Statement of Principles concerning ascariasis (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 66 of 2025)

The instrument revolves around a small set of technical concepts. These are defined in the operative text and the Schedule and should be read as the statutory vocabulary that decision-makers will apply.

Ascariasis. The instrument defines ascariasis as infection with Ascaris lumbricoides or Ascaris suum (subsection 7(2)). The instrument notes that Ascaris lumbricoides is the primary species in human infection and Ascaris suum is a zoonotic pig species capable of infecting humans. Although it records the ICD‑10‑AM code B77 as the usual coding for ascariasis, it expressly states that the meaning for this instrument is the species‑based definition in subsection (2) rather than the code alone (subsection 7(3) and Note).

Death from ascariasis. The instrument includes death from a terminal event or condition that was contributed to by the person’s ascariasis (subsection 7(4)). The Schedule defines “terminal event” to include proximate or ultimate causes such as pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, or cessation of brain function (Schedule 1 - Dictionary). The instrument therefore treats death where those listed terminal events were contributed to by ascariasis as within scope.

Factors that must exist. Section 9 provides the gatekeeping list of factors that must be present, at least one of them, for a decision-maker to conclude on the balance of probabilities that ascariasis or death from ascariasis is connected with relevant service. The listed exposure modes are specific: contact with soil or sand contaminated with eggs; contact with human or animal faeces contaminated with eggs; ingestion of food, drink or airborne dust contaminated with eggs; being in a tropical or subtropical region with poor sanitation; and being in warm and damp conditions with poor sanitation. The instrument imposes a temporal limit on these exposure factors: the exposure must be within the 2 years before clinical onset. A separate factor is inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for ascariasis before clinical worsening.

Balance of probabilities as the evidentiary foundation. The Repatriation Medical Authority states that, on the sound medical‑scientific evidence available, it is of the view that it is more probable than not that ascariasis and death from ascariasis can be related to relevant service (Basis for determining the factors). That statement records the evidentiary standard the Authority used to determine the factors it prescribes; it does not itself set the legal evidentiary standard for individual claims under the VEA or MRCA, which are governed by those Acts and their decision processes. The instrument’s factors are structured to be applied “on the balance of probabilities” for individual claim assessments.

Relevant service and scope. The Schedule defines “relevant service” narrowly for the purposes of the instrument: eligible war service (other than operational service) under the VEA; defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA; or peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1 - Dictionary). The instrument therefore operates within the population of persons who rendered those kinds of service and who lodge claims under the specified sections of VEA and MRCA.

Interaction with other Statements of Principles. Section 11 provides that where a factor in section 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles, the factors in that other Statement apply according to its terms. This creates an explicit cross-reference mechanism so that overlapping or related conditions are handled by their relevant Statements as in force from time to time.

Coding and reference materials. The instrument cites the ICD‑10‑AM, Tenth Edition, effective 1 July 2017, copyrighted by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, and clarifies that a reference to an ICD‑10‑AM code in subsection (3) is a reference to that assigned code (subsection 7(3)). The entry is therefore conscious of clinical coding but places substantive meaning in the species definition.

In short, the main concepts are a species‑based medical definition of ascariasis, a closed list of exposure and clinical-management factors with a two‑year temporal rule for exposure, a specified relationship-to-service requirement, and a cross‑reference mechanism to other Statements of Principles, all set against the stated view that on the balance of probabilities a service link is medically plausible.

Primary affected persons. The instrument applies to claims to which section 120B of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 or section 339 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 applies (Application). Those claims are made by or on behalf of persons who rendered “relevant service” as defined in the Schedule: eligible war service (other than operational service), defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA, or peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1 - Dictionary). Therefore the primary affected cohort is claimants who are veterans or members of the Forces whose service falls within those specific definitions and who assert ascariasis or death from ascariasis in a claim under the specified claim provisions.

