The boss of an Australian company that seeks compensation for diggers has had a viral video deleted where he asks an American business guru how to turn his company into a billion dollar enterprise.
Tom Kliese, of Veterans First Consulting, made the extraordinary remarks while asking US entrepreneur Alex Hormozi how to grow his operation at a business development conference.
‘I do compensation claims for injured military veterans in Australia,’ Mr Kliese was filmed saying.
‘We do $55 million revenue now. Based on contracts signed today, we will do $100 million in two years from now.’
Mr Kliese then revealed the scale of his ambition.
‘I want a billion-dollar enterprise value, essentially, whether that’s $300million, $250million revenue, whatever is required,’ he said.
He told the conference Veterans First had already captured about 40 per cent of the Australian market, but wanted more.
‘We sell to one avatar, one product, one time at the moment.’
Tom Kliese, the boss of an Australian company that seeks compensation for diggers, has had a viral video deleted where he asks an American business guru how to turn his company into a billion dollar enterprise
Mr Kliese is seen asking the question in an online video, since deleted
US entrepreneur Alex Hormozi answered his question
That ‘avatar’ is a veteran living with injuries or illnesses connected to their military service.
The original video appeared on YouTube under the title ‘Helping a $55M Firm Reach a $1B Valuation’. It has since been removed.
In the clip, Mr Kliese explained that claims generally take about two years, allowing contracts signed today to be treated as future revenue.
He said the average veteran received approximately $250,000. Applying the fee formula in the firm’s published terms, a payout of that size could deliver Veterans First $19,250 including GST.
That money comes from taxpayer-funded compensation intended to help a veteran live with the consequences of serving their country.
In response to Mr Kliese, Mr Hormozi suggested buying rival operators, keeping different brands in front of customers, and connecting them to the same back-end business.
Mr Kliese calculated that increasing his market share from 40 to 60 per cent would add ‘only’ another $15 million in revenue, still leaving him short of his billion-dollar target.
The video has sparked anger among veterans who blasted Mr Kliese’s comments online – prompting him to issue a lengthy apology on his company’s website.
‘Comments from that discussion have since been shared online and I understand they have caused concern within the veteran community. I’m genuinely sorry for that,’ he said.
‘Listening back, I can see that I spoke in business terms that inadvertently stripped out the human reality of what we actually do at Veterans First every day, which is deliver life-changing support for our veterans.
‘My use of business language to discuss the veteran space was not at all indicative of the deep respect I have for the community.’
The $21,000 exit clause
The document, hosted on a legacy company website, says a client who terminates in certain circumstances after medical reports are on file and a permanent impairment claim is ready can be charged $21,000 plus GST
Mr Kliese’s boast about ‘contracts signed today’ looks more troubling when placed beside Veterans First’s publicly available 2025 engagement terms.
The document, hosted on a legacy company website, says that a client who terminates in certain circumstances after medical reports are on file and a permanent impairment claim is ready can be charged $21,000 plus GST.
The actual bill would therefore be $23,100.
Overdue amounts can also attract compound interest, while another clause in the contract says clients remain bound if the business is acquired, merged or assigned.
That is an extraordinary detail given the conference discussion about buying competitors.
The current Veterans First website does not publicly spell out a dollar fee in its frequently asked questions, saying costs are discussed before a veteran proceeds.
It does, however, advertise a ‘single lifetime fee’ covering successful claims.
The spruiking includes repeated ‘Start Your Claim’ prompts, a ‘DVA Payout Calculator’ and no-win-no-fee advertising encouraging veterans to investigate their possible entitlements.
That money comes from taxpayer funded compensation intended to help a veteran live with the consequences of serving their country
Its comparison page doesn’t highlight the most obvious alternative: trained RSL advocates who provide their services without taking a slice of the compensation.
That kind of sales machine might be unremarkable when selling insurance or home loans. It’s much uglier when the potential customers are people suffering from PTSD, cancer, hearing loss and bodies damaged through military service.
The RSL wants them banned
RSL advocacy is free and available to every veteran, whether they are an RSL member or not.
RSL Victoria has urged the government to drive private fee-for-service operators out of the industry.
It warned that operators had taken as much as one fifth of veterans’ lump-sum compensation and imposed additional charges when clients attempted to leave.
RSL Australia has called for fee caps, cooling off periods, restrictions on targeted marketing, compulsory disclosure of free advocacy and a ban on termination charges beyond the reasonable value of work already performed.
The damage is not limited to veterans losing part of their payouts.
Veterans Affairs Minister Matt Keogh faced an uncomfortable protest in Canberra from veterans concerned about proposed changes to allied health funding
Commercial operators make more money when compensation rises, creating an obvious incentive to submit as many conditions and claims as possible, clogging up an already overloaded system.
The Department of Veteran’s Affairs own consultation paper warns that commission based businesses can exploit the system to maximise corporate returns, encourage inflated claims and cause delays for veterans with legitimate cases.
Mr Kliese has since publicly apologised for his conference remarks, saying the business language he used had ‘stripped out the human reality’ of the work.
He said his ambition was about helping as many veterans as possible, not simply generating revenue.
Veterans’ First says it has assisted more than 10,000 clients and points to hundreds of positive reviews from veterans who found the claims system difficult to navigate alone.
With regard to the RSL’s proposed safeguards, Veteran’s First said: ‘We fully support those proposed safeguards and we already have them in place to ensure every veteran client is treated fairly.
‘Our current cost agreement includes a fee cap, a 30-day cooling off period, and no termination fees.’
They said that every condition included in a veteran’s claim is ‘always backed by the appropriate medical evidence, not determined by any potential commercial return.
‘We have never and will never submit an unsubstantiated or excessive claim on behalf of a client.’
But the video exposed the fundamental danger of allowing veterans’ compensation to become a commercial gold rush.
A chance for the government to act
Veterans Affairs Minister Matt Keogh faced an uncomfortable protest in Canberra this week from veterans concerned about proposed changes to allied health funding.
Some turned their backs during Question Time after the minister initially declined to meet them. He later changed course and sat down with the group.
The initial decision created poor optics, but the minister deserves credit for correcting it and hearing their concerns that same day. The government also says additional treatment will remain available where there is a demonstrated clinical need.
Daily Mail has been told some of the veterans may have been unwittingly caught up in wider campaigning amplified by commercial advocacy interests with a financial stake in the system.
But the veterans’ concerns were genuine and deserved to be heard.
Keogh has also previously condemned excessive commissions and five figure break fees in unusually blunt terms. His department’s consultation on regulating the industry shows that he recognises there is a problem in need of fixing.
He now has an opportunity to become the minister who finally cleans it up.
Fee caps, cooling off rights, strict advertising rules, a ban on punitive exit clauses and mandatory disclosure of free RSL assistance would prevent vulnerable veterans from being treated as contracts in somebody else’s revenue pipeline.
And there is an even simpler principle at stake: Veterans advocacy should be a service, not a for-profit centre. Compensation for injury and sacrifice should never become seed capital for somebody else’s billion dollar empire.
