Jacqui Lambie Network's additional comments
1.1The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 (the Bill) proposes major reform to the legislative framework governing veterans’ entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation arrangements.
1.2The Bill provides that all claims for veterans’ compensation will be determined under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (the MRCA) from 1 July 2026. The Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA) and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (the DRCA) will continue to operate in a limited form.
1.3The current legislative framework is widely regarded as being overly complex, difficult to navigate and challenging to administer effectively. These issues have resulted in significant delays in processing claims which negatively impacts the wellbeing of veterans. There have been ongoing calls to streamline and simplify these processes with the aim to improve efficiencies, reduce wait times and ensure greater consistency in outcomes.
1.4The Bill was introduced in the Australian Parliament in July 2024 following an extensive consultation process originating from the Productivity Commission’s report titled ‘A Better way to Support Veterans’. In this report, the Productivity Commission concluded that the current legislative framework for veterans’ compensation and rehabilitation is ‘not fit for purpose’ and ‘requires fundamental reform’.[1] It further stated that the legislative framework governing veterans’ compensation and rehabilitation is:
… out-of-date and is not working in the best interest of veterans and their families, or the Australian community … It is overly complex (legislatively and administratively), difficult to navigate, inequitable, and it is poorly administered (which places unwarranted stress on claimants).[2]
1.5On a similar note, the Interim Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide (Interim Report) described the current legislative framework for veterans as ‘so complicated that it adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and can be a contributing factor to suicidality’.[3] The Interim Report made thirteen recommendations, the first of which urged the Australian Government to develop and implement legislation to simplify and harmonise the framework for veterans’ compensation, rehabilitation, and other entitlements.[4]
1.6I commend the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) for bringing forward legislation that seeks to implement the first recommendation of the Interim Report to simplify and harmonise the legislative framework governing compensation, rehabilitation and other entitlements for our veteran community. I would also like to express my appreciation for their engagement and willingness to provide time and resources on this matter.
1.7The legislative landscape for veterans is a contentious and complex area that has lacked meaningful reform for many years. The Bill, in its original form, spans over 300 pages and is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum of 115 pages. To get across the legislation with just two advisors was a considerable challenge, especially when coupled with other priorities spanning across all fifteen government portfolios and other electoral responsibilities.
1.8The Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) has actively engaged with numerous individuals and organisations to ensure a thorough understanding of the proposed legislation. The JLN sincerely thanks all those we have met for their invaluable time and guidance on this important matter. The shared insights have been instrumental in shaping our approach and ensuring that the needs of the veteran community are appropriately addressed.
1.9The Bill’s intended purpose to harmonise and streamline three existing Acts into a single Act is a positive step towards simplifying legislation governing veterans’ entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation. However, it also represents a missed opportunity to tackle other systemic, structural and cultural issues that require urgent attention within Defence and Veteran portfolios.
1.10It is essential that the new legislation is fit for purpose and effectively serves the needs of both former and current serving members of the Australian Defence Force.
1.11Unfortunately, it remains unclear why the DVA has only implemented one recommendation from the Interim Report, instead of adopting a more comprehensive strategy to address major issues highlighted in the Bill’s consultation process as well as recommendations from the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. A more holistic approach is urgently needed to address these critical issues.
1.12The Bill can be improved by addressing the following key areas:
immediately implement straightforward recommendations from the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide;
bring forward the Bill’s commencement date to ensure timely implementation;
expand coverage of liability for members of the Australian Defence Force;
provide legal representation for veterans;
introduce changes around defective administration;
clarify the definition of legal personal representative;
improve access to healthcare and Gold Card eligibility;
modernise statement of principles and standard of proof thresholds;
improve the timeframe for processing claims;
address the interpretation of clinical onset;
clarify the meaning of primary responsibility for a young person or child; and
introduce a statutory review period.
1.13These issues are discussed in further detail below.