Secondary affected actors. The instrument affects decision-makers and medical assessors within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and any decision body or delegate applying the VEA and MRCA claim processes, because it provides the Repatriation Medical Authority’s Statement of Principles used as medical guidance in assessing causation for those claims (Authority; Basis for determining the factors). Legal advisers, advocates, case managers and treating clinicians will also be affected because the instrument prescribes the types of evidence and factual connections that claimants need to demonstrate to establish a service link under the Authority’s framework.

Families and administrators in death cases. Because the instrument includes “death from ascariasis”, families and estate administrators handling claim steps that arise after a person’s death may be affected where claimants or their dependants seek entitlements tied to death where ascariasis contributed to a terminal event (Meaning of ascariasis; Death from ascariasis; Schedule 1 - Dictionary). The instrument’s definition of terminal event (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function) is directly relevant to such claims.

What the instrument does not directly alter. The Statement of Principles does not itself create entitlements, payments, or penalties. It is the Repatriation Medical Authority’s medical-standard instrument under subsection 196B(3) VEA that is to be applied by decision-makers when deciding whether ascariasis or death from ascariasis is connected with relevant service for claims brought under the named statutory provisions (Authority; Application). It therefore affects the medical-evidentiary landscape used in adjudication rather than directly changing statutory entitlement rules, which remain in the VEA and MRCA.

Population exclusions signalled by definitions. The Schedule’s definition of relevant service excludes certain categories: operational service is excepted from eligible war service, and hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service are excepted from defence service, for the purposes of this instrument (Schedule 1 - Dictionary). Individuals whose service falls within those excluded categories will not be within the instrument’s stated coverage for ascariasis claims under this Statement. The instrument does not purport to change the definitions in the VEA or MRCA themselves, but for the purposes of applying the Statement it restricts the class of service it addresses.

Administrative actors. The Repatriation Medical Authority as authorising body and the Departmental decision-makers who apply the Statement will need to incorporate the instrument into claim handling processes from the commencement date, 22 September 2025 (Commencement). The instrument also interacts with other Statements of Principles so practitioners tasked with assessing multi-condition claims will be affected by the cross‑reference rule in section 11.

This instrument establishes criteria and definitions that must be used by decision-makers and relied upon by claimants when considering whether ascariasis or death from ascariasis is connected with relevant service. It does not itself create statutory duties in the regulatory or criminal sense, but it creates binding medical-evidentiary criteria for decision-making to which claimants and decision-makers must refer.

Decision-making duty to apply the Statement. Decision-makers adjudicating claims under the VEA or MRCA sections cited (s120B VEA or s339 MRCA) are required to take this Statement of Principles into account when determining whether ascariasis or death from ascariasis is connected with relevant service. The instrument is made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA and functions as the Repatriation Medical Authority’s determination of the factors that must exist to establish a causal connection on the balance of probabilities (Authority; Basis for determining the factors). Where a factor in section 9 applies and refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement, decision-makers must also apply that other Statement’s factors as in force from time to time (Factors referring to another Statement of Principles, s11).

Requirement to establish at least one factor. For a finding that ascariasis or death from ascariasis is connected with relevant service on the balance of probabilities, at least one of the enumerated factors in section 9 must exist. The components are described precisely and include exposure modes, environmental conditions and a temporal restriction: exposures must be within 2 years before clinical onset (Factors that must exist, s9). Decision-makers therefore must assess whether evidence adduced by claimants meets one or more of these specific factual predicates.

Relationship to relevant service. Any factor relied upon must be shown to be related to the person’s relevant service (Relationship to service, s10(1)). This imposes a causal or temporal connection between the enumerated exposure/management factor and the service record of the claimant. The instrument treats the relationship requirement as a necessary element of the causation analysis.

Special rule for pre-existing conditions. The instrument contains a limited application rule for the clinical-management factor. Subsection 10(2) provides that the clinical-management factor in section 9(2) applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, ascariasis where the person’s ascariasis was suffered or contracted before or during but did not arise out of the person’s relevant service. This narrows the circumstances in which inability to obtain management will be treated as service-related contribution or aggravation.

