RMA Escalation

14/5/2025

Dear Ms Stevens,

Thank you for your email.

I know of no “Birth Defects” Statements of Principles.

Sections 196B(2) and (3) of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986  provide that the function of the Repatriation Medical Authority is to prepare Statements of Principles related to the injuries, diseases or death that can be related to the service undertaken by a veteran.

The Statement of Principles regime under Part XIA of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 ( VEA) that underpins compensation for veterans, their families and dependants is based on compensation for injuries, diseases or death sustained by the veteranand relating to the veterans own service. This is made clear in section 196B(14) of the VEA.

The phrase “related to service” is defined in section 196B (14) as follows:

A factor causing, or contributing to, an injury, disease or death is related to service rendered by a person if:

 (a) it resulted from an occurrence that happened while the person was rendering that service; or

 (b) it arose out of, or was attributable to, that service; or

 (c) it resulted from an accident that occurred while the person was travelling, while rendering that service but otherwise than in the course of duty, on a journey:

 (i) to a place for the purpose of performing duty; or

 (ii) away from a place of duty upon having ceased to perform duty; or

 (d) it was contributed to in a material degree by, or was aggravated by, that service; or

 (e) in the case of a factor causing, or contributing to, an injury—it resulted from an accident that would not have occurred:

 (i) but for the rendering of that service by the person; or

 (ii) but for changes in the person’s environment consequent upon his or her having rendered that service; or

 (f) in the case of a factor causing, or contributing to, a disease—it would not have occurred:

 (i) but for the rendering of that service by the person; or

 (ii) but for changes in the person’s environment consequent upon his or her having rendered that service; or

 (g) in the case of a factor causing, or contributing to, the death of a person—it was due to an accident that would not have occurred, or to a disease that would not have been contracted:

 (i) but for the rendering of that service by the person; or

 (ii) but for changes in the person’s environment consequent upon his or her having rendered that service.

The VEA does not therefore provide compensation for the injury or disease of a relative of a veteran. It only provides compensation for injury, disease or death sustained by a veteran which this related to that veterans service.

I trust that this clarifies matters.

Amanda

Subject: Formal Response: Legal, Medical and Human Rights Violations by DVA – Request for

Urgent Evaluation

Dear Amanda,

Thank you for your response.

While I acknowledge your explanation of how the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) is currently interpreted by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), I must formally contest both the legality and morality of excluding children with birth defects and chronic illnesses linked to a veteran’s exposure to toxic chemicals—particularly dioxins (TCDD) used during military service.

1.

Australia’s Failure to Comply with International Legal Obligations

The current DVA framework fails to meet Australia’s obligations under several binding treaties to which Australia is a party:

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – Articles 2, 3, 6, 23 and 24 guarantee the right of children to life, health, and protection from discrimination. Australia is required to support children with disabilities, including those harmed by State-sanctioned activities.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Article 4 mandates review and reform of discriminatory laws. Article 7 protects children with disabilities. Article 25 ensures access to healthcare without bias.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – Recognises the right to health and social protection. The DVA’s refusal to recognise second-generation harm violates this right.

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (ratified by Australia in 2004) – TCDD is listed as a Class 1 toxicant. Australia is obligated to prevent and remediate harm caused by persistent organic pollutants like dioxins—yet DVA policies are failing to reflect this.

Rome Statute of the ICC – Where there is knowledge of harm and systemic refusal to act, the State may be liable for crimes against humanity under Article 7 (persecution and other inhumane acts).

2.

UN and International Warnings Ignored by DVA

Australia has been formally warned by the United Nations on at least 10 occasions regarding its failure to address intergenerational harm from military toxic exposure:

April 2011 – UN CRPD Committee urged Australia to address the rights of children with disabilities due to chemical exposure.

February 2016 – UN CRC called for recognition of Agent Orange’s intergenerational effects.

March 2017 – UN CESCR emphasised Australia’s duty to support children harmed by military toxicants.

July 2018 – UN Special Rapporteur on Disability condemned Australia’s exclusion of second-generation victims.

April 2019 – UN Human Rights Committee criticised Australia’s discriminatory policies toward children of veterans.

October 2020 – UN CERD warned Australia on intergenerational disability discrimination.

2021 – UN CEDAW found Australia failed to address gendered and generational toxic exposure harms.

2022 – UN UPR recommendations included calls to reform disability and toxic harm laws.

2023 – Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics highlighted Australia’s inaction on dioxin-related harm.

2024 – UN Human Rights and Environmental bodies criticised DVA’s silence on chemical warfare-related generational disabilities.

3.

Medical Science: DVA Policy Contradicts Known Evidence

Dioxins (TCDD) are medically proven to cause intergenerational harm:

Congenital malformations

Spinal deformities

Immune, neurological, and reproductive system damage

Elevated cancer risks

Endocrine and developmental disorders in offspring

These links have been documented by the World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences (US), and even acknowledged indirectly in Australia’s own EVATM Study and Repatriation Commission briefings.

By failing to adapt policy or recognise these outcomes, DVA is violating both the precautionary principle in public health and the ethical obligations of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), which include the principle of nonmaleficence—do no harm.

4.

Domestic Legal and Ethical Failures (Including Robodebt Precedent)

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 – DVA may be acting unlawfully by failing to consider relevant international and medical evidence.

Wednesbury Unreasonableness – A reasonable authority would not ignore credible science or systemic harm to children.

Maladministration and Negligence – The Royal Commission into Robodebt found that departments that knew harm was occurring but continued to deny it were guilty of unlawful conduct. DVA risks similar findings in relation to TCDD victims.

Kioa v West (1985) – Decisions made by departments with a conflict of interest (in this case, denial of harm they caused) may violate principles of natural justice.

5.

Environmental Precedents: Orica Case

In 2023, Orica was fined $100 million for failing to prevent dioxin pollution and breaching environmental protections. If a private company can be held responsible under Australian law for TCDD-related contamination, the State itself is not immune—especially when it authorised, facilitated, and now denies the long-term consequences of such exposure.

6.

Request for Escalation and Internal Evaluation

I now formally request the urgent evaluation and escalation of this matter within the DVA.

The current denial of medical care, compensation, and acknowledgment to second-generation victims of TCDD exposure is:

Discriminatory

Medically indefensible

Inconsistent with international obligations

Potentially unlawful under domestic and administrative law

Failure to act not only strengthens my international complaint to the UN, ICC, and Special Rapporteurs, but also exposes the DVA to future legal liability and reputational harm.

Conclusion

The time for silence and denial is over. Australia’s obligations under both domestic and international law are clear. I urge you to take the responsible course and initiate internal review and policy reform without further delay. This issue affects thousands of Australian children—many of whom, like myself, were harmed by decisions beyond their control.

I am publishing this correspondence publicly, and submitting it as part of evidence to the UN Universal Periodic Review, the CRPD, the CRC, and the ICC.

Warm Agent Orange Burns regards,

Danielle Stevens