Aussie, Aussie, Aussie - Oi, Oi, Oi!
While our focus at The Torch is the Canadian Forces, sometimes it's instructive to take a peek at how our friends are running their militaries. None of us has a monopoly on good ideas, after all.
Since today's Australia Day, I thought I'd highlight some of the Reserve force similarities and differences between the good folks Down Under and our own militia. I must offer thanks to correspondent FM from upside-down-land, who quite helpfully did most of the legwork here.
While some reporters will bite at any bait any the anti-war types dangle in front of them, the truth is that a CF reservist must volunteer for overseas service under current policy. The Australian military follows a similar path, due in part to the public backlash over the use of militia in WWI (they're serious about that too: incredibly, the defence of New Guinea by Aussie reservists in WWII was only possible because it was an Australian territory at the time).
But while Canadian reservists deploying abroad get slotted into Regular Force units, ADF reservists volunteering to serve outside the country have recently begun experiments deploying in a different way: in reserve units formed specifically for a particular tasking:
According to FM, these "formed units" have been used not only in the Solomons, but also in East Timor (as a rifle company in a Regular battalion), in Malaysia, and for security at the recent Commonwealth Games as well. The personnel making up these units would generally come from the same brigade, which usually means that everyone is from the same geographical area, normally the same state.
Civilian employment conflicts with Canadian reservists have recently been in the news. Both legislation and CF policy leaves each individual reservist responsible for getting their employer onside for any time off. Oh, there was a provision made in 2004 (Bill C-7) to protect the jobs of reservists called to duty in an "emergency," as defined by the Act ("an insurrection, riot, invasion, armed conflict or war, real or apprehended"). But beyond that, our government's solution to such issues has been the Canadian Forces Liason Council, who voluntarily try to persuade employers to do right by reservists. Moves in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick to revise the employment law are most welcome, since they would put some teeth behind that persuasive effort.
Australia goes even further. I'll quote FM here:
In fact, the $1,035.90(AUS) per week employer compensation can actually top out at $5,600(AUS) per week for healthcare professionals called to service (Word document), voluntarily or not. Here in Canada, we can't even seem to track down proper life insurance for a deploying MD (which I'm going to address in a another post).
Job protection and some compensation to employers inconvenienced by the absence of their reservist employee? While I'm sure there are pitfalls - expense being the first and foremost - this sounds like an excellent idea to me.
This is in line with the overall profile of our respective armed forces: Australia spends more to maintain a smaller force than Canada:
The Canadian soldier, sailor, and airman has always prided himself (and in more recent decades, herself) on matching up favourably against any other nation's counterpart in the world. But I must admit that even if the Canadian government were to see fit to bump our Defence budget to 1.9% of GDP ($25.9 billion, now where have I seen a figure like that before?) like Australia has, we'd still fall short of the ADF in one respect.
I love the Maple Leaf, but it's not much use in a fight. A boomerang, on the other hand...
Since today's Australia Day, I thought I'd highlight some of the Reserve force similarities and differences between the good folks Down Under and our own militia. I must offer thanks to correspondent FM from upside-down-land, who quite helpfully did most of the legwork here.
While some reporters will bite at any bait any the anti-war types dangle in front of them, the truth is that a CF reservist must volunteer for overseas service under current policy. The Australian military follows a similar path, due in part to the public backlash over the use of militia in WWI (they're serious about that too: incredibly, the defence of New Guinea by Aussie reservists in WWII was only possible because it was an Australian territory at the time).
But while Canadian reservists deploying abroad get slotted into Regular Force units, ADF reservists volunteering to serve outside the country have recently begun experiments deploying in a different way: in reserve units formed specifically for a particular tasking:
More than 40 reservists deployed to the Solomon Islands on October 30 as part of 9RQR’s largest collective operation in the 60 years since World War II.
...
CO 9RQR Lt-Col Chris Austin said it was an historic occasion for the battalion and spoke volumes of the professionalism and capability of the modern reserve infantry in South Queensland.
“While reserve soldiers have served on operations in East Timor, Aceh and Iraq as well as other non-operational deployments overseas, it is the first time 9RQR has deployed a contingent of this size in 60 years,” Lt-Col Austin said.
