RSL Advocacy = A Single email to DVA?
In 2021, a motion was made at the RSL Victoria state conference that the state branch advocate for an amendment to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), whereby all those who were covered under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA) would instead have their claims assessed as per MRCA.
It was carried with almost unanimous support, 179 to 14, and there was genuine excitement that we would finally see and hear lobbying and advocacy on this serious issue.
The compensation and rehabilitation acts our veterans are covered under are a complicated business. Whether covered under the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA), MRCA, or DRCA, compensation and rehabilitation benefits vary widely.
It was my sub-branch, Hawthorn RSL, who submitted the motion and we did it for a simple reason: Fairness.
One of our members served in the 1990’s and was involved in a tragic vehicle rollover that left him a quadriplegic. Never to walk again, he is covered under DRCA and therefore never to possess a gold card.
While DVA recognises and does an admirable job treating his recognised conditions, being a quadriplegic is not just an ongoing condition but also a worsening one. And as his condition worsens, without a Gold Card he is required to submit further claims, await them being recognised and have them added to his White Card. This is clearly not a fair scenario, and our member is left significantly out of pocket when covering medical expenses that he is waiting for DVA to recognise.
He deserves fairness, and were he covered under VEA or MRCA his injuries would entitle him to a Gold Card. With a Gold Card his quadriplegia and all the worsening conditions associated with it would be covered and he would have confidence he would be looked after.
It was hugely heartening to see the sub-branches of RSL Victoria unite and vote in favour of the motion to amend the act and for RSL Victoria to lobby to achieve this.
Since the RSL Victoria State Conference in early September 2021, RSL Victoria’s Acting CEO Brian Cairns sent a letter to DVA in December. While the contents of this letter were not made public to the members who voted in favour of the motion, DVA responded through a First Assistant Secretary in February of 2022 and addressed RSL Victoria’s proposal that “liability under the legislation administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) should move to a presumptive model.”
This this was not the premise that members had voted on at State Conference, and members have not been made aware of what RSL Victoria’s letter to DVA stated.
In reply to RSL Victoria, DVA stated, “We note the view of RSL Victoria that all claims should be considered in accordance with a single standard of proof; we also note that there are mixed views on this issue across the ex-service community. Any changes to these standards would be a matter for consideration by Government.
Thank you for writing to DVA to put forward your suggestions for reform. We will take your views
into account when preparing policy advice for Government. We welcome the engagement of the
veteran community in DVA’s process of transformation and reform as we work together to improve
supports and services for veterans and their families.”
DVA are correct in their response, these changes are a matter for government, rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, and this amendment would require lobbying of politicians and government. This has not occurred.
In response to asking for an update and receiving a copy of this letter from DVA to RSL Victoria, I contacted RSL Victoria State Executive in my capacity as a sub-branch President, and asked them a range of questions,
1) What the Acting CEO's initial letter to DVA was?
2) What contact with state and federal government has been made regarding this policy?
3) What contact has been made with other state branches and RSL Australia regarding this policy?
4) What lobbying generally has occurred regarding this policy?
5) What RSL Victoria's intent is to brief members and sub-branches regarding its action so far in regards to this policy?
6) If the full extent of RSL Victoria's advocacy in this matter is a single email sent to DVA by the Acting CEO, whether they believe this is sufficient, to the standard we should accept for political advocacy, and is acceptable to the membership?
7) Any other updates on actions RSL Victoria has taken regarding lobbying to achieve this amendment, considering it has widespread support across the league, the veteran community, and is in the veteran interest.
In response to these questions, I received this reply, “RSLV forwarded the remit direct to DVA. DVA's response was succinct and direct, the proposal was not supported. President RSLV also spoke with Don Spinks, Repatriation Commission on this matter.
President RSLV tabled both the remit and DVA response at a National Veterans Advisory Committee (NVAC) meeting, advise (sic) is that NVAC did not see any value in allocating resources to advocating further on this proposal.”
There is an old joke from the Simpsons that appears to sum up the attitude of RSL Victoria to advocating and lobbying. In the words of Ned Flanders mum: “You gotta help us, Doc. We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.”
8 months have elapsed since the RSL Victoria State Conference and members should be aware of what lobbying the state branch does on their behalf. With the extent of that lobbying being a single letter to DVA, it shouldn’t take long to update them.
Members of the RSL volunteer their time and effort to their sub-branches and state with the expectation that when they submit motions and remits the State Executive will listen and act on it to represent them; it is why they vote and elect these leaders. In this case, the expectation is that the State Executive will advocate and lobby government hard on behalf of their mates who are unable to do so and this has simply not occurred.
That the extent of RSL Victoria’s lobbying is a single email to DVA should be explained and justified to members. It is not the standard they should expect of the premier ex-service organisation in the state.
