Annual Report Annual Report 2009–2010 2010–2011 4512 Design Direction

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANNUAL REPORT ANNUAL REPORT 2009–2010 2010–2011 4512 DESIGN DIRECTION

)$0,/<&2857 2)$8675$/,$

ANNUAL REPORT 2010–2011 ISSN: 1035-9060 © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 The Family Court of Australia provides all material (unless otherwise noted and with the exception of the Coat of Arms) with Creative Commons (CC) Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported licensing. Material may be distributed, as long as it remains unchanged and the Family Court of Australia is credited as the creator. More information can be found at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/. If you have any questions about Creative Commons or licensing generally, please email [email protected]

Enquiries If you would like to comment on this annual report, or have any queries, please contact the editor at: Manager Family Law Courts National Communication Family Court of Australia GPO Box 9991 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Ph: +61 2 6243 8690 Fax: +61 2 6243 8737 Email: [email protected]

Alternative formats This annual report is available electronically at: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/home/about/publications/annual/ The online version contains links to the 2010–11 Attorney-General’s Portfolio Budget Statements.

Acknowledgments This report reflects the efforts of many people. Special thanks go to the Court staff involved in contributing and coordinating material, as well as the following specialist contractors: Editing: Foulsham & Munday Pty Ltd Design and typesetting: Design Direction Printing: Blue Star Print Photography: David Kirby This annual report is printed on Impress Silk Artboard (cover) and Impress Silk (inside pages). Made from elemental chlorine free bleached pulp sourced from well-managed forests. It is PEFC certified and is manufactured by an ISO 14001 certified mill using renewable energy sources.

The cover’s feature photograph is of the Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts building in Brisbane. Smaller images are from the Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts building in Hobart and the Garﬁeld Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts building in Parramatta.

ii Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 iii iv Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 Contents

Letter of transmittal iii Contents 1 Reader’s guide 6 Acronyms and abbreviations 7 Glossary of court-speciﬁc terms 8

PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW 13 The year in review 13

PART 2: OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 21 About the Court 21 Outcome and program 23 Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements 23 Developments since the end of the ﬁnancial year 29 Outlook for 2011–12 29 Shared parenting statistics 30 International cooperation 30 Court service locations 33 Initiatives of the Family Court 34

PART 3: REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE 45 Outcome and outputs 45 Historic performance against KPIs 45 Judicial services 46 Registry and National Enquiry Centre services 75 Client feedback and complaints management 81

PART 4: APPEALS 87 Appeal Division 87 Appeals 87 Full Court sittings 88 Appeals to the High Court of Australia 93

PART 5: SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS 97 Signiﬁcant and noteworthy judgments 97

Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 1 PART 6: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY Corporate governance 117 Fraud control certiﬁcation 135 External and internal scrutiny 136 Management of human resources 141 Financial management 150 Services provided free of charge 152 Purchasing, consultants and contracts 153 Legal services expenditure 154 Assets management 156 Correction of material errors in 2009–10 report 157

PART 7: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 161

PART 8: APPENDICES 217 Appendix 1 Resource statement 217 Appendix 2 Expenses and resources for outcome 1 218 Appendix 3 Stafﬁng proﬁle 219 Appendix 4 Occupational health and safety 229 Appendix 5 Freedom of information 231 Appendix 6 Advertising and market research 234 Appendix 7 Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 235 Appendix 8 Grant programs 239 Appendix 9 Consultant services 240 Appendix 10 Committees 242 Appendix 11 External involvement 247 Appendix 12 Judicial activities 253 Appendix 13 International visitors 257 Appendix 14 Contact details 259

PART 9: INDEXES 267 List of requirements 267 Alphabetical index 270

2 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 Tables Table 2.1 Registered users of the Commonwealth Courts Portal, 2008–09 to 2010–11 27 Table 2.2 Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, 28 2008–09 to 2010–11 Table 2.3 Family Court of Australia service locations 33 Table 3.1 Summary of performance—judicial services 48 Table 3.2 Appeal caseload 2006–07 to 2010–11 68 Table 3.3 Summary of performance—client services 77 Table 3.4 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2008–09 to 2010–11 81 Table 4.1 Notice of appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction, 89 2006–07 to 2010–11 Table 6.1 Legal Services Expenditure 155 Table 8.1 Agency resource statement—2010–11 217 Table 8.2 Expenses and resources for Outcome 1 218 Table 8.3 Staff by location 219 Table 8.4 Staff by gender 220 Table 8.5 Staff by attendance status 221 Table 8.6 Ongoing staff by location and classification 222 Table 8.7 Non-ongoing staff, by location and classification 222 Table 8.8 Total number of judges, 30 June 2011 223 Table 8.9 Workforce turnover 224 Table 8.10 Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia 225 and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 Table 8.11 Employees covered by other agreements 226 Table 8.12 AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification 227 Table 8.13 Classification structure and pay rates 228 Table 8.14 Comcare premium rates, 2007–08 to 2011–12 230 Table 8.15 FOI requests over the last seven financial years 231 Table 8.16 Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court environmental impact/usage data 235 Table 8.17 Consultant services contracts let during 2010–11, of $10 000 or more 240 Table 8.18 Judicial committees, 30 June 2011 242 Table 8.19 Senior management governance committees, 30 June 2010 245 Table 8.20 Conferences attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice, 2010–11 253 Table 8.21 Chief Justice’s speaking engagements, 2010–11 254

Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 3 Figures Figure 3.1 The Family Court’s outcome and program 45 Figure 3.2 Applications filed, 2010–11 49 Figure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2010–11 50 Figure 3.4 Attrition and settlement trend in the Court’s caseload, 2006–07 to 2010–11 50 Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2006–07 to 2010–11 51 Figure 3.6 Number of judges, 2006–07 to 2010–11 52 Figure 3.7 Final orders applications, 2006–07 to 2010–11 53 Figure 3.8 Applications in a case, 2006–07 to 2010–11 53 Figure 3.9 Consent orders applications, 2006–07 to 2010–11 54 Figure 3.10 All applications, 2006–07 to 2010–11 54 Figure 3.11 Final orders applications, clearance rates, 2006–07 to 2010–11 55 Figure 3.12 Application in a case, clearance rates, 2006–07 to 2010–11 55 Figure 3.13 Consent orders applications, clearance rates, 2006–07 to 2010–11 56 Figure 3.14 All applications, clearance rates, 2006–07 to 2010–11 56 Figure 3.15 Age of pending applications, 2006–07 to 2010–11 57 Figure 3.16 Final order applications, time pending, 2006–07 to 2010–11 58 Figure 3.17 Applications in a case (interim), time pending, 2006–07 to 2010–11 58 Figure 3.18 Consent order applications, time pending, 2006–07 to 2010–11 59 Figure 3.19 All applications, time pending, 2006–07 to 2010–11 59 Figure 3.20 Reserved judgments outstanding (pending) less than 3 months, as at 60 30 June 2006–07 to 2010–11 Figure 3.21 Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 61 30 June 2006–07 to 2010–11 Figure 3.22 Applications finalised within 12 months, 2006–07 to 2010–11 62 Figure 3.23 Final order applications, time to finalise, 2006–07 to 2010–11 62 Figure 3.24 Applications in a case, time to finalise, 2006-07 to 2010-11 63 Figure 3.25 Consent order applications, time to finalise, 2006–07 to 2010–11 63 Figure 3.26 All applications, time to finalise, 2006–07 to 2010–11 64 Figure 3.27 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2006–07 to 2008–09 65 (final judgments only) and 2009–10 to 2010–11 (all judgments) Figure 3.28 Reserved judgments, time to deliver, 2006–07 to 2008–09 65 (final judgments only) and 2009–10 to 2010–11 (all judgments) Figure 3.29 Total judicial services complaints, 2006–07 to 2010–11 66 Figure 3.30 Judicial services complaints, 2006–07 to 2010–11 67

4 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 Figure 3.31 Proportion of litigants representation status, finalised cases, 69 2006–07 to 2010–11 Figure 3.32 Proportion of litigants representation status, trials, 2006–07 to 2010–11 69 Figure 3.33 Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents 70 for finalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11 Figure 3.34 Per cent of cases where minority of time children spend with parents 71 for finalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11 Figure 3.35 Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents 71 for finalised consent cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11 Figure 3.36 Per cent of cases where minority time children spend with parents 72 for finalised consent cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11 Figure 3.37 Most common reason why mothers had less than 30 per cent of time 72 spent with children for finalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11 Figure 3.38 Most common reason why fathers had less than 30 per cent of time 73 spent with children for finalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11 Figure 3.39 Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2006–07 to 2010–11 74 Figure 3.40 Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or 74 risk of family violence is filed, 2006–07 to 2010–11 Figure 3.41 Magellan cases, 2006–07 to 2010–11 75 Figure 3.42 Total administration complaints, 2005–06 to 2010–11 82 Figure 3.43 Total complaints, 2005-06 to 2010–11 82 Figure 4.1 Notice of appeals, 2006–07 to 2010–11 89 Figure 4.2 Proportion of notice of appeals filed by jurisdiction of decree, 90 2006–07 to 2010–11 Figure 4.3 Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 2006–07 to 2010–11 90 Figure 4.4 Proportion of notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 91 2006-07 to 2010-11 Figure 4.5 Proportion of appellants by gender, 2006–07 to 2010–11 91 Figure 4.6 Proportion of appellants’ representation status, 2006–07 to 2010–11 92 Figure 4.7 Months to finalise appeals, 2006–07 to 2010–11 92 Figure 6.1 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2011 118 Figure 6.2 Family Court Expenditure, 2010–11 151 Figure 6.3 2010–11 Expenditure resources shared with the Federal Magistrates Court and 153 Federal Court

Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 5 Reader’s guide

The purpose of this report is to inform the Attorney-General, the Parliament, court clients and the general public about the performance of the Family Court of Australia in the 2010–11 reporting year. Prepared according to parliamentary reporting requirements, the report outlines the goals stated in the Court’s Portfolio Budget Statements and relates them to the results achieved during the year. It provides information on the Court’s performance in relation to its stated outcome: As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters. PART 1: The Chief Justice’s year in review—comprises the Chief Justice’s overview highlighting significant issues and initiatives the Court has undertaken during the reporting year. PART 2: Overview of the Court—provides information about the Court, including its role, functions, powers, governance, organisational structure, initiatives, planning and international cooperation. PART 3: Report on performance—reports on how the Court performed during the period against the above outcome and related program. The performance reports are based on the outcome and program framework and performance information in the 2010–11 Portfolio Budget Statements (the Court did not have Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements in 2010–11) for the Attorney-General’s portfolio. PART 4: Appeals—includes information about the Appeal Division, trends in appeals and appeals to the High Court. PART 5: Significant and noteworthy judgments—contains summaries of some of the important Full Court decisions made during 2010–11. PART 6: Management and accountability—provides information on corporate governance, external scrutiny, human resource management, financial management, purchasing, consultants and contract management, legal services, assets management and other activities relevant to the general administration of the Court. PART 7: Financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2011—contains the audited financial statements for 2010–11. PART 8: Appendices—includes the resource statement, resources for outcomes, staffing profile, occupational health and safety, freedom of information data, advertising and market research, ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance, grant programs, Commonwealth disability strategy, information about committees, external involvement, judicial activities, international visitors and contact details. PART 9: Index and list of requirements. The following should assist readers to locate information in the annual report and to understand court- specific language: Acronyms, abbreviations and a glossary of court-specific terminology—page 7 List of requirements—page 267 Index—page 270.

An electronic version of this annual report is available from the Family Court of Australia’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au) at this link: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/ home/about/publications/annual/

6 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 Acronyms and abbreviations

AASB Australian Accounting Standards Board ABGR Australian Building Greenhouse Rating AM Member of the Order of Australia ANAO Australian National Audit Office AO Officer of the Order of Australia APS Australian Public Service ATSI Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander AWA Australian Workplace Agreement BAU business as usual CEI Chief Executive Instruction CEO Chief Executive Officer CJ Chief Justice CPSU Commonwealth and Public Sector Union CMAG Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group CSSMG Client Services Senior Managers Group Cth Commonwealth DCJ Deputy Chief Justice DVD digital video disc EL Executive Level of the Australian Public Service FAIM Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management FLC Family Law Courts FLIS Family Law Information Service FMA Act Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 FM Federal Magistrate FMC Federal Magistrates Court FOI freedom of information GST goods and services tax ICT information and communications technology IAPJT Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition IT information technology MA The Supreme Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Agung) MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEC National Enquiry Centre PMDS Performance Management and Development System PSM Public Service Medal RFD Reserve Force Decoration SES Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service YEAG Young Employees Advisory Group

Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 7 Glossary of court-speciﬁc terms

Casetrack—Casetrack is the case management system used by the Family Court, including the Appeal Division, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia. Child dispute services—the family consultant services of the Family Law Courts. Family Consultants are court experts who specialise in child and family issues after separation and divorce. They provide the courts and families with expert advice regarding children’s best interests; help parties resolve their dispute where possible; write and produce family reports; and advise the courts and families about the services provided to families and children by government, community and other agencies. The Court—means the Family Court of Australia. The courts—means the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court. Family consultant—a psychologist and/or social worker who specialises in child and family issues that may occur after separation and divorce. Family Law Courts—comprise the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Family law registry—a public area at a Family Law Court where people can obtain information about the Court and its processes and where parties file documents in relation to their case. Interlocutory proceedings—proceedings taken during the course of, and incidental to, a trial. Interim proceedings—proceedings for orders pending a final determination of the issues in dispute. Magellan—cases that come to the Family Court that involve allegations of sexual abuse and/or serious physical abuse of a child go into the Court’s Magellan program. The program aims to deal with these cases as effectively as possible. Registrar—a court lawyer who has been delegated power to perform certain tasks; for example, grant divorces, sign consent orders and decide the next step in a case. Registry—how Family Court offices are known. For example, the Melbourne registry is in the Commonwealth Law Courts building on William Street. Rules—a set of directions that outlines court procedures and guidelines. The rules of the Family Court are the Family Law Rules 2004 and the rules of the Federal Magistrates Court are the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

8 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 9

PART 1 THE YEAR IN REVIEW

The year in review 1 PART

From the Chief Justice

The composition of the work of the Family Court of CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW Australia has steadily changed over the past decade, largely due to the commencement of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in 2000. There has been a progressive shift in the balance of workload between the two courts with the majority of all family law matters now conducted in the Federal Magistrates Court. This has resulted in the Family Court becoming a smaller court which manages all appeals and deals with the most complex family law cases, most of which involve international family law (including Hague Convention abduction matters), or an aspect of family violence, mental illness and / or substance abuse. My view is that the current size of the Court should be maintained so that the Court can dispose of its first instance and appeal work Chief Justice Bryant. effectively. With a change in the range of work done by the Court and with the reduction in the number of judicial officers, the Court has taken the opportunity to review how it manages and conducts its work to ensure that it is working efficiently. In February 2011 nearly all of the Court’s judges participated in a workshop to explore tangible ways in which the Court could meet its goals as an efficient, effective and collegiate superior court. At the workshop, I spoke about my vision for the Court as a small, effective specialist court doing appeals and the most complex first instance work efficiently and dealing with each case fairly, justly and in a timely manner. To assist in ensuring that the Court can measure whether such objectives are being achieved, it has developed a wider range of statistics measuring vital information such as the clearance rates of matters that come to the Court, the number of times that parties attend court, the number of matters that settle and the timeliness of hearings and delivery of judgments. All of this information assists the Court to monitor performance and importantly, areas that need attention. Initial signs are promising and in 2010–11, the Family Court disposed of more cases than it received, resulting in a clearance rate for final orders of 117 per cent. During the year, the Court continued to deliver reserved judgments more quickly, with about a 20 per cent decrease in the number of reserved judgments that are more than three months old. A similar set of data is produced for the Federal Magistrates Court. Having comparable data enables a more coordinated approach to managing judicial resources.

Chief Justice’s year in review | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 13 The improved reporting system has enabled the Court to better identify and compare the workload of each registry and as a result, a national calendar is now in use. This involves judges in less busy registries

PART 1 committing themselves to sit in the busier registries on an organised and planned basis throughout the year. I recognise that as far as possible, litigants in one part of Australia should not be advantaged or disadvantaged over litigants in another part of Australia in having their cases heard in a timely way. This system will commence on 1 July 2011.

Proposed legislative changes

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW On 28 April 2011, in consultation with the Court’s Law Reform Committee, I made a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee as part of its inquiry into the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This followed my submission to Government on an earlier exposure draft of the Bill. The Bill is in two parts. Schedule 1 makes substantive changes to the Family Law Act and Schedule 2 makes technical amendments. As the Law Reform Committee had previously commented on the technical amendments, my comments were conﬁned to the substantive amendments. My principal concern is that the Bill applies to proceedings instituted before, on and after the commencement date. That includes matters that are part-heard or where judgment is reserved and it would also affect appeals. As I pointed out to the Committee, this is likely to mean more cost and delay for parties involved in those types of proceedings. On 30 May 2011 the Bill as a whole passed the House of Representatives and at the time of writing, the Bill was scheduled to come on for second reading debate in the Senate in August 2011. The Senate Committee responsible for this Bill is also due to table the report of its inquiry in relation to family violence in August.

The Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010 In last year’s annual report I mentioned that in June 2010, the Attorney-General introduced legislation into Parliament through the Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010. This subsequently lapsed. The Bill would see the family law component of the Federal Magistrates Court merge with the Family Court. The Bill has not yet been re-introduced.

Challenges and future direction of the Court

Budgetary pressures The Family Court is not immune from the budgetary pressures that have been felt among many Government agencies and heading into the 2011–12 financial year that pressure is likely to continue. The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court’s financial position will be affected by a reduction of funding of $0.830m arising from a change in the efficiency dividend rate from 1.25 per cent in 2010–11 to 1.50 per cent in 2011–12. The courts will, overall, be operating with less in 2011–12 which will result in a reduction in the number of staff members within the Family Court and may further affect the services provided by the courts.

14 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Chief Justice’s year in review Public understanding and scrutiny of the Court’s decisions PART 1 PART It has long been a key objective of mine, and the entire court, to ensure that its work is transparent and open to public scrutiny. With this in mind, it is disappointing that issues about the media’s capacity to attend hearings and report on decisions continue to be misunderstood.

During the year, it was raised in Parliament and reported in the media, that the Family Court does not CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW allow members of the media to enter its courtrooms and its decisions cannot be reported in the media. This is incorrect. All proceedings are conducted in open court, the media and all members of the public who are over the age of 18 are allowed access to all court proceedings. The media is free to report on the proceedings as long as they do not identify parties, children or witnesses or publish details that may lead to their identiﬁcation. Although it is pleasing to see that some journalists are aware of this and are reporting the Court’s decisions, it continues to be a challenge to make the public aware that since 2007 all of the Court’s judgments are published on various websites, including the Court’s website (www. familycourt.gov.au) and on the Austlii legal reporting website (www.austlii.edu.au).

Sydney registry While the Family Court is disposing of more cases each year than are being filed and transferred to it, Sydney is a pressure point for both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Despite the courts having to use their own capital funds to build and fit out four additional courtrooms in the existing building, this only allows us to meet current demand and there are insufficient courtrooms to allow for future growth in judicial numbers. The Court has implemented initiatives over the years in trying to provide some relief to the heavy workload of this registry. However, it does continue to be a challenge facing the Court.

Judicial retirements and appointments There were four judicial retirements from the Court in 2010-11. Among the judicial appointments during the year, I am pleased to say that the two remaining long-standing, very competent and experienced judicial registrars were appointed as judges at Parramatta.

International proﬁle Throughout 2010–11 the Court continued to play an important role in international legal affairs and has worked closely with many other courts throughout the region. Of particular note is the interesting work that has been done in the development of family law in Zimbabwe. Following a successful visit to Zimbabwe at the request of the Australian government in 2010, Justice Benjamin was invited to return in 2011 to provide assistance to the judges of the High Court of Zimbabwe, a Professor of Law at the University of Zimbabwe and other key stakeholders to assist them in drafting legislation for the creation of a separate family law division in the High Court. In June 2011, Justice Bennett and I attended the sixth Special Commission meeting on the Child Abduction Convention and the Child Protection Convention at The Hague, with representatives of the 82 member states, as part of the Australian delegation. The Abduction Convention in particular is a very important convention and the Hague Permanent Bureau is very supportive of it. Singapore has now become a member state. Japan has agreed to sign the Convention and many countries in our region are showing a similar interest.

Chief Justice’s year in review | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 15 The Court has enjoyed a long-held relationship with the Indonesian courts and in September 2010, we were pleased to host an annual working meeting with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

PART 1 of Indonesia, the Hon Dr Hariﬁn A. Tumpa SH MH, and the Hon Patrick Keane, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. The three Chief Justices signed an Annex to the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding on judicial cooperation between the three courts that sets out areas of judicial engagement over the next 12 months. The areas to be addressed in the coming year include judicial transparency, affordable and accessible court services for poor and marginalised groups, case management reform as well as leadership and change management in a judicial reform context. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is an international association of professionals who are dedicated to the resolution of family conﬂict and I am honoured to be a board member for this

CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW group, which embraces a wide range of key disciplines such as the judiciary, conciliators and mediators, lawyers, psychologists, researchers and academics, social workers and ﬁnancial planners.

Violence in family law In 2009, the Family Court developed a range of best practice principles to provide judicial decision makers with practical guidance in dealing with matters in which a notice has been ﬁled alleging family violence or the risk of family violence, or abuse or the risk of abuse. During 2010–11, these principles were reviewed by the Family Violence Committee on which there are representatives from both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The revised principles were to be released in July 2011 by the Attorney-General.

Working with other agencies I continue to hold a forum twice a year involving all relevant bodies involved in the administration and delivery of family law. This group includes several government departments as well as all the significant non-government agencies, academics and representatives of the legal profession. It is an important means of sharing and understanding the work we are all doing in the delivery of what can be termed family law services particularly those relating to children. The Family Court has always worked closely with various state child welfare agencies to ensure that lines of communication are open and that suitable protocols are in place to ensure the safety and welfare of children. During the year, court representatives in South Australia participated in the establishment of a group which is working on a pilot project to help improve legal proceedings protecting children. The group will be developing various initiatives which will provide more holistic responses to protect children from harm. The working group includes officers from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, judicial and other staff from the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Youth Court of South Australia, along with officers from the South Australian Attorney-General’s Department and Families SA. In Victoria, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court have worked closely with Victoria’s Department of Human Services to develop a revised protocol between the three organisations which is aimed at strengthening connections to ensure that a child’s need for protection is met and the best possible outcome for a child is delivered.

16 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Chief Justice’s year in review Special medical procedures 1 PART Another area of law that the Family Court deals with is special medical procedures. These cases raise difﬁcult ethical, legal and social issues. An example of one case is the matter known as ‘Baby D’. ‘Baby D’ developed complications arising from an ‘upper airway obstruction due to inﬂammation and narrowing of her larynx’. The parents of ‘Baby D’ sought orders from the Family Court for a procedure known CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW as ‘extubation’, with ‘life prolonging treatment’ to be withheld thereafter. These orders were sought following a recommendation from the relevant Hospital’s Ethics Committee. The committee concluded that it was in Baby D’s best interests to be extubated and for life prolonging treatment to be withheld. During 2010–11 Justice Murphy and I attended seminars in Melbourne and Brisbane with various medical practitioners to discuss these complex issues and to particularly talk about the circumstances in which a decision about a child’s medical treatment, which would otherwise made by the parents and the treating doctors, should be the subject of an application to the Court to enable it to exercise a supervisory role.

Judiciary and staff I thank all the judges for their hard work during the year and for their willingness to endorse a process that I anticipate will assist us in doing our work as efficiently as possible. I also thank the staff of the Court who continue to provide a committed, sensitive and responsive service to the public, many of whom present to them distressed or upset and whose first encounter with the Court is likely to be the client service officers at the filing counter or the national telephone enquiry centre.

Chief Justice’s year in review | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 17

PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 21 | Report 2010–2011 Australia—Annual Court of Family Overview of the Court are prescribed by legislation prescribed are enable and support judges to determine cases, and requirements. meet duty of care determine cases with the most complex law and facts determine cases with the most complex law and and in family law, cover specialised areas coverage as the appellate court in family law matters. national provide

Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts building, Hobart, Tasmania. those that: of the Court are services The core The Court’s goal is to deliver excellence in service for children, families and parties through effective effective parties through families and is to deliver excellence in service for children, goal The Court’s needs of the and high-quality and timely judgments while respecting judicial and non-judicial processes separating families. Purpose is to: superior court in family law, The purpose of the Court, as Australia’s Goal Overviewthe Court of Court About the their assists Australians to resolve its specialist judges and staff, through The Family Court of Australia, disputes. most complex legal family under established by Parliament in 1975 is a superior court of record The Family Court of Australia and consists of a Chief It commenced operations on 5 January 1976 Chapter 3 of the Constitution. all Australian states in and other judges. The Court maintains registries Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice Australia. and territories except Western Vision The Court’s vision provides for: putting children and families ﬁrst in the design and delivery of services furthering functional family relationships after separation

PART 2 independence and impartiality in the judicial process having staff who are valued for providing quality service for families providing quality child dispute services for families, and being at the forefront of the development of services.

Jurisdiction The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record and deals with more complex matters. These OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW may include, for example: Parenting cases including those that involve a child welfare agency; allegations of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse of a child (Magellan cases); family violence and/or mental health issues with other complexities; multiple parties; complex cases where orders sought would have the effect of preventing a parent from communicating with or spending time with a child; multiple expert witnesses; complex questions of law and/or special jurisdictional issues; international child abduction under the Hague Convention; special medical procedures; and/or international relocation. Financial cases that involve multiple parties, valuation of complex interests in trust or corporate structures, including minority interests, multiple expert witnesses, complex questions of law and/ or jurisdictional issues (including accrued jurisdiction) or complex issues concerning superannuation (such as complex valuations of deﬁned beneﬁt superannuation schemes).

The Court also has original jurisdiction under Commonwealth Acts, including the: Marriage Act 1961 Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Programs of work To ensure the Court fulﬁls its stated purpose, it has four programs of work: maintaining an environment that enables judicial ofﬁcers to make determinations Client services area at the Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts building, Hobart, Tasmania.

22 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court provision of effective and efﬁcient registry services corporate management of resources, and effective information and communication technologies. PART 2 PART

Outcome and program The Court’s outcome and program framework sets out its commitments to the Government. Each year details of the framework are outlined in the Portfolio Budget Statements, along with relevant OVERVIEW OF THE COURT performance information. Government outcomes are the intended results, impacts or consequences of actions by the Government on the Australian community. Agencies deliver programs that are government actions taken to deliver the stated outcomes. Agencies are required to identify the programs that contribute to government outcomes over the Budget and forward years.

Outcome The Family Court’s outcome is described below. As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.

Program The Court has a single program under which all services are provided: Provision of a Family Court. The Family Court’s program objective is to support Australian families involved in complex family disputes by deciding matters according to the law, promptly, courteously and effectively. This involves: providing decisions in complex family disputes for separating Australian couples and families through the determination of matters, and providing national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.

Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements The Court’s 2010–11 Portfolio Budget Statements identiﬁed a number of speciﬁc initiatives that the Court would be progressing in 2010–11. Each of these is reported here.

Review of family violence strategy The Court’s Family Violence Strategy 2004–2005 and Best Practice Principles for use in Parenting Disputes when Family Violence or Abuse is Alleged are the Court’s major commitments to addressing family violence when it is an issue for court clients. The Best Practice Principles, developed in 2009 by the Family Court’s Family Violence Committee, are a checklist of matters that judicial ofﬁcers hearing and determining parenting disputes might wish to consider. They were the last initiative to be implemented under the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy (2004–2005).

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 23 A joint Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court Family Violence Committee, comprising judges, federal magistrates and senior staff, was established in 2009–10 to review the strategy and the best practice principles. This included considering the recommendations made by the following reviews: PART 2 the Family Law Council’s report on family violence, Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System the Family Courts Violence Review, by Professor Richard Chisholm AM the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms report, and

OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW the Australian Law Reform Commission and NSW Law Reform Commission’s report Family Violence: A National Legal Response, a review of the interaction in practice of laws relating to violence, including The revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles. the interaction of the Family Law Act with child protection laws and state protective order legislation.

The review work has also been informed by the Government’s response to these reports, whereby amendments to the Family Law Act in the area of family violence were introduced into Parliament in March 2011. The joint committee has reviewed and updated the Family Violence Best Practice Principles to ensure they are of optimal assistance to their intended audiences. Protecting families, particularly children, who are engaged with the family law system from the effects of family violence, is a priority for both courts. The revised principles assist by providing a checklist of matters that judges, federal magistrates, court staff, legal professionals and litigants may wish to consider at each stage of the litigation process. The committee recognises that the Government has decided to proceed with amendments to the Family Law Act in the area of family violence. The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 was before Parliament at time of publishing. The committee considered delaying the release of the updated Best Practice Principles until the amendments had been considered by both Houses of Parliament, however, due to some uncertainty as to timing, it was decided to release the revised principles, knowing that further revision will be required if the proposed family violence amendments pass into law. At 30 June 2011, it was intended that the revised principles would be launched in July 2011 by the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice and the Chief Federal Magistrate. The review of the family violence strategy was expected to be completed during 2011–12.

24 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court International Framework for Court Excellence The International Framework for Court Excellence was launched in Australia at the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration’s Court Quality Forum in September 2008. The framework is enabling the Family Court to review its existing strategic plan for delivering family law services to the community. PART 2 PART The framework provides guidance for courts to improve performance in seven key areas: court management and leadership

court policies OVERVIEW OF THE COURT human, material and ﬁnancial resources court proceedings client needs and satisfaction affordable and accessible court services, and public trust and conﬁdence.

To help decide how it would like to be recognised within the legal environment, 15 senior managers (including members of the Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group) undertook the court excellence survey in March 2011. The survey, a self-assessment questionnaire, looks at three main areas: the approach used, the visibility of what we do across the courts (deployment) and the results gained. The evaluation showed that the Court is sound in effective approach, is deploying its resources across most areas and has good performance and improvement trends in key areas. The Court performed strongly in recognition and court/resource management, in providing affordable and accessible court services, court proceedings and in public trust and confidence. The identified areas of opportunity were in court planning and user satisfaction. The client excellence survey will become a regular senior management activity that will help to identify opportunities to become a best practice organisation, gaps in current frameworks and the best way to engage key stakeholders, the judiciary, management and staff. In addition, at 30 June 2011 the Court had commenced a client needs and satisfaction survey to obtain data about the level of user satisfaction with the ‘process’ and ‘service’ of the Court. (See Initiatives of the Family Court later in this Part for more detail.)

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 25 Commonwealth Courts Portal The Commonwealth Courts Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au), launched in July 2007, is an initiative of the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. It provides free web-based access to information about cases that are before these courts as well as the Family Court of Western Australia. After registering, lawyers and parties can keep track of their cases, identify documents that have been PART 2 filed and view outcomes, orders made and future court dates. Users log on using a single user ID and access multiple jurisdictions from a single central web-based system. The growth of the portal has been rapid over the four years since its introduction. The number of registered users has more than doubled since June 2010: from 24 073 at 30 June 2010 to 57 602 at 30 June 2011. Included at 30 June 2011 were 2466 registered law firms and 5026 individual lawyers and barristers. See Table 2.1 for more detail about the number of portal users, with comparative data for the past three years. A significant number of practitioners now view the portal as an essential tool of trade: it offers self- OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW service in the practitioner’s own chambers, something that is particularly valued in family law matters with the content of court documents being viewed online. Those using the portal include a growing number of barristers who are able to request access to the specific file on which they have been briefed. During 2010–11, the features of the portal were showcased at the 14th biennial family law conference and at family law conferences, workshops and other meeting opportunities around the country. During 2011–12, the courts will continue to make enhancements and improve the service (see below for details).

L–R Phil Hocking (Business Development Manager); Richard Foster (Chief Executive Ofﬁcer); and Rob Richards (former Business Systems Development Ofﬁcer) at the 14th national family law conference in Canberra.

26 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court Table 2.1 Registered users of the Commonwealth Courts Portal, 2008–09 to 2010–11

30 June 2009 30 June 2010 30 June 2011

Number of law ﬁrms registered 667 1279 2466

Number of lawyers registered 1761 2827 5026 2 PART

Total registered users 5900 24 073 57 602 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT eFiling growth During 2010–11, eFiling significantly increased. By 30 June 2011, more than 550 eFiled divorce applications were being received each month with 5976 in total for the year and 789 other forms of applications also eFiled. The number of applications made by eFiling is expected to grow considerably in 2011–12. In addition, 55 428 supplementary documents (such as affidavits) were eFiled. The content of each of these documents is now available for viewing online by the parties, saving a visit in person to a court registry to view the paper copy. Improvements made during 2010–11 included: an XML Uploader for divorces that will enable law firms to upload a divorce application created in their own system direct to the portal (that is, without having to re-key data) a direct debit facility to complement the existing facility for credit card payments a direct link is provided for parties to access a judgment in their matter where it has been published on Austlii in February 2011, eFiling of the Initiating Application was released, and in March 2011, eFiling of the Response to Initiating Application was released.

Both the Initiating Application and the Response forms comprise an eForm version of the paper document where parties are asked to complete the questions, upload any accompanying documents, such as an afﬁdavit, pay by credit card or debit card (or seek a reduction in fees—the old ‘exemption’ application) and select a ﬁrst return date. Once this transaction has been completed the parties can print out service copies by downloading PDF versions of the completed form from the portal. Parties can also report any allegations of child abuse and family violence in this process and this will create a PDF version of the Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence (Form 4) as one of the output forms for service.

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 27 Table 2.2 shows the number of supplementary documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court for the past three years by location.

Table 2.2 Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, 2008–09 to 2010–11

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 PART 2 Adelaide 191 1679 2353 Albury 3 18 166 Alice Springs - 1 19 Brisbane 943 9077 18 936 Cairns 10 64 209 Canberra 5 643 1321 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW Coffs Harbour 26 114 286 Dandenong 66 832 2217 Darwin 13 129 212 Dubbo - 9 125 Hobart 27 85 210 Launceston 15 311 575 Lismore 57 174 418 Melbourne 425 4904 10 983 Newcastle 52 1046 2822 Parramatta 187 2029 5016 Rockhampton 33 374 444 Sydney 125 2870 6207 Townsville 35 634 1568 Wollongong 10 102 430 Total 2223 25 095 54 517

In Western Australia there were 636 divorces and 911 supplementary documents eFiled during 2010–11.

Planned enhancements for 2011–12 Work on a number of other enhancements commenced during 2010–11. This included further improvements to the usability of portal screens and additional functionality and information for users. Once implemented, an upgraded landing page will show any changes that have occurred to bookmarked ﬁles since the user last logged on. For example, a document may have been eFiled, an order made or a matter listed. Files containing these types of changes will automatically appear on the ﬁrst screen after

28 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court logging into the portal and will save users having to search their available ﬁles for this information. In summary, enhancements expected to be introduced in 2011–12 include: further eforms, such as the Application in a Case and the Application for Consent Orders PART 2 PART creation of a global list of all documents on a ﬁle an alphabetical matter title search for the Available Files screen which is restricted to searching only those matters in which the user is a party

information about the outcome of an application for a subpoena that will display if leave to inspect OVERVIEW OF THE COURT has been approved a link to order transcripts from transcript providers, and work to modify screens and processes to ensure compliance with the government mandated Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.

Federal courts restructure In May 2010, the Australian Government announced its decision to retain the Federal Magistrates Court to hear general federal law matters. As the Federal Magistrates Court is to be retained, funding that had been transferred from that court to the Family Court was returned to the Federal Magistrates Court with effect from 1 January 2011. The funding transferred back to the Federal Magistrates Court at Additional Estimates was $19.543m in 2010–11 and $118.255m over the forward estimates. Funding was also transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court from 1 January 2011 in recognition of the realignment of judicial ofﬁcer and family consultant positions between the courts over recent years. Funding equivalent to ﬁve judges, one judicial registrar and 8.2 family consultant positions and associated costs ($2.374m in 2010–11 and $14.389m over the forward estimates) was transferred from the Family Court to the Federal Magistrates Court. The Court understands that consideration is still being given to a restructure of the federal courts, with legislation possibly to be introduced to Parliament later in 2011–12.

Developments since the end of the ﬁnancial year There have been no speciﬁc developments since 30 June 2010 that require reporting here.

Outlook for 2011–12 In 2011–12, the following may have an impact on the Court and its delivery of services: the proposed re-introduction of legislation into Parliament around the restructure of the federal courts the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family) Violence and Other Measures Bill 2011, which if passed, will require further revision of the courts’ best practice principles, and the ongoing work concerning the implementation of the International Framework for Court Excellence which involves a review of the Court’s strategic plan for delivering family law services to the community.

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 29 Shared parenting statistics The reforms to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, introduced by the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, were wide-ranging. Among the most signiﬁcant of those reforms was the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and particular obligations placed on family courts to consider ‘equal time’ and ‘substantial and signiﬁcant time’

PART 2 arrangements where the presumption applies. Another important change was made to the ‘best interest’ factors that a court has regard to in deciding what order would be in the best interests of the child who is the subject of a parenting dispute. As a result of the reforms, the factors are now divided into ‘primary’ and ‘additional’ considerations. From the start of the legislation the Chief Justice decided that the Court would, for the ﬁrst time, endeavour to keep statistics on the ‘time with’ orders that were being made for the parties coming to court. In addition to cases in which judges make decisions, statistics have also been recorded of matters that come to court but in which the parties reach their own agreement without a decision by a judge.

OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW The collection and analysis of that data has been complex. This is the second year in which the Court has been able to present comparative data, now over the ﬁrst four years of the legislation being in operation. Part 3 of this report, (Report on Court Performance), contains the data. It shows that when a child is not given signiﬁcant time with a parent, the reasons often have to do with violence and abuse (including substance abuse), or result from mental health problems affecting a parent.

International cooperation – Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition During 2010, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) funded the Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition (IAPJT). The IAPJT is a joint Indonesian and Australian Government initiative aimed at strengthening the capacity of Indonesian government institutions and civil society to promote legal reform as well as protect human rights. From April 2004 to December 2009, the predecessor of the IAPJT, the Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility, supported a broad program of activities concerning access to justice, judicial reform, human rights, anti-corruption and trans-national crime. Memorandum of Understanding Annex signing A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Judicial Cooperation between the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Indonesia (MA—Mahkama Agung) supports the ongoing activities between the Australian and Indonesian courts. In recent years, the MOU has been supported by an annual Annex documenting the work with both the MA and the General and Religious Courts of Indonesia. In September 2010, a further annex was signed, supporting the MA in its efforts to improve judicial transparency, develop affordable and accessible court services for poor and marginalised groups, undertake case management reform, and leadership and change management. The MOU and Annex are available under International Programs on the Family Court’s website at www.familycourt.gov.au Since December 2004, the Family Court has worked with the MA and Indonesia’s General and Religious Courts on ways to increase access to the Religious Courts (the family law courts for Muslim citizens) for certain disadvantaged groups in Indonesia, particularly for women, the poor and/or those living in remote areas.

30 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court In 2010, two reports documenting the research results from the Access and Equity surveys of the Indonesian General and Religious Courts, conducted from 2007–09, were published: Access to Justice: Empowering Female Heads of Household in Indonesia, published by AusAID and PEKKA. The Chief Justice of Indonesia launched the report in July 2010. PART 2 PART Providing Justice to the Justice Seeker: A report on the Access and Equity Study in the Indonesian General and Religious Courts 2007–2009, published by AusAID and the Mahkamah Agung (Supreme Court of Indonesia). This publication was distributed to judges in almost 800 General and Religious Courts across the country following the National Judges Conference in October 2010. OVERVIEW OF THE COURT The Family Court was a research partner and supported the publication of policy recommendations. The reports are on the Family Court website (www.familycourt.gov.au) together with other resources such as a short ﬁlm and ‘how to’ guides for people seeking information on how to bring family law cases to the Religious Courts.

Impact These key results show the impact of the collaboration between the Family Court and the Religious Courts on access and equity: An increased budget from the Government of Indonesia to the Religious Courts for access to justice initiatives. A 14-fold increase in the number of poor people accessing the Religious Courts through the court fee waiver cases in the three years from 2007 to 2010. A four-fold increase in the number of people living in remote areas able to access the Religious Courts through circuit courts in the three years from 2007 to 2010. Fifteen per cent of Religious Courts now have legal aid posts providing legal advice and assistance to clients coming to court. They are modelled on the duty solicitor scheme in Australian courts. In July 2010, the Family Court hosted a group, led by Bapak Abdul Kaddir Mappong, Vice Chief Justice of the Indonesian Supreme Court, which saw ﬁrsthand how the duty solicitor schemes work in Australia. In August 2010, the Indonesian Supreme Court issued Practice Directions supporting legal aid posts in Indonesian courts.

The launch of the Bahasa Indonesia version of Courting Reform: Indonesia’s Islamic Courts and Justice for the Poor on 16 March 2011. (L–R) Leisha Lister (Family Court of Australia), Bapak Wahyu Widiana (Director-General of the Religious Courts), Cate Sumner, Bapak Hariﬁn Tumpa (Chief Justice of the Indonesian Supreme Court), Her Honour Diana Bryant (Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia), Bapak Marzuki Wahid (Fahmina Institute), and Julia Suryakusuma.

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 31 Zimbabwe In 2010, the Australian Government asked the Family Court to attend a family law conference in Zimbabwe. The conference was to facilitate the creation of a Family Court system and to seek the support of the Zimbabwean Government, Zimbabwean opposition, traditional chiefs, the High Court of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwean Magistrates Court, women lawyers and human rights lawyers.

PART 2 Justice Robert Benjamin attended, along with Professor Philippa Kruger from the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. The Australian Government, through AusAID, funded Justice Benjamin’s visit. The conference was a success with Government ministers, the Opposition, tribal leaders and other stakeholders agreeing to create a formal Family Court structure. The delegates agreed on a model structure with joint commissions in the General High Court of Zimbabwe and Magistrates Court to provide support services, such as counselling and legal services for litigants. All participants acknowledged that the ‘winner take all’ approach is not conclusive for family law cases, but rather the

OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW proceedings should be conducted not on technicalities but on merit. It was also noted that there needs to be a capacity for strengthening the skills of court personnel to deal with family law matters. The ministers and policy makers agreed that legislation ought to be put in place. The substance of that legislation is to reﬂect the general directions of the conference. Justice Benjamin has been invited to spend time with judges of the High Court of Zimbabwe, a Professor of Law at the University of Zimbabwe and other key stakeholders to assist in the drafting of the legislation and give effect to the recommendations given by the committee. At 30 June 2011, it was expected that this would happen early in the new ﬁnancial year.

