Chapter 3Views on the Bill
3.1This chapter outlines a range of views put forward by the veteran community about the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 (the Bill).
3.2The inquiry received submissions from ex-service organisations (ESOs) and veterans who largely expressed support for the primary aim of the Bill which is to harmonise and simplify the legislation governing veterans’ entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation. Additionally, submitters were cautious about the impact the reform might have on the overall benefit to the veteran community, making the point that no veteran should be worse off because of the reform. Others also saw the legislative reform as an opportunity to improve some specific areas of veterans’ benefits.
3.3This chapter covers the following matters:
support for the harmonisation and simplification of the legislation;
the benefits of more efficient administration of veteran claims;
positive experiences engaging with the consultation process;
a number of improvements in the Bill;
commentary on the timeframes related to the Bill;
a discussion on definitions and the use of certain terms in the Bill; and
suggestions to improve a number of veterans’ benefits in the Bill.
Support for the Bill
Harmonisation and simplification
3.4Overwhelmingly, submitters agreed that the Bill’s intended purpose to harmonise and streamline the three Acts into one Act was a positive step towards simplifying the framework of legislation governing veterans’ entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation.
3.5126 Signal Squadron (Special Forces) congratulated the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel, the Hon Matt Keogh (the Minister), and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) for ‘achieving what many said was impossible—the creation of one single piece of legislation designed to address the needs of Australia’s veterans and their families’.
3.6The Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner, Commissioner Gwen Cherne, submitted:
The Veterans' Entitlement, Treatment, and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 is an important and significant step towards simplifying and improving the support system for veterans and families. The current system is overly complex, leading to stress and confusion, and ultimately impacting the health and wellbeing of those it is meant to support. This Bill aims to streamline processes, making it easier for veterans and families to access the benefits they deserve.
3.7The Productivity Commission acknowledged that the Bill reflects the findings and recommendations made in its 2019 report A Better Way to Support Veterans and supports the Bill’s aim to simplify the legislative arrangements, noting that:
… reform in this area necessitates difficult compromises, because it is not possible to achieve simplification without affecting some veterans’ potential entitlements.
3.8Legacy Australia, an ESO supporting veterans’ families when a veteran has either lost their life or health, commended the Australian Government on addressing Recommendation 1 of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide’s (Royal Commission) interim report through the Bill by:
… removing the complexity of the current three acts (VEA, DRCA and MRCA) through a harmonized single act based on a revised version of the MRCA. Legacy acknowledges that where possible the better parts of each piece of existing legislation have been included in the new version of the MRCA.
3.9One veteran submitted that the Bill is:
… the light at the end of the tunnel for Veterans, especially those caught up in the VEA, DRCA and MRCA lotto shenanigans, in relation to equality for permanent impairment.
More efficient administration
3.10Some submitters noted that the administrative efficiency that DVA will gain by being able to process claims against one piece of legislation, rather than three, will also have flow on benefits to veterans.
3.11Ms Margaret Jenyns, Head of Veterans’ Services Support at RSL Queensland, stated:
With the single act, as time goes on, I believe that the benefits just by DVA only having to work through one particular legislation or one set of systems and one set of legislation will be incredibly beneficial to our veterans. I genuinely believe that we will have a better, more efficient process. At the moment, with three acts, it's confusing for everybody. The training that is required for DVA delegates and the training required for our own ESO advocates is immense. With this whole process, by going back to one legislation, the training, the system support and all that sort of thing can be potentially, if we work on it, so much more efficient and effective. I think it cannot help but benefit the veterans who are applying for assistance.
3.12Similarly, Dr Mark Lax, Vice-Chairman of Legacy Australia, took the view that:
… once [the Bill] is enacted, claims will be processed much quicker and hopefully with less resubmission to the department, which in turn will relieve them of the pressure of the backlogs and so forth.
3.13The Defence Force Welfare Association (DFWA) and the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) were also in support of the administrative gains for DVA resulting in faster claims settlement times to the benefit of veterans, but it was noted that the human resource levels in DVA must be maintained at appropriate levels to meet demand and that the changes must be complemented by additional training.
3.14DVA explained that the claims processing efficiencies would be achieved through ‘new claims only having to be administered under a single Act, removing much of the complexity that exists in the current system’, such as compensation offsetting, and differing eligibility and assessment criteria. DVA stated that the benefits of improved administration would ‘flow to veterans and families in the form of quicker, more-straightforward and more-consistent claim outcomes, and would ensure that benefits and support services are commenced sooner’.
3.15Furthermore, DVA assured the Committee that the Australian Government had provided DVA with ‘demand driven funding’ in this year’s Budget, so the scale of its operation is driven by the volume of claims on hand. Additionally, DVA noted that the commencement date of 1 July 2026 provides enough time for DVA to ensure appropriate supports and training are in place for advocates and claims processing staff to ensure they can support veterans and their families through the transition.
Positive experiences with the consultation process
3.16As discussed in chapter 2, the Australian Government held an extensive consultation process on the exposure draft of the Bill. A number of ESOs made note of the positive experience they had throughout the consultation process, as well as ongoing support provided by DVA.
3.17The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia (VVAA) noted that they ‘have been pleased with the extensive briefing programme of veterans’ and ESOs undertaken by DVA’.
3.18RSL Australia recounted a number of instances where their concerns were alleviated by consultation with DVA. On Veterans’ Home Care, for example, Ms Jenyns stated:
… the interaction with the department has been excellent. They've been very helpful and responsive with any questions. They've made themselves available for meetings with RSL staff. We are very happy with the way they have assisted us through this process … [U]nder the MRCA, there is now attendant care and the other benefits. I was concerned because I couldn't see within the legislation where access to Veterans' Home Care was being carried across … I wanted reassurance that the Veterans' Home Care program would continue to be accessible by them.
