Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare without Caps) Bill 2026

Jacqui Lambie

On budget night this year, Australian veterans found out that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs had decided to cap allied health services. I was so alarmed that I put out a media release which pointed out that capping care for veterans flies in the face of the recommendations by the royal commissioners, that access to timely health care supports was key to getting veteran suicide numbers down.

Just a few minutes ago, Minister Keogh told Australian veterans that the cap had been scrapped. I thank the minister for hearing us loud and clear, but we still need the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026. We need it to protect veterans into the future. I would like to thank my co-sponsors, Senator Pocock, Senator Shoebridge, Senator Thorpe and Senator Payman.

This bill is about a very simple principle. If a veteran needs treatment because of their service, they should be able to get that treatment. It should not come down to a number on a spreadsheet and a limit imposed by Canberra. The government said that it was not a cap because veterans can apply for additional treatment once they reach that threshold. But let's be honest about what that means. A veteran who needs ongoing physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychology, exercise physiology or another allied health service may reach that threshold.

Veterans have a trust deficit with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and they have had it since the Vietnam War. Who can blame them, when the average liability claim takes the DVA over 300 days to process? Numerous reports, not to forget the seven-volume report from the royal commission, confirm that the DVA has made these assurances before and has failed to deliver. Placing an arbitrary cap on these allied health treatments just confirms what we already know, that the DVA will do whatever it can to make veterans fight and wait for the care they need.

For some veterans, like me, these services are not optional extras. They are what allow us to walk, work, manage pain, keep our independence, take part in family and still belong to the community. This bill prevents any limit on costs for individual treatment, total costs during a particular period or a limit on the number of treatments for a service related injury. This extends beyond just allied health treatments and can apply to medical specialists, hospital and rehabilitation services, mental and health professionals and any other treatment for service related injury. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide made it very clear that timely, accessible and ongoing health care matters. Recommendations 71 and 72 are directly concerned with improving access to health care for veterans and strengthening the health system that supports them. This bill says that, when a veteran has an existing entitlement to treatment, that entitlement should not be cut off because a particular amount of money has already been spent or because a particular number of services has been used. It would prevent treatment entitlements from being limited by the specific cost for an individual treatment or a total cost over a period for a specified number of treatments. That means there's no arbitrary limit on allied health treatment where more treatment is clinically required.

It also means the same principle can apply across other healthcare settings where treatment is needed. Veterans might need ongoing treatment from GPs, medical specialists, hospital and rehabilitation services, mental health professionals and other appropriately qualified health professionals. For some veterans, these services might be required regularly, while for others it's for many years because of the nature of their service related injury or disease. Their access to necessary treatment should not be restricted simply because some bean counter somewhere thought he could save the department money. You can never ever put a price on a veteran's life.

I also want to be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not mean there should be no oversight or that every treatment should be automatically funded. There should still be proper clinical governance. There should still be standards for quality and safety as well as safeguards against fraud, abuse and, critically, inappropriately provided conduct. That is why we're standing here today—because of provider conduct. But those safeguards should not be confused with an arbitrary financial cap.

I'm calling on the major parties to put the interests of veterans first and support this bill. Veterans should not have to wait for another review or another approval process before they can access the treatment that is needed, because it plays terribly on their mental health. This is about making sure that, when a veteran has accepted service related injury or disease, they can get clinically necessary treatment when they need it.

Finally, I would like to thank all the veterans; the advocates; the mothers, especially you, Julie-Ann Finney; and the Australians, especially the over 30,000 that shared and signed my petition. You got this done. When we stand up united, we win.

Jenny McAllister

Later today, this chamber will have the opportunity to consider two bills which substantially advance the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. These bills will implement 20 recommendations and support the implementation of an additional 20, and I look forward to that debate because I acknowledge the commitment in this chamber to supporting the veteran community. I acknowledge, in particular, Senator Lambie, who, in her entire time in the Senate, has chosen to use that time to advocate for the veteran community and, in doing so, has engaged in a very constructive way with our government. That is something that we appreciate very much.

Our government has deep respect for our veterans, who have served and who continue to serve our country, and anyone who pulls on the nation's uniform to serve in our name deserves nothing less than respect. Our 2026 budget featured a proposal to make the biggest increase to allied health fees, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to support veterans, in 20 years. This proposal was coupled with a plan to reduce the administrative burden for 90 per cent of veterans, allied health practitioners and GPs, with the removal of the current treatment cycle in favour of a new system. The proposed threshold measure set out to reduce the burden on veterans to go back to a GP every 12 allied health visits for a new referral, instead expanding this to a $5,000 threshold before a veteran's care is reviewed.

We've been consulting on this measure, and we have heard from veterans that there are concerns about this approach. We've been listening carefully, and today the government is taking the proposed $5,000 threshold off the table. We will not change our commitment to improving access to allied health care through the fee increase to allied health providers. Fees for allied health providers supporting veterans will increase on 1 July 2027, as planned.

We will continue to engage with the veteran and provider community on how we can continue to deliver on the objective of achieving better veteran wellbeing outcomes while ensuring the integrity of the system. I thank those members of the veterans community who have engaged with us on this question so far. We appreciate very much the constructive nature of that engagement and your feedback.

As I said, I wish to thank Senator Lambie for her advocacy and cooperation on this measure in particular. We cannot support the bill that is being brought forward today by Senator Lambie because of the changes that we've announced today and because the way it is drafted potentially introduces unintended consequences, but we will continue to work with the veterans community and we will continue to work with Senator Lambie as we continue our work to support veterans.

Long debate text truncated.