skills of their subordinates.
I believe a substantial increase in pay on promotion to petty officer would greatly contribute to reducing the current separation rate of senior sailors from the RAN.
2. In February 01 I posted ashore from HMAS CANBERRA completing my fourth sea posting (nine years in total) in my twelve years of service (so far!), at the same time my wife posted ashore from HMAS SHEEAN. With the combined loss my SGA (approximately $9000 a year) and my wife’s submarine sea going allowance (approximately $13000 a year) amounts to loss of $22000a year.
With the understanding that SGA is paid to compensate the arduous duties of sea service, I believe that after the tier three level of SGA is reached, a percentage of the sailor’s SGA should be retained when posting ashore. This would be paid in recognition of the time at sea already served, and to compensate for the large loss in allowances.
3. The poor implementation of changes throughout the last several years involving issues such as SCRS, CSP, DRP etc, etc have caused a great deal of turmoil throughout all ranks. Personnel who were directly effected by and who invariably were responsible for enforcing the majority of changes were never adequately consulted prior to implementation. Responses to issues raised by personnel concerned with apparent short-comings were consistently answered with comments such as “get used to it, its here to stay” and “if you don’t like it, get out.” I believe this “like it or lump it” attitude displayed by the powers to be, and the apparent lack of understanding and will to address personnel concerns, was responsible for many premature discharges.
4. Throughout the last few years RAN ships have frequently been deployed to areas of instability and noting the current state of regional affairs, it appears this trend will continue into the foreseeable future. From the inception of the FFG-UP and the ANZAC WHIP projects designed to upgrade the war-fighting capabilities of Australia’s front line fighting ships, there has been a continual reduction in the size of actual equipment enhancements ultimately being provided. It is also apparent that the contracts for these upgrades continually go to the lowest bidder as opposed to the company offering the best product, and finally when tenders are short listed, capability requirements are reduced even further to comply with insufficiently small budgets. The FFG-UP and ANZAC WHIP final contracts both differ markedly from that which was initially planned.
Taking all this into account, I believe that some RAN personnel do not hold a great deal of confidence in the equipment they are tasked to deploy in and possibly fight to win with. The “Well trained, well equipped” recruiting slogan that is so often sprouted does not accurately reflect the current or future state of equipment capabilities envisaged. The continual cost cutting and penny pinching involved with equipment procurement is quite evident to the average sailor and causes some concern as it is the sailor who will ultimately put his life on the line not the politician holding the purse strings. The budget increase promised in the 2000 Defence White Paper will only minimally increase the level of capability to that which is currently held.
I believe that previous policy towards the large percentage of experienced personnel discharging has always been reactionary, replacement by recruitment as apposed to retaining the already well-trained service people already in place. The great loss of experience has been detrimental to Defence Force as a whole and needs to be addressed quickly and decisively before it becomes a cost we cannot bear.
The views that I have detailed are those that I have gained through my own experiences during my employment in the RAN, however I also believe they are consistent with those of many of my colleagues.
D.M YOUNG
PETTY OFFICER, RAN
11 May 01
Actually it does come to this. When you join the services it is something you have to believe in and use its potential to its greater advantage despite the short comings. So there is a lot of give and take. Its not for everyone, but i am firm in the belief that the Australian Government so far has taken this seriously enough to take this issue into the next 6 years. (2013).
What i have included here is an article written by a Petty Officer in the RAN in 2001 that laid out some of the retention issues facing the RAN and i do find this very interesting. Read and enjoy. Cheers.
ISSUES AFFECTING RECRUITING AND RETENTION
In response to the request for submissions on issues affecting recruiting and retention in the ADF, I would like to discuss some points from a naval perspective as a Petty Officer Combat Systems Supervisor with 12 years service (so far), nine of those at sea on DDG’s and FFG’s. The topics I will be discussing are:
• Greater pay increase when promoted from Junior Sailor to Senior Sailor level.
• The affect of losing Sea Going Allowance (SGA) when posting ashore.
• Poor implementation of changes.
• Low confidence in current service equipment.
1. When promoted to the rank of Petty Officer (PO) from Leading Seaman (LS), the pay increase amounts to approximately $50 per fortnight. I do not believe this accurately reflects or remunerates the extra responsibilities assumed when a PO is a supervisor, training instructor, OH&S facilitator, divisional officer, mentor etc, etc.
By the time a sailor has reached the rank of PO they have completed numerous courses that enhance their category specific skills as well as leadership, management and equity and diversity skills. In my last sea posting I was directly responsible for 14 combat systems sailors as an Operations Room Supervisor and indirectly for a further 14 more (my duties also continued out side the hours of “nine to five”). A civilian supervisor with this type of increase in responsibility on promotion I believe would be paid more than an extra $50 a fortnight.
The disproportionate exodus of experienced senior sailors throughout the last few years (through SCRS, CSP and numerous other changes) has I believe resulted in a “corporate loss” of specialist knowledge that has been detrimental to overall junior sailor skill levels fleet-wide. The short fall in senior sailor numbers have been compensated by the early promotion of less experienced sailors into these vacant positions, exacerbating a situation where these newly promoted senior sailors must quickly improve their proficiency whilst at the same time develop and nurture the skills of their subordinates.
I believe a substantial increase in pay on promotion to petty officer would greatly contribute to reducing the current separation rate of senior sailors from the RAN.
2. In February 01 I posted ashore from HMAS CANBERRA completing my fourth sea posting (nine years in total) in my twelve years of service (so far!), at the same time my wife posted ashore from HMAS SHEEAN. With the combined loss my SGA (approximately $9000 a year) and my wife’s submarine sea going allowance (approximately $13000 a year) amounts to loss of $22000a year.
With the understanding that SGA is paid to compensate the arduous duties of sea service, I believe that after the tier three level of SGA is reached, a percentage of the sailor’s SGA should be retained when posting ashore. This would be paid in recognition of the time at sea already served, and to compensate for the large loss in allowances.
