AnnuAl RepoRt - Family Court of Australia
AnnuAl RepoRt - Family Court of Australia
AnnuAl RepoRt - Family Court of Australia
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
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 <strong>Court</strong>’s caseload 40Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2005–06 to 2009–10 41Figure 3.6 Number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Acronyms and abbreviationsAASB <strong>Australia</strong>n Accounting Standards BoardABGR <strong>Australia</strong>n Building Greenhouse RatingAMMember <strong>of</strong> the Order <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>ANAO <strong>Australia</strong>n National Audit OfficeAOOfficer <strong>of</strong> the Order <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>APS<strong>Australia</strong>n Public ServiceATSI Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAWA <strong>Australia</strong>n Workplace AgreementBAU business as usualCEIChief Executive InstructionsCEO Chief Executive OfficerCJChief JusticeCSSMG Client Services Senior Managers GroupCthCommonwealthDCJDeputy Chief JusticeDVD digital video discELExecutive Level <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Public ServiceFAIM Fellow <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> ManagementFLC<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>sFLIS<strong>Family</strong> Law Information ServiceFMA Act Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997FMFederal MagistrateFMC Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>FOIfreedom <strong>of</strong> informationGSTgoods and services taxICTinformation and communications technologyIAPJT Indonesia <strong>Australia</strong> Partnership for JusticeITinformation technologyMOU Memorandum <strong>of</strong> UnderstandingNEC National Enquiry CentrePSM Public Service MedalRFDReserve Force DecorationSESSenior Executive Service <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Public ServiceYEAG Young Employees Advisory Group<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> within the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal <strong>Court</strong>.When the High <strong>Court</strong> struck down the existing Military<strong>Court</strong> 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 (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Restructure andOther Measures) Bill 2010 which progresses the originalproposal whereby the family law component <strong>of</strong> theFederal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> would merge with the <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> which would comprise two Divisions, the Appellateand Superior Division, and the General Division. Theproposal under this Bill recommends the FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong> be retained to continue to hear workunder its general federal law jurisdiction. 1PART 1 CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s administrationIn the last Annual Report I reported that the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>s hadagreed to merge their administration into one administration and to this end Mr Richard Foster PSMwas appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. By the end <strong>of</strong> the2008–09 financial year the establishment <strong>of</strong> one administration for the courts was virtually completeand the last 12 months have seen a complete integration <strong>of</strong> the administration <strong>of</strong> the two courts,save for those which require independent statutory retention.One <strong>of</strong> the major achievements in the last 12 months with the courts’ administration has been thecapacity to review the resources <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> thecourts to keep expenditure as far as possible within budget. As part <strong>of</strong> this exercise, for the first timea joint meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives from the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> was heldshortly before 30 June to identify areas <strong>of</strong> potential cost savings for both courts.1 At the time <strong>of</strong> publication <strong>of</strong> this Report Parliament had been prorogued and the Bill as introduced, lapsed.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201011
PART 1CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEWChallenges andfuture direction <strong>of</strong>the <strong>Court</strong>The balance <strong>of</strong> family law workhas evolved significantly overthe past several years, withmost family law applicationsnow filed in the FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong>. This hasenabled the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>to become a smaller, morespecialised court that generallydeals with appeals and themost complex range <strong>of</strong> familylaw cases. The complexity <strong>of</strong>the cases that are now beforethe <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> theSupreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Victoria (left) and Chief Justice Black <strong>of</strong> the Federal <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> (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 <strong>of</strong> six judges in the 2009–10 year with one replacement. The departure <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>) will be managedwithin the one court.International pr<strong>of</strong>ileThroughout 2009–10 the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> isregarded as important. In February this year I attended the International Judicial Conference on CrossBorder <strong>Family</strong> Relocation in Washington which was run by the US State Department and the HaguePrivate International Law Secretariat. This event was <strong>of</strong> significance as more than 50 judges fromcountries including North America, Europe, South America, India, Pakistan, <strong>Australia</strong> and New Zealandagreed upon a number <strong>of</strong> principles about the determination <strong>of</strong> international relocation cases. I alsoattended the Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> and Conciliation <strong>Court</strong>s conference in Denver, USA in early June 2010.Other significant engagements throughout 2009–10 included Justices Rose and Fowler representing the<strong>Court</strong> in China and India respectively. Justice Rose has given several papers in China on processes in the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, particularly the less adversarial trial and Justice Fowler joined a delegation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>njudges who travelled to India late last year to consult with other Indian judges and administrators.12 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
In addition, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the <strong>Australia</strong>n Agency for International Development (AusAID) hasprovided a significant amount <strong>of</strong> support to a research project which was undertaken in collaborationwith the Indonesian Supreme <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>which reviewed violence and family law and the third report released on that day made an evaluation <strong>of</strong>the legislative changes that were made in 2006 to the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act. Those reports included:PART 1 CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW• The Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the 2006 <strong>Family</strong> Law Reforms by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies• The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>s Violence Review, conducted by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Richard Chisholm AM, and• Improving Responses to <strong>Family</strong> Violence in the <strong>Family</strong> Law System, conducted by the <strong>Family</strong> LawCouncil.• A consultation paper by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law ReformCommission — <strong>Family</strong> Violence — Improving Legal Frameworks.The <strong>Court</strong>’s response to issues <strong>of</strong> family violenceIn response to the above reviews, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> expanded the membership <strong>of</strong> its <strong>Family</strong> ViolenceCommittee to include representatives from the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. This joint committee is in theprocess <strong>of</strong> evaluating and updating the <strong>Family</strong> Violence Strategic Plan which is the <strong>Court</strong>’s operationalplan that assists registry staff to deal with safety issues in cases where family violence is identified. The<strong>Court</strong>’s <strong>Family</strong> Violence Best Practice Principles, which are used by judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers 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 <strong>Court</strong> contributed to a DVD training package which is being commissioned by the Attorney General’sDepartment. Its objective is to improve consistency in the handling <strong>of</strong> cases involving family violence andensure pr<strong>of</strong>essionals are properly equipped to work with families at risk.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201013
CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEWPART 1Foyer in the <strong>Court</strong>’s Sydney registry.14 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 2Overview <strong>of</strong> the court
OVERVIEW OF THE COURTAbout the <strong>Court</strong>The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, through its specialist judges and staff, assists <strong>Australia</strong>ns to resolve theirmost complex legal family disputes.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> is a superior court <strong>of</strong> record established by Parliament in 1975 underChapter 3 <strong>of</strong> the Constitution. It commenced operations on 5 January 1976 and consists <strong>of</strong> a ChiefJustice, a Deputy Chief Justice and other judges. The <strong>Court</strong> maintains registries in all <strong>Australia</strong>n statesand territories except Western <strong>Australia</strong>.GoalThe <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong>separating families.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTPurposeThe purpose <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>, as <strong>Australia</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> are those that:• are prescribed by legislation• enable and support judges to determine cases, and• meet duty <strong>of</strong> care requirements.VisionThe <strong>Court</strong>’s vision provides for:• putting children and families first in the design and delivery <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> services.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201017
JurisdictionThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> is a superior court <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> sexual abuseor serious physical abuse <strong>of</strong> a child (Magellan cases); family violence and/or mental health issueswith other complexities; multiple parties; complex cases where orders sought would have the effect<strong>of</strong> preventing a parent from communicating with or spending time with a child; multiple expertwitnesses; complex questions <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> complex interests in trust or corporatestructures, including minority interests, multiple expert witnesses, complex questions <strong>of</strong> law and/or jurisdictional issues (including accrued jurisdiction) or complex issues concerning superannuation(such as complex valuations <strong>of</strong> defined benefit superannuation schemes).The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> workTo ensure the <strong>Court</strong> fulfils its stated purpose, it has four programs <strong>of</strong> work:• maintaining an environment that enables judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers to make determinations• provision <strong>of</strong> effective and efficient registry services• corporate management <strong>of</strong> resources, and• effective information and communication technologies.Outcome and programNEC staff member talks with aclient on the telephone.The <strong>Court</strong>’s outcome and program framework sets out its commitments to thegovernment. Each year details <strong>of</strong> the framework are outlined in the PortfolioBudget Statements, along with relevant performance information. Governmentoutcomes are the intended results, impacts or consequences <strong>of</strong> actions by thegovernment on the <strong>Australia</strong>n 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
OutcomeThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s outcome is described below.As <strong>Australia</strong>’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and providenational coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.ProgramThe <strong>Court</strong> has a single program under which all services are provided:Provision <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s program objective is to support <strong>Australia</strong>n 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 <strong>Australia</strong>n couples and familiesthrough the determination <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s 2009–10 Portfolio Budget Statements identified a number <strong>of</strong> specific initiatives that the<strong>Court</strong> would be progressing in 2009–10. Each <strong>of</strong> these is reported here.Case managementCase management has been the focus <strong>of</strong> significant reforms in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> during the last twodecades. The developments in case management have provided the basis for the <strong>Court</strong> to implement theless adversarial approach for the management <strong>of</strong> all parenting cases and to establish a judicial docketfor all cases.The judicial docket, introduced and rolled out in all <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> registries in 2007, gives individualjudges responsibility for managing their own cases from the time the case is docketed to finalisation<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> cases in a more efficient way.Less adversarial trialsDuring 2009–10, the less adversarial trial was fully implemented in all <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> registries.Distribution <strong>of</strong> the less adversarial trial education package, launched in 2008–09, continued. Thepackage has proved to be a popular tool amongst legal pr<strong>of</strong>essionals 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 <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> and Conciliation<strong>Court</strong>s conference in Denver, USA in June 2010. The workshop explored whether and to what extentelements <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s processes into their case management systems.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>) in property andmaintenance cases. Since then, ongoing staff training and education has occurred.Developments since the end <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong> that relate to the intended restructure <strong>of</strong> the federal courts.Outlook for 2010–11In 2010–11, certain external factors may impact on the <strong>Court</strong>. In particular:• On 24 May 2010, the Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP announced theGovernment’s decision on the future <strong>of</strong> the federal courts. During 2010–11 the <strong>Court</strong> will beawaiting the progress <strong>of</strong> the proposed legislation. See Parts 3 and 6 for further discussion.• The continuation <strong>of</strong> the development and implementation <strong>of</strong> government-wide information andcommunication technology approaches, following the Gershon review. See Part 6 for more detail.• A substantial body <strong>of</strong> work around family violence that includes updating and ensuring thecontinuation <strong>of</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s family violence strategy, particularly in light <strong>of</strong> variousexternal reviews concerning family violence that were released in 2009–10. See Part 6 for moredetail.Shared parenting statisticsThe reforms to Part VII <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975, introduced by the <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment (SharedParental Responsibility) Act 2006, were wide-ranging. Among the most significant <strong>of</strong> those reformswas the introduction <strong>of</strong> a rebuttable presumption <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the child who is the subject <strong>of</strong> a parenting dispute. As aresult <strong>of</strong> the reforms, the factors are now divided into ‘primary’ and ‘additional’ considerations.From the start <strong>of</strong> the legislation the Chief Justice decided that the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> mattersthat come to court but in which the parties reach their own agreement without a decision by a judge.The collection and analysis <strong>of</strong> that data has been complex and this year is the first in which the <strong>Court</strong> hasbeen able to present comparative data over the first three years <strong>of</strong> the legislation being in operation.20 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Part 3 <strong>of</strong> this report, Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance, contains the data. It shows that when a child is notgiven significant time with a parent, the reasons <strong>of</strong>ten have to do with violence and abuse (includingsubstance abuse), or result from mental health problems affecting a parent.International cooperationIndonesia <strong>Australia</strong> Partnership for Justice TransitionThe Indonesia <strong>Australia</strong> Partnership for Justice Transition (IAPJT) is a joint Indonesian and <strong>Australia</strong>nGovernment initiative aimed at strengthening the capacity <strong>of</strong> Indonesian government institutions andcivil society to promote legal reform as well as protect human rights. From April 2004 to December 2009,the predecessor <strong>of</strong> the IAPJT, the Indonesia <strong>Australia</strong> Legal Development Facility supported a broadprogram <strong>of</strong> activities in the area <strong>of</strong> access to justice/ judicial reform, human rights, anti-corruption andtrans-national crime.A Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Understanding (MOU) on Judicial Cooperation between the Federal <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Australia</strong>, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Indonesia (MA) supports the ongoingactivities between the <strong>Australia</strong>n 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 <strong>Court</strong>s <strong>of</strong>Indonesia. 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 <strong>Court</strong>s, and supporting the Religious <strong>Court</strong>s with further development <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Indonesia, the Federal <strong>Court</strong> and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. Theserelationships have allowed detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> problems facing the courts to be discussed frankly andstrategic responses to be developed and evaluated. The outcomes <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> has worked with the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Indonesia, the Religious<strong>Court</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Indonesia and the General <strong>Court</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Indonesia, judges and registry staff in both Indonesia and<strong>Australia</strong> to review key aspects <strong>of</strong> client service delivery and consider possible improvements. The keyresults <strong>of</strong> this court-to-court engagement include:• the development <strong>of</strong> a Religious <strong>Court</strong> jurisdiction website (www.badilag.net)• individual websites for 26 <strong>of</strong> the 29 High Religious <strong>Court</strong>s and 218 <strong>of</strong> the 343 first instance religiouscourts with information on court schedules, fees and court procedures publication <strong>of</strong> court feeinformation. This work has introduced a new level <strong>of</strong> transparency to Indonesian courts• a database <strong>of</strong> decisions <strong>of</strong> the High Religious <strong>Court</strong>s, launched by the Chief Justices <strong>of</strong> the Supreme<strong>Court</strong> and the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> in February 2008, has more than 1700 High Religious <strong>Court</strong> decisionsonline (see www.asianlii.org or www.badilag.net)• increased awareness <strong>of</strong> how poverty creates barriers to accessing the mandatory family lawjurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the religious courts for Indonesian Muslims, and• the Access and Equity Study 2007–2009, the first in Indonesia.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201021
The Access and Equity Study was conducted as a collaborative research project led by the Supreme <strong>Court</strong><strong>of</strong> Indonesia with assistance from the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and funded by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government throughthe Indonesia <strong>Australia</strong> Legal Development Facility (IALDF).PART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTAppendix 12 has further detail, including:• an overview <strong>of</strong> the key findings <strong>of</strong> the study• an overview <strong>of</strong> new policies and reforms being introduced by the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s work continued to be recognised internationally with <strong>of</strong>ficial visitors fromFiji, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Sweden and the United States <strong>of</strong> America, looking at differentaspects <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s work.Appendix 13 contains more information about each <strong>of</strong> the delegations.<strong>Court</strong> service locationsThere are 19 family law registries in locations in every <strong>Australia</strong>n state and territory, except Western<strong>Australia</strong>. <strong>Family</strong> law registries provide services to both the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and the FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and are staffed permanently. In addition to sitting in its principal locations,the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> conducts judicial, registrar and family consultant circuits according to the schedulespublished on its website at www.familycourt.gov.au.22 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Table 2.1<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> service locationsLocation Judge/s Registrar/s <strong>Family</strong>consultantsClientservicesJudicialcircuitRegistrarcircuit<strong>Family</strong>consultantcircuitSouth <strong>Australia</strong> / 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 / <strong>Australia</strong>n Capital TerritoryCanberra • • • •Newcastle • • • •Port Macquarie•Taree•Tamworth•Parramatta • • • •Bathurst•Dubbo • • •Orange•Sydney • • • •Wollongong • •Northern New South Wales / Queensland / Northern TerritoryBrisbane • • • •C<strong>of</strong>fs Harbour • •Lismore • • •Rockhampton • • • •Alice Springs•Townsville • • • •Cairns • • • •Mackay • • •PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201023
Initiatives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>This section highlights new and ongoing initiatives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> in 2009–10. Additional activities arereported in Part 6 (Management and Accountability) and Appendix 8 (Committees).PART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTCommonwealth <strong>Court</strong>s PortalThe Commonwealth <strong>Court</strong>s Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au), launched in July 2007, is an initiative <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, the Federal <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. The portal provides free web-basedaccess to information about cases that are before these courts.After registering, lawyers and registered litigants can keep track <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 range<strong>of</strong> dates and then printing out a sealed copy <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>).• 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s Parramatta registry.24 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the public, journalists, academics, judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers and staff <strong>of</strong> the courts.One <strong>of</strong> the significant benefits <strong>of</strong> 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 breakdown<strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> supplementary documents that were electronically filed in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> andFederal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> during 2009–10. Brisbane registry received 36 per cent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>,2008–09 and 2009–102008–09 2009–10Adelaide 191 1679Albury 3 18Alice Springs - 1Brisbane 943 9077Cairns 10 64Canberra 5 643C<strong>of</strong>fs 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201025
<strong>Family</strong> violencePART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTDuring 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> was a stakeholder in the development <strong>of</strong> a multi-disciplinary familyviolence training package. Relationships <strong>Australia</strong> (South <strong>Australia</strong>) was commissioned by the <strong>Australia</strong>nGovernment Attorney-General’s Department to develop the training package for pr<strong>of</strong>essionals working inthe family law system.The package aims to provide the recipients <strong>of</strong> the training with a sound and practical understanding<strong>of</strong> family violence and how they as pr<strong>of</strong>essionals can respond effectively. A secondary aim is to providea greater understanding and recognition between pr<strong>of</strong>essions <strong>of</strong> their respective roles and functions.The Chief Justice and members <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s’ <strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee have been involved in thedevelopment <strong>of</strong> key aspects <strong>of</strong> the package.Registry Managers reviewed implementation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Violence Strategy (2005) and identified areasin which implementation could be further advanced in registries. One example is extension <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>sIn January 2010, the Chief Justice and the Chief Federal Magistrate published a protocol about thedivision <strong>of</strong> work between the <strong>Court</strong>s. It provides a guide to the legal pr<strong>of</strong>ession and litigants to enablematters to be directed properly to the court appropriate to hear them.If any <strong>of</strong> the following criteria applies, then the application for final orders ordinarily should be filed and/or heard in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, if judicial resources permit (otherwise the matter should be filed and/orheard in the Federal Magistrate <strong>Court</strong>):• international child abduction• international relocation• disputes as to whether a case should be heard in <strong>Australia</strong>• special medical procedures (such as gender reassignment and sterilisation)• contravention and related applications in parenting cases relating to orders which have been madein <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> proceedings, which have reached a final stage <strong>of</strong> hearing or a judicial determinationand which have been made within 12 months prior to filing• serious allegations <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse <strong>of</strong> a child warranting transfer to the Magellan list or similar listwhere applicable, and serious allegations <strong>of</strong> physical abuse <strong>of</strong> a child or serious controlling familyviolence warranting the attention <strong>of</strong> a superior court• complex questions <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction or law, and• if the matter proceeds to a final hearing, it is likely it would take more than four days <strong>of</strong> hearingtime.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> has exclusive jurisdiction in relation to adoption and the validity <strong>of</strong> marriages anddivorces.Either court on its own motion or on application <strong>of</strong> a party can transfer a matter to the other court. Thereis no right <strong>of</strong> appeal from a decision as to transfer.26 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Young Employees Advisory Group for 2009–10.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTYoung Employees Advisory GroupIn 2008, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s executive. Senior staff involvement isintegral to the group, facilitating the achievement <strong>of</strong> projects in short timeframes that benefit the courtnow and into the future.The <strong>Court</strong> is not aware <strong>of</strong> any similar group in other <strong>Australia</strong>n public sector organisations andencourages others to consider similar initiatives.Membership <strong>of</strong> the 2009–10 group was announced in June 2009, with nine employees selected fromthe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. The group’s achievements during 2009–10 included:• Environment—initiatives aimed at reducing the <strong>Court</strong>s’ 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> their proceeding has changed and that they should check the portal. It is anticipatedthat this may reduce the number <strong>of</strong> enquiries to the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s’ 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 <strong>of</strong> the development opportunities available. The youngemployees completed design <strong>of</strong> the survey. The Manager <strong>of</strong> Human Resources has committed todissemination <strong>of</strong> the survey to all staff early in 2010–11 and to report to the Staff DevelopmentCommittee on the results.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s have 11 publications translatedinto ten languages. The translations are fact sheets, being summaries <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>—tips for your court hearing• What the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Charlie aged 6. Winner <strong>of</strong> 2010 Children’s ArtCompetitionChildren’s art competitionIsabella age 10. Winner <strong>of</strong> 2010 Children’s ArtCompetitionSoraya age 11. Winner <strong>of</strong> 2010 Children’s ArtCompetitionThe <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s’ 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 <strong>Australia</strong>. Ten winners each received a personally engraved MP3 player, with 13entrants receiving a highly commended certificate.The <strong>Court</strong>s introduced the competition in 2008 and it is held alternate years. It is one approach thathas been adopted to raise the ‘human face’ <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s with the general community, particularly withchildren, their parents and carers.PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURTArtwork from entrants is well-regarded in the <strong>Court</strong>s. It is used, for example, in publications, promotionalproducts and in displays at registries—the places at which children most likely have interactions with the<strong>Court</strong>s.The competition was promoted in various ways: through registries, through school educationdepartments, through family relationship centres, the <strong>Court</strong>s’ websites and the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>swebsite.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 <strong>of</strong> the business <strong>of</strong> both<strong>Court</strong>s. At the meeting strategic priorities were set for 2010–11.Members <strong>of</strong> the new Client Service Senior Manager’s Group (CSSMG).<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 pr<strong>of</strong>ession, 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>Family</strong>Violence Committees’ review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Violence Strategy 2004–2005• progressing the delivery <strong>of</strong> integrated client service training for existing and new client services, and• advising on improved approaches to interpreter services.Information managementIn 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong>s’ vision for progressive and strategic information management was progressedthrough a range <strong>of</strong> initiatives.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> an Information Management Framework30 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
