Posts

A Duty of Care to Our Elderly

,

Schedule 4 of The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 was added to address the government’s secret rollout of AI algorithms to assess aged-care applications. For the past year, human assessors were strictly prohibited from overriding computer decisions (even when clinically wrong), leading to under-assessments, long waiting lists and a sixfold surge in appeals, with elderly Australians dying before their reviews were resolved.

One Nation believes that although AI can be used for background legwork, it must never be allowed to make final, unreviewable decisions over human lives. We will legislate to ban fully automated government decision-making.

This AI decision-making system is part of a broader pattern of attacks by the Albanese Government on our elderly, including:

❌ Reducing health insurance rebates, pushing up to 75,000 pensioners into the public system and costing taxpayers approximately an extra $2 billion annually.

❌ Attempting to impose co-contributions on basic personal care (which they were forced to roll back).

❌ Increasing means-tested accommodation fees and daily living costs for retirees.

❌ Creating backlogs through the Support at Home framework.

❌ Raising Centrelink deeming rates by 0.5%, effectively reducing pensions based on assumed, unearned interest.

❌ Capping allied health services for older veterans at $5,000 (which the Senate successfully blocked).

Basically stealing money from pensioners!

Finally, I foreshadowed a second reading amendment regarding Voluntary Assisted Dying. While VAD is legal across all Australian states, state laws currently force aged-care facilities to allow external VAD practitioners onto their premises.

My amendment does not restrict VAD access for individuals; rather, it protects the freedom of conscience and religion for faith-based aged-care providers by allowing them to conscientiously object and opt out of facilitating VAD on-site, provided residents are informed and assisted with transfers to participating facilities. Based on the sensible South Australian model, this ensures respect for differing moral convictions in our community.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 amends the Aged Care Act 2024 to, firstly, establish yet another permanent statutory office, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner, within the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission; secondly, to incorporate temporary modifications made to the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Aged Care System Modification) Rules 2025 into the Aged Care Act and Aged Care Rules 2025 and repeal the instrument; and, thirdly, to vary arrangements concerning refundable deposits, including their use while an individual awaits a means-test assessment, the ability to transfer deposits between providers and the treatment of deposits in aged-care means-testing. One Nation is in support of these long-overdue changes. Fourthly, it will make other administrative and regulatory amendments concerning direct-care staff, local government providers, specialised residential care homes, residential care subsidies, fee advice notices, deemed decisions and the recovery of Commonwealth overpayments.  

This bill has been referred to two committees for reporting—the second because the government added a new schedule late in the passage of the bill. Both reports recommend the bill be passed. I note once again that the Labor government has packaged something we do agree with—the improvements and technical clean-up in schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the bill—with something we do not agree with, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner. This is designed to force One Nation to oppose the bill and, in so doing, provide social media fodder for the ALP and the Greens at the next election. They want to claim One Nation opposed reforms to help our elderly. It’s a wedge, another bloody wedge—one of the many wedges this cynical Labor government have used lately to entertain themselves while everyday Australians continue to go backwards. You don’t care about the people.  

One Nation has moved an amendment on sheet No. 4177 to remove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commissioner provisions and leave the remainder of the bill intact. One Nation opposes discriminating against Australians based on physical characteristics, including ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation and disability. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. It seeks to present a morally superior position which inevitably fails in a perfect storm of cost escalation, empire building, self-interest, mission creep and unexpected consequences that the taxpayers pay for.  

According to the Guardian newspaper, Aboriginal children in Australia have historically been murdered at roughly three times the rate of non-Aboriginal counterparts—three times. Aboriginal children experience rape at five times the rate of non-Aboriginal children, a figure that’s underreported to the point of official data being useless—bloody useless. Aboriginal children are being left in squalor without adult supervision. All of this is under the watchful gaze of the virtue-signalling elites who advance bills like this and then crack open the chardonnay to celebrate how worthy they are. This government and state governments won’t stop Aboriginal children being raped and murdered, yet they have the money for a dedicated Aboriginal aged-care commissioner and their staff. This will of course lead to more regulations and higher costs for everyone. The entire idea, of course, will have no KPIs—not one—to measure progress, because for Labor it’s not about the outcome; it’s about feelings. 

We do not need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner. We need our aged-care system to support everyone that it’s tasked with supporting. A One Nation government will send its attorney-general into Aboriginal communities, along with ministers for housing, health and infrastructure, to fix the crime and the structural problems behind these heartbreaking, unacceptable statistics—unacceptable to most Australians but not the government.  

We will create jobs to restore the future of Aboriginal communities, using mining and value-adding of raw production, including in agriculture. We will oversee Australia’s largest infrastructure project, the northern rail crossing from east to west, part of the national rail loop, to bring rail transport, water, electricity and the internet to remote communities. That’s our idea of helping the Aboriginal community, not this window dressing BS. 

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea need only look at Closing the Gap. A measure there intended to reduce the life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians has in part failed, completely failed, with life expectancy in recent data getting worse for Aboriginals, not better. An analysis of government outlays over the first eight years of the strategy alone, from 2008 to 2016, calculated that total combined spending towards meeting the Closing the Gap targets exceeded—wait for it—$130.2 billion. The source of that data is Adam Creighton in the Australian quoting the Productivity Commission data on 12 February 2018. The Productivity Commission estimated in 2017 that federal government spending on Aboriginal affairs was $25 billion a year. I see nothing to suggest that that number has been going down since then. And then add the state spending. 

I hope the Senate will realise it’s time to change course on the Aboriginal industry. Stop funding more parasites in consultants, academics, lawyers, bureaucrats and larger top-end supervisors. Instead, directly fund the communities where it’s needed. I’ll say it again. This is what we’re advocating: instead of the parasites getting the money, let’s get it to the communities, to fund the communities, where it’s needed directly. 

Moving on, the new schedule 4, added in the House of Reps, makes changes to take account of criticism of the government’s use of AI for decision-making. Applications for aged care have for the last year been determined using AI, not human beings. The Albanese government implemented a system last year which featured strict prohibition of human override. Expert, qualified human-needs assessors were explicitly barred from altering or overriding the algorithm’s outputs, even when they knew a decision was clinically wrong. Second was the systemic under-assessment of vulnerable people. Critics noted that the rigid computer program frequently failed to capture the complex realities of ageing, leaving vulnerable older Australians without adequate funding or essential homecare packages. Without their packages—so much for care! Third was the lack of consultation and transparency. The automated tool was introduced quietly with no public consultation, no industry trials and no transparency regarding the underlying algorithm—no openness; just a secretive AI. Fourth was the severe bureaucratic backlogs. Appeals against robodecisions ballooned sixfold after the system rolled out, meaning many elderly citizens faced extensive waiting lists, with some tragically dying before their reviews were resolved. Robo decision-making is a counterproductive efficiency measure, and I wonder about the real motivation for robo decision-making. 

This Labor government has declared war on the elderly. Just listen to these: removing their health insurance discount rebate, forcing more elderly Australians into the public health system and, in the end, costing taxpayers at least $2 billion more a year in public health to save $350 million on the rebate. That $2 billion figure is likely conservative, with up to 75,000 elderly Australians being forced to give up private health, almost double the government estimate—your estimate, doubled. The Albanese government tried to introduce co-contributions on personal care for aged pensioners. This was so badly received that the government backed down—you backed down—and agreed that vital personal care, like bathing and dressing, would not require out-of-pocket fees. Increased costs for capital and daily living—self-funded retirees and part pensioners must pay significantly higher means tested fees for everyday accommodation, capital contributions and clinical assistance. 

The Support at Home mess—the government absorbed existing homecare packages into the new Support at Home framework. Seniors groups have heavily criticised the measure for severe package backlogs, long wait times and plans to fold the entry-level Commonwealth Home Support Program into it, which critics say threatens independent living in regional and remote communities. The government lifted social security deeming rates by 0.5 per cent—half a per cent!—which means that, even if pensioners’ bank accounts are not yielding high interest, Centrelink now legally assumes they are anyway and adds made up unpaid interest to their income, reducing their pension. That’s what you’re doing. You’re basically stealing money from pensioners. For older veterans reliant on specialised treatments, the government produced a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services. Older veterans who require year-round support were told to pay for it themselves—’Just pay for it yourself’—a measure that the Senate forced the government to withdraw. It’s no wonder the government wanted to use robo decision-making to deflect the blame for this attack on elderly Australians away from themselves—cowardly, dishonest, a lie. 

Schedule 4 in this bill will help in improving rules around robodecisions. It must be the law that any decision taken using AI be subject to human review. A One Nation government will introduce legislation to prevent computerised decision-making anywhere in the government. AI can do the legwork, sure. It should never, though, be used to make a decision, let alone make final decisions that a qualified staff member cannot overturn when an error is detected. 

