Chapter 3Support for the fee-for-service model
3.1Some submitters to the inquiry, many of them for-profit advocacy businesses, argued strongly that there was a valid need and legitimate role for fee-for-service advocacy providers in Australia. In this context, this chapter examines the limitations of the current free-to-the-veteran model of advocacy and sets out the arguments in support of commercial, fee-for-service advocacy services.
Limitations of the current free-to-the-veteran model
3.2The committee received evidence on the limitations of the current free-to-the-veteran model provided by ex-service organisations (ESOs). In particular, submitters highlighted several factors that threatened the current sustainability and capacity of the model, including declining numbers of ESO advocates, the various challenges associated with relying upon volunteers, and shortcomings with the Advocacy Training and Development Program (ATDP) that resulted in inconsistent training and standards.
Decline in advocate numbers
3.3A number of submitters drew attention to the growing shortage of ESO advocates throughout Australia, identifying that this limited the availability of free-to-the-veteran advocacy and led to challenges such as longer wait times and other frustrations for those seeking support.
3.4RSL Australia acknowledged that the existing network of ESO advocates was in decline. It observed that, without a significant increase in the number of trained, accredited advocates entering the system, veterans would face increased wait times, further delaying their access to compensation and potentially creating undue stress at a time of peak vulnerability.
3.5Additionally, RSL Australia acknowledged that the diminishing advocate network may not possess the contemporary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of specific cohorts of veterans, such as those dealing with sensitive issues like military sexual assault claims.
3.6The Veterans’ Advocacy Service (VAS), part of Legal Aid NSW, recognised that free-to-the-veteran advocacy from ESOs played a vital role in providing access to entitlements for veterans, and stated that it strongly supported the continuation and increased support of such services. However, it observed the free ESO advocate system was under ‘extreme pressure’ due to the declining number of available advocates which meant that not all veterans who sought advocacy assistance could be accommodated.
3.7RSL NSW, which provides free advocacy services to veterans and acts as an umbrella organisation for most of the ATDP accredited advocates in NSW, endorses more than 100 advocates across the state in both paid and volunteer roles. It noted that it had unfortunately seen a steady decline in the number of volunteer advocates since the introduction of the ATDP in 2016. It also drew attention to the difficulties in attracting and retaining advocates, particularly in rural and remote areas.
3.8The Veterans, Emergency Services & Police Industry Institute of Australia (VESPIIA) made observations on the decline in volunteer advocate availability and reduced ESO capacities. It commented that many experienced volunteer advocates from ESOs were retiring without formal succession planning, and that this had led to rising wait times and reduced access, particularly in regional areas. It also noted that a shortage of ESO mentors to assist new trainees made it difficult to sustainably support skill development within the free-to-the-veteran volunteer model.
3.9The Toowoomba Sub-Branch of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Servicemen and Women (TPI Toowoomba Sub-Branch) flagged that the remuneration offered by some ESOs to their advocates often fell short of reflecting ‘the high levels of skill, experience, and the considerable emotional and mental pressures inherent in the role’. It commented that this pay disparity not only served to undervalue the importance of the work being done, but also discouraged potential new, particularly younger, advocates from joining the sector.
Challenges associated with volunteer advocates
3.10Submitters noted that there were some unique challenges present in the free-to-the-veteran model, particularly when many ESO advocates were volunteers.
3.11For example, RSL NSW stated that while ESO advocates provide vital support to veterans, they faced a number of challenges, including:
an over-reliance on volunteers;
limited training capacity and infrastructure; and
inconsistent standards and professional recognition.
3.12A submission from a veteran with personal experience with the DVA claims system noted that free advocacy services were often over-worked or not reasonably able to take on the required workload given their individual circumstances as volunteers. The submission also commented that free advocacy services were also largely unable to be held to account for poor service (e.g. inadequate communication) as there is no fee or contractual obligation.
3.13Veteran Mr Geoffrey Shafran argued that there were risks to advocacy quality inherent in the current status quo of the free-to-the-veteran model, including varying volunteer standards with a lack of regulatory oversight, and the fact that ESOs often operated without senior-level advocates, leaving them unable to provide proper internal quality control.
3.14The TPI Toowoomba Sub-Branch informed the committee that it was deeply grateful for the dedication and time of their volunteer advocates. However, it noted that there were challenges due to the limited availability of these advocates. It explained that many of them had varied schedules and were not available every day of the week, which could lead to gaps in communication and support for the veterans who rely on their assistance.
3.15The TPI Toowoomba Sub-Branch provided a case study to illustrate the importance of communication strategies and robust contingency plans within an organisation that provides free-to-the-veteran advocacy:
This situation involves a veteran who has multiple ongoing claims being managed by an RSL Advocate. Recently, this advocate was granted an extended leave of absence, which triggered a series of communication failures. Unfortunately, there were no initiative-taking measures taken by the organization to inform the advocate's client base about this absence and to ensure continuity of support and service.