I attended a workshop in Brisbane not too long ago in relation to aged care. I was assured that it was in the legislation.
3.19Similarly, Legacy Australia described its experience interacting with DVA as positive, stating:
We actually get on very well with the department. We have an annual advocacy forum, which we've just had a couple of weeks ago, wherein the department fully supported us … We draw in our advocates from around Australia to get their impressions of how this has been working. That has been one of the most beneficial things we have found because we have the direct opportunity for the people out in the field to question the secretary and other members of the department ... To answer your question, I would say that it is a positive experience.
Other notable provisions
3.20Submitters, including the Australian War Widows Inc (AWW), the Veterans Family Advocate Commissioner and Legacy Australia, acknowledged a number of improvements in the Bill, including provisions such as:
an increase to the funeral allowance;
improvements in the provisions covering bereavement payments;
the introduction of presumptive liability, allowing the Repatriation Commission to specify automatic claims;
increased reimbursement for medical travel;
posthumous lump sum payments;
creating a single commission by merging the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission into the Repatriation Commission;
payments to the primary carer of an eligible young person or child and education support for eligible young people;
the ability to resubmit claims previously rejected under VEA or DRCA under MRCA; and
extended liability coverage covering deaths due to on-duty medical events.
Key issues raised about the Bill
3.21This section cavasses some of the key issues raised by submitters and witnesses throughout the inquiry, including concerns about timeframes related to the Bill, the use of certain terms in the Bill, the potential for improvements to particular veterans’ entitlements in the Bill, and some concerns with DVA’s consultation process.
Timeframes
3.22A number of issues were raised by submitters relating to timeframes, including:
the Bill’s release ahead of the Royal Commission’s final report;
the impact of the Bill’s commencement date of 1 July 2026; and
the timeframe for grandparenting.
The Royal Commission
3.23Several legal groups raised concern that the Bill had been developed prior to the release of the Royal Commission’s final report and recommendations.
3.24The Australian Lawyers Alliance and Slater and Gordon submitted that the legislation had been drafted without consideration of the final recommendations of the Royal Commission, arguing that the Bill should not be finalised until the Royal Commission’s final report is reviewed and its recommendations incorporated into the legislation, if appropriate.
3.25Mr Greg Isolani, a partner at KCI Lawyers specialising in veterans’ compensation, added that the Bill is ‘long overdue’ and should not be rushed without reasonable and proper consideration of the range of issues that have been raised through the Committee’s inquiry and of the recommendations from the Royal Commission.
3.26At a public hearing following the publication of the Royal Commission’s final report, DVA stated that its initial assessment of the final report is that ‘none of the recommendations cut across the content of the Bill’. DVA also added that the Royal Commission’s final report does note that the Bill ‘will result in a harmonised scheme in line with the principles recommended by the Productivity Commission, which informed their interim report recommendation 1’.
The Bill’s commencement date
3.27Legacy Australia raised a concern relating to the transitional period between the Bill passing parliament and its commencement on 1 July 2026. Legacy Australia was concerned that applicants could be disadvantaged by lodging claims during this period under the old three Act system before the new Act commences, and that it may result in veterans’ delaying submitting their claims. Legacy Australia would have preferred a commencement date of 1 July 2025, but recommended that a no detriment clause be included in the Bill to ensure applicants will not be disadvantaged due to the delayed commencement date.
3.28During a public hearing, DVA was asked whether some of the benefits in the Bill, such as the increased funeral payments and private vehicle reimbursements, could be brought forward and implemented sooner than 1 July 2026. DVA responded that it would be possible, but that is not what is in the Bill currently before parliament.
3.29DVA added that the commencement date of 1 July 2026 ‘is not being driven by the department’s ability to implement the changes from a practical perspective’, rather it is about:
… the need for the veterans community to feel comfortable with the transition process to the new arrangements, understand how they would affect them, and to make some informed choices about what claims they want to make under the current arrangements and what claims they want to make under the new arrangements.
Interestingly, … at some of the consultation forums that we have undertaken, there are divergent views on that question about the timeframe of commencement. Some people are advocating for it to commence earlier while others are advocating for it to commence later.
Grandparenting
3.30There were divergent views presented in submissions regarding the inclusion of grandparenting in the Bill. The Bill allows for veterans to submit new claims under existing VEA and DRCA legislation after Royal Assent up until the commencement date of 1 July 2026.
3.31DFWA argued that time-limited grandparenting will disadvantage veterans and that grandparenting should continue indefinitely. DFWA supported grandparenting because it allows veterans the choice of making a new claim under the existing legislation or waiting to submit a claim under the new legislation, but DFWA believes that putting a time-limit on it equates to a loss of a condition of service. For example, DFWA is concerned that:
a veteran who has served and been covered by VEA and DRCA for all their service can no longer make a claim under that legislation after the commencement date even if it is more beneficial than the new MRCA; and
a veteran does not have a choice to grandparent when a new medical condition is diagnosed, even if it existed prior to the commencement date, or when a condition worsens or when they die.
3.32If indefinite grandparenting is not an option, DFWA recommended:
Veterans, who have not reasonably been able to get qualified Advocate support and advice in time to submit a grandparenting claim before 1 July 2026, be:
(a)granted an extension of time to make a grandparented claim;
(b)provided with assistance from DVA to find an Advocate able provide support; or failing that
(c)provided with funding for a claimant to obtain legal support in submitting a claim.
