{"id":"C1973A00004","name":"Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1973","slug":"repatriation-far-east-strategic-reserve-act-1973","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"repealed","isInForce":false,"actNumber":"4 of 1973","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":2524,"registerId":"commonwealth-C1973A00004-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-03-29","status":"Repealed","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1973","content":"Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1973\n\nNo. 4 of 1973\n\nAN ACT\n\nTo amend the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956–1972 to make provision with respect to Benefits for certain Dependants.\n\n\\[Assented to 16 March 1973\\]\n\nBE IT ENACTED by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:—\n\nShort title and citation.\n\n1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1973.\n\n(2) The Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956–1972 is in this Act referred to as the Principal Act.\n\n(3) The Principal Act, as amended by this Act, may be cited as the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956–1973.\n\nCommencement.\n\n2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.\n\n  \n\nInterpretation.\n\n3. Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended—\n\n(a) by omitting from sub-section (1) the definitions of “child”, “member of the family”, “parents”, “step-child”, “stepson” and “step-daughter”;\n\n(b) by omitting from the definition of “pension” in sub-section (1) the words “Second and Fifth”; and\n\n(c) by omitting sub-section (4) and substituting the following subsection:—\n\n“(4) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, ‘child’, ‘member of the family’, ‘parents’, ‘step-daughter’, ‘step-son’, ‘widow’ and ‘wife’ have the same respective meanings as in Part III of the Repatriation Act except that, for the purposes of this sub-section, a reference in that Part to a member of the Forces shall be read as a reference to a member of the Forces for the purposes of this Act.”.\n\nExtension of certain provisions of Repatriation Act.\n\n4. Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended—\n\n(a) by omitting sub-paragraphs (iii) and (iiia) of paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) and substituting the following sub-paragraph:—\n\n“(iii) a child of a member of the Forces;”;\n\n(b) by omitting sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iia) of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) and substituting the following sub-paragraph:—\n\n“(ii) a child of a member of tire Forces;”; and\n\n(c) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section:—\n\n“(3) Section 120c of the Repatriation Act applies in relation to a pension, allowance or other benefit under this Act or the regulations as if it were a pension, allowance or other benefit under that Act.”.","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This amendment does not expand the scope of the legislation. It is a narrow, tidying amendment that harmonises definitions and extends a recovery mechanism already present in the parent Repatriation Act. The underlying purpose — providing repatriation benefits to Far East Strategic Reserve members and their dependants — remains entirely unchanged. The amendment actually simplifies and consolidates the framework rather than broadening it."},"complexity_factors":["Very short Act — only 4 operative sections","Primarily a mechanical amendment Act with no standalone operative rules of its own","Relies heavily on cross-references to the principal Act and the broader Repatriation Act, requiring readers to consult multiple pieces of legislation to understand full effect","Minimal conditional logic — amendments are largely substitutions and omissions of definitions","Small number of defined terms affected (6 definitions removed and replaced by reference)"],"plain_english_summary":"This amending Act updates the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act by replacing its separate family‑member definitions with the single, consistent definitions from Part III of the main Repatriation Act, simplifying how “child” is recognised, and extending Section 120C’s overpayment‑recovery rules to these benefits. \n\nIt affects Far East Strategic Reserve veterans and their dependants, ensuring consistent entitlement treatment and allowing recovery of incorrectly paid pensions or allowances."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"circular_definition","section":"Section 3(c) — substituted s.3(4) of Principal Act","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The deeming provision is intended to adapt the Repatriation Act definitions for use in this Act. However, the mechanism chosen — treating a reference in Part III to 'member of the Forces' as a reference to 'member of the Forces for the purposes of this Act' — is tautological. It substitutes one undefined term for itself under a different label. A reader seeking to know what 'member of the Forces' means for the purposes of this Act is told to look at Part III of the Repatriation Act, but wherever Part III uses the very term being sought, they must substitute back the same term. No interpretive progress is made; the definition spins in place.","confidence":0.82,"description":"The substituted sub-section defines 'widow' and 'wife' by reference to Part III of the Repatriation Act, but simultaneously defines 'member of the Forces' circularly — the cross-reference instructs that 'a reference in that Part to a member of the Forces shall be read as a reference to a member of the Forces for the purposes of this Act.' This means 'member of the Forces for the purposes of this Act' is defined by reference to a term that is itself redirected back to 'member of the Forces for the purposes of this Act', achieving nothing and resolving nothing."