Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's important at the outset to place on record that the concept of an independent oversight body is not new. Indeed, the coalition brought forward legislation in 2020 to establish a national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide prevention. That proposal sought to create a truly independent statutory authority with many of the same structural features now being implemented. At that time, the legislation was not supported. The Labor Party instead opposed that legislation at the time for political purposes. Their stated position then was that a royal commission was necessary first, but they rejected an immediate independent overnight mechanism that could have begun driving reform and accountability years earlier. The decision had consequences that delayed the introduction of a system-wide oversight at a time when it was urgently needed. Earlier action could have seen reform efforts and accountability mechanisms operating in parallel with the royal commission, accelerating progress and strengthening outcomes for veterans and families.

What is now before the parliament, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, closely resembles the model the coalition proposed and the government opposed. If that earlier proposal had been supported, we would already have a mature, independent oversight body operating within the system today. The coalition will support this framework because veterans and their families cannot afford further delay; however, history should not be overlooked. It's a matter of record that Labor put political consideration ahead of early reform and is now delivering a model that it once rejected.

The coalition established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide because we recognise that too many families have been failed by the system. Confidence had broken down, and truth and accountability were required. The findings of the royal commission reinforced what veterans and families had been saying for years—that systemic failures require systemic solutions. The commission made clear that enduring reform depends on independent system-wide oversight operating at arm's length from Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. One of its central recommendations was the creation of a permanent independent statutory oversight body. These bills are intended to give effect to that recommendation, and the coalition supports that objective in principle.

Independent oversight must be real, not symbolic. It requires strong powers, transparent reporting and direct accountability to the parliament. Without those elements, oversight risks becoming procedural rather than transformational. It's also essential that a body established through standalone legislation—attempts to create it through late-stage amendments to unrelated legislation were rushed and lacked appropriate consultation. Major institutional reforms of this nature demand proper scrutiny and engagement. The coalition supported the amended vets bill at the time to avoid delaying urgent reforms for veterans, but we made clear our concerns about process and structure. We advocated for standalone legislation, stronger independence guarantees and proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Following the coalition's initiative, a Senate inquiry examined the proposed model in detail. That inquiry confirmed significant stakeholder concerns regarding independence, power, scope and clarity of function. Many of the improvements reflected in the final legislation stemmed directly from that scrutiny. Stakeholders across the veterans community emphasised the need for genuine independence, clear authority and transparency.

These principles are reflected in the bill before us, and that is to be welcomed. Strong information-gathering powers are appropriate in this context. Weak oversight bodies produce weak outcomes. However, these powers must be balanced with safeguards, procedural fairness and the protection of rights. This bill achieves that balance. Equally important is transparency. Public reporting and mandatory tabling in parliament ensure that findings are visible and cannot be set aside within the bureaucracy. Mandatory government responses within defined timelines are essential to ensuring that recommendations translate into action.

Returning to the coalition's amendment, this is a matter of accountability and timing. The bill as currently drafted delays the first implementation assessment by the commissioner until December 2027, with the report potentially not being tabled until 2028—almost four years after the royal commission delivered its findings. That timeframe is simply too slow. Veterans and their families were promised urgent reform, not deferred reporting. Independent oversight must be timely if it is to be meaningful. Delayed accountability weakens the very purpose of establishing the commission. (Time expired)

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we'll be supporting the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and to deal briefly with the history of why we're here. We're here because the royal commission made a finding that veterans and people serving in the ADF are at significant risk, and at significant risk to their mental health. There have been appalling rates of suicide and self-harm in our defence forces and our veterans community. One of the core recommendations from the royal commission was that there needs to be an independent commissioner—independent of Defence, independent of the minister—to ensure that there is somewhere to go, for veterans, their families, members of the ADF, and that there would be that independent, ongoing oversight of any reforms that this parliament makes to try to change the structures in the ADF to make it a safer place, especially for women but not just women: for people serving in the ADF.

That, for me and for the Greens and for the veterans my office works with, was always one of the core recommendations—to ensure independent oversight. If you remember the dying few months of the last parliament, there was legislation coming through the parliament to harmonise a bunch of the compensation provisions for veterans and for ADF personnel, and at the last minute the government tacked on schedule 9, I think it was, to put in place some kind of commissioner. It didn't have the independence. It was part of the Defence Act. It wasn't seen to be meeting the core recommendations of the royal commission, and it all happened without consultation with our veterans. Even though what was put into that legislation in that unholy rush in February of last year made things slightly better—put in place at least a commissioner—the way it was done, the disrespect it showed to the veteran community in particular, really put the government behind the eight ball. We were deeply critical of the process the government used, just ramming it through without regard.

