This is the only book devoted to the law on veterans' entitlements and military compensation in Australia. The book comprehensively annotates the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and, in this third edition, for the first time annotates the new unified military compensation scheme introduced by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). The third edition covers all of the recent major reports into the veterans' law and military compensation system and includes annotations of all relevant High Court, Federal Court and Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions on the two Acts. The book is an invaluable reference for all those assisting veterans to obtain their entitlements to the pensions and benefits available to those who have served their country - be they ex-service organisations, tribunal members, legal practitioners or Departmental officials. Highlights of the third edition include: a new section of the book discussing the cases on the application of Statements of Principles under the two Acts; comprehensive annotations of complex issues under the VEA, including qualifying service, special rate of pension, GARP, allowances, standards of proof and review of decisions; annotations and commentary on issues under the MRCA, including liability for compensation, incapacity, permanent impairment, death benefits, and transitional arrangements for previous schemes; the interaction between the VEA and the MRCA; and appendices which include an amendment history of the VEA and of the MRCA, an index of MRCA legislative instruments, discussion of defence honours and awards, and war grave eligibility.

This book commemorates the achievements of Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE in the field of administrative justice. Through the eyes of judicial colleagues (Sir Anthony Mason, former Justice Davies, Justice Wilcox, Justice Balmford)), practitioners (Stephen Gageler SC), a former associate (Associate Professor Gerard Carney) and an eminent public lawyer (Stephen Skehill), we develop a picture of this key figure in Australian legal history. Sir Gerard's own voice is heard on the limits of the court's role in an era of corporatisation and lamenting its removal on politically sensitive issues such as migration. Through the three themes of the work - judicial review, human rights (including the impact of international law) and administrative tribunals - we view a man who adhered strictly to principled reasoning, consistency and constitutional propriety, a man who impressed on administrative law the standards, integrity and high standing which marked his judicial career. Sir Gerard is a man of principle and of compassion, sensitive to constitutional boundaries, a champion of individual rights, a guardian of judicial integrity and a principled common lawyer. It was to this figure that the stewardship of some of Australia's key administrative law institutions, particularly the Commonwealth's Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was entrusted. It was his wise initial captaincy which set that institution apart, preserved it from a hostile public sector, and ensured that the concept of a merit review tribunal with wide jurisdiction has been or is being copied in most Australian States and Territories. Sir Gerard's contribution did not end there. His understanding of the need for respect between and tolerance of each arm of government, especially between the executive and the courts, progressed with him to the Federal Court and ultimately the High Court of Australia, where he was Chief Justice from 1995-1998. At each level he produced outstanding and insightful judgments tempered by those personal qualities, and enriched by his deep understanding of law and government.

The courts' supervision of tribunals is significant. How well do courts understand tribunals' place in government? How sensitive are they to the needs of an independent adjudicative arm which parallels the courts' role but is constituted and functions differently? The Impact of Judicial Review on Tribunals surveys cases of relevance to tribunals and shows that although on occasions, such as following Wu Shan Liang, the courts have allowed for these differences, in general, the judicial arm has been critical of, and placed demands on, tribunals. Nor have they supported tribunals' inquisitorial role. The result has prevented the development of a distinctive tribunal mode of operations.