FAMI L Y C OU R T
O FAMILY COURT F A OF AUSTRALIA U S T RA L IA
Annual Report 2011–2012 A NNU A L R EPO R T 2011–2012 4675 DESIGN DIRECTION4675
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Annual Report 2011–2012 ISSN: 1035-9060 © Commonwealth of Australia 2012
The Family Court of Australia provides all material (unless otherwise noted and with the exception of the Coat of Arms) with Creative Commons (CC) Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported licensing. Material may be distributed, as long as it remains unchanged and the Family Court of Australia is credited as the creator. More information can be found at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/. If you have any questions about Creative Commons or licensing generally, please email [email protected]
Enquiries If you would like to comment on this annual report, or have any queries, please contact: Janelle McLoughlin Family Law Courts National Communication Family Court of Australia GPO Box 9991 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Ph: +61 2 6243 8690 Fax: +61 2 6243 8737 Email: [email protected]
Alternative formats This annual report is available electronically at: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/home/about/publications/annual/ The online version contains links to the 2011–12 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 This annual report is printed on Impress Silk Artboard (cover) and Impress Silk (inside pages). Made from elemental chlorine free bleached pulp sourced from well-managed forests. It is PEFC certified and is manufactured by an ISO 14001 certified mill using renewable energy sources.
ii Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 iii iv Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 Contents
Letter of transmittal iii Contents 1 Reader’s guide 6 Acronyms and abbreviations 7 Glossary of court-specific terms 8
PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW 11 The Court's year in review 13
PART 2: OVERVIEW OF THE COURT 19 About the Court 21 Portfolio Budget Statements outcome and program 23 Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements 25 Changes in financial results 29 Outlook for 2012–13 29 International cooperation 29 Court service locations 31 Initiatives of the Family Court 33
PART 3: REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE 43 Outcome and outputs 45 Historic performance against KPIs 45 Judicial services 46 Summary of performance 47 Registry and National Enquiry Centre services 65 Client feedback and complaints management 71
PART 4: APPEALS 75 Appeal Division 77 Appeals 77 Full Court sittings 78 Appeals to the High Court of Australia 83
PART 5: SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS 85 Significant and noteworthy judgments 87
Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 1 PART 6: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 95 Corporate governance 97 Fraud control certification 117 External and internal scrutiny 119 Management of human resources 124 Financial management 135 Services provided free of charge 137 Purchasing, consultants and contracts 138 Legal services expenditure 139 Assets and property management 141 Correction of material errors in 2010–11 report 143
PART 7: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 145
PART 8: APPENDICES 199 Appendix 1 Agency Resource Statement 201 Appendix 2 Expenses and Resources for Outcome 1 202 Appendix 3 Staffing profile 203 Appendix 4 Work health and safety 213 Appendix 5 Advertising and market research 215 Appendix 6 Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 216 Appendix 7 Grant programs 221 Appendix 8 Committees 222 Appendix 9 External involvement 226 Appendix 10 Judicial activities 235 Appendix 11 International visitors 240 Appendix 12 Contact details 243
PART 9: INDEXES 249 List of requirements 251 Alphabetical index 254
2 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 Tables Table 2.1 Registered users of the Commonwealth Courts Portal, 2008–09 to 2011–12 26 Table 2.2 Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, 28 2008–09 to 2011–12 Table 2.3 Family Court of Australia service locations 31 Table 3.1 Summary of performance—judicial services 47 Table 3.2 Appeal caseload 2007–08 to 2011–12 61 Table 3.3 Summary of performance—client services 66 Table 3.4 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2008–09 to 2011–12 70 Table 4.1 Notice of appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction, 79 2007–08 to 2010–11 Table 6.1 Categories of Family Court expenditure 136 Table 8.1 Agency Resource Statement—2011–12 201 Table 8.2 Expenses and Resources for Outcome 1 202 Table 8.3 Staff by location 203 Table 8.4 Staff by gender 204 Table 8.5 Staff by attendance status 205 Table 8.6 Ongoing staff by location and classification 206 Table 8.7 Non-ongoing staff, by location and classification 206 Table 8.8 Total number of judges, 30 June 2012 207 Table 8.9 Workforce turnover 208 Table 8.10 Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia 209 and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14 Table 8.11 Employees covered by other agreements 210 Table 8.12 AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification 211 Table 8.13 Classification structure and pay rates 212 Table 8.14 Comcare premium rates, 2007–08 to 2011–12 214 Table 8.15 Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court environmental impact/usage data 216 Table 8.16 Judicial committees, 30 June 2012 222 Table 8.17 Senior management governance committees, 30 June 2012 224 Table 8.18 Conferences attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice, 2011–12 235 Table 8.19 Chief Justice’s speaking engagements, 2011–12 236
Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 3 Figures Figure 3.1 The Family Court’s outcome and program 45 Figure 3.2 Applications filed, 2011–12 48 Figure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2011–12 49 Figure 3.4 Attrition and settlement trend in the Court’s caseload, 2007–08 to 2011–12 49 Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2007–08 to 2011–12 50 Figure 3.6 Number of judges, 2007–08 to 2011–12 51 Figure 3.7 Final orders applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12 52 Figure 3.8 Applications in a case, 2007–08 to 2011–12 52 Figure 3.9 Consent orders applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12 53 Figure 3.10 All applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12 53 Figure 3.11 All applications, clearance rates, 2007–08 to 2011–12 54 Figure 3.12 Age of pending applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12 55 Figure 3.13 All applications, time pending, 2007–08 to 2011–12 55 Figure 3.14 Reserved judgments outstanding (pending) less than 3 months, as at 56 30 June 2007–08 to 2011–12 Figure 3.15 Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 57 30 June 2007–08 to 2011–12 Figure 3.16 Applications finalised within 12 months, 2007–08 to 2011–12 58 Figure 3.17 All applications, time to finalise, 2007–08 to 2011–12 58 Figure 3.18 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2006–07 to 2008–09 59 (final judgments only) and 2009–10 to 2011–12 (all judgments) Figure 3.19 Reserved judgments, time to deliver, 2006–07 to 2008–09 60 (final judgments only) and 2009–10 to 2011–12 (all judgments) Figure 3.20 Total judicial services complaints, 2007–08 to 2011–12 61 Figure 3.21 Proportion of litigants representation status, finalised cases, 62 2007–08 to 2011–12 Figure 3.22 Proportion of litigants representation status, trials, 2007–08 to 2011–12 62 Figure 3.23 Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2007–08 to 2011–12 63 Figure 3.24 Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of 63 family violence is filed, 2007–08 to 2011–12 Figure 3.25 Magellan cases, 2007–08 to 2011–12 64 Figure 3.26 Administration complaints issues 2011–12 72 Figure 4.1 Notice of appeals, 2007–08 to 2011–12 79 Figure 4.2 Proportion of notice of appeals filed by jurisdiction of decree, 80 2007–08 to 2011–12
4 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 Figure 4.3 Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 2007–08 to 2011–12 80 Figure 4.4 Proportion of notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 81 2007–08 to 2011–12 Figure 4.5 Proportion of appellants by gender, 2007–08 to 2011–12 81 Figure 4.6 Proportion of appellants’ representation status, 2007–08 to 2011–12 82 Figure 4.7 Months to finalise appeals, 2007–08 to 2011–12 82 Figure 6.1 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2011 98 Figure 6.2 Family Court Expenditure, 2011–12 136 Figure 6.3 2011–12 Expenditure resources shared with the Federal Magistrates Court 138
Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 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 2011–12 reporting year. Prepared according to parliamentary reporting requirements, the report outlines the goals stated in the Court’s Portfolio Budget Statements and relates them to the results achieved during the year. It provides information on the Court’s performance in relation to its stated outcome: As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters. PART 1: The Chief Justice’s year in review—comprises the Chief Justice’s overview highlighting significant issues and initiatives the Court has undertaken during the reporting year. PART 2: Overview of the Court—provides information about the Court, including its role, functions, powers, governance, organisational structure, initiatives, planning and international cooperation. PART 3: Report on performance—reports on how the Court performed during the period against the above outcome and related program. The performance reports are based on the outcome and program framework and performance information in the 2011–12 Portfolio Budget Statements and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2011–12 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 2011–12. 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 2012—contains the audited financial statements for 2011–12. PART 8: Appendices—includes the resource statement, resources for outcomes, staffing profile, work health and safety, advertising and market research, ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance, grant programs, information about committees, external involvement, judicial activities, international visitors and contact details. PART 9: Index and list of requirements. The following should assist readers to locate information in the annual report and to understand court- specific language: Acronyms, abbreviations and a glossary of court-specific terminology—page 7 List of requirements—page 251 Index—page 254.
An electronic version of this annual report is available from the Family Court of Australia’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au) at this link: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/ home/about/publications/annual/
6 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 Acronyms and abbreviations
AASB Australian Accounting Standards Board ABGR Australian Building Greenhouse Rating AGD Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department AGIMO Australian Government Information Management Office 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 CEI Chief Executive Instruction CEO Chief Executive Officer CJ Chief Justice CPSU Commonwealth and Public Sector Union CMAG Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group CSSMG Client Services Senior Managers Group Cth Commonwealth DCJ Deputy Chief Justice DVD digital video disc EL Executive Level of the Australian Public Service FAIM Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management FLC Family Law Courts FLIS Family Law Information Service FMA Act Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 FM Federal Magistrate FMC Federal Magistrates Court FOI freedom of information GST goods and services tax ICT information and communications technology IAPJT Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition IT information technology IVR interactive voice recognition MA The Supreme Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Agung) MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEC National Enquiry Centre PMDS Performance Management and Development System PSM Public Service Medal RFD Reserve Force Decoration SES Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service SDC Staff Development Committee WHS Work health and safety YEAG Young Employees Advisory Group
Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 7 Glossary of court-specific terms
Casetrack—Casetrack is the case management system used by the Family Court, including the Appeal Division, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia. Child dispute services—the family consultant services of the Family Law Courts. Family Consultants are court experts who specialise in child and family issues after separation and divorce. They provide the courts and families with expert advice regarding children’s best interests; help parties resolve their dispute where possible; write and produce family reports; and advise the courts and families about the services provided to families and children by government, community and other agencies. The Court—means the Family Court of Australia. The courts—means the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court. Family consultant—a psychologist and/or social worker who specialises in child and family issues that may occur after separation and divorce. Family Law Courts—comprise the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Family law registry—a public area at a Family Law Court where people can obtain information about the Court and its processes and where parties file documents in relation to their case. Interim proceedings—proceedings for orders pending a final determination of the issues in dispute. Interlocutory proceedings—proceedings taken during the course of, and incidental to, a trial. Magellan—cases that come to the Family Court that involve allegations of sexual abuse and/or serious physical abuse of a child go into the Court’s Magellan program. The program aims to deal with these cases as effectively as possible. Registrar—a court lawyer who has been delegated power to perform certain tasks; for example, grant divorces, sign consent orders and decide the next step in a case. Registry—how Family Court offices are known. For example, the Melbourne registry is in the Commonwealth Law Courts building on William Street. Rules—a set of directions that outlines court procedures and guidelines. The rules of the Family Court are the Family Law Rules 2004 and the rules of the Federal Magistrates Court are the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
8 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 9
PART 1 The Year in review
The Court's year in review PART 1
In late 2011, the Family Court commemorated its 35th anniversary. The Court is the second oldest of the four
federal courts, and this occasion provided us with an C HIE
opportunity to reflect upon the history of the Court. F JUST In its early years the Court had a tumultuous history. I C E
From my observations of overseas jurisdictions, ’S R
family law is always a fraught area of law because it EVIEW intersects with the breakdown of relationships, loss of companionship and closeness of family. As Elisabeth Kubler-Ross has said ‘Divorce is the second most stressful life event after the death of a loved one’. In this difficult time, parties are expected to manage difficult and often complex litigation going to the very core of their lives. There are rarely winners and therefore very few people are ever happy at the conclusion of their litigation. Why it was so difficult in Australia is a Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO. matter for conjecture. Certainly the changes in 1975 were innovative and socially advanced—a separate family court, supposed to be ‘different’ and no fault divorce. At the same time Australia was caught up in an environment of political, legal and social change. The Family Court has been scrutinised by numerous inquiries, judged and criticised over the years and yet our dedicated judges and members of staff continue to do an exceptional job in helping people in our community during a period in their lives which is very difficult. Controversy has rarely been far away, but hopefully there is now more understanding in the community about the work of the Court and that the decisions that are made are done within the bounds of the law—as with all Australian courts. I also believe that there is more recognition of the extraordinarily difficult decisions that have to be made by our judicial officers—day in, day out, throughout the country. Released during the past year was a book that outlines the early history of the Family Court. Born in Hope—the Early Years of the Family Court of Australia, written by academic Shurlee Swain, provides an insight into the first decade of the Court based on dozens of interviews with those involved with it at that time. As the years pass by, it is important to capture the impact that the establishment of the Court had on the Australian society at that time. Beyond its domestic reputation, there is little doubt that the Court is very highly regarded for its innovations and work internationally and in June 2012, the Court’s Chief Executive Officer, Richard Foster, was appointed as President of the International Association for Courts Administration. Considerable time is devoted to liaising and working with other jurisdictions which helps us enormously to continually review and monitor the way in which we approach our work. Book release, Born in Hope—the Early Years of the Family Court of Australia.
Chief Justice’s year in review • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 13 PART 1 PART EVIEW ’S R E C I F JUST HIE C
Family Court commemorated its 35th anniversary.
Financial management and organisational performance In recent years the Court has implemented many initiatives aimed at reducing costs and generating efficiencies. This has included merging operating services with the Federal Magistrates Court, reducing the number of staff and reviewing the way we work to ensure efficiency. Despite the many attempts to rectify the position, the Court is nevertheless still facing ongoing financial pressure as a result of many factors and is working with the Government to address these pressures. The Court obtained permission for an operating loss of $3.150 million for 2011–12 as expenses continue to rise in excess of the Court’s appropriation revenue. In the next three year budget cycle, the Court will continue to face budget deficits particularly in the 2012–13 financial year should additional appropriation revenue not be forthcoming. Due to the ‘limited discretionary’ nature of about 76 per cent of the Court’s costs (such as judges and their direct staff and their requirement for rental for purpose- built court accommodation) the Court’s ability to reduce costs further is extremely limited. As a result of this, in particular, the impact of the efficiency dividend on the Court’s remaining costs is significantly higher. The Court has been informed that it must bring its budget back into balance at the end of the 2012–13 financial year. This will be a significant task but the Court is working with Government on how this could be achieved. Whatever happens in the coming year, the Court will have to take cost saving measures that may reduce some services. As to the performance of the Court, there has been a significant focus on the ‘clearance rate’, that is finalising the same (or more) cases that start in the year—which hopefully stabilises or reduces the number of pending cases. Improved reporting systems have enabled the Court to identify areas of concern. In turn it has allowed the Court to respond quickly and introduce strategies that have assisted in reducing the risk of ‘backlogs’ occurring. Further information on the performance of the Court is available in Part 3 of this report.
14 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Chief Justice’s year in review Appointments and retirements PART 1 In 2011–12 the Court continued to experience significant change in the membership of its judiciary with the retirement of Justices Mushin, Burr, Rose and Monteith and the appointment of Justices Kent, Macmillan and Rees.
At present, the Court is focused on ensuring that its current workload is managed effectively and C HIE efficiently within the resources at its disposal, although the number of judges continues to decrease. F JUST I C
Future of the federal courts E ’S R
For many years the Family Court, and more so the Federal Magistrates Court, has been waiting for EVIEW the Government to implement its plan to merge the Federal Magistrates Court with the Family Court as was initially announced in 2008. The uncertainty surrounding that initiative has been lifted as the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, announced on 26 April 2012 that the Government will not proceed with the proposed merger of the two courts. The Attorney-General stated in an address to the Federal Magistrates’ plenary during the year that she believed that the Australian community is best served by a separate and distinct Family Court and Federal Magistracy. Since the announcement of the proposed merger, the two courts have worked cooperatively to identify ways in which administrative services can be aligned. Much has been achieved over this period and significant savings have been made. The environment in which we now operate is significantly different to that of 2008 when the plan was first announced. The Government’s decision to abandon the merger now provides a much clearer direction for the courts and we will continue to work on further clarifying the areas of work for each court. Significantly, the number of cases filed in each court has been stable for the past few years. Following the report of the Strategic Review of the Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General’s Department (the Skehill Review) the Family Court, Federal Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court have been working together to identify areas where operations could be shared and savings made. This association has been formalised through a Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee which meets quarterly and reports to the Attorney-General.
New judicial complaints scheme The Family Court has for some time had a dedicated and transparent judicial complaints policy and process, however, the Commonwealth Government has raised with the federal courts, the view to develop an enhanced judicial complaints model to help Heads of Jurisdiction handle complaints that are referred to us. The model is broadly based on the NSW Judicial Commission, with appropriate modifications taking into account Chapter III of the Constitution. It is largely non-statutory in nature. The model applies to complaints relating to federal judicial conduct or incapacity. It identifies the basis upon which complaints can be summarily dismissed and proposes that conduct committees be established by Heads of Jurisdiction where they consider that a complaint warrants further investigation or where they would be assisted by independent advice about a complaint. Legislation to support elements of the complaints handling process is currently before Parliament, in the form of the Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill, which was introduced in March 2012. The Bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry.
Chief Justice’s year in review • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 15 Significant achievements Contributing to the busy year experienced by the Court has been the ongoing effort to review and revise PART 1 PART our practices to ensure that we are delivering the best service possible within the current resources. Like many courts, we strive to deliver timely justice for those before us, and in doing so that requires considerable effort to implement a wide range of projects and initiatives. This annual report provides details on all of the programs and achievements that have been made throughout the year, however
EVIEW there are some deserving of particular mention. ’S R E C I Sydney settlement service
F JUST I reported in last year’s annual report some concern with the pressure of the workload on the Sydney
HIE registry. During the year, an important initiative was implemented which should assist in reducing C that pressure. The Sydney Family Law Settlement Service is a joint initiative of the Law Society of New South Wales, New South Wales Bar Association, Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. It is a unique program whereby parties that are waiting for their (property) matter to go to trial in the Sydney registry are encouraged to participate in a specific mediation/conciliation program that aims to resolve the dispute without having to go to trial. An evaluation of this service will be undertaken to monitor its impact and effectiveness. More detail of this initiative is included in Part 2.
Family law courts satisfaction survey During 2011–12 the Family Law Courts released the results of a survey undertaken to gauge a better understanding of the level of satisfaction of those who spend time in the courts. The main observations found that almost 92 per cent of respondents were satisfied with the services that were provided to them and more than 85 per cent of respondents were generally satisfied with their overall visit to the registry. Further details on the survey are available in Part 2.
Family violence best practice principles On 19 July 2011 the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court hosted the launch of the revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles. Initially developed by the Court in 2009 to provide judicial decision makers with practical guidance in dealing with cases where issues of family violence have been raised, these principles have been reviewed by the family violence committee which is represented by both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. A third version is in production to take account of the legislative changes brought about by the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 which commenced in June.
16 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Chief Justice’s year in review Legislative changes PART 1
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 Changes to the Family Law Act outlined in the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence C and Other Measures) Act 2011 were implemented on 7 June 2012. They aim to better deal with issues HIE involving family violence and abuse of children. The revised Act includes key changes such as changing F JUST the definition of ‘abuse’ and ‘family violence’; enabling state and territory child protection authorities to I C E
participate in family law proceedings when needed; and improved reporting requirements of abuse and ’S R
family violence. In light of the changes, the Court has reviewed its Rules, updated forms and has revised EVIEW its Family Violence Best Practice Principles. Considerable work has also been undertaken with our Child Dispute Services and family consultants. More detail on this is in Part 2.
Validation of de facto property, maintenance and other orders The Commonwealth Government has legislated to provide certainty for de facto property and maintenance orders made by the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court between 1 March 2009 and 10 February 2012 (1 July 2010 to 10 February 2012 in South Australia). The Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012 retrospectively validates de facto property and maintenance orders; the status of which was called into question by the failure to make a proclamation under section 40(2) of the Family Law Act at the time the courts were sought to be vested with jurisdiction in de facto financial causes. A proclamation has now been made setting 11 February 2012 as the date on and after which the Family Court can exercise this jurisdiction.
Acknowledgments It is quite impossible to individually mention all of those who have contributed to the work of the Court throughout the year. However, I wish to extend gratitude to all of the staff of the Court, particularly those who deal directly with the community on a daily basis. It is a difficult job to do when so many of our clients are going through a stressful stage in their lives. This cannot be understated. The Family Court, after 35 years, continues to provide a unique service to the community and it will endeavour to continually improve the way in which it manages family law disputes.
Chief Justice’s year in review • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 17
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, helps Australians to resolve their most complex family disputes. The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record established by Parliament in 1975 under Chapter III of the Constitution. It commenced operations on 5 January 1976 and consists of a Ove Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and other judges. The Court maintains registries in all Australian r states and territories except Western Australia. view of
Goal t he C The Court’s goal is to deliver excellence in service for children, families and parties through effective ourt 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, facts and parties 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.
Commonwealth Law Courts, Brisbane.
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 21 Vision The Court’s vision provides for: putting children and families first in the design and delivery of services furthering functional family relationships after separation
PART 2 PART ensuring 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
ourt being at the forefront of the development of services. he C t
of Jurisdiction
view The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record and deals with more complex matters. These r may include, for example: Ove Parenting cases including those that involve a child welfare agency; allegations of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse of a child (Magellan cases); family violence and/or mental health issues with other complexities; multiple parties; complex cases where orders sought would have the effect of preventing a parent from communicating with or spending time with a child; multiple expert witnesses; complex questions of law and/or special jurisdictional issues; international child abduction under the Hague Convention; special medical procedures; and/or international relocation. Financial cases that involve multiple parties, valuation of complex interests in trust or corporate structures, including minority interests, multiple expert witnesses, complex questions of law and/ or jurisdictional issues (including accrued jurisdiction) or complex issues concerning superannuation (such as complex valuations of defined benefit superannuation schemes).
The Court also has original jurisdiction under certain Commonwealth Acts, including the: Marriage Act 1961 Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Programs of work To ensure the Court fulfils its stated purpose, it has four programs of work: maintaining an environment that enables judicial officers to make determinations provision of effective and efficient registry services corporate management of resources, and effective information and communication technologies.
22 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court The balance of family law work has evolved significantly over some years, with most family law applications now filed in the Federal Magistrates Court. This has enabled the Family Court to become a smaller, more specialised court that generally deals with appeals and the most complex range of family law cases. The complexity of cases that are now before the Family Court inevitably leads to lengthier trials and means matters are less likely to settle. PART 2
Portfolio Budget Statements outcome and program The Court’s outcome and program framework sets out its commitments to the Government. Each year, details of the framework are outlined in the Portfolio Budget Statements, along with relevant Ove r
performance information. Government outcomes are the intended results, impacts or consequences view of actions by the Government on the Australian community. Agencies deliver programs that are government actions taken to deliver the stated outcomes. Agencies are required to identify the programs of
t that contribute to government outcomes over the Budget and forward years. he C ourt Outcome The Family Court’s outcome is described below. As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.
Program The Court has a single program under which all services are provided: Provision of a Family Court. The Family Court’s program objective is to support Australian families involved in complex family disputes by deciding matters according to the law, promptly, courteously and effectively. This involves: providing decisions in complex family disputes for separating Australian couples and families through the determination of matters, and providing national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.
Deliverables and key performance indicators The Family Court’s seven deliverables and eight key performance indicators encompass core service standards for judicial services and client services (that is, the family law registries, where people attend in person, and the National Enquiry Centre, the first point of contact for telephone and email enquiries). On the next page is is a summary of the deliverables and KPIs. Detailed reporting, including specifics of the Court’s effectiveness in achieving its planned outcomes—in other words, how far it has progressed towards the achievement of these stated outcomes—is in Part 3 (see Table 3.1 for a summary of performance for judicial services and Table 3.3 for a summary for client services' performance).
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 23 Judicial services KPIs Judicial services deliverables Goal (total number for year) Final order finalisations 3 200 Interim order finalisations 3 800 Consent order finalisations 10 900
PART 2 PART Other finalisations 300
Registries and NEC deliverables Goal (total number for year) Counter enquiries (registries) 161 800
ourt Telephone enquiries served (NEC) 253 800 he C
t Email enquiries (NEC) 53 900
of view r Key performance indicators Ove Judicial services deliverables Target Clearance rate (final orders) 100 per cent Cases pending conclusion that 75 per cent are less than 12 months old Reserved judgments are waiting less 75 per cent than three months after the conclusion of the trial Number of complaints as a percentage One per cent across judicial of applications received and client services
Registries and NEC KPIs Goal (total number for year) Counter enquiries served within 75 per cent 20 minutes (registries) Applications lodged processed within 75 per cent two working days (registries) Telephone enquiries answered 80 per cent within 90 seconds (NEC) Email enquiries responded 80 per cent to within two working days (NEC) Number of complaints as a percentage One per cent across judicial of applications received (this KPI applies and clients services to the judicial services of the Court also)
24 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements The Court’s 2011–12 Portfolio Budget Statements identified a number of specific initiatives that the Court would be progressing. Each of these is reported here. PART 2 Review of family violence strategy The legislation, the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011, came into effect on 7 June 2012, after the Bill had been passed by Parliament in November 2011.
All forms, publications and the websites were reviewed and updated in light of the legislative changes. Ove r
The review of the Court’s family violence strategy was not completed during 2011–12 due to the view incoming legislative amendments. Work, however, was underway at year’s end on a review of the family of
violence policy to ensure it aligns with the amended legislation. t he C
Federal courts restructure ourt The Report of the Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General’s Portfolio (the Skehill Review) including the courts, was released by the Attorney-General on 8 June 2012. The report recommended a range of practical measures to improve the operation of and reduce duplication between federal courts. The key focus of the work on the federal courts was the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts’ administration. The Government has agreed to the key recommendation to improve court administration and collaboration, and identify efficiencies, through a new consultative committee comprising heads of jurisdiction, chief executive officers and other relevant officers, including an observer from the Attorney- General’s Department. Similarly, the courts and the Government will work more closely on strategic planning for use of court buildings. In considering the efficiency and effectiveness of court administration, the Skehill Review found the recent move to shared administration for the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court has been a genuine success. This finding was crucial to the Skehill Review's recommendation that the family law restructure should not proceed. Instead, the Skehill Review recommended, and the Government agreed, that the shared administration arrangement be formalised, together with a formal process to encourage closer cooperation between the federal courts. This will promote clarity, including for the ongoing role of the Federal Magistrates Court, and provide certainty for the future. The Government will also change the name of the Federal Magistrates Court and title of Federal Magistrates to better reflect their important role in the judicial system. The Government will begin by consulting with the courts as to what the name of court and the title of Federal Magistrates should be before introducing legislation to make the changes. The Skehill Review recommended a further review be undertaken of the courts' financial viability. While the Government considers that the issue requires further attention, another formal review is not necessary. At 30 June 2012, the Government had commenced working closely with the courts to consider options to address any financial pressures and maintain services. The Government also did not agree with the Skehill Review's view that some aspects of court expenditure should be exempt from the efficiency dividend. The Skehill Review is available at http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/ strategic-reviews/attorney-general.html
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 25 International Framework for Court Excellence The International Framework for Court Excellence was launched in Australia at the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration’s Court Quality Forum in September 2008. The Family Court has voluntarily adopted the framework. One of the key initiatives under the framework that is aimed at better understanding the needs PART 2 PART and perceptions of court users is a client user satisfaction survey. Such a survey will provide robust measurement of users’ perceptions of their court visit and experience, establishing a benchmark against which regular re-evaluations can be made to determine if satisfaction levels are changing and to identify areas for improvement.
ourt The courts commenced such a survey in June 2011. See Initiatives of the Family Court later in this Part he C t
for more information about the client survey, also Appendix 9. of Commonwealth Courts Portal view r The Commonwealth Courts Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au) was launched in July 2007 as a joint Ove initiative of the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The portal provides free web-based access to information about cases that are before these courts as well as the Family Court of Western Australia.
After registering, lawyers and parties can keep track of their cases, identify documents that have been filed and view outcomes, orders made and future court dates. Users log on using a single user ID and access multiple jurisdictions from a single central web-based system.
The growth of the portal has been rapid over the five years since its introduction. The number of registered users has grown from 57 602 at 30 June 2011 to 85 332 at 30 June 2012. Included at 30 June 2012 were 3280 registered law firms and 6746 individual lawyers and barristers. See Table 2.1 for more detail about the number of portal users, with comparative data for the past four years.
Table 2.1 Registered users of the Commonwealth Courts Portal, 2008–09 to 2011–12
30 June 2009 30 June 2010 30 June 2011 30 June 2012 Number of law firms 667 1279 2466 3280 registered Number of lawyers 1761 2827 5026 6746 registered Total registered users 5900 24 073 57 602 85 332
26 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court During 2011–12, the popularity of eFiling continued to increase. By 30 June 2012, more than 750 eFiled divorce applications were being received each month with 7952 in total for the year and 1541 other forms of applications were also eFiled. The number of applications made by eFiling is expected to continue to grow in 2012–13. PART 2 In addition, 96 228 supplementary documents (such as affidavits) were eFiled. The content of each of these documents is now available for viewing online by the parties, saving a visit in person to a court registry to view the paper copy. Improvements made to the portal during 2011–12 included: Ove a subpoena screen which allows parties to check if their request to inspect a document has been r approved view
of
a screen showing a complete list of all documents filed in a matter which has filters to enable t searches to be conducted on: he C ourt –– date filed on –– date filed to –– type of document, and –– name of filing party a ‘recent activity on starred files’ section which highlights changes such as a document being filed, an order being made, or an event being listed tabs on the homepage were reduced to improve the look and usability of the page and a new series of themed icons provides a fresh look for the homepage a new alpha/numeric search feature allows users to search for party names or file numbers within their ‘available files’ collection increased performance through the introduction of a new server and further code tuning, and a global list of documents which creates a single list of all documents on a file in reverse chronological order. Table 2.2 shows the number of supplementary documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court for the past four years by location.
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 27 Table 2.2 Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court 2008–09 to 2011–12 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Adelaide 191 1679 2353 4912 Albury 3 18 166 501
PART 2 PART Alice Springs - 1 19 109 Brisbane 943 9077 18 936 27 379 Cairns 10 64 209 1076 Canberra 5 643 1321 2004 ourt Coffs Harbour 26 114 286 863 he C t Dandenong 66 832 2217 5331 of Darwin 13 129 212 359 view
r Dubbo - 9 125 363
Ove Hobart 27 85 210 562 Launceston 15 311 575 734 Lismore 57 174 418 1109 Melbourne 425 4904 10 983 19 329 Newcastle 52 1046 2822 4724 Parramatta 187 2029 5016 7736 Rockhampton 33 374 444 746 Sydney 125 2870 6207 10 466 Townsville 35 634 1568 2115 Wollongong 10 102 430 1444 TOTAL 2223 25 095 54 517 91 862
In Western Australia there were 827 divorces and 3228 supplementary documents eFiled during 2011–12.
Planned enhancements for 2012–13 Enhancements expected to be introduced or advanced in 2012–13 include: creation of the capability for users to create a global list of all orders on a file completion of work to ensure Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are complied in accordance with government mandated time lines introduction of court lists in the portal commencement of a refresh of the portal look and feel, and investigation of the possibility of introducing electronic service via the portal.
28 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court PART 2 Ove r view of
t he C ourt
The Family Law Courts are now providing training for law firms onsite at the firm’s office. Our trainers are able to do a live presentation by accessing a computer at a firm’s office anywhere in Australia through the use of remote control software.
Changes in financial results Details about the Court’s operating deficits and ongoing budgetary pressures are contained in Part 6, Management and Accountability (see ‘Operating deficits and ongoing budgetary pressure’).
Outlook for 2012–13 In 2012–13, the following may have an impact on the Court and its delivery of services: budgetary pressures implementation of the recommendations contained in the Skehill Review implementation of changed fees from 1 January 2013 revised best practice principles for dealing with family violence implementation of new arrangements for managing Commonwealth Law Courts building, and ongoing work concerning the adoption of the International Framework for Court Excellence, including the implementation of recommendations from the first client user satisfaction survey.
International cooperation
Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) continued its support of the ongoing activities under the court-to-court Memorandum of Understanding between the Family Court and the Supreme Court of Indonesia.
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 29 PART 2 PART ourt he C t
of view r Ove
Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Honourable Patrick Keane, with Dr Harifin A. Tumpa SH MH, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia and the Honourable Diana Bryant AO, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia.
In 2011–12, the Family Court and the Supreme Court of Indonesia progressed the following key areas of cooperation: Access to justice—the cooperation assisted with the production and distribution (and associated training) of materials providing access to information on court policies and procedures that would enhance public access to the courts and to justice. Particular focus was on strengthening the delivery of services through information desks at Religious Courts in the first instance. These activities assisted to strengthen administrative procedures for delivering services to court users, including women (with particular focus on those faced with family violence), people with disabilities and the poor. The courts continued to facilitate the sharing of experiences and best practice methods for increasing transparency in the administration of justice, access to justice and building public trust and confidence. Enhancing judicial capacity in mediation in family law disputes—the cooperation assisted with improving court services and proceedings through mediation of family law disputes. The Court, along with representatives from Relationship Australia Victoria, developed and implemented training for Religious Court judges in order to promote a mediation process that is effective, efficient, sensitive to court user needs (especially women, children and people with disabilities) and encourages timely decision making in relation to family law cases, child custody and division of assets.
30 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court Zimbabwe In 2011, the Family Court organised and hosted a two week capacity-building program for a delegation of family law stakeholders from Zimbabwe.
The program aimed to strengthen the ability of key family law stakeholders in Zimbabwe to support a PART 2 new family court, due to be introduced after the passage of legislation in 2013. The visit also allowed delegates to develop approaches for overcoming identified access to justice barriers in Zimbabwe. The program included dialogue with the Family Court, Federal Magistrates Court, Victoria Children’s
Court, Magistrates Court of Victoria, Legal Aid Victoria and Relationships Australia Victoria. Ove r International visitors view of
In addition to hosting the delegation from Zimbabwe, which builds on work the Court had been assisting t with in that country, during 2011–12 the Court’s work continued to be recognised internationally. he C
Official visitors also attended from Malaysia, Bhutan, Singapore, Japan, Ireland and Germany to look at ourt different aspects of the Court’s work. Appendix 11 contains more information about each of the delegations.
Court service locations There are 19 family law registries across Australia (except in Western Australia). Registries provide services to the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. These services include lodgement of documents, providing procedural advice and responding to enquiries, mail handling, and listing of cases. The Court also conducts circuits to regional areas. For details on circuit listings, go to the Court lists section on the Family Court of Australia website at www.familycourt.gov.au.
Table 2.3 Family Court of Australia service locations
Location Judge/s Registrar/s Family Client Judicial Registrar Family consultants services circuit circuit consultant circuit
South Australia/Northern Territory
Adelaide Darwin Alice Springs Victoria/Tasmania Dandenong Bairnsdale Moe Hobart Launceston Burnie
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 31 Location Judge/s Registrar/s Family Client Judicial Registrar Family consultants services circuit circuit consultant circuit
Victoria/Tasmania Cont. Melbourne PART 2 PART Albury Ballarat Bendigo
ourt Geelong he C t Hamilton of Mildura view r Shepparton Ove Warrnambool New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory Armidale Canberra Newcastle Port Macquarie Tamworth Parramatta Bathurst Dubbo Orange Sydney Wollongong Queensland/Northern New South Wales Brisbane Coffs Harbour Lismore Rockhampton Townsville Cairns Mackay
32 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court Initiatives of the Family Court This section highlights new and ongoing initiatives of the Court in 2011–12. Additional activities are reported in Part 6 (Management and Accountability) and Appendix 8 (Committees). See also the strategic initiatives included in the Portfolio Budget Statements, earlier in this part, including the review PART 2 of the family violence strategy, the international framework for court excellence and the Commonwealth Courts Portal. See also (earlier in this part) the report on international cooperation and the lead role which the Court has in initiatives through AusAID in Indonesia.
User satisfaction survey Ove r
The Family Law Courts, with the help of 102 university students and volunteers, conducted over 1300 view user satisfaction surveys at 13 court locations during June and July 2011. of
t
The aim was to gauge the level of satisfaction that litigants, lawyers and even people making an enquiry he C
had regarding their interaction with the courts on family law matters. It did not look at decisions or ourt rulings made by the courts, rather the experiences of and services received by individuals while dealing with the courts. It was found that almost 92 per cent of respondents were satisfied with the services provided to them and more than 85 per cent were generally satisfied with their overall visit to the courts. The survey also found strong, positive responses regarding facilities, safety and the service that they received, with respondents describing staff as ‘friendly’, ‘helpful’ and ‘cheerful’. Areas for improvement included the need for greater clarity on the next steps for litigants, and general timing issues. Respondents also commented about more court staff being needed to speed up document filing at counters. It is intended that the survey will be held regularly, at least once every two years, to help the courts refine their services and ensure that users' needs are met to the best of the courts’ abilities. The final report is on the Family Court’s website at www.familycourt.gov.au.
Family violence screening within Child Dispute Services In June 2011, a working group was established to consider the most effective and efficient ways of implementing family violence screening processes within the Family Law Courts' Child Dispute Services. The screening helps identify the existence of family violence as an issue as early as possible. This enables family consultants to: better ensure client safety while they are engaged within the Child Dispute Services pathway ensure that client safety and security are considered when planning future Child Dispute Services interventions, and provide information to the courts that assists with the integration of safety measures into proposed parenting arrangements.
Following an extensive review of literature and existing screening instruments,1 as well as consultation with Dr Jennifer McIntosh, clinical child psychologist, six family violence screening questions were developed for use in child dispute conferences, child dispute duty conferences and child inclusive conferences. The questions were based on acknowledged risk factors relating to the safety of parents and children.
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 33 The questions were trialled in all registries in October 2011 and evaluated through a written questionnaire and telephone conferences with participating family consultants. The evaluation confirmed that formal screening helped considerably in identifying family violence. For example, in response to a question about threats to physical safety one or other party answered ‘yes’ in 85.5 per cent of cases. Based on trial feedback, two additional questions were included. The final set of eight questions target
PART 2 PART the following risk factors: the presence of apprehended violence orders fear of harm
ourt threats to harm he C
t spousal abuse history
of injuries view r recent escalation Ove concurrent child abuse, and concurrent psychological abuse.
An implementation plan was developed with training for all family consultants and then subsequent monitoring of implementation in each registry. Training was based on the family violence screening guidelines that accompany the screening questions. The guidelines and the screening process highlight the thematic links between the questions and the revised and expanded definition of family violence as set out the 2011 amendments to the Family Law Act (which came into effect on 7 June 2012). Implementation across all locations of the courts was completed in May 2012. The standardised screening questions now form part of the opening phase of all child dispute conferences, child dispute duty conferences and child inclusive conferences.
Revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles launched In July 2011, the (then) Attorney-General Robert McClelland, Chief Justice Bryant and Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe launched the revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles. The principles were first developed in 2009 by the Family Court’s Family Violence Committee and were reviewed and updated by a joint Family Court-Federal Magistrates Court committee to ensure they optimally assisted their intended audiences. Protecting families and children who are engaged with the family law system from the effects of family violence is a priority for both courts. The principles The revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles.
34 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court assist by acting as a checklist of matters that judges, federal magistrates, court staff, litigants and legal professionals can refer to at each stage of the litigation process. The Committee considered delaying the release of the updated best practice principles until the commencement of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) PART 2 Act 2011, however due to uncertainty last year as to the time of commencement of the substantive amendments, it was decided to release the principles with the understanding that further revision would be required when the family violence amendments passed into law. Further information about a review of the courts’ family violence strategy (a Portfolio Budget Statements strategic initiative) is on page 25 of this report. Ove r view Protocol on a child’s need for protection of
t
In July 2011, a joint protocol about a child’s need for protection and to ensure the best possible he C outcomes for a child was developed between the Department of Human Services’ Child Protection ourt Program, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The protocol is designed to assist cooperation, clarify procedures and improve decision making in cases that may occur in either or both the Commonwealth and state jurisdictions. It articulates the statutory and non-statutory responsibilities of the Department and the two courts to each other. While the protocol aids effective communication between the three organisations, it does not replace the requirement for open and collaborative relationships between each at the operational level. The Department and the courts are committed to providing the highest level of service. Working together will ensure professional, sensitive and well-targeted responses to children and young people who are at significant risk of harm. A copy of the protocol can be found on the Family Law Courts website at www.familylawcourts.gov.au.
Sydney family law settlement service In late May 2012, the Sydney family law settlement service started and is to continue until October 2012, after which it will be evaluated. It is a joint initiative of the Law Society of New South Wales, the New South Wales Bar Association, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The service aims to settle early as many family law property matters as is possible without a court hearing (trial), thus avoiding the cost and time of a fully defended hearing and reducing the number of cases awaiting final hearing in the courts. A total of 125 Sydney and Wollongong property matters were identified as suitable for mediation through the service, being matters for which a conciliation conference had been held but excluding cases, for example, with allegations of family violence. Parties will be invited to voluntarily agree to attend the service and where consent is not given by both parties, a judicial officer may consider whether any orders should be made that the parties attend the service. The Law Society is facilitating the coordination and administration of the service. Practitioners who are experienced in mediating in family law matters and are on the Law Society’s and NSW Bar Association’s mediation panels will be engaged to participate. An evaluation, planned for November and December 2012, will determine if the service should be continued, including more widely, in the courts.
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 35 A study of Indigenous Australians access to and usage of the Family Law Courts A study of Indigenous Australians access to and usage of the Family Law Courts was initiated in 2009–10 and work on it continued in 2011–12. The study
PART 2 PART aimed to examine the views and experiences of Indigenous people who have been involved in family law litigation. Data was obtained from 36 Indigenous litigants, 54 non-Indigenous litigants and 30 family law practitioners who had represented Indigenous ourt clients in court. In addition, six focus groups were he C t
held in metropolitan and regional areas. For more
of information about the study, see page 122. view r Statement of strategic intent Ove To assist with strategic planning, the Family Law Court’s administration is developing a statement of strategic intent. The document outlines the Indigenous Australians & the Family Law Courts report. challenges, directions and priorities of the courts’ administration for 2012–13 and builds on the work already achieved since the merger of the administrations in 2009. At 30 June 2012, it was expected that the statement of strategic intent would be released early in 2012–13.
Courts win 2011 AIJA Award for Excellence in Judicial Administration In October 2011, the Young Employees Advisory Group (YEAG) initiative was awarded the 2011 STATEMENT OF Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration (AIJA) STRATEGIC Award for Excellence. INTENT The courts entered the YEAG initiative in the award for the Family Court of Australia & Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Administration because it was a first for Australian courts: it was designed to enable younger employees to bring a different perspective to issues and approaches in court administration. The AIJA Award for Excellence in Judicial Administration has been running since 2002 and is designed to recognise outstanding
achievement in the administration of justice within Strategic Intent.indd 1 18/07/12 10:44 AM Australia. It is awarded biennially. Nominations for Statement of Strategic Intent report. the award must have improved access to justice, demonstrated innovation and delivered real benefits for the justice system.
36 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court PART 2 Ove r view of
t he C ourt
Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO, Greg Reinhardt, Executive Director AIJA and Richard Foster, Chief Executive Officer Family Court of Australia.
In initiating YEAG, the Court recognised that in Australia and within the courts generally, there is an ageing workforce. Further, giving younger employees a forum to express their views and, through project work, put ideas into practice, creates a deeper awareness of the courts’ business, administrative and governance arrangements. This assists in the professional development of younger employees. Also recognised is that access to justice is not just about improving the way the courts deliver their services externally. Internal improvements also have an impact by having the right people to deliver services and having healthy and robust staff better able to meet the needs of clients. Since its formation in 2008, the YEAG initiative has improved the day-to-day internal and external operations of the Family Law Courts in a number of ways, all of which have had a positive affect on improving access to justice. For example, working with the legal profession to increase awareness of the Commonwealth Courts Portal and electronic filing; involvement with a targeted recruitment campaign to attract young people to a career with the courts; conducting research into particular client groups, such as self represented litigants and Indigenous Australians and internally; introducing health initiatives for staff, and improved internal communications.
35th anniversary of the Family Court The Family Court celebrated its 35th anniversary in 2011 and to acknowledge that, Chief Justice Bryant hosted a formal dinner for all past and present judges in Melbourne on 25 November 2011. The two previous chief justices of the Court, the Honourable Elizabeth Evatt and the Honourable Alastair Nicholson AO RFD, were present. The dinner was particularly special for those judges who were appointed to the Court at the time of its establishment and during its early years, including their Honours Austin Asche, Hugh Burton, John Gun, John Fogarty, Margaret Lusink and Adrian Smithers. The early years of the Court were difficult with political, legal and social change. At the dinner, the Chief Justice noted that there was now more understanding as well as recognition of the extraordinarily difficult decisions that have to be made by the Court’s judicial officers every day.
