This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'ESORT Multi-Act Working Group'.







From:
 
   
 Scott
To:
Cole, Natasha; s 47F
 s 47F
 "s 47F
s 47F
 s 47F  s 47F
 Brown, Luke; Hill, Simon; Dennington, Sally
Cc:
ESORT.SECRETARIAT; s 47E; s 47F Kristine
Subject:
ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Monday, 28 June 2021 3:16:47 PM
Attachments:
Agenda 6.07.2021.docx
Multi-Act Claims Working Group - Minutes 10.06.2021.docx
DRCA & SOPs.pdf
Budget 2021-22 presentation.pdf
Good afternoon everyone,
 
Please find minutes from the last meeting on 10/6/21 attached, along with the agenda for next
Tuesday’s meeting (6/7/21).
 
As discussed, I have also attached the 2021-22 Budget presentation and the internal information
regarding DRCA/SOPS
 
 
Kind regards
 
Scott s 47E; s 47F
Assistant Director, Business Improvement
Business Improvement and Quality Assurance
Clients’ Benefits Division
Department of Veterans’Affairs
Ph.    s 47E; s 47F
Ext.   s 47E; s 47F
 
 
 
 














ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group 
6 July 2021 
0930 AEST 
 
GovTeams 
 
Item 7  Other Business- 
 
Nil 
 

 
 
 
 
 
4 of 4 

From:
 
   
 Scott
To:
s 47E; s 47F  Kristine
Subject:
FW: ESORT Question [TO BE CLASSIFIED] [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Monday, 26 July 2021 3:29:29 PM
Attachments:
image002.jpg
image001.png
Thanks heaps Tiki for sorting this
FYI  below - This is how the issue came about – left hand etc…..
 
From: s 47E; s 47F Kathryn <Kathryn s 47E; s 47Fdva.gov.au> 
Sent: Monday, 26 July 2021 3:11 PM
To: s 47E; s 47F Scott <Scott.s 47E; s 47Fdva.gov.au>
Subject: FW: ESORT Question [TO BE CLASSIFIED] [SEC=OFFICIAL]
 
Hi Scott
 
Thank you for talking to me today re Query from s 47F, s 47G
.
 
I rang s 47F re the following email.
 
s 47F  was reading through the DCCF WA minutes from the March meeting and has noticed the
name Ms s 47F
 being named as thes 47G
epresentative.  s 47F has
called s 47G head office to ask who is Ms s 47F
? Why is she on the ESORT Multi-Act
Claims Working Group?  s 47F
.  s 47Gadvised s 47F that s 47F
 is not
endorsed bys 47F. s 47F has suggested that s 47F
 was endorsed by thes 47G
 Over to you.
 
Membership
Members of the ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group will be the following persons
representing their respective organisations:
s 47F, s 47G
Kindest regards
 
Kathryn s 47E; s 47F
Stakeholder Support Officer
Compensation, Processing and Payments Branch WA/SA
T: 
 E: kathryn s 47E; s 47F
s 47E; s 47F
dva.gov.au
 
Delivery Address:  AMP Building, Level 5 Reception, 140 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000
Postal Address:     GPO Box 9998, Brisbane Qld 4001
 
To support those who serve or have served in the defence of our nation and commemorate their

service and sacrifice.        
    The Department acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land throughout Australia and their
continuing connection to country, sea and community. We pay our respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples, their cultures and to their elders past and present.
     
 
 
 
From: s 47F
 
Sent: Monday, 26 July 2021 11:27 AM
To: s 47E; s 47F Kathryn <Kathryn s 47E; s 47Fdva.gov.au>
Subject: ESORT Question [TO BE CLASSIFIED]
 
Hi Kathryn
 
Sorry to bother you but was hoping you could give me a call re an ESORT question which arises
from the previous minutes.
Terms of Reference – ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group
 
Thanks,
s 47F
s 47F
 

From:
RUNDLE, Vicki
To:
Kalleske, Mark; Cole, Natasha; Cameron, Leanne; s 47E; s 47F  Mark; Goddard, Rachel; Corke, Ken
Subject:
DVA - s 47G Questions - National Advocacy Forum 2021 MK [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Wednesday, 28 July 2021 10:53:32 PM
Attachments:
DVA - s 47G Questions - National Advocacy Forum 2021 MK.docx
All, please see the final document for s 47G meeting in the morning that Liz and I are attending
via Gov teams. I have marked it up so you can see the changes and tone we are attempting to
convey.
 
Can  you please provide Mark with contact details where marked so we can get the document to
s 47G tomorrow. That is the commitment they have been given.
 
Thanks very much everyone for the input and a special thanks to Mark K for editing where
required. I will accept all changes and send on this evening.
 
Ta, Vicki
 
 

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

From:
RUNDLE, Vicki
To:
Cosson, Liz; Pettitt, Liane
Cc:
Kalleske, Mark; s 47E; s 47F , Sammy; s 47E; s 47F Tracey; Pope, Kate; RUNDLE, Vicki
Subject:
DVA - s 47G Questions - National Advocacy Forum 2021 MK [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Wednesday, 28 July 2021 10:59:39 PM
Attachments:
DVA - s 47G Questions - National Advocacy Forum 2021 MK.docx
Liz and all
s 47C
 
Thanks a lot, we will print us some copied tomorrow am Liz.
 
Kind regards, Vicki
 
 
 
 

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

From:
Kalleske, Mark
To:
s 47E; s 47F Tracey
Cc:
 
   
, Sammy
Subject:
s 47G  brief for sending [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Thursday, 29 July 2021 11:54:00 AM
Attachments:
DVA - s 47G Questions - National Advocacy Forum 2021 VHC contact.docx
Clean version for sending to s 47G as briefly discussed. ta
 
Mark Kalleske
Executive Officer to Vicki Rundle PSM
Deputy Secretary, Veteran and Family Services Group
Department of Veterans' Affairs
Gnabra House – 21 Genge Street Canberra ACT 2601
s 47E; s 47F
Email: xxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xx
 

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

 
   
s 22 - Out of scope
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 
 
 
   

s 22 - Out of scope
 
   
 
   
 
   
 

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C

s 47C











From:
s 47E; s 47F  Yuki
To:
ESORT.SECRETARIAT
Cc:
s 47E; s 47F  Caitlyn
Subject:
ESORT Multi- Act Working Group- August meeting [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Tuesday, 16 August 2022 12:16:10 PM
Attachments:
MAWG Agenda 22 Aug 22.pdf
MAWG- Chapter 23- Options for alternative methods of assessments.pdf
Good afternoon Kelli-Ann,
 
I hope you are well.
 
Can you please add Caitlyn s 47E; s 47F and James s 47E; s 47F to the ESORT MAWG mailing group?
 
Can you please also arrange for the below email and attachments to go out to MAWG members
today (noting s 47F likes it sent to both emails) and include the following DVA attendees:
·         Michael Harper
·
s 47E; s 47F
         Shweta 
·         Duleeka s 47E; s 47F
 
Please feel free to get in touch with any questions or concerns.
 
Many thanks
 
Yuki s 47E; s 47F
A/g Assistant Director
Business Improvement Officer
Business Improvement and Quality Assurance| Client Benefits Division
Phone: s 47E; s 47F  Ext: s 47E; s 47F
 
                Good afternoon Members,
 
Please find attached a copy of the Chapter 23 of GARP M paper that will be discussed in
the meeting on Monday 22 August. Please bear in mind that this paper is for initial
discussion only.
We look forward to hearing your feedback in the discussion discussion next week.
 