As a result, this veteran remained completely unaware of the status of his claims for a frustrating three-month period. It was only after he grew increasingly concerned about the lack of updates that he took the initiative to reach out through the RSL website, where he expressed his worries about the absence of communication. This inquiry served as his first indication of his advocate's extended leave, leaving him feeling isolated and uncertain about his situation.
Although another advocate stepped in to provide temporary support during this time, the situation has not yet been fully resolved. The veteran remains without a new primary advocate to oversee and assist him with his claims, which continues to exacerbate his feelings of neglect.
3.16RSL Victoria raised concerns with the quality of advocacy across the sector given training is not mandatory or consistent for volunteers. It argued that, as a result, there was no consistent baseline of quality across the sector. It also noted that there are no regulatory or disciplinary sanctions that can be applied to prohibit an advocate from providing services.
3.17To highlight these concerns with quality, RSL Victoria provided a specific scenario it was aware of:
…in the previous two years, as part of our organisational commitment to improving and upholding advocacy standards, RSL Victoria has dismissed a number of RSL volunteer advocates for unacceptable or unprofessional conduct only to see some of those individuals later reemerge as advocates aligned to other organisations, including advocates with serious criminal convictions who continue to operate with impunity.
Other factors
3.18The committee was informed of several other factors that limited the current capacity and sustainability of the free-to-the-veteran model, including ESO culture and shortcomings in the ATDP program.
ESO culture
3.19VAS observed that many veterans did not feel comfortable engaging with RSLs or other ESOs due to several factors, including:
a continuation of military culture within such organisations;
a reluctance to share intimate or sensitive personal details within their local community; and
discriminatory practices of the past.
3.20It detailed that these factors particularly impacted certain veteran demographics:
Through our client contacts, we have observed these barriers particularly affect female and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander veterans, and survivors of abuse while in the military, who have made comments such as feeling ‘judged’ by ESO advocates.
3.21The Defence Force Welfare Association (DFWA)put forward some concerns with elements of the free-to-the-veteran model. It contended that volunteer and ESO advocates have been maintained in the veteran support system as the norm to:
limit the flow of claims submitted by veteran clients;
provide a DVA brand ambassador in every advocate; and
avoid the requirement to regulate a profession.
3.22In making these claims, it argued:
Conditions on grant funding ensure that the service is non-commercial. For instance, an advocate must not ask or require the veteran to join the Association as a condition. This is often framed as an example of “the integrity of advocates”, rather than limiting liability.
The result is there are almost no consequences to being ineffective or cause damages if providing free advocacy or by a volunteer. It is rare that an advocate is sued because of unsatisfactory advocacy.
Shortcomings of the ATDP
3.23The ATDP is a partnership between DVA and ESOs that offers free advocacy services to the veteran community and seeks to ensure that free-to-the-veteran ESO advocates meet national standards before they give advice to the veteran community. It is funded by DVA and offers nationally accredited training in military advocacy and support through a Registered Training Organisation, Major Training Services. The ATDP encompasses a course in military advocacy (which is accredited by the Australian Skills Quality Authority) and involves ‘on the job’ training with an experienced mentor nominated by the sponsoring ESO.
3.24The ATDP provides initial and ongoing accreditation for ESO advocates, who can achieve different levels of accreditation that impact the depth and scope of service they can provide to veterans and their families. It is a ‘single learning pathway’ (which means advocates must successfully complete a level before moving on) and is comprised of levels 1 to 4 in the compensation advocacy stream and two levels in the wellbeing advocacy stream. The ATDP Advocacy Register allows veterans and the families to search a database of ATDP qualified ESO advocates in their area.
3.25RSL Victoria expressed concern with the current structure of the ATDP. It stated that, while the program ostensibly provides training and maintains a ‘rudimentary’ code of conduct for advocates affiliated with ESOs that wish to seek funding via the Building Excellent in Support and Training (BEST) Grants Program, participation is not mandatory. As a result, the ATDP did not ensure a consistent baseline of competency or ethical conduct across ESO advocates.
3.26RSL LifeCare also pointed out that there is no universal requirement that all ESO advocates complete ATDP accreditation and that this led to an uneven quality of service. It advised:
We have seen examples where well-meaning but untrained individuals offer advice that is outdated or incorrect, potentially harming veterans’ cases.
3.27Legacy Australia remarked that it had never considered the ATDP ‘fit for our purpose’ as it had been designed, written and delivered with a very veteran-centric view, thereby ‘not addressing many of the issues facing the families of veterans, such as grief and loss, and family and domestic violence’.
Support for commercial advocacy
3.28The committee received evidence from a cohort of submitters that expressed support for the commercial advocacy sector and the fee-for-service advocacy model. Many of the submitters who expressed such support were fee-for-service advocacy businesses or their affiliates.