3. The poor implementation of changes throughout the last several years involving issues such as SCRS, CSP, DRP etc, etc have caused a great deal of turmoil throughout all ranks. Personnel who were directly effected by and who invariably were responsible for enforcing the majority of changes were never adequately consulted prior to implementation. Responses to issues raised by personnel concerned with apparent short-comings were consistently answered with comments such as “get used to it, its here to stay” and “if you don’t like it, get out.” I believe this “like it or lump it” attitude displayed by the powers to be, and the apparent lack of understanding and will to address personnel concerns, was responsible for many premature discharges.
4. Throughout the last few years RAN ships have frequently been deployed to areas of instability and noting the current state of regional affairs, it appears this trend will continue into the foreseeable future. From the inception of the FFG-UP and the ANZAC WHIP projects designed to upgrade the war-fighting capabilities of Australia’s front line fighting ships, there has been a continual reduction in the size of actual equipment enhancements ultimately being provided. It is also apparent that the contracts for these upgrades continually go to the lowest bidder as opposed to the company offering the best product, and finally when tenders are short listed, capability requirements are reduced even further to comply with insufficiently small budgets. The FFG-UP and ANZAC WHIP final contracts both differ markedly from that which was initially planned.
Taking all this into account, I believe that some RAN personnel do not hold a great deal of confidence in the equipment they are tasked to deploy in and possibly fight to win with. The “Well trained, well equipped” recruiting slogan that is so often sprouted does not accurately reflect the current or future state of equipment capabilities envisaged. The continual cost cutting and penny pinching involved with equipment procurement is quite evident to the average sailor and causes some concern as it is the sailor who will ultimately put his life on the line not the politician holding the purse strings. The budget increase promised in the 2000 Defence White Paper will only minimally increase the level of capability to that which is currently held.
I believe that previous policy towards the large percentage of experienced personnel discharging has always been reactionary, replacement by recruitment as apposed to retaining the already well-trained service people already in place. The great loss of experience has been detrimental to Defence Force as a whole and needs to be addressed quickly and decisively before it becomes a cost we cannot bear.
The views that I have detailed are those that I have gained through my own experiences during my employment in the RAN, however I also believe they are consistent with those of many of my colleagues.
D.M YOUNG
PETTY OFFICER, RAN
11 May 01
This article is a follow on from PO Youngs statement in May 2001 and this article gives a very refined and indepth look at what the government is trying to do at grass roots level, and it does seem to be addressing the issues that PO Young has laid out.
2007 BUDGET OUTCOMES –PERSONNEL ASPECTS.
To improve the retention and recruitment of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel, the Government will provide $2.1 billion over 10 years (including $1.5 billion over six years from 2011-12). This funding will increase the number of people who join and remain in the military by:
1. Enhancing financial assistance for home ownership, through a more attractive subsidy for interest payments, the value of which increases with the length of service ($863.8 million).
From Jul 2008, ADF personnel will be provided increased subsidised access to home ownership. The proposal has the potential to reduce separations across the ADF by 500 personnel in the first three years of operation. Eligible PN and NR personnel will have access to a three tiered subsidy of 37.5 percent, linked to length of service as follows:
a. four years - $160,000 loan subsidy limit (approximate value $241 per month)
b. eight years - $234,000 loan subsidy limit (approximate value $353 per month)
c. 12 years - $312,000 loan subsidy limit (approximate value $470 per month)
To preserve the Defence objective of assisting personnel to purchase a home with a loan that reflect current prices, and promote home ownership assistance as a key retention factor for full time personnel who are subject to regular postings.
The scheme is based on the following principles:
- A baseline condition of service component which will accumulate for completion of four years service and be accessible beyond discharge.
- Entitlements for members while they remain in Service would be based on the increasing subsidy levels at the four, eight and 12 year point.
- Full subsidy rates would be payable while the member continues to serve. Members would only be eligible for a discounted subsidy after discharge equal to the base rate ($225 per month).
- As an additional retention incentive the full subsidy benefit becomes accessible beyond discharge for the period of accrued by unexpended entitlement after 20 years service.
- Exemptions for special circumstances, including death of a members, and discharge of a member due to incapacity would be included.
The clear rationale for this scheme is to provide ADF personnel with an entitlement to home ownership assistance to offset the demands of a service career where regular postings and absence from home make home ownership difficult to achieve.
The new scheme is more flexible than its predecessor in that:
- It is responsive to changes in the housing market (limit reviewed annually);
- Provides the member with a choice of mortgage providers – instead of only one;
- Options to convert between one and four years interest subsidy to a lump sum payment (based on a loan subsidy limit of $160,000) for a deposit to buy their first home while serving in the ADF; and
- It is portable – a member can only have one subsidy but it can be transferred to a new home.
2. Reforming the ‘other ranks’ pay scales by introducing restructuring similar to that already implemented for officers ($585.4 million);
The creation of a much simpler graded pay structure for OR pay groups based on qualification and skills allowances being rolled into salary will provide the ADF with a contemporary and consistent pay system. The officer pay groups were restructured in Oct 2006. The reforms to the OR pay groups will allow the ADF to seek appropriate pay placements from the DFRT which, in the medium term, will result in a reduction in enlistment/retention bonuses required to address some of the remuneration concerns of critical employment categories. The restructuring will occur in two steps that will involve some salary increases as pay groups are adjusted. An initial adjustment to establish 16 pay groups will be followed by a reduction to eight groups. This initiative includes:
• Evaluate Current Remuneration and Consider Options for Reform. The Henry Review found that the total value of ADF remuneration packages was not generally well known by ADF members and not used well to promote the ADF as an employer of choice. A comparative analysis is to be undertaken of the full value of ADF remuneration including benefits such as tax exemptions, housing, medical and superannuation with other workforce sectors with a view to further reform in this area.
• Process Reform of the DFRT. There is strong impetus from the Government as the employer and from the ADF for procedural reform in the DFRT process. Defence and DEWR will work with the DFRT to reform processes and to ensure that priorities in perilous and critical trades such as the Sea Going and Submarine Service Allowances and Submarine Deployment Allowances are dealt with expeditiously.
