Keogh's GOT to GO

15/06/2026

05/06/2026

🚨 Parliament update: Phil Thompson stood up and called out Labor’s shiny new $5000 veteran allied health cap… while Matt Keogh jumped up to defend it like it’s some kind of gift to veterans.

Apparently limiting treatment for injured veterans is now being sold as “better support.” Brilliant stuff. Next they’ll tell us rationing healthcare is actually increasing access.

Thompson wasn’t buying it and flat out called Keogh a liar in parliament — then got kicked out for refusing to apologise.

Meanwhile veterans across Australia are still waiting for someone to explain how cutting access to physios, psychs and rehab magically helps the people who served.

But don’t worry everyone… the government says it’s “targeting misuse,” so naturally the veterans doing the right thing get punished instead. Lazy policy. Zero accountability. Same old spin.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1KhSPqrzNj/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSx9RHaM2/

05/06/2026

🚨 VETERANS AREN’T A BUDGET CUT 🚨

Matt Keogh hasn’t announced a review yet — but with the outrage growing from veterans and military families across the country, maybe he should start paying attention.

The Anthony Albanese Government’s $5000 allied health cap is an insult to the men and women who served this country. Veterans shouldn’t have to fight Canberra just to access the treatment and support they need due to their service related conditions.

The backlash over the Baird travel allowance issue proved one thing: when veterans speak up loudly and publicly, politicians notice.

So don’t let the pressure drop.

Keep calling out this disgrace.
Keep sharing your stories.
Keep contacting your federal members.
Keep demanding answers.

Because if the government thinks veterans will quietly accept cuts to healthcare and support services, they’ve badly misread the room.

Scrap the cap.

05/06/2026

🚨 A CAP FOR VETERANS SHOULD BE A CAP FOR ALL — LEST WE FORGET THE APS 🚨

So let me get this straight.

The Australian Government has decided veterans might need a $5,000 allied health “limit” because apparently physiotherapy, psychology, rehab and chronic pain treatment are now a terrifying threat to the federal budget.

But somehow… magically… this concern NEVER appears when it comes to Comcare and injured APS staff under the SRCA.

Funny that.

Because according to Comcare’s own figures:

131,000+ incapacity payments made in a single year
$139 MILLION spent on incapacity payments
$39 MILLION on medical and rehab services
thousands of workers supported every year

And not once did Canberra hold an emergency press conference screaming:

🚨 “PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE RECEIVING TOO MUCH PHYSIOTHERAPY!” 🚨

Not once did they announce:
“Due to sustainability pressures, Karen from Procurement has exceeded her annual shoulder rehabilitation allowance.”

Not once did they tell injured APS staff:
“Sorry mate, your recovery is no longer fiscally responsible.”

No no no.

Because when bureaucrats need treatment, it’s called:
✅ workplace support
✅ rehabilitation
✅ recovery investment
✅ employee wellbeing

But when veterans need treatment?

Suddenly every Treasurer in Canberra transforms into an accountant guarding the last helicopter out of Saigon.

Then we get the usual bureaucratic poetry:
“This is not a cap.”
“This improves sustainability.”
“Clinically necessary care will still be funded.”

Ah yes. The magical non-cap cap.

The kind where:

there’s definitely a number,
definitely a threshold,
definitely extra approvals,
definitely more paperwork,
definitely more stress for injured people…

…but technically it’s “not really a cap.”

Outstanding work everyone.

And can we talk about the hypocrisy for five seconds?

The SAME government that:

loses billions on projects,
spends fortunes on consultants,
pays firms $3,000 a day to produce PowerPoints titled “Stakeholder Engagement Pathways,”
and runs backlog systems slower than continental drift…

has suddenly discovered fiscal discipline the moment veterans need ongoing allied health treatment.

What unbelievable timing.

Even better, veterans are told not to worry because treatment above the threshold can still be approved if it’s “clinically justified.”

Translation:
“Please complete Level 7 Administrative Combat to unlock continued mobility.”

