Submissions received

I am a TPI veteran living in an Australian Social Security International Reciprocal Agreement country, .

Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Reform:

Please examine Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 VEA (in particular 38 H subsection 2), the Australian Social Security International Reciprocal Agreement, and also the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021.

There are conflicting issues and to broadly outline:

Living outside Australia, in order to receive a VEA Service Pension SP, you must be qualified and receiving an Australian Social Security payment.
2018. In my case I qualified for the Australian Age Pension AAP, received payment then transferred to the SP.
For my wife to be eligible for the Partner Service Pension, she had to be receiving an Australian Social Security payment. My being a TPI she applied for the Australian Social Security Carer Payment CP (recognizing the international reciprocal agreement entitlement) at the same time I lodged my AAP claim.
2018. Centrelink declined CP because although I may have qualified for a Disability Support Pension DSP any payment would have been reduced to Nil because I was receiving VEA TPI compensation. This was further illustrated at Administrative Appeals Tribunal Hearing 2020 – I had to be receiving a DSP amount greater than Nil in the first instance. Catch 22 exists.
2020/2021/2022. DVA – Claim raised in 2020 and with follow up evidence [the December Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021] this was provided to DVA in 2022.
2023. We still have not received a decision/Determination,

CURRENT CONFLICTING LEGISLATION
BLOCKING ACCESS TO VETERAN’S WIFE ENTITLEMENTS

I have been by DVA assured that if I predecease my wife she will automatically and immediately receive the War Widows Pension because I am a TPI veteran.

When I asked for an explanation as to why, (while I am alive, married and receiving a Service Pension) my wife cannot receive the VEA Partner Service Pension – this is the substance of the claim

I was determined a Totally and Permanently Incapacitated TPI veteran in 2003. Realistically my wife would have immediately been eligible to the Partner Service Pension because I was a TPI noting that there is no Age qualification for the partner.

CONCLUSION

This whole case matter provides what could be considered a typical insight for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide RC, that is the delays in DVA administrative processing and interpreting legislation.

The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021 – this legislation is a tidal shift and indeed looking at the case matter above, including an AAT process in particular, illustrates the confounding and conflicting pieces of legislation.

For veterans and families living overseas particularly in Social Security International Reciprocal Countries there must be a much more transparent insight to any new Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Reform.

My wife, anticipating immediate and automatic CP eligibility and transfer to a VEA Partner Service Pension submitted her claim to Australian Social Security in 2017.

We have jumped through the hoops of Centre Link decision review, DVA decision review, and Administrative Tribunal process.

Finally, we continue and are still awaiting a decision outcome.

2023

To whom it may concern

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

Regards

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

Throughout my Husbands 21 years of service he has had spinal surgery, knee surgery, arm surgery and skin cancers removed. All these injuries have been a direct cause of his job. He has had to attend scenes where member's have committed suicide on base, where members have attempted suicide and where members are in the middle of a mental breakdown due to the ADF. This has a massive affect on him and us as a family. I'm the one that sits up with him at night helping him through the things that he has seen, I am the one that supports him through his surgery, appointments and recovery whilst raising our children. All of these things have an impact on myself and our children. My career has been put 2nd for 21 years and will continue to be put 2nd because as much as the ADF say they are family friendly they aren't. Yes it's our choice to be an ADF Family but don't remove the benefits to save money as it will have a lasting financial and emotional impact on the whole of the ADF.

Regards

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.
The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

Kind Regards,

Hi Reform team,

I was a soldier in uniform for 8 years and a Defence civilian for another 9 years in an Rasigs Army Regiment. My discharge was due to injuries.

I am 100% disability with a gold card. I have accepted conditions under VEA, DRCA and SRCA.

The difficulties I continue to experience and a source of extreme frustration is that when making any claims under VEA they make me run the gauntlet for the ‘alone’ test because I have either similar or same injuries under the other acts. All my injuries were from working in Defence, there was no other employer, Defence should be responsible for all of them. No veteran (worker), cares which legislation is used to assess them. What does it matter when I was injured whether I was in uniform or in civilian clothes doing the same job still deploying and still under Defence. If your having a classification of a Defence civilian(which I was after discharge), then all that goes with it. We’re all working for the same entity and entitlements when injured should also be the same, regardless of VEA, DRCA or SRCA.

I would like to see the one entity for Defence who supports all of their workers when injured regardless of whether in uniform or civilian clothes, the common linkage is we all work for the Defence Department and doing similar jobs. Active Service and deployed can be an additional set of conditions, again for both uniformed and civilian workers.

Thanks for reading and I hope you do consider my feedback.

Cheers

DVA SUBMISSION 2019

I am a semi-retired Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeon having spent 47 years in the Australian Army, both in a full time and part time capacity in numerous conflicts and natural disasters.

Many Service and ex Service patients and their families in my Military and Civilian practice over the years.

My submission falls into 2 areas;

HEALTH CARE LIFE SUPPORT

I appreciate they are linked but have a diﬀerent focus.

HEALTH CARE.

My understanding is that 5 Mental Health issues allow the patient to seek appropriate treatment without DVA approval.

Age 70 a Veteran automatically becomes eligible for a Gold Card. I suggest this is stepping along a path that can be expanded.

eg a Gold Card is issued after 7 years Full-time or 14 years Part-time Service. Any significant Health problem at any stage a Gold Card is issued.

Thus the eligible person is empowered to seek appropriate treatment at a time and place that suits them.

No longer a requirement for DVA approval and a continuing process of interaction looking to justify any health problem’s link to Military Service.

Eg the aetiology of Osteoarthritis consists of Age, Activities, Injuries, Genetics and unknown factors. No argument that Service is a factor. No documented incident needs be discovered.

The taxpayer supports Public Hospitals, subsidises Private Health and Medicare funds a large proportion of fees and healthcare costs in the Nation so although it would appear as an increased cost to DVA, the cost to the taxpayers overall may not be much diﬀerent. Avoid stove-piping of costs to DVA in isolation.

A potential increase in patient confidence avoiding the risk of having servile culture and impacting in an adverse manner on Mental Health and Wellbeing.

LIFE SUPPORT

This area is more complex involving income support, pensions, and lifestyle factors. The patient’s history, medical examination, and special tests should lead to a diagnosis.

Given this, a Whole Person Impairment can be calculated through a modern evidence based assessment process. The home, social, and working ability demonstrated with financial and other support provided if needed.

Follow up over the years planned depending on the diagnosis.

The Member is given closure, support, and the opportunity to get on with life, focussing on what they can do. Not the reverse where paying for illness behaviour risks a mendicant mentality and loss of confidence in life.

Even the language can be changed from “Totally and Permanently Incapacitated” to eg “Therapeutically Permanently Impaired”. The acronym TPI remains. Nobody these days is totally incapacitated.

In summary my Submission encourages the Member to have control of their HealthCare and focus on what they can do with support if necessary within a much simplified system. As an addendum there is a positive Recruiting aspect to my Submission as there may be potential challenges for the Force meeting future needs.

Veteran injury assessments are prejudiced on whether the individual member served overseas or served within entirely in Australia.

The geographical location where an injury was sustained does not affect the assessment outcome, however assessments are influenced on overseas service, irrespective if the deployment contributed to the claimed injury.

Claim assessments must be evaluated on a serving members condition sustained in official duty, not on WWII reasoning.

Thank you,

Please consider this input in to any DVA Legislative changes.

Instead of having an "army" of DVA public servants that keeps growing, medical, lawyers, AAT all fighting members health claims, issue all ex ADF and discharging members a gold card for all health issues.

Funded by a massive reduction in DVA department and costs associated with fighting veterans on every claim. Perhaps even a small increase in medicare levy to support veterans.

For your consideration.

Good Morning,

I am currently TPI. I am ex VRB, having served on that Board as services member and acting senior for 24 years.

I am well aware of the difficulties veterans, delegates and advocates have in navigating VEA, SRCA and MRCA.

I commend the current plan to consolidate the three acts.

One thing that troubled me before the VRB was where young veterans had the option under MRCA to receive lump sums in payment for service/war-caused disabilities. I am aware that these lump sums were not reserved for future care; rather, they were used to buy a brand new FWD. No recourse for future care requirements. I would caution these claimants against taking the lump sum options, which I see as a cop- out by the Department.

Otherwise. I think this is a great step forward and commend those involved.

Kind regards,

Submission on Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation

> Department of Veterans’ Affairs consultation submission.
>
> The changes proposed do not go to the heart of the problem for veterans dealing with DVA. Whilst yes which scheme an injury comes under adds a layer of complexity it is minimal compared to the complexity for many in our two tiered system.
>
> Current concerns:
>
> 1. As a veteran I submit a claim for an injury, I provide supporting evidence from my medical documents and am told that the claim will not be accepted as the information is insufficient. The soldier, sailor or air force personnel are not responsible for what someone at a medical centre writes in our medical documents. It is unreasonable that an injury is declined on the lack of details contained.
>
>
> 2. As a veteran once I have an accepted condition I have to go through the hoops of what treatment DVA will accept. I have a GP, Sports Physician and Surgeon all say a series of injections is suitable for my condition to see if it will prevent the need for surgery however it is declined by DVA. Medical professionals should not be second guessed by the bureaucracy of DVA.
>
>
>3. As a veteran once I am receiving treatment I should not have to use my sick and long service leave to cover my recovery. Whilst you can get payments from DVA it is pay at the level you were when you got out of defence. It has been 15 years since I served and I am now on better salary, we should be able to provide evidence of current salary and that should be met. Our families should not be further financially disadvantaged by the need for treatment.
>
>
>4. Consideration has to be given to how medical conditions are documented. DVA take medical scans and information from their doctor and determine what condition will be accepted. I then have treatment recommended by the surgeon (based on the same scans and information) that DVA decline because it is not the accepted condition. In this instance it was less than a centimetre from the accepted condition. The surgeon is certain that both conditions are from the same injury and related however treatment is based upon the accepted condition documented. All of the bones and ligaments in the ankle or any other part of the body are connected. Instead of being so prescriptive the injured joint or body part needs to be covered.
>
>
>5. All medications prescribed by doctors for accepted conditions need to be able to be paid for with the DVA whitecard. Treatment methods should not be determined by what the individual can afford.
>
>
>6. Doctors appointments should be covered by DVA, whilst this is technically true at this time, due to the minimal amount paid to doctors most GPs are moving away from doing DVA appointments. This means that consistency of treatment is jeopardised. Further this often means treatment is based on an individual’s ability to pay for an appointment.
>
>
>
>7. DVA call centre staff need to be suitably trained to support veterans with empathy. Veterans are calling at a time when they are vulnerable, often unwell or in pain and trying to manage a system that is overwhelming. Having call centre staff provide medical advice is not appropriate. Having call centre staff say there is nothing they can do is not helpful and is escalating the frustration and stress of the individual at a time when it is most damaging.
>
>I myself am still batteling the DVA system to get acceptance for conditions and treatment for accepted conditions. I have both ankles, both knees, my back, my hearing and mental health all affected (not all accepted). The delibating way that I am left to lead my life has a negative impact on not only myself but my family. Despite my injuries and living with longterm pain I need to manage to work in order to provide for my family. The ongoing toll is what leads to veterans like myself taking extreme measures. The loss of self worth, feeling unheard, unappreciated for what we sacrificed and disguarded is more than one person can manage with grace and positivity.
>
>The fact that someone served should be the only factor in determining if medical treatement is covered by DVA. Often the toll of injuries is not fully appreicated for many years, veterins should not be punished for this.
>

>Regards

Have your say

Dear legislation reform team,

I provide this information as an Army veteran , and a current

I will try to be succinct as possible:

Recommendations:

Single ongoing act

Excellent idea. Lined up with MRCA principles (SOPs, etc). Will make it user friendly for all involved.

Review the award criteria for Gold Card

Consider the awarding of a medical coverage card/system, for members who complete their minimum period of service (perhaps look to incentivise those who serve longer periods, may help with retention). It is not the members choice whether they get deployed to warlike operations or not.
Look to delete all colour of cards – having different coloured cards creates sub-elements of hierarchy and competition (who has ‘what’ coloured card, etc).
If there is one card that suits all, it reduces the complaining amongst the veteran community – everyone is treated the same.
Moreover, it means veterans will only ever use the card when they NEED medical treatment.

Review the compensation aspects of claims

Veterans quite often game the system to maximise their $$$ return. In comparison, what do police/ambos/firies have in place? More effort should be on funding actual rehabilitation, versus payouts.
At the current rate, surely DVA will run out of $$ at some stage.

Serving members can only lodge claims, they cannot conduct PI, etc

The system is too clogged up with serving members lodging claims and seeking PI, household services, etc.
Serving members should be able to submit claims for conditions. However, they should not be able to commence PI, needs assessments until they have indicated their intent to discharge.
This will serve to reduce the backlog.

DVA and defence need to be connected on claims/conditions

There are too many serving members gaming the system; there are countless serving members pursuing conditions through DVA with no knowledge by defence. There are multiple examples of current serving members that are deployable, yet sit on over 80 impairment points.
These members are often pursuing MH claims through DVA, to maximise points and payout, that would render them downgraded whilst serving.
If a member has a MH claim whilst serving, they are obligated to report this through the ADF medical system.
DVA is being negligent by allowing serving members to bypass ADF medical system to report claims; DVA has a responsibility to ensure any claim made by a serving member is being tracked by the ADF medical system.

Simply some food for thought. I am available to elaborate on any points as required.

Respectfully,

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: The Royal Australian Armoured Corps Corporation Submission to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Proposed Legislative Reform Pathway 2023 (PDF 4.84 MB)

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: The Royal Australian Armoured Corps Corporation Supplementary Submission to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Proposed Legislative Reform Pathway 2023 (PDF 357 KB)

PATHWAYS FORWARD AFTER ROYAL COMMISSION

The following quote from the press release asks for submissions.

quote

The proposed pathway to simplify the Veterans’ legislation will be available from today for public consultation.

The proposed pathway seeks to reform more than a century of veterans’ entitlement legislation, providing veterans the support they not only need, but deserve.

The Pathway for consultation anticipates:

New claims under existing schemes will cease after a transition period, from which point all new veteran claims will be dealt with under an improved Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (MRCA) as the sole ongoing Act. The MRCA currently services the majority of claims.
All benefits under existing schemes will continue unaffected, with only new claims or claims relating to deteriorated conditions to instead be covered by the single ongoing Act.

The consultation process will inform the way forward for government to simplify veterans’ legislation.

The Albanese Government is committed to a thorough and considered process which will deliver a better future for veterans and their families.

End quote.

The two paragraphs outlining the Albanese governments response to the findings of the Royal Commission and other recent reviews, leaves me shocked and wondering if anyone is interested in looking after disabled veterans?

AND

Is the DVA only interested in covering up their mistakes and short comings?

The Pathways forward suggests doing away with VEA LEGISLATION and concentrate on MRCA LEGISLATION as the only way to move forward!!!

What happened to the findings that the DVA made many mistakes and had serious short comings in looking after veterans interests in the past. Particularly with the huge difference in allowances when a veteran dies. A VEA veteran’s entitlement of $2000, and an MRCA veteran’s entitlement of $12000. The difference of $10,000 between the two Acts, is wrong and against the lawful requirements of legislation like Disabled Persons and Anti-discrimination. How can the DVA claim to be complying with the legislation and treat veterans so unfairly?

Shouldn't serious and immediate action be taken by the DVA to rectify this and many other problems? Shouldn’t the DVA be made to re-instate all benefits and entitlements, EQUALLY across all three ACTS? Afterall, the above quote by the Albanese Government states, “providing veterans the support they not only need, but deserve”. In my opinion this means fixing problems and rectifying failures and short comings. We do not deserve to be mis-treated by a $10,000 difference in entitlements, when a veteran dies. It would appear that the Albanese Government thinks that when a veteran dies, under MRCA Legislation his estate, deserves more compensation than when a veteran dies, under VEA Legislation. How is this treating all veterans as EQUAL and as a DISABLED VETERAN? Shouldn’t World War 1 veterans, be treated the same as World War 11 veterans? Shouldn’t World War 11 veterans be treated the same as Korean War Veterans? AND VIETNAM VETERANS ETC…

The DVA ADMINISTRATION has failed miserably in maintaining Fair and Equitably benefits for all disabled veterans across all three Acts, leaving huge discrepancies in death benefits, and travel allowances to name just two instances.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that that the DVA deliberately and wrongfully introduced DRCA Legislation in order to reduce veterans entitlements under VEA Legislation! When the DVA based DRCA Legislation on “Public Service Legislation” they failed to carry forward some of the benefits and entitlements that were awarded to ALL veterans, because of “War Service Conditions,” which are totally different to Public Service conditions.

Where is the justice in administration when it comes to looking after a VEA veteran, compared to looking after a MRCA Veteran?

The DVA and Government is suggesting a pathway forward. To dismantle and "lock away" VEA LEGISLATION in favour of MRCA LEGISLATION is, in my opinion, tantamount to legalising the continuation of "DISCRIMINATION" between VEA VETERANS and MRCA VETERANS.

If DVA is allowed to coverup their mistakes and short comings by deleting VEA Entitlements in the future, then “The Veteran” has again been “BULLIED” into submission, and not compensated for DVA’s “MISTAKES AND SHORT COMINGS”.

I call on the person or persons who are proposing a “Pathway Forward” to rectify all the differences between the Three Acts, as the FIRST and most CRITICAL PRIORITY, in moving forward.

Back-payment, over at least the past five years (while this controversy has been raging), should be an absolute minimum period, for retrospective compensation.

Then by all means, amalgamate the Three Acts back into one single piece of legislation to cover all veterans, like it was originally setup.

IF…

“The Albanese Government is committed to a thorough and considered process which will deliver a better future for veterans and their families.”

THEN…

I ask the Albanese Government to consider and fix, “VETERANS’ BENEFITS and ENTITLEMENTS” instead of changing DVA PROCEDURES to improve Public Service working conditions for DVA Staff.

February 2023.

These are the attachments that belong to my previous email from

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, 9:48 am wrote:

Goodmorning

My name is , Im now 50 years old and a TPI GOLD CARD holder, what im about to explain is the Truth that not only i can attest to but could also be the contributing factor for over 1600 Veteran Suicides since 1983.

I have always believed i was broken, labelled with a variety of mental health disorders such as PTSD, BIPOLAR TYPE 2, ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, ADJUSTMENT DISORDER ETC, and although the exoerts would argue succinctly their reasons for diagnosis this will not be debated as fact but the focus needs to be drawn to the multitude of nedications that we as Veterans are prescibed to counter balance these diagnosis and the contraindications of S8 drugs (Opiods) being thrown into the mix when it comes to physicall pain relief of Veterans chronic pain issues.

I was such a person who over 20 years trusted the specialist Drs abd GP's who diagnosed and treated my mirad of mental and physical conditions with prescribed medications, medications that would eventually have me succomb to suicide ideation created out of go to synthetic drugs instead of realistic wholistic therapeutics that are not recognised by DVA as legitimate options for wellness but instead prefer to keep Veterans in the Mantra of Illness, which pays the bills for those well invested in the system that is the Medical Industry.

Veterans are a cash cow that keeps on giving when provided the never ending pathway to prescriotion medicine oushed by Drs who can become victims of addiction to their own work tools of choice. I have attached one such Dr who has openly admitted to his own addiction which was lisyed with AHPRA for the last 3 years and was previously my GP who also prescibed these same medications to me, which coincided with my own attempt at suicide. I have over the years had many Drs prescribe these S8 drugs while on antidepressents and i have run the gauntlet of a variety of antidepressents the last being Latuda and Lithium.

My point being made in this email is to provide the TRUTH, that DVA is funding the Suicidal Rate amongst Veterans that are being prescribed contrainducated drugs that even Drs thenselves are abusing. TGA recently restricted S8 drugs as your aware but inam now of the belief/opinion it was not for the safety of the public, as in people like myself but for the hidden, secret abuse of Doctors themselves as openly admits to in the Facebook messages initiated by to me after i posted a question on Facebook oage about AHPRA LISTED UNDERSTANDING/RESTRICTIONS.

is not the only Dr who has responsibility and committed negligence in prescribing such drugs to vulnerable Veterans but is the one who openly admitted to the TRUTH.

You cant hide the TRUTH any longer, Veterans will not be the guinea pigs to your money makers/takers who roll the dice on who may or may not be affected. TRUST THE SCIENCE is now the slogan of the past 3 years, we hear now every where we go...TRUST YOUR DOCTOR...TRUST DVA WILL DO WHATS RIGHT FOR VETERANS!

As a Veteran and a who has now been vindicated by the messages from a former Doctor, by pubmed studies, published medical papers on this Topic, I am greatful to hear the TRUTH that ive always believed was happening to me, a Molotov Cocktail of Prescription Drugs that enhanced the volatility of traumatic suffering of War and ADF SEXUAL ASSUALT.