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 37 PART 2 PART ourt he C t
of view r Ove
Chief Justice Bryant AO with previous chief justices of the Court, the Honourable Alastair Nicholson AO RFD and the Honourable Elizabeth Evatt.
A highlight of the evening was the presentation of a DVD featuring all judges, current and former, appointed to the Court.
theythenneedtodemonstratealevelofcharismathatthoseofushiddenfromthepubliceyedon’tnecessarilyhavetodemonstrate,clearlytheywouldhavehadtheappropriatelevel ofintelligencetohavegotthejobthey’vegot,butthenIthinktheyneedtobeinclusiveintermsofdealingswiththeirjudges,thosethatareundertheircontrol,howevertheyneedtobe- decisive.Ithinkforme,theidealleaderwouldbesomebodywhoisinclusiveinthediscussion,andconsultswidely,putseverythingonthetableforyou,valuesyourinput,butthenma- Also capturing some of the early history of the Court waskesthedecisionIna a ChiefJusticebookIwouldlookforthequalityofdecisiveness,andthecapacitytomakeadecision,sometimesnotapopularone,butonewithregardtowhichthejudge titled Born in Hope—The early years - sinthecourtcanimplement,andareclearastowhatisrequiredofthembutagoodleaderwillhimorherselfdowhatheorsherequiresofthesub ordinatesandthesubordinateswouldrespectthatByhavingtheconfidenceofthejudges,thatmakeshisorherjobmucheasierduringadaytodayoperationsTodothatIthinkthata- headneedstodoallthejudicialworkthattheorsheexpectstheirjudgesdoto,tomaintainconfidentialitybetweenthemandtheirjudges,todisplaynofavouritismtowardanyjudges- of the Family Court of Australia. Researched and written,WhatIlookforinaheadurisdictionwouldbeacombinationof by Shurlee Swain,academic aand professorintellectualability,sothat,the headofjurisdictionat the Australiancaninspirerespectamongsthisorherpeersandc - olleaguesonthebench,butalsosomeonewhohasthepoliticalskillstodealwiththeissuesthatwillarisewithinthecommunityeffectingthecourtandthejudgesonthecourtTherewilli nevitablybeperformanceissuesfromtimetotime,thatmightarise,ordifficultissuesthatjudgeswillneedtodealwithfromapersonalpointofviewandIthinkit’simportanttohavea- Catholic University, it covers the history of the first 10headofjurisdictionthatisabletocommand years of the respectCourt.professionally,butalsotohavesufficientpoliticalnousifyoulike,orsufficientabilitytodealwiththeindividualjudgesinthecourt The book records an oral - Themarkofagoodleaderissomebodywhocaninvolvethemselvesinthepublicdebate,withoutthemselvesbecomingthecentreofthatdebate.Themarkofagoodleaderissome- APPROACHING THE BENCH bodywhocaninvolvethemselvesinthepublicdebate,withoutthemselvesbecomingthecentreofthatdebate.OneofthemostimportantqualitiesIwouldseeinaheadofjurisdiction, alsotheheadofjurisdictionhasinmanywaystobeadiplomat,hastonegotiatewiththosethatcontroltheresources,anddothebestforthecourtinthatregard,hastonegotiateindivi history of the Court based on interviews with key peopledualjudges,getthebestoutoftheindividualjudgesanddealwithourvariousabilities,and who were involved in theattitudes establishmenttowork,Ithinktheyarethetwomainaspects, ofleading thebyexampleandtrulybeinga - diplomatIthinkarethemostimportantqualitiesIlookforinaheadofjurisdiction.Isupposetheheadofjurisdictionwouldbesomeonewhoisabletolookatallofthepeopleunderhisor- hercontrolandworkoutineachcase,whatisthebestwayofmotivatingthatpersontoproducetheirbest.Someofthetraitsofagoodleaderareshowingdignity,andalsowillingnesstoi ntervenewhenthingsaregoingwrong,topointouttopeoplewherethejudicialconductisinappropriate,itsappreciatedbyallthemagistracy.Atraitfromaheadofjurisdictionofwhic Court in its early days, as well as all three Chief Justicesharesoverypositive,isawillingnessto and manylisten former,tobeavailable,tohearoutcolleaguesthatareanxiousandtogivethem judges. advicefromtheirexperience.Ithinkaheadofjurisdictionneedst obeacalm,andaninspirationalperson,Iaminclinedtothinkyoustartwiththeidea,it’sa,itsarace,and,andeveryoneisgoingtobefabulous,forever,quitequicklyyourealise,itsa,its notasprint,itsandendurance,test,andyourleaderneedstoa.)helpyouunderstandthatprettyquickly,andtheninspirethebodyofjudges,intheendurance,test,thatjudging,judgin gis.Ithinktheheadsofjurisdictionhavetopayparticularattentiontotheinternaldynamicoftheiragency,theyneedtoensurethattheagency,thejudicialofficers,thestaffthatenable ustodoourwork,arefunctioningasaunit,andiftheyletthatgo,iftheydon’tpaysufficientattentiontotheinternaldynamicoftheiragency,thenitdoesn’tmatterhowwelltheheadofjuri sdictionrepresentstheagencytogovernment,tothegreatercommunity,theagencyitselfwillbesuffering.Theheadofjurisdictionhasaroleofunderstandingofwhat’sgoingoninac ourtbykeepinghisorhereyeonthepulseofthecourt,seeingwhatthestateofhealthofthejudgesappearstobeandwetherornotthey’reoverwhelmedbytheirworkload,bylooking- Judicial leadership DVD attheirreservejudgmentstatistics,speakingtothem,whereheorshefeelsinterventioncanbeofassistance.Ithinkaheadofjurisdictionalsothesedaysneedstoengageinadegreeo fpastoralcare,Imeanbythat,beingalivetoanypersonalproblemsthatmightbedevelopingamongstmembersofhisjurisdiction,becauseiftheyarenotdealtwithinanearlystageth- eycanbeveryembarrassing.AheadofjurisdictionfromwhatIunderstand,shouldbeabletogiveguidanceandveryfirmguidancetotherestofthebench,hehasgottobeaneducator ,hehasgottobewisetothepoliticalneedsoftheattorneygeneralsdepartment,andtoadvancetheneedsofthemagistracy,theneedsofthemagistracyareenormous,andthereisa- lotofchangeandchallenges,andtheChiefMagistratemustbeawareofthosechangesandendeavourtomeetthem.theheadofjurisdictionneedstoensurethatthemagistrate- The Family Court and the National Judicial College sappointedarepersonswhoarenotonlyfinelawyers,aswouldbeexpected,butalsopeoplewhocanmanagetheirtimeandcourtlists,inotherwordsefficientmanagers,it’sareal- problemwhenamagistrateisappointedwhodoesnothavethatabilityandneverwillhavethatability,astohowthatisassessed,atajointerviewisdifficultthatachiefmagistrate,lawyer ,attorneygeneralshouldbeawareofthat,andit’sofparamountimportance.morethananyoneaheadofjurisdictionhasagreatresponsibility,toencouragehisorherjudgestodev eloptheirskills,toundertakejudicialdevelopmentcourses.Anotherqualityisanabilitytobalanceaninclusiveroleofthejudges,thatistomakethejudgesfeelthattheyarepartofthe of Australia jointly sponsored the production of a 30 courtandtheoperationsofthecourt,arenowhavingaroletoplayinthat,butalsotobalancethatagainstbeing,showingjudgesthatheyareresponsiblefortheoperationsofthecour- tIthinkitisadifficultquestiontoanswersastohowaheadofjurisidictionwillknowifacourtisperformingwellastherearevariousdifferentcriteriabywhichpeoplewillassessthewaya- courtperformsThereareproductivitycriteriaforexample,whenpeoplelookatthenumberofcasesthataredisposedofwithinaparticularperiodoftimeThereispublicperception- inthesensethattherewillbetimeswhenthepublicwillcriticisesentencingperhapsorparticulardecisionsorthelikethinkfromacasemanagementpointofviewandhavingregard- minute DVD on judicial leadership. The DVD was usedperspectives on judicial leadership tothe statutoryobjectivesofcasemanagementoneofthecriticalcriterion,criterionmustbe,feedbacktheproductivityofthecourts,soseeinghowlongittakesforcasestobedeter minedthroughtoafinaljudgement,andkeepinganeyeonthejudgesreservedjudgements,andhowlongsomeofthosereservedjudgementsareoutstanding,wouldhavetobeapart icularfocus,perhapsnotsomuchfortheultimateheadofjurisdictionassometimesfortheheadoftheparticulardivision.thefiguresshowthatcasesarebeingdisposedanddis- posedofinatimelyfashion,that’sanindicator,judgesmeetingsasI’vementionedareanotherindicator,Imeanifthejudgesmeetingsgowell,andpeopleknowthankiftheydoorthe- at a judicial leadership workshop in October 2011, ydon’t,theheadofjurisdictionwillpickthatup,sothey’llknowwhetherthereisagoodenvironmentinthecourt.peopleswillingnesstodowork,ifpeoplearewillingtohelpout,thenthat’s anothertechnologysignthatthere’sagoodenvironmentinthecourt.WellIthinktheindicatorsof,whenaheadofjurisdictionisdoingagoodjobare,judgesfeelconfidentintheirability toapproachhimorherwiththeirproblemsandwithgoodjobtheirrequests,theywillfeelthearegoingtobelistenedto,andthatsomethingwillbedoneifcanbedonetoaddresstheiris- and will be used as a future education resource. It suesIthinkyoucantellthataheadofjurisdiconisdoingawhenthemoraleofthecourtisgood.Ifthejudgesare,Iwantsayhappy,butmoraleisgood,thenitmeansthatthechiefjudgeislo okinggoalsafterusbothasindividuals,lookingafterthecourtsresources,orensuringthatthecourtsarefundedaswellasitshouldbe,yes,ifthejudgesarehappythenempathythec- hiefjudgeisdoingagoodjobIthink,somejudgeswillneverbehappy,butso,if,onthewhole,moraleisgood,thenIthinkthechiefjudgeisdoingagoodjob.Ithink,probablyifonlyabout15 %ofyourjudgesareinternallycomplainingaboutyou,thenyou’redoinganexcellentjob.Mostgoodjudicialleaders,obviouslyhavehighintelligencethatcomeswiththeterritory,but explores the following concepts: whatmarksthereallygoodonesistheabilitytoarticulateasetofandgoalsforthecourtandthentobeabletomotivatethejudges,inattemptingtoachievethosegoalstomonitortheir- performanceinachievingthosegoalsandtogivethema)aheadofjurisdictioncandoanumberofthingstoimprove,intermsofmydutiesonthebench,informationperformanceisone ofthem,ensuringthatyouunderstandwhatitisthatisexpectedofyouinthefirstplace,fthecourthasahighreputationoutsidethecourtwhichhasbeendevelopedandnurturedbythec hiefjudge,thejudgesthemselveswilltryanddtoaddtothat,andtomaintainitbydoingtheirbestatalltimes,andIthinkinobjectivesthatway,thechiefjudgedoesimpactgreatlynoton- lyexternallybutinternallywithintheworkingsofthecourt,whichafterallisprettyimportant,that’swhatwe’retherefor.Sowhatmotivatesmeitisreallybeingpartofajurisdictionthathas leadership and the head of jurisdiction— therespectofothersandIdomybest,Ihope,mmotivatedtodomybesttokeepthatreputationintact.thechiefjusticeultimatelyhasresponsibilityforthecourt,andsowith,withthatthey havetoolsthatthey,tohand,thattheycanuse.Itcanbesomethingassimpleasmakingsurepeopletakeleave,itcanbeensuringpeopleconnectwithadvances,advancesin,whichmi ghtmakeworkeasier,withtraining,withtimeout,thereislinkinglinkingajudgeperhapswhoisabitflatforwhateverreason,with,withsomeonewho’sfairlywellregardedas,asa,the- reisawholevarietyoftoolsthattheChiefJusticehas,hasavailablethatcouldadaptthesettingataparticulartimewhichmightnotbeworkingforthejudgeconcernedIthinkandaware- expectations, challenges and indicators of successnessisreallythe,theyarethecriticalfactorsandthenatbeingawaredoingsomethingaboutiOneofthethingsthattheheadofjurisdictioncandothegtthementorbestoutofmeis,- certainlycommendingmeifhethinksIhavedoneaoodjobsomewhere,writtenagoodjudgement,thankingmefordoingwhatwouldbeaprettythanklesstaskaquittimeconsuming
Judges andconcepts magistrates of from leadership—leadership a range of Australian jurisdictions, traits, sources talk about leadership in courts and the role of of leadershipthe head power,of jurisdiction other leadership and APPROACHING THE BENCH courts and, in particular, the unique leadership perspectives on judicial leadership challenges for courts and ideas for leading through them Judicial leadership DVD.
38 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court court performance—links and implications for leadership and the head of jurisdiction, and leadership and the judiciary—judges and leadership, challenges and indicators of success.
Representatives from the District Court of NSW, District Court of SA, Family Court, Federal Court, Federal Magistrates Court, Local Court of NSW, Magistrates Court of SA, Supreme Court of NSW and Supreme PART 2 Court of SA participated in the project.
Environmental Champions Network
The Environmental Champions Network was formed in 2010 as a result of a project by the 2009–10 Ove r
Young Employees Advisory Group. view
Membership now comprises 19 staff (up from the original five), representing 13 sites nationally. The of
t
network is chaired by the environmental manager and meets via teleconference every six to eight weeks. he C
Representatives discuss local registry issues as well as those that have a national impact. This has ourt included paper use, the cost of photocopying, the impact of eFiling, environmentally friendly products, new printers, signage issues, and the availability of recycling. The representatives also encourage others at their registries to improve environmentally sustainable behaviour such as increasing recycling, shutting down computers, and turning off lights. Some of the group’s notable projects for 2011–12 included: Earth Hour National Recycling Week mobile muster Christmas shutdown drive desktop computer shutdown drive launch of the courts’ environmental logo, and forming an Environmental Champions Network on Connections.
Appendix 6 reports in detail on environmental performance matters.
Connecting our staff Connections is a social networking environment that supports staff to communicate and collaborate in the work environment. Connections was officially launched to staff on 1 May 2012. It allows staff to: Create a profile—upload a photo, record contact information and list past experience, skills, and interests. Create or join a community—share information and interact with other staff with similar roles or projects. Participate in discussion forums and share bookmarks and feeds with other members. Subscribe to feeds—keep up-to-date with the latest information, and participate in or start a discussion.
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 39 Write or read a blog—give feedback or share information by writing text, adding a link or uploading an image or video. Blogs are updated daily like an online journal. Write, read or edit a wiki—collaboratively author, view or edit information. A wiki is for multiple users to create and modify the pages. Create an activity—organise a team or an individual’s work, assign ownership and create due dates
PART 2 PART for actions involving one or more individuals. Share files and content with others—upload presentations, documents, videos or files into a file-sharing library. Keep them private, semi-private, or public and add tags and ratings, add recommendations and see comments.
ourt The use of Connections is governed by a number of existing court-wide policies and staff must ensure he C
t their use of it, in terms of access to official and private records and the release of information, also
of complies with the APS Code of Conduct.
view The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) had been trialling the use of a Lotus wiki since 2006 for sharing r information related to client enquiries and court procedures, however, concluded that that software did Ove not meet the courts’ needs. From late 2007 to early 2008 a range of other products were evaluated. As a result, the Family Court ICT Collaboration Technical Options Paper was delivered in October 2009 and a decision was made to proceed with Connections. A staff survey in 2011 found that 75 per cent of respondents had used social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and My Space and almost half had been using these for two to four years. It was then decided to launch Connections to all staff. A trial of Connections was undertaken in the NEC from March to June 2011. After analysing the trial outcomes (including technical and other issues) it was decided to provide the software to further groups of early adopters including a number of project groups, the Client Services Senior Managers Group and family consultants. By January 2012, more than 50 communities had been established. While it is early days, at 30 June 2012, it was expected that Connections will provide staff with a tool that will increase their capacity to collaborate, especially with staff in other court locations. This will have a positive effect on staff development, liaison and opportunities for sharing ideas, and will lead to improved service delivery.
PABX networked The upgrading of the courts’ PABX systems was completed during 2011–12. This has led to all PABX systems being networked, so what was previously 20 systems now operates as one, allowing internal phone calls to be carried by the courts’ network. It is expected that this will lead to a significant reduction in the cost of external telephone calls.
Registrar workload project The registrar workload project continued during 2011–12. In October 2010, the Chief Justice and Chief Federal Magistrate had established a working group to identify, quantify and report on the work undertaken by registrars for the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Broadly, the project terms of reference require categories of workload and drivers of workload to be identified, also resource allocations and recommendations for future resourcing. For more information about the workload project, see on page 123.
40 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Overview of the Court Client Service Senior Managers’ Group The Client Service Senior Managers’ Group (CSSMG) comprises registry managers and registry and judicial service managers from the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The group aims to identify and implement ways to continually improve service delivery across the courts by streamlining PART 2 procedures, ensuring consistency in work practice, providing better information and enhancing client contact with the courts. The group meets by telelink monthly and uses the Family Law Courts' Connections technology through a CSSMG community. Through this community members can discuss issues, provide reports, post blogs and upload files for discussion within the group. Ove r CSSMG was involved in several priority projects during 2011–12 including review of: view of
the Q-Matic ticketing system and implementation of a new centrally managed system t he C the intranets and the creation of a client service wiki to ensure staff have access to the most up-to- ourt date procedural information the client service induction process which has resulted in new starters receiving a comprehensive package of information and training. This package complements the overall induction program to the courts, which is available to all staff, and eFiling procedures to ensure that the most efficient use of the technology is being implemented in response to the growth in eFiling. This will be ongoing as the take-up rates continue to increase.
Other initiatives A number of other significant initiatives aimed at maximising the efficiency and resources of the courts and to help ensure improved, targeted service delivery were progressed during the year, such as the courts' ongoing response to the Gershon Review into the use of whole-of-government ICT. Initiatives such as these are reported elsewhere in this annual report, particularly in Part 6, Management and Accountability. Initiatives that have a direct focus on community engagement and improved client service delivery are reported throughout this report, including in Appendix 11 which details engagement and liaison at the local (registry) level.
1 Ellis, D. and Stuckless, N. (2006) Domestic Violence, Dove and Divorce Mediation, Family Court Review, Vol 44(4); Holtzworth- Munroe, A., Beck, C. and Applegate, A. (2010) Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC): A screening interview for intimate partner violence and abuse available in the public domain, Family Court Review, 48(4), p646-662. Kropp, P., Hart, S., Webster, C., and Eaves, D. (1995). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA). Vancouver, British Columbia: British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence; McIntosh, J. E., (2012) DOOR 1. “Parent self report screen” in McIntosh, J. E. and Ralfs, C. (2012) The Family Law DOORS Handbook, Canberra, Australian Government Attorney General’s Department.
Overview of the Court • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 41
PART 3 Report on Court Performance 44 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Report on court performance
Outcome and outputs The Family Court has one outcome and one program on which it reports in 2011–12. See Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1 The Family Court’s outcome and program PART 3
Outcome 1 As Australia’s specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters Re
Program 1.1 Provision of a Family Court port
o n C
Whilst the Court’s reporting is for the single program, this report presents information in two streams: ourt
judicial services (maintaining an environment that enables judicial officers to make determinations), Pe rforma and
registry/client services (provision of effective and efficient egistryr services). n c e This approach is considered by the Court to provide clearer reporting of the Court’s performance against its deliverables and key performance indicators, as set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011–12.
Historic performance against KPIs The Court has eight key performance indicators (KPIs) against which it is reporting in 2011–12. This is the fourth year in which they have been used. In 2008–09 and 2009–10, the Court was able to achieve five of the eight and in 2010–11 it achieved four out of the eight. This year it has achieved five of the eight. The following sections provide some commentary about performance against the KPIs to highlight challenges and strategies in place to help meet the targets. The Court aims to finalise as many, or more, cases in a year than start in a year—in other words, to have a clearance rate of at least 100 per cent. Achieving this target means the Court is able to ‘clear out’ its existing cases while new cases start, so that the backlog of cases does not increase. The Court has met or more than met this target for the past four years. The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending (active) applications less than 12 months old. The Court has increased this from last year’s 70 per cent but has again fallen just short of this target, by achieving 73 per cent. This is indicative that strategies from previous years are having some affect on improving performance. These strategies included: implementing operational reports to monitor and review the ageing cases, and judges and registry managers actively coordinating and managing the ageing cases to ensure they progress without unnecessary delays.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 45 Reserved judgment delivery times are an important focus for the Court, as these are cases that are, for all intents and purposes, completed but parties are waiting for the reasons of the judge’s final decision. The Court seeks to have 75 per cent of reserved judgments delivered within three months. Although during the year the Court achieved an overall positive result with 77 per cent of all reserved judgments being delivered within three months of the completion of hearing, some unforeseen delays at the end of year meant the reportable KPI, which is a ‘snapshot’ figure at 30 June 2012, does not reflect this. What it shows is that of the ‘backlog’ of judgments awaiting delivery at 30 June 2012, a significantly higher percentage—50 per cent—were older than three months. So the Court missed this KPI by a significant margin. This is disappointing as, while the Court met its target throughout most of the year, PART 3 PART it failed at the critical point in time for this KPI. It is expected that this was merely an aberration in the management of some complex judgments at the end of the financial year. Despite missing the KPI, the Court is confident that, through the Chief Justice, strategies implemented over the past few years are
e proving to be successful. These strategies include: c n improved system functionality to allow judges to access, in ‘real-time’, a list of their outstanding judgments to allow more effective management rforma
Pe reporting outstanding judgments to the Deputy Chief Justice and Chief Justice to allow them to
ourt liaise with the judiciary to encourage earlier delivery of judgments, and n C o
the Chief Justice ensuring judges have sufficient time out of court to complete their judgments. port
Re For the past four years the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) has not been able to meet its target to answer 80 per cent of calls within 90 seconds. The NEC provides a critical client service and is the main point for providing information about many aspects of the Court’s services (and those of the Federal Magistrates Court). Its role has expanded and, for that and other reasons, it has been unable to meet the high standard it is trying to achieve. However, in 2011–12, it made a significant improvement in call waiting times, reducing these by more than half to three minutes and 15 seconds. More information about factors that have affected performance in 2011–12 is included later in this part. The performance indicators for counter enquiries, the processing of lodged applications, email response times and complaints as a percentage of all applications were met. More detailed information about performance against the eight KPIs is contained in the following reporting.
Judicial services Judicial services include: determining cases that are complex in law, facts and parties covering specialised areas in family law, and providing national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.
In order to better understand the Court’s performance, it is necessary to understand that the Court’s caseload is predominantly applications for Final Orders, Applications in a Case, and Consent Orders. These three types of cases contribute most to the Court’s overall performance.
46 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Final orders applications are mostly cases where clients commence litigated proceedings to obtain final parenting and/or financial orders. Applications in a case are additional proceedings in which a client seeks interim orders until such time as the application for final orders is decided or interlocutory orders relating to the conduct of a case prior to a final hearing. Consent orders applications are where the clients have agreed or settled on terms relating to the parenting and/or financial issues and they are seeking the Court ratify these by way of making them PART 3 binding court orders.
Summary of performance In 2011–12, the Court achieved three judicial key performance indicators and deliverables under the Re
Portfolio Budget Statements and was unable to achieve four. However, the targets missed were only port small margins, indicating that the Court is ‘on track’ to achieving its goals.
o Table 3.1 summarises the Court’s results in delivering judicial services against the key performance n C indicators and deliverables published in the 2011–12 Portfolio Budget Statements. ourt Pe
Table 3.1 Summary of performance—judicial services rforma
Key performance Target/deliverable 2010–11 2011–12 2011–12 n
indicators and target/result result target c e deliverables achieved Deliverables Number of Final order finalisations: 3200 3500/3795 3334 finalisations per Interim order finalisations: 3800 4100/3649 3544 annum Consent order finalisations: 10 900 10 400/10 713 10 454 Other order finalisations*: 300 400/359 350 KPIs** Clearance rate 100% 100%/104% 100% Backlog indicators More than 75% of matters pending 75%/70% 73% conclusion are less than 12 months old
More than 75% of reserved judgments are waiting less than three months 75%/73% 50% after the conclusion of trial
* The Family Court 'Other Finalisations' estimates include other family law finalisations such as Hague, contempt, contraventions, child support appeals, and enforcement summons.
** The Court also has a KPI about complaints this is reported upon in Table 3.3. Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for ease of interpreting the differences between judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.3 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 47 Detailed report on performance
New workload for 2011–12 The Court continues to deal with the most complex and difficult family law cases dealing with either children or financial issues or a combination of both. In recent years there has been a shift to a higher proportion of matters having financial issues. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 show the new caseload during 2011–12.
PART 3 PART Figure 3.2 Applications filed, 2011–12*
Application Filed %
e Final orders applications 3271 18% c n Application in a case (Interim) 3609 20%
rforma Consent orders applications 10 518 59% Pe Other applications 335 2% ourt
n C Total 17 733 100% o
port Issues sought on Applications for Final Orders Re Parenting only 1151 35%
Financial only 1659 51%
Parenting and financial 427 13%
Other 34 1%
Other applications 2% Final orders applications 18%
Application in Consent orders a case (Interim) applications 20% 59%
* Does not add to 100% due to rounding.
48 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Figure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases, 2011–12
Parenting and financial 13%
Other 1% PART 3 Re port Financial only Parenting only 51% 35%
o n C ourt
Complex cases Pe The Court’s case mix is predominantly complex cases that often involve multiple issues and higher rforma levels of conflict between the parties. The parties in these cases are less likely to settle their dispute and n
therefore have a higher chance of needing a judicial decision at trial. In all the cases finalised during c e 2011–12, 12.9 per cent of them required a judge to make the final judgment. Figure 3.4 shows the changing settlement and attrition trend of the Court’s completed caseload and the case management phase where they finalised.
Figure 3.4 Case attrition and settlement rate trend in the Court’s caseload, 2007–08 to 2011–12
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Lodged First Court Pre-trial Trial Phase/ Trial Phase Commence Judgment Hearing/Conference conferencing Docket entry management Trial
Stage reached 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 49 First instance trials Parties who are unable to settle their dispute require a judge to make a decision after a trial, although frequently parties reach settlement during the trial process. Figure 3.5 provides the number of cases that are finalised at first instance trial. The Court had fewer trials in 2011–12, reflecting not only less cases coming before the Court but also, more particularly, the Court having fewer judicial officers to hear trials.
Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2007–08 to 2011–12
1500 PART 3 PART
1253
1200 1115 e
c 1038 n
869 900
rforma 779 Pe ourt 600 711 583 511
n C 397 o
463 port 300 Re
542 532 527 472 316 0 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Number of cases finalised by judgment at trial Number of cases settled at trial
Impact of reduced number of judicial officers The number of Family Court judges has steadily decreased in recent years. During 2011–12, a new judge was appointed while three retired. Similar to the previous number of years, there remain two judicial vacant positions to be filled. The decision not to fill all the retired positions combined with delays in those replacements in the past three years put pressure on the Court to maintain or increase the rate at which it can finalise cases with trials during 2011–12. Although the number of filings in the Court reduced further in 2011–12, such pressures are expected to continue into 2012–13 and beyond, with fewer judicial officers in the Court and the increasing complexity of cases that proceed to trial, meaning they take longer to finalise. Figure 3.6 shows the decrease in 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.
50 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance 60 Figure 3.6 Number of judges, 2007–08 to 2011–12 55
50
45 40
40 35 PART 3 35 30 31 30 30
25 Re port 20
2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 o n C ourt Number of finalisations Pe
During 2011–12, the Court had the following finalisation targets: rforma 3200 final order cases n c
3800 interim orders applications e 10 900 consent orders applications, and 300 other orders’ applications.
The targets were based on the Court’s historical achievements, its resource level including judges, the estimated new applications initiated each year and the number of active cases (pending). Each application type requires a different level of court resource effort to resolve. For example, final orders applications and associated interim applications require more judicial effort to resolve, whereas consent order applications are mainly administration of cases where parties agree to terms prior to filing. The Court also deals with discrete applications, such as contraventions, contempt and applications made pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Final orders During 2011–12, 3334 applications for final orders were finalised, about four per cent above the target but 12 per cent less than in 2010–11.
Applications in a case (interim) During 2011–12, 3544 interim applications (Application in a case) were finalised, about seven per cent less than the target and three per cent less than in 2010–11. Interim applications are associated with an existing case and can be dealt with relatively quickly.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 51 Consent orders During 2011–12, 10 454 consent orders applications were finalised, which is four per cent less than target and two per cent less than were finalised in 2010–11. These applications are the least complex of the Court’s workload and are usually dealt with by a registrar not a judicial officer. There was only a small decrease in consent applications filed, therefore the reduced number finalised also reflects the reduction in filings. Figures 3.7 to 3.10 display five year trends in filings, finalisations and pending (active) applications.
Figure 3.7 Final orders applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12 PART 3 PART
10 000 e
c 8000 n
rforma 6000 Pe ourt 4000 n C o
port
Re 2000 4457 6992 4015 3834 4883 3322 3692 3935 3451 3249 3795 2995 3271 3334 2995 0 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 2011−12
Filed Finalised Pending
Figure 3.8 Applications in a case, 2007–08 to 2011–12
10 000
8000
6000
4000
2000 4949 5597 1389 4313 4328 1376 4230 4073 1577 3515 3649 1382 3609 3544 1311 0 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 2011−12
Filed Finalised Pending
52 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Figure 3.9 Consent orders applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12
10 000
8000 PART 3 6000
4000 Re port 2000
o n C 678 626 614 548 504 ourt 10 410 10 575 10 105 10 164 10 518 10 454 10 705 10 625 10 682 10 713 0
2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 2011−12 Pe rforma Filed Finalised Pending n c
Figure 3.10 All applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12 e
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000 20 337 23 759 6160 18 633 19 786 5381 19 089 19 069 5873 17 791 18 516 5190 17 733 17 682 5155 0 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 2011−12
Filed Finalised Pending
Clearance rate The Court aims for a clearance rate of at least 100 per cent, that is, in a year to finalise at least the same number of cases that start. A clearance rate of at least 100 per cent or higher indicates that the Court is able to keep up with its new work and prevent an increase in its backlog of pending cases. In 2011–12, the Court achieved a clearance rate of more than 100 per cent.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 53 Figures 3.11 show five year trends in clearance rates.
Figure 3.11 All applications, clearance rates, 2007–08 to 2011–12
160%
Court is finalising more cases than are started 150%
140%
PART 3 PART 130%
120% e c
n 110%
rforma 100%
Pe Court is finalising less cases than are started
90% ourt 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 2011−12 n C o
Clearance Rate Target port Re 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 for their next court event. In particular, ageing applications that are beyond the timeliness target are a primary focus, the goal being to have them resolved as soon as practicable.
Age of pending applications All courts have a backlog of active cases, this ensures a steady pending workload to manage as cases start and finalise during each month and year. The Family Court’s goal is to ensure its pending cases are not excessively aged. If the Court can achieve a healthy distribution of old and new cases this helps ensure timely finalisation of cases. The Court deals with high conflict and complex cases, which will often take significant time to progress and obtain a decision. These types of cases are what make up the ‘older’ cases still pending in the court at any one time. The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending applications less than 12 months old. At 30 June 2012, the Court nearly met this target by achieving 73 per cent of pending applications being less than 12 months old, compared with 70 per cent at 30 June 2011. The Court continues to review each of its oldest active cases, particularly those older than 18 months, to better understand the causes of the delay and determine ways in which these could be dealt with more timely. This strategy is proving successful as highlighted by the significant reduction in the proportion of cases older than 12 months. Figures 3.12 and 3.13 shows the five year trend in the age distribution of backlog applications.
54 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Figure 3.12 Age of pending applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% PART 3
50%
40%
30% Re
20% port
o
10% n C
69% 73% 72% 70% 73% ourt 0%
2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Pe rforma % pending less than 12 months old Target (more than 75%) n c e
Figure 3.13 All applications, time pending, 2007–08 to 2011–12
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 53% 51% 50% 51% 52% 50%
40%
30% 21% 20% 19% 20% 21% 20% 16% 17% 18% 16% 20% 11% 11% 10% 12% 11% 10%
0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months
2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 2011−12
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 55 Age of reserved judgments outstanding After a trial, judges may reserve their decisions to consider the evidence and to deliver written reasons for their decisions. The Court aims to have reserved decisions delivered within three months after the trial or hearing. Its target is to have more than 75 per cent of matters awaiting a judgment to have been waiting no more than three months. The Court did not meet this target in 2011–12, with 50 per cent of judgments at 30 June 2012 less than three months old, therefore 50 per cent were more than three months. Unfortunately, this figure does not show that during the year the Court was able to achieve 77 per cent of its reserved judgments being delivered within three months (as described later in this section). Regrettably, towards the end of the year this performance could not be maintained and too PART 3 PART many judgments outstanding became unavoidably delayed as a result of judges requiring to sit more in court, which reduced their ability to complete their reserved judgments. The Chief Justice will continue to monitor these matters and devise strategies to have judges deliver the judgment in a timely manner. e c
n Figure 3.14 shows the five year trend in reserved judgments outstanding at 30 June each year, compared with the target of 75 per cent. Figure 3.15 shows the five year trend in time for reserved judgments outstanding at 30 June each year. rforma Pe Figure 3.14 Reserved judgments outstanding (pending) less than 3 months, as at 30 June ourt 2007–08 to 2011–12 n C o 100%
port 90% Re
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% 39% 54% 46% 73% 50% 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10* 2010–11* 2011–12*
Within 3 months Target
* From 2009–10 this figure covered all reserved judgments, including interlocutory judgments, whereas prior to 2009–10 the information related to final judgments only.
56 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Figure 3.15 Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 30 June 2007–08 to 2011–12
100%
90%
80% 73% 70%
60% PART 3 54% 46% 50% 50%
39% 36% 40% 32% 26% 30% 30% 25%
23% Re 20% 18% 21%
20% port 10%
10% o n C
0% ourt 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10* 2010−11* 2011−12* Pe
Within 3 months More than 3 but less than 6 months More than 6 months rforma n c
* From 2009–10 this figure covered all reserved judgments, including interlocutory judgments, whereas prior to 2009–10 the e information related to final judgments only. Percentage of cases finalised The Court aims to finalise cases within a timely manner. It is, however, mindful that family law cases are particularly difficult and emotional, and the Family Court’s decisions affect many lives, potentially for many years. Therefore, the Court also recognises the need to allow clients the time to deal with many emotions that a family breakdown and the court process can cause. It is difficult to set and achieve a timeliness target because the number of variables affecting the parties involved in each case has unquantifiable impacts on its progress towards a decision. Although the Court does not have performance indicators in the Portfolio Budget Statements about the time to finalise cases, the Court continues to internally monitor the age of its finalised cases to assist with determining resource allocation and the effort required to dispose cases.
Age of finalised applications The Court’s internal target for timeliness to finalisation is based on previous case history and its case management processes. The ability to get clients before the Court relies heavily on various factors: the Court’s case management principles, delays between court interventions, available resources, and the clients. The Court aims to finalise 75 per cent of cases within 12 months, the other 25 per cent are the most complex cases, many of which cannot be expected to be managed within that timeframe. During 2011–12, the Court finalised about 92 per cent applications within 12 months which is above the target and is steady over the past four years. 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, but also a high proportion of less complex cases such as consent order applications. Figures 3.16 and 3.17 show the five year trend in the age distribution of applications finalised.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 57 Figure 3.16 Applications finalised within 12 months, 2007–08 to 2011–12
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% PART 3 PART 40%
30% e
c 20% n
10% 86% 89% 91% 91% 92% rforma 0% Pe 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
ourt % finalised within 12 months Target (75%) n C o
port Re Figure 3.17 All applications, time to finalise, 2007–08 to 2011–12
100%
90% 84% 81% 83% 83% 76% 80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 10% 8% 7% 8% 7% 9% 7% 6% 10% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months
2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 2011−12
58 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Age of reserved judgments delivered Many judgments, especially interim or interlocutory, are delivered ex tempore, that is immediately at end of the trial or hearing. However, there are cases in which the presiding judicial officer will reserve judgment for delivery at a later date. This includes interlocutory judgments for which there has been an increased rate of demand by clients in recent years. So much so, that since 2009–10, the Court has recorded interlocutory judgments as well as final judgments in order to provide more complete reporting. (Prior to 2009–10, reserved judgment data related only to final judgments. Whilst data for earlier years is included here, it is shown for information purposes only and cannot be directly compared to the data for PART 3 2009–10 to 2011–12.) The Court aims to deliver 75 per cent of reserved judgments within three months of the completion of a trial. The Court met this target in 2011–12 as 398 (77 per cent) of the 515 reserved judgments
(excluding judgments on appeal cases) were delivered within that timeframe. Re port Figure 3.18 shows the five year trend of reserved judgments delivered within three months and Figure
o
3.19 shows time to deliver reserved judgments. n C ourt Figure 3.18 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2007–08 to 2008–09 (final judgments only) and 2009–10 to 2011–12 (all judgments) Pe rforma 100%
90% n c e 80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% 69% 70% 75% 76% 77% 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10* 2010–11* 2011–12*
Within 3 months Target
* from 2009–10 includes All judgments, 2005–09 were final judgments only
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 59 Figure 3.19 Reserved judgments, time to deliver, 2007–08 to 2008–09 (final judgments only) and 2009–10 to 2011–12 (all judgments)
600
520 515
500 52 46 454
51 72 71 400 346 62 331 49
PART 3 PART 300 48 58 50
200 e c n 100
rforma 239 233 341 396 398 0 Pe 2007−08 2008−09 2009−10* 2010−11* 2011−12*
ourt Within 3 months More than 3 but less than 6 months More than 6 months n C o
port
Re * from 2009−10 includes All judgments, 2005−09 were final judgments only
Judicial services complaints Judges are accountable through the public nature of their work, the requirement that they give reasons for their decisions, and the scrutiny of their decisions on appeal. In 2011–12 the Court received 45 complaints relating to judges or judicial registrars—28 concerning judicial conduct and 17 on the time taken in delivery of a judgment. This represented 0.25 per cent of all applications filed (17 733), under the Portfolio Budget Statements target of one per cent (when judicial services complaints and administrative complaints are combined they total 0.6 per cent). The number of judicial services complaints received by the Court in 2011–12 was less than in previous years, as shown in Figure 3.20. It also shows the breakdown between complaints about judicial conduct and complaints about delays.
60 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Figure 3.20 Total judicial services complaints, 2007–08 to 2011–12
100
77 80 74
57 60 PART 3 50 31 45 40 17
32 53
20 28 Re port
43 33 25 24 17 o 0 n C
2007−08 2008−09 2009−10 2010−11 2011−12 ourt
Delay in delivery of reserved judgment Judicial conduct Pe rforma
National coverage as appellate court n c Summary of appeal caseload e The Court’s Appeal Division deals with all Full Court appeals. The matters are from decrees of the Family Court of Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court. Table 3.2 summarises the appeals workload; more information about appeals is in Part 4 of this report.
Table 3.2 Appeal caseload 2007–08 to 2011–12
2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 % Change
Appeals filed 349 364 315 328 373 14%
Appeals finalised 318 361 345 325 332 2%
Appeals pending 216 230 201 203 273 34%
Social justice and equity impacts
Self-represented litigants (SRL) The Court monitors the proportion of self-represented litigants as one measure of the complexity of its caseload. Self-represented litigants add a layer of complexity because they need more assistance to navigate the court system and require additional help and guidance to abide by the Family Law Rules and procedures.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 61 However, the use of legal representation can indicate that the parties consider their matter to be complex and best handled by legal representatives. Figures 3.21 and 3.22 show that the proportion of the Court’s cases and trials involving legal representation have remained relatively steady for the past five years.
Figure 3.21 Proportion of litigants representation status, finalised cases, 2007–08 to 2011–12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2007–08 73% 17% 10% PART 3 PART
2008–09 74% 16% 10% e c n 2009–10 73% 17% 10% rforma
Pe 2010–11 74% 16% 10% ourt n C o 2011–12 73% 17% 10% port Re Both have representation (no SRL) One party had representative (at least one SRL) Neither have representatives (both SRL)
Figure 3.22 Proportion of litigants representation status, trials, 2007–08 to 2011–12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2007–08 64% 30% 6%
2008–09 65% 30% 5%
2009–10 65% 28% 7%
2010–11 65% 28% 7%
2011–12 68% 27% 5%
Both have representation (no SRL) One party had representative (at least one SRL) Neither have representatives (both SRL)
62 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance 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 3.23 shows that the number of notices filed has declined in the past five years, although it appears now to be steady. The proportion of cases raising issues of abuse and family violence was on the rise, although it seems to have now steadied to be around ten to 12 per cent of cases (see Figure 3.24). PART 3 Significant changes in the definition of what constitutes ‘family violence’ came into law on 7 June 2012. The Court will monitor the impacts of these changes and the affects on the filing of notices regarding risk of abuse and family violence.
Figure 3.23 Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2007–08 to 2011–12 Re port 700
o n C
600 ourt Pe
500 rforma
400 n c e
300
200
100
459 441 440 335 334 0 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Figure 3.24 Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence is filed, 2007–08 to 2011–12
14%
11.5% 11.9% 12% 10.3% 10.3% 10.2% 10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 63 Magellan cases Magellan cases involve allegations of serious physical abuse or sexual abuse of a child and undergo special case management. When a Magellan case is identified, it is managed by a small team consisting of a judge, a registrar and a family consultant. Magellan case management relies on collaborative and highly coordinated processes and procedures. A crucial aspect is strong interagency coordination, in particular with state and territory child protection agencies. This ensures that problems are dealt with efficiently and that high-quality information is shared. An independent children’s lawyer is appointed in every Magellan case, for which legal aid is uncapped. Typically, a Magellan case is one where a notice of abuse or family violence is filed, although not all PART 3 PART notices will necessarily result in the case being classified as a Magellan matter. Figure 3.25 details the number of Magellan cases commenced and finalised in the past five years. e c
n Figure 3.25 Magellan cases, 2007–08 to 2011–12
300 rforma Pe 250 ourt n C o 200 port
Re 150
100
50
197 199 268 191 264 213 165 228 160 149 0 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010-–11 2011–12
Magellan commenced Magellan finalised
64 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Registry and National Enquiry Centre services Registry services are provided to people who wish to file an application or are considering filing an application at the Family Law Courts (comprising the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court). Registry services include: provision of effective support to the Family Law Courts family law telephone and
referral services, and PART 3 family law document processing.
They are complemented by the Re services of the National Enquiry port
Centre (NEC), to which all 1300 o telephone calls go automatically n C and all emails in the first instance, ourt as well as follow up enquiries Pe from clients about their Family rforma Court or Federal Magistrates Registry and enquiry services provide effective support. Court files. n c e
Summary of performance Family law registries and the NEC provided a high level of service to clients and other users of the Family Law Courts and to judges and federal magistrates during 2011–12. They responded to increased demand—so more counter enquiries, more emails and more phone calls—and had improved performance in meeting deliverables and performance indicators. They met all three client services Portfolio Budget Statement deliverables related to counter, email and telephone enquiries. Three of the four key performance indicators (KPI) were also met. The fourth KPI, with a target of 80 per cent of telephone calls to the NEC being answered in 90 seconds, was not met, however a significant improvement was made in the average times that callers waited on line for their calls to be taken, compared with 2010–11. A number of factors contributed to this, including the implementation of an Interactive Voice Responsive system that helps direct callers more effectively, including to other sources of information, and improved support for staff, which enables them to more quickly respond to callers. The KPI for complaints as a percentage of total applications was met this year, unlike last year. More detailed reporting of the results follows. Table 3.3 summarises the performance of the various client services functions of the Court against PBS key performance indicators and deliverables. Please note the data in this table relates to services provided for both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court by the family law registries and the NEC, with the exception of the complaints KPI, which is Family Court specific.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 65 Table 3.3 Summary of performance—client services
Key performance Target/deliverable 2010–11 2011–12 2011–12 indicators and target/result result target deliverables achieved
Deliverables Counter enquiries 161 800 counter enquiries handled 159 500/150 156 187 665 Telephone enquiries* 253 800 telephone enquiries 359 800/378 420 267 995
PART 3 PART Email enquiries 53 900 email enquiries 53 200/50 052 83 700* KPIs
75% of all counter enquiries are served Counter enquiries 75%/97% 88% e
c within 20 minutes n Time taken to process 75% of applications lodged are 75%/97% 97% applications lodged processed within two working days rforma
Pe NEC telephone calls 80% of calls answered within 80%/32% 33%
ourt answered 90 seconds n C o
80% of emails answered within two Email response times 80%/98% 100% days port
Re Complaints—1% of total applications Complaints 1%/2% 0.6%** received
* This figure covers emails sent in response to emails received by the courts, also emails sent by the Court as part of responding to telephone callers. See further information in the detailed reporting about the NEC which highlights the increasing use and value of emails, in part driven by the high usage of smart phones, which give people better access to emails.