3. Increasing funding for marketing and branding activities ($227.8 million).
4. Introducing a new transition service to help manage the separation process of those personnel considering leaving the Services, and providing independent financial advice for personnel to better enable them to make informed decisions ($124.6 million);
5. Identifying potential students for direct entry into ADF technical trade training and sponsoring younger students to commence technical trade training before ADF entry ($71.0 million)
The reduction in the advertising budget for ADF recruiting from $42.1m in 2001-02 to 27.2m in 2005-06 has been reflected in a corresponding decline in the number of recruiting enquiries. Progressive marketing strategies will be employed which target major sporting events, multimedia and youth communications. An increased focus on improving single service branding will reinforce Service reputations, emphasise their values based organisational culture and promote consistent messages that can be better linked to recruitment marketing strategies.
Comprehensive reforms in recruiting process are required if the ADF is to achieve a target of 6500 full time personnel per annum. Navy targets for 07/08 are 1545 officers and sailors. A new service delivery model will be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Henry Review and the recent independent evaluation by Ernst and Young. Improvements needed include offers of fast-tracked provisional enlistment subject to meeting final qualifying criteria, reduced time to process enlistments, better applicant management, directing applicants into critical categories, increasing lateral recruiting, improving information on careers, and improving coordination with training schools. The new Defence Force Recruiting organisation will also manage the transition process for personnel leaving the Services. Professional career management and financial advice will be provided through external advisory services for serving and new members, and personnel considering enlistment.
The Defence Apprenticeships Sponsorships programme will attract 15 to 16 year olds candidates to train with private sector training organisations before undertaking specialised Service apprenticeship training. Measures are also being undertaken with the Defence Industry Policy Review to increase the number of apprenticeships available in Defence Industries with companies undertaking Defence acquisition or sustainment contracts.
Contemporary entry standards are being developed that better reflect community expectations to offer the possibility of an ADF career to a broader population base without reducing the quality of recruits.
6. Expanding the number of cadets and cadet units and improving their experience through a youth development programme conducted in a military environment ($100.0 million)
The ADF cadets will be will see modest growth with an additional seven units and 1,000 cadets with additional staff.
7. Building on the existing Royal Australian Navy Sea Change programme by enhancing fleet support for ships whilst in port and improving remuneration for personnel on submarines ($86.5 million).
The RAN Sea Change Program has 277 initiatives targeted at creating and maintaining the RAN as an employer of choice. Despite some successes, separations continue to exceed enlistments. To improve retention and encourage enlistments, Navy will progress the following:
• Enhanced Fleet Support. The RAN’s high demands on personnel will be reduced to an average of 150 days at sea through ‘flexi-crewing’ and reducing harbour duty commitments by the use of up to 100 civilian contractors from 08/09 for in-port services, such as force protection and harbour watch keeping, storing ship, maintenance and repair. This is clearly a lifestyle and retention factor as it detracts from the overall career experience Navy wishes to provide. It is envisaged that 100 Professional Service Providers (PSP) could provide the necessary support to Navy..
• Submarine Deployment Allowance. $15.6M of the RAN Sea Change funding has been set aside for the provision of tax-free deployment allowances to SM personnel serving in defined operational deployments.
8. Delivering professional development opportunities to ADF medical officers, comparable to those in the civilian health workforce ($12.1 million).
At the core of the ADF Health capability is the requirement to have the right number of appropriately trained healthy personnel with a high professional standing alongside their Naval Reserve or civilian counterparts. This initiative proposes financial support up to $10, 000 to cover the reasonable costs associated with the enhancement of skills for professional development activities.
These measures build on funding provided as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2006-07 measure Australian Defence Force Retention and Recruitment – new initiatives
Of Interest Outside the Budget
Superannuation Review Underway. A comprehensive review of ADF Superannuation to ensure it continues to attract and retain ADF personnel will be undertaken. An independent review team will examine the totality of military superannuation arrangements, including options for choice of schemes, portability of benefits and transition to retirement. The review is to be completed by Jun 2007.
2007 BUDGET OUTCOMES –PERSONNEL ASPECTS.
To improve the retention and recruitment of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel, the Government will provide $2.1 billion over 10 years (including $1.5 billion over six years from 2011-12). This funding will increase the number of people who join and remain in the military by:
1. Enhancing financial assistance for home ownership, through a more attractive subsidy for interest payments, the value of which increases with the length of service ($863.8 million).
From Jul 2008, ADF personnel will be provided increased subsidised access to home ownership. The proposal has the potential to reduce separations across the ADF by 500 personnel in the first three years of operation. Eligible PN and NR personnel will have access to a three tiered subsidy of 37.5 percent, linked to length of service as follows:
a. four years - $160,000 loan subsidy limit (approximate value $241 per month)
b. eight years - $234,000 loan subsidy limit (approximate value $353 per month)
c. 12 years - $312,000 loan subsidy limit (approximate value $470 per month)
To preserve the Defence objective of assisting personnel to purchase a home with a loan that reflect current prices, and promote home ownership assistance as a key retention factor for full time personnel who are subject to regular postings.
The scheme is based on the following principles:
- A baseline condition of service component which will accumulate for completion of four years service and be accessible beyond discharge.
- Entitlements for members while they remain in Service would be based on the increasing subsidy levels at the four, eight and 12 year point.
- Full subsidy rates would be payable while the member continues to serve. Members would only be eligible for a discounted subsidy after discharge equal to the base rate ($225 per month).
- As an additional retention incentive the full subsidy benefit becomes accessible beyond discharge for the period of accrued by unexpended entitlement after 20 years service.
- Exemptions for special circumstances, including death of a members, and discharge of a member due to incapacity would be included.
The clear rationale for this scheme is to provide ADF personnel with an entitlement to home ownership assistance to offset the demands of a service career where regular postings and absence from home make home ownership difficult to achieve.