I foreshadow second reading amendment 4176, which has been advanced in response to many constituent concerns around the expansion of and advocacy for voluntary assisted dying. Voluntary assisted dying is now legal in all states. Nothing in our amendment advocates against voluntary assisted dying occurring. It simply seeks to protect aged-care providers who have a conscientious objection to providing voluntary assisted dying services on their premises. A religious objection is the most common conscientious objection. New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia have a law in place which explicitly regulates institutional objections. They mandate that residential aged-care facilities must not block external voluntary assisted dying practitioners from entering the premises. Because an aged-care room is legally considered a resident’s home, facilities are required to allow all stages of the voluntary assisted dying process, from consultations to death, to take place onsite. In Ontario and British Columbia, provincial governments in Canada have removed the right for aged-care facilities and hospitals to refuse voluntary assisted dying. This is very troubling to me, and it’s troubling my constituents. Our amendment seeks to provide support for aged-care facilities with encouragement that they’re not alone and to hold the line and uphold their convictions. 

This amendment is not about voluntary assisted dying as much as it’s about freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Currently, in South Australia, healthcare providers can opt out of voluntary assisted dying if they advise residents that the facility does not offer voluntary assisted dying. This allows the resident a transfer to a facility that does offer voluntary assisted dying. My amendment reflects this sensible compromise. The South Australian model works and should be the national model. In the very difficult, emotive space of euthanasia, it’s very important to respect the differing views in the community and to allow residents to choose a non-voluntary-assisted-dying facility if they so want and for providers to opt out of voluntary assisted dying if it conflicts with their values. I ask the Senate to support my amendment 4176. 

The Vote

/0 Comments/by

Seeking Truth in Tragedy

Families and relatives of Australian Defence Force personnel killed in a fatal military helicopter crash appeared at a Senate hearing to share their stories.

They expressed deep anger over the senior ADF leadership’s refusal to admit fault, take responsibility, or answer straightforward questions, resorting instead to defensive “word salad” and bureaucratic deflection.

Critical equipment oversights were highlighted, such as flying aircraft with known defective turbines (unlike the Navy and New Zealand, which grounded their fleets) and ignoring safety reports regarding malfunctioning fast-release ladders.

They told us of a toxic culture where service members avoid raising safety concerns out of fear of harming their careers, promotions, or looking weak, leading to dangerous normalisation of risk.

Surviving partners detailed immense frustration with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), citing rigid, unrolling support packages, bureaucratic hurdles, and a lack of practical assistance during their acute grief.

While these families maintained immense respect for frontline soldiers, sailors, and airmen, as well as immediate unit commanders, they expressed profound distrust in senior military leadership and questioned the overall security posture of the ADF.

Despite their devastating losses, the families expressed profound hope that the inquiry would finally bring out the truth, ensuring greater safety and accountability for future generations serving in the armed forces.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. Thank you for your families’ service, because it’s not just the person who enlists who serves, is it? Thank you for your submissions and for sharing what your boys, your men loved. Look, I can’t imagine your grief and anger—I just can’t—especially because your loss and harm were avoidable. I asked some questions and had a briefing from Defence, Army, after the Jervis Bay incident. I kept asking why, and I got the feeling very strongly—I want to put it on the record—that they were delaying. They were dodging. Is there anything else you’d like to put on the record that you want to say? Your statements have been really effective. Does anything else come to mind? How do you feel? What are you feeling? Yes, Mr Naggs?  

Mr Naggs: ‘Where does this end?’ is a question I think we all have. How does it end?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’d like clarity.  

Mr Naggs: Yes. I’d also like an admission from the leaders of Defence that something went wrong. What we just saw there was an absolute effort to not admit anything. I don’t know where that fits in with the concept of leadership. I always thought leadership was about accountability and honesty—just an admission of, ‘Hey, we can do better.’ There are a whole heap of recommendations that can come out of these reports, and they can say, ‘We’ll adopt them,’ but the first thing of reform is to admit some accountability and transparency and go forward. That’s leadership. How do you train leadership when that fundamental value is not displayed in your leaders?  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Sometimes it feels like, when you’ve got Defence, it’s ‘pin the tail on the jellyfish’. It just keeps moving and avoiding.  

Ms Loft: Unfortunately, we often see that it’s not the people making the decisions that are held to any account or fault. It’s the people far down the chain of command who are simply enforcing those decisions that were made far above them.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve seen that in a number of ways in the last 10 years.  

Mr Nugent: I was sitting here today listening to the evidence of the Defence people—General Hafner—and I was waiting for you to ask the question: ‘How big is the flight manual? How many pages does the flight manual have? 10? 100? 1,000? 2,000?’ It’s huge. To sit there and say, ‘We put it in the book. Read the book. The pilots had read the book. And then, in those fatal few seconds, recall the book. Act appropriately. Follow your training’—  

Ms Nugent: And on something that’s against human instinct.  Completely against human instinct. Unfortunately, they talk about pitch ladders and horizons in the TopOwl, and you don’t get an opportunity to see what that actually looks like. That’s things moving around in front of you. It’s not something just off in the corner. It’s right there in front of you. To say, ‘It’s in the book,’ is an absolute cop-out. The Jervis Bay incident is a classic example of that. No-one told the pilots, and it’s in evidence that the pilots weren’t told that they were flying aircraft with a known defective turbine that was going to get fixed in maintenance down the line— Unidentified speaker: But not at the same time.  and that turbine could fail in a critical phase of flight.  

Mrs Lyon: Everyone else changed their turbines. Navy did. New Zealand did. Everyone else changed them.  

Ms Loft: They grounded the fleet.  

Ms Whyte: Immediately.  

Mr Nugent: My question for that one is: would those pilots on that night or the pilot in the ditched aircraft, had they known that they could have experienced an engine failure in a hover or a critical phase of flight, have reacted differently?  

Ms Nugent: Would they have gotten in there?  

Mr Nugent: Would they have just powered the aircraft away?  

Ms Nugent: They had people dangling underneath them. They didn’t even have a chance to know, to even stand up for themselves. They just said: ‘Alright, off we go. Everything’s fine.’ And they had however many people under them. It wasn’t just the pilot’s life or the crew’s life that was at risk then. That’s a lucky incident.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: We’ve since found out that the Army Aviation evaluation team also told them that the fast release on the ladder wouldn’t work in situations like this. They’d been told about it and they hadn’t fixed it. In that very situation, the fast release was pulled and didn’t work, and that’s why we were so close to yet another catastrophe. The ladder wasn’t released and all of those service personnel were pretty much under the helicopter as it was going down because, again, they ignored an AATES report.  

Mrs Lyon: That’s my concern. I’ve said it before. So we now know about the turbines and we now know about the circumnavigating and getting through TopOwl. What other pieces of equipment sitting in military aircraft, inside weapons, inside other really life-altering devices have also been circumnavigated? What else are they putting in or not putting in? Do you know?  

Senator ROBERTS: You need exposure, truth, openness.  

Mrs Lyon: Yes, that’s all we’re asking for.  

Mr Nugent: The cynical version of me says that they had made the decision to change the new Black Hawke prior to Talisman Sabre. Max was getting ready to go and do his Black Hawk conversion. The cynical part of me says, ‘This is the big show. Every two years is the big show. How bad will we look to our allies when we say our aircrafts don’t cut it? We can’t fly tonight. We shouldn’t be flying.’ They didn’t put in the recommendations from the near-miss at Townsville. If those recommendations were in practice and in place, would they have launched that night?  

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask and I still will: what can I or what can we do? You’ve already answered the question in part. You won recognition and acknowledgement that your husband fought to the end because he cared.  

Mrs Lyon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last thing he did was to prevent that accident, that fatality, so I give you that acknowledgement—from me anyway.  

Mrs Lyon: Thank you.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You can read it in the report. I just wish it was said in the conclusions. You read it in the report. Actually, for the first time ever, I heard it expressed just before. There wasn’t a lot that pricked my ears up. We did hear that expressed just earlier, Mrs Lyon.  

Mrs Lyon: We did.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: We should reflect back on that and acknowledge it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I asked: what do you need? You’ve already said ‘care’—care for those who are left behind.  

