Ben Roberts-Smith

[Siso]

And none of the other politicians and partys are backed by major companys/countrys. Sound pretty hypercritical to me!

[Litespeed]

You too can have a politician just donate a new Cirrus G7.

 

 

[facthunter]

Who is going to fly it ? James  Ashby?. Not for Amateurs. Nev

[pmccarthy]

[red750]

I wish those idiot reporters would stop referring to "Pauline's Jet". Can't they see the ruddy great propeller on the front of it. And it's less than $2million, not multi-million. It's as bad as calling it a Cessna.

[old man emu]

35 minutes ago, red750 said:

It's as bad as calling it a Cessna.

Well that's one positive thing. And they don't desribe it as a home-built ultra-light.

[facthunter]

It's a SEXY Plane  GIFTED from Gorgeous Gina.. Nothing to see here. Perfectly Normal. Just Imagine the Hoo Haa IF Albanese got one given to him.. Sky would fall down on Him.. You'd Never hear the end of it. Nev

Edited Friday at 06:47 AM by facthunter

[Siso]

How much gifting from corporations do the other parties get. easy to find. Pretty hypocritical for people to carry on about this. Albo just uses the governments money to get around(fair enough). Sarah Hansen Youngs husband uses the governments money to get to work. 

 

What was the largest single donation to Labor?

The largest single donation was A$1,500,000.00 from Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd on May 22, 2022.

[facthunter]

"Easy to find?" and Probably accounted for as rules apply to all this . The Big movers are not easy to find.  Non disclosed kick backs on BIG projects. Nev

[pmccarthy]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

 Non disclosed kick backs on BIG projects. Nev

Yep. Unions to the Labor governments. Huge sums involved.

[Siso]

And Pauline was upfront and disclosed it because they new people would make a big thing out of it. It seems the major partys have been quiet on it, worried some people might do some digging.

[facthunter]

All has to be disclosed PMC and is. It's small Bickies compared to what I'm talking about. Labor originally Grew out of the Union Movement which is now only a shadow of it's former self. 

  Paulines defence has always Been that She's being picked on. She has a few things to be worried about, so we will see what Unfolds. One Person Legitimately in the Lower house does not a Government Make.  Senate Places are easy. The Party (Pauline)? decides the Pecking order.  Her show is far from being stable. What is the Bond? Rampant Opportunism? Panicked RATS Leaving the sinking ship? Sussan Ley had a 42% hold on that seat. Taylor has helped to finish off the Liberal Party. He cannot remain around now. With friends like the NATS you don't need enemies.  With Abbot as President their fate is assured. The Ghosts of the Past should be kept under Wraps to avoid the Inevitable embarrassment Likely. Nev

[pmccarthy]

Instead of support for ex-defence personnel, the Budget provides an additional $44.3 M to Office of Special Investigator to investigate and prosecute alleged Afghanistan war crimes.

[facthunter]

So you don't want such allegations Investigated Properly? They'd only Be Prosecuted IF enough evidence was found.  Nev

[old man emu]

39 minutes ago, facthunter said:

They'd only Be Prosecuted IF enough evidence was found

It's the cost of the investigation that consumes a great deal of the budget. An investigation might uncover many things, but each thing in a prosecution must be a provable fact. Sad, but true. 

 

But PMCC has done us a diservice by not telling us how much has been allocated to support for ex- and serving members.

[onetrack]

In the 2026 Budget, Govt services to veterans have been reduced by "better targeting" of monetary allocations. There's a lot of double-speak in this area, with DVA saying it has more money to pay to allied health providers.

Then there's "an Annual Monetary Limit for veterans' allied health services", which appears to me, to be public service gobbledegook.

It doesn't say, if that means individual Veterans face an annual limit on their health expenditure, or if the annual limit is the total paid to individual service providers. This needs clarification.

 

Then there's the complication that Veterans are currently paid benefits under 3 Veterans Acts. I'm covered under the 1986 Veterans Entitlements Act, which covers all veterans up until 2004, when it was replaced by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). There's also a third Act, the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA).

 

All three Acts are being replaced from 1st July 2026, by a new "Vets Act", which will cover all Veterans. Entitlements under previous Acts will remain unchanged.

 

The bottom line is, the number of Veterans is dropping rapidly, and they will soon only make up a small number to be serviced by DVA. As a result, the money allocated to Veterans should decrease accordingly. There are barely a handful of WW2 Veterans left, there are only a small number of Korean War Veterans, and even the Vietnam Veterans numbers are depleting rapidly.

 

Post-Vietnam War Veterans are only a relatively small number as well, because the size of the Australian Military has been much smaller in the decades since the Vietnam War.

 

 

The 2026 Budget for Veterans:

 

QUOTE: "Based on the 2026 Federal Budget, the Australian government is restructuring veteran services, resulting in a reported reduction in expenditure to providers of approximately $779.5 million over five years.

 

While the government describes these changes as "better targeting" of services to veterans and their families, critics describe this as a reduction in support, with some labelling it a "bandaid" solution.

 

Key Changes and "Better Targeting" Measures:

 

The government expects to achieve savings of $779.5 million over five years from 2025–26, with an ongoing savings of $352.4 million per year.

 

Reduction in Payments: Specifically, "better targeting" of services is expected to decrease government payments to providers by $606.6 million over five years.

 

Allied Health Limits: A significant portion of this involves introducing an Annual Monetary Limit for veterans' allied health services, amounting to $748 million in savings over three years starting in 2027–28.

 

Simplifying Referral Requirements: Further savings of $30.1 million over three years will be achieved by simplifying referral requirements.

 

Context of Reforms (VETS Act):

 

These changes are part of the broader Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 (VETS Act), which takes full effect on 1 July 2026.

 

Single System: The current complex three-Act system will be replaced by a single, updated Act (based on the MRCA) for all new claims.

 

'Grandparenting':

 

The government has provided assurances that those already receiving benefits before 1 July 2026 will not have their payments reduced or altered, and will continue to receive annual indexation.

 

Goal: The stated goal of these reforms, based on the Royal Commission recommendations, is to reduce complexity and speed up claims, which has been a major source of distress for veterans.

 

Impact on Services:

 

Advocacy Funding: While payments to providers are reduced, the government has reported increased funding for the Building Excellence in Support and Training (BEST) program to support free, volunteer advocate services.

 

Allied Health Fees: In a contradictory move, the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) noted that it is increasing allied health provider fees to improve veteran access to services, which was a recommendation of the Royal Commission.

 

Grants: There will be a reduction in uncommitted grant funding for certain commemorative, memorial, and graves-related projects.The reforms aim to align veterans' support with modern workers' compensation schemes, placing a stronger emphasis on rehabilitation and early intervention."