Matt Keogh defended it.
Now it is gone.
The Albanese Government has officially dumped its proposed $5,000 annual threshold on veterans’ allied health care, with Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Keogh announcing today that the measure is “off the table”.
That is a big win for the veteran community but why did it take this much pressure to get here?
This was not some hypothetical policy buried in a discussion paper. The $5,000 limit was announced in the May Federal Budget. The Government’s own Budget documentation described it as a “$5,000 Annual Monetary Limit” and estimated it would generate $748 million in savings over three years from 2027-28, followed by $340.2 million in annual savings thereafter. At the same time, the Government committed $169.7 million over five years to increasing allied health provider fees.
The Government later started describing the $5,000 figure as a “review threshold”, stressing that veterans with a demonstrated clinical need could continue receiving treatment above it.
But the original Budget language was clear. It was an annual monetary limit and the savings had already been counted.
KEOGH KEPT DEFENDING IT
The backlash did not begin yesterday. Veterans had been raising concerns for months.
In July, Keogh publicly defended the proposal, saying the Government was trying to address inappropriate servicing and fraud while reducing the burden of veterans having to obtain another GP referral every 12 allied health sessions. He acknowledged that roughly one in 10 veterans could exceed the $5,000 figure, while insisting those with a clinical need would still receive additional care.
By September 2, Keogh was still defending the threshold.
Asked directly whether the Government could remove the existing 12-session referral burden without introducing the $5,000 threshold, Keogh argued that DVA needed a marker at which a veteran's treatment would be reviewed.
He said more than 90 per cent of veterans would remain below the threshold and repeatedly maintained that nobody requiring clinically necessary treatment would simply be cut off.
The Daily Telegraph reported last month that Keogh had told veterans Labor would not budge on the measure, amid an increasingly hostile reception from parts of the veteran community.
On Monday, September 14, Keogh was still standing in Parliament defending the policy. He told the House the Government would replace the existing treatment cycle with the $5,000 threshold and argued that it would improve veterans' wellbeing while providing oversight of allied health spending.
As recently as September 15, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs website was still telling veterans:
“A new annual $5,000 review threshold will also be introduced.”
The commencement date remained July 1, 2027.
Two days later?
Gone.
THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE POWER LOOKS LIKE
Today Keogh's language changed.
“We have been consulting on this measure, and we have heard from veterans there are concerns about this approach,” his statement said.
“We have been listening carefully and today, the Government is taking the proposed $5,000 threshold off the table.”
Keogh himself had already conceded in Parliament that he “got it wrong”, according to ABC reporting.
Senator Jacqui Lambie, today called the decision a victory belonging to “every veteran”. Her assessment was even more direct. She said the cap “should never have been announced in the first place”.
Veterans, their families, doctors and advocacy organisations kept making noise until Canberra listened.
That is people power.
THE QUESTION IS WHY THEY HAD TO FIGHT AT ALL
There were legitimate problems the Government says it was trying to address.
DVA says around 10 per cent of veteran cardholders spend more than $5,000 a year on allied health care, and Senate Estimates heard an extraordinary example of one patient allegedly being billed $101,000 by a dietitian in a single year. The Government also wanted to abolish the frustrating requirement for veterans to return to their GP after every 12 allied health sessions.
Those are issues worth fixing but cracking down on questionable provider billing is not the same thing as placing another review process between an injured veteran and treatment.
Fair Care for Veterans spokesman and former Navy clearance diver John Armfield said veterans, families and doctors had travelled from around the country to argue that the measure would hurt those with the most serious injuries.
Importantly, Armfield also gave Keogh credit for ultimately reversing it, saying: “The minister made the right call.”
Governments should change bad or unpopular policy when compelling evidence and community feedback demand it. But changing course does not erase the months that came before it. Nor does it erase the fact that the Government had already calculated hundreds of millions of dollars in savings from the proposal before the veteran community forced the issue onto the national agenda.
There will be plenty of political chest beating over who deserves credit. This story does not need to belong to a political party.
It belongs to the veterans who refused to shut up. The people who served this country questioned a policy affecting their health care, organised, spoke publicly, contacted politicians and kept the pressure on.
It is a reminder that when the people affected by a government decision stand together and refuse to accept it quietly, governments can be forced to reconsider.
After months of defending this one, Matt Keogh and the Albanese Government have finally done exactly that. The real question now is where are they going to pull that ‘savings’ of $748m from next?
