Management of centres by parents has not always proved satisfactory, and it is necessary to work out who is to take responsibility at the various levels of decision making. The report strongly recommends that commercialisation of the child care program be considered, and points out that three organisations have expressed interest in running the Defence centres:
These organisations are willing to pay Defence a fee to run the centres without operational subsidies, which must be far more cost effective than the current position of paying operational subsidies to all centres as well as paying extra grants each year to ensure the financial viabilities of less affluent centres.
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.
4. Defence Special Needs Support Group (DSNSG)
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:
- The DSNSG originated among ordinary Defence families, and developed, at least in its early days, purely by the initiative of its members. There is a significant message here for Defence personnel. Those families with special needs problems could have continued to utilise the existing Defence services for whatever support there was, but to have a number of unique, large scale problems resolved in connection with special needs, they needed to join forces and develop a unified plan of action. As society changes, new needs emerge. For example, thirty years ago, the need for child care and spouse employment services affected comparatively few families in Defence, but changed life styles and values in the community at large has turned them into major needs. It can be assumed that in ten years, changes will have caused new pockets of need to emerge. Defence, like any other large organisation, will not easily recognise and meet these needs, at least initially. The first requirement may well be for members to take the initiative and contact, meet and work with others who are experiencing the same difficulties. Quite apart from the mutual support such fellowship and exchange of information provides, the unity of purpose can help in the achievement of much broader aims.
- It is interesting to examine the barriers encountered by the DSNSG in its quest to have needs met. Certainly there were early elements of inertia and conservative resistance, but generally Defence, with its comparatively new sensitivity to family needs (stemming largely from its concern to retain its experienced personnel), has been supportive. Nor has the major problem been resources-there are not large numbers involved in the Defence special needs area, and the prime needs are not financial. The major barriers have occurred in the mechanics of bureaucratic systems, especially in trying to obtain cooperation between the States, but also within States and between the Commonwealth and the States. Sometimes agreement can be reached at the highest level, as in the transfer of equipment across State boundaries, but it takes time for the change to come into force at the lowest levels, where it matters.
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:
- assist with accessing respite and therapy services, and special equipment
- develop a procedure to enable Defence families to have their special needs status formally recognised
- provide assistance to ensure access to appropriate accommodation
- introduce a special needs pre-posting visit to access the availability of appropriate housing, therapy services etc.
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.
The National Consultative Group of Service Families (NCGSF)
Background
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.
Organisation
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.
Activities
The aim of the NCGSF is to improve the quality of life for service families. This is done by:
- providing a forum for their views
- reporting and making recommendations to CDF
influencing policy making that directly affects families Some of the more significant activities of the NCGSS have been:
- Its submissions to, and evidence before, a number of inquiries, from the Cross Sub-Committee's inquiry into wastage in 1988 to, more recently, the Pratt Review, the Glenn Review and the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Review.
- Its efforts over the last decade to ensure that the needs of mobile families are recognised, particularly that the children of Service families compelled to move have a smooth transition when changing schools. The major problem is Australia's eight separate education systems, which causes difficulties whenever a family moves to a new state or territory. The NCGSF recently made an extensive submission on a national starting age for schools, and there is hope there will soon be changes towards a more uniform system.
- Similarly, consultation with state governments resulted in a change of legislation regarding driving licences and car registration. Previously Service personnel had to change licence with each interstate move.
- Recently the NCGSF has successfully lobbied on such matters as circuit breakers and smoke detectors for DHA houses, increased allowances for education, and an increase in the Defence Home Owner loan.
Problems
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:
The whole rationale of the DER was to put more people and resources at the sharp end. For younger personnel, in particular, this means more activities in the field, more exercises and more absences from family.
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.
Endnotes
- 743 members, or slightly less than half the force, are married.
- Report on the Review of ADF Personnel and Family Support Services [the Pratt Report]. Defence, September 1994, p. 8.
- Conditions of Service in the Regular Defence Force. Parliamentary Research Service. Background Paper. November 1990, p. 37.
- The Pratt Report, p. 35.
- Australian Senate. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. Examination of Budget Estimates 1997-98. Defence Portfolio, Additional Information Received, Volume 1, September 1997, p. 195.
- The ADF Spouse Employment Project Report 1995. ADFILS, 1995, p. iii.
- ibid, p. 5.
- ibid, p. 25.
- Glenn Report, p. 154.
- The ADF Spouse Employment Project Report 1995, p. 33.
- ibid, p. 19.
- Report on the Review of the Defence Child Care Program. DCO, July 1996, p. vi.
- ibid, p. 20.
- Project Serving Australia is the name given to the process of implementing the recommendations of the Glenn Report.
As Graham Glenn points out in his 1995 report Serving Australia:
Traditionally, the ADF has provided different assistance to members with families and those without families. The basic presumption is that single members should live in service accommodation on bases and as a consequence have limited personal belongings requiring removal. Married members have more choice and some assistance offered them is significantly greater, even disregarding the number of dependants.(1)
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 Home Purchase or Sale Expenses Allowance i.e. reimbursement for expenses incurred when they buy or sell a house as a result of a posting requirement, providing they have entered into a written agreement to purchase a home on or after 10 December 1995;
- removals of furniture and effects on a similar basis to MWF, including modified storage entitlements;
- Disturbance Allowance at tiered rates depending on the number of previous removals and living arrangements in the old and new localities;
- Isolated Establishment Allowance when living out by choice at eligible establishments, on the same basis as MWOF in receipt of LOA;
- District Allowance at the unaccompanied living-out rate, when posted to remote localities and living out by choice.
The above changes came into effect on 10 September 1996.
- Glenn Report, p. 132.
- Australian National Audit Office. Audit Report No.25, 1994-95.
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:
- Physical provision of housing for single and married members; and
- Reduced rents for single and married members.
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:
- compensate personnel for housing related disabilities consequent upon frequent relocation where this is a required condition of service
- provide adequate accommodation for personnel required in the course of duty to reside in locations where suitable alternative accommodation is not available, or required for essential operational reasons to reside at Defence Force premises
- minimise financial disabilities, of personnel required to relocate frequently, which are due to inter-regional differences in housing costs
- provide that a Defence Force member not be out of pocket from reasonable expenses incurred in changing houses, when required in the course of duty to undertake a discrete relocation
- minimise housing related detriment to morale of personnel and families when personnel are required to relocate frequently, and hence to the operational effectiveness of those personnel.
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.
Principal Tenant Concept
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 availability of housing facilitates posting action, minimising the disruptive impact on families and consequent damage to member morale
- The impact of relocation on members' operational effectiveness is minimised in that less time is required settling in at new locations.
The disadvantages include:
- The administrative overhead necessary to manage housing diverts resources away from other military tasks
- The cost of vacancies is borne by Defence.
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?
What kind of assistance do members need?
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:
- Living Out Allowance
- Home Purchase or Sale Expenses Allowance
- Temporary Accommodation Allowance
- Disturbance Allowance
- Temporary Rental Allowance
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.
Why not provide cash and let members find their own accommodation?
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.
Should Defence provide the entire stock of housing?
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.
Should Members With Family (MWF) and Members Without Family (MWOF) Receive Different Housing Assistance?
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:
- MWOF are provided with subsidised on-base accommodation and meals, but MWF are provided with subsidised housing only;
- In the event of a relocation, MWF are entitled to full removal of all furniture and effects, whereas MWOF are entitled to removal of personal effects only;
- MWF are entitled to a much larger disturbance allowance than are MWOF;
- MWF do not receive accommodation assistance if they own a suitable house at the posting locality, whereas MWOF are still eligible to receive subsidised on-base accommodation and meals.
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)
- The sub-standard homes provided by State Housing Authorities (generally described as 'welfare housing'). During the 1950s, when housing acquisition was necessary to meet the needs of personnel posted to newly-established bases in areas where a private rental market was lacking, the States had been tasked with supplying houses to Defence on long term leases through a series of Commonwealth State Housing Agreements. By the 1970s and 1980s, the standard of this housing had generally fallen well below that of the general community;
- Housing located in 'welfare' areas, with a concomitant high level of crime and vandalism (a particular problem when serving spouses are frequently absent);
- Inadequate and slow maintenance, and inadequate security;
- Poor fittings;
- No floor coverings or curtains;
- Few quarters which meet specified scales and standards;
- Inadequate storage areas.
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:
- some 6000 Defence houses were below acceptable standards and, not being suitable for renovation, required replacement;
- a further 6000 houses required substantial improvements to bring them to acceptable standards;
- many of these, and other Defence houses, were poorly located and no longer met the operational and social requirements of a modern Defence Force;
- the bulk of the houses (14 200) were owned by State Governments under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (Servicemen) and as a result,
- the repairs and maintenance function was not under Commonwealth control;
- without equity in the stock, the Commonwealth was unable to trade the houses to meet changing operational requirements.(3)
On 30 January 1986, the then Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, announced:
- a Defence Housing Authority operating as a Statutory Authority was to be established to manage the total Defence Force housing stock; and
- an expanded funding program of more than $750 million (in 1986 dollars) during the next decade to bring the current stock of housing up to standard.
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.
Achievements of the DHA
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:
Stock owned by Authority 11 895
On-base housing 3293
Houses leased 6142
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.
Recent Trends
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:
- The inflexibility of the 5 or 10 year terms were a problem when a tenant was posted after, for example, 9 years of the lease had elapsed. Very often the house would remain vacant for the remainder of the lease.
- At first rents had been indexed to the CPI. During the early 1990s market rents fell in some places e.g. Melbourne, but the DHA lease required the rent to gradually increase with the CPI. Thus Defence was left paying rents that were too high.
- Early leases stipulated that the DHA would do any maintenance work costing less than $500, with the owner responsible for maintenance above this cost. This often led to delays for the more costly work.
Faced with these difficulties, in 1996 the DHA developed a new leasing arrangement which avoided the above problems.
- The new lease (nominally for 6 or 9 years) provides for one year flexibility in the eventual term.
- The new leases are set at market rents, and are revalued every year.
- In return for an increased management fee charged to owners, the DHA is committed to recarpet and repaint for a 9 year lease, or repaint internally for a 6 year lease.
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.
DHA Finances
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.
Criticisms
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.
- On 30 June 1997, the DHA's total assets were approximately $2.2 billion, and the Government has been concerned at Defence owning this large amount of housing stock. Privatisation has been unofficially under consideration for several years. There are two ways of privatising this asset:
- An attempt could be made to sell in bulk, but problems here are, first, finding a large investor interested in what would be a low-return investment, and, second, the distinct disadvantage that almost certainly the stock would need to be sold at a significant discount.
- The second approach is the gradual sale - largely combined with lease-back-which is being carried out at present. Each year the housing stock is reduced by sales to the most logical investors, the ordinary families, who appreciate the security of the long-term lease and will pay a reasonable price.
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.
- The Auditor-General's report in 1994 made several criticisms. For example, it was pointed out there had been a fall in the number of Group A houses, Defence's basic level accommodation for lower ranks, and that, as a result, a number of these personnel had to be placed in Group B houses. But they still paid rent at Group A level which meant the Department had to repay a larger proportion of the rent to the DHA. The DHA's response to this has been that houses of Group A standard are not in community demand and are thus not commercial propositions for resale. The DHA sees the problem as arising largely from Defence's rigid classification system.