The new scheme is more flexible than its predecessor in that:
- It is responsive to changes in the housing market (limit reviewed annually);
- Provides the member with a choice of mortgage providers – instead of only one;
- Options to convert between one and four years interest subsidy to a lump sum payment (based on a loan subsidy limit of $160,000) for a deposit to buy their first home while serving in the ADF; and
- It is portable – a member can only have one subsidy but it can be transferred to a new home.
2. Reforming the ‘other ranks’ pay scales by introducing restructuring similar to that already implemented for officers ($585.4 million);
The creation of a much simpler graded pay structure for OR pay groups based on qualification and skills allowances being rolled into salary will provide the ADF with a contemporary and consistent pay system. The officer pay groups were restructured in Oct 2006. The reforms to the OR pay groups will allow the ADF to seek appropriate pay placements from the DFRT which, in the medium term, will result in a reduction in enlistment/retention bonuses required to address some of the remuneration concerns of critical employment categories. The restructuring will occur in two steps that will involve some salary increases as pay groups are adjusted. An initial adjustment to establish 16 pay groups will be followed by a reduction to eight groups. This initiative includes:
• Evaluate Current Remuneration and Consider Options for Reform. The Henry Review found that the total value of ADF remuneration packages was not generally well known by ADF members and not used well to promote the ADF as an employer of choice. A comparative analysis is to be undertaken of the full value of ADF remuneration including benefits such as tax exemptions, housing, medical and superannuation with other workforce sectors with a view to further reform in this area.
• Process Reform of the DFRT. There is strong impetus from the Government as the employer and from the ADF for procedural reform in the DFRT process. Defence and DEWR will work with the DFRT to reform processes and to ensure that priorities in perilous and critical trades such as the Sea Going and Submarine Service Allowances and Submarine Deployment Allowances are dealt with expeditiously.
3. Increasing funding for marketing and branding activities ($227.8 million).
4. Introducing a new transition service to help manage the separation process of those personnel considering leaving the Services, and providing independent financial advice for personnel to better enable them to make informed decisions ($124.6 million);
5. Identifying potential students for direct entry into ADF technical trade training and sponsoring younger students to commence technical trade training before ADF entry ($71.0 million)
The reduction in the advertising budget for ADF recruiting from $42.1m in 2001-02 to 27.2m in 2005-06 has been reflected in a corresponding decline in the number of recruiting enquiries. Progressive marketing strategies will be employed which target major sporting events, multimedia and youth communications. An increased focus on improving single service branding will reinforce Service reputations, emphasise their values based organisational culture and promote consistent messages that can be better linked to recruitment marketing strategies.
Comprehensive reforms in recruiting process are required if the ADF is to achieve a target of 6500 full time personnel per annum. Navy targets for 07/08 are 1545 officers and sailors. A new service delivery model will be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Henry Review and the recent independent evaluation by Ernst and Young. Improvements needed include offers of fast-tracked provisional enlistment subject to meeting final qualifying criteria, reduced time to process enlistments, better applicant management, directing applicants into critical categories, increasing lateral recruiting, improving information on careers, and improving coordination with training schools. The new Defence Force Recruiting organisation will also manage the transition process for personnel leaving the Services. Professional career management and financial advice will be provided through external advisory services for serving and new members, and personnel considering enlistment.
The Defence Apprenticeships Sponsorships programme will attract 15 to 16 year olds candidates to train with private sector training organisations before undertaking specialised Service apprenticeship training. Measures are also being undertaken with the Defence Industry Policy Review to increase the number of apprenticeships available in Defence Industries with companies undertaking Defence acquisition or sustainment contracts.
Contemporary entry standards are being developed that better reflect community expectations to offer the possibility of an ADF career to a broader population base without reducing the quality of recruits.
6. Expanding the number of cadets and cadet units and improving their experience through a youth development programme conducted in a military environment ($100.0 million)
The ADF cadets will be will see modest growth with an additional seven units and 1,000 cadets with additional staff.
7. Building on the existing Royal Australian Navy Sea Change programme by enhancing fleet support for ships whilst in port and improving remuneration for personnel on submarines ($86.5 million).
The RAN Sea Change Program has 277 initiatives targeted at creating and maintaining the RAN as an employer of choice. Despite some successes, separations continue to exceed enlistments. To improve retention and encourage enlistments, Navy will progress the following:
• Enhanced Fleet Support. The RAN’s high demands on personnel will be reduced to an average of 150 days at sea through ‘flexi-crewing’ and reducing harbour duty commitments by the use of up to 100 civilian contractors from 08/09 for in-port services, such as force protection and harbour watch keeping, storing ship, maintenance and repair. This is clearly a lifestyle and retention factor as it detracts from the overall career experience Navy wishes to provide. It is envisaged that 100 Professional Service Providers (PSP) could provide the necessary support to Navy..
• Submarine Deployment Allowance. $15.6M of the RAN Sea Change funding has been set aside for the provision of tax-free deployment allowances to SM personnel serving in defined operational deployments.
8. Delivering professional development opportunities to ADF medical officers, comparable to those in the civilian health workforce ($12.1 million).
At the core of the ADF Health capability is the requirement to have the right number of appropriately trained healthy personnel with a high professional standing alongside their Naval Reserve or civilian counterparts. This initiative proposes financial support up to $10, 000 to cover the reasonable costs associated with the enhancement of skills for professional development activities.
These measures build on funding provided as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2006-07 measure Australian Defence Force Retention and Recruitment – new initiatives
Of Interest Outside the Budget
Superannuation Review Underway. A comprehensive review of ADF Superannuation to ensure it continues to attract and retain ADF personnel will be undertaken. An independent review team will examine the totality of military superannuation arrangements, including options for choice of schemes, portability of benefits and transition to retirement. The review is to be completed by Jun 2007.
From comments made by a number of RAN and/or ex RAN members I get the impression that accommodation standards and general comforts on the Meko 200 based Anzac class are unsatisfactory and compare unfavourably with that found on American designed ships. My understanding is that USN warships have generally had high standards re accommodation as they are expected to serve for long deployments away from home waters. I also have a perception, which may no longer be correct, that many European designs make the assumption that crews will spend much of their time in shore based accommodation. Are you (or anyone else in the know) able to confirm this?
