ANNUAL REPORT ANNUAL 16:17

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 16:17 ANNUAL REPORT ISSN: 1035–9060 (print version) ISSN: 2203–1863 (online version) © Commonwealth of Australia 2017 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: National Communication Federal Court of Australia GPO Box 9991 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Ph: +61 2 6243 8690 Email: [email protected]

Alternative formats This annual report is available electronically at: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/reports-and-publications/annual-reports/ The online version contains links to the 2016–17 Attorney-General’s Portfolio Budget Statements and the Court’s Corporate Plan.

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: Design and typesetting: Papercut Graphic Design Printing: New Millennium Print This annual report is printed on 130gsm Monza satin recycled and 300gsm Monza satin recycled. Monza Recycled contains 99% recycled fibre and is FSC® Mix Certified, which ensures that all virgin pulp is derived from well-managed forests and controlled sources. Monza Recycled is manufactured by an ISO 14001 certified mill. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

iii

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Letter of transmittal iii Reader’s guide viii Acronyms and abbreviations ix Glossary of court-specific terms xii

Chief Justice’s year in review 1

Highlights 2 iv Governance 4 Australian Law Reform Commission review of the family law system 5 Appeal Division 6 Appointments and retirements 6 Family violence issues 6 Transparency 6 Conclusion 7

Overview of the court 9

About the Court 10 Outcome and program 11 Court service locations 12 Court initiatives 12 Access and inclusion 14 Rewards and recognition 15 Social media 17 International cooperation 19

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 CONTENTS

Report on court performance 25

Snapshot of performance 26 Analysis of performance against purpose 2016–17 27 National coverage as appellate court 40 Social justice and equity impacts 40 Feedback and complaints management 45

Appeals 47

Appeal Division 48 Members of the Appeal Division 48 Appeals 49 Full Court sittings and administration 49 Appeal Division Performance 50 High Court 53 v Significant and noteworthy judgments 57

Clarence & Crisp 58 Saska & Radavich 60 Britt & Britt 61 Atkins & Hunt and Ors 63

Management and accountability 69

Corporate governance 70 Judicial officers of the Family Court of Australia 72 Judges assigned to the Appeal Division 73 Judges 73 Appointments, retirements and resignations 75 Senior executives 76 Judicial committees reporting 77 Judicial committee highlights 78 Collaborative committees 86 Information Publication Scheme 87 Feedback and service improvements 87 External and internal scrutiny 88 Correction of errors in 2015–16 report 88

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 CONTENTS

Appendixes 91

Appendix 1: Outcome and program statement – Family Court of Australia 92 Appendix 2: Staffing profile 93 Appendix 3: Committees 102 Appendix 4: Judicial activities 104 Appendix 5: External involvement 116 Appendix 6: Contact details 118 Appendix 7: Information required by other legislation 122

Indexes 125

List of requirements 126 Alphabetical index 135

Tables vi Table 3.1: Appeal caseload, 2012–13 to 2016–17 40 Table 4.1: All proceedings in appeal cases, 2012–13 to 2016–17 52 Table A1.1: Outcome 2 – Family Court of Australia 92 Table A2.1: Staff by location 93 Table A2.2: Staff by gender 94 Table A2.3: Staff by attendance status 95 Table A2.4: Ongoing staff by location and classification 96 Table A2.5: Non-ongoing staff by location and classification 96 Table A2.6: Indigenous staff by location, gender and employment status 97 Table A2.7: Number of judges, at 30 June 2017 97 Table A2.8: Workforce turnover 98 Table A2.9: Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014 99 Table A2.10: AWA minimum salary ranges by classification 100 Table A2.11: Classification structure and pay rates in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014 101

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 CONTENTS

Figures

Figure 3.1: Summary of original jurisdiction workload by application type, 2016–17 27 Figure 3.2: Issues sought on Final Order cases filed, 2016–17 28 Figure 3.3: Attrition and settlement trend in the Court’s caseload, 2012–13 to 2016–17 29 Figure 3.4: Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2012–13 to 2016–17 30 Figure 3.5: Final orders applications, 2012–13 to 2016–17 31 Figure 3.6: Applications in a case, 2012–13 to 2016–17 32 Figure 3.7: Consent orders applications, 2012–13 to 2016–17 33 Figure 3.8: All applications, 2012–13 to 2016–17 33 Figure 3.9: All applications, clearance rates, 2012–13 to 2016–17 34 Figure 3.10: Age of pending applications, 2012–13 to 2016–17 35 Figure 3.11: All applications, time pending, 2012–13 to 2016–17 35 Figure 3.12: Applications finalised within 12 months, 2012–13 to 2016–17 36 Figure 3.13: All applications, time to finalise, 2012–13 to 2016–17 37 Figure 3.14: Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2012–13 to 2016–17 38 vii Figure 3.15: Time to deliver reserved judgments, 2012–13 to 2016–17 38 Figure 3.16: Total judicial services complaints, 2012–13 to 2016–17 39 Figure 3.17: Representation of litigants’ finalised cases, 2012–13 to 2016–17 41 Figure 3.18: Representation of litigants at trials, 2012–13 to 2016–17 41 Figure 3.19: Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2012–13 to 2016–17 42 Figure 3.20: Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence is filed, 2012–13 to 2016–17 43 Figure 3.21: Magellan cases, 2012–13 to 2016–17 44 Figure 4.1: Notice of appeals filed, finalised, pending 2012–13 to 2016–17 50 Figure 4.2: Proportion of notices of appeal filed by jurisdiction 2012–13 to 2016–17 51 Figure 4.3: Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation 2012–13 to 2016–17 52 Figure 4.4: Proportion of notices of appeal finalised by type of finalisation, 2012–13 to 2016–17 53 Figure 6.1: Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2017 71

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 READERS GUIDE

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 2016–17 reporting year. Prepared according to parliamentary reporting requirements, this report outlines the goals stated in the Court’s Portfolio Budget Statements and Corporate Plan relates them to the results achieved during the year. PART 1: The year in review—the Chief Justice’s overview highlighting significant issues and initiatives the Court has undertaken during the reporting year. viii PART 2: Overview of the Court—information about the Court, including its role, functions, powers, governance, organisational structure, initiatives, planning and international cooperation. PART 3: Report on performance—how the Court performed during the period against the outcome and related program. The performance reports are based on the outcome and program framework and performance information in the 2016–17 Portfolio Budget Statements and the Court’s Corporate Plan. PART 4: Appeals—information about the Appeal Division, trends in appeals and appeals to the High Court. PART 5: Significant and noteworthy judgments—summaries of some of the important decisions made during 2016–17. PART 6: Management and accountability—provides information on corporate governance and judicial and collaborative committees. PART 7: Appendices—outcome and program statement, staffing profile, committees, external involvement, judicial activities and contact details. PART 8: Index 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—pages ix >> Alphabetical index—page 135 An electronic version of this annual report is available from the Family Court of Australia’s website at this link: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/reports- and-publications/annual-reports/