3.33On the other hand, the Productivity Commission was critical that the Bill included the grandparenting of entitlements at all, stating that coverage across multiple Acts retains the underlying causes of complexity, making it difficult for veterans and their families to navigate and for DVA to administer. The Productivity Commission explained:
The Commission is aware that a considerable number of veterans and veteran groups want the system to be simplified without the loss of any entitlements. However, this is not possible—a system that does not reassess the existing benefits will continue to become more and more complex. Reform in this area is not possible without affecting some veterans’ potential entitlements. And it is the reluctance by governments to remove payments and the grandfathering of compensation benefits that is, at least in part, the root cause of the complexity of the current system.
3.34DVA disagreed with both the position of DFWA and the Productivity Commission, stating that DVA is ‘firmly of the view that the changes in the VETS Bill more comprehensively address the recommendations from the Royal Commission aimed at simplifying veterans’ legislation’.
3.35DVA submitted that:
Although no new compensation claims lodged from 1 July 2026 will be assessed under the VEA or DRCA, certain provisions within these Acts will remain open to ensure compensation linked to previous claim determinations are honoured. Provisions in the VEA relating to Income Support and Qualifying Service will be retained under the VEA and will continue to operate for new claims received on or after 1 July 2026. DVA notes that many veterans and dependants who have previously been assured of receiving a payment for life (or until the end of their eligibility period) will have planned their finances and futures on the basis that these payments are safe and secure. These ‘grandparenting’ provisions are vital to ensure that beneficiaries do not have their payments reduced simply because a new system is implemented.
…
The Bill also introduces safeguards to ensure any unique and unforeseen circumstances can be managed without detriment to veterans and families.
Definitions
3.36One of the key issues raised by submitters was the contestation over the use or omission of terms in the Bill, in particular, ‘wholly dependent partner’ and ‘veteran’.
Wholly dependent partner
3.37Submitters raised concerns about the use of the term ‘wholly dependent partner’ in the Bill, which is argued to be no longer reflective of modern family dynamics. It was clear that there is strong opposition to the use of the term, however there was no consensus on what term should replace it.
3.38According to Legacy Australia, the current interpretation of a ‘wholly dependent partner’ is not relevant in today’s context:
There's a certain emotional dependency. There's care dependency. There's educational dependency. There's many different types. When these acts were drafted, a family was mum, dad and a couple of kids. That no longer applies. Often, it meant that—I will use the term 'husband'—the male partner was the breadwinner and the female partner, the wife, was either the home carer and looked after the kids or had a lesser paid job. Of course, in those days, superannuation was minimal. So consequently, that definition generally applied when the male partner, who might have been the veteran, died and therefore left the family in financial distress. Quite frankly, that is no longer the case for several reasons. Families … are now quite broad. Often, it is the surviving partner who is the breadwinner or is the higher earner and there is different superannuation. There is ComSuper superannuation payments as well as compensation payments.
3.39However, Legacy Australia acknowledged that whilst the understanding of the term has changed over time, it does not really present problems for them in terms of how successfully they advocate on behalf of veteran families. Legacy Australia stated if the term was not redefined in the Bill:
We would continue as is. We're very pleased generally with the legislation as it has been drafted. If, for example, you recommend that we don't have a definition of dependant or family, we will continue to offer that full range of Legacy services to those people regardless … It just makes it clearer in terms of our dealing with DVA in particular where the demarcation might be.
3.40Australian War Widows Inc (AWW) is a strong advocate for replacing the term ‘wholly dependent partner’ with ‘widow/er’. AWW submitted:
In the present form of the MRCA legislation there is no mention of war widows/ers, instead the term “Wholly Dependent Partner” is used. The majority of war widows/ers across Australia are saddened and disappointed at being labelled with this term. Most war widows worked during their marriages and contributed to the family finances, not to mention keeping the family unit together during their husbands’ absences. When their husbands became ill due to their war service the “widows” cared for them and in actual fact, it was the veteran who was “dependent” … The proposed terminology “Wholly Dependent Partner” could relate to anyone, it makes no reference to veterans or their defence service. AWW believes that it is disrespectful to those who have served, and shows contempt and ignorance towards widows/ers who are left behind.
3.41Alternatively, the Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner proposed that the term ‘wholly dependent partner’ be replaced with the term ‘bereaved family member’ for its clarity and inclusivity, stating:
Community discussions revealed that referring to a partner as wholly or partly dependent is not only outdated but also offensive. The feedback strongly favours 'bereaved family' as the future terminology, even though the older generation of veteran families still strongly prefers 'widow(er).' Embracing 'Bereaved Family Member' aligns with modern family dynamics and diverse compositions, making it more acceptable to younger partners and ensuring our language is both gender-neutral and relevant.
3.42RSL Australia agreed that there needs to be a new term and that ‘wholly dependent partner’ is not consistent with modern norms in relationships, and commented on the Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner’s suggestion stating that ‘bereaved family member’ does sound better than ‘wholly dependent partner’. However, RSL Australia stated that the term needs to be more specific so that it clearly defines and identifies the different family members who are to be covered by the Bill, suggesting the following:
Bereaved Family Member – Partner
Bereaved Family Member – Dependent Child
Bereaved Family Member – Other Dependent.
3.43In response to the concerns about the definition and use of the term ‘wholly dependent partner’, DVA stated that ‘everyone would agree that it’s not necessarily a contemporary description of modern families’, however:
… there is no consistent view in the veteran community as to the preferred language associated with the ‘wholly dependent partner’ entitlement … Work is underway with the Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner and relevant stakeholders to resolve this matter and any changes will be subject to Government agreement. The term ‘bereaved family member’ may not be specific enough for the purposes of the Act, as different benefits apply to different types of family members (e.g. surviving partner as distinct to dependent children).
Veteran
3.44A number of submitters discussed concerns about the word ‘veteran’ not being defined or used in the Bill, with the Bill instead referring to a ‘person’.