A copy of the meeting agenda is also attached.   Please use the link below to join the
meeting.
 
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
s 47E

Learn More | Meeting options
 
                Please feel free to contact Yuki s 47E; s 47F (yuki s 47E; s 47Fdva.gov.au) if you have any
questions or concerns.
 
               
               
               







Options for alternative methods in applying the weighted average formula of  
Chapter 23 of GARP M 
 
Important Note: The options presented in this paper are for initial discussion only. They are presented as stand-alone 
options that would be mutually exclusive if implemented. Careful consideration should be given as to which option is 
preferred to mitigate the risk of change fatigue in the event an alternative is subsequently preferred. Any change will need 
to be considered in context of the Budget, the future legislative reform agenda and agreed by Government. 
 
Introduction 

 
When assessing permanent impairment (PI) under the Military, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), a 
“whole of person” assessment is conducted. Using this method, impairment that includes conditions accepted under 
the MRCA must also include the assessment of any conditions which are accepted under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 
1986 
(VEA) and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA).  
 
The method for calculating permanent impairment compensation under the MRCA is outlined in the Guide to 
Determining Impairment and Compensation 
(known as GARP M), and includes a method for offsetting notional 
payments to take into account injuries or diseases that have been compensated under the VEA and DRCA. 
 
When calculating a compensation payment, the provisions of the MRCA require consideration of conditions on the basis 
of service type. Different permanent impairment compensation amounts result from the same impairment rating and 
lifestyle effects, depending on whether the service injury or disease is a result of warlike/non-warlike (operational) 
service, or peacetime service. A higher permanent impairment compensation amount is made for operational service, 
except at the maximum rate of payment.  
 
Where a veteran has conditions resulting from both operational and peacetime service, a weighted average formula is 
used. This formula is designed to take into account both service types and calculate a payment factor that is appropriate 
to the type of combined service rendered. 
 
In applying this formula, the Department’s current policy is to treat conditions under the VEA as resulting from 
warlike/non-warlike service and conditions under the DRCA as resulting from peacetime service. Where a condition is 
accepted under both the VEA and the DRCA, the condition should be treated as if it were related to warlike/non-warlike 
service. 
 
This position stems from the intent of the VEA and DRCA, where VEA was intended to compensate for operational 
injuries (or diseases) and the DRCA intended to compensate for non-operational injuries (or diseases). 
 
Purpose 
 
This paper highlights the complexities of the permanent impairment calculation, along with inconsistencies and the 
unintended consequences that arise from applying the weighted average formula and explores some potential options 
for alternative methods of calculating PI compensation where the MRCA transitional provisions apply. 
 
The key issue explored by this paper is the impact notional offsetting requirements can have to the calculation of PI 
compensation. While the intention of the Act is to acknowledge warlike/non-warlike service with a higher rate of 
compensation, the practical application of this in transitional cases, can result in the unintended consequence of 
reducing the compensation payable. 
 

There are two issues surrounding the interpretation of the weighted compensation factor formula which both impact on 
compensation outcomes for veterans: 
 

The current policy position, requiring VEA conditions to be considered as warlike/non-warlike service and DRCA   
conditions to be considered as peacetime service; and 

The application of the weighted average formula 
 
Current policy position 
Inconsistent outcomes brought on by the stated approach where VEA conditions are considered to be a result of 
warlike/non-warlike service, and DRCA conditions to be considered as a result of peacetime have been brought to the 
attention of DVA by the ex-service community. 
 
The VEA can cover service resulting from either warlike/non-warlike or peacetime service. This is also the case for 
service under the DRCA. The ex-service community argue that the current policy position does not appropriately meet 
the intent of the MRCA, and that veterans can be financially disadvantaged by this position, due the offsetting that takes 
place. 
 
The GARP M does not provide any guidance on how conditions accepted under the VEA and DRCA should be treated. At 
times, the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) have treated VEA and DRCA 
service as the actual service type, resulting in a more beneficial compensation outcome for the veteran in some cases. 
 
Application of the weighted average formula 
 
The instructions in the GARP M do not explicitly state if arithmetic (simple addition) or combined values of conditions 
resulting from operational and peacetime service should be used in the weighted average formula.  Procedurally, the 
arithmetic values are used.  
 
As it is not explicit in the GARP M, the VRB and AAT have, at times, applied a combining method, which has resulted in a 
more beneficial compensation outcome for veterans in some cases. 
 
The ambiguity of the instructions in the GARP M have meant that external review bodies have been able to take a more 
beneficial approach in calculating the compensation entitlement. This alternative interpretation has created an 
inconsistent approach to the calculation of compensation and raises questions around the most appropriate application 
of the Guide.  
 
There are a number of potential options available to address the issues.  
 
 
 

Analysis Overview 
 
Relevant Legislation 
 
Section 67 of the MRCA allows the Commission to determine a guide that can be used in assessing permanent 
impairment (PI). Section 67(2) states that the guide must: 
 
(a)  specify different methods…for: 
(i) 
service injuries or diseases that relate to warlike service or non-warlike service; and 
(ii) 
other service injuries or diseases; and 
 
(b)  specify a method for determining the compensation payable to a person who has both: 
(i) 
a service injury or disease that relates to warlike service or non-warlike service; and 
(ii) 
another service injury or disease 
 
The Guide to Determining Impairment and Compensation (GARP M) is the Guide as determined by the Commission in 
accordance with section 67 of the MRCA.   
 
Chapter 23 of the GARP M outlines the method for calculating permanent impairment including the methodology to 
apply where a person has: 
 
a.  Service injuries or diseases that relate to only warlike service or non-warlike service; and 
b.  Service injuries or diseases that relate to only peacetime service; and 
c.  Service injuries or diseases that relate to both warlike/non-warlike service and peacetime service. 
 
The transitional arrangements under section 13 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Consequential and 
Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 
(CTPA) apply to persons with conditions accepted under the VEA or the DRCA as well as 
conditions accepted under the MRCA. These conditions should also be considered in accordance with the Guide as 
outlined in section 67. 
 
Chapter 25 of the GARP M provides the method for working out the amount of compensation payable under the MRCA 
for a person with a VEA or DRCA injury or disease, and includes a method for offsetting payments. Chapter 25 requires 
the application of chapter 23 in order to calculate the total amount of compensation payable, by assessing the 
combined effect of conditions accepted under VEA and DRCA in the calculations. 
 
Service differential and how the calculation is applied 
 
Under the MRCA, different permanent impairment compensation amounts result from the same impairment rating and 
lifestyle effects, depending on whether the service injury or disease is a result of warlike or non-warlike (operational) 
service, or peacetime service. A higher permanent impairment compensation amount is made for operational service, 
except at the maximum rate of payment where compensation is the same. 
 
In MRCA only cases, this results in a higher dollar amount of compensation than those resulting from peacetime service. 
In transitional cases, this can result in a lower amount of compensation resulting from warlike/non-warlike conditions 
due to the notional offsetting provisions outlined in Chapter 25 of the GARP M. 
 
