To whom it concerns,

My name is Corporal Jason Hanel.  My current position is an Operator Electronic Warfare at DSD, Russell Offices. I have served for five years in the regular army in both a field unit, 7 Signal Regiment, an "office" posting, DSD, and overseas, in Bougainville. Previously, in 1992, I was a member of the Army Reserve as an Engineer, at 2/3 CER, Enoggera. I wish to address three issues concerning recruitment and retention of ADF personnel - the recruiting system, the impact of the Defence Reform Program, and the impact of changes to conditions of service.

RECRUITING

When I joined the regular Army in 1996 I was advised by the Army recruiting officer that I would be employed as a Field Engineer (FE), due to my 12 months Army Reserve service in 1992 in that trade. While in the Army Reserve I had both enjoyed my time as a FE and gained useful qualifications, and the recruiting officer was aware of this. Upon arrival at Kapooka for recruit training my instructors informed me that the recruiting officer had lied, and there was little chance of me gaining the employment I had wanted.  I later learnt that it was possible, if prior training had been done, to be "Corp Enlisted", ie: already be assigned a trade before commencing recruit training. I would have been eligible for this type of enlistment, and there was a requirement for the FE trade, but the recruiting officer had neglected to tell me this.  I believe that this was not an oversight on his part, but deliberate, although I see no justification for it other than simple incompetence or not caring about his responsibilities as a recruiter.  Following my recruit training I became an Operator Electronic Warfare, or Operator Signals, as they were called then. This career choice was not really my choosing, but more the best of the options they offered me. I believe I would have been better suited to a job as an FE and would have had more job satisfaction.  While at Kapooka I came across many people in much the same situation. Another recruit had told the recruiting officer that he wanted a desk job, and had been assured that this would happen. He was subsequently sent to Infantry. Another example is that of my Navy counterparts, Electronic Warfare Linguists (EWL). While I was in Initial Employment Training I met a group of EWLs who had all been told by recruiting that their job would involve them serving on board Freemantle class patrol boats as linguists. Not one of those people has ever served on a ship of any kind in the last five years, and some of them have now left the Navy, as they were not doing the job they were promised. Navy recruiting must have been well aware that they had lied to these people to get them to join the Navy. The flashy new recruiting advertisements are also more of the same. The ads seem to promise trips overseas, exciting activities and an overall great time.  Unfortunately the Defence Force cannot live up to this image. Why has Recruiting made service in Timor one of its major draw cards when the majority of members will never go there? The reality will not currently live up to the false expectations given to potential recruits, and will only result in members leaving after their minimum service. The only advertisement of any value, I believe, is the one which says at 18 years old you can make $34,000.I think the point to be made is that recruiting officers are prepared to lie to potential recruits and make false promises if it means filling positions.  This has two effects. Firstly, it results in a lot of disgruntled Defence members, and secondly, it leads people already serving to advise potential recruits not to join.

DEFENCE REFORM PROGRAM

This issue is also pertinent to conditions of service. In my trade, the Defence hierarchy has decided to civilianise many positions. The contractor is British Aerospace, who source most of their staff from the ranks of ex-military personnel. Their contracts are very attractive, offering a significantly higher pay level and quite acceptable conditions, including options for flexible renumeration. As they employ ex-service personnel, and work directly beside serving personnel, the option of discharging from the Defence Force and continuing with the same job as a higher paid contractor is very tempting, and has resulted in> a steady drain on Defence personnel. BAe does not conduct their own training, preferring to poach personnel who have been trained at Defence's expense.  Although this does not directly affect the DSD workplace, as there are still staff performing the job, whether they be Defence or contractors, it does reduce the available pool of Defence personnel for field postings and results in a massive loss of valuable experience, both of which have a degrading effect on the Defence Force.  I can only highlight this issue in my particular trade, but I would not be surprised if this were the case in other trades where contractors are replacing Defence personnel. The overall cost of Defence training these people, only to have them leave with their experience, must be huge. 

CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

The use of contractors in other trades also impacts on conditions of service. Many of the civilian personnel now employed as cooks, storemen and administrators do not have a military background or an understanding of what it is like to serve. This results in an attitude that they aren't working for our good, but are simply there to collect a pay cheque, and a lack of interest in our wellbeing. If a service member has any complaints against a civilian service provider, there is very little that can, or will, be done, but if a civilian has a complaint against a service member, then serious disciplinary action can be taken.  When I joined the regular Army in 1996, I could go to my orderly room and sort out virtually any problems I had with administration, and if an issue required higher authority, I could take it to my Officer Commanding for him to deal with. Since then, the situation has seriously deteriorated. Now we have to ring a "shopfront", often as far away as Cooma or Melbourne, and speak to a civilian who often appears to have no interest in what we want. That is, of course, if they answer the phone. Usually anyone calling will get a recorded message, and if you leave your details, they may get back to you, but don't hold your breath. The result is often that a small administrative detail may become a larger problem because it is not dealt with correctly. Another aspect of this is the removal of a lot of the authority from senior members of units, such as OCs and COs.  My particular situation, which nearly led me to leave the Army, involved an application for de facto marriage. I spent 3 months preparing a package, and although it didn't fit all the criteria, there were extenuating circumstance that were outlined and supported by both my OC and CO. The particular guidelines for recognition of de facto marriage would have allowed the recognition of my relationship considering the circumstances, but when the package was sent to Canberra for approval by a public servant, it was rejected. I would not have minded too much if it had been considered, but the person who checked the package did not even read it and accused me of trying to obtain money from the Defence Force. As a result, I was forced to accept poor accommodation and services and my fiance had to endure hardship in my absence while I was deployed overseas. Had my CO had the discretion to grant my application, there would have been no problem. This is just one example of how the new bureaucracy does not look after the members as it is meant to. The loss of allowances and corresponding "pay rises", and the attempts by defence to recoup costs is also a cause for concern. Beginning in 1999, Defence began charging living-in (barracks) accommodation at different levels, ie: the better your accommodation, the more you paid. This was accompanied, of course, by a rise in the cost of accommodation and meals provided on barracks, and a fee to cover utilities was also introduced. A pay rise was granted at around the same time, partially to compensate for the loss of Isolated Establishment Allowance (IEA) paid to members living off barrack. The net effect for members living off barracks was a loss of pay, as the pay rise did not compensate for the loss of IEA, and for living-in members also resulted in a loss of pay, as the rise in living expenses exceeded the pay rise. At the time, I calculated an overall pay DECREASE of 3%, and we were being told that that was our well deserved raise.  I don't believe any other employee outside Defence would be willing to accept that situation.  Another excellent example of the erosion of conditions is Travelling Allowance. This allowance was, in the past, quite substantial. It was paid to members who wished to travel on leave, if they were single, or had to travel for work purposes, and was paid at a rate calculated on vehicle usage and accommodation costs.  Due to a change in policy, it is now paid at 68% of an airfare between points. This new payment is totally irrelevant and has resulted a significant decrease in the amount paid to members. No worthwhile justification has been forthcoming for the change, and it appears have been changed to suit Qantas, who is the contracted airline and whos fares are used to calculate the amount granted. This has a major impact on single members, who are paid this allowance to travel home to see their families once a year.   There are many more examples of the degradation of conditions - leave calculation and fringe benefits tax being other examples of the many.  Conditions of service are being continually eroded, and those who implement the changes do not correctly consult the members who the changes effect. Overall, as financial conditions are eroded and services decline, many members are feeling that they are better off working for someone else.

Jason Hanel
5 Olympus Way
Lyons
ACT 2606
Phone: 02 6282 5776 (h)
       02 6265 0639 (w)
       0421 074 059 (m)