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAT Administrative Appeals Tribunal AGD Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department AHS After Hours Service ALS Aboriginal Legal Service AM Member of the Order of Australia ANAO Australian National Audit Office AO Officer of the Order of Australia ix APS Australian Public Service ASL Average Staffing Level AUSTLII Australasian Legal Information Institute AWA Australian Workplace Agreement BAU Business as Usual BSDO Business Systems Development Officer CaLD Culturally and Linguistically Diverse CCJ Council of Chief Justices CCP Commonwealth Courts Portal CDS Child Dispute Services CEI Chief Executive Instruction CEO Chief Executive Officer CJ Chief Justice CLC Commonwealth Law Courts CN Court Network COMP Court Ordered Mediation Program CPC Chief Justice’s Court Policy Committee

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CPSU Commonwealth and Public Sector Union CSA Client Service Advice CSO Client Service Officer CSSMG Client Services Senior Managers Group Cth Commonwealth DCJ Deputy Chief Justice DHS Department of Human Services ECONET Ethics Contact Officer Network EIU Early Intervention Unit EL Executive Level of the Australian Public Service EMS environmental management system ESD ecologically sustainable development

x FC Family Consultant FCA Federal Court of Australia FCAC Federal Costs Advisory Committee FCC Federal Circuit Court of Australia FLCAG Family Law Courts Advisory Group FLIS Family Law Information Service FLPN Family Law Pathways Network FLSS Family Law Settlement Service FOI freedom of information FRAL Family Relationship Advice Line FRC Family Relationship Centre GST goods and services tax HR Human Resources HSMAs (Work) Health and safety management arrangements IACA International Association for Court Administration ICT information and communications technology IP Internet Protocol IPS information publication scheme

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ISDN Integrated Services for Digital Network IT information technology IVR interactive voice recognition J judge JCCD Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity KPI Key Performance Indicator MA The Supreme Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Agung) MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEC National Enquiry Centre NSO National Support Office PAC Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee PBS Portfolio Budget Statements

PGPA Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 xi PMDS Performance Management and Development System PSM Public Service Medal RMS Rehabilitation Management System RSR Registry Service Quarterly Return SDC Staff Development Committee SES Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service VOC volatile organic compounds WAN Wide Area Network WCAG Web Content Accessibility Guidelines WHS work health and safety WHSC Work Health and Safety Committee

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 GLOSSARY OF COURT-SPECIFIC TERMS

GLOSSARY OF COURT-SPECIFIC TERMS

Casetrack—Casetrack is the case management system used by the Family Court, including the Appeal Division, and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Child dispute services—the family consultant services of the 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. xii The Court—means the Family Court of Australia. The courts—means the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Family consultant—a psychologist and/or social worker who specialises in child and family issues that may occur after separation and divorce. Family law registry—a public area at a family law court where people can obtain information about the courts and their 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. 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 the courts’ offices are known. For example, the Melbourne registry is in the Commonwealth Law Courts building on William Street. Reserved judgments delivery time—the time between the hearing and the delivery of the judgment concerned. Rules—a set of directions that outlines court procedures and guidelines. The rules of the Family Court of Australia are the Family Law Rules 2004 and the rules of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia are the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17

CHIEF JUSTICE’S YEAR IN REVIEW :1 VISION An internationally respected, specialist family court.

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 V ALUES • provide national coverage as the appellate court in family Innovative law matters. Impartial Respectful Efficient Accountable

MISSION To assist Australian families in the determination of the most complex family law disputes domestically and internationally, consistent with the rule of law and procedural fairness. HIGHLIGHTS 20,741 total applications filed

1106 377 216 appeals finalised full court judgments first instance published judgments published

consent orders 13,919 finalised

93% 3646 of cases (applications) finalised within 12 months Twitter followers CHIEF JUSTICE’S YEAR IN REVIEW

CHIEF JUSTICE’S YEAR IN REVIEW

Although my tenure as Chief Justice does not conclude until midnight on 12 October 2017, this is the last Annual Report for which I will be responsible.

Governance As foreshadowed in last year’s Annual Report, on 1 July 2016 the Courts Administration 4 Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (Cth) came into effect, bringing significant change to the management of the Court. The Federal Court of Australia has taken over responsibility for the appropriation to the courts, and under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, responsibility for all staff of the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Most significantly, the Federal Court of Australia is responsible for the provision of corporate services to all three courts. The assumption of responsibility by the Federal Court of Australia for corporate services has meant that many of the Family Court workforce located in the National Support Office in Canberra have retired or moved to other positions. Inevitably this has been a time of disruption and the exiting and continuing corporate staff have done their best to support the Court. In addition, from 1 July 2016, funding has been provided to the Federal Circuit Court to manage the family law registries and the National Enquiry Centre and to provide registry and related services to the Family Court. As a result, the past 12 months have been very much a busy transitional period. The retirement of the long standing Chief Executive Officer of the Family Court, Mr Richard Foster PSM, and the Principal Registrar, Ms Angela Filippello, and the creation of a new legislative position incorporating the role of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar in the Family Court, saw a recruitment process undertaken by the Court culminating in the appointment of Ms Patricia Christie on 14 November 2016.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 CHIEF JUSTICE’S YEAR IN REVIEW

We are now looking to a more settled but still busy period of integration. My focus in the past 12 months has been to see the Court through this transition period with the intent that my successor will come into a relatively settled environment. One of the most important and innovative projects currently underway is the move to the Digital Court File. In addition, considerable progress has been made in the Appeal Division which is moving to fully electronic appeals. The age of technology is definitely upon us and courts must embrace new technologies if they are to remain relevant and efficient. I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff occupied in all aspects of the Court’s work for their dedication, hard work and professionalism which has been so apparent to me over the past 13 years. The work of family consultants and registrars is challenging and we have a very well trained and qualified workforce whose role is to assist the judges to determine difficult cases involving families with complex dynamics and issues. They often receive an unfair amount of criticism from those who do not adequately understand their role. I was pleased to see that after a long period in which I have been agitating for more resources, the Government announced in the May Budget, funding for an increase in the number of family consultants for the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, and a little later funded 5 three registrars (two for the Family Court) for a period of one year. Specific functions have been identified for the new registrar positions aimed at interventions in identified cases awaiting final hearing, in an attempt to reduce issues in dispute.

Australian Law Reform Commission review of the family law system The Attorney-General, noting that it has now been over 40 years since the framework of the family law system was established under the Family Law Act 1975, announced a comprehensive review to be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission, with a view to making necessary reforms to ensure the family law system meets the contemporary needs of families and effectively addresses family violence. The review is expected to report by May 2019 and interim reports may be delivered on key issues. At the time of this report, the Terms of Reference are not yet available but, as the Attorney-General has indicated, it will clearly be a comprehensive report. There have been many societal changes and amendments to the Act, as well as structural changes to the federal judicial system in the past 40 years which make this a timely and important review.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 CHIEF JUSTICE’S YEAR IN REVIEW

Appeal Division During the year and anticipating the retirement on 31 July 2017 of Justice May, Chief Judge Thackray accepted responsibility for the administration of the Family Court of Australia Appeal Division. Significant progress has been made in establishing electronic filing of appeals, data sharing and the acquisition of electronic transcript. The division is working rapidly towards full electronic appeals. Some appeals are already being dealt with entirely electronically.

