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.