- Another Auditor-General's criticism was that the amount of rent paid to the DHA in the five years to 1993-94 had increased in real terms by 33 per cent. The explanation for this lies in the quick replacement of sub-standard by higher quality houses that was taking place during this period. With the upgrade of the housing stock largely accomplished, the total rent has stabilised over the last few years.
- The Auditor-General had some criticisms of the leasing program, claiming that rental costs for leased stocks were higher than for DHA-owned houses. But these problems largely sprang from the early leasing contracts. For example, indexed leases and the 5 per cent management fee levied on Defence have both now been discontinued.
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.
Defence HomeOwner
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:
- It will permit the application of rental charges which are appropriate to the actual standard of accommodation occupied. This is important as reviews have revealed that, unlike married members' accommodation, a large proportion of ADF living-in accommodation is sub-standard.
- It will also permit implementation of the Pay-As-You-Eat/Discounted fortnightly Food Charge system recommended by the Member Without Family Review Report and remove the requirement for single members to pay for meals which they do not consume, a major irritation for members who currently occupy living-in accommodation.
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 provision of barrack style accommodation is inappropriate for a large proportion of single members.
- Living-In Accommodation Scales and Standards, particularly with regard to room size and storage space, are inadequate and in need of review.
- Promotion of a more widespread application across the Services of the liberalisation of on-base lifestyles, along the lines of the Chief of Naval Staff's Operation Lifestyle, is warranted.
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:
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)
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:
- improve the level of family stability and decrease dissatisfaction with defence housing, hopefully leading to better workplace productivity;
- reduce Defence's housing requirements.
On the other hand, the disadvantages for Defence of increased home ownership are:
- a tendency to limit the availability of personnel for postings, inducing a greater reluctance to relocate;
- a likelihood of more personnel being remote from the workplace, by exercising freedom of choice to acquire housing in such locations.
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.
Defence Service Homes Scheme
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:
- Members had to make a decision based on information that was either incomplete, inaccurate or misleading.
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.
- Members should be given another chance to revoke the DSH.
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.
- The maximum DSH loan should be increased.
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.
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:
- 'further DSH loans' (i.e. loans which have been transferred to the purchase of another home) will also be capped at 6.85 per cent, with a guaranteed minimum subsidy of 1.5 per cent below the benchmark interest rate
- 'additional advances' (i.e. new loans, for purposes such as house modifications or refinancing an existing mortgage, to borrowers who have not borrowed the maximum amount) will be reduced from the existing 10 per cent to a maximum of 6.85 per cent, with a guaranteed minimum subsidy of 1.5 per cent below the benchmark interest rate.
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.
ADF Home Loan Assistance Scheme (ADFHLAS)
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 eligible member is provided with an interest subsidy equal to 40 per cent of the market interest rate for housing loans, i.e. the member pays 60 per cent of the ruling interest rate.
- The maximum subsidised loan is $80 000, with additional unsubsidised finance available through the NAB at normal home owner first mortgage rates. Where spouses have a joint entitlement, the maximum loan is $160 000. Until 8 November 1996, the maximum loan had been $40 000.
- Defence Force members begin to accrue subsidy entitlement after five years' service, and earn entitlement to one year's subsidy for every year of service thereafter up to a maximum of 20 years. This has a retention purpose i.e. the longer a member serves, the greater is the entitlement to the subsidy. Until 8 November 1996, the eligibility period for a subsidised loan was six years.
- Loans under the scheme are available to members who enlisted before May 1985, who had not taken a loan under the DSH, and who revoked their eligibility to the DSH by 31 August 1991.
- The maximum term of the loan is 25 years.
- Loans are transferable from house to house during service, and once within the two years after separation from the Defence Force.
- The loan will be available any time up to two years beyond the member's date of separation from service.
- A member's entitlements are transferable to a surviving spouse for a period of two years after the death of a service person.
- Subsidised loans are available to Active Reservists after a qualifying period of eight years effective service. This is one of the amendments which became effective on 8 November 1996.
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.
- Cross Report, p. 305.
- ibid, p. 306.
- Defence Housing Authority. Annual Report, 1987-88, p. 4. Most of the statistics in this section on the DHA have been compiled from Annual Reports. Some have been obtained directly from DHA.
- Glenn Report, pp. 133-4.
- The Defence Service Homes Amendment Act 1988 amended the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to provide for this acquisition by Westpac.
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:
Resignation and retirement
Promotions
Enlistment
Re-engagement and discharge
Law and discipline
Funerals
Sport and amenities
Welfare
Any other non-policy matters
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:
- Single ADF members without dependants continue to be exempt from the levy.
- Married members' liability is as follows:
- members with a non-working spouse are liable for payment of a half Medicare levy;
- working spouse, no children: If the spouse is liable for the levy, the ADF member can claim an exemption;
- working spouse, with children: If the spouse is liable for the levy and contributes to the maintenance of the children, the ADF member is exempt from the levy;
- spouse is a Service member, no children: these members continue to be exempt from the levy;
- spouse is a Service member, with children: If both members contribute to the maintenance of their children, only one member is liable for the half levy, the other being exempt. The couple decide who is to pay.
- Members of the Reserve have comparable provisions for periods of full time service with the regular defence force:
- if a person is in the ADF for only part of a financial year, the levy is apportioned accordingly, depending on the person's status for the balance of the year.
- Separate arrangements generally prevail for personnel posted to overseas localities.
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:
Rest and recuperation
Compensation for long or unusual duty
Carrying out a removal
Compelling personal reasons, when no other leave is applicable
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.
- DER Secretariat Papers, pp. 276-7.
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:
- incapacity payments at 100 per cent of military salary for the first 45 weeks of incapacity, decreasing to a minimum of 75 per cent until age 65 years, with superannuation payments taken into account;
- full medical, hospital, pharmaceutical treatment costs;
- household and attendant care services up to $281.56 each per week;
- lump sum payments for permanent impairment and non-economic loss, and for death (payable only to dependants). More will be said later about the adequacy of these payments;
- weekly payments of $56.30 to each dependent child of a deceased member payable to age 16 years or 25 years if a full time student;
- payment for aids, appliances or modifications to home, workplace or car necessary as a result of the compensatable condition; and
- assistance with vocational rehabilitation.
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:
- The death benefit lump sum provided to a surviving spouse has been increased to $200 000, with a further increase of $50 000 payable to the spouse for each dependant child.
- The lump sum to be provided to a severely injured member has similarly been increased to $200 000, with a further increase of $50 000 for each dependant child.
- These additional amounts are not to be provided under the SRCA, which applies to other Commonwealth employees, but are to be paid out of Defence appropriations.
- The above changes apply retrospectively to 7 April 1994, the start of the current Military Compensation Scheme. The additional payments were made automatically to the victims and families of those involved in the 1996 Black Hawk helicopter crash.
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:
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)
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.
- Tye, Glen. Military Compensation Scheme. A paper for the 6th Accident Compensation Seminar. Coolum, Qld., December 1996, p. 2.
- Department of Defence. Inquiry into Military Compensation arrangements for the Australian Defence Force. Canberra, March 1997, p. 70.
- The following figures were provided by the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service.
- This information was provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
- Tye, G. Op. Cit., p. 7.
- ibid: 7.
- Department of Defence. Inquiry into Military Compensation arrangements, p. 51.
- ibid, p. 51.
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:
- prevents or dissuades a member from making a complaint;
- prevents or dissuades a member from investigating a complaint or redressing a grievance; or
- causes a member to be victimised, penalised or in any way prejudiced for making a complaint or requesting the referral of a complaint.
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)
- command and morale: the ADF considered homosexual behaviour prejudicial to effective command relationships and the maintenance of the high level of morale and discipline;
- national security: the ADF believed that homosexual behaviour could present security risks;
- health risks: especially the risk of HIV infection; and
- minors: the ADF responsibility for minors necessitated their protection from homosexual behaviour.
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:
- Commitment of Senior Leaders. All senior leaders have publicly stated that no form of unacceptable sexual behaviour will be tolerated. They have outlined acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
- Defence Policy. Defence Instruction Personnel 35-3 'Harassment, Discrimination and Fraternisation and Unacceptable Sexual Behaviour by Members of the ADF' has been published and is being reviewed. The Defence Instruction defines unacceptable behaviour, as well as the management and the reporting processes.
- Diversity Programs. The Services have established their own diversity integration and anti-harassment programs, as follows:
- Navy. Good Working Relations;
- Army. Fair Go; and
- Air Force. One Team.
- Training. An extensive program of Equal Employment Opportunity, anti-harassment and gender integration training has been established within the Services and at the Australian Defence Force Academy aimed at educating the entire ADF to attain a working environment free from harassment and discrimination. A review of all training will be undertaken in 1998.
- Tollfree Helplines. Each Service has set up a Tollfree Helpline to provide options for action from people who believe they have been harassed or discriminated against, people who have been accused of harassment or discrimination, and to leaders and managers.
- Equity Adviser Network. A Defence-wide network of equity advisers and anti-harassment contact officers and EEO officers has been established. These advisers provide specialist advice to the chain of command and a safety net at all establishments for personnel in need of advice and assistance with respect to all harassment and discrimination matters.
- Publications. A considerable number of publications-booklets, brochures and posters-receive wide distribution.
- Investigation. The process for the investigation of complaints of sexual harassment have been improved, with training being provided to Investigating Officers. A comprehensive review of training is being undertaken.
- Reporting of statistics. A comprehensive data base of all incidents of unacceptable sexual behaviour is kept. The Minister receives statistics monthly.
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:
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)
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:
- Deployment to a war zone, where there is potential for multiple casualties, is a requirement of service, and the ADF did not have the facilities to deal with contaminated blood;
- ADF members are expected to be fully fit, and HIV-positive people should be banned from joining as are any other chronic disease sufferers. There was real apprehension that this particular case would create a precedent for Defence to be opened up to people with a range of other disabilities.
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.
- See ADF Instruction 15/3 of September 1986.
- ibid, p. 546.
- Report to the Senate on The Elimination of Sexual Harassment in the Australian Defence Force. Department of Defence, December 1995.
- Senate Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in the Australian Defence Force. Submission by Headquarters Australian Defence Force. 15 November 1993, p. 14.
- ibid, p. 11.
- Faust, Beatrice. Sexual harassment and HMAS Swan: a case history. Policy, Autumn 1995, pp 44.
- Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. News Release, 20 January 1988.
- Middleton, Karen. Ministers object to HIV ban in forces. The Age, 24 November 1995, p. 4.
- Re: Tracey; Ex parte Ryan (1989) 166 CLR 518
- Report of the Defence Force Discipline Legislation Board of Review, May 1989, p. 185.
- Grove, Hon. Justice Michael. A uniform code for military justice-the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. United Service, July 1995, p. 27.
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 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.
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:
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.
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 establishment of the Defence Advisory Forum on Discrimination (DAFOD);
- the development of performance indicators to measure the progress of women's careers against men's careers;
- a study into barriers to women's career progression; and
- a study on the retention of women.
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:
- Although male resentment at the passing of the 'good old days' is lessening with a new generation of recruit, as women show themselves to be competent and good team members, and where technical requirements overshadow the physical, there is still considerable resistance. Some common reasons given for opposing women's participation were:
- women should be confined to clerical, administrative, medical and other support areas
- women cause disruption to male bonding
- women's emotional and psychological make-up does not equip them for war
- women's role is in the family and the community
- Men are still confused at what affirmative action means, often seeing it as the promotion of women who are not the best qualified for the position. Men's overwhelming hostility to any positive discrimination in favour of women has resulted in many women opposing any form of affirmative action because it might undermine their acceptance by their male peers.
