Cameron and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Cameron to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) against a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board. The Veterans’ Review Board had affirmed a prior determination that Mr Cameron's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not defence-caused, although it had recognised his alcohol use disorder as defence-caused. Mr Cameron sought a review of the PTSD determination, as success would lead to an assessment for an increased pension.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonably satisfied, pursuant to section 120(4) of the *Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth), that Mr Cameron's PTSD was due to his defence service. This required the Tribunal to consider whether specific incidents during his service, namely a fall down a mine shaft (the Falling Incident) or the discovery of a red texta mark on his neck (the Red Texta Incident), constituted a "category 1A stressor" as defined by the applicable Statement of Principles. The Respondent accepted that Mr Cameron suffered from PTSD and that the Falling Incident occurred, but contended that neither incident was sufficient to be considered a defence-caused stressor, suggesting instead that his PTSD arose from post-service stressors.

The Tribunal found Mr Cameron to be an honest and credible witness, accepting his evidence regarding the Falling Incident, the Red Texta Incident, and the subsequent ostracisation he experienced. The Tribunal also noted the general consensus in the medical evidence that Mr Cameron suffers from PTSD. Ultimately, the Tribunal was reasonably satisfied that Mr Cameron's PTSD was defence-caused. The Tribunal set aside the Veterans’ Review Board's decision and remitted the matter to the Respondent with a direction that Mr Cameron's PTSD be accepted as defence-caused. The Tribunal also commented on the power imbalance between veterans and the Repatriation Commission, suggesting reforms to address this.