-
France commended the bills for establishing an independent body with authority to drive systemic reform and improve wellbeing outcomes. France highlighted the government's recent investments in veteran employment and compensation processing. France argued that the commission would provide proactive oversight and ensure veterans' voices were central to decision-making. France stressed the importance of rebuilding trust in systems that had previously failed veterans and their families.
-
Wilson supported the bills as a recognition of the nation's responsibility to veterans who sacrifice for national security. Wilson noted that the legislation addressed deep issues regarding mental health and suicide prevention. Wilson argued that the commission was a fundamental step in honouring veterans and ensuring they could live healthy, productive lives after service. Wilson emphasised that supporting veterans was an enduring responsibility requiring sustained investment.
-
Swanson supported the bill, citing Recommendation 122 of the Royal Commission as the most significant action for system reform. Swanson highlighted that the standalone legislation reinforced the commission's independence and explicitly included veterans' families in its functions. Swanson noted that the bill strengthened the commissioner's powers, including witness protection and information access. Swanson pointed to statutory deadlines for reporting in 2027 and 2030 to ensure accountability and sustained progress.
-
McCormack backed the goal of setting up a separate legal watchdog to push changes and track results. McCormack faulted the government's first draft laws for being badly managed and missing proper talks with interested parties. McCormack asked the government not to hurry laws and to guarantee full debate and engagement with stakeholders. McCormack recognised the coalition's part in forming the Royal Commission and the need for cross-party backing for veterans.
-
Templeman supported the bill, noting it built on the commission established in February 2025 and strengthened its independence through standalone legislation. Templeman highlighted the inclusion of veterans' families and the strengthening of the commissioner's powers and witness protections. Templeman mentioned the establishment of veteran hubs in her electorate to provide localised support. Templeman also noted government actions to combat bad actors exploiting the veterans' health claims system.
-
Venning supported the bills but criticised the government for delaying independent oversight by opposing the coalition's 2020 proposal. Venning raised concerns about the government's plan to sell defence properties, arguing it undermined recruitment and retention. Venning listed coalition achievements in veteran support, including mental health care and the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program. Venning warned that selling heritage sites was short-sighted and risky for national security.
-
Briskey supported the bill, emphasising the formal inclusion of veterans' families in the commissioner's functions. Briskey argued that the standalone legislation provided the necessary independence and statutory teeth for effective oversight. Briskey highlighted the importance of witness protection and transparency through statutory reporting deadlines. Briskey stressed that the system must be resilient and supportive to prevent veterans from fighting their battles alone.
-
Spender supported the bill, noting it established a standalone statutory entity to oversee system reform across the defence ecosystem. Spender emphasised that independence from Defence and Veterans' Affairs was fundamental to gaining trust and delivering meaningful change. Spender highlighted the commissioner's strong inquiry powers and protections for those providing information. Spender challenged the government to ensure recommendations were implemented to avoid the commission becoming symbolic.
-
Clutterham argued the bill fulfilled the royal commission's most critical recommendation by establishing a standalone statutory entity with independent oversight powers. Clutterham highlighted provisions for public appointment, entry-to-premises powers, and expanded witness protections to ensure frank evidence. Clutterham emphasised the need for sustained accountability to improve suicide prevention outcomes for serving and ex-serving personnel.
-
Chaney welcomed the bills as meaningful reforms that strengthened the commission's independence and authority. Chaney noted the royal commission's findings on systemic cultural and leadership issues within Defence. Chaney argued the independent commissioner's ability to refer matters to the minister or Prime Minister was essential for driving structural change.
-
Gosling congratulated the government on implementing royal commission recommendations, noting the commission had been operational since September 2025. Gosling highlighted the bill's focus on veterans' families and the commissioner's discretion in conducting inquiries. Gosling praised the inclusion of statutory deadlines for reviews and the ability to invite public submissions to understand system failures.
-
Hastie supported the objective of independent oversight but criticised the government's initial attempt to establish the commission via unrelated legislation as rushed. Hastie noted the coalition had proposed a similar model in 2020 which Labor opposed. Hastie announced an amendment to bring forward the first implementation review to 30 September 2026 to ensure timely accountability.
-
Georganas argued the commissioner's broad mandate would identify systemic patterns contributing to harm rather than investigating individual cases. Georganas highlighted the commissioner's power to undertake inquiries on their own motion and request documents or warrants. Georganas emphasised that witness protections and procedural fairness were crucial for rebuilding trust within the veteran community.
-
Chester supported the bill but moved an amendment to advance the first review deadline to 30 September 2026, arguing the original 2027 date was too slow. Chester acknowledged the coalition's 2020 proposal for a national commissioner and listed previous government reforms such as the Veterans' Recognition Act and mental health care expansions. Chester stressed the need for bipartisan action to reduce suicide rates.
-
Jordan-Baird commended the bill for responding to the royal commission's findings on systemic failures. Jordan-Baird highlighted the inclusion of veterans' families in the commissioner's functions and the expansion of witness protections. Jordan-Baird noted the government's investment of $739.2 million in treatment and rehabilitation as part of the broader response to improve veteran wellbeing.
-
Price supported the bill's objective but criticised the government's handling of the initial commission proposal and the subsequent inquiry into military sexual violence. Price argued the coalition's 2020 model was ignored for political reasons, causing a five-year delay. Price announced the coalition's amendment to advance the first review to September 2026 to ensure transparency and accountability.
-
Comer argued the bill transitioned the commission into standalone legislation to reinforce its independence from Defence agencies. Comer highlighted the implementation of Senate committee recommendations, including explicit reference to veterans' families and expanded witness protections. Comer emphasised the statutory deadlines for reviews in 2027 and 2030 as key accountability mechanisms.
-
lead
Keogh argued that the bill implements recommendation 122 of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which established an independent oversight body. Keogh stated that the legislation strengthens the commissioner's powers and independence while explicitly including families in the commission's remit. The Minister noted that the commission had been operational since September 2025 following earlier legislation passed to ensure continuity across the federal election. Keogh explained that the current bills result from a Senate inquiry and community engagement, aiming to refine the oversight framework. Keogh defended the December 2027 reporting date as necessary for proper evaluation, though he acknowledged foreshadowed amendments to bring it forward.