Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide

Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide
Name	Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide
Type	Royal commission
Established	2021
Jurisdiction	Australia
Chair	unknown
Commissioners	unknown

Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide examined suspected systemic causes of self-harm and suicide affecting former and serving members of the Australian Defence Force, veterans and their families. It held public and private hearings, produced findings and recommendations addressing administrative, medical and legal systems within institutions such as the Department of Defence, Department of Veterans' Affairs, and related agencies. The commission interacted with tribunals, oversight bodies and advocacy groups including the Australian Human Rights Commission, Returned and Services League of Australia, Vietnam Veterans Federation, and representatives from service branches like the Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force.

Background and establishment

The inquiry was established amid public concern following media investigations by outlets such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Sydney Morning Herald, and reports by nongovernmental organisations including Veterans' Transition Network and the War Widows Guild of Australia. Political debate in the Parliament of Australia involved ministers from the Scott Morrison ministry and opposition figures such as leaders from the Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party of Australia. Calls for a royal commission echoed previous inquiries like the Brereton Report and royal commissions into events such as the Brisbane floods and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Terms of reference and scope

The commission's terms referenced legislation such as the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and defined scope across institutions including the Department of Defence, Department of Veterans' Affairs, military health services like the Defence Health Services, and external providers including the Repatriation Commission. It considered interactions with legal frameworks such as the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and oversight bodies including the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service and the Australian Federal Police when relevant. The scope included service in theatres like Kokoda Track Campaign, Gulf War, Afghanistan conflict (2001–2021), and Vietnam War as context for veteran experiences.

Investigations and hearings

Hearings included testimony from former personnel linked to units such as the Special Air Service Regiment and posts including Holsworthy Barracks and Lavarack Barracks, as well as submissions from organisations like the Australian War Memorial and clinical experts from institutions such as the University of Sydney, Monash University, and University of Queensland. The commission examined medical records referencing providers like Headspace, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, and private clinics. Legal representation involved firms and figures associated with the High Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, and tribunals like the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Findings and recommendations

The commission identified systemic issues involving administrative culture within entities such as the Chief of Army office, shortcomings in mental health care linked to the Defence Mental Health Services, and administrative barriers in claims under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Recommendations addressed reforms to agencies including the Department of Veterans' Affairs and called for changes in institutions such as the Australian Defence Force Academy, training bases including Kapooka, and oversight by bodies like the Ombudsman of Australia. Recommendations touched on clinical pathways involving the National Mental Health Commission and professional standards from the Australian Medical Association and Royal Australasian College of Surgeons where relevant.

Government and defence responses

Federal responses involved ministers from the Morrison government and later the Albanese Government, with cabinet discussions inside Parliament House, Canberra. The Australian Defence Force announced policy reviews, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs initiated program adjustments in line with recommendations. Legislative action considered amendments to statutes such as the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and adjustments to funding through budget processes in consultation with agencies including the Treasury (Australia) and the Australian National Audit Office.

Impact and reforms

Following the report, institutions such as the Defence Housing Australia and veteran support organisations like Soldier On and RSL NSW updated services. Health networks including Beyond Blue and the Black Dog Institute collaborated on clinical programs, while research centres at the Australian National University and Flinders University pursued studies on veteran mental health. Implementation involved coordination across entities like the National Mental Health Commission, the Productivity Commission, and state health departments including NSW Health and Victoria Department of Health.

Criticism and legal issues

The commission faced legal challenges involving confidentiality, public interest immunity and evidentiary disputes in forums such as the High Court of Australia and Federal Court of Australia. Critics included commentators from The Age and legal scholars at institutions like the University of Melbourne and ANU College of Law, who debated scope, procedural fairness, and compliance with statutes like the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Advocacy groups including Veterans of Foreign Wars-linked organisations and service charities raised concerns about resource allocation, while parliamentary committees in the Senate of Australia scrutinised follow-up implementation.

Category:Royal commissions in Australia