If it is the case my next question is what is the accommodation standard like on the F100 and how does it compare with USN designs?
Given the comments by the OZ defence professionals in this forum about retention it seems to me that this should be an area of some importance in the selection process for the AWD.
Cheers
Accomodation in the FFG7 is nothing to write home about and the AB in US service is not particualry spacious in so far as individual privacty and comfort for all crew are concnered.
On the flip side the accomodatation in the LHD is apparently going to be excellent as will the evolved AB or F100. So the new ships should be much nicer.
As for the ANZAC my understanding is that it is not much different to the FFG and is not a patch on the new designs.
In my view the real need is to set the situution up so the crew do not have to live on board major surface units (except duty watch) when in home port regardless of marital status. At least this allows them to have a life outside work.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
They could make PLENTY of changes but they won't. Alright, seeing as though you want some optimistic ideas to improve retention here's a few:
1. Re-introduce training centres and depots for reserves in regional rather than consolidating in major centres for costs sake.
2. Get rid of the stupid 3 year posting cycle that FORCES people to move without any say in the matter whatsoever.
3. Stop pretending these enforced postings are for the soldiers/sailors/airman's own good.
4. Stop covering up even SIMPLE issues like those concerning the issued Terra (or rather "Terror") boots. They're willing to spend $6b on AWD's and $6b on Super Hornets, but apparently they can't afford to purchase a decent boot for the defence force but can spend $6m on developing a piece of junk produced by "Redback" that wonderfully renouned boot manufacturer. The boot manufacturer you also see alongside KT-26 and Dunlop Volley shoes in any Kmart or Target in Australia, but NOT in a decent shoe shop...
A statement of principles is just that. A statement only. Unless it's backed up by REAL action, nothing changes. Think Government is SERIOUS do you about these things?
That would explain the NUMEROUS similar proposals over the last few years (Defence recruiting has been a problem since the Howard Government came to power in 1996) wouldn't it? Guess what? Things just keep getting worse.
The EASIEST change they could make is to place the responsibility for recruitment back on to ADF and sack Manpower but they won't even do that.
The grand policy announcements like the one you posted are for the benefit of the electorate to "show" the Government doing something. The real changes needed never happen though because it upsets too many "applecarts" and you can't have that in a large bureaucracy...
Army can spend $6m for a medallion for soldiers outlining a "statement of principles" but is not willing to spend 1 CENT more on a boot that is clearly rubbish, given the $6m or so they've already SPENT on it.
Little things matter to the soldiers. Not these massive pay rises to stay and put up with shit like that simply because someone offers them 15 grand a year more (half of which goes in tax ANYWAY).
I've never met a soldier in the Australian Army that didn't want more money. At the same time I never met a soldier that was OVERLY concerned about how LITTLE he was paid.
Here is one of the best written examples I've ever read of what's wrong with today's ADF and why retention in particular is absymal.
Hey everbody, just thought I'd take a minute to throw forward some of my opinions regarding army retention on the table. In doing this I can only speak from my own background and perspective, that being RAINF as I haven't really had a whole lot to do with the others to make any broad statement.
I have seen in my short time the Army changed from one form to another and have graduated into being able to have a stand point of "well back in my time". From this I have also learnt that everyone has a back in my day view of where things were usually better. Perhaps time erodes a few of the negatives but anyway I'm turning out more waffles than a mortar line here so time to move on and get down to business.
The Army it seems has finally realised that there is an issue of retention within its ranks. For most this could be seen a long time coming but it is FINALLY being addressed. Again I will not enter into topics of DFRDB or 15 year SNCOs as I again don't feel qualified to discuss. What I would like to examine is the junior soldier to NCO level with a few years up. I am also including the opinions of those who have only served periods of six months who cant wait to get the f*ck out rather thatn looking forward to their soldiering career.
The Army as most people are aware has recently rolled out its new incentive scheme to keep JNCOs and training establishment staff in the job through monetary incentives. Everyone loves the sounds of $$$$$$$$ and most will say they honestly don't believe they get paid what they deserve. I do agree with this but to do something like introduce overtime would make the current Defence budget look like peanuts. But to look beyond the issue of money I think a simpler and far more cost effective strategy can be employed.
There are many many disgruntled soldiers out there, hence these retention issues but ask any one of them when was the last time a senior ranking officer above the rank of CO approached them without an entourage of the RSM and so fourth starring over their shoulder with evil eyes, and asked the soldier honestly whats the problem and what issues they have. Of course most soldiers will put a smile on their face in the worst of situations and comment on the weather and how great things are at first but if a bit of trust can somehow be developed, vital issues can be put forward. The question is not only will they listen but will they act. It goes a lot deeper than complaining that he can't get a pair of boots in his size and finding a new pair available the following week.
Most soldiers are not pi**ed off because they are only making 40-50-60 grand a year. If you ask them you will find its all the little things. I once heard a good description where a soldier said if you were to ask him what sh*ts him about the army, he would have a hard time putting his fingure on it and saying THIS is the problem. He went on to describe it as like a brick wall where every week a new brick is added to the wall and eventually the whole thing brings you down and you just end up hitting your head against it. All these little things are simple things like stopping the wearing of PT gear after breakfast, interupting good value training to attend compulsory unit parades, not allowing admin time during the week to take off and take care of things, not allowing guys to take 12 months leave without pay to look after sick family, the Boss being given the authority to knock his guys off when he sees fit that the work is done, not having the opportunity to take a rest posting to a reserve unit in their home town if they need it, heaps of little things which were until recent times were acceptable.