L–R: Justice Guvava of the High Court of Zimbabwe, Justice Benjamin of the Family Court of Australia and Judge Mawadze from the High Court of Zimbabwe.

32 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court International visitors During 2010–11 the Court’s work continued to be recognised internationally with ofﬁcial visitors from China, England, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Afghanistan and South Africa looking at different aspects of the Court’s work. PART 2 PART Appendix 13 contains more information about each of the delegations.

Court service locations OVERVIEW OF THE COURT There are 19 family law registries in locations in every Australian state and territory, except Western Australia. Family law registries provide services to both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court and are staffed permanently. In addition to sitting in its principal locations, the Family Court conducts judicial, registrar and family consultant circuits according to the schedules published on its website at www.familycourt.gov.au.

Table 2.3 Family Court of Australia service locations

Location Judge/s Registrar/s Family Client Judicial Registrar Family consultants services circuit circuit consultant circuit

South Australia/Northern Territory

Adelaide 33 3 3 Mt Gambier Darwin 333 Alice Springs 3 Victoria/Tasmania Dandenong 333 Bairnsdale 3 Moe 3 Hobart 33 3 3 Launceston 333 3 Burnie 33 Melbourne 33 3 3 Albury 33 Ballarat 3 Bendigo 3 Geelong 3 Hamilton 3 Mildura 3

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 33 Location Judge/s Registrar/s Family Client Judicial Registrar Family consultants services circuit circuit consultant circuit

Shepparton 3 Warrnambool 3 PART 2 New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory Canberra 33 3 3 Newcastle 33 3 3 Port Macquarie 3 Taree 3 Tamworth 3 Parramatta 33 3 3 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW Bathurst Dubbo 33 Orange 3 Sydney 33 3 3 Wollongong 33 Northern New South Wales/Queensland/Northern Territory Brisbane 33 3 3 Coffs Harbour 33 Lismore 333 Rockhampton 333 3 Alice Springs 3 Townsville 33 3 3 Cairns 3333 Mackay 33 3

Initiatives of the Family Court This section highlights new and ongoing initiatives of the Court in 2010–11. Additional activities are reported in Part 6 (Management and Accountability) and Appendix 8 (Committees), as well as earlier in this part (for example, the Commonwealth Courts Portal and family violence best practice principles reporting).

34 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court A study of Indigenous Australians access to and usage of the Family Law Courts

In 2009 the Family Law Courts established a joint 2 PART committee to examine service provision to Indigenous families. Changes to the family law system had affected access to and usage of the Family Law Courts by

Indigenous Australians. OVERVIEW OF THE COURT For a report on the work of this committee in 2010–11, go to Part 6, ‘External and internal scrutiny’.

Family Court website During 2010, www.familycourt.gov.au underwent usability testing and a restructure. Representatives from ﬁve user groups—clients, lawyers, journalists, job seekers and employees—tested the restructured design, Flags in the foyer of the Edward Braddon Commonwealth which was based on updated information architecture. Law Courts building, Hobart, Tasmania. The updated site went live in November 2010. The homepage now includes feature boxes for eServices, Family Law Courts and ‘What’s New’, which lists all new content by date. Key features of the new information architecture include: forms, fees and brochures are now located only on www.familylawcourts.gov.au, although they can be accessed via a link from www.familycourt.gov.au a new section has been added called ‘eServices’. This provides speciﬁc information relating to the Commonwealth Courts Portal and eFiling and provides users with a direct link to the portal.

Family Court of Australia website.

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 35 Flood donations In January 2011, following the disastrous cyclone and floods in Queensland, judges, federal magistrates and staff of both courts were asked to consider donating to the Queensland Premier’s Disaster Relief Appeal. The total donated by both courts was $22 243.93. A personal letter of thanks was received from Queensland Premier Anna Bligh MP. PART 2 Changes to court fees New fees were introduced to the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court on 1 July 2010 and 1 November 2010. On 1 July, the fees were increased due to the externally determined biennial increase of the prescribed Family Court and Federal Magistrate Court fees. On 1 November, the Family Law Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 2) and the Federal Magistrates Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 2) came into effect. These changes included increases in some fees, OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW as well the abolition of the ‘exemption’ and ‘waiver’ of filing fees in favour of a new ‘reduced fee’ of $60 for those eligible. The new fees are summarised below: A reduced fee of $60 in place of a filing fee for eligible clients. The eligibility criteria for both of these fees remains the same as it was for exemptions and waivers, and clients can apply for either a Reduced Fee on the basis of financial hardship or a Reduced Fee—General. A setting down fee of $608, to cover the first day of hearing, applicable in the Family Court. A new fee for each hearing day beyond the first day of hearing (to apply in all hearings). This fee is $608 in the Family Court. The filing fee for a response increased to $243 in both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court (family law). This increase reflects the fee increase in the Initiating Application. There was no grace period. All forms received by registries on and after 1 November 2010 attracted these new fees where applicable.

Client Service Senior Managers’ Group The Client Service Senior Managers’ Group (CSSMG) comprises registry and client service managers from the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The group aims to identify and implement ways to continually improve service delivery across the courts.

36 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court CSSMG was involved in several priority projects during 2010–11 including: Client service wiki The aim is to develop a wiki that is a reference database for client service staff. During 2010–11 a

pilot wiki was being successfully used at the NEC, using Connections software. 2 PART Interpreters and translation services—procedures and practices The Court’s aim is for no client to be disadvantaged due to a language barrier. The key focus of this project was to promote the efficient use of interpreters to support the courts’ clients and reduce resources wastage. New preferred supplier arrangements were implemented during 2010–11. Work OVERVIEW OF THE COURT with different registries also reduced inconsistent practices and identified efficiencies, for example introducing phone interpreters for divorce lists. Family violence—submission and interaction with the Family Violence Committee This project sought to facilitate active engagement with the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court Family Violence Committee by providing information and inputs to support the work of the committee. CSSMG is committed to ensuring induction and ongoing training for staff in the area of family violence and court safety. During 2010–11, the group also worked on other projects that seek to streamline procedures, provide better information, and enhance clients’ contact with the courts. Some of these included: new procedures for the automatic release of subpoenas following changes to the Federal Magistrates Court’s Rules a new protocol that improves consistency in circuit listing practices, and developing draft guidelines for a process that would enable lawyers and parties to file subpoena material in electronic format, by PDF or CD-ROM, simply and cost-effectively.

Family law client satisfaction survey At 30 June 2011, a family law client satisfaction survey had commenced across the registries and was continuing until the end of July 2011. The survey, which forms part of the Court’s commitment to the Court Excellence Framework (see the reporting earlier in this Part under ‘Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements’), is fundamental to the delivery of quality court services by the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. It allows the courts to measure objectively improvements in service delivery. Five of Australia’s major universities are participating in the running of the survey, with more than 60 volunteers conducting the survey interviews. The survey covers family law only and participants include litigants, lawyers, family and friends, and people visiting family law registries for general enquiry purposes. It does not include evaluation of judges’ decisions (judicial decision making is an independent process, which can only be addressed through appeal processes; complaints about judicial conduct are dealt with separately in the courts, see Part 3 of this report). At 30 June 2011, it was expected the results of the survey would be available from late August 2011. They will serve as a baseline for measuring improvements in how the courts deliver family law services.

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 37 PABX replacement During the year the first stage of a major upgrade to the courts’ PABX phone system was implemented. At 30 June 2011, the upgrade was providing all judicial officers and staff with updated voice technology. A further stage to create a unified communications network was still being explored on the basis that it could produce significant savings to ongoing telecommunications costs by: PART 2 linking all sites over the courts’ network. This would reduce call costs with internal voice traffic travelling over the courts’ network, and would include a national numbering plan, and implementing unified communications via Lotus Notes and Sametime applications, which would reduce call conferencing costs and integrate telephone and desktop functionality.

Information quality The Court recognises the importance of quality information as a basis for delivering quality client services OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW and for ensuring that clients have accurate and up to date information. During 2010–11, major achievements of the Court’s Information and Knowledge Management team included: Reviewing the content and aspects of the information architecture of the intranet and, in consultation with the business sections, recommending improvement to the usefulness and usability of the information available. Letting a new contract for storage and retrieval of court ﬁles, with cheaper rates and improved service levels. The Court’s accounts were consolidated for auditing centrally, leading to more streamlined processes across the Court. An upgrade/enhancement to the Court’s electronic document records management system. Management of the successful piloting of new social networking software with the National Enquiry Centre, which included the use of a wiki for the knowledge base. Management of an all-staff survey to assess knowledge of social media software and to determine training requirements.

38 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court PART 2 PART OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

The 2010–11 Young Employees Advisory Group launch the 10 000 steps challenge.

Young Employees Advisory Group In 2008, a Young Employees Advisory Group was formed to enable younger employees to bring a different perspective to issues and approaches in court administration. The 2010–11 group was announced in June 2010. It comprised 15 employees representing a range of locations and roles within the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The group’s achievements during 2010–11 included the following.

The YEAG challenge—Step it up! This initiative was designed to increase employee engagement, staff productivity and output, to create positive beneﬁts for staff morale and reduce absenteeism. Between 7 March and 3 April 2011, the YEAG Challenge involved more than 500 Family Law Courts staff within 72 teams. Staff logged an average of 11 991 steps per person per day, well above the national physical activity guideline for Australians of 10 000 steps daily.

Think B4 U send This project aimed to reduce the over-reliance on email for communication, to reduce unnecessary emails and promote more innovative communication methods within the courts. The project team assessed the number of all-staff emails, ﬁnding that the high number of emails meant most were not being read. Emails about Aurion (the courts’ timekeeping and leave software) were subsequently replaced by intranet messages. A number of other all-staff emails have been identiﬁed to be treated the same way and a recommendation was to be put to CMAG in July 2011. The project team explored several other mediums of communication which could be used to raise the issue of ineffective use of email within the workplace. These include screen savers, tip sheets and statistics on the broader use of email in the workplace. Once Lotus Connections has been launched these recommendations will be pursued as part of the relevant community pages and forums or blogs. The statistics on the use of email will continue to be monitored.

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 39 New Frontiers—recruiting future generations and community outreach This project sought to engage with young people, including to promote the Family Law Courts as an employment option. In May 2011, two speciﬁc initiatives occurred. At Parramatta, the Family Law Courts joined 23 other agencies from the Parramatta law precinct at the Law Week Expo where the theme was ‘Access to Law and Justice in the Community’. At a Family Law Courts stall, staff provided information

PART 2 about the courts’ services to the public, staff from other agencies and local lawyers and barristers. In Victoria, the project team hosted an Open Day at the Melbourne registry for high school and university students interested in the courts and in possible career options. Students received a detailed presentation and a tour of the courts, as well as information and advice about career options.

eFiling: gateway to the future—unlocking the gate to the technological future The eFiling project aimed to increase staff awareness, knowledge and confidence in the Commonwealth Courts Portal (CCP) and eFiling so that staff are better able to advise and assist clients, leading to increased registrations and use of CCP. An information session and staff handout were developed and OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF OVERVIEW piloted at the Canberra registry in February 2011. Evaluation feedback showed the pilot achieved the desired results for staff, who subsequently felt confident to actively promote CCP. Within four weeks of the pilot, the number of Canberra registry staff registered to use CCP rose from 9 per cent to 75 per cent. The YEAG team recommended that the information sessions should be implemented nationally and become part of the standard staff induction training. The proposal was to be presented to the Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group on 6 July 2011.

Other initiatives A number of other significant initiatives aimed at maximising the efficiency and resources of the courts and to help ensure improved, targeted service delivery were progressed during the year, such as: the Court’s ongoing response to the Gershon Review into the use of ICT an independent financial health check, and a review of court officer functions in support of the judicial officers of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.

Initiatives such as these are reported elsewhere in this annual report, particularly in Part 6, Management and Accountability.

40 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Overview of the Court PART 2 PART OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

Overview of the Court | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 41

PART 3 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Report on court performance

Outcome and outputs The Family Court has one outcome and one program on which it reports in 2010–11. See Figure 3.1

Figure 3.1 The Family Court’s outcome and program PART 3 PART

Outcome 1 As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Program 1.1 Provision of a Family Court

Whilst the Court’s reporting is for the single program, this report presents information in two streams: judicial services (maintaining an environment that enables judicial ofﬁcers to make determinations), and registry/client services (provision of effective and efﬁcient registry services).

This approach is considered by the Court to provide clearer reporting of the Court’s performance against its deliverables and key performance indicators, as set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2010–11.

Historic performance against KPIs The Court has eight key performance indicators against which it is reporting in 2010–11. This is the third year in which they have been used. In 2008–09 and 2009–10, the Court was able to achieve five of the eight. In 2010–11, it achieved four out of the eight. The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending (active) applications less than 12 months old. This rate is set to ensure the Court manages its caseload, so that it does not allow too great a proportion of its applications to experience unnecessary delays in being resolved within the Court or decided by a judicial officer. Given the complex nature of the cases considered in the Court, it is inevitable that there are matters that will spend significant time within the court system, requiring extensive resources and hearings to resolve or determine. At 30 June 2011, 70 per cent of pending applications were less than 12 months old. This has meant for the past three years the Court has narrowly missed this KPI, but the levels it has obtained have meant the Court has been able to effectively manage its active cases. The Court continues to review and manage its oldest active cases so they can be dealt with appropriately and in a timely manner. Reserved judgment delivery times are a constant source of focus for the Court, as these are cases that are, for all intents and purposes, completed but are awaiting the reasons for the final decision. For this reason the Court seeks to have judgments delivered within three months to avoid parties waiting unnecessarily. For the past three years the Court has not met this KPI, although in 2010–11 it obtained a significant improvement. The improvement can be attributed to regular monitoring of the level and changed strategies instigated by the Chief Justice to ensure the judges have sufficient time to complete

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 45 their judgments. This included increased liaison with the judiciary to encourage earlier delivery of judgments. Key factors in the Court’s continuing inability to meet the target is the net loss of four judges and delays to appointing new judges over the past two years. This has put pressure on the Court to have its judges in court hearing cases, therefore reducing their time for completing reserved judgments in a timely manner. For the past three years the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) has not been able to meet its target to answer 80 per cent of calls within 90 seconds. The NEC provides a critical client service and is the main point for providing information about many aspects of the Court’s services (and those of the Federal Magistrates Court). This service has had an increase in the information services it provides and, for that PART 3 and other reasons, it has been unable to meet the high standard it is trying to achieve. More information about factors that have affected performance in 2010–11 is included later in this part. The performance indicators for counter enquiries, the processing of lodged applications and email responses were all achieved. The performance indicator for complaints as a percentage of all applications was not met. More detailed information about performance against the eight KPIs is contained in the following reporting.

Judicial services Judicial services include:

REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT determining cases that are complex in law, facts and parties covering specialised areas in family law, and providing national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.

In order to better understand the Court’s performance, it is necessary to understand that the Court’s caseload is predominantly applications for Final Orders, Applications in a Case, and Consent Orders. These three types of cases contribute most to the Court’s workload. Final orders applications are mostly cases where clients commence litigated proceedings to obtain final parenting and/or financial orders. Applications in a case are additional proceedings in which a client seeks interim orders until such time as the application for final orders is decided or interlocutory orders relating to the conduct of a case prior to a final hearing. Consent orders applications are where the clients have agreed or settled on terms relating to the parenting and/or financial issues and they are seeking the Court ratify these by way of making them binding court orders.

Summary of performance In 2010–11, the Court achieved three judicial key performance indicators and/or deliverables under the Portfolio Budget Statements (see Table 3.1) and was unable to achieve four. However all of the four targets missed were only missed by a small margin, indicating that the Court was not far from achieving its goals.

46 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance The Court was able to achieve one of its most important operational targets by having more than 100 per cent clearance rate. This showed increased output relative to a level of incoming workload and suggests it is commensurate with the Court’s resources and the demand placed on its services.

Pending cases The Court was unable to ensure that more than 75 per cent of pending cases were less than 12 months in age: it achieved a result of 70 per cent. This is an important measure to ensure that the Court does

not allow its cases to remain in the system too long before being disposed of. The longer a case remains 3 PART in the Court, the more ongoing resources it requires, which reduces its ability to use those resources for other cases. The Court uses a docket system to ensure the complex cases are properly managed through to disposal. Although the Court is not far off from achieving this target it will continue to monitor and

review this level and take actions to improve it. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Reserved judgments The Court remains concerned about the number of reserved judgments waiting more than three months for decision. The increasing complexity of cases before the Court has resulted in more cases requiring interlocutory judgments. While the number of cases requiring reserved judgments is relatively low compared to the total number of cases ﬁnalised, it is important for court clients to receive the result as soon as possible after their hearing and/or trial. The KPI for reserved judgments indicates whether clients with reserved judgments are waiting too long to have their judgment delivered. The Court continues to improve its performance in this area through initiatives by the Chief Justice during 2010–11 and was able to achieve 73 per cent, just short of the target. The Chief Justice will continue to monitor these results while developing strategies to have judgments delivered within the target time.

Finalisations Volumes of finalisations are difficult to predict each year: they are significantly dictated by client demand for Family Court services and the level of available judicial resources. Both of these are out of the control of the Court: clients determine where and when they will file their case and judicial appointments are at the discretion of the government. During 2010–11, the Court had a net gain of one judge but in 2009– 10, had lost five judges. The delay in appointing new judges affected the Court’s ability to meet some of its targets for 2010–11, though it was able to meet two of the four case finalisation deliverables. Table 3.1 summarises the Court’s results in delivering judicial services against the key performance indicators and deliverables published in the 2010–11 Portfolio Budget Statements.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 47 Table 3.1 Summary of performance—judicial services

Key performance Target/deliverable 2009–10 2010–11 2010–11 indicators and target/result result target deliverables achieved Deliverables Number of Final order finalisations: 3500 3900/3935 3795 3 finalisations per Interim order finalisations: 4100 4300/4073 3649 annum 2

PART 3 Consent order ﬁnalisations: 10 400 10 500/10 625 10 713 3 Other order ﬁnalisations*: 400 450/462 359 2 KPIs** Clearance rate 100% 100%/100% 104% 3 Backlog indicators More than 75% of matters pending conclusion are less than 12 months 75%/72% 70% 2 old More than 75% of reserved judgments are waiting less than 75%/46% 73% 2 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT three months after the conclusion of trial***

* The Family Court ‘Other Finalisations’ estimates include other family law ﬁnalisations such as Hague, contempt, contraventions, child support appeals, and enforcement summons. The values reported in the Portfolio Budget Statements are incorrectly showing the total ‘Other Finalisations’ for all of family law instead of the Family Court. This ﬁgure should have been approximately 400.

** The Court also has a KPI about complaints. This is reported upon in Table 3.3

*** The wording of this measure differs slightly from the PBS to better reﬂect the intent of the measure and to avoid confusion with another similarly worded measure. Trial also covers hearings that deal with interlocutory issues.

Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for ease of interpreting the differences between judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.3 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.

48 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Detailed report on performance

New workload for 2010–11 The Court continues to deal with the most complex and difficult family law cases dealing with either parenting or financial issues or a combination of both. In recent years there has been a shift to a higher proportion of matters having financial issues, especially concerning superannuation, corporate business and complex property portfolios. PART 3 PART Figures 3.2 and 3.3 show the new caseload during 2010–11.

Figure 3.2 Applications ﬁled, 2010–11 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE Application Filed %

Final orders applications 3249 18%

Application in a case (Interim) 3515 20%

Consent orders applications 10 682 60%

Other applications 345 2%

Total 17 791 100%

Issues sought on Applications for Final Orders

Children only 31%

Financial only 55%

Children and ﬁnancial 13%

Other 1%

Other applications 2% Final orders applications 18%

Application in Consent orders a case (Interim) applications 20% 60%

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 49 Figure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2010–11

Parenting and ﬁnancial 13%

Other 1% PART 3

Financial only Parenting only 55% 31%

Complex cases The Court’s case mix is predominantly complex cases that typically involve multiple issues and higher levels of conﬂict between the parties. The parties are less likely to settle their dispute and the cases have a higher probability of needing a judicial decision at trial. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT Figure 3.4 shows the changing settlement and attrition trend of the Court’s completed caseload and the case management phase where they reached before ﬁnalising.

Figure 3.4 Case attrition and settlement rate trend in the Court’s caseload, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Lodged First Court Pre-trial Trial Phase/ Trial Phase Commence Judgment Hearing/Conference conferencing Docket entry management Trial

Stage reached 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

50 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance First instance trials Parties who cannot agree to settle their dispute require a judge to make a decision after a trial, although frequently parties reach settlement during the trial process. Figure 3.5 provides the number of cases that are finalised at first instance trial. The Court had fewer trials in 2010–11, reflecting not only less cases coming before the Court but also, more particularly, the Court having fewer judicial officers to hear trials.

Figure 3.5 Cases ﬁnalised at ﬁrst instance trial, 2006–07 to 2010–11 3 PART

2000

1800

1575 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE 1600

1400 1253 1200 1115 1038 1000 869 800 906 600 711 583 511 397 400

200

669 542 532 527 472 0 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Number of cases ﬁnalised by judgment at trial Number of cases settled at trial

Impact of reduced number of judicial officers The number of Family Court judges has steadily decreased in recent years. During 2010–11, five new judges were appointed and four retired. This leaves a net loss of four judges over the two years to 30 June 2011. The decision not to fill all the retired positions combined with the delay in those replacements in the past two years put pressure on the Court’s ability to maintain or increase the rate at which it finalised cases in 2010–11. Although the number of filings in the Court reduced further in 2010–11, such pressures are expected to continue into 2011–12 and beyond, with fewer judicial officers in the Court and the increasing complexity of cases that proceed to trial, meaning they may take longer to finalise. Figure 3.6 shows the decrease in the numbers of the Court's judges in the past five years. The number of judges includes the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and judges assigned to the Appeal Division, whose main caseload is associated with appeals rather than first instance matters.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 51 Figure 3.6 Number of judges, 2006–07 to 2010–11

43 45

40 40 PART 3 35 35

30 31 30

20 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Number of ﬁnalisations

REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT During 2010–11, the Court had these finalisation targets (or deliverables in the Portfolio Budget Statements): 3500 final order cases 4100 interim orders applications 10 400 consent orders applications, and 400 other applications. The targets were based on the Court’s historical achievements, its resource level including judges, the estimated number of new applications initiated each year and the number of active cases (pending). Each application type requires a different and variable level of effort to resolve. For example, final orders applications and associated interim applications require more effort to resolve than consent order applications. The Court also deals with discrete applications, such as contraventions, contempt and applications made pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Final orders During 2010–11, 3795 applications for ﬁnal orders were ﬁnalised, about eight per cent above the target but four per cent fewer than in 2009–10.

Applications in a case (interim) During 2010–11, 3649 applications in a case (interim applications) were ﬁnalised, about 11 per cent less than the target and 10 per cent less than in 2009–10. Interim applications are associated with an existing case and can, in some cases, be dealt with relatively quickly. In 2010–11, a smaller number was ﬁled than expected. This combined with fewer judges meant the target could not be achieved.

52 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Consent orders During 2010–11, 10 713 consent orders applications were finalised, which is three per cent more than target and one per cent more than were finalised in 2009–10. These applications are the least complex of the Court’s workload and are usually dealt with by a registrar not a judicial officer. There was only a small decrease in consent applications filed, therefore the number finalised reflects the adequate registrar resources assigned to undertake this work in 2010–11. Figures 3.7 to 3.10 display five year trends in filings, finalisations and pending (active) applications. PART 3 PART

Figure 3.7 Final orders applications, 2006–07 to 2010–11

12 000 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

9000

6000

3000 7854 10 759 6550 4457 6992 4015 3834 4883 3322 3692 3935 3451 3249 3795 2995 0 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Filed Finalised Pending

Figure 3.8 Applications in a case, 2006–07 to 2010–11

12 000

9000

6000

3000 7928 8810 2037 4949 5597 1389 4313 4328 1376 4230 4073 1577 3515 3649 1382 0 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Filed Finalised Pending

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 53 Figure 3.9 Consent orders applications, 2006–07 to 2010–11

12 000

9000

6000 PART 3

3000 713 626 614 548 504 10 790 10 634 10 410 10 575 10 105 10 164 10 705 10 625 10 682 10 713 0 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Filed Finalised Pending

Figure 3.10 All applications, 2006–07 to 2010–11 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT 40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000 27 350 31 035 9582 20 337 23 759 6160 18 633 19 786 5381 19 089 19 069 5873 17 791 18 516 5190 0 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Filed Finalised Pending

Clearance rate The Court aims for a clearance rate of 100 per cent, that is, in a year to ﬁnalise at least at the same rate as cases are started. A clearance rate of 100 per cent or higher indicates that the Court is able to keep up with its new work and prevent an increase in its backlog of pending cases. For a number of years, the Court has cleared more than 100 per cent of cases, thus enabling it to keep its backlog to a manageable level. In 2010–11, the Court achieved a clearance rate of more than 104 per cent.

54 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Figures 3.11 to 3.14 show ﬁve year trends in clearance rates.

Figure 3.11 Final orders applications, clearance rates, 2006–07 to 2010–11

160%

Court is ﬁnalising more cases than are started 150%

140% 3 PART

130%

120% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

110%

100% Court is ﬁnalising less cases than are started

90% 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Clearance Rate Target

Figure 3.12 Application in a case, clearance rates, 2006–07 to 2010–11

120%

Court is ﬁnalising more cases than are started

115%

110%

105%

100%

95%

Court is ﬁnalising less cases than are started

90% 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Clearance Rate Target

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 55 Figure 3.13 Consent orders applications, clearance rates, 2006–07 to 2010–11

110%

105% Court is ﬁnalising more cases than are started

100% PART 3

Court is ﬁnalising less cases than are started 95%

90% 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Clearance Rate Target

Figure 3.14 All applications, clearance rates, 2006–07 to 2010–11 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT 120%

Court is ﬁnalising more cases than are started

115%

110%

105%

100%

95%

Court is ﬁnalising less cases than are started

90% 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Clearance Rate Target

Backlog indicators The backlog is the number of cases and applications that are pending (that is, still active) at the end of the year. These applications are waiting for a court event to occur or are being actively managed. The backlog can contain cases that commenced recently or older cases. Many of these cases will be disposed of within the Court’s target. However, the completion of applications that are older and outside the timeliness target is a primary focus of the Court.

56 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Age of pending applications Each court has a backlog of cases so that it can have a steady workload to manage to account for the ebbs and flows of cases that commence and finalise during each month and year. The Family Court’s goal is for its pending cases not to be excessively delayed. Thus it aims to minimise the proportion of older cases and maximise the proportion of younger cases. If the Court can achieve this distribution of aged cases this helps it ensure timely finalisation of cases. The highly entrenched and complex cases that the Court deals with often take significant time to progress through to a decision and are typically what

make up the ‘older’ cases still pending in the Court at any one time. 3 PART The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending applications less than 12 months old. At 30 June 2011, the Court nearly met this target by achieving 70 per cent of pending applications being less than 12 months old, compared with 72 per cent at 30 June 2010. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE During the last six months of 2009–10, the Court began reviewing its oldest active cases, particularly those older than 24 months, to better understand the causes of the delay and determine ways in which these could be dealt with more appropriately. It was expected that this activity would yield benefits that would materialise during 2010–11. However this did not eventuate. The review found that many older pending cases contained significant issues that could not be easily disposed. The Court will continue to review these cases to ensure they progress. Figure 3.15 shows the five year trend in the age distribution of backlog applications. Figures 3.16 to 3.19 show trends by type of application.

Figure 3.15 Age of pending applications, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 70% 69% 73% 72% 70% 0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

% pending less than 12 months old Target (more than 75%)

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 57 Figure 3.16 Final order applications, time pending, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% PART 3 40% 41% 40% 38% 39% 40%

30% 23% 24% 25% 26% 23% 23% 22% 21% 22% 21% 20% 13% 14% 15% 14% 15%

10%

0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT Figure 3.17 Applications in a case (interim), time pending, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80%

68% 70% 66% 66% 61% 60% 56%

50%

40%

30% 23% 22% 19% 20% 20% 20% 15% 12% 8% 10% 9% 10% 5% 4% 5% 4% 6% 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

58 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Figure 3.18 Consent order applications, time pending, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100% 94% 92% 93% 87% 91% 90%

80%

70%

60% PART 3 PART

50%

40%

30% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

20%

8% 10% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

Figure 3.19 All applications, time pending, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 53% 50% 50% 51% 51% 50%

40%

30%

20% 19% 20% 21% 20% 19% 20% 16% 17% 18% 20%

11% 11% 11% 10% 12% 10%

0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 59 The varying complexity within the different applications types means that their times to finalise also vary and therefore produce varying age distribution profiles. For example, the final order application is the basis of a client’s substantive case. It takes significantly more time to resolve such applications and as a result a larger proportion of them will be older than 12 months.

Age of reserved judgments outstanding After a trial, judges will often reserve their decisions to consider the evidence and to deliver written reasons for their decisions. The Court aims to have reserved decisions delivered within three months after the trial or hearing. Its target is to have more than 75 per cent of matters awaiting a judgment to wait

PART 3 no more than three months for that judgment to be handed down. Although the Court did not meet this target in 2010–11, it made significant improvement on 2009–10. At 30 June 2011, 73 per cent of the Court’s reserved judgments were less than three months old, compared with only 46 per cent in 2009–10. Figure 3.20 shows the five year trend in reserved judgments outstanding at 30 June each year compared with the target of 75 per cent. Figure 3.21 shows the five year trend in time for reserved judgments outstanding at 30 June each year. The result for 2010–11, in terms of the age of reserved judgments outstanding, is the best in five years and, as noted earlier, reflects the high priority the Chief Justice has given to this area of judicial activity.

Figure 3.20 Reserved judgments outstanding (pending) less than 3 months, as at 30 June 2006–07 to 2010–11

REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 58% 39% 54% 46% 73% 0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10* 2010–11*

Within 3 months Target

* From 2009–10 this ﬁgure covered all reserved judgments, including interlocutory judgments, whereas prior to 2009–10 the information related to ﬁnal judgments only

60 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Figure 3.21 Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 30 June 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80% 73% 70% 58% 60% 54% PART 3 PART 46% 50%

39% 36% 40% 32% 26% 30% 25% 25%

23% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE 17% 20% 18% 20% 10% 10%

0% 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Within 3 months More than 3 but less than 6 months More than 6 months

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

The total number of outstanding judgments at 30 June 2011 increased by nine judgments (nine per cent) compared with 2009–10. The Court implemented strategies to ensure judges had more time out of court to complete older outstanding judgments so they could be delivered and also an effort was made by the judiciary to ensure further reserved judgments were not delayed unnecessarily. Improvements in this regard were able to be achieved despite the net loss of judges in the past two years. However, this strategy put pressure on the Court’s capacity to ﬁnalise cases by trial, as is highlighted in Figure 3.5. The Chief Justice continues to monitor reserved judgments.

Percentage of cases finalised The Court aims to finalise cases within a timely manner. It is, however, mindful that the complexity of family law needs taking into account: that family law cases are particularly difficult and emotional, and the Family Court’s decisions affect many lives, potentially for many years. Therefore, the Court also recognises the need to allow clients enough time to deal with the many emotions that family breakdown and the court process bring. It is difficult to set a timeliness target because the number of variables affecting the parties involved in each case has unquantifiable impacts on its progress towards a decision. Although the Court does not have performance indicators in the Portfolio Budget Statements about the time to finalise cases, the Court continues to internally monitor the age of its finalised cases to assist with determining resource allocation and the effort required to dispose of cases.

Age of finalised applications The Court’s internal target for timeliness to finalisation is based on previous case history and its case management processes. The ability to get clients before the court relies heavily on various factors: the Court’s case management principles, delays between court interventions, available resources, and the clients. The Court aims to finalise 75 per cent of cases within 12 months, the other 25 per cent are the most complex cases, many of which cannot be expected to be managed within that timeframe.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 61 During 2010–11, the Court finalised about 91 per cent of cases (applications) within 12 months which is above the target and is steady with 2009–10. The main reason for this was the quicker time in which the Court was able to finalise a number of the complex applications, such as final orders applications. In addition there was an increase in the volume of the less complex consent order applications. Figure 3.22 shows the five year trend in the age distribution of applications finalised. Figures 3.23 to 3.26 show the trend by the type of application.

Figure 3.22 Applications ﬁnalised within 12 months, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100% PART 3 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT

10% 85% 86% 89% 91% 91% 0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

% ﬁnalised within 12 months Target (75%)

Figure 3.23 Final order applications, time to ﬁnalise, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 43% 43% 41% 40% 41% 40%

30% 25% 24% 22% 22% 21% 21% 19% 21% 21% 20% 17% 20% 15% 16% 12% 14% 10%

0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

62 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Figure 3.24 Applications in a case, time to ﬁnalise, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90% 82% 81% 80% 81% 77% 80%

70%

60% PART 3 PART

50%

40%

30% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

20% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

Figure 3.25 Consent order applications, time to ﬁnalise, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 63 Figure 3.26 All applications, time to ﬁnalise, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

90% 83% 83% 81% 80% 76% 73% 70%

60%

50% PART 3

40%

30%

20% 12% 10% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 7% 10% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT Age of reserved judgments delivered The majority of judgments are delivered ex tempore, that is immediately at end of the trial or hearing. However, there are cases in which the presiding judicial officer will reserve judgment for delivery at a later date. This includes interlocutory judgments for which there has been an increased rate of demand by clients in recent years. So much so, that since 2009–10, the Court has recorded interlocutory judgments as well as final judgments in order to provide more complete reporting. (Before 2009–10, reserved judgment data related only to final judgments. Thus, whilst data for earlier years is included here, it is shown for information purposes only and cannot be directly compared to the data for 2009–10 and 2010–11.) The Court aims to deliver 75 per cent of reserved judgments within three months of the completion of a trial. The Court met this target in 2010–11: 396 (76 per cent) of the 520 reserved judgments (excluding judgments on appeal cases) were delivered within that timeframe, a noteworthy result, particularly given there was an increase of 66 (15 per cent) reserved judgments delivered in 2010–11 compared with 2009–10. Complex issues are the main reason that some judgments may take a longer time to complete, but additionally in 2010–11 a major factor affecting the Court’s ability to meet this target was the net loss of four judges in two years. Fewer judicial resources has put pressure on the Court to ensure judges hear trials, which reduces their available time to complete reserved judgments. The Chief Justice will continue to monitor the judgments to ensure they can be delivered while balancing it with judges spending time hearing trials. In 2010–11, the extra effort to deliver judgments, therefore reducing the number of judgments remaining outstanding at 30 June 2011, affected the number of trials completed in 2010–11 as highlighted in Figure 3.5.

64 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Figure 3.27 shows the ﬁve year trend of reserved judgments delivered within three months and Figure 3.28 shows time to deliver reserved judgments.

Figure 3.27 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2006–07 to 2008–09 (ﬁnal judgments only) and 2009–10 to 2010–11 (all judgments)

100% * from 2009–10 includes All judgments, 2005–09 were final judgments only 90% PART 3 PART 80%

70%

60% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 73% 69% 70% 75% 76% 0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10* 2010–11*

Within 3 months Target

Figure 3.28 Reserved judgments, time to deliver, 2006–07 to 2008–09 (ﬁnal judgments only) and 2009–10 to 2010–11 (all judgments)

600

* from 2009−10 includes All judgments, 2005−09 were final judgments only 520

500 52 454

381 51 72 400 346 62 47 331 49 300 55 48 58 50

200

100

279 239 233 341 396 0 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10* 2010−11*

Within 3 months More than 3 but less than 6 months More than 6 months

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 65 Judicial services complaints Judges are accountable through the public nature of their work, the requirement that they give reasons for their decisions, and the scrutiny of their decisions on appeal. In 2010–11 the Court received 77 complaints relating to judges or judicial registrars—53 concerning judicial conduct and 24 on the time taken in delivery of a judgment. This represented 0.4 per cent of all applications ﬁled (17 791), under the Portfolio Budget Statements target of one per cent (although when judicial services complaints and administrative complaints are combined they total 1.5 per cent). PART 3 The number of judicial services complaints received by the Court in 2010–11 was again more than the previous year but comparable to the levels in 2006–07 and 2007–08 (see Figure 3.29)

Figure 3.29 Total judicial services complaints, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100

60 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT

65 74 50 57 77 0 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Judicial conduct The Court received 53 complaints in 2010–11 about judicial conduct compared with 32 in 2009–10. Once again a significant factor in the increase was the number of multiple complaints from a party, and in some cases a non-party, regarding the same court proceeding determined by the same judicial officer. Fifteen complaints were received about one complex proceeding that remains before the Court for final determination. Five other individual complainants each lodged more than one complaint regarding the same proceeding. Were these multiple complaints regarding the same proceeding counted as being a single complaint, then the number of complaints relating to judicial conduct in 2010–11 would be 32. A complaint about the conduct of a judge in court or in connection with a case in the Family Court or about the performance of a judge’s judicial functions must be made by letter addressed to the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice considers that the complaint is about judicial conduct, she will determine whether the complaint, on its face, has substance. The complainant will receive a considered response to all matters raised. However such responses are generally not made until the proceeding giving rise to the complaint

66 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance has been ﬁnalised through all of the court and appeal proceedings. The Court’s response will not address anything other than the substance of the complaint. If the matter warranted it, the Chief Justice would bring the conduct complained of to the attention of the Attorney-General. In 2010–11, no complaints were referred to the Attorney-General. Many of the complaints were about the outcome of the case rather than judicial conduct per se.

Delay in delivery of a judgment

The Court received 24 complaints about the time taken for reserved judgments, a decrease from the 25 3 PART in 2009–10. The Court aims to deliver all judgments promptly and has set a target of three months from the date the case is last heard or the last submission is received. Most judgments are delivered in much less than three months, but sometimes they take longer, particularly in complex cases. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE To ensure that a party does not perceive that the making of a complaint might prejudice the outcome of their matter, the established protocol allows a party having legal representation to express their concerns regarding the delay in the delivery of a judgment, by their legal representative writing to the president of the Bar Association or the Law Society in the State or Territory in which the case was heard, requesting that the president take up the matter with the Chief Justice. Complaints of this nature can also be made by parties who are not legally represented, directly by letter addressed to the Chief Justice. All complainants are given an assurance of conﬁdentiality and of the protection of their personal privacy. Figure 3.30 shows the ﬁve year trend in judicial services complaints in both categories.

Figure 3.30 Judicial services complaints, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100

77 80 74

65 57 60

50 31 40 28 17

32 53 20

37 43 33 25 24 0 2006−07 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11

Delay in delivery of reserved judgment Judicial conduct

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 67 Judicial decisions While parties to ongoing or completed judicial proceedings have a right to lodge a written complaint to the Chief Justice, it must be emphasised that the Chief Justice cannot interfere in any way, in an administrative capacity, with a judicial decision made by a judge in a ﬁrst instance matter or in a proceeding brought within the appeals process and dealt with by the Full Court of the Family Court. Parties who, for whatever reason, are dissatisﬁed with the outcome of any judicial decision can revisit the decision only through the appeals process for which statutory time limits apply.

PART 3 National coverage as appellate court

Summary of appeal caseload The Court’s Appeal Division deals with all Full Court appeals. The matters are from decrees of the Family Court of Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court. Table 3.2 summarises the appeals workload; more information about appeals is in Part 4 of this report.

Table 3.2 Appeal caseload 2006–07 to 2010–11

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 % Change from 2009-10

REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT to 2010-11

Appeals ﬁled 324 349 364 315 328 4%

Appeals ﬁnalised 346 318 361 345 325 -6%

Appeals pending 185 216 230 201 203 1%

Social justice and equity impacts

Self represented litigants (SRL) The Court monitors the proportion of self represented litigants as one measure of the complexity of its caseload. Self represented litigants add a layer of complexity because they need more assistance to navigate the court system and require additional help and guidance to abide by the Family Law rules. However, the use of legal representation can indicate that the parties consider their matter to be complex and best handled by legal representatives. Figures 3.31 and 3.32 show that the proportion of the Court’s cases and trials involve legal representation have remained relatively steady for the past ﬁve years.

68 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Figure 3.31 Proportion of litigants representation status, ﬁnalised cases, 2006–07 to 2010–11

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2006–07 71% 19% 9%

2007–08 73% 17% 10% PART 3 PART

2008–09 74% 16% 10% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

2009–10 73% 17% 10%

2010–11 74% 16% 10%

Both have representation (no SRL) One party had representative (at least one SRL) Neither have representatives (both SRL)

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

Figure 3.32 Proportion of litigants representation status, trials, 2006–07 to 2010–11

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2006–07 66% 28% 6%

2007–08 64% 30% 6%

2008–09 65% 30% 5%

2009–10 65% 28% 7%

2010–11 65% 28% 7%

Both have representation (no SRL) One party had representative (at least one SRL) Neither have representatives (both SRL)

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 69 It is not appropriate for the Court to set, or attempt to achieve, a target on the level of self-represented litigants. The ﬁgures show, however, that self representation can affect the Court’s caseload and its ability to meet its performance targets.

Shared parental responsibility—children spending time with parents The reforms to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) introduced by the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 introduced a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, and particular obligations placed on family courts to consider ‘equal time’ and ‘substantial and significant time’ arrangements where the presumption applies. PART 3 Due to the complex and high-conflict nature of the cases that the Court deals with, it did not expect that a large proportion of its cases would be conducive to ‘shared time’. To help the Court monitor and report the impact of the legislation, the Court began collecting information about the orders that parents were receiving for time with their children. In particular, the Court recorded the main reasons when significant and substantial time was not awarded to a parent. Figures 3.33 to 3.36 for cases finalised during 2007–08 to 2010–11 provide trend information 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 where there was early agreement (consent orders) and those where a litigated case (final orders) was filed.

REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT Figure 3.33 Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents for ﬁnalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80% 66% 62% 70% 60% 59% 60%

50%

40%

30% 17% 18% 14% 18% 20%

10% 14% 15% 12% 10% 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

with mother (litigated cases)with father (litigated cases) shared 50/50 (litigated cases)

70 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Figure 3.34 Per cent of cases where minority of time children spend with parents for ﬁnalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80%

70% 54%

60% 3 PART 46% 48% 48% 50%

40%

30% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE 14% 15% 12% 14% 20%

10% 12% 13% 11% 10% 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

with mother (litigated cases)with father (litigated cases) shared 50/50 (litigated cases)

Figure 3.35 Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents for ﬁnalised consent cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80% 68% 67% 69% 67% 70%

60%

50%

40%

30% 18% 18% 18% 18% 20%

10% 8% 9% 7% 8% 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

with mother (Consent cases)with father (Consent cases) shared 50/50 (Consent cases)

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 71 Figure 3.36 Per cent of cases where minority time children spend with parents for ﬁnalised consent cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 51% 52% 53% 53% 50% PART 3 40%

30% 18% 18% 18% 18% 20%

10% 6% 6% 5% 6% 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

with mother (Consent cases)with father (Consent cases) shared 50/50 (Consent cases)

When a child is not given signiﬁcant time with a parent, the reasons often have to do with violence and abuse (including substance abuse), or result from mental health problems affecting a parent. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT Figures 3.37 and 3.38 detail the most common reasons either parent received less than 30 per cent of time with their child in ﬁnal orders (litigated) cases over the four years to 2010–11. The cases include instances where no contact was allowed and cases where contact was only to occur under supervision at a contact centre.