Ms Loft: Self-Determination. Alex told me one day, if he were not to come home, that I’d get this, this and this and I’d be looked after, and we have not been looked after. They go to work every day on the assumption that, if they do not come home, everything will be okay for whoever’s left behind and that is not the case. You’re left to fight through bureaucracy. You’re left to fight through a number of systems. We were a complex situation. We didn’t find out the result of the FSB investigation for almost two years. They were two years left to sit there, twiddle our thumbs and wonder what the heck was actually going on. You’re given two years under DVA with an acute support package to regain capacity. We’re still in the thick of this process. How can you even begin to regain capacity? This has been raised. Under those two years, you are allocated X amount of funding. That funding is then sent off to a delegate to actually determine where that funding is allocated. I did not use the majority of the funding that I received because it did not sit in something that I needed at that time. As part of my package, I was given services for return to work. I returned to work maybe six months ago. How could I use that in two years when we spent 57 days sitting in hearings? It’s one thing to hear that and say, ‘Okay, we’ve been given 57 days of hearings. That’s 57 days out of two years.’ Sure it is. That’s not wrong. We had the emotional lead up, where you spend a week preparing yourself to know that you’re about to hear the most traumatic information you could possibly hear about your loved one and the continued failures. Then you have the comedown from that during which you come home and you’re so mentally and emotionally fatigued that it takes another few weeks to put your life back together. So, yes, it may have been 57 days. In reality, it was far more than that. Yet we actually applied. We petitioned to have our acute support package extended and it was denied. It didn’t reach ministerial level. It was handled below that.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Was this even though that each of you had unspent funds in it?  

Ms Whyte: The fact that it doesn’t even roll over—  

Ms Loft: Yes, it doesn’t roll over.  

Ms Whyte: is one recommendation that would make sense, and to be able to extend it because we didn’t have the capacity to (a) know it existed, that we could choose when it started. We didn’t know. We didn’t have the capacity. We weren’t informed. And (b) we didn’t have capacity to use it. We weren’t capable of being like, ‘Oh, what could we do right now in our free time to build capacity?’  

Ms Loft: Things that we asked for, we actually couldn’t get. I couldn’t cook. I cooked for Alex, so the thought of actually being able to cook a meal—I didn’t use my oven for 18 months. I asked for something like a thermomix because you just have to be able to delegate and offset any of those day-to-day tasks that used to be very simple 

Senator ROBERTS: The other thing that you said, Mrs Lyon, was that you’d like an admission from Defence, for them to have some responsibility. Basically, you’re saying that they failed your families in the fatal crash and they’re continuing to fail your families.  

Mrs Lyon: Correct. What happened to Dann and the boys and what happened to our family unit is the most devastating thing you could ever imagine. What then happened afterwards, and the trauma that that has caused, has been indescribable. It has not stopped, it will not stop and every time we turn around there is something that makes it worse. I would like that acknowledged and apologised for.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there anything else anyone would like to say along that line? I want to change tack slightly and I don’t want to do that—  

Mr Nugent: I appreciate that. Look, I’ve listened to a lot of evidence over the years. I’m a 30-year-plus career policeman. I’ve been in enough courtrooms. I’d really like senior Army officers to just answer questions with ‘yes’ and ‘no’. I got a little bit tired of them thinking that they were the smartest people in the room. Sadly, they’re not. They definitely weren’t at the IGADF inquiry. There was the word salad, the stretching of words and the adding of acronyms to deliberately not answer questions. Even with the last question today about reputational damage— that damages their reputation.  

Ms Whyte: Precisely.  

Ms Loft: But also it’s— 

Mr Nugent: There’s damage to their reputation because they just cannot be honest and answer a question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’.  

Ms Nugent: And then it’s a punch in the face for us, again, to sit there and not—  

Mr Nugent: I sit there and I listen to this word salad over and over and over again.  

Ms Nugent: You just want someone to say ‘I’m sorry’—not even ‘I’m sorry’, but just ‘yes’ or ‘no’: ‘We were at fault here’ or ‘We were not’. I’m not going to take it personally. To go around and have my brother, your partner, your husband, your son to just be a blip of nothing and to not acknowledge that they were a human and that they mattered is exhausting. It’s just exhausting. 

Senator ROBERTS: Did you see the testimony of Mr Wilson and Mr Lamb?  

Mrs Lyon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The accusations of conflicts of interest stymied the investigation. We heard about the corruption—and I think you used the word ‘suppression’; it may have been someone else—and also evidence being fabricated. That is pretty serious stuff.  

Mrs Lyon: It is, isn’t it?  

Mr Nugent: This is no different to an internal investigation in the police. It’s no different.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Nugent: The first question that you get asked—the first form you fill out is the conflict-of-interest form. Perceived or real, you must disclose it before you take part, and I can tell you hand on heart: if you tick that box to say there is a perceived or potential conflict of interest, in 100 per cent of occasions you will be excluded from that investigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me ask you a question, because some people in Defence have said that this inquiry just prolongs your agony. Does this inquiry needlessly extend your grief, or does it give you hope that some truth might come out?  

Mrs Lyon: It absolutely gives hope.  

Mr Naggs: It gives us hope.  

Mrs Lyon: We are so incredibly grateful, because we are desperate for the truth, and we can do this for as long as it takes to get there, because our boys deserve that. Our men and women who serve this country deserve it. Everyone has a right to go to work and be safe—everyone, no matter what they do. There is a difference between going to war, being in war, and going to work every day and doing your job, and that’s what they were doing. They were doing their job, and they had a right to be safe.  

Ms Whyte: I’ll add to that. Special operations shouldn’t be a reason not to adhere to that as well. It shouldn’t be more of a reason to go under the carpet—’Let’s not look at that or acknowledge it.’ They still had the same duty of care to uphold, and they didn’t.  

Ms Loft: They understood that their roles were inherently risky. Everyone knows that when it comes to military aviation, realistically, unfortunately, it’s a matter of when, not if. But, as has been said multiple times, they stepped onto those jets assuming that everything was fine and that everything had been put through rigorous testing and was signed off by the best of the best, and they had faith in that.  

Mr Nugent: Well, they have to have absolute 100 per cent faith in that, don’t they?  

Ms Loft: And they can’t question it, because otherwise how do they do their jobs 

Mr Nugent: Defence in general leverages young people with a can-do attitude. It exists for that reason—or not for that reason but because of that reason. Young men and women will put themselves in dangerous positions, and they leverage that. Over time, you get risk normalisation: ‘It was okay last night; we got away with that one.’ Probably, sadly, it was too long a gap between the Black Hawk disaster and our crash.  

Senator ROBERTS: Even Jervis Bay.  

Mr Nugent: Jervis Bay is a classic example. Max was rattled by that incident, and he said, ‘But hopefully it’s okay; they’re fixing the engines.’  

Ms Whyte: And he had faith in that. He thought they would do that.  

Mr Nugent: That’s pretty telling, you know. And how did they deal with that accident? They all went out on the drink, didn’t they? ‘Come on, boys. Let’s go to the pub. We’ll sort this out and have a chat.’ Culture—this comes down to culture.  

Ms Loft: And I think the inherent—I suppose I’ll use the word ‘tendencies’. Even though they may want to speak openly and honestly, at the end of the day, if they speak, it’ll cost them a promotion or it’ll cost them their career.  

Ms Nugent: You don’t want to be the one to say, ‘I’m too scared for that,’ or, ‘I don’t feel comfortable.’ You don’t want to seem like that. There are some girls in 6 Av, and I’m good friends with one of them. But, if you’re a guy, you don’t want to speak up, because you’ll look bad. Max was the one of the most junior. He was, I think, the youngest. He doesn’t want to say, ‘I’m sorry,’ because it’ll look bad on him, because that’s the culture of it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Twenty-odd years ago, when I was working as a consultant, I found it hard to get people to do their planning in underground coalmines: ‘Oh, no; she’ll be right.’ I went to a retired colonel and a retired captain, and their pride in the Australian Defence Force—both were in the Army, and I realised that the Australian Army punched above its weight in so many ways right from its inception. It’s got a record and a history of punching above its weight, earning the respect of its enemies and its allies. What the hell has happened?  

Ms Loft: It makes me really sad, because Alex discharged—this is before I was with him—because he kept getting passed over for deployment. He enlisted at 18. At 18, you think you know the world, but you really don’t. So he discharged and he got back in, and at that point that’s an informed decision. You already knew what was happening. It was his late 20s. He understood what he was signing up for, but he didn’t sign up for this. He was a proud soldier. One of the first things that we did together was the dawn service in the driveway, because it was the start of COVID. I had said to him, ‘Hey, I’m doing the dawn service in the driveway tomorrow.’ He goes, ‘Well, yes, I will be, too.’ We were two of only a few in the street in Toowoomba, freezing, listening to the neighbours’ radio. The guy bled green. He would have been in Army until he was retired in Army, because he loved what he did and he was good at what he did. But this is not what was in the contract or what he signed up for. It really upsets me that he was so proud to be a part of that organisation, and we’ve just seen ongoing failures.  

Mr Naggs: And do you know what his whole impression of civilian life was? He went and got a mechanic’s apprenticeship at a car dealer’s while he was out.  

Ms Loft: Maybe censor what he actually said!  

Mr Naggs: When he told me he was going back in, he said: ‘No-one’s got your back out here. Everybody’s trying to bring you down in civilian life. In the Army, people have got your back. They’ve got to have your back, and you’ve got to have theirs.’  