ITS THE TRUST OF THEM THAT I NOW HAVE TO EARN BACK WITH THE TRUTH, and its the
TRUTH that you as the Overseers of care for the Veteran community that needs to situp and take notice.

THE DRUGS ARE KILLING VETERANS AND DESTROYING OUR LIVES, DVA NEED TO ASCERTAIN THE LEGITIMACY IN WHOLESTIC, NATURAL AND ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES TO GAIN TRACTION OR OTHERWISE MORE LIVES WILL BE LOST AND IT WILL ULTIMATELY BE YOU AS A DEPTARTMENT THAT CAN SAVE THEM.

https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/opioids-and-antidepressants-which-combinations-to-avoid

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2019/02/common-opioids-less-effective-for-patients-on-ssri-antidepressants.html

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19442177/

With the release of the proposed new legislative pathway I can only say that this process will only drive a wedge between the Veteran community thereby creating a lower class of Veteran.

Under the proposed legislation Veterans who’s service is only under DRCA and who do not qualify for a DVA Gold Card or TPI will be able to lodge a claim for either a new condition or aggravation of an existing condition and this new claim will pull together all of the existing DRCA claims to be reassessed under MRCA and if the new claim and reassessment can amass the required points then that Veteran, who has not served a day in an operational area could be granted a DVA Gold Card with Special Rate Disability Payment.

Unfortunately, a Veteran who has served in an operational area under the VEA but who has a claim (often decided by a DVA Delegate) accepted under DRCA cannot get a Gold Card TPI because of the “alone rule” which is often used by DVA Delegates to stop a VEA Veteran from gaining the TPI Rate (I have many examples of where this has occurred).

There needs to be a change to s21(1)(c) of the VEA to amend the “alone rule”. When s21(1)(c) was ﬁrst enacted it was to stop Veterans, who had suﬀered a disability outside of their military service from gaining the substantial beneﬁts that the VEA gave to Veterans, it was not designed to stop Veterans from gaining the TPI just because they had an injury or illness accepted under another act, in this case DRCA.

What is needed is an amendment to s24(1)(c) to do away with the word “alone” and replace it with “all accepted disabilities”. A very simple piece of legislation is all that would be required and as it so happens I have written such a Bill that will amend the VEA and enable Veterans with disabilities under VEA and DRCA to be granted the TPI making an even playing ﬁeld for all Veterans. I have included the Bill for your information.

Kind Regards,

The Returned & Services League of Australia WA Branch Incorporated

Submission on Veterans legislative Reform. 29 March 2023.

This submission is to point out the current unfair treatment of 1965 to 1972 National Servicemen with no overseas service. and to give a brief background as to why I say it is unfair.
Background:

In the words of Prime Minister Menzies (Hansard 10 November 1964) "The Government has therefore decided that there is no alternative to the introduction of selective compulsory service'
On the following day things are made a litt le clearer if you read the speech by the Minister for Labour and National Service, William McMahon (Hansard 11 November 1964), when he said "The Army requires trained people - tradesmen, doctors, and engineers - for its specialist functions."
To Summarise: Young Australian men with skills and experience would be drafted into the regular army to effectively double its capability so that the Australian Army could fulfil its current commitments in Malaysia,PNG etc., and provide an

expediti onary force for service in Vietnam.

The lived experience was that these skilled men, many of whom were up to 24 or 25 years of age with family responsibilities, were paid minimum wage. In my own case I was 23 years of age, and married. We had saved enough for a deposit on a house. This money was all exhausted by the time I was discharged. No married quarter was ever provided.
In spite of the fact that these skilled men provided much needed expertise across all corps of the army, unlike the conscripts from the Second World War who were regarded as veterans no matter where they served, they were given no recognition or access to benefits. The general community thought they had been on a long holiday.

The comparative unfairness:

National Servicemen who were discharged after 5 December 1972 were eligible for: o Compensation under the Veterans Enti t lement Act.

Non-Liabil it y Health Care under the VEA.
War Service Housing loans.
Those discharged prior to this date were eligible for none of this.
I personally suffered mental health issues from two months before discharge until the present day.

It is great that something is being done to sort out the administrative and legislative disaster but if the histor ic unfairness is not redressed in the process, then the effort will have been a waste.

Veterans’ Legislation Reform
Simplify and Harmonise

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: Veterans’ Legislation Reform Simplify and Harmonise (PDF 159 KB)

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: Accredited Veterans’ Advocate on behalf of Veterans Wellbeing Network Mid North Coast, and Australian Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Veterans’ Assn (PDF 373 KB)

Submission attached as PDF:6

Attachement: Occupational Therapy Australia submission (PDF 334 KB)

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) submission (PDF 242 KB)

To Whom it may Concern

Reference Core elements of the proposed framework (as per DVA website 11 May 2023)

Establishing an improved version of MRCA as the sole ongoing scheme (View the MRCA on the Federal Register of Legislation website).
Closing out VEA and DRCA to new compensation-related claims.
Grandparenting all existing arrangements to ensure there is no reduction in entitlements currently being or previously received by veterans. Current payment rates are maintained and indexed normally.
A single ongoing Act will provide coverage for all future claims for compensation from a future date, irrespective of when and where the veteran served, or when their injury or illness occurred.
A single Act system will provide greater clarity and consistency around entitlements for veterans and their families, simplifying claims.
The proposed changes to Veteran’s legislation appear to disregard a number of issues that Veteran’s encounter when dealing with DVA Services and products.

The proposal to remove VEA and SRCA/DRCA and only provide an “improved MRCA” does not provide any clarity for the issues that Veterans and serving personnel are currently experiencing. When the proposal was first initiated by the Minister for Veterans Affairs, the indications were that it was proposed to draft new legislation that would improve the benefits and streamline the application process and review of claims.
To simply amend the current MRCA indicates that very little will be done to improve the approval, processing and review systems that currently exist in DVA.
This current review in response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide interim report has highlighted that MRCA is one of the contributing factors into causes for Suicides and Delays in claims. The new Secretary for Veterans Affairs in the Veterans Affairs newspaper has indicated that one of her major activities, is to improve the time taken in processing claims and reduce the current backlog of claims. This however is nothing new as all recent Secretaries have indicated the same challenge and have been unsuccessful.
Closing out of current claims VEA and SRCA/DRCA impacts those Veterans and Serving Personnel who have current appeals awaiting resolution.
Current proposal by the Australian Government to conduct a Strategic Review of Defence Reservists in 2025 which impacts Veterans Affairs issues for Reservists who are poorly treated by Defence and DVA. For example, many reservist records have been either destroyed or are significantly incomplete, mostly due to Permanent Personnel not maintaining the individual reservists’ records. This has a significant and Negative effect on the Reservist’s ability to lodge and appeal claims to DVA. At no point in the proposed changes is this addressed.
Another deficiency in the MRCA is the consistent review by DVA specialist medico/legal persons when reviewing a Veterans Specialist Doctor’s report which confirms the injuries are consistent with the claim. This causes more grief, anxiety, depression and in worst case suicide, in the Veteran’s medical conditions. Aligned with this is the DVA Delegates who deal with applications appear to have little or no understanding of the military system, its jargon and activities and also have the ability to refuse claims without any accountability. The proposed changes must address these major malfunctions of the current legislation.
The simple changes in the processing of applications would reduce budgetary issues for DVA since DVA would not have to pay these medical-legal specialists to review the same case.

In conclusion, the proposal should reflect that totally new legislation should be brought in to deal with Veterans issues.

Police Federation of Australia

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: Police Federation of Australia (PFA) submission (PDF 1.95 MB)

Not The Whole Problem

Good afternoon

Whilst there can be no doubt that the legislative minefield within which OVA must operate is a major issue, sadly that is not the full extent of the problems that frustrates veterans, particularly those claiming for permanent impairment compensation, to the point where they are overwhelmed to the point of taking their own lives. Specifically I am referring to "the method for assessing Defence-related claims under DRCA is provided by Part 2 of Comcare's Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment - Edition 2.1 (the Current Guide)". The Current Guide has recently undergone some (largely superficial) revision, references to Divisions 1 and 2, Impairment Tables and Figures of Part 2 of the Current Guide are unchanged.
And therein lies the problem. Permit me to illustrate with an example from the above mentioned Part 2; in fact from "Table 9.2 Lower Extremity".
In that Table it attaches a percentage rating to the level of disability as follows:

For a 10% "rating" it prescribes "loss of less than half normal range of movement of hip or knee"- ie up to 49% disability For 20% "rating" we have "loss of half normal range of movement of hip or knee"- ie 50% disability For 30% "rating" It states "loss of more than half normal range of movement of hip or knee" ie 51% to 99% disability For 40% "rating" (the maximum) it demands "ankylosis of hip or knee" - ie 100% disability.

So, for 48% of the range of disability (51%-99%) there is no accomodation or allowance whatsoever. Nor any explanation as to why that is the case.

Try communicating to a veteran suffering with a clinically Determined loss of hip or knee function of 95% why he is being treated exactly the same as a veteran with only 55% clinically Determined loss of function.

And we are surprised that so many of them lose all faith if the so-called "welfare" organisation in place for vets and simply give up ... or worse.

Let's face it, it is going to take years for the proposed legislative reform to come about. Maybe we could do more than the superficial tinkering with "The Guide" that's going on in a more meaningful timeframe, and in so doing demonstrate some genuine intent to improve the lot of veterans.

Australian War Widows NSW

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: AWWNSW Submission – May 2023 (PDF 395 KB)

Consortium of SA Ex-Service Organisations’ Submission - Feedback in Response to the Commonwealth Government’s Proposed Veterans’ Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway

This letter is written on behalf of 19 ex-service and associated veteran entities. Collectively our membership includes the vast majority of the veteran population that reside in South Australia.

In our submission to the Productivity Commission we supported the recommendation harmonising the initial liability process across the three veteran support Acts. However, we strongly recommended that such legislative action should be reinforced by the introduction of a ‘No detriment provision” to ensure no veteran is disadvantaged

We have noted in its interim report in August 2022 the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide recommended, “The Australian Government should develop and implement legislation to simplify and harmonise the framework for veterans' compensation, rehabilitation and other entitlements.”

We have given careful consideration to the issue proposed in the consultation document of establishing an improved Military Rehabilitation & Compensation Act (MRCA) as the sole ongoing scheme and agree in principle with this proposal. It has huge advantages in terms of reducing complexity and advocate training, but there are some significant issues which need grand parenting.

We do not, however, agree that this should remain the title of the new act.

We recommend a new title that is different from the three current acts is chosen. This will reduce any confusion between the “old MRCA“and “new MRCA. We are suggesting that the title be simple and veteran focused. A suggested new name for the Act is the Veterans Compensation Act.

We agree there should be a legislative mechanism for veterans to have a causal connection to their service presumed for certain commonly claimed and accepted conditions. We support the introduction of presumptive acceptance of diagnosed conditions based on the veteran’s employment.

We note the commitment by the Government that all existing arrangements will be grand parented to ensure there is no reduction in entitlements currently being or previously received by veterans and current payment rates will be maintained and indexed normally.

We note and support the government commitments to making the existing Veterans’ Review Board the first point of administrative appeal for all claims, the merging of the existing Repatriation Commission and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the establishment of a Ministerial Advisory Council providing advice direct to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.

We agree to the Statements of Principles and two standards of proof being retained in the harmonised legislation.

We have noted that the current MRCA does not have a section in the Act which defines a veteran.

We recommend that this issue is addressed in the definitions section of the new Act

We are suggesting a new procedure which we believe could enhance the processing of veterans’ claims by facilitating the introduction of DVA accepting claims as they are advised to them by the Department of Defence. The Department has been providing injury/health reports to DVA on all veterans for several years now.
Instead of veterans claiming for an injury caused by their ADF service it would be less stressful to veterans if the obvious broken leg, back strain and the like be accepted and added to their DVA file. Once they leave the ADF the obvious conditions are already accepted and veterans can get treatment immediately.

The areas of concern for us and for which we are seeking clarity are

Smoking

The MRCA precludes smoking as a factor for all conditions, however the DRCA and VEA allow smoking as factors for several conditions. In particular, for War Like service or where traumas are involving life threatening events, bullying, sexual assault etc. peer group pressure will not be accepted.
We recommend that Veterans with DRCA or VEA service can use smoking as a factor if relevant to new and sequelae claimed conditions.

Special Rate Disability Pension (SRDP)

Special Rate Disability Pension (SRDP) is the MRCA equivalent of what is commonly referred to as TPI under the VEA. SRDP is offset against Incapacity payments, Permanent Impairment payments and Comsuper Class A and B pensions. In many cases when SRDP is offered there is no payment made due to offsetting. Under the VEA TPI Special Rate the disability compensation payment is only offset if you claim for the same condition under the DRCA and accept that payment.

We recommend that all VEA current above General Rate disability compensation payments be retained under the provision of the VEA including EDA, Intermediate and Special Rates and this be included in grand parenting of current benefits.

Extreme Disablement Adjustment (EDA)

The MRCA has no EDA equivalent for Veterans that under VEA can request an Application for Increase when their conditions worsen thus allowing for further increase to 70 impairment points and Lifestyle Rating of 6 in general these are Veterans that are incapable of looking after themselves and require high level of assistance or have been moved to an Aged Care Facility.
In general, these are our most vulnerable Veterans and they would receive very little if anything due to their advanced age in most cases.
We recommend the VEA Veterans retain this benefit for future use and it is included into the grand parenting of current benefits.

Incapacity for Service/Work payments Removal of the 5% superannuation deduction

Incapacity for Service/Work payments under the MRCA for some reason have a 5% superannuation deduction. In the consultation workshop in Adelaide on 20 April 2023, we were unable to obtain a reason for this deduction. The only explanation offered was that incapacity payments should be less than a person’s wages. This unsatisfactory and indefensible.

We recommend that the new legislation discontinues the 5% superannuation deduction.

Backlog of Initial Liability and Permanent Impairment claims

The 3 current Acts have led to a backlog of Initial Liability and Permanent Impairment claims processing as delegates need to be trained usually under an individual Act and the benefits between the 3 Acts.
We recommend the new act has grand parenting of DRCA and VEA entitlements/benefits with a “No Detriment” clause and no time limit to ensure all VEA/DRCA clients are not disadvantaged.

Currently under the MRCA it can take 3-4 years for a Veterans to have a condition’s Initial Liability (IL) accepted and to receive a Permanent Impairment (PI) payment for that condition. These are considered as two separate claims and require the Veteran to undertake 2 separate medical examinations by their treating health professional if they have one, and if not, they are required to attend a DVA contracted medico-legal health professional appropriate to their claimed condition.

This often leads to Veterans disengaging with DVA due to the lengthy process and feeling they have to repeat what they have already told their health professionals; We have also noted health professionals have complained that this is an additional workload on them.

We recommend that all future claims under the new Act allow the veteran the option to have the PI assessment conducted as part of the IL process to simplify the process and reduce the financial and mental strain on veterans when having to wait 3-4 years to ensure their financial security for them and their families.

Veterans Gold Card

Currently VEA and MRCA provide a Veterans Gold Card (GC) based on the level of impairment to the Veteran in general 60 impairment points. However, SRDP allows for a GC to be granted for 50 impairment points. A GC can also be provided to veterans with qualifying service on reaching 70 years of age and spouses and children of deceased Veterans can receive a GC in several circumstances
We recommend that the new act grandparents VEA GC entitlement for veterans, spouses and children.

Sequelae Conditions

MRCA currently does not have a provision to extend liability to a sequela condition so veterans with known knee condition have to lodge another IL claim for Osteoarthritis although the OA was obviously caused by the previously accepted condition.

There are many conditions that have a time limit from the original causal occurrence/accident to the clinical onset of OA in general 15 to 25 years and so if you do not claim within that time the claim is refused.

We recommend the new act includes a provision to extend liability for conditions known to be a sequela of the original accepted condition. This would reduce the workload on delegates and save veterans the imposition of having to wait for acceptance of an obvious new impairment caused by their accepted condition.

Thank you for considering our submission. Yours sincerely

CHERYL CATES
STATE PRESIDENT RSL-SA/NT

GRAHAM RUDD
FOR PRESIDENT MBMMC ADELAIDE

MAL THIELE JP
PRESIDENT VVF SA

PAUL ROSENZWEIG OAM JP
PRESIDENT NMBVAA (SA & NT Branch)

MAL THIELE JP
PRESIDENT VVF SA

PAUL ROSENZWEIG OAM JP
PRESIDENT NMBVAA (SA & NT Branch)

BOB SCHAHINGER
STATE PRESIDENT VVAA SA

ROBERT BLACK AM
PRESIDENT AFA SA

BILL HIGNETT OAM
MANAGER PLYMPTON VETERANS CENTRE

JOHN JARRETT AM
PRESIDENT KSEAFA SA

DAVID LYAS OAM
FOR STATE SECRETARY DFWA SA

JAN MILHAM
STATE PRESIDENT AUSTWARWIDOWS(SA)

CHRIS GOODFELLOW
STATE PRESIDENT PARTNERS OF VETERANS SA

MICHAEL MUMMERY OAM
STATE PRESIDENT 9RAR SA INC

FRANK LAMPARD OAM
CO-CHAIR ABORIGINAL VETERANS SA

ROBERT ATKINSON AM RFD
STATE PRESIDENT
DEFENCE RESERVES ASSOCIATION SA

LAIDLEY B FRANCIS ASM
PRESIDENT RAAMC ASSOC (SA BRANCH)

NATHAN KLINGE
CEO RSL CARE SA

PETER ATKINS
SECRETARY
FESR (Navy) Association NT/SA

Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia Inc

VVAA Inc SUBMISSION – VETERANS’ LEGISLATION REFORM PATHWAY Ref: DVA Booklet “Veterans Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway”

Proposed New System

This Association endorses in principle the proposed new system of moving to a single ongoing Act, MRCA, as the legislation for all future claims for compensation from a future date, irrespective of when and where the veteran served, or when their illness or injured occurred.

We note and support that the “Date of Claim” approach means that after a date yet to be announced all claims will be investigated and determined solely under the single Act, an amended MRCA, regardless of the service that has caused the injury, disease or death.

This support is qualified as follows;

In an amended MRCA, or under some other instrument, there is a need for the government to continue to be able to provide compensation and support after the Date of Claim for a veteran who was covered previously by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act for a condition or under circumstances which may not satisfy the requirements of the proposed amended MRCA; and
We are apprehensive that in a time of a serious defence emergency, involving a significant expansion of the manpower of the ADF and its deployment, that a future government will continue to support all the current provisions of the MRCA.
We also have a reservation that MRCA appears to have no provision that veterans currently under the VEA can, when their conditions worsen, request an increase to their pension and other benefits. We request that we be contacted on this matter by a suitable DVA officer for further discussion.

On behalf of the veterans’ community the Department should obtain written assurances from the Minister and/or the Government on the above two matters.
We also reserve the right to comment on or criticise the new arrangements when the draft legislation is made available to the public.

Further Improvements to the Veteran Support System

We note the four proposed improvements to the Veteran Support System and comment on two of them.

Veterans Review Board

We support the proposal that the VRB be the first point of administrative appeal for all claims.

We understand that the VEA is the enabling legislation for the VRB and seek advice as to how the reform programme may affect the VRB.

Repatriation Medical Authority

Similarly, we are concerned as to the effect of the proposed changes on the establishment of the RMA and its determinations. Advice on these matters is also sought.

Establish a Ministerial Advisory Council

We have not supported previously Recommendation 11.4 of the Report of the Productivity Commission, and we do NOT support the suggestion of the establishment of a Ministerial Council providing advice direct to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.

Further, we express serious concern that this proposal, (versions of which have been discussed and/or implemented without success before), has been put forward as part of this consultation package and included in this departmental booklet. We suggest this is highly inappropriate; it is out of place and should be subject to separate consultation.
If the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is of a mind to form, or consider the formation of a Ministerial Advisory Council, we would be pleased to participate in a separate dialogue with the Department and the Minister on this matter.

Because of the wide range of options that could be considered for such a body we also suggest that further consultation be preceded by advice as to what the ministry or department have in mind as to the composition of such a body, the process of appointment and so on.

Keeping Veterans Informed of the Outcomes of this Consultation

Many veterans are likely to be sceptical about all or some of the changes proposed in the legislative reform package, including the risk of unintended consequences. We anticipate that further proposals and/or details, including amendments to legislation, will be examined closely.

