Ben Roberts Smith VC. News Ltd misquote

[bob10]

Ben Roberts Smith VC, has been reported as agreeing to the 1.5 % pay rise offered , not true. From President of the RSL;


Sent: Monday, 10 November 2014 11:45 AM
To:
Subject: Ben Roberts Smith Misquoted by News Media
Good afternoon colleagues,
Ben Roberts Smith VC MG telephoned me this morning to explain that the current news media item about him is a misquote.
News Limited reps claim he supports the Government's position on the recent ADF pay decision handed down by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal.
Ben told me he was taken out of context in that when talking to the journalists he conceded that the Government had a tough task balancing the budget; and that this comment has apparently been taken as meaning he agrees with the Government's position re the pay deal.

He has assured me that his stance is to fully support what the RSL sought for ADF pay - and not the 1.5% per year that was the substance of the "agreed" case.
I thanked Ben for alerting me to this matter and advised I would forward this information to members of the RSL Board.
Regards
Ken

Rear Admiral Ken Doolan AO RAN (Retd)
RSL National President


RSL National Office
GPO Box 303
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Tel: (02) 6248 7199
Fax: (02) 6247 7637

[101RRS]

That may be very well the case but I saw the interview with him on TV and I did form the opinion that he did support the DFRT decision to only award 1.5%.

It is unfortunate that the CDF also has agreed that the Government cannot afford a bigger payrise and has not appealed the DFRT decision.

Garry

[Andrew D]

I don't have an issue with the 1.5%. I believe it is in line with the rest of the government employees. (I don't work with defence)

People are also mixing up the message and associating service in Iraq etc with the 1.5% implying that's all the government thinks of them in these dangerous situations. (this line is to be expected with media)

Who can tell me how much the service people receive for serving in Iraq. Pretty sure it's the base + their pay rise of 1.5% + plus some danger money then plus some more. I'm sure when you take a holistic look at whether they are reimbursed appropriately they would be. It would be pretty stupid to keep working there if you weren't. Also why keep going back? Up the Danger money or location allowances if need be. (Which is probably not needed).

How much of the Defence is Admin? What percentage of them never leave Australia or see any action. Why should these employees receive greater than 1.5%.

There has been a wage freeze in Australia for at least 3 years so I personally would take 1.5% over what I have and most other people have received of late. For the record that is 0%.

Regards
Andrew

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/Pay_Current_Rates.pdf

[101RRS]

I don't have an issue with the 1.5%. I believe it is in line with the rest of the government employees. (I don't work with defence)

There has been a wage freeze in Australia for at least 3 years so I personally would take 1.5% over what I have and most other people have received of late. For the record that is 0%.

Regards
Andrew



Government employees will negotiate what they can - nothing to automatically restrict their increases and not restricted to 1.5%. I don't believe there has been a wage freeze as such but it has been harder to negotiate for employees to negotiate higher pay.

The point is that the Defence Force has to accept what is offered, irrespective whether it is acceptable or not. Other government employees are able to negotiate with their employer and if the offer is not acceptable then their are other avenues open to them to pursue their claims - the military do not have this option.

Cheers

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Government employees will negotiate what they can - nothing to automatically restrict their increases and not restricted to 1.5%. I don't believe there has been a wage freeze as such but it has been harder to negotiate for employees to negotiate higher pay.

The point is that the Defence Force has to accept what is offered, irrespective whether it is acceptable or not. Other government employees are able to negotiate with their employer and if the offer is not acceptable then their are other avenues open to them to pursue their claims - the military do not have this option.

CheersOther Government Employees also don't have to go to conflict zones and have other people trying to kill them.

Can you imagine the complaints to ComCare if parliamentary staffers had to worry about stepping on IEDs when walking the corridors of power.

BTW MPS received a 2.4% pay rise last year and although there is currently a pay freeze on them the Australian PM earns over $500K more even than the US president.

[nat_89]

A fella i work with was a sniper in the defence force for quite a few years i asked him a week or two ago and he said they get about $47000 a year wage and when they are in war if your actually in conflict best case scenario it can go up to about $9000 a month. But thats only if your in war and all of that. Sounds confusing. Could be different believe he has only been out for about 5 years.

[nat_89]

BTW MPS received a 2.4% pay rise last year and although there is currently a pay freeze on them the Australian PM earns over $500K more even than the US president.

On a totally unrelated note i read the other day that the US Presidents Air force ones flying costs are just over $220000 an hour!! I nearly fell over when i read it!!:eek::eek:

[Andrew D]

Other Government Employees also don't have to go to conflict zones and have other people trying to kill them.

We hear this often, but honestly, what were they signing up for?

