Thread: Government supporting our troops

It's obviously not a war zone Bob because the bullets don't hurt as much when they kill you Besides, there aren't as many brownie points for Wee Johnny there And it can't be an official war without the yanks can it :confused:

Richard
yeah, I thought it stunk when I heard it on the news :mad:

I could give you a list of the Government "support" for current and ex diggers that would make you spew. I just won't stir myself up by doing it. :mad:

So what's new? On a "peacekeeping mission" I (and others) was shot at umteen times, landed in numerous minefields, enjoyed a standoff with armed villagers and, finally, was tracked by a live firing ZSU23-4, causing some very severe evasive manoeuvering. For the privilige of nine months of this, the Government of the day kept half the allowances paid by the force sponsors, devalued the dollar 10% when we were on US currency and then didn't grant any active service recognition.

Australia has treated its serving and ex-serving military people quite badly at times. This is known outside the country but seems to surprise those inside the country.

Hi Bob

I support Nelson on this. I spent 8months in mission unarmed in the mountains and there is no, or very little, threat to Australians in East Timor.

I am 70% certain to be redeploying there unarmed in the next six weeks and am comfortable to do so.

The east timorise are violent to each other but historically leave others alone, even when intervening.

Defence may do a lot of things wrong, but in this case I think they are on the ball.

Sorry

dazzler

Spending time in a mission is very different to putting yourself in harms way to resolve issues.
You more than likely felt safe because of those that had gone before you, ie Aussie Soldiers.

I spent a fair bit of time over there a few years ago and we recieved war like allowances, as well as future benefits.

I see no reason why the guys there at the moment don't recieve the same. They are there doing exactly what was done the first time.

BTW, the allowances we got were about half what the guys got in Iraq, but none of us complained once we heard some of the stories from the guys over there.

Cheers, Jack

Originally Posted by Jack E

Spending time in a mission is very different to putting yourself in harms way to resolve issues.
You more than likely felt safe because of those that had gone before you, ie Aussie Soldiers.

I spent a fair bit of time over there a few years ago and we recieved war like allowances, as well as future benefits.

I see no reason why the guys there at the moment don't recieve the same. They are there doing exactly what was done the first time.

BTW, the allowances we got were about half what the guys got in Iraq, but none of us complained once we heard some of the stories from the guys over there.

Cheers, Jack

Jack

The amount of danger I was in was no more/no less than anyone else in uniform in mission.

My apologies if my initial thread seemed argumentative or undervaluing anyone input.

I just cant see the arguement that you need to be paid more just because you are in mission where there is no demonstrated reason why? Its not a war zone, there is very little threat of any violence towards the australians.

Though I also struggle with why defence or uncivpol should be paid "danger money"? When you sign up do you say;

"Yeah I wanna be a soldier/cop, but only to fight those that dont shoot back"
Isnt that the role description.

Bit like police saying;

"Redfern, you want me to go to redfern, thatll cost more cause its dangerous"

No-one should be out of pocket going into mission, thier families should be well cared for, both monetarily and emotionally, you should be supported as much as possible.

My exp is that there were lots of people doing SFA for lots of cash and in some cases adding to the misery of the people of ET. Anyone who has been on mission would probably know who, and which countries, I am talking about.

As wanky as this sounds, going on mission is about helping people more disadvantaged than ourselves, and its that service that is payment enough, as long as we are not out of pocket.

cheers

dazzler

Originally Posted by Groggy

Australia has treated its serving and ex-serving military people quite badly at times. This is known outside the country but seems to surprise those inside the country.

Which would account for a lot of ex serving members to become mercenaries, used to be fairly common in the China Sea, having an ex Soldier manning the weaponry on board.

Originally Posted by dazzler

Hi Bob

I support Nelson on this. I spent 8months in mission unarmed in the mountains and there is no, or very little, threat to Australians in East Timor.

I am 70% certain to be redeploying there unarmed in the next six weeks and am comfortable to do so.

The east timorise are violent to each other but historically leave others alone, even when intervening.

Defence may do a lot of things wrong, but in this case I think they are on the ball.

Sorry

dazzler

Thanks Dazzler - I do appreciate your view however, I still feel that our "Leaders" are as usual, devaluing our ADF people as they strut the world stage handing out largess/advice while there are many systems/people here at home that should be of greater concern to them.
I had heard that the people of East Timor respected the Aussies and that they probably would not attack them but, it doesn't take much in the heat of the moment or with outside influences for the whole lot to go to hell in a basket. Our people are there - they deserve our 110% support even if we despise the people who put them there or whether we agree/disagree with their reasoning.
I read above that it appears you will be sent there shortly - Take care - unarmed - is a little bit of a concern - does this mean that you will be accompanied by ADF?
Regards,
Bob

What is the definition of 'unarmed'.
A big stick or a well aimed rock can have some devastating consequences.