3.29Proponents of the fee-for-service model argued that there was an essential need and valid role for commercial veteran advocacy in Australia, often with reference to the limitations of the free-to-the veteran model outlined in the previous section. These submitters positioned commercial advocacy providers as legitimate players in the space and asserted that the fee-for-service model should be viewed as complementary to the traditional free-to-the-veteran model. Many also argued that regulation of the sector was not only required but also desirable, although views on what appropriate regulation should look like differed.
3.30Submitters put forward a number of reasons as to why there was a need and valid role for fee-for-service advocacy providers. These included:
fee-for-service advocates are required to meet demand in the market;
fee-for-service advocates are able to provide a more ‘professional’ and consistent service than traditional free-to-the-veteran ESO advocates; and
fee-for-service advocates provide diversity and choice for veterans seeking support.
Meeting demand in the market
3.31Some submitters argued that fee-for-service advocates filled a gap in the market and allowed more veterans to access advocacy support, given the current free-to-the-veteran model was unable to satisfy demand for advocate support.
3.32For example, Australian Veteran Advocacy, a fee-for-service provider, advised that the current free-to-the-veteran model provided by ESO advocates was unable to satisfy demand for support.
3.33The National Association of Veteran Advocacy (NAVA), established in September 2025 and comprised of three fee-for-service providers, describes itself as a ‘peak professional body for veteran advocates’. It contended that private advocacy complements rather than competes with the free-to-the-veteran model, and that the existence of paid services is not inherently problematic in itself. It elaborated:
Paid advocates add much-needed critical capacity and specialist expertise, particularly in complex cases, and ensure continuity of support even when ESO offices are unavailable locally or forced to close their books due to long waitlists.
3.34It asserted that the volume and complexity of veteran claims exceeded the capacity of ESO volunteer-based services, creating a service gap. It rationalised that private advocates filled this gap by offering additional capacity and expertise and therefore reducing wait times for advocacy assistance.
3.35NAVA also argued that paid advocacy is not intended to displace ESO services, but rather to act as a ‘safety net’ where volunteers cannot meet demand.
3.36Veterans First Consulting made a similar argument, stating:
The emergence of fee-for-service advocates is not a coincidence but a direct response to gaps in the traditional ESO model. If free, volunteer-run services were fully meeting veterans’ needs, demand for paid assistance would be minimal. Instead, a growing number of veterans are actively choosing fee-charging advocacy – a clear indication that existing free services often cannot deliver the timely, effective, and comprehensive support veterans require.
3.37VetComp, a fee-for-service provider, also asserted that the volunteer advocates available were already ‘stretched thin’ and that commercial advocacy providers helped to meet a need in the market.
A more professional, timely service
3.38Some submitters contended that fee-for-service advocates, by virtue of their commercial model, were able to provide a more ‘professional’ and timely service than free-to-the-veteran advocates, and that the fees involved appropriately recognised the value of this professional expertise and service. The committee was told that, given commercial advocates generally worked full-time, they were able to offer a more consistent and timely service to veterans. In making this argument, submitters pointed out that the traditional ESO advocates were often volunteers and therefore worked part-time with truncated hours and sporadic days.
3.39Mr Trent Holmes, a veteran and founder of fee-for-service provider Life After Defence, provided the committee with a practical example from his observations of both models of advocacy:
When I was working and learning at the RSL, all the advocates were volunteers, and I have great respect for them giving up their time to support our veterans. However, one of the challenges I encountered was the limited availability of these advocates. Many did not work on Mondays or Fridays, which, in my experience, are among the busiest days for correspondence with DVA. Additionally, their typical working hours were from 9am to 3pm, which can significantly delay the progression of a veteran’s claim.
To give a practical example: if DVA sends important documents or reports such as a request for a GP form or a hearing test on a Friday, and the advocate isn’t working that day (or the Monday), the veteran often won’t receive that information until the following Tuesday. That’s a four-day delay before the veteran can even begin actioning the requests. These delays quickly add up over the course of a claim.
3.40In contrast, Mr Holmes stated that most fee-for-service advocates he knew of worked full-time and were therefore able to provide ‘faster, more efficient support’.
3.41Mr Holmes also asserted that fee-for-service advocates were more likely to provide a more professional service in relation to accountability and continuity, as opposed to ESO advocates who may be volunteers. He argued that because commercial providers operated under a legally binding agreement they were contractually and ethically obligated to see the process through. He provided an example from his own personal experiences with ESO advocates as a contrast:
Between 2014 and 2022, as I was preparing for discharge and lodging multiple claims, I worked with three different ESO advocates that had been recommended to me. Unfortunately, my experience was frustrating and, at times, disheartening.