This is peak Canberra.

A country that can afford:

endless reviews,
endless committees,
endless branding exercises,
endless consultancy contracts,

but apparently needs to carefully monitor whether a broken veteran gets too many physio appointments.

And here’s the question nobody in government wants answered:

IF caps are such a brilliant idea…

WHY DON’T THEY APPLY TO EVERYONE?

Why not a $5,000 cap for injured APS workers under Comcare?
Why not Parliament staff?
Why not senior executives?
Why not departmental wellness programs?

Simple.

Because there are apparently two classes of injured Australians:

People Canberra protects.
People Canberra commemorates once a year while cutting “sustainably.”

“Lest We Forget” sounds fantastic at ceremonies.

Less impressive when followed by:
“Please justify your rehabilitation in triplicate.”

05/06/2026

SO LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT

The Government wants veterans to clap politely because DVA will be “investing” $169.7 million a year into additional allied health fees, while quietly ripping away around $250 MILLION a year from veterans through a hard cap on allied health services.

What a circus.

Minister ‘backlogs’ Keogh and DVA are trying to sell this as a “win for veterans” while they prepare to slash access to physios, exercise physiologists, psychologists, OTs and other essential treatments that many injured veterans rely on just to function day-to-day or remain in the workforce.

A $5,000 annual cap isn’t “reform.”

It’s a CUT.

And who wears the cost?

Not Canberra bureaucrats.
Not politicians.
Veterans, yes injured veterans.

Veterans who already fought for these entitlements through decades of battles with DVA.

Veterans with broken bodies.
Veterans with PTSD.
Veterans who now get told their care is apparently “too expensive.”

The numbers don’t lie:

+$169.7 million outlay
-$250 million in reduced services
= veterans losing over $80 million every single year.

That’s not called support.
That’s not even an accounting trick

And now DVA says they’ll “consult” with the veteran community before July 2027.

Veterans know exactly what “consultation” means in DVA language:
“We’ll hold meetings, smile politely, ignore every concern raised, then roll out the plan we already decided on.”

That’s been the playbook for decades.

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs was supposed to care for veterans, not become the Treasury’s cost-cutting department.
This isn’t a win for veterans.

It’s a disgraceful reduction of hard-won entitlements dressed up as a new budget measure and wrapped in political spin.

Don’t fall for the clown show and the clown running it.

Stand up. Speak out. Contact your Federal MP. Share this everywhere.

Because once DVA takes entitlements away, history shows they never give them back willingly.

05/06/2026

NOBODY GIVES A TOSS ABOUT VETERANS"

— The Chaser's War on Everything, 2007.

Funny thing about satire.

Sometimes it ages into a government performance review.

We were told veterans were a national priority.

We were told there was "record funding."

We were told more staff, more reform, more resources, more commitments, more reviews, more consultations, more strategies, more action plans, more taskforces and more press conferences.

What did veterans get?

Caps.

Backlogs.

Queues.

KPIs.

Lawfare.

Spin.

More spin.

And enough bureaucracy to invade a small country.

Government spending goes up.

Staffing goes up.

Management goes up.

Executive numbers go up.

Consultants go up.

Reports go up.

PowerPoint presentations go up.

Veteran outcomes?

Still waiting.

Veterans don't experience billions of dollars.

They experience whether the phone gets answered.

Whether the claim gets processed.

Whether treatment gets approved.

Whether somebody actually helps when life is falling apart.

The Royal Commission delivered recommendations.

Funding increased.

Staff increased.

Management increased.

Yet veterans are still asking the same question:

"If all this money fixed the system, why are we still fighting it?"

According to preliminary data, 73 current and former ADF members died by su***de in 2023.

That's not a victory lap.

That's not a media release.

That's not a KPI.

That's 73 reasons nobody should be congratulating themselves.

The political class says:

"Look at how much we've spent."

Veterans ask:

"Look at what we've achieved."

Those are not the same thing.

Maybe The Chaser got it wrong.

Maybe people do give a toss about veterans.