Cross-application of other Statements. If a section 9 factor refers to another injury or disease covered by a separate Statement of Principles, the separate Statement’s factors apply as in force (s11). This creates a rights/duties interface where multiple Statements may be relevant and requires decision-makers to consult and apply the other Statement according to its terms.

Rights of claimants. Practically, claimants have the right to rely on the factors enumerated in this instrument as the established medical framework for proving a service connection for ascariasis or death from ascariasis in claims under the cited VEA and MRCA provisions. The instrument sets out what factual and medical circumstances, if proved on the balance of probabilities, will support a finding of service connection.

Evidentiary role rather than entitlement creation. The Statement is a medical-evidentiary instrument. It does not itself alter the statutory entitlement criteria in the VEA or MRCA nor does it set rates, benefits or enforcement mechanisms. The “duty” it creates is therefore primarily procedural and evidentiary: decision-makers must apply its definitions and factors when determining causation in relevant claims, and claimants must marshal evidence that meets those factors.

Compliance expectations. For purposes of claim preparation and adjudication, those presenting or deciding claims should treat the species‑based definition of ascariasis, the enumerated exposure paths, the two‑year temporal window, the clinical-management factor, and the relationship-to-service requirement as the central elements to be addressed and proved where relevant. The Schedule’s definitions (relevant service, terminal event, MRCA, VEA) are part of the core rights-and-duties vocabulary and must be used to interpret the instrument.

The Statement of Principles is an evidentiary instrument and does not itself create criminal offences, civil penalties, or an enforcement regime within its text. The instrument is made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA and operates as the Repatriation Medical Authority’s specification of medical factors to be used by decision-makers in adjudicating claims under the VEA and MRCA (Authority). It contains no express penalties, fines, or enforcement sanctions.

Practical enforcement mechanism. The instrument’s effect is implemented through the decision-making processes that apply the VEA and MRCA. That is, its provisions will be used by delegates and decision-makers to accept or reject assertions of service connection for ascariasis or death from ascariasis when dealing with claims to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies (Application). The practical consequence of application is administrative: a claim may be accepted as service-connected where the instrument’s factors are met on the balance of probabilities, or rejected where they are not. Any enforcement or remedy available to an unsuccessful claimant flows from the appeal and review mechanisms in the VEA or the MRCA and their respective administrative law frameworks, not from this instrument.

No disciplinary or criminal consequences specified. The instrument contains no provisions disciplining medical practitioners, service personnel or departmental staff, and it does not specify criminal liability for failure to comply with its terms. Its legal force is confined to its role as a medical standard to be applied by decision-makers in the statutory claims process.

Evidentiary presumption and burden allocation. The Repatriation Medical Authority records that it is of the view, on sound medical-scientific evidence, that it is more probable than not that ascariasis and death from ascariasis can be related to relevant service (Basis for determining the factors). That statement is the Authority’s basis for prescribing the factors and is not itself a presumption that binds courts or tribunals. The instrument does not alter statutory burden or standards of proof outside the Authority’s determination. Any change to legal burden or to civil or criminal standards would need to be effected through the VEA, MRCA or other primary legislation, which this instrument does not do.

Administrative compliance risks. The instrument may give rise to administrative error risk if decision-makers misapply the temporal limits, fail to tie factors to relevant service, or misinterpret cross-references to other Statements (s9, s10, s11). Those are process and compliance risks internal to the claims administration environment rather than statutory penalties included in the Statement.

Recording and evidentiary enforcement. The instrument will be enforced in practice by decision-makers requiring and assessing evidence that meets the enumerated factors. For example, where a claimant asserts exposure in a tropical environment with poor sanitation within two years before clinical onset, the decision-maker will require documentary and medical evidence to substantiate those elements. Rejection for lack of proof is the practical “sanction” for non-compliance with the evidentiary requirements.

