Chapter 1Introduction and background
Introduction
1.1Australia’s veterans have entitlements to treatment and compensation for injuries and illnesses arising from their service to the nation. However, the ability to successfully claim these various entitlements can be challenging, given the historical complexity of veterans’ entitlements law and the intricacies of the claims processing system.
1.2As a result, veterans and their families have often turned to advocates to assist them in lodging their claims or navigating the broader Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) support system, and the need for such advocacy assistance is ongoing. Although there has been recent work to harmonise the legislation and simplify the claims system to better support veterans to access their entitlements, not all veterans have the time, desire, capability or capacity to navigate the system unaided.
1.3Veterans’ advocacy services have traditionally been delivered by a mix of paid and volunteer ex-service organisation advocates on a ‘free-to-the-veteran’ basis. However, recent years have seen the development of a growing commercial advocacy sector in which private businesses charge veterans fees to assist with their compensation and entitlements claims. The entities operating in this space are for-profit and encompass a range of fee schedules, corporate structures and service offerings.
1.4The rise of fee-for-service advocacy has highlighted a number of issues within the veterans’ advocacy landscape and generated concerns from those in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and ex-service communities. The inquiry received a variety of views on the appropriateness of commercial entities providing advocacy services and the charging of fees or commissions on statutory entitlement payments. Some submitters raised serious concerns with the fee-for-service model, both from an ethical perspective and regarding troubling behaviours and business practices common in the sector. Other submitters, many of them for-profit advocacy businesses, argued strongly that there was a valid need and legitimate role for fee-for-service providers.
1.5Evidence to the inquiry indicated that the proliferation of these commercial entities, alongside limitations with the traditional advocacy services, have created significant problems in the sector that are negatively impacting veterans.
1.6Significantly, the inquiry heard that the veterans’ advocacy sector is not currently regulated, and professional oversight of work standards and conduct is severely limited. This lack of oversight, combined with a lack of recourse options, has had a detrimental impact on the quality of advocacy services, contributing not only to unacceptable advocate behaviours and poor veteran outcomes, but also generating risks to the integrity of the DVA entitlements system as a whole.
1.7This report seeks to illuminate the challenges posed by the state of the current advocacy sector and propose solutions to ensure that veterans and their families can access equitable, ethical and effective advocacy and representation in their pursuit of their rightful compensation and support entitlements.
Referral of the inquiry
1.8On 26 August 2025, the Senate referred an inquiry into advocacy services relating to veteran compensation and income support to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 30 October 2025.
1.9The inquiry is a re-referral of the inquiry on the same topic that lapsed at the end of the 47th Parliament, and the terms of reference remain unchanged in the 48th Parliament.
1.10The inquiry’s terms of reference are as follows:
The representation of and advice provided by ex-service organisations, commercial entities, not-for-profits and individuals to veterans and families in relation to accessing compensation and income support from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, with particular reference to:
(a)the appropriateness of commercial entities, within and outside Australia, providing advocacy services, including the charging of fees or commissions on statutory entitlement payments;
(b)representation of veterans at the Veterans’ Review Board, including by legal practitioners;
(c)regulation, training and professional discipline arrangements for advocates;
(d)the consideration of previous reviews undertaken into the advocacy model, including recommendations made and subsequent implementation or lack thereof; and,
(e)any related matters.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.11Details of the inquiry were made available on the committee’s website. The committee also contacted a number of organisations and individuals inviting written submissions by 5 September 2025.
1.12The committee published 17 submissions, as listed at Appendix 1.
1.13The committee held a public hearing in Canberra on 26 September 2025. A list of witnesses who gave evidence is available at Appendix 2.
1.14Additionally, all correspondence and evidence previously received in relation to the inquiry conducted during the 47th Parliament was made available to the committee. The 47 submissions received during that inquiry are listed at Appendix 1.
Structure of this report
1.15This report contains five chapters:
This chapter contains information about the referral and conduct of the inquiry. It also contains background information on the veterans’ advocacy system.
Chapter 2 sets out concerns with the commercial, for-profit advocacy sector and the fee-for-service model.
Chapter 3 examines arguments put forward in support of fee-for-service advocacy, with reference to the limitations of the current free-to-the-veteran advocacy sector.
Chapter 4 explores potential solutions to address the concerns raised during the inquiry.
Chapter 5 contains the committee’s views and recommendations.