We suggest that the booklet on which we are commenting should be followed by some feedback to the veteran community, to share with them, and possibly reassure some that due process is being observed.
Yours faithfully,

Max Ball
National President

Veterans’ Legislation Reform Consultation
Submission by the Australian Federal Police Association

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: Submission by the Australian Federal Police Association (PDF 3.3 MB)

RSL Australia Legislation Reform

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: RSL Australia Legislation Reform (PDF 1.23 MB)

Submission by the Special Air Service Association (WA Branch) to Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: Submission by the Special Air Service Association (WA Branch) to Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway (PDF 5.2 MB)

Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans and Their Families

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans and Their Families (PDF 132 KB)

Operational Legal Australia’s Submission for the Veterans’ Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement: Operational Legal Australia’s Submission for the Veterans’ Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway (PDF 262 KB)

RSL Australia
Non-Liability Healthcare for Reservists

Submission attached as PDF:

Attachement 1: Letter to the Hon Matt Keogh, Minister for Veteran's Affairs and Defence Personnel (PDF 474 KB)
Attachment 2: RSL Australia Non-Liability Healthcare for Reservists (PDF 1.1 MB)

I have an accepted PTSD condition.

I get no compensation as the incident happened in 1969.

I am told as this was between Acts,

I come under the 1935 she'll shock act and no compensation is available.

Will this be reviewed and updated.

Thanks,

Could future legislation please consider automatic acceptance of certain conditions for liability and treatment - for example spine, knee and shoulder conditions that are easily linked to overuse injuries (exercise, pack marching etc). This might be the case for service of more than 3 or 5 years.

Very Concerned that this will effect the entitlement to TPI Gold Card pension to end of life.

The cut out under MRCA of pensions at Retirement age whereas VEA is ongoing Pension entitlement.

The effect this may have on War Widows, Gold Card Entitlement.

That there be no less entitlements than those that currently exist for those under the other Entitlements.

That those under ReSeal DeSeal be included for TPI/SRDP Entitlements as that is poor that the widows dont get the entitlements that they should receive.

No less entitlements and if MRCA has a higher entitlement as in Home Maintenance and outside Maintenance that all become equal if there is a advantage for those from before.

That Lawn Mowing be based on the need not restricted by number of hours per years as currently under VEA and not DRCA/MRCA.

There are many more that need to be considered and possibly the entitlement to Hearing Aids be based on needs not a Medicare payment.

Further we need to consider the effect of the lower payments DVA make for some services, like Medical, OTs, Physio, Specialists so that those in Rural areas are not disadvantaged like they currently are. Please consider this as it has caused Suicides before and will again if not bought to the same as what an employee would received in Civilian Service as in full payment for Medical Services.

A key factor in defining new legislation to be the single legislation for all veterans is that causal factors should also include those listed on the Australian Government Department of Health website. DVA SOP's for "factors that must exist" should include all factors listed on the Australian Government Department of Health website. Why does DVA think causal factors listed for civilians don't also affect veterans? One example is for GORD Gastro oesophageal Reflux Disease which has numerous discrepancies.

Department of Health What causes GORD?

Most cases of GORD are caused by a problem with the lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS). This is the muscle around at the bottom of the oesophagus (food pipe) that helps to keep the contents of the stomach from rising back up the oesophagus. The LOS can become weakened and may not close properly. This allows acid to leak up into the oesophagus, causing symptoms such as heartburn.

It’s not always clear why the LOS becomes weakened, but it’s more likely to happen in people:

who are overweight or obese

who consume lots of fatty foods, because the stomach takes longer to dispose of stomach acids after digesting a fatty meal

who consume substances which may relax the LOS such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee or chocolate

who are pregnant, due to changes in hormone levels which can relax the LOS, as well as the increased pressure on the stomach during pregnancy

who have connective tissue disorders

with a hiatus hernia, where part of the stomach pushes up through the diaphragm (the sheet of muscle which separates the abdomen from the chest)

with a condition called gastroparesis (fairly common in people with diabetes) where the stomach takes longer to dispose of stomach acid

who are feeling stressed

who smoke

who take certain medicines, such as aspirin

DVA SOP

Reasonable Hypothesis

Factors that must exist At least one of the following factors must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting gastro oesophageal reflux disease or death from gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with the circumstances of a person's relevant service:

having a hiatus hernia at the time of the clinical onset of gastro oesophageal reflux disease;
being overweight or obese at the time of the clinical onset of gastro oesophageal reflux disease;
having smoked tobacco products:
1. in an amount of at least 1.5 pack-years before the clinical onset of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; and
2. commencing at least 5 years before the clinical onset of gastro oesophageal reflux disease; and if smoking has ceased before the clinical onset of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, then that onset occurred within 1 year of cessation; Note: one pack-year is defined in the Schedule 1 - Dictionary.
consuming an average of at least 300 grams of alcohol per week for at least the 1 year before the clinical onset of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; Note: Alcohol consumption is calculated utilising the Australian Standard of 10 grams of alcohol per standard alcoholic drink.
undergoing surgery to the region of the oesophageal hiatus or surgery involving the fundus or body of the stomach, within the 6 months before the clinical onset of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; Note: Examples of surgery include oesophageal dilatation, bariatric surgery (such as laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy) and per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).
taking a drug from the Specified List 1 of drugs at the time of the clinical onset of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; Note: Specified List 1 of drugs is defined in the Schedule 1 - Dictionary.
having a disease from the specified list of diseases at the time of the clinical onset of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; Note: specified list of diseases is defined in the Schedule 1 - Dictionary.
being pregnant at the time of the clinical onset of gastro-oesophagealreflux disease;
having diabetes mellitus at the time of the clinical onset of gastro oesophageal reflux disease; (10) performing or practising as a wind instrument musician:
1. for an average of at least 25 hours per week; and
2. for a cumulative period of at least 1 year before the clinical onset of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; and if those activities have ceased before the clinical onset of gastro oesophageal reflux disease, then that onset occurred within 30 days of cessation;

The submission may be published but any identifying references of me are NOT to be included. Name withheld etc.

The existing MCRA has age limits on when compensation can be paid.

The assumption is you go straight onto the Age Pension and live happily ever after.

I am on the Age Pension but receive nothing. Others cannot get onto the Age Pension for many reasons. others lose it because of Centrelink rule changes eg me.

If you work (after age pension age) eg as a sole contractor etc getting "pin" money, then you are severely disadvantaged as they will not restore your lost/future income either.

Further the use of SOPs is fraught with danger. For example: the current claim forms want to know how many times you lift/pushed/pulled something and that criteria is fallacious. One wrong turn whilst lifting can cripple. I asked the SOP Administering Committee to recognize this eventuality and they told me as I was not an orthopedic surgeon just a safety manager (expert) hence "go away"!

Also, if the DVA in-house doctors decide something it is irrefutable despite top neurosurgeons with their diagnosis is of little value in the progress of a claim. You cannot challenge it either as DVA refuse to provide the doctor/panel qualifications and evidence used etc.

MCRS also will look for the slightest evidence of "escape" from liability even if they have to go to the lowest form of evidence. Further they have the medical profession prejudices to orthopods, other in-house specialists, DVA referred to specialists, then your own doctors, then allied health etc.

I submitted a claim in 2017 and was finalized by a cute trick of legal chicanery at an interlocutory hearing in NOV23. The AAT deciding there was no new evidence when there blatantly was. It was never properly tested by a full Hearing. The use of Barristers at the new VRB/AAT should be banned and the assessing DO should represent the Dept. That evens the representation.

I have made many submissions to Parliament, Dept of Productivity, DVA, Royal Commissions and every aspect has been ignored. No-one is seriously listening to the claimants and the sagas they go through. After my back injuries which were initially claimed in 1980 ended up in two lots of surgery and SEQUALAE damages the interlocutory Hearing dismissed them in late 23.

SEQUALAE results of injuries should be accepted but the legislation says NO!

Trying to prove chemical affected you is nigh on impossible. No-one ever is tested for â€œhow they are in totoâ€ when they join the Service so when degradation sets in either slowly or rapidly in a one off effect, there is nothing in the way of SOPs or similar examples to help prove such a case. F111 aircraft GOOP is one blatant example and another for Agent Orange - the Government stepped in.

There is a lot of work to be done to make the system fairer. No fault claiming (see previous para) would remove formidable barriers. The clients then to be case managed so their injuries are best treated or recognized as permanent and then compensated accordingly. TAC in Victoria is a case in point but has severely culture problems too primarily due to funding/staffing/workload issues. Same as DVA!

The use of Allied Health specialists is also limited. You cannot go to a Physio and Exercise Physiologist (EP) on the same day as even for slightly different aspects eg knee issues requiring massage/hands-on and the EP does more intensive exercising but NOT hands on. In a Rehab Centre the physio can see you twice a day but not in private practice.

I have footwear issues and medical grade footwear is required. DVA will provide golf shoes but not walking/GYM/bushwalking footwear. That restricts and demoralizes the claimant.

DVA MCRS needs a marked attitude /culture change and become helping not hindering oriented.

It is all about money and the claimant will always lose!

I am happy to discuss any aspect of my submission but I can guarantee no-one again will be interested.

Why should I stress about it - because I care!

Every time the act is changed, veterans miss out, as an advocate, if the act becomes one, it should cover all veterans regardless of when they served from their time of enlistment even if that was pre the new act date. This is why veterans are committing suicide, for example, a veteran joined after the VEA act, discharged before the MRCA and has several periods of active/warlike service but if a lot of his or her injuries are out side the VEA period covered under the period that he served (mostly DRCA) he or she has no entitlement to a Gold Card as DRCA has no gold card entitlement. This is a major impediment to those that had war service and although injured in that period may not get enough impairment points under the VEA for his or her active service covered under the VEA during their or period service between 1994 and 2004. This is a gross injustice and why service members are committing suicide.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts.

I would like to see that all ex service members who have served operationally be entitled to a gold card. This would reduce the claims for treatment which has a follow in effect to other claims.

Personnel who don't have active service should go through the current process.

Statement of Principles, have not numbered how many of these SOP factors are based on whether or nor the member was obese, the obesity if based on service life and any prime claim on these lines is approved. If a member I'd not classed as obese at any time near the prime injury or disease then they don't have a factor to claim against and hence although service related the claim will not be approved.

I have concerns regarding the proposed Veterans Entitlements Legislation Reforms particularly in regards to Grandfathering DRCA.

DRCA is the only act that does not have provision for entitlement to a GOLD Card and the timely treatment and approval for services and aids required by a veteran with accepted conditions.

DRCA is only ever entitled to a WHITE Card and therefore under this ACT even with accepted conditions a Veteran is forced to wait for approval that can take many weeks or months for appliances, aids or specialist advised treatment e.g. Approval for Cortisone Injections for an accepted condition. This wait for approval for treatment can have a severe impact on a Veterans Mental Health due to the veteran living with increased pain for an unnecessarily long period of time. Also, due to the condition/s deteriorating and mobility declining that then effects all aspects of the veterans life and can impact of the family and young children of veterans.

I am all for the amalgamation of the 3 ACTs so that no veteran is worse off.

But by not addressing the detrimental effects of the DRCA act upon veterans who have already been accepted under this act is cruel. DRCA makes you feel like a second class veteran. For instance, a DRCA veteran may have more of a disability than another veteran covered by VEA or MRCA but the DRCA veteran will never recieve a GOLD card and White card means you wait for everything and it does not guarantee approval. The long wait and then shock of getting declined for an appliance for an accepted condition affects a veterans mental health.

DRCA means that every sequalae condition must be submitted as a new claim for approval and subject to waiting up to 2 or more years. In this time because this sequalae condition is not allocated to a delegate and it is not accepted then the veteran is not able to get treatment through DVA - even though it is due to the veterans original accepted condition/s and therefore the veteran is made to suffer.

I believe DRCA causes Mental Health issues with the amount of paperwork, administration, new sequalae claims lodged, waiting for approval for medical care and services for accepted conditions and pleading for assistance with the Department of Veteran Affairs.

As a DRCA veteran I value timely treatment and care above anything else. DRCA only Veterans deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity of medical care as veterans covered by the other ACTs.

The proposed grandfathering of DRCA claims already accepted and/or new claims submitted prior to the new commencement date of the new ONE ACT for all veterans would be not in the best interests of a DRCA only veteran. I can not see how the new proposed ACT for all veterans could be any worse than DRCA is for a veteran. Please consider DRCA and the detrimental Mental Health effects of Grandfathering this ACT may have on it's veterans.

I support the transfer of all DRCA claims into the MRCA or the new one ACT for all veterans.

Any amendment to the system that simplifies it without eroding effectiveness and support (both financial and non tangible) should be applauded. That being said, the below statement is of concern:

"The proposal is to move to a single ongoing veterans' entitlement scheme. However, it is subject to the outcomes of these consultations and their consideration in the context of budgetary constraints."

Whilst budgetary constraints are always relevant in determining any new or amendment to existing Government Policy, in the instance of Veteran Affairs it should hold the bare minimum weight. Improving the system that supports the health and well being of veterans should never be watered down because it's expensive. At all times, personnel who sign up to the ADF write a blank check up to an include their lives. They place the Defence of Australia's security and interest beyond their own and they deserve unwavering support in recognition of this fact. The effects of Australia's longest military campaign (Middles East) plus the increasing geopolitical threat in the South Pacific will most likely lead to greater demand on DVA and the system needs to be ready for this; whatever the financial cost.

Streamiling the claims process is a good idea but any change to the process MUST NOT negatively affect entitlements when compared to the old schemes.

Changes MUST NOT water down the amounts provided under each scheme regardless of when the claim is made compared to when the injury occured.

My only interaction with the system was when, around 2004-5, I submitted a claim for bi-lateral plantar fasciitis. The doctor I was sent to by DVA stated that my condition was caused by "marching, running and walking" (activities that I undertook predominantly in the Army and Air Force), yet he also stated that it was not attributable to Defence activity.

I submitted an appeal myself which, from memory, was rejected without explanation. This left me confused and highly jaded.

I have had multiple health issues in Defence since (including my ongoing plantar fasciitis) but have been reticent to attempt to make a claim due to my previous experience with DVA and volunteer advocates.

I believe the government should fund positions for one or more truly independent advocate in each posting locality so that members may access consistent advice. The system still appears to be highly combative in nature and there still seems to be an assumption of no-fault on Defence's behalf.

I can only see it as aq positive step moving forward. I have been waiting nearly three years for my claim to move, and still not answer. I have been sexually assaulted, but Defence didn't recognise it, as it didn't happen on base. But the amount of times, I have attempted suicide on many occassions, thankfully I didn't succeed. I am much stronger from the support of my family and Open Arms. Please do something to fix the broken system. We don't need to lose anymore veterans.

I am a TPI veteran living in an Australian Social Security International Reciprocal Agreement country, .

Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Reform:

Please examine Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 VEA (in particular 38 H subsection 2), the Australian Social Security International Reciprocal Agreement, and also the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021.

There are conflicting issues and to broadly outline:

Living outside Australia, in order to receive a VEA Service Pension SP, you must be qualified and receiving an Australian Social Security payment.
2018. In my case I qualified for the Australian Age Pension AAP, received payment then transferred to the SP.
For my wife to be eligible for the Partner Service Pension, she had to be receiving an Australian Social Security payment. My being a TPI she applied for the Australian Social Security Carer Payment CP (recognizing the international reciprocal agreement entitlement) at the same time I lodged my AAP claim.
2018. Centrelink declined CP because although I may have qualified for a Disability Support Pension DSP any payment would have been reduced to Nil because I was receiving VEA TPI compensation. I had to be receiving a DSP amount greater than Nil in the first instance. Catch 22 exists.

CURRENT CONFLICTING LEGISLATION

BLOCKING ACCESS TO VETERAN'S WIFE ENTITLEMENTS

I have been by DVA assured that if I predecease my wife she will automatically and immediately receive the War Widows Pension because I am a TPI veteran.

I was determined a Totally and Permanently Incapacitated TPI veteran in 2003. Realistically my wife would have immediately been eligible to the Partner Service Pension because I was a TPI noting that there is no Age qualification for the partner.

CONCLUSION

This whole case matter provides what could be considered a typical insight for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide RC, that is the delays in DVA administrative processing and interpreting legislation.

The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021 â€“ this legislation is a tidal shift and indeed looking at the case matter above, , illustrates the confounding and conflicting pieces of legislation.

For veterans and families living overseas particularly in Social Security International Reciprocal Countries there must be a much more transparent insight to any new Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Reform.

My wife, anticipating immediate and automatic CP eligibility and transfer to a VEA Partner Service Pension submitted her claim to Australian Social Security in .

To reduce the mental distress to members,

Communication during the process MUST be improved.
Wait times MUST be reduced.

I submitted a claim () prior to discharge (). The matter was decided upon in (which was expedited due to homelessness at that time). It only needed a few hours of review to come to the conclusion! It was a claim for NIHL which was a loss of 40db at certain frequencies relating to the Gas Turbine noise which now reduces my ability to decipher between conversations and background noise and therefore my ability to effectively communicate. The injury was related to defence not briefing me on the hazard, no sign postings, and directing me to engage in an evolution where the hazard was recognised through multiple noise surveys and a Class Noise Management Plan, but not made aware of onboard to Ship Staff. It was completely preventable.

Eventually, the permanent injury claim was recognised as having occurred as a result of my service, however not enough to be compensated. During this greater than 2 year wait, NO communication was provided to me by DVA without me first requesting an update. The responses then were simply the same message repeated - "the expected time frame is unknown" due to a changing variety of reasons they provided which conflicted their own previous advice.

The lack of communication is horrendous over such a long time. It is mentally challenging. The member does not know if the claim has been lost or resolved or needing further information and begins to impact life in other ways such as confidence, happiness, increased frustration and wellbeing. Lack of communication open up the air of ambiguity. Members live with the injury everyday, while waiting for these claims to be reviewed and decided upon and for resolution. Even though I was not compensated, having the determination was better than not knowing when it would be determined, even if the result was not as positive as I was led to believe from comparable members who have claimed the same injury and also from advice sought independently.

Without resolving the lack of numbers to review cases within the department (which I imagine is a priority due to the extreme wait time), an interim solution might be to give a position number which can be visible through the members MyGov application. If the time frame is extensive, ie greater than 1 month, advice in the form of a phone call or email from the department should be given to the member at wait time milestones to check in with the member and offer support options should they need it, but also to confirm the position of their claim within the system.

An updated position number relevant to where they are within the system which indicates that the case is progressing and still in hand. This might indicate that they have progressed 1%, 10%, 50% etc as a rough guide, but progressing none the less, which is better than zero communication and responses to indicate there is no known expected end date.

Wait times without an end date (I asked if the wait would be greater than 5 or 10 years, I was told they could not advise me if it would be less than 10 years!) are mentally torturous over such an extended time, even more so without any idea of how much longer, and even more horrendous without any communication from the department where the member making the claim is for the vast majority only making the claim with the genuine belief that the injury occurred while serving their country during service. The resultant perception is that the Govt doesn't prioritise these injuries as a result of their employment within the Govt.

This can only place a burden on the member in the form of mental anxiety or worse, either creating a new psychological issue, or compounding an existing issue and in cases demonstrated over the previous years which made national headlines, this can lead directly to tragic consequences.

Something needs to change.

For current serving members, liability should be considered at time of injury. For example, when a member is downgraded and a diagnosis is confirmed, the treating Defence doctor should have a streamlined and easy form to tick or information feeds into MyService confirming diagnosis and that the injury is service caused (removing the need for the claim to be reviewed by a MAC). This claim can then be fast tracked through the DVA with only the link to SOP factor needed before determination. This will reduce the backlog on transition and help break down the stigma in ADF about lodging claims. Claim lodgement should be mandatory before a member can be upgraded after injury.

Key Points:

Unification of system records.

DVA involvement during and after service

Non-adversarial Claim Handling

Introduction

While there are a number of issue which affect veterans from Singapore/Vietnam era onward, the main focus of this response is about the successful set-up of the way forward for ADF-DVA collaboration and appropriate aftercare for ex-service personnel and veterans. The main areas for going forward are in the unification of system records, inclusive involvement of DVA both during and after service, and the education and standardisation of DVA call-centres and advocates.

Unification of system records

One of the major factors creating dissatisfaction in the current interactions between veterans and DVA is the sense that members have to justify their service. While initial recommendations were aimed at the inclusion of veteran's services inside the Department of Defence rather than a separate Department; understandably this would be quite an upheaval and would more than likely have an adverse effect on the veterans currently dealing with the process. In order to achieve the same outcome, the actual system of recording medical and deployment data during service, should be the very system that DVA can access. I am aware of projects currently underway to facilitate better health intelligence within the ADF and I understand there is scope to include DVA access to this database. These are great steps forward, but they need to be scrutinised and effectively monitored to ensure the project completion and its fit-for-purpose design meets both ADF needs, and that it facilitates the smother transition of information from ADF to DVA. In the near future, members should expect to transition from ADF, knowing full well that their correct service record and medical history is correctly annotated and represented inside the DVA system. The heartache of trying to justify to a non-military member why a deployment to a certain area in a certain role had physical impacts created solely by 'doing their job' should be almost alleviated, notwithstanding isolated incidents.

