{"id":"C2004A02419","name":"Repatriation (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Act 1981","slug":"repatriation-pharmaceutical-benefits-amendment-act-1981","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"repealed","isInForce":false,"actNumber":"41 of 1981","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":6749,"registerId":"commonwealth-C2004A02419-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-03-30","status":"Repealed","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Repatriation (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Act 1981","content":"![1.jpg](image.001.jpeg)\n\nRepatriation (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Act 1981\n\nNo. 41 of 1981\n\nAn Act to amend the Repatriation Act 1920 in relation to pharmaceutical benefits, and for other purposes\n\n\\[Assented to 12 May 1981\\]\n\nBE IT ENACTED by the Queen, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows:\n\nShort title, &c.\n\n1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Repatriation (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Act 1981.\n\n(2) The Repatriation Act 19201 is in this Act referred to as the Principal Act.\n\nCommencement\n\n2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.\n\nReview by Commission of decision the subject of application for review by Tribunal\n\n3. Section 107vl of the Principal Act is amended—\n\n  \n\n(a) by omitting sub-sections (2) and (3) and inserting the following sub-sections:\n\n“(2) Where—\n\n(a) an application for a review of a decision of the Commission or a Board has been made to the Tribunal; and\n\n(b) the President is satisfied—\n\n(i) that there will be put before the Tribunal in the proceeding on the review, evidence that was not before the Commission or the Board; and\n\n(ii) that that further evidence would have been relevant to the making of a decision in the proceeding before the Commission or the Board,\n\nthe President may direct that the hearing be postponed and request the Commission to review that decision having regard to that further evidence.\n\n“(3) Where—\n\n(a) an application for a review of a decision of the Commission or a Board has been made to the Tribunal; and\n\n(b) in the proceeding on the review there is before the Tribunal further evidence that was not before the Commission or the Board and the Tribunal is satisfied that that further evidence would have been relevant to the making of a decision in the proceeding before the Commission or the Board,\n\nthe Tribunal may adjourn the hearing and request the Commission to review that decision having regard to that further evidence.\n\n“(3a) Where—\n\n(a) the President requests the Commission under sub-section (2) to review a decision; or\n\n(b) the Tribunal requests the Commission under sub-section (3) to review a decision,\n\nthe Tribunal may, if the decision is a decision with respect to a pension assessment, vary that assessment pending the completion of the review of the decision by the Commission, having regard to the records and evidence on which the Commission or a Board reached that decision.\n\n“(3b) Where the Commission makes a decision on a review of a decision referred to in sub-sections (1), (2) or (3), it shall furnish to the Tribunal a written statement of the decision and shall include in the statement—\n\n(a) the findings on material questions relating to the evidence or other material on which they were based; and\n\n(b) the reasons for the decision of the Commission.”; and\n\n(b) by omitting from sub-sections (4) and (7) “sub-section (1) or (2)” (wherever occurring) and substituting “sub-section (1), (2) or (3)”.\n\n  \n\n4\\. (1) After section 108 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted:\n\nPharmaceutical Benefits Scheme\n\n“109\\. (1) The Minister may approve a scheme for the provision of pharmaceutical benefits to—\n\n(a) persons entitled to receive medical treatment under this Act; and\n\n(b) persons entitled to receive medical treatment under—\n\n(i) the Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947;\n\n(ii) the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956;\n\n(iii) the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962; or\n\n(iv) the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940.\n\n“(2) Where the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal established under the National Health Act 1953 is holding, or proposes to hold, an inquiry under that Act to ascertain whether the Commonwealth price of all or any pharmaceutical benefits under that Act should be varied, the Minister may request that Tribunal to extend its inquiry to include the question whether the prices payable to pharmaceutical chemists in respect of the supply by them, in accordance with a scheme approved under sub-section (1), of pharmaceutical benefits of the kinds specified by the Minister in his request should be varied and, where such a request is made, the Tribunal shall comply with the request.