The Root Cause of Veteran Issues

INTRODUCTION

We have identified what we believe to be the root cause of the majority of veteran issues remaining unsolved, recommendations not being implemented and no measurable headway being made to improve services to veterans and their families so they are veteran outcome focussed.

After consulting with the following three members of the Ex-Service Organisation Round Table (ESORT), the Chairperson of the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans’ Association Ltd (APPVA), the President of the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (TPI) Federation of Australia and the National President of the Australian War Widows Inc, then gaining the unanimous support of the APPVA Board, I write this document for all veterans, veteran families, and the wider veteran support network and seek your thoughts.??

The root cause of most veteran issues is the National Consultation Framework, the myth that DVA is too complex to change and that the self-proclaimed leaders of all 14 ESOs in the ESORT who believe that it is not their duty to hold DVA accountable.??Furthermore they hold a belief that operating under the Terms of Reference of ESORT means that what is discussed in ESORT, stays in ESORT, even if it is to the detriment of veterans and the veteran community.

Someone must have the moral courage to write about this and as an authentic leader I provide advice without fear or favour. I see issues as right or wrong, black or white because I am accountable, and have standards that I absolutely do not compromise upon.??

I represent veterans and their families, and change is needed now so the interim recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide can be independently project managed, change managed, assessed against a baseline and reported upon, and so service delivery can chance from being process focused to being veteran outcome focused.? The two new directors that will be appointed to APPVA Board tomorrow and the third that will be elected at the AGM hold the same beliefs and core values as our current directors, and I expect that they will be vocal on this issue because lives depend on us surfacing this issue for discussion.

BACKGROUND

Let’s back up a little because most members of the veteran community have no idea what the National Consultation Framework or the ESORT is.

Veterans and the veteran family community generally have not heard of the ESORT, however they believe that there is "a body of veterans" somewhere that represents their needs to the Commonwealth.??When a leader represents a veteran and their family, the veteran expects that leader to represent them with all their skills and capabilities.?Generally veteran will be disappointed if the leader defers to a senior body as opposed to arguing a point.???

This “body of veterans” is part of the ESORT which comprises 14 national ESOs, two ADF members, six members from DVA.?The Chair is the Secretary DVA.??The ESORT has a Terms of Reference that states that the objective of ESORT is to act as the main forum for dialogue between DVA and the leadership of the ex-service organisations and Defence communities. ESORT is part of the National Consultation Framework, and this is depicted below.

NATIONAL CONSULTATION FRAMEWORK

From the outside looking in at the National Consultation Framework it appears to be a robust national governance framework from the Prime Minister to the veteran community.?This is not the case because its terms of reference limit it to facilitating communication between the veteran ex-service community and DVA. It should therefore be correctly termed the DVA Consultation Framework.?One chokepoint exists as illustrated below.?

To illustrate this chokepoint, if 100% of the ex-service organisation members of ESORT believe that something is a serious veteran issue, and DVA disagrees, then the issue is shut down.??Furthermore, as it was explained to me this week, it is not the done thing to re-raise it.?

If it is an issue that triggers systemic suicidal ideation and no ex-service organisation members of ESORT may protest, then this is not good governance.?It is poor culture, it lacks stewardship, accountability, it does not take into account risk management or tolerance, it is not diligent, and it is poor stakeholder management.??

While it is convenient to say that any individual or group can contact the Minister’s office direct to raise an issue, if the whole veteran community has an issue, it would be better represented to the Minister’s Office by the whole community through the ESORT.?This is what the veteran community believe the ESO members of ESORT are doing but it is not the case.

ESORT Terms of Reference

The ESORT Terms of Reference state that the members' roles and responsibilities require that members or their proxies are expected to observe ‘Chatham House’ rules and the confidentiality of sensitive discussions during a forum meeting.

Chatham House Rules would appear to be interpreted as “whatever is said in ESORT is not spoken about outside of ESORT” even if it is damaging to the veteran community.??This culture is one of the root causes of veteran issues not being solved.?The ESO members of ESORT defer to DVA. However let's examine Chatham House Rules.