1.14The Bill was drafted before the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide (Final Report) was published. Many stakeholders have raised concerns about this timeline, arguing that the Bill should not be passed until the Final Report and its recommendations are carefully reviewed and considered.
1.15For example, Mr Greg Isolani, partner at KCI Lawyers specialising in veterans’ compensation, argued 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’.[5]
1.16The DVA has not provided a clear explanation as to why the Bill was introduced before the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its Final Report. Before the passage of this legislation, the DVA must provide a response to the Final Report.
1.17The recommendations and findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has helped identify systemic, structural and cultural issues relating to serving and ex-serving members of Australian Defence Force. As a minimum, the government should utilise this opportunity to urgently implement recommendations that seek to address the following critical issues:
(a)military sexual violence (recommendations 21, 22, 23 and 24);
(b)role and functions of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force to facilitate the effective operation of our military justice system (recommendations 42, 43, 45, 50, 51 and 53);
(c)quality, timeliness and effectiveness of healthcare for serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force (recommendation 62, 71 and 73);
(d)transitioning from military to civilian life (recommendations 80, 81, 82 and 85);
(e)veteran wellbeing (recommendation 87 and 89);
(f)entitlements and claims processing (recommendations 90, 94, 95, 97, 98 and 101); and
(g)utilise and coordinate data and research (recommendations 114, 115, 117 and 119).
Recommendation 1
1.18The Australian Government immediately address systemic, structural and cultural issues within Defence and Veteran portfolios by introducing amendments to implement recommendations from the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.
1.19The transitional period between the introduction of the Bill in the Australian Parliament and its proposed commencement date has been subject to criticism in various submissions.
1.20The Bill has a proposed commencement date of 1 July 2026, apart from Schedule 3 Part 1 which provide changes to the Veterans’ Review Board and alternative dispute resolution processes. This section is set to commence 60 days after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
1.21Given that almost the entirety of the Bill does not commence until 1 July 2026, it is imperative for the DVA to respond to the recommendations outlined in the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and consider improvements to the Bill until the commencement period.
1.22The delayed commencement of the Bill means that the veteran community will need to wait approximately 21 months from the date of this report to start receiving its benefits. In the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee public hearing, I asked the DVA whether some of the benefits of the Bill, such as increased funeral payments (Schedule 2, Part 1) and private vehicle reimbursements (Schedule 1, Part 3), could be brought forward and implemented sooner than 1 July 2026. The DVA mentioned that it would be possible.[6]
1.23Additionally, the Interim Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide mentioned in the recommendation to simplify and harmonise the framework for veterans’ compensation, rehabilitation, and other entitlements that:
If the legislation is passed, the Australian Government should ensure that, by no later than 1 July 2025, the new legislation has fully commenced and is fully operation.[7]
1.24The DVA has not provided a sufficient explanation for the delayed commencement of the Bill and has not fully implemented the recommendation from the Interim Report.
1.25In its submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee inquiry, the DVA stated that the new legislation is not scheduled to commence until 1 July 2026 to:
… allow veterans, advocates, and other stakeholders time to familiarise themselves with the new system and make informed decisions regarding the submission of claims under the current scheme or new arrangements [and] … to allow sufficient time to train veteran advocates and delegates appropriately.[8]
1.26To facilitate a timely transition, the DVA should consider advancing the passage of the legislation to 1 July 2025 in line with the recommendation from the Interim Report, accompanied by a robust educational campaign aimed at informing veterans, advocates and other stakeholders about the changes. This campaign should include a comprehensive communication plan utilising letters, emails, websites and other platforms to ensure a smooth transition to the new legislative framework.
Recommendation 2
1.27The Department of Veterans’ Affairs bring forward the commencement date of the Bill to 1 July 2025 in line with the recommendation from the Interim Report, coupled with a comprehensive educational campaign to inform veterans, advocates and other stakeholders about the new legislative framework.
Recommendation 3
1.28The Department of Veterans’ Affairs bring forward the commencement of Schedule 2, Part 1 (funeral payments) and Schedule 1, Part 3 (private vehicle reimbursement) to 30 days after receiving Royal Assent.