 
 

Applying the service differential is done using Tables 23.1 and 23.2 of the GARP M. The methodology requires the 
consideration of the assessed impairment rating and lifestyle effect to determine a ‘compensation factor’. Table 23.1 is 
used to determine compensation factors for calculating PI compensation for warlike/non-warlike conditions. Table 23.2 
is used for conditions stemming from peacetime service. 
When a veteran has conditions as a result of both warlike/non-warlike and peacetime service, a weighted average 
formula is used. The formula requires a delegate to use the compensation factors applicable under both Tables 23.1 and 
23.2, as if the impairment was caused by only warlike/non-warlike service (A) and only peacetime service (B), to find the 
weighted average. (Attachment A).  
 
It is not clear in the GARP M, whether arithmetic values or combined values of (A) and (B) are to be used in the formula. 
In practice, the arithmetic values (as opposed to the combined values) of A and B are used by the Integrated Support 
Hub (ISH), to calculate the amount of compensation payable resulting from combined service. 
 
As the assessed impairment level increases toward the maximum level (I.e. 80 points), the difference between the 
compensation factors between warlike/non-warlike and peacetime conditions reduces. The compensation factor for 80 
points is the same regardless of service type.  
 
Current Policy and concerns raised 
 
In transitional cases, the current policy position states that when using the weighted average formula, conditions 
accepted under the VEA should be treated as if they relate to warlike/non-warlike service and conditions accepted 
under the DRCA should be treated as if they relate to peacetime service. Where a condition is accepted under both the 
VEA and the DRCA, the condition should be treated as if it were related to warlike/non-warlike service. 
 
Members of advocacy groups note that conditions under the VEA can result from either warlike/non-warlike or 
peacetime service. Likewise, this can occur for conditions accepted under the DRCA.  
 
Some advocates are of the opinion that applying the principle that all conditions under VEA are warlike/non-warlike and 
that all conditions under DRCA are peacetime, does not comply with the legislative requirements outlined in the MRCA. 
They suggest that conditions under VEA and DRCA should be considered on the basis of the service-type rendered, 
rather than by the policy principle that currently applies. 
 
As it is not explicit in Chapter 23 or Chapter 25 of GARP M that impairment arising under VEA and/or DRCA should be 
treated as warlike/non-warlike or peacetime service for the purposes of calculating the compensation factor, DVA has 
conceded cases when appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). In some cases, the AAT have ruled that 
conditions under VEA and DRCA be treated as per the actual service type, resulting in a more beneficial final 
compensation outcome. Therefore continuing to make primary decisions that are not defensible at review is not a 
sustainable position.  
 
Furthermore, as it is not explicit in Chapter 23 that when calculating values A and B of the weighted compensation 
factor formula that an arithmetic method is applied, there have been times where the VRB and the AAT have applied a 
combining method. This too has resulted in a more beneficial compensation outcome for veterans in some cases.  
 
This discretionary power exercised by the VRB and AAT occasionally results in different determination outcomes to 
those of the Department, which has the potential to damage the Department’s reputation but also places increased 
administrative burden on us to implement the VRB/AAT determination and calculate the additional compensation 
payable to the veteran.  
 

The two issues surrounding the interpretation of the weighted compensation factor formula which impact on 
compensation outcomes for veterans are: 
 
  The current policy position, requiring VEA conditions to be considered as warlike/non-warlike service 
and DRCA conditions to be considered as peacetime service; and 
  The use of the arithmetic values in the weighted average formula. 
 
Options for consideration 
 
To address the current policy position, potential alternative methods have been explored, which are: 
 
1.  Assess conditions based on actual service type  
2.  Change the policy position to treat all VEA and DRCA conditions as peacetime service 
 
In respect to weighted average formula there is no clear background on why the current process uses the arithmetic 
values in the calculation. Case examples outlined in Attachment B, suggest that using the combined values in the 
formula results in a reduction of compensation payment for those with all warlike/non-warlike conditions, which could 
indicate a reasoning behind this position. Further testing would be required to form a definitive conclusion. 
 
The options to address this issue are: 
 
3.  Make amendments to GARP M to reflect the current policy position  
4.  Remove the service differential and have a fixed lump sum payment for those who have operational service 
 
 

Option 1- Delegates to treat conditions under VEA and DRCA by the actual service type 
 
As the instructions of the GARP M are not explicit in how to treat VEA and DRCA condition for the purposes of 
calculating the compensation factor, there have been instances where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) have 
overturned decisions made by DVA to treat VEA and DRCA service as the actual service type. 
 
This option has been suggested by the ex-service community and proposes to amend the current policy position to 
allow VEA and DRCA conditions to be treated as per the service type the conditions arose from. 
 
Pros 
 
  This will result in some cases, more compensation for claimants whose VEA service is a result of peacetime 
service.  
 
  Arguably, this option better meets the legislative requirements outlined in section 67 of the MRCA to distinguish 
between service stemming from warlike/non-warlike and peacetime conditions, than the current policy 
position. 
 
Cons 
 
  This option will result in less compensation for claimants whose DRCA service is the result of warlike service.  
 
  This method does not appropriately acknowledge injuries sustained as a result of operational service, as 
intended under the MRCA. Considering the offsetting requirements outlined in Chapter 25 of the GARP M, this 
option would see veterans with peacetime service under the VEA receive more compensation than veterans 
with warlike/non-warlike service under the VEA. 
 
  This option could be perceived as an unfair approach to distinguishing between service types under the VEA or 
DRCA when calculating compensation under MRCA, because the VEA and DRCA do not distinguish between 
service differentials when calculating compensation payments and veterans are compensated at the same rate 
regardless of their service type. 
 
  Permanent impairment staff will require significant training to be able to identify the service differentials under 
VEA and DRCA. Noting this is not a requirement under each of the respective Acts, it may require a detailed case 
file review to determine. This could place further strains on current claims backlogs and potentially an increase 
the number of high impact errors identified via Quality Assurance measures. 
 
  IT enhancements to ISH will be required, and this work would be performed by Services Australia.  There is a 
time and cost element here. 
 
 
 

Discussion 
 
The process of determining the amount of compensation payable under the MRCA can already be complex when it 
comes to transitional claims. For instance, there must be additional considerations regarding apportionment of injuries 
between Acts as well as the application of Chapter 25 of the GARP M to consider offsetting requirements.  
 
The information regarding service-type under VEA and DRCA is currently not readily available on the DVA systems as it is 
not a requirement under either Act to distinguish between service-type, the proposed requirement to consider VEA and 
DRCA service on the basis of the actual service rendered would significantly increase the complexity of the PI calculation 
process. 
 
There is an arbitrariness to applying calculations in this manner. Whilst changes can be made to address one element of 
the process (e.g. reduce the amount of compensation during the offsetting process), there is a subsequent impact that 
may not result in the envisioned outcome (e.g. not appropriately acknowledging operational service). There will always 
be those who are ‘better off’ under one method and ‘worse off’ under another. 
 
 
 
 

Option 2 - Delegates to treat conditions arising under VEA and DRCA all as peacetime service 
 
This option suggests amending the current policy position to assess all conditions accepted under VEA and DRCA as 
having arisen from peacetime service for the purposes of calculating compensation payable under the MRCA. 
 
Pros 
  This will result in a higher compensation amount payable under MRCA in transitional scenarios when 
considering the offsetting provisions under Step 3 of Chapter 25.  
 
  This will simplify calculations in transitional claims. 
 