The Chatham House Rule

There is only one Chatham House Rule, and it states:

“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

The benefits of using the Chatham House Rule are that it allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organisations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don’t have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.

Although not legally binding, the Chatham House Rule means that an organisation may take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule.?This whole concept quite often gets confused with gagging participants to the degree that that are unable to raise issues outside the meeting.?

The Chatham House Rule is not a gag order. However, it is clear that it is used as one within ESORT because since raising the issue that the National Consultation Framework Terms of Reference need a review, the APPVA and TPI Federation have been overtly threatened with removal from the ESORT three times by DVA. They have also been given the following advice from those who feel they lead the ESO members at ESORT.

"I wonder if some members of ESORT understand their role. They don't participate in the management of DVA but to give advice. DVA has no obligation to take that advice. ESORT is not part of the decision-making process."?

"We need to be mindful that the ESORT is only there at the Ministers pleasure. It or any other suggested external body, which we have previously visited well before the Productivity Commission (think Angus Houston talk fest) and others have no executive powers whatsoever. It is purely advisory and able to make recommendations and no other entity that may be suggested internal or external to DVA cannot in any way direct a legislated federal government department to do anything. Any suggestion otherwise is wishful thinking or just plain dumb. It's simply not how the system works."

"The APPVA based on these discretions and would appear with the support of the organisation should seriously consider its membership of the ESORT if it is not prepared to work inside the tent and keep matters discussed at that level confidential."

Clearly the loyalty here lies to ESORT/DVA and not to veterans and their families, or the wider veteran support network. Perhaps this reference to "Chatham House" rules is a cause because it seems to have been interpreted as applying to everything that is discussed at ESORT. Not only that but it is apparently “just plain dumb” to suggest to DVA that the consultation method it uses could be reviewed such that any (independent peak) body have oversight, and that once DVA makes a decision; then that must be accepted by the ESOs on ESORT.? Note: The 2019 review of the National Consultation Framework was completed two years ago by some of the ESOs on ESORT and there has been no response from DVA. It is almost time for the 2023 review.

It is time to realise that the System is Dysfunctional

ESO members of ESORT need to speak up because analysing the Veteran Support System, the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report - A Better Way to Support Veterans?found that this system “is not fit-for-purpose — it requires fundamental reform. It is out-of-date and is not working in the best interest of veterans and their families, or the Australian community.”?Dr Bernadette Boss, CSC, said in the Preliminary Report by the Interim National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention??“in reality the system has become unbearably complex, difficult to engage with, and produces the perverse outcome of causing further harm to many veterans rather than supporting them and their wellness.”

There is a problem with “young” veterans but, I suggest, it is partly of their own making.?You will be aware that no department of government can deal with a myriad of views and personalities, so that is why businesses, industry, unions et al form various bodies and why we have ESOs. If Gen X and Gen Y veterans cannot get together and express their views collectively then they are doomed to complain that no one is listening to them.?In any case, there (now) are at least four ESO members of ESORT whose membership is open to “young veterans”.

Frustration with the barriers that are experienced by veterans and their families was published as an element of this discussion, “Until the senior people stop what they were doing and asked the ACTUAL people that need help, what the hurdles are THEY face are, and worked together to FIX them, then nothing will change.?The ENTIRE system is over complicated and ALL the people holding positions of influence and decision-making ability should be held to account.?Not just DVA.” When you look for our representatives that deal with the Commonwealth and states you anticipate that the senior veteran organisations will represent you and it’s annoying to say the least when they don’t hold government to account." One ESO leader on ESORT said of this that "I see comments like that every day, generally from veterans or partners who have not engaged with an ESO.?Such statements are very motherhood and in my view show a lack of understanding of the overall situation and a reluctance to deal in detail with the real issues as they arrive."

The culture within the leaders of the ESOs on ESORT is somewhat out of touch and do not realise that many veterans and their families see barriers when attempting to navigate it or approach established ESOs. The APPVA will present one option for the community to the coming weeks. We encourage others to work with us so it is the sum of combined thoughts.