• significant parts <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s intranet were revised with additional governance being placedaround roles and responsibilities, and• the <strong>Court</strong>’s Data Quality Board was assisted in developing a new governance structure that includesa Data Quality Governance Framework and an Information Quality Plan.The <strong>Court</strong>s’ 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 <strong>Court</strong>s’ PABX phone system.At 30 June 2010, it was expected that a new system would be in place by October 2010, providing alljudicial <strong>of</strong>ficers and staff with updated voice technology. It will produce significant savings to ongoingtelecommunications costs by:• linking all sites over the <strong>Court</strong>s’ network, including a national numbering plan. This will reduce callcosts as internal voice traffic will travel over the <strong>Court</strong>s’ 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 COURT<strong>Court</strong>room technologyOver the past 18 months, the <strong>Court</strong> has been upgrading the audio and visual capability <strong>of</strong> courtrooms ineight locations. The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> jointly decided the priorities for upgrade,with the courtrooms selected used by judges or federal magistrates. The modernised equipment <strong>of</strong>ferssignificant 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ficers concurrent with both stages. At 30 June 2010, theproject implementation review was being finalised.Transcription servicesIn July 2009, Auscript became the single provider <strong>of</strong> services to the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s. It then builtupon the state-<strong>of</strong>-the-art digital audio recording platform implemented in the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s (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 online<strong>Court</strong>Chat 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 <strong>of</strong> teleconferencingand greater access to audio <strong>of</strong> hearings via the AuscriptOnline hearing review portal. Both changes havebeen welcomed by the judiciary and court staff.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201031
During 2009–10, Auscript produced:• 12 901 individual hearing recordings, capturing 44 445 hours <strong>of</strong> audio• 6069 transcripts <strong>of</strong> hearings and judgments.PART 2OVERVIEW OF THE COURTThese resulted in a total production <strong>of</strong> 544 687 folios for the year—most <strong>of</strong> which were funded by users<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s.Other initiativesA number <strong>of</strong> other significant initiatives aimed at maximising the efficiency and resources <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>sand to help ensure improved, targeted service delivery were progressed during the year, such as:• work in support <strong>of</strong> Indigenous clients• integration <strong>of</strong> the administration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, includingcreating a single regional management structure, restructuring within client services and therestructuring <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 3REport on <strong>Court</strong> Performance
Report on <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Australia</strong>’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 <strong>Australia</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>: OG 1.1,OG 1.2PART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceRegistry Services: P1.1Program<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> budget Program 1.1 Provision <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>: OG 1.1,OG 1.2.Whilst the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>Court</strong> to provide greater transparency to the <strong>Court</strong>’s reporting.Historic performance against KPIsThe <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> achieved five <strong>of</strong>them and did not achieve three.In term <strong>of</strong> cases pending (or backlog indicators), the <strong>Court</strong> aims to have more than 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> itspending applications less than 12 months old. At 30 June 2010, 72 per cent <strong>of</strong> pending applicationswere less than 12 months old. The <strong>Court</strong> began reviewing its oldest active cases during 2009–10 tobetter understand the causes <strong>of</strong> delays and decide how older cases, particularly those older than twoyears, could be dealt with more appropriately.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> cases pending that are less than12 months old (the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceIn terms <strong>of</strong> reserve judgment delivery times, in 2008–09, the <strong>Court</strong> was able to reduce the number <strong>of</strong>outstanding 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 <strong>of</strong>five judges in the <strong>Court</strong> during 2009–10 (this put pressure on the <strong>Court</strong> to increase the sitting <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 Commonwealth<strong>Court</strong>s 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s performance, it is necessary to understand that the <strong>Court</strong>’scaseload is predominantly applications for Final Orders, Applications in a Case, and Consent Ordersapplications. These three main types <strong>of</strong> cases contribute most to the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> these by way <strong>of</strong> binding courtorders.36 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Summary <strong>of</strong> performanceIn 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>one <strong>of</strong> the indicators.The <strong>Court</strong> was able to achieve two <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> incoming workload andsuggests it is commensurate with its resources and the demand placed on its services. Additionally, the<strong>Court</strong> increased the proportion <strong>of</strong> its cases being finalised before they were 12 months old.During 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> has many oldcases that are very complex in nature, requiring careful and intense judicial management. It identifieda number <strong>of</strong> cases that seemed older than they actually were because <strong>of</strong> administrative processesconcerned with re-instatement or re-listing <strong>of</strong> ‘old’ cases for another hearing. Addressing these types<strong>of</strong> issues will ultimately allow the <strong>Court</strong> to reduce its oldest pending caseload and have cases before ajudge as soon as practical.PART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceReserved judgmentsThe <strong>Court</strong> remains concerned about the number <strong>of</strong> reserved judgments waiting more than threemonths for decision. The increasing complexity <strong>of</strong> cases before the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> had not been able to easily report about alljudgments. This is the first year in which the <strong>Court</strong> is able to report the total <strong>of</strong> all judgments for the yearunder review. This additional detail has had an affect on the measures.While the number <strong>of</strong> cases requiring reserved judgments is relatively low compared to the total number<strong>of</strong> cases finalised, it is important for <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> finalisations are difficult to predict each year: they are significantly dictated by client demandfor <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> services and the level <strong>of</strong> available judicial resources. Both <strong>of</strong> these are out <strong>of</strong> the control<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>: clients determine where and when they will file their case and judicial appointments are atthe discretion <strong>of</strong> the government. During 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> had a net loss <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s results in delivering judicial services against the key performanceindicators and deliverables published in the 2009–10 Portfolio Budget Statements.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201037
Table 3.1Summary <strong>of</strong> performance—judicial servicesPART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceKey performanceindicators and deliverablesDeliverablesNumber <strong>of</strong> 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% <strong>of</strong> matters pendingconclusion are less than 12 months old75%/73% 72% ✗More than 75% <strong>of</strong> reserved judgmentsare waiting less than three monthsafter the conclusion <strong>of</strong> trial*75%/54% 46% ✗* The wording <strong>of</strong> this measure differs slightly from the PBS to better reflect the intent <strong>of</strong> the measure and to avoid confusionwith another similarly worded measure.** The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> ‘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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. These figures should have beenapproximately 450 or 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.*** The <strong>Court</strong> also has a KPI about complaints. This is reported upon in Table 3.3Note: The <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s case mix: complex casesNew workload for 2009–10The <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>s in Sydney.Parenting cases dealing with the best interests <strong>of</strong>the children are difficult to deal with but the <strong>Court</strong>also deals with complex cases involving financial andproperty issues. Financial cases <strong>of</strong>ten deal with thesplitting <strong>of</strong> superannuation, corporate businesses, andlarge and complex finance and property portfolios.The <strong>Court</strong> continues to experience a shift in the mix <strong>of</strong> parenting and financial related cases. The <strong>Court</strong>once dealt with about 40 per cent <strong>of</strong> cases with financial issues, while it is now about 65 per cent.Furthermore, whilst only about five years ago about 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> cases had both parenting andfinancial issues this has increased to around 15 per cent.38 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceFigure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2009–10Financial only 50%Children and financial 14%Other 1%Children only 35%<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201039
Complex casesThe <strong>Court</strong>’s case mix is predominantly complex cases (less complex cases are dealt with by the FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong>). They involve multiple issues and higher levels <strong>of</strong> conflict between the parties. Theparties are less likely to settle their dispute and the cases have a higher probability <strong>of</strong> needing a judicialdecision at trial.PART 3Figure 3.4 shows the changing settlement and attrition trend <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s completed caseload andthe case management phase where they finalised. Whereas about 10 years ago about 5 per cent <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Court</strong>’s cases needed judicial decision, today this has risen to about 10 per cent.Figure 3.4Attrition and settlement trends in the <strong>Court</strong>’s caseloadReport on <strong>Court</strong> Performance100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%LodgedFirst <strong>Court</strong>Hearing /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 <strong>of</strong> cases that are finalised at first instance trial. The <strong>Court</strong> had fewertrials in 2009–10, reflecting not only less cases coming before the <strong>Court</strong> but also, more particularly, the<strong>Court</strong> having fewer judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers to hear trials.40 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> cases finalised by judgment at trialNumber <strong>of</strong> cases settle at trialPART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceImpact <strong>of</strong> reduced number <strong>of</strong> judicial <strong>of</strong>ficersThe number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> these were long standing <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> judicial registrars.The decision not to fill all the retired positions combined with the delay in those replacements putpressure on the <strong>Court</strong>’s ability to maintain or increase the rate at which it finalised cases in 2009–10.Even though the number <strong>of</strong> filings in the <strong>Court</strong> reduced further in 2009–10, such pressures are expectedto continue into 2010–11 and beyond, with fewer judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers in the <strong>Court</strong> and the increasingcomplexity <strong>of</strong> cases that proceed to trial, meaning they may take longer to finalise.Figure 3.6 shows the decrease in number <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s judges in the past five years. The number <strong>of</strong>judges 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201041
Figure 3.6 Number <strong>of</strong> judges, 2005–06 to 2009–10PART 345434035Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance2005–06Number <strong>of</strong> finalisationsDuring 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s historical achievements, its resource level including judges, theestimated new applications initiated each year and the number <strong>of</strong> active cases (pending).30Each application type requires a particular level <strong>of</strong> effort to resolve. For example, final orders applicationsand associated interim applications require more effort to resolve than consent order applications. The<strong>Court</strong> also deals with discrete applications, such as contraventions, contempt and applications madepursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 complex<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s workload and are usually dealt with by a registrar not a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer. 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 Pending<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> aims for a clearance rate <strong>of</strong> 100 per cent; that is, in a year to finalise at least at the samerate as cases are started. A clearance rate <strong>of</strong> 100 per cent or higher shows that the <strong>Court</strong> is able tokeep up with its new work and prevent an increase in its backlog <strong>of</strong> pending cases. For a number <strong>of</strong>years, the <strong>Court</strong> has cleared more than 100 per cent <strong>of</strong> cases, thus enabling it to keep its backlog to amanageable level.44 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
In 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> pending cases reportedin 2008–09 was subsequently found to be understated by about 450 applications because <strong>of</strong> incorrectclassifications recorded in the <strong>Court</strong>’s case management system. (The 2008–09 figures have not beenupdated as they represent what was reported at the time <strong>of</strong> 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%<strong>Court</strong> is finalising more cases than are started150%140%130%120%110%100%<strong>Court</strong> is finalising less cases than are started90%PART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> 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%<strong>Court</strong> is finalising more cases than are started105%100%95%<strong>Court</strong> is finalising less cases than are started90%2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Clearance RateTarget<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201045
Figure 3.13 Consent orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10110%105%<strong>Court</strong> is finalising more cases than are startedPART 3140%Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance<strong>Court</strong> 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%<strong>Court</strong> is finalising more cases than are started110%105%110%110%90%<strong>Court</strong> is finalising less cases than are started2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Clearance RateTarget46 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Backlog indicatorsThe backlog is the number <strong>of</strong> cases and applications that are pending (that is, still active) at the end <strong>of</strong>the 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 <strong>of</strong> these cases will bedisposed within the <strong>Court</strong>’s target. However, the completion <strong>of</strong> applications that are older and outsidethe timeliness target is the primary focus <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.Age <strong>of</strong> pending applicationsEach court must have a backlog <strong>of</strong> cases so that it can have a steady workload to account with theebbs and flows <strong>of</strong> new cases and cases being finalised. The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s goal is for its pending casesnot to be excessively delayed, thus it aims to minimise the proportion <strong>of</strong> older cases and maximise theproportion <strong>of</strong> younger cases. If the <strong>Court</strong> can achieve a healthy distribution <strong>of</strong> aged cases this helpsensure timely finalisation <strong>of</strong> cases. The highly entrenched and complex cases that the <strong>Court</strong> deals with<strong>of</strong>ten take significant time to progress through to a decision.The <strong>Court</strong> aims to have more than 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> its pending applications less than 12 months old. At 30June 2010, the <strong>Court</strong> nearly met this target by achieving 72 per cent <strong>of</strong> pending applications being lessthan 12 months old. This has remained relatively steady from 2008–09.During the last six months <strong>of</strong> 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> began reviewing its oldest active cases, particularlythose older than 24 months, to better understand the causes <strong>of</strong> the delay and determine ways in whichthese could be dealt with more appropriately. The benefits <strong>of</strong> the review are expected to materialiseduring 2010–11.PART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceFigure 3.15 shows the five-year trend in the age distribution <strong>of</strong> backlog applications. Figures 3.16 to3.19 show trends by type <strong>of</strong> application.Figure 3.15 Age <strong>of</strong> 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%)<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201047
Figure 3.16 Final order applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10100 %90 %80 %70 %60 %PART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 pr<strong>of</strong>iles. For example, the final order application is thebasis <strong>of</strong> a client’s substantive case. It takes significantly more time to resolve and as a result a largerproportion <strong>of</strong> them are older than 12 months.Age <strong>of</strong> reserved judgments outstandingWhen there is a trial, judges <strong>of</strong>ten reserve their decisions to consider the evidence and to deliver writtenreasons for their decisions. The <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> matters awaiting ajudgment waiting no more than three months. The <strong>Court</strong> did not meet this target in 2009–10.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201049
At 30 June 2009, 46 per cent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
At 30 June 2010, the number <strong>of</strong> outstanding judgments increased by 19 (20 per cent) compared to30 June 2009. The <strong>Court</strong> was not able to meet its target because <strong>of</strong> two factors. Firstly, the reductionin judge numbers put pressure on the <strong>Court</strong> to increase the sitting <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s cases, puttingadditional pressure on judgment writing time. The Chief Justice continues to monitor reserved judgments.Percentage <strong>of</strong> cases finalisedThe <strong>Court</strong> aims to finalise cases within a timely manner. It is, however, mindful that the complexity <strong>of</strong>family law needs taking into account: family law cases are particularly difficult and emotional, and the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s decisions affect many lives for potentially many years. Therefore, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> variables affecting theparties involved in each case has unquantifiable impacts on its progress towards a decision.Although the <strong>Court</strong> does not have performance indicators in the PBS about the time to finalise cases,the <strong>Court</strong> continue to internally monitor the age <strong>of</strong> its finalised cases to assist with determining resourceallocation and the effort required to clear cases.Age <strong>of</strong> finalised applicationsThe <strong>Court</strong>’s target for timeliness to finalisation are based on previous cases and the <strong>Court</strong>’s casemanagement processes. The ability to get clients before the court relies heavily on various factors: the<strong>Court</strong>’s case management principles, delays between court interventions, available resources, and theclients. The <strong>Court</strong> aims to finalise 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceDuring 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> finalised about 91 per cent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> was able to finalise a number <strong>of</strong> the complex applications, such as finalorders applications. In addition there was an increase in the volume <strong>of</strong> the less complex consent orderapplications.Figure 3.22 shows the five-year trend in the age distribution <strong>of</strong> applications finalised. Figures 3.23 to3.26 show the trend by the type <strong>of</strong> application.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 2009–10<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> Performance50%40%30%20%10%0%0–6 monthsAge <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> aims to deliver reserved judgments within three months after trial or hearing. The majority<strong>of</strong> judgments are delivered ex tempore straight after the trial or hearing. In the past few years the<strong>Court</strong>’s cases have experienced an increase in the rate <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> aims to have 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> reserved judgments delivered within three months. The <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s ability to meet this target was the net loss<strong>of</strong> five judges. Fewer judicial resources has put pressure on the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> reserved judgments delivered within three months and Figure3.28 shows time to deliver reserved judgments.54 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 months<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201055
Judicial services complaintsJudges are accountable through the public nature <strong>of</strong> their work, the requirement that they give reasonsfor their decisions, and the scrutiny <strong>of</strong> their decisions on appeal.PART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceIn 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> received 57 complaints relating to judges or judicial registrars—32 concerningjudicial conduct and 25 on the time taken in delivery <strong>of</strong> a judgment. This represented 0.3 per cent <strong>of</strong> allapplications filed (19 089), well under the Portfolio Budget Statements target <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the agreement by the <strong>Court</strong>), which are generallydealt with by a registrar rather than a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer.The number <strong>of</strong> judicial complaints received by the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> received 32 complaints in 2009–10 about judicial conduct, compared with 17 in 2008–09. Amajor factor in the increase was the number <strong>of</strong> multiple complaints from a party, or in some cases a nonparty,regarding the same court proceeding determined by the same judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer.A complaint about the conduct <strong>of</strong> a judge in court or in connection with a case in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> orabout the performance <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s56 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
esponse will not address anything other than the substance <strong>of</strong> the complaint. If the matter warrantedit, the Chief Justice would bring the conduct complained <strong>of</strong> to the attention <strong>of</strong> the Attorney-General. In2009–10 there were no complaints that were found to have substance. Many were about the outcome<strong>of</strong> the case rather than judicial conduct per se.Delay in delivery <strong>of</strong> a judgmentThe <strong>Court</strong> received 25 complaints about the time taken for reserved judgments, a decrease from the 33received in 2008–09.The <strong>Court</strong> aims to deliver all judgments promptly and has set a target <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> a judgment in writing to the president <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> being raised in an appeal shouldconsider whether or not to appeal to the Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong>the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. There are time limits for appeals andparties need to act promptly.<strong>Court</strong>room at the Parramatta <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s.The Chief Justice cannot interfere with any decisionmade by a single judge. Complaints about the result<strong>of</strong> a case are generally outside the scope <strong>of</strong> thecomplaints procedure and are not included in thefigures in this section.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201057
National coverage as appellate courtSummary <strong>of</strong> appeal caseloadThe <strong>Court</strong>’s Appeal Division deals with all Full <strong>Court</strong> appeals. The matters are from decrees <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>.Table 3.2 summarises the appeals workload; more information about appeals is in Part 4 <strong>of</strong> this report.PART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> monitors the proportion <strong>of</strong> self‐represented litigants as one measure <strong>of</strong> the complexity <strong>of</strong>its caseload. Self‐represented litigants add a layer <strong>of</strong> complexity because they need more assistance tonavigate the court system and require additional help and guidance to abide by the <strong>Family</strong> Law rules.However, the use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s cases and trials involve legal representation.Figure 3.31 Proportion <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Figure 3.32 Proportion <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> to set, or attempt to achieve, a target on the level <strong>of</strong> self-representedlitigants. The figures show however, that self‐representation can affect the <strong>Court</strong>’s caseload and its abilityto meet its performance targets.Shared parental responsibility—children spending time with parents.The reforms to Part VII <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) introduced by the <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment(Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 introduced a rebuttable presumption <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceDue to the complex and high-conflict nature <strong>of</strong> the cases that the <strong>Court</strong> deals with, it did not expect thata large proportion <strong>of</strong> its cases would be conducive to ‘shared time’. To help the <strong>Court</strong> monitor and reportthe impact <strong>of</strong> the legislation, the <strong>Court</strong> began collecting information about the orders that parents werereceiving for time with their children. In particular, the <strong>Court</strong> 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201059
Figure 3.33Per cent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> cases where minority <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Figure 3.35Per cent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ten 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 <strong>of</strong>time 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201061
Figure 3.37Most common reason why mothers had less than 30 per cent <strong>of</strong> time spent withchildren for finalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2009–1040%PART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s website at www.familycourt.gov.au.62 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
<strong>Family</strong> violence and abuse (or risk)Under section 60K <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act, the <strong>Court</strong> must consider and take action on notices <strong>of</strong> or risk<strong>of</strong> abuse or family violence. The prescribed notice is to be considered within seven days and dealt withwithin 28 days <strong>of</strong> filing.Figure 3.39 shows that the number <strong>of</strong> notices filed has declined in the past five years though theproportion <strong>of</strong> cases raising issues <strong>of</strong> abuse and family violence continues to rise (see Figure 3.40). This isfurther evidence to suggest that cases dealt with by the <strong>Court</strong> are increasingly more complex.Figure 3.39 Notices <strong>of</strong> child abuse or risk <strong>of</strong> family violence filed, 2005–06 to 2009–10700600500400300200PART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance1000607 606 459 441 4402005–062006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10Figure 3.40*Proportion <strong>of</strong> final order cases in which a notice <strong>of</strong> child abuse or risk <strong>of</strong> 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 cent<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201063