Cons 
 
  This option is not necessarily a literal interpretation or application of section 67 of the MRCA, insofar as it does 
not distinguish between service types. To formalise the position, the legislation would need to be amended. 
 
  Chapter 23 of GARP M is explicit in applying the relevant service differentials to MRCA conditions and therefore 
it would be difficult to justify applying a blanket rule to all conditions arising from VEA and DRCA service, even if 
this approach produced better compensation outcomes. 
 
  This option would require enhancements to the ISH system. 
 
  This option would require staff training and therefore place some additional strain on claims processing. 
 
Discussion 
 
The number of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in this scenario may or may not be comparative to the number of winners and 
losers caused by the current arrangements. While treating all VEA and DRCA conditions as peacetime conditions will 
reduce the amount of compensation that will be offset in the calculation at Step 3 of Chapter 25, the notional amount 
of compensation calculated in Step 1 could also be reduced. This could have the unintended consequence of reducing 
the overall amount of compensation payable. 
 
Detailed case analysis and trials would be required to form a definitive conclusion. 
 
If this option is likely to result in significantly higher compensation outcomes across the forward estimates, the 
Department would need to seek Australian Government approval in the budget context. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Option 3- Make enhancements to GARP M by inserting agreed methodology into Chapter 23 
The provisions of the MRCA allow the Commission to repeal or amend the assessment Guide. This option looks maintain 
the current policy position and make use of this power to formalise the position and processing methodology by 
enhancing the GARP M with explicit instructions on how to assess claims by: 
 
  Treating conditions arising from VEA service as warlike/non-warlike service and conditions arising from 
DRCA service as peacetime for the purposes of calculating the weighted compensation factor and the PI 
compensation payable under MRCA; and 
  Calculating values A and B of the weighted compensation factor formula (Attachment A), using an 
arithmetic method (i.e. simple addition). 
 
Pros 
 
  Delegates continue with current policy guidelines, treating conditions accepted under VEA as warlike/non-
warlike and conditions accepted under DRCA as peacetime for the purposes of calculating the weighted 
compensation factor under Chapter 23. 
 
  By making these two matters explicit in GARP M, it removes any remaining ambiguity and ensures a consistent 
approach across all transitional claims.  
 
  This option acknowledges injuries occurring during operational service under the VEA and ensures that veterans 
with only peacetime service under the VEA are not ‘better off’ than veterans with warlike/non-warlike service. 
 
  This option has long been the agreed methodology for calculating the weighted compensation factor under 
Chapter 23. Delegates are therefore comfortable with this approach and by maintaining the status quo, no 
additional training would be required. This is an important consideration noting current claim delays and 
backlogs. 
 
  There would be no requirement for enhancements to IT as this current arrangement is already built into the ISH 
system.  
 
  This option arguably maintains the Department’s reputation by ensuring that the Department, VRB and AAT 
apply the same methodology to all transitional cases.  
 
Cons 
 
  This option may be viewed as reducing potential benefits to veterans as it does not address the issue around 
considering conditions based on the service type rendered as suggested by advocacy groups.  
 
  This option is likely to continue to be criticised by the ESO community for what looks like a step taken to reduce 
potential compensation outcomes to veterans.  
 

Option 4- Remove the service differential and have a fixed lump sum amount for those with operational service 
This option proposes to address the issues more broadly by exploring legislative reform to remove the service 
differential and acknowledge operational service by paying out a fixed lump sum amount. This lump sum would not be 
tied to any level of impairment, rather it would be paid as a loading for the amount of injuries or diseases sustained as a 
result of warlike/non-warlike service. 
 
Pros 
 
  This option would simplify the process of calculating PI compensation, as it would remove the requirement for 
the use of the weighted average formula.  
 
  This option streamlines the assessment of impairment of injuries or diseases, regardless of service type, while 
continuing to acknowledge operational service through a separate payment. 
 
Cons 
 
This option would require significant legislative reform, and a complete review of how PI compensation is calculated 
under the MRCA. 
 
Topics such as those below, would require investigation, review and addressing: 
 
  How the suggested operational lump sum payment fits with the legislated maximum amount of compensation. 
  How are transitional claims assessed in this model? Are clients with VEA operational service entitled to the 
operational lump sum amount? 
  How are previous PI payments under the DRCA and the VEA Disability Compensation payment offset? 
 
Perhaps the most important matter to consider is how the operational lump sum payment will be scaled to 
appropriately acknowledge the amount or warlike/non-warlike service undertaken. I.e. what is the difference in 
entitlement for someone with the majority of conditions resulting from operational service as opposed to someone with 
one operational condition? 
 
A flat rate of compensation could be inequitable for those with the majority of conditions resulting from warlike/non-
warlike service. 
 
Calculation of any scaled lump sum may be administratively burdensome and not achieve the aim of simplifying the 
process.    
 
 
 
 
 
 

Chapter 25:  
METHOD FOR WORKING OUT THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE UNDER THE MRCA FOR A                                                   
 
 
PERSON WITH A VEA OR DRCA INJURY OR DISEASE  
The method to assess the total amount of MRCA PI compensation payable under the MRCA is as 
follows: 
 
Step (1) Use GARP M to assess, as at the date of the MRCA determination the combined 
effect of : : 
(a)  all MRCA accepted conditions; and 
(b)  any VEA accepted conditions and any SRCA accepted conditions which were 
accepted conditions on the date the person claimed MRCA PI ; 
to work out the resulting compensation that would notionally be payable under MRCA. 
Step (2) Assess whether, under this Guide, the MRCA accepted condition contributes at 
least five impairment points to the overall impairment rating: 
(a) 
if the MRCA accepted condition contributes at least five impairment points to the 
overall impairment rating, compensation for that condition may be payable and the 
process continues to Step (3); or 
(b) 
if the MRCA accepted condition does not contribute at least five impairment points 
then the claim is rejected. 
Step (3) If compensation may be payable, work out the amount of compensation that would 
be payable under the MRCA for the VEA and/or SRCA accepted conditions 
referred to in Step 1 as at the date of the MRCA determination, using GARP M, as 
if those conditions were compensable under the MRCA. 
Step (4) Reduce the amount worked out under Step (1) by the amount worked out under 
Step (3). 
Step (5) The amount worked out at Step (4) is the amount payable under the MRCA subject 
to the proviso in Step (6). 
Step (6) The amount payable cannot take the total sum of: 
(a) 
the amount worked out under Step (4); and 
(b) 
the amount worked out by using the VEA percentage to calculate the 
notional equivalent amount of disability pension payable using the General 
Rate payable at the date of the determination; and 

(c) 
SRCA section 24, 25 and 27 lump sum amounts paid for the SRCA 
conditions referred to in Step 1 (the SRCA payments being converted as 
set out below); 
above the maximum weekly payment of MRCA Permanent Impairment) at the 
date of the determination. If the proviso applies go to Step (7). 
Step (7) If the proviso in Step (6) applies the MRCA compensation payment is worked 
out as follows: 
(a) 
excess MRCA PI equals the amount worked out in Step 6(b) plus SRCA section 24, 25 
and 27 lump sums converted to periodic payments plus Step (4) amount 
minus maximum MRCA PI rate. 
(b) 
amount of weekly MRCA PI payable is equal to Step (4) amount 
minus excess PI under (a). 
 
