This Part contains policy information to support the application of section 27A of the MRCA, which enables the acceptance of liability for specified injuries and diseases on a ‘presumptive’ basis. In particular, it explains the circumstances where Delegates may accept liability for certain prescribed conditions without needing to establish a causal connection to the person’s defence service. The guidance in this Part also outlines the interaction between presumptive liability, standards of proof and Statements of Principles (SoPs).

• s 22 simplified outline of Chapter 2: includes reference to presumptive liability
• s 23(1) note: standards of proof do not apply where a determination is made on a presumptive basis
• s 27A presumptive liability for specified injuries and diseases
• s 324(2) no investigation or additional evidence is required about service relationship where the condition is accepted under s 27A
• s 332 simplified outline of Part 2 of Chapter 7: includes reference to presumptive liability
• s 333(2) determination does not require investigation of connection with service where s 27A applies
• s 335(4) exception: standards of proof do not apply to s 27A determinations
• s 336 confirms Commission can determine on a presumptive basis and that no other assumptions of liability are created
• s 338(2A) reasonable hypothesis provisions do not affect s 27A determinations
• s 339(2A) reasonable satisfaction provisions do not affect s 27A determinations
• s 340A reviews must apply the more favourable of the current or an earlier presumptive instrument
• s 341 equivalent provision for SoPs on review
• s 345(2)(aa) a determination prescribing presumptive conditions and kinds of defence service under s 27A(3) is not an original determination and is not reviewable. It must be approved by the Minister and is disallowable by Parliament.

The presumptive liability provisions of section 27A were established to streamline access to compensation and treatment by recognising that certain conditions have a well‑established association with military service. For these conditions, it is not necessary for Delegates to determine the precise causal mechanism on an individual basis. Instead, where the relevant diagnosis is confirmed and the prescribed onset and service parameters (where applicable) are met, the MRCA allows liability to be accepted without applying the usual evidentiary standards.

Subsection 27A(3) allows the Commission to prescribe, via written determination, one or more categories of injury or disease and the kinds of defence service to which the presumption applies. Such determinations must be approved by the Minister and made under legislative instrument. As noted above, conditions are prescribed based on known military service exposures and where it is generally accepted that defence service causes or contributes to the conditions. The expectation is therefore that a claim meeting the prescribed criteria should ordinarily be accepted, unless information available clearly establishes a non-service causation and permits the delegate to establish a contrary finding or where an exclusion or exceptional circumstance applies.

The instrument may also be updated by the Commission as required, subject to Government approval.

The provisions ensure that common causal pathways associated with military service are recognised and applied consistently, while also reducing the administrative burden for applicants and supporting quicker decision making by Delegates.

A copy of the presumptive liability instrument is available here - Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Injuries and Diseases Attributable to Defence Service—Presumptive Liability) Determination 2026 - Federal Register of Legislation

Conditions and service requirements covered under the current instrument include:

• ADF firefighters who participated in firefighting training at Royal Australian Air Force Base Point Cook between 1 January 1957 and 31 December 1986.
• cancers prescribed for Australian Defence Force firefighters.
• specified conditions for F-111 Deseal/Reseal workers who were employed at RAAF Base Amberley between 1976 and 1994.
• certain specified diseases and employment exposures.
• other ‘decision-ready’ (streamlining and straight-through-processing) conditions previously specified under DVA policy.

A prescribed presumptive condition is an injury or disease included in a legislative instrument made under subsection 27A(3). Once a condition appears in that instrument, it may be accepted on a presumptive basis provided that the condition has been validly diagnosed by a relevant medical practitioner and the claimant meets the related onset and service requirements and there is no definitive evidence of non-service causation. Importantly, a condition does not need to be the subject of a SoP for it to be prescribed. Where there is a SoP for the claimed condition, a factor does not need to be met as presumption can be applied without reference to the SoPs.

A prescribed kind of defence service refers to the specific service requirements that must be satisfied for a claim to qualify for presumptive acceptance. These parameters might relate to the branch of service, the nature of duties, length of engagement, period of service, or other service characteristics described in the instrument. Only the criteria set out in the legislative instrument apply. 

A presumption of service connection means that once a Delegate has confirmed the diagnosis, onset timeframe and service requirements specified for that condition apply to the veteran, the condition is taken to be a service injury or service disease without further inquiry into how the service contributed to its onset or aggravation.

If presumptive criteria are not met the claim should be assessed via the normal heads of liability, including SOPs if applicable.

Delegates must first be satisfied that the claimant has a confirmed diagnosis of the relevant injury or disease. This requires medical evidence that clearly identifies the condition and supports its presence at the time of claim.  The delegate should also establish when the condition manifested.

Delegates must not apply the reasonable hypothesis or reasonable satisfaction standards of proof to claims where section 27A applies (as set out in subsection 335(4)). However, where the condition relates to a period of non-warlike, warlike or defined peacekeeping, hazardous or operational service, this should be identified to enable the appropriate assessment at the Permanent Impairment stage.  Where diseases occur after a period of relevant service, then that service is taken to have contributed. Injuries will be based on the service period where the injury occurred.

Delegates must not seek further information about potential exposures, workplace conditions, environmental hazards, training activities, or other service‑related factors in order to refute the presumption but should consider already-available information on the file – for instance if their practitioner has clearly identified that the condition solely relates to a non-service exposure. The purpose of presumptive liability is to remove the need for such investigations where the prescribed criteria are met.

Delegates must not reject a claim on the basis that the condition is not covered by a SoP or that the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) has not investigated the condition. Subsection 27A(5) makes clear that the existence or status of a SoP does not limit or affect a presumptive liability determination.

Delegates must not treat a legislative instrument made under subsection 27A(3) as if it were a reviewable decision. Determinations made under that provision prescribe the classes of conditions and kinds of service for presumptive purposes, and these instruments are subject to Ministerial approval and parliamentary disallowance, but they are not themselves subject to review under the MRCA. 

Where a claim falls within the scope of presumptive liability, the Delegate must accept liability without reference to the SoP framework. The legislative presumption replaces the need to determine whether any SoP factor is met.

Where a condition is not listed in the presumptive instrument or the claimant does not satisfy the prescribed service criteria, the Delegate must then apply the ordinary SoP‑based process (in claims where SoPs are relevant). This involves identifying the applicable SoP, determining the correct standard of proof, and assessing whether a factor is met.

A condition does not require a SoP for it to be prescribed for presumptive purposes, and the existence or lack of a SoP does not prevent a condition from being added to the presumptive instrument.  

The two pathways operate independently. Furthermore, whether the RMA has investigated, declined to investigate, or intends to investigate a condition is irrelevant when assessing presumptive eligibility. Legislative provisions ensure that such matters play no role in presumptive decision making. 

Where a person has a condition accepted on a presumptive basis and later develops another condition that is claimed because of the first, Delegates must consider whether the new condition itself appears in the presumptive instrument. If so, and if the relevant service parameters are satisfied, the second condition may also be accepted presumptively.

If the second condition is not listed in the instrument, the Delegate must determine liability using the relevant SoP (if applicable). In such cases, the presence of the previously accepted presumptive condition may satisfy a causal factor in the SoP for the second condition.  

The fact that the first condition was accepted through presumption does not diminish its standing as a service‑related condition for purposes of a SoP‑based assessment. In other words, if the causal connection is accepted for the first (causal) condition, then it may be used for the purposes of propagation through the SoPs for secondary conditions.  The accepted original causal condition’s connection to service does not need to be re-tested.

This approach ensures that presumptive acceptance continues to operate effectively throughout a person’s claims journey, including in circumstances where multiple interrelated conditions arise.