DVA involvement during and after service

Apart from the continuation of the benefits from unification of the system records, the involvement of DVA during the member's service allows for timely collection of relevant data. At the completion of operational service, there are currently medical and psychological interviews and assessments done. DVA assessments should be done following the return to unit of these members as well, but obviously subsequent to the first two assessments. Trying to determine the psychological impact of a deployment after the member has completed numerous deployments during a 20-year career, leaves out many details that could have a way of explaining future injuries or ailments. In the instances where members do not deploy but still serve, a DVA interview at the same frequency as the biennial medical assessment would allow more fidelity in the career information recorded.

Non-adversarial Claim Handling

I am aware of the significant effort made by the majority of DVA staff to be less adversarial, and I do thank them for that. However, in some cases in person but most definitely via formal correspondence, the instinctive response from DVA is negative. Not Service Related when clearly there are no other factors that could have contributed to the injury or illness. I would be happy to provide examples of the Blatant â€œNoâ€ responses to claim although I am hoping the members will raise it themselves. (Note: some of the more senior members who have had rejected legitimate claims, are of the selfless / old school mentality and will probably err on the side of 'never mind â€“ there are others worse off than me'). I do understand that there are claimants who are clearly after more than deserved and again, the previous two points will serve to limit the prevalence of these claimants.

I thank you for the opportunity to raise these points and look forward to seeing improvements in the process for future veterans and their families.

More than happy to discuss further if required.

Kind regards.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment at this early stage. I'd like to register my strong support for the simplification and consolidation of veteran legislation - anything to assist those that have served to better access support and services.

I'd also like to raise the issue of Defence civilians (APS members) who are force-assigend and accompany the ADF on operations. There are not that many of us, but we have a history of service in warzones and conflict alongside the ADF - especially APS members form AGO, ASD, DIO and IP Division. We have often lived and worked in the exact same conditions and under the same threats as the ADF, and some of my former collegues suffer form the sam types of halth issues as a reuslt of their service.

I'd like to see the review and update to veteran legislation specifically address coverage for these few (probably a few hundred) 'civilian veterans'. A biut of an odd term, but apt.

As a former ADF member and veteran too, i recieved a white card from DVA when I left the Army, including coverage for mental health issues should I need it. I'm surprised and disappointed that my former Defence civilian veterans don't have the same coverage and entitlements, and may struggle to make out an adequate case through existing APS-wide WHS / Rehabilitation mechanisms. I'd propose to extend coverage to these 'civilan veterans' in the same way things operate for ADF veterans now. Thanks

As an Ex-serviceman with many recognised conditions I categorically reject the grandfathering provision proposed. As always the proposed grandfathering arrangements will always be written with the intent to limit financial exposure and extinguish legitimate claims under all previous legal legislation. This is typical Government behaviour.
Having had conditions recognised under the previous schemes the access to these schemes must not be (R) extinguished via legislation because DVA thinks its "too hard" to manage going forward. I say manage the process better. Train your employees better to manage complex claims. DVA could better manage claims if they did not take such an adversarial roll.
The intent of proposing "prescribe presumptively accepted conditions" seems quite salacious. Maybe that is the intended purpose. When we all know this will be limited to a ridiculously small number of conditions which are likely to be termed "No compensable" which then have no baring to overall claim assessment and or processing. Speeding up the claims process is laughable when DVA does not have a simple effective customer facing electronic claim system and I can say with absolute confidence it will not have a simple electronic customer claims interface in the next 10 years.
I also noticed in the literature this is all surrounded by the term "Budgetary Constraints". This term is always used by public servants and Governments to limit its exposure to legitimate work-related injury claims. It really is time for the Government to put on its Big Boy pants and accept this area is a legislative muddle that has existed since they introduced DRCA.

Having served my country I consider Grandfathering to be a timebomb that the Veteran community cannot accept. And a poor attempt by Government to limit financial exposure.

I think combining all benefits under one Act is a great idea but am very worried about grandfathering and what this would mean for those covered under DRCA.

If the Acts are to be combined, it would be extremely unfair on Veterans currently under DRCA not to have access to the same entitlements as they would under MRCA or a new Act like MRCA.

I have recently had some claims approved under DRCA with a combined whole person impairment of over 300% yet cannot access benefits like a gold card, eligible young person payments for education, or even vehicle registration discounts those under VEA or MRCA can access with a similar impairment level.

It feels discriminatory to be denied these benefits, like I'm a second-class veteran. These benefits can make a huge difference to managing complex serious injuries.

White cards are also logistically difficult to use. This card is often not even accepted by practitioners, who are frequently confused about what is claimable. As an example I have dental wear and dental caries covered, but there's confusion about whether I can use my white card to claim for dental cleaning or other preventative treatments. A gold card would resolve this constant difficulty.

Giving more veterans access to gold cards would also be likely to reduce claims overall. I am covered for a severe eating disorder, however this has caused issues with my bone density, laryngeal reflux, bowel issues, sinus issues, ear infections etc. I am going to have to go through the process of claiming all of these issues individually, and each claim will have to go through a two year backlog and arduous claims process, just for me to be able to treat these issues caused by my accepted eating disorder. Yet if I had a gold card I wouldn't need to make these claims, I could just have treatment covered. Instead, I'm forced to claim each condition separately and it is honestly hell, when all I want is treatment.

White cards are fine if a veteran has one condition or a mild condition to manage, but with many serious conditions they are a logistical nightmare, and dealing with red tape a constant struggle and this struggle has caused my mental health conditions to worsen.

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

You cannot remove the death benifit for the surviving spouse under MRCA for veterans with 80 impairment, or SRDP eligible.

In most instances spouses have followed veterans around the country through their careers and have in most instances not had the ability to earn significant superannuation through successful careers.

It would be inequitable to do this.

I do not support the changes stopping all spouses/ family's receiving the ADF members pension when they pass away. We family members are the ones that would have supported and cared for our spouses due to their medical incapacitation and have supported them throughout their ADF career and should be entitled to their pension as we have provided the support for our spouses and their families therefore supporting our nation and should be entitled to their pension to continue to support our families. We have also mad sacrifices for our country

How is it fair that the family's who have support the members, who life's are uprooted and changed at a moments notice and in some causes the only income is from the member not be allowed to receive the members pension upon their death like past generations have received. It's like the government is saying that family's do not matter.

The recommendation to remove the automatic eligibility for MRCA dependent benefits is an absolute disgrace! How can Labor say they care about families and even consider this change? Defence & Veteran Families deal with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge and, once separated, the impacts are lifelong. There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving community. How can Labor consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service?

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. So if my husband who I'm moved around the country and world with changing and losing jobs dies i will get nothing. That's great, thanks for that! So easy for politicians who have never even seen war to decide, because it doesn't affect them one little bit. Not to mention the years ive been out of work to raise our kids. Ridiculous Australian government

As the wife of a serving member of over 25 years of service a multiple warzone deployments if thing this legislation both disgusting and insulting to both my husband and myself and our family. Heaven forbit something happens to my husband who has dedicated his entire adult life to serving his country, uprooting us year after year to start again on the whim of the defence force you would think the least you could do is provide us with some peace of mind and stability if the unthinkable was to happen! Not just hang us out to dry. The fact this is even being considered is mind blowing and I urge you strongly to listen to thousands of wives and partners this with detrimentally effect. And we wont go quietly I can assure you !!

My husband is a current serving member of the ADF and I am very concerned about the proposed legislation changes being put forward.

The plan to eliminate ongoing payments upon the death of a veteran is distressing because I believe most families have had to sacrifice just as much as members during their service and in the period post discharge in caring roles if members end up with physical or physiological injury as a result of the service.

Family entitlements should not change to further exclude/isolate the veteran community.

As I understand it under the proposed legislation a veteran who received 80+ impairment points and receives will no longer pass that pension entitlement to their spouse if the veteran dies.

This is not acceptable. Many spouses face incredible difficulties in maintaining a career due solely to their serving spouse. Issues with frequent postings, long activities, deployments and more often mean that maintaining employment as the spouse of a serving member is next to impossible. I am an experienced professional with sought after skill set and even I have faced these difficulties. It's the spouse who cares for their veteran partner who is injured by the defence force, again, often at a personal cost to their own employment.

This is a patently unfair decision that will primarily affect women.

Ensure the benefits transfer to the serving members spouse on the veterans death.

I am concerned that the DRCA veterans will be well of again. No entitlement for gold card again. When will all governments listen to the DRCA veterans

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

Do not cease automatic entitlement pension benefit under the MRCA, widowed partners, families, children deserve ongoing support for the sacrifices they made through their partners service.

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

These changes are absolute rubbish! A military career is not just served by the member it is also served by their partner and children. Often partners will move thousands of k's away from family and friends, sometimes internationally in support of a members career. Partners/spouses give up careers to adjust to the continuous moving. Spouses and partners are also the front line when dealing with injuries acquire through service, so again I state a military career is not just served by the member. Without families the government would have much more mental health cases & issues to deal with: Spouses & partners are the front line support for members and see the good the bad and the ugly. They attend Defence functions, they volunteer on defence community services etc, they support other defence families during times of hardship and need (away, sick member, dead member, marriage difficulties). These careers are not just careers they are lifestyles and to take this away from a members partner or spouse who has sever along side a member for the duration of their career is a massive kick in the guts. We already have to deal with a lifestyle that is hugely out of our control, now you want to take our liveliehood also when so many of us have given up independence to have our own careers.

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

Instead of taking entitlements away from veteran spouses and children that have already suffered and sacrificed enough for their injured members you look into people who abuse the system for example who claim injuries that aren't service related and are genetically faulty or jeopardise recovery and also exaggerate/lie about their limitations while still living their best lives. Take away from the bad not the deserving.

To whom it may concern,

With regards to recommendation 14.8. The Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because

My husband has been a serving member for 10 years now.

While I am not the one who is serving I am the one who makes it possible for my husband to serve. I make it possible for him to be away from home for months at a time.

I look after our home, our children and his well-being.

I have given up my career aspirations, my family and my self identity, all in order for him to serve his country and do the job he loves to do.

Unless you live the life we do, you can never understand the hardships and sacrifices we go through. If you did truly understand, then you would never consider taking any benefits away from us.

We deserve to be acknowledged.

We make it possible for our country to have defence members.

I love our country and I am proud to be a defence force spouse. Please don't change my opinion by changing our benefits.

If something were to happen to my husband while he was serving our country, then it is only right and fair that we are cared for.

While it is his job to go where his country needs him, it is our right to be protected if the worse should happen.

We support more often than we demand so please don't take away what should rightfully be given to those unfortunate enough to require it.

To say that reform is long overdue would be an understatement, but the fear that many veterans have is that it won't be done with the Veterans' best interest at the forefront. To merge all three Acts would require an 'even playing field' in terms of the entitlements and benefits available. For example, the entitlement for students of Veterans under VCES/MRCAETS is vastly different. Would those currently receiving VCES be eligible for the $89,000 lump sum per student? Alternately, will those under MRCAETS receive the fortnightly student allowance? This is 1 example of the disparity between the Acts. How will the government seek to reconcile this and other mismatched entitlements? To suggest that the previous entitlements will remain unaffected as the 'New Act' is introduced suggests that there will in fact be 4 Acts that Veterans fall under, correct?

The key issue though is delivery times. This commenced in 2017 with the Senate's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, then in 2019 the Productivity Commission's Report A Better Way to Support Veterans, finishing with the Royal Commission into veteran Suicide in 2022. The findings of the RC will not be presented until June 2024. SEVEN YEARS!

It took seven years to make a decision that something needed change, and during that time numerous Veterans have taken their lives or passed away without the support they deserved. How long will it take for these new initiatives to be completed and for the new Act to be legislated?

As a "young" Veteran () with 14 years service under my belt, I find it ludicrous that the government is trying to find a way to save money by NOT supporting Veteran families, just cutting the cord after the Ex serving member passes and relinquishing their (the government's) obligations.

No matter what job they did, every current and ex serving person sacrificed a LOT to serve their country, without expectation of gold or glory. But we DID expect the support of the government of the country we dedicated our lives to, and the support and protection of that government for the people we love, especially when we are no longer there to take care of them ourselves.

I am currently going through DVA TPD/TPI due to mental and physical injuries sustained during my service which have only, really just started to show the true damage that I now deal with every day. I hope, once my claim is finalised, myself and my family can receive the support of the government I gave so much for.

When Defence is bleeding people at the moment, largely due to issues with conditions of service, the idea that you're considering removing the automatic entitlement to pension benefit under MRCA is repulsive. How dare you claim to care about families when you're considering removing potential benefits to those who support our members the most and may need them the most.

Hello my name is . My partner is currently serving in the Australian Defence Force and has done so for 20 years. I also have a brother who has been serving in the ADF for almost 15 years. As long as I have been able to vote , I was under the impression that the Labor Government are committed to looking after our Defence Force, our ADF members and their families. Now, after learning about this new proposed change (with regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits) I feel that my opinion of this current Government has been tainted and I am feeling very unsure of our future (not only my family's but the future of my brother's partner and their children) and what it could mean for us, how we would be inpacted and how much more stress/ financial hardship we would have to endure if either my partner or brother were injured or worse in a work related incident.
The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:
1) ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of a Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per the current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

My family are proud to be a Defence family! So proud, in fact, that

Please, do not punish the ADF members (and their families) who have selflessly dedicated their lives to defending our nation by taking away their dues. Please look out for us as our ADF members have done so for this country!

This is not supported, seems another way to save money at the veterans expense haven't they already done enough for their county?

It's time the government starts looking after the veterans.

As a veteran with injuries accepted under MRCA (including permanent impairment), I have a family that I would want looked after in case I passed away.

The recommendation to cease the transfer of MRCA pensions is not ok. My family has supported me through my injuries and supported me whilst I served. Removing the transfer will mean my family won't be looked after if I pass before them. I was injured and permanently impaired through my service to Australia as a member of the ADF - my family has made sacrifices and shouldn't be left worse off if I'm not here to look after them.

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

With regards to recommendation 14.8. Removal of automatic eligibility for MRCA dependant benefits.

The Australian Government should NOT amend the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 2004 (MRCA) to remove automatic eligibility for benefits for those dependents whose partner died while they had permanent impairments of more than 80 points or who were eligible for MRCA SRDP because:

ADF & Veteran Families begin dealing with the challenges of the ADF member's physical and psychological injuries LONG before they discharge. ADF families are treated like a hidden workforce, on hand to be accessed to care for the injured person when the ADF decides to medically discharge them. Once discharged, they are still unwell and, despite living with an ADF workplace acquired injury, the responsibility and burden of their care moves from the ADF to the partner and/or family;
Whilst the ADF member is compensated for their injuries, the vicarious injuries caused to the family as a whole as well as the individual family members is not compensable. It is only fair, after the passing of Veteran, that their partner or dependents continue to receive the DVA income as per current processes;
When the veteran is unwell, the whole family is unwell. Once discharged, the impacts of the ex-ADF member's injuries on the Defence family are lifelong in terms of provision and coordination of care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, loss of stability, needing to adjust to a changed outlook on the future, partners and children having to become carers and the increased risk to the family for intergenerational grief and trauma. All of this is a direct result of an ADF acquired injury and remains uncompensated.
Veteran compensation generally goes into the household and allows them to continue to provide for themselves and their families with some level of dignity. Families then come to rely on this income. A veteran in receipt of SRDP is experiencing a significant gap between their former ADF income and their current CSC income. This reduced income will have impacts on the functioning of their household. Removing a pension from this household after their death not only puts their family under increased stress, it also exposes them to additional financial pressures and the risk of homelessness.
A veteran with 80 or more impairment points is carrying significant injuries and quite often requires large amounts of support. This is widely acknowledged via DVA systems where there are mechanisms in place to help with their activities of daily living, household maintenance and garden care. DVA does not have the capacity to cover all the care needs of the veteran, so the responsibility for other day to day needs falls to their partner and children. This additional care remains uncompensated.
There is an epidemic of suicide in the current and ex serving ADF community. It is shameful how the Albanese Government can consider removing the financial support of pensions from families when there are strong possibilities their current serving/veteran family member's passing can be attributed to service. Removal of this benefit will show ADF families the Albanese Government does not care about them.

Thank you for your time.

I retired from full time Army service after . I submitted my claims to DVA in Oct 20 and they were accepted in Jun 22. My claims fall under all three service schemes ie VEA, DRCA and MRCA. My existing VEA pension has been increased but as yet my Permanent Incapacity (PI) under the DRCA and MRCA are still awaiting finalisation. This is frustrating as some of my claims have been accepted under two schemes, either VEA/DRCA or DRCA/MRCA and as yet I have had no input into which scheme I would like them dealt with. I am keen to see as many claims as possible be dealt with under the MRCA for ease of administration.

I have also found that with my claims being split under three schemes, I do not qualify under one individual scheme for a Veterans Gold Card because of the different criteria associated with each scheme. I would qualify if I was under one scheme but under three I do not meet the standards.

I understand the workload that DVA have been under and the people I have dealt with at DVA have been very supportive and understanding but their hands have been tied by the legislative framework they are obliged to follow. It is time to put the person back in personal!!

Hi I'm just wanting to outline my concerns about DVA white card billing. I am finding my 20+ listed conditions are increasingly difficult to treat with a white card, to the point where it has become almost useless. Many GPs in my local area do not accept the white card now, saying they only take gold cards (I have several severe disabilities but am only covered under DRCA so can never have access to a gold card). I find this very upsetting and have even had a new practitioner's secretary say my injury 'can't be very bad' if I 'only have a white card'. I also miss out on other measures to help veterans like discounted registration and feel like a second-class citizen, like my service wasn't as valued because I happen to have been injured a few months prior to MRCA starting up. White cards also cause a lot of confusion for practitioners e.g. when trying to access physio my physiotherapist is often very confused about what I can and can't claim. My severe back and foot injuries contribute to things like depression, obesity, poor posture, poor sleep, chronic pain and other conditions, and I could go through the claims process and try to get these accepted but that process that will take years and put a lot of stress on me. If I had a gold card I could just treat these these conditions, which would surely be better than clogging up the claims system and waiting years. Veterans with severe disabilities are almost always going to have other conditions linked to their disabilities, caused by those conditions, and having access to gold cards not only relieves the financial stress of not being able to work but allows those injuries to be treated properly so they don't ever have to become separate claims of their own.

Hi I am a spouse to a Defence force member currently servicing for 20 plus years. I have not worked instead parented our children for 18 years. Being moved all over the country and providing stability in out family while my spouse is deployed for month on time. My partner worked hard for his entitlements and our family has had his back taking a financial cut to do this. If he died in duty and all his entitlements where cut not rolled over to his family this would be financially crippling. Please rethink this change.

Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway takes shape

With regard the above announcement and planned review, I am a disabled ex serviceman with PTSD depression and anxiety due to my service and quite bad dyslexia, these conditions make it difficult for me to communicate complex ideas in a "Normal" fashion, I'm also an older veteran who is not very comfortable with web interactions.

I have had significant interaction with the DVA systems over the last 15 years and have experienced first hand how difficult they are for disabled people to navigate.

I would like to share my experiences and ideas with your Legislative Reform Consultation Pathway process, I am wondering if it's possible to discuss how best I can share both the problems I have encountered and the suggestions how they may be resolved with you ?

yours sincerely

I have worked for DVA for nearly 30 years. I remember when the MRCA legislation was being proposed and the roadshows came around and advised that as soon as the client had one condition accepted under the MRCA, all conditions would be assessed under the MRCA legislation, but that is not what happened. The reason given was that this could not legally be done. It would have made things so much easier for veterans and staff.

If the proposed legislation pathway is adopted, I can foresee it leading to some processing complexities for staff when a veteran has had Permanent Impairment claims accepted under the MRCA and DRCA in the past and now it is going to be MRCA only. However, from past experience of dealing with changes to legislation and policies, I note that this would not be a consideration.

Taking away the entitlement of a pension to a spouse is absolutely disgraceful. If my husband/wife were to become incapacitated during their service, it is unbelievable that you would alter the current arrangements of the pension automatically being transferred. I support this country by supporting my ADF partner every day of their service and beyond. I tend to his/her physical and psychological injuries at home, act as a single parent when they are deployed or on exercise, live on edge wondering when a natural disaster or heaven forbid actual war breaks out, that within 24 hours my husband/wife could be gone and not return.

Most spouses cannot work because of the frequency of postings and lack of career options and when our spouse becomes incapacitated end up being a full time carer.

To change this piece of legislation would be a smack in the face to all those supporting their ADF defacto spouse.