A lot of guys see things as every week the unit takes something good away and gives nothing in return. Something as simple as cutting guys away for a half day of admin has commanders in fits because they know the married guys will go off to pay the bills and the single guys will cut away to the nearest secluded pub to get on the sauce. And really so what I say, they are still out there drinking as mates, getting issues of their chests as mates and being naughty as mates. It may not be obvious at first glance but this is the building blocks of the team. Another example could be rocking up to work at 0 dark hundred to do a CFA, finishing at the boozer with a heap of tinnies on ice followed buy an early knock. Everyone knows the beers hardly get touched but the thought goes a long way.
More and more there is the impression given that the Army is not unaccountable and that it is a job just like any other. Yet there is still the reminders that the Army is not a job, it's a service that you signed up for, a service of the nation. This leads to further confusion, what is it, one or the other? The other one is that the Army is a way of life rather than a job. Well if it's a way of life then why not play the game a bit more fairly I say. It seems to be the trend of commanders to enter a unit knowing they have two or so years to make their mark which will set them up for their next job and therefore they want to be seen to be working the boys to show they are doing a good job. They don't seem to bother with the fact that the boys have been doing the job year in year out around the clock while they have either been in training or elsewhere. Sure training needs to be ongoing but commanders are too head strong and often do not take into account the reccomendations of SNCOs to say here's were we are at, this is what we need, rest or play whatever the case may be. As with the section commanders, they often now have little or no influence in the section training that it is their job to command. With the training handed down from all heights of command the section commander may only have the opportunity to input his own training for 10% of the training year if he is lucky in some cases.
Realistically the common soldier with a few years up does not spend too much time pondering time after Army. Most have a couple of ideas up their sleeve that they can turn to when the day comes. It is probably around the 6 year mark that most guys look at themselves and say alright this has been a good experiance, do I stick with it or move on. That is those who don't do the four year and gone. Opportunities start to open and close whichever option is taken. But are you really going to say to the average soldier who after six years who is now a section commander, possibly on his first stint of Kapooka, here's 10 Gs for working a buggered job, plus your 30Gs at the end of three years or whatever. Along with that we've taken most of the fun aspects out of the job and made it so politically correct you'll be scared to fart on your next subject course. So will you soldier on?
Obviously recent operational tempo has been an influence on the change and has driven a need to perform, perform, perform. One idea that popped into my mind (hmmm OR, do I have one of those again?) was influenced by the SF posture. Would it be possible for say in the simplest term when looking at three battalions to have one as training battalion where the majority of new soldiers go which for 12 months focuses wholey and soley on courses and getting everyone rested, retrained and bombed up along with any needed recovery, the next battalion to progress to after 12 months could be green role, get the guys in the bush and bring them together after the 12 month training period to work as teams before progressing onto a third year black role (by saying black role I am not suggesting anything CT, just using the term for ease of description). In this third year black role the guys could focus soley on urban warfare ops as the senior Bn to tie down drills and specialise in MOUT. Through this appraoch the army for example could say alright we need a company to take over SECDET, rotation three provide a company. We need two companies for ET, rotation two prepare to deploy. This way you would have guys trained and focused to deploy in any given role at any particular point in time. Of course there would be the ongoing issue of reinforcing their companies due to guys moving on which would need to be dealt with. Enough of that random tangent I was on anyway. Back on topic.
In conclusion, I don't believe soldiers are after extra dollars in their pay check to keep them in the job. Soldiers know they are doing something different that the civillian world is unable to provide, that is why they joined. And in this sense they join to be different and be treated differently. I believe it comes down to by all means work the men hard but let them play hard and enjoy life when there's the opportunity. I feel the need to share this opinion because I have come across a lot of things that state the Army needs this that or the other but the soldiers, and I have spoken to many, all share the similarity that the reason why they are annoyed is that they are always treated as a number on the spreadsheet to be dealt with however and that the funs being taken out of the game. As I said every generations different and some may look on the current one and say harden the f*ck up or get out but the reality is, like the Army, we are constantly changing and are different and through our requirements or year 10 maths and english or whatever it is, perhaps too much Home and Away, we are smart enough to realise we are being f*cked around in a thankless job for a sh*tty deal and want to move on.
I hope some of this makes sense, and that I have shared my opinion broadly enough to make it not sound too much like a rant. This is obviously not the opinion of all but straight from the coal face as I see it. I have gone on probably for a bit too long but I hope I can provide a bit of a glimpse as an insiders point of view.
Courtesy of www.firesupportbase.com
Believe me or not. I don't especially care. Thoughts like this are prevalent THROUGHOUT ADF and little to nothing is being done to address. It's not dollars that's really needed, but an attitude change.
But the RAN is changing the accomodation on the LHD for the worse.
Packing more in, and shared facilities etc. Bad move. They should be upgrading the accomodation. Large US ships, like aircraft carriers and LHD's have coke machines, shops, gyms, cinemas etc. They are mini cities at sea that can move around. The entire crew of the strike group benifit from these facilities.
http://www.nimitz.navy.mil/News/042807.pdf
Take a look at a Nimitz newsletter. Check out the gym facilities, the dodgeball game in the hanger. These can be done *AT* sea. I see no reason why with the LHD some of that lovely flexable space can't be used for basketball, indoor cricket, soccer etc comps. They will have extensive gym facilities.
This should be work hard play hard ships. Happier crew, healthier crew, works better as a team and better at sea lifestyle.
While in port they shouldn't have to all live on ship either. Atleast if its comfortable and nice, more people will be happier staying on board. Time can be reduced, and time spent is higher quality.
Given a Australian LHD taskforce would likely number ~2,000 or so Australian personel (300 crew LHD, 220 odd each on two AWD's, 200 odd on two frigates, ~800 on the LHD as aircrew, army etc. In countries where there isn't a whole lot to do (say timor during its troubles) then on ship facilities can take up some of the short fall.
As part of an international taskforce, working with say the RN, great sales pitch to those who might concider joining the RAN.
You need more than window dressing and some small cash improvements.
