Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator McAllister. Today is Vietnam Veterans' Day, and Labor has chosen to cap veteran allied health services at $5,000 a year in the 2026-27 budget. Since the announcement, there has been an outcry from the veteran community, especially those in the regions. Many veterans in remote regions note that the cap will be chewed up on travel, leaving barely anything left over for actual treatments. Yesterday, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs refused to consider revising the cap, despite veterans not being able to access the care they need. Can the minister, who has refused to help veterans, explain why they refuse to help these brave warriors and their families, who are going to suffer under these caps?

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

Senator Whitten began his question by referencing Vietnam Veterans' Day, and I might take the opportunity to acknowledge that we do mark Vietnam Veterans' Day today. It is 60 years since the Battle of Long Tan. On that day, 18 Australians lost their lives and 24 more were wounded. It is the case that, for many years, this was a day that served as an unofficial commemoration for Vietnam veterans. It was Prime Minister Bob Hawke who in 1987 named 18 August as Vietnam Veterans' Day. I'm sure senators across the chamber join together in acknowledging and honouring the service of all of those people who returned and all of those who didn't.

You ask about the changes to allied health funding. We do want to ensure that veterans have access to high-quality health services that support their health and support their wellbeing. We also acknowledge the incredible work that is undertaken by the thousands of providers who treat veterans and their families. For that reason, we are making the most significant payment increase for allied health services provided to veterans in 20 years. The increase to fees paid to providers will expand the network of allied health professionals that are available to veterans. It will improve access to care; it will promote greater treatment options for veterans. The increase to fees for allied health providers delivering services to veterans will include physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy, podiatry and other allied health professions. This measure provides a robust response to recommendation No. 71 of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which called for an increase in DVA's fee schedules.

We are also reducing the burden on veterans to go back to a GP every 12 health visits for a new referral and instead expanding this to a $5,000 threshold before a veteran's care is reviewed. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We've heard from veterans groups that the DVA assessments are being funnelled through the MLCOA, which holds the sole supplier contract with DVA. Veterans want to have the right to choose their own assessor—practitioners who know them and who they are comfortable with. Will the Labor government commit to providing veterans with the dignity of choice over their own care instead of funnelling them through Labor's preferred suppliers?

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

Your question starts from a somewhat incorrect premise, in that it is already the case that DVA prefers that compensation medical reports are prepared by the veteran's usual treating doctor. That is the starting point for DVA, and that is because that doctor is engaged in their ongoing care and focused on enhancing their wellbeing. It recognises, as your question indicates, that that treating provider's clinical knowledge of the veteran is important and also helps by minimising unnecessary appointments and duplication.

However, on occasion, independent medical exams are required, and that is where a veteran cannot access a medical provider, where the information that has been provided is incomplete or unclear, or where a claim is particularly complex or additional medical information is required to support a decision. In every case, whether it is an independent medical examination or a treating practitioner— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whitten, second supplementary?

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We ask these brave men and women to run at bullets. Our freedom, our safety and our security are paid for with their blood and sacrifice. But when they leave active service, often broken and hurt by what they've experienced, they are treated as second-class citizens. They are looked at as a liability on a budget line item. This isn't good enough. Will Labor change its position and commit to treating these warriors with the respect that they deserve and provide them with the post-care that they need?

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

This government is committed to improving the lives of Australia's veterans and their families by providing them with the support that they need and that, in fact, they deserve, because veterans answer the call to service and they make sacrifices for this nation. Our government understands that. We want to ensure that veterans do have access to high-quality health services and a system that is fair and efficient and focused on veteran wellbeing.

That is the basis of the increases we are making to the fees for treating professionals. As I indicated in my answer to your primary question, it's the single largest change in 20 years, and it responds directly to the recommendation that was put before us by the royal commission. We want veterans to have the care that they need. We want them to be able to do it without unnecessarily returning to their GP. (Time expired)