Repeal and transitional effect. The instrument repeals the earlier Statement of Principles concerning ascariasis (No. 10 of 2017) (Repeal). The text does not specify transition provisions or retrospective effect beyond its commencement date. Decisions about claims lodged before commencement, or facts occurring before the instrument’s commencement, will be subject to the existing administrative and statutory rules governing claims processing, read together with the fact that the earlier Statement has now been repealed.

Primary statutory context. This Statement of Principles is made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Authority), and it explicitly applies to claims to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 applies (Application). Those cross-references place the instrument within the legal architecture of the VEA and MRCA claim processes. The instrument must therefore be applied by decision-makers as part of the statutory claim assessment regimes established by the VEA and the MRCA.

Interaction with other Statements of Principles. Section 11 of the instrument creates an explicit mechanism for interaction with other Statements of Principles. If a factor in this Statement refers to an injury or disease that is the subject of another Statement determined under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA, then the factors in that other Statement apply in accordance with its terms as in force from time to time. That means decision-makers must consult and apply the contemporaneous terms of the referenced Statement when a cross-referent factor arises, rather than attempting to adjudicate overlapping conditions solely by reference to the ascariasis Statement.

Clinical coding and external reference material. The instrument references the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD‑10‑AM), Tenth Edition, effective 1 July 2017, as the coding system for the condition (subsection 7(3)). It clarifies that a reference to an ICD‑10‑AM code is a reference to the code assigned in that edition. This links the Statement to an external clinical classification system used in Australian health settings and produces a point of interface between administrative medical coding and the species-based medical definition the instrument adopts.

Definitions that limit interaction. The Schedule’s definition of relevant service determines the population for whom this Statement is applicable (Schedule 1 - Dictionary). Because the Schedule excludes certain categories of service from the definition for the purposes of this Statement (for example operational service is excluded from eligible war service, hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service are excluded from defence service), the instrument’s interaction with the VEA and MRCA is constrained by those definitional limits. Where a claimant’s service falls into an excluded category for the instrument, the Statement will not be the operative medical framework for establishing a service connection under the instrument’s terms.

No direct interaction with criminal or public-health statutes. The Statement does not purport to change public health duties, criminal liability or biosecurity law. Its purpose is limited to providing a medico‑legal framework for decisions under the VEA and MRCA. It does not itself impose obligations on non‑claimant parties under other domestic statutes.

Administrative law and review. While the Statement does not create new appeal rights, its application in decision-making will interact with the administrative law remedies and review structures available under the VEA and MRCA. The instrument does not detail those remedies, but decision-makers’ use of the Statement will be reviewable under the applicable statutory review and merits review processes of the VEA and MRCA frameworks.

Repeal of earlier Statement. The instrument repeals the prior Statement of Principles concerning ascariasis (No. 10 of 2017). The repeal alters the body of Statements of Principles that decision-makers must consult. The instrument does not state any transitional rules governing claims in process at the time of repeal. Practitioners should therefore consult the VEA and MRCA and administrative practice notes or departmental guidance for any policy on transitional application.

Scope vis a vis medical regulation. The Statement is a medical‑evidentiary instrument prepared by the Repatriation Medical Authority and does not displace clinical practice standards or regulatory obligations on practising clinicians. It interacts with clinical records and diagnoses insofar as those records form part of the evidence used in claim assessments, and it links to ICD‑10‑AM coding for classification purposes.

Documenting the instrument’s own change history is straightforward because the text contains only the immediate provenance and repeal of the prior Statement. The Statement is dated 22 August 2025 and commences on 22 September 2025 (Name; Commencement). It is made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Authority).

The instrument expressly repeals the earlier Statement of Principles concerning ascariasis (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 10 of 2017) (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2017L00016) made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (Repeal). No other amendments to this instrument are recorded in the text provided.