Appointments and retirements No judicial appointments have been made in the last 12 months. On 31 October 2016 Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks retired after 22 years on the bench. His period as Deputy Chief Justice coincided with my term as Chief Justice and he assumed responsibility for many tasks, alleviating the burden on me. His contribution to the Court and support to me was unequivocal and I want to pay particular tribute to him. In March 2017, after 20 years on the bench of the Family Court, Justice Christine Dawe of the Adelaide registry, retired. 6 With the retirement of Justice May happening on 31 July 2017, there are three judicial positions (as well as the Chief Justice) that require filling. Delay in making appointments affects the capacity of the Court to get through its workload and leads to longer waiting times for hearings, directly adversely affecting litigants.

Family violence issues Following the publication of the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, the Government funded the National Judicial College of Australia to develop a family violence training course for all judges including those from the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. I am chairing the committee responsible for the development of the training and the workshops will be rolled out across Australia over the next 18 months.

Transparency In 2016–17 there were 1106 first instance and 216 full court judgments published. In my first Annual Report in 2004–05, I identified as a challenge, the need for the Court to increase community awareness of its judicial decisions. Since that time the Court has established the Judgments Publications Office which is responsible for the anonymisation of all judgments for publication on the AustLII site and in hard copy publications. This culminated in June 2017 in the addition of the Family Court case law from 1976–1988 to the AustLII site, completing the Australian family law authority on AustLII and making the judgments of the Family Court all searchable online. See www.austlii.edu.au

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 CHIEF JUSTICE’S YEAR IN REVIEW

Conclusion Since 5 July 2004 when I was appointed Chief Justice, there have been many changes to the Court in workload, case management, robes, administration and public interface. The Court is now a much smaller entity, no longer having responsibility for corporate services and registry services which now repose in the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court respectively. This brings with it challenges, but I am confident that the standard of service throughout the organisation, particularly to the litigants who come to the Court for family law matters, can continue to reflect the high standards of training and service that have been provided by the Family Court over the past 13 years. I want to take this opportunity to thank the judges and the staff of the Family Court who have worked with me over the past 13 years. The work in this area is challenging and it has been a great privilege and honour to be Chief Justice of the Family Court and to have led the Court over this period. I wish my successor, whoever that may be, every success.

7

Chief Justice Bryant at her swearing in ceremony on 2 August 2004

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17

OVERVIEW OF THE COURT :2 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

About the Court The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record established by Parliament in 1975 under Chapter III of the Constitution. The Court operates under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and through its specialist judges and staff, helps Australians to resolve their most complex family disputes.

Purpose

10 As outlined in the Corporate Plan, 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.

Vision An internationally respected, specialist family court.

Austin Asche AC QC (appointed 1976, retired 1986); John Ellis AM (appointed 1976, retired 2004); Elizabeth Evatt AC (first Chief Justice of the Family Court; appointed 1976, retired 1988); and Ken Pawley (appointed 1976, retired 1986; died 1993)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

Jurisdiction The Family Court deals with more complex matters. These may include, for example: >> Parenting cases involving a child welfare agency and/or 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; 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 or complex issues concerning superannuation. 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, and 11 >> Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Outcome and program In the 2015–16 Budget, the Australian Government announced that it would amalgamate the corporate services of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court with the Federal Court of Australia into a single administrative body with a single appropriation. The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Act 2016 established the amalgamated body, to be known as the Federal Court of Australia, from 1 July 2016. This approach preserves the courts’ functional and judicial independence while improving their financial sustainability.

Outcome 2 The outcome of the Family Court is to apply and uphold the rule of law for litigants in the Family Court of Australia through the resolution of family law matters according to law, particularly more complex family law matters and through the effective management of the administrative affairs of the Court.

Program 2.1 The Family Court has a single program under which all services are provided: Family Court of Australia (new program transferred from the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

Court service locations The Federal Circuit Court of Australia provides the Family Court with registry services at family law registries in all State and Territory capital cities (except Western Australia) and also in regional and other centres. Judges and registrars of the Court are located at the following registries: >> Adelaide >> Brisbane >> Canberra >> Hobart >> Melbourne >> Newcastle >> Parramatta >> Sydney, and >> Townsville. 12 Court initiatives

International Framework for Court Excellence – a reflection

COURT PERFORMANCE > Equality (Before the Law) AND QUALITY > Fairness > Impartiality COURT > Independence of Decision Making > Competence VALUES > Integrity > Transparency SEVEN AREAS > Accessibility > Timeliness FOR COURT > Certainty EXCELLENCE

DRIVER RESULTS > Court Leadership and Management > Client Needs and Satisfaction > Affordable and Accessible Court Services > Public Trust and Confidence

SYSTEMS AND ENABLERS > Court Planning and Policies > Court Resources (Human, Material and Financial) > Court Proceedings and Processes

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

Background The Chief Justice of the Family Court, the Honourable Diana Bryant AO, announced the Court’s endorsement of the International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) in 2008–09. The Chief Justice appointed Justice Murphy as Chair of the Court Excellence Committee who, in consultation with the Chief Justice, selected a committee of judges representing a range of experience and geographical diversity and seconded Jane Reynolds, Regional Registry Manager, for administrative expertise and support.

What is the IFCE? The IFCE was put together by an international consortium consisting of groups and organisations from Europe, Asia, Australia and the United States and was originally launched in 2008. The goal of the Consortium’s effort has been the development of a framework of values, concepts and tools by which courts worldwide can voluntarily assess and improve the quality of justice and court administration they deliver no matter where the court is based. An attraction of this framework is that it has been conceived for courts by courts. As a result, it is not a managerial system superimposed on judges. Rather, it is a model refined for the unique elements of judicial administration. Crucially, the principle of judicial independence 13 is fundamental to it. The framework provides a resource for assessing a court’s performance against seven detailed areas which are thought necessary for a court to be truly excellent. It provides clear guidance for courts intending to improve their performance and it provides a model methodology for continuous evaluation and improvement that is specifically designed for use by courts. It also builds upon a range of recognised organisational improvement principles while reflecting the special needs and issues that courts face.

Self-assessment In 2013, the Court conducted an IFCE self-assessment which was issued to all judges and staff. The survey results were analysed and published – an interim report in 2014 and a final report in 2015. Implementation of the self-assessment recommendations commenced in 2015 and most are ongoing.

Achievements Some of the major achievements to date include: >> greater resourcing of the Appellate Division >> court governance model reformed >> technological improvements to judicial support and public services >> improved training for judges particularly regarding technology

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

>> better judicial induction process/judicial welfare emphasis >> national case management review and court user surveys >> investment in staff development, and >> a new more responsive website.