A bit like a nurse not wanting to deal with sick people in hospitals or better yet not wanting to work in any hospital because there are sick people there.;)

Regards
Andrew

[bob10]

We hear this often, but honestly, what were they signing up for?

A bit like a nurse not wanting to deal with sick people in hospitals or better yet not wanting to work in any hospital because there are sick people there.;)

Regards
Andrew


Like Nursing, it's a calling. But some may not understand. Bob


"Tommy" by Rudyard Kipling (read by Tom O'Bedlam) - YouTube

[AndrewMilne]

Late this morning, I logged on to AULRO, and found the "Lest we forget" words set out, and a l-o-o-o-n-g pause before anything else came up.
I thought it was great to see the fact that today is Armistice / Remembrance Day acknowledged in this way, with a respectful pause before "business as usual".
I can recall city traffic stopping (Perth) and pedestrians all standing still for a minute or two, when I was a kid.
All too often, such marks of respect and reflection get lost or ignored in present times.
I would like to commend whoever was responsible for seeing that AULRO did not.

[bob10]

I believe this is well written. Bob


Stand To - I am proud to be an Australian Soldier (http://www.standto.org/kel-s-blog/472-i-am-proud-to-be-an-australian-soldier)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Other Government Employees also don't have to go to conflict zones and have other people trying to kill them.
We hear this often, but honestly, what were they signing up for?

A bit like a nurse not wanting to deal with sick people in hospitals or better yet not wanting to work in any hospital because there are sick people there.;)

Regards
AndrewThe problem is that successive Governments have used this dedication to service of their country or the sick as a way to minimise the remuneration. While at the same time describing what they do a "service to the community", which it hardly is if they are some of the highest remunerated politicians in the world.

There should be no argument on the pay for our Defence personnel their salaries should be directly linked to the CPI or similar.

BTW. Nurses don't become nurses to work with sick people they become nurses to help people be well, it just happens that some of them are sick.

I imagine that soldiers don't join the military because they want to dodge ordnance but they wish to serve their country, given that war and training are dangerous activities they should be compensated for it just like the rest of the community.

[Andrew D]

Like Nursing, it's a calling. But some may not understand. Bob .

Someone like me may assume if it's a sincere calling then financial incentives and the like are not the true driver in the pursuit. This is my fault, I guess.

Interesting poem. It's not my disposition though.

I don't mind this one. And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda ~ John Williamson - YouTube



The problem is that successive Governments have used this dedication to service of their country or the sick as a way to minimise the remuneration. While at the same time describing what they do a "service to the community", which it hardly is if they are some of the highest remunerated politicians in the world. True, but are we surprised.



There should be no argument on the pay for our Defence personnel their salaries should be directly linked to the CPI or similar.

If you are also saying all government employees should be linked to the CPI I would agree to this but not just one branch of it. One in, all in. There are other allowances in the various EBAs for the environments in which they work.


BTW. Nurses don't become nurses to work with sick people they become nurses to help people be well, it just happens that some of them are sick.

I imagine that soldiers don't join the military because they want to dodge ordnance but they wish to serve their country, given that war and training are dangerous activities they should be compensated for it just like the rest of the community.

Re nurses, I assume it's an accepted risk when they commence their degrees they will be dealing with people who are sick. People with illnesses of varying degrees. Joining the Defence should also have some point of realisation. Realise there is a chance you may have to dodge a bullet or three.

Matching the CPI alone will not compensate them for the dangerous activities they undertake. All the various allowances are intended to do this. Are these being undermined? (possibly)

Regards
Andrew

[Lotz-A-Landies]

If you are also saying all government employees should be linked to the CPI I would agree to this but not just one branch of it. One in, all in. There are other allowances in the various EBAs for the environments in which they work.IMHO uniformed Defence personnel are in a different situation to public servants and the general public, they don't get to enterprise bargain or take industrial action. They therefore should have some protection from the whims of Government who may require them to have a deteriorating standard of living.

After all we link social security payments to the CPI. The military should at a minimum get the same consideration.
Re nurses, I assume it's an accepted risk when they commence their degrees they will be dealing with people who are sick. People with illnesses of varying degrees. Joining the Defence should also have some point of realisation. Realise there is a chance you may have to dodge a bullet or three.I don't think those risks are in dispute when signing up, but now we also have nurses etc that complete their training/degree, register and who don't want to work with the sick. They are free to choose to work in areas where they don't have to, not so with soldiers.

Diana :)

BTW: Don't get me wrong I am not comparing our uniformed military with the unemployed and unemployable, but I believe that as a bare minimum they should get the equivalent cost of living increases as the least fortunate in our society.

