PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION REPORT

The Productivity Commission published its draft report into the administration of veterans support in December 2018.

- Attached are copies of the report overview and the complete draft report released by the Commission

- The DFWA Submission and the ADSO Submission to the Report were submitted in July 2018.

AFTER THE DRAFT REPORT - THE NEXT STEPS !

Preconceived notions should not hold sway when we all agree that the, “veteran compensation and rehabilitation system is not fit for purpose; it requires fundamental reform; is out of date and is not working in the best interests of veterans and their families’.  We note that it is a DRAFT paper. The Draft Recommendations paper runs for 73 pages and contains some 50 recommendations; the Draft Report runs for over 700 pages. This latter document contains much background that reflects the input from ESOs and individuals from across the Defence Community. 

There is a call for further comment, with written submissions on the draft report required by 11 February 2019, and with public hearings in February across the country and a final report to government in June 2019.  DFWA will of course make a submission on the draft report.

SOME AD-HOC COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE

DFWA is receiving numerous comments from members, by email or on our Facebook page, on the draft report. The following are some of the comments received, shown without further comment: 

FROM MEMBER A

I've not read the 700p thing but if the extracts in the emails below are any guide then we should focus on some key words:

1.    "Veteran" was watered down some time back and it looks like the PC report does not want to distinguish between op and non-op service.  The next step is to ignore op (active) service altogether, which means that the unique nature of mil service is no longer recognised, at least as far as disability support is concerned.

2.    "Injury" appears below but "wounded" does not.  If "wounded" does not appear elsewhere in the report then that's another nail in the coffin of the unique nature of mil service.  ADF people on op service are "killed" or "wounded".  We need to use these words (in context of course).

3.    It seems that RSL NSW's submission  used the word "prize" in relation to Gold Cards.  That usage is most unfortunate because critics of veterans will now argue from the specific to the general, i.e. if a Gold Card is seen as a prize by some then it must be seen as a prize by all vets.  And they'll say that not everybody can or should get a prize.  So perhaps nobody should...

4.    The very title of the report ("A better way to support veterans") sends the subliminal message that whatever the report says must be "better" than the extant system.  It may well be the case that much of the PC report finds better ways but the title's message is: 'Don't argue with us because everything we say is better.'  (But of course that's not necessarily the case.  Anyway, our line should be that we want the "best" way to support veterans.  "Better" is not good enough.)

 

FROM MEMBER B AND RESPONSE FROM MEMBER C

In reference to this paragraph “The tabling of  a document of this size and import at this time of year is a bit of a low blow and smacks of Government putting out announcement at the end of a week in the hope it gets buried/forgotten by the media.

I suggest that the “enemy” is the bureaucrats. The Government and all political parties recognise the uniqueness of military service and soon to be accepted the Veterans Covenant. IMO any Government that does anything contrary to those “principles” is committing political suicide. And it provides the Veterans community with the cement we need to raise a unified voice in protest.