The government’s response to the royal commission into veteran suicide is largely accurate, but contains a few errors

Some average 78 serving or former members of the Australian Defense Force (ADF) have died by suicide yearly over the last decade.

In 2021, the government announced its formal establishment Royal Commission in Veterans Affairs and Suicide to cope with this national tragedy.

Now the Albanian government has done it posted her response to the royal commission final report.

The government agreed or agreed in principle 104 of 122 recommendations contained in the Commission’s final report published in September.

According to Prime Minister Anthony Albaneseis the answer

a historic opportunity to ensure lasting reform and support for our defense personnel, veterans and their families.

But what does this answer accomplish and where is it insufficient?

Mental health and the military

Above half a million Australians have served or currently serve in the ADF.

serving members, 22% report mental health disorders. This increases to 46% amongst members who’ve recently transitioned from full-time service.

There were working women yes greater than twice as likely die by suicide compared to civilian women. While suicide rates amongst former men who voluntarily leave the ADF are comparable to civilian suicide rates amongst men of the same age, the suicide rate amongst men who leave the service for involuntary medical reasons is almost 3 times higher.

Number of suicides in recent a long time far exceeds number of individuals killed on energetic duty.

The reasons for the disproportionately high suicide rate amongst ADF personnel are complex.

Although trauma experienced during deployment likely plays a role, many current and former members who died by suicide were never deployed abroad. The royal commission found that systemic and cultural issues in the ADF play a key role.

For example, there are sometimes tensions between traditional military culture and mental health needs. The report indicated excessive “independence” as a barrier to looking for help. On the one hand, self-reliance is often seen as a military virtue. However, in extreme cases it could possibly prevent people from looking for help.

How did the government react?

It is very positive to see that the Government has accepted 104 of the committee’s 122 recommendations.

Throughout, the commitment to co-design, by which the government will work with ex-service organizations, members, veterans and their families to develop support programs and guidelines, demonstrates respect for military identity and lived experience.

Professional development is also a worthy priority, including improved military and cultural competency training for healthcare staff and improved trauma-informed practice. These sorts of changes display an understanding of the unique challenges faced by service personnel and the impact of military culture on help looking for.

The government’s continued commitment to clearing the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) claims backlog will remove a major source of stress for veterans looking for assistance.

Finally a move to establish a latest investigation military sexual violence represents motion on a significant issue inside the ADF.

What was omitted?

Only one advice – providing veterans permanently injured in training with compensation at the same level as veterans injured on energetic duty – was not supported.

The government’s decision to maintain the long-standing rule of upper pay for energetic duty raises key questions on how we value various kinds of services.

Given that many service members never implement solutions, this potentially reduces the value of the services they supply. My research has shown non-deployment can have a negative impact on a defense member’s sense of identity and perception as a “warrior”. Rejecting this advice could contribute to identity disruption and poor mental health and well-being for many who don’t second.

People’s biggest asset?

In its full response, the government notes the establishment task force in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to consider those recommendations which have been agreed in principle and accepted for consideration.

The government took note of the committee’s 17 recommendations for further consideration.

One of them is the advice to increase the DVA fee schedule to bring it according to the National Disability Insurance Scheme tariff. This essentially suggests paying more to health care providers in order that they’ve a greater incentive to provide care to soldiers.

The government’s response suggests the need to provide care with “military expertise” slightly than simply increasing fees. Although veterans’ health needs differ from disability support, the government’s lack of support for this advice may very well be seen as a signal about the value that society places on defense members.

At the press conference when the government published its response, – said Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles “The defense’s greatest asset is its people.” Financing models should be aligned with this value.

Similarly, many data and research recommendations were made to the task force. The lack of direct involvement in research funding highlights the disconnect between rhetoric about prioritizing staff and actual investment in research. Without adequate research funding, our ability to develop evidence-based solutions is limited.

Finally, there are questions on the task force itself. For example, who will run it? How will this engage individuals with lived experience? How will his success be measured? Working in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet suggests a high level of attention, but questions remain about timelines and accountability.

Where to from here?

The government’s response to the royal commission shows that it overwhelmingly acknowledges the systemic and cultural issues that the commission highlighted in its final report. However, cultural change will likely be a huge challenge.

Looking ahead, implementing the royal commission’s recommendations requires balancing urgent needs with implementing lasting change, and maintaining momentum with ensuring meaningful consultation.

The success of those reforms will rely upon maintaining focus and keeping defense and veterans’ well-being at the center of all decisions.