(1) How many (a) barristers, (b) solicitors and (c) administrative staff were employed by the Commonwealth of Australia in Darwin for the conduct of the recently determined Stolen Generation Cases (Cubillo v. Commonwealth of Australia and Gunner v. Commonwealth of Australia ('the Stolen Generation Cases')).

(2) Other than barristers, solicitors and administrative staff employed by the Commonwealth in Darwin in connection with the Stolen Generation Cases, were there other barristers, solicitors, administrative staff and others employed by the Commonwealth in the conduct of the Commonwealth's case; if so, how many (a) barristers, (b) solicitors, (c) administrative staff and (d) others were employed by the Commonwealth in places other than Darwin in the conduct of the Stolen Generation Cases.

(3) What has been the total cost to date, or if precise figures are not available, the approximate total cost, of the conduct of the Commonwealths case in the Stolen Generation Cases.

(4) Who instructed counsel for the Commonwealth about the scope of their cross-examination of Mrs Cubillo, Mr Gunner and other witnesses called by the applicants in the Stolen Generation Cases.

(5) Is it expected by superior courts in Australia that the Commonwealth will conduct all litigation in which it is involved as a model litigant.

(6) Did the counsel for the Commonwealth in the Stolen Generation Cases suggest to Mrs Cubillo and Mr Gunner in cross-examination that they were lying and suggest to the Honourable Justice O'Loughlin in submissions that Mr Gunner and Mrs Cubillo were lying about their experiences; if so, what was the basis of such suggestions.

(7) Did counsel for the Commonwealth submit to the Court that witnesses called by Mr Gunner who gave evidence of sexual abuse in St. Marys Home in Alice Springs were lying and had conspired to concoct false evidence; if so, what was the basis of such submissions.

(8) Was counsel for the Commonwealth involved in passing on evidence given in the case of Gunner v. Commonwealth of Australia to Mr Constable, the person found by Justice O'Loughlin to be the sexual molester of Mr Gunner, so as to permit Mr Constable to change his evidence.

(9) Did (a) he or (b) the Prime Minister give instructions to counsel for the Commonwealth concerning the conduct of the Stolen Generation Cases.

(10) Did the Commonwealth employ private detective agencies in conducting the Stolen Generation Cases; if so, what was the cost of hiring these private detective agencies.

(11) Is it standard practice for the Commonwealth to employ private detectives in the conduct of civil litigation.

(12) During the conduct of the Stolen Generation Cases, were there members of the Prime Ministers staff present in court at any time.

(13) Did members of the staff of the Prime Minister or members of his staff instruct counsel for the Commonwealth as to the nature and scope of cross-examination.

(14) What is the total number of applicants bringing Federal or High Court proceedings against the Commonwealth of Australia similar to the cases brought by Mr Gunner and Mrs Cubillo.

(15) What is the total number of cases brought against the Commonwealth by persons alleging that they are the children or grandchildren of Aboriginal people removed from their families.

(16) Have any attempts been made by the Commonwealth to resolve the claims brought against the Commonwealth in cases similar to that brought by Mr Gunner and Mrs Cubillo; if so, what attempts have been made.

(17) Has an estimate been made of the cost of resolving all Stolen Generation litigation brought against the Commonwealth without requiring further litigation; if so, what is that estimated cost.

(1) At the trial in Darwin, the Commonwealth's legal team for Cubillo v. Commonwealth of Australia and Gunner v. Commonwealth of Australia generally comprised:

(a) 3 barristers;

(b) 4-5 solicitors; and,

(c) 2-5 administrative support staff.

(2)(a) The Solicitor-General and two barristers (only one of whom continued in the litigation) were briefed at the commencement of the Cubillo and Gunner cases.

