|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ACPERS |
Assistant Chief of Defence Force (Personnel) |
|
ACPOL |
Assistant Chief of Defence Force (Policy) |
|
ADF |
Australian Defence Force |
|
ADFILS |
Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff |
|
APS |
Australian Public Service |
|
ADFHLAS |
Australian Defence Force Home Loan Assistance Scheme |
|
ARA |
Australian Regular Army |
|
ArFFA |
Armed Forces Federation of Australia |
|
AWE |
Average Weekly Earnings |
|
AWOTE |
Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings |
|
CDF |
Chief of the Defence Force |
|
CES |
Commonwealth Employment Service |
|
COI |
Kerr/Woodward Committee of Inquiry |
|
COR |
Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay |
|
COSC |
Chiefs of Staff Committee |
|
CPI |
Consumer Price Index |
|
CSHA(S) |
Commonwealth State Housing Agreement - Service Personnel |
|
CSS |
Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme |
|
DCO |
Defence Community Organisation |
|
DER |
Defence Efficiency Review |
|
DFA |
Defence Force Advocate |
|
DFDA |
Defence Force Discipline Act |
|
DFPCC |
Defence Force Pay and Conditions Committee |
|
DFPPC |
Defence Force Personnel Policy Committee |
|
DFRDB |
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme |
|
DFRT |
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal |
|
DGSC |
Director General Service Conditions |
|
DGSPP |
Director General Service Personnel Policy |
|
DHA |
Defence Housing Authority |
|
DIR |
Department of Industrial Relations |
|
DIY |
Do-It-Yourself |
|
DRT |
Discharge Resettlement Training |
|
DSH |
Defence Service Homes |
|
DSNSG |
Defence Special Needs Support Group |
|
DVA |
Department of Veterans' Affairs |
|
DWR & SB |
Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business |
|
EA |
Education Allowance |
|
EANL |
Education Assistance in the New Locality |
|
EAOL |
Education Assistance in Other Localities |
|
ETA |
Education Tuition Allowance |
|
FIND |
Family Information Network for Defence |
|
FLO |
Family Liaison Officer |
|
FSFP |
Family Support Funding Program |
|
FSR |
Force Structure Review |
|
FWSN |
Families with Special Needs |
|
HMCs |
Housing Management Centres |
|
HQADF |
Headquarters Australian Defence Force |
|
INDMAN |
Manual of Salaries and Conditions of Service for the Permanent Forces |
|
LOA |
Living Out Allowance |
|
LOAFHA |
Living Out Away From Home Allowance |
|
LWOP |
Leave Without Pay |
|
MSBS |
Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme |
|
MWF |
Members with Family |
|
MWOF |
Members without Family |
|
NAB |
National Australia Bank |
|
NCGSS |
National Consultative Group of Service Spouses |
|
NCO |
Non-Commissioned Officer |
|
OSS |
Occupational Superannuation Standards |
|
PSS |
Public Sector Superannuation Scheme |
|
PTC |
Principal Tenant Concept |
|
RDFWA |
Regular Defence Force Welfare Association |
|
REDLO |
Regional Education Liaison Officer |
|
SDA |
Sex Discrimination Act |
|
SRCA |
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 |
|
SVETS |
Services Vocational and Educational Training Scheme |
|
TAA |
Temporary Accommodation Allowance |
|
TAASA |
Temporary Accommodation Allowance in Serviced Apartments |
|
TRA |
Temporary Rental Allowance |
|
VEA |
Veterans' Entitlements Act |
This paper, a full revision and update of a Background Paper written in November 1990, provides a survey of conditions of service in the Regular component of the Australian Defence Force. It is essentially a reference paper, giving a general outline of the background to policy, the existing policy, and some of the problem issues that remain. Generally the aim is not to analyse issues and policies but to provide basic information on a variety of personnel matters which are often complex, hopefully equipping the reader with a context for issues that may arise.
In twelve chapters information is provided on:
There are issues to be debated in each of the above topics. But some areas, such as housing and regulation of ADF pay, are particularly subject to debate at present, and these chapters contain more analysis of issues. Other chapters, such as those dealing with allowances and leave provision, are very largely descriptive.
Many readers will be interested in only one or two subjects and will want to confine their reading to the relevant chapters. Hopefully the Contents Table has been given sufficient detail to facilitate the finding of most subjects. Chapter 1, the Introduction, gives some background information and discusses issues which are relevant to most, if not all, of the following chapters. One example is the posting requirement, the compulsory rotation of personnel from location to location.
Chapter 2, written by Derek Woolner, tries to put the conditions of service area in its economic context. It is essentially an economic introduction to the paper.
Throughout this paper the term 'Defence' refers (in context) to either the Department of..., the Defence Force, or both as the whole Defence organisation. Where 'defence' is used with no capital it refers to the subject or field, not the Defence organisation.
Members of the regular Defence Force constitute a microcosm of society. The Services employ people with skills and professions extending across the entire civilian work-force spectrum. Many tasks they perform, and circumstances of employment, however, have no civilian equivalent.
In looking at conditions of service this paper will cover some benefits and drawbacks of service life; financial rewards of pay, allowances, gratuities and bounties; compensation and reimbursement; and the machinery for regulating service conditions. Each chapter warrants a paper in its own right; this paper can, at most, provide for each area a general outline of the background to policy, the existing policy, and some of the problem issues that remain.
The costly, and often lengthy, initial and continuation training makes retention of trained personnel a major objective of any conditions of service consideration. Although a sense of patriotism, service and adventure still play a part, the constant demand to attract adequate numbers of suitable recruits from an increasingly sophisticated population requires the frequent review of realistic incentives. Standards in the Armed Forces are high (81.8 per cent of applicants were rejected in 1996-97)(1) and despite continuing high unemployment levels the labour market remains in many areas highly competitive.
In some ways the title of this paper is a misnomer in that it deals not only with 'conditions of service'. Conditions of Service are the entitlements which members of the Armed Forces can draw upon from time to time, such as pay, allowances, accommodation and compensation, whereas the paper also covers such things as child care and education assistance which are more accurately termed 'conditions of employment'. The ADF, as a responsible employer, provides assistance in these areas for two reasons: first, because its main concern is operational efficiency, and Service personnel will be more effective soldiers if these areas of their lives are secure. Secondly, to attract and retain the more capable young people in society it must keep up with changing lifestyles and social requirements. People will only take on the burden of Service life if certain needs are met. Indeed, such are the expectations that young people bring to their jobs that the grey area between conditions of service and these 'conditions of employment' is becoming even more blurred, with assistance in an increasing number of areas necessary if the ADF is to attract and retain happy, efficient personnel.
The genderless term 'member' will be used throughout to describe regular servicemen and servicewomen of all ranks and Services. With a few exceptions only Army ranks will be used in this paper. These also refer to equivalent ranks in the Navy and Air Force; use Appendix A as a guide if needed.
Conditions for the Reserves are not covered in this paper. In general terms, however, Reserve remuneration is a fixed proportion of the regular Defence Force rate, and where Reserve members serve under the same conditions as Regulars, regular provisions generally prevail. The paper also says nothing about the civilians who make up the Department of Defence and whose experience and expertise is essential to a well-run Defence Force.
There are currently about 57 200 members in the Australian Defence Force (ADF), of whom 12 600 are officers, including 1660 officer trainees. About 7700 are women. Approximate numbers in individual services are as follows:
| Navy | 14 700 (2850 officers; 240 officer trainees) |
| Army | 25 880 (4460 officers; 740 officer trainees) |
| Air Force | 16 630 (3620 officers; 580 officer trainees) |
The average age of members is 30 with more than 30 600 under this age. 26 743 members, or slightly less than half the force, are married. At present the average length of service is 11.6 years for officers and 9.6 years for other ranks. Retention of the longer serving, experienced and fully trained member, who is usually married, is seen as vital for the continuity of Defence Force expertise.
The single most important item is salary. A salary structure which recognises the nature of employment in the 'defence industry' must be able to attract and retain suitable young Australians. Essential components of a salary structure include compensation for arduous and dangerous situations, for long working hours, and for disabilities to families caused by Service life. Expenditure necessarily incurred as a result of Service requirements should be met in the first instance, or reimbursed. Facilities such as accommodation of acceptable standard must be provided. Assistance must be given to the member's family to meet legitimate needs, in acknowledgment of difficulties experienced. Provisions for transition to civilian life, recognising the member's disadvantage compared with those who have always pursued civilian careers, should be made. A retirement scheme tailored to the unique nature of Service careers is the final ingredient.
The question of the unique nature of the military is an important one, and was well expressed in the 'Cross Report', the Joint Committee report in 1988:
Graham Glenn, in his 1995 report Serving Australia, emphasised other unique aspects:
This uniqueness tends to lose its sharpness, at least in society's mind, during a long spell of peace, and some would claim that the major threat to Service life is the steady move towards conditions which fail to reflect and properly compensate this uniqueness, and tend to place military personnel gradually closer to the public servant. Certainly there have been examples of this, but it must also be recognised that the Defence Force is not totally unique, to be treated in isolation. It is ironic that some of the worst discontent in the 1980s was due not to the Defence Force moving closer to the public service and the rest of society, but to the failure of Defence facilities and institutions to keep up with prevailing standards in society. Housing and barracks disrepair, and the wage freeze from 1982-83 are two examples. The danger has been that, in being treated differently, Defence personnel may be treated worse. Fortunately there appears to be increasing recognition by both political and military leaders that, assuming an effective Defence Force is essential to Australia's future (i) an important element of this effectiveness is a well-trained and generally contented membership (ii) this general contentment, which leads to retention of experienced personnel, can only be achieved if the ADF meets key community expectations.
The unique aspects create special needs, and it is important that these needs be defined and that appropriate institutions and rewards are in place to deal with them. Where Defence circumstances and roles parallel the civilian sector, members can expect to receive similar treatment. Superannuation was an example of an area of Service conditions where change was overdue and a move towards civilian standards unavoidable, but where the new scheme, the proposed Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS), both omitted the major defects of the old scheme and offered features unique to the ADF.
Some studies have expressed apprehension that the vision of a unique institution may be lost within the military itself. In their 1990 report 'Facing up to the Future',(4) Dr N. Jans and J. Frazer-Jans discussed the tendency for a greater emphasis on personal goals and values to clash with what have been traditional values of loyalty to the military institution and one's military career. They concluded that to counter the trend to regard the military as being like any other occupation, caused by over-emphasis on such things as the 'remuneration package', an extra effort is required to reinforce institutional values. In particular they recommended a revitalisation of leadership practices in the ADF, mainly by better training and longer spells by leaders in specific units.
Although very high professional standards are generally required, involving intensive training and dedication, for the majority of members the Defence Force is not a long term career. Although recently extended, statutory retiring ages are still lower than the civilian norm.(5) Other Rank servicemen and women in Army and Navy are required to serve for a minimum initial term of four years (for a non-technical specialisation) or six years (for a technical specialisation). The RAAF's initial minimum terms are three years and six years. After the initial term, there is 'open ended engagement', with the member free to continue service if he or she chooses.
Unlike public servants, members have had little or no protection in employment, and a career can depend on the international situation or government decisions, as illustrated by the May 1983 decision to disband the fixed-wing elements of the Fleet Air Arm, which made some 900 Naval postings redundant. Similarly the 1991 Force Structure Review reduced the ADF by around 11 000 members in five years; although the Review saw over 4000 civilian positions also disappear, and certainly public servants have lost some security of tenure recently. The intention with the 1997 Defence Efficiency Review (DER) recommendations is that military positions will be generally reallocated from support to combat and combat-related functions but it is certain that many ADF personnel will become redundant. In addition to this insecurity, employer-employee relations in the ADF can extend into most aspects of a member's life.
To balance some of the drawbacks, there are aspects of Service life which are attractive to many people. The ideal of worthwhile patriotic duty appeals to some; others seek adventure, comradeship, travel or a sense of belonging; operation of complex and deadly machines and weapons in scenes of legitimised violence is a common recruitment theme.
Longer term benefits include the opportunity to exercise real leadership and responsibility early in life; a large variety of job openings, some providing technical training and experience valued in civilian life; and avenues for personal development in a kind of uniformed welfare state.
The ADF is a numerically small military organisation by world standards but its units are dispersed throughout a large country. It is acknowledged that the process of posting personnel at regular intervals to a wide variety of locations across the country is a basic part of Service life, for such reasons as replacing people who leave, assisting career development, and providing specialised training to meet Service requirements. All of these posting reasons are necessary to establish and maintain the operational effectiveness of the ADF. As the RAAF Personnel Information Handbook states: 'The rotation of personnel through operational units and staff and training appointments is an essential requirement in the peacetime Defence Force'.(6)
The mobility of ADF members poses a number of problems, particularly for married members for whom economic considerations, and the importance of such things as spouse employment and dependants' education, produce an increasing need for geographic stability. As Graham Glenn states: 'Without doubt, the mobile life style of ADF families is the primary source of service related stress on families.'(7) Many of the matters discussed in this paper stem from the posting requirement.
The ADF has accepted the need to minimise posting turbulence. Following a review of posting policy in 1986-87, the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) directed the Services to aim for a normal posting period of three years, and instructed that back-to-back postings be achieved where possible, with personnel staying in the one geographical location for two or more successive postings. In June 1993, CDF issued a posting Directive with the aim of reducing posting turbulence in the ADF. Major features of this policy again included a standard posting period of three years where possible; in addition, the retention of members in one geographic location for a minimum of four years was specified. Available figures indicate that, despite the CDF Directive, mobility remains high in the ADF. In financial year 1995-96, the ADF issued 30 222 postings amongst an average force strength of 57 965 i.e. 52 per cent of total strength, which is practically identical with the 1991-92 percentage, and similar to percentages in the interim years. In 1995-96, the majority of postings for each Service were two years or less.(8) The emphasis in the ADF towards sharp-end capabilities through such measures as the reduction in administration and base support, and the general shift to remote locations, suggests a move away from urban areas and more pressure on the Service family.
In their 1990 report Facing up to the Future, Dr N. Jans and J. Frazer-Jans borrowed from the Scandinavian example in recommending that a tax-free bonus of up to three months salary be offered to married members to encourage relocation by Service families to remote localities or unpopular areas(9). In 1995, Glenn proposed a 'Mobility Allowance', which he claimed would provide an incentive to relocate, assist with the turbulence experienced, such as disruption to schooling and spouse employment, and compensate for certain costs incurred. This concept is currently being developed within the Defence Personnel Executive.
When the previous edition of this paper was written in December 1990, the ADF had spent several years fighting a losing battle to retain personnel. Separation figures had remained high since 1986, and prompted a report on personnel wastage by the Australian Parliament's Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Ironically the solution to the separation problem emerged some years later when the recession and high unemployment effectively slowed the exit from the Forces. The Joint Committee saw erosion of Service conditions as one of the significant factors in the increased separation rate, a conclusion which the ADF seems to have taken seriously. Whereas the 1980s saw several institutions e.g. the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal and the Defence Housing Authority, set up to meet long-standing needs, the 1990s have seen detailed studies take place on specific aspects of Service life-housing, personnel without families, women in the Forces, child care etc. This has been an encouraging trend. As a generalisation, whereas traditional defence policy was rather to throw money at a problem, the present procedure is to hire an expert to examine the issues involved. One reason for this seems to have been the strategic decision that the ADF deploy to the north and west, and the realisation that the success of this deployment depended on proper support from personnel and their families.
Nevertheless it does seem that comparatively high wastage figures, at least among skilled personnel, will continue to be a problem. This need not necessarily indicate discontent with the Forces so much as a conforming to the changing standards of Australian society; for example, the tendency for young people to change jobs much more frequently than in the past. Also the ADF's posting requirements conflict sharply with some current values, e.g. the demands for geographical stability in one's home, educational opportunities for dependants, and careers for spouses. As Dr Jans wrote in 1990, such factors 'decrease the probability of the selfless, long term service which the military has come to expect and plan for'.(10)
Among the many recommendations in the Jans Report, one particularly relevant to a paper on conditions of service is the proposal to extend to members 'committal bonuses' i.e. payments made in return for a commitment to serve for at least a further period. Thus it is advocated that for 'other ranks' in select categories, two committal bonuses be paid, one at five years and one at 10 years, the amount being equivalent to four months pay, or six months pay for the most valued categories, both tax free. All officers should be offered a similar bonus after 10 years. The Jans Report argues that, in the long term, such investment would prove economical in training and in administrative posting costs.(11)
The previous edition of this paper, in 1990, made extensive use of the Cross Report. This present edition draws on the Glenn Report, the report Serving Australia: the Australian Defence Force in the Twenty First Century by Graham Glenn, released in December 1995. Glenn's summary list of his 120 recommendations are included at Appendix D. A good summary of his findings is perhaps contained in the following seven 'consistently recurring themes' which emerged from his contacts with members:(12)
Following this list, Glenn provides balance and focus with this reminder:
In making his proposals, Glenn, of course, was not burdened with the responsibility for providing the resources to implement them. Nevertheless, the Glenn Report is a stimulating study, and it would be unfortunate if political considerations consigned it to a shelf. It is encouraging that later reviews seem to be picking up and promoting many of his themes.
The Defence Efficiency Review (DER) was established in October 1996 with an overall aim of making recommendations for reform of Defence management and financial processes, and the report was published in March 1997. Its main effect on personnel issues was in personnel administration. The creation of a single Defence Personnel Executive from 1 July 1997 will generate savings by coordinating a number of personnel management functions previously distributed between the three Services and ADF Headquarters (HQADF). For example, a Defence Health Service has been formed from the existing health and related staffs of current Service and civilian Programs and this Health Service has become part of the Defence Personnel Executive Program. Savings from this health initiative should lead to reductions in personnel, compensation, facilities and materiel costs and are estimated to be $23 million per annum.(14)
In April 1997, the Defence Minister, Ian McLachlan, announced the Defence Reform Program (DRP), a plan to put the 70 findings and recommendations of the DER into effect. And in September 1997, he made a further statement to Parliament outlining DRP progress and anticipated outcomes.
Specific DER recommendations will be mentioned at relevant points in the paper, but another result of the DER for personnel generally is a possible move away from the traditional paternalistic relationship between the organisation and the member, which has seen the ADF take the responsibility for career development and the provision of virtually all needs e.g. housing, education, health.(15) In future, greater choice and responsibility could be given to members in meeting their housing needs and maintaining health standards. However, it is likely change here will be subtle rather than radical. While Service families do not expect a paternalistic meeting of every need, they will continue to want intelligently directed support in many areas.
The DER Report was published in two volumes: first, the Report proper, consisting of views accepted by the Review Panel. Throughout this paper, this volume will be referred to as the DER Report. The second volume was the Secretariat Papers, an addendum to the Report, consisting of advisory material only. This volume will be referred to as the DER Secretariat Papers.
This chapter is intended to provide a background to the discussion of specific issues of Service pay and conditions. Obviously, the extent to which these issues can be addressed, when responses to them have financial implications, is determined by the amount the Government is prepared to devote to defence and by the priorities for expenditure within that amount.
A summary is given of the restriction of defence spending over the last ten years and the efforts of the Department of Defence to identify management efficiencies which would release funds to allow initiatives identified in various White Papers to proceed. The characteristics of these efficiencies have been the sale or corporatisation of Defence shipyards and factories, a number of tasks previously performed by the Services or Defence civilians being contracted-out, and reductions in the numbers of ADF and civilian personnel. Between 1984 and the early years of the 21st Century, Defence will have reduced staffing by more than 39 000 Service and civilian positions and gained savings perhaps approaching $1.5 billion.
To date, the majority of funds freed by management efficiencies have gone to improving pay and allowances. For instance, 75 per cent of the $450 million released by the Force Structure Review, between 1991 and June 1996, has been used to improve Service and civilian salaries and allowances. However, this was a trend running against policy, which was to use the majority of the savings for equipment and to improve Service capabilities. The cost of introducing currently planned additions to ADF equipment, the pending retirement of significant numbers of expensive equipments from about 2007 and the need to improve identified deficiencies in ADF capabilities, indicates that there may not be as much capacity to improve Service pay and conditions in future Defence Budgets as there has been in the past seven years.
In promoting the 1987 Defence White Paper The Defence of Australia (DoA87), the (then) Defence Minister, Kim Beazley, argued that the traditional basis of the politics of defence was, henceforth, dead. This had been the cry that government should spend more on defence in response to any perceived shortcoming, and particularly, the claim that the Party which promised to spend more on defence had the better policy. Now, Beazley argued, the development of defence policy had been given a logical structure in DoA87, which would transform the argument from one of how much was being appropriated into that of how well defence funds were being managed to achieve objectives.(1)
The view of the then Minister was to prove a correct interpretation politically, in that the major parties did not thereafter contest defence policies on the basis of which would spend the most, but it proved to be incomplete. Although Minister Beazley hinted that defence objectives could now be obtained without substantial increases in expenditure, DoA87 predicated that the developments it foreshadowed were based on the defence function being funded at a rate 'generally within the order of 2.6 per cent to 3.0 per cent of GDP'.(2) In reality, however, the defence budget was one of those areas which was required to contribute to the tightening of Commonwealth fiscal policy in the aftermath of (then) Treasurer Keating's warning that the circumstances of Australia's balance of payments placed the country at risk of becoming a 'banana republic'. As can be seen from Table 1, in the financial year immediately following the release of DoA87 the proportion of GDP allocated to defence was reduced from the 2.5 to 2.6 per cent which had prevailed since the beginning of the decade, to 2.3 per cent and (in general) has thereafter been reduced further.
Indeed, only four years later, the Force Structure Review 1991 (FSR) reported that there had been no real growth, on average, in the defence budget since the release of DoA87 and concluded that continuing the defence budget at this level of allocation would mean that only three-quarters of the planning in DoA87 could be implemented over the next decade. If, instead, defence funding was cut by an average of one per cent, only half of the plans could be implemented.(3) The significant financial management problem cited was that the commitment to pay for equipment which had already been approved was the highest ever incurred by the Department of Defence and that, at current levels of funding, this left little capacity to handle competing priorities, such as military salaries, in coming years. The response embodied in the FSR was to implement a series of management efficiencies, staff reductions and the commercialisation of some functions, to allow Defence to broadly achieve its planning objectives with stable (no real increase) funding.
The current difficulty for defence management is that, instead of staying stable, funding has instead fallen in real terms. From 1989-90 the Defence Budget has been held constant or reduced in real terms with the effect that the 1996-97 budget was 2.23 per cent less, in real terms, than that of 1988-89.(4) By 1994, the White Paper Defending Australia (DA94) was saying that continuing management efficiencies could support the development of military capabilities only until the last few years of the decade. After that, and throughout the first decade of the 21st Century, real growth in defence funding, sufficient to hold Defence Outlay at a level of about 2 per cent of GDP, would be required.(5) The demand for additional funds would be driven initially by conflict between the costs of new equipment programs and those of improvements in personnel remuneration (with the latter expected to absorb most of the gains of management efficiencies). However, from around 2007, most of the funding pressures would be generated by the impending retirement of large sections of the Australian Defence Force's most expensive types of equipment at about the same time, a circumstance referred to as 'bloc obsolescence'.
Any increase in defence funding is not yet in prospect. The Government came to power promising to retain defence spending at the levels planned by its predecessor. This was for real reductions of 0.5 per cent in 1995-96 and 1996-97 and for the real level of funding then to be held constant until the turn of the century. Although he personally supported funding real increases in Defence Outlay, the incoming Minister, Ian McLachlan, was quick to emphasise that, nonetheless, there would be no possibility of any increase in defence spending during the forthcoming three years.(6) The Government's approach has been to further pursue management efficiencies within Defence, funding the development of ADF capabilities into the beginning of the next century, but also to provide an exemplar to support the argument for an increased defence budget early in the 2000s.
After the early implementation of an election policy to transfer $125 million from administration to the development of ADF capabilities, the Minister proceeded to a full scale overhaul of defence management with the DER. As noted above, the DER proposed many changes in the organisation and work of ADF and Defence staff most of which are now being implemented under the title of the Defence Reform Program (DRP). The objective of the DRP is, once again, to improve the efficiency of defence function management so that further funds can be released to allow the improvement of capabilities in the ADF's combat forces. In this regard the DER reported that its recommendations could result in one-off savings, expected to reach $500 million (mostly through the sale of Defence properties), and further recurrent savings, currently estimated to release $900 million and, perhaps, more than $1 billion.(7) These economies are in addition to the estimates that a range of associated efficiency programs, set in place by the FSR process,(8) had generated recurrent annual savings of $450 million by June 1996,(9) which would reach $530 million by 1999-2000.(10)
The salient characteristic of these attempts to reallocate funds within the Defence portfolio has been the significant reduction of personnel numbers. Under the FSR process, 16 210 ADF and civilian positions were removed between June 1991 and June 1996.(11) The DER estimated that its recommendations would lead to the reduction of a further 7800 ADF and civilian positions, although the Government will relocate 'at least' 2000 Service personnel to positions in the combat force.(12) Significant reductions in Defence staffing are not just a product of 1990s style searches for management efficiency, however. In the previous six year period, between June 1984 and June 1990, Defence personnel numbers fell by over 17 900, most of them (over 14 600) being civilians.(13) This movement was due to (mostly) a change of function, as dockyards, munitions factories and other Defence production facilities were privatised or corporatised and the responsibility for funding their staff was removed from the defence budget.
The principle effect of this history of management efficiencies and cost cutting is that the ADF is becoming a comparatively small force. The Chief of the Defence Force, General John Baker, has predicted that by the turn of the century the ADF will number 'about 50 000'.(14) At the end of 1980-81 there were 72 520 in the ADF and the latest figure is 57 423, as at 31 March 1997. This significant reduction in numbers represents a refocussing of ADF activities on combat and essential technical support areas, with reductions of uniformed members employed in non-combat related support areas such as administration.
The lesser numbers of ADF personnel is also a reflection of developments in military technology, where the increased capability of systems tends to reduce the requirements for military personnel in important areas of capability. For example, the Collins Class submarine requires half the crew of its predecessor. However, as a consequence, the levels of skill required to operate these systems have increased and defence management has recognised that this factor would be 'reflected in expectations for remuneration and other things in personnel costs in the future'.(15) It could also be expected that, as these changes take effect, a higher proportion of Service personnel will be entitled to combat-related allowances, in addition to any change in their base rate of pay.