3.45Major General Melick (Retd), National President of RSL Australia, noted that whilst this is an issue of semantics and the entitlements are still there and available regardless of whether the Bill refers to a ‘person’ or a ‘veteran’, it is an issue that is of concern to a significant number of RSL Australia’s members:
There is no definition of 'veteran'. They say this is a bill about veterans. Why isn't it there? Of course, there's no point in just having a definition of 'veteran' at the outset of the bill if it's not used in the rest of the bill because at the moment it's not. What we have is a bill that sets out a person who has these characteristics or attributes. Our view is that Commonwealth legislation should harmonise the use of the definition of 'veteran'. It should be used in this act.
… the feedback we're getting from our members is that they would like to see this bill recognise that they are a veteran, that the word be included, and then you give the various attributes to the term 'veteran' rather than 'person'.
3.46In its submission, RSL Australia was strongly opposed to describing veterans as ‘just persons’ and emphasised that it:
… rejects any action to exclude the word ‘veteran/s’ from the Bill and any future Australian legislation. The identification, recognition and acknowledgement of the unique nature of military service is central to the health and wellbeing of current and former serving ADF members, to informing defence and veteran policy and action, and it is part of Australia’s DNA.
The [Bill] must, at a minimum, enable a clear cross reference to Section 4 of the Australian Veterans’ Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Act 2019 to ensure ‘Veterans’, their families and the community has a clear understanding of DVA’s client base.
3.47The Australian Veterans’ Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Act 2019 defines a veteran as ‘a person who has served, or is serving, as a member of the Permanent Forces or as a member of the Reserves’.
3.48DFWA agreed this would be the most appropriate definition to include in the Bill:
This definition is in common use and has been accepted by the Veteran Ministers’ Council with representatives from all states. A change to that definition is not supported and would add confusion.
3.49However, DFWA questioned why a definition of veteran was not included in the Bill, noting that the Consultation Report on the Exposure Draft of the Bill, dated June 2024, states: ‘Following feedback on this matter, the Australian Government has decided to insert a definition of veteran into the MRCA’.
3.50DVA responded to this feedback explaining:
… the VETS Bill was amended prior to its introduction to Parliament to insert additional detail into the simplified outline of the MRCA. The changes incorporate the concept of a ‘veteran’ as a ‘member or former member of the Defence Force’.
3.51However, whilst the Bill does have references to a ‘member or former member’, it precedes this with a reference to ‘a person’ rather than ‘a veteran’.
3.52At a public hearing, DVA clarified:
The MRCA, for the last 20 years, has not in a mechanical sense used the word 'veteran'. It refers to things like serving members of the ADF, former serving members of the ADF, part-time reservists and cadets—as in school-age cadets. To define a term in an act that then is not used in the provisions of the act, in terms of the advice and the conversations that we've had, would create ambiguity around the proper interpretation of that term.
…
We did have this conversation explicitly with parliamentary counsel as part of the drafting … Because the term wouldn't be otherwise used in the MRCA, the advice is that it would potentially add confusion and unnecessary complexity and open up pathways for litigation that are unhelpful. In terms of status recognition … the Australian Veterans' Recognition Act achieves that purpose, and it's on that basis that the term is not in the MRCA.
Veterans’ entitlements and compensation
3.53Submitters and witnesses raised a broad range of matters that they would like to see addressed in the Bill to improve provisions relating to veterans’ entitlements and compensation, including that the Bill should ensure that no veteran is worse off because of the harmonisation of the legislation. Whilst not all matters raised in submissions can be covered in this report, this section canvasses some of the key areas where concerns were raised.
No veteran worse off
3.54In bringing together the three Acts into one, a number of submitters stressed the importance that no veteran be worse off.
3.55Ms Pat McCabe, National President of TPI Australia, emphasised that cases of winners and losers will not be known until the Bill is introduced and put into action, giving the following example:
Our fear, especially when the DRCA clients automatically transfer to MRCA, is that we really don't know if some are going to lose or some are going to win. We haven't been through it case by case. Our fear is that there will be people in that category alone who may be worse off.
3.56TPI Federation of Australia (TPI Federation) called for the Australian Government to ensure that simplifying and harmonising the legislation is to the benefit of all veterans. TPI Federation recommended that the Bill be amended to ensure that veterans are no worse off if unforeseen or unintended consequences of merging the Acts occurs.
3.57From RSL Australia’s perspective, Major General Melick stated:
The concern is to make sure that no veteran will be worse off. The Act makes sure that any veteran who has any entitlements under the previous Act is preserved. It becomes difficult, then, to ensure that the best part of all three Acts gets incorporated in the new Act because there may be cost considerations. We are of the view that the right balance has been achieved, although over the next few years there may be discrepancies or imbalances that appear and, therefore, there will have to be modifications.
3.58During a public hearing, Ms Jenyns was asked whether the Bill should have a provision built in for situations where there is a lack of clarity on a veterans’ entitlements, to ensure there will be a default to the benefit of the veteran. Ms Jenyns stated:
The legislation does cover the fact that if there is an anomaly that is identified for a person, the Repatriation Commission can step in and address that anomaly. So, I think that sort of meets what you are saying. I guess that's only for a person. If there is an anomaly across the board where it says a class of persons or a type of issue, the Repatriation Commission needs to be able to step in via an instrument or something to be able to address that. Certainly, there needs to be a fallback position where DVA can step in and say, 'Yes, we understand that there's a problem here and we can address it’.
3.59DVA highlighted in its submission that a key feature of the Bill is to ‘ensure no veteran or dependant experiences a reduction in their current payments or previous payments when transitioning to the new scheme’ by grandparenting existing payments, and that those benefits will continue to be indexed annually. At a public hearing, DVA pointed out that there will be choices for veterans and their families to make as to whether they make a claim under the three Act system or under the new system and that outcomes for some veterans will be different, but not necessarily worse off. For example, a veteran may decide ‘I would prefer a few thousand dollars extra in my lump sum compared to a Gold Card’—so DVA stated that there ‘is some subjectivity in that’.
