Canberra, 29 August 1966
Confidential
Submission No. 419 (Minister for the Army) Rates of pay and conditions of service—Pacific Island Members of the A.R.A.1
Attached is a note commenting on the recommendations in Submission No. 419 from the standpoint of their effect on conditions of service of local members of the Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary and the Territory Public Service.
[ matter omitted ]
A. The operation of non-reduction allowances
Non-reduction allowances are being paid to those members of the P.I.R. and Constabulary whose former cash and kind emoluments for themselves and their families were greater than their entitlements under the ‘all cash’ pay system introduced with effect from 1st July 1966.
2. The new ‘all cash’ pay system prescribes common rates of pay for each man performing the same job. Under the old system a man’s ‘in kind’ entitlements were directly determined by the size of his family. Hence in the conversion to a full cash wage those members who received substantial non-reduction allowances are those who have large families.
3. The pay scale implemented from 1st July 1966 is about to be changed following the announcement of new pay rates for the Public Service. Both Pacific Islanders and Police will be given proportionately greater increases in pay than public servants will receive. The pay increases to be effective retrospective to 1st July will result in increases from $40–120 p.a. for a Private with over 3 years’ service to $400 p.a. for a WO II.2
4. Implementation of the revised pay scale will result in the immediate elimination of the non-reduction allowance paid to over 100 of the 500 P.l. married members receiving it. The non-reduction allowances being paid to the remainder will be substantially reduced. About one third of the Police and under a quarter of the P.I.R. will still be on non-reduction allowances. If future pay rises are fully offset against the non-reduction allowances the great majority will be off non-reduction allowances within 3 to 4 years.
5. The Army proposal is opposed on the following grounds—
(i) The principle of fully offsetting pay rises against the non-reduction allowance has been followed in the case of local Administration public servants since 1964.
(ii) If now applied to 1,600 P.I.R. soldiers it would have to be applied similarly to 2,930 Police and 10,900 local officer public servants. The additional cost to the wage bill cannot be estimated but as an indication the cost of converting the Public Service to the new cash wage rates was estimated at $2M. per annum. Provision in 1966/67 for converting Police is $648,000.
(iii) The proportion of members receiving non-reduction allowances will be a continually shrinking one both from new recruits and from promotions and pay rises eliminating the non-reduction pay. Until the non-reduction allowances are fully eliminated those not receiving them will be dissatisfied at others doing the same work and receiving higher pay. The Army proposal would both widen and prolong the inequality and thus the dissatisfaction.
(iv) If a soldier is unable to comprehend the mechanics of the non-reduction arrangements and the reasons why he does not receive a net pay rise when he is granted a promotion or increment, it is unlikely he would understand the reasons why he would receive only up to half of the increase which a soldier not in receipt of non-reduction allowances would receive in similar circumstances.
B. The handling of the current differential in conditions between the PI.R. and the Constabulary
6. Prior to 1st July, 1966, P.I. soldiers and Police were rationed at a cost of $256 p.a. and $104 p.a. respectively. Wives and children of members of both forces living in married quarters were also supplied with food based on the respective scales. Since 1st July the following changes have been made—
IN BARRACKS—
— Constabulary members are contributing to common messing funds and are messing themselves at a cost which has been initially set at $156 p.a.
- PI. members have had their ration reduced in value from $256 p.a. to $243, mainly by the elimination of pipes and tobacco. Their deduction for rations.is $131 p.a.
IN MARRIED QUARTERS—
- Constabulary —all rationing has been discontinued.
- P.I. supplementary ration pack, cost $56 p.a., being supplied for the soldier, wife and children (half issue under 10 years).
7. Army claims that any variation in the supplementary ration issues or the source deduction for rations would appear to the soldier as an immediate reduction in PI.R. standards. An immediate reduction in standards is not proposed. Essentially the proposal is that part only of a pay increase should be applied to reducing the differential between the two Forces.
8. The Army proposal for an expert review of the P.I.R. ration to see whether changes can be made to minimize the cost while maintaining its adequacy is supported. The position of the Police should be reviewed in the light of the result. It would be advisable for an inter-departmental committee to consider terms of reference for the expert examination and also discuss the result.
9. The Army proposal that future wage increases be negotiated and announced in such a way that certain cash changes can be related to the ration component and therefore need not automatically be applied to the P.I.R. can be applied where practicable, but because arbitration processes are involved, ration components of wage increases may not always be indentifiable.
