Veterans: Health Care

Dolega contended that the previous government had severely underfunded the Department of Veterans' Affairs, leaving a backlog of 42,000 claims. Dolega stated that the current administration had invested record funding, including $15 billion in payments and services, and increased allied health provider fees to improve access. Dolega explained that the $5,000 threshold was a review point intended to reduce the burden on veterans who previously had to seek new referrals every 12 visits. Dolega noted that the threshold did not apply to veterans with catastrophic injuries or those on special rate disability pensions.

Pocock argued that the threshold added bureaucratic obstacles for veterans already struggling to navigate the system. Pocock referenced an exhibition highlighting the administrative burden placed on veterans and their families, suggesting that additional reviews would exacerbate stress. Pocock stated that the government should trust the health system and veterans rather than imposing checks on those requiring significant support. Pocock emphasised that the policy created unnecessary barriers for individuals seeking to recover from service-related injuries.

McDonald criticised the government for cutting $748 million from veteran support while claiming to improve care. McDonald highlighted the closure of the Oasis support centre in Townsville due to funding disputes, arguing this demonstrated a failure to support regional veterans. McDonald cited concerns from veterans about the reliability of government support, noting that some were discouraging family members from enlisting. McDonald called for the removal of the threshold to honour the obligation to care for those who served.

Shoebridge argued that the $5,000 threshold was effectively a cap designed to save three-quarters of a billion dollars. Shoebridge stated that 25,000 veterans were currently receiving allied health services and feared the new policy would disrupt critical care for conditions like PTSD and physical injuries. Shoebridge contrasted the cuts to veteran care with significant defence spending on equipment and senior personnel. Shoebridge asserted that the policy undermined trust and failed to prioritise the needs of those who served.

Smith emphasised that the government had cleared the previous claims backlog and increased funding for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Smith explained that the threshold was designed to reduce the administrative burden on veterans who previously had to obtain new referrals frequently. Smith stated that treatment would continue during reviews and that the policy did not affect veterans with catastrophic injuries or specific pension statuses. Smith highlighted ongoing consultation to ensure veterans' voices were heard in the reform process.

Whitten condemned the $5,000 cap as a betrayal of veterans, citing the laying down of medals as a protest against the policy. Whitten argued that the threshold would force veterans with complex injuries and PTSD to navigate additional bureaucracy to maintain access to clinicians. Whitten stated that the damage to trust was irreparable and called for the immediate removal of the cap. Whitten asserted that One Nation would continue to support veterans against what he described as inadequate government support.

Collins argued that the threshold was urgent to address because it posed life-or-death risks for some veterans. Collins cited examples of veterans facing excessive delays in claims processing, with some waiting over 500 days for liability acceptance. Collins stated that the centralised claims process was inefficient and costly, contributing to mental health struggles among veterans. Collins called for the removal of the cap to restore trust and ensure veterans received timely care.