Statement of Principles concerning hepatitis D No. 46 of 1995

Overview

The Statement of Principles concerning Hepatitis D was introduced in 1995 to address the connection between hepatitis D infection and the circumstances of eligible war service or defence service rendered by veterans and members of the Forces. The Repatriation Medical Authority determined that hepatitis D or death from hepatitis D can be related to such service under certain conditions, specifically when there is evidence of exposure to the virus through blood transfusion, injection, or other medical procedures, unprotected sexual intercourse, or inadequate clinical management. The statement of principles was enacted under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and aims to provide a basis for determining whether a veteran or member of the Forces contracted hepatitis D due to their service. The Statement of Principles concerning Hepatitis D was issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority and provides a framework for assessing the relationship between hepatitis D infection and service rendered by veterans and members of the Forces. The policy objective is to ensure that veterans and members of the Forces who contracted hepatitis D as a result of their service are eligible for appropriate compensation and support. The statement outlines the conditions that must exist for hepatitis D or death from hepatitis D to be considered connected with the circumstances of the service, including exposure to the virus through various means. This legislation aims to provide clarity and fairness in the assessment of claims related to hepatitis D infection and service.

Scope and Application

The Statement of Principles concerning Hepatitis D, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, applies to veterans and members of the Defence Forces who contracted hepatitis D or died from the infection. This legislation specifically addresses the circumstances under which hepatitis D, identified by ICD codes 070.42 and 070.52, can be considered related to eligible war service or defence service. The scope includes individuals who have experienced certain medical interventions, injuries, or exposures more than three weeks prior to the evidence of their hepatitis D infection, and those who have engaged in risky behaviours such as sharing needles or unprotected sexual intercourse with a hepatitis D positive individual. The Statement of Principles is designed to provide clarity and criteria for the Repatriation Medical Authority in determining the service-relatedness of hepatitis D infections, ensuring that veterans and service members can access appropriate entitlements and benefits. The jurisdictional reach of this legislation is national, governed by Commonwealth law, and it extends its application through the Repatriation Medical Authority's determinations under the Act.

Key Provisions

The key provisions of this legislative instrument, Statement of Principles concerning Hepatitis D (Instrument No.46 of 1995), establish the conditions under which hepatitis D or death from hepatitis D can be related to war service or defence service. According to section 1, at least one of the factors outlined must be linked to the service rendered by a person. These factors include receiving a blood transfusion or blood product injection that was not screened for hepatitis D more than three weeks prior to the evidence of infection (1(a)), having an injection, dental procedure, or surgical procedure more than three weeks before the evidence of infection where the instruments were not sterilised (1(b)), sustaining a wound, laceration, or injury that may have been contaminated by the body fluids of someone not proven to be hepatitis D negative, with the contamination occurring more than three weeks before the evidence of infection (1(c)), being a parenteral drug user and sharing needles more than three weeks before the evidence of infection (1(d)), engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with someone not proven to be hepatitis D negative more than three weeks before the evidence of infection (1(e)), and being unable to obtain appropriate clinical management for hepatitis D (1(f)). Additionally, section 3 specifies that the factor in 1(f) applies only if the hepatitis D was contracted prior to the relevant period of service and if the relationship between the hepatitis D and the service is as outlined in certain subsections of the Act (8(1)(e), 9(1)(e), or 70(5)(d)). The obligations imposed on parties by this Act primarily concern the Repatriation Medical Authority, which is responsible for determining whether the factors set out in section 1 exist and are related to the service rendered. This involves a thorough medical-scientific evaluation to establish the connection between hepatitis D or death from hepatitis D and the circumstances of service, in accordance with the evidence available. The Repatriation Medical Authority must ensure that at least one of the factors in section 1 is linked to the service before determining that hepatitis D or death from hepatitis D is connected to the service. Additionally, the Act places the responsibility on veterans and members of the Forces to provide any necessary medical and service-related information that might assist in this determination. Regarding consequences for breach, the legislative instrument does not explicitly outline offences, penalties, or civil/criminal consequences for non-compliance with its provisions. However, the implications of any breach would likely stem from the failure to accurately determine the connection between hepatitis D or death from hepatitis D and service circumstances, potentially affecting the entitlements and benefits a veteran or member of the Forces may be eligible for under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Inaccuracies or omissions in the determination process could lead to disputes, legal challenges, or administrative reviews, but the specific penalties or consequences for such breaches are not detailed in this instrument.