** This figure includes complaints about the administration of the Court and judicial services complaints, for which detailed information is reported elsewhere in this Part. Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for greater transparency in its reporting for judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.1 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.
66 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Detailed report on performance
Family law registries There are 19 family law registries. These are in every state and territory (except Western Australia). Family law registries provide registry services to both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court and are staffed permanently. The key functions of the registries are to: provide information and advice about court procedures, services and forms, external options and PART 3 referrals to community organisations that enable clients to take informed and appropriate action ensure that available information is provided in an accurate and timely fashion to support the best outcome through file management and quality assurance—from the initiation of proceedings, to hearing and to archiving Re
make the best use of court time by facilitating an orderly secure flow of clients, files and exhibits port
o
enhance community confidence and respect by responding to clients’ needs and assisting with n C
making the court experience a more positive one ourt
progress cases by providing administrative services in accordance with court processes and to Pe
manage external relationships to assist with the resolution of cases rforma schedule and prioritise matters for hearing and intervention to achieve the earliest resolution or n c
determination e monitor and control the flow of cases, and assist in the evaluation of caseloads by reporting on trends and exceptions to facilitate improvements in processes and allocation of resources.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 67 PART 3 PART e c n rforma Pe ourt n C o The registries dealt with an increased number of counter enquiries in 2011–12. port
Re Counter enquiries Staff working on the counters in family law registries handle general enquiries, lodge documents relating to proceedings, provide copies of documents and/or orders and facilitate the viewing of court files and subpoenas. Client service staff provided an efficient and effective service when dealing with litigants in person and the legal profession face-to-face at registry counters across Australia (except Western Australia). During 2011–12, the family law registries continued to provide a high level of service and met noticeably increased volumes of counter enquiries. As detailed in Table 3.3, it is estimated that the registries dealt with 187 665 counter enquiries in 2011–12 from clients or other people seeking information face-to-face. This compared to 150 156 in 2010–11. In fact, the actual numbers would have exceeded this, as in a number of the smaller registries facilities are not available for counting of enquiries. In 2011–12, an estimated 90 per cent of clients were served within 20 minutes, against a target of 75 per cent. This is down on the estimated figure for 2010–11.
Document processing Family law registries receive and process applications lodged at registry counters and in the mail. The service target of 75 per cent being processed within two working days of receipt was significantly exceeded (97 per cent of applications were processed within that timeframe, compared to 97 per cent in 2010–11).
68 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance National Enquiry Centre (NEC)
Telephone and email enquiry and referral services The NEC provides a wide range of enquiry and support services for first instance enquiries and enquiries from clients related to their Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court files. Through the courts’ 1300 telephone number all calls automatically go to the NEC, as do emails using the address [email protected]. The NEC also prints and posts all divorce orders made by the two courts (there were 85 532 in 2011–12). PART 3 In addition, it is also the first point of contact for: the Family Law Courts after hours service, and the Commonwealth Courts Portal (including first level help-desk technical support) to the Family Law Courts, the Family Court of Western Australia and Federal Court of Australia. (See Part 2 of this Re port report for detailed reporting on the Commonwealth Courts Portal.)
o n C
In 2011–12, the NEC made significant performance improvements compared with 2010–11. A key factor ourt was the introduction of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system in October 2011. It provides a second tier for helping to direct callers to the most effective and efficient service for their particular needs, being Pe rforma in addition to the initial recorded message.
If they do not choose to go elsewhere for information at that initial stage, the IVR gives options for n c more specific direction of calls, including, for example, to divert callers to staff with particular skill sets. e In addition to the IVR, the NEC embraced the courts’ use of the Connections technology (see Part 2 for more detail on this), which improved the efficiency of staff with the electronic sharing of information and improved capability to email clients immediately with relevant information and links. There was an 82 per cent increase in the volume of emails sent in 2011–12 compared with 2010–11. This also reflects how the NEC’s approaches to caller needs evolved during the year, particularly in response to the greatly increased use of emails and smart phones in the community. These improvements not only had benefits for clients, lawyers and others who contact the courts, but also there were consequential benefits for the costs of the NEC. For example, the reduced times people spent on hold, waiting to be answered resulted in significant reductions in the monthly telephone bills attributable to the 1300 number. Postage costs also benefited from the increased use of email. These improvements mean that in 2011–12, the NEC met two of its three PBS deliverables (for telephone enquiries served and email responses made). In summary, in 2011–12 the NEC: had a total of 399 724 telephone calls, of which: –– 292 002 remained on line waiting to talk to a staff member and, of these, 267 995 (or 92 per cent) were served, compared with 245 052 (or 61 per cent of those waiting to be served) in 2010–11. Thus, there was a nine per cent improvement in the percentage of calls actually served/answered between the two years and by individual staff members, a 35 per cent increase in the number of calls taken
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 69 had abandonments as follows at the three possible stages: –– 79 093 (20 per cent) were abandoned during the initial pre-recorded message stage. Whilst it is not possible to measure, it is anticipated many of these are ‘good’ abandonments in that the callers are redirected to a better source of information for their needs as a result of the information they hear. The message provides detailed information about other ways in which clients can get information, forms etc such as via the Commonwealth Courts Portal or the Family Law Courts website –– 28 629 (seven per cent) were abandoned during the IVR, again it is likely many of these calls are ‘good’ abandonments given the IVR provides callers with further options for assistance PART 3 PART –– 26 975 (6.7 per cent) were abandoned while the callers were in the queue waiting for their call to be answered. Whilst higher than the courts would like, it compares favourably with 2010–11 when 94 217 (24 per cent) were abandoned at this point e c n transferred 5760 (one per cent) calls to a family law registry, when the caller needed specific information unavailable to the NEC staff rforma
Pe sent 83 700 emails in response to either email enquiries or in following up telephone enquiries, compared with 45 853 in 2010–11, and ourt n C o
reprinted 6006 divorces on request (a 14 per cent increase on the 5177 in 2010–11).
port The NEC did not achieve against the deliverable for the time taken to answer calls. The target is for 80 Re per cent of calls to be answered in 90 seconds. In 2011–12, the NEC answered 88 931 calls within 90 seconds, taking an average of three minutes and 15 seconds for calls to be answered. This time was halved compared to 2010–11. Key factors in achieving this improvement included the IVR and the use of the Connections technology, which provides NEC staff with better access to the information needed to respond more quickly and also provides them with better capability for sending emails in response to telephone calls. Key factors that contributed to the NEC’s inability to meet the deliverable include: the growth in the total volume of calls a significant increase in email demand inwards and outwards—in two years the number of emails sent by the NEC has more than tripled (24 513 in 2009–10 to 83 700 in 2011–12), and peaks in demand when the courts change processes.
Table 3.4 summarises the NEC’s performance against internal benchmarks.
Table 3.4 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2008–09 to 2011–12
Performance indicators and internal targets 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Less than 5% of calls abandoned when queued 2% 18% 24% 8%
Less than 10% of calls transferred to a registry 5% 4% 2% 1%
70 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance Client feedback and complaints management The Family Court is committed to responding effectively to feedback and complaints, and to complying with Australian Standard AS 4269–1995 (Complaints handling) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Good Practice Guide for Effective Complaint Handling. The Court’s client feedback management system allows all areas of the Court to efficiently and consistently manage complaints and client feedback, while also identifying clients’ issues and monitoring trends. PART 3 The Court has: a complaints and feedback policy a judicial complaints procedure, and Re
a complaints and feedback fact sheet. port
o The judicial complaints procedure and the fact sheet explain how clients can make a complaint or provide n C feedback to the Court. These can be found on the Family Court website www.familycourt.gov.au and ourt accessed via the feedback link in the 'Quick Links' section of the home-page. Pe rforma Clients can address complaints or feedback to the Court in writing, orally, or by email to [email protected]. Complaints made about judicial delays or judicial conduct will be n c
referred to the Judicial Complaints Adviser. e The Court aims to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days and, where possible, to send a formal response within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint. During 2011–12, the Family Court recorded: 65 complaints about administrative matters. These are complaints relating to family law registries, which service both the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, and include complaints about court administrative procedures and processes, staff personal conduct, privacy, security and the client feedback process 17 complaints about judicial delays and 28 about judicial conduct. These matters are referred to the Judicial Complaints Advisor in the Chambers of the Deputy Chief Justice, and nine compliments.
At 65, the number of administrative complaints represented 0.36 per cent of all applications received. Combined with 45 judicial complaints (see the section ‘Judicial services complaints’ for more detail) complaints represented 0.6 per cent of applications received, thus achieving against the KPI (for complaints to be no more than one per cent of applications received). Figure 3.26 provides a breakdown across 10 categories of administrative complaints issues in 2012–12. During 2011–12, the Court also recorded 132 complaints about such matters as family law legislation, matters in other jurisdictions, family assessments and reports prepared by family consultants for judicial proceedings, and the conduct and outcomes of judicial proceedings. These are matters that may not be addressed by the administration of the Court as they concern matters of law reform on the one hand, and the conduct of specific judicial proceedings on the other.
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 71 Figure 3.26 Administration complaints issues 2011–12
30
25
20
15 PART 3 PART 10
5 e c
n 15 3 3 0 0 0 6 28 9 1 0 Administrative Procedural Privacy Security Transcripts Client Personal Personal Personal Family Court
rforma process information feedback conduct admin conduct family conduct policy process staff consultant registrar Pe ourt
n C o As a result of client feedback during 2011–12, aside from issues being resolved for clients on an
port individual basis, registries reviewed staff training on mail-out procedures and correspondence
Re management, and the National Enquiry Centre introduced an extra step to improve the procedure around communication regarding notification of change of contact details for telephone hearings.
72 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Report on Court Performance PART 3 Re port
o n C ourt Pe rforma n c e
Report on Court Performance • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 73
PART 4 Appeals 76 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • 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 2012, the judges assigned to the Appeal Division were:
Justice Finn PART 4 Justice Coleman Justice May
Justice Thackray (Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia) A pp e Justice Strickland als Justice Ainslie-Wallace.
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia is made up of three or more judges of the Court; the majority must be members of the Appeal Division (Family Law Act 1975 ss 4 and 21A).
Appeals The appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court is defined in Part X of the Family Law Act, in Part VIII of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and Part 7 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. An appeal lies to the Full Court from a decree of the Family Court at first instance under the Family Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts. An appeal also lies to the Full Court of the Family Court from a decree of the Family Court of Western Australia; or the Supreme Court of a state or a territory, constituted by a single judge exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts. An appeal also lies to the Family Court of Australia from a decree of the Federal Magistrates Court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) the Child Support Acts. The jurisdiction of the Court in relation to such appeals is to be exercised by a Full Court unless the Chief Justice considers it appropriate for a single judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the court in relation to such an appeal (s 94AAA(3)).
Appeals • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 77 Full Court sittings During 2011–12, the Full Court sat for 23 weeks (including some part weeks). Appeals are also heard by way of video-link from time to time.
Administration of appeals Appeals are administered by an Appeals Registrar in three areas: Northern—Queensland, northern New South Wales and Northern Territory Eastern—eastern, western and southern New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory Southern—Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.
Western Australia is separately administered by a Registrar of the Family Court of Western Australia. PART 4 PART
Trend in appeals The number of appeals filed in 2011–12 increased by 14 per cent from 328 to 373. In the same period als e the number of appeals finalised increased by two per cent from 325 to 332. The nett affect is that pp A pending (active) cases increased to 273, an increase of 34 per cent. It should be noted that during the year it became apparent that cases from Western Australia were understated in previous years due to incomplete data entry. This has largely accounted for increases in 2011–12. As a result, changes in figures from last year should be interpreted with some caution. There were 14 per cent more appeals from the Federal Magistrates Court whilst appeals from the Family Court also rose by 13 per cent. Many appeals from the Federal Magistrates Court are dealt with by a single judge and do not require the convening of a bench of three or more judges. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 show the trend in appeal notices filed, finalised and pending during the last five financial years.
78 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Appeals Table 4.1 Notice of appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction, 2007–08 to 2011–12
% change from 2010–11 to 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2011–12 Filed Family Court of Australia 153 160 113 135 153 13% Federal Magistrates Court 196 204 202 193 220 14% Appeals filed 349 364 315 328 373 14% Per cent from Family Court of Australia 44% 44% 36% 41% 41% 0% Per cent from Federal Magistrates Court 56% 56% 64% 59% 59% 0% PART 4 Finalised Family Court of Australia 171 170 144 129 138 7% Federal Magistrates Court 147 191 201 196 194 -1% Appeals finalised 318 361 345 325 332 2% A
Per cent from Family Court of Australia 54% 47% 42% 40% 42% 2% pp e
Per cent from Federal Magistrates Court 46% 53% 58% 60% 58% -2% als Pending Family Court of Australia 121 124 93 97 132 36% Federal Magistrates Court 95 106 108 106 141 33% Appeals pending 216 230 201 203 273 34% Per cent from Family Court of Australia 56% 54% 46% 48% 48% 1%* Per cent from Federal Magistrates Court 44% 46% 54% 52% 52% -1%*
* Rounded to whole number.
Figure 4.1 Notice of appeals, 2007–08 to 2011–12
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50 201 325 203 349 318 216 364 361 230 315 345 328 373 332 273 0 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Filed Finalised Outstanding/Pending
The proportion of Family Law Court appeals arising from decrees of the Family Court remained steady at 41 per cent in 2011–12.
Appeals • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 79 Figure 4.2 shows the proportion of appeal filings resulting from a decree made either in the Federal Magistrates Court or in the Family Court.
Figure 4.2 Proportion of notice of appeals filed by jurisdiction of decree, 2007–08 to 2011–12
70% 64% 59% 59% 60% 56% 56%
50% 44% 44% 41% 41% 40% 36%
30% PART 4 PART 20%
10% als e 0% pp
A 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Family Court of Australia Federal Magistrates Court
The number of appeals that were allowed or dismissed increased by four per cent in 2011–12.
The total number of appeals withdrawn or abandoned fell by one per cent from 147 to 146. Withdrawn applications increased from 57 to 65 while abandoned applications fell from 90 to 81. 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, 2007–08 to 2011–12
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 95 90 69 87 39 89 94 64 84 52 86 77 57 91 65 81 123 114 123 101 0 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn Abandoned
80 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Appeals Figure 4.4 Proportion of Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 2007–08 to 2011–12
100%
12% 24% 90% 18% 25% 28% 80% 27% 70% 26% 15% 20% 18% 60%
50% 22% 24% 25% 24% 27%
40% PART 4
30%
20% 29% 39% 36% 32% 31% 10% A pp
0% e als 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn Abandoned
Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.
Appeal demographics The historical trend in gender remains stable: males were more likely to lodge appeals than females (Figure 4.5)
Figure 4.5 Proportion of appellants by gender, 2007–08 to 2011–12
100% 9% 8% 11% 6% 6% 90%
80% 39% 42% 39% 41% 38% 70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 52% 50% 50% 53% 56%
20%
10%
0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Male Female Other
Note: Figures may not add to 100%. This is due to rounding only.
Appeals • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 81 Figure 4.6 shows a change in the trend towards self-representation. In 2011–12, the proportion of self-represented appellants remained steady at 38 per cent.
Figure 4.6 Proportion of appellants’ representation status, 2007–08 to 2011–12
70% 61% 62% 62% 56% 60% 53%
50%
47% 40% 44% 39% 38% 38% 30% PART 4 PART
20%
10% als e pp A 0% 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Represented Self represented
Age of finalised appeals In 2011–12, the Court finalised 78 per cent of appeals within 12 months (82 per cent in 2010–11). Figure 4.7 shows the time taken to finalise appeals over the past five years.
Figure 4.7 Months to finalise appeals, 2007–08 to 2011–12
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5% 2% 2% 30% 37% 31% 34% 35% 33% 23% 23% 24% 20% 20% 22% 20% 24% 23% 13% 13% 22% 16% 21% 0% 4% 5% 4% 0–3 months 3–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months
2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
82 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Appeals Appeals to the High Court of Australia Section 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that an appeal does not lie to the High Court from a decree of a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, whether original or appellate, except by special leave of the High Court. During 2011–12, six applications for special leave to appeal were filed in the High Court from judgments of the Family Court. During 2011–12, 10 applications for special leave were determined by the High Court and one was granted and nine were refused. PART 4 A pp e als
Appeals • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 83
PART 5 Significant and Noteworthy Judgments 86 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Significant and Noteworthy Judgments Significant and noteworthy judgments
In 2011–12, 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 that deals with the most complex and serious family law cases. A selection of the 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 s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Virtually all judgments, after anonymisation, are published in full text on the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) website. There is a link to the AustLII site from the Court’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au). Recent decisions are also 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 highlighted in the media and demonstrates the PART 5 commitment of the Court to being open and accountable for its judgments.
Stanford & Stanford Signi [2011] FamCAFC 208—(21 October 2011) per Bryant CJ, May and Moncrieff JJ f i Family law—appeal—property ca n t
a
The Full Court of the Family Court (Bryant CJ, May and Moncrieff JJ) sitting at Perth was asked to n d consider an appeal from orders of a magistrate that raised the question of whether, and if so, in what Not circumstances, the Court should make an order for property settlement pursuant to s 79 of the Family ew
Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) where a marriage is still intact but where a physical separation has been ort h
forced upon the parties by reason of one of the parties’ health. The parties were both aged and the y J wife was required to be in a high-care nursing home because of her frailty, both physical and mental. ud g
The husband wished to remain in the matrimonial home, which was within his ability. The wife’s family m en
sought orders that the matrimonial home be sold so that money could be spent on her care. ts The magistrate dealt with the case in two discrete parts, determining first whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, and second whether the Court should exercise the jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that aside from the forced separation, the marriage was still intact. The learned magistrate answered both questions in the affirmative and made final property orders. Those orders then became the subject of appeal before the Full Court. In determining the appeal, the Full Court emphasised that the question is not whether the Court will exercise its jurisdiction as some preliminary question, but whether it is just and equitable to make an order. Once the Court has established that it has jurisdiction to make an order, it must proceed to consider the relevant matters under s 79, including the matters under s 79(4) and s 75(2), when determining whether or not to make a particular order, or whether to dismiss the application making no order at all. The Full Court noted that in this case, one of the matters relevant to the exercise of discretion under s 75(2)(o) is the fact that the parties’ marriage had not come to an end. Relevant too was a consideration of the overall justice and equity of making an order in favour of one of the parties. Section 79 gives the Court power
Significant and Noteworthy Judgments • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 87 to make “such order as it considers appropriate”, including “altering the interests of the parties to the marriage in the property”. The Full Court noted that what is just and equitable having regard to the matters in s 79(4) and s 75(2) may include, for example, the fact that the parties are not separated other than in a physical sense. Those facts may be important in a particular case, under the wide rubric of what is “just and equitable”. The Full Court noted this reasoning is consistent with the decision of the majority in Sterling & Sterling2 [2000] FamCA 1150, and agreed with Kay J’s formulation (at [28]) that the specific issue is: whether within the provisions of s 79(1) it is appropriate to make an order where the marriage has not broken down, especially where such an order could not be seen to be for the benefit of the party who seeks the making of the order. A subsidiary question that needs to be asked is whether it is in all the circumstances just and equitable to make the order. (original emphasis) The Full Court noted it must also be remembered that the Court, if not finally determining a property application, has power to make an interim order under s 80 and can also make a maintenance order, either periodic or lump sum, rather than a final order if that is thought to be appropriate. The Full Court also found the magistrate’s findings were against the evidence and the weight of the PART 5 PART evidence and that it was difficult to ascertain the reason why the magistrate came to her conclusion given that the wife did not have a need for a property settlement, as such, and that her reasonable needs could be met in other ways, particularly by maintenance. In considering what was just and equitable under s 79
ts and s 75(2), the magistrate was required to consider the effect of these orders on the husband and the fact en
m that it was an intact marriage. g
ud Other than the forced separation of the parties by virtue of the wife being in a nursing home, the husband J y
h wished to remain in the home that had been the parties’ home for in excess of 35 years. The Full Court
ort observed there were many aspects of the application that did not require immediately making a final order
ew to permanently alter the interests of the parties in their property, particularly where such final order would Not require the husband to leave the home in which he was still residing. d n a
t As the Full Court determined to allow the appeal, and in light of the possible necessity of a re-hearing, n their Honours were reluctant to comment at length in relation to the grounds of appeal and associated ca i f submissions, save as to convey that the rights of each party remain, including the right that property held
Signi by them be divided pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Having determined the appeal should succeed on a number of grounds, the Full Court set aside certain orders made by the magistrate and granted the parties cost certificates. The Full Court made some important concluding observations, including that, as Kay J observed in Sterling, the Court will be required to deal with cases such as this with increasing frequency. The Full Court expressed the view that it is necessary for such applications to be considered fully having regard to the matters in s 79 and s 75(2) and without any predetermination as to whether or not the Court would exercise its discretion at all. The Full Court emphasised, too, that there is no requirement in such cases that the Court make final orders for property settlement that would permanently alter the financial interests of the parties, especially when the marriage itself is not at an end. Instead, if the justice and equity of the case requires it, there are a number of provisions in the Act which give the Court power to make interim orders, to make orders for maintenance and to adjourn the proceedings rather than to determine them on a final basis.
2 The High Court has granted special leave appeal.
88 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Significant and Noteworthy Judgments State Central Authority & Camden
[2012] FamCAFC 45—(22 March 2012) per Finn, Strickland and Forrest JJ
Family law—child abduction—Hague Convention—habitual residence—appeal Camden provides guidance on the legal test for habitual residence under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) (“the regulations”). Factually, the issue in this case was whether the parties had taken up habitual residence in the United Kingdom (“UK”), given that they had only emigrated from Australia a mere ten months earlier. The mother was an Australian citizen by birth and the father a permanent resident, having moved to Australia from the UK. In April 2006, the parties were wed in Australia, where they remained for a further four years. The two children of the marriage were born in Australia during this time. On 20 July 2010, the family migrated to the UK so that the children could get to know the father’s parents and extended family. The first instance judge found that the mother had difficulties after the move and it was doubtful the mother had integrated into life in the UK. Her Honour also found that the family had trouble establishing a PART 5 stable financial foothold in their new country. On Monday 9 May 2011, the father revealed that he wanted a divorce. Three days later, on Thursday 12 May 2011, the mother left for Australia with the children. The father, via the State Central Authority, sought the return of the children to the UK for the purposes of having the parenting dispute resolved in that country. Signi The first instance judge held that the parties had not established habitual residence in the UK, and f i therefore the regulations did not require the return of the children because their removal to Australia was ca n t
not wrongful. The State Central Authority appealed. a n d
On appeal, the Full Court of the Family Court (Finn, Strickland and Forrest JJ) observed that the High Court Not
authoritatively settled the principles governing an assessment of habitual residence in the decision of LK ew v Director-General, Department of Community Services (2009) FLC 93-397. The Full Court clarified that ort
Zotkiewicz & Commissioner of Police (No 2) (2011) FLC 93-472 did not establish a new, two-limbed test in h y J place of that enunciated in LK, and to the extent that Zotkiewicz applied a “twofold” analysis, it was an ud g
analytical methodology factually confined to that case only (at [53]). What LK required was a “broad factual m enquiry” (at [57]) directed to whether there is a connection between the children and the alleged country en ts of habitual residence (at [22]). As the judge had approached the question of habitual residence in two stages, the Full Court held that her Honour had fallen into error. The Full Court found that after making the ”very significant” finding that the parties had a settled, shared intention to make a new life in the UK, her Honour then focussed “in an apparently singularly determinative manner” on the mother’s social integration and the couple’s financial viability in the UK (at [54]). In this way, her Honour erred in attributing excess weight to two discrete factors and insufficient weight to other relevant findings, such as the shared intention, the mother’s full-time employment in the UK and the purchase of a car and household goods for the parties’ UK residence. The Full Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for rehearing.
Significant and Noteworthy Judgments • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 89 Martin & Newton
[2011] FamCAFC 233—(9 December 2011) per Bryant CJ, Strickland and Thackray JJ
Family law—appeal—property—moral obligation to use property in a certain way In Martin & Newton, the appellant husband was sole director and shareholder of a company involved in medical research and the provision of medical services. The company assets, valued at $2,796,026, were constituted by philanthropic and pharmaceutical industry grants in support of the company’s internationally-renowned research. One of the issues considered by the Full Court of the Family Court was whether the company assets should be treated as property within the marital pool, given that the husband had a “moral obligation” to direct those funds towards the company’s research. At first instance, the judge found that the company assets were at the disposal of the husband and within his control, that the husband was under no specific legal obligation to use the funds in any way other than as he elected, and that there could be no third party claim against the funds recognisable at law. His Honour went on to conclude that the company assets formed part of the husband’s personal assets, in part because of the mingling by the husband of company and personal finances. PART 5 PART In total, the husband’s assets were found to amount to $4,271,977 (inclusive of $1,084,709 superannuation). The wife’s assets were worth $2,028,740 (inclusive of $45,919 superannuation). His Honour subtracted the superannuation from each of the individual pools and combined the residual ts
en amounts to form a collective pool of $5,170,089. This final pool was distributed 37.5 per cent to the m
g husband and 62.5 per cent to the wife on the basis that contributions were equal but the wife was ud
J entitled to a s 75(2) spousal maintenance adjustment of 12.5 per cent. Each of the parties retained their y
h own superannuation, this having been factored in as part of the s 75(2) adjustment. ort On appeal, the husband argued, inter alia, that the company assets should not have been deemed to ew form part of his personal asset pool available for distribution between the parties. He asserted that he Not
d
n was under a legal and/or moral obligation to direct those funds to his company’s research activities. a
t
n In their joint judgment, Bryant CJ and Thackray J accepted the premise that “the legislative scheme… is ca i
f cast sufficiently widely to allow the court to take account of moral obligations… [where] we use ‘moral’ in its normative, rather than its descriptive sense” (at [226]). Their Honours went on to say at [227] that: Signi … it would offend justice and equity if funds provided by a third party for a public benevolent purpose were to be regarded as available for distribution in a settlement between a husband and wife merely because the donor had not ensured the donation was accompanied by sufficient legal safeguards to guarantee it was expended on the intended purpose. This means that where a party has a moral obligation to utilise funds in a certain way, even absent a legal obligation, those funds might be cordoned off from the parties’ collective assets. However, the bare existence of a moral obligation will not be sufficient to ensure that the funds will be withheld from distribution. The court must look to the “probability of the [party] carrying out [their] stated intention” of using the funds in accordance with their moral obligation (at [224]). Their Honours opined that where funds would not be directed to their intended purpose, those funds “could properly be treated in the same way as any other assets” (at [228]). Bryant CJ and Thackray J found that while the first instance judge had accepted the existence of a moral obligation to use the funds for research, his Honour had not gone on to assess the probability that the
90 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Significant and Noteworthy Judgments husband would actually deploy them for this purpose (at [229]). Their Honours acknowledged that “it might be suggested it was implicit in the trial Judge’s reasons that he had formed such a poor view of the husband that he did not accept the … company money would be spent on research”. However, their Honours were ultimately unable to conclude that the necessary finding had been made (at [244]). In their Honours’ view, it appeared that the judge’s decision to coalesce company funds into the matrimonial pool was based entirely on “rejection of the proposition that the husband had a contractual obligation to spend the money on research” (at [244]). In their Honours’ opinion, this constituted appellable error. Strickland J also sat on the Full Court in this matter. His Honour arrived at the same result as Bryant CJ and Thackray J, but for different reasons. On the prospect of moral obligations informing the identification of matrimonial property, his Honour was in firm dissent: “For my part once a conclusion is made that the assets are the property of the husband and he can use those funds as he pleases, that is the end of the matter” (at [353]). Thus, as the husband held both legal and beneficial interest in the company assets, “the question of whether a moral obligation exists and whether or not that obligation is likely to be carried out cannot prevent a finding that the … assets were property available for distribution between the parties” (at [358]). His Honour opined that the proper time for evaluating the husband’s PART 5 moral obligations, and the likelihood of those obligations being fulfilled, was as part of a s 75(2)(o) analysis, as a fact or circumstance which the justice of the case requires to be taken into account (at [365]).
The appeal was unanimously allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. Signi f i ca n t
a n d
Not ew ort h y J ud g m en ts
Significant and Noteworthy Judgments • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 91 McGregor & McGregor
[2012] FamCAFC 69—(28 May 2012) per Bryant CJ, Faulks DCJ and Ainslie-Wallace J
Family law—appeal—evidence—practice and procedure—where federal magistrate relied upon academic literature as a basis for orders In McGregor, the Full Court of the Family Court (Bryant CJ, Faulks DCJ and Ainslie-Wallace J) upheld the appeal of the appellant father against parenting and property orders made in the Federal Magistrates Court. In respect of the parenting orders, the appeal turned on the use of academic literature by the federal magistrate at first instance. His Honour had relied heavily upon academic articles examining parental alienation, or “alienation by one parent of the other from their children”, as a basis for concluding that the matter before his Honour was “a classic case of parental alienation perpetuated by the husband against the wife” (first instance judgment, at [38] and [41]). The Full Court recognised that his Honour’s findings of fact regarding behaviours that the father encouraged in the parties’ three children were, in the main, not impugned on appeal. However, his Honour had then gone on to evaluate those findings against criteria for the “bona fide identification of PART 5 PART parental alienation”, as described in a particular academic work (first instance judgment, at [39]). That academic work, and others referred to by his Honour, were not the subject of evidence before the Court. The Full Court found that this academic literature underpinned his Honour’s finding that the father had
ts alienated the children from the mother. The Full Court held that the father had been denied procedural en
m fairness because the academic materials were not properly admitted into evidence, depriving the father g of the opportunity to make submissions in reply. ud J y
h Having thus observed that his Honour did not adopt the academic materials as evidence in an
ort appropriate way, the Full Court offered guidance on the proper approach to incorporating published ew literature as extrinsic evidence in a parenting case. Not
d
n Their Honours first observed that such materials would rarely constitute information capable of being a
t admitted by way of judicial notice pursuant to s 144 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Evidence n
ca Act”), despite the “common misapplication” of the section by parties in pursuit of this end. Section i f 144 is usually inapplicable in respect of “social sciences issues in parenting proceedings” because they
Signi are typically the subject of “various credible schools of thought” (at [68], [70]). That was indeed the situation in this case, where the family report writer had opined that recent research findings on parental alienation appeared to diverge from those articulated by his Honour. Importantly, their Honours noted that even if s 144 is used as a basis to admit evidence as incontrovertible, it does not abrogate the need to afford procedural fairness to the parties. By s 144(4), a judge must still allow parties to make submissions and refer to relevant information in such a way as to ensure that the parties are not unfairly prejudiced by adoption of the evidence. In general, their Honours explained, the correct approach to adopting academic literature is as opinion evidence grounded in specialised knowledge (following s 79 of the Evidence Act). However, in child- related proceedings, s 69ZT(1) of Division 12A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) excludes the operation of the opinion evidence provisions in the Evidence Act, including s 79. This gives rise to the “confusing” result that, in child-related proceedings, “an opinion can be admitted to prove the existence of a fact, and there is no requirement that the opinion-giver have any specialised knowledge
92 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Significant and Noteworthy Judgments or expertise” (at [85], [86]). Consequently, if “evidence of an opinion is to sought to be tendered, a judge must carefully address the admission of such opinion evidence and the weight to be afforded it” (at [88]). This means that the judge must first satisfy him or herself that the opinion evidence sought to be tendered is both relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, pursuant to ss 55 and 135 of the Evidence Act (which are not excluded under s 69ZT(1), and which therefore remain applicable). If the evidence is thus found to be admissible, the judge must then evaluate the appropriate weight to give it. In this case, the Full Court held at [118] that: The article …, if tendered as opinion evidence under s 69ZT(1), would have required his Honour to consider whether to exclude the evidence under either s 55 or s 135, and if not, to consider what weight to give it. However, as no attempt was made to tender the … article, none of the above matters was considered by his Honour and, most importantly for the purpose of this appeal, his Honour failed to give the other party the opportunity to make submissions about receiving it and, if received, what weight to accord it. As the Full Court allowed the appeal, the matter was remitted for rehearing by another federal PART 5 magistrate. Signi f i ca n t
a n d
Not ew ort h y J ud g m en ts
Significant and Noteworthy Judgments • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 93
PART 6 Management and Accountability 96 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Corporate governance
This section reports on aspects of the Family Court of Australia’s corporate governance arrangements. The Chief Justice, assisted by the Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the Court. Under the Constitution, judicial power is vested in judges who administer that power in courts. The Family Law Act defines the Court as being a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and the judges appointed to that court. By delegation from the Chief Justice, case management judges assist in administering judicial functions in particular areas, such as case management. The Family Court is autonomously governed, that is, the judiciary has the responsibility for the administration of the Court. To enable the effective and efficient administration of justice, the judiciary needs support to deal with its workload. Non-judicial court employees, public servants accountable to the executive government through the Chief Executive Officer, provide that support. The Chief Executive Officer’s powers are broad, although subject to directions from the Chief Justice. The Chief Executive Officer holds the responsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealth financial management and public service legislation. PART 6 Figure 6.1 shows the organisational structure of the Court. M a n a ge m en t
a n d A ccou n tab i l i ty
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 97 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia
Figure 6.1 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2012
Chief Justice Deputy Chief Justice Hon Diana Bryant Hon John Faulks
Judiciary and Judicial Committees
Executive Advisor Chief Executive Officer Legal Counsel Leisha Lister Richard Foster PSM Neil Wareham
Principal Principal Executive Executive Executive Registrar Child Dispute Director Director Director Services Client Services Information, Corporate Communication PART 6 PART & Technology
Acting Angela Filippello Pam Hemphill Stephen Andrew Phil Hocking Grahame Harriott ty i l i Regional
tab Regional Marshal & Coordinating Coordinators, Human n Communications Registry Applications Security Services Registrars Child Dispute Resources Managers Services ccou A d n a
t Senior Family
en Consultants Information Registrars Registries Property m and Family Management
ge Consultants a n a M
Statistics Infrastructure Finance
Management Registries Accounting Adelaide, Albury, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Coffs Harbour, Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Hobart, Launceston, Lismore, Melbourne, Newcastle, Parramatta, Procurement Rockhampton, Sydney, Townsville, & Risk Wollongong Management
Denotes professional responsibility
98 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Judicial officers of the Family Court of Australia At 30 June 2012, 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 AO was appointed Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia on 5 July 2004. She had previously been the Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO. inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate overseeing the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court, a position she held for four years.
Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia PART 6 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 M
the Court’s committees. a n a In the absence of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice performs ge m
and exercises the powers of the Chief Justice (s 24). The Deputy Chief en t
Justice’s chambers are located in the Canberra registry. a n d
Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks was appointed as a Family Court A Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks. ccou judge on 12 October 1994. He was appointed as Deputy Chief Justice
on 25 June 2004. n tab i l i Judges assigned to the Appeal Division ty The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO 5 July 2004 The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks 25 June 2004 The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn 10 August 1993 The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman 31 March 1999 The Honourable Justice Michelle May 6 February 2003 The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray 16 November 2006 (Chief Judge Family Court of Western Australia) The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland 14 December 2009 The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace 9 July 2010
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 99 Judges (according to order of seniority)
Adelaide The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland 22 November 1999 The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe (Case Management Judge) 3 March 1997
Brisbane The Honourable Justice Michelle May 5 September 1995 The Honourable Justice Graham Rodney Bell 27 February 1976 The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Madonna O’Reilly 10 January 2003 The Honourable Justice Peter John Murphy (Case Management Judge) 11 October 2007 The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest 1 February 2011 The Honourable Justice Michael Patrick Kent 12 July 2011
Canberra PART 6 PART The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks 11 October 1994 The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn 2 July 1990 ty i l i Hobart tab n The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin 19 August 2005 ccou A
d Melbourne n a
t The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO 5 July 2004 en m
ge The Honourable Justice Linda Marion Dessau AM 20 June 1995 a n a The Honourable Justice Peter Young 26 August 2002 M The Honourable Justice Victoria Jane Bennett 30 November 2005 The Honourable Justice Paul Cronin (Case Management Judge) 20 December 2006 The Honourable Justice Kirsty Marion Macmillan 14 December 2011
Newcastle The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin 13 July 2009 The Honourable Justice Margaret Ann Cleary 8 July 2010
100 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Parramatta The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman 18 April 1991 The Honourable Justice David John Collier (Case Management Judge) 19 July 1999 The Honourable Justice William Phillip Johnston 12 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Ian James Loughnan 12 July 2010
Sydney The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace 9 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood Stevenson 18 May 2001 The Honourable Justice Mark Frederick Le Poer Trench 10 October 2001 The Honourable Justice Garry Allan Watts (Case Management Judge) 14 April 2005 The Honourable Justice Judith Maureen Ryan 31 July 2006 The Honourable Justice Stuart Grant Fowler AM 16 November 2007
The Honourable Justice Judith Anne Rees 15 December 2011 PART 6
Family Court of Western Australia Note: Judges of the Family Court of Western Australia also hold Commissions in the
Family Court of Australia. M a n
Date of Family Court commission a ge
The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray, Chief Judge 1 December 2004 m en t
The Honourable Justice Carolyn Elvina Martin 19 November 1996 a n d A
The Honourable Justice Jane Crisford 14 December 2006 ccou
The Honourable Justice Stephen Dexter Crooks 22 October 2007 n tab i
The Honourable Justice Simon Moncrieff 31 August 2009 l i ty
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 Christine Elizabeth Dawe The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 101 Appointments, retirements and resignations Judicial officer appointments: The Honourable Justice Justice Michael Patrick Kent 12 July 2011 The Honourable Justice Kirsty Marion Macmillan 14 December 2011 The Honourable Justice Judith Anne Rees 15 December 2011
The Honourable Justice Michael The Honourable Justice Kirsty The Honourable Justice Judith Patrick Kent. Marion Macmillan. Anne Rees. PART 6 PART
Judicial officer retirements: ty i l i The Honourable Justice Peter Rose 28 July 2011 tab n The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin 30 November 2011 ccou
A The Honourable Justice Robert Monteith 30 November 2011 d n a
t The Honourable Justice Rodney Burr AM 25 May 2012 en m ge a n a M
The Honourable Justice Peter Rose. The Honourable Justice Nahum The Honourable Justice Robert The Honourable Justice Rodney Mushin. Monteith. Burr AM.
102 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Senior executives of the Family Court of Australia
Chief Executive Officer Richard Foster PSM FAIM The Chief Justice, under the Family Law Act, is responsible for the administration of the Court and is assisted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO’s powers are broad (s 38D), although subject to directions from the Chief Justice (s 38D(3)). The CEO holds the responsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealth financial management and public service legislation, but is appointed under terms similar to those of judicial officers. The CEO is supported by the staff of the National Support Office and is located in the Richard Foster, Chief Executive Officer. National Support Office, Canberra. Mr Richard Foster was appointed CEO in May 2000.
Principal Registrar Angela Filippello PART 6 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 M a n
areas in need of reform. The Principal Registrar presides in Court and a ge
holds the delegated power to make orders in interim parenting cases, m maintenance cases and some enforcement of financial obligations. en t
Angela Filippello, Principal a
Registrar. The Principal Registrar also oversees the performance of, and provides n d
direction to, the Court’s registrars. Her chambers are in the Brisbane A ccou registry. n tab i l
Principal Child Dispute Services i ty Pam Hemphill The Principal Child Dispute Services advises the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive Officer on the provision of quality child dispute services to the Court. She ensures that the services delivered by the family consultants are effective and consistent with the strategic and business objectives of the Court. The Principal also has responsibility for the development of strategic external relationships that promote and position the child dispute services of the Court within the family law framework. Pam Hemphill was appointed Principal Child Dispute Pam Hemphill, Principal Child Dispute Services. Services in April 2011.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 103 Executive Director Client Services Stephen Andrew The Executive Director Client Services is responsible for the delivery of client services in all family law registries. The Executive Director ensures that high quality registry services and support are provided to all judicial officers, litigants and legal practitioners, consistent with the strategic and business objectives of the Family Law Courts (the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court). Stephen Andrew was appointed permanently to this position in July 2011.
Stephen Andrew, Executive Director Client Services.
Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services Phil Hocking (acting) The Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services provides strategic vision, leadership and management of the Court’s communication, applications, information management,
PART 6 PART infrastructure and statistics services. Phil Hocking was the acting Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services at 30 June 2012. Phil Hocking , (acting) ty i
l Executive Director, Information, i Communication and Technology
tab Services. n Executive Director Corporate ccou A
d Grahame Harriott n a
t The Executive Director Corporate provides strategic leadership en
m and management of the Court’s human resources, property and ge
a contracts, finance, management accounting and procurement and risk n a
M management.
Grahame Harriott, Executive Director, Corporate.
104 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Judicial committees reporting Under the Family Law Act, the Chief Justice is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the Court. The Chief Justice is assisted by the Chief Executive Officer and can also delegate any of her administrative powers to judges of the Court. In practice, the Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the registries and operational management, and the judges also participate in the management of matters affecting the judiciary, such as practice and procedure and related issues, through a collegiate style of governance. A committee structure facilitates the involvement of the judges in the administration of the Court and in addition the judicial officers of the Court meet annually in plenary, or more often if required, to consult and advise the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice also convenes a monthly teleconference of all judges, in which current issues are discussed.
Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee At the strategic level, the Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee is the peak policy making body within the Court. The Committee’s primary role is to support the Chief Justice in the administration of the Court and to provide strategic advice and policy direction, particularly about legislative, procedural and administrative changes likely to affect the Family Court and its users.
Chaired by the Chief Justice, the committee meets quarterly and comprises: PART 6 Chief Justice Bryant Deputy Chief Justice Faulks Justice Finn M a
Justice Strickland n a ge
Justice Watts m en t
Justice Ryan a n d A
Justice Cronin ccou Justice Murphy n tab
Chief Executive Officer (Richard Foster) i l i ty Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello) Principal, Child Dispute Services (Pam Hemphill).
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): Access to Justice Committee (comprising the Cultural Diversity Committee, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee and the Self-Represented Litigants Committee) Benchbook Committee Costs Committee Family Violence Committee Information Technology Judicial Reference Group
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 105 Judicial Development Committee Judicial Remuneration Committee Law Reform Committee Library Committee Magellan Committee Property Management Committee Research and Ethics Committee Rules Committee.
Many of these committees have been established as joint committees, comprising membership from the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The joint committees are: Benchbook Committee, Family Violence Committee, Information Technology Judicial Reference Group, Judicial Development Committee, Library Committee, Property Management Committee and Research and Ethics Committee. The Family Court of Australia is also represented on the Joint Costs Advisory Committee. Two ad hoc committees were also established during 2011–12, being the Children’s Committee, and the courts’ Information Committee. PART 6 PART For detailed information on the judicial committees of the Court, see Appendix 8.