We worked across the chamber, and I think a requirement for review was put in. We then worked across the chamber with whoever we can work with. I want to acknowledge the ongoing work of Senator Lambie—her ongoing interest in this, her ongoing connection with veterans—to ensure that we've got where we are now. What's happened now is that fresh legislation has been brought in to fix some of the mess from February last year, to make a genuinely independent commissioner—independent of the defence minister—to ensure they have the evidence-gathering powers they need, the ability to have self-initiated inquiries and the ability to refer matters to this parliament when they see the need to do that.

I want to credit all the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation committee in this process. I think you all committed to working through and making sure we got to where we need to be for veterans and for members of the ADF. I know that there are a couple of competing amendments in this, which are about reporting. I want to be clear that the Greens will be supporting Senator Lambie's proposals that there be annual reporting for the implementation of the recommendations from the royal commission and such other reporting that this independent commissioner wants to make to parliament about the state of the ADF and the protection of members and veterans.

If we can't succeed in getting Senator Lambie's annual reports, we'll be backing the coalition's reports, which bring the reports in earlier. I don't think we'll be doing what we should do, which are annual reports. But bring the reports in earlier and we'll be backing those amendments in.

I want to finish with this: there was a suggestion that this bill might also be guillotined and pushed through without debate, and we resisted that. That was the mistake made in February last year. It's the mistake that is so often made—that when we're dealing with incredibly sensitive issues for the veterans community it's done in an unholy rush, without any kind of scrutiny. So I'm pleased that we've finally got here. I hope that those veterans who are watching what this parliament does realise that there's cross-party support for them, for their families and for the needs that they have. If I think about the last Senate estimates hearing we had on veterans, there's a bloody lot more work to be done.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I associate myself, in particular, with the last remark Senator Shoebridge made in relation to our last Senate estimates hearing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator David Pocock participated in that estimates hearing as well. I wholeheartedly agree that there are a number of fundamental issues in relation to how, in particular, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is managing access to medical services, including medical compensation, expert reports, access to psychiatrists and a number of other issues. I acknowledge the work that Senator Lambie has undertaken in that regard.

In the context of this legislation, I want to place on the record my thanks to Phil Thompson, the member for Herbert in the other place, and also the former member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce, who now serves with great distinction in the Tasmanian parliament. I can distinctly remember, during the period of my first three years in this place, their advocacy, particularly informed by their lived experience as veterans, in relation to the need to have a royal commission looking at the issue of suicide amongst our veterans. It was, in large part, due to their advocacy that the coalition government instituted and established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. I want to take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to each of them for their strong advocacy. I saw firsthand their passionate commitment to this cause.

Senator McDonald said, in her usual wise way, that the coalition had proposed the establishment of an independent national commissioner dealing with the issue of suicide and suicide prevention for our veterans. It had been something which was put forward by the coalition when we were in government. It was legislation which was, unfortunately, defeated in this place. But we've gotten here eventually, with respect to setting up this independent Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill. I think it's extraordinarily important that we got to this destination. I think it's a much improved piece of legislation, from the scrutiny which has occurred through the Senate committee process. I want to thank all the senators who contributed to that scrutiny across the chamber and acknowledge where the government has accepted those amendments proposed by the committee.

The last comment I want to make is on the importance, from my perspective, of this new commissioner's power to establish an inquiry on their own initiative into matters relating to suicide prevention or wellbeing outcomes for veterans. From my perspective, it is absolutely crucial that the commissioner not be hamstrung, not be limited and not have guardrails erected around their discretion with respect to embarking upon their own inquiry and examination into matters of concern with respect to suicide and suicidality among our veterans. That is incredibly important. When you dovetail that power with the commissioner's independence from the department and from the minister and consider the powers the commissioner will have with respect to witness protection and compelling access to evidence, I think this is a really good scheme. It's an effective scheme. As Senator McDonald has advocated, we should accelerate the reporting dates in relation to the work of the commissioner and the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations. I fully support that as well. Our veterans deserve nothing less than this legislation.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, and I associate myself with the remarks of my fellow senators. The creation of the commissioner position is a product of the findings of the royal commission. It will not only hold Defence accountable but also seek to identify measures which will improve the system.

