The Governance of the Veteran Community

This is an opinion piece by the Chairperson, Ian Lindgren.

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to propose the establishment of a peak body for the veteran community. This initiative addresses two key concerns: ensuring effective governance practices and enhancing the overall well-being of veterans during their service and post-service transition. The goal is to provide comprehensive support for veterans and their families, empowering them to achieve stability and a sense of value in their lives beyond their military service.

Definitions

The following definitions are applicable, and they are deliberately not in alphabetical order.

• The Veteran Support System[1].   The Veteran Support System is the network of public and private organisations that support veterans and their families.
• National Consultation Framework.  The National Consultation Framework[2] (NCF) launched in 2009, facilitates communication between the veteran and ex-service community, the Repatriation and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commissions, and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA)
• Governance.  Governance[3] enables authority to be exercised appropriately and for the people who exercise it to be held to account.
• Good Governance.   Good governance[4] is about the effective way decisions are made and power is exercised within an organisation. It concerns itself with the executives’ activities and culture, and their relationship with the organisation’s management and stakeholders. Ultimately, good governance is the framework that ensures an organisation can meet its mission.
• Enterprise Architecture.   Enterprise Architecture is the strategic planning discipline that outlines an organisation's structure, operations, and processes. It provides a holistic view of the business, serving as a blueprint that guides the organisation's evolution and growth.

A Strategic View I The strategic view of the veteran support system is crucial in understanding the complex network of organisations that aid veterans and their families. This perspective allows us to analyse the factors that may have contributed to the negative findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

By examining the veteran support system at a higher level, the identification of gaps or deficiencies in the current framework should become apparent. This includes assessing the coordination and collaboration between public and private organisations, as well as evaluating the accessibility and effectiveness of the services provided.

A Strategic View

Taking a strategic view of this issue presents a more comprehensive and integrated support system that prioritises the needs of veterans and reduces the risk of veteran suicide. This approach requires collaboration between government agencies, non-profit organisations, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders to achieve meaningful and lasting change.

The proposed approach is guided by several key principles:

• Recognising the Importance of Good Governance. Emphasising the significance of good governance within the veteran support system ensures effective monitoring of systems and processes across all stakeholders. This ensures transparency, accountability, and the efficient functioning of the support system.
• Prioritising Lifetime Well-being.  Acknowledging the need for a future veteran support system that focuses on the lifelong well-being of veterans highlights the importance of holistic care. This approach aims to address not only immediate needs but also long-term support to ensure veterans' well-being throughout their lives.
• Promoting Transparency, Accountability, and Inclusivity. By fostering transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in decision-making processes, collaboration between the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) and the Veteran Community is encouraged. This collaborative approach ensures that decisions are made with the input and involvement of various stakeholders, resulting in fair and inclusive outcomes.

The Strategic View in Context

Each organisation in the Veteran Support System has its own enterprise architecture and one way to depict it is as in Diagram 1.

 

Diagram 1 – A Way to Look at an Organisation’s Enterprise Architecture

 

If there were 20 organisations within the Veteran Support System, then each would have their own way of operating, and each could be depicted in this manner.  Therefore DVA, the Australian Defence Force (ADF), all of the 5,000 to 8,000 charities that indicate they support veterans, and the rest of the network of public and private organisations that support veterans and their families have their own enterprise architectures.  This informs us that we cannot take any one organisation by itself and reform it and expect to have a well governed change to the veteran support system.

This is best illustrated below in a high level depiction of key elements of the Federal Government of Australia, particularly the Legislative and Executive Branches, must have difficulty communicating effectively with the Veteran Support System.

Diagram 2 – Communication Between the Federal Government and the Veteran Support System

Assumption

The situation is complex and it is assumed that the remains correct:

Veterans must navigate service provision from DVA, Australian and state and territory government agencies, ESOs, VSOs and other service providers. There is a lack of integration between these service providers and limited mutual awareness of the different supports that are provided. This can be a disorienting and challenging setting to navigate, especially for those who may be in distress. It is not surprising that many veterans can feel overwhelmed by this[5].

 

Problem Statement

Three key items that have stopped progress on improving veteran wellbeing:

• There is no governance applied to the coordination of advocacy, [6]
• The terms of reference for the National Consultation Framework[7] restrained some members of the Ex-Service Organisation Round Table (ESORT) from taking DVA to task[8]. 
• Very few of the members of the Veterans Support System are represented at the operational level of business.
• Veterans who have transitioned have no right of redress through the Commonwealth Ombudsman[9].  The only options open are to complain to DVA[10].