- Many women are sympathetic to the difficulties experienced by men trying to cope with radical change and know it is unrealistic to expect rapid change in men's attitudes. But they do not accept that they, the women, should bear the brunt of the men's difficulties.
Other barriers to women's increasing participation:
- Women are under continual pressure to conform to male standards and expectations, to change themselves and their behaviour to fit into and be accepted by males in an environment dominated by male values, in which the 'male warrior' is the model of success. Women's work performance tends to be judged more harshly, and to be generalised to all of their sex in a way that male work performance is not.
- The requirement for operational background as a condition for promotion to senior ranks constitutes an artificial institutionalised barrier to women's promotion beyond a certain point. This requirement, which often occurs even where it cannot be justified in relation to the position's demands, needs to be scrutinised from an anti-discrimination point of view.
- Access to key postings tends too often to be based not on merit but on 'potential' for future advancement to very senior positions. This is indirectly discriminatory in that few women have the necessary experience (such as operational experience) and/or the qualifications to fill the highest ranks.
What is needed to remove barriers:
- Dr Burton emphasised the point that, without the support of active interventionist strategies, time alone will not solve the problem of discrimination against women in the ADF.
- The key area where change is needed is in leadership i.e. there must be unequivocal commitment to, and support for, gender integration from leaders. While individual leaders display this commitment at present, it is not pervasive enough to be regarded as a collective, institutionalised commitment.
- The perspectives of women and of members with dependants must form part of the preliminary thinking about reform and restructuring. Women must form part of all advisory and consultative structures and decision-making bodies. For example, a rule is needed requiring women's representation on Promotion Boards and Promotion Advisory Committees.
- There is a need to alter some very traditional cultures within the ADF in the direction of a greater focus on the outcomes of effective performance rather than persisting with traditional, 'taken-for-granted' assumptions.
Reasons for women leaving the ADF:
- While women's average length of service in each of the Services remains considerably lower than men's, during the period 1991-94 women's length of service increased at a faster rate than that of men. However, the 1994 Defence White Paper warns that the ADF must face the prospect of high separation rates. Many young Australians will not remain with the one employer throughout their working lives, and it is likely that, in keeping with this trend, many Service members will seek other employment after about six years' service. Any consideration of women's retention needs to be put into the context of overall retention problems and reasons for high wastage.
- There is a need for active recruitment strategies directed at women.
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:
- Surveys indicate that few women recruits would choose this option.
- Most women, and a good proportion of men, would fail the rigorous physical tests required.
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.
- The figures in the following tables were obtained from Defence. Because this chapter was completed significantly before the rest of this paper, the latest figures shown are for 30 June 1996.
- Smith, Hugh. A brave new world? Working Paper No. 47, Australian Defence Studies Centre, August 1997, p. 5.
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:
- overseas removal entitlements with storage at Commonwealth expense of any furniture and personal effects left in Australia;
- reimbursement of loss on sale of motor vehicle;
- business-class travel to and from the post;
- Settling In and Settling Out Allowance to cover the additional cost of meals when a member is obliged to temporarily reside in hotel-type accommodation;
- interest-free loan called Outlay Advance to help with establishment costs at the overseas post. The maximum loan available at present is $7629;
- payment by way of reimbursement for unquantifiable expenses arising from a posting overseas, such as costs associated with transferring money and converting electrical appliances, is given by way of a Transfer Allowance;
- payment of a tax free Overseas Living Allowance to cover additional living expenses at the post;
- subsidised housing at the post;
- commonwealth coverage of medical/dental expenses for dependants;
- assistance with education costs for children at the post or in Australia;
- reunion travel in certain circumstances when members are separated from dependants.
When members are posted to localities involving particular hardships or disabilities, there are additional entitlements to compensate for those disabilities. These include:
- Difficult Post Allowance, which is paid in addition to Overseas Living Allowance;
- additional Recreation Leave, with the number of days varying according to the locality;
- return travel at Commonwealth expense to a specified locality providing relief from the conditions at the post.
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:
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.
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:
- Hazardous activities, which are those exposing individuals or units to a degree of hazard above and beyond that of normal peacetime duty, such as mine avoidance and clearance, Defence Force aid to the civil power, Service protected or assisted evacuations and other operations requiring the application of minimum force for the protection of personnel or property.
- Peacekeeping, an operation involving military personnel, without powers of enforcement, to help restore and maintain peace in an area of conflict with the consent of all parties.
Conditions of service for these various types of operation include:
For warlike operations:
- exemption from taxation for salary and allowances;
- additional home loan assistance from the Home Loan Assistance Scheme;
- War Service Leave in addition to accrued recreation leave;
- the Australian Active Service Medal may be recommended.
For non-warlike deployments:
- Overseas Forces Rebate applies to salary and allowances;
- additional Recreation Leave;
- the Australian Service Medal may be recommended.
For both warlike and non-warlike deployments:
- payment of a tax-exempt deployment allowance, with a daily rate varying from $23.50 to $75, depending on the degree of situational and environmental hazard. For example, the deployment allowance for the Rwanda contingent was set at $51 per day;
- pre-embarkation and disembarkation leave and travel can be permitted;
- special removal provisions for member's family to travel to a locality within Australia where extended-family support is available;
- 'Relief Out-of-Country Travel Fare Assistance', which is intended to assist personnel to have time away from the arduous nature of the deployment;
- one three-minute phone call to Australia each fortnight;
- exemption from R&Q charges;
- eligibility to entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act.
If a deployment period is for less than six months, a number of the above conditions will not apply.
- DER Secretariat Papers, p. 278.
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 retiring age be extended to the mid-50s for all ranks up to Lt. Col. and equivalent(1)he eventual change in 1995 essentially brought the three Services into line, with all ranks Brigadier (and equivalent) and below having the common retirement age of 55.
When the change was made in 1995, all affected General Service officers were given the right to stay with the old retirement age schedule.
Background
Until 1 October 1991, when it was replaced by the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS), the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (DFRDB) was the ADF's superannuation scheme. A summary of the MSBS will be given later.
The DFRDB was established by the DFRDB Act 1973 and came into operation with effect from 1 October 1972, replacing the DFRB scheme, which had begun in 1948.
On 30 June 1996, there were still 20 485 contributors to the DFRDB. In addition, there were 46 540 recipients of pensions under the scheme, with the average annual pension being $15 254.
Principal Features:
The DFRDB is a defined benefit scheme, and is totally unfunded i.e. all contributions go into consolidated revenue.
Contributions
Members of the ADF serving on continuous full time duty for a period of not less than one year contribute under the DFRDB scheme at the rate of 5.5 per cent of salary plus Service Allowance. The more than 20 000 members paid $50 078 000 in contributions (into consolidated revenue) in 1995-96.
Retirement Pay
In order to maintain the operational capabilities of the Defence Force, Service personnel are required to retire at relatively young ages and may be retired even earlier on the grounds of invalidity whilst still capable of performing adequately in civilian employment. Members who separate from the ADF on other than invalidity grounds are entitled to retirement pay on separation after completion of a minimum of 20 years service or, if they have reached statutory retiring age for their rank, on completion of 15 years service. Retirement pay ranges from 30 per cent to 76.5 per cent of annual salary, based on length of service. The details are as follows:
|
Years of Service
|
% of Pay
|
Years of Service
|
% of Pay
|
|
15
|
30.00
|
28
|
47.50
|
|
16
|
31.00
|
29
|
49.25
|
|
17
|
32.00
|
30
|
51.25
|
|
18
|
33.00
|
31
|
53.25
|
|
19
|
34.00
|
32
|
55.50
|
|
20
|
35.00
|
33
|
57.75
|
|
21
|
36.50
|
34
|
60.25
|
|
22
|
38.00
|
35
|
62.75
|
|
23
|
39.50
|
36
|
65.25
|
|
24
|
41.00
|
37
|
67.75
|
|
25
|
42.50
|
38
|
70.50
|
|
26
|
44.00
|
39
|
73.50
|
|
27
|
45.75
|
40
|
76.50
|
In the financial year 1996-97, of the 1,793 DFRDB contributors who left the Defence Force, 1,377 received retiring pensions.
According to the DFRDB Act, all officers should serve until they reach a certain age, known as the notional retiring age. This age varies according to the rank that officers hold at the time they retire:
|
Rank
|
Age
|
|
Major (or equivalent) and below
|
42
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel (or equivalent)
|
45
|
|
Colonel and Brigadier (or equivalent)
|
50
|
|
Major General (or equivalent)
|
52
|
|
Lieutenant General and General (or equivalent)
|
55
|
Officers who voluntarily retire or are discharged on disciplinary grounds before reaching notional retiring age have a penalty applied to the calculation of their retirement pay. The penalty is a three per cent reduction in retirement pay for each full year that their age on retirement is less than their notional retiring age. The imposition of this penalty has been criticised as discriminatory and a disincentive to seek promotion, and its removal was recommended in the Cross Report.(2) However this change was not recommended in the DFRDB Review Committee Report of June 1990 which proposed introduction of the MSBS. And the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, when considering a case in 1996, reached the view that there is no discrimination in relation to notional retiring age.
Commutation
A portion of the retirement pension may be commuted to a lump sum, and this option is almost invariably taken. A Major, for example, who retires at 42, after 20 years service, and receiving a salary of $56 156 per annum, would be entitled to a lump sum of $93 359 and an annual pension of $16 545; or $19 654 without commutation. The decision to commute can be made up to three months before or within a period of one year after retirement. A total of 1341 DFRDB retirees during 1996-97 elected to commute part of their pension, receiving an average lump sum of $84 583.
The maximum amount a member could commute was set originally at four times the retirement pension. As a result of changes to the tax on superannuation lump sums introduced in 1983, the amount of commutation lump sum is being increased by 0.05 per year, up to a maximum of five times the amount of retirement pension. This was designed to offset the effects of the increased taxation. During 1997-98, for example, retiring members would receive a maximum commutation lump sum of up to 4.75 times their retirement pay.
Major Defect
The major criticism of the DFRDB has related to those who resign from the ADF before completing 20 years service. Where a member leaves the scheme without entitlement to retirement or invalidity pay, he is entitled only to a refund of contributions i.e. without interest being paid on these contributions and without access to the employer component. This contrasts with the practice in virtually any other superannuation scheme, and does not meet the requirements of the Occupational Superannuation Standards [replaced in December 1993 by the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act] which now regulates all superannuation schemes in both the private and public sectors. The Cross Report recommended that interest be paid on contributions, but this was not recommended in the DFRDB Review Committee Report. A total of 612 members received refunds of contributions amounting to $7 079 000 during 1995-96.
However the benefits available to members who retire after 20 years are very generous. It is possible for a member to resign on an indexed pension for life, beginning at 35 per cent of final pay, together with a lump sum, in his/her late 30s. The result has been that separation rates in the 12-20 years of service period were very low, but there was a dramatic rise at the 20 year point when many valuable and experienced members left the ADF because the lump sum component of their entitlement becomes available only on resignation.