Challenges and learnings Challenges identified by the Court in implementing the IFCE include: >> implementation takes time in such a busy court >> the process must be regarded as long term and not a ‘quick fix’ >> keeping the momentum going is a challenge >> work needs to be integrated into the mainstream business of the Court and not be a ‘special project’ off to the side, and >> scarce public funding, competition for funding and the bedding down of a series of significant changes resulting from the court’s changed administrative structure are contextual factors for the Court. 14 Interest in the ICFE continues to grow both domestically and internationally. The Court’s publications on this implementation work are now available through the International Consortium Resources website at: http://www.courtexcellence.com/Resources/ Other-Resources.aspx

Access and inclusion The Court continues to develop and implement plans under its access and inclusion framework. The framework aims to ensure all clients, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged clients, receive the assistance they need to access the Court. The framework acknowledges that justice begins well before a litigant has their first court event, and that a client’s capacity to participate in court processes is significantly influenced by the quality of information and the level of administrative support they receive. Linking to the International Framework for Court Excellence, the framework also takes a broader view across the shared infrastructure needed to support the delivery of accessible services (e.g. information technology, training and performance development) as well as identifying the links, approaches, synergies and principles that affect justice as a whole. The current plans under the framework are: >> Multicultural Plan >> Family Violence Plan, and >> Indigenous Action Plan.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

Rewards and recognition Queen’s Birthday Honour’s List The Queen’s Birthday 2017 Honours List was announced by the Governor-General in June 2017. Justice May of the Brisbane registry was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) for: ‘Significant service to the law, particularly to the Family Court of Australia, to judicial administration, and to professional associations.’ The Order of Australia is the principal and most prestigious means of recognising outstanding members of the community at a national level.

Australia Day achievement medallions The Australia Day achievement medallions are awarded to a select group of Australian citizens each year. The awards recognise excellence in contribution by employees working in both government and non-government organisations, including the courts. 15 The Court’s Australia Day Awards recognise the significant contribution and outstanding service provided by employees to the Court. This year’s recipients were:

Leisha Lister, Chief Justice’s Chambers Leisha has been with the Court for 17 years and is the Executive Officer attached to the Chambers of the Chief Justice. Throughout her 17 years with the Court, Leisha has displayed an exemplary level of leadership and played a key role in ensuring and progressing the rights of justice for all at a national and international level. Leisha started with the Court as the Client Service Manager in South Australia before relocating to Canberra to take up the role of Executive Advisor to the Chief Executive Officer. In this role, she managed and coordinated the development of policy, research and advice to the Court. Leisha has furthered the work of the Court internationally which has supported the high standing of the Court internationally. Leisha has successfully managed a number of significant projects for the Family Court of Australia, including the Mental Health Support Project, the Integrated Client Service Initiative, the review of the Magellan Programme involving cases of serious child abuse; the Less Adversarial Trial Education project; and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research project looking at issues facing Indigenous Australians in accessing the courts. She has also managed a number of significant international programmes in Indonesia and the Pacific.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

Through her private interests, Leisha works passionately for the rights of women and girls on issues such as education, poverty alleviation, improving access to justice for women, people with a disability and vulnerable children with a particular focus on how these groups are able to access formal justice systems.

Helen Grist, Chief Justices Chambers, Melbourne registry Helen has been with the Court for almost nine years and as the Executive Assistant to the Chief Justice, she provides administrative support to the Chief Justice and the Court. During her tenure, Helen has coordinated and managed large scale legal and judicial conferences. In that capacity Helen has also provided assistance to members of the judiciary throughout the world. Helen has proven herself to be an extremely valuable asset to the Chief Justice and the Court, having managed the annual judges’ meetings, ceremonial sittings for newly appointed judges and those retiring, as well as hosting numerous international delegations of judges when they visit the Court. 16 Helen is a highly committed staff member who is more than willing to assist with any project, small or large. She has a high attention to detail, is extremely organised, is a strong team player and is a highly regarded and valued member of the Chief Justice’s Chambers and the Court.

Janet Durham, Melbourne registry Janet has been with the Court for almost 13 years and is currently the Judicial Associate to Justice Bennett. Janet began work with the Court as a Court Officer and, after four years, she accepted the role in Justice Bennett’s chambers, where she has been ever since. Janet has taught many staff in Melbourne about court processes and procedures. She has become a ‘go to’ person for advice and guidance when staff are unsure of what needs to be done. Janet has educated herself not only about the way things work at the Court, but about what particular processes are intended to achieve. Her skills as a judicial associate make her an invaluable asset to the Court, her judge and her colleagues. Janet also appreciates the importance of the Court’s role during what is often the most difficult time in people’s lives. When cases with an international element require Justice Bennett to sit late, Janet is always there to support her Honour long after the building has otherwise closed. Janet is highly respected by her colleagues throughout the registry. She has a holistic understanding of and respect for the importance of each person’s role in the Court and has mentored countless junior legal associates.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

Social media

Twitter

The Family Court of Australia’s Twitter account has been operating since October 2012. Twitter provides followers with timely, relevant and easy to access information about the Family Court of Australia and family law issues. Followers are predominately made up of legal professionals, law students, journalists and members of the general public. During 2016–17 the Court: >> gained 775 followers, bringing the total number of followers to 3646 17 >> sent 360 tweets, made up of 32 plain text, 174 page links and 154 photo links – an average of almost seven tweets per week >> was re-tweeted 542 times, and >> received 484 mentions. Follow the Court on Twitter https://twitter.com/FamilyCourtAU

You Tube

The Family Court’s YouTube channel has been operating since October 2013. There are 11 videos available to help litigants prepare for and understand court processes. During 2016–17 there were 64,776 minutes watched and 16,812 views. The top three videos are: How to apply for divorce: serving divorce papers; Mediation – what to expect; and the Court Tour. Visit the Family Court’s YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/familycourtAU

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT

Family Violence Best Practice Principles The 4th edition of the Family Violence Best Practice Principles was released in December 2016. The latest amendments highlight the fact that victims of family violence are often traumatised and vulnerable witnesses – and explain the various means of protection available for use by judges hearing those cases. The updates reflect the extensive powers of the judiciary in regard to the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses by alleged perpetrators of family violence. These updates follow a number of reports and events related to family violence, including: the Family Law Council’s final report on Families with Complex Needs and the Intersection of the Family Law and Child Protection Systems; Women’s Legal Services Australia’s Safety First in Family Law; COAG’s Third National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children and the COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence against Women and their 18 Children, held in Brisbane in October 2016. The courts are committed to improving the way they deal with issues relating to family violence. The enhanced focus on cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses is an important improvement in this area. The updated publication is available on the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court websites.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Forging international peer-to-peer relations between the Family Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Indonesia and the Family Courts for Muslim citizens

The Family Court of Australia was the first foreign court to engage with the Family Courts for Muslim citizens in Indonesia, known as the Religious Courts. The Honourable Diana Bryant AO, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia agreed in 2004 to commence a dialogue between judges and administrators of her court and those of the Religious Courts of Indonesia. In 2005, a Vice Chief Judge of one of the High Religious Courts, Bapak Suryadi, and the head of the agency administering the Religious Courts, Bapak Wahyu Widiana, led a group of 20 judges, registrars and court administration experts on a two week visit to the Family Court of Australia supported by the Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility1. 20 From this initial exchange, many of the key themes of engagement over the next decade emerged: >> Transparency of information through the Religious Courts website. >> Awareness that many clients of the Religious Courts face barriers in bringing their family law cases to court, particularly women, the poor and people living in remote areas. >> Importance of measuring client’s satisfaction with the quality of service offered by the Religious Courts. The dialogue and collaboration between the Family Court of Australia and the Religious Courts and Supreme Court of Indonesia continues to this day. It is led by the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Indonesia and Family Court of Australia, meeting each year to discuss the particular areas of judicial collaboration that are of most relevance to their courts. The engagement then takes place between judges, registrars, court staff and CSO officials working to support access to the courts in family law matters. Many of the profound changes that have occurred for women, the poor and people living in remote areas seeking to access the Religious Courts developed through the dialogue and the exchange of ideas with the Family Court of Australia and Indonesian CSO partners.

