REPATRIATION MEDICAL AUTHORITY
INSTRUMENT NO. 57 of 2008
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. 46 of 1995, determined under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA concerning hepatitis D and death from hepatitis D.
2. The Authority is of the view that on the sound medical-scientific evidence available it is more probable than not that hepatitis D and death from hepatitis D 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. 57 of 2008 concerning hepatitis D. 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) under the VEA;
peacetime service under the MRCA,
before it can be said that, on the balance of probabilities, hepatitis D or death from hepatitis D is connected with the circumstances of that service.
5. This new instrument results from an investigation notified by the Authority in the Government Notices Gazette of 8 November 2006 concerning hepatitis D 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 the new Instrument are in similar terms as the revoked Instrument. Comparing the new and the revoked Instruments, 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 'hepatitis D' in clause 3;
- subsuming existing factors (a) to (e) into one factor 6(a) concerning 'being exposed to the hepatitis D virus';
- inserting new definitions of "a specified body substance", "being exposed to the hepatitis D virus", "death from hepatitis D", "ICD-10-AM code", "relevant service", and "terminal event" in clause 9;
- deleting definitions of "blood product injection", "body fluids", "ICD code", "parenteral drug user", and "sexual intercourse"; 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 hepatitis D in the Government Notices Gazette of 8 November 2006, 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. The determining of this new instrument finalises the investigation in relation to hepatitis D as advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 8 November 2006.
10. 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 Instrument No. 57 of 2008, which amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), was enacted to address the issue of hepatitis D and death from hepatitis D related to specific kinds of military service. The Authority, under subsection 196B(8) of the VEA, revoked Instrument No. 46 of 1995, and in its place, determined a new Statement of Principles concerning hepatitis D, given the available sound medical-scientific evidence suggesting a probable connection between hepatitis D, death from hepatitis D, and certain types of service. This new instrument ensures that claims for compensation for injuries, diseases, or deaths related to service after 1 July 2004 are determined by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, with reference to the updated Statements of Principles.
Scope and Application
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 57 of 2008, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, establishes a Statement of Principles concerning hepatitis D and death from hepatitis D. This instrument applies to individuals who have served in eligible war service (excluding operational service), defence service (excluding hazardous service), and peacetime service, as defined by the respective acts. The instrument is intended to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, hepatitis D or death from hepatitis D is connected to the service rendered by a person. The Authority's decision to establish this Statement of Principles is based on the latest available medical-scientific evidence, which suggests a probable connection between hepatitis D and certain types of service. The instrument replaces the previously revoked Instrument No. 46 of 1995 and is applicable to claims for compensation that commenced on or after 1 July 2004. The Authority's decision-making process involved advertising the intention to investigate and inviting submissions from relevant parties, although no submissions were received during the investigation. This instrument will be used by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to assess claims for compensation related to hepatitis D and death from hepatitis D.
Key Provisions
The main operative sections of the Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 57 of 2008 focus on the replacement of the previous Instrument No. 46 of 1995 concerning hepatitis D, as determined under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA). This new instrument, which supersedes the previous one, is based on the latest sound medical-scientific evidence available, indicating that it is more probable than not that hepatitis D and death from hepatitis D can be related to particular kinds of service. This new instrument, now in effect, outlines the Statement of Principles which establish the connection between the disease or death and the service rendered by a person, whether in eligible war service, defence service, or peacetime service.
The obligations imposed by this Act require the Repatriation Medical Authority to thoroughly investigate and determine the validity of claims related to hepatitis D and death from hepatitis D. This involves assessing the medical-scientific evidence available and determining the likelihood of the disease or death being service-related. The Authority is also obligated to communicate its intentions and findings through formal notifications and advertisements, as was done with the investigation into hepatitis D. Furthermore, the Authority must consider any submissions received from relevant parties and incorporate them into its determinations, although in this case, no submissions were received.
Offences and penalties under this legislation are not explicitly detailed in the explanatory notes provided. However, it is reasonable to infer that any breaches of the statutory requirements or fraudulent claims could lead to legal consequences under the relevant acts, such as the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). These consequences could potentially include civil penalties for misrepresentation or criminal charges for fraud, depending on the nature and severity of the breach. The exact penalties would be determined in accordance with the specific provisions of the VEA and MRCA, which may include fines or imprisonment for more serious violations.
The Repatriation Medical Authority, in its role under the VEA and MRCA, has the responsibility to ensure that the new Statement of Principles is adhered to in the determination of claims related to hepatitis D. This includes verifying that all claims are substantiated by the appropriate evidence and that the factors outlined in the Statement of Principles are appropriately considered. Failure to comply with these obligations could result in the denial of legitimate claims or the acceptance of unfounded ones, leading to potential legal repercussions for both the Authority and the claimants.