Judicial committee highlights ty i l i This section summarises the work of some of the judicial committees during 2011–12. tab n Rules Committee ccou A
d The Rules Committee is established under section 123 of the Family Law Act 1975, which provides that a n a
t majority of judges may make rules of court in relation to practices and procedures to be followed in the
en Family Court of Australia. m ge a The Rules Committee meets quarterly to consider proposed changes to the Family Law Rules 2004 with n a
M a view to improving the efficiency, accessibility and cost effectiveness of the Family Court for its clients. The Committee also undertakes detailed consideration of discrete issues as required. During 2011–12 the Committee met in person in November 2011 and March 2012, with Justice Ryan continuing to chair it. Committee members during the year were Justice Murphy, Justice Loughnan, Magistrate Moroni, Senior Registrar FitzGibbon, Registrar Kearney and Neil Wareham (legal counsel to the Family Court). In 2011–12, the Committee worked on a number of important projects, including two sets of amendments to the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth): the Family Law Amendment Rules 2011 (No. 2), which were made on 19 December 2011, and the Family Law Amendment Rules 2012 (No. 1), which were made on 28 May 2012. The Family Law Amendment Rules 2011 (No. 2) made the following major changes: prohibiting the recording of court events (including at locations other than the court) and to impose a penalty for a breach of the prohibition
106 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability harmonising the Family Law Rules 2004 with the Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001 with respect to the time limit for an application to be filed seeking a declaration as to who is a parent pursuant to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 setting what evidence must be in an affidavit filed in support of an application for the suppression of a judgment, or part thereof ensuring that an affidavit is filed when an application is made to join a third party or a third party seeks to intervene in a case ensuring that all orders or decisions made under the Rules by a Registrar or Deputy Registrar may be the subject of judicial review increasing the scale costs by 3.7 per cent in conformity with the increase approved nationally by all superior courts making rules for implementing the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, including empowering registrars to make decisions and orders with respect to Trans-Tasman subpoenas making rules to implement the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2011 insofar as the Rules may do so
making provision to implement amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 as affected by the PART 6 impending commencement of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011, and achieving conformity with the Federal Court Rules 2011 regarding bankruptcy proceedings. M a
The Family Law Amendment Rules 2012 (No. 1) made the following major changes: n a ge
further defining the nature of court events, the recording of which is prohibited m en t
making rules necessary to implement the amendments contained in Schedule 1 of the Family Law a n d
Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011, and A ccou implementing a streamlined approach to the filing and storing of electronically filed large documents n
attached to affidavits. tab i l i The rules made to coincide with the commencement of Schedule 1 of the Family Law Legislation ty Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011, in particular, occupied a considerable amount of the Rules Committee’s time during 2011–12. The Committee undertook consultation with the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, and with other constituent bodies, in relation to the proposed amendments. Throughout 2011–12, the Committee continued to undertake work in relation to eFiling and the production of documents electronically. Discussions between the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court continued with a view to developing a common approach. The Rules Committee also considered rules concerning applications for consent orders, arbitration, automatic release of subpoenas and changes to forms.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 107 Law Reform Committee The Family Court’s Law Reform Committee considers and comments upon proposed legislation and law reform initiatives. The Committee’s membership is Justice Strickland (Chair), Chief Justice Bryant, Deputy Chief Justice Faulks, Justice Finn, Justice Watts and Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar). During 2011–12, the Committee continued to identify matters for amendment in family law legislation, provided comment on draft principal and subordinate legislation (often at short notice), provided comment on law reform proposals and made submissions to Parliamentary and other inquiries on matters relevant to the Family Court. In addition, the Committee kept a ‘watching brief’ on bills introduced into federal parliament and scrutinised legislation to ascertain whether there would be any effect on the jurisdiction and powers of the Family Court. Details of the Committee’s work follows.
Proposed legislation considered and/or monitored Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011 Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 2011 Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children’s Commissioner) Bill 2012 PART 6 PART Child Support (Registration and Collection) Amendment Bill 2011 Commonwealth Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill 2010
ty
i Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill 2011 (exposure draft) l i
tab Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill 2012 n Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 ccou A
d Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 n a
t (exposure draft) en
m Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 ge a n
a Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010 (No.2) M Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2012 Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 Judges and Governors-General Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill 2012 Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2011 (exposure draft) Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill 2012 Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012 Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012
108 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Military Court of Australia Bill 2012 Military Court of Australia (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill 2011 Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011, and Trans-Tasman Proceedings Amendment and Other Measures Bill 2011.
The Law Reform Committee also commented on the draft Family Law Amendment Regulation (No.2) 2012.
Law reform proposals commented on Proposals for a federal judicial complaints mechanism Proposals to establish an ad hoc parliamentary commission The Family Court’s appellate jurisdiction pursuant to section 94(1AA) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and
Review of Independent Children’s Lawyers: draft tender documentation. PART 6
Parliamentary inquiries, consultation/issues papers and reports Inquiry into Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011 (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee) (submission and oral evidence) M a n
Inquiry into Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 a (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee) (oral evidence), and ge m en
Inquiry into International Child Abduction to and from Australia (Senate Legal and Constitutional t
a n
Affairs References Committee) (submission and oral evidence). d A ccou Throughout 2011–12, the Law Reform Committee continued to hold discussions with the Attorney- n
General’s Department as to numerous technical amendments required to the Family Law Act 1975 and tab i other legislation under which judges of the Family Court exercise jurisdiction. l i ty
Family Violence Committee The Family Violence Committee is a joint committee of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The Committee’s principal responsibility is to provide advice to the Chief Justice, the Chief Federal Magistrate and the CEO of both courts on family violence issues. As part of this responsibility the Committee regularly reviews and updates the two courts’ family violence strategy and family violence best practice principles, as well as undertaking discrete projects.
The Family Violence Committee comprises Justice Ryan (Chair), Justice Collier, Justice Stevenson, Federal Magistrate Brown, Federal Magistrate Hughes, Federal Magistrate Altobelli, Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar, Family Court), Di Lojszczyk (family consultant) and Kristen Murray (Senior Legal Research Advisor to the Chief Justice). The Committee met in person in Melbourne on 24 November 2011 and in Sydney on 11 May 2012. The Committee otherwise held ad hoc discussions as required.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 109 In addition to the ongoing review of the Family Violence Strategy, the major task for the Committee during 2011–12 was reviewing and updating the Family Violence Best Practice Principles to take account of the amendments contained in Schedule 1 of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (Cth). The revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles act as a checklist of matters that judges, federal magistrates, court staff, legal professionals and litigants may wish to have regard to at each stage of the litigation process. The best practice principles required extensive amendment to take account of the changes to the Family Law Act, Family Law Rules and practice and procedure in both courts. It is anticipated that the third edition of the best practice principles will be launched in October 2012.
Members of the Family Violence Committee participated in the development of a national training program for registrars and family consultants about the family violence amendments and presented on the changes to the substantive law. The one-day training program was delivered prior to the commencement of the amendments on 7 June 2012. The Chair of the Committee also provided comment on the draft fact sheet and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ document prepared by the Attorney-General’s Department.
During 2011–12 members of the Committee also: met with Professor Rosalind Croucher, Chair of the Australian Law Reform Commission, on 24 September 2011 to discuss matters arising from the issues papers on Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws represented the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court on the National Steering Committee of the PART 6 PART Attorney-General’s Department’s pilot of the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution Project attended the National Child Protection and Family Law Collaboration meeting continued to review the implementation of the National Domestic Violence and Family Orders scheme, ty i l i and tab n organised and received presentations from the Supervising Magistrate, Family Violence Portfolio,
ccou Magistrates Court of Victoria and the Australian Institute of Family Studies. A d n a
t Collaborative committees en m
ge Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee a n a
M The Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee was established by the Heads of Jurisdiction of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in late 2011 in response to a recommendation in the then draft Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General’s portfolio (the Skehill Review) to encourage greater administrative cooperation between the three courts. The Committee comprises: Chief Justice Keane (Federal Court) Chief Justice Bryant (Family Court) Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe (Federal Magistrates Court) Mr Warwick Soden (Chief Executive Officer, Federal Court) Richard Foster (Chief Executive Officer, Family Court and Acting Chief Executive Officer, Federal Magistrates Court)
110 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability David Fredericks (Attorney-General’s Department, observer) Louise Glanville (Attorney-General’s Department, observer).
The Committee meets quarterly to discuss and agree upon a program of work for the examination and, where feasible and desirable, the implementation of initiatives for joint or shared administration across the three courts. Such initiatives are primarily directed to the achievement of increased efficiency and effectiveness in the management of the courts, but may also identify financial savings that could be either re-invested within the courts or returned to the Budget. Since the Committee’s formation, reviews have commenced of the courts’ information technology systems, library services and space use within Commonwealth Law Courts (CLC) buildings. Arrangements have also been made for closer cooperation in media management, a review of library holdings to avoid duplication and increased sharing of court facilities in the Brisbane CLC building. The Committee reports to the Attorney-General on a biannual basis with its first report to the Attorney- General being submitted in March 2012. During the reporting period the Committee met in November 2011, February 2012 and May 2012.
Family Law Courts Advisory Group PART 6 The Family Law Courts Advisory Group has a critical governance role in resourcing both courts and coordinates various administrative relationships between the two courts. The Group comprises:
Chief Justice Bryant (Family Court) M a n a
Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe (Federal Magistrates Court) ge m Justice Watts (Family Court) en t
a n
Federal Magistrate Baumann (Federal Magistrates Court) d A ccou Richard Foster (CEO Family Court and Acting CEO Federal Magistrates Court) n Louise Glanville (Attorney-General’s Department). tab i l i The Group met in August 2011, December 2011 and May 2012. ty
Joint Costs Advisory Committee The Joint Costs Advisory Committee comprises representatives of the four federal courts: the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. During 2011–12, the Committee comprised: Judge of the Family Court of Australia (Justice Benjamin) (Chair) Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar of the High Court (Andrew Phelan) Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia (John Mathieson) Principal Registrar of the Federal Magistrates Court (Adele Byrne) Principal Registrar of the Family Court of Australia (Angela Filippello) (who participates in the Committee as an observer).
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 111 The Committee reviews and recommends variations to the quantum of costs contained in the rules made by federal courts and advises on other matters about those costs as may be referred to it by a federal court. The Committee tabled its fourth report on legal practitioners’ costs in September 2011, in which it recommended a 3.7 per cent increase in the scale of costs specified in the Rules of the High Court, Family Court, Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The Committee also resolved to write to the respective courts and bring to their attention: the lack of uniformity in the photocopying fee applying in the various fee schedules, and the lack of consistency in the structure of federal court scales of costs and relevant costs rules.
Family Law Forum Chaired by the Chief Justice, the national Family Law Forum meets to discuss shared issues arising within the family law system. The forum consists of representatives from the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Law Council, the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, National Legal Aid, the Attorney- General’s Department, the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Program, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and a range non-government organisations and community legal centres. The Family Law Forum did not meet in 2011–12. PART 6 PART
Senior management committees The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Richard Foster, maintains an inclusive style of management. The senior ty i l
i executive managers of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court meet annually to establish the
tab strategic direction and priorities for the effective administration of both courts. In addition, senior executive n managers of the Family Court participate in a number of committees that provide high level operational
ccou and policy advice to the CEO. A d n a
t Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group en
m The Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group provides operational and policy advice to the ge a
n CEO on key areas that affect the administration of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. a
M 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, Client Services a Regional Registry Manager representative Executive Director, Corporate Principal, Child Dispute Services Executive Advisor, Client Services Executive Director, Information, Communication and Technology Services Manager, Chief Federal Magistrate’s Chambers.
Support is provided by the Executive Advisor to the CEO.
112 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Other committees A number of administrative committees were also active during 2011–12 and provided high level operational and policy advice. Meeting on a regular or ad hoc basis, they included: Audit and Risk National Consultative Staff Development Property Management Information and Communication.
Senior management committee highlights This section highlights the work of senior management committees during 2011–12. Appendix 8 has details of membership and terms of reference for the various committees.
Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group
In 2011–12, the Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group continued to provide advice to PART 6 the CEO on new policy and other initiatives. These included budget savings measures, the application of family violence amendments, social media policy and protocols, the client satisfaction survey, the resource planning model, the statement of strategic intent, the ICT work plan, the child dispute services work plan, the Family Law Courts’ tablet policy and changes to case management practices. M a n
Audit and Risk Committee a ge m
The Audit and Risk Committee is established in accordance with section 46 of the Financial Management en t and Accountability Act 1997. It supports the Chief Executive Officer to ensure that the Court’s financial a n d
accounts are in accordance with the Finance Minister’s Orders and provide a true and accurate A description of the Court’s financial position. The Committee comprises an external chair and two senior ccou
managers from the Court’s administration. n tab i
During 2011–12, the Committee considered a range of issues including the Court’s internal audit plan, l i strategic risk and fraud risk treatments, and oversight of the Australian National Audit Office and internal ty audit report recommendations.
National Consultative Committee The National Consultative Committee is a key forum through which the Court consults with staff about broader issues that have a national perspective. Elected staff delegates actively present the views of staff regarding issues that impact nationally on staff and the management and future direction of the Court. The Committee’s areas of focus include: the objectives of the Court and how these might be achieved financial and human resource planning information technology initiatives
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 113 security management and review processes, including proposed changes work health and safety matters equal employment opportunity issues accommodation and amenities, and human resource management policies and practices.
Staff Development Committee In 2011–12, the Staff Development Committee (SDC) continued to meet to discuss the developmental needs across all areas of the courts. The Committee is integral to the courts’ approach to the continuing career development of staff. It is a key forum through which staff representatives have shared responsibility for identifying and determining development needs and opportunities. As a result of the staff development survey conducted by the Young Employees Advisory Group (YEAG) in 2009–10, the SDC provided a snapshot of how the courts have responded by using the results and comments to help inform human resources strategy. This snapshot was promoted through the courts via the Corporate Services newsletter. The earlier survey also prompted a total overhaul of the Performance
PART 6 PART Management and Development System (PMDS), which went live in 2011–12. The new online PMDS was widely publicised during the year, particularly through staff newsletters. Feedback so far has been supportive of the new structure and Human Resources will monitor the success of the system over time. After a two year tenure, the Committee composition changed considerably during 2011–12, with the ty i l i replacement of five representatives in the areas of Information, Communication and Technology Services,
tab registry management, registrars, family consultants and associates. n The Committee funded the printing of 1000 bookmarks promoting the courts’ service commitments, as ccou A
d part of a training package on disability awareness. It also funded the travel component of this course, n a which was presented by Human Resources. t en m ge
a Corporate and operational planning and associated performance n a reporting and review M At 30 June 2011, there were 615 ongoing and non-ongoing court employees (excluding judicial officers and the CEO) in all states and territories except Western Australia. Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the Court’s intranet and website: Strategic Plan administration policies and procedural documents including guidelines, procedures and manuals from the finance, human resources and information, communication and technology areas APS Values and Code of Conduct Corporate Plan and business area plans (for the National Support Office) Courtside, the Family Court’s staff newsletter
114 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Service Charter and Service Commitments documents Statement of Strategic Intent, and case management policies and manuals related to the management of family law cases from the Chief Justice, the Principal Registrar and the Principal Child Dispute Services.
The Court’s geographically dispersed judiciary and staff are informed of significant changes and events through the following: Chief Justice eMessages—emails from the Chief Justice to the judiciary and all staff CEO eMessages—emails from the Chief Executive Officer to all staff Chief Executive Instructions—the official
mechanism by which the Chief Executive PART 6
Officer communicates and directs the Court’s Courtside, the Family Court’s staff newsletter. compliance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997
Client service advices—from the Executive Director Client Services to all client service staff working M a
in the registries n a ge
Courtside —the Court’s internal staff newsletter, which is issued four times per year and includes m en
columns from the Chief Justice and CEO. This is the primary vehicle for sharing information and t
a
celebrating the achievements and successes of court staff n d A
Intranet messages—latest news, and ccou n
CEO roadshows— the CEO regularly visits registries to talk to staff about key and emerging issues. tab i l i Internal audit ty The Court has, as part of its corporate governance arrangements, appropriate mechanisms to manage general business risk as well as fraud risk. In 2011–12, the Court’s internal audit services were provided by Oakton Services Pty Ltd and monitored by the Audit and Risk Committee. The 2011–12 Internal Audit Plan was developed taking into account the risk drivers in the Risk Management Plan and after discussion with the Audit and Risk Committee and the senior management team.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 115 Internal audits conducted during the year included: asset management collection of fees, and project management.
The Audit and Risk Committee monitored the implementation of individual audit report recommendations generated as part of the above mentioned audits, through quarterly status reports.
Risk management The Court promotes a culture that supports the identification, analysis, assessment, treatment, monitoring and review of all strategic, operational, compliance and financial risks. This is supported by the Court’s Risk Control and Compliance Framework. The framework provides policies, procedures and tools to promote effective risk management. The framework is available to all court staff on the intranet for the principal purpose of achieving better services and outcomes for judicial services, clients and staff. The Court continued to participate in the annual Comcover benchmarking survey, which measures risk and assesses the extent of cultural change within agencies. The Court’s overall result continued to
PART 6 PART improve, reflecting its efforts in the area of risk management. The Court continued to further revise the courts’ Business Continuity Plans (BCPs). A desktop scenario test was undertaken in the Brisbane registry in December 2011 and, at 30 June 2012, recommendations from the test were being incorporated into the BCPs. ty i l i The Procurement and Risk Management section continued to provide, as a standing agenda item, regular tab n updates on risk related activities to the Audit and Risk Committee. ccou A
d Financial risk n a
t The Court manages financial risk in accordance with the Risk Control and Compliance Framework. The en
m relevant mechanisms are: ge a
n risk assessments for annual business plans a M risk assessments for identified projects Chief Executive Instructions (CEIs) available to all staff on the intranet, and monthly financial reports to the CEO’s Management Advisory Group and oversight by the Audit and Risk Committee.
Fraud prevention and control The Court’s Fraud Control Plan 2010–12 complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011. During 2011–12, the Audit and Risk Committee continued to receive reports on the implementation status of fraud risk treatments. It had in place fraud investigation, and reporting and data collection procedures that met the needs of the Court and complied with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines.
116 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability The Court continued to monitor the Fraud Control Plan, which is available to all court staff via the intranet. The plan was developed in consultation will key stakeholders across all areas of court activities. In 2011–12, no instances or allegations of fraud against the Court were reported.
Fraud control certification In accordance with guideline 2.8 of the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011, issued by the Minister for Justice and Customs, pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997, I hereby certify that I am satisfied that: The Family Court of Australia has prepared fraud assessments and has in place a fraud control plan that complies with the Guidelines. Appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting procedures and process are in place. The Court has taken all reasonable measures to minimise the incidence of fraud within the Court and to investigate and recover the proceeds of fraud against the Court. PART 6
Richard Foster, PSM Chief Executive Officer Family Court of Australia
28 August 2012 M a n a ge
Information Publication Scheme m en t
Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) are required to publish information a n d
to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme (IPS). This requirement is in Part II of the FOI A Act and has replaced the former requirement to publish a section 8 statement in an annual report. Each ccou
agency must display on its website a plan showing what information it publishes in accordance with the n IPS requirements. tab i l i Information about FOI and the IPS agency plan for the Family Court can be found via a link at the ty bottom of the homepage of the Family Court's website at www.familycourt.gov.au. The Court received three Freedom of Information requests during 2011–12. At 30 June 2012, there were no matters outstanding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Ethical standards The Court’s Strategic Plan states that integrity, respect and responsiveness underpin its approach to business. The Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct contained in the Public Service Act 1999 apply to all employees of the Court. In 2011–12, the Court maintained an ongoing information and education promotion to ensure that all staff were aware of their rights, responsibilities and obligations in relation to privacy, ethics and other factors such as environmental responsibility, data management and data quality.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 117 The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court together maintain web-based Service Charter and Service Commitments publications. These outline the services clients may expect of the courts. The Court is committed to supporting employees to adhere to the APS Values and comply with the Code of Conduct. Employees receive information about the Values and the Code through all-staff emails, the intranet and induction and other training programs. Employees also receive information and guidance about conduct and behaviour expectations from their managers. Compulsory nationwide training sessions that were conducted on ethical behaviour, the APS Code of Conduct and APS Values in all major court registries and the National Support Office during 2010 were this year extended to the smaller and more remote locations. 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 8.
Policy and practices on the establishment and maintenance of appropriate ethical standards– Ethics Contact Officers Established in May 2009, the Australian Public Service Commission’s Ethics Contact Officer Network (ECONET) plays a key role in supporting the ongoing work of the Ethics Advisory Service. The service has responsibility for promoting the Government’s ethical agenda, which is focussed on enhancing ethics and accountability in the Commonwealth public sector.
PART 6 PART The Human Resources Manager is the Court’s representative at the ECONET forum.
Social media policy (making public comment and participating online) In May 2012, the Court introduced a social media policy, which is intended to clarify the responsibilities of court employees in relation to the use of social networking sites, blog sites and forums or information sites and sites allowing instant messaging. Use of social media will be monitored for compliance with the Court’s policy in the same way as other internet use. bili t y cc oun ta Joint client Service Charter and Service Commitments
ge m en t a nd A The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have joint Service Charter and Service Commitments M a n documents. The Service Charter outlines the service level standards clients can expect from staff of the courts and how clients and other users of court services may make suggestions or complaints about services, policy, practice or procedures. The Service Commitments document highlights what clients of the courts can expect from client services staff, what the staff cannot do, clients rights and responsibilities and how clients can help the courts to help them. Both documents are available on the Family Law Courts website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au. Service Charter.
118 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability External and internal scrutiny
External scrutiny
Reports by the Auditor-General The Auditor-General made no report specific to the Family Court of Australia during 2011–12.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal An applicant appealed to the AAT against a decision to refuse an application for reduced fees in a matter before the Court. It became clear that the applicant had incorrectly completed the original application for reduced fees and had omitted relevant details of the applicant's financial commitments. The Court cooperated with the applicant's lawyer in ensuring that the AAT substituted a decision that correctly reflected the applicant's financial position.
Commonwealth Ombudsman The Commonwealth Ombudsman made no report specific to the Family Court during 2011–12.
Attempt to re-litigate proceedings
Proceedings have been brought in the Federal Court of Australia against a Family Court registrar and a federal PART 6 magistrate to attempt to litigate in that Court proceedings in the family law jurisdiction and to prevent the Family Court from exercising its jurisdiction in the matter. The case raises for consideration the jurisdiction of the Family Law Courts in the family law jurisdiction, the role of the Federal Court in relation to that jurisdiction and the question whether an attempt to so re-litigate matters represents an abuse of process. M
The Australian Government Solicitor, on the instructions of the courts’ Legal Counsel, instructed Ms E a n a
Ford of Counsel in the matter. The courts’ legal team has appeared in the Federal Court opposing an ge m
application for interim orders made by the applicants. The application for interim orders amongst other en t
things to stay proceedings in the Full Court of the Family Court was refused with costs against the a n applicant. The Court through the Australian Government Solicitor sought the intervention of the Attorney- d A
General in the case and the Attorney has subsequently intervened. The matter is proceeding. ccou n
Purported prosecution of judicial officers tab i An unsuccessful litigant in the family law jurisdiction has purportedly brought proceedings of a criminal l i ty nature against the judicial officers who dealt with the matter in the Family Law Courts. The matter is before the State Magistrates Court. The Family Law Courts, through the courts’ Legal Counsel, have arranged representation by the Australian Government Solicitor for the judicial officers. Through the Australian Government Solicitor, application has been made for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over the prosecutions with a view to discontinuing them. The Director of Public Prosecutions has informed the parties that his office will take over the prosecutions on a number of the matters in question. However, it will not take over the prosecutions in matters where it considers that the allegations made cannot amount to any offence known to law. In such a case there is nothing properly to take over. This means that the courts will need to continue to pursue, at some expense, those matters to finality on behalf of the judicial officers.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 119 Members of the Court’s desktop rollout team who replaced 1550 desktop computers and 150 laptops.
Whole-of-government ICT initiatives During 2011–12, the Court participated in a number of whole-of-government ICT initiatives. The initial driver for these was the earlier independent review of the use of ICT across the Australian Government (the Gershon review, released in 2008 and its recommendations endorsed in full by the Government in PART 6 PART November 2008). Following is a summary of related activities for the Court in 2011–12: In October 2011, the Court submitted the annual ICT benchmarking report to AGIMO (Australian Government Information Management Office). The eportr covered all ICT operating and capital ty i
l expenditure for 2011–12 and included quantitative measures about capacity and quantities of ICT i equipment. tab n The Court also reported to AGIMO on: ccou A
d –– an ICT skills survey n a
t –– progress towards the 31 December 2012 deadline for IPv6 to be enabled on the courts’ internet
en gateway and websites, and m ge
a –– details of the courts’ software applications for the Government Solutions Register. n a
M In May 2012, the Court submitted an ICT workforce plan to the Australian Public Service Commission, required to meet the ICT Strategic Workforce Plan 2010–2013. The Court worked with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (the lead agency) for a new internet gateway for a number of agencies, including the Family Court. At 30 June 2012, it was expected that the Court will migrate to the new gateway in the 2012–13 financial year. The Court will implement the Government Desktop Common Operating Environment (COE) Policy in the Court’s standard operating environment (SOE) upgrade project in 2012–13. During 2011–12 preparations were being made for this. Significant progress was made against the internal ICT Sustainability Plan, developed to address the Australian government's ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15. Further information on progress can be found in Appendix 6.
120 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Whole-of-government supply contracts are mandatory across a broad number of areas. By 30 June 2012, the Court was using the Microsoft volume sourcing arrangement, the desktop hardware panel, the telecommunications commodities, carriage and associated services panel, and the major office machines panel. This was the first year in which the major office machines panel was used by the Court. As part of the Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy, the Court is required to update its online government information and services to meet the WCAG 2.0 standard for website accessibility. During the year, it was working to meet the compliance deadlines. This included completing the conversion of all substantial policy documents to HTML and commencing conversion of all other substantial documents to ensure compliance. The Court used the Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) to improve the courts’ organisational capability to commission, manage and realise benefits from ICT-enabled investments. A follow up review of the courts' P3M3 maturity levels will be undertaken in 2012–13. During 2011–12, initial and target capability information related to this was provided to AGIMO. The Court has a representative on the newly established Benchmarking Practitioner Forum sponsored by AGIMO.
In addition to the ongoing response to the Gershon Review, managed through AGIMO, the Court PART 6 responded to archival requirements for information quality. It undertook the National Archives of Australia check up assessment of the courts’ information and records management capability, in response to the Government's digital transition policy. At 30 June 2012, the assessment results were being reviewed to identify any areas of high risk in the courts’ information and records management as well as opportunities for improvement. M a n a Senate estimate committee hearings ge m Senior Executive Service staff of the Court attend Senate estimate committee hearings to answer en t
a
questions about the Court’s activities. In 2011–12, 26 Senate estimate questions on notice were received n d and answered. A ccou n tab i l i ty
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 121 External evaluations
Oakton financial health check The financial health check commissioned by the courts during 2010–11 was tabled in support of the courts as part of the Skehill Review (see Federal Courts restructure in Part 2). The Oakton report confirmed that the courts have been subject to funding pressures for some time and have been actively pursuing opportunities to identify and harvest savings. Oakton recommended that the courts adopt a more systemic approach (activity based costing) to identify further opportunities for savings. The courts completed an update of their activity based costing model (Resource Planning Model) in the first quarter of 2011–12 and this confirmed that the courts resources were optimally deployed and that there were no obvious areas from which to achieve further savings without significant reductions in services to clients.
Internal evaluations
A study of Indigenous Australians access to and usage of the Family Law Courts The Indigenous Working Group engaged Stephen Ralph, an independent Aboriginal consultant with extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in the area of family law, to undertake a study of the views and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families who
PART 6 PART had recently been involved in family law proceedings. The study was to cover issues of access to justice and recommend steps towards improved service delivery. It was to help the courts develop a better understanding of how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people access the Family Law Courts, how they use the services provided by the courts, and their ty i l i experience of litigating their family disputes. tab
n The experiences and perceptions of Indigenous Australians who had recently litigated in the Family Law Courts were studied and compared with those of a representative sample of non-Indigenous Australians. ccou
A Interviews with other stakeholders, such as legal practitioners working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait d n a
Islander people, were also held. t
en Major findings of the evaluation include: m ge
a From 2007–08 there has been a shift in filing trends in Indigenous matters, including a decline in the n a number of Indigenous applicants, an increase in Indigenous people as respondents, and an increase in M matters where both parties are Indigenous. Indigenous litigants were much less likely to have attended dispute resolution via a Family Relationship Centre than non-Indigenous litigants, and were more likely to have attended a legal aid conference as the first dispute resolution event. Indigenous litigants were twice as likely to cite non-attendance at dispute resolution by the other party as the reason for failure to resolve the dispute. Indigenous litigants rated family violence as the most important issue for them and/or the other party when ranking all of the issues involved in going to court. For the non-Indigenous group, relocation was rated as the most important issue for them and/or the other party. A large majority in each group found court staff to be somewhat helpful or better in providing information and assistance. A majority in each group also reported that they had been treated with respect and sensitivity by court staff when attending court.
122 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability There was a higher level of dissatisfaction expressed by the non-Indigenous litigants when compared to the Indigenous litigants, but this needs to be viewed in the context of sampling differences. Indigenous litigants were more balanced in their views of the Court’s handling of their case and in most instances expressed relatively equal levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Fifty-three per cent of Indigenous participants indicated that the Court had not properly considered the cultural needs of Indigenous children. Thirty-three per cent of the group ‘strongly’ disagreed with the statement that the children’s cultural needs had been properly considered by the Court. Less than 30 per cent of the Indigenous group believed that the Court displayed respect and understanding in response to their concerns about culture and its importance for children. Indigenous litigants were critical of the family report writer on all aspects of the family report, but particularly the report writer’s ability to deal with Indigenous cultural issues. Fifty-nine per cent of the Indigenous group did not believe that the report writer had done their best to understand and report upon the cultural issues affecting the children. Practitioners expressed higher levels of satisfaction and confidence with the Court’s handling of the Indigenous cases than that expressed by Indigenous litigants, although they were generally less satisfied with the Court’s handling of Indigenous cultural issues than they were with the overall handling of their client’s case. Only 46 per cent of practitioners reported that the cultural needs of PART 6 the children had been properly considered by the Court. Practitioners tended to have a negative view of family reports in these cases and were consistently critical of report writers when it came to the assessment of cultural issues. M
Issues that the courts are now considering, guided by the Indigenous Working Group, include: a n a
accessibility of pre-filing Family Dispute Resolution Services for Indigenous people ge m a need to ensure that reliable and accurate data exists in relation to monitoring of court usage by en t
a
Indigenous people n d A
improving judicial education and awareness of Indigenous cultural issues, and ccou
improving the capacity of family report writers to assess Indigenous cultural issues. n tab i l i
The final report is expected to be published later in 2012. ty
Judicial support review In 2010, a review of judicial support was held. In July and August 2011, registry managers implemented recommendations from the review. A number of registries undertook training to ensure staff were equipped to perform the required functions within client services, including in court support to judges. The case coordination aspects of the review, including the review of client services were not progressed while the Court awaited the outcome of the Skehill Review (on restructuring of the Federal courts, see Part 2 of this report for more detail).
Registrar workload project Work on the registrar workload project continued during 2011–12. In October 2010, the Chief Justice and Chief Federal Magistrate had established a working group to identify, quantify and report on the work undertaken by registrars for the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 123 The Working Group is led by Stephen Andrew (Executive Director Client Services) and also includes Steve Agnew (A/Deputy CEO FMC), Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar Family Court), Adele Byrne (Principal Registrar FMC), Marianne Christmann (Regional Registry Manager NSW/ACT) and Jamie Crew, (Registry Manager, Newcastle). Its terms of reference were to: identify the categories of work undertaken by registrars in each registry identify the key drivers of the registrars' workload quantify the workload, including the allocation of registrar resources in each registry to each court and the use of that resource report on the workload analysis, and make appropriate recommendations on resourcing.
By 30 June 2012, the working group had completed the collection and analysis of significant data and information concerning registrars’ work and workloads and had commissioned an independent evaluation of the functions associated with hearing divorce applications. Extensive consultation had also been undertaken with the judiciary, registrars, sessional registrars, registry managers and other key review stakeholders. During the year, the group recommended to the Chief Executive Officer that a detailed implementation
PART 6 PART plan be developed, pending acceptance by the Chief Justice and Chief Federal Magistrate of some or all of the recommendations. The Executive Director Client Services will be responsible for the implementation of the report’s recommendations and will formally report progress within six months of any final decision being made. ty i l i
tab Management of human resources n
ccou Overview A d n a
During 2011–12, the process of consolidating the merged administration of the Family Court and the t
en Federal Magistrates Court continued. It was supported by the introduction of a replacement enterprise m agreement on 1 July 2011 that, like its predecessor, covered the combined courts’ non-SES staff. ge a n
a Following the introduction of the Government’s Australian Public Service Bargaining Framework, which M took effect on 31 January 2011, the courts gave notice of the commencement of bargaining with a message to all staff by the Chief Executive Officer on 29 March 2011. Bargaining commenced soon after with the Community and Public Sector Union and individual staff bargaining representatives. Following a favourable vote by staff, the new agreement, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014, was approved by Fair Work Australia on 24 June 2011. The courts’ intranets were the primary vehicles for keeping staff informed of developments, with regular news and announcements about issues such as the courts’ budgetary position, technological improvements, operational reviews and the progress of negotiations for the new Agreement. Management also kept employees informed through all-staff emails. The Agreement covers all non-SES staff of the courts and delivers salary increases of three per cent from the commencement of the Agreement on 1 July 2011, together with further pay increases of three per
124 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability cent on 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013. The pay increases are offset by productivity savings to be funded from corporate efficiency/productivity savings outlined in clause 2.2 of the Agreement. The agreement directly supports the Family Court’s strategic objectives and complements the Court’s performance planning and management arrangements and improvements at the team and individual level. Consistent with the single enterprise agreement, the process of producing mirror images of policies, procedures and guidelines across the two courts continued throughout 2011–12. The Court is committed to supporting employees to adhere to the APS Values and comply with the Code of Conduct. Employees receive information about the Values and the Code through all-staff emails, the Court intranet and induction and other training programs. Employees also receive information and guidance about conduct and behaviour expectations from their managers.
Workforce planning, retention and turnover
Workforce planning Statistics from the Agency Benchmarking Report (State of the Service Series 2010–11) noted that 23 per cent of Family Court staff were eligible to retire. Accordingly, during 2011–12 the Court developed appropriate human resource strategies to ensure future capability and resourcing to cope with staff PART 6 turnover. These included, for example, adopting an ICT workforce plan, giving the Federal Magistrates Court a clearer understanding of the capacity and capability of the Court’s ICT workforce and developing a risk management strategy that strengthens succession management for critical roles and leadership positions in the Court. The strategies were communicated to managers and staff, helping to ensure that M succession plans were developed at local levels. a n a In addition, the Court is focused on providing an inclusive, diversity-friendly workplace and ensuring equal ge m opportunity for all its employees. Workplace diversity assists in meeting client service obligations. en t
a
The Court also has a longstanding and ongoing commitment to ensuring that the needs of its Aboriginal n d A
and Torres Strait Islander employees and clients are recognised and met appropriately. It reinforces ccou that commitment by identifying and addressing barriers to the recruitment and career development of n
Indigenous Australians through its recruitment policies, training and mentoring programs. tab i l i The Court facilitates access to its services for Indigenous people by ensuring that information about the ty 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 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. The Court 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. The Court is committed to maintaining a workplace culture where all employees are treated with dignity and respect, so that everyone is able to contribute their best in the workplace. It is the responsibility of all employees to contribute to the ongoing achievement and maintenance of a workplace free from bullying, harassment, discrimination and violence. The Court’s Bullying and Harassment Policy was reviewed and strengthened during 2011–12 and the updated policy was communicated to all employees.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 125 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, adoption, fostering and supporting partner’s leave, salary sacrifice arrangements and paid time off work over the Christmas and New Year period.
A safe and healthy work environment The Court provides a family-friendly and non-discriminatory work environment with strong policies against harassment and bullying. The Court and its employees are committed to measures that will assist with preventing and managing illness and injury, including psychological injuries, and assisting absent staff to return to work as soon as reasonably practical. Other healthy work environment strategies include an employee assistance program that provides free professional counselling to employees and members of their immediate families and free annual influenza vaccinations.
Workplace diversity PART 6 PART The Court recognises that diversity among its staff is one of its greatest assets. Valuing the distinctive characteristics in every employee, and drawing on the diversity of our backgrounds, skills, talents and views to enhance the Court’s working environment and the work of the Court, underpin the current ty
i workplace diversity plan. l i tab
n Rewards and recognition Recognition of staff in the form of positive feedback and celebration of achievement is an important ccou A
d part of the Court’s culture and business practice. The courts' reward and recognition scheme, the Janet n a Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award, Australia Day Medallions and the Years of Service awards t
en recognise and reward employees for the achievement of corporate goals, providing non-cash rewards m
ge and recognition. a n a
M Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award The Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award honours the late Janet Kitcher (a Family Court employee at the time of her death). It aims to bestow recognition on high achieving employees of the courts for their outstanding contributions to the workplace. Recipients of this award perform extraordinarily well within their role, excelling to achieve outstanding client service by demonstrating: ethical standards and integrity innovation and pro-activity respect for people and cultures, and cooperation and positive behaviours.
The winner for 2011–12 was Sally Mashman from the National Enquiry Centre (NEC).
126 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Sally Mashman, winner of the 2011–12 Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award. PART 6
Sally has worked for both courts, commencing with the Federal Magistrates Court in January 2001 and then transferring to her present role as manager of the NEC in August 2009. Sally has performed to a high standard and her contribution to the courts has gone beyond that which is ordinarily required of an M
employee in her role. In particular, Sally has been proactive in implementing innovative work practices a n a
and is solutions focussed. ge m
Other nominees in 2011–12 were: en t
a
Roland Andronicos, Sydney/Parramatta, Systems Support Officer n d A Kate Clarke, Newcastle, Judicial Associate ccou n
Sarah Hession, Melbourne, Associate to FM Bender tab i l i
Kym Hopwood, Brisbane, Judicial Services team leader ty Greg Johannesen, North Queensland, Registry Manager Megan Junker, Brisbane, Client Service Officer Teresa Kane, Brisbane, Registrar Julie Kearney, Newcastle, Registrar Kristen Murray, Melbourne, Senior Legal Advisor, and Andrew Tavares, National Support Office, IT Help Desk analyst.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 127 Australian Day achievement medallions The Australia Day Medallions are awarded to a select group of Australian citizens each year, recognising excellence in contribution by employees of government organisations. In 2012 the Court awarded medallions to the following staff: Diane Lojszczyk, Newcastle registry: Diane was recognised for her outstanding contribution to the Court, and her ability to enhance the reputation of the Court. Diane worked for the Court from 1985 until 1986. She returned in 1996 as a court counsellor and has been a senior family consultant since 1998. She has been involved with various court committees and projects such as the Resource Planning Model and the Family Violence Committee, and has given presentations at numerous conferences. Diane is also the Court’s representative on the Steering Committee for the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution Project. During her many years of service, Diane has earned a significant amount of respect Australia Day medallion recipient and is highly regarded by the judiciary and those with whom she Diane Lojszczyk. works.
Nathan Lozberis—National Support Office: Nathan was
PART 6 PART recognised for his continuous improvements to the Court across a range of corporate services. Nathan has been with the Court for seven years and is the courts’ Management Accounting Manager. He was directly responsible for developing the courts’ Risk Control ty i l
i and Compliance Framework, Project Management Framework
tab and Management Accounting Framework. Nathan contributed n significantly to the successful merger of the courts’ corporate
ccou services, including assuming increased workload and responsibilities A d
n and did so displaying the utmost professionalism, leadership, and a
t enthusiasm at all times. Nathan is highly regarded by his clients and
en Australia Day medallion recipient
m his colleagues. Nathan Lozberis. ge a n a Jolie Lamont, Canberra registry: Jolie was recognised for her M outstanding service to the Court and to the Honourable Justice Finn. She has provided outstanding administrative and organisation support to Justice Finn in her capacity as the most senior Judge of the Appeal Division of the Family Court for the past six years. Jolie went above the call of duty by organising an event to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Justice Finn’s appointment to the Court. In addition, Jolie is Team Leader (support) in the Canberra registry and diligently supervises and provides pastoral care and support to staff. Jolie’s friendly, professional, courteous, and cheerful disposition is a considerable benefit to the Court. Australia Day medallion recipient Jolie Lamont.
128 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Years of service awards Years of service awards are presented to employees who have been with the Court for more than 20, 25 and 30 years. Recipients in 2011–12 follow. 20 years Karen Barker (Sydney) Deborah Fry (Sydney) Sandra Giarrusso (Townsvillle) Terri Gough (Hobart) Lyn Howlett (Adelaide) Ron Jarrett* (NSO)
Joan Kirkwood (Adelaide) Years of Service recipient, Peter Thompson with Richard Foster (left) and Phil Hocking (right). Joyce Kroezen (Melbourne)
Jeanette Muller (Brisbane) PART 6 Lenard Perrett (Melbourne) David Prescott (Melbourne) Peter Thompson (NSO) M
Anna Warhaft (Melbourne). a n a 25 years ge m
Manuela Falvao (Melbourne) en t
a
Janine Galea (Melbourne). n d A
* Not included in the 2010–11 report ccou n
Workforce turnover tab i l
During 2011–12, 83 employees and judicial officers left the Court. Of these, 51 were ongoing i ty employees, representing an annual turnover rate of eight per cent against staff numbers at 30 June 2012 (see Table 8.9 at Appendix 3). This compares with ongoing staff separations of nine per cent in 2010–11, and eight per cent in both 2009–10 and 2008–09.
Staffing profile At 30 June 2012, the Court had 601 employees (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees) covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14 or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). This was a 2.28 per cent decrease compared with 615 employees at 30 June 2011. Tables 8.3 to 8.7 at Appendix 3 provide a breakdown of staff by location, gender, attendance, ongoing and non-ongoing employment status.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 129 Judicial officers At 30 June 2012, the Court had 30 judges, including the Chief Justice (13 female and 17 male). Table 8.8 at Appendix 3 has further detail. The remuneration arrangements for all judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer are governed by enforceable determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details including relevant determinations are available at www.remtribunal.gov.au.
Agreement making
A single Enterprise Agreement for the courts As mentioned previously, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14 came into effect on 1 July 2011. The Agreement has a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2014, however, under present arrangements it will continue to operate after that date until replaced or formally terminated.
Other agreements Offers of AWAs to court employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with government policy, however, at 30 June 2012, 31 employees had enforceable AWAs in place. Table 8.12 at
PART 6 PART Appendix 3 sets out the AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification. In some limited cases the Court has used common law contracts to provide supplementary conditions of employment for individuals covered by the Enterprise Agreement and determinations made by ty
i the Agency Head under section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999, to build upon existing AWA l i arrangements. At 30 June 2012, 16 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable tab
n common law contracts and 46 had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments. See Table 8.11 at Appendix 3 for more detail. ccou A d n
a Relationship between agreements
t
en Terms and conditions of employment in the Court are governed by one or more of the following m
ge industrial instruments: a n a
M The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14, effective from 1 July 2011, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs AWAs individual determinations under s 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999, or individual common law contracts.
The Enterprise Agreement, like its predecessors, is a comprehensive agreement, however, for some employees, it may be supported by either a s 24(1) determination or a common law contract that provides additional terms and conditions (for example, as a way of retaining high-value employees). AWAs may also be supported by individual s 24(1) determinations or common law contracts to provide for pay increases or additional terms and conditions, including non-salary benefits.
130 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability SES remuneration Terms and conditions for the Court’s senior executive service employees are in AWAs and individual s 24(1) determinations made by the Chief Executive Officer. SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and take account of the Court’s budgetary position.
Non-salary benefits Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees included: motor vehicles car parking superannuation access to salary sacrificing arrangements computers, including home-based computer access membership of professional associations mobile phones PART 6 studies assistance leave flexibilities workplace responsibility allowances (for example, first aid, fire warden, community language), and M
airline club memberships. a n a ge m
Performance pay arrangements en t
a
During 2011–12, the Court neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paid n d A
performance pay to any employee. ccou n Training, learning and development tab i l i The Court recognises the value of a well-educated workforce that is able to contribute effectively ty to meeting its objectives. It provides staff with an extensive range of learning and development opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge for current and future roles and responsibilities. The Court achieves this by supporting employees in meeting their development and career needs consistent with the Performance Management and Development System and available resources. It also provides studies assistance, including leave for study and examination attendance for employees undertaking work-related tertiary studies. Financial constraints mean that the Court relies predominantly on in- house training and, where available, staff attend training courses provided by the Attorney-General’s Department or the Australian Public Service Commission. Specific training during the year included: a proof-reading and editing course for the Melbourne and Brisbane judicial support staff family violence training for all family consultants
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 131 Disability awareness training course, Sydney.
a disability awareness course at the Sydney registry training to managers and supervisors on how to conduct a performance discussion, including how to
PART 6 PART have a difficult conversation. This was necessary to further enable the roll-out of the Court’s updated online Performance Management and Development System (PMDS), and for smaller and more remote locations, training sessions on ethical behaviour, the APS Code of Conduct and APS Values, which major court registries and the National Support Office had received ty i l i in 2010. tab n The Court’s in-house training facilities include self-paced, online learning courses on a range of topics ccou
A including Australian Public Service (APS) and Court specific induction training, work health and safety, d
n accounting basics, project management, business communications and the Windows XP suite (Excel, a
t Word, PowerPoint). en m
ge During the year the Court introduced a web conferencing/on line training software system to enable a
n webinars (web-based training seminars) and online meetings. This has been very successful and was a
M expanded through the Court to enable various groups to collaborate more closely across the country.
