Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to present the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report Issues relating to advocacy services for veterans accessing compensation and income support together with accompanying documents. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I am very pleased to table this report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which I very proudly chair, Issues relating to advocacy services for veterans accessing compensation and income support. This inquiry has examined the system which is essential to the wellbeing of those who have served our nation, a system which helps veterans and their families access the treatment, rehabilitation and compensation to which they are entitled.

The evidence before the committee made it very clear that while there has been real progress, particularly through the work to simplify veterans legislation, the advocacy system remains under significant strain and requires urgent and coordinated action to protect veterans from harm. The committee acknowledges the government for its commitment to the harmonisation of veterans legislation, consolidating three complex acts into a single modern framework from 1 July 2026. This reform represents an important step towards simplifying the claims process and improving access to entitlements.

However, the committee also heard repeatedly about the ongoing need for professional and accessible advocacy. Many veterans leaving service face very significant physical, psychological, bureaucratic barriers. They need support not just to make a claim but to understand it and their rights, to navigate the system and to trust the system, including the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That is where advocacy remains vital.

Our inquiry heard troubling evidence about the rapid expansion of commercial for-profit advocacy services. These businesses charge veterans fees or commissions—sometimes, we heard, as high as 29 per cent of a veteran's compensation—just to assist with DVA claims. While the committee recognises that paid advocacy can have a legitimate role where it is transparent, ethical and conducted in the veteran's best interest, we heard far too often that many veterans were encumbered with the system without proper safeguards. There is no regulation, no accreditation and no clear code of conduct. This absence of oversight has allowed unacceptable and in some cases distressing behaviour to emerge.

The committee heard evidence of misleading advertising, hidden fees and contracts that veterans could not escape. We heard some providers have combined advocacy within in-house medical services, creating clear conflicts of interest and perverse incentives to inflate claims for profit. Our committee heard cases where this conduct—I have to say, in some cases, quite reprehensible conduct—left veterans worse off financially and emotionally, and, in some cases, traumatised by the very process which was meant to help them. This is not acceptable. It undermines trust in the entire system and damages the integrity of the Department of Veterans' Affairs's work.

The committee does not recommend the prohibition of paid advocacy outright. Veterans should have the choice to seek assistance from volunteer not-for-profit or professional advocates as they see fit, but that choice must come with protections, transparent fees, capped costs and mandatory accreditation to ensure that all advocates, paid or unpaid, are held to the same ethical and professional standards. Advocacy must always be the veteran centric, never profit driven.

At the same time, the free-to-veterans advocacy network, often delivered through ex-service organisations, is under enormous strain. It relies heavily on volunteers and limited government grants through the Building Excellence in Support and Training Grants program, the BEST program. It is a system that has not kept pace with demand or the complexity of veterans' needs. Both this inquiry and the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found that this model is unsustainable. The evidence is clear. We need a professional, stable and adequately funded free advocacy system to ensure no veteran is left vulnerable to predatory business models.

The committee also examined the Institute of Veterans' Advocacy, an initiative with potential to bring coherence, training and professional standards to the sector. However, the committee heard that the institute cannot succeed under its current funding model. It cannot depend on membership fees or donations to deliver a national regulatory and accreditation role. If the government is to ensure quality and integrity across the advocacy system, the institute must be securely and sustainably funded and empowered as an independent statutory authority to register, accredit and oversee advocates nationwide.

Some of the evidence this committee heard about the way our veterans are being treated was nothing short of distressing. It caused a lot of anger amongst committee members, I have to say. These men and women have already served our nation with courage and loyalty. They should not have to fight again for the support which is rightfully theirs.

Our report and our recommendations call for urgent, coordinated government action to regulate commercial advocacy services, to ensure transparency, capped pricing and veteran centred conduct; to fully fund and empower the Institute of Veterans Advocacy as an independent national regulator; and to act on the royal commission recommendation and invest in a professional, sustainable, free-to-the-veteran advocacy system to ensure every veteran, regardless of means, has access to fair and competent support.

It would be remiss of me not to note that, to their credit, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been implementing safeguards, within the current legislative framework, to protect veterans from unethical processes and practices. However, without government action, this issue will continue to spiral out of control. The government must now act swiftly and decisively with sustained investment to ensure that every veteran receives advocacy that is fair and professional and reflects the enormous commitment that veterans have made to our nation.

