Statement of Principles concerning animal envenomation (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 81 of 2016)

Administered by Department of Veterans' Affairs

Legislation au F2016L01663 Not in force Legislative Instrument

Legislation content

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

 

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES CONCERNING

ANIMAL ENVENOMATION

(REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS) (NO. 81 OF 2016)

 

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986

MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 2004

 

  1. This is the Explanatory Statement to the Statement of Principles concerning animal envenomation (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 81 of 2016).

Background

2.             The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority), under subsection 196B(8) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA), revokes Instrument No. 66 of 2008 determined under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA concerning animal envenomation.

3.             The Authority is of the view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence that indicates that animal envenomation and death from animal envenomation can be related to particular kinds of service.  The Authority has therefore determined pursuant to subsection 196B(2) of the VEA a Statement of Principles concerning animal envenomation (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 81 of 2016).  This Instrument will in effect replace the revoked Statement of Principles.

Purpose and Operation

4.             The Statement of Principles will be applied in determining claims under the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (the MRCA).

5.             The Statement of Principles sets out the factors that must as a minimum exist, and which of those factors must be related to the following kinds of service rendered by a person:

 operational service under the VEA;

 peacekeeping service under the VEA;

 hazardous service under the VEA;

 British nuclear test defence service under the VEA;

 warlike service under the MRCA;

 non-warlike service under the MRCA,

before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting animal envenomation or death from animal envenomation, with the circumstances of that service.  The Statement of Principles has been determined for the purposes of both the VEA and the MRCA.

6.             This Instrument results from an investigation notified by the Authority in the Government Notices Gazette of 2 October 2015 concerning animal envenomation in accordance with section 196G of the VEA.  The investigation involved an examination of the sound medical-scientific evidence now available to the Authority, including the sound medical-scientific evidence it has previously considered.

7.             The contents of this Instrument are in similar terms as the revoked Instrument.  Comparing this Instrument and the revoked Instrument, the differences include:

  • adopting the latest revised Instrument format, which commenced in 2015;
  • specifying a day of commencement for the Instrument in section 2;
  • revising the ICD-10-AM codes for 'animal envenomation' in subsection 7(3);
  • revising the reference to 'ICD-10-AM code' in subsection 7(4);
  • revising the factor in subsection 9(2) concerning 'internal absorption of venom from a venomous animal';
  • new factor in subsection 9(3) concerning 'internal absorption of venom from a tick of the family Ixodidae';
  • new definitions of 'MRCA' and 'VEA' in Schedule 1 - Dictionary; and
  • revising the definitions of 'venomous animal' and 'relevant service' in Schedule 1 - Dictionary.

Consultation

8.             Prior to determining this Instrument, the Authority advertised its intention to undertake an investigation in relation to animal envenomation in the Government Notices Gazette of 2 October 2015, 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, 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

9.             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

10.         The determining of this Instrument finalises the investigation in relation to animal envenomation as advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 2 October 2015.

References

11.         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.:   Statement of Principles No. 81 of 2016

Kind of Injury, Disease or Death: Animal envenomation

 

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(8) 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 linking particular kinds of injury, disease or death with service such being determined solely on the available sound medical-scientific evidence.

2. This Legislative Instrument:-

  • facilitates claimants in making, and the Repatriation Commission in assessing, claims under the VEA and the MRCA respectively, by specifying the circumstances in which medical treatment and compensation can be extended to eligible persons who have animal envenomation;
  • facilitates the review of such decisions by the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal;
  • outlines the factors which the current sound medical-scientific evidence indicates must as a minimum exist, before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised, connecting animal envenomation with the circumstances of eligible service rendered by a person, as set out in clause 5 of the Explanatory Statement;
  • replaces Instrument No. 66 of 2008; and
  • reflects developments in the available sound medical-scientific evidence concerning animal envenomation which have occurred since that earlier instrument was determined. 

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 Statement of Principles concerning animal envenomation (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 81 of 2016), enacted in 2016, was introduced to address the need for updated guidelines regarding claims related to animal envenomation for veterans and service personnel under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This legislative instrument was determined by the Repatriation Medical Authority, pursuant to subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, following an investigation into the sound medical-scientific evidence available. The policy objective is to facilitate the assessment and determination of claims for medical treatment and compensation, ensuring that the qualifying conditions for benefits are reasonable, proportionate, and transparent. This Statement of Principles replaces the previously revoked Instrument No. 66 of 2008, reflecting developments in medical-scientific evidence concerning animal envenomation since its determination. It outlines the factors that must exist to establish a reasonable hypothesis connecting animal envenomation with the service rendered by a person, thereby improving the medico-scientific quality of outcomes under the relevant Acts.

Scope and Application

The Statement of Principles concerning Animal Envenomation (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 81 of 2016) applies to veterans, current and former Defence Force members, and their dependents, in relation to claims under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. It establishes the minimum factors that must exist for a reasonable hypothesis to be raised connecting animal envenomation or death from animal envenomation with specific types of service rendered by a person. This legislation is determined by the Repatriation Medical Authority under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and serves to facilitate the assessment and determination of claims for medical treatment and compensation related to animal envenomation, ensuring these are based on sound medical-scientific evidence. The Instrument has a national reach, as it pertains to the Acts mentioned which apply across Australia. There are no stated exclusions, exemptions, or thresholds within the text, and it does not appear to extend or restrict its application through subordinate instruments. This legislative instrument promotes various human rights, including the right to social security, an adequate standard of living, and the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, without derogating from any human rights.

Key Provisions

The Statement of Principles concerning animal envenomation (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 81 of 2016) under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) aims to replace the previously revoked Instrument No. 66 of 2008. This Statement of Principles outlines the specific factors necessary to establish a reasonable hypothesis linking animal envenomation or death from such envenomation to certain types of service, including operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, British nuclear test defence, warlike, and non-warlike service (sections 5 and 6). It also sets forth the medical conditions and circumstances that must be present to qualify for benefits under the VEA and MRCA (sections 4 and 5). The Act imposes obligations on claimants to provide evidence of the factors outlined in the Statement of Principles to substantiate their claims for benefits related to animal envenomation. It requires the Repatriation Medical Authority to assess these claims based on the sound medical-scientific evidence presented and the criteria set out in the Statement of Principles (section 4). Additionally, the Act mandates that the Repatriation Commission and other relevant authorities follow the guidelines provided in this Statement when evaluating claims and making decisions about entitlements and compensation. Breaches of the provisions outlined in this Statement of Principles do not directly result in criminal offences or penalties. However, providing false or misleading information to obtain benefits can lead to civil or administrative penalties, including the recovery of any benefits improperly received and potential disqualification from future entitlements (section 196C of the VEA and section 168 of the MRCA). Furthermore, failure to comply with the requirements for submitting claims and evidence can result in the denial of benefits or claims being dismissed (section 196E of the VEA and section 169 of the MRCA). The penalties for providing false information are severe, reflecting the importance of the integrity of the claims process.

Legal classification tags

Area of Law
Veterans' Law
Instrument
Explanatory Statement
Concepts
Definitions & Interpretation
Regulatory Standards
Rights & Protections

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.