 

Table 23.1: COMPENSATION FACTORS FOR CALCULATING PERMANENT 
IMPAIRMENT COMPENSATION - WARLIKE AND NON-WARLIKE SERVICE 

Lifestyle 
Impairment 









   0.000      0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 

   0.044      0.067  
0.089 
0.111 
0.133 
0.156 
0.178 
0.200 

   0.053      0.075  
0.098 
0.120 
0.142 
0.165 
0.187 
0.209 

   0.062      0.084  
0.107 
0.129 
0.151 
0.173 
0.196 
0.218 

   0.071      0.093  
0.115 
0.138 
0.160 
0.182 
0.205 
0.227 

   0.080      0.102  
0.124 
0.147 
0.169 
0.191 
0.213 
0.236 
10 
   0.088      0.111  
0.133 
0.155 
0.178 
0.200 
0.222 
0.245 
11 
   0.097      0.120  
0.142 
0.164 
0.187 
0.209 
0.231 
0.253 
12 
   0.106      0.128  
0.151 
0.173 
0.195 
0.218 
0.240 
0.262 
13 
   0.115      0.137  
0.160 
0.182 
0.204 
0.227 
0.249 
0.271 
14 
   0.124      0.146  
0.168 
0.191 
0.213 
0.235 
0.258 
0.280 
15 
   0.133      0.155  
0.177 
0.200 
0.222 
0.244 
0.267 
0.289 
16 
0.142     0.164      0.186 
0.208 
0.231 
0.253 
0.275 
0.298 
17 
0.150     0.173      0.195 
0.217 
0.240 
0.262 
0.284 
0.307 
18 
0.159     0.182      0.204 
0.226 
0.248 
0.271 
0.293 
0.315 
19 
0.168     0.190      0.213 
0.235 
0.257 
0.280 
0.302 
0.324 
20 
0.177     0.199      0.222 
0.244 
0.266 
0.288 
0.311 
0.333 
21 
0.186     0.208      0.230 
0.253 
0.275 
0.297 
0.320 
0.342 
22 
0.195     0.217      0.239 
0.262 
0.284 
0.306 
0.328 
0.351 
23 
0.203     0.226      0.248 
0.270 
0.293 
0.315 
0.337 
0.360 
24 
0.212     0.235      0.257 
0.279 
0.302 
0.324 
0.346 
0.368 
25 
0.221     0.243      0.266 
0.288 
0.310 
0.333 
0.355 
0.377 
26 
0.230     0.252      0.275 
0.297 
0.319 
0.342 
0.364 
0.386 
27 
0.239     0.261      0.283 
0.306 
0.328 
0.350 
0.373 
0.395 
28 
0.248     0.270      0.292 
0.315 
0.337 
0.359 
0.382 
0.404 
29 
0.257     0.279      0.301 
0.323 
0.346 
0.368 
0.390 
0.413 
30 
0.265     0.288      0.310 
0.332 
0.355 
0.377 
0.399 
0.422 
31 
0.274 
0.297     0.319      0.341  
0.363 
0.386 
0.408 
0.430 
32 
0.283 
0.305     0.328      0.350  
0.372 
0.395 
0.417 
0.439 
33 
0.292 
0.314     0.337      0.359  
0.381 
0.403 
0.426 
0.448 
34 
0.301 
0.323     0.345      0.368  
0.390 
0.412 
0.435 
0.457 
35 
0.310 
0.332     0.354      0.377  
0.399 
0.421 
0.443 
0.466 
36 
0.318 
0.341     0.363      0.385  
0.408 
0.430 
0.452 
0.475 
37 
0.327 
0.350     0.372      0.394  
0.417 
0.439 
0.461 
0.483 
38 
0.336 
0.358     0.381      0.403  
0.425 
0.448 
0.470 
0.492 
39 
0.345 
0.367     0.390      0.412  
0.434 
0.457 
0.479 
0.501 
40 
0.354 
0.376     0.398      0.421  
0.443 
0.465 
0.488 
0.510 
41 
0.363 
0.385 
0.407     0.430      0.452  
0.474 
0.497 
0.519 
42 
0.372 
0.394 
0.416     0.438      0.461  
0.483 
0.505 
0.528 
43 
0.380 
0.403 
0.425     0.447      0.470  
0.492 
0.514 
0.537 
44 
0.389 
0.412 
0.434     0.456      0.478  
0.501 
0.523 
0.545 

Lifestyle 
Impairment 








45 
0.398 
0.420 
0.443     0.465 
0.487  
0.510 
0.532 
0.554 
46 
0.407 
0.429 
0.452     0.474 
0.496  
0.518 
0.541 
0.563 
47 
0.416 
0.438 
0.460     0.483 
0.505  
0.527 
0.550 
0.572 
48 
0.425 
0.447 
0.469     0.492 
0.514  
0.536 
0.558 
0.581 
49 
0.434 
0.456 
0.478     0.500 
0.523  
0.545 
0.567 
0.590 
50 
0.442 
0.465 
0.487     0.509 
0.532  
0.554 
0.576 
0.598 
51 
0.461 
0.483 
0.504     0.526 
0.547  
0.569 
0.590 
0.612 
52 
0.480 
0.500 
0.521     0.542 
0.563  
0.584 
0.604 
0.625 
53 
0.498 
0.518 
0.538     0.558 
0.578  
0.598 
0.619 
0.639 
54 
0.517 
0.536 
0.555     0.575 
0.594  
0.613 
0.633 
0.652 
55 
0.535 
0.554 
0.572 
0.591     0.610 
0.628  
0.647 
0.665 
56 
0.554 
0.572 
0.590 
0.607     0.625 
0.643  
0.661 
0.679 
57 
0.572 
0.590 
0.607 
0.624     0.641 
0.658  
0.675 
0.692 
58 
0.591 
0.607 
0.624 
0.640     0.656 
0.673  
0.689 
0.706 
59 
0.610 
0.625 
0.641 
0.656     0.672 
0.688  
0.703 
0.719 
60 
0.628 
0.643 
0.658 
0.673     0.688 
0.703  
0.717 
0.732 
61 
0.647 
0.661 
0.675 
0.689     0.703 
0.717  
0.732 
0.746 
62 
0.665 
0.679 
0.692 
0.706     0.719 
0.732  
0.746 
0.759 
63 
0.684 
0.697 
0.709 
0.722     0.735 
0.747  
0.760 
0.772 
64 
0.703 
0.714 
0.726 
0.738     0.750 
0.762  
0.774 
0.786 
65 
0.721 
0.732 
0.743 
0.755     0.766 
0.777  
0.788 
0.799 
66 
0.740 
0.750 
0.761 
0.771     0.781 
0.792  
0.802 
0.813 
67 
0.758 
0.768 
0.778 
0.787     0.797 
0.807  
0.816 
0.826 
68 
0.777 
0.786 
0.795 
0.804     0.813 
0.822  
0.830 
0.839 
69 
0.796 
0.804 
0.812 
0.820     0.828 
0.836  
0.845 
0.853 
70 
0.814 
0.822 
0.829 
0.836     0.844 
0.851  
0.859 
0.866 
71 
0.833 
0.839 
0.846 
0.853 
0.859     0.866 
0.873  
0.880 
72 
0.851 
0.857 
0.863 
0.869 
0.875     0.881 
0.887  
0.893 
73 
0.870 
0.875 
0.880 
0.885 
0.891     0.896 
0.901  
0.906 
74 
0.888 
0.893 
0.897 
0.902 
0.906     0.911 
0.915  
0.920 
75 
0.907 
0.911 
0.914 
0.918 
0.922     0.926 
0.929  
0.933 
76 
0.926 
0.929 
0.932 
0.935 
0.938     0.941 
0.943  
0.946 
77 
0.944 
0.946 
0.949 
0.951 
0.953     0.955 
0.958  
0.960 
78 
0.963 
0.964 
0.966 
0.967 
0.969     0.970 
0.972  
0.973 
79 
0.981 
0.982 
0.983 
0.984 
0.984     0.985 
0.986  
0.987 
80 
1.000 
1.000 
1.000 
1.000 
1.000     1.000 
1.000  
1.000 
For impairment greater than 80 points, the value is always 1.00. 