\n\n“(3) After the completion of an inquiry referred to in sub-section (2), the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal shall submit to the Minister—\n\n(a) the recommendations of the Tribunal on the question the subject of the request made by the Minister under sub-section (2); and\n\n(b) where the Tribunal has submitted to the Minister administering the National Health Act 1953 a report in connection with that inquiry—a copy of that report.\n\n“(4) In this section, ‘pharmaceutical benefits’ means drugs or medicinal preparations, and includes other pharmaceutical items (including dressings).”.\n\n(2) In giving his first approval under sub-section 109 (1) of the Repatriation Act 1920, the Minister may specify in the approval that the approval is to have effect, and to be deemed to have had effect, on and after a date before the commencement of this Act (not being a date earlier than 1 May 1980) that is specified in the approval.\n\n(3) Where an approval is to be deemed to have had effect on and after a date earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, the first request made by the Minister under sub-section 109 (2) of the Repatriation Act 1920 may include a request that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal extend its inquiry to relate to pharmaceutical benefits supplied since the date on and after which the approval is to be deemed to have had effect.\n\n  \nNOTE\n\n1 No. 6, 1920, as amended. For previous amendments, see No. 34, 1921; No. 23, 1922; No. 14, 1929; No. 74, 1930; Nos. 10 and 47, 1931; No. 32, 1934; No. 58, 1935; Nos. 29 and 67, 1936; Nos. 12, 24 and 42, 1937; No. 55, 1938; Nos 37 and 96, 1940; No. 49, 1941; No. 22, 1943; No. 11, 1945; No. 49, 1946; Nos. 1, 29 and 74, 1947; No. 39, 1948; No. 38, 1949; Nos. 34 and 80, 1950; No. 31, 1951; No. 58, 1952, No. 69, 1953; No. 31, 1954; No. 39, 1955; Nos. 68 and 97, 1956; No. 44, 1957; No. 47, 1958; No. 58, 1959; No. 44, 1960; No. 46, 1961; Nos. 75 and 91, 1962; No. 47, 1963; Nos. 62 and 105, 1964; No. 64, 1965; No. 42, 1966; No. 64, 1967; Nos. 66 and 120, 1968; No. 95, 1969; Nos. 4 and 60, 1970; Nos. 17 and 68, 1971; Nos. 15, 82 and 139, 1972; Nos. 2, 27 and 104, 1973; No. 216, 1973 (as amended by No. 20, 1974); Nos. 3, 24 and 90, 1974; Nos. 35, 55 and 111, 1975; Nos. 27, 91 and 112, 1976; No. 56, 1977; Nos. 129 and 170, 1978; Nos. 18 and 124, 1979 and No. 129, 1980.","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"retroactive_impossibility","section":"4(2)","severity":"high","reasoning":"A scheme approved under s109(1) can only be lawfully approved once s109 is inserted into the Principal Act, which occurs upon Royal Assent on 12 May 1981. Yet s4(2) permits the Minister to deem that approval to have had effect from as early as 1 May 1980 — a date 12 months and 12 days before the empowering provision existed. This creates a legal fiction in which obligations, entitlements, and scheme terms are treated as having operated under statutory authority that Parliament had not yet granted. Retrospective validation of executive action is not inherently unlawful in Australian law, but the provision bootstraps the existence of the scheme itself — not merely its legal consequences — to a date prior to the enacting statute, which is logically incoherent. The scheme cannot have been 'approved under sub-section (1)' before sub-section (1) existed.","confidence":0.88,"description":"The Minister is empowered to approve a scheme and declare it to have retrospective effect back to 1 May 1980 — over a year before this Act received Royal Assent on 12 May 1981. This means the scheme can be deemed to have existed during a period when the legal authority to create it did not yet exist."},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"4(3)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Section 109(2) conditions the Minister's ability to make a request on the Tribunal 'holding, or propos[ing] to hold, an inquiry'. Section 4(3) contemplates that the first such request will sweep in pharmaceutical benefits supplied since the backdated effective date (potentially as far back as 1 May 1980). But if no such inquiry happens to be on foot, the mechanism to retrospectively examine and set prices for that earlier period is simply unavailable. There is no provision enabling the Minister to compel a fresh inquiry, meaning the price-review mechanism for the retrospective period is contingent on an uncertain