1 The Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility 2004–2009 was funded under the Australian Aid programme. The Australia Indonesia Partnership for Justice II continues to support this collaboration.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Future collaboration: 2017–2020

The 12 years of collaboration from 2004–2016 has seen far-reaching improvements in access to the Family Courts in Indonesia for women, the poor and people living in remote areas. It has also witnessed striking improvements in the level of transparency of family law cases brought before the courts. The Family Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Indonesia have worked towards agreement of a new MOU for the period 2017–2020, 21 in the following three areas: I. improving the quality of services and judicial decisions in cases affecting women and children II. improving the quality of services and outcomes in cases involving women and children, and III. improving the transparency and capacity of the Supreme Court to present trend data on access to justice and the quality of services and outcomes in Indonesia for women, children and people living with a disability. The Family Court of Australia and Supreme Court of Indonesia will continue to collaborate with CSOs in Indonesia to ensure that these efforts continue to yield tangible results for women and children in Indonesia.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 IN FOCUS VICTORIA UNIVERSITY INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

The Victoria University Internship Program is a joint initiative between the Family Court and Victoria University.

It is a five-day program run over a semester that provides interns with an opportunity to witness the inner workings of a federal court. This includes observing different stages of court proceedings, and meeting with judges, associates, registrars, family consultants and court staff to hear about career paths and opportunities. A lunch with the profession is also included. The Court hosted the third program (coordinated from Justice Bennett’s chambers) from 22 March 2017 until 17 May 2017 with seven students attending. The students met with Justices Macmillan, Johns and Thornton and Judges Reithmuller, Stewart and Maguire from the Federal Circuit Court. They also spoke with Justices Aldridge and Austin following a sitting of the Full Court.

Image on previous page: Johns, Thornton and Macmillan JJ seated in the front with the group of interns and invited members of the profession IN FOCUS VICTORIA UNIVERSITY INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

The Victoria University Internship Program is a joint initiative between the Family Court and Victoria University.

It is a five-day program run over a semester that provides interns with an opportunity to witness the inner workings of a federal court. This includes observing different stages of court proceedings, and meeting with judges, associates, registrars, family consultants and court staff to hear about career paths and opportunities. A lunch with the profession is also included. The Court hosted the third program (coordinated from Justice Bennett’s chambers) from 22 March 2017 until 17 May 2017 with seven students attending. The students met with Justices Macmillan, Johns and Thornton and Judges Reithmuller, Stewart and Maguire from the Federal Circuit Court. They also spoke with Justices Aldridge and Austin following a sitting of the Full Court.

Image on previous page: Johns, Thornton and Macmillan JJ seated in the front with the group of interns and invited members of the profession

REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE :3 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

The Family Court has a new outcome that replaces Outcome 1 of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court due to the effect of theCourts Administration Legislation Amendment Act 2016. The Court’s new outcome is to: Apply and uphold the rule of law for litigants in the Family Court of Australia through the resolution of family law matters according to law, particularly more complex family law matters and through the effective management of the administrative affairs of the Court. The Court has three targets under timely completion of cases: 26 >> Clearance rate of 100 per cent >> 75 per cent of judgments to be delivered within three months, and >> 75 per cent of cases pending conclusion to be less than 12 months old.

Snapshot of performance

Timely completion of cases Target Result 2016–17 Target status Clearance rate of 100 per cent The clearance rate was 98 per cent Not met 75 per cent of judgments to be 79 per cent of judgments were Met delivered within three months delivered within three months 75 per cent of cases pending 68 per cent of cases pending Not met conclusion to be less than conclusion were less than 12 months old 12 months old

In 2016–17 the Family Court achieved one target under timely completion of cases and was unable to achieve two. A full analysis of performance in 2016–17 follows. The annual performance statement for the Family Court of Australia is included as part of the Federal Court of Australia’s 2016–17 annual report.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Analysis of performance against purpose 2016–17 The Court deals with the most complex and difficult family law cases. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 show a summary of original jurisdiction caseload during 2016–17.

Figure 3.1: Summary of original jurisdiction workload by application type, 2016–17

Application/case type Filed Finalised Pending Final order applications 2748 2742 3180 Application in a case (interim) 3469 3265 1679 Consent orders applications 14,182 13,919 1271 Other applications 342 321 213 Total 20,741 20,247 6343

Other applications, 2% 27

Final orders applications, 13%

Application in a case (interim), 17%

Consent orders applications, 68%

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Figure 3.2: Issues sought on Final Order cases filed, 2016–17

Issues sought on Applications for Final Orders Parenting only 32% Financial only 51% Parenting and financial 14% Other 3%

Parenting and financial, 14%

Other, 3%

28 Parenting only, 32%

Financial only, 51%

Note: some totals in this Part do not add to 100% due to rounding.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Case attrition The Court’s cases are made up of complex matters that often involve multiple parenting or financial issues with high levels of conflict between the parties. This is reflected in the consistent percentage of cases proceeding to judgment.

Figure 3.3: Attrition and settlement trend in the Court’s caseload, 2012–13 to 2016–17

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

20% 14.6% 16.4% 15.3% 14.1% 15.0% 10%

100% 29 100% 100% 100% 100% 82% 82% 82% 78% 76% 51% 51% 50% 46% 44 % 42% 42% 40% 37% 36% 32% 33% 31% 27% 25% 0% Lodged First Court Pre-trial Docket Commence Judgment Hearing/ conferencing entry trial Conference

2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

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 an agreement during the trial process. Figure 3.4 provides the number of cases that are finalised at first instance trial.

Figure 3.4: Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2012–13 to 2016–17

1000

800 739 701 685

600 280 248 545 266 532

400 213 196

200 30 459 453 419 319 349 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Number of finalisations During 2016–17, the Court finalised the following matters in its original jurisdiction: >> 2742 final order cases >> 3265 applications in a case (interim) >> 13,919 consent orders applications, and >> 321 other orders’ applications. Each application type requires a different amount 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 result from parties agreeing terms prior to filing and are considered by registrars. 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 2016–17, 2742 applications for final orders were finalised – a reduction of eight per cent from 2015–16. Whilst a number of factors can contribute to such a reduction, judicial availability 31 has a significant impact. In the reporting year two judges retired and had not been replaced as at 30 June.

Figure 3.5: Final orders applications, 2012–13 to 2016–17

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 2850 3041 2958 2955 2839 3074 2936 3028 2982 3017 2979 3105 2748 2742 3180 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Filed Finalised Pending

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Applications in a case (interim applications) Applications in a case (interim applications) are associated with an existing case. They can be complex and often there are multiple applications within one case. During 2016–17, 3265 applications in a case were finalised, a decrease of 7.3 per cent from 2015–16.