I finish by saluting our veterans. The Australian Senate and our committee that I proudly chair hear you. We stand with you, and we will continue our fight to ensure that you receive the respect, the support and the entitlements you so deserve. I commend our report to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also speak to the report handed down by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, relating to advocacy services for veterans accessing compensation and income support. Like my colleague Senator Henderson, I was really pleased to see this report handed down and the fantastic work that was put into this report. At the heart of this inquiry is an effort to show our veterans respect and to ensure that they receive what they are owed for the sacrifices that they have made for our nation. In representing the coalition, I'm proud to have done my small part to try and show that respect for their service.

At a recent inquiry into this issue, my colleagues and I heard troubling evidence from witnesses that veterans desperately seeking to find resolution to cases regarding compensation payments are being overcharged by commercially minded advocates who are taking commission based fees for representing veterans, some of whom are understandably vulnerable to exploitation. These fees can be as high as tens of thousands of dollars from the veterans' compensation payouts, sometimes for as little as forwarding a simple email.

I want to make it clear that there are some very good, very ethical providers that are providing advocacy for veterans, and they are doing the right thing by our veterans. But, in this unregulated space, some veteran advocates stand to cumulatively make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars off veterans' compensation payments when using the commission-for-service model. As we just heard, some commissions go as high as 29 per cent of the compensation payment. These commission-for-service advocacy companies also push veterans into accepting lump-sum payments, rather than opting for pension-style payments over time, so that the commissions can be paid as soon as the compensation is paid out. That critical choice between lump-sum and trickle payments is taken from veterans under this model, and I don't think that's fair. These veterans paying high prices are people who have served to defend our freedom, have earned their compensation and are suffering from the effects of service. Every effort should be expended by the Senate to protect those who have protected us. Now they need our protection from unscrupulous advocacy providers chasing the money.

Free and fairly price-structured advocacy services already exist. Let's be clear. There are decent advocates that are being fair about their price structure, where veterans don't get ripped off but pay for what they get, which is good advice and adequate support, commensurate with the fees that they pay. And they are taking the pressure off the free services already provided to veterans too, which is a good thing. But, because this is an unregulated space, in the end vulnerable veterans bombarded by constant advertising on social media platforms see no other choice than to sign away their compensation advocacy to commission based services.

Having looked up a veterans advocacy website, I am now personally bombarded, via my social media algorithm, by company after company presenting as the promised land for veterans seeking compensation payments. It is ruthless. In this inquiry, submitters raised concerns with the fee-for-service model. They raised concerns about ethics and about troubling behaviours and business practices taking over the sector. Others from the for-profit advocacy businesses argued strongly that there were valid needs and legitimate roles for fee-for-service providers. Why? Because the system of compensation is not working for veterans. It's very complex. Sometimes it's openly cumbersome and sometimes it's too much of a headache for veterans who need help with navigating the bureaucratic process.

The proliferation of these commercial entities, as the result of the limitations of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, can impact on veterans and can impact on their wellbeing. Make no mistake; this proliferating cowboy industry is also the result of this Labor government paying out money into an unregulated system without consideration of the unintended consequences and without urgently needed regulation. Rogue advocates, those there for not the compensation but the money, are following the money. More evidence in this inquiry showed that professional oversight of work standards and conduct is severely limited. This lack of oversight and recourse options reduces the quality of advocacy services, leading to unacceptable advocate behaviours and poor outcomes for veterans.

Let me be clear again. The fact that this industry exists at all is an indictment of our current system. The veteran compensation system is opaque, and an entire industry has grown around navigating it. The fact that fringe cowboy commercial ventures are the controversial part of it shows you how much the Overton window has shifted. The integrity of the DVA entitlement system is at risk, and it's not the fault of DVA but the lack of oversight on this problem.

As senators in this place we must never forget those who committed themselves and their families to defend this nation. They deserve access to equitable, ethical and effective advocacy. They have rights to compensation and support entitlements. If we turn our backs to the rogue commercial advocacy entities that are in it for the profit, we are turning our backs on our veterans.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.