The MRCA act benefits Veterans in many ways, if your looking at merging the acts then the Gold card needs to stay.

I believe it will benefit veterans to only have one legislation to fall under however current entitlements need to stay.

NLHC

Gold Card

EYP

Household services

Rehabilitation

Incapacity payments

Veterans have served this country and deserve entitlements

Unfortunately, working with Veterans and ADF members I see a LOT of people using the system... I.e Tinnitus. The high volume of serving members claiming this condition, AND at the highest impairment score of 15 is unfortunate and unbelievable... especially when we just keep paying it. Fair enough there is no test, but how does someone answer a TFI questionnaire that their tinnitus is so bad it caused them to lose sleep and concentration, and then have this NOT impact their MEC rating? If we weed out the scammers, we will have more time to assist legitimate members. This is only 1 example and there are many more.

I believe WorkCover Australia have a much better system for assessing liability and DVA is making it WAY too easy. Certainly Removing the Tri Act legislation and replacing with one, would make it MUCH easier to make claims, and assess them however, I think the bigger problem nobody wants to acknowledge is that the system is clogged up with greedy money grabbers who are simply ticking the right boxes and getting massive payouts. Address this issue and we will have more time to help legitimate veterans/members in need.

When you get out of the Army, you don't care what act you are under, you just want to know that you are covered for all your medical costs. I am under three acts, my body has taken a huge physical impact due to my service history, and apparently my percentages add up to TPI, however as I am under all three acts, I am not automatically eligible. This is not ok. Having one act will be helpful for the mental health and physical health of veterans. We have served our country, when we need support, it should come without having to fight for it.

I disagree that VEA and DRCA should be closed for new claims. My experience is that whilst VEA has not kept pace with current medical diagnosis and terms it is the quickest to have a determination made.

The big problem is the backlog of claims under MRCA, by closing claims particularly under the VEA would only add to the problems.

What I do believe is that compensation and entitlements for the 3 schemes should be harmonised to ensure injured veterans with accepted claims and new claims are treated fairly. One example I have personally felt disadvantaged as a claimant under the VEA is that I cannot receive assistance with garden maintenance, but if my claim had of been made under MRCA I would be entitled.

The other disappointment with all the schemes is that the compensation whether it be General, EDA, Intermediate or TPI, do not compensate for loss of potential earnings either in the military or in civilian employment. In my case due, in particular my back injury, has left me with very limited employment categories due to my inability to lift and to sit or stand or drive for long periods. My earning potential is in the $100,000 pa, but my intermediate compensation under the VEA is around $27,000 pa. This doesn't seem fair.

I'd like to know how offsetting will be looked at my partner currently has his tpi pension effected by a fortnight he has been paying offset for and his enitial payout was he has now offset that amount twice over the legislation is unfair and unjust adding finacial hardship to his many other health issues he got defending Australia.

I hope that the legislative changes will address the disparity between the Non liability Health Care available to 1945 to 1972 National Servicemen and those who served post 5 December 1972.

Veteran injury assessments are prejudiced on whether the individual member served overseas or served within entirely in Australia.

The geographical location where an injury was sustained does not affect the assessment outcome, however assessments are influenced on overseas service, irrespective if the deployment contributed to the claimed injury.

Claim assessments must be evaluated on a serving members condition sustained in official duty, not on WWII reasoning.

Thank you,

The lack of communication between Defence, DVA, RSL, CSC etc means that ADF veterans need to keep telling their stories over and over again which is more abuse towards them. A retrospective medical discharge should be offered meaning that the ADF veteran is no worse off than if he/she had been at their time of discharge. Pensions should be backdated to time of discharge without any further submissions. The lack of information or incorrect information given to ADF veterans by RSL advocates has always been a major issue and it is why ADF veterans are still 'fighting the system' decades after their discharge.

Open Arms does not have continuity of assistance and support to ADF veterans and counselling therefore does not work long term. Many counsellors have no comprehension and understanding of military service and therefore struggle to perform their roles.

Ex-service organisations such as Younger Veterans Australia, Mates4Mates, Soldier On, Buddy Up etc are looking at alternative therapies to treat ADF veterans who have not responded to counselling and other long term treatments. Collectively they need to work together so that they are focused on ADF veterans rather than their own profiles and images.

DVA does not treat all ADF veterans equally and those of us who have been discriminated against on the basis of age (served 1970s, 1980s, 1990s or earlier). gender (females have always been a minority group with no voice) and disability (many ADF veterans internalise their PTSD conditions and therefore are disadvantaged when they eventually pursue their claims due to timeframes which is WRONG and DISCRIMINATION).

The practices and processes of the government, military and judiciary means that capping compensation is another form of discrimination. Public servants receive a $3M pay out for an attempted rape with no rape test whereas ADF personnel who undertook the DART process received a maximum of $50K. Why are public servants put on a pedestal when they do not work 24/7 and ADF veterans have family sacrifices during their service?

Written letters of apology from Department of Defence were given during the DART process and these senior ADF officers discharged within months of that process. Retrospective medical discharges should have IMMEDIATELY been given to those ADF members but this is just another form of abuse by Department of Defence. I did not receive a retrospective medical discharge until after legislation had been enacted through Parliament to prevent backdating of ADF pensions. Corruption!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ADF enlistment has been difficult even with massive TV advertising but unless ADF personnel are treated with respect and dignity, this will be an ongoing issue.

All medical files should be uploaded to mygov upon discharge for easier access to documents by both sides.

As all details and service history are already proven, please stop asking us to provide those details over and over again.

Make some processes automatic, for eg once a member has been assessed for PI with at least 50 points, send them an email stating that they could be considered for SRDP.

Stop randomly changing the names of things, makes it very confusing.

Don't send a letter stating its an interim PI payment, as it is not unreasonable to expect that seems its interim that another payment is expected. Then to find out that the interim was in fact the final. This is a massive trigger to mental health and absolutely could lead to suicide.

Don't just deny claims because a couple of dates don't match up, come back and seek clarification, save a hell of a lot of time and angst going through an appeal process.

first and foremost there must not be any loss of entitlements for any veteran - rules for gold cards, pensions must not change - eg any veteran entitled to be considered under VEA should not be disadvantaged - although government would not prefer it, the folk responsible for drafting new legislation should do so on basis that no veteran will be worse off. thank you

DVA Non-Liability Health Care card:

— Currently when a member of the ADF transitions from the services to civilian life they are issue a Non-Liability Health Care card (white card) at the end of their ADF career.

— Should this card be issued to the member after they have completed ONE day of training, the minimum requirement for a Non-Liability Health Care card, so they are then assigned a DVA File Number.

ADF Records:

— Amend the current medical forms used by the ADF to record the members DVA File Number and include a drop copy of the form to DVA.

— DVA is sent the medical record to be processed, this should include all types of reports specialist, X-ray and medical board.

— From this information DVA can start to build the medical history/background on the said member, acknowledging service-related conditions and automatically processing a claim in the background without a written application whilst the member continues to serve.

— The only compensation paid to a serving member will be for â€œloss of earningsâ€ type compensation, unable to deploy due to the accepted condition. NO lumpsum or other type of compensation is paid to the member whilst they remain in the ADF.

— March in procedures at all units must include a change of address for DVA. and

— When the member applies to Transition from the ADF, DVA is also notified so the process of compensation can be finalised and paid to the member before they transition into civilian life, and they will receive treatment for all their accepted conditions.

The challenges within the legislative framework have long been recognised with previous Governments, including Labor, failing to take any action. When MRCA was established, this would have been the ideal time to develop the new framework.

However, like identifying the issues with the computer systems 15 years ago, the inability to bring quick and proactive change into Veteran's Affairs has been typical of the Canberra bureaucracy - who are part of the broader systemic problems through years of inaction.

I am currently undergoing transition and as a senior officer, the experience across multiple Acts is bloody awful. It's confusing, slow, weighted against the veteran and requires a very smart advocate.

The access through MyGov is also awful and limited in capability. Yet increasing engagement is directed there via DVA.

So........ what has to happen?

The alignment of the legislation with cessation of DRCA and VEA as a key priority.

Rectifying the computer systems within DVA which is well over-due and ignored as an issue.

Make MyGov more user friendly and containing real information which can be changed by user.

Use veterans to assist in the legislative process including roadshows (not under ESO's)

Better support and awareness for the families of the veteran as well - legislation.

Improve the relationship between DVA and Defence as current system isn't working and place the process into legislation.

Ensure adequate funding for medical support including GP's.

I commend the current Government for taking action to change this mess and aligning the legislation and the processes.

I believe that all Veterans should be treated equally.

There should only be ONE piece of Legislation that covers these Veterans and it should be clear as to what they are entitled to and written in plain English that a person with only a secondary school education can understand. This legislation should not be the realm of Lawyers and Solicitors.

The Legislation should give every veteran the opportunity to receive monetary compensation for injuries that have occurred where Defence have been found to be wanting in their systems and processes to protect the veteran from harm.

The Legislation should give every veteran the opportunity to receive ongoing and indexed financial payments of 100% of their income for 12 months and 80% of their income when they are found to be unable to work full time. This should be taken at the time of ceasing work, not when they leave Defense.

If their payment of 80% of their income is less than the average male weekly earnings, then they should be paid this amount on an ongoing basis.

Once a veteran is found to have an injury or disease that is ongoing and leads to an incapacity of 30% or more (this could be one or multiple issues), the veteran should be entitled to a DVA GOLD Card for the rest of their life and their life partner/spouse should also be entitled to the same.

I would like to suggest that gold cards remain useful for all conditions within Australia as I believe if you take away that medical help from veterans that already are gold card holders, you will negatively impact there lives so much that I have already heard from many stating they wouldn't be able to continue and would feel the need to end their lives. This would be a terrible outcome. I am a TPI veteran and have had terrible anxiety about this new legislation as I am fearful of what may happen to me if I can not get the help I need anymore if the new legislation negatively impacts me. Myself and other ex ADF members gave our lives and served this country and ultimately broke our lives for the greater good of protecting this country. Please do not leave us in the dark. It is now your turn to take a stand and protect those that became broken taking a stand and protecting you.

Understanding the current claim system is complex, the suggested changes make sense. Being able to train DVA staff to better meet Veterans needs and to fast track the process will enable a faster turnaround.

My own experience with DVA has been minimal, I submitted my first claim via the Mygov page and then engaged an advocate, to date it has been 16 months since my first claim and I have yet to be provided a delegate by DVA. I now have 19 claims in for various conditions. I still have 10 years to serve and am happy that I have started this process prior to having a discharge date, this would be extremely stressful if I had a discharge date looming.

I write to advocate for veterans who I see as potential losers from this change if I am interpreting the proposal correctly, acknowledging they are a minority group, but important nonetheless.

I see many potential benefits from this change for the vast majority of veterans. However, my primary concern relates to veterans currently managed under the Veterans' Entitlements Act (VEA).

To explain my concerns in a succinct manner, I'll provide a scenario.

The veteran served operationally prior to 01 July 2004, and has been diagnosed with PTSD, which has been linked to that specific operational 'warlike' service. The PTSD diagnosis is also an 'accepted' DVA condition and the veteran currently receives a General Rate Disability Pension at 70%.

The veteran is now being medically transitioned from Defence, the sole separating condition is PTSD, and they have been assessed by their treating psychiatrist as being unable to work because of their accepted PSTD condition.

Based on my understanding this veteran will potentially be eligible to receive a TPI pension under VEA legislation, which is not means tested against other forms of income / pensions, whereas a TPI pension under MRCA legislation is.

If this assumption is correct, I have the following questions:

If the veteran applied for TPI after the date that the proposed change took effect, would they now come under the 'improved' MCRA legislation? My read is, yes?
Would that mean the veteran, who until this change came into effect, would have potentially received a tax free TPI pension that was not means tested, would now potentially have the pension reduced, if not taken away completely (depending on how much income / pension they received in addition to TPI) because they subsequently came under new legislation?
The term 'improved' is used regarding the changed MRCA legislation. Does that mean issues like this will be considered so as to try to avoid disadvantaging one group in an attempt to improve the system?
With respect to lodging a claim for TPI (or any other claim), if the veteran submits the claim prior to the change of legislation, however it is not processed by DVA until after the change, will it be considered under the old legislation, or would it be assessed under the legislation that provides the best outcome during the transition phase, or would it just be assessed under the improved legislation irrespective of whether it benefits or disadvantages the veteran?
The consultation advice also details a 'transition phase'. Am I right to assume that will be implemented for situations like the scenario described above, so as to ensure no veteran is disadvantaged as a result of the change?
Acknowledging that you can't provide a definitive response to this question, how long do you anticipate it will be before this change (if after consultation it remains viable) takes effect? Given it is a legislation change, which I assume requires extensive consultation prior to going through both houses of government for approval, my sense is it will take some time? Are you able to provide a rough indication on timeline?

Whilst improvements to the current system are obviously necessary, decision-makers need to ensure they don't inadvertently disadvantage a small, but equally important group of veterans. Whilst it is not the case for all of them, most are ageing and may not be able to successfully re-integrate back into the civilian workforce because of age, ill-health, or both. Current VEA legislation allows veterans in those circumstances to focus on recovery as opposed to rehabilitation, which is a pre-dominant focus of MRCA. I gladly accept that wherever possible we should be looking to rehabilitate and re-assimilate, but there are some cases (usually VEA veterans) where such an outcome is idealistic, but not practical. I know of several colleagues who fit this description and am trying to ensure they aren't forgotten.

I believe any change needs to be sensitive to the potential consequences of disadvantaging a small group, even if it benefits the majority, as any such outcome could clearly heighten the risk of the very thing the Royal Commission is trying to address. It is my opinion that the entitlements currently afforded to veterans whose qualifying service falls under VEA legislation, specifically with respect to TPI pensions not being means tested against other income, should remain intact with any change to legislation. I believe this to be fair for the reasons stated immediately above, being VEA veterans are typically older and broadly speaking may not be able to work towards 'starting again' after ADF employment.

Thank you for your time. I personally very much appreciate the efforts being made to address some long-term systemic issues that have led to some very sad outcomes for veterans. I hope this feedback is seen as a constructive attempt to help that process.

I support the proposed legislative change by way of simplifying how veterans claim without having to address multiple acts dependent on their service. There is also benefits in ensuring that a standards of proof are condensed and clear.

Current systems are not working with so many delays in processing claims and worse is feeling like you wait two years to have your claim allocated to a delegate only to feel rushed when more medical professionals are refusing service for DVA clients and maintaining a regular doctor who knows your history is near impossible. Having experienced delegates who understand military service would also assist in processing and from a legislative point of view.

I have read some of the news stories and felt that my input might be useful.

Doing advocate work, the most difficult act for people is DRCA as it is so specific in relation to treatment that if a veteran has an issue in an area that is associated with the injury but not the actual injury they can not get treatment as it is not accepted which means they would need to put in a new claim for this condition and take up more time and expense.

My suggestion is very simple, roll those in DRCA into MRCA from a impairment perspective and points standing and if they reach the thresholds under MRCA then they should qualify for those benefits ie gold cards or any other entitlements if their whole body impairment is high enough to warrant that.

They have already had impairment payouts so there would be no fortnightly payments as such but they could be consumed into the legislation for all other benefits moving ahead and those under VEA would remain as is under a grandfathered system

I am writing to provide feedback on the Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway for the Australian Government's development and implementation of legislation to simplify and harmonise the framework for veterans' compensation, rehabilitation, and other entitlements.

Firstly, I commend all areas and parties of government for their commitment to reforming the veterans' legislation framework. As a veteran community member, I have seen firsthand the difficulties and frustrations many veterans face when navigating the current system. Simplifying and harmonising the framework is essential to providing greater clarity and transparency for veterans and their families.

I am pleased to see that the consultation pathway includes a range of stakeholders, including veterans and their families, as well as key industry groups and service providers. However, I want to emphasise the importance of waiting for:

the outcome of the Royal Commission is to be digested by all parties and

giving the veteran community ample time to read and comment on both the draft legislation before it is finalised

This will ensure that the legislation reflects the needs and concerns of all veterans and their families and will increase the likelihood of agreeable implementation.

In addition, the current legislation is highly misunderstood within the Australian public service, including those employed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The complexity and confusion surrounding the legislation make it challenging for public servants to administer it correctly, which can lead to further delays and complications for veterans seeking support and benefits. The new legislation must be written in plain language, with clear explanations of entitlements and processes, to ensure it is easily understood and administered.

Finally, I encourage the government to implement the new legislation with the veteran community. Many veterans are currently experiencing significant delays in accessing support and benefits, and the new legislation must be implemented as soon as practical after the RC and veteran community consultation.

In conclusion, I want to thank the government for the opportunity to provide my feedback on this vital issue. I believe that reforming the veterans' legislation framework is a crucial step towards providing better support and care for our veterans. I look forward to seeing the results of this consultation process.

I am a TPI Gold card holder under VEA. I am currently and I am worried that as time goes on I will be forgotten about and that the service provided by DVA will get worse than it is currently for veterans on grandfathered ACTS. I am wondering if there will be other options for a veteran that id under VEA but only half way through their life. Will there be option to take a lump sum instead of continue on with VEA. My concern is that DVA will continue to under service VEA clients and instead will concentrate on the new legislation because that will be the focal point for government and it has to appear to work. I feel as though I have been treated like a second class citizen since engaging with DVA. I am

Glad that with DVAs support I can still provide for my family but being treated like I am worthless does take its toll over time.

Long overdue reform. "For what they did, this we will do". Mr. Douglas Humpherys OAM of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has succinctly nailed the change that is required. Service is service. Injury is injury. Placing the nature of service as a requirement for assessment is unnecessary. With MRCA as the only Act all can be brought forward without the conflicts that exist under the current pathway. As an example, a former servicing member with DRCA severe tinnitus accepted condition can only receive a maximum assessment of 5% which is short of the required 10% for compensation. If the same member served through the VEA period and into the MRCA period, that member could claim the DCRA injury and can be assessed at 10%-15% and receive compensation.

The pathway timeline is unrealistic and over generous in giving government an inordinate amount of time to deal with the matter. If government can turn decades of superannuation legislation on its head through a press release without any supporting legislation, then it can move on the Royal Commission recommendations at will. It just needs the will to act. Why act when most of those under DRCA and VEA will be dead before reform is made? I have already tried to kill myself once due to all the reasons put forward in the Royal Commission. I don't need the much-needed veteran recognition to flounder to give cause to try it again. "For what they did, this we will do."

Please make the pledge that NO VETERAN will be WORSE OFF!! Veterans already struggle to trust DVA and the government. Everytime there is a change it cuts away certain benefits, or reduces the quality or quality so the government has to supply less. Hold firm on the commitment to Veterans and restore our faith in DVA as an organisation. We do not want to see another Robodebt debacle.

Any advancement can and should only be seen as step forward. By expanding time frames for review under the DRCA can only assist Veterans to locate the required documentation and if required seek assistance. It appears that this is designed to move forward in a positive way through amalgamation of the existing legislative bodies will come cohesion and sharing of information this can only be a positive.

My only concern is the establishment of the Advisory Council as there is already an existing round table with ex services organisations. Wil this not duplicate the process that is currently in place. i.e. information from the ex-service organisations collated by a representative and presented to the Minister with recommendations.

On a note that cannot be affected by this process, but I see as hindering all process there are too many ESO's with their own agenda and untrained staff.

Thank you for what you have done and what you will continue to do.

Hand the whole process to Services Australia. Much more efficient and user friendly. Yes, they deal with complex legiskation, apparently better than DVA. Put financial penalties in place for DVA if they don't process claims within 2 weeks. Sack all current staff and start again. Break the culture of the 3D's - deny the claim, delay the claim, wait for them to die to not pay the claim. Get rid of the bullies. Hire ex-defenxe and defence spouses who KNOW what veteran's require.

Fix DFRDB - revise the life expectancy tables to reflect modern survival rates. Stop robbing veterans who commuted their salary. No one pays back the full amount of a loan and then keeps paying for the rest of their lives. If a bank did this it would be illegal.

Whoever thought they were doing the Veteran community a Favour in selecting MRCA as the legislation? that the Veteran community needs is an imbersile as this is the worst legislation ever enacted, and this is not only my feelings but that of the majority of serving Advocates.

MRCA part 6 needs a complete over hall, as it is not beneficial to the Veterans to have the Department decide if they will offer SRDP (Special Rate). That Superannuation is also taken into consideration in calculation of SRDP is outrageous.

The fact that the Veteran becomes an outcast from DVA at the age 65 and has to apply for a disability pension from Centrelink is outrageous. You (the Government) are absolving yourself of the responsibilities that you owe the Veteran Community for putting their lives on the line for this Country and the Government. There are very few Veterans under this Legislation that have SRDP.