Figure 3.6: Applications in a case, 2012–13 to 2016–17

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

32 3387 3491 1136 3419 3270 1285 3476 3333 1428 3616 3521 1497 3469 3265 1679 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Filed Finalised Pending

Consent orders During 2016–17, 13,919 consent orders applications were finalised – an increase of 562 (4.2 per cent) since 2015–16. These applications vary in complexity and are presented to the Court as an agreement between the parties. The applications are considered by a registrar, and where appropriate orders are made encompassing that agreement. Figure 3.7 to Figure 3.10 display five year trends in filings, finalisations and pending (active) applications.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Figure 3.7: Consent orders applications, 2012–13 to 2016–17

15,000

12,000

9000

6000

3000 1271 1052 1012 807 787 11,329 11,223 12,988 12,968 13,662 13,457 13,458 13,357 14,182 13,919 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Filed Finalised Pending

33 Figure 3.8: All applications, 2012–13 to 2016–17

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5000 17,881 18,071 5025 19,686 19,356 5355 20,397 20,108 5644 20,418 20,199 5844 20,741 20,247 6343 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Filed Finalised Pending

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Clearance rate The Court aims to finalise at least the same number of cases that start in a year, and as such, is attempting to achieve a clearance rate of at least 100 per cent. A clearance rate of 100 per cent or higher indicates that the Court is able to prevent an increase in its backlog of pending cases. In 2016–17, the Court achieved a clearance rate of 98 per cent. Figure 3.9 shows the five year trend in clearance rates.

Figure 3.9: All applications, clearance rates, 2012–13 to 2016–17

120%

100%

80%

60%

34 40%

20% 101% 98% 99% 99% 98% 0% 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Clearance Rate Target (100%)

Age of pending applications The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending applications less than 12 months old. At 30 June 2017, 68 per cent of pending applications were less than 12 months old, compared with 70 per cent at 30 June 2016. The Court regularly reviews its oldest active cases to better understand the causes of their delay and to determine ways in which the older cases can be managed. Figure 3.10 and Figure 3.11 show the five year trend in the age distribution of applications.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Figure 3.10: Age of pending applications, 2012–13 to 2016–17

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

10% 71% 72% 72% 70% 68% 0% 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

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

35 Figure 3.11: All applications, time pending, 2012–13 to 2016–17

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 14.36% 20% 12% 12% 11% 13% 10% 50% 0% 51% 52% 51% 49.45% 20% 21% 20% 19% 18.25% 18% 16% 17% 17% 17.93% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Age of finalised applications The Court aims to finalise cases in a timely manner, but is mindful that family law cases are particularly difficult and emotional and the Family Court’s decisions affect many lives, potentially for many years. It is therefore difficult to set and achieve a blanket timeliness target because the number of variables affecting the parties involved in each case has multiple impacts on its progress toward a decision. With this in mind, the Court aims to finalise 75 per cent of cases within 12 months. The other 25 per cent are the most complex cases. In 2016–17, of the cases finalised by the Court, about 93 per cent were finalised within 12 months. Figure 3.12 and Figure 3.13 show the five year trend in the age distribution of applications finalised.

Figure 3.12: Applications finalised within 12 months, 2012–13 to 2016–17

100% 90% 80% 70% 36 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% 0% 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

% finalised within 12 months Target (75%)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Figure 3.13: All applications, time to finalise, 2012–13 to 2016–17

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

10% 7% 6% 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 85% 87% 87% 86% 87 % 0% 0–6 months 6–12 months 12–24 months 24+ months

2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

37

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Age of reserved judgments delivered The Court aims to deliver 75 per cent of reserved judgments within three months of completion of a trial. In 2016–17, 580 (81 per cent) of the 713 reserved original jurisdiction judgments (excluding judgments on appeal cases) were delivered within that timeframe. For information on the performance of the appeals division, see page 48. Figure 3.14 shows the five year trend of reserved judgments delivered within three months and Figure 3.15 shows the breakdown of time to deliver reserved judgments.

Figure 3.14: Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2012–13 to 2016–17

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 38 40% 30% 20% 10% 75% 77% 78% 80% 81% 0% 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Within 3 months Target (75%)

Figure 3.15: Time to deliver reserved judgments, 2012–13 to 2016–17

800 715 713 700 647 73 47 600 577 598 62 72 86 47 65 80 500 99 70 400 300

200

100 431 463 505 570 580 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

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 this reporting year, the Court received 26 judicial services complaints, as follows: >> Judicial conduct – 10 >> Delay in delivery of a judgment – 16 This represented 0.125 per cent of all applications filed (20,741), under the target of one per cent (when judicial complaints and administrative complaints are combined they total 0.23 per cent). The number of judicial services complaints received by the Court in 2016–17 is shown in Figure 3.16, which also shows the breakdown between complaints about judicial conduct and complaints about delays.

Figure 3.16: Total judicial services complaints, 2012–13 to 2016–17

60 39 50

40

30

20

10 35 53 36 51 42 49 41 40 10 16 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Conduct Delays

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

National coverage as appellate court Summary of appeal caseload The Court’s Appeal Division deals with appeals from decrees of the Family Court of Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Table 3.1 summarises the appeals workload. More information about appeals is in Part 4 of this report.

Table 3.1: Appeal caseload, 2012–13 to 2016–17

2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 Appeals filed 318 330 389 371 344 Appeals finalised 334 337 356 354 377 Appeals pending 263 256 289 270 208

40 Social justice and equity impacts Unrepresented litigants The Court monitors the proportion of unrepresented litigants as one measure of the complexity of its caseload. Unrepresented litigants present 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. Figure 3.17 shows litigants who had representation at some point in their proceedings and Figure 3.18 shows the proportion of litigants who had representation at the finalisation of their trial. The proportion of the Court’s cases and trials involving legal representation remains relatively steady for the past five years. Note: The Court has revised its counting rule for these figures and as such the values in this section differ from those published in previous reports. The figure now excludes cases that did not have a first court event (i.e. withdrew or discontinued before appearing at court) and so they had not proceeded beyond filing. The information about legal representation in these cases was often incomplete as the parties had not provided this information at the time of filing.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Figure 3.17: Representation of litigants’ finalised cases, 2012–13 to 2016–17

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

2012–13 78 17 5

2013–14 78 17 5

2014–15 78 18 4

2015–16 77 18 5

2016–17 78 19 4

Both have Representation (no SRL) Neither have representatives (both SRL) One Party had representative (at least one SRL) 41 Figure 3.18: Representation of litigants at trials, 2012–13 to 2016–17

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

2012–13 64 27 9

2013–14 59 32 9

2014–15 63 28 9

2015–16 63 26 11

2016–17 59 26 15

Both Representatives present (no SRL) Neither have representatives (both SRL) One Party had representative (at least one SRL)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Family violence and abuse (or risk) Section 67Z of the Family Law Act 1975 and Part 2.3 of the Family Law Rules 2004, requires a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence to be filed in cases in which it is alleged that a child to proceedings has been abused or is at risk of abuse, or where there is an allegation of family violence or risk of family violence involving a child or a member of the child’s family. Once filed, the Notice must be sent to a prescribed child welfare authority. The proportion of matters in which a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence has been filed does not reflect all the cases in which family violence is raised or is an issue. Allegations of abuse or risk of abuse and family violence or risk of family violence are also raised by parties in other ways e.g. in affidavits filed in the proceedings and by the filing of a Family Violence Order (Rule 2.05 Family Law Rules 2004). Figure 3.19 shows that in 2016–17, the number of Notices of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence filed has continued to increase, adding additional workload to the Court. This reflects the growing awareness of family violence within the community and the need for litigants to raise family violence in conformity with the 2012 amendments. It also reflects the increasing complexity of the Court’s cases and the extent to which violence is 42 an element in many of them.

