I rise to support the Statute Update Bill 2026 and in particular the amendment that will be moved by the coalition to 'scrap Labor's cruel veterans tax'. That's right: today is a test. In about 30 minutes, the Senate is going to go for a vote, and it is going to be a test for the Prime Minister of this country, Anthony Albanese. Is he directing his Labor senators to support our amendment to stand with the veterans of Australia and scrap his cruel veterans tax? It is also a test, though, for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh. He keeps on saying to the veterans: 'I have listened to you. I have heard you.' We heard that from Senator Wong this week: 'The government has heard what the veterans have to say.' Well, given that the veterans have told you they don't want your cap on their allied health, I will assume that, when those division bells ring, you will join the rest of the crossbench and the coalition and you will scrap your cap on allied health.

Quite frankly, these veterans have served our country. They have stood up for Australia, for the freedoms that we live and breathe on a daily basis, and how dare you look them in the eye and thank them for their service by putting a $5,000 price tag on their care? I tell you the coalition will stand with our veterans each and every single day. We have listened to them. We have met with them. We didn't roll our eyes at them. And I can tell you we absolutely shook their hands when they came into our office, unlike their minister, who is meant to be the person in Australia who actually stands up for them.

Our amendment is clear. It will well and truly scrap the Prime Minister of Australia's cruel cap on allied health for our veterans who have served our country, because, unlike the Prime Minister and unlike the minister, the coalition doesn't look at our veterans and say: 'We've got a black hole to fill in our budget because of our financial mismanagement, and do you know what I see? I see a bit of a cut there with our veterans. They've served our country. They've come back here. They're injured. But, you know, perhaps they won't notice if we actually take $748 million in a save.' The veterans of Australia!

Well, guess what. The coalition looks at our veterans very differently. We look at our veterans and what we see is a debt that this country must honour. Australia made a promise to our veterans: if you stand up for your country, your country will stand by you. We know that promise does not expire when the uniform comes off, and I tell you it should not expire when a veteran's allied health care reaches the cap of $5,000. You can call it a cap. You can call it a threshold. You can rebadge it. You can bury it in bureaucratic language and you can make excuses for it. But it doesn't actually change what you are doing to the veterans of Australia. It was heartbreaking to see some of them outside Parliament House, Canberra this week laying down their medals—medals that they had earned for bravery, medals they had earned for standing up not just for their country but for each and every one of us in this chamber so that we can live and breathe democracy on a daily basis. And how do you repay those veterans? You repay them by putting in place a cap on their health care for injuries they sustained while serving our country, because you have lost control of the economy.

Colleagues, at 3.30 today the bells are going to ring. And I hope the Prime Minister of Australia is on the phone to Minister Keogh and to Senator Wong, saying to them, 'Support the coalition,' because in supporting the coalition you support the veterans. Prime Minister, in about 25 minutes, our veterans will know: do you stand with them or are you going to fail them and betray them yet again? (Time expired)

I'm going to speak to the Statute Update Bill as it is proposed by the government, and then, given that we will have very limited time or no time in committee, I'll seek to address some of the amendments as best as I can in the limited opportunity.

Firstly, the Statute Update Bill is the Albanese Labor government's recognition of the importance of maintaining the statute book so that it is clear, accurate and accessible. Clear, readable and factual legislation is fundamental to the operation of our systems and our laws. These laws as they have been previously known have been progressed through the parliament since at least 1934. The bills have always sought to remove obsolete, spent provisions, correct drafting errors and otherwise improve the readability of the Commonwealth statute book. Indeed, governments of both political persuasions have in the last 10 years progressed comparable bills that achieve this important public priority. Bills were progressed in 2016 and 2017 by Attorney-General Brandis, in 2018 and 2020 by Attorney-General Porter and, most recently, in 2023 by Attorney-General Dreyfus.

The bill before the Senate today is very much in the same tradition as these previous iterations. The Statute Update Bill, as it stands, makes minor and technical amendments across the Commonwealth statute book to enhance clarity, facilitate interpretation and support the effective administration of legislation. The process for identifying, complying with and drafting these amendments is expertly led by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, or OPC. The Attorney-General and their department play a coordination role in progressing this work. The bill amends 42 Commonwealth acts and repeals 106 obsolete acts. These amendments would improve the quality of legislation and ensure that it can be easily understood.

The laws should be accessible and readable to all. That's why this bill is proposed. It's a very good public outcome. The level of specificity that makes rights, obligations and limitations imposed through Commonwealth acts should be easily understood. Critically—and critically to the amendments that have been proposed—this bill makes amendments that are only of a technical nature. That is why the bill has been proposed. And it gives some context around the amendments that we are considering today.