As with any defined benefit scheme, the DFRDB has been costly to the employer. Payment of pension benefits from a relatively early age is one expensive aspect of the scheme. In the 1990-91 financial year, the last full year of exclusive DFRDB membership, members' contributions amounted to $115 million whereas benefits paid by the Government amounted to more than $700 million. In 1995-96, although members' contributions had fallen to $50 million, the Government had to pay $829 million in benefits to the 46 540 recipients. However, it would be misleading to compare these figures directly with other schemes since contributions go straight to Consolidated Revenue and there is no employer contribution by the Government. That is, entitlements only crystallise when they become payable. Also in any consideration of the total cost of the scheme it must be remembered that for members leaving before the 20 year point, the only entitlement is a refund of contributions (plus the employer's 3 per cent productivity payment).
The cost to the Government of the DFRDB is expected to rise steadily for several decades, although, because of factors such as the lower long term cost of the MSBS and the expected fall in number of defence personnel as a percentage of the total population, the outlay on defence superannuation as a percentage of GDP should begin to fall soon after the year 2000. More information on this trend is given later in this chapter.
Invalidity and Spouses Benefit
A member who is retired medically unfit from the Defence force is entitled to an invalidity benefit from the DFRDB in addition to any compensation paid by Repatriation or the Commonwealth. The level of benefit is calculated on the assessment of the percentage of the member's incapacity in relation to the appropriate civil employment, and is intended not as compensation but to maintain income for that portion of the member's life during which the incapacity persists.
The DFRDB Scheme provides cover for dependants' benefits in the event of the member's death.
The DFRDB Review Committee Report discussed the lower pension payable to DFRDB widows (62.5 per cent of contributor's pension entitlement) than to widows under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) widows (67 per cent of contributor's pension entitlement) when a member dies in service, but concluded the inequity is more apparent than real. This is for two reasons:
- Whereas the DFRDB widow receives benefits based on 40 years service in all circumstances, the CSS pension is calculated on actual and prospective service, and is therefore variable, with only the few members who have sufficient actual and prospective service receiving the top level.
- The DFRDB pension is fully indexed; the CSS pension is partly indexed, in that only a portion of the pension, the Government financed component, receives the CPI percentage increase.
The result is that the DFRDB widow's pension is at 47.8 per cent of the member's salary and is fully indexed; whereas the CSS widow's pension is at a maximum of 48.6 per cent of the member's salary and, being partly indexed, is equivalent to 41.9 per cent fully indexed. The average widow/er's pension is about $12 000.
DFRDB and CSS: a Comparison
The Cross Report provided several case comparisons between the DFRDB Scheme and the CSS, with the former proving superior at each salary level in the examples given.(3)
Recent Changes
The DFRDB Review Committee, which reported in 1990, proposed only comparatively minor changes to remedy perceived deficiencies. There have been no changes since, although the superannuation surcharge proposal currently being debated may have some impact.
Background
On 11 May 1989, David Simmons, the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel announced a review of the DFRDB Scheme. The review arose for a number of reasons. The ADF had advised the Minister that the DFRDB Scheme no longer met Service objectives nor provided the right incentives to those who make the profession of arms a lifetime career. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the DFRDB Scheme met neither the letter nor the spirit of the Occupational Superannuation Standards [replaced in December 1993 by the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act] which regulated all superannuation schemes in both the private and public sectors.(4)
In August 1989, the Minister appointed a committee headed by Sir William Cole, a retired Secretary to the Department of Defence, to review the DFRDB Scheme. The DFRDB Scheme Review Committee presented its report in June 1990, and on 8 August 1990 the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Gordon Bilney, announced a new superannuation scheme, the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS), to take effect from 1 October 1991. The Bill for the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991 was introduced on 13 March 1991 and passed the Senate on 21 August 1991.
All members of the DFRDB had an option until 30 September 1992 to remain in the DFRDB Scheme or to transfer to the MSBS. 38,355 members chose to transfer, leaving 26 848 in the DFRDB at 30 June 1993.
The following summary of the MSBS lists its more significant features, especially those which contrast with the DFRDB Scheme.
Principal Features
Contributions
- The MSBS is a partially funded scheme; member contributions and the 3 per cent benefit are invested in a fund, with the eventual return depending on the performance of the fund. This contrasts with the DFRDB, which is totally unfunded i.e. all contributions go into consolidated revenue.
- The MSBS has the variety of features common to modern superannuation schemes e.g. flexible contribution rates, and the choice for retiring members of a lump sum benefit, or a pension, or a combination of both.
- Membership is compulsory for all full-time Permanent Force members. There is a set base member contribution rate of 5 per cent , with an option to contribute additional amounts of up to 5 per cent in minimum increments of 1 per cent .
- Unlike the DFRDB Scheme, in which contributions cease when a period of LWOP exceeds 21 days, a member can continue to contribute to contribute in some circumstances despite LWOP exceeding 21 days e.g. during a period of unpaid maternity or paternity leave of up to 9 months.
Benefits
- In contrast with the DFRDB, the MSBS is a split benefit scheme i.e. members receive a defined benefit from the employer provided component, and an accumulation benefit from members' contributions plus interest.
- Upon separation, members have the option of collecting their accumulated member contributions plus earnings or preserving them in the MSBS at the fund earning rate.
- The employer financed benefit is a multiple of the average salary received over the last three years of service. It accrues at 18 per cent per year for each of the first seven years of service; at 23 per cent for each of the next 13 years; and at 28 per cent per year for all service in excess of 20 years. A Major, for example, who retires with 20 years service and a final average salary of $56 156 would be entitled to an employer benefit of $229 500 (4.25 times $54 000) payable at age 55. The benefit is indexed to CPI, to maintain its value, until it becomes payable. It can be paid as a lump sum, or 50 per cent or more of the lump sum can be converted to a pension. At age 55, the lump sum is divided by a factor of 12 to give the annual pension. After resignation, the unfunded portion of the employer benefit is indexed to CPI but the funded portion continues to increase by the Fund earning rate.
- Members who have a compulsory retiring age less than 55 may take the employer financed benefit as a non-commutable pension, payable on leaving the Defence Force. For members with less than seven years service, access to the employer benefit is phased in. The three per cent productivity benefit is always payable in full, but the remainder of the employer benefit is phased in as follows:
|
Completed Years
|
% of employer share
|
|
4 years or less
|
40
|
|
5
|
50
|
|
6
|
75
|
|
7
|
100
|
- Unlike the DFRDB Scheme, MSBS members who serve less than 20 years have their accumulated contributionsandearnings returned to them, as well as accruing an entitlement to an employer benefit and the 3 per cent benefit.
Death Cover
The spouse of a member who dies in service receives a refund of the member's contributions and interest. An employer-financed benefit is paid and is calculated as if the member had retired at age 55, or retiring age for rank, whichever is the greater. The employer-financed benefit can be taken as a lump sum or as a pension. The pension is 67 per cent of the pension the member would have received. If the member dies as a pensioner, the spouse receives 67 per cent of the pension payable at date of death. Where a spouse's pension is payable, additional pension is paid for children under age 16 or full time students between the ages of 16 and 25. The maximum pension payable to a spouse and children cannot exceed 100 per cent of the member's pension. Pensions are payable also if a contributor or pensioner is survived by an orphan. The above pensions are indexed by CPI.
Invalidity Benefit
Members who are retired medically unfit from the Defence Force receive a refund of contributions and interest. They may also receive a non-commutable, indexed pension, which is calculated on the basis of actual and prospective service, and determined also by the level of incapacity to engage in suitable civil employment. The pension continues while the incapacity persists. Members whose level of incapacity does not entitle them to a pension receive an employer-financed benefit, based on completed service, payable at age 55.
Transfer Option
As mentioned earlier, existing members of the DFRDB Scheme had 12 months from the date of commencement of the MSBS i.e. until 30 September 1992, to choose whether to transfer to the MSBS. All those who joined the ADF after 1 October 1991 automatically became members of the MSBS. Some criticism was made that DFRDB members should have been given longer to make their decision, on the grounds that frequent changes to general superannuation rules at the time, and the proposed cuts to personnel numbers in the Force Structure Review in May 1991, made the choice extremely difficult. And in 1996 when members of the earlier public service superannuation scheme, the CSS, were again given the option of transferring to the newer scheme, the Public Sector Superannuation scheme, (PSS), there was some criticism that DFRDB members should also have been given another transfer opportunity.
However, the feeling in Defence is that ADF members made a valid election relevant to their circumstances at the time and based on adequate information and assistance. A year before the 12 months election period began, each ADF member received a personal information package on the new scheme, including an informative 53 page booklet, entitled MSBS: the Guide. A hotline was set up to answer members' queries, presentations were given around Australia, and articles appeared regularly in the Service papers on aspects of the schemes. Also, comparison with the public service situation is not appropriate as the two military schemes differ markedly from the two public service schemes with the choice before the ADF members being much more clearcut. In addition, the initial election period for the public service was only six months.
Retention Benefit
The then Occupational Superannuation Standards prevented the repetition in the MSBS of the benefits structure of the DFRDB Scheme which allowed members to receive a life indexed pension, part of which could be commuted to a lump sum, on resignation at any age after serving 20 years. The absence of this benefit, combined with the more generous treatment of those serving less than 20 years, was seen as lessening the incentive for members of the ADF to serve to the 20 year point. To offset this, the Review Committee recommended a retention benefit equal to one year's salary including Service Allowance before tax, payable to members who completed 15 years of continuous full-time service. The Government decided that the following conditions would apply to eligibility for the retention benefit:
- Members must have reached a specified minimum rank level at 15 years, Sergeant (or equivalent) for other rank members, and Major (or equivalent) for officers.
- All officers who have been promoted from the ranks are eligible after 15 years regardless of rank.
- In addition, certain other members e.g. those with particular skills, may be offered the retention benefit despite failure to reach the required rank level.
- Members accepting the benefit must agree to serve another 5 years; members who resign before completing this service commitment must repay part of the gross retention benefit. This would entail distinct tax disadvantages.
Changes
Since the inception of the MSBS, the only changes of substance have been those affecting civilian schemes as well. For example, in June 1993 taxation rebates for superannuation contributions for those earning under $30 000 per annum were introduced, and became available to MSBS members. And the move to preserve members' contributions until age 55 (and eventually age 60), which is to become effective in all superannuation schemes from 1 July 1999, may also affect service personnel.
The Superannuation Contributions Tax, introduced with the budget on 13 May 1997, is aimed at the employers' superannuation contribution to those on higher incomes, and would normally affect only officers from around Major or equivalent in the ADF. However, it may also impact on those lower ranked personnel who, because of the nature of their work, receive large allowances or a retention bonus. For example, pilots, SAS members and submarine crews could well be pushed into higher income brackets and become liable for the superannuation tax.
Comments
The MSBS meets the requirements of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and resolves some anomalies in the DFRDB. It is a vast improvement on the DFRDB for short term employees, and does not disadvantage Service personnel relative to the civilian community. However, most DFRDB scheme members who intended to serve to the 20 year mark considered it financially advantageous to remain in the DFRDB. The introduction of the MSBS ended entitlement for future members to a pension after 20 years service, and was initially criticised as another step in the alignment of military conditions with those of the Public Service. However, the basic consideration in the development of the MSBS was compliance with the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, which sets out the Government's arrangements for all superannuation. Only non-compliance with the official superannuation standards could accommodate retention of the pension and commutation options at an early age. The MSBS was designed with the needs of its members in mind, and there are significant differences from the public service schemes, for example in invalidity benefits.
One disparity between the MSBS and the PSS, the APS superannuation scheme which began in 1990, is with vesting. The PSS allows for the employer benefit to be fully vested at four years, whereas the MSBS does not allow full vesting until year seven. This was introduced deliberately to assist in the retention of ADF personnel in the early years of service.