Mrs Lyon: And the boys do have each other’s back.  

Mr Naggs: Yes, the boys do.  

Ms Loft: I cannot fault his friends. They have stepped up where there have been so many failures. 

Senator ROBERTS: What level are you talking about? His immediate superiors?  

Mr Nugent: No. I will put it on the record that Max’s commanding officer—I won’t use his name because it’s probably still protected—is out of the Army now. He has been very good to me and our family.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re talking about the senior levels of aviation?  

Mr Nugent: He’s the commanding officer at 6th Aviation.  

Unidentified speaker: At the time.  

Mr Nugent: At the time. But the senior officers now, when I look at the evidence that’s been given—I look at Senate estimates. I take an interest when it’s Defence because I like watching them sit there and not answer questions—  

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t!  

Mr Nugent: on every single topic.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I’ll take that on notice, Mr Nugent.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me ask you another question—has anyone else got anything to say?  

Mrs Lyon: We were incredibly proud of Dan being a pilot as well. Dan would always line up our home, or my daughter’s—or at the time, my son’s—day care and fly over. He always made sure that we always were able to see him coming home. We always waved. We knew it was daddy’s helicopter, and that was what our family did. We were so proud, and my son was so proud. He wanted to grow up to be a helicopter pilot just like his daddy. He doesn’t want to do that anymore. He will tell you that he doesn’t want to die like his daddy, and that, as a mother, is the most heartbreaking thing to hear. I don’t want him to join our ADF. I don’t trust it, and I don’t want him anywhere near it. I want my son to come home. I can’t imagine what that is like. It just breaks my heart because it would have been so different for our family otherwise. We were so proud of that service, and we still are. But it’s in a different capacity now. Sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, don’t apologise. Thank you for sharing that with us. Anyone else?  

Ms Loft: Everything’s in my submission really. I’m sure there are other things I’ve forgotten about.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Can I say that for all four of these young men, if they have family and partners like you, their lives were blessed.  

CHAIR: I think that—  

Senator ROBERTS: If I could just ask my final question.  

CHAIR: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: As Australians—not as bereaving parents, sisters and mothers—do you feel secure under the Australian Defence Force supposedly guarding our country?

Ms Whyte: What did you say, Dan? ‘Open the doors.’  

Mr Nugent: Yes, open the doors. The clock is ticking, isn’t it?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my biggest concern.  

Mr Nugent: To get this right. Defence knows it. Government knows it. I fear we’ve missed the boat a little bit. I think the average soldier, airman and sailor on the ground will do a fantastic job with what they’ve got at the time.  

Mrs Lyon: Because they have a love of it.  

Mr Nugent: I have every faith in that, but—  

Ms Whyte: They can only do as much as they can do under the circumstances.  

Mr Nugent: you can only do with what you’ve got.  

Ms Loft: I think it’s important that we still have incredible men and women that are willing to sign up because if we don’t, then who’s left? 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Naggs, can I summarise by bastardising your phrase because I thought it was very, very powerful and it reflects my view of reality as well. The senior ranks of the ADF are not defending Australia; they’re defending their mistakes.  

Mr Naggs: This platform was the last of the non-American weapon systems. If you’re going to bring in the American weapon systems, this had to go. But did that have anything to do with it?  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I was about to say something about French submarines, so I think we shouldn’t—  

CHAIR: I am going to end now because that will lead us to AUKUS somehow, I’m sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I comment about something else?  

CHAIR: Just one thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to acknowledge the testimony of everyone today, especially this group, and Mr Wilson and Major General Lamb. I also want to acknowledge your chairmanship. You’ve done it very sensitively and honestly. Thank you. 

/by

Trading Defence for Dollars: Australia’s Debt Crisis

,

Labor is so desperate to fund its spending addiction it’s selling off Defence assets instead of living within its means.

Australia’s debt has passed $1 trillion, yet Treasurer Chalmers wants to flog off 67 defence sites, including strategic assets like Victoria Barracks.

One Nation would cut waste, balance the budget, strengthen our defence capability and keep these sites working for Australians, not put them on the auction block.

One Nation’s advice to the Treasurer is simple.

Don’t sell these sites. Use them.

Transcript

I thank Senator Lambie for this motion, which One Nation supports wholeheartedly. British prime minister Thatcher made the famous comment that socialists always run out of other people’s money. Australia’s federal debt under Labor has now passed $1 trillion, yet this government continues to run deficits to fund their big spending agenda. Australia will shortly be unable to keep borrowing at affordable interest rates. We recently just barely avoided a downgrade to our credit rating, yet rates are rising anyway. Ten-year government bonds have gone from 4.85 per cent in the budget to 5.22 per cent—the highest level in 15 years. This means our borrowing will cost more, the deficit will get worse and we will have to borrow even more to pay for it. 

Printing money is not an option. During COVID, the Liberal government printed so much money and ever since we’ve been living with the inflation this caused. More printing will cause more inflation. This means Treasurer Chalmers had two choices: reduce spending and live within our means or sell off the silverware. He chose selling off the silverware. One Nation would have chosen living within our means. One Nation’s alternative budget listed savings of $90 billion, costed, turning a deficit into a surplus. We would then put $40 billion back into people’s pockets through tax and duty cuts and still balance the budget. One Nation does not need to sell off public assets, and we will not. Treasurer Chalmers is flogging off 67 Defence sites, worth $3.5 billion, including sites that are in use or would be in use under a One Nation government because he needs the money. Selling off Victoria Barracks is insane. They defend our capital cities and should have an integral part of defence training and support. Selling any site weakens our defence capability and reflects this government’s pathetic attitude to defence and to veterans. One Nation’s advice to the Treasurer is simple: don’t sell these sites; use them. 

/by

Veterans Ahead of Politics

,

Veterans are winning because they’re refusing to stay silent.

Two years after the Royal Commission, too many veterans are still being failed by bureaucracy, delays and broken promises.

I’ve seen firsthand the incredible work being done by veteran-led organisations across Australia. They are saving lives, restoring hope and delivering results while governments drag their feet.

There is no doubt that this progress has come because, after fighting for our country, veterans kept fighting for each other.

One Nation was proud to stand united with Senator Lambie and colleagues across the chamber to put veterans and their needs ahead of politics by voting down the $5,000 cap.

Transcript

We’re winning. On this issue, we are winning, thanks to the veterans who are standing up. Thank you so much. You are winning. I’m honoured to support you. I’m honoured to sign this motion from Senator Lambie. 

Minister, you opened the door, and I thank you for that. But at the moment they’re only words, and words mean nothing. It’s the intent. You can talk about spending billions of dollars, but it’s the intent and the efficiency with which it’s spent. The backlog of claims under your government has increased. Veteran suicides remain so high that government action cannot wait another day. We need to see concrete details. How many vets need to die? I’m feeling a mixture of feelings at the moment, which I’ll get onto in a minute. But let me just read into the Hansard clause (a) of Senator Lambie’s motion that I co-signed: 

notes that today marks two years since the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its Final Report, yet many veterans and their families continue to face barriers to accessing timely care and support 

That’s one reason I signed this. 

And I have a mixture of feelings. I’m feeling afraid for the vets who are hanging by a thread. I’m feeling downright angry at the same time. I’m feeling sad, I’m feeling grief and I’m feeling shame—shame that we’re part of a parliament that has a history of ignoring veterans. I have all those feelings. But I can’t help the depth of the feelings in veterans at the moment. What do they need? What do we need? We need justice. We’re not getting it. We need fairness. We need truth and honesty—not getting it. And veterans need to be heard. The fact that you’ve accepted this motion and allowed it by leave means we’re winning and we are getting to the point where you are acknowledging indirectly that you’re listening or that you’ve heard. 

This Labor government, like the coalition before it, has taken the position of treating veterans with disrespect and abuse and has failed to provide them with the support they deserve. Why? Because your government is under pressure—self-inflicted pressure: your waste, hypocrisy, deceit. Everyone in Australia can feel the pressure—through inflation, through skimping of services—but we don’t need to include the veterans in that, and that’s what we’re doing. Your self-inflicted waste of taxpayer funds leaves you with the shortage. Now you’re penny pinching—the cap comes in, the spending on DVA decreases this year and then increases in the future—because you’ve got budget pressures that are self-inflicted. Why should the vets pay for that? Why? 

Placing a cap on allied health care will reduce the vital care that many veterans need and deserve. Why should travel be part of the cap? We’ve got Mr Farley in the lower house, representing Farrer, saying that a big portion of the cap is chewed up in his electorate by travel. Why should travel be included? But there are so many other things that I’ll talk about in a minute. 

