Statement of Principles concerning antiphospholipid syndrome (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 69 of 2016)

Administered by Department of Veterans' Affairs

Legislation au F2016L01348 Not in force Legislative Instrument

Legislation content

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

 

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES CONCERNING

ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID SYNDROME

(REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS) (NO. 69 OF 2016)

 

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986

MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 2004

 

  1. This is the Explanatory Statement to the Statement of Principles concerning antiphospholipid syndrome (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 69 of 2016).

Background

2.             The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority) has determined, under subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA), Statement of Principles concerning antiphospholipid syndrome (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 69 of 2016).

3.             The Authority is of the view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence that indicates that antiphospholipid syndrome and death from antiphospholipid syndrome can be related to particular kinds of service.  The Authority has therefore determined this Statement of Principles concerning antiphospholipid syndrome pursuant to subsection 196B(2) of the VEA.

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 antiphospholipid syndrome or death from antiphospholipid syndrome, with the circumstances of that service.  The Statement of Principles has been determined for the purposes of both the VEA and the MRCA.

6.             The Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, Veterans’ Review Board or Administrative Appeals Tribunal cannot accept any claim for pension; or a claim for liability or compensation relating to antiphospholipid syndrome or death from antiphospholipid syndrome that was lodged on or after 1 June 1994 in the case of the VEA, or 1 July 2004 in the case of the MRCA respectively, unless this Statement of Principles upholds that claim (subsection 120A(3) of the VEA or subsection 338(3) of the MRCA).

7.             This new Instrument results from an investigation notified by the Authority in the Government Notices Gazette of 1 September 2015 concerning antiphospholipid syndrome in accordance with section 196G of the VEA.  The investigation involved an examination of the sound medical-scientific evidence available to the Authority.

Consultation

8.             Prior to determining this Instrument, the Authority advertised its intention to undertake an investigation in relation to antiphospholipid syndrome in the Government Notices Gazette of 1 September 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.  One submission was 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 new Instrument finalises the investigation in relation to antiphospholipid syndrome as advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 1 September 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. 69 of 2016

Kind of Injury, Disease or Death: Antiphospholipid syndrome

 

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 antiphospholipid syndrome;
  • facilitates the review of such decisions by the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and
  • 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 antiphospholipid syndrome with the circumstances of eligible service rendered by a person, as set out in clause 5 of the Explanatory Statement.

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 antiphospholipid syndrome (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 69 of 2016) was enacted under the authority of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This legislation was introduced to address the need for clear guidelines and criteria to establish a link between antiphospholipid syndrome and certain types of military service, thereby facilitating the assessment of claims by veterans and members of the Defence Force for medical treatment and compensation. The Repatriation Medical Authority, acting under the VEA, determined this Statement of Principles following a review of the available medical-scientific evidence. The primary objective is to ensure that claims for benefits related to antiphospholipid syndrome are assessed based on sound scientific evidence, thus providing a reasonable hypothesis connecting the condition with specific service circumstances. This approach aims to improve the quality of outcomes for claimants and aligns with the human rights obligations concerning social security and health rights. This legislation formalises the minimum factors required to establish a connection between antiphospholipid syndrome or death from this condition and particular kinds of service, including operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, and British nuclear test defence service, as well as warlike and non-warlike service. The determination of this Statement of Principles ensures that any claim lodged after the specified dates under the VEA or MRCA must be upheld by these criteria. This legislative action not only clarifies the eligibility criteria for veterans and Defence Force members but also ensures that the process respects and promotes their human rights, including the right to social security and the highest attainable standard of health.

Scope and Application

The Statement of Principles concerning antiphospholipid syndrome (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 69 of 2016), determined under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, applies to eligible claimants seeking benefits related to antiphospholipid syndrome as a result of specific military service. This includes operational service, peacekeeping service, hazardous service, British nuclear test defence service, warlike service, and non-warlike service. The legislation aims to ensure that claims for pension or compensation relating to antiphospholipid syndrome or death from it, lodged on or after 1 June 1994 under the VEA, or 1 July 2004 under the MRCA, must be supported by the factors outlined in this Statement of Principles. The Authority's determination finalises an investigation into the medical-scientific evidence concerning the syndrome, ensuring that the claims process is based on sound evidence and is transparent, proportionate, and reasonable, thereby promoting the human rights of veterans and their dependents by facilitating the assessment and determination of their entitlements.

Key Provisions

The Statement of Principles concerning antiphospholipid syndrome (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 69 of 2016) (the Statement of Principles) outlines the minimum circumstances under which antiphospholipid syndrome, or death from antiphospholipid syndrome, can be reasonably hypothesised to be related to particular kinds of service rendered by a person. This applies to operational service, peacekeeping service, hazardous service, British nuclear test defence service, warlike service, and non-warlike service under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) respectively. It is important to note that any claim for pension or compensation related to antiphospholipid syndrome or death from antiphospholipid syndrome must be supported by this Statement of Principles if it was lodged on or after 1 June 1994 under the VEA, or 1 July 2004 under the MRCA. The Statement of Principles sets forth the factors that must be considered in determining claims under the VEA and MRCA. These factors must be related to the specific types of service mentioned above. The Statement of Principles facilitates the assessment of claims by the Repatriation Commission and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, and also aids the review processes of the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This ensures that claims are assessed based on sound medical-scientific evidence. The Statement of Principles does not impose new obligations on parties or entities beyond what is already required under the VEA and MRCA. However, it does clarify the circumstances under which claims can be supported, thereby guiding the assessment and review processes. Breaching the requirements of the Statement of Principles by submitting unsupported claims can result in those claims being rejected. Under subsection 120A(3) of the VEA and subsection 338(3) of the MRCA, the Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, Veterans’ Review Board, or Administrative Appeals Tribunal cannot accept claims that do not meet the criteria outlined in the Statement of Principles. There are no specific criminal or civil penalties mentioned for breaching the Statement of Principles itself; however, the consequences primarily involve the non-acceptance of claims that do not comply with its requirements.

Legal classification tags

Area of Law
Veterans' Law
Instrument
Explanatory Statement
Concepts
Definitions & Interpretation
Reporting & Disclosure Obligations
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.