Annual Report 2009–2010 ISSN: 1035–9060 © Commonwealth of Australia 2010 This Work Is Copyright

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Annual Report 2009–2010 ISSN: 1035–9060 © Commonwealth of Australia 2010 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at www.ag.gov.au/cca

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 under About the Court > Corporate publications at: www.familycourt.gov.au The online version contains links to the 2009–10 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: Bluestar 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 manufatured by an ISO 14001 certified mill using renewable energy sources.

The cover features photos of the Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts building in Sydney.

ii Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 iii Contents

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

PART 1: CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW 9 Chief Justice’s year in review 11

PART 2: OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 15 About the Court 17 Outcome and program 18 Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements 19 Developments since the end of the financial year 20 Outlook for 2010–11 20 Shared parenting statistics 20 International cooperation 21 Court service locations 22 Initiatives of the Family Court 24

PART 3: REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE 33 Outcome and program 35 Judicial services 36 Registry services 64 Client feedback and complaints management 68

PART 4: APPEALS 71 Appeal Division 73 Appeals 74 Full Court sittings 74 Appeals to the High Court of Australia 81

PART 5: SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS 83 Significant and noteworthy judgments 85

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 1 PART 6: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 95 Corporate governance 97 External and internal scrutiny 115 Management of human resources 120 Commonwealth Disability Strategy 127 Financial management 128 Services provided free of charge 129 Purchasing, consultants and contracts 130 Assets management 133 Correction of material errors in 2008–09 report 134

PART 7: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 135

PART 8: APPENDICES 187 Appendix 1: Resource statement 189 Appendix 2: Resources for outcomes 190 Appendix 3: Staffing profile 191 Appendix 4: Occupational health and safety 198 Appendix 5: Freedom of information 200 Appendix 6: Advertising and market research 203 Appendix 7: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 204 Appendix 8: Grant programs 205 Appendix 9: Commonwealth Disability Strategy performance reporting 206 Appendix 10: Committees 207 Appendix 11: External involvement 212 Appendix 12: Judicial activities 214 Appendix 13: International cooperation 217 Appendix 14: International visitors 219 Appendix 15: Contact details 222

PART 9: INDEXES 225 List of requirements 227 Alphabetical index 230

2 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 Tables Table 2.1 Family Court of Australia service locations 23 Table 2.2 Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, 2008–09 and 2009–10 25 Table 3.1 Summary of performance—judicial services 38 Table 3.2 Appeal caseload 2005–06 to 2009–10 58 Table 3.3 Summary of performance—client services 65 Table 3.4 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2007–08 to 2009–10 68 Table 4.1 Notice of appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction, 2005–06 to 2009–10 75 Table 6.1 Consultant services contracts let during 2009–10, of $10 000 or more 131 Table 6.2 Legal services expenditure 132 Table 8.1 Family Court of Australia resource statement, 2009–10 189 Table 8.2 Family Court of Australia resources for outcomes, 2009–10 190 Table 8.3 Staff by location 191 Table 8.4 Staff by gender 192 Table 8.5 Staff by attendance status 192 Table 8.6 Ongoing staff by location and classification 193 Table 8.7 Non-ongoing staff, by location and classification 193 Table 8.8 Total number of judges and judicial registrars, 30 June 2010 194 Table 8.9 Workforce turnover 194 Table 8.10 Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 195 Table 8.11 Employees covered by other agreements 196 Table 8.12 AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification 196 Table 8.13 Classification structure and pay rates 197 Table 8.14 Comcare premium rates, 2005–06 to 2010–11 199 Table 8.15 Freedom of Information requests, 2005–06 to 2009–10 200 Table 8.16 Commonwealth Disability Strategy, Family Court performance indicators 2009–10 206 Table 8.17 Judicial committees, 30 June 2010 207 Table 8.18 Senior management governance committees, 30 June 2010 210 Table 8.19 Conferences attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice, 2009–10 214 Table 8.20 Chief Justice’s speaking engagements, 2009–10 215

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 3 Figures Figure 3.1 Transitioning from output reporting to program reporting 35 Figure 3.2 Applications filed, 2009–10 39 Figure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2009–10 39 Figure 3.4 Attrition and settlement trends in the Court’s caseload 40 Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2005–06 to 2009–10 41 Figure 3.6 Number of judges, 2005–06 to 2009–10 42 Figure 3.7 Final orders applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 43 Figure 3.8 Application in a case, 2005–06 to 2009–10 43 Figure 3.9 Consent orders applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 44 Figure 3.10 All applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 44 Figure 3.11 Final orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10 45 Figure 3.12 Application in a case, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10 45 Figure 3.13 Consent orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10 46 Figure 3.14 All applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10 46 Figure 3.15 Age of pending applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 47 Figure 3.16 Final order applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10 48 Figure 3.17 Applications in a case (interim), time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10 48 Figure 3.18 Consent order applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10 49 Figure 3.19 All applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10 49 Figure 3.20 Reserved judgments outstanding (pending) less than 3 months, at 30 June 2005–06 to 2009–10 50 Figure 3.21 Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 30 June 2005–06 to 2009–10 50 Figure 3.22 Applications finalised within 12 months, 2005–06 to 2009–10 52 Figure 3.23 Final order applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10 52 Figure 3.24 Applications in a case, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10 53 Figure 3.25 Consent order applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10 53 Figure 3.26 All applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10 54 Figure 3.27 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2005–06 to 2008–09 (final only) & 2009–10 (all) 55 Figure 3.28 Reserved judgments, time to deliver, 2005–06 to 2008–09 (final only) & 2009–10 (all) 55 Figure 3.29 Total judicial complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10 56

4 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 Figure 3.30 Judicial complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10 57 Figure 3.31 Proportion of litigants representation status, finalised cases, 2005–06 to 2009–10 58 Figure 3.32 Proportion of litigants representation status, trials, 2005–06 to 2009–10 59 Figure 3.33 Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents for finalised litigated cases 2007–08 to 2009–10 60 Figure 3.34 Per cent of cases where minority of time children spend with parents for finalised litigated cases 2007–08 to 2009–10 60 Figure 3.35 Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents for finalised consent cases 2007–08 to 2009–10 61 Figure 3.36 Per cent of cases where minority time children spend with parents for finalised consent cases 2007–08 to 2009–10 61 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 2009–10 62 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 2009–10 62 Figure 3.39 Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2005–06 to 2009–10 63 Figure 3.40 Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence is filed, 2005–06 to 2009–10 63 Figure 3.41 Magellan cases, 2005–06 to 2009–10 64 Figure 3.42 Administration complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10 69 Figure 3.43 Complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10 69 Figure 4.1 Notice of appeals, 2005–06 to 2009–10 76 Figure 4.2 Proportion of notice of appeals filed by jurisdiction of decree, 2005–06 to 2009–10 76 Figure 4.3 Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 2005–06 to 2009–10 77 Figure 4.4 Appeal directions hearings by type of judicial officer, 2006–07 to 2009–10 78 Figure 4.5 Proportion of issues raised on notice of appeals, 2009–10 79 Figure 4.6 Proportion of children and property issues raised on appeals, 2006–07 to 2009–10 79 Figure 4.7 Proportion of appellants by gender, 2005–06 to 2009–10 80 Figure 4.8 Proportion of appellants representation status, 2005–06 to 2009–10 80 Figure 4.9 Months to finalise appeals, 2006–07 to 2009–10 81 Figure 6.1 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2010 98 Figure 6.2 Family Court’s expenditure, 2009–10 129 Figure 6.3 Services provided free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court 130 Figure 8.1: Lifetime cost estimate of workers’ compensation injuries for 2006–07 to 2009–10 199

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 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 2009–10 reporting year. Prepared according to parliamentary reporting requirements, the report outlines the goals stated in the Court’s Portfolio Budget Statements and Portfolio Additional Estimates 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 2009–10 Portfolio Budget Statements and 2009–10 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 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 2009–10. 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 2010—contains the audited financial statements for 2009–10. PART 8: Appendices—includes the resource statement, staffing profile, occupational health and safety, freedom of information data, advertising and market research, information about committees and judicial activities, and contact details. PART 9: Index and list of requirements. The following references will assist readers to locate information in the annual report: Acronyms, abbreviations and a glossary of Court-specific terminology—page 7–8 List of requirements—page 227 Index—page 230. An electronic version of this annual report is available from the Family Court of Australia’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au) at this link: www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/home/about/ publications/annual/

6 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 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 Instructions CEO Chief Executive Officer CJ Chief Justice 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 IT information technology MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEC National Enquiry Centre 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 2009–2010 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. 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 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 2009–2010 PART 1 chief justice’s review PART 1 CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW 11

1 which progresses the original Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family W REVIE S ’ Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and CE Chief Justice’s year in review year in review Chief Justice’s the Attorney-General, the In 2008–09 I reported that had announced the Robert McClelland, Honourable courts the federal proposal to restructure Government’s within the Court Magistrates by merging the Federal Court. Federal Court and the Family down the existing Military When the High Court struck [(2009) 239 CLR 230] this Court in Lane and Morrison Attorney- 24 June 2010 the proposal changed and on through Parliament introduced legislation into General the Other Measures) Bill 2010 proposal whereby the family law component of the proposal whereby the family law component of Court would merge with the Family Magistrates Federal Appellate the Court which would comprise two Divisions, The Division. and the General and Superior Division, proposal under this Bill recommends the Federal Court be retained to continue to hear work Magistrates law jurisdiction. federal under its general JUSTI 1: CHIEF 1: T At the time of publication of this Report Parliament had been prorogued and the Bill as introduced, lapsed. had been prorogued and the Bill as introduced, At the time of publication of this Report Parliament amily Law Courts administration Chief Justice Bryant. R PA 1 agreed to merge their administration into one administration and to this end Mr Richard Foster PSM PSM to this end Mr Richard Foster and into one administration agreed to merge their administration By the end of the Court. Magistrates Federal Chief Executive Officer of the Acting appointed was was virtually complete for the courts one administration 2008–09 financial year the establishment of of the two courts, of the administration integration and the last 12 months have seen a complete retention. save for those which require independent statutory has been the months with the courts’ administration One of the major achievements in the last 12 courts in line with their needs and to identify and act capacity to review the resources of each of the in order to manage the combined budget of the upon areas in which costs savings could be made for the first time As part of this exercise, expenditure as far as possible within budget. courts to keep held Court was Magistrates Court and Federal a joint meeting of representatives from the Family shortly before 30 June to identify areas of potential cost savings for both courts. F Courts had Magistrates Court and Federal Annual Report I reported that the Family In the last 12 CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW PART 1 within theonecourt. family lawmatters(otherthanthosefiledinthe Family Courtof Western Australia) willbemanaged Should theGovernment’s proposalsbeintroduced, itwillinevitablyleadtofurtherchangewhereall workload. This isparticularlysoinregistrieswherethereareonlynowoneortwo judges. more expectedinthecomingyearisamajorchallengeforcourttryingto bestmanageits retirement ofsixjudgesinthe2009–10yearwithonereplacement. The departureofsixjudgeswith In addition, thecourthasexperiencedsignificantchangetoitsjudiciaryoverpastyearwith that arelesslikely tosettle. lengthier trialsandarematters the Courtinevitablyleadto the casesthatarenowbefore law cases. The complexityof most complexrange offamily deals withappealsandthe specialised courtthatgenerally to becomeasmaller, more enabled theFamily Court Magistrates Court. This has now filedinthe Federal most familylawapplications the pastseveral years, with has evolvedsignificantlyover The balanceoffamilylawwork the Court future direction of Challenges and judges whotravelled toIndialatelastyearconsultwithotherIndian judgesandadministrators. Family Court, particularly thelessadversarialtrialandJusticeFowler joinedadelegation of Australian Court inChinaandIndiarespectively. JusticeRosehasgivenseveral papersinChinaonprocessesthe Other significantengagementsthroughout2009–10includedJustices Rose and Fowler representingthe attended the Association ofFamily andConciliationCourtsconferenceinDenver, USAinearlyJune2010. agreed uponanumberofprinciplesaboutthedeterminationinternational relocation cases. Ialso countries includingNorth America, Europe, South America, India, Pakistan, Australia andNewZealand Private InternationalLawSecretariat. This eventwas ofsignificanceasmorethan50judgesfrom Border Family Relocationin Washington whichwas runbytheUSStateDepartmentandHague regarded asimportant. InFebruary thisyearIattendedthe InternationalJudicialConferenceonCross There continuestobemanyoverseasconferencesatwhichthe input oftheFamily Courtof Australia is worked closelywithmanyothercourtsthroughouttheregion. Throughout 2009–10theCourtcontinuedtoplayanimportantroleininternationallegalaffairsandhas International profile Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 was ChiefJusticeBlack’s finalmeetingatthisforumbeforehisretirementinMarch2010. Supreme Courtof Victoria (left)andChiefJusticeBlackoftheFederal Courtof Australia (right). This On 22February 2010ChiefJusticeBryant hostedaluncheonwithChiefJustice Warren ofthe PART 1 CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW 13 , conducted by the Family Law conducted by the Family , . Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family by the Australian Institute of Family Studies of Family Institute Australian by the Improving Legal Frameworks , conducted by Professor Richard Chisholm AM, and AM, conducted by Professor Richard Chisholm , — Family Violence Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms Family CourtsViolence Review The The Council. Council. Law Reform Wales Law Reform Commission and New South Australian A consultation paper by the Commission — The Improving Responses to FamilyViolence in the Family Law System ourt’s response to issues of family violence response he Court’s T Violence Court expanded the membership of its Family the Family In response to the above reviews, joint committee is in the This Court. Magistrates Committee to include representatives from the Federal operational Plan which is the Court’s Strategic Violence and updating the Family process of evaluating The is identified. issues in cases where family violence plan that assists registry staff to deal with safety was and lawyers and which are used by judicial officers Principles, Best Practice Violence Family Court’s committee will refer to the recommendations in the The are also under review. launched in early 2009, reports to inform its ongoing work. Government’s Attorney General’s is being commissioned by the package which Court contributed to a DVD training The family violence and Its objective is to improve consistency in the handling of cases involving Department. with families at risk. ensure professionals are properly equipped to work xternal reports on family law External reports on family two of 2010, subsequently released three reports on 28 January commissioned and Attorney-General The of made an evaluation that day and family law and the third report released on which reviewed violence included: reports Those Act. Law were made in 2006 to the Family the legislative changes that Violence in family law Violence In addition, the Family Court and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) has for International Development Agency Australian the Court and the Family In addition, in collaboration was undertaken which to a research project amount of support provided a significant PEKKA research Referred to as the research institute. and SMERU Supreme Court with the Indonesian the poor and those will assist Muslim women, information which aims to provide the necessary it project, Kepala Perempuan (Pemberdayaan PEKKA family courts. areas to access Indonesia’s living in remote research report is The in 2001. Non-Government Organisation established is an Indonesian Keluarga) early 2010–11. due to be completed in PART 1 PART CHIEF JUSTICE’S REVIEW

Foyer in the Court’s Sydney registry.

14 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 PART 2 Overview of the court OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

About the Court PART 2 The Family Court of Australia, through its specialist judges and staff, assists Australians to resolve their most complex legal family disputes.

The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record established by Parliament in 1975 under OF THE COURT OVERVIEW Chapter 3 of the Constitution. It commenced operations on 5 January 1976 and consists of a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and other judges. The Court maintains registries in all Australian states and territories except Western Australia.

Goal The Court’s goal is to deliver excellence in service for children, families and parties through effective judicial and non-judicial processes and high-quality and timely judgments while respecting the needs of separating families.

Purpose The purpose of the Court, as Australia’s superior court in family law, is to: determine cases with the most complex law and facts cover specialised areas in family law, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters. The core services of the Court are those that: are prescribed by legislation enable and support judges to determine cases, and meet duty of care requirements.

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

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 17 18 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT PART 2 The Family Courtof Australia alsohas original jurisdictionunderCommonwealth Acts, includingthe: Jurisdiction Outcome andprogram To ensuretheCourtfulfilsitsstatedpurpose, ithasfourprograms ofwork: Programs ofwork Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 client onthetelephone. NEC staffmembertalkswitha may include, forexample: The Family Courtof Australia isasuperiorcourtofrecordanddealswithmorecomplexmatters. These (such ascomplexvaluations of defined benefitsuperannuation schemes). or jurisdictionalissues(includingaccruedjurisdiction)complexconcerning superannuation structures, includingminorityinterests, multipleexpertwitnesses, complexquestionsoflawand/ Financial casesthatinvolvemultipleparties, valuation ofcomplexinterestsintrustorcorporate under theHagueConvention; specialmedicalprocedures; and/orinternationalrelocation. witnesses; complexquestions of lawand/or special jurisdictional issues; internationalchildabduction of preventingaparentfromcommunicatingwithorspendingtimechild; multipleexpert with othercomplexities; multipleparties; complexcaseswhereorderssoughtwouldhavetheeffect or seriousphysicalabuseofachild(Magellancases); familyviolenceand/ormentalhealthissues Parenting cases, includingthosethatinvolveachildwelfareagency; allegationsofsexualabuse Bankruptcy Act 1966 Act 1989 Act Bankruptcy 1988 Act (Assessment) Collection) Support and Child (Registration Support Child 1961 Act Marriage effective informationandcommunicationtechnologies. corporate managementofresources, and provision ofeffectiveandefficientregistryservices maintaining anenvironmentthatenablesjudicialofficerstomake determinations . the Budgetandforward years. required toidentifytheprograms thatcontributetogovernmentoutcomesover are governmentactionstaken todeliverthestatedoutcomes. Agencies are government onthe Australian community. Agencies deliverprograms which outcomes aretheintendedresults, impactsorconsequences ofactionsbythe Budget Statements, alongwithrelevant performanceinformation. Government government. Eachyeardetailsoftheframework areoutlinedinthePortfolio The Court’s outcomeandprogram framework setsoutitscommitmentstothe PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 19 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family providing decisions in complex family disputes for separating Australian couples and families Australian family disputes for separating providing decisions in complex and of matters, through the determination as the appellate court in family law matters. providing national coverage Case management has been the focus of significant reforms in the Family Court during the last two Family Court during the last reforms in the Case management has been the focus of significant the developments in case management have provided the basis for the Court to implement The decades. a judicial docket all parenting cases and to establish less adversarial approach for the management of for all cases. gives individual Court registries in 2007, introduced and rolled out in all Family judicial docket, The to finalisation from the time the case is docketed judges responsibility for managing their own cases early judicial intervention and active judicial case assists with individual docket The of the case. ensuring the earliest possible settlement or management in order to streamline the process, way. and thus disposal of cases in a more efficient determination, trials Less adversarial Court registries. in all Family fully implemented the less adversarial trial was During 2009–10, The continued. launched in 2008–09, Distribution of the less adversarial trial education package, package has proved to be a popular tool amongst legal professionals and universities. Chief Justice Bryant International interest in the less adversarial trial process grew further during the year. and Conciliation Association of Family Altobelli delivered a workshop at the Magistrate and Federal and to what extent workshop explored whether The USA in June 2010. Courts conference in Denver, into a trial court with a high volume elements of the less adversarial trial could be incorporated a international jurisdictions have incorporated At the conference it also emerged that some workload. their case management systems. processes into Family Court’s modified version of the Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements initiatives in the Portfolio Strategic identified a number of specific initiatives that the Budget Statements 2009–10 Portfolio Court’s The Each of these is reported here. Court would be progressing in 2009–10. Case management Program under which all services are provided: program Court has a single The Provision of a Family Court. families involved in complex family disputes Australian is to support objective program Court’s Family The involves: This courteously and effectively. promptly, to the law, by deciding matters according Outcome below. outcome is described Court’s Family The AsAustralia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters. 20 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT PART 2 maintenance cases. Sincethen, ongoingstafftraining andeducationhasoccurred. jurisdiction (suchastheFamily Courtof Australia andtheFederal Magistrates Court)inpropertyand Since 1March2009, defactocoupleshavebeenabletoaccesscourtsexercisingfederal familylaw De factorelationship laws See Part 6, InternalEvaluations forinformation. Child ResponsiveProgram The reformstoPart VII ofthe Shared parenting statistics In 2010–11, certainexternalfactorsmayimpactontheCourt. Inparticular: Outlook for2010–11 Magistrates Courtthatrelateto theintendedrestructureoffederal courts. see Part 7FinancialStatementsforfundingarrangements betweentheFamily CourtandtheFederal There havebeennospecificdevelopmentssince30June2010thatrequirereportinghere. However, Developments sincetheendoffinancialyear been abletopresentcomparative dataoverthefirstthreeyearsof thelegislationbeinginoperation. The collectionandanalysisof thatdatahasbeencomplexandthisyearisthefirstinwhichCourt has that cometocourtbutinwhichthe parties reachtheirownagreementwithouta decisionbyajudge. court. Inadditiontocasesin whichjudgesmake decisions, statisticshavealso beenrecordedofmatters endeavour tokeep statisticsonthe ‘time with’ordersthat werebeingmadeforthepartiescomingto From thestartoflegislationChiefJusticedecidedthat Courtwould, forthefirsttime, result ofthereforms, thefactorsarenowdividedinto ‘primary’ and ‘additional’ considerations. what orderwouldbeinthebestinterestsofchildwhoissubject ofaparenting dispute. As a Another importantchangewas madetothe ‘best interest’factorsthatacourthasregardtoin deciding arrangements wherethepresumptionapplies. obligations placedonfamilycourtstoconsider ‘equal time’and ‘substantial andsignificanttime’ was theintroductionofarebuttablepresumptionequalsharedparentalresponsibility andparticular Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 Act Responsibility) Parental Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 detail. external reviewsconcerningfamilyviolencethatwerereleasedin2009–10. SeePart 6formore continuation ofimplementationtheCourt’s familyviolencestrategy, particularlyinlightofvarious A substantialbodyofworkaroundfamilyviolencethatincludesupdatingandensuring the communication technologyapproaches, followingtheGershonreview. SeePart 6formoredetail. The continuationofthedevelopmentandimplementationgovernment-wideinformation awaiting theprogressofproposed legislation. SeeParts 3and6forfurtherdiscussion. Government’s decisiononthefutureoffederal courts. During2010–11theCourtwillbe On 24May2010, the Attorney-General, theHonRobertMcClellandMPannounced Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family , werewide-ranging. Among themostsignificantofthosereforms , introducedbythe Family Law Amendment (Shared (Shared Amendment Law Family PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 21 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family ransition T artnership for Justice ) website (www.badilag.net the development of a Religious Court jurisdiction instance religious Courts and 218 of the 343 first individual websites for 26 of the 29 High Religious fees and court procedures publication of court fee courts with information on court schedules, to Indonesian courts work has introduced a new level of transparency This information. launched by the Chief Justices of the Supreme a database of decisions of the High Religious Courts, has more than 1700 High Religious Court decisions 2008, Court in February Court and the Family ) or www.badilag.net online (see www.asianlii.org of how poverty creates barriers to accessing the mandatory family law increased awareness and jurisdiction of the religious courts for Indonesian Muslims, Indonesia. the first in Access and Equity Study 2007–2009, the International cooperation Australia P Indonesia Australian (IAPJT) is a joint Indonesian and Transition for Justice Partnership Australia Indonesia The and institutions government at strengthening the capacity of Indonesian Government initiative aimed April 2004 to December 2009, From legal reform as well as protect human rights. civil society to promote supported a broad Legal Development Facility Australia the Indonesia the predecessor of the IAPJT, anti-corruption and human rights, access to justice/ judicial reform, of activities in the area of program crime. trans-national Court of between the Federal (MOU) on Judicial Cooperation of Understanding A Memorandum (MA) supports the ongoing and the Supreme Court of Indonesia Australia Court of the Family Australia, has in recent years been supported MOU This and Indonesian courts. Australian activities between the and Religious Courts of MA and the General Annex documenting the work with both the by an annual Agung (MA) signed to assist the Maka to the MOU was a further annex In November 2009, Indonesia. leadership financial management reform, improving judicial transparency, with reducing its case backlog, strengthening client services in Office, Team support to the Judicial Reform and change management, Courts with further development of their information and supporting the Religious the Religious Courts, technology systems. court staff and court administrators judges, Strong working relationships have developed between These Court. Court and Family the Federal and Religious Courts of Indonesia, the General in the MA, and frankly facing the courts to be discussed relationships have allowed detailed analysis of problems which judicial cooperation, outcomes of this The to be developed and evaluated. responses strategic to justice and access dialogue on day-to-day court administration and interaction on practical draws is reported here. issues in both countries, the Religious with the Supreme Court of Indonesia, worked Court has the Family Since December 2004, judges and registry staff in both Indonesia and Courts of Indonesia, Courts of Indonesia and the General key The and consider possible improvements. aspects of client service delivery review key to Australia results of this court-to-court engagement include: Part 3 of this report, Report on Court Performance, contains the data. It shows that when a child is not It shows that when a contains the data. Court Performance, Report on this report, 3 of Part and abuse (including to do with violence the reasons often have time with a parent, given significant affecting a parent. health problems or result from mental substance abuse), 22 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT PART 2 Appendix 12hasfurtherdetail, including: the Indonesia Australia LegalDevelopmentFacility (IALDF). of IndonesiawithassistancefromtheFamily Courtandfundedbythe Australian Governmentthrough The Access andEquityStudywas conductedasacollaborative researchprojectledbytheSupremeCourt published onitswebsiteatwww.familycourt.gov.au. the Family Courtconductsjudicial, registrar andfamilyconsultantcircuitsaccordingtotheschedules Magistrates Courtof Australia andarestaffedpermanently. Inadditiontosittinginitsprincipallocations, Australia. Family lawregistriesprovideservicestoboththeFamily Courtof Australia andtheFederal There are19familylawregistriesinlocationsevery Australian stateandterritory, except Western Court servicelocations Appendix 13containsmoreinformationabouteachofthedelegations. aspects oftheCourt’s work. Fiji, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore, SwedenandtheUnitedStatesof America, lookingatdifferent During 2009–10theCourt’s workcontinuedtoberecognisedinternationallywithofficialvisitorsfrom International visitors Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 particularly inthefamilylawcasesreferredtostudy. to providegreateraccessjusticeforthepoor, marginalisedandthoselivinginremoteareas, an overviewofnewpoliciesandreformsbeingintroducedbytheSupremeCourtIndonesia an overviewofthekey findingsofthestudy PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 23 • • • • • circuit Family Family consultant • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • circuit Registrar Registrar • • • • • • • circuit Judicial Judicial • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Client Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family services • • • • • • • • • • • • Family Family consultants • • • • • • • • • • • • Registrar/s • • • • • • • • • Judge/s Family Court of Australia service locations service Australia of Court Family Alice Springs Townsville Cairns Mackay Wollongong Territory / Queensland / Northern Wales Northern New South Brisbane Coffs Harbour Lismore Rockhampton Tamworth Parramatta Bathurst Dubbo Orange Sydney Shepparton Warrnambool New Wales South / Australian Capital Territory Canberra Newcastle Macquarie Port Taree Albury Ballarat Bendigo Geelong Hamilton Mildura Bairnsdale Moe Hobart Launceston Burnie Melbourne Mt Gambier Darwin Alice Springs Victoria/Tasmania Dandenong Location South Australia South Australia / Northern Territory Adelaide Table 2.1 Table 24 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT PART 2 reported inPart 6(Managementand Accountability) and Appendix 8(Committees). This sectionhighlightsnewandongoinginitiativesoftheCourtin2009–10. Additional activitiesare Initiatives oftheFamily Court Enhancements during2009–10included: ID andaccessmultiplejurisdictionsfromasinglecentral web-basedsystem. have beenfiledandviewoutcomes, ordersmadeandfuturecourtdates. Userslogonusingasingleuser After registering, lawyersandregisteredlitigantscankeep track oftheircases, identifydocumentsthat access toinformationaboutcasesthatarebeforethesecourts. Family Court, theFederal CourtandtheFederal Magistrates Court. The portalprovidesfreeweb-based The CommonwealthCourtsPortal (www.comcourts.gov.au), launchedinJuly2007, isaninitiativeofthe Commonwealth ourtsP Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Public accesscomputersintheCourt’s Parramatta registry. files, andnewevents. diary showinglistingsfortheuser’s filesforthecurrentmonth, recentlyaccessedfiles, activityon A newoverall lookandfeelfor theportal, includinga ‘dashboard’ forusersthatincorporates acourt within lawfirms. A simplerregistration procedure andanimprovedadministration facilityforportaladministrators online (intheFederal Magistrates Court). details thatalsocanbeviewedinsidetheportal. By30June2010, 3879divorceshadbeenfiled activity alsoautomaticallycreatesanewfileinCasetrack completewithparty, listingandpayment of datesandthenprintingoutasealedcopytheapplicationforserviceon respondent. This Divorce bycompletinganonlineform, payingbycreditcard, selectingafirstcourtdatefrom range The releaseofStage2inSeptember2009. Itallowsapplicantstoinitiateanew Application for ortal PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 25 1 9 18 64 85 114 832 129 311 174 374 634 102 643 1679 9077 4904 1046 2029 2870 25 095 2009–10 - - 3 5 10 26 66 13 27 15 57 52 33 35 10 191 943 425 187 125 2250 2008–09 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, Court, Magistrates Court and Federal Documents eFiled in the Family 2008–09 and 2009–10 1279 law firms had registered for eFiling, compared with 667 at 30 June 2009, and 667 at 30 June 2009, compared with had registered for eFiling, 1279 law firms 2009. compared with 5900 at 30 June registered, 24 073 individual users had with those 1279 law firms 2827 lawyers registered and 3854 self-represented litigants, and staff of the courts. judicial officers academics, journalists, members of the public, Adelaide Albury Alice Springs Brisbane Dandenong Darwin Dubbo Hobart Lismore Melbourne Sydney Wollongong Total Cairns Canberra Coffs Harbour Launceston Newcastle Parramatta Rockhampton Townsville A further 364 documents were eFiled in the Family Court of Western Australia. Western Court of A further 364 documents were eFiled in the Family Table 2.2 Table Work was also progressed on a new more user-friendly ‘landing’ page after the login screen and a ‘landing’ page after the more user-friendly also progressed on a new was Work page for portal news. section on that At 30 June: 2009–10. grew noticeably during Use of the portal comprised: This supplementary to eFile of the portal is that it has allowed people One of the significant benefits breakdown 2.2 provides a registry-by-registry Table August 2008. matters since documents in family law Family Court and in the documents that were electronically filed of the number of supplementary 36 per cent of all supplementary Brisbane registry received Court during 2009–10. Magistrates Federal cent the Melbourne and Sydney registries received 19 per cent and 11 per documents via eFiling, respectively. 26 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT PART 2 their safetyandsecurityrequirementsremainscurrentrelevant foreachvisittothecourts. screening procedurestoeachandeverycourteventensurethatthepreliminaryadviceclientsgaveon in whichimplementationcouldbefurtheradvanced inregistries. Oneexampleisextensionofoursafety Registry ManagersreviewedimplementationoftheFamily Violence Strategy (2005)andidentifiedareas development ofkey aspectsofthepackage. The ChiefJusticeandmembersoftheCourts’Family Violence Committeehavebeeninvolvedinthe a greaterunderstandingandrecognitionbetweenprofessionsoftheirrespectiveroles andfunctions. of familyviolenceandhowtheyasprofessionalscanrespondeffectively. A secondaryaimistoprovide The packageaimstoprovidetherecipientsoftraining withasoundandpractical understanding the familylawsystem. Government Attorney-General’s Departmenttodevelopthetraining packageforprofessionalsworkingin violence training package. Relationships Australia (South Australia) was commissionedbythe Australian During 2009–10, theCourtwas astakeholder inthedevelopmentofamulti-disciplinaryfamily F is norightofappealfromadecision astotransfer. Either courtonitsownmotionor applicationofapartycantransfer amattertotheothercourt. There divorces. The Family Courthasexclusivejurisdictioninrelationto adoption andthevalidity ofmarriages and heard intheFederal Magistrate Court): or heardintheFamily Court, ifjudicialresourcespermit(otherwisethemattershouldbefiledand/or If anyofthefollowingcriteriaapplies, thentheapplicationforfinalordersordinarilyshouldbefiledand/ matters tobedirectedproperlythecourtappropriatehearthem. division ofworkbetweentheCourts. Itprovidesaguidetothelegalprofessionandlitigantsenable In January 2010, theChiefJusticeandFederal Magistrate publishedaprotocolaboutthe Protocol onworkdivisionbetweentheCourts Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 amily violence time. if thematterproceedstoafinalhearing, itislikely itwould take morethanfourdaysofhearing complex questionsofjurisdictionorlaw, and violence warranting theattentionofasuperiorcourt where applicable, andseriousallegationsofphysicalabuse ofachildorseriouscontrolling family serious allegationsofsexualabuseachildwarranting transfer totheMagellanlistorsimilar and whichhavebeenmadewithin12monthspriortofiling in Family Courtproceedings, whichhavereached afinalstageofhearingorjudicialdetermination contravention andrelatedapplications inparentingcasesrelatingtoorderswhich havebeenmade special medicalprocedures(suchasgenderreassignmentandsterilisation) disputes astowhetheracaseshouldbeheardin Australia international relocation international childabduction PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 27 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family —initiatives aimed at reducing the Courts’ impacts on the environment, including on the environment, —initiatives aimed at reducing the Courts’ impacts Environment released to all staff in January that was Policy taking the lead role in developing an Environmental 2010. SMS and email technologies—developing a business case to explore use of Electronic messages will These aim is to deliver better client service and reduce court costs. The technology. Division has accepted the Technology Information The not replace formal communication methods. can opt in for an SMS confirming that recommendation that portal registrants young employee’s It is anticipated the status of their proceeding has changed and that they should check the portal. Law Courts’ National Enquiry Centre and that this may reduce the number of enquiries to the Family initiative will be implemented in 2010–11. This improve client service. which includes a to staff, available Staff development—promoting development programs to communicate development brief online survey to obtain staff views on the most effective ways young The of the development opportunities available. staff awareness opportunities and to raise Manager of Human Resources has committed to The employees completed design of the survey. Development dissemination of the survey to all staff early in 2010–11 and to report to the Staff Committee on the results. Young Employees Advisory Group for 2009–10. Employees Young mployees Advisory Group Employees Young recognised that younger It was Advisory Group. Employees Young Court formed a the Family In 2008, Staff aged and approaches in court administration. employees can bring a different perspective to issues apply their unique perspective and ideas on best practice. ‘step up’ and to 27 years or less were asked is Senior staff involvement executive. Group has a mentor and project coordinator from the Court’s The that benefit the court facilitating the achievement of projects in short timeframes the group, to integral now and into the future. public sector organisations and Australian of any similar group in other Court is not aware The others to consider similar initiatives. encourages with nine employees selected from announced in June 2009, Membership of the 2009–10 group was during 2009–10 included: achievements group’s The Court. Magistrates Court and the Federal the Family 28 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT PART 2 Publications translated Languages available a secondlanguage. The provisionoftranslated informationisessentialtosupportaccessjusticeforclientswithEnglishas information assomelegaltermsandcourtprocessesdonottranslate wellintootherlanguages. simplified informationwritteninquestionandanswerformat. This isthepreferredformatfortranslated into tenlanguages. The translations arefactsheets, beingsummariesofthefullEnglishversionswith amendments andchangestocourtservices. The Family LawCourtshave11publicationstranslated During 2009–10, publicationsinlanguagesotherthanEnglishwerereviewedtoincorporate rule Services forpeoplefromnon-Englishspeakingbackgrounds Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Parenting orders—obligations, consequences and who can help? can who and consequences court? attending orders—obligations, when clients Parenting for safety do your for cannot fears and can have you staff Do Courts Law hearing Family the court What your for Court—tips to orders Going parenting with Compliance contacts Key notices debt party Third person hearings requesting cases Enforcement for financial for procedure Subpoena—information file—pre-action you Before separation and families Marriage, Vietnamese. Turkish Spanish Traditional Chinese Simplified Chinese Serbian Korean Greek Filipino Arabic

PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 29 Soraya age 11. Winner of 2010 Children’s Art Winner of 2010 Children’s age 11. Soraya Competition Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family Isabella age 10. Winner of 2010 Children’s Art Winner of 2010 Children’s Isabella age 10. Competition Members of the new Client Service Senior Manager’s Group (CSSMG). Members of the new Client Service Senior Manager’s Charlie aged 6. Winner of 2010 Children’s Art of 2010 Children’s Winner Charlie aged 6. Competition Client Service Senior Managers’ Group first time in March new Client Service Senior Managers’ Group (CSSMG) met face-to-face for the The having wider Group it replaced, It is significantly changed from the Client Service Operations 2010. direction and a broader focus across all areas of the business of both a new strategic membership, priorities were set for 2010–11. At the meeting strategic Courts. hildren’s art competition Children’s at held in 2009–10 with the winners announced Art Competition was Children’s Law Courts’ Family The and more than 150 entries were received World’ Beautiful ‘My was competition theme The end. year’s 13 with MP3 player, a personally engraved winners each received Ten Australia. from throughout certificate. receiving a highly commended entrants It is one approach that years. the competition in 2008 and it is held alternate Courts introduced The particularly with community, with the general ‘human face’ of the Courts the has been adopted to raise their parents and carers. children, promotional in publications, for example, It is used, is well-regarded in the Courts. Artwork from entrants with the have interactions at which children most likely products and in displays at registries—the places Courts. through school education through registries, ways: promoted in various competition was The Law Courts the Courts’ websites and the Family through family relationship centres, departments, website. 30 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT PART 2 An actionplanwas alsodeveloped withthefollowingprojectsfor2010–11: with thejudiciary, executiveandstaff. The Grouprecognisesitsroleincommunicatingprojectoutcomesandinitiatives. This includesengaging Targeted communicationandengagement reports tobeproducedthataccurately captureapositionatgiventime. The priorityfocusisonmaintainingtheintegrityofCasetrack dataandotherinformationtoenable Enhanced dataquality The Grouphasaroleinimplementingsavingsinitiativesareassuchas: Improve ourefficiency andcosteffectiveness courts. Focus willinclude: The Group’s missionistoidentifyandimplementways tocontinuallyimproveservicedeliveryacrossthe Improve ourservicedelivery endorsed bytheCEO’s Management Advisory Group, include: Members determinedapproachesonkey issues, projectsandworkingparties. The strategic priorities, was strongfocusoncorporate governanceinitiatives. Highlightsincluded: The Family Courtbecamethefirstfederal courttoputinplaceanewrecordsauthority. Inaddition, there through arange ofinitiatives. In 2009–10, theCourts’visionforprogressiveandstrategic informationmanagementwas progressed Information management Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 advising onimprovedapproachestointerpreterservices. progressing thedeliveryofintegrated clientservicetraining forexistingandnewclientservices, and Violence Committees’reviewofthe providing informationandinputsintotheFamily CourtandFederal Magistrates CourtFamily developing a Wikipedia-style productfortheintranet child disputeservices. fee exemptionsandwaivers, and interpreters andtranslation services challenging theway informationismanaged. maximising opportunitiesfromeFiling, includingpromotingittothelegalprofession, and registry practices commenced aspartofthedevelopment ofanInformationManagementFramework a strategic informationandknowledgeanalysisproject, which involvedextensivestaffconsultation, new ChiefExecutiveInstructionson Record Keeping andRecordsManagementPolicy Family Violence Strategy 2004–2005 Strategy Violence Family PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 31 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 — Australia Court of Family In Stage 1, four courtrooms in the regional registries of Hobart, Cairns, Darwin and Dandenong were Cairns, four courtrooms in the regional registries of Hobart, In Stage 1, completed in December 2009. was Work upgraded. and Melbourne registries were Parramatta Sydney, 12 courtrooms in the Brisbane, In Stage 2, completed in June 2010. was Work upgraded. linking all sites over the Courts’ network, including a national numbering plan. This will reduce call This plan. including a national numbering Courts’ network, linking all sites over the the Courts’ network over will travel costs as internal voice traffic which will reduce Notes and Sametime applications, implementing unified communications via Lotus telephone and desktop functionality. call conferencing costs and integrate significant parts of the Court’s intranet were revised with additional governance being placed with additional governance were revised intranet parts of the Court’s significant and and responsibilities, around roles structure that includes a new governance assisted in developing Board was Data Quality the Court’s Plan. an Information Quality and Governance Framework a Data Quality ABX replacement ranscription services In July 2009, Auscript became the single provider of services to the Family Law Courts. It then built It then Law Courts. services to the Family Auscript became the single provider of In July 2009, Law Courts (see upon the state-of-the-art digital audio recording platform implemented in the Family entirely location, hearings from a centralised Auscript to monitor which enabled above) during 2009–10, online Auscript’s were provided with access to Associates and court staff removed from the courtroom. Auscript client services team. which gives them live access to the CourtChat service, by improved quality of teleconferencing for example, value, technology update has already proved its The Both changes have AuscriptOnline hearing review portal. and greater access to audio of hearings via the been welcomed by the judiciary and court staff. T Courtroom technology in the audio and visual capability of courtrooms upgrading the Court has been Over the past 18 months, Court jointly decided the priorities for upgrade, Magistrates Court and Federal Family The eight locations. modernised equipment offers The magistrates. federal with the courtrooms selected used by judges or system with a touch panel that controls and manages significant improvements through an integrated delivered in two was on-site upgrade The simple to use. consistent and It is reliable, the technology. stages during 2009–10: the At 30 June 2010, with both stages. delivered to staff and judicial officers concurrent was Training being finalised. project implementation review was P phone system. to the Courts’ PABX planning for a major upgrade continued during the year on Work providing all 2010, that a new system would be in place by October expected it was At 30 June 2010, significant savings to ongoing It will produce with updated voice technology. judicial officers and staff by: telecommunications costs quality, data highlighting information security, held, was week Awareness Courts’ first Information The access and records sentencing and disposal. information records awareness, During 2009–10, Auscript produced: 12 901 individual hearing recordings, capturing 44 445 hours of audio 6069 transcripts of hearings and judgments. These resulted in a total production of 544 687 folios for the year—most of which were funded by users of the Courts. PART 2 PART

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: work in support of Indigenous clients integration of the administration of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, including creating a single regional management structure, restructuring within client services and the

OVERVIEW OF THE COURT restructuring of services provided by registrars and family consultants. Initiatives such as these are reported elsewhere in this annual report, particularly in Part 6, Management and Accountability.

32 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 PART 3 REport on Court Performance Report on Court Performance

Outcome and program From the 2009–10 Budget, all General Government Sector entities report on a program basis. The figure below outlines the transition from the 2008–09 Budget year (as at Additional Estimates), which was presented in administered items, outputs and output groups, to the program reporting framework used PART 3 for the 2009–10 Budget.

Figure 3.1 Transitioning from output reporting to program reporting Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort

2008–09: outcome and outputs 2009–10: outcome and program

Outcome 1 Outcome 1

As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters. coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.

Output Group 1.1 Program 1.1

Judicial Services: P1.1 Provision of a Family Court: OG 1.1,OG 1.2

Output Group 1.2

Registry Services: P1.1

Program

Family Court of Australia budget Program 1.1 Provision of a Family Court: OG 1.1,OG 1.2.

Whilst the Court’s reporting is now for a single program item as above, this report presents information in two streams: judicial services, and registry/client services. This approach is considered by the Court to provide greater transparency to the Court’s reporting.

Historic performance against KPIs The Court has eight key performance indicators against which it is reporting in 2009–10 (see Table 3.1 and Table 3.3). This is the second year in which they have been used. This year, the Court achieved five of them and did not achieve three. In term of cases pending (or backlog indicators), the Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending applications less than 12 months old. At 30 June 2010, 72 per cent of pending applications were less than 12 months old. The Court began reviewing its oldest active cases during 2009–10 to better understand the causes of delays and decide how older cases, particularly those older than two years, could be dealt with more appropriately.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 35 36 Report on Court Performance PART 3 reporting. More detailedinformationaboutperformanceagainsttheeightKPIsiscontained inthefollowing Courts Portal. in particulartheyrelatetotheCentre’s newroleasafirstentrypointhelpdeskfortheCommonwealth expected. Informationaboutfactorsthataffectedperformancein2009–10areincluded laterinthispart, over arange offunctionsfrom other businessunits, andthiscontributedtohigherworkvolumesthan For theNEC, itsperformancehasbeenaffectedbydifferingfactors: in2008–09theNECwas taking monitor thesituationthroughoutbothyears. were required, puttingadditionalpressureonjudgmentwritingtime. The ChiefJusticecontinuedto remaining judgestoensurecasescontinuebeheardandfinalised)more interlocutoryjudgments five judgesintheCourtduring2009–10(thisputpressureontoincreasesittingof increased by19 (20percent). As discussedlaterinthispart, thereweretwokey factors: anetlossof outstanding judgmentsby22(19 percent)comparedwith2007–08. However, in2009–10, thenumber In termsofreservejudgmentdeliverytimes, in2008–09, theCourtwas abletoreducethenumberof for telephonecallstotheNationalEnquiryCentre(NEC)beanswered. 12 monthsold(theCourtalmostachievedthisKPI), reservejudgmentdeliverytimesandthetimetaken The threethatwerenotmetinbothyearsrelatetothepercentageofcasespendingarelessthan The five key performanceindicatorsthatwereachievedgenerally achievedbyasignificantmargin. orders. children and/orfinancialissuesandtheyareseekingcourt ratification oftheseby wayofbindingcourt Consent ordersapplicationsarewheretheclientshaveagreedorsettled onterms relatingtothe to afinalhearing. the applicationforfinalordersisdecided, orinterlocutoryorders relatingtotheconductofcaseprior Applications inacaseareadditionalproceedingswhichclientseeks interimorders untilsuchtimeas financial portfolios(includingpropertyandotherassets). financial orders. The applicantssetouttheirclaimstospendtimewith theirchildrenand/orsplit Final ordersaremostlycaseswhereclientscommencelitigatedproceedings to obtain parentingand applications. These threemaintypesofcasescontributemosttotheCourt’s overall performance. caseload ispredominantlyapplicationsfor In ordertobetterunderstandtheCourt’s performance, itisnecessarytounderstandthattheCourt’s Judicial servicesinclude: Judicial services Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 providing nationalcoverage as the appellatecourtinfamilylawmatters. covering specialisedareasinfamilylaw, and determining casesthatarecomplexinlaw, factsandparties Final Orders, Applications in a Case a in Applications Orders, Final , and Consent Orders Orders Consent Summary of performance In 2009–10, the Court achieved four judicial key performance indicators and/or deliverables under the Portfolio Budget Statements (see Table 3.1) and was not able to achieve three, although it fell just short of one of the indicators.

The Court was able to achieve two of its most PART 3 important operational targets. Firstly the 100 per cent clearance was achieved. This shows a relatively stable Client service area at the Sydney registry. output relative to a level of incoming workload and suggests it is commensurate with its resources and the demand placed on its services. Additionally, the Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort Court increased the proportion of its cases being finalised before they were 12 months old. During 2009–10, the Court reviewed its oldest cases to establish why they were still awaiting a final judgment and to seek to progress them to finality. The review confirmed that the Court has many old cases that are very complex in nature, requiring careful and intense judicial management. It identified a number of cases that seemed older than they actually were because of administrative processes concerned with re-instatement or re-listing of ‘old’ cases for another hearing. Addressing these types of issues will ultimately allow the Court to reduce its oldest pending caseload and have cases before a judge as soon as practical.

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 (that is, significant decisions to be made so that the prima facie case can progress to a final judgment). This not only requires significant judicial time in hearing but also significant effort to determine. In previous years the Court had not been able to easily report about all judgments. This is the first year in which the Court is able to report the total of all judgments for the year under review. This additional detail has had an affect on the measures. While the number of cases requiring reserved judgments is relatively low compared to the total number of cases finalised, it is important for Court clients to receive orders as soon as possible after their hearing and/or trial. The KPI for reserved judgments indicates that clients with reserved judgments are waiting too long to have their judgment delivered. The Chief Justice continues to monitor these 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 2009–10, the Court had a net loss of five judges. This affected its ability to meet the targets for 2009–10, which were set late in 2008–09 and were based on the expected new caseload and resource levels at that time. Table 3.1 summarises the Court’s results in delivering judicial services against the key performance indicators and deliverables published in the 2009–10 Portfolio Budget Statements.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 37 38 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Table 3.1 financial issuesthishasincreasedtoaround15 percent. Furthermore, whilstonlyaboutfiveyearsago10 per cent ofcaseshadbothparentingand once dealtwithabout40 percentofcasesfinancialissues, whileitisnowabout 65 percent. The Courtcontinuestoexperienceashiftinthemixofparenting andfinancial related cases. The Court New workloadfor2009–10 The Court’s casemix: complexcases Detailed reportonperformance Note: *** ** * Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Lionel BowenCommonwealthLawCourtsinSydney. Backlog indicators Clearance rate KPIs*** annum Number offinalisationsper Deliverables indicators anddeliverables Key performance

client services. Seealso Table 3.3foradditionalPortfolio BudgetStatementsreporting. The Courthasseparated itsreportingforKPIsanddeliverables forgreatertransparency initsreportingforjudicialservicesand The CourtalsohasaKPIaboutcomplaints. This isreporteduponin Table 3.3 possible opportunitytoreflectonlythosethatareattributablethe Family Court. approximately 450or10 percentofthetotalshown. The ‘Other Finalisations’ perthePBSwillbeupdatedatearliest showing thetotal ‘Other Finalisations’forfamilylawinsteadoftheFamily Court. These figuresshouldhavebeen child supportappeals, andenforcementsummons. The values reportedinthe Portfolio BudgetStatementsareincorrectly The Family Court ‘Other Finalisations’estimatesincludeotherfamilylawfinalisationssuchas Hague, contempt, contraventions, with anothersimilarlywordedmeasure. The wordingofthismeasurediffersslightlyfromthePBStobetterreflectintent andtoavoidconfusion Summary ofperformance—judicialservices conclusion arelessthan12 monthsold More than75%ofmatterspending 100% Final orderfinalisations: 3900 Target/deliverable after theconclusionoftrial* are waiting lessthanthreemonths More than75%ofreservedjudgments Other orderfinalisations**: 450 Consent orderfinalisations: 10 500 Interim orderfinalisations: 4300 large andcomplexfinancepropertyportfolios. splitting ofsuperannuation, corporate businesses, and property issues. Financialcasesoftendealwiththe also dealswithcomplexcasesinvolvingfinancialand the childrenaredifficulttodealwithbutCourt Parenting casesdealingwiththebestinterestsof show thenewcaseloadduring2009–10. and difficultfamilylawcases. Figures 3.2and3.3 The Courtcontinuestodealwiththemostcomplex 11 228/10 164 Target/Result 100%/106% 4637/ 4883 5303/4328 75%/73% 75%/54% 08–09 10 625 09–10 result 100% 3935 4073 72% 46% 462 09–10 target achieved ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗

Figure 3.2 Applications filed, 2009–10

Application Filed % Final orders applications 3692 19% Application in a case (Interim) 4230 22% Consent orders applications 10 705 56% Other applications 462 2%

Total 19 089 100% PART 3

Other applications 2% Final orders appplications 19% Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort

Consent orders applications 57% Application in a case (Interim) 22%

Figure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2009–10

Children and financial 14% Financial only 50%

Other 1%

Children only 35%

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 39 40 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Court’s casesneededjudicialdecision, todaythishasrisentoabout10 percent. the casemanagementphasewheretheyfinalised. Whereasabout10 yearsago5percentofthe Figure 3.4 showsthechangingsettlementandattritiontrendofCourt’s completedcaseloadand decision attrial. parties arelesslikely tosettletheirdisputeandthecaseshaveahigherprobabilityofneedingjudicial Magistrates Court). They involvemultipleissuesandhigherlevelsofconflictbetweentheparties. The The Court’s casemixispredominantlycomplexcases(lessaredealt withbytheFederal Complex cases Court havingfewerjudicialofficerstoheartrials. trials in2009–10, reflectingnotonlylesscasescomingbefore the Courtbutalso, moreparticularly, the Figure 3.5providesthenumberofcasesthatarefinalisedatfirstinstance trial. TheCourthadfewer Alternatively, theymayreachsettlementduringthetrialprocess—thiscommonlyhappens. Parties whocannotagreetosettletheirdisputerequireajudgemake adecisionaftertrial. F Figure 3.4 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 irst instancetrials 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0% 2005–06 Lodged Attrition andsettlementtrends inthe Court’s caseload Conference First Court Hearing / 2006–07 conferencing Pre-trial 2007–08 Docket entry Trial Phase/ 2008–09 Management Trial Phase 2009–10 Commence trial Judgment Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2005–06 to 2009–10

2 000 1801 1 800 950 1575 1 600

906 1 400 1253 PART 3

1 200 1115 711 1038

1 000 583 511

800 Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort

600

400

200 851 669 542 532 527 0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

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

Impact of reduced number of judicial officers The number of Family Court judges has steadily decreased in recent years. During 2009–10, six judges retired and only one replacement judge was appointed, resulting in a 15 per cent reduction in judicial resources. As this report was being prepared the government announced four new judicial appointments, although two of these were long standing Family Court judicial registrars. The decision not to fill all the retired positions combined with the delay in those replacements put pressure on the Court’s ability to maintain or increase the rate at which it finalised cases in 2009–10. Even though the number of filings in the Court reduced further in 2009–10, such pressures are expected to continue into 2010–11 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 number 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.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 41 42 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Figure 3.6 with fewerjudgesmeantthetargetcouldnotbeachieved. case andcanbedealtwithrelativelyquickly. A smallernumberwas filedthananticipated. This combined than thetargetand6 percentlessin2008–09. Interimapplicationsareassociatedwith anexisting During 2009–10, 4073interimapplications(Applicationinacase) werefinalised, about5 percentless Applications inacase(interim) responsible forproducingtheresult. considered apositiveachievement. The Court’s caseanddocket managementwereseento be largely This was 20 percentfewerthanin2008–09butgiventhe15reductionjudges, itwas During 2009–10, 3935applicationsforfinalorderswerefinalised, about1 percentabovethetarget. Final orders pursuant totheHagueConventiononCivil Aspects ofInternationalChild Abduction. Court alsodealswithdiscreteapplications, suchascontraventions, contemptandapplicationsmade and associatedinterimapplicationsrequiremoreefforttoresolvethanconsent orderapplications. The Each applicationtyperequiresaparticularlevelofefforttoresolve. For example, finalordersapplications estimated newapplicationsinitiatedeachyearandthenumberofactivecases (pending). Statements) werebasedontheCourt’s historicalachievements, itsresourcelevelincludingjudges, the and 10 500consentordersapplications. These targets(ordeliverables inthePortfolio Budget During 2009–10, theCourtaimedtofinalise3900finalordercases, 4300interimordersapplications Number offinalisations Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 2005–06 45 Number ofjudges, 2005–06to2009–10 43 40 35 30 Consent orders During 2009–10, 10 625 consent orders applications were finalised, which is 1 per cent more than target and 5 per cent more than were finalised in 2008–09. 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 slight increase in consent applications filed, therefore the number finalised reflects registrar resources availability in 2009–10.

Figures 3.7 to 3.10 display five-year trends in filings, finalisations and pending (active) applications. PART 3

Figure 3.7 Final orders applications, 2005–06 to 2009–10 Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort 15 000 12 639

12 000 11 011 10 759 9455

9 000 7854 6992 6550

6 000 4883 4457 3834 4015 3935 3692 3451 3322

3 000

0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Filed Finalised Pending

Figure 3.8 Applications in a case, 2005–06 to 2009–10

15 000 11 936

12 000 11 239 8810 9 000 7928 5597

6 000 4949 4328 4313 4230 4073 2919

3 000 2037 1389 1577 1376

0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Filed Finalised Pending

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 43 44 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Figure 3.10 Figure 3.9 manageable level. years, theCourthas cleared morethan100 percentofcases, thusenabling ittokeep itsbacklogtoa keep upwithitsnewworkand preventanincreaseinitsbacklogofpendingcases. For anumberof rate ascasesarestarted. A clearance rate of100 percentorhighershowsthattheCourt isableto The Courtaimsforaclearance rate of100 percent; thatis, inayeartofinaliseatleastthesame Clearance rate 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 12 000 15 000 3 000 6 000 9 000 0 0 Filed Filed

2005–06 35 075 2005–06 11 729

37 706 All applications, 2005–06to2009–10 11 871 Consent orders applications, 2005–06to2009–10

13 267 557 Finalised Finalised

2006–07 27 350 2006–07 10 790

31 035 10 634 Pending Pending 6 160 713

2007–08 20 337 2007–08 10 410

23 759 10 576

5 381 548

2008–09 18 633 2008–09 10 105

19 786 10 164

5 381 504

2009–10 19 089 2009–10 10 705

19 069 10 625

5 873 626 In 2009–10, the Court had a 100 per cent clearance rate, even though the figures presented in this report show an increase in the pending figures. This is because the number of pending cases reported in 2008–09 was subsequently found to be understated by about 450 applications because of incorrect classifications recorded in the Court’s case management system. (The 2008–09 figures have not been updated as they represent what was reported at the time of last year’s annual report production). Figures 3.11 to 3.14 show five-year trends in clearance rates. PART 3 Figure 3.11 Final orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10

160%

Court is finalising more cases than are started Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort 150%

140%

130%

120%

110%

100% Court is finalising less cases than are started 90%

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Clearance Rate Target

Figure 3.12 Application in a case, clearance rates, 2005–06 to 2009–10

120%

115%

Court is finalising more cases than are started

110%

105%

100%

95%

Court is finalising less cases than are started

90%

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Clearance Rate Target

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 45 46 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Figure 3.14 Figure 3.13 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 110% 110% 105% 110% 115% 120% 110% 140% 105% 110% 90% 90% 2005–06 2005–06 Clearance Rate Clearance Rate All applications, clearance rates, 2005–06to2009–10 Consent orders applications, clearance rates, 2005–06to2009–10 2006–07 2006-07 Target Target 2007–08 2007–08 Court isfinalisinglesscasesthanarestarted Court isfinalisingmorecasesthanarestarted Court isfinalisinglesscasesthanarestarted Court isfinalisingmorecasesthanarestarted 2008–09 2008–09 2009–10 2009–10 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 contains older cases and cases that commenced more recently. Many of these cases will be disposed within the Court’s target. However, the completion of applications that are older and outside the timeliness target is the primary focus of the Court.

Age of pending applications PART 3 Each court must have a backlog of cases so that it can have a steady workload to account with the ebbs and flows of new cases and cases being finalised. 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 Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort proportion of younger cases. If the Court can achieve a healthy distribution of aged cases this helps 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. The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending applications less than 12 months old. At 30 June 2010, the Court nearly met this target by achieving 72 per cent of pending applications being less than 12 months old. This has remained relatively steady from 2008–09. During the last six months of 2009–10, the Court began reviewing its oldest active cases, 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. The benefits of the review are expected to materialise during 2010–11. 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, 2005–06 to 2009–10

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 71% 70% 69% 73% 72% 0% 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

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

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 47 48 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Figure 3.16 Figure 3.17 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100 % 100 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 0% 0% 40% 72% 2005–06 2005–06 40% 68% 0–6 months 0-6 months Final order applications, timepending, 2005–06to2009–10 Applications inacase(interim), timepending, 2005–06 to2009–10 38% 66% 41% 66% 39% 61% 2006–07 2006–07 25% 16% 22% 19% 6–12 months 6–12 months 2007–08 2007–08 21% 20% 23% 20% 24% 23% 2008–09 2008–09 23% 7% 25% 12–24 months 12–24 months 8% 26% 10% 2009–10 2009–10 21% 9% 23% 12% 12% 5% 13% 5% 24+ months 24+ months 14% 4% 15% 5% 14% 4% Figure 3.18 Consent order applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10

94% 100 % 92% 93% 87% 90 % 83% 80 %

70 %

60 %

50 % PART 3

40 %

30 %

20 % 11%

8% 5% Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort 4% 3% 4% 10 % 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Figure 3.19 All applications, time pending, 2005–06 to 2009–10

100 %

90 %

80 %

70 %

60 % 53% 51% 49% 50% 50% 50 %

40 %

30 % 22% 20% 21% 20% 19% 18% 19% 20% 17% 20 % 16% 10% 11% 11% 11% 10% 10 %

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

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

The varying complexity within the different application 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 and as a result a larger proportion of them are older than 12 months.

Age of reserved judgments outstanding When there is a trial, judges 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 on final order applications. Its target is to have more than 75 per cent of matters awaiting a judgment waiting no more than three months. The Court did not meet this target in 2009–10.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 49 50 Report on Court Performance PART 3 outstanding at30Juneeachyear. with thetargetof75percent. Figure3.21showsthefive-yeartrendintimeforreservedjudgments 3.20 showsthefiveyeartrendinreservedjudgmentsoutstandingat30Juneeachcompared At 30June2009, 46 percentoftheCourt’s reservedjudgmentswerelessthanthreemonthsold. Figure 2009–10 Figure 3.21 Figure 3.20 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0% 0% 51% Within 3months Within 3months 2005–06 2005–06 Time forreserved judgmentsoutstanding (pending), at30June 2005–06to 2005–06 to2009–10 Reserved judgmentsoutstanding(pending)lessthan3months, at30June 51% 22% 27% 58% 2006–07 2006–07 More than3butless6months 58% 25% 17% Target 39% 2007–08 2007–08 25% 39% 36% More than6months 54% 2008–09 2008–09 20% 54% 26% 46% 2009–10 2009–10 23% 46% 32% At 30 June 2010, the number of outstanding judgments increased by 19 (20 per cent) compared to 30 June 2009. The Court was not able to meet its target because of two factors. Firstly, the reduction in judge numbers put pressure on the Court to increase the sitting of the remaining judges to ensure cases continue to be heard and finalised. This lessened the times that judges had to complete their reserved judgments. Secondly, more interlocutory judgments were required for the Court’s cases, putting additional pressure on judgment writing time. The Chief Justice continues to monitor reserved judgments.

Percentage of cases finalised PART 3 The Court aims to finalise cases within a timely manner. It is, however, mindful that the complexity of family law needs taking into account: family law cases are particularly difficult and emotional, and the Family Court’s decisions affect many lives for potentially many years. Therefore, the Court also recognises Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort 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 PBS about the time to finalise cases, the Court continue to internally monitor the age of its finalised cases to assist with determining resource allocation and the effort required to clear cases.