Veterans have served their country at massive personal risk and massive personal cost. Yet, upon their return or discharge from service, they’ve been ignored and hurt by this Labor government’s penny pinching in the knowledge that their actions abandon their vets. You know this is going on—or maybe you don’t, because listening is not one of your strengths. Is it deliberate? Is it incompetence? Is it dishonesty? Is it fear—running away from issues? The three keys that mark this Albanese Labor government, in my opinion, are dishonesty—we were able to use the word ‘lies’, but we’re not allowed to now—waste and hypocrisy. 

Last week, I had the pleasure and the honour of joining Wounded Heroes in Townsville—a support group that’s received no Commonwealth funding despite the valuable support they’ve provided and continue to provide for our vets. They’re a crisis intervention centre. A veteran calls and says he or she hasn’t got a home. They need medical treatment, they’re about to commit suicide or they talk about one of their mates. Wounded Heroes springs into action. They receive no government funding. They raise money through their own business and through donations. I must give them a plug for the marvellous work they do and point out that they’ve got a fundraising event at Castle Hill in Townsville on the 20th of this month. Government, you’re wasting billions, and you’re not concerned about veterans. Martin and Kim Shaw—Martin turned away from a career as a merchant banker in which he could have made millions, because he was so concerned about veterans. Martin and Kim Shaw; Dave, their manager; the volunteers in their businesses; the volunteers in their op shops—what an amazing group of people. That’s what I call commitment and service. 

It was so refreshing to meet retired Lieutenant General Greg Bilton. He’s retired, and he’s volunteering as the chairman of Wounded Heroes. His eyes were alight as he discussed his love for the military, his love for veterans and the fact that he’s got something really important to do in his life. But the government doesn’t help Wounded Heroes. It does not help Wounded Heroes at all. It’s so refreshing to hear Greg Bilton talking about the inadequacies of the DVA and the inadequacies of the top brass of our military. And there’s some sadness, but he’s alive because he knows he’s contributing. Associated services like Veterans First Consulting—and Kevin Chapman, who I met—are such wonderful people. They’re data driven. 

Speaking of being data driven, I’ve just come from Senator Whitten’s office, where we’ve got two representatives from Trojan’s Trek, Dan and Tim. They’re pushing an evidence based approach to caring for veterans and providing them with the necessary mental and physical health support. Evidence based! That’s something I’ve noticed so much with veterans. As I’ve said before in the Senate, the best conversations I’ve had since being a senator have been with veterans. They’re disciplined and self-disciplined, they can use data, they can speak profoundly well and they’re just basically marvellous people. Trojan’s Trek showed me graphs with data backing them that shows they are indeed taking an evidence based approach. Dan, as he’s talking to me about his own condition, tells me he was told he’d never walk again, but watching a young lady in the gym pounding through weights inspired him, and he’s now living a normal life, but he’s got the evidence. Trojan’s Trek is having success but no funding. So many veterans organisations are having success with no funding. 

Ongoing veteran care is disgracefully underresourced. It’s a blight on the Labor-Liberal coalition uniparty. When they’re in opposition, they promise all the support for veterans. ‘It’s a really shameful approach to the veterans,’ they say the government is taking. But then when they get into government they don’t do anything, correct? They hide, and they forced veterans to jump through hoops to access care for service related injuries and conditions. That’s cruel and heartless. We can have veterans coming up against their allied healthcare cap in a matter of five months into the new financial year, and then they stop. This is what they’re afraid of. They stop, and that interrupts their healing, especially if it’s a mental health treatment, and they fall backwards. This Labor government’s approach and the coalition’s approach before it are a contributing factor to serious mental health issues for many of our returned servicemen and servicewomen. They deserve far better. 

Action needs to be taken now. Stop the delays. Cut the red tape. Cut the crap, and support these vets now by adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This is not only affecting the vets who have returned from service or been discharged from service. This is affecting the future service of the Defence Force in this country. It’s dramatically affecting retention and recruitment, because it’s eroding the concept of mateship, which is the strategically most important concept in the Australian Defence Force. 

It’s not just the future of the ADF that’s at stake here. It’s the security of 28 million Australians who rely on the ADF for their security. Right now, the Chinese Communist Party would be watching. They can see what I can see. They can see what Senator Lambie can see. They can see what so many veterans can see—the deterioration of our armed forces under the current top brass. They’re spending money for DEI initiatives, money for woke policies, money for transgender. You can’t change gender, but here we are. We’re getting people are getting paid to change gender or claim they’re changing gender and paying for dresses for them. These are warriors. They cannot change their sex. No-one can change their sex. This is happening for two reasons. The senior brass has been politicised, and the senior brass—the defence department, the politicians in Labor and Liberal who’ve been defence ministers and the senior brass-is weak, not providing the right leadership. 

Right now on the other side of the Pacific in the United States, we’ve got an administration that’s calling its soldiers warriors. It’s going well for the members of the military. I’m going to read clause B, the second clause of Senator Lambie’s motion, ‘calls on the Albanese government to urgently implement evidence-based’—your veterans are doing it—’policies and action the accepted recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, recognising that further delay is placing veterans’ lives and wellbeing at risk’. This is not too much to ask. This is basic respect for veterans who have treated our country with respect. 

In concluding, I take it that, because you’ve accepted this motion, you can see the vets have really put on a very, very strong case in the last few months, and we’re proud to support them. It’s the least we can do. Veterans, you’re winning because these people are allowing us to speak. 

/by

Veterans: 1, Labor: 0

,

Labor tried to cap veterans’ healthcare at an arbitrary $5,000 limit. We fought back and we’re winning.

I stood with veterans, serving ADF members, Senator Lambie and colleagues across the Senate to oppose Labor’s healthcare caps. Veterans should never have to fight bereaucracy for treatment they need and deserve.

This bill puts veterans first by removing unfair barriers to healthcare and ensuring treatment decisions are made by clinicians, not Canberra bean counters.

Our veterans served us. Now it’s our turn to serve them.

Transcript

Senator Roberts This bill will ensure that eligible veterans can access treatment for accepted service related injuries and conditions based on their clinical needs rather than on the arbitrary monetary or numerical limits that this uncaring Labor government was trying to introduce. The Senate amended the government’s statute update bill last week, yet, in the House, the government deferred it. That was a big middle finger to vets, to serving ADF and to all Australians, in fact. 

The budget cuts that drove this were short-term budget cuts because of Labor’s waste. They cut veterans services and other services around the country, and they increased tax, because Labor’s waste is driving high expenditure, high spending. The people pay—always the people pay—directly or indirectly. As other senators have mentioned this morning, we are winning. The vets are winning. Thank you for your strong advocacy to the veterans. I also thank Senator Lambie for this bill and thank all senators who support it and who are supporting this campaign from the vets. Thank you. As Senator Pocock said, it is amazing what can be done when we take a united stand. 

The Labor policy driving this unfortunate situation arose out of the recent Labor budget designed to steal from and punish Australians. This bill establishes that an entitlement to treatment must not be subject to a predetermined and arbitrary limit on the cost of treatment, pitched at $5,000, being the total amount that may be spent during a particular period, or the number of times a treatment may be accessed. In David Farley’s seat, where he is representing the seat of Farrer in southern New South Wales, and across Queensland—we have some very large electorates. Vets have to travel for treatment, and the travel eats up this $5,000 limit. 

Early in my listening to serving and retired Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans during the last 10 years, I became deeply concerned about veterans not being adequately cared for under the previous government and under this government. I raised my concerns with the proposed cap at Senate estimates hearings, where it became apparent that Labor’s proposition was not thought through and had raised the levels of anxiety of returned veterans or the already vulnerable to those thoughtless threats to their receipt of treatment. 

Veterans already have a very high suicide rate that should not be exacerbated under threats of withdrawal of support. I was told that the bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs had developed no objective criteria to determine if funding beyond the proposed cap might be approved—none—nor had they determined what processes may be required to extend the cap nor had they developed what evidence they may need to establish a case for increased funding. No appeals processes had been created—none. That’s why there was a limit. It’s just an arbitrary slashing of care. It was not clear why this attack on veterans was devised, and I believe penny pinching was a contributing factor. It is, seemingly, the major driver.  

If issues of fraud or financial abuse are of concern, there already exist measures that can be taken to address these problems. I was told that, historically, approximately 10 per cent of veterans entitled to treatment have needed allied health care that would cost more than the $5,000 limit. This is thousands of veterans. Why punish these vets, making them jump through hoops in order to receive the care that they genuinely need and that their practitioners tell them they genuinely need? How disgusting it is to try to treat vets on the cheap with such disrespect.  

Many very distraught veterans and representative groups have approached me directly, seeking support to oppose the proposed cuts in support. I do support this bill, and I am pleased to see that the crossbench is pulling together on this worthy remedial exercise. How the Labor government could even come up with this punitive idea in the face of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is beyond comprehension.  