},{"type":"other","section":"Section 4(b) — substituted s.7(2)(c)(ii) of Principal Act","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Legislation means what it says. As printed (and presumably as enacted), the substituted sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) refers to 'tire Forces' rather than 'the Forces'. Courts can apply the slip rule or purposive construction to cure obvious typographical errors, but this nonetheless creates genuine textual ambiguity and uncertainty for those reading the Act without judicial guidance. It is a drafting absurdity — a nonsense phrase enacted into law.","confidence":0.95,"description":"The paragraph contains an apparent typographical error: 'a child of a member of tire Forces' (emphasis added). The word 'tire' appears in place of 'the'. While likely a printing error, as enacted this creates a provision that is literally unintelligible — it refers to 'a member of tire Forces', an entity nowhere defined in the Act or the Principal Act."},{"type":"other","section":"Section 3(c) — substituted s.3(4) of Principal Act","severity":"low","reasoning":"Section 3(a) omits the definitions of 'stepson' and 'step-daughter' from sub-section (1). Section 3(c) then inserts a new sub-section (4) that defines 'step-son' and 'step-daughter'. The inconsistent hyphenation between the omitted term ('stepson') and the replacement term ('step-son') could cause ambiguity if the Principal Act's operative provisions used the unhyphenated form 'stepson', since that term no longer has a definition and the new defined term is spelled differently. A court would almost certainly resolve this by purposive construction, but it is a genuine drafting inelegance that could cause confusion.","confidence":0.7,"description":"The substituted sub-section purports to give 'widow' and 'wife' the same meanings as in Part III of the Repatriation Act. However, the amending Act simultaneously removes 'stepson' and 'step-daughter' (with hyphen) from sub-section (1) via s.3(a), while the new sub-section (4) reintroduces 'step-son' and 'step-daughter' (with hyphen repositioned). The Act thus omits definitions using one spelling convention and reintroduces them under a marginally different orthographic form, potentially creating residual uncertainty about whether any existing references in the Principal Act to the previously defined 'stepson' (no hyphen) are now captured by the new defined term 'step-son' (hyphenated)."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"medium","section_a":"Section 3(a) — omission of definitions from s.3(1) of Principal Act","section_b":"Section 3(c) — substituted s.3(4) of Principal Act","confidence":0.78,"description":"Section 3(a) removes the standalone definitions of 'child', 'member of the family', 'parents', 'step-child', 'stepson' and 'step-daughter' from sub-section (1). Section 3(c) then reintroduces definitions for 'child', 'member of the family', 'parents', 'step-daughter' and 'step-son' via the new sub-section (4) — but notably omits 'step-child' entirely. The term 'step-child' is deleted from the Act's definitions and never replaced, leaving a definitional gap if 'step-child' is used anywhere in the operative provisions of the Principal Act."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"Section 4(a) — substituted s.7(2)(b)(iii) of Principal Act","section_b":"Section 4(b) — substituted s.7(2)(c)(ii) of Principal Act","confidence":0.65,"description":"Section 4(a) omits sub-paragraphs (iii) and (iiia) of paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) and replaces them with a single sub-paragraph (iii). Section 4(b) omits sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iia) of paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) and replaces them with a single sub-paragraph (ii). Both substitutions use materially identical language — 'a child of a member of the Forces' — raising the question of why the same concept required two separate provisions in two separate paragraphs of the same sub-section. If paragraphs (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) are intended to operate differently (e.g. different benefit types or eligibility pathways), the identical drafting of the child-eligibility limb risks conflating two distinct categories and undermining whatever distinction the original dual-paragraph structure was meant to achieve."}]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/repatriation-far-east-strategic-reserve-act-1973","history":"/api/acts/repatriation-far-east-strategic-reserve-act-1973/history","analysis":"/api/acts/repatriation-far-east-strategic-reserve-act-1973/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/repatriation-far-east-strategic-reserve-act-1973/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/repatriation-far-east-strategic-reserve-act-1973/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/repatriation-far-east-strategic-reserve-act-1973/documents"}}