Age of finalised applications The Court’s target for timeliness to finalisation are based on previous cases and the Court’s 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, which cannot be expected to be managed within that timeframe. During 2009–10, the Court finalised about 91 per cent of cases (applications) within 12 months which is significantly above the target and a 2 per cent increase since 2008–09. 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.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 51 52 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Figure 3.22 Figure 3.23 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0% 0% 44% 2005–06 % finalisedwithin12months 41% 2005–06 0–6 months Applications finalisedwithin12 months, 2005–06to2009–10 Final order applications, timetofinalise, 2005–06to2009–10 85% 40% 41% 43% 2006–07 2006–07 20% 85% 21% 6–12 months 2007–08 21% 19% Target (75%) 21% 2007–08 2008–09 86% 22% 23% 12–24 months 21% 2009–10 22% 2008–09 20% 89% 14% 12% 24+ months 15% 2009–10 91% 17% 16% Figure 3.24 Applications in a case, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10

100%

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

70%

60%

50% PART 3

40%

30%

20% 12% 13% 13% 12% 12%

6% Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Figure 3.25 Consent order applications, time to finalise, 2005–06 to 2009–10

99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 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

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 53 54 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Figure 3.26 3.28 showstimetodeliverreservedjudgments. Figure 3.27showsthefiveyeartrendofreservedjudgmentsdelivered within threemonthsandFigure trials. the judgmentstoensuretheycanbedeliveredwhilebalancingitwithjudges spendingtimehearing reduces theiravailable timetocompletereservedjudgments. The ChiefJusticewillcontinuetomonitor of fivejudges. Fewer judicialresourceshasput pressure ontheCourttoensurejudgesheartrials, which additionally in2009–10amajorfactoraffectingtheCourt’s abilitytomeetthistargetwas thenetloss Complex issuesarethemainreasonthatsomejudgmentsmaytake alongertimetocomplete, but within threemonths. this targetin2009–10bydelivering545reservedjudgments(excludingonappealcases) The Courtaimstohave75 percentofreservedjudgmentsdeliveredwithinthreemonths. The Courtmet years’ dataisonlyshownforinformationpurposes). cannot bedirectlycomparedwithpreviousyears, whichrelatedonlytofinaljudgments(theprevious has beenremediedtoallowmorecompletereportingthisyear. Itshouldbenoted thatthisinformation 2009–10, theinterlocutoryjudgmentswerenotsystematicallyrecordedtoalloweasyreportingbutthis Court’s caseshaveexperiencedanincreaseintherate ofclientsseekinginterlocutoryjudgments. Before of judgmentsaredeliveredex temporestraight afterthetrial or hearing. Inthepastfewyears The Courtaimstodeliverreservedjudgmentswithinthreemonthsaftertrialorhearing. The majority Age ofreservedjudgmentsdelivered Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0% 74% 2005–06 73% 0–6 months All applications, timetofinalise, 2005–06to2009–10 76% 81% 83% 2006–07 11% 12% 6–12 months 2007–08 10% 8% 7% 2008–09 9% 10% 12–24 months 9% 2009–10 7% 6% 5% 5% 24+ months 5% 5% 4% Figure 3.27 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2005–06 to 2008–09 (final only) and 2009–10 (all)

100% * 2009–10 All judgments, 2005–09: Final Only 90%

80%

70% PART 3

60%

50%

40% Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort

30%

20%

10% 73% 73% 69% 70% 75% 0% 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Within 3 months Target (75%)

Figure 3.28 Reserved judgments, time to deliver, 2005–06 to 2008–09 (final only) and 2009–10 (all)

600 * 2009–10 All judgments, 2005–09: Final Only 69 500

81 51 400 47 62 49 300 55 48 58 50

200

100

416 279 239 233 341 0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

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

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 55 56 Report on Court Performance PART 3 but comparable tothelevelin2005–06 (seeFigure3.29). The numberofjudicialcomplaintsreceivedbytheCourtin2009–10was morethaninthepreviousyear dealt withbyaregistrar rather thanajudicialofficer. financial questionsandareseekingtheendorsementofagreementbyCourt), whicharegenerally This figureexcludedconsentorderapplications(wherethepartieshavealreadyagreedonparentingand when judicialservicescomplaintsandadministrative complaintsarecombinedtheytotal1 percent). applications filed(19 089), wellunderthePortfolio BudgetStatementstargetof1percent(although judicial conductand25onthetimetaken indeliveryofajudgment. This represented0.3percentofall In 2009–10, theCourtreceived57complaintsrelatingtojudgesorjudicialregistrars—32 concerning for theirdecisions, andthescrutinyoftheirdecisionsonappeal. Judges areaccountablethroughthepublicnatureoftheirwork, therequirementthattheygivereasons Judicial servicescomplaints matters raised. Becausetheprocesscannotprovideamechanism fordiscipliningjudges, theCourt’s the complaint, onitsface, hassubstance. The complainantwillreceiveacomprehensive responsetoall If theChiefJusticeconsidersthat complaintisaboutjudicialconduct, shewilldeterminewhether Justice. about theperformanceofajudge’s judicialfunctionsmustbemadebyletteraddressedtothe Chief A complaintabouttheconductofajudgeincourtorconnectionwith acasein theFamily Courtor party, regardingthesamecourtproceedingdeterminedbyjudicial officer. major factorintheincreasewas thenumberofmultiplecomplaintsfromaparty, orinsomecasesa non- The Courtreceived32complaintsin2009–10aboutjudicialconduct, comparedwith17in2008–09. A Judicial conduct Figure 3.29 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 2005–06 55 Total judicialcomplaints, 2005–06to2009–10 2006–07 65 2007–08 74 2008–09 50 2009–10 57 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 2009–10 there were no complaints that were found to have substance. Many were about the outcome of the case rather than judicial conduct per se.

Delay in delivery of a judgment The Court received 25 complaints about the time taken for reserved judgments, a decrease from the 33 received in 2008–09. PART 3 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. A party may express Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort concerns or may complain about delay in the delivery of a judgment in writing to the president of the bar association or the law society in the state or territory in which the case was heard, and request that the president take up the matter with the Chief Justice. Complaints of this nature can also be made directly by letter addressed to the Chief Justice. Figure 3.30 shows the four-year trend in judicial complaints in both these categories.

Figure 3.30: Judicial complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10

50 43 37 40 33 31 32 29 28 30 26 25 20 17

0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Judicial conduct Reserved judgments

Judicial decisions Those concerned about judicial decisions in a case or about any other matter in connection with a case that is capable of being raised in an appeal should consider whether or not to appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court. There are time limits for appeals and parties need to act promptly. The Chief Justice cannot interfere with any decision made by a single judge. Complaints about the result of a case are generally outside the scope of the complaints procedure and are not included in the Courtroom at the Parramatta Family Law Courts. figures in this section.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 57 58 Report on Court Performance PART 3 2009–10 2008–09 2007–08 2006–07 2005–06 Table 3.2summarisestheappealsworkload; moreinformationaboutappealsisinPart 4 ofthisreport. Court of Australia, theFamily Courtof Western Australia andtheFederal Magistrates Court. The Court’s Appeal DivisiondealswithallFullCourtappeals. The mattersarefromdecreesoftheFamily Summary ofappealcaseload National coverageasappellatecourt Figure 3.31 increasing proportionoftheCourt’s casesandtrialsinvolvelegalrepresentation. complex andbesthandledbytrained legalrepresentatives. Figures3.31and3.32showthatan However, theuseoflegalrepresentationcanindicatethatpartiesconsider their mattertobe navigate thecourtsystemandrequireadditionalhelpguidancetoabideby theFamily Lawrules. its caseload. Self‑representedlitigantsaddalayerofcomplexitybecausetheyneedmoreassistanceto The Courtmonitorstheproportionofself‑representedlitigantsasonemeasure ofthecomplexity Self‑represented litigants(SRL) Social justiceandequityimpacts Table 3.2 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Appeals pending Appeals finalised Appeals filed 0% Neither haverepresentatives(bothSRL) Both haverepresentation(noSRL) Proportion oflitigantsrepresentation status, finalisedcases, 2005–06to2009–10 Appeal caseload2005–06to2009–10 10% 2005–06 20% 314 212 299 30% 2006–07 73% 74% 73% 71% 68% 40% 185 346 324 One partyrepresentative(atleastoneSRL) 50% 2007–08 216 318 349 60% 2008–09 70% 230 361 364 80% 17% 16% 17% 19% 22% 2009–10 201 345 315 90% 10% 10% 10% 11% 9% % Change 100% -13% -13%

-4% Figure 3.32 Proportion of litigants representation status, trials, 2005–06 to 2009–10

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

2005–06 51% 38% 10%

2006–07 66% 28% 6%

2007–08 64% 30% 6% PART 3 2008–09 65% 30% 5%

2009–10 65% 28% 7% Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort Both have representation (no SRL) One party representative (at least one SRL)

Neither have representatives (both SRL)

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. 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. The following figures 3.33 to 3.36 for cases finalised during 2007–08 to 2009–10 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.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 59 60 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Figure 3.33 Figure 3.34 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0% 0% With father(litigatedcases) With mother(litigatedcases) With father(litigatedcases) With mother(litigatedcases) litigated cases, 2007–08to2009–10 Per centofcaseswhere majoritytimechildren spendwithparents forfinalised litigated cases, 2007–08to2009–10 Per centofcaseswhere minorityoftimechildren spendwithparents forfinalised 2007–08 2007–08 12% 14% 46% 14% 17% 60% 2008–09 2008–09 Shared 50/50(litigatedcases) Shared 50/50(litigatedcases) 13% 15% 48% 15% 18% 59% 11% 12% 54% 12% 14% 66% 2009–10 2009–10

Figure 3.35 Per cent of cases where majority time children spend with parents for finalised consent cases, 2007–08 to 2009–10

100%

90%

80% 68% 67% 69% 70% PART 3 60%

50% Per cent Per 40%

30% Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort 18% 18% 18% 20%

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

With mother (Consent cases) Shared 50/50 (Consent cases) With father (Consent cases)

Figure 3.36 Per cent of cases where minority time children spend with parents for finalised consent cases, 2007–08 to 2009–10

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 51% 52% 53% 50% Per cent Per 40%

30% 18% 18% 18% 20%

10% 6% 6% 5%

0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

With mother (Consent cases) Shared 50/50 (Consent cases) With father (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. 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 three years to 2009–10. The cases include cases where no contact was allowed and cases where contact was only to occur under supervision at a contact centre.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 61 62 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Figure 3.37 More detailsabouttheseareavailable ontheCourt’s websiteatwww.familycourt.gov.au. Figure 3.38 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0% 5% 0% 5% children forfinalisedlitigatedcases, 2007–08to2009–10 Most commonreason whymothers hadlessthan30 percentoftimespentwith children forfinalisedlitigatedcases, 2007–08to2009–10 Most commonreason whyfathers hadlessthan30 percentoftimespentwith 16% 16% 31% 2% Entrenched conflict Abuse and/orfamilyviolence Entrenched conflict Abuse and/orfamilyviolence 15% 3% 6% 29% 2007–08 2007–08 2007–08 2007–08 19% 11% 12% 17% 10% 16% 3% Mental health Distance /transport /financialbarriers Mental health Distance /transport /financialbarriers 27% 2007–08 2007–08 12% 12% 24% 24% 23% 36% 7% 4% 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 continues to rise (see Figure 3.40). This is

further evidence to suggest that cases dealt with by the Court are increasingly more complex. PART 3

Figure 3.39 Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2005–06 to 2009–10

700 Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort

600

500

400

300

200

100

607 606 459 441 440 0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Figure 3.40 *Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence is filed, 2005–06 to 2009–10

14%

12% 12% 12% 10%

10%

8% 8%

6% 6%

0% 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

* Rounded to the nearest per cent

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 63 64 Report on Court Performance PART 3 Registry servicesinclude: either court. filing anapplicationorwhowishtofilewith Federal Magistrates Courtof Australia) whoareconsidering Courts (comprisingtheFamily Courtof Australia andthe Registry servicesareprovidedtoclientsoftheFamily Law Registry services 30 June 2010, 323caseswerepending. Figure 3.41 detailsthenumberofMagellancasescommencedandfinalisedin thepastfive years. At notices willnecessarilybeclassifiedasaMagellanmatter. Typically, aMagellancaseisonewherenoticeofabuseorfamilyviolencefiled, althoughnotall every Magellancase, forwhichlegalaidisuncapped. efficiently andthathigh-qualityinformationisshared. Anindependentchildren’s lawyerisappointedin particular withstateandterritorychildprotectionagencies. This ensuresthatproblemsaredealtwith highly coordinatedprocessesandprocedures. A crucialaspectisstronginteragency coordination, in of ajudge, aregistrar andafamilyconsultant. Magellancasemanagementreliesoncollaborative and special casemanagement. When aMagellancaseisidentified, itismanagedbyasmallteamconsisting Magellan casesinvolveallegationsofseriousphysicalabuseorsexual achildandundergo Magellan cases Note: Figure 3.41 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100 150 200 250 300 50

family lawdocumentprocessing. family lawtelephoneandreferral services provision ofeffectivesupporttothe Family LawCourts 0 Figures publishedin2008–09hadlegendkeys inadvertentlyinterchanged. Magellan started 170 2005–06 Magellan cases, 2005–06to2009–10 138 217 2006–07 Magellan finalised 189 197 2007–08 199 Client ServiceOfficeratSydneyregistry. 268 2008–09 191 264 2009–10 213 Summary of performance Family law registries and the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) provided a high level of service to the clients of the Family Law Courts and to judges and federal magistrates during 2009–10. Both the registries and the National Enquiry Centre achieved against all Portfolio Budget Statement performance indicators and deliverables except one. The one related to telephoning answering times at the NEC. PART 3 Table 3.3 summarises the performance of the various client services functions of the Court against PBS key performance indicators and deliverables. More detailed reporting follows.

Table 3.3 Summary of performance—client services Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort

Key performance indicators Target/deliverable 08–09 Target/ 09–10 09–10 target and deliverables result result achieved Deliverables Counter enquiries 145 300 counter enquiries 141 924/143 931 152 538 ✔ handled Telephone enquiries 359 800 telephone enquiries 183 778/415 598 417 346 ✔ received Email enquiries 48 500 email enquiries 47 308/47 977 50 846 ✔ KPIs Counter enquiries 75% of all counter enquiries are 75%/90% 90% ✔ served within 20 minutes Time taken to process 75% of applications lodged are 75%/90% 96% ✔ applications lodged processed within two working days NEC telephone calls answered 80% of calls answered within 80%/75% 40% ✗ 90 seconds Email response times 80% of emails answered within 80%/90% 91%* ✔ two days Complaints Complaints—1% of total 1%/1.08% 1%** ✔ applications received

* This figure is for the NEC only. ** This figure includes complaints about the administration of the Court and judicial services complaints, for which detailed information is reported earlier in this Part. Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for greater transparency in its reporting for judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.1 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 65 66 Report on Court Performance PART 3 email servicesprovidedbytheNECandanincreasingrange ofweb-basedservices. Registries alsoprovidetelephoneandemailservices. These complement thecentralised telephoneand than 90 percentofclientswereservedwithin20minutes, againstatargetof75 percent. clients orotherpeopleseekinginformationface-to-face. This compared with143 931in2008–09. More It isestimatedthatthefamilylawregistriesdealtwith152 538counterenquiriesin 2009–10from The serviceperformanceindicatorsanddeliverables for2009–10wereachieved. person andthelegalprofessionface-to-faceatregistrycountersacross Australia. subpoenas. Clientservicestaffprovidedanefficientand effectiveservicewhendealingwithlitigantsin to proceedings, providecopiesofdocumentsand/ororders andfacilitatetheviewingofcourtfiles Staff workingonthecountersinfamilylawregistrieshandlegeneral enquiries, lodgedocuments relating Statements. sustained highvolumeandachievedagainstthedeliverables setinthe2009–10Portfolio Budget During 2009–10, thefamilylawregistriescontinuedtoprovideahighlevelofservicemeet Counter enquiries to: Federal Magistrates Courtof Australia andarestaffedpermanently. The key functionsoftheregistries are Australia). Family lawregistriesprovideregistryservicestoboththeFamily Courtof Australia andthe There are19familylawregistriesinlocationsevery Australian stateandterritory(except Western Family lawregistries Detailed reportonperformance Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 improvements inprocessesandallocationofresources. assist intheevaluation ofcaseloads byreportingontrendsandexceptionstofacilitate monitor andcontroltheflowofcases, and determination schedule andprioritisemattersforhearinginterventiontoachievetheearliest resolutionor manage externalrelationshipstoassistwiththeresolutionofcases progress casesbyprovidingadministrative servicesinaccordancewithcourtprocessesandto making thecourtexperienceamorepositiveone enhance communityconfidenceandrespectbyrespondingtoclients’needsassistingwith make thebestuseofcourttimebyfacilitatinganorderlysecureflowclients, filesandexhibits hearing andtoarchiving outcome throughfilemanagementandqualityassurance—from theinitiationofproceedings, to ensure thatavailable information isprovidedinanaccurate andtimelyfashiontosupportthebest referrals tocommunityorganisationsthatenableclientstake informedandappropriateaction provide informationandadviceaboutcourtprocedures, servicesandforms, externaloptionsand PART 3 Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort

Enquiry counter at the Sydney registry.

Document processing Family law registries receive and process applications lodged at registry counters and in the mail. The service target of 75 per cent was significantly exceeded (96 per cent of applications were processed within two days of receipt).

National Enquiry Centre (NEC) Telephone and email enquiry and referral services The NEC was established in April 2006 to provide a centralised telephone and email service to clients contacting the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The NEC answers general and simple case-related enquiries previously answered by registries. This allows registries to focus on face-to-face services and case management. The NEC has proved to be an essential part of the Family Law Courts and a successful approach to client services. In 2009–10, the NEC received: 377 529 telephone enquiries (calls received), compared with about 346 000 in 2008–091 24 513 email enquiries, and 4477 divorce certificate requests. Table 3.4 summarises the NEC’s performance against internal and external benchmarks.

1 The Court’s 2008–09 Annual Report reported a higher number than this. The Court has subsequently reviewed its counting and recording practices, which has seen a reduction in total calls recorded to these figures.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 67 68 Report on Court Performance PART 3 fact sheet, The Courthasacomprehensive complaintspolicy, ajudicialcomplaintsprocedureanddetailed client trends. consistently managecomplaintsandclientfeedback, whilealso identifyingclients’issuesandmonitoring The Court’s clientfeedbackmanagementsystemallowsallareasoftheCourttoefficiently and registries andontheFamily Court website(www.familycourt.gov.au ). Table 3.4 Good Practice Guide for Effective Complaint Handling Complaint Effective for Guide Practice Good with Australian Standard AS 4269–1995(Complaintshandling)andtheCommonwealthOmbudsman’s The Family Courtiscommittedtorespondingeffectively to feedbackandcomplaints, andtocomplying Client feedbackandcomplaintsmanagement then emailtheNationalEnquiryCentreonrelatedtechnicalorothermatters. In termsofemails, itwas foundthatasmoreclientsregisterwiththeCommonwealthCourtsPortal they Whilst thenumberandlengthofcallsincreasedduring2009–10, staffnumbersremainedunchanged. waiting tospeaksomeoneat theCentre. Thus theyabandontheircalls. unaware ofthisserviceuntilsuch timeastheytelephonetheNEC, choosetogotheportalinsteadof now referscallersonholdtotheportalforself-serviceenquiriesandeFiling. Manynewcallers, being The highnumberofabandonedcallsisthoughttobelinked. A changetotheCentre’s recordedmessage 90-second target, namely: were answeredwithin110seconds. Two key factorswereseentoinfluenceNEC’s inabilitytomeetthe indicator forcallanswertimesoritsownservicestandardabandonedcalls. Eighty percentofallcalls of callsbeingtransferred toafamily lawregistry. However, itdidnotmeetthePBSkey performance within twodays(Table 3.4). Italsoachieveditsownperformancebenchmarkoflessthan10 percent The NECachieveditsPortfolio BudgetStatementsperformanceindicatorforrespondingtoemailenquiries Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Less than10%ofcallstransferred toafamilylawregistry Less than5%ofcallsabandoned performance indicator) 80% ofcallsansweredwithin90 seconds(aPBSkey Performance indicators andinternaltargets performance indicator) 80% ofemailsansweredwithintwodays(aPBSkey analyse andresolve. Portal forself-servicewhohadencounteredatechnicalproblem. This oftenrequiredmoretimeto providing technicalassistanceasthefirst-levelhelpdeskforcallersusingCommonwealth Courts that thesafetyandmentalhealthconcernsofclientswerecaredfor, andalso becausestaffwere the complexityofenquiriesincreased. This isattributabletoadditionaleffortbyNECstaffensure less thanfourminutesin2008–09 call lengthincreasedin2009–10tomorethan4andone-quarterminutesper comparedwith Complaints and feedback and Complaints National EnquiryCentre performance, 2007–08to2009–10 , whichexplainshowclients canprovidefeedbackatallfamilylaw . 2007–08 100 66 % 6 4 2008–09 75 92 % 5 2 2009–10 40 18 91 % 4 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 [email protected]. 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 to send a formal response within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.

During 2009–10, the Family Court recorded 196 complaints compared with 252 in 2008–09, comprising PART 3 139 complaints about general matters of the Court (see below) and 57 complaints about judicial services (see the section ‘Judicial services complaints’ for more detail). This represented one per cent of all applications received, thus the Court achieved on this deliverable in its Portfolio Budget Statements. Perfor man ce o n C ourt R e p ort Figures 3.42 and 3.43 summarise the number of administration complaints and the total number of complaints received over the five years to 2009–10.

Figure 3.42 Administration complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10

250

200

150

100

217 183 170 202 139 0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Figure 3.43 Complaints, 2005–06 to 2009–10

300

250

200

150

100

272 248 235 252 196 0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 69 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 139 complaints received by the Court: 67 were about administrative matters. These included complaints about court administrative procedures and processes, and staff conduct, including that of registrars and family consultants 72 were not relevant to the administration of the court. These included issues about family law

PART 3 PART legislation, government policy, matters in other jurisdictions and the outcome of family law proceedings. 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 2009–10, aside from issues being resolved for litigants on an individual basis, the Court made improvements to signage at the Albury registry and another registry changed its procedures for referral to other agencies. A meeting was also held between the Australian Association of Social Workers and the Family Court’s

R e p ort o n C ourt Perfor man ce client feedback coordinator, legal counsel and Principal Child Dispute Services to clarify both agencies roles in respect of complainants. Steps were taken to improve communication to litigants about those roles. The Court also recorded four compliments.

70 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 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 2010, the judges assigned to the Appeal Division were: PART 4 Justice Finn Justice Coleman Justice May A pp e al s Justice Boland Justice Thackray (Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia) Justice O’Ryan Justice Strickland 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 ss4 and 21A).

Justice Boland.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 73 74 Appeals PART 4 1989 appeal (s94AAA(3)). considers itappropriateforasinglejudgetoexercisethejurisdictionofcourt inrelationtosuchan of theCourtinrelationtosuchappealsisbeexercisedbyaFullunless theChiefJustice exercising jurisdictionundertheFamily Law Act and(withleave)theChildSupport Acts. The jurisdiction An appealalsoliestotheFamily Courtof Australia fromadecreeoftheFederal Magistrates Court jurisdiction undertheFamily Law Act and(withleave)undertheChildSupport Acts. Australia; ortheSupremeCourtofastateterritory, constitutedbyasinglejudgeexercising An appealalsoliestotheFullCourtofFamily CourtfromadecreeoftheFamily Courtof Western Court, exercisingjurisdictionundertheFamily Law Act and(withleave)undertheChildSupport Acts. An appealliestotheFullCourtfromadecreeofFamily Court, constitutedotherwisethanasaFull Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 Act Collection) and (Registration Support Child The appellatejurisdictionoftheFamily Courtisdefinedin Part Xofthe Family Law Act, in Part VIIIofthe Appeals Western Australia isseparately administeredbyaRegistrar oftheFamily Courtof Western Australia. Appeals areadministeredbyan Appeals Registrar inthree areas: Administration ofappeals video-link fromtimetotime. During 2009–10, theFullCourtsatfor26weeks(orpartweeks). Appeals arealsoheardbyway of Full Courtsittings Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Lionel BowenCommonwealthLawCourtsbuildingin Sydney. Southern—Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.Southern—Victoria,South Australia Eastern—eastern, westernandsouthernNewSouth Wales andthe Australian Capital Territory Northern—Queensland, northernNewSouth Wales andNorthern Territory . andPart 7ofthe Child Support (Assessment) Act Act (Assessment) Support Child Trend in appeals The number of appeals filed in 2009–10 decreased by 13 per cent from 364 to 315. This marks a change from the average annual increase of approximately 4 per cent over the past five years. In the same period the number of pending (i.e. active) cases decreased by 13 per cent from 230 to 201. There were 29 per cent fewer appeals from the Family Court whilst appeals from the Federal Magistrates Court remained steady. Many appeals from of 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 2009–10, the number of disposals by the Appeals Division decreased by 4 per cent from 361 to PART 4 345. The number of interlocutory applications in relation to appeals continues to increase. In 2009–10 applications for ‘leave to extend time to comply with rule/direction’ increased from 45 to 67 and ’reinstate appeal previously abandoned’ increased from nine to 21. A pp e al s Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 show the trend in appeal notices filed, finalised and pending (i.e. active) during the past five financial years.

Table 4.1 Notice of appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction, 2005–06 to 2009–10

Filed 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % Change Family Court of Australia 195 202 153 160 113 -29% Federal Magistrates Court 104 122 196 204 202 -1% Appeals filed 299 324 349 364 315 -13% Per cent Family Court of 65% 62% 44% 44% 36% -8% Australia Per cent Federal Magistrates 35% 38% 56% 56% 64% 8% Court Finalised 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % Change Family Court of Australia 133 228 171 170 144 -15% Federal Magistrates Court 79 118 147 191 201 5% Appeals finalised 212 346 318 361 345 -4% Per cent Family Court of 63% 66% 54% 47% 42% -5% Australia Per cent Federal Magistrates 37% 34% 46% 53% 58% 5% Court Pending 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 % Change Family Court of Australia 234 139 121 124 93 -25% Federal Magistrates Court 80 46 95 106 108 2% Appeals pending 314 185 216 230 201 -13% Per cent Family Court of 75% 75% 56% 54% 46% -8% Australia Per cent Federal Magistrates 25% 25% 44% 46% 54% 8% Court

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 75 76 Appeals PART 4 Figure 4.1 The totalnumberofappeals withdrawn orabandoneddecreased by13 percentfrom158to138. The numberofappealsthat were allowedordismissedremainedsteadyin2009–10. 2009–10 Figure 4.2 Federal Magistrates CourtorintheFamily Court. Figure 4.2showstheproportionofappealfilingsinrelationtofirstinstance decrees madeeitherinthe 36 percent in2009–10. The proportionofappealsarisingfromdecreestheFamily Courtdecreasedfrom45 percentto Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 50 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 0% Filed 299 2005–06 Family Court of Australia 65% 2005–06 212 Notice ofappeals, 2005–06to2009–10 Proportion ofnoticeappealsfiled byjurisdictionofdecree, 2005–06to 314 35% Finalised 324 2006–07 62% 2006–07 346 185 38% Federal Magistrates Court Pending 349 2007–08 44% 318 2007–08 216 56% 364 2008–09 44% 361 2008–09 230 56% 315 2009–10 36% 345 2009–10 201 64% Withdrawn applications decreased from 94 to 52 while abandoned applications increased from 64 to 86. Figure 4.3 shows the trend in the means in which appeals were finalised.

Figure 4.3 Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 2005–06 to 2009–10

100% 11% 15% 12% 18% 25% 90%

80%

70% 28% 21% 27% 26% 15% PART 4

60%

50% 33% 25% 22% 25% 24%

40% A pp e al s

30%

20%

10% 28% 40% 39% 32% 36% 0% 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn Abandoned

160

137 140 123 122 120 114

100 94 87 89 86 85 83

80 70 72 69 64 59 59 60 52 52 24 39 40

0 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn Abandoned

In recent years there has been a return to directions hearings being conducted by registrars rather than judges of the Appeal Division. In 2009–10, the proportion of directions hearings conducted by registrars increased from 59 per cent to 72 per cent which freed up judges assigned to the Appeal Division to undertake the final hearings.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 77 78 Appeals PART 4 Figure 4.4 Appeal Division. Figure 4.4showsthenumberofdirectionshearingsundertaken byappealregistrars andjudgesofthe represented appellantsdecreasedfrom53 percentto40cent. Figure 4.8showsachangeinthetrendtowards self-representation. In2009–10theproportion ofself- females (Figure4.7) The historicaltrendingenderremainswheremaleswereslightlymorelikely tolodgeappealsthan five yearsasshowninFigure4.6. children (44 percent)andproperty(33cent). These proportionshaveremainedstableoverthepast Figure 4.5showsthatduring2009–10theissuesraised onappealwerepredominatelyrelatedto Appeal issuesanddemographics Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 1000 1200 200 400 600 800 0 Registrar 2006–07 Appeal directions hearingsbytypeofjudicialofficer, 2006–07to2009–10 269 387 Judge 2007–08 275 528 2008–09 646 451 2009–10 733 281 Figure 4.5 Proportion of issues raised on notice of appeals, 2009–10

Financial, 33% Cost, 15%

Other, 8% PART 4

Parenting, 44% A pp e al s

Figure 4.6 Proportion of children and property issues raised on notice of appeals, 2006–07 to 2009–10

60%

47% 50% 46% 44% 42%

40%

30% 34% 33% 31% 30%

20%

10%

0% 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Children Property

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 79 80 Appeals PART 4 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0% Male 2005–06 37% 55% Proportion ofappellantsbygender, 2005–06to2009–10 Proportion ofappellantsrepresentation status, 2005–06to2009–10 8% Represented 41% 59% 2005–06 Female 2006–07 39% 53% 8% 2006–07 Self represented 43% 57% Other 2007–08 39% 52% 44% 56% 2007–08 9% 2008–09 42% 50% 2008–09 8% 47% 53% 2009–10 2009–10 11% 39% 50% 39% 61% Age of finalised appeals In 2009–10, the Court finalised 74 per cent of appeals within twelve months (82 per cent in 2008–09). Figure 4.9 shows the time taken to finalise appeals over the past four years.

Figure 4.9 Months to finalise appeals, 2006–07 to 2009–10

40% 37% 36%

35% 33% 31% 30% 30% PART 4

25% 23% 22% 23% 22% 22% 21% 20% 20% 20% 18% A pp e al s 15% 13% 13%

10% 5% 4% 4% 5% 3%

0% 0–3 months 3–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

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 2009–10, twenty applications for special leave to appeal were filed in the High Court from judgments of the Family Court. During 2009–10, nine applications for special leave were determined by the High Court (eight were refused and one was granted) and one appeal from the Family Court was heard and allowed by the High Court.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 81 PART 4 PART A pp e al s

Courtroom at the Parramatta Family Law Courts.

82 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 PART 5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS Significant and noteworthy judgments

In 2009–10, 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 judgments is published here. The Court recognises that the accessibility of its judgments to the public is important. It commits the 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 PART 5 the AustLII site from the Court’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au). Recent decisions are also published on the Court’s website for a period of two months. This policy

has enabled the Court to better respond to community interest and concerns about particular cases JUDG M E N TS SIG N IFIC AN T D OTEWORTHY highlighted in the media.

Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) [2009] FamCAFC 166 Family Law—Appeal—Steps to be taken by trial judge when exercising discretion to allow an interim property settlement pursuant to s 79 or s 80(1)(h) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Boland, Thackray and O’Ryan JJ, judgment delivered 14 September 2009 This was an appeal from interim orders of Strickland J. Ms Strahan sought an interim property settlement of $5 million to defray the likely ongoing legal costs of further proceedings before the Court. Strickland J ordered that the wife be paid $1 million as an interim property settlement. The total pool of property pool was disputed by the parties. The husband asserted that there were total assets of $80 million. The wife asserted total assets which were undisclosed by the husband but were in the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars. Strickland J found that the wife had spent approximately $10.5 million in legal fees and other expenses since the proceedings first commenced. Ms Strahan appealed on the grounds that Strickland J had inappropriately applied a legal test and made findings as to whether there were ‘compelling circumstances’ justifying the making of the order. Ms Strahan claimed that the sum of $5 million could and should have been paid. The Full Court allowed the appeal. Boland and O’Ryan JJ determined that both s 79 and s 80(1)(h) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are sources of power to make an interim property order. Boland and O’Ryan JJ stated that it is also possible to make a maintenance order pursuant to s 72 or s 74 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), or a costs order pursuant to s 117.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 85 86 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS PART 5 pursuant tos79or80(1)(h)ofthe was anassessmentofwhetheritwas appropriateintheoverall interestsofjusticetoexercisethepower circumstances justifyingthemakingoforder. Their Honoursconsideredthatallwas required Boland andO’Ryan concludedthattherewas norequirement to establishthattherewerecompelling power beforeafinalhearing. The secondstepisforajudicialofficertoactuallyexercisethatpower. an interimpropertysettlement. The firststepisforajudicialofficertodeterminewhetherexercisethe property. BolandandO’Ryan JJstatedthatthereisatwo-stepprocesstodeterminingwhethermake until thereisnopropertyleftwhichcouldbesubjecttoordersbyway ofalteration ofinterestsin (Cth), BolandandO’Ryan JJdeterminedthattheremaybeasuccessionofordersmadeinproceedings one exerciseofthepowerunders79 policy consideration thatitisgenerally intheinterestofpartiesandCourtfortheretobeonly exercise ofitsdiscretion. Thackray Jstated thatitwas necessaryfortheCourttohaveregard on theCourttomake aninterimorder; rather theCourtmaydosoifitconsidersthatshouldin In aseparate judgment, Thackray Jallowedtheappeal. Thackray Jemphasisedthatthereisnoobligation appeal. substituted asparties. application was thenfiledonbehalfofthedeceasedwifeseeking that theexecutorsofwife’s Willbe by implied, constructiveorresulting trust(‘theaccruedapplication’). The wifethendied. A further and equitablejurisdictiondeclaringthatthehusbandhissuccessors holdtheir interestsinproperty died. The wife’s caseguardianamendedherapplicationrequestingthattheCourtexerciseitsaccrued that itisnecessarytoconsiderthefactusualorderpursuants79of Mr Strahan topay$5million thewife. Boland andO’Ryan JJand Thackray Jre-exercisedthediscretionoftrialjudge andordered relation totheirpropertysettlementpursuants79ofthe The husbandandthewifewereadvanced inageandwerebothrepresentedbycaseguardians in cause ofactionpursuanttonon-federal jurisdictionafterbothofthepartiestomarriagehaddied. estate ofaparty(whohadcommencedpropertyproceedingsbeforethe Family Court)tocontinuewitha This was anappealfromordersofMushinJ. The matterconcernedthestandingofexecutorsto the 20 November2009 Full CourtoftheFamily Courtof Australia beforeMay, O’Ryan andStevensonJJ, judgmentdelivered the Family Court a partyhavingtoresortanapplicationpursuants79Aofthe interim propertyordermustbecapableofvariation orreversalpriortofinalordersbeingmade, without While determiningthatthereisonlyoneexerciseofpowerpursuanttos79the continue afterbothpartiestoamarriagehavedied—Consideration ofs78and79the Family Law—Appeal—Consideration ofaccruedjurisdiction—Whetherpropertyproceedingscan [2009] FamCAFC 207; (2009)FLC93–415; 42Fam LR319 & Whitehouse Whitehouse Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 1975 Act 1975 Act (Cth)isa ‘once andforall’ordermadeafterafinalhearing. BolandandO’Ryan JJstatedthatany (Cth)—Deathofbothpartiesmeantthattherewas nodisputeremainingtobedeterminedby Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family (Cth). Further, theirHonoursalsoconsidered Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family (Cth). Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family (Cth). The husband Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family Family Law Act Act Law Family (Cth)oran Family Law Law Family

Mushin J determined that the Family Court had jurisdiction pursuant to s 78 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to determine the accrued application. His Honour stated that any relief that was a matrimonial cause could only be sought pursuant to s 78. Mushin J concluded that it was possible to make the orders as sought in the accrued application because it constituted a matrimonial cause. However, as a result of the wife’s death, Mushin J dismissed the accrued application as void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. The wife’s representative argued that Mushin J erred by failing to substitute the executors of the wife’s estate as parties in lieu of the wife; by dismissing the accrued application; by determining that the Family Court had jurisdiction to determine the application pursuant to s 78; and by determining that that application was void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The Full Court determined that the death of the wife terminated the federal jurisdiction of the Family Court to hear the federal claim (being the original application to alter the interests of property of the parties to the marriage). Consequently, there was no accrued jurisdiction available to the Family Court to make the declaration sought by the wife’s representatives. The Full Court considered that it would be unlikely to exercise its discretion to exercise accrued jurisdiction in any event PART 5 because of the exceptional circumstances of the case. The Full Court upheld part of Mushin J’s reasons for judgment. The Full Court reached different conclusions with respect to whether the accrued application was a matrimonial cause which could only JUDG M E N TS SIG N IFIC AN T D OTEWORTHY have been brought under s 78 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and whether the accrued application was void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. The Full Court concluded that as both parties were deceased, there was no dispute remaining between them for which the Family Court had federal jurisdiction. This meant that no application relying on accrued jurisdiction could attach to a cause of action before the Family Court. The Full Court also expressed doubt as to whether proceedings for a declaration pursuant to s 78 can be continued after one party dies.

Kostres & Kostres [2009] FamCAFC 222, (2009) FLC 93–420; 42 Fam LR 336 Family Law—Appeal—Property—Binding Financial Agreement—Enforcement and interpretation of provisions of the Binding Financial Agreement—Consideration of general principles of contract law and interpretation Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Boland and Jordan JJ, judgment delivered 15 December 2009 This was an appeal from orders of Wilson FM. The parties executed what purported to be a binding financial agreement (‘the agreement’). The parties’ stated intention was for the assets acquired during the marriage with joint funds to be shared between them pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The agreement was entered into on the basis of the parties’ mistaken belief that Mr Kostres was a bankrupt. This mistaken belief led to the parties acquiring assets that were not purchased in the parties’ joint names, rather by the wife. The parties did not advise their lawyers about the husband’s bankruptcy status and this factor was not taken into account in the terms of the agreement. The wife was also a trustee of a trust which held beneficially certain assets acquired during the marriage, including real property. The husband sought that the agreement be enforced to the extent that the wife pay him a sum representing one half of the net assets acquired during the marriage (which included, inter alia, real property and goodwill in a business).

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 87 88 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS PART 5 result ofanartificialconceptionprocedure). Byvirtueofs60H of the was apersoninvolvedwiththecare, welfareandor developmentofthechildandthendetermining Ms Aldridge arguedthatPascoe CFMhaderredin law bynotfirstdeterminingwhetherMs Keaton Ms Aldridge appealedtheordersallowingfortimetobespent betweenthechildandMsKeaton. alternate weekend. be abletospendtimewiththechildforshortperiodseachweek, culminatinginanovernightstayeach Pascoe CFMorderedthatMs Aldridge havesoleparentalresponsibilityforthechildand thatMsKeaton precluded Ms Aldridge’s childbeingtreatedastheofMsKeaton. CFM foundthatthepartieswerenotina with Ms Aldridge’s child. Ms Aldridge andMsKeaton werepreviouslyinarelationship, butPascoe concerned withthecare, welfareanddevelopmentofthe child, shouldbepermittedtospendtime This was anappealfromordersofPascoe CFM. HisHonourdeterminedthatMs Keaton, aperson 22 December2009 Full CourtoftheFamily Courtof Australia beforeBryant CJ, Boland andCrisfordJJ, judgmentdelivered care, welfareanddevelopmentofachildseeksparentingorder artificial conceptionprocedure—Stepstobeappliedbyatrialjudgewherepersonconcernedwiththe terms oftheagreement, thatpropertyshouldbedividedbetweenthepartiespursuanttos79of of theagreement. Alternatively, thehusbandarguedthatifpropertyheldontrustfelloutside The husbandappealedonthegroundsthat Wilson FMhadincorrectlyinterpretedandappliedtheterms business, butdeclinedtomake theordersaboutrealpropertyheldbytrust. Wilson FMorderedthatthehusbandbepaidanamountrepresentingaportionofgoodwillin Discussion ofamendmentstos60Hthe Family Law—Appeal—Children—Parties inasame-sexrelationship [2009] FamCAFC 229; (2009)FLC93–421; 42Fam LR369 Aldridge &Keaton 1975 Act Law Family trust pursuanttos79ofthe The FullCourtalsoconcludedthat Wilson FMshouldhavedealtwiththepropertyofpartiesheldon error. ineffective andthat Wilson FM’s ordersenforcingthetermsofagreementconstitutedappealable and thetermsofagreementwereambiguous. The FullCourtfoundthetermsofagreementwere (accurately) todiscernwhatthe intentionofthepartieswas atthetimeofmakingagreement absurdity inthetermsofagreement. However, inthecircumstancesofthiscase, itwas impossible The FullCourtstatedthatthecommonlawprinciplesofconstructioncouldapplyandbeusedtoavoid appropriate certaintytogiveeffecttheparties’agreement. funds’ inthetermsofagreement. The FullCourtstatedthatitcouldnotcorrecttheterminologywith noted thatthepartiesdidnotagreeaboutwhatwas meantbytheuseofwords ‘acquired byjoint High Courtof Australia andtheFamily Courtaboutthemeaningofword ‘acquire’. The FullCourt The FullCourtallowedtheappeal. The FullCourtanalysedanumberoflong‑standingauthoritiesthe Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 (Cth). Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family de facto de Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family (Cth). relationshipatthetimechildwas conceived(as (Cth)relatingtochildrenbornofan Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family (Cth), this whether a parenting order should be made at all. Ms Aldridge also argued that Pascoe CFM erred in law by considering whether the child’s relationship with Ms Keaton would be of benefit to the child. Ms Aldridge also argued that Ms Keaton should not have been treated as a parent for the purposes of his Honour’s determination as to what was in the best interests of the child. Ms Aldridge also submitted that s 65C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) prescribed a ‘hierarchy’ of applicants (parents, then grandparents, then persons concerned with the care, welfare and development of a child) for which applications ‘lower down’ the hierarchy should receive lesser or no weight compared to those ‘higher up’. The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The Full Court determined that in dealing with any parenting application by a person interested in the care, welfare and development of a child, a court will determine that application applying the relevant provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to determine whether making (or not making) a parenting order would be in a child’s best interests. The Full Court determined that such an application must be determined by reference to: the best interests of the child as a paramount consideration (s 60CA); the objects and principles of Part VII of the Family PART 5 Law Act 1975 (Cth) (s 60B(1) and s 60B(2)); and consideration of relevant matters under s 60CC(2) and s 60CC(3) (the primary and additional considerations in determining the best interests of children). The Full Court stated that there is no prescribed order in which the relevant provisions of Part VII of the OTEWORTHY JUDG M E N TS SIG N IFIC AN T D OTEWORTHY Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) must be considered, or that any particular weight or priority be given to any provision in Part VII (subject to the importance being placed on the primary considerations in s 60CC(2), which may be outweighed by one or more of the additional considerations in s 60CC(3)). The Full Court commented that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration to be taken into account, not the circumstance of their conception or the sex of their parents. The Full Court considered that Parliament intended through its amendment to s 60H of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that children of a biological parent and a biological parent’s partner (including a same-sex co-parent), regardless of the circumstances of their conception or birth, should have the same rights, protections and privileges under the Act to receive proper parenting as biological children born to men and women who have never been legally married, living in a de facto relationship or who had never lived together. The Full Court suggested that it may be necessary for further legislative amendment to clarify a non-biological person’s status as a parent for the purposes of relevant sections of the Act. The Full Court concluded that Pascoe CFM had correctly determined that Ms Keaton was a person interested in the care, welfare or development of the child and then made a parenting order that was in the child’s best interests. While acknowledging the importance and emphasis placed in the Act on the relationship between a child and his or her parents, the Full Court rejected the notion that there should be a more cautious approach taken to a parenting application where a party is not a parent or grandparent, or that a hierarchy was prescribed to applications by different types of parties.

Partington & Cade (No. 2) [2009] FamCAFC 230; (2009) FLC 93–422; 42 Fam LR 401 Family Law—Appeal—Allegations of unacceptable risk of sexual/physical abuse for children if they spent time with their father unsupervised—Mother sought to be allowed to relocate to another state Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Bryant CJ, Warnick and Boland JJ, judgment delivered 22 December 2009

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 89 90 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS PART 5 for thepurposesofspendingsupervisedtimewithhischildren. matter couldbedeterminedonrehearing, albeitwiththefather toattendinNSWrather than Tasmania The FullCourtconcludedthatsupervisiononaninterimbasisof twohourswas appropriateuntil the The FullCourtremittedbeforeajudgeotherthanBurrJthequestion ofthemother’s relocation toNSW. other thanonastrictlysupervisedbasis. ‘unacceptable risk’canincertaincircumstancesimpedeprogresstoaparent spending timewithachild to theparamount consideration ofthebestinterestschild. The FullCourtnotedthatafindingof The FullCourtdeterminedthatafindingofunacceptablerisk may besufficienttofoundordersdirected occurred ifthebestinterestsofchildcanbedeterminedwithoutneedtomake suchafinding. The FullCourtnotedthatitmaybepossibletoavoidmakingafindingaboutwhether ornotabusehas between MrCadeandthechildrenbenefitsofsuchatimehadnotbeenproperlyassessed. from awellestablishedsituationinNSWwhentheprospectsofregularandunsupervisedtime The FullCourtalsodeterminedthatBurrJhadnotconsideredtheimpactofmotherrelocating manner byajudicialofficer. likelihood ofriskandtheassessmentlikelihood ofriskisproperlytaken intoaccountinareasoned future, bothprobabilitiesandpossibilitiesofriskcanbetaken intoaccount, aslongthedegreeof assessing MrCade’s parentingcapacity. The FullCourtstatedthatinassessingunacceptableriskthe the possibility(asopposedtoprobability)thatMrCadehadsexuallyabusedone ofthechildrenwhen The FullCourtdeterminedthatBurrJshouldhaveaddressedthesignificanceandimplicationsof nature ofthelongertermrelationshipbetweenchildrenandMrCade. Court consideredthisquestiontobehighlyrelevant toMrCade’s parentingcapacityandtothelikely Mr Cade’s parentingcapacityinlightofhisunderpinningconclusion ‘unacceptable risk’. The Full considered theissuesinrelationtomatter. The FullCourtdeterminedthatBurrJhadnotassessed The FullCourtallowedtheappeal. The FullCourtstatedBurrJhadcarefully, diligentlyandsubstantially orders requiringherrelocationto Tasmania fromNSW. Ms Partington appealedBurrJ’s ordersfortimetobespentbetweenthechildrenandMrCade with MrBande. Tasmania withthechildrenandresidedinNSWsinceDecember2006, andsubsequentlyre-partnered to NSWwiththechildrenandorderedthatshereturnHobartimmediately. The motherhadleft satisfactory reportsfromthesupervisorystaff). BurrJalsorefusedMsPartington’s applicationtorelocate in asupervisedsettingforperiodoftwohours(increasingtosixmonths timesubjectto and thechildren. BurrJorderedthatthechildrenspendtimewiththeirfathereachalternateweekend also foundthattherewas asignificantandmeaningfulrelationshipwhichexistedbetweenMrCade there was anunacceptablerisktothechildreniftheyspentunsupervisedtimewith MrCade. BurrJ positive findingthatMrCadehadabusedeitherofthechildren, however, hisHonourdidfindthat responsibility forthechildrenandthatprimarilyresidewithher. BurrJdidnotmake a This was anappealfromordersofBurrJ. HisHonourorderedthatMsPartington havesoleparental Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Simpson & Brockman [2010] FamCAFC 37 Family Law—Appeal—Consideration of the applicable law when determining the correctness of the decision being appealed (as opposed to re-exercising a discretion)—Consideration of the words ‘by way of rehearing’—Application of provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to non-parents Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Coleman, Warnick and May JJ, judgment delivered 11 March 2010 This was an appeal from orders of Jarrett FM. Ms Simpson and Ms Brockman were in a relationship. With the assistance of a sperm donor and in-vitro fertilisation, each woman had biologically had a child during the course of their relationship. Jarrett FM ordered that each of the children would primarily reside with its biological mother in Sydney and northern NSW respectively and spend some time in the household of the other child and that child’s mother. PART 5 Ms Simpson appealed on the grounds that Jarret FM had found that she was not the parent of the child to whom she did not give birth. Ms Simpson submitted that he should have done so, which meant that the legislative pathway set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) with respect to parents would then have been followed. Ms Simpson also argued that a change in the law (s 60H—Children JUDG M E N TS SIG N IFIC AN T D OTEWORTHY born as a result of artificial conception procedures) since Jarrett FM’s orders were made, but before the appeal had been heard, meant that she was now the parent of the child to whom she did not give birth. Ms Simpson relied upon the fact that an appeal to the Full Court is an appeal by way rehearing and that the correctness of Jarrett FM’s judgment had to be considered in light of the law at the time the appeal was heard. The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The Full Court considered several decisions of the High Court of Australia, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Court of the Family Court. The Full Court determined that an appeal will only succeed if error is found in the making of the orders appealed. This involves the application of the law as it stood at the time the orders were made. The Full Court considered that unless operation of a subsequent law is retrospective, application of the law at the time an appeal is determined only becomes appropriate if the appellate court, after finding error, substitutes its decision for the one appealed (a re‑determination or re-exercise of a trial judge’s discretion). While acknowledging that if a fresh application was filed before the Court at first instance Ms Simpson would be a parent for the purposes of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Full Court concluded that at the time of Jarrett FM’s orders were made, Ms Simpson was legally not a parent of the child to whom she did not give birth. The Full Court also concluded that the provisions which specifically make reference to ‘parents’ in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should not be applied to ‘non-parents’. The Full Court did not accept Ms Simpson’s proposition that persons other than biological parents need to be treated as parents because the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are unworkable or deficient in certain circumstances.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 91 92 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS PART 5 Court notedthestructured ‘four step’approachtaken by theFullCourtin just andequitable, notnecessarilytomake asignificant adjustmentasafinalstepinjudgment. TheFull Full Courtconcludedthatthereisalegislativeimperative foratrialjudgetoreachconclusionthatis its acquisition, areallfactorsthatmayimpactuponhowcontributions ofpartiesmightbeassessed. The The FullCourtstatedthatthenature, formand characteristics ofproperty, and themannerandtimingof clearer tomake referencetoadollarvalue ofaresult. legal requirementtoexpressadjustmentsaparty’s interestsinpercentagetermsandthatit is often generous ambitoftheproperexercise Watts J’s discretion. The FullCourtoutlinedthatthereisno The FullCourtconcludedthatthewifehadnotdemonstrated thattheultimateresultfelloutside by theparties(whichincludeshowmadeuseofcontribution). the betterapproachwas toanalyse aparty’s initialcontribution againstalltheothercontributionsmade of offsettingcontributionsanderosiontobeunhelpful. The FullCourtconsideredthat conflicting assessmentsofmattersweight. Inthisregard, theFullCourtconsideredthatconcepts an appealagainsttheexerciseofatrialjudge’s discretionwherethegroundsofanappealrelateonlyto judge’s discretion. The FullCourtstatedthat, asanappellatecourt, itshouldbeverycautioustoallow there isa ‘generous ambit’withinwhich ‘reasonable disagreementispossible’intheexerciseofatrial High Courtof Australia andtheFamily Court. The FullCourtreiterated thelongstanding propositionthat The FullCourtdismissedtheappeal. The FullCourtanalysedanumberoflong‑standingauthoritiesthe of hisHonour’s factualfindings. that theordersmadebyhisHonourwerenotjustandequitable. The wifedidnotchallengetheaccuracy fact thatthehusbandhadnotpaidchildsupportforapproximately threeyears. Overall, itwas submitted disparity betweenthepartiesandherroleasaprimarycarerforparties’two children, aswellthe contribution. The wifealsoarguedthat Watts Jhadnotproperlyconsideredthesignificantincome realise thatthewife’s contributionsoverthecourseofrelationshiphadoffsethusband’s original contributions overthecourseof15yearscohabitation, andinparticular, thathisHonourhadfailedto The wifeappealedonthegroundsthat Watts Jhadfailedtoproperlytake intoaccountthewife’s the husbandand40percenttowife. parties. The $1.5millionpoolofpropertythepartieswas proportionallydividedasto60percent This was anappealagainstordersof Watts J. HisHonoureffectedapropertysettlementbetweenthe 2010 1 April Full CourtoftheFamily Courtof Australia beforeFinn, MayandMurphyJJ, judgmentdelivered (Cth)—Elucidation ofprinciplesapplicabletoappealsfromdiscretionaryjudgments Court (Finn, BolandandDawe JJ)explainedthatthe ‘legislative imperative’ asarticulatedbytheFull [In Teal & Teal [2010]FamCAFC 120(judgment delivered25June2010), theFullCourtofFamily for thepartieswas ajustandequitableresult. with suchastructuredapproachwouldnotnecessarilyconstituteappealable error iftheultimateresult contributions andtheoverall adjustmentmadeformattersunders79(4)ofthe Family Law—Appeal—Challengetotheexerciseoftrialjudge’s discretioninassessinginitial [2010] FamCAFC 66 Norman & 93‑143) astos79(4)ofthe Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family (Cth). The FullCourtconcludedthatafailuretocomply Hickey & Hickey & Hickey Family Law Act 1975 Act Law Family ((2003)FLC

Court in Norman & Norman is a requirement that a judicial officer ‘stand back’ and look at the reality of the percentage division he or she has arrived at in a judgment. The requirement requires a judicial officer giving consideration to the actual assets retained by each party, which might include whether a party might receive a greater proportion of superannuation, or if a party retains a business which requires retention of business premises or re-financing. The Full Court stated that it may be appropriate to make an order slightly outside the precise percentage arrived at as a result of the statutory imperatives outlined in s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), particularly where a judicial officer is dealing with modest assets or where a party has minimal or non-existent income earning capacity.]

Marvel & Marvel (No. 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101 Family Law—Appeal—Whether the trial judge erred by failing to address s 61DA (presumption of equal

shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and s 65DAA (Court to consider child PART 5 spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)—Legislative pathway for interim parenting procedures Full Court of the Family Court of Australia before Faulks DCJ, Boland and Stevenson JJ, judgment OTEWORTHY JUDG M E N TS SIG N IFIC AN T D OTEWORTHY delivered 11 June 2010 This was an appeal from interim parenting orders made by Cohen J (who conducted a review of a decision of Loughnan JR1). Ms Marvel applied on an interim basis for parenting orders which would have allowed the child to live primarily with her, and for the child to spend short (and effectively supervised time) each week with the child’s father. Loughnan JR made orders by consent with respect to the times nominated by Ms Marvel, but did not order any supervisory conditions upon Mr Marvel’s time with the child. Ms Marvel applied for a review of Loughnan JR’s orders. Cohen J heard the review and determined that the child spend time with the father for an alternate overnight weekend stay unsupervised. Cohen J made these orders in the context of Ms Marvel’s claims that there was an unacceptable risk of sexual or physical abuse to the child if orders were made allowing the child to spend time with Mr Marvel. Ms Marvel appealed Cohen J’s orders on the grounds that his Honour had not properly applied the relevant provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Ms Marvel argued that Cohen J had purported to exercise jurisdiction to make parenting order without having determined whether or not the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was applicable. Ms Marvel argued that as Cohen J had not considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility he had not consequently considered the requirements of s 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In her submission, this meant that the orders were vitiated. The Full Court allowed the appeal. The Full Court determined that the s 61DA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) required Cohen J to consider whether or not the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should have applied, including in interim proceedings. His Honour’s failure to do so constituted appealable error.

1 As he then was: Justice Loughnan was appointed to the Family Court of Australia as a Judge on 12 July 2010.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 93 The Full Court left open the question whether s 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is to be applied where no order for equal shared parental responsibility has been made or is to be made, notwithstanding that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is applicable. The Full Court commented that a Court may find it inappropriate to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility where the conflict or lack of effective communication between parents inhibits their ability to make a genuine effort to reach agreement about major long-term issues affecting their child or children. The Full Court stated that if the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies, an order for equal shared parental responsibility will generally be made. This would displace the joint parental responsibility parents hold as of right and would trigger the consideration of the amount of time to be spent between a child and a parent (pursuant to s 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Full Court re-determined the review application and made orders in identical terms to Loughnan JR. PART 5 PART SIG N IFIC AN T D OTEWORTHY JUDG M E N TS

94 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 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 Family Court of Australia. 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 PART 6 financial management and public service legislation. Figure 6.1 shows the organisational structure of the Court. MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU A BI L ITY

Courtroom Australian Coat of Arms.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 97 98 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 Figure 6.1 Organisational structure oftheFamily Courtof Australia Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Marshal &Security Services Executive Advisor Leisha Lister Leisha Organisational structure oftheFamily Courtof Australia, 30June 2010 Angela Filippello Angela Sydney, Townsville, Wollongong Newcastle, Parramatta, Rockhampton, Launceston, Lismore, Melbourne, Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Hobart, Cairns, Canberra, CoffsHarbour, Adelaide, Albury,Springs,Brisbane, Alice Registries Coordinating Registrar Principal Registrars Registrars Denotes professionalresponsibility Dispute Services Principal Child Dianne Gibson Dianne Coordinators, Child Dispute Senior F Consultants Consultants and F Regional Services Chief ExecutiveOfficer amily amily Richard Foster PSM Foster Richard Hon Diana Bryant Diana Hon Chief Justice Regional Registry Client Services Stephen Andrew Stephen Executive Managers Registries Director Acting Communication Communications Stephen Andrew Stephen & Technology Information, Infrastructure Management Applications Information Executive Director Statistics Deputy ChiefJustice Judicial Committees Hon John Faulks John Hon Legal Counsel Judiciary and Neil Wareham Neil Grahame Harriott Grahame Improvements Management Procurement Corporate & Business Property & Executive Resources Contracts Director F Human Budgets & Risk inance Judicial officers of the Family Court of Australia At 30 June 2010, there were 30 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 inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate overseeing the The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant

establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court, a position she PART 6 held for four years.

Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU 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 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). A BI L ITY The Deputy Chief Justice’s chambers are located in the Canberra registry. The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks was appointed as a Family Court judge on 11 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 Jennifer Margaret Boland 8 July 2004

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 99 100 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 The Honourable JusticeStevenStrickland The Honourable JusticeStephenRichardO’Ryan (Chief JudgeFamily Courtof Western Australia) The Honourable JusticeStephenErnest Thackray The Honourable JusticeStewart Austin The Honourable JusticeJudithMaureenRyan (CaseManagementJudge) Newcastle The Honourable JusticePaul Cronin(CaseManagementJudge) The Honourable Justice Victoria Jane Bennett The Honourable JusticePeter Young The Honourable JusticeLindaMarionDessau AM The Honourable JusticeNahumMushin The Honourable ChiefJusticeDianaBryant Melbourne The Honourable JusticeRobertJames Charles Benjamin Hobart The Honourable JusticeMaryMadeleineFinn The Honourable DeputyChiefJusticeJohnFaulks Canberra The Honourable JusticePeter JohnMurphy(CaseManagementJudge) The Honourable JusticeElizabethMadonnaO’Reilly The Honourable JusticeJames Patrick O’Hara Barry The Honourable JusticeGraham RodneyBell The Honourable JusticeMichelleMay Brisbane The Honourable JusticeRodneyKeith Burr AM The Honourable JusticeChristineElizabethDawe(CaseManagementJudge) The Honourable JusticeStevenStrickland Adelaide (according toorderofseniority) Judges Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 2 July1990 11 October1994 20 December2006 30 November2005 6 August 2002 20 June1995 26 October1990 5 July2004 19 August 2005 11 October2007 10 January 2003 12 December1983 3 March1997 14 December2009 7 August 2008 16 November2006 13 July2009 31 July2006 27 February 1976 5 September1995 2 April 1998 22 November1999

Parramatta The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman 18 April 1991 The Honourable Justice David John Collier (Case Management Judge) 19 July 1999

Sydney The Honourable Justice Jennifer Margaret Boland 29 October 1999 The Honourable Justice Stephen Richard O’Ryan 11 October 1994 The Honourable Justice John Morris Cohen 1 February 1989 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 Stuart Grant Fowler AM 16 November 2007

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

Judicial Registrars MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU

Sydney Mr William Philip Johnston 22 January 1990 Mr Ian James Loughnan 6 November 1995

Family Court of Western Australia

Note: Judges of the Family Court of Western Australia also hold Commissions in the Family Court of Australia. A BI L ITY 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 James Patrick O’Hara Barry

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 101 102 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Senior executivesoftheFamily Courtof Australia The Honourable JusticeSallyElizabethBrown AM The Honourable JusticeRobynSylviaFlohm The Honourable JusticeBernardJohn Warnick The Honourable JusticeBrianEdward Jordan The Honourable JusticeLloyd Waddy The Honourable JusticeColleen Ann Moore The Honourable JusticeJuliennePenny (Family Courtof Western Australia) Judicial officerretirements: The Honourable JusticeStevenStricklandwas assigned tothe Appeal Division The Honourable JusticeStewart Austin Judicial officerappointments: Appointments, retirements andresignations The Honourable JusticeRobertJames CharlesBenjamin The Honourable JusticeChristineElizabethDawe The Honourable JusticeNahumMushin Chief ExecutiveOffice, Richard Foster. CEO inMay2000. National SupportOffice, Canberra. Mr RichardFoster was appointed by thestaffofNationalSupportOfficeandislocatedin under termssimilartothoseofjudicialofficers. The CEOissupported financial managementandpublicservicelegislation, butisappointed responsibilities andpowersofanagencyheadunderCommonwealth to directionsfromtheChiefJustice(s 38D(3)). The CEOholdsthe Officer (CEO). The CEO’s powersarebroad(s 38D), althoughsubject administration oftheCourtand isassistedbytheChiefExecutive The ChiefJustice, undertheFamily Law Act, isresponsibleforthe Richard Foster PSMFAIM, ChiefExecutiveOfficer Chief ExecutiveOfficer

2 June2010 29 April 2010 31 March2010 31 December2009 22 December2009 31 July2009 3 July2009 2009 December 14 13 July2009 Principal Registrar Angela Filippello, Principal Registrar 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 Principal Registrar, Angela Filippello. power to make orders in interim parenting cases, maintenance cases and some enforcement of financial obligations. 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

Dianne Gibson, Principal Child Dispute Services PART 6 The Principal Child Dispute Services is responsible for advising the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive Officer on the provision of quality child

dispute services to the Court. The Principal ensures that the services MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU delivered by the family consultants are effective and consistent with the strategic and business objectives of the Court. The Principal also has responsibility for the development of strategic external relationships that promote and position the child dispute services of the Court within

Principal Child Dispute Services, Dianne the family law framework. Gibson. Executive Director Client Services

The Executive Director Client Services is responsible for the delivery A BI L ITY 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 of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court). Stephen Andrew was the Acting Executive Director Client Services at 30 June 2010

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 103 104 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 the committeemeetsquarterly, andin2009–10itsmembershipcomprised: and administrative changeslikely toaffecttheFamily Courtanditsusers. ChairedbytheChiefJustice, Court and toprovide strategic advice and policy direction, particularly in relation to legislative, procedural within theCourt. The committee’s primaryroleistosupporttheChiefJusticeinadministration ofthe At thestrategic level, theChiefJustice’s Policy Advisory Committeeisthehighestpolicymakingbody Chief Justice’s P committees thatdeveloppoliciesacrossarange ofmatters. all judges, inwhichcurrentissuesarediscussed. Inaddition, judicialofficersparticipateinanumberof annually ormoreoftenifrequiredinplenary. The ChiefJusticealsoconvenesamonthlyteleconferenceof Chief JusticeBryant maintainsa collegiatestyleofgovernance, andthejudicialofficersofCourtmeet Judicial committees Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Harriott. Executive DirectorCorporate, Grahame Director ClientServices, Stephen Andrew. Executive Director, ICTanda/gExecutive Justice Watts Justice Strickland Justice Finn Deputy ChiefJusticeFaulks olicy Advisory Committee management. finance, budgetsandbusinessimprovementsprocurementrisk management oftheCourt’s humanresources, propertyandcontracts, The ExecutiveDirectorCorporate providesstrategic leadership and Grahame Harriott, ExecutiveDirectorCorporate Executive DirectorCorporate infrastructure andstatisticsservices. the Court’s communication, applications, informationmanagement, Services providesstrategic vision, leadershipandmanagementof The ExecutiveDirectorInformation, Communicationand Technology and TechnologyServices Stephen Andrew, Executive DirectorInformation, Communication T Executive DirectorInformation, Communicationand echnology Services Justice Ryan Justice Cronin Justice Murphy Chief Executive Officer (Mr Richard Foster) Principal Registrar (Ms Angela Filippello) Principal Child Dispute Services (Ms Dianne Gibson). A joint meeting of the Policy Advisory Committees of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court was held in Melbourne on 7 April 2010. Attendees from the Federal Magistrates Court were: Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe Federal Magistrate Baumann Federal Magistrate Donald Federal Magistrate Riethmuller Federal Magistrate Cassidy PART 6 Mr Richard Foster (Acting CEO) Mr Steven Agnew (Deputy CEO) Mr Stephen Andrew (Executive Director Information Communication and Technology Services, Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court). MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU Items discussed included joint budget savings strategies and increased efficiencies, allocation of work between the two Courts and the effective use of information technology. The meeting was productive and participants agreed to continue to meet annually.