Figure 3.37 Most common reason why mothers had less than 30 per cent of time spent with children for ﬁnalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11

40% 33% 35% 31% 30%

24% 29% 25%

19% 24% 20% 16% 17% 15% 16% 12% 12% 14% 10% 12% 11% 10% 5%

2% 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Abuse and/or family violence Distance/ transport/ ﬁnancial barriers Entrenched conﬂict Mental health

72 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Figure 3.38 Most common reason why fathers had less than 30 per cent of time spent with children for ﬁnalised litigated cases, 2007–08 to 2010–11

40% 36% 36% 35%

29% 27% 30% 26% 25% PART 3 PART 23% 20% 16% 15% 15% 11% 10% 7% 10% REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE 6%

5% 6% 3% 3% 4% 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Abuse and/or family violence Distance/ transport/ ﬁnancial barriers Entrenched conﬂict Mental health

Family violence and abuse (or risk) Under section 60K of the Family Law Act, the Court must consider and take action on notices of or risk of abuse or family violence. The prescribed notice is to be considered within seven days and dealt with within 28 days of filing. Figure 3.39 shows that the number of notices filed has declined in the past five years though the proportion of cases raising issues of abuse and family violence continued to rise until 2010–11 where they fell by two per cent (see Figure 3.40). The overall trend suggests that cases dealt with by the Court are increasingly more complex.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 73 Figure 3.39 Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence ﬁled, 2006–07 to 2010–11

700

600

500

400 PART 3 300

200

100

606 459 441 440 335 0 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Figure 3.40 Proportion of ﬁnal order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence is ﬁled, 2006–07 to 2010–11 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT

14%

11.5% 11.9% 12% 10.3% 10.3% 10% 7.7% 8%

0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Magellan cases Magellan cases involve allegations of serious physical abuse or sexual abuse of a child and undergo special case management. When a Magellan case is identiﬁed, it is managed by a small team consisting of a judge, a registrar and a family consultant. Magellan case management relies on collaborative and highly coordinated processes and procedures. A crucial aspect is strong interagency coordination, in particular with state and territory child protection agencies. This ensures that problems are dealt with efﬁciently and that high-quality information is shared. An independent children’s lawyer is appointed in every Magellan case, for which legal aid is uncapped.

74 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Typically, a Magellan case is one where a notice of abuse or family violence is filed, although not all notices will necessarily result in a matter being classified as a Magellan matter. Figure 3.41 details the number of Magellan cases commenced and finalised in the past five years. At 30 June 2011, 251 cases were pending.

Figure 3.41 Magellan cases, 2006–07 to 2010–11

300 PART 3 PART

250

200 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

150

100

217 189 197 199 268 191 264 213 165 228 0 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Magellan started Magellan ﬁnished

Registry and National Enquiry Centre services Registry services are provided to people who wish to ﬁle an application or are considering ﬁling an application at the Family Law Courts (comprising the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court). Registry services include: provision of effective support to the Family Law Courts family law telephone and referral services, and family law document processing.

They are complemented by the services of the National Enquiry Centre (NEC), to which all 1300 telephone calls go automatically and all emails in the ﬁrst instance.

Summary of performance Family law registries and the NEC provided a high level of service to clients and other users of the Family Law Courts and to judges and federal magistrates during 2010–11. However, in 2010–11 neither the registries nor the NEC achieved against the three client services Portfolio Budget Statement deliverables related to counter, email and telephone enquiries. In the case of the ﬁrst two of those deliverables—both of which are determined by the users of the courts’ services in that the registries and NEC can only respond to user demand—they achieved results of more than 94 per cent out of the target volume. Against the third deliverable—related to the total number of telephone

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 75 calls answered or served via the 1300 number—the result was 81 per cent of the deliverable. There was an inability to answer telephone calls as quickly as desired, resulting in a significant abandonment of calls while people awaited answering, affecting both the total number of calls answered against the target deliverable, and most significantly the key performance indicator (KPI) related to this. The related KPI had a target of 80 per cent of calls to the NEC being answered in 90 seconds. In 2010– 11, only 32 per cent of calls were answered within that timeframe. The other three PBS key performance indicators for specific client services to be delivered within specific timeframes were well exceeded: actual performance was close to 100 per cent compared with the KPI requirements of 75 per cent (for two) and 80 per cent. PART 3 More detailed reporting of the results follows, including information about actions being taken to attempt to address under-performance. Table 3.3 summarises the performance of the various client services functions of the Court against PBS key performance indicators and deliverables. Please note the data in this table relates to services provided for both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court by the family law registries and the NEC, with the exception of the complaints KPI, which is Family Court specific. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT

76 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Table 3.3 Summary of performance—client services

Key performance Target/deliverable 2009–10 2010–11 2010–11 indicators and target/result result target deliverables achieved

Deliverables Counter enquiries 159 500 counter enquiries handled 145 300/152 538 150 156 2

Telephone enquiries* 303 800 telephone enquiries 359 800/378 420 245 052 2 3 PART Email enquiries 53 200 email enquiries 48 500/50 846 50 052 2 KPIs

75% of all counter enquiries are served REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE Counter enquiries 75%/90% 97% within 20 minutes 3

Time taken to process 75% of applications lodged are 75%/96% 97% applications lodged processed within two working days 3

NEC telephone calls 80% of calls answered within 90 80%/40% 32% answered seconds 2

80% of emails answered within two Email response times 80%/91% 98%** days 3

Complaints—1% of total applications Complaints 1%/1% 2%*** received 2

* These figures are for the NEC only. The 2010–11 requirement is to report against telephone calls served by the NEC, whereas in 2009–10 it was for total calls received or made to the NEC. Therefore, no direct comparison can be made between the 2010–11 and 2009–10 figures here. Please note also that the figure for calls received in 2009–10 has been revised to the above from what was reported in last year’s annual report, analysis subsequent to reporting last year identified duplicate counting.

** NEC data only. *** This ﬁgure includes complaints about the administration of the Court and judicial services complaints, for which detailed information is reported elsewhere in this Part.

Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for greater transparency in its reporting for judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.1 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 77 Detailed report on performance

Family law registries There are 19 family law registries. These are in every state and territory (except Western Australia). Family law registries provide registry services to both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court and are staffed permanently. The key functions of the registries are to: provide information and advice about court procedures, services and forms, external options and referrals to community organisations that enable clients to take informed and appropriate action

PART 3 ensure that available information is provided in an accurate and timely fashion to support the best outcome through file management and quality assurance—from the initiation of proceedings, to hearing and to archiving make the best use of court time by facilitating an orderly secure flow of clients, files and exhibits enhance community confidence and respect by responding to clients’ needs and assisting with making the court experience a more positive one progress cases by providing administrative services in accordance with court processes and to manage external relationships to assist with the resolution of cases schedule and prioritise matters for hearing and intervention to achieve the earliest resolution or determination REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT monitor and control the flow of cases, and assist in the evaluation of caseloads by reporting on trends and exceptions to facilitate improvements in processes and allocation of resources.

Counter enquiries Staff working on the counters in family law registries handle general enquiries, lodge documents relating to proceedings, provide copies of documents and/or orders and facilitate the viewing of court ﬁles and subpoenas. Client service staff provided an efﬁcient and effective service when dealing with litigants in person and the legal profession face-to-face at registry counters across Australia (except Western Australia). During 2010–11, the family law registries continued to provide a high level of service to meet a sustained high volume, although they did not fully achieve against the deliverables set in the 2010–11 Portfolio Budget Statements. It is estimated that the registries dealt with 150 156 counter enquiries in 2010–11 from clients or other people seeking information face-to-face. This compared to 152 538 counter enquiries in 2009–10 and was about six per cent below the target or deliverable of 159 500. In 2010–11, 97 per cent of clients were served within 20 minutes, compared with 90 per cent in 2009–10, against a target of 75 per cent.

78 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Document processing Family law registries receive and process applications lodged at registry counters and in the mail. The service target of 75 per cent being processed within two working days of receipt was signiﬁcantly exceeded (97 per cent of applications were processed within that timeframe, compared to 96 per cent in 2009–10).

Telephone and email enquiries

Registries also provide telephone and email services. These complement the centralised telephone and 3 PART email services provided by the NEC and an increasing range of web-based services. In total the NEC and the registries sent 50 052 email responses, again about six per cent below the target deliverable of 53 200 email enquiries (about eight per cent of the total email responses were sent by the registries, the remainder by the NEC). REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE The registries received 50 052 telephone calls, out of a total of 295 108.

National Enquiry Centre (NEC)

Telephone and email enquiry and referral services The NEC provides a wide range of enquiry and support services for the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Through the courts’ 1300 number all telephone calls automatically go the NEC as do all emails in the first instance. In addition, the NEC is the first point of contact for: the Family Law Courts' after hours service, and the Commonwealth Courts Portal (this includes providing first level help-desk technical support). See Part 2 of this report for more detail about the portal.

The growth of the portal over the past two years has substantially increased the workload of the NEC. This was one of several reasons why the NEC did not meet its Portfolio Budget Statements key performance indicator for the time taken to answer incoming telephone calls in 2010–11 (see Table 3.3). High turnover of staff, mainly because staff were being promoted within the courts—clear recognition of the NEC as a successful training ground for the courts—was another factor. A third key reason for not meeting that KPI was the NEC’s strong performance against its second KPI (for 80 per cent of emails to be answered within two days of receipt). Ninety-eight per cent were answered within that timeframe, compared with 91 per cent in 2009–10. This was a noteworthy result given that the number of emails sent by the NEC increased by 87 per cent in 2010–11 compared with 2009–10, and staff levels have been unchanged for three years. In summary, in 2010–11 the NEC: received 398 657 telephone calls, of which: – 245 052 (61 per cent) were actually served/answered, compared with 281 176 (76 per cent) that were served out of 378 420* telephone calls received in 2009–10 – 46 139 (12 per cent) were abandoned during the recorded message that people hear ﬁrst when they call, which provides detailed information about other ways in which people can get information, forms etc, such as via the Commonwealth Courts Portal or the Family Law Courts website

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 79 – 94 217 (24 per cent) were abandoned while the callers were in the queue waiting for their call to be answered, i.e. they had not opted for one of the other options proposed on the recorded message – about 8000 (2 per cent) were transferred to a family law registry sent 45 853 emails in response to either emails received or as part of responses to served telephone enquiries. This compared with 24 513 in 2009–10, and reprinted on request 5177 divorce orders (an increase of 16 per cent on the 4477 in 2009–10).

* This ﬁgure was understated in the 2009–10, being reported as 377 529. PART 3 In 2010–11, it took an average six minutes and 18 seconds for calls to be answered, well outside the key performance indicator time frame that the Court has for the NEC. Steps to reduce the time delays for answering calls, and the associated abandonment of calls were considered throughout the year, within the budget constraints of the courts. At 30 June 2010, the Centre was introducing voice response technologies so people can leave voice mail messages when they have relatively simple needs, for example, they want information emailed or posted to them. In these circumstances there is no need for them to wait in the queue. Given the NEC’s success with channelling calls to the Commonwealth Courts Portal and the Family Law Courts website, as evidenced by the 12 per cent of calls that dropped out during or immediately

REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT after that information is provided to callers, the Centre is hopeful this additional strategy will make a difference in 2011–12. An ongoing challenge, however, for the NEC is that it will continue to experience spikes in demand associated with the release of updates or new tools on the Commonwealth Courts Portal. These extreme peaks were evident in 2010–11. As highlighted above the key factors that inﬂuenced the NEC’s inability to meet the 90 second target rate included: its role for the Commonwealth Courts Portal, with average call length increasing to nearly 5 minutes per call (compared to the 4:26 minutes average in 2009–10 and less than four minutes in 2008–09), attributable to increased technical support provided for the Commonwealth Courts Portal as this service has expanded its strong achievement against the second KPI (for responding to emails) high staff turnover due to success of NEC training regime and staff gaining jobs elsewhere within the courts (mostly), and increased email enquiry response trafﬁc.

Other factors that impacted on service delivery at the NEC during 2010–11, included changes to processes and fee changes, and updating of the courts’ PABX and phone systems.

80 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Table 3.4 summarises the NEC’s performance against internal benchmarks.

Table 3.4 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2008–09 to 2010–11

Performance indicators and internal targets 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Less than 5% of calls abandoned when queued 2% 18% 24%1

Less than 10% of calls transferred to a registry 5% 4% 2% PART 3 PART

Client feedback and complaints management

The Family Court is committed to responding effectively to feedback and complaints, and to complying REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE with Australian Standard AS 4269–1995 (Complaints handling) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Good Practice Guide for Effective Complaint Handling. The Court’s client feedback management system allows all areas of the Court to efficiently and consistently manage complaints and client feedback, while also identifying clients’ issues and monitoring trends. The Court has a comprehensive complaints policy, a judicial complaints procedure and a detailed client fact sheet, Complaints and Feedback Form, which explains how clients can provide feedback at all family law registries and on the Family Court website (www.familycourt.gov.au). Clients can address complaints to the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive Officer, a registry manager or the Client Feedback Coordinator in writing, verbally by telephone, or by email to clientfeedback@ familycourt.gov.au. If a complaint relates to a judge, it will be referred to the Judicial Complaints Adviser. The Court will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days and aims, where possible, to send a formal response within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint. During 2010–11, the Family Court recorded 271 complaints compared with 196 in 2009–10, comprising 194 complaints about general matters of the Court (see below) and 77 complaints about judicial services (see the section ‘Judicial services complaints’ for more detail). This represented two per cent of all applications received, thus the Court did not achieve on this deliverable in its Portfolio Budget Statements.

1 As reported earlier, a further 12 per cent were abandoned during the recorded message stage, which provides detailed information about other ways to get information, forms etc, such as via the Commonwealth Courts Portal or the Family Law Courts website.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 81 Figures 3.42 and 3.43 summarise the number of administration complaints and the total number of complaints received over the ﬁve years to 2010–11.

Figure 3.42 Total administration complaints, 2006–07 to 2010–11

300

250

200 PART 3

150

100

183 170 202 139 194 0 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Figure 3.43 Total complaints, 2006-07 to 2010–11 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE ON COURT REPORT

300

250

200

150

100

248 235 252 196 271 0 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

82 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Report on Court Performance Registry services complaints The Family Court receives complaints relating to family law registries, which service both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Of the total 194 complaints received by the Court: 91 were about administrative matters. These included complaints about court administrative procedures and processes, staff conduct, including that of registrars and family consultants, and privacy, security and the client feedback process. PART 3 PART 136 were not relevant to the administration of the court. These included issues about family law legislation, government policy, family reports, matters in other jurisdictions and the outcome of family law proceedings. REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE The majority of complaints, on examination, were not held to be justiﬁed and were usually the result of limited knowledge about the judicial system or dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes. Consistent with other years, there were a relatively minor number of complaints which justiﬁably highlighted shortcomings in administrative procedures. As a result of client feedback during 2010–11, aside from issues being resolved for clients on an individual basis, the Court made improvements to its website and online forms, looked at ways to improve coordination between administrative areas, and is looking to improve registry facilities for legal practitioners. The Court also recorded ten compliments.

Report on Court Performance | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 83

PART 4 APPEALS

Appeals

Appeal Division Sections 21A, 22 (2AA), (2AB) & (2AC) of the Family Law Act 1975 provide for an Appeal Division for the Family Court. The members of the Appeal Division of the Court are the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice and such other judges, not exceeding nine in number, as are assigned to the Appeal Division. At 30 June 2011, the judges assigned to the Appeal Division were:

Justice Finn 4 PART Justice Coleman Justice May APPEALS Justice Thackray (Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia) Justice Strickland Justice Ainslie-Wallace

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia is made up of three or more judges of the Court; the majority must be members of the Appeal Division (Family Law Act 1975 ss 4 and 21A).

Appeals The appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court is deﬁned in Part X of the Family Law Act, in Part VIII of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and Part 7 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. An appeal lies to the Full Court from a decree of the Family Court at ﬁrst instance under the Family Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts. An appeal also lies to the Full Court of the Family Court from a decree of the Family Court of Western Australia; or the Supreme Court of a state or a territory, constituted by a single judge exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts. An appeal also lies to the Family Court of Australia from a decree of the Federal Magistrates Court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) the Child Support Acts. The jurisdiction of the Court in relation to such appeals is to be exercised by a Full Court unless the Chief Justice considers it appropriate for a single judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the court in relation to such an appeal (s 94AAA(3)).

Appeals | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 87 Full Court sittings During 2009–10, the Full Court sat for 25 weeks (including some part weeks). Appeals are heard by way of video-link from time to time.

Administration of appeals Appeals are administered by an Appeals Registrar in three areas: Northern—Queensland, northern New South Wales and Northern Territory Eastern—eastern, western and southern New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory Southern—Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

Western Australia is separately administered by a Registrar of the Family Court of Western Australia. PART 4

Trend in appeals The number of appeals filed in 2010–11 increased by four per cent from 315 to 328. This represents the typical average annual increase that was experienced in the years prior to 2009–10. In the same period APPEALS the number of pending (that is, active) cases remained relatively steady at 203 by 30 June in 2010–11 (201 in 2009–10). There were 19 per cent more appeals from the Family Court whilst appeals from the Federal Magistrates Court fell by four per cent. Many appeals from the Federal Magistrates Court are dealt with by a single judge and do not require the convening of a bench of three or more judges. During 2010–11, the number of disposals (either allowed, dismissed, withdrawn, or abandoned) by the Appeals Division decreased by six per cent from 345 to 325. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 show the trend in appeal notices filed, finalised and pending during the last five financial years.

88 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appeals Table 4.1 Notice of appeals ﬁled, ﬁnalised and pending by jurisdiction, 2006–07 to 2010–11

% change from 2009–10 to 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2010–11 Filed Family Court of Australia 202 153 160 113 135 19% Federal Magistrates Court 122 196 204 202 193 -4% Appeals ﬁled 324 349 364 315 328 4% Per cent from Family Court of Australia 62% 44% 44% 36% 41% 5% Per cent from Federal Magistrates Court 38% 56% 56% 64% 59% -5% PART 4 PART Finalised Family Court of Australia 228 171 170 144 129 -10% Federal Magistrates Court 118 147 191 201 196 -2%

Appeals ﬁnalised 346 318 361 345 325 -6% APPEALS Per cent from Family Court of Australia 66% 54% 47% 42% 40% -2% Per cent from Federal Magistrates Court 34% 46% 53% 58% 60% 2% Pending Family Court of Australia 139 121 124 93 97 4% Federal Magistrates Court 46 95 106 108 106 -2% Appeals pending 185 216 230 201 203 1% Per cent from Family Court of Australia 75% 56% 54% 46% 48% 2% Per cent from Federal Magistrates Court 25% 44% 46% 54% 52% -2%

Figure 4.1 Notice of appeals, 2006–07 to 2010–11

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50 201 325 203 324 346 185 349 318 216 364 361 230 315 345 328 0 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Filed Finalised Outstanding/Pending

The proportion of appeals arising from decrees of the Family Court increased from 36 per cent to 41 per cent in 2010–11.

Appeals | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 89 Figure 4.2 shows the proportion of appeal ﬁlings resulting from a decree made either in the Federal Magistrates Court or in the Family Court.

Figure 4.2 Proportion of notice of appeals ﬁled by jurisdiction of decree, 2006–07 to 2010–11

70% 64% 62% 59% 60% 56% 56%

50% 44% 44% 38% 41% 40% 36%

30% PART 4 20%

10%

APPEALS 0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Family Court of Australia Federal Magistrates Court

The number of appeals that were allowed or dismissed fell by 14 per cent in 2010–11. The total number of appeals withdrawn or abandoned increased by seven per cent from 138 to 147. Withdrawn applications increased from 52 to 57 while abandoned applications increased from 86 to 90. Figure 4.3 shows the trend in the means in which appeals were ﬁnalised.

Figure 4.3 Notice of appeals ﬁnalised by type of ﬁnalisation, 2006–07 to 2010–11

160

140

120

100

20 90 85 72 52 69 87 39 89 94 64 84 52 86 77 57 137 123 114 123 101 0 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn Abandoned

90 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appeals Figure 4.4 Proportion of Notice of appeals ﬁnalised by type of ﬁnalisation, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100%

15% 12% 90% 18% 25% 28% 80% 21% 27% 70% 26% 15% 18% 60%

25% 50% 22% 24% 25% 24% 40% PART 4 PART 30%

20% 40% 39% 36% 32% 31% 10% APPEALS 0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn Abandoned

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

Appeal demographics The historical trend in gender remains: males were more likely to lodge appeals than females (Figure 4.5)

Figure 4.5 Proportion of appellants by gender, 2006–07 to 2010–11

100% 8% 9% 8% 11% 6% 90%

80% 39% 39% 42% 39% 41% 70%

60%

50%

40%

30% 53% 52% 50% 50% 53%

20%

10%

0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Male Female Other

Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.

Appeals | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 91 Figure 4.6 shows a change in the trend towards self-representation. In 2010–11 the proportion of self- represented appellants decreased from 39 per cent to 38 per cent.

Figure 4.6 Proportion of appellants’ representation status, 2006–07 to 2010–11

70% 61% 62% 57% 56% 60% 53%

50%

47% 40% 43% 44% 39% 38% 30% PART 4

20%

10% APPEALS

0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Represented Self represented

Age of finalised appeals In 2010–11, the Court finalised 82 per cent of appeals within 12 months (74 per cent in 2009–10). Figure 4.7 shows the time taken to finalise appeals over the past five years.

Figure 4.7 Months to ﬁnalise appeals, 2006–07 to 2010–11

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5% 2% 36% 30% 37% 31% 34% 22% 33% 23% 23% 24% 21% 20% 22% 20% 24% 18% 13% 13% 22% 16% 0% 3% 4% 5% 4% 0–3 months 3–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

92 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appeals Appeals to the High Court of Australia Section 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that an appeal does not lie to the High Court from a decree of a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, whether original or appellate, except by special leave of the High Court. During 2010–11, 17 applications for special leave to appeal were ﬁled in the High Court from judgments of the Family Court. During 2010–11, 21 applications for special leave were determined by the High Court and all were refused. PART 4 PART APPEALS

Appeals | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 93

PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

Signiﬁcant and noteworthy judgments

In 2010–11, judges of the Family Court of Australia handed down judgments at both first instance and appellate levels. The decisions reflect the Court’s expansive jurisdiction, the wide variety of issues that it addresses, and its position as a superior specialist federal court which deals with the most complex and serious family law cases. A selection of the more significant and noteworthy Full Court and first instance judgments is published here. Of particular interest this year has been the Court’s jurisdiction in cases involving the welfare power (s 67ZC) and, in particular, special medical procedures for children, Hague Convention matters, questions of Statutory Interpretation and the emergence of de facto property cases following the commencement of the Family law Amendment (De Facto and Other Measures) Act 2008 which amended the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). All of these cases highlight the difficult nature of the work undertaken by the judges of this court.

The Court recognises that the accessibility of its judgments to the public is important. It commits the 5 PART resources required to ensure that every ﬁnal judgment delivered is anonymised and published consistent with section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Virtually all judgments, after anonymisation, are published in full text on the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) website. There is a link

to the AustLII site from the Court’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au). Recent decisions are also SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS published on the Court’s website for two months. This policy has enabled the Court to better respond to community interest and concerns about particular cases highlighted in the media and demonstrates the commitment of the Court to being open and accountable for its judgments.

First instance judgments

Department of Human Services & Brouker and Anor

[2010] FamCA 742; (2010) FLC 93-446 – (24 August 2010) per Mushin J

Family Law—Children—Best interests—Application by Child Protection Authority Family Court of Australia before Mushin J, judgment delivered 24 August 2010. This was an application by the Child Protection Section of the Department of Human Services of the State of Victoria (‘the Department’) to extend an interim injunction obtained ex parte which restrained a 14 year old female child’s parents from taking her out of the Commonwealth for the purpose of marriage. It was submitted on behalf of the Department that permitting the child to be taken overseas for the purpose of marriage would be contrary to her welfare. Mushin J accepted this submission and stated that in his view ‘a 14-year-old child would not have the understanding of the signiﬁcance of marriage which would be attributable to an adult’. Mushin J further noted that ‘neither party to the child's potential overseas marriage [was] of marriageable age and that marriage therefore could not be celebrated in Australia.’ He went on to say that ‘[t]he fact that the marriage could not be celebrated in Australia is, in itself, a reason for not permitting a child who is resident in Australia and subject to this court's jurisdiction, to be taken out of the country for the purpose of marriage. Any decision to the contrary would be contrary to the child's welfare.’

Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 97 Mushin J concluded that it was in the child’s best interests to extend the interim injunction and to make other ancillary orders as sought by the Department. His Honour granted leave to the child or any other person who may have standing to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to set aside or vary the injunction preventing her from being removed from Australia for the purpose of marriage but only from the time that she attains 16 years of age.

Jonah & White

[2011] FamCA 221 – (4 April 2011) per Murphy J

Family Law—De facto relationships—Parties’ relationship not ‘de facto relationship’ pursuant to s 90RD Family Court of Australia before Murphy J, judgment delivered 4 April 2011. In this matter, the applicant contended that she had been in a ‘de facto relationship’ within the meaning of s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) with the respondent and sought a declaration to that effect pursuant to s 90RD of the Act. The respondent denied any such relationship.

PART 5 The parties had maintained a relationship for 17 years. The respondent was married for entire duration of relationship and had three children with his wife who was unaware of the relationship between the applicant and the respondent. Murphy J noted the parties only saw each other for a couple of days every two to three weeks; lived separately maintaining their own households; did not share any property and did not pool resources. His Honour found the evidence was consistent with the relationship being clandestine and noted it was signiﬁcant that there was no evidence any relationship existed, or was intended, between the applicant and the respondent’s children. Murphy J, in considering whether to make a declaration of the type contemplated by s 90RD of the Act, expressed the view that the question of whether a de facto relationship exists is a determination in the nature of jurisdictional fact and does not involve the exercise of a judicial discretion. His Honour said the determination there is a de facto relationship ‘enlivens the power of the Court to exercise the discretion to grant the remedies in the Act which depend upon that fact’ or as His Honour later put ‘relief provided

SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS AND NOTEWORTHY SIGNIFICANT for in the Act may follow upon proof of the requisite matters founding that relief’. Murphy J considered the legal definition of a de facto relationship as set out in the Act as well as State law and how the differing definitions had been applied in the existing Federal and State case authority. His Honour opined that the Commonwealth legislature provided for relief of the type contemplated by Part VIIIAB of the Act upon satisfaction of the jurisdictional fact that a relationship of a particular, statutorily-defined, type exists, being a ‘de facto relationship’. Murphy J further opined that ‘the key to that definition is the manifestation of a relationship where the parties have so merged their lives that they were, for all practical purposes, ‘living together’ as a couple on a genuine domestic basis’. It is the manifestation of ‘coupledom’, which involves the merger of two lives as just described, that is the core of a de facto relationship as defined and to which each of the statutory factors (and others that might apply to a particular relationship) are directed.’ His Honour also stated that it was the nature of the union ‘that lies at the heart of the statutory considerations and the non-exhaustive nature of them and, in turn, a finding that there is a ‘de facto relationship’.’

98 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Significant and Noteworthy Judgments While His Honour found on the evidence that the relationship was long-standing; that the parties had a significant degree of mutual commitment and that there was a degree of financial dependence on the part of the applicant, he found that absent from the relationship was the ‘merger of two lives into one’. Murphy J concluded that in all of the circumstances he was not persuaded that the relationship between the parties was a de facto relationship as defined in the Act and dismissed the application for a declaration.

Moby & Schulter

[2010] FamCA 748, (2010) FLC 93-447 – (25 August 2010) per Mushin J

Family Law—De facto relationship—Declaration that a de facto relationship existed Family Court of Australia before Mushin J, judgment delivered 25 August 2010. This was an application by the parties for a declaration as to whether a de facto relationship in accordance with the de facto provisions introduced by amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 5 PART (‘the Act’) existed between them at any time and if so for what period or periods. The facts in the case were highly contentious and it was necessary that this preliminary matter be determined before proceedings seeking an alteration of property interests pursuant to the provisions Part VIIIAB of the Act could proceed. SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS Mushin J considered the ‘circumstances’ contained within the legislation which a de facto relationship ‘may include’ in light of the applicant and respondent’s corroborative evidence 'and the period for which it spanned. Mushin J then went on to consider the power to make a declaration with regard to the existence of a de facto relationship. Of significance were the two requirements contained in s 90RD of the Act. First, the relationship must have endured for at least two years before financial orders could be made and, second, the requirement for the relationship to have existed at least until 1 March 2009 (the date of the commencement of the legislation). Mushin J considered the case law in relation to similar legislation in other jurisdictions and said that subject to it ‘the question of whether the parties were in a de facto relationship must be considered on a case-by-case basis without circumscribing any particular factor.’ In considering the relevant circumstances of the parties' relationship and whether those circumstances constituted a de facto relationship in accordance with the legislation His Honour first took an overview of the legislation expressing the view that it is inappropriate to try to draw parallels between marriage and a de facto relationship as contemplated by the legislation as a marriage can only be between a man and a woman whereas the legislative definition of a de facto relationship includes a relationship between two people of the same sex. His Honour expressed the view that the ‘concept that a de facto relationship is, for the purpose of the legislation, diverse’ and that ‘the whole structure of the legislation confirms that view’. On all of the evidence Mushin J concluded that a de facto relationship had existed between the parties for certain periods and made such declaration pursuant to sections 90RD and 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 99 Re Baby D (No 2)

[2011] FamCA 176 – (16 March 2011) per Young J

Family law—Children—Application seeking orders for a ‘special medical procedure’ – Extubation and then the administration of medication, sedation and palliative care – Whether the procedure(s) constituted a ‘special medical procedure’ or a ‘special case’ Family Law—Children—Jurisdiction of Family Court—Whether the Court had jurisdiction pursuant to s 67ZC of the Act Family Law—Children—Parental responsibility—Whether court authorisation was required—Whether the child’s parents were able to consent to and authorise the procedure(s) Family Court of Australia before Young J, orders pronounced 27 January 2011 and reasons delivered 16 March 2011. On receipt of the written opinion and recommendations of the respondent hospital’s Clinical Ethics Committee, the applicant parents sought court orders and declarations authorising the performance of PART 5 the medical procedure known as extubation on their child, and thereafter for artiﬁcial life prolonging treatment to be withheld, and the administration of comfort palliative care in the form of sedation or medication as necessary and proper to relieve pain or distress following the extubation. The key issue to be determined was whether court authorisation was required for the proposed procedures. Ancillary issues included whether the procedures constituted a special medical procedure or special case pursuant to the reasoning in Marion’s case and whether the welfare jurisdiction of the Court in s 67ZC had been invoked and thus empowered the Court to make the orders sought if the procedures were deemed to be in the best interests of the child. Alternatively, if the Court’s authorisation was not required were the parents, in their exercise of parental responsibility, able to consent on behalf of the child to the proposed medical procedures. Young J concluded that as the jurisdiction of the Court had been invoked for a proper purpose the Court had a duty to hear and determine the application. His Honour went on to conclude that the procedures sought were not ‘special medical procedures’ or a ‘special case’ per the reasoning in Marion’s case SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS AND NOTEWORTHY SIGNIFICANT and that the procedures came within the scope of parental responsibility, as procedures relating to the long term health of Baby D, per the s 4 deﬁnition, and for her care, welfare and development, per s 64B(2)(i) of the Act. Thus His Honour concluded that court authorisation was not required. Despite that conclusion Young J stated at [231] that insofar as it was necessary to exercise the jurisdiction of the Court under s 67ZC to provide the medical practitioners with the clarity and certainty of a court order His Honour had done so on the basis that it was in the best interests of Baby D that the procedures be performed.

100 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments Re Jamie

[2011] FamCA 248 – (6 April 2011) per Dessau J

Family Law—Children—Special medical procedures—gender identity dysphoria—two stage treatment Family Court of Australia before Dessau J, judgment delivered 6 April 2011. This was a matter involving a child ‘Jamie’ aged 10 years at the time of the hearing who was born male and had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder. Application was made to the Court for approval for Jamie to undergo a two stage special medical procedure. In an earlier judgment on 28 March 2011, Dessau J as a matter of urgency approved stage one of the special medical procedure but Her Honour reserved her decision in relation to stage two. The applicant parents, supported by the medical practitioners, submitted that both stages of treatment should be viewed as the one treatment program and approved at the same time to avoid the expense and uncertainty of returning to court for stage two approval. The independent children’s lawyer, 5 PART supported by the family report writer’s evidence, submitted that treatment not due for five to six years should be considered by the Court closer to that time, to take into account prevailing or intervening circumstances not able to be predicted at the child’s present age. SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS In considering the relevant legal principles Dessau J noted that procedures referred to in the authorities as ‘special medical procedures’ are a matter beyond parental responsibility, as legislatively defined, and require determination by the Court, as part of the Court’s parens patriae or welfare jurisdiction. Dessau J noted that in this case there was no dispute that the procedures proposed fell within the definition of a special medical procedure. Her Honour noted that while she was satisfied on the basis of the authorities that the two stages of treatment could be viewed as one treatment plan, that she was equally satisfied whether the two stages of the one treatment plan should be approved at the same time was dependent on all of the circumstances of the case. Dessau J, in dismissing the application, stated the argument advanced by Jamie’s parents and doctors that the stage two treatment will only be embarked upon if Jamie seeks it and her parents and doctors support it as in her best interests, failed to fully appreciate the Court’s role in cases which involve special medical procedures. Dessau J noted that Jamie’s strong wishes were a factor that assisted Her Honour to conclude that the stage one treatment was in Jamie’s best interests. Her Honour explained the issue was whether the Court could comfortably determine this 10-year-old child’s best interests, and therefore approve a particular procedure or treatment, irreversible in nature, not due for six years. Her Honour noted that while Jamie’s parents’ preference not to return to court is entirely understandable, there are all sorts of vagaries and potential factors that may intervene. Her Honour concluded that she could not determine when Jamie was aged 10 years what was likely to be in her best interests when she is aged 16.

Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 101 Re Sean and Russell

[2010] FamCA 948 – (26 October 2010) per Murphy J

Family Law—Special medical procedure—What is a ‘special medical procedure’—Parenting orders and medical procedures Family Court of Australia before Murphy J, judgment delivered 26 October 2010. This was a matter where there were two similar, yet separate cases, heard together by consent of the parties. Each case concerned a young child suffering from a very rare medical condition where specialist medical opinion recommended a gonadectomy that would render each child infertile. The applications before the Court sought a declaration that the proposed surgery was in each respective child’s best interests and were made by the relevant state health authority, supported by the parents of each child. In considering matters of parental responsibility and jurisdiction for special medical procedures (found within the ‘welfare jurisdiction’ of the Court (s 67ZC)), Murphy J noted Marion’s case was authority for a broader restriction on the ordinary exercise of parental rights and duties in so far as they apply to

PART 5 particular types of medical procedures. His Honour noted where the proposed procedure is a ‘special medical procedure’ court authorisation is required, and the Family Court has jurisdiction to give that authorisation. His Honour considered legislative amendments following Marion’s case and the impact of those amendments and expressed the view that the words of the High Court in Marion’s case remain the law, and that ‘no provision of the Act gives the Court ‘the power to enlarge the powers’ of those with parental responsibility for children.’ Murphy J emphasised it is not only sterilisation which constitutes a special case and therefore is outside the ordinary scope of parental power to consent. His Honour said at [64]-[65]: ‘…both principle and the Rules conﬁne those cases in which court authorisation is required to those of a type analogous to those in Marion’s case... Beyond those broad descriptions, it is not possible, nor, in my view, in any event desirable, to further

SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS AND NOTEWORTHY SIGNIFICANT deﬁne or list those procedures, treatments or the like which require court authorisation.’ In considering further jurisdictional matters Murphy J noted that there is an ‘unclear dividing line’ and that applications can be made where parents have no power to consent to an operation, or where court authorisation is not necessary or may be ambiguous. However where the jurisdiction of the Court is properly invoked there is a duty to exercise it. At [75] Murphy J provided a seven point summary to conclude his analysis of the legislation and relevant principles. At [91] when discussing the ‘narrow band of cases’ with which his decision was caught Murphy J said ‘…the law should tread very lightly in seeking to intrude in, or impose itself upon, those decisions. It would … be sad indeed if the courtroom was to replace a caring, holistic environment within which approach by parents and doctors alike could deal with the (admittedly extremely difﬁcult) medical and other decisions that need to be made’ and, that it would be a potential abuse of process if a decision was sought by a third party for treatment ‘plainly within the bounds of parental responsibility’.

102 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments Ultimately, Murphy J found authorisation of the procedure contemplated fell within the scope of parental responsibility and was not a procedure in respect of which court authorisation was required. However, His Honour noted the Court’s jurisdiction had been invoked for proper purpose and, being satisﬁed in the circumstances of each individual case that the proposed orders were in each child’s best interests, His Honour made the declarations sought.

Whung & Whung & Ors

[2011] FamCA 137 – (4 March 2011) per O’Reilly J

Family Law—Property—Stay—Clearly inappropriate forum—Anti-suit injunctions Family Court of Australia before O’Reilly J, judgment delivered 4 March 2011. In this matter O’Reilly J was required to consider four applications. The first was an application by the husband for a stay of the wife’s s 79 proceedings on the basis that he had divorce proceedings first in time in Taiwan and thus the Court in Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum. The second and 5 PART third applications related to anti-suit injunctions sought by the wife in relation to proceedings on foot in Taiwan. The fourth was an application by the husband to dismiss the wife’s applications for anti-suit injunctions. The parties’ two adult children were the second and third respondents in the proceedings. In determining the stay application O’Reilly J considered the principles set out in Voth v. Manildra Flour SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 and Henry v. Henry (1995) 185 CLR 571, noting the test is whether the local court is a clearly inappropriate forum. Her Honour found it was appropriate that the matter be dealt with in the manner set out in Henry and at [44] set out a nine point non-exhaustive list of relevant considerations in determining whether the Court is a clearly inappropriate forum. O’Reilly J then went on to consider significant jurisdictional issues, where the wife sought declaratory relief in relation to properties in Taiwan, registered in the names of third parties, which she alleged were held on trust for the husband. Her Honour noted that the relief sought by the wife seemed to invite adjudication in respect of ‘title to’ foreign land and cited the Mocambique rule which makes plain that the English (and Australian) courts will not exercise jurisdiction to determine ownership of foreign land because ‘any such controversy can only be determined in the State in which it depends’. Her Honour found the exceptions to the Mocambique rule did not apply and, when considering the Court’s ability under s 79 to make findings in equity in aid of in personam relief concerning real property situated overseas, said ‘it is important to bear in mind that whilst proceedings may be in personam, that does not mean necessarily that ensuing orders are in personam, because orders concerning status are orders in rem.’ Her Honour considered evidence which made clear that it would be difficult to prove in Taiwan that the third parties held the properties on trust for the husband and that even if jurisdiction lies, so that an order could be made for their transfer, there may be good discretionary reason not to exercise it. Her Honour noted the necessity to observe the foreign law, in particular foreign statutory law in relation to resulting trusts and land holdings, and any underlying policy. When considering juridical advantage O’Reilly J noted the husband commenced divorce but not matrimonial property proceedings in Taiwan before the wife commenced s 79 property proceedings in Australia and, in Taiwan, divorce proceedings are a pre-cursor to matrimonial property proceedings. Her Honour noted that she was ‘constrained by High Court authority to accept… the husband’s proceedings

Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 103 were commenced before the wife’s proceedings, even though… ‘the matter in issue’ in divorce proceedings and ‘the matter in issue’ in property proceedings involves different factual inquiry and the application of different legal principles’. However, ultimately Her Honour concluded for the purpose of the husband’s stay application, juridical advantage was not established. Her Honour then went on to consider the wife’s discrete applications for anti-suit injunctions. Her Honour noted that a grant of an anti-suit injunction is not the automatic corollary of refusal to order a stay of proceedings in the local forum and, that it was of fundamental importance, any grant of an anti- suit injunction be made not against the foreign court but against the individual litigants there. Her Honour noted that the wife ‘potentially would suffer irreparable loss’ if the injunctions were not granted as the issue of the proper law to be applied in relation to the properties in Taiwan registered in third parties’ names, which would impact of the size and value of the property pool, was open to argument in Australia but not available to the wife in Taiwan. Her Honour granted the anti-suit injunctions sought by the wife against the husband and the second and third respondents, adding that each were appropriate to protect the integrity of this Court’s process which had been set in motion. PART 5

Full Court judgments

Director-General of the Department of Human Services & Tran & Anor

[2010] FamCAFC 151 – (20 August 2010) per Faulks DCJ, May and Boland JJ

Family Law—Appeal—Parental responsibility—Whether the parental responsibility order in favour of the Director-General was in conflict with the order that the child live with the mother Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Faulks DCJ, May and Boland JJ, judgment delivered 20 August 2010. This was an appeal by the Director-General, Department of Human Services against orders made by Rose J in favour of the Director-General for parental responsibility for major long-term decisions for the child, SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS AND NOTEWORTHY SIGNIFICANT that the child should live with the mother and spend unsupervised time with the father. Of interest on appeal was the assertion made on behalf of the Director-General that by reason of the parental responsibility order made in his favour, the trial judge was bound by s 79(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903(Cth) to apply the provisions of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (the relevant State Act). If the relevant state Act had been applied the responsibility for determining where the child should reside vested in the Director-General and thus the trial judge was in error for making an order that the child live with the mother. The Full Court noted that as the trial judge was not exercising the welfare power of the Court nor was the child the subject of an order made under the relevant state Act the relevant question which required determination was whether as a result of the trial judge’s order for the Director-General to have significant aspects of parental responsibility, and for the child to live with the mother, there was a real conflict with state law which required application, if appropriate and not otherwise excluded, of s 79 of the Judiciary Act or examination of inconsistency under s 109 of the Constitution.