Indeed, the Minister has said that a proportion of the DRP savings would go to improving the remuneration of those personnel who were retained in the restructured organisation. This would not be a new process for Defence. In fact, the majority of the savings made under the FSR process have been utilised in improving wages and conditions of Defence civilian and Service personnel. A move towards productivity based pay increases in the Australian Public Service in the 1990s, with government agencies largely being expected to fund pay rises from within existing budget appropriations, was also applied to Defence and has meant that over recent years the Department has allocated $340 million per annum from within its Budget to pay for increases in salaries and allowances.(16) This is an amount equal to 75 per cent of the savings generated by the FSR process at the end of 1995-96.
The current projected loss of ADF positions as a result of the DRP is about 2700, which would reduce the Services to a total of some 54 700 positions. (General Baker's figure of around 50 000 may be an estimate of the impact of the proposal to further test which defence functions can be performed under contract by the commercial sector of the Australian economy.) A simple mathematical calculation indicates that a reduction of ADF personnel of 2700 will save over $153 million at the level of allocation proposed in the 1997-98 Estimates, which would represent a transfer of an additional 4.9 per cent to the remuneration costs of remaining Service personnel. This is not the same as a 4.9 per cent pay increase, as total personnel costs include charges which do not pass to individuals in fortnightly payments, such as superannuation, intermittent allowances, notional loadings for staff absences and so on. Defence has calculated that each one per cent rise in base salaries and wages for the ADF and for Defence civilians as the result of any productivity bargain will cost the Defence Budget $40 million,(17) which indicates that an ADF salary increase of about 3.8 per cent is the maximum which could be funded on the basis of currently known DRP proposals.
So, despite the large size of the projected DRP savings, it is not likely that these will presage a significant increase in ADF pay and allowances. The justification for the DRP was the need to identify significant amounts within the budget that could be diverted to ADF combat elements, paying for equipment programs in response to the looming bloc obsolescence problem. A need to fund forthcoming equipment programs has been the central objective of defence planning and reform programs since the publication of the 1976 white paper,(18) but none of the plans have made the objective any easier to obtain. Despite the savings of the FSR process and the continuous reduction of employment within Defence throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Minister has said that 'the Defence Organisation was potentially facing a severe budget crisis ... after the turn of the century ... (and) drifting toward a point where the only choice was to cut capability.'(19)
Defence already expects to pay an additional $135 million from within its budget as an outcome of a current review of ADF personnel and housing and accommodation policies. The need to restrain any untoward expansion of Defence personnel costs has been further emphasised by differences in the dynamics of capital and labour price movements. Defence claims that analysis of its own experience has shown that the cost of the major capital equipment it purchases has increased at a rate of 4 per cent per annum in real terms.(20) Since 1985 there have been few years when the cost of labour, as measured by Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings (AWOTE), has exceeded inflation (measured by the Consumer Price Index) by more than a few percentage points.(21). The implication is that, for most of the past decade, it has been more difficult to keep abreast of capital funding requirements than those for remunerating personnel. Yet, to date, comparatively little of the funding released by management efficiencies has gone to other than personnel costs.
However, during 1996-97 AWOTE increased by 3.5 per cent, while the CPI increased by only 0.4 percentage points. It is difficult to know for how long wages growth will continue to run ahead of inflation and the comparability of income data is becoming more difficult as awards and conditions are simplified, leading to variations in the nature of labour cost data. The occurrence of a negative CPI for the year to September 1997 can only confuse the prospects for predicting prospective wages growth. Continuing low expectations of inflation may lead to negligible demands for salary increases from the ADF, whereas significant claims for catch-up increases could lead to Defence outlaying more for personnel costs than is generally being granted by other large organisations.
Although stating its commitment to improved wages and conditions for its personnel, the most pressing current financial priority of Defence is to fund the operating costs of high priority equipment programs currently under development and for which no allocation has been provided, as of now, in forward financial planning. These programs, which include Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and helicopters for the ANZAC Class frigates and Offshore Patrol Combatants, may cost an additional $360 million per annum when fully operational.(22) Such ongoing operational costs (that is, independent of the cost of acquiring the equipment) are in addition to the funding needed to overcome pressures effecting the logistics support and training required by the Services. Further, Defence must find the budgetary means to bring these capabilities into service before, in about ten years time, it looks for finance to address the bloc obsolescence problem (a general rule of thumb in military procurement is that it takes about ten years to introduce a new capability into service).
Analysis of Table 1 indicates that the current proportion of total Defence Expenditure allocated to Service and civilian personnel costs is well above the median point for the last 17 years, although in most cases the variations are small. This conclusion is not apparent from the table itself, which presents the official data. However, as explained in the box following Table 1, on page 18, there is a disjuncture in the series of annual proportions of total Expenditure, and therefore percentages for wages and salaries in financial years before 1992-93 are not comparable with current figures. After adjusting the proportions for earlier years by the percentage point variations as described on page 18, it appears likely that one would have to go back to 1983-84 to find a higher proportion of expenditure spent on personnel costs than the expected outcome for 1996-97 and the estimate for 1997-98.
Similarly, the current proportion of Expenditure allocated to new capital equipment is slightly below the median point. Although variations are mostly small, the 23.3 per cent of Outlay estimated to be spent on equipment in 1997-98 is well below the almost 30 per cent which was the proportion allocated in 1986-87 (allowing for revision of the data). Given the clear objective of the DRP to provide funding to overcome capability shortfalls and to address the bloc obsolescence problem, the proportion of Expenditure allocated to equipment must rise significantly in coming years. Correspondingly, this will see a fall in the proportion, of a fixed budget, which can be allocated to Service personnel costs. For reasons such as these, it is unlikely that the shape of future Defence Budgets will support a significant increase in the salaries and conditions of ADF personnel.
|
Financial Year |
Defence Function Outlay $million |
Defence Outlay As % of GDP |
Total Personnel Costs $million |
Total Personnel Costs As % of Defence Expenditure |
ADF Salary and Allowances As % of Defence Expenditure |
New Capital Equipment Costs As % of Defence Expenditure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1980-81 |
3492 |
2.5 |
1816 |
49.6 |
32.5 |
16.0 |
|
1981-82 |
3886 |
2.6 |
2311 |
54.2 |
36.7 |
12.5 |
|
1982-83 |
4501 |
2.6 |
2466 |
49.9 |
33.0 |
17.4 |
|
1983-84 |
5056 |
2.6 |
2576 |
46.5 |
30.1 |
22.1 |
|
1984-85 |
5657 |
2.6 |
2721 |
43.7 |
28.0 |
25.9 |
|
1985-86 |
6333 |
2.6 |
3025 |
43.4 |
27.9 |
26.4 |
|
1986-87 |
6823 |
2.6 |
3091 |
40.8 |
26.5 |
25.7 |
|
1987-88 |
6967 |
2.6 |
3333 |
40.9 |
27.6 |
27.1 |
|
1988-89 |
7295 |
2.3 |
3534 |
43.3 |
27.7 |
21.8 |
|
1989-90 |
9913 |
2.1 |
3697 |
41.5 |
26.5 |
21.4 |
|
1990-91 |
8480 |
2.2 |
3877 |
40.8 |
25.8 |
22.6 |
|
1991-92 |
8731 |
2.4 |
4080 |
41.5 |
25.9 |
22.6 |
|
1992-93 |
9158 |
2.4 |
3456 |
34.3 |
26.1 |
23.4 |
|
1993-94* |
9746 |
2.3 |
3917 |
38.0 |
29.2 |
22.8 |
|
1994-95 |
9731 |
2.1 |
3810 |
36.9 |
28.4 |
23.1 |
|
1995-96 |
10 011 |
2.1 |
4007 |
37.8 |
29.1 |
22.5 |
|
1996-97 |
10 003 |
2.0 |
4156 |
39.1 |
30.2 |
22.3 |
|
1997-98 |
10 405 |
1.9 |
4239 |
38.7 |
29.0 |
23.3 |
Notes:
| *Figures for 'Defence Outlay' and 'Defence Outlays as % of GDP' for the years 1981-82 to 1993-94 are from Table L.1, Defence Report 1993-94, p. 322. This table substantially revised the figures previously given for the Financial Years 1981-82 to 1992-93, to reflect the decision taken in the 1993-94 Budget to remove superannuation contributions and refunds from the Defence Function Outlay. This makes the earlier figures consistent with those for Outlays post 1993. Adjustments for 1981-82 and for Personnel, ADF Salaries and Equipment expenditures as a proportion of Total Defence Expenditure for the years 1982-83 to 1991-92, are not available. In general, the adjustment appears to have resulted in 'Total Personnel Expenditure' declining as a proportion of 'Total Expenditure' by about 5 percentage points (39.4 per cent down to 34.3 per cent in the adjustment of 1992-93 Budget Outcome), reflecting the removal of the superannuation component from this appropriation grouping. Conversely, expenditure on 'ADF Salaries and Allowances' and 'New Capital Equipment Costs' increases as a proportion of total Expenditure (24 per cent up to 26.1 per cent and 21.6 per cent up to 23.4 per cent, respectively, in the adjustment), reflecting the decline in the size of Total Defence Expenditure as a result of removing superannuation. |
Most of this chapter will deal with the regulation of financial conditions of service, but it is important first to summarise the procedure by which policy on Service conditions is developed.
As a result of the Defence Reform Program, significant structural changes have recently taken place in the Defence Department's personnel activity. On 1 July 1997, an integrated organisation, the Defence Personnel Executive, was formed. This encompasses the former Headquarters ADF personnel area, the single Services personnel functions, the Department's civilian personnel area, together with some other activities such as Service and civilian health programs.
Proposals can originate from many points-internal committee reports, external reports such as Glenn's Serving Australia, or from sections within Defence. But traditionally the principal sources of initiatives, and the areas where proposals have been prepared for further consideration, have been the Service Conditions Sections of the individual Services offices and, more particularly, the Personnel Division within Defence Headquarters. Personnel Division is divided into the Pay and Conditions Branch, dealing with financial matters, and Personnel Policy and Plans Branch and the Defence Community Organisation, both dealing with non-financial matters. After initial development by the staff in these areas, traditionally a proposal would be presented to what was for years called the Defence Force Personnel Policy Committee (DFPPC), but which in June 1996, following a recommendation of the Glenn Committee, was renamed the Defence Personnel Committee. The Committee has traditionally comprised:
Chairman: Assistant Chief of the Defence Force - PersonnelMembers: Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff - Personnel Assistant Chief of the General Staff - Personnel Assistant Chief of the Air Staff - Personnel First Assistant Secretary Human Resources
The Director General Services Conditions (DGSC) and the Director General Service Personnel Policy (DGSPP) were permanently invited members.
With the introduction of the Defence Reform Program, the positions of several members of the Committee were abolished, and the Defence Personnel Executive has yet to finalise future arrangements for personnel policy.
The function of the Committee has been to consider and accord priority to major ADF pay and personnel policy matters for endorsement by the Minister, or for submission to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT) and the Department of Industrial Relations (now Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business) as appropriate.
After endorsement by the DFPPC the policies were developed by DGSC and DGSPP. Part of the development process has involved negotiations with the then Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). DIR, in considering its position, might discuss the proposal with other areas such as Department of Finance, Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Taxation Office.
The final step is still the same. Pay and pay-related allowances covered by Section 58H of the Defence Act are then submitted to the DFRT, while non-pay related allowances and other matters covered by Section 58B of the Defence Act are submitted to the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business, (DWR&SB).
This subject will be dealt with in three parts; the system operating prior to 1985; the present system, centering on the DFRT; and current matters at issue within the system.
Kerr/Woodward
From 1947 to 1985, Service pay and allowances were under the control of standing Departmental committees, with ad hoc external advisory committees established from time to time. The most important of these, the Kerr/Woodward Committee of Inquiry, which was appointed in 1970, produced seven reports on formal conditions of service during the period 1970 to 1973. These introduced much-needed principles to govern subsequent deliberations, as well as reforming the structure of Service pay. For example, the traditional complex daily rate of pay was replaced with a civilian-style salary structure, including a Service Allowance to compensate for the disabilities of Service life, with a major component being payment in lieu of overtime. The system of numerous trade skill margins was replaced by six broad-banded pay levels ranging from unskilled to technicians. This broad-banded wage structure was, in fact, far in advance of the prevailing civilian wages systems, with their untidy multiplicity of awards and relativities, and formed the basis for the broad-banded system in place today.
The Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay
The Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay (COR) was formed in 1973 following a recommendation of the Kerr/Woodward Committee to establish independent standing machinery to deal with conditions of service. The most significant work of the COR, headed by Justice Coldham, a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, were the four reports, 'Adequacy of Defence Force Remuneration', produced between October 1980 and August 1982.
The COR mechanism suffered from severe deficiencies:
The Defence Legislation Amendment Act of 1984, which was assented to on 25 October 1984, established the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal and the office of the Defence Force Advocate, defining the powers of each. The relevant sections of the Defence Act 1903, as amended by the 1984 legislation, are 58F to 58Q, with the functions of the Tribunal set out in section 58H. As the 1987 Defence White Paper notes: 'The establishment of a special tribunal for the Defence Force both recognises the special aspects of military service and acknowledges the convergence that has occurred between military and civilian employment. These arrangements better integrate the Defence Force into the industrial framework applying to the community at large.'(3) For the first time a body could determine pay and conditions rather than make a recommendation to the Minister.
The following appointments to the Tribunal were made on 22 February 1985: Mr Justice L.H. Williams, a Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, was appointed Chairman of the Tribunal; the other members were Mr A.S. Paine, a commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and Rear Admiral N.E. McDonald AO RAN (Retd). Mr. D.M. Quick, Q.C., a barrister in industrial law and an officer in the Naval Reserve, was appointed Defence Force Advocate (DFA).
Principal Features
The following summary of the principal features of the Tribunal and functions of the Defence Force Advocate is taken largely from a paper by the first DFA, David Quick:(4)
It will be observed that the machinery of investigation and determination of rights is in many respects not unlike that which obtains in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.(5)
A key feature of the Tribunal's functioning, the question of who represents the employees and who acts as employer, will be discussed later.
Defence Force Advocate
The legislatively defined functions of the Defence Force Advocate are:
The Defence Force Advocate has tenure for a period of three years from appointment or re-appointment and may be removed from office only by the Minister and then only on grounds of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.
Advantages of the DFRT
David Quick summed up the most important features of the DFRT as follows:
Present Membership of the DFRT
The present membership of the DFRT is as follows. The President (formerly Chairman) is Hon. Justice A.J. Boulton. Rear Admiral K.A. Doolan AO (Retd) was appointed in March 1996 for a period of three years, and Commissioner Patricia Leary was appointed in February 1995 for a period of four years.
The present Defence Force Advocate is Richard Kenzie, Q.C., who was appointed in June 1996 for a period of three years after having served as Acting Defence Force Advocate from September 1995.
Determinations Made
In the approximately eleven years since it began its work in 1985 until June 1996, the Tribunal has made 199 determinations, ranging from National Wage Case Applications applying to all Regular Service personnel, to determinations relating to Allowances or to Reserve personnel. Of these determinations, 89 have been made in the last three years.
The creation of the DFRT has been a welcome step forward, but the system is still not without its problems, the most obvious being the challenge of adjusting to the new workplace relations environment. Some of these problems, as will be seen later, relate to the advocacy roles i.e. who is employer and who represents the employees i.e. the ADF members, when bargaining is to be done. Recommendations made in both the Glenn Report and the Secretariat Papers to the DER have given new emphasis to these and other issues. At present, the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) represents the ADF members and is responsible (through his departmental staff) for initiating remuneration claims; the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business (formerly Department of Industrial Relations) is responsible for the employer's i.e. the Commonwealth's, case. A number of suggestions for change have been made over the years, but it is virtually impossible to avoid the problem of conflict of interest in the system, especially concerning the CDF's role.
1. Is the Tribunal appropriate for workplace bargaining?
When the Tribunal was established in 1985, collective bargaining, or, more accurately, payment in accordance with the award system, was the prevailing industrial relations system. Wages decisions, often conforming to the Prices and Incomes Accord and driven by market forces such as inflation, applied across industries including the whole public service, and formed the basis of the agreed decision determined by the Tribunal. The cost of pay increases was then supplemented by the Government. However in October 1991, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission introduced provision for enterprise bargaining i.e. the direct negotiation between the employer and the employees at an enterprise concerning wages, work practices etc. In this more decentralised wages system, pay increases are usually internally funded and can be linked to productivity and efficiency improvements at workplace level. In 1996 the Coalition Government took this procedure a step further with its new industrial relations legislation, the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which reduced the role of the trade unions in the setting of wages and conditions.
How appropriate is the Tribunal for workplace bargaining and for pay rises that will be self-funded? At first glance, it does seem that enterprise bargaining for the ADF would remove the capacity of the DFRT to arbitrate, and leave ADF pay setting as a process of bargaining with the Government's representative as employer. To what extent, then, should the Tribunal's procedures, and possibly responsibilities and powers, be changed to accord with the new arrangements? Before a decision is made on this, some factors should be considered:
In return for the forces' adherence to the code of discipline, the command structure has the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the members. It is difficult enough for consultation and the communication upwards of points of view to feature in this formal chain of command; the requirements of enterprise bargaining seem totally inconsistent with it.
It does seem, therefore, that somewhat different procedures will be necessary in defence industrial relations matters to enable the presentation of both points of view and ensure an outcome which can be regarded by both sides as fair. But this is not to say that in industrial relations matters the ADF should be treated differently from the rest of the community. The ADF's differences do not exclude it, as part of the community, from the values which currently provide the basis for industrial progress. For example, if civilian enterprises receive a pay rise based on savings in efficiency, there can be no automatic transferral of this result to the ADF. The onus is on the Defence Force to produce its own efficiency savings and productivity issues as justification for its pay claim. The differences between the ADF and the civilian community will lie in the procedures by which the employer-employee negotiations are conducted, not in the underlying values which govern the negotiations.
Not only does this transparency help to break down the ADF's undoubted communication problems, letting the lower ranks know what is happening at the decision-making levels, but, regardless of the determination eventually made, it contributes to morale by reassuring all involved of the processes which govern the whole area of remuneration. It must be said, however, that these visits, however beneficial, cannot in themselves overcome the average member's general lack of input into negotiations for remuneration
2. The problem of who is the employer and who represents ADF members
The Cross Sub-Committee in 1988 saw the role of the CDF as a significant weakness in the system. As the principal figure initiating remuneration claims and appeals, CDF holds the prime responsibility for the financial welfare of Defence Force members. But as the head of management of the ADF he is also intimately involved in force structure planning, and it is not difficult to imagine a conflict of interest if, for example, proposed remuneration increases were likely to impact on planned re-equipment programs. As the Cross Report says, the wage-fixing system makes the CDF 'the leading representative of both employees and management'.(10) The Cross Report's solution was to grant the Defence Force Advocate the right to appeal against DFRT determinations, but this was, perhaps understandably, rejected by the Government.
The ADF view is that the 'management advocacy' role of the CDF does not create a conflict of interest. It is a tenet of Defence Force philosophy that the commander is trained for and practices dual leadership roles involving operations and welfare. The ADF would claim that the responsibility of military commanders for morale and welfare has always been more demanding than for civilian managers. The decision-making process which balances the sometimes opposing requirements of operational and personnel demands has been tested over time and found to be effective.
In Serving Australia, Graham Glenn proposed a 'fundamental shift from the present system' by changing the role of CDF to that of the employer i.e. taking over this role from the then DIR. Glenn saw no conflict with CDF's responsibility 'to care for the troops', on the grounds that the responsible management of resources would be in the troops' interests. For the presentation of the ADF members' point of view, Glenn proposed the creation of a Defence Member Representative backed by a 'consultative mechanism' which would elicit members' views.(11)
The Secretariat Papers to the DER Report take a similar view to Glenn:
Also like Glenn, it is recommended that a new position be created to represent ADF members:
If CDF did take over the employer's role, the situation would be similar to that which existed from 1984 to 1987, when the Secretary of Defence represented the employer, before DIR took over. And similar complications would result. For example, who would brief and represent in negotiations the CDF as employer, and who, in the absence of a union, would brief the members' advocate or representative? Presumably all concerned would be Departmental employees, and even in these days of workplace bargaining there is potential for tension between two sections of the Department. At present the ADF members can work with and advise the CDF in his role as their representative, but taking over the employer's role would seem to jeopardise his impartiality.
In one sense the problem for the CDF would be more complex than it was for the Secretary in 1984-87. The CDF would be bargaining over resources, but it is the Secretary, not the CDF, who is responsible for resources. It may seem that the move of CDF to the employer's role is logical, but it must be recognised that, given the CDF's somewhat compromised position, the situation is not as clear-cut as Glenn and the DER seem to think.
If the CDF was given the role of employer, a dilemma would remain over who would represent the 'employees', the ADF. In an article in 1995, Major Michael Barry discussed two options for this role; the Armed Forces Federation of Australia (ArFFA) and a personnel organisation. The major problem for ArFFA is that it is not widely representative of the ADF. Also its existing position as a lobby group would make a representational role totally unacceptable to ADF Command, which is completely opposed to any hint of unionisation in the Forces. The other option, as Major Barry points out:
It would be hard for such an organisation not to appear on occasions to have a conflict of interest with the chain of command. Neither Glenn nor the DER Secretariat Papers give much information on how their proposed personnel representatives would fit into the system, but, in any case, there would seem to be problems involved. Glenn proposes a 'consultative mechanism', and it might be useful to have a small secretariat which could act as a more systematic mechanism for sounding out the views of members, particularly those in lower ranks, on conditions of service matters. Communication from the lower ranks upwards has always been a problem for the ADF, and such a body could supplement the existing means of obtaining feed-back on such matters. But this would be purely an advisory mechanism; it would leave unresolved the problem of employee representative.
For the last decade it has been convenient for DWR&SB (formally DIR) to be the employer in remuneration cases, providing an external opposition for the ADF without causing problems for a chain of command which requires personnel to perceive the CDF as concerned for their welfare. This paper will now consider the position of DWR&SB.
3. Role of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business (DWR&SB)
The main argument against DWR&SB in its present role of representing the Government as employer before the DFRT is that DWR&SB has little practical experience with defence and, unlike other employers, is not held responsible for productivity, efficiency, employee morale or manning levels. Normally when considering pay claims, an employer must balance the effect of increased production costs against possible adverse effects on staff morale, efficiency and retention. As DIR does not have to bear the consequences of the results, it may be suspected of lacking a close interest in reaching impartial positions on matters.
Under section 58H of the Defence Act, the Tribunal is responsible for considering pay and a number of allowances in the nature of remuneration. A number of other allowances such as Temporary Accommodation, Meal Allowance, Uniform Maintenance Allowance and Disturbance Allowance are routinely reviewed by the Minister for Industrial Relations under section 58B of the Defence Act and need go before the DFRT only if referred by CDF or the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business.
The Cross Sub-Committee in 1988 reported widespread dissatisfaction with the DIR's role in the salary and allowances machinery, although many of the problems, such as the backlog of conditions of service issues to be dealt with by the DIR, appear to have since been resolved. However, it can be asked whether authority for the determination of at least some of the allowances under section 58B should be handed to Defence. They would become part of the Defence Minister's jurisdiction, as such matters are in other Departments, with responsibility for decision and determination duly being delegated to the relevant internal organisations. A number of the section 58B allowances correspond with public service allowances, but the majority are unique to the ADF. In any case, the whole climate of industrial relations at present is to make such things as allowances part of the bargaining process within individual enterprises. The DER Secretariat Papers seem to agree that DWR&SB's role in this regard should be reduced.(14)
The case for the DWR&SB's position should be stated. Through its varied departmental roles ranging from employer to, in a national wage case, defender of economic policy, one of its major tasks is to preserve industrial relations principles. Criticism cannot be directed at this legitimate task, but only at the means employed on occasion in carrying it out. And in recent years its role has become less defensive and more advisory, drawing on its particular expertise.
It should also be pointed out that DWR&SB's power to make determinations on any of the more than 100 Defence related allowances is not secret or arbitrary. Section 58C of the Defence Act provides for disallowance of any determination, by requiring the tabling before Parliament of all determinations according to the Acts Interpretation Act. A motion of disallowance can be presented in either House after any determination has been tabled.
DWR&SB's role could be changed by administrative order i.e. legislation would not be needed. If the Minister for Defence did replace the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business as employer, DWR&SB could assume much the same role before the Tribunal as it does before the Industrial Relations Commission, presenting the Government's industrial and employment policy. It could become another intervener, turning up at conferences and hearings arranged by the Tribunal when DWR&SB considers it necessary. Its main function would be confirming that submissions to the DFRT conformed with government policy.
4. Adversarial procedure and the Defence Force Advocate
This is an issue which was important in 1990 when this paper was last updated, but has generally lost significance. In the article mentioned earlier, David Quick, the first Defence Force Advocate (DFA), defended the adversarial appearance which he claimed characterised much of the proceedings before the Tribunal, i.e. a dispute is created and then resolved by arbitration. Quick argued that such a process provided an excellent opportunity for the decision makers to assess and evaluate counter arguments.
However, as has been shown above, much of the Tribunal's business is now conducted on an 'agreed position' basis. And even when adversarial procedure has applied, it has lacked the more obvious confrontation typifying many industrial disputes. In fact early in the life of the DFRT, the criticism was made that the adversarial process demonstrated at the Tribunal was a pale imitation of that to be seen in, for example, the proceedings of the Industrial Relations Commission. Defence Department formulation of a case was seen then as lacking the negotiating proficiency, including the specialised adversarial skills, which are needed in the preparation of ADF submissions to the Tribunal. However, the capacity of the ADF to effectively manage the adversarial procedure was enhanced early by the increases in the number of ADF officers gaining industrial relations qualifications, and through the use of ADF legal officers to assist case preparation. This use of legal officers to assist in case preparation and advocacy resulted in a higher standard of case preparation and more effective instruction of the DFA.
The Secretariat Papers to the DER recommended the complete end to adversarial arrangements. This seems unnecessary in view of the Tribunal's general lack of those features which characterise the typical industrial community, and the procedural streamlining which has led to the general adoption of the 'agreed position' process. The fact that there are technically two sides at the negotiating table does not necessarily mean the situation is adversarial. Usually what is taking place is an open sharing of views.
It would be unfortunate if the position of DFA was removed in any attempt to end adversarial proceedings. Certainly the trend to agreed positions means there is less requirement for the DFA to adopt traditional advocacy and adversarial roles. But there is at least as much requirement for him to elucidate industrial principles and provide professional industrial advice. And there are considerable benefits to ADF morale in the members' perception that there is somebody with professional expertise at the DFRT articulating their case and protecting their interests.