Other committees A number of standing judicial committees are also active in providing high-level policy advice in

specialised areas. Meeting regularly or as required, they are (in alphabetical order): A BI L ITY Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Committee Benchbook Committee Costs Committee Cultural Diversity Committee eFiling Committee Family Violence Committee Information and Communication Technology Committee Judicial Development Committee Judicial Remuneration Committee Law Reform Committee Magellan Committee

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 105 106 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 For detailedinformationonthejudicialcommitteesofCourt, see Appendix 10. courts. The jointcommitteesare: April 2010itwas agreedthatsomecommitteeswouldbejoint, withmembershipdrawn fromboth At thejointmeetingofFamily CourtandFederal Magistrates CourtPolicy Advisory Committeesin In addition, theCommitteeconsidered: In 2009–10, theRulesCommitteeworked onvarious significantprojects, including: Rules Committee This sectionsummariseshighlightsoftheworksomejudicialcommitteesduring 2009–10. Judicial committeehighlights Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Research andEthicsCommittee. Property ManagementCommittee Judicial DevelopmentCommittee Information andCommunication Technology Committee FamilyCommittee Violence eFiling Committee Cultural DiversityCommittee Benchbook Committee Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommittee Rules Committee. Research andEthicsCommittee Property ManagementCommittee National CaseManagementCommittee whether rule10.15Ashouldbeexpanded inscope whether rulesarerequiredfortheprocess ofmakingsuppressionornon-publication orders rules governingtheeFilingprocess(alongwithCourt’s eFilinggroup) form ofcommunicationwithsingleexperts. and throughthatprocessidentifiedpossibleareasofimprovement, particularlywithrespecttothe Law Councilof Australia, theCommitteeconsultedwithvaluers andsingleexpertsabouttherules Considering thesingleexpertrulesinfinancialmatters. Inconcertwiththe Family LawSectionofthe documents andtheformofaffidavits. Opportunities forrulesharmonisationwereidentifiedinareassuchas service of process, discoveryof with theobjectofprovidingbest, mostefficientandcost-effective systemforcourtusers. Rules harmonisation, inwhichitworked withtheFederal Magistrates Courtandthelegalprofession s 69ZU of the Family Law Act 1975 as to sworn evidence and whether that section requires family consultants to swear affidavits if child and family issues assessment reports and family reports are to be relied upon in court the ‘permission rule’ with respect to subpoenas and also: looked at interest rates, and prepared miscellaneous Rules amendments.

Law Reform Committee The Law Reform Committee identified matters for amendment in family law legislation and provided input in relation to various amendments under consideration. It also considered and, where appropriate, commented on the following. Law reform and legislation Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010 Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010: Application, Saving and PART 6 Transitional Provisions Bill 2010 Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010

draft bill on Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU drafting instructions on a bill to respond to the High Court’s decision in MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4 Federal Justice System (Efficiency Measures) Bill 2009 (‘Black and Black amendments’) Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2010 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill 2009 Uniform Evidence Bill developed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) and the Evidence Regulations 1995 A BI L ITY proposed amendments for inclusion in a Family Law Amendment Bill 2010, and proposal to enhance family dispute resolution. Issues papers and reports National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council report, The Resolve to Resolve: Embracing ADR to Improve Access to Justice in the Federal Jurisdiction, September 2009. Family Courts Violence Review—a report by Professor Richard Chisholm, 27 November 2009.

Family Violence Committee The Family Violence Committee was reconstituted as a joint committee of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court after the release of these reports on 28 January 2010: Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Courts Violence Review by Professor Richard Chisholm, and

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 107 108 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 addition: During theyearCommitteeestablishedsub-committeestoconsidereachof abovereports. In issues. Strategy andprovideadvicetotheChiefJustice, ChiefFederal Magistrate andCEOonfamilyviolence The Committee’s principalresponsibilityistocompletetheimplementationofCourt’s Family Violence Other initiativesoftheCommitteeduring 2009–10, inconsultationwiththeCourts’Communication would bepublishedinearly2011. towards improvedservicedelivery. At 30June2010, itwas anticipatedthattheresultsofresearch between IndigenousfamiliesandtheFamily LawCourts, includingissuesofaccesstojusticeandsteps who hadrecentlybeeninvolvedinfamilylawproceedings. The research was toexaminetheinterface law, toundertake astudyoftheviewsandexperiences Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderfamilies extensive experienceinworkingwith Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderfamiliesintheareaoffamily During 2009–10, theCommitteeengagedStephenRalph, anindependent Aboriginal consultantwith considered: Family LawCourts. The Groupbecameaformalcommitteeofthecourtsin April 2010. The Committee Magistrates CourtIndigenous Working GrouptoexaminetheneedsofIndigenouspeoplein In 2008–09, theFamily LawCourts Advisory GroupagreedtoestablishajointFamily Court-Federal Aboriginal and Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 than 1000pages). Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System Law Family the in Violence Family to Responses Improving Council’s consultationpaper, the Committeecoordinatedaresponseto Australian LawReformCouncil/NSW procedure inbothCourts, and extend theirambittotheFederal Magistrates Courtand totake accountofchangesinpractice and another sub-committeewas reviewingtheFamily Court’s Family Violence BestPractice Principlesto with aviewtoexpandingthestrategy toencompasstheFederal Magistrates Court a separate sub-committeewas reviewingandupdatingtheFamily Court’s Family Violence Strategy consultants haveaccesstoappropriateexpertisedealwithIndigenous families. staff education, attracting andretainingIndigenousstaffensuringthatjudgesfamily Australians. ItwillincludeareassuchasbuildingrelationshipswiththeIndigenous communities, the stepsCourtswilltake tobuildrelationshipsandenhance respectwithIndigenous the developmentofajointReconciliation Action Plan, asrequiredbyGovernment, whichidentifies group, internallyandexternally, and recommendations astohowtheCourtscanensureproperinformationisprovided tothisclient how tomeettheneedsofIndigenousclientsbothcourtswithinexistingresources, including as aresultoftraditional andcustomary adoptionpractices by Torres Strait Islanders(Kupai Omasker) how tomanageapplicationsforparentingordersconcerningresidence, contactandspecificissues Indigenous Family LiaisonOfficersofthe Family Court, to Family RelationshipCentres the impactofshiftinprovisionservicestoIndigenousclients, previouslyprovidedby T orres StraitIslanderCommittee Family Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks Legal Improving Violence: Family bytheFamily LawCouncil. (adocumentofmore team, included: information material for Indigenous clients in family law including »» a brochure Indigenous Families and the Family Law Courts »» an ATSI web page http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/ Communities+and+Individuals/Indigenous+Australians/ »» an ATSI intranet page for client service staff. The Committee also worked on the Courts’ ATSI Employment Strategy. At 30 June 2010, it was anticipated the Reconciliation Action Plan and the employment strategy would be completed by January 2011.

Collaborative committees

Family Law Courts Advisory Group The Family Law Courts Advisory Group has a critical governance role in resourcing both courts and PART 6 coordinates various administrative relationships between the two courts. The group endorsed a plan to further integrate the administrative structures of the courts and will oversee the plan’s implementation. The Family Law Courts Advisory Group comprises: MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU Chief Justice Bryant (Family Court) Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe (Federal Magistrates Court) Justice Watts (Family Court) Federal Magistrate Baumann (Federal Magistrates Court) Elizabeth Kelly (Attorney-General’s Department)

Richard Foster (CEO Family Court and acting CEO Federal Magistrates Court). A BI L ITY

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

Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group 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

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 109 110 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 withsupportprovidedbytheExecutive Advisor totheCEO. The Committee’s areaoffocusinclude: on issuesthatimpactatanationallevelstaffandthemanagement future directionoftheCourt. broader issuesthathaveanationalperspective. Elected staff delegatesactivelypresenttheviewsof The NationalConsultativeCommitteeisakey forumthrough whichtheCourtconsultswithstaffabout National Consultativeommittee and internalauditreportrecommendations. audit plan, strategic riskandfraud risktreatments, andoversightofthe Australian National Audit Office The Audit andRisk Committeeconsideredarange ofissuesduringtheyear, includingtheCourt’s internal Audit andRiskCommittee including recordsmanagement. Service Charter, budgetstrategies andstaffdevelopment. The Groupalsohelpedreviewcurrentpolicies, the CEOonnewpolicyinitiativesincludingenvironmentalpolicy, electroniccommunication, acombined In 2009–10, theChiefExecutiveOfficer’s Management AdvisoryGroupfocusedonprovidingadviceto Chief ExecutiveOfficer’s Management AdvisoryGroup Appendix 10hasdetailsofmembershipandtermsreferenceforthevarious committees. This sectionprovideshighlightsoftheworkseniormanagementcommitteesduring2009–10. Senior managementcommitteehighlights level operational andpolicyadvice. Meetingonaregularoradhocbasis, theyincluded: A numberofadministrative committeeswerealsoactiveatthislevelduring2009–10andprovidedhigh Other committees Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Executive Director, Corporate. a RegionalRegistryManagerrepresentative Acting ExecutiveDirector, ClientServices information technologyinitiatives financial andhumanresourceplanning the objectivesofCourtandhowthesemightbeachieved Information andCommunication. Property Management Staff Development National Consultative Audit andRisk 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 2009–10, the Staff Development Committee arranged for various staff training and development tools to be added to the E-learn portal of the Court’s intranet. This included modules on countering bullying and harassment; also for dealing with difficult and persistent clients. The Committee also facilitated staff exchanges between different locations. The Committee is integral to the Court’s approach to the continuing professional and career development of staff, being a key forum through which staff representatives have shared responsibility for identifying and determining development needs and opportunities. PART 6

Corporate and operational planning and associated performance reporting and review MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU At 30 June 2010, the Court employed 619 ongoing and non-ongoing employees (excluding judicial officers and the CEO) in all states and territories except Western Australia. Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the Court’s intranet and website: Strategic Plan administration policies and procedural documents including guidelines, procedures and manuals A BI L ITY 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) 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 staff and the judiciary are informed of significant changes and events through the following: Chief Justice’s eMessage—emails from the Chief Justice to all staff and the judiciary CEO eMessages—emails from the Chief Executive Officer to all staff

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 111 112 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 the Court’s monitoring andreviewofallstrategic, operational, complianceandfinancialrisks. This issupportedby The Courtpromotesaculturethatsupportstheidentification, analysis, assessment, treatment, Risk management recommendations generated bytheaboveauditsthroughquarterlystatusreports. The Court’s Audit andRiskCommitteemonitoredtheimplementationofindividualauditreport Internal auditsconductedduringtheyearincluded: Management Planandafterdiscussionwiththe Audit andRiskCommitteeseniormanagement. The 2009–10Internal Audit Planwas developedtakingintoaccounttheriskdriversinRisk and RiskCommittee. The Court’s internal auditserviceswereprovidedbyOaktonServicesPtyLtdandmonitoredthe Audit well asfraud risk. mechanisms tomanagegeneral businessriskas governance arrangements, appropriate The Courthas, aspartofitscorporate Internal audit Australian/ NewZealandRiskManagementStandard(AS/NZSIS0 31000: 2009). Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 compliance withthe Officer communicatesanddirectstheCourt’s mechanism bywhichtheChiefExecutive Chief ExecutiveInstructions—theofficial Intranet messages—latestnews. and achievements andsuccessesofcourtstaff, for sharinginformationandcelebrating the Justice andCEO. This istheprimaryvehicle year andincludescolumnsfromtheChief newsletter, whichisissuedfourtimesper Courtside—the Court’s internalstaff staff workingintheregistries Director ClientServicestoallclientservice Client serviceadvices—fromtheExecutive and Accountability Act 1997 Act Accountability and risk managementreview(strategic riskandfraud controlriskassessments). management oftheExecutive Vehicle Schemevehicles/fleetmanagement, and collection ofrevenuesandtherecordingtheseinCasetrack human resourcemanagementperformance(benchmarkingdiagnostics) HR payrollcomplianceandqualityassurance processes Risk Control and Compliance Framework Compliance and Control Risk Financial Management Management Financial —a riskmanagementapproachgrounded inthe Courtside. The framework provides policies, procedures and tools to promote effective risk management. It is available on the Court’s intranet to help achieve better services and outcomes for judicial services, clients and staff. During 2009–10, the Court continued to participate in the annual Comcover benchmarking survey, which measures risk and assesses the extent of cultural change within agencies. The Court’s overall result continued to improve, reflecting the implementation of the Court’sRisk Control and Compliance Framework. Work started during 2009–10 on developing a single Business Continuity Plan for the various jurisdictions in the Commonwealth Law Court building in Brisbane. The Court is working in collaboration with members of the National Law Courts Building Management Committee on this project. At 30 June 2010, it was expected that the various stakeholder consultations on the single plan would occur early in 2010–11. Subject to assessment testing for suitability, it was anticipated that the single business continuity plan would be extended to other Commonwealth Law Courts early in 2011. As a result of a risk management review undertaken during 2009–10, the Court committed to raising awareness of risk management with all staff. A risk awareness training package was designed for this purpose, including to raise awareness of the benefits of incorporating risk assessments into business planning. Training with the package was completed during 2009–10. PART 6 The Court continuously monitors its Strategic Risk Management Plan to take into consideration new or emerging risks that may impact the achievement of the Court’s strategic objectives. The plan identifies areas of risk for the Court and the strategies required to effectively manage and mitigate those risks. At MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU 30 June, the Court was well-advanced on preparing an updated Strategic Risk Management Plan for the period 2010–2012.

Financial risk The Court manages financial risk in accordance with theRisk Control and Compliance Framework. The relevant mechanisms are: risk assessments for annual business plans A BI L ITY risk assessments for identified projects Chief Executive Instructions on the intranet monthly financial reports to the CEO’s Management Advisory Group, and oversight by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Fraud prevention and control The Court’s Fraud Control Plan 2007–09 complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2002. The Audit and Risk Committee has received 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. The development of a revised 2010–12 Fraud Control Plan was commenced during the year and at 30 June 2010, it was expected it would be completed in the first quarter of 2010–11.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 113 114 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 Accountability Regulations 1997 Regulations Accountability the MinisterforJusticeandCustoms, pursuanttoRegulation19ofthe 13 August 2010 13 August Family Courtof Australia Chief ExecutiveOfficer Richard Foster, PSM Annual fraud datahasbeencollected andreportedthatcomplieswiththeGuidelines. September 2009andtheCourt’s eLearning Fraud-awareness training was conductedin Courts. outline theserviceexpectedfromstaffof Magistrates Court, producednew In addition, theCourt, jointlywiththeFederal and dataquality. environmental responsibility, datamanagement to privacy, ethicsandotherfactorssuchas responsibilities andobligationsinrelation ensure thatallstaffwereaware oftheirrights, information andeducationpromotionto In 2009–10, theCourtmaintainedanongoing all employeesoftheCourt. In accordancewithguideline2.8ofthe Fraud control certification No instancesorallegationsoffraud againsttheCourtwerereportedin2009–10. contained inthe Service (APS) Values andCodeofConduct approach tobusiness. The Australian Public respect andresponsivenessunderpinits The Court’s Strategic Planstatesthatintegrity, Ethical standards and Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 place. appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigationandreportingproceduresprocessesarein that complieswiththeGuidelines the Family Courtof Australia haspreparedfraud assessmentsandhasinplaceafraud controlplan Service Commitments Service Public Service Act 1999 Act Service Public publications. These , Iherebycertifythatamsatisfiedthat: Service Charter Service Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2002 Guidelines Control Fraud Commonwealth applyto

Service Charter. Financial Management and and Management Financial , issuedby module has been updated to further reinforce the APS Code of Conduct and APS values. The Court’s Research and Ethics Committee considers, monitors and overviews all research and evaluation proposals (internal and external) for approval. Membership of the Committee is in Appendix 10.

Joint Client Service Charter and Service Commitments During 2009–10, the separate Service Charters of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court were amalgamated. The joint Charter sets out the service level standards clients can expect from dealing with staff of the Courts and how clients and other users of court services may make suggestions or complaints about services, policy, practice or procedures. This document is available on www.familycourt.gov.au and www.fmc.gov.au and on the Family Law Courts website www.familylawcourts.gov.au. The joint summary Service Commitments document is on display at all registries and on the websites. It highlights what clients of the Courts can expect from client services staff, what the staff cannot do, clients rights and responsibilities and how clients can help the Courts to help them.

External and internal scrutiny PART 6

External scrutiny

Reports by the Auditor-General MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU The Auditor General made no report specific to the Family Court of Australia during 2009–10.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal There are no matters to report.

Commonwealth Ombudsman The Commonwealth Ombudsman made no report specific to the Family Court during 2009–10. A BI L ITY District Court of New South Wales Potkonyak and Ors v Commonwealth [2009] NSWDC 198 Mr Potkonyak sought to bring proceedings against the Commonwealth in the District Court of NSW, claiming damages for alleged breaches of duty on the part of Family Court personnel. On 16 September 2009, Judge Levy SC, struck out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and dismissed the proceedings. Judge Levy noted his view that what the plaintiffs sought to do in the District Court proceedings was to mount a collateral attack on earlier decisions of the Family Court. This it was said must not be permitted. Recognising that the procedural step of summary dismissal must be exercised with exceptional caution, and only where it is clear that there is no real question to be tried, Judge Levy considered this to be such a case. The allegations made were held to be an abuse of the process of the court. The case confirms that where a matter lies within the jurisdiction of the Family Court which has considered what it will and will not do in the matter, it is not open to attempt to re-litigate the matter by original proceedings brought in a State court.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 115 116 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 in restructure was delayeddueto thegovernmentconsideringimplicationsofHighCourt’s decision merger andhadbeenworkingtowards havinglegislationinplacethefirstpartof2010. However, the At theendof2008–09financialyear, thegovernmenthadbeenpreparing legislationtofacilitatethe lapsed). (At thetimeofpublicationthisReport, Parliament hadbeenproroguedandtheBillasintroducedhas In termsoffamilylaw, on24May2010the Attorney-General announcedthat: government’s decisionabouttherestructureoffederal courts. This followed: On 24May2010the Attorney-General, theHonourable RobertMcClellandMP, announcedthe F Regulation onareasincluding: during theyearCourtprovidedfeedback andinformationtotheDepartmentofFinancial In responsetothepursuitofwhole-of-governmentarrangements forvarious ICTgoodsandservices, achieved thefirstyear’s targetreduction. by 10 percentin2009, 25 percentin2010and502011. By30June2010, theCourthad ICT contractors. This isconsistentwithgovernmentrequirements, whicharetoreduce ICTcontractors were undertaken tomaintainICTserviceswithareducedbudget. This includedreducingthenumberof business asusual(BAU) costsascalculatedforthe2007–08financial year. Various efficiencyinitiatives The GershonreviewledtotheCourt’s 2009–10appropriationbeingreducedby2.5 per cent ofICT capacity andquantitiesofICTequipment. and capitalexpenditurefor2008–09financialyearincludedsome quantitative measuresabout In October2009, theCourtsubmittedICTReviewBenchmarking report. ItcoveredallICToperating Communication Technology’ (ICT)bySirPeter Gershonwereimplemented. Deregulation asrecommendationsofthe ‘Review ofthe Australian Government’s useofInformationand During 2009–10, theCourtundertooksignificantreportingtoDepartmentofFinanceand Independent reviewofthe Australian Government’s useofICT Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 amily lawservicesreview Lane v Morrison v Lane Family CourtandtheFederal Court. General announcedthatthegovernmentproposedtomergeFederal Magistrates Courtwiththe May 2009, the Australian Governmentreleaseditsdecisiononthefutureofcourts. The Attorney- be offeredcommissionsintheFamily Court. restructured intotwodivisions. Federal Magistrates exercisingmostlyfamilylawjurisdictionwould The Family Courtwouldbethesinglecourtdealingwithallfamilylawmattersand with theFederal Courtassumingresponsibilityfortheadministration oftheFMC. The Federal Magistrates Courtof Australia wouldberetainedtoheargeneral federal lawmatters, data centreuseandrequirements Federal Family Law Courts in Australia—Striking the Right Balance Right the Australia—Striking in Courts Law Family Federal November 2008, the Attorney-General releasedadiscussionpaper, family lawservicesbytheFamily CourtandtheFederal Magistrates Court. March 2008, the Attorney-General initiatedtheSempleReviewofadministration anddeliveryof . . Future Governance Options for for Options Governance Future desktop common operating environment and PC and notebook requirements implementation of a common ICT chart of accounts information about custom and bespoke applications development and details of all ICT software and applications used in the Court ICT skills survey internet gateway and major office machine requirements, and status of green ICT initiatives. The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) is managing a whole-of- government transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The Court is following the schedule of milestones. In the second quarter of 2009–10 the Department of Finance and Deregulation requested that the Court commence an implantation of the Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3). A certified external consultant was engaged to assess the Court maturity level and develop a business improvement plan to raise the Court’s maturity level in line with the time frame suggested. By 30 June 2010, the assessment had been completed and a draft business improvement plan submitted for evaluation. PART 6

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 2009–10, more than 25 Senate estimate questions on notice MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU were received and answered.

External evaluations

Family consultants and registrars review and restructure Early in 2009–10, Des Semple and Associates completed a review of family consultants and registrars.

The review had these terms of reference: A BI L ITY Review the current management structure and processes of family consultant and registrar services and advise on the appropriate governance and management structure for the future provision of these services to the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, recognising the separate case management processes and procedures of the two courts. Recommend the future quantum of family consultant and registrar resources for future allocation to the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court on the proportion of the number of cases finalised by both courts. Propose management systems that ensure transparent and dedicated allocation of resources to both courts according to the number of case matters finalised. Propose the management templates and executive information management reports that accurately monitor case management outcomes according to the predetermined resource allocations. In August 2009, the Chief Justice, Chief Federal Magistrate and Chief Executive Officer approved recommendations on the transfer of resources arising from the Semple review.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 117 118 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 Resources continuetobemovedbetweentheCourtsmeetneedsofjudiciaryandclients. Queensland, Newcastle, Parramatta, Adelaide, Canberra andHobart. the poolofavailable resources. An additionalsixSeniorFamily ConsultantswillbelocatedinNorth Senior Family Consultantpositionsatthesesameregistries, withthreeassignedtoeachCourtmanage in Brisbane, MelbourneandSydney. DeputyManagersChildDisputeServiceswerereplacedbysixnew replaced thepreviouspositionsofManagerChildDisputeServiceswith RegionalCoordinators family consultantandregistrar resourceswas madefortheFederal Magistrates Court. The newstructure In October2009, asinglemanagementstructurewas introducedandthefirstallocationofdedicated F Andrew): Regional RegistryManagersunderthe leadershipoftheExecutiveDirector, ClientServices(Stephen The Courtsnowhaveasingle regionalmanagementstructure, managedthroughfour regionsbyfour Single regionalandregistrymanagementstructure made toregionalandregistrymanagementstructuresclientservices within registries. In additiontotherestructuringofregistrar andfamilyconsultantresources, anumberof changeswere that thetwojurisdictionsremainedasindependentcourts. The integration oftheadministrations proceeded. The integrated administration continuedtorecognise resources oftheCourtsandtohelpaddresschallengingfinancialposition facing bothCourts. Court was madebytheFamily LawCourts Advisory Group. This was donetomaximisetheefficiencyand Courts, aplantofurtherintegrate theadministration oftheFamily CourtandtheFederal Magistrates As reportedlastyear, inMarch2009, inadvance ofthegovernment’s decisionaboutthefutureof Integration ofCourts’administration Internal evaluations regularly reporttotheFamily LawCourts Advisory Group. achieved ataregionallevelthroughtransparent managementprocessthatwillbemonitoredand in ensuringthesuccessofsingleadministration. The ongoingmanagementofresourceswillbe The transition tothenewarrangements forbothfamily consultantsandregistrars isanotherkey step tool foraccurately determining the distributionofavailable familyconsultantandregistrar resources. At 30June2010, themanagementinformationreportingcontinueditsdevelopment. Itisanessential Resource allocation The approachestotheuseofregistrar resourcestosupportbothcourtswas ongoingat30June2010. the poolofregistrars ineachlocation. predetermined levelofregistrar resourcesforeachlocationwas decided, tobemadeavailable through The regionalmanagementandappealsstructureofregistrars was maintained. InOctober2009a Registrars Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 amily consultants New South Wales/ACT: Marianne Christmann Queensland/Northern New South Wales: James Cotta Victoria/Tasmania: Jane Reynolds South Australia/Northern Territory: Greg Thomas. A new position of Business Development Manager was created during the year, with responsibililty for eFiling and portal development, the National Enquiry Centre and the business systems development officers. A two-day planning workshop for seniors managers of both Courts was held in March 2010. The focus of discussions was critical issues affecting both Courts, such as strategies for the combined administration, budget strategies (including savings options), governance, roles and expectations, and key elements of the change process necessary to ensure an effective way forward.

Client services restructure After consulting with staff over several months, the implementation of new registry-level management structures was completed in all registries in January 2010. PART 6 The new structure includes two arms—judicial services and registry services. Both arms provide localised and integrated management arrangements to lead and support the staff of both courts.

Judicial support review MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU In February 2010, a review of the Court’s case coordinator and court officer functions and resources commenced in order to: determine the most effective and efficient model for support of Family Court judges, including the members of the Full Court recommend to the Chief Justice and Chief Executive Officer a model that ensures appropriate support in court and in the management of cases. A BI L ITY The recommended model needs to make savings without compromising effective support to judges. The review team comprises Bob Gregory, National Projects Manager; Simon Kelso, Acting Manager Human Resources; and Jamie Crew, Registry Manager Newcastle. By 30 June 2010, the review team had consulted extensively with judicial officers and staff in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Parramatta, Newcastle, Hobart, Townsville and Canberra, and the Commonwealth and Public Sector Union. A draft consultative report had been completed and was being considered by judges and managers. If accepted, the review recommendations are expected to be fully implemented by March 2011.

