{"id":"F2019L00332","name":"Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Non-warlike Service) Determination 2019","slug":"military-rehabilitation-and-compensation-non-warlike-service-determination-2019","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":98946,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2019L00332-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Name","content":"#### 1 Name\n\n  This instrument is the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Non-warlike Service) Determination 2019.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Authority","content":"#### 3 Authority\n\n  This instrument is made under paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definitions","content":"#### 5 Definitions\n\n  In this instrument:\n\n> Act means the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.\n\n> ADF means the Australian Defence Force (within the meaning of the Defence Act 1903).\n\n> NATO means the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Non-warlike service","content":"#### 6 Non-warlike service\n\n  Schedule 1 specifies service with the Defence Force that is non‑warlike service for the purposes of the Act.\n\n  \n\nSchedule 1—Non-warlike service","sortOrder":3}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 2019 instrument has been significantly expanded through amendments to include operations well beyond its original temporal scope. The schedule now includes operations dating back to 1993 (Operation Mazurka) and forward to 2024 (Operations Beech, Hydranth, and Kudu 28A). The geographic scope has also expanded dramatically from primarily Middle East and Balkans operations to include Ukraine, Red Sea operations, Solomon Islands, and Indo-Pacific maritime operations. The instrument has effectively become a living document that accumulates new operations as geopolitical events unfold, rather than remaining fixed to its 2019 creation date."},"complexity_factors":["Lengthy tabular schedule with 30+ items (including sub-items like 5A, 5B, 18A, 18B, 19A, 19B, 19C, 20A, 23A, 26A, 28A) requiring cross-referencing between columns","Precise geographical definitions using coordinates (latitude/longitude) and legal terms like 'superjacent airspace' (the airspace above a territory), 'territorial waters', and 'exclusive economic zone'","Complex temporal boundaries with multiple date ranges for the same operation name (e.g., Operation Paladin has three separate entries with different areas and dates)","Nested conditional logic: service must satisfy both geographical AND temporal criteria simultaneously","Historical geopolitical references requiring external knowledge (e.g., 'Serbia and Montenegro' note about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia')","Some operation names are blank (items 15, 22, 25, 26A) while retaining operational descriptions, creating potential ambiguity"],"plain_english_summary":"This ministerial determination lists specific ADF operations that count as \"non-warlike service\" — dangerous or difficult deployments short of active combat — identifying each operation’s name, nature, location and qualifying dates. It affects current and former ADF members (and their families) and guides the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in assessing compensation and rehabilitation under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The list spans operations from 1993 through recent deployments."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument does not change the statutory power or the legal scope of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. It exercises the Act’s existing delegated power to specify which Defence Force service counts as non‑warlike service. Functionally the instrument updates and extends the list of operations, areas and dates (to include more recent deployments such as Fortitude, Kudu, Beech and Hydranth and to add continuations of earlier operations), but it remains within the original purpose set by the Act—identifying non‑warlike service for the rehabilitation and compensation framework rather than creating new categories of entitlement or changing substantive benefit rules."},"complexity_factors":["Schedule 1 contains 30 numbered items plus several lettered sub‑items (eg. 5A, 5B, 18A, 18B, 19A–19C, 23A, 26A, 28A), creating ~40 distinct operation/date entries to apply.","Three defined terms in the instrument (Act, ADF, NATO) but heavy reliance on Schedule 1 for operative definitions.","Frequent use of precise geographic descriptions: named countries, territorial waters, superjacent airspace, coordinate boxes (eg. 45°N/45°S by 45°E/180°E) and 10 km radii around ports.","Multiple temporal formulations: fixed start/finish dates, \"on and after\" start dates, short discrete deployments (days or weeks) and long ongoing periods (to 2024), requiring careful temporal matching to individual service records.","Some entries split the same operation into phased sub‑entries (eg. Paladin and Manitou variants) which creates nested or successive coverage that must be reconciled when determining whether a person’s service falls within an item.","Cross‑reference to the Act (paragraph 6(1)(b)) but no other legislative cross‑references; the instrument therefore sits as a mapping layer that must be read with the Act’s substantive entitlements and tests.","One historical note (Serbia and Montenegro naming) that affects interpretation of older items."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)\n\n- This is a regulation made under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (the Act) that tells officials exactly which Australian Defence Force (ADF) deployments count as \"non‑warlike service\" for the purposes of that Act (see section 3 and section 6 of the instrument).  \n- Schedule 1 is the operative part: it contains a table that names operations (for example, \"Mazurka\", \"Okra\", \"Paladin\", \"Kudu\", \"Beech\"), describes the nature of each operation, defines the geographic area covered (sometimes by named countries, sometimes by coordinates or radii around ports) and states the time period during which service in that area counts as non‑warlike service (Schedule 1).\n\nWho it affects\n\n- Former and current members of the ADF, and their dependants or estates, when they seek rehabilitation or compensation under the Act. Whether a particular period of service is classified as \"non‑warlike\" determines how the Act applies to claims for treatment, rehabilitation and compensation for injury, disease or death allegedly connected to that service.  \n- Administrators and decision‑makers in the Department and the agency that handle rehabilitation and compensation claims (because they must apply the table when deciding eligibility and dates).\n\nWhy it matters (practical effect)\n\n- The instrument does not itself pay benefits or set rates. Instead it determines eligibility: if an individual served in one of the listed operations, in the listed area, and within the listed dates, that service is legally treated as non‑warlike service under the Act (see section 6 and Schedule 1).  \n- That legal classification affects what kinds of claims can be made and which provisions of the Act apply (for example, which causation tests, presumptions and entitlements attach to non‑warlike service versus warlike service). The instrument therefore changes the legal starting point for claims and administrative decisions.\n\nOfficial purpose claim and a practical test\n\n- The instrument’s stated purpose is to identify non‑warlike ADF service for the Act so that eligible personnel can access the Act’s rehabilitation and compensation framework (see sections 3 and 6).  \n- Tested against costs and incentives: the practical consequence is that the Commonwealth becomes administratively responsible for investigating and determining claims arising from the listed deployments, and for meeting any entitlements that flow from successful claims. That creates a fiscal exposure (paying benefits) and an administrative workload (deciding claims, managing evidence about where and when individuals served).\n\nMechanisms, decision‑makers and behaviour changes\n\n- Who decides: the instrument is made under the Act by the Commonwealth's executive power provided in paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Act; it is this delegated instrument that sets the categories decision‑makers must apply. Operational commanders do not decide legal classification — the instrument does.  \n- Who pays: any rehabilitation or compensation that follows an accepted claim under the Act is paid from Commonwealth funds (the Act is the statutory payment vehicle).  \n- Behavioural and practical effects: service members get legal certainty about whether particular deployments will be treated as non‑warlike for claims; administrators use the table to accept or reject jurisdiction; there may be appeals or review requests when an individual's movements are close to a geographic boundary or date cutoff.\n\nCosts, trade‑offs and risks of implementation\n\n- Concentrated benefits: individuals who served on the listed deployments gain (or retain) access to the non‑warlike provisions; this benefit is concentrated on participants and their families.  \n- Diffuse costs: the fiscal cost of benefits and the administrative cost of processing claims are borne by the broader taxpayer base.  \n- Administrative complexity and uncertainty: the table uses precise geographies (coordinates, 10 km radii around ports, named territorial waters and airspace) and exact date ranges (including \"on and after\" dates). That precision reduces some uncertainty but increases factual disputes where a person’s location or dates of service sit near a boundary.  \n- Implementation risk: decisions will depend on evidence of where an individual was located and when; inaccurate records or ambiguous movements can produce contested decisions, reviews and appeals.  \n- Effects on private choice and enterprise: the instrument primarily affects individuals’ entitlement rights and the Department’s obligations; it does not directly regulate private markets or commercial actors.\n\nOther practical notes\n\n- The instrument is essentially a map and timetable for legal classification rather than a statement of policy or benefit levels.  \n- Schedule 1 has been updated to include a long list of historical and recent operations, including some with multiple sub‑items (eg. Paladin 5/5A/5B, Manitou 18/18A/18B, Okra 19/19A/19B/19C).  \n- Small drafting features to watch: overlapping or successive items (where one item covers a period and a later item continues coverage \"on and after\" a date) create transition points that administrators must interpret carefully (see Schedule 1)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/military-rehabilitation-and-compensation-non-warlike-service-determination-2019","history":"/api/acts/military-rehabilitation-and-compensation-non-warlike-service-determination-2019/history","analysis":"/api/acts/military-rehabilitation-and-compensation-non-warlike-service-determination-2019/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/military-rehabilitation-and-compensation-non-warlike-service-determination-2019/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/military-rehabilitation-and-compensation-non-warlike-service-determination-2019/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/military-rehabilitation-and-compensation-non-warlike-service-determination-2019/documents"}}