Overview

The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 60 of 2011 amends the Statement of Principles Instrument No. 20 of 2009 concerning cerebral meningioma under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This Instrument was determined under the authority granted by the VEA, specifically subsections 196B(3) and (8), and aligns with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. The amendments focus on replacing and re-numbering factors relating to ionising radiation, updating the definition of "cumulative equivalent dose", and removing certain outdated definitions. The Authority undertook an investigation into cerebral meningioma, advertising its intention in the Government Notices Gazettes and inviting submissions from relevant parties, although no submissions were received. This Instrument effectively concludes the investigation process and provides a date of effect for the amendments, facilitating a more precise and updated framework for assessing veterans' entitlements related to cerebral meningioma.

Scope and Application

The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 60 of 2011 amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, specifically the Statement of Principles concerning cerebral meningioma, to incorporate factors related to ionising radiation. This legislation applies to veterans and their dependants who have been diagnosed with cerebral meningioma, a condition linked to exposure during military service. The amendment affects the criteria for assessing the service-connected nature of the condition, by modifying the factors considered in determining eligibility for benefits under the Act. The changes also involve re-numbering and re-defining certain terms to streamline the assessment process. This Instrument has a Commonwealth jurisdictional reach, impacting veterans across Australia who may seek benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The Act does not specify exclusions or thresholds, but it extends its application through subordinate instruments to ensure comprehensive coverage of affected veterans. The Authority, in determining this Instrument, followed due process by advertising its intention to investigate and soliciting submissions, although none were received for consideration.

Key Provisions

The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 60 of 2011 amends Statement of Principles Instrument No. 20 of 2009 concerning cerebral meningioma, primarily through modifications to the factors and definitions that relate to the condition. Section 2 of the Instrument replaces existing factor 6(a) with a new factor concerning 'ionising radiation', deletes factor 6(b) as it is now subsumed by the new factor, and re-numbers factor 6(c) as 6(b). Additionally, it replaces clause 7 to reflect these changes and updates the definition of "cumulative equivalent dose" in clause 9. Furthermore, it removes the definitions of "a course of therapeutic radiation" and "atomic radiation" from clause 9. Under this Act, the Repatriation Medical Authority has the responsibility to investigate and determine amendments to the Statement of Principles concerning veterans' conditions, such as cerebral meningioma. This process involves advertising the intention to investigate in the Government Notices Gazettes, circulating notices to relevant organisations and persons, and inviting submissions from interested parties. Once the investigation is finalised, the Authority issues the amended Instrument, which in this case, pertains to the factors and definitions relevant to cerebral meningioma. The Authority must ensure that it follows the legislative requirements set out in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 when determining the Instrument. This includes providing an opportunity for relevant parties to submit their views on the proposed changes. In this particular case, no submissions were received during the investigation. In terms of penalties or consequences for non-compliance with the Act, the explanatory notes do not specify any civil or criminal penalties for breaches. However, the Authority's determination of the Instrument is subject to judicial review, where aggrieved parties can seek redress if they believe the determination is flawed or unjust. The maximum penalty for such breaches is not explicitly stated in the explanatory notes, but it would depend on the nature and severity of the breach, as well as any relevant jurisdictional laws.