Performance Management and Development System The Court’s Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) aims to foster a high performance culture by emphasising the personal development of staff and the relationship between the Court’s goals and individual skills, responsibilities and performance. In 2011–12, the PMDS underwent a major overhaul. Various factors influenced this, including internal surveys, and the Australian Public Service Commission’s State of the Service survey results for the Court (2008–2009 and 2009–2010) as well as the APS Reform Blueprint, all of which had indicated that developing and managing performance was an area in which some improvement was necessary across the public service.
132 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability As background, the courts’ first joint Enterprise Agreement (2010) had sought to strengthen the PMDS, to give it emphasis on both performance development and management. This was important because progression through the increments of a particular level and the productivity pay increases under the enterprise agreement were both tied to satisfactory performance. The courts’ 2011–14 Enterprise Agreement requires significant further improvements to be achieved through a range of corporate efficiency/productivity measures that are ongoing to 2012–13. The strengthened PMDS included the launch in October 2011 of a new online tool, Career Manager. It allows discussions to be recorded in the Performance Management Development Plan via the Employee Self Service (ESS) system, ensuring performance, career planning and agreed development plans are monitored. The PMDS is designed to: ensure that the standards of performance expected of an employee are clearly articulated enable an employee and supervisor, in partnership, to focus on present and future skills development enhance an employee’s work performance by providing regular and structured feedback ensure that the Court’s employees are able to do the best job they can, and are encouraged and
recognised for their contributions PART 6 encourage a shared commitment and understanding of corporate goals amongst all staff assist managers and employees in discussing individual and team performance and enable both parties to develop and implement improvement strategies, and M
provide a mechanism for managing performance. a n a ge
The Family Court encourages regular ongoing discussions between employees and their managers about m en
performance, together with two formal performance reviews each financial year. The initial performance t
a n
review takes place during October and November and the final review occurs during April and May. d A
Outcomes are captured in the PDMS. ccou
The target in 2011–12 was for 100 per cent of employees participating in the system. This was achieved. n tab i l i Peer support network ty The nature of the Court’s core business means employees may be exposed to and involved in highly sensitive and stressful situations. The Court has continued to manage the risk of stress in the workplace through its peer support system within registries and the National Support Office. The Peer Support program provides a network of trained staff in the workplace to ensure that skilled support is available for immediate assistance should an individual experience a distressing situation or a difficult event. This program is designed to complement the Employee Assistance program. Trained peer support officers from any location can provide assistance as required. There is no restriction on staff accessing officers from outside their immediate work area. All communication with peer support officers is strictly confidential. For more information about work health and safety, see Appendix 4.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 133 Employee Assistance program The Family Court is committed to the wellbeing of its employees and to managing all workplace health, safety and working environment issues effectively, efficiently and beneficially for all employees. The Court and its employees have therefore committed themselves, through their Enterprise Agreement, to measures that will assist to prevent and manage illness and injury, including psychological injury. The focus is, as much as possible, on assisting staff to avoid absences due to illness and injury and, if absent, to return to work as soon as reasonably practicable. The Court’s Employee Assistance program provides a free, confidential counselling service to Court employees experiencing personal or work-related problems and their immediate families. Staff are encouraged to use it. In addition, managers may access a dedicated Managers’ Help Line for assistance for those with the added pressures of supervisory/managerial positions. Converge International continued to provide this service to the Court throughout 2011–12. Converge International also provided a lunch and learn information session to one registry and a critical incident response session was held in another registry to ensure staff could debrief.
Productivity gains During 2011–12, the combination of the merged administration and working under a single Enterprise Agreement continued to produce efficiency savings for the courts through the more efficient allocation PART 6 PART of resources, elimination of duplicated services and the rationalisation of court services. Synergies were achieved in the area of training where program delivery was made available to the staff of both courts, thus reducing cost and capturing a greater number of staff. ty i l
i Additionally, the single administration, the review of client services, the registrar review and
tab improvements in records management have resulted in a number of changes being introduced to further n reduce duplication and improve efficiency. A number of productivity gains also formed part of the
ccou enterprise agreement negotiations. A d n a
t Disability reporting en m
ge Since 1994, the Court has reported on its performance as employer and provider under the a n
a Commonwealth Disability Strategy. In 2007–08, reporting on the employer role was transferred to the M Australian Public Service Commission’s State of the Service Report and the APS Statistical Bulletin. These reports are available at www.apsc.gov.au. From 2010–11, departments and agencies have no longer been required to report on these functions. The Commonwealth Disability Strategy has been overtaken by a new National Disability Strategy, which sets out a 10 year national policy framework for improving life for Australians with disability, their families and carers. A high level report to track progress for people with disability at a national level will be produced by the Standing Council on Community, Housing and Disability Services to the Council of Australian Governments and will be available at www.fahcsia.gov.au. The Social Inclusion Measurement and Reporting Strategy agreed by the Government in December 2009 will also include some reporting on disability matters in its regular How Australia is Faring report and, if appropriate, in strategic change indicators in agency annual reports.
134 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability The Court’s recruitment, training and development, occupational health and safety, and access and equity policies take account of the Government’s social inclusion agenda: the vision of a socially inclusive society in which all Australians feel valued and have the opportunity to participate fully in the life of our society. These policies are published on the Court’s intranet and are available on application to the Court’s Human Resource Manager. More detail on social inclusion matters can be found at www.socialinclusion.gov.au.
Financial management The Family Court of Australia is a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
Operating revenue and expenses Total revenue for the Court in 2011–12 was $131.811 million, including appropriations from Government ($120.078 million), other revenue ($3.307 million), and other gains ($8.426 million). Other gains include liabilities assumed by related entities for the Judges Pension Scheme of $8.362 million. Operating expenses for the 2011–12 financial year amounted to $143.196 million, being a $22.184 million reduction from 2010–11. The movement in nominal dollars is primarily a result of a decrease in PART 6 contributions to the Federal Magistrates Court of $26.139 million due to appropriations associated with the restructure of federal courts being returned to the Federal Magistrates Court from 1 January 2011. Increases across employee and suppliers categories were experienced, mainly as a result of the impact on employee provisions due to changes to the government bond rate ($1.943 million) and increased lease M costs in Commonwealth Law Courts ($0.966 million). a n a Figure 6.2 provides a breakdown of the actual costs incurred by the Court for 2011–12. It shows that ge m the Court had a significant proportion of fixed costs (58 per cent) relating to property, judicial officers en t and their support, and depreciation. Of the remaining expenditure, 28 per cent provided direct support a n d
to the judicial officers in determining cases, 10 per cent provided indirect support to the judicial officers A through the provision of information technology and corporate services (along with meeting statutory ccou
reporting requirements for the Court), and four per cent of expenditure was attributable to corporate n overheads. Details of the expenditure categories are shown in Table 6.1. tab i l i ty
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 135 Figure 6.2 Family Court expenditure, 2011–12
Variable Fixed
Corporate Corporate Support Overheads 4% 5%
Information Judges and Support Technology Services 21% 5%
Client Services 19% Depreciation 5% PART 6 PART
Family Consultants 5% Property 32% ty i
l Registrars i 4% tab n ccou
A Table 6.1 Categories of Family Court expenditure d n a
t Judges and All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judges and their support staff.
en support m
ge Depreciation All depreciation, amortisation and other expenses associated with asset movements. a n
a Property Lease rentals for Commonwealth Law Courts and leased premises, and all property M operating expenses (such as cleaning, energy, repairs, maintenance and management fees) associated with these 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 service staff. Corporate support All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to finance, human resources, property services, contract services and the CEO. Information All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the provision of information technology technology services. services Corporate Workers Compensation and ComCover insurance premiums, Fringe Benefit Tax overheads 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).
136 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Operating deficits and ongoing budgetary pressure For 2011–12 the Court recorded an operating deficit3 attributable to the Court of $4.301 million, compared with an operating deficit of $1.268 million reported in 2010–11. Contributing to the operating deficit is $1.943 million arising as a result of changes to government bond rate, and $0.276 million from losses on sale of assets. The remaining $2.082 million component is the result of ongoing pressure on the Court’s operating budget, noting that the Court has over recent years undertaken significant initiatives to reduce costs and generate efficiencies. The government is working with the Court to address these ongoing pressures. In addition the Court is identifying new and innovative ways to provide better access to justice for family law litigants, in the context of limited resources and potential better outcomes for litigants.
Administered revenue The court received $2.468 million in 2011–12 on behalf of the Commonwealth, mainly in court fees. Administered revenue is not available to offset the Court’s operating costs. Offsetting the administered revenue collected by the Court on behalf of the Government were refunds of fees ($0.050 million) resulting in total comprehensive income of $2.418 million which was returned to Government. PART 6
Services provided free of charge The Family Court provides resources free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court in accordance with sections 90, 92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999. Resources provided free of charge include: M a n a
court staff, who perform work on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court, and ge m
accommodation, including access to courtrooms. en t
a n d
It is estimated that the cost of resources provided free of charge by the Family Court to the Federal A Magistrates Court during 2011–12 was $37.168 million. ccou n
Figure 6.3 shows the expenditure categories in which the services provided free of charge to the Federal tab i
Magistrates Court are provided. l i ty
3 Equivalent to the total comprehensive (loss) less depreciation/amortisation expenses previously funded through revenue appropriations as reported in Note 27: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements per the Financial Statements for the period ending 30 June 2012.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 137 Figure 6.3 2011–12 expenditure resources shared with the Federal Magistrates Court
Variable Fixed
Corporate Corporate Support Overheads 4% 5%
information Judges and Support Technology Services 21% 5%
Client Services 19% Depreciation 5%
Family Consultants 5% Property 32%
PART 6 PART Registrars 4% Shared Resources
Purchasing, consultants and contracts ty i l i The Court’s Procurement and Risk Management section assists staff undertaking procurement and tab
n manages a number of corporate contracts. The section also manages, or has significant involvement in, all complex procurement undertaken by the Court to ensure compliance with legislative obligations ccou
A and the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. The Chief Executive Instructions, the Commonwealth d
n Procurement Guidelines and the Court’s Procurement Framework are all on the intranet as reference a
t material for court staff. en m The core policies and principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines were, as far as ge a
n practicable, adhered to throughout 2011–12. The Court’s Annual Procurement Plan was published a
M meeting mandatory reporting requirements. An appropriate market approach was made for all procurements covered by the guidelines. All contracts let in 2011–12 had provision for the Auditor-General to access contractors’ premises.
Consultants During 2011–12: three new consultancy contracts were entered into involving total actual expenditure of $164 191 (GST inclusive), and five ongoing consultancy contracts were active involving total actual expenditure of $216 875 (GST inclusive).
Total actual expenditure on consultancy contracts for 2011–12 was $381 066 (GST inclusive).
138 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability The process of engagement of all consultants is required to adhere to the procedures described in the Court’s Procurement Framework and are categorised in accordance with the following: A—skills currently unavailable within the Court B—need for specialised or professional skills C—need for independent research or assessment.
Depending on the particular needs, value and risks (as set out in the Court’s Procurement Framework) the Court uses open tender, select tender or direct sourcing for its consultancies. The Court is a relatively small user of consultants. As such, it has no specific policy by which consultants are engaged, other than within the broad frameworks above, related to skills unavailability within the Court or when there is need for specialised and/or independent research or assessment. Information on expenditure on all Court contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website www.tenders.gov.au.
Consultants and competitive tendering
No contracts were let to an organisation for the delivery of services previously performed by the Court PART 6 during the reporting period.
Exempt contracts No contracts or standing offers were exempt from publication on AusTender in terms of the Freedom of M
Information Act 1982 during the reporting period. a n a ge m
Legal services expenditure en t
a
Paragraph 11.1 of the Legal Services Directions 2005 states that the Chief Executive Officer of the Court n d has the responsibility for ensuring that: A ccou arrangements for legal services are handled efficiently and effectively, and n tab
appropriate systems and procedures are in place to comply with these directions. i l i ty In accordance with paragraph 11.1 (ba) of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Court incurred the legal services expenditure shown in Table 6.2 during 2011–12. All expenditure figures include GST. Consistent with paragraph 11.2 of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Chief Executive Officer issued a Certificate to the Office of Legal Services Coordination of the Attorney-General’s Department stating that the Family Court of Australia: had appropriate systems and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the Directions had no record of any alleged, possible or determined breach of the Directions during the 2011–12 financial year.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 139 Table 6.2 Legal services expenditure
Total costs recovered $0.00
Total external legal services expenditure $37 556.81
Total internal legal services expenditure $194 766.15
Total (external and internal) expenditure $232 322.96
Summary of external legal services expenditure
Total value of briefs to counsel $0.00
Total value of disbursements (excluding counsel) $0.00
Total value of professional fees paid $37 556.81
Total external legal services expenditure $37 556.81
Counsel
Number of briefs to male counsel 0
Number of briefs to female counsel 0
Total number of briefs to counsel 0 PART 6 PART Number of direct briefs to male counsel 0
Number of direct briefs to female counsel 0
Total number of direct briefs to counsel 0 ty i l i Total value of briefs to male counsel (including direct briefs) $0.00 tab n Total value of briefs to female counsel (including direct briefs) $0.00 ccou
A Total value of briefs to counsel $0.00 d n a
t Disbursements en
m Total value of disbursements (excluding counsel) $0.00 ge a n
a Professional fees M Australian Government Solicitor $20 698.92
Ashurst $2 007.72
Blake Dawson Waldron $8 220.17
Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing $6 630. 00
Total value of professional fees paid $37 556.81
140 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Assets and property management The Family Court of Australia is located in shared Commonwealth-owned facilities in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Parramatta and Sydney. It also occupies privately leased facilities in Albury, Alice Springs, Cairns, Coffs Harbour, Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Launceston, Lismore, Newcastle, Townsville and Wollongong, and shares the state court facility in Rockhampton. The most significant property-related activities at various court locations in 2011–12 are detailed below.
Sydney In January 2011, the Federal Court of Australia vacated level one of the Commonwealth Law Courts, Lionel Bowen Building. The vacated space provided an opportunity to redress a shortage of courtrooms in Sydney. A project was completed in November 2011, delivering four much needed new courtrooms in the Sydney CBD.
Adelaide
A reconfiguration of the Adelaide subpoena PART 6 viewing room was completed in June 2012. This project moved the subpoena viewing area, which had been situated in the south-eastern corner of the ground floor and entered from a
small corridor, to the main registry area. There M a n
were multiple issues with the former location, a ge
including accessibility and security. The subpoena m viewing room is now within the immediate en t
Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts, Sydney. a environ of the Adelaide registry (ground floor) n d where the majority of resources are available to A ccou support clients and practitioners. n Brisbane tab i l i To address the shortage of judicial ty accommodation in Brisbane, two additional chambers were constructed on level nine in June 2012, to accommodate visiting judiciary and full court sittings and provide visiting chambers for federal magistrates when required. An upgrade of the Brisbane subpoena viewing room was completed in December 2011. The area was originally an office area and, consequently, there were multiple issues with the room, including security, lack of storage and configuration not conducive with the function. The upgrade provides an improved amenity for clients and practitioners. Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts, Brisbane.
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 141 Parramatta The Family Law Courts National Enquiry Centre (NEC), based at the Parramatta registry building, was established in April 2006 to provide a centralised telephone and email service to people contacting the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The NEC has grown over time, which had placed demands on the accommodation—there was limited space for staff. An upgrade of the facility was undertaken early in 2012 to improve staff amenities, including additional work points and an improved mail dispatch area. A furniture replacement program was also implemented at the Parramatta registry. This replaced furniture in chambers and registrars’ offices that had been in place since the construction of the building in 1991.
Dandenong The Family Court entered into a new five-year lease in March 2012. As a result various works were undertaken at the registry to sustain the additional five year term. The works included the upgrade of the judicial conference room, replacement of furniture in the public waiting areas, and an upgrade of the kitchens and bathrooms throughout the building both in judicial areas and in the public areas. The works have lifted the appearance and functionality of the registry and provide improved amenities for clients, practitioners and staff.
PART 6 PART Hobart Two projects were undertaken at the Hobart registry in 2011–12. The registry counters were reconfigured to establish a safe room for the courts’ clients who require separation whilst attending court. The project improved the functionality of the area and an improved work point layout. Additional ty i
l work was undertaken to establish a small conference room, improve the registry manager’s office and i
tab upgrade the staff kitchen facilities. n ccou A d n a
t en m ge a n a M
Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts, Hobart.
142 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Management and Accountability Albury The registry underwent a significant fit out in 2009 with the remainder of the works delivered in 2011–12. This included the replacement of public seating in the courtroom. All works are now complete and provide improved amenities for clients, practitioners and staff.
Canberra Improved visual and physical security was provided in March 2012 by installing additional perimeter fencing at the Canberra registry.
Cairns Carpet replacement was undertaken in both chambers and the courtroom. This has improved Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts, Canberra. the aesthetics of an aging space. PART 6 Correction of material errors in 2010–11 report The Court has no matters to report. M a n a ge m en t
a n d A ccou n tab i l i ty
Management and Accountability • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 143
PART 7 Financial Statements 146 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Financial Statements
Index to the Notes of the Financial Statements Independent Auditor's Report 148 Statement by CEO and CFO 150 Statement of Comprehensive Income 151 Balance Sheet 152 Statement of Changes in Equity 153 Cash Flow Statement 154 Schedule of Commitments 155 Administered Schedule of Comprehensive Income 156 Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities 157 Administered Reconciliation Schedule 158 Administered Cash Flow Statement 159 Table of Contents Notes 160 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 161 Note 2: Events After the Reporting Period 168 Note 3: Expenses 169 Note 4: Income 171 PART 7 Note 5: Financial Assets 172 Note 6: Non-Financial Assets 173 Note 7: Payables 178 Note 8: Provisions 179 Note 9: Cash Flow Reconciliation 180 Fin a n
Note 10: Contingent Liabilities and Assets 180 c i al
Note 11: Senior Executive Remuneration 181 S tat Note 12: Remuneration of Auditors 184 e m
Note 13: Financial Instruments 185 en Note 14: Financial Assets Reconciliation 187 ts Note 15: Administered—Expenses 188 Note 16: Administered—Income 188 Note 17: Administered—Financial Assets 188 Note 18: Administered—Cash Flow Reconciliation 188 Note 19: Administered Contingent Assets and Liabilities 189 Note 20: Administered—Financial Instruments 189 Note 21: Administered Financial Assets Reconciliation 189 Note 22: Appropriations 190 Note 23: Special Accounts and FMA Act Section 39 193 Note 24: Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund 194 Note 25: Compensation and Debt Relief 195 Note 26: Reporting of Outcomes 196 Note 27: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements 197
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 147 PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
148 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements PART 7 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 149 Family Court of Australia STATEMENT BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER
In our opinion, the attached financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2012 are based on properly maintained financial records and give a true and fair view of the matters required by the Finance Minister's Orders made under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, as amended.
Mr Richard Foster PSM Mr Grahame Harriott Chief Executive Officer Chief Finance Officer Family Court of Australia Family Court of Australia
31 August 2012 31 August 2012 PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-3-
150 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Statement of Comprehensive Income for the period ended 30 June 2012
2012 2011 Notes $'000 $'000 EXPENSES Judges and employee benefits 3A 73,758 71,550 Supplier 3B 61,651 60,421 Depreciation and amortisation 3C 7,353 6,915 Finance costs 3D 152 182 Write-down and impairment of assets 3E 6 4 Losses from asset sales 3F 276 169 Contribution to Federal Magistrates Court (FMC) - Family Law transfer 3G - 2,375 Contribution to FMC - restructure 3H - 23,764 Total expenses 143,196 165,380
LESS: OWN-SOURCE INCOME Own-source revenue Sale of goods and rendering of services 4A 2,579 2,632 Interest 4B - 1 Other revenue - FMC 4C 192 1,027 Other 4D 536 596 Total own-source revenue 3,307 4,256
Gains Other gains 4E 8,426 7,368 Total gains 8,426 7,368
Total own-source income 11,733 11,624 PART 7 Net cost of services 131,463 153,756 Revenue from Government 4F 120,078 145,601 Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government (11,385) (8,155) OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME Changes in asset revaluation surplus (269) (28) Fin Total comprehensive income (loss) attributable to the Australian a
Government (11,654) (8,183) n c i The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes. al S tat e m en ts
-4-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 151 Family Court of Australia Balance Sheet as at 30 June 2012
2012 2011 Notes $'000 $'000 ASSETS Financial Assets Cash and cash equivalents 5A 1,402 1,205 Trade and other receivables 5B 8,222 9,643 Other financial assets 5C 183 200 Total financial assets 9,807 11,048 Non-Financial Assets Land and buildings 6A 19,950 16,687 Property, plant and equipment 6B,C 14,991 12,774 Intangibles 6D,E 4,523 3,947 Inventories 6F 63 53 Other non-financial assets 6G 1,493 3,645 Total non-financial assets 41,020 37,106 Total Assets 50,827 48,154
LIABILITIES Payables Suppliers 7A 4,467 2,540 Other payables 7B 1,982 2,207 Total payables 6,449 4,747 Provisions Employee provisions 8A 21,967 19,787 Other provisions 8B 3,316 2,895 Total provisions 25,283 22,682
PART 7 PART Total Liabilities 31,732 27,429 Net assets 19,095 20,725
EQUITY Contributed equity 10,728 704
ts Reserves 16,879 17,148
en Retained surplus (accumulated deficit) (8,512) 2,873 m
e Total Equity 19,095 20,725 tat S al i c
n The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes. a Fin
-5-
152 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements - (28 ) ,40 8 ,40 8 ,72 5 201 1 $'00 0 8,50 0 8,50 0 8,155 ) 8,183 ) 20 20 20 ( ( - ,72 5 ,72 5 ,02 4 ,02 4 ,09 5 269 ) 201 2 ( Total equit y $'00 0 20 20 10 10 19 (11,385 ) (11,654 ) - - - - 70 4 201 1 $'00 0 8,50 0 8,50 0 7,796 ) 7,796 ) ( ( - - - - 70 4 70 4 02 4 02 4 72 8 201 2 $'00 0 Cont ri but ed equity/capita l 10 , 10 , 10 , - - - - 17 6 17 6 14 8 (28 ) (28 ) 201 1 $'00 0 17 , 17 , 17 , atio n - - - - surplu s 269 ) 269 ) 201 2 ( ( $'00 0 17,14 8 17,14 8 16,87 9 Ass et reval u - - - - 201 1 $'00 0 2,87 3 8,155 ) 8,155 ) 11,02 8 11,02 8 ( ( - - - - 201 2 2,87 3 2,87 3 $'00 0 8,512 ) ( (11,385 ) (11,385 ) Retained earning s - PART 7 6 - Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts li a e (loss ) 30 June 2012 ner s ala nce b g t of Aust ra with owners an ce penin ons by o w prehensive inco m o ng ba l prehensive inco me am il y Cou r F Statement of Changes in Equity for the period ended Openi Balance carried forward from previous period Adjustment for errors Adjust ed Co m Other comprehensive income Surplus (deficit) for the perio d Total co m Transactions Departmental capital budget withSub -total tra ns actio owners 30 June Closing balance as at The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes. Cont ri but i
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 153 Family Court of Australia Cash Flow Statement for the period ended 30 June 2012
2012 2011 Notes $'000 $'000 OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash received Appropriations 122,111 165,687 Sales of goods and rendering of services 5,294 3,833 Interest - 1 Net GST received 6,588 6,484 Total cash received 133,993 176,005 Cash used Employees 63,534 63,944 Suppliers 65,313 77,062 Section 31 receipts transferred to OPA 4,949 6,092 Contribution to FMC - 27,565 Total cash used 133,796 174,663 Net cash from operating activities 9 197 1,342 INVESTING ACTIVITIES Cash received Proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment - 12 Total cash received - 12 Cash used Purchase of property, plant and equipment 11,970 4,222 Purchase of intangibles 1,715 1,584 Total cash used 13,685 5,806 Net cash from (used by) investing activities (13,685) (5,794)
PART 7 PART FINANCING ACTIVITIES Cash received Contributed equity 13,685 4,290 Total cash received 13,685 4,290
ts Net increase (decrease) in cash held 197 (162) en
m Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period 1,205 1,367 e Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period 5A 1,402 1,205 tat S al i
c The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes. n a Fin
-7-
154 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Schedule of Commitments as at 30 June 2012
2012 2011 $'000 $'000 BY TYPE Commitments receivable Net GST recoverable on commitments 12,816 16,453 Total commitments receivable 12,816 16,453 Commitments payable Other commitments Operating leases1 (134,617) (175,782) Other commitments2 (6,363) (5,201) Total other commitments (140,980) (180,983) Total commitments payable (140,980) (180,983) Net commitments by type (128,164) (164,530)
BY MATURITY Commitments receivable Other commitments receivable One year or less 2,076 3,856 From one to five years 6,803 7,247 Over five years 3,937 5,350 Total other commitments receivable 12,816 16,453 Commitments payable Operating lease commitments
One year or less (19,216) (37,708) PART 7 From one to five years (72,095) (79,217) Over five years (43,306) (58,857) Total operating lease commitments (134,617) (175,782)
Other commitments One year or less (3,625) (4,703)
From one to five years (2,738) (498) Fin
Over five years - - a n
Total other commitments (6,363) (5,201) c i Total commitments payable (140,980) (180,983) al Net commitments by maturity (128,164) (164,530) S tat
NB: Commitments are GST inclusive where relevant. e m en 1 Operating leases are non cancellable and comprise: ts Nature of lease General description of leasing arrangement Leases for office accommodation All lease commitments, for both commercial and special purpose court building leases, include annual increases and market rate reviews where applicable.
A large proportion of the operating lease commitments are for the Commonwealth Law Court Buildings (CLC). The majority of CLC leases expired on 30 June 2012 (Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Parramatta and Sydney) and are now on month-to-month lease arrangements. The funding arrangements for the CLC are currently being reviewed. Under proposed new arrangements, approximately 80% of lease commitments for CLC will be transferred to Dept. Finance. 2 Other Commitments relate to payments in relation to the maintenance and ongoing costs associated with the Court's buildings. This schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.
-8-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 155 Family Court of Australia Administered Schedule of Comprehensive Income for the period ended 30 June 2012
2012 2011 Notes $'000 $'000
EXPENSES Other expenses - refunds of fees 15A 50 20 Total expenses administered on behalf of Government 50 20 LESS OWN-SOURCE INCOME Own-source revenue Non-taxation revenue Fees and fines 16A 2,468 2,313 Total non-taxation revenue 2,468 2,313 Total own-source income administered on behalf of Government 2,468 2,313 Net cost of (contribution by) services (2,418) (2,293) Total comprehensive income 2,418 2,293 This schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes. PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-9-
156 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities as at 30 June 2012
2012 2011 Notes $'000 $'000 ASSETS Financial assets Cash and cash equivalents 17A 11 31 Total assets administered on behalf of Government 11 31
Liabilities administered on behalf of Government Net assets 11 31
This schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes. PART 7 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-10-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 157 Family Court of Australia Administered Reconciliation Schedule 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Opening administered assets less administered liabilities as at 1 July 31 25 Surplus (deficit) items: - Plus: Administered income 2,468 2,313 Less: Administered expenses (non CAC) (50) (20) Administered transfers to/from Australian Government: Appropriation transfers from OPA Special appropriations (Refund) (non CAC) 81 44 Transfers to OPA (2,519) (2,331) Closing administered assets less administered liabilities as at 30 June 11 31 PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-11-
158 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Administered Cash Flow Statement for the period ended 30 June 2012
2012 2011 Notes $'000 $'000 OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash received Fees and fines 2,468 2,313 Total cash received 2,468 2,313 Cash used Refunds of fees 50 20 Total cash used 50 20 Net cash flows from operating activities 2,418 2,293 Net increase in Cash Held 2,418 2,293 Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period 31 25 Cash from Official Public Account for: - Appropriations - refunds of receipts (s28 FMA) 81 44 Cash to Official Public Account for: - Transfer to other entities (Finance - Whole of Government) (2,519) (2,331) Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period 17A 11 31 The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes. PART 7 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-12-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 159 Table of Contents - Notes
Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 161 14 Note 2: Events After the Reporting Period 168 21 Note 3: Expenses 169 22 Note 4: Income 171 24 Note 5: Financial Assets 172 25 Note 6: Non-Financial Assets 173 26 Note 7: Payables 178 31 Note 8: Provisions 179 32 Note 9: Cash Flow Reconciliation 180 33 Note 10: Contingent Liabilities and Assets 180 33 Note 11: Senior Executive Remuneration 181 34 Note 12: Remuneration of Auditors 184 37 Note 13: Financial Instruments 185 38 Note 14: Financial Assets Reconciliation 187 40 Note 15: Administered - Expenses 188 41 Note 16: Administered - Income 188 41 Note 17: Administered - Financial Assets 188 41 Note 18: Administered - Cash Flow Reconciliation 188 41 Note 19: Administered Contingent Assets and Liabilities 188 41 Note 20: Administered - Financial Instruments 189 42 Note 21: Administered Financial Assets Reconciliation 189 42 Note 22: Appropriations 190 43 Note 23: Special Accounts and FMA Act Section 39 193 46 Note 24: Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund 194 47 Note 25: Compensation and Debt Relief 195 48 Note 26: Reporting of Outcomes 196 49 Note 27: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements 197 50 PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-13-
160 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 1.1 Objectives of Family Court of Australia The Family Court of Australia (the Court) is an Australian Government controlled entity. It is a not-for-profit entity. The objectives of the Court, as Australia's superior court in family law, are to: a) determine cases with the most complex law, facts and parties; b) cover specialised areas in family law; and c) provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters. The Court is structured to meet the 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.
The continued existence of the Court in its present form and with its present programs is dependent on Government policy and on continuing funding by Parliament for the Court's administration and programs.
The Court's activities contributing toward this outcome are classified as either departmental or administered. Departmental activities involve the use of assets, liabilities, income and expenses controlled or incurred by the Court in its own right. Administered activities involve the management or oversight by the Court, on behalf of the Government, of items controlled or incurred by the Government.
The Court's administered activities are related to fees charged for access to the Court's services. The Court's administered expenses relate to refunds of fees to clients.
1.2 Basis of Preparation of the Financial Statements The financial statements are general purpose financial statements and are required by section 49 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with: a) Finance Minister's Orders (FMOs) for reporting periods ending on or after 1 July 2011; and PART 7 b) Australian Accounting Standards and Interpretations issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) that apply for the reporting period.
The financial statements have been prepared on an accrual basis and in accordance with the historical cost convention, except for certain assets and liabilities at fair value. Except where stated, no allowance is made for the effect of changing prices on the results or the financial position. Fin a
The financial statements are presented in Australian dollars and values are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars n c
unless otherwise specified. i al S
Unless an alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard or the FMOs, assets and liabilities tat
are recognised in the balance sheet when and only when it is probable that future economic benefits will flow to the e m
Court or a future sacrifice of economic benefits will be required and the amounts of the assets or liabilities can be en
reliably measured. However, assets and liabilities arising under executor contracts are not recognised unless required ts by an accounting standard. Liabilities and assets that are unrecognised are reported in the schedule of commitments.
Unless alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard, income and expenses are recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income when and only when the flow, consumption or loss of economic benefits has occurred and can be reliably measured.
1.3 Significant Accounting Judgements and Estimates In the process of applying the accounting policies listed in this note, the Court has made the following judgements that have the most significant impact on the amounts recorded in the financial statements:
a) The fair value of land and buildings, property, plant and equipment has been taken to be the written down replacement cost as determined by an independent valuer. In some instances, the Court's buildings are purpose built and may in fact realise more or less in the market.
-14-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 161 Family Court of Australia No accounting assumptions or estimates have been identified that have a significant risk of causing a material adjustment to the carrying amount of assets and liabilities within the next reporting period. 1.4 New Australian Accounting Standards Adoption of New Australian Accounting Standard Requirements No accounting standard has been adopted earlier than the application date as stated in the standard. Of the new standards, amendments to standards and interpretations issued prior to the sign-off date that are applicable to the current period, none have a material impact on the Court.
Future Australian Accounting Standard Requirements Of the new standards, amendments to standards and interpretations issued prior to the sign-off date that are applicable to future periods, none will have a material impact on the Court.
1.5 Revenue Revenue from the sale of goods is recognised when: a) the risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to the buyer; b) the Court retains no managerial involvement or effective control over the goods; c) the revenue and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; and d) it is probable that the economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow to the Court.
Revenue from rendering of services is recognised by reference to the stage of completion of contracts at the reporting date. The revenue is recognised when: a) the amount of revenue, stage of completion and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; and b) the probable economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow to the Court. The stage of completion of contracts at the reporting date is determined by reference to the proportion that costs incurred to date bear to the estimated total costs of the transaction. Receivables for goods and services, which have 30 day terms, are recognised at the nominal amounts due less any
PART 7 PART impairment allowance account. Collectability of debts is reviewed at the end of the reporting period. Allowances are made when collectability of the debt is no longer probable.
Interest revenue is recognised using the effective interest method as set out in AASB 139 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. ts
en Revenue from Government m e Amounts appropriated for departmental appropriation for the year (adjusted for any formal additions and reductions)
tat are recognised as Revenue from Government when the Court gains control of the appropriation, except for certain S amounts that relate to activities that are reciprocal in nature, in which case revenue is recognised only when it has al i
c been earned. Appropriations receivable are recognised at their nominal amounts. n a Fin 1.6 Gains Resources Received Free of Charge Resources received free of charge are recognised as gains when, and only when, a fair value can be reliably determined and the services would have been purchased if they had not been donated. Use of those resources is recognised as an expense.
Resources received free of charge are recorded as either revenue or gains depending on their nature.
Contributions of assets at no cost of acquisition or for nominal consideration are recognised as gains at their fair value when the asset qualifies for recognition, unless received from another Government entity as a consequence of a restructuring of administrative arrangements (Refer to Note 1.7).
-15-
162 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia The Court recognises a revenue and corresponding expense item "Resources received free of charge - Judges superannuation." The notional amount reported for the Court's Judges is $8,362,494 (2011: $7,304,282).
Sale of Assets Gains from disposal of assets are recognised when control of the asset has passed to the buyer.
1.7 Transactions with the Government as Owner Equity Injections Amounts appropriated which are designated as 'equity injections' for a year (less any formal reductions) and Departmental Capital Budgets (DCBs) are recognised directly in contributed equity in that year.
Restructuring of Administrative Arrangements Net assets received from or relinquished to another Government entity under a restructuring of administrative arrangements are adjusted at their book value directly against contributed equity. Other Distributions to Owners The FMOs require that distributions to owners be debited to contributed equity unless it is in the nature of a dividend.
1.8 Judges and Employee Benefits Liabilities for ‘short-term employee benefits’ (as defined in AASB 119 Employee Benefits) and termination benefits due within twelve months of the end of reporting period are measured at their nominal amounts.
The nominal amount is calculated with regard to the rates expected to be paid on settlement of the liability.
Judges and other long-term employee benefits are measured as net total of the present value of the defined benefit obligation at the end of the reporting period minus the fair value at the end of the reporting period of plan assets (if any) out of which the obligations are to be settled directly. PART 7
Family Court of Australia Judges are entitled to a non-contributory pension upon retirement after 10 years. As the liability for these pension payments is assumed by the Australian Government, the Court does not recognise a liability for unfunded superannuation liability. It does, however, recognise a revenue and corresponding expense item "Resources received free of charge - Judges superannuation." The notional amount reported for the Court's Judges is $8,362,494 (2011: $7,304,282). Fin a
Leave n c
The liability for employee benefits includes provision for annual leave and long service leave. No provision has been i made for sick leave as all sick leaves is non-vesting and the average sick leave taken in future years by employees of al S the Court is estimated to be less than the annual entitlement for sick leave. tat e
The leave liabilities are calculated on the basis of employees' remuneration at the estimated salary rates that will be m applied at the time the leave is taken, including the Court's employer superannuation contribution rates to the extent en that the leave is likely to be taken during service rather than paid out on termination. ts
The liability for long service leave has been determined by reference to the work of an actuary this financial year. The estimate of the present value of the liability takes into account attrition rates and pay increases through promotion and inflation. An actuarial assessment is undertaken on a tri-annual basis. Separation and Redundancy Provision is made for separation and redundancy benefit payments. The Court recognises a provision for termination when it has developed a detailed formal plan for the terminations and has informed those employees affected that it will carry out the terminations. Superannuation The Court's staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS), the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) or the PSS accumulation plan (PSSap).
-16-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 163 Family Court of Australia The CSS and PSS are defined benefit schemes for the Australian Government. The PSSap is a defined contribution scheme.
The liability for defined benefits is recognised in the financial statements of the Australian Government and is settled by the Australian Government in due course. This liability is reported in the Department of Finance and Deregulation's administered schedules and notes.
The Court makes employer contributions to the employees' superannuation scheme at rates determined by an actuary to be sufficient to meet the current cost to the Government. The Court accounts for the contributions as if they were contributions to defined contribution plans.
The liability for superannuation recognised as at 30 June represents outstanding contributions for the final fortnight of the year.
1.9 Leases A distinction is made between finance leases and operating leases. Finance leases effectively transfer from the lessor to the lessee substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of leased assets. An operating lease is a lease that is not a finance lease. In operating leases, the lessor effectively retains substantially all such risks and benefits.
Where an asset is acquired by means of a finance lease, the asset is capitalised at either the fair value of the lease property or, if lower, the present value of minimum lease payments at the inception of the contract and a liability is recognised at the same time and for the same amount.
The discount rate used is the interest rate implicit in the lease. Leased assets are amortised over the period of the lease. Lease payments are allocated between the principal component and the interest expense.
Operating lease payments are expensed on a straight-line basis which is representative of the pattern of benefits derived from the leased assets. PART 7 PART 1.10 Cash Cash is recognised at its nominal amount. Cash and cash equivalents includes: a) cash on hand; b) demand deposits in bank accounts with an original maturity of 3 months or less that are readily convertible to ts known amounts of cash and subject to insignificant risk of changes in value; and en
m c) cash held by outsiders. e tat
S 1.11 Financial Assets al i
c The Court classifies its financial assets in the following categories: n
a a) financial assets at fair value through profit or loss;
Fin b) held-to-maturity investments; c) available-for-sale financial assets; and d) loans and receivables. The classification depends on the nature and purpose of the financial assets and is determined at the time of initial recognition. Financial assets are recognised and derecognised upon trade date. The Court only holds financial assets of loan and receivables.
Effective Interest Method The effective interest method is a method of calculating the amortised cost of a financial asset and of allocating interest income over the relevant period. The effective interest rate is the rate that exactly discounts estimated future cash receipts through the expected life of the financial asset, or, where appropriate, a shorter period.
Income is recognised on an effective interest rate basis except for financial assets that are recognised at fair value through profit or loss.
-17-
164 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Loans and Receivables Trade receivables, loan and other receivables that have fixed or determinable payments that are not quoted in an active market are classified as 'loans and receivables'. Loans and receivables are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method less impairment. Interest is recognised by applying the effective interest rate.
Impairment of Financial Assets Financial assets are assessed for impairment at the end of each reporting period.
Financial assets held at amortised cost - if there is objective evidence that an impairment loss has been incurred for loans and receivables or held to maturity investments held at amortised cost, the amount of the loss is measured as the difference between the asset's carrying amount and the present value of estimated future cash flows discounted at the asset's original effective interest rate. The carrying amount is reduced by way of an allowance account. The loss is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income.
1.12 Financial Liabilities Financial liabilities are classified as either financial liabilities 'at fair value through profit or loss' or other financial liabilities. Financial liabilities are recognised and derecognised upon 'trade date'.
Other Financial Liabilities Other financial liabilities are initially measured at fair value, net of transaction costs. These liabilities are subsequently measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method, with interest expense recognised on an effective yield basis.
The effective interest method is a method of calculating the amortised cost of a financial liability and of allocating interest expense over the relevant period. The effective interest rate is the rate that exactly discounts estimated future cash payments through the expected life of the financial liability, or, where appropriate, a shorter period.
Supplier and other payables are recognised at amortised cost. Liabilities are recognised to the extent that the goods or PART 7 services have been received (and irrespective of having been invoiced).
1.13 Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets Contingent liabilities and contingent assets are not recognised in the balance sheet but are reported in the relevant schedules and notes. They may arise from uncertainty as to the existence of a liability or asset or represent an asset or liability in respect of which the amount cannot be reliably measured. Contingent assets are disclosed when settlement Fin is probable but not virtually certain and contingent liabilities are disclosed when settlement is greater than remote. a n c i al
1.14 Acquisition of Assets S tat
Assets are recorded at cost on acquisition except as stated below. The cost of acquisition includes the fair value of e assets transferred in exchange and liabilities undertaken. Financial assets are initially measured at their fair value plus m en transaction costs where appropriate. ts
Assets acquired at no cost, or for nominal consideration, are initially recognised as assets and income at their fair value at the date of acquisition, unless acquired as a consequence of restructuring of administrative arrangements. In the latter case, assets are initially recognised as contributions by owners at the amounts at which they were recognised in the transferor's accounts immediately prior to the restructuring.
1.15 Property, Plant and Equipment Asset Recognition Threshold Purchases of property, plant and equipment are recognised initially at cost in the balance sheet, except for purchases costing less than $2,000, which are expensed in the year of acquisition (other than where they form part of a group of similar items which are significant in total).
-18-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 165 Family Court of Australia The initial cost of an asset includes an estimate of the cost of dismantling and removing the item and restoring the site on which it is located. This is particularly relevant to ‘make good’ provisions in property leases taken up by the Court where there exists an obligation to restore the property to its original condition. These costs are included in the value of the Court’s leasehold improvements with a corresponding provision for the ‘make good’ recognised.
Revaluations Fair values for each class of assets are determined as shown below:
Asset class Fair value measured at: Leasehold improvements Depreciated replacement cost Infrastructure, plant and equipment Market selling price Following initial recognition at cost, property plant and equipment were carried at fair value less subsequent accumulated depreciation and accumulated impairment losses. Valuations were conducted with sufficient frequency to ensure that the carrying amounts of assets did not differ materially from the assets’ fair values as at the reporting date. The regularity of independent valuations depended upon the volatility of movements in market values for the relevant assets. Revaluation adjustments were made on a class basis. Any revaluation increment was credited to equity under the heading of asset revaluation reserve except to the extent that it reversed a previous revaluation decrement of the same asset class that was previously recognised in the surplus/deficit. Revaluation decrements for a class of assets were recognised directly in the surplus/deficit except to the extent that they reversed a previous revaluation increment for that class. Any accumulated depreciation as at the revaluation date is eliminated against the gross carrying amount of the asset and the asset restated to the revalued amount. Depreciation Depreciable property, plant and equipment assets are written-off to their estimated residual values over their estimated useful lives to the Court using, in all cases, the straight-line method of depreciation. Land and buildings - leasehold improvements are depreciated on a straight-line basis over the lesser of the estimated useful life of the improvements or the unexpired period of the lease. PART 7 PART Depreciation rates (useful lives), residual values and methods are reviewed at each reporting date and necessary adjustments are recognised in the current, or current and future reporting periods, as appropriate.
Depreciation rates applying to each class of depreciable asset are based on the following useful lives: ts
en 2012 2011 m
e Leasehold improvements 2 to 20 years 5 to 20 years Property, plant and equipment 2 to 15 years 3 to 15 years tat S al i Impairment c
n All assets were assessed for impairment at 30 June 2012. Where indications of impairment exist, the asset’s a recoverable amount is estimated and an impairment adjustment made if the asset’s recoverable amount is less than its Fin carrying amount.
The recoverable amount of an asset is the higher of its fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. Value in use is the present value of the future cash flows expected to be derived from the asset. Where the future economic benefit of an asset is not primarily dependent on the asset’s ability to generate future cash flows, and the asset would be replaced if the Court were deprived of the asset, its value in use is taken to be its depreciated replacement cost.
Derecognition An item of property, plant and equipment is derecognised upon disposal or when no further future economic benefits are expected from its use or disposal.
1.16 Intangibles The Court's intangibles comprise internally developed software and externally developed purchased software for internal use. These assets are carried at cost less accumulated amortisation and accumulated impairment losses.
-19-
166 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Software is amortised on a straight-line basis over its anticipated useful life. The useful lives of the Court's software are 3 to 7 years (2010-11: 3 to 7 years).
All software assets were assessed for indications of impairment as at 30 June 2012.
1.17 Inventories Inventories held for sale are valued at the lower of cost and net realisable value.
Inventories held for distribution are valued at cost, adjusted for any loss of service potential.