3.60RSL Australia suggested another way to address any unforeseen outcomes from the merger of the Acts, would be to write into the Bill that a formal review of the legislation be conducted within a period after the Bill is enacted. It was noted that when the MRCA was introduced in 2004, a similar review process was conducted.
3.61DFWA also recommended that the Bill include a requirement for a review to be conducted, noting that, given the large scale of the legislation, ‘it is inevitable that deficiencies will be identified during implementation which will require rectification’. DFWA acknowledged that some problems may be fixable within existing operational or delegated flexibility arrangements, but others may require legislative change. DFWA recommended:
… a review to be conducted, with input from all stakeholders, within six months of Commencement date or 18 months after legislation receives Royal Assent, whichever is earliest. This review and resulting Amending Legislation requirement shall include an appropriate “sunset clause”. The review should include, but not be limited to:
(a)governance arrangements,
(b)benefit improvement and clarification,
(c)operational process improvement,
(d)Royal Commission recommended changes, and
(e)the need for complementary new or amended legislation.
3.62In DVA’s Impact Analysis 2024 report on the veterans’ compensation and rehabilitation legislation reform, the potential for a review is discussed as an option, stating ‘broader overall success of the new system should be measured at a reasonable interval post implementation’. The options for consideration included a review similar to what was suggested by submitters and are listed as follows:
a legislative review similar to the “Review of Military Compensation Arrangements” which commenced in 2009, five years after the introduction of the MRCA and concluded in 2011;
internal audit reporting directly to the DVA Executive; and
engagement with the new Australian Centre for Evaluation.
3.63DVA further noted that the proposed implementation date of 1 July 2026 provides sufficient lead time to design a robust evaluation process.
Gold Card eligibility for DRCA veterans
3.64Submitters and witnesses supported DRCA veterans being given access to the Gold Card in the Bill, but concerns were raised about the eligibility criteria requiring the application and acceptance of a new claim or for a previous impairment to have worsened by at least five impairment points.
3.65RSL Australia submitted it supports the provision of Gold Cards to eligible DRCA veterans and dependents, but articulated concerns about equitable treatment stating that the Bill:
… does not appropriately reflect the reality of current veterans living with impairment who receive compensation under the DRCA or VEA, nor will it put in place appropriate conditions for their equitable treatment under the reformed MRCA.
…
Achieving an overall impairment increase is reliant on the GARP [(Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans’ Pensions)] Combined Values Chart. As an example of the inequity, a person on an existing 10 points impairment rating needs a further 10 points to achieve an overall increase of 5. A person on 80 points requires an additional 23 points to reach that overall increase of 5. In simple terms, the more impaired a veteran is, the higher the hurdle he/she has to jump.
3.66RSL Australia went on to propose that the overall intent of this aspect of the legislation should be to:
… move active clients into the new legislation as seamlessly as possible for both DVA and the veteran recipient. As such, the RSL submits that the criteria be rewritten to state that the increase in the person’s overall impairment constitutes an increase of at least 5 impairment points, or that there is a 5 impairment point increase in the assessment of any single condition which has been accepted under the VEA or DRCA—whichever is the higher.
3.67Similarly, DFWA questioned why a reassessment of existing conditions under the new legislation was not sufficient to determine eligibility, stating that a veteran should not need to go through a process and stress of making claims for new injuries or worsened existing injuries. The DFWA submitted:
The proposed approach will create situations where some ex-DRCA Veterans more severely incapacitated than others will not qualify for a Gold Card while others, less incapacitated, will qualify. This is plainly wrong.
It is recommended that the criteria be re-written to include the existing criteria, with an addition of “or a review involving a reassessment of the veteran’s accepted DRCA incapacities under new MRCA criteria qualifies for access to a Gold Card”.
3.68Mr Michael Carlon, a volunteer advocate at the Portarlington & St Leonards RSL and representative of the Australian Special Air Service Association, explained the importance of amending the eligibility for DRCA veterans:
These veterans were injured during their service for Australia and as such they should have access to the same medical and concession provisions that VEA and MRCA veterans have. The introduction of the new Bill is the opportunity for our government to rectify past wrongs in respect to the issuing of a Gold Card to DRCA veterans.
Rectifying this matter would mean that DRCA veterans are no longer second class veterans—at no fault of their own, their situation is solely due to a Compensation Act that was ill conceived and short lived.
3.69DVA responded to these concerns explaining why the Bill requires a five-point worsening of a veterans’ overall impairment level, or the acceptance of a new condition after commencement:
This requirement ensures that veterans are not unfairly receiving additional compensation for conditions that have already been compensated under the DRCA. The issue arises due to the existing compensation systems have differing approaches regarding specific entitlements. For example, permanent impairment compensation under the DRCA is assessed and compensated on a condition-by-condition basis, meaning a veteran can technically be paid compensation at a rate which exceeds 100% impairment. This cannot occur under the MRCA, where impairments from conditions are combined and compensated on a ‘whole-of-person’ basis. DVA notes that several submissions disagree that DRCA veterans should have to meet any additional threshold for a Gold Card once any new arrangements commence. It is likely that veterans who are impacted by these provisions may reach the relevant threshold levels under the MRCA at some point in the future irrespective.
3.70Furthermore, DVA added that retrospectively providing Gold Cards to all veterans covered by the DRCA, and otherwise meeting the requirements under the MRCA, would:
… require a manual re-assessment of likely more than a thousand claims of DRCA veterans in the first year which would be inconsistent with the approach to reform under the VETS Bill being based on date of claim, with movement to MRCA coverage from the VEA or DRCA to be where there is a new claim (or material exacerbation of an existing condition) after commencement, with existing benefits pre-commencement grandfathered.