104 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments In applying the law to the facts in this case, the Full Court held there was no issue that the Court was able to, and did, exercise jurisdiction under Part VII of the Act. The Full Court further held that power to make the order in the Director-General’s favour was not in doubt as jurisdiction was vested in the Court and the trial judge had the power to make orders in the best interests of the child. Further, the trial judge was not being asked to exercise the welfare power of the Court (s 67ZC) therefore no question of inconsistency arose on that basis which would or could render the relevant provision of the state Act inconsistent under s 109 of the Constitution rather the provisions of the state Act were rendered ineffective by the its operation. The trial judge was required, in making parenting orders to make such order as was in the best interests of the child and that the ‘live with’ order was not ancillary to the order for parental responsibility. The Full Court noted the somewhat unusual order made by the trial judge, in which aspects of parental responsibility are imposed on one party to the proceedings without a ‘live with’ order in that party’s favour, are within the legislative competence of the Court and that the trial judge was not required to apply the state law as the substantive applicable law to quell controversy in this case where the trial judge was applying a validly made federal law.

While the Full Court acknowledged the task which faced the trial judge was not an easy one they 5 PART allowed the appeal and all parenting matters were remitted for rehearing on the basis that the trial judge had not given appropriate weight to the recommendations of the expert and had erred by placing undue weight on some of the matters canvassed in the expert oral evidence which caused him to curtail his

evaluation of the proposal which was in the best interests of this child. SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

Harris & Harris

[2010] FamCAFC 221; (2010) FLC 93-454 – (5 November 2010) per Bryant CJ, Finn & Boland JJ

Family Law—Appeal—Child Abduction—Hague Convention Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Finn and May JJ, judgment delivered 4 March 2011. This was a matter where the trial judge had made orders dismissing an application brought by the Director-General, Department of Human Services NSW as the NSW appointee of the Commonwealth Central Authority under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 for the return of a child, to Norway. The child, who had both Norwegian and Australian nationality was almost three years old at the date of the trial judge’s orders. The appeal was made by the father, although formally not the applicant in the proceedings before the trial judge, as a person affected by the orders of the trial judge. There were five discrete areas of challenge on appeal: procedural fairness; error of approach by the trial judge; factual finding errors; error in determining ‘grave risk’; and a challenge to the appropriateness of the return conditions. Of significance, before turning to the specific grounds of appeal, the Full Court discussed, in detail, the practical operation of the Convention in Australia and the role and responsibilities of commonwealth and state central authorities. The Full Court then turned to the specific grounds of appeal. The Full Court, in considering that the father had received erroneous and misleading information from the Commonwealth and State Central Authorities; that the proceedings were conducted ‘on the papers’ without cross-examination, whether the trial judge erred in failing to enquire whether the father had been informed of his rights and had elected not to participate in the proceedings and, whether, in cases

Significant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 105 where the evidence regarding domestic violence is controversial, there is a duty on the trial judge to go behind the application to ensure the unrepresented father’s rights were fully protected, found that no procedural unfairness was established and therefore there was no merit in the procedural fairness grounds. The Full Court found no error in the approach to the application taken by the trial judge in not considering the return of the child separate from return with the mother. The Full Court also found no error in factual findings or standard of proof established by the trial judge in making findings in relation to domestic violence and abuse and found that the inferences drawn by trial judge were open on the evidence. The Full Court also found no appealable error established in the trial judge’s consideration of grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child or placing the child in an intolerable situation and that the trial judge’s findings that the mother and the child would be in an extremely vulnerable financial position, without emotional support and isolated if ordered to return to Norway were open to the trial judge on the evidence. Further, the Full Court found no error in the trail judge’s findings that the mother would not be protected in Norway and the distinct issue of the risk to the child of return. The Full Court PART 5 found there had been recognition afforded to serious nature of domestic violence and its effect on the victim and actual or potential effect on the child. The Full Court also found no appealable error established in the trial judges consideration of the conditions that could be attached to an order for return where the trial judge found conditions attached to orders would not overcome vulnerability of mother or result in satisfactory living arrangements. There being no appealable error established in relation to any of the grounds of appeal, the Full Court dismissed the appeal.

Maluka & Maluka

[2011] FamCAFC 72 – (31 March 2011) per Bryant CJ, Finn and Ryan JJ

Family Law—Appeal—Children—Meaningful Relationship—Supervised time—Use of social science material SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS AND NOTEWORTHY SIGNIFICANT Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Finn and Ryan JJ, judgment delivered 31 March 2011. This was an appeal by the father against parenting orders made by Benjamin J that gave the mother sole parental responsibility for the parties’ two children. The orders further provided the children live with her, she be permitted without notice to the father to change the children’s names and move to any place within Australia. A series of injunctions were also made which restrained the father from having any contact with the children or the mother with provision that if the father breached the restraint order he could be arrested without warrant. The effect of the orders was that unless they were varied or set aside the children would not see their father during their childhood. The father did not seek to overturn all orders made by the trial judge. He did not challenge those which gave the mother sole parental responsibility, the children live with her or the restraints which, in the event of breach, enabled him to be arrested without warrant. The focus of the father’s challenge related to the orders which would impede his ability to spend time and communicate with the children at a children’s contact centre for two hours each fortnight pending further order.

106 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Significant and Noteworthy Judgments The main grounds of appeal asserted by the father were that the trial judge erred by not making an order under s 69ZT(3) of the Act to apply the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) regarding tendency and coincidence; denied him procedural fairness by taking into account published social science material and erred in the consideration of s 60CC of the Act by finding that no meaningful relationship existed between the father and the children and giving no or inadequate consideration to the making of a supervised time order, or alternatively, in failing to find that the circumstances justified the making of such an order. The Full Court agreed with the father’s contention that the trial judge erred in a number of respects. In particular, treatment of social science material, misunderstanding of the evidence in relation to the children’s relationship with the father, risk assessment and failure to consider the father’s application to spend time supervised time with the children at a contact centre were all held to constitute material errors. Highlighted by the Full Court in this case was that while the assessment of the nature of children’s relationships with a parent always requires careful analysis, where a party seeks to terminate that PART 5 PART relationship, it is particularly important for a trial judge to carefully consider the evidence which points to the positive as well as negative elements of a child or children’s relationships with that parent, in this case being the father. Also significant were the Full Court’s comments in relation to the trial judge’s use of social science material that ‘where reliance is placed by a judge on evidence other than evidence regularly adduced by the parties to the litigation, procedural fairness issues are particularly significant’. SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS The Full Court concluded that the father had established error by the trial judge and that those errors rendered the trial judge’s decision unsafe. Not being able to conclude the outcome was plainly right, having reservations about other aspects of the trial judge’s fact finding and in circumstances where there been no consideration given at trial level to the father’s application for supervised time at a contact centre, the Full Court concluded that it was necessary that the appeal be allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing.

Rand & Rand

[2010] FamCAFC 167; (2010) FLC 93-444; (2010) 43 Fam LR 570 – (3 September 2010) per Bryant CJ, Coleman and Boland JJ

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Coleman and Boland JJ, judgment delivered 3 September 2010 Family Law—Appeal—Contempt This was an appeal by the husband against orders which found him in contempt of two sets of court orders and the sentencing of the husband for contempt of those orders. In relation to the ﬁrst contempt the husband was to ‘be imprisoned until discharged by order of the Family Court of Australia, such sentence to commence immediately’. In relation to the second contempt the husband was to be imprisoned for a period of four months. The trial judge ordered that the sentences imposed were to be served concurrently. The husband challenged both the trial judge’s ﬁndings that he was in contempt of the Court’s orders and the severity of the sentences imposed by the trial judge with respect to each of those contempts.

Significant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 107 The case in the main considered ambiguity with respect to court orders, where the husband argued the first set of orders he was held to be in contempt of were uncertain on their terms and therefore not capable of being flagrantly breached or in the alternative that the husband’s interpretation of what was required by the terms of the order was reasonable and one which he had complied with. The Full Court discussed the principles governing construction of court orders and their Honours noted that they were not persuaded that any additional evidence which could have been before the trial judge could have impacted upon the construction of order however allowed the appeal against the first set of orders on the basis of uncertainty. In relation to the second set of orders for which the husband was found in contempt, the husband argued the finding was duplicitous with an earlier finding to a similar effect. The Full Court found that the orders relied upon to found contempt application pursuant to s 112AP were not duplicitous, however were too uncertain to support necessary finding in accordance with criminal standard of proof and were thus not able to support a conviction of contempt. The Full Court allowed the appeal.

Re Bernadette PART 5 (15 March 2011) per Bryant CJ, O'Ryan and Strickland JJ

Family Law—Appeal—Children—Special medical procedure—Jurisdiction of Family Court—Child aged 18 years Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, O'Ryan and Strickland JJ, judgment delivered 15 March 2011. This was an appeal by the Director-General, Department for Community Services (NSW) (‘the Director- General’) for summary dismissal of an appeal brought by the Father and the Mother (‘the parents’), the parents of a child known as ‘Bernadette’ against orders for treatment of transexualism/Gender Identity Disorder. The main issue raised by the parents before the trial judge related to the jurisdiction of the Court to make orders. They contended the decision for treatment of transexualism/Gender Identity Disorder was SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS AND NOTEWORTHY SIGNIFICANT capable of being made by the parents as part of their exercise of parental responsibility and thus did not require court involvement, however they did not appeal the orders made by the trial judge. On 19 January 2010 the trial judge published his final orders and reasons, finding that the Court had jurisdiction to authorise such treatment and that it was in the best interests of Bernadette that the orders be made. In January 2010, Bernadette turned 18 years of age. On 19 February 2010 the parents filed a Notice of Appeal with the findings of fact and law leading to the Court necessarily exercising its jurisdiction to make the orders being the subject of challenge The case raised interesting jurisdictional issues and required the Full Court to consider whether it has jurisdiction to make orders under s 67ZC in relation to a child who has attained the age of 18 years. As Bernadette had turned 18 prior to the filing of the Notice of Appeal, the Director-General sought the dismissal of the appeal on the basis that, given that circumstance, the Court no longer had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. This required a consideration of whether the Constitution permits Parliament to legislate in relation to custody and guardianship for children of 18 years of age or over, with the relevant section of the

108 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Significant and Noteworthy Judgments Constitution being s 51(xxii) where ‘infants’ is referred to and where at Federation it was clear that ‘infants’ referred to persons under 21. The Full Court expressed the view that s 51(xxii) marks the outer limit of Parliament’s ability to make laws concerning the custody and guardianship of children up to 21 years but does not constrain it from making laws which confine the Court’s jurisdiction to 18 years or some other age. The matter therefore became a question of whether the provisions of the Act limit the Court’s jurisdiction to making orders in relation to children under 18. The Full Court expressed a concluded view that the legislative intent, evinced by reference to the language in Part VII and to the lack of any indication that the welfare power was to be exercised in a different manner from every other aspect of the powers in relation to children, is to confine the capacity of the Court to make orders both in relation to parenting orders under s 64B and the welfare power under s 67ZC to children under the age of 18 years. As a consequence the Full Court on appeal held it did not have the power to make orders which related to Bernadette as she had attained 18 years. The application for summary dismissal was granted and the appeal dismissed. PART 5 PART Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services & Ray & Ors

[2010] FamCAFC 258 – (22 December 2010) per Bryant CJ, Finn and Ryan JJ SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS Family Law—Appeal—Children—Where the trial judge joined the Secretary of the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services as a party to the proceedings without the consent of the Secretary—where the Full Court concluded there was no such power to do so under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or under the accrued jurisdiction of the Family Court Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Finn and Ryan JJ, judgment delivered 22 December 2010. This was an appeal by the Secretary of the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services who was joined as a party to the proceedings by Benjamin J, without consent. During the course of the proceedings Benjamin J had requested, pursuant to s 91B, the Secretary intervene. The Secretary declined and, concerned that none of the parties may be suitable to care for one or both of the children, His Honour ordered the Secretary be joined as a party. The Secretary had submitted he was not willing to accept any obligations under any order for parental responsibility made in his favour and that such an order, without his consent, was ultra vires of the power of the Family Court. In ﬁnal judgment, Benjamin J did not make a parenting order in favour of, or against the Secretary, however the Secretary appealed the orders that he be joined as a party to the proceedings. The Attorney-General for the Commonwealth intervened in the appeal to support the power of the Court to join the Secretary as a party without his consent but did not wish to be heard on whether that power had been properly exercised. The Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth advised the Court that the appeal gave rise to a constitutional issue and notices were issued under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to the various states and territories, however none elected to intervene. On appeal, the Full Court ﬁrst considered whether orders made, after the orders the subject of the appeal, by the Hobart Magistrates Court (Children’s Division) under the relevant child protection legislation, rendered the appeal moot by the operation of s 69ZK of the Act. The Full Court rejected this argument as the trial judge’s order to join the Secretary still remained in force and could or would have operation subject to or after the discharge of the state orders.

Significant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 109 The Full Court then turned to consider the substantive issues in the appeal observing that ‘the fundamental question’ in the appeal was ‘whether a court exercising jurisdiction under the Act has the power to make an order concerning a child, in favour of (and thus order the joinder in the relevant proceedings of) a person, who is not ‘a necessary party’ to the proceedings, who does not seek to intervene in the proceedings, and who does not consent to an order being made in his or her favour’. The Full Court noted the basis on which the trial judge had determined the Court had jurisdiction, namely s 91B; r 6.02(1); s 31 coupled with Division 12A of Part VII of the Act; s 67ZC of the Act; or the accrued jurisdiction of the Family Court. The Full Court noted submissions on behalf of the Secretary principally sought to establish that none of the bases on which the trial judge relied to make the order joining the Secretary would provide power to make the order. While conceding it would be rare, the Solicitor General argued in support of the proposition that there is power to make an order binding the Secretary even without his consent, on the basis that once an application for parenting orders had been made, and the jurisdiction of the Court invoked, the Court had the power under s 65D(1) to make such parenting order as it thought proper. The Full Court expressed a view that the Act does not give any express or immediately clear answer PART 5 to the question of whether the Act would permit the making of an order vesting some or all aspects of parental responsibility for a child in the Secretary, absent the Secretary’s consent and any current involvement by him with the child under State law, and that there was considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the Secretary that the terms of s 91B and of s 69ZK were indicative of an intention not to bind him. In considering the sources of power on which the trial judge relied, the Full Court first concluded that there was no provision in Part VII of the Act which would provide power to make parental responsibility orders in favour of the Secretary to which he did not consent and went on to observe at [81]: 81. … the Court can, and does, make orders under the Act against persons who have parental responsibility, but who not only do not consent to the orders, but may have actively opposed the making of the orders. But even then common sense dictates that it would not usually be in a child’s interests for the child to be placed in the care or under the responsibility of a person who did not wish to assume that care or responsibility. If the legislature had intended that obligations in relation to, and responsibility, for SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS AND NOTEWORTHY SIGNIFICANT a child could be imposed on persons who do not already have parental responsibility for that child, it is only to be expected that it would have expressed such an intention in clear terms. It has not done so. The Full Court noted the absence of power to make a parental responsibility order ‘in favour of’ a person who does not otherwise have parental responsibility and who does not consent to that order, applies not only to private persons, but also to a person in the position of the Secretary who has duties and responsibilities in relation to the care of children under State law. Ultimately the Full Court concluded that none of the sources of power relied upon by trial judge would be able to support the making of an order for parental responsibility in favour of the Secretary absent his consent and, accordingly the order joining the Secretary should not have been made. The Full Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders which joined the Secretary. As a final word the Full Court said that the case ‘illustrates the need for continuing attempts to harmonise in some way the administration of State and Federal laws concerned with the welfare of children’.

110 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments Soysa & Commissioner of Police

[2011] FamCAFC 39 (2 March 2011) – per May, Thackray and Ainslie – Wallace JJ

Family Law—Appeal—Child Abduction—Hague Convention Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before May, Thackray and Ainslie-Wallace JJ, judgment delivered 2 March 2011. This was an appeal by the mother from an order for the child’s return to Sri Lanka. At the trial the mother contended that at the time she removed the child from Sri Lanka the father did not have ‘rights of custody’ within the meaning of the Regulations or, if he had such rights, they were not capable of being exercised. The trial judge found that the father had ‘preferential rights of custody’ and on that basis ordered the return of the child. At the appeal the mother contended the trial judge was ‘wrong to ﬁnd as a fact that the father’s rights of custody (including any right of veto on [the child’s] removal from Sri Lanka) were capable of actually 5 PART being exercised immediately before [the child’s] removal from Sri Lanka…’. The Full Court considered the ﬁndings made by the trial judge in relation to orders providing for interim access to the father made in Sri Lanka prior to the child’s removal, the father’s ‘rights of custody’ and SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS whether they were capable of being exercised immediately before the child’s removal from Sri Lanka, the expert evidence from trial and further expert evidence received on the hearing of the appeal, by consent. The Full Court held that ‘not only did the father have rights of custody within the meaning of the Regulations, but that he was actually exercising those rights at the time of the child’s removal.’ The Full Court concluded that ‘the mother’s removal of the child from Sri Lanka was therefore wrongful within the meaning of the Regulations and His Honour was obliged to make the order for the return of the child to Sri Lanka.’ The appeal was dismissed.

Taffa & Taffa

[2010] FamCAFC 203 – (13 September 2010) per Coleman, May and Murphy JJ

Family Law—Appeal—Divorce—Recognition of foreign divorce Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Coleman, May and Murphy JJ, judgment delivered 13 September 2010. This was an appeal by the wife against orders of Le Poer Trench J dismissing her application for a decree of dissolution of marriage. The husband opposed the granting of a decree on the basis that the marriage had already been dissolved by a court in Lebanon. The wife’s case in response was that the decree ought not be recognised pursuant to the provisions of s 104 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Le Poer Trench J considered the provisions of s 104 of the Act and determined that the divorce granted by the Lebanese Canonical Court pursuant to s 104(3)(d) of the Act should be recognised. The Full Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that no error had been established by the trial judge in ﬁnding that wife had been applicant in Lebanese proceedings, it had not been established that she was

Significant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 111 not afforded natural justice by Lebanese Canonical Courts granting divorce or that recognition of the divorce would be manifestly contrary to public policy based on the provisions of s 104(4) of the Act. In coming to its conclusion the Full Court discussed the evidence before the trial judge noting ‘the difference of opinion between the experts fell within a small but significant compass’ and that the findings made and conclusions arrived at by the trial judge were reasonably open on the evidence.

Tryon v Clutterbuck

[2010] FamCAFC 229 – (12 November 2010) per Coleman, Thackray and Le Poer Trench JJ

Family Law—Appeal—Children—Family consultants—Nature and extent of functions exercised by family consultant in conducting interviews for preparation of s 62G reports Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Coleman, Thackray and Le Poer Trench JJ, judgment delivered 12 November 2010. This was an appeal/application for leave to appeal against a trial judge’s order that parties attend

PART 5 interviews with family consultant for purpose of preparing report pursuant to s 62G Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in the absence of legal representatives. The appellants asserted the trial judge had erred by refusing to allow their solicitor to be present at the interview for the purpose of the preparation of the s 62G report and that so doing constituted a denial of natural justice. The Attorney-General intervened and resisted the orders sought in the appeal. The Full Court considered the nature and extent of functions exercised by family consultant in conducting interviews for preparation of s 62G reports and determined such function is not quasi- judicial, or involving exercise of power such as would oblige natural justice principles to be observed. Thus, it was not established that parties are entitled a right to legal representation at s 62G interviews or that by denying that entitlement is a denial of natural justice. The Full Court said that ‘[q]uite apart from the overarching requirement of the Court to afford parties to proceedings before it natural justice, an ample legislative framework precludes family reports… adversely impacting upon a party’s rights, without the necessity of the parties being legally represented SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS AND NOTEWORTHY SIGNIFICANT at interviews for the purpose of preparing such reports.’ It was further held that s 11C of the Act is directed to admissibility of s 62G reports and does not of itself, or in conjunction with s 62G, give rise to entitlement to legal representation at interviews with family consultant for preparation of s 62G report. The appeal was dismissed.

112 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments PART 5 PART SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

Signiﬁcant and Noteworthy Judgments | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 113

PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Corporate governance

This section reports on aspects of the Family Court of Australia’s corporate governance arrangements. The Chief Justice, assisted by the Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the Court. Under the Constitution, judicial power is vested in judges who administer that power in courts. The Family Law Act defines the Court as being a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and the judges appointed to that court. By delegation from the Chief Justice, case management judges assist in administering judicial functions in particular areas, such as case management. The Family Court is autonomously governed, that is, the judiciary has the responsibility for the administration of the Court. To enable the effective and efficient administration of justice, the judiciary needs support to deal with its workload. Non-judicial court employees, public servants accountable to the 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. The Chief Executive Officer holds the responsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealth financial management and public service legislation. PART 6 PART Figure 6.1 shows the organisational structure of the Court. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 117 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia

Figure 6.1 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2011

Chief Justice Deputy Chief Justice Hon Diana Bryant Hon John Faulks

Judiciary and Judicial Committees

Executive Advisor Chief Executive Ofﬁcer Legal Counsel Leisha Lister Richard Foster PSM Neil Wareham

Principal Principal Executive Executive Executive Registrar Child Dispute Director Director Director Services Client Services Information, Corporate Communication & Technology

PART 6 Acting Angela Filippello Pam Hemphill Stephen Andrew Stephen Andrew Grahame Harriott

Regional Regional Marshal & Coordinating Coordinators, Human Communications Registry Applications Security Services Registrars Child Dispute Resources Managers Services

Senior Family Consultants Information Registrars Registries Property and Family Management Consultants MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT

Statistics Infrastructure Finance

Budgets & Registries Business Adelaide, Albury, Alice Springs, Improvements Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Coffs Harbour, Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Hobart, Launceston, Lismore, Melbourne, Newcastle, Parramatta, Procurement Rockhampton, Sydney, Townsville, & Risk Wollongong Management

Denotes professional responsibility

118 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Judicial ofﬁcers of the Family Court of Australia At 30 June 2011, there were 31 judges of the Court, including the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice.

Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia The Chief Justice is responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the Court (s 21B Family Law Act) and for managing its administrative affairs (s 38A). The Chief Justice is assisted in judicial responsibilities by the Deputy Chief Justice (s 21B) and in administrative responsibilities by the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer (s 38B). The Chief Justice’s chambers are located in the Melbourne registry. Chief Justice Diana Bryant was appointed Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia on 5 July 2004. She had previously been the Chief Justice Bryant. inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate overseeing the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court, a position she held for four years.

Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia 6 PART The Deputy Chief Justice assists the Chief Justice in the judicial administration of the Family Court. Particular responsibilities include case management, complaints about judges, the collection and strategic assessment of statistics, pastoral care and the oversight of MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY the Court’s committees. In the absence of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice performs and exercises the powers of the Chief Justice (s 24). The Deputy Chief Justice’s chambers are located in the Canberra registry.

Deputy Chief Justice Faulks. Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks was appointed as a Family Court judge on 12 October 1994. He was appointed as Deputy Chief Justice on 25 June 2004.

Judges assigned to the Appeal Division The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant 5 July 2004 The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks 25 June 2004 The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn 10 August 1993 The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman 31 March 1999 The Honourable Justice Michelle May 6 February 2003 The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray 16 November 2006 (Chief Judge Family Court of Western Australia) The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland 14 December 2009 The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace 9 July 2010

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 119 Judges (according to order of seniority)

Adelaide The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland 22 November 1999 The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe (Case Management Judge) 3 March 1997 The Honourable Justice Rodney Keith Burr AM 2 April 1998

Brisbane The Honourable Justice Michelle May 5 September 1995 The Honourable Justice Graham Rodney Bell 27 February 1976 The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Madonna O’Reilly 10 January 2003 The Honourable Justice Peter John Murphy (Case Management Judge) 11 October 2007 The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest 1 February 2011

Canberra PART 6 The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks 11 October 1994 The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn 2 July 1990

Hobart The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin 19 August 2005

Melbourne The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant 5 July 2004 The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin 26 October 1990

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT The Honourable Justice Linda Marion Dessau AM 20 June 1995 The Honourable Justice Peter Young 6 August 2002 The Honourable Justice Victoria Jane Bennett 30 November 2005 The Honourable Justice Paul Cronin (Case Management Judge) 20 December 2006

Newcastle The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin 13 July 2009 The Honourable Justice Margaret Ann Cleary 8 July 2010

Parramatta The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman 18 April 1991

120 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability The Honourable Justice David John Collier 19 July 1999 The Honourable Justice William Phillip Johnston 12 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Ian James Loughnan 12 July 2010

Sydney The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace 9 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Peter Isaac Rose 21 December 1998 The Honourable Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood Stevenson 18 May 2001 The Honourable Justice Mark Frederick Le Poer Trench 10 October 2001 The Honourable Justice Garry Allan Watts (Case Management Judge) 14 April 2005 The Honourable Justice Judith Maureen Ryan 31 July 2006 The Honourable Justice Stuart Grant Fowler AM 16 November 2007

Townsville PART 6 PART The Honourable Justice Alexander Robert Monteith 28 November 2000

Family Court of Western Australia

Note: Judges of the Family Court of Western Australia also hold Commissions in the MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY Family Court of Australia. Date of Family Court commission The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray, Chief Judge 1 December 2004 The Honourable Justice Carolyn Elvina Martin 19 November 1996 The Honourable Justice Jane Crisford 14 December 2006 The Honourable Justice Stephen Dexter Crooks 22 October 2007 The Honourable Justice Simon Moncrieff 31 August 2009

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Note: Some judges of the Family Court hold appointments in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Presidential Members. The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 121 Appointments, retirements and resignations Judicial ofﬁcer appointments: The Honourable Justice Margaret Ann Cleary 8 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace 9 July 2010 The Honourable Justice William Phillip Johnston 12 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Ian James Loughnan 12 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest 1 February 2011

Judicial ofﬁcer retirements: The Honourable Justice Jennifer Margaret Boland 3 February 2011 The Honourable Justice Stephen Richard O’Ryan 25 February 2011 The Honourable Justice John Morris Cohen 4 March 2011 The Honourable Justice James Patrick Barry 24 June 2011

Senior executives of the Family Court of Australia PART 6

Chief Executive Officer Richard Foster PSM FAIM The Chief Justice, under the Family Law Act, is responsible for the administration of the Court and is assisted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO’s powers are broad (s 38D), although subject to directions from the Chief Justice (s 38D(3)). The CEO holds the responsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealth financial management and public service legislation, but is appointed under terms similar to those of judicial officers. The CEO is supported by the staff of the National Support Office and is located in the MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT Richard Foster, Chief Executive National Support Office, Canberra. Mr Richard Foster was appointed Officer. CEO in May 2000.

122 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Principal Registrar Angela Filippello The Principal Registrar provides high level legal and procedural advice to support the judicial functioning of the Family Court. As a senior lawyer, she discharges the statutory duties assigned to that position by the Family Law Act 1975, works closely with the Chief Justice and judges in administering the Act and related legislation, and identiﬁes areas in need of reform. The Principal Registrar presides in Court and holds the delegated power to make orders in interim parenting cases, maintenance cases and some enforcement of ﬁnancial obligations. Angela Filippello, Principal Registrar. The Principal Registrar also oversees the performance of, and provides direction to, the Court’s registrars. Her chambers are in the Brisbane registry.

Principal Child Dispute Services Pam Hemphill

The Principal Child Dispute Services advises the Chief Justice and 6 PART the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer on the provision of quality child dispute services to the Court. She ensures that the services delivered by the family consultants are effective and consistent with the strategic and

business objectives of the Court. The Principal also has responsibility MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY for the development of strategic external relationships that promote and position the child dispute services of the Court within the family law framework. Pam Hemphill was appointed Principal Child Dispute Pam Hemphill, Principal Child Dispute Services in April 2011. Services. Executive Director Client Services Stephen Andrew (Acting) The Executive Director Client Services is responsible for the delivery of client services in all family law registries. The Executive Director ensures that high quality registry services and support are provided to all judicial ofﬁcers, litigants and legal practitioners, consistent with the strategic and business objectives of the Family Law Courts (the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court). Stephen Andrew was the Acting Executive Director Client Services at 30 June 2011.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 123 Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services Stephen Andrew The Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services provides strategic vision, leadership and management of the Court’s applications, information management, and infrastructure services.

Stephen Andrew, Executive Director, Information, Communication and Technology Services. Executive Director Corporate Grahame Harriott The Executive Director Corporate provides strategic leadership and management of the Court’s human resources, property and contracts, ﬁnance, budgets and business improvements and procurement and risk management. PART 6

Grahame Harriott, Executive Director, Corporate.

Judicial committees Chief Justice Bryant maintains a collegiate style of governance, and the judicial ofﬁcers of the Court meet annually or more often if required in plenary. The Chief Justice also convenes a monthly teleconference of all judges, in which current issues are discussed. In addition, judges participate in a number of committees that develop policies across a range of matters. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee At the strategic level, the Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee is the peak policymaking body within the Court. The committee’s primary role is to support the Chief Justice in the administration of the Court and to provide strategic advice and policy direction, particularly in relation to legislative, procedural and administrative changes likely to affect the Family Court and its users.

Chaired by the Chief Justice, the committee meets quarterly and comprises: Chief Justice Bryant Deputy Chief Justice Faulks Justice Finn Justice Strickland

124 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Justice Watts Justice Ryan Justice Cronin Justice Murphy Chief Executive Ofﬁcer (Mr Richard Foster) Principal Registrar (Ms Angela Filippello) Principal Child Dispute Services (Ms Hemphill, at 1 July 2010 Ms Dianne Gibson).

A joint meeting of the Family Court’s and Federal Magistrates Court’s Policy Advisory Committees was held in Sydney on 18 April 2011. Attendees from the Federal Magistrates Court were: Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe Federal Magistrate Donald Federal Magistrate Emmett Federal Magistrate Riethmuller PART 6 PART Federal Magistrate Burchardt Federal Magistrate Kelly

Mr Richard Foster (Acting CEO) MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY Mr Stewart Fenwick (Manager, Chief Federal Magistrate’s chambers).

Items discussed included the Family Court’s national calendaring proposal, transfers between the two courts, joint committees and budget savings strategies. This was the second year in which the joint meeting was held. It was productive and the participants agreed to continue to meet annually.

Other committees A number of standing judicial committees also provide high-level policy advice in specialised areas. Meeting regularly or as required, they are (in alphabetical order): Access to Justice Committee (comprising the Cultural Diversity Committee, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee and the Self Represented Litigants Committee) Benchbook Committee Family Violence Committee Information Technology Judicial Reference Group Judicial Development Committee Judicial Remuneration Committee Law Reform Committee Magellan Committee

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 125 National Case Management Committee Property Management Committee Research and Ethics Committee Rules Committee.

The following, as joint committees of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, have membership from both courts: Benchbook Committee, Family Violence Committee, Information Technology Judicial Reference Group, Judicial Development Committee, Property Management Committee, and Research and Ethics Committee. The Family Court is also represented on the Joint Costs Advisory Committee. For detailed information on the judicial committees of the Court, see Appendix 10.

Judicial committee highlights This section summarises the work of some of the judicial committees during 2010–11.

Rules Committee

PART 6 The Rules Committee is established under section 123 of the Family Law Act 1975, which provides that a majority of judges may make rules of court in relation to practices and procedures to be followed in the Family Court. The committee meets quarterly to consider proposed changes to the Family Law Rules 2004 with a view to improving the efficiency, accessibility and cost effectiveness of the Court for its clients. The committee also undertakes detailed consideration of discrete issues as required and works with the legal profession to provide the best, most efficient and cost effective system for court users. Justice Ryan continued to chair the Rules Committee during 2010–11 and the ongoing members were: Justice Strickland, Justice Murphy, Justice Loughnan, Magistrate Moroni, Senior Registrar FitzGibbon, Registrar Kearney and Neil Wareham (legal counsel to the Family Court). In 2010–11, the committee worked on a number of projects, including: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT Preparing rule amendments (Family Law Amendment Rules 2011 (No. 1)), which took effect from 1 March 2011. The Rules provide consistency in the process undertaken when a third party is joined by an incumbent party to proceedings or seeks to be joined to proceedings; provide clarity in the process to be undertaken when a person seeks permission to inspect and/or copy a court file; make detailed and technical changes in the electronic filing of documents; and achieve a measure of conformity between superior courts nationally concerning increasing scale costs. Further considering what rules amendments would be required following the passage of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. Continuing work in relation to eFiling and the production of documents electronically. eFiling for initiating applications commenced on 12 February 2011 and eFiling of a response to the initiating application commenced in March 2011. Work was done on an internal information sheet for use by

126 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability staff handling inappropriate eFiled documents. The committee continued work on the treatment and management of electronic copies of materials that the Court cannot read—this remained a work in progress at 30 June 2011. Discussions between the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court were also continuing at 30 June 2011 with a view to developing a common approach. In addition, the committee completed a benchbook audit about rules citation and considered: whether to adopt ‘automatic release’ subpoena rules possible rules amendment to delegate power to registrars to give leave to issue subpoenas to be served in New Zealand possible rules amendment to deal with subpoenas for the production of documents from family dispute resolution practitioners Part 10.1 of the Rules and disclosure of a without prejudice offer of settlement, and penalties for recording court events without permission.

Law Reform Committee PART 6 PART During 2010–11 the Law Reform Committee identiﬁed matters for amendment in family law legislation, provided comment on draft legislation (often at short notice), provided comment on law reform proposals and made submissions to parliamentary and other inquiries on matters relevant to the Family Court. In addition, the committee kept a ‘watching brief’ on bills introduced into federal parliament and MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY scrutinised legislation to ascertain whether there would be any effect on the jurisdiction and powers of the Court. Details of the committee’s work follows.

Proposed legislation considered Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure) Bill 2011 Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011 Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 2011 Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2010 Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2010 (exposure draft and consultation paper) Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 (substantive and technical amendments) Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Bill 2011, and Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2011.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 127 Law reform proposals commented on options for a federal judicial complaints process the form of court orders requiring change of children’s names consent applications for sole parental responsibility and possible abuse of process, and the Family Court’s appointment of independent children’s lawyers in New South Wales.

Parliamentary inquiries, consultation/issues papers and reports Discussion paper on Forced and Servile Marriage (Attorney-General’s Department). Consultation paper on Managing Discovery: Discovery in Federal Courts (Australian Law Reform Commission). Final report on Protection Applications in the Children’s Court of Victoria (Victorian Law Reform Commission). Inquiry into provisions of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee). Inquiry into International Child Abduction to and from Australia (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee). PART 6

Throughout 2010–11, discussions were held with the Attorney-General’s Department about numerous technical amendments required to the Family Law Act 1975 and other allied legislation, including that pertaining to bankruptcy and child support.

Family Violence Committee The Family Violence Committee is a joint committee of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The committee’s principal responsibilities are to review the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategy to ensure it also applies appropriately to the Federal Magistrates Court, complete implementation of the family violence strategy and provide advice to the Chief Justice, the Chief Federal Magistrate and the CEO of both courts on family violence issues.

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT The committee comprises Justice Ryan (chair), Justice Collier, Justice Stevenson, Federal Magistrate Brown, Federal Magistrate Hughes, Federal Magistrate Altobelli, Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar, Family Court), Di Loiszczyk (family consultant) and Kristen Murray (Senior Research Advisor to the Chief Justice). In addition to the review of the Family Violence Strategy, the major task for the committee during 2010–11 was reviewing and updating the Family Violence Best Practice Principles. The revised principles provide a checklist of matters that judges, federal magistrates, court staff, legal professionals and litigants may wish to consider at each stage of the litigation process. The ﬁrst version of the Best Practice Principles was launched by the Attorney-General in March 2009. Through the revision process, which involved internal and external consultation with key stakeholders, the content and ambit of the principles have been expanded to ensure they are of optimal assistance to their intended audiences. Other activities of the committee during 2010–11 included analysis of the Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission’s report Family Violence: A National Legal

128 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Response and preparation of a response to the Family Law Council’s report Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System; the Family Courts Violence Review, by Professor Richard Chisholm AM and the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms report.

The committee also discussed the provisions of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011.

Collaborative committees

Family Law Courts Advisory Group

The Family Law Courts Advisory Group has a critical governance role in resourcing both courts and coordinates various administrative relationships between the two courts.

The Family Law Courts Advisory Group comprises:

Chief Justice Bryant (Family Court)

Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe (Federal Magistrates Court) 6 PART

Justice Watts (Family Court)

Federal Magistrate Baumann (Federal Magistrates Court) MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Richard Foster (CEO Family Court and Acting CEO Federal Magistrates Court)

Elizabeth Kelly (Attorney-General’s Department) (Ms Kelly replaced Ian Govey, Attorney-General’s Department, during the year).

Family Law Forum Chaired by the Chief Justice, the national Family Law Forum meets quarterly to discuss shared issues arising within the family law system. The forum consists of representatives from the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Law Council, the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, National Legal Aid, the Attorney- General’s Department, the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Agency, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, non-government organisations and community legal centres.

Joint Costs Advisory Committee The Joint Costs Advisory Committee comprises representatives of the four federal courts: the High Court, the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. During 2010–11 the committee comprised: judge of the Family Court (Justice Benjamin) (chair) Chief Executive Ofﬁcer and Principal Registrar of the High Court (Andrew Phelan)

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 129 Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court (John Mathieson) Legal Assistant to the Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court (Melanie Faithfull) Principal Registrar of the Family Court (Angela Filippello), and Principal Registrar of the Federal Magistrates Court (Adele Byrne).

The committee reviews and recommends variations to the quantum of costs contained in the rules made by federal courts and advises on other matters relating to those costs that may be referred to it by a federal court.

Senior management committees The Chief Executive Ofﬁcer (CEO), Richard Foster, maintains an inclusive style of management. The senior executive managers of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court meet annually to establish the strategic direction and priorities for the effective administration of both courts. In addition, senior executive managers of the Family Court participate in a number of committees that provide high level operational and policy advice to the CEO.

Chief Executive Ofﬁcer’s Management Advisory Group

PART 6 The Chief Executive Ofﬁcer’s Management Advisory Group provides operational and policy advice to the CEO on key areas that affect the administration of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Chaired by the CEO of the Family Court and acting CEO of the Federal Magistrates Court, Richard Foster, the group meets every six to eight weeks and comprises: Acting Deputy CEO Federal Magistrates Court Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services Acting Executive Director, Client Services a Regional Registry Manager representative Executive Director, Corporate.

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT Support is provided by the Executive Advisor to the CEO.

Other committees A number of administrative committees were also active during 2010–11 and provided high level 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.

130 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Senior management committee highlights This section highlights the work of senior management committees during 2010–11. Appendix 10 has details of membership and terms of reference for the various committees.

Chief Executive Ofﬁcer’s Management Advisory Group In 2010–11, the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer’s Management Advisory Group continued to provide advice to the CEO on new policy initiatives including an environmental policy, the Dandenong Project (an initiative led by the Federal Magistrates Court that sought to identify and pilot innovative ways to provide better access to justice in the Dandenong region for family law clients), the implementation of the International Framework for Court Excellence, court technology, communication and social media, budget strategies and staff development and organisational capability. The group also helped review current policies, including records management.

Audit and Risk Committee The Audit and Risk Committee considered a range of issues during the year, including the Court’s internal audit plan, strategic risk and fraud risk treatments, and oversight of the recommendations of Australian National Audit Ofﬁce and internal audit reports. PART 6 PART

National Consultative Committee The National Consultative Committee is a key forum through which the Court consults with staff about

broader issues that have a national perspective. Elected staff delegates actively present the views of staff MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY regarding issues that impact nationally on staff and the management and future direction of the Court. The committee’s areas of focus include: the objectives of the Court and how these might be achieved ﬁnancial and human resource planning information technology initiatives 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 Committee In 2010–11, the Staff Development Committee added further staff training and development tools to the E-learning portal of the Court’s intranet, including a video library of tips and tricks to use within Word and Excel.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 131 A highlight for the year was the launch, in March 2011, of the Court’s first online induction training program. The program comprises six modules. Feedback from early users of the program was positive, particularly for new starters unfamiliar with courts. During 2011–12 further enhancements are expected to be made, including more information on each of the Court’s business units. The committee facilitated staff exchanges between different locations, as well as contributing to the development of the Court’s professional resources. These staff exchanges, an ongoing initiative of the Court, produce benefits for the courts, Family Law Courts clients and staff. From a client perspective, for example, it helps ensure that staff from differing sized registries and geographic and socio-economic areas gain first-hand experience of the varying demands of service delivery in different areas (even though the overall service delivery requirements are the same at all court locations). Staff members experience career opportunities elsewhere in the Court, interact in person with their peers and share and explore ideas and initiatives that may benefit client service delivery more broadly. They also see how staff in other locations deal with challenges and issues. For the Court, the exchanges are an important aspect of its staff retention and development strategies. Workshops were also held in all major registries to assist staff in applying for jobs—the focus being on preparing applications and CVs and succeeding at interview. The committee facilitated all-staff training on the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct. This training was tailored and delivered as an internal workshop by human resources.

PART 6 The committee is integral to the Court’s approach to the continuing career development of staff, and being a key forum through which staff representatives have shared responsibility for identifying and determining development needs and opportunities.

Corporate and operational planning and associated performance reporting and review At 30 June 2011, there were 615 ongoing and non- ongoing court employees (excluding judicial officers and the CEO) in all states and territories except Western Australia. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the Court’s intranet and website: Strategic Plan administration policies and procedural documents including guidelines, procedures and manuals from the finance, human resources and information, communication and technology areas APS Values and Code of Conduct Corporate Plan and business area plans (for the National Support Office) Courtside, the Family Court’s staff newsletter.

132 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Service Charter and Service Commitments documents Family Law Registries National Business Plan 2008–2010, and case management policies and manuals related to the management of family law cases from the Chief Justice, the Principal Registrar and the Principal Child Dispute Services.

The Court’s geographically dispersed judiciary and staff are informed of significant changes and events through the following: Chief Justice eMessages—emails from the Chief Justice to the judiciary and all staff CEO eMessages—emails from the Chief Executive Officer to all staff Chief Executive Instructions—the official mechanism by which the Chief Executive Officer communicates and directs the Court’s compliance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 Client service advices—from the Executive Director Client Services to all client service staff working in the registries Courtside —the Court’s internal staff newsletter, which is issued four times per year and includes columns from the Chief Justice and CEO. This is the primary vehicle for sharing information and 6 PART celebrating the achievements and successes of court staff Intranet messages—latest news, and

CEO roadshows— the CEO regularly visits registries to talk to staff about key and emerging issues. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Internal audit The Court has, as part of its corporate governance arrangements, appropriate mechanisms to manage general business risk as well as fraud risk. The Court’s internal audit services were provided by Oakton Services Pty Ltd and monitored by the Audit and Risk Committee. The 2010–11 Internal Audit Plan was developed taking into account the risk drivers in the Risk Management Plan and after discussion with the Audit and Risk Committee and senior management. Internal audits conducted during the year included: physical and personal security the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) the Commonwealth Courts Portal IT governance, and corporate credit cards.

