Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 5:06:57 to 5:10:31
The committee debates whether allowance reductions constitute a cut to total remuneration or simply an adjustment to local cost-of-living benchmarks.
Topics: ADF, Workplace relations
Speakers: Justine Greig, James Paterson, Unknown Speaker
>> I appreciate that. But if you're a defense member serving overseas and you had been used to receiving a certain level of meal and incidental allowance and it is cut, whether or not the new rate is aligned with local cost of living, that's still a cut effectively to the take-home pay of an ADF member serving overseas, isn't it?
>> So, we don't um consider it as take-home pay. rather it's to ensure that our ADF members have available to them um and APS members available to them the meal costs and incidental costs of the country in which um they are posted.
>> Sure. It's not literally their take-home pay, but in practice, if you're an employee and you're receiving your salary and wages and you're receiving allowances, that is your total remuneration package. And if it is reduced, then your total remuneration is
>> The allowances are for a purpose. So in terms of uh remuneration that is a concept in terms of allowances that is for a particular purpose in this case for meals and incidentals but I do take your point I do take your point that for uh a good majority there has been a reduction in a number of locations. So I take your point but it isn't part of the remuneration package.
>> Yeah. And look I'm not hung up on the terminology. I'm trying to use interchangeable language so we don't get distracted by that. The total amount of money that ADF personnel receive from government has been reduced in many instances. So they've had a hit to their income or their living standards or their remuneration or whatever terminology you want to use. They receive less now than they used to as a result of these changes.
>> I'll just say it again because it is important that this is not part of the remuneration salary uh construct. It is to ensure that members have the meal allowance and the incidental allowance that is uh benchmarked against the country of the posting. But again I reflect that yes there has been a reduction in some of those locations but the purpose is quite clear and really important in terms of a whole government approach that there is that alignment for those people that are working alongside um our partners.
>> Sure. for ADF members serving overseas who've um constructed their financial arrangements, whatever they may be, expecting a certain level of compensation for their deployment, that compensation is now less than it was before as a result of these changes, and that's had a real tangible impact on them, which they have written to me to raise their concerns about.
>> Um, Senator, just a couple of more comments if I might. >> we'd be really keen to get those comments firstly. Um
>> I'm not sure they would give me permission to share their private correspondence to a parliamentarian with their employer.
>> Uh the reason I ask is that uh the policy is very careful to ensure that there is exemptions or requests that can be put forward um for consideration should there be some impact that the member or the APS employee can't manage. So there is that avenue.
>> Thank you. And if they don't see this, I will draw that to their attention and I'll let them decide whether they want to take it up with you rather than me breaching their confidence by sharing their uh correspondence to me. Is it true that in some instances the reductions are as much as 50% or more?