Formal Response to RSL Victoria & RSL Australia
In 2024, the Consultation Report on the ESORT Advocacy Working Group proposal outlined the establishment of the Institute of Veterans’ Advocates (the Institute) as a national professional association for veterans’ advocates. Since then, there has been significant interest and discussion regarding the advocacy landscape.
We have observed with great interest that certain groups have used this opportunity to push for the elimination of alternative advocacy options for veterans. Their approach appears to be driven by self-interest rather than a genuine commitment to improving veteran support, often under the guise of a “broken digger” narrative.
We also recognise that a significant proportion of ESO providers do excellent work and are genuinely committed to helping veterans. Their efforts are critical, and we fully support the good work they do. However, the system as a whole needs improvement, and the Institute will help elevate all providers by ensuring a consistent and accountable standard of service.
At KSC Claims, our very existence stems from firsthand experiences with ESO-provided services—many of which have proven to be outdated and, in some cases, inappropriate. The way some “free” advocates operate raises serious concerns about professionalism, accountability, and the quality of service veterans receive.
Ultimately, we believe the institute will ensure all providers, be that free or fee for service, provide a consistent and ethical service to veterans.
Response to RSL Victoria and RSL Australia’s Position on Fee-for-Service Advocacy
We acknowledge RSL Victoria, RSL Australia and Legacy Australia recent statements regarding fee-for-service advocacy providers via their submissions to DVA's consultation process. We seek to clarify several misconceptions and inaccuracies presented. The evolving veteran advocacy landscape requires a balanced, evidence-based discussion to ensure the best outcomes for veterans and their families.
Claims by RSL Victoria
Upon reviewing RSL Victoria’s submission, we found it lacking in substance and fundamentally opposed to veteran choice.
Notwithstanding the RSL-A position of “supporting the inclusion of fee for service providers as members of the Institute”, RSL Victoria remains opposed to the very concept of allowing fee for service providers to provide advocacy services at all and says that a primary objective of any legislative or administrative reform should be to drive such operators out of business.
Such practices are not only unethical but also predatory. Veterans seeking assistance are often already struggling with financial, physical, and psychological challenges, and these operators prey on that vulnerability by promising to secure compensation in exchange for unjustifiable fees. This behaviour not only exploits veterans but also undermines the very principles of fairness and respect that should be inherent in our system of veteran care.
While we acknowledge RSL Victoria’s concern for veterans, multiple anecdotal reports indicate that some veterans have waited over six months just to speak with an advocate. KSC considers this level of inadequacy completely unacceptable—no veteran should have to wait a week, let alone six months or more, to receive a call about their claim or get the support they need with their DVA claims.
We find it deeply troubling that some organisations continue to push the "broken digger" narrative, using veterans' injuries as a means to strip them of their agency and decision-making power. Every veteran deserves the right to make well-informed choices about their own advocacy and support.
These protections ensure that individuals who are particularly vulnerable due to financial hardship, are not exploited by unscrupulous operators. Veterans can often be similarly vulnerable when seeking compensation. Many are also dealing with physical and psychological trauma while trying to navigate a complex legal and bureaucratic system.
We fully acknowledge that veterans may find themselves in this situation, which is precisely why KSC believes they should never have to wait months just to receive an adequate response and begin their DVA claims.
KSC maintains that all providers should be able to demonstrate a 24-hour response time to any new veteran inquiries. It is unfair to expect veterans to wait while service providers slowly process their claims, leaving them stuck in long queues with no timely support.
The Role of Lawyers in Veteran Advocacy
Whilst our preferred position is that fee for service providers other than practicing lawyers be banned from operating at all, if they are going to be permitted to operate and be eligible to be admitted as Institute members it should be on the basis that membership of the Institute is mandatory for all advocates, irrespective of whether they are paid, volunteer or operate under a fee for service arrangement. This is consistent with the approach taken with other sectors including the legal, financial services, migration agents and allied health professions.
Lawyers undoubtedly have a place in the veteran claims space, particularly in complex cases where legal expertise is required. However, restricting advocacy services to only lawyers and Ex-Service Organisations (ESOs) would create significant delays due to two key factors:
A system that only permits lawyers and ESOs ignores the practical realities of veteran choice, efficiency, and timely access to support. The inclusion of highly qualified, experienced fee-for-service providers ensures that veterans have more options, faster response times, and greater control over their claims journey.
Veterans Deserve Choice in Advocacy Services
RSL Victoria and RSL Australia’s opposition to fee-for-service advocacy reflects an outdated perspective that fails to meet the evolving needs of today’s veterans. For over many decades, traditional Ex-Service Organisations (ESOs) have struggled to consistently deliver high-quality advocacy services, often leading to significant delays and inefficiencies. Many of these services have lacked a trauma-informed approach, have been plagued by excessive wait times, and are funded through ethically questionable sources, including pubs, clubs, lotteries, and alcohol-related revenue.
The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has highlighted these gaps, with one particularly poignant example of a veteran struggling to navigate the claims process due to a lack of specialised support:
"It was really difficult because he was a man… quite an older man, and having to talk to someone about a sexual assault and trauma was really hard. And he was not that great either… even with an advocate, the process was difficult to understand, and the initial claim was botched from the very beginning."
