REPATRIATION MEDICAL AUTHORITY
INSTRUMENT NO. 75 OF 2011
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986
MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 2004
EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR TABLING
- The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority) has determined, under subsection 196B(2) & (8) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA) Statement of Principles Instrument No. 75 of 2011.
2. This Instrument amends Statement of Principles Instrument No. 33 of 2008 concerning benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa by:
- Replacing existing factor 6(c)(i) with a factor concerning 'ionising radiation';
- Deleting existing factor 6(c)(ii) as it is now subsumed by new factor 6(c)(i);
- Replacing the existing definition of "cumulative equivalent dose" in clause 9; and
- Deleting the definitions of "a course of therapeutic radiation" and "atomic radiation" from clause 9.
3. This Instrument also specifies a date of effect for the amendment in accordance with subsection 12(1)(a) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
4. Prior to determining this Instrument, the Authority advertised its intention to undertake an investigation in relation to benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa in the Government Notices Gazettes of 1 September 2010 and 3 November 2010, and circulated a copy of the notices of intention to investigate to a wide range of organisations representing veterans, service personnel and their dependants. The Authority invited submissions from the Repatriation Commission, organisations and persons referred to in section 196E of the VEA, and any person having expertise in the field. No submissions were received for consideration by the Authority during the investigation.
5. The determining of this Instrument finalises the investigation in relation to benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa as advertised in the Government Notices Gazettes of 1 September 2010 and 3 November 2010.
6. A list of references relating to the above condition is available to any person or organisation referred to in subsection 196E(1)(a) to (c) of the VEA. Any such request must be made in writing to the Repatriation Medical Authority at the following address:
The Registrar
Repatriation Medical Authority Secretariat
GPO Box 1014
BRISBANE QLD 4001
Overview
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 75 of 2011 amends the Statement of Principles concerning benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This amendment was enacted to address specific factors related to ionising radiation, replacing and refining the criteria previously set out in Statement of Principles Instrument No. 33 of 2008. The Authority's investigation into this matter was publicised in the Government Notices Gazettes in September and November 2010, inviting submissions from relevant parties; however, no submissions were received. This Instrument, finalising the investigation, is designed to provide clarity and precision in the assessment of claims related to benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa, ensuring that the policy objective of fair and accurate compensation for affected veterans is met. The amendments are effective from the date specified in accordance with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
Scope and Application
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 75 of 2011 amends Statement of Principles Instrument No. 33 of 2008 concerning benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This legislation applies to veterans and service personnel, as well as their dependents, who may be affected by benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa, with specific amendments relating to the consideration of ionising radiation and adjustments in the definition of "cumulative equivalent dose." The amendments are designed to better address conditions related to service-related disabilities and ensure fair assessment and compensation. The Instrument’s amendments are effective as per the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and aim to finalise the investigation process that was previously advertised in the Government Notices Gazettes. No submissions were received during the investigation, but the Authority made efforts to involve relevant organisations and experts. The Instrument does not explicitly mention any exclusions or exemptions, and its jurisdictional reach is within the Commonwealth of Australia, overseen by the Repatriation Medical Authority.
Key Provisions
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 75 of 2011 amends Statement of Principles Instrument No. 33 of 2008 concerning benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA). The main changes include replacing factor 6(c)(i) with a new factor concerning 'ionising radiation', deleting factor 6(c)(ii) as it is now subsumed by the new factor, revising the definition of "cumulative equivalent dose" in clause 9, and removing the definitions of "a course of therapeutic radiation" and "atomic radiation" from clause 9. These amendments are designed to refine the criteria for assessing claims related to benign neoplasm of the eye and adnexa.
The obligations imposed by this Act primarily concern the Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority), which is tasked with determining and implementing the amendments as specified. The Authority is required to ensure that the new factors and definitions are accurately applied in the assessment of claims. Furthermore, the Authority must publicise its intention to investigate and amend the Statement of Principles through the Government Notices Gazettes, as mandated by the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. Although the Authority invited submissions from relevant stakeholders, the absence of submissions does not preclude the final determination of the Instrument.
There are no specific offences, penalties, or consequences outlined for breach of the provisions within this Instrument. However, the Repatriation Medical Authority operates within the broader legal framework of the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Any failure to comply with these legislative requirements could potentially lead to administrative or judicial consequences. The precise nature of these consequences would depend on the context and severity of the non-compliance, but they could include corrective actions, compensation claims, or legal challenges by affected parties.