No transitional or saving provisions are included. The instrument does not itself set out transitional arrangements for claims lodged or decisions made under the prior 2017 Statement. The absence of transitional language in the instrument suggests that from commencement date decision-makers will apply this Statement, and the earlier Statement ceases to be in force, but any procedural transitional practice would be governed by the VEA, MRCA or departmental administrative practice; none of those are set out in this Statement.

No prior amendatory steps described. The instrument does not list prior amending instruments or history other than the explicit repeal. The Schedule attaches definitions that are operative from commencement. If subsequent amendments are made to this instrument, those amendments would be recorded in later instruments or notices; none are included here.

Effective dates. The instrument’s operative timeline is: dated 22 August 2025; commences 22 September 2025. The repeal of the 2017 Statement takes effect on commencement, subject to any separate transitional administrative arrangements not specified in the instrument text.

The instrument contains no citations to case law and records no litigation. It does not mention any judicial or tribunal decisions, nor does it annotate judicial interpretation of any of its provisions. The text is a statutory administrative determination made by the Repatriation Medical Authority under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA, and the instrument stands as the Authority’s Statement of Principles for ascariasis as of its commencement.

Because the Statement does not include a litigation history, practitioners should not infer any directly relevant judicial construction from this instrument itself. Any questions about how the Statement operates in particular claim contexts, or about the interpretation of its terms in administrative decision-making, will be resolved in the ordinary course by the statutory review and appellate mechanisms that govern VEA and MRCA decisions. Those mechanisms and any resulting case law are not referenced in this instrument.

Users should be alert to the fact that the absence of litigation references in the Statement does not mean that its application will not be subject to review or challenge in administrative or judicial fora. The Statement establishes an evidentiary framework that will be used in decisions; parties dissatisfied with a decision that relies upon the Statement will have recourse to the appeal and review processes provided by the VEA and MRCA. The Statement itself does not purport to describe those pathways nor to catalogue prior litigation.

Narrow temporal rule. The instrument requires exposures that satisfy the listed environmental or contact-based factors to have occurred "within the 2 years before clinical onset" (Factors that must exist). That is a precise temporal gate. Evidence of exposure outside that two‑year window is not, by the instrument’s terms, a qualifying factor under the exposure limbs. Practitioners should therefore ensure that exposure evidence is placed within the two-year timeframe and that clinical onset is documented with medical records. Failure to align the timing of exposure with the two-year requirement is a common evidentiary pitfall.

Species-based definition, not code-only. While the instrument notes that ascariasis attracts ICD‑10‑AM code B77, it deliberately adopts a species-based definition of ascariasis for its substantive meaning: infection with Ascaris lumbricoides or Ascaris suum (subsection 7(2) and subsection 7(3)). Relying only on an ICD‑10‑AM code in isolation may be insufficient; decision-makers are directed to the species definition. Claimants should therefore obtain medical documentation that identifies the parasite species or otherwise clearly establishes ascariasis consistent with the species-based definition.

Relationship-to-service requirement. Any factor in section 9 that is relied upon must be related to the person's relevant service (s10(1)). This requires more than establishing exposure or poor sanitation in general; it requires evidence that the exposure was linked to service. For example, evidence that a person was deployed to a tropical region with poor sanitation will need to be connected to the period and nature of the person’s relevant service as defined in the Schedule.

Limited scope for “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management.” The clinical-management factor operates in two ways in the instrument: it is one of the section 9 factors that may exist and thereby support a causal finding; but subsection 10(2) restricts its application if the ascariasis was suffered or contracted before, or during but did not arise out of, the person’s relevant service. In those circumstances, the management failure factor applies only to material contribution or aggravation. Practitioners should be careful when relying on management failures to support a service connection for pre-existing disease because the Statement limits the kinds of contribution that the management factor can support.

Definition of relevant service excludes some categories. The instrument’s Schedule defines relevant service for these purposes as eligible war service other than operational service, defence service other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service, or peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1 - Dictionary). This excludes operational and hazardous service categories from the instrument’s scope. Claimants whose service falls within the excluded categories will need to check whether other Statements or statutory provisions apply to their claims; they cannot assume this Statement covers them.