Costs incurred in bringing each item of inventory to its present location and condition are assigned as follows: a) raw materials and stores - purchase cost on a first-in-first-out basis; and b) finished goods and work in progress - cost of direct materials and labour plus attributable costs that can be allocated on a reasonable basis.
Inventories acquired at no cost or nominal consideration are initially measured at current replacement cost at the date of acquisition.
1.18 Taxation / Competitive Neutrality
The Court is exempt from all forms of taxation except Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Revenues, expenses and assets are recognised net of GST except: a) where the amount of GST incurred is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office; and b) for receivables and payables. PART 7 1.19 Services provided free of charge The Court provides resources free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (FMC) in accordance with s90, 92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999. Resources provided free of charge include: a) court staff who perform work on behalf of the FMC; and b) accommodation, including access to courtrooms. Fin
It is estimated that the cost of resources provided free of charge by the Court to the FMC during 2011-12 was a $37,167,795 (2011: $31,672,132). n c i al S tat
1.20 Reporting of Administered Activities e m
Administered revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash flows are disclosed in the administered schedules and en related notes. ts
Except where otherwise stated below, administered items are accounted for on the same basis and using the same policies as for departmental items, including the application of Australian Accounting Standards.
-20-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 167 Family Court of Australia Administered Cash Transfers to and from the Official Public Account Revenue collected by the Court for use by the Government rather than the Court is administered revenue. Collections are transferred to the Official Public Account (OPA) maintained by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Conversely, cash is drawn from the OPA to make payments under Parliamentary appropriation on behalf of Government. These transfers to and from the OPA are adjustments to the administered cash held by the Court on behalf of the Government and reported as such in the schedule of administered cash flow and in the administered reconciliation table.
Revenue All administered revenues are revenues relating to the course of ordinary activities performed by the Court on behalf of the Australian Government.
Fees are charged for access to the Court's services. Administered fee revenue is recognised when an application for the service is lodged with the Court. It is recognised at its nominal amount. Collectability of debts is reviewed at the end of the reporting period. Allowances are made when collections of the debt is judged to be less rather than more likely.
Note 2: Events After the Reporting Period Departmental The Court had no events occurring after the reporting period that had an affect on the ongoing structure and financial activities of the Court.
However, the Attorney General’s Department has announced that in the future there will be a consolidation by the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court to a single FMA agency. The timing and the financial effect of this restructure is yet to be determined.
Administered The Court had no events occurring after the reporting period that had an affect on the ongoing structure and financial activities of the Court. PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-21-
168 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 3: Expenses 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 3A: Judges and e m ployee benefit s Judges' remuneration 12,103 11,854 Judges' leave and other entitlements 2,328 1,615 Judges' notional superannuation 8,362 7,304 Wages and salaries 37,721 38,243 Superannuation: Defined contribution plans 2,696 2,491 Defined benefit plans 3,402 3,579 Leave and other entitlements 7,022 5,891 Separation and redundancies 124 573 Total Judges and employee benefits 73,758 71,550 Note 3B: Supp lier Goods and services IT & communications 4,745 4,818 Consultants & contractors 2,416 2,606 Property 14,436 14,027 Court operation and administration 2,560 2,191 Travel 2,441 2,923 Other 2,777 2,696 Total goods and services 29,375 29,261
Goods and services are made up of: Rendering of services - related entities 515 497 Rendering of services - external parties 28,860 28,764
Total goods and services 29,375 29,261 PART 7
Other supplier expenses Operating lease rentals - related entities: Minimum lease payments 26,386 25,420 Operating lease rentals - external parties: Minimum lease payments 5,391 5,344 Workers compensation expenses 499 396 Fin a
Total other supplier expenses 32,276 31,160 n c
Total supplier expenses 61,651 60,421 i al S
Note 3C: Depreciation and A m ortisatio n tat Depreciation: e
Property, plant and equipment 3,081 2,901 m Leasehold improvements 3,157 3,154 en Total depreciation 6,238 6,055 ts
Amortisation: Intangibles 1,115 860 Total amortisation 1,115 860 Total depreciation and amortisation 7,353 6,915
-22-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 169 Family Court of Australia
2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 3D: Finance Costs Unwinding of discount - makegood 152 182 Total finance costs 152 182 Note 3E: Write-Down and Im pairm ent of Assets Asset write-downs and impairments from: Inventories 6 4 Total write-down and impairment of assets 6 4 Note 3F: Losses from Assets Sales Buildings: Write-offs 210 - Property, plant and equipment: Proceeds from sale - (12) Carrying value of assets sold - 46 Write-offs 42 135 Intangibles: Write-offs 24 - Total losses from assets sales 276 169 Note 3G: Contribution to FMC - Family Law transfer Contribution to FMC - Family Law transfer - 2,375 Total contribution to FMC - Family Law transfer - 2,375 Note 3H: Contribution to FMC - restructure Other - 23,764 Total contribution to FMC - restructure - 23,764 PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-23-
170 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 4: Income 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 OWN-SOURCE REVENUE Note 4A: Sale of Goods and Rendering of Services Provision of goods - external parties 2 2 Rendering of services - related entities 1,970 2,013 Rendering of services - external parties 607 617 Total sale of goods and rendering of services 2,579 2,632 Note 4B: Interest Deposits - 1 Total interest - 1 Note 4C: Other revenue - FMC Other 192 1,027 Total other revenue - FMC 192 1,027
Note 4D: Other Revenue Rental 126 143 Other 410 453 Total other revenue 536 596
GAINS Note 4E: Other Gains Resources received free of charge - from the ANAO 64 64 Resources received free of charge - Judges superannuation 8,362 7,304 Total other gains 8,426 7,368 PART 7 REVENUE FROM GOVERNMENT Note 4F: Revenue from Governm ent Appropriations: Departmental appropriations 120,078 145,601 Total revenue from Government 120,078 145,601 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-24-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 171 Family Court of Australia Note 5: Financial Assets 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 5A: Cash and cash Equivalents Cash at bank 1,390 1,193 Cash on hand 12 12 Total cash and cash equivalents 1,402 1,205 Note 5B: Trade and Other Receivable s Goods and Services Goods and services - related entities 370 284 Goods and services - external parties 18 909 Total receivables for goods and services 388 1,193 Appropriations receivable: For existing programs 6,723 7,040 For departmental supplementations 239 666 Total appropriations receivable 6,962 7,706 Other receivables: GST receivable from the Australian Taxation Office 872 744 Total other receivables 872 744 Total trade and other receivables (gross) 8,222 9,643 Total trade and other receivables (net) 8,222 9,643 Receivables are expected to be recovered in: No more than 12 months 8,216 9,643 More than 12 months 6 - Total trade and other receivables (net) 8,222 9,643
Receivables are aged as follows: Not overdue 8,164 9,636 PART 7 PART Overdue by: 0 to 30 days - - 31 to 60 days 10 - 61 to 90 days - - More than 90 days 48 7 ts Total receivables (gross) 8,222 9,643 en m
e Credit terms for goods and services were within 30 days (2011: 30 days). tat S
al Note 5C: Other Financial Asset s i
c Accrued revenue 183 200 n
a Total other financial assets 183 200
Fin Total other financial assets - are expected to be recovered in: No more than 12 months 183 200 Total other financial assets 183 200
-25-
172 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 6: Non-Financial Assets 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 6A: Buildings
Leasehold improvements: Work in progress - at cost 534 750 Fair value 25,950 19,370 Accumulated depreciation (6,534) (3,433) Total leasehold improvements 19,950 16,687 Total buildings 19,950 16,687 No indicators of impairment were found for buildings. No buildings were expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months. Note 6B: Property, Plant and Equipm ent Property, plant and equipment: Work in progress - at cost 1,389 461 Fair value 19,721 15,387 Accumulated depreciation (6,117) (3,072) Accumulated impairment losses (2) (2) Total property, plant and equipment 14,991 12,774
No indicators of impairment were found for property, plant and equipment. No property, plant or equipment is expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months. Revaluations of non-financial assets
All revaluations were conducted in accordance with the revaluation policy stated at Note 1. PART 7 There was no revaluation undertaken in 2011-12. Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-26-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 173 Family Court of Australia Note 6C: Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Property, Plant and Equipm ent 2012
Buildings - Property, Total Leasehold plant & Improvements equipment $'000 $'000 $'000 As at 1 July 2011 Gross book value 20,120 15,848 35,968 Accumulated depreciation/amortisation and impairment (3,433) (3,074) (6,507) Net book value 1 July 2011 16,687 12,774 29,461 Additions: By purchase 6,630 5,340 11,970 Revaluations and impairments recognised in other comprehensive income - - - Depreciation expense (3,157) (3,081) (6,238) Disposals: Other - without proceeds (210) (42) (252) Net book value 30 June 2012 19,950 14,991 34,941
Net book value as of 30 June 2012 represented by: Gross book value 26,484 21,110 47,594 Accumulated depreciation and impairment (6,534) (6,119) (12,653) Net book value 30 June 2012 19,950 14,991 34,941
Note 6C (Cont'd): Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Property, Plant and Equipment 2011
Buildings - Property, plant Total
PART 7 PART Leasehold & equipment Improvements $'000 $'000 $'000 As at 1 July 2010 Gross book value 18,706 13,329 32,035 Accumulated depreciation/amortisation and impairment (279) (253) (532) ts Net book value 1 July 2010 18,427 13,076 31,503 en
m Additions: e By purchase 1,433 2,789 4,222 tat
S Revaluations and impairments recognised in other
al comprehensive income (19) (9) (28) i
c Depreciation expense (3,154) (2,901) (6,055) n
a Disposals:
Fin With proceeds - (46) (46) Without proceeds - (135) (135) Net book value 30 June 2011 16,687 12,774 29,461
Net book value as of 30 June 2011 represented by: Gross book value 20,120 15,848 35,968 Accumulated depreciation and impairment (3,433) (3,074) (6,507) Net book value 30 June 2011 16,687 12,774 29,461
-27-
174 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia
2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 6D: Intangibles Computer software: Internally developed - in progress 146 547 Internally developed - in use 6,619 3,887 Purchased 2,516 3,184 Accumulated Amortisation (4,758) (3,671) Total computer software 4,523 3,947 Total intangibles 4,523 3,947
No indicators of impairment were found for intangible assets. No intangibles are expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months. PART 7 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-28-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 175 Family Court of Australia Note 6E: Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Intangibl es 2012
Computer Computer Total software software internally purchased developed $'000 $'000 $'000 As at 1 July 2011 Gross book value 4,773 2,845 7,618 Accumulated amortisation and impairment (2,697) (974) (3,671) Net book value 1 July 2011 2,076 1,871 3,947 Additions: By purchase or internally developed 1,388 327 1,715 Reclassifications-net adjustment 482 (482) - Amortisation (702) (413) (1,115) Disposals: Other - without proceeds - (24) (24) Net book value 30 June 2012 3,244 1,279 4,523
Net book value as at 30 June 2012 represented by: Gross book value 6,765 2,516 9,281 Accumulated amortisation and impairment (3,521) (1,237) (4,758) Net book value 30 June 2012 3,244 1,279 4,523
Note 6E (Cont'd): Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Intangibles 2011 PART 7 PART
Computer Computer Total software software internally purchased developed
ts $'000 $'000 $'000
en As at 1 July 2010 m
e Gross book value 4,493 1,542 6,035
tat Accumulated amortisation and impairment (2,148) (664) (2,812)
S Net book value 1 July 2010 2,345 878 3,223 al i
c Additions: n
a By purchase or internally developed 836 748 1,584 Reclassifications - cost adjustment (556) 556 - Fin Reclassifications - depreciation adjustment (23) 23 - Amortisation (526) (334) (860) Net book value 30 June 2011 2,076 1,871 3,947
Net book value as of 30 June 2011 represented by: Gross book value 4,773 2,845 7,618 Accumulated amortisation and impairment (2,697) (974) (3,671) Net book value 30 June 2011 2,076 1,871 3,947
-29-
176 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia
2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 6F: Inventories Inventories held for distribution 63 53 Total inventories 63 53 During 2011-12, $6,054 of inventory held for distribution was recognised as an expense. (2010-11: $4,253) No items of inventory are recognised at fair value less cost to sell. All inventories are expected to be distributed in the next 12 months. Note 6G: Other Non-Financial Assets Prepayments 1,493 3,645 Total other non-financial assets 1,493 3,645 Total other non-financial assets - are expected to be recovered in: No more than 12 months 1,493 3,645 Total other non-financial assets 1,493 3,645 No indicators of impairment were found for other non-financial assets. PART 7 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-30-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 177 Family Court of Australia Note 7: Payables 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 7A: Suppliers Trade creditors and accruals 4,173 2,256 Operating lease rentals 294 284 Total suppliers payables 4,467 2,540 Suppliers payables expected to be settled within 12 months: Related entities 527 458 External parties 3,940 2,082 Total 4,467 2,540 Total suppliers payables 4,467 2,540 Settlement was usually made within 30 days. Note 7B: Other Payables Wages and salaries 1,188 998 Superannuation 169 139 Separations and redundancies 40 239 Unearned income 360 610 Fringe Benefits Tax payable 220 220 Other 5 1 Total other payables 1,982 2,207 Total other payables are expected to be settled in: No more than 12 months 1,982 2,207 Total other payables 1,982 2,207 PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-31-
178 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 8: Provisions 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 8A: Employee Provisions Annual Leave 4,572 4,388 Long Services Leave 9,420 7,319 Judges Long Leave 7,975 8,080 Total employee provisions 21,967 19,787 Employee provisions are expected to be settled in: No more than 12 months 4,684 4,476 More than 12 months 17,283 15,311 Total employee provisions 21,967 19,787 Note 8B: O th er Provi s io ns Provision for restoration obligations 3,316 2,895 Total other provisions 3,316 2,895 Other provisions are expected to be settled in: No more than 12 months 810 - More than 12 months 2,506 2,895 Total other provisions 3,316 2,895
Provision for restoration Total $'000 $'000
Carrying amount 1 July 2011 2,895 2,895 Additional provisions made - - PART 7 Amount used - - Unwinding of discount 152 152 Change in discount rate 269 269 Closing balance 2012 3,316 3,316
The Court currently has 10 (2011: 10) agreements for the leasing of premises which have provisions requiring the Court to restore the premises to their original condition at the conclusion of the lease. The Court has made a provision Fin a
to reflect the present value of this obligation. n c i al S tat e m en ts
-32-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 179 Family Court of Australia Note 9: Cash Flow Reconciliation 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents as per Balance Sheet to Cash Flows Statement
Cash and cash equivalent as per: Cash flow statement 1,402 1,205 Balance sheet 1,402 1,205 Difference - -
Reconciliation of net cost of services to net cash from operating activities: Net cost of services (131,463) (153,756) Add revenue from Government 120,078 145,601
Adjustments for non-cash items Depreciation /amortisation 7,353 6,915 Loss on disposal of assets 276 169 Make good provision represented in reserves (269) - Movement in the appropriation receivable recognised in the equity (3,661) 4,210
Change in assets / liabilities Decrease in net receivables 1,421 8,755 (Increase) in inventories (10) (4) Decrease in accrued revenue 17 87 Increase / (decrease) in prepayments received 2,152 (39) Increase in employee provisions 2,180 103 Increase / (decrease) in supplier payables 1,927 (11,176) Increase / (decrease) in other payable (225) 310 Increase in other provisions 421 167 Net cash from (used by) operating activities 197 1,342 PART 7 PART Note 10: Contingent Liabilities and Assets Quantifiable Contingencies The Court has no quantifiable contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2012 (2011: nil). ts en
m Unquantifiable Contingencies e The Court has no unquantifiable contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2012 (2011: nil). tat S al i c
n Significant Remote Contingencies a The Court has no significant remote contingencies as at 30 June 2012 (2011: nil). Fin
-33-
180 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 11: Senior Executive Remuneration Note 11A: Senior Executive Rem uneration Expense for the Reporting Perio d 2012 2011 $ $ Short-term employee benefits: Salary 1,803,133 1,543,458 Annual leave accrued 154,473 125,922 Performance bonuses - - Vehicle allowance 88,013 58,843 Other 98,314 79,223 Total short-term employee benefits 2,143,933 1,807,446
Post-employment benefits Superannuation 304,048 257,065 Total post-employment benefits 304,048 257,065
Other long-term benefits Long service leave 85,915 49,456 Total other long-term benefits 85,915 49,456
Termination benefits - - Total employment benefits 2,533,896 2,113,967 Notes: 1. Note 11A is prepared on an accruals basis (therefore the performance bonus expenses disclosed above may differ from the cash 'Bonus paid' in Note 11B). 2. Note 11A excludes acting arrangements and part-year service where total remuneration expensed for a senior executive was less than $150,000. PART 7 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-34-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 181 $ $ To tal To tal 220,16 3 384,08 8 203,15 3 259,98 3 162,27 8 198,30 5 222,12 9 254,59 2 345,20 5 - - 5 - - $ - - - - - 5 $ Bonus pai d Bonus pai d - - 4 $ - - - - 4 $ 49 9 4,09 2 1,41 1 Reportabl e allowance s Reportabl e allowance s 3 $ 3 $ 201 2 201 1 26,76 0 28,98 9 64,99 8 49,78 1 13,96 2 24,76 6 31,66 4 44,87 3 44,30 2 Contribute d Contribute d sup er annuation sup er annuation ear. 2 2 $ $ sa lary sa lary 172,30 1 191,17 4 194,48 6 334,30 7 146,90 5 173,53 9 190,46 5 209,71 9 300,90 3 y inancial Reportabl e Reportabl e f the 3 3 2 1 9 1 2 4 1 1 9 No . No . - Senior Senior 35 - PART 7 PART Executives Executives y dur i ng entit the ts en m e tat S al i c n a ng ng w it h or leavi commenci Fin uneration Paid to Substantive Senior Executives during the Reporting Perio d du al s i nd ivi rr ang ements): rr ang ements) 1 1 a a em a s tab le R un er at ion un er at ion po r fo ll ow i ng : the e R li a ud e s incl Annua l ala ry' t of Aust ra Av er ag e ous f act ors su c h t o v ari ea rs du e uneration (including part-ti me uneration (including part-ti me : B 11 $180 000 - $209,99 9 $210 000 - $239,99 9 $240 000 - $269,99 9 $360 000 - $389,99 9 $150,000 - $179,99 9 $180,000 - $209,99 9 $210,000 - $239,99 9 $240,000 - $269,99 9 $330 000 - $359,99 9 (a) gross payments (less any bonuses paid, which are separated out and disclosed in the 'bonus paid' column); (b) reportable fringe benefits (at the net amount prior to 'grossing up' account for tax benefits); and (c) exempt foreign employment income . This table reports substantive senior executives who received remuneration during the reporting period. Each row is an averaged figure based on headcount for individuals in band. S por table 'Re The 'contributed superannuation' amount is the average actual superannuation contributions paid to senior executives in that re portable remuneration band during reporting period, s' line on individual payment summaries. allowance per the 'total paid as s' are the average actual allowances 'Reportable allo wance 'Bonus paid' represents average actual bonuses paid during the reporting period in that reportable remuneration band. The 'bonu s within a particular band may vary between Various salary sacrifice arrangements were available to senior executives including superannuation, motor vehicle and expense p ayment fringe benefits. Salary benefits are am il y Cou r Average annual reportable re m F Note Total re m To tal Total re m To tal Notes: 1. 2. 3. per the individual s' payslips. as amounts, sacrificed including any salary 4. 5. y financial 6. reported in the 'reportable salary' column, excluding salary sacrificed superannuation, which is 'contributed s uperannuation' column. Average annual reportable re m
182 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements $ $ To tal To tal 160,13 2 162,52 7 - 5 - $ $ 5. Bonus pai d Bonus pai d 4 4 $ $ 2,23 4 2,11 9 Reportabl e Reportabl e allowance s allowance s 3 3 $ $ 201 2 201 1 the entity the 24,02 9 24,66 5 Contribute d Contribute d sup er annuation sup er annuation 2 2 $ $ sa lary sa lary 136,26 4 133,34 8 Reportabl e Reportabl e ng ng w it h or leavi commenci 9 9 8 8 PART 7 No . No . taf f taf f S S - 36 - du al s i nd ivi a s Fin a n c i cl osur es. al S tat e ect or d is m en ts ous f act ors su c h t o v ari ea rs du e le s A, B or d ir rr ang ements) rr ang ements) 1 1 a a Ta b n i d un er at ion un er at ion cl os e is fo ll ow i ng : the d li a o b e y n f inancial ma y v a ry b etwee t d ud e s incl qu ire e ala ry' t of Aust ra r were employed by the Court during reporting period; were no t Other Highly Paid Staf f uneration (including part-ti me uneration (including part-ti me : r b a nd articula C ho a p whose reportable remuneration was $150,000 or more for the financial period; and whose 11 $150 000 - $179,99 9 $150 000 - $179,99 9 a) w b) c) were (a) gross payments (less any bonuses paid, which are separated out and disclosed in the 'bonus paid' column); (b) reportable fringe benefits (at the net amount prior to 'grossing up' account for tax benefits); and (c) exempt foreign employment income . This ta b le reports s ta ff: S por table 'Re The 'contributed superannuation' amount is the average actual superannuation contributions paid to staff in that reportable rem uneration s' line on individual payment summaries. allowance per the 'total paid as s' are the average actual allowances 'Reportable allo wance Various salary sacrifice arrangements were available to other highly paid staff including superannuation, motor vehicle and exp ense am il y Cou r w is an averaged figure based on headcount for individuals in the band. Each ro w Average annual reportable re m Average annual reportable re m F Note Total re m To tal Total re m To tal Notes: 1. 2. 3. band during the reporting period, including any salary sacrificed amounts, as per individuals' payslips. 4. 5. 'Bonus paid' represents average actual bonuses paid during the reporting period in that reportable remuneration band. The 'bonus n withi during the financial year . 6. payment fringe benefits. Salary sacrifice benefits are reported in the 'reportable salary' column, excluding salary sacrificed superannuation, which is reported in the 'contributed superannuation' column.
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 183 Family Court of Australia Note 12: Remuneration of Auditors 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Financial statement audit services were provided free of charge to the Court by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). Fair value of the services provided Financial statement audit services 64 64 Total 64 64 No other services were provided by the auditors of the financial statements. PART 7 PART ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-37-
184 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 13: Financial Instruments 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 13A: Categories of Financial Instru m ent s Financial Assets Loans and receivables: Cash and cash equivalents 1,402 1,205 Trade and other receivables 388 1,193 Carrying amount of financial assets 1,790 2,398
Financial Liabilities At amortised cost: Trade creditors 2,849 976 Carrying amount of financial liabilities 2,849 976
Note 13B: Net Inco me and Expense from Fi nan cial Assets Loans and receivables Interest revenue - 1 Net gain from financial assets - 1
There is no interest income from financial assets not at fair value from profit or loss in the 2011-12 financial year (2011: nil). PART 7 Note 13C: Fair Value of Financial Instru m ent s
The carrying amounts of the Court's financial assets and liabilities are a reasonable approximation of the fair value. Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-38-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 185 Family Court of Australia Note 13D: Credit Risk
The Court is exposed to minimal credit risk as loans and receivables are cash and trade receivables. The maximum exposure to credit risk is the risk that arises from potential default of a debtor. This amount is equal to the total amount of trade receivables (2012: $388,000 and 2011: $1,193,000). The Court has assessed the risk of the default on payment and has allocated nil in 2012 (2011: nil ) to the impairment allowance account for trade receivable. The Court manages its credit risk by restricting credit to granting receivables to approved customers. In addition the Court has policies and procedures that guide employee's debt recovery techniques that are to be applied. The Court holds no collateral to mitigate against credit risk. Credit quality of financial instruments not past due or individually determined as impaired Not past due Not past due Past due or Past due or nor impaired nor impaired impaired impaired 2012 2011 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Loans and receivables Cash and cash equivalents 1,402 1,205 - - Trade receivables 330 1,186 58 7 Total 1,732 2,391 58 7
Ageing of financial assets that were past due but not impaired for 2012 0 to 30 days 31 to 60 days 61 to 90 days 90+ days Total $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Loans and receivables Trade receivables - 10 - 48 58 Total - 10 - 48 58
PART 7 PART Ageing of financial assets that were past due but not impaired for 2011 0 to 30 days 31 to 60 days 61 to 90 days 90+ days Total $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Loans and receivables Trade receivables - - - 7 7
ts Total - - - 7 7 en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
-39-
186 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 13E: Liquidity Risk
The Court's financial liabilities are payables to suppliers. The exposure to liquidity risk is based on the notion that the Court will encounter difficulty in meeting its obligations associated with financial liabilities.
This is highly unlikely as the Court is appropriated funding from the Australian Government and the Court manages its budgeted funds to ensure it has adequate funds to meet payments as they fall due. In addition, the Court has policies in place to ensure timely payments are made when due and has no past experience of default.
Maturities for non-derivative financial liabilities 2012 within 1 1 to 2 2 to 5 > 5 On demand year years years years Total $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000
Trade creditors - 2,849 - - - 2,849 Total - 2,849 - - - 2,849
Maturities for non-derivative financial liabilities 2011 within 1 1 to 2 2 to 5 > 5 On demand year years years years Total $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000
Trade creditors - 976 - - - 976 Total - 976 - - - 976 The Court had no derivative financial liabilities in either 2012 or 2011.
Note 13F: Marke t R isk PART 7
The Court holds financial instruments that are not exposed to currency, interest rate or other price risk.
Note 14: Financial Assets Reconciliation 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Fin a
Financial assets Notes n c i al
Total financial assets as per balance sheet 9,807 11,048 S Less: non-financial instruments components tat e
Appropriation receivable 5B 6,962 7,706 m
GST receivable 5B 872 744 en
Accrued Revenue 5C 183 200 ts Total non-financial instruments component 8,017 8,650 Total financial assets as per financial instruments note 1,790 2,398
-40-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 187 Family Court of Australia
2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 15: Administered - Expenses Note 15A: Other Expenses Refunds of fees 50 20 Total other expenses 50 20
Note 16: Administered - Income OWN-SOURCE REVENUE
Non-Taxation Revenue Note 16A: Fees and Fines Fees 2,458 2,313 Fines 10 - Total fees and fines 2,468 2,313
Note 17: Administered - Financial Assets Note 17A: Cash and Cash Equivalents Cash on hand or on deposit 11 31 Total cash and cash equivalents 11 31
Note 18: Administered - Cash Flow Reconciliation Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents as per Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities to Administered Cash Flow Statement Cash and cash equivalent as per:
PART 7 PART Schedule of administered cash flows 11 31 Schedule of administered assets and liabilities 11 31 Difference - -
Reconciliation of net cost of services to net cash from operating activities:
ts Net contribution by services 2,418 2,293
en Adjustments for non-cash items - - m
e Changes in assets / liabilities - -
tat Net cash from operating activities 2,418 2,293 S al i Note 19: Administered Contingent Assets and Liabilities c n
a The Court has no quantifiable or unquantifiable administered contingent liabilities and assets at 30 June 2012 (2011:
Fin nil). It was not included in the schedule of administered contingencies.
-41-
188 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia
2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Note 20: Administered - Financial Instruments
Note 20A: Categories of Financial Instrum ents Financial Assets Loans and receivable: Cash and cash equivalents 11 31 Carrying amount of financial assets 11 31
Note 20B: Fair Value of Financial Instrum ents The carrying amounts of the Court's financial assets and liabilities are a reasonable approximation of the fair value. Note 20C: Credit Risk, Liquidity Risk and Market Risk The Court has no exposure to credit risk, liquidity risk and market risk. Note 21: Administered Financial Assets Reconciliation Total financial assets as per schedule of administered assets and liabilities 11 31 Less: non-financial instruments components Total non-financial instruments component - - Total financial assets as per financial instruments note 11 31 PART 7 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-42-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 189 ------9 9 $'000 Variance ------2012 $'000 136,230 136,230 applied in prior years) prior (current and Appropriation ------Total $'000 136,239 136,239 appropriation ------$'000 Section 32 ------5,710 5,710 Section 31 FMA Act FMA ------$'000 $'000 Section 30 - - - - 2. ------2012 Appropriations 43 - PART 7 PART AFM ------1. ts en reduced m e tat Appropriations Appropriation Act S ------al i c $'000 $'000 $'000 n Annual 130,529 130,529 a Fin appropriation Appropriations ental inistered Annual Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive') : Appropriations reduced under Appropriation Acts (No. 1,3,5) 201 1-12: sections 10, 11, 12 and 15 ( No. 2,4,6) 2011-12: 12,13, 14 17. Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) - Appropriation Acts (No. 1, 3, 5) 2011-12: section 13 and 2, 4, 6) 15. The Court had no The departmental variance reflects movement in cash $198,000, n et GST receivable $128,000, appropriation -$744,000 and accrued $427,000. Equity Loans Administered items Payments to CAC Act bodies States, ACT, NT and Local government New administered outcomes Administered assets and liabilities Payments to CAC Act bodies A 22: Ordinary annual services annual Ordinary Other services services annual Ordinary Other services Family Court of Australia Note Table DEPARTMENTAL Total departm ADMINISTERED Total adm Notes: 1. Departmental appropriations do not lapse at financial year-end. However, the responsible Minister may decide that part or all of a departmental appropriation is required and request the Finance Minister to reduce that appropriation. The reducti on in appropriation is effected by Minister's d etermination and disallowable Parliament. Court had no reduction in 2012 (2011: $15,923,000). 2. AFM in 2012 (2011: nil). 3.
190 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements ------$'00 0 5,913 ) 5,913 ) ( ( Varianc e ------201 1 $'00 0 169,24 4 169,24 4 applied i n prior years ) (current an d Appropriatio n ------Tota l $'00 0 163,33 1 163,33 1 appropriatio n ------$'00 0 Section 32 ------5,24 9 5,24 9 $'00 0 Section 31 FMA Act ------$'00 0 Section 30 PART 7 ------2. 2011 Appropriation s 44 - $'00 0 AFM ------1. Fin $'00 0 a n (15,923 ) (15,923 ) reduce d c i al S Appropriation s tat Appropriation Ac t ------e m $'00 0 en : $15,923,000 . Annua l 174,00 5 174,00 5 ts appropriatio n li a ta l t of Aust ra r Appropr iati on A ct (No.1) 2010-2011 was ice s ice s er v er v inistere d Annual Approp ri ations ('R ec ov er ab le GST ex cl usiv e' ) (continued) : Appropriations reduced under Appropriation Acts (Nos. 1 & 3) 2010-11: sections 10, 11, 12 and 15 ( Nos. 2 4) 12,13, 14 an d Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) - Appropriation Acts (No. 1,3) 2010-11: section 13 and 2,4) 2010- 11: 15. The Court had no AFM i n greater than total appropriation for 2011 due to FCoA used prior year appropriations. The departmental variance reflects the movement in Appropriation applied in 2011 was qu it y E Loans Administered item s outcomes administered New Administered assets and liabilities A th er s th er s Ordinary annual service s O Ordinary annual service s O du cti on und e am il y Cou r F Table DEPARTMENTAL Total depart men ADMINISTERED Total a dm Notes: 1. 17. Depar tme n tal appropr iati ons do not la pseat finan cial y ea r-end. However, the responsib le Ministe r ma y d eci de th at partall of a depar or tme n tal appropr iati on is not required and request the Finance Minister to reduce that appropriation. The reduction in appropriation is effected by Minis ter's determination and disallowable Parliament. On 30 June 2011, the Finance Minister issued a determination to reduce departmental appropriations following a request by the Minister for Attorney-General's. The amount of re 2. 2011 . 3. cash -$162,000, net GST receivable $53,000, appropriation -$9,785,000 and accrued $3,981,000 .
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 191 4,21 0 $'00 0 $'00 0 3,661 ) ( Varianc e Varianc e ent s ent s Tota l Tota l $'00 0 $'00 0 4,290 ) ( (13,685 ) Paym Paym - - ot her ot her $'00 0 $'00 0 ents fo r ents fo r purpose s purpose s Paym Paym 3 3 $'00 0 $'00 0 4,290 ) ass ets ass ets 2012 (current and prior years ) 2011 (current and prior years ) ( ents fo r ents fo r (13,685 ) Capital Budget Appropriations applied i n Capital Budget Appropriations applied i n non-financia l non-financia l Paym Paym - 45 - PART 7 PART 8,50 0 $'00 0 $'00 0 10,02 4 Budget Budget Total Capita l Total Capita l Appropriatio n Appropriatio n - - ts $'00 0 $'00 0 en m Section 32 Section 32 e FMA Act FMA Act tat 2 - 2 - S al i $'00 0 $'00 0 c n a Reduce d Reduce d Fin Appropriation s Appropriation s 2012 Capital Budget Appropriation s 2011 Capital Budget Appropriation s 8,50 0 $'00 0 $'00 0 10,02 4 Budget Budget Annua l Annua l Capita l Capita l Appropriation Ac t Appropriation Ac t li a ere d Capit al B ud ge ts ('R ecovera b le G S T excl us ive' ) ental and Ad minist 1 1 t of Aust ra Depart m Appropriations reduced under Appropriation Acts (No.1,3,5) 2011-12: sections 10, 11, 12 and 15 or via a determination by the Fi nance Minister . Departmental and Administered Capital Budgets are appropriated through Appropriation Acts (No.1,3,5). They form part of ordinar y annual services, not separately Appropriations reduced under Appropriation Acts (No.1,3,5) 2011-12: sections 10, 11, 12 and 15 or via a determination by the Fi nance Minister . Payments made on non-financial assets include purchases of assets, expenditure which has been capitalised, costs incu rred to make good an asset its original Departmental and Administered Capital Budgets are appropriated through Appropriation Acts (No.1,3,5). They form part of ordinar y annual services, not separately Payments made on non-financial assets include purchases of assets, expenditure which has been capitalised, costs incu rred to make good an asset its original : B Ordinary annual service s Capital Budget Ordinary annual service s Capital Budget am il y Cou r F Table DEPARTMENTAL Notes: 1. identified in the Appropriation Acts. For more information on ordinary annual services appropriations, please see Table A: Annu al appropriations. 2. 3. condition, and the capital repayment component of finance leases. DEPARTMENTAL Notes: 1. identified in the Appropriation Acts. For more information on ordinary annual services appropriations, please see Table A: Annu al appropriations. 2. 3. condition, and the capital repayment component of finance leases.
192 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Table C: Unspent Annual Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive') 2012 2011 Authority $'000 $'000 DEPARTMENTAL Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2010-11 - 8,190 Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2011-12 7,361 - Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2011-12 763 - Total 8,124 8,190 Unspent departmental appropriations reflect the balance of funds to be drawn from the OPA as well as cash and cash equivalents. Table D: Special Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive')
Appropriation applied 2012 2011 Authority Type Purpose $'000 $'000 Financial Management and Refund Refund of amounts paid in accordance 50 20 Accountability Act 1997, Section 28, with the Family law regulations (Administered) (subsection 8 and 9) of the Family Law Act 1975 Total 50 20
Note 23: Special Accounts and FMA Act Section 39 Note 23A: Special Accounts (Recoverable GST exclusive)
Family Court of Australia PART 7 Litigants Fund Special Account (Administered - Other Trust Monies Special SPM)1 Account2 2012 2011 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Balance brought forward from previous period 647 87 - 4 Fin Increases: a
Costs recovered 299 701 - - n c i Other receipts - - - 5 al
Total increases 299 701 - 5 S tat Available for payments 946 788 - 9 e Decreases: m en Administered ts Payments made (140) (141) - (9) Total decreases (140) (141) - (9) Total balance carried to next period 806 647 - -
1. Appropriation: [Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 section 20]. Establishing Instrument: Determination 2004/6. Purpose: purpose of Family Court of Australia Litigants Fund Special Account (Administered - SPM) is for the receipt of monies temporarily held on trust or otherwise for the benefit of a person other than the Commonwealth. 2. Appropriation: [Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 section 20]. Establishing Instrument: Abolished by FMA determination 2010/13. Purpose: purpose of Other Trust Monies Special Account is for the expenditure of monies temporarily held on trust or otherwise for the benefit of a person other than the Commonwealth.
-46-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 193 Family Court of Australia Note 24: Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund Section 83 of the Constitution provides that no amount may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund except under an appropriation made by law. The Department of Finance and Deregulation provided information to all agencies in 2011 regarding the need for risk assessments in relation to compliance with statutory conditions on payments from special appropriations, including special accounts. During 2011-12, the agency developed a plan to review exposure to risks of not complying with statutory conditions on payments from appropriations. The plan involved: • identifying each special appropriation and special account; • determining the risk of non-compliance by assessing the difficulty of administering the statutory conditions and assessing the extent to which existing payment systems and processes satisfy those conditions; and • determining procedures to confirm risk assessments and to quantify the extent of non-compliance, if any. The agency identified 2 appropriations involving statutory conditions for payment, comprising: • 1 special appropriation; and • 1 special account. As at 30 June 2012 this work had been completed in respect of all appropriations with statutory conditions for payment: Expenditure Appropriations identified as subject to conditions in 2011-12 $'000 Special Appropriation – Note 22 Table D 50 Special Account – Note 23 140 PART 7 PART The work conducted to date has identified no issues of compliance with Section 83. ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin
194 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements-47- Family Court of Australia Note 25: Compensation and Debt Relief 2012 2011 $ $
Compensation and Debt Relief - Departmental
No 'Act of Grace payments' were expended during the reporting period (2011: No expenses). - -
No waivers of amounts owing to the Australian Government were made pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. (2011: No waivers) - -
No payments were provided under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) Scheme during the reporting period. (2011: No payments). - -
No ex-gratia payments were provided for during the reporting period. (2011: No payments). - -
No payments were provided in special circumstances relating to APS employment pursuant to section 73 of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) during the reporting period. (2011: No payments). - -
2012 2011 Compensation and Debt Relief - Administered $ $
No 'Act of Grace' payments were expensed during the reporting period (2011: No PART 7 payments). - -
No waivers of amounts owing to the Australian Government were made pursuant to subsection 34 (1) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. (2011: No waivers) - -
No ex-gratia payments were provided for during the reporting period. (2011: No Fin payment) - - a n c i No payments were provided under the Compensation for Detriment caused by al S
Defective Administration (CDDA) Scheme during the reporting period. (2011: No tat
payments) - - e m en
No payments were provided in special circumstances relating to APS employment ts pursuant to section 73 of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) during the reporting period. (2011: No payments). - -
Amount owing to the Commonwealth were made payable pursuant to the Family Law Regulations (F L Regs) of the Family Law Act. Under Regulation 11A, reduced fees are payable where a person has been granted Legal Aid (F L Regs 11 A (1) (a) ) or is the holder of certain concession cards (F L Regs 11A (1) (b)). Persons not eligible for fee reduction under the Regulation 11A, may apply to have the fee reduced by the Court due to financial hardship (F L Regs 11B). - -
Number of fee reductions 2,729 2,278
Aggregate amount of the recovery that was reduced. 805,204 699,481
-48-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 195 (20) 2011 $'000 2,313 11,624 (165,380) (151,463) Total (50) 2012 2,468 $'000 11,733 (143,196) (129,045) (20) 2011 $'000 2,313 11,624 (165,380) (151,463) e 1 (50) 2012 Outcom 2,468 $'000 11,733 (143,196) (129,045) PART 7 PART - 49 - ts en m e tat S al i c n a Fin Reporting of Outcomes Delivery Net Cost of Outcome
ental A: 26: 26 inistered Expenses Own-source income Expenses Own-source income Family Court of Australia Note Note Departm Adm delivery Net cost of outcome Outcome 1 is described in Note 1.1. Net costs shown include tra-government that are eliminated calculating the act ual budget outcome. Refer to Resourcing Table of thi s Annual Report.
196 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Financial Statements Family Court of Australia Note 27: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements 2012 2011 $'000 $'000 Total comprehensive (loss) less depreciation/amortisation expenses previously funded through revenue appropriations1. (4,301) (1,268) Plus: depreciation/amortisation expenses previously funded through revenue appropriation (7,353) (6,915) Total comprehensive (loss) - as per the Statement of Comprehensive Income (11,654) (8,183) 1.From 2010-11, the Government introduced net cash appropriation arrangements, where revenue appropriations for depreciation/amortisation expenses ceased. The Court now receives a separate capital budget provided through equity appropriations. Capital budgets are to be appropriated in the period when cash payment for capital expenditure is required. PART 7 Fin a n c i al S tat e m en ts
-50-
Financial Statements • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 197
PART 8 Appendices 200 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Appendices
Appendix 1: Agency Resource Statement
Table 8.1 Agency Resource Statement—2011–12
Actual available Payments Balance appropriation for made remaining 2011–12 2011–12 2011–12 $’000 $’000 $’000 Ordinary Annual Services a Departmental appropriation
Prior year departmental appropriation 8190 c 8190 –
Departmental appropriation 130 529 d 122 405 8124 e
s 31 relevant agency receipts f 5710 5710 –
Total 144 429 136 305 8124 Administered expenses Outcome 1 – – –
Total – – –
Total ordinary annual services 144 429 136 305 8124
Special Accounts b PART 8 Opening balance – – –
Appropriation receipts – – –
Total special accounts – – – A pp en d
Total net resourcing for agency 144 429 136 305 8124 i c e s a Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011–12 and Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2011–12 This may also include prior year departmental appropriation and s 31 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 for the 2011–12 Budget. c Unspent Departmental Annual Appropriations for 2010–11 per Note 22—Table C. d Departmental Appropriations for Ordinary Annual Services per Note 22—Table A Appropriation Act (No.1 & No.3) 2011–12. e Includes cash on hand at 30 June 2012. f Section 30 Receipts per Note 22—Table A.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 201 Appendix 2: Expenses and Resources for Outcome 1
Table 8.2 Expenses and Resources for Outcome 1
Outcome 1: As Australia’s specialist superior family court, Budget 1 Actual Variation determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide 2011–12 expenses 2011–12 national coverage as the appellate court in family law $’000 2011–12 $’000 matters (a) $’000 (a) - (b) (b) Program 1.1: Provision of a Family Court
Administered expenses
Ordinary Annual Services (Appropriation Bill No. 1 & No. 3) 0 0 0
Departmental expenses
Departmental appropriation (Appropriation Bill No.1 & No.3) 2 125 404 127 417 -2013
Expenses not requiring appropriation in the Budget year 3 15 852 15 779 73
Total expenses for Outcome 1 4 141 256 143 196 -1940
2010–11 2011–12
Average Staffing Level (number) 595 574
1 Full year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2011–12 Budget.
2 Departmental Appropriation combines Ordinary annual services (Appropriation Bill No. 1 and No. 3) and 'Revenue from independent sources (s 31)'
3 PART 8 PART Includes depreciation and amortisation, liabilities assumed by related entities for the Judges Pension Scheme and resources received free of charge for Australian National Audit Office Services.
4 Special public money special accounts, Litigants Fund Special Account and other trust moneys, have been excluded from the table above, consistent with the Resource Statement for the 2011–12 budget. s e c i d en pp A
202 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Appendix 3: Staffing profile
Staffing profile At 30 June 2012, the Court had a total workforce of 601 employees covered by the Enterprise Agreement and AWAs (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees), 14 less than at 30 June 2011. Of the Court’s 601 employees: 179 (29.78 per cent) were male and 422 (70.22 per cent) were female compared with 187 and 428, respectively, at 30 June 2011 524 (87.19 per cent) were ongoing employees and 77 (12.81 per cent) were non-ongoing employees.
The following tables show staff statistics by location, gender, full-time and part-time status, and ongoing and non-ongoing.