There are some good parts to this act (MRCA) which if incorporated into the VEA would be more beneficial to the Veteran and Families the whole act needs to be revamped and checked by an independent legal entity before acceptance and to be widely circulated within the Veteran Advocacy Community (not the ESO consortium) for further scrutinization before acceptance.

This Act is purely a rewrite of the workers compensation act for the Government with little or no input from the Veteran Community i should be quoting certain parts of the Legislation however the time factor is against this however Part 6 S197 + has to be reconsidered in this context and at no time should the Legislation be detrimental to the Veteran or family members.

Some comments made to me by other Advocates are, Reduce confusion, Support Veterans and their families, Boost confidence and trust in DVA, assist Advocates in assisting the Veteran community and their families, and let's end all these suicides due primarily to incompetence and lack of knowledge by the DVA Staff as to the rigors of Service life and the end result on their bodies most assessors have never worked in Defense as a Service person. and undergone the rigors of training in the Defence Force.

Am a Veteran of two one-year deployments, & Compensation Advocate 3 for 28 years. As such, have experience of the Repatriation Act, VEA 1986, and MRCA 2004. As stated in the Covenant, ADF Service is unique: there are issues of not letting Mates down, extreme physical and mental stresses, not only on Service personnel themselves, but also on their Families. Yet current Legislation and Applications are worded in such a way that Claims for benefits are more easily delayed and denied, rather than expedited and approved. As a recent Inquiry stated: "Law which requires an Applicant to be helped by an Advocate is bad Law!" The basis of Veteran Legislation needs to be that the recruit is supposed to be mentally and physically fit on entry, therefore, on discharge, any disability should be accepted as arising from Service unless otherwise proven. Thus, any reformed Legislation must enshrine: a. Benefit of doubt ALWAYS to favour the Veteran, and b. Interpretation of Law to favour the Veteran. Given the wide variations in human immunology, SoP's should be guidelines only, including time limitations which obviously cannot be scientifically proven.

Firstly, this is a great initiative and a welcomed change for the future veterans. With that in mind my first thought would be to ensure that the p[eople included in the consultation are majority contemporary veterans that have served from June 30, 2004, onwards. The reason for this is to ensure continuity of service understanding. as well as the comprehension of current operational tempo/engagement.

Secondly the MRCA 2.0 concept even in name only has implications as there is a grandfathering "feeling" amongst old veterans that excludes them. This is false in reality, however with the way the current culture of veterans is, we can see that re-naming completely will separate from the old ways. Paving a path for the veterans and their families that will actually be implicated in these legislative reforms.

Thirdly, the legislation reform needs to be simplified in how they count out the points and or compensation requirements. This means a level playing field for example, if you have tinnitus the points range from 1-10 depending upon an individual rating screen by specialists that is universal. each case is different, but the scaling is the same. This allows for less scrutiny amongst the veteran community as it is clear and unanimous. This is a huge sticking point outside in the veteran space.

Finally, although it has been most likely continuously pushed to the minister it has to be said, transparency is key. VEW, DRCA and MRCA in their current states do not allow for transparency and they keep veterans and their families in the grey as well as the advocates out there who volunteer to go through this for a veteran. We need to move away from some understanding the legislation versus others not having a clue. Eventually a digger should be able to follow the bouncing ball to their claim and not have to be run through the mill to get this happening. This is the key to making this work. do not listen to the loud older heads on how it was bad for them, instead lets hear how they can make it better. unless theyre willing to do that then only contemporary veterans of all ranks should be advising the minister and DVA.

thank you.

Would there be any improvement in real terms for the aged servicemen medically discharged with a Cease Effects condition, thereby relieving Defence of the responsibility to provide rehab and medical support? Being medically discharged in 1964 following the sinking of the HMAS Voyager i was unfortunate to experience this injustice. No recourse presented me with extraordinary challenges both personal and family. 2019 brought the help and assistance i needed (55 years ago) by the way of a Veteran white card. The ability to address physical and mental issues, albeit through a lengthy claim process, which could have been negated by the simple issue of a Veteran Gold card thereby relieving the revival of the traumatic events over and over. To further complicate matters there have been numerous changes to the Various Acts which present a minefield of problems. I joined the Navy at a time of war and gave an Oath for Australia, in so doing i lost 82 of my ship mates ( 10 times more than the loss of Naval crew during the Vietnam War) and i find my self sitting at this computer requesting recognition /justification for full health benefits to the surviving members of the HMAS Voyager.

I request that the current review examine the inequity and injustice that occurs in practice as a result of the

veteran's Entitlement Act 1986 VEA.

Specifically: PartV111 - General provisions applicable too pensions etc: 121 Instalments of pensions:

(4) Subject to subsection (4A), if a person who is receiving a pension dies, no amount is payable to the person as an instalment in relation to the pension period in which the person died.

And Division 2 - eligibility for allowances and other benefits 98A Bereavement payment in respect of partnered veterans receiving pensions by way of compensation: (2) which states that surviving partners are eligible for 12 weeks bereavement payment following death.

These points are interpreted to mean that AFTER a veteran dies they are not entitled to their pension and that a minimum of 12 weeks - 98 days if on income support - bereavement payment should be paid to the surviving partner AFTER death. This is not what happens in practice. It is Instalment of pension payments which is creating the entire inequity and interpretation of the word AFTER used in payment calculations. Consider the following:

A veteran cannot help but die within a pay period.

The living days of the veteran are not paid at his/her pension rate for that entire pay period in which death occurred.

Therefore Living days are erased, disrespected and disregarded despite agreed eligibility. Those pay period living days are regarded as dead.

The following scenario illustrates the inequity of this legislation and the injustice of deeming living days as dead are morally and ethically self evident.

Let's use the example of a veteran who is on a pension (TPI) and also on income support. According to DVA own documentation that person's surviving partner is entitled to 98 days of bereavement payment.However application of (4) means that should the veteran die on Day 14 of the 14 day pay period that entire entitlement of 13 living days is subtracted from the bereavement entitlement - in other words 13 living days are deemed to be dead and 'bereaved'. Currently the fortnight's payment for that pay period in which the veteran dies is included into the 98 days of bereavement payment - usually because the pay day is two days after the pay period closes and DVA has explained that the payments can't be stopped prior to that pay day with only 1 or 2 days notice (understandable). So effectively what happens is the surviving partner of a veteran who dies on the 14th day of the pay period loses 13 living pay days, as those days are included as part of the bereavement pay and so the surviving partner gets only 85 days of bereavement payment after death instead of the eligible 98 days. However, if a veteran dies on Day 1 or 2 of the pay period, that person actually gets 97 or 96 days of bereavement payment AFTER death. Surely the inequities of this is self evident.

Following is a direct quote from DVA staff in this regard: (The logic is quite oblique). Please be aware, my husband died on day 14 of the pay period 27 June 2022, they were notified on 29 June 2022 and the next pay day was 30 June 2022, that pay day's entire pension was deducted although he was alive for 13 of the 14 day . Assume he was entitled to a full 12 weeks (84 days) bereavement pay.

"As the amount of TPI payment, which was no longer payable FOLLOWING your husband's passing, had already been paid into your joint bank account, rather than recovering it, it was deducted from the calculation of the Disability Compensation Bereavement payment, and you were paid the balance. that is, the Disability Compensation Bereavement Payment of $8983.80 LESS the TPI fortnightly payment of $1,525.20, equaling $7,458.60, which was the amount credited to your account on 29 August 2022." This final amount equates to 68 days, not 84 because 13 living days were included in the calculation.

To begin with 'no longer payable following your husband's death" surely means AFTER death, not his last living days. Please explain. 13 living days were taken away from him during his life. Any veteran who dies on day 1 or 2 of the pay period his family therefore receive a greater portion of their 12 weeks or 98 days of bereavement payment AFTER death.

Seriously this need to be addressed. The inequities are glaring, the calculations are unjust. Living days of pension entitlement should never be calculated as dead.

I want the legislation changed. Living days to be calculated on a daily rate prior to date of death at the veterans' eligible pension rate during pay period of passing and not be included as bereavement payment. Bereavement of 12 weeks (or 98 days if applicable) calculated AFTER death.

It is the principle of honouring the life of our veterans which is so important in this legislation change. What sort of society can countenance deleting living days of eligibility and regarding them as dead? Disgraceful legislation which must be changed.

Reform they need to get the compensation system working again

I have an accepted claim from 1973

which was assessed in 2004 now it has deteriorated I lodged a further claim in June 2022 with an advocate all I get are monthly msgs would I like to proceed give me a break why would anyone go thru this hassle to nowhere and say no and go back to start. Mine was a simple claim in 73 but thanks to lets just say ignorance error whatever the medical profession made it worse. They said 75 days to review a claim

right

It needs reform

Legislation needs to protect veterans instead of making them jump through hoops to prove to DVA that the injuries already documented in their service records were service related.

Injuries sustained during service should automatically be noted and listed against a DVA profile for when the member discharges.

Most important is simplicity, time, and empathy. We all understand that the Government does not like to give out compensation and will spend money to ensure they do not. They will make it extremely hard and complicated to the point of veteran frustration. Hence the Royal Commission we are currently having.

My ideas are relatively straight forward:

If a member has served as SERCAT 6/7 for 20 years or more, then any conditions that are being claimed and have a diagnosis in the members medical records be accepted and no further investigation is required.
If a member has served as SERCAT 6/7 for between 10 and 20 years, then a list of accepted conditions be created and if the member has a diagnosis in their medical record for one or more of these conditions, then this be accepted and no further investigation required. If outside the list of accepted conditions then further investigation is required.
If a member has served as SERCAT 6/7 up to 10 years then conditions be investigated.

Standardising eligibility and entitlements and reflecting contemporary needs. Removing War Widow/er entitlements - e.g. contemporary WW are more able to be meaningfully employed and remarry.

Aligning more to a NDIA approach to support services such as HHS, Transport or RAP where we can provide clients the autonomy to choose the services they receive and be more self-sufficient through an alternate funding model which will enable departmental resources to focus on more direct support (including for those who may need additional assistance with these activities).

Dept of Defence should make sure any conditions have already been lodged and accepted by DVA prior to discharge. Veterans should not need advocates to lodge claims on their behalf unless they are incapacitated. Should be able to lodge online via DVA WEBSITE.

The ridiculous forms have all the ID check etc, if already holding a DVA card the process should be simplified. Also if accepted into schemes like SHOAMP why not just cover for all those conditions rather than make veterans go through a slow and disorganised process of placing a number of claims in.

Clarity of support available to ADF and Veteran available through DVA.

Agreements with health professionals on pricing for health services (especially psychiatric support)

Legislation that ensures every ADF member is allocated a advocate / DVA delegate or support officer over during the discharge process.

Mandatory advocate being assigned to ADF members going through discharge.

Provide time limits that must be met for dealing with claims.

A set of core principals when dealing with veterans.

All DVA communications must give their full name in all correspondence.

Review the permanent impairment methods fro calculating compensation.

Reducing time frames is a priority.

Communicating time frames and where a case is within the system.

Prioritising claims into severity and allocating into different processing groups.

Group 1 Severe cases which need immediate resolution to ensure rapid processing of people under severe pressure as a result of their injury both medically or psychologically, or even financially as a result of being unemployed as a result of their injury.

Group 2 Less severe cases where members are employed and not in difficulty as a result of their injury, but may need follow up appointments, more evidence etc

Group 3 is for all claims which simply need a decision due to having been assessed as having all evidence submitted.

Overseas support for Australian vets needs to be improved or implemented

If it doesn't already, claims should be prioritised by urgency, and DVA need to ensure this group meet time frame targets.

Less severe claims still need rapid decisions (much less than 2 years, ideally less than 3 months), but perhaps are not experiencing the same level of need as the priority group based on circumstances such as employment, housing, etc

Both groups need effective communication in terms of time frames, and ensuring any support while they await outcomes, and this could include financial, but also to update on how their claim is tracking in the system and to answer any questions. Being engaged is much better than being ignored for an undefined period of time which causes anxiety and confusion during what can be a difficult period of time.

Support outside of the Australian territory should be improved. After sustaining a permanent injury through Australian service, entitlements and support should be readily available to support those Australians should they wish to depart Australia and not be left to fend on their own. The US is a good example for this as my recent experiences were witness to in Colombia. The USA had a shop front vet support office in where many vets reside to engage in activities organised by the group or assist in ways they would be assisted if they reside in the states. It is worth considering for Australia in countries that might have higher rates of vets, but also there should be a special area that they can go to and register to receive better advice while overseas.

Seperate health care from compensation.

Other than recently facilitated Non-liable Health Care, Veterans have to submit and have approved a claim for a condition prior to being considered for DVA healthcare for the condition. How long are current claims taking to be finalised, this is how long some are having to wait forDVA approved healthcare for the condition.

I for one was declined psychological support after my first breakdown as it had to be via a claim, which DVA rejected. It wasn’t until years later when I next broke down than a psychologist who specialised in Veteran PTSD advised me to resubmit a claim, which was approved. I now have ongoing psychological support, which has been a life saver and saved me from losing my family.

Likewise, I have SIJ disfunction as a result of two levels of lumber spine fusion (accepted condition). When my pain management specialist went to seek approval for surgery it was declined a couple of days prior to the booked date. I submitted a claim with specialist reports etc, it was rejected, I submitted for VRB, the DVA assessor rang and told me to pull it as it was a waste of DVA resources, I said no, self represented with no additional evidence, VRB asked what was new - I said nothing, they said clearly secondary to fusions and service related and after their recommendation it was accepted.

The DVA delegate wasn’t counseled, and I know had had many more over turned by VRB. How are lessons learnt fed back into SOP’s. I was able to have my surgery done later via my personal health insurance; but not without psychologically, emotionally, extended incapacity & pain etc.

Ironically, Ive qualifying service and at retirement would then be DVA Gold card, with all conditions without needing to have accepted conditions. Bringing this forward for all qualifying service is easiy done, then it’s a matter of what / when / how for non qualifying service. Every soldier has carried load, yet we have to submit a load carrying form.

Extend non-liable healthcare to Gold Card (all conditions) for all who have completed qualifying service. For those without qualifying service, by service / trade / time in service have automatic non-liable for specific conditions. Doing this for psychological conditions has proved the effectiveness.

DVA must be liable for finding health care providers when a Veteran cannot. Personally I have had one condition where I wasn’t able to locate a surgeon who accepted DVA. I called DVA and said I can’t, they said they have a few that they are billed by, but they cannot tell me who they are. I ended up finally finding a surgeon who would bill DVA for the surgery, only if I paid out of my own pocket for a care and package (from memory around $2000).

I’ve heard DVA being compared to USA VA, which they are vastly different. VA delivers the health care and therefore have substantial clinical statistics, where as DVA doesn’t deliver the health care and only have item numbers for health care statists. DVA should be ‘shall either directly or facilitate deliver clinical and health care services for Veterans’.

simplifying the legislation and SOPs, making is easier to submit claims. harminomisation across all three Acts. The Gold Card should remain but the should not necessarily be linked to TPI or EDA. Members who receive a GC in some cases can still work. It would encourage more people to look for gain ful employment if they had a GC and could still be employed. Reduce the complexity in relation to submitting IL claims, conducting PI assessment/scores. Delegates should be empowed to make a decision as opposed to relying on MAC advice for simple claims.

The men and women who are covered by DRCA/SRCA. These are the forgotten. Yes their injuries are covered, but compared to VEA and MRCA, veterans they are disadvantaged. As a part of the reform this group should be reviewed under the new Act, and where applicable granted a Gold Card. Just transferring this group without any remedial action will be most unfair. They are in this position because of poor previous legislation. These people were injured whilst being a member of Australia's Defence Forces, training for war. We now have the opportunity to bring them into line with others.

Agree with the process. But DVA must be held more accountable. We have had 19 years of Tri Act administration and they through poor leadership and administration DVA have left the veteran community in a position where claims are delayed and sadly lives have been lost.

It is imperative that the DRCA/SRCA people receive fair treatment under the transitional rules that will be created. This group must not be left out.

Looking after every single veteran that needs assistance regardless of Period of service or active service. The system is completely broken So a full overhaul is required.

The current inequalities in entitlements need to be addressed. Things such as funeral allowance, home care etc are all so different depending on the act the vet is under. I'm ex vietnam, my wife will receive a $2,000 allowance to assist her in my funeral costs. The other acts pay up to $11,000. Home care, I as a Vietnam vet can access 15 hours of homecare a year. The younger vets can access 15 hours per week. I'm 73 can hardly walk but have to pay for any time above 15 hours per annum, younger vets some who can't walk etc get 15 hours per week. TPI payments which were introduced to give permanently disabled ex servicemen/women the benefit of receiving the average wage, over the years this rate has been eroded insomuch that the TPI payment runs around 50 -60% of the average wage. Disabled vets through no fault of their own are punished for being disabled in wars started by politicians.

The GARP system of so called, "Life style points" is a poor system to work out a veterans most pressing service related injuries. The senior members of DVA the AAT and possibly VRB need to be looked at and assessed so as to not have been Political appointments simply for the sake of the last Federal Government's pleasure. There appears to be too much nepitism between the Parliament and who is posted to these most important position. Money speaks all languages.

That no Veteran is treated worse than any other. At this time DRCA Veterans are extremely disadvantaged on multiple counts. DRCA recipients of Incapacity Payments are losing 5% of their payments to "Super" that goes nowhere. This definitely needs to stop!

No Veteran gets made worse off

Ensure that veterans widows entitlements under the VEA remain and become grandfathered.

If a lump sump compensation is paid, that any pension received for the same condition is not penalised for life but return to the normal rate after that lump sum has been repaid. Fix up the lump sum compensation offsetting, so we are not paying back more than the original amout. Those veterans entitlements, including widows benifets, covered under the VEA remain for those currently in receipt of them.

The culture of injury and illness reporting at the time of the injury should be considered, particularly in relation to evidence. We only sought medical treatment when it was absolutely necessary due to the peer pressure involved in “manning up”. Loss of personnel due to illness and injury usually resulted in the remaining personnel sharing the additional workload so seeking medical attention was something we often avoided in case we were put on restricted duty. No one wanted to let their mates down. We were also actively discouraged from completing and submitting injury and illness reports. This was also a practice that was never suggested by medical staff either. Many of the claim problems for long term personnel stem from a lack of evidence, and this is a hurdle that we cannot overcome 30 years after the event.

A move away from an adversarial model towards a model that automatically assumes a veteran is entitled to the benefits provided. All aspects should be considered with a view to improving the lives of veterans and not with a view to reducing costs on the budget. Veterans, both men and women, signed on knowing they may be injured in the course of their service or even asked to make the supreme sacrifice and did so willingly.

I carried out a review of Gold Card benefits on a state by state comparitive basis and found different states scored well in different areas. One area of discrepamcy that is within the Federal Government's purview is the ATO's GST exemption on car purchases. Those veterans currently classified at EDO (75 disability points) are entitled to purchase a new car every 2 years exempt of GST. Other Gold Card holders who also suffer severe injuries that qualify them as Gold Card holders do not despite their circumstances being similarly dire. The study showed that if this was done for Victorian GC holders it would cost a maximum of approximately $12 million per two years. Given most veterans according to the last Census lived in Victoria such a benefit extention would not cause serious difficulties to the Public Purse but make a huge difference for veterans on the ground.

that this act and reform be conducted by current operating civilian work health safety lawyers and medical professionals, thus removing the decision from what's included from DVA as their job is to protect the government and not the veteran, by engaging outside experts it will enable the best outcome for veterans and their families. the impairment model is archaic, the model that 100% impairment represents that the member is dead is poor, you can loose 100% mobility in a limb or area and still not be dead, however the way that the DVA impairment model doesn't allow for whole body areas to be treated as 100% impaired nor offer the veteran fair compensation for that 100% impairment

A single piece of legislation would be beneficial with services/ treatment/ compensation not effected for claims and treatment under the old systems until the new date of legislation.

If your in an arms corp (front line service) the effect on your body during training / operations should be automatically considered degraded faster then the civilian rate. There is precedence as the service pension kicks in at 60 as opposed to 67 for a pension like the rest of the population. So with this in mind there could be a whole range of assumptions that if you served in a high tempo physically demanding role then you should have muscle, joints, back, knees , shoulder , ankles etc already covered,. its then determined by how much its deteriorated which would inform compensation / pensions.

I believe Gold card entitlement should be a condition of service and linked to a retention benefit for members serving beyond 8 years ( two periods of open ended engagement ). This would encourage people to stay in the ADF for longer periods. For those injured prior to 8 years the normal process for claims would occur.

the reforms need to think more strategically and make the ADF also a career of choice because of the benefits.

Is the Reform benefitting the Veterans.

