McAndrew and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, McAndrew, against a decision of the Repatriation Commission. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had rendered qualifying service for the purposes of the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth) in Cambodia. The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the applicant had served outside Australia in a specified operational area as a member of a unit allotted for duty, or as a person allotted for duty in that area; and second, whether the applicant's service constituted "warlike service."

The Tribunal considered the meaning of "allotted for duty" under section 7A(1)(a)(iii) of the Act. It noted that while Cambodia was an operational area and the applicant's service fell within the relevant period, the crucial element was whether the applicant had been "allotted for duty" in Cambodia. The Tribunal referred to earlier Federal Court decisions in *Repatriation Commission v Davis* and *Repatriation Commission v Doessel*, which had given an extended meaning to this phrase. However, these decisions were overturned by amendments to the Act in 1990. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the amending legislation clarified that "allotment for duty" was intended to be a distinct administrative arrangement, separate from the normal posting process, and specifically designed to identify service that was sufficiently hazardous to attract repatriation benefits, particularly in response to post-World War II war-like situations.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirement of being "allotted for duty" in Cambodia under the amended legislative framework. Regarding the question of warlike service, the Tribunal characterised this as a policy matter, suggesting the applicant was at liberty to present his case to the Executive Government. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.