Figure 3.19: Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2012–13 to 2016–17

700

600

500

400

300

200

100 403 426 470 630 653 0 2012–13* 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Figure 3.20: Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence is filed, 2012–13 to 2016–17

25% 23.8% 20% 20.9%

15% 16.0% 14.1% 14.4% 10%

5%

0% 2012–13* 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

* On 7 June 2012, new definitions and rules on family violence were enacted. 43

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Magellan cases Magellan cases involve serious allegations of physical abuse and/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. Typically, a Magellan case is one where a notice of abuse or family violence is filed, although not all notices will necessarily result in the case being classified as a Magellan matter. The Court assesses and determines, from the issues raised, the matters that are managed under the Magellan program. Figure 3.21 details the number of Magellan cases commenced and finalised in the past five years.

Figure 3.21: Magellan cases, 2012–13 to 2016–17

200 44 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 141 177 177 145 129 117 116 121 80 69 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Magellan cases started Magellan cases finalised

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE

Feedback and complaints management The Family Court is committed to responding effectively to feedback and complaints and has published information on the Court’s website (www.familycourt.gov.au) about how to lodge complaints and feedback. The judicial complaints procedure is also published on the website. That procedure is in line with the provisions inserted by the Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Act 2012. It is also in line with the procedures of other federal courts. Judicial complaints are dealt with on page 39. The Family Court records all complaints made in relation to Family Court proceedings, although some complaints relate to services provided by the Federal Circuit Court, such as registry services and child dispute services, or other third parties. In this reporting year the Court received the following complaints: Complaints about Family Court services >> Administrative processes, 1 >> Conduct of registrars, 4 45 >> Privacy, 2 >> Total 7 Complaints arising from services provided by the Federal Circuit Court or other third parties and relating to Family Court matters >> Conduct of administrative staff, 3 >> Conduct of family consultants, 8 >> Family Reports, 2 >> Security, 3 >> Total 16 The figures above do not include complaints about judicial outcomes, which can be dealt with through the appeal process; matters that are in other courts, such as the Family Court of Western Australia; or complaints about family law legislation, which is a matter for the Government. At 23, the number of complaints in Family Court matters represented 0.11 per cent of all applications received. Combined with 26 judicial complaints (see judicial complaints on page 39 for more detail) complaints represented 0.23 per cent of applications received, thus achieving the KPI for complaints to be no more than one per cent of applications received.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17

APPEALS :4 APPEALS

APPEALS

Appeal Division The Appeal Division of the Family Court of Australia deals with the appeals from decisions of both federal and state courts. The members of the Appeal Division, with support from members of the Trial Division, hear appeals throughout the year in the five mainland capital cities and other locations as necessary. Given the geographical challenges of Australia, some appeals are conducted by video-link and other electronic means. Reflecting the current digital environment, the Appeal Division is increasingly using electronic documents and, by Practice Direction 1 of 2017, now requires that transcript be filed in 48 electronic form only. The Full Court of the Family Court hearing an appeal is made up of three or more judges of the Court, the majority of whom must be members of the Appeal Division.

Members of the Appeal Division At 30 June 2017 the judges assigned to the Appeal Division were:

Chief Justice Chief Justice Bryant

Deputy Chief Justice (Position currently vacant)

Members of Appeal division >> Justice May >> Justice Thackray (Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia) >> Justice Strickland >> Justice Ainslie-Wallace

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPEALS

>> Justice Ryan >> Justice Murphy >> Justice Aldridge, and >> Justice Kent.

Appeals An appeal lies to the Full Court of the Family Court (sometimes only with leave) from a decree of: >> the Family Court (not sitting as a Full Court) >> the Family Court of Western Australia >> Supreme Courts of States and Territories (single judge) >> Federal Circuit Court of Australia >> Magistrates Court of Western Australia (family law magistrate) exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 or in some instances under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 or the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. If the appeal is from a decree of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Magistrates 49 Court of Western Australia, the Chief Justice may direct that it be heard by a single judge (s 94AAA(3) of the Family Law Act).

Full Court sittings and administration During 2016–17 the Full Court sat for 20 weeks (in some weeks in two locations). Judges of the Appeal Division hear appeals and associated interlocutory applications as a single Judge during other weeks of the year. In addition, the Full Court conducts special sittings as required, for example to hear urgent appeals. Appeals are administered by an Appeals Registrar in three regions: >> Northern—Queensland, northern New South Wales and the Northern Territory >> Eastern—balance of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, and >> Southern—Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Western Australia is administered by a registrar of the Family Court of Western Australia.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPEALS

Appeal Division Performance Due to ongoing data quality activities in the Court’s electronic case management system, some statistics previously published may not entirely accurately reflect the available data. To ensure consistency in the statistical time series, re-calculated historical data is not published. In 2016–17, 344 appeals were filed, a seven per cent decrease from 2015–16. The appeals filed include two cases stated for the opinion of the Full Court. The focus of the Court in previous years to increase the disposal rate for appeals, continued in 2016–17. During 2016–17, 279 judgments were delivered compared to 220 judgments during 2015–16. At 30 June 2017, there were 46 appeal judgments outstanding. In 2016–17 almost 73 per cent of all judgments were delivered within three months (progressively increased from 60 per cent in 2012–13). The number of appeals finalised increased by six per cent to 377. There were 208 pending (active) appeals at 30 June 2017, decreased by 23 per cent compared to 30 June 2016.

Figure 4.1: Notice of appeals filed, finalised, pending 2012–13 to 2016–17 50 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50

318 334 263

330 337 256

389 356 289

371 354 270

344 377 208 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Filed Finalised Pending

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPEALS

Of the appeals filed, 189 were from decisions of the Federal Circuit Court or the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. In the reporting year, 155 appeals were filed from decisions of the Family Court. One case was stated from each of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. Fifty-one of 206 appeals from the Federal Circuit Court or Magistrates Court of Western Australia finalised in 2016–17 were dealt with by a single judge.

Figure 4.2: Proportion of notices of appeal filed by jurisdiction 2012–13 to 2016–17

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 51 10% 46% 54 % 43% 57 % 39% 61 % 43% 57 % 42% 58 % 0% 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Family Court of Australia Federal Circuit Court

Appeals from the Family Court of Western Australia have been counted with appeals from the Family Court of Australia. Appeals from Family Law Magistrates in Western Australia have been counted with appeals from the Federal Circuit Court. As well as the Notice of Appeal, Notices of Cross-Appeal and a number of other applications seeking orders directly relating to the appeal are commonly filed. The orders sought in the applications in an appeal include: an extension of time to appeal, reinstate, expedite, stay or summarily dismiss appeals; security for costs; purchase of transcript; or receive further evidence. Such applications often require interlocutory hearings and judgments.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPEALS

Table 4.1 shows the number of these additional applications.