5. The independence of the DFRT
Statements made in the DER Secretariat Papers(15) suggest an independent and arbitral Tribunal is anachronistic, and should have its role watered down considerably. However, from a general perspective of ADF personnel policy and morale it would be unfortunate if the DFRT was weakened to a position similar to that which obtained in the 1970s and early 1980s, as described earlier in this chapter. The Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay was a conscientious research body, but it had no independent powers of determination. Although the Tribunal serves increasingly as a forum at which the parties negotiate an agreement, it is still necessary for a determination to be made at the end, to certify the agreement arrived at. And the Tribunal's determining power is crucial when the parties have been unable to reach a prior agreement.
The criticism has been made that, in a time of self-funding, there should not be an independent organisation committing Defence to inappropriate expense. But this assumes the Tribunal's only consideration is to protect the rights of ADF members. Certainly the Tribunal provides a safeguard for the members, but as an independent body concerned with equitable outcomes for all parties, it must balance the interests of members with those of the Department and taxpayers and with government policy. There is always provision during a case for a submission on costs to be made, and most decisions accompanying the determinations state the resulting cost or how the cost will be met. During its twelve years, the Tribunal's record in its determinations seems to have been responsible, a good example being the July 1992 decision to increase the Service Allowance by $800. The Tribunal gave consideration to a broad spectrum of views, and took into account the history of the allowance before coming up with a figure which was below the ADF's proposal and well below the more extreme proposals and, indeed, general expectations.
It is important that the DFRT's legislative requirement to review allowances in the nature of pay every two years should continue. This routine is reassuring to ADF members and good for morale. As the system has evolved, the Tribunal does not initiate review of a particular allowance; rather, it brings the matter to the notice of the ADF, inviting applications. If there is evidence of any need for review, an application will be lodged requesting an outline of the situation of all allowances. It is possible to foresee the DFRT being given a more proactive role in future, accepting submissions on relevant matters from interested bodies, and initiating reviews-for example, of disability allowances-where it felt these were required. In any case, it is essential it retains the safeguard of the periodic review mechanism. A reversion to the 1970s system, with the determining powers being moved to the Minister and the DFRT becoming merely an advisory body, would be most unfortunate.
Legislation would be required to alter the Tribunal's role. In view of the Coalition's policy at the 1993 federal election to expand the role of the DFRT, it would be ironic if weakening of the Tribunal's powers took place under the present government. In its October 1992 defence policy, the Coalition proposed the Tribunal take over from DIR the determination of the section 58B allowances (i.e those not pay-related), and recommended the positions of the DFA and the Chairman of the Tribunal be made full-time. And the Coalition's defence policy document for the 1996 election committed it to 'maintaining independence for the Tribunal'. In a sense, Defence Ministers have as much reason as anybody to regard the DFRT as a blessing. In the pre-Tribunal days, with ultimate power resting with the Minister, unpopular decisions were seen as the Minister's fault. Now pay fixing is at arms length from the Minister, and when there are unpopular decisions members can only glare at the Tribunal or perhaps criticise the inadequacy of those who represented them.
It is clear from the above that, while changes would seem desirable, the very complexity of the issues involved with ADF remuneration makes it essential that before decisions are made and roles changed, a thorough review of the system and examination of options is initiated. This would allow a rational transition to a new system.
This chapter will begin by investigating an issue which has been a long-term policy problem in the determination of ADF pay scales. This will be followed by a discussion of recent developments in pay reform.
Finally there will be a brief examination of how ADF pay scales have moved in the last decade in relation to Australian Public Service (APS) salaries and the CPI.
Central to pay-setting policy is the concept that Defence Force salaries should be maintained at a level which accords with civilian standards for equivalent qualifications, experience, capabilities, responsibilities etc. However, two generally conflicting views evolved in the 1970s and 1980s concerning the basis of defence remuneration. The first, developed in the Kerr/Woodward Committee of Inquiry (1970-73) and generally continued in the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay (COR) (1973-82), sees a significant degree of relationship between Defence Force and Australian Public Service salaries. While suggesting a number of principles which should apply to the determination of Service pay, Kerr/Woodward concluded that 'the process of establishing levels of salary within the services by making broad comparisons with rates in the Commonwealth Public Service is a fair and just method', providing that special features of Service life are taken into account.(2) As a result, salary points in the Defence Force were related to specific points in the APS: all non-commissioned salaries were related closely to the APS physical grades; movements in the salaries of officers from Second Lieutenant to Colonel generally followed the professional grades of the APS; and Brigadier and Major General moved with the APS Second Division, as it then was, all under the principle that both Defence and the Public Service have a 'common employer', the Commonwealth.
In fact the tasks and needs of the two organisations are directed to the achievement of different goals by way of different procedures per medium of servants operating in entirely different environments. A consideration of entry standards, training proposals, promotion criteria, rank, contracts of service, discipline and uniforms are but a few manifestations of the differences to which we have referred.(3)
COR 3 also challenged the salary alignments between certain supposedly 'equivalent' ADF and APS 'rank' levels: 'The alignments chosen, although representative of significant areas of APS employment not dissimilar to some aspects of Service work, constricted the flexibility of the salary scales in the Defence Force.'(4) For example, insufficient adjustment was made for NCO responsibility or technical training. Also the assumption that certain ranks are interchangeable with specific APS classification levels did not take into account the fact that Service members are posted regularly from job to job, often comprising a number of completely different tasks relating to military skill.
The Defence Force salary structure resulting from COR 3 was thus a move away from the common employer principle, with the sensible hedge that where similar situations plainly exist, then similar conditions of service between the Defence Force and the APS should apply (this is obviously important, for example, in the situation of close proximity with civilian counterparts in the offices of the Department of Defence). As we shall see later, Defence is only now really embracing the COR 3 idea of an independent salary structure for the ADF.
However, to some extent COR in its final report in 1982 returned to the proposition that work relativity comparisons with the APS remained relevant, stating that:
The creation in 1984 of the DFRT as an independent pay fixing body generally reflected the view of the Defence Force as a unique industry. In practice, however, the earlier view, emphasising the equivalence between Service members and public servants, still operated.
The Cross Report, in 1988, emphasised the deficiencies in the COR mechanism as outlined above, and implied that a completely independent review of the defence wage structure had not at that point been carried out. Thus, while acknowledging the importance of wage restraint to Australia's current economic strategy, the Sub-committee concluded that:
In section 58H (6) of the Defence Act, the Tribunal appears to have been given not just the power to make an independent review of the salary structure, but, indeed, the requirement to do so. The Section directs that the Tribunal 'shall inquire into and make a further determination' on Defence Force salaries and allowances within two years of its last determination, or within a shorter period if directed by the Minister. When challenged about its possible failure to comply with this provision, officials argued that each decision to apply the National Wage Guidelines constituted a review of salary and allowances: 'when a national wage case decision is flowed on to the ADF, it can be said that in flowing on that decision the Tribunal had indeed reviewed the pay and allowances of the Defence Force'.(7)
Certainly there was confusion in the late 1980s as to whether the series of national wage case flow-ons met the requirements of section 58H (6). Even the Senate Estimates Committee admitted in November 1989 that 'it was uncertain as to whether the actions cited by the Department meet the requirements of section 58H (6)'.(8) The problem lay mainly in what constituted an independent inquiry of Defence Force pay. The closest thing to a complete and open assessment of the ADF salary structure took place under COR 3, in 1981, and many people wanted this sort of inquiry into the fundamentals and structure of the pay system. But section 58H (6) requires salary determinations by the DFRT at least every two years, and it is inconceivable that such basic reviews could take place so frequently.
A two-fold pattern has in fact developed. First, every two years the Tribunal submits all aspects of the system-salary, allowances, structure-to Defence and asks for advice as to which elements require review, where inequities are perceived and adjustments needed, and when the review is required. Defence's response will determine which areas will receive reviews. Secondly, Defence is free at any time to apply for review of a matter that has suddenly become a problem. That is, there is no inflexible interpretation of the two year clause, with an automatic inquiry into aspects of pay that do not require this. The determinant of Tribunal action is need, although it is ensured that all elements of the system are examined at least every two years to see if there is such a need.
Sometimes more fundamental inquiries are called for. For example, the Pay Structure Review between 1992 and 1996 carried out a comprehensive review of other ranks pay structure. The current review of officers' salary structure is also looking at basic issues, as indeed did the two inquiries into Service Allowance.
During the 1990s, concern among the ADF appears to have shifted from traditional areas such as pay to other conditions of service and lifestyle factors. This is understandable; the creation of the DFRT has given the security of independent arbitration, the DHA has resolved probably the major traditional conditions of service problem, the housing issue, and the MSBS has largely repaired the deficiencies of a superannuation system confined to the DFRDB. In his report, Glenn makes the point that pay 'is not the sole determinant in attracting and retaining quality people - other factors include job satisfaction, location stability, career opportunities and the extent to which family needs are met.'(9) Also it is clear that some of the issues that appear, for example, in the later chapter on the service family have taken on increasing importance among service personnel. The importance of these issues is being acknowledged in remuneration reviews. For example, in its Decision on Service Allowance in July 1992, the Tribunal stated:
ADF pay movements in the 1990s have continued to be closely aligned with those in the APS, with the ADF generally following the lead of the APS. On the question of whether the common employer principle should be preserved or whether the ADF should take an independent approach in its remuneration, Glenn generally argued for the latter and claims the emphasis on enterprise bargaining favours independent outcomes. This independence appears to be emerging at present, with the ADF taking the initiative, in advance of any APS decision, in beginning the process of determining a new workplace-bargaining agreement. Glenn was critical of the ADF pay system, arguing:
Some of these factors have since been introduced into the system. For example, recognition of work value was emphasised in the determination on other ranks pay structure in February 1995, and, as we shall see, is being given prime importance in the current review of officers' pay.
Glenn also speaks of deficiencies such as 'an inability to respond to market forces thereby failing to attract and retain skills critical to capability' and 'an inability to provide sufficient incentives for members to undertake more demanding jobs and in some instances to pursue promotion'. Glenn recommended a revised ADF pay system based broadly on paying people for the value of work performed i.e. work would be split up into classes or families of jobs which would receive similar remuneration. This would generally remove rank as the yardstick of pay, and Glenn was quite in agreement with salary overlaps at some rank levels. Similarly he did not think members should be paid on the basis of skills and qualifications attained; the important criterion is the nature of work performed.(12)
There seems to be acceptance of this criterion in the restructuring moves currently taking place, with remuneration being linked to the contribution members make to the ADF. In a recent newsletter, Defence Personnel Executive stated that the ADF's remuneration structure is 'showing signs of age and does not provide the combination of flexibility and reward needed in these changing times'.(13) A project team has been established to look at the allowance and salary structure, and comment on possible changes to allowances is given later in the paper in the chapter on allowances. In the area of salary, it seems different structures will be created for each of four groups: the Trades-Based group, covering Private to Sergeant (the salary structure for this group was overhauled in the Pay Structure Review of 1992-96); the Specialist group, consisting of doctors, dentist, lawyers etc; the Command and Management group, covering the ranks of Warrant Officer to Lieutenant Colonel; and the Higher Command and Management group, covering Colonel to Major General. In the case of the Command and Management group, which has the largest number of personnel apart from the Trades-Based group, there appears to be a move to broadbanding, with rank no longer the sole determinant of salary. The newsletter gives an assurance that no officer will lose money, and states:
It is clear increasing emphasis is being placed on work value, as recommended by Glenn; but it is still possible another determinant of salary will be qualifications, such as tertiary degrees, a step which neither Glenn nor the DER seemed to favour. It does seem that these reforms could make a decisive break with the APS pay structure, which itself is undergoing significant change.
A recent article in the private sector journal Defender recommended a streamlining of the rank structure, for example by cutting the number of officer ranks from ten to six. It argued this would help break down the rigidity of the rank-for-the-job structure.(15) Proposals such as this would introduce significant classification broadbanding to the ADF.
Table 2gives the salaries of several ADF officers and of those APS administrative positions with which they have traditionally been linked. Their percentage movements are shown from 1975 to 1990, from 1983 to 1990 and from 1990 to 1996. Included also are movements in the Service Allowance and in the CPI and Average Weekly Earnings, and a Private's pay for 1990 and 1996. Engineering salaries were included in the 1990 edition of this paper, but these have since been correlated with administrative rates and their inclusion would be repetitive.
In listing the APS administration levels, the previous classification is shown in brackets. It is important to read the notes to the Table.
In making this comparison, we are open to the criticism that, in view of the discussion earlier in the chapter, we are not comparing like with like. But we would justify the examination on the grounds that it gives some idea of how ADF officers' pay has moved in relation to some other.
Several points emerge, looking mainly at the percentage columns:
|
|
Date of Effect as at |
% Increase |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
19 Sep 75 $p.a. |
6 Oct 83 $p.a. |
4 Oct 90 $p.a. |
17 Oct 96 $p.a. |
Sep 75- Oct 96 |
Oct 83- Oct 90 |
Oct 90- Oct 96 |
|
AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE |
|||||||
|
Administrative (c) Admin Service Officer, Class 3 (Clerk Class 4) |
9905 |
20046 |
27780 |
33304 |
236.2 |
38.6 |
19.9 |
|
Admin Service Officer, Class 4 (Clerk Class 5) |
11093 |
22341 |
31150 |
37341 |
236.6 |
39.4 |
19.9 |
|
Admin Service Officer, Class 5 (Clerk Class 6) |
12189 |
24490 |
33930 |
40675 |
233.7 |
38.5 |
19.9 |
|
Admin Service Officer, Class 6 (Clerk Class 8) |
14572 |
29048 |
39700 |
47591 |
226.6 |
36.7 |
19.9 |
|
Senior Officer, Grade C (Clerk Class 9) |
15757 |
31384 |
43597 |
55170 |
250.1 |
38.9 |
26.6 |
|
Senior Officer, Grade B (Clerk Class 11) |
18136 |
36641 |
50670 |
66175 |
264.9 |
38.3 |
30.6 |
|
Senior Executive Band 2 (2nd Division, Level 4) |
27547 |
54601 |
79955 |
101217 |
267.4 |
46.4 |
26.6 |
|
DEFENCE FORCE |
|||||||
|
Private |
7038 |
14915 |
22160 |
26655 |
278.7 |
48.6 |
20.3 |
|
Lieutenant |
9962 |
20130 |
28966 |
34819 |
249.5 |
43.9 |
20.2 |
|
Major |
15759 |
29517 |
41778 |
50119 |
218.0 |
41.5 |
20.0 |
|
Lieutenant Colonel |
17415 |
35775 |
50845 |
66205 |
280.2 |
42.1 |
30.2 |
|
Colonel |
19306 |
40156 |
56886 |
76442 |
296.0 |
41.7 |
34.4 |
|
Major General |
27547 |
54236 |
80641 |
105513 |
283.0 |
48.7 |
30.8 |
|
Service Allowance (d) |
950 |
2608 |
4373 |
6037 |
535.5 |
67.7 |
38.1 |
|
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS (e) (f) |
146.5 |
357.1 |
574.1 |
715.8 |
388.6 |
60.8 |
24.7 |
|
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (g) |
28.5 |
64.0 |
103.3 |
120.1 |
321.4 |
61.4 |
16.3 |
(a) Because of lack of space, Other Rank Salaries were not used in this comparative table in the 1990 edition of this paper. However, a Private's salary has been included here.
(b) Salaries shown are exclusive of all allowances, and except for Private, are the highest in each classification. Salaries for Private (E) Pay Group 3 have been used, as this level was chosen as the anchor point in the DFRT's review of Other Ranks pay structure during 1992-95.
(c) Officer titles shown in brackets were those in use in 1975 and 1983.
(d) Prior to November 1981, all ranks below that of Brigadier received a Service Allowance. From November 1981, only ranks below that of Lieutenant Colonel were eligible to receive a Service Allowance.
(e) Average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) of full time adult males (ABS 6302.0). The Commonwealth Statisticians altered the basis on which AWOTE figures are calculated in September 1981. The old and new series are therefore not entirely compatible and should be used only as a guide to long term movements.
(f) AWOTE for full-time adult males has been used rather than AWOTE for full-time adult persons. The reasons for this are:
(g) Consumer Price Index, all groups, weighted average eight capital cities (ABS 6401.0)
Allowances (especially those in the nature of pay) are a recognition of the unique role of the ADF member and provide monetary recompense for hardship incurred in carrying out this role.
The Report of the Defence Efficiency Review, released in March 1997, foreshadowed a fundamental review of the allowance system. At first it seemed this would consist mainly of cutting down the number of allowances. However, it now appears the main thrust will be to split allowances into their elements of skill, disability and attraction/retention, with the skill element folded into salary and the disability element remaining as allowance. It seems elements intended for attraction/retention are to be 'better targeted', which presumably means a more flexible and practical use of these payments, focusing them on areas where, at a particular time, retention of personnel has become a concern.(1)
Ostensibly the inclusion of the skill element in salary will be beneficial, as this contributes to superannuation, but one can foresee anomalies arising. Under the existing system, for example, the whole allowance ceases once the qualifying conditions for its payment disappear. But presumably if the skill element is moved into salary, it will stay in a member's salary even though the member has been posted from the position requiring the skill to a position not requiring the skill. This means there could be officers of the same rank doing the same job but receiving different pay because one had acquired a skill component from his previous posting. It is potential problems like this which the project team set up to develop a new remuneration structure will be eager to resolve.
This chapter lists the more significant allowances with a brief explanation of their purpose. All allowances are paid in addition to basic salary.
Defence salaries are supplemented by a range of allowances in the nature of pay to compensate for various disabilities in exceptional circumstances. The following pay-related allowances are subject to regular review by the DFRT under section 58H of the Defence Act.
Service Seagoing Hard Lying Submarine Service Flying Flight Duties Field Separation Submarine Escape Training Facility Clearance Diving Parachutist 3RAR Parachutist Unpredictable Explosives Arduous Conditions Adventurous Training Instructor Trainee Leader's Diving Language Proficiency Trainee's Dependant Special Action Forces Higher Duties Special Allowance for Medical Officers and Dental Officers Resident Medical Officers - Additional Salary
There are also a number of allowances which are not directly pay-related but are more in the nature of reimbursement for expenses incurred in the course of duty. Under section 58B of the Defence Act, these allowances are referred to the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business for determination. The most significant of these allowances will be dealt with in the next section.
Note that for any one situation, one of the pay-related allowances usually dominates, precluding 'double dipping'. Hard Lying Allowance, for example, is not paid to members receiving Seagoing Allowance. And members eligible for Special Action Forces Allowance are not paid most of the allowances for specific service.
The rates given for each allowance were correct as at 1 September 1997.
Service Allowance. An allowance at the rate of $6278 per year is paid to all members under the rank of Lieutenant Colonel or equivalent except for certain trainee categories. This Allowance is paid to compensate for the requirement to be on call at all times, to work long and irregular hours and to live and work in uncomfortable conditions, as well as for the loss of certain freedom available to civilians and for the turbulence brought about as a result of posting (to the extent that it is not compensated elsewhere). Approximately 49 290 members are in receipt of this allowance. The amount expended on this allowance during 1997-97 totalled $309.426 million. Appendix B lists the changes in Service Allowance since its introduction in 1973.
The Service Allowance is the most significant of the pay-related allowances. In 1987 the ADF sought an increase in Service Allowance to a minimum of $7715, primarily on the argument that members were, on average, working about 52.5 hours a week, and that the COR assessment of Service working hours in 1981 was incorrect and should not be taken as an accurate base. This argument was rejected by the DFRT and a $716 per annum increase resulted in a Service Allowance of $3848.
There had been high expectation of the case among Service personnel, and the result caused some questioning of the value and independence of the DFRT and of the competence of the senior officers who prepared the case.
Much debate took place around this time over the potential injustice of having a flat-rate Service Allowance available to all personnel below Lieutenant Colonel rank, regardless of hours worked or postings incurred.(2) The Government agreed to the recommendation of the Cross Report in 1988 that a determination be made of the average weekly hours worked within the ADF, with a view to initiating a review of the Service Allowance. The ADF Activities Survey showed an average of 47.9 hours worked per person per week (this did not include time spent by sailors at sea and soldiers in the field).
In 1994, the Service Allowance was again reviewed by the DFRT, with the ADF asking for an increase of at least 20 per cent (i.e. $940) on the existing $4800 Allowance. The DFRT's eventual grant of $800 generally fell well short of expectations, as in 1987.
One specific aspect of family turbulence taken into account by the DFRT in reaching its determination was the effect of postings on spouse employment. In his report in 1995, Glenn disagreed with this being a factor, and proposed that turbulence resulting from postings be removed as a consideration in determining the rate of Service Allowance. He suggested that the various aspects of turbulence such as spouse employment should receive compensation in other ways.(3)
Glenn also proposed that Service Allowance be incorporated into salary. A major argument against this is that Service Allowance is given as compensation for some of the unique characteristics of Service life, and that this compensation should receive separate review and determination. Also if included in salary, its significance as compensation could well be forgotten.
Seagoing Allowance. This is paid to all members, except for certain senior officers and their staff, who are posted for service in seagoing ships. It is given in compensation for uncomfortable conditions, restricted use of leisure time, long hours and cutting off of home contacts. Since December 1995, when Seagoing Allowance was restructured by the DFRT, it has been a tiered allowance, with rates varying according to the cumulative years of service at sea of members: $6467 per annum for a member who has completed less than four years service; $7868 if completed four but not more than eight years service; and $8946 if more than eight years service is completed. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $28.648 million.
Submarine Service Allowance.This is paid to submariners posted to or available for posting to a seagoing submarine, in recognition of the responsibilities, the working environment and stresses involved in such duties. There are three rates (i) the rate on shore, $3848 per annum (ii) the rate for trainee submariners during training at sea, $10 993 per annum (iii) the rate for qualified submariners posted to a seagoing submarine, $14 841 per annum. The approximate number in receipt of this allowance in 1990 was 760 members, and probably the number today would not exceed this figure. The total amount expended on the allowance during 1996-97 was $6.022 million.
Hard Lying Allowance.This is to provide some form of compensation for the discomfort experienced by members who are not entitled to Seagoing Allowance or Submarine Service allowance and are required to live in a seagoing ship, submarine or other defence force vessel for at least 48 hours. The rate for a seagoing submarine is $30.12 per day. The daily rate for a surface ship depends on the member's cumulative sea service: $17.72 for a member who has completed less than four years service; $21.56 if completed four but not more than eight years service; and $24.51 if more than eight years service is completed. The rate for a vessel undergoing refit is $4.25 per day. The rates for Hard Lying Allowance are simply 1/365th of the annual rate of Seagoing Allowance. The amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $730 000.
Flying Allowance.This allowance, paid to qualified and fit aircrew, comprises two elements: a qualification and skill element, paid in recognition of the acquisition and maintenance of flying skills and the need to attract and retain aircrew, and a disability element, paid in recognition of stresses etc. inherent in military flying. Until recently, the amount paid for qualification and skill varied according to rank. However in a decision handed down on 4 September 1997, the DFRT substantially restructured the allowance, with the levels of qualification and skill payment now based on years of experience from wings graduation rather than on rank. For other ranks, the amount for qualification and skill varies from $1250 to $5750; for officers (below the rank of Brigadier), the amount varies from $2250 to $20 750. The highest rate in each case is for somebody with more than 11 years experience. A common disability rate of $4250 per year applies to all officer and other ranks aircrew. Another innovation in the September 1997 decision was to permit Brigadiers (E) to also qualify for Flying Allowance, although at a lower figure to reflect the lesser amount of flying done at this level. In Glenn's discussion of the need to rationalise Defence allowances, Flying Allowance was singled out as a prime example of an allowance that should be incorporated in salary. The approximate number in receipt of Flying Allowance is 1915 members. The amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $20.217 million.
Flight Duties Allowance.This is paid on occurrence at rates up to $11.64 per day to non-aircrew members required to perform in-flight duties (for example, aerial photography, search and rescue observation) other than parachuting. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $342 000.
Parachutist Allowance.This allowance is paid in recognition of the stresses and skills involved. The rates are: $2321 per year for a Chute Jump Instructor; $2031 per year for a Jump Master; $1451 per year for a member conducting tactical jumps at certain units, including Parachute Training School; $750 per year for a member posted to other parachute units but not conducting tactical jumps; and $17.42 per jump for any other member required to perform a parachute descent. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $1.347 million.
Clearance Diving Allowance.This allowance, paid to qualified military clearance divers, comprises two elements: a qualification and skill element, which is paid in recognition of the acquisition and maintenance of military clearance diving skills; and a disability element, which is paid in recognition of stresses, high risk etc. inherent in clearance diving duties. The qualification and skill rate is $1307 per annum, and the disability rate is $4200 for those committed to render unpredictable explosives safe, and $3381 for those committed to search where unpredictable explosives can be found. Other members who may be called in to assist with this work receive a disability rate of $2939 per annum plus an 'on occurrence' rate. The approximate number of recipients is 239 members. The total amount expended on Clearance Diving Allowance plus Diving Allowance during 1996-97 was $1.24 million.
Diving Allowance.This is paid at the rate of either $29.39 per day or $2612 per year for diving duties performed by members whose normal employment does not include diving. The total amount expended on this allowance plus Clearance Diving Allowance during 1996-97 was $1.24 million.
Submarine Escape Training Facility Allowance.An instructor performing submarine escape training instructional duties is paid $5389 per year. Members posted for training at a submarine escape training facility are paid $3592 per year, while a member attending a course in submarine escape procedures receives $21.56 per day. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $92 000.
Arduous Conditions Allowance.This consists of three elements: a hot conditions element ($2.28 per day), a confined spaces element ($3.47 per day) and a hazardous chemicals element ($7.32 per day). The allowance is paid on occurrence to compensate for conditions encountered in the performance of duties by members whose duties are not normally carried out under such conditions. To qualify for any element, a member must endure the relevant disability for a total period of three or more hours in a 24 hour period. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $274 000.
Field Allowance.This is paid to compensate for the requirement to live and work in uncomfortable conditions, and possibly long and irregular hours, in the field, the consequent curtailment of home contacts and interference with leisure. In July 1995, the DFRT introduced a two tiered allowance to reflect the different levels of disability experienced. The tier one rate is $26.95 per day, the tier two rate is $15.82 per day. To qualify, a member must perform field duty for a period of at least 48 consecutive hours. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $17.52 million.