Table 23.2: COMPENSATION FACTORS FOR CALCULATING PERMANENT 
IMPAIRMENT COMPENSATION - PEACETIME SERVICE 

Lifestyle 
Impairment 









   0.000      0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 

   0.025      0.037  
0.050 
0.062 
0.075 
0.087 
0.100 
0.112 

   0.030      0.042  
0.055 
0.067 
0.080 
0.092 
0.105 
0.117 

   0.035      0.047  
0.060 
0.072 
0.085 
0.097 
0.110 
0.122 

   0.040      0.052  
0.065 
0.077 
0.090 
0.102 
0.114 
0.127 

   0.045      0.057  
0.070 
0.082 
0.094 
0.107 
0.119 
0.132 
10 
   0.050      0.062  
0.074 
0.087 
0.099 
0.112 
0.124 
0.137 
11 
   0.054      0.067  
0.079 
0.092 
0.104 
0.117 
0.129 
0.142 
12 
   0.059      0.072  
0.084 
0.097 
0.109 
0.122 
0.134 
0.147 
13 
   0.064      0.077  
0.089 
0.102 
0.114 
0.127 
0.139 
0.152 
14 
   0.069      0.082  
0.094 
0.107 
0.119 
0.132 
0.144 
0.157 
15 
   0.074      0.087  
0.099 
0.112 
0.124 
0.137 
0.149 
0.162 
16 
0.079     0.092      0.104 
0.117 
0.129 
0.142 
0.154 
0.167 
17 
0.084     0.097      0.109 
0.122 
0.134 
0.147 
0.159 
0.172 
18 
0.089     0.102      0.114 
0.127 
0.139 
0.152 
0.164 
0.176 
19 
0.094     0.107      0.119 
0.131 
0.144 
0.156 
0.169 
0.181 
20 
0.099     0.111      0.124 
0.136 
0.149 
0.161 
0.174 
0.186 
21 
0.104     0.116      0.129 
0.141 
0.154 
0.166 
0.179 
0.191 
22 
0.109     0.121      0.134 
0.146 
0.159 
0.171 
0.184 
0.196 
23 
0.114     0.126      0.139 
0.151 
0.164 
0.176 
0.189 
0.201 
24 
0.119     0.131      0.144 
0.156 
0.169 
0.181 
0.194 
0.206 
25 
0.124     0.136      0.149 
0.161 
0.174 
0.186 
0.199 
0.211 
26 
0.129     0.141       0.154 
0.166 
0.179 
0.191 
0.204 
0.216 
27 
0.134     0.146       0.159  0.171 
0.184 
0.196 
0.209 
0.221 
28 
0.139     0.151       0.164  0.176 
0.189 
0.201 
0.213 
0.226 
29 
0.144     0.156       0.169  0.181 
0.193 
0.206 
0.218 
0.231 
30 
0.149     0.161       0.173  0.186 
0.198 
0.211 
0.223 
0.236 
31 
0.153 
0.166     0.178       0.191   0.203 
0.216 
0.228 
0.241 
32 
0.158 
0.171     0.183       0.196   0.208 
0.221 
0.233 
0.246 
33 
0.163 
0.176     0.188       0.201   0.213 
0.226 
0.238 
0.251 
34 
0.168 
0.181     0.193       0.206   0.218 
0.231 
0.243 
0.256 
35 
0.173 
0.186     0.198       0.211   0.223 
0.236 
0.248 
0.261 
36 
0.178 
0.191     0.203       0.216   0.228 
0.241 
0.253 
0.266 
37 
0.183 
0.196     0.208       0.221   0.233 
0.246 
0.258 
0.271 
38 
0.188 
0.201     0.213       0.226   0.238 
0.251 
0.263 
0.275 
39 
0.193 
0.206     0.218       0.230   0.243 
0.255 
0.268 
0.280 
40 
0.198 
0.210     0.223       0.235   0.248 
0.260 
0.273 
0.285 
41 
0.203 
0.215 
0.228     0.240      0.253  
0.265 
0.278 
0.290 
42 
0.208 
0.220 
0.233     0.245      0.258  
0.270 
0.283 
0.295 
43 
0.213 
0.225 
0.238     0.250      0.263  
0.275 
0.288 
0.300 
44 
0.218 
0.230 
0.243     0.255      0.268  
0.280 
0.293 
0.305 

Lifestyle 
Impairment 








45 
0.223 
0.235 
0.248     0.260 
0.273  
0.285 
0.298 
0.310 
46 
0.228 
0.240 
0.253     0.265 
0.278  
0.290 
0.303 
0.315 
47 
0.233 
0.245 
0.258     0.270 
0.283  
0.295 
0.308 
0.320 
48 
0.238 
0.250 
0.263     0.275 
0.288  
0.300 
0.312 
0.325 
49 
0.243 
0.255 
0.268     0.280 
0.292  
0.305 
0.317 
0.330 
50 
0.248 
0.260 
0.272     0.285 
0.297  
0.310 
0.322 
0.335 
51 
0.273 
0.285 
0.297     0.309 
0.321  
0.333 
0.345 
0.357 
52 
0.298 
0.309 
0.321     0.333 
0.344  
0.356 
0.368 
0.379 
53 
0.323 
0.334 
0.345     0.356 
0.368  
0.379 
0.390 
0.401 
54 
0.348 
0.359 
0.369     0.380 
0.391  
0.402 
0.413 
0.424 
55 
0.373 
0.383 
0.394 
0.404     0.415 
0.425  
0.435 
0.446 
56 
0.398 
0.408 
0.418 
0.428     0.438 
0.448  
0.458 
0.468 
57 
0.423 
0.433 
0.442 
0.452     0.461 
0.471  
0.480 
0.490 
58 
0.448 
0.457 
0.466 
0.476     0.485 
0.494  
0.503 
0.512 
59 
0.473 
0.482 
0.491 
0.499     0.508 
0.517  
0.526 
0.534 
60 
0.498 
0.507 
0.515 
0.523     0.532 
0.540  
0.548 
0.557 
61 
0.523 
0.531 
0.539 
0.547     0.555 
0.563  
0.571 
0.579 
62 
0.549 
0.556 
0.563 
0.571     0.578 
0.586  
0.593 
0.601 
63 
0.574 
0.581 
0.588 
0.595     0.602 
0.609  
0.616 
0.623 
64 
0.599 
0.605 
0.612 
0.619     0.625 
0.632  
0.639 
0.645 
65 
0.624 
0.630 
0.636 
0.642     0.649 
0.655  
0.661 
0.667 
66 
0.649 
0.655 
0.660 
0.666     0.672 
0.678  
0.684 
0.690 
67 
0.674 
0.679 
0.685 
0.690     0.696 
0.701  
0.706 
0.712 
68 
0.699 
0.704 
0.709 
0.714     0.719 
0.724  
0.729 
0.734 
69 
0.724 
0.729 
0.733 
0.738     0.742 
0.747  
0.752 
0.756 
70 
0.749 
0.753 
0.757 
0.762     0.766 
0.770  
0.774 
0.778 
71 
0.774 
0.778 
0.782 
0.785 
0.789     0.793 
0.797  
0.800 
72 
0.799 
0.803 
0.806 
0.809 
0.813     0.816 
0.819  
0.823 
73 
0.824 
0.827 
0.830 
0.833 
0.836     0.839 
0.842  
0.845 
74 
0.850 
0.852 
0.854 
0.857 
0.859     0.862 
0.864  
0.867 
75 
0.875 
0.877 
0.879 
0.881 
0.883     0.885 
0.887  
0.889 
76 
0.900 
0.901 
0.903 
0.905 
0.906     0.908 
0.910  
0.911 
77 
0.925 
0.926 
0.927 
0.928 
0.930     0.931 
0.932  
0.933 
78 
0.950 
0.951 
0.951 
0.952 
0.953     0.954 
0.955  
0.956 
79 
0.975 
0.975 
0.976 
0.976 
0.977     0.977 
0.977  
0.978 
80 
1.000 
1.000 
1.000 
1.000 
1.000     1.000 
1.000  
1.000 
For impairment greater than 80 points, the value is always 1.00. 
 