Packing more in, and shared facilities etc. Bad move. They should be upgrading the accomodation. Large US ships, like aircraft carriers and LHD's have coke machines, shops, gyms, cinemas etc. They are mini cities at sea that can move around. The entire crew of the strike group benifit from these facilities.
http://www.nimitz.navy.mil/News/042807.pdf
Take a look at a Nimitz newsletter. Check out the gym facilities, the dodgeball game in the hanger. These can be done *AT* sea. I see no reason why with the LHD some of that lovely flexable space can't be used for basketball, indoor cricket, soccer etc comps. They will have extensive gym facilities.
This should be work hard play hard ships. Happier crew, healthier crew, works better as a team and better at sea lifestyle.
While in port they shouldn't have to all live on ship either. Atleast if its comfortable and nice, more people will be happier staying on board. Time can be reduced, and time spent is higher quality.
Given a Australian LHD taskforce would likely number ~2,000 or so Australian personel (300 crew LHD, 220 odd each on two AWD's, 200 odd on two frigates, ~800 on the LHD as aircrew, army etc. In countries where there isn't a whole lot to do (say timor during its troubles) then on ship facilities can take up some of the short fall.
As part of an international taskforce, working with say the RN, great sales pitch to those who might concider joining the RAN.
You need more than window dressing and some small cash improvements.
AD, in your opinion where is the change in attitude needed? Is it at government level? Is it in the higher ranks of the ADF? Is it somewhere else? I ask that because I've often had the feeling that there is an 'old school network' in the ADF that doesn't want to change the way things are done. Hopefully I'm wrong because I think this is probably the most important issue facing the ADF as a whole, far more important than the choice between two designs of warship.
Cheers
Yes but in Nimitz they still have multi tiered bunks an bugger all privacy.
If we select the BPE the crew will live in much better conditons than naything in the current inventory and will have beteer personal space than the US ships (excepts the USNS vessels which are operated under merchant conditions). I understand the difference between the Aus version and the spanish verson being crew members share a bathroom between two rather than have ther own. This is consistant with merchant navy standards for crew.
The troops will not be so well housed but it will still be a remarkable improvemnt over HMAS Tobruk and will not be for extended duration.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think it's a problem with high ranks but moreso the journey it takes to get there.
A mate of mine is a Captain in Army and is closing in on Major and according to him the political "bun fighting" between middle to high rank (Captain to Brigadier and probably beyond) is simply unbelievable.
I have no reason to disbelieve him. He has been posted so many times to places he has NO desire to attend is testimony to the problems in of itself.
The boffins who write in Defence Journal etc often talk about organisational change and it's merits.
Unfortunately writing is all that ever seems to happen about it...
And now back to the boats, we're getting WAY off track here...
Unfortunatly there are holes in your argument about the lifestyle of the crew on a ship in port. Lets say the new LHD was laid up in port in Bangkok or Manila. First and foremost on any servicemans mind is security at that port. You simply cant allow serviceman to be staying in Hotels around the world. It only takes a "Terror Nut" to vapourise the Hotel they are in for the point to get home. So really that is a no brainer.
What i do think is a much better idea is that serviceman from the RAN on shoreleave in a foreign country use the secure base accommodation facilities of another country such as the US or European Country to at least give the crew some R&R.
I do agree that crew quarters can be arranged better and should be more private and comfortable than would otherwise be the case.
Despite your thoughts on the Nimitz as having far superior recreational facilities, and taking this into account in comparison to the LHD i am of the opinion that you cant match the two classes of carrier having the same equal space for these facilities. The LHD is way smaller than the Nimitz and there shouldnt be any expectation for the same type of facilities.
What i do think is a much better idea is that serviceman from the RAN on shoreleave in a foreign country use the secure base accommodation facilities of another country such as the US or European Country to at least give the crew some R&R.
I do agree that crew quarters can be arranged better and should be more private and comfortable than would otherwise be the case.
Despite your thoughts on the Nimitz as having far superior recreational facilities, and taking this into account in comparison to the LHD i am of the opinion that you cant match the two classes of carrier having the same equal space for these facilities. The LHD is way smaller than the Nimitz and there shouldnt be any expectation for the same type of facilities.
Noting your response is to Stingray Oz I will make a few points. My post related to home ports and I beleive the BPE will be superior to Nimitz in respect of personal space.
In respect of crew staying ashore overseas, this already happens for some vessels. The access to such relaxation depends on locations but should be permitted where practical.
Finding decent accommodation ashore for sailors in their home port would be a positive move. On board accommodation would still be necessary when on deployment and also for a reduced crew at home for security, maintenance, taking on stores, etc, so a high standard of accommodation would still be needed.
BTW, I was pleased to read your comment about the accommodation standards on the F100, Evolved G&C and the LHDs.
Cheers
AD, i have read your post and thanks for your input.
I need to address some of the things that you have stated and would like to comment on them. Firstly, i am to be honest not up with the Army state of affairs and its interesting to get a perspective from you and your collegues over the retention issue regarding in fighting which you have laid out.
You mention "They could make PLENTY of changes but they won't". Who are they? The RAA or Australian Government.
You mention in the first comment:
1. Re-introduce training centres and depots for reserves in regional rather than consolidating in major centres for costs sake.
Answer. Wouldnt this be counter productive for Reserves who want to get into the Army having to Transit to Regional centers outside cities areas where the Personell live? Or do you mean add additional centres into the regional areas so they are easy to reach for those wanting to train in the RAA. That would make more sense to me.
2. Get rid of the stupid 3 year posting cycle that FORCES people to move without any say in the matter whatsoever.
Answer. Postings are a fact of life in any part of the services. When you join any part of the armed forces this is a fact of life for any serviceman. When you sign up, everything should be put in front of you to let you know what the service requires of you. Get used to it.! You will have to be doing alot of this in overseas deployments and on exercises over an extended period of time with any branch of the armed forces.
3. Stop pretending these enforced postings are for the soldiers/sailors/airman's own good.
Answer. In hindsite as it may sound corny, its actually true. It is good for them because it gives the servicemen experience as well as geographical knowledge in a part of Australia that they may not be used too and knowledgable about. The Army teaches survival skills and fighting skills with a variety of weapons in many conditions within Australia.