The committee monitored the implementation of individual audit report recommendations through quarterly status reports.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 133 Risk management The Court promotes a culture that supports the identification, analysis, assessment, treatment, monitoring and review of all strategic, operational, compliance and financial risks. This is supported by the Court’s Risk Control and Compliance Framework. The framework provides policies, procedures and tools to promote effective risk management. The framework is available to all court staff on the intranet for the principal purpose of achieving better services and outcomes for judicial services, clients and staff. The Court continued to participate in the annual Comcover benchmarking survey, which measures risk and assesses the extent of cultural change within agencies. The Court’s overall result continued to improve, reflecting its efforts in the area of risk management. At 30 June 2011, revision of the Court’s Business Continuity Plans (BCPs) was underway. The Procurement and Risk Management section continued to provide, as a standing agenda item, regular updates on risk related activities to the Audit and Risk Committee. The Strategic Risk Management Plan (2010–12) was finalised during the year and made available to all staff via the intranet. The plan was developed in consultation with key stakeholders across all areas of court activities.

PART 6 Financial risk The Court manages financial risk in accordance with the Risk Control and Compliance Framework. The relevant mechanisms are: risk assessments for annual business plans risk assessments for identified projects Chief Executive Instructions (CEIs) available to all staff on the intranet, and monthly financial reports to the CEO’s Management Advisory Group and oversight by the Audit and Risk Committee.

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT Fraud prevention and control During 2010–11, the Fraud Control Plan 2010–12 was ﬁnalised and made available to all Court staff via the intranet. The plan was developed in consultation with key stakeholders across all areas of court activities. It complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011. During 2010–11, the Audit and Risk Committee continued to receive reports on the implementation status of fraud risk treatments. The Court has in place fraud investigation, reporting and data collection procedures that meet the needs of the Court and comply with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines. No instances or allegations of fraud against the Court were reported in 2010–11.

134 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Fraud control certiﬁcation In accordance with guideline 2.8 of the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011, issued by the Minister for Justice and Customs, pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997, I hereby certify that I am satisﬁed that: The Family Court of Australia has prepared fraud assessments and has in place a fraud control plan that complies with the Guidelines. Appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting procedures and process are in place. Annual fraud data has been collected and reported that complies with the Guidelines.

Richard Foster, PSM Chief Executive Ofﬁcer Family Court of Australia 26 August 2011 PART 6 PART

Ethical standards The Court’s Strategic Plan states that integrity, respect and responsiveness underpin its approach to business. The Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct contained in the Public Service MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY Act 1999 apply to all employees of the Court. In 2010–11, the Court maintained an ongoing information and education promotion to ensure that all staff were aware of their rights, responsibilities and obligations in relation to privacy, ethics and other factors such as environmental responsibility, data management and data quality. The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court together maintain web-based Service Charter and Service Commitments publications. These outline the services clients may expect of the courts. Compulsory training sessions were conducted during October–December 2010 in all major court registries (linked with all other registries by teleconferencing facilities) and the National Support Ofﬁce on ethical behavior, the APS Code of Conduct and APS Values. The Court’s Research and Ethics Committee considers, monitors and overviews all research and evaluation proposals (internal and external) for approval. Membership of the committee is in Appendix 10.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 135 Joint Client Service Charter and Service Commitments The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have joint Service Charter and Service Commitments documents. The Service Charter outlines the service level standards clients can expect from staff of the courts and how clients and other users of court services may make suggestions or complaints about services, policy, practice or procedures. The Service Commitments document highlights what clients of the courts can expect from client services staff, what the staff cannot do, clients rights and responsibilities and how clients can help the courts to help them. Both documents are available on the Family Law Courts website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au.

PART 6 Service Charter. External and internal scrutiny

External scrutiny

Reports by the Auditor-General The Auditor General made no report speciﬁc to the Family Court of Australia during 2010–11.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal There are no matters to report.

Commonwealth Ombudsman The Commonwealth Ombudsman made no report specific to the Family Court during 2010–11. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT Independent review of use of ICT (the Gershon review) In October 2010, the Court submitted the ICT Review Benchmarking report, in response to the Government-wide Gershon review. This report covered all ICT operating and capital expenditure for 2009–10 and included quantitative measures about capacity and quantities of ICT equipment. The review led to the Court’s 2010–11 appropriation being reduced by a further five per cent of ICT business as usual costs as calculated for 2007–08. A number of efficiency initiatives were undertaken to maintain ICT services with a reduced budget. This included reducing the number of ICT contractors. By 30 June 2011, the Court had met the Government’s target of a 50 per cent reduction in ICT contractors. A number of a whole-of-government ICT coordinated procurement contracting arrangements came into effect during 2010–11. These included panels for: whole-of-government desktop hardware

136 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability telecommunications invoice reconciliation telecommunications commodities, carriage and associated services major office machines data centre facilities, and data centre migration services. This was a significant increase from the single arrangement that was available in 2009–10. It is mandatory for the Court to use these arrangements when entering into new contracts for the goods or services that are covered by these whole-of-government agreements. By 30 June 2011, the Court was using the Microsoft volume sourcing arrangement, the whole-of-government desktop hardware panel and telecommunications commodities, carriage and associated services panel. The Court will be using the other whole-of-government panel arrangements where appropriate and after existing contracts have expired. It is expected that during 2011–12, the Court will be using the major office machines government panel. During the year the Court participated in the requirements and planning phases of the internet gateway reduction program. When complete, this should result in a reduction of internet gateways from 124 to

eight multi-agency shared gateways. 6 PART The Australian Government Information Management Ofﬁce (AGIMO) is managing a whole-of- government transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The Court is following the schedule of milestones.

As part of the Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy, the Court is required to update all of its MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY online government information and services to meet the WCAG 2.0 standard for website accessibility. The Court is following the schedule of milestones. The Court has implemented the Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3). A number of the Court’s portfolio and project management procedures have been updated to include recommendations outlined in the endorsed P3M3 business improvement plan. A follow up review of the Court’s P3M3 maturity levels will be undertaken in 2011–12 to validate that targets have been achieved. The Court provided input to the whole-of-government Desktop Common Operating Environment Policy, released in January 2011. The policy lists mandatory and other standards that will need to be considered when developing the new desktop standard operating environment for the Court in 2011–12.

Senate estimate committee hearings Senior Executive Service staff of the Court attend Senate estimate committee hearings to answer questions about the Court’s activities. In 2010–11, more than 30 Senate estimate questions on notice were received and answered.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 137 External evaluations

Oakton financial health check In response to significant budgetary pressures facing the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, Oakton was engaged to review the courts’ financial positions, budget forecasts and resource strategies. The review purpose was to advise on whether the courts have taken all appropriate actions available to manage their respective budgets and resources and to recommend any additional resource strategies that may be identified during their review. Oakton identified that the courts have been subject to funding pressures for some time and have been actively pursuing opportunities to identify and harvest savings. The review also noted the cross subsidisation of significant Federal Magistrates Court costs within the Family Court’s budget (for example, shared family consultants, registrars, registry support and significant property costs) and noted that both courts have a shared responsibility for identifying savings to fund projected deficits. The review also identified that there were several existing savings initiatives that required further research and analysis before the efficiencies could be properly defined and translated to savings options. Oakton recommend that internal savings initiatives be replaced by a more systemic approach using activity based costing techniques, with a focus on client services, family consultants, registrars and administration

PART 6 (specifically, administrative staff in registries). Activity based costing provides costing information not normally available in traditional financial reports by focusing on the actual activities that underpin services. Once this costing information becomes transparent, the courts can focus on high cost activities and analyse whether the activity is necessary, how it contributes to service delivery and whether there are more efficient ways to deliver the activity. The courts’ existing Resource Planning Model (RPM) is available to use for the activity based costing and work had commenced at 30 June 2011 on updating the RPM.

Internal evaluations

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT A study of Indigenous Australians access to and usage of the Family Law Courts In 2009 the Family Law Courts established a joint committee to examine service provision to Indigenous families. Changes to the family law system had affected access to and usage of the Family Law Courts by Indigenous Australians. The Indigenous Working Group consists of Justice Robert Benjamin and Federal Magistrate Warren Donald (nominated by the Chief Federal Magistrate) and Ms Leisha Lister, Executive Assistant to the CEO.

Indigenous Australians and the Family Law Courts.

138 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Under the terms of reference the committee is considering: The impact of the shift in the provision of services to Indigenous clients, previously provided by court based Indigenous Family Liaison Officers, to Family Relationship Centres. How to manage applications for parenting orders concerning residence, contact and specific issues as a result of traditional and customary adoption practices by Torres Strait Islanders (Kupai Omasker). How to meet the needs of Indigenous clients of both courts within existing resources, including recommendations as to how the courts can ensure proper information is provided to this client group, internally and externally. The development of a joint Reconciliation Action Plan, as required by the Government, which identifies the steps the courts will take to build relationships and enhance respect for Indigenous Australians in undertaking both courts’ work.

In 2009–10, the working group engaged Stephen Ralph, an independent Aboriginal consultant with extensive experience in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in the area of family law, to undertake a study of the views and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families who had recently been involved in family law proceedings.

The study aims to examine the interface between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and the 6 PART Family Law Courts. It covers issues of access to justice and steps towards improved service delivery. It will help the courts develop a clear understanding of how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people access the Family Law Courts, how they use the services provided by the courts, and their experience of litigating their family disputes. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY The aim is to develop an evidence base that will allow the Family Law Courts to review policies and practices regarding access to justice for Indigenous Australians who are involved in family law proceedings. By 30 June 2011, the experiences and perceptions of Indigenous Australians who had recently litigated in the Family Law Courts had been studied and their experiences and perceptions compared with those of a representative sample of non-Indigenous Australians. Interviews with other stakeholders, such as legal practitioners working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, had also been held. The qualitative data that this will provide will enhance and complement the data gained from direct interviews and surveys with Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients. At 30 June 2011, the committee expected to ﬁnalise its report in late October 2011.

Judicial support review In February 2010, a review of court officer functions commenced. Its purpose was to determine the most flexible, effective and efficient model for the support of the Court’s judges, including those in the Appeal Division. The Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee set the review’s terms of reference. The review coincided with the reducing number of judges within the Family Court and the need to provide ongoing savings towards the budget position over future years. There was also the ongoing requirement to reassess the Court’s capacity to meet future organisational and technological changes. Initial discussions were held with all available judges, associates, court officers and other registry staff and led to a set of principles that were consulted on. Consultation submissions were received from all

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 139 registry managers and one judge, there was also one joint submission from a number of staff from one registry and two individual submissions. The responses were generally supportive of the principles although various issues were raised, related primarily to the impact of the principles if accepted. A consultation feedback report addressed the main issues raised and responded directly to the individual staff submissions. On 18 October 2010 the Court’s judges accepted the following recommendations: registries to be funded on the basis of projected sitting days rather than on the number of first instance judges resident in each registry judges to be assigned the same client service officer to assist in court in their home registry staff undertaking courtroom support to be at the APS 3 classification, and all client service officers to be based centrally in the registry and assigned to judges to provide courtroom support as required. At 30 June 2011, Registry Managers had commenced work on registry implementation plans. Implementation will include the Court consulting with the CPSU and with affected staff individually through local consultative committees. The review included recommendations about case coordination. These recommendations will be fed into a review of the client services division which, at 30 June 2011, was expected to be undertaken in PART 6 2011–12.

Registrar workload project In October 2010, the Chief Justice and Chief Federal Magistrate established a working group to identify, quantify and report on the work undertaken by registrars for the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The Working Group is led by Stephen Andrew (A/Executive Director Client Services) and also includes Steve Agnew (A/Deputy CEO FMC), Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar Family Court), Adele Byrne (Principal Registrar FMC), Marianne Christmann (Regional Registry Manager NSW/ACT) and Jamie Crew, Registry Manager, Newcastle. Its terms of reference were to:

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT identify the categories of work undertaken by registrars in each registry identify the key drivers of the registrars’ workload quantify the workload, including the allocation of registrar resources in each registry to each court and the use of that resource report on the workload analysis, and make appropriate recommendations on resourcing.

At 30 June 2011, identifying and quantifying work was well progressed and consultations with registrars was commencing. After the consultation, a draft report will be prepared for further and wider consultations on the working group’s analysis of the data and information obtained to date and registrars’ consultation feedback. It will also contain initial recommendations on resourcing based on that analysis. A ﬁnal report will then be prepared for the CEOs’ consideration.

140 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Management of human resources Overview In 2010–11, for the first time staff of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court were under a single Enterprise Agreement with the same classification structure and the same pay and conditions. The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 commenced on 25 June 2010 and had a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2011. The Agreement covered all non-SES staff of the courts and delivered salary increases of three per cent over its life. In order to receive the salary increases, or to progress from one pay point to the next in the pay scale of a classification, an employee had to participate in the courts’ Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) and be assessed as ‘meeting requirements’ or higher at or before the date of the pay increase. The new Agreement provided impetus for standardising policies and procedures across the two courts. The aim was to have mirror images of policies, procedures and guidelines for the courts. Concurrent with the Agreement, management strategies were developed aimed at ensuring that staff turnover rates and staff absences are within APS best practice parameters and are not inconsistent with averages identified in the annual state of the service report. A conscious effort was made to ensure staff PART 6 PART were made aware of the impacts that high levels of absenteeism have in the workplace. As a result, personal leave absences were reduced by almost three days per average staffing level (ASL). Another major initiative involved compulsory nationwide training sessions, conducted between October and December 2010, aimed at reminding and informing all staff of the importance of the APS values and MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY code of conduct.

Workforce planning, retention and turnover

Workforce planning Throughout 2010–11, the Family Court continued to improve its human resources systems and reporting to develop a better, evidence based understanding of the factors driving various workforce issues. Workforce metrics were extracted and analysed by the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer’s Management Advisory Group each month. Potential risks and key trends were addressed through appropriate human resource strategies to help ensure future capability and resourcing and to cope with staff turnover. The strategies were communicated to managers and staff, helping ensure that succession plans were developed at local levels. The Court promotes diversity in the workforce and remained committed to promoting equity in employment and supporting an inclusive, safe, productive and fair workplace that is free from discrimination and harassment. The Court also has an ongoing commitment to ensuring that the needs of its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and clients are recognised and met appropriately. It reinforces that commitment by identifying and addressing barriers to the recruitment and career development of Indigenous Australians through its recruitment policies, training and mentoring programs. The Court facilitates access to its services for Indigenous people by ensuring that information about the Court is widely available across the Indigenous communities in suitable formats and delivered in culturally appropriate ways. The Court also develops partnerships with a range of Indigenous stakeholder groups

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 141 at the national and local registry levels. It also provides appropriate and ongoing education to judicial officers and staff on the cultural background of Indigenous Australians. The Court also recognises the significant contribution made by mature aged employees. Annual staff demographic data revealed more than 52 per cent of its employees are of mature age. Hence, the Court introduced a five year mature age strategy aimed at attracting and retaining mature aged staff as well as supporting workforce and succession planning. Key elements of the strategy include recognising their contributions, the ongoing provision of training and working with different employment options that may assist the transition to retirement. In addition, the Court encourages the use of the flexible working arrangements, available under the Enterprise Agreement relating to the balance between work and private life, as a means to retain mature aged employees beyond normal retirement age or to assist them in the transition to retirement.

Retention strategies

Strategies to support the wellbeing of staff and to encourage staff retention are integral to the Court’s commitment to workplace diversity. The strategies include the following options, beneﬁts and initiatives.

Balancing work and personal life The Court recognises the need to balance the operational needs of the Court and the personal lives of PART 6 staff. Its employment arrangements provide for general and individual flexible working arrangements, including flex time, time off in lieu, part-time work, working from home opportunities, overtime, purchased leave, maternity, adoption, fostering and supporting partner’s leave, salary sacrifice arrangements and paid time off work over the Christmas and New Year period.

A safe and healthy work environment The Court provides a family-friendly and non-discriminatory work environment with strong policies against harassment and bullying. The Court and its employees are committed to measures that will assist with preventing and managing illness and injury, including psychological injuries, and assisting absent staff to return to work as soon as reasonably practical. Other healthy work environment strategies include an employee assistance program that provides free professional counselling to employees and

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT members of their immediate families and free annual inﬂuenza vaccinations.

Workplace diversity The Court recognises that diversity among its staff is one of its greatest assets. Valuing the distinctive characteristics in every employee, and drawing on the diversity of our backgrounds, skills, talents and views to enhance the Court’s working environment and the work of the Court, underpin the current workplace diversity plan.

Rewards and recognition Recognition of staff in the form of positive feedback and celebration of achievement is an important part of the Court’s culture and business practice. The Court’s reward and recognition scheme, the Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award, Australia Day Medallions and the Years of Service awards recognise and reward employees for the achievement of corporate goals, providing non-cash rewards and recognition.

142 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award The Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award honours the late Janet Kitcher (a Family Court employee at the time of her death). It aims to bestow recognition on high achieving employees of the courts for their outstanding contributions to the workplace. Recipients of this award perform extraordinarily well within their role, excelling to achieve outstanding client service by demonstrating: ethical standards and integrity innovation and pro-activity respect for people and cultures, and cooperation and positive behaviours.

The winner for 2010 was Rubina Lockley from the Ruby Lockley, winner of the 2010 Janet Kitcher Excellence National Enquiry Centre (NEC). Rubina (Ruby) is a in Performance award. senior Client Service Officer at the NEC and has acted 6 PART as client service team leader on numerous occasions. She has worked at the NEC since it formed in 2006 and provides outstanding leadership to her colleagues in all facets of her positions. She is respected as a competent MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY and successful leader. Other nominees in 2010–11 were: Denise Healy, Media and Public Affairs Manager: for her work knowledge and initiative, she communicates important issues to the media and ensures there is a positive media focus on the courts. Dulcie Taylor, Parramatta, Client Service Officer: for her passion about maintaining data quality and introducing innovative ideas benefitting the courts in terms of data quality and cost-efficiency. Jodie Lee, National Support Office, Finance Controls and Taxation Officer: for her support to her NSO colleagues and as a source of information and assistance to all registry staff. She is often the first NSO contact for new starters and registry staff on anything related to finance. Frank Laing, Sydney, Team Leader, records section: for his value as a team member and leader and as someone who has time to assist anyone, no matter what is asked of him.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 143 Australia Day Award The Australia Day Medallions are awarded to a select group of Australian citizens each year, recognising excellence in contribution by employees of government organisations. In 2011 the Court awarded medallions to the following staff:

Chief Justice Bryant with Australia Day medallion recipient Brendan Jackson.

PART 6 Brendan Jackson, National Support Office: for his outstanding performance and dedication to the Court, including for rolling out the APS Values and Code of Conduct training throughout the Court. In addition, his extensive HR background and specialised knowledge of judicial entitlements enables him to produce high quality outcomes, giving members of the judiciary confidence in the information they are provided. His knowledge, hard work and dedication to the Court are exemplary. Sonya Mills, Sydney: for her significant contribution to the Court and the judiciary. She joined the Court as a teenager Australia Day medallion recipient working for the Principal Registrar, subsequently becoming MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT Sonya Mills. secretary to the first Chief Justice. She has diligently learnt the intricacies of the appeal work, including the appeal rules and practice. She has provided excellent support to all the appeal judges or any other first instance judge sitting on appeals and efficiently ensures the extensive workload of procedural and other appeal applications are dealt with promptly. Kostino Moss, National Support Office: for his significant support to the judiciary during the 2010–11 judges’ conferences. There were a number of issues concerning computer access and document production that placed considerable pressure on Kos, however, all of which was Australia Day medallion recipient handled extremely well. Kostino Moss.

144 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Chief Justice Bryant with Australia Day medallion recipient Ash Plummer.

Ash Plummer, Melbourne for his exemplary service to the Court as the Business Systems Development Ofﬁcer for Melbourne and Tasmania. He has developed outstanding interpersonal relationships with all judges and federal magistrates and is well respected by staff. Delivering above and beyond his classiﬁcation and role, Ash brings exemplary performance of core duties and

exceptional service. 6 PART

Years of service awards Years of service awards are presented to employees who have been with the Court for more than 20, 25 and 30 years. Recipients in 2010–11 follow. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 30 years James Cotta (Brisbane), Linda Young (Dandenong), Ronald Bowles (Melbourne) and Rosemarie Michelin (Canberra). 25 years John FitzGibbon (Melbourne), Kenneth Kimmorley (Parramatta) and Catherine Jordan (Sydney).

Years of Service recipients (L-R) John FitzGibbon, Nan Ram and Ron Bowles.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 145 20 years Tammy Weis (Dandenong), Leslye Dunn (Newcastle), Nan Ram (Melbourne), Elizabeth Gillespie (Parramatta), Debra King (Parramatta), Paul Lodge (Sydney) and Susan Young (Brisbane).

Queensland Premier’s Disaster Relief appeal With the devastation of the ﬂoods in Queensland the judicial ofﬁcers and staff of the Court pledged donations of $14 788.50 to the Queensland Premier’s Disaster Relief Appeal through the Court’s payroll system.

Workforce turnover During 2010–11, 99 employees and judicial ofﬁcers left the Court. Of these, 61 were ongoing employees, representing an annual turnover rate of nine per cent against staff numbers at 30 June 2011 (see Table 8.9 at Appendix 3). This compares with ongoing staff separations of eight per cent in 2009–10, 8 per cent in 2008–09 and 14 per cent in 2007–08.

Staffing profile At 30 June 2011, the Court had 615 employees (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees) covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). This was a 0.6 per

PART 6 cent decrease compared with 619 employees at 30 June 2010. Tables 8.3 to 8.7 at Appendix 3 provide a breakdown of staff by location, gender, attendance, ongoing and non-ongoing employment status.

Judicial officers At 30 June 2010, the Court had 31 judges, including the Chief Justice (11 female and 20 male). Table 8.8 at Appendix 3 has further detail. The remuneration arrangements for all judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer are governed by enforceable determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details including relevant determinations are available at: www.remtribunal.gov.au.

Agreement making MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT A single Enterprise Agreement for the Courts On 18 June 2010, Fair Work Australia approved the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010. The Agreement was negotiated between the courts and the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) and individual staff bargaining representatives. It commenced on 25 June 2010, replacing the individual Collective Agreements of both courts. It had a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2011. The Agreement supported signiﬁcant improvements in the courts’ operations to be achieved through a range of corporate efﬁciency/productivity measures produced following reviews (most of which occurred in 2010–11, with aspects ongoing at 30 June 2011) of child dispute services, judicial support, library and guarding services, user pays options, divorce processes and procedures, including conciliation conferences, use of interpreters, technology (video links and teleconferencing), circuits and provision of transcripts.

146 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability In January 2011, the Government introduced new policy parameters for agreement making, the Australian Public Service Bargaining Framework. Negotiations commenced soon after for a replacement Enterprise Agreement involving the courts’ management, the CPSU and individual staff bargaining representatives. The aim was for the replacement Enterprise Agreement to be in place by 1 July 2011. On 24 June 2011, Fair Work Australia approved the new Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14. The new Agreement, to commence on 1 July 2011, provides for three per cent salary increases on 1 July 2011, 2012 and 2013. It has a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2014 however, under present arrangements it will continue after that date until replaced or formally terminated. The courts’ intranets were the primary vehicles for keeping staff informed of developments, with regular news and announcements about issues such as the courts’ budgetary positions, technological improvements, operational reviews and the progress of negotiations for the new agreement. Management also kept employees informed through all-staff emails.

Other agreements Offers of AWAs to court employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with government policy; 34 employees have enforceable AWAs in place. Table 8.12 at Appendix 3 sets out the AWA 6 PART minimum and maximum salary ranges by classiﬁcation. In some limited cases the Court has used common law contracts to provide supplementary conditions

of employment for individuals covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 and determinations made by the Agency Head under section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999, to build upon existing AWA arrangements. At 30 June 2011, 14 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts and 51 had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments. No employees were covered by individual ﬂexibility arrangements. See Table 8.11 at Appendix 3 for more detail.

Relationship between agreements During 2010–11, terms and conditions of employment in the Court were governed by one or more of the following industrial agreements: The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010, effective from 25 June 2010, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs AWAs individual determinations under s 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999, or individual common law contracts.

The Enterprise Agreement, like its predecessors, was a comprehensive agreement; however, for some employees, it might have been supported by either a s 24(1) determination or a common law contract that provided additional terms and conditions (for example, as a way of retaining high-value employees). AWAs might also have been supported by individual s 24(1) determinations or common law contracts to provide for pay increases or additional terms and conditions, including non-salary beneﬁts.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 147 SES remuneration Terms and conditions for the Court’s senior executive service employees are in AWAs and individual s 24(1) determinations made by the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer. SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and take account of the Court’s budgetary position.

Non-salary benefits Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees included: motor vehicles car parking superannuation access to salary sacrificing arrangements computers, including home-based computer access membership of professional associations mobile phones studies assistance PART 6 leave flexibilities workplace responsibility allowances (for example, first aid, fire warden, community language), and airline club memberships.

Performance pay arrangements During 2010–11, the Court neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paid performance pay to any employee.

Training, learning and development

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT The Court recognises the value of a well-educated workforce that is able to contribute effectively to meeting its objectives. It provides staff with an extensive array of learning and development opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge for current and future roles and responsibilities. The Court achieves this by assisting employees to meet their development and career needs consistent with the Performance Management and Development System and available resources. It also provides studies assistance including leave and support for employees undertaking relevant tertiary studies. Financial constraints mean that the Court relies principally on in-house training and, where available, it ‘piggybacks’ on training packages or courses provided by the Attorney-General’s Department or the Australian Public Service Commission. During 2010–11, the Court’s in-house training facilities included self-paced, online learning courses on a range of topics including APS and Court speciﬁc induction training, occupational health and safety, accounting basics, effective project management, business communications and the Windows XP suite (Excel, Word, PowerPoint).

148 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability In addition, training was provided in a number of speciﬁc areas, including the APS values and code of conduct, absenteeism, techniques for dealing with difﬁcult clients, courtroom protocols and technology, risk awareness and fraud awareness. The Court also has a peer support network, for which training is provided as required.

Performance Management and Development System The Court’s management practices incorporate the APS values and guides employees in their day-to-day work. These values are imbedded in the Court’s Performance Management and Development System (PMDS). Employees are appraised against the values. The PMDS aims to align individual outcomes to team and branch business plans, leading ultimately to achieving the two courts’ visions and business plans. Participation is mandatory for all employees except probationers. Employees must participate in the system to be eligible for the salary increases provided under the Enterprise Agreement and for salary advancement within their classiﬁcation scale. Throughout 2010–11, the PMDS continued to provide an effective framework for performance management in the Court, through both the use of individual performance agreements, established at the start of each performance appraisal cycle, and a process of regular review and feedback exchange between employees and their managers during the year. The PMDS ensured that all employees clearly understood their roles in the Court and the standards of performance expected of them. The system 6 PART also provided a means of recognising individual contributions and achievements and of identifying and progressing learning and development needs.

The target in 2010–11 was for 100 per cent of employees participating in the system. This was achieved. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Employee assistance program The Court’s employee assistance program provides a free, conﬁdential counselling service to the judiciary, court employees and their immediate families experiencing personal or work-related problems. The service also provides a telephone advisory service for managers. Converge International managed the program and provided generic data to the Court to guide the development of wellbeing strategies.

Peer support network The nature of the Court’s core business means that employees may be exposed to and involved in highly sensitive and stressful situations. During 2010–11, the Court continued its proactive approach to lessening the risk of stress in the workplace, with a peer support system within registries and the National Support Office being actively promoted and used. The system provides a network of trained staff in the workplace to ensure that skilled support is available for immediate assistance should an individual experience a distressing situation or difficult event. The system is designed to complement the employee assistance program and allows support to be available immediately should an incident occur. Peer support officers from any location can provide assistance as required, that is, there is no restriction on staff accessing officers from outside their immediate work area. All communication with trained peer support officers is strictly confidential.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 149 Productivity gains During 2010–11, the combination of the merged administration and working under a single Enterprise Agreement continued to produce efﬁciency savings for the courts, including through the more efﬁcient allocation of resources, elimination of duplicated services and the rationalisation of court services. Synergies were achieved in the area of training where program delivery was made available to the staff of both courts, thus reducing cost and capturing a greater number of staff. As part of the single administration, the review of child dispute services and judicial support services resulted in a number of changes being introduced to further reduce duplication and improve the overall structure. This has resulted in a reduction in staff numbers without affecting service delivery to clients or the judiciary. A number of productivity gains also formed part of the Enterprise Agreement negotiations

Changes to disability reporting Since 1994, the Court has reported on its performance as employer and provider under the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. In 2007–08, reporting on the employer role was transferred to the Australian Public Service Commission’s State of the Service Report and the APS Statistical Bulletin. These reports are available at www.apsc.gov.au. From 2010–11, departments and agencies are no longer required to report on these functions. The

PART 6 Commonwealth Disability Strategy has been overtaken by a new National Disability Strategy, which sets out a ten year national policy framework for improving life for Australians with disability, their families and carers. A high level report to track progress for people with disability at a national level will be produced by the Standing Council on Community, Housing and Disability Services to the Council of Australian Governments and will be available at www.fahcsia.gov.au. The Social Inclusion Measurement and Reporting Strategy agreed by the Government in December 2009 will also include some reporting on disability matters in its regular How Australia is Faring report and, if appropriate, in strategic change indicators in agency annual reports. The Court’s recruitment, training and development, occupational health and safety, and access and equity policies take account of the Government’s social inclusion agenda: the vision of a socially inclusive society in which all Australians feel valued and have the opportunity to participate fully in the life of

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT our society. These policies are published on the Court’s intranet and are available on application to the Court’s Human Resource Manager. More detail on social inclusion matters can be found at www.socialinclusion.gov.au.

Financial management The Family Court of Australia is a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The Court's 2010–11 budgeted expenditure, as published in the 2011–12 Portfolio Budget Statements, was $164.1 million, with a loss attributable to the Court of $1 million. The Court has reported expenditure of $165.4 million and an underlying loss of $1.3 million for 2010–11. The variance in operating loss represents 0.8 per cent of the budgeted expenditure.

150 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Figure 6.2 provides a breakdown of the actual costs incurred by the Court for 2010–11. It shows that the Court had a significant proportion of fixed costs (58 per cent) relating to property, judicial officers and their support, and depreciation. Of the remaining expenditure, 27 per cent provided direct support to judicial services in determining cases, 10 per cent provided indirect support to judicial services by way of information technology and corporate services (along with meeting statutory reporting requirements for the Court), and 5 per cent of expenditure was attributable to corporate overheads. Details of the expenditure categories are shown in Table 6.1

Figure 6.2 Family Court expenditure, 2010–11

Variable Fixed

Corporate Corporate Support Overheads 4% 5%

Information Judges and Support Technology Services 21% 6% PART 6 PART

Client Services 16% Depreciation

5% MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Family Consultants 5%

Registrars Property 4% 32% Case Coordinators 1% Court Ofﬁcers 1%

Following is further explanation of the categories of expenditure in Figure 6.2. Judges and support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judges and their support staff. Depreciation: All depreciation, amortisation and other expenses associated with asset movements. Property: Lease rentals for Commonwealth Law Courts and leased premises, and all property operating expenses (such as cleaning, energy, repairs, maintenance and management fees) associated with these premises.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 151 Registrars: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to registrars. Family consultants: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to family consultants. Client services: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to client service staff. Case coordinators: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to case coordinators. Court officers: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to court officers. Corporate support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to finance, human resources, property services, contract services and the CEO. Information technology services: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the provision of information technology services. Corporate overheads: Workers Compensation and ComCover insurance premiums, Fringe Benefit Tax expenditure, ComSuper management fees, legal and audit fees, corporate salary overheads attributed to registry management, corporate support and IT services staff, and expenditure related to project activity in the Court (some of which is externally funded).

Services provided free of charge The Family Court provides resources free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court in accordance with

PART 6 sections 90, 92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999. Resources provided free of charge include: court staff, who perform work on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court accommodation, including access to courtrooms.

The cost of resources provided free of charge by the Family Court to the Federal Magistrates Court during 2010–11 was $31.672 million. The Family Court also provides resources free of charge to the Federal Court. The cost of these resources in 2010–11 was $0.330 million. The resources provided free of charge include accommodation and other property costs for the Sydney Commonwealth Law Courts. MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT

152 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Figure 6.3 shows the expenditure categories in which the services were provided free of charge to the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court.

Figure 6.3 2010–11 Expenditure resources shared with the Federal Magistrates Court and Federal Court

Variable Fixed

Corporate Corporate Support Overheads 4% 5% Information Technology Services Judges and Support 6% 21%

Client Services 16% Depreciation 5% PART 6 PART

Family Consultants

5% MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Registrars Property 4% 32% Case Coordinators 1% Court Ofﬁcers Shared Resources 1%

Purchasing, consultants and contracts The Court’s Procurement and Risk Management section assists staff undertaking procurement and manages a number of corporate contracts. The section also manages, or has signiﬁcant involvement in, all complex procurement undertaken by the Court to ensure compliance with legislative obligations and the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. The Chief Executive Instructions, the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines and the Court’s Procurement Framework are all on the intranet as reference material for court staff. The core policies and principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines were, as far as practicable, adhered to throughout 2010–11. The Court’s Annual Procurement Plan was published as required. An appropriate market approach was made for all procurements covered by the guidelines. All contracts let in 2010–11 had provision for the Auditor-General to access contractors’ premises.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 153 Consultants During 2010–11 total actual expenditure on consultancy contracts was $654 172 (GST inclusive) comprising: 12 new consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure of $463 000, and four ongoing consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure of $191 172.

Annual reports contain information about actual expenditure in the ﬁnancial year on contracts for consultancies. Information on the value of contracts and consultancies is also available on the AusTender website www.tenders.gov.au.

Consultants and competitive tendering One contract was let to an organisation for the delivery of services previously performed by the Court during 2010–11. These services were for the provision of staff salary packaging and the contract was with Smart Salary Pty Ltd. See Appendix 9 for the details of consultancy services contracts let during 2010–11, of $10 000 or more.

Exempt contracts

PART 6 During 2010–11, no contracts or standing offers were exempt from publication in the Purchasing and Disposal Gazette in terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

Legal services expenditure Paragraph 11.1 of the Legal Services Directions 2005 states that the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer of the Court 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.

In accordance with paragraph 11.1 (ba) of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Court incurred the

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT legal services expenditure shown in Table 6.1 during 2010–11. All expenditure figures include GST. Consistent with paragraph 11.2 of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Chief Executive Officer issued a Certificate to the Office of Legal Services Coordination of the Attorney-General’s Department stating that the Family Court of Australia: had appropriate systems and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the Directions had no record of any alleged, possible or determined breach of the Directions during the 2010–11 financial year.

154 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Table 6.1 Legal Services Expenditure

Total costs recovered $0.00

Total external legal services expenditure $33 504.79

Total internal legal services expenditure $189 459.15

Total (external and internal) expenditure $222 963.94

Summary of external legal services expenditure

Total value of briefs to counsel $0.00

Total value of disbursements (excluding counsel) $388.41

Total value of professional fees paid $33 116.38

Total external legal services expenditure $33 504.79

Counsel

Number of briefs to male counsel 0

Number of briefs to female counsel 0 PART 6 PART Total number of briefs to counsel 0

Number of direct briefs to male counsel 0

Number of direct briefs to female counsel 0 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY Total number of direct briefs to counsel 0

Total value of briefs to male counsel (including direct briefs) $0.00

Total value of briefs to female counsel (including direct briefs) $0.00

Total value of briefs to counsel $0.00

Disbursements

Total value of disbursements (excluding counsel) $388.41

Professional fees

Minter Ellison $440.00

Australian Government Solicitor $26 689.30

Blake Dawson Waldron $5987.08

Total value of professional fees paid $33 116.38

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 155 Assets management During 2010–11, the Family Court: Completed a four-year Capital Management Plan. The plan will allow the Court to better allocate resources and make strategic asset decisions to support program delivery. Implemented new stock-take procedures. The new process has added value to the Court by improving the quality of the asset register to account for, control and safeguard assets, thereby facilitating an effective asset management strategy, capital budgeting process and Capital Management Plan, required to replace, repair and purchase new assets.

Property management The Family Court is located in shared Commonwealth-owned facilities in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Parramatta and Sydney. It occupies privately leased facilities in Albury, Alice Springs, Cairns, Coffs Harbour, Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Launceston, Lismore, Newcastle, Townsville and Wollongong, and shares the state court facility in Rockhampton. The most signiﬁcant property related activities at various court locations in 2010–11 are detailed below.

Sydney In January 2011, the Federal Court of Australia vacated level three of the Commonwealth Law Courts, PART 6 Lionel Bowen building. The vacated space provided an opportunity to redress a shortage of courtrooms in Sydney. The vacant ﬂoor is being refurbished to provide four new courtrooms and associated public areas. At 30 June 2011, the project was scheduled to be completed by October 2011. The courtrooms will be used primarily by the Federal Magistrates Court but will be available to the Family Court as required. This project will deliver much needed courtrooms in the Sydney CBD.

Dandenong Work was completed on the upgrade to the child observation area, providing a more usable area with child minding facilities, an adolescent breakout area, a children’s bathroom and infant

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT sleeping area. The upgraded facilities provide an excellent environment that is conducive to the needs of children, whilst providing a space that enables staff to perform their duties more effectively.

Lionel Bowen Building, Sydney

156 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Management and Accountability Brisbane The reconfiguration of level nine at the Brisbane Commonwealth Law Courts building was completed in November 2010. This resulted in the co-location of judicial officers from the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The reconfiguration provided three extra judicial chambers, a new common room and an upgraded conference facility.

Dubbo All of the furniture at the registry was replaced, including that in the public areas. The outcome of this project is a fresh look to the registry and improved facilities for staff and the court’s clients.

Correction of material errors in 2009–10 report The Court has no matters to report. PART 6 PART MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts building, Hobart, Tasmania.

Management and Accountability | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 157

PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements

Table of Contents Independent Auditor's Report 162 Statement by CEO and CFO 164 Statement of Comprehensive Income 165 Balance Sheet 166 Statement of Changes in Equity 167 Cash Flow Statement 168 Schedule of Commitments 169 Schedule of Asset Additions 170 Schedule of Administered Items 171 Table of Contents Notes 173 Note 1: Summary of Signiﬁcant Accounting Policies 174 Note 2: Events After the Reporting Period 182 Note 3: Expenses 183 Note 4: Income 185

Note 5: Financial Assets 186 7 PART Note 6: Non-Financial Assets 188 Note 7: Payables 194 Note 8: Provisions 195 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Note 9: Cash Flow Reconciliation 196 Note 10: Contingent Liabilities and Assets 196 Note 11: Senior Executive Remuneration 197 Note 12: Remuneration of Auditors 199 Note 13: Financial Instruments 200 Note 14: Income Administered on Behalf of Government 203 Note 15: Expenses Administered on Behalf of Government 203 Note 16: Assets administered on behalf of government 203 Note 17: Administered Reconciliation Table 203 Note 18: Administered Contingent Assets and Liabilities 203 Note 19: Administered Financial Instruments 204 Note 20: Appropriations 205 Note 21: Special Accounts 208 Note 22: Compensation and Debt Relief 209 Note 23: Reporting of Outcomes 210 Note 24: Comprehensive Income (loss) Attributable to the Court 213

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 161 PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

162 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements PART 7 PART FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 163 " #$ %&'(%&('# (("!()$(* * + &( ,!- * !! % '

In our 8 30 June 2011 " $ & #$ : ; $ : " )$ )**'8 <

:1 0: :4 = 2 $ $)$ $)$

+)$"$.+ +)$"$.+ PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

164 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# (("!(% %"'*! , ! %"

2011 2010 ! $'000 $'000 +! 9$" 3A 71,550 70,610 $ 2 60,421 64,067 5 3C 6,915 5,583 3D 182 141 ? & 3E 4 153 3 3F 169 297 $ : 3& 3G 2,375 4,510 $ : $$ 3H 23,764 20,853 ( 7 165,380 166,214

#8 %9!:%&' ! %" %;: < " " 4A 3,085 2,470 1 5 $ : 4C 1,027 4,110 4D 143 489 ( ;: < 4,256 7,074

= 4E 7,368 7,608 ( > 7,368 7,608

( ;: 11,624 14,682 7 PART ! < 153,756 151,532

1 $ 4 4F 145,601 152,566 7 ?-@ A A = < ?6122@ 1,034 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS %(*' %"'*! , ! %" " $ ?6@ 4,061 ( 7 < ? @ A A = < ?616@ 5,095

, $ @$ & " <

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 165 " #$ %&'(%&('# )#! *(

2011 2010 ! $'000 $'000 ( #$ 5A 1,205 1,367 , ! 9,643 18,398 5C 200 287 ( 11,048 20,052 ! : 3 $ " 6A 16,687 18,427 0 8 #$ % 12,774 13,076 " 6D 3,947 3,223 6F 53 49 6G 3,645 3,606 ( : 37,106 38,381 ( 48,154 58,433

# ) # ( A $ 7A 2,540 13,716 ' 2,207 1,897 ( 7 A 4,747 15,613 < 8A 19,787 19,684 ( 2,895 2,728 ( 7 < 22,682 22,412 ( #A 27,429 38,025 PART 7 ! 20,725 20,408

B& ($ $ #$ 704 (7,796) 1 17,148 17,176 1 " 2,873 11,028 ( C 20,725 20,408

, $ @$ & " < FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

166 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements 2010 $'000 4,061 5,095 1,034 27,923 27,923 20,408 6.8%+7 6.8%+7 - - - (28) 2011 8,500 8,500 ( C $'000 20,408 20,408 20,725 (8,155) (8,183) - 2010 $'000 4,814 4,814 6'8'*%7 6.8%+7 6.8%+7 ------704 2011 8,500 8,500 $'000 A C D7 (7,796) (7,796) 2010 $'000 4,061 4,061 13,115 13,115 17,176 ------ < (28) (28) 2011 $'000 17,176 17,176 17,148 < 2010 $'000 9,994 1,034 9,994 1,034 11,028 ------2011 2,873 $'000 11,028 11,028 (8,155) (8,155) ' > PART 7 PART FINANCIAL STATEMENTS $ $6 7 A A ; 5 $" )@$ " #$ %&'(%&('# (("!(% *!= !B& ($ %7>A & $ E 7>A 7 < ( 7 < ( ; ; 1 $ $ " A: ; ; >A , $ @$ & " <

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 167 " #$ %&'(%&('# *#%9(("!(

2011 2010 ! $'000 $'000 %'( != ( , ( < ) 165,687 151,382 4 3,833 8,179 1 5 - 4, 6,484 5,882 ( < 176,005 165,448 63,944 63,401 $ 77,062 69,603 0) 6,092 6,037 $ : 27,565 17,053 ( 174,663 156,094 ! 7 >< 9 1,342 9,354

!,( != ( , ( < 0 8 #$ 12 6 ( < 12 6 0$ 8 #$ 4,222 7,998 0$ " 1,584 1,233 ( 5,806 9,231 !? A @<>< ?21054@ (9,225)

PART 7 !! != ( , ( < $ #$ 4,290 ( < 4,290

! ? @ ?3@ 129 #$ " " " 1,367 1,238 C < 7 >7 5A 1,205 1,367

, $ @$ & " < FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

168 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# *-&#% %"" ("!(

2011 2010 $'000 $'000

)$($ <A - 4, 16,453 17,235 ( <A 16,453 17,235 7 A % ents " (175,782) (180,660) (5,201) (8,923) ( ents (180,983) (189,583) ! A 7 (164,530) (172,348)

)$"(&' ($ <A % <A 3,856 3,883 7,247 7,506 5,350 5,846 ( <A 16,453 17,235 7 A %7 > ents (37,708) (37,169)

(79,217) (79,179) 7 PART (58,857) (64,312) ( 7 > ents (175,782) (180,660)

% ents (4,703) (5,541)

(498) (3,382) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - ( ents (5,201) (8,923) ! A (164,530) (172,348)

- / 4, $ & < 1 " / ! = 7 > >ent 3 ) " & 3& $ $ "6) 8 8 8= 8: $ 8 0 8 7< , @ $ $ $ " $ " $ $ A && < , $ $ $ " " " $ $ A && < 2 " " & $; $ "<

, $ $ @$ & " <

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 169 2163 *8. 44 123 1264 8. 06 1065 8' 7F 7 1 C 7 >A ( B #$ " , 0 8 04 ./ ./ ./ ./ 125 13 10 415 8.%' 8' 8. *8. 14 8.%' 14 1065 1264 2163 8.%' 8' 8. *8. >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ # 3 ) >: $ " 7 < PART 7 +*+/ FINANCIAL STATEMENTS " 5 $" " " #$ %&'(%&('# *-&#%(-- ( %! ( ;> : : ; :8 $ $ ( ( $ & .+ , & " $ $ ( (

170 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# *-&#%-" ! ('- ("

2011 2010 ! $'000 $'000 A = <

'< ! : < 1 " 14A 2,313 1,003 ( < A = < 2,313 1,003

7 A = <

1 " $ 15A 20 13 ( 7 A = < 20 13

A = <

#$ 16A 31 25 ( A = < 31 25 PART 7 PART , $ $ @$ & " < FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 171 " #$ %&'(%&('# *-&#%-" ! ('- ("? @

2011 2010 ! $'000 $'000 ; %'( != ( , ( < 1 " 2,313 1,003 ( < 2,313 1,003 1 " $ 20 13 ( 20 13 ! ; 7 >< 2,293 990

! * 2,293 990 #$ " " " 25 6 0$ )$ / ) 44 540 0$ )$ / $ C 2 $ 0) ?1@ (1,511) C < 7 >7 %) 31 25 , $ $ @$ & " <

) " )$ 4 - <.< PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

172 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements (A :!