external event. Beneficiaries and chemists supplied pharmaceutical benefits during the retrospective window may have no means of having pricing reviewed if the timing of a National Health Act inquiry does not cooperate.","confidence":0.78,"description":"The first request to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal may extend its inquiry to pharmaceutical benefits 'supplied since' the backdated approval date. However, the Tribunal can only hold an inquiry that is already underway or proposed under the National Health Act 1953 (per s109(2)). This means the retrospective supply period can only be examined if a current or prospective inquiry happens to be on foot — a condition entirely outside the Minister's or the beneficiaries' control."},{"type":"other","section":"3 / s107vl(3b)","severity":"low","reasoning":"Sub-sections (2) and (3) are entirely omitted and replaced by this Act. Sub-section (3b) then refers back to sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) — but (2) and (3) are now the new versions. Since (3b) is inserted simultaneously, this is technically coherent, but the drafting style (omitting and inserting rather than substituting with a clean consolidated text) creates a real risk of misreading the provision as referring to the old (2) and (3). This is a low-grade drafting ambiguity rather than a showstopping flaw.","confidence":0.62,"description":"New sub-section (3b) requires the Commission to furnish a written statement of its decision 'on a review of a decision referred to in sub-sections (1), (2) or (3)'. Sub-section (1) is not amended and its text is not reproduced in this Act, yet (3b) cross-references it. The amendment to sub-sections (4) and (7) in s3(b) also substitutes references to include sub-section (3), implying sub-section (3) is newly included in scope. The drafting conflates the original and substituted sub-sections without a clean break, risking ambiguity about which version of sub-sections (2) and (3) the obligation in (3b) attaches to."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"high","section_a":"4(2) [s109(1) approval mechanism]","section_b":"2 [Commencement]","confidence":0.85,"description":"Section 2 provides that the Act comes into operation on the day of Royal Assent (12 May 1981), meaning s109(1) only exists from that date. Section 4(2) then permits the Minister's first approval under s109(1) to be deemed to have had effect from as early as 1 May 1980. This directly contradicts the commencement provision: the Act purports to operate prospectively from Royal Assent while simultaneously authorising the legal fiction that its core new power was exercised over a year before it came into operation."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"s109(2) [condition: Tribunal must be holding or proposing an inquiry]","section_b":"s109(3) [Tribunal 'shall' submit recommendations after inquiry]","confidence":0.75,"description":"Section 109(2) makes the Minister's request contingent on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal already holding or proposing to hold a National Health Act inquiry — a purely discretionary and unpredictable precondition. Section 109(3) then imposes a mandatory obligation ('shall submit') on the Tribunal to report to the Minister after such an inquiry. The tension is that the mandatory reporting obligation in (3) can only ever be triggered by the discretionary inquiry condition in (2), meaning a seemingly absolute duty is in practice wholly contingent on circumstances the Minister and the repatriation beneficiaries cannot control. In the event a National Health Act inquiry is abandoned or never proposed, the Tribunal has no obligation and the reporting mechanism is a nullity."}]},"summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The amendments remain tightly within the original scope of the Repatriation Act 1920, which has always been concerned with providing benefits — including medical benefits — to veterans and war-affected persons. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme is a natural extension of the existing medical treatment framework, and the review process improvements are procedural refinements to the existing Tribunal appeals system. There is no evidence of the legislation being used to expand into unrelated policy areas."