DECLARATION UNDER SUBSECTION 196B(9)
OF THE VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986
The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority), under subsection 196B(9) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), makes the following declaration in respect of the review of the contents of the Statements of Principles in force under the Act concerning malignant melanoma of the skin, Instrument Nos. 102 and 103 of 2015.
The investigation related to "firefighting" as a factor in malignant melanoma of the skin. The Notice of Investigation was published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 8 January 2019.
The Authority declares that it does not propose to amend Statements of Principles, Instrument Nos. 102 and 103 of 2015, concerning malignant melanoma of the skin for the reason that the sound medical-scientific evidence available to it, including the new sound medical–scientific evidence, is not sufficient to justify an amendment to the Statements of Principles already determined in respect of malignant melanoma of the skin.
The Common Seal of the ) Repatriation Medical Authority ) was affixed at the direction of: ) | |
| PROFESSOR NICHOLAS SAUNDERS AO CHAIRPERSON 21 / 6 / 2019 |
Overview
The Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 was enacted to provide various benefits and services to Australian veterans, their partners, and children, addressing the needs arising from their service to the nation. One of the significant aspects of this legislation is the process for reviewing and amending Statements of Principles, which outline the conditions accepted as related to a veteran’s service. The Repatriation Medical Authority, as part of its functions under the Act, reviews these statements to ensure they accurately reflect the current medical-scientific understanding. In June 2019, the Authority declared that it would not amend the Statements of Principles concerning malignant melanoma of the skin, despite an investigation into the role of "firefighting" as a contributing factor. This decision was based on the conclusion that the available medical-scientific evidence was insufficient to warrant changes to the existing statements. The policy objective behind such reviews is to ensure that the entitlements provided to veterans are grounded in the best available scientific evidence, maintaining fairness and accuracy in the recognition of service-related conditions.
Scope and Application
The declaration under subsection 196B(9) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 pertains specifically to the review of the contents of the Statements of Principles concerning malignant melanoma of the skin, particularly in relation to firefighting as a contributing factor. This declaration is made by the Repatriation Medical Authority, which is tasked with assessing and determining the eligibility of veterans for various benefits and entitlements under the Act. The geographic reach of this declaration is limited to the Commonwealth of Australia, as it concerns the national veterans’ benefits scheme. This specific declaration does not propose to amend the existing Statements of Principles, Instrument Nos. 102 and 103 of 2015, following an investigation into whether new evidence justifies such changes. The Authority concluded that the available medical-scientific evidence, including any new evidence, is insufficient to warrant any amendments to the current Statements of Principles. This decision underscores the stringent criteria that must be met for any modification to the Statements of Principles, ensuring that any changes are well-founded and supported by robust scientific data.
Key Provisions
The primary operative sections of the declaration under subsection 196B(9) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 are sections 196B(9) and 196B(10). Section 196B(9) allows the Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority) to review the contents of Statements of Principles concerning specific medical conditions. In this instance, the Authority reviewed Statements of Principles Nos. 102 and 103 of 2015, which pertain to malignant melanoma of the skin. Section 196B(10) specifies that if the Authority decides not to amend the Statements of Principles, it must provide a declaration explaining its reasons.
The obligations imposed by the Act on the Authority, as evidenced in this declaration, include conducting a thorough review of the Statements of Principles based on the available sound medical-scientific evidence. This involves assessing new evidence to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to amend the existing Statements of Principles. In this case, the Authority found that the available evidence was not sufficient to justify an amendment, and thus, it issued a declaration explaining its decision. The Authority's role is to ensure that the Statements of Principles accurately reflect the current understanding of the medical condition in question.
The declaration also outlines the consequences for the Authority if it were to decide to amend the Statements of Principles. While this specific declaration does not propose an amendment, in general, if the Authority were to amend the Statements of Principles, it would need to follow the procedural requirements set out in the Act, including providing reasons for the amendment and allowing for potential objections or appeals. However, in this instance, as the Authority has decided not to amend the Statements of Principles, no further action is required.
There are no direct offences, penalties, or civil/criminal consequences outlined in this declaration for the Authority’s decision not to amend the Statements of Principles. The declaration primarily serves as a formal notification to the public and relevant parties about the Authority’s decision and the reasons behind it. The focus is on transparency and ensuring that the decision-making process is based on sound medical-scientific evidence. Any potential legal consequences would arise from subsequent actions, such as an appeal against the Authority’s decision, rather than from the declaration itself.