 


Attachment A 
 
 

From:
 
s 47F
To:
s 47E; s 47F  Kristine
Cc:
"s 47F
Subject:
Representation on Multi-Claim Working Group [TO BE CLASSIFIED]
Date:
Monday, 23 August 2021 12:24:58 PM
Dear Tiki,
 
Further to our conversation early this morning concerning s 47Gparticipation on the subject
working group and the retirement of our previous Representative, s 47F
 
s 47F  OAM, please be
advised that I have nominated s 47F
 as our ‘Representative’ ins 47F place.
 
s 47F has been a long standing Advocate with the s 47G
 and has a comprehensive
knowledge of the Repatriation System. He is currently  the s 47F
 
I view of this I am more than confident that his participation in the Group will be of substantial
benefit.
s 47F
 
s 47F, s 47G


From:
s 47E; s 47F  Kristine on behalf of ESORT.SECRETARIAT
To:
s 47E; s 47F  Scott
Subject:
FW: Representation on Multi-Claim Working Group [TO BE CLASSIFIED] [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Monday, 23 August 2021 1:02:00 PM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Hello friend
 
Please note nomination for a replacement for s 47F
 
s 47F  on the MAWG.
 
Cheers
 
Tiki s 47E; s 47F
_________________________________________________________________________________
Assistant Director
Governance & Ministerial Events Section | Parliamentary & Governance Branch
Ph: (
 
s 47E; s 47F  s 47F  | Ext: s 47E; s 47F  | M: s 47E; s 47F
Kristine s 47E; s 47Fdva.gov.au
 
cid:image005.jpg@01D4E89D.D40F9ED0
 
From:   s 47F
 <s 47F
 
Sent: Monday, 23 August 2021 12:25 PM
To: s 47E; s 47F Kristine <Kristine.s 47E; s 47Fdva.gov.au>
Cc: s 47F
 <s 47F
Subject: Representation on Multi-Claim Working Group [TO BE CLASSIFIED]
 
Dear Tiki,
 
Further to our conversation early this morning concerning s 47Gparticipation on the subject
working group and the retirement of our previous Representative, s 47F
 
s 47F  OAM, please be
advised that I have nominated s 47F
 as our ‘Representative’ s 47F  place.
 
s 47F has been a long standing Advocate with the As 47G
 and has a comprehensive
knowledge of the Repatriation System. He is currently  thes 47F
 
I view of this I am more than confident that his participation in the Group will be of substantial
benefit.
s 47F

s 47F, s 47G



From:
 
   
 Scott
To:
ESORT.SECRETARIAT
Cc:
s 47E; s 47F  Kristine
Subject:
FW: Members Contact Details [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Wednesday, 25 August 2021 10:47:49 AM
Attachments:
Members Contact Details.docx
Sorry – all meetings are 9.30 am -11.30 am
 
From: s 47E; s 47F Scott 
Sent: Wednesday, 25 August 2021 10:41 AM
To: s 47E; s 47F Kristine <Kristine s 47E; s 47Fdva.gov.au>
Subject: Members Contact Details [SEC=OFFICIAL]
 
Hi Tiki
 
Please see ESORT MAWG member details attached.
 
Proposed dates as discussed for next 6 meetings are-  
 
Friday September 10
Friday October 8
Friday November 12
Friday December 10
Thursday Jan 13 (TBC)
Thursday Feb 10 (TBC)
 
Kind regards
 
Scott



OFFICIAL 
 
Briefing Paper 
TPI Federation Congress 
 
2 September 2021 
Agenda Item No.: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Congress asked: 
Update on the ESORT Multi-Act Working Group 
 
Overall Strategy (if applicable): N/A 
 
Key risks (if applicable): N/A 
 
Talking points: 

•  The ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group has been meeting monthly since March 
this year. The group is comprised of seven members nominated by their ESOs and four 
senior DVA  staff members,  including the  First Assistant Secretary, Client Benefits 
Division who chairs the meetings. 
•  The aim of the group is to identify problems and possible solutions caused by the 
complexity of claims crossing multiple Acts. 
•  It is proving to be a valuable forum for exchanging information and gathering general 
business intelligence, as well as working through issues peculiar to multi-Act claims. 
•  The group have received detailed briefings from DVA staff on the various stages of the 
claims process and have already made recommendations that have been actioned. 
•  Some of these improvements include: 
o  Reinforcing the use of “own motion reviews” with delegates where manifest 
errors are apparent. 
o  Inclusion of information in the claims registration letter regarding the 
relevant Act that a claim has been allocated against. 
o  Simplifying medical information requirements for applications for increase 
(AFIs) for disability pensions. 
o  Highlighting potential issues arising from offsetting incapacity payments and 
Comsuper. 
 
 

OFFICIAL 

OFFICIAL 
 
•  The first series of six meetings has been completed and the group has agreed to 
convene another six meetings to continue the work relating to the broad area of 
multi-Act claims. 
 
BACKGROUND: 
 
The ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group was established in March 2021. Terms of 
reference (TOR)  and membership are provided below. 
 
ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group Objective Statement: 
•  “To provide Subject Matter Expert recommendations that wil  simplify and enhance 
the multi-Act compensation claims processes for veterans, advocates and 
delegates.” 

 ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group Terms of Reference/Role statement: 
•  “To work in a co-operative and respectful manner with other members of the 
Working Party, as a representative of an ESO or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, 
in order to recommend the actions necessary to minimise the difficulties, perceived 
or actual, being experienced in the claims process in relation to multi-Act eligibility.” 

 
The group meets monthly and the first series of six meetings has been completed. A further 
six meetings have been scheduled to conclude in February 2022. 
 