The problem is that too many people seem to care more about managing the system than serving the people the system exists for.

Record funding.

Record staffing.

Record management.

And veterans are still being told to take a number and wait.

At some point, "supporting veterans" has to become more than a slogan printed underneath a minister's photo.

Because from where many veterans are standing, 2007 doesn't look like satire anymore.

It looks like a prediction.

05/06/2026

A Cap on Care? Why the $5,000 Allied Health Limit Risks Undermining Veterans' Entitlements

By
Rod Thompson
Advocate / Activist
Australian Veterans for Change

The Federal Government's decision to introduce a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services for Veteran Card holders from 1 July 2027 has been promoted as a reform designed to combat overservicing, improve accountability, and create a more sustainable system.

On the surface, these objectives appear reasonable. No taxpayer-funded system should tolerate fraud, exploitation, or inappropriate treatment practices. Indeed, the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) has cited concerns that a small number of providers have been taking advantage of veterans through excessive and clinically unjustified treatment. The Government has also committed substantial new funding to increase allied health provider fees—the largest increase in more than twenty years.

However, beneath the policy language lies a far more important question:

Does imposing an annual monetary cap fundamentally alter the nature of veterans' treatment entitlements in Australia?

For decades, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA), the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), and related treatment arrangements have been founded upon a simple principle: veterans are entitled to treatment that is clinically necessary for accepted conditions. DVA itself currently states that it funds health services necessary to meet a clinical need for eligible Veteran Card holders.

Historically, the primary question has been:

"Does the veteran require this treatment?"

The proposed reforms introduce a second question:

"Has the veteran reached the annual cap?"

That distinction may appear subtle, but it represents a significant philosophical shift.

The Government has repeatedly stated that veterans requiring treatment above the $5,000 threshold will continue to receive funding where a valid clinical need is demonstrated. DVA has also indicated that pathways for approval above the cap will be established and that veterans with acute or complex needs will continue to receive support.

The concern is not whether exemptions exist on paper.

The concern is whether veterans who already struggle with bureaucracy, mental health challenges, chronic pain, and complex rehabilitation needs will be forced into yet another approval process to obtain treatment they would previously have received as part of their entitlement.

The Numbers Tell a Different Story

Many Australians hear "$5,000" and assume it is a substantial amount of funding.

In reality, ongoing rehabilitation can consume that amount surprisingly quickly.

Figure 1: Illustrative Annual Allied Health Costs
Annual Cost ($)

Physiotherapy (52 sessions) ██████████████ $10,088
Exercise Physiology (26 sessions) ██████ $4,212
Psychology (12 sessions) ████ $3,000

Combined Total ███████████████████████ $17,300

Proposed DVA Cap ██████ $5,000

Even a relatively modest treatment program can exceed three times the proposed annual cap.

Veterans living with chronic musculoskeletal injuries, PTSD, traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndromes, or complex rehabilitation requirements are particularly likely to exceed the threshold.

While DVA states that only around one in ten Veteran Card holders currently spend more than $5,000 annually on allied health services, that statistic misses an important point. Public policy should be judged not by how it affects the average case, but by how it affects those with the greatest need.

The NDIS Comparison

Supporters of the reforms argue that exemptions mean there is little practical difference.

I am not convinced.

One of the defining differences between DVA and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has always been that DVA is fundamentally a compensation and entitlement system, while the NDIS operates through individualised funding packages.

Figure 2: Comparing Treatment Models
System Primary Question
Traditional DVA Model Is treatment clinically necessary?
NDIS Model Is funding available within the plan budget?
Proposed DVA Model Has the cap been reached and can an exemption be approved?

For many years, veterans' advocates resisted attempts to treat service-related injuries as though they were simply another disability support category. Military service creates unique obligations between the nation and those who serve.

A compensation system exists because society recognises that injuries sustained through service deserve treatment based on need, not budget allocation.

Introducing monetary caps risks blurring that distinction.

Addressing Overservicing Without Restricting Entitlements

The Government is correct to target fraudulent providers.

Recent announcements have highlighted concerns regarding inappropriate billing, overservicing, and exploitation within elements of the veterans' support system. The Government has invested heavily in compliance and auditing measures to address those problems.

However, there is a difference between targeting bad actors and creating barriers for injured veterans.

If the problem is provider misconduct, then the solution should focus on provider oversight, auditing, sanctions, and evidence-based treatment pathways.

It should not create uncertainty for veterans who require legitimate ongoing care.

The real test of this policy will not be whether a cap exists.

The real test will be whether veterans requiring clinically necessary treatment can continue accessing that treatment without delay, additional bureaucracy, or financial anxiety.

If they can, the reforms may prove workable.

If they cannot, Australia risks moving away from a long-standing principle that veterans have earned through their service: access to treatment according to clinical need.

The nation owes veterans accountability.

But it also owes them certainty.

The challenge for Government is ensuring that in the pursuit of one, it does not sacrifice the other.

References

1. Department of Veterans' Affairs, Changes for Allied Health from July 2027, 20 May 2026.
2. Department of Veterans' Affairs, 2026–27 Federal Budget Responds to Royal Commission Recommendations, 12 May 2026.
3. Department of Veterans' Affairs, 2026–27 Federal Budget: New Measures for Health Providers, 28 May 2026.
4. Department of Veterans' Affairs, Secretary's Opening Statement – Budget Estimates, June 2026.
5. Department of Veterans' Affairs, Fees and Guidelines for Allied Health Providers.
6. Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth).
7. Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth).
8. RSL Australia, Veteran Allied Health Care Cap: What It Means.
9. Department of Veterans' Affairs, Community Questions Answered – Allied Health Funding Changes.

05/06/2026

MINISTER MATT ‘BACKLOGS’ KEOGH TARGETS OUR MOST VULNERABLE VETERANS

Ladies and gentlemen, step right up and witness the incredible disappearing act of Minister Matt "Backlogs" Keogh!

In a Facebook post a few days ago he proudly celebrated pay rises for Australia's lowest-paid workers. Meanwhile the Minister somehow doesn’t want anyone talking about his government's decision to rip $250 million per year from veterans' allied health services.

So we made a simple and respectful comment to his post:

"And you just stripped $250,000,000 a year from veterans allied health services. So please tell the veteran community how this is a positive for veterans?"

A fair question, you would think.

Apparently not.

Instead of showing even the slightest interest in accountability, our comment was BLOCKED.

That's right. Not answered. Not debated. BLOCKED.

Because nothing says "we value stakeholder feedback" quite like silencing veterans and their advocates for asking uncomfortable questions.

The really concerning part is this:

The Department of Veterans' Affairs is scheduled to commence consultation with the veteran community in August regarding these changes.

If this is how criticism is treated on a public social media page, what confidence should veterans have that DVA will genuinely listen when formal consultation begins as their track record over recent decades is, we consult, ignore feedback and do what we originally intended.

Veterans aren’t a ‘tick a box exercise.’

Veterans aren't asking for special treatment.

They're asking for answers, YES ANSWERS.

They're asking to be HEARD.

And they're asking why services that many rely upon for their physical and mental wellbeing plus, for many, being able to continue in the workforce, are being cut while government representatives celebrate elsewhere.

BLOCKING comments doesn't make concerns disappear.

It doesn't reduce waiting lists.
It doesn't improve services.
And it certainly doesn't reassure the veteran community that their voices matter.

The message being sent right now is simple:

"Applause is welcome. Questions are not."

Veterans deserve better than political spin.

Veterans deserve better than being ignored.

And veterans deserve better than a government that mistakes censorship for consultation.

Because while comments can be BLOCKED, the consequences of these decisions cannot.

You rolled over on the Baird cut and the defunding of the INVICTUS Games. Time to go for the treble and rescind the proposed $250,000,000 p.a. cuts to veterans allied health services, or are your political ambitions more important to you?