- John Blaxland: Middle East adventures undermine our regional ties
- Kathryn Spurling: Scandalised military finally heading the right way?
- Peter Leahy: Another century, another long war
- Stuart Robert: Strong ADF and healthy budget are our national insurance
- Stephen Conroy: Australia should build its own submarine fleet
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
"Mate, I'd tell you but you couldn't print it." We are standing at the butts of a firing range in the Middle East, it is 35 degrees outside, and the soldier, who is scheduled to go to Iraq, is blunt. He snorts dismissively at the government's 1.5 per cent pay offer. "It's just crap." Other diggers who have just arrived on deployment join in. Normally, they are reluctant to discuss controversial issues with journalists – no one wants to risk being quoted. But in this case everyone has a view. Frustration with the government has been growing for months, and these wage negotiations have been the final straw.
In this case, it is the allowances for people deployed on operations, rather than the meagre amount contained in the overall pay offer. The problem is the way the cuts are structured. The effect has been to slash payments for those in the Middle East: people at the sharp end of combat. This has given rise to the perception that the government's real aim was always simply to save money. The illogical reality becomes apparent on an induction course for service personnel being deployed to the Middle East theatre.
The soldiers fly into Al Minhad Air Base, where they learn features of the latest improvised explosive devices, fire their weapons, have secret briefings on the latest mutation of the shifting nature of the insurgency – and have a complex lecture on the different rates of pay, depending on where people happen to be (officially) based.
The soldiers are unimpressed. "Compare our pay to the politicians," says one. He then quotes – verbatim – an Australian Strategic Policy Institute analysis. "Politicians got a pay rise of 31 per cent in 2012. The Chief [of the Defence Force] got 27 per cent. But we don't even get to keep up with inflation. It sucks."
Mark Thomson with some numbers on Defence pay scales http://t.co/tmJVoXjwlH #ausdef pic.twitter.com/TU8NWp3rx2 — ASPI (@ASPI_org) October 17, 2014
Those being deployed in the war in Iraq are angry for another reason, too. They are here without any idea what their conditions may be. "It's a case of 'do the job and we'll tell you what we'll pay you for it later'," says an airman. "The war's being going for weeks now, but there's not been a peep on pay. Don't get me wrong, nobody's in it for the money, but it would be nice to know so that we can plan for Christmas."
This technician knows he won't be home to celebrate with his family but is very unhappy he has no idea how much his service will be worth. More importantly, he is angry the government doesn't seem to think that telling him is a priority. "They're quick to cut pay but they're a darn sight slower when it comes to giving you something extra," he says.
In January, Prime Minister Tony Abbott went on Sydney radio to defend the slashing of allowances for soldiers deployed overseas. "The nature of service in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East has changed. Until the end of last year, a lot of our forces ... were in the field, they were engaged in regular combat. And that's quite different," Abbott continued, "from the kind of training and support roles that they will be in this year and subsequently."
This was, of course, only the first blow. Adding insult to injury, the government is now offering service personnel pay rises of just 1.5 per cent a year for each of the next three years – in return for giving up "stand-down" leave and other allowances. Those who have calculated the difference assert (The Canberra Times has been unable to confirm the allegations) that, by the time inflation, at 3 per cent, is taken into account, they will be worse off.
What makes the situation particularly worse for those deployed overseas is the way cuts have been introduced for those at the pointy end of war. "There's no logic or consistency to any of this," says an officer who asked to remain anonymous. "It's impossible not to conclude that the aim is simply to save money."
As an example, he refers to sailors operating in the Gulf on HMAS Toowoomba. Before July 1, this operation was tax-free but, on that date, it suddenly, and magically, changed to become non-warlike. Nothing else altered. In fact, the ship was recently busier than ever, engaging in three contacts with suspected pirates within a week.
"The distinction defence is drawing in many cases is completely arbitrary," he says. "People doing similar tasks and living in the same conditions are receiving different pay depending entirely on where they happen to be based."
The new pay regime in the operational area – eventually intended to be a matrix of nine different levels of pay, depending on the operation and the location – has already become an administrative nightmare. Anyone travelling on duty, such as the signallers who need to shift on an almost daily basis to repair radios through the region, must submit different returns each night to allow their pay to be calculated. Any savings are immediately consumed by the increased burden of paperwork.
The change has led to the bizarre situation where some people receive their money tax-free while others don't, even though both are posted to exactly the same operation. For operational reasons, the exact details cannot be disclosed. Nevertheless, The Canberra Times is now aware of one location where people work side-by-side on the same task, yet on vastly different conditions of service.
In trying to claw back money from some personnel, the government has inadvertently created a ridiculous situation. It is understood that many senior officers – including the most senior of all – have vigorously protested the cuts. Yet they face firm edicts from a government that is both struggling to balance the budget and buy the latest military hardware. Labor repeatedly put off decisions about modernising equipment. The Coalition is determined to address such deficiencies. Nevertheless, the perception has spread rapidly through the services that it is doing so at the cost of allowances to those on operations overseas.
The government has justified its move on the grounds that many of those deployed in the Middle East are no longer engaged in combat. Those now on duty correctly point out that, previously, only a small minority of soldiers moved "outside the wire". Additionally, they insist the burden of being effectively locked inside a small compound for six months creates significant extra stresses of its own.
Another officer, who has served previously in the Middle East, points out that deployment pay is not indexed. "I got $200 a day when I came here nearly 10 years ago. That's gone down in value because of inflation. Now, I won't even get that because they're slashing my allowances. And, finally, they offer us a measly 1.5 per cent pay rise over the next three years as long as we give up our leave." He pauses, scratching his head. "I know why they're doing it. They want to save money and they know we aren't able to complain. We've got to just suck it up. Well, I'm angry."
It's understood the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, is also unhappy about the way his pay is now fixed to the heads of statutory authorities. This saw his pay catapult less than a year ago, increasing to more than $800,000 a year. He is now forced to justify slashing benefits to those on operations as the military becomes more aligned to the "civilian sector". He has no choice other than follow the government's instruction to slash pay or resign.
Although many personnel now deployed in, for example, Al Minhad Air Base are not engaged in so-called "combat operations", others are. The pay scale does distinguish between someone loading live weapons onto a Super Hornet in 40-degree heat, and a clerk in an air-conditioned office: the person pushing the pen gets more money. The point is that the assumptions used to calculate pay and allowances are completely arbitrary.
What sounded like a sensible way of properly remunerating those facing greater danger has become a joke. The reality has been the creation of an insupportable administrative burden that operates seemingly without any rationale. Its only effect has been to destroy the morale of those on operations.
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer travelling in the Middle East with the Australian forces. nicstuart.blogspot.com