The Defence Pay Cuts: What Soldiers Are Worth

​

This Monday the government partially backed down on the Australian Defence Force (ADF) pay dispute, returning several allowances to servicemen but maintaining the pay-rise of 1.5 per cent.

The allowances are worth about $70 million a year, and include six days of discretionary leave. However the pay-rise, because it's below the rate of inflation, still amounts to a real wage cut.

The partial back down was a result of growing criticism from several directions; from an ​online petition​ started by the father of a man in the RAAF, to a vocal ​RSL president​, to the Defence Force Welfare Association, and criticism from the Labor party, the Greens, and several independent senators.

"Australia asks our ADF personnel to defend our country and protect our national security," ​opposition leader Bill Shorten said​. "The very least the commonwealth can do is accord them pay and conditions that properly recognise their service and sacrifice."

This emotional appeal wasn't his only line of attack, Shorten has also ​accused the PM and the Coalition​ of being politically cynical, "[T]hey're using them to justify no pay rises for the rest of the public service. They are using the military to force through a right-wing wages policy."

Many of the voices in this pay dispute have adopted a tone of righteousness, none more so than Tasmanian senator, and former Corporal, Jacqui Lambie. Not only has she quit her political party, but she's refused to pass any of the government's bills, and ​interrupted senate proceedings​ on the pretext that anything less than a real pay rise for ADF personnel is unjust. The bill she introduced to the senate would link ADF pay to the pay received by politicians, or to the CPI, whichever is higher.

Outside of blaming the previous Labor government, the Coalition has grounded its counter-argument in a lamentation of economic realities. With​ Prime Minister Tony Abbott saying​, "All of us would like to see our defence forces paid more but what's possible with a $20 billion surplus is not always possible with a $40 billion deficit."

This argument holds water, ​the economy is slowing​, but it obscures the fact that the government budget called for an increase in total defence spending.

Underneath the debate is a philosophical discussion nobody seems willing to engage in directly. How much is a soldier worth?

The amount Australia spends on defence is relatively large as a dollar figure ($29 billion, good for 13th highest in the world) and relatively small as a percentage of our GDP (1.8 per cent, which is outside the top 50). When not engaged in large wars Australia's military spending has ​always been fairly low​. This hasn't meant the pay of personnel is low.

As per the ​guideline provided by defencejobs.gov​ a private serving in the ADF will earn $57,540 a year ($44,442 salary with a $13,118 service allowance). It's tricky to determine the actual average wage of a serviceman because the differently costed allowances they may qualify for changes with the obligations placed upon them. However if we take the above figure as representative it seems like an appropriate payment, or at least it's close to the median starting salary for Aussie university graduates (which in 2012 was, according to a ​report issued by Graduate Careers Australia​, $55,000 for male graduates and $50,000 for female graduates).

It's also competitive with the equivalent ranked serviceman of our most important military ally, the USA; whose department of defence is the largest employer on earth.

Like Australia the US has different allowances for different soldiers, based on what's asked of them. So, according to the active duty pay table and a few other sources, in 2014 a typical private in the US army is earning a basic pay of $18,378 a year and is given a $2,676 food allowance plus a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) that's calculated on where a private is stationed, and whether or not she or he has dependants. The BAH is used to pay for rent, utility bills, and insurance; it ​can be as much as $40,320 p.a. (for a private with dependants stationed in New York City) and as little as $7,344 p.a. (for a private without dependants stationed in Klamath Falls, Oregon).

So it's possible that a US private will earn more than his Australian counterpart ($61,374 for NYC solider compared to the AU representative $57,540). But they'd have to get lucky with their posting, and if he or she actually wanted to pocket that money they'd want to get a good deal on a rental – the BAH tries to be fairly precise.

The major difference is that an Australian private, regardless of promotion, has a pay scale that increases with every year (for ten years). In the US you have to be at least a Lance Corporal to receive similar treatment, and achieve the rank of Sergeant before your salary acknowledges a difference between six and ten years of service.

Of course the dollar amount of a wage isn't the most important figure, the cost of living in any particular nation must be taken into account. Canada, which is close to us in terms of their ​GDP​ (PPP), their position on the ​local purchasing power index​, the size of their defence force, and the percentage of their population who're enlisted, pays their service men and women at a low​er rate than Australia does.

So the real wage cut might be unpleasant and ​perhaps insulting​ but—so long as it rises with inflation after the current 3-year pay offer lapses—it will not be unfair when compared to the military payrolls of our allies. Whether this is the benchmark we should reach for when determining defence personnel income is debatable.

In Australia a serviceman is paid for what they do while a civilian is paid for their time. If you're a rifleman stuck out in the rain during deployment, you'll be paid more than if you were sleeping inside. Each time a paratrooper jumps they get $41.27 deposited into their bank. A deep-sea diver is not only paid for each dive, but they also get paid for the hours they spend underwater. Which sounds fair but there are two catches. No overtime as we know it and, when contrasted with what a civilian might expect if he or she worked similar hours, very few holidays.

That my not seem like much of a drawback but look at it this way:

When a civilian thinks about a job they think about hours; nine to five, maximum weekly hours, lunch break, smoko, overtime, double overtime on weekends and public holidays; some jobs have time in lieu, paid holiday leave, paid sick leave, parental leave, compassionate leave, and if you accrue enough hours over many years you get long service leave. There are incentives but they're not often as specific as the allowances given to personnel in the ADF. A civilian boss wants to maximise your efficiency in the hours they have you for, and is leery of overtime. The defence force doesn't worry about that as they have you for all of the hours.

Alf Jaugietis was a wing commander in the Air Force and is now executive director of the Defence Force Welfare Association (DFWA), an organisation that's argued against any sort of real wage cut. "I've been the commanding officer of a fairly large squadron," he explained to VICE, "I have been involved in 24-hour operations where people worked fifteen to sixteen hours a day for weeks on end. And at the end of the time you try and compensate the troops with additional time off but it never works."

Why? Because there aren't enough days in the year.

VICE also spoke with Keenan Mack, a former rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, and asked him about whether or not he had income discussions while in the army. "To be honest you can't please everyone but the personnel I did serve with thought the pay were quite fair. Especially when you deploy overseas." He went on to say, "I never had any dramas with the wages while I was serving. The only dramas I had were not enough holidays."

During his time in the army Mack was deployed in both East Timor and Afghanistan and he emphasised that the allowance he received was especially welcome. "If we were doing any other job we would not get paid anything like what we did serving overseas."

But even though the government has now restored several allowances, the real wage cut is​​ still considered unacceptable.​

Nobody wants their pay reduced but it's the unique position occupied by our troops that makes an economic imperative the only politically reasonable argument for reducing their pay, and renders that argument less than compelling. It's what gives Jacqui Lambie, who's had a ​roc​ky time​ in her short career as a senator, steady ground and the spotlight.

Because the perceived difference between military and civilian employment goes deeper than timesheets and payrolls. Jaugietis put it bluntly, "Let's face it. It's the only vocation that once you don a uniform you relinquish your human rights. It's the only vocation that can legally demand that you shoot someone."

And this is why military pay disputes will always be tense. Politicians, and societies in general, want to emphasise the heroism of soldiers but it's the bloody aspect of soldiery that prevents firm statements as to how much we should pay them. How do you transfer a debt owed by a nation into an invoice?

Follow Girard on Twitter: ​@girarddorney​