- /$ " )$ "0 174 - ./ ) 1 "0 182 - /2 183 - / 185 - !/ ) 186 - %/- ) 188 - '/0 194 - (/0 195 - */ &1 196 - +/ " 3 ) 196 - / 2 $ 1 $ 197 - ./1 $ )$ 199 - / $ 200 - / ) 4 203 - !/2 ) 4 203 - %/) " 203 - '/) 1 , 203 - (/) " ) 3 203 - */) $ 204 - .+/) 205 - ./ )$ 208 - ../ 5 1 209 - ./1 "$ 210 - ./ 6 7) $ $ 213 PART 7 PART FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 173 " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 1: > > 1.1 %AE< , $)$ 6 $7 )$ 4 <, @ $8 )$ ;$ $ &8/ 7 & 2 &8 D 7 &D 7 " $ & < , $ $ 6$ 7/

, $ 2 $ & " 4 $ "$ " 0 $; " <

, $; $ "&$ < 5 $ 8 8 2 $ $ & "<) " " $8 4 8 $ 4 <

, $; " $; <, $; 2 $ <

1.2 ) 7 , " $ #$ * : " )$ )**'<

PART 7 , &/ 7 : ; 6:7 " " 9$ .++D 7)$ )$ " $ )$ )$ " 6)) 7 " <

, $ & 8 2 $ <2 & 8 & " " $ <

, )$ $ $ $ $ & <

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS E #$ $ " :8 " & & $$ & & $$ & #$ $ $ <=& 8 "$ 2 $ " $ #$ $ " <3 $ " $ <

E #$ $ " 8 2 " & & &8 $ $ $ <

) $ 8 2 8 & $ ) $ $ " 8 2 & & - <.<

174 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

1.3 > > > " $ " 8 $ & "@$" " $ /

7, $ $ "8 8 #$ A & & $ < 8 $; $ " $ $ A <

-$ "$ " A$ " @$ " $ & 2$ " < 1.4 !; > -$ " < & 8 $ " $ 8 $< & 8 $ " $$ 8 & $<

1.5 '< 1 $ " " & / 7 A && $ D 7 $ " "D

7 $ $ $ D 7 PART 7 & & & $< 1 $ " " " " <, $ " & / 7 $ $ 8" $ $ D 7 & & & $< FINANCIAL STATEMENTS , " " $ <

1 " 8& + 8 " $ $ & $ < & " <) & & " <

$ " $ " $ )) * ! " # $ % & 1 $ " " $ & 8 & 8 $ &$ $

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 175 " #$ %&'(%&('# .++*+ $" 8 )$ 4 " $$ $<, $ $ " :" $)$ 6:7 $)$ 6)7 $)$ 6)7 9 $ .++< : .++8 )$ 4 $ :" $)$ " & <, :" $& @$ 6& A"$ 7& $ & &: $ )$ < ) :" $ 8$ " :" $ $)$ $)$ & $ :" $& 9 $ .+< ) ) 8$ ">*(<.!! & & A :" $ $< ) 8$ "& ) :" $ 9 $ .+ " " @$ $ & $ <$ " #$ @$" 8 @$ " (<. $ 6>.<' .++F ><(* & 7& $ :" $< , " " " $ & "@$ $ & $$ " :" $& &A $)$ $)$ " :" $ 2 $ 8&&$ & G H$< ( ) % (* , $ $ $ 0 3 0 6 7 $ $ 8 $ $ " " $<) $ &$ " 6 7<, $ $ - /1 $ 4 < PART 7

1.6 =

% &

1 $ " " " & 8 & 8 $ &$ $

1 $ " $ " " $ <

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS $ #$ " " $ & #$ " 8$ 4 #$ $$ " " 61 - <'7<

, $ " $ " 2 I1 $ " 9$" $ $ '8+8.(.6.++/>'8%8+7<

4 " & $ <

1.7 ( ;= < %; + *! , ) $ & " ; #$ @ ; 6 $ 7 5 $" 65 7 " $ #$ <

176 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# % - #$ 4 $ $$ " " @$ A $ " $ #$ < - . / - , : #$ $ & $ #$ $ $ <

1.8 >7 ) 3 G H6 )) *+ * 0 7 $ & & " $ $ <

, $ $ & " 2 <

9$" $ $ " " $ $ " 6 7$ & " <

E 1( 2345 $)$ 9$" $ $ + <) $ )$ 4 8 $ " $ $ $ $ < 8& 8 " $ " 2 I1 $ " 9$" $ $ '8+8.(.6.++/>'8%8+7<

) % , $ $ " <- A A " " A A $$

$ $ A < 7 PART , $ ; $ & A 8 $ " $; $ $ $ 2 A A $ " $ <

, " &A $ +9$ .++*< FINANCIAL STATEMENTS , $ A $ $" < * 0 $ <, $ " & & $ < , $; & $ $ 678 0$ $ $ 607 0$ $ 607<

, 0 )$ 4 <, 0 $ <

, " )$ 4 )$ 4 $ $ <, 5 5 "$ <

, $ A $ ;$ $ $ $ $ 4 <, $$ $ & $ $ <

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 177 " #$ %&'(%&('# , $ $ " +9$ $ " $ " <

1.9 # ) & " < $ A & & <) " < " 8 $ $A <

? #$ 8 $ 8 & 8 $ $ " $ <

, $ $ <3 < 3 & 2 <

" 2 " & <

1.10 " $ < #$ $ / 7 D 7 A$ & " $ A & $ $ @ " A " $ D 7 $ <

1.11

PART 7 , $ & " " / 7 $ $" D 7 $ D 7 D 7 < , $ $ " < " " $ <, $ <

+ % ! #

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS , $ " " <, 2 $ $$ $" 2 88& 8 <

" 2 " $ $" <

) %/

, 8 2 #$ A ; ;<3 $ $ " < " " <

" <

178 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# 6 @ $ $ 8 $ $ & ; " $ $ $$ & $ ;" <, " $ $ & & $ <, " <

1.12 #A ; $ $" ; < " " $ ; ;<

/ 7 8( )

$ $" $ $ <$ #$ $ @$ " <, " " <

- ) /

$ $ 8 <, $ #$ $ $ " 8& 2 " <

, $ " " 2 <, 2 $ $$ $" 2 88& 8 <

$ " <3 " 2 "

6 " 7< 7 PART

1.13 >#A > " " " $ $ <, $ 2 & $ $ < " & FINANCIAL STATEMENTS $ $ " & " <

1.14 C ) #$ 2 &<, #$ $ $ 2 " $ A < $ $ $ & <

) #$ 8 8 " $ #$ 8$ #$ #$ $$ " " < 8 " $ & $ & & " ;$ $$ "<

1.15 7 1C 7 8 0$ 8 #$ " 8 2 $ " >.8+++8& 2 #$ 6 & "$ & " 7<

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 179 " #$ %&'(%&('# , $ " " " & <,$ G A "H A $ $ & 2 " " <, $ $ $H & " G A "H " <

$ & &/ < 8 $ " 5 $$ 8 #$ :A " & " " 8 #$ $ $ #$ $ $ $ $

5 6$ $ 78 $ $ & " @$ " $ 8$ $$ " 8 <

5 " & "$ $ /

2011 2010 3 2 .+

0 8 #$ 2 +

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS !

) & +9$ .+

, $ " $ $ $

) 8 #$ " $ & $ $$ 2 $ <

180 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

1.16 >A , $; " & $ 2 $ & <, $ $ $ $ <

& " $ $ <, $ $ $;& ' 6.++/' 7<

) & & +9$ .+<

1.17 < $ & $ <

$ $ 8@$ <

$ " " " &/ 7& $ $ D 7 " &A " $ $ $ <

#$ $ $ #$ <

1.18 ( D 7<!

, $ 2 2 2 " ,26 ,7 4 ,2

64,7< 7 PART

1 $ 8 2 " 4, 2 / 7& $ 4, $ )$ ,2 D 7 < 1.19 <7 < > FINANCIAL STATEMENTS , $ $ " :" $)$ 6:7 &ith *+8*. ** # 222$ 1 $ " $ / 7$& &A :D 7 8 $ " $ <

$ " $ :$ ".++& >8%'.8.6.++/>+8%.8+%*7<

, $ $ " $)$ $ ".++< $ &>+8%6.++/>%!8!!'7<, $ " $ <

1.20 % 7: A " , $ $ >.< :" $ 3& <, $ :" !9$" 9$ 1 " ) 4 < $ " (<. $ " & $ +9 $ .++(<

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 181 " #$ %&'(%&('# , $ $ >.<( :" $ $$ <, $ & $)$ $ $$ $&$ )$ 4 9 $ .++<, $ $ " $ :" $)$ " " $ )$ 4 $ " :" $)$ " & <) $ " A :" $&$ A ) " " & :" $<

1.21 '7 > < ) $ 8 2 8 8 & $ <

2 & & &8 $ $ " 8 $ " )$ )$ " <

&8 - (/ 1 $ $$ 4 $ $ < 0$ )$ 60)7 5 5 "$ < 8& 0) A $ 0 4 <, 0) @$ $ 4 $ & $ - '<

% ) $ $ " $ $ )$ 4 <

" $; <) $ " & " & $< " $ < & PART 7 " <) & & @$" A <

! 2: < '7 >

, $ $ " " " "$$ $< FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

182 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 3: 7 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 38 >7 A 9$" ; $ 11,854 10,914 9$" ; 1,615 1,923 9$" ; $ $ 7,304 7,436 ?" 38,243 37,953 $ $ / 5 $ 2,491 2,100 5 3,579 4,276 3 5,891 5,171 $ 573 837 ( >7 A 71,550 70,610 ! 3B: 77 = < ,B $ 4,818 4,583 $ B 2,606 3,096 0 14,027 13,991 , 2,923 2,938 4,887 7,944 ( > < 29,261 32,552

4 $/ 1 " 497 2,573 1 " 2 28,764 29,979 ( > < 29,261 32,552 PART 7 PART % 77 7 " / : $ 25,420 25,189 " 2 /

: $ 5,344 5,648 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ?A 2 396 678 ( 77 7 31,160 31,515 ( 77 7 60,421 64,067 ! 3 8-7 5 / 0 8 #$ 2,901 2,119 3 3,154 2,654 ( 7 6,055 4,773

) " 860 810 ( 860 810 ( 7 6,915 5,583

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 183 " #$ %&'(%&('#

2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 3D: E & "$ A " 182 141 ( 182 141 ! 3E: 9 :- ; 7 ) & & / : 3 8 #$ : 2 2 & : 93 4 55 ( ; : ;7 4 153 ! 38# 0 8 #$ / 0 (12) (6) " $ 46 69 ? 135 234 ( 169 297 ! 3G: A " : #; $ : 3& 2,375 8!+ ( A " : #; 2,375 8!+ ! 3H: A " : 23,764 .+8(! ( A " : 23,764 .+8(! PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

184 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 4: 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ',!& ! 48 = ' > < 0 " 2 2 5 1 " 2,466 1,971 1 " 2 617 494 ( > > < 3,085 2,470 ! 4B: 5 1 5 ( 1 5 ! 4 8% < :" 1,027 4,110 ( < :" 1,027 4,110

! 4D:% '< 1 143 56 : 433 ( < 143 489

= ! ! 48% = 1 $ " 64 69

1 $ " 9$" $ $ 7,304 7,436 7 PART ) $ : 103 ( > 7,368 7,608 ',!&'%"=%,'!"!( ! 48'< = < ) / FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 5 145,601 152,566 ( < = < 145,601 152,566 K, $ $ 00 3 6.++/ 7<

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 185 " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 5: 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 58 C < A 1,193 1,355 12 12 ( C < 1,205 1,367 ! 5B:( % '<A = < 4 284 188 4 2 909 28 ( <A > < 1,193 216 77 7 <A8 " 3,496 17,491 $" 4,210 ( 77 7 <A 7,706 17,491 % <A8 4, )$ ,2 744 691 ( <A 744 691 ( <A?> @ 9,643 18,398 3 / & $ / ( <A?@ 9,643 18,398 1 2 / - . 9,643 18,398 ( <A?@ 9,643 18,398

1 " &/ PART 7 - $ 9,636 18,347 $ / ++ - 40 %+ - %*+ - : *+ 7 11 ( <A?> @ 9,643 18,398 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

186 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# ' 7 ; 8 " < = % < <A ( ./ ./ ./ %7>A - - Amounts written off - - ) $ - - C " $ $ - - >A - -

: .++ 4 services , Other >;+++ >;+++ %7>A 6+7 6+7 Amounts written off + + ) $ - - C " $ $ - - >A - -

.++ ./ >;+++

! 5 8%

Accrued revenue .(' 7 PART ( .(' , 2 / - . .(' ( .(' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 187 " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 6: ! : 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 68) > 3 / $ 19,370 18,546 )$ $ (3,433) (279) ?A " 750 160 ( 7 < 16,687 18,427 ( A > 16,687 18,427 - & $ $ "< ! 6B: 7 1C 7ent 0 8 #$ / $ 15,387 12,780 )$ $ (3,072) (251) )$ $ (2) (2) 0 8 #$ &A " 461 549 ( 7 7 17C 7ent 12,774 13,076

) $ & $ & $ - < , & $ $ A .++< : .++8 $ 84 " 5: ))08 0 "J $ -.*+8 $ $ <1 $ >.8+%!8+ >8%*8+% #$ & $ $ #$ < - & $ 8 #$ <6.++/>.87 - 8 #$ 2 & 2. < PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

188 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 6 8' %7> >) 7 1C 7?:@

) >: 7 1 ( # 7F 7 < C 7 $'000 $'000 $'000 4 A $ 6103 15 12 )$ $ ?05@ ?2@ ?2@ !A H< 6140 103 12 ) K 14 1065 41 ) $ : 1 $ " ?5@ ?5@ ?6@ 5 2 ?124@ ?15@ ?3122@ " " $ : K : 5 / ? ?43@ ?43@ ?$ ?2@ ?2@ !A H< 31360 1004 5143

!A H< 7 A 8 4 A $ 1 21646 21536 )$ $ ?14@ ?10@ ?3122@ )$ $ ?@ ?@ 31360 1004 5143 PART 7 PART

K5"" " $ ) ) < FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 189 " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 6 ? /@8 ' %7> >) 7 1C 7?2009:10@

$ " 0 8 , 3 B #$ $'000 $'000 $'000 5 4 A $ (8(*. +8++' .(8(** )$ $ 687 67 68'%7 !A H< 5 8'* *8*' .8'. ) K 8.%' 8' '8**( ) $ + + 1 $ $" #$ .8+%! 8%* 8'!% 5 2 6.8%!7 6.8*7 68''7 " " $ 6.7 6.7 5 / 6+.7 6+.7 !A H< (8.' 8+'% 8!+

!A H< 7 A 8 4 A $ (8'+% 8.* .8+! )$ $ 6.'*7 6.!7 6!+7 )$ $ 6.7 6.7 (8.' 8+'% 8!+

K5"" " $ ) ) < PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

190 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 6D: >A $ & / " 547 249 $ 3,887 4,244 0$ 3,184 1,542 )$ $ (3,671) (2,812) ( 7 ; 3,947 3,223 ( >A 3,947 3,223

- & $ " <6.++/>*8.7 - " 2 & 2. < PART 7 PART FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 191 " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 6E: ' %7> >) >A?:@

7 7 ( ; ; 7 < 7 $'000 $'000 $'000 4 A $ 4,493 1,542 6,035 )$ $ ?146@ ?334@ ?16@ !A H< 2,345 878 3,223 ) K 836 748 1,584 " " $ 1 @$ ?223@ 556 1 @$ ?@ 23 ) ?23@ ?4@ ?63@ 5 !A H< 2,076 1,871 3,947

!A H< 7 A 8 4 A $ 4,773 2,845 7,618 )$ $ ?1350@ ?504@ ?130@ 2,076 1,871 3,947

K5"" " $ ) ) < PART 7 ! 6? /@8' %7> >) >A?2009:10@

$ $ , & & $ $'000 $'000 $'000 5 4 A $ 3,525 1,395 4,920 )$ $ (1,490) (537) (2,027)

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS !A H< 5 2,035 858 2,893 ) K 968 265 1,233 " " $ (93) (93) 1 (114) 114 ) (544) (266) (810) !A H< 2,345 878 3,223

!A H< 2010 7 A 8 4 A $ 4,493 1,542 6,035 )$ $ (2,148) (664) (2,812) 2,345 878 3,223

K5"" " $ ) ) <

192 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 68 < $ 53 49 ( < 53 49

- " $ < ) 2 $ 2. <

! 6=8% ! : 0 3,645 3,606 ( : 3,645 3,606 , 2 - . 3,645 3,606 ( : 3,645 3,606 - & $ < PART 7 PART FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 193 " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 7: A 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 78 77 , $ 2,256 13,278 " 284 438 ( 77 7 A 2,540 13,716 $ 2 & . / 1 458 9,661 2 2,082 4,055 ( 2,540 13,716 ( 77 7 A 2,540 13,716 $$ & + < ! 7B:% A &" 998 801 $ $ 139 121 $ 239 256 E $ 610 497 " ,2 220 220 1 2 ( 7 A 2,207 1,897 , 2 / - . 2,207 1,897 ( 7 A 2,207 1,897 PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

194 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 8: < 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 887 < ) $ 3 4,388 4,278 3 " 3 7,319 7,057 9$" 3 "3 8,080 8,349 ( 7 7 < 19,787 19,684 2 / - . 16,045 15,924 : . 3,742 3,760 ( 7 7 < 19,787 19,684 ! 8B:% < 1 - 15 0 " 2,895 2,713 ( 7 < 2,895 2,728 2 / - . - 15 : . 2,895 2,713 ( 7 < 2,895 2,728

' < < ( $'000 $'000 $'000

> 15 2,713 2,728 7 PART ) --- 1 (15) - (15) E & "$ " $ - 182 182 >A - 2,895 2,895 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS , $ " $ " @ & <, $ $ " < , $$ +" " & #$ " $ " $ <, $ $ " <

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 195 " #$ %&'(%&('# N 9: ;' 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ' C <7 ) ; C <7 8 & 1,205 1,367 1,205 1,367 - -

' < 7 ><8 - (153,756) (151,532) ) $ 4 145,601 152,566

E : 5 C 6,915 5,583 ) $ - (103) - 94 1 $ A " - 305 3 169 297 : " #$ 4,210 (12,610) >DA8 5 8,755 5,526 6 7C (4) 2 5 $ $ 87 234 6 7 (39) (481) C65 7 103 (614) C6 7 $ (11,176) 9,841 310 396 C6 7 167 (150)

PART 7 ! D? A @ 7 >< 1,342 9,354

! 10: >#A B A > , $ " " C6.++/ 7<

&C A > )+9$ .+8 $ " " < $ $ #$ < FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

>' > , $ " " <

196 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 11: <' ! 11: <' 7 '7 > 2011 2010 $ $ / 1,543,458 1,573,661 ) $ $ 125,922 127,042 J & 58,843 179,175 79,223 59,327 , 1,807,446 1,939,205

0 $ $ 257,065 276,245 , 257,065 276,245

" 3 " 49,456 65,795 , " 49,456 65,795 ( 2,113,967 2,281,245 " # <- 11A& $ 6 $ ; $ ; - ). .<- 11A 2 $ " " & $ 2 & >!+8+++< PART 7 PART FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 197 $ ) ( ; $$$ !!8('.'8*! ..8+++ ..8+++ ''8('. *%8*! * 3 4 . .+(8! 8+++ .*8! No. < - - - - $

) ( 3414 - PART 7 ; $$$ 53150213 1 4133 6150 3516 8 1 3414 1 0513 01 6315 " 7<, ; $;& $ No. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS < 1 <' ? @ < > ' H>) A< < '7 > < > ' H>) A< : B 11 >!++++>'*8*** >(++++>.+*8*** >.++++>.*8*** >.++++>.%*8*** # <2 " $ & " <2 " $ <, $ 2 $ & $ " " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 11: ! ) , 2 $ 6 $ " " 7 ( " < & $ $ $ "& " $$ " $ "$ 6 $ 7 $ $ A" < $ ;, ; .<1 " $ $ $ " " <, ; $; 2 $ 86 $ " $ A

198 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 11: <' ? @

, A8 ? 2 $ 8 $ ;2 $0; <, & " 2 $ ; $ A" / 670 $ / - $ .++6.++*+/ 7< 6 7 " 2 $ & " / K) $ 3 / .+ 6.++/.+ 7 $ &A 6 7D K0 3 / ( 6.++/( 7 #$ D K3 " 3 / &3 " 3 6 & 7)*'%< 67 2 $ & "$ $ $ / K & $ $ 67/ & 8 $ $ " '<% 6.++/.+ 5$ " " 8 & & $ $& >!+8+++ 6.++/ 7< FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ! 12: ' 2011 .++ $'000 >;+++ $ " $< , $ &/ 64 %* 64 %* - $ <

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 199 " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 13: ! 138 > 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 3 / #$ 1,205 1,367 , 1,193 216 > 2,398 1,583

#A ) / , 976 6,223 > A 976 6,223

! 13B:! 7 # <A $ 1 5 !> 1 5

, $ .++ 6.++*+/ 7<

! 13 8 ,

, " $ $; 2 $ < PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

200 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 13D: 'H

, $ 2 A <, 2 $ 2$ A A $ <, $ #$ $ 6.+/>8*8+++ .++/>.%8+++7<, $ A $ .+6.++/ 7 & $ < , $ " A " " " $ < $ $ "$ ; #$ < , $ " " A< C 7 < 7 ! 7 -$ 0$ 7 7 2011 .++ 2011 .++ $'000 >;+++ $'000 >;+++ 3 #$ 1,205 8%' - , 1,186 %! 7 ! ( 2,391 8!. 7 !

>> 7 A 7 3 3 5 5I ( $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 3 , 77

( 7 7 7 PART

)" " $ $ .++ ++ %+ %*+ *+L , >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ 3 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS , + ! ( + !

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 201 " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 13E: #C 'H

, $; $ <, 2$ #$ A $& $ $ " " & < ," $ A $ $ " )$ 4 $ " $" $ $ #$ $ $ < 8 $ $ & $ 2 $ < " : <<A ; % 2 J2 ( ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./

, 976 976 ( 976 976

:$ .++ & . .! M! , >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ >;+++ 3 , %8.. %8.. ( %8.. %8.. , $ $ < ! 138 " H'H

, $ $ 2 $ 8 A< PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

202 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 14: ) = < 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ',!& ! :( '< ! 148 = ' > < 1 " 2 2,313 1,003 ( > > < 2,313 1,003

! 15: 7 ) = <

+! ! 158 % 7 1 " $ 2 20 13 ( 7 20 13

! 16: A > <

!! #(

! 168 C < 31 25 ( C < 31 25 PART 7 PART

! 17: ' (A

%7> A 25 6

)@$ " $ " : FINANCIAL STATEMENTS )@$ : E 7> A 25 6 0 $/ ) 2,313 1,003 3 / ) 2 6 )7 (20) 67 0 )) : ) C )$ 4 / ) 0)/ : 61 $ 0 7 44 540 , 0) (2,331) 68!7 > A 31 25

! 18: >#A , $ #$ $ #$ " +9$ .+6.++/ 7<

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 203 " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 19:

2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ! 198 > 3 / #$ 31 25 > 31 25

! 19B: 'H1#C 'H" H'H , $ 2$ A8 #$ A A A< PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

204 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements ------?A@ ./

?215@ ?215@ , ------2011 ./ 35144 35144 77 7 @ ? 77 7 ------( ./ 31 31 77 7 ------2156 2156 4 ;<, $ $ ------51 51 $% ./ ./ ------?@ 77 7 ?215@ ?215@ PART 7 PART 77 7 ------./ ./ 174,005 174,005 77 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .+$ )$ <, >*8'(!8+++ $ >8*(8+++< & " #$ : ) 77 7

77 7 ?/' < A=( </@ & $ : #$ 3 ) 0 )) 8),8-, 3 " - ) 0 )) 20: % < % < % < % < # 67 #$ #$ : 5 <=& 8 ) $ $ ) )6-<88!7.++/ +88. ! $ ) )6-<.88%7.++/ .88 '< " #$ %&'(%&('# ! (A -'("!(# ( 7 -" ! ('- ( " & 0 < +9$ : $ <, $ : ; .+8 : $ $ ) )6-<7.++.+&/>!8*.8+++< 6 7>%.8+++8 4, >!8+++8 ) .+&"

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 205 ?A@ ./ (9,898) (9,898) , 2010 ./ 152,726 152,726 77 7 @ ? 77 7 ( ./ 142,828 142,828 77 7 7,479 4 ;<, $ $ 40 7,479 40 % $ ./ ./ ?@ 77 7 (430) (430) (12,610) 77 7 430 430 ./ ./ PART 7 147,919 (12,610) 147,919 77 7 8+++8 4, >(8+++8 >!8((8+++ $ >8%'8+++< & " #$ : ) : ; & 0 < : FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

77 7 ?/' < A=( </@? @ : #$ 3 ) - & $ ) % < % < % < % < # .++8 : $ " #$ %&'(%&('# (A 2010 -'("!(# ( 7 -" ! ('- ( " : $ <, $ $ $ 67) )6-<7.++*.++ &/>.8%+8+++< 6 7 , >.* 67 #$ #$ : 5 <=& 8 ) $ $ ) )6-<87.++*+/ +8 . $ ) )6-<.87.++*+/ <

206 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# (AB:&7-7 77 7 ?/' < A=( </@ 2011 2010 ./ $'000 ) )6-<7.++(+* - (+ ) )6-<7.++*+ - .8'*+ ) )6-<7.++*+ - 1,261 ) )6-<7.++ 8,190 , 8,190 8 E $ & 0)& #$ <

(A :777 7 ?/' < A=( </@

77 7 77 2011 2010 ( 7 7 ./ $'000 # 1 $ $ / *2295 4 & N) O 3& "$ 6$ ( *7 1 $ 3&)*'! 20

( 20 PART 7 PART

(A-:' ?/' < A=( </@

( ( ( 2011 C 77 7 % < $ / - - - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ( - - - " # ?@ ! A A A G

( ( ( 2010 C 77 7 ?@ ?@ % < $ / +8+++<++ +8+++<++ ( +8+++<++ +8+++<++ " # ?@ ! A A A G 6.7 , $ .++*+ 67 , $ .++

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 207 " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 21: 7

#> 7 ? :"@ 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ) / : " )$ )8**'/.+67<

" $ /5 .++C% $)$ 3" $ )$ .++<

0$ / $ & & <

$"& $ 87 .*( 701 530 ( 788 (.( <A 7 : 0 / 141 ' ( 141 ' ( A 7 647 ('

% ( " 7 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ) / : " )$ )**'.+<

" $ /) :) .++C<5 .C+C.++<

0$ / 2 $ $ & & <

$ 4 PART 7 5 * ( 9 * <A 7 : 0 / 9 *+ ( 9 *+ ( A 7 : FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

208 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 22: 7 -A'

2011 2010 -7 $ $

-;)4 ; 2 & $ $ " " <6.++/- 2 7< -

-& $ & " )$ 4 & $$ $ 67 : " )$ )**'<6.++/ -& O -

- & $ 5 $ 5 ) 655)7 $ " " <6.++/- 7 - -

- 2" & $ " " <6.++/- 7 - 1

- & $ ")0 $$ ' 0$ )***60)7$ " " <6.++/- 7 - -

2011 2010 $ $

-;)4 ; 2 & $ $ " " 6.++/- 7 PART 2 7 -

-& $ & " )$ 4 & $$ $ 67 : " )$ )**'<6.++/ -& 7 - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

- 2" & $ " " <6.++/- 7

5 $ 5 ) 655)7 $ " " <6.++/- 7 -

- & $ ")0 $$ ' 0$ )***60)7$ " " <6.++/- 7

) $ & " & & $$ 3& 1 "$ 631 "7 3&)< & " 3 " )631 "6'767 $ 3 A631 "6'767<0 " 2 $ 3&1 "$ & $$ 631 "6'76 77< - -

-$ 2 & 2,278 .8(.

)"" " $ && 2 & < 699,481 %%8'

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 209 5 ** !* %% .++ >;+++ 8++ 8++ 8%%% 8+* 8+* %%8. %%8..' !+8!. : ( 20 35 4 03 1 1 103 $'000 163 163 3216 3214 2143

5 ** !* %% .++

>;+++ 8++ 8++ 8%%% 8+* 8+* %%8. %%8..' !+8!. : 20 35 4 03 % 1 1 103 $'000 163 163 3216 3214 2143 PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

e '7 > % ! % -< 8 23: 23 ) $ @ $ 8 $ $;$$<, $ & & $ $" < & $ 8 $ $;$$<, $ ! " #$ %&'(%&('# ! .+ <, & $ 6 72 , $)$ $ ) " 7 ) 5 ( :> < ) , 5 , ( % ;: 5 ( ! < $ " $ $" $ <1 $ 1 $ ", " $ - <<- & $ " 222) $ 1 <

210 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements 49 591 287 2010 $'000 5,583 4,510 2,470 4,604 7,608 1,367 3,223 3,606 1,897 2,728 70,610 64,067 20,853 18,398 18,427 13,076 58,433 13,716 19,684 38,025 166,214 152,566 167,248 ( 2 22 200 3152 102 162 10 0136 12 5134 1540 1342 124 10 1652 $'000 0122 314 1034 31360 1004 46124 51060 0145 3216 4213 2012 49 591 287 2010 $'000 5,583 4,510 2,470 4,604 7,608 1,367 3,223 3,606 1,897 2,728 70,610 64,067 20,853 18,398 18,427 13,076 58,433 13,716 19,684 38,025 166,214 152,566 167,248 2 22 200 % 3152 102 162 10 0136 12 5134 1540 1342 124 10 1652 $'000 0122 314 1034 31360 1004 46124 51060 0145 3216 4213 2012 PART 7 PART e FINANCIAL STATEMENTS A % " & $ " $ $" $ < " & $ " $ e: "E -7 71 1#A "E -7 B: 23 $ 5 $ : 3& $ : $$ 2 " " 2 $ " #$ , )$ $ 3 $ " $$ 8 #$ " $ " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 78 -7 ( -7 ( -7 ( -7 #A ( $ $ - <<- &

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 211 13 13 25 25 2010 $'000 1,003 1,003 - ( 20 20 1 1 $'000 13 13 25 25 2010 $'000 1,003 1,003 - 20 20 % 1 1 $'000 e PART 7 A % FINANCIAL STATEMENTS e "E 71 1#A "E 8 23 1 " $ 1 " 2 #$ " #$ %&'(%&('# ! 7 ( ( ( #A ( $ - <<

212 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Financial Statements " #$ %&'(%&('#

! 24: 7 < ? @ A A 2011 2010 $'000 $'000 ( 7 < ? @ A A

, 6 7 $ )$ 4 1. ?616@ 5,095 0 $/ 2 5 2 3152 , 6 7 $ $ ?136@ 5,095 1.) < PART 7 PART FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 213

PART 8 APPENDICES

Appendices

Appendix 1:

Table 8.1 Agency resource statement—2010–11

Actual available Payments Balance appropriation for made remaining 2010–11 2010–11 2010–11 $’000 $’000 $’000 Ordinary Annual Services a

Prior year departmental appropriation 14 131 c 14 131 0

Departmental appropriation 158 082 d 149 917 8165 e

GST receiveable 691 -53 744

s.30 relevant agency receipts f 51 51 0

s.31 relevant agency receipts g 5198 5198 0

Total 178 153 169 244 8909

Administered expenses

Outcome 1 0 0

Total 0 0

Total ordinary annual services 178 153 169 244 8 PART

Special Accounts

Opening balance 0

Payments made 0 APPENDICES

Total Special Account 0 0 0

Total net resourcing for Family Court of 178 153 169 244 Australia b

a Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010–11 and Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2010–11 This 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 services for other government and non- agency bodies have been excluded from the above table, consistent with the Resource Statement in the 2010–11 Budget. c Unspent Departmental Annual Appropriations for 2009–10 per Note 19 – Table B. d Departmental Appropriations for Ordinary Annual Services per Note 19 – Table A Appropriation Act (No. 1 & No. 3) 2010–11. e Includes cash on hand at 30 June 2011. f Section 30 Receipts per Note 19 – Table A – excludes Net GST payable to/from ATO. g Section 31 Receipts per Note 19 – Table A.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 217 Appendix 2:

Table 8.2 Expenses and Resources for Outcome 1

Outcome 1: As Australia’s specialist superior family Budget 1 Actual Expenses Variation court, determine cases with complex law and facts, 2010–11 2010–11 2010–11 and provide national coverage as the appellate court $’000 $’000 $’000 in family law matters (a) (b) (a) - (b)

Program 1.1: Provision of a Family Court

Administered expenses

Ordinary Annual Services (Appropriation Bill No. 1 & No. 3) 0 0 0

Departmental expenses

Ordinary Annual Services (Appropriation Bill No. 1 & No. 3) 143 204 146 841 -3637

Revenues from independent sources (incl. Section 31) 2923 4256 -1333

Expenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 2 17 997 14 283 3714

Total expenses for Outcome 1 3 164 124 165 380 -1256

2009–10 2010–11

Average Stafﬁng Level (number) 600 595

1 Full year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2010–11 Budget.

2 Includes liabilities assumed by related entities for the Judges Pension Scheme and resources received free of charge for Australian National Audit Ofﬁce Services PART 8 3 Special public money special accounts, litigants fund special account and other trust moneys, have been excluded from the above table, consistent with the Resource Statement in the 2010–11 Budget. APPENDICES

218 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 3: Stafﬁng proﬁle

Staffing profile At 30 June 2011, the Court had 615 employees (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees) covered by the Enterprise Agreement, AWAs and common law contracts, four less than at 30 June 2010. Of those: 187 (30.41 per cent) were male and 428 (69.59 percent) were female compared with 189 and 430, respectively, at 30 June 2010 541 (87.97 per cent) were ongoing employees and 74 (12.03 per cent) were non-ongoing employees.

The following tables show staff statistics by location, gender, full-time and part-time status, and ongoing and non-ongoing.

Table 8.3 Staff by location

Level ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total

APS 1 1 1

APS 2 222 9412159

APS 3 6 97543314635182

APS 4 5 1 16 30 17 5 3 12 89 PART 8 PART APS 5 11181911133865

APS 6 1304 1 4 444

EL 1 53225154318102 APPENDICES EL 2 1 1 14 22 12 4 2 9 65

SES 1 31 1 16

SES 2 112

Total 18 4 125 199 5 99 38 18 109 615

Note: Actual occupancy at 30 June 2011 includes full- and part-time staff* with the exception of judicial ofﬁcers and casual employees. *All ﬁgures in the above table are based on actual headcount.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 219 Table 8.4 Staff by gender

Level Gender ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total

APS 1 Male 1 1

APS 2 Female 2 14 6 3 13 38

Male 8 311821

APS 3 Female 3 8 58 3 26 8 5 22 133

Male 3 1 17 17611349

APS 4 Female 3 1 11 25 14 4 3 8 69

Male 2 5 5 3 1 4 20

APS 5 Female 1 9 17 1 11 3 2 6 50

Male 1 9 2 1 2 15

APS 6 Female 1 16 4 1 3 4 29

Male 14 1 15

EL 1 Female 4 10 22 13 3 3 11 66

Male 1 22 3 2 1 7 36

EL 2 Female 1 1 4 14 731839

Male 10 8 511126

SES 1 Female 1 1 1 3

Male 2 1 3 PART 8 SES 2 Female 1 1

Male 1 1

Total 18 4 125 199 5 99 38 18 109 615 APPENDICES

220 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Table 8.5 Staff by attendance status

Level Attendance ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total

APS 1 Part-time 1 1

APS 2 Full-time 2 16 8 3 1 18 48

Part-time 6 1 1 3 11

APS 3 Full-time 5 5 50 3 27 11 5 26 132

Part-time 1 4 25 1631950

APS 4 Full-time 5 1 13 23 16 3 2 10 73

Part-time 3 7 121216

APS 5 Full-time 1 1 14 18 1 11 3 3 8 60

Part-time 4 1 5

APS 6 Full-time 1 24 3 1 4 3 36

Part-time 6 1 1 8

EL 1 Full-time 2 28 19 11 2 1 14 77

Part-time 3 4 6 422425

EL 2 Full-time 1 1 14 17 10 4 1 5 53

Part-time 5 2 1 4 12

SES 1 Full-time 3 1 1 1 6 PART 8 PART SES 2 Full-time 1 1 2

Total 18 4 125 199 5 99 38 18 109 615 APPENDICES Note: Judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer, who are holders of public office, and casual employees are not included in the above tables.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 221 Table 8.6 Ongoing staff by location and classiﬁcation

Level ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total

APS 1 1 1

APS 2 218 7311950

APS 3 2 96533113632161

APS 4 3 1 14 23 13 3 2 9 68

APS 5 1118181933862

APS 6 1283 1 4 340

EL 1 5 2623 12431689

EL 2 1 1 14 20 12 4 2 8 62

SES 1 31 1 16

SES 2 112

Total 12 4 115 172 4 86 34 17 97 541

Table 8.7 Non-ongoing staff, by location and classiﬁcation

Level ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total

APS 1

APS 2 42129

APS 3 4 10121 321 PART 8 APS 4 2 27 421321

APS 5 12 3

APS 6 21 14

APPENDICES EL 1 62 3 213

EL 2 213

SES 1

SES 2

Total 6 0 10 27 1 13 4 1 12 74

Legend: SES – Senior Executive Officer CJ – Office of Chief Justice, Melbourne NSO – National Support Office, Canberra

222 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Judicial ofﬁcers At 30 June 2011, there were 31 judges, including the Chief Justice; 11 female and 20 male.

Table 8.8 Total number of judges, 30 June 2011

Location Judges

New South Wales 13 Victoria 1 Chief Justice 5

Queensland 6

South Australia 3

Tasmania 1 Australian Capital Territory 1 Deputy Chief Justice 1

Total 31 PART 8 PART APPENDICES

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 223 Workforce turnover During 2010–11, 99 employees and judicial ofﬁcers left the Court (34 were non-ongoing, 61 were ongoing employees and four were holders of Public Ofﬁce), being an annual turnover rate of 15.3 per cent against total staff numbers at 30 June 2011.*

Table 8.9 Workforce turnover

Employment type Reason Total

Abandon contract 1 Non-ongoing employees Health reasons 1 5.26% Resignation 32

Total non-ongoing employees 34

Deceased 1

Inter department transfer 10

Redundancy 13 Ongoing employees Resigned 24 9.43% Retirement age 60–65 4

Retirement age over 65 5

Retirement age under 60 4

Total ongoing employees 61

Public ofﬁce holders Retirement age over 65 4 PART 8 0.62%

Total public ofﬁce holders 4

Total workforce turnover 99

APPENDICES Note: The above figures do not include non-ongoing employees whose actual period of engagement reached their non-ongoing contract date of expiry. *Total staff numbers for the above table include all employees and public office holders (judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer) as at 30 June 2011 (total headcount of 647).

224 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Agreement making

Collective Agreement and Enterprise Agreement On 25 June 2010, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs, commenced. It had a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2011. At 30 June 2011, 581 Family Court employees were covered by the Enterprise Agreement.

Table 8.10 Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010

Level Female Male Total

APS 1 1 1

APS 2 37 21 58

APS 3 133 49 182

APS 4 67 20 87

APS 5 50 15 65

APS 6 27 14 41

EL 1 63 31 94

EL 2 36 17 53

Total 413 168 581 PART 8 PART APPENDICES

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 225 Other agreements While government policy no longer allows for the making of new AWAs, at 30 June 2011, 33 employees had enforceable AWAs in place. In some limited cases, the Family Court has used common law contracts and determination 24 instruments pursuant to the Australian Public Service Act 1999 to build upon existing AWA arrangements. At 30 June 2011: 15 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts 49 employees had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments no employees had employment arrangements covered by individual ﬂexibility arrangements.