First of all, I will deal with the amendments moved by senators from the opposition and One Nation. The government will not be supporting these amendments. Regarding the opposition's amendments, there is very limited time for us to discuss this issue. In this short amount of time I have, I want to recognise that the government is concerned that the amendments as proposed would have unintended consequences for the compensation and care provided to veterans and families by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The department is already undertaking consultation with veterans, families of veterans, allied health providers, peak bodies, ex-service organisations and other stakeholders.

The intent of those consultations, which are currently underway, is to ensure that the changes to the system do not result in a gap in services for veterans who have a clinical need to access allied health services. The date for the implementation of these reforms is still 10 months away. Allowing time to ensure that we get it right is important for the scrutiny of this Senate. People can register for the consultations and review the discussion paper, and it will be open until 30 October 2026. This bill, in the government's view, is not the appropriate mechanism to make these amendments, which pre-empt these consultations with the veteran community.

I will say, while I have the opportunity, that the government takes all the recommendations of the royal commission incredibly seriously. Indeed, it is our government that has sought to address the backlog. The backlog would never have been reduced under those opposite, because, unfortunately, when those opposite—including you, Senator Cash—stood around the cabinet table you were not able to provide the record amounts of funding that we have provided to reform the veterans system once and for all. In fact, it was your former minister, former minister Gee, who referred to your approach in the veterans system as a 'national disgrace', so appalled that he resigned from his position. Our government is very proud of the work that we are doing to implement the royal commission recommendations, and we will work in consultation with the sector and with veterans to get this right when it comes to allied health.

In conclusion, the government thanks senators for the consideration of this bill— (Time expired)

I'm not going to spend long talking about the substantive elements of the Statute Update Bill 2026. There are some grammatical changes that I think are really pressing and should be adopted, but I will deal with the amendments before the Senate.

Isn't it extraordinary that, after this groundswell of opposition from veterans across the country, the repeated calls for the government to reconsider the allied health cap, we're now forced to do this, late on a Thursday, and attach critical amendments to a statute update bill to actually say: 'Make sure you give veterans the physio they need. Make sure you give veterans the psych services they need. Make sure you give veterans the support they need'—sometimes to save themselves from some pretty tough circumstances. We're having to do this—attach it like a limpet—to the Statute Update Bill 2026. I know this has been circulated by the coalition, but I think it would be fair to see this as the 'Senator Lambie amendment', because I just want to put on record my respect for the work that Senator Lambie does in this space.

But I also cast my mind back to when we first heard about this cap. We heard about it just before we had another Senate estimates investigation of Veterans' Affairs. I remember sitting there—and I'll give credit to Senator Scarr as well. Senator Scarr was getting his head around it—being connected with veterans and their community in Queensland—and peppering them with questions. I remember, just before that round of questioning started, also getting this avalanche of concerns coming to me from veterans, saying: 'What does this cap mean? What's it going to mean for me? A $5,000 cap—I spent that in the first three months on psych treatment. What's this going to mean for my ability to go and get my physio? It's the only way I can pick up my kids and play with my kids.'

There was this wave of concern, because what actually happened was, without ever talking to the veterans community, running this really deceitful argument that it was all about tracking down fraud—and, to be honest, you just repeated the same thing in the NDIS space: running a fraud argument but actually stealing money from people who need the support. You ran this totally deceitful argument that it was about fraud and dodgy providers.

Don't get me wrong: I reckon there are some dodgy providers in relation to veterans, and I reckon there are a handful of dodgy providers in the NDIS, and it's government's job to put in place systems that identify them early and winnow them out. When you're talking about this kind of system—to help veterans—you want to have a really low entrance way into getting treatment, and you're going to err on the side of providing treatment rather than putting veterans through endless bloody hoops while they wait months and months or years for basic treatment. In those circumstances, there will be some dodgy players who want to take advantage of it, and you have to accept there'll be a small amount of that in a scheme that's designed to provide timely care for veterans. But what this government did instead was point to that small element of it and say, 'The whole thing needs to be shut down.' Instead of going after the dodgy providers, they went after veterans—with nastiness towards them, without talking.

I hear what the government says—that they've got this consultation process and to let the consultation process go through. How many times have we heard it, from either this government or the previous government? 'We're going to invite you in for a cup of tea and a biscuit after we've made the decision.'

There's only one answer in this space. Let's vote for this and get this through, and maybe the government will see sense and pass it through the other house. But I'd give this invitation to the government: in this case, admit you were wrong. Admit that putting arbitrary caps on providing basic assistance to veterans is plainly wrong and say: 'Actually, we're going to pull the proposal. We're going to work with veterans on a scheme that ensures timely access to medical benefits and holds any dodgy players to account'—and that you're going to do that, walking together with veterans, over the next six months.