Magellan casesPART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> PerformanceMagellan cases involve allegations <strong>of</strong> serious physical abuse or sexual abuse <strong>of</strong> a child and undergospecial case management. When a Magellan case is identified, it is managed by a small team consisting<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> abuse or family violence is filed, although not allnotices will necessarily be classified as a Magellan matter.Figure 3.41 details the number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law<strong>Court</strong>s (comprising the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and theFederal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>) who are consideringfiling an application or who wish to file an application witheither court.Registry services include:• provision <strong>of</strong> effective support to the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s• family law telephone and referral services• family law document processing.Client Service Officer at Sydney registry.64 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Summary <strong>of</strong> performance<strong>Family</strong> law registries and the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) provided a high level <strong>of</strong> service to the clients<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s 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 <strong>of</strong> the various client services functions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> against PBSkey performance indicators and deliverables. More detailed reporting follows.Table 3.3Key performance indicatorsand deliverablesDeliverablesCounter enquiriesTelephone enquiriesSummary <strong>of</strong> 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% <strong>of</strong> all counter enquiries areserved within 20 minutes75% <strong>of</strong> applications lodged areprocessed within two workingdays80% <strong>of</strong> calls answered within90 seconds80% <strong>of</strong> emails answered withintwo daysComplaints—1% <strong>of</strong> totalapplications received75%/90% 90% ✔75%/90% 96% ✔80%/75% 40% ✗80%/90% 91%* ✔1%/1.08% 1%** ✔PART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance* This figure is for the NEC only.** This figure includes complaints about the administration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> and judicial services complaints, for which detailedinformation is reported earlier in this Part.Note:The <strong>Court</strong> 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201065
Detailed report on performance<strong>Family</strong> law registriesThere are 19 family law registries in locations in every <strong>Australia</strong>n state and territory (except Western<strong>Australia</strong>). <strong>Family</strong> law registries provide registry services to both the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and theFederal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and are staffed permanently. The key functions <strong>of</strong> the registries areto:PART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> proceedings, tohearing and to archiving• make the best use <strong>of</strong> court time by facilitating an orderly secure flow <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> cases• schedule and prioritise matters for hearing and intervention to achieve the earliest resolution ordetermination• monitor and control the flow <strong>of</strong> cases, and• assist in the evaluation <strong>of</strong> caseloads by reporting on trends and exceptions to facilitateimprovements in processes and allocation <strong>of</strong> resources.Counter enquiriesDuring 2009–10, the family law registries continued to provide a high level <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> documents and/or orders and facilitate the viewing <strong>of</strong> court files andsubpoenas. Client service staff provided an efficient and effective service when dealing with litigants inperson and the legal pr<strong>of</strong>ession face-to-face at registry counters across <strong>Australia</strong>.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 <strong>of</strong> clients were served within 20 minutes, against a target <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> web-based services.66 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Enquiry counter at the Sydney registry.Document processing<strong>Family</strong> law registries receive and process applications lodged at registry counters and in the mail. Theservice target <strong>of</strong> 75 per cent was significantly exceeded (96 per cent <strong>of</strong> applications were processedwithin two days <strong>of</strong> receipt).PART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>sand 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s 2008–09 Annual Report reported a higher number than this. The <strong>Court</strong> has subsequently reviewed its counting andrecording practices, which has seen a reduction in total calls recorded to these figures.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201067
Table 3.4 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2007–08 to 2009–10PART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> PerformancePerformance indicators and internal targets 2007–08%2008–09%2009–10%80% <strong>of</strong> calls answered within 90 seconds (a PBS key66 75 40performance indicator)Less than 5% <strong>of</strong> calls abandoned 4 2 18Less than 10% <strong>of</strong> calls transferred to a family law registry 6 5 480% <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> less than 10 per cent<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> enquiries increased. This is attributable to additional effort by NEC staff to ensurethat the safety and mental health concerns <strong>of</strong> clients were cared for, and also because staff wereproviding technical assistance as the first-level helpdesk for callers using the Commonwealth <strong>Court</strong>sPortal for self-service who had encountered a technical problem. This <strong>of</strong>ten required more time toanalyse and resolve.The high number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> this service until such time as they telephone the NEC, choose to go to the portal instead <strong>of</strong>waiting to speak to someone at the Centre. Thus they abandon their calls.Whilst the number and length <strong>of</strong> calls increased during 2009–10, staff numbers remained unchanged.In terms <strong>of</strong> emails, it was found that as more clients register with the Commonwealth <strong>Court</strong>s Portal theythen email the National Enquiry Centre on related technical or other matters.Client feedback and complaints managementThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> is committed to responding effectively to feedback and complaints, and to complyingwith <strong>Australia</strong>n Standard AS 4269–1995 (Complaints handling) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’sGood Practice Guide for Effective Complaint Handling.The <strong>Court</strong>’s client feedback management system allows all areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> to efficiently andconsistently manage complaints and client feedback, while also identifying clients’ issues and monitoringtrends.The <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> website (www.familycourt.gov.au).68 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong> will acknowledge receipt <strong>of</strong> a complaint within five working days and aims to send a formalresponse within 20 working days <strong>of</strong> receipt <strong>of</strong> the complaint.During 2009–10, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> recorded 196 complaints compared with 252 in 2008–09, comprising139 complaints about general matters <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> (see below) and 57 complaints about judicial services(see the section ‘Judicial services complaints’ for more detail). This represented one per cent <strong>of</strong> allapplications received, thus the <strong>Court</strong> achieved on this deliverable in its Portfolio Budget Statements.Figures 3.42 and 3.43 summarise the number <strong>of</strong> administration complaints and the total number <strong>of</strong>complaints received over the five years to 2009–10.Figure 3.42 Administration complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10250200150PART 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> 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 2009–10<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201069
Registry services complaintsThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> receives complaints relating to family law registries, which service both the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>.Of the total 139 complaints received by the <strong>Court</strong>:PART 3Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance• 67 were about administrative matters. These included complaints about court administrativeprocedures and processes, and staff conduct, including that <strong>of</strong> registrars and family consultants• 72 were not relevant to the administration <strong>of</strong> the court. These included issues about family lawlegislation, government policy, matters in other jurisdictions and the outcome <strong>of</strong> family lawproceedings.The majority <strong>of</strong> complaints, on examination, were not held to be justified and were usually the result<strong>of</strong> limited knowledge about the judicial system or dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes. Consistentwith other years, there were a relatively minor number <strong>of</strong> complaints which justifiably highlightedshortcomings in administrative procedures.As a result <strong>of</strong> client feedback during 2009–10, aside from issues being resolved for litigants on anindividual basis, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Australia</strong>n Association <strong>of</strong> Social Workers and the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’sclient feedback coordinator, legal counsel and Principal Child Dispute Services to clarify both agenciesroles in respect <strong>of</strong> complainants. Steps were taken to improve communication to litigants about thoseroles.The <strong>Court</strong> also recorded four compliments.70 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 4Appeals
APPEALSAppeal DivisionSections 21A, 22 (2AA), (2AB) & (2AC) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 provide for an Appeal Division for the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.The members <strong>of</strong> the Appeal Division <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>)• Justice O’Ryan• Justice StricklandThe Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> is made up <strong>of</strong> three or more judges <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>; themajority must be members <strong>of</strong> the Appeal Division (<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 ss4 and 21A).PART 4 AppealsJustice Boland.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201073
AppealsThe appellate jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> is defined in Part X <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act, in Part VIII <strong>of</strong> theChild Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and Part 7 <strong>of</strong> the Child Support (Assessment) Act1989.An appeal lies to the Full <strong>Court</strong> from a decree <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, constituted otherwise than as a Full<strong>Court</strong>, exercising jurisdiction under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts.An appeal also lies to the Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> from a decree <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western<strong>Australia</strong>; or the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> a state or a territory, constituted by a single judge exercisingjurisdiction under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts.PART 4AppealsAn appeal also lies to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> from a decree <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>exercising jurisdiction under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act and (with leave) the Child Support Acts. The jurisdiction<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> in relation to such appeals is to be exercised by a Full <strong>Court</strong> unless the Chief Justiceconsiders it appropriate for a single judge to exercise the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the court in relation to such anappeal (s 94AAA(3)).Full <strong>Court</strong> sittingsDuring 2009–10, the Full <strong>Court</strong> sat for 26 weeks (or part weeks). Appeals are also heard by way <strong>of</strong>video-link from time to time.Administration <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Australia</strong>n Capital Territory• Southern—Victoria, South <strong>Australia</strong> and Tasmania.Western <strong>Australia</strong> is separately administered by a Registrar <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>.Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s building in Sydney.74 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Trend in appealsThe number <strong>of</strong> appeals filed in 2009–10 decreased by 13 per cent from 364 to 315. This marks a changefrom the average annual increase <strong>of</strong> approximately 4 per cent over the past five years. In the same periodthe number <strong>of</strong> pending (i.e. active) cases decreased by 13 per cent from 230 to 201.There were 29 per cent fewer appeals from the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> whilst appeals from the Federal Magistrates<strong>Court</strong> remained steady.Many appeals from <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> are dealt with by a single judge and do not requirethe convening <strong>of</strong> a bench <strong>of</strong> three or more judges.During 2009–10, the number <strong>of</strong> disposals by the Appeals Division decreased by 4 per cent from 361 to345.The number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction, 2005–06 to 2009–10Filed 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % Change<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> 195 202 153 160 113 -29%Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> 104 122 196 204 202 -1%Appeals filed 299 324 349 364 315 -13%Per cent <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong>65% 62% 44% 44% 36% -8%<strong>Australia</strong>Per cent Federal Magistrates 35% 38% 56% 56% 64% 8%<strong>Court</strong>Finalised 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % Change<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> 133 228 171 170 144 -15%Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> 79 118 147 191 201 5%Appeals finalised 212 346 318 361 345 -4%Per cent <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong>63% 66% 54% 47% 42% -5%<strong>Australia</strong>Per cent Federal Magistrates 37% 34% 46% 53% 58% 5%<strong>Court</strong>Pending 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % Change<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> 234 139 121 124 93 -25%Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> 80 46 95 106 108 2%Appeals pending 314 185 216 230 201 -13%Per cent <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong>75% 75% 56% 54% 46% -8%<strong>Australia</strong>Per cent Federal Magistrates<strong>Court</strong>25% 25% 44% 46% 54% 8%<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201075
Figure 4.1 Notice <strong>of</strong> appeals, 2005–06 to 2009–10400350300299314324346349318364 361315345250200212185216230201150PART 410050Appeals02005–06Filed Finalised Pending2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10The proportion <strong>of</strong> appeals arising from decrees <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> decreased from 45 per cent to36 per cent in 2009–10.Figure 4.2 shows the proportion <strong>of</strong> appeal filings in relation to first instance decrees made either in theFederal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> or in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.Figure 4.2Proportion <strong>of</strong> notice <strong>of</strong> appeals filed by jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> 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 2009–10<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>The number <strong>of</strong> appeals that were allowed or dismissed remained steady in 2009–10.The total number <strong>of</strong> appeals withdrawn or abandoned decreased by 13 per cent from 158 to 138.76 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> appeals finalised by type <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the Appeal Division. In 2009–10, the proportion <strong>of</strong> 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201077
Figure 4.4 shows the number <strong>of</strong> directions hearings undertaken by appeal registrars and judges <strong>of</strong> theAppeal Division.Figure 4.4 Appeal directions hearings by type <strong>of</strong> judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer, 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 <strong>of</strong> selfrepresentedappellants decreased from 53 per cent to 40 per cent.78 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Figure 4.5 Proportion <strong>of</strong> issues raised on notice <strong>of</strong> appeals, 2009–10Financial, 33%Cost, 15%Other, 8%Parenting, 44%Figure 4.6 Proportion <strong>of</strong> children and property issues raised on notice <strong>of</strong> 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 2009–10ChildrenProperty<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201079
Figure 4.7 Proportion <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Age <strong>of</strong> finalised appealsIn 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> finalised 74 per cent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Section 95 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 provides that an appeal does not lie to the High <strong>Court</strong> from adecree <strong>of</strong> a court exercising jurisdiction under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act, whether original or appellate, exceptby special leave <strong>of</strong> the High <strong>Court</strong>.During 2009–10, twenty applications for special leave to appeal were filed in the High <strong>Court</strong> fromjudgments <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.During 2009–10, nine applications for special leave were determined by the High <strong>Court</strong> (eight wererefused and one was granted) and one appeal from the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> was heard and allowed by the High<strong>Court</strong>.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201081
AppealsPART 4<strong>Court</strong>room at the Parramatta <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s.82 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 5SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS
Significant and noteworthyjudgmentsIn 2009–10, judges <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> handed down judgments at both first instance andappellate levels. The decisions reflect the <strong>Court</strong>’s expansive jurisdiction, the wide variety <strong>of</strong> issues that itaddresses, and its position as a superior specialist federal court which deals with the most complex andserious family law cases.A selection <strong>of</strong> the more significant and noteworthy Full <strong>Court</strong> judgments is published here.The <strong>Court</strong> recognises that the accessibility <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au).Recent decisions are also published on the <strong>Court</strong>’s website for a period <strong>of</strong> two months. This policyhas enabled the <strong>Court</strong> to better respond to community interest and concerns about particular caseshighlighted in the media.Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders)[2009] FamCAFC 166<strong>Family</strong> 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) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth)Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> before Boland, Thackray and O’Ryan JJ, judgment delivered 14September 2009This was an appeal from interim orders <strong>of</strong> Strickland J. Ms Strahan sought an interim propertysettlement <strong>of</strong> $5 million to defray the likely ongoing legal costs <strong>of</strong> further proceedings before the<strong>Court</strong>. Strickland J ordered that the wife be paid $1 million as an interim property settlement. The totalpool <strong>of</strong> property pool was disputed by the parties. The husband asserted that there were total assets<strong>of</strong> $80 million. The wife asserted total assets which were undisclosed by the husband but were in themagnitude <strong>of</strong> hundreds <strong>of</strong> millions <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the order.Ms Strahan claimed that the sum <strong>of</strong> $5 million could and should have been paid.The Full <strong>Court</strong> allowed the appeal. Boland and O’Ryan JJ determined that both s 79 and s 80(1)(h) <strong>of</strong>the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) are sources <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth), or a costs order pursuant to s 117.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201085
While determining that there is only one exercise <strong>of</strong> power pursuant to s 79 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975(Cth), Boland and O’Ryan JJ determined that there may be a succession <strong>of</strong> orders made in proceedingsuntil there is no property left which could be subject to orders by way <strong>of</strong> alteration <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ficer to determine whether to exercise thepower before a final hearing. The second step is for a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer 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 <strong>of</strong> the order. Their Honours considered that all that was requiredwas an assessment <strong>of</strong> whether it was appropriate in the overall interests <strong>of</strong> justice to exercise the powerpursuant to s 79 or s 80(1)(h) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth). Further, their Honours also consideredthat it is necessary to consider the fact that the usual order pursuant to s 79 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> variation or reversal prior to final orders being made, withouta party having to resort to an application pursuant to s 79A <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) or anappeal.In a separate judgment, Thackray J allowed the appeal. Thackray J emphasised that there is no obligationon the <strong>Court</strong> to make an interim order; rather the <strong>Court</strong> may do so if it considers that it should in theexercise <strong>of</strong> its discretion. Thackray J stated that it was necessary for the <strong>Court</strong> to have regard to thepolicy consideration that it is generally in the interest <strong>of</strong> the parties and the <strong>Court</strong> for there to be onlyone exercise <strong>of</strong> the power under s 79 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth).Boland and O’Ryan JJ and Thackray J re-exercised the discretion <strong>of</strong> 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 319<strong>Family</strong> Law—Appeal—Consideration <strong>of</strong> accrued jurisdiction—Whether property proceedings cancontinue after both parties to a marriage have died—Consideration <strong>of</strong> s 78 and s 79 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> LawAct 1975 (Cth)—Death <strong>of</strong> both parties meant that there was no dispute remaining to be determined bythe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> before May, O’Ryan and Stevenson JJ, judgment delivered20 November 2009This was an appeal from orders <strong>of</strong> Mushin J. The matter concerned the standing <strong>of</strong> executors to theestate <strong>of</strong> a party (who had commenced property proceedings before the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>) to continue with acause <strong>of</strong> action pursuant to non-federal jurisdiction after both <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth). The husbanddied. The wife’s case guardian amended her application requesting that the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the deceased wife seeking that the executors <strong>of</strong> the wife’s Will besubstituted as parties.86 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Mushin J determined that the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> had jurisdiction pursuant to s 78 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>the wife’s death, Mushin J dismissed the accrued application as void ab initio for want <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction.The wife’s representative argued that Mushin J erred by failing to substitute the executors <strong>of</strong> the wife’sestate as parties in lieu <strong>of</strong> the wife; by dismissing the accrued application; by determining that the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> had jurisdiction to determine the application pursuant to s 78; and by determining that thatapplication was void ab initio for want <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction.The Full <strong>Court</strong> dismissed the appeal. The Full <strong>Court</strong> determined that the death <strong>of</strong> the wife terminated thefederal jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> to hear the federal claim (being the original application to alterthe interests <strong>of</strong> property <strong>of</strong> the parties to the marriage). Consequently, there was no accrued jurisdictionavailable to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> to make the declaration sought by the wife’s representatives. The Full <strong>Court</strong>considered that it would be unlikely to exercise its discretion to exercise accrued jurisdiction in any eventbecause <strong>of</strong> the exceptional circumstances <strong>of</strong> the case.The Full <strong>Court</strong> upheld part <strong>of</strong> Mushin J’s reasons for judgment. The Full <strong>Court</strong> reached differentconclusions with respect to whether the accrued application was a matrimonial cause which could onlyhave been brought under s 78 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) and whether the accrued applicationwas void ab initio for want <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction. The Full <strong>Court</strong> concluded that as both parties were deceased,there was no dispute remaining between them for which the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> had federal jurisdiction. Thismeant that no application relying on accrued jurisdiction could attach to a cause <strong>of</strong> action before the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. The Full <strong>Court</strong> 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 336<strong>Family</strong> Law—Appeal—Property—Binding Financial Agreement—Enforcement and interpretation <strong>of</strong>provisions <strong>of</strong> the Binding Financial Agreement—Consideration <strong>of</strong> general principles <strong>of</strong> contract law andinterpretationPART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSFull <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> before Bryant CJ, Boland and Jordan JJ, judgment delivered15 December 2009This was an appeal from orders <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the agreement. Theagreement was entered into on the basis <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the agreement. The wife was also a trustee <strong>of</strong>a 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 <strong>of</strong> the net assets acquired during the marriage (which included, inter alia, realproperty and goodwill in a business).<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201087
Wilson FM ordered that the husband be paid an amount representing a portion <strong>of</strong> 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 terms<strong>of</strong> the agreement. Alternatively, the husband argued that if the property held on trust fell outside theterms <strong>of</strong> the agreement, that property should be divided between the parties pursuant to s 79 <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth).The Full <strong>Court</strong> allowed the appeal. The Full <strong>Court</strong> analysed a number <strong>of</strong> long‐standing authorities <strong>of</strong> theHigh <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> about the meaning <strong>of</strong> the word ‘acquire’. The Full <strong>Court</strong>noted that the parties did not agree about what was meant by the use <strong>of</strong> the words ‘acquired by jointfunds’ in the terms <strong>of</strong> the agreement. The Full <strong>Court</strong> stated that it could not correct the terminology withappropriate certainty to give effect to the parties’ agreement.PART 5SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSThe Full <strong>Court</strong> stated that the common law principles <strong>of</strong> construction could apply and be used to avoidabsurdity in the terms <strong>of</strong> the agreement. However, in the circumstances <strong>of</strong> this case, it was impossible(accurately) to discern what the intention <strong>of</strong> the parties was at the time <strong>of</strong> the making <strong>of</strong> the agreementand the terms <strong>of</strong> the agreement were ambiguous. The Full <strong>Court</strong> found the terms <strong>of</strong> the agreement wereineffective and that Wilson FM’s orders enforcing the terms <strong>of</strong> the agreement constituted appealableerror.The Full <strong>Court</strong> also concluded that Wilson FM should have dealt with the property <strong>of</strong> the parties held ontrust pursuant to s 79 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth).Aldridge & Keaton[2009] FamCAFC 229; (2009) FLC 93–421; 42 Fam LR 369<strong>Family</strong> Law—Appeal—Children—Parties in a same-sex relationshipDiscussion <strong>of</strong> amendments to s 60H <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) relating to children born <strong>of</strong> anartificial conception procedure—Steps to be applied by a trial judge where a person concerned with thecare, welfare and development <strong>of</strong> a child seeks a parenting orderFull <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> before Bryant CJ, Boland and Crisford JJ, judgment delivered22 December 2009This was an appeal from orders <strong>of</strong> Pascoe CFM. His Honour determined that Ms Keaton, a personconcerned with the care, welfare and development <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> an artificial conception procedure). By virtue <strong>of</strong> s 60H <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth), thisprecluded Ms Aldridge’s child being treated as the child <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the child and then determining88 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> benefit to the child.Ms Aldridge also argued that Ms Keaton should not have been treated as a parent for the purposes <strong>of</strong>his Honour’s determination as to what was in the best interests <strong>of</strong> the child. Ms Aldridge also submittedthat s 65C <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) prescribed a ‘hierarchy’ <strong>of</strong> applicants (parents, thengrandparents, then persons concerned with the care, welfare and development <strong>of</strong> a child) for whichapplications ‘lower down’ the hierarchy should receive lesser or no weight compared to those ‘higherup’.The Full <strong>Court</strong> dismissed the appeal. The Full <strong>Court</strong> determined that in dealing with any parentingapplication by a person interested in the care, welfare and development <strong>of</strong> a child, a court will determinethat application applying the relevant provisions <strong>of</strong> Part VII <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) todetermine whether making (or not making) a parenting order would be in a child’s best interests. TheFull <strong>Court</strong> determined that such an application must be determined by reference to: the best interests<strong>of</strong> the child as a paramount consideration (s 60CA); the objects and principles <strong>of</strong> Part VII <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong>Law Act 1975 (Cth) (s 60B(1) and s 60B(2)); and consideration <strong>of</strong> relevant matters under s 60CC(2)and s 60CC(3) (the primary and additional considerations in determining the best interests <strong>of</strong> children).The Full <strong>Court</strong> stated that there is no prescribed order in which the relevant provisions <strong>of</strong> Part VII <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the additional considerations in s 60CC(3)).The Full <strong>Court</strong> commented that the best interests <strong>of</strong> the child are the paramount consideration to betaken into account, not the circumstance <strong>of</strong> their conception or the sex <strong>of</strong> their parents. The Full <strong>Court</strong>considered that Parliament intended through its amendment to s 60H <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth)that children <strong>of</strong> a biological parent and a biological parent’s partner (including a same-sex co-parent),regardless <strong>of</strong> the circumstances <strong>of</strong> 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 Full<strong>Court</strong> suggested that it may be necessary for further legislative amendment to clarify a non-biologicalperson’s status as a parent for the purposes <strong>of</strong> relevant sections <strong>of</strong> the Act.The Full <strong>Court</strong> concluded that Pascoe CFM had correctly determined that Ms Keaton was a personinterested in the care, welfare or development <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> parties.PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSPartington & Cade (No. 2)[2009] FamCAFC 230; (2009) FLC 93–422; 42 Fam LR 401<strong>Family</strong> Law—Appeal—Allegations <strong>of</strong> unacceptable risk <strong>of</strong> sexual/physical abuse for children if theyspent time with their father unsupervised—Mother sought to be allowed to relocate to another stateFull <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> before Bryant CJ, Warnick and Boland JJ, judgment delivered22 December 2009<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201089
This was an appeal from orders <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> allowed the appeal. The Full <strong>Court</strong> stated Burr J had carefully, diligently and substantiallyconsidered the issues in relation to the matter. The Full <strong>Court</strong> determined that Burr J had not assessedMr Cade’s parenting capacity in light <strong>of</strong> his underpinning conclusion <strong>of</strong> ‘unacceptable risk’. The Full<strong>Court</strong> considered this question to be highly relevant to Mr Cade’s parenting capacity and to the likelynature <strong>of</strong> the longer term relationship between the children and Mr Cade.The Full <strong>Court</strong> determined that Burr J should have addressed the significance and the implications <strong>of</strong>the possibility (as opposed to probability) that Mr Cade had sexually abused one <strong>of</strong> the children whenassessing Mr Cade’s parenting capacity. The Full <strong>Court</strong> stated that in assessing unacceptable risk in thefuture, both probabilities and possibilities <strong>of</strong> risk can be taken into account, as long as the degree <strong>of</strong>likelihood <strong>of</strong> risk and the assessment <strong>of</strong> the likelihood <strong>of</strong> risk is properly taken into account in a reasonedmanner by a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer.The Full <strong>Court</strong> also determined that Burr J had not considered the impact <strong>of</strong> the mother relocatingfrom a well established situation in NSW when the prospects <strong>of</strong> regular and unsupervised timebetween Mr Cade and the children and the benefits <strong>of</strong> such a time had not been properly assessed.The Full <strong>Court</strong> noted that it may be possible to avoid making a finding about whether or not abuse hasoccurred if the best interests <strong>of</strong> the child can be determined without the need to make such a finding.The Full <strong>Court</strong> determined that a finding <strong>of</strong> unacceptable risk may be sufficient to found orders directedto the paramount consideration <strong>of</strong> the best interests <strong>of</strong> the child. The Full <strong>Court</strong> noted that a finding <strong>of</strong>‘unacceptable risk’ can in certain circumstances impede progress to a parent spending time with a childother than on a strictly supervised basis.The Full <strong>Court</strong> remitted before a judge other than Burr J the question <strong>of</strong> the mother’s relocation to NSW.The Full <strong>Court</strong> concluded that supervision on an interim basis <strong>of</strong> two hours was appropriate until thematter could be determined on rehearing, albeit with the father to attend in NSW rather than Tasmaniafor the purposes <strong>of</strong> spending supervised time with his children.90 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Simpson & Brockman[2010] FamCAFC 37<strong>Family</strong> Law—Appeal—Consideration <strong>of</strong> the applicable law when determining the correctness <strong>of</strong> thedecision being appealed (as opposed to re-exercising a discretion)—Consideration <strong>of</strong> the words ‘by way<strong>of</strong> rehearing’—Application <strong>of</strong> provisions <strong>of</strong> Part VII <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) to non-parentsFull <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> before Coleman, Warnick and May JJ, judgment delivered11 March 2010This was an appeal from orders <strong>of</strong> Jarrett FM. Ms Simpson and Ms Brockman were in a relationship. Withthe assistance <strong>of</strong> a sperm donor and in-vitro fertilisation, each woman had biologically had a child duringthe course <strong>of</strong> their relationship. Jarrett FM ordered that each <strong>of</strong> the children would primarily reside withits biological mother in Sydney and northern NSW respectively and spend some time in the household <strong>of</strong>the other child and that child’s mother.Ms Simpson appealed on the grounds that Jarret FM had found that she was not the parent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> artificial conception procedures) since Jarrett FM’s orders were made, but beforethe appeal had been heard, meant that she was now the parent <strong>of</strong> the child to whom she did not givebirth. Ms Simpson relied upon the fact that an appeal to the Full <strong>Court</strong> is an appeal by way rehearingand that the correctness <strong>of</strong> Jarrett FM’s judgment had to be considered in light <strong>of</strong> the law at the timethe appeal was heard.The Full <strong>Court</strong> dismissed the appeal. The Full <strong>Court</strong> considered several decisions <strong>of</strong> the High <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Australia</strong>, the Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Federal <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and the Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. The Full<strong>Court</strong> determined that an appeal will only succeed if error is found in the making <strong>of</strong> the orders appealed.This involves the application <strong>of</strong> the law as it stood at the time the orders were made. The Full <strong>Court</strong>considered that unless operation <strong>of</strong> a subsequent law is retrospective, application <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> a trial judge’s discretion). Whileacknowledging that if a fresh application was filed before the <strong>Court</strong> at first instance Ms Simpson wouldbe a parent for the purposes <strong>of</strong> Part VII <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Full <strong>Court</strong> concluded thatat the time <strong>of</strong> Jarrett FM’s orders were made, Ms Simpson was legally not a parent <strong>of</strong> the child to whomshe did not give birth.PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSThe Full <strong>Court</strong> also concluded that the provisions which specifically make reference to ‘parents’ in Part VII<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) should not be applied to ‘non-parents’. The Full <strong>Court</strong> did not acceptMs Simpson’s proposition that persons other than biological parents need to be treated as parentsbecause the provisions <strong>of</strong> Part VII <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth) are unworkable or deficient in certaincircumstances.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201091
Norman & Norman[2010] FamCAFC 66<strong>Family</strong> Law—Appeal—Challenge to the exercise <strong>of</strong> the trial judge’s discretion in assessing initialcontributions and the overall adjustment made for matters under s 79(4) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975(Cth)—Elucidation <strong>of</strong> principles applicable to appeals from discretionary judgmentsFull <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> before Finn, May and Murphy JJ, judgment delivered1 April 2010This was an appeal against orders <strong>of</strong> Watts J. His Honour effected a property settlement between theparties. The $1.5 million pool <strong>of</strong> property <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 15 years <strong>of</strong> cohabitation, and in particular, that his Honour had failed torealise that the wife’s contributions over the course <strong>of</strong> the relationship had <strong>of</strong>fset 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 accuracy<strong>of</strong> his Honour’s factual findings.The Full <strong>Court</strong> dismissed the appeal. The Full <strong>Court</strong> analysed a number <strong>of</strong> long‐standing authorities <strong>of</strong> theHigh <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. The Full <strong>Court</strong> reiterated the longstanding proposition thatthere is a ‘generous ambit’ within which ‘reasonable disagreement is possible’ in the exercise <strong>of</strong> a trialjudge’s discretion. The Full <strong>Court</strong> stated that, as an appellate court, it should be very cautious to allowan appeal against the exercise <strong>of</strong> a trial judge’s discretion where the grounds <strong>of</strong> an appeal relate only toconflicting assessments <strong>of</strong> matters <strong>of</strong> weight. In this regard, the Full <strong>Court</strong> considered that the concepts<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fsetting contributions and erosion <strong>of</strong> contributions to be unhelpful. The Full <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the contribution).The Full <strong>Court</strong> concluded that the wife had not demonstrated that the ultimate result fell outside thegenerous ambit <strong>of</strong> the proper exercise <strong>of</strong> Watts J’s discretion. The Full <strong>Court</strong> outlined that there is nolegal requirement to express adjustments to a party’s interests in percentage terms and that it is <strong>of</strong>tenclearer to make reference to a dollar value <strong>of</strong> a result.The Full <strong>Court</strong> stated that the nature, form and characteristics <strong>of</strong> property, and the manner and timing <strong>of</strong>its acquisition, are all factors that may impact upon how contributions <strong>of</strong> parties might be assessed. TheFull <strong>Court</strong> 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 Full<strong>Court</strong> noted the structured ‘four step’ approach taken by the Full <strong>Court</strong> in Hickey & Hickey ((2003) FLC93‐143) as to s 79(4) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Full <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> (Finn, Boland and Dawe JJ) explained that the ‘legislative imperative’ as articulated by the Full92 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
<strong>Court</strong> in Norman & Norman is a requirement that a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer ‘stand back’ and look at the reality <strong>of</strong>the percentage division he or she has arrived at in a judgment. The requirement requires a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficergiving consideration to the actual assets retained by each party, which might include whether a partymight receive a greater proportion <strong>of</strong> superannuation, or if a party retains a business which requiresretention <strong>of</strong> business premises or re-financing. The Full <strong>Court</strong> stated that it may be appropriate tomake an order slightly outside the precise percentage arrived at as a result <strong>of</strong> the statutory imperativesoutlined in s 79 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth), particularly where a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer is dealing withmodest assets or where a party has minimal or non-existent income earning capacity.]Marvel & Marvel (No. 2)[2010] FamCAFC 101<strong>Family</strong> Law—Appeal—Whether the trial judge erred by failing to address s 61DA (presumption <strong>of</strong> equalshared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and s 65DAA (<strong>Court</strong> to consider childspending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances) <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth)—Legislative pathway for interim parenting proceduresFull <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> adecision <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Ms Marvel’s claims that there was an unacceptable risk <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Part VII <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> equal shared parental responsibility was applicable. Ms Marvel arguedthat as Cohen J had not considered the presumption <strong>of</strong> equal shared parental responsibility he hadnot consequently considered the requirements <strong>of</strong> s 65DAA <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth). In hersubmission, this meant that the orders were vitiated.PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSThe Full <strong>Court</strong> allowed the appeal. The Full <strong>Court</strong> determined that the s 61DA <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act1975 (Cth) required Cohen J to consider whether or not the presumption <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> as a Judge on 12 July 2010.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201093
The Full <strong>Court</strong> left open the question whether s 65DAA <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> equal shared parental responsibility is applicable. The Full <strong>Court</strong> commented thata <strong>Court</strong> may find it inappropriate to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility where theconflict or lack <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> stated that if the presumption <strong>of</strong> equal shared parental responsibility applies, an orderfor equal shared parental responsibility will generally be made. This would displace the joint parentalresponsibility parents hold as <strong>of</strong> right and would trigger the consideration <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> time to bespent between a child and a parent (pursuant to s 65DAA <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 (Cth).The Full <strong>Court</strong> re-determined the review application and made orders in identical terms to Loughnan JR.SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTSPART 594 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Corporate governanceThis section reports on aspects <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>’s corporate governance arrangements.The Chief Justice, assisted by the Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for managing the administrativeaffairs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>.Under the Constitution, judicial power is vested in judges who administer that power in courts. The<strong>Family</strong> Law Act defines the <strong>Court</strong> as being a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and the judgesappointed to that <strong>Court</strong>. By delegation from the Chief Justice, case management judges assist inadministering judicial functions in particular areas, such as case management.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> is autonomously governed, that is, the judiciary has the responsibility for theadministration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>. To enable the effective and efficient administration <strong>of</strong> justice, the judiciaryneeds support to deal with its workload. Non-judicial <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> an agency head under Commonwealthfinancial management and public service legislation.Figure 6.1 shows the organisational structure <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY<strong>Court</strong>room <strong>Australia</strong>n Coat <strong>of</strong> Arms.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201097
Organisational structure <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Figure 6.1 Organisational structure <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, 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 <strong>Family</strong>Consultantsand <strong>Family</strong>ConsultantsExecutiveDirectorClient ServicesActingStephen AndrewRegional RegistryManagersRegistriesExecutiveDirectorInformation,Communication& TechnologyStephen AndrewCommunicationsApplicationsExecutiveDirectorCorporateGrahame HarriottHumanResourcesProperty &ContractsInformationManagementFinanceRegistriesAdelaide, Albury, Alice Springs, Brisbane,Cairns, Canberra, C<strong>of</strong>fs Harbour,Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Hobart,Launceston, Lismore, Melbourne,Newcastle, Parramatta, Rockhampton,Sydney, Townsville, WollongongInfrastructureStatisticsBudgets& BusinessImprovementsProcurement& RiskManagementDenotes pr<strong>of</strong>essional responsibility98 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>At 30 June 2010, there were 30 judges <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>, including the Chief Justice and the Deputy ChiefJustice.Chief Justice <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>The Chief Justice is responsible for ensuring the orderly andexpeditious discharge <strong>of</strong> the business <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> (s 21B <strong>Family</strong>Law 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 <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> on 5 July 2004. She had previouslybeen the inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate overseeing theestablishment <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, a position sheheld for four years.Deputy Chief Justice <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Australia</strong>The Deputy Chief Justice assists the Chief Justice in the judicialadministration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. Particular responsibilitiesinclude case management, complaints about judges, thecollection and strategic assessment <strong>of</strong> statistics, pastoral careand the oversight <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s committees.In the absence <strong>of</strong> the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justiceperforms and exercises the powers <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> 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 2004<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–201099
The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray 16 November 2006(Chief Judge <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>)The Honourable Justice Stephen Richard O’Ryan 7 August 2008The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland 14 December 2009Judges(according to order <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 1995<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>Note: Judges <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong> also hold Commissions in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>.Date <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> hold appointments in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal asPresidential Members.The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine FinnThe Honourable Justice James Patrick O’Hara Barry<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010101
The Honourable Justice Nahum MushinThe Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth DaweThe Honourable Justice Robert James Charles BenjaminAppointments, retirements and resignationsJudicial <strong>of</strong>ficer appointments:The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin 13 July 2009The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland was assigned to the Appeal Division 14 December 2009Judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer retirements:PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Honourable Justice Julienne Penny (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>) 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Chief Executive Office, Richard Foster.Chief Executive OfficerRichard Foster PSM FAIM, Chief Executive OfficerThe Chief Justice, under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act, is responsible for theadministration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> an agency head under Commonwealthfinancial management and public service legislation, but is appointedunder terms similar to those <strong>of</strong> judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers. The CEO is supportedby the staff <strong>of</strong> the National Support Office and is located in theNational Support Office, Canberra. Mr Richard Foster was appointedCEO in May 2000.102 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Principal RegistrarAngela Filippello, Principal RegistrarThe Principal Registrar provides high level legal and procedural adviceto support the judicial functioning <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. As a seniorlawyer, she discharges the statutory duties assigned to that positionby the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975, works closely with the Chief Justice andjudges in administering the Act and related legislation, and identifiesareas in need <strong>of</strong> reform.Principal Registrar, Angela Filippello.The Principal Registrar presides in <strong>Court</strong> and holds the delegatedpower to make orders in interim parenting cases, maintenance casesand some enforcement <strong>of</strong> financial obligations. The Principal Registraralso oversees the performance <strong>of</strong>, and provides direction to, the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> quality childdispute services to the <strong>Court</strong>. The Principal ensures that the servicesdelivered by the family consultants are effective and consistent with thestrategic and business objectives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>. The Principal also hasresponsibility for the development <strong>of</strong> strategic external relationshipsthat promote and position the child dispute services <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> withinthe family law framework.Executive Director Client ServicesThe Executive Director Client Services is responsible for the delivery<strong>of</strong> client services in all family law registries. The Executive Directorensures that high-quality registry services and support are provided toall judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers, litigants and legal practitioners, consistent with thestrategic and business objectives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s (the <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>).PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYStephen Andrew was the Acting Executive Director Client Services at30 June 2010<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong>the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> governance, and the judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> meetannually or more <strong>of</strong>ten if required in plenary. The Chief Justice also convenes a monthly teleconference <strong>of</strong>all judges, in which current issues are discussed. In addition, judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers participate in a number <strong>of</strong>committees that develop policies across a range <strong>of</strong> matters.Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory CommitteeAt the strategic level, the Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee is the highest policymaking bodywithin the <strong>Court</strong>. The committee’s primary role is to support the Chief Justice in the administration <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Court</strong> and to provide strategic advice and policy direction, particularly in relation to legislative, proceduraland administrative changes likely to affect the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> the Policy Advisory Committees <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> washeld in Melbourne on 7 April 2010. Attendees from the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> 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, <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>).Items discussed included joint budget savings strategies and increased efficiencies, allocation <strong>of</strong> workbetween the two <strong>Court</strong>s and the effective use <strong>of</strong> information technology. The meeting was productiveand participants agreed to continue to meet annually.Other committeesA number <strong>of</strong> 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• <strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee• Information and Communication Technology Committee• Judicial Development Committee• Judicial Remuneration Committee• Law Reform Committee• Magellan CommitteePART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010105
• National Case Management Committee• Property Management Committee• Research and Ethics Committee• Rules Committee.At the joint meeting <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> 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• <strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee• Information and Communication Technology Committee• Judicial Development Committee• Property Management Committee• Research and Ethics Committee.For detailed information on the judicial committees <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>, see Appendix 10.Judicial committee highlightsThis section summarises highlights <strong>of</strong> the work <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> and the legal pr<strong>of</strong>essionwith the object <strong>of</strong> providing the best, most efficient and cost-effective system for court users.Opportunities for rules harmonisation were identified in areas such as service <strong>of</strong> process, discovery <strong>of</strong>documents and the form <strong>of</strong> affidavits.• Considering the single expert rules in financial matters. In concert with the <strong>Family</strong> Law Section <strong>of</strong> theLaw Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, the Committee consulted with valuers and single experts about the rulesand through that process identified possible areas <strong>of</strong> improvement, particularly with respect to theform <strong>of</strong> communication with single experts.In addition, the Committee considered:• rules governing the eFiling process (along with the <strong>Court</strong>’s eFiling group)• whether rules are required for the process <strong>of</strong> making suppression or non-publication orders• whether rule 10.15A should be expanded in scope106 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
• s 69ZU <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> 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 (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010• Access to Justice (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010: Application, Saving andTransitional Provisions Bill 2010• Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010• draft bill on <strong>Court</strong> Suppression and Non-Publication Orders• drafting instructions on a bill to respond to the High <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> Attorneys-General (SCAG) and theEvidence Regulations 1995• proposed amendments for inclusion in a <strong>Family</strong> 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.• <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>s Violence Review—a report by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Richard Chisholm, 27 November 2009.<strong>Family</strong> Violence CommitteeThe <strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee was reconstituted as a joint committee <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong> after the release <strong>of</strong> these reports on 28 January 2010:• Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the 2006 <strong>Family</strong> Law Reforms by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies• <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>s Violence Review by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Richard Chisholm, and<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010107
• Improving Responses to <strong>Family</strong> Violence in the <strong>Family</strong> Law System by the <strong>Family</strong> Law Council.The Committee’s principal responsibility is to complete the implementation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the above reports. Inaddition:• a separate sub-committee was reviewing and updating the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s <strong>Family</strong> Violence Strategywith a view to expanding the strategy to encompass the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>• another sub-committee was reviewing the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s <strong>Family</strong> Violence Best Practice Principles toextend their ambit to the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> and to take account <strong>of</strong> changes in practice andprocedure in both <strong>Court</strong>s, and• the Committee coordinated a response to the <strong>Australia</strong>n Law Reform Council/NSW Law ReformCouncil’s consultation paper, <strong>Family</strong> Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks (a document <strong>of</strong> morethan 1000 pages).PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CommitteeIn 2008–09, the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group agreed to establish a joint <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>-FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong> Indigenous Working Group to examine the needs <strong>of</strong> Indigenous people in the<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s. The Group became a formal committee <strong>of</strong> the courts in April 2010. The Committeeconsidered:• the impact <strong>of</strong> the shift in the provision <strong>of</strong> services to Indigenous clients, previously provided byIndigenous <strong>Family</strong> Liaison Officers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, to <strong>Family</strong> Relationship Centres• how to manage applications for parenting orders concerning residence, contact and specific issuesas a result <strong>of</strong> traditional and customary adoption practices by Torres Strait Islanders (Kupai Omasker)• how to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> Indigenous clients <strong>of</strong> both courts within existing resources, includingrecommendations as to how the <strong>Court</strong>s can ensure proper information is provided to this clientgroup, internally and externally, and• the development <strong>of</strong> a joint Reconciliation Action Plan, as required by Government, which identifiesthe steps the <strong>Court</strong>s will take to build relationships and enhance respect with Indigenous<strong>Australia</strong>ns. 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 <strong>of</strong> familylaw, to undertake a study <strong>of</strong> the views and experiences <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s, including issues <strong>of</strong> access to justice and stepstowards improved service delivery. At 30 June 2010, it was anticipated that the results <strong>of</strong> the researchwould be published in early 2011.Other initiatives <strong>of</strong> the Committee during 2009–10, in consultation with the <strong>Court</strong>s’ Communication108 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
team, included:• information material for Indigenous clients in family law including»»a brochure Indigenous Families and the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s»»an ATSI web page http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/Communities+and+Individuals/Indigenous+<strong>Australia</strong>ns/»»an ATSI intranet page for client service staff.The Committee also worked on the <strong>Court</strong>s’ ATSI Employment Strategy.At 30 June 2010, it was anticipated the Reconciliation Action Plan and the employment strategy wouldbe completed by January 2011.Collaborative committees<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory GroupThe <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group has a critical governance role in resourcing both courts andcoordinates various administrative relationships between the two courts. The group endorsed a plan t<strong>of</strong>urther integrate the administrative structures <strong>of</strong> the courts and will oversee the plan’s implementation.The <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group comprises:• Chief Justice Bryant (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>)• Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe (Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>)• Justice Watts (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>)• Federal Magistrate Baumann (Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>)• Elizabeth Kelly (Attorney-General’s Department)• Richard Foster (CEO <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and acting CEO Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>).Senior management committeesThe Chief Executive Officer, Richard Foster, maintains an inclusive style <strong>of</strong> management. The seniorexecutive managers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s meet annually to establish the strategic direction and priorities for theeffective administration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>. In addition, senior executive managers participate in a number <strong>of</strong>committees 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>.Chaired by the CEO <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and acting CEO <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, Richard Foster,the group meets every six to eight weeks and comprises:• Acting Deputy, CEO Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>• Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the work <strong>of</strong> senior management committees during 2009–10.Appendix 10 has details <strong>of</strong> membership and terms <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> issues during the year, including the <strong>Court</strong>’s internalaudit plan, strategic risk and fraud risk treatments, and oversight <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n National Audit Officeand internal audit report recommendations.National Consultative CommitteeThe National Consultative Committee is a key forum through which the <strong>Court</strong> consults with staff aboutbroader issues that have a national perspective. Elected staff delegates actively present the views <strong>of</strong> staffon issues that impact at a national level on staff and the management and future direction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.The Committee’s area <strong>of</strong> focus include:• the objectives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> and how these might be achieved• financial and human resource planning• information technology initiatives110 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>Court</strong>’s approach to the continuing pr<strong>of</strong>essional and careerdevelopment <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> employed 619 ongoing and non-ongoing employees (excluding judicial<strong>of</strong>ficers and the CEO) in all states and territories except Western <strong>Australia</strong>.Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> Conduct• Corporate Plan and business area plans (for the National Support Office)• Service Charter and Service Commitments documents• <strong>Family</strong> Law Registries National Business Plan 2008–2010, and• case management policies and manuals related to the management <strong>of</strong> family law cases from theChief Justice, the Principal Registrar and the Principal Child Dispute Services.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe <strong>Court</strong>’s geographically dispersed staff and the judiciary are informed <strong>of</strong> 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 staff<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010111
• Chief Executive Instructions—the <strong>of</strong>ficialmechanism by which the Chief ExecutiveOfficer communicates and directs the <strong>Court</strong>’scompliance with the Financial Managementand Accountability Act 1997• Client service advices—from the ExecutiveDirector Client Services to all client servicestaff working in the registries• <strong>Court</strong>side—the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> court staff,and• Intranet messages—latest news.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYInternal auditThe <strong>Court</strong> has, as part <strong>of</strong> its corporategovernance arrangements, appropriatemechanisms to manage general business risk aswell as fraud risk.The <strong>Court</strong>’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:<strong>Court</strong>side.• HR payroll compliance and quality assurance processes• human resource management performance (benchmarking diagnostics)• collection <strong>of</strong> revenues and the recording <strong>of</strong> these revenues in Casetrack• management <strong>of</strong> the Executive Vehicle Scheme vehicles / fleet management, and• risk management review (strategic risk and fraud control risk assessments).The <strong>Court</strong>’s Audit and Risk Committee monitored the implementation <strong>of</strong> individual audit reportrecommendations generated by the above audits through quarterly status reports.Risk managementThe <strong>Court</strong> promotes a culture that supports the identification, analysis, assessment, treatment,monitoring and review <strong>of</strong> all strategic, operational, compliance and financial risks. This is supported bythe <strong>Court</strong>’s Risk Control and Compliance Framework—a risk management approach grounded in the<strong>Australia</strong>n/ New Zealand Risk Management Standard (AS/NZS IS0 31000: 2009).112 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
The framework provides policies, procedures and tools to promote effective risk management. It isavailable on the <strong>Court</strong>’s intranet to help achieve better services and outcomes for judicial services, clientsand staff.During 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> continued to participate in the annual Comcover benchmarking survey,which measures risk and assesses the extent <strong>of</strong> cultural change within agencies. The <strong>Court</strong>’s overallresult continued to improve, reflecting the implementation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s Risk Control and ComplianceFramework.Work started during 2009–10 on developing a single Business Continuity Plan for the variousjurisdictions in the Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong> building in Brisbane. The <strong>Court</strong> is working incollaboration with members <strong>of</strong> the National Law <strong>Court</strong>s 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 <strong>Court</strong>s early in 2011.As a result <strong>of</strong> a risk management review undertaken during 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> committed to raisingawareness <strong>of</strong> risk management with all staff. A risk awareness training package was designed for thispurpose, including to raise awareness <strong>of</strong> the benefits <strong>of</strong> incorporating risk assessments into businessplanning. Training with the package was completed during 2009–10.The <strong>Court</strong> continuously monitors its Strategic Risk Management Plan to take into consideration new oremerging risks that may impact the achievement <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s strategic objectives. The plan identifiesareas <strong>of</strong> risk for the <strong>Court</strong> and the strategies required to effectively manage and mitigate those risks. At30 June, the <strong>Court</strong> was well-advanced on preparing an updated Strategic Risk Management Plan for theperiod 2010–2012.Financial riskThe <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> fraud risktreatments.The <strong>Court</strong> has in place fraud investigation, reporting and data collection procedures that meet the needs<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> and comply with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines.The development <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 2010–11.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010113
No instances or allegations <strong>of</strong> fraud against the <strong>Court</strong> were reported in 2009–10.Fraud control certificationIn accordance with guideline 2.8 <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2002, issued bythe Minister for Justice and Customs, pursuant to Regulation 19 <strong>of</strong> the Financial Management andAccountability Regulations 1997, I hereby certify that I am satisfied that:• the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> 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 Officer<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>13 August 2010Ethical standardsThe <strong>Court</strong>’s Strategic Plan states that integrity,respect and responsiveness underpin itsapproach to business. The <strong>Australia</strong>n PublicService (APS) Values and Code <strong>of</strong> Conductcontained in the Public Service Act 1999 apply toall employees <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.In 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> maintained an ongoinginformation and education promotion toensure that all staff were aware <strong>of</strong> their rights,responsibilities and obligations in relationto privacy, ethics and other factors such asenvironmental responsibility, data managementand data quality.In addition, the <strong>Court</strong>, jointly with the FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong>, produced new Service Charterand Service Commitments publications. Theseoutline the service expected from staff <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Court</strong>s.Fraud-awareness training was conducted inSeptember 2009 and the <strong>Court</strong>’s eLearningService Charter.114 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
module has been updated to further reinforce the APS Code <strong>of</strong> Conduct and APS values.The <strong>Court</strong>’s Research and Ethics Committee considers, monitors and overviews all research and evaluationproposals (internal and external) for approval. Membership <strong>of</strong> the Committee is in Appendix 10.Joint Client Service Charter and Service CommitmentsDuring 2009–10, the separate Service Charters <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates<strong>Court</strong> were amalgamated. The joint Charter sets out the service level standards clients can expectfrom dealing with staff <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s and how clients and other users <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s websitewww.familylawcourts.gov.au.The joint summary Service Commitments document is on display at all registries and on the websites.It highlights what clients <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s can expect from client services staff, what the staff cannot do,clients rights and responsibilities and how clients can help the <strong>Court</strong>s to help them.External and internal scrutinyExternal scrutinyReports by the Auditor-GeneralThe Auditor General made no report specific to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> during 2009–10.Administrative Appeals TribunalThere are no matters to report.Commonwealth OmbudsmanThe Commonwealth Ombudsman made no report specific to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> during 2009–10.District <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong>NSW, claiming damages for alleged breaches <strong>of</strong> duty on the part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> personnel. On16 September 2009, Judge Levy SC, struck out the plaintiffs’ statement <strong>of</strong> claim and dismissed theproceedings.Judge Levy noted his view that what the plaintiffs sought to do in the District <strong>Court</strong> proceedings was tomount a collateral attack on earlier decisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. This it was said must not be permitted.Recognising that the procedural step <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the process <strong>of</strong> the court.The case confirms that where a matter lies within the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010115
<strong>Family</strong> law services reviewOn 24 May 2010 the Attorney-General, the Honourable Robert McClelland MP, announced thegovernment’s decision about the restructure <strong>of</strong> the federal courts. This followed:• March 2008, the Attorney-General initiated the Semple Review <strong>of</strong> the administration and delivery <strong>of</strong>family law services by the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>.• November 2008, the Attorney-General released a discussion paper, Future Governance Options forFederal <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s in <strong>Australia</strong>—Striking the Right Balance.• May 2009, the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government released its decision on the future <strong>of</strong> the courts. The Attorney-General announced that the government proposed to merge the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> with the<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal <strong>Court</strong>.At the end <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 2010. However, therestructure was delayed due to the government considering the implications <strong>of</strong> the High <strong>Court</strong>’s decisionin Lane v Morrison.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYIn terms <strong>of</strong> family law, on 24 May 2010 the Attorney-General announced that:• The Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> would be retained to hear general federal law matters,with the Federal <strong>Court</strong> assuming responsibility for the administration <strong>of</strong> the FMC.• The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>fered commissions in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.(At the time <strong>of</strong> publication <strong>of</strong> this Report, Parliament had been prorogued and the Bill as introduced haslapsed).Independent review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government’s use <strong>of</strong> ICTDuring 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> undertook significant reporting to the Department <strong>of</strong> Finance andDeregulation as recommendations <strong>of</strong> the ‘Review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government’s use <strong>of</strong> Information andCommunication Technology’ (ICT) by Sir Peter Gershon were implemented.In October 2009, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ICT equipment.The Gershon review led to the <strong>Court</strong>’s 2009–10 appropriation being reduced by 2.5 per cent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ICT 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 <strong>Court</strong> hadachieved the first year’s target reduction.In response to the pursuit <strong>of</strong> whole-<strong>of</strong>-government arrangements for various ICT goods and services,during the year the <strong>Court</strong> provided feedback and information to the Department <strong>of</strong> Financial andRegulation on areas including:• data centre use and requirements116 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
• desktop common operating environment and PC and notebook requirements• implementation <strong>of</strong> a common ICT chart <strong>of</strong> accounts• information about custom and bespoke applications development and details <strong>of</strong> all ICT s<strong>of</strong>tware andapplications used in the <strong>Court</strong>• ICT skills survey• internet gateway and major <strong>of</strong>fice machine requirements, and• status <strong>of</strong> green ICT initiatives.The <strong>Australia</strong>n Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) is managing a whole-<strong>of</strong>governmenttransition from IPv4 to IPv6. The <strong>Court</strong> is following the schedule <strong>of</strong> milestones.In the second quarter <strong>of</strong> 2009–10 the Department <strong>of</strong> Finance and Deregulation requested that the<strong>Court</strong> commence an implantation <strong>of</strong> the Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model(P3M3). A certified external consultant was engaged to assess the <strong>Court</strong> maturity level and develop abusiness improvement plan to raise the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> attend Senate estimate committee hearings to answerquestions about the <strong>Court</strong>’s activities. In 2009–10, more than 25 Senate estimate questions on noticewere received and answered.External evaluations<strong>Family</strong> consultants and registrars review and restructureEarly in 2009–10, Des Semple and Associates completed a review <strong>of</strong> family consultants and registrars.The review had these terms <strong>of</strong> reference:• Review the current management structure and processes <strong>of</strong> family consultant and registrar servicesand advise on the appropriate governance and management structure for the future provision <strong>of</strong>these services to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, recognising the separate casemanagement processes and procedures <strong>of</strong> the two courts.• Recommend the future quantum <strong>of</strong> family consultant and registrar resources for future allocation tothe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> on the proportion <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> cases finalisedby both courts.• Propose management systems that ensure transparent and dedicated allocation <strong>of</strong> resources to bothcourts according to the number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> resources arising from the Semple review.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010117
<strong>Family</strong> consultantsIn October 2009, a single management structure was introduced and the first allocation <strong>of</strong> dedicatedfamily consultant and registrar resources was made for the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. The new structurereplaced the previous positions <strong>of</strong> Manager Child Dispute Services positions with Regional Coordinatorsin Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. Deputy Managers Child Dispute Services were replaced by six newSenior <strong>Family</strong> Consultant positions at these same registries, with three assigned to each <strong>Court</strong> to managethe pool <strong>of</strong> available resources. An additional six Senior <strong>Family</strong> Consultants will be located in NorthQueensland, Newcastle, Parramatta, Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart.Resources continue to be moved between the <strong>Court</strong>s to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the judiciary and clients.RegistrarsThe regional management and appeals structure <strong>of</strong> registrars was maintained. In October 2009 apredetermined level <strong>of</strong> registrar resources for each location was decided, to be made available throughthe pool <strong>of</strong> registrars in each location.The approaches to the use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the single administration. The ongoing management <strong>of</strong> resources will beachieved at a regional level through a transparent management process that will be monitored andregularly report to the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group.Internal evaluationsIntegration <strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong>s’ administrationAs reported last year, in March 2009, in advance <strong>of</strong> the government’s decision about the future <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Court</strong>s, a plan to further integrate the administration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates<strong>Court</strong> was made by the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group. This was done to maximise the efficiency andresources <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s and to help address the challenging financial position facing both <strong>Court</strong>s.The integration <strong>of</strong> the administrations proceeded. The integrated administration continued to recognisethat the two jurisdictions remained as independent courts.In addition to the restructuring <strong>of</strong> registrar and family consultant resources, a number <strong>of</strong> changes weremade to regional and registry management structures and to client services within registries.Single regional and registry management structureThe <strong>Court</strong>s now have a single regional management structure, managed through four regions by fourRegional Registry Managers under the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Executive Director, Client Services (StephenAndrew):118 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
• New South Wales/ACT: Marianne Christmann• Queensland/Northern New South Wales: James Cotta• Victoria/Tasmania: Jane Reynolds• South <strong>Australia</strong>/Northern Territory: Greg Thomas.A new position <strong>of</strong> Business Development Manager was created during the year, with responsibililty foreFiling and portal development, the National Enquiry Centre and the business systems development<strong>of</strong>ficers.A two-day planning workshop for seniors managers <strong>of</strong> both <strong>Court</strong>s was held in March 2010. The focus <strong>of</strong>discussions was critical issues affecting both <strong>Court</strong>s, such as strategies for the combined administration,budget strategies (including savings options), governance, roles and expectations, and key elements <strong>of</strong>the change process necessary to ensure an effective way forward.Client services restructureAfter consulting with staff over several months, the implementation <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> both courts.Judicial support reviewIn February 2010, a review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s case coordinator and court <strong>of</strong>ficer functions and resourcescommenced in order to:• determine the most effective and efficient model for support <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> judges, including themembers <strong>of</strong> the Full <strong>Court</strong>• recommend to the Chief Justice and Chief Executive Officer a model that ensures appropriatesupport in court and in the management <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ficers 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> in January2008. An internal review <strong>of</strong> 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010119
The review showed that the program was well established and integrated with less adversarial trials.Judges reported a high level <strong>of</strong> satisfaction with the way the program focussed on the needs <strong>of</strong> childrenand integrated with the first day <strong>of</strong> the less adversarial trial. The Child Responsive Program has becomemore flexible to accommodate the needs <strong>of</strong> the particularly complex matters now before the <strong>Court</strong> andto ensure that families do not undergo duplicated assessments when matters are transferred betweencourts.Management <strong>of</strong> human resourcesOverviewIn 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong>’s human resources area undertook significant work associated with the merger <strong>of</strong>the administration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, which had commenced in March2009. A people management framework and related strategies were essential for the merged workforce.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYTerms and conditions <strong>of</strong> employment was a key issue. Staff on similar classifications, working side-bysideand performing similar duties had different terms and conditions <strong>of</strong> employment including differentrates <strong>of</strong> pay. This was a result <strong>of</strong> different pay structures within the courts, and different employmentconditions and salary outcomes from the respective Collective Agreements.A high priority <strong>of</strong> the Chief Executive Officer <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Acting Chief Executive Officer <strong>of</strong>the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> was for a single Enterprise Agreement with a single set <strong>of</strong> terms andconditions for all staff <strong>of</strong> both courts. That could not be accomplished immediately following the merger<strong>of</strong> the administration. The Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>’s Collective Agreement had a nominal expiry date <strong>of</strong>30 June 2009 and the last pay rise under it was on 1 July 2008. The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s Collective Agreementnominally expired on 30 June 2010, with a pay rise <strong>of</strong> 4.4 per cent from 1 July 2009. As a result the payrates applying to staff <strong>of</strong> the respective courts were significantly out <strong>of</strong> alignment.As an interim measure, the Chief Executive Officer, by determination under section 24 <strong>of</strong> the PublicService Act 1999, aligned the salary rates <strong>of</strong> the two courts on 9 September 2009. This followedconsultation with staff and the Community and Public Sector Union, and the approval <strong>of</strong> the Attorney-General and the Department <strong>of</strong> Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Also in September 2009, the Government introduced new policy parameters for agreement makingin the <strong>Australia</strong>n Public Service, the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government Employment Bargaining Framework.Negotiations then commenced for a replacement Enterprise Agreement involving the <strong>Court</strong>s’management, the CPSU and individual staff bargaining representatives.The <strong>Court</strong>s’ intranets were the primary vehicles for keeping the employees informed <strong>of</strong> developments,with regular news and announcements about issues such as salary alignment, registry reviews and theprogress <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Australia</strong> approved the new Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Australia</strong> Enterprise Agreement 2010. It commenced on 25 June 2010. See ‘Agreement Making’ later inthis Part for more details.120 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Workforce planning, retention and turnoverWorkforce planningThroughout 2009–10, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> continued to improve its human resources systems andreporting to develop a better, evidence-based understanding <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> also has a longstanding and ongoing commitment to ensuring that the needs <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>Indigenous <strong>Australia</strong>ns through its recruitment policies, training and mentoring programs.The <strong>Court</strong> facilitates access to its services for Indigenous people by ensuring that information aboutthe <strong>Court</strong> is widely available across the Indigenous community in suitable formats and delivered inculturally appropriate ways. The <strong>Court</strong> also develops partnerships with a range <strong>of</strong> Indigenous stakeholdergroups at the national and local registry levels. It also provides appropriate and ongoing education tojudicial <strong>of</strong>ficers and staff on the cultural background <strong>of</strong> Indigenous <strong>Australia</strong>ns. These partnerships andrelationships assist the <strong>Court</strong> in assessing whether there is a need for targeted recruitment in particularcultural areas and informs staff as part <strong>of</strong> their role.The <strong>Court</strong> also recognises the significant contribution made by mature aged employees in the workplace.Accordingly, the <strong>Court</strong> encourages the use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> staff and to encourage staff retention are integral to the <strong>Court</strong>’scommitment to workplace diversity. The strategies include the following options, benefits and initiatives.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYBalancing work and personal lifeThe <strong>Court</strong> recognises the need to balance the operational needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> and the personal lives <strong>of</strong>staff. Its employment arrangements provide for general and individual flexible working arrangements,including flex time, time <strong>of</strong>f in lieu, part-time work, working from home opportunities, overtime,purchased leave, maternity leave, salary sacrifice arrangements and paid time <strong>of</strong>f work over theChristmas and New Year period.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010121
Kristen Murray (Melbourne Registry). Recipient <strong>of</strong> the 2010 <strong>Australia</strong> Dayachievement medallion.Raelene Shearer (Melbourne Registry). Recipient <strong>of</strong> the2010 <strong>Australia</strong> Day achievement medallion.A safe and healthy work environmentPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYAndrew Watson (Hobart Registry). Recipient <strong>of</strong>the 2010 <strong>Australia</strong> Day achievement medallionThe <strong>Court</strong> provides a family-friendly and non-discriminatory workenvironment with strong policies against harassment and bullying.The <strong>Court</strong> 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 pr<strong>of</strong>essional counselling to employees and members <strong>of</strong> theirimmediate families, an employee wellbeing program and freeannual influenza vaccinations.Rewards and recognitionRecognition <strong>of</strong> staff in the form <strong>of</strong> positive feedback andcelebration <strong>of</strong> achievement is an important part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’sculture and business practice. The <strong>Court</strong>’s reward and recognitionscheme, the Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award,<strong>Australia</strong> Day Medallions and the Years <strong>of</strong> Service awardsprovide a framework to recognise and reward employees for theachievement <strong>of</strong> corporate goals, providing non-cash rewards andrecognition.Jenny Paxton, winner <strong>of</strong> the 2009 Janet KitcherAwardWorkforce turnoverDuring 2009–10, 85 employees and judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers left the <strong>Court</strong>.Of these, 53 were ongoing employees, representing an annualturnover rate <strong>of</strong> 8 per cent against staff numbers at 30 June 2010(see Table 8.9 at Appendix 3). In 2008–09, the percentage <strong>of</strong>ongoing staff separations by total staff numbers was also 8 percent. This compares with ongoing staff separations <strong>of</strong> 14 per centin 2007–08 and 13 per cent in 2006–07.122 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Staffing pr<strong>of</strong>ileAt 30 June 2010, the <strong>Court</strong> had 619 employees (excluding judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and casual employees) covered by the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> Enterprise Agreement 2010 or <strong>Australia</strong>n 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 <strong>of</strong> staff by location, gender, attendance, ongoing and non-ongoingemployment status.Judicial <strong>of</strong>ficersAt 30 June 2010, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ficers and the Chief Executive Officer are governedby enforceable determinations <strong>of</strong> the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details including relevantdeterminations are available at: www.remtribunal.gov.auAgreement makingA single Enterprise Agreement for the <strong>Court</strong>sFor most <strong>of</strong> the reporting year the employees <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> were covered by the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong><strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> Collective Agreement 2007–10. On 18 June 2010, Fair Work <strong>Australia</strong> approved the newFederal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> Enterprise Agreement 2010. TheAgreement was negotiated between the <strong>Court</strong>s and the Community and Public Sector Union andindividual staff bargaining representatives. It commenced on 25 June 2010, replacing the individualCollective Agreements <strong>of</strong> both <strong>Court</strong>s.The nominal expiry date <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s employed under the Public Service Act 1999, other than SES employees.The achievement <strong>of</strong> the Agreement was a significant event. It means that within the two <strong>Court</strong>s,staff working side-by-side doing similar work are employed under the same terms and conditions <strong>of</strong>employment. It positions the <strong>Court</strong>s for future developments in the conduct <strong>of</strong> workplace relations withinthe government sector.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Agreement supports significant improvements in the <strong>Court</strong>s’ operations to be achieved through therange <strong>of</strong> corporate efficiency/productivity measures produced following reviews <strong>of</strong> child dispute services,judicial support, library and guarding services, user pays options, divorce processes and procedures,including conciliation conferences, use <strong>of</strong> interpreters, technology (video links and teleconferencing),circuits and provision <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> a classification, an employee must participate in the <strong>Court</strong>s’ PerformanceManagement and Development System (PMDS) and be assessed as ‘meeting requirements’ or higher ator before the date <strong>of</strong> the pay increase.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> the service report.Other agreementsOffers <strong>of</strong> AWAs to <strong>Court</strong> employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with the <strong>Australia</strong>nGovernment 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 <strong>Court</strong> has used common law contracts to provide supplementary conditions <strong>of</strong>employment for individuals covered by the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Collective Agreement (which was supersededby the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> Enterprise Agreement 2010on 25 June 2010) and determinations made by the Agency Head under section 24 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> employment in the <strong>Court</strong> are governed by one or more <strong>of</strong> the followingindustrial agreements:• The Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> Enterprise Agreement 2010,effective from 25 June 2010, and before that the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> Collective Agreement2007–2010, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs• AWAs• individual determinations under s 24(1) <strong>of</strong>the 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 <strong>of</strong>retaining 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s seniorexecutive service employees are in AWAs andindividual s24(1) determinations made by theService Commitments.124 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Chief Executive Officer. SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and takeaccount <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s budgetary position.Non-salary benefitsNon-salary benefits provided by the <strong>Court</strong> to employees include:• motor vehicles• car parking• superannuation• access to salary sacrificing arrangements• computers, including home-based computer access• membership <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional 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 <strong>Court</strong> neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paidperformance pay to any employee.Training, learning and developmentThe <strong>Court</strong> recognises the value <strong>of</strong> a well-educated workforce that is able to contribute effectively tomeeting the <strong>Court</strong>’s objectives. It provides staff with an extensive array <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s in-house training facilities include the provision <strong>of</strong> self-paced, on-line learning courses on arange <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> specific areas, including on how to deal with difficult clients,family violence training for pr<strong>of</strong>essionals working in family law, courtroom technology, bullying andharassment, risk awareness and fraud awareness. The <strong>Court</strong> also has a peer support network, for whichtraining is provided as required.The <strong>Court</strong> facilitates staff participation in the comprehensive range <strong>of</strong> leadership, learning anddevelopment programs provided by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Public Service Commission. It also provides studiesassistance including leave and support for employees undertaking relevant tertiary studies.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010125
Performance Management and Development SystemThe <strong>Court</strong>s’ Performance Management and Development System aims to align individual outcomes toteam and branch business plans, leading ultimately to achieving the two <strong>Court</strong>s’ 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 the<strong>Court</strong>’s people, recognises diversity and acknowledges their contribution to organisational success.The target in 2009–10 was for 100 per cent <strong>of</strong> employees participating in the system. This was achieved.Employee assistance programPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe <strong>Court</strong>’s employee assistance program provides a free, confidential counselling service to the judiciary,<strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> to guide thedevelopment <strong>of</strong> wellbeing strategies.Peer support networkThe nature <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s core business means that employees may be exposed to and involved inhighly sensitive and stressful situations. During 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> continued a proactive approach tolessen the risk <strong>of</strong> stress in the workplace by introducing a peer support system within registries and theNational Support Office.The system provides a network <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ficers from any location can provide assistance as required, that is, there is no restrictionon staff accessing <strong>of</strong>ficers from outside their immediate work area. All communication with trained peersupport <strong>of</strong>ficers is strictly confidential.Productivity gainsThe first full year <strong>of</strong> the single administrative structure for the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates<strong>Court</strong> continued to produce efficiency savings through the more efficient allocation <strong>of</strong> resources,elimination <strong>of</strong> duplicated services and the rationalisation <strong>of</strong> court services.Synergies were achieved in the area <strong>of</strong> training where program delivery was made available to the staff<strong>of</strong> both courts, thus reducing cost and capturing a greater number <strong>of</strong> staff.As part <strong>of</strong> the single administration, the review <strong>of</strong> client services and registry management structuresresulted in a number <strong>of</strong> changes being introduced to further reduce duplication, improve the overall126 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> productivity gains also formed part <strong>of</strong> the Enterprise Agreement negotiations mentionedearlier in this part.Commonwealth Disability StrategyIn accordance with the Commonwealth Disability Strategy, the <strong>Court</strong> undertook a number <strong>of</strong> activitiesduring 2009–10, including the following:• Through its senior management group and other committees, the <strong>Court</strong> continued to focus onmeeting the needs <strong>of</strong> staff and clients, including those with disabilities and other special needs.• The <strong>Court</strong>, through its National Occupational Health and Safety Committee, ensures that thephysical needs <strong>of</strong> staff and clients are being met. For example, the use <strong>of</strong> the checklist ensures thatpassageways are kept clear and fire drills take into account the physical needs <strong>of</strong> staff and visitors.• The <strong>Court</strong>’s staff induction programs address access and equity in client services, raising theawareness <strong>of</strong> staff about the need to be flexible and understanding in meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> all<strong>Court</strong> users.• The <strong>Court</strong> continued to implement initiatives from its Workplace Diversity Plan, the aim <strong>of</strong> whichis to accommodate, as far as possible, the personal circumstances <strong>of</strong> all staff, including staff withdisabilities.The <strong>Court</strong> is committed to ensuring that its facilities are accessible to all members <strong>of</strong> the community,including people with disabilities. It has noted the Government response to the House <strong>of</strong> RepresentativesStanding Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ report Access All Areas. Building andconstruction works on existing and proposed buildings for which the <strong>Court</strong> has responsibility will takeinto account the needs <strong>of</strong> people with disabilities.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYChief Justice Bryant unveils the memorial plaque at the 20th anniversary memorial <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> bombings at Parramatta.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010127
The <strong>Court</strong> reports on its performance against the core performance role <strong>of</strong> provider (see Table 8.16 inAppendix 8). In addition, the <strong>Court</strong> reports on its role as an employer through the State <strong>of</strong> the ServiceReport survey conducted by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Public Service Commission.Financial managementThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> is a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and AccountabilityAct 1997.The <strong>Court</strong>’s 2009–10 Budget, as published in the Portfolio Additional Estimates, was $158.1 million. Thecourt has reported a surplus <strong>of</strong> $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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s 2009–10 budget.Figure 6.2 provides a further breakdown <strong>of</strong> actual costs for 2009–10 which shows that the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>has a significant component <strong>of</strong> fixed costs (57 per cent) relating to property, judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers and theirsupport, and depreciation.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> provides resources free <strong>of</strong> charge to the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> in accordance withsections 90, 92 and 99 <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates Act 1999. Resources provided free <strong>of</strong> charge include:PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY• court staff, who perform work on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, and• accommodation, including access to courtrooms.It is estimated that the cost <strong>of</strong> resources provided free <strong>of</strong> charge by the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> to the FederalMagistrates <strong>Court</strong> during 2009–10 was $30.162m.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> also provides resources free <strong>of</strong> charge to the Federal <strong>Court</strong>. It is estimated that thecost <strong>of</strong> these resources in 2009–10 was $0.616m. The resources provided free <strong>of</strong> charge includeaccommodation and other property costs for Sydney Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s.Figure 6.2 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’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%<strong>Family</strong> Consultants 5%Registrars 4%Case Coordinators 1%<strong>Court</strong> Officers 2%128 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>Court</strong>s 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.<strong>Family</strong> 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.<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to court <strong>of</strong>ficers.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 provision<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> (some <strong>of</strong> which is externally funded).Services provided free <strong>of</strong> chargeThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> provides resources free <strong>of</strong> charge to the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> under sections 90,92 and 99 <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, including:• court staff, who perform work on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>• accommodation, including access to courtrooms.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe estimated cost <strong>of</strong> those free <strong>of</strong> charge resources for the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> in 2009–10 was$30.162m.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> also provided resources free <strong>of</strong> charge to the Federal <strong>Court</strong> with an estimated cost<strong>of</strong> $0.616m in 2009–10. This included accommodation and other property costs for the SydneyCommonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010129
Figure 6.3Services provided free <strong>of</strong> charge to the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>Corporate Support 4%Corporate Overheads 5%VariableFixedInformation TechnologyServices 6%Client Services 16%Judges & Support 20%Judges Registrars & Support 1%Depreciation 4%Property 32%<strong>Family</strong> Consultants 5%Registrars 4%Case Coordinators 1%<strong>Court</strong> Officers 2%Shared ResourcesPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYPurchasing, consultants and contractsThe Procurement and Risk Management section assists staff undertaking procurement and managesa number <strong>of</strong> corporate contracts. The section also manages, or has significant involvement in, allcomplex procurement undertaken by the <strong>Court</strong> to ensure compliance with legislative obligations andthe Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. The Chief Executive Instructions, the CommonwealthProcurement Guidelines and the <strong>Court</strong>’s Procurement Framework are all posted on the intranet asreference material for <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> staff.The core policies and principles <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines were, as far aspracticable, adhered to throughout 2009–10. The <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong>fers were exempt from publication in the Purchasing andDisposal Gazette in terms <strong>of</strong> the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act.External consultantsThe <strong>Court</strong> engages external consultants to support <strong>Court</strong> activities where specialised expertise is notavailable in house or where an independent assessment or evaluation is required. Table 6.1 showsconsultant services contracts <strong>of</strong> $10 000 or more let during 2009–10.During 2009–10, total actual expenditure on consultancy contracts was $474 155 (GST inclusive),comprising:130 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
• four new consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure <strong>of</strong> $260 921• four ongoing consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure <strong>of</strong> $213 234.Annual reports contain information about actual expenditure on contracts for consultancies. Informationon the value <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> services previouslyperformed by the <strong>Court</strong>.Table 6.1Consultant services contracts let during 2009–10, <strong>of</strong> $10 000 or moreConsultant name Description <strong>of</strong> services Contract price(Inc GST)Selectionprocess (1)Justification (2)Catherine Argall PSMIce DesignOakton ServicesStephen RalphLEGEND(1) Explanation <strong>of</strong> selection process terms:Provision <strong>of</strong> a head negotiator for the2009–2010 Enterprise Agreementmaking processes for the <strong>Family</strong> Law<strong>Court</strong>sVideo conferencing consultancyservicesConsultancy services to conductimpendent assessments <strong>of</strong>organisational program and projectcapability based on P3M3 capabilityServices to undertake a study <strong>of</strong>Indigenous <strong>Australia</strong>ns access andusage <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s$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 <strong>Australia</strong>n 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 <strong>of</strong> competent suppliers.Direct sourcing: A form <strong>of</strong> restricted tendering, available only under certain defined circumstances, with a single potential supplier orsuppliers being invited to bid because <strong>of</strong> their unique expertise and/or their special ability to supply goods and/or services sought.Panel: An arrangement under which a number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>fers and suppliers panels where the consultant<strong>of</strong>fers to supply goods and services for pre-determined length <strong>of</strong> time, usually at a pre-arranged price.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY(2) Justification for decisions to use consultancyA: skills currently unavailable within the <strong>Court</strong>B: need for specialised or pr<strong>of</strong>essional skillsC: need for independent research or assessment<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010131
Legal services expenditureParagraph 11.1 <strong>of</strong> the Legal Services Directions 2005 states that the Chief Executive Officer <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>has 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 <strong>of</strong> persons appointed by the Attorney-General under Section 63 <strong>of</strong> the Judiciary Act1903 to receive service in proceeding to which the Commonwealth is a party.Table 6.3 provides details <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s legal services expenditure for 2009–10. This is publishedin compliance with paragraph 11.1 (ba) <strong>of</strong> the Legal Services Directions 2005. All expenditure figuresinclude GST.Table 6.2Legal services expenditureTotal external legal services expenditure $42 348PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYTotal number <strong>of</strong> counsel briefed 0Total number <strong>of</strong> counsel direct briefed 1Total value <strong>of</strong> counsel briefs $2 188Total <strong>of</strong> disbursements (excluding counsel) $138Total <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional fees paid $40 022Total internal legal services expenditure $186 108Total costs recovered $0COUNSELTotal number <strong>of</strong> counsel briefed 0Male counsel briefed 0Female counsel briefed 0Total number <strong>of</strong> counsel direct briefed 1Male counsel direct briefed 0Female counsel direct briefed 1Total value <strong>of</strong> counsel briefs $2 188Male counsel briefs 0Female counsel briefs $2 188Disbursements (excluding counsel) $138Pr<strong>of</strong>esssional feesTotal pr<strong>of</strong>essional fees paid $40 022<strong>Australia</strong>n Government Solicitor $36 046Blake Dawson Waldron $3 976Consistent with paragraph 11.2 <strong>of</strong> the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Chief Executive Officer issueda Certificate to the Office <strong>of</strong> Legal Services Coordination <strong>of</strong> the Attorney-General’s Department statingthat the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>:132 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
• had appropriate systems and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the Directions• had no record <strong>of</strong> any alleged, possible or determined breach <strong>of</strong> the Directions during the 2009–10financial year.Assets managementDuring 2009–10, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> commissioned licensed valuers and chartered building surveyorsto undertake a complete on site identification, inspection, condition assessment and valuation <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> allleasehold including photographic registers.The <strong>Court</strong> also commissioned a desktop valuation <strong>of</strong> all infrastructure plant and equipment and that wasalso completed in June 2010.These projects have provided the <strong>Court</strong> with comprehensive asset records able to support theDepartment <strong>of</strong> Finance and Deregulation’s requirement for a four year capital plan.Property managementThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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, C<strong>of</strong>fs 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 <strong>of</strong> the Sydney registry, a refurbishment <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYDandenongPlanning was undertaken during the year for the upgrade <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> facilities within theregistry will be improved by having separate areas for:• childminding• an adolescent breakout space• children’s toilets, and• infant sleeping.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong>fice upgradeand an additional courtroom. The registry now has four courtrooms for five judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers. 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 <strong>of</strong> judicial <strong>of</strong>ficersfrom the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> on Level 9 at the Brisbane Commonwealth Law<strong>Court</strong>s building. This followed a review <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> November 2010.PART 6Correction <strong>of</strong> material errors in 2008–09 reportThe <strong>Court</strong> has no matters to report.MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY134 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
PART 7: FINANCIAL STATEMENTSTable <strong>of</strong> ContentsStatement by CEO and CFO 141Statement <strong>of</strong> Comprehesive Income 142Balance Sheet 143Statement <strong>of</strong> Changes in Equity 144Cash Flow Statement 145Schedule <strong>of</strong> Commitments 146Schedule <strong>of</strong> Asset Additions 147Schedule <strong>of</strong> Administered Items 148Note 1: Summary <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Auditors 174Note 13: Financial Instruments 175Note 14: Income Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 178Note 15: Expenses Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 178Note 16: Assets Adminstered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Outcomes 183PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010137
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7138 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010139
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7140 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010141
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7142 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010143
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7144 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010145
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7146 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010147
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7148 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010149
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7150 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010151
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7152 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010153
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7154 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010155
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7156 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010157
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7158 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010159
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7160 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010161
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7162 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010163
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7164 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010165
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7166 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010167
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7168 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010169
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7170 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010171
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7172 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010173
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7174 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010175
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7176 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010177
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7178 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010179
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7180 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010181
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7182 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010183
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7184 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010185
FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPART 7186 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 8APPENDICES
PART 8: APPENDICESAppendix 1: Resource statementTable 8.1 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> resource statement, 2009–10The <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Australia</strong> 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).<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010189
Appendix 2: Resources for outcomesTable 8.2 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> resources for outcomes, 2009–10PART 8Resources for OutcomesThe table below shows the total resourcing for the <strong>Court</strong>’s Outcome on an expense basis.Appendix 2Outcome 1: As <strong>Australia</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>Administered 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 <strong>of</strong> charge for <strong>Australia</strong>n 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Appendix 3: Staffing pr<strong>of</strong>ileStaffing pr<strong>of</strong>ileAt 30 June 2010, the <strong>Court</strong> had a total workforce <strong>of</strong> 619 employees covered by the CollectiveAgreement and AWAs (excluding judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees), 19less than at 30 June 2009.Of the <strong>Court</strong>’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 Pr<strong>of</strong>ileLevel 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 <strong>of</strong> judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers and casualemployees.All figures in the above table are based on actual headcount.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010191
Table 8.4:Staff by genderPART 8Appendix 3: Staffing pr<strong>of</strong>ileLevel 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 <strong>of</strong>ficers and the Chief Executive Officer, who are holders <strong>of</strong> public <strong>of</strong>fice, and casual employees are notincluded in the above tables.192 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 Pr<strong>of</strong>ileLevel 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 <strong>of</strong> Chief Justice, MelbourneNSO – National Support Office, Canberra<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010193
Judicial <strong>of</strong>ficersAt 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 pr<strong>of</strong>ileTable 8.8: Total number <strong>of</strong> judges and judicial registrars, 30 June 2010Location Judges Judicial RegistrarsNew South Wales 12 2Victoria1 Chief Justice5Queensland 6South <strong>Australia</strong> 3Tasmania 1<strong>Australia</strong>n Capital Territory1 Deputy Chief Justice1Total 30 2Workforce turnoverDuring 2009–10, 85 employees and judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers left the <strong>Court</strong> (26 were non-ongoing and 53 wereongoing employees), being an annual turnover rate <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>fice holders Retirement age 60–70 50.92% Resigned 1Total public <strong>of</strong>fice holders 6Total 85Note:The above figures do not include non-ongoing employees whose actual period <strong>of</strong> engagement reached their nonongoingcontract date <strong>of</strong> expiry.* Total staff numbers for the above table include all employees and public <strong>of</strong>fice holders (judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers and theChief Executive Officer) as at 30 June 2010 (total headcount <strong>of</strong> 652).194 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Agreement makingCollective Agreement and Enterprise AgreementOn 25 June 2010, the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> EnterpriseAgreement 2010, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs, commenced. It replacedthe <strong>Court</strong>’s Collective Agreement 2007–10, which had been lodged pursuant to section 328 <strong>of</strong> theWorkplace Relations Act 1996 on 30 July 2007 and had a nominal expiry date <strong>of</strong> 30 June 2010.At 30 June 2010, 568 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> employees were covered by the Enterprise Agreement.Table 8.10:<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> employees covered by the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> 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 Pr<strong>of</strong>ileOther agreementsWhile the Government’s new transitional legislation governing changes to the Work Choices legislationno longer allows for the making <strong>of</strong> new AWAs, at 30 June 2010, 34 employees had enforceable AWAs inplace.In some limited cases, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> has used common law contracts and determination24 instruments pursuant to the <strong>Australia</strong>n 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010195
Table 8.11:Employees covered by other agreementsPART 8Appendix 3: Staffing pr<strong>of</strong>ile<strong>Australia</strong>n 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 <strong>Court</strong> to employees include motor vehicles, car parking,superannuation, computers including home-based computer access, membership <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionalassociations and organisations, mobile phones and airline club memberships.Performance pay arrangementsThe <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Table 8.13:Classification structure and pay rates*APS classification and no.<strong>of</strong> 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 Pr<strong>of</strong>ile* excludes casual employee<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010197
Appendix 4: Occupational health and safetyMaintaining the health and safety <strong>of</strong> staff and all those who use the <strong>Court</strong>’s premises is integral to thebusiness and values <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>. The <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> business-as-usual for all managersand staff.The <strong>Court</strong> achieves this through:• actively preventing work-related injury and illness via regular workplace checks and inspections• providing access to information, training, pr<strong>of</strong>essional support and advice on OHS issues via the<strong>Court</strong>’s intranet, training programs and other means• consulting with staff and their representatives on the development and variation <strong>of</strong> health and safetymanagement arrangements• advising managers and staff <strong>of</strong> their OHS responsibilities, and• ensuring health and safety representatives have the time and resources to reasonably perform theirrole.The <strong>Court</strong> recognises that effective health and safety management reduces the social and financial costs<strong>of</strong> occupational injury and illness.During 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong>:• developed and implemented Health and Safety Management Arrangements, which documents themanagement <strong>of</strong> occupational health and safety within the <strong>Court</strong>• 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s occupational health and safety employee benefits include advice on ergonomic workstations,provision <strong>of</strong> ergonomic furniture, access to a free employee assistance program, annual influenzavaccinations, eyesight testing, access to peer support <strong>of</strong>ficers, first aid <strong>of</strong>ficers and harassment contact<strong>of</strong>ficers.Whilst the <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s locations reported occupational health and safety audits requiring seriousinvestigations during 2009–10.198 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Workers’ compensation and early intervention managementThe <strong>Court</strong> continued to manage its workers’ compensation cases proactively throughout the year.Proactive case management <strong>of</strong> cases showed a significant decrease in the number <strong>of</strong> claims beinglodged and the costs associated with such possible claims. This also provided a significant reduction tothe <strong>Court</strong>’s workers’ compensation premium for 2010–11. Figure 8.1 shows the lifetime cost estimate <strong>of</strong>workers’ 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> injuryTable 8.14: Comcare premium rates, 2005–06 to 2010–112005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Australia</strong>All 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 -0.03<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010199
Appendix 5: Freedom <strong>of</strong> informationThe <strong>Court</strong> received no Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information requests during 2009–10.At 30 June 2010 there were no matters outstanding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.PART 8Table 8.15: Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information requests, 2005–06 to 2009–10Financial yearNumber <strong>of</strong> requestsAppendix 5: Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information2009–10 02008–09 02007–08 42006–07 32005–06 3Facilities for accessFreedom <strong>of</strong> Information requests are handled at the national level. The Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act 1982does not apply to any request for access to a document <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>, unless the document relates tomatters <strong>of</strong> an administrative nature—see section 5 <strong>of</strong> the Act. Broadly speaking, this means that the Actdoes not apply to documents related to the exercise <strong>of</strong> the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.The availability <strong>of</strong> documents outside the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act is subject to the <strong>Family</strong> Law Actand the <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules that generally confine access to <strong>Court</strong> files or registry indexes to parties, ortheir representatives, to particular proceedings.Facilities for examining documents and obtaining copies are available at the <strong>Court</strong>’s registries. Freedom<strong>of</strong> Information enquiries should be directed to:FOI Coordinator<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>PO Box 9991Canberra ACT 2601Categories <strong>of</strong> documentsThe <strong>Court</strong> maintains the following categories <strong>of</strong> documents:• general correspondence• client feedback correspondence• those concerning the development and implementation <strong>of</strong> policy, standards, guidelines andprocedures• records <strong>of</strong> meetings and conferences• addresses and speeches published by the <strong>Court</strong>• those concerning administration and financial aspects <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>200 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
• those concerning research projects, submissions, reports, audits, evaluations and reviews, includingstatistical information gathered by <strong>Court</strong> staff• those concerning security aspects <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>• personnel files• first instance and appeal case files, comprising all documents filed in the <strong>Court</strong> or transferred fromother jurisdictions (for example, formal applications and supporting affidavits) and records <strong>of</strong> allorders made in court proceedings• an alphabetical index in each registry (in card form or computerised recording system) <strong>of</strong> all partieswho have commenced or continued proceedings in that registry, and• family consultant interview records (hard copy and/or computerised) that record particulars <strong>of</strong> anypersons having presented themselves to the child dispute services section <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> (whethervoluntarily or under <strong>Court</strong> direction).Other documentsThe Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act 1982 does not apply to single copies <strong>of</strong> all printed materials listed belowwhich may be obtained free <strong>of</strong> charge upon request from all <strong>Family</strong> Law registries.PART 8 Appendix 5: Freedom <strong>of</strong> InformationPrescribed brochures and formsWhen certain applications are filed the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 and the <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules 2004 require<strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong>Law 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> 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 1<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010201
Prescribed formsPART 8Appendix 5: Freedom <strong>of</strong> InformationThere was one prescribed <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> form, Notice <strong>of</strong> Child Abuse or <strong>Family</strong> Violence (Form 4), at30 June 2010. The remainder <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> forms are approved by the Chief Justice pursuant toRule 24.04(1).Client informationThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> also provides a wide range <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>’s registries and/or at www.familylawcourts.gov.au202 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Appendix 6: Advertising and market researchUnder section 311A <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the <strong>Court</strong> is required to discloseparticulars <strong>of</strong> payments <strong>of</strong> $11 200 or more (inclusive <strong>of</strong> GST) for advertising, market research, pollingorganisations, direct mail and media advertising.The <strong>Court</strong> spent a total <strong>of</strong> $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 <strong>Australia</strong>n Public Service Commission ($12 406).During 2009–10, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> did not conduct any advertising campaigns.PART 8 Appendix 6: Advertising and Market Research<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010203
PART 8Appendix 7: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performanceAppendix 7: Ecologically sustainable development andenvironmental performanceThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> does not administer legislation with ecologically sustainable development implications.The nature <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s core business, outcomes and operations is such that its activities do not impactor affect the principles <strong>of</strong> ecologically sustainable development.During 2009–10, there were no matters or reports concerning the <strong>Court</strong> under the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The <strong>Court</strong> does not own or control any places for thepurposes <strong>of</strong> managing their heritage values under the Act.The <strong>Court</strong> continued to seek to minimise the impact <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>• 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 <strong>of</strong> server virtualisation so that fewer servers are required• providing energy consumption data to the <strong>Australia</strong>n Greenhouse Office as part <strong>of</strong> whole-<strong>of</strong>governmentenergy reporting• conducting a national review <strong>of</strong> sites to benchmark availability <strong>of</strong> existing environmental practicessuch as recycling, energy conservation and water conservation• piloting a level 2 energy audit at the Darwin registry, with the aim <strong>of</strong> rolling out more energy auditsin 2010–11 at both Commonwealth courts and regional registries, and• commencing work on a comprehensive Environmental Management Statement.204 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Appendix 8: Grant programsThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> made no grant payments during 2009–10.PART 8 Appendix 8: Grant programs<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010205
Appendix 9: Commonwealth Disability Strategy performancereportingPART 8Appendix 9: Commonwealth disability strategy performance reportingTable 8.16: Commonwealth Disability Strategy, <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> performance indicators 2009–10PerformanceindicatorThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>has establishedmechanisms forquality improvementand assurance.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>has an establishedservice charter thatspecifies the roles<strong>of</strong> the providerand consumer andservice standardsthat addressaccessibility forpeople withdisabilities.The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>complaints policycomplies with<strong>Australia</strong>n StandardAS 4269–1995 andthe CommonwealthOmbudsman’s GoodPractice Guide forEffective ComplaintHandling.PerformancemeasureRefurbishmentworks meet BuildingCode <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>standardsEstablished servicecharter thatadequately reflectsthe needs <strong>of</strong> peoplewith disabilitiesin operation. TheService Charter isavailable in printform and is availableon the <strong>Court</strong>’swebsite.The <strong>Court</strong> hascomprehensivecomplaintsguidelines,including a clientfact sheet anddetailed procedurespublished onthe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>website.Current level<strong>of</strong> performance2009–10The <strong>Court</strong> complieswith the BuildingCode <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>for buildingmodifications andalterations. Thecode incorporatesrequirementsto comply withdisabled access forstaff, clients andvisitors. This includesareas such as ramps,signage and toilets.The Service Charterwas reviewed toincorporate the<strong>Court</strong>’s commitmentto meeting theneeds <strong>of</strong> people,particularly thosewith a disability.There were noaccess relatedcomplaints receivedby the <strong>Court</strong> in2009–10.Eighty-one percent <strong>of</strong> non-judicialcomplaints werefinalised within 20days.Judicial complaintsmay take longer t<strong>of</strong>inalise. Complaintsare referred to thejudicial complaintsadviser.Goals for2010 –11Ensure that allnew refurbishmentcontracts containrelevant clauses.Improve complianceby staff <strong>of</strong> theirresponsibilities toclients under the<strong>Court</strong>’s ServiceCharter.Apply the<strong>Court</strong>’s policyto acknowledgecomplaints within5 days and respondwithin 20 days,except where it isnecessary to awaitthe outcome <strong>of</strong>proceedings beforethe <strong>Court</strong> or obtaintranscripts andanalyse large andcomplex files.Actions for2010–11Monitor existingcontracts. Work withproviders to improveperformance.Ensure that staffare aware <strong>of</strong> theirobligations toprovide additionalassistance to thosewith special accessneeds.Evaluate the ServiceCharter and updateas necessary.Continue tomonitor the<strong>Court</strong>’s complaintsprocedures, analyseresults and introduceimprovements.206 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Appendix 10: CommitteesTable 8.17: Judicial committees, 30 June 2010Title Chair Members Terms <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> andprovide her with advice on strategyand policy.PART 8 Appendix 10: COMMITTEESRules Justice Ryan Justice StricklandJustice MurphyJudicial Registrar LoughnanMagistrate MoroniSenior Registrar FitzGibbonRegistrar Kearney<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Counsel (Neil Wareham)To consider all necessary or proposedrules changes. Section 123 <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 provides thata majority <strong>of</strong> judges may make rules<strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong> in relation to practices andprocedures be followed in the <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong>.JudicialDevelopment(joint committee)Justice BenjaminJustice CollierJustice MurphyJustice FowlerJustice AustinJustice Dessau (consultant)To develop, implement and oversightjudicial education in the <strong>Court</strong>s.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 associate<strong>Family</strong> Law Information ServicerepresentativesIT representativeTo review and update the electronicbenchbook which containscommentary on a range <strong>of</strong> legaltopics and principles encountered inthe day-to-day work <strong>of</strong> the judiciaryand registrars and provides acomprehensive list <strong>of</strong> orders.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010207
Title Chair Members Terms <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>Magellan, and ensure that casesinvolving allegations <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>. 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s 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 <strong>of</strong>the <strong>Court</strong>s’ Cultural Diversity Planand provide advice to the ChiefJustice, Chief Federal Magistrateand CEO on cultural diversity issues,including special needs <strong>of</strong> Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander people.Manager Communications Office(Janelle McLoughlin)208 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Title Chair Members Terms <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Indigenouspeople in the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s.To oversee the implementation <strong>of</strong>eFiling in the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>sPART 8 Appendix 10: COMMITTEES<strong>Family</strong> Violence(joint committee)Justice RyanJustice CollierJustice StevensonFM BrownFM HughesFM AltobelliPrincipal Registrar (Angela Filippello)<strong>Family</strong> consultant (Diane Lojszczyk)Senior Legal Research Advisor(Kristen Murray)To complete the implementation <strong>of</strong>the <strong>Court</strong>s’ <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> Law InformationServices (Paul Webster)To align the <strong>Court</strong>s’ informationtechnology with the <strong>Court</strong>s’business, including by focusing onthose projects <strong>of</strong> greatest businessimpact to the <strong>Court</strong> and advancingpartnership building between ITS andother areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong><strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010209
Senior management committeesTable 8.18: Senior management governance committees, 30 June 2010PART 8Appendix 10: COMMITTEESTitle Chair Members Terms <strong>of</strong> referenceChief ExecutiveOfficer’sManagementAdvisory GroupCEO <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> and actingCEO FederalMagistrates<strong>Court</strong> (RichardFoster)Deputy CEO Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>(acting Steve Agnew)Executive Director Information,Communication and TechnologyServices (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>) (StephenAndrew)Executive Director Client Services(<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>) (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 <strong>of</strong> theadministrations <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>.Audit and RiskChris DooganAM (externalmember)Executive Director Corporate (GrahameHarriott)Registry Manager representative (GregThomas, Adelaide)ANAO representative and the <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> 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)<strong>Family</strong> 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 objectives<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>; equal employmentopportunities; new technology;accommodation and amenities; andpersonnel and staffing policies andpractices.Delegates present staff views onissues that affect the managementand future direction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>and provide feedback and briefingsto the workplace nationally.210 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Title Chair Members Terms <strong>of</strong> 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: COMMITTEES<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010211
PART 8Appendix 11: EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENTAppendix 11: External involvementThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> has a number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> thefamily law system within <strong>Australia</strong>. 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 <strong>Australia</strong>n Federal Police.Relationships with these groups are managed either by the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, otherjudges on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive Officer and/or other senior executives.There are a number <strong>of</strong> established channels through which external stakeholders may inform the <strong>Court</strong>and affect its processes and client service delivery, including the following.<strong>Family</strong> Law CouncilThe <strong>Family</strong> Law Council, established by the Attorney-General under section 115 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act1975, confers with the <strong>Court</strong> in the course <strong>of</strong> its consideration <strong>of</strong> particular aspects <strong>of</strong> family law. The<strong>Court</strong> has judges appointed to the council and senior executives as observers at its meetings.<strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> StudiesThe <strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies was established under section 114B <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act andis a forum for exchange <strong>of</strong> information and research.<strong>Family</strong> Law section <strong>of</strong> the Law Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>The Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice meet quarterly with the <strong>Family</strong> Law Section <strong>of</strong> theLaw Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>. There are regular liaison meetings between the state law societies and barassociations and each <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s registries.<strong>Family</strong> Law ForumThe Chief Justice chairs the national <strong>Family</strong> Law Forum, which consists <strong>of</strong> representatives from the <strong>Family</strong><strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, the <strong>Family</strong> Law Council, the <strong>Family</strong> Law Section <strong>of</strong> the LawCouncil <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, National Legal Aid, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department <strong>of</strong> Families,212 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Agency, the <strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong>Studies, non-government organisations and community legal centres. The <strong>Family</strong> Law Forum meetsquarterly to discuss shared issues arising within the family law system.CommitteesIn addition to the <strong>Family</strong> Law Forum, a number <strong>of</strong> external stakeholders contribute to <strong>Court</strong> directionby contributing to or being members <strong>of</strong> various <strong>Court</strong> committees. For example, external members aremembers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s Magellan committee, the Audit and Risk Committee and the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>sAdvisory Group. For more information on <strong>Court</strong> committees, see Appendix 10.Local registry consultationsDuring 2009–10, the <strong>Family</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> registry services and the courts and were able to improve the service systemand approach to clients.The aim <strong>of</strong> these consultative forums was also to ensure that the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> new and emerging communities, some <strong>of</strong> which havedisproportionately high rates <strong>of</strong> separation and family conflict after settlement in <strong>Australia</strong>.PART 8 Appendix 11: EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENTThe registries were committed to advancing the <strong>Court</strong>’s understanding <strong>of</strong> the mental health needs <strong>of</strong> itsclients and to be well placed to respond by way <strong>of</strong> referral to those who may present with mental healthrisk factors.Following the release <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Understanding were developed with various referral agencies such as Relationships<strong>Australia</strong>, Centacare, Mensline and Lifeline.The <strong>Court</strong> continued to provide training and awareness programs for new staff to the <strong>Court</strong>, as well asrefresher training for existing staff through the integrated client service delivery program.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010213
Appendix 12: Judicial activitiesPART 8In addition to hearing and determining cases, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s judges and judicial registrars activelycontribute to the development <strong>of</strong> the law both in <strong>Australia</strong> and internationally. This is achieved throughattending conferences and seminars, presenting papers, addressing academic institutions, pr<strong>of</strong>essionalassociations 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 <strong>of</strong> organising committees for conferences aswell as working in the community with a variety <strong>of</strong> legal and non-legal organisations.A summary <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> Justice Judicial Conferencefor Common Law and Commonwealth Jurisdictions2009, Windsor, United Kingdom26 August 2009 5th World Congress on <strong>Family</strong> Law and Children’sRights, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada24 September2009Children’s Issues Forum: the Resolution <strong>of</strong> DisputesRelating to Children in Hong Kong, Victoria, HongKong2 October 2009 Australasian Institute <strong>of</strong> Judicial Administration,<strong>Family</strong> Violence Conference, Brisbane30 October 2009 New South Wales Legal Aid 2009 <strong>Family</strong> LawConference, Sydney3 November 2009 International Association for <strong>Court</strong> Administration4th International Conference, Istanbul, Turkey25 November200928 November2009<strong>Family</strong> Relationships Services <strong>Australia</strong> 2ndNational Conference, Sydney29th Annual <strong>Australia</strong>n and New ZealandAssociation <strong>of</strong> Psychiatry, Psychology and LawCongress, Fremantle23 February 2010 Law Institute <strong>of</strong> Victoria ‘Serving Up Insights’breakfast, Melbourne24 March 2010 International Judicial Conference on Cross-Border<strong>Family</strong> Relocation, Washington DC, USAComments On Pr<strong>of</strong>essor 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Australia</strong>: What the Statistics Tell UsThe <strong>Australia</strong>n Experience in the Establishment<strong>of</strong> Specialised <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Children’sDispute Resolution ProceduresBest Practice and Recent Experience in <strong>Family</strong>Dispute ResolutionFuture DirectionsTransparency in Justice and <strong>Court</strong> Systems—arewe making progress?Towards Best Practice: The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Australia</strong> and Risk Assessment in ParentingCasesThe Changing Nature <strong>of</strong> Expert Evidence in<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> ProceedingsCollaboration: Adopting a Unified Approach toDispute ResolutionRelocation in <strong>Australia</strong>: An Update1 May 2010 14th Annual <strong>Family</strong> Law Intensive, Melbourne Opening Address14 May 2010 Independent Children’s Lawyers Conference, Hobart Independent Children’s Lawyers and <strong>Family</strong>Violence: A <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Perspective15 May 2010 Tasmanian <strong>Family</strong> Law Practitioners AssociationAnnual Conference, Hobart4 June 2010 47th Annual Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> and Conciliation<strong>Court</strong>s Conference, Denver, Colorado, USACharting a Course: Current and Future Changesin <strong>Family</strong> LawA Less Adversarial Process for a High Volume<strong>Court</strong> (with FM Altobelli)214 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Table 8.20 Chief Justice’s speaking engagements, 2009–10DateEvent29 July 2009 Opening <strong>of</strong> Leadership and Change Management Program at MA Leadership TrainingCentre for Women Ketua/ Wakil, Ciawi, Indonesia30 July 2009 Signing <strong>of</strong> an annex to a Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Understanding with the Chief Justice <strong>of</strong> theFederal <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and the Chief Justice <strong>of</strong> the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Indonesia,Jakarta, Indonesia13 August 2009 Opening <strong>of</strong> ‘Advocacy in <strong>Family</strong> Law’ seminar, Sydney15 September 2009 <strong>Family</strong> law system reference group meeting, Canberra28 September 2009 Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> plenary, Sydney5 October 2009 <strong>Family</strong> Pathways meeting, Melbourne9 November 2009 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Judges’ Conference, Melbourne18 November 2009 White Ribbon breakfast, Melbourne20 November 2009 Launch <strong>of</strong> plaque commemorating the 20th anniversary <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> bombings,Parramatta24 November 2009 Pre-conference workshop, <strong>Family</strong> Relationship Services <strong>Australia</strong> 2nd National Conference,Sydney26 November 2009 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Registrars’ Conference, Melbourne1 December 2009 20th anniversary <strong>of</strong> CatholicCare’s family dispute resolution service, Sydney21 December 2009 Young lawyers presentation, Perth24 March 2010 ‘<strong>Australia</strong>n Judicial Perspectives’, Washington DC30 April 2010 Australasian Institute <strong>of</strong> Judicial Information, Public Information Officers Conference,Melbourne20 May 2010 <strong>Family</strong> Pathways Network Conference, AlburyPART 8 Appendix 12: JUDICIAL ACTIVITIESOther judicial activitiesOther activities <strong>of</strong> the judges and judicial registrars <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> in 2009–10 included thesepapers being presented:• ‘Mediation and Adjudication in Civil Proceedings’, International Convention <strong>of</strong> Legal Philosophy andLaw, Beijing• ‘Habitual residence under the Hague Child Abduction Convention in <strong>Australia</strong>: “coach and four” orchaise?’, International Child Abduction, Forced Marriage and Relocation Conference, London• ‘Religious Freedom and the Rights <strong>of</strong> the Child’, 5th World Congress on <strong>Family</strong> Law and Children’sRights, Halifax• ‘A Review <strong>of</strong> the Case Law 2009–10: An Update’, 10th Annual <strong>Family</strong> Law Intensive, Sydney (alsodelivered at the <strong>Family</strong> Law Intensive, Perth and the <strong>Family</strong> Law Intensive, Melbourne)• ‘The Role <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Law Advanced <strong>Family</strong> Law Weekend, Sydney • ‘Interim Applications and the Duty List’, <strong>Family</strong> Law Committee <strong>of</strong> the NSW Bar Association <strong>Family</strong>Law Advocacy Series, Sydney.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010215
PART 8Appendix 12: JUDICIAL ACTIVITIESJudges and judicial registrars also presented papers at the International Bar Association Conference,Madrid; the College <strong>of</strong> Law Applied <strong>Family</strong> Law Masters course, Sydney; the Commission for Childrenand Young People and Child Guardian Child Safety and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Interface Forum, Brisbane; the<strong>Family</strong> Law Section <strong>of</strong> the Law Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> Essentials Program, Melbourne; and the <strong>Family</strong> LawPractitioners Association Residential, Gold Coast.Justice Rose from the Sydney registry accepted an invitation to be a visiting lecturer at the ChinaUniversity <strong>of</strong> Political Science and Law and at the law school <strong>of</strong> the Renmin University <strong>of</strong> China in Beijing.Justice Rose’s lectures covered topics including the structure and operation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n legalsystem, mediation and adjudication in civil proceedings, and case management.Judges and judicial registrars contribute to pr<strong>of</strong>essional legal development through their membership <strong>of</strong>pr<strong>of</strong>essional and research-based associations. The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> has been consistently represented on the<strong>Family</strong> Law Council since its establishment. During 2009–10 the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s judicial representativeson the <strong>Family</strong> Law Council were Deputy Chief Justice Faulks and Justice Watts from the Sydney registry.Justice May from the Brisbane registry is the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s representative on the Council and Board <strong>of</strong>Management <strong>of</strong> the Australasian Institute <strong>of</strong> Judicial Administration. Justice Strickland from the Adelaideregistry is the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s nominated director on the board <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> LawArbitrators and Mediators.Judges and judicial registrars are members <strong>of</strong> organisations including the International Bar Association;the Governing Council <strong>of</strong> the Judicial Conference <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>; the National College <strong>of</strong> Judicial Education;the National Academic Committee <strong>of</strong> the College <strong>of</strong> Law; the Advisory Board, <strong>Family</strong> Law Practice for theNSW College <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Australia</strong>, such as the Judicial College <strong>of</strong> Victoria. Judgesand judicial registrars regularly present to law societies and bar associations in their jurisdiction, as wellas holding informal meetings with members <strong>of</strong> the legal pr<strong>of</strong>ession and participating in stakeholdermeetings such as the Magellan stakeholders meeting. Judges and judicial registrars are also <strong>of</strong>ten 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.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> judges and judicial registrars are also engaged in organising local, national andinternational conferences. During 2009–10 these included the Law Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>’s <strong>Family</strong>Law Section’s biennial conference, the Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration’s <strong>Family</strong> LawConference, the Judicial Congress <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>’s 2010 Colloquium and preparatory work for the 6th WorldCongress on <strong>Family</strong> Law and Children’s Rights.Justice Bennett from the Melbourne registry is the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> hold commissions as members <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth AdministrativeAppeals Tribunal and some sat as members (including presiding members) during the 2009–10 financialyear.216 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Appendix 13: International cooperationIndonesia-<strong>Australia</strong> partnershipSee Part 2 for further information about the Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Understanding on Judicial Cooperation,including details <strong>of</strong> Indonesia’s first Access and Equity Study. The study was conducted as a collaborativeresearch project led by the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Indonesia with assistance from the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> andfunded by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government through the Indonesia <strong>Australia</strong> Legal Development Facility(IALDF).Key findings <strong>of</strong> the study were that:• There is a high satisfaction rate amongst court clients <strong>of</strong> both the General and Religious <strong>Court</strong>s, with70 per cent <strong>of</strong> clients saying they would return to the court in future if they had similar legal issues.• A cycle <strong>of</strong> non-legal marriage and divorce exists for many PEKKA 1 female heads <strong>of</strong> household livingbelow the Indonesian poverty line. The failure to obtain legal documentation in relation to marriageand divorce is associated with 56 per cent <strong>of</strong> children from these marriages not obtaining birthcertificates.• A central principle <strong>of</strong> justice is that it be universally accessible. Unfortunately the poorest sections<strong>of</strong> Indonesian society face significant barriers in bringing family law cases to the courts. Nine out<strong>of</strong> 10 female heads <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> PEKKA members (female heads <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the down-payment made to courts for divorce cases relative to the actual cost<strong>of</strong> the case is a disincentive to justice seekers bringing their cases to court, particularly the poor.Reimbursement <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong>s in Indonesia (where 98 per cent <strong>of</strong> all divorce cases are heard), theSupreme <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> people living in remote areas <strong>of</strong>Indonesia who have been able to access the Religious <strong>Court</strong>s over the last two years.• Similarly, the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Republic <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> poor people able toaccess the Religious <strong>Court</strong>s in family law matters, the majority <strong>of</strong> these being women.1 PEKKA is the Program for Women Headed Households in Indonesia.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> 2010, concerningthe National Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2010–14. This budget commitment from theIndonesian Government through the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Indonesia will support the further expansion<strong>of</strong> access to the Indonesian courts for the poor, including court fee waivers, circuit courts and legalaid. In this way, the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> is supporting the National Strategy on Access to Justice launchedin October 2009.Appendix 13: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIONPEKKA publication.218 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Appendix 14: International visitorsDuring 2009–10, the <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.IndiaJanuary-February 2010: as part <strong>of</strong> the India-<strong>Australia</strong> Judicial Program, funded by AusAID and managedby the Federal <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> participated in a two-phase project with the Supreme<strong>Court</strong>, High <strong>Court</strong>s, Local <strong>Court</strong>s and National Judicial Academy <strong>of</strong> India. The objective <strong>of</strong> the programis to promote efficiency in the management <strong>of</strong> cases and will focus on the judiciary’s philosophicalapproach to case management, as well as procedural reforms including the use <strong>of</strong> technology.In the first phase a delegation <strong>of</strong> 13 judges from India led by Chief Justice Balakrishnan visited theFederal <strong>Court</strong> and <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> in Sydney. Discussions focussed on the role <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>) and supportedby Justice Lander and Justice Greenwood (Federal <strong>Court</strong>), Justice Fowler (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>), Chief JudgeBlanch (Sydney District <strong>Court</strong>), and Pr<strong>of</strong>essor 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 <strong>of</strong>rights and access to justice.JapanJanuary 2010: a Japanese delegation visited the Sydney registry. It comprised Judge Hashiguchi Yoshinori,Kagoshima District <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Japan (currently a visiting scholar at Sydney University Law School); JudgeSAKUTA Hiroyuki, acting Staff Attorney <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Bureau, General Secretariat <strong>of</strong> Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Japan;Mr FUJINO Akihiro, Chief <strong>of</strong> Project Section, 1st Division, <strong>Family</strong> Bureau, General Secretariat <strong>of</strong> Supreme<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Japan; and Ms Ayako HARA, <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Probation Officer General Secretariat <strong>of</strong> Supreme<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Japan.Discussions focused on the role <strong>of</strong> Independent Children’s Lawyers in family law matters, the lessadversarial trial, the conduct <strong>of</strong> family law proceedings in <strong>Australia</strong> and the role <strong>of</strong> family consultants.KoreaDecember 2009: a delegation from the Tongyeong Branch <strong>Court</strong>, 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 <strong>of</strong> dutysolicitors in a court facility.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010219
Appendix 14: INTERNATIONAL VISITORSPART 8Richard Foster (CEO) and members <strong>of</strong> the Tongyeong Branch <strong>Court</strong> from KoreaThe delegation also observed a less adversarial trial and had discussions with Child Dispute Services togain a better understanding <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s Child Responsive Program.SingaporeNovember 2009: Principal District Judge Foo Tuat Yien from the Subordinate <strong>Court</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Singapore visitedthe Sydney registry to view and discuss the less adversarial trial.SwedenSeptember 2009: nine members <strong>of</strong> the Committee on Civil Affairs (led by Deputy Chair, Ms IngerRené) <strong>of</strong> the Riksdag (Parliament <strong>of</strong> Sweden) and government <strong>of</strong>ficials visited the Sydney registry.The visit, organised by the Embassy <strong>of</strong> Sweden, focussed on matters concerning civil and family law.The delegation received an overview <strong>of</strong> family law in <strong>Australia</strong>, the less adversarial trial, child custodyarrangements, and the child responsive model, as well as briefings about pre-filing mediation andarbitration.United States <strong>of</strong> AmericaJuly 2009: a delegation from the University <strong>of</strong> Widener PA (chaired by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Alicia Kelly andorganised by Maxine Ever from the University <strong>of</strong> Technology Sydney) visited the Sydney registry toobserve the process <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>n courts and how they resolve contested children’s matters and propertymatters. The delegation also looked at the child responsive model and the process <strong>of</strong> the less adversarialtrial.220 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 8 Appendix 14: INTERNATIONAL VISITORSMembers <strong>of</strong> the Indian delegation who visited the <strong>Court</strong> in September 2009.<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010221
Appendix 15: Contact detailsCHIEF JUSTICE’S CHAMBERSPART 8Appendix 15 CONTACT DETAILSOwen Dixon Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s305 William StreetMelbourne VIC 3000(GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE’S CHAMBERSNigel Bowen Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>sCnr 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 <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>(<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>) 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.au<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> website: www.familycourt.gov.au<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au222 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
FAMILY LAW REGISTRIES<strong>Australia</strong>n Capital TerritoryCanberraNew South WalesAlburyDubboLismoreNigel Bowen Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>sCnr 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 <strong>Court</strong>s1–3 George StreetParramatta NSW 2123(PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2123)Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s97–99 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)<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010223
QueenslandPART 8Appendix 15 CONTACT DETAILSBrisbaneCairnsRockhamptonTownsvilleSouth <strong>Australia</strong>Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s119 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 <strong>Australia</strong>PerthRoma Mitchell Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s3 Angas StreetAdelaide SA 5000(GPO Box 9991, Adelaide SA 5001)Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s39–41 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 <strong>Court</strong>s305 William StreetMelbourne VIC 3000(GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>150 Terrace RoadPerth WA 6000(GPO Box 9991, Perth WA 6848)08 9224 8222224 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
PART 9INDEXES
PART 9: INDEXESList <strong>of</strong> requirementsDescription Requirement Page <strong>of</strong>this reportLetter <strong>of</strong> transmittal Mandatory iiiTable <strong>of</strong> contents Mandatory 1Index Mandatory 227Glossary Mandatory 8Contact <strong>of</strong>ficer(s) Mandatory iiInternet home page address and Internet address for report Mandatory iiYear in reviewReview by Chief Justice Mandatory 11Summary <strong>of</strong> significant issues and developments Suggested 20Organisational overviewOverview <strong>of</strong> performance and financial results Suggested 37Outlook for following year Suggested 20Significant issues and developments – portfolio departments Suggested N/AOverview description <strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> variation and reasons for changePortfolio structure - portfolio departments` Mandatory N/AReport on performanceReview <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> purchaser/ provider arrangementsSuggested (if128applicable)Where performance targets differ from the PBS/ PAES, details <strong>of</strong> both former and new Mandatory Nil to reporttargets, and reasons for the changeNarrative discussion and analysis <strong>of</strong> performance Mandatory 36–38Trend information Mandatory 40–70Significant changes in nature <strong>of</strong> principal functions/ services Suggested 126Factors, events or trends influencing <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> performance Suggested 35–70Contribution <strong>of</strong> 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,65<strong>Court</strong>’s response to complaintsmandatoryDiscussion and analysis <strong>of</strong> the department’s financial performance Mandatory 128PART 9 INDEXES<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010227
Description Requirement Page <strong>of</strong>this reportDiscussion <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the financial year that have affected or may significantly If applicable,20affect the <strong>Court</strong>’s operations or financial results in futuremandatoryPART 9INDEXESMANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITYCorporate governanceStatement <strong>of</strong> the main corporate governance practices in place Mandatory 97Names <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> appropriate ethical standards Suggested 114How nature and amount <strong>of</strong> remuneration for SES <strong>of</strong>ficers is determined Suggested 124External scrutinySignificant developments in external scrutiny Mandatory 115Judicial decisions and decisions <strong>of</strong> administrative tribunals Mandatory 115Reports by the Auditor-General, a Parliamentary Committee or the CommonwealthMandatory 115OmbudsmanManagement <strong>of</strong> human resourcesAssessment <strong>of</strong> effectiveness in managing and developing human resources to achieve <strong>Court</strong> Mandatory 120objectivesWorkforce planning, staff turnover and retention Suggested 121Impact and features <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Description Requirement Page <strong>of</strong>this reportAssets managementAssessment <strong>of</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> assets managementIf applicable,mandatoryAssessment <strong>of</strong> purchasing against core policies and principles Mandatory 130ConsultantsSummary statement—the number <strong>of</strong> new consultancy services and actual expenditure; and Mandatory 131the number <strong>of</strong> active ongoing consultancy contracts and total expenditureContract information statement re the AusTender website Mandatory 131<strong>Australia</strong>n 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 <strong>of</strong> Information Mandatory 200Advertising and market research and statement on advertising campaigns Mandatory 203Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance Mandatory 204Grant programs Mandatory 205Correction <strong>of</strong> material errors in previous annual reportIf applicable,134mandatoryList <strong>of</strong> requirements Mandatory 227133PART 9 INDEXES<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010229
Alphabetical indexAPART 9INDEXESAbbreviationsacronyms and, 7Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Committee, 105, 106, 209highlights <strong>of</strong> work <strong>of</strong>, 108–9Abuserisk <strong>of</strong>, cases involving, 63–4Access and Equity Study 2007-2009, 21–2Access to Justice (<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>, 74Appeal Division, 73caseload, 58demographics, 78–80directions hearings, 78finalised, age <strong>of</strong>, 81High <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, to, 81issues, 78–80judges assigned to Appeal Division, 99notices <strong>of</strong> appeal, 76–7trend in, 74Applications in a Case, 36, 39clearance rate, 45finalisation, number <strong>of</strong>, 42–3finalise applications, time to, 53time pending, 48Appointmentsjudicial <strong>of</strong>ficer, 102Assets management, 133–4Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> and Conciliation <strong>Court</strong>s conference, 12, 19230 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Auditinternal, 112Audit and Risk Committee, 110, 112, 210, 213Auditor-General, 115Auscript, 31–2Austin, Justice Stewart, 100, 102<strong>Australia</strong>n Agency for International Development (AusAID)PEKKA research project, support for, 13<strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies, 212Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the 2006 <strong>Family</strong> Law Reforms by, 13<strong>Australia</strong>n Law Reform Commissionconsultation paper by, 13BBacklog indicators, 47Bankruptcy Act 1966, 18Barry, Justice James Patrick O’Hara, 100, 101Baumann, Federal Magistrate<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s 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 <strong>of</strong>, 73, 99Brown, Justice Sally Elizabeth, 102Bryant, Chief Justice Diana, 19, 37, 99, 100activities, judicial, 214–6Appeal Division, judge assigned to, 99appointment, 99<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group, 109Policy Advisory Committee, Chief Justice’s, 104–5review, Chief Justice’s, 9–14transmittal, letter <strong>of</strong>, iiiBudgetcombined, <strong>of</strong> 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, 105<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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, Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Richard AM<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>s Violence Review by, 13Christmann, Marianne, 119Client Service Senior Managers’ Group, 29Client servicesrestructure, 119Cohen, Justice John Morris, 101Coleman, Justice Ian Roy, 101Appeal Division, as member <strong>of</strong>, 73, 99Collier, Justice David John, 101Committees, Judicial, 104–6, 207–9Commonwealth <strong>Court</strong>s Portal, 24use <strong>of</strong>, 25Commonwealth Disability Strategy, 127, 206Commonwealth Ombudsman, 115Complaintsadministration, 69conduct, relating to judicial, 56–7decisions, relating to judicial, 57delay in delivery <strong>of</strong> judgment, relating to, 57judicial services, relating to, 56–7management, 68–9registry services, 70Conferences, 214Consent ordersapplications for, 36, 39clearance rate, <strong>of</strong> applications for, 45finalisations, number <strong>of</strong>, 43–4finalise applications, time to, 53time pending, 49Corporate governance, 97Costs Committee, 105Cotta, James, 119232 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — 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 <strong>of</strong> judgment, complaints relating to, 57Deputy Chief Justice, 99chambers, 222Dessau, Justice Linda Marion, 100District <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the 2006 <strong>Family</strong> Law Reforms<strong>Australia</strong>n Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies, by, 13Executive DirectorsClient Services, 103Corporate, 104Information, Communication and Technology Services, 104External consultants, 130F<strong>Family</strong> consultants, 118<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>administration, merger with Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> administration, 11, 32, 118case mix, 38caseload, attrition and settlement trends, 40Commonwealth <strong>Court</strong>s Portal as initiative <strong>of</strong>, 24complexity <strong>of</strong> cases before, 12, 40, 58<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010233
PART 9INDEXESdefinition, 97direction, future, <strong>of</strong>, 12establishment, 17family violence, response to issues <strong>of</strong>, 13goal, 17initiatives <strong>of</strong>, 24–32international pr<strong>of</strong>ile, 12jurisdiction, 18outcome, 19, 35output reporting, transitioning to program reporting from, 35overview <strong>of</strong>, 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 <strong>of</strong>, 18<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong>, 101<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>s Violence ReviewChisholm, by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Richard, AM, 13<strong>Family</strong> lawexternal reports on, 13section, <strong>of</strong> Law Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, 212violence in, 13, 63–4<strong>Family</strong> Law Council, 212Improving Responses to <strong>Family</strong> Violence in the <strong>Family</strong> Law System by, 13<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group, 109<strong>Family</strong> Law Forum, 212<strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee, 13, 105, 106, 209highlights <strong>of</strong> work <strong>of</strong>, 107–8<strong>Family</strong> Violence – Improving Legal Frameworksconsultation paper, 13<strong>Family</strong> Violence Strategy, 26Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice John, 99, 100Appeal Division, judge assigned to, 99Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104Federal <strong>Court</strong>Commonwealth <strong>Court</strong>s Portal as initiative <strong>of</strong>, 24Federal courtsprotocol on work division, 26restructure, proposed, 11, 116234 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>administration, merger with <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> administration, 11, 32, 118Commonwealth <strong>Court</strong>s Portal as initiative <strong>of</strong>, 24protocol on work division, 26restructure, proposed, 11, 116Feedback, client, 68Filipello, Angela, 103Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Final ordersapplications for, 36, 39clearance rate, <strong>of</strong> applications for, 45finalisations <strong>of</strong> cases, number <strong>of</strong>, 42–3finalise applications, time to, 52issues sought on cases, 39time pending, 48Finalisationsage <strong>of</strong> finalised applications, 51–2appeals, age <strong>of</strong> finalised, 81number <strong>of</strong>, 42–4percentage <strong>of</strong> cases finalised, 51volumes <strong>of</strong>, 37, 38Financial cases, 38Financial management, 128–30Financial risk, 112Finn, Justice Mary Madeleine, 100, 101Appeal Division, as member <strong>of</strong>, 73, 99Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104First instance trials, 40cases finalised at, 41Flohm, Justice Robyn Sylvia, 102Foster, Mr Richard, 102Acting Chief Executive Officer <strong>of</strong> Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, appointment as, 11Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group, 109Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Fowler, Justice Stuart Grant, 101international engagements, 12Fraudcontrol certification, 114prevention and control, 113Freedom <strong>of</strong> information, 200–2Full <strong>Court</strong>sittings, 74PART 9 INDEXESGGershon review, 20Gibson, Dianne, 103<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010235
Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207Glossarycourt-specific terms, <strong>of</strong>, 8Gregory, Bob, 119HPART 9INDEXESHague Convention, 18Harriott, Grahame, 103High <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>appeals to, 81Human resourcesmanagement <strong>of</strong>, 120workforce planning, 121IImproving Responses to <strong>Family</strong> Violence in the <strong>Family</strong> Law System<strong>Family</strong> Law Council, by, 13Indonesia <strong>Australia</strong> Partnership for Justice Transition, 21, 217Information and Communication TechnologyCommittee, 105, 106, 110, 209review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>n Government’s use <strong>of</strong>, 116–7Information Awareness week, 31Information management, 30Information Quality Plan, 31International cooperation, 217International Judicial Conference on Cross Border <strong>Family</strong> Relocation, 12JJohnston, Judicial Registrar William Philip, 101Jordan, Justice Brian Edward, 102Judgmentsaccessibility <strong>of</strong> public to, 85significant, noteworthy and, 85–94Judicial Development Committee, 105, 106Judicial Registrars, 101Judicial Remuneration Committee, 105, 208Judiciary, 99–102, 123, 194activities, judicial, 214–6administration <strong>of</strong> court, responsibility for, 97committees, judicial, 104–6complaints relating to judicial services, 56–7conduct, complaints relating to judicial, 56docket, judicial, 19<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong>, 99–102<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Australia</strong>, judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong>, 101judicial support review, 119236 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
loss, net <strong>of</strong> judges, 36, 37, 41–2, 51performance indicators, key, <strong>of</strong> judicial services, 36, 37, 38retirement <strong>of</strong> six judges, 12KKelly, Elizabeth<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group, 109Kelso, Simon, 119Kostres & Kostres, 87–8LLaw Reform Committee, 105, 207highlights <strong>of</strong> work <strong>of</strong>, 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 <strong>of</strong>, 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 <strong>of</strong>, 65, 68New South Wales Law Reform Commissionconsultation paper by, 13Non-English speaking backgroundsservices for people from, 28Norman & Norman, 92–3<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010237
OO’Reilly, Justice Elizabeth Madonna, 100O’Ryan, Justice Stephen Richard, 101Appeal Division, as member <strong>of</strong>, 73, 100Occupational health and safety, 198–9Outcomesresources for, 190PART 9INDEXESPPABX phone system, 31Parenting cases, 38, 59–62Partington & Cade (No. 2), 89–90Pascoe, Chief Federal Magistrate<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group, 109Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Paxton, Jenny, 122PEKKA research project, 13, 217Pending applications, 47age <strong>of</strong>, 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 <strong>of</strong>, 65, 66regional and registry management structure, single, 118services, 64Relationships <strong>Australia</strong>, 13, 26Representationstatus <strong>of</strong> litigants, 58Research and Ethics Committee, 106, 208238 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010
Reserved judgments, 37delivered, age <strong>of</strong>, 54delivery times, 36, 55outstanding, age <strong>of</strong>, 49–51time for delivery, complaints relating to, 57Resource statement, 189Retirementsjudicial <strong>of</strong>ficer, 102Reynolds, Jane, 119Riethmuller, Federal MagistratePolicy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105Risk management, 112Rose, Justice Peter Isaac, 101international engagements, 12Rules Committee, 106, 207highlights <strong>of</strong> work <strong>of</strong>, 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, 91Staffpr<strong>of</strong>ile, 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 <strong>of</strong>, 73, 100Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010239
TPART 9Technologycourtroom, 31Thackray, Justice Stephen Ernest, 101Appeal Division, as member <strong>of</strong>, 73, 100Thomas, Greg, 119Transcription services, 31Transmittalletter <strong>of</strong>, iiiVINDEXESViolence<strong>Court</strong>’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, 104<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Advisory Group, 109Whitehouse & Whitehouse, 86–7YYoung Employees Advisory Group, 27Young, Justice Peter, 100240 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> — Annual Report 2009–2010