Acknowledgment
1.16The committee thanks all those individuals and organisations who engaged with the inquiry, as well as the inquiry from the 47th Parliament. In particular, the committee would like to acknowledge the contributions of those individuals and families with personal experience serving in the ADF.
A note on terminology
1.17As will be explained in the next section of this chapter, advocacy services for veterans can fall into two categories: compensation or welfare.
1.18As per the terms of reference, this inquiry will focus on compensation advocates. The use of the word advocate or advocacy should be taken to refer primarily to compensation advocates, rather than welfare advocates.
Background on the veterans’ advocacy sector
1.19The following section provides a brief overview of the veterans’ advocacy sector, including sections on:
the DVA entitlements system;
the historic and current need for veterans’ advocates; and
the different types and models of veterans’ advocacy.
DVA entitlements system
1.20Since World War I, Australia’s veterans have had an entitlement to treatment and compensation for injuries and illnesses arising from their service. DVA, the Repatriation Commission, and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission exist to develop and provide this support to veterans and their families.
1.21Veterans can currently lodge claims with DVA under:
the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA)
the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA); and
the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA).
1.22From 1 July 2026, VEA and DRCA will close to new claims for rehabilitation and compensation and DVA will consider claims submitted from that date under a reformed MRCA.
1.23There are a variety of entitlements available for veterans. For example, the most common claim type is an Initial Liability (IL) claim under MRCA, of which DVA consistently accepts over 80 per cent of claims. It is the first step in the compensation process for veterans and/or their families and establishes whether or not the Commonwealth is liable for an injury, illness or death.
1.24Another type is a Permanent Impairment (PI) claim, in which current and former ADF members who have an injury or disease as a result of their service, and that injury or disease has left them with some permanent impairment, may be entitled to receive compensation for that impairment from DVA.
1.25DVA is statutorily obliged to investigate and determine all validly lodged claims, regardless of how they are lodged. All claims are prioritised and assessed based solely on vulnerability, eligibility and legislated processes. Whether a veteran chooses to lodge a claim themselves, or instead uses an advocate (regardless of the type of advocate), has no bearing whatsoever on decision making pathways or timelines.
1.26DVA also has a legal obligation to assist veterans to access their entitlements. Additionally, it has a similar obligation to take a beneficial view in favour of veterans within legislative parameters when determining claims.
The need for veterans’ advocates
1.27Veterans’ advocacy is a long-established tradition. Although there are a variety of entitlements available to those who have served, the ability to successfully claim can be challenging, and veterans’ entitlements law is complex. Although there has been recent work to harmonise the legislation and to simplify the claims system, not all veterans wish to, or have the time, capability or capacity, to navigate the system unaided.
1.28Additionally, there are unique circumstances impacting serving and former ADF members that can mean they require advocacy assistance when seeking their rightful DVA entitlements. As the Veterans’ Advocacy Service (VAS) within Legal Aid NSW summarised:
There are various factors that make the area of veterans’ entitlements overly complex. Many veterans leave service with complex barriers to access their entitlements. They can have multiple injuries, including physical, psychological and cognitive disabilities. Many have little or no experience of navigating bureaucracies in the civilian world, which may be made more difficult by a lack of trust in institutions after abuse and maladministration in ADF. Thus, trying to navigate the complexity of veterans’ legislation is often both incomprehensible and distressing for them.
1.29RSL Queensland noted that the process of applying for entitlements can be challenging for many veterans:
Multiple inquiries and studies into the DVA claims process, including the work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, have found that the process is complex, confusing and stressful for many veterans...
1.30As a result of these factors and the legislative complexity, veterans and their families have often turned to advocates to assist them to lodge their claims or navigate the broader DVA support system.
1.31In 2023–24, 46 per cent of all IL and PI claims under MRCA were lodged by an advocate or representative. In 2024–25, as at 30 April, this percentage had grown to 52 per cent.
An ongoing need
1.32There have been recent changes designed to streamline the legislative framework governing compensation and rehabilitation in recognition of the complexity of veterans’ entitlements. Once the harmonised legislation comes into effect on 1 July 2026, all claims lodged after that date will be processed under the reformed MRCA, which, according to DVA, will make it ‘easier than ever’ for veterans to lodge claims and access support and entitlements on their own.