THE MYTH THAT DVA IS TOO COMPLEX TO CHANGE

It takes over 10 years for most advocates to become certified at the highest level; Level 4, and by then the early frustrations with the veteran support system are overlooked because experienced advocates can achieve a lot in their opinion.??More often than not the reason for remaining with the current dysfunctional system is that it is unique and too complex to change, and any changes will disadvantage one or more groups of veterans.??This is not true because:

• the business processes are largely the same as workers compensation systems,
• the injuries are largely the same as injuries that occur in other professions in Australia,
• the 600,000 clients of DVA are a subset of the Australian Community with only the ACT and the NT having smaller populations,?
• all state and territory legislation requires that medical expenses are accepted and paid without question, claims are acknowledged within days, and coordinated by a case manager with the whole process being transparent to all stakeholders.

This is not suggesting that DVA be subsumed by a state workers compensation system because there needs to be whole of veteran life care for veterans and their families.?Civilians would not accept the veteran support system and likewise it would not be accepted by any state or territory under current legislation.

If it is accepted that the current system cannot continue and investment in it will have little return on investment, then:

? a single Veteran Act can be envisaged,?

? grandfathering can be invoked so that no veteran is disadvantaged, and

? the evidence given by me, at the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide on 7 April 2022 indicates that with no advocacy training, and with the permission of Secretary DVA the APPVA Issues and Research Team have proved that a change in culture within DVA to focus on outcomes to veterans over process can move claims through DVA rapidly between two to six weeks.

This allows us to conceptualise a single act that might look like the above diagram at the high level.

FROM VETERAN CRISIS TO WORLD CLASS CAPABILITY

We can move from crisis to capability using private sector enterprise architecture, project and change management where enterprise architecture defines the structure and operation of organisations with the intent of determining how an organisation can effectively achieve its current and future objectives and moving from a current state to a future state.

Where Private Sector Project and Change Management is driven by a single private sector entity that:

• manages projects in controlled environments with a single decision maker at the most senior level in the public service, and?
• where effective change is coordinated top-down, and where the lasting impacts don’t occur until individuals embrace change about how they do their jobs. Change management provides a structured approach to support the individuals in an organisation to move from their own current states to their future states.??Those that cannot change are re-employed elsewhere.

This is depicted below at the high level and then at a lower level where it is shown in more detail and identifies narrow bands of capability to place effort into until the future state is ready to be transitioned to.

CONCLUSION

The “Veteran Crisis” exists because of poor governance and accountability, the myth that DVA is too complex to change, and the unwillingness of those ESOs chosen to represent the veteran community to challenge DVA.??The "veteran crisis" does not need to exist and it can be rapidly turned around if the culture within DVA was changed to focus on veteran outcomes that deliver world class services to veterans, their families and the wider veteran support network.??This can be achieved by adopting proactive case management that assists all stakeholders through the dysfunctional system, and concurrent change defined through public sector enterprise architecture, project management and change management reporting to an independent peak body that is the subject of A Peak Body for the Veteran Support System and this submission to the Royal Commission. Submission.

The final diagram baselines the Interim Recommendations form the Royal Commission and it will be interesting to see if there is an independent body to monitor this, or a body of veterans and veteran family members to monitor this. Here is the Document. We are currently designing a mechanism to cross reference this to the with the recommendations from the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report - A Better Way to Support Veterans and the Preliminary Report by the Interim National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention

Rob Woods Pat McCabe Rhondda Vanzella OAM Tom H. Chris Moss Dr Dan Smith Prudence Slaughter David Ballantyne Heston Russell John Findlater Michael Handley Richard Hutchinson Mark Horner Marc Diplock mark johnston Adrian Sutter Kris Milne Graeme Ross Karen Page Paul Copeland Rod Hutchings John Caligari AO, DSC Mark D. Ryan Shaw, GAICD John Bale Nikki Noakes Renee Wilson Alex Gerrick Phil Essam Lyndsay Free