Service differential and the Statement of Principles
3.71A number of submitters advocated for removing the service differential (between warlike and non-warlike service, or operational and non-operational) in favour of a single operational environment for injuries, illnesses, or the death of a veteran. Concerns about the application of the Statement of Principles (SoPs), produced by the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA), under the MRCA, which is retained in the Bill, was also discussed.
3.72126 Signal Squadron (Special Forces) explained the issue:
Currently there are two thresholds and standards applied to veterans who make claims to DVA. This has become known as the ‘service differential’ and has been the source of confusion and disenchantment among the veteran community for a number of years.
The service differential is used in conjunction with the Statement of Principles produced by the Repatriation Medical Authority to differentiate claims of injury, health conditions or death of those veterans with operational experience against those with non-operational experience. Those veterans with operational experience are judged on the ‘Reasonable Hypothesis’ of a claim and those with non-operational service are judged on the less generous provisions of the ‘Balance of Probabilities’.
3.73126 Signal Squadron (Special Forces) expressed disappointment that the Bill does not remove the current service differential in favour of a single operational method of assessment for veterans regardless of where the injury, illness, or death of a veteran occurred. 126 Signal Squadron noted that the Productivity Commission, the Chief of the Defence Force at the time, General Angus Campbell AO DSC, and the Royal Commission, all supported the removal of the service differential.
3.74Slater and Gordon outlined the major problems with the SoPs and recommended that the SoPs be reviewed in the Bill as a matter of priority:
The SoPs are perceived to work against a veteran rather than in their support. Rigid, inflexible application of the SoP Risk Factors in determining a claim is inconsistent with the beneficial intent and provisions of the legislation, particularly where the veteran also suffers with [post-traumatic stress disorder] … The current SoP structure is overly complicated and burdensome for veterans … Namely, we urge the current SoP system be reviewed with a view to simplifying the process and reducing the unreasonable evidence requirements. Furthermore, provisions should be made for conditions recognised in the medical community that are not yet reflected in SOPs. Legislation and specifically the Simplification Bill implementing this fundamental change should be a priority for the DVA.
3.75Furthermore, Slater and Gordon added that the Bill must be drafted to provide more certainty and clarity with the SoPs, stating that the fundamental issue with SoPs is:
… that they are premised on constantly evolving medical science, yet, despite endeavours by the RMA, they are not updated soon enough to reflect these changes. By the very nature of SOPs, they cannot be applied too rigorously and should only be referred to as a general guide. The strict interpretation approach needs to be removed.
The quantification and qualification required to prove the above factors is onerous on the veteran and serves to lengthen the claims process and restrict Commonwealth liability. If a claimant cannot immediately report the onset of symptoms or if their experience does not otherwise meet these strict parameters, their claim can be denied.
In comparison, a Commonwealth public servant covered by the existing SRCA must only demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities their injury arose out of or was aggravated in the course of their employment. In my experience, this test is less restrictive and contains fewer arbitrary technicalities that seem designed to block claims by veterans. The simplification Bill does not remedy this inequity.
3.76Australian Lawyers Alliance agreed that the two standards of proof should not be transferred to the new Bill, rather the ‘on balance of probabilities’ measure would be an appropriate standard of proof for this legislation, and that the SoPs should be treated as discretionary and as a guide, rather than determinative.
3.77Mr Greg Isolani concurred, stating that, in most cases, the SoPs are used to deny claims rather than as a framework to accept claims. Mr Isolani acknowledged that the strict application of SoPs can lead to the rejection of a claim where the medical evidence indicates there is a link between the claimed condition and the claimant’s ADF service, and therefore the interpretation and application of SoPs should have a degree of flexibility for delegates. Mr Isolani recommended:
The Bill can overcome this “unintended outcome” of the SoP’s if there is a discretion for DVA at review level, including at the VRB [Veterans’ Review Board] and the AAT [Administrative Appeals Tribunal] to “override” the SoP … [A decision] should also be reviewable by the VRB and the AAT if a request to override the SoP is refused by the [Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission].
This approach allows DVA to obtain and / or consider medical evidence as to causation when strict adherence to the SoP factors would result in the claim failing despite evidence that the condition is service related.
It is recommended that all SoPs … are reviewed by the Repatriation Medical Authority to determine, if, for example, using the DRCA standard of proof (Balance of probability) for the frequent ADF conditions would likely succeed. If so, the SoP’s should be beneficially amended to ensure consistency of decision making.
3.78DVA explained that the Bill does alleviate some of the need to use the SoPs as it enables:
… the Repatriation Commission to specify, via legislative instrument, that claims for certain injuries and diseases can be accepted by DVA on a presumptive (i.e. automatic) basis without otherwise needing to engage with the Statements of Principles system. This would reduce the investigation required prior to determining such claims.
3.79Additionally, DVA reported that following consultation on the exposure draft of the Bill, it added a provision to ensure that where the RMA updates a SoP between the veteran’s primary and reviewable decision, the version of the SoP which is most beneficial to the veteran’s circumstances will be applied.
3.80Regarding the service differential, DVA acknowledged that this is a ‘contentious issue amongst the veteran community and no consensus has been reached about whether it is appropriate to retain a service differential within the compensation system’, however:
The use of different standards of proof reflects that evidence can be more difficult to obtain in the context of service in operational areas. It also reflects the view of successive Governments that operational service is ‘unique’ in nature when compared to peacetime service. The MRCA has always provided compensation for conditions attributable to all types of ADF service and retains the ‘service differential’ to recognise the circumstances of service on operations and the unquantifiable effects of combat.
