07/04/2026
On 27 March 2026 we asked the following questions of the IVA Board which we are still waiting a response.
-Who is proposed Regulation and New Standards targeted at?
-We have already seen a number of alternate models to “advocacy” pop up in 2026 such as “Claim Submission Only” providers, will they avoid these new arrangements or be held to the same standards.
-Will Lawyers have to comply with the proposed “standards”. What about Consultants, or anybody not titled an “advocate”. What if from tomorrow I call myself a Claims Advisor.
-Is the Advocacy Institute suggesting that no one can speak to DVA on behalf of a Veteran unless they are Advocacy Institute Members and completed specific training and insurances.
-The Advocacy Institute website and documents reference “CSC”, how does it propose any authority of these matters.
-It is incongruent that on one hand supporting a Veteran with DVA matters is being bound by proposed endless rules and fees, on the other hand DVA advertise a Veteran can “Lodge their claims” themselves, which one is it going to be.
-At this stage there appears no benefit of joining the Advocate Institute as there is no benefit that will improve our services to Veterans.
-Memberships have been stalled due to process issues, if the front door of the organisation isn’t managed well how can anybody have faith in other matters.
-There is no information within the Advocacy Institute that is not publicly available, and I understand there are currently no development workshops being run (or even scheduled).
-I understand that the ADTP training is not available, and it is outdated anyway.
-I would be joining, and paying $2,500 for absolutely nothing. Noting that the institute have publicly expressed joining may become mandatory, paying any fees prior to a mandatory date would be nonsensical.
-The institute is proposing I pay 125 times the rate of individual members and get nothing.
-It further appears that there is no private advocate representation on the institute Board either, conversely, two of the Board Members plus the Chair’s partner are publicly critical of private advocates on Social Media.
-The Advocate Institute has received $4m in Government Funding while also proposing I pay 125 times the individual membership rate.
-I do not have 125 advocates, nor is it reasonable a boutique private advocate pay the same as a claims factory i.e. Veteran Advocacy Australia charges less than 10% of the Veterans we service, why should we pay the same fee as those making millions of dollars per annum.
-The Advocacy Institute should be working in the best interests of Veterans and their families not DVA.
-From what I have read, the Institute is dictating DVA Policy to members not legislation or Veteran rights i.e. “investigation ready”, Veterans do not have to pay for their investigations, the Commission is responsible for investigating claims.
-Furthermore, it appears a breach of a Veterans basic rights to have one Veteran jump the queue because they were represented and another Veteran who filled in their own claims must wait - this would be a simple Federal Court challenge.
-Why was the Advocacy Institute falsely advertising on its website that DVA “announced” Advocacy Institute members would have their claims processed faster than other advocates to only change this when contacted via DVA.
-The Advocacy Institute should be committed to appropriate training that is accessible and quality, the ADTP is neither, it is;
- out of date
- links do not work
- lacks basic information of MRCA Travel
- doesn’t even provide a copy of the legislation
- run by DVA who are no experts.
-The ADTP learning is excessive for an “accredited” unit of competence i.e. 11019NAT Course in Military Advocacy has a nominal duration of 530 hours whereby a Nationally Recognised Qualification, Certificate IV in Legal Services can be completed in just 600 hours. Plus a Certificate IV is widely available. Accreditation of this current program ends in 12 months, who is updating it.
-The Advocacy Institute gag clauses are of significant concern. The Advocacy Institute should be concerned with Veterans not DVA or the Ministers egos.
-Would the following phrases likely attract sanctions;
- Veterans are finding it harder and harder to find volunteer advocates but the RSL refuses to open access outside 10-2 Tuesday and Thursday. It’s time funding is linked to outcomes.
- Who is auditing the BEST grants? My local RSL received over $150,000 and has nothing to show for it.
Keogh said he “cleared the backlog” but as of 01 February 2026 more Veterans than ever are waiting for claims to be processed by DVA.
- DVAs decision to change rules for Medicinal Cannabis access without consultation shows how out of touch they are.
- The Prime Minister said in Parliament today that he cleared the queue, Matt Keogh says he cleared the backlog, so what do they call 95,000 claims waiting a decision?
- DVA shared my personal medical information with the University of South Australia without my consent.
- Veterans are missing out on entitlements due to DVA processing delays.
-Why have the Advocacy Institute become cosy with the most unscrupulous actors. I am aware that during 2025 the IVA had extensive consultations with ###X and provided information that was not publicly available. These discussions enabled###X to pivot, adapt, and change organisational structures and business practices before other providers.
This type of conduct is equitable and potentially insider trading, is this the type of conduct members can continue to expect from the Advocacy Institute leadership.
-What membership type suits a lawyer.
-What membership type suits someone studying a Bachelor of Laws at University.
-I am one of the few Veterans in Australia to have taken the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to Federal Court, and achieved a decision against them. Action which would have likely breached the Advocacy Institute Code of Conduct, Will this achievement allow me Fellow status admission.
The one question they did answer was in relation to Mr Michael Von Berg, Chairman.
"Your comments on the IVA Board and IVA’s independence
It is unfortunate that some members of the veteran community made incorrect and misleading statements about both the IVA and its Chair, Mr Mike von Berg, OAM.
To clarify for you:
The claim that Michael von Berg has a fraud conviction is false. As is the claim he has recently been convicted of drink driving.
The alleged fraud matter being referenced relates to a company issue from the early 1990s, for which a financial penalty was imposed - not a criminal conviction.
The suggestion that this is recent or directly relevant to current activities is misleading.
The Interim Board was appointed from the ESORT working group that proposed the establishment of the Institute. A consultation was done on this in January 2025 - you can read the report about that here: Ex-Service Organisation Round Table (ESORT) Proposal. Since that initial beginning, the Interim Board has considered the advocacy ecosystem, consulted across the spectrum of providers who have reached out to us, and takes the view that F4S providers and other professional services providers play and important role and so it is encouraging those providers to join and consider nominating for a position on the Board."
Sadly, we know this response is a mere play on words.
IVA Bi-Law 4(3) (c) individuals will declare, and will make ongoing declarations, that they are a fit and proper
person to hold membership of the IVA, which includes:
(i) not being convicted of any offence of dishonesty in any jurisdiction, whether in Australia or overseas,
(ii) not having perpetrated or participated in negligent, deceitful or otherwise discreditable business or professional practices, and
(iii) not having any other interests of duties that may conflict with being a member of the IVA.
On 19 September 1996, Mr Von Berg was fined by the Federal Court of Australia for "wine misrepresentation" (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/maximum-fines-for-wine-misrepresentation).
We look forward to the IVA taking immediate actions to establish stakeholder and community trust.