[nismine01]

"No-one likes a soldier, till the enemy's at the gate",


Trouble is Andrew, when the enemy is at the gate it's too late to start training, you can't just pick up trained proficient soldiers off the unemployed lines.

We were trained to the point of being half way to contracting PTSD, like the military said, you have to be trained to react and survive, without this training you are a little bit like a rabbit caught in the spot light, you sit still shocked by the unexpected bright light and get KILLED.

We can't spend all this money training you just to have you shot at the first contact, it's too expensive.

Within reason I don't care how much our military is paid.

1. They are worth it.

2. I don't have to do it again.

3. Believe it or not, I like our country and way of life and it's worth paying for.


Regards


Mike

[nismine01]

Matching the CPI alone will not compensate them for the dangerous activities they undertake. All the various allowances are intended to do this. Are these being undermined? (possibly)

Regards
Andrew

Yes Andrew, unfortunately all things military, ex-military are being undermined.

For years Governments (of both persuasions) have been discriminating against military and the ex-service people in Australia.

This Government promised to index superannuation for retired service personnel, they have, BUT, they have taken more from pensions and funding to veterans than they are paying out in the super increases, they caught us out, we trusted them.

Yeah I know, how bloody silly were we????????

Like I said Governments of all persuasions have been at it for a long time, it's only lately that we that have been are starting to stand up for those who are going.

Regards

Mike

PS, Initial supply into SVN of both APCs and helicopters was sub standard. Armoured Personnel Carriers sent into South Vietnam had no radios, the crew commander had to tie string to the lapels of the driver and treat him like a horse, pull on the left for left, pull on the right for right, pull on both to stop.

The Iroquois helicopters had no protection under the seats to stop ground fire (rifles etc) shooting the crews, our guys had to beg, borrow or steal from the Yanks. No steal is not right, re-appropriate items required will do.

[frantic]

For the past 20 years( that would be 5 PM's and 3 changes of govt;) ) the adf pay has gone backwards compared to the politicians to the tune of 140% less in pay rises.
Every member of the ADF is banned from joining a union/ collective bargaining group and has no right of appeal in cases like this, it has been this way for a very long time, again under both parties.
Politicians' pay rises outstrip soldiers' by 140 per cent (http://m.smh.com.au/national/public-service/politicians-pay-rises-outstrip-soldiers-by-140-per-cent-20141020-117tlx.html)
The article is to reinforce the pay differences over the last 20 years.
Unlike most other public servants, you don't want the army on strike, but there should be a separate group to lobby for their pay , conditions and OHS&E in Oz.

[bob10]

For the past 20 years( that would be 5 PM's and 3 changes of govt;) ) the adf pay has gone backwards compared to the politicians to the tune of 140% less in pay rises.
Every member of the ADF is banned from joining a union/ collective bargaining group and has no right of appeal in cases like this, it has been this way for a very long time, again under both parties.
Politicians' pay rises outstrip soldiers' by 140 per cent (http://m.smh.com.au/national/public-service/politicians-pay-rises-outstrip-soldiers-by-140-per-cent-20141020-117tlx.html)
The article is to reinforce the pay differences over the last 20 years.
Unlike most other public servants, you don't want the army on strike, but there should be a separate group to lobby for their pay , conditions and OHS&E in Oz.


There is. Various Service organisations such as- Defence Force Welfare Assoc., Naval Assoc., Raaf Assoc., RAR Assoc., Australian SAS Assoc., Australian Peacekeepers and Peacemakers veterans Assoc., Vietnam Veterans of Australia Assoc., have joined together to form the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations, A.D.S.O. This organisation was the driving force behind the Governments decision to index the D.F.R.D.B. pensions fairly. Individually, the service organisations had no real voice. Collectively , they are a strong lobbying force. There is a campaign starting now to pressure the Government on the pay issue. Their news letter is Stand To, which can be accessed here;


www.standto.org (http://www.standto.org)


Bob.

[bob10]

Ben Roberts-Smith confirms his support for the ADF pay dispute, Bob
Really worth listening to

Stand To - Ben Roberts-Smith VC - Reaffirms his support for the Defence Family (http://www.standto.org/fg-indexation/479-ben-roberts-smith-vc-reaffirms-his-support-for-the-defence-family)

[boa]

Listen to the original interview.? It was clear what he said.

[bob10]

Listen to the original interview.? It was clear what he said.


Sorry, don't agree. I guess it depends on what you want to hear, but I'm not going to argue the point, Bob

[Andrew D]

Bob

Better listen to it again. He confirms his supports for the ADF.

Amazing what people hear or want to hear. Context has been lost in the media and also appears on this forum.

There is no back pedalling in the audio with reference to quotes AJ recites.

