Kidner and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the application of Mr Slade Kidner for a pension at the special rate under the *Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986* (Cth). Mr Kidner, a veteran of the Royal Australian Air Force, sought a higher rate of pension due to accepted war-caused conditions including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and orthopaedic issues. The Repatriation Commission had previously decided to continue his disability pension at 100% of the general rate, a decision affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board. Mr Kidner sought a review of this decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Kidner met the criteria for a special rate pension under section 24 of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if his incapacity from war-caused injury or disease alone rendered him incapable of undertaking remunerative work for more than eight hours per week, and if he was prevented from continuing remunerative work solely by reason of such incapacity. The Tribunal also considered the eligibility for an intermediate rate pension under section 23 of the Act, which requires incapacity to undertake remunerative work other than on a part-time or intermittent basis due to war-caused conditions alone.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the strict interpretation of the "alone" requirement in sections 24(1)(b) and 24(1)(c) of the Act. Medical evidence indicated that Mr Kidner could work up to 20 hours per week, and that his accepted war-caused conditions did not solely prevent him from undertaking employment. Crucially, the Tribunal found that a non-war-caused condition, Late Onset Friedreich’s Ataxia (LOFA), played a part in preventing Mr Kidner from engaging in remunerative work. Applying the principle established in *Repatriation Commission v Watkins*, where non-war-caused factors contributing to incapacity, even if secondary, preclude satisfaction of the "alone" requirement, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Kidner did not meet the criteria for the special rate pension. Similarly, the Tribunal found he did not satisfy the conditions for the intermediate rate pension.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding Mr Kidner ineligible for the special or intermediate rate pension. However, acknowledging Mr Kidner's distinguished service and his recent purchase of a superior walking aid, the Tribunal recommended that he be reimbursed for this cost.