Our veterans represent the best of our Australian community. The vast and overwhelming majority of veterans are honest Aussies who have genuine need for clinically identified health problems. The government is happy to send them off to fight for our freedoms, yet treats them so poorly and with disrespect—sometimes with disdain and neglect—on their return. Many of these veterans come home vulnerable and in need of nurturing care and support. They do not need to face barriers and hurdles, nor should they have to fight to receive the necessary support and treatment. This does not need to be done on the cheap or, worse, with deceit. Many of our vets have given their all and deserve to be treated well, not in a system based on minimum or even token support, with massive red tape which they have to cut, hack and slash their way through.  

This bill removes potential barriers, financial and administrative, to veterans’ access to allied health care, supporting improved health and wellbeing of our veterans, and I must say it’s well written. I call on my colleagues in the Senate and those members in the other house to support this bill as a matter of respect for those veterans deserving of the support this bill will ensure. Veterans and ADF members have served 28 million Australians and have provided us with security. We need to thank veterans with sincere care.

/by

The $5,000 Cap Threatening Veteran Healthcare

,

One Nation stood with Senator Lambie to call out Labor’s disgraceful treatment of Australian veterans

These men and women put their lives on the line for our country. Their lives. And Labor repays them by forcing them into a broken system where claims drag on for a year, 103,000 cases sit in limbo, and veterans are denied any choice of provider. And now, as if they haven’t suffered enough, Labor wants to slap a $5,0000 cap on their allied health care on top of all that.

Enough is enough.

Veterans deserve respect, not bureaucratic cruelty. They deserve proper care, not a cap that cuts off physio, OT, psychology and rehab halfway through the year. They deserve choice, not a government-paid assessor who cuts corners.

Labor’s waste, hypocrisy and deceit have left veterans abandoned, ignored and disrespected. One Nation will not stand for it.

When in government, One Nation will scrap the cap — and restore the dignity our veterans earned.

Transcript

One Nation supports Senator Lambie’s matter of urgency.

The Albanese Labor government is again denigrating and mistreating our honourable and deserving Australian veterans, the people we rely on to keep us safe; who put country first, ahead of their own lives and safety; and to whom every Australian owes a huge debt. These are our finest—decent, caring, disciplined, noble—and, in serving Australia, some have been injured or damaged. This government is now treating these women and men with a contempt that should be called out for the shame that it brings on all Australians.

I recently met with yet another group of veterans, the Coalition of Veterans Voices, concerned about Labor’s interventions into veterans rights and care. These men and women are genuine, sensible and intelligent Australians alarmed at Labor’s imminent curbing of veterans rights to essential allied health care needed as a result of their services to Australia. They said the minister, the Hon. Matt Keogh, who begrudgingly met with the veterans, declined to even shake their hands. What’s wrong with Labor politicians? The group told me of the broken DVA claims processing—the uncaring system that hinders rather than helps—that seems not to have performance standards—and if it does, it rarely meet those standards. I was told that veterans are being denied their choice of provider. They’re funnelled to a single provider contracted to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, where claims are then underestimated and delayed. DVA’s own figures reveal that last year the average time to determine an initial claim took 364 days—virtually a year!—of wait time. As at 30 June 2026, the department had 103 outstanding claims. This system is clearly broken and needs to be reviewed and rebuilt. By the way, Senator Grogan mentioned that when her government came into office the backlog was 42,000. It’s now 103,000. The changes will not assist veterans. They callously short-change veterans. Labor now has an upper limit cap of $5,000 on allied health services and treatment for conditions and injuries that occurred because of defence service. Doctors and our veterans are worried, and have every right to be worried. 

Labor claims that this cap won’t hurt veterans with complex cases, and yet admits that a system to apply the funding has not even been designed. The cap is contrary to recommendations by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It’s callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of veterans and is highly disrespectful. Physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychological services and other rehabilitation services are not discretionary needs—they’re vital means to support vets to regain their health—and they need to be continuous, not capped and then having six months of no care before they’re renewed. Veterans should be able to choose a practitioner who knows their care needs. A $5,000 cap is not a budget efficiency; it’s a barrier to treatment. The cap must go. Scrap the cap. In sync with this is the need for Labor to restore a veteran’s right to choose their assessor and not be restricted to a government paid contractor likely to want to cut corners. Our relatively small Defence Force plays a vital role in defending the security of 28 million Australians, yet Labor fails to support vets under attack. When the ABC grossly misrepresented and harmed distinguished veteran Heston Russell, Labor did nothing despite the ABCs use of taxpayer funds. ABC lost a court case and failed repeatedly to apologise to Heston. And former commissioner Paul Brereton undermined accused veterans, including our most decorated soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith. Brereton’s inaction reflected Labor’s failure to assist and support veterans. Diggers went to Iraq on the basis of weapons of mass destruction and then, two years later, we found there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie, but no-one apologised. Why would anyone seriously wish to join the military if they knew that they would be thrown on the scrapheap or ignored and disrespected if they left the service through service related injury or conditions? Are Labor’s imminent caps on care the result of Labor’s wasteful spending in other areas that’s sending our country broke? Is this the Albanese government’s trademark deceit and hypocrisy? Three words frame Labor: waste, hypocrisy and deceit. This inept Albanese government tries to look good, not do good—words, no substance. Yet, despite Labor’s hype, misinformation and propaganda, Australians are waking up. One Nation and I completely support this matter of urgency. 

/by

The Public Arrest Spectacle: Who Really Made the Call?

,

During the June Estimates, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) regarding the high-profile public arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith at Sydney Airport.

Both Minister Watt and AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett claimed that most of my questions had already been comprehensively covered during earlier questioning by Senator Cash. I accepted this at the time and agreed to review the Hansard.

However, the one specific question I wanted answered, which I’m certain was not addressed during Senator Cash’s session, was whether the AFP specifically discussed the location of the arrest with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Instead of providing a direct answer, Commissioner Barrett deflected, citing operational decisions and general stakeholder engagement.

Having since reviewed the “comprehensive” answers provided to Senator Cash, I strongly disagree that my question was covered. I will pursue this matter at the next opportunity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to effect the arrest before you arrested him?  

Ms Barrett: I referred to that in my statement as well, in relation to why and the reasons.  

Senator ROBERTS: You had a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions?  

Ms Barrett: In relation to what specifically?  

Senator ROBERTS: Where you intended to effect the arrest.  

Ms Barrett: Those matters are operational matters that were operational decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions before arresting Mr Roberts-Smith?  

Ms Barrett: In my statement, I referred to us engaging with stakeholders in relation to that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you have a conversation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about the location in which to arrest Mr Roberts-Smith—yes or no?  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: She hasn’t answered my question.  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question. If you’ve got another question you want to ask, please ask it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think it might be better for the commissioner to answer.  

CHAIR: The commissioner has responded to your question.  

Senator Watt: Maybe a good way forward—if you take a couple of minutes to read that statement, I think you’ll find that many of your questions have been addressed.  

Senator ROBERTS: This one clearly has not been.  

Senator Watt: Just in the interests of time: Senator Cash ended up finding that all the questions she was going to ask were addressed in the statement. If there are questions you have that haven’t been addressed already, I’m sure the commissioner would be happy to answer them.

/1 Comment/by

An ‘Operational Decision’ or a Media Stunt?

,

During Estimates in May, I questioned the AFP on their treatment of Ben Roberts-Smith.

While we welcome the investigation into media leaks, the AFP still refuses to explain the so-called ‘operational decision’ to arrest him on a Sydney tarmac in front of his two daughters, rather than in Brisbane.

After more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars spent investigating alleged war crimes, the AFP has not secured a single conviction. It’s hard to reconcile that extraordinary expenditure with an outcome that has delivered nothing but reputational damage and prolonged uncertainty for one of the nation’s most decorated soldiers.

The handling of this case raises serious questions about priorities, accountability, and whether such extraordinary resources have been justified by results.

This government needs to ask itself why it sends Australians to war if it then spends hundreds of millions tearing them down when they come home.

Transcript

CHAIR: I understand Senator Roberts has got a couple of follow-up questions from the statement. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your statement. It’s very clear and comprehensive. I’m very pleased to see that you’re going to investigate the source of the leak to the media, because it’s not fair that one of our most decorated warriors is being subjected to a trial by media. We can’t hold you responsible for that, so we’d like to see the results of the investigation. Thank you. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone—well, before I get onto that, midway through the second page, you say: The reason to arrest the individual in Sydney and not Brisbane was an operational decision … What do you mean by ‘operational decision’?  

Ms Barrett: It was based on operational factors. I said it was ‘an operational decision that was determined after discussing with relevant partners’.  

Senator ROBERTS: So an operational decision in terms of getting the assets in the right place to do the arrest?  

Ms Barrett: I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.  

