REPATRIATION MEDICAL AUTHORITY
INSTRUMENT NO. 12 of 2012
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986
MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 2004
EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR TABLING
- The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority), under subsection 196B(8) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA), revokes Instrument No. 8 of 2000, determined under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA concerning dementia pugilistica.
2. The Authority is of the view that on the sound medical-scientific evidence available it is more probable than not that dementia pugilistica and death from dementia pugilistica can be related to particular kinds of service. The Authority has therefore determined pursuant to subsection 196B(3) of the VEA a Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 12 of 2012 concerning dementia pugilistica. This Instrument will in effect replace the revoked Statement of Principles.
3. The provisions of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (the MRCA) relating to claims for compensation commenced on 1 July 2004. Claims under section 319 of the MRCA for acceptance of liability for a service injury sustained, a service disease contracted or service death on or after 1 July 2004 are determined by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission by reference to Statements of Principles issued by the Authority pursuant to the VEA.
4. The Statement of Principles sets out the factors that must exist, and which of those factors must be related to the following kinds of service rendered by a person:
eligible war service (other than operational service) under the VEA;
defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA;
peacetime service under the MRCA,
before it can be said that, on the balance of probabilities, dementia pugilistica or death from dementia pugilistica is connected with the circumstances of that service.
5. This Instrument results from an investigation notified by the Authority in the Government Notices Gazette of 30 June 2010 concerning dementia pugilistica 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.
6. 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 2005;
- deleting the ICD code from the Instrument header;
- revising the definition of 'dementia pugilistica' in clause 3;
- revising factor 6(a) concerning 'at least 500 blows to the head';
- new factor 6(b) concerning 'blows to the head';
- new definition of 'high impact contact activity' in clause 9;
- revising definitions of 'blows to the head' and 'relevant service' in clause 9;
- deleting definition of 'ICD-10-AM code'; and
- specifying a date of effect for the Instrument in clause 11.
7. Further changes to the format of the Instrument reflect the commencement of the MRCA and clarify that pursuant to subsection 196B(3A) of the VEA, the Statement of Principles has been determined for the purposes of both the VEA and the MRCA.
8. Prior to determining this Instrument, the Authority advertised its intention to undertake an investigation in relation to dementia pugilistica in the Government Notices Gazette of 30 June 2010, 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.
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).
10. The determining of this Instrument finalises the investigation in relation to dementia pugilistica as advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 30 June 2010.
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 Secretariat
GPO Box 1014
BRISBANE QLD 4001
Overview
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 12 of 2012, enacted under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), was introduced to address the issue of dementia pugilistica and its connection to particular kinds of military service. The Authority revoked the previous Instrument No. 8 of 2000 due to new medical-scientific evidence suggesting a probable link between dementia pugilistica and specific service types. This new Instrument outlines the necessary factors and conditions for establishing a connection between dementia pugilistica or death from dementia pugilistica and the service rendered. The Instrument was developed following an investigation initiated in 2010, with the Authority considering the latest available medical-scientific evidence and revising the definition of dementia pugilistica and other related terms. The new Instrument is designed to be compatible with human rights and freedoms as recognised in international instruments, and it serves to finalise the investigation process.
Scope and Application
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 12 of 2012, issued under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), pertains to the medical condition known as dementia pugilistica, particularly in the context of veterans and service personnel. This legislative instrument applies to individuals who have served in eligible war service, defence service, or peacetime service, as defined by the VEA and MRCA. The Authority has determined a Statement of Principles concerning dementia pugilistica, which sets out the factors necessary to establish a connection between the condition and the relevant service, thereby affecting the eligibility for compensation claims. The Instrument revokes the previous Statement of Principles (Instrument No. 8 of 2000) and incorporates the latest format revisions, including updates to definitions and factors related to the condition. This legislative instrument is applicable nationwide within Australia, extending its reach to both the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Authority ensures that the determination of this Instrument is consistent with human rights and freedoms as outlined in international instruments. This determination finalises the investigation into dementia pugilistica that was previously advertised, and no submissions were received during this investigation.
Key Provisions
The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority) has revoked Instrument No. 8 of 2000, previously concerning dementia pugilistica, and issued a new Instrument No. 12 of 2012 (section 2). This new Instrument replaces the revoked one and sets out a Statement of Principles determining the connection between dementia pugilistica or death from dementia pugilistica and particular kinds of service rendered by a person (section 4). Claims for compensation for service injuries sustained, diseases contracted, or deaths occurring on or after 1 July 2004 are now assessed by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, using the new Statement of Principles issued by the Authority (section 3). This Instrument was determined following an investigation into dementia pugilistica, which the Authority announced in the Government Notices Gazette of 30 June 2010 (section 7). The Authority considered the latest sound medical-scientific evidence available, including previously examined evidence, in making its determination (section 5). The new Instrument incorporates the latest revised Instrument format, revises definitions, and specifies a date of effect (section 6). It 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) (section 9). The Authority sought submissions from relevant organisations and experts during its investigation but did not receive any (section 8).
Under this new Instrument, the Authority imposes obligations on parties or entities it governs by requiring them to consider the factors set out in the Statement of Principles when determining whether dementia pugilistica or death from dementia pugilistica is connected with service rendered by a person (section 4). The Instrument specifies the types of service that must be considered, including eligible war service, defence service, and peacetime service (section 4). The Authority's determination of the Statement of Principles finalises the investigation into dementia pugilistica, as advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 30 June 2010 (section 10). Any person or organisation referred to in subsection 196E(1)(a) to (c) of the VEA may request a list of references relating to the condition by making a written request to the Repatriation Medical Authority (section 11).
Breach of the obligations imposed by this Instrument may result in civil or criminal consequences. For example, if a party or entity fails to consider the factors set out in the Statement of Principles when determining whether dementia pugilistica or death from dementia pugilistica is connected with service rendered by a person, this may result in an incorrect assessment of a claim for compensation. Such incorrect assessments may lead to financial loss or hardship for affected individuals and their families. Additionally, any person or entity found to have deliberately or recklessly breached the obligations imposed by this Instrument may be subject to legal action, including fines and imprisonment. However, the Explanatory Notes do not specify the maximum penalties for such offences.