This statement reveals the critical limitations in advocacy services, especially when dealing with sensitive issues like sexual assault claims. The BEST program has provided some assistance, but its grants have not been enough to meet the overwhelming demand for advocacy services. Additionally, the 2021 UNSW study reveals troubling trends:
The emergence of fee-for-service providers has been a direct response to these systemic shortcomings, offering veterans timely, professional, and accountable support when navigating complex compensation claims. Veterans are not compelled to engage fee-for-service providers—they actively choose them for their expertise, reliability, and commitment to service standards. A recent internal survey conducted by KSC Claims found that over 85% of all veterans who have reached out to our services had previously engaged an ESO provider. Opposing the existence of fee-for-service disregards veterans' autonomy and their right to access the advocacy model that best meets their individual needs.
Position from Legacy Australia
Addressing the Challenges with Fee-for-Service Advocates: Legacy strongly believes that reforms should focus on protecting the families of veterans from exploitative fee-for-service advocates who charge unreasonable fees or take a percentage of their clients’ compensation. The veteran and family member must be protected at all costs against advocates who will charge a percentage of the payout. We are concerned that accrediting these providers under the new Institute of Advocates may inadvertently legitimize practices that take advantage of vulnerable families. While fee-forservice providers cannot be phased out, Legacy recommends that, through the proposed Institute or otherwise, DVA commit to supporting ESOs in providing the highest standard of free advocacy that veterans and families no longer feel the need to seek paid assistance. There should be a clear distinction between these fee-for-service organisations, and the ESO community, which has already provided free advocacy through paid professional advocates for many years, especially noting that the new legislation enacting in 2026 will have provision for lump sum payments for all applications.
While we fully respect Legacy’s concerns, we believe the statement regarding fee-for-service advocates lacks an understanding of the broader impact and potential benefits of this model for veterans. Fee-for-service advocacy does not inherently exploit or take advantage of vulnerable families. In fact, it offers an important alternative for veterans who do not wish to engage with current service providers.
We are committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, transparency, and professionalism. Accrediting fee-for-service providers under the Institute of Veterans’ Advocates will allow for proper oversight, ensuring that all advocacy providers, whether free or fee-for-service, meet consistent standards of care and respect for veterans. This way, we can uphold the interests of veterans and their families, providing them with the option to choose the most effective support system for their individual circumstances.
The Reality of ‘Free’ Advocacy Services
The assertion that ESO-based advocacy services are ‘free’ is misleading. RSL Victoria and other ESOs receive substantial financial support from revenue streams that include gambling, licensed venues, lotteries, and some small government funding. These services are not ‘free’ in the traditional sense; rather, they are funded through various means, some of which have been subject to ethical scrutiny within the veteran community. This is detailed extensively here.
By contrast, reputable fee-for-service providers operate (should) with transparent fee structures, clearly defined service commitments, and strict adherence to business and professional regulations. The claim that these providers operate without oversight is inaccurate and disregards their contributions to improving advocacy standards within the sector. It is important to remember that all Australian businesses are bound by the The Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Many of the situations detailed within the aforementioned submissions, should be reported to the ACCC or similar bodies. It is disingenuous to purport that veterans currently have no legal remedy for companies who breach the ACL.
Regulation, Not Restriction, Is the Solution
Recent submissions to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, including those from RSL Australia and Victoria (Submission 2024-86 and Submission 2024-90), acknowledge that some accredited ESO advocates are unable to meet service demand, resulting in veterans waiting for assistance. These submissions also highlight that appropriately qualified fee-for-service providers should have access to professional accreditation—provided they adhere to strict ethical and professional standards. We strongly agree with this, however believe the outdated ATDP training should be replaced with a more current fit for purpose training package run by DVA. Our position stands that anyone who wishes to provide advocacy services should have access to training, it should not be gate kept as is current practice by ESO's. Ultimately the practice of gate keeping training for advocacy comes at the cost of hurting veterans and reducing options for them.
The discussion should therefore focus on implementing effective regulation rather than eliminating service providers. A well-structured regulatory framework would ensure that all advocates, whether operating under an ESO or fee-for-service model, maintain high professional and ethical standards. It would also provide veterans with clear, transparent information about their options, ensuring they make informed decisions about the services they choose.
A Monopolised Approach Does Not Serve Veterans’ Best Interests
RSL Victoria’s position appears less about protecting veterans and more about eliminating competition within a sector that has struggled to meet demand. If ESO-based advocacy services consistently delivered timely, high-quality support, the demand for alternative models would be significantly reduced. The continued reliance on fee-for-service providers highlights the limitations of the traditional ESO model.
Rather than advocating for legislative intervention to prohibit fee-for-service advocacy, RSL Victoria should focus on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of its own services. A monopolised approach to advocacy is not in veterans’ best interests and would only serve to limit the quality and availability of support.
A Path Forward: Professionalism, Accountability, and Choice
The future of veteran advocacy should be built on professionalism, accountability, and choice. Instead of restricting fee-for-service providers or anyone wanting to help veterans with their DVA claims, the focus should be on establishing clear regulations that ensure all advocacy services—whether free or paid—uphold best-practice standards.
As RSL Australia’s submissions indicate, the issue is not the existence of fee-for-service providers but the need for proper oversight. We support an accreditation system that holds all providers accountable for their advertising, billing practices, and service quality.
We welcome further discussion on strengthening advocacy services and ensuring veterans receive the highest quality support available. However, we strongly oppose any attempt to misrepresent the role of fee-for-service providers or limit veterans’ ability to choose the advocacy model that best meets their needs as RSL Victoria in particular have done in their submission.
KSC Claims is a company founded and run by Australian Veterans Luke Armstrong and Matt Dumars, with the sole aim of helping Australian veterans.
Have DVA related questions? Let’s chat: