AnnuAl RepoRt - Family Court of Australia

FAMILY COURTOF AUSTRALIAAnnual Report2009–2010

FiguresFigure 3.1 Transitioning from output reporting to program reporting 35Figure 3.2 Applications filed, 2009–10 39Figure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2009–10 39Figure 3.4 Attrition and settlement trends in the Court’s caseload 40Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2005–06 to 2009–10 41Figure 3.6 Number of judges, 2005–06 to 2009–10 42Figure 3.7 Final orders applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 43Figure 3.8 Application in a case, 2005–06 to 2009–10 43Figure 3.9 Consent orders applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 44Figure 3.10 All applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 44Figure 3.11 Final orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10 45Figure 3.12 Application in a case, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10 45Figure 3.13 Consent orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10 46Figure 3.14 All applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10 46Figure 3.15 Age of pending applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 47Figure 3.16 Final order applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10 48Figure 3.17 Applications in a case (interim), time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10 48Figure 3.18 Consent order applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10 49Figure 3.19 All applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10 49Figure 3.20Reserved judgments outstanding (pending) less than 3 months,at 30 June 2005–06 to 2009–10 50Figure 3.21 Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 30 June 2005–06 to 2009–10 50Figure 3.22 Applications finalised within 12 months, 2005–06 to 2009–10 52Figure 3.23 Final order applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10 52Figure 3.24 Applications in a case, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10 53Figure 3.25 Consent order applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10 53Figure 3.26 All applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10 54Figure 3.27 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2005–06 to 2008–09(final only) & 2009–10 (all) 55Figure 3.28Reserved judgments, time to deliver, 2005–06 to 2008–09 (final only)& 2009–10 (all) 55Figure 3.29 Total judicial complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10 564 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Acronyms and abbreviationsAASB Australian Accounting Standards BoardABGR Australian Building Greenhouse RatingAMMember of the Order of AustraliaANAO Australian National Audit OfficeAOOfficer of the Order of AustraliaAPSAustralian Public ServiceATSI Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAWA Australian Workplace AgreementBAU business as usualCEIChief Executive InstructionsCEO Chief Executive OfficerCJChief JusticeCSSMG Client Services Senior Managers GroupCthCommonwealthDCJDeputy Chief JusticeDVD digital video discELExecutive Level of the Australian Public ServiceFAIM Fellow of the Australian Institute of ManagementFLCFamily Law CourtsFLISFamily Law Information ServiceFMA Act Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997FMFederal MagistrateFMC Federal Magistrates CourtFOIfreedom of informationGSTgoods and services taxICTinformation and communications technologyIAPJT Indonesia Australia Partnership for JusticeITinformation technologyMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingNEC National Enquiry CentrePSM Public Service MedalRFDReserve Force DecorationSESSenior Executive Service of the Australian Public ServiceYEAG Young Employees Advisory GroupFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–20107

PART 1chief justice’s review

PART 1: CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEWChief Justice Bryant.Chief Justice’s year in reviewIn 2008–09 I reported that the Attorney-General, theHonourable Robert McClelland, had announced theGovernment’s proposal to restructure the federal courtsby merging the Federal Magistrates Court within theFamily Court and the Federal Court.When the High Court struck down the existing MilitaryCourt in Lane and Morrison [(2009) 239 CLR 230] thisproposal changed and on 24 June 2010 the Attorney-General introduced legislation into Parliament throughthe Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure andOther Measures) Bill 2010 which progresses the originalproposal whereby the family law component of theFederal Magistrates Court would merge with the FamilyCourt which would comprise two Divisions, the Appellateand Superior Division, and the General Division. Theproposal under this Bill recommends the FederalMagistrates Court be retained to continue to hear workunder its general federal law jurisdiction. 1PART 1 CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEWFamily Law Courts administrationIn the last Annual Report I reported that the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Courts hadagreed to merge their administration into one administration and to this end Mr Richard Foster PSMwas appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Magistrates Court. By the end of the2008–09 financial year the establishment of one administration for the courts was virtually completeand the last 12 months have seen a complete integration of the administration of the two courts,save for those which require independent statutory retention.One of the major achievements in the last 12 months with the courts’ administration has been thecapacity to review the resources of each of the courts in line with their needs and to identify and actupon areas in which costs savings could be made in order to manage the combined budget of thecourts to keep expenditure as far as possible within budget. As part of this exercise, for the first timea joint meeting of representatives from the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court was heldshortly before 30 June to identify areas of potential cost savings for both courts.1 At the time of publication of this Report Parliament had been prorogued and the Bill as introduced, lapsed.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201011

PART 1CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEWChallenges andfuture direction ofthe CourtThe balance of family law workhas evolved significantly overthe past several years, withmost family law applicationsnow filed in the FederalMagistrates Court. This hasenabled the Family Courtto become a smaller, morespecialised court that generallydeals with appeals and themost complex range of familylaw cases. The complexity ofthe cases that are now beforethe Court inevitably lead tolengthier trials and are mattersthat are less likely to settle.On 22 February 2010 Chief Justice Bryant hosted a luncheon with Chief Justice Warren of theSupreme Court of Victoria (left) and Chief Justice Black of the Federal Court of Australia (right). Thiswas Chief Justice Black’s final meeting at this forum before his retirement in March 2010.In addition, the court has experienced significant change to its judiciary over the past year with theretirement of six judges in the 2009–10 year with one replacement. The departure of six judges withmore expected in the coming year is a major challenge for the court in trying to best manage itsworkload. This is particularly so in registries where there are only now one or two judges.Should the Government’s proposals be introduced, it will inevitably lead to further change where allfamily law matters (other than those filed in the Family Court of Western Australia) will be managedwithin the one court.International profileThroughout 2009–10 the Court continued to play an important role in international legal affairs and hasworked closely with many other courts throughout the region.There continues to be many overseas conferences at which the input of the Family Court of Australia isregarded as important. In February this year I attended the International Judicial Conference on CrossBorder Family Relocation in Washington which was run by the US State Department and the HaguePrivate International Law Secretariat. This event was of significance as more than 50 judges fromcountries including North America, Europe, South America, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealandagreed upon a number of principles about the determination of international relocation cases. I alsoattended the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts conference in Denver, USA in early June 2010.Other significant engagements throughout 2009–10 included Justices Rose and Fowler representing theCourt in China and India respectively. Justice Rose has given several papers in China on processes in theFamily Court, particularly the less adversarial trial and Justice Fowler joined a delegation of Australianjudges who travelled to India late last year to consult with other Indian judges and administrators.12 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

In addition, the Family Court and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) hasprovided a significant amount of support to a research project which was undertaken in collaborationwith the Indonesian Supreme Court and SMERU research institute. Referred to as the PEKKA researchproject, it aims to provide the necessary information which will assist Muslim women, the poor and thoseliving in remote areas to access Indonesia’s family courts. PEKKA (Pemberdayaan Perempuan KepalaKeluarga) is an Indonesian Non-Government Organisation established in 2001. The research report isdue to be completed in early 2010–11.Violence in family lawExternal reports on family lawThe Attorney-General commissioned and subsequently released three reports on 28 January 2010, two ofwhich reviewed violence and family law and the third report released on that day made an evaluation ofthe legislative changes that were made in 2006 to the Family Law Act. Those reports included:PART 1 CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW• The Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies• The Family Courts Violence Review, conducted by Professor Richard Chisholm AM, and• Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System, conducted by the Family LawCouncil.• A consultation paper by the Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law ReformCommission — Family Violence — Improving Legal Frameworks.The Court’s response to issues of family violenceIn response to the above reviews, the Family Court expanded the membership of its Family ViolenceCommittee to include representatives from the Federal Magistrates Court. This joint committee is in theprocess of evaluating and updating the Family Violence Strategic Plan which is the Court’s operationalplan that assists registry staff to deal with safety issues in cases where family violence is identified. TheCourt’s Family Violence Best Practice Principles, which are used by judicial officers and lawyers and waslaunched in early 2009, are also under review. The committee will refer to the recommendations in theGovernment’s reports to inform its ongoing work.The Court contributed to a DVD training package which is being commissioned by the Attorney General’sDepartment. Its objective is to improve consistency in the handling of cases involving family violence andensure professionals are properly equipped to work with families at risk.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201013

CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEWPART 1Foyer in the Court’s Sydney registry.14 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 2Overview of the court

OVERVIEW OF THE COURTAbout the CourtThe Family Court of Australia, through its specialist judges and staff, assists Australians to resolve theirmost complex legal family disputes.The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record established by Parliament in 1975 underChapter 3 of the Constitution. It commenced operations on 5 January 1976 and consists of a ChiefJustice, a Deputy Chief Justice and other judges. The Court maintains registries in all Australian statesand territories except Western Australia.GoalThe Court’s goal is to deliver excellence in service for children, families and parties through effectivejudicial and non-judicial processes and high-quality and timely judgments while respecting the needs ofseparating families.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTPurposeThe purpose of the Court, as Australia’s superior court in family law, is to:• determine cases with the most complex law and facts• cover specialised areas in family law, and• provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.The core services of the Court are those that:• are prescribed by legislation• enable and support judges to determine cases, and• meet duty of care requirements.VisionThe Court’s vision provides for:• putting children and families first in the design and delivery of services• furthering functional family relationships after separation• independence and impartiality in the judicial process• having staff who are valued for providing quality service for families• providing quality child dispute services for families, and• being at the forefront of the development of services.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201017

JurisdictionThe Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record and deals with more complex matters. Thesemay include, for example:PART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURT• Parenting cases, including those that involve a child welfare agency; allegations of sexual abuseor serious physical abuse of a child (Magellan cases); family violence and/or mental health issueswith other complexities; multiple parties; complex cases where orders sought would have the effectof preventing a parent from communicating with or spending time with a child; multiple expertwitnesses; complex questions of law and/or special jurisdictional issues; international child abductionunder the Hague Convention; special medical procedures; and/or international relocation.• Financial cases that involve multiple parties, valuation of complex interests in trust or corporatestructures, including minority interests, multiple expert witnesses, complex questions of law and/or jurisdictional issues (including accrued jurisdiction) or complex issues concerning superannuation(such as complex valuations of defined benefit superannuation schemes).The Family Court of Australia also has original jurisdiction under Commonwealth Acts, including the:• Marriage Act 1961• Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988• Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989• Bankruptcy Act 1966.Programs of workTo ensure the Court fulfils its stated purpose, it has four programs of work:• maintaining an environment that enables judicial officers to make determinations• provision of effective and efficient registry services• corporate management of resources, and• effective information and communication technologies.Outcome and programNEC staff member talks with aclient on the telephone.The Court’s outcome and program framework sets out its commitments to thegovernment. Each year details of the framework are outlined in the PortfolioBudget Statements, along with relevant performance information. Governmentoutcomes are the intended results, impacts or consequences of actions by thegovernment on the Australian community. Agencies deliver programs whichare government actions taken to deliver the stated outcomes. Agencies arerequired to identify the programs that contribute to government outcomes overthe Budget and forward years.18 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

OutcomeThe Family Court’s outcome is described below.As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and providenational coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.ProgramThe Court has a single program under which all services are provided:Provision of a Family Court.The Family Court’s program objective is to support Australian families involved in complex family disputesby deciding matters according to the law, promptly, courteously and effectively. This involves:• providing decisions in complex family disputes for separating Australian couples and familiesthrough the determination of matters, and• providing national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTStrategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget StatementsThe Court’s 2009–10 Portfolio Budget Statements identified a number of specific initiatives that theCourt would be progressing in 2009–10. Each of these is reported here.Case managementCase management has been the focus of significant reforms in the Family Court during the last twodecades. The developments in case management have provided the basis for the Court to implement theless adversarial approach for the management of all parenting cases and to establish a judicial docketfor all cases.The judicial docket, introduced and rolled out in all Family Court registries in 2007, gives individualjudges responsibility for managing their own cases from the time the case is docketed to finalisationof the case. The individual docket assists with early judicial intervention and active judicial casemanagement in order to streamline the process, ensuring the earliest possible settlement ordetermination, and thus disposal of cases in a more efficient way.Less adversarial trialsDuring 2009–10, the less adversarial trial was fully implemented in all Family Court registries.Distribution of the less adversarial trial education package, launched in 2008–09, continued. Thepackage has proved to be a popular tool amongst legal professionals and universities.International interest in the less adversarial trial process grew further during the year. Chief Justice Bryantand Federal Magistrate Altobelli delivered a workshop at the Association of Family and ConciliationCourts conference in Denver, USA in June 2010. The workshop explored whether and to what extentelements of the less adversarial trial could be incorporated into a trial court with a high volumeworkload. At the conference it also emerged that some international jurisdictions have incorporated amodified version of the Family Court’s processes into their case management systems.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201019

Child Responsive ProgramSee Part 6, Internal Evaluations for information.PART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTDe facto relationship lawsSince 1 March 2009, de facto couples have been able to access courts exercising federal family lawjurisdiction (such as the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court) in property andmaintenance cases. Since then, ongoing staff training and education has occurred.Developments since the end of the financial yearThere have been no specific developments since 30 June 2010 that require reporting here. However,see Part 7 Financial Statements for funding arrangements between the Family Court and the FederalMagistrates Court that relate to the intended restructure of the federal courts.Outlook for 2010–11In 2010–11, certain external factors may impact on the Court. In particular:• On 24 May 2010, the Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP announced theGovernment’s decision on the future of the federal courts. During 2010–11 the Court will beawaiting the progress of the proposed legislation. See Parts 3 and 6 for further discussion.• The continuation of the development and implementation of government-wide information andcommunication technology approaches, following the Gershon review. See Part 6 for more detail.• A substantial body of work around family violence that includes updating and ensuring thecontinuation of implementation of the Court’s family violence strategy, particularly in light of variousexternal reviews concerning family violence that were released in 2009–10. See Part 6 for moredetail.Shared parenting statisticsThe reforms to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, introduced by the Family Law Amendment (SharedParental Responsibility) Act 2006, were wide-ranging. Among the most significant of those reformswas the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and particularobligations placed on family courts to consider ‘equal time’ and ‘substantial and significant time’arrangements where the presumption applies.Another important change was made to the ‘best interest’ factors that a court has regard to in decidingwhat order would be in the best interests of the child who is the subject of a parenting dispute. As aresult of the reforms, the factors are now divided into ‘primary’ and ‘additional’ considerations.From the start of the legislation the Chief Justice decided that the Court would, for the first time,endeavour to keep statistics on the ‘time with’ orders that were being made for the parties coming tocourt. In addition to cases in which judges make decisions, statistics have also been recorded of mattersthat come to court but in which the parties reach their own agreement without a decision by a judge.The collection and analysis of that data has been complex and this year is the first in which the Court hasbeen able to present comparative data over the first three years of the legislation being in operation.20 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Part 3 of this report, Report on Court Performance, contains the data. It shows that when a child is notgiven significant time with a parent, the reasons often have to do with violence and abuse (includingsubstance abuse), or result from mental health problems affecting a parent.International cooperationIndonesia Australia Partnership for Justice TransitionThe Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition (IAPJT) is a joint Indonesian and AustralianGovernment initiative aimed at strengthening the capacity of Indonesian government institutions andcivil society to promote legal reform as well as protect human rights. From April 2004 to December 2009,the predecessor of the IAPJT, the Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility supported a broadprogram of activities in the area of access to justice/ judicial reform, human rights, anti-corruption andtrans-national crime.A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Judicial Cooperation between the Federal Court ofAustralia, the Family Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Indonesia (MA) supports the ongoingactivities between the Australian and Indonesian courts. This MOU has in recent years been supportedby an annual Annex documenting the work with both the MA and the General and Religious Courts ofIndonesia. In November 2009, a further annex to the MOU was signed to assist the Maka Agung (MA)with reducing its case backlog, improving judicial transparency, financial management reform, leadershipand change management, support to the Judicial Reform Team Office, strengthening client services inthe Religious Courts, and supporting the Religious Courts with further development of their informationtechnology systems.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTStrong working relationships have developed between judges, court staff and court administratorsin the MA, the General and Religious Courts of Indonesia, the Federal Court and Family Court. Theserelationships have allowed detailed analysis of problems facing the courts to be discussed frankly andstrategic responses to be developed and evaluated. The outcomes of this judicial cooperation, whichdraws on practical interaction and dialogue on day-to-day court administration and access to justiceissues in both countries, is reported here.Since December 2004, the Family Court has worked with the Supreme Court of Indonesia, the ReligiousCourts of Indonesia and the General Courts of Indonesia, judges and registry staff in both Indonesia andAustralia to review key aspects of client service delivery and consider possible improvements. The keyresults of this court-to-court engagement include:• the development of a Religious Court jurisdiction website (www.badilag.net)• individual websites for 26 of the 29 High Religious Courts and 218 of the 343 first instance religiouscourts with information on court schedules, fees and court procedures publication of court feeinformation. This work has introduced a new level of transparency to Indonesian courts• a database of decisions of the High Religious Courts, launched by the Chief Justices of the SupremeCourt and the Family Court in February 2008, has more than 1700 High Religious Court decisionsonline (see www.asianlii.org or www.badilag.net)• increased awareness of how poverty creates barriers to accessing the mandatory family lawjurisdiction of the religious courts for Indonesian Muslims, and• the Access and Equity Study 2007–2009, the first in Indonesia.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201021

The Access and Equity Study was conducted as a collaborative research project led by the Supreme Courtof Indonesia with assistance from the Family Court and funded by the Australian Government throughthe Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility (IALDF).PART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTAppendix 12 has further detail, including:• an overview of the key findings of the study• an overview of new policies and reforms being introduced by the Supreme Court of Indonesiato provide greater access to justice for the poor, marginalised and those living in remote areas,particularly in the family law cases referred to in the study.International visitorsDuring 2009–10 the Court’s work continued to be recognised internationally with official visitors fromFiji, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Sweden and the United States of America, looking at differentaspects of the Court’s work.Appendix 13 contains more information about each of the delegations.Court service locationsThere are 19 family law registries in locations in every Australian state and territory, except WesternAustralia. Family law registries provide services to both the Family Court of Australia and the FederalMagistrates Court of Australia and are staffed permanently. In addition to sitting in its principal locations,the Family Court conducts judicial, registrar and family consultant circuits according to the schedulespublished on its website at www.familycourt.gov.au.22 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Table 2.1Family Court of Australia service locationsLocation Judge/s Registrar/s FamilyconsultantsClientservicesJudicialcircuitRegistrarcircuitFamilyconsultantcircuitSouth Australia / Northern TerritoryAdelaide • • • •Mt Gambier•Darwin • • •Alice Springs•Victoria/TasmaniaDandenong • • •Bairnsdale•Moe•Hobart • • • •Launceston • • • •Burnie • •Melbourne • • • •Albury • •Ballarat•Bendigo•Geelong•Hamilton•Mildura•Shepparton•Warrnambool•New South Wales / Australian Capital TerritoryCanberra • • • •Newcastle • • • •Port Macquarie•Taree•Tamworth•Parramatta • • • •Bathurst•Dubbo • • •Orange•Sydney • • • •Wollongong • •Northern New South Wales / Queensland / Northern TerritoryBrisbane • • • •Coffs Harbour • •Lismore • • •Rockhampton • • • •Alice Springs•Townsville • • • •Cairns • • • •Mackay • • •PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201023

Initiatives of the Family CourtThis section highlights new and ongoing initiatives of the Court in 2009–10. Additional activities arereported in Part 6 (Management and Accountability) and Appendix 8 (Committees).PART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTCommonwealth Courts PortalThe Commonwealth Courts Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au), launched in July 2007, is an initiative of theFamily Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The portal provides free web-basedaccess to information about cases that are before these courts.After registering, lawyers and registered litigants can keep track of their cases, identify documents thathave been filed and view outcomes, orders made and future court dates. Users log on using a single userID and access multiple jurisdictions from a single central web-based system.Enhancements during 2009–10 included:• The release of Stage 2 in September 2009. It allows applicants to initiate a new Application forDivorce by completing an online form, paying by credit card, selecting a first court date from a rangeof dates and then printing out a sealed copy of the application for service on the respondent. Thisactivity also automatically creates a new file in Casetrack complete with party, listing and paymentdetails that also can be viewed inside the portal. By 30 June 2010, 3879 divorces had been filedonline (in the Federal Magistrates Court).• A simpler registration procedure and an improved administration facility for portal administratorswithin law firms.• A new overall look and feel for the portal, including a ‘dashboard’ for users that incorporates a courtdiary showing listings for the user’s files for the current month, recently accessed files, activity onfiles, and new events.Public access computers in the Court’s Parramatta registry.24 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Work was also progressed on a new more user-friendly ‘landing’ page after the login screen and asection on that page for portal news.Use of the portal grew noticeably during 2009–10. At 30 June:• 1279 law firms had registered for eFiling, compared with 667 at 30 June 2009, and• 24 073 individual users had registered, compared with 5900 at 30 June 2009.This comprised:• 2827 lawyers registered with those 1279 law firms• 3854 self-represented litigants, and• members of the public, journalists, academics, judicial officers and staff of the courts.One of the significant benefits of the portal is that it has allowed people to eFile supplementarydocuments in family law matters since August 2008. Table 2.2 provides a registry-by-registry breakdownof the number of supplementary documents that were electronically filed in the Family Court andFederal Magistrates Court during 2009–10. Brisbane registry received 36 per cent of all supplementarydocuments via eFiling, the Melbourne and Sydney registries received 19 per cent and 11 per centrespectively.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTTable 2.2Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court,2008–09 and 2009–102008–09 2009–10Adelaide 191 1679Albury 3 18Alice Springs - 1Brisbane 943 9077Cairns 10 64Canberra 5 643Coffs Harbour 26 114Dandenong 66 832Darwin 13 129Dubbo - 9Hobart 27 85Launceston 15 311Lismore 57 174Melbourne 425 4904Newcastle 52 1046Parramatta 187 2029Rockhampton 33 374Sydney 125 2870Townsville 35 634Wollongong 10 102Total 2250 25 095A further 364 documents were eFiled in the Family Court of Western Australia.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201025

Family violencePART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTDuring 2009–10, the Court was a stakeholder in the development of a multi-disciplinary familyviolence training package. Relationships Australia (South Australia) was commissioned by the AustralianGovernment Attorney-General’s Department to develop the training package for professionals working inthe family law system.The package aims to provide the recipients of the training with a sound and practical understandingof family violence and how they as professionals can respond effectively. A secondary aim is to providea greater understanding and recognition between professions of their respective roles and functions.The Chief Justice and members of the Courts’ Family Violence Committee have been involved in thedevelopment of key aspects of the package.Registry Managers reviewed implementation of the Family Violence Strategy (2005) and identified areasin which implementation could be further advanced in registries. One example is extension of our safetyscreening procedures to each and every court event to ensure that the preliminary advice clients gave ontheir safety and security requirements remains current and relevant for each visit to the courts.Protocol on work division between the CourtsIn January 2010, the Chief Justice and the Chief Federal Magistrate published a protocol about thedivision of work between the Courts. It provides a guide to the legal profession and litigants to enablematters to be directed properly to the court appropriate to hear them.If any of the following criteria applies, then the application for final orders ordinarily should be filed and/or heard in the Family Court, if judicial resources permit (otherwise the matter should be filed and/orheard in the Federal Magistrate Court):• international child abduction• international relocation• disputes as to whether a case should be heard in Australia• special medical procedures (such as gender reassignment and sterilisation)• contravention and related applications in parenting cases relating to orders which have been madein Family Court proceedings, which have reached a final stage of hearing or a judicial determinationand which have been made within 12 months prior to filing• serious allegations of sexual abuse of a child warranting transfer to the Magellan list or similar listwhere applicable, and serious allegations of physical abuse of a child or serious controlling familyviolence warranting the attention of a superior court• complex questions of jurisdiction or law, and• if the matter proceeds to a final hearing, it is likely it would take more than four days of hearingtime.The Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction in relation to adoption and the validity of marriages anddivorces.Either court on its own motion or on application of a party can transfer a matter to the other court. Thereis no right of appeal from a decision as to transfer.26 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Young Employees Advisory Group for 2009–10.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTYoung Employees Advisory GroupIn 2008, the Family Court formed a Young Employees Advisory Group. It was recognised that youngeremployees can bring a different perspective to issues and approaches in court administration. Staff aged27 years or less were asked to ‘step up’ and apply their unique perspective and ideas on best practice.The Group has a mentor and project coordinator from the Court’s executive. Senior staff involvement isintegral to the group, facilitating the achievement of projects in short timeframes that benefit the courtnow and into the future.The Court is not aware of any similar group in other Australian public sector organisations andencourages others to consider similar initiatives.Membership of the 2009–10 group was announced in June 2009, with nine employees selected fromthe Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The group’s achievements during 2009–10 included:• Environment—initiatives aimed at reducing the Courts’ impacts on the environment, includingtaking the lead role in developing an Environmental Policy that was released to all staff in January2010.• Electronic technologies—developing a business case to explore use of SMS and emailtechnology. The aim is to deliver better client service and reduce court costs. These messages willnot replace formal communication methods. The Information Technology Division has accepted theyoung employee’s recommendation that portal registrants can opt in for an SMS confirming thatthe status of their proceeding has changed and that they should check the portal. It is anticipatedthat this may reduce the number of enquiries to the Family Law Courts’ National Enquiry Centre andimprove client service. This initiative will be implemented in 2010–11.• Staff development—promoting development programs available to staff, which includes abrief online survey to obtain staff views on the most effective ways to communicate developmentopportunities and to raise staff awareness of the development opportunities available. The youngemployees completed design of the survey. The Manager of Human Resources has committed todissemination of the survey to all staff early in 2010–11 and to report to the Staff DevelopmentCommittee on the results.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201027

Services for people from non-English speaking backgroundsPART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTDuring 2009–10, publications in languages other than English were reviewed to incorporate ruleamendments and changes to court services. The Family Law Courts have 11 publications translatedinto ten languages. The translations are fact sheets, being summaries of the full English versions withsimplified information written in question and answer format. This is the preferred format for translatedinformation as some legal terms and court processes do not translate well into other languages.The provision of translated information is essential to support access to justice for clients with English asa second language.Languages available• Arabic• Filipino• Greek• Korean• Serbian• Simplified Chinese• Traditional Chinese• Spanish• Turkish• Vietnamese.Publications translated• Marriage, families and separation• Before you file—pre-action procedure for financial cases• Subpoena—information for requesting person• Enforcement hearings• Third party debt notices• Key contacts• Compliance with parenting orders• Going to Court—tips for your court hearing• What the Family Law Courts staff can and cannot do for clients• Do you have fears for your safety when attending court?• Parenting orders—obligations, consequences and who can help?28 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Charlie aged 6. Winner of 2010 Children’s ArtCompetitionChildren’s art competitionIsabella age 10. Winner of 2010 Children’s ArtCompetitionSoraya age 11. Winner of 2010 Children’s ArtCompetitionThe Family Law Courts’ Children’s Art Competition was held in 2009–10 with the winners announced atyear’s end. The competition theme was ‘My Beautiful World’ and more than 150 entries were receivedfrom throughout Australia. Ten winners each received a personally engraved MP3 player, with 13entrants receiving a highly commended certificate.The Courts introduced the competition in 2008 and it is held alternate years. It is one approach thathas been adopted to raise the ‘human face’ of the Courts with the general community, particularly withchildren, their parents and carers.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTArtwork from entrants is well-regarded in the Courts. It is used, for example, in publications, promotionalproducts and in displays at registries—the places at which children most likely have interactions with theCourts.The competition was promoted in various ways: through registries, through school educationdepartments, through family relationship centres, the Courts’ websites and the Family Law Courtswebsite.Client Service Senior Managers’ GroupThe new Client Service Senior Managers’ Group (CSSMG) met face-to-face for the first time in March2010. It is significantly changed from the Client Service Operations Group it replaced, having widermembership, a new strategic direction and a broader focus across all areas of the business of bothCourts. At the meeting strategic priorities were set for 2010–11.Members of the new Client Service Senior Manager’s Group (CSSMG).Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201029

Members determined approaches on key issues, projects and working parties. The strategic priorities,endorsed by the CEO’s Management Advisory Group, include:Improve our service deliveryPART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTThe Group’s mission is to identify and implement ways to continually improve service delivery across thecourts. Focus will include:• registry practices• maximising opportunities from eFiling, including promoting it to the legal profession, and• challenging the way information is managed.Improve our efficiency and cost effectivenessThe Group has a role in implementing savings initiatives in areas such as:• interpreters and translation services• fee exemptions and waivers, and• child dispute services.Enhanced data qualityThe priority focus is on maintaining the integrity of Casetrack data and other information to enablereports to be produced that accurately capture a position at a given time.Targeted communication and engagementThe Group recognises its role in communicating project outcomes and initiatives. This includes engagingwith the judiciary, executive and staff.An action plan was also developed with the following projects for 2010–11:• developing a Wikipedia-style product for the intranet• providing information and inputs into the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court FamilyViolence Committees’ review of the Family Violence Strategy 2004–2005• progressing the delivery of integrated client service training for existing and new client services, and• advising on improved approaches to interpreter services.Information managementIn 2009–10, the Courts’ vision for progressive and strategic information management was progressedthrough a range of initiatives.The Family Court became the first federal court to put in place a new records authority. In addition, therewas strong focus on corporate governance initiatives. Highlights included:• new Chief Executive Instructions on Record Keeping and Records Management Policy • a strategic information and knowledge analysis project, which involved extensive staff consultation,commenced as part of the development of an Information Management Framework30 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• significant parts of the Court’s intranet were revised with additional governance being placedaround roles and responsibilities, and• the Court’s Data Quality Board was assisted in developing a new governance structure that includesa Data Quality Governance Framework and an Information Quality Plan.The Courts’ first Information Awareness week was held, highlighting information security, data quality,records awareness, information access and records sentencing and disposal.PABX replacementWork continued during the year on planning for a major upgrade to the Courts’ PABX phone system.At 30 June 2010, it was expected that a new system would be in place by October 2010, providing alljudicial officers and staff with updated voice technology. It will produce significant savings to ongoingtelecommunications costs by:• linking all sites over the Courts’ network, including a national numbering plan. This will reduce callcosts as internal voice traffic will travel over the Courts’ network• implementing unified communications via Lotus Notes and Sametime applications, which will reducecall conferencing costs and integrate telephone and desktop functionality.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTCourtroom technologyOver the past 18 months, the Court has been upgrading the audio and visual capability of courtrooms ineight locations. The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court jointly decided the priorities for upgrade,with the courtrooms selected used by judges or federal magistrates. The modernised equipment offerssignificant improvements through an integrated system with a touch panel that controls and managesthe technology. It is reliable, consistent and simple to use. The on-site upgrade was delivered in twostages during 2009–10:• In Stage 1, four courtrooms in the regional registries of Hobart, Cairns, Darwin and Dandenong wereupgraded. Work was completed in December 2009.• In Stage 2, 12 courtrooms in the Brisbane, Sydney, Parramatta and Melbourne registries wereupgraded. Work was completed in June 2010.Training was delivered to staff and judicial officers concurrent with both stages. At 30 June 2010, theproject implementation review was being finalised.Transcription servicesIn July 2009, Auscript became the single provider of services to the Family Law Courts. It then builtupon the state-of-the-art digital audio recording platform implemented in the Family Law Courts (seeabove) during 2009–10, which enabled Auscript to monitor hearings from a centralised location, entirelyremoved from the courtroom. Associates and court staff were provided with access to Auscript’s onlineCourtChat service, which gives them live access to the Auscript client services team.The technology update has already proved its value, for example, by improved quality of teleconferencingand greater access to audio of hearings via the AuscriptOnline hearing review portal. Both changes havebeen welcomed by the judiciary and court staff.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201031

During 2009–10, Auscript produced:• 12 901 individual hearing recordings, capturing 44 445 hours of audio• 6069 transcripts of hearings and judgments.PART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTThese resulted in a total production of 544 687 folios for the year—most of which were funded by usersof the Courts.Other initiativesA number of other significant initiatives aimed at maximising the efficiency and resources of the Courtsand to help ensure improved, targeted service delivery were progressed during the year, such as:• work in support of Indigenous clients• integration of the administration of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, includingcreating a single regional management structure, restructuring within client services and therestructuring of services provided by registrars and family consultants.Initiatives such as these are reported elsewhere in this annual report, particularly in Part 6, Managementand Accountability.32 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 3REport on Court Performance

Report on Court PerformanceOutcome and programFrom the 2009–10 Budget, all General Government Sector entities report on a program basis. The figurebelow outlines the transition from the 2008–09 Budget year (as at Additional Estimates), which waspresented in administered items, outputs and output groups, to the program reporting framework usedfor the 2009–10 Budget.Figure 3.1Transitioning from output reporting to program reporting2008–09: outcome and outputs 2009–10: outcome and programOutcome 1As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determinecases with complex law and facts, and provide nationalcoverage as the appellate court in family law matters.Output Group 1.1Judicial Services: P1.1Output Group 1.2Outcome 1As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determinecases with complex law and facts, and provide nationalcoverage as the appellate court in family law matters.Program 1.1Provision of a Family Court: OG 1.1,OG 1.2PART 3 Report on Court PerformanceRegistry Services: P1.1ProgramFamily Court of Australia budget Program 1.1 Provision of a Family Court: OG 1.1,OG 1.2.Whilst the Court’s reporting is now for a single program item as above, this report presents informationin two streams:• judicial services, and• registry/client services.This approach is considered by the Court to provide greater transparency to the Court’s reporting.Historic performance against KPIsThe Court has eight key performance indicators against which it is reporting in 2009–10 (see Table 3.1and Table 3.3). This is the second year in which they have been used. This year, the Court achieved five ofthem and did not achieve three.In term of cases pending (or backlog indicators), the Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of itspending applications less than 12 months old. At 30 June 2010, 72 per cent of pending applicationswere less than 12 months old. The Court began reviewing its oldest active cases during 2009–10 tobetter understand the causes of delays and decide how older cases, particularly those older than twoyears, could be dealt with more appropriately.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201035

The five key performance indicators that were achieved were generally achieved by a significant margin.The three that were not met in both years relate to the percentage of cases pending that are less than12 months old (the Court almost achieved this KPI), reserve judgment delivery times and the time takenfor telephone calls to the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) to be answered.PART 3Report on Court PerformanceIn terms of reserve judgment delivery times, in 2008–09, the Court was able to reduce the number ofoutstanding judgments by 22 (19 per cent) compared with 2007–08. However, in 2009–10, the numberincreased by 19 (20 per cent). As discussed later in this part, there were two key factors: a net loss offive judges in the Court during 2009–10 (this put pressure on the Court to increase the sitting of theremaining judges to ensure cases continue to be heard and finalised) and more interlocutory judgmentswere required, putting additional pressure on judgment writing time. The Chief Justice continued tomonitor the situation throughout both years.For the NEC, its performance has been affected by differing factors: in 2008–09 the NEC was takingover a range of functions from other business units, and this contributed to higher work volumes thanexpected. Information about factors that affected performance in 2009–10 are included later in this part,in particular they relate to the Centre’s new role as a first entry point helpdesk for the CommonwealthCourts Portal.More detailed information about performance against the eight KPIs is contained in the followingreporting.Judicial servicesJudicial services include:• determining cases that are complex in law, facts and parties• covering specialised areas in family law, and• providing national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.In order to better understand the Court’s performance, it is necessary to understand that the Court’scaseload is predominantly applications for Final Orders, Applications in a Case, and Consent Ordersapplications. These three main types of cases contribute most to the Court’s overall performance.Final orders are mostly cases where clients commence litigated proceedings to obtain parenting andfinancial orders. The applicants set out their claims to spend time with their children and/or split theirfinancial portfolios (including property and other assets).Applications in a case are additional proceedings in which a client seeks interim orders until such time asthe application for final orders is decided, or interlocutory orders relating to the conduct of the case priorto a final hearing.Consent orders applications are where the clients have agreed or settled on terms relating to thechildren and/or financial issues and they are seeking court ratification of these by way of binding courtorders.36 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Summary of performanceIn 2009–10, the Court achieved four judicial keyperformance indicators and/or deliverables under thePortfolio Budget Statements (see Table 3.1) and wasnot able to achieve three, although it fell just short ofone of the indicators.The Court was able to achieve two of its mostimportant operational targets. Firstly the 100 per centclearance was achieved. This shows a relatively stableClient service area at the Sydney registry.output relative to a level of incoming workload andsuggests it is commensurate with its resources and the demand placed on its services. Additionally, theCourt increased the proportion of its cases being finalised before they were 12 months old.During 2009–10, the Court reviewed its oldest cases to establish why they were still awaiting a finaljudgment and to seek to progress them to finality. The review confirmed that the Court has many oldcases that are very complex in nature, requiring careful and intense judicial management. It identifieda number of cases that seemed older than they actually were because of administrative processesconcerned with re-instatement or re-listing of ‘old’ cases for another hearing. Addressing these typesof issues will ultimately allow the Court to reduce its oldest pending caseload and have cases before ajudge as soon as practical.PART 3 Report on Court PerformanceReserved judgmentsThe Court remains concerned about the number of reserved judgments waiting more than threemonths for decision. The increasing complexity of cases before the Court has resulted in more casesrequiring interlocutory judgments (that is, significant decisions to be made so that the prima facie casecan progress to a final judgment). This not only requires significant judicial time in hearing but alsosignificant effort to determine. In previous years the Court had not been able to easily report about alljudgments. This is the first year in which the Court is able to report the total of all judgments for the yearunder review. This additional detail has had an affect on the measures.While the number of cases requiring reserved judgments is relatively low compared to the total numberof cases finalised, it is important for Court clients to receive orders as soon as possible after their hearingand/or trial. The KPI for reserved judgments indicates that clients with reserved judgments are waitingtoo long to have their judgment delivered. The Chief Justice continues to monitor these while developingstrategies to have judgments delivered within the target time.FinalisationsVolumes of finalisations are difficult to predict each year: they are significantly dictated by client demandfor Family Court services and the level of available judicial resources. Both of these are out of the controlof the Court: clients determine where and when they will file their case and judicial appointments are atthe discretion of the government. During 2009–10, the Court had a net loss of five judges. This affectedits ability to meet the targets for 2009–10, which were set late in 2008–09 and were based on theexpected new caseload and resource levels at that time.Table 3.1 summarises the Court’s results in delivering judicial services against the key performanceindicators and deliverables published in the 2009–10 Portfolio Budget Statements.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201037

Table 3.1Summary of performance—judicial servicesPART 3Report on Court PerformanceKey performanceindicators and deliverablesDeliverablesNumber of finalisations perannumTarget/deliverable 08–09Target/Result09–10result09–10 targetachievedFinal order finalisations: 3900 4637/ 4883 3935 ✔Interim order finalisations: 4300 5303/4328 4073 ✗Consent order finalisations: 10 500 11 228/10 164 10 625 ✔Other order finalisations**: 450 462 ✔KPIs***Clearance rate 100% 100%/106% 100% ✔Backlog indicatorsMore than 75% of matters pendingconclusion are less than 12 months old75%/73% 72% ✗More than 75% of reserved judgmentsare waiting less than three monthsafter the conclusion of trial*75%/54% 46% ✗* The wording of this measure differs slightly from the PBS to better reflect the intent of the measure and to avoid confusionwith another similarly worded measure.** The Family Court ‘Other Finalisations’ estimates include other family law finalisations such as Hague, contempt, contraventions,child support appeals, and enforcement summons. The values reported in the Portfolio Budget Statements are incorrectlyshowing the total ‘Other Finalisations’ for family law instead of the Family Court. These figures should have beenapproximately 450 or 10 per cent of the total shown. The ‘Other Finalisations’ per the PBS will be updated at the earliestpossible opportunity to reflect only those that are attributable to the Family Court.*** The Court also has a KPI about complaints. This is reported upon in Table 3.3Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for greater transparency in its reporting for judicial services andclient services. See also Table 3.3 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.Detailed report on performanceThe Court’s case mix: complex casesNew workload for 2009–10The Court continues to deal with the most complexand difficult family law cases. Figures 3.2 and 3.3show the new caseload during 2009–10.Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts in Sydney.Parenting cases dealing with the best interests ofthe children are difficult to deal with but the Courtalso deals with complex cases involving financial andproperty issues. Financial cases often deal with thesplitting of superannuation, corporate businesses, andlarge and complex finance and property portfolios.The Court continues to experience a shift in the mix of parenting and financial related cases. The Courtonce dealt with about 40 per cent of cases with financial issues, while it is now about 65 per cent.Furthermore, whilst only about five years ago about 10 per cent of cases had both parenting andfinancial issues this has increased to around 15 per cent.38 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Figure 3.2 Applications filed, 2009–10Application Filed %Final orders applications 3692 19%Application in a case (Interim) 4230 22%Consent orders applications 10 705 56%Other applications 462 2%Total 19 089 100%Consent ordersapplications 57%Other applications 2%Final ordersappplications 19%Application in acase (Interim) 22%PART 3 Report on Court PerformanceFigure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2009–10Financial only 50%Children and financial 14%Other 1%Children only 35%Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201039

Complex casesThe Court’s case mix is predominantly complex cases (less complex cases are dealt with by the FederalMagistrates Court). They involve multiple issues and higher levels of conflict between the parties. Theparties are less likely to settle their dispute and the cases have a higher probability of needing a judicialdecision at trial.PART 3Figure 3.4 shows the changing settlement and attrition trend of the Court’s completed caseload andthe case management phase where they finalised. Whereas about 10 years ago about 5 per cent of theCourt’s cases needed judicial decision, today this has risen to about 10 per cent.Figure 3.4Attrition and settlement trends in the Court’s caseloadReport on Court Performance100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%LodgedFirst CourtHearing /ConferencePre-trialconferencingTrial Phase /Docket entryTrial PhaseManagementCommence trialJudgment2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10First instance trialsParties who cannot agree to settle their dispute require a judge to make a decision after a trial.Alternatively, they may reach settlement during the trial process—this commonly happens.Figure 3.5 provides the number of cases that are finalised at first instance trial. The Court had fewertrials in 2009–10, reflecting not only less cases coming before the Court but also, more particularly, theCourt having fewer judicial officers to hear trials.40 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2005–06 to 2009–102 0001 8001 600180195015751 40090612531 2001 000800600400200011157111038583511851669 5425325272005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Number of cases finalised by judgment at trialNumber of cases settle at trialPART 3 Report on Court PerformanceImpact of reduced number of judicial officersThe number of Family Court judges has steadily decreased in recent years. During 2009–10, six judgesretired and only one replacement judge was appointed, resulting in a 15 per cent reduction in judicialresources. As this report was being prepared the government announced four new judicial appointments,although two of these were long standing Family Court judicial registrars.The decision not to fill all the retired positions combined with the delay in those replacements putpressure on the Court’s ability to maintain or increase the rate at which it finalised cases in 2009–10.Even though the number of filings in the Court reduced further in 2009–10, such pressures are expectedto continue into 2010–11 and beyond, with fewer judicial officers in the Court and the increasingcomplexity of cases that proceed to trial, meaning they may take longer to finalise.Figure 3.6 shows the decrease in number of the Court’s judges in the past five years. The number ofjudges includes the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and judges assigned to the Appeal Division, whosemain caseload is associated with appeals rather than first instance matters.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201041

Figure 3.6 Number of judges, 2005–06 to 2009–10PART 345434035Report on Court Performance2005–06Number of finalisationsDuring 2009–10, the Court aimed to finalise 3900 final order cases, 4300 interim orders applicationsand 10 500 consent orders applications. These targets (or deliverables in the Portfolio BudgetStatements) were based on the Court’s historical achievements, its resource level including judges, theestimated new applications initiated each year and the number of active cases (pending).30Each application type requires a particular level of effort to resolve. For example, final orders applicationsand associated interim applications require more effort to resolve than consent order applications. TheCourt also deals with discrete applications, such as contraventions, contempt and applications madepursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.Final ordersDuring 2009–10, 3935 applications for final orders were finalised, about 1 per cent above the target.This was 20 per cent fewer than in 2008–09 but given the 15 per cent reduction in judges, it wasconsidered a positive achievement. The Court’s case and docket management were seen to be largelyresponsible for producing the result.Applications in a case (interim)During 2009–10, 4073 interim applications (Application in a case) were finalised, about 5 per cent lessthan the target and 6 per cent less than in 2008–09. Interim applications are associated with an existingcase and can be dealt with relatively quickly. A smaller number was filed than anticipated. This combinedwith fewer judges meant the target could not be achieved.42 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Consent ordersDuring 2009–10, 10 625 consent orders applications were finalised, which is 1 per cent more thantarget and 5 per cent more than were finalised in 2008–09. These applications are the least complexof the Court’s workload and are usually dealt with by a registrar not a judicial officer. There was only aslight increase in consent applications filed, therefore the number finalised reflects registrar resourcesavailability in 2009–10.Figures 3.7 to 3.10 display five-year trends in filings, finalisations and pending (active) applications.Figure 3.7 Final orders applications, 2005–06 to 2009–1015 00012 0009 0006 00011 01112 6399455785410 7596550445769924015383448833322369239353451PART 3 Report on Court Performance3 00002005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Filed Finalised PendingFigure 3.8 Applications in a case, 2005–06 to 2009–1015 00012 00011 23911 9369 000792888106 00049495597291943134328423040733 000203713891376157702005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Filed Finalised PendingFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201043

Figure 3.9 Consent orders applications, 2005–06 to 2009–1015 00012 00011 72911 87110 79010 63410 41010 57610 10510 16410 70510 625PART 39 0006 000Report on Court Performance3 00055771354850462602005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Filed Finalised PendingFigure 3.10 All applications, 2005–06 to 2009–1050 00040 00030 00020 00010 00035 07537 70613 26727 35031 0356 16020 33723 7595 38118 63319 7865 38119 08919 0695 87302005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Filed Finalised PendingClearance rateThe Court aims for a clearance rate of 100 per cent; that is, in a year to finalise at least at the samerate as cases are started. A clearance rate of 100 per cent or higher shows that the Court is able tokeep up with its new work and prevent an increase in its backlog of pending cases. For a number ofyears, the Court has cleared more than 100 per cent of cases, thus enabling it to keep its backlog to amanageable level.44 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

In 2009–10, the Court had a 100 per cent clearance rate, even though the figures presented in thisreport show an increase in the pending figures. This is because the number of pending cases reportedin 2008–09 was subsequently found to be understated by about 450 applications because of incorrectclassifications recorded in the Court’s case management system. (The 2008–09 figures have not beenupdated as they represent what was reported at the time of last year’s annual report production).Figures 3.11 to 3.14 show five-year trends in clearance rates.Figure 3.11 Final orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10160%Court is finalising more cases than are started150%140%130%120%110%100%Court is finalising less cases than are started90%PART 3 Report on Court Performance2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Clearance RateTargetFigure 3.12 Application in a case, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10120%115%110%Court is finalising more cases than are started105%100%95%Court is finalising less cases than are started90%2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Clearance RateTargetFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201045

Figure 3.13 Consent orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10110%105%Court is finalising more cases than are startedPART 3140%Report on Court PerformanceCourt is finalising less cases than are started110%90%2005–06 2006-07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Clearance RateTargetFigure 3.14 All applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10120%115%Court is finalising more cases than are started110%105%110%110%90%Court is finalising less cases than are started2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Clearance RateTarget46 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Backlog indicatorsThe backlog is the number of cases and applications that are pending (that is, still active) at the end ofthe year. These applications are waiting for a court event to occur or are being actively managed. Thebacklog contains older cases and cases that commenced more recently. Many of these cases will bedisposed within the Court’s target. However, the completion of applications that are older and outsidethe timeliness target is the primary focus of the Court.Age of pending applicationsEach court must have a backlog of cases so that it can have a steady workload to account with theebbs and flows of new cases and cases being finalised. The Family Court’s goal is for its pending casesnot to be excessively delayed, thus it aims to minimise the proportion of older cases and maximise theproportion of younger cases. If the Court can achieve a healthy distribution of aged cases this helpsensure timely finalisation of cases. The highly entrenched and complex cases that the Court deals withoften take significant time to progress through to a decision.The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending applications less than 12 months old. At 30June 2010, the Court nearly met this target by achieving 72 per cent of pending applications being lessthan 12 months old. This has remained relatively steady from 2008–09.During the last six months of 2009–10, the Court began reviewing its oldest active cases, particularlythose older than 24 months, to better understand the causes of the delay and determine ways in whichthese could be dealt with more appropriately. The benefits of the review are expected to materialiseduring 2010–11.PART 3 Report on Court PerformanceFigure 3.15 shows the five-year trend in the age distribution of backlog applications. Figures 3.16 to3.19 show trends by type of application.Figure 3.15 Age of pending applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%71% 70% 69% 73% 72%2005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10% pending less than 12 months old Target (more than 75%)Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201047

Figure 3.16 Final order applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10100 %90 %80 %70 %60 %PART 3Report on Court Performance50 %40% 40%41%38% 39%40 %25% 25% 26%30 %22% 21% 23% 24% 23%21% 23%20 %12% 13% 14% 15% 14%10 %0%0–6 months6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Figure 3.17 Applications in a case (interim), time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10100 %90 %80 %70 %60 %72%68% 66% 66%61%50 %40 %30 %20 %10 %23%19% 20% 20%16%7%8%10%9%12%5%5%4%5%4%0%0-6 months6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–1048 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Figure 3.18 Consent order applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10100 %90 %80 %94%92% 93%87%83%70 %60 %50 %40 %30 %20 %10 %0%3%0–6 months11%8% 5%3% 3%4%1% 2%2% 1% 1% 1%3%6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Figure 3.19 All applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10100 %90 %4%PART 3 Report on Court Performance80 %70 %60 %50 %53%49% 50% 50% 51%40 %30 %20 %10 %0%0–6 months16% 17%22%20% 19% 20% 21%18% 19% 20%10% 11% 11% 11% 10%6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10The varying complexity within the different application types means that their times to finalise also varyand therefore produce varying age distribution profiles. For example, the final order application is thebasis of a client’s substantive case. It takes significantly more time to resolve and as a result a largerproportion of them are older than 12 months.Age of reserved judgments outstandingWhen there is a trial, judges often reserve their decisions to consider the evidence and to deliver writtenreasons for their decisions. The Court aims to have reserved decisions delivered within three months afterthe trial on final order applications. Its target is to have more than 75 per cent of matters awaiting ajudgment waiting no more than three months. The Court did not meet this target in 2009–10.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201049

At 30 June 2009, 46 per cent of the Court’s reserved judgments were less than three months old. Figure3.20 shows the five year trend in reserved judgments outstanding at 30 June each year comparedwith the target of 75 per cent. Figure 3.21 shows the five-year trend in time for reserved judgmentsoutstanding at 30 June each year.Figure 3.20Reserved judgments outstanding (pending) less than 3 months, at 30 June2005–06 to 2009–10PART 3100%90%80%Report on Court Performance70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%51% 58% 39% 54% 46%2005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Within 3 monthsTargetFigure 3.21Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 30 June 2005–06 to2009–10100%90%80%70%60%50%51%58%54%46%40%30%20%22%27%25%17%39%25%36%20%26%23%32%10%0%2005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Within 3 months More than 3 but less than 6 months More than 6 months50 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

At 30 June 2010, the number of outstanding judgments increased by 19 (20 per cent) compared to30 June 2009. The Court was not able to meet its target because of two factors. Firstly, the reductionin judge numbers put pressure on the Court to increase the sitting of the remaining judges to ensurecases continue to be heard and finalised. This lessened the times that judges had to complete theirreserved judgments. Secondly, more interlocutory judgments were required for the Court’s cases, puttingadditional pressure on judgment writing time. The Chief Justice continues to monitor reserved judgments.Percentage of cases finalisedThe Court aims to finalise cases within a timely manner. It is, however, mindful that the complexity offamily law needs taking into account: family law cases are particularly difficult and emotional, and theFamily Court’s decisions affect many lives for potentially many years. Therefore, the Court also recognisesthe need to allow clients enough time to deal with the many emotions that family breakdown and thecourt process bring. It is difficult to set a timeliness target because the number of variables affecting theparties involved in each case has unquantifiable impacts on its progress towards a decision.Although the Court does not have performance indicators in the PBS about the time to finalise cases,the Court continue to internally monitor the age of its finalised cases to assist with determining resourceallocation and the effort required to clear cases.Age of finalised applicationsThe Court’s target for timeliness to finalisation are based on previous cases and the Court’s casemanagement processes. The ability to get clients before the court relies heavily on various factors: theCourt’s case management principles, delays between court interventions, available resources, and theclients. The Court aims to finalise 75 per cent of cases within 12 months, the other 25 per cent are themost complex cases, which cannot be expected to be managed within that timeframe.PART 3 Report on Court PerformanceDuring 2009–10, the Court finalised about 91 per cent of cases (applications) within 12 months which issignificantly above the target and a 2 per cent increase since 2008–09. The main reason for this was thequicker time in which the Court was able to finalise a number of the complex applications, such as finalorders applications. In addition there was an increase in the volume of the less complex consent orderapplications.Figure 3.22 shows the five-year trend in the age distribution of applications finalised. Figures 3.23 to3.26 show the trend by the type of application.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201051

Figure 3.22 Applications finalised within 12 months, 2005–06 to 2009–10100%90%80%70%PART 360%50%40%Report on Court Performance30%20%10%85% 85% 86% 89% 91%0%2005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10% finalised within 12 months Target (75%)Figure 3.23 Final order applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%44%41% 40% 41% 43%0–6 months22% 23%20% 21% 21% 21%21% 22%19%20%17%14% 15%16%12%6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–1052 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Figure 3.24 Applications in a case, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10100%90%80%81% 81%82%81%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%12% 13% 13% 12% 12%10%5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 2% 1% 2% 1%0%0–6 months6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Figure 3.25 Consent order applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–1099% 99% 99% 99%100%100%1%PART 3 Report on Court Performance90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20 %10 %0%0–6 months1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201053

Figure 3.26 All applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10100%90%80%70%83%81%76%74% 73%60%PART 3Report on Court Performance50%40%30%20%10%0%0–6 monthsAge of reserved judgments delivered11% 12%10% 8% 9% 10%7%9%7% 6%5% 5% 5% 5%6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10The Court aims to deliver reserved judgments within three months after trial or hearing. The majorityof judgments are delivered ex tempore straight after the trial or hearing. In the past few years theCourt’s cases have experienced an increase in the rate of clients seeking interlocutory judgments. Before2009–10, the interlocutory judgments were not systematically recorded to allow easy reporting but thishas been remedied to allow more complete reporting this year. It should be noted that this informationcannot be directly compared with previous years, which related only to final judgments (the previousyears’ data is only shown for information purposes).4%The Court aims to have 75 per cent of reserved judgments delivered within three months. The Court metthis target in 2009–10 by delivering 545 reserved judgments (excluding judgments on appeal cases)within three months.Complex issues are the main reason that some judgments may take a longer time to complete, butadditionally in 2009–10 a major factor affecting the Court’s ability to meet this target was the net lossof five judges. Fewer judicial resources has put pressure on the Court to ensure judges hear trials, whichreduces their available time to complete reserved judgments. The Chief Justice will continue to monitorthe judgments to ensure they can be delivered while balancing it with judges spending time hearingtrials.Figure 3.27 shows the five year trend of reserved judgments delivered within three months and Figure3.28 shows time to deliver reserved judgments.54 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Figure 3.27 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2005–06 to 2008–09(final only) and 2009–10 (all)100%90%* 2009–10 All judgments, 2005–09: Final Only80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Figure 3.2873% 73% 69% 70% 75%2005–06Within 3 months Target (75%)2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Reserved judgments, time to deliver, 2005–06 to 2008–09 (final only) and2009–10 (all)PART 3 Report on Court Performance60050069* 2009–10 All judgments, 2005–09: Final Only4003008147554948516258 502001000416 279 239 233 3412005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Within 3 months More than 3 but less than 6 months More than 6 monthsFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201055

Judicial services complaintsJudges are accountable through the public nature of their work, the requirement that they give reasonsfor their decisions, and the scrutiny of their decisions on appeal.PART 3Report on Court PerformanceIn 2009–10, the Court received 57 complaints relating to judges or judicial registrars—32 concerningjudicial conduct and 25 on the time taken in delivery of a judgment. This represented 0.3 per cent of allapplications filed (19 089), well under the Portfolio Budget Statements target of 1 per cent (althoughwhen judicial services complaints and administrative complaints are combined they total 1 per cent).This figure excluded consent order applications (where the parties have already agreed on parenting andfinancial questions and are seeking the endorsement of the agreement by the Court), which are generallydealt with by a registrar rather than a judicial officer.The number of judicial complaints received by the Court in 2009–10 was more than in the previous yearbut comparable to the level in 2005–06 (see Figure 3.29).Figure 3.29 Total judicial complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10100908070605040302010055 65 74 50 572005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Judicial conductThe Court received 32 complaints in 2009–10 about judicial conduct, compared with 17 in 2008–09. Amajor factor in the increase was the number of multiple complaints from a party, or in some cases a nonparty,regarding the same court proceeding determined by the same judicial officer.A complaint about the conduct of a judge in court or in connection with a case in the Family Court orabout the performance of a judge’s judicial functions must be made by letter addressed to the ChiefJustice.If the Chief Justice considers that the complaint is about judicial conduct, she will determine whetherthe complaint, on its face, has substance. The complainant will receive a comprehensive response to allmatters raised. Because the process cannot provide a mechanism for disciplining judges, the Court’s56 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

esponse will not address anything other than the substance of the complaint. If the matter warrantedit, the Chief Justice would bring the conduct complained of to the attention of the Attorney-General. In2009–10 there were no complaints that were found to have substance. Many were about the outcomeof the case rather than judicial conduct per se.Delay in delivery of a judgmentThe Court received 25 complaints about the time taken for reserved judgments, a decrease from the 33received in 2008–09.The Court aims to deliver all judgments promptly and has set a target of three months from the datethe case is last heard or the last submission is received. Most judgments are delivered in much lessthan three months, but sometimes they take longer, particularly in complex cases. A party may expressconcerns or may complain about delay in the delivery of a judgment in writing to the president of the barassociation or the law society in the state or territory in which the case was heard, and request that thepresident take up the matter with the Chief Justice. Complaints of this nature can also be made directlyby letter addressed to the Chief Justice.Figure 3.30 shows the four-year trend in judicial complaints in both these categories.Figure 3.30: Judicial complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–105040302029 282637314317333225PART 3 Report on Court Performance1002005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Judicial conductReserved judgmentsJudicial decisionsThose concerned about judicial decisions in a caseor about any other matter in connection with a casethat is capable of being raised in an appeal shouldconsider whether or not to appeal to the Full Court ofthe Family Court. There are time limits for appeals andparties need to act promptly.Courtroom at the Parramatta Family Law Courts.The Chief Justice cannot interfere with any decisionmade by a single judge. Complaints about the resultof a case are generally outside the scope of thecomplaints procedure and are not included in thefigures in this section.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201057

National coverage as appellate courtSummary of appeal caseloadThe Court’s Appeal Division deals with all Full Court appeals. The matters are from decrees of the FamilyCourt of Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court.Table 3.2 summarises the appeals workload; more information about appeals is in Part 4 of this report.PART 3Report on Court PerformanceTable 3.2 Appeal caseload 2005–06 to 2009–102005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % ChangeAppeals filed 299 324 349 364 315 -13%Appeals finalised 212 346 318 361 345 -4%Appeals pending 314 185 216 230 201 -13%Social justice and equity impactsSelf‐represented litigants (SRL)The Court monitors the proportion of self‐represented litigants as one measure of the complexity ofits caseload. Self‐represented litigants add a layer of complexity because they need more assistance tonavigate the court system and require additional help and guidance to abide by the Family Law rules.However, the use of legal representation can indicate that the parties consider their matter to becomplex and best handled by trained legal representatives. Figures 3.31 and 3.32 show that anincreasing proportion of the Court’s cases and trials involve legal representation.Figure 3.31 Proportion of litigants representation status, finalised cases, 2005–06 to 2009–100%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%2005–0668%22%11%2006–0771%19%9%2007–0873%17%10%2008–0974%16%10%2009–1073%17%10%Both have representation (no SRL)One party representative (at least one SRL)Neither have representatives (both SRL)58 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Figure 3.32 Proportion of litigants representation status, trials, 2005–06 to 2009–100%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%2005–0651%38%10%2006–0766%28%6%2007–0864%30%6%2008–092009–10Both have representation (no SRL)Neither have representatives (both SRL)65%65%One party representative (at least one SRL)It is not appropriate for the Court to set, or attempt to achieve, a target on the level of self-representedlitigants. The figures show however, that self‐representation can affect the Court’s caseload and its abilityto meet its performance targets.Shared parental responsibility—children spending time with parents.The reforms to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) introduced by the Family Law Amendment(Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 introduced a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parentalresponsibility, and particular obligations placed on family courts to consider ‘equal time’ and ‘substantialand significant time’ arrangements where the presumption applies.30%28%5%7%PART 3 Report on Court PerformanceDue to the complex and high-conflict nature of the cases that the Court deals with, it did not expect thata large proportion of its cases would be conducive to ‘shared time’. To help the Court monitor and reportthe impact of the legislation, the Court began collecting information about the orders that parents werereceiving for time with their children. In particular, the Court recorded the main reasons when significantand substantial time was not awarded to a parent.The following figures 3.33 to 3.36 for cases finalised during 2007–08 to 2009–10 provide trendinformation about the parent where the children spend time on a majority (more than 55 per cent),shared (50/50), and minority (less than 45 per cent) basis. Information is also provided for cases wherethere was early agreement (consent orders) and those where a litigated case (final orders) was filed.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201059

Figure 3.33Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents for finalisedlitigated cases, 2007–08 to 2009–10100%90%80%PART 370%60%50%60%59%66%40%Report on Court Performance30%20%10%0%17%14%2007–08With mother (litigated cases)With father (litigated cases)18%14%15%12%2008–09 2009–10Shared 50/50 (litigated cases)Figure 3.34Per cent of cases where minority of time children spend with parents for finalisedlitigated cases, 2007–08 to 2009–10100%90%80%70%60%50%46%48%54%40%30%20%14%15%12%10%0%12%2007–08With mother (litigated cases)With father (litigated cases)13%11%2008–09 2009–10Shared 50/50 (litigated cases)60 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Figure 3.35Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents for finalisedconsent cases, 2007–08 to 2009–10100%90%80%70%68%67%69%Per cent60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Figure 3.3618%8%2007–08With mother (Consent cases)With father (Consent cases)18%9%Per cent of cases where minority time children spend with parents for finalisedconsent cases, 2007–08 to 2009–1018%7%2008–09 2009–10Shared 50/50 (Consent cases)PART 3 Report on Court Performance100%90%80%70%Per cent60%50%40%51%52%53%30%20%18%18%18%10%6%6%5%0%2007–08With mother (Consent cases)With father (Consent cases)2008–09 2009–10Shared 50/50 (Consent cases)When a child is not given significant time with a parent, the reasons often have to do with violence andabuse (including substance abuse), or result from mental health problems affecting a parent.Figures 3.37 and 3.38 detail the most common reasons either parent received less than 30 per cent oftime with their child in final orders (litigated) cases over the three years to 2009–10. The cases includecases where no contact was allowed and cases where contact was only to occur under supervision at acontact centre.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201061

Figure 3.37Most common reason why mothers had less than 30 per cent of time spent withchildren for finalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2009–1040%PART 3Report on Court Performance35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%31%16%16%2%2007–08 2007–08 2007–08Abuse and/or family violenceEntrenched conflict19%17%12%11%Distance / transport / financial barriersMental health24%24%12%12%Figure 3.3840%Most common reason why fathers had less than 30 per cent of time spent withchildren for finalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2009–1035%30%29%27%36%25%20%15%15% 16%23%10%5%0%6% 10%7%3% 3%4%2007–08 2007–08 2007–08Abuse and/or family violenceEntrenched conflictDistance / transport / financial barriersMental healthMore details about these are available on the Court’s website at www.familycourt.gov.au.62 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Family violence and abuse (or risk)Under section 60K of the Family Law Act, the Court must consider and take action on notices of or riskof abuse or family violence. The prescribed notice is to be considered within seven days and dealt withwithin 28 days of filing.Figure 3.39 shows that the number of notices filed has declined in the past five years though theproportion of cases raising issues of abuse and family violence continues to rise (see Figure 3.40). This isfurther evidence to suggest that cases dealt with by the Court are increasingly more complex.Figure 3.39 Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2005–06 to 2009–10700600500400300200PART 3 Report on Court Performance1000607 606 459 441 4402005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Figure 3.40*Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of familyviolence is filed, 2005–06 to 2009–1014%12%10%10%12%12%8%8%6%6%4%2%0%2005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10* Rounded to the nearest per centFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201063

Magellan casesPART 3Report on Court PerformanceMagellan cases involve allegations of serious physical abuse or sexual abuse of a child and undergospecial case management. When a Magellan case is identified, it is managed by a small team consistingof a judge, a registrar and a family consultant. Magellan case management relies on collaborative andhighly coordinated processes and procedures. A crucial aspect is strong interagency coordination, inparticular with state and territory child protection agencies. This ensures that problems are dealt withefficiently and that high-quality information is shared. An independent children’s lawyer is appointed inevery Magellan case, for which legal aid is uncapped.Typically, a Magellan case is one where a notice of abuse or family violence is filed, although not allnotices will necessarily be classified as a Magellan matter.Figure 3.41 details the number of Magellan cases commenced and finalised in the past five years. At30 June 2010, 323 cases were pending.Figure 3.41 Magellan cases, 2005–06 to 2009–103002502001702171891971992681912642131501381005002005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Magellan startedMagellan finalisedNote:Figures published in 2008–09 had legend keys inadvertently interchanged.Registry servicesRegistry services are provided to clients of the Family LawCourts (comprising the Family Court of Australia and theFederal Magistrates Court of Australia) who are consideringfiling an application or who wish to file an application witheither court.Registry services include:• provision of effective support to the Family Law Courts• family law telephone and referral services• family law document processing.Client Service Officer at Sydney registry.64 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Summary of performanceFamily law registries and the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) provided a high level of service to the clientsof the Family Law Courts and to judges and federal magistrates during 2009–10.Both the registries and the National Enquiry Centre achieved against all Portfolio Budget Statementperformance indicators and deliverables except one. The one related to telephoning answering times atthe NEC.Table 3.3 summarises the performance of the various client services functions of the Court against PBSkey performance indicators and deliverables. More detailed reporting follows.Table 3.3Key performance indicatorsand deliverablesDeliverablesCounter enquiriesTelephone enquiriesSummary of performance—client servicesTarget/deliverable145 300 counter enquirieshandled359 800 telephone enquiriesreceived08–09 Target/result09–10result09–10 targetachieved141 924/143 931 152 538 ✔183 778/415 598 417 346 ✔Email enquiries 48 500 email enquiries 47 308/47 977 50 846 ✔KPIsCounter enquiriesTime taken to processapplications lodgedNEC telephone calls answeredEmail response timesComplaints75% of all counter enquiries areserved within 20 minutes75% of applications lodged areprocessed within two workingdays80% of calls answered within90 seconds80% of emails answered withintwo daysComplaints—1% of totalapplications received75%/90% 90% ✔75%/90% 96% ✔80%/75% 40% ✗80%/90% 91%* ✔1%/1.08% 1%** ✔PART 3 Report on Court Performance* This figure is for the NEC only.** This figure includes complaints about the administration of the Court and judicial services complaints, for which detailedinformation is reported earlier in this Part.Note:The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for greater transparency in its reporting for judicial services andclient services. See also Table 3.1 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201065

Detailed report on performanceFamily law registriesThere are 19 family law registries in locations in every Australian state and territory (except WesternAustralia). Family law registries provide registry services to both the Family Court of Australia and theFederal Magistrates Court of Australia and are staffed permanently. The key functions of the registries areto:PART 3Report on Court Performance• provide information and advice about court procedures, services and forms, external options andreferrals to community organisations that enable clients to take informed and appropriate action• ensure that available information is provided in an accurate and timely fashion to support the bestoutcome through file management and quality assurance—from the initiation of proceedings, tohearing and to archiving• make the best use of court time by facilitating an orderly secure flow of clients, files and exhibits• enhance community confidence and respect by responding to clients’ needs and assisting withmaking the court experience a more positive one• progress cases by providing administrative services in accordance with court processes and tomanage external relationships to assist with the resolution of cases• schedule and prioritise matters for hearing and intervention to achieve the earliest resolution ordetermination• monitor and control the flow of cases, and• assist in the evaluation of caseloads by reporting on trends and exceptions to facilitateimprovements in processes and allocation of resources.Counter enquiriesDuring 2009–10, the family law registries continued to provide a high level of service to meet asustained high volume and achieved against the deliverables set in the 2009–10 Portfolio BudgetStatements.Staff working on the counters in family law registries handle general enquiries, lodge documents relatingto proceedings, provide copies of documents and/or orders and facilitate the viewing of court files andsubpoenas. Client service staff provided an efficient and effective service when dealing with litigants inperson and the legal profession face-to-face at registry counters across Australia.The service performance indicators and deliverables for 2009–10 were achieved.It is estimated that the family law registries dealt with 152 538 counter enquiries in 2009–10 fromclients or other people seeking information face-to-face. This compared with 143 931 in 2008–09. Morethan 90 per cent of clients were served within 20 minutes, against a target of 75 per cent.Registries also provide telephone and email services. These complement the centralised telephone andemail services provided by the NEC and an increasing range of web-based services.66 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Enquiry counter at the Sydney registry.Document processingFamily law registries receive and process applications lodged at registry counters and in the mail. Theservice target of 75 per cent was significantly exceeded (96 per cent of applications were processedwithin two days of receipt).PART 3 Report on Court PerformanceNational Enquiry Centre (NEC)Telephone and email enquiry and referral servicesThe NEC was established in April 2006 to provide a centralised telephone and email service to clientscontacting the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The NEC answers general and simplecase-related enquiries previously answered by registries. This allows registries to focus on face-to-faceservices and case management. The NEC has proved to be an essential part of the Family Law Courtsand a successful approach to client services.In 2009–10, the NEC received:• 377 529 telephone enquiries (calls received), compared with about 346 000 in 2008–09 1• 24 513 email enquiries, and• 4477 divorce certificate requests.Table 3.4 summarises the NEC’s performance against internal and external benchmarks.1 The Court’s 2008–09 Annual Report reported a higher number than this. The Court has subsequently reviewed its counting andrecording practices, which has seen a reduction in total calls recorded to these figures.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201067

Table 3.4 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2007–08 to 2009–10PART 3Report on Court PerformancePerformance indicators and internal targets 2007–08%2008–09%2009–10%80% of calls answered within 90 seconds (a PBS key66 75 40performance indicator)Less than 5% of calls abandoned 4 2 18Less than 10% of calls transferred to a family law registry 6 5 480% of emails answered within two days (a PBS keyperformance indicator)100 92 91The NEC achieved its Portfolio Budget Statements performance indicator for responding to email enquirieswithin two days (Table 3.4). It also achieved its own performance benchmark of less than 10 per centof calls being transferred to a family law registry. However, it did not meet the PBS key performanceindicator for call answer times or its own service standard for abandoned calls. Eighty per cent of all callswere answered within 110 seconds. Two key factors were seen to influence NEC’s inability to meet the90-second target, namely:• call length increased in 2009–10 to more than 4 and one-quarter minutes per call compared withless than four minutes in 2008–09• the complexity of enquiries increased. This is attributable to additional effort by NEC staff to ensurethat the safety and mental health concerns of clients were cared for, and also because staff wereproviding technical assistance as the first-level helpdesk for callers using the Commonwealth CourtsPortal for self-service who had encountered a technical problem. This often required more time toanalyse and resolve.The high number of abandoned calls is thought to be linked. A change to the Centre’s recorded messagenow refers callers on hold to the portal for self-service on enquiries and eFiling. Many new callers, beingunaware of this service until such time as they telephone the NEC, choose to go to the portal instead ofwaiting to speak to someone at the Centre. Thus they abandon their calls.Whilst the number and length of calls increased during 2009–10, staff numbers remained unchanged.In terms of emails, it was found that as more clients register with the Commonwealth Courts Portal theythen email the National Enquiry Centre on related technical or other matters.Client feedback and complaints managementThe Family Court is committed to responding effectively to feedback and complaints, and to complyingwith Australian Standard AS 4269–1995 (Complaints handling) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’sGood Practice Guide for Effective Complaint Handling.The Court’s client feedback management system allows all areas of the Court to efficiently andconsistently manage complaints and client feedback, while also identifying clients’ issues and monitoringtrends.The Court has a comprehensive complaints policy, a judicial complaints procedure and a detailed clientfact sheet, Complaints and feedback, which explains how clients can provide feedback at all family lawregistries and on the Family Court website (www.familycourt.gov.au).68 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Clients can address complaints to the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive Officer, a registry manageror the Client Feedback Coordinator in writing, verbally by telephone, or by email toclientfeedback@familycourt.gov.au. If a complaint relates to a judge, it will be referred to theJudicial Complaints Adviser.The Court will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days and aims to send a formalresponse within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.During 2009–10, the Family Court recorded 196 complaints compared with 252 in 2008–09, comprising139 complaints about general matters of the Court (see below) and 57 complaints about judicial services(see the section ‘Judicial services complaints’ for more detail). This represented one per cent of allapplications received, thus the Court achieved on this deliverable in its Portfolio Budget Statements.Figures 3.42 and 3.43 summarise the number of administration complaints and the total number ofcomplaints received over the five years to 2009–10.Figure 3.42 Administration complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10250200150PART 3 Report on Court Performance100500217 183 170 202 1392005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Figure 3.43 Complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10300250200150100500272 248 235 252 1962005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201069

Registry services complaintsThe Family Court receives complaints relating to family law registries, which service both the Family Courtand the Federal Magistrates Court.Of the total 139 complaints received by the Court:PART 3Report on Court Performance• 67 were about administrative matters. These included complaints about court administrativeprocedures and processes, and staff conduct, including that of registrars and family consultants• 72 were not relevant to the administration of the court. These included issues about family lawlegislation, government policy, matters in other jurisdictions and the outcome of family lawproceedings.The majority of complaints, on examination, were not held to be justified and were usually the resultof limited knowledge about the judicial system or dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes. Consistentwith other years, there were a relatively minor number of complaints which justifiably highlightedshortcomings in administrative procedures.As a result of client feedback during 2009–10, aside from issues being resolved for litigants on anindividual basis, the Court made improvements to signage at the Albury registry and another registrychanged its procedures for referral to other agencies.A meeting was also held between the Australian Association of Social Workers and the Family Court’sclient feedback coordinator, legal counsel and Principal Child Dispute Services to clarify both agenciesroles in respect of complainants. Steps were taken to improve communication to litigants about thoseroles.The Court also recorded four compliments.70 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 4Appeals

APPEALSAppeal DivisionSections 21A, 22 (2AA), (2AB) & (2AC) of the Family Law Act 1975 provide for an Appeal Division for theFamily Court.The members of the Appeal Division of the Court are the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice and suchother judges, not exceeding nine in number, as are assigned to the Appeal Division.At 30 June 2010, the judges assigned to the Appeal Division were:• Justice Finn• Justice Coleman• Justice May• Justice Boland• Justice Thackray (Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia)• Justice O’Ryan• Justice StricklandThe Full Court of the Family Court of Australia is made up of three or more judges of the Court; themajority must be members of the Appeal Division (Family Law Act 1975 ss4 and 21A).PART 4 AppealsJustice Boland.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201073

AppealsThe appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court is defined in Part X of the Family Law Act, in Part VIII of theChild Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and Part 7 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act1989.An appeal lies to the Full Court from a decree of the Family Court, constituted otherwise than as a FullCourt, exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts.An appeal also lies to the Full Court of the Family Court from a decree of the Family Court of WesternAustralia; or the Supreme Court of a state or a territory, constituted by a single judge exercisingjurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts.PART 4AppealsAn appeal also lies to the Family Court of Australia from a decree of the Federal Magistrates Courtexercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) the Child Support Acts. The jurisdictionof the Court in relation to such appeals is to be exercised by a Full Court unless the Chief Justiceconsiders it appropriate for a single judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the court in relation to such anappeal (s 94AAA(3)).Full Court sittingsDuring 2009–10, the Full Court sat for 26 weeks (or part weeks). Appeals are also heard by way ofvideo-link from time to time.Administration of appealsAppeals are administered by an Appeals Registrar in three areas:• Northern—Queensland, northern New South Wales and Northern Territory• Eastern—eastern, western and southern New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory• Southern—Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.Western Australia is separately administered by a Registrar of the Family Court of Western Australia.Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts building in Sydney.74 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Trend in appealsThe number of appeals filed in 2009–10 decreased by 13 per cent from 364 to 315. This marks a changefrom the average annual increase of approximately 4 per cent over the past five years. In the same periodthe number of pending (i.e. active) cases decreased by 13 per cent from 230 to 201.There were 29 per cent fewer appeals from the Family Court whilst appeals from the Federal MagistratesCourt remained steady.Many appeals from of the Federal Magistrates Court are dealt with by a single judge and do not requirethe convening of a bench of three or more judges.During 2009–10, the number of disposals by the Appeals Division decreased by 4 per cent from 361 to345.The number of interlocutory applications in relation to appeals continues to increase. In 2009–10applications for ‘leave to extend time to comply with rule/direction’ increased from 45 to 67 and’reinstate appeal previously abandoned’ increased from nine to 21.Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 show the trend in appeal notices filed, finalised and pending (i.e. active) duringthe past five financial years.PART 4 AppealsTable 4.1 Notice of appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction, 2005–06 to 2009–10Filed 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % ChangeFamily Court of Australia 195 202 153 160 113 -29%Federal Magistrates Court 104 122 196 204 202 -1%Appeals filed 299 324 349 364 315 -13%Per cent Family Court of65% 62% 44% 44% 36% -8%AustraliaPer cent Federal Magistrates 35% 38% 56% 56% 64% 8%CourtFinalised 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % ChangeFamily Court of Australia 133 228 171 170 144 -15%Federal Magistrates Court 79 118 147 191 201 5%Appeals finalised 212 346 318 361 345 -4%Per cent Family Court of63% 66% 54% 47% 42% -5%AustraliaPer cent Federal Magistrates 37% 34% 46% 53% 58% 5%CourtPending 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % ChangeFamily Court of Australia 234 139 121 124 93 -25%Federal Magistrates Court 80 46 95 106 108 2%Appeals pending 314 185 216 230 201 -13%Per cent Family Court of75% 75% 56% 54% 46% -8%AustraliaPer cent Federal MagistratesCourt25% 25% 44% 46% 54% 8%Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201075

Figure 4.1 Notice of appeals, 2005–06 to 2009–10400350300299314324346349318364 361315345250200212185216230201150PART 410050Appeals02005–06Filed Finalised Pending2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10The proportion of appeals arising from decrees of the Family Court decreased from 45 per cent to36 per cent in 2009–10.Figure 4.2 shows the proportion of appeal filings in relation to first instance decrees made either in theFederal Magistrates Court or in the Family Court.Figure 4.2Proportion of notice of appeals filed by jurisdiction of decree, 2005–06 to2009–1070%65%62%64%60%56% 56%50%40%35%38%44% 44%36%30%20%10%0%2005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Family Court of AustraliaFederal Magistrates CourtThe number of appeals that were allowed or dismissed remained steady in 2009–10.The total number of appeals withdrawn or abandoned decreased by 13 per cent from 158 to 138.76 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Withdrawn applications decreased from 94 to 52 while abandoned applications increased from 64 to 86.Figure 4.3 shows the trend in the means in which appeals were finalised.Figure 4.3 Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 2005–06 to 2009–10100%90%11% 15% 12% 18% 25%80%70%28% 21% 27% 26% 15%60%50%40%30%20%33% 25% 22% 25% 24%PART 4 Appeals10%0%28% 40% 39% 32% 36%2005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn Abandoned160140137123122120114100858789948386806040597059247252693964522002005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn AbandonedIn recent years there has been a return to directions hearings being conducted by registrars rather thanjudges of the Appeal Division. In 2009–10, the proportion of directions hearings conducted by registrarsincreased from 59 per cent to 72 per cent which freed up judges assigned to the Appeal Division toundertake the final hearings.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201077

Figure 4.4 shows the number of directions hearings undertaken by appeal registrars and judges of theAppeal Division.Figure 4.4 Appeal directions hearings by type of judicial officer, 2006–07 to 2009–1012001000451281800PART 4600387528Appeals4002000269 275 646 7332006–072007–08 2008–09 2009–10RegistrarJudgeAppeal issues and demographicsFigure 4.5 shows that during 2009–10 the issues raised on appeal were predominately related tochildren (44 per cent) and property (33 per cent). These proportions have remained stable over the pastfive years as shown in Figure 4.6.The historical trend in gender remains where males were slightly more likely to lodge appeals thanfemales (Figure 4.7)Figure 4.8 shows a change in the trend towards self-representation. In 2009–10 the proportion of selfrepresentedappellants decreased from 53 per cent to 40 per cent.78 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Figure 4.5 Proportion of issues raised on notice of appeals, 2009–10Financial, 33%Cost, 15%Other, 8%Parenting, 44%Figure 4.6 Proportion of children and property issues raised on notice of appeals, 2006–07to 2009–10PART 4 Appeals60%50%47%42%46%44%40%30%30%31%34%33%20%10%0%2006–072007–08 2008–09 2009–10ChildrenPropertyFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201079

Figure 4.7 Proportion of appellants by gender, 2005–06 to 2009–10100%90%8% 8% 9% 8% 11%80%70%60%37%39% 39% 42% 39%50%PART 440%30%20%Appeals10%0%55% 53% 52% 50% 50%2005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Male Female OtherFigure 4.8 Proportion of appellants representation status, 2005–06 to 2009–10100%90%80%70%60%59%57%56%53%61%50%40%30%41%43%44%47%39%20%10%0%2005–06 2006–072007–08 2008–09 2009–10RepresentedSelf represented80 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Age of finalised appealsIn 2009–10, the Court finalised 74 per cent of appeals within twelve months (82 per cent in 2008–09).Figure 4.9 shows the time taken to finalise appeals over the past four years.Figure 4.9 Months to finalise appeals, 2006–07 to 2009–1040%35%30%37%36%31%30%33%25%20%15%10%22%23% 23%22%21%20% 20%22%18%13% 13%PART 4 Appeals5%3%4%5%4%0%0–3 months3–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Appeals to the High Court of AustraliaSection 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that an appeal does not lie to the High Court from adecree of a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, whether original or appellate, exceptby special leave of the High Court.During 2009–10, twenty applications for special leave to appeal were filed in the High Court fromjudgments of the Family Court.During 2009–10, nine applications for special leave were determined by the High Court (eight wererefused and one was granted) and one appeal from the Family Court was heard and allowed by the HighCourt.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201081

AppealsPART 4Courtroom at the Parramatta Family Law Courts.82 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 5SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

Significant and noteworthyjudgmentsIn 2009–10, judges of the Family Court of Australia handed down judgments at both first instance andappellate levels. The decisions reflect the Court’s expansive jurisdiction, the wide variety of issues that itaddresses, and its position as a superior specialist federal court which deals with the most complex andserious family law cases.A selection of the more significant and noteworthy Full Court judgments is published here.The Court recognises that the accessibility of its judgments to the public is important. It commits theresources required to ensure that every final judgment delivered is anonymised and published consistentwith section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Virtually all judgments, after anonymisation, arepublished in full text on the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) website. There is a link tothe AustLII site from the Court’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au).Recent decisions are also published on the Court’s website for a period of two months. This policyhas enabled the Court to better respond to community interest and concerns about particular caseshighlighted in the media.Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders)[2009] FamCAFC 166Family Law—Appeal—Steps to be taken by trial judge when exercising discretion to allow an interimproperty settlement pursuant to s 79 or s 80(1)(h) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Boland, Thackray and O’Ryan JJ, judgment delivered 14September 2009This was an appeal from interim orders of Strickland J. Ms Strahan sought an interim propertysettlement of $5 million to defray the likely ongoing legal costs of further proceedings before theCourt. Strickland J ordered that the wife be paid $1 million as an interim property settlement. The totalpool of property pool was disputed by the parties. The husband asserted that there were total assetsof $80 million. The wife asserted total assets which were undisclosed by the husband but were in themagnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars. Strickland J found that the wife had spent approximately$10.5 million in legal fees and other expenses since the proceedings first commenced.PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSMs Strahan appealed on the grounds that Strickland J had inappropriately applied a legal test andmade findings as to whether there were ‘compelling circumstances’ justifying the making of the order.Ms Strahan claimed that the sum of $5 million could and should have been paid.The Full Court allowed the appeal. Boland and O’Ryan JJ determined that both s 79 and s 80(1)(h) ofthe Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are sources of power to make an interim property order. Boland andO’Ryan JJ stated that it is also possible to make a maintenance order pursuant to s 72 or s 74 of theFamily Law Act 1975 (Cth), or a costs order pursuant to s 117.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201085

While determining that there is only one exercise of power pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975(Cth), Boland and O’Ryan JJ determined that there may be a succession of orders made in proceedingsuntil there is no property left which could be subject to orders by way of alteration of interests inproperty. Boland and O’Ryan JJ stated that there is a two-step process to determining whether to makean interim property settlement. The first step is for a judicial officer to determine whether to exercise thepower before a final hearing. The second step is for a judicial officer to actually exercise that power.PART 5SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSBoland and O’Ryan concluded that there was no requirement to establish that there were compellingcircumstances justifying the making of the order. Their Honours considered that all that was requiredwas an assessment of whether it was appropriate in the overall interests of justice to exercise the powerpursuant to s 79 or s 80(1)(h) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Further, their Honours also consideredthat it is necessary to consider the fact that the usual order pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) is a ‘once and for all’ order made after a final hearing. Boland and O’Ryan JJ stated that anyinterim property order must be capable of variation or reversal prior to final orders being made, withouta party having to resort to an application pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or anappeal.In a separate judgment, Thackray J allowed the appeal. Thackray J emphasised that there is no obligationon the Court to make an interim order; rather the Court may do so if it considers that it should in theexercise of its discretion. Thackray J stated that it was necessary for the Court to have regard to thepolicy consideration that it is generally in the interest of the parties and the Court for there to be onlyone exercise of the power under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).Boland and O’Ryan JJ and Thackray J re-exercised the discretion of the trial judge and orderedMr Strahan to pay $5 million to the wife.Whitehouse & Whitehouse[2009] FamCAFC 207; (2009) FLC 93–415; 42 Fam LR 319Family Law—Appeal—Consideration of accrued jurisdiction—Whether property proceedings cancontinue after both parties to a marriage have died—Consideration of s 78 and s 79 of the Family LawAct 1975 (Cth)—Death of both parties meant that there was no dispute remaining to be determined bythe Family CourtFull Court of the Family Court of Australia before May, O’Ryan and Stevenson JJ, judgment delivered20 November 2009This was an appeal from orders of Mushin J. The matter concerned the standing of executors to theestate of a party (who had commenced property proceedings before the Family Court) to continue with acause of action pursuant to non-federal jurisdiction after both of the parties to the marriage had died.The husband and the wife were advanced in age and were both represented by case guardians inrelation to their property settlement pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The husbanddied. The wife’s case guardian amended her application requesting that the Court exercise its accruedand equitable jurisdiction declaring that the husband and his successors hold their interests in propertyby implied, constructive or resulting trust (‘the accrued application’). The wife then died. A furtherapplication was then filed on behalf of the deceased wife seeking that the executors of the wife’s Will besubstituted as parties.86 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Mushin J determined that the Family Court had jurisdiction pursuant to s 78 of the Family Law Act 1975(Cth) to determine the accrued application. His Honour stated that any relief that was a matrimonialcause could only be sought pursuant to s 78. Mushin J concluded that it was possible to make the ordersas sought in the accrued application because it constituted a matrimonial cause. However, as a result ofthe wife’s death, Mushin J dismissed the accrued application as void ab initio for want of jurisdiction.The wife’s representative argued that Mushin J erred by failing to substitute the executors of the wife’sestate as parties in lieu of the wife; by dismissing the accrued application; by determining that theFamily Court had jurisdiction to determine the application pursuant to s 78; and by determining that thatapplication was void ab initio for want of jurisdiction.The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The Full Court determined that the death of the wife terminated thefederal jurisdiction of the Family Court to hear the federal claim (being the original application to alterthe interests of property of the parties to the marriage). Consequently, there was no accrued jurisdictionavailable to the Family Court to make the declaration sought by the wife’s representatives. The Full Courtconsidered that it would be unlikely to exercise its discretion to exercise accrued jurisdiction in any eventbecause of the exceptional circumstances of the case.The Full Court upheld part of Mushin J’s reasons for judgment. The Full Court reached differentconclusions with respect to whether the accrued application was a matrimonial cause which could onlyhave been brought under s 78 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and whether the accrued applicationwas void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. The Full Court concluded that as both parties were deceased,there was no dispute remaining between them for which the Family Court had federal jurisdiction. Thismeant that no application relying on accrued jurisdiction could attach to a cause of action before theFamily Court. The Full Court also expressed doubt as to whether proceedings for a declaration pursuantto s 78 can be continued after one party dies.Kostres & Kostres[2009] FamCAFC 222, (2009) FLC 93–420; 42 Fam LR 336Family Law—Appeal—Property—Binding Financial Agreement—Enforcement and interpretation ofprovisions of the Binding Financial Agreement—Consideration of general principles of contract law andinterpretationPART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSFull Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Boland and Jordan JJ, judgment delivered15 December 2009This was an appeal from orders of Wilson FM. The parties executed what purported to be a bindingfinancial agreement (‘the agreement’). The parties’ stated intention was for the assets acquired duringthe marriage with joint funds to be shared between them pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Theagreement was entered into on the basis of the parties’ mistaken belief that Mr Kostres was a bankrupt.This mistaken belief led to the parties acquiring assets that were not purchased in the parties’ jointnames, rather by the wife. The parties did not advise their lawyers about the husband’s bankruptcy statusand this factor was not taken into account in the terms of the agreement. The wife was also a trustee ofa trust which held beneficially certain assets acquired during the marriage, including real property.The husband sought that the agreement be enforced to the extent that the wife pay him a sumrepresenting one half of the net assets acquired during the marriage (which included, inter alia, realproperty and goodwill in a business).Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201087

Wilson FM ordered that the husband be paid an amount representing a portion of the goodwill in thebusiness, but declined to make the orders about the real property held by the trust.The husband appealed on the grounds that Wilson FM had incorrectly interpreted and applied the termsof the agreement. Alternatively, the husband argued that if the property held on trust fell outside theterms of the agreement, that property should be divided between the parties pursuant to s 79 of theFamily Law Act 1975 (Cth).The Full Court allowed the appeal. The Full Court analysed a number of long‐standing authorities of theHigh Court of Australia and the Family Court about the meaning of the word ‘acquire’. The Full Courtnoted that the parties did not agree about what was meant by the use of the words ‘acquired by jointfunds’ in the terms of the agreement. The Full Court stated that it could not correct the terminology withappropriate certainty to give effect to the parties’ agreement.PART 5SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSThe Full Court stated that the common law principles of construction could apply and be used to avoidabsurdity in the terms of the agreement. However, in the circumstances of this case, it was impossible(accurately) to discern what the intention of the parties was at the time of the making of the agreementand the terms of the agreement were ambiguous. The Full Court found the terms of the agreement wereineffective and that Wilson FM’s orders enforcing the terms of the agreement constituted appealableerror.The Full Court also concluded that Wilson FM should have dealt with the property of the parties held ontrust pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).Aldridge & Keaton[2009] FamCAFC 229; (2009) FLC 93–421; 42 Fam LR 369Family Law—Appeal—Children—Parties in a same-sex relationshipDiscussion of amendments to s 60H of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) relating to children born of anartificial conception procedure—Steps to be applied by a trial judge where a person concerned with thecare, welfare and development of a child seeks a parenting orderFull Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Boland and Crisford JJ, judgment delivered22 December 2009This was an appeal from orders of Pascoe CFM. His Honour determined that Ms Keaton, a personconcerned with the care, welfare and development of the child, should be permitted to spend timewith Ms Aldridge’s child. Ms Aldridge and Ms Keaton were previously in a relationship, but PascoeCFM found that the parties were not in a de facto relationship at the time the child was conceived (asresult of an artificial conception procedure). By virtue of s 60H of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), thisprecluded Ms Aldridge’s child being treated as the child of Ms Keaton.Pascoe CFM ordered that Ms Aldridge have sole parental responsibility for the child and that Ms Keatonbe able to spend time with the child for short periods each week, culminating in an overnight stay eachalternate weekend.Ms Aldridge appealed the orders allowing for time to be spent between the child and Ms Keaton.Ms Aldridge argued that Pascoe CFM had erred in law by not first determining whether Ms Keatonwas a person involved with the care, welfare and or development of the child and then determining88 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

whether a parenting order should be made at all. Ms Aldridge also argued that Pascoe CFM erred inlaw by considering whether the child’s relationship with Ms Keaton would be of benefit to the child.Ms Aldridge also argued that Ms Keaton should not have been treated as a parent for the purposes ofhis Honour’s determination as to what was in the best interests of the child. Ms Aldridge also submittedthat s 65C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) prescribed a ‘hierarchy’ of applicants (parents, thengrandparents, then persons concerned with the care, welfare and development of a child) for whichapplications ‘lower down’ the hierarchy should receive lesser or no weight compared to those ‘higherup’.The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The Full Court determined that in dealing with any parentingapplication by a person interested in the care, welfare and development of a child, a court will determinethat application applying the relevant provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) todetermine whether making (or not making) a parenting order would be in a child’s best interests. TheFull Court determined that such an application must be determined by reference to: the best interestsof the child as a paramount consideration (s 60CA); the objects and principles of Part VII of the FamilyLaw Act 1975 (Cth) (s 60B(1) and s 60B(2)); and consideration of relevant matters under s 60CC(2)and s 60CC(3) (the primary and additional considerations in determining the best interests of children).The Full Court stated that there is no prescribed order in which the relevant provisions of Part VII of theFamily Law Act 1975 (Cth) must be considered, or that any particular weight or priority be given to anyprovision in Part VII (subject to the importance being placed on the primary considerations in s 60CC(2),which may be outweighed by one or more of the additional considerations in s 60CC(3)).The Full Court commented that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration to betaken into account, not the circumstance of their conception or the sex of their parents. The Full Courtconsidered that Parliament intended through its amendment to s 60H of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)that children of a biological parent and a biological parent’s partner (including a same-sex co-parent),regardless of the circumstances of their conception or birth, should have the same rights, protections andprivileges under the Act to receive proper parenting as biological children born to men and women whohave never been legally married, living in a de facto relationship or who had never lived together. The FullCourt suggested that it may be necessary for further legislative amendment to clarify a non-biologicalperson’s status as a parent for the purposes of relevant sections of the Act.The Full Court concluded that Pascoe CFM had correctly determined that Ms Keaton was a personinterested in the care, welfare or development of the child and then made a parenting order that wasin the child’s best interests. While acknowledging the importance and emphasis placed in the Act onthe relationship between a child and his or her parents, the Full Court rejected the notion that thereshould be a more cautious approach taken to a parenting application where a party is not a parent orgrandparent, or that a hierarchy was prescribed to applications by different types of parties.PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSPartington & Cade (No. 2)[2009] FamCAFC 230; (2009) FLC 93–422; 42 Fam LR 401Family Law—Appeal—Allegations of unacceptable risk of sexual/physical abuse for children if theyspent time with their father unsupervised—Mother sought to be allowed to relocate to another stateFull Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Warnick and Boland JJ, judgment delivered22 December 2009Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201089

This was an appeal from orders of Burr J. His Honour ordered that Ms Partington have sole parentalresponsibility for the children and that the children primarily reside with her. Burr J did not make apositive finding that Mr Cade had abused either of the children, however, his Honour did find thatthere was an unacceptable risk to the children if they spent unsupervised time with Mr Cade. Burr Jalso found that there was a significant and meaningful relationship which existed between Mr Cadeand the children. Burr J ordered that the children spend time with their father each alternate weekendin a supervised setting for a period of two hours (increasing to six hours in six months time subject tosatisfactory reports from the supervisory staff). Burr J also refused Ms Partington’s application to relocateto NSW with the children and ordered that she return to Hobart immediately. The mother had leftTasmania with the children and resided in NSW since December 2006, and subsequently re-partneredwith Mr Bande.Ms Partington appealed Burr J’s orders for time to be spent between the children and Mr Cade and theorders requiring her relocation to Tasmania from NSW.PART 5SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSThe Full Court allowed the appeal. The Full Court stated Burr J had carefully, diligently and substantiallyconsidered the issues in relation to the matter. The Full Court determined that Burr J had not assessedMr Cade’s parenting capacity in light of his underpinning conclusion of ‘unacceptable risk’. The FullCourt considered this question to be highly relevant to Mr Cade’s parenting capacity and to the likelynature of the longer term relationship between the children and Mr Cade.The Full Court determined that Burr J should have addressed the significance and the implications ofthe possibility (as opposed to probability) that Mr Cade had sexually abused one of the children whenassessing Mr Cade’s parenting capacity. The Full Court stated that in assessing unacceptable risk in thefuture, both probabilities and possibilities of risk can be taken into account, as long as the degree oflikelihood of risk and the assessment of the likelihood of risk is properly taken into account in a reasonedmanner by a judicial officer.The Full Court also determined that Burr J had not considered the impact of the mother relocatingfrom a well established situation in NSW when the prospects of regular and unsupervised timebetween Mr Cade and the children and the benefits of such a time had not been properly assessed.The Full Court noted that it may be possible to avoid making a finding about whether or not abuse hasoccurred if the best interests of the child can be determined without the need to make such a finding.The Full Court determined that a finding of unacceptable risk may be sufficient to found orders directedto the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child. The Full Court noted that a finding of‘unacceptable risk’ can in certain circumstances impede progress to a parent spending time with a childother than on a strictly supervised basis.The Full Court remitted before a judge other than Burr J the question of the mother’s relocation to NSW.The Full Court concluded that supervision on an interim basis of two hours was appropriate until thematter could be determined on rehearing, albeit with the father to attend in NSW rather than Tasmaniafor the purposes of spending supervised time with his children.90 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Simpson & Brockman[2010] FamCAFC 37Family Law—Appeal—Consideration of the applicable law when determining the correctness of thedecision being appealed (as opposed to re-exercising a discretion)—Consideration of the words ‘by wayof rehearing’—Application of provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to non-parentsFull Court of the Family Court of Australia before Coleman, Warnick and May JJ, judgment delivered11 March 2010This was an appeal from orders of Jarrett FM. Ms Simpson and Ms Brockman were in a relationship. Withthe assistance of a sperm donor and in-vitro fertilisation, each woman had biologically had a child duringthe course of their relationship. Jarrett FM ordered that each of the children would primarily reside withits biological mother in Sydney and northern NSW respectively and spend some time in the household ofthe other child and that child’s mother.Ms Simpson appealed on the grounds that Jarret FM had found that she was not the parent of thechild to whom she did not give birth. Ms Simpson submitted that he should have done so, which meantthat the legislative pathway set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) with respect to parentswould then have been followed. Ms Simpson also argued that a change in the law (s 60H—Childrenborn as a result of artificial conception procedures) since Jarrett FM’s orders were made, but beforethe appeal had been heard, meant that she was now the parent of the child to whom she did not givebirth. Ms Simpson relied upon the fact that an appeal to the Full Court is an appeal by way rehearingand that the correctness of Jarrett FM’s judgment had to be considered in light of the law at the timethe appeal was heard.The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The Full Court considered several decisions of the High Court ofAustralia, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Court of the Family Court. The FullCourt determined that an appeal will only succeed if error is found in the making of the orders appealed.This involves the application of the law as it stood at the time the orders were made. The Full Courtconsidered that unless operation of a subsequent law is retrospective, application of the law at the timean appeal is determined only becomes appropriate if the appellate court, after finding error, substitutesits decision for the one appealed (a re‐determination or re-exercise of a trial judge’s discretion). Whileacknowledging that if a fresh application was filed before the Court at first instance Ms Simpson wouldbe a parent for the purposes of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Full Court concluded thatat the time of Jarrett FM’s orders were made, Ms Simpson was legally not a parent of the child to whomshe did not give birth.PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSThe Full Court also concluded that the provisions which specifically make reference to ‘parents’ in Part VIIof the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should not be applied to ‘non-parents’. The Full Court did not acceptMs Simpson’s proposition that persons other than biological parents need to be treated as parentsbecause the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are unworkable or deficient in certaincircumstances.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201091

Norman & Norman[2010] FamCAFC 66Family Law—Appeal—Challenge to the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion in assessing initialcontributions and the overall adjustment made for matters under s 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975(Cth)—Elucidation of principles applicable to appeals from discretionary judgmentsFull Court of the Family Court of Australia before Finn, May and Murphy JJ, judgment delivered1 April 2010This was an appeal against orders of Watts J. His Honour effected a property settlement between theparties. The $1.5 million pool of property of the parties was proportionally divided as to 60 per cent tothe husband and 40 per cent to the wife.PART 5SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSThe wife appealed on the grounds that Watts J had failed to properly take into account the wife’scontributions over the course of 15 years of cohabitation, and in particular, that his Honour had failed torealise that the wife’s contributions over the course of the relationship had offset the husband’s originalcontribution. The wife also argued that Watts J had not properly considered the significant incomedisparity between the parties and her role as a primary carer for the parties’ two children, as well as thefact that the husband had not paid child support for approximately three years. Overall, it was submittedthat the orders made by his Honour were not just and equitable. The wife did not challenge the accuracyof his Honour’s factual findings.The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The Full Court analysed a number of long‐standing authorities of theHigh Court of Australia and the Family Court. The Full Court reiterated the longstanding proposition thatthere is a ‘generous ambit’ within which ‘reasonable disagreement is possible’ in the exercise of a trialjudge’s discretion. The Full Court stated that, as an appellate court, it should be very cautious to allowan appeal against the exercise of a trial judge’s discretion where the grounds of an appeal relate only toconflicting assessments of matters of weight. In this regard, the Full Court considered that the conceptsof offsetting contributions and erosion of contributions to be unhelpful. The Full Court considered thatthe better approach was to analyse a party’s initial contribution against all the other contributions madeby the parties (which includes how the parties made use of the contribution).The Full Court concluded that the wife had not demonstrated that the ultimate result fell outside thegenerous ambit of the proper exercise of Watts J’s discretion. The Full Court outlined that there is nolegal requirement to express adjustments to a party’s interests in percentage terms and that it is oftenclearer to make reference to a dollar value of a result.The Full Court stated that the nature, form and characteristics of property, and the manner and timing ofits acquisition, are all factors that may impact upon how contributions of parties might be assessed. TheFull Court concluded that there is a legislative imperative for a trial judge to reach a conclusion that isjust and equitable, not necessarily to make a significant adjustment as a final step in a judgment. The FullCourt noted the structured ‘four step’ approach taken by the Full Court in Hickey & Hickey ((2003) FLC93‐143) as to s 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Full Court concluded that a failure to complywith such a structured approach would not necessarily constitute appealable error if the ultimate resultfor the parties was a just and equitable result.[In Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120 (judgment delivered 25 June 2010), the Full Court of the FamilyCourt (Finn, Boland and Dawe JJ) explained that the ‘legislative imperative’ as articulated by the Full92 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Court in Norman & Norman is a requirement that a judicial officer ‘stand back’ and look at the reality ofthe percentage division he or she has arrived at in a judgment. The requirement requires a judicial officergiving consideration to the actual assets retained by each party, which might include whether a partymight receive a greater proportion of superannuation, or if a party retains a business which requiresretention of business premises or re-financing. The Full Court stated that it may be appropriate tomake an order slightly outside the precise percentage arrived at as a result of the statutory imperativesoutlined in s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), particularly where a judicial officer is dealing withmodest assets or where a party has minimal or non-existent income earning capacity.]Marvel & Marvel (No. 2)[2010] FamCAFC 101Family Law—Appeal—Whether the trial judge erred by failing to address s 61DA (presumption of equalshared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and s 65DAA (Court to consider childspending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances) of theFamily Law Act 1975 (Cth)—Legislative pathway for interim parenting proceduresFull Court of the Family Court of Australia before Faulks DCJ, Boland and Stevenson JJ, judgmentdelivered 11 June 2010This was an appeal from interim parenting orders made by Cohen J (who conducted a review of adecision of Loughnan JR 1 ). Ms Marvel applied on an interim basis for parenting orders which would haveallowed the child to live primarily with her, and for the child to spend short (and effectively supervisedtime) each week with the child’s father. Loughnan JR made orders by consent with respect to the timesnominated by Ms Marvel, but did not order any supervisory conditions upon Mr Marvel’s time with thechild.Ms Marvel applied for a review of Loughnan JR’s orders. Cohen J heard the review and determined thatthe child spend time with the father for an alternate overnight weekend stay unsupervised. Cohen Jmade these orders in the context of Ms Marvel’s claims that there was an unacceptable risk of sexual orphysical abuse to the child if orders were made allowing the child to spend time with Mr Marvel.Ms Marvel appealed Cohen J’s orders on the grounds that his Honour had not properly applied therelevant provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Ms Marvel argued that Cohen Jhad purported to exercise jurisdiction to make parenting order without having determined whetheror not the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was applicable. Ms Marvel arguedthat as Cohen J had not considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility he hadnot consequently considered the requirements of s 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In hersubmission, this meant that the orders were vitiated.PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSThe Full Court allowed the appeal. The Full Court determined that the s 61DA of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) required Cohen J to consider whether or not the presumption of equal shared parentalresponsibility should have applied, including in interim proceedings. His Honour’s failure to do soconstituted appealable error.1 As he then was: Justice Loughnan was appointed to the Family Court of Australia as a Judge on 12 July 2010.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201093

The Full Court left open the question whether s 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is to be appliedwhere no order for equal shared parental responsibility has been made or is to be made, notwithstandingthat the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is applicable. The Full Court commented thata Court may find it inappropriate to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility where theconflict or lack of effective communication between parents inhibits their ability to make a genuine effortto reach agreement about major long-term issues affecting their child or children.The Full Court stated that if the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies, an orderfor equal shared parental responsibility will generally be made. This would displace the joint parentalresponsibility parents hold as of right and would trigger the consideration of the amount of time to bespent between a child and a parent (pursuant to s 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).The Full Court re-determined the review application and made orders in identical terms to Loughnan JR.SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSPART 594 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Corporate governanceThis section reports on aspects of the Family Court of Australia’s corporate governance arrangements.The Chief Justice, assisted by the Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for managing the administrativeaffairs of the Family Court of Australia.Under the Constitution, judicial power is vested in judges who administer that power in courts. TheFamily Law Act defines the Court as being a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and the judgesappointed to that Court. By delegation from the Chief Justice, case management judges assist inadministering judicial functions in particular areas, such as case management.The Family Court is autonomously governed, that is, the judiciary has the responsibility for theadministration of the Court. To enable the effective and efficient administration of justice, the judiciaryneeds support to deal with its workload. Non-judicial Court employees, public servants accountable tothe executive government through the Chief Executive Officer, provide that support.The Chief Executive Officer’s powers are broad, although subject to directions from the Chief Justice. TheChief Executive Officer holds the responsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealthfinancial management and public service legislation.Figure 6.1 shows the organisational structure of the Court.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYCourtroom Australian Coat of Arms.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201097

Organisational structure of the Family Court of AustraliaFigure 6.1 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2010Chief JusticeHon Diana BryantDeputy Chief JusticeHon John FaulksJudiciary andJudicial CommitteesExecutive AdvisorLeisha ListerChief Executive OfficerRichard Foster PSMLegal CounselNeil WarehamPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYMarshal & SecurityServicesPrincipalRegistrarAngela FilippelloCoordinatingRegistrarsRegistrarsPrincipal ChildDispute ServicesDianne GibsonRegionalCoordinators,Child DisputeServicesSenior FamilyConsultantsand FamilyConsultantsExecutiveDirectorClient ServicesActingStephen AndrewRegional RegistryManagersRegistriesExecutiveDirectorInformation,Communication& TechnologyStephen AndrewCommunicationsApplicationsExecutiveDirectorCorporateGrahame HarriottHumanResourcesProperty &ContractsInformationManagementFinanceRegistriesAdelaide, Albury, Alice Springs, Brisbane,Cairns, Canberra, Coffs Harbour,Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Hobart,Launceston, Lismore, Melbourne,Newcastle, Parramatta, Rockhampton,Sydney, Townsville, WollongongInfrastructureStatisticsBudgets& BusinessImprovementsProcurement& RiskManagementDenotes professional responsibility98 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Judicial officers of the Family Court of AustraliaAt 30 June 2010, there were 30 judges of the Court, including the Chief Justice and the Deputy ChiefJustice.Chief Justice of the Family Court of AustraliaThe Chief Justice is responsible for ensuring the orderly andexpeditious discharge of the business of the Court (s 21B FamilyLaw Act) and for managing its administrative affairs (s 38A). TheChief Justice is assisted in judicial responsibilities by the DeputyChief Justice (s 21B) and in administrative responsibilities by theChief Executive Officer (s 38B). The Chief Justice’s chambers arelocated in the Melbourne registry.The Honourable Chief Justice Diana BryantThe Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John FaulksChief Justice Diana Bryant was appointed Chief Justice of theFamily Court of Australia on 5 July 2004. She had previouslybeen the inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate overseeing theestablishment of the Federal Magistrates Court, a position sheheld for four years.Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court ofAustraliaThe Deputy Chief Justice assists the Chief Justice in the judicialadministration of the Family Court. Particular responsibilitiesinclude case management, complaints about judges, thecollection and strategic assessment of statistics, pastoral careand the oversight of the Court’s committees.In the absence of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justiceperforms and exercises the powers of the Chief Justice (s 24).The Deputy Chief Justice’s chambers are located in the Canberraregistry.Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks was appointed as a FamilyCourt judge on 11 October 1994. He was appointed as DeputyChief Justice on 25 June 2004.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYJudges assigned to the Appeal DivisionThe Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant 5 July 2004The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks 25 June 2004The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn 10 August 1993The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman 31 March 1999The Honourable Justice Michelle May 6 February 2003The Honourable Justice Jennifer Margaret Boland 8 July 2004Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–201099

The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray 16 November 2006(Chief Judge Family Court of Western Australia)The Honourable Justice Stephen Richard O’Ryan 7 August 2008The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland 14 December 2009Judges(according to order of seniority)AdelaideThe Honourable Justice Steven Strickland 22 November 1999The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe (Case Management Judge) 3 March 1997The Honourable Justice Rodney Keith Burr AM 2 April 1998BrisbanePART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Honourable Justice Michelle May 5 September 1995The Honourable Justice Graham Rodney Bell 27 February 1976The Honourable Justice James Patrick O’Hara Barry 12 December 1983The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Madonna O’Reilly 10 January 2003The Honourable Justice Peter John Murphy (Case Management Judge) 11 October 2007CanberraThe Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks 11 October 1994The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn 2 July 1990HobartThe Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin 19 August 2005MelbourneThe Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant 5 July 2004The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin 26 October 1990The Honourable Justice Linda Marion Dessau AM 20 June 1995The Honourable Justice Peter Young 6 August 2002The Honourable Justice Victoria Jane Bennett 30 November 2005The Honourable Justice Paul Cronin (Case Management Judge) 20 December 2006NewcastleThe Honourable Justice Judith Maureen Ryan (Case Management Judge) 31 July 2006The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin 13 July 2009100 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

ParramattaThe Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman 18 April 1991The Honourable Justice David John Collier (Case Management Judge) 19 July 1999SydneyThe Honourable Justice Jennifer Margaret Boland 29 October 1999The Honourable Justice Stephen Richard O’Ryan 11 October 1994The Honourable Justice John Morris Cohen 1 February 1989The Honourable Justice Peter Isaac Rose 21 December 1998The Honourable Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood Stevenson 18 May 2001The Honourable Justice Mark Frederick Le Poer Trench 10 October 2001The Honourable Justice Garry Allan Watts (Case Management Judge) 14 April 2005The Honourable Justice Stuart Grant Fowler AM 16 November 2007TownsvilleThe Honourable Justice Alexander Robert Monteith 28 November 2000Judicial RegistrarsSydneyMr William Philip Johnston 22 January 1990Mr Ian James Loughnan 6 November 1995Family Court of Western AustraliaNote: Judges of the Family Court of Western Australia also hold Commissions in the Family Court of Australia.Date of Family Court commissionThe Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray, Chief Judge 1 December 2004The Honourable Justice Carolyn Elvina Martin 19 November 1996The Honourable Justice Jane Crisford 14 December 2006The Honourable Justice Stephen Dexter Crooks 22 October 2007The Honourable Justice Simon Moncrieff 31 August 2009PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYAdministrative Appeals TribunalNote: Some judges of the Family Court hold appointments in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal asPresidential Members.The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine FinnThe Honourable Justice James Patrick O’Hara BarryFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010101

The Honourable Justice Nahum MushinThe Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth DaweThe Honourable Justice Robert James Charles BenjaminAppointments, retirements and resignationsJudicial officer appointments:The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin 13 July 2009The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland was assigned to the Appeal Division 14 December 2009Judicial officer retirements:PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Honourable Justice Julienne Penny (Family Court of Western Australia) 3 July 2009The Honourable Justice Colleen Ann Moore 31 July 2009The Honourable Justice Lloyd Waddy 22 December 2009The Honourable Justice Brian Edward Jordan 31 December 2009The Honourable Justice Bernard John Warnick 31 March 2010The Honourable Justice Robyn Sylvia Flohm 29 April 2010The Honourable Justice Sally Elizabeth Brown AM 2 June 2010Senior executives of the Family Court of AustraliaChief Executive Office, Richard Foster.Chief Executive OfficerRichard Foster PSM FAIM, Chief Executive OfficerThe Chief Justice, under the Family Law Act, is responsible for theadministration of the Court and is assisted by the Chief ExecutiveOfficer (CEO). The CEO’s powers are broad (s 38D), although subjectto directions from the Chief Justice (s 38D(3)). The CEO holds theresponsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealthfinancial management and public service legislation, but is appointedunder terms similar to those of judicial officers. The CEO is supportedby the staff of the National Support Office and is located in theNational Support Office, Canberra. Mr Richard Foster was appointedCEO in May 2000.102 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Principal RegistrarAngela Filippello, Principal RegistrarThe Principal Registrar provides high level legal and procedural adviceto support the judicial functioning of the Family Court. As a seniorlawyer, she discharges the statutory duties assigned to that positionby the Family Law Act 1975, works closely with the Chief Justice andjudges in administering the Act and related legislation, and identifiesareas in need of reform.Principal Registrar, Angela Filippello.The Principal Registrar presides in Court and holds the delegatedpower to make orders in interim parenting cases, maintenance casesand some enforcement of financial obligations. The Principal Registraralso oversees the performance of, and provides direction to, the Court’sregistrars. Her chambers are in the Brisbane registry.Principal Child Dispute ServicesPrincipal Child Dispute Services, DianneGibson.Dianne Gibson, Principal Child Dispute ServicesThe Principal Child Dispute Services is responsible for advising the ChiefJustice and the Chief Executive Officer on the provision of quality childdispute services to the Court. The Principal ensures that the servicesdelivered by the family consultants are effective and consistent with thestrategic and business objectives of the Court. The Principal also hasresponsibility for the development of strategic external relationshipsthat promote and position the child dispute services of the Court withinthe family law framework.Executive Director Client ServicesThe Executive Director Client Services is responsible for the deliveryof client services in all family law registries. The Executive Directorensures that high-quality registry services and support are provided toall judicial officers, litigants and legal practitioners, consistent with thestrategic and business objectives of the Family Law Courts (the FamilyCourt of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court).PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYStephen Andrew was the Acting Executive Director Client Services at30 June 2010Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010103

Executive Director Information, Communication andTechnology ServicesStephen Andrew, Executive Director Information, Communicationand Technology ServicesThe Executive Director Information, Communication and TechnologyServices provides strategic vision, leadership and management ofthe Court’s communication, applications, information management,infrastructure and statistics services.Executive Director, ICT and a/g ExecutiveDirector Client Services, Stephen Andrew.Executive Director CorporateGrahame Harriott, Executive Director CorporatePART 6The Executive Director Corporate provides strategic leadership andmanagement of the Court’s human resources, property and contracts,finance, budgets and business improvements and procurement and riskmanagement.MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYExecutive Director Corporate, GrahameHarriott.Judicial committeesChief Justice Bryant maintains a collegiate style of governance, and the judicial officers of the Court meetannually or more often if required in plenary. The Chief Justice also convenes a monthly teleconference ofall judges, in which current issues are discussed. In addition, judicial officers participate in a number ofcommittees that develop policies across a range of matters.Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory CommitteeAt the strategic level, the Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee is the highest policymaking bodywithin the Court. The committee’s primary role is to support the Chief Justice in the administration of theCourt and to provide strategic advice and policy direction, particularly in relation to legislative, proceduraland administrative changes likely to affect the Family Court and its users. Chaired by the Chief Justice,the committee meets quarterly, and in 2009–10 its membership comprised:• Deputy Chief Justice Faulks• Justice Finn• Justice Strickland• Justice Watts104 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• Justice Ryan• Justice Cronin• Justice Murphy• Chief Executive Officer (Mr Richard Foster)• Principal Registrar (Ms Angela Filippello)• Principal Child Dispute Services (Ms Dianne Gibson).A joint meeting of the Policy Advisory Committees of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court washeld in Melbourne on 7 April 2010. Attendees from the Federal Magistrates Court were:• Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe• Federal Magistrate Baumann• Federal Magistrate Donald• Federal Magistrate Riethmuller• Federal Magistrate Cassidy• Mr Richard Foster (Acting CEO)• Mr Steven Agnew (Deputy CEO)• Mr Stephen Andrew (Executive Director Information Communication and Technology Services, FamilyCourt and Federal Magistrates Court).Items discussed included joint budget savings strategies and increased efficiencies, allocation of workbetween the two Courts and the effective use of information technology. The meeting was productiveand participants agreed to continue to meet annually.Other committeesA number of standing judicial committees are also active in providing high-level policy advice inspecialised areas. Meeting regularly or as required, they are (in alphabetical order):• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Committee• Benchbook Committee• Costs Committee• Cultural Diversity Committee• eFiling Committee• Family Violence Committee• Information and Communication Technology Committee• Judicial Development Committee• Judicial Remuneration Committee• Law Reform Committee• Magellan CommitteePART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010105

• National Case Management Committee• Property Management Committee• Research and Ethics Committee• Rules Committee.At the joint meeting of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court Policy Advisory Committees inApril 2010 it was agreed that some committees would be joint, with membership drawn from bothcourts. The joint committees are:PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee• Benchbook Committee• Cultural Diversity Committee• eFiling Committee• Family Violence Committee• Information and Communication Technology Committee• Judicial Development Committee• Property Management Committee• Research and Ethics Committee.For detailed information on the judicial committees of the Court, see Appendix 10.Judicial committee highlightsThis section summarises highlights of the work of some of the judicial committees during 2009–10.Rules CommitteeIn 2009–10, the Rules Committee worked on various significant projects, including:• Rules harmonisation, in which it worked with the Federal Magistrates Court and the legal professionwith the object of providing the best, most efficient and cost-effective system for court users.Opportunities for rules harmonisation were identified in areas such as service of process, discovery ofdocuments and the form of affidavits.• Considering the single expert rules in financial matters. In concert with the Family Law Section of theLaw Council of Australia, the Committee consulted with valuers and single experts about the rulesand through that process identified possible areas of improvement, particularly with respect to theform of communication with single experts.In addition, the Committee considered:• rules governing the eFiling process (along with the Court’s eFiling group)• whether rules are required for the process of making suppression or non-publication orders• whether rule 10.15A should be expanded in scope106 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• s 69ZU of the Family Law Act 1975 as to sworn evidence and whether that section requires familyconsultants to swear affidavits if child and family issues assessment reports and family reports are tobe relied upon in court• the ‘permission rule’ with respect to subpoenasand also:• looked at interest rates, and• prepared miscellaneous Rules amendments.Law Reform CommitteeThe Law Reform Committee identified matters for amendment in family law legislation and providedinput in relation to various amendments under consideration. It also considered and, where appropriate,commented on the following.Law reform and legislation• Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010• Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010: Application, Saving andTransitional Provisions Bill 2010• Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010• draft bill on Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders• drafting instructions on a bill to respond to the High Court’s decision in MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4• Federal Justice System (Efficiency Measures) Bill 2009 (‘Black and Black amendments’)• Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2010• Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill 2009• Uniform Evidence Bill developed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) and theEvidence Regulations 1995• proposed amendments for inclusion in a Family Law Amendment Bill 2010, and• proposal to enhance family dispute resolution.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYIssues papers and reports• National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council report, The Resolve to Resolve: EmbracingADR to Improve Access to Justice in the Federal Jurisdiction, September 2009.• Family Courts Violence Review—a report by Professor Richard Chisholm, 27 November 2009.Family Violence CommitteeThe Family Violence Committee was reconstituted as a joint committee of the Family Court and FederalMagistrates Court after the release of these reports on 28 January 2010:• Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies• Family Courts Violence Review by Professor Richard Chisholm, andFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010107

• Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System by the Family Law Council.The Committee’s principal responsibility is to complete the implementation of the Court’s Family ViolenceStrategy and provide advice to the Chief Justice, Chief Federal Magistrate and CEO on family violenceissues.During the year the Committee established sub-committees to consider each of the above reports. Inaddition:• a separate sub-committee was reviewing and updating the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategywith a view to expanding the strategy to encompass the Federal Magistrates Court• another sub-committee was reviewing the Family Court’s Family Violence Best Practice Principles toextend their ambit to the Federal Magistrates Court and to take account of changes in practice andprocedure in both Courts, and• the Committee coordinated a response to the Australian Law Reform Council/NSW Law ReformCouncil’s consultation paper, Family Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks (a document of morethan 1000 pages).PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CommitteeIn 2008–09, the Family Law Courts Advisory Group agreed to establish a joint Family Court-FederalMagistrates Court Indigenous Working Group to examine the needs of Indigenous people in theFamily Law Courts. The Group became a formal committee of the courts in April 2010. The Committeeconsidered:• the impact of the shift in the provision of services to Indigenous clients, previously provided byIndigenous Family Liaison Officers of the Family Court, to Family Relationship Centres• how to manage applications for parenting orders concerning residence, contact and specific issuesas a result of traditional and customary adoption practices by Torres Strait Islanders (Kupai Omasker)• how to meet the needs of Indigenous clients of both courts within existing resources, includingrecommendations as to how the Courts can ensure proper information is provided to this clientgroup, internally and externally, and• the development of a joint Reconciliation Action Plan, as required by Government, which identifiesthe steps the Courts will take to build relationships and enhance respect with IndigenousAustralians. It will include areas such as building relationships with the Indigenous communities,staff education, attracting and retaining Indigenous staff and ensuring that judges and familyconsultants have access to appropriate expertise to deal with Indigenous families.During 2009–10, the Committee engaged Stephen Ralph, an independent Aboriginal consultant withextensive experience in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in the area of familylaw, to undertake a study of the views and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander familieswho had recently been involved in family law proceedings. The research was to examine the interfacebetween Indigenous families and the Family Law Courts, including issues of access to justice and stepstowards improved service delivery. At 30 June 2010, it was anticipated that the results of the researchwould be published in early 2011.Other initiatives of the Committee during 2009–10, in consultation with the Courts’ Communication108 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

team, included:• information material for Indigenous clients in family law including»»a brochure Indigenous Families and the Family Law Courts»»an ATSI web page http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/Communities+and+Individuals/Indigenous+Australians/»»an ATSI intranet page for client service staff.The Committee also worked on the Courts’ ATSI Employment Strategy.At 30 June 2010, it was anticipated the Reconciliation Action Plan and the employment strategy wouldbe completed by January 2011.Collaborative committeesFamily Law Courts Advisory GroupThe Family Law Courts Advisory Group has a critical governance role in resourcing both courts andcoordinates various administrative relationships between the two courts. The group endorsed a plan tofurther integrate the administrative structures of the courts and will oversee the plan’s implementation.The Family Law Courts Advisory Group comprises:• Chief Justice Bryant (Family Court)• Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe (Federal Magistrates Court)• Justice Watts (Family Court)• Federal Magistrate Baumann (Federal Magistrates Court)• Elizabeth Kelly (Attorney-General’s Department)• Richard Foster (CEO Family Court and acting CEO Federal Magistrates Court).Senior management committeesThe Chief Executive Officer, Richard Foster, maintains an inclusive style of management. The seniorexecutive managers of the Courts meet annually to establish the strategic direction and priorities for theeffective administration of the Court. In addition, senior executive managers participate in a number ofcommittees that provide high-level operational and policy advice to the CEO.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYChief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory GroupThe Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group provides operational and policy advice to theCEO on key areas that affect the administration of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.Chaired by the CEO of the Family Court and acting CEO of the Federal Magistrates Court, Richard Foster,the group meets every six to eight weeks and comprises:• Acting Deputy, CEO Federal Magistrates Court• Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology ServicesFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010109

• Acting Executive Director, Client Services• a Regional Registry Manager representative• Executive Director, Corporate.with support provided by the Executive Advisor to the CEO.Other committeesA number of administrative committees were also active at this level during 2009–10 and provided highlevel operational and policy advice. Meeting on a regular or ad hoc basis, they included:• Audit and Risk• National Consultative• Staff Development• Property Management• Information and Communication.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYSenior management committee highlightsThis section provides highlights of the work of senior management committees during 2009–10.Appendix 10 has details of membership and terms of reference for the various committees.Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory GroupIn 2009–10, the Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group focused on providing advice tothe CEO on new policy initiatives including environmental policy, electronic communication, a combinedService Charter, budget strategies and staff development. The Group also helped review current policies,including records management.Audit and Risk CommitteeThe Audit and Risk Committee considered a range of issues during the year, including the Court’s internalaudit plan, strategic risk and fraud risk treatments, and oversight of the Australian National Audit Officeand internal audit report recommendations.National Consultative CommitteeThe National Consultative Committee is a key forum through which the Court consults with staff aboutbroader issues that have a national perspective. Elected staff delegates actively present the views of staffon issues that impact at a national level on staff and the management and future direction of the Court.The Committee’s area of focus include:• the objectives of the Court and how these might be achieved• financial and human resource planning• information technology initiatives110 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• security• management and review processes, including proposed changes• occupational health and safety matters• equal employment opportunity issues• accommodation and amenities, and• human resource management policies and practices.Staff Development CommitteeIn 2009–10, the Staff Development Committee arranged for various staff training and development toolsto be added to the E-learn portal of the Court’s intranet. This included modules on countering bullyingand harassment; also for dealing with difficult and persistent clients.The Committee also facilitated staff exchanges between different locations.The Committee is integral to the Court’s approach to the continuing professional and careerdevelopment of staff, being a key forum through which staff representatives have shared responsibilityfor identifying and determining development needs and opportunities.Corporate and operational planning and associated performancereporting and reviewAt 30 June 2010, the Court employed 619 ongoing and non-ongoing employees (excluding judicialofficers and the CEO) in all states and territories except Western Australia.Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the Court’s intranetand website:• Strategic Plan• administration policies and procedural documents including guidelines, procedures and manualsfrom the finance, human resources and information, communication and technology areas• APS Values and Code of Conduct• Corporate Plan and business area plans (for the National Support Office)• Service Charter and Service Commitments documents• Family Law Registries National Business Plan 2008–2010, and• case management policies and manuals related to the management of family law cases from theChief Justice, the Principal Registrar and the Principal Child Dispute Services.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Court’s geographically dispersed staff and the judiciary are informed of significant changes andevents through the following:• Chief Justice’s eMessage—emails from the Chief Justice to all staff and the judiciary• CEO eMessages—emails from the Chief Executive Officer to all staffFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010111

• Chief Executive Instructions—the officialmechanism by which the Chief ExecutiveOfficer communicates and directs the Court’scompliance with the Financial Managementand Accountability Act 1997• Client service advices—from the ExecutiveDirector Client Services to all client servicestaff working in the registries• Courtside—the Court’s internal staffnewsletter, which is issued four times peryear and includes columns from the ChiefJustice and CEO. This is the primary vehiclefor sharing information and celebrating theachievements and successes of court staff,and• Intranet messages—latest news.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYInternal auditThe Court has, as part of its corporategovernance arrangements, appropriatemechanisms to manage general business risk aswell as fraud risk.The Court’s internal audit services were provided by Oakton Services Pty Ltd and monitored by the Auditand Risk Committee.The 2009–10 Internal Audit Plan was developed taking into account the risk drivers in the RiskManagement Plan and after discussion with the Audit and Risk Committee and senior management.Internal audits conducted during the year included:Courtside.• HR payroll compliance and quality assurance processes• human resource management performance (benchmarking diagnostics)• collection of revenues and the recording of these revenues in Casetrack• management of the Executive Vehicle Scheme vehicles / fleet management, and• risk management review (strategic risk and fraud control risk assessments).The Court’s Audit and Risk Committee monitored the implementation of individual audit reportrecommendations generated by the above audits through quarterly status reports.Risk managementThe Court promotes a culture that supports the identification, analysis, assessment, treatment,monitoring and review of all strategic, operational, compliance and financial risks. This is supported bythe Court’s Risk Control and Compliance Framework—a risk management approach grounded in theAustralian/ New Zealand Risk Management Standard (AS/NZS IS0 31000: 2009).112 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

The framework provides policies, procedures and tools to promote effective risk management. It isavailable on the Court’s intranet to help achieve better services and outcomes for judicial services, clientsand staff.During 2009–10, the Court continued to participate in the annual Comcover benchmarking survey,which measures risk and assesses the extent of cultural change within agencies. The Court’s overallresult continued to improve, reflecting the implementation of the Court’s Risk Control and ComplianceFramework.Work started during 2009–10 on developing a single Business Continuity Plan for the variousjurisdictions in the Commonwealth Law Court building in Brisbane. The Court is working incollaboration with members of the National Law Courts Building Management Committee on thisproject. At 30 June 2010, it was expected that the various stakeholder consultations on the single planwould occur early in 2010–11. Subject to assessment testing for suitability, it was anticipated that thesingle business continuity plan would be extended to other Commonwealth Law Courts early in 2011.As a result of a risk management review undertaken during 2009–10, the Court committed to raisingawareness of risk management with all staff. A risk awareness training package was designed for thispurpose, including to raise awareness of the benefits of incorporating risk assessments into businessplanning. Training with the package was completed during 2009–10.The Court continuously monitors its Strategic Risk Management Plan to take into consideration new oremerging risks that may impact the achievement of the Court’s strategic objectives. The plan identifiesareas of risk for the Court and the strategies required to effectively manage and mitigate those risks. At30 June, the Court was well-advanced on preparing an updated Strategic Risk Management Plan for theperiod 2010–2012.Financial riskThe Court manages financial risk in accordance with the Risk Control and Compliance Framework. Therelevant mechanisms are:• risk assessments for annual business plans• risk assessments for identified projects• Chief Executive Instructions on the intranet• monthly financial reports to the CEO’s Management Advisory Group, and• oversight by the Audit and Risk Committee.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYFraud prevention and controlThe Court’s Fraud Control Plan 2007–09 complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines2002. The Audit and Risk Committee has received reports on the implementation status of fraud risktreatments.The Court has in place fraud investigation, reporting and data collection procedures that meet the needsof the Court and comply with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines.The development of a revised 2010–12 Fraud Control Plan was commenced during the year and at30 June 2010, it was expected it would be completed in the first quarter of 2010–11.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010113

No instances or allegations of fraud against the Court were reported in 2009–10.Fraud control certificationIn accordance with guideline 2.8 of the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2002, issued bythe Minister for Justice and Customs, pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Financial Management andAccountability Regulations 1997, I hereby certify that I am satisfied that:• the Family Court of Australia has prepared fraud assessments and has in place a fraud control planthat complies with the Guidelines• appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting procedures and processes are inplace.Annual fraud data has been collected and reported that complies with the Guidelines.Richard Foster, PSMPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYChief Executive OfficerFamily Court of Australia13 August 2010Ethical standardsThe Court’s Strategic Plan states that integrity,respect and responsiveness underpin itsapproach to business. The Australian PublicService (APS) Values and Code of Conductcontained in the Public Service Act 1999 apply toall employees of the Court.In 2009–10, the Court maintained an ongoinginformation and education promotion toensure that all staff were aware of their rights,responsibilities and obligations in relationto privacy, ethics and other factors such asenvironmental responsibility, data managementand data quality.In addition, the Court, jointly with the FederalMagistrates Court, produced new Service Charterand Service Commitments publications. Theseoutline the service expected from staff of theCourts.Fraud-awareness training was conducted inSeptember 2009 and the Court’s eLearningService Charter.114 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

module has been updated to further reinforce the APS Code of Conduct and APS values.The Court’s Research and Ethics Committee considers, monitors and overviews all research and evaluationproposals (internal and external) for approval. Membership of the Committee is in Appendix 10.Joint Client Service Charter and Service CommitmentsDuring 2009–10, the separate Service Charters of the Family Court and the Federal MagistratesCourt were amalgamated. The joint Charter sets out the service level standards clients can expectfrom dealing with staff of the Courts and how clients and other users of court services may makesuggestions or complaints about services, policy, practice or procedures. This document is availableon www.familycourt.gov.au and www.fmc.gov.au and on the Family Law Courts websitewww.familylawcourts.gov.au.The joint summary Service Commitments document is on display at all registries and on the websites.It highlights what clients of the Courts can expect from client services staff, what the staff cannot do,clients rights and responsibilities and how clients can help the Courts to help them.External and internal scrutinyExternal scrutinyReports by the Auditor-GeneralThe Auditor General made no report specific to the Family Court of Australia during 2009–10.Administrative Appeals TribunalThere are no matters to report.Commonwealth OmbudsmanThe Commonwealth Ombudsman made no report specific to the Family Court during 2009–10.District Court of New South WalesPotkonyak and Ors v Commonwealth [2009] NSWDC 198PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYMr Potkonyak sought to bring proceedings against the Commonwealth in the District Court ofNSW, claiming damages for alleged breaches of duty on the part of Family Court personnel. On16 September 2009, Judge Levy SC, struck out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and dismissed theproceedings.Judge Levy noted his view that what the plaintiffs sought to do in the District Court proceedings was tomount a collateral attack on earlier decisions of the Family Court. This it was said must not be permitted.Recognising that the procedural step of summary dismissal must be exercised with exceptional caution,and only where it is clear that there is no real question to be tried, Judge Levy considered this to be sucha case. The allegations made were held to be an abuse of the process of the court.The case confirms that where a matter lies within the jurisdiction of the Family Court which hasconsidered what it will and will not do in the matter, it is not open to attempt to re-litigate the matter byoriginal proceedings brought in a State court.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010115

Family law services reviewOn 24 May 2010 the Attorney-General, the Honourable Robert McClelland MP, announced thegovernment’s decision about the restructure of the federal courts. This followed:• March 2008, the Attorney-General initiated the Semple Review of the administration and delivery offamily law services by the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.• November 2008, the Attorney-General released a discussion paper, Future Governance Options forFederal Family Law Courts in Australia—Striking the Right Balance.• May 2009, the Australian Government released its decision on the future of the courts. The Attorney-General announced that the government proposed to merge the Federal Magistrates Court with theFamily Court and the Federal Court.At the end of the 2008–09 financial year, the government had been preparing legislation to facilitate themerger and had been working towards having legislation in place in the first part of 2010. However, therestructure was delayed due to the government considering the implications of the High Court’s decisionin Lane v Morrison.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYIn terms of family law, on 24 May 2010 the Attorney-General announced that:• The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia would be retained to hear general federal law matters,with the Federal Court assuming responsibility for the administration of the FMC.• The Family Court would be the single court dealing with all family law matters and would berestructured into two divisions. Federal Magistrates exercising mostly family law jurisdiction wouldbe offered commissions in the Family Court.(At the time of publication of this Report, Parliament had been prorogued and the Bill as introduced haslapsed).Independent review of the Australian Government’s use of ICTDuring 2009–10, the Court undertook significant reporting to the Department of Finance andDeregulation as recommendations of the ‘Review of the Australian Government’s use of Information andCommunication Technology’ (ICT) by Sir Peter Gershon were implemented.In October 2009, the Court submitted the ICT Review Benchmarking report. It covered all ICT operatingand capital expenditure for 2008–09 financial year and included some quantitative measures aboutcapacity and quantities of ICT equipment.The Gershon review led to the Court’s 2009–10 appropriation being reduced by 2.5 per cent of ICTbusiness as usual (BAU) costs as calculated for the 2007–08 financial year. Various efficiency initiativeswere undertaken to maintain ICT services with a reduced budget. This included reducing the number ofICT contractors. This is consistent with government requirements, which are to reduce ICT contractorsby 10 per cent in 2009, 25 per cent in 2010 and 50 per cent in 2011. By 30 June 2010, the Court hadachieved the first year’s target reduction.In response to the pursuit of whole-of-government arrangements for various ICT goods and services,during the year the Court provided feedback and information to the Department of Financial andRegulation on areas including:• data centre use and requirements116 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• desktop common operating environment and PC and notebook requirements• implementation of a common ICT chart of accounts• information about custom and bespoke applications development and details of all ICT software andapplications used in the Court• ICT skills survey• internet gateway and major office machine requirements, and• status of green ICT initiatives.The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) is managing a whole-ofgovernmenttransition from IPv4 to IPv6. The Court is following the schedule of milestones.In the second quarter of 2009–10 the Department of Finance and Deregulation requested that theCourt commence an implantation of the Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model(P3M3). A certified external consultant was engaged to assess the Court maturity level and develop abusiness improvement plan to raise the Court’s maturity level in line with the time frame suggested. By30 June 2010, the assessment had been completed and a draft business improvement plan submitted forevaluation.Senate estimate committee hearingsSenior Executive Service staff of the Court attend Senate estimate committee hearings to answerquestions about the Court’s activities. In 2009–10, more than 25 Senate estimate questions on noticewere received and answered.External evaluationsFamily consultants and registrars review and restructureEarly in 2009–10, Des Semple and Associates completed a review of family consultants and registrars.The review had these terms of reference:• Review the current management structure and processes of family consultant and registrar servicesand advise on the appropriate governance and management structure for the future provision ofthese services to the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, recognising the separate casemanagement processes and procedures of the two courts.• Recommend the future quantum of family consultant and registrar resources for future allocation tothe Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court on the proportion of the number of cases finalisedby both courts.• Propose management systems that ensure transparent and dedicated allocation of resources to bothcourts according to the number of case matters finalised.• Propose the management templates and executive information management reports that accuratelymonitor case management outcomes according to the predetermined resource allocations.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYIn August 2009, the Chief Justice, Chief Federal Magistrate and Chief Executive Officer approvedrecommendations on the transfer of resources arising from the Semple review.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010117

Family consultantsIn October 2009, a single management structure was introduced and the first allocation of dedicatedfamily consultant and registrar resources was made for the Federal Magistrates Court. The new structurereplaced the previous positions of Manager Child Dispute Services positions with Regional Coordinatorsin Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. Deputy Managers Child Dispute Services were replaced by six newSenior Family Consultant positions at these same registries, with three assigned to each Court to managethe pool of available resources. An additional six Senior Family Consultants will be located in NorthQueensland, Newcastle, Parramatta, Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart.Resources continue to be moved between the Courts to meet the needs of the judiciary and clients.RegistrarsThe regional management and appeals structure of registrars was maintained. In October 2009 apredetermined level of registrar resources for each location was decided, to be made available throughthe pool of registrars in each location.The approaches to the use of registrar resources to support both courts was ongoing at 30 June 2010.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYResource allocationAt 30 June 2010, the management information reporting continued its development. It is an essentialtool for accurately determining the distribution of the available family consultant and registrar resources.The transition to the new arrangements for both family consultants and registrars is another key stepin ensuring the success of the single administration. The ongoing management of resources will beachieved at a regional level through a transparent management process that will be monitored andregularly report to the Family Law Courts Advisory Group.Internal evaluationsIntegration of Courts’ administrationAs reported last year, in March 2009, in advance of the government’s decision about the future of theCourts, a plan to further integrate the administration of the Family Court and the Federal MagistratesCourt was made by the Family Law Courts Advisory Group. This was done to maximise the efficiency andresources of the Courts and to help address the challenging financial position facing both Courts.The integration of the administrations proceeded. The integrated administration continued to recognisethat the two jurisdictions remained as independent courts.In addition to the restructuring of registrar and family consultant resources, a number of changes weremade to regional and registry management structures and to client services within registries.Single regional and registry management structureThe Courts now have a single regional management structure, managed through four regions by fourRegional Registry Managers under the leadership of the Executive Director, Client Services (StephenAndrew):118 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• New South Wales/ACT: Marianne Christmann• Queensland/Northern New South Wales: James Cotta• Victoria/Tasmania: Jane Reynolds• South Australia/Northern Territory: Greg Thomas.A new position of Business Development Manager was created during the year, with responsibililty foreFiling and portal development, the National Enquiry Centre and the business systems developmentofficers.A two-day planning workshop for seniors managers of both Courts was held in March 2010. The focus ofdiscussions was critical issues affecting both Courts, such as strategies for the combined administration,budget strategies (including savings options), governance, roles and expectations, and key elements ofthe change process necessary to ensure an effective way forward.Client services restructureAfter consulting with staff over several months, the implementation of new registry-level managementstructures was completed in all registries in January 2010.The new structure includes two arms—judicial services and registry services. Both arms provide localisedand integrated management arrangements to lead and support the staff of both courts.Judicial support reviewIn February 2010, a review of the Court’s case coordinator and court officer functions and resourcescommenced in order to:• determine the most effective and efficient model for support of Family Court judges, including themembers of the Full Court• recommend to the Chief Justice and Chief Executive Officer a model that ensures appropriatesupport in court and in the management of cases.The recommended model needs to make savings without compromising effective support to judges.The review team comprises Bob Gregory, National Projects Manager; Simon Kelso, Acting ManagerHuman Resources; and Jamie Crew, Registry Manager Newcastle.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYBy 30 June 2010, the review team had consulted extensively with judicial officers and staff in Sydney,Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Parramatta, Newcastle, Hobart, Townsville and Canberra, and theCommonwealth and Public Sector Union. A draft consultative report had been completed and was beingconsidered by judges and managers.If accepted, the review recommendations are expected to be fully implemented by March 2011.Child Responsive ProgramThe Child Responsive Program was implemented nationally in the Family Court of Australia in January2008. An internal review of the program, looking at its implementation and its effectiveness with lessadversarial trial procedures, was conducted in April 2009 and made generally available in early 2009–10.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010119

The review showed that the program was well established and integrated with less adversarial trials.Judges reported a high level of satisfaction with the way the program focussed on the needs of childrenand integrated with the first day of the less adversarial trial. The Child Responsive Program has becomemore flexible to accommodate the needs of the particularly complex matters now before the Court andto ensure that families do not undergo duplicated assessments when matters are transferred betweencourts.Management of human resourcesOverviewIn 2009–10, the Court’s human resources area undertook significant work associated with the merger ofthe administration of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, which had commenced in March2009. A people management framework and related strategies were essential for the merged workforce.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYTerms and conditions of employment was a key issue. Staff on similar classifications, working side-bysideand performing similar duties had different terms and conditions of employment including differentrates of pay. This was a result of different pay structures within the courts, and different employmentconditions and salary outcomes from the respective Collective Agreements.A high priority of the Chief Executive Officer of the Family Court and Acting Chief Executive Officer ofthe Federal Magistrates Court was for a single Enterprise Agreement with a single set of terms andconditions for all staff of both courts. That could not be accomplished immediately following the mergerof the administration. The Federal Magistrates Court’s Collective Agreement had a nominal expiry date of30 June 2009 and the last pay rise under it was on 1 July 2008. The Family Court’s Collective Agreementnominally expired on 30 June 2010, with a pay rise of 4.4 per cent from 1 July 2009. As a result the payrates applying to staff of the respective courts were significantly out of alignment.As an interim measure, the Chief Executive Officer, by determination under section 24 of the PublicService Act 1999, aligned the salary rates of the two courts on 9 September 2009. This followedconsultation with staff and the Community and Public Sector Union, and the approval of the Attorney-General and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Also in September 2009, the Government introduced new policy parameters for agreement makingin the Australian Public Service, the Australian Government Employment Bargaining Framework.Negotiations then commenced for a replacement Enterprise Agreement involving the Courts’management, the CPSU and individual staff bargaining representatives.The Courts’ intranets were the primary vehicles for keeping the employees informed of developments,with regular news and announcements about issues such as salary alignment, registry reviews and theprogress of negotiations for the new Agreement. Management also kept employees informed throughall-staff emails.The aim was for a replacement Enterprise Agreement to be in place by 1 July 2010. On 18 June 2010,Fair Work Australia approved the new Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court ofAustralia Enterprise Agreement 2010. It commenced on 25 June 2010. See ‘Agreement Making’ later inthis Part for more details.120 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Workforce planning, retention and turnoverWorkforce planningThroughout 2009–10, the Family Court continued to improve its human resources systems andreporting to develop a better, evidence-based understanding of the factors driving various workforceissues. Workforce metrics were extracted and analysed by the Chief Executive Officer’s ManagementAdvisory Group on a monthly basis. Potential risks and key trends were addressed through appropriatehuman resource strategies to ensure future capability and resourcing and to cope with staff turnover.The strategies were communicated to managers and staff, helping ensure that succession plans weredeveloped at local levels. The Court promotes diversity in the workforce and remained committed to promoting equity inemployment and supporting an inclusive, safe, productive and fair workplace that is free fromdiscrimination and harassment.The Court also has a longstanding and ongoing commitment to ensuring that the needs of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander employees and clients are recognised and met appropriately. It reinforcesthat commitment by identifying and addressing barriers to the recruitment and career development ofIndigenous Australians through its recruitment policies, training and mentoring programs.The Court facilitates access to its services for Indigenous people by ensuring that information aboutthe Court is widely available across the Indigenous community in suitable formats and delivered inculturally appropriate ways. The Court also develops partnerships with a range of Indigenous stakeholdergroups at the national and local registry levels. It also provides appropriate and ongoing education tojudicial officers and staff on the cultural background of Indigenous Australians. These partnerships andrelationships assist the Court in assessing whether there is a need for targeted recruitment in particularcultural areas and informs staff as part of their role.The Court also recognises the significant contribution made by mature aged employees in the workplace.Accordingly, the Court encourages the use of the flexible working arrangements available under theEnterprise Agreement relating to the balance between work and private life as a means to retain matureaged employees beyond normal retirement age or to assist them in the transition to retirement.Retention strategiesStrategies to support the wellbeing of staff and to encourage staff retention are integral to the Court’scommitment to workplace diversity. The strategies include the following options, benefits and initiatives.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYBalancing work and personal lifeThe Court recognises the need to balance the operational needs of the Court and the personal lives ofstaff. Its employment arrangements provide for general and individual flexible working arrangements,including flex time, time off in lieu, part-time work, working from home opportunities, overtime,purchased leave, maternity leave, salary sacrifice arrangements and paid time off work over theChristmas and New Year period.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010121

Kristen Murray (Melbourne Registry). Recipient of the 2010 Australia Dayachievement medallion.Raelene Shearer (Melbourne Registry). Recipient of the2010 Australia Day achievement medallion.A safe and healthy work environmentPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYAndrew Watson (Hobart Registry). Recipient ofthe 2010 Australia Day achievement medallionThe Court provides a family-friendly and non-discriminatory workenvironment with strong policies against harassment and bullying.The Court and its employees are committed to measures that willassist with preventing and managing illness and injury, includingpsychological injuries, and assisting absent staff to return to workas soon as reasonably practical. Other healthy work environmentstrategies include an employee assistance program that providesfree professional counselling to employees and members of theirimmediate families, an employee wellbeing program and freeannual influenza vaccinations.Rewards and recognitionRecognition of staff in the form of positive feedback andcelebration of achievement is an important part of the Court’sculture and business practice. The Court’s reward and recognitionscheme, the Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award,Australia Day Medallions and the Years of Service awardsprovide a framework to recognise and reward employees for theachievement of corporate goals, providing non-cash rewards andrecognition.Jenny Paxton, winner of the 2009 Janet KitcherAwardWorkforce turnoverDuring 2009–10, 85 employees and judicial officers left the Court.Of these, 53 were ongoing employees, representing an annualturnover rate of 8 per cent against staff numbers at 30 June 2010(see Table 8.9 at Appendix 3). In 2008–09, the percentage ofongoing staff separations by total staff numbers was also 8 percent. This compares with ongoing staff separations of 14 per centin 2007–08 and 13 per cent in 2006–07.122 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Staffing profileAt 30 June 2010, the Court had 619 employees (excluding judicial officers, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and casual employees) covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and FamilyCourt of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). Thiswas a three per cent decrease compared with 638 employees at 30 June 2009. Tables 8.3 to 8.7 atAppendix 3 provide a breakdown of staff by location, gender, attendance, ongoing and non-ongoingemployment status.Judicial officersAt 30 June 2010, the Court had 30 judges, including the Chief Justice (10 female and 20 male) and twomale judicial registrars. Table 8.8 at Appendix 3 has further detail.The remuneration arrangements for all judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer are governedby enforceable determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details including relevantdeterminations are available at: www.remtribunal.gov.auAgreement makingA single Enterprise Agreement for the CourtsFor most of the reporting year the employees of the Family Court were covered by the Family Courtof Australia Collective Agreement 2007–10. On 18 June 2010, Fair Work Australia approved the newFederal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010. TheAgreement was negotiated between the Courts and the Community and Public Sector Union andindividual staff bargaining representatives. It commenced on 25 June 2010, replacing the individualCollective Agreements of both Courts.The nominal expiry date of the new Agreement is 30 June 2011. However, under present arrangementsthe Agreement will continue to operate after that date until replaced or formally terminated. It applies toall employees of the Courts employed under the Public Service Act 1999, other than SES employees.The achievement of the Agreement was a significant event. It means that within the two Courts,staff working side-by-side doing similar work are employed under the same terms and conditions ofemployment. It positions the Courts for future developments in the conduct of workplace relations withinthe government sector.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Agreement supports significant improvements in the Courts’ operations to be achieved through therange of corporate efficiency/productivity measures produced following reviews of child dispute services,judicial support, library and guarding services, user pays options, divorce processes and procedures,including conciliation conferences, use of interpreters, technology (video links and teleconferencing),circuits and provision of transcripts.The Agreement provides that in order to receive the salary increases, or to progress from one pay pointto the next in the pay scale of a classification, an employee must participate in the Courts’ PerformanceManagement and Development System (PMDS) and be assessed as ‘meeting requirements’ or higher ator before the date of the pay increase.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010123

Concurrent with the Agreement, management strategies are being developed aimed at ensuring thatstaff turnover rates and staff absences are within APS best practice parameters and are not inconsistentwith averages identified in the state of the service report.Other agreementsOffers of AWAs to Court employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with the AustralianGovernment Employment Bargaining Framework; however, 34 employees have enforceable AWAs inplace. Table 8.12 at Appendix 3 sets out the AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification.In some limited cases the Court has used common law contracts to provide supplementary conditions ofemployment for individuals covered by the Family Court Collective Agreement (which was supersededby the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010on 25 June 2010) and determinations made by the Agency Head under section 24 of the Public ServiceAct 1999, to build upon existing AWA arrangements. At 30 June 2010, 14 employees had employmentarrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts and 51 had employment arrangementsgoverned by determination 24 instruments. See Table 8.11 at Appendix 3 for more detail.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYRelationship between agreementsTerms and conditions of employment in the Court are governed by one or more of the followingindustrial agreements:• The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010,effective from 25 June 2010, and before that the Family Court of Australia Collective Agreement2007–2010, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs• AWAs• individual determinations under s 24(1) ofthe Public Service Act 1999, or• individual common law contracts.The new Enterprise Agreement, like itspredecessor, is a comprehensive agreement;however, for some employees, it may besupported by either a s 24(1) determination ora common law contract that provides additionalterms and conditions (for example, as a way ofretaining high-value employees).AWAs may also be supported by individuals 24(1) determinations or common law contractsto provide for pay increases or additional termsand conditions, including non-salary benefits.SES remunerationTerms and conditions for the Court’s seniorexecutive service employees are in AWAs andindividual s24(1) determinations made by theService Commitments.124 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Chief Executive Officer. SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and takeaccount of the Court’s budgetary position.Non-salary benefitsNon-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include:• motor vehicles• car parking• superannuation• access to salary sacrificing arrangements• computers, including home-based computer access• membership of professional associations• mobile phones• studies assistance• leave flexibilities• workplace responsibility allowances (for example, first aid, fire warden, community language), and• airline club memberships.Performance pay arrangementsDuring 2009–10, the Court neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paidperformance pay to any employee.Training, learning and developmentThe Court recognises the value of a well-educated workforce that is able to contribute effectively tomeeting the Court’s objectives. It provides staff with an extensive array of learning and developmentopportunities to develop their skills and knowledge for current and future roles and responsibilities. Itachieves this by assisting employees to meet their development and career needs consistent with thePerformance Management and Development System and available resources.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Court’s in-house training facilities include the provision of self-paced, on-line learning courses on arange of topics including APS induction training, OH&S, Accounting Basics, Effective Project Management,Business Communications and the Windows XP suite (Excel, Word, PowerPoint). In addition, during theyear training was provided in a number of specific areas, including on how to deal with difficult clients,family violence training for professionals working in family law, courtroom technology, bullying andharassment, risk awareness and fraud awareness. The Court also has a peer support network, for whichtraining is provided as required.The Court facilitates staff participation in the comprehensive range of leadership, learning anddevelopment programs provided by the Australian Public Service Commission. It also provides studiesassistance including leave and support for employees undertaking relevant tertiary studies.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010125

Performance Management and Development SystemThe Courts’ Performance Management and Development System aims to align individual outcomes toteam and branch business plans, leading ultimately to achieving the two Courts’ visions and businessplans. Participation is mandatory for all employees except probationers. Employees must participate inthe system to be eligible for the salary increases provided under the new Enterprise Agreement and forsalary advancement within their classification scale.Performance management and development provides a framework to develop individual performance toassist an employee to achieve his or her potential. It is a continuous process and imposes responsibilitieson both individual employees and their supervisors/managers. It relies on ongoing and open discussionsto provide clarity on what is expected to be done, how it could or should be done, and to recogniseprogress and achievement against agreed outcomes. It fosters a working environment that values theCourt’s people, recognises diversity and acknowledges their contribution to organisational success.The target in 2009–10 was for 100 per cent of employees participating in the system. This was achieved.Employee assistance programPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Court’s employee assistance program provides a free, confidential counselling service to the judiciary,Court employees and their immediate families experiencing personal or work-related problems. Theservice also provides a telephone advisory service for managers.Converge International managed the program and provided generic data to the Court to guide thedevelopment of wellbeing strategies.Peer support networkThe nature of the Court’s core business means that employees may be exposed to and involved inhighly sensitive and stressful situations. During 2009–10, the Court continued a proactive approach tolessen the risk of stress in the workplace by introducing a peer support system within registries and theNational Support Office.The system provides a network of trained staff in the workplace to ensure that skilled support is availablefor immediate assistance should an individual experience a distressing situation or difficult event. Thesystem is designed to complement the employee assistance program and allows support to be availableimmediately should an incident occur.Peer support officers from any location can provide assistance as required, that is, there is no restrictionon staff accessing officers from outside their immediate work area. All communication with trained peersupport officers is strictly confidential.Productivity gainsThe first full year of the single administrative structure for the Family Court and the Federal MagistratesCourt continued to produce efficiency savings through the more efficient allocation of resources,elimination of duplicated services and the rationalisation of court services.Synergies were achieved in the area of training where program delivery was made available to the staffof both courts, thus reducing cost and capturing a greater number of staff.As part of the single administration, the review of client services and registry management structuresresulted in a number of changes being introduced to further reduce duplication, improve the overall126 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

structure through a more integrated approach and clarify reporting relationships within registries. Thishas resulted in a reduction in staff numbers without affecting service delivery to clients or the judiciary.The resulting reduction in management positions in the registries will produce significant recurrentemployee expenses savings.A number of productivity gains also formed part of the Enterprise Agreement negotiations mentionedearlier in this part.Commonwealth Disability StrategyIn accordance with the Commonwealth Disability Strategy, the Court undertook a number of activitiesduring 2009–10, including the following:• Through its senior management group and other committees, the Court continued to focus onmeeting the needs of staff and clients, including those with disabilities and other special needs.• The Court, through its National Occupational Health and Safety Committee, ensures that thephysical needs of staff and clients are being met. For example, the use of the checklist ensures thatpassageways are kept clear and fire drills take into account the physical needs of staff and visitors.• The Court’s staff induction programs address access and equity in client services, raising theawareness of staff about the need to be flexible and understanding in meeting the needs of allCourt users.• The Court continued to implement initiatives from its Workplace Diversity Plan, the aim of whichis to accommodate, as far as possible, the personal circumstances of all staff, including staff withdisabilities.The Court is committed to ensuring that its facilities are accessible to all members of the community,including people with disabilities. It has noted the Government response to the House of RepresentativesStanding Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ report Access All Areas. Building andconstruction works on existing and proposed buildings for which the Court has responsibility will takeinto account the needs of people with disabilities.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYChief Justice Bryant unveils the memorial plaque at the 20th anniversary memorial of the Family Court bombings at Parramatta.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010127

The Court reports on its performance against the core performance role of provider (see Table 8.16 inAppendix 8). In addition, the Court reports on its role as an employer through the State of the ServiceReport survey conducted by the Australian Public Service Commission.Financial managementThe Family Court of Australia is a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and AccountabilityAct 1997.The Court’s 2009–10 Budget, as published in the Portfolio Additional Estimates, was $158.1 million. Thecourt has reported a surplus of $1.0 million for the 2009–10 financial year, compared to a breakevenforecast in the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2009–10. This surplus represents only 0.6 percent of the Family Court’s 2009–10 budget.Figure 6.2 provides a further breakdown of actual costs for 2009–10 which shows that the Family Courthas a significant component of fixed costs (57 per cent) relating to property, judicial officers and theirsupport, and depreciation.The Family Court provides resources free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court in accordance withsections 90, 92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999. Resources provided free of charge include:PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY• court staff, who perform work on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court, and• accommodation, including access to courtrooms.It is estimated that the cost of resources provided free of charge by the Family Court to the FederalMagistrates Court during 2009–10 was $30.162m.The Family Court also provides resources free of charge to the Federal Court. It is estimated that thecost of these resources in 2009–10 was $0.616m. The resources provided free of charge includeaccommodation and other property costs for Sydney Commonwealth Law Courts.Figure 6.2 Family Court’s expenditure, 2009–10Corporate Support 4%Corporate Overheads 5%VariableFixedInformation TechnologyServices 6%Client Services 16%Judges & Support 20%Judges Registrars & Support 1%Depreciation 4%Property 32%Family Consultants 5%Registrars 4%Case Coordinators 1%Court Officers 2%128 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Judges and support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judges and their supportstaff.Judicial registrars and support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judicialregistrars and their support staff.Depreciation: All depreciation, amortisation and other expenses associated with asset movements.Property: Lease rentals for Commonwealth Law Courts and leased premises, and all property operatingexpenses (such as cleaning, energy, repairs, maintenance and management fees) associated with thosepremises.Registrars: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to registrars.Family consultants: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to family consultants.Client services: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to client services staff.Case coordinators: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to case coordinators.Court officers: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to court officers.Corporate support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to finance, human resources,property services, contract services and the CEO.Information technology services: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the provisionof IT services.Corporate overheads: Workers compensation and Comcover insurance premiums, fringe benefit taxexpenditure, ComSuper management fees, legal and audit fees, corporate salary overheads attributed toregistry management, corporate support and IT services staff, and expenditure related to project activityin the Court (some of which is externally funded).Services provided free of chargeThe Family Court provides resources free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court under sections 90,92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, including:• court staff, who perform work on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court• accommodation, including access to courtrooms.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe estimated cost of those free of charge resources for the Federal Magistrates Court in 2009–10 was$30.162m.The Family Court also provided resources free of charge to the Federal Court with an estimated costof $0.616m in 2009–10. This included accommodation and other property costs for the SydneyCommonwealth Law Courts.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010129

Figure 6.3Services provided free of charge to the Federal Magistrates CourtCorporate Support 4%Corporate Overheads 5%VariableFixedInformation TechnologyServices 6%Client Services 16%Judges & Support 20%Judges Registrars & Support 1%Depreciation 4%Property 32%Family Consultants 5%Registrars 4%Case Coordinators 1%Court Officers 2%Shared ResourcesPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYPurchasing, consultants and contractsThe Procurement and Risk Management section assists staff undertaking procurement and managesa number of corporate contracts. The section also manages, or has significant involvement in, allcomplex procurement undertaken by the Court to ensure compliance with legislative obligations andthe Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. The Chief Executive Instructions, the CommonwealthProcurement Guidelines and the Court’s Procurement Framework are all posted on the intranet asreference material for Family Court staff.The core policies and principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines were, as far aspracticable, adhered to throughout 2009–10. The Court’s annual procurement plan was published asrequired. An appropriate market approach was made for all procurements covered by the guidelines.Access by the Auditor-GeneralAll contracts let in 2009–10 had provision for the Auditor-General to access contractors’ premises.Exempt contractsDuring 2009–10, no contracts or standing offers were exempt from publication in the Purchasing andDisposal Gazette in terms of the Freedom of Information Act.External consultantsThe Court engages external consultants to support Court activities where specialised expertise is notavailable in house or where an independent assessment or evaluation is required. Table 6.1 showsconsultant services contracts of $10 000 or more let during 2009–10.During 2009–10, total actual expenditure on consultancy contracts was $474 155 (GST inclusive),comprising:130 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• four new consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure of $260 921• four ongoing consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure of $213 234.Annual reports contain information about actual expenditure on contracts for consultancies. Informationon the value of contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website: www.tenders.gov.auConsultants and competitive tenderingDuring 2009–10, no contracts were let to other organisations for the delivery of services previouslyperformed by the Court.Table 6.1Consultant services contracts let during 2009–10, of $10 000 or moreConsultant name Description of services Contract price(Inc GST)Selectionprocess (1)Justification (2)Catherine Argall PSMIce DesignOakton ServicesStephen RalphLEGEND(1) Explanation of selection process terms:Provision of a head negotiator for the2009–2010 Enterprise Agreementmaking processes for the Family LawCourtsVideo conferencing consultancyservicesConsultancy services to conductimpendent assessments oforganisational program and projectcapability based on P3M3 capabilityServices to undertake a study ofIndigenous Australians access andusage of the Family Law Courts$85 000 Direct sourcing B$22 000 Direct sourcing B$32 296 Open tender B$60 000 Direct sourcing B/COpen tender: A procurement process in which a request for tender is published inviting all businesses that satisfy the conditions forparticipation to submit tenders. Public tenders are sought from the market place using national and major metropolitan newspaperadvertising and the Australian Government AusTender internet site.Select tender: a procurement procedure in which the procuring agency selects which potential suppliers are invited to submittenders. Tenders are invited from a short list of competent suppliers.Direct sourcing: A form of restricted tendering, available only under certain defined circumstances, with a single potential supplier orsuppliers being invited to bid because of their unique expertise and/or their special ability to supply goods and/or services sought.Panel: An arrangement under which a number of suppliers, usually selected through a single procurement process, may each supplyproperty or services to an agency as specified in the panel arrangements. Tenders are sought from suppliers that have pre qualifiedon the agency panels to supply to the government. This category includes standing offers and suppliers panels where the consultantoffers to supply goods and services for pre-determined length of time, usually at a pre-arranged price.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY(2) Justification for decisions to use consultancyA: skills currently unavailable within the CourtB: need for specialised or professional skillsC: need for independent research or assessmentFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010131

Legal services expenditureParagraph 11.1 of the Legal Services Directions 2005 states that the Chief Executive Officer of the Courthas the responsibility for ensuring that:• arrangements for legal services are handled efficiently and effectively• appropriate systems and procedures are in place to comply with these directions, and• made no use of persons appointed by the Attorney-General under Section 63 of the Judiciary Act1903 to receive service in proceeding to which the Commonwealth is a party.Table 6.3 provides details of the Family Court’s legal services expenditure for 2009–10. This is publishedin compliance with paragraph 11.1 (ba) of the Legal Services Directions 2005. All expenditure figuresinclude GST.Table 6.2Legal services expenditureTotal external legal services expenditure $42 348PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYTotal number of counsel briefed 0Total number of counsel direct briefed 1Total value of counsel briefs $2 188Total of disbursements (excluding counsel) $138Total of professional fees paid $40 022Total internal legal services expenditure $186 108Total costs recovered $0COUNSELTotal number of counsel briefed 0Male counsel briefed 0Female counsel briefed 0Total number of counsel direct briefed 1Male counsel direct briefed 0Female counsel direct briefed 1Total value of counsel briefs $2 188Male counsel briefs 0Female counsel briefs $2 188Disbursements (excluding counsel) $138Professsional feesTotal professional fees paid $40 022Australian Government Solicitor $36 046Blake Dawson Waldron $3 976Consistent with paragraph 11.2 of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Chief Executive Officer issueda Certificate to the Office of Legal Services Coordination of the Attorney-General’s Department statingthat the Family Court of Australia:132 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• had appropriate systems and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the Directions• had no record of any alleged, possible or determined breach of the Directions during the 2009–10financial year.Assets managementDuring 2009–10, the Family Court commissioned licensed valuers and chartered building surveyorsto undertake a complete on site identification, inspection, condition assessment and valuation of itsleasehold and the associated restoration or make-good cost at lease expiration.The project was completed in June 2010 and has provided the courts with a comprehensive record of allleasehold including photographic registers.The Court also commissioned a desktop valuation of all infrastructure plant and equipment and that wasalso completed in June 2010.These projects have provided the Court with comprehensive asset records able to support theDepartment of Finance and Deregulation’s requirement for a four year capital plan.Property managementThe Family Court is located in shared Commonwealth-owned facilities in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra,Hobart, Melbourne, Parramatta and Sydney. It occupies privately leased facilities in Albury, Alice Springs,Cairns, Coffs Harbour, Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Launceston, Lismore, Newcastle, Townsville andWollongong, and shares the state court facility in Rockhampton.The most significant property-related activities at various court locations in 2009–10 are detailed below.SydneyFollowing an accommodation review of the Sydney registry, a refurbishment of Levels 8 and 9 wasundertaken. Extra chambers were added to Level 9 for additional and visiting judiciary, and a hearingroom and conference rooms were added on Level 8 for use by registrars. This has helped to improve thespeed with which matters such as divorces can be heard by registrars in Sydney. This project was jointlyfunded by the Federal Magistrates Court.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYDandenongPlanning was undertaken during the year for the upgrade of the childminding and child observationroom facilities within the Dandenong registry. Currently, the facilities are limited and this project aims toupgrade the children’s observation room to a more useable space. This will enable staff to perform theirduties more effectively giving a better outcome for the courts’ clients. Functionality of facilities within theregistry will be improved by having separate areas for:• childminding• an adolescent breakout space• children’s toilets, and• infant sleeping.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010133

At 30 June 2010, it was expected that the work would be carried out in 2010–11.NewcastleThe Newcastle registry was partly refurbished in 2009–10. The works included a general office upgradeand an additional courtroom. The registry now has four courtrooms for five judicial officers. The projecthas provided both improved facilities and improved safety for staff and clients.BrisbaneDuring 2009–10, planning and consultation occurred on the intended co-location of judicial officersfrom the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court on Level 9 at the Brisbane Commonwealth LawCourts building. This followed a review of accommodation in 2009 and will provide three extra judicialchambers, a new common room and an upgraded conference facility. Three areas on the floor are tobe altered. At 30 June 2010, construction was scheduled to start in August 2010 with an estimatedcompletion of November 2010.PART 6Correction of material errors in 2008–09 reportThe Court has no matters to report.MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY134 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

PART 7: FINANCIAL STATEMENTSTable of ContentsStatement by CEO and CFO 141Statement of Comprehesive Income 142Balance Sheet 143Statement of Changes in Equity 144Cash Flow Statement 145Schedule of Commitments 146Schedule of Asset Additions 147Schedule of Administered Items 148Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 150Note 2: Events After the Balance Sheet Date 158Note 3: Expenses 159Note 4: Income 161Note 5: Financial Assets 162Note 6: Non-Financial Assets 164Note 7: Payables 170Note 8: Provisions 171Note 9: Cash Flow Reconciliation 172Note 10: Contingent Liabilities and Assets 172Note 11: Senior Executive Remuneration 173Note 12: Remuneration of Auditors 174Note 13: Financial Instruments 175Note 14: Income Administered on Behalf of Government 178Note 15: Expenses Administered on Behalf of Government 178Note 16: Assets Adminstered on Behalf of Government 178Note 17: Administered Reconciliation Table 178Note 18: Administered Financial Instruments 178Note 19: Appropriations 179Note 20: Special Accounts 181Note 21: Compensation and Debt Relief 182Note 22: Reporting of Outcomes 183PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010137

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7138 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010139

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7140 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010141

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7142 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010143

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7144 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010145

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7146 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010147

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7148 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010149

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7150 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010151

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7152 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010153

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7154 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010155

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7156 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010157

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7158 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010159

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7160 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010161

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7162 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010163

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7164 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010165

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7166 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010167

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7168 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010169

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7170 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010171

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7172 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010173

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7174 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010175

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7176 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010177

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7178 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010179

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7180 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010181

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7182 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010183

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7184 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010185

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7186 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 8APPENDICES

PART 8: APPENDICESAppendix 1: Resource statementTable 8.1 Family Court of Australia resource statement, 2009–10The Court’s Agency resourcing statement is shown below.Actual available Payments Balanceappropriation for made remaining2009–10 2009–10 2009–10$’000 $’000 $’000PART 8 Appendix 1Ordinary Annual Services aPrior year departmental appropriationDepartmental appropriations.30 relevant agency receiptss.31 relevant agency receiptsTotalAdministered expensesOutcome 1TotalTotal ordinary annual servicesfg12 190 c 12 110 80147 919 d 133 788 14 131 e6 642 5 951 6917 479 7 479 0174 230 159 328 14 902430 0430 0174 660 159 328Special AccountsOpening balance 0Payments made0Total Special Account0 0 0Total net resourcing for Family Court ofAustralia b 174 660 159 328a Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2009–10 and Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2009–10This may also include Prior Year departmental appropriation and s31 relevant agency receipts.b Special Public Money special accounts, Litigants Fund Special Account, Other Trust Moneys, and Servicesfor Other Government and Non-Agency Bodies have been excluded from the above table, consistent with theResource Statement in the 2009–10 Budget.c Appropriation balance bought forward per Note 19 — Table A Balance bought forward from previous periodless Appropriation Reduced (Appropriation Act s 14(1)).d Departmental Appropriations per Note 19 — Table A Appropriation Act (No.1 & No3) 2009–10.e Includes cash on hand at 30 June 2010.f Section 30 Receipts per Note 19 — Table A Relevant agency receipts (FMA Act s30).g Section 31 Receipts per Note 19 — Table A Relevant agency receipts (FMA Act s31).Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010189

Appendix 2: Resources for outcomesTable 8.2 Family Court of Australia resources for outcomes, 2009–10PART 8Resources for OutcomesThe table below shows the total resourcing for the Court’s Outcome on an expense basis.Appendix 2Outcome 1: As Australia’s specialist superior family Budget 1 Actual Variationcourt, determine cases with complex law and facts,Expensesand provide national coverage as the appellate courtin family law matters2009–10 2009–10 2009–10$’000 $’000 $’000(a) (b) (a) – (b)Program 1.1: Provision of a Family CourtAdministered expensesOrdinary Annual Services (Appropriation Bill No. 1) 430 0 430Departmental expensesOrdinary annual services (Appropriation Bill No. 1) 152 291 151 324 759Revenues from independent sources (Section 31) 3 870 7 074 -3 204Expenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 8 147 7 608 539Total expenses for Outcome 1 3 164 738 166 214 -1 4762008–09 2009–10Average Staffing Level (number) 601 6001. Full year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2009–10 Budget.2. Includes liabilities assumed by related entities for the Judges Pension Scheme and resourcesreceived free of charge for Australian National Audit Office Services3. Special Public Money special accounts, Litigants Fund Special Account and Other Trust Monys, have beenexcluded from the above table, consistent with the Resource Statement in the 2009–10 Budget.190 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Appendix 3: Staffing profileStaffing profileAt 30 June 2010, the Court had a total workforce of 619 employees covered by the CollectiveAgreement and AWAs (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees), 19less than at 30 June 2009.Of the Court’s 619 employees:• 189 (30.53 per cent) were male and 430 (69.47 per cent) were female compared with 200 and 438,respectively, at 30 June 2009• 538 (86.91 per cent) were ongoing employees and 81 (13.09 per cent) were non-ongoingemployees.The following tables show staff statistics by location, gender, full-time and part-time status, and ongoingand non-ongoing.Table 8.3:Staff by locationPART 8 Appendix 3: Staffing ProfileLevel ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC TotalAPS 1 1 1APS 2 1 1 32 17 8 2 24 85APS 3 6 1 9 65 5 28 12 5 31 162APS 4 4 14 29 14 6 3 14 84APS 5 3 20 21 1 10 3 3 9 70APS 6 1 2 30 3 1 3 2 42EL 1 5 31 25 13 5 3 19 101EL 2 1 1 14 22 11 5 2 10 66SES 1 3 1 1 1 6SES 2 2 2Total 21 4 124 199 6 95 42 18 110 619Note: Actual occupancy at 30 June 2010 includes full and part time staff* with the exception of judicial officers and casualemployees.All figures in the above table are based on actual headcount.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010191

Table 8.4:Staff by genderPART 8Appendix 3: Staffing profileLevel Gender ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC TotalAPS 1 Male 1 1APS 2 Female 1 1 18 10 6 1 12 49Male 14 7 2 1 12 36APS 3 Female 4 1 8 49 2 23 6 4 22 119Male 2 1 16 3 5 6 1 9 43APS 4 Female 2 13 24 13 5 3 10 70Male 2 1 5 1 1 4 14APS 5 Female 1 12 18 1 10 3 2 8 55Male 2 8 3 1 1 15APS 6 Female 1 1 16 3 1 2 2 26Male 1 14 1 16EL 1 Female 4 10 22 12 4 3 12 67Male 1 21 3 1 1 7 34EL 2 Female 1 1 4 14 6 4 1 9 40Male 10 8 5 1 1 1 26SES 1 Female 1 1 1 3Male 2 1 3SES 2 Female 1 1Male 1 1Total 21 4 124 199 6 95 42 18 110 619Table 8.5: Staff by attendance statusLevel Attendance ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC TotalAPS 1 Part-time 1 1APS 2 Full-time 1 1 23 16 5 1 20 67Part-time 9 1 3 1 4 18APS 3 Full-time 6 1 5 42 4 22 11 4 23 118Part-time 4 23 1 6 1 1 8 44APS 4 Full-time 4 11 24 11 5 2 12 69Part-time 3 5 3 1 1 2 15APS 5 Full-time 3 16 18 1 10 3 3 9 63Part-time 4 3 7APS 6 Full-time 1 2 26 3 1 3 1 37Part-time 4 1 5EL 1 Full-time 2 29 21 8 2 1 14 77Part-time 3 2 4 5 3 2 5 24EL 2 Full-time 1 1 14 17 10 5 2 6 56Part-time 5 1 4 10SES 1 Full-time 3 1 1 1 6SES 2 Full-time 2 2Total 21 4 124 199 6 95 42 18 110 619Note:Judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer, who are holders of public office, and casual employees are notincluded in the above tables.192 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Table 8.6:Ongoing staff by location and classificationLevel ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC TotalAPS 1 1 1APS 2 1 25 13 3 2 21 65APS 3 3 1 7 56 2 25 12 5 29 140APS 4 3 11 21 10 4 2 10 61APS 5 3 19 20 1 9 3 3 9 67APS 6 1 1 29 3 1 3 2 40EL 1 5 28 23 12 5 3 18 94EL 2 1 1 14 20 11 5 2 9 63SES 1 3 1 1 5SES 2 2 2Total 16 3 114 170 3 82 35 17 98 538Table 8.7: Non-ongoing staff, by location and classificationPART 8 Appendix 3: Staffing ProfileLevel ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC TotalAPS 1APS 2 1 7 4 5 3 20APS 3 3 2 9 3 3 2 22APS 4 1 3 8 4 2 1 4 23APS 5 1 1 1 3APS 6 1 1 2EL 1 3 2 1 1 7EL 2 2 1 3SES 1 1 1SES 2Total 5 1 10 29 3 13 7 1 12 81Legend:SES – Senior Executive OfficerCJ – Office of Chief Justice, MelbourneNSO – National Support Office, CanberraFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010193

Judicial officersAt 30 June 2010, there were 30 judges, including the Chief Justice; 10 female and 20 male. There werealso two male judicial registrars.PART 8Appendix 3: Staffing profileTable 8.8: Total number of judges and judicial registrars, 30 June 2010Location Judges Judicial RegistrarsNew South Wales 12 2Victoria1 Chief Justice5Queensland 6South Australia 3Tasmania 1Australian Capital Territory1 Deputy Chief Justice1Total 30 2Workforce turnoverDuring 2009–10, 85 employees and judicial officers left the Court (26 were non-ongoing and 53 wereongoing employees), being an annual turnover rate of 8 per cent against total staff numbers at 30 June2010*.Table 8.9:Workforce turnoverEmployment type Reason TotalNon-ongoing employees Retirement age 60–65 23.99% Retirement age over 65 1Inter department transfer 1Resignation 19Termination—unspecified 3Total non-ongoing employees 26Ongoing employees Retirement age 60–65 38.13% Retirement age over 65 4Inter department transfer 12Resigned 21Redundancy 13Total ongoing employees 53Public office holders Retirement age 60–70 50.92% Resigned 1Total public office holders 6Total 85Note:The above figures do not include non-ongoing employees whose actual period of engagement reached their nonongoingcontract date of expiry.* Total staff numbers for the above table include all employees and public office holders (judicial officers and theChief Executive Officer) as at 30 June 2010 (total headcount of 652).194 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Agreement makingCollective Agreement and Enterprise AgreementOn 25 June 2010, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia EnterpriseAgreement 2010, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs, commenced. It replacedthe Court’s Collective Agreement 2007–10, which had been lodged pursuant to section 328 of theWorkplace Relations Act 1996 on 30 July 2007 and had a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2010.At 30 June 2010, 568 Family Court employees were covered by the Enterprise Agreement.Table 8.10:Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australiaand Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010Level Female Male TotalAPS 1 1 1APS 2 48 36 84APS 3 119 43 162APS 4 70 14 84APS 5 54 15 69APS 6 24 12 36EL 1 61 23 84EL 2 34 14 48Total 410 158 568PART 8 Appendix 3: Staffing ProfileOther agreementsWhile the Government’s new transitional legislation governing changes to the Work Choices legislationno longer allows for the making of new AWAs, at 30 June 2010, 34 employees had enforceable AWAs inplace.In some limited cases, the Family Court has used common law contracts and determination24 instruments pursuant to the Australian Public Service Act 1999 to build upon existing AWAarrangements. At 30 June 2010:• 13 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts• 51 employees had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010195

Table 8.11:Employees covered by other agreementsPART 8Appendix 3: Staffing profileAustralian WorkplaceAgreementsCommon lawcontractsDetermination 24arrangementsLevel Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male TotalAPS 1APS 2 1 1 1 1APS 3APS 4 2 2APS 5 1 1APS 6 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 6EL 1 3 4 7 2 2 4 6 11 17EL 2 5 8 13 2 4 6 6 12 18SES 1 3 2 5 1 1 3 3 6SES 2 1 1 2 1 1 2Total 17 17 34 5 8 13 20 31 51Non-salary benefitsNon-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include motor vehicles, car parking,superannuation, computers including home-based computer access, membership of professionalassociations and organisations, mobile phones and airline club memberships.Performance pay arrangementsThe Court’s industrial instruments do not include provision for performance based pay to employees. Noemployees received performance pay during 2009–10.Table 8.12:AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classificationClassification Salary Range ($)APS 2 52 684 – 52 684APS 4 56 549 – 66 487APS 6 72 014 – 90 727EL 1 87 373 – 118 070EL 2 115 555 – 140 940SES 1 127 191 – 186 230SES 2 130 918 – 191 191196 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Table 8.13:Classification structure and pay rates*APS classification and no.of staffSalary rates on 1 July20091 July 2010 1 January 2011APS 1 – 1 employee $39 140 39 727 40 323$40 199 40 802 41 414$41 853 42 481 43 118APS 2 – 84 employees $42 856 43 499 44 151$45 193 45 871 46 559$47 526 48 239 48 962APS 3 – 162 employees $50 083 50 834 51 597$51 354 52 124 52 906$52 684 53 474 54 276APS 4 – 84 employees $56 136 56 978 57 833$57 594 58 458 59 335$59 070 59 956 60 855APS 5 – 69 employees $60 683 61 593 62 517$62 584 63 523 64 476$64 347 65 312 66 292APS 6 – 36 employees $65 542 66 525 67 523$69 413 70 454 71 511$75 286 76 415 77 562EL 1 – 84 employees $84 020 85 280 86 560$87 373 88 684 90 014$90 725 92 086 93 467EL 2 – 48 employees $96 905 98 359 99 834$102 232 103 765 105 322$109 866 111 514 113 187$111 603 113 277 114 976$113 538 115 241 116 970$116 438 118 185 119 957PART 8 Appendix 3: Staffing Profile* excludes casual employeeFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010197

Appendix 4: Occupational health and safetyMaintaining the health and safety of staff and all those who use the Court’s premises is integral to thebusiness and values of the Court. The Court is therefore committed to:PART 8Appendix 4: Occupational health and safety• compliance by itself and its personnel with all applicable statutory and other health and safetyobligations, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991• maintaining a healthy and safe workplace• preventing injuries by managing risk, including identifying and mitigating workplace hazards tohealth and safety, and• making good occupational health and safety (OHS) practice part of business-as-usual for all managersand staff.The Court achieves this through:• actively preventing work-related injury and illness via regular workplace checks and inspections• providing access to information, training, professional support and advice on OHS issues via theCourt’s intranet, training programs and other means• consulting with staff and their representatives on the development and variation of health and safetymanagement arrangements• advising managers and staff of their OHS responsibilities, and• ensuring health and safety representatives have the time and resources to reasonably perform theirrole.The Court recognises that effective health and safety management reduces the social and financial costsof occupational injury and illness.During 2009–10, the Court:• developed and implemented Health and Safety Management Arrangements, which documents themanagement of occupational health and safety within the Court• developed and implemented a first aid policy• rolled out national training (workplace prevention and injury management) to all managers andsupervisors, and• initiated national training to all front line employees on How to Deal with Difficult and PersistentClients.The Court’s occupational health and safety employee benefits include advice on ergonomic workstations,provision of ergonomic furniture, access to a free employee assistance program, annual influenzavaccinations, eyesight testing, access to peer support officers, first aid officers and harassment contactofficers.Whilst the Court’s local occupational health and safety committees continued to meet throughout 2009–10,there was also wide consultation with staff on the Health and Safety Management Arrangements.None of the Court’s locations reported occupational health and safety audits requiring seriousinvestigations during 2009–10.198 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Workers’ compensation and early intervention managementThe Court continued to manage its workers’ compensation cases proactively throughout the year.Proactive case management of cases showed a significant decrease in the number of claims beinglodged and the costs associated with such possible claims. This also provided a significant reduction tothe Court’s workers’ compensation premium for 2010–11. Figure 8.1 shows the lifetime cost estimate ofworkers’ compensation injuries for 2006–07 to 2009–10. As there were no long term accepted claimsopened for the financial year, the lifetime costs have reduced by $180 000 to zero for this financial year.See Table 8.14 for comparative detail.Figure 8.1: Lifetime cost estimate of workers’ compensation injuries, 2006–07 to 2009–10$9000,000$8000,000$7000,000$6000,000$5000,000$4000,000$3000,000$2000,000PART 8 Appendix 4: Occupational Health and Safety$1000,000$02006–07 2007–082008–09 2009–10Financial year of injuryTable 8.14: Comcare premium rates, 2005–06 to 2010–112005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11Family Court ofAustraliaAll Agenciescombined2.22% 1.95% 1.91% 1.35% 1.48% 1.17%1.77% 1.77% 1.55% 1.36% 1.25% 1.20%Variance 0.45 0.18 0.36 -0.01 0.23 -0.03Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010199

Appendix 5: Freedom of informationThe Court received no Freedom of Information requests during 2009–10.At 30 June 2010 there were no matters outstanding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.PART 8Table 8.15: Freedom of Information requests, 2005–06 to 2009–10Financial yearNumber of requestsAppendix 5: Freedom of Information2009–10 02008–09 02007–08 42006–07 32005–06 3Facilities for accessFreedom of Information requests are handled at the national level. The Freedom of Information Act 1982does not apply to any request for access to a document of the Court, unless the document relates tomatters of an administrative nature—see section 5 of the Act. Broadly speaking, this means that the Actdoes not apply to documents related to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court.The availability of documents outside the Freedom of Information Act is subject to the Family Law Actand the Family Law Rules that generally confine access to Court files or registry indexes to parties, ortheir representatives, to particular proceedings.Facilities for examining documents and obtaining copies are available at the Court’s registries. Freedomof Information enquiries should be directed to:FOI CoordinatorFamily Court of AustraliaPO Box 9991Canberra ACT 2601Categories of documentsThe Court maintains the following categories of documents:• general correspondence• client feedback correspondence• those concerning the development and implementation of policy, standards, guidelines andprocedures• records of meetings and conferences• addresses and speeches published by the Court• those concerning administration and financial aspects of the Court200 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• those concerning research projects, submissions, reports, audits, evaluations and reviews, includingstatistical information gathered by Court staff• those concerning security aspects of the Court• personnel files• first instance and appeal case files, comprising all documents filed in the Court or transferred fromother jurisdictions (for example, formal applications and supporting affidavits) and records of allorders made in court proceedings• an alphabetical index in each registry (in card form or computerised recording system) of all partieswho have commenced or continued proceedings in that registry, and• family consultant interview records (hard copy and/or computerised) that record particulars of anypersons having presented themselves to the child dispute services section of the Court (whethervoluntarily or under Court direction).Other documentsThe Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not apply to single copies of all printed materials listed belowwhich may be obtained free of charge upon request from all Family Law registries.PART 8 Appendix 5: Freedom of InformationPrescribed brochures and formsWhen certain applications are filed the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law Rules 2004 requireCourt staff to give specific brochures to the person filing the application (the applicant). The Act andRules also require the applicant to provide specific brochures, along with other court documents, to theother party (the respondent). These are known as ‘prescribed’ brochures. Listed below are the brochuresthat were prescribed in this manner at 30 June 2010.Prescribed brochuresBefore you file—Pre-action procedure for parenting cases Distributed in accordance with Rule 1.05 and Schedule 1Before you file—Pre-action procedure for financial cases Distributed in accordance with Rule 1.05 and Schedule 1Costs Notice Chapter 19Enforcement hearingsDistributed in accordance with Chapter 19 of the FamilyLaw Rules 2004Served in accordance with Rule 20.11(3)(b))Experts Conference Distributed in accordance with Rule 15.69Marriage, Families and SeparationSubpoena—Information for named personDistributed in accordance with Part IIIA of the Family LawAct 1975Distributed in accordance with Rule 15.28(served with a subpoena)Third party debt notices Distributed in accordance with Rule 1.05 and Schedule 1Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010201

Prescribed formsPART 8Appendix 5: Freedom of InformationThere was one prescribed Family Court form, Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence (Form 4), at30 June 2010. The remainder of the Family Court forms are approved by the Chief Justice pursuant toRule 24.04(1).Client informationThe Family Court also provides a wide range of forms authorised by the Principal Registrar and generalinformation materials, such as do-it-yourself kits, fact sheets, brochures and booklets. All forms andpublications are available from the Court’s registries and/or at www.familylawcourts.gov.au202 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Appendix 6: Advertising and market researchUnder section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Court is required to discloseparticulars of payments of $11 200 or more (inclusive of GST) for advertising, market research, pollingorganisations, direct mail and media advertising.The Court spent a total of $48 385 during 2009–10 in advertising and market research, comprisingmainly payments to media advertising organisations for recruitment and tender notices handled byADCORP Marketing Communications ($33 946) and Australian Public Service Commission ($12 406).During 2009–10, the Family Court did not conduct any advertising campaigns.PART 8 Appendix 6: Advertising and Market ResearchFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010203

PART 8Appendix 7: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performanceAppendix 7: Ecologically sustainable development andenvironmental performanceThe Family Court does not administer legislation with ecologically sustainable development implications.The nature of the Court’s core business, outcomes and operations is such that its activities do not impactor affect the principles of ecologically sustainable development.During 2009–10, there were no matters or reports concerning the Court under the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Court does not own or control any places for thepurposes of managing their heritage values under the Act.The Court continued to seek to minimise the impact of its activities on the environment during the yearby:• participating nationally in Earth Hour to contribute to energy savings• installing energy efficient lighting, including automated lighting controls, in all refurbishments• engaging an Environmental Manager to specifically review and manage the environmentalperformance of the Court• developing an Environmental Policy, signed by the CEO and available for all staff via the intranet• reviewing request for tender documents for relevant new contracts to ensure environmentalconsiderations are included where feasible• regularly testing cooling towers and water features in court buildings, in accordance with statutoryrequirements• rolling out a national program of server virtualisation so that fewer servers are required• providing energy consumption data to the Australian Greenhouse Office as part of whole-ofgovernmentenergy reporting• conducting a national review of sites to benchmark availability of existing environmental practicessuch as recycling, energy conservation and water conservation• piloting a level 2 energy audit at the Darwin registry, with the aim of rolling out more energy auditsin 2010–11 at both Commonwealth courts and regional registries, and• commencing work on a comprehensive Environmental Management Statement.204 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Appendix 8: Grant programsThe Family Court made no grant payments during 2009–10.PART 8 Appendix 8: Grant programsFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010205

Appendix 9: Commonwealth Disability Strategy performancereportingPART 8Appendix 9: Commonwealth disability strategy performance reportingTable 8.16: Commonwealth Disability Strategy, Family Court performance indicators 2009–10PerformanceindicatorThe Family Courthas establishedmechanisms forquality improvementand assurance.The Family Courthas an establishedservice charter thatspecifies the rolesof the providerand consumer andservice standardsthat addressaccessibility forpeople withdisabilities.The Family Courtcomplaints policycomplies withAustralian StandardAS 4269–1995 andthe CommonwealthOmbudsman’s GoodPractice Guide forEffective ComplaintHandling.PerformancemeasureRefurbishmentworks meet BuildingCode of AustraliastandardsEstablished servicecharter thatadequately reflectsthe needs of peoplewith disabilitiesin operation. TheService Charter isavailable in printform and is availableon the Court’swebsite.The Court hascomprehensivecomplaintsguidelines,including a clientfact sheet anddetailed procedurespublished onthe Family Courtwebsite.Current levelof performance2009–10The Court complieswith the BuildingCode of Australiafor buildingmodifications andalterations. Thecode incorporatesrequirementsto comply withdisabled access forstaff, clients andvisitors. This includesareas such as ramps,signage and toilets.The Service Charterwas reviewed toincorporate theCourt’s commitmentto meeting theneeds of people,particularly thosewith a disability.There were noaccess relatedcomplaints receivedby the Court in2009–10.Eighty-one percent of non-judicialcomplaints werefinalised within 20days.Judicial complaintsmay take longer tofinalise. Complaintsare referred to thejudicial complaintsadviser.Goals for2010 –11Ensure that allnew refurbishmentcontracts containrelevant clauses.Improve complianceby staff of theirresponsibilities toclients under theCourt’s ServiceCharter.Apply theCourt’s policyto acknowledgecomplaints within5 days and respondwithin 20 days,except where it isnecessary to awaitthe outcome ofproceedings beforethe Court or obtaintranscripts andanalyse large andcomplex files.Actions for2010–11Monitor existingcontracts. Work withproviders to improveperformance.Ensure that staffare aware of theirobligations toprovide additionalassistance to thosewith special accessneeds.Evaluate the ServiceCharter and updateas necessary.Continue tomonitor theCourt’s complaintsprocedures, analyseresults and introduceimprovements.206 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Appendix 10: CommitteesTable 8.17: Judicial committees, 30 June 2010Title Chair Members Terms of referenceChief Justice’sPolicy AdvisoryChief JusticeBryantDCJ FaulksJustice FinnJustice StricklandJustice WattsJustice RyanJustice CroninJustice MurphyCEO (Richard Foster)Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello)Principal Child Dispute Services(Dianne Gibson)To support the Chief Justice inadministration of the Court andprovide her with advice on strategyand policy.PART 8 Appendix 10: COMMITTEESRules Justice Ryan Justice StricklandJustice MurphyJudicial Registrar LoughnanMagistrate MoroniSenior Registrar FitzGibbonRegistrar KearneyFamily Court Counsel (Neil Wareham)To consider all necessary or proposedrules changes. Section 123 of theFamily Law Act 1975 provides thata majority of judges may make rulesof Court in relation to practices andprocedures be followed in the FamilyCourt.JudicialDevelopment(joint committee)Justice BenjaminJustice CollierJustice MurphyJustice FowlerJustice AustinJustice Dessau (consultant)To develop, implement and oversightjudicial education in the Courts.Law ReformJusticeStricklandChief Justice BryantDCJ FaulksJustice FinnJustice WattsPrincipal Registrar (Angela Filippello)To consider and comment uponproposed legislation and law reformproposals.Benchbook (jointcommittee)Justice BenjaminJustice WattsJustice WattsJustice FowlerHon Richard Chisholm (consultant)Nominated legal associateFamily Law Information ServicerepresentativesIT representativeTo review and update the electronicbenchbook which containscommentary on a range of legaltopics and principles encountered inthe day-to-day work of the judiciaryand registrars and provides acomprehensive list of orders.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010207

Title Chair Members Terms of referencePART 8Appendix 10: COMMITTEESJudicialRemunerationChief JusticeBryantDCJ FaulksJustice MayJustice RoseJustice YoungJustice AustinJudicial Registrar JohnstonMagellan Justice Burr Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello)Executive Adviser to the CEO (LeishaLister)Magellan judgesTo prepare submissions to annual andother reviews by the RemunerationTribunal.To exchange information aboutsupport for Magellan, report tothe Chief Justice on its operation,liaise with child welfare and policedepartments on the evaluation ofMagellan, and ensure that casesinvolving allegations of child sexualor serious physical abuse are dealtwith as effectively and efficiently aspossible.National CaseManagementDCJ FaulksCase management judgesPrincipal Registrar (Angela Filippello)Principal Child Dispute Services(Dianne Gibson)Executive Adviser Client Services(Simon Kelso)To have overall responsibility for casemanagement within the Court. Thisgroup can refer case managementmatters requiring determination bythe Chief Justice’s Policy AdvisoryCommittee.PropertyManagement(joint committee)Justice DaweFM DonaldCEO (Richard Foster)Executive Director Corporate(Grahame Harriott)Registry manager representativeNational Property Manager (AkashaAtkinson)To plan and assess the currentand future needs of the Courts inrelation to property services includingcontracting, refurbishment andconstruction activity.Research andEthics (jointcommittee)JusticeStevensonNominated federal magistrate/sthe Hon Susan Morgan (consultant)Principal Child Dispute Services(Dianne Gibson)Manager Statistical Services Unit(Dennis Beissner)Legal Counsel (Neil Wareham)To consider, monitor and overviewall research and evaluation proposals(whether internal or external) forapproval and disseminate researchpapers/results as necessary.Cultural Diversity(joint committee)Justice MushinDCJ FaulksJustice BurrNominated federal magistrate/sExecutive Director Client ServicesPrincipal Child Dispute Services(Dianne Gibson)To complete the implementation ofthe Courts’ Cultural Diversity Planand provide advice to the ChiefJustice, Chief Federal Magistrateand CEO on cultural diversity issues,including special needs of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander people.Manager Communications Office(Janelle McLoughlin)208 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Title Chair Members Terms of referenceAboriginal andTorres StraitIslander(joint committee)eFiling(joint committee)Justice BenjaminPhil HockingBusinessDevelopmentManagerFM DonaldExecutive Advisor to the CEO (LeishaLister)Consultant (Stephen Ralph)Justice BennettFM JarrettFM RiethmullerFMC Principal Registrar (AdeleByrne)Executive Director Information,Communication and TechnologyServices (Stephen Andrew)Senior Registrar FitzgibbonsDeputy Registrar AndersonRegistrar FieldLegal Counsel (Neil Wareham)Various staffTo examine the needs of Indigenouspeople in the Family Law Courts.To oversee the implementation ofeFiling in the Family Law CourtsPART 8 Appendix 10: COMMITTEESFamily Violence(joint committee)Justice RyanJustice CollierJustice StevensonFM BrownFM HughesFM AltobelliPrincipal Registrar (Angela Filippello)Family consultant (Diane Lojszczyk)Senior Legal Research Advisor(Kristen Murray)To complete the implementation ofthe Courts’ Family Violence Strategyand provide advice to the ChiefJustice, Chief Federal Magistrates andCEO on family violence issues.Information andCommunicationTechnology(joint committee)DCJ FaulksNominated federal magistrate/sCEO (Richard Foster)Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello)Executive Director Client Services(Stephen Andrew A/g)Executive Director Information,Communication & TechnologyServices (Sue Lynch A/g)Business Development Manager (PhilHocking)Manager Family Law InformationServices (Paul Webster)To align the Courts’ informationtechnology with the Courts’business, including by focusing onthose projects of greatest businessimpact to the Court and advancingpartnership building between ITS andother areas of the CourtFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010209

Senior management committeesTable 8.18: Senior management governance committees, 30 June 2010PART 8Appendix 10: COMMITTEESTitle Chair Members Terms of referenceChief ExecutiveOfficer’sManagementAdvisory GroupCEO FamilyCourt and actingCEO FederalMagistratesCourt (RichardFoster)Deputy CEO Federal Magistrates Court(acting Steve Agnew)Executive Director Information,Communication and TechnologyServices (Family Court) (StephenAndrew)Executive Director Client Services(Family Court) (acting StephenAndrew)Regional Registry Manager (JaneReynolds Vic/Tas)Executive Director Corporate (GrahameHarriott)With assistance by the ExecutiveAdvisor to the CEO (Leisha Lister)To provide operational and policyadvice to the CEO regardingkey areas that are likely to beaffected by the integration of theadministrations of the Family Courtand the Federal Magistrates Court.Audit and RiskChris DooganAM (externalmember)Executive Director Corporate (GrahameHarriott)Registry Manager representative (GregThomas, Adelaide)ANAO representative and the FamilyCourt’s internal auditors (OaktonServices Pty Limited) also attendmeetings as observersOakton Services Pty Limited providesecretariat servicesMonitor and, where necessary,recommend improvements to:– risk management identificationand amelioration– internal control processes(including fraud control)– the financial reporting process– the functioning of the InternalAudit Unit– the external audit process– processes for monitoringcompliance with legislation,regulations and government policy– maintain an effective workingrelationship with the ANAONationalConsultativeCEO’srepresentative(Simon Kelso,A/g ManagerHumanResources)Members are selected by vote andrepresent:National Support Office, AmberLawson (Strategic CommunicationsOfficer) (until May 2010)Associates (Trish Zellner, Brisbane)Registrars (Athena Sikiotis, Melbourne)Client Services (John Green,Melbourne, and Carol McPherson,Lismore)Family Consultants (Kyall Shepherd,Melbourne)A representative from the Communityand Public Sector Union is also invitedto attend.Consultative forum for staff aboutissues with a national perspective,such as industrial democracy;security; the strategic objectivesof the Court; equal employmentopportunities; new technology;accommodation and amenities; andpersonnel and staffing policies andpractices.Delegates present staff views onissues that affect the managementand future direction of the Courtand provide feedback and briefingsto the workplace nationally.210 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Title Chair Members Terms of referenceStaffDevelopmentManager HumanResources(Simon Kelso,A/g)Registry Manager representative (GregJohannesen, North Queensland)Child Dispute Services (Paul Lodge,Sydney)Registrars (Debra Parker, Canberra)Client Services (Michelle Steiner,Sydney)Information Technology andCommunications Services (GlendaFrew)YEAG Member and FMCrepresentative (Amanda Morris,Associate, Parramatta)HR Representative, Workforce andPolicy Manager (Claire Golding)HR Secretariat (Robyn Birch)To identify, develop and/or developnational training and developmentinitiatives, policies and programs.PART 8 Appendix 10: COMMITTEESFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010211

PART 8Appendix 11: EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENTAppendix 11: External involvementThe Family Court has a number of strategies for strengthening its partnerships with clients and otherstakeholders within the family law system, such as legal practitioners, non-government organisations andgovernment agencies and departments.External stakeholders at the strategic level influence, either directly or indirectly, the direction of thefamily law system within Australia. They include:• the Attorney-General’s Department• other government departments and agencies• child welfare authorities• the Child Support Agency• legal services commissions and community legal centres• law societies and councils• community-based and non-government organisations• the Australian Federal Police.Relationships with these groups are managed either by the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, otherjudges on behalf of the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive Officer and/or other senior executives.There are a number of established channels through which external stakeholders may inform the Courtand affect its processes and client service delivery, including the following.Family Law CouncilThe Family Law Council, established by the Attorney-General under section 115 of the Family Law Act1975, confers with the Court in the course of its consideration of particular aspects of family law. TheCourt has judges appointed to the council and senior executives as observers at its meetings.Australian Institute of Family StudiesThe Australian Institute of Family Studies was established under section 114B of the Family Law Act andis a forum for exchange of information and research.Family Law section of the Law Council of AustraliaThe Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice meet quarterly with the Family Law Section of theLaw Council of Australia. There are regular liaison meetings between the state law societies and barassociations and each of the Court’s registries.Family Law ForumThe Chief Justice chairs the national Family Law Forum, which consists of representatives from the FamilyCourt of Australia, Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Law Council, the Family Law Section of the LawCouncil of Australia, National Legal Aid, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Families,212 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Agency, the Australian Institute of FamilyStudies, non-government organisations and community legal centres. The Family Law Forum meetsquarterly to discuss shared issues arising within the family law system.CommitteesIn addition to the Family Law Forum, a number of external stakeholders contribute to Court directionby contributing to or being members of various Court committees. For example, external members aremembers of the Court’s Magellan committee, the Audit and Risk Committee and the Family Law CourtsAdvisory Group. For more information on Court committees, see Appendix 10.Local registry consultationsDuring 2009–10, the Family law registries engaged with user groups including law societies, familylaw pathways networks, court user forums and community based organisations concerned with familysupport and the family law system. This consultation ensured that registries received regular feedbackabout users’ experiences of registry services and the courts and were able to improve the service systemand approach to clients.The aim of these consultative forums was also to ensure that the Court was well placed to makeeffective referrals to community-based services for clients who may require ongoing support. A particularfocus continued to be understanding the needs of new and emerging communities, some of which havedisproportionately high rates of separation and family conflict after settlement in Australia.PART 8 Appendix 11: EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENTThe registries were committed to advancing the Court’s understanding of the mental health needs of itsclients and to be well placed to respond by way of referral to those who may present with mental healthrisk factors.Following the release of a number of reports concerned with family violence, registries continued toengage with community-based organisations and other jurisdictions about best practice approaches tosupport those clients who are subject to, or fear violence from, their partner or other family members.Statements of Understanding were developed with various referral agencies such as RelationshipsAustralia, Centacare, Mensline and Lifeline.The Court continued to provide training and awareness programs for new staff to the Court, as well asrefresher training for existing staff through the integrated client service delivery program.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010213

Appendix 12: Judicial activitiesPART 8In addition to hearing and determining cases, the Family Court’s judges and judicial registrars activelycontribute to the development of the law both in Australia and internationally. This is achieved throughattending conferences and seminars, presenting papers, addressing academic institutions, professionalassociations and community-based organisations, meeting international delegations and liaising withjudicial colleagues around the world.Appendix 12: JUDICIAL ACTIVITIESConferencesMany judges and judicial registrars also serve as members of organising committees for conferences aswell as working in the community with a variety of legal and non-legal organisations.A summary of the Chief Justice’s activities in 2009–10 follows:Table 8.19 Conferences attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice, 2009–10Date Conference Paper delivered23 July 2009 2009 Costello Lecture, Melbourne It’s My Body, Isn’t It? Children, MedicalTreatment and Human Rights6 August 2009 The International Family Justice Judicial Conferencefor Common Law and Commonwealth Jurisdictions2009, Windsor, United Kingdom26 August 2009 5th World Congress on Family Law and Children’sRights, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada24 September2009Children’s Issues Forum: the Resolution of DisputesRelating to Children in Hong Kong, Victoria, HongKong2 October 2009 Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration,Family Violence Conference, Brisbane30 October 2009 New South Wales Legal Aid 2009 Family LawConference, Sydney3 November 2009 International Association for Court Administration4th International Conference, Istanbul, Turkey25 November200928 November2009Family Relationships Services Australia 2ndNational Conference, Sydney29th Annual Australian and New ZealandAssociation of Psychiatry, Psychology and LawCongress, Fremantle23 February 2010 Law Institute of Victoria ‘Serving Up Insights’breakfast, Melbourne24 March 2010 International Judicial Conference on Cross-BorderFamily Relocation, Washington DC, USAComments On Professor Patrick Parkinson’sArticle ‘Freedom Of Movement In An Era OfShared Parenting: The Differences In JudicialApproaches To Relocation (2008) 36 F L Rev145’Shared Parenting and the Family Court ofAustralia: What the Statistics Tell UsThe Australian Experience in the Establishmentof Specialised Family Court and Children’sDispute Resolution ProceduresBest Practice and Recent Experience in FamilyDispute ResolutionFuture DirectionsTransparency in Justice and Court Systems—arewe making progress?Towards Best Practice: The Family Court ofAustralia and Risk Assessment in ParentingCasesThe Changing Nature of Expert Evidence inFamily Court ProceedingsCollaboration: Adopting a Unified Approach toDispute ResolutionRelocation in Australia: An Update1 May 2010 14th Annual Family Law Intensive, Melbourne Opening Address14 May 2010 Independent Children’s Lawyers Conference, Hobart Independent Children’s Lawyers and FamilyViolence: A Family Court Perspective15 May 2010 Tasmanian Family Law Practitioners AssociationAnnual Conference, Hobart4 June 2010 47th Annual Association of Family and ConciliationCourts Conference, Denver, Colorado, USACharting a Course: Current and Future Changesin Family LawA Less Adversarial Process for a High VolumeCourt (with FM Altobelli)214 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Table 8.20 Chief Justice’s speaking engagements, 2009–10DateEvent29 July 2009 Opening of Leadership and Change Management Program at MA Leadership TrainingCentre for Women Ketua/ Wakil, Ciawi, Indonesia30 July 2009 Signing of an annex to a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chief Justice of theFederal Court of Australia and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia,Jakarta, Indonesia13 August 2009 Opening of ‘Advocacy in Family Law’ seminar, Sydney15 September 2009 Family law system reference group meeting, Canberra28 September 2009 Federal Magistrates Court plenary, Sydney5 October 2009 Family Pathways meeting, Melbourne9 November 2009 Family Court Judges’ Conference, Melbourne18 November 2009 White Ribbon breakfast, Melbourne20 November 2009 Launch of plaque commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Family Court bombings,Parramatta24 November 2009 Pre-conference workshop, Family Relationship Services Australia 2nd National Conference,Sydney26 November 2009 Family Court Registrars’ Conference, Melbourne1 December 2009 20th anniversary of CatholicCare’s family dispute resolution service, Sydney21 December 2009 Young lawyers presentation, Perth24 March 2010 ‘Australian Judicial Perspectives’, Washington DC30 April 2010 Australasian Institute of Judicial Information, Public Information Officers Conference,Melbourne20 May 2010 Family Pathways Network Conference, AlburyPART 8 Appendix 12: JUDICIAL ACTIVITIESOther judicial activitiesOther activities of the judges and judicial registrars of the Family Court in 2009–10 included thesepapers being presented:• ‘Mediation and Adjudication in Civil Proceedings’, International Convention of Legal Philosophy andLaw, Beijing• ‘Habitual residence under the Hague Child Abduction Convention in Australia: “coach and four” orchaise?’, International Child Abduction, Forced Marriage and Relocation Conference, London• ‘Religious Freedom and the Rights of the Child’, 5th World Congress on Family Law and Children’sRights, Halifax• ‘A Review of the Case Law 2009–10: An Update’, 10th Annual Family Law Intensive, Sydney (alsodelivered at the Family Law Intensive, Perth and the Family Law Intensive, Melbourne)• ‘The Role of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in Less Adversarial Trials and Magellan Proceedings’,Victoria Legal Aid National Independent Children’s Lawyer Training Course, Melbourne• ‘Lessons from the Duty List’, College of Law Advanced Family Law Weekend, Sydney • ‘Interim Applications and the Duty List’, Family Law Committee of the NSW Bar Association FamilyLaw Advocacy Series, Sydney.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010215

PART 8Appendix 12: JUDICIAL ACTIVITIESJudges and judicial registrars also presented papers at the International Bar Association Conference,Madrid; the College of Law Applied Family Law Masters course, Sydney; the Commission for Childrenand Young People and Child Guardian Child Safety and Family Court Interface Forum, Brisbane; theFamily Law Section of the Law Council of Australia Essentials Program, Melbourne; and the Family LawPractitioners Association Residential, Gold Coast.Justice Rose from the Sydney registry accepted an invitation to be a visiting lecturer at the ChinaUniversity of Political Science and Law and at the law school of the Renmin University of China in Beijing.Justice Rose’s lectures covered topics including the structure and operation of the Australian legalsystem, mediation and adjudication in civil proceedings, and case management.Judges and judicial registrars contribute to professional legal development through their membership ofprofessional and research-based associations. The Family Court has been consistently represented on theFamily Law Council since its establishment. During 2009–10 the Family Court’s judicial representativeson the Family Law Council were Deputy Chief Justice Faulks and Justice Watts from the Sydney registry.Justice May from the Brisbane registry is the Family Court’s representative on the Council and Board ofManagement of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration. Justice Strickland from the Adelaideregistry is the Family Court’s nominated director on the board of the Australian Institute of Family LawArbitrators and Mediators.Judges and judicial registrars are members of organisations including the International Bar Association;the Governing Council of the Judicial Conference of Australia; the National College of Judicial Education;the National Academic Committee of the College of Law; the Advisory Board, Family Law Practice for theNSW College of Law; Melbourne University Law School; Children’s Rights International; the Commissionfor Children and Young People and Child Guardian (Qld); the Centre for Children and Young People;CatholicCare; the Curran Access Children’s Foundation; and the Mercy Foundation.Judges and judicial registrars are also involved in the National Judicial Orientation Program and teachingfor other judicial education bodies throughout Australia, such as the Judicial College of Victoria. Judgesand judicial registrars regularly present to law societies and bar associations in their jurisdiction, as wellas holding informal meetings with members of the legal profession and participating in stakeholdermeetings such as the Magellan stakeholders meeting. Judges and judicial registrars are also often asked,and agree, to speak at secondary schools and law schools about particular topics (such as the LessAdversarial Trial and judgment writing) and about their work generally.Family Court judges and judicial registrars are also engaged in organising local, national andinternational conferences. During 2009–10 these included the Law Council of Australia’s FamilyLaw Section’s biennial conference, the Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration’s Family LawConference, the Judicial Congress of Australia’s 2010 Colloquium and preparatory work for the 6th WorldCongress on Family Law and Children’s Rights.Justice Bennett from the Melbourne registry is the Family Court’s Hague Child Abduction ConventionLiaison Judge. During 2009–10 Justice Bennett initiated contact with judges in countries including NewZealand, the United States, the Netherlands and Norway. Justice Bennett received contacts from judgesin countries including New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and theNetherlands.Five judges of the Family Court hold commissions as members of the Commonwealth AdministrativeAppeals Tribunal and some sat as members (including presiding members) during the 2009–10 financialyear.216 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Appendix 13: International cooperationIndonesia-Australia partnershipSee Part 2 for further information about the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Cooperation,including details of Indonesia’s first Access and Equity Study. The study was conducted as a collaborativeresearch project led by the Supreme Court of Indonesia with assistance from the Family Court andfunded by the Australian Government through the Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility(IALDF).Key findings of the study were that:• There is a high satisfaction rate amongst court clients of both the General and Religious Courts, with70 per cent of clients saying they would return to the court in future if they had similar legal issues.• A cycle of non-legal marriage and divorce exists for many PEKKA 1 female heads of household livingbelow the Indonesian poverty line. The failure to obtain legal documentation in relation to marriageand divorce is associated with 56 per cent of children from these marriages not obtaining birthcertificates.• A central principle of justice is that it be universally accessible. Unfortunately the poorest sectionsof Indonesian society face significant barriers in bringing family law cases to the courts. Nine outof 10 female heads of household living under the Indonesian poverty line surveyed were unable toaccess the courts for their divorce cases. The main barriers are financial and relate to court fees andtransportation costs to travel to the court.• Eighty-eight per cent of PEKKA members (female heads of household) surveyed, living under or closeto the Indonesian poverty line, would be more motivated to obtain a legal divorce if the court feeswere waived.• High transportation costs are a barrier to accessing the court especially for the rural poor who live agreater distance from the courts.• Over-estimation of the down-payment made to courts for divorce cases relative to the actual costof the case is a disincentive to justice seekers bringing their cases to court, particularly the poor.Reimbursement of the down-payment made to courts is important for all clients, but particularly forthe poor.PART 8 Appendix 13: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIONSince the Access and Equity Study was implemented, the Supreme Court of Indonesia has introduced thefollowing reforms that increase access to the courts, particularly in the family law cases referred to in thestudy:• Across the 343 Religious Courts in Indonesia (where 98 per cent of all divorce cases are heard), theSupreme Court has increased funding to allow more circuit courts in remote locations to occur. Thishas had a significant impact: a four-fold increase in the number of people living in remote areas ofIndonesia who have been able to access the Religious Courts over the last two years.• Similarly, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia has increased funding to all courts to allowfor the court fee to be waived where the party in a family law matter is economically disadvantaged.This has also had a significant impact: a ten-fold increase in the number of poor people able toaccess the Religious Courts in family law matters, the majority of these being women.1 PEKKA is the Program for Women Headed Households in Indonesia.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010217

PART 8• Further funding increases for courts across Indonesia (totalling approximately A$40 million) havebeen approved for the next five years through Presidential Regulation Number 5 of 2010, concerningthe National Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2010–14. This budget commitment from theIndonesian Government through the Supreme Court of Indonesia will support the further expansionof access to the Indonesian courts for the poor, including court fee waivers, circuit courts and legalaid. In this way, the Supreme Court is supporting the National Strategy on Access to Justice launchedin October 2009.Appendix 13: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIONPEKKA publication.218 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Appendix 14: International visitorsDuring 2009–10, the Court hosted visits from international delegations as follows:FijiFebruary 2010: Ms Salesia Racaca, Fijian Judicial Department, visited the Canberra registry to look at thehuman resource and client service practices of the Court.IndiaJanuary-February 2010: as part of the India-Australia Judicial Program, funded by AusAID and managedby the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court participated in a two-phase project with the SupremeCourt, High Courts, Local Courts and National Judicial Academy of India. The objective of the programis to promote efficiency in the management of cases and will focus on the judiciary’s philosophicalapproach to case management, as well as procedural reforms including the use of technology.In the first phase a delegation of 13 judges from India led by Chief Justice Balakrishnan visited theFederal Court and Family Court in Sydney. Discussions focussed on the role of courts in protecting rightsand promoting access to justice particularly for those vulnerable individuals and groups within criminaland family law.PART 8 Appendix 14: INTERNATIONAL VISITORSThe second phase involved a delegation led by Justice Bennett (Federal Court of Australia) and supportedby Justice Lander and Justice Greenwood (Federal Court), Justice Fowler (Family Court), Chief JudgeBlanch (Sydney District Court), and Professor Stone, Director for Comparative Constitutional Studies,Melbourne University visiting various courts in Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, and Kolkata and the NationalJudicial Academy in Bhopal. They observed proceedings and hosted discussions about the protection ofrights and access to justice.JapanJanuary 2010: a Japanese delegation visited the Sydney registry. It comprised Judge Hashiguchi Yoshinori,Kagoshima District Court of Japan (currently a visiting scholar at Sydney University Law School); JudgeSAKUTA Hiroyuki, acting Staff Attorney of Family Bureau, General Secretariat of Supreme Court of Japan;Mr FUJINO Akihiro, Chief of Project Section, 1st Division, Family Bureau, General Secretariat of SupremeCourt of Japan; and Ms Ayako HARA, Family Court Probation Officer General Secretariat of SupremeCourt of Japan.Discussions focused on the role of Independent Children’s Lawyers in family law matters, the lessadversarial trial, the conduct of family law proceedings in Australia and the role of family consultants.KoreaDecember 2009: a delegation from the Tongyeong Branch Court, Korea visited the Sydney registry. Thefocus was on client service initiatives including courtroom design, information technology and eFiling,services in relation to clients with concerns for their safety or family violence and the role of dutysolicitors in a court facility.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010219

Appendix 14: INTERNATIONAL VISITORSPART 8Richard Foster (CEO) and members of the Tongyeong Branch Court from KoreaThe delegation also observed a less adversarial trial and had discussions with Child Dispute Services togain a better understanding of the Court’s Child Responsive Program.SingaporeNovember 2009: Principal District Judge Foo Tuat Yien from the Subordinate Courts of Singapore visitedthe Sydney registry to view and discuss the less adversarial trial.SwedenSeptember 2009: nine members of the Committee on Civil Affairs (led by Deputy Chair, Ms IngerRené) of the Riksdag (Parliament of Sweden) and government officials visited the Sydney registry.The visit, organised by the Embassy of Sweden, focussed on matters concerning civil and family law.The delegation received an overview of family law in Australia, the less adversarial trial, child custodyarrangements, and the child responsive model, as well as briefings about pre-filing mediation andarbitration.United States of AmericaJuly 2009: a delegation from the University of Widener PA (chaired by Professor Alicia Kelly andorganised by Maxine Ever from the University of Technology Sydney) visited the Sydney registry toobserve the process of Australian courts and how they resolve contested children’s matters and propertymatters. The delegation also looked at the child responsive model and the process of the less adversarialtrial.220 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 8 Appendix 14: INTERNATIONAL VISITORSMembers of the Indian delegation who visited the Court in September 2009.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010221

Appendix 15: Contact detailsCHIEF JUSTICE’S CHAMBERSPART 8Appendix 15 CONTACT DETAILSOwen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts305 William StreetMelbourne VIC 3000(GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE’S CHAMBERSNigel Bowen Commonwealth Law CourtsCnr University Avenue and Childers StreetCanberra ACT 2600(GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)NATIONAL SUPPORT OFFICEChief Executive Officer15 London CircuitCanberra ACT 2601(GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)NATIONAL ENQUIRY CENTREThe National Enquiry Centre is the entry point for all telephone and email enquiries on Family Law Court(Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court) matters. The centre provides information and proceduraladvice, forms and brochures, and referrals to community and support services. National Enquiry Centrestaff cannot provide legal advice.PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2124Phone: 1300 352 000TTY: 1300 720 980International: +61 2 8892 8590Email: enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.auFamily Court website: www.familycourt.gov.auFamily Law Courts website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au222 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

FAMILY LAW REGISTRIESAustralian Capital TerritoryCanberraNew South WalesAlburyDubboLismoreNigel Bowen Commonwealth Law CourtsCnr University Ave and Childers StreetCanberra ACT 2600(GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)Level 1, 463 Kiewa StreetAlbury NSW 2640(PO Box 914, Albury NSW 2640)Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra StreetsDubbo NSW 2830(PO Box 1567, Dubbo NSW 2830)Level 2, 29–31 Molesworth StreetLismore NSW 2480(PO Box 9, Lismore NSW 2480)PART 8 Appendix 15 CONTACT DETAILSNewcastleParramattaSydneyWollongongNorthern TerritorryAlice SpringsDarwin61 Bolton StreetNewcastle NSW 2300(PO Box 9991, Newcastle NSW 2300)Garfield Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts1–3 George StreetParramatta NSW 2123(PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2123)Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts97–99 Goulburn StreetSydney NSW 2000(GPO Box 9991, Sydney NSW 2001)Level 1, 43 Burelli StreetWollongong NSW 2500(PO Box 825, Wollongong NSW 2500)Level 1, Centrepoint Building,Hartley StreetAlice Springs NT 0870(PO Box 9991 NT 0871)TCG Building80 Mitchell StreetDarwin NT 0800(GPO Box 9991, Darwin NT 0800)Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010223

QueenslandPART 8Appendix 15 CONTACT DETAILSBrisbaneCairnsRockhamptonTownsvilleSouth AustraliaHarry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts119 North QuayBrisbane QLD 4000(PO Box 9991, Brisbane QLD 4001)Level 3 and 4, 104 Grafton StreetCairns QLD 4870(PO Box 9991, Cairns QLD 4870)46 East Street (Cnr Fitzroy Street)Rockhampton QLD 4700(PO Box 9991, Rockhampton QLD 4700)Level 2, Commonwealth Centre,143 Walker StreetTownsville QLD 4810(PO Box 9991, Townsville QLD 4810)AdelaideTasmaniaHobartLauncestonVictoriaDandenongMelbourneWestern AustraliaPerthRoma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts3 Angas StreetAdelaide SA 5000(GPO Box 9991, Adelaide SA 5001)Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts39–41 Davey StreetHobart TAS 7000(GPO Box 9991, Hobart TAS 7001)Level 3, ANZ BuildingCnr Brisbane and George StreetsLaunceston TAS 7250(PO Box 9991, Launceston TAS 7250)53–55 Robinson StreetDandenong VIC 3175(PO Box 9991, Dandenong VIC 3175)Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts305 William StreetMelbourne VIC 3000(GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)Family Court of Western Australia150 Terrace RoadPerth WA 6000(GPO Box 9991, Perth WA 6848)08 9224 8222224 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

PART 9INDEXES

PART 9: INDEXESList of requirementsDescription Requirement Page ofthis reportLetter of transmittal Mandatory iiiTable of contents Mandatory 1Index Mandatory 227Glossary Mandatory 8Contact officer(s) Mandatory iiInternet home page address and Internet address for report Mandatory iiYear in reviewReview by Chief Justice Mandatory 11Summary of significant issues and developments Suggested 20Organisational overviewOverview of performance and financial results Suggested 37Outlook for following year Suggested 20Significant issues and developments – portfolio departments Suggested N/AOverview description of Court Mandatory 17Role and functions Mandatory 18Organisational structure Mandatory 98Outcome and program structure Mandatory 35Where outcome and program structures differ from PB Statements/PAES or other portfolio Mandatory 38statements accompanying any other additional appropriation bills (other portfoliostatements), details of variation and reasons for changePortfolio structure - portfolio departments` Mandatory N/AReport on performanceReview of performance in relation to programs and contributions to outcomes Mandatory 37Actual performance in relation to deliverables and KPIs set out in PB Statements/PAES or Mandatory 36other portfolio statementsPerformance of purchaser/ provider arrangementsSuggested (if128applicable)Where performance targets differ from the PBS/ PAES, details of both former and new Mandatory Nil to reporttargets, and reasons for the changeNarrative discussion and analysis of performance Mandatory 36–38Trend information Mandatory 40–70Significant changes in nature of principal functions/ services Suggested 126Factors, events or trends influencing Family Court performance Suggested 35–70Contribution of risk management in achieving objectives Suggested 112Social justice and equity impacts Suggested 58Performance against service charter customer service standards, complaints data, and the If applicable,65Court’s response to complaintsmandatoryDiscussion and analysis of the department’s financial performance Mandatory 128PART 9 INDEXESFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010227

Description Requirement Page ofthis reportDiscussion of any significant changes from the prior year or from budget. Suggested 151Agency resource statement and summary resource tables by outcomes Mandatory 189Developments since the end of the financial year that have affected or may significantly If applicable,20affect the Court’s operations or financial results in futuremandatoryPART 9INDEXESMANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITYCorporate governanceStatement of the main corporate governance practices in place Mandatory 97Names of the senior executive and their responsibilities Suggested 102Senior management committees and their roles Suggested 109Corporate and operational planning and associated performance reporting and review Suggested 111Approach adopted to identifying areas of significant financial or operational risk Suggested 112Agency heads are required to certify that their agency comply with the Commonwealth Fraud Mandatory 114Control GuidelinesPolicy and practices on the establishment and maintenance of appropriate ethical standards Suggested 114How nature and amount of remuneration for SES officers is determined Suggested 124External scrutinySignificant developments in external scrutiny Mandatory 115Judicial decisions and decisions of administrative tribunals Mandatory 115Reports by the Auditor-General, a Parliamentary Committee or the CommonwealthMandatory 115OmbudsmanManagement of human resourcesAssessment of effectiveness in managing and developing human resources to achieve Court Mandatory 120objectivesWorkforce planning, staff turnover and retention Suggested 121Impact and features of enterprise or collective agreements, determinations, common law Suggested 123contracts and AWAsTraining and development undertaken and its impact Suggested 125Occupational health and safety performance Suggested 198Productivity gains Suggested 126Statistics on staffing Mandatory 191Enterprise or collective agreements, determinations, common law contracts and AWAs Mandatory 195Performance pay Mandatory 196228 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Description Requirement Page ofthis reportAssets managementAssessment of effectiveness of assets managementIf applicable,mandatoryAssessment of purchasing against core policies and principles Mandatory 130ConsultantsSummary statement—the number of new consultancy services and actual expenditure; and Mandatory 131the number of active ongoing consultancy contracts and total expenditureContract information statement re the AusTender website Mandatory 131Australian National Audit Office access clauses Mandatory 130Contracts exempt from the AusTender website Mandatory 130Commonwealth Disability StrategyReport on performance in implementing the Commonwealth Disability Strategy Mandatory 206Financial statementsFinancial statements Mandatory 137Other informationOccupational health and safety Mandatory 198Freedom of Information Mandatory 200Advertising and market research and statement on advertising campaigns Mandatory 203Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance Mandatory 204Grant programs Mandatory 205Correction of material errors in previous annual reportIf applicable,134mandatoryList of requirements Mandatory 227133PART 9 INDEXESFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010229

Alphabetical indexAPART 9INDEXESAbbreviationsacronyms and, 7Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Committee, 105, 106, 209highlights of work of, 108–9Abuserisk of, cases involving, 63–4Access and Equity Study 2007-2009, 21–2Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010introduction into Parliament, 11Acronymsabbreviations, and, 7Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 101–2, 115Adoption, 26Advertising, 203Agnew, StevenPolicy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Agreement making, 123, 195–7Aldridge & Keaton, 88–9Altobelli, Federal Magistrate, 19Andrew, Stephen, 103, 104Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105regional and registry management structure, single, 118Appeals, 73–82administration of, 74Appeal Division, 73caseload, 58demographics, 78–80directions hearings, 78finalised, age of, 81High Court of Australia, to, 81issues, 78–80judges assigned to Appeal Division, 99notices of appeal, 76–7trend in, 74Applications in a Case, 36, 39clearance rate, 45finalisation, number of, 42–3finalise applications, time to, 53time pending, 48Appointmentsjudicial officer, 102Assets management, 133–4Association of Family and Conciliation Courts conference, 12, 19230 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Auditinternal, 112Audit and Risk Committee, 110, 112, 210, 213Auditor-General, 115Auscript, 31–2Austin, Justice Stewart, 100, 102Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)PEKKA research project, support for, 13Australian Institute of Family Studies, 212Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms by, 13Australian Law Reform Commissionconsultation paper by, 13BBacklog indicators, 47Bankruptcy Act 1966, 18Barry, Justice James Patrick O’Hara, 100, 101Baumann, Federal MagistrateFamily Law Courts Advisory Group, 109Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Bell, Justice Graham Rodney, 100Benchbook Committee, 105, 106, 207Benjamin, Justice Robert James Charles, 100, 102Bennett, Justice Victoria Jane, 100Black, Chief Justice, 12Boland, Justice Jennifer Margaret, 101Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 99Brown, Justice Sally Elizabeth, 102Bryant, Chief Justice Diana, 19, 37, 99, 100activities, judicial, 214–6Appeal Division, judge assigned to, 99appointment, 99Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 109Policy Advisory Committee, Chief Justice’s, 104–5review, Chief Justice’s, 9–14transmittal, letter of, iiiBudgetcombined, of courts, 11Burr, Justice Rodney Keith, 100PART 9 INDEXESCCase management, 19clearance rate, 44–5Cases pendingperformance indicators, key, 35–6Cassidy, Federal MagistratePolicy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010231

PART 9INDEXESChief Executive Officer, 97, 102Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207eMessages, 111powers, 97Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group, 109, 210Chief Justice, 19, 37, 99activities, judicial, 214–6chambers, 222eMessage, 111Policy Advisory Committee, Chief Justice’s, 104–5review, Chief Justice’s, 9–14Child Responsive Program, 20, 119–20Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, 18Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, 18Children’s art competition, 29Chisholm, Professor Richard AMFamily Courts Violence Review by, 13Christmann, Marianne, 119Client Service Senior Managers’ Group, 29Client servicesrestructure, 119Cohen, Justice John Morris, 101Coleman, Justice Ian Roy, 101Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 99Collier, Justice David John, 101Committees, Judicial, 104–6, 207–9Commonwealth Courts Portal, 24use of, 25Commonwealth Disability Strategy, 127, 206Commonwealth Ombudsman, 115Complaintsadministration, 69conduct, relating to judicial, 56–7decisions, relating to judicial, 57delay in delivery of judgment, relating to, 57judicial services, relating to, 56–7management, 68–9registry services, 70Conferences, 214Consent ordersapplications for, 36, 39clearance rate, of applications for, 45finalisations, number of, 43–4finalise applications, time to, 53time pending, 49Corporate governance, 97Costs Committee, 105Cotta, James, 119232 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Crew, Jamie, 119Crisford, Justice Jane, 101Cronin, Justice Paul, 100Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Crooks, Justice Stephen Dexter, 101Cultural Diversity Committee, 105, 106, 208DData Quality Governance Framework, 31Dawe, Justice Christine Elizabeth, 100, 102De facto relationship laws, 20Delaydelivery of judgment, complaints relating to, 57Deputy Chief Justice, 99chambers, 222Dessau, Justice Linda Marion, 100District Court of New South Wales, 115Donald, Federal MagistratePolicy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105PART 9 INDEXESEEcologically sustainable development, 204eFiling, 25Committee, 105, 106, 209technologies, electronic, 27Enterprise agreements, 123–5Environment, 27performance, environmental, 204Equal shared parental responsibility, 20Ethical standards, 114Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law ReformsAustralian Institute of Family Studies, by, 13Executive DirectorsClient Services, 103Corporate, 104Information, Communication and Technology Services, 104External consultants, 130FFamily consultants, 118Family Court of Australiaadministration, merger with Federal Magistrates Court administration, 11, 32, 118case mix, 38caseload, attrition and settlement trends, 40Commonwealth Courts Portal as initiative of, 24complexity of cases before, 12, 40, 58Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010233

PART 9INDEXESdefinition, 97direction, future, of, 12establishment, 17family violence, response to issues of, 13goal, 17initiatives of, 24–32international profile, 12jurisdiction, 18outcome, 19, 35output reporting, transitioning to program reporting from, 35overview of, 17–22PEKKA research project, support for, 13performance indicators, key, 35–6program, 19, 35protocol on work division, 26purpose, 17registries, 17, 22service locations, 23structure, organisational, 98vision, 17visitors, international, 22work, programs of, 18Family Court of Western Australiajudicial officers of, 101Family Courts Violence ReviewChisholm, by Professor Richard, AM, 13Family lawexternal reports on, 13section, of Law Council of Australia, 212violence in, 13, 63–4Family Law Council, 212Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System by, 13Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 109Family Law Forum, 212Family Violence Committee, 13, 105, 106, 209highlights of work of, 107–8Family Violence – Improving Legal Frameworksconsultation paper, 13Family Violence Strategy, 26Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice John, 99, 100Appeal Division, judge assigned to, 99Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104Federal CourtCommonwealth Courts Portal as initiative of, 24Federal courtsprotocol on work division, 26restructure, proposed, 11, 116234 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Federal Magistrates Courtadministration, merger with Family Court administration, 11, 32, 118Commonwealth Courts Portal as initiative of, 24protocol on work division, 26restructure, proposed, 11, 116Feedback, client, 68Filipello, Angela, 103Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Final ordersapplications for, 36, 39clearance rate, of applications for, 45finalisations of cases, number of, 42–3finalise applications, time to, 52issues sought on cases, 39time pending, 48Finalisationsage of finalised applications, 51–2appeals, age of finalised, 81number of, 42–4percentage of cases finalised, 51volumes of, 37, 38Financial cases, 38Financial management, 128–30Financial risk, 112Finn, Justice Mary Madeleine, 100, 101Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 99Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104First instance trials, 40cases finalised at, 41Flohm, Justice Robyn Sylvia, 102Foster, Mr Richard, 102Acting Chief Executive Officer of Federal Magistrates Court, appointment as, 11Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 109Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Fowler, Justice Stuart Grant, 101international engagements, 12Fraudcontrol certification, 114prevention and control, 113Freedom of information, 200–2Full Courtsittings, 74PART 9 INDEXESGGershon review, 20Gibson, Dianne, 103Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010235

Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Glossarycourt-specific terms, of, 8Gregory, Bob, 119HPART 9INDEXESHague Convention, 18Harriott, Grahame, 103High Court of Australiaappeals to, 81Human resourcesmanagement of, 120workforce planning, 121IImproving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law SystemFamily Law Council, by, 13Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition, 21, 217Information and Communication TechnologyCommittee, 105, 106, 110, 209review of Australian Government’s use of, 116–7Information Awareness week, 31Information management, 30Information Quality Plan, 31International cooperation, 217International Judicial Conference on Cross Border Family Relocation, 12JJohnston, Judicial Registrar William Philip, 101Jordan, Justice Brian Edward, 102Judgmentsaccessibility of public to, 85significant, noteworthy and, 85–94Judicial Development Committee, 105, 106Judicial Registrars, 101Judicial Remuneration Committee, 105, 208Judiciary, 99–102, 123, 194activities, judicial, 214–6administration of court, responsibility for, 97committees, judicial, 104–6complaints relating to judicial services, 56–7conduct, complaints relating to judicial, 56docket, judicial, 19Family Court of Australia, judicial officers of, 99–102Family Court of Western Australia, judicial officers of, 101judicial support review, 119236 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

loss, net of judges, 36, 37, 41–2, 51performance indicators, key, of judicial services, 36, 37, 38retirement of six judges, 12KKelly, ElizabethFamily Law Courts Advisory Group, 109Kelso, Simon, 119Kostres & Kostres, 87–8LLaw Reform Committee, 105, 207highlights of work of, 107Le Poer Trench, Justice Mark Frederick, 101Legal services expenditure, 132–3Less adversarial trials, 19Loughnan, Judicial Registrar Ian James, 101PART 9 INDEXESMMagellan cases, 18, 26, 63–4Magellan Committee, 105, 208, 213Market research, 203Marriage Act 1961, 18Martin, Justice Carolyn Elvina, 101Marvel & Marvel (No. 2), 93–4May, Justice Michelle, 100Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 99McClelland, Hon Robert MP, 20, 116Moncreiff, Justice Simon, 101Monteith, Justice Alexander Robert, 101Moore, Justice Colleen Ann, 102Murphy, Justice Peter John, 100Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Murray, Kristen, 122Mushin, Justice Nahum, 100, 102NNational Case Management Committee, 106, 208National Consultative Committee, 110, 210National Enquiry Centre (NEC), 36, 67, 222performance, summary of, 65, 68New South Wales Law Reform Commissionconsultation paper by, 13Non-English speaking backgroundsservices for people from, 28Norman & Norman, 92–3Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010237

OO’Reilly, Justice Elizabeth Madonna, 100O’Ryan, Justice Stephen Richard, 101Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 100Occupational health and safety, 198–9Outcomesresources for, 190PART 9INDEXESPPABX phone system, 31Parenting cases, 38, 59–62Partington & Cade (No. 2), 89–90Pascoe, Chief Federal MagistrateFamily Law Courts Advisory Group, 109Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Paxton, Jenny, 122PEKKA research project, 13, 217Pending applications, 47age of, 47Penny, Justice Julienne, 102Portfolio Budget Statementsstrategic initiatives in, 19Potkonyak and Ors v Commonwealth, 115Principal Child Dispute Services, 103Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Principal Registrar, 103Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Procurement and Risk Management section, 130Property Management Committee, 106, 110, 208Purchasing, 130RReader’s Guide, 6Registrars, 118Registries, 17, 22, 223–4complaints relating to registry services, 70compliments, 70counter enquiries, 66document processing, 67local registry consultations, 213performance, summary of, 65, 66regional and registry management structure, single, 118services, 64Relationships Australia, 13, 26Representationstatus of litigants, 58Research and Ethics Committee, 106, 208238 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Reserved judgments, 37delivered, age of, 54delivery times, 36, 55outstanding, age of, 49–51time for delivery, complaints relating to, 57Resource statement, 189Retirementsjudicial officer, 102Reynolds, Jane, 119Riethmuller, Federal MagistratePolicy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Risk management, 112Rose, Justice Peter Isaac, 101international engagements, 12Rules Committee, 106, 207highlights of work of, 106–7Ryan, Justice Judith Maureen, 100Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207PART 9 INDEXESSSelf-represented litigants (SRL), 58Semple review, 117Senate estimate committee hearings, 117Senior executives, 102Senior management committees, 109–10, 210highlights, 110–1Service Charters, 115Service Commitments, 115Service delivery, 30Shared parentingstatistics, 20, 59–62Shearer, Raelene, 122Simpson & Brockman, 91Staffprofile, staffing, 123, 191–3retention strategies, 121rewards, recognition and, 122training, learning and development, 125–7turnover, 122workforce planning, 121Staff development, 27Committee, 110, 111, 211Stevenson, Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood, 101Strahan & Strahan, 85–6Strategic plan, 111Strickland, Justice Steven, 102Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 100Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010239

TPART 9Technologycourtroom, 31Thackray, Justice Stephen Ernest, 101Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 100Thomas, Greg, 119Transcription services, 31Transmittalletter of, iiiVINDEXESViolenceCourt’s response to, 13family law, in, 13, 20family violence training package, 26Visitorsinternational, 219–21WWaddy, Justice Lloyd, 102Warnick, Justice Bernard John, 102Warren, Chief Justice, 12Watson, Andrew, 122Watts, Justice Garry Allan, 101Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 109Whitehouse & Whitehouse, 86–7YYoung Employees Advisory Group, 27Young, Justice Peter, 100240 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010