I wish to reflect, in the time allocated to me, on the fact that, being someone who has served, spent time at the foot of the Hindu Kush and worked with and as a member of Legacy and the RSL, it's sad to me that, in 2026, we are still legislating to assist veterans and hold Defence accountable. One would like to think that Defence would hold itself accountable and that we as a community would support our veterans, because we have a moral obligation to do so. We ask individuals to volunteer. They put their lives at risk, they come home and many suffer—not always physical injuries. Those stresses of reintegrating into civilian life often manifest long after their discharge. None of this should be a surprise after two world wars, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, yet here we are debating an excellent piece of legislation in 2026.

As a body politic, we cannot continue to grind on and accept mediocrity in the treatment of our veterans. We have to seek excellence and not default to mediocrity. We should be the world leader in the treatment of veterans and their families by treating our veterans not only with respect throughout their service but also with the utmost care—particularly those who suffer from their service in conflict.

But I'll leave this on a positive note. We have arrived at a place where we have a commissioner that will continue to shed light on how we treat veterans in the service, how we discharge them and how we give them care for the remainder of their days. Long gone are the days when we could hold the view that, once they're discharged, they are someone else's problem. We have a moral obligation to care for them, to watch over them and to meet their needs every single day for the rest of their lives. I thank the government for pursuing this legislation, I thank all my colleagues for their great work in committee and I look forward to these bills' passage through this house, their proclamation and their coming into life.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to sincerely thank senators for their contributions to the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. I refer here not just to the contributions during this debate but to the work done in committee and, indeed, the many contributions made over the years in relation to these issues.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide highlighted the devastating scale and impact of veteran suicide and made it clear that this is a national tragedy that desperately needed to be addressed. The government understands the seriousness of these issues and the gravity of the recommendations put before us by the royal commission, and that is why we have worked to implement the agreed recommendations of the royal commission as quickly as possible.

In his address to the National Press Club on the one-year anniversary of the government's response to the final report of the royal commission, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel provided an update that 32 recommendations would be implemented by the end of 2025, and we expect two-thirds of the agreed recommendations to be complete by the end of this year.

The royal commission described recommendation 122, the establishment of an independent oversight body, as its most important recommendation. In acknowledgement of the significance and urgency of this recommendation, the Albanese Labor government legislated the creation of the Defence and Veteran Service Commission in February 2025, and it has been up and running since September 2025. The current enactment within part 8E of the Defence Act 1903 by way of schedule 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 passed the parliament in February 2025 and ensured that the commission could be up and running by September and not be subject to the intervening federal election. Noting the swift passage of that legislation, the government supported a Senate inquiry into this, enabling the defence and veteran community to provide feedback on schedule 9 and the establishment of this oversight body.

These bills before us are a direct result of that engagement. We seek to demonstrate our commitment to working with the defence and veteran community. We want to get this right. The bills address the first recommendation of the Senate inquiry by establishing standalone legislation for the commission. The bills also add a specific reference to families as part of the commissioner's functions, strengthen the commissioner's independence and powers, improve witness protections and increase transparency.

The bills require the commission to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the measures and actions taken to implement the government response to the royal commission, and this is in addition to other inquiries that may be undertaken by the commissioner, including a recently announced inquiry into the implementation of the government's response to recommendations 9 to13 of the royal commission's interim report. The timeline for the first legislated inquiry will enable a proper consideration of our work and an opportunity to genuinely evaluate whether the recommendations have been implemented appropriately and are making a difference for the defence and veteran community.

Again, I want to sincerely thank all who have contributed to this debate for your unwavering support for our veteran community. The commission is an integral part of this work and will ensure ongoing scrutiny of our efforts to achieve this aim.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all the guillotine motions, I didn't get a chance to get myself on the speakers list. I'm wondering if I'm allowed to make a brief contribution.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll need to seek leave to speak because the minister has closed the debate.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A five-minute statement?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could do that during the committee stage, which we will be moving to after this moment, if that's agreeable. Minister?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be very happy to cede to Senator Pocock at the opening of the committee stage—and I can see the opposition indicating a similar willingness to do so. If that suits Senator Pocock, speaking at that point would be fine, from my perspective.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.