4. Stop covering up even SIMPLE issues like those concerning the issued Terra (or rather "Terror") boots. They're willing to spend $6b on AWD's and $6b on Super Hornets, but apparently they can't afford to purchase a decent boot for the defence force but can spend $6m on developing a piece of junk produced by "Redback" that wonderfully renouned boot manufacturer. The boot manufacturer you also see alongside KT-26 and Dunlop Volley shoes in any Kmart or Target in Australia, but NOT in a decent shoe shop...
A statement of principles is just that. A statement only. Unless it's backed up by REAL action, nothing changes. Think Government is SERIOUS do you about these things?
Answer. Yes i do. I will agree with you about the boot. Maybe thats an issue that needs to be taken seriously. That is an essential part of the servicemans kit. But hey, the Armed Forces life is one less ordinary. You have to accept that. To protect a nation and spread security across the globe requires mental and physical ability. But if you are after a Night Club lifestyle 24/7 then obviously its not for you. Before entering the Forces you need to consider carefully the consequences and some discomfort being away from home. Being in the Forces turns you from being a Patsy into someone with some skills and ability to serve their country. The message is as simple as that.
That would explain the NUMEROUS similar proposals over the last few years (Defence recruiting has been a problem since the Howard Government came to power in 1996) wouldn't it? Guess what? Things just keep getting worse.
Answer. I am not convinced that this is as bad as you have laid out. Sure theres room for improvement on anything, but i do understand that staff retention and recruitment is on the up, and this government is doing something about it. Money turns what is needed into reality. Makes whats not there into something that is. You say that its the Government throwing money at the problem. That analogy isnt true to start with. It may seem like that, but the vast amount being spent this year as i have already stated in my posts is a huge investment into turning the situation around and making the improvements on things that need fixing. It may take some time. You cant expect the pilot to land a 747 on a 50 meter runway, when the runway crew need more time making the runway at 3000 meters! Its as simple as that.
I need to address some of the things that you have stated and would like to comment on them. Firstly, i am to be honest not up with the Army state of affairs and its interesting to get a perspective from you and your collegues over the retention issue regarding in fighting which you have laid out.
You mention "They could make PLENTY of changes but they won't". Who are they? The RAA or Australian Government.
You mention in the first comment:
1. Re-introduce training centres and depots for reserves in regional rather than consolidating in major centres for costs sake.
Answer. Wouldnt this be counter productive for Reserves who want to get into the Army having to Transit to Regional centers outside cities areas where the Personell live? Or do you mean add additional centres into the regional areas so they are easy to reach for those wanting to train in the RAA. That would make more sense to me.
2. Get rid of the stupid 3 year posting cycle that FORCES people to move without any say in the matter whatsoever.
Answer. Postings are a fact of life in any part of the services. When you join any part of the armed forces this is a fact of life for any serviceman. When you sign up, everything should be put in front of you to let you know what the service requires of you. Get used to it.! You will have to be doing alot of this in overseas deployments and on exercises over an extended period of time with any branch of the armed forces.
3. Stop pretending these enforced postings are for the soldiers/sailors/airman's own good.
Answer. In hindsite as it may sound corny, its actually true. It is good for them because it gives the servicemen experience as well as geographical knowledge in a part of Australia that they may not be used too and knowledgable about. The Army teaches survival skills and fighting skills with a variety of weapons in many conditions within Australia.
4. Stop covering up even SIMPLE issues like those concerning the issued Terra (or rather "Terror") boots. They're willing to spend $6b on AWD's and $6b on Super Hornets, but apparently they can't afford to purchase a decent boot for the defence force but can spend $6m on developing a piece of junk produced by "Redback" that wonderfully renouned boot manufacturer. The boot manufacturer you also see alongside KT-26 and Dunlop Volley shoes in any Kmart or Target in Australia, but NOT in a decent shoe shop...
A statement of principles is just that. A statement only. Unless it's backed up by REAL action, nothing changes. Think Government is SERIOUS do you about these things?
Answer. Yes i do. I will agree with you about the boot. Maybe thats an issue that needs to be taken seriously. That is an essential part of the servicemans kit. But hey, the Armed Forces life is one less ordinary. You have to accept that. To protect a nation and spread security across the globe requires mental and physical ability. But if you are after a Night Club lifestyle 24/7 then obviously its not for you. Before entering the Forces you need to consider carefully the consequences and some discomfort being away from home. Being in the Forces turns you from being a Patsy into someone with some skills and ability to serve their country. The message is as simple as that.
That would explain the NUMEROUS similar proposals over the last few years (Defence recruiting has been a problem since the Howard Government came to power in 1996) wouldn't it? Guess what? Things just keep getting worse.
Answer. I am not convinced that this is as bad as you have laid out. Sure theres room for improvement on anything, but i do understand that staff retention and recruitment is on the up, and this government is doing something about it. Money turns what is needed into reality. Makes whats not there into something that is. You say that its the Government throwing money at the problem. That analogy isnt true to start with. It may seem like that, but the vast amount being spent this year as i have already stated in my posts is a huge investment into turning the situation around and making the improvements on things that need fixing. It may take some time. You cant expect the pilot to land a 747 on a 50 meter runway, when the runway crew need more time making the runway at 3000 meters! Its as simple as that.
Thank you for repeating on my point about overseas posts and shore leave.
I am unsure about your comment about the BPE being superier in regards to personal space as it hasnt arrived yet. Without knowing all the facts i would tend to think that you cant compare the BPE in proportion to the Nimitz as each vessel has certain characteristics when it comes to room space.
As to recreational space which from what i understand Stingray Oz was talking about then i dont think theres any argument about which vessel has the better facilities. Cheers.
I am unsure about your comment about the BPE being superier in regards to personal space as it hasnt arrived yet. Without knowing all the facts i would tend to think that you cant compare the BPE in proportion to the Nimitz as each vessel has certain characteristics when it comes to room space.
As to recreational space which from what i understand Stingray Oz was talking about then i dont think theres any argument about which vessel has the better facilities. Cheers.
- Status