Child Responsive Program The Child Responsive Program was implemented nationally in the Family Court of Australia in January 2008. An internal review of the program, looking at its implementation and its effectiveness with less adversarial trial procedures, was conducted in April 2009 and made generally available in early 2009–10.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 119 120 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 Fair Work Australia approved thenew The aimwas forareplacementEnterprise Agreement tobeinplaceby1July2010. On18June2010, all-staff emails. progress ofnegotiationsforthenew Agreement. Managementalsokept employees informedthrough with regularnewsandannouncementsaboutissuessuchassalaryalignment, registryreviewsandthe The Courts’intranets weretheprimaryvehiclesforkeeping theemployeesinformedof developments, management, theCPSUandindividualstaffbargainingrepresentatives. Negotiations thencommencedforareplacementEnterprise Agreement involvingtheCourts’ Service Act 1999 Act Service courts. to ensurethatfamiliesdonotundergoduplicatedassessmentswhenmattersare transferred between more flexibletoaccommodatetheneedsofparticularlycomplexmattersnow beforetheCourtand and integrated withthefirstdayoflessadversarialtrial. The ChildResponsiveProgram hasbecome Judges reportedahighlevelofsatisfactionwiththeway theprogram focussedontheneedsofchildren The reviewshowedthattheprogram was wellestablishedandintegrated withlessadversarial trials. in the Australian PublicService, the Also inSeptember2009, theGovernmentintroducednewpolicyparameters foragreementmaking General andtheDepartmentof Education, Employmentand Workplace Relations. consultation withstaffandtheCommunityPublicSectorUnion, andtheapproval ofthe Attorney- As aninterimmeasure, theChiefExecutiveOfficer, bydetermination undersection24ofthe rates applyingtostaffoftherespective courtsweresignificantlyoutofalignment. nominally expiredon30June2010, withapayriseof4.4 percentfrom1July2009. As aresultthepay 30 June2009andthelastpayriseunderitwas on1July2008. The Family Court’s Collective Agreement of theadministration. The Federal Magistrates Court’s Collective Agreement hadanominalexpirydateof conditions forallstaffofbothcourts. That couldnotbeaccomplishedimmediatelyfollowingthemerger the Federal Magistrates Courtwas forasingleEnterprise Agreement withasinglesetoftermsand A highpriorityoftheChiefExecutiveOfficer Family Courtand ActingChiefExecutiveOfficerof conditions andsalaryoutcomesfromtherespectiveCollective Agreements. rates ofpay. This was aresultofdifferentpaystructureswithinthecourts, anddifferentemployment side andperformingsimilardutieshaddifferenttermsconditionsofemployment includingdifferent Terms andconditionsofemploymentwas akey issue. Staffonsimilarclassifications, workingside-by- 2009. A people managementframework andrelatedstrategies wereessential forthemergedworkforce. the administration oftheFamily CourtandFederal Magistrates Court, whichhadcommencedinMarch In 2009–10, theCourt’s humanresourcesareaundertooksignificantworkassociatedwiththemergerof Overview Management ofhumanresources this Part formoredetails. Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 Agreement Enterprise Australia , alignedthesalaryrates ofthetwocourtson9September2009. This followed Australian Government Employment Bargaining Framework Bargaining Employment Government Australian . Itcommencedon25June 2010. See ‘Agreement Making’laterin Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of of Court Family and Australia of Court Magistrates Federal Public Public . Workforce planning, retention and turnover

Workforce planning Throughout 2009–10, 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 on a monthly basis. Potential risks and key trends were addressed through appropriate human resource strategies to ensure future capability and resourcing and to cope with staff turnover. The strategies were communicated to managers and staff, helping ensure that succession plans 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 a longstanding and ongoing commitment to ensuring that the needs of 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 PART 6 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 community in suitable formats and delivered in culturally appropriate ways. The Court also develops partnerships with a range of Indigenous stakeholder MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU groups 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. These partnerships and relationships assist the Court in assessing whether there is a need for targeted recruitment in particular cultural areas and informs staff as part of their role. The Court also recognises the significant contribution made by mature aged employees in the workplace. Accordingly, the Court encourages the use of the flexible working arrangements available under 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. A BI L ITY

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 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 leave, salary sacrifice arrangements and paid time off work over the Christmas and New Year period.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 121 122 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Award Jenny Paxton, winner ofthe2009Janet Kitcher the 2010 Australia Dayachievementmedallion Andrew Watson (HobartRegistry). Recipientof achievement medallion. Kristen Murray (MelbourneRegistry). Recipientofthe2010 Australia Day in 2007–08and13percent2006–07. cent. This compareswithongoingstaffseparations of14percent ongoing staffseparations bytotalstaffnumberswas also8per (see Table 8.9at Appendix 3). In2008–09, thepercentageof turnover rate of8percentagainststaffnumbersat30June2010 Of these, 53wereongoingemployees, representing anannual During 2009–10, 85employeesandjudicialofficerslefttheCourt. Workforce turnover recognition. achievement ofcorporate goals, providingnon-cashrewards and provide aframework torecogniseandreward employeesforthe scheme, the culture andbusinesspractice. The Court’s reward andrecognition celebration ofachievementisan importantpartoftheCourt’s Recognition ofstaffintheformpositivefeedbackand Rewards andrecognition annual influenza vaccinations. immediate families, anemployeewellbeingprogram andfree free professionalcounsellingtoemployeesandmembersoftheir strategies includeanemployee assistanceprogram thatprovides as soonreasonablypractical. Otherhealthyworkenvironment psychological injuries, andassistingabsentstafftoreturnwork assist withpreventingandmanagingillnessinjury, including The Courtanditsemployeesarecommittedtomeasuresthatwill environment withstrongpoliciesagainstharassment andbullying. The Courtprovidesafamily-friendlyandnon-discriminatorywork A safeandhealthyworkenvironment Australia Day Medallions Day Australia Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award, Award, Performance in Excellence Kitcher Janet andthe 2010 Australia Dayachievementmedallion. Raelene Shearer(MelbourneRegistry). Recipientofthe Years of Service of Years awards Staffing profile At 30 June 2010, the Court had 619 employees (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees) covered by theFederal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). This was a three per cent decrease compared with 638 employees at 30 June 2009. 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 30 judges, including the Chief Justice (10 female and 20 male) and two male judicial registrars. 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 PART 6 Agreement making

A single Enterprise Agreement for the Courts MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU For most of the reporting year the employees of the Family Court were covered by the Family Court of Australia Collective Agreement 2007–10. On 18 June 2010, Fair Work Australia approved the new 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 and individual staff bargaining representatives. It commenced on 25 June 2010, replacing the individual Collective Agreements of both Courts. The nominal expiry date of the new Agreement is 30 June 2011. However, under present arrangements the Agreement will continue to operate after that date until replaced or formally terminated. It applies to A BI L ITY all employees of the Courts employed under the Public Service Act 1999, other than SES employees. The achievement of the Agreement was a significant event. It means that within the two Courts, staff working side-by-side doing similar work are employed under the same terms and conditions of employment. It positions the Courts for future developments in the conduct of workplace relations within the government sector. The Agreement supports significant improvements in the Courts’ operations to be achieved through the range of corporate efficiency/productivity measures produced following reviews of child dispute services, judicial support, library and guarding services, user pays options, divorce processes and procedures, including conciliation conferences, use of interpreters, technology (video links and teleconferencing), circuits and provision of transcripts. The Agreement provides that in order to receive the salary increases, or to progress from one pay point to the next in the pay scale of a classification, an employee must 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.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 123 124 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 individual s24(1)determinationsmade bythe executive serviceemployeesarein AWAs and Terms andconditionsfortheCourt’s senior SES remuneration and conditions, includingnon-salarybenefits. to provideforpayincreasesoradditionalterms s 24(1) determinationsorcommonlawcontracts AWAs mayalsobesupportedbyindividual retaining high-value employees). terms andconditions(forexample, asaway of a commonlawcontract thatprovidesadditional supported byeitheras 24(1)determinationor however, forsomeemployees, itmaybe predecessor, isacomprehensiveagreement; The newEnterprise Agreement, like its industrial agreements: Terms andconditionsofemploymentintheCourtaregovernedbyoneormore ofthefollowing Relationship betweenagreements governed bydetermination24instruments. See Table 8.11at Appendix 3formoredetail. arrangements governedbyenforceable commonlawcontracts and51hademploymentarrangements Offers of AWAs toCourtemployeesceasedfrom13February 2008, inaccordancewiththe Other agreements with averages identifiedinthestateofservicereport. staff turnoverrates andstaffabsencesarewithin APS bestpractice parameters andarenotinconsistent Concurrent withthe Agreement, managementstrategies arebeingdevelopedaimedatensuringthat on 25June2010)anddeterminationsmadebythe Agency Headundersection24ofthe Government Employment Bargaining Framework Bargaining Employment Government by the employment forindividualscoveredbytheFamily CourtCollective Agreement (whichwas superseded In somelimitedcasestheCourthasusedcommonlawcontracts toprovidesupplementaryconditionsof place. Table 8.12at Appendix 3setsoutthe AWA minimumandmaximumsalaryranges byclassification. Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Act 1999 Act effective from25June2010, andbeforethatthe 2007–2010 individual commonlawcontracts. the individual determinationsunders 24(1)of AWAs The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 2010 Agreement Enterprise Australia of Court Family and Australia of Court Magistrates Federal Public Service Act 1999 Act Service Public Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 Agreement Enterprise Australia of Court Family and Australia of Court Magistrates Federal , tobuilduponexisting AWA arrangements. At 30June2010, 14employeeshademployment , coveringallnon-SESemployeesexceptthoseon AWAs , or ; however, 34employeeshaveenforceable AWAs in Family Court of Australia Collective Agreement Agreement Collective Australia of Court Family Service Commitments. Public Service Service Public Australian Australian , 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 include: motor vehicles car parking superannuation access to salary sacrificing arrangements computers, including home-based computer access membership of professional associations mobile phones studies assistance leave flexibilities

workplace responsibility allowances (for example, first aid, fire warden, community language), and PART 6 airline club memberships.

Performance pay arrangements MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU During 2009–10, the Court neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paid performance pay to any employee.

Training, learning and development The Court recognises the value of a well-educated workforce that is able to contribute effectively to meeting the Court’s 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. It A BI L ITY achieves this by assisting employees to meet their development and career needs consistent with the Performance Management and Development System and available resources. The Court’s in-house training facilities include the provision of self-paced, on-line learning courses on a range of topics including APS induction training, OH&S, Accounting Basics, Effective Project Management, Business Communications and the Windows XP suite (Excel, Word, PowerPoint). In addition, during the year training was provided in a number of specific areas, including on how to deal with difficult clients, family violence training for professionals working in family law, courtroom technology, bullying and harassment, risk awareness and fraud awareness. The Court also has a peer support network, for which training is provided as required. The Court facilitates staff participation in the comprehensive range of leadership, learning and development programs provided by the Australian Public Service Commission. It also provides studies assistance including leave and support for employees undertaking relevant tertiary studies.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 125 126 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 support officersisstrictlyconfidential. on staffaccessingofficersfromoutsidetheirimmediateworkarea. Allcommunication withtrained peer Peer supportofficersfromanylocationcanprovideassistance as required, thatis, thereisnorestriction immediately shouldanincidentoccur. system isdesignedtocomplementtheemployeeassistanceprogram andallowssupporttobeavailable for immediateassistanceshouldanindividualexperienceadistressingsituationor difficultevent. The The systemprovidesanetworkoftrained staffintheworkplacetoensurethatskilledsupportisavailable National SupportOffice. lessen theriskofstressinworkplacebyintroducingapeersupportsystemwithin registriesandthe highly sensitiveandstressfulsituations. During2009–10, theCourtcontinuedaproactiveapproachto The natureoftheCourt’s corebusinessmeansthatemployeesmaybeexposedtoandinvolvedin Peer supportnetwork development ofwellbeingstrategies. Converge Internationalmanagedtheprogram andprovidedgenericdatatotheCourtguide service alsoprovidesatelephoneadvisoryformanagers. Court employeesandtheirimmediatefamiliesexperiencingpersonalorwork-related problems. The The Court’s employee assistanceprogram providesafree, confidentialcounsellingservicetothejudiciary, Employee assistanceprogram The targetin2009–10was for100 percentofemployeesparticipatinginthesystem. This was achieved. Court’s people, recognisesdiversityandacknowledgestheircontributiontoorganisationalsuccess. progress andachievementagainstagreedoutcomes. Itfostersaworkingenvironmentthatvalues the to provideclarityonwhatisexpectedbedone, howitcouldorshouldbedone, andtorecognise on bothindividualemployeesandtheirsupervisors/managers. Itreliesonongoingandopendiscussions assist anemployeetoachievehisorherpotential. Itisacontinuousprocessandimposesresponsibilities Performance managementanddevelopmentprovidesaframework todevelopindividualperformance salary advancement withintheirclassificationscale. the systemtobeeligibleforsalaryincreasesprovidedundernewEnterprise Agreement andfor plans. Participation ismandatoryforallemployeesexceptprobationers. Employeesmustparticipatein team andbranch businessplans, leadingultimatelytoachievingthetwoCourts’visionsandbusiness The Courts’Performance ManagementandDevelopmentSystemaimstoalignindividualoutcomes Performance ManagementandDevelopmentSystem resulted inanumberofchangesbeing introducedtofurtherreduceduplication, improvetheoverall As partofthesingleadministration, thereviewofclientservices andregistrymanagementstructures of bothcourts, thusreducing costandcapturingagreaternumberofstaff. Synergies wereachievedinthearea oftraining whereprogram deliverywas madeavailable tothestaff elimination ofduplicatedservicesandtherationalisation ofcourtservices. Court continuedtoproduceefficiencysavingsthroughthemoreefficient allocation ofresources, The firstfullyearofthesingleadministrative structureforthe Family Courtandthe Federal Magistrates Productivity gains Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 structure through a more integrated approach and clarify reporting relationships within registries. This has resulted in a reduction in staff numbers without affecting service delivery to clients or the judiciary. The resulting reduction in management positions in the registries will produce significant recurrent employee expenses savings. A number of productivity gains also formed part of the Enterprise Agreement negotiations mentioned earlier in this part.

Commonwealth Disability Strategy In accordance with the Commonwealth Disability Strategy, the Court undertook a number of activities during 2009–10, including the following: Through its senior management group and other committees, the Court continued to focus on meeting the needs of staff and clients, including those with disabilities and other special needs. The Court, through its National Occupational Health and Safety Committee, ensures that the physical needs of staff and clients are being met. For example, the use of the checklist ensures that passageways are kept clear and fire drills take into account the physical needs of staff and visitors. PART 6 The Court’s staff induction programs address access and equity in client services, raising the awareness of staff about the need to be flexible and understanding in meeting the needs of all Court users. The Court continued to implement initiatives from its Workplace Diversity Plan, the aim of which MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU is to accommodate, as far as possible, the personal circumstances of all staff, including staff with disabilities. The Court is committed to ensuring that its facilities are accessible to all members of the community, including people with disabilities. It has noted the Government response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ report Access All Areas. Building and construction works on existing and proposed buildings for which the Court has responsibility will take into account the needs of people with disabilities. A BI L ITY

Chief Justice Bryant unveils the memorial plaque at the 20th anniversary memorial of the Family Court bombings at Parramatta.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 127 128 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 accommodation andotherpropertycostsforSydneyCommonwealthLawCourts. cost oftheseresourcesin2009–10was $0.616m. The resourcesprovidedfreeofchargeinclude The Family CourtalsoprovidesresourcesfreeofchargetotheFederal Court. Itisestimatedthatthe Magistrates Courtduring2009–10 was $30.162m. It isestimatedthatthecostofresourcesprovidedfreechargebyFamily CourttotheFederal sections 90, 92and99ofthe The Family CourtprovidesresourcesfreeofchargetotheFederal Magistrates Courtinaccordancewith support, anddepreciation. has asignificantcomponentoffixedcosts(57percent)relatingtoproperty, judicialofficersandtheir Figure 6.2providesafurtherbreakdownofactualcostsfor2009–10whichshows thattheFamily Court cent oftheFamily Court’s 2009–10budget. forecast inthePortfolio Additional EstimatesStatements2009–10. This surplusrepresentsonly0.6per court hasreportedasurplusof$1.0millionforthe2009–10financialyear, comparedtoabreakeven The Court’s 2009–10Budget, aspublishedinthePortfolio Additional Estimates, was $158.1million. The Financial management Report surveyconductedbythe Australian PublicServiceCommission. Appendix 8). Inaddition, theCourtreportsonitsroleasanemployerthroughStateofService The Courtreportsonitsperformanceagainstthecoreroleofprovider (see Table 8.16in Figure 6.2 The Family Courtof Australia isaprescribedagencyunderthe Act 1997 Act Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 accommodation, includingaccesstocourtrooms. court staff, whoperformworkonbehalfoftheFederal Magistrates Court, and Corporate Overheads5% Information Technology Family Consultants5% Corporate Support4% Case Coordinators1% Client Services16% . Court Officers2% Registrars 4% Services 6% Family Court’s expenditure, 2009–10 Federal Magistrates Act 1999 Act Magistrates Federal Variable Fixed . Resourcesprovidedfreeofchargeinclude: Financial Management and Accountability Accountability and Management Financial Property 32% Depreciation 4% Judges Registrars &Support1% Judges &Support20% Judges and support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judges and their support staff. Judicial registrars and support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judicial registrars 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 those premises. Registrars: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to registrars. Family consultants: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to family consultants. Client services: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to client services staff. Case coordinators: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to case coordinators. Court officers: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to court officers. Corporate support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to finance, human resources, property services, contract services and the CEO. PART 6 Information technology services: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the provision of IT services.

Corporate overheads: Workers compensation and Comcover insurance premiums, fringe benefit tax MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU 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 under sections 90, 92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, including: A BI L ITY court staff, who perform work on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court accommodation, including access to courtrooms. The estimated cost of those free of charge resources for the Federal Magistrates Court in 2009–10 was $30.162m. The Family Court also provided resources free of charge to the Federal Court with an estimated cost of $0.616m in 2009–10. This included accommodation and other property costs for the Sydney Commonwealth Law Courts.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 129 130 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 required. An appropriate market approachwas madeforallprocurementscoveredbytheguidelines. practicable, adhered tothroughout2009–10. The Court’s annualprocurementplanwas publishedas Figure 6.3 comprising: During 2009–10, totalactual expenditureonconsultancycontracts was $474 155(GSTinclusive), consultant servicescontracts of$10 000ormoreletduring2009–10. available inhouseorwhereanindependentassessmentevaluation isrequired. Table 6.1shows The Courtengagesexternalconsultantstosupportactivities wherespecialisedexpertiseisnot External consultants Disposal Gazetteintermsofthe During 2009–10, nocontracts orstandingofferswereexemptfrompublicationinthePurchasing and Exempt contracts All contracts letin2009–10hadprovisionforthe Auditor-General toaccesscontractors’ premises. Access bythe Auditor-General the complex procurementundertaken bytheCourttoensurecompliancewithlegislativeobligationsand a numberofcorporate contracts. The sectionalsomanages, orhassignificantinvolvementin, all The ProcurementandRiskManagementsectionassistsstaffundertakingprocurementmanages Purchasing, consultantsandcontracts Procurement Guidelines Procurement The corepoliciesandprinciplesofthe reference materialforFamily Courtstaff. Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Corporate Overheads5% Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines Procurement Commonwealth Information Technology Family Consultants5% Corporate Support4% Case Coordinators1% Client Services16% Court Officers2% Registrars 4% Services 6% Services provided free ofcharge totheFederal Magistrates Court andthe Freedom of Information Act Information of Freedom Court’s Procurement Framework Procurement Court’s Variable Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines Procurement Commonwealth . The ChiefExecutiveInstructions, the Fixed . areallpostedontheintranet as Shared Resources Property 32% Depreciation 4% Judges Registrars &Support1% Judges &Support20% were, asfar Commonwealth Commonwealth four new consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure of $260 921 four ongoing consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure of $213 234. Annual reports contain information about actual expenditure on contracts for consultancies. Information on the value of contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website: www.tenders.gov.au

Consultants and competitive tendering During 2009–10, no contracts were let to other organisations for the delivery of services previously performed by the Court.

Table 6.1 Consultant services contracts let during 2009–10, of $10 000 or more

Consultant name Description of services Contract price Selection Justification (2) (Inc GST) process (1)

Catherine Argall PSM Provision of a head negotiator for the $85 000 Direct sourcing B 2009–2010 Enterprise Agreement making processes for the Family Law Courts PART 6 Ice Design Video conferencing consultancy $22 000 Direct sourcing B services

Oakton Services Consultancy services to conduct $32 296 Open tender B

impendent assessments of MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU organisational program and project capability based on P3M3 capability

Stephen Ralph Services to undertake a study of $60 000 Direct sourcing B/C Indigenous Australians access and usage of the Family Law Courts 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 A BI L ITY participation to submit tenders. Public tenders are sought from the market place using national and major metropolitan newspaper advertising and the Australian Government AusTender internet site. 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 a single potential supplier or suppliers being invited to bid because of their unique expertise and/or their special ability to supply goods and/or services sought. Panel: An arrangement under which a number of suppliers, usually selected through a single procurement process, may each 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

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 131 132 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY PART 6 in compliancewithparagraph 11.1(ba)ofthe Table 6.3providesdetailsoftheFamily Court’s legalservicesexpenditurefor2009–10. This ispublished include GST. that theFamily Courtof Australia: a CertificatetotheOfficeofLegal ServicesCoordinationofthe Attorney-General’s Departmentstating Paragraph 11.1ofthe Legal servicesexpenditure Consistent withparagraph 11.2ofthe Table 6.2 has theresponsibilityforensuringthat: Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Blake Dawson Waldron Dawson Blake Total externallegalservicesexpenditure Australian Government Solicitor Government Australian Total professionalfeespaid Professsional fees Disbursements (excluding counsel) Female counselbriefs Male counselbriefs Total valueof counsel briefs Female counseldirectbriefed Male counseldirectbriefed Total numberofcounseldirect briefed Female counselbriefed Male counselbriefed Total numberofcounselbriefed COUNSEL Total costsrecovered Total internallegalservicesexpenditure Total ofprofessional fees paid Total ofdisbursements (excludingcounsel) Total value ofcounselbriefs Total numberofcounsel directbriefed Total numberofcounsel briefed 1903 made nouseofpersonsappointedbythe Attorney-General underSection63ofthe appropriate systemsandproceduresareinplacetocomplywiththesedirections, and arrangements forlegalservicesarehandledefficientlyandeffectively toreceiveserviceinproceedingwhichtheCommonwealthisaparty. Legal servicesexpenditure Legal Services Directions 2005 2005 Directions Services Legal Legal Services Directions 2005 Directions Services Legal Legal Services Directions 2005 Directions Services Legal states thattheChiefExecutiveOfficerofCourt , theChiefExecutiveOfficer issued . All expenditure figures Judiciary Act Act Judiciary $186 108 $40 022 $40 022 $42 348 $2 188 046 $36 $2 188 $2 188 976 $3 $138 $138 $0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 had appropriate systems and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the Directions had no record of any alleged, possible or determined breach of the Directions during the 2009–10 financial year.

Assets management During 2009–10, the Family Court commissioned licensed valuers and chartered building surveyors to undertake a complete on site identification, inspection, condition assessment and valuation of its leasehold and the associated restoration or make-good cost at lease expiration. The project was completed in June 2010 and has provided the courts with a comprehensive record of all leasehold including photographic registers. The Court also commissioned a desktop valuation of all infrastructure plant and equipment and that was also completed in June 2010. These projects have provided the Court with comprehensive asset records able to support the Department of Finance and Deregulation’s requirement for a four year capital plan. PART 6 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, MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU 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 2009–10 are detailed below.

Sydney Following an accommodation review of the Sydney registry, a refurbishment of Levels 8 and 9 was undertaken. Extra chambers were added to Level 9 for additional and visiting judiciary, and a hearing room and conference rooms were added on Level 8 for use by registrars. This has helped to improve the A BI L ITY speed with which matters such as divorces can be heard by registrars in Sydney. This project was jointly funded by the Federal Magistrates Court.

Dandenong Planning was undertaken during the year for the upgrade of the childminding and child observation room facilities within the Dandenong registry. Currently, the facilities are limited and this project aims to upgrade the children’s observation room to a more useable space. This will enable staff to perform their duties more effectively giving a better outcome for the courts’ clients. Functionality of facilities within the registry will be improved by having separate areas for: childminding an adolescent breakout space children’s toilets, and infant sleeping.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 133 At 30 June 2010, it was expected that the work would be carried out in 2010–11.

Newcastle The Newcastle registry was partly refurbished in 2009–10. The works included a general office upgrade and an additional courtroom. The registry now has four courtrooms for five judicial officers. The project has provided both improved facilities and improved safety for staff and clients.

Brisbane During 2009–10, planning and consultation occurred on the intended co-location of judicial officers from the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court on Level 9 at the Brisbane Commonwealth Law Courts building. This followed a review of accommodation in 2009 and will provide three extra judicial chambers, a new common room and an upgraded conference facility. Three areas on the floor are to be altered. At 30 June 2010, construction was scheduled to start in August 2010 with an estimated completion of November 2010.

Correction of material errors in 2008–09 report The Court has no matters to report. PART 6 PART A BI L ITY MANA GE M E N T AN D A CCOU

134 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 PART 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7

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

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 137 138 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 139 140 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 141 142 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 143 144 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 145 146 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 147 148 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 149 150 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 151 152 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 153 154 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 155 156 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 157 158 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 159 160 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 161 162 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 163 164 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 165 166 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 167 168 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 169 170 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 171 172 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 173 174 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 175 176 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 177 178 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 179 180 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 181 182 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 183 184 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PART 7 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PART 7 FI NAN CI AL ST A TE M E N TS

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 185 PART 7 PART TE M E N TS A FI NAN CI AL ST

186 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 PART 8 APPENDICES PART 8: APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Resource statement PART 8

Table 8.1 Family Court of Australia resource statement, 2009–10

The Court’s Agency resourcing statement is shown below. A pp e n di x 1

Actual available Payments Balance appropriation for made remaining 2009–10 2009–10 2009–10 $’000 $’000 $’000

Ordinary Annual Services a c Prior year departmental appropriation 12 190 12 110 80 d e Departmental appropriation 147 919 133 788 14 131 f s.30 relevant agency receipts 6 642 5 951 691 g s.31 relevant agency receipts 7 479 7 479 0

Total 174 230 159 328 14 902 Administered expenses Outcome 1 430 0

Total 430 0

Total ordinary annual services 174 660 159 328

Special Accounts Opening balance 0

Payments made 0

Total Special Account 0 0 0 Total net resourcing for Family Court of Australia b 174 660 159 328

a Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2009–10 and Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2009–10 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 2009–10 Budget. c Appropriation balance bought forward per Note 19 — Table A Balance bought forward from previous period less Appropriation Reduced (Appropriation Act s 14(1)). d Departmental Appropriations per Note 19 — Table A Appropriation Act (No.1 & No3) 2009–10. e Includes cash on hand at 30 June 2010. f Section 30 Receipts per Note 19 — Table A Relevant agency receipts (FMA Act s30). g Section 31 Receipts per Note 19 — Table A Relevant agency receipts (FMA Act s31).

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 189 190 Appendix 2 PART 8 Table 8.2 Appendix 2: Resources foroutcomes The tablebelowshowsthetotalresourcingforCourt’s Outcomeonanexpensebasis. Resources forOutcomes Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Total expensesforOutcome1 Departmental expenses Administered expenses Program 1.1: Provision ofaFamily Court in familylawmatters and provide nationalcoverage astheappellatecourt court, determinecaseswithcomplexlawandfacts, Outcome 1: As Australia’s specialistsuperiorfamily Average StaffingLevel(number)

excludedfromtheabovetable, consistentwiththeResourceStatementin2009–10Budget. 3. SpecialPublicMoneyspecialaccounts, receivedfreeofchargefor Australian National Audit OfficeServices 2. IncludesliabilitiesassumedbyrelatedentitiesfortheJudgesPension Schemeandresources 1. Fullyearbudget, includinganysubsequentadjustmentmadetothe2009–10Budget. Revenues fromindependentsources(Section31) Expenses notrequiringappropriationintheBudgetyear Ordinary annualservices(AppropriationBillNo. 1) Ordinary Annual Services(AppropriationBillNo. 1) Family Courtof Australia resources foroutcomes, 2009–10 3 Litigants Fund Special Account Special Fund Litigants 2

and 2009–10 2008–09 Budget 164 738 Other Trust Monys Trust Other 152 291 $’000 8 147 3 870 (a) 430 601

, havebeen Expenses 2009–10 2009–10 166 214 151 324 Actual $’000 7 608 7 074 (b) 600 0

(a) – (b) – (a) Variation 2009–10 -1 476 -3 204 $’000 539 430 759

Appendix 3: Staffing profile

Staffing profile

At 30 June 2010, the Court had a total workforce of 619 employees covered by the Collective PART 8 Agreement and AWAs (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees), 19 less than at 30 June 2009.

Of the Court’s 619 employees: A pp e n di x 3: S t 189 (30.53 per cent) were male and 430 (69.47 per cent) were female compared with 200 and 438, respectively, at 30 June 2009 538 (86.91 per cent) were ongoing employees and 81 (13.09 per cent) were non-ongoing a ffi n g Profi l e 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 1 1 32 17 8 2 24 85 APS 3 6 1 9 65 5 28 12 5 31 162 APS 4 4 14 29 14 6 3 14 84 APS 5 3 20 21 1 10 3 3 9 70 APS 6 1 2 30 3 1 3 2 42 EL 1 5 31 25 13 5 3 19 101 EL 2 1 1 14 22 11 5 2 10 66 SES 1 3 1 1 1 6 SES 2 2 2 Total 21 4 124 199 6 95 42 18 110 619

Note: Actual occupancy at 30 June 2010 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.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 191 192 Appendix 3: Staffing profile PART 8 Table 8.4: Table 8.5: Note: Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Total SES 2 SES 1 EL 2 EL 1 APS 6 APS 5 APS 3 APS 4 APS 2 APS 1 Level Total SES 2 EL 1 APS 6 APS 2 SES 1 EL 2 APS 5 APS 4 APS 3 Level APS 1

included intheabovetables. Judicial officersandtheChiefExecutiveOfficer, who areholdersofpublicoffice, andcasualemployeesarenot

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Male Male Female Female Male Female Female Male Female Male Gender Full-time Full-time Full-time Full-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Part-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Full-time Part-time Part-time Attendance Part-time Staff bygender Staff byattendancestatus ACT 21

1 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 4 2

1 ACT 21 2 1 1 1 3 3 4 6

CJ 4

1 1 1

CJ 4 2 1 1

NSO 124 10 21 10 14 16 12 13 NSO 1 1 2 1 4 8 1 1 8

1 124 29 26 14 16 11 2 1 3 2 4 4 3 5 4

NSW 199 14 22 18 16 49 24 14 18 NSW 199

8 3 1

3 5 3 1 21 23 17 18 24 42 23 3

1 5 4 3 5 9 1 NT 6

1 3 2

NT 6

1 4

QLD 95 QLD 12 10 23 13 10

1 5 1 6

1 1 5 7 95 16 10 10 11 22 8 1

1 1 5 3 1 6

SA 42 SA

1 1 4 4 1 1 2 3 6 6 5 2 6 42 11 2 3 5

5 3 5 3 1 3 1

TAS TAS 18 18

1 1 3

1 2 1 4 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 2 4 2 1 1 1

110 VIC 12 22 10 12 12 110 VIC

1 7 1 9

1 4 2 8 9 14 12 23 20 1 4 6 5 1 1 9 2 8 4

Total Total 619 119 118 619 26 34 40 67 16 15 14 26 55 70 36 43 49 10 56 24 77 37 63 15 69 44 18 67 1 1 3 3 1 2 6 5 7 1 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 1 25 13 3 2 21 65 PART 8 APS 3 3 1 7 56 2 25 12 5 29 140 APS 4 3 11 21 10 4 2 10 61 APS 5 3 19 20 1 9 3 3 9 67 APS 6 1 1 29 3 1 3 2 40 A pp e n di x 3: S t EL 1 5 28 23 12 5 3 18 94 EL 2 1 1 14 20 11 5 2 9 63 SES 1 3 1 1 5 a ffi n g Profi l e SES 2 2 2 Total 16 3 114 170 3 82 35 17 98 538

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 1 7 4 5 3 20 APS 3 3 2 9 3 3 2 22 APS 4 1 3 8 4 2 1 4 23 APS 5 1 1 1 3 APS 6 1 1 2 EL 1 3 2 1 1 7 EL 2 2 1 3 SES 1 1 1 SES 2 Total 5 1 10 29 3 13 7 1 12 81

Legend: SES – Senior Executive Officer CJ – Office of Chief Justice, Melbourne NSO – National Support Office, Canberra

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 193 194 Appendix 3: Staffing profile PART 8 also twomalejudicialregistrars. At 30June2010, therewere30judges, includingtheChiefJustice; 10femaleand20male. There were Judicial officers * Note: Table 8.9: 2010*. ongoing employees), beinganannualturnoverrate of8percentagainsttotalstaffnumbersat30June During 2009–10, 85employeesandjudicialofficerslefttheCourt(26werenon-ongoing53 W Table 8.8: Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Total Capital TerritoryAustralian Tasmania South Australia Queensland Victoria South Wales New Location Employment type Non-ongoing employees 3.99% Total non-ongoingemployees Ongoing employees 8.13% Total ongoingemployees Public officeholders 0.92% Total publicoffice holders Total orkforce turnover

Chief ExecutiveOfficer)asat30June2010(total headcountof652). Total staffnumbersfortheabovetableinclude allemployeesandpublicofficeholders(judicial officersandthe ongoing contract dateofexpiry. The abovefiguresdonotincludenon-ongoing employees whoseactualperiodofengagement reachedtheirnon-

Workforce turnover Total numberofjudgesandjudicialregistrars, 30June 2010 Reason Retirement age60–65 Termination—unspecified Resignation Inter departmenttransfer Retirement ageover65

Retirement age60–65 Redundancy Resigned Inter departmenttransfer Retirement ageover65

Retirement age60–70 Resigned

1 DeputyChiefJustice 1 ChiefJustice Judges 30 12 5 1 3 6 1 Judicial Registrars Total 19 26 13 21 12 53 85 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 4 5 1 6 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 replaced PART 8 the Court’s Collective Agreement 2007–10, which had been lodged pursuant to section 328 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 on 30 July 2007 and had a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2010.