1.33However, despite these changes, there remains an ongoing need for veterans to access advocacy services to assist them in claiming their entitlements. As the VAS noted, despite the legislative changes, not all veterans will want to transfer to the new MRCA, and some will not qualify. The legislative complexity of multiple Acts is likely to continue for many years to come, and so too will the need for quality advocates, given ‘the detriment that can be caused to veterans from inexpert advice is significant and potentially life long’.
Types of advocacy
1.34Advocacy services for veterans can broadly be categorised into two types:
(i)compensation advocates; and
(ii)welfare advocates.
1.35Compensation advocates assist with lodging claims for income support, compensation or other assistance from DVA, or seeking review of DVA decisions through relevant tribunals or other processes. For example, they assist with lodging claims under the VEA, the DRCA and the MRCA.
1.36Welfare advocates assist veterans and their families to access a range of DVA, other government and community services to support welfare and wellbeing.
1.37There are also two modes of delivery for advocacy services:
(i)free-to-the-veteran; and
(ii)fee-for-service.
1.38Advocacy services can be provided on a ‘free-to-the-veteran’ basis. For example, this could be a volunteer advocate who receives no remuneration for their work, or it could be an advocate who is employed and remunerated by another party, such as an ex-service organisation (ESO).
1.39Advocacy services can also be provided on a ‘fee-for-service ‘basis, whereby the veteran engaging the advocate pays a fee to the advocate directly. These services are also sometimes referred to as commercial or for-profit advocacy services.
Free-to-the-veteran model
1.40Veterans’ advocacy services have traditionally been delivered by a mix of paid and volunteer ESO advocates who deliver free-to-the-veteran services through their sponsoring ESO.
1.41For example, RSL state branches across Australia engage paid and un-paid (volunteer) advocates across its networks who assist veterans and their families to lodge claims under the various veterans’ entitlements legislation.
1.42The cost of providing this free-to-the-veteran advocacy has in part been subsidised by grant funding from successive Commonwealth governments. For example, the Building Excellence in Support and Training (BEST) Grants Program is administered by DVA and supports the work of ESOs in providing free-to-the-veteran advocacy services. It is offered as an annual, demand driven grant program for ESOs, with one funding round each financial year.
1.43Additionally, the Advocacy Training and Development Program (ATDP) is funded by DVA and seeks to ensure that free-to-the-veteran ESO advocates meet national standards before they give advice to the veteran community through the provision of nationally accredited training in military advocacy and support.
1.44The limitations of the free-to-the-veteran model are discussed in the following chapters of this report.
Fee-for-service model
1.45Recent years have seen the development of a growing commercial advocacy sector in which private businesses charge veterans fees to assist with lodging their compensation and entitlements claims. The entities operating in this space are for-profit and encompass a range of fee schedules, corporate structures and service offerings. For example, they can be businesses set up solely to provide advocacy, or law firms that offer compensation advocacy as part of their services.
1.46There is a range of cost structures for fee-for-service advocacy, including commission-based fees involving a percentage of any compensation received, ‘no-win-no-fee’ contingency fee models, charge per claim or medical condition lodged models, charge via membership fee, or any combination of these. The committee was made aware of percentage commission rates up to 29 per cent.
1.47Fee structures and conditions are generally agreed upon via a signed contract between the veteran and the commercial entity and, as a result, government has ‘limited capacity to intervene’ in these private arrangements.
1.48The contemporary role and scale of operation of fee-for-service advocates is a relatively recent phenomenon, with DVA advising that 2024–25 in particular had seen a very rapid growth in the sector. In 2024–25, around 20 commissions-based providers accounted for 18 per cent of total claims processed by DVA — double the proportion of the preceding year.
1.49Concerns with the fee-for-service advocacy model are discussed in the following chapters of this report.
Previous reviews into veterans’ advocacy
1.50There have been a number of reviews that have examined issues relating to veterans’ advocacy services and the operation of the DVA entitlements system. These reviews have consistently identified challenges concerning the provision of adequate and appropriate advocacy assistance to veterans, and put forward various recommendations to addresses these challenges. A selection is briefly summarised below.
Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide
1.51The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide (the Royal Commission) was announced on 19 April 2021 and delivered its final report on 9 September 2024. It was tasked with inquiring into the cultural, structural and systemic issues contributing to the persistently high rates of suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members.
