Amendment Statement of Principles concerning osteoarthritis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 73 of 2019)

Administered by Department of Veterans' Affairs

Legislation au F2019L00958 Not in force Legislative Instrument

Legislation content

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

 

AMENDMENT Statement of Principles concerning

OSTEOARTHRITIS

(REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS) (NO. 73 OF 2019)

 

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986

MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 2004

 

  1. This is the Explanatory Statement to the Amendment Statement of Principles concerning osteoarthritis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 73 of 2019).

Background

2.             The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority) has determined, under subsections 196B(2) and (8) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA) Amendment Statement of Principles concerning osteoarthritis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 73 of 2019).

3.             This Instrument amends Statement of Principles concerning osteoarthritis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 61 of 2017) (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2017L01443) by:

  • replacing the definition of 'osteoarthritis' in subsection 7(2).

Day of Commencement

4.             This Instrument also specifies a day of commencement for the amendment in accordance with subsection 12(3) of the Legislation Act 2003.

Consultation

5.             Prior to determining this Instrument, the Authority advertised its intention to undertake an investigation in relation to osteoarthritis in the Government Notices Gazette of 7 May 2019, and circulated a copy of the notice 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, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation 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.

Human Rights

6.             This instrument is compatible with the Human Rights and Freedoms recognised or declared in the International Instruments listed in Section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights follows.

Finalisation of Investigation

7.             The determining of this Instrument finalises the investigation in relation to osteoarthritis as advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 7 May 2019.

References

8.             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

GPO Box 1014

BRISBANE    QLD    4001

 


Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

(Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011)

 

Instrument No.:   Amendment Statement of Principles No. 73 of 2019

Kind of Injury, Disease or Death: Osteoarthritis

 

This Legislative Instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Overview of the Legislative Instrument

1. This Legislative Instrument is determined pursuant to subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA) for the purposes of the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (the MRCA).  Part XIA of the VEA requires the determination of these instruments outlining the factors connecting particular kinds of injury, disease or death with service such being determined solely on the available sound medical-scientific evidence.

2. This Legislative Instrument:-

  • amends Instrument No. 61 of 2017;
  • facilitates claimants in making, and the Repatriation Commission in assessing, claims under the VEA and the MRCA respectively, by revising the definition of osteoarthritis to remove a requirement for compulsory radiological, other imaging or arthroscopic evidence before acceptance of the disease; and
  • facilitates the review of such decisions by the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

3. The Instrument is assessed as being a technical instrument which improves the medico-scientific quality of outcomes under the VEA and the MRCA. 

Human Rights Implications

4. This Legislative Instrument does not derogate from any human rights. It promotes the human rights of veterans, current and former Defence Force members as well as other persons such as their dependents, including:

  • the right to social security (Art 9, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Art 26, Convention on the Rights of the Child and Art 28, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) by helping to ensure that the qualifying conditions for the benefit are 'reasonable, proportionate and transparent'[1];
  • the right to an adequate standard of living (Art 11, ICSECR; Art 27, CRC and Art 28, CRPD) by facilitating the assessment and determination of social security benefits;
  • the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Art 12, ICSECR and Art 25, CRPD), by facilitating the assessment and determination of compensation and benefits in relation to the treatment and rehabilitation of veterans and Defence Force members;
  • the rights of persons with disabilities by facilitating the determination of claims relating to treatment and rehabilitation (Art 26, CRPD); and
  • ensuring that those rights "will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status" (Art 2, ICESCR).

Conclusion

This Legislative Instrument is compatible with human rights as it does not derogate from and promotes a number of human rights.

 

Repatriation Medical Authority

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] In General Comment No. 19 (The right to social security), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said (at paragraph 24) this to be one of the elements of ensuring accessibility to social security.

Overview

The Amendment Statement of Principles concerning Osteoarthritis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 73 of 2019) was enacted to address the need for a more flexible approach to the diagnosis and assessment of osteoarthritis in claims made under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This legislative amendment, introduced by the Repatriation Medical Authority, aims to improve the medico-scientific quality of outcomes by revising the definition of osteoarthritis, thus removing the requirement for compulsory radiological, other imaging, or arthroscopic evidence. This change is intended to facilitate the process for both claimants and the Repatriation Commission, and to streamline the review process conducted by the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The policy objective is to ensure that the qualifying conditions for benefits are reasonable, proportionate, and transparent, thereby promoting the human rights of veterans and their dependents, including the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living.

Scope and Application

The Amendment Statement of Principles concerning Osteoarthritis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 73 of 2019) applies to veterans and current or former Defence Force members who have been diagnosed with osteoarthritis and are seeking benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This amendment specifically addresses the definition of osteoarthritis to facilitate easier access to benefits by removing the requirement for compulsory radiological, imaging, or arthroscopic evidence. The Act applies across the Commonwealth of Australia, and its amendments are effective from a specified commencement date as outlined in the Legislation Act 2003. There are no stated exclusions or exemptions in this amendment, but it extends the scope of the legislation by refining the criteria for claiming benefits related to osteoarthritis. The Repatriation Medical Authority determined this instrument to finalise the investigation into osteoarthritis, ensuring that the amendments are in line with sound medical-scientific evidence and are compatible with human rights as recognised in various international instruments.

Key Provisions

The main sections of this legislation pertain to the amendment of the Statement of Principles concerning osteoarthritis (Reasonable Hypothesis). Section 7(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) is amended to revise the definition of 'osteoarthritis', removing the necessity for compulsory radiological, imaging or arthroscopic evidence before acceptance of the disease. This change aims to facilitate the process for claimants making claims under the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), as well as the review of such decisions by the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendment also seeks to improve the medico-scientific quality of outcomes under the VEA and the MRCA. The legislation specifies a day of commencement for the amendment in accordance with subsection 12(3) of the Legislation Act 2003. The Act imposes certain obligations on the Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority) and other relevant parties. The Authority must determine the amendment to the Statement of Principles concerning osteoarthritis, in accordance with subsections 196B(2) and (8) of the VEA. The Authority must also ensure that the determination is compatible with human rights as outlined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2004. Other relevant parties, such as the Repatriation Commission and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, must work with the Authority to facilitate the implementation of the amendment. Claimants, in turn, must ensure that they provide sufficient evidence to support their claims under the VEA and the MRCA. There are no explicit offences or penalties mentioned in the text for breach of the Act. However, the Authority's determination and the amendment to the Statement of Principles are subject to judicial review. In the event that a decision is found to be unlawful, the court may set it aside or order a new determination. Additionally, the Act's compatibility with human rights is assessed, and any potential breaches of human rights may result in the determination being challenged in court. The consequences of non-compliance with the Act could include the invalidity of claims under the VEA and the MRCA if they are based on the previous definition of osteoarthritis, which required compulsory radiological, imaging, or arthroscopic evidence. This could lead to delays in the assessment and determination of claims, potentially causing financial hardship to veterans and their dependents. Furthermore, the failure to comply with human rights obligations may result in legal challenges to the determination, potentially leading to the setting aside of the decision and the ordering of a new determination.

Legal classification tags

Area of Law
Veterans' Law
Instrument
Regulation
Concepts
Definitions & Interpretation
Human Rights Law
Enforcement Powers
Consultation Requirements

Interactions

Authorises

All Versions

Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation at 26 August 2026. For the latest information on Australian Government law please go to https://www.legislation.gov.au.