Special Action Forces Allowance. This allowance comprises two elements: qualification and skill, and disability (resulting from the hazard and stress involved). To qualify, members must have passed certain Special Forces courses, and be engaged full-time in a designated Special Forces position. The rate for a Qualified Special Forces member is $9335 per annum for qualification and skill, and $10 290 per annum for disability. The rate for a trainee Special Forces member is $4508 per annum for qualification and skill and $8752 per annum for disability. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $6.177 million.
Unpredictable Explosives Allowance. Unpredictable Explosives Allowance is paid to compensate for the hazards and stress involved in the examination, recovery, rendering safe or disposing of this ordnance. For a member whose full-time service requires him to render safe such explosives, the annual rate is $1764. For a member whose full-time service requires him to search in areas where unpredictable explosives are likely, the annual rate is $884. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $279 000.
Language Proficiency Allowance. This is paid to encourage and assist members to become proficient in certain approved foreign languages and for the performance of linguistic duties. Recipients are members who have qualified in specified language courses or whose proficiency in specified languages has been favourably assessed by the ADF School of Languages, and payment is subject to regular re-assessment of skills. The rates vary from $600 per annum to $6002 per annum (for advanced proficiency). The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $401 000.
Trainee's Dependant Allowance. As the salary of trainees or trade training is less than that of normal entry recruits, this allowance affords trainees with dependants a salary not less than that of a Private Pay Level 1.
Trainee Leader's Allowance. This is paid to selected Cadets and Apprentices for additional duties performed and the higher responsibilities involved. The rate is $6.00 per week. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $392 000.
Adventurous Training Instructor Allowance. This is paid to Adventurous Training Instructors and Unit Adventurous Training Leaders in recognition of the special skills and qualifications required and the responsibilities and disabilities involved. The rate for an Instructor is $3713 per annum, and a Leader receives an on-occurrence rate of $26.52 per day. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $73 000.
Separation. An allowance of $4.91 per day is payable to members separated from their family for more than 14 days by Service duty, in recognition of intangible effects of separation and of additional expenses. A continuous rate of $497 per annum is payable to married personnel who are eligible for Seagoing Allowance, Submarine Service Allowance or Special Action Forces Allowance. The total amount expended on this allowance during 1996-97 was $2.456 million
Although their authority is section 58B rather than section 58H, the following retention bonuses can properly be included in this 'pay-related' category:
Pilot Retention Bonus. This was first introduced in April 1988 in response to large increases in pilot separations, from a long-term average of 47 a year to 110 in 1986-87 and 127 in 1987-88. A taxable bonus of $70 000 was payable to pilots meeting certain criteria who agreed to serve for a further six years. Intended to operate for a period of four years, it ceased on 14 August 1991. Most recipients under this scheme have now completed their six year full-time service obligation, and the bonus was reintroduced on 10 December 1996 to counter recent significant increases in pilot separations. This time the scheme was designed to more precisely target the ADF pilot population in order to minimise the impact of separations, and provides greater choice for recipients than the 1988 scheme. The following options are available:
Air Traffic Controller Retention Bonus. A taxable bonus of $70 000 was introduced in January 1996 to assist in the retention of qualified and experience air traffic controllers. The member must agree to give a further 5 years full-time service. As with the Pilot Retention Bonus, introduction of this bonus was in response to a sharp increase in air traffic controller separations around this time, largely due to heavy recruiting by Air Services Australia.
As mentioned above, the following allowances are the more significant of those reviewed by the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business (i.e. not by the DFRT) under section 58B of the Defence Act. Not all provisions have been listed, as many are common to the APS and are generally well known. The Defence Force considers for adoption all APS provisions which can be adapted to Service needs. Examples are: Travelling Allowance and Overseas Allowance, which have been adopted virtually unchanged; and Disturbance Allowance, which has been modified by providing a differential rate which increases with each removal.
Some APS provisions such as Driving Allowance, Supervising Money and Sick Leave are not used. The general principle is that under identical conditions, the same provisions should apply, unless they require variation to meet other Defence provisions, or are inconsistent with the military employment package. For example, the Defence Force provides different arrangements for medical care and disabilities, and different leave and leave-travel allowances.
Uniforms. Members receive an initial issue of uniforms at public expense. Women in all Services receive assistance with the purchase of personal clothing and necessities which are not issued.
Members serving in special appointments, such as Aide-de-Camp to the Governor-General, or Service Equerry to a visiting member of the Royal Family, are paid an outfit allowance to reimburse the cost of purchase of civilian clothing.
Uniform Maintenance Allowance. Uniform Maintenance Allowance is paid to assist members to maintain an approved scale of uniforms in good condition. The allowance does not cover laundry or dry cleaning, or personal items such as towels, brushes, pyjamas and underwear. This allowance is indexed annually according to the clothing component of the CPI. Ranks up to:
Corporal receive $394 per annum Warrant Officer $473 per annum Officers $640 per annumThis, together with salary and Service Allowance, forms the basic regular remuneration of most members. Expenditure on this allowance in financial year (FY) 1996-97 was $25.899 million.
Living Out Allowance (LOA). Financial assistance for meals, reasonable accommodation, utility charges and laundry costs is given to single members who are required to live away from base because Service accommodation appropriate to rank and status is not available, or who, for 'compelling reasons of a compassionate or personal nature', have approval to live out. This should not be confused with Living Out Away From Home Allowance. Expenditure on LOA during 1996-97 was $20.742 million.
Faced with poor standard living-in accommodation, lack of privacy etc., members, especially older members, have often chosen to seek other accommodation. However, if living-in accommodation is available, even though of low standard, the member is not generally eligible for LOA. In response to a Cross Report recommendation that increased access to LOA be allowed where on-base accommodation is sub-standard, the Government claimed that the cost of full implementation would be $58 million, and generally rejected the proposal, only agreeing that it might be possible 'in one or two of the worst affected bases'.(4) Since then it has been decided that decisions on specific cases can best be left to individual base Commanders. Anomalies associated with LOA are mentioned on pages 85 to 88.
Living Out Away From Home Allowance (LOAFHA). This allowance is paid to cover the cost of accommodation and meals incurred by members during a period that they are separated from family and cannot be rationed and quartered under Service arrangements. To qualify for LOAFHA, a member must live out away from his or her home for at least 72 consecutive hours. Expenditure on this allowance during 1996-97 was $575 000.
Defence Force Extra Risk Insurance Expense Allowance. Also linked with the APS, but of wide Services appeal, this allowance reimburses the extra cost to a member required to pay higher than normal life insurance premiums, owing to the nature of the member's Service employment. The total allowance claimed cannot exceed 1.2 per cent of twice the salary of an Army Captain (or equivalent) with five years service. Expenditure on this allowance during 1996-97 was $7000.
The following allowances are linked with postings:
Home Purchase or Sale Expenses Allowance. This is not unique to the Defence Force, the APS having a similar allowance. The allowance assists members in purchase and sale of their homes on posting or unit relocation by reimbursing many of the unavoidable legal, conveyancing and real estate costs associated with these transactions. Reimbursements vary in each case and they are limited to the amounts normally charged in the State or Territory in which the purchase or sale occurs. Postings under 12 months do not qualify, and with the exception of the first home purchase, the allowance is not paid for a purchase without a previous, comparable sale. Also a member, to be eligible, must be officially notified of a posting before that member enters into the agreement to either purchase or sell his/her home. Expenditure on this allowance during 1996-97 was $9.236 million.
Temporary Accommodation Allowance (TAA). Assistance with accommodation and food charges is provided where a member and his family are obliged to occupy a house or serviced apartment as a consequence of posting, or for other Service reasons. TAA is only paid on completion of service in the discharge locality for the period furniture and effects are in transit. Expenditure on this allowance during 1996-97 was $17.648 million.
Child Care Reimbursement Allowance. This is paid to reimburse a member for expenses incurred for child care while undergoing a removal at public expense. The allowance is limited to $38.15 per day for a maximum of two days. To qualify for this allowance, there must be only one adult present at the time of the removal, and the child/ren must be under 11 years of age.
Temporary Rental Allowance (TRA). This is paid to members with family who do not own their own home in the posting locality and who cannot be provided with a suitable married quarter. The amount varies according to a member's rank and the approved rental ceiling for the locality involved. These ceilings are reviewed periodically. Expenditure on this allowance during 1996-97 was $31.197 million.
Disturbance Allowance. This allowance is designed to assist a member with unreimbursed costs associated with a removal and accelerated depreciation of furniture and effects caused by repeated movement. Telephone reconnection and certain motor vehicle charges may also be reimbursed, subject to certain conditions. The rate varies according to the domestic status of the member, the nature of the removal, the number of previous removals and the number of full-time student children who are members of the family. For example, the rate for removal to a new locality for a member with family varies from $728 to $1456, depending on the number of previous removals, and with an additional payment of $140 for each full-time student child involved. Expenditure on this allowance during 1996-97 was $12.602 million.
Education Allowance and Extra Tuition Allowance. These allowances no longer exist, having been incorporated into a general Education Assistance Scheme in 1996. This scheme will be discussed in the chapter on the 'Service Family'.
Special Gratuities/Annuities for Honours and Awards.
Victoria Cross/George Cross. An annuity of $250 per year, or $125 to dependants if awarded posthumously. Paid to all winners of this decoration.
Gallantry. Other Rank winners of certain decorations for gallantry, including the DCM, CGM, DSM and DFM, are paid $40, either on promotion to commissioned officer rank or on termination of service.
Both the above provisions date from 1984.
In addition, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, a veteran who has been awarded one of these decorations, and is in receipt of a Disability Pension, is eligible for a Decoration Allowance, payable at the rate of $52 per year.
Long Service and Good Conduct (LS & GC). A gratuity of $10, payable to a member who, while holding the rank of Flight Sergeant or Warrant Officer Class 2 or below, has been awarded the LS and GC Medal. The gratuity is paid on either the member's promotion to Warrant Officer in the RAAF or Warrant Officer Class 1 in the Army or on discharge. A member of the RAN who has been awarded the LS and GC Medal may receive an annuity of $2 for each year of service completed after becoming entitled to the medal.
This provision was introduced in 1984 and has not been changed since.
Retiring Gratuities. Paid to officers who reach compulsory retiring age before becoming entitled to any other retirement benefit, after minimum service of 10 years. $240 is paid for each completed year of service as an officer, and $100 for any year served as a non-commissioned member. In other cases, officers receive $100, and other ranks $40 for each completed year of service up to six years, and $100 per additional year. This gratuity was introduced in 1984 and has not been changed since.
As can be seen, many of the above conditions apply to relatively small numbers. Others, particularly those adapted from the APS, are extensively used.
One indication of the increased importance of the family unit in the ADF is the amount of space provided for the subject in this paper. Twenty pages are needed to cover the various issues and initiatives taken, as compared with eight pages in the last edition, in 1990, and no separate entry in 1984. Two of the single Service support organisations existed in 1984, but virtually all the initiatives described in this chapter have occurred in the last decade. In 1988 the Cross Report, inquiring into causes of wastage in the ADF, found added meaning in the assertion 'The Australian Defence Force recruits soldiers and retains families'. Certainly the bare figures on the incidence of married personnel should indicate the importance of the family unit in the ADF.(1)
The changes in the ADF which have given new significance to the Service family stem from basic changes in Australian society. First, dual-career families are increasingly becoming the norm in Australia, impelled by a desire, or necessity, to have additional family income, and by the growing number of women who aspire to a separate career outside the home.
Along with this fundamental social change have come shifts in community values. Higher family expectations are held for quality of life factors such as good housing, geographic stability, employment opportunities and better education. The husband's role is changing, with emphasis moving to his part in child care and the development of his spouse's career. A number of other factors evident in society are also having their effect on the Service family. As was stated in the Pratt Report in 1994:
These trends have put special pressure on the Service family as it strives to cope with the demands of service life. When each posting can result in one's spouse having to give up job and income, and one's children being affected by yet another schooling change, it is not surprising that many members re-examine their commitment to the ADF. This was a prime factor in the increased separation rate in the late 1980s, and must still be an important concern.
In November 1985 the Minister for Defence commissioned Ms Sue Hamilton from the Office of the Status of Women to conduct a study into the main problems facing spouses of Service personnel. The report was titled 'Supporting Service Families' but is more commonly known as the Hamilton Report. It was presented in April 1986 and quickly received strong support from most sections of the Defence community.
In April 1987 a major Hamilton Report recommendation was implemented when the Defence Minister, Mr Beazley, announced the formation of the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff (ADFILS) to provide community development support, educational advice and assistance, and information on general personnel matters to Service families. Mention will be made later of social work support within the single Services for individual members and their families; ADFILS, a tri-Service organisation, was intended to supplement the existing single Service organisations by concentrating on support for Service family communities. ADFILS aimed to assist families in an area to understand their problems and to organise themselves to solve those problems.
ADFILS was initially established with a central coordinating unit in Canberra having a staff of four. Its professional staff consisted of 30 Community Development Officers (CDOs) and eight Regional Education Liaison Officers (REDLOs), based in areas of major Service family concentration throughout Australia. The role of these officers is discussed later in this chapter in the section on the Defence Community Organisation.
As mentioned earlier, each Service provided a range of personnel support services to members and their families. The organisations involved were:
Both the Army and Navy bodies existed prior to Hamilton, and the focus of their work was the provision of advice and assistance to members and families, including individual counselling by professional staff. The RAAF body was created following the Hamilton Report, and carried out much the same type of work as the Army and Navy organisations, although it was restricted to social work and family liaison information functions.
The Hamilton Inquiry made it clear that need existed for a tri-Service information network, operating at the level of the community of Service families to address the social needs of the group within the community. ADFILS was created, and its officers attempted to coordinate as much as possible with the Service organisations. The proposal was discussed that the Service organisations should be integrated into a tri-Service body, and even that they be absorbed into ADFILS, as the Hamilton Report had in fact recommended. The 1990 edition of this paper questioned the effectiveness of maintaining 84 social workers distributed in four organisations which operated in virtual independence of each other, yet carried out complementary tasks in the provision of support to Service personnel:
But the feeling was that these organisations should be retained, as each, it was claimed, had a unique role peculiar to the needs of its Service. Thus the Review of Family Support Services, completed in mid-1990, reinforced the need for the most efficient use of family support assets and closer cooperation between the service providers, especially between ADFILS and the Service organisations, while at the same time maintaining the separate Service organisations.
In April 1994, the Defence Force Personnel Policy Committee directed that a review be undertaken with the aim of 'determining the organisational arrangements which will optimise the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of personnel and family support services in the ADF.' The review was carried out by Valerie Pratt, and the resulting report, released in September 1994, criticised many aspects of the system with its four separate organisations. As the concluding summary stated:
The Review Team considered several options for coordinating the family support organisations, but eventually proposed integration of the social work organisation and the family liaison system. This integrated organisation was to be managed and resourced by a branch in HQADF, which would subsume the ADFILS organisation. The individual uniformed Service organisations, specifically designed to meet the individual needs of each Service, were to be retained.
The Defence Community Organisation (DCO) came into existence on 1 July 1996 as a result of recommendations following the Pratt Report. Add Defence social workers and family liaison officers previously employed by Navy, Army and Air Force together with the ADFILS organisation including its community social workers and regional education liaison officers were integrated into the new organisation. At the same time the Directorate of Social Work and Information Services-Air Force was disestablished. The Army Community Service Organisation was disbanded in early 1997 and a number of its staff were transferred to the DCO as Military Liaison Officers. It is expected some military staff from the Navy Personal Services Organisation (PSO) will eventually join the DCO as Navy Liaison Officers when the current functions of the PSO are transferred to other Defence organisations.
The DCO Headquarters in Canberra is responsible for the Spouse Employment Assistance Program, the Defence Employer Sponsored Childcare Program, the Defence Family Support Funding Program and the Family Information Network for Defence (FIND), each of which is described below. DCO Regional Offices are located in all states and territories, and local area teams are responsible for the delivery to ADF personnel and their families of a comprehensive range of social work, family liaison and education liaison support services and related programs.
Social Workers: There are approximately eighty social workers in the DCO undertaking a comprehensive range of social work services and management functions. In the regions the senior staff operate as regional managers or area coordinators in charge of a local team.
Family Liaison Officers (FLOs): There are approximately fifty FLOs who work within the local teams and act as a point of contact for Defence personnel and their families and assist with information on matters related to family and community life. They particularly help families with the settling in period following a new posting.
Regional Education Liaison Officers (REDLOs): REDLOs, located in each capital city and Townsville, have the responsibility for provision of educational advice and assistance in each region. They provide advice, referral and specialised assistance on educational matters to Australian Defence Force members and their families and policy advice to Defence on education matters that may impact on Defence families. They work closely with all levels of the education system in each state.
Based in Canberra as part of the DCO, FIND is an 1800 toll free telephone information service that allows Defence members and their families to have quick and easy access to information on Defence personnel matters and other areas of interest or concern. A copy of the information discussed can be sent to the caller if requested. FIND has an extensive data base, and inquiries to the staff of three are handled with complete confidentiality. Since its inception in March 1989, FIND has handled over 67 000 calls; in 1996 alone 10 128 calls were received, 11 658 inquiries answered and 917 sets of documents forwarded to callers. In 1997, up to 30 June, FIND had received 5202 calls, answered 6396 inquiries and forwarded information to 601 customers.(5) The main areas of inquiry in 1996-97 related to family welfare, education and study, removals and housing related issues. Consideration is being given at present to incorporating some of the other Defence 1800 helplines into the FIND service.
The Family Support Funding Program (FSFP) resulted from recommendations in both the Hamilton and Cross Reports. The FSFP is now in its ninth year of operation and to date grants totalling approximately $7.1 million have been approved. The primary objective of the FSFP is to provide grants to groups of Defence families to enable them to work together on a project or program that is beneficial to Service families. The program also aims to assist self-funded community groups with a project or service that specifically targets Service families and does not duplicate or overlap with existing services.
Since the inception of the FSFP there has been a vast expansion in the family support network. ADF families can now have confidence that when they move to a new location there will usually be a family newsletter, some type of community centre/neighbourhood house and a family support group offering a variety of activities for spouses and children. Many of these would not exist were it not for the FSFP. The FSFP funding ensures the existing infrastructure is maintained and that initiatives are encouraged which assist in diminishing some of the adverse effects which can be caused by mobility.
A funding allocation of $1.3 million was made available for grants for financial year 1997-98, in keeping with the Governments commitment to increase the funding for each major location from up to $20 000 to up to $50 000. After consideration by the tri-Service Advisory Committee, grants were approved to 261 individual groups totalling $1 026 242, an amount of $74 000 for the DSNSG conference and DSNSG IT requirements and $50 000 to cover the essential elements in support of the program. Thus the overall total of grants approved for 1997-98 was $1 150 242.
The Defence Special Needs Support Group (DSNSG) is considered as a separate entity for the purposes of funding. Twenty grants totalling $29 028 were approved-nineteen to local area groups and one to the National group. This funding will assist the DSNSG in a number of areas including administrative costs, training, resource material and membership to a number of special needs organisations. In addition to the individual grants to the DSNSG area groups, $60 000 has been allocated for the purchase of ten laptop computers, printers, associated software and extended warranty for use by the group and a further $14 000 has been allocated for the DSNSG conference to be held in early 1998. Thus a total funding allocation of $103 028 has been approved for the DSNSG.
Funding the DSNSG in this manner ensures that the group receives appropriate funding outside the competitive process in their local community and that the particular requirements of these families are addresses.
In the 'Service Family' chapter in the 1990 edition of this paper, three matters were presented as major family issues, urgently in need of attention-education (both of children and spouses), child care and spouse employment. It is pleasing that in the 1990s, policies have been developed and generally implemented for each of these areas. In this current paper, one addition is made to the discussion of these important areas-families with members with special needs.
With such issues, it is generally felt that the most appropriate support to offer spouses for difficulties arising from relocation is not financial compensation but other forms of non-cash assistance.
Problems in these areas emerge, of course, particularly as a result of posting. It is not surprising the 1995 ADF Census reported that members and families considered children's education, spouse education and employment, child care and the maintenance of personal relationships were the most difficult factors to adjust to in postings.
The problem
In view of the competition for employment in Australian society, an increasing concern of all Service families has been the education of their dependants. However, it is often claimed the mobile nature of the Service life can have adverse effects on children's education. This is in addition to the developmental problems which some children may suffer when constantly uprooted. The most serious educational problems stem from the differences between State education systems in such areas as commencement ages, grade structure, availability of subjects, and the difficulties of transferring between different educational systems at certain crucial grades.
Until 1996, the main Defence support on the issue of the disruption of the education of members' children was through the Education Allowance and Extra Tuition Allowance. The Education Allowance (EA) paid portion of boarding fees and tuition fees to members on long-term posting in Australia who left their children in their present school or education system to prevent serious interference to the child's secondary schooling. But the EA Determination was very difficult to interpret, and gaining approval for the allowance was often a lengthy process. In addition it applied only to secondary students. As a result, the number of members utilising the allowance each year varied between 40 and 60, less than 1 per cent of members. Following the Hamilton Report, there was general agreement the Education Allowance needed broadening, and Extra Tuition Allowance (ETA) was introduced in 1987. ETA was aimed at alleviating short term educational difficulties experienced by ADF members' children following posting. The small changes made to the Education Allowance between 1986 and 1990 produced few additional recipients.
As mentioned earlier, Defence employs Regional Education Liaison Officers (REDLOs) to assist Defence families with education matters. There is a REDLO located in each State/Territory.
The Review of Education Assistance for ADF Children
In response to DIR suggestions (first made in August 1989) that Defence should undertake a comprehensive review of the Education Allowance before making further specific changes, the terms of reference for a review were finally issued in November 1994, and a working party was given the job of developing a framework for education assistance for ADF children. The Report on the Review was presented in November 1995, and virtually all the recommendations were subsequently approved. Only the key aspects can be given here of the new financial assistance scheme, called the Education Assistance Scheme, as it occupies twelve pages of INDMAN [0501], the Manual of Salaries and Conditions of Service for the Permanent Forces.
The principles which determine whether education assistance will be given are as follows:
The main assistance falls into three parts:
The new scheme, which came into effect on 8 October 1996, is certainly more comprehensive and flexible than the Education Allowance and Education Tuition Allowance, giving assistance for needs not covered by these earlier schemes, such as children with special needs, and much of the EANL area of need. The estimated cost of the new scheme does exceed the previous allowances, but not excessively. The 1994-95 cost of the existing scheme was $1.083 million, while the Report on the Review estimated the new scheme to cost an additional $1.283 million per annum, making a total annual cost of $2.366 million.
Defence is currently developing a case for payment of education assistance in situations where a pre-school age child (0 to 5 years) with special needs was participating in, or on the waiting list for, an early intervention program at the previous posting locality. Education assistance at the new locality would be payable until such time as the normal government-provided assistance is able to be accessed.
Just as the two-income family is becoming the norm in Australian society, so a majority of the spouses of Service personnel seek jobs. Postings can lead to loss of a spouse's job and income and, especially for those spouses who lack qualifications, new employment can be hard to obtain. Even for those spouses with professional and semi-professional qualifications, barriers can exist to the portability of those qualifications from state to state.
The 1995 Spouse Employment Project Report summed up the problem as follows:
Studies have shown the unemployment rate for Defence spouses as higher than the national average.(7)
Since the Hamilton Report highlighted spouse employment as a problem, a number of initiatives, many of them very useful, have been taken at various bases to assist spouses following relocation. However, these have been fragmented, and a major aim of the series of studies which have been carried out in the 1990s has been the creation of a comprehensive, coordinated, on-going program. It is acknowledged that any centralised system must always be balanced against the need for a local approach to cope with the significant regional variations which exist in employment availability.
While there have been reports of discrimination by employers against ADF spouses because of their likely short stay, the community trend to greater work mobility is making a three year stay quite respectable, and a 'posting tenure' could become an attractive prospect with some employers.
The following are the major studies dealing, at least in part, with spouse employment in the 1990s:
Some rejected projects
Following is a summary of two options considered, but not adopted, in the creation of a Spouse Employment Assistance Policy during 1996-97:
However, a related proposal, initially put forward by Glenn, is currently being developed-a mobility allowance, which would seek to compensate for such stresses as disruption to schooling, to child minding arrangements and spouse employment, and movement away from the family and into arduous areas.
The current policy
The spouse employment assistance policy, which was adopted in February 1997 and is now generally in operation, has a self-help emphasis. There are two key initiatives:
$500 000 has been contributed for 1997-98 for spouse employment assistance. It is hoped the policy implemented will be less expensive than, for example, the provision of individual case management through the external provider as in the rejected proposal described above. But the eventual cost of the rejected outsourcing proposal was uncertain, being dependent on the extent of spouse need. Indeed one defect of the adopted system is that, whereas outsourcing on a national basis would have allowed accurate measurement of the extent of the need for employment, this can not be clearly determined in the present largely self-help policy.
The problem
A natural consequence of the trend to dual-career families and the higher incidence of single parent families is the increased need for child care services, and the rapid growth of this need in Australia has left the child care industry, at least in some areas, struggling to keep up. Although provision of child care is not considered a condition of service i.e. a service entitlement, the well-being of members and their families is integral to the efficiency and effectiveness of the ADF, and Defence cannot ignore the expectations of personnel, which reflect those of society. The existing Defence child care policy states:
a. improve retention;
b. enhance recruitment;
c. reduce absenteeism;
d. increase productivity; and
e. improve morale, motivation and efficiency.
The child care need tends to be greater for the Service family than it is in the general community. Mobility through postings is more likely to lead to separation from the extended family, and the nature of Service life, with its additional duties, can lead to more frequent absence of spouses. However, just as there is considerable debate in the community concerning the responsibility of governments in the provision of this expensive service, Defence is currently attempting to determine the extent to which it should assist with child care.
The current program
On 8 March 1990, the Prime Minister announced that the work-based child care incentives available to private sector employers would be extended to Commonwealth and State departments and other public sector employers. Up to this point, Defence's assistance had largely consisted of financing child care projects through such schemes as the Family Support Funding Program, but in 1991 formal responsibility was taken for assisting Defence families to meet their child care needs, especially work-related needs. A Defence Child Care Policy document and the Defence Child Care Guidelines were prepared to direct the development of the Defence Child Care Program, which still operates. Defence currently sponsors 15 long day care centres and some places in six Family Day Care Schemes, which provide approximately 700 full-time places for children of Defence employees. Defence child care centres are required to meet State and Territory licensing regulations.