Mr Bilney stated in August 1990 that the MSBS eventually would result in savings for the Government, but not until the scheme had been operating about 35 years.
The Australian Government Actuary has recently published a report on long-term costs of Defence superannuation (i.e. both DFRDB and MSBS), using data to 30 June 1996. Projections are given of the actual employer cost of the two schemes as a percentage of GDP.(5) These show that outlays on superannuation as a percentage of GDP stay relatively constant until just after the turn of the century. Outlays then decrease steadily as a percentage of GDP, mainly for the following reasons:
- the MSBS is expected to be cheaper in the long term than the DFRDB
- the number of defence personnel is expected to fall as a percentage of the total population
The figures show current employer cost as 0.19 per cent of GDP, and suggest this will fall to 0.11 per cent of GDP by around the year 2035.
The Defence Force considers that having stressed military skills, some of which have little application in civilian life, it has an obligation to make provision for resettlement, especially of longer serving members, ensuring easy transition into civilian life. Personnel are given encouragement to prepare thoroughly for this transition, obtain advice on their entitlements and start planning for their discharge well in advance.
The Defence Force resettlement scheme has the following objectives:
- The member should be able to transfer from his service to civilian occupation with the minimum involuntary break in continuity of employment.
- In the interests of the community and the individual, the member should be employed in an occupation which will make the best use of his qualifications, skills and experience.
- The resettlement measures should always take into account the wishes and needs of the member.
Resettlement arrangements comprise:
Discharge Resettlement Training (DRT). Long-serving members (generally those with 20 years' service) may be relieved from their service duties to undertake DRT (formal courses or on-the-job training) for up to 20 working days. Instead of formal courses, outplacement counselling, involving advice in areas such as job options, resume preparation and job search strategies, is available for skilled personnel who do not have a clear idea of what field of employment they wish to enter after discharge. Attendance at DRT courses can be deferred for up to six months after discharge.
Resettlement Seminars. These are provided at ten locations around Australia. They are extensions of unit counselling and cover topics such as job interview techniques, stress management, investment, home mortgage and taxation.
The Services Vocational and Educational Training Scheme (SVETS). This provides a 75 per cent refund of fees and books (100 per cent for long-serving members) subject to satisfactory conclusion of an approved course taken in the member's own time.
Civilian Recognition of Military Qualifications. An increasing number of the qualifications obtained in service are recognised formally for civilian trade and other requirements. The Army has generally led the way, beginning a serious pursuit of civil accreditation in 1990. In November 1991, a National Framework for the Recognition of Training was published and endorsed for implementation by Commonwealth and State ministers. The RAAF and the Navy are not as advanced in civil accreditation, but are making progress.
Resume Preparation. Members with fifteen or more years service are eligible to have a resume professionally prepared and be reimbursed up to 75 per cent of the cost.
Commutation of Pension. This is officially considered a resettlement measure and is commonly used by eligible members to pay out mortgages (often in conjunction with the Defence Service Homes Scheme), buy businesses or otherwise invest. This is a feature of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefit scheme.
Job Search Leave.Long term members are eligible to be granted up to three days leave for interviews, employment advice etc.
Glenn recommended additional resettlement help, in the form of reimbursement of costs incurred in training for transition to a new career. This proposed Resettlement Assistance was intended especially for those for whom the transfer to the community may be more difficult; for example, those in mid-career.
Separated personnel who are members of the Army Health Benefits Society can, if they wish, retain membership, which would be financially preferable to transferring to another scheme.
- Jans Report, p. 65.
- Cross Report, pp. 322, 325, 347.
- ibid, pp. 328-330.
- ibid, p. 3.
- Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (MSBS and DFRDB). A report on long-term costs carried out by the Australian Government Actuary. Canberra, 1997, p. 19-21.
It seems there has been significant progress in the personnel field during the last seven years, with new policies being developed and implemented in a number of areas and policy decisions pending in others. Generally there have not been the large initiatives that were seen in the 1980s-creation of the Remuneration Tribunal, the Defence Housing Authority, and the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme-but these were in response to long overdue need. Although the trend towards organisational integration has continued, the main process seems to have been in the refinement of existing policies and improvements in lifestyle and family assistance. In the near future, significant structural changes are likely in pay and allowances, and possibly in accommodation assistance and compensation. A good feature of recent policy changes has been the fundamental research which has preceded the decision. On occasions this has seemed excessive and repetitive, with reports shelved and decisions deferred, but the general approach has been preferable to making relatively uninformed and expensive decisions.
Following is a brief summary of the situation for each chapter in the paper:
Regulation of Service Conditions.The DFRT has been a definite step forward, and appears to have adjusted satisfactorily to workplace bargaining. The Defence Reform Program is expected to tackle some of the problems in the system, and it is to be hoped any change will preserve the independence of the Tribunal.
Pay.During the period 1990-96, ADF and APS pay have remained comparable. In contrast to the previous period, 1983-1990, both ADF and APS pay have increased more than the CPI, and some elements in each have increased more than the AWE. Important restructuring is taking place in ADF salaries, with greater flexibility likely in determining remuneration.
Allowances.As regards Service Allowance, the period 1990-96 was similar to the previous period, 1983-1990, with ADF personnel again being disappointed with the Service Allowance review due to unrealistic expectations.
More significant is the fact that the entire allowance structure is undergoing a fundamental review as a result of the DER.
Service Family.An encouraging feature of recent changes has been the tendency to base initiatives on thorough reviews of problems, usually carried out by contractors. Another positive feature has been the integration of the family liaison structure into the Defence Community Organisation.
Members Without Family.The big change here is the trend towards the alignment of policy for single members and married members, especially in accommodation eligibility. This has resulted from a series of inquiries, both internal and external.
Housing.The DHA has virtually completed its upgrade of family housing, and this achievement far outweighs the criticisms made of its operations from time to time. The current trend in DHA activity is toward leasing rather than ownership of stock. Following a substantial review of the housing and accommodation system, a policy decision is anticipated on fundamental principles of housing assistance and the resolution of some problems and anomalies. In home ownership, the significant increase in the maximum subsidised loan available under ADFHLAS has heightened criticism of the maximum loan available under the Defence Service Homes Scheme.
Other Conditions.Probably the main change recorded in this generally descriptive chapter is the creation of an integrated joint health organisation, the Defence Health Service, to control Defence health activities.
Compensation and Repatriation.The Military Compensation Scheme, created in 1994, while an improvement on the previous system, was widely felt to have not gone far enough, and a new 'self-contained' scheme is being currently developed.
Law.The Defence Force Discipline Act seems to have performed reasonably well, and hopefully will be improved as a result of the Justice Abadee report currently being considered by the Chief of the Defence Force.
Women.Servicewomen have continued to make gains, both in positions available and in occupancy of senior positions. Hopefully achievement of their potential will be assisted by initiatives announced in 1994, although it is possible the Defence Reform Program will result in some reduction in positions available for women.
Overseas conditions of service.Probably the main recent initiative in this area has been the new framework introduced in 1993 to formalise conditions of service arrangements for peacekeeping operations.
Resettlement.The introduction of the MSBS in 1991 was necessary and has proved successful, requiring few substantial changes.
-------------------
Looking to the future, one concern is that much of the improvement in pay and conditions in the last few years has come from savings derived from substantial reductions in military and Defence civilian numbers. As was pointed out in Chapter 2, a good proportion of the savings from the Force Structure Review, which saw a reduction of over 10 000 in ADF numbers, went towards pay and conditions. The whole thrust of the current Defence Reform Program (DRP) is towards improving combat and technical support capability, and it can be assumed that a much smaller proportion of savings from the DRP will go to meet personnel needs.
From around the year 2007 costly replacement of capital equipment will become necessary, and it is acknowledged that real increases in the Defence budget, which has seen real decline in recent years, will eventually be required to meet these needs. In the foreseeable future it seems certain that a greater proportion of the budget will go towards equipment, and a decreased proportion towards personnel needs. The heavy cuts in personnel numbers over the last fifteen years have resulted in a comparatively smaller, more highly skilled force. But retention of experienced personnel and recruitment of suitably educated young people will require continuing improvements in remuneration and service conditions. With the focus on combat capability and readiness limiting resources for personnel needs, some problems can be anticipated. Increased use of retention bonuses and more flexible and focused use of allowances may be necessary to avoid separation crises in some skilled areas. And it can be assumed that only the more economic initiatives in service conditions will be adopted. In these circumstances there may be pressures to restrict the independence of the mechanism which determines ADF remuneration, the Remuneration Tribunal, as a means of tightening controls on the distribution of Defence resources. As well as posing unwanted political consequences by refocusing Service pay and conditions onto the government-of-the-day, such a move could significantly affect Service morale.
The ADF spouse employment project report 1995. Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff. [ADFILS]
Anderson, David
Conditions of service in the regular Defence Force. Parliamentary Research Service, Background Paper, November 1990.
Australian Defence Force housing assistance: Department of Defence. (Audit Report No.13, 1994-95), Australian National Audit Office. Canberra, AGPS, 1994.
ADF members without family conditions of service review team. Report, March 1992.
ADF members without family conditions of service review team. Supplementary Report, August 1992.
Australian Defence Force living-in accommodation: Department of Defence. (Audit Report No.25, 1994-95), Australian National Audit Office. Canberra, AGPS, 1995.
Barry, Michael
Australian Government processes: An analysis of the decision to establish the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. Australian Defence Force Academy, 1997.
Barry, M.J.
The application of productivity based wage fixing principles to the ADF. Australian Defence Force Journal , No.114, September-October 1995, pp. 21-41.
Barry, M.J.
A study of the application of productivity based wage fixation to the Australian Defence Force. [Thesis submitted as part of the requirement for the award of Bachelor of Business (Honours) (Industrial Relations) at the Queensland University of Technology], 1994.
Burton, Clare
Women in the Australian Defence Force. Two studies [The Burton Report]:
(1) The cultural, social and institutional barriers impeding the merit-based progression of women.
(2) The reasons why more women are not making the Australian Defence Force a long-term career. Canberra, Director Publishing and Visual Communications, Defence Centre, December 1996.
CREW [Combat Related Employment of Women] Report 1995. Canberra, Australian Army, 1995.
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. Service allowance decision: matter No. 15 of 1993. Canberra, 1994.
Government response to Facing the future together: report on sexual harassment in the Australian Defence Force. Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade. December 1994.
Implementation plan. DFPPC endorsed revised MWOF [Members Without Family] accommodation and relocation assistance policies. November 1992.
Inquiry into military compensation arrangements for the Australian Defence Force. Canberra, Defence Publishing and Visual Communications, 1997.
Jans, N.A. and Frazer-Jans, Judy
Facing up to the future: proposals for career/personnel initiatives to assist in staffing the ADF in the 1990's and beyond. Canberra, 1989.
McGuire, D.J.
Collective bargaining principles in the ADF. Australian Defence Force Journal,
No. 114, September-October 1995, pp.43-47.
Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (MSBS) and DFRDB). A report on long-term costs carried out by the Australian Government Actuary. Canberra, 1997.
Personnel wastage in the Australian Defence Force-report and recommendations. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Canberra, AGPS, 1988.
Quinn, Major Kathryn
Sexual harassment in the Australian Defence Force: a comparative assessment of results from the 1987 ADF career and family study and the 1995 ADF career and family study. Canberra, Australian Army Psychology Corps, December 1996.