As a consequence, the tactical and operational levels of business work to a degree, but do so in a way that presents difficulties[11], and up until January 2023 it was extremely difficult to have a consensus view passed from DVA at the Operation Level to the Minister, or to other departments it DVA did not want that message to flow[12].

Diagram 3 – the Three levels of Business Operation

This is one of the reasons that interim National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention recommended that the Australian Government should create an independent entity to identify ex-service organisations and veteran support organisation groups, capacity build, deconflict services, focus funding, integrate services across the community and all levels of government, and provide dynamic communication channels. The entity should ensure that ADF members, veterans and their families have an awareness of the services and supports available to them[13].

 

A PEAK BODY

In Australia peak bodies are usually take the form of lobby groups[14] [15] where all compete for grants and funding is a replicate of the current ESO model.  A peak body entity that fills the void at the strategic level in Diagram 3 is not a lobby group because among other things it will be required to “deconflict services, focus funding, integrate services across the community and all levels of government, and provide dynamic communication channels[16]”. 

Given the lead up to this stage, a peak body is not an ESO, and given the fact that advocacy is not governed good governance requires that governance be put in place first before a group that represents all ESOs is considered, or a framework is put in place for advocacy.  This area requires significant consideration as does the ability for transitioned veterans to use an ombudsman service, so they have an independent service that investigates and resolves complaints between parties in a fair and impartial manner.

  

ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS

Option 1

Option 1 is the establishment of a peak body at Ministerial level representation for ESOs on a membership basis. This peak body would offer services such as information dissemination, membership support, coordination, advocacy and representation, relevant research, policy development, and sector development services.

• Advantages.  
  • The advantages of this model include the ability to escalate issues quickly above DVA. It could also provide valuable guidance to ESOs in need of governance assistance.
  • This model could fund itself based on membership fees.
• Disadvantages.   The disadvantages of this model are that:
  • This model functions as a lobbying entity, with larger ESOs having an advantage due to their financial resources. This could result in more knowledge and influence being concentrated in the hands of those with greater funding capabilities.
  • Competition with Other Peak Bodies. As a lobbying entity, the proposed peak body would be competing with other peak bodies that represent larger segments of the Australian population with similar needs and this would put it at a disadvantage. Examples of such organisations include the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australian Council for International Development, and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
  • Lack of Power to Compel.  One drawback is that this peak body would not have the authority to enforce decisions or policies. It may lack the ability to impose consequences for non-compliance or ensure meaningful action on identified issues.
  • Duplication of Operational Governance.   It is likely that this model would duplicate much of what now occurs with DVA therefore confusing operational and strategic responsibilities.

Option 2

Option 2 is the establishment of a peak body for ESOs at DVA.   This peak body would offer services such as information dissemination, membership support, coordination, advocacy and representation, relevant research, policy development, and sector development services.  It is likely to be on a membership basis and probably attract less members because the ESOs can go to DVA themselves.   

• Advantages.  
  • The advantages of this model include the ability to solve issues for the ESO community when meeting with DVA.  
  • This negates the need to have an ESORT equivalent because the Peak Body would perform this work.
  • It could also provide valuable guidance to ESOs in need of governance assistance.
  • This model could fund itself based on membership fees.
• Disadvantages.   The disadvantages of this model are that:
  • It is effectively a replica of the situation today with no strategic level coverage, planning or liaison.
  • It would be unlikely to be seen as a Peak Bodies by other Peak Bodies.
  • This peak body would not have the authority to enforce decisions or policies. It may lack the ability to impose consequences for non-compliance or ensure meaningful action on identified issues.
  • This optional also overlooks the veteran, veteran family and veteran support network which is considerably larger than the ESOs, so this option’s main disadvantage is that it overlooks more than half of the veteran support network.

Option 3

Option 3 proposes to stablish a statutory advisory structure be established as a Peak Body to provide independent governance over those elements of the Veteran Support System that fall within the Veterans’ Affairs Portfolio and includes the functions of an ombudsman. The Peak Body will need the authority to liaise with other government departments to coordinate outcomes required by the Commonwealth and investigate.