},"complexity_factors":["Short Act with only 4 operative sections, limiting overall length-based complexity","Cross-references to multiple other Acts (National Health Act 1953, Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947, Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962, Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940) requiring external context to fully understand","Retrospective operation clause (backdating to 1 May 1980) introduces temporal complexity and legal fiction","Nested conditional logic in new subsections (2), (3), (3a) and (3b) of section 107VI — each subsection triggers only under specific combinations of preconditions","Amendment-style drafting requires the reader to mentally reconstruct the amended Act to understand the full effect of the changes","Small number of defined terms (only 'pharmaceutical benefits' formally defined), keeping definitional complexity low"],"plain_english_summary":"## Repatriation (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Act 1981\n\nThis legislation makes two distinct changes to the **Repatriation Act 1920** — the main law governing benefits for Australian veterans and war-affected persons.\n\n---\n\n### What does it do?\n\n**1. Improving the review process for veterans' decisions**\n\nWhen a veteran or eligible person challenges a decision made by the Repatriation Commission (the government body that decides veterans' entitlements) before the Repatriation Review Tribunal (an independent body that hears appeals), this Act improves how new evidence is handled. Specifically:\n\n- If **new evidence** emerges during a Tribunal review that wasn't available when the original decision was made, either the Tribunal's President *or* the Tribunal itself can **pause the hearing** and send the matter back to the Commission to reconsider its decision in light of that new evidence.\n- While that reconsideration is underway, the Tribunal can **temporarily adjust a pension payment** (i.e., vary the amount a veteran is receiving) based on the existing records — so veterans aren't left waiting with no movement on their entitlements.\n- Once the Commission finishes its reconsideration, it must provide the Tribunal with a **written statement** explaining its findings and the reasons for its decision. This ensures transparency and accountability.\n\n**2. Creating a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for veterans**\n\nThis is the centrepiece of the Act. It inserts a new section into the Repatriation Act that:\n\n- Allows the **Minister** (the relevant government minister) to **approve a scheme** providing pharmaceutical benefits — meaning drugs, medicines, dressings, and other pharmaceutical items — to veterans and others entitled to medical treatment under various repatriation and service laws, including those who served in the Far East Strategic Reserve, Special Overseas Service, and merchant seamen covered by wartime pension laws.\n- Connects this veterans' scheme to the **Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal** (an existing body under the *National Health Act 1953* that sets the prices paid to pharmacists). The Minister can ask that Tribunal to extend any of its existing inquiries to also cover what pharmacists should be paid when they supply pharmaceutical benefits under the new veterans' scheme.\n- Requires that Tribunal to **report back to the Minister** with its recommendations on pricing for the veterans' scheme.\n- Allows the scheme to be **backdated to as early as 1 May 1980** — meaning veterans who received pharmaceutical benefits before this law was passed (under what was effectively an informal arrangement) can be covered retroactively.\n\n---\n\n### Who does it affect?\n\n- **Veterans and war-affected persons** entitled to medical treatment under the Repatriation Act or related laws (including those who served in specific theatres of war or as merchant seamen).\n- **Pharmacists** who supply pharmaceutical items to veterans.\n- The **Repatriation Commission** and **Repatriation Review Tribunal**, which handle veterans' claims and appeals.\n\n---\n\n### Why does it matter?\n\nThis Act formalises and legally anchors a pharmaceutical benefits system for veterans — putting it on the same footing as the broader national pharmaceutical scheme. It also strengthens the fairness of the appeals process by ensuring new evidence can be properly considered, and that veterans aren't financially disadvantaged while their case is being reconsidered."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/repatriation-pharmaceutical-benefits-amendment-act-1981","history":"/api/acts/repatriation-pharmaceutical-benefits-amendment-act-1981/history","analysis":"/api/acts/repatriation-pharmaceutical-benefits-amendment-act-1981/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/repatriation-pharmaceutical-benefits-amendment-act-1981/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/repatriation-pharmaceutical-benefits-amendment-act-1981/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/repatriation-pharmaceutical-benefits-amendment-act-1981/documents"}}