Or is it another cost saving exercise to create the allusion that the Government and Service Chiefs give a damn.

The Veterans Entitlement Act.

It is a clear and concise Act, easy to navigate, and Veterans can submit claims themselves without Advocates or lawyers. Obviously c0omplex claims will require assistance, but for general claims they can be done much simpler.

Also, the VEA was designed for the Veteran, not for the Service Chiefs to spy, not for the Government to save costs, it was designed to provide quality service to those that needed it.

Yes, during and post Vietnam this Act was rorted, but that was due to lack of information available to DVA and the need to "supporting" reports from others, which in most cases were mates who helped each other access benefits.

In the digital age with all data now computerised, playing the Vietnam Veterans Retirement Scheme is not possible.

The VEA is more applicable now for Veterans that ever before, and more fit for purpose.

I would like to see MRCA, SRCA/DRCA rolled into VEA over a timeframe, say 2-5 years, so all Veterans are assessed and all claims are processed under VEA.

VEA was designed to help Veterans, do enable those that have served and have valid claims to make them and receive the help they require to overcome or deal with their injuries, and to provide compensation as deemed.

The legislation should provide a consistent approach to entitlements for all veterans. The legislation should include a benefit of doubt principle that favors the veteran. For example, if a veteran during their service is diagnosed with a medical condition and the diagnostic process undertaken by Defence did not define the condition to the extent described in the Statement of Principles the benefit of the doubt should go to the veteran and the claim should be accepted.

Claim assessors should be compelled to have regard to previously paid claims as too often a different assessor will reject a claim that has been accepted many times in the past. This creates stress for veterans and an administrative burden for providers.

As service life contributes to poor health outcomes later in life there should be a general principle of treatment for any medical condition for veterans over the age of 60.

As service life contributes to poor health outcomes later in life there should be a general principle of treatment for any medical condition for veterans over the age of 60 who have completed a period of operational service or regular service greater than 5 years.

Not to change existing entitlements that current veterans have. Partners and spouses of veterans, have given up careers and jobs to care for them.The existing VEA provides a widows pension and Gold Card when the vetetan dies. Veterans have been assured of the this under the act, so have been given peace of mind and certainty. This is a genuine fear amoungst Veterans that this will be taken away and leave their spouses and partners destitute.

We need one new act, however those covered under previous acts should continue to receive entitlements for life. No new claims could be made on those acts.

New claims should be made under the new act, in times as veterans pass, the old acts can be wound up.

Fix the compensation offsetting, it is not fair that a veteran has repaid their lump sum then continue on the same reduced pension for life, in my case I repaid my lump sum compensation 10 years ago and will continue until I expire, which could be another decade. I understand you can not double dip so to speak but the current legislation is unfair and needs reform.

Herein - MEMBER means and includes current & ex members of defence.

ON-BOARDING/EXITING

Change to on-boarding information - include a process for new members if they are injured at work and need psychological assistance during their service to record same in medical records - lets take away the stigma from day one!
New members are trained to handle the job of killing humans - I understand the need for members to follow command/instruction without question - it can remove their ability to feel/understand emotions. On discharged this needs to be UNDONE - they need to be able to relate to the civilian world outside and family/friends and emotions
The skills/knowledge/experience gained/used in the military should be converted to civilian language. This needs to be a high priority for members leaving defence. There is a need to bring in civilian assistance in this process - not just defence public servants. I have 38 yrs experience in HR/IR/Recruitment/job application training across State/Federal Governments/private sector and been involved in large scale recruitment processes where defence members readying for discharged applied using military language/acronyms, clearly unable to convert skills/knowledge/experience into a form civilian language. I see first-hand recruitment panel members without military knowledge by-passing applications where military personnel had not provided civilian worded applications, where I can see skills such as leadership/communication/punctuality/ability to work in teams/autonomously within the application.

CLAIMS

Making the legislation easy to understand for members/family. Schedules at the rear of the legislation listing (a) military acronyms, (b) medical acronyms, (c) pictorial flow chart of how the process works including time frame by step/outcome, (d) clear process for review of an outcome
Making the process easy for applicants - the process currently takes too long & creates more stress. Public service employees working in the DVA claims section need to have an understanding of the military, war/war-like/operational situations and be able to converse with members in a way that does not create angst or frustration for the member. EAMPLE - I have watched veterans go from calm to full anger talking to DVA public servants who do not know about the military or war/war-like situations from which the members claim is being made.
Reducing the amount of 'evidence' reproduced when the evidence is already in the members' personnel/medical files held by Defence or DVA. Proof should only be required where the records held by Defence/DVA are insufficient or do not show a service-related issue that was dealt with by private GP/Specialists due to ongoing stigma/myth/poor understand of process. Any other proof should be directed by DVA at DVA's expense (eg specialist reviews)
Reducing the time taken to process claims, thus reducing the stress on members and their families. Employ more public servants to process the claims.
Reduce the number of duplicate forms - including the number of times paperwork is 'lost' after being filed with DVA. Accept legal documents that are not on DVA forms (eg Enduring Power of Attorney/Health Directives/Wills) - these legal documents and do not need to be on a DVA form ---as was the case with my father when he had brain cancer and was forced to fill in DVA forms to allow his wife to talk on his behalf!
Removing public servants from decisions regarding medical evidence - anything that does not fit the SOP should be referred to a team/schedule of doctors/specialists.
There needs to be an approved team/list of doctors/specialists who can be contacted for review of medical claims that do not fit the 'standard' application.
Request for members to approve at least ONE family member (particularly partners) to be involved in medical discharge processes - reasons (1) the member needs support at home through the process; (2) the family (eg partners/parents) need to know what is happening to enable them to support the member; (3) the families need information about the process and possible reactions from the member (especially when it is not member initiated). Provide information and a contact person for families who have questions or concerns during a medical discharge process. Do not breach privacy legislation - they would be able to refuse, however it is imperative that the reason and importance of the support at home be made to the member
Ensure all telephone recordings at DVA and Defence have no reference to COVID delays or processing delays --- length of time waiting creates stress/frustration/anger for members and family

If the MRCA is the new base legislation - then it applies to everyone equally with grandfathering for those already approved under current legislation
Where there is a specific injury/illness/incident that applies to a particular war/war-like situation/operation then put those in a schedule at the rear of the legislation with their explanation and requirements - this should be a very small list!
Medical SOPs need to be reviewed and simplified to assist with simplifying the entire process.
A list of 'standard' medical conditions that EVERY defence member can claim should be in a schedule a the rear of the legislation - eg knees/shoulders/back/loos of hearing/some psychological illnesses - and these should automatically be approved once defence service is recognised when they are claimed. This does not mean approve them when no claim is made for the medical condition.
Approved doctors/specialists/psychiatrists/psychologists need to have a review of their services at least every 12 months - this can be a statistical review, but must include at least one review of actual service provided including a review of medication issued across their DVA client base (use client number not tied directly to a person, not by individual name - can not breach confidentiality). This will pick up service providers using the system for gain rather than patient benefit and will indicate medications that are being over prescribed to DVA clients
Legislate assistance for family - not just Open Arms (previously VVSC) and Legacy - the government needs to recognise the impact service related injury/illness has on family members and there needs to be a way to compensate family members who can prove their health has been affected by the members medical condition. This would require an application by the family member - and should be an easy process with medical evidence required for their claim. Example - family members with 'Secondary' PTSD (which is PTSD caused by the members PTSD), physical/mental abuse by members due to their medical condition (not just because they are abusive people),
Legislate for assistance for military children - as the children of defence members we move when they get posted, we change schools numerous times through our education period and health issues impacted by member's service. Example (1) - Long Tan Bursary did not become available until most Vietnam Veterans children were too old to apply. If its going to be offered make it real and available to all military children! (2) Military children born with disabilities/learning difficulties need more assistance, especially when the member is on active service overseas/training/posted to other states - the government needs to support these children and their families with extra personal/sick leave for the member, medical assistance for the child for specialists (even an allowance payment on proof of payment), assistance at home when the member is away overseas/training/posted to other states.

Legislation is an area I have worked in during my career, and I have written many pieces of State legislation. I am open to providing assistance in simplifying legislation and ensuring it is easy to understand by everyone - even if it is just reviewing draft documents.

The basic premise of this review is completely wrong. By only considering Veteran Entitlements as Compensation and rehabilitation considerably dismisses the nature and purpose of both the department and what the Acts were originally designed to do.

Almost the entirety of the current MCRA act should not be used. This act is based on a very mean and nasty piece of legislation, the Commonwealth Safety and Rehabilitation act.

The MCRA is a very complex piece of legislation that is NOT designed to benefit veterans. It is solely designed to set a very high bar for veterans and to radically reduce the exposure of government to veterans over time.

If this was not the case, then the VEA would have been updated and modernised, but that act focussed on entitlements for veterans not the reduction of exposure to future liability of veterans.

The governance aspects of the MCRA are irrevocably broken and not fit for purpose. Bothe Repatriation Commission and the MCRA board are hopelessly compromised. By being stacked with departmental appointees and a couple of other members, who cant forma majority, appointed in a very opaque way without any reference to the body of veterans that rely upon the acts, there is essentially no governance of the ACT.

The PURPOSE of these boards and authorities was to provide INDEPENDENT oversight of the Acts and how the department administered the acts on their behalf. The current system probably wouldn't even consider the these issues. They are a smokescreen of accountability.

The relationship between DVA and any other provider of benefits to veterans needs to be clearly codified.

The ability of DVA to demand a cut of benefits from a veteran needs to be clearly identified and clearly codified and quantified. That way a veteran can have a range of benefits that they are legally entitled to structured in such a way that it is to the benefit of the veteran and not a windfall for the department.

The reform of the Repatriation Commission.

The repatriation commission should be a statutory independent body from the Department and Government. The majority members of the commission should be drawn from the Veteran community and not have any affiliation with Government, the Department or Defence. I am open to the Minister appointing a chair.

The Repatriation Commission should be solely responsible for the oversight of the claims process and the administration of entitlements to veterans. It would delegate its power to award benefits to veterans to the department and hold the department responsible for that delivery. It will be responsible for setting benefit standards and be able to direct the department to provide levels of benefits to veterans. The Commission should be able to independently petition the parliament where it is f the opinion that the government is under resourcing the responsible provision of benefits to veterans. This would be a top power and have a complimentary power to directly petition the minister.

The Repatriation Commission should be required to provide a report to the minister every quarter detailing the interaction with the department and addressing any outstanding issues. Once a year the commissions should provide the senate with a report covering all aspects of the administration of the Act and any issues related to claims or the provision of benefits to allow the senate to seek answers from the Department through the estimates process.

This is for TRANSPERENT OVERSIGHT.

CLAIMS

The claims process should be simple and free from excessive bureaucracy. The ACT must have a positive assumption of liability in favour of the claimant. The ability of the department to spend time money and resources trying to deny a claim must be tightly codified and contain extensive oversight and a requirement to seek delegation from the Repatriation Commission. ( this is a money saving provision so the department doesn't go down rabbit holes as is the current practice) The act should be deliver a single interface for claims to allow a claimant to meet with a an assessor and for the assessor to review the claim and make a decision on the claim immediately. Where a claim is deficient, clearly advise the claimant as to what further information is required and provide the funding for those reports or evidence gathering.

Where the claim is particularly complex, the Assessor should be able to make a determination of those parts of the claim that is possible and provide advice on the way forward to resolve the balance of the claim.

A claim should be mandated to be determined in less than 10 business days either in part or whole. A hard limit of 6 months should be legislated so that any claim not determined by the department after this is automatically granted with benefit to the claimant or through determination of the Veterans Review Board within 30 days.

NOT having legislated timelines will only result in the same sort of blowout currently plaguing the department.

The Act must also provide explicit provision to enable the department to directly access service records, medical records and personnel records from the department of Defence systems. Drafters could also include a positive duty on the dept of Defence to notify DVA of all major injuries that will potentially become claimable and of all discharges from service. At discharge the act should place a duty on defence to ensure that DVA has the most complete set of records for that veteran on the matters that DVA will need for future administration of the Act.

Ideally, Both DVA and Defence would setup a joint system that will identify a potential claim against the act and to provide all the information required to process the a claim without a member needing to initiate a claim.

All that is needed is strong political leadership to force Defence to assemble the required data. With Defence moving towards a single ERP, this is more than possible and relatively easily achieved.

Cultural Change.

some anti veteran attitudes prevail. Harsh criticism you say. The simplest way to show this is the claims process. Once a veteran puts in a claim, the department IMMEDIATELY takes the position the veteran is lying. I personally have seen the department request people provide reports, only then to be told by another part of DVA that the report is not what THEY want and they want the report rewritten (at the veterans expense) and have a sometimes trivial request for further information or answer to a slightly different worded question. All this while making venerable veterans wait up to 2 or 3 years. IT is NOT THE ROLE of the department to fight veterans and do everything in there power to refuse claims or to arbitrarily downgrade claims because the veteran didn't put in the right words or the department took the opportunity to use a veterans honesty against them. THIS IS THE CURRENT CLAIMS culture.

No veteran is left worse off by amalgamating the 3 ACTs.

DRCA - previously accepted conditions should be transferred over to MRCA so that all conditions can be considered for a GOLD card.

Abolish SOPs. They are not helpful and some are not relevant at all.

Some are not up to date with current medical research on injuries and diseases.

Merge all accepted DRCA only claims into MRCA on immediate reformative legislation. Don't grandfather DRCA, what benefit if any is there to a DRCA only veteran by being grandfathered?

Grandfather VEA only.

Ease of making a claim. Remove the complexity of it .

Do not use DRCA system where there is no accumulation of injuries in judging level of care and benefits

Once we only have one legislation to claim under give veterans the option to roll over from their current accepted ACT to the new one and not just automatically Grandfather act them. EG if under DRCA and new ACT is based on MRCA let the veteran decide if want to roll over. Under DRCA there is no point system to get to gold card and if accepted conditions stay under DRCA and new ones go under MRCA then they could be a lot more disabled then someone entirely under new ACT but still required to work under INCAP.

When have multiple accepted conditions for same part of body allow medical practitioners to access for PI claims together as some overlapping conditions are impossible for them to determine the percentage of each condition.

Ongoing medical care centred on the veteran. The constant changing of providers, or the rebates changing providers, means that the medical care of the veteran is significantly impacted. Constantly re-explaining the medical history and background to new providers is emotionally draining and slows down the provision of care.

The Department should look at acceptance of known injuries more broadly. Defence Science and technology Group has significant research on occupational risk and physical injury profiles. using these to automatically accept more medical liability would significantly improve DVA efficiency and care. Note I am not talking about compensation, I am not that concerned about compensation, just care.

What happens to those with already accepted claims under older Acts? Can then transition to the MERCA. I did not see that discussed during the roadshow.

The Act should consider how "providers" for DVA claims are requesting significant commercial benefit. These highlight the complexity in navigating the act and that veterans need help. DVA claims representatives should not become a commercial business. It creates emotional risks on the individual. Legislation controlling or resourcing advocates at the right level would be a better outcome.

Maintaining all benefits from the VEA.

Access to Extreme Disablement Adjustment rate of Disability Pension for veterans with current accepted conditions under VEA.

There is no equivalent under MRCA for the VEA pension rate of 'Extreme Disablement Adjustment' (EDA). Are Veterans who have current disabilities accepted under the VEA but who are not yet at the EDA level of impairment still going to have the ability to obtain and EDA pension later in life 9after new legislation intro) when their accepted conditions worsen?

The EDA provides automatic entitlement to a spouse of benefits e.g. War Widows pension, Gold Card.

MRCA Special Rate Disability Pension has eligibility criteria such as incapacity payments and employment whereas the EDA has no such similar criteria.

It is blindingly obvious that to continue with the SRCA (MCRS) just solidifies the 'second class' treatment that veterans receive under this Act.

NO GOLD CARD, FOREVER HAVING TO REQUEST PERMISSION FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT THAT VETERANS COVERED BY THE VEA AND MRCS DO NOT HAVE TO AND THE EMBARRASSMENT OF HAVING MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS CALL DVA WHEN YOU SHOW THEM YOUR 'WHITE' CARD. EVEN AS TPI YOU CANNOT RECEIVE STATE GOVERNMENT BENEFITS THAT GOLD CARD HOLDERS CAN, EVEN IF THE GOLD CARD HOLDER IS LESS INJURED THAN A MEMBER COVERED BY THE SRCA(MCRS).

THE NEW LEGISLATION MUST REFLECT THAT, UNLIKE ANIMAL FARM, ALL VETERANS ARE EQUAL AND NONE SHOULD RECEIVE BETTER TREATMENT THAN OTHERS, WHICH IS CLEARLY THE CASE TODAY.

TO DENY SRCA COVERED TPI VETERANS A GOLD CARD IS DISCRIMATORY AND RESULTS IN THOSE TPI'S RECEIVING A SECOND-CLASS LEVEL OF TREATMENT

Fairness. My late father's health conditions following service in WWII qualified him for a Gold Card. He expected his widow to receive the Gold Card when he died (his widow, my mother, who was suffering from dementia). But his conditions were reassessed after he died and it was deemed he would not, under the new method of assessment, be eligible for the Gold Card. My sister and I had a long struggle through many stages, and with the support of Legacy to obtain the Gold Card for my mother. We were asked for information my father could have provided when he was alive, had he known. Fortunately my mother did not die before the process was complete. We were left with the feeling that the treatment of veterans' families was shabby. So fairness should be the hallmark of the new system.

And simplicity. Not umpteen steps and stages of appeal which leave the applicant thinking the department is hoping the applicant might die in the interim.

My experience was mainly of the processes after the veteran has died. (My father's treatment as a veteran while the was alive seemed quite satisfactory.)

I think the widow's (or widower's) entitlements should be settled while the veteran is alive. That way the veteran can have peace of mind that their family will be taken care of. Fortunately for my father he trusted Veterans Affairs! Had he seen how his widow and family were treated after he died, he would have been very angry.

To bring the Service of injured retired Service Personnel prior to 7 December 1972 into line with those injured after 1972 and covered by the Veterans Entitlement Act. The current legislation is biased because of a date and not a balanced decision to treat two different groups, separated by a date to give one group and advantage and to disadvantage the other group

All Service Personnel, injured either on Active Service, overseas Service Peacetime Service should be covered by the Veterans Entitlement Act.

To equalize all compensation for losses incurred between and within the existing Repatriation Acts to the same dollar value.

For those not Invalided out of Service:

Under the VEA Compensation for "suffering loss of earnings" can be paid with the TPI Payment amount alone or the TPI Payment plus the Invalidity Service Pension amount or the TPI Payment plus part of the Invalidity Service Pension.

Under MRCA the same loss of earnings is Compensated at 100% of the members last earnings for one year and thereafter at 75%.

For those Invalided out of Service a Superannuation Payment can be added.

Thus, the range of Compensation for the same Disabilities incurred resulting in loss of ability to provide for self and family can range from $43,700 p.a. to over $120,000 p.a.

The effect of these anomalies in these payments is that a Disabled Infantry front line War Veteran with two or even three yearlong deployments to Vietnam with the attendant daily anxiety of death or wounding can be compensated as little as $43,700 p.a. for inability to provide for themselves, family and save for retirement . This while an ADF member working in an office in Canberra who has never been exposed to life threatening trauma of war can be compensated for an industrial or road incident with over $120,000 p.a.

Grandfathering the VEA as proposed in your terms of reference is not consultation as it denies 19,600 (from Vietnam and prior conflicts) of Australia’s 28,500 TPI Veterans a voice in the process.

As worded in your question “As we look to reform veterans' entitlements legislation, what should the most important considerations be?” And then disallowing the majority of the most disabled from our ADF living under the VEA by saying you have already decided to quarantine/grandfather their entitlements is consultation denied.

Dear Compiler and Collators

In the sidebar of this website/page you have source documents referencing the International Accountancy and Regulatory Compliance Company KPMGs Review of TPI Benefits published by DVA in November 2019.

KPMG were restrained from making recommendations by the TORs devised by DVA (KPMG page iii).

However, that did not preclude KPMG making damning findings of systematic underpayment to our nations TPI Disabled. This under the false understanding that part of their compensation designated the Invalidity Service Pension is a welfare benefit and subject to an income and assets means test on the Disabled and that of their spouse. DVA conflate the reasons for the Invalidity Service Pension, paid only because of being granted the TPI compensation payment with the reason for the Service Pension paid as a retirement benefit.

The reason the Invalidity Service Pension is paid is because the TPI Payment by itself at $838 p.w. is not fit for purpose or description in the VEA i.e. “for suffering loss of earnings” when the Average Wage after Tax is $1,595 p.w.

(www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/average-weekly-earnings.
www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools)

KPMG had no brief to Review the Service Pension only the benefits paid as a result of being a TPI Disabled. Where KPMG refer to the Service Pension they are thus referring to the Invalidity Service Pension.