Offsetting
3.81Offsetting was introduced to deal with the duplication of compensation that sometimes occurs when a veteran is covered under multiple Acts for the same claim. The impact of offsetting on lump sum payments was raised as a concern for a number of submitters. According to ESOs, there have been reports of veterans who have paid multiples over the original lump sum because of the offsetting provisions..
3.82RSL Australia expressed that this was an issue mainly to do with inappropriate actuarial advice and recommended that the Bill include a provision ensuring that veterans get appropriate advice before electing to receive a lump sum payment:
We are concerned, particularly about lump sum payments, because of the offsetting potential, that a proper and informed decision is made by the veteran before electing. The actuarial calculations used by the Commonwealth seem to be at odds with some of the ones that I've dealt with in my common law practice. DVA is considering the legislation to make sure that they are appropriate and that people get appropriate advice. That should include advice from either an actuary or a [Certified Public Accountant]. You have to balance not duplicating compensation … We think it's important there is legislation to ensure that appropriate advice is taken before making elections.
3.83DFRA agreed that the Bill should include a provision to support veterans’ access to professional financial advice to assist in their decision-making.
3.84TPI Federation highlighted the case of one Vietnam veteran who received a lump sum payment of $171 000 and has paid back approximately $322 000, as at 8 August 2024, through offsetting, noting that these repayments will continue through his lifetime. At a public hearing, a potential solution was discussed:
Senator FAWCETT: … Would the TPI Federation view a cap that once the impact of the initial offsetting had reached the value of that lump sum payment, all offsetting impact would essentially be removed and it would go back to the original? Do you think that would be a reasonable outcome?
Ms McCabe: I would have to discuss that in depth. In general, that is what we're looking for. The way it was explained to me was offsetting is not a repayment scheme for the advance funding. Because it is not a repayment scheme, it is ongoing repayments. To me, that is totally illogical. I know it's legal, but it's immoral to take back more than what you got initially, in our view. So it is any methodology you can come up with. In this case, the fellow got $171,000. If you reach that limit of having been offset or paid back, or whatever words you want to use, that $171,000, that should be the end of it.
3.85RSL Australia agreed that such a provision creating a safety net where the repayments ceased once the original value was reached would be welcome.
3.86Whilst DVA did not comment specifically on whether this kind of provision could be considered, it clarified the purpose of offsetting:
It is a misconception that offsetting represents the ‘paying back’ of an individual’s compensation. Compensation offsetting is the process of reducing one compensation payment in recognition of another compensation payment for the same incapacity or death. This includes compensation received via third-party and/or common law actions. The principle behind offsetting is to ensure that a person with eligibility under multiple Acts is not compensated more than a person in similar circumstances but who is only able to claim from one source.
…
Superannuation offsetting serves to ensure that a Commonwealth payment that is for the same purpose (i.e. for the veteran’s inability to work) is provided by the Commonwealth only once.
3.87In relation to how offsetting applies in the Bill, DVA explained:
The VETS Bill would see the future need to ‘offset’ payments received under different Acts eliminated, except in cases where existing payments are maintained under ‘grandparenting’ arrangements. Further, veterans with existing impairments under the DRCA or the VEA will be able to receive additional compensation for any worsening of their conditions under the MRCA without the need to reduce their existing entitlements.
Veterans who are granted [Disability Compensation Payment] will continue to be eligible for the benefit for life, however they may receive a reduced rate if they have already received lump-sum compensation. It would be inequitable to allow some veterans to receive compensation at a total rate that is higher than what their impairment and lifestyle ratings justify, solely because they are paid by two sources, whilst other veterans are limited to being compensated by one source.
Superannuation offsetting is usually discussed in the context of the existing SRDP but will also be applied to the new [Additional Disablement Amount] payment under the MRCA. Superannuation offsetting refers to the process which reduces these payments by 60 cents for every dollar the veteran is receiving in Commonwealth-funded any superannuation.
3.88Additionally, DVA outlined that in response feedback during consultation that additional safeguards were needed to assist with the long-term financial security of veterans, the Bill inserts an instrument making power that allows the Repatriation Commission to specify circumstances and the classes of persons who are required to obtain financial or legal advice before compensation or other benefits are paid under the MRCA. This new power will be ‘an important tool in helping veterans understand their financial decisions to minimise any detriment that could be caused by providing options to receive lump-sum compensation’.
Access to legal representation
3.89Some submitters suggested that the Bill should be amended to allow veterans to have access to legal representation at the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB).
3.90The Australian Lawyers Alliance was disappointed that the Bill excludes legal practitioners from appearing as a representative at a VRB hearing and argued that it ‘is essential for veterans to have the option to utilise legal representation and assistance at all stages of the claims process’ so that they can:
navigate lengthy and complicated legislation;
ensure their claims are presented correctly from the outset and during review;
have additional support for those veterans and their families through these processes; and
receive assistance in obtaining appropriate financial advice following a settlement.
3.91The Naval Association of Australia (NAA) noted that the Government argues that the reason not to allow legal representation at the VRB is so that the it ‘remains less adversarial, with a veteran-friendly environment where matters can be resolved without the involvement of lawyers’. However, the NAA is of the view that it is not fair to have veterans and advocates without legal training present cases to a VRB membership who have legal training, stating:
The NAA is concerned about this imbalance of justice and what appears to be a breach by the Commonwealth of its obligations under its Model Litigant Policy 5. In particular, not taking advantage of a claimant who does not have the resources to litigate a legitimate claim … The NAA believes that if a veteran elects to be legally represented it is their decision not a legislator’s.
…
The NAA recommends veterans should be given the option of legal representation at the VRB.