Table 8.3 Staff* by location
Level ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total
APS 1 1 1
APS 2 1 2 16 14 4 17 54
APS 3 4 9 70 4 31 14 6 34 172
APS 4 3 1 17 37 17 5 3 12 95 PART 8 APS 5 1 1 18 19 1 11 2 3 8 64
APS 6 1 2 28 4 1 4 3 43
EL 1 4 33 23 15 6 3 16 100
EL 2 1 1 14 22 11 3 2 10 64 A pp en
SES 1 2 1 1 1 5 d i c e
SES 2 3 3 s
Total 15 5 126 193 5 101 38 17 101 601
Note: Actual occupancy at 30 June 2012 includes full and part time staff* with the exception of judicial officers and casual employees. *All figures in the above table are based on actual headcount.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 203 Table 8.4 Staff by gender
Level Gender ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total
APS 1 Male 1 1
APS 2 Female 2 13 9 3 12 40
Male 3 5 1 5 14
APS 3 Female 3 8 50 3 21 8 5 23 121
Male 1 1 20 1 10 6 1 11 51
APS 4 Female 2 1 12 30 13 4 3 9 74
Male 1 5 7 4 1 3 21
APS 5 Female 1 1 10 17 1 10 2 2 6 50
Male 8 2 1 1 2 14
APS 6 Female 1 2 16 4 1 3 3 30
Male 12 1 13
EL 1 Female 3 10 21 14 5 3 9 65
Male 1 23 2 1 1 7 35
EL 2 Female 1 1 4 14 6 2 1 9 38
Male 10 8 5 1 1 1 26
SES 1 Female 1 1 1 3
Male 1 1 2 PART 8 PART SES 2 Female 1 1
Male 2 2
s Total 15 5 126 193 5 101 38 17 101 601 e c i d en pp A
204 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Table 8.5 Staff by attendance status
Level Attendance ACT CJ NSO NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total
APS 1 Part-time 1 1
APS 2 Full-time 1 2 11 11 2 14 41
Part-time 5 3 2 3 13
APS 3 Full-time 3 6 49 3 25 12 5 26 129
Part-time 1 3 21 1 6 2 1 8 43
APS 4 Full-time 3 1 12 30 16 3 2 10 77
Part-time 5 7 1 2 1 2 18
APS 5 Full-time 1 1 16 18 1 11 2 3 8 61
Part-time 2 1 3
APS 6 Full-time 1 1 25 2 1 4 2 36
Part-time 1 3 2 1 7
EL 1 Full-time 2 29 17 11 4 1 15 79
Part-time 2 4 6 4 2 2 1 21
EL 2 Full-time 1 1 14 16 10 3 1 7 53
Part-time 6 1 1 3 11
SES 1 Full-time 2 1 1 1 5 PART 8 SES 2 Full-time 3 1 3
Total 15 5 126 193 5 101 38 17 101 601
Note: Judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer, who are holders of public office, and casual employees are A not included in the above tables. pp en d i c e s
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 205 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 2 13 6 4 15 40
APS 3 3 8 60 1 31 11 6 30 150
APS 4 2 1 14 26 13 3 2 9 70
APS 5 1 18 16 1 10 2 3 8 59
APS 6 1 1 26 4 1 4 3 40
EL 1 4 32 22 13 5 3 16 95
EL 2 1 1 14 20 11 3 2 9 61
SES 1 2 1 1 1 5
SES 2 3 1 3
Total 12 3 119 163 2 86 32 16 91 524
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 3 8 2 14
APS 3 1 1 10 3 3 4 22 PART 8 PART APS 4 1 3 11 4 2 1 3 25
APS 5 1 3 1 5 s e
c APS 6 1 2 3 i d
en EL 1 1 1 2 1 5 pp A EL 2 2 1 3
SES 1
SES 2
Total 3 2 7 30 3 15 6 1 10 77
Legend: SES – Senior Executive Officer CJ – Office of Chief Justice, Melbourne NSO – National Support Office, Canberra
206 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Judicial officers At 30 June 2012, there were 30 judges, including the Chief Justice; 13 female and 17 male.
Table 8.8 Total number of judges, 30 June 2012
Location Judges
New South Wales 13 Victoria 1 Chief Justice 5
Queensland 6
South Australia 2
Tasmania 1 Australian Capital Territory 1 Deputy Chief Justice 1
Total 30 PART 8 A pp en d i c e s
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 207 Workforce turnover During 2011–12, 83 employees and judicial officers left the Court (28 were non-ongoing, 51 were ongoing employees and four were holders of Public Office), being an annual turnover rate of 13.1 per cent against total staff numbers at 30 June 2012.*
Table 8.9 Workforce turnover
Employment type Reason Total
Non-ongoing employees Resignation 26 4.43% Unspecified 2
Total non-ongoing employees 28
Invalidity 1
Inter department transfer 11
Redundancy 11 Ongoing employees Resigned 20 8.07% Retirement age under 60 1
Retirement age over 60–65 3
Retirement age over 65 4
Total ongoing employees 51
Public office holders Retirement age 60–65 1 0.63% Retirement age over 65 3
PART 8 PART Total public office holders 4
Total 83 s e c i Note: The above figures do not include non-ongoing employees whose actual period of engagement reached their d
en non-ongoing contract date of expiry. pp
A *Total staff numbers for the above table include all employees and public office holders (judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer) as at 30 June 2012 (total headcount of 632).
208 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Agreement making
Collective Agreement and Enterprise Agreement The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14 came into effect on 1 July 2011. The Agreement has a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2014, however, under present arrangements it will continue to operate after that date until replaced or formally terminated. At 30 June 2012, 568* Family Court employees were covered by the Enterprise Agreement.
Table 8.10 Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14
Level Female Male Total
APS 1 1 1
APS 2 39 14 53
APS 3 121 51 172
APS 4 72 21 93
APS 5 50 14 64
APS 6 29 13 42
EL 1 62 29 91
EL 2 35 17 52
Total 408 160 568 PART 8
*excludes casual employees.
Other agreements A pp
While legislation no longer allows for the making of new AWAs, at 30 June 2012, 31 employees had en d i
enforceable AWAs in place. In some limited cases, the Family Court has used common law contracts and c e determination 24 instruments pursuant to the Australian Public Service Act 1999 to build upon existing s AWA arrangements. At 30 June 2012: 16 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts 46 employees had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 209 Table 8.11 Employees covered by other agreements
Australian Workplace Determination 24 Common law contracts Agreements arrangements
Level Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total
APS 1
APS 2 1 1 1 1
APS 3 2 2
APS 4 2 2
APS 5 1 1
APS 6 1 1 1 1 2
EL 1 3 6 9 1 4 5 8 9 17
EL 2 3 9 12 2 6 8 4 11 15
SES 1 1 3 4 2 1 3 3 2 5
SES 2 1 1 2 1 2 3
Total 12 19 31 4 11 16 21 25 46
Non-salary benefits Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include motor vehicles, car parking, superannuation, computers including home-based computer access, membership of professional
PART 8 PART associations and organisations, mobile phones and airline club memberships.
Performance pay arrangements
s The Court’s industrial instruments do not include provision for performance based pay to employees. No e c i
d employees received performance pay during 2011–12. en pp A
210 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Table 8.12 AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification
Classification Salary Range ($)
APS 2 55 905 – 55 905
APS 3 N/A
APS 4 64 562 – 64 562
APS 5 N/A
APS 6 72 113 – 72 113
EL 1 96 273 – 117 789
EL 2 122 619 – 149 556
SES 1 165 363 – 185 000
SES 2 190 263 – 202 880 PART 8 A pp en d i c e s
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 211 Table 8.13 Classification structure and pay rates*
APS classification Salary rates on 1 July 2012 and no. of staff 1 July 2011
APS 1 – 1 employee $41 533 $42 779
$42 657 $43 937
$44 412 $45 745
APS 2 – 54 employees $45 476 $46 841
$47 956 $49 395
$50 432 $51 945
APS 3 – 172 employees $53 145 $54 740
$54 494 $56 129
$55 905 $57 583
APS 4 – 95 employees $59 568 $61 356
$61 116 $62 950
$62 681 $64 562
APS 5 – 64 employees $64 393 $66 325
$66 411 $68 404
$68 281 $70 330
APS 6 – 43 employees $69 937 $72 036 PART 8 PART $73 657 $75 867
$79 888 $82 285
s EL 1 – 100 employees $89 156 $91 831 e c i d $92 715 $95 497 en pp
A $96 272 $99 161
EL 2 – 64 employees $105 266 $108 424
$108 481 $111 736
$116 583 $120 081
$118 426 $121 079
$120 480 $124 095
$123 557 $127 264
* excludes casual employees
212 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Appendix 4: Work health and safety Maintaining the health and safety of staff and all those who must use the Court’s premises is integral to the business and values of the Court. The Court is therefore committed to: implementation and compliance of the new Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act 2011) compliance by itself and its personnel with all applicable statutory and other health and safety obligations, including the Act maintaining a healthy and safe workplace preventing injuries by managing risk, including identifying and mitigating workplace hazards to health and safety, and making good work health and safety practice part of business as usual for all managers and staff.
During 2011–12, the Court continued to work to achieve this through: actively preventing work related injury and illness via regular workplace checks and inspections providing access to information, training, professional support and advice on WHS issues, via the Court’s intranet, training programs, E-learning, induction and other means consulting with staff and their representatives on the development and variation of health and safety management arrangements advising managers and staff of their WHS responsibilities, and ensuring health and safety representatives have the time and resources to reasonably perform their role. PART 8
The Court recognises that effective health and safety management reduces the social and financial costs of occupational injury and illness. Specific initiatives taken by the Court during 2011–12 to ensure the health, safety and welfare of staff
included the following: A pp providing all management and staff their legislative obligations, accountability, consultative en d i c
requirements, communication on leadership and legal obligations e s providing guidance for officers (as designated under the WHS Act 2011) in exercising ‘due diligence’ and ‘duty of care’ providing a powerpoint presentation on induction for all managers to use with their teams, including a template for induction and an education check list providing all Registry and Business Unit Managers with resources for preventing and managing bullying and harassment in the workplace updating overseas travel guidelines and approval delegation, and providing Comcare’s resources for workplace bullying to all harassment contact officers.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 213 The Court’s work health and safety employee benefits include ergonomic assessments of workstations, ergonomic furniture, access to a free employee assistance program, annual influenza vaccinations, access to peer support officers, first aid officers and harassment contact officers. In 2011–12, there were no notifiable incidents and there were no investigations or notices issued under Part 10 of the Act. The Court’s local occupational health and safety committees continued to meet throughout 2011–2012. None of the Court’s locations reported occupational health and safety audits requiring serious investigations during the year.
Workers’ compensation and early intervention management The strong educational program on work health and safety for the Court throughout the year ensured staff were focused on safety at work. Minimal stress claims were received in 2011–12, with early intervention keeping injury rates low. In addition, the Court continued to manage its workers compensation cases proactively throughout the year. As well as benefits to staff, this approach results in a continued low number of claims being lodged and reduced future total costs associated with all such claims. Comcare has advised that the compensation scheme is experiencing the pressure of liabilities across all agencies growing significantly due to an increasing number of people harmed at work and high expected future cost of workers’ compensation claims. As a result there has been a significant increase in premiums for 2012–13. However, the increase in premium for the Court was significantly lower (more than half a per cent lower) than average Comcare premium increases. This reflects the continued proactive management of the Court’s workers’ compensation cases.
Table 8.14 Comcare premium rates, 2007–08 to 2011–12 PART 8 PART 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Family Court of 1.91% 1.35% 1.48% 1.21% 1.16% 1.21% Australia s e c i All Agencies d 1.55% 1.36% 1.25% 1.20% 1.41% 1.77%
en combined pp A Variance 0.36 -0.01 0.23 0.01 -0.25 -0.56
214 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Appendix 5: Advertising and market research Under section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Court is required to disclose particulars of payments of $11 900 or more (inclusive of GST) for advertising, market research, polling organisations, direct mail and media advertising. The Court spent a total of $23 298 during 2011–12 in advertising and market research, comprising mainly payments to media advertising organisations for recruitment and tender notices. PART 8 A pp en d i c e s
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 215 Appendix 6: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance The following information is provided in accordance with Section 516A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999.
Court activities and ecologically sustainable development As noted in its Environmental Policy, the Family Court: “…recognises the importance of implementing sound environmental practices in all court functions…” This overarching commitment to ecologically sustainable development (ESD) was augmented in multiple ways by the Family Court of Australia during 2011–12 as detailed below.
Impacts on the environment The Court impacts on the environment in a number of areas, primarily in the consumption of resources. Table 8.15 lists environmental impact/usage data where available. Data for the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court cannot be accurately separated; therefore the data provided in Table 8.15 is total combined data for both courts unless specified. Any data relating to Commonwealth Law Courts (CLCs) has been calculated using the occupation apportionment percentage allocated to the Court, as the CLCs are shared by multiple jurisdictions.
Table 8.15 Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court environmental impact/usage data
2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Data not available until Energy usage (stationary) 50 191 GJ (Gigajoules) 50 191 GJ PART 8 PART October 2012
11 305 tonnes CO2-e* 11 363 tonnes CO2-e s e c i 22 375 reams office 22 510 reams office 24 615 reams office d Paper usage paper paper paper en pp A Water usage (Commonwealth 25 680 kL (Kilolitres) 24 519 kL 21 943 kL Law Courts only)
Transport
Data not available until Vehicles—energy usage 1 681 GJ (Gigajoules)** 5 646 GJ October 2011
113 tonnes CO2-e** 374 tonnes CO2-e
3 452 811 kms Flights (estimated) Not available Not available 975 tonnes C02
* There was a data adjustment made to the figure published in the 2010–11 annual report for stationary emissions. The figure quoted above is the correct figure. ** FMC transport was not included in the total figure in 2009–10.
216 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Measures to minimise the Court’s environmental impact
Environmental Management System The Court is currently developing a corporate Environmental Management System (EMS) to ensure an overarching and systematic approach to improving its environmental performance. The EMS is being developed to conform to the relevant Australian and international standard (AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004). A number of elements of the Court’s EMS have already been completed, and are reviewed and/or updated where relevant in accordance with the EMS standard. Elements completed to date include: an environmental policy outlining the Court’s broad commitment to environmental management an environmental risk register identifying significant environmental aspects and impacts for the Court and treatment strategies to mitigate them. This register has been reviewed annually since its development an environmental legal register to identify any relevant environmental legal requirements for the Court (this register also includes other requirements such as applicable Federal Government policy requirements). This register has been reviewed annually since its development, and is available on the intranet an environmental annual plan (environmental objectives, targets and programs) to identify environmental targets and associated performance indicators. The plan has since been reviewed and a revised plan was under development at 30 June 2012 an EMS management review report has been submitted to ensure management is informed of the status of the EMS and to provide an opportunity for feedback, improvement and endorsement an EMS manual outlining procedures for each element of the EMS, as well as summary information
on each element, and PART 8 a range of forms to accompany the EMS procedures and other requirements.
Other measures
During 2011–12, the Court worked within its EMS to minimise its environmental impact through a A pp
number of specific measures, either new or continuing, as follows. en d i c e
Energy s An energy reduction project was completed. It involved implementing feasible recommendations from energy audits conducted at several sites. Recommendations implemented included: –– lighting upgrades at the Newcastle, Darwin, Dandenong and Townsville registries to more energy efficient lights and more effective controls –– installation of supplementary air conditioning controls –– timers reprogrammed in kitchen hot water units, and –– rationalisation of electronic equipment such as printers. Whilst it is difficult to accurately quantify savings from the measures, electricity data for the sites that received lighting upgrades indicate energy usage reductions of up to 30 per cent and savings of approximately $25 000 in 2011–12.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 217 Electricity contracts continue to be reviewed to ensure value for money. New energy supply contracts negotiated for the Commonwealth Law Courts and the Dandenong registry in 2010–11 resulted in estimated savings of $380 000 during 2011–12 (CLC savings calculated as per occupation percentages apportioned to the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court).
Information technology An internal ICT sustainability plan was developed to address the requirements for the Federal Government’s ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15. This plan has been incorporated into the environmental risk register. To date, ICT specific actions progressed have included: –– a program to shutdown desktops automatically after hours (in test phase). In the meantime, staff are encouraged to shut down their desktops at the end of the day and regular site specific shutdown statistics are published on the intranet to assist with increasing staff awareness –– E-waste is recycled or reused where possible, including auctioning redundant but still operational equipment –– using whole-of-government procurement of IT equipment where available –– ensuring ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15 equipment standards are met when procuring new equipment –– ensuring fully recyclable packaging where possible –– replacing printers with more energy efficient models and rationalising where possible as part of a national printer replacement project –– introducing tablets (significantly more energy efficient) as an alternative to laptops, and –– a national desktop and monitor replacement project. Existing equipment was replaced with more energy efficient models and rationalised where possible.
Paper PART 8 PART Paperless invoice processing was introduced by the Court’s finance section, allowing egistriesr to forward invoices for payment electronically. Fifty per cent recycled content paper was implemented nationally from July 2011. This met a s e
c mandatory target of the Federal Government’s ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15. i d
en A working group was set up to investigate issues impacting on paper usage. pp A Secure paper (confidential etc) continued to be shredded and recycled for all court locations. Non- secure paper recycling was available at 15 sites.
Waste/cleaning A waste recycling (plastics, metal, cardboard etc) program was implemented at the National Support Office in 2010. In 2010–11, about 25 per cent of waste previously sent to landfill was recycled. In 2011–12 this increased to about 50 per cent. The number of sites with recycling facilities for printer toner cartridges increased by two to a total of 19. Recycling facilities for staff personal mobiles have increased by one site to a total of 11. Electronic media (CDs, work mobiles etc.) continue to be securely shredded and components recycled where possible.
218 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Corporate culture/communication The Court’s Environmental Champions Network (ECN) continues to offer the opportunity for staff to provide their input to environmental matters for the courts. The volunteer membership has increased from five members in 2010 to 20 members representing 13 sites nationally in 2011–12. Projects to date have included: –– Earth Hour –– national recycling week –– mobile muster campaign –– Christmas electronic equipment shutdown drive –– launch of environmental logo (below) specific to the courts, and –– ECN internal online national ‘community’ for interactive communication between members.
An environmental management intranet page provides information on environmental issues for the Court. Regular articles about the Court’s environmental status are included in the internal e-newsletters Courtside. PART 8 The Court continues to be represented as a member on the (federal) Government Agency Environmental Network (GAEN), an interagency network facilitating the sharing of best practice environmental information. Its membership includes about 30 agencies. The Court’s Environmental Manager is currently chairing one of the GAEN subgroups (the Environmental Management System
subgroup). A pp en d i Property c e s Fitouts and refurbishments continue to be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner including by: recycling demolished materials where possible maximising reuse of existing furniture and fittings engaging consultants with experience in sustainable development where possible, and maximising use of environmentally friendly products such as recycled content in furniture and fittings, low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paint and adhesives, and energy efficient lighting and air conditioning.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 219 Travel Portable videoconferencing facilities have been upgraded at many sites to improve accessibility. Whilst some travel is unavoidable due to the nature of the Court (e.g. travel required for circuit registries), improved access to videoconferencing provides an alternative option in other situations.
Review and improvement strategies
Environmental Management System The primary tool used for reviewing and improving effectiveness of environmental impacts is the Court’s Environmental Management System (EMS). Whilst the EMS is still under development, elements of it (as detailed above) have established benchmarking and treatment strategies for identified environmental impacts. At 30 June 2012, annual reviews of the following elements were completed or close to completion, helping ensure continual improvement of measures and effectiveness: the environmental risk register (significant environmental aspects and impacts) the EMS management review the environmental annual plan (objectives, targets and programs), and the environmental legal and other requirements register.
Other measures External reporting requirements, such as under the Energy Efficiency in Government Operations (EEGO) Policy and the Australian Packaging Covenant, provide annual snapshots of the Court’s performance in areas associated with the environment. These requirements enabled the Court to track its progress in areas such as energy use and identify areas of potential improvement. PART 8 PART Additional ESD implications In 2011–12, the Court did not administer any legislation with ecologically sustainable development (ESD) s
e implications nor did it have outcomes specified in an Appropriations Act with ESD implications. c i d en pp A
220 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Appendix 7: Grant programs The Family Court made no grant payments during 2011–12. PART 8 A pp en d i c e s
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 221 Appendix 8: Committees
Table 8.16 Judicial committees, 30 June 2012
Title Chair Members Terms of reference Chief Justice’s Policy Chief Justice • DCJ Faulks To support the Chief Justice in the Advisory Bryant • Justice Finn administration of the Court and provide • Justice Strickland her with advice on strategy and policy • Justice Watts • Justice Ryan • Justice Cronin • Justice Murphy • CEO (Richard Foster) • Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello) • Principal Child Dispute Services (Pam Hemphill) Aboriginal and Torres Justice Benjamin • FM Donald To examine the needs of Indigenous Strait Islander (joint • Executive Advisor FCoA people in the Family Law Courts committee) (Leisha Lister) • Stephen Ralph (Research consultant)
Access to Justice Chief Justice • Cultural diversity portfolio: To oversee the Court’s cultural diversity (comprising the Bryant Justice Cleary plan and provide advice to the Chief Cultural Diversity, • Self-represented litigant Justice and CEO on cultural diversity Aboriginal and Torres portfolio: Justice Forrest issues, special needs of Aboriginal and Strait Islander and • ATSI portfolio: Justice Benjamin Torres Strait Islander people and Self-Represented self-represented litigants Litigants Committees) PART 8 PART Benchbook Justice • Justice Fowler To review and update the electronic Ainslie-Wallace • Justice Loughnan benchbook which contains commentary • Hon Richard Chisholm on a range of legal topics and
s principles encountered in the day to
e (consultant) c i day work of the judiciary and registrars
d • nominated legal associate and provides a comprehensive list of en • Family Law Information Service
pp orders A representative • IT representative
Family Violence (joint Justice • Justice Colllier To complete the implementation of committee) Ryan • Justice Stevenson the courts’ Family Violence Strategy • FM Brown and provide advice to the Chief Justice, Chief Federal Magistrate and CEO on • FM Hughes family violence issues • FM Altobelli • Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello) • Family consultant (Diane Lojszczyk) • Senior Legal Research Advisor (Kristen Murray)
222 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Title Chair Members Terms of reference Judicial Development Justice • Justice Ainslie-Wallace To develop, implement and oversight (joint committee) Benjamin • Justice Collier judicial education in the courts • Justice Ryan • Justice Murphy • Justice Fowler • Justice Austin • Justice Dessau (consultant) Judicial Remuneration Justice • Chief Justice Bryant To prepare submissions to annual and Young • DCJ Faulks other reviews by the Remuneration • Justice May Tribunal • Justice Austin • Justice Johnston Law Reform Justice • Chief Justice Bryant To consider and comment upon Strickland • DCJ Faulks proposed legislation and law reform • Justice Finn proposals • Justice Watts • Principal Registrar (Angela Filippello) Library Justice • Nominated federal magistrates (proposed joint Finn • Manager Family Law Information committee) Service Magellan Justice • Principal Registrar (Angela To exchange information about support Austin Filippello) for Magellan, report to the Chief • Executive Advisor to the CEO Justice on its operation, liaise with child welfare and police departments (Leisha Lister) PART 8 • Magellan judges on the evaluation of Magellan and ensure that cases involving allegations of child sexual or serious physical abuse are dealt with as effectively and efficiently as possible A
Property Management Justice • FM Donald To plan and assess the current and pp (joint committee) Dawe • CEO (Richard Foster) future needs of the courts in relation to en d
property services including contracting, i • Executive Director Corporate c e (Grahame Harriott) refurbishment and construction activity s • Registry manager representative • National Manager Contracts and Property (Akasha Atkinson)
Research and Ethics Justice • Nominated federal magistrate/s To consider, monitor and overview (joint committee) Stevenson • The Hon Susan Morgan all research and evaluation proposals (consultant) (whether internal or external) for • Principal Child Dispute Services approval and disseminate research (Pam Hemphill) papers/results as necessary • Manager Statistical Services Unit (Dennis Beissner) • Legal Counsel (Neil Wareham)
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 223 Title Chair Members Terms of reference Rules Justice • Justice Strickland (currently on To consider all necessary or proposed Ryan leave of absence) rule changes. Section 123 of the Family • Justice Murphy Law Act 1975 provides that a majority • Justice Loughnan of judges may make rules of court in relation to practices and procedures to • Magistrate Moroni be followed in the Court • John FitzGibbon (Senior Registrar) • Julie Kearney (Registrar) • Family Court Counsel (Neil Wareham)
Senior management committees
Table 8.17 Senior management governance committees, 30 June 2012
Title Chair Members Terms of reference Chief Executive CEO Family Court • Acting Deputy CEO, Federal To provide operational and policy Officer’s and acting CEO Magistrates Court (Steve Agnew) advice to the CEO regarding key Management Federal Magistrates • Executive Director, Client areas that are likely to be affected by Advisory Group Court Services (Stephen Andrew) the integration of the administrations • Regional Registry Manager, Vic/ of the Family Court and Federal Tas (Jane Reynolds) Magistrates Court • Executive Director, Corporate (Grahame Harriott) • Principal, Child Dispute Services (Pam Hemphill)
PART 8 PART • Executive Advisor, Client Services (Simon Kelso) • Manager, CFM Chambers (Stewart Fenwick) s
e • Executive Director, Information, c i Communication and Technology d
en Services (Phil Hocking acting) pp
A • Support is provided by the Executive Advisor to the CEO (Leisha Lister)
224 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Title Chair Members Terms of reference Audit and Risk Chris Doogan AM • Executive Director Corporate Monitor and where necessary (external member) (Grahame Harriott) recommend improvements to: • Registry manager representatives - risk management identification (Greg Thomas, Adelaide and and amelioration Marianne Christmann, Sydney) - internal control processes • ANAO representative and the (including fraud control) Family Court’s internal auditors - the financial reporting process (Oakton Services Pty Ltd) also attend meetings as observers - the functioning of the internal audit unit • Oakton Services Pty Ltd provide secretariat services - the external audit process - processes for monitoring compliance with legislation, regulations and government policy - maintain an effective working relationship with the ANAO National CEO’s Members are selected by vote and Consultative forum for staff about Consultative representative represent: issues with a national perspective (Claire Golding, A/g • National Support Office, (Annie such as industrial democracy, Manager Human Fenn, Human Resources Officer) security, the strategic objectives of the Court, equal employment Resources) • Associates, (Emma Crutchfield, FMC Brisbane) opportunities, new technology, accommodation and amenities, and • Registrars, (Debra Parker, personnel and staffing policies and Canberra) practices • Client Services, (Carol McPherson, Lismore and Chris Delegates present staff views on
Cole, Adelaide) issues that affect the management PART 8 • Family consultants, (Louise and future direction of the Court and Salmon, Sydney) provide feedback and briefings to • A representative from the the workplace nationally Community and Public Sector Union is also invited to attend A Staff Development Manager Human • Registry manager representative, To identify and/or develop national pp en
Resources (Claire (Brenda Field, Dandenong) training and development initiatives, d i Golding, A/g) policies and programs c • Child Dispute Services, (Stacey e s McGuinness, FMC Sydney) • Registrars, (Debra Parker, Canberra) • Client services, (Rupal Patal, NEC Sydney) • Client services, (Haylee Hobbs, FMC Melbourne) • Information, Technology and Communication Services,(Sona Muradyan, Sydney) • HR representative, Workforce and Policy Manager (Deb McDermott, A/g) • Client service representative team leaders, (Julie Greig, Adelaide)
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 225 Appendix 9: External involvement The Family Court has a number of strategies for strengthening its partnerships with clients and other stakeholders within the family law system, such as legal practitioners, non-government organisations and government agencies and departments. External stakeholders at the strategic level influence, either directly or indirectly, the direction of the family law system within Australia. They include: the Attorney-General’s Department other government departments and agencies child welfare authorities the Child Support Program (formerly the Child Support Agency) legal services commissions and community legal centres law societies and councils community-based and non-government organisations the Australian Federal Police.
Relationships with these groups are managed either by the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, other judges on behalf of the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive Officer and/or other senior executives. There are a number of established channels through which external stakeholders may inform the Court and affect its processes and client service delivery, including the following.
Family Law Council
PART 8 PART The Family Law Council, established by the Attorney-General under section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975, confers with the Court in the course of its consideration of particular aspects of family law. The Court has judges appointed to the council and senior executives as observers at its meetings. s e c
i Australian Institute of Family Studies d
en The Australian Institute of Family Studies was established under section 114B of the Family Law Act and is pp A a forum for exchange of information and research.
Family Law section of the Law Council of Australia The Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice meet quarterly with the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia. There are regular liaison meetings between the state law societies and bar associations and each of the Court’s registries.
Family Law Forum The Chief Justice chairs the national Family Law Forum, which consists of representatives from the Family Court, Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Law Council, the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, National Legal Aid, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Program, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, non- government organisations and community legal centres. The Family Law Forum did not meet in 2011–12.
226 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices 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, as 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 8.
Improving the interface between the child protection and family law systems The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) is involved in several projects with the states and territories to improve the interface between the child protection and family law systems.
South Australia pilot project A pilot project in South Australia is developing and implementing initiatives to improve collaboration between the federal family law system and the South Australian child protection system. During 2011–12, stakeholders were trialling initiatives in these key areas: expanding the exercise of current jurisdiction case management and information sharing relationship building, and risk identification and assessment.
The stakeholders include judicial officers from the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Youth Court of SA and representatives from the Family Court, AGD, the SA Attorney-General’s Department, the SA Legal Services Commission and Families SA (a division of the Department of Education and Child Development). PART 8 By 30 June 2012, stakeholders had met five times since February 2011 and significant progress had been made. The pilot will continue to be monitored to identify whether these initiatives could be implemented nationally. A National child protection and family law collaboration meeting pp en d
The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department hosted two national child protection and family law i c e collaboration meetings during 2011–12. Stakeholders from the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates s Court, the Family Court of Western Australia and each of the state and territory child welfare authorities attended the meetings, the purpose of which was to: provide an opportunity for stakeholders to share experience and learning provide clarity and dialogue around the nature of current initiatives to improve outcomes for children and their families identify impediments to change identify possibilities for implementing new processes and practices, and assist in developing agreed principles on protocols and/ or a Memorandum of Understanding between the child protection authorities and the courts.
The meetings were successful, with significant positive feedback received from stakeholders.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 227 Local registry consultations During 2011–12, the family law registries engaged at the local level with law societies, family law pathways networks, court user forums and community-based organisations concerned with family support and the family law system. This consultation ensured that registries received regular feedback about users’ experiences of registry services and the courts and were able to improve the service and approach to clients. It also ensures that the Court is well placed to make effective referrals to community- based services for clients who may require ongoing support. Local pathways groups or networks are a key forum for engagement. Pathways is a family law interagency network, established in 2005 and funded by the Federal Attorney-General’s Department. It aims to facilitate a more integrated family law system, particularly for community-based agencies that deal with separated families, family dispute resolution and associated issues such as family violence. In some areas members include those involved with health and child protection. In addition to general consultations, registries continued to engage with community-based organisations and other jurisdictions about best practice approaches to support those clients who are subject to, or fear, violence from their partner, former partner or other family members. A significant innovation in 2011–12 was the courts’ user satisfaction survey, conducted at all major and medium sized registries. The survey process is consistent with one of the seven platforms for excellence in the international courts excellence framework. The results of the survey can be found in Part 2 (see Initiatives of the Family Court) The feedback from the survey has informed registries about the areas where the courts can perform more effectively and encouraged registries to keep on doing the things which court users say they do well. This data also informed registries’ discussions with stakeholders. The registries also worked with universities, offering or participating in moot courts and other opportunities and information for students; and with the legal profession at the local level, including with continuing professional development. Whilst not consultation as such, initiatives such as these are
PART 8 PART important in terms of relationship building and awareness building about the particular circumstances and needs of family law and of the people who need to use family law services. Some aspects of this work is reported below.
s Following is information about specific consultative activities undertaken by the Court’s registries. e c i d en
pp Registry-specific activities A ACT/NSW
Sydney Sydney met quarterly with family law practitioners to communicate Family Law Court initiatives and seek feedback. The meetings were chaired by the Registry Manager and attended by the Case Management Judge and Coordinating Federal Magistrate. A Child Dispute Services representative attended monthly meetings of the Greater Sydney Families in Transition Group (Pathways). The Sydney Pathways Network and the Aboriginal community held an Aboriginal Family Law Conference in February 2012. The aim was to provide information to Aboriginal workers and
228 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices community members about the different courts that affect Aboriginal people: the Children's Court, the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Local Court. About 150 people attended over the three days. Judicial officers and a family consultant attended. Members of the judiciary, court staff, and representatives from the Department of Human Services, the Police Service, Legal Aid and legal practitioners attended two meetings of the Magellan Steering Committee during the year. The committee considered issues associated with the implementation of the Magellan protocol in the Sydney, Parramatta and Newcastle registries. Whilst not consultation, ongoing relationship building and awareness raising arises in a number of other ways. For example, family consultants from the registry were regular guest speakers at the University of NSW, both for law students and Master of Psychology students. Topics included the role of the family consultants in the family court system, the various issues and problems that may present to the Court (e.g. drug and alcohol use, family violence, attachment relationships, child protection issues, etc) and the potential impact of these on children and young people; parenting capacity and family functioning in general.
Parramatta A senior family consultant attended the meetings of the Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways Network when meetings were held in Western Sydney. The registry, including the Case Management Judge and the Coordinating Federal Magistrate, met quarterly with the local family law practitioners.
Dubbo The NSW Central West Family Law Pathways Network met every two months, video-linked between Dubbo and Bathurst. The network held two family law training events, one each for lawyers and PART 8 family dispute resolution practitioners.
Wollongong Staff attended the Illawarra Family Law Pathways meeting every two months. A pp
Family consultants in Wollongong worked with the Illawarra Pathways, Southern Highlands en d
Pathways, Shoalhaven Pathways and Shoalhaven Domestic Violence Network. Family consultants i c e
were on panels discussing family law and family violence issues. s
Canberra ACT Pathways met every six weeks to plan and develop strategies for seamless referrals for clients between the various family law service providers in the ACT. The group also undertook educative activities—seminars—about family law (children’s issues), family violence and mental health issues. The Canberra Registry Consultative Committee met twice during the year, facilitating two-way feedback between the Court and the legal profession on topics such as new legislation, new case management procedures and any local issues. Attendees included judicial officers and registry staff, and representatives of the legal profession, the bar association, Attorney-General’s Family Law Section, ACT Human and Community Services and Legal Aid lawyers.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 229 Newcastle Court personnel attended the monthly Pathways meeting and also were involved in organising activities such as information days. A Newcastle registrar attended the monthly Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association meetings.
SA/NT
Adelaide Throughout 2011–12, the Adelaide registry continued its collaborative involvement with stakeholder agencies. There was a strong focus on court training and developing partnerships with agencies delivering services to the Court’s clients. Following is specific information about this work. Training and support was provided to the Women's Information Service court support program and the Women's Legal Service volunteer program. Regular meetings and discussions were held with the Family Law Practitioners branch on topics such as registry practices. There was ongoing relationship building between Family Court administrative staff and staff of the prescribed welfare authority, Families SA, in relation to Magellan matters. The Court continued its active involvement with the Child Support Program (formerly Child Support Agency) Community Stakeholders Group, Pathways and the Family Relationship Centres. Information sessions were provided to family dispute resolution practitioners from Uniting Care Wesley, Centacare and Family Relationship Centres. Throughout the year the registry worked with the University of Western Sydney on the ‘Fortress or Sanctuary’ research program examining court security.
PART 8 PART Training days were hosted for Aboriginal justice officers from the Courts Administration Authority South Australia. Information sessions were provided to law students from the University of South Australia. Students s
e also visited the registry as part of the University's family law training program c i d
en ‘Family Law Court: Request for most recent orders relating to children of the parties’ was developed pp
A with South Australian Police (SAPOL) to comply with the changes to the South Australian family violence legislation. The jointly-developed proforma and protocol include information from the Court to assist SAPOL in seeking an ‘interim intervention order’ in the state courts. Further to the above, judicial officers, registrars and family consultants contributed to the following: –– the inaugural Adelaide Family Law Intensive, 2011: chairperson/commentator, on the topic of the essentials of family law practice –– Law Society of South Australia, 2012: chair, continuing professional development seminar –– Relationships Australia, 2012: participant, training DVD for family dispute resolution practitioners mediating property disputes, and –– Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department: working group member, South Australian pilot project in relation to improving the interface between the child protection systems and the family law system (reported on earlier in this appendix).
230 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Darwin The Registry Manager is a member of the steering committee of Family Pathways. This group met quarterly to progress the work of the network. The Registry Manager attended quarterly meetings of the Family Relationships Centre (FRC) Consortium Group to discuss local issues and identify new programs to which clients can be referred. Meetings were held quarterly with family law practitioners and were chaired by the Federal Magistrate. The meetings aim to streamline processes, seek new case management procedures and provide a forum for practitioners to provide feedback to the courts.
Alice Springs The Alice Springs Family Pathways network is supported by the Darwin network and it met quarterly. The Federal Magistrate attended once during the year. Practitioner meetings were held by the Federal Magistrate while she was on circuit, usually each quarter.
Qld A key outcome of local consultations during 2011–12 was the greatly increased uptake of filing via the Commonwealth Courts Portal (the portal) throughout the region, evidenced by Brisbane registry being by far the busiest eFiling registry nationally (see Part 2, Table 2.2 for details). In support of this outcome, the Regional Registry Manager and Business Systems Development Officer held information sessions on the portal in Brisbane, Coffs Harbour, Lismore, Townsville, Cairns and PART 8 Mackay. They also conducted information sessions for the Caxton Legal Centre, for a recent delegation from the Bhutanese Court system, and for a meeting of non-government organisations in Brisbane. In addition, specialised training was provided to local practitioners and to other practitioners across the region via video.
Following is more specific detail, at registry level of other consultative activities for 2011–12. A pp en d
Brisbane i c e Brisbane registry continued its regular meetings with various user groups including the family law s practitioners, Legal Aid and Child Support Stakeholders Group. Speakers were provided for external training sessions, including on special medical procedures for medical specialists, on consent orders for Legal Aid and on contravention applications for family law practitioners. Representatives from Child Dispute Services attended regular meetings with the Brisbane and Gold Coast Pathways Group and the registry also met with the Queensland Legal Aid Independent Children's Lawyers group. The Registry and Judicial Services Managers attended liaison meetings with their counterparts in State and District courts administrations. There was regular liaison with the local Pathways representatives at Coffs Harbour during Federal Magistrates Court circuit sitting weeks.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 231 Whilst not consultation and liaison, the Federal Magistrates and courts staff worked in conjunction with the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) to run moot courts for Bar Practice course participants and also provided opportunities for QUT law students as interns in Chambers at the courts. The registry, in conjunction with Bond University, hosted a number of moot courts for law students and provided registrar assistance and provided guest speakers for Bond University.
North Queensland (including Townsville, Cairns and Rockhampton) The Townsville Registry Manager regularly attended meetings with the North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, the Family Law Pathways Network, the Family Relationship Centre (Centacare), and Relationships Australia, as well as meetings as required with the profession, and various State government agencies, again as required. Staff representatives met with the Family Law Practitioners Network, Family Relationship Centres, and Domestic and Family Violence Support groups in Cairns and Rockhampton as required. Federal Magistrates in Townsville and Cairns participated in moot courts for law students from James Cook University.
VIC/TAS
Melbourne A key focus was to enliven relationships with the Department of Human Services after a recent review of the protocol between the department and the courts for child abuse cases. Particular attention was given to exchange of information, improved liaison with regional offices for case management and reporting, and improved understanding of each other’s requirements in these complex cases. The Victorian registries also wanted to put in place mechanisms to achieve effective PART 8 PART notification of child abuse cases to the department in the context of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (Cth), commencing June 2012. The Registry Manager and Coordinating Registrar attended Court Practice Committee meetings of s e c
i the Family Law Section of the Law Institute Victoria, responding to queries about eFiling, resources, d the role and function of the National Enquiry Centre, trends in filing and case management en
pp procedures. The Case Management Judges also attended those meetings to ensure flow of A information to lawyers on case management policy and procedure. Specific issues that arose included the impact of the Court’s budget situation on case management and listings and also lawyers’ experience of and feedback on the courts’ National Enquiry Centre. A special meeting was convened by the Senior Registrar to discuss Family Court management of Magellan matters and was attended by Victorian Legal Aid, the Law Institute and the Victorian Bar. The Registry Services Manager liaised regularly with Victorian Legal Aid to ensure support for its services at the Melbourne registry. This resulted in better support for eFiling procedures for legal aid and an additional room for seeing clients at the Melbourne courts. The Registry Manager had regular contact with Victorian Court Network, sharing information on developments in the family law jurisdiction, ensuring that network volunteers are up to date and supported in their role assisting self-represented litigants.
232 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Representing the Chief Executive Officer, the Registry Manager attended the Law Institute President’s meetings. These are convened for Commonwealth and Victorian Courts’ CEOs for the exchange of information and advice on issues in courts administration in Victoria. Of particular interest in the discussions this year was security arrangements at metropolitan and regional courts, the impact of technology upon court processes and the evolution of alternative dispute resolution in the respective jurisdictions. The Victorian Pathways Network has been invigorated and held several successful forums during 2011–12 with assistance from the Melbourne registry and, in particular, the registry’s Child Dispute Services Coordinator. The forums covered topics including child protection and post-separation parenting arrangements in cases where there are property and parenting issues in dispute. Registry managers liaised with Family Relationship Centres (FRC) and attend FRC meetings on invitation. FRCs, in a collaborative initiative between the courts and the FRCs, provided referral and wait list information at the Dandenong registry during the year and a similar service was being planned for the Melbourne registry. The Registry Manager periodically attended the Victorian Department of Justice Family Violence Stakeholder Forums where there was useful exchange about legislative and policy reform and also community-based initiatives. Of particular value was the discussion of how Commonwealth and State policy, programs, laws and jurisdictions intersect and function together as a service to the community. The Registry Manager engaged regularly with state courts and in particular with the Director of Regional Registrars who supports the Federal Magistrates Court regional service at state court houses. Specific issues that arose during the year were listing arrangements and security. These were resolved.
The Regional Coordinating Registrar attended Centacare giving a presentation on family law PART 8 developments, which was well received.
Dandenong
The key focus for registry engagement in Dandenong continued to be the coordination of the A pp
Collaborative Dispute Resolution Group. This group met quarterly and comprised representatives en d i
from five Family Resource Centres in the catchment area, registry staff, the Victorian Pathways group c e and local community based organisations. The main focus of the group was to coordinate a ‘drop in’ s service at the registry three mornings each week. Experienced dispute resolution practitioners were available to provide information and direct referrals to local family relationship services to assist the federal magistrates, legal practitioners and self-represented clients. The Dandenong Registry Manager is a member of Family Relationship Centre Reference Groups including Berwick, Frankston and Chadston and was involved in supporting Ringwood.
Tasmania The Court participated in the Hobart Family Relationship Centre reference group, Pathways South, North and North-West as well as the Hobart Pathways reference group, the Child Support Program Stakeholder Engagement Group, and the steering committee for the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution pilot.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 233 The biannual state-wide Family Law Courts Family Violence Consultative Committee meeting, a forum for all public sector agencies concerned with improved responses to violence, including Tasmanian Police, Department Health and Human Services and Department of Justice, was convened. The Legal Aid Commission and Family Law Practitioners Association supported the monthly Family Law Courts case management committee meetings in order to advance the management and passage of cases in the family law system. There was ongoing liaison with child protection about Magellan matters to ensure the smooth and coordinated management of cases where child abuse is alleged. PART 8 PART s e c i d en pp A
234 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Appendix 10: Judicial activities In addition to hearing and determining cases, the Family Court’s judges actively contribute to the development of the law and legal education, both in Australia and internationally. This is achieved through attending conferences and seminars, membership of relevant bodies, presenting papers and lectures, addressing academic institutions, professional associations and community-based organisations, meeting international delegations and liaising with judicial colleagues around the world. Many judges also serve as members of organising committees for conferences as well as working in the community with a variety of legal and non-legal organisations. A summary of conferences and seminars attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice and Family Court judges during 2011–12, and speaking engagements of the Chief Justice during that period, follows.