Table 8.11 Employees covered by other agreements

Australian Workplace Determination 24 Common law contracts Agreements arrangements

Level Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total

APS 1

APS 2 11 11

APS 3 1 1

APS 4 22

APS 5 1 1

APS 6 213 22235 PART 8 EL 1 3581345813

EL 2 391226851520

SES 1 2351 1336

SES 2 112 112 APPENDICES Total 14 19 33 4 11 15 19 30 49

226 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Non-salary beneﬁts Non-salary beneﬁts provided by the Court to employees include motor vehicles, car parking, superannuation, computers including home-based computer access, membership of professional associations and organisations, mobile phones and airline club memberships.

Performance pay arrangements The Court’s industrial instruments do not include provision for performance based pay to employees. No employees received performance pay during 2010–11.

Table 8.12 AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classiﬁcation

Classiﬁcation Salary Range ($)

APS 2 54 276 – 54 276

APS 3 57 861 – 57 861

APS 4 56 549 – 66 487

APS 5 67 748 – 67 748

APS 6 72 113 – 86 559

EL 1 90 014 – 114 358

EL 2 119 047 – 145 200

SES 1 160 546 – 191 858

SES 2 184 721 – 196 970 PART 8 PART APPENDICES

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 227 Table 8.13 Classiﬁcation structure and pay rates*

APS classiﬁcation Salary rates on 1 January 2011 1 July 2011 and no. of staff 1 July 2010

APS 1 – 1 employee $39 727 $40 323 $41 533

$40 802 $41 414 $42 657

$42 481 $43 118 $44 412

APS 2 – 59 employees $43 499 $44 151 $45 476

$45 871 $46 559 $47 956

$48 239 $48 962 $50 432

APS 3 – 182 employees $50 834 $51 597 $53 145

$52 124 $52 906 $54 494

$53 474 $54 276 $55 905

APS 4 – 89 employees $56 978 $57 833 $59 568

$58 458 $59 335 $61 116

$59 956 $60 855 $62 681

APS 5 – 65 employees $61 593 $62 517 $64 393

$63 523 $64 476 $66 411

$65 312 $66 292 $68 281

APS 6 – 44 employees $66 525 $67 523 $69 937 PART 8 $70 454 $71 511 $73 657

$76 415 $77 562 $79 888

EL 1 – 102 employees $85 280 $86 560 $89 156

$88 684 $90 014 $92 715 APPENDICES $92 086 $93 467 $96 272

EL 2 – 65 employees $98 359 $99 834 $105 266

$103 765 $105 322 $108 481

$111 514 $113 187 $116 583

$113 277 $114 976 $118 426

$115 241 $116 970 $120 480

$118 185 $119 957 $123 557

* excludes casual employees

228 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 4: Occupational health and safety

Occupational health and safety Maintaining the health and safety of staff and all those who use the Court’s premises is integral to the business and values of the Court. The Court is therefore committed to: compliance by itself and its personnel with all applicable statutory and other health and safety obligations, 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 to health and safety, and making good occupational health and safety (OHS) practice part of business-as-usual for all managers and staff.

The Court achieves this through: actively preventing work-related injury and illness via regular workplace checks and inspections providing access to information, training, professional support and advice on OHS issues via the Court’s intranet, training programs and other means consulting with staff and their representatives on the development and variation of health and safety management arrangements advising managers and staff of their OHS responsibilities, and

ensuring health and safety representatives have the time and resources to reasonably perform their 8 PART role.

The Court recognises that effective health and safety management reduces the social and financial costs of occupational injury and illness. APPENDICES During 2010–11, the Court: conducted OHS audits throughout all registries and the National Support Office created an electronic database of all first aid officers, health and safety representatives and fire wardens, and ensured all front line employees were trained on How to Deal with Difficult and Persistent Clients.

Workers’ compensation and early intervention management The Court continued to manage its workers compensation cases proactively throughout the year, which reﬂected in the continued reduction of premiums. Proactive case management helped achieve a continued low number of claims being lodged and, similarly, the costs associated with such possible claims being kept low. This has ensured a continued savings in the Court’s workers’ compensation premium for 2011–12. See Table 8.14 for comparative detail.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 229 Table 8.14 Comcare premium rates, 2007–08 to 2011–12

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Family Court of Australia 1.91% 1.35% 1.48% 1.21% 1.16% All Agencies combined 1.55% 1.36% 1.25% 1.20% 1.41% Variance 0.36 -0.01 0.23 0.01 -0.25 PART 8 APPENDICES

230 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 5: Freedom of information The Court received nil Freedom of Information requests during 2010–11 for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 April 2011. At 30 April 2011 there were no matters outstanding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Table 8.15 FOI requests over the last seven ﬁnancial years

Financial Year Number of requests

2010–11 0 (1 July 2010–30 April 2011)

2009–10 0

2008–09 0

2007–08 4

2006–07 3

2005–06 3

2004–05 1

From 1 May 2011, agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) are required to publish information to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme (IPS). This requirement, in Part II of the FOI Act, has replaced the former requirement to publish a section 8 statement in an

annual report. An agency plan showing what information is published in accordance with the IPS 8 PART requirements is accessible from agency websites. Information about FOI and the IPS agency plan for the Family Court can be found under Quick Links on the top page of the Family Court website at: APPENDICES http://www.familycourt.gov.au, and http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/home/about/FOI/. Information about FOI and the IPS agency plan for the Family Court can also be found on the Family Law Courts website at: http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/About+Us/Fre edom+of+Information+%26+Information+Publication+Scheme/

Facilities for access Freedom of Information requests are handled at the national level. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not apply to any request for access to a document of the Court, unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature—see section 5 of the Act. Broadly speaking, this means that the Act does not apply to documents related to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court. The availability of documents outside the Freedom of Information Act is subject to the Family Law Act and the Family Law Rules that generally conﬁne access to court ﬁles or registry indexes to parties, or their representatives, to particular proceedings.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 231 Facilities for examining documents and obtaining copies are available at the Court’s registries. Freedom of Information enquiries should be directed to: FOI Coordinator Family Court of Australia PO Box 9991 Canberra ACT 2601

Categories of documents The Court maintains the following categories of documents: general correspondence client feedback correspondence those concerning the development and implementation of policy, standards, guidelines and procedures records of meetings and conferences addresses and speeches published by the Court those concerning administration and financial aspects of the Court those concerning research projects, submissions, reports, audits, evaluations and reviews, including statistical information gathered by court staff those concerning security aspects of the Court personnel files first instance and appeal case files, comprising all documents filed in the Court or transferred from other jurisdictions (for example, formal applications and supporting affidavits) and records of all PART 8 orders made in court proceedings an alphabetical index in each registry (in card form or computerised recording system) of all parties who have commenced or continued proceedings in that registry, and family consultant interview records (hard copy and/or computerised) that record particulars of any

APPENDICES persons having presented themselves to the child dispute services section of the Court (whether voluntarily or under court direction).

Other documents The Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not apply to single copies of all printed materials listed below which may be obtained free of charge upon request from all family law registries.

Prescribed brochures and forms When certain applications are filed, the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law Rules 2004 require court staff to give specific brochures to the person filing the application (the applicant). The Act and Rules also require the applicant to provide specific brochures, along with other court documents, to the other party (the respondent). These are known as ‘prescribed’ brochures. Listed below are the brochures that were prescribed in this manner at 30 June 2011.

232 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Prescribed brochures Before you file—Pre-action procedure for parenting cases. Distributed in accordance with Rule 1.05 and Schedule 1. Before you file—Pre-action procedure for financial cases. Distributed in accordance with Rule 1.05 and Schedule 1. Costs Notice Chapter 19. Distributed in accordance with Chapter 19 of the Family Law Rules 2004. Enforcement hearings. Served in accordance with Rule 20.11(3)(b). Experts Conference. Distributed in accordance with Rule 15.69. Marriage, Families and Separation. Distributed in accordance with Part IIIA of the Family Law Act 1975. Subpoena—Information for named person (served with a subpoena). Distributed in accordance with Rule 15.28. Third party debt notices. Distributed in accordance with Rule 1.05 and Schedule 1.

Prescribed forms There was one prescribed Family Court form, Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence (Form 4), at 30 June 2011. The remainder of the Family Court forms are approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to Rule 24.04(1).

Client information The Family Court also provides a wide range of forms authorised by the Principal Registrar and general information material such as do-it-yourself kits, fact sheets, brochures and booklets. All forms and PART 8 PART publications are available from the Court’s registries and/or at www.familylawcourts.gov.au APPENDICES

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 233 Appendix 6: Advertising and market research Under section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Court is required to disclose particulars of payments of $11 200 or more (inclusive of GST) for advertising, market research, polling organisations, direct mail and media advertising. The Court spent a total of $39 809 during 2010–11 in advertising and market research, comprising mainly payments to media advertising organisations for recruitment and tender notices handled by ADCORP Marketing Communications ($28 520). During 2010–11, the Family Court did not conduct any advertising campaigns. PART 8 APPENDICES

234 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 7: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance The following information is provided in accordance with Section 516A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999.

Court activities and ESD As noted in its Environmental Policy, the Family Court: “…recognises the importance of implementing sound environmental practices in all court functions…” This overarching commitment to ecologically sustainable development (ESD) was augmented in multiple ways by the Family Court during 2010–11, with a signiﬁcant increase in awareness and implementation of initiatives across the Court. Since the appointment, in May 2010, of an Environmental Manager, there has been increased impetus and focus on the Court’s environmental performance.

Impacts on the environment The Court impacts on the environment in a number of areas, primarily in the consumption of resources. Table 8.16 lists environmental impact/usage data where available. Data for the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court cannot be accurately separated, therefore the data provided in Table 8.16 is total combined data for both courts unless speciﬁed. Any data relating to Commonwealth Law Courts has been calculated using the occupation apportionment percentage allocated to the Court.

Table 8.16 Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court environmental impact/usage data

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 PART 8 PART

50 215* GJ Data not available Energy usage (stationary) 50 191 GJ (GigaJoules) until October 2011

11 365 tonnes CO2-e 11 363 tonnes CO2-e APPENDICES 21 955 reams office 22 375 reams office 22 510 reams office Paper usage paper paper paper

Water usage (Commonwealth Law 27 205 kL (Kilolitres) 25 680 kL 24 519 kL Courts only)

Transport

Data not available Vehicles—energy usage 1882 GJ (Gigajoules) 1681 GJ until October 2011

128 tonnes CO2-e 113 tonnes CO2-e

* An error has been found in the 2008–09 energy data reported for the CLCs under the Energy Efficiency in Government Operations (EEGO) Policy reporting requirements. The figure quoted above is the correct figure.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 235 Measures to minimise the Court’s environmental impact

Environmental Management System (EMS) The Court is currently developing a corporate Environmental Management System (EMS) to ensure a systematic approach to improving its environmental performance. The development and implementation of an EMS is generally completed in stages over time. Within the EMS, at 30 June 2011 the following had been completed: an environmental policy outlining the Court’s broad commitment to environmental management (developed and released in 2009–10) an environmental risk register identifying signiﬁcant environmental aspects and impacts for the Court and treatment strategies to mitigate them an environmental legal register to identify any relevant environmental legal requirements for the Court (this register also includes other requirements such as applicable Federal Government policy requirements) an environmental annual plan (or environmental objectives, targets and programs) to identify environmental targets and associated performance indicators an EMS management review report to ensure management is informed of the status of the EMS and to provide an opportunity for feedback and endorsement, and online training developed for staff regarding relevant environmental issues included within an existing induction e-learning package.

Other measures During 2010–11, the Court worked to minimise its environmental impact through a number of speciﬁc measures, either new or continuing, as follows. PART 8 Energy Energy audits were undertaken at a number of sites and recommendations implemented where feasible. Recommendations implemented in 2010–11 included: – lighting upgrades at Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville registries to more energy efﬁcient lights

APPENDICES and more effective controls. Preliminary data indicates reductions in energy use have been achieved, with more comprehensive results available pending a review of a full year of data. – installation of supplementary air conditioning controls – timers reprogrammed in kitchen hot water units, and – rationalisation of electronic equipment such as printers. Signage was provided to all court locations reminding staff to turn off lights when not required.

Information technology An internal ICT sustainability plan was developed to ensure the requirements for the Federal Government ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15 are met. A message was added to the bottom of IT staff notiﬁcation emails reminding staff to turn off computers and monitors at the end of the day.

236 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Paper Awareness of paper use was increased via information presented to the National Consultative Committee (NCC) for broader dissemination and the Court’s internal e-newsletter Courtside. Fifty per cent recycled content paper was piloted at the National Support Ofﬁce with a national rollout of this initiative from 1 July 2011. This will meet a mandatory requirement of the Federal Government ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15. Secure paper (conﬁdential etc.) continued to be shredded and recycled for all court locations. The availability of non-secure paper recycling was increased by one site.

Waste/cleaning A waste recycling (plastics, metal, cardboard etc) program was implemented at the National Support Ofﬁce. As a result, approximately 25 per cent of waste that was previously sent to landﬁll is now recycled. Waste recycling is now available at 15 court locations. At 30 June 2011, national cleaning contracts were being prepared to go to tender. These include environmental considerations, such as recycling of waste where possible and environmentally friendly cleaning products. The number of sites with recycling facilities for printer toner cartridges increased by three to a total of 17. Recycling facilities for staff personal mobiles were established at 10 sites. Electronic media (CDs, work mobiles etc.) continued to be securely shredded and components recycled where possible.

Corporate culture/communication 8 PART In July 2010 an Environmental Champions Network (ECN) was formally established. This comprises of volunteers from 10 court locations, with the goal ultimately to have all locations represented. The network provides an opportunity for staff to be involved in the direction the Court takes on APPENDICES environmental matters and to provide ‘coal face’ input about potential areas of improvement. Initiatives to date include: – Earth Hour participation nationally, and – a national ‘mobile muster’ as part of National Recycling Week. In June 2010, an environmental management intranet page was established to keep staff informed about environmental issues for the Court. Feedback received during 2010–11 indicated the information had been well received. Regular articles about the Court’s environmental status were included in the internal e-newsletter Courtside. In June 2011, the Court became a member of the federal government agency environmental network (GAEN), an interagency network facilitating the sharing of best practice environmental information. Its membership includes approximately 30 agencies.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 237 Property Fitouts and refurbishments continued to be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner including by: – recycling demolished materials where possible – maximising reuse of existing furniture and fittings – engaging consultants with experience in sustainable development where possible, and – maximising use of environmentally friendly products such as recycled content in furniture and fittings, low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paint and adhesives, and energy efficient lighting and air conditioning. Travel Accessibility of video conferencing was increased, which is expected to help reduce travel requirements.

Review and improvement strategies

Environmental Management System The primary tool used for reviewing and improving effectiveness of environmental impacts is the Court’s Environmental Management System (EMS). Whilst the EMS is still under development, elements of it (as detailed above) have established initial benchmarking and treatment strategies for identiﬁed environmental impacts. At 30 June 2011, annual reviews of the following elements were completed or close to completion, helping ensure continual improvement of measures and effectiveness: Environmental risk register (signiﬁcant environmental aspects and impacts)

PART 8 EMS management review.

Other measures External reporting requirements, such as under the Energy Efﬁciency in Government Operations (EEGO) Policy and the Australian Packaging Covenant, provide annual snapshots of the Court’s performance in areas associated with the environment. This enabled the Court to track its progress in areas such as APPENDICES energy use and identify areas of potential improvement.

Additional ESD implications In 2010–11, the Court did not administer any legislation with ecologically sustainable development (ESD) implications nor did it have outcomes speciﬁed in an Appropriations Act with ESD implications.

238 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 8: Grant programs The Family Court made no grant payments during 2010–11. PART 8 PART APPENDICES

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 239 Appendix 9: Consultant services contracts let during 2010–11, of $10 000 or more

Table 8.17 Consultant services contracts let during 2010–11, of $10 000 or more

Consultant Description of Contract price Selection process Justiﬁcation name services (Inc GST) (1) (2)

Antons Video For the ﬁlming and production of Productions Pty $16 291 Direct sourcing A/B an judicial educational DVD Ltd

Cocoon Design Architectural services $51 183 Direct sourcing A/B Pty Ltd

Connley Walker Relating to replacement of duress $16 500 Direct sourcing B Pty Ltd alarm system—Sydney registry

Davenport Campbell & Architectural services $86 900 Direct sourcing A/B Partners Pty Ltd

Project management services Heyday Group for installation of a central $10 033 Direct sourcing A/B Pty Ltd Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) system

Financial services—development KPMG $34 520 Open tender A/B of a capital budget PART 8 Undertake a ﬁnancial health Oakton Services check of the Family Court and $26 730 Open tender A/B Pty Ltd Federal Magistrates Court

Planwell Technology Pty Remedy consulting services $222 090 Direct sourcing A/B APPENDICES Ltd

Regal Information A study into IT directory services $56 925 Direct sourcing A/B Technology Pty Ltd (Regal IT)

For the development of judicial Richard Chisholm $25 000 Direct sourcing A/B education material

Cost advisory and quantity WT Partnership $20 000 Direct sourcing A/B surveying services

240 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices LEGEND (1) Explanation of selection process terms: Open tender: A procurement process in which a request for tender is published inviting all businesses that satisfy the conditions for participation to submit tenders. Public tenders are sought from the market place using national and major metropolitan newspaper advertising and the Australian Government AusTender website. Select tender: a procurement procedure in which the procuring agency selects which potential suppliers are invited to submit tenders. Tenders are invited from a short list of competent suppliers. Direct sourcing: A form of restricted tendering, available only under certain defined circumstances, with potential suppliers invited to bid because of their unique expertise and/or their special ability to supply goods and/or services sought. Panel: An arrangement under which a number of suppliers, usually selected through a single procurement process, may each supply property or services to an agency as specified in the panel arrangements. Tenders are sought from suppliers that have pre-qualified on the agency panels to supply to the government. This category includes standing offers and suppliers panels where the consultant offers to supply goods and services for pre-determined length of time, usually at a pre- arranged price.

(2) Justiﬁcation for decisions to use consultancy A – skills currently unavailable within the Court B – need for specialised or professional skills C – need for independent research or assessment. PART 8 PART APPENDICES

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 241 Appendix 10: Committees

Table 8.18 Judicial committees, 30 June 2011

Title Chair Members Terms of reference Chief Justice’s Policy Chief Justice t %$+'BVMLT To support the Chief Justice in the Advisory Bryant t +VTUJDF'JOO administration of the Court and provide t +VTUJDF4USJDLMBOE her with advice on strategy and policy t +VTUJDF8BUUT t +VTUJDF3ZBO t +VTUJDF$SPOJO t +VTUJDF.VSQIZ t $&0 3JDIBSE'PTUFS t 1SJODJQBM3FHJTUSBS "OHFMB Filippello) t 1SJODJQBM$IJME%JTQVUF4FSWJDFT (Pam Hemphill) Access to Justice Chief Justice t $VMUVSBMEJWFSTJUZQPSUGPMJP To oversee the Court’s cultural diversity (comprising the Bryant Justice Mushin plan and provide advice to the Chief Cultural Diversity, t "54*QPSUGPMJP+VTUJDF#FOKBNJO Justice and CEO on cultural diversity Aboriginal and t 4FMGSFQSFTFOUFEMJUJHBOU issues, special needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait QPSUGPMJP+VTUJDF$PMMJFS Torres Strait Islander people and self Islander and Self represented litigants Represented Litigants Committees) Benchbook (joint Justice t +VTUJDF8BUUT To review and update the electronic committee) Ainslie-Wallace t +VTUJDF'PXMFS benchbook which contains commentary t )PO3JDIBSE$IJTIPMN on a range of legal topics and principles (consultant) encountered in the day to day work of

PART 8 the judiciary and registrars and provides t OPNJOBUFEMFHBMBTTPDJBUF a comprehensive list of orders t 'BNJMZ-BX*OGPSNBUJPO4FSWJDF representative t *5SFQSFTFOUBUJWF

Costs Advisory (joint Justice t "OESFX1IFMBO )JHI$PVSUPG To advise Justices of the High Court of committee) Benjamin Australia) Australia, Judges of the Federal Court of APPENDICES t +PIO.BUIJFTPO 'FEFSBM$PVSU Australia, Judges of the Family Court of of Australia) Australia, and Federal Magistrates of the t .FMBOJF'BJUIGVMM 'FEFSBM$PVSU Federal Magistrates Court (annually) on of Australia) variations in the quantum of costs for legal practitioners (including expenses t 1SJODJQBM3FHJTUSBS'$P" "OHFMB and fees for witnesses) which may be Filippello) ﬁxed in the rules for which they are t 1SJODJQBM3FHJTUSBS'.$ "EFMF respectively responsible Byrne)

242 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Title Chair Members Terms of reference Family Violence (joint Justice t +VTUJDF$PMMMJFS To complement the implementation of committee) Ryan t +VTUJDF4UFWFOTPO the courts’ Family Violence Strategy and t '.#SPXO provide advice to the Chief Justice, Chief Federal Magistrate and CEO on family t '.)VHIFT violence issues t '."MUPCFMMJ t 1SJODJQBM3FHJTUSBS "OHFMB Filippello) t 'BNJMZDPOTVMUBOU %JBOF Lojszczyk) t 4FOJPS-FHBM3FTFBSDI"EWJTPS (Kristen Murray) Information Justice t '.+BSSFUU To provide advice on the strategic Technology Judicial Cronin t '.3FJUINVMMFS direction of all information technology Reference Group t &YFDVUJWF%JSFDUPS$MJFOU4FSWJDFT within the courts (joint committee) (Stephen Andrew acting) t #VTJOFTT%FWFMPQNFOU.BOBHFS (Phil Hocking) Judicial Development Justice t +VTUJDF$PMMJFS To develop, implement and oversight (joint committee) Benjamin t +VTUJDF.VSQIZ judicial education in the courts t +VTUJDF'PXMFS t +VTUJDF"VTUJO t +VTUJDF"JOTMJF8BMMBDF t +VTUJDF%FTTBV

Judicial Chief Justice t %$+'BVMLT To prepare submissions to annual and Remuneration Bryant t +VTUJDF.BZ other reviews by the Remuneration PART 8 PART t +VTUJDF3PTF Tribunal t +VTUJDF:PVOH t +VTUJDF"VTUJO t +VTUJDF+PIOTUPO APPENDICES Law Reform Justice t $IJFG+VTUJDF#SZBOU To consider and comment upon Strickland t %$+'BVMLT proposed legislation and law reform t +VTUJDF'JOO proposals t +VTUJDF8BUUT t 1SJODJQBM3FHJTUSBS "OHFMB Filippello)

Magellan Justice t 1SJODJQBM3FHJTUSBS "OHFMB To exchange information about support Burr Filippello) for Magellan, report to the Chief t &YFDVUJWF"EWJTPSUPUIF$&0 Justice on its operation, liaise with child (Leisha Lister) welfare and police departments on the evaluation of Magellan and ensure that cases involving allegations of child sexual or serious physical abuse are dealt with as effectively and efﬁciently as possible

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 243 Title Chair Members Terms of reference National Case DCJ Faulks t $BTFNBOBHFNFOUKVEHFT To have overall responsibility for case Management t 1SJODJQBM3FHJTUSBS "OHFMB management within the Court. This Filippello) group can refer case management t 1SJODJQBM$IJME%JTQVUF4FSWJDFT matters requiring determination by the (Pam Hemphill) Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee t &YFDVUJWF"EWJTPSUPUIF$&0 (Leisha Lister) Property Justice t '.%POBME To plan and assess the current and Management (joint Dawe t $&0 3JDIBSE'PTUFS future needs of the courts in relation to committee) t &YFDVUJWF%JSFDUPS$PSQPSBUF property services including contracting, (Grahame Harriott) refurbishment and construction activity t 3FHJTUSZNBOBHFSSFQSFTFOUBUJWF t /BUJPOBM.BOBHFS$POUSBDUTBOE Property (Akasha Atkinson)

Research and Ethics Justice t /PNJOBUFEGFEFSBMNBHJTUSBUFT To consider, monitor and overview (joint committee) Stevenson t 5IF)PO4VTBO.PSHBO all research and evaluation proposals (consultant) (whether internal or external) for t 1SJODJQBM$IJME%JTQVUF4FSWJDFT approval and disseminate research (Pam Hemphill) papers/results as necessary t .BOBHFS4UBUJTUJDBM4FSWJDFT6OJU (Dennis Beissner) t -FHBM$PVOTFM /FJM8BSFIBN

Rules Justice t +VTUJDF4USJDLMBOE To consider all necessary or proposed Ryan t +VTUJDF.VSQIZ rule changes. Section 123 of the Family t +VTUJDF-PVHIOBO Law Act 1975 provides that a majority of judges may make rules of court in t .BHJTUSBUF.PSPOJ relation to practices and procedures to t +PIO'JU[(JCCPO 4FOJPS

PART 8 be followed in the Court Registrar) t +VMJF,FBSOFZ 3FHJTUSBS t 'BNJMZ$PVSU$PVOTFM /FJM Wareham) APPENDICES

244 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Senior management committees

Table 8.19 Senior management governance committees, 30 June 2011

Title Chair Members Terms of reference Chief Executive CEO Family Court t %FQVUZ$&0'FEFSBM.BHJTUSBUFT To provide operational and policy Officer’s and acting CEO Court (Steve Agnew acting) advice to the CEO regarding key Management Federal Magistrates t &YFDVUJWF%JSFDUPS *OGPSNBUJPO areas that are likely to be affected by Advisory Group Court Communication and Technology the integration of the administrations Services Family Court (Stephen of the Family Court and Federal Andrew) Magistrates Court t &YFDVUJWF%JSFDUPS$MJFOU4FSWJDFT Family Court (Stephen Andrew acting) t 3FHJPOBM3FHJTUSZ.BOBHFS +BOF Reynolds Vic/Tas) t &YFDVUJWF%JSFDUPS$PSQPSBUF (Grahame Harriott) t "TTJTUBODFCZ&YFDVUJWF"EWJTPS to the CEO (Leisha Lister) Audit and Risk Chris Doogan AM t &YFDVUJWF%JSFDUPS$PSQPSBUF Monitor and where necessary (external member) (Grahame Harriott) SFDPNNFOEJNQSPWFNFOUTUP t 3FHJTUSZNBOBHFSSFQSFTFOUBUJWF - risk management identification (Greg Thomas, Adelaide) and amelioration t "/"0SFQSFTFOUBUJWFBOEUIF - internal control processes Family Court’s internal auditors (including fraud control) (Oakton Services Pty Ltd) also - the financial reporting process attend meetings as observers

- the functioning of the internal 8 PART t 0BLUPO4FSWJDFT1UZ-UEQSPWJEF audit unit secretariat services - the external audit process - processes for monitoring compliance with legislation, regulations and government APPENDICES policy - maintain an effective working relationship with the ANAO

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 245 Title Chair Members Terms of reference National CEO’s Members are selected by vote and Consultative forum for staff about Consultative representative SFQSFTFOU issues with a national perspective (Simon Kelso, t /BUJPOBM4VQQPSU0GmDF"OOJF such as industrial democracy, Manager Human Fenn (HR consultant) security, the strategic objectives of the Court, equal employment Resources) t "TTPDJBUFT5SJTI;FMMOFS (Brisbane) opportunities, new technology, accommodation and amenities, and t 3FHJTUSBST"UIFOB4JLJPUJT personnel and staffing policies and (Melbourne) practices t $MJFOU4FSWJDFTMBSHFSFHJTUSZ John Green (Melbourne) Delegates present staff views on t $MJFOU4FSWJDFTTNBMMSFHJTUSZ issues that affect the management Carol McPherson (Lismore) and future direction of the Court and t 'BNJMZDPOTVMUBOUT,ZBMM provide feedback and briefings to Shepherd (Melbourne) the workplace nationally t "TTPDJBUFT'.$&NNB Crutchfield (Brisbane) t "SFQSFTFOUBUJWFGSPNUIF Community and Public Sector Union is also invited to attend Staff Development Manager Human t 3FHJTUSZNBOBHFSSFQSFTFOUBUJWF To identify and/or develop national Resources (Simon (Greg Johannesen, North training and development initiatives, Kelso) Queensland) policies and programs t $IJME%JTQVUF4FSWJDFT 1BVM Lodge, Sydney) t 3FHJTUSBST %FCSB1BSLFS Canberra) t $MJFOUTFSWJDFT ,SJTUZ'SFFNF Brisbane)

PART 8 t *OGPSNBUJPO 5FDIOPMPHZBOE Communication Services (Glenda Frew, Sydney) t 3FHJTUSZTFSWJDFTUFBNMFBEFST (Julie Greig, Adelaide) t )3SFQSFTFOUBUJWF 8PSLGPSDF and Policy Manager (Claire APPENDICES Golding) t )3TFDSFUBSJBU -JTB8JMTPO Robyn Birch)

246 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 11: External involvement The Family Court has a number of strategies for strengthening its partnerships with clients and other stakeholders within the family law system, such as legal practitioners, non-government organisations and government agencies and departments. External stakeholders at the strategic level inﬂuence, either directly or indirectly, the direction of the family law system within Australia. They include: the Attorney-General’s Department other government departments and agencies child welfare authorities the Child Support Agency legal services commissions and community legal centres law societies and councils community-based and non-government organisations the Australian Federal Police.

Relationships with these groups are managed either by the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, other judges on behalf of the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer and/or other senior executives. There are a number of established channels through which external stakeholders may inform the Court and affect its processes and client service delivery, including the following.

Family Law Council 8 PART The Family Law Council, established by the Attorney-General under section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975, confers with the Court in the course of its consideration of particular aspects of family law. The Court has judges appointed to the council and senior executives as observers at its meetings. APPENDICES

Australian Institute of Family Studies The Australian Institute of Family Studies was established under section 114B of the Family Law Act and is a forum for exchange of information and research.

Family Law section of the Law Council of Australia The Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice meet quarterly with the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia. There are regular liaison meetings between the state law societies and bar associations and each of the Court’s registries.

Family Law Forum The Chief Justice chairs the national Family Law Forum, which consists of representatives from the Family Court, Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Law Council, the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, National Legal Aid, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Agency, the Australian Institute of Family

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 247 Studies, non-government organisations and community legal centres. The Family Law Forum meets quarterly to discuss shared issues arising within the family law system.

Committees In addition to the Family Law Forum, a number of external stakeholders contribute to court direction by contributing to or being members of various court committees. For example, external members are members of the Court’s Magellan Committee, the Audit and Risk Committee and the Family Law Courts Advisory Group. For more information on court committees, see Appendix 10.

Local registry consultations During 2010–11, the family law registries engaged at the local level with law societies, family law pathways networks, court user forums and community-based organisations concerned with family support and the family law system. This consultation ensured that registries received regular feedback about users’ experiences of registry services and the courts and were able to improve the service and approach to clients. It also ensures that the Court is well placed to make effective referrals to community- based services for clients who may require ongoing support. Local pathways groups or networks are a key forum for engagement. Pathways is a family law interagency network, established in 2005 and funded by the Federal Attorney-General’s Department. It aims to facilitate a more integrated family law system, particularly for community-based agencies that deal with separated families, family dispute resolution and associated issues such as domestic violence. In some areas members include those involved with health and child protection. In addition to general consultations, registries continued to engage with community-based organisations and other jurisdictions about best practice approaches to support those clients who are subject to, or fear violence from, their partner, former partner or other family members. PART 8 Registry-speciﬁc activities

ACT/NSW

Sydney

APPENDICES Sydney met quarterly with family law practitioners to communicate Family Law Court initiatives and seek feedback. The meetings were chaired by the Registry Manager and attended by the Case Management Judge and Coordinating Federal Magistrate. A Child Dispute Services representative attended monthly meetings of the Greater Sydney Families in Transition Group (Pathways). During the year, 25 students from Tranby National College for Indigenous students visited the registry and were addressed by one of the judges. Members of the judiciary, court staff, and representatives from the Department of Human Services, the Police Service, Legal Aid and legal practitioners, attended two meetings of the Magellan Steering Committee during the year. The committee works through issues associated with the implementation of the Magellan protocol in the Sydney, Parramatta and Newcastle registries.

248 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Parramatta A senior family consultant attended the meetings of the Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways Network as required. The registry met quarterly with the local family law practitioners.

Dubbo The NSW Central West Family Law Pathways Network met every two months, video-linked between Dubbo and Bathurst. The network held two family law training events, one each for lawyers and family dispute resolution practitioners.

Wollongong Staff attended the Illawarra Family Law Pathways meeting every two months.

Canberra ACT Pathways met every six weeks to plan and develop strategies for seamless referrals for clients between the various family law service providers in the ACT. The group also undertook educative activities—seminars—about family law (children’s issues), domestic violence and mental health issues. The Canberra Registry Consultative Committee met twice during the year, facilitating two-way feedback between the Court and the profession on topics such as new legislation, new case management procedures and any local issues. Attendees included judicial ofﬁcers and registry staff, and representatives of the legal profession, the bar association, Attorney-General’s Family Law Section, ACT Human and Community Services and Legal Aid lawyers. PART 8 PART

Newcastle Court personnel attended the monthly Pathways meeting and also were involved in organising

activities such as information days. APPENDICES A Newcastle registrar attended the monthly Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association meetings.

SA/NT SA/NT continued its active involvement with community stakeholders. Regular meetings with various user groups including the family law practitioners, Family Pathways, Community Reference Panel and the Family Relationship Centres were held throughout the year.

Adelaide Information sessions and visits to the Adelaide registry were provided to family dispute resolution practitioners from Uniting Care Wesley, Centacare and Family Relationship Centres. The Court met regularly with the Child Support Agency and was represented on CSA’s Community Stakeholder Reference Committee.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 249 Grandparents for Grandchildren continued to work closely with the registry in building a support network for providing advice to grandparents within the South Australian community. Mensline Australia visited the registry to meet with staff and inform them of the services it provides. The registry, in conjunction with the University of South Australia, hosted a number of visits from law students as part of the university’s family law training program.

Darwin Darwin registry attended quarterly meetings of the Family Pathways. The registry also attended quarterly meetings of the Family Relationship Centre Consortium Group to discuss local issues and identify new programs suitable for client referral. The registry hosted three practitioners meetings during the year. These meetings are chaired by the federal magistrate and seek to streamline processes and identify new case management procedures. They also provide a forum for practitioners to provide feedback to the Court.

Alice Springs Alice Springs Family Pathways Group is supported by the Darwin network. Meetings were held every quarter with the federal magistrate attending one meeting while on circuit. Quarterly practitioner meetings are held by the federal magistrate while she is on circuit.

Queensland

Brisbane Brisbane registry continued its regular meetings with various user groups including the family law

PART 8 practitioners, Legal Aid and Child Support Stakeholders Group. The registry, in conjunction with Bond University, hosted a number of moot courts for law students and provided registrar assistance. It also provided guest speakers for Bond University and for external training sessions, including a seminar on special medical procedures for medical specialists, a seminar on consent orders for Legal Aid and a speaker on contravention applications for family law

APPENDICES practitioners. Representatives from Child Dispute Services attended regular meetings with the Brisbane and Gold Coast Pathways Group.

North Queensland (Townsville and Cairns) The northern Queensland registries of Townsville and Cairns continued to meet regularly with a variety of external agencies to address issues, improve collaboration and receive feedback about the courts and associated services. These organisations include the North Queensland District Law Associations, Family Relationship Centres, Centacare, Relationships Australia, North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, Legal Aid Queensland, Queensland Police Service, the Department of Child Safety, Victims Counselling and Support Service, Multicultural Support Group and the Grandparents’ Support Service.

250 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices VIC/TAS

Melbourne Melbourne periodically convened a user liaison group that included Victoria Legal Aid, Centrelink, Magistrates Court Victoria, Law Institute Victoria, the Victorian Bar and the Child Support Agency. Issues raised included improved liaison with the Victorian Magistrates Court about the provision of orders where families are appearing in both jurisdictions. The Registry Manager and Coordinating Registrar attended the Court Practice Committee meetings of the Family Law Section of the Law Institute responding to queries about eFiling, inspection of subpoenas, the role and function of the National Enquiry Centre, trends in ﬁling and case management procedures. A signiﬁcant development was the enlivening of Victorian Pathways network, which is now actively supported by many agencies and has a vibrant program led by the Pathways Coordinator. The registry was pleased to support this development and growth in Pathways by providing venue at the courts for all seminars and by lending active support and advice on program development. Work continued between Melbourne registry and the Department of Human Services to enhance the existing protocol between the courts and the department to facilitate effective management of Magellan matters. At 30 June 2011, it was expected that this revised protocol would be published in 2011–12.

Dandenong The key focus for registry engagement in Dandenong was the coordination of the Collaborative Dispute Resolution Group. This group met quarterly and comprised representatives from ﬁve Family

Resource Centres in the catchment area, registry staff and local community-based organisations. The 8 PART group supports a ‘drop in’ service at the registry on three mornings each week, an initiative that has been adopted in a number of other family law registries. Experienced dispute resolution practitioners are available to provide information and direct referrals to local family relationship services to assist

the federal magistrates, legal practitioners and self-represented clients. Members of the group met APPENDICES separately with federal magistrates and registry staff to discuss speciﬁc issues, including court orders to target appropriate dispute resolution services. The Dandenong Registry Manager is a member of Family Relationship Centre reference groups including Berwick, Frankston and Chadston and was involved in supporting Ringwood. The Dandenong Team Leader attended information forums for the Migration Resource Centre supporting improved community information for the diverse cultural groups settling in the Dandenong and wider region.

Tasmania The Court participated in various reference groups including the Hobart Family Relationship Centre reference group, the Pathways South, North and North-West and Hobart Pathways Reference groups, and the Child Support Agency Stakeholder Engagement Group, and the steering committee for the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution pilot. The biannual state-wide Family Law Courts Family Violence Consultative Committee meeting, a forum for all public sector agencies concerned

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 251 with improved responses to violence including Tasmanian Police, Department Health and Human Services and Department of Justice, was also attended. The Legal Aid Commission and Family Law Practitioners Association supported the monthly Family Law Courts case management committee meetings in order to advance the management and passage of cases in the family law system. There was ongoing liaison with child protection about Magellan matters to ensure the smooth and coordinated management of cases where child abuse is alleged.

Albury Albury is represented on the Albury Wodonga Family Law Pathways Network, which met bi-monthly. On duty list days the coordinator of the Pathways Network attends court and is available to provide information to lawyers and clients about services in Albury, Wagga Wagga, Grifﬁth and Wangaratta areas, including for courses and waiting list times for Contact Changeover Centres, parenting orders programs, Community Health Services, Family Relationship Centres, parenting programs in the catchment area. PART 8 APPENDICES

252 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 12: Judicial activities In addition to hearing and determining cases, the Family Court’s judges actively contribute to the development of the law and legal education, both in Australia and internationally. This is achieved through attending conferences and seminars, membership of relevant bodies, presenting papers and lectures, addressing academic institutions, professional associations and community-based organisations, meeting international delegations and liaising with judicial colleagues around the world. Many judges also serve as members of organising committees for conferences as well as working in the community with a variety of legal and non-legal organisations. A summary of the conferences attended and papers delivered, and speaking engagements of the Chief Justice during 2010–11, follows.

Chief Justice’s activities

Table 8.20 Conferences attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice, 2010–11

20 July 2010 Second Family Law System Conference, Canberra 1BQFSEFMJWFSFE1FSTQFDUJWFTPOUIFGBNJMZMBXTZTUFN8IBUEPXFOPXLOPXBOEXIBUDBOXF do to respond?

7 August 2010 Australian Women Lawyers Third National Conference, Brisbane 1BQFSEFMJWFSFEJustice for all (opening keynote address)

28 August 2010 Trans-Tasman Law and Legal Practice Conference, Christchurch 1BQFSEFMJWFSFERecent trends and developments in Australian family law (plenary address) 7 September 2010 10th National Mediation Conference, Adelaide 1BQFSEFMJWFSFEProcess architecture in the Family Court—the Less Adversarial Model PART 8 PART (concurrent session)

17 September 2010 Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association Conference, Newcastle 1BQFSEFMJWFSFERecent developments in family law (plenary address)

19 October 2010 Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, 15th National Biennial Conference, Canberra APPENDICES 1BQFSEFMJWFSFEState of the nation (plenary address)

4 November 2010 Family Relationships Services Australia 3rd National Conference, Melbourne 1BQFSEFMJWFSFE3FTQPOEJOHUPDVMUVSBMEJWFSTJUZJOUIFGBNJMZMBXBSFOBUIF'BNJMZ$PVSUPG Australia’s Living in Harmony project (opening keynote address)

5 March 2011 Victorian Bar Inaugural CDP conference, Torquay 1BQFSEFMJWFSFE'BNJMZMBXVQEBUFUIFWJFXGSPNUIF'BNJMZ$PVSUPG"VTUSBMJB (panel presentation)

8 April 2011 Victoria Legal Aid Family Law Forum, Melbourne 1BQFSEFMJWFSFEFamily law and family violence (keynote address)

2 June 2011 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 48th Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida 1BQFSEFMJWFSFEPutting gender on the agenda—the Family Court of Australia’s jurisprudential journey XPSLTIPQQSFTFOUBUJPOXJUI1FUFS#PTIJFS 1SJODJQBM+VEHF /FX;FBMBOE'BNJMZ$PVSU

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 253 Table 8.21 Chief Justice’s speaking engagements, 2010–11

5 July 2010 Welcome to visiting Indonesian delegation, Melbourne 7–9 July 2010 11th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne Sustaining families in challenging times %JTDVTTBOU TZNQPTJVN0VUDPNFTGPSGBNJMJFTPGGBNJMZMBXSFGPSNT %JTDVTTBOU#BSHBJOJOHBOEOFHPUJBUJPOTPWFSDIJMETVQQPSUBOEQBSFOUJOHUJNFBNPOHTU separated parents registered with the Child Support Agency 1BOFMDIBJS'BNJMZMBXBOEGBNJMZWJPMFODF 9 July 2010 Reﬂections on the Federal Magistrates Court at the 10th year anniversary of the Federal Magistrates Court, Sydney 22 September 2010 Presentation to visiting Indonesian delegation on client service directions in the Family Court, Melbourne 4 November 2010 Family Relationships Services Australia 3rd National Conference, Melbourne 1BOFMNFNCFSEJWFSTJUZBOEUIFMBXGVUVSFEJSFDUJPOT 26 November 2010 Welcome to the UK Justice Review delegation, Melbourne 8 December 2010 -BVODIPG-PXZ*OTUJUVUFQBQFSA$PVSUJOHSFGPSN*OEPOFTJBT*TMBNJDDPVSUTBOEKVTUJDFGPSUIF poor’, Sydney 16 February 2011 8FMDPNFBOEJOUSPEVDUJPO CPPLMBVODI A'SPN.PSFFUP.BCPUIF.BSZ(BVESPOTUPSZ Melbourne 22 June 2011 Welcome, Law Institute of Victoria reception for young lawyers, ‘All in the family’, Melbourne

In addition, the Chief Justice: attended the Court Network Annual Conference in Melbourne on 30 November 2010 participated in an Australasian Paediatric Endocrine Group Disorders of Sexual Development Working PART 8 Group meeting in Melbourne on 7 April 2011 attended the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions in The Hague, 1–10 June 2011, and attended a meeting of the International Association of Family Judges in The Hague on 8 June 2011. APPENDICES The Chief Justice is a board member of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, the sole patron of Australian Women Lawyers, a patron of Court Network and a patron of Gordon Care.