3.92Slater and Gordon agreed that the prohibition on veterans having access to legal representation at the VRB should be repealed and added that the VRB should ‘become a full costs jurisdiction for the Applicant. That is, it will enable legal and other representatives to assess the merits of cases and pursue them on a “no win, no fee” basis’.
3.93However, this issue appeared to be divisive with others arguing that the prohibition on legal practitioners appearing at the VRB is reasonable.
3.94Mr Ross Dunn, a volunteer veterans’ advocate at the Veterans’ Support Centre, respectfully disagreed that veterans should have the option of legal representation at VRB hearings, stating:
While there are many solicitors and barristers in the VRB membership that is not a problem; legal training ensures proper consideration of evidence, legislation and precedents. So long as the VRB retains its informality and its understanding of the beneficial nature of veterans’ legislation, and there is a generous proportion of veterans in the composition of the membership I see no need for veterans to ‘even up’ with their own lawyers. A VRB hearing is not a contest between the veteran and the Board, in the way that applicant and respondent face off in the AAT.
I think that the restriction on legal representation ensures that the VRB will continue to be veteran friendly and less adversarial than it would be with lawyers present. If veterans were able to appear with lawyers it would not take long for DVA to follow suit and the Board would start acting more as a referee between contestants.
3.95DVA stated that ‘allowing for legal representation at the VRB would be seen to be at odds with the purpose of that body, to provide a non-adversarial, veteran-friendly and cost-effective merits review pathway’.
Committee view
3.96The complexity of the current tri-Act legislative framework is widely acknowledged to adversely impact the health and wellbeing of some veterans. The Committee commends the Australian Government for pursuing the most significant reform of veterans’ entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation legislation in decades.
3.97The Committee was encouraged by the positive feedback on the Bill, particularly in relation to the Bill’s primary aim to harmonise and simplify the legislative framework which was overwhelmingly supported by inquiry participants. Submitters also reported positive experiences engaging with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) throughout the consultation process as well as receiving ongoing support and engagement.
3.98The Committee notes that there were varied perspectives on the appropriateness of the Bill’s commencement date of 1 July 2026. Legacy Australia, in particular, was concerned that applicants could be disadvantaged by lodging claims during the period between the passage of the Bill and the commencement date which could result in veterans’ delaying submitting their claims. The Committee was assured by DVA that all factors had been considered in nominating this commencement date and that it was particularly important to provide the veteran community with enough time to feel comfortable with the transition to the new arrangements, to understand how the legislation would affect them, and to make informed choices about what claims they want to make under the current arrangements and what claims they want to make under the new arrangements.
3.99The Committee welcomes DVA’s assertion that a key feature of the Bill is to ensure that no veteran or dependant experiences a reduction in their current or previous payments in transitioning to the new legislation. DVA did note, however, that whether a veteran is ‘better or worse off’ is subjective, emphasising that there will be choices for veterans and their families to make which means that the outcomes for some veterans may be different under the new legislation, but not necessarily worse off.
3.100On the matter of grandparenting, diverse views were put forward by submitters extending from advocating for indefinite grandparenting to removing grandparenting all together. The Committee is satisfied that the Australian Government has found the right balance between ensuring that veteran and dependant payments previously assured under the VEA and DRCA are secure, that there is adequate time for veterans to consider their options in the transition period as to whether they would prefer to lodge claims under the old or new system, and that grandparenting does not unnecessarily impact the core aim of simplifying and harmonising the legislative framework.
3.101The Committee notes that there was disagreement around the use of certain terms in the Bill and agrees with the sentiment of submitters that the term ‘wholly dependent partner’ is not reflective of modern family dynamics. The Committee acknowledges that whilst the term is used in the Bill, DVA has indicated that it is a matter they are progressing with the Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner and relevant stakeholders to find a solution.
3.102The Committee acknowledges that some ex-services organisations and veterans considered the legislative reform as being an opportunity to improve certain aspects of veterans’ entitlements and compensation. The key concerns raised throughout the inquiry were also identified in DVA’s consultation on the exposure draft of the Bill. The Committee commends DVA on acting on a number of the concerns raised through this process by amending the Bill, and notes that where issues have been categorised as ongoing legislative and policy issues, they may be resolved in the future as part of the legislative reform process or may be considered in the policy or administrative context during implementation.
3.103The Committee acknowledges the importance of the issues raised by submitters and emphasises that the reform process does not end with this Bill. The Bill responds to the urgent recommendation of the Royal Commission of the need to simplify and harmonise the legislative framework for veterans’ compensation to support better outcomes for veterans. The Committee echoes the point made by the Royal Commission that there is no perfect solution but the Australian Government needs to make a decision now. Moreover, to delay the reform in the search for a perfect solution would be a disservice to the veteran community.
3.104The Committee supports the Australian Government’s ongoing engagement with DVA on further improvements to the legislative framework, in consultation with stakeholders. The Committee welcomed the advice from DVA that an evaluation process is being designed to monitor and assess the implementation and progress of the legislation, should it pass. The Committee encourages DVA to release the details of the evaluation process as soon as practicable, including whether a legislative review similar to the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements, which was undertaken after the MRCA was introduced in 2004, will be undertaken.
3.105The Committee is of the view that the Bill will achieve the objective to create a legislative framework that will make the system easier for veterans and families to navigate. By simplifying the legislation governing veterans’ entitlements, veterans’ health and wellbeing will be enhanced by making it easier for veterans and their families to understand and access their entitlements. By harmonising the legislation into a single Act, the differing benefit types and eligibility will also be aligned to ensure equitable compensation outcomes. Furthermore, by administering one Act, rather than three, DVA will be able to train staff and process claims more efficiently, facilitating more timely access to benefits and services for veterans and families.
3.106The Committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Senator Raff Ciccone
Chair
Labor Senator for Victoria