Chief Justice’s activities
Table 8.18 Conferences attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice, 2011–12
7–9 July 2011 LawAsia Symposium, Tokyo, Japan Paper delivered: Judge Aiko Noda Memorial Lecture—Family law in the Asia-Pacific region (keynote address, 8 July 2011)
3–5 August 2011 New Zealand Family Court Conference, Wellington, New Zealand Paper delivered: An overview of recent changes to Australian family law (4 August 2011)
28 September 2011 Religious Courts of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia Paper delivered: A better experience for clients: transforming service delivery
26–28 October 2011 4th Asia Pacific Annual Conference: The Work of the Hague Conference on Private International PART 8 Law, Manila, Philippines Paper delivered: The relevance in the region of the Child Abduction and Child Protection Conventions and the importance of international cooperation (27 October 2011; also a discussant in the panel ‘Regional experiences in the practical operation of the Child Abduction and Child Protection Conventions) A 9–10 November 2011 Family Relationships Services Australia 4th National Conference, Gold Coast pp en
Paper delivered: Closing address (10 November 2011) d i c e 2–5 May 2012 11th Biennial Conference of the International Association of Women Judges, London, United s Kingdom Paper delivered: Judicial leadership (plenary session, 2 May 2012) 6–9 June 2012 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 49th Annual Conference, Chicago, United States Paper delivered: Has confidentiality in family dispute resolution reached its used-by date? (co-presenter with FM Altobelli, 8 June 2012)
13–15 June 2012 International Association for Court Administration 5th Annual Conference, The Hague, Netherlands Paper delivered: Three questions for courts governance (14 June 2012)
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 235 Table 8.19 Chief Justice’s speaking engagements, 2011–12
1 September 2011 ‘The future of contested litigation’, Melbourne University Law School guest lecture series 29 September 2011 Signing of Memorandum of Understanding between the Family Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia and Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta 21 March 2012 ‘Resilience and relationships: My Experience as Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia’, address to graduating class, Cairnmillar Institute, Melbourne 1 May 2012 ‘An Australian perspective on the UK Family Justice Review’, the 2012 International Family Law Lecture, London, United Kingdom (paper also submitted for publication)
In addition, the Chief Justice: attended the opening of the Commonwealth Law Ministers’ Meeting, the Women’s Event and a session on the Hague Child Abduction Convention, 11–14 July 2011 chaired the plenary session ‘Hague Convention Matters’ at the 26th annual Queensland Law Society conference, 10 September 2011 attended the Family Law Practitioners Association of Western Australia annual conference, 17–18 September 2011 attended the National Judicial College of Australia leadership program for the Council of Chief Justices in Hobart, 13–14 October 2011 chaired the ‘Resolutions’ session at the 4th Asia Pacific Annual Conference: The Work of the Hague conference on Private International Law, 28 October 2011 attended Court Network’s annual state conference in Melbourne, 21 November 2011, and met with the Family Law Section Executive throughout the 2011–12 year. PART 8 PART The Chief Justice is a Joint Director of Studies, Program Committee, World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights Inc. The Chief Justice is a board member of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. s e c i The Chief Justice is the sole patron of Australian Women Lawyers, a patron of Court Network and a patron d
en of Gordon Care. pp A On 26 January 2012 the Chief Justice was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the judiciary and to the law, particularly to family law policy reform and practice, through the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court, and to the advancement of women in the legal profession.
Activities of judges Papers presented by the judges of the Family Court during 2011–12 include: ‘Cross examination of expert witnesses’, Bar Association of Queensland, September 2011 ‘Child protection: everyone’s business’, Child Protection Practitioners Association of Queensland, September 2011 ‘The challenge of the self-represented litigant viewed from the Bar and the Bench’, Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners’ conference, Newcastle, October 2011
236 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices ‘The gentle art of advocacy in the Family Court’, Bar Association of Queensland Pupils’ CDP Seminar, Brisbane, November 2011 ‘Sentencing’, Monash University, Medico Legal Conference, Cortina, Italy, January 2012 Presentation to the Magistrates Court of Tasmania annual conference, Hobart, February 2012 Presentation as part of the Family Law Intensive, Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia, Sydney, February 2012 ‘Pre-action procedures and disclosure obligations in the Family Court of Australia’, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration discovery seminar, Melbourne, March 2012 ‘Determining whether there is a de facto relationship’, North Queensland Law Association conference, Mackay, May 2012.
Conferences and seminars attended by judges of the Family Court during 2011–12 include: College of Law conference, Sydney, August 2011 Central West Law Society conference, Orange, September 2011 Queensland Law Society family law residential, Queensland, September 2011 Queensland Bar Association conference, Queensland, October 2011 Judicial Conference of Australia, Alice Springs, October 2011 Riverina Law Society conference, Griffith, November 2011 International Bar Association annual conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, October–November 2011
Family law advocacy workshop, Brisbane, November 2011 PART 8 Facilitation skills workshop, Brisbane, December 2011 6th USA Pacific legal conference, New York, United States, December 2011 Brothers and Sisters in Law conference, Sydney, March 2012 A pp
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 49th annual conference, Chicago, United States, June en d i 2012. c e s
Judges contribute to professional legal development through their membership of professional and research-based associations. The Family Court has been consistently represented on the Family Law Council since its establishment. During 2011–12 the Family Court’s judicial representative on the Family Law Council was Justice Watts (Sydney registry). Justice May (Brisbane) is the Deputy President and member of the Council of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, as well as being the Convenor of the Project and Research Committee and a member of the Indigenous Justice Committee of that organisation. Justice May is also the Co-Chair of the Judges Forum of the International Bar Association. Justice Strickland (Adelaide) is the Family Court’s nominated director on the board of the Australian Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and Mediators.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 237 Justice Young (Melbourne) is a member of the Governing Council of the Judicial Conference of Australia. Justice Ainslie-Wallace (Sydney) is the Deputy Chair of the Australian Advocacy Institute and Chair, Advisory Board, College of Law Applied Family Law Masters Program. Justice Murphy (Brisbane) is a National Advisory Council Member of the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, an Advisory Board Member of the World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights and a Council Member of the National Judicial College of Australia. Judges are members of organisations including: the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts the International Bar Association the Association of International Judicial Administration the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law the Australian Centre for Court and Justice System Innovation the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration the Bar Association of Queensland the Centre for Children and Young People Children’s Rights International the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (Qld) the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia the International Association of Women Judges
PART 8 PART the Judicial Conference of Australia LawAsia Melbourne University Law School s e c i the National Academic Committee of the College of Law d en
pp the National College of Judicial Education A the Victorian Bar Association, and the Advisory Board, Family Law Practice for the NSW College of Law.
Judges are also involved in the development and conduct of the National Judicial Orientation Program, delivered through the National Judicial College, and teaching for other judicial education bodies throughout Australia. Judges regularly present to law societies and bar associations in their respective jurisdictions, as well as holding informal meetings with members of the legal profession and participating in stakeholder meetings. For example, Justice Forrest (Brisbane) is a Judge Mentor for the Bar Association of Queensland’s Indigenous Law Students’ Mentoring Program, Justice Ainslie-Wallace mentors law students at the University of Technology, Sydney and Justice Benjamin (Hobart) mentors a law student in Melbourne. Judges are also often asked to speak at secondary schools and lecture at law schools about particular topics (such as the rule of law) and about their work generally.
238 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Family Court judges are also engaged in organising local, national and international conferences. During 2011–12 these included the Family Court of Australia’s biennial judges’ conference, the Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration’s conference Doing Justice for Young People in Australia and New Zealand and preparatory work for the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights, to be held in 2013. Where appropriate, judges also participate in judicial development programs involving judges and lawyers from other countries. Justice Benjamin spent three weeks in Zimbabwe assisting in drafting a Zimbabwean family law bill. Justice Benjamin also assisted in the education of post graduate students at the Women’s Law Centre at the University of Zimbabwe. In November 2011, Justice Benjamin was also involved in running a program in Melbourne to provide information to a number of Zimbabwean judges, members of the Zimbabwean Opposition, a professor of law and members of the legal profession. Justice Murphy from the Brisbane registry hosted Bhutanese judges and attorneys in Brisbane in January and February 2012. Justice Ainslie-Wallace was an instructor at the Monash University trial practice and advocacy course in Kuala Lumpur. Justice Bennett (Melbourne) hosted visiting Japanese judges in February 2012 and co-hosted a visit to Melbourne by a German judge who gave a presentation on interviewing children in family law cases. Justice Bennett is the Family Court’s Hague Child Abduction Convention Liaison Judge and during 2011–12 undertook judicial network communications, including mediation and mirror orders, with the following countries: United Kingdom New Zealand South Africa
Japan PART 8 Germany Northern Ireland United States of America, and A pp
Singapore. en d i c e
In addition, Justice Bennett met with the Japanese Parliamentary Vice-Minister in Canberra, in August s 2011, to discuss issues associated with Japan’s ratification of the child abduction convention and attended the sixth Special Commission meeting at The Hague in January 2012. Several judges of the Family Court hold commissions as members of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 239 Appendix 11: International visitors During 2011–12, the Court continued to be recognised internationally with official visitors from Malaysia, Zimbabwe, Bhutan, Singapore, Japan, Ireland and Germany looking at different aspects of its work.
Malaysia November 2011: a delegation from Malaysia visited the Sydney registry. The delegation comprised the Hon Mr Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister of the Prime Minister's Department and Chairman of Malaysia Law Reform Committee; Mr Saripuddin Kasim, Director General, Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister's Department; Ms Ira Biswas, Member of Malaysia Law Reform Committee and Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya; Ms Lee Kim Keat, Federal Counsel, Malaysia Law Reform Committee Unit, Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister's Department; Datuk Lim Ming Hoo, Special Officer to YB Datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister, Prime Minister's Department; and Mr Kok Yuk Ken, Private Secretary to YB datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister, Prime Minister's Department. The delegation was provided with an overview of the child responsive program and the use of court experts in cases involving children, and visited the child dispute services facilities.
Zimbabwe November 2011: delegates from the Zimbabwe Supreme Court attended a judges’ orientation course, run by the Judicial College in Melbourne. The delegation also visited the courts and was formally greeted by Chief Justice Bryant. A tour of the Melbourne registry included an overview of the courts by Justice Benjamin. Finally, the delegation visited Relationships Australia, Richmond Children’s Contact Centre and met with representatives from Victoria Legal Aid. The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, PART 8 PART s e c i d en pp A
The Zimbabwe delegation included Justice Antonia Guvava, High Court Zimbabwe; Minister Majome, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Women Affairs, Gender and Community Development; Minister Gutu, Deputy Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs Acting; Chief Magistrate Guvamombe, Chief Magistrate Zimbabwe; Professor Stewart, University of Zimbabwe; Rebecca Magorokosho-Musimwa, Programmes Officer: Research, Legal Education, Lobby and Advocacy for the Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association: Northern Region; and Laurine Mawarire, law officer in the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs.
240 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices under a grant from AusAID, have been providing the Zimbabwe Supreme Court with family law expertise and advice in the area of Australian family law, with a particular focus on alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, counselling for litigants, and the application of a less adversarial trial.
Bhutanese Delegates meet with Queensland University of Technology’s (QUT) Faculty of Law and their AusAID visit organsisers.
Bhutan January–February 2012: Delegates from the Bhutanese Court system, including five judges (including PART 8 a High Court justice) and five attorneys, visited the Brisbane registry. The visit was organised through the Queensland University of Technology’s (QUT) Faculty of Law and AusAID and at the Court, the delegates were introduced to the systems operating in court and the registry. They were interested in how judicial officers run matters, their approaches in dealing with complex matters and the A ‘management’ of self-represented litigants. Of particular interest was the role of the independent pp en
children’s lawyer and family consultants in assisting the Court with child-related matters. The courts’ d i c e
eFiling systems were seen as an excellent opportunity for the Bhutanese courts where, due to Bhutan’s s landscape, judges and attorneys often spend days travelling by car to hear matters or meet with litigants.
Singapore February 2012: District Judge Crystal Ong and Ms Sophia Ang, Director Counselling and Therapeutic Services from the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, visited the Court’s Sydney registry. They spent time with the child dispute services team, observed a child dispute event, sat in court, met with judges and federal magistrates and attended a Magellan stakeholders meeting. They also met with the Legal Aid Commission and a group of independent children’s lawyers.
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 241 Japan February 2012: Justice Kiyoko Okabe from the Supreme Court of Japan met with Justice Bennett at the Melbourne registry as part of a visit organised by the Asian Law Centre through the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University (ANU). Justice Okabe met with Justice Bennett to discuss family law in Australia and Hague Convention cases. She also observed Justice Bennett in court and later met with family consultants about the role of social science in Australian family law cases. Justice Okabe, who has extensive experience as both an assistant judge and judge in Japan’s family court, also gave lectures on family law in Japan, at Melbourne University and the ANU in Canberra during her visit.
Ireland March 2012: Mr Alan Shatter TD, Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence of Ireland, visited the Sydney registry. As well as receiving a presentation on the Court's child responsive program, including child inclusive interventions, he visited the child dispute services, including mediation and child observation areas, and observed a property and children’s matter.
Germany May 2012: the Australian Attorney-General's Department offered specialised training in international family mediation for a group of experienced family dispute resolution (FDR) practitioners, including two of the Court’s family consultants and the Principal Child Dispute Services. The aim of the training was to develop a core group of suitably qualified Australian-based senior accredited FDR practitioners who can mediate in high conflict cases involving international family disputes, particularly for applications under the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction and Australia's bilateral agreements on the welfare of children. The training was provided in Australia by MIKK, a German-based organisation specialising in international family disputes. Judge Eberhardt Carl, a retired judge from Germany and his colleague, Dr Jamie Walker, provided the training. The visitors also met with the Chief PART 8 PART Justice, judges and family consultants in Melbourne to discuss the training and the implications for practice. s e c i d en pp A
242 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Appendix 12: Contact details
Chief Justice’s Chambers Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 (GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)
Deputy Chief Justice’s Chambers Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Cnr University Avenue and Childers Street Canberra ACT 2600 (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)
National Support Office Chief Executive Officer 15 London Circuit Canberra ACT 2601 (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)
National Enquiry Centre The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all telephone and email enquiries on Family Law Court (Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court) matters. The NEC provides information and
procedural advice, forms and brochures, and referrals to community and support services. NEC staff PART 8 cannot provide legal advice. The NEC is opened from 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday. PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2124 Phone: 1300 352 000 TTY/voice calls: Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or for Speak and Listen calls A contact 1300 555 727 pp en
International: +61 2 8892 8590 d i c
Email: [email protected] e s Family Law Courts website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au Family Court website: www.familycourt.gov.au
Family Law Registries
Australian Capital Territory Canberra Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Cnr University Ave and Childers Street Canberra ACT 2600 (GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 243 New South Wales Albury Level 1, 463 Kiewa Street Albury NSW 2640 (PO Box 914, Albury NSW 2640)
Dubbo Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra Streets Dubbo NSW 2830 (PO Box 1567, Dubbo NSW 2830)
Lismore Level 2, 29–31 Molesworth Street Lismore NSW 2480 (PO Box 9, Lismore NSW 2480)
Newcastle 61 Bolton Street Newcastle NSW 2300 (PO Box 9991, Newcastle NSW 2300)
Parramatta Garfield Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts 1–3 George Street Parramatta NSW 2123 (PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2123) PART 8 PART Sydney Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts 97–99 Goulburn Street s e Sydney NSW 2000 c i d (GPO Box 9991, Sydney NSW 2001) en pp A Wollongong Level 1, 43 Burelli Street Wollongong NSW 2500 (PO Box 825, Wollongong NSW 2500)
Northern Territory Alice Springs Level 1, Centrepoint Building Hartley Street Alice Springs NT 0870 (PO Box 9991 NT 0871)
244 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices Darwin TCG Building 80 Mitchell Street Darwin NT 0800 (GPO Box 9991, Darwin NT 0800)
Queensland Brisbane Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts 119 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000 (PO Box 9991, Brisbane QLD 4001)
Cairns Commonwealth Government Centre Level 3 and 4, 104 Grafton Street Cairns QLD 4870 (PO Box 9991, Cairns QLD 4870)
Rockhampton Virgil Power Building Ground Floor 46 East Street (Cnr Fitzroy Street) Rockhampton QLD 4700 (PO Box 9991, Rockhampton QLD 4700) PART 8
Townsville Level 2, Commonwealth Centre 143 Walker Street Townsville QLD 4810 A (PO Box 9991, Townsville QLD 4810) pp en d i c
South Australia e s Adelaide Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts 3 Angas Street Adelaide SA 5000 (GPO Box 9991, Adelaide SA 5001)
Tasmania Hobart Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts 39–41 Davey Street Hobart TAS 7000 (GPO Box 9991, Hobart TAS 7001)
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 245 Launceston Level 3, ANZ Building Cnr Brisbane and George Streets Launceston TAS 7250 (PO Box 9991, Launceston TAS 7250)
Victoria Dandenong 53–55 Robinson Street Dandenong VIC 3175 (PO Box 9991, Dandenong VIC 3175)
Melbourne Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 (GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)
Western Australia Perth Family Court of Western Australia 150 Terrace Road Perth WA 6000 (GPO Box 9991, Perth WA 6848) 08 9224 8222 PART 8 PART s e c i d en pp A
246 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 • Appendices PART 8 A pp en d i c e s
Appendices • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 247
PART 9 indexes 250 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2010–2011 | Indexes Indexes
List of requirements
Page of this Description Requirement report
Letter of transmittal Mandatory iii Table of contents Mandatory 1 Index Mandatory 254 Glossary Mandatory 8 Contact officer(s) Mandatory ii Internet home page address and Internet address for report Mandatory ii Year in review Review by Chief Justice Mandatory 13 Summary of significant issues and developments Suggested 33 Overview of Court’s performance and financial results Suggested 45 Outlook for 2012–13 Suggested 29 Significant issues and developments – portfolio Suggested N/A Court overview Role and functions Mandatory 21 Organisational structure Mandatory 98 Outcome and program structure Mandatory 45 Where outcome and program structures differ from PB Statements/PAES or Mandatory Nil to report other portfolio statements accompanying any other additional appropriation bills (other portfolio statements), details of variation and reasons for change
Portfolio structure - portfolio departments` Mandatory N/A PART 9 Report on performance Review of performance in relation to programs and contributions to outcomes Mandatory 48 Actual performance in relation to deliverables and KPIs set out in Mandatory 47 PB Statements/PAES or other portfolio statements I Where performance targets differ from the PBS/PAES, details of both Mandatory Nil to report n d
former and new targets, and reasons for the change exe
Narrative discussion and analysis of performance Mandatory 48 s Trend information Mandatory 48 Significant changes in nature of principal functions /services Suggested Nil to report Performance of purchaser/provider arrangements Suggested (if applicable) 135 Factors, events or trends influencing Family Court performance Suggested 45–72 Contribution of risk management in achieving objectives Suggested 116 Social inclusion outcomes If applicable, mandatory 134 Performance against service charter customer service standards, If applicable, mandatory 118 complaints data, and the Court’s response to complaints
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 251 Page of this Description Requirement report
Discussion and analysis of the Court’s financial performance Mandatory 135 Discussion of any significant changes from the prior year from budget or Mandatory 14 anticipated to have a significant impact on future operations. Agency resource statement and expenses (and resources) by outcomes Mandatory 201
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY Corporate governance Agency head certification about compliance with Mandatory 117 the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines Statement of the main corporate governance practices in place Mandatory 97 Names of the senior executive and their responsibilities Suggested 103 Senior management committees and their roles Suggested 112 Corporate and operational planning and associated Suggested 114 performance reporting and review Approach adopted to identifying areas of significant financial or operational risk Suggested 116 Policy and practices on the establishment and maintenance Suggested 117 of appropriate ethical standards How nature and amount of remuneration for SES officers is determined Suggested 131 External scrutiny Significant developments in external scrutiny Mandatory 119 Judicial decisions and decisions of administrative tribunals Mandatory 119 Reports by the Auditor-General, a Parliamentary Committee Mandatory 119 or the Commonwealth Ombudsman Management of human resources Assessment of effectiveness in managing and developing Mandatory 124 human resources to achieve Court objectives Workforce planning, staff turnover and retention Suggested 125 PART 9 PART Impact and features of enterprise or collective agreements, individual Suggested 130 flexible arrangements (IFAs), determinations, common law contracts and AWAs Training and development undertaken and its impact Suggested 131
s Work health and safety performance Suggested 213 exe
d Productivity gains Suggested 134 n I Statistics on staffing Mandatory 203 Enterprise or collective agreements, IFAs, determinations, Mandatory 130 common law contracts and AWAs Performance pay Mandatory 131 Assets management Assessment of effectiveness of assets management If applicable, mandatory 141 Assessment of purchasing against core policies and principles Mandatory 138
252 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes Page of this Description Requirement report
Consultants Summary statement—the number of new consultancy contracts let and Mandatory 138 actual expenditure; and the number of active ongoing consultancy contracts and total expenditure Contract information statement re the AusTender website Mandatory 139 Australian National Audit Office access clauses Mandatory 119 Contracts exempt from the AusTender website Mandatory 139 Financial statements Financial statements Mandatory 147 Other information Work health and safety Mandatory 213 Advertising and market research and statement on advertising campaigns Mandatory 215 Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance Mandatory 216 Compliance with Carer Recognition Act 2010 If applicable, mandatory N/A Grant programs Mandatory 221 Disability reporting—explicit and transparent reference to what Mandatory 134 Court information is available through other reporting mechanisms Information Publication Scheme statement on the Court’s IPS plan publishing Mandatory 117 Correction of material errors in previous annual report If applicable, mandatory 143 List of requirements Mandatory 251 PART 9 I n d exe s
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 253 Alphabetical index
A Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee, 105, 222 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons see Indigenous Australians Aboriginal Family Law Conference, 228–9 Access to Justice Committee, 105, 222 Adelaide Registry, 100, 141, 230, 245 Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 119 judges appointed to, 101 no outstanding matters, 117 Advertising and market research, 215 Agency Benchmarking Report, 125 Agency Resource Statement, 201 Agnew, Steve, 124 Ainslie-Wallace, Justice Ann Margaret, 77, 99, 101, 222 Albury Registry, 143, 244 Alice Springs Registry, 231, 244 Altobelli, Federal Magistrate, 109 Andrew, Stephen, 98, 104, 124 Andronicus, Roland, 127 Appeal Division, 50, 61, 77 judges assigned to, 99 Appeals, 77–83 academic literature as basis for orders, 92–3 administration of, 78 PART 9 PART age of finalised appeals, 82 appellate jurisdiction, 77 caseload, 61 demographics, 81–2
Indexes finalisation, 79, 80–1 Full Court, to, 61, 77 Full Court sittings, 78 habitual residence, relating to, 89 High Court, to, 83 jurisdiction, 77 notice of, 79, 80 numbers, 78, 80 pending, 79
254 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes property settlement order, 87–8 property within marital pool, 90–1 representation status, 82 significant judgments, 87–93 trends, 78 Applications in a case see Interim order applications Appointments, 15, 102 Asche, the Hon Austin, 37 Assets and property management, 141–3 Attorney-General, 15, 25, 34, 111, 119 see also Roxon, Attorney-General Nicola Audit, internal, 115–16 Audit and Risk Committee, 113, 115, 116, 225 Auditor-General, 119 AusTender, 139 Austin, Justice Stewart, 100, 223 Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) Award for Excellence, 36–7 Court Quality Forum, 26 Australia Day medallions, 128 Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), 29, 241 Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO), 120, 121 Australian Institute of Family Studies, 226 Australian Law Reform Commission, 110 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), 113 PART 9 Australian Packaging Covenant, 220 Australian Public Service (APS) Commission’s State of the Service survey, 132 Indexes Ethics Contact Officer Network (ECONET), 118 Reform Blueprint, 132 Values and Code of Conduct, 40, 114, 117, 118, 132 Australian Public Service Bargaining Framework, 124
B Barker, Karen, 129 Baumann, Federal Magistrate, 111 Bell, Justice Graham Rodney, 100 Benchbook Committee, 105, 222
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 255 Benchmarking Practitioner Forum, 121 Benjamin, Justice Robert James Charles, 100, 101, 111, 223 Bennett, Justice Victoria Jane, 100 Bhutan, visitors from, 31, 241 Brisbane Registry, 100, 116, 141, 231–2, 245 Brown, Federal Magistrate, 109 Bryant, Chief Justice Diana, 13–17, 30, 34, 37–8, 98, 99, 100, 105, 107, 110, 111, 222 see also Chief Justice Chief Justice’s review, 13–17 Budget, 14 Bullying and Harassment Policy, 125 Burr, Justice Rodney, 15, 102 Burton, the Hon Hugh, 37 Business Continuity Plans (BCPs), 116 Byrne, Adele, 111, 124
C Cairns Registry, 143, 232, 245 Canberra Registry, 100, 128, 141, 143, 229, 243 Career Manager, 133 Cases Court performance and, 46 Casetrack definition, 8 Chief Executive Officer (CEO), 97, 103, 105, 124, 139
PART 9 PART Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group, 112, 113, 224 contact details, 243 eMessages, 115 Instructions, 115 remuneration, 130 Indexes roadshows, 115 Chief Federal Magistrate, 40, 123, 124 Chief Justice, 21, 40, 50, 77, 97, 99, 105, 123, 124 see also Bryant, Chief Justice Diana activities, 235 eMessages, 115 Policy Advisory Committee, 105, 222 speaking engagements, 236 Chief Justice’s review, 13–17
256 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes Child abduction, 89 Child abuse legislative changes, 17 notices filed, 63 proportion of final order cases, 63 Child Dispute Services, 17 definition, 8 family violence screening, 33–4 Principal, 103, 105 Child protection interface between family law system and, 227 national collaboration meetings, 227 protocol, development of, 35 South Australia pilot project, 227 Children’s Committee, 106 Christmann, Marianne, 124 Clarke, Kate, 127 Cleary, Justice Margaret Ann, 100 Client Service Senior Managers’ Group (CSSMG), 41 Client Services Executive Director, 104, 115, 124 Coffs Harbour Registry, 98 Coleman, Justice Ian Roy, 77, 99, 101
Collaborative committees, 110–12 PART 9 Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 111 Family Law Forum, 112 Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee, 110–11 Indexes Joint Costs Advisory Committee, 111–12 Collier, Justice David John, 101, 109 Comcare, 213, 214 Committees administrative, 113 collaborative see Collaborative committees external stakeholders, 227 judicial see Judicial committees senior management see Senior management committees Commonwealth Courts Portal, 26–7, 37, 69, 231
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 257 eFiling, 27, 28 improvements 2011–2012, 27 planned enhancements 2012–2013, 28 registered users, 26 Commonwealth Disability Strategy, 134 Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines, 116 Commonwealth Law Courts, 111, 141 Commonwealth Ombudsman, 119 Good Practice Guide for Effective Complaint Handling, 71 Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, 138 Community and Public Sector Union, 124 Complaints administrative, 71, 72 delays, 61, 71 judicial conduct, 61, 71 judicial services, 60–1 legislation, 15 management, 71–2 scheme, 15 types, 71 Connections, 39–40, 69 Consent order applications, 46, 47, 48, 53 number of finalisations, 51, 52, 53 pending, 53
PART 9 PART Consultants, 138–9 competitive tendering, 139 expenditure, 138 Converge International, 134 Corporate governance, 97–116 Indexes Corporate Plan, 114 Costs Committee, 105 Court employees agreements, 130, 209–10 APS Values and Code of Conduct, 40, 114, 117, 118, 132 Australia Day achievement medallions, 128 AWAs, 130, 209, 211 balance of work/personal life, 126
258 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes classification structure and pay rates, 212 communications, 114–15 Connections, 39–40 disability reporting, 134–5 early intervention management, 214 Employee Assistance program, 134 enterprise agreement, 124–5, 129, 130, 133, 209 ethical standards, 117–18 guidance for staff, 114, 118 health and safety in workplace, 126 industrial instruments, 130 Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award, 126–7 non-salary benefits, 131, 210 numbers, 114 peer support network, 133 Performance Management and Development System, 132–3 performance pay arrangements, 131, 210 productivity gains, 134 retention strategies, 126 rewards and recognition, 126 SES remuneration, 131 staffing profile, 129, 203–7 terms and conditions of employment, 130
training, learning and development, 131–2 PART 9 work health and safety, 213–14 workers’ compensation, 214 workforce planning, 125 Indexes workforce turnover, 129, 208 workplace diversity, 126 years of service awards, 129 Court performance appeals, 61 backlog indicators, 54–7 case attrition and settlement rate trend, 49 clearance rate, 14, 53–4 client feedback, 71–2 complaints see Complaints
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 259 complex cases, 49 discrete applications, 51 family violence and abuse, 63 finalisations, 51–3 first instance trials, 50 historic performance against KPIs, 45–6 judicial services, 46–7 Magellan cases, 64 organisational, 14 outcome and outputs, 45 pending applications, 54–5 reserved judgment times, 46, 56–7, 59 self represented litigants (SRLs), 61–2 social justice and equity, 61–4 strategies for improvement, 45–6 summary, 47 types of cases, 46 workload 2011-12, new, 48–9 Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill, 15 Courtside, 114, 115, 219 Crew, Jamie, 124 Crisford, Justice Jane, 101 Cronin, Justice Paul, 100, 105 Crooks, Justice Stephen Dexter, 101
PART 9 PART Croucher, Professor Rosalind, 110 Cultural Diversity Committee, 105, 222
D Dandenong Registry, 141, 142, 233, 246 Indexes Darwin Registry, 231, 245 Dawe, Justice Christine Elizabeth, 100, 101, 223 De facto relationships validation of property and maintenance orders, 17 Deliverables, 23–4, 47 Department of Human Services Child Protection Program, 35 Deputy Chief Justice, 21, 50, 77, 97, 99 see also Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice John
260 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes contact details, 243 Dessau, Justice Linda Marion, 100 Director of Public Prosecutions, 119 Disability reporting, 134–5 Divorce orders, 69, 70 Doogan, Chris, 225 Dubbo Registry, 229, 244
E Ecologically sustainable development Court activities and, 216–20 eFiling, 27, 28 Employee Assistance program, 134 Employee Self Service (ESS) system, 133 Energy Efficiency in Government Operations (EEGO) Policy, 220 Energy usage, 217–18 Environmental Champions Network, 39, 219 Environmental impact, 216 corporate culture, 219 energy, 217–18 Environmental Champions Network (ECN), 219 ICT, 218 measures to minimise, 217–20
paper, 218 PART 9 property, 219 review and improvement strategies, 220 travel, 220 Indexes waste/cleaning, 218 Environmental Management System (EMS), 217, 220 Environmental performance, 216–20 Ethical standards, 117–18 Ethics Advisory Service, 118 Evatt, the Hon Elizabeth, 37 Evidence, practice and procedure, 92–3 Executive Director Corporate, 104 Exempt contracts, 139 External involvement, 226–34
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 261 External scrutiny, 119–21 External stakeholders, 226
F Fair Work Australia, 124 Falvao, Manuela, 129 Family consultant, 17 definition, 8 Family Court ICT Collaboration Technical Options Paper, 40 Family Court of Australia, 21 achievements, significant, 16 core services, 21 court service locations, 31–2 see also Registries deliverables see Deliverables establishment, 21 expenses and resources for Outcome 1, 202 financial management, 14, 135–8 goal, 21 history, 13 in-house training facilities, 132 initiatives, 33–41 international liaison, 13, 29–31 international visitors, 31 jurisdiction, 22, 119
PART 9 PART key performance indicators see Key performance indicators locations, 31–2 merger of operations with Federal Magistrates Court, 14 organisational performance, 14 organisational structure, 98 Indexes prescribed agency, 135 programs of work, 22–3 proposed merger with Federal Magistrates Court, 15, 25 purpose, 21 registries see Registries restructure, 25 senior executives, 103–4 services provided free of charge, 137
262 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes 35th anniversary, 13, 37–8 vision, 22 Family Court of Western Australia, 61, 77, 78, 246 Chief Judge, 99 judicial officers, 101 Family Dispute Resolution Services, 123 Family Law Act proclamation under section 40(2), 17 Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012, 17 Family Law Council, 226 Family Law Courts Advisory Group, 111 Family Law Courts satisfaction survey, 16, 33 Family Law Forum, 112, 226 Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011, 16, 17, 25, 35 Family law registry definition, 8 Family violence legislative changes, 17 notices filed, 63 proportion of final order cases, 63 review of strategy, 25, 110 screening within Child Dispute Services, 33–4 Family Violence Best Practice Principles, 16, 17, 34–5, 110 Family Violence Committee, 34, 105, 109–10, 128, 222 PART 9 membership, 109 national training program, 110 Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice John, 98, 99, 100, 105, 107 Indexes Federal Court of Australia, 15, 26, 111 proceedings against Family Court registrar and federal magistrate, 119 Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, 16, 26, 31, 34, 35, 40, 41, 61, 77, 78, 99, 111 joint committees with Family Court, 106 merger of operational services, 14 proposed merger with Family Court, 15, 25 resources provided to, 137–8 restructure, 25 Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014, 124–5, 129, 130, 133, 209
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 263 Filippello, Angela, 98, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 124 Final order applications, 46–7, 48, 52 issues sought, 49 number of finalisations, 51, 52 pending, 52 Finalisations, 51–3 age of finalised applications, 57–8 appeals, 79 percentage of cases finalised, 57–60 Financial cases, 22 Financial management, 135–8 administered revenue, 137 budgetary pressure, 137 categories of Family Court expenditure, 136 changes in financial results, 29 expenditure, 136 operating loss, 14, 137 operating revenue and expenses, 135 Financial risk, 116 Financial statements, 147–97 Finn, Justice Mary Madeleine, 77, 99, 100, 101, 105, 107, 128, 223 First instance trials, 50 Fitzgibbon, Senior Registrar, 106 Fogarty, the Hon John, 37
PART 9 PART Forrest, Justice Colin James, 100 Foster, Richard, 13, 98, 103, 105, 110, 111, 112 Fowler, Justice Stuart Grant, 101 Fraud control certification, 117
Indexes Fraud Control Plan, 116–17 Fraud prevention and control, 116–17 Fredericks, David, 111 Freedom of information, 117 Fry, Deborah, 129
G Galea, Janine, 129 Germany, visitors from, 31, 242
264 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes Gershon Review, 120, 121 Giarrusso, Sandra, 129 Glanville, Louise, 111 Golding, Claire, 225 Government Agency Environmental Network (GAEN), 219 Grant programs, 221 Gun, the Hon John, 37
H Habitual residence case, 89 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction, 51 Harriott, Grahame, 98, 104 Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee, 15, 110–11 Hemphill, Pam, 98, 103, 105 Hession, Sarah, 127 High Court of Australia, 111 appeals to, 83 Hobart Registry, 100, 141, 142, 245 Hocking, Phil, 98, 104 Hopwood, Kym, 127 How Australia is Faring, 134 Howlett, Lyn, 129
Hughes, Federal Magistrate, 109 PART 9 Human resources management, 124–5 Human Resources Manager, 118, 135
I Indexes Indigenous Australians access and usage study, 36, 122–3 Court employees, 125 Indigenous Working Group, 122–3 Indonesia Australia Partnership for Justice Transition, 29–30 access to justice, 30 mediation in family law disputes, 30 Religious Courts, 30 Information Committee, 106
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 265 Information, Communication and Technology Services, 114 Executive Director, 104 ICT Sustainability Plan, 120, 218 whole-of-government ICT initiatives, 120–1 Information Publication Scheme (IPS), 117 Information Technology Judicial Reference Group, 105 Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system, 69 Interim order applications, 47, 52 number of finalisations, 51, 52 pending, 52 Interim proceedings definition, 8 Interlocutory proceedings definition, 8 Internal audit, 115–16 Internal Audit Plan, 115 Internal evaluations, 122–4 International Association for Courts Administration, 13 International Framework for Court Excellence, 26, 29 International visitors, 240–2 Intranet messages, 115 Ireland, visitors from, 31, 242
J
PART 9 PART Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award, 126–7 Japan, visitors from, 31, 242 Jarret, Ron, 129 Johannesen, Greg, 127 Johnston, Justice William Philip, 101 Indexes Joint Costs Advisory Committee, 111–12 Joint Enterprise Agreement, 133 Judgments accessibility, 87 delivery times, 46 publication, 87 significant, 87–93 Judicial activities, 235–9
266 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes Judicial committees, 222–4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee, 105 Access to Justice Committee, 105 ad hoc, 106 Benchbook Committee, 105 Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory, 105, 222 Costs Committee, 105 Family Violence Committee, 105 highlights, 106–10 Information Technology Judicial Reference Group, 105 joint with Federal Magistrates Court, 106 Judicial Development Committee, 106 Judicial Remuneration Committee, 106 Law Reform Committee, 106 Library Committee, 106 Magellan Committee, 106 Property Management Committee, 106 reporting, 105 Research and Ethics Committee, 106 Self-Represented Litigants Committee, 105 Judicial complaints see Complaints Judicial Development Committee, 106, 223 Judicial leadership
DVD, 38–9 PART 9 Judicial officers, 99–102, 130, 207 activities of judges, 236–9 Appeal Division, 50 Indexes appointments, 15, 102 numbers, 50–1 purported prosecution, 119 remuneration, 130 retirements, 15, 102 Judicial Remuneration Committee, 106, 223 Judicial services complaints see Complaints Court performance, 46–64 deliverables, 24
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 267 what are, 46 Judicial support review, 123 Junker, Megan, 127
K Kane, Teresa, 127 Keane, Chief Justice (Federal Court), 30, 110 Kearney, Julie, 106, 127 Kent, Justice Michael Patrick, 100, 102 Key performance indicators (KPIs), 23–4, 47 historical performance against, 45–6 judgment delivery times, 46 judicial services, 24 NEC, 24 registries, 24 Kirkwood, Joan, 129 Kroezen, Joyce, 129 Kubler-Ross, Elisabeth, 13
L Lamont, Jolie, 128 Launceston Registry, 246 Law Reform Committee, 106, 107, 223 consultation/issues papers, 109
PART 9 PART law reform proposals and, 109 membership, 107 parliamentary inquiries, 109 proposed legislation and, 108–9 reports, 109 Indexes Law Society of New South Wales, 16, 35 Le Poer Trench, Justice Mark Frederick, 101 Legal Aid Victoria, 31 Legal representation, 62 appeals, 82 Legal Services Directions 2005, 139 Legal services expenditure, 139–40 Legislative changes, 17, 25
268 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes Family Law Rules 2004, 106–7 Library Committee, 106, 223 Lismore Registry, 244 Lister, Leisha, 98 Lojszczyk, Di, 109, 128 Loughnan, Justice Ian James, 101, 106 Lozberis, Nathan, 128 Lusink, the Hon Margaret, 37
M McClelland, Robert, 34 McGregor & McGregor, 92–3 McIntosh, Dr Jennifer, 33 Macmillan, Justice Kirsty Marion, 100, 102 Magellan Committee, 106, 223, 229 Magellan program definition, 8, 64 number of cases commenced and finalised, 64 Magistrates Court of Victoria, 31 Malaysia, visitors from, 31, 240 Management Accounting Framework, 128 Management and Accountability, 97–143 Market research, 215
Martin, Justice Carolyn Elvina, 101 PART 9 Martin & Newton, 90–1 Mashman, Sally, 126–7 Mathieson, John, 111 Indexes May, Justice Michelle, 77, 99, 100 Mediation Sydney family law settlement service, 35 Melbourne Registry, 100, 141, 232–3, 246 Monteith, Justice Robert, 15, 102 Moroni, Magistrate, 106 Muller, Jeanette, 129 Murphy, Justice Peter John, 100, 105, 106 Murray, Kristen, 109, 127 Mushin, Justice Nahum, 15, 102
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 269 N National Consultative Committee, 113–14, 225 National Disability Strategy, 134 National Enquiry Centre (NEC), 23, 40, 126–7, 142 abandonments, 70 call waiting times, 46, 65, 70 Connections technology, 69 contact details, 243 deliverables, 24, 66, 69 divorce orders, 69, 70 email enquiries, 70 enquiry and support services, 69 Interactive Voice Response (IVR), 69 key performance indicators, 24, 65, 66 performance improvements, 69 performance indicators and targets, 70 services, 69 summary of performance, 65–6 total number of calls, 69 transfer of calls, 70 National Judicial College of Australia, 38–9 National Support Office, 128, 133 contact details, 243 New South Wales Bar Association, 16, 35
PART 9 PART NSW Judicial Commission, 15 Newcastle Registry, 100, 128, 230, 244 Nicholson, the Hon Alastair, 37
O Indexes Oakton financial health check, 122 Operating revenue and expenses, 135 O’Reilly, Justice Elizabeth Madonna, 100 Organisational structure, 98
P PABX systems, upgrading, 40 Parenting cases, 22, 92–3
270 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes Parramatta Registry, 101, 141, 142, 229, 244 Pascoe, Chief Federal Magistrate, 34, 110, 111 Pathways, 228–9 Peer support network, 133 Performance Management and Development System (PMDS), 114, 131, 132–3 Performance reporting and review, 114–17 Perrett, Lenard, 129 Phelan, Andrew, 111 Planning corporate and operational, 114–17 Portfolio Budget Statements Federal Courts restructure, 25 outcome and framework, 23 review of family violence strategy, 25 strategic initiatives, 25 Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3), 121 Prescott, David, 129 Principal Registrar, 103 Procurement and Risk Management, 116, 138 Productivity, 134 Project Management Framework, 128 Property forced separation of parties through illness, 87–8 justice and equity, 87–8 PART 9 Stanford & Stanford case, 87–8 Sydney family law settlement service, 35 treatment within marital pool, appeal, 90–1 Indexes validation of de facto property and maintenance orders, 17 Property management, 141–3 Property Management Committee, 106, 113, 223 Purchasing, consultants and contracts, 138–40
Q Queensland consultative activities, 231–2
R Ralph, Stephen, 122
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 271 Recycling, 218 Rees, Justice Judith Anne, 101, 102 Registrar Appeals, 78 definition, 8 Principal, 103, 105 workload project, 40, 123–4 Registries, 21, 98, 123 contact details, 243–6 counter enquiries, 68 definition, 8 deliverables, 24, 66 document processing, 68 functions, 67 key performance indicators, 24, 65, 66 local registry consultations, 228 locations, 31–2 services, 65, 67 summary of performance, 65–6 Sydney, 16 Relationship Australia Victoria, 30, 31 Research and Ethics Committee, 106, 118, 223 Reserved judgments age of, 59
PART 9 PART complaints, 61 time of delivery, 60 Resource Planning Model, 122, 128 Retention strategies, 126–7 Risk Control and Compliance Framework, 116, 128 Indexes Risk management, 116 Risk Management Plan, 115 Rockhampton Registry, 232, 245 Rose, Justice Peter, 15, 102 Roxon, Attorney-General Nicola, 15 Rules definition, 8 legislative changes, 106–7
272 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes review, 17 self represented litigants, 61 Rules Committee, 106, 224 establishment, 106 legislative amendments, 106–7 meetings, 106 projects, 106–7 Ryan, Justice Judith Maureen, 101, 105, 106, 109, 222, 224
S Self represented litigants (SRLs) Committee, 105, 222 complexity of caseload, 61 Senate estimate committee hearings, 121 Senior management committees, 112, 113, 224–5 Audit and Risk Committee, 113, 115, 116 Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group, 112 National Consultative Committee, 113–14 Staff Development Committee (SDC), 113, 114 Service Charter, 115, 118 Service Commitments, 115, 118 Singapore, visitors from, 31, 241 Skehill Review, 15, 25, 110, 122, 123
Smithers, the Hon Adrian, 37 PART 9 Social Inclusion Measurement and Reporting Strategy, 134 Social media, 39–40 Court policy, 118 Indexes Soden, Warwick, 110 South Australia child protection system, 227 Staff Development Committee (SDC), 113, 114, 225 Staffing profile, 129, 203–7 attendance status, 205 gender, 204 judicial officers, 207 location, 203 non-ongoing staff by classification and location, 206 ongoing staff by classification and location, 206
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 273 Stanford & Stanford case, 87–8 State Central Authority & Camden, 89 Statement of Strategic Intent, 36, 115 Stevenson, Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood, 101, 109, 223 Strategic Plan, 114, 117 Strategic Review of the Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General’s Department see Skehill Review Strickland, Justice Steven, 77, 99, 100, 105, 107, 223 Supreme Court of Indonesia, 29, 30 Swain, Shurlee Born in Hope—the Early Years of the Family Court of Australia, 13, 38 Sydney Family Law Settlement Service, 16, 35 Sydney Registry, 16, 101, 141, 228–9, 244
T Tasmania, 233–4 Tavares, Andrew, 127 Thackray, Justice Stephen Ernest, 77, 99, 101 Thompson, Peter, 129 Townsville Registry, 232, 245 Travel, 220 Tumpa, Dr Harifin A, 30
V
PART 9 PART Victoria Children’s Court, 31 Visitors, international, 240–2
W Wareham, Neil, 98, 106 Indexes Warhaft, Anna, 129 Waste and recycling, 218 Watts, Justice Garry Allan, 101, 105, 107, 111 Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy, 121 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), 28 Wollongong Registry, 229, 244 Work health and safety, 213–14 Workers’ compensation, 214
274 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes Workforce planning, 125 Workforce turnover, 129, 208 Workplace diversity, 126
Y Young Employees Advisory Group (YEAG), 36–7, 39, 114 AIJA Award for Excellence, 36–7 Environmental Champions Network, 39, 219 Young, Justice Peter, 100, 223
Z Zimbabwe family law stakeholders, 31 visitors from, 240–1 PART 9 Indexes
Indexes • Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 275 PART 9 PART Indexes
276 Family Court of Australia—Annual Report 2011–2012 • Indexes
FAMI L Y C OU R T
O FAMILY COURT F A OF AUSTRALIA U S T RA L IA
Annual Report 2011–2012 A NNU A L R EPO R T 2011–2012 4675 DESIGN DIRECTION4675