Statute Update Bill 2026
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of One Nation) (15:20): I welcome every chance I get to speak in support of our veterans. The people who stand between Australia and those who would do us harm should not have to fight for their health care. Labor needs to wake up to the needs of veterans.
Just like my grandfather did at Gallipoli, these men and women put on a uniform so the rest of us don't have to. They run at bullets. They make decisions under fire that most of us will never face.
They come home carrying wounds that do not always show. The least we can do is look after them when they return. Duty of care is suddenly sacred to Labor when the subject is internet algorithms.
But that duty of care doesn't extend to the bodies and minds of those who served. Instead, this government wants a cap. It booked hundreds of millions in savings by placing a $5,000 annual limit on allied health for veteran card holders.
After pressure from veterans, the language changed. All of a sudden, the $5,000 would trigger a review rather than a hard cap. Why are we putting our veterans through these additional hoops?
This Labor government wastes enough money in a week to fund the veterans for a year. Stop making veterans pay for your wasteful spending. This is not abstract.
Veteran groups say they were not properly consulted. The RSL has called for the measure to be withdrawn. Those most likely to hit the figure, the cohort the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was meant to protect, have the most complex injuries.
The government says that most veterans spend less than the threshold and that clinically necessary care will continue. If that is true, scrap the hard number, target the few providers who overservice and do not ration those who need the care. Minister Keogh's conduct has been appalling.
When veteran delegations came to Canberra to raise their legitimate concerns, he at first declined to take the meeting—he had a ceremonial commitment with the Governor-General. He eventually did meet. Veterans say they were met with contempt, no handshake on arrival, arms folded and an eye roll as they spoke about people already in crisis.
The minister admits he got the first refusal wrong. When former service people say they felt disdain from the minister responsible for them, that is a trust problem. Minister Keogh should be removed, but the PM has no spine.
He has lost the trust of the veteran community. One Nation stands beside veterans to receive the support they need and deserve. I have met with veterans groups, and I will keep meeting them.
We are here to listen. That is Labor's problem. This government is too arrogant to listen to the people it is meant to protect.
There should not be controversial amendments. Let's not skimp on life-changing care that could be the difference between life and death. Suicide amongst our veterans is unacceptably high.
We have had a royal commission. Labor accepted almost every recommendation. Then they turn around and force veterans to fight for the basic care that they need.
Let's not have any more needless loss of life because of bureaucracy's underfunding. One Nation will also be raising another amendment to this legislation, the Statute Update Bill 2026. The amendment will restore the definition of 'hors de combat'—the test that decides when a person is out of the fight for certain war crime offences—to the definition in the Criminal Code from 2002, before it was changed in 2024.
The 2024 update applied that definition retrospectively to 2002. We ask our soldiers to go into battle for us. They make impossible decisions under duress.
In 2024, this parliament altered that definition and applied it to conduct from September 2002. The government says it corrected a drafting error and aligned the code with the Geneva conventions. But, in effect, it lowers the barrier for criminal proceedings and judges veterans against a rule that was not the rule when they served.
Any changes must be prospective. War crimes exist. There is a threshold of behaviour that is never acceptable, but retrospectively changing the legal expectations of combat puts veterans in needless legal jeopardy.
If the change is merely technical as claimed, it does not need to reach back 20 years. If it is necessary, apply it to future operations and train people to that standard. Our veterans should be judged by the law that existed when they acted.
One Nation welcomes the coalition's move to support veterans against the allied health limit. We hope that they will support our amendment to remove the retrospective change to the terms of combat—care when they come home, certainty about the law they served under.