Australian Greens' Additional Comments

1.1Recommendation 122 of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is the most important recommendation. Independent oversight is integral to fostering trust in Defence and Veterans Affairs.

1.2Recommendation 122 states:

The Australian Government should establish a new statutory entity with the purpose of providing independent oversight and evidence-based advice in order to drive system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members.[1]

1.3The Greens acknowledge that the Government has taken some initial steps to address Recommendation 122, given its importance.

1.4However, the manner in which Schedule 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 (VETS Bill) was introduced, with little notice, no consultation, and just days before it was voted on, did not foster trust.

1.5This was made more problematic by the fact that the Government had repeatedly stated that the VETS Bill, to which this Schedule was attached at the last minute, was not a response to the Royal Commission. The Government employed this line of argument to restrict the scope of the Bill and the sector’s demands for amendments. To then, at the last minute, allow for it to be a partial response to the Royal Commission, but deny the proper consultation needed, was also not a good foundation for trust.

1.6However, there are important and useful actions we can now take to restore trust.

1.7The majority report outlines the framework for a strategy going forward, and the Greens hope this marks a move towards rebuilding trust.

1.8Mr Michael Manthorpe PSM, Interim Head of the Defence and Veterans’ Services Commission, acknowledged some of the trust challenges the Government faces in the veterans space. As part of addressing them, he has recommended that there be a standalone Act to establish this new oversight body, stating:

I recommend that the legislation currently contained in Schedule 9 of the VETS Act, which amends the Defence Act by inserting Part VIIIE, should be excised and placed into its own Act earlier than the 36 month review provided for in section 110ZLE. This would help to address a key concern of stakeholders with the perceived and actual independence of the Commissioner, the Commission and its staff.[2]

1.9He also recommended a series of changes to the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 (VETS Act) to ensure independence, including:

changes to the appointment of the Commissioner;

limits on the Minister’s power to direct the Commissioner to undertake an inquiry into, or provide advice on a specific matter, similar to the parameters set out for the Inspector-General of Aged Care;

removing the ability for the Minister to constrain the Commissioner’s discretion to determine a special inquiry;

clarifying section 110ZJD so the Commissioner is not subject to direction in relation to the conduct of an inquiry, including its terms, timing and priority, or how it is to be conducted;

enshrining procedural fairness into the legislation;

to allow for the Commissioner to have an escalation mechanism to the Prime Minister and Minister; and

to allow for the Commissioner to report directly to Parliament without Ministerial approval or oversight.[3]

1.10Other individuals and organisations have echoed these concerns. For example, Lieutenant Colonel Ian Lindgren (retired), highlighted the concerns over the appointment process of the Commissioner, saying:

… 110ZJE. This clause grants sweeping appointment power to the Minister with minimal transparency, few merit safeguards, and inadequate independence protections, running counter to multiple recommendations aimed at ensuring the Commissioner is selected openly, on merit, and insulated from political influence. Recommendation. The Commissioner should be chosen through an open, merit-based selection. The role must be publicly advertised, and an independent assessment panel should evaluate applicants for suitability.[4]

1.11Lieutenant Colonel Lindgren concurs with the Interim Head of the Commission in proposing that the Governor-General appoint the Commissioner on advice of the government.

1.12All of these amendments would be useful in restoring trust. A further important measure to help ensure the selection of the new Commissioner has broad support across Parliament (and is seen by the veteran community as independent of the Minister for Defence and the Department) would be to require concurrence to the appointment from a multi-party committee of Parliament. To avoid duplication, this could readily be done through the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee that has undertaken this review.

1.13Lieutenant Colonel Lindgren also highlighted the need to define 'the defence and veteran ecosystem'. This position is also noted by The Families of Veterans Guild, which said:

Section 110ZEE, which contains the definitions of key terms used throughout Schedule 9. However, two key terms are missing from this list: ‘veteran ecosystem’ or ‘ecosystem’ and ‘family’.[5]

1.14The Families of Veterans Guild recommended using the Australian Bureau of Statistics definition of family and including a list of relationships within that definition that constitute ‘family’.[6] This seems like a common-sense and logical change. Whatever definition of family is used, it would have to be an inclusive definition that includes the diversity of veterans’ families. Indeed, it is remarkable that nowhere in the series of Acts of Parliament that refer to and define veterans' services and support is there a reference to families.

1.15Multiple witnesses supported amending Schedule 9 to have an inclusive definition of veterans' families. The Greens also support this change to acknowledge the vital place of families in veterans' lives and support.

1.16Finally, it should be noted that the goal of the Commission must be no more suicides, Ms Julie-Ann Finely said:

… we have to go for zero suicides because, if we don't, we're not doing our best. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter what the answer is to that. We have to go for zero.[7]

1.17The Greens welcome the majority report's recommendation that the Australian Government introduce standalone legislation, which we support.

1.18The majority report's a recommendation that a definition of ‘veteran families’ is included in Schedule 9 is positive. As noted above the Greens support an express and inclusive definition of veteran families to acknowledge the essential role families play in veterans' lives and support. Such a change would have widespread support across much of the veteran community.

1.19As always in this space, we are profoundly grateful for the advice and time that so many in the veterans community have given to scrutinising the VETS Act and helping us understand the complex and interconnected challenges faced by veterans and their families.

1.20Let us hope this report, and the reforms that follow, are honest about the challenges and continue on the path of respect and deep listening. That is how we can change the lives of veterans for the better, and that must be our collective goal.

Senator David Shoebridge

Australian Greens' Spokesperson for Veterans and Defence

Footnotes

[1]Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide (Royal Commission), Final Report, Volume 1, 9 September 2024, p. 69.

[2]The Interim Head of the Defence and Veteran Services Commission, Submission 5 (47th Parliament), p. 6.

[3]The Interim Head of the Defence and Veteran Services Commission, Submission 5 (47th Parliament), pp. 8 –11.

[4]Lieutenant Colonel Ian Lindgren (retired), Submission 26 (47th Parliament), p. 9.

[5]Families of Veterans Guild, Submission 2 (47th Parliament), p. 4.

[6]Families of Veterans Guild, Submission 2 (47th Parliament), p. 2.

[7]Ms Julie-Ann Finney, private capacity, Proof Committee Hansard, 18 August 2025, p. 22.