1.29The Australian Government should provide 24/7 coverage to members of the Australian Defence Force by recognising the unique nature of service which does not fall into the normal civilian tests of employment.
1.30The coverage of liability should be extended to situations where members of the Australian Defence Force sustain injuries or fatalities during physical exercise or shore leave. Currently, these activities may not meet the statutory definition of a service-related injury or death, leading to significant concerns among members of the Australian Defence Force.
1.31The heads of liability require that 'defence service' be 'rendered' and that the service be temporally or causally related to the claimed injury, disease or death before it can be determined to be a service injury, service disease or service death.[9] Only then can the injury, disease, or death be classified as service-related.
1.32In other words, Slater and Gordon Lawyer, Brian Briggs, clearly summarised in their submission:
The test is whether a person is on duty or is doing something required, authorised, or expected to be done with, or incidental to, the person’s duties (Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) 222 CLR 115).[10]
1.33In practice, the application of this test proves challenging when dealing with factual scenarios encountered by members of the Australian Defence Force. For example, members can sustain injuries, contract diseases or die during periods of ‘downtime’ or approved leave, particularly while posted on seagoing ships or engaging in physical exercises, which are essential aspects of their service. This concern was similarly expressed by Mr Greg Isolani who stated:
Essentially, the ADF expect members to be available to serve “24/7” – DVA will generally only cover members injured or who die while serving within their ‘normal’ working hours and performing Defence duty.[11]
1.34The heads of liability coverage are insufficient for defence personnel and the legislation fails to address these gaps. To fully protect Australian Defence Force members, the legislation must be amended to reflect the reality of military service, which demands readiness around the clock, especially during deployments, exercises, and operations.
1.35Moreover, the Bill neglects to recognise the distinctiveness of Australian Defence Force service, which does not conform to standard civilian employment definitions. The existing heads of liability fall short, especially in cases of injury or death occurring outside the narrowly defined scope of ‘on-duty’ service.
Recommendation 4
1.36The Department of Veterans’ Affairs extend the coverage of liability to provide 24/7 coverage to members of the Australian Defence Force during all forms of deployment, exercise and operations.
1.37Access to legal representation is essential for veterans to navigate the complex entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation framework. Many veterans face significant barries when attempting to claim entitlements or challenge decisions relating to service injuries, diseases or disabilities. Without access to legal representation, veterans may struggle to understand the intricacies of legislation and policy governing their claims, which can lead to delays, denials, and unnecessary financial and emotional distress.
1.38A legal aid scheme funded by the DVA could bridge this gap, making legal representation more accessible to veterans, particularly when appeals are made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal/Administrative Review Tribunal. Such a scheme could operate similarly to existing legal aid frameworks but would be tailored to address the unique challenges faced by veterans. By providing financial support for legal fees through a ‘DVA Legal Aid-type scheme’, veterans would have access to expert legal counsel, empowering them to challenge unjust decisions and pursue their rightful entitlements without incurring prohibitive costs or emotional distress.
1.39Furthermore, veterans often encounter barriers that make it difficult for them to obtain legal representation, such as geographical isolation, limited financial resources, and a lack of understanding of the legal system. Establishing a DVA-funded legal aid scheme would alleviate these barriers, ensuring that no veteran is left without proper representation due to financial or logistical constraints. This could lead to more accurate determinations of compensation and care needs, directly contributing to better health outcomes for veterans.
1.40Moreover, a legal aid scheme would provide not only access to justice but also an avenue for veterans to have their voices heard within a system that can sometimes feel bureaucratic and impersonal. By facilitating representation, veterans would have advocates who understand both the legal landscape and the lived experience of service, ensuring that their rights are protected and their cases are presented thoroughly and fairly. This would reduce the psychological strain on veterans who might otherwise face the daunting task of appealing without professional guidance, further supporting their overall wellbeing.