Activities of judges Papers presented by the judges of the Family Court during 2010–11 included: ‘Predictions—are we fools for the Holy Grail?’ Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Gold Coast, 26 August 2010 ‘The role of the independent children’s lawyer’, Legal Aid NSW, Newcastle, September 2010 ‘Mediation and adjudication in civil proceedings’, the Annual International Conference of the Union des Advocates, Istanbul, Turkey, October 2010

254 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices ‘Less adversarial trials and modern case management in civil proceedings’, the Annual International Conference of the Union des Advocates, Istanbul, Turkey, October 2010 ‘Advocacy: preparation and conduct of trials’, Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, 15th National Biennial Conference, Canberra, October 2010 ‘Section 79—still hazy after all these years’, Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, 15th National Biennial Conference, Canberra, October 2010 ‘Current trends in parenting cases’, Legal Aid NSW, Sydney, December 2010 ‘Expert evidence’, Monash University, Medico Legal Conference, Cortina, Italy, January 2011 ‘A review of the case law 2010–11: an update’, Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia, Family Law Intensive, Sydney, February 2011 ‘Family violence as an issue in parenting cases’, Law Council of Australia, Family Law Master Class, Melbourne, February and May 2011 ‘Special medical procedures: Sean & Russell’, the Scope of Medical Procedure Applications Clinical and Legal Issues Forum, Brisbane, April 2011 ‘Kennon v Spry: heterodox extension of the law or not, where does it leave us, or rather, where does it take us?’, Queensland Law Society’s Gold Coast Symposium, May 2011 ‘Musings from the bench’, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, child protection in Australia and New Zealand—issues and challenges for judicial administration, Brisbane, May 2011 ‘Life at the bar’, Women Lawyers Association, Law Week celebrations, Sydney, May 2011 ‘Child abduction and relocation’, 4th Law Asia Children and the Law Conference, Siem Reap, Cambodia, May 2011 8 PART ‘Hague Convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and cooperation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children’, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, child protection in Australia and New Zealand—issues and challenges for APPENDICES judicial administration, Brisbane, May 2011 ‘The (direct) participation of children in Part VII proceedings and the role of the independent children’s lawyer—are they compatible?’, Independent Children’s Lawyers Conference, Hobart, May 2011.

Judges also participated in panel discussions and chaired sessions at numerous conferences throughout 2010–11. Judges contribute to professional legal development through their membership of professional and research-based associations. The Family Court has been consistently represented on the Family Law Council since its establishment. During 2010–11 the Court’s judicial representative on the Family Law Council was Justice Watts from the Sydney registry. Justice May from the Brisbane registry is the Court’s representative on the Council and Board of Management of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration. Justice Strickland from the Adelaide registry is the Court’s nominated director on the board of the Australian Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and Mediators. Justice Young from the Melbourne registry is a member of the Governing Council of the Judicial Conference of Australia.

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 255 Judges are members of organisations including the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts; the International Bar Association; Children’s Rights International; the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration; the Judicial Conference of Australia; the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia; the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law; the Bar Association of Queensland; the National College of Judicial Education; the National Academic Committee of the College of Law; the Advisory Board, Family Law Practice for the NSW College of Law; Melbourne University Law School; the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (Qld); and the Centre for Children and Young People. Judges are also involved in the National Judicial Orientation Program and teaching for other judicial education bodies throughout Australia, such as the Judicial College of Victoria. Judges regularly present to law societies and bar associations in their respective jurisdictions, as well as holding informal meetings with members of the legal profession and participating in stakeholder fora, such as the Magellan Stakeholders’ meeting. Judges also act as mentors. For example, Justice Forrest from the Brisbane registry is a Judge Mentor for the Bar Association of Queensland’s Indigenous Law Students’ Mentoring Program and Justice Ainslie-Wallace from the Sydney registry mentors law students at the University of Technology, Sydney. Judges are also often asked to speak at secondary schools and lecture at law schools about particular topics (such as the less adversarial trial and trial practice) and about their work generally. Family Court judges are also engaged in organising local, national and international conferences. During 2010–11 these included the Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration’s Child Protection Conference and preparatory work for the Law Council of Australia’s 2012 Family Law Conference and the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights, to be held in 2013. Where appropriate, judges also participate in judicial development programs involving judges and lawyers from other countries. Justice Rose from the Sydney registry hosted three Chinese judicial delegations from the Guangxi, Schechuan and Hubei provinces between February and May 2011. Justice Benjamin from the Hobart registry participated in a four day training course on domestic

PART 8 violence conducted by the Canadian Judicial Institute. Justice Benjamin also attended and presented at the Zimbabwe Family Law Court Stakeholders Conference in November 2010. Justice Ainslie-Wallace conducted a ‘train the trainers’ workshop for senior members of the Singapore Bar Association in June 2011. Justice Bennett from the Melbourne registry is the Family Court’s Hague Child Abduction Convention Liaison Judge. During 2010–11 Justice Bennett had judicial network communications with judges from APPENDICES the United Kingdom, Brazil, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the United States, Mexico and South Africa. Some of these communications involved mediation in an attempt to resolve the proceedings initiated under the Convention. Several judges of the Family Court hold commissions as members of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

256 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 13: International visitors During 2010–11 the Court continued to be recognised internationally with ofﬁcial visitors from China, England, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Afghanistan and South Africa looking at different aspects of its work.

Hong Kong June 2010: the Hong Kong Council of Social Service visited the Melbourne registry to study the Joint Parental Responsibility Model in family law. There was also an exchange of ideas and experiences in the areas of family violence and adopting the ‘joint parental responsibility model’.

Afghanistan and South Africa September 2010: Justice Burr of the Adelaide registry hosted two ofﬁcial visitors: Suraya Pakzad, a women’s right activist from Afghanistan and Albie Sachs, a retired judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa.

England Suraya Pakzad, women’s Albie Sachs, retired judge of November 2010: Justice Fowler of the Sydney rights activist from the Constitutional Court of Afghanistan. South Africa. registry hosted a visit from District Judge Philip Gillibrand of North Hampshire, England. Judge Gillibrand observed a Family Court Less Adversarial Trial proceeding. PART 8 PART China February 2011: Justice Rose of the Sydney registry hosted a delegation from the Guangxi province in China. The delegation included Mr Zhong Erpu (Vice President of Chengdu Municipal Intermediate), Mr

Zhu Shiyong (Department-Chief of Chengdu Municipal Intermediate People’s Court), Mr Yu Jiachuan APPENDICES (President of Wuhou District People’s Court), Mr Yang Mingzhong (President of Chongzhou City People’s Court), Mr Wu Jin (Vice President of Chengdu Hi-Tech Zone People’s Court) and Mr Hu Yong (Vice President of Qingyang District People’s Court).

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 257 Back row L–R: Justice Benjamin, Justice Cronin, Justice Dessau, Justice Bennett, Justice Young, Manuela Galvao and Ilana Katz. Front row L–R: Judge Hiroko Ogiwara (Tokyo District Court), Judge Gen Ueno (Okayama Family Court, Okayama District Court), and Mr Katsushi Suguri (Professor of Research and Training, Institute for Court Clerks).

PART 8 Japan March 2011: the Melbourne registry, in conjunction with the Asian Law Centre at the Melbourne Law School, hosted a visit from Judge Hiroko Ogiwara from the Tokyo District Court, and Mr Katsushi Suguri, Professor of Research and Training Institute for Court Clerks, Japan. The delegation discussed the issues of child custody cases and child protection mechanisms in Australia, as well as child abuse cases and the

APPENDICES legal framework surrounding this area.

Singapore June 2011: the Brisbane registry hosted a delegation from Singapore. Members of the delegation included Audrey Lim and Samuel Chua from the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, Felicia Woo from the Singapore Central Authority and Gee Swee Yean from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sport. The delegation spent time with the Child Dispute Services team, discussing and learning about the Child Responsive Model and the Family Court’s approach to managing Hague Convention cases.

258 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Appendix 14: Contact details

Chief Justice’s Chambers Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 (GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)

Deputy Chief Justice’s Chambers Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Cnr University Avenue and Childers Street Canberra ACT 2600 (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)

National Support Ofﬁce Chief Executive Ofﬁcer 15 London Circuit Canberra ACT 2601 (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)

National Enquiry Centre The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all telephone and email enquiries on Family Law Court (Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court) matters. The NEC provides information and

procedural advice, forms and brochures, and referrals to community and support services. NEC staff 8 PART cannot provide legal advice. The NEC is opened from 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday. PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2124 Phone: 1300 352 000

TTY/voice calls: Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or for Speak and Listen calls contact 1300 APPENDICES 555 727 International: +61 2 8892 8590 Email: [email protected] Family Law Courts website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au Family Court website: www.familycourt.gov.au

Family Law Registries

Australian Capital Territory Canberra Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Cnr University Ave and Childers Street Canberra ACT 2600 (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 259 New South Wales Albury Level 1, 463 Kiewa Street Albury NSW 2640 (PO Box 914, Albury NSW 2640)

Dubbo Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra Streets Dubbo NSW 2830 (PO Box 1567, Dubbo NSW 2830)

Lismore Level 2, 29–31 Molesworth Street Lismore NSW 2480 (PO Box 9, Lismore NSW 2480)

Newcastle 61 Bolton Street Newcastle NSW 2300 (PO Box 9991, Newcastle NSW 2300)

Parramatta Garﬁeld Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts 1–3 George Street Parramatta NSW 2123 (PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2123) PART 8 Sydney Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts 97–99 Goulburn Street Sydney NSW 2000 (GPO Box 9991, Sydney NSW 2001) APPENDICES Wollongong Level 1, 43 Burelli Street Wollongong NSW 2500 (PO Box 825, Wollongong NSW 2500)

Northern Territory Alice Springs Level 1, Centrepoint Building Hartley Street Alice Springs NT 0870 (PO Box 9991 NT 0871)

260 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices Darwin TCG Building 80 Mitchell Street Darwin NT 0800 (GPO Box 9991, Darwin NT 0800)

Queensland Brisbane Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts 119 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000 (PO Box 9991, Brisbane QLD 4001)

Cairns Level 3 and 4, 104 Grafton Street Cairns QLD 4870 (PO Box 9991, Cairns QLD 4870)

Rockhampton 46 East Street (Cnr Fitzroy Street) Rockhampton QLD 4700 (PO Box 9991, Rockhampton QLD 4700)

Townsville Level 2, Commonwealth Centre PART 8 PART 143 Walker Street Townsville QLD 4810 (PO Box 9991, Townsville QLD 4810)

South Australia APPENDICES Adelaide Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts 3 Angas Street Adelaide SA 5000 (GPO Box 9991, Adelaide SA 5001)

Tasmania Hobart Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts 39–41 Davey Street Hobart TAS 7000 (GPO Box 9991, Hobart TAS 7001)

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 261 Launceston Level 3, ANZ Building Cnr Brisbane and George Streets Launceston TAS 7250 (PO Box 9991, Launceston TAS 7250)

Victoria Dandenong 53–55 Robinson Street Dandenong VIC 3175 (PO Box 9991, Dandenong VIC 3175)

Melbourne Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 (GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)

Western Australia Perth Family Court of Western Australia 150 Terrace Road Perth WA 6000 (GPO Box 9991, Perth WA 6848) 08 9224 8222 PART 8 APPENDICES

262 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Appendices PART 8 PART APPENDICES

Appendices | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 263

PART 9 INDEXES

Indexes

List of requirements

Page of this Description Requirement report

Letter of transmittal Mandatory iii Table of contents Mandatory 1 Index Mandatory 269 Glossary Mandatory 8 Contact officer(s) Mandatory ii Internet home page address and Internet address for report Mandatory ii Year in review Review by Chief Justice Mandatory 13 Summary of significant issues and developments Suggested 34 Organisational overview Overview of performance and financial results Suggested 45 Outlook for following year Suggested 29 Significant issues and developments – portfolio departments Suggested N/A Overview description of the Court Mandatory 21 Role and functions Mandatory 21 Organisational structure Mandatory 118 Outcome and program structure Mandatory 45 Where outcome and program structures differ from PB Statements/PAES or other Mandatory 48 portfolio statements accompanying any other additional appropriation bills (other

portfolio statements), details of variation and reasons for change 9 PART Portfolio structure - portfolio departments` Mandatory N/A Report on performance Review of performance in relation to programs and contributions to outcomes Mandatory 48

Actual performance in relation to deliverables and KPIs set out in Mandatory 49 INDEXES PB Statements/PAES or other portfolio statements Where performance targets differ from the PBS/ PAES, details of both Mandatory Nil to report former and new targets, and reasons for the change Narrative discussion and analysis of performance Mandatory 49 Trend information Mandatory 50 Performance of purchaser/ provider arrangements Suggested (if applicable) 150 Signiﬁcant changes in nature of principal functions/ services Suggested 150 Factors, events or trends inﬂuencing Family Court performance Suggested 45–83 Contribution of risk management in achieving objectives Suggested 134 Social inclusion outcomes If applicable, mandatory 150 Performance against service charter customer service standards, If applicable, mandatory 136 complaints data, and the Court’s response to complaints

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 267 Discussion and analysis of the Court’s financial performance Mandatory 150 Discussion of any significant changes from the prior year or from budget. Suggested 29 Agency resource statement and expenses (and resources) by outcomes Mandatory 217 Developments since the end of the financial year that have affected or If applicable, mandatory 29 may significantly affect the Court’s operations or financial results in future

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY Corporate governance Agency head certification about compliance with Mandatory 135 the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines Statement of the main corporate governance practices in place Mandatory 117 Names of the senior executive and their responsibilities Suggested 122 Senior management committees and their roles Suggested 130 Corporate and operational planning and associated Suggested 132 performance reporting and review Approach adopted to identifying areas of significant financial or operational risk Suggested 134 Policy and practices on the establishment and maintenance Suggested 135 of appropriate ethical standards How nature and amount of remuneration for SES officers is determined Suggested 148 External scrutiny Significant developments in external scrutiny Mandatory 136 Judicial decisions and decisions of administrative tribunals Mandatory 136 Reports by the Auditor-General, a Parliamentary Committee Mandatory 136 or the Commonwealth Ombudsman Management of human resources Assessment of effectiveness in managing and developing Mandatory 141 human resources to achieve Court objectives Workforce planning, staff turnover and retention Suggested 141 Impact and features of enterprise or collective agreements, individual Suggested 146 flexible arrangements (IFAs), determinations, common law contracts and AWAs PART 9 Training and development undertaken and its impact Suggested 131 Occupational health and safety performance Suggested 229 Productivity gains Suggested 150 Statistics on staffing Mandatory 219

INDEXES Enterprise or collective agreements, IFAs, determinations, Mandatory 146 common law contracts and AWAs Performance pay Mandatory 148 Assets management Assessment of effectiveness of assets management If applicable, mandatory 156 Assessment of purchasing against core policies and principles Mandatory 153 Consultants Summary statement—the number of new consultancy contracts let and Mandatory 240 actual expenditure; and the number of active ongoing consultancy contracts and total expenditure Contract information statement re the AusTender website Mandatory 154

268 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Australian National Audit Ofﬁce access clauses Mandatory 136 Contracts exempt from the AusTender website Mandatory 136 Financial statements Financial statements Mandatory 161 Other information Occupational health and safety Mandatory 229 Freedom of Information, 1 July 2010 – 30 April 2011 Mandatory 231 Information Publication Scheme statement on the Court’s IPS plan publishing Mandatory 231 Advertising and market research and statement on advertising campaigns Mandatory 234 Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance Mandatory 235 Grant programs Mandatory 239 Disability reporting – explicit and transparent reference to what Mandatory 150 Court information is available through other reporting mechanisms Correction of material errors in previous annual report If applicable, mandatory 157 List of requirements Mandatory 267 PART 9 PART INDEXES

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 269 Alphabetical index

A Aboriginal Australians see Indigenous Australians Access to Justice Committee, 125, 242 Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010, 14 Accounting policies, 174–82 Adelaide Registry, 249, 261 Administrative Appeal Tribunal, 136 Family Court judges appointed to, 121, 256 Advertising, 234 Afghanistan, visitors from, 257 Agency resource statement, 217 Agnew, Steve, 129, 140, 245 Ainslie-Wallace, Justice Ann, 119, 121, 122, 242, 243, 256 Albury Registry, 252, 260 Alice Springs Registry, 250, 260 Altobeli, Federal Magistrate, 128, 243 Andrew, Stephen, 118, 123, 124, 140, 243, 245 Anti-suit injunctions, 103 Appeal Division, 87, 119 Appeals, 87–93 administration of, 88 age of ﬁnalised appeals, 92

PART 9 appellate jurisdiction, 87 caseload, 68 decree, ﬁled by, 90 demographics, 91

INDEXES Family Court of WA, from, 87 Federal Magistrates decree, 87 Full Court, to, 87, 88 High Court, to, 93 joining of party without consent, 109 signiﬁcant judgments, 97–112 statistics, 89–92 trends, 88 Applications in a case see Interim applications

270 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Appointments, 15, 122 Assets management, 156–7 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), 16 Atkinson, Akasha, 24 Audit and Risk Committee, 130, 131, 134, 245, 248 Audit, internal, 133 Auditor General, 136 access to contractors’ premises, 153 Auditor’s report, 162–3 Austin, Justice Stewart, 120, 243 Australian Day Medallions, 144 Australian Institute of Family Studies, 247 Awards for staff, 143–6

Baby D case, 17, 100 Barry, Justice James, 122 Bauman, Federal Magistrate, 129 Beissner, Dennis, 244 Bell, Justice Graham, 120 Benchbook Committee, 125, 126, 242 Benjamin, Justice Robert, 15, 32, 120, 121, 129, 138, 242, 243, 256, 258 Bennett, Justice Victoria, 15, 120, 256, 258

Birch, Robyn, 246 9 PART Boland, Justice Jennifer, 122 Bowles, Ronald, 145

Brisbane Commonwealth Law Courts, 157 INDEXES Brisbane Registry, 250, 258, 261 Brown, Federal Magistrate, 128, 243 Bryant, Chief Justice Diana, 13–17, 31, 118, 119, 120, 124, 129, 144, 242, 243 activities, 253–4 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 124, 125, 242, 245 Chief Justice’s review, 13–17 conferences and papers, 253 contact details, 259 eMessages, 133 speaking engagements, 254

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 271 Burchardt, Federal Magistrate, 125 Burr, Justice Rodney, 120, 243, 257 Business Continuity Plans, 134 Byrne, Adele, 130, 140, 242 C Cairns Registry, 261 Canberra Registry, 249, 259 Capital Management Plan, 156 Casetrack, 8 Chief Executive Ofﬁcer, 117, 119, 122, 125, 130 eMessages, 133 instructions, 133, 134 roadshows, 133 statement by, 164 Chief Executive Ofﬁcer’s Management Advisory Group, 130, 131, 134, 141 Chief Federal Magistrate, 140 Chief Justice, 117, 119, 124, 140 see also Bryant, Chief Justice Diana activities, 253–4 contact details, 259 eMessages, 133 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 124, 125, 242, 245 Chief Justice’s review, 13–17 Child abduction see International child abduction

PART 9 Child abuse jurisdiction of Court, 22 Magellan Committee, 125, 243, 248 Magellan program, 8, 22, 74–5, 248, 252, 256 INDEXES PDF versions of notice, 27 performance outcomes, 73–4 Child dispute services, 8 Child protection best practice principles, 16 Convention, Special Commission meeting, 15 proposed program to improve legal proceedings (SA), 16 Victorian protocols, 16 working with state agencies, 16

272 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Child welfare agencies, working with, 16 best interests, 30, 97 removal from country for purpose of marriage, 97 China, visitors from, 257 Chisholm, Richard, 242 Christmann, Marianne, 140 Clearly inappropriate forum, 103 Cleary, Justice Margaret, 120, 122 Client feedback complaints see Complaints management, 81 satisfaction survey, 37 Client information, 233 Client Service Senior Managers’ Group, 36–7 Client services advices, 133 complaints about see Complaints expenditure on, 151 interpreters and translation, 37 Service Charter, 135, 136 Service Commitments, 135, 136 wiki, 37, 38

Cohen, Justice John, 122 9 PART Coleman, Justice Ian, 87, 119, 120 Collaborative Dispute Resolution Group, Dandenong, 251

Collier, Justice, 128, 242, 243 INDEXES Comcover benchmarking survey, 134 Committees, 124–32, 242–6 collaborative, 129–30 external members, 248 judicial, 124–9, 242–4 senior management, 130–2, 245–6 Commonwealth Courts Portal, 26–9 eFiling, 27–8, 40, 126 internal audit, 133 NEC channelling calls to, 80

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 273 planned enhancements, 28 Commonwealth Disability Strategy, 150 Commonwealth Law Courts Brisbane, 157 Sydney, 156 Commonwealth Ombudsman, 136 complaint handling guide, 81 Community outreach, 40 Competitive tendering, 154 Complaints delay in delivery of judgment, 67 judicial conduct, 66 judicial decisions, 68 judicial services, 66–8, 81 management, 81–3 methods of lodging, 81 registry services, 83 Consent order applications, 46 age of pending applications, 59 clearance rate, 56 number of ﬁnalisations, 52 performance outcomes, 47, 48, 52–4 time to ﬁnalise, 62 Consultants, 154, 240–1

PART 9 service contracts, 154, 240 Consultations, 248 Contempt, 107 Contracts, 153

INDEXES competitive tendering, 154 consultancy contracts, 154, 240 exempt 154 procurement guidelines, 153 Corporate and operational performance, 132 Corporate credit card audit, 133 Corporate governance, 117–57 Costs Advisory Committee, 126, 129, 242 Cotta, James, 145

274 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Court employees, 132, 141–9 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, 141 awards, 143–6 AWAs, 147, 148, 226 disability reporting, 150 disaster relief donations, 36, 146 email use, 39 employee assistance program, 149 Enterprise Agreement, 141, 142, 146–8, 225 expenditure on, 151 flexible working arrangements, 142 guidance for, 39, 132–3 human resources management, 141–9 industrial agreements, 141, 142, 146–8, 225–7 judges see Judicial officers judicial support review, 40, 139–40 mature aged, 142 non-salary benefits, 148, 227 pay rates, 228 peer support network, 149 Performance Management and Development System, 141, 148, 149 performance pay arrangements, 148, 227 productivity gains, 150

recruiting, 40, 141 9 PART retention strategies, 142 rewards and recognition, 142–6

salary ranges, 227 INDEXES SES remuneration, 148 staff newsletter, 132, 133 stafﬁng proﬁle, 146, 219–22 training, 141 workers’ compensation, 229 workforce planning, 141 workforce turnover, 146, 224 work/life balance, 142 workplace diversity, 142 workplace health and safety, 142, 229

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 275 Young Employees Advisory Group, 39 Court fees, 36 Court performance, 45–83 age of pending applications, 45, 47, 57–61 appeals, 68, 87–93 backlog indicators, 56–61 case attrition and settlement rate, 50 child abuse cases, 72–5 clearance rate, 47, 54–6 client feedback management, 81 complaints, 66–7, 83 complaints management, 81–3 complex cases, 50 compliments, 87 consent orders, 47, 48, 52–4 environmental performance, 235–8 family violence cases, 73–4 final orders, 47, 48, 52–4 finalisations, 47, 48, 48, 52–4 financial issues, 49 first instance trials, 51 historic performance against KPIs, 45 interim orders, 47, 48, 52–4 judicial services, 46, 48

PART 9 National Enquiry Centre services, 75–81 new workload, 49 pending applications, 45, 47, 57–61 percentage of cases ﬁnalised, 61–5

INDEXES reduced number of judges, impact of, 51 registry services, 75–8, 83 reserved judgments, 13, 45, 47, 61, 64–5 self represented litigants, 68–70 shared parental responsibility, 70–3 social justice and equity, 68–75 summary, 46 types of cases, 46 Court staff see Court employees

276 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Courtside, 132, 133 Crew, Jamie, 140 Crisford, Justice Jane, 121 Cronin, Justice Paul, 120, 125, 242, 243, 258 Crooks, Justice Stephen, 121 Crutchﬁeld, Emma, 246

D Dandenong Project, 131 Dandenong Registry, 156, 251, 262 Darwin Registry, 250, 261 Dawe, Justice Christine, 120, 121, 244 De facto relationships, 98, 99 Delay, complaints about, 67 Deputy Chief Justice, 119 contact details, 259 Dessau, Justice Linda, 120, 243, 258 Disability reporting, 150 Disaster relief donations, 36, 146 Divorce child dispute services, 8 eFiled applications, 27, 28 foreign, recognition of, 111 parenting cases see Parenting cases PART 9 PART Documents categories of, 232 eFiling, 27–8, 40, 126 INDEXES electronic production, 27, 37, 126 electronic records management system, 38 ﬁling fees, 36 Donald, Federal Magistrate Warren, 125, 138, 244 Doogan, Chris, 245 Dubbo Registry, 157, 249, 260 Dunn, Lesley, 146

E Ecologically sustainable development, 235–8 eFiling, 27–8, 40, 126

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 277 Email client feedback, 81 registry/NEC responses, 77, 79–80 use by employees, 39 Emmett, Federal Magistrate, 125 Employees see Court employees England, visitors from, 257 Enterprise Agreement, 141, 142, 146–8, 225 Environmental Champions Network, 237 Environmental Management System, 236, 238 Environmental performance, 235–8 corporate culture/communication, 237 energy, 236 information technology, 236 paper, 237 property, 238 review and improvement strategies, 238 travel, 238 waste/cleaning, 237 eServices, 35 Ethical standards, 135 Executive Director Client Services, 123, 130 Executive Director Corporate, 124, 130 Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services, 124, 130

PART 9 Expenditure, 150–2 External involvement, 247–8, 253–6 External scrutiny, 136–8 External stakeholders, 247 INDEXES F Faithfull, Melanie, 130, 242 Family consultants, 8, 112 expenditure on, 151 nature and extent of functions, 112 Family Court of Australia, 21 core services, 21 employees see Court employees

278 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Federal Magistrates Court and, 13, 14 fees, 36 Full Court see Appeals goal, 21 initiatives, 34, 40 judges see Judicial ofﬁcers jurisdiction, 22 media reporting, 15 open court, 15 organisational structure, 118 outcome, 23, 45–83 outlook for 2011–12, 29 performance outcomes see Court performance program, 23, 45 programs of work, 22 purpose, 21 reporting system, 14 service locations, 33–4 vision, 22 website see Website Family Court of Western Australia appeal from, 87 judges, 121

Family law client satisfaction survey, 37 9 PART Family Law Council, 247, 255 Family Law Courts

deﬁnition, 8 INDEXES enterprise agreement, 141, 142, 146–7, 225 Family Violence Committee see Family Violence Committee Indigenous Australians, study of access and usage by, 35, 138–9 joint committees, 126 Service Charter, 135, 136 Service Commitments, 135, 136 Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 129, 248 Family Law Forum, 129, 247 Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, 14, 24, 29 Family violence

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 279 best practice principles, 16, 23 Committee see Family Violence Committee Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, 14, 24, 29 jurisdiction of Court, 22 PDF versions of notice, 27 performance outcomes, 73–4 reports, 24, 129 review of Family Violence Strategy, 23–4, 128 Family Violence Committee, 16, 24, 125, 126, 128, 243 biannual state-wide meeting, Tas, 251 Client Service Senior Managers’ Group input, 37 Family Violence Strategy, 23–4, 128 joint committee, 126, 128 members, 128, 243 responses to reports, 24, 129 Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice John, 87, 118, 119, 120, 242, 243, 244 Federal courts restructure, 29 Federal Magistrates Court of Australia appeal from decree of, 87 Family Court and, 13, 14, 16 family law matters, 13, 14 fees, 36 ﬁnancial position, 14 funding, 29

PART 9 Policy Advisory Committee, 125 public scrutiny of decisions, 15 reserved judgments, 13 resources provided free of charge to, 152

INDEXES restructure, 14, 29 transparency, 15 Victorian protocols, 16 Fenn, Annie, 246 Fenwick, Stewart, 125 Filippello, Angela, 118, 123, 125, 128, 130, 140, 242, 243, 244 Final order applications, 46 age of pending applications, 58 clearance rate, 55

280 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes number of finalisations, 52 performance outcomes, 47, 48, 52–4 time to finalise, 62 Finalisations, 47, 48, 52–4 percentage of cases, 61 time to finalise, 61–5 Financial cases jurisdiction of Court, 22 performance outcomes, 49 workload, 49 Financial management, 150 consultants, 154 contracts, 153–4 expenditure, 151–3 free services, 152–3 legal services, 154–5 procurement, 153 Financial position budgetary pressures, 14, 138 financial statements, 161–213 Oakton financial health check, 138 Resource Planning Model, 138 Financial risk management, 134

Financial statements, 161–213 9 PART Finn, Justice Mary, 87, 119, 120, 121, 242, 243 First instance trials, 51

FitzGibbon, Senior Registrar John, 126, 145, 244 INDEXES Forrest, Justice Colin, 120, 122, 256 Foster, Richard, 118, 122, 125, 129, 130, 133, 164, 242, 244 Fowler, Justice Stuart, 121, 242, 243, 257 Fraud control, 134 certiﬁcation, 135 plan, 134 Free services, 152 Freedom of Information, 231–3 categories of documents, 232 client information, 233

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 281 facilities for access, 231 prescribed brochures and forms, 232–3 requests, 231 Freeme, Kristy, 246 Frew, Glenda, 246 Full Court appeals to, 87 sittings, 88 G Galvao, Manuela, 258 Gershon Review, 136 response, 40, 136 Gillespie, Elizabeth, 146 Golding, Claire, 246 Green, John, 246 Greig, Julie, 246 Guava, Justice, 32 H Harriott, Grahame, 118, 124, 244, 245 Healy, Denise, 143 Hemphill, Pam, 118, 123, 242, 244 High Court appeals, 93 Hobart Registry, 251, 261 Hocking, Phil, 243 PART 9 Hong Kong, visitors from, 257 Hughes, Federal Magistrate, 128, 243 Human resources management, 141–9

INDEXES see also Court employees I ICT Review Benchmarking report, 136 ICT Sustainability Plan, 236 Independent auditor’s report, 162–3 Indigenous Australians access to and usage of Family Law Courts, study, 35, 138–9 Court employees and clients, 141 educating judicial ofﬁcers and staff on culture of, 142

282 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Indigenous Working Group, 138 information about Court, 141 partnerships with Indigenous groups, 141 Indonesia, 16, 30 access to justice surveys, 31 Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition (IAPJT), 30 meeting with Chief Justice of Supreme Court, 16 Memorandum of Understanding Annex, 16, 30 Religious Courts, access to, 30–1 Industrial agreements, 141, 142, 146–8, 225–7 AWAs, 147, 148, 226 enterprise agreement, 141, 142, 146, 225 relationship between, 147 Information and Communication Committee, 130 Information quality, 38 Information technology environmental impact, 236 expenditure on, 151 ICT Review Benchmarking report, 136 ICT Sustainability Plan, 236 internet gateway reduction program, 137 IT governance audit, 133 Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3), 137

social networking software pilot, 38 9 PART transition from IPv4 to IPv6, 137 website see Website

Information Technology Judicial Reference Group, 125, 126, 243 INDEXES Interim order applications, 46 age of pending applications, 58 clearance rate, 55 number of ﬁnalisations, 52 performance outcomes, 47, 48, 52–4 time to ﬁnalise, 62 Interlocutory judgments, 47 Internal audit, 133 Internal evaluations, 138–40 International child abduction, 105, 111

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 283 Hague Convention, 15, 105, 111 jurisdiction of Court, 22 Liaison Judge, 256 International cooperation, 15–16, 30–2 Indonesia, 16, 30–1 Zimbabwe, 15, 32 International Framework for Court Excellence, 25, 29 International visitors, 33, 257–8 Interpreters, 37 Intranet messages, 133 J Jackson, Brendan, 144 Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award, 143 Japan, visitors from, 258 Jarrett, Federal Magistrate, 243 Johannesen, Greg, 246 Johnston, Justice William, 122, 243 Joint Costs Advisory Committee, 126, 129, 242 Jordan, Catherine, 145 Judicial activities, 253–6 Chief Justice, 253–4 judges, 254–6 Judicial committees, 124–9, 242–4 Judicial Complaints Adviser, 81

PART 9 Judicial conduct complaints, 66 Judicial Development Committee, 125, 126, 243 Judicial ofﬁcers, 119–22, 146 activities, 253–6 INDEXES Appeal Division, 87, 119 appointments, 15, 122 Chief Justice see Chief Justice Deputy Chief Justice, 119 disaster relief donations, 36, 146 Indigenous culture, education about, 142 judicial development programs, 256 judicial support review, 40, 139–40 mentoring, 256

284 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes number of, 51, 52, 146, 223 reduced number, impact of, 51 remuneration, 146 retirements, 15, 122 workshop on meeting Court goals, 13 Judicial Remuneration Committee, 125, 243 Judicial services, 46 complaints see Complaints performance, 47–65 Judicial support review, 40, 139–40 Jurisdiction of Court, 22 appellate, 87

K Katz, Ilana, 258 Keane, Justice Patrick, 16 Kearney, Registrar Julie, 126, 244 Kelly, Elizabeth, 129 Kelso, Simon, 246 Kimmorley, Kenneth, 145 King, Debra, 146 Kitcher, Janet, 143 Kruger, Prof Philippa, 32

L 9 PART Laing, Frank, 143 Launceston Registry, 262

Law Council of Australia, Family Law section, 247 INDEXES Law Reform Committee, 125, 127–8, 243 law reform proposals commented on, 128 members, 243 parliamentary inquiries, papers and reports, 128 proposed legislation considered, 127 Law Week Expo, 40 Le Poer Trench, Justice Mark Frederick, 121 Lee, Jodie, 143 Legal services expenditure, 154–5 Legislative changes, 14, 24, 127

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 285 Lismore Registry, 260 Lister, Leisha, 31, 118, 138, 243, 244, 245 Lockley, Rubina, 143 Lodge, Paul, 146, 246 Loiszczyk, Di, 128, 243 Loughnan, Justice Ian, 122, 126, 244

M McPherson, Carol, 246 Magellan Committee, 125, 243, 248 Magellan program, 8, 22, 74 New South Wales, 248 performance outcomes, 74–5 stakeholder’s meeting, 256 Tasmania, 252 Market research, 234 Martin, Justice Carolyn, 121 Mathieson, Deputy Registrar John, 130, 242 Mawadze, Judge, 32 May, Justice Michelle, 87, 119, 120, 243, 255 Media coverage of proceedings, 15 Medical treatment see Special medical procedures Melbourne Registry, 251, 258, 262 Michelin, Rosemarie, 145 Mills, Sonya, 144 PART 9 Moncrieff, Justice Simon, 121 Monteith, Justice Alexander, 121 Morgan, Susan, 244 Moroni, Justice, 126, 244 INDEXES Moss, Kostino, 144 Murphy, Justice Peter, 120, 125, 126, 242, 243, 244 Murray, Kristen, 128, 243 Mushin, Justice Nahum, 120, 121, 242

N National Case Management Committee, 126, 244 National Consultative Committee, 130, 131, 246 National Disability Strategy, 150

286 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes National Enquiry Centre (NEC), 75 contact details, 259 internal audit, 133 performance outcomes, 46, 75–81 social networking software pilot, 38 telephone and email enquiries, 77, 79–80 time to answer calls, 46, 76, 80 National Support Ofﬁce, 259 Newcastle Registry, 249, 260

O Oakton ﬁnancial health check, 138 Oakton Services Pty Ltd, 138, 245 Occupational health and safety, 142, 229 Ogiwara, Judge Hiroko, 258 O’Reilly, Justice Elizabeth, 120 O’Ryan, Justice Stephen, 122 Outcome and program framework, 23

P PABX phone system replacement, 38 Parental responsibility, 104 Joint Parental Responsibility Model, 257 medical procedures, 100, 102 presumption of equal shared responsibility, 30 9 PART Parenting cases appeal against parenting orders, 104, 106

best interest factors, 30 INDEXES jurisdiction of Court, 22 performance outcomes, 49 shared parenting statistics, 30, 70–3 workload, 49 Parker, Debra, 246 Parramatta Registry, 249, 260 Pascoe, Chief Federal Magistrate, 125, 129 Pathways, 248–52 Peer support network, 149 Pending applications, 45, 47, 57–61

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 287 Performance Management and Development System, 141, 148, 149 Performance outcomes see Court performance Perth Registry, 262 Phelan, Andrew, 129, 242 Plummer, Ash, 145 Portfolio Budget Statements, 6, 23, 150 key performance indicators and deliverables, 45–8, 52, 61, 77–81 strategic initiatives, 23, 37 Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3), 137 Prescribed brochures and forms, 232–3 Principal Child Dispute Services, 123 Principal Registrar, 123, 125 Procurement and Risk Management section, 134, 153 Productivity gains, 150 Program, 23, 45 Programs of work, 22 Property environmental performance, 238 expenditure, 151 management, 156–7 Property Management Committee, 126, 130, 244 Public scrutiny of decisions, 15

Q Queensland Premier’s Disaster Relief Appeal, 36, 146 PART 9 R Ralph, Stephen, 139 Ram, Nan, 145, 146 INDEXES Registrars, 8 appointment, 15 expenditure on, 151 judicial support review, 139–40 Principal Registrar, 123, 125 workload project, 36, 140 Registries, 8, 118 activities, 248–52 Adelaide, 249, 261

288 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Albury, 252, 260 Alice Springs, 250, 260 Brisbane, 250, 261 Cairns, 261 Canberra, 249, 259 contact details, 259 Dandenong, 156, 251, 262 Darwin, 250, 261 Dubbo, 157, 249, 260 Hobart, 251, 261 Launceston, 262 Lismore, 260 Melbourne, 251, 262 Newcastle, 249, 260 North Queensland, 250 Parramatta, 249, 260 Perth, 262 Rockhampton, 250, 261 Sydney, 15, 248, 260 Townsville, 250, 261 Wollongong, 249 Registry consultations, 248 Registry managers, 140

Registry services, 75 9 PART complaints, 83 counter enquiries, 77, 78

document processing, 77, 79 INDEXES performance outcomes, 75–8 telephone and email enquiries, 77, 79 Reithmuller, Federal Magistrate, 125, 243 Remuneration Tribunal, 146 Reporting system, 14 Research and Ethics Committee, 126, 135, 244 Reserved judgments, 47 age of outstanding judgments, 60 delivery times, 13, 45, 47, 64–5 Resource Planning Model, 138

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 289 Retirements, 15, 122 Reynolds, Jane, 245 Risk management, 134 Audit and Risk Committee, 130, 131, 134, 245, 248 Business Continuity Plans, 134 Comcover benchmarking survey, 134 ﬁnancial risk, 134 fraud prevention and control, 134–5 Risk Control and Compliance Framework, 134 Strategic Risk Management Plan, 133, 134 Rockhampton Registry, 250, 261 Rose, Justice Peter, 121, 243, 256, 257 Rules Committee, 126, 244 Ryan, Justice Judith, 121, 125, 126, 128, 242, 243, 244 S Self represented litigants, 68–70 Senate estimate committee hearings, 137 Senior management committees, 130–2, 245–6 Service Charter, 135, 136 Service Commitments, 135, 136 Service locations, 33–4 Shared parenting equal shared parental responsibility presumption, 30 Joint Parental Responsibility Model, 257

PART 9 statistics, 30, 70–3 Shepherd, Kyall, 246 Signiﬁcant judgments, 97–112 Sikiotis, Athena, 246 INDEXES Singapore, visitors from, 258 Social Inclusion Measurement and Reporting Strategy, 150 Social justice and equity impact, 68–75 Social networking software, 38 South Africa, visitors from, 257 Special medical procedures, 17, 100–2, 108 Baby D case, 17, 100 best interests of child, 101 extubation, 17, 100

290 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes jurisdiction of Court, 22, 100, 102, 108 parental responsibility, 100, 102 supervisory role of Court, 17 Staff see Court employees Staff Development Committee, 130, 131, 246 Staffing profile, 146, 219–22 Stevenson, Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood, 121, 128, 243, 244 Stocktake procedures, 156 Strickland, Justice Steven, 119, 126, 242, 243, 244, 255 Subpoena procedures, 37, 127 Suguri, Katsushi, 258 Sumner, Kate, 31 Suryakusuma, Julia, 31 Sydney courtrooms, 156 Sydney Registry, 15, 156, 248, 260 T Taylor, Dulcie, 143 Thackray, Justice Stephen, 87, 119, 121 Thomas, Greg, 245 Torres Strait Islanders see Indigenous Australians Townsville Registry, 250, 261 Translation services, 37 Tumpa, Dr Harifin, 16, 31 PART 9 PART U Ueno, Judge Gen, 258

W INDEXES Wahid, Bapak Marzuki, 31 Wareham, Neil, 118, 126, 244 Watts, Justice Garry, 121, 125, 129, 242, 243, 255 Website, 35 accessibility, 137 NEC channelling calls to, 80 Service Charter, 135, 136 Service Commitments, 135, 136 Weis, Tammy, 145 Widana, Bapak Wahyu, 31

Indexes | Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 291 Wiki, 37, 38 Wilson, Lisa, 246 Wollongong Registry, 249, 260 Workers’ compensation, 229 Workforce planning, 141–2 Workforce turnover, 146, 224 Workplace diversity, 142 Workplace health and safety, 142, 229

Y Years of service awards, 145–6 Young Employees Advisory Group, 39 Young, Justice Peter, 120, 243, 255, 258 Young, Linda, 145 Young, Susan, 146

Z Zellner, Trish, 246 Zimbabwe, 15, 32 assistance to judges in, 15, 32, 256 family law conference, 32, 256 PART 9 INDEXES

292 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANNUAL REPORT ANNUAL REPORT 2009–2010 2009–2010 4512 DESIGN DIRECTION