Death definition limited to terminal events as defined. The instrument includes death from ascariasis only where ascariasis contributed to a terminal event or condition as defined in the Schedule. The Schedule lists pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, and cessation of brain function as examples of terminal events. Practitioners should ensure that death-related claims can documentary show ascariasis’ contribution to such a terminal event, and not merely an incidental presence of infection.

Cross-reference complexity. If a factor in section 9 refers to another injury or disease for which a separate Statement applies, section 11 requires application of that separate Statement “as in force from time to time.” That creates potential complexity where multiple Statements interact, especially if the separate Statement has a different temporal window or different qualifying factors. Practitioners must trace and apply the current terms of any cross-referenced Statement as part of a holistic causation assessment.

No operational guidance or transitional rules. The instrument repeals the 2017 Statement but does not provide transitional rules or administrative guidance about claims in process at commencement. Practitioners should not assume implicit transitional treatment; administrative practice and VEA or MRCA procedural rules will be determinants in such cases.

Evidential burden remains with the claimant for factual elements. While the Authority states its view that on medical-scientific evidence it is more probable than not that ascariasis can be related to relevant service (Basis for determining the factors), the instrument itself is an evidentiary framework. The Statement does not shift the procedural evidentiary burden in specific claims. Practitioners should therefore marshal direct, contemporaneous evidence (service records, medical records, environmental reports, treatment attempts) to link exposure or management failures to relevant service.

Ambiguity in “poor sanitation” and environmental descriptors. The instrument uses environmental descriptors such as “poor sanitation”, “tropical or subtropical region” and “warm and damp conditions”. These are fact‑sensitive terms that require contextual evidence. Decision-makers will assess whether the particular locations and conditions meet these descriptors; general assertions without corroborating evidence are likely to be challenged.

No explicit penalty for incorrect medical records. The Statement depends on medical documentation for clinical onset and management records, but it does not specify remedies where records are absent or incorrect. Parties must therefore rely on alternative admissible evidence where records are incomplete, and prepare to justify reliance on secondary sources under the VEA/MRCA evidentiary frameworks.

For claimants and advisers: assemble evidence mapped to the instrument’s elements. The Statement establishes that at least one factor in section 9 must exist and must be related to the person’s relevant service (s9; s10(1)). Therefore an effective claim file should contain:

• Clinical diagnosis demonstrating ascariasis consistent with the species‑based definition (Ascaris lumbricoides or Ascaris suum) or clinical notes showing ascariasis labelled to that effect, together with relevant laboratory or imaging findings where available. Bear in mind the instrument’s explicit species‑based meaning alongside any ICD‑10‑AM B77 coding (subsection 7(2) and subsection 7(3)).

• Clear documentation of clinical onset timing. Because the exposure factors have a two‑year limit, obtain medical records that record the date or reasonably precise period of clinical onset. The exposure must be within two years before that date to fall within the section 9 exposure limbs.

• Evidence of the qualifying exposure or environmental condition. For an exposure-based factor, assemble service records, deployment orders, location logs, or contemporaneous accounts showing contact with contaminated soil or sand, contact with human or animal faeces, ingestion pathways (food, drink, airborne dust), or presence in tropical/subtropical regions or warm and damp conditions with poor sanitation. Photographs, unit reports, base sanitation reports, incident logs, and contemporaneous statements from colleagues can be relevant.

• Evidence connecting the exposure to relevant service. Establish the causal and temporal link between the exposure and the person’s relevant service as defined in the Schedule. This requires showing that the exposure occurred during a period that counts as relevant service as the instrument defines it: eligible war service (other than operational), defence service (other than hazardous and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA, or peacetime service under the MRCA.