ESORT Members 
Organisation 
 s 47F
 OAM 
s 47F
 JP 
s 47F
 
s 47F
 OAM 
s 47G
s 47F
 
s 47F
 
s 47F  
(resigned membership June 2021) 
s 47F
 
(membership from May 2021) 
s 47F
 
(membership from August 2021) 
DVA Members 
 
 
 

OFFICIAL 

OFFICIAL 
  Natasha Cole 
 
First Assistant Secretary, Client Benefits Division, 
Department of Veterans’ Affairs 
Luke Brown 
Assistant Secretary, Business Improvement and Quality 
Assurance, Department of Veterans’ Affairs 
Simon Hill 
Assistant Secretary, Policy Development Branch, 
Department of Veterans’ Affairs 
 
 
 
Division: 
Client Benefits Division 
Contact Officer: 
Luke Brown   
Phone No.: 
(s 47E; s 47F 
 
Cleared by: 
Natasha Cole 
(FAS): 
 
Date: 
 
 

OFFICIAL 

From:
s 47E; s 47F  Kristine on behalf of ESORT.SECRETARIAT
To:
Brown, Luke; s 47F
 (s 47F  Cole, Natasha; Dennington, Sally; s 47E; s 47F Rochelle; s 47F
 (s 47G
 s 4
 Ashlee
E; s 4
; Hill, Simon; s 47F
 s 47G; s 47F
 (s 47G
 ; s 47F
 (s 47G "s 47F
 (s 47F
  s 47F
 (s 47G s 47E; s 47F Scott;  s 47F s 47F
(RSL)
Subject:
FW: ESORT Multi Act Claims Working Group: Agenda 10.09.2021 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Tuesday, 7 September 2021 10:01:20 AM
Attachments:
Agenda 10.09.2021.docx
image001.jpg
Multi-Act Claims Working Group - Minutes 05.08.2021.docx
Draft Businessline- Date of clinical onset.pdf
Good morning
 
My apologies, I didn’t realise the security classification of my previous email, and note that some
members may not have been able to access the attachments.
 
Please let me know if you have any issues accessing the attachments to this email.
 
Regards
 
 
 
Dear ESORT Multi-Act Working Group members
 
Attached are the agenda and papers for the next meeting to be held 9:30-11:30 (AEST) Friday 10
September 2021 attached.
 
You will note that a draft Businessline regarding the date of clinical onset has been included for
your consideration and discussion at the meeting.
 
Please use the link below to join the meeting;
 
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
s 47E
 
Learn More | Meeting options
 
Tiki s 47E; s 47F
_________________________________________________________________________________
Assistant Director
Governance & Ministerial Events Section | Parliamentary & Governance Branch
Ph: (
 
s 47E; s 47F  s 47F  | Ext: s 47E; s 47F  | M: s 47E; s 47F
Kristine s 47E; s 47Fdva.gov.au
 















s 47C

s 47C

s 47C


OFFICIAL 
 
Ex-Service Organisation Round Table 
ESORT 
 
Day, date of meeting  
 
Title – ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group update 
 
Led by: 
Chair/TBA 
Recommendations: 
That members NOTE the work to date of the ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group 
 
Purpose: 
To inform ESORT of the work to date of the Multi-Act Claims Working Group. 
 
Issues for discussion: 
N/A 
Background 
The ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group was established in February 2021 and is 
comprised of seven representatives nominated by their respective ESOs, along with four 
senior DVA representatives. Terms of references (TOR) have been condensed into the 
fol owing endorsed TOR role and Objective statements: 
ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group Objective Statement 
•  “To provide Subject Matter Expert recommendations that wil  simplify and enhance 
the multi-Act compensation claims processes for veterans, advocates and delegates.” 
ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group Terms of Reference/Role statement: 
•  “To work in a co-operative and respective manner with other members of the 
Working Party, as a representative of an ESO or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, 
in order to recommend the actions necessary to minimise the difficulties, perceived or 
actual, being experienced in the claim process in relation to multi-Act eligibility.” 

Initially six meetings of the group were scheduled, to be held monthly, commencing in 
March 2021. The first series of meetings were completed in August 2021. At the Working 
Page 1 of 2 


OFFICIAL 
 
Ex-Service Organisation Round Table 
ESORT 
 
Day, date of meeting  
 
Group meeting held in August 2021, members discussed the outcomes of the Group and 
recommended continuation of the Group for a further six months. 
Achievements to date from ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group meetings 
•  Inclusion of information for claimants and advocates in the claims registration letter 
regarding the relevant Act that a claim has been allocated against. 
 
•  Reinforcement with delegates of the use of “own motion reviews” for manifest 
errors rather than unnecessarily sending cases to appeal (see Attachment A). 
 
•  Simplifying medical assessment information requirements for applications for 
increase of service pension applications (AFIs) by implementation of the Optional 
Assessment Model (OAM) (see Attachment B). 
 
•  Development of a Businessline reinforcing the concept of Date of Clinical Onset for 
claims under MRCA and VEA (see Attachment C). 
 
•  Undertaking to review and improve communication channels with advocates 
regarding procedural updates and changes. More communication through ATDP 
newsletters etc. to be implemented. 
 
•  Highlighting potential issues arising from offsetting incapacity payments and 
Comsuper. 
 
Next Steps and Critical Dates: 
The Group wil  continue to meet on a monthly basis until February 2022. 
 
Attachments: 

A.  Businessline regarding Own Motion Reviews. 
B.  Businessline regarding optional assessment Model (OAM) 
C.  Businessline regarding Date of Clinical Onset 
 
 
Page 2 of 2 


 
Ex-Service Organisation Round Table 
ESORT 
 
(Meeting day and Date) 
 
Chair’s Talking points and Notes  
 
ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group update 
 
Speaker: Chair/TBA 
You will address this item. Your talking points are provided below for your information. 
 
Observers: N/A 
 
Video conference facilities/ PowerPoint/Video presentations: N/A 
 
Recommendations: 
That members NOTE the work to date of the ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group 
 
Chair talking points: 

•  The ESORT Multi-Act Claims Working Group has been meeting monthly since March 2021 with 
the aim of collaborating recommendations to simplify and enhance the multi-Act claims process 
for veterans, advocates and delegates. 
•  It is proving to be a valuable forum for information exchange and gathering of general business 
intelligence as well as working through issues particular to multi-Act claims. 
•  The group have received detailed briefings from DVA staff on the various stages of the claims 
process and have been able to identify recurring issues and suggested improvements. 
•  The forum has contributed to the development of guidance material for staff (Attachments A, B 
and C) to improve processes to the compensation claims process as a whole. 
•  The Working Group considers the forum to be worthwhile continuing as there is stil  work to be 
done in the area of multi-Act claims. It has been agreed that the meetings wil  continue until 
February 2022. 
 
Chair notes:  

•  All meetings have been held successfully via GovTeams with minimal technology problems. 
 
Page 1 of 2 
 


 
Ex-Service Organisation Round Table 
ESORT 
 
(Meeting day and Date) 
 
IF ASKED (NOT to be raised) 
•  The original stipulation when nominations for the Working Group were requested from ESORT 
member organisations was that nominees would be ADTP or TIP accredited claims advocates. While 
this is stil  the preferred arrangement, some dispensation has been provided in this area to ensure 
representation of interests on the group remains as broad as possible. 
 
 
Page 2 of 2