1.41The Australian Lawyers Alliance similarly argued that it is essential for veterans to have the option to utilise legal representation and assistance at all stages of the claims process.[12] Ensuring timely and appropriate compensation through the assistance of experienced legal professionals is instrumental in improving veterans' quality of life, mental health, and overall wellbeing.
Recommendation 5
1.42The Department of Veterans’ Affairs establish a legal aid scheme to provide veterans with legal representation to improve access to justice and enhance the health and wellbeing of veterans through timely, fair, and accurate determination of claims.
1.43The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide received numerous testimonies regarding not only delays by the DVA in recognising entitlements and processing payments, but also significant issues related to the defective administration of benefits and claims. These ‘lived experience’ accounts highlight the substantial impact of administrative failings, which have left many veterans and their families facing prolonged periods of financial insecurity and emotional distress.
1.44There are numerous cases where veterans have suffered financial hardship as a direct result of the DVA's defective administration. In such instances, the process for seeking redress through the existing framework is highly limited and lacks transparency and clarity. The current scheme for recovering damages due to administrative errors results in lengthy, opaque, and discretionary procedures. This places an additional burden on veterans who are already grappling with the challenges of service-related injuries or illnesses.
1.45The proposed Bill should address these deficiencies by introducing a clear and transparent compensation scheme specifically designed to handle claims arising from defective administration within the DVA. Such a scheme should define categories of compensation and provide clear guidelines on the types and levels of compensation available to veterans who have experienced detriment due to administrative errors. This will not only streamline the claims process but also offer veterans a sense of certainty regarding their rights to compensation in cases of defective administration.
1.46The Bill should include a specialised scheme for addressing detriment caused by defective administration within the DVA. This scheme should be characterised by transparency, clear criteria, and an accessible appeals process, ensuring that veterans are not left without recourse when administrative failings result in significant financial or personal hardship.
Recommendation 6
1.47The Department of Veterans’ Affairs establish a dedicated compensation scheme for addressing detriment caused by defective administration to provide a timely and fair redress scheme for veterans.
1.48The definition of ‘legal personal representative’ in subsection 5(1) of the MRCA Act fails to capture the complexities of personal relationships. A significant issue arises regarding whether the estate of a deceased veteran has the authority to lodge claims with the DVA, obtain relevant documents, appeal decisions, and engage in other related matters. In instances where a Will exists but the executor, such as a former partner, has become disengaged due to separation or divorce, it can create a barrier for the next of kin, parents or new partners who may wish to participate in the DVA process.
1.49The Executor may have no interest in the veteran’s DVA file to ascertain what claims were submitted or what remains outstanding. In the absence of a Will, the next of kin, parent or new partner is often required to apply for Probate from the Supreme Court to receive the necessary legal status to engage with the DVA. This requirement effectively disenfranchises the deceased veteran's parents or new partners, who may wish to take a proactive role in communicating with the DVA or addressing outstanding matters, as they are denied the ability to receive documents, lodge claims, or initiate appeals.
1.50As the next of kin, parents or new partners are not recognised as legal personal representatives, they are excluded from accessing DVA records and other service-related documents of the deceased veteran and barred from making any new claims on behalf of the veteran.
1.51To address these shortcomings, the Bill should stipulate that the estates of deceased veterans possess the exclusive right to act on their behalf concerning any potential claims, including lodging DVA claims, obtaining documents, and appealing decisions.
Recommendation 7
1.52The Department of Veterans’ Affairs provide that if the Estate of a deceased veteran fails to confirm in writing their intent to act on behalf of the veteran within a specified period of 60 days, the individual designated by the veteran as next of kin should be recognised as the legal personal representative for the purpose of engaging with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and managing claims related to the veteran’s service.[13]
1.53Access to healthcare is vital for veterans, who often face unique physical and mental health challenges as a result of their service. The Bill represents a missed opportunity to make a meaningful change to veterans’ access to healthcare.