I draw your attention to the following findings from the KPMG Review:

“The Service Pension is also considered an income replacement benefit for TPI Veterans (i.e., compensation).” Page III
“The table illustrates that the Service Pension is also considered an income replacement benefit i.e., compensation.” Page V
“Service Pension: This benefit is considered 'Income Replacement’”. Page 32
“First Principals Approach ... Common principals underlying compensation. Maintain a lifestyle that aligns with their per-impairment lifestyle... Insurance benefits are not means tested.” Page's 25/26
“Means testing of insurance benefits dose not commonly occur.” Page 28
“The Service Pension should operate to avoid the possibility of members having to rely on charity.” Page 79

This 'Network' was asked to make submission to KPMG and contends that the Invalidity Service Pension is Compensation for losses incurred. KPMG found in our favour.

A personal footnote: I spent my two years in Vietnam. I was a Regular Soldier and my country needed me. Today my wife's earnings as a School Principal are used to deny me the Invalidity Service Pension. Next year her lifelong savings in the retirement superannuation fund will be used again to deny me the Invalidity Service Pension. (Women’s Superannuation is on average 70% of what a male can expect). I have not been able to contribute to the family on anything like an equal or even an adequate amount since marrying and that is depressing and makes me feel worthless. My wife () would like to use her earnings and retirement fund for her and her own children’s betterment. However, she has not only to care for me but forced to subsidise my life financially because of this draconian means test measure which allows our government to avoid its responsibility on behalf of the populace to pay the fair, just and equal compensation to those who put their lives and future prosperity on the line that allowed others to thrive and prosper in a free open Australia.

'Legislative reform' as you ask should leave nobody behind. It should take the best of what the existing Acts have as conditions and payments and bring everyone up to best industry standard.

I am happy to discuss any matter here for clarification or explanation and would welcome any feedback.

Thank you

When the new legislation takes effect, it needs to ensure he “offset” rules are looked at. Currently the veterans under MRCA have their CSC payments added into the income test. If the said veteran is approved to have the disability Superannuation Benefit, they have a tax free component, and the CSC Payment is classed as a Defined Benefit and not an income stream.

Everything should be taken into account. The best of all acts need to be used and not just “grandfathered”.

Fix the Offset rules, ensure the medical assistance is for all. Ensure that the families are looked after

Simplification and the merging of the disparate pieces of legislation. The guiding principle should be that the veteran should be given the benefit of doubt.

To be fair in the approach for all of the legislation, and be more consolidate.

In short ( less politics more action)

Speed up the process , too many departments not talking to each other.

Put it in simple terms and easy to follow . At the moment the Legislation is difficult to read and contradicts relevant sections

Ensure that all financial entitlements are indexed and constantly monitored.

A review of the current entitlements so that they can be increased and then monitored.

Any veteran who has been deployed to a war zone or peace keeping roll should receive medical treatment for all conditions no ifs and or buts on their discharge and should include they're wives or partners.

All veterans who served one day should receive treatment for any injury that occurred during their service period again no arguments.

The T.P.&I compensation payment should be immediately restored to 100% of the tax adjusted male average wage as it was during the 1950s and 60s.

As stated before any service persons who have served a deployment where they may have been subjected to mental or physical harm.

As a veteran who has served his country in War and in peace I feel that the current White / Gold card system be scrapped and a card for all veterans be established. All veterans who served in Wars and Peace keeping activities deserve the benefits that a "Gold" card veteran gets.

In regards to the Veterans Pension all veteran's should be entitled to the pension, regardless of status, current pension or wages. They served their country in War therefore deserve the veterans pension.

Indexing of entitlements

Harmonisation of the Acts should include the most beneficial aspects of the existing Acts e.g. equal funeral benefits and house hold services for eligible veterans.

DVA has some 40 highly paid Senior Public servants (at Secretary, Deputy Secretary and and Assistant Secretaries. How this seemingly excessive level of management has not, through their intellectual synergies, sought to address the complexities and anomalies associated with the Acts is beyond the understanding of many veterans

Consideration should be given to abandoning then VRB process. Currently, the VRB process is populated with lawyers, senior public servants and ADF ex high ranking ADF officers (who may not have been deployed).

All benefits under previous Acts are retained

The legislation must no be clouded with legal jargon Kev

Equitable entitlements that enables veterans flexibility to the support that best fits they current stage of life. A younger veteran may have/does have different needs to a elderly veteran. No one veteran is the same. Flexibility leads to empowerment and satisfaction that they control their situation.

No - Modern Australia needs modern reforms. The current system was fit for purpose during the late 1980 and 90s. The last 25 years of operational service? Conditions of Service and economic conditions of Australia. Require all reform options to be considered.

Veterans Australia NT Inc 2023_538

That no veterans be disadvantaged by the new reforms. From what is published so far it appears that this is one of the primary considerations.

That Advocates receive sufficient training in the new reforms. Our organisation is closely following the reforms and Q&A's as they arise

That the Advocates access to MyOrg (via PRODA) be upgraded urgently to allow sufficient numbers of clients to be listed. MyOrg gives Advocates access to the clients MyService portal once authorisation is registered. Currently there are significant access issues to this platform once the client number reaches above triple figures. This presents massive logistical problems for advocates assisting veterans currently.

Will the old ESO Portal be de commissioned? Using this platform does not bring claims onto the veterans MyService portal and is therefore not transparent for the veteran.

Perhaps consideration should be made to paying significant lump sums to veterans who are suffering mental health issues and may not be able to manage such without assistance. Leaving them vulnerable into the future.

Grandfathering VEA and DRCA clients

Review process for DRCA clients to be the same as the MRCA

Automatic payements eg to widows to continue after the 1 Jul 25 date

Advocate training a priority

BEST Grant claims points system will need to be reviewed and checked via claims portal

Continuation of acceptance of claims for Civilian Police Peace Keeping members and their spouses to receive DVA entitlements with the proposed changes and not just grandfather the veteran themselves. Spouses should continue to be able to receive the War widows pension on the death of the member.

It relates to your entitlements as an exorcism current serving Police whom have service as a Peace Keeper attached to an AFP Policing Peace Keeping Contingent. This is a concern whether you were in fact an AFP Member (sworn / unsworn) or, attached to Mission as a State Based Member to an AFP contingent.

Currently you have an entitlement to apply for DVA assistance via way of a White Veterans Card, or depending on your injury/s, a Gold Veterans Card via the Veterans Entitlement Act (VEA). In my case I have a Gold Veterans Card embossed TPI (Total Permanent Invalidity).

DVA are moving ahead with streamlining everything under MRCA for what they say is a benefit for Veterans (which is a good thing), however it appears to completely cut off Police Officers (With no military service) that have served in a Peace Keeping role. This is because our only avenue for applying for benefits is if our mission/s came under schedule 3 of the VEA. I have seen no evidence of schedule 3 being moved across under MRCA. I have raised this with the TPI Federation and they also mentioned another serious concern below.

The current Grandfathering clause for those under the VEA proposed by Government, only applies to the Veteran themselves, whereas as it currently stands, if you are the holder of a Gold Card your spouse, on your death, receives a War Widows Pension for the remainder of her / his life . The pathway forward appears to close off this entitlement as well which is a disgrace.

Continue to include Civilian Police Peace Keeping Contingent avenues for DVA Assistance as allowed under Schedule 3 of the VEA and allow surviving spouses on the death of the member to automatically receive the War Widows pension as is currently in place and not only have the veteran themselves grandfathered under the proposed changes

APPVA 2023_546

Veteran entitlements must be set up to be the best of all current legislative entitlements. The best interest of the veteran and the veteran family must be maintained

Currently VEA funeral entitlement for a veterans family is $2k. Under other legislation it’s $12k. All entitlements from current legislation must be collated and the best put into the new legislation. Any new or amended veteran legislation must be put to the greater veteran community not just ESORT.

That AFP personnel who have previously qualified by service in Peacekeeping Missions recognised for access to VA Benefits continue to be able to access benefits in the reformed arrangements.

Great consideration must be given to ensuring that information about any changes are clearly and timely disseminated to all DVA clients and prospective clients.

That equal consideration is given to those older veterans/widows who remain under their existing Act.

That no veteran/widow is disadvantaged by any changes

All existing arrangements for those who remain under VEA are grandparented to ensure there is no reduction in entitlements currently being or previously received by veterans/widows

Ensure that automatic grants of War Widows Pension/Compensation will continue to be offered

Language such as "it is anticipated" should not be used as it leaves room for doubt.

There is very little understanding of the current Acts among the veteran/widow community therefore very little understanding of what these changes mean.

The term "war widow" is not mentioned in the preferred option for one single Act (MRCA) and this term should continue to be used rather than "Wholly Dependant Partners".

Clear, simple language be used to cannot be misinterpreted.

War widows claims be considered under presumptive liability.

Consideration be given past the age of 25 years for dependants (children) who are chronically medically and mentally affected by their parent's service or death.

Prior to the introduction of the changes all options need to be clearly explained to new war widows and legal advice offered to ensure complete understanding.

As there is a huge difference in the amount of Funeral benefit offered between VEA and MRCA there is a need to remedy this discrimination.

Simplifying the Legislation and more importantly the process. The waste under the current process would be enormous if you consider DVA staff wages, consultants, review processes/appeals etc

The cost of the current system when you include all DVA staff (top to bottom, including an additional 500 to be recruited, not to mention the training overhead), outside specialists and consultants and the appeals process is something that could be significantly reduced in my view than by just simplifying the Legislation. Any ADF member who completes in excess of 20 years service will without a doubt have a number of injuries/illness. To reduce the mental anguish on Veterans inflicted by the current DVA process, a cost benefit analysis of issuing a Gold Card to long serving Veterans should be undertaken. This would significantly reduce the number of DVA staff salaries, superannuation, allowances etc, not to mention the cost of numerous consultants and specialists and the strain on the Veteran of using the current process let alone the appeals process. I suspect the Gold Card would be cheaper. This could also become a recruiting incentive particularly in the current climate where the ADF expansion is being hindered by the paucity of suitable recruits. Under such a scheme the Veteran can in his own time find a suitable doctor to work through his issues and where necessary be referred to an appropriate specialist. The reduced mental anguish alone may well justify such a proposal. The reduced DVA staff could then concentrate, using the refined Legislation, on those junior members (less than 20 years) who may well have serious issues after discharge that still need to be addressed. In these circumstances you would expect delays in processing to be minimal or non existent. I do not believe throwing an additional 500 staff (if you can recruit them, retain them and the huge ongoing training overhead ) is a cost effective solution.

Incapacity payments should be payable at 100% for their entirety as it is not our fault we can't work for an extended period of time or indefinitely!!! It's like you get punished for being broken!!!

Current entitlements should not be watered down for those serving in the future.

The entitlement to a gold card, this is given who have been in Armed Conflict and should continue in the new legislation in its current form. Stripping these benefits just shows lack of respect for service.

I am not a legislative expert but any review I have seen reduces entitlements, this must not occur this time. all entitlements must be preserved for future service personnel.

Simplify the process of submitting claims by accepting conditions associated with the wear and tear of the service provided. e.g arthritis, back injuries.

A lot of time is spent justifying what you did and what you carried when in the case of infantry service(as an example) when normal duties put extreme pressure on your body.

Widows entitlements should only be improved.

Compensation to remain tax-free.

Table showing no proof injuries that are standard across all services and specific injuries relevant to employment e.g Infantry, parachutists, divers etc

The Guide employed by DVA a for the Determination of claims regardless of the legislation under which a claim is considered.

It is the Comcare Guide for determining Workers Compensation claims and is totally unfit for the purpose of considering and determining Veterans’ claims.

For DVA to have legislated, appropriate, Fit-for-purpose Guidelines for the treatment of Veterans’ claims, not just a “re-hashed version” of the Comcare Guide, as is currently taking place within DVA.

My main concern relates to the matter of process.

It is VITAL that the old system be re-introduced - of having a "Case Holder" or some-such, in each state, who can be readily contactable by a veteran. Veterans need/want to actually EYEBALL AND TALK to someone, who preferably knows them, and can follow through on an issue without the veteran having to go over and over the same issue, again and again, with faceless persons on the other side of the 'world'.

The current need for a West Australian, for example, having to phone someone in Melbourne or Brisbane to discuss a problem, is one of the main reasons why veterans feel distanced from the very agency that purports to support them. The DVA person contacted has no idea who they are talking to and a follow-up/subsequent phone call invariably results in someone else unfamiliar with the issue, Often, concerns/issues have to be repeated or explained again and again - resolutions seem to drift off into space.

Veterans have no confidence in the current consultative system - it equates with talking to someone on the moon.

If DVA is wondering why there is a high suicide rate amongst veterans and want to address it and DVA does nothing else - PLEASE FIX THIS - veterans have no faith in a centralised, impersonal bureaucracy.

Waiver of income tax for veterans. Veterans' pensions are minuscule (as compared with politicians - who don't need to serve a minimum of 20 years - or get shot at) and we pay full fare at tax time.

In the same vane - a GST and SalesTax exempt card for veterans would go a long way to demonstrate the nation's thanks for the relative few who put their life on the line during their service.

Have a look at what the Americans do for their ex- servicemen and women.......

That under VEA 100 % if my condition cause me to stop working I am eligible for TPI and that my wife is eligible for war widow pension if I pass away as a TPI

not only grandfather VEA, let people have a choose to stay under VEA

Don't erode previous entitlements.
Don't make this like an Insurance company type of system.
Look after our kids and partners
Offsetting provisions should be excluded.
Have warlike and Peacekeeping Service recognised equally.

A No worse off approach for any implementation of legislation. And an improvement of entitlements that have been reduced over the decades.

- A review period with actionable reporting and accountability to ensure any new legislation is operating as intended and a clause added to allow for unintended consequences to be dealt with appropriately in a timely manner.

That the legislation reflect the public expectation that our veterans are looked after with good health care and and that widows and family are supported financially in a timely manner in the event of serious injury or death of member.

A veteran should not be worse off or denied access to health care simply because they are DVA members and DVA won’t pay market value for health services, and will not pay thier bills on time.

Please also make the claims process similar to the civilian injuries claims process to streamline the work for veterans Doctors and specialists.

Keep the gold card and extend it to all operational veterans.

Return Gold Card like value to operational or injured veterans with accepted claims.

That non liability health cover be indexed or raised and reviewed annually to exceed private and public health amounts so that DVA clients are not penalised as it has become unaffordable for health services to take on a DVA patient.

Any compensation should be above the monetary value of what an employee would receive in a worker’s compensation claim.

The ADF and individual services should be held legally accountable for non operational claims particularly in the event of malpractice, and or negligence.

ADF and individuals within be held to account at senate enquiry or similar regarding numbers of claims or data pertaining to troubling trends in preventable injuries.

That the data collected from claims to be used for trend analysis of injuries and claims to identify Intervention-able trends.- I.e spine injury related to introduction of new equipment or process.

Fair treatment

Equity

No loss of entitlements

Simplification of legislation and processes (including within the VEA)

The proposed pathway envisages a move to a single Act, with both the VEA and the DRCA closed off to new applicants and new claims.

In , we wrote to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs expressing our concern that police peacekeepers who have yet to lodge a claim may be excluded, as they do not currently fall within the ambit of the MRCA.

On , we received a response to say that DVA and his office were aware of the issue and are working to resolve it during the consultation phase. And further, that "Under the proposed pathway, it is in tended that police officers with existing VEA coverage will retain eligibility and be able to submit claims under the MRCA. It is proposed that police officers will have access to the range of benefits available under an improved MRCA".

We look forward to further consultation as pathway progresses.

On , we made a detailed submission to DVA following the call for feedback on Veterans' Legislation Simplification and Harmonisation. This focused on issues such as:

equity. ADF personnel who served in certain operational areas overseas have entitlements to treatment under the VEA, to which police peacekeepers who served in the same theatres and at the same time do not;
the need to update Schedule 3 of the VEA (some missions are not included); and
the need for a general clean-up of the VEA (which, for example, deems any injuries or illnesses suffered as a member of a peacekeeping force as "war-caused", but strangely not to have occurred in an operational area or during warlike service).

We also pointed out the Productivity Commission's view that police peacekeepers be viewed as an exception when moving to a single Act.

Although we did not receive an acknowledgement, we assume our full submission is on file. If not, we can send it to you.

Obviously, simplifying the veterans' legislation is not a simple task. We wish you well with the task.

Simplify the system by separating the healthcare needs of veterans from the compensation aspects.

Provide lifetime No Gap health cover with full private and public access as a Condition of Service, (apply it retrospectively to all past and present members). This would effectively mean there is no difference between the limited health cover (white card) and the other cards.

The Compensation side of the process could be improved significantly. The current system of applying for compensation, the initial assessments, and appeals is an industry all in itself which is a waste of resources. The funding that supports the system of processing claims could be better spent supporting and compensating veterans.

Provide lifetime No Gap health cover with full private and public access as a Condition of Service. Several stages or bands:

initial engagement has an income based levee 1% which is reduced each year to 0% by the time they reach 60 years of age.
5, 10, 15, 20 years service the levee would be adjusted down form 1% to meet the table in point 1.
CRA and Medically separated veterans O% levee.

All health providers mandated by legislation to provide service.

This model will recognise the wear and tear that military life put on a member's body. The model reduces the stress of trying to fight to have conditions recognised which in its open wright is detrimental to a members mental health.

Lifetime No Gap health cover is would be a valuable recruiting and retention initiative.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Compensation side of the process could be improved significantly. The current system of applying for compensation, the initial assessments, and appeals is an industry all in itself which is a waste of resources.

By way of example, I have handful of conditions for which I am claiming. I did not know where to start and I did not want to disadvantage myself. I had to engage an advocate to assist with the submission of the claim. The time and effort by the advocate to review the medical records and prepare the claim would have been at least between 1 and 5 days work (someone is paying for that).

Then the Medical officer had to respond with their parts of the paperwork. This was a 2 x 1 hour appointments contracted medial officers are on probably north of $1000 per day ($266) plus responding to follow-up questions.

Then the Staffs in DVA assessing the claims to recommend, again I suspect it is not a quick job, 1-5 days and then the delegate to review and approve (or reject) 1 day.

Now multiply that for the number of claims being assessed annually and we have a overly burdensome system.

A less adversarial system would be better where is a member sustains an injury and they have it recoded in their health record they are entitled compensation. Secondary injury due to physical compensation would also attract compensation.

Submissions received

Email submissions received

2023_40

2023_50

2023_63

2023_114

2023_137

2023_144

DVA SUBMISSION 2019

HEALTH CARE LIFE SUPPORT

HEALTH CARE.

LIFE SUPPORT

2023_148

2023_166

2023_176

2023_184

Submission on Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation

2023_201

Have your say

2023_208

2023_216

2023_218

2023_249

2023_250

2023_257

Submission on Veterans legislative Reform. 29 March 2023.

2023_291

Veterans’ Legislation Reform Simplify and Harmonise

2023_524

2023_559

2023_569

2023_570

2023_620

Police Federation of Australia

2023_623

Not The Whole Problem

2023_625

Australian War Widows NSW

2023_627

Consortium of SA Ex-Service Organisations’ Submission - Feedback in Response to the Commonwealth Government’s Proposed Veterans’ Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway

Smoking

Special Rate Disability Pension (SRDP)

Extreme Disablement Adjustment (EDA)

Incapacity for Service/Work payments Removal of the 5% superannuation deduction

Backlog of Initial Liability and Permanent Impairment claims

Veterans Gold Card

Sequelae Conditions

2023_631

Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia Inc

VVAA Inc SUBMISSION – VETERANS’ LEGISLATION REFORM PATHWAY Ref: DVA Booklet “Veterans Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway”

Proposed New System

Further Improvements to the Veteran Support System

Veterans Review Board

Repatriation Medical Authority

Establish a Ministerial Advisory Council

Keeping Veterans Informed of the Outcomes of this Consultation

2023_634

Veterans’ Legislation Reform Consultation Submission by the Australian Federal Police Association

2023_635

RSL Australia Legislation Reform

2023_636

Submission by the Special Air Service Association (WA Branch) to Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway

2023_639

Ministerial Advisory Council on Veterans and Their Families

2023_640

Operational Legal Australia’s Submission for the Veterans’ Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway

2023_642

RSL Australia Non-Liability Healthcare for Reservists

Web form submissions received

2023_13

2023_15

2023_16

2023_17

2023_18

2023_19

2023_20

2023_21

2023_22

2023_34

2023_36

Veterans’ Legislation Reform
Simplify and Harmonise

Veterans’ Legislation Reform Consultation
Submission by the Australian Federal Police Association

RSL Australia
Non-Liability Healthcare for Reservists