About ten of my brothers mates went to ET with the army the first time round. Each of them returned with about 40 grand in the bank for their six months there. Not one of them even heard a shot fired. One bloke went three times and got the same pay each time. Not bad for driving a dozer and effectively working as a builder.

I didn't hear what the ADF are paying them this time, but I'm with Dazzler. You don't sign up if you're not prepared to fight one day.

Dan

From memeory the allowances for those serving in Timor the first time was about $125 per day with everything else tax free. I'm not sure what it is for the current ops in the MEAO.

When people join they clearly understand that service can be warlike and I don't believe there were many, if any, that refused to go, certainly none on the basis of allowances or pay issues.

The money issue is getting confused here. The Government cannot afford to pay 'danger money' (to use a term) all the time, so they increase it when the relative danger increases. This is done in numerous ways, submarine allowance, field allowance, flying pay and deployment allowances are just some examples.

The troops rightly expect an increase for dangerous areas, it is in their conditions of employment when they sign up. The expectation of elevated allowances has nothing to do with being prepared to fight and is a slight on the soldiers to suggest that. They'd go with no allowances if ordered.

I guess the Federal Police are not getting allowances in the Solomans, they are only doing their job too - right?

HI Groggy

Yes the police in the solomons get paid a LOT more than normal. Those in ET got paid a LOT more to be there. Not as much as on UN missions but substantial increase on normal conditions.

The AFP is already finding, IMO, that members are deploying for monetary reasons. If money is the driving reason for going then I would suggest our priorities might be wrong.

If you think Ive slighted the aussie troops, well, there big boys and girls and they can deal with it. I would also bet that they arent whining but people back home with political agendas.

On this I agree with the govt, our soldiers and our police are under very very little threat of harm, less harm I would suggest than our police are under working the streets in many parts of OZ.

I dont like the idea of members being paid A LOT more money due to danger. What does money have to do with danger. It makes more sense to put that money into better conditions

- Free sat phone access to contact home
- Families transported to Darwin for visits
- Quality relaxation facilities in dili

Just tacking here.....My father was on the voyager when it sank. He has PTSD from it. Often spoke about how terrible it was etc and that it shouldnt have happened and who was to blame. What was interesting was as part of his therapy he had to write about it. He was most passionate about how the captain 'drove' the boat like a speedboat, speeding up alongside supply ships and washing off speed, the ship shuddering etc etc---"very navy! " My point here is I am sure he would go and do exactly the thing that may have caused him to get hurt cause it was exciting.

Back on track

And this is why I dont think anyone should be paid danger money to serve overseas. Quality people, be they defence or police, perform and thrive in these theatres. Isnt this the penultimate of our careers. If you were an infantryperson would you rather be sitting in Townsville(?) or doing what youve been trained to do in dili If youre a cop and have trained for peacekeeping what would you rather be doing, taking a report that someone "swore at my rabbit" or doing the peacekeeping you have been trained in.. I would suggest the latter.

When I was in mission you really needed a spot to relax and get away for a bit. An aussie ship with a pool, gym, bar, theatre, cafe etc moored in dili harbour would have been great to relax. An ongoing tangible asset.

What about a ship - Spirit III perhaps, that can collect the families in Darwin and moor off Dili, Solomons etc where you can visit with family on days off.

They need support, lots of it, but in tangible ways.

cheers

dazzler

The troops did whinge, yes. Directly to the Minister and CDF - face to face - and it was invited by the Minister and his staff when the attended to explain the decision on allowances. Then they got on with the job, as they always do, and as they had been before the headshed arrived.

They were discussing (without raising it directly) the CONTRACT of employment that requires the Government to review conditions in times of real or perceived threat. The troops do not initiate this, the Government does. Do not believe the shyte put out by the media in relation to this.

Not increasing the allowances will cause more problems than you imagine. If you think the Defence Force is so well paid and such a great place to work then please explain the high attrition rates and difficulties with recruitment felt across the services. If you increase pay across the board and do not increase allowances, then you have to ask "why go over there and maybe risk my neck when I can get the same money here?".

Note: this is not how I think, I am 'old school'. However, these are the facts of the issue. Kids nowadays do not have the motivations of the previous generations. They are predominately a "me" generation (with a number of exceptions of course). If you think that is harsh it is not intended to be, it is simply a reflection of the experiences had across the ADF.

You suggest the police are not at risk or in harm's way? The guys in the Solomons may want to disagree with that, the recent riots saw a few of them get hurt.

To summarise:
I disagree that there should not be allowances commensurate with risk.
I am not stating that ET necessarily deserves warlike conditions and allowances.
I am stating that a suitable review should take place.
I am also stating the Aust Govt has a poor record in the past in this regard and should do better.
Finally, if the Gov can better conditions with some of the suggestions you mention then fine, so long as it doesn't detract from the mission.