1.54Unfortunately, many healthcare providers are reluctant to treat veterans using the Card system as the reimbursements rate established by the DVA does not align with those payable by other competing entities such as private health workers’ compensation.[14]
1.55Moreover, the Bill does not introduce improvements to allied health arrangements for veterans, nor does it develop a comprehensive care model that adequately addresses the mental health needs of children of war veterans. The absence of early intervention strategies is particularly concerning, as highlighted by Mr Nicholas Hannay in his submission, who noted:
… early intervention has proven to provide better health outcomes and a lower cost for healthcare, which is born by DVA during the veterans later years.[15]
1.56The current system's limitations prevent veterans from receiving timely and proactive care, which can exacerbate existing conditions and lead to more significant health issues over time. By failing to prioritise the health needs of veterans and their families, the Bill overlooks an essential component of their overall wellbeing and quality of life.
Recommendation 8
1.57The Department of Veterans’ Affairs expand eligibility criteria to encourage general practitioners to accept Gold Cards and enhance access to allied health practitioners and other healthcare services.
1.58The current legislation governing veterans’ compensation claims applies distinct standards of proof based on the nature of service. Specifically, the ‘reasonable hypothesis’ standard is applied to veterans and serving members with operational service, while the ‘balance of probabilities’ standard pertains to those with defence and peacetime service. This duality in standards creates disparities that complicate the claims process and undermine the principle of equity in the treatment of veterans seeking compensation.[16]
1.59There is a consensus among stakeholders that a single, equitable standard is essential to ensure fairness in the claims process. The Australian Lawyers Alliance has also raised these concerns, noting that the existence of two separate standards adds unnecessary complexity to the claims process and perpetuates arbitrary discrepancies.[17] They advocate for the adoption of the ‘balance of probabilities’ standard across all claims, asserting that such a unified approach would simplify the process and foster greater fairness.[18]
1.60Despite support for establishing a single standard of proof, the DVA has not provided a clear rationale for maintaining two different standards. Furthermore, the proposed legislation does not adequately address the complexities and issues surrounding the Statement of Principles (SOPs), which play a critical role in determining claims. Submissions from various stakeholders emphasise the need for enhanced discretion for decision-makers and a more frequent review of SOPs by the Repatriation Medical Authority to ensure they remain relevant and effective.[19]
1.61There has been overwhelming support to establish a single standard of proof based on the higher ‘balance of probabilities’ standard. A single, fair standard should be established to ensure equity in the claims process.[20]
Recommendation 9
1.62The Department of Veterans’ Affairs establish a consistent standard of proof based on the ‘balance of probabilities’ to ensure fairness in the claims process.
Recommendation 10
1.63The Department of Veterans’ Affairs clarify that the Statement of Principles should serve as discretionary guidance rather than a definitive determinant in the claims process.
1.64Delays in accepting liability can significantly impact a veteran’s entitlement to compensation. These delays may shift the ‘date of effect’ for permanent impairment, potentially denying the veteran additional compensation or the ability to receive back payments for the weekly amount owed from an earlier period. Such administrative lag can place veterans in a precarious financial position and unnecessarily prolong their hardship.
1.65Implementing a self-executing mechanism to address these delays is not unprecedented. Similar provisions already exist in schemes where automatic processes ensure timely decision-making. For example, Commonwealth compensation frameworks like Comcare have established time limits for claim determinations, providing an effective model that DVA could adopt.[21]
1.66The DVA should be held to a comparable standard, with a clear, positive obligation to make timely decisions on compensation claims. A system of automatic interest payments would incentivise efficiency and ensure that veterans are not financially penalised by administrative delays.
Recommendation 11
1.67The Department of Veterans’ Affairs establish a self-executing time limit (such as 90 days) to resolve claims for liability or incapacity payments, with interest applied to any delayed back payments, while including certain safeguards to account for reasonable delays such as receiving necessary information from external parties.
1.68Identifying a precise date of clinical onset can pose significant challenges for veterans seeking compensation, particularly in relation to meeting the requirements outlined in the SOPs. This difficulty arises when medical practitioners are asked to provide a specific date of onset, which may not always be feasible due to the complex nature of many health conditions.
