Until 2005, smoking-related claims for compensation were denied on the basis that smoking (and associated disease or illness) was not reasonably incidental to a claimant's service in the ADF.  Until the change, it was policy that the decision to smoke or not to smoke was ultimately a matter of personal choice for the member.

However, a change to the existing policy regarding smoking and its effects was necessary in view of the majority decision of the Full Federal Court in the matter of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Wall ([2005] FCAFC 127 (8 July 2005). 

A further policy review, conducted in 2017, has led to a policy change in the ways in which smoking-related claims are assessed.

Until 2005, smoking-related claims for compensation were denied on the basis that smoking (and associated disease or illness) was not reasonably incidental to a claimant's service in the ADF.  Until the change, it was policy that the decision to smoke or not to smoke was ultimately a matter of personal choice for the member.

However, a change to the existing policy regarding smoking and its effects was necessary in view of the majority decision of the Full Federal Court in the matter of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Wall ([2005] FCAFC 127 (8 July 2005). 

A further policy review, conducted in 2017, has led to a policy change in the ways in which smoking-related claims are assessed.

Until 2005, smoking-related claims for compensation were denied on the basis that smoking (and associated disease or illness) was not reasonably incidental to a claimant's service in the ADF.  Until the change, it was policy that the decision to smoke or not to smoke was ultimately a matter of personal choice for the member.

However, a change to the existing policy regarding smoking and its effects was necessary in view of the majority decision of the Full Federal Court in the matter of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Wall ([2005] FCAFC 127 (8 July 2005). 

A further policy review, conducted in 2017, has led to a policy change in the ways in which smoking-related claims are assessed.

Until 2005, smoking-related claims for compensation were denied on the basis that smoking (and associated disease or illness) was not reasonably incidental to a claimant's service in the ADF.  Until the change, it was policy that the decision to smoke or not to smoke was ultimately a matter of personal choice for the member.

However, a change to the existing policy regarding smoking and its effects was necessary in view of the majority decision of the Full Federal Court in the matter of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Wall ([2005] FCAFC 127 (8 July 2005). 

A further policy review, conducted in 2017, has led to a policy change in the ways in which smoking-related claims are assessed.

Until 2005, smoking-related claims for compensation were denied on the basis that smoking (and associated disease or illness) was not reasonably incidental to a claimant's service in the ADF.  Until the change, it was policy that the decision to smoke or not to smoke was ultimately a matter of personal choice for the member.

However, a change to the existing policy regarding smoking and its effects was necessary in view of the majority decision of the Full Federal Court in the matter of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Wall ([2005] FCAFC 127 (8 July 2005). 

A further policy review, conducted in 2017, has led to a policy change in the ways in which smoking-related claims are assessed.