Mr McCartney  : If you go to the front of the commissioner’s statement, she makes it fairly clear that we need to be careful with our language. This matter is before court, and we’re at risk, if we talk more about these issues—  

Senator ROBERTS: I respect that, yes.  

Mr McCartney : If we talk more about these issues and information is ventilated through this committee, we run the risk of potential impact on a fair trial. There were a range of operational matters, like the commissioner’s discussed, but, taking into account that balance and trying to be helpful to the committee, we’re going to err on the side of caution and say that these operational matters may be relevant to the court case so we’ll decline on answering that one.  

Ms Barrett: We’ve really tried to provide as much information as we can—  

Senator ROBERTS: And, as I said, it’s been comprehensive.  

Ms Barrett: in the statement, to be as helpful as we can. As I said at the outset, we understand that of course it’s of significant interest to the public, but we need to balance that with ensuring that there’s a fair trial.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got safety to consider as well. Okay, now I understand what operational decision means. Did you have a conversation or exchange emails with anyone within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about where you intended to affect the arrest?  

Ms Barrett: Are you asking me specifically or the AFP?  

Senator ROBERTS: The AFP.  

Ms Barrett: Again, I’ll pass to Deputy Commissioner McCartney.  

Mr McCartney : In the division of responsibilities, the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to prosecute charges and offences. Once those charges have been affected by operational agencies, such as the AFP, or as OSI did in this case—they were aware of the location being in New South Wales and Sydney. In terms of being aware of the exact location at the airport, I will take that one on notice and come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question, Minister. The commissioner has clarified some misrepresentations in the media, which is appreciated. Perhaps you could clarify another comment in the media that so far your predecessor government, the Morrison government, and your government have spent, supposedly, $300 million or more on prosecuting these investigations. So far you’ve got two men charged, as I understand it, and no-one convicted.  

Ms Barrett: Sorry I missed that last bit.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has been convicted yet. I don’t think anyone’s gone to court yet, have they?  

Ms Barrett: There are two matters before court.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before the court, yes, but I don’t think they’ve actually started trying them. This is a question to the minister. Is this action to justify more funding?  

Senator Watt: Is what action to justify more funding?  

Senator ROBERTS: The arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith?  

Senator Watt: That’s a very big statement to make, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to clarify this because the commissioner has done a very good job in clarifying media misrepresentation.  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure about you, Senator Roberts, but I and our government have full confidence in our police forces to make good decisions when they’re deciding who to charge and why. I’d be very concerned if you’re suggesting otherwise.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not suggesting the AFP.  

Senator Watt: We don’t interfere with the decisions of the AFP as to who they charge and for what. That is an independent decision, as it should be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, you’ve answered my question. I’ll just say again, Commissioner, thank you for your summary—excellent. Thanks, CHAIR, for your indulgence.  

CHAIR: Happy to serve, Senator Roberts. 

/2 Comments/by

Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC Display Remains Untouched

,

After everything that’s unfolded around Ben Roberts-Smith, it was refreshing to hear the War Memorial confirm his Victoria Cross display remains untouched, his plaque updated only with factual context, and that the presumption of innocence still applies.

That principle isn’t optional – it’s the foundation of justice.

Transcipt

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Anderson. Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here and thank you for such an uplifting opening statement. That’s wonderful that you’re celebrating that. My questions are fairly brief. Mr Anderson, can I confirm you have left the Ben Roberts-Smith VC display in the Hall of Valour in the same condition it was before his arrest while updating his plaque to include the passage: In April 2026, Roberts-Smith was charged with five counts of the war crime of murder. The legal process is ongoing.  

Mr Anderson: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I confirm that on 10 April 2026, in a media conference at the Australian War Memorial, you made the following statement: The most important thing that all of us can do now is allow justice to take its course; to start with the presumption of innocence.  

Mr Anderson: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the presumption of innocence still the overarching principle guiding the Australian War Memorial in the continued display of Ben Roberts-Smith’s VC exhibit in the Hall of Valour?  

Mr Anderson: I think the overriding principle is one of fact. He’s in the Hall of Valour because of his actions in Tizak on 10 June 2011. Those are the circumstances that we speak to in the Hall of Valour. We’ve updated, as we always do, the panel. Since 2023, we’ve been updating the interpretive panel with the facts as they become known.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s almost as uplifting to me, hearing that you believe in fact and make decisions based on data and fact, as your opening statement. That’s wonderful. Final question—I want to thank you, Mr Anderson, for reminding Australia that Ben Roberts-Smith has a presumption of innocence and for treating his service with the respect it deserves. I have nothing further, Chair. Thank you.  

CHAIR: That is very efficient of you, Senator; thank you. 

/by

Veterans Face New $5,000 Care Restriction

,

These Estimates questions relate to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ proposed $5,000 aggregate cap on allied health services.

Our veterans and doctors are worried – and they have every right to be.

The government claims this cap won’t hurt complex-case veterans, yet they admit the system to apply for funding above the cap hasn’t even been designed yet.

Fix the system, don’t punish everyone! If there’s fraud, target the fraudsters. Do not penalise the vast majority of honest, caring doctors and vulnerable veterans.

Those who sacrificed for our country should never face cost-cutting measures disguised as ‘reforms.’ Our veterans deserve certainty, respect, and our support.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I want to go over some changes to the annual monetary limit— some details that may not have been covered. I’ll do my best to try and avoid questions that were going to be asked but have since been covered. If I miss out, let me know. I’m also passing on a lot of complaints and questions from veterans as well as doctors. Doctors are appalled and resigned, yet, fundamentally, they all care. You have already confirmed that the cap is an aggregate cap across all allied health services, not per discipline. Is that correct?  

Mr Kefford: No, that’s not correct. It does not include optical, dental or hearing services.  

Senator ROBERTS: Apart from them. Physio, physical treatment, mental health—they’re all aggregate?  

Mr Brown: Open Arms counselling services are also not included.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the minister accept that an aggregate cap would force complex-case veterans to ration treatment between conditions formally accepted by the Commonwealth?  

Mr Kefford: Again, no. We gave evidence earlier today about the ability, particularly in complex cases, for there to be additional thresholds. The point of having the $5,000 threshold is to ensure that treatment is effective, and there’s an undertaking in the announcement for there to be consultation on the basis on which that additional funding will be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the TPI gold card holders with multiple accepted conditions be exempt from any aggregate cap, consistent with existing exemptions for physiotherapy and exercise physiology?  

Mr Brown: No. Exceptions to the cap will be considered on a basis of clinical need. Many of the cohort that you’re referring to would potentially meet that requirement, but that will be subject to a consultation process around the design with the veteran community and provider groups.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s not designed yet?  

Mr Brown: The process for veteran card holders to go above the $5,000 annual monetary limit where there is a clinical need has not been designed yet. This measure commences on 1 July 2027, and we’ve got that lead-in time to do that consultation work.  

Senator ROBERTS: What objective criteria will DVA use to determine when funding above $5,000 will be approved, and how will veterans be informed of their eligibility?  

Mr Kefford: The focus, as we’ve said, will be on clinical need and effectiveness of the treatment, and the announced consultation process, once it has been concluded and the arrangements have been confirmed, will be communicated to veterans so they can understand the operation of the new arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: How will they be communicated?  

Mr Kefford: In our usual mechanisms.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s what bothers a lot of veterans.  

Mr Kefford: We use our Vetaffairs newspaper, our social media and other presences, as well as the formal publication of the outcomes of the consultation process, as we’ve done for other similar ones.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a collection of microservice organisations, as well as the RSL, that you can send it to?  

Mr Kefford: Indeed. We would normally engage with the ex-service community as well—ex-service organisations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of W Edwards Deming?  

Mr Kefford: No, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: He was famous, globally, as a management consultant; he died at the age of 95. He said that 95 per cent of problems are not with individuals but with the system. How have you approached the design of the new policy? My point is that you’ve got a problem. There’s some fraud going on—I accept that; wherever there’s money, there are tendencies for some fraud. But the majority of doctors and the majority of veterans are honest and caring people. Has there been any thought to, rather than punishing everyone or limiting everyone, putting a severe punishment on the few miscreants?  

Ms Frame: As we explained earlier this morning, the measure will benefit most veterans in terms of providing them with clearer, up-to-date insights on who they are seeing and where they are up to with their cap. They will have that on MyService, which is a facility they don’t have now. They will have the benefit of more providers. We anticipate there will be more providers availing themselves of the increased rates that are also part of the measure, and we have designed the consideration around $5,000. The policy objective of that threshold of $5,000 is to ensure the maximal effectiveness of the treatment that veterans are receiving. It provides a way by which we can assure the veteran that the providers who are delivering them services are accountable for genuine improvements in their condition and not just delivering services in perpetuity that aren’t subject to any checks and assurances that they are affecting real improvements in veteran wellbeing. 