The extent of Defence funding provision for child care is as follows:
Until 1 July 1997, requests for funding were processed by the Defence Child Care Advisory Committee. From 1991 to 1996-97, approximately $8 million has been spent on Defence child care facilities, and approximately $2.9 million on child care operational funding. At present a research project is being undertaken in both Darwin and Perth, and until a report of the project is received, probably in December 1997, consideration will not be given to the setting up of new centres.
The Review of the Defence Child Care Program
In November 1995, a review of the Defence Child Care Program, which had then been in operation for nearly five years, was directed by ACPERS.
The Review commenced on 8 February 1996 and was completed in July. Some of the major findings can be summarised as follows:
Government cuts to child care support in the last two federal budgets suggest community child care organisations, with decreased government assistance, will have difficulties maintaining the level of service previously provided.
This voluntary support group is a comparatively recent creation, beginning in October 1993 at RAAF Edinburgh with a small group of Defence families each of which had children with special needs, and becoming a Defence-wide organisation in 1994. There are currently over 550 families registered with the DSNSG, and 24 support groups established on bases throughout Australia provide information and assistance. A monthly newsletter is distributed, and a National Conference was held in May 1996, and again in May 1997.
The term 'special needs' is defined broadly to include, for example, intellectual, sensory and physical disabilities, chronic illness or medical conditions, autism, epilepsy, speech and language disorders, learning difficulties and special gifts and talents.
In Defence-and, indeed, the community at large-particular difficulties can be experienced when the family with special needs has to move, especially when the move is interstate. For many children with disabilities, for example, the very fact of changing schools can be extremely unsettling, and the unfortunate differences between State/Territory systems can impact severely on those with special needs. The DSNSG has worked with relevant Defence areas, and also with interested civilian organisations, in an attempt to ease the difficulties resulting from mobility. A major achievement has been to obtain agreement on such matters as the transfer of equipment between States and Territories, and access to necessary services in a new location according to relative need rather than position on a waiting list. This means a wheelchair, for example, can be taken wherever the family goes instead of being left at the state border, as occurred previously; and waiting list time is much reduced for the most needy families.
In its brief history the DSNSG has sent submissions to numerous Defence and disability reviews, and has received several awards (e.g. the 1995 Australian Achievement Award) for its assistance to families with special needs. But from the point of view of Defence conditions of service, two points should be highlighted:
Essentially the DSNSG is a volunteer organisation providing a self-help structure for interested families. Assistance for special needs matters is not a condition of service, but Defence as a good employer encourages the various activities of the DSNSG group, and provides support in a number of ways. Recently a new package of assistance provisions for families with special needs (FWSN) was submitted by the Stage 7 working group of Project Serving Australia. The package includes recommendations such as:
It is anticipated these measures will be approved and implemented by the end of 1997.
Among the DSNSG's current projects is the preparation of some useful reference guides e.g. an Easy Reference Guide for Special Needs Families, giving information on disability services etc, and an Education Information Guide for Students with Special Needs. The latter guide will be produced initially for South Australia, but it is hoped it can eventually be done for other states.
One recommendation of the Hamilton Report was that 'a National Consultative Group of Service Spouses should be established to act as a source of advice on the implementation' of the report's recommendations. An interim NCGSS met for the first time in October 1986, and it was soon decided there was an on-going role for a consultative group of spouses to advise the Service chiefs and Minister on issues affecting Service family life. The name NCGSS was changed after the October 1992 conference of the group to NCGSF-National Consultative Group of Service Families - to more accurately reflect the broadening scope of the group's interests.
The structure of the NCGSF is at national, regional and area levels, with the convenor (based in Canberra) and the ten regional delegates-called national delegates-forming the National Committee. Essential costs of the NCGSF at national level are met by the Defence Department, although no salaries are paid to its national delegates, let alone to its 54 area representatives. The aim is to have an NCGSF area group in any area where there is a concentration of ADF families. Area group meetings are the grass roots level of the NCGSF, where families can bring issues. Area representatives will refer these issues to the national delegate if they cannot be resolved at an area level. Issues which affect families nationally are passed on to the convener, who will negotiate and/or lobby on behalf of families. The convener has an 'open door' arrangement with CDF and the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. Membership of the NCGSF is free and open to partners of current serving members, as well as to serving members who are sole parents.
The aim of the NCGSF is to improve the quality of life for service families. This is done by:
influencing policy making that directly affects families Some of the more significant activities of the NCGSS have been:
The NCGSF's unique contribution stems from its capacity to find out what is going on in families and communicate this information to the decision-making areas of Defence. And with virtually all its workers volunteers, this role is performed inexpensively. The convener is paid on a 20 hours per week basis, although the position requires full-time attention. National delegates receive sitting fees, a travelling allowance and are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, but no other remuneration. The restriction in funding has one significant advantage, emphasising their independence from the Department. But there is a case for some increase in the small budget, which has remained locked on $60 000 for some years, even if only to index cost of living movements.
The NCGSF has been very much a reactive group, acting on issues brought to the group by families. But there is a case for it being more proactive, attempting to anticipate problems, taking early initiatives which would help families to help themselves.
The Future
The Defence Efficiency Review (DER), presented in March 1997, has little direct impact on the Defence family. However, while there appears to be little or no reduction in resources, it can be expected that the special problems of the Defence family will worsen as the Reform Program is implemented. As Hugh Smith points out in an article in The Australian on 20 June 1997:
Areas such as social work and child care can therefore expect more pressure.
Pressures for change in the area of the service family will not cease. As conditions improve for families, expectations increase and demands are made for further improvement. Also Australian society continues to change and the needs of Service families will change correspondingly. It is in the ADF's interest to maintain a positive and progressive response to these needs.
As Graham Glenn points out in his 1995 report Serving Australia:
For most of the 1980s single members could claim to be a neglected area of the ADF, as attention - long overdue, it must be emphasised-was given to married member housing and the needs of the Service family. However, some improvements were introduced in 1985 in connection with the ADF 'living in' policy, the Cross Report in 1988 devoted eleven pages to the particular problems of single members, and a series of reports in the 1990s exposed inequities in conditions of service between Members Without Families (MWOF) and Members With Families (MWF). The whole thrust of thinking at present is towards the alignment of policy for MWOF and MWF, especially in accommodation eligibility.
Accommodation and related matters has been the main issue in concern over MWOF. However, with the trend towards the alignment of conditions for MWF and MWOF, it is more logical to deal with the accommodation of MWOF in the following chapter in this paper, on defence housing. This present section, therefore, will be confined to a summary of recent changes in general conditions for MWOF. Many of the issues which have been raised over the years have now been addressed. Indeed all the beneficial provisions associated with the MWOF Report have been introduced. Of the more important issues, only those provisions which would adversely affect single members' interests remain to be implemented, such as the splitting of the rations and quarters charge and some anomalies in housing and charging for meals. These matters are discussed on pages 96-97.
The move towards alignment of policy for MWOF and MWF has taken place somewhat laboriously over the last decade. Increasing complaints on financial conditions of service for MWOF led to detailed examination of living in policy during 1988 to 1991. The trend in thinking was towards a common policy i.e. providing the same assistance in accommodation and removal/relocation to both MWOF and MWF. This inquiry led to the establishment of a MWOF Conditions of Service Review Team in May 1991 to develop a package of changes which would flow from a revised living in policy. The Review Team reported in 1992, and the new package of accommodation and relocation assistance provisions was approved by the DFPPC in September 1992. However, the matter was not given high priority, and nothing was implemented at the time.
In 1995 the issue was revived, first with a report on living in accommodation by the Australian National Audit Office,(2) and then as part of Graham Glenn's general review of personnel policy in the ADF. On 10 December 1995, the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mr Punch) announced a package of changes resulting from the Glenn Review. These changes included more choice for MWOF and extended relocation and living assistance provisions. Most of the changes had been recommended in the Report of the Members Without Family Review, and were part of the general trend to more closely align the conditions of MWOF with those of MWF. The changes were effected by determination made under section 58B of the Defence Act and, as a result, MWOF are entitled to:
The above changes came into effect on 10 September 1996.
The provision of adequate accommodation at reasonable cost for ADF members as they move from location to location is considered to be central to the success of the compulsory posting process. During the 1970s and 1980s, dissatisfaction with housing constituted probably the major conditions of service problem for most members. Although the severe problems have been resolved, Defence housing still has its problem areas.
Defence is currently finalising a fundamental review of its housing and accommodation assistance policies. The purpose of this review is to bring together the results of a number of reports and surveys, both internal and external, which have been produced during the last five years. Detailed study of the topic has taken place, looking at such fundamental questions as what responsibility, if any, Defence has to provide accommodation assistance, and how such assistance should be provided. Consideration of the nature and extent of assistance has ranged across a spectrum of possibilities, from giving cash or an allowance to ADF members and allowing them to find accommodation on the open market to the other extreme of Defence owning and providing a large amount of the necessary accommodation at all its centres of activity.
In view of the anticipated changes to policy resulting from the review, the early part of this chapter will be confined mainly to a discussion of some major issues involved. This will be followed by a more descriptive section on the Defence Housing Authority, an assessment of current deficiencies in Defence housing assistance, and a discussion of the two schemes which assist home ownership.
Apart from assistance with home ownership, which will be dealt with separately, current ADF housing assistance consists of two elements:
Thus married quarters for families, provided by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), are available on a subsidised rental basis under the Group Rent Scheme. A system of scales and standards, based on the size and quality of houses, is combined with an entitlement based on rank to determine the allocation of houses. For members housed to entitlement, rents paid range from $87.75 per week for a Private (or equivalent) up to $161.85 per week for a Colonel (or equivalent) and above. Members housed in sub-standard or deficient housing pay a lower rent.
As yet, there is no formal agreement between the Department of Defence, the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Department of Finance on the appropriate level of the Defence housing subsidy, although all three Departments have expressed concern at the escalating cost of housing to Defence. Since 1988, the requirement for Defence to pay market rents for married quarters provided by the DHA has highlighted the escalating amount of the Defence housing subsidy and brought pressure not only to contain the level of subsidy, but to reaffirm the need and basis for any subsidy. Where suitable housing is unavailable, Defence provides Temporary Rental Allowance to assist families to rent on the private market.
Single members who 'live in' pay a standard charge for rations and quarters, currently $9.80 per day for ranks up to Corporal, $12.10 per day for NCOs and $13.05 per day for officers. This charge covers three meals a day, and such things as electricity costs, the use of washing machine and dryer, and provision of bed linen and hand towels. Members living out pay for any casual meals at standard rates.
It is in the interest of any armed force to ensure its members are properly housed, fed and clothed. Accordingly, members receive an initial free issue of basic uniform, or an allowance in lieu. Some working dress may be exchanged when damaged or worn in certain cases. (See also 'Uniform Maintenance Allowance' on page 52). Housing has, however, proved over the years one of the most intractable of service conditions problems. The last decade has seen both an extensive improvement in housing for married personnel, and intensive examination carried out of fundamental aspects of the whole accommodation problem.
Policy goals for the provision of housing assistance were first set down on 13 May 1985 following the report of the Government's Task Force on Australian Public Service and Australian Defence Force Housing Programs, and have been supported in such documents as the Inspector-General's Report in 1991 on ADF Living-in Accommodation, and the Auditor-General's Report in 1994 on Housing Assistance. The ADF's main need is to achieve its operational goals, and housing assistance is needed to support the mobility of ADF members who are required to relocate as a function of establishing and maintaining this operational effectiveness. As the May 1985 policy statement points out, there is a need to:
The 'detriment to morale' in the last point refers to such factors as the uncertainty and compromise which the very liability to relocate imposes on members' housing arrangements. Members' inhibitions on home ownership are indicated by the low proportion of home owners in the ADF relative to the rest of the community.
Underlying much of the above are the Commonwealth's responsibilities as a fair employer. However, it must be emphasised that responsibilities in the accommodation area are shared, and that ADF members should expect to make a realistic contribution toward their ADF-provided housing.
The Principal Tenant Concept (PTC) is relevant here. Under this concept, which apparently developed in the decades after WWII, Defence, as a responsible employer, accepts an obligation to ensure that an adequate supply of housing is available for sub-leasing to ADF members who are required to reside in locations to which they have been posted to meet Defence needs. It also agrees to minimise the financial detriment that members could suffer due to substantial differences in regional housing costs.
This obligation to provide housing does not necessarily mean that Defence needs to own the housing, or even control it. In many locations all that may be necessary is to advise representatives of the local housing industry of the need and allow market forces to operate and satisfy demand. However, if Defence does have a degree of management control over the housing, it is better able to ensure that members are housed according to family needs and income. Direct control of the housing also avoids the seasonal fluctuation in prices that would occur when large groups of ADF families are relocating and searching for housing at the same time. It also minimises pressure on local housing markets when a unit is relocated to a new area, such as the Army's move to Darwin.
The benefits of the PTC for members include security of tenure, no bond payment, rent paid fortnightly in arrears through the pay system, a generally responsive repairs and maintenance system and housing of a generally consistent quality. It also means that members have to expend less effort in searching for a home. Certainly the requirement to accept a 'company house' may be resented by some members, but there is no guarantee that dependence on the private rental market would produce more agreeable accommodation.
For Defence, the primary benefits of the PTC relate to its importance in helping maintain the operational effectiveness of the ADF:
The disadvantages include:
In 1987, Defence developed a formal position on the PTC which it used as the basis for rejecting a Department of Finance proposal to introduce a cash housing allowance. In 1989, the Defence Force Pay and Conditions Committee formalised the PTC as Defence policy.
Given there are sound arguments for Defence providing housing assistance, what form should this assistance take?
There are certain obvious needs which come at the time of moving, and a number of allowances exist to assist members with the costs associated with relocation. The chapter on Allowances should be consulted for details of the following relevant allowances:
Earlier in the paper, mention is made of Glenn's proposal to introduce a new allowance, a 'Mobility Allowance', which he suggests should be paid on the occurrence of each move with the threefold aim of providing an incentive to relocate, compensation for the turbulence experienced, and recompensing for certain costs associated with the move. Glenn suggested the current Disturbance Allowance would form the third component of his proposed new allowance. The concept of an incentive element was rejected by the Pay Structure Working Group in 1996.
Probably the most troublesome financial burden faced by personnel who are required to relocate frequently results from regional differences in housing costs. It is accepted that Defence should meet the additional costs of housing attributable to these regional variations.
Most people find moving burdensome, with the requirement to pack belongings, leave friends and familiar surroundings, and resettle in another house in a different locality and form new contacts and friends. This is obviously a disability consequent upon compulsory and often frequent relocation. But Defence personnel face other less tangible housing related disabilities. For most members, life in the ADF consists of occupying a series of houses on a temporary basis, often without knowing just how long these arrangements will continue at each posting locality. It is clear that ADF members are not able to establish a home with the same degree of permanency enjoyed by most of the civilian population. This uncertainty of tenure obviously is a key factor in the lower rate of home ownership among Defence personnel as compared with the rest of the community. Uncertainty of tenure can also cause them to compromise on their housing-for example, to purchase a lower value home than they otherwise would due to their uncertain time horizons. Thus members incur housing related disabilities as much from the liability to be relocated as they do from the actual act of relocation.
It has been accepted that members should be compensated for these disabilities, but there is some disagreement on how this compensation should be given. At present it forms one portion of the rental rebate paid by Defence, the other portion covering costs due to regional housing variations. This has the advantage for Defence of administrative simplicity, but it remains unclear how much is compensation and how much covers regional variations. One proposal has been that a cash allowance be paid to all Defence personnel to compensate them for these housing related disabilities. This would have the advantages for members of transparency and of being easily reviewed, and would allow members flexibility in the spending of this disability payment. For Defence there would be savings from a reduction in fringe benefits tax. The main disadvantages would be, first, the additional cost to Defence of paying the allowance to the 7000 singles at present living out and the 6000 home owner-occupiers, none of whom are receiving rental rebate, and therefore compensation. The second disadvantage would be the necessity to determine an amount for compensation and remove it from the current rental rebate, causing an increase in the rental contribution at present paid by members.
For many people, one nuisance associated with moving is the responsibility of finding satisfactory accommodation in the new location. Many members therefore find the provision of a house from the DHA's stock a real convenience.
On the other hand, a significant proportion of members would prefer to choose their own accommodation, providing they could still receive a subsidy for their rental payments. Ideally therefore a balance must be found between the requirement to use Defence housing and allowing freedom to find one's own accommodation.
While Defence's chief responsibility is to achieve its operational goals, it is clear that effective attainment of these goals, together with Defence's role as a responsible employer, requires sympathetic consideration of the above needs in order to build an efficient and loyal force.
This assistance scheme, which would have the advantages of maximising flexibility for members and reducing administrative complexity and eliminating fringe benefits tax for the ADF, has been recommended by both Glenn and the Auditor-General. This option assumes (a) the amount of the allowance would be equivalent, after tax, to the existing housing assistance, and would vary with locality (b) all off-base defence housing would be sourced adequately from the private residential market.
However, there are several disadvantages which probably make it unacceptable to Defence. First, many members would undoubtedly regard the loss of guaranteed housing availability, and the consequent need to devote time to locate housing, as a real inconvenience. In addition, providing all members with such a cash allowance would mean, in effect, that Defence would be funding a house purchase for those members who chose to use the money in this way. Savings for Defence would be dubious; 6000 current home owner-occupiers and 7000 singles who live out would be entitled to the cash payment although they do not at present receive assistance through the rental subsidy.
To introduce a cash payment system would be to ignore the tangible and intangible benefits enjoyed by the ADF in having an employer managed housing system as part of its personnel policy strategy supporting the operational effectiveness of the ADF.
This proposal, largely the converse of the preceding option, assumes that all housing needed to support member mobility is provided by Defence. Members would still be free to make their own housing arrangements if they wished, although without ADF assistance. The proposal would have the advantage for members of guaranteeing housing in every locality, with security of tenure. But it minimises choice for members, and does not guarantee that the housing available will be appropriate to members' requirements. However, the big disadvantage of this option would be for Defence. The scheme is inflexible in not allowing effective response to changing demands for housing in individual locations. This could result in shortage of housing in some new locations and an over-supply of housing in other locations with increased cost to Defence.
The two options just discussed are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Both have serious disadvantages, and it is clear a satisfactory housing assistance policy must lie somewhere between the two, observing the responsibilities inherent in the Principal Tenant Concept while allowing members adequate flexibility of choice. The task has been to find a cost-effective balance.
Traditionally, accommodation assistance policy for MWOF has differed markedly from that for MWF. Whereas most MWF live off-base with the rental costs of DHA housing subsidised by Defence, an assumption underlying MWOF accommodation assistance policy was that it was compulsory for these members to live on-base unless approval to live-out was given on compassionate grounds or due to lack of on-base accommodation.
Although the compulsion for MWOF to live-in was relaxed in 1985, their conditions of service are still based on the assumption that they will normally be required to live-in. This results in the following major differences in the accommodation assistance packages for MWOF and MWF:
When a MWOF receives approval to live out, Living Out Allowance (LOA) provides for the member to be reimbursed for food, utilities and laundry as well as rent, whereas MWF receive subsidised housing only. In addition, MWF are not eligible for housing rental assistance if they own a suitable home in the posting locality, but a MWOF who owns a suitable home is still able to receive LOA.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, the main housing complaint was by married personnel due to the poor standards of their accommodation. The establishment of the DHA in 1987 began to rectify this problem, and attention turned to the singles. In the years 1988-1993, $236 million was spent on upgrading barracks accommodation, generally beyond Service Scales and Standards, which was last revised in 1972. But in the absence of a current policy, this investment served to increase the significant inconsistencies of standards already existing among Defence establishments. Reports completed in the 1990s, such as the Members Without Family Review Report, the Auditor-General's Audit Report No.25, and the Glenn Report generally agree that MWOF are subject to the same or similar housing related disabilities as MWF, and that differences based on marital status should be removed. While this would give Defence the responsibility of providing rental assistance to 7000 singles at present living-out, there would be certain savings. For example, MWOF living on-base at present do not have to pay for fuel, light, power and laundry facilities. That is why single members in receipt of LOA also receive a utilities element which reimburses costs associated with the provision of these things. If differences due to marital status were removed, a charge for these utilities would be levied to ensure MWOF contributed to these costs as do married members.
Over a period of some 20 years, housing problems developed to the point of becoming a major source of dissatisfaction in the armed forces. A number of surveys made it clear that poor housing had contributed significantly to poor family morale in the Services, and was a major cause of retention problems experienced by the ADF. As has been pointed out earlier, the expectations of Service families for 'quality of life' matters reflect those of the wider community; consequently, families have become increasingly unwilling to accept sub-standard housing, education and the like. Thus, during the separation crisis in the mid-1980s, the ARA's No. 1 Psychological Research Unit's report in September 1987 on officer resignations found that 68 per cent of those questioned listed a desire to live in their own home as a reason for leaving the Army, while 42 per cent cited the poor standard of Service quarters as an additional factor in that decision.(1)
Among the many problems raised in submissions to the Joint Committee inquiry on personnel wastage in 1987-88 were, for example:(2)
Government concern at widespread dissatisfaction with Defence housing
led to the establishment of a Task Force to investigate and report
upon the housing circumstances of Defence personnel and their families,
and to make recommendations for improved methods of providing housing.
Following the Task Force report in 1985 and observations carried
out in the field, the following facts came to light. Of the total
stock of some 23 500 houses:
On 30 January 1986, the then Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, announced:
The Defence Housing Authority Act 1987 established the Authority,
which commenced operations on 1 January 1988.
The DHA engaged in a program of disposing of the large number of
sub-standard houses and the acquisition, by purchase, lease or construction,
of replacement housing. Agreement was reached with the States to renegotiate
the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (Service Personnel), enabling
the sale or return to the States of the CSHA(S) houses.
1. Fall in sub-standard stock.
The achievements of the DHA are best shown by statistics, for example
in the reduction which has taken place in sub-standard housing:
Year Good Quality Owned Good Quality Leased Below Standard Owned and Leased Leased Out to the Private Sector and Vacant Stock pending disposal 1986 5165 0 18298 0 1987 6081 0 16971 0 1988 7211 0 16383 0 1989 8299 0 15072 445 1990 9348 157 13585 890 1991 10079 1518 11481 1335 1992 11216 3072 9186 1558 1993 12201 5059 6647 1781 1994 12873 5908 3577 1861 1995 14317 5622 1173 2330 1996 14818 5215 600 1517 Source: Most of the statistics in this section have been compiled
from DHA Annual Reports. Some have been obtained directly from DHA.
In the decade preceding the establishment of the DHA, only small
reductions were made to the large number of below standard houses.
However, as can be seen from the above table, in its first nine years,
from 1988 to 1996, this stock of sub-standard Defence housing had
virtually been disposed of.
This disposal program has been matched by an equally effective acquisition
program. In the nine and a half years, 1 January 1988 to 30 June 1997,
6384 houses were constructed; 4181 purchased from the existing market;
and 8075 leased i.e. a total of 18 640 community standard houses have
been brought into the housing stock. The total housing stock managed
by the Authority at 30 June 1997 was 21 330, including:
2. Repair and maintenance
A major complaint over the years has been inadequate repair and
maintenance, and one of the early decisions of the Authority was to
establish a system of highly decentralised management to provide an
efficient responsive service to DHA tenants and their families. By
30 June 1990 a regional network of 24 Housing Management Centres (HMCs),
covering each State and Territory, was operating. Tenants can thus
report problems directly to HMCs rather than through the military
command structure. Since 1990, the structure and location of these
HMCs have varied to meet changing circumstances.
3. Tenant Satisfaction
Tenant satisfaction with new DHA houses has remained high since
the commencement of operations. The latest figures available, for
acquisitions during the year ended 30 June 1995, show 50 per cent
of tenants as satisfied with the DHA housing, 34 per cent very satisfied,
and only 6 per cent dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (10 per cent
were neutral). Figures from other years have been similar.
Satisfaction with maintenance work has also remained high, with
42.1 per cent satisfied, 27.6 per cent very satisfied, and only 16.2
per cent dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with maintenance service
provided in 1996 (14.1 per cent were neutral). Actually these figures,
while still impressive, show some decline from earlier years, reflecting
the fact that service personnel are becoming accustomed to good quality
housing and correspondingly more discerning of detail. Any sustained
decline in satisfaction rates, however, could be cause for concern
and review.
Leasing
While leasing was employed from the start of DHA operations as a
method of acquiring new stock, the main emphasis initially was on
purchase or construction. But the need to replace sub-standard stock
rapidly and the limited funds available made increased leasing necessary.
The general procedure has been to construct housing to meet DHA's
requirements and then to sell this to investors with long-term (5
years or 10 years) DHA lease commitments i.e. there is a change of
ownership, but Defence retains occupancy.
Unfortunately early lease arrangements had several problems:
Faced with these difficulties, in 1996 the DHA developed a new leasing
arrangement which avoided the above problems.
The more satisfactory leasing contracts have made the 'sell and
lease back' arrangement an attractive option which will be increasingly
utilised by the DHA where feasible. On 30 June 1997, 6262 houses from
the total DHA stock of 21 330 were on lease.
Joint Ventures
Whereas leasing is an increasingly favoured method of acquiring
stock, the move into joint ventures, which began in 1989, will not
be continued, and four of the DHA's eight joint ventures are at present
being wound down. However joint ventures did achieve their early purpose,
helping to solve the large stock replacement task which resulted from
the return of CSHA houses. A major problem with entry into joint ventures
has been that the DHA thus became locked into a rigid long term project
which lacked the flexibility required for the provision of Defence
housing.
Soon after its creation, the DHA realised the $750 million investment,
promised by the Government over the ensuing ten years, would be insufficient
to meet the cost of quickly replacing the CSHA houses, and in 1989
the DHA was given permission to borrow a further $250 million from
the private sector. On 30 June 1997, the DHA was left with liabilities
of $405 million, of which $159 million was Commonwealth debt and $246
million due to private sector borrowings. The DHA's strategy is to
repay this debt as quickly as possible. However, the DHA makes only
a small profit from its operations, and its houses have to be provided
to Defence within market rent. This makes income from the 'sale and
lease back' option an essential part of its financial strategy in
order to fund new Defence requirements arising in such locations as
Darwin.
Although it is generally agreed that the DHA initiative has been
highly successful in renewing Defence's largely sub-standard stock
of housing-and thus resolving what was probably its most serious conditions
of service problem-a number of criticisms of DHA operations have been
made from time to time.
Australia's military forces, at least its married members, are regarded
as being among the best housed in the world, and some have queried
whether the quality is too good. In response it can be argued that,
at a time of increased work mobility, Defence needs attractive conditions
of service factors, such as good housing, to help retain personnel.