At 30 June 2010, 568 Family Court employees were covered by the Enterprise Agreement. A pp e n di x 3: S t

Table 8.10: Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 a ffi n g Profi l e Level Female Male Total APS 1 1 1 APS 2 48 36 84 APS 3 119 43 162 APS 4 70 14 84 APS 5 54 15 69 APS 6 24 12 36 EL 1 61 23 84 EL 2 34 14 48 Total 410 158 568

Other agreements While the Government’s new transitional legislation governing changes to the Work Choices legislation no longer allows for the making of new AWAs, at 30 June 2010, 34 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 2010: 13 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts 51 employees had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 195 196 Appendix 3: Staffing profile PART 8 Table 8.12: employees receivedperformancepayduring2009–10. The Court’s industrial instrumentsdonotincludeprovisionforperformancebasedpaytoemployees. No P associations andorganisations, mobilephonesandairlineclubmemberships. superannuation, computersincludinghome-basedcomputeraccess, membershipofprofessional Non-salary benefitsprovidedbytheCourttoemployeesincludemotorvehicles, carparking, Non-salary benefits Table 8.11: Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Total SES 2 SES 1 EL 2 EL 1 APS 2 APS 1 Level APS 6 APS 5 APS 4 APS 3 SES 2 SES 1 EL 2 EL 1 APS 6 APS 4 APS 2 Classification erformance payarrangements

Female AWA minimumandmaximumsalaryranges byclassification Employees covered byotheragreements Australian Workplace 17 1 3 5 3 1 2 2 Agreements Male 17 1 2 8 4 2 Total 34 13 2 5 7 4 1 2 Female 5 1 2 2 Common law contracts Male 8 4 2 2 Total 13 1 6 4 2 Female 20 Determination 24 1 3 6 6 2 1 1 arrangements 130 918–191 127 191–186230 115 555–140940 Salary Range($) 87 373–118070 Male 72 014–90727 56 549–66487 52 684– 31 12 11 1 3 4 Total 51 18 17 2 6 6 1 1 Table 8.13: Classification structure and pay rates*

APS classification and no. Salary rates on 1 July 1 July 2010 1 January 2011 of staff 2009 APS 1 – 1 employee $39 140 39 727 40 323 PART 8 $40 199 40 802 41 414 $41 853 42 481 43 118 APS 2 – 84 employees $42 856 43 499 44 151

$45 193 45 871 46 559 A pp e n di x 3: S t $47 526 48 239 48 962 APS 3 – 162 employees $50 083 50 834 51 597 $51 354 52 124 52 906

$52 684 53 474 54 276 a ffi n g Profi l e APS 4 – 84 employees $56 136 56 978 57 833 $57 594 58 458 59 335 $59 070 59 956 60 855 APS 5 – 69 employees $60 683 61 593 62 517 $62 584 63 523 64 476 $64 347 65 312 66 292 APS 6 – 36 employees $65 542 66 525 67 523 $69 413 70 454 71 511 $75 286 76 415 77 562 EL 1 – 84 employees $84 020 85 280 86 560 $87 373 88 684 90 014 $90 725 92 086 93 467 EL 2 – 48 employees $96 905 98 359 99 834 $102 232 103 765 105 322 $109 866 111 514 113 187 $111 603 113 277 114 976 $113 538 115 241 116 970 $116 438 118 185 119 957

* excludes casual employee

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 197 198 Appendix 4: Occupational health and safety PART 8 During 2009–10, theCourt: of occupationalinjuryandillness. The Courtrecognisesthateffectivehealthandsafetymanagementreducesthesocialfinancialcosts The Courtachievesthisthrough: investigations during2009–10. None oftheCourt’s locationsreportedoccupationalhealth andsafetyauditsrequiringserious there was alsowideconsultationwithstaffontheHealthandSafety Management Arrangements. Whilst theCourt’s localoccupationalhealthandsafetycommitteescontinuedtomeetthroughout 2009–10, officers. vaccinations, eyesighttesting, accesstopeersupportofficers, first aidofficersand harassment contact provision ofergonomicfurniture, accesstoafreeemployee assistanceprogram, annualinfluenza The Court’s occupationalhealthandsafetyemployeebenefitsincludeadviceonergonomic workstations, business andvalues oftheCourt. The Courtisthereforecommittedto: Maintaining thehealthandsafetyofstaffallthosewhouseCourt’s premisesisintegral tothe Appendix 4: Occupationalhealthandsafety Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Clients initiated nationaltraining toallfrontlineemployeeson supervisors, and rolled outnationaltraining (workplacepreventionandinjurymanagement)toallmanagers developed andimplementedafirstaidpolicy management ofoccupationalhealthandsafetywithintheCourt developed andimplementedHealthSafetyManagement Arrangements, whichdocumentsthe role. ensuring healthandsafetyrepresentativeshavethetimeresourcestoreasonably performtheir advising managersandstaffoftheirOHSresponsibilities, and management arrangements consulting withstaffandtheirrepresentativesonthedevelopmentvariation ofhealthandsafety Court’s intranet, training programs andothermeans providing accesstoinformation, training, professionalsupportandadviceonOHSissuesviathe actively preventingwork-relatedinjuryandillnessviaregularworkplacechecksinspections and staff. making good occupational health and safety (OHS) practice partof business-as-usual forallmanagers health andsafety, and preventing injuriesbymanagingrisk, includingidentifyingandmitigatingworkplacehazardsto maintaining ahealthyandsafeworkplace obligations, includingthe compliance byitselfanditspersonnelwithallapplicablestatutoryotherhealth andsafety . Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 Act Safety and Health Occupational How to Deal with Difficult and Persistent Persistent and Difficult with Deal to How Workers’ compensation and early intervention management The Court continued to manage its workers’ compensation cases proactively throughout the year. Proactive case management of cases showed a significant decrease in the number of claims being lodged and the costs associated with such possible claims. This also provided a significant reduction to PART 8 the Court’s workers’ compensation premium for 2010–11. Figure 8.1 shows the lifetime cost estimate of workers’ compensation injuries for 2006–07 to 2009–10. As there were no long term accepted claims opened for the financial year, the lifetime costs have reduced by $180 000 to zero for this financial year. See Table 8.14 for comparative detail. A pp e n di x 4: O ccu pa

Figure 8.1: Lifetime cost estimate of workers’ compensation injuries, 2006–07 to 2009–10

$9000,000

$8000,000 tio nal H e al

$7000,000

$6000,000 th an d Sa fety $5000,000

$4000,000

$3000,000

$2000,000

$1000,000

$0 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Financial year of injury

Table 8.14: Comcare premium rates, 2005–06 to 2010–11

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Family Court of 2.22% 1.95% 1.91% 1.35% 1.48% 1.17% Australia

All Agencies 1.77% 1.77% 1.55% 1.36% 1.25% 1.20% combined

Variance 0.45 0.18 0.36 -0.01 0.23 -0.03

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 199 200 Appendix 5: Freedom of Information PART 8 At 30June2010therewerenomattersoutstandingbeforethe Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The CourtreceivednoFreedom ofInformationrequestsduring2009–10. Appendix 5: Freedom ofinformation The Courtmaintainsthefollowingcategoriesofdocuments: Categories ofdocuments 2601 Canberra ACT PO Box 9991 Family Courtof Australia FOI Coordinator of Informationenquiriesshouldbedirectedto: Facilities forexaminingdocumentsandobtainingcopiesareavailable attheCourt’s registries. Freedom their representatives, toparticularproceedings. and theFamily LawRulesthatgenerally confineaccesstoCourtfilesorregistryindexesparties, or The availability ofdocumentsoutsidetheFreedom ofInformation Act issubjecttotheFamily Law Act does notapplytodocumentsrelatedtheexerciseofjurisdictionCourt. matters ofanadministrative nature—see section5ofthe Act. Broadlyspeaking, thismeansthatthe Act does notapplytoanyrequestforaccessadocumentoftheCourt, unlessthedocumentrelatesto Freedom ofInformationrequestsarehandledatthenationallevel. The F Table 8.15: Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 acilities foraccess 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 Financial year those concerningadministration andfinancialaspectsoftheCourt addresses andspeechespublishedby theCourt records ofmeetingsandconferences procedures those concerningthedevelopmentandimplementationofpolicy, standards, guidelinesand client feedbackcorrespondence general correspondence

Freedom ofInformationrequests, 2005–06to2009–10 3 3 4 0 0 Number ofrequests Freedom of Information Act 1982 Act Information of Freedom

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 PART 8 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 orders made in court proceedings A pp e n di x 5: F reedo m of In for ma 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 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. tio n

Prescribed brochures and forms When certain applications are filed theFamily 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 2010.

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 Distributed in accordance with Rule 15.28

(served with a subpoena)

Third party debt notices Distributed in accordance with Rule 1.05 and Schedule 1

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 201 202 Appendix 5: Freedom of Information PART 8 Rule 24.04(1). 30 June2010. The remainderoftheFamily CourtformsareapprovedbytheChiefJusticepursuantto There was oneprescribedFamily Courtform, Prescribed forms publications areavailable fromtheCourt’s registriesand/oratwww.familylawcourts.gov.au information materials, suchasdo-it-yourselfkits, factsheets, brochuresandbooklets. All formsand The Family Courtalsoprovidesawiderange offormsauthorisedbythePrincipalRegistrar andgeneral Client information Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence Family or Abuse Child of Notice (Form 4), at

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. PART 8 The Court spent a total of $48 385 during 2009–10 in advertising and market research, comprising mainly payments to media advertising organisations for recruitment and tender notices handled by

ADCORP Marketing Communications ($33 946) and Australian Public Service Commission ($12 406). n g an d M a r k et R ese rch A pp e n di x 6: Advertisi During 2009–10, the Family Court did not conduct any advertising campaigns.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 203 204 Appendix 7: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance PART 8 Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Act Conservation Biodiversity and Protection by: The Courtcontinuedtoseekminimisetheimpactofitsactivitiesonenvironment duringtheyear purposes ofmanagingtheirheritagevalues underthe Act. During 2009–10, therewerenomattersorreportsconcerningtheCourtunder or affecttheprinciplesofecologicallysustainabledevelopment. The natureoftheCourt’s corebusiness, outcomesandoperations issuchthatitsactivitiesdonotimpact The Family Courtdoesnotadministerlegislationwithecologicallysustainabledevelopmentimplications. environmental performance Appendix 7: Ecologicallysustainabledevelopmentand Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 commencing workonacomprehensiveEnvironmentalManagementStatement. in 2010–11atbothCommonwealthcourtsandregionalregistries, and piloting alevel2energyauditattheDarwinregistry, withtheaimofrollingoutmoreenergyaudits such asrecycling, energyconservation andwater conservation conducting anationalreviewofsitestobenchmarkavailability ofexistingenvironmentalpractices government energyreporting providing energyconsumptiondatatothe Australian Greenhouse Officeaspartofwhole-of- rolling outanationalprogram of servervirtualisationsothatfewerserversarerequired requirements regularly testingcoolingtowersandwater featuresincourtbuildings, inaccordancewithstatutory considerations areincludedwhere feasible reviewing requestfortenderdocumentsrelevant newcontracts toensureenvironmental developing anEnvironmentalPolicy, signedbytheCEOandavailable forallstaffviatheintranet performance oftheCourt engaging anEnvironmentalManagertospecificallyreviewandmanagetheenvironmental installing energyefficientlighting, includingautomatedlightingcontrols, inallrefurbishments participating nationallyinEarthHourtocontributeenergysavings . The Court doesnotownorcontrolanyplacesforthe Environment Environment Appendix 8: Grant programs The Family Court made no grant payments during 2009–10. PART 8 A pp e n di x 8: G r an t p rogr am s

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 205 206 Appendix 9: Commonwealth disability strategy performance reporting PART 8 Table 8.16: reporting Appendix 9: CommonwealthDisabilityStrategy performance Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Ombudsman’s Good the Commonwealth AS 4269–1995and Australian Standard complies with complaints policy The Family Court disabilities. people with accessibility for that address service standards and consumer of theprovider specifies theroles service charterthat has anestablished The Family Court and assurance. quality improvement mechanisms for has established The Family Court Handling Effective Complaint Complaint Effective Practice Guide for for Guide Practice indicator Performance .

Commonwealth DisabilityStrategy, Family Courtperformanceindicators 2009–10 website. on theCourt’s form andisavailable available inprint Service Charteris operation.in The with disabilities the needsofpeople adequately reflects charter that Established service standards of Australia Code works meetBuilding Refurbishment website. the Family Court published on detailed procedures fact sheetand including aclient guidelines, complaints comprehensive The Courthas measure Performance with adisability. particularly those needs ofpeople, to meetingthe Court’s commitment incorporate the was reviewedto The ServiceCharter signage andtoilets. areas suchasramps, visitors.includes This staff, clientsand disabled accessfor to complywith requirements code incorporates alterations. The modifications and for building of Australia Code with theBuilding The Courtcomplies adviser. judicial complaints are referredtothe finalise. Complaints may take longerto Judicial complaints days. finalised within20 complaints were cent ofnon-judicial Eighty-one per 2009–10. by theCourtin complaints received access related There wereno 2009–10 of performance Current level Charter. Court’s Service clients underthe responsibilities to by staffoftheir Improve compliance relevant clauses. contracts contain new refurbishment Ensure thatall complex files. analyse largeand transcripts and the Courtorobtain proceedings before the outcomeof necessary toawait except whereitis within 20days, 5 daysandrespond complaints within to acknowledge Court’s policy Apply the 2010 –11 Goals for as necessary. Charter andupdate Evaluate theService needs. with specialaccess assistance tothose provide additional obligations to are aware oftheir Ensure thatstaff performance. providers toimprove contracts.with Work Monitor existing improvements. results andintroduce procedures, analyse Court’s complaints monitor the Continue to 2010–11 Actions for Appendix 10: Committees

Table 8.17: Judicial committees, 30 June 2010 PART 8

Title Chair Members Terms of reference

Chief Justice’s Chief Justice DCJ Faulks To support the Chief Justice in A pp e n di x 10: CO MM ITTEES Policy Advisory Bryant Justice Finn administration of the Court and provide her with advice on strategy Justice Strickland and policy. Justice Watts Justice Ryan Justice Cronin Justice Murphy CEO (Richard Foster) Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello) Principal Child Dispute Services (Dianne Gibson)

Rules Justice Ryan Justice Strickland To consider all necessary or proposed Justice Murphy rules changes. Section 123 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that Judicial Registrar Loughnan a majority of judges may make rules Magistrate Moroni of Court in relation to practices and Senior Registrar FitzGibbon procedures be followed in the Family Court. Registrar Kearney Family Court Counsel (Neil Wareham)

Judicial Justice Benjamin Justice Collier To develop, implement and oversight Development Justice Murphy judicial education in the Courts. (joint committee) Justice Fowler Justice Austin Justice Dessau (consultant)

Law Reform Justice Chief Justice Bryant To consider and comment upon Strickland DCJ Faulks proposed legislation and law reform proposals. Justice Finn Justice Watts Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello)

Benchbook (joint Justice Benjamin Justice Watts To review and update the electronic committee) Justice Watts benchbook which contains commentary on a range of legal Justice Fowler topics and principles encountered in Hon Richard Chisholm (consultant) the day-to-day work of the judiciary Nominated legal associate and registrars and provides a comprehensive list of orders. Family Law Information Service representatives IT representative

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 207 208 Appendix 10: COMMITTEES PART 8 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Title Remuneration Judicial Magellan Management National Case (joint committee) Management Property committee) Ethics (joint Research and (joint committee) Cultural Diversity Chair Bryant Chief Justice Justice Burr DCJ Faulks Justice Dawe Stevenson Justice Justice Mushin Members Judicial Registrar Johnston Justice Austin Justice Young Justice Rose Justice May DCJ Faulks Magellan judges Lister) Executive Adviser totheCEO(Leisha Principal Registrar (AngelaFilippello) (Simon Kelso) Executive Adviser ClientServices (Dianne Gibson) Principal ChildDisputeServices Principal Registrar (AngelaFilippello) Case managementjudges Atkinson) National PropertyManager(Akasha Registry managerrepresentative (Grahame Harriott) Executive DirectorCorporate CEO (RichardFoster) FM Donald Legal Counsel(Neil Wareham) (Dennis Beissner) Manager StatisticalServicesUnit (Dianne Gibson) Principal ChildDisputeServices the HonSusanMorgan(consultant) Nominated federal magistrate/s (Janelle McLoughlin) Manager CommunicationsOffice (Dianne Gibson) Principal ChildDisputeServices Executive DirectorClientServices Nominated federal magistrate/s Justice Burr DCJ Faulks Terms ofreference Tribunal. other reviewsbytheRemuneration To preparesubmissionstoannualand possible. with aseffectivelyandefficiently or seriousphysicalabusearedealt involving allegationsofchildsexual Magellan, andensure thatcases departments ontheevaluation of liaise withchildwelfareandpolice the ChiefJusticeonitsoperation, support forMagellan, reportto To exchangeinformationabout Committee. the ChiefJustice’s Policy Advisory matters requiringdeterminationby group canrefercasemanagement management withintheCourt. This To haveoverall responsibilityforcase construction activity. contracting, refurbishmentand relation topropertyservicesincluding and futureneedsoftheCourtsin To planandassessthe current papers/results asnecessary. approval anddisseminateresearch (whether internalorexternal)for all researchandevaluation proposals To consider, monitorandoverview and Torres Strait Islander people. including specialneedsof Aboriginal and CEOoncultural diversityissues, Justice, ChiefFederal Magistrate and provideadvicetotheChief the Courts’Cultural DiversityPlan To completetheimplementationof Title Chair Members Terms of reference

Aboriginal and Justice Benjamin FM Donald To examine the needs of Indigenous Torres Strait people in the Family Law Courts. Executive Advisor to the CEO (Leisha

Islander PART 8 Lister) (joint committee) Consultant (Stephen Ralph) eFiling Phil Hocking Justice Bennett To oversee the implementation of

(joint committee) Business FM Jarrett eFiling in the Family Law Courts A pp e n di x 10: CO MM ITTEES Development FM Riethmuller Manager FMC Principal Registrar (Adele Byrne) Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services (Stephen Andrew) Senior Registrar Fitzgibbons Deputy Registrar Anderson Registrar Field Legal Counsel (Neil Wareham) Various staff

Family Violence Justice Ryan Justice Collier To complete the implementation of (joint committee) Justice Stevenson the Courts’ Family Violence Strategy and provide advice to the Chief FM Brown Justice, Chief Federal Magistrates and FM Hughes CEO on family violence issues. FM Altobelli Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello) Family consultant (Diane Lojszczyk) Senior Legal Research Advisor (Kristen Murray)

Information and DCJ Faulks Nominated federal magistrate/s To align the Courts’ information Communication CEO (Richard Foster) technology with the Courts’ Technology business, including by focusing on Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello) (joint committee) those projects of greatest business Executive Director Client Services impact to the Court and advancing (Stephen Andrew A/g) partnership building between ITS and Executive Director Information, other areas of the Court Communication & Technology Services (Sue Lynch A/g) Business Development Manager (Phil Hocking) Manager Family Law Information Services (Paul Webster)

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 209 210 Appendix 10: COMMITTEES PART 8 Table 8.18: Senior managementcommittees Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Title Audit andRisk Advisory Group Management Officer’s Chief Executive Consultative National Senior managementgovernancecommittees, 30June 2010 Chair member) AM (external Chris Doogan Foster) Court (Richard Magistrates CEO Federal Court andacting CEO Family Resources) Human A/g Manager (Simon Kelso, representative CEO’s Members secretariat services Oakton ServicesPtyLimitedprovide meetings asobservers Services PtyLimited)alsoattend Court’s internalauditors(Oakton ANAO representativeandtheFamily Thomas, Adelaide) Registry Managerrepresentative(Greg Harriott) Executive DirectorCorporate (Grahame Advisor totheCEO(LeishaLister) With assistancebytheExecutive Harriott) Executive DirectorCorporate (Grahame Reynolds Vic/Tas) Regional RegistryManager(Jane Andrew) (Family Court)(acting Stephen Executive DirectorClientServices Andrew) Services (Family Court)(Stephen and TechnologyCommunication Executive DirectorInformation, Steve Agnew) (acting Deputy CEOFederal Magistrates Court to attend. and PublicSectorUnionisalsoinvited A representativefromtheCommunity Melbourne) Family Consultants(Kyall Shepherd, Lismore) Melbourne, andCarolMcPherson, Client Services(JohnGreen, Registrars (AthenaSikiotis, Melbourne) Associates (Trish Zellner, Brisbane) Officer) (untilMay2010) Lawson (Strategic Communications National SupportOffice, Amber represent: Members areselectedbyvoteand Terms ofreference and theFederal Magistrates Court. administrations oftheFamily Court affected bytheintegration ofthe key areasthatarelikely tobe advice totheCEOregarding To provideoperational andpolicy – maintainaneffectiveworking – processesformonitoring – theexternalauditprocess – thefunctioningofInternal – thefinancialreportingprocess – internalcontrolprocesses – riskmanagementidentification recommend improvementsto: Monitor and, where necessary, to theworkplacenationally. and providefeedbackbriefings and futuredirectionoftheCourt issues thataffectthemanagement Delegates presentstaffviewson practices. personnel andstaffingpolicies accommodation andamenities; and opportunities; newtechnology; of theCourt; equalemployment security; thestrategic objectives such asindustrialdemocracy; issues withanationalperspective, Consultative forumforstaffabout relationship withthe ANAO regulations andgovernmentpolicy compliance withlegislation, Audit Unit (including fraud control) and amelioration PART 8 Title Chair Members Terms of reference

Staff Manager Human Registry Manager representative (Greg To identify, develop and/or develop Development Resources Johannesen, North Queensland) national training and development

(Simon Kelso, Child Dispute Services (Paul Lodge, initiatives, policies and programs. A pp e n di x 10: CO MM ITTEES A/g) Sydney) Registrars (Debra Parker, Canberra) Client Services (Michelle Steiner, Sydney) Information Technology and Communications Services (Glenda Frew) YEAG Member and FMC representative (Amanda Morris, Associate, Parramatta) HR Representative, Workforce and Policy Manager (Claire Golding) HR Secretariat (Robyn Birch)

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 211 212 Appendix 11: EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENT PART 8 Court hasjudgesappointedtothecouncilandseniorexecutivesasobserversat itsmeetings. and affectitsprocessesclientservicedelivery, includingthefollowing. There areanumberofestablishedchannelsthroughwhichexternalstakeholders mayinformtheCourt judges onbehalfoftheChiefJustice, theChiefExecutiveOfficerand/orotherseniorexecutives. Relationships withthesegroupsaremanagedeitherbytheChiefJustice, theDeputyChiefJustice, other family lawsystemwithin Australia. They include: External stakeholders atthestrategic levelinfluence, eitherdirectlyorindirectly, thedirectionof government agenciesanddepartments. stakeholders withinthefamilylawsystem, suchaslegalpractitioners, non-governmentorganisationsand The Family Courthasanumberofstrategies forstrengtheningitspartnershipswithclientsandother Appendix 11: Externalinvolvement Council of Australia, NationalLegal Aid, the Attorney-General’s Department, theDepartment ofFamilies, Court of Australia, Federal Magistrates Court, theFamily LawCouncil, theFamily LawSectionofthe The ChiefJusticechairsthenational Family LawForum, whichconsistsofrepresentatives fromtheFamily F associations andeachoftheCourt’s registries. Law Councilof Australia. There areregularliaisonmeetingsbetweenthestatelawsocietiesandbar The ChiefJusticeandtheDeputymeetquarterlywith theFamily LawSectionofthe F is aforumforexchangeofinformationandresearch. The Australian InstituteofFamily Studieswas establishedundersection114BoftheFamily Law Act and Australian InstituteofF The Family LawCouncil, establishedbythe Attorney-General undersection115ofthe F 1975 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 amily LawF amily LawsectionoftheCouncil Australia amily LawCouncil the Australian Federal Police. community-based andnon-governmentorganisations law societiesandcouncils legal servicescommissionsandcommunitycentres the ChildSupport Agency child welfareauthorities other governmentdepartmentsandagencies the Attorney-General’sDepartment , conferswiththeCourtincourseofitsconsideration ofparticularaspectsfamilylaw. The orum amily Studies Family Law Act Act Law Family Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Agency, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, non-government organisations and community legal centres. The Family Law Forum meets quarterly to discuss shared issues arising within the family law system. PART 8 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 A pp e n di x 11: E X TER NAL I N VO L 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 2009–10, the Family law registries engaged with user groups including 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 system VE M E N T and approach to clients. The aim of these consultative forums was also to ensure that the Court was well placed to make effective referrals to community-based services for clients who may require ongoing support. A particular focus continued to be understanding the needs of new and emerging communities, some of which have disproportionately high rates of separation and family conflict after settlement in Australia. The registries were committed to advancing the Court’s understanding of the mental health needs of its clients and to be well placed to respond by way of referral to those who may present with mental health risk factors. Following the release of a number of reports concerned with family violence, 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 or other family members. Statements of Understanding were developed with various referral agencies such as Relationships Australia, Centacare, Mensline and Lifeline. The Court continued to provide training and awareness programs for new staff to the Court, as well as refresher training for existing staff through the integrated client service delivery program.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 213 214 Appendix 12: JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES PART 8 judicial colleaguesaroundtheworld. associations andcommunity-basedorganisations, meetinginternationaldelegationsandliaisingwith attending conferencesandseminars, presentingpapers, addressingacademicinstitutions, professional contribute tothedevelopmentoflawbothin Australia andinternationally. This isachievedthrough In additiontohearinganddeterminingcases, theFamily Court’s judgesandjudicialregistrars actively Appendix 12: Judicial activities Table 8.19 A summaryoftheChiefJustice’s activitiesin2009–10follows: well asworkinginthecommunitywithavariety oflegalandnon-legalorganisations. Many judgesandjudicialregistrars alsoserveasmembersoforganisingcommitteesforconferences Conferences Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 14 May2010 1 May2010 24 March2010 23 February 2010 2009 28 November 2009 25 November 3 November2009 30 October2009 2 October2009 2009 24 September 2009 26 August 2009 6 August Date 4 June2010 15 May2010 23 July2009 Conferences attendedandpapers delivered bytheChiefJustice, 2009–10 Independent Children’s LawyersConference, Hobart 14th Annual Family LawIntensive, Melbourne Family Relocation, Washington DC, USA International JudicialConferenceonCross-Border breakfast, Melbourne Law Instituteof Victoria ‘Serving UpInsights’ Congress, Fremantle Association ofPsychiatry, PsychologyandLaw 29th Annual Australian andNewZealand National Conference, Sydney Family RelationshipsServices Australia 2nd 4th InternationalConference, Istanbul, Turkey Court Administration for International Association Conference, Sydney New South Wales Legal Aid 2009Family Law Family Violence Conference, Brisbane Australasian InstituteofJudicial Administration, Kong Relating toChildreninHongKong, Victoria, Hong Children’s IssuesForum: theResolutionofDisputes Rights, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada 5th World CongressonFamily LawandChildren’s 2009, Windsor, UnitedKingdom for CommonLawandCommonwealthJurisdictions The InternationalFamily JusticeJudicialConference Conference Courts Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA 47th Annual Association ofFamily andConciliation Annual Conference, Hobart Tasmanian Family Law Practitioners Association 2009 CostelloLecture, Melbourne 145’ Approaches To Relocation (2008) 36 F L Rev Rev L F 36 (2008) Relocation To Approaches Cases Procedures Resolution Dispute Judicial In Differences The Parenting: Shared Court Law Family in Perspective Court Family A Violence: Resolution Dispute Proceedings Court Family Parenting in Assessment Risk and Australia progress? making we Resolution Dispute Children’s and Court Family Specialised of Us Tell Statistics the What Australia: Of Era An In Movement Of ‘Freedom Article Rights Human and Treatment Paper delivered A Less Adversarial Process for a High Volume Volume High a for Process Adversarial Less A Changes Future and Current Course: a Charting Family and Lawyers Children’s Independent Address Opening Update An Australia: in to Relocation Approach Unified a Adopting Collaboration: in Evidence Expert of Nature Changing The of Court Family The Practice: Best Towards Systems—are Court and Justice in Transparency Directions Future Family in Experience Recent and Practice Best Establishment the in Experience Australian The of Court Family the and Parenting Shared Parkinson’s Patrick Professor On Comments Medical Children, It? Isn’t Body, My It’s (withFM Altobelli) Table 8.20 Chief Justice’s speaking engagements, 2009–10

Date Event 29 July 2009 Opening of Leadership and Change Management Program at MA Leadership Training

Centre for Women Ketua/ Wakil, Ciawi, Indonesia PART 8 30 July 2009 Signing of an annex to a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

13 August 2009 Opening of ‘Advocacy in Family Law’ seminar, Sydney A pp e n di x 12: JUDICI AL CTIVITIES 15 September 2009 Family law system reference group meeting, Canberra 28 September 2009 Federal Magistrates Court plenary, Sydney 5 October 2009 Family Pathways meeting, Melbourne 9 November 2009 Family Court Judges’ Conference, Melbourne 18 November 2009 White Ribbon breakfast, Melbourne 20 November 2009 Launch of plaque commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Family Court bombings, Parramatta 24 November 2009 Pre-conference workshop, Family Relationship Services Australia 2nd National Conference, Sydney 26 November 2009 Family Court Registrars’ Conference, Melbourne 1 December 2009 20th anniversary of CatholicCare’s family dispute resolution service, Sydney 21 December 2009 Young lawyers presentation, Perth 24 March 2010 ‘Australian Judicial Perspectives’, Washington DC 30 April 2010 Australasian Institute of Judicial Information, Public Information Officers Conference, Melbourne 20 May 2010 Family Pathways Network Conference, Albury