Mr Brown: I reiterate the evidence I gave earlier today that, of those veteran cardholders who access allied health services with those veteran cards, the average amount of services they provide, based on historical data, is around $3½ thousand per annum, so the $5,000 cap is adequate to facilitate allied health services for the majority of veterans accessing those services through card arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Averages can be really misleading and deceptive. They can hide things. I’m not accusing you of hiding things, but averages—that’s a fact. What percentage of—  

Senator McAllister: He has the median as well. There are a number of statistical indicators. You may enjoy this.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re partial indicators.  

Mr Brown: We have a number of high-end users that skew that average. The median is $1,900 without those high-end users skewing that average.  

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage of veterans go over $5,000 in a year?  

Mr Brown: It fluctuates, but it’s between eight and 12 per cent, so roughly one in 10 of the eligible population.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a sizeable number nonetheless. That skews. It distorts. Have you built systems— or are you still building systems—to take care of that 10 per cent’s needs?  

Mr Brown: That would be the process that we’ll build off the back of the consultation that will occur over the next 12 months to ensure that we’re meeting the clinical needs of those veteran cardholders who require an amount over the $5,000 threshold.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve found in my career is that humans are not afraid of change. People misleadingly say that humans are afraid of change. What they’re afraid of is uncertainty. Is there anything you can do to make things less uncertain for veterans who are worried?  

Ms Frame: I announced in my opening statement this morning that we will be doing this consultation. We have conveyed that. We will be consulting on the mechanism, but we have also put a section on our website in the last week that responds to miscommunications, what is coming to us about the veteran community and where they have fears about how the measure will be affected. As we said, it hasn’t started yet, but we are doing our best to proactively engage with that and put up-to-the-minute information that responds directly to where we see misinformation and misapprehension circulating in the veteran community to address that exact uncertainty and provide as much information as we are able to at this point in time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you consulting with any veterans to design the communications before you release the communications? This is not meant disrespectfully. It’s meant with complete respect. Your environment is different from the veterans’ environment. Your language is different. Are you using veterans to guide you in the messaging? That seems to be a big problem.  

Ms Frame: No, not directly with that communication as I understand it at the moment. It is based on direct feedback from veterans, so we’re looking at exactly what they are saying and using their own language and terminology in our responses as much as possible.  

Senator ROBERTS: So veterans will be required to apply for additional funding. What evidence will be required, and how long will approvals take? Is that still being designed?  

Mr Kefford: That’s the nub of the consultation, which will involve a process of both presentations from us and submissions from individuals as well as professional organisations. So that will be worked through, and it will be communicated once it’s been settled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will there be regular updates and communications?  

Mr Kefford: Indeed.  

Senator ROBERTS: What appeal mechanisms will exist if DVA declines to fund clinically necessary care above the cap? That’s still part of the process being designed, I take it.  

Mr Brown: That will be considered during the design process, but it’s not going to be an administrative decision made under any primary legislation. We’ll consider that issue during consultation, but it’s unlikely—I don’t want to speculate too much—that it will be appealable through our normal administrative decision-making processes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any ideas on how it will be appealable?  

Mr Brown: No. I don’t want to speculate further about what the process might look like ahead of a consultation period.  

Mr Kefford: Mr Brown’s absolutely correct. I would say two things. First of all, the intention here, as the secretary has outlined, is to ensure that allied health is clinically appropriate and effective. And the purpose of having the process that we’re describing is to ensure that, particularly, those veterans who have more complex needs are properly cared for and receive the support and rehabilitation that they need.  

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has the government made of the risk that a capped funding model will further reduce provider willingness to treat veterans, given existing concerns about low DVA fee schedules? I’ve had a number of doctors say this is insane.  

Mr Kefford: Part of the measure is, directly to that point, to actually increase allied health fees. One hundred and sixty-seven, is it, Luke?  

Mr Brown: It’s 169—$170 million in round numbers.  

Mr Kefford: And that’s intended to encourage more providers to provide services to veterans. That’s been welcomed by a number of bodies, and we tabled a letter from the physiotherapists association—that’s not the proper title—this morning.  

Mr Brown: For example, as part of that measure, for a face-to-face standard room consultation with a physiotherapist, our fee will increase from $75.10 to $110. Those fee increases apply across the board to allied health providers.  

Senator ROBERTS: How does the government reconcile the introduction of a monetary ceiling with the royal commission’s finding that barriers to healthcare access contribute to veteran suicide risk?  

Mr Kefford: A part of the measure is to, below that threshold, actually remove the requirement for the treatment cycles that currently exist and to provide that flexibility, recognising that the threshold’s been set with regard to what is normal usage, but then to have a process to ensure that necessary treatment is available and that treatment that’s provided is clinically appropriate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the government accept that veterans with numerous accepted conditions will exhaust the cap more quickly than those with a single injury, despite both having conditions recognised as service caused?  

Mr Kefford: That would be the logical conclusion, and that’s why we’re having a process of—the $5,000 limit is a threshold at which point there can be further decisions about clinically necessary care that needs to be provided.  

Senator McAllister: I think it’s worth—just in response to your last three or four questions, Senator—putting the whole measure in context. The royal commission did say that the government should take steps to improve access to health care, including by raising the charging or the provisioning for procuring allied health services. This measure does that; it raises the fees. It also seeks to remove some of the administrative hurdles for veterans by removing the treatment cycle, which will remove some of the impediments to people procuring the services that they want for their own needs. And, as Ms Frame said, it also will allow us to invest in some digital systems that will let veterans see what services they’ve already used and what resources might be available to them. So the context for this is actually a broad measure to improve access to allied health across the sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: What safeguards exist to prevent the cap from disproportionately harming veterans with complex, chronic or degenerative conditions?  

Mr Brown: Part of the measure that’s been announced by the government is that, where there’s a clinical need to access allied health services above the $5,000 cap, that will be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: What transitional provisions will be put in place to ensure veterans do not experience sudden loss of access to essential treatment when the cap begins in July 2027? This is a source of pretty severe mental health pressure. Is there a transitional arrangement?  

Mr Kefford: The detail of, particularly, the mechanism by which veterans will seek additional funding above that first threshold is the nub of the consultation process. I’m sure the concerns that you’re raising will be aired in that context. 

Senator ROBERTS: When will clear, written guidance be issued to veterans and providers explaining how the cap will operate in practice? Do you have a scheduled time or an approximate time?  

Mr Kefford: The undertaking is that the consultations will commence in August. We haven’t set a conclusion or detailed timeline for that yet, but certainly the intention would be to have arrangements clear and able to be communicated well in advance of 1 July.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we understand what you’re trying to do, but I don’t think the message has got out from the department, the DVA, as clearly as possible, because $5,000 is seen by many veterans as pitifully and ridiculously small. It’s an insult. How much of this is a cost-cutting exercise to get your government through the hoops with regard to the waste and hypocrisy that it’s shown—  

Senator McAllister: I indicated to you earlier—  

Senator ROBERTS: across all budget areas.  

Senator McAllister: that our goal is to ensure that veterans have access to the allied health treatment they need in a timely way, and to make sure that the services they’re being provided are clinically effective. One of the consequences of creating a system where very large quantities of services are procured from the private sector by individuals is that we see the emergence of some behaviours in that market that are not in the best interests of veterans. At the worst end of it, it looks like fraud: claiming for services that were never delivered. Stepping a few clicks back from that, sometimes it looks like overservicing: making a set of recommendations for which there is no clinical evidence and from which the individual doesn’t see a material benefit in their own health and wellbeing. We judge that, given what we know about the use of these services by veterans, most veterans are using well under that $5,000 limit. When we see veterans experiencing higher rates, we think it’s appropriate for there to be a threshold to evaluate whether what’s on offer to that person is genuinely going to assist them. We have every intention of ensuring people do get the healthcare services they need, and this reform is about a multipronged approach to make sure that’s true, both for the people whose needs are at lower levels of intensity and for the people whose needs are at the higher level.  

Senator ROBERTS: This government has developed a reputation for wasteful spending and loose spending, and people are concerned about that. It seems to me that there’s a lot of work going on, but the root causes are resignation among the veterans that nothing concrete has been done, and there’s so much fear. I think it’s a matter of not only what you just stipulated as your desire and what your targets are but how it’s being done—the process. Would you agree?  

Senator McAllister: I don’t agree with many of the things you said. Our government in each and every budget have found savings so that we can prioritise the things that we care about and that we know the community cares about. One of those areas of investment has in fact been in DVA, because we came to government knowing that it was significantly underprovisioned and that the lack of staff, in particular, in this organisation had led to unconscionable delays in people being able to access the services that they deserve as veterans. We’ve set about addressing that, and there’s a lot to be proud of in the work that’s been done by the many people who work in this department and the collaborative way that the veterans community has engaged in that work to make sure that we do improve the service level that’s available.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/by