Also it must be realised that the standard of housing is rising in
the community, raising expectations among existing and potential Defence
personnel.
In 1990, the DHA successfully bid for the administration of the
new Defence home ownership scheme, Defence HomeOwner (more precisely
known as the ADF Home Loan Assistance Scheme), details of which will
be discussed later. The Authority manages the scheme on a fee-for-service
basis on behalf of the Department of Defence. It has two main functions,
the issue of Entitlement Certificates, and the payment of the subsidy
to the National Bank on behalf of Defence.
Given the efficiency of its service in managing this scheme, it
is possible the DHA could take over other housing-related activities
should they become available.
1. A major defect is that rental assistance provided to single and
married members of the ADF is currently subsidised at different levels.
Thus, whereas the Joint Department of Defence and Department of Industrial
Relations Working Party decided in February 1993 to reduce the rental
subsidy for married members from 59 per cent to 50 per cent over a
period of five years, the policy for single members was not altered.
The Auditor-General's reports highlighted anomalies and inequities
which have arisen from differences in current married and single member
housing and relocation assistance policies. Revised Member Without
Family policies, agreed by the Chiefs of Staff Committee on 31 May
1995, were designed to remove most of these anomalies and inequities,
and to create a common policy base for the future provision of assistance
to all ADF members. Recent initiatives extended entitlements for access
to full removal and storage, Disturbance Allowance, Home Purchase
or Sale Expenses Allowance, Isolated Establishment Allowance, District
Allowance and Temporary Accommodation Allowance to single members.
As a consequence, a common policy base for relocation and living assistance
entitlements was created for all members of the ADF. This initiative
has further highlighted the need to align the policy bases for the
provision of housing assistance to both married and single members
to create a common and equitable assistance package for all ADF members.
Anomalies resulting from the Living Out Allowance (LOA) for MWOF,
mentioned on page 88, have received attention in both the Audit Report
on Living-in Accommodation and the MWOF Report. The general recommendation
has been that MWOF be given an allowance that provides assistance
only with rent, and not when the member owns a home in the locality.
In other words, when housing issues are resolved, MWOF will no longer
have an entitlement to LOA but, when service accommodation is not
available, will have an entitlement to rental allowance on a similar
basis to MWF.
2. A major barrier to the alignment of policy bases has been that
the rations and quarters charge has not been divided into separate
components. The current ADF Rations and Quarters Charge (R&Q Charge)
system was introduced in July 1973, after recommendation in the final
report of the Committee of Inquiry (Kerr/Woodward Report). The combined
R&Q charge was to be levied where members were provided with their
meals and accommodation by the Services. No attempt was made to quantify
the two elements of the R&Q charge, and although Defence has reviewed
the charge biannually, consequent adjustments have been made only
on the basis of movements in the food group component of the CPI,
i.e. movements in accommodation costs have never been a factor in
the review process. As a result, the R&Q charge has lost its validity
as a realistic measure.
The Member Without Family Review of August 1992 recommended splitting
of the charge which would enable alignment of MWF and MWOF accommodation
and housing subsidies. On 31 May 1995, the Chiefs of Staff Committee
agreed, subject to Ministerial endorsement, to implement the Review
recommendations. Splitting the R&Q charge will also have two other
benefits:
In the absence of any precise method to accurately split the R&Q
charge, an arbitrary split, possibly on a 50/50 basis, will be necessary
to provide a benchmark amount for use in introducing a uniform housing
assistance package.
3. Current ADF housing rental assistance policies constrain choice
of dwelling by linking entitlements to rank, family structure and
the availability of ADF provided housing. The March 1995 Auditor-General's
Report on ADF Housing Assistance recommended that Defence allow
members a greater degree of choice in the type, cost and location
of housing they occupy. In addition, the Glenn Report also advocated
the widening of choices available to ADF members, and specified the
cashing out of housing and accommodation subsidies and permitting
single members to live out with subsidised accommodation assistance
as two methods by which choice could be widened.
4. The 1994 Auditor-General's Report on ADF Housing Assistance
commented on anomalies which result from the incorrect administration
of current classification standards for ADF married quarters contained
in the Standards for Defence Force Married Quarters within Australia
1990 As Amended (SMQ90). Some of these criticisms have been discussed
earlier in the section on the DHA, but one direct criticism of SMQ90
was that the current classification scheme fails to identify extra
bedrooms and ensuites as additional amenities, resulting in an insufficient
recovery of costs from members.
5. Although around 95 per cent of the current stock of married quarters
is up to community standard, it is agreed that the majority of Defence
living-in accommodation is lacking the basic amenities, such as living
space and storage facilities, which are provided in similar single
person long-term rental accommodation in the general community. The
Inspector-General's January 1991 report on Living-In Accommodation
identified a number of deficiencies, including the following:
The unpopularity of barracks accommodation is shown by its under-utilisation.
The Inspector-General's report noted an Australia-wide vacancy rate
in excess of 50 per cent, while the 1995 ADF Census revealed that
about 7000 single members have chosen to live out without any form
of assistance rather than occupy available living-in accommodation.
Of these, only some 1600 occupy their own homes. The current living-in
accommodation vacancy rate is approximately 43 per cent.
Defence Facilities have advised it would cost $500 million to bring
sufficient accommodation for all living-in members to an acceptable
standard, and $1250 million to bring this accommodation to recommended
long-term standard. However, it does seem that social trends to greater
mobility and independence conflict with the requirement to live on
base. The following extracts from Glenn sum up the situation:
It can be expected that the number of MWOF living off base will
steadily increase. Not only will this accord with social expectation
and preference but it will ultimately be more economic for Defence,
reducing the need to provide barracks accommodation.
Although Defence has schemes to assist members to purchase their
own home, the current policy is to neither encourage nor discourage
serving personnel from owning a home. There are arguments for and
against: on the one hand, increased home ownership can:
On the other hand, the disadvantages for Defence of increased home
ownership are:
The existing schemes assisting home ownership, the Defence Service
Home Loan and the ADF Home Loan Assistance Scheme, have not significantly
encouraged home ownership by serving personnel. Ownership among members
appears to be low, with a general tendency to defer purchases until
after separation from the ADF, when posting turbulence is finished
and the DFRDB or MSBS lump sum is available. One fact which was mentioned
in the earlier chapter on the 'Service Family', the instability of
employment for Service spouses due to posting, reduces the confidence
of both the member and the lending institution to enter into a large
financial commitment.
Background
The War Service Homes Scheme was established in 1919 to assist those
who had served overseas during the First World War to resettle themselves
in civilian life. The scheme's benefits were subsequently extended
to include those who served, or were appointed or enlisted to serve,
overseas in the Second World War and later conflicts. By March 1969,
its 50th anniversary, the scheme had provided over 280 000 homes-nearly
10 per cent of total Australian housing stock-and 20 years later the
figure was more than 400 000. During the high point of the scheme,
the 1950s, an average of over 14 000 homes each year were provided.
From December 1972, the scheme began to be seen as part of the Defence
Forces' conditions of service rather than as a repatriation measure.
In order to attract and retain regular Service men and women in an
all volunteer force following the abolition of conscription by the
Whitlam Government, the benefits of the scheme were extended in December
1972 to all members of the Defence Force who completed 3 years full-time
service.
It soon became apparent that the increased demand could not be met
immediately from available appropriated funds. Accordingly, in order
to keep within budget limits, a waiting period of around 11 months
on all applications for assistance to buy an existing property was
introduced in 1975. On 17 August 1977, largely in an effort to encourage
personnel to continue in the forces, the qualifying period was increased
to six years. From 1975 into the 1980s the number of successful applicants
each year remained constant at around 4500 to 5500 and a waiting period
of about 10 months remained until 1989.
The erosion of the value of the loan, which had been at a maximum
of $25 000 since 1980, led the Government in its May 1985 Economic
Statement to seek the involvement of the private sector in the funding
and operation of the scheme. On 11 October 1988 the Government announced
that Westpac Banking Corporation would buy the existing loan portfolio
at a face value of $1.38 billion, plus a premium payment of $85 million.(5)
Westpac began accepting new loan applications on 19 December 1988,
and transfer of existing mortgages was completed on 30 June 1989.
The effective concessional interest rate on a loan of $25 000 remained,
as before, at 6.85 per cent, with the Government paying Westpac the
difference between the concessional rate and the agreed market rate.
For Defence personnel, the most important benefit of the new arrangements
was the removal of the long-standing 10 month waiting period for loans.
However, although loan finance over and above $25 000 is now easily
available from Westpac as part of the same mortgage, the additional
amounts are at market not concessional rates.
The $25 000 maximum
The big issue recently has been the failure to increase the maximum
loan available from $25 000, the amount set in 1980. This has become
particularly heated since November 1996, when the other scheme, the
ADF Home Loan Assistance Scheme (ADFHLAS), had its maximum subsidised
loan increased from $40 000 to $80 000. The Cross Report on Personnel
Wastage had recommended in November 1988 that the concessional interest
DSH loan be increased to $35 000, with this sum being then indexed
to CPI movements, but the Government's response to this was to create
the new home loan scheme.
The new scheme commenced on 15 May 1991, and members who were eligible
for the DSH loan were given until 31 August 1991 to decide whether
they would stay with the DSH or move to the ADFHLAS. The decision
once made was irrevocable. There are three main recent complaints
or assertions from members who chose to stay with the DSH:
As at 30 June 1997, the total number receiving a loan was
about 91 000, and it is uncertain how many of these would take
advantage of an increase in the maximum loan. The big unknown
is the reaction of the large group of eligible personnel i.e.
those service people, past and present, who meet the criteria
for a DSH loan but have not yet borrowed. An unconfirmed 'guesstimate'
gives 150 000 as the size of this group, of which approximately
21 000 are still serving members. Probably a large proportion
of these people would never consider a loan, whatever its size,
because repayment is beyond their means. Others would be ineligible
because they already own a home; a DSH loan cannot be utilised
to purchase a second home, and they may not be interested in
selling their existing home and buying again.
The unknown factor which causes most concern is interest rate
changes. Veterans' Affairs pays the interest above 6.85 per
cent, and with the benchmark interest rate (i.e. the average
standard variable home loan rate) in September 1997 at 7.13
per cent, Veterans' Affairs had to pay only 0.28 per cent interest
on loans. But if interest rates rose to, say, 12 per cent, the
amount of subsidy would rise from around $8 million per annum
at present to $65 million, with each annual individual subsidy
increasing substantially. The effect of high interest rates
can be seen in the 1989-90 figures. Whereas the cost of subsidies
in 1996-97 was around $32 million (and has fallen considerably
since with the decline in interest rates), the cost in 1989-90
was $174.8 million. Certainly there were more borrowers then
(128 000, compared to around 90 000 now) but the cost increase
due to the very high interest rates at the time is still alarming.
If the maximum loan was increased to, say, $50 000 and interest
rates were to rise significantly, the effect both of new loans
and of additional advances being paid to existing borrowers
would be substantial.
With time, the number both of new loans each year and of existing
loans will steadily decrease. This will, of course, lessen the potential
impact if the maximum loan was increased. But while an increase introduced
in, say, five years time would not face the same cost dangers outlined
above, there is the increasing likelihood of a 'too little, too late'
response from the clientele and associated organisations.
Recent developments
On 3 September 1997, the Minister announced that from 5 January
1998, Veterans' Affairs would introduce a guaranteed minimum subsidy
of 1.5 per cent below the benchmark interest rate. Thus, given the
September 1997 benchmark rate of 7.13 per cent, the interest rate
on a DSH loan would fall to 5.63 per cent. It is estimated this will
cost the Government an extra $7.7 million in the six months January
to June 1998, and $13.6 million in 1998-99. It was also guaranteed
that the interest rate would not rise above 6.85 per cent.
The Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1997, which is to
implement the guaranteed minimum subsidy, was introduced in The House
of Representatives on 22 October 1997. The Bill also provides that:
In the absence of any increase in the maximum loan available, recently
Veterans Affairs has tended to make the loan more attractive to potential
clients by easing restrictions on its use. The DSH loan can now be
used to buy a new or previously occupied home, including a strata
title unit, or to build, complete, extend, repair or modify a home
or to discharge an existing mortgage. A loan is also available to
assist an eligible person to acquire a permanent right to reside in
a retirement village, or to obtain granny flat accommodation in certain
circumstances. Two or more eligible persons may pool their entitlements
on the one property. And as a result of legislation passed in January
1991, all loans are fully transferable from one home to another. There
has also been an attempt to simplify and streamline the Scheme's administrative
processes with the aim of improving client service.
The Defence Service Home Loan scheme outlined above applies only
to service personnel who joined the Defence Force on or before 14
May 1985 (except for those who served in Namibia). As part of his
May 1985 Economic Statement, the Treasurer had announced that persons
joining after that date would not qualify for benefits under the existing
scheme, but would be eligible for home ownership assistance under
a scheme to be developed. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
announced on 17 August 1990 that the new scheme, the Australian Defence
Force Home Loan Assistance Scheme, would be operated by the National
Australia Bank. As mentioned earlier, the Defence Housing Authority
administers the scheme on behalf of Defence. ADFHLAS (popularly known
as Defence HomeOwner) commenced on 15 May 1991. Other features of
the scheme are:
The original expectation by the National Australia Bank that 4000
persons per year would apply for a subsidised home loan under the
scheme proved overly optimistic. Only 2166 loans were being subsidised
as at 31 March 1997. The loan take-up rate is expected to increase
as more eligible persons enter the 25 to 34 year age group which,
in the general community, is the largest group of first home buyers.
Before further assistance is given for the purchase of housing,
it needs to be decided whether greater home ownership will have favourable
or adverse affects on Defence operational and management requirements
for mobility of members. Also assurance is needed that other Departments
such as Finance and Workplace Relations and Small Business are not
averse to additional benefits for Service personnel in this area.
Many service conditions are derived from similar provisions in the
Public Service (APS). This paper is concerned only with matters either
unique to the Defence Force, or of a Services flavour.
As mentioned on page 21, the Personnel Division in Headquarters
ADF and the Defence Personnel Committee have traditionally developed
policy, covering items such as:
It needs to be stressed again that although employment in the Defence
Force often reflects civilian counterparts, attempts at step-by-step
equation of the working conditions of ADF members with APS or other
civilian workers is at best misleading, as the whole is much greater
than the mere sum of its parts. What at first may appear to be excessively
generous provisions unfairly restricted to Defence Force employees
are usually either attempts to ameliorate the effects of turmoil and
Service obligations, or are essential for operational efficiency.
The ADF provides regular permanent members with medical and dental
treatment and other health services that are deemed necessary by the
Chief of Defence Force on the advice of the Surgeon General Australian
Defence Force. Medical and dental care is not a condition of service;
rather it is a requirement of service provided to maintain ADF personnel
at optimal health consistent with operational preparedness and the
efficient performance of duty. Care is provided therefore at public
expense to regular members of the Defence Force to meet service requirements
for medical fitness. Members are exempt from payment of the Medicare
levy in respect of their own health care. A member can be disciplined
for not undergoing required treatment.
Army and Navy have established registered private health funds to
assist members with medical care for their families. The Army Health
Benefits Society, for example, covers both Army and RAAF personnel
as well as Defence Department civilian staff, and its 40 000 members
represent 91 per cent of those eligible to join. These health funds
continue to assist personnel when they leave the Service.
The DER Secretariat Papers emphasised that ADF's main health priority
should be on health support for deployed forces rather than providing
'free medical and dental care' on base.(1)
The following sets out the taxation implications for the Medicare
levy:
Dependants of members and civilian employees of the Department of
Defence may receive emergency medical treatment in ADF facilities
if civilian health services are not readily available.
The AUSDIL (i.e. Australian Dangerously Ill) Scheme enables a next
of kin, relative or nominated person to visit a member hospitalised
for serious illness or injury, whose life is imminently endangered,
or whose serious condition would receive substantial benefit. Approving
authorities are established for amounts of up to $7000 for this purpose.
Leave can be logically divided into(a) Formal and Accountable
Leave, which consists of those types of leave the taking of which
is recorded on a formal leave document; (b) leave that is
Informal and Non Accountable; this leave is granted on request
on occurrence, and is not recorded on a leave document.
Leave entitlements are generally in days, not including weekends
and public holidays.
(a) Formal and Accountable Leave consists of:
Recreation Leave. In addition to basic annual recreation
leave provisions similar to the APS, members of the Defence Force
may qualify for additional forms of Recreation Leave:
Field Leave. This additional recreation leave is provided
to compensate for the effects of field service. One day of additional
leave is credited to eligible members for every ten days of field
service, with a maximum of ten days per year.
Flying Leave. Up to 10 days a year may be granted to aircrew
to overcome the 'physical and mental demands of flying duties'. 100
flying hours or sorties per year gains maximum entitlement.
Seagoing Leave. Up to 10 days a year may be granted to members
serving in a seagoing ship or a Clearance Diving Team. This is to
compensate for a ship's 168 hour week and the inability of members
to use off duty periods out of their duty environment. The amount
of leave is based on completed months of such service.
Remote Locality Leave. This leave compensates for the uncongenial
nature of service in specified remote or climatically inhospitable
localities in Australia and overseas. The amount of leave given will
depend upon the locality, to a maximum of 10 days per year.
Leave for Prolonged Duty. Up to five days a year extra recreation
leave can be added to compensate for arduous, special or prolonged
duty performed without other leave in compensation (see Short Leave).
Leave for Special Purposes. This consists of:
Special Leavegranted for (a) the occurrence of the death
of a member's spouse, child or parent (b) the occurrence of some other
crisis in the domestic, family, financial or personal affairs of that
member. The granting of Special Leave on these occurrences has become
known as Compassionate Leave (with a maximum of seven days
per year) and Carer's Leave (a maximum of five days to allow
a member to care for a sick family member who resides with the member).
Examination Leave. Up to five days are allowed for attendance
at examinations in a Service-approved course of study.
Travelling Leave. A member without family entitled to free
leave travel (usually to the next-of-kin's location) on recreation
leave, compassionate or pre-embarkation leave, is entitled to travelling
leave to and from the leave locality where travelling time by the
entitled means is 12 hours or more. This leave is granted to enable
members to spend all their leave at the leave destination regardless
of posting locality in Australia. Travelling leave is also provided
for all members who have been granted compassionate leave.
Maternity Leave. Members with 12 months prior admissible
service are entitled to 12 weeks maternity leave, and may take this
in addition to other forms of leave for a single maximum absence of
52 weeks. A member is normally required to commence leave no later
than 16 weeks before the expected birth. Approval may, if it is in
the interest of the Service, be given to delay leave commencement
until no later than six weeks before the birth.
War Service Leave. For each completed month of eligible special
service overseas, a member receives one and a half days of additional
leave.
(b) Informal and Non Accountable forms of leave are:
Short Leave From Duty. Up to three consecutive working days
may be granted for:
Short Leave When Not Required For Duty. For example, for
a weekend or public holiday.
Short Leave For Removal Purposes. When a member has been
granted a removal, Short Leave is granted to complete the tasks associated
with the removal.
Pre-Embarkation Leave. Up to seven days (including weekends
and public holidays) are allowed for members proceeding on duty to
prescribed areas overseas for at least six months.
Leave for Religious Holidays and Festivals.
Leave to Attend Court Proceedings.
Members are entitled to 40 weeks leave without pay taken
either in a single block or interspersed with periods of duty, for
example, for the purpose of paternity leave, to care for the member's
child.
Academic Leave is granted to members undergoing full-time
study at a civilian instructional institution to allow them to observe
scheduled breaks in the academic year without detriment to their normal
recreation leave entitlements.
Leave travel entitlements exist as follows:
Recreation Leave Free Travel. Members Without Family, serving
in Australia away from their homes, travel within Australia at public
expense to and from home to take recreation leave. Free leave travel
is usually granted once per year for members of the Army and Air Force
and twice per year for members of the Navy. Subject to service requirements,
trainees may receive three free return trips home within Australia
per year.
Remote Locality Leave Travel. Members living with their families
in specified remote areas receive free return travel to the nearest
capital city each year, except for certain areas where this leave
is biennial. The purpose of this leave entitlement is to provide relief
from the climatic/isolated conditions at the remote locality, and
access to facilities not available in the remote locality. On the
other hand, members may use their entitlement to offset the cost of
bringing relatives from other parts of Australia to the remote locality.
Compassionate Leave Travel. A free return travel entitlement
for travel in Australia may be allowed in conjunction with a grant
of compassionate leave. A member's spouse may also have a Compassionate
Travel entitlement when similar urgent circumstances exist. Free return
travel to Australia may be approved also in the case of serious illness
or death in the immediate family of a member in an overseas posting
(in some cases dependants may also travel at public expense).
Maternity Leave Travel. A member who has been granted leave
in respect of her pregnancy, or who has used her normal recreation
leave travel entitlement for the leave year, may be granted one additional
free return travel entitlement to her home location.
Pre-embarkation Leave Travel. A member may be granted free
travel within Australia to his/her home location when Pre-embarkation
Leave is granted, except that a recreation leave free travel entitlement
is to be used when one exists.
From 1 July 1990, official means of travel on leave changed from
rail to air for most members. Other travel provisions include:
Reunion Travel. A member who is unaccompanied by his dependants
while serving on long-term duty within Australia, and who was entitled
to but did not utilise a removal in respect of that posting, may be
granted Reunion Travel from the locality in which he is serving to
the dependant's locality and return on completion of each continuous
period of three months.
An anomaly can occur here for naval personnel. If, for example,
a member's ship is home-ported in Sydney, his Reunion Travel entitlement
is from Sydney to wherever his family are, regardless of where the
ship may be stationed. Thus, if his ship is stationed in Darwin, he
would first have to make his way to Sydney before becoming eligible
for Reunion Travel.
Travel During Courses or Detached Service. Members separated
from their dependants for three or more months on a course, temporary
duty, and certain short-term postings may receive free travel home
within Australia every three months.
Removals. A member with family entitled to a removal may
be allowed free return travel to the old family location to supervise
packing or to accompany the family to the new location.
Travel in Service Aircraft. The utilisation of Service aircraft
for compassionate or personal reasons may be provided as a privilege
on a space available basis.
Under the Defence Force Leave Plan all full-time members of the
three Services are able to enjoy high standard accommodation at certain
hotels and motels at specially reduced tariff rates. Families and
friends accompanying the member are also eligible for the reduced
rates.
In addition to this, throughout Australia, the Services have holiday
resorts which are available to members of the Defence Force according
to varying systems of priority. New Zealand facilities are also available
by a reciprocal arrangement. They provide comfortable, low cost accommodation
for members and their families.
In 1989, the Cross Sub-committee recommended that the Government
establish a system of 'post exchange/commissary' retail outlets on
Defence bases, with the aim of providing goods at discounted prices
to members of the ADF. While not going as far as that recommendation,
a Defence Force Discount Buying Scheme commenced operations in April
1990. Known as the Defence Force Privilege Card scheme, it was developed
by Defcom Pty. Ltd. and is designed to give ADF members, their families
and former members of the ADF the opportunity to buy a wide range
of goods and services at discount rates. Membership for serving members,
including Reservists with a training commitment, is free. The Discount
Buying Scheme is a realistic approach which is proving popular among
ADF members. Regional and area liaison officers have been appointed
by all Services to coordinate Defcom access to personnel.
The scheme embraces over 250 different commodities and services,
including holidays and accommodation. These are made available through
more than 900 different companies, operating through over 5500 points
of sale throughout Australia. The long term aim is to enable use of
the scheme by virtually all Service personnel, with the current focus
being to increase both the range of commodities and the outlet points
at larger ADF centres.
Since World War II, disability compensation cover for ADF members
has been characterised by a variety of legislative changes, and only
a few key changes can be mentioned here.
While ADF members had compensation cover under the Repatriation
Act 1920 for death, injury or disease which occurred as a result
of their war or warlike service, until 1949 there was only limited
cover for peacetime service under the Defence Act, the Naval
Defence Act and the Air Force Act. On 3 January 1949, compensation
cover for peacetime service was given to members under the same legislation
applying to all other Commonwealth employees, the Commonwealth
Employees Compensation Act 1930.
With the introduction of the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees)
Act 1971, school cadets and officers/instructors of cadets were
covered for compensation as employees of the Commonwealth whilst participating
in cadet activities. In 1973, the Whitlam Government, as one of a
number of incentives designed to encourage national servicemen to
see out their period of enlistment in the Army, extended limited cover
under the Repatriation Act 1920 to members injured in peacetime
service after 7 December 1972. This was the beginning of 'dual eligibility'
i.e. an entitlement to compensation for injuries or diseases suffered
during peacetime service under both Commonwealth workers' compensation
legislation and repatriation legislation, with offsetting provisions
applying.(1)
Peacekeeping service: In 1981, compensation cover was introduced
under the Repatriation Act 1920 for peacekeeping service. As
these provisions were retrospective, they covered all previous peacekeeping
operations (the first being the Security Council Commission of Investigation
on the Balkans commencing in January 1947). Until this point, peacekeeping
operations had generally been treated as peacetime service.
On 22 May 1986, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) was introduced.
The VEA replaced the Repatriation Act 1920 and other legislation such
as the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956 and the
Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 which had been introduced
for service in Malaya and Vietnam respectively. Although 'dual eligibility'
for peacetime service was continued, a sunset clause was inserted
whereby cover under the VEA for peacetime service would cease on the
establishment of a 'Military Compensation Scheme'. Under the VEA,
compensation cover was also extended to a new category of service,
called 'hazardous service'.
Hazardous service was introduced in recognition of the fact
that operations could occur which, although not warlike in nature,
had a higher degree of risk than normal peacetime service e.g. service
in Rwanda and mine clearance work in post-war Afghanistan.(2) Hazardous
service was made retrospective to 7 December 1972 i.e. it can not
be applied to operations occurring prior to this date.
On 1 December 1988, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation
Act 1988 (SRCA) commenced operation, replacing the Compensation
(Commonwealth Employees) Act 1971, and providing compensation
and rehabilitation cover to all Commonwealth employees including ADF
members for peacetime service. Comcare Australia was formed and, while
taking over the administration of Defence's civilian claims, it delegated
powers to determine and administer claims under the SRCA for ADF members
to Defence's Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service .