Report of the caucus joint working group on homosexual policy in the Australian Defence Force. September, 1992.
Report on the review of ADF personnel and family support services.[The Pratt Report] Canberra, Directorate of Publishing, Defence Centre, 1994.
Report on the review of education assistance for ADF children in Australia. November 1995.
Report on options and strategies to improve support for ADF spouses in obtaining employment. Canberra, HQADF, February 1994.
Report on the review of the Defence Child Care Program. Defence Community Organisation, July 1996.
Report to the Senate on the elimination of sexual harassment in the Australian Defence Force. December 1995.
Senate inquiry into sexual harassment in the Australian Defence Force: submission by Headquarters Australian Defence Force. 15 November 1993.
Senate inquiry into sexual harassment in the Australian Defence Force. Supplementary Submission by Headquarters Australian Defence Force. 4 February 1994.
Serving Australia: the Australian Defence Force in the twenty first century [the Glenn Report]. Canberra, Directorate of Publishing, Defence Centre, 1995.
Sexual harassment in the Australian Defence Force: facing the future together. Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. August 1994.
Women in the military: towards effective integration . Conference documentation. Canberra, Australian Defence Studies Centre, 14 April 1997.
|
Navy
|
Army
|
Air Force
|
|
Commissioned Officers
|
|
Admiral
|
General
|
Air Chief Marshal
|
|
Vice Admiral
|
Lieutenant General
|
Air Marshal
|
|
Rear Admiral
|
Major General
|
Air Vice Marshal
|
|
Commodore
|
Brigadier
|
Air Commodore
|
|
Captain
|
Colonel
|
Group Captain
|
|
Commander
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Wing Commander
|
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Major
|
Squadron Leader
|
|
Lieutenant
|
Captain
|
Flight Lieutenant
|
|
Sub Lieutenant
|
Lieutenant
|
Flying Officer
|
| |
2nd Lieutenant
|
Pilot Officer
|
|
Warrant and Non-Commissioned Officers
|
|
Warrant Officer
|
Warrant Officer Cl 1
|
Warrant Officer
|
|
Chief Petty Officer
|
Warrant Officer Cl 2
|
Flight Sergeant
|
| |
Staff Sergeant
|
Flight Sergeant
|
|
Petty Officer
|
Sergeant
|
Sergeant
|
|
Leading Seaman
|
Corporal or Bombardier
|
Corporal
|
| |
Lance Corporal or Lance Bombardier
|
Leading Aircraftman
|
|
Date of Increase
|
|
|
|
February 1973
|
$ 750
|
Implementation by COI.
|
|
March 1974
|
$ 950
|
D(CS)C Review-Reason for increase not explicit.
|
|
April 1979
|
$1280
|
Increase by COR 'Allowances that Complement Salary'.
|
|
July 1979
|
$1321
|
NWC 3.2 per cent .
|
|
January 1980
|
$1380
|
NWC 4.5 per cent .
|
|
July 1980
|
$1438
|
NWC 4.2 per cent .
|
|
July 1980
|
$1538
|
Increase by COR 'Second Report
-Work Value Change'.
|
|
January 1981
|
$1595
|
NWC 3.7 per cent .
|
|
May 1981
|
$1652
|
NWC 3.6 per cent .
|
|
November 1981
|
$2500
|
Increase by COR 'Third Report'.
|
|
October 1983
|
$2608
|
NWC 4.3 per cent .
|
|
April 1984
|
$2715
|
NWC 4.1 per cent .
|
|
April 1985
|
$2768
|
NWC 2.6 per cent .
|
|
May 1985
|
$2950
|
ADF Anomaly Case 5.9 per cent .
|
|
November 1985
|
$3062
|
NWC 3.8 per cent .
|
|
July 1986
|
$3132
|
NWC 2.3 per cent .
|
|
23 July 1987
|
$3848
|
Review by DFRT ($716-22.9 per cent ).
|
|
21 January 1988
|
$4002
|
DFRT-4 per cent Second Tier Wage Increase.
|
|
13 October 1988
|
$4122
|
DFRT-3 per cent following August 1988 NWC.
|
|
23 November 1989
|
$4246
|
DFRT-3 per cent following NWC.
|
|
7 June 1990
|
$4373
|
DFRT-3 per cent following NWC.
|
|
1 August 1991
|
$4482
|
DFRT-2.5 per cent following NWC
|
|
17 December 1992
|
$4572
|
ADF Productivity Package-2 per cent first increase
|
|
11 March 1993
|
$4636
|
ADF Productivity Package-1.4 per cent second increase
|
|
30 December 1993
|
$4729
|
2 per cent Third Tier Wage Increase
|
|
10 March 1994
|
$4800
|
ADF Productivity Package-1.5 per cent third increase
|
|
20 July 1994
|
$5600
|
DFRT Review ($800 increase-16.7 per cent)
|
|
15 December 1994
|
$5712
|
2 per cent Third Tier Wage Increase
|
|
13 July 1995
|
$5826
|
Workplace Bargaining Arrangement 1995-96
-2 per cent first increase
|
|
7 March 1996
|
$5919
|
Workplace Bargaining Arrangement 1995-6
-1.6 per cent second increase
|
|
17 October 1996
|
$6037
|
Workplace Bargaining Arrangement 1995-96
-2 per cent third increase
|
|
COI = Committee of Inquiry. COR = Committee of Reference. NWC = National Wage Case
|
|
Minister for Defence
|
Beasley, John Albert (ALP)
|
13.7.4514.8.46
|
| |
Forde, Francis Michael, PC (ALP)
|
15.8.461.11.46
|
| |
Dedman, John Johnstone (ALP)
|
1.11.4619.12.49
|
| |
Harrison, Eric John (LIB)
|
19.12.4924.10.50
|
| |
*McBride, Philip Albert Martin (later Sir Philip, KCMG) (LIB)
|
24.10.5010.12.58
|
| |
Townley, Athol Gordon (LIB)
|
10.12.5818.12.63
|
| |
Hasluck, Paul Meernaa Caedwalla (LIB)
|
18.12.6324.4.64
|
| |
*Paltridge, Shane Dunne (later Sir
|
24.4.6419.1.66
|
| |
Shane, KBE)(LIB)
|
|
| |
Fairhall, Allen (LIB)
|
26.1.6612.11.69
|
| |
Fraser, John Malcolm (LIB)
|
12.11.698.3.71
|
| |
Gorton, John Grey, PC, CH (LIB)
|
10.3.7113.8.71
|
| |
Fairbairn, David Eric, DFC (LIB)
|
13.8.715.12.72
|
| |
Barnard, Lance Herbert (ALP)
|
5.12.726.6.75
|
| |
Morrison, William Lawrence (ALP)
|
6.6.7511.11.75
|
| |
Killen, Denis James (LIB)
|
12.11.757.5.82
|
| |
Sinclair, Ian McCahon, PC (NCP)
|
7.5.8211.3.83
|
| |
Scholes, Gordon Glen Denton (ALP)
|
11.3.8313.12.84
|
| |
Beazley, Kim Christian (ALP)
|
13.12.844.4.90
|
| |
*Ray, Robert Francis (ALP)
|
4.4.9011.3.96
|
| |
McLachlan, Ian Murray, AO (LIB)
|
from 11.3.96
|
| |
|
Other defence-related portfolios
|
|
Minister for Air
|
Drakeford, Arthur Samuel (ALP)
|
13.7.4519.12.49
|
|
|
White, Thomas Walter, DFC, VD (LIB)
|
19.12.4911.5.51
|
| |
*McBride, Philip Albert Martin (LIB)
|
11.5.5117.7.51
|
| |
McMahon, William (LIB)
|
17.7.519.7.54
|
| |
Townley, Athol Gordon (LIB)
|
9.7.5424.10.56
|
| |
Osborne, Frederick Meares, DSC (LIB)
|
24.10.5629.12.60
|
| |
*Wade, Harrie Walter (CP)
|
29.12.6022.12.61
|
| |
Bury, Leslie Harry Ernest (LIB)
|
22.12.6127.7.62
|
| |
Fairbairn, David Eric, DFC (LIB)
|
4.8.6210.6.64
|
| |
Howson, Peter (LIB)
|
10.6.6428.2.68
|
| |
Freeth, Gordon (LIB)
|
28.2.6813.2.69
|
| |
Erwin, George Dudley (LIB)
|
13.2.6912.11.69
|
| |
*Drake-Brockman, Thomas Charles,
|
12.11.695.12.72
|
| |
DFC (CP)
|
|
| |
Barnard, Lance Herbert (ALP)
|
5.12.7230.11.73
|
| |
|
Minister for the Army
|
Forde, Francis Michael, PC (ALP)
|
13.7.451.11.46
|
|
Chambers, Cyril (ALP)
|
1.11.4619.12.49
|
|
Francis, Josiah (LIB)
|
19.12.497.11.55
|
|
Harrison, Sir Eric John, PC, KCVO
|
7.11.5528.2.56
|
|
(LIB)
|
|
|
Cramer, John Oscar (LIB)
|
28.2.5618.12.63
|
|
Forbes, Alexander James, MC (LIB)
|
18.12.6326.1.66
|
|
Fraser, John Malcolm (LIB)
|
26.1.6628.2.68
|
|
Lynch, Phillip Reginald (LIB)
|
28.2.6812.11.69
|
|
Peacock, Andrew Sharp (LIB)
|
12.11.692.2.72
|
|
Katter, Robert Cummin (CP)
|
2.2.725.12.72
|
|
Barnard, Lance Herbert (ALP)
|
5.12.7230.11.73
|
| |
|
Minister for the Navy
|
Makin, Norman John Oswald (ALP)
|
13.7.4515.8.46
|
| |
Drakeford, Arthur Samuel (ALP)
|
15.8.461.11.46
|
| |
Riordan, William James Frederick (ALP)
|
1.11.4619.12.49
|
| |
Francis, Josiah (LIB)
|
19.12.4911.5.51
|
| |
*McBride, Philip Albert Martin (LIB)
|
11.5.5117.7.51
|
| |
McMahon, William (LIB)
|
17.7.519.7.54
|
| |
Francis, Josiah (LIB)
|
9.7.547.11.55
|
| |
Harrison, Sir Eric John, PC, KCVO (LIB)
|
7.11.5511.1.56
|
| |
*O'Sullivan, Neil (LIB)
|
11.1.5624.10.56
|
| |
Davidson, Charles William, OBE (CP)
|
24.10.5610.12.58
|
| |
*Gorton, John Grey (LIB)
|
10.12.5818.12.63
|
| |
Forbes, Alexander James, MC (LIB)
|
18.12.634.3.64
|
| |
Chaney, Frederick Charles, AFC (LIB)
|
4.3.6414.12.66
|
| |
Chipp, Donald Leslie (LIB)
|
14.12.6628.2.68
|
| |
Kelly, Charles Robert (LIB)
|
28.2.6812.11.69
|
| |
Killen, Denis James (LIB)
|
12.11.6922.3.71
|
| |
Mackay, Malcolm George (LIB)
|
22.3.715.12.72
|
| |
Barnard, Lance Herbert (ALP)
|
5.12.7230.11.73
|
| |
|
Note: On 30.11.1973 the Departments of the Navy, Army and Air were abolished and their functions merged with those of the Department of Defence.