1.69A more effective approach would be for the DVA to request evidence from medical professionals regarding the general period during which the onset occurred, rather than a definitive date. By adopting this method, the DVA could gain a clearer understanding of the veterans’ conditions and facilitate a more equitable claims process.[22]
1.70This argument was put forward by Mr Greg Isolani, who emphasised that medical evidence should focus on identifying a broader period of onset rather than pinpointing a specific date.[23] The rigid requirement for an exact date can be counterproductive and create additional barriers for veterans. It is essential for the interpretation and application of SOPs to incorporate a degree of flexibility, allowing delegates to consider a range of months rather than a singular date. This flexibility would not only enhance the accuracy of claims assessments but also acknowledge the realities of clinical diagnosis, where symptoms may develop gradually and not conform to strict timelines.
1.71To resolve these issues, the DVA should encourage its delegates to clarify the definition of clinical onset while fostering a more adaptable framework for determining onset periods. By prioritising a nuanced understanding of clinical onset, the DVA can better serve the needs of veterans and ensure that they receive the compensation they deserve.
Recommendation 12
1.72The Department of Veterans’ Affairs revise the definition of clinical onset to allow for broader interpretations that facilitate the determination of onset periods rather than requiring exact dates, thereby improving the claims process for veterans.
1.73The Bill seeks to introduce an additional lump-sum payment for individuals identified as having the ‘primary responsibility for the daily care of the eligible young person or child’. This lump-sum payment raises important questions regarding the eligibility criteria and the definition of key terms.
1.74While some organisations, such as Legacy Australia, support this initiative and have argued that it allows families to utilise funds effectively for caregiving needs, concerns persist about the implications of such changes. Legacy Australia stated in their submission:
… while this still does not guarantee that the payment will be used for the intended purpose (e.g., the child’s education needs), it at least ensures that the funds can be used in the household that is providing primary care.[24]
1.75Additionally, Mr Greg Isolani commented:
Fundamentally, the amount is paid to recognise the most serious injuries to Veterans assessed at 80 impairment points and to assist their EYP [(Eligible Young Person)] due to the extent of the injuries. It is designed to compensate them and their children, not someone who fits the definition of having the “primary responsibility for the daily care of the eligible young person or child”.[25]
1.76The Bill lacks a clear definition of ‘primary responsibility’ which could result in veterans, especially those who share caregiving duties with a former spouse, being excluded from eligibility despite their significant involvement in daily care. This ambiguity risks leading to unintended consequences, particularly in family court decisions. The Bill’s explanatory memorandum fails to clearly articulate this definition, which raises concerns about how the DVA will support custodial parents, potentially leaving veterans vulnerable to exploitation in legal contexts and complicating family law disputes.
1.77It is crucial for veterans with substantial injuries to retain control over the use of their compensation, and alternative support mechanisms, such as an increase in the Child Education Allowance, may better serve the needs of primary caregivers.
Recommendation 13
1.78The Department of Veterans’ Affairs clearly define the criteria for determining ‘primary responsibility for the daily care of the eligible young person or child’ to avoid ambiguity and prevent unintended consequences for determining eligibility for compensation.
1.79The DVA should include a requirement for an independent statutory review to be conducted that actively involves input from relevant stakeholders. This review is crucial to ensuring that the implementation of the Bill does not lead to unintended consequences and it serves as a vital mechanism for accountability and transparency within the system.
1.80A statutory review is an essential oversight mechanism that will evaluate whether the Bill achieves its fundamental objectives and remains responsive to the needs of the veteran community. By having a statutory review period, stakeholders can identify areas for improvement, which may foster a more effective and equitable system of support for veterans and their families.
1.81As highlighted by the Defence Force Welfare Association, the independent review should encompass various areas, including but not limited to governance arrangements, operational processes, improvements or clarifications, and the need for complementary new or amended legislation.[26]
Recommendation 14
1.82The Department of Veterans’ Affairs include an independent review to be conducted 12 months after the commencement of the Bill and require the Minister to present the findings to both Houses of Parliament.