For ADF members with 'dual eligibility', the benefits systems provided
by the two Acts differ considerably. The VEA, for example, offers
a tax free disability pension, while the SRCA compensates similar
conditions with a tax free lump sum, and awards taxed, income-based,
weekly incapacity payments for lost income. Also, while the standard
of proof for injuries sustained on peacetime service under both the
SRCA and the VEA is the civil standard of balance of probabilities,
a more generous 'reasonable hypothesis' standard is applied under
the VEA for claims relating to hazardous and peacekeeping service
as well as for warlike or operational service. Under the 'dual eligibility'
arrangements, the usual procedure is for claimants to simultaneously
submit claim forms for benefits under both Acts for each injury/illness,
and then decide which benefits best suit their circumstances.
The system of providing compensation under two complex Acts was
unsatisfactory and confusing, and the longstanding commitment in the
VEA to introduce a military compensation scheme finally led to a new
scheme on 7 April 1994 with the passing of the Military Compensation
Act 1994, which amended both the VEA and the SRCA. Rather than
a new scheme unique to the military however, this was more a repair
of the existing system. In fact the Military Compensation Scheme (MCS)
is essentially a term describing the changes to the SRCA and the VEA
brought about by the Military Compensation Act 1994. Cover
for all types of service was now provided under the SRCA, with cover
under the VEA being confined to those members of the ADF on hazardous,
peacekeeping, warlike or operational service. Dual coverage for peacetime
service however, was retained by those who had enlisted prior to 7
April 1991 (i.e. thus completing three years service before enactment
of the MCS), but for all enlistees since that date, peacetime benefits
are no longer available under the VEA.
The MCS recognises the special nature of ADF peacetime service by
providing additional benefits to ADF members under the SRCA. For example,
there is provision for full salary entitlements during the first 45
weeks following injury or illness, including after discharge; coverage
during approved resettlement training after discharge; and cover for
the unintended consequences of medical treatment.
As mentioned above, administration and determination of claims under
the SRCA is the responsibility of the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation
Service in the Department of Defence.
Benefits available under the SRCA include:
The SRCA provides for the payment of compensation payments on a
weekly basis and/or in a lump sum, depending on the circumstances.
Entitlement to income-based weekly incapacity payments under the SRCA
ceases when the ex-member reaches the age of 65 years, when the provisions
of the social security system become appropriate. The SRCA also provides
for payments of reasonable medical treatment and for household and
attendant care services, as well as for expenses incurred in repairing
or replacing damaged artificial limbs and modifying the home, car
etc. to accommodate a member's/ex-member's special needs resulting
from the compensatable injury.
A widespread publicity campaign accompanied the introduction of
the MCS in 1994, and claims for compensation under the SRCA increased
markedly. This was largely due to members and ex-members realising
for the first time that they might be eligible for compensation for
their injuries. However, the fact that the increase in claims began
several years before the introduction of the MCS suggests there was
some apprehension before the scheme that it would not be as generous
as the old system, thus accelerating claims before the new system
was introduced. Following are the numbers of new claims and the cost
of compensation benefits annually under the SRCA since 1992-93:(3)
Year
New Claims
Cost of Benefits (million)
1992-93
3970
$37.17
1993-94
5043
$46.88
1994-95
5980
$51.69
1995-96
6428
$70.71
1996-97
6235
$93.78
Under the VEA, there were 30 800 new claims for Disability Pensions
during 1996-97, and 8553 new claims for War Widows Pensions. Total
expenditure during 1996-97 was $884.3 million on Disability Pensions,
and $935 million on War Widows Pensions.(4)
The biggest single factor in the increasing cost of compensation
under the SRCA is lump sum payments for permanent impairment. A high
proportion of claims are for serious and chronic conditions and result
in a lump sum benefit. The cost should not be surprising; most of
the activities of a defence force are energetic and often risky, and
it is impossible not to have injuries. Indeed, to some extent Defence's
caring image breaks down at the injury stage. The focus in the ADF
is on a fit and healthy force, and when injury occurs, the aim, shared
by medicos and patient, is to fix the problem for a quick return to
the unit. But if the injury is more serious, often the only choice
is discharge. Too often at this stage the member fails to make a claim
for compensation, mainly because he/she and colleagues have ignored
information on the matter, considering injury for them, at least serious
injury, hardly a possibility. Very often advice given in the immediate
workplace is poor. The Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service
(MCRS) gives regular talks on the compensation system at various bases,
but it is hard to penetrate the military culture which assumes, on
the one hand, fitness and, on the other hand, that the system will
look after the problem if injury does happen. Glen Tye, Assistant
Director at the MCRS, speaks of 'a widely held view among ADF personnel
that career prospects may be threatened if there is a perception of
physical weakness'.(5) It is not a 'claims culture', and too often
a claim is not made until years later when the injury which had been
tolerated becomes more serious. For example, less than 40 per cent
of new claims on the MCS are lodged within a year of the injury. This
compares with most workers' compensation schemes in which over 95
per cent of claims are lodged within a year of the injury.(6) The
best solution seems to be to ensure all medical personnel provide
adequate and accurate information and advice concerning compensation.
One initiative which promises to make the whole compensation procedure
more efficient is the DEFCARE project, which is aimed at providing
a modern, integrated OHS, compensation and rehabilitation management
system for Defence. It is planned to phase DEFCARE in from early 1998.
Responsibility for administering the VEA rests with the Department
of Veterans' Affairs. Under the VEA, members of the ADF with hazardous,
peacekeeping, warlike or operational service (as well as some members
with peacetime service as previously discussed) are entitled to a
disability pension as compensation for the effects of any defence-caused
injury or disease relating to that service. This pension is untaxed
and is not subject to an income and assets test. The amount of payment
is at a series of rates, depending on the degree of incapacity, with
the maximum currently set at $636.80 per fortnight. Members or ex-members
may also have entitlements to other benefits such as a treatment entitlement
card, travel, accommodation and meal allowance in relation to travel
for medical treatment, a telephone rental concession, or exemption
from the Medicare levy, depending on their individual circumstances.
The spouse of a deceased member may also be eligible in certain circumstances
to receive a funeral benefit, bereavement payments and a Widows pension.
Members of the ADF who have war or warlike service, whether incapacitated
or not, are also entitled to receive the Service Pension from age
60 for males and 55 for females. The Service Pension may also be paid
at an earlier age when a veteran is permanently incapacitated for
work. The Service Pension is an income support pension similar to
Social Security's age pension i.e. it is not a form of compensation.
The Service Pension is subject to the income and assets test and cannot
be granted in addition to any Social Security age or invalidity pension.
The Inquiry into Military Compensation Arrangements for the Australian
Defence Force criticised the VEA as lacking 'some of the desirable
features of a modern compensation scheme, such as access to a lump
sum and an emphasis on return to work'.(7)
Under the SRCA if a client is not satisfied with any decision, he/she
can request a reconsideration/internal review of that decision which
will be made by an experienced officer not previously involved in
the decision. This process results in a 'reviewable decision' which
can then be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a body
established under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act with
power to review decisions of an administrative nature.
Under the VEA, a claimant who is dissatisfied with a decision may
apply to the Veterans' Review Board (VRB), an independent statutory
body, to review the decision. If the claimant is dissatisfied with
a decision of the VRB, he/she may appeal to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal.
Many of the benefits under the MCS are generally regarded as satisfactory.
Benefits under the SRCA are in fact considered as among the more generous
in a comparison of the ten workers' compensation schemes in Australia.
However, following the Black Hawk helicopter crash in June 1996, there
was criticism of the inadequacy of the lump sum payouts for those
killed and seriously injured. The maximum compensation lump sums were
considered to be well below what could be expected in the settlement
of similar civilian cases. The death benefit was approximately $166
000, while for serious injury-for example, military personnel suffering
paraplegia or quadriplegia-the benefit has been about $130 000 to
$150 000. It should be noted however, that the comparative advantage
of the large lump sum settlements under Common Law is often more apparent
than real, as the military compensation package also contains ongoing
benefits and care. Other compensation can include a reimbursement
of costs involved in both household services (to a maximum of $277
per week) and attendant care (also a maximum of $277 per week). Another
factor in the criticism following the Black Hawk crash was that members
involved in the same accident could receive different compensation
entitlements depending on their date of enlistment.
On 30 October 1996, the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and
Personnel, Bronwyn Bishop, announced that a federal inquiry would
be established to examine the adequacy of the existing compensation
system. The new arrangements which resulted from this inquiry were
announced on 11 June 1997, the main details being as follows:
These changes will be introduced as amendments to the Defence Act.
In addition, a 'single, self-contained military compensation scheme
for peacetime service', covering only military personnel, and recognising
the different nature of military service from civilian employment,
is to be developed. The need for this stems from the problem of providing
the above additional benefits to service personnel but not to civilian
members of the same scheme, SRCA. There are also anomalies in the
current system such as different benefits depending on date of enlistment
or length of service. The new peacetime military compensation scheme
is to be submitted to Cabinet for consideration by 30 June 1998. Certainly
some simplification of the system would be welcome. The two Acts,
the VEA (a very complex Act) and the SRCA, which formed the system
ten years ago, became three Acts in 1994 with the introduction of
the Military Compensation Act, and the scheme will soon depend
on four pieces of legislation with the amendments to the Defence Act
mentioned above.
In March 1997, the Inquiry into Military Compensation Schemes for
the Australian Defence Force summed up the situation as follows:
Serving members are entitled to a funeral and headstone at public
expense-either a Service funeral or a reimbursement of the normal
Service costs if a private funeral is desired. This provision follows
a long tradition of the Services paying last respects to fallen comrades,
and is seen as a contribution to the morale and group identity of
the Defence Force. The funeral benefit under the MCS is at present
$3899.43.
Under the VEA, a lump sum of up to $550 can be granted towards the
cost of a funeral of an eligible veteran or dependant.
Defence Force members are not merely civilians who wear uniform.
Members retain their civilian position under the ordinary law of the
land; it has been argued that their civil rights are reduced, although
they retain most civil duties and liabilities. In addition they are
subject to the Defence Force disciplinary law of their Service.
The relationship of a member to his/her service is quite different
from that existing between almost any other employee and his employer.
Service personnel undertake to carry out duties of a most demanding
kind in both peace and war. At the same time they are required to
accept a strict code of discipline which can lead to punishments for
offences or misdemeanours known only to military law. For example,
in extreme cases the member could be dismissed whereas such a punishment
would not be considered in comparable public service employer-employee
situations (although proposed public service legislation could change
this). However, it should be pointed out that the undoubted strong
powers possessed by superiors in the armed forces are more in the
nature of reserve powers, to be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances.
There is no means of joint industrial action in disputes with the
employer. A combination between persons, of whom at least two are
members, to resist lawful authority in such a manner as to prejudice
substantially the operational efficiency of the Defence Force is defined
as mutiny, for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 10
years. Mutiny in operations against an enemy attracts a maximum punishment
of imprisonment for life.
Where a member considers that he or she has a grievance concerning
any matter relating to his/her Service the member may make a complaint
to his/her commanding officer. If the complaint is not or cannot be
satisfied by the member's commanding officer, it may be referred to
the member's Chief of Service. An officer or warrant officer dissatisfied
with the decision of the Chief of Service may have the complaint referred
to the Chief of the Defence Force.
The relevant legislation is Part XV of Defence Force Regulations.
These tri-service regulations were introduced in 1985 replacing previous
single Service legislation. Procedures and administrative aspects
are contained in Defence Instruction (General) Personnel 34-1 and
supplementary single Service instructions.
It is an offence if a member:
A member who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a redress of grievance
or who is aggrieved by delays in the processing of the redress of
grievance may complain to the Defence Force Ombudsman.
If a member has sought redress of grievance on such matters as postings,
promotion, housing, allowances and, having exhausted all available
avenues of review, is still not satisfied, he/she can direct the complaint
to the Defence Force Ombudsman. Until 1983 there was a separate Defence
Force Ombudsman, but the office was then combined with that of the
Commonwealth Ombudsman, acquiring additional stature and powers in
the process. The present Ombudsman is Philippa Smith.
The Ombudsman's investigations are independent of any other Government
body, and she has power to inspect files and other records, to enter
Commonwealth premises and to question Defence Force members and public
servants. However, she is not authorised to investigate matters in
connection with disciplinary proceedings, nor can she legally investigate
actions of State or local governments, or of private individuals or
companies.
If the Ombudsman finds that a complaint is justified, she can recommend
remedial action. The ADF is not compelled by law to take any action,
but if her recommendations are not accepted, the Ombudsman can publicly
release the findings of the report, or report the matter direct to
the Prime Minister and then to the Parliament.
During 1996-97, there were 896 complaints, both written and oral,
received under the Defence Force Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Of these
complaints, 593 related to the ADF, 158 to the Department of Defence,
and 145 to the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Further information on the role and work of the Defence Force Ombudsman
can be obtained by contacting the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office
in any capital city (or the Publicity and Information Officer in Central
Office, Canberra).
Certain decisions which may affect Service personnel are subject
to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on appeal. These
include matters relating to Veterans' Affairs, compensation, and Defence
Force retirement benefits.
On 13 August 1980 Australia ratified the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights. The Covenant is binding on the Australian
Defence Force. Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression, but allows
for certain restrictions. In this regard, no member of the Australian
Defence Force is to make a public comment or disseminate information
about Defence policy or administration which could place in doubt
that member's political impartiality or acceptance of the obligation
to implement the policy of the elected government.
An independent organisation active since 1959 in pursuing improvements
in service conditions is the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association
(RDFWA) of which the Governor-General is Patron. The special concern
of the Association is with the well-being of those who separate from
the regular Defence Force, their dependants and widows/widowers. Serving
members of the Defence Force may join, and the Association seeks to
foster their interest in matters likely to affect them on their retirement.
A few concessions are granted to members which are not generally
available to civilians, such as exemption from jury service.
Some commonplace military offences are not criminal offences in
civilian life. Absence without leave; refusal to obey an order; and
insubordination to a superior officer, for example, are all supports
to Defence Force discipline and social control with no civilian equivalent.
Until late 1992, the Defence Force as a matter of policy sought
to exclude homosexuals from its ranks, notwithstanding the significant
change in community attitudes towards male and female homosexuality
which had taken place in the 1980s. The reasons for this were as follows:(1)
Certainly by 1992 implementation of ADF policy had become less harsh,
with conduct such as the official delving into private lives being
discontinued. Although homosexual members were usually discharged,
treatment of offenders was not generally punitive; rather it was seen
as an administrative action to be performed sympathetically and with
discretion.
However, following a vigorous internal debate inside the then governing
Labor Party, reflected by public controversy, the Government directed
that the exclusion policy should end as from 23 November 1992. It
was replaced by the policy set out in General Instruction 35/3 of
1992, 'Unacceptable sexual behaviour by members of the Australian
Defence Force', endorsement of which had been recommended by a Caucus
Joint Working Group on Homosexual Policy in the ADF. Adoption of this
Instruction in effect shifted the emphasis from the mere fact of homosexuality
to sexual behaviour (both homo or hetero) which might be detrimental
to morale or command relationships.
Since the ban was lifted in 1992, the ADF has not discriminated
against homosexuals. Recruiting Centres do not question an applicant's
sexual preference, and sexual orientation is not a consideration in
relation to posting or career development opportunities. The ADF has
no concern with the sexual activities of its members provided they
are not unlawful and not contrary to, or inconsistent with, the inherent
requirements of the ADF. Inherent requirements of the ADF are defined
as the need for all Defence Force members to contribute to operational
effectiveness, the preservation of group cohesion, respect for command
relationships, collective discipline and maintenance of morale.
Despite forecasts of catastrophe from opponents of the change, no
serious problem has ensued from the change in policy, and homosexuality
is not an issue within the ADF. In 1995, Hugh Smith suggested that
'the most difficult problem likely to confront the ADF in the future
is a request from a homosexual couple to be given married quarters
or other benefits normally available only to married personnel.'(2)
Smith added that granting benefits here would be contrary to the Government's
policy on homosexual couples among civilian employees, and probably
also contrary to public opinion.
General Instruction 35/3 of 1992 on 'Unacceptable sexual behaviour'
was mentioned above in the context of homosexuality in the ADF, but
in fact the main concern at the time was the far more widespread phenomenon
of sexual harassment. In 1986 Defence had issued an Instruction on
the Management of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, and in 1992
this was reviewed and incorporated in the new Instruction.
Until the mid-1970s, women generally were managed and trained as
separate Services by women, and this isolation seems to have kept
sexual harassment from becoming a problem. With the increase in numbers
of women in the ADF during the 1980s and the removal of discriminatory
employment practices against servicewomen, especially in the late
1980s and early 1990s, problems of integration developed.
Sexual harassment became a major issue as a result of allegations
of incidents that occurred on HMAS Swan during 1992. A Senate Inquiry
followed, and the Report, Facing the Future Together, was tabled
on 25 August 1994. The general thrust of the 42 recommendations was
that the ADF take steps to raise gender awareness and prevent unacceptable
sexual behaviour from occurring. In reporting back to the Senate in
December 1995, the ADF provided an Action Plan it had prepared on
sexual harassment.(3) Since that time a comprehensive strategy has
been developed. This includes:
It is generally accepted that reported incidents do not accurately
reflect the extent of sexual harassment in the Forces, although there
are indications that recently members have been more willing to report
instances. HQADF's submission to the Senate Inquiry provided the following
statistics: in the four year nine month period from January 1989 to
September 1993, there were 132 harassment incidents and 116 offences.(4)
Many of these incidents were dealt with under the Defence Force
Discipline Act (DFDA), which will be discussed later. When dealing
with less serious incidents, Commanding Officers may use formal administrative
action instead of the DFDA. This gives members the opportunity to
improve their behaviour without having formal charges laid and a conviction
recorded. Members who feel aggrieved still have access to the established
redress of grievance system whereby the complaint is formally investigated
or they may make a submission to the Defence Force Ombudsman, the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission or to the Minister.
In its submission to the Senate Inquiry, HQADF acknowledged the
rapid increase in employment opportunities for women from 1984 to
1992 happened a little too quickly for the defence culture to accommodate:
As Beatrice Faust commented at the time: 'Legislation is a top-down
remedy. To succeed, it needs to meet a bottom-up change of values,
attitudes, and expectations.'(6)
In October 1997, the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and
Personnel, Bronwyn Bishop, announced an inquiry into sexual harassment
and sexual offences at the Australian Defence Force Academy. This
announcement followed media reports of incidents of harassment at
the Academy. The review team of six, which is to report by 30 April
1998, will evaluate the effectiveness of current ADF policies, practices
and procedures in relation to harassment, discrimination and unacceptable
sexual behaviour.
On 20 January 1988, the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel,
Ros Kelly, announced a 'comprehensive policy on HIV infection....designed
to minimise the impact of the disease on the operational efficiency
of the ADF'.(7) The policy covered education, testing (especially
of new recruits), counselling and management of Service personnel
affected by the AIDS virus.
HIV became an issue in the ADF in July 1995 when an HIV-positive
recruit, having been dismissed, successfully sued Defence before the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for breach of the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992. In November 1995, the then Defence Minister
Senator Ray initiated a Cabinet Submission to exempt the ADF from
the ruling. Regulations were later introduced prohibiting the ADF
from recruiting people with a range of ailments.
Defence's main arguments were that:
A possible inconsistency was seen in the fact that ADF members who
contract HIV during service are moved to desk jobs, offered counselling
and support, and allowed to stay in. But Defence argues that the small
number of these people makes them manageable.
Figures released in November 1995 revealed that since the medical
policy on HIV was implemented in 1988, 165 319 HIV tests had been
conducted, including tests on 38 698 recruits. Of these, 48 people
had tested positive. Nine of these were still serving in the defence
force.(8)
Historically, military forces have always relied upon some type
of restrictive code as a means of maintaining discipline among those
forces. The requirements of military commanders and civil authorities
are now well established, both as a means of enforcing loyalty and
compliance upon the battlefield, and as a means of avoiding rebellion
and mutiny by military forces when not so employed. The military law
as adopted by Australia from British acts and regulations incorporated
most of the normal criminal offences ranging from felonies, such as
murder and rape, down to comparatively minor matters such as petty
theft. The various pieces of legislation also created many other offences
which have no parallel in the civilian world, such as desertion, insubordination,
absence from duty, disobedience of orders, etc, and provided what
were considered to be appropriate punishments.
Since World War II, repeated efforts were made to consolidate and
modernise the disciplinary law of Australia applicable to the Defence
Force. The culmination of this effort, the Defence Force Discipline
Act 1982 (DFDA), which came into effect on 3 July 1985,
embodies, for the first time in the one act, the disciplinary law
applicable to the three arms of the Defence Force. It replaced three
UK Acts, two of which had ceased to operate in the UK, four sets of
UK rules and regulations, all of which had ceased to operate in that
country, the Australian Acts and nine sets of regulations.
The Act comes close to uniformity-the exception being that for essentially
practical considerations Naval commanding officers and subordinate
summary authorities have greater powers of punishment than their counterparts
in the Army and Air Force.
The Act eliminates obsolete offences and restates all offences in
modern language. Maximum punishments have been reduced, and a distinction
drawn between serious offences and mere breaches of discipline. Other
changes instituted include a revision of the scale of punishments,
and the law of evidence and the principles of criminal responsibility
that are to apply have been specified.
The actual procedures for dealing with military offences are little
different under the DFDA from those which have been in force for many
years. Minor offences are dealt with by middle rank officers-generally
Major or equivalent and below (as will be pointed out later, since
1995 there has been the option of appointing 'Discipline Officers'
to deal with minor infringements). More serious matters are heard
by a commanding officer who might be a Major or equivalent, a Lieutenant
Colonel or higher rank. A very serious offence will be referred by
the commanding officer to a convening authority-probably an officer
of two star level-who may decide to set up a court martial, or to
refer the case to a Defence Force Magistrate. These latter tribunals
have a wide range of penalties available to them, from recording a
conviction without punishment through to a period of detention or
imprisonment.
Although the Act incorporates ordinary criminal offences such as
theft, assault etc, so that these can be dealt with by the military
system in situations where this would be appropriate, it has been
held by the High Court(9)at offences under the Act must contain a
sufficient 'Service nexus with discipline' for military jurisdiction
to be validly exercised. Where this link with the good order and discipline
of the Defence Force is lacking, it is doubtful there would be sufficient
jurisdiction for the matter to be dealt with under the DFDA. Instead,
it would go to a normal civilian court
Another feature of the Act is its extra-territorial application
i.e. its provisions apply both in and outside Australia.
The Act requires that there be an automatic review of proceedings
conducted by service tribunals. Reviewing authorities, after obtaining
appropriate legal advice, have power to quash proceedings or order
a new trial in cases of irregularities or injustices.
A serviceman/woman found guilty by a court martial also has a right
of appeal to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal.
At its introduction, the DFDA was generally considered to represent
a major step forward in providing a modern and comprehensive basis
for enforcing military discipline. One of its aims was to eradicate
outmoded aspects of the previous law. Although there are probably
no instances where the full force of a court martial's power to punish
have been exercised, it has been argued that this Act still reflects
past thinking in some respects by over-emphasising the seriousness
of some service-related offences by providing for a maximum punishment
of imprisonment, which also carries with it the stigma of dismissal.
It is pointed out that modern military thinking embraces the view
that the basis of discipline is leadership, and consent on the part
of the serviceman, rather than coercion by the threat of drastic punishment.
However, this must be balanced with the need for the Act to provide
a basis for regulating conduct under wartime conditions as well as
peace. It must be transportable to the commander in the field; hence
the wide range of offences specified and penalties available, which
give scope for application to wartime conditions.
Section 196B of the DFDA required that, after the Act had been in
force for three years, a Board of Review be established to report
on the operations of the DFDA and of related laws. Ros Kelly, then
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, appointed the Defence
Force Discipline Legislation Board of Review on 4 July 1988, with
the Honourable Xavier Connor, QC, as Chairman. The Board presented
its report on 31 May 1989.
The general impression gained by the Board was that the DFDA was
'operating reasonably satisfactorily' and is 'generally accepted within
the Services'. However, a number of changes were recommended as necessary,
most of them requiring amendments to the Act. Legislation to implement
the Board's recommendations was not in fact introduced into Parliament
until March 1995, with the recommendations coming into effect on 1
November 1995.
The most significant of these changes was the streamlining of the
handling of minor offences by providing an alternative to trial by
commanding officers. A major criticism of the DFDA has been the amount
of resources it consumes, particularly in proportion to the relatively
minor nature of many disciplinary offences. The simplified procedure
introduced in 1995 allows for the appointment of a 'Discipline Officer'
(of Warrant Officer rank or above) to deal with minor disciplinary
infringements. One of the limitations on the operation of this scheme
is that a discipline officer has jurisdiction to deal with infringement
notices given only to members below NCO rank i.e. members of Corporal
rank and above continue to be dealt with under existing DFDA procedures.
One set of recommendations might be mentioned. The final chapter
of the report draws attention to the 'rudimentary' understanding of
the DFDA held by junior and lower rank members of the ADF, their knowledge
having been acquired through discussion in barracks and messes.(10)
Board's proposals to remedy this included the recommendations that
more comprehensive coverage of the Act be given in courses to all
ranks, and that a small plain language guide to the Act be compiled
and made available. Certainly members could be made more aware of
the Act, but this proposal appears to overlook the fact that in all
Service training the DFDA is covered in a broad sense, providing a
general familiarity with it. It is probably unrealistic to expect
a more detailed knowledge of what is an intricate piece of legislation.
In an address given in July 1995, Air Commodore the Hon. Mr Justice
Grove noted that, while 'the system was working reasonably well',
the DFDA has survived by the narrowest margin three High Court challenges
to its validity, and from the outset the Act 'has had a very tenuous
hold on life'.(11)essence the three High Court challenges argued that
the conduct of a court martial or trial before a Defence Force magistrate
is unconstitutional, in that it infringes Chapter III of the Constitution
because the persons appointed to conduct the trials are not persons
appointed in accordance with Chapter III to exercise Commonwealth
judicial power. The opposing view has been that the DFDA-and the courts
martial and trials it permits-is a valid exercise of the power conferred
by Section 51(vi) of the Constitution i.e. it is a defence discipline
function, not a judicial function.
Deputy Judge Advocate General Justice Terry Cole argued in 1994
that courts martial are becoming an insignificant aspect of military
discipline, and should be replaced by a civilian court. To this it
must be pointed out there are around 30 general courts martial each
year, and their continuing role seems justified where there are offences
of sufficient gravity.
Justice Cole proposed the creation of a separate Military Court
of Australia which would comprise a Chief Judge of Federal Court status.
In effect, this would put military justice in the hands of civilians.