• Evidence of inability to obtain appropriate clinical management where relied upon. If relying on the clinical-management factor, document attempts to obtain appropriate care, records of denial or lack of access to treatment, timing of clinical worsening, and any contemporaneous communications showing that appropriate care was not available prior to deterioration. Note subsection 10(2) limits how this factor applies where ascariasis pre-dated or was contracted during but did not arise out of relevant service.

• Death claims: show contribution to terminal event. Where the claim concerns death, obtain medical records and death certificates that show that ascariasis contributed to a listed terminal event such as pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, or cessation of brain function (Schedule 1 - Dictionary). Demonstrate contribution rather than mere presence.

• Cross-Statement issues: where a section 9 factor refers to another injury or disease covered by a different Statement, secure evidence consistent with that other Statement’s current terms and identify the other Statement for the decision-maker (s11).

For decision-makers and medical assessors: apply the Statement’s factors precisely and document reasoning. Key steps include:

• Confirm the diagnosis and species relevance. Ascertain that the clinical record supports ascariasis consistent with the species-based definition in subsection 7(2), not merely a diagnostic code.

• Verify timing. Establish the date of clinical onset and ensure any exposure evidence is within the two‑year window required by the exposure factors.

• Establish service nexus. Confirm that the exposure or management failure is related to the person’s relevant service as defined in Schedule 1. If the claimant’s service falls outside the “relevant service” definition used by the instrument, consider whether this Statement is applicable.

• Apply subsection 10(2) correctly. Where the claimant’s ascariasis pre-dated service, or was contracted during but did not arise out of service, assess whether inability to obtain appropriate clinical management materially contributed to or aggravated the condition. Do not apply the management factor beyond this constrained scope.

• Cross-reference other Statements. Where any factor invokes an injury or disease subject to another Statement, retrieve that Statement as in force and apply its factors as required by subsection 11. Document how the cross-referenced Statement was consulted and applied.

• Record evidence and reasoning on the balance of probabilities. Even though the Authority used “more probable than not” to determine these factors (Basis for determining the factors), each claim requires a case-by-case balance-of-probabilities assessment. Record how each element of the Statement was met or not met, including the reasoning about causation and the linkage to relevant service.

Administrative and evidential practicalities:

• Use ICD‑10‑AM coding only as a supporting datum, not as a substitute for meeting the species-based definition (subsection 7(3)). Where coding is used, annotate how the code aligns with the instrument’s substantive definition.

• Anticipate disputes over “poor sanitation” and environmental descriptors by obtaining corroborating evidence: base sanitation reports, international health organisation country reports, contemporaneous unit notes, or witness statements establishing the environmental conditions.

• If records are sparse, assemble multiple strands of corroborative evidence: contemporaneous statements from service colleagues, deployment logs, travel records, and any clinical notes that identify exposure pathways or attempts to obtain treatment.

• Death claims require an assessment of contribution to terminal event. Prepare pathology reports, death certificates, and treating clinician statements that set out how ascariasis contributed to the terminal event listed in the Schedule.

• For cases spanning repeal or commencement: note the commencement date of this Statement is 22 September 2025 and it repeals the 2017 Statement. Seek departmental procedural guidance where claims straddle commencement or where an earlier Statement was relied upon during claim development.

Recordkeeping and audit trail. Maintain an audit trail that maps each piece of evidence to the specific subsection or factor in the Statement relied upon. This will assist in internal review, merits review and any subsequent procedural review under the VEA or MRCA.

Practical drafting of claims. When preparing statements or submissions, explicitly cite the relevant subsection of the Statement (for example s9(1)(a) for contact with contaminated soil or s9(1)(d) for being in a tropical or subtropical region with poor sanitation) and explain how the evidence satisfies that subsection and the relationship-to-service requirement in s10(1).

In short, compliance requires targeted evidentiary work focused on species‑level diagnosis, timing of clinical onset, documented exposure in the two‑year window linked to relevant service, and clinical-management evidence where relevant. Decision-makers must apply the Statement’s factors verbatim, cross-reference other Statements when invoked, and document a balance‑of‑probabilities reasoning for each claim.