1.83The Bill represents a missed opportunity to address systemic, structural and cultural issues within the Defence and Veteran portfolios. Rather than serving as a vehicle for comprehensive reform, the Bill fails to address urgent and longstanding concerns that have been raised over many years.
1.84Historically, governments have been slow to implement recommendations from Royal Commissions. To overcome this pattern, the Australian Government should utilise this opportunity to create an omnibus Bill that implements straightforward recommendations from the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. These reforms should include, but not limited to, critical areas such as military sexual violence, the role and functions of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, healthcare for serving and ex-serving members, entitlements and claims processing, better support to claimants, and leveraging data and research to improve outcomes for veterans.
1.85Despite extensive feedback from veteran organisations and the wider community, the Bill does not adequately address the systemic failings within the DVA. This legislation overlooks key structural deficiencies and is an insufficient response to the deep-rooted challenges faced by veterans and their families.
1.86The JLN acknowledges that reform of the veteran legislative framework is long overdue. However, further scrutiny and input from stakeholders, government, and the public remain essential to ensure that any reforms deliver meaningful change. Legislative reforms must aim to simplify the system for veterans and their families, with a renewed focus on rehabilitation and lifetime wellbeing, while continuing to secure fair compensation outcomes.
1.87The JLN remains committed to working in good faith with the government and relevant organisations to ensure that the legislative framework serves the best interests of both serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force.
1.88There is no justifiable reason for the DVA to continue delaying the implementation of straightforward recommendations that could greatly benefit the veteran community. These recommendations, developed through extensive engagement with veterans, organisations and advocates, have the potential to make a significant and positive impact on their wellbeing.
Recommendation 15
1.89The Bill should not be considered in Parliament until the Department of Veterans’ Affairs provides a detailed and transparent response to the above recommendations, along with a clear plan to implement urgent reforms from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide that reflect the unique needs of serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force.
Senator Jacqui Lambie
Senator for Tasmania
Footnotes
[1]Productivity Commission, A Better Way to Support Veterans: Overview and Recommendations, 27 June 2019, p. 2.
[2]Productivity Commission, A Better Way to Support Veterans: Overview and Recommendations, 27 June 2019, p. 2.
[3]Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Interim Report, 11 August 2022, p. 169.
[4]Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Interim Report, 11 August 2022, p. 202.
[5]Mr Greg Isolani, Submission 29, pp. 16–17.
[6]Senator Jacqui Lambie, Committee Hansard, 13 September 2024, pp. 3 & 7.
[7]Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Interim Report, 11 August 2022, p. 202.
[8]Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Submission 15, p. 8.
[9]Sections 27 and 28 and the Military Rehabilitation And Compensation Act 2004.
[10]Slater and Gordon, Submission 7, p. 3.
[11]Mr Greg Isolani, Submission 29, p. 5.
[12]Australian Lawyers Alliance, Submission 1, p. 2.
[13]Greg Isolani, Submission 29, p. 9.
[14]Greg Isolani, Submission 29, p. 4.
[15]Mr Nicholas Hannay, Supplementary Submission, p. 1.
[16]Slater and Gordon, Submission 7, p. 3.
[17]Australian Lawyers Alliance, Submission 1, p. 6.
[18]Australian Lawyers Alliance, Submission 1, p. 6.
[19]Slater and Gordon, Submission 7, p. 20.
[20]Slater and Gordon, Submission 7, p. 20.
[21]Greg Isolani, Submission 29, p. 13.
[22]Greg Isolani, Submission 29, p. 6.
[23]Greg Isolani, Submission 29, p. 6.
[24]Legacy Australia, Submission 9, p. 2.
[25]Greg Isolani, Submission 29, p. 14.
[26]Defence Force Welfare Association, Submission 22, p. 16.
Inquiry into Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 [Provisions]
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments