Statement from DVA In the absence of clear consent from Mr Rollins, DVA cannot provide further details about his case. DVA categorically denies the claims “DVA secretly changed the rules to deny veteran’s claim in the 10-year battle.” This is false and misleading. The independent investigation found no evidence of impropriety on the part of DVA staff. DVA can advise the following in relation to the questions asked: 1. What does the DVA consider an acceptable time for resolution of claims? Response A new timeliness measure introduced by DVA in the 2016-17 financial year is the median time taken to process claims (the number of days within which 50% of claims were processed). The target for disability pension claims under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (VEA) and permanent impairment claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2014 (MRCA) and Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defencerelated Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA) has been set at 100 days. The target for incapacity claims under MRCA and DRCA has been set at 50 days. In 2016-17, the median time taken to process: • disability pension claims (including applications for increase in disability pensions) under the VEA was 59 days. • liability claims under the MRCA was 93 days. • liability claims under the DRCA was 88 days. • permanent impairment claims under the MRCA was 152 days. • permanent impairment claims under the DRCA was 137 days. • incapacity claims under the MRCA was 49 days. • Incapacity claims under the DRCA was 57 days. 2. How many claimants did DVA interact with in 2016-2017? How many of those claimants used lawyers to resolve their claims? Response In 2016-17, approximately 47,000 active compensation claims were being investigated and determined. In addition there was thousands of interactions with clients on other transactions. DVA’s IT systems are not able to ascertain the number of claimants who used lawyers to resolve their claims. 3. How much does DVA spend on external lawyers? How many law firms did DVA contract out to in 2016, 2017 and 2018? (please include any law firms whose staff work on secondment or under contract at the DVA during these years). Response As reported in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 DVA Annual Reports, the total external legal services expenditure was as follows: (a) 2016-17 $7.24 million* (GST exclusive) (b) 2015-16 $8.16 million* (GST exclusive) *These figures are for all Departmental costs, not just those associated with veterans’ claims. This included disbursements and the engagement of counsel who advised on litigation, procurement, contracting and management issues. 4. In relation to the case of veteran Martin Rollins of Ballarat, Victoria – Does the DVA regret any aspect of the way it has handled Mr Rollins’ case? Response DVA acknowledges some aspects of our client service could have been better. The department commissioned an independent review into the case, in part due to the complexities of the matter. While DVA recognises some systemic issues were raised, it should be noted the independent review found there was no misconduct or maladministration by DVA staff. 5. Does the DVA accept that its offers to Mr Rollins, over time, were deficient? Response Without clear consent from Mr Rollins, DVA cannot comment on this question. 6. Does the DVA accept any responsibility for the financial impact its actions have had on Mr Rollins? Response Without clear consent from Mr Rollins, DVA cannot comment on this question. 7. What disciplinary actions, if any, have been taken against Department of Veterans’ Affairs staff over their treatment of Mr Rollins? Response The independent investigation found no evidence of impropriety on the part of DVA staff. 8. Why did the DVA delete the policy 32.3.5 of the SRCA Incapacity Handbook while assessing Mr Rollins’ case? Response This is not an accurate reflection of events. The policy was not changed to deny clients their lawful entitlements. Section 32.3.5 reflected a policy statement about the treatment of selfemployed veterans at a point in time. Following close examination, DVA updated the policy in that part of the Handbook on the basis that it did not accurately reflect the law in this area which required case-by-case consideration rather than a blanket rule that had existed in the policy. This action was to ensure that clients would not continue to rely on that policy statement to their detriment. 9. What disciplinary actions, if any, have been taken against the staff who deleted policy 32.3.5 of the SRCA Incapacity Handbook “…to remove any reliance that Rollins or his representative could place on it for the purpose of his outstanding claim as well as the CDDA … claim.” (NRF Report to DVA 2016). Response None. Whilst the independent investigator was of the view it was unnecessary to remove the passage, it acknowledged DVA had a competing view and that the case law was varied and it was difficult to come to a firm conclusion. In addition, the independent investigator found no evidence of impropriety on the part of DVA staff. 10. What disciplinary actions, if any, have been taken against the staff who deleted policy 32.3.5 of the SRCA Incapacity Handbook and then did not tell Mr Rollins or his lawyer? (NRF Report to DVA 2016) Response None. The independent investigation found no evidence of impropriety on the part of staff. 11. Can DVA confirm whether any Minister for Veterans Affairs has ever been informed that this policy was deleted to prevent Mr Rollins’ claims? If yes, when? Response This is not an accurate reflection of events. The policy was not changed to deny any DVA clients of their lawful entitlements. 12. In the 2016 DVA Secretary letter to Mr Rollins an administrative payment offer was made of $69,110.07. Was it an administrative payment offer? If yes, why wasn’t there any associated notice of rights or procedures for appeal? If it wasn’t an administrative payment offer why was it labelled as such? Response Without clear consent from Mr Rollins, DVA cannot comment on this question. 13. Does the DVA plan on making any additional offers to Mr Rollins as a result of the concerns he has expressed to DVA over time? Response Without clear consent from Mr Rollins, DVA cannot comment on this question.