Pages 308 414 from LEX 55101 Jordan ESORT MACWG Document Bundle.pdf

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

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

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 22 - Out of scope

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:

o
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
o
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
0.000   0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5
   0.044      0.067
0.089
0.111
0.133
0.156
0.178
0.200
6
   0.053      0.075
0.098
0.120
0.142
0.165
0.187
0.209
7
   0.062      0.084
0.107
0.129
0.151
0.173
0.196
0.218
8
   0.071      0.093
0.115
0.138
0.160
0.182
0.205
0.227
9
   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
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
0.000   0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5
   0.025      0.037
0.050
0.062
0.075
0.087
0.100
0.112
6
   0.030      0.042
0.055
0.067
0.080
0.092
0.105
0.117
7
   0.035      0.047
0.060
0.072
0.085
0.097
0.110
0.122
8
   0.040      0.052
0.065
0.077
0.090
0.102
0.114
0.127
9
   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
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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.

1
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

2
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:

3
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

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