• Advantages.   A statutory advisory structure has:
  • a level of independence from the responsible minister/s or the executive government if established with it,
  • it can compel others to act if given the authority,
  • it achieves higher levels of accountability and transparency by describing the activities and powers in legislation.
  • The statutory office holder can exercise their role independently while operating within a Commonwealth entity.
• Disadvantages.
  • Independent in name only.
  • Exists at the pleasure of the Minister.
  • Unlikely to have the power to compel other departments and ministers and publicly hold them accountable.

Option 4

Option 4 is to establish and independent commissioner by act of parliament.   Similar in nature to the Human Rights Commissioner and Disability Commissioner however instead of reporting to a Board, being the executive chair of a board and operating much like an agile private sector organisation.   The Commissioner would have delegated authority so could act swiftly without having to consult a board in many cases and back brief them instead.  It would be responsible for wellbeing strategy for all a veteran’s life and:

• Continue the work of the Royal Commission by holding all government agencies to account transparently for achieving the recommendations that the Government accepts as the Royal Commission closes.
• Publicly show progress by each department against agreed recommendations.
• Coordinate the planning and implementation of issues such as the Douglas Case across departments and ministers.
• Define national standards for governance and quality assurance and delegate the reporting mechanism in a way that exceptions stand out of not meeting the standards.
• Have the powers of an ombudsman.
• The Advantages.
  • A truly independent entity
  • Takes the initiative and does not wait until the Ministers instruction.
  • Sets own priorities.
  • Does not get caught up with day to day issues of ESOs such as compliance other than for example removing funding or the ability to engage with veterans if the ACNC’s Responsible Persons tests are not complete.
  • Represents all of the veteran, veteran family and veteran support network
• The Disadvantages.
  • Would take some courage by the Commonwealth to implement,
  • Would need to be debated in both houses of parliament and this could water it down.

 

RECOMMENDED OPTION

The recommended option is Option 4 because it acts at the strategic level and is focusses on strategic issues.  Represents all of the veteran, veteran family and veteran support network.  It does not get tied down with day to day ESO responsibilities; that can be conducted at the Operational Level of Business by a body that replaces ESORT and includes a representational group across all areas of the veteran and veteran family community as well as the veteran support system.

The Commissioner would be independent and act with initiative to make transparent progress against all projects, plans, and recommendations as well as routine strategic quality assurance and accountability.

Costs

This element of the concept is based on my experience of setting of offices in Canberra, Perth and Brisbane and requires more rigour.

• Commissioner: $350,000
• Chief of Staff: $250,000
• 10 x staff: $1.6m
• Accommodation and operational costs: $1m
• Budget: $2m.
• Total: $5.2m per year.

 

If approved the peak body would need to be established and be fully operational at least two months before the end of the 17 June 2024 when the Royal Commission hands down its findings.   This means that recruitment activities would need to commence in January 2024 with selection complete by end March 2024.

CONCLUSION

To effectively enhance the wellbeing of the veteran community, it is crucial to consider the perspectives and needs of all stakeholders involved, including veterans, the veteran community, and the wider veteran support network, such as the medical community. Relying solely on options that focus on Ex-Service Organizations (ESOs) might limit the scope and impact of initiatives, as their influence may be confined to their immediate circle.

A Peak Body dedicated to the Australian veteran and veteran family community would prioritize the holistic support of veterans throughout their entire lives. It should not aim to replicate existing peak bodies that primarily function as lobby groups. Instead, it should possess the power and authority to enact change and compel action.

By having "teeth" and the ability to compel, this Peak Body could play a transformative role in the veteran support system. Here are some potential ways it could make a meaningful impact:

1. Policy: The Peak Body could develop evidence-based policies and coordinate their implementation across government departments, ensuring the needs of veterans are considered comprehensively. It would have the authority to engage with decision-makers and drive meaningful change.
2. Collaboration and Coordination: The Peak Body could serve as a central hub for collaboration and coordination among various stakeholders, government agencies, healthcare providers, and other relevant organizations. This would facilitate a more integrated and efficient approach to supporting veterans.
3. Standards and Quality Assurance: The Peak Body could establish and enforce standards of care and support within the veteran community. By setting benchmarks for service delivery, it could ensure consistent and high-quality support for veterans and their families across different sectors.
4. Research and Innovation: The Peak Body could commission research projects to identify emerging issues and gaps in support for veterans. It could use this knowledge to drive innovation, develop new programs, and improve existing services to meet evolving needs.