|
| |
|
Minister for Defence Production
|
Harrison, Eric John (later Sir Eric, PC, KCVO) (LIB)
|
11.5.5124.10.56
|
| |
Beale, Oliver Howard, QC (LIB)
|
24.10.5610.2.58
|
| |
Townley, Athol Gordon (LIB)
|
11.2.5823.4.58
|
| |
|
Minister Assisting the
|
McLeay, John Elden (LIB)
|
22.12.753.11.80
|
|
Minister for Defence
|
Newman, Kevin Eugene (LIB)
|
3.11.807.5.82
|
| |
|
Minister for Defence Support
|
Viner, Robert Ian (LIB)
|
7.5.8211.3.83
|
| |
Howe, Brian Leslie (ALP)
|
11.3.8313.12.84
|
| |
|
Minister Assisting the
|
Beazley, Kim Christian (ALP)
|
11.3.8313.12.84
|
|
Minister for Defence
|
Brown, John Joseph (ALP)
|
13.12.8424.7.87
|
| |
Duffy, Michael John (ALP)
|
13.12.8424.7.87
|
| |
|
Parliamentary Secretary for
|
Kelly, Roslyn Joan (ALP)
|
24.7.8718.9.87
|
|
Defence Science and Personnel
|
| |
|
Minister for Defence Science
|
Kelly, Roslyn Joan (ALP)
|
18.9.876.4.89
|
|
and Personnel
|
Simmons, David William (ALP)
|
6.4.894.4.90
|
| |
Bilney, Gordon Neil (ALP)
|
4.4.9024.3.93
|
| |
*Faulkner, John Philip (ALP)
|
24.3.9325.3.94
|
| |
Punch, Gary Francis (ALP)
|
25.3.9411.3.96
|
| |
|
Parliamentary Secretary to
|
Price, Leo Roger Spurway (ALP)
|
27.12.9124.3.93
|
|
the Minister for Defence
|
Punch, Gary Francis (ALP)
|
24.3.9325.3.94
|
| |
Bevis, Archibald Ronald (ALP)
|
25.3.9411.3.96
|
| |
|
Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel
|
Bishop, Bronwyn Kathleen (LIB)
|
from 11.3.96
|
|
* Senator.
|
(The following list is an extract from: Serving Australia: The Australian Defence Force in the Twenty First Century. Canberra, Defence Centre, 1995: 285-295)
This Chapter draws together and correlates the recommendations from the previous chapters for ease of reference.
Chapter 1 The External Environment
- We recommend that the impact of future trends in the social, economic, organisational and industrial environments be noted and that these trends continue to be monitored.
Chapter 2 Vision for ADF Personnel 2005
- We recommend that the Defence Vision for ADF personnel be noted and that increased prominence be accorded Service values.
Chapter 3 Principles of Personnel Policy Strategy
- We recommend that the set of ten principles contained in this Chapter be adopted as the basis for ADF personnel policy strategy.
Chapter 4 Employment and Work Practices
Phased Careers
- the ADF recruit to a constant base and manage separations;
- the ADF introduce a system of Phased Careers based on Fixed Terms of Employment, with the number and lengths of phases varying for occupational groups;
- a Completion Incentive be paid at the end of each career phase, with the quantum varying for occupational groups;
- a Resettlement Assistance be provided for members leaving the ADF at the end of a career phase;
- Completion Incentives and Resettlement Assistance replace a range of gratuities and bounties that currently exist;
- Retention Bonuses be provided at the discretion of the Chiefs of Staff for the retention of a group of members critical to the operational effectiveness of the ADF;
- Limited Tenure Promotion be extended to all rank levels;
- Management Initiated Early Retirement be extended to all rank levels;
- the Return of Service Obligation be confined to those cases where members have been given significant training which makes them highly marketable;
Staffing
- a more flexible approach to the staffing of ADF positions be adopted by the use of relief pools, secondments, exchanges, second career streams and labour exchanges;
- the ADF encourage more lateral recruitment and the re-employment of former members without detriment;
- communication be maintained with members not in continuous contact with the ADF, including advice on training and career development opportunities;
- physical fitness standards should be aligned to occupational requirements and meet OH&S responsibilities;
Flexible Work Practices
- a range of Flexible Work Practices be developed for the Regular and Reserve components of the ADF to apply as local circumstances dictate;
- concomitant conditions of service packages be developed for Flexible Work Practices;
- establishment practices be reviewed to facilitate Flexible Work Practices;
Social Justice
- all ADF employment be discrimination free and be based on the requirements of the job and the capability of the member to do the task;
- job design and specifications and career management systems be reviewed to ensure that any unintentional discrimination against women is eradicated;
- strategies be developed to encourage people from non English speaking backgrounds to join the ADF;
- strategies be developed to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to join the ADF; and
- at the expiration of the current exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act, no further exemption be sought.
Chapter 5 Reward, Recognition and Entitlements
An Independent Approach
the ADF not be bound to any other group for adjustments of pay and conditions, and that the circumstances dictate the approach to be followed;
Rank
- the existing rank structure be maintained but that rank be used selectively in organisations;
The Pay System
- the 'all of one company' approach in the context of pay be abandoned;
- a new pay system be introduced based on work value and be applied to both other rank and officer rank members;
- a Market Forces Pay Element, additional to work value, be introduced for occupations where due to high demand in the employment market it is difficult to attract and retain members;
- if in the new pay system a member moves from a higher paid job to a lower paid job, the pay of the member should be frozen until the remuneration of the position occupied increases above the frozen rate.
- competency based increments be applied to all salaries under the new pay system;
- members who have plateaued in rank but who are performing at a demonstrably superior level be paid one or more performance increments;
- salary compression be dealt with in the work value examination;
- performance based pay only apply at the senior management levels and be similar to that applying in the Senior Executive Service of the APS;
Allowances
- a Mobility Allowance, comprising three elements (an incentive to move, posting turbulence and disturbance) be introduced and paid on the occurrence of each move, with the quantum varying with members' circumstances:
- Service Allowance cover those elements that apply to all members and be incorporated into salary;
- the proposed work value based review of ADF pay consider whether any allowances or elements thereof can be incorporated into salary;
- the work value elements of Flying Allowance and Submarine Service Allowance be incorporated into work value based pay, and the attraction and retention element of Flying Allowance be dealt with under the Market Forces Pay Element;
Accommodation and Relocation
- the distinction between the entitlements of single and married members be removed and a decision on the Members Without Family Review be finalised as soon as possible;
- alternatives for the provision of accommodation assistance and subsidies be pursued;
- the provision of living-in accommodation be reassessed and the management of such accommodation be transferred to a commercial agency;
- the relocation of a unit, formation or facility take account of the demography of the organisation involved and any trends likely to impact upon the people;
- the purchasing power and beneficial impact upon the community of a defence presence should be marketed more effectively, particularly in negotiations with state and regional authorities for the provision of infrastructure;
- the management of removals and housing allocations be placed on a commercial basis;
Non Financial Recognition
- a team and unit citation be introduced to recognise outstanding contribution or achievement in non operational activities;
- a comprehensive approach be developed for the ways in which non financial recognition can be granted; and
Presentation
- whatever conditions of service prevail they be presented as a comprehensive package.
Chapter 6 Support for Members and Families
- the ADF develop a strategic policy on family support which determines what families need, what should be provided, what should be the division of responsibility between the member and the ADF, and how the service should be provided;
- the provision of family support be based on helping members to help themselves, particularly through the development of self help programs;
- family support mechanisms be designed to cope with the transition from today's environment to levels of conflict;
- an ADF spouse employment assistance policy be developed to encompass employment assistance service, job search assistance, training and education assistance and access to unemployment benefits;
- a comprehensive ADF child care policy be developed;
- the Education Assistance Review consider a communication strategy to influence education decision makers, and also examine the adequacy of education allowance and assistance with accommodation and reunion costs when a child cannot transfer to the new locality;
- a range of measures be adopted to accommodate the requirements of families with special needs; and
- strategies be developed to ensure that volunteer organisations remain viable and continue to complement formal ADF support structures.
Chapter 7 The Reserves
- the military workforce be considered a single entity with part time (Reserve) and full time (Regular) components and employment arrangements for each be aligned;
- the ADF adopt arrangements allowing members to move freely and without detriment between the part time and full time components;
- the entitlements and benefits of the Reserves be related to the work value of their jobs, their contribution and the demands of military employment and be based on the entitlements and benefits of full time members;
- the ADF adopt a new remuneration model for the Reserves packaged to include salary, allowances, commitment bonus, accrual benefits, support provisions and taxation:
- current Reserve members have the option of retaining the existing conditions of service package or transferring to the new remuneration package;
- the new remuneration package be underpinned by a system of employment practices affording members choice and allowing the ADF to manage its people effectively;
- the development of family support policies include policies for the families of Reserve members;
- training for Reserve members target the tasks to be performed and differentiate between skill based and knowledge training;
- a stronger partnership with employers be built through the Defence Reserve Support Committee;
- a comprehensive and useable data base be created including data on what motivates Reserve members, their attitudes toward a part time military career and a profile of their particular circumstances; and
- career management for Reserve members recognise the demands made of them and become more active, flexible and standardised in its application.
Chapter 8 A Learning Organisation
- the ADF adopt strategic policies to ensure that it functions as a 'learning organisation';
- training and education issues be included in the broader aspects of strategic corporate planning and policy making and be reflected in the Strategic Personnel Plan;
- the Training Commanders' Forum become an instrument for strategic planning and policy development and be chaired by ACPERS when strategic issues are considered;
- the Training Commands adopt best practice and develop a partnership approach to more effectively analyse, develop, conduct and evaluate training;
- the competencies and skills required for each ADF occupation and the pre-requisites necessary for entry to training in those occupations be clearly specified;
- the ADF provide enhanced professional programs aimed at developing management skills including personnel management skills;
- an over-arching policy on skills accreditation be developed by HQADF and included in the Strategic Personnel Plan;
- the ADF provide a more flexible range of training and education options taking account of the emergence of new competencies, different delivery methods and learning for personal growth;
- the ADF continue to rationalise training;
- the costs of training be measured more effectively; and
- the Australian Defence Force Academy be used in a more flexible manner to meet ADF training and education needs.
Chapter 9 Setting the Balance - A New Management Style
- personnel policy development take account of the shift in balance needed between the corporate needs of the ADF and the needs of its people;
- more discretion be pursued in the design of personnel policies;
- training for personnel staff include the concepts of equity, discretion, choice and broad banding; and
- a plain English rewriting exercise be applied to any personnel policy document being replaced or changed.
Chapter 10 Strategic Links - The Personnel Process
- a systemic relationship be established between the personnel, investment and operations functions in managing the ADF;
- TYDP and FYDP procedures be enhanced by linking personnel planning requirements into all strategic and planning processes;
- a planning and evaluation methodology be applied to personnel:
- a Strategic Personnel Plan be developed for the ADF;
- at all levels there be a partnership approach to the development of personnel policy;
- the senior personnel committee be renamed the Defence Personnel Committee, with a strategic outlook and executive powers, and chaired by the VCDF;
- there be cross membership between the personnel and capability committees;
- the role of ACPERS be upgraded to accommodate strategic responsibilities;
- the roles of the Service Assistant Chiefs of Staff for Personnel be augmented to take account of their strategic responsibilities:
- a Strategic Personnel Planning Group be formed in HQADF to provide an analytical and strategic level personnel outlook;
- a Personnel Policy Coordination Forum be formed to achieve more effective cooperation on personnel issues; and
- the personnel components of HQADF and HR&M Division be examined to harmonise skills and talents, refine divisions of responsibility and strengthen linkages.