Territories propose further immediate steps to contain the differentials between the two Forces (para. 7 of Army submission) on the following grounds:
(A) Supplementary Ration Issues
(i) To the soldier
• The justification for a soldier to receive a more expensive ration than the Police is doubtful. The Police as well as the Army do arduous patrol work. The ration on which Police pay is based was established by nutritionists as suited to Territory conditions and on visual evidence keeps the men engaged in strenuous activity healthy. Territories would not object to a supplementary ration pack being provided to all members (as distinct from their families) whatever stage they moved into the quarters provided the ration packs were reduced to the extent that the cost of the ration provided to soldiers living in single messes is reduced or the source deduction for rations for such soldiers is increased and provided the expert review of the P.I.R. ration (para. 8 above) is undertaken promptly.
(ii) To the family
• What is proposed is that families who are not now living in quarters and are therefore not receiving the P.I.R. standard rations would not be given a supplementary ration and that for others part only of the prospective pay increase would be applied to reducing the differential. To the extent that there is any justification for a more expensive ration for the soldier, there can be no justification for providing this for his family. Objection is not raised to supplementary rations for the families of men in married quarters (said on 14th May to be 69 families) at 1st July who were in fact receiving the more expensive ration issues provided the supplement is reduced correspondingly to adjustments in the soldier’s supplement and provided the supplement for the family is offset against future pay increases. The supplementary ration packs should not be issued in respect of children born after 1st July and should be discontinued for any child when that child reaches 14 years of age.
• The issue of similar supplementary ration packs to families who move into quarters after 1st July is a different question. These families have never had the more expensive ration and no justification has been advanced why they should do so. Such action would increase the inequality between the Army and the Police and perpetuate dissatisfaction since it is proposed to be a continuing feature of Army conditions. For instance it would result in a P.I. family man with 2 children on the minimum needs wage of $830 receiving supplementary rations valued at $210 p.a. A similar person in the Constabulary would have to maintain himself and family on $830.
• The argument that the families of soldiers in quarters must be given the supplementary ration as well as the soldier otherwise the soldier will not consume the food necessary for his health is not sustainable in circumstances where only a supplementary ration is involved—whether or not the soldier spends the cash element of his wages provided for the bulk of the ration on the foods prescribed in the ration scale is entirely up to him.
• The argument that there could not be inequalities between people living next to each other in the same quarters is not valid since some will be on non-reduction allowances and some will not be.
• The Army suggestion that supplementary ration packs for all families in quarters could be regarded as balancing benefits to the Constabulary not enjoyed by soldiers—for example, overtime payments, camping allowance and the like—disregards the fact that standards of quartering and furniture issues are far superior for the Army than for the Police. The average overtime provision for the Police in the 1966/67 Estimates is $40 p.a. and the average camping allowance provision $1 p.a. It is misleading to suggest as in paragraph 18 of attachment of the Minister for the Army’s submission that these figures give the Police an advantage of $60 p.a. over the average P.I. soldier. Further it is understood that married P.I. soldiers are rationed when on patrol without pay deductions.
(B) INCREASE IN SOURCE DEDUCTION FOR RATIONS
The present source deduction for rations from the P.I.’s pay is $130.87 p.a. This figure was the component for food in the base public servant’s pay. It has no relation to the cost of supplying the P.I. ration (currently $243 p.a.). Territories view is that the pay rise about to be implemented presents an opportunity—which may not recur for some years—to adjust the deduction for rations to bring it somewhat closer to the actual cost. Territories propose an increase from $130.87 p.a. to $151.77 p.a., which the P.l. soldier would be able to sustain from the pay rises proposed. This approximates the amount of $156 p.a. the Police are voluntarily paying to mess committees for what is a less expensive ration. It is not suggested that every time the Police voluntarily review their scale of mess fees a similar compulsory review should be made for the P.I.R.
C. Conclusions
11. Decisions on the outstanding issues should be:
(a) the non-reduction principle should continue to be applied so that inequalities in pay are eliminated at the earliest possible time;
(b) that an inter-departmental committee of Army, Navy, Treasury and Territories direct a review of the P.I.R. ration to examine ways by which the cost of the ration can be minimized while ensuring adequate nutritional sustenance for the tasks of the soldier;
(c) supplementary ration issues to all members, and families in married quarters at 1st July, 1966, should be reduced to the extent that the cost of the ration provided to soldiers living in single messes is reduced or the source deduction for rations for such soldiers is increased;
(d) the supplementary ration issues to the families of members in married quarters at 1st July, 1966, should also be offset against future increases in the members’ pay;
(e) in order to contain the differentials between the two Forces, the issue of supplementary rations should not be extended to the families of members who move into married quarters after 1st July, 1966, nor to additional children of those members already in married quarters at 1st July;
(f) the deduction for rations from the pay of members living in barracks should be increased by $21.90 p.a. concurrent with the implementation of the new rates of pay.
[NAA: AS84 I, 419]
1 Document 63.
2 Warrant Officer Class II.