I'm grateful for these amendments being brought before the chamber. In One Nation's amendments, again, they're running this same unprincipled argument. Apparently they didn't read the legislation they voted for two years ago, and now they want to fix it up. My advice to One Nation, like my advice to the coalition, is: maybe read the legislation in the first place, work out what legislation you're voting for and have voted for in the past, and don't do this—returning like a dog to its vomit.

Well, this is very simple. All the important things that need to be said are being said and have been said. I take the point of the government speaker over here—that this bill is not meant for that and it shouldn't be. In fact, we shouldn't be here moving these amendments. I get that. We shouldn't have had to put this private member's bill. All we needed to hear was the Prime Minister or Minister Keogh come out and say, 'We will stop this and we won't put anything like this back in.' That's all we needed to hear. We've heard from the veterans all week. We've heard from people who are suffering all week. We've heard from that day in estimates when Senator Scarr, Senator Shoebridge—Senator Lambie was there—were asking about this and they were given two examples of the 25,000 veterans that suffer and go over this cap. So everything substantive has been said.

This cap is wrong. This cap is not about health; this cap is about money. This amendment probably shouldn't be in this bill, but you have given this Senate chamber no other choice but to have it considered across the road. One statement from the Prime Minister, one simple statement, saying that he would back our veterans, bring this cap back and not even consider it would have been enough or had we had a minister that didn't want to go to afternoon teas, who met with veterans, heard their concerns and decided what was the right thing who came out and said that this is gone, that this would not be here.

We are here playing this game because you have led us here. Even today, a veteran who is a provider can tell us about what Senator Shoebridge says, some of the non-normal practice that goes on. we have 120 people involved in the fraud or the investigation in part of DVA that's been upped by another 80 to 200 and they have taken no action even against the people that they were able to say in Senate estimates were providing this. It's not about fraud; it is about $748 million coming away from veterans who need it the most. That's what it is.

The government sent people in here earlier in the week to talk about the investment they are making into veterans' health. Remember, the talking points, the investment they're making into it? I've never seen any investment that is negative $748 million in my life before. I wish I could go to an ATM and make an investment like that. But this is what this government is doing.

I feel sorry for DVA. To me, this has all the hallmarks of them being required by a minister or a government to get a dividend. 'We need $750 million out of your budget. How are you going to find it? And this is the way we've come up with it.' So we're here today. This will go through and that is a good thing. What happens after here is more important. Will it see the light of day in the House as opposed to a private member's bill? Is it so important with everything else that it has to be considered, or will you say, 'Oh, too hard.' Or will, if hope prevails, the minister or the Prime Minister come out and say, 'We're sorry veterans. We got it wrong. We have heard you. We will do the right thing by you. We went back on our promise to you when you signed up but now we will get your back.' And then they sent it back here. We might not insist on this going through anymore. We may actually be able to walk away if we get the guarantees required from this government.

But the damage is done to our veterans. They have lost trust in the government of this country that they served in. They have lost trust in the promises we make to them when they sign up. We're hearing stories about veterans who are telling their own children not to sign up because this can happen to them. How do we restore that faith for them? There have been phone calls, the meetings—everything. We've had people laying down medals outside of the parliament, people coming here and not being heard, people being really upset about their own futures, their own mental health and their own stories. What about their friends and their comrades? What about those who are injured, hurt and recovering—people like Senator Lambie here—who are more concerned for their comrades, their brothers and sisters in arms, who are suffering as well? The mateship and the true loyalty of the Australian armed forces member is that they can suffer but be more concerned for their friends.

So we will pass this today. It is in your hands. Please, Prime Minister and Minister for Veterans Affairs, come out and say that you will scrap this cap and you will back our veterans. Then we can move on. (Time expired)

I welcome every chance I get to speak in support of our veterans. The people who stand between Australia and those who would do us harm should not have to fight for their health care. Labor needs to wake up to the needs of veterans. Just like my grandfather did at Gallipoli, these men and women put on a uniform so the rest of us don't have to. They run at bullets. They make decisions under fire that most of us will never face. They come home carrying wounds that do not always show. The least we can do is look after them when they return.

Duty of care is suddenly sacred to Labor when the subject is internet algorithms. But that duty of care doesn't extend to the bodies and minds of those who served. Instead, this government wants a cap. It booked hundreds of millions in savings by placing a $5,000 annual limit on allied health for veteran card holders. After pressure from veterans, the language changed. All of a sudden, the $5,000 would trigger a review rather than a hard cap. Why are we putting our veterans through these additional hoops? This Labor government wastes enough money in a week to fund the veterans for a year. Stop making veterans pay for your wasteful spending.

This is not abstract. Veteran groups say they were not properly consulted. The RSL has called for the measure to be withdrawn. Those most likely to hit the figure, the cohort the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was meant to protect, have the most complex injuries. The government says that most veterans spend less than the threshold and that clinically necessary care will continue. If that is true, scrap the hard number, target the few providers who overservice and do not ration those who need the care.

