REPATRIATION MEDICAL AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES NO. 51 of 2005
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. 15 of 2005 of 2 April 2005, determined under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA concerning dermatomyositis.
2. The Authority is of the view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence that indicates that dermatomyositis and death from dermatomyositis can be related to particular kinds of service. The Authority has therefore determined, pursuant to subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, Statement of Principles concerning dermatomyositis No. 51 of 2005. This Instrument will replace the revoked Statements of Principles.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (‘the MRCA’), claims for pension under the VEA or compensation under the MRCA are determined by the Repatriation Commission or 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 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;
warlike service under the MRCA;
non-warlike service under the MRCA,
before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting dermatomyositis or death from dermatomyositis, with the circumstances of that service.
5. This new instrument results from the investigation concerning dermatomyositis, notified in the Government Notices Gazette of 2 November 2005 by the Authority, in accordance with section 196G of the VEA. The investigation involved an examination of the sound medical-scientific evidence available to the Authority, including the sound medical-scientific evidence it has previously considered.
6. The title and format of this new Instrument have been varied, including a new titling clause 1, headnote to clause 2 and the renumbering of subsequent clauses. These changes have been introduced in order to assist users in locating the appropriate Instrument when searching the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.
7. The contents of the new Instrument are in similar terms as the revoked Instruments. Comparing the new and the revoked Instruments, the differences include:
- a new factor 6(d) relating to having a malignant neoplasm;
- a new factor 6(e) relating to becoming infected with a specified virus;
- including a new definition of ‘a specified virus’ in clause 9.
8. Prior to determining this instrument, the Authority advertised its intention to undertake an investigation in relation to dermatomyositis in the Government Notices Gazette of 2 November 2005, 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 (who include persons eligible to make a claim under the MRCA), and any person having expertise in the field.
9. No submissions were received for consideration by the Authority during the investigation.
10. The determining of this new instrument finalises the investigation in relation to dermatomyositis which was advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 2 November 2005.
11. A list of references relating to the above condition is available, on written request, from the Repatriation Medical Authority Secretariat.
Overview
The Repatriation Medical Authority Statement of Principles No. 51 of 2005, enacted under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, was introduced to address the gap in addressing claims related to dermatomyositis, a condition potentially linked to specific military service. The Repatriation Medical Authority, exercising its powers under the VEA, revoked Instrument No. 15 of 2005 to replace it with the new Statement of Principles. This new instrument was developed in response to a comprehensive review of medical-scientific evidence indicating a connection between dermatomyositis and certain types of military service. The policy objective is to provide clear criteria for determining the eligibility of veterans for pensions or compensation related to dermatomyositis, ensuring that claims are assessed based on robust scientific evidence.
Scope and Application
The Repatriation Medical Authority, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, has issued a new Statement of Principles No. 51 of 2005 concerning dermatomyositis, replacing the previous Instrument No. 15 of 2005. This new instrument outlines the factors that must exist to establish a reasonable hypothesis connecting dermatomyositis or death from dermatomyositis with certain types of military service, including operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, warlike, and non-warlike service. The Authority determined this instrument based on sound medical-scientific evidence and after conducting an investigation, which involved examining available evidence and inviting submissions from relevant parties. The new instrument includes a new factor relating to having a malignant neoplasm and a new factor concerning infection with a specified virus, along with a revised definition of a specified virus. Claims for pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or compensation under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are determined by the Repatriation Commission or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission by reference to these Statements of Principles.
Key Provisions
The main sections of the Repatriation Medical Authority Statement of Principles No. 51 of 2005, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), establish the criteria for determining claims related to dermatomyositis in veterans. These criteria are outlined in the Statement of Principles and specify the factors that must exist and be related to certain types of service, such as operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, warlike, and non-warlike service, before a reasonable hypothesis can be raised that dermatomyositis or death from dermatomyositis is connected to the service rendered (Sections 4 and 7). The Authority has revoked an earlier statement (Instrument No. 15 of 2005) and replaced it with this new Statement of Principles, which includes additional factors and definitions, such as a new factor relating to malignant neoplasms and a specified virus, and a new definition for ‘specified virus’ (Sections 5, 6, and 7).
The Act imposes obligations on the Repatriation Medical Authority to investigate and determine the medical-scientific evidence regarding dermatomyositis and its relation to service. The Authority must advertise its intention to investigate and invite submissions from relevant parties, including veterans, service personnel, and experts in the field (Sections 8 and 9). The Authority is also responsible for ensuring that claims for pension under the VEA or compensation under the MRCA are determined by the Repatriation Commission or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission in accordance with the Statements of Principles (Section 3). Furthermore, the Authority must ensure that the new Statement of Principles is easily accessible and clearly titled for users searching the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (Section 6).
Breach of the obligations outlined in the Act, such as failing to properly investigate or determine the Statements of Principles, could result in legal consequences. While specific offences and penalties are not detailed in the explanatory notes, non-compliance with the Act’s requirements could lead to challenges in the courts, potentially resulting in civil or administrative penalties. Additionally, veterans and service personnel who fail to adhere to the requirements for making claims may face difficulties in having their claims processed or upheld. The maximum penalties for any associated offences would be in accordance with the provisions of the VEA and MRCA, which may include fines or other sanctions as specified by the respective Acts.