Justice Cole sees several advantages in a single-person judicial officer
as against a traditional court martial where the decision is reached
by a board of five legally-untrained military officers. For example,
a correct result is more likely because of legal training and experience;
there would be no question of unit command influence; and it would
be less operationally interfering in that five or more officers would
not have to be withdrawn from ordinary duties. However, once again
it must be pointed out that the Act has to be applicable to wartime
conditions, when a civilian judiciary is not available. It can also
be asked whether the administrative cost would be warranted of establishing
a 'Chapter III' Court of the Commonwealth to handle military justice.
Recent press reports have commented upon the study into the judicial
system under the DFDA by Brigadier the Hon. Mr Justice Abadee, a NSW
Supreme Court Judge and Deputy Judge Advocate General. One reason
the Chief of the Defence Force commissioned this report was the concern
mentioned above, that the DFDA may not survive a further High Court
challenge. This concern was heightened by recent successful challenges
in the UK and Canada to convictions in military courts. The report
is currently being considered by the Chief of the Defence Force, and
it is therefore premature to speculate upon its contents, other than
to note that it recommends a number of avenues to improve the operation
of the DFDA.
In October 1997, it was decided that a parliamentary inquiry by
the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
would be established into the system of military justice. The inquiry
will be broad in scope, examining the 'legislative framework and procedures
for the conduct' of such internal Service mechanisms as boards of
inquiry, as well as DFDA matters
The Armed Forces Federation of Australia was formed in the mid 1980's
with the support of the Government. It was subject to a directive
by the Chiefs of Staff Committee that it must be voluntary, self-supporting,
non-industrial and without political affiliation, and accord with
members' wishes. Also, there should be no obstruction to the Government's
lawful direction to the Services, or the execution of such direction
within the Services, and no interference in the command chain or disciplinary
process.
The aim of the Federation is to protect and promote the pay, employment
conditions and welfare of serving members of the Australian Defence
Force, irrespective of rank, sex, employment category or location.
The Federation's operating network includes serving and retired ADF
members, Government officials, representatives of the print and electronic
media, parliamentarians, parliamentary and ministerial staffs, unions
and professional associations and the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal.
The Federation has enjoyed moderate growth only, due probably to an
ill-founded perception that its activities parallel those of unions.
Many Service personnel would see this as being at odds with the ethos
of the ADF and the traditional relationship the ADF has had with Government.
The Federation considers that, if its role is to be properly recognised,
its authority to act on behalf of ADF personnel has to be acknowledged
in legislation. For example, the Federation feels its place before
the DFRT should be expressed as an entitlement and not just allowed
by grace and favour of the Judge.
Women's services had been disbanded at the end of World War II,
but were re-established in the 1950s largely because of manpower shortages.
However, a limit of 4 per cent was placed on the employment of women
in the three Services, although this quota appears to have been defied
by the RAAF. Thus in 1954, women comprised 2 per cent of the RAN,
4 per cent of the Army and 5 per cent of the RAAF. In the late 1960s-early
1970s, the limit was increased to a maximum of 10 per cent in both
the RAN and the RAAF, although numbers in fact remained well below
this limit. The Army recruited women primarily on a replacement basis,
resulting in a defacto quota of five to six per cent . In the International
Year of Women in 1975, a working party was established to review the
role of servicewomen. The resulting policy stated that women could
be deployed on active service, but not in combat roles. Women were
not permitted to carry arms, nor to serve in Divisional or Corps units
other than medical units. In 1979, servicewomen were affiliated directly
to Corps, female military training was realigned to bring it more
in line with male training and equal pay was introduced.
Section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA) provided,
by Defence request, that it was not unlawful for a person to discriminate
against a woman on the grounds of her sex in connection with employment,
engagement in or appointment to the Australian Defence Force in a
position involving the performance of combat or combat-related duties.
The Regulations made under the Act contained the following definition:
Combat Duties. Duties requiring a person to commit, or to
participate directly in the commission of, an act of violence against
an adversary in time of war.
Combat-Related Duties. Duties (other than combat duties)
requiring a person to work in support of, and in close proximity to,
a person performing combat duties, being work performed in circumstances
in which the person performing the work may be killed or injured by
an act of violence committed by an adversary.
In 1984, as a result of applying these definitions, 17 000 (23 per
cent ) ADF positions were identified as being open to both men and
women in competition on merit.
The ADF conducted several reviews over the following years, resulting
in the opening of additional categories. In 1989, 28 562 positions,
or 43 per cent of the ADF, were identified as being available to women
in competition with men.
The separation crisis of the late 1980s highlighted the need for
the ADF to make the best use of the talents of its servicemen and
women if it was to compete effectively as a prospective employer in
a competitive society. With community trends increasingly for equal
opportunity, it was clear that, if the ADF was to attract talented
women to long-term careers, it must expand their roles and provide
them with quality career paths.
On 30 May 1990, the Minister for Defence, Science and Personnel
announced, on the recommendation of the Chiefs of Staff Committee,
that Australian Defence Force women would serve in combat-related
positions. The policy was to be introduced over a three-year trial
period, with a new body, the Combat-Related Employment of Women Evaluation
Team, monitoring its impact on operational effectiveness in the Army.
The controlled implementation of the policy was to ensure that any
disruption to existing career structures, branch structures and, in
the case of Navy, sea/shore ratios, would be minimised.
The effect of this May 1990 decision on positions and employment
available to women in the permanent element of the Services was as
follows:
The Army anticipated that women would become eligible for about
17 000 positions out of 32 300, or 53 per cent of the Force. Examples
of some employment which became available include handler aircraft,
mechanic recovery, fitter armament and, in engineering, bricklayer,
carpenter and joiner. The relatively smaller percentage of positions
open in the Army was due to the higher number of positions and units
directly involved in combat. The combat exemption still excluded
women from infantry, artillery, armour and combat engineering.
The Air Force opened all positions except those involving aircrew
in combat aircraft (F/A-18s, F-111s, and P-3Cs) and the airfield
defence guard category and mustering. Thus 20 737 positions out
of 22 162, or 94 per cent of the Force, became available to women
in competition.
To sum up, in the 12 months from June 1989 to June 1990, the number
of positions available to women more than doubled, from about 22 000
to nearly 53 000.
Following an extensive review, the employment options for women
were further expanded on 18 December 1992. The Minister for Defence
Science and Personnel announced that he had accepted a recommendation
from the Chief of the Defence Force to open a number of combat positions
to women. The impact of this decision on the Services was as follows:
The Air Force has opened all categories to women except Airfield
Defence Guards and Ground Defence Officers, together with Surface
Finishers and Electroplaters for health reasons.
Army employment categories that remain closed to women as a result
of the combat duties exemption are Infantry, Armour, Artillery and
Combat Engineers. In 1993 it was claimed the new policy would allow
women to serve in 83 per cent of Army employment categories. However,
cutbacks in non-combat areas since then have reduced the proportion
of positions open to women to nearer 70 per cent.
Statistical information has been collected since 1984 on the recruiting,
average length of service, and retention rates for women. The continuing
increase in the number and proportion of women in the Defence Force
is illustrated in the Table below.(1)
The number of women has increased across most categories of employment
open to women, including non-traditional areas.
Navy
Army
Air Force
Total
30 June 1984
999
1963
1711
4673
6.0%
6.1%
7.3%
6.5%
30 June 1990
1919
2617
3228
7764
12.3%
8.6%
13.7%
10.8%
30 June 1996
2183
2747
2729
7659
15.0%
10.6%
16.0%
13.3%
The slight decrease in the number of women in the ADF since 1990
can be explained by the fall of around 12 000 in total ADF personnel
numbers which has taken place since 1990. This fall is largely the
result of the Force Structure Review of May 1991, with its initiatives
on personnel reductions, civilianisation of positions and outsourcing
of functions. On the other hand, there has been a significant increase
in the percentage of women in the Services, due, in part, to the greater
availability of career opportunities.
When the last edition of this paper was published in 1990, high
separation rates in the ADF were a significant issue. However, the
recession of the early 1990s, with reduced employment opportunities
outside the Services, effectively reduced separation rates, which
have not been a general problem for the ADF since then.
Until 1987, female wastage rates, as a percentage of female strength,
were considerably higher than male wastage rates. However, this was
largely due to the statistical practice of showing women on maternity
leave as separations. In July 1987 the method of compiling statistics
was altered to ensure that, while members on Maternity Leave and Special
Leave Without Pay were included in the total figures for the permanent
ADF, only permanent separations were included in the separations figure.
Since then there has been no significant difference in the overall
separation rates of men and women.
Current separation rates for both men and women are shown in the
following table. While the separation rate for female officers is
somewhat higher than that for male officers, differences are insignificant
for Other Ranks and in the ADF overall.
% Population
Officers
Male
7% of all male officers
Female
9.1% of all female officers
Other Ranks
Male
9.7% of all male OR
Female
10% of all female OR
Total
Male
9.1% of males
Female
9.8% of females
Persons
9.2%
The number of senior positions (i.e. Major or equivalent and above)
filled by women continues to increase. From July 1984 to 1987 there
was an increase of 60 per cent (from 101 to 162) in the number of
senior positions filled by women. By January 1990 the number had risen
to 197, and by July 1996 the number had increased again to 326. This
number equates to 7.1 per cent of senior positions being held by women.
In the ranks of Senior Non-Commissioned Officers (SNCO) there were
125 women filling SNCO positions in January 1990, and in July 1996
that had increased to 232 women. This represents 4.4 per cent of SNCO
positions.
Traditionally women have attained the ranks of Colonel or equivalent
within the Services only in the area of nursing. However, this is
no longer the case. Excluding the area of nursing where there is one
officer, there are currently five women in the ADF filling Colonel
or equivalent positions. This growth is in line with increased training
opportunities and experience available to women throughout their earlier
careers.
30 June 1990
30 June 1996
Number
%
Number
%
Officers
1310
16.9%
1715
22.4%
Other Ranks
6454
83.1%
5944
77.6%
Total
7764
100.0%
7659
100.0%
These figures indicate that, as at 30 June 1990, 16.9 per cent of
women members were officers. The corresponding figure for male officers
at that time was 18.0 per cent of the total male population of the
ADF.
By June 1996, 22.4 per cent of women members were officers compared
with 21.1 per cent of males.
In August 1994, the following four initiatives were announced to
ensure that women in the ADF have the maximum opportunity to achieve
their potential:
The first of these, the DAFOD, provides a visible integration between
the ADF and external organisations for issues concerning discriminatory
acts and practices. It enables the ADF to establish dialogue with
external organisations on discriminatory issues.
The second initiative in the list above, the performance indicators,
will measure the career progression of women against normal male Service
expectations. They will address the selection for promotion, selection
for career enhancing training programs and selection for attendance
at staff colleges.
The Burton Report
Dr Clare Burton, an eminent employment equity researcher and consultant,
was selected to undertake the two studies mentioned above. The studies
were combined in a report published in December 1996 entitled Women
in the Australian Defence Force. The studies examined, among other
issues, perceived barriers to women's career progression, posting
and promotion opportunities, access to high profile appointments,
conditions of service and employment, and cultural, social and institutional
barriers which impede the competitiveness of women in the ADF. The
focus of the report and its recommendations is on the structural and
cultural changes which must take place within the ADF to remove barriers
to women's full participation. This departs from the general tendency
to see the major obstacles to women's integration in the more obvious
areas of sexual harassment and unacceptable behaviour. It is also
a change from the focus of EEO and gender integration which has been
concentrated on intentional discrimination, particularly in the individual's
interpersonal relationship, rather than on institutional sources of
discrimination, i.e. the range of practices that lead to patterns
of inequality.
Consultants are being employed to assist with the implementation
of the recommendations of Dr Burton's report. These recommendations
are included at Appendix E of this paper, but some of her many findings
can be mentioned here:
First, on some attitudinal barriers to women's increasing participation
in the ADF:
Other barriers to women's increasing participation:
What is needed to remove barriers:
Reasons for women leaving the ADF:
Dr Burton is generally optimistic about women's participation in
the ADF. While conceding that the segregation-by-sex of occupations
within the military will continue to exist for the foreseeable future,
she is confident women will broaden their choices as the attitudinal
and institutional barriers are removed. She quotes the EEO dictum
opportunities shape aspirations i.e. drive and motivation are
very much products of the opportunities that are perceived to be available.
One result from the study was the establishment of the Defence Force
Equity Organisation (DFEO). The DFEO will develop and promote equity
strategies in order to ensure gender integration and employment equity.
It will analyse current processes for compliance with anti-discrimination
legislation, and will develop Equal Employment Opportunity material
and appropriate training programs.
Much has been written on this subject, for and against, and only
a few observations will be made here.
Probably the major argument put forward in favour of removing all
barriers to women's participation is that exempting women from combat
duty while accepting them in combat-related positions is somewhat
artificial. In war, women flying transport aircraft can be just as
much exposed to the decisions of battle as are fighter pilots. Similarly,
ships are either in action or they are not. It is also argued that
most of the RAAF and RAN positions, and some of the Army positions,
still closed to women generally require technical skills, which women
are completely capable of learning, rather than physical strength,
where they may be disadvantaged. Technological advances are making
intelligence-skills such as the ability to read a computer screen-more
important than muscular strength.
Against this it must be emphasised that combat capability is a first
concern, and combat effectiveness cannot be compromised if the ADF
is to fulfil its role. In areas such as infantry or artillery that
effectiveness still depends on physical strength rather than solely
on high-tech weapons systems.
The bulk of closed positions are in the Army, and a good portion
of these are infantry, requiring strength and endurance e.g. the capacity
to carry a 27kg pack. Regarding these positions:
In addition to combat effectiveness, community research shows that
most women share the view that it is inappropriate to force women
to engage in hand to hand combat, and they view such employment as
a waste of their talents and capabilities.
While the nature of many officer classifications and other rank
employment trades in combat support and combat service support do
not require rugged physical training, the opposite largely remains
true for combat arms. Rugged physical effort is still very much a
feature, not only of activities such as changing tank tracks and loading
tanks and guns, but of infantry minor tactics such as digging-in for
protection, patrolling with packs and radios, camouflaging vehicles
and tents. These types of activities are still fundamental to soldiers
engaging in combat. They remain valid whenever combat troops engage,
despite the apparent 'distancing' from the battle field created by
technological advances in, especially, transport and firepower, and
despite the evolution of concepts such as information warfare which
aims to defeat an enemy without necessarily 'firing a shot'.
A much greater variety of mechanical handling equipment, automatic
loading systems, computer controlled firing systems and so on are
built into modern platforms, and are likely to be widely available
to a deployed force today compared with those provided to Australian
forces in the past. Their existence and prevalence do change the nature
of warfare but only for soldiers in support of the combat arms.
The terms 'combat' and 'combat-related' are still very much utilised.
In any battle with an enemy there will be a theatre of operations
which can be divided, both conceptually and in reality, into the 'combat
zone' on the one side, and the communications zone and support area
or 'non-combat zone' on the other. This remains true whenever combat
troops engage in combat despite the reach of modern weapons systems,
the tactics of 'guerilla' soldiers and the evolution of information
warfare.
The key to the distinction in the purpose of the troops and the
likelihood of direct combat is that in the combat zone the prime purpose
of combat troops is to engage the enemy in combat i.e. to seek out
and destroy. In the communications zone/support area, where the environment
is more benign, the prime purpose of troops is to support combatants
in the combat zone. That long-range weapons may target a storage site
in the 'non-combat zone', disrupt the lines of communication and incidentally
maim troops at the storage site does not change the purpose of those
troops. This distinction between the two areas and types of employment
is important in determining employment categories that women are eligible
for.
ADF experience regarding the opening of combat-related positions
to women is that assimilation is a slow process, as it takes time
to train personnel for particular types of employment and for requisite
experience to be gained prior to progression into more senior positions.
The opening of combat duties to women would need to follow a similar
or even slower progress due to the anticipated fewer number of women
who would be suitable for such employment. In any case, the need for
some years ahead will be assimilation into the 30 000 odd positions
opened in the last decade. There is likely to be steady acceptance
of women in the new positions, but the mechanics of posting and promotion
mean it will be many years before women gain their due proportion
of placements in these new positions.
Hugh Smith argues in a recent paper on the impact of the DER that
emphasis on combat and combat-related activities-the move to the 'sharp
end'-will probably reduce opportunities for females, especially in
the Army, by reducing those areas in Army where women have been making
their principal gains in recent years.(2)
The establishment of the Defence Force Equity Organisation (DFEO)
mentioned earlier will assist in exploring issues such as impediments
to positions that inhibit women from reaching their full potential
within the ADF. The issue of women in combat positions may be explored
more fully by the DFEO. It will be important to identify skilled positions
where women could make an effective contribution, and which may provide
good promotion avenues, but which may have a 'combat' designation.
On 30 June 1997, 451 ADF members were serving overseas on long-term
duty.
The DER Secretariat Papers noted that Defence spent $85 million
on overseas postings and visits in 1995-96, with the greatest expense
being those who have posts in overseas countries. The recommendation
was made that the number of Defence personnel serving in the USA and
the UK be reduced by between 10 and 20 per cent. It was estimated
a 10 per cent reduction would save around $13.2 million.(1)
Special conditions of service for an overseas Defence posting, for
example as Defence Attache, an exchange posting or for long-term courses,
have been traditionally very similar to those available to civilian
public servants on overseas service. Thus the package of conditions
and allowances common to all Commonwealth employees on a long-term
posting overseas includes the following:
When members are posted to localities involving particular hardships
or disabilities, there are additional entitlements to compensate for
those disabilities. These include:
Conditions of service for ADF members who are on duty overseas began
to attract attention with the development of UN and other multi-national
force activities, especially with the dramatic increase in peacekeeping
activity in the early 1990s. These post-Cold War operations were generally
more complex than earlier UN activity, and with the added complication
of peace enforcement, raised important conditions of service issues.
In the peacekeeping operations of the 1980s and early 1990s, matters
such as taxation concessions, specific allowances, compensation and
hazardous service provisions were generally organised on a case-by-case
basis, with service conditions specific to the operation being included
in the Cabinet submission prepared for the operation as a whole. This
led to some criticism, mainly because of apparent inconsistencies
between the conditions provided for different operations, and also
because conditions of service were often not announced until the operation
was well under way.
In 1993, a new framework was introduced to formalise conditions
of service arrangements for peacekeeping operations as part of a more
coherent policy approach to ADF peacekeeping. Key definitions in the
new framework were those of 'warlike' and 'non-warlike' service. As
the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Senator Faulkner,
said in a News Release in May 1993:
Warlike operations are those military activities where the
application of force is authorised to pursue specific military objectives,
and there is an expectation of casualties. For example, a state of
declared war, conventional combat operations against an armed adversary,
and peace enforcement operations.
Non-warlike operations are those military activities short
of warlike operations where there is risk associated with the assigned
task(s) and where the application of force is limited to self defence.
Casualties could occur but are not expected. These operations can
encompass but are not limited to:
Conditions of service for these various types of operation
include:
For warlike operations:
For non-warlike deployments:
For both warlike and non-warlike deployments:
If a deployment period is for less than six months, a number of
the above conditions will not apply.
As previously noted, the Defence Force is no haven for the aged
and infirm, despite the extension of some retiring ages in 1995. The
statutory retiring ages (General List), both prior to 1995 and since
that date, are shown as follows:
Rank
Retiring Age Pre-1995
1995+
General and Equivalent
63
63
Lieutenant General and Equivalent
60
60
Major General and Equivalent
57
57
Brigadier and Equivalent
55
55
Wing Commander
55
55
Squadron Leader
55
55
Lieutenant Colonel
50
55
Commander
50
55
Major
47
55
Lieutenant Commander
47
55
Captain
47
55
Lieutenant (Navy)
47
55
Lieutenant
47
55
Sub-Lieutenant
45
55
Flight Lieutenant*
45
55
Flying Officer*
45
55
*RAAF retiring ages are for General Duties members.
For all other members of all Services, retiring age
is 55. Certain prescribed jobs permit service beyond the stipulated
retiring age.
Because of the likely recruitment problems over the next decade,
Dr Jans made the suggestion in 1988 that the reti
Achievements of the DHA
Table 3: Quality of Houses Under Management
Stock owned by Authority 11 895
On-base housing 3293
Houses leased 6142
Recent Trends
DHA Finances
Criticisms
Several sources have proposed that the provision of housing by Defence
be replaced by the payment to personnel of a housing allowance and
requiring them to find their own housing on the private market. Apparently
the Department of Finance is particularly attracted to this option,
although there are strong arguments against it in Defence, as mentioned
earlier.
Defence HomeOwner
Deficiencies in Current Housing Assistance
The lifestyle of most young single ADF members today is not consistent
with living on bases, the majority of which are isolated from those
activities and interests they enjoy....It became clear to us during
our discussions that while a high standard of accommodation may encourage
more members to live on base, no matter how good that accommodation,
members want choice and 'a place of their own' where they can get
away from the work environment....Accordingly, if the ADF needs to
provide living-in accommodation, members' needs would be more closely
met if it were provided where the majority of them would prefer to
live-that is, in the community, not separate from it....Alternatively,
where members are not required to live on base for operational reasons,
it may be more cost effective to pay them an accommodation allowance
and allow them to live in the community....That is not to say that
living-in accommodation is not required on bases; it would be needed
for those that choose to live in, for trainees, for transit accommodation
and for exercises and contingencies.(4)
Home Ownership
Defence Service Homes Scheme
There appears to have been plenty of advice and information available
to members at the time, and they were urged to carefully consider
all aspects. Each of the three Service weeklies had at least several
articles on the new scheme, and Army provided a four-page summary
and comparison of the two schemes, with advice to the pre-May
1985 members who were faced with a decision. The RSL advised members
to stay with the DSH, which certainly appeared preferable in several
ways. Until recently, there appears to have been no complaints
about lack of information or hurried or incorrect decisions being
made, but the complaint now is that 'no mention was made of the
fact that the new scheme may be updated in the future but the
DSH would not'. Presumably the reason for this was not deliberate;
rather that ADF Command were also ignorant of future developments.
Certainly the 'experts' giving advice did not anticipate DSH members
being disadvantaged in this way.
This would be similar to the second chance that Public Servants
were given in March 1996 to consider moving from the Commonwealth
Superannuation Scheme to the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme.
There is a significant difference, however. Both the Public Service
superannuation schemes are overseen by a Commonwealth Minister,
whereas the Defence home loan schemes are administered by two
different, competing banks; the DSH by WESTPAC and ADFHLAS by
the National Australia Bank. As mentioned above, WESTPAC bought
the existing DSH loan portfolio at a cost of $1.38 billion, and
it may not be happy with the Government providing its rival with
another chance to steal some of its dwindling pool of potential
clients.
This seems the logical step to take to restore the balance between
the two schemes. The big problem, of course, is the cost of any
increase, and there are two potentially significant unknown factors:
the number of new loans that would result, and future interest
rate changes.
ADF Home Loan Assistance Scheme (ADFHLAS)
Endnotes
Chapter 9: Medical Care, Leave and Leave Travel
Resignation and retirement
Promotions
Enlistment
Re-engagement and discharge
Law and discipline
Funerals
Sport and amenities
Welfare
Any other non-policy matters
Medical And Dental Care
Leave
Rest and recuperation
Compensation for long or unusual duty
Carrying out a removal
Compelling personal reasons, when no other leave is applicable
Free Leave Travel
Holidays
Discount Buying Scheme
Endnotes
Chapter 10: Compensation and Repatriation
Background
1994: the Military Compensation Scheme
The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act
1988 (SRCA)
The Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (VEA)
Appeal Mechanisms
Recent developments
The system has evolved to a point where it is characterised by extreme
complexity, particularly where dual eligibility to SRCA and VEA exists.
The practical effect of this complexity is that compensation claimants
are unable to receive clear and unambiguous advice from the various
scheme administrators on the optimal range of benefits available to
them.(8)
Funerals
Endnotes
Chapter 11: Defence Force Members and the Law
Employment and Civil Rights
Redress of Grievance
Defence Force Ombudsman
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Civil Rights
Homosexuals and the Defence Force
Sexual Harassment
With hindsight, it could be contended that the ADF moved too quickly
in response to external pressures. As a result, the difficulties of
integration were not always immediately apparent and the provision
of mixed-gender preparation and training sometimes lagged behind the
need. In many ways the ADF was breaking new ground in Australia given
the heavily male-dominated military environment.(5)
HIV
Disciplinary Law
The Defence Force Discipline Act
The DFDA Board Of Review
The Armed Forces Federation Of Australia
Endnotes
Chapter 12: Women in the Defence Force
Background
The Sex Discrimination Act 1984
The Opening of Combat-Related Positions
The Navy opened up all surface ships to women, providing 14 900 positions
out of a total of 15 800, or 94 per cent of the Force, in open competition.
However, delays in posting women to some ships would occur until accommodation
modifications were completed during refits. Navy expected to have
500 women at sea by the mid-1990s, as compared with the 40 it had
in 1990.
In both the Navy and the RAAF, the proportion of positions open to
women rose from 94 per cent to 99 per cent. In the Navy, the only
employment category not open to women is Mine Clearing Diving. Although
in his statement the then Minister, Mr Bilney, had anticipated that
women would be serving on the new Collins class submarines from their
entry into service, in fact submarine training is not anticipated
to commence for women until 1999, due to accommodation considerations.
Similarly, accommodation problems effectively reduce the number of
positions available to women on surface ships, although virtually
all categories are open to women. There are approximately 250 women
currently posted to seagoing billets, compared with 40 in 1990. This
figure will rise as accommodation modifications occur and new ships
with appropriate facilities are introduced into service.
Statistical Trends
Table 4: Number and Percentage of Women by Service
Separation Rates
Table 5: Separation Rates 1995/96
Senior Positions
Distribution of Women
Table 6: Distribution of Women Between Officers
and Other Ranks
Recent Initiatives
Should Women Occupy Combat Positions?
Endnotes
Chapter 13: Conditions Relating to Overseas Service
Commonwealth Conditions for Long-Term Postings
Engagement in UN and Other Multi-National Force
Activities
An important part of the new structure will be a standardised definition
of 'warlike' and 'non-warlike' service, to be determined by the Minister
for Defence and the Prime Minister at the time the decision to deploy
Australian personnel overseas is made. Once this decision is made
the different conditions and entitlements will automatically flow
for the personnel serving in that deployment. In contrast, under the
previous system, a number of Ministers made decisions under their
varying legislation, leading to a delay in compiling a full set of
conditions.
Endnotes
Chapter 14: Return to Civilian Life