Minister Keogh's conduct has been appalling. When veteran delegations came to Canberra to raise their legitimate concerns, he at first declined to take the meeting—he had a ceremonial commitment with the Governor-General. He eventually did meet. Veterans say they were met with contempt, no handshake on arrival, arms folded and an eye roll as they spoke about people already in crisis. The minister admits he got the first refusal wrong.

When former service people say they felt disdain from the minister responsible for them, that is a trust problem. Minister Keogh should be removed, but the PM has no spine. He has lost the trust of the veteran community. One Nation stands beside veterans to receive the support they need and deserve. I have met with veterans groups, and I will keep meeting them. We are here to listen. That is Labor's problem. This government is too arrogant to listen to the people it is meant to protect. There should not be controversial amendments. Let's not skimp on life-changing care that could be the difference between life and death. Suicide amongst our veterans is unacceptably high. We have had a royal commission. Labor accepted almost every recommendation. Then they turn around and force veterans to fight for the basic care that they need. Let's not have any more needless loss of life because of bureaucracy's underfunding.

One Nation will also be raising another amendment to this legislation, the Statute Update Bill 2026. The amendment will restore the definition of 'hors de combat'—the test that decides when a person is out of the fight for certain war crime offences—to the definition in the Criminal Code from 2002, before it was changed in 2024. The 2024 update applied that definition retrospectively to 2002. We ask our soldiers to go into battle for us. They make impossible decisions under duress. In 2024, this parliament altered that definition and applied it to conduct from September 2002. The government says it corrected a drafting error and aligned the code with the Geneva conventions. But, in effect, it lowers the barrier for criminal proceedings and judges veterans against a rule that was not the rule when they served.

Any changes must be prospective. War crimes exist. There is a threshold of behaviour that is never acceptable, but retrospectively changing the legal expectations of combat puts veterans in needless legal jeopardy. If the change is merely technical as claimed, it does not need to reach back 20 years. If it is necessary, apply it to future operations and train people to that standard. Our veterans should be judged by the law that existed when they acted. One Nation welcomes the coalition's move to support veterans against the allied health limit. We hope that they will support our amendment to remove the retrospective change to the terms of combat—care when they come home, certainty about the law they served under.

What a hypocrite! What a hypocrite! Veterans, this is One Nation. They made us wait for a royal commission. In the last few days, they put a cartoon out there of one of the veterans saying he's a traitor and a gutless maggot. That's what she does with veterans. She's a hypocrite. She has no intention of helping you. She has absolutely none. She never has. Do not fall for her rubbish.

I need to explain to you, veterans, what is going on out there right now. This is what is going on in here today. The coalition amendment will get rid of the $5,000 cap on veterans allied health, but it is attached to a piece of legislation called the Statute Update Bill. Also, before we go any further, I just remind you, veterans: stay calm because this cap does not start until 1 July next year. It's not being taken off you tomorrow. If you haven't already got that message, just stay calm because I can tell you the fight is not over by a long shot. I can tell you we have more ammo up our sleeves. Don't panic. We have 12 months. Just go about your lives.

This amendment that is attached to the unrelated piece of legislation has already passed the lower house. It is coming up here to go through. We have made an amendment to that so we can send it back to the lower house, but the Labor Party has the numbers down there. So, more than likely, to get the Statute Update Bill through, they will get rid of this amendment and it will be voted down. If that happens, this bill will come, like I said, back up here without that amendment.

What I need you guys in here to do is let those veterans know that we're serious. If it comes back up here, we knock it down. Without the amendment, we must hold our ground. We must stay strong. There is no room to cry wolf here.

Stay cool and stay calm, veterans. Apart from the Labor Party, you have the rest of us on your side. It doesn't start till 1 July next year. Like I said, we have plenty of ammo still up our sleeve. Have a nice weekend. Keep it calm.

I really thank the Senate for their work on holding the executive to account. We've seen a government that announced a $5,000 cap on veterans seemingly with zero consultation of veterans themselves. We've seen a government that has said: 'There are some dodgy providers, and so we need to put a cap on all veterans who are getting $5,000 of approved spending on allied health. Rather than going after the few dodgy providers, we're going to add yet more paperwork, yet more forms.' It's another visit to the GP. It's another thing for veterans who are desperately trying to be well and are seeking support for them to do so.

We have not seen a government that is willing to listen to veterans, to listen to experts or to say: 'We got this wrong. Sorry about that. This is ill thought through.' Instead, they're just powering on with a plan that seems to have zero support not just in the veterans community but in the broader Australian community. So this is the Senate doing its job—holding the government to account. I really thank colleagues in the coalition, the Greens and One Nation for this opportunity.