Other judicial activities Other activities of the judges and judicial registrars of the Family Court in 2009–10 included these papers being presented: ‘Mediation and Adjudication in Civil Proceedings’, International Convention of Legal Philosophy and Law, Beijing ‘Habitual residence under the Hague Child Abduction Convention in Australia: “coach and four” or chaise?’, International Child Abduction, Forced Marriage and Relocation Conference, London ‘Religious Freedom and the Rights of the Child’, 5th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights, Halifax ‘A Review of the Case Law 2009–10: An Update’, 10th Annual Family Law Intensive, Sydney (also delivered at the Family Law Intensive, Perth and the Family Law Intensive, Melbourne) ‘The Role of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in Less Adversarial Trials and Magellan Proceedings’, Victoria Legal Aid National Independent Children’s Lawyer Training Course, Melbourne ‘Lessons from the Duty List’, College of Law Advanced Family Law Weekend, Sydney ‘Interim Applications and the Duty List’, Family Law Committee of the NSW Bar Association Family Law Advocacy Series, Sydney.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 215 216 Appendix 12: JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES PART 8 year. Appeals Tribunal andsomesatasmembers (includingpresidingmembers)duringthe2009–10financial Five judgesoftheFamily Court holdcommissionsasmembersoftheCommonwealth Administrative Netherlands. in countriesincludingNewZealand, theUnitedStates, theUnitedKingdom, Germany, Spainandthe Zealand, theUnitedStates, theNetherlandsand Norway. JusticeBennettreceived contactsfromjudges Liaison Judge. During2009–10JusticeBennettinitiated contactwithjudgesincountriesincludingNew Justice BennettfromtheMelbourneregistryisFamily Court’s HagueChild Abduction Convention Congress onFamily LawandChildren’s Rights. Conference, theJudicialCongressof Australia’s 2010Colloquiumandpreparatory workforthe6th World Law Section’s biennialconference, the Australasian InstituteforJudicial Administration’s Family Law international conferences. During2009–10theseincluded theLawCouncilof Australia’s Family Family Courtjudgesandjudicialregistrars arealsoengagedinorganisinglocal, national and Adversarial Trial andjudgmentwriting)abouttheirworkgenerally. and agree, tospeakatsecondaryschoolsandlawaboutparticulartopics (suchastheLess meetings suchastheMagellanstakeholders meeting. Judgesandjudicialregistrars arealsooftenasked, as holdinginformalmeetingswithmembersofthelegalprofessionandparticipating instakeholder and judicialregistrars regularly present tolawsocietiesandbarassociationsintheirjurisdiction, aswell for otherjudicialeducationbodiesthroughout Australia, suchastheJudicialCollegeof Victoria. Judges Judges andjudicialregistrars are alsoinvolvedintheNationalJudicialOrientationProgram andteaching CatholicCare; theCurran Access Children’s Foundation; andtheMercyFoundation. for Childrenand Young People andChildGuardian(Qld); theCentreforChildrenand Young People; NSW CollegeofLaw; MelbourneUniversityLawSchool; Children’s RightsInternational; theCommission the National Academic CommitteeoftheCollegeLaw; the Advisory Board, Family LawPractice forthe the GoverningCouncilofJudicialConference Australia; theNationalCollegeofJudicialEducation; Judges andjudicialregistrars are membersoforganisationsincludingtheInternationalBar Association; Arbitrators andMediators. registry istheFamily Court’s nominateddirectorontheboardof Australian InstituteofFamily Law Management ofthe Australasian InstituteofJudicial Administration. JusticeStricklandfromthe Adelaide Justice MayfromtheBrisbaneregistryisFamily Court’s representativeontheCouncilandBoardof on theFamily LawCouncilwereDeputyChiefJusticeFaulks andJustice Watts fromtheSydneyregistry. Family LawCouncilsinceitsestablishment. During2009–10theFamily Court’s judicialrepresentatives professional andresearch-basedassociations. The Family Courthasbeenconsistentlyrepresentedonthe Judges andjudicialregistrars contribute toprofessionallegaldevelopmentthroughtheirmembershipof system, mediationandadjudicationincivilproceedings, andcasemanagement. Justice Rose’s lecturescoveredtopicsincludingthestructureandoperation ofthe Australian legal University ofPolitical ScienceandLawatthelawschoolofRenminUniversityChinainBeijing. Justice RosefromtheSydneyregistryacceptedaninvitationtobeavisitinglecturer attheChina Practitioners Association Residential, GoldCoast. Family LawSectionoftheCouncil Australia EssentialsProgram, Melbourne; andtheFamily Law and Young People andChildGuardianSafetyFamily CourtInterfaceForum, Brisbane; the Madrid; theCollegeofLaw Applied Family LawMasterscourse, Sydney; theCommissionforChildren Judges andjudicialregistrars alsopresentedpapersattheInternationalBar Association Conference, Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Appendix 13: International cooperation

Indonesia-Australia partnership

See Part 2 for further information about the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Cooperation, PART 8 including details of Indonesia’s first Access and Equity Study. The study was conducted as a collaborative research project led by the Supreme Court of Indonesia with assistance from the Family Court and funded by the Australian Government through the Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility A pp e n di x 13: I N TER NA (IALDF). Key findings of the study were that: There is a high satisfaction rate amongst court clients of both the General and Religious Courts, with 70 per cent of clients saying they would return to the court in future if they had similar legal issues. A cycle of non-legal marriage and divorce exists for many PEKKA1 female heads of household living TIO NAL COO P ER A below the Indonesian poverty line. The failure to obtain legal documentation in relation to marriage and divorce is associated with 56 per cent of children from these marriages not obtaining birth certificates. A central principle of justice is that it be universally accessible. Unfortunately the poorest sections

of Indonesian society face significant barriers in bringing family law cases to the courts. Nine out TIO N of 10 female heads of household living under the Indonesian poverty line surveyed were unable to access the courts for their divorce cases. The main barriers are financial and relate to court fees and transportation costs to travel to the court. Eighty-eight per cent of PEKKA members (female heads of household) surveyed, living under or close to the Indonesian poverty line, would be more motivated to obtain a legal divorce if the court fees were waived. High transportation costs are a barrier to accessing the court especially for the rural poor who live a greater distance from the courts. Over-estimation of the down-payment made to courts for divorce cases relative to the actual cost of the case is a disincentive to justice seekers bringing their cases to court, particularly the poor. Reimbursement of the down-payment made to courts is important for all clients, but particularly for the poor. Since the Access and Equity Study was implemented, the Supreme Court of Indonesia has introduced the following reforms that increase access to the courts, particularly in the family law cases referred to in the study: Across the 343 Religious Courts in Indonesia (where 98 per cent of all divorce cases are heard), the Supreme Court has increased funding to allow more circuit courts in remote locations to occur. This has had a significant impact: a four-fold increase in the number of people living in remote areas of Indonesia who have been able to access the Religious Courts over the last two years. Similarly, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia has increased funding to all courts to allow for the court fee to be waived where the party in a family law matter is economically disadvantaged. This has also had a significant impact: a ten-fold increase in the number of poor people able to access the Religious Courts in family law matters, the majority of these being women.

1 PEKKA is the Program for Women Headed Households in Indonesia.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 217 218 Appendix 13: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION PART 8 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 PEKKA publication. in October2009. aid. Inthisway, theSupreme CourtissupportingtheNationalStrategy on Access toJusticelaunched of accesstotheIndonesiancourtsforpoor, includingcourtfeewaivers, circuitcourtsandlegal Indonesian GovernmentthroughtheSupremeCourtofIndonesiawillsupportfurtherexpansion the NationalMedium Term DevelopmentPlan(RPJMN)2010–14. This budgetcommitmentfromthe been approvedforthenextfiveyearsthroughPresidentialRegulationNumber5of2010, concerning Further fundingincreasesforcourtsacrossIndonesia(totallingapproximately A$40 million)have Appendix 14: International visitors During 2009–10, the Court hosted visits from international delegations as follows:

Fiji PART 8 February 2010: Ms Salesia Racaca, Fijian Judicial Department, visited the Canberra registry to look at the human resource and client service practices of the Court. A pp e n di x 14: I N TER NA India January-February 2010: as part of the India-Australia Judicial Program, funded by AusAID and managed by the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court participated in a two-phase project with the Supreme Court, High Courts, Local Courts and National Judicial Academy of India. The objective of the program is to promote efficiency in the management of cases and will focus on the judiciary’s philosophical approach to case management, as well as procedural reforms including the use of technology. TIO NAL VISITORS In the first phase a delegation of 13 judges from India led by Chief Justice Balakrishnan visited the Federal Court and Family Court in Sydney. Discussions focussed on the role of courts in protecting rights and promoting access to justice particularly for those vulnerable individuals and groups within criminal and family law. The second phase involved a delegation led by Justice Bennett (Federal Court of Australia) and supported by Justice Lander and Justice Greenwood (Federal Court), Justice Fowler (Family Court), Chief Judge Blanch (Sydney District Court), and Professor Stone, Director for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne University visiting various courts in Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, and Kolkata and the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal. They observed proceedings and hosted discussions about the protection of rights and access to justice.

Japan January 2010: a Japanese delegation visited the Sydney registry. It comprised Judge Hashiguchi Yoshinori, Kagoshima District Court of Japan (currently a visiting scholar at Sydney University Law School); Judge SAKUTA Hiroyuki, acting Staff Attorney of Family Bureau, General Secretariat of Supreme Court of Japan; Mr FUJINO Akihiro, Chief of Project Section, 1st Division, Family Bureau, General Secretariat of Supreme Court of Japan; and Ms Ayako HARA, Family Court Probation Officer General Secretariat of Supreme Court of Japan. Discussions focused on the role of Independent Children’s Lawyers in family law matters, the less adversarial trial, the conduct of family law proceedings in Australia and the role of family consultants.

Korea December 2009: a delegation from the Tongyeong Branch Court, Korea visited the Sydney registry. The focus was on client service initiatives including courtroom design, information technology and eFiling, services in relation to clients with concerns for their safety or family violence and the role of duty solicitors in a court facility.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 219 220 Appendix 14: INTERNATIONAL VISITORS PART 8 trial. matters. The delegationalsolooked atthechildresponsivemodel andtheprocessoflessadversarial observe theprocessof Australian courtsandhowtheyresolvecontestedchildren’s mattersandproperty organised byMaxineEverfromtheUniversityof Technology Sydney)visitedtheSydneyregistryto July 2009: adelegationfromtheUniversityof Widener PA (chairedbyProfessor Alicia Kelly and United Statesof America arbitration. arrangements, and thechildresponsivemodel, aswellbriefingsaboutpre-filingmediationand The delegationreceivedanoverviewoffamilylawin Australia, thelessadversarialtrial, childcustody The visit, organisedbytheEmbassyofSweden, focussedonmattersconcerningcivilandfamilylaw. René) oftheRiksdag(Parliament ofSweden)andgovernmentofficialsvisitedtheSydneyregistry. September 2009: ninemembersoftheCommitteeonCivil Affairs (ledbyDeputyChair, MsInger Sweden the Sydneyregistrytoviewanddiscusslessadversarialtrial. November 2009: PrincipalDistrictJudgeFoo Tuat Yien fromtheSubordinateCourtsofSingaporevisited Singapore gain abetterunderstandingoftheCourt’s ChildResponsiveProgram. The delegationalsoobservedalessadversarialtrialandhaddiscussionswithChild DisputeServicesto Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Richard Foster (CEO)andmembersofthe Tongyeong Branch CourtfromKorea PART 8 A pp e n di x 14: I N TER NA TIO NAL VISITORS

Members of the Indian delegation who visited the Court in September 2009.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 221 222 Appendix 15 CONTACT DETAILS PART 8 (GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001) 3000 Melbourne VIC Street 305 William Owen DixonCommonwealthLawCourts CHIEF JUSTICE’SCHAMBER Appendix 15: Contactdetails Family LawCourtswebsite: www.familylawcourts.gov.au Family Courtwebsite: www.familycourt.gov.au Email: [email protected] International: +61288928590 TTY: 1300720980 Phone: 1300352000 PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW2124 staff cannotprovidelegaladvice. advice, formsandbrochures, andreferrals tocommunityandsupportservices. NationalEnquiryCentre (Family CourtandFederal Magistrates Court)matters. The centreprovidesinformationandprocedural The NationalEnquiryCentreistheentrypointforalltelephoneandemailenquiries onFamily LawCourt NA (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601) 2601 Canberra ACT 15 LondonCircuit Chief ExecutiveOfficer NA (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601) 2600 Canberra ACT Cnr University Avenue andChildersStreet Nigel BowenCommonwealthLawCourts DEPUTY CHIEFJUSTICE’SCHAMBER Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 TIONAL ENQUIRY CENTRE TIONAL SUPPOR T OFFICE FAMILY LAW REGISTRIES

Australian Capital Territory

Canberra Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts PART 8 Cnr University Ave and Childers Street Canberra ACT 2600 (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)

New South Wales A pp e n di x 15 CO N T

Albury Level 1, 463 Kiewa Street Albury NSW 2640 (PO Box 914, Albury NSW 2640)

Dubbo Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra Streets A CT DET Dubbo NSW 2830 (PO Box 1567, Dubbo NSW 2830) A I L S 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)

Sydney Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts 97–99 Goulburn Street Sydney NSW 2000 (GPO Box 9991, Sydney NSW 2001)

Wollongong Level 1, 43 Burelli Street Wollongong NSW 2500 (PO Box 825, Wollongong NSW 2500)

Northern Territorry

Alice Springs Level 1, Centrepoint Building, Hartley Street Alice Springs NT 0870 (PO Box 9991 NT 0871)

Darwin TCG Building 80 Mitchell Street Darwin NT 0800 (GPO Box 9991, Darwin NT 0800)

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 223 Queensland

Brisbane Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts 119 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000 (PO Box 9991, Brisbane QLD 4001)

PART 8 PART Cairns Level 3 and 4, 104 Grafton Street Cairns QLD 4870 (PO Box 9991, Cairns QLD 4870) A I L S Rockhampton 46 East Street (Cnr Fitzroy Street) Rockhampton QLD 4700

A CT DET (PO Box 9991, Rockhampton QLD 4700)

Townsville Level 2, Commonwealth Centre, 143 Walker Street Townsville QLD 4810 (PO Box 9991, Townsville QLD 4810)

A pp e n di x 15 CO N T South Australia

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)

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

224 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 PART 9 INDEXES PART 9: INDEXES

List of requirements

Description Requirement Page of this report PART 9 Letter of transmittal Mandatory iii Table of contents Mandatory 1 Index Mandatory 227

Glossary Mandatory 8 I N DE X ES Contact officer(s) Mandatory ii Internet home page address and Internet address for report Mandatory ii Year in review Review by Chief Justice Mandatory 11 Summary of significant issues and developments Suggested 20 Organisational overview Overview of performance and financial results Suggested 37 Outlook for following year Suggested 20 Significant issues and developments – portfolio departments Suggested N/A Overview description of Court Mandatory 17 Role and functions Mandatory 18 Organisational structure Mandatory 98 Outcome and program structure Mandatory 35 Where outcome and program structures differ from PB Statements/PAES or other portfolio Mandatory 38 statements accompanying any other additional appropriation bills (other portfolio statements), details of variation and reasons for change Portfolio structure - portfolio departments` Mandatory N/A Report on performance Review of performance in relation to programs and contributions to outcomes Mandatory 37 Actual performance in relation to deliverables and KPIs set out in PB Statements/PAES or Mandatory 36 other portfolio statements Performance of purchaser/ provider arrangements Suggested (if 128 applicable) Where performance targets differ from the PBS/ PAES, details of both former and new Mandatory Nil to report targets, and reasons for the change Narrative discussion and analysis of performance Mandatory 36–38 Trend information Mandatory 40–70 Significant changes in nature of principal functions/ services Suggested 126 Factors, events or trends influencing Family Court performance Suggested 35–70 Contribution of risk management in achieving objectives Suggested 112 Social justice and equity impacts Suggested 58 Performance against service charter customer service standards, complaints data, and the If applicable, 65 Court’s response to complaints mandatory Discussion and analysis of the department’s financial performance Mandatory 128

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 227 228 INDEXES PART 9 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 Discussion ofanysignificantchangesfromtheprioryearorbudget. Agency resourcestatementandsummarytablesbyoutcomes affect theCourt’s operations orfinancialresultsinfuture Developments sincetheendoffinancialyearthathaveaffectedormaysignificantly Statement ofthemaincorporate governancepractices inplace Corporate governance MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY Names oftheseniorexecutiveandtheirresponsibilities Senior managementcommitteesandtheirroles Corporate andoperational planningandassociatedperformance reportingandreview Approach adoptedtoidentifyingareasofsignificantfinancialoroperational risk Control Guidelines Agency headsarerequiredtocertifythattheiragencycomplywiththeCommonwealthFraud Policy andpractices ontheestablishmentandmaintenanceofappropriateethicalstandards How natureandamountofremuneration forSESofficersisdetermined Significant developmentsinexternalscrutiny External scrutiny Judicial decisionsandofadministrative tribunals Ombudsman Reports bythe Auditor-General, aParliamentary CommitteeortheCommonwealth objectives Assessment ofeffectivenessinmanaginganddevelopinghumanresourcestoachieveCourt Management ofhumanresources Workforce planning, staffturnoverandretention contracts and AWAs contracts Impact andfeaturesofenterpriseorcollectiveagreements, determinations, commonlaw Training anddevelopmentundertaken anditsimpact Occupational healthandsafetyperformance Productivity gains Statistics onstaffing Enterprise orcollectiveagreements, determinations, commonlawcontracts and AWAs Performance pay Description Suggested Mandatory mandatory If applicable, Mandatory Suggested Suggested Suggested Suggested Mandatory Suggested Suggested Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Suggested Suggested Suggested Suggested Suggested Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Requirement this report Page of 151 189 102 109 111 112 114 114 124 115 115 115 120 121 123 125 198 126 191 195 196 20 97 Description Requirement Page of this report Assets management Assessment of effectiveness of assets management If applicable, 133 mandatory Assessment of purchasing against core policies and principles Mandatory 130 Consultants PART 9 Summary statement—the number of new consultancy services and actual expenditure; and Mandatory 131 the number of active ongoing consultancy contracts and total expenditure Contract information statement re the AusTender website Mandatory 131 Australian National Audit Office access clauses Mandatory 130 I N DE X ES Contracts exempt from the AusTender website Mandatory 130 Commonwealth Disability Strategy Report on performance in implementing the Commonwealth Disability Strategy Mandatory 206 Financial statements Financial statements Mandatory 137 Other information Occupational health and safety Mandatory 198 Freedom of Information Mandatory 200 Advertising and market research and statement on advertising campaigns Mandatory 203 Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance Mandatory 204 Grant programs Mandatory 205 Correction of material errors in previous annual report If applicable, 134 mandatory List of requirements Mandatory 227

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 229 230 INDEXES PART 9 A Alphabetical index Association ofFamily andConciliationCourtsconference, 12, 19 Assets management, 133–4 Appointments Applications inaCase, 36, 39 Appeals, 73–82 Andrew, Stephen, 103, 104 Altobelli, Federal Magistrate, 19 Aldridge &Keaton, 88–9 Agreement making, 123, 195–7 Agnew, Steven Advertising, 203 Adoption, 26 Administrative AppealsTribunal,115 101–2, Acronyms Access toJustice(Family CourtRestructureandOtherMeasures)Bill2010 Access andEquityStudy2007-2009, 21–2 Abuse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander(ATSI) Committee, 105, 106, 209 Abbreviations Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 judicial officer, 102 time pending, 48 finalise applications, time to, 53 finalisation, numberof, 42–3 clearance rate, 45 trend in, 74 notices ofappeal, 76–7 judges assignedto Appeal Division, 99 issues, 78–80 High Courtof Australia, to, 81 finalised, ageof, 81 directions hearings, 78 demographics, 78–80 caseload, 58 Appeal Division, 73 administration of, 74 regional andregistrymanagementstructure, single, 118 Policy Advisory Committees, attendanceatjointmeeting, 105 Policy Advisory Committees, attendanceatjointmeeting, 105 abbreviations, and, 7 introduction intoParliament, 11 risk of, casesinvolving, 63–4 highlights ofworkof, 108–9 acronyms and, 7 Audit internal, 112 Audit and Risk Committee, 110, 112, 210, 213 Auditor-General, 115 Auscript, 31–2 Austin, Justice Stewart, 100, 102 Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) PEKKA research project, support for, 13 PART 9 Australian Institute of Family Studies, 212 Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms by, 13 Australian Law Reform Commission

consultation paper by, 13 I N DE X ES

B Backlog indicators, 47 Bankruptcy Act 1966, 18 Barry, Justice James Patrick O’Hara, 100, 101 Baumann, Federal Magistrate Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 109 Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105 Bell, Justice Graham Rodney, 100 Benchbook Committee, 105, 106, 207 Benjamin, Justice Robert James Charles, 100, 102 Bennett, Justice Victoria Jane, 100 Black, Chief Justice, 12 Boland, Justice Jennifer Margaret, 101 Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 99 Brown, Justice Sally Elizabeth, 102 Bryant, Chief Justice Diana, 19, 37, 99, 100 activities, judicial, 214–6 Appeal Division, judge assigned to, 99 appointment, 99 Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 109 Policy Advisory Committee, Chief Justice’s, 104–5 review, Chief Justice’s, 9–14 transmittal, letter of, iii Budget combined, of courts, 11 Burr, Justice Rodney Keith, 100

C Case management, 19 clearance rate, 44–5 Cases pending performance indicators, key, 35–6 Cassidy, Federal Magistrate Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 231 232 INDEXES PART 9 Cotta, James, 119 Costs Committee, 105 Corporate governance, 97 Consent orders Conferences, 214 Complaints Commonwealth Ombudsman, 115 Commonwealth DisabilityStrategy, 127, 206 Commonwealth CourtsPortal, 24 Committees, Judicial, 104–6, 207–9 Collier, JusticeDavidJohn, 101 Coleman, JusticeIanRoy, 101 Cohen, JusticeJohnMorris, 101 Client services Client ServiceSeniorManagers’Group, 29 Christmann, Marianne, 119 Chisholm, ProfessorRichard AM Children’s artcompetition, 29 Child Support(Registration andCollection) Act 1988, 18 Child Support(Assessment) Act 1989, 18 Child ResponsiveProgram, 20, 119–20 Chief Justice, 19, 37, 99 Chief ExecutiveOfficer’s Management AdvisoryGroup, 109, 210 Chief ExecutiveOfficer, 97, 102 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 time pending, 49 finalise applications, time to, 53 finalisations, numberof, 43–4 clearance rate, ofapplicationsfor, 45 applications for, 36, 39 registry services, 70 management, 68–9 judicial services, relatingto, 56–7 delay indeliveryofjudgment, relatingto, 57 decisions, relatingtojudicial, 57 conduct, relatingtojudicial, 56–7 administration, 69 use of, 25 Appeal Division, asmemberof, 73, 99 restructure, 119 Family Courts Violence Reviewby, 13 review, ChiefJustice’s, 9–14 Policy Advisory Committee, ChiefJustice’s, 104–5 eMessage, 111 chambers, 222 activities, judicial, 214–6 powers, 97 eMessages, 111 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207 Crew, Jamie, 119 Crisford, Justice Jane, 101 Cronin, Justice Paul, 100 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207 Crooks, Justice Stephen Dexter, 101 Cultural Diversity Committee, 105, 106, 208

D PART 9 Data Quality Governance Framework, 31 Dawe, Justice Christine Elizabeth, 100, 102 De facto relationship laws, 20 Delay I N DE X ES delivery of judgment, complaints relating to, 57 Deputy Chief Justice, 99 chambers, 222 Dessau, Justice Linda Marion, 100 District Court of New South Wales, 115 Donald, Federal Magistrate Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105

E Ecologically sustainable development, 204 eFiling, 25 Committee, 105, 106, 209 technologies, electronic, 27 Enterprise agreements, 123–5 Environment, 27 performance, environmental, 204 Equal shared parental responsibility, 20 Ethical standards, 114 Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms Australian Institute of Family Studies, by, 13 Executive Directors Client Services, 103 Corporate, 104 Information, Communication and Technology Services, 104 External consultants, 130

F Family consultants, 118 Family Court of Australia administration, merger with Federal Magistrates Court administration, 11, 32, 118 case mix, 38 caseload, attrition and settlement trends, 40 Commonwealth Courts Portal as initiative of, 24 complexity of cases before, 12, 40, 58

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 233 234 INDEXES PART 9 Federal courts Federal Court Faulks, DeputyChiefJusticeJohn, 99, 100 Family Violence Strategy, 26 Family Violence –ImprovingLegalFrameworks Family Violence Committee, 13, 105, 106, 209 Family LawForum, 212 Family LawCourts Advisory Group, 109 Family LawCouncil, 212 Family law Family Courts Violence Review of Western Australia Court Family Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 restructure, proposed, 11, 116 protocol onworkdivision, 26 Commonwealth CourtsPortal asinitiativeof, 24 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104 Appeal Division, judgeassignedto, 99 consultation paper, 13 highlights ofworkof, 107–8 Improving ResponsestoFamily Violence intheFamily LawSystemby, 13 violence in, 13, 63–4 section, ofLawCouncil Australia, 212 external reportson, 13 Chisholm, byProfessorRichard, AM, 13 judicial officersof, 101 work, programs of, 18 visitors, international, 22 vision, 17 structure, organisational, 98 service locations, 23 registries, 17, 22 purpose, 17 protocol onworkdivision, 26 program, 19, 35 performance indicators, key, 35–6 PEKKA researchproject, supportfor, 13 overview of, 17–22 output reporting, transitioning toprogram reportingfrom, 35 outcome, 19, 35 jurisdiction, 18 international profile, 12 initiatives of, 24–32 goal, 17 family violence, responsetoissuesof, 13 establishment, 17 direction, future, of, 12 definition, 97 Federal Magistrates Court administration, merger with Family Court administration, 11, 32, 118 Commonwealth Courts Portal as initiative of, 24 protocol on work division, 26 restructure, proposed, 11, 116 Feedback, client, 68 Filipello, Angela, 103

Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207 PART 9 Final orders applications for, 36, 39 clearance rate, of applications for, 45

finalisations of cases, number of, 42–3 I N DE X ES finalise applications, time to, 52 issues sought on cases, 39 time pending, 48 Finalisations age of finalised applications, 51–2 appeals, age of finalised, 81 number of, 42–4 percentage of cases finalised, 51 volumes of, 37, 38 Financial cases, 38 Financial management, 128–30 Financial risk, 112 Finn, Justice Mary Madeleine, 100, 101 Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 99 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104 First instance trials, 40 cases finalised at, 41 Flohm, Justice Robyn Sylvia, 102 Foster, Mr Richard, 102 Acting Chief Executive Officer of Federal Magistrates Court, appointment as, 11 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207 Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 109 Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105 Fowler, Justice Stuart Grant, 101 international engagements, 12 Fraud control certification, 114 prevention and control, 113 Freedom of information, 200–2 Full Court sittings, 74

G Gershon review, 20 Gibson, Dianne, 103

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 235 236 INDEXES PART 9 Gregory, Bob, 119 Glossary Judiciary, 99–102, 123, 194 Judicial Remuneration Committee, 105, 208 Judicial Registrars, 101 Judicial DevelopmentCommittee, 105, 106 Judgments Jordan, JusticeBrianEdward, 102 Johnston, JudicialRegistrar William Philip, 101 J International JudicialConferenceonCrossBorderFamily Relocation, 12 International cooperation, 217 Information QualityPlan, 31 Information management, 30 Information Awareness week, 31 Information andCommunication Technology Indonesia Australia Partnership forJustice Transition, 21, 217 Improving ResponsestoFamily Violence intheFamily LawSystem I Human resources High Courtof Australia Harriott, Grahame, 103 Hague Convention, 18 H Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 court-specific terms, of, 8 ChiefJustice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207 judicial supportreview, 119 Family Court of Western Australia, judicialofficersof, 101 Family Court of Australia, judicialofficersof, 99–102 docket, judicial, 19 conduct, complaintsrelatingtojudicial, 56 complaints relatingtojudicialservices, 56–7 committees, judicial, 104–6 administration ofcourt, responsibilityfor, 97 activities, judicial, 214–6 significant, noteworthyand, 85–94 accessibility ofpublicto, 85 review of Australian Government’s useof, 116–7 Committee, 105, 106, 110, 209 Family LawCouncil, by, 13 workforce planning, 121 management of, 120 appeals to, 81 loss, net of judges, 36, 37, 41–2, 51 performance indicators, key, of judicial services, 36, 37, 38 retirement of six judges, 12

K Kelly, Elizabeth Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 109

Kelso, Simon, 119 PART 9 Kostres & Kostres, 87–8

L I N DE X ES Law Reform Committee, 105, 207 highlights of work of, 107 Le Poer Trench, Justice Mark Frederick, 101 Legal services expenditure, 132–3 Less adversarial trials, 19 Loughnan, Judicial Registrar Ian James, 101

M Magellan cases, 18, 26, 63–4 Magellan Committee, 105, 208, 213 Market research, 203 Marriage Act 1961, 18 Martin, Justice Carolyn Elvina, 101 Marvel & Marvel (No. 2), 93–4 May, Justice Michelle, 100 Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 99 McClelland, Hon Robert MP, 20, 116 Moncreiff, Justice Simon, 101 Monteith, Justice Alexander Robert, 101 Moore, Justice Colleen Ann, 102 Murphy, Justice Peter John, 100 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207 Murray, Kristen, 122 Mushin, Justice Nahum, 100, 102

N National Case Management Committee, 106, 208 National Consultative Committee, 110, 210 National Enquiry Centre (NEC), 36, 67, 222 performance, summary of, 65, 68 New South Wales Law Reform Commission consultation paper by, 13 Non-English speaking backgrounds services for people from, 28 Norman & Norman, 92–3

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 237 238 INDEXES PART 9 Outcomes Occupational healthandsafety, 198–9 O’Ryan, JusticeStephenRichard, 101 O’Reilly, JusticeElizabethMadonna, 100 O Research andEthicsCommittee, 106, 208 Representation Relationships Australia, 13, 26 Registries, 17, 22, 223–4 Registrars, 118 Reader’s Guide, 6 R Purchasing, 130 Property ManagementCommittee, 106, 110, 208 Procurement andRiskManagementsection, 130 Principal Registrar, 103 Principal ChildDisputeServices, 103 Potkonyak andOrsvCommonwealth, 115 Portfolio BudgetStatements Penny, JusticeJulienne, 102 Pending applications, 47 PEKKA researchproject, 13, 217 Paxton, Jenny, 122 Pascoe, ChiefFederal Magistrate Partington &Cade(No. 2), 89–90 Parenting cases, 38, 59–62 PABX phonesystem, 31 P Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 resources for, 190 Appeal Division, asmemberof, 73, 100 status oflitigants, 58 services, 64 regional andregistrymanagementstructure, single, 118 performance, summaryof, 65, 66 local registryconsultations, 213 document processing, 67 counter enquiries, 66 compliments, 70 complaints relatingtoregistryservices, 70 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207 strategic initiativesin, 19 age of, 47 Policy Advisory Committees, attendanceatjointmeeting, 105 Family LawCourts Advisory Group, 109 Reserved judgments, 37 delivered, age of, 54 delivery times, 36, 55 outstanding, age of, 49–51 time for delivery, complaints relating to, 57 Resource statement, 189 Retirements judicial officer, 102 Reynolds, Jane, 119 PART 9 Riethmuller, Federal Magistrate Policy Advisory Committees, attendance at joint meeting, 105 Risk management, 112 Rose, Justice Peter Isaac, 101 I N DE X ES international engagements, 12 Rules Committee, 106, 207 highlights of work of, 106–7 Ryan, Justice Judith Maureen, 100 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 207

S Self-represented litigants (SRL), 58 Semple review, 117 Senate estimate committee hearings, 117 Senior executives, 102 Senior management committees, 109–10, 210 highlights, 110–1 Service Charters, 115 Service Commitments, 115 Service delivery, 30 Shared parenting statistics, 20, 59–62 Shearer, Raelene, 122 Simpson & Brockman, 91 Staff profile, staffing, 123, 191–3 retention strategies, 121 rewards, recognition and, 122 training, learning and development, 125–7 turnover, 122 workforce planning, 121 Staff development, 27 Committee, 110, 111, 211 Stevenson, Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood, 101 Strahan & Strahan, 85–6 Strategic plan, 111 Strickland, Justice Steven, 102 Appeal Division, as member of, 73, 100 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010 239 240 INDEXES PART 9 Transmittal Transcription services, 31 Thomas, Greg, 119 Thackray, JusticeStephenErnest, 101 Technology T Young, JusticePeter, 100 Young Employees Advisory Group, 27 Y Whitehouse & Whitehouse, 86–7 Watts, JusticeGarry Allan, 101 Watson, Andrew,122 Warren, ChiefJustice, 12 Warnick, JusticeBernardJohn, 102 Waddy, JusticeLloyd, 102 W Visitors Violence V Family Court of Australia — Annual Report2009–2010 letter of, iii Appeal Division, asmemberof, 73, 100 courtroom, 31 Family LawCourts Advisory Group, 109 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee, 104 international, 219–21 family violencetraining package, 26 family law, in, 13, 20 Court’s responseto, 13