Chapter 11 Industrial Relations in the ADF
- a mechanism for consultation with members, separate from the chain of command, be developed;
- the mechanism consist of forums at the local, regional and central levels where personnel issues would be resolved;
- a Defence Member Representative be created, with a small secretariat to assist members in the forum process and to make formal representations on behalf of members;
- the employer role for the ADF be vested in the CDF and the role of HQADF staff be adjusted accordingly;
- powers under Section 58B of the Defence Act currently administered by DIR be transferred to the CDF;
- commanders have an understanding of the ADF industrial relations system; and
- channels for complaint be adjusted to provide that policy change proposals be dealt with in the proposed consultation process.
Chapter 12 Supporting Personnel Management
- personnel management become recognised as a specialist area of employment and career streaming for personnel specialists be adopted;
- personnel experience be a prerequisite for advancement to the highest echelons of the ADF;
- interoperable personnel information systems be established for the aggregate management of the ADF, with the characteristics of consistent terminology, transparency, analytical and modelling capability, and accessibility;
- the ADF continuously monitor the external and internal environments which impact on personnel;
- the ADF enhance and sustain its personnel research and analysis capability;
- ADF managers take into account numbers, activity and price when considering personnel costs; and
- the ADF establish a simple and flexible legal infrastructure to support the personnel process.
Chapter 13 Change and Communication
- the ADF develop and instil a new culture of personnel management through the introduction of a change management philosophy, in consultation with key stakeholders;
- the change management philosophy include a combination of developmental and task focused strategies;
- a communication plan support the implementation and ongoing management of the ADF Personnel Policy Strategy;
- personnel policies be promulgated in a comprehensive, accessible and easily understood form which is conducive to prompt amendment;
- the rationale for management decisions be fully articulated to middle management levels - the change leaders;
- a comprehensive external communication strategy be developed toward building the image of the ADF in the Australian community; and
- the outcomes of this Review including the key recommendations, implementation plan and timetable be communicated to the members of the ADF as soon as possible.
Chapter 14 Major Challenges
- geographic stability for members and their families be achieved through the collocation of support infrastructure and operational elements and the tri-Service clustering of mutually supporting units, formations and facilities;
- the needs of people be considered when decisions are being taken about the relocation or establishment of units, formations and facilities;
- respite for members be achieved by adjusting manpower requirements and the level of activities and operational commitments including preparedness requirements;
- the ADF review the way in which force elements are configured, operate and deploy;
- job requirements be clearly specified and that members be promoted on merit; and
- resource implications arising out of this Review be handled through normal budgetary processes with detailed work being undertaken to develop financial models of training costs and phased careers.
(The following list is an extract from: Burton, Clare. Women in the Australian Defence Force. Two Studies. Canberra, Defence Centre, December 1996: 201-205)
Recommendation 1
That the ADF:
- create an Employment Equity (or Equal Employment Opportunity) Unit to develop an ADF-wide strategic, long-term planning process for the effective elimination of all forms of discrimination and harassment;
- develop general employment equity principles, standards and guidelines to apply across the Services; sufficiently developed to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination law and government EEO policy within each of the Services; and designed to highlight the ADF's aim of, on the one hand, developing gender-neutral employment standards, and, on the other, the elimination of unintentional, indirect and systemic forms of discrimination in Human Resource Management and related policies, procedures and practices;
- develop a clear framework document defining and explaining equity and equality, direct and indirect discrimination, what is meant by equitable treatment as distinct from preferential treatment and what affirmative action is and is not, with relevant illustrative material;
- undertake a review of all current Service EEO statements, policies and program documents to ensure consistency with the ADF position and the framework document;
- explore, through universities, the TAFE system and other training providers the availability of appropriate education and training programs for longer-term development and dissemination of theoretical and practical knowledge on anti-discrimination law and employment equity policies and issues;
- appoint civilian staff with expertise in the field to work closely with HQADF and personnel in each of the Services to initiate and coordinate the above activities; to provide rapid and effective skills transfer to personnel, selected on merit, at HQADF and from each of the Services to advise on and guide employment equity planning;
- appoint civilian staff with expertise in the field to prepare the ADF for the broader employment equity focus on people of non-English speaking background, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders and people with disabilities while maintaining the momentum for achieving gender integration.
Recommendation 2
That the ADF use this Report as a basis for a strategic planning process aimed at eliminating discriminatory policies and practices and at achieving gender integration.
Recommendation 3
That institutionalised commitment be achieved through meaningful expressions of ownership of the gender-integration agenda; that the ADF counter the prevailing view that gender integration is the result of political pressure, by widely and publicly acknowledging community and female members' expectations of it as an employment provider, by disseminating the facts of women's involvement and performance capacities in military roles, and by pointing to demographic patterns and technological imperatives which require the ADF to broaden its recruitment base to fulfil its role effectively and efficiently.
Recommendation 4
- That all Commissioned and Senior Noncommissioned Officers, with the priority on the most senior Officers within the Defence Force, receive comprehensive and intensive briefings and training on their leadership responsibilities, with particular emphasis on the critical nature of their active commitment and support for the cultural changes required to achieve effective gender integration;
- that the briefings and training comprehensively cover their role in the non-discriminatory implementation of policies and in the elimination of discriminatory procedures and practices; the legal and organisational frameworks within which these responsibilities are to be exercised; the importance of their assuming role model and mentor status.
Recommendation 5
- That HQADF and each Service specify the nature of Employment Equity related positions, their main roles and key accountabilities;
- that selection criteria be developed for such positions with people selected and appointed in accordance with the merit principle as defined in chapter 1 of this report;
- that, until knowledge and understanding is more broadly distributed, no Employment Equity position or related position be filled for developmental purposes unless this be part of a training program where support and skills-transfer is adequately resourced and supervised.
Recommendation 6
That Employment Equity strategic planning and consultation be an integral component of the roles, functions, teams and committees set up to implement the recommendations of the Report Serving Australia and be an integral component of the deliberations of the Defence Personnel Committee, the Strategic Personnel Planning Group and the Personnel Policy Coordination Forum , should they or similar bodies be set up in line with the recommendations of the Report, Serving Australia.
Recommendation 7
That the performance reporting system be used as a vehicle through which commitment to organisational values and policies is built and as a means of signalling that progress in Equal Employment Opportunity is essential for achieving mission goals.
Recommendation 8
- That Chiefs of Staff be held accountable to the Chief of the Defence Force for ensuring Commanding Officers are making a difference to the climate and opportunities for women;
- that leaders and Commanding Officers be held formally accountable for gender-integration progress through regular six monthly reports of achievements via the hierarchy to the Defence Personnel Committee;
- that senior Officers, managers and supervisors be assessed through the performance reporting system on their contributions to eliminating discriminatory practices and on the positive role they play in the gender-integration process.
Recommendation 9
- That Commanding Officers, having been adequately briefed, trained, provided with advisory and other support, and having had expectations of them clearly established, be held accountable for the elimination of discrimination and harassment in their units;
- that ultimately, after phased-in management and supervisory education and training programs, Commanding Officers be held responsible for the following supervisory, management and training practices of their staff: (a) inappropriate differential treatment of men and women; (b) the conveying of directives negatively; © poor and inconsistent management of work/family issues; (d) lack of compliance with unacceptable behaviour guidelines; and (e) the incidence of sexual and gender harassment complaints;
- that the ADF and each Service clarify for all members its expectations of supervisors' and managers' styles and methods of supervising and disciplining and provide guidance on the variations in them deemed appropriate for different settings.
Recommendation 10
That gender-integration principles and expected achievements be built into the strategies and goals of Defence Management Programs.
Recommendation 11
That comprehensive, multifaceted intervention plans be developed for units and categories of members where positive attitudes towards women in the military have been identified as particularly difficult to achieve.
Recommendation 12
- That a plan for consultation and communication with members on gender-integration issues be developed;
- that it include single sex and mixed-sex focus group and workplace-based discussion on personnel-related matters in order that levels of comprehension of current policies, and effectiveness of education and training initiatives, can be assessed; and in order that areas in need of future action can be identified in 'off the record' contexts.
Recommendation 13
- That the ADF, in consultation with each of the Services, develop a set of guidelines and initiate focused action to ensure compliance with the indirect discrimination provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act;
- that this Report's identification of existing indirectly discriminatory policies and practices (in chapter 5)-in particular those governing the career management system-form the basis for establishing the required redress and other measures to overcome potential future effects of past discriminatory policies and practices.
Recommendation 14
- That the ADF, with the assistance of expert advice, embark upon a systematic review of, and develop a policy framework for, the design and implementation of selection testing procedures and performance reporting and promotion systems, based on the principles of transparency, accountability, validity and reliability;
- that a continuous review process of criteria and standards and their validation be developed as a component part of the ADF's strategic approach to the management of human resources.
Recommendation 15
- That the ADF and each of the Services, following intensive educative efforts and in consultation with women, determine the special initiatives to be developed to provide women with the necessary support to enhance their levels of comfort and feelings of belonging within the military setting;
- that regular unit climate surveys be conducted, with particular reference to sexual and gender harassment, as one means of assessing the effects of good practice and of identifying areas where strong interventions are required;
- that an audit of clothing and equipment be carried out in consultation with members to establish what remaining modifications need to occur; that, in the meantime, information on adaptations and alterations that can significantly enhance women's capacity and efficiency be widely disseminated.
Recommendation 16
that the ADF and each Service ensure that impediments to decision makers (including those advising on or making promotion decisions) having ready access to expert advice, valuable and relevant experience, and the diversity of perspective, including from women, required for sound decision making.
Recommendation 17
That the principles set out in chapter 6 of this Report, regarding work-family accommodations, form the basis for the development of a strategic approach to ensuring that appropriate facilities, terms and conditions and support are provided to members.
Recommendation 18
- That a comprehensive database be maintained of personnel-related statistics;
- that a gender breakdown of all relevant data be readily available for educative, monitoring and reporting purposes;
- that the data be used to provide members, the public and the relevant Minister with the facts regarding women's and men's recruitment, occupational distribution, course participation patterns, posting patterns, promotion rates, career patterns, representation on decision making bodies, length of service, leave patterns and separation rates;
- that a behavioural and social science perspective be introduced to broaden the current research perspectives and capacities within the Services;
- that research results, in the form of data observations and findings, be used to clarify and modify approaches to gender integration and to overcome any problems associated with their implementation.
Recommendation 19
That the ADF, through internal and external monitoring activities, maintain a comprehensive database on policy development, models of good practice and effective change strategies as they relate to gender integration, to ensure that problems are widely canvassed, and solutions disseminated, to avoid constant 'reinventing of the wheel'.
Recommendation 20
- That regular internal and external reviews of progress made in gender integration be carried out;
- that the Inspector-General's role include periodic reviews of the management of the gender-integration process;
- that the Terms of Reference, role, composition and resourcing of the Defence Advisory Forum on Discrimination be altered to allow for meaningful review activity in order to extend the accountability of the ADF to the public for the provision of equitable employment opportunities and as a positive public relations measure;
- that this Report and subsequent reports on gender-integration progress be made publicly available, including to military organisations in other countries in reciprocal fashion, as a significant symbol of commitment to cultural change and as a good faith measure.