A Real Solution for Veterans or Just More Empty Promises?

The treatment of our veterans has been a national shame for too long.

The government is trying to do something different – trying to simplify and harmonise the many and overlapping rules that govern what veterans are entitled to.

Will their plan or this bill work and achieve that? The only proof will be when it gets up and running.

A worrying development before this bill was passed was a large amendment dropped on the bill late in consideration. It doesn’t give One Nation great hope that the government has done what it needs to fix the treatment of veterans once and for all.

Transcript

One Nation supports measures to simplify veterans’ entitlements. At the moment, it seems to many veterans that they need to be a lawyer just to receive entitlements that should be easily accessible. In this government bill, the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, it’s difficult to say whether the government’s proposal will meet veterans’ needs for clarity and ease. Until we see the legislation put into action, when the guidance filters its way through to the service agents, as the saying goes: the proof will be in the pudding.  

We’re willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to converting three acts, two thousand pages of legislation and more than 800 legislative instruments one act. As other senators have mentioned, it’s not rare for veterans to have claims under all three separate acts. This obviously needs desperate change. Throughout this process, we do not want to see any veterans worse off. One Nation notes with concern submissions that state some changes may have the intention of easier administration not achieving the veterans’ full entitlements. That’s a deep concern. We’ll be supporting the amendments codifying the Senate’s intent that no veteran is left worse off after this bill’s passage.  

In relation to the government’s amendment on sheet ED101, we’ve received concerns from the Families of Veterans Guild, as have many other senators, I’m sure. I’ll read them out so that they’re on the record from the impressively confident chief executive officer of the Families of Veterans Guild on this government amendment to its own bill. Why is the government having so many amendments?  

The letter is as follows: 

After being alerted to the amendment, I’ve read through the detail and have a number of concerns with it which are as follows: 

There has been no public announcement or public communication from the Department of Defence or Veterans Affairs about it, and as a result there has been no consultation with the veteran community regarding its content. This amendment proposes a significant structural change to the Defence and Veteran system in Australia. It is arguably a Bill in its own right, and ought to be treated as such. Our view is that it ought to be introduced as an amendment to the Defence Act 1903 and debated accordingly. Instead, it is being added on to the VETS Bill in order to be rushed through the parliament— 

Here we go again, Labor rushing. She continues with No. 2: 

The intent of the VETS Bill is to harmonise the legislative frameworks that govern the provision of veteran entitlements and supports, it is not to make fundamental structural changes to the veteran system. That is a separate issue— 

She says. She goes on to No. 3: 

The object outlined in the amendment, “improve suicide prevention”, is extremely broad, unclear, and lacks any insight into tangible work that will be done to achieve the objective. This objective requires significant work to be more specific, focusing on issues we know are challenges in the veteran community like reducing the incidents and rate of suicide among the Defence and Veteran population, and improving the effectiveness of suicide prevention initiatives within this community. 

The amendment outlines that the commission only needs to provide two public reports on the status of the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. This isn’t good enough. The reason the concept of the independent body outlined in the amendment received initial support from the veteran community was because for too long recommendations from previous inquiries have been shelved. 700+ recommendations which could have resulted in better health and wellbeing outcomes for veterans and their families were left to collect dust. The amendment ought to compel the commission to report annually to the Parliament, the veteran community, and the Australian public on the status of the Royal Commission’s recommendations until such time as they are implemented and their effectiveness evaluated. 

She goes on, under No. 5: 

The amendment provides the Minister with the power to direct the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. However, before the Commissioner reports to the Minister (at which point the report is to be tabled) the Minister may vary or withdraw the request. Does this mean the inquiry results are never made public? This point must be clarified. 

In No. 6, she says: 

The amendment outlines that the commission can inquire into the ‘entire Defence ecosystem’ but doesn’t define what that is. With the amendment providing significant powers to the proposed commission, this must be defined understood and consulted. As it stands, the authority this commission would have could affect more than 5,000 non-profit organisations in Australia who provide support to veterans. 

She says, under No. 7: 

Veteran families once again are omitted from this amendment, other than a mention that they will be ‘listened to’. The Royal Commission highlighted the important role of veteran families and the significantly implications (including related to mental health) that service and suicide have on them, yet they are excluded from the commission’s remit. Will it require a Royal Commission into the ill health, wellbeing and high suicide rates amongst veteran families before they are taken seriously by their government? 

It’s a good question she’s asking. Under ‘our expectations’, she says: 

The Families of Veterans Guild supports the establishment of an independent body to oversee the defence and veteran system and the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. However, it fundamentally disagrees with rushing an un-consulted amendment through parliament which could have significant consequences for the system, and the communities within it. 

She goes on: 

The Guild’s expectations were set by the Minister in his media release on the appointment of the interim Commissioner— 

where the minister said: 

“Mr Manthorpe will head the organisation and work across government to deliver the establishment of a legislated oversight body by September 2025. 

As part of the Albanese Government’s response to the Royal Commission, we have committed $9.5 million of funding, as part of MYEFO, to support its implementation, including: 

$5 million over two years to fund the appointment of the Interim Head of the Defence and Veterans’ Service Commission, and to establish a cross-agency taskforce to provide advice to Government”— 

that’s the end of the minister’s quote. She goes on: 

We expected DVA and Defence to therefore consult with those who could and would be impacted by this amendment. That hasn’t happened. 

She said, ‘We are especially shocked by this, considering the unwillingness of the minister and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to support and implement amendments to the vets bill aimed at removing archaic and offensive language, due to concerns it would hold up passage of the bill. Yet an amendment which does bring cost implications and hasn’t been consulted on is deemed acceptable.’ This is the last paragraph: ‘We’d like to see this amendment withdrawn so that it can go through the proper process, including consultation, to ensure it is fit for purpose and reduces the risk of having unintended consequences on and within the defence and veteran community.’ That quote is from the letter from the Families of Veterans Guild, and that’s where it ends. 

One Nation is greatly concerned that the government is operating this way and dropping significant changes on the Senate suddenly. We won’t even get time to discuss the bills tonight. We will be voting against this amendment because of those concerns and the lack of consultation.