Regards
Andrew

6:11

[bob10]

Bob

Better listen to it again. He confirms his supports for the ADF.

Amazing what people hear or want to hear. Context has been lost in the media and also appears on this forum.

There is no back pedalling in the audio with reference to quotes AJ recites.

Regards
Andrew


I doubt very much Ben Roberts-Smith would backpedal from any one. Bob

[101RRS]

That may be very well the case but I saw the interview with him on TV and I did form the opinion that he did support the DFRT decision to only award 1.5%.




Bob

Better listen to it again. He confirms his supports for the ADF.

Amazing what people hear or want to hear. Context has been lost in the media and also appears on this forum.

There is no back pedalling in the audio with reference to quotes AJ recites.

Regards
Andrew

I reiterate my earlier post - I saw the video interview and irrespective of what Ben Roberts Smith actually meant, I came away thinking that he agreed with the DFRT decision.

Yes - it is amazing what people hear or want to hear. More correctly. when people say things in these interviews they need to understand that their comments may be taken to mean something different to what they intend so they need to be totally clear so there is no ambiguity.

He has clarified the matter so a couple of days later, does it matter as we now know that he is supportive of a higher pay deal.

Also - remember it is not the government, it is not the Defence bureaucracy and it is not the military that determines the pay rises - it is the independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal that considers a wide range of submissions and makes its decision. This can be appealed but as far as I am aware not of the eligible representatives (Minister, Secretary, CDF) has submitted an appeal.

The problem with the system is that if the Secretary for Defence and/or the CDF agree with the Minister's submission to the DFRT then not much can be done. I understand the Defence Force Welfare Association can provide submissions to the DFRT but is not one of the parties that can appeal a decision.

In my view the DFWA should be part of the complete process, not jsut an adjunct.

Garry

[bob10]

I reiterate my earlier post - I saw the video interview and irrespective of what Ben Roberts Smith actually meant, I came away thinking that he agreed with the DFRT decision.

Yes - it is amazing what people hear or want to hear. More correctly. when people say things in these interviews they need to understand that their comments may be taken to mean something different to what they intend so they need to be totally clear so there is no ambiguity.

He has clarified the matter so a couple of days later, does it matter as we now know that he is supportive of a higher pay deal.

Also - remember it is not the government, it is not the Defence bureaucracy and it is not the military that determines the pay rises - it is the independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal that considers a wide range of submissions and makes its decision. This can be appealed but as far as I am aware not of the eligible representatives (Minister, Secretary, CDF) has submitted an appeal.

The problem with the system is that if the Secretary for Defence and/or the CDF agree with the Minister's submission to the DFRT then not much can be done. I understand the Defence Force Welfare Association can provide submissions to the DFRT but is not one of the parties that can appeal a decision.

In my view the DFWA should be part of the complete process, not jsut an adjunct.

Garry


No one gave veterans a chance of getting the DFRDB indexed correctly, but it happened. Don't be mistaken, the anger in the military ranks is palpable. They can't strike, can't show dissent, but they can now join ADSO, & show support. And they are, in numbers. Softly, softly catchee monkey. This would be a good time to show the motto of the Vietnam Veterans of Australia Association


Motto - Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia (VVAA) (http://www.vvaa.org.au/motto.htm)

[Andrew D]

I came away thinking that he agreed with the DFRT decision.

And this is what he said in the AJ interview.




he is supportive of a higher pay deal.

He did not say this in the interview with AJ. In fact nothing to the effect.

Go to 6:11 in the recording.

He clearly states he is very supportive of the ADF, numerous times in fact throughout the interview. He does not say he is supportive of the pay dispute/deal (6:11).

His position from the initial interview has not changed.

Regards
Andrew

[boa]

It was not my intention to put Ben at fault as such. But my initial reaction was from the original interview was he did not agree with it as such but accepted the reasons given at the time. Government attitude towards money available. So he was not happy but accepted the reasons given. Accepted the decision, is to me the point, he also said we are not in it for the money. I have no issues with anyone but as has been said my interpretation was he understands the situation and accepted the decision.

[Andrew D]

my interpretation was he understands the situation and accepted the decision.

100% agree, and that's all that needs to be said re BRS's remarks and position on the topic.

[bob10]

It was not my intention to put Ben at fault as such. But my initial reaction was from the original interview was he did not agree with it as such but accepted the reasons given at the time. Government attitude towards money available. So he was not happy but accepted the reasons given. Accepted the decision, is to me the point, he also said we are not in it for the money. I have no issues with anyone but as has been said my interpretation was he understands the situation and accepted the decision.


Thank you for making your thoughts clear. I agree with you. Bob