(b) and (c)The court sat in Melbourne, Adelaide, Darwin, Perth, Townsville, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Canberra. From time to time, other Australian Government Solicitor lawyers and administrative support staff throughout Australia rendered assistance in the conduct of the Cubillo and Gunner cases. It is not possible to accurately ascertain the total number of lawyers and administrative support staff who provided support in each of these places without expending a disproportionate amount of time and resources on the issue.

(d) No other people were employed by the Commonwealth in the conduct of the cases, although the Australian Government Solicitor engaged a number of consultants and other service-providers on behalf of the Commonwealth.

(3) As at 30 September 2000, the legal fees and disbursements billed by the Australian Government Solicitor to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the conduct of the Commonwealth's defence in the Cubillo and Gunner litigation was $8,401,196.11 (inclusive of GST, where applicable).

(4) In accordance with usual practice, fundamental decisions concerning the strategic direction of the Cubillo and Gunner cases were taken at a ministerial level (by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs) and instructions were provided by the Office of Indigenous Policy in the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet to counsel through the Australian Government Solicitor. As is normal practice, the content and manner of specific questions during the course of cross-examination was left to counsel to determine.

(5) The expectation that the Commonwealth and its agencies will act as a model litigant has been recognised by the Courts. Pursuant to the Legal Services Directions issued by the Attorney-General under section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903, litigation is to be conducted by the Commonwealth and its agencies in accordance with the Directions on the Commonwealth's Obligation to Act as a Model Litigant, which are set out in Appendix B of those Directions.

(6) These cases are under consideration by an appellate court and it is not appropriate to discuss the cross-examination of the applicants.

(7) These cases are under consideration by an appellate court and it is not appropriate to discuss the Commonwealth's submissions.

(8) Counsel advise that they were not involved in passing on evidence given in the case of Gunner v Commonwealth of Australia to Mr Constable so as to permit Mr Constable to change his evidence.

(9)(a) In accordance with usual practice, fundamental decisions concerning the strategic direction of the Cubillo and Gunner cases were taken at a ministerial level (by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs) and instructions were provided by the Office of Indigenous Policy in the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet to counsel through the Australian Government Solicitor.

(b) The Prime Minister did not give instructions to counsel for the Commonwealth concerning the conduct of the Cubillo and Gunner cases.

(10) On behalf of the Commonwealth, the Australian Government Solicitor engaged a private investigation firm during the conduct of the Cubillo and Gunner cases to locate and interview witnesses and to locate relevant historical material. The cost of the private investigation firm services was about $770,800 (including search fees, travelling costs and other disbursements).

(11) In civil litigation requiring extensive factual investigation it is common practice for the Commonwealth's solicitors to engage private investigators on behalf of the Commonwealth.

(12) Members of the Prime Minister's staff were not present in court at any time during the conduct of the Cubillo and Gunner Cases.

(13) Members of the Prime Minister's staff and members of the Minister's staff did not instruct counsel for the Commonwealth as to the nature and scope of cross-examination.

(14) 736 plaintiffs have brought proceedings in the High Court against the Commonwealth of Australia which are similar to the cases brought by Mr Gunner and Mrs Cubillo.

721 of those writs were filed in the Darwin Registry of the High Court of Australia by plaintiffs claiming to have been removed as children. Of these, nine proceedings (including the Cubillo and Gunner proceedings) were remitted to the Federal Court by consent.

15 of those writs were filed in the Darwin Registry of the High Court of Australia by plaintiffs claiming to be the mothers of children who were removed. Of these, two proceedings were remitted to the Federal Court by consent.

(15) 6 writs involving a total of 1,368 claims have been filed in the Darwin Registry of the High Court of Australia by plaintiffs claiming to be the children or grandchildren of persons who themselves were removed as children.

(16) In 1995 the Commonwealth participated in `without prejudice' discussions seeking to resolve `separated children' claims without recourse to litigation. In accordance with established principles it would be inappropriate to disclose the details of those discussions.

(17) No estimate has been made during this Government's term in office of the cost of resolving all `Stolen Generation' litigation brought against the Commonwealth without requiring further litigation.