According to FM, these "formed units" have been used not only in the Solomons, but also in East Timor (as a rifle company in a Regular battalion), in Malaysia, and for security at the recent Commonwealth Games as well. The personnel making up these units would generally come from the same brigade, which usually means that everyone is from the same geographical area, normally the same state.
Civilian employment conflicts with Canadian reservists have recently been in the news. Both legislation and CF policy leaves each individual reservist responsible for getting their employer onside for any time off. Oh, there was a provision made in 2004 (Bill C-7) to protect the jobs of reservists called to duty in an "emergency," as defined by the Act ("an insurrection, riot, invasion, armed conflict or war, real or apprehended"). But beyond that, our government's solution to such issues has been the Canadian Forces Liason Council, who voluntarily try to persuade employers to do right by reservists. Moves in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick to revise the employment law are most welcome, since they would put some teeth behind that persuasive effort.
Australia goes even further. I'll quote FM here:
Since 2001 however, legislation has been introduced that protects (for the length of certain operations) the jobs of reservists who volunteer for active duty. To sweeten the deal, funds have also been made available to compensate employers who lose employees to active service, to the tune of up to $1000 per week (the AUS/CDN dollar exchange rate is near parity -- 0.97 cents to the dollar).
In fact, the $1,035.90(AUS) per week employer compensation can actually top out at $5,600(AUS) per week for healthcare professionals called to service (Word document), voluntarily or not. Here in Canada, we can't even seem to track down proper life insurance for a deploying MD (which I'm going to address in a another post).
Job protection and some compensation to employers inconvenienced by the absence of their reservist employee? While I'm sure there are pitfalls - expense being the first and foremost - this sounds like an excellent idea to me.
This is in line with the overall profile of our respective armed forces: Australia spends more to maintain a smaller force than Canada:
Australian Defence Expenditures
A$23.1 billion
1.9% of GDP
51,000 full-time service members and 19,000 reservists
Canadian Defence Expenditures
C$15 billion
1.1% of GDP
64,000 full-time service members and 27,000 reservists
The Canadian soldier, sailor, and airman has always prided himself (and in more recent decades, herself) on matching up favourably against any other nation's counterpart in the world. But I must admit that even if the Canadian government were to see fit to bump our Defence budget to 1.9% of GDP ($25.9 billion, now where have I seen a figure like that before?) like Australia has, we'd still fall short of the ADF in one respect.
I love the Maple Leaf, but it's not much use in a fight. A boomerang, on the other hand...
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:10 p.m.
4 Comments:
Forming units (or sub-units like the CRIC) of reservists for overseas duties has always seemed to me to miss the point. We get no morale boost from being grouped with other reservists... except those from our own home regiment. I would just as soon have section mates from the PPCLI as from other reserve units.
A solid compromise was made for the 25ish 39 CBG reservists deploying very soon with C Coy 3 PPCLI. While all the reservists from a particular regiment aren't grouped in the same section, they are in the same platoon (a couple in each section). So, for example (I don't know the actual platoons), 7 Platoon would be entirely augmented with Seaforths, 8 Platoon with Canadian Scottish, etc.
As I understood the various CRICs, they were all reservists, but thrown into a blender. What's the point?
I'm actually with you, Greg. I don't see much advantage to it either, but I thought it an interesting difference between the two nations' approaches.
Much easier to get behind are the Aussies' legal protections and incentives for reservists wrt their civvie jobs. And, of course, their per capita (both per civilian, and per soldier) funding.
There isn't much point; it's done for politics. And the good thing about spreading the augmentees around is that it reduces the risk of a small-scale Beaumont-Hamel tragedy.
Nicely done BB. Happy to contribute.
With respect to the formed reserve units, I agree that it's something of a PR stunt, but I should point out that these are generally low intensity situations that they've been organised in this fashion (the Solomon Islands, etc). No doubt in other types of conflict, there might be other ways to approach it. The ADF is very busy these days though and in the Solomon Islands the Reserves are running almost all of the current rotation (from Command through to the rifle company and the CSS), so it's kind of hard not to be in a purely reserve unit!
Anyway, that's all kind of immaterial. The crux of the problems I see it here is money and the willingness of your government to spend some of it.
Cheers!
Post a Comment
<< Home