1.52Chapter 26 of the final report explored the support available for veterans wanting to lodge a liability of compensation claim for a service-related condition with DVA. It identified that the current advocacy system was unsustainable and failing to meet veterans’ needs, in large part due to a lack of funding to meet demand and an over-reliance on a volunteer workforce. It concluded that change was necessary given that the advocacy system ‘has a number of inherent weaknesses and is already under pressure’.
1.53Recommendation 99 of the final report was to ‘improve compensation advocacy by funding professional, paid advocates.’ It specified:
The Australian Government should replace the Building Excellence in Support and Training (BEST) grant program with an ongoing, demand-driven funding program for professional, paid veteran compensation advocates. At a minimum, the amount of funding should be increased to provide compensation advocacy for:
(a) all veterans who need support to submit a liability and/or compensation claim with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
(b) all veterans seeking an internal or external review of a claims decision.
Funding allocations should be for a minimum of three years to provide employment stability. They should be designed to ensure equitable geographic service coverage and meet the diverse demographic needs of the veteran population, including female veterans and LGBTIQ+ veterans.
1.54In its December 2024 response to the final report, the Commonwealth Government indicated in-principle agreement to the recommendation.
The Cornall Review
1.55The Veterans Advocacy and Support Services Scoping Study (Cornall Review) was announced on 16 April 2018, led by Mr Robert Cornall AO and delivered its report on 12 December 2018. The aim of the Cornall Review was to examine and recommend the most suitable advocacy model for Australian veterans and their families.
1.56The Cornall Review found that many of the issues raised revolved around compensation advocacy rather than wellbeing advocacy and support. In response to its findings, the Cornall Review proposed 12 recommendations to form a sound basis for the development of a modern, professional and sustainable advocacy service for veterans and their families.
1.57The Cornall Review proposed a complete re-making of the advocacy and training framework, and made a number of recommendations relevant to this inquiry, including:
DVA should set up a help desk for veterans’ advocates, claims advisors and support workers to have direct access to departmental delegates who can answer technical questions;
changes to the advocacy training system, including establishing an independent body to accredit professional advocates;
the establishment of a free Veterans’ National Legal Service and a Veterans’ National Legal Helpline; and
an independent body to plan, implement and deliver a consolidated, coordinated approach to the national delivery of veterans’ advocacy and support services resulting in a modern, professional sustainable advocacy service.
1.58The Cornall Review supported the retention of the statutory prohibition on legal practitioners and persons holding a legal qualification representing veterans at hearings before the Veterans’ Review Board.
The Productivity Commission report
1.59The Productivity Commission's inquiry into the system of compensation and rehabilitation for veterans(PC report) was announced in March 2018 and tabled its final report on 4 July 2019. The PC report found that, despite recent improvements, the veterans' compensation and rehabilitation system was not fit-for-purpose and required fundamental reform.
1.60The PC report proposed 69 recommendations, including:
that DVA should fund professional claims advocacy services in areas where it identifies unmet need;
services should be delivered through ex-service and other organisations, similar to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Appeals Program and the National Disability Advocacy Program, and DVA should take an active role in the stewardship of these services; and
DVA should help with primary claims and claims advocacy assistance from veterans’ organisations should remain available to any veteran who seeks it, but the needs and expectations of younger veterans requires a stronger focus on wellbeing supports from veterans’ organisations.
1.61Additionally, the PC report recommended that DVA ensure that all claims advocates are accredited under the ATDP.
1.62The Australian Government tabled an interim government response to the PC report that addressed 25 of the report's 69 recommendations on 8 October 2020, followed by an updated government response on 14 May 2021. The updated government response stated that 'the Government will finalise any outstanding matters from the [PC] report at the completion of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide'.
UNSW Research Project
1.63In 2021, DVA commissioned the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Social Policy and Research Centre to undertake a research project looking at the current and future capacity of the veterans’ advocacy workforce (UNSW Research Project). The objective of the research project was to find out what may happen to the advocate workforce over the next few years to assist with the government's determination of changes to the veterans' advocacy system, including the support offered to ESOs and advocates by the government.
1.64As part of the UNSW Research Project, the researchers conducted two surveys, one aimed at ESOs that asked about their advocate workforce, and one aimed at other advocates that asked about their current and future availability and their experiences as an advocate. The researchers received responses from 593 advocates and 58 ESOs.
1.65The UNSW Research Project concluded that advocates will be required for the foreseeable future, that the system was under considerable pressure and emphasised that significant changes to the system are essential to the system’s sustainability over the medium and longer term.