(1) In each of the past 3 years, what sum has been spent by the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service (MCRS) on hire of counsel, including solicitors and barristers, for: (a) legal advice on compensation policy and specific claims, including at internal review; and (b) fees for representing MCRS at: (i) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, (ii) the Federal Court, and (iii) the High Court.

(2) (a) How many counsel were hired in total; and (b) how many were Queen's Counsel.

(3) (a) Which legal firms are on the panel for MCRS; and (b) for the 2002-03 financial year, what sum of money had been paid to each firm as at 30 June 2003.

(4) What are the details, as sought in parts (1) to (3) of this question, for counsel hired for cases under the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986.

The specific information sought in the honourable senator's question is either not available or does not apply to matters under the VEA because of key difference between the two schemes. Examples of differences include:

there is no internal review process under the VEA that can be compared with the internal review process contained in section 62 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in which legal costs can be incurred;

The majority of matters involving the review of decisions under the VEA by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) are handled by APS employees of the Department and do not involve the use of external legal service providers.

However, the following aggregated information is available in response to the specific questions insofar as they relate to the VEA:

The number of counsel instructed by solicitors acting for the Department and the Repatriation Commission during the financial years 2000-01 to 2002-03 are six Senior Counsel (including Queens Counsel) and twenty-two Junior Counsel. In some matters, the AGS also appeared as counsel.

In relation to legal challenges to the review of decisions relating to pensions, benefits and other allowances under the VEA, only two law firms (AGS and Barker Gosling) were used during the financial years 2000-01 to 2002-03. The Melbourne office of Barker Gosling (as it was then known) took part in a legal costs pilot project, and conducted ten matters before the AAT. This pilot commenced in late 1999 and concluded in early 2001. On all other matters relating to the review of pensions, benefits and other allowances under the VEA, AGS has been instructed to provide the external legal services. The amount paid to AGS (which also includes disbursements such as counsel fees) is set out above.