Not a rule change?
You reckon this:
any disability recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority
is the same as this:
is currently or would be entitled to receive any periodical or other payments (including, but not limited to workers’ compensation) under state or federal legislation
What about an injury that results in a disability that’s not recognised by any repatriation or statutory authority but could result in a payment under a piece of legislation? There’s lots and
lots of legislation out there.
I wouldn’t be paying thousands in annual premiums for insurance with either version in it, but I reckon the latter is far broader an ‘out’ than the former.
If it’s not going to make any make any practical difference, why is it being changed?