The first two advocates began helping me with my claims but then disappeared completely without notice. I was left to navigate the process on my own and finish the claims unaided. The third advocate provided slightly more assistance, but even that experience ended poorly. I ended up receiving a call from DVA advising me of the outcome of my determination because they were unable to contact my advocate. I signed the necessary forms, returned them to DVA, and was paid out within a week or two all without hearing a word from my advocate.
Shockingly, 4–6 months later, I received a call from that same advocate congratulating me on the outcome, unaware that I’d already been notified, paid, and moved on. I explained what had happened, and while he apologised, the delay spoke volumes about the lack of oversight and follow-through.
3.42NAVA asserted that the fee-for-service model recognised the value of professional expertise and allowed advocates to dedicate full-time attention to cases, ensuring sustained quality of service.
3.43Additionally, NAVA argued that fee-for-service advocates were able to build ‘structured relationships with financial advisors, lawyers, and medical specialists’, which enabled ‘holistic and continuous support’ for veterans.
3.44Veterans First Consulting, a fee-for-service business and member of NAVA, argued that veterans sought out commercial advocates to obtain timely, professional assistance that was unavailable elsewhere. It contended that commercial providers could offer immediate engagement and often responded to new inquiries within 24 hours, which represented a much faster turnaround than ESO advocacy services.
3.45KSC Claims, another fee-for-service provider, stated that it had heard anecdotal evidence from veterans that free-to-the-veteran providers like ESOs were ‘less nimble and offer a less timely service’, and that full-time commercial advocacy providers were able to assist more veterans in comparison.
3.46VetComp, a fee-for-service provider, reported veteran feedback that ESO advocates, while well-intentioned, often struggled with responsiveness and timeliness. Additionally, it argued that free-to-the-veteran advocates, such as those from ESOs, were not directly accountable to clients for the quality or timelines of their work. VetComp asserted that fee-for-service advocates were commercially motivated to deliver high standards and a timely service because ‘their business model depends on it’.
3.47Some submitters also flagged that ESO advocates were often not up to date with the latest technology expected to be used in modern professional spheres, which slowed down response times and efficiency.
Diversity of choice
3.48Some submitters made the point that fee-for-service advocates provided veterans with another choice of who represents them and diversified the avenues of support available.
3.49For example, NAVA emphasised veteran empowerment, arguing that the availability of commercial advocates meant veterans had greater choice of who represented them, taking into consideration factors like shared lived experience and who they felt most comfortable with.
3.50Similarly, fee-for-service provider KSC Claims made the case for a diversity of options so veterans had the freedom to choose an advocate that suited them. It remarked that veterans are not a homogenous group, and that while some felt comfortable to engage with Defence-aligned ESOs, some did not. It observed:
Many veterans, particularly those who have experienced abuse or trauma during service, do not feel comfortable approaching Defence-linked bodies.
3.51Commercial advocacy business VetComp also asserted that some veterans did not feel comfortable engaging with ESOs and preferred to seek out commercial options instead.
Support from non-aligned submitters
3.52The committee also received evidence from submitters not affiliated or aligned with fee-for-service firms who considered that there was a valid role for commercial advocacy firms, if properly regulated.
3.53For example, DFWA advised that it had no issue with commercial providers where they: charged transparent, reasonable fees; acted ethically; were insured; and provided a service with quality controls. It argued that this type of provider should be encouraged and supported.
3.54VESPIIA advised that it did not endorse or oppose any particular service model, instead asserting that all forms of advocacy were valid, provided they are delivered ethically, transparently, and in the best interests of the veteran.
3.55Mrs Shannon Hennessy, Chief Executive Officer of VESPIIA, asserted that the issue was not how the advocate was funded but how they conducted themselves:
…as we know, these [advocacy] services are delivered through a mix of volunteer, fee-for-service and hybrid models. Whilst these arrangements differ in structure and funding, VESPIIA's position is that the model is, in effect, less important than the conduct. What matters most to us is that the veterans retrieve safe, skilled and ethical support no matter who is providing it or how they are paid.
3.56The Toowoomba TPI Sub-Branch expressed ‘cautious support’ for the role of fee-for-service advocates alongside the traditional free-to-the-veteran providers. However, it caveated this support with a call for proper regulation and noted that it held significant concerns around the current behaviours of some fee-for-service businesses. It explained that, while it believed that no veteran should have to incur expenses to access compensation, the current state of the system and critical shortage of ESO advocates meant that there was a role for ethical, properly regulated commercial advocates.
A valid model that would benefit from regulation
3.57In putting forward their arguments for the validity and benefits of commercial advocacy, the majority of submitters that championed the fee-for-service advocacy model were still of the view that there was a pressing need for reform and some type of regulation in the veteran advocacy sector as a whole.
3.58The following chapter of the report canvasses potential regulatory solutions to address the challenges and concerns present in the current advocacy system in Australia.