Table 4.1: All proceedings in appeal cases, 2012–13 to 2016–17

Filed 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 No. of Notices 318 330 389 371 344 of Appeals filed Application for 28 63 63 45 49 extension of time Application 235 249 250 290 279 in an appeal Notice of 10 11 14 11 9 cross-appeal Total appellate 591 653 716 717 681 proceedings

52 Not all appeals require a hearing by a single judge or the Full Court as they may be discontinued, abandoned or resolved by agreement. In 2016–17, 55 per cent of appeals finalised required a hearing (207 appeals). The proportion of appeals dismissed increased significantly.

Figure 4.3: Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation 2012–13 to 2016–17

160 140 120

100 80

60

40 20 111 87 50 86 109 69 67 92 112 96 57 91 96 99 64 95 69 138 80 90 0 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Allowed Dismissed Abandoned Discontinued

Seventy-five per cent of the appeals finalised in 2016–17 were finalised within 12 months.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPEALS

Figure 4.4: Proportion of notices of appeal finalised by type of finalisation, 2012–13 to 2016–17

100% 90% 26% 27% 26% 27% 24% 80% 70% 15% 16% 18% 21% 60% 20% 50% 26% 27% 40% 20% 28% 37% 30% 20% 33% 32% 31% 27% 10% 18% 0% 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Allowed Dismissed Abandoned Discontinued 53

The proportion of parties participating in appeals unrepresented has increased since 2013–14. In 2016–17, 44 per cent of appellants were unrepresented. The historical trend in gender remains fairly consistent, with only a small decrease in the proportion of males lodging appeals (54 per cent).

High Court During 2016–17: >> 29 applications for special leave to appeal were filed in the High Court from judgments of the Family Court >> 29 applications for special leave were determined or disposed of by the High Court: 27 were refused and two were granted, and >> the one appeal heard by the High Court was dismissed.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 IN FOCUS COURT NETWORK

The Court Network (CN) is a frontline community organisation that supports court users to access the court system. CN’s role is complementary to that provided by legal and other services within the courts and tribunals system.

CN focuses on the needs of people at court by providing non-legal support, information and appropriate referrals to services such as family violence, housing, mental health, community legal centres and by empowering and increasing the confidence of court users to manage the requirements of the courts. CN’s service is delivered by approximately 300 trained volunteers (called ‘Networkers’) who provide tailored, impartial and non-judgmental support. It is an important component of access to justice, particularly for more vulnerable and disadvantaged court users, who may be attending court for the first time and are unfamiliar with court rules and processes. In Victoria, the service operates out of 28 court precincts, including all CBD courts, VCAT and the Coroners Court and a number of metropolitan and regional Magistrates’ Courts. Since 1990, CN has been delivering a service to people attending the Melbourne and Dandenong registries of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia. CN has a team of six networkers operating in the Dandenong registry and 22 in the Melbourne registry. Networkers connect with court users predominantly through an active outreach style – ‘working the floor’ – introducing themselves to people who are entering the Court or waiting for their matter to be heard. They also accept referrals from court officials and service organisations (either on the day or prior to the court matter being heard). Networkers are highly visible and well-known to court staff and other services operating at the courts. Networkers provide information about: >> what to expect in court >> court rules and process >> what to do if you feel unsafe, and >> referral to legal services and community resources. For more information see www.courtnetwork.com.au

SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS :5 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

In 2016–17, 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 significant and noteworthy judgments are published in this report.

58 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). This policy has enabled the Court to better respond to community interest and concerns about particular cases highlighted in the media and demonstrates the commitment of the Court to being open and accountable for its decisions. 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). In 2016–17 the Court published 1106 first instance and 216 full court judgments. Recent decisions are also published on the Court’s website: full court decisions are published for two months and first instance judgments are published for one month.

Clarence & Crisp

[2016] FamCAFC 157 (Thackray, Ainslie-Wallace & Aldridge JJ)

Appeal—De facto Relationship—Parentage This was an appeal against a finding that the parties were in a de facto relationship at the time of the child’s conception and that the respondent is therefore a parent of the child. The appellant was the birth mother of the child but the child was conceived using the respondent’s egg. The medical procedure by which the child was conceived was performed on 11 July 2011. If the parties were in a de facto relationship on that day, then they were both the child’s parents for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). As his Honour found that the parties were in a de facto relationship on that day, the legislative presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility applied.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

The parties agreed that they had commenced a de facto relationship in 2004. The appellant claimed that the relationship ended on 21 March 2011, when the respondent left the home in which they had been living. The appellant’s case was that after 21 March 2011, the parties remained in “a friendly relationship” and the respondent agreed to donate embryos for use in the July 2011 procedure because she “understood the depth of the desire of the [appellant] to have a child”. The relevant question was not whether the parties separated when the respondent moved out of their home, but whether the relationship subsisted at the time of conception. The respondent’s evidence was that she continued to spend four or five nights a week at the appellant’s home until August 2011. His honour found that in the period from 6 May 2011 to 26 July 2011 there had been 850 text messages between the parties on topics which ranged “from the mundane to the highly personal”. The messaging contained florid announcements of each of the parties’ love for each other in circumstances where his Honour considered that the expressions were not empty statements but a genuine reflection of how the parties felt towards each other. His Honour considered that the frequency of the text messaging and the range of sentiments expressed and exchanged between the parties were not as would be expected where there were irreconcilable differences between them. There may have been dissatisfaction and 59 disharmony but he held the content of the messaging was consistent with parties who were either in a relationship or had not yet determined that the relationship was over. His honour held that notwithstanding the parties’ physical separation in March 2011, the entire focus of the parties was to explore a reconciliation. Ultimately their endeavours were unsuccessful but his Honour accepted that they were genuine in their pursuit of an ongoing relationship which would have a child as its focus. His Honour held that there was undoubtedly volatility in their relationship both before and after their physical separation but it could not be said that their conduct towards each other, and their public representations and engagement, was significantly different to that which existed in happier times. One ground of appeal involved a distinction between the nature of de facto relationships and the institution of marriage. It was held that the trial judge’s focus was on the conduct of the parties and any asserted distinction merely acknowledges that a marriage persists until a court grants a divorce order. The remainder of the appeal asserted that the trial judge had erred in finding that a de facto relationship had existed on the relevant date. It was asserted that the trial judge had failed to take sufficient account of the respondent’s intention to nurture the child; that the couple were not living together on a genuine domestic basis; of the respondent leaving the home; failure to make a finding of when the relationship ended; failure to have regard to financial factors; failure to have regard to the significance of the text messages not mentioning the couple supporting the child; and failure to give proper weight to the evidence of a psychologist. The Appeal Court found that the trial judge had not erred and the appeal was dismissed.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

Saska & Radavich

[2016] FamCAFC 179 (Bryant CJ, Murphy and Kent JJ)

Appeal—Children—Proper interpretation of definition of family violence in s 4AB(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) In this case, the trial judge found that the father’s behaviour towards the mother on 4 December 2013 (when he assaulted and verbally abused her) amounted to “family violence” within the meaning of s 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The trial judge also recorded findings as to the father’s various behaviours which the trial judge found coerced and controlled the mother and which constituted “family violence” as defined. The “family violence” as found by the trial judge had the result that the presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child did not apply. On appeal, the father contended that because the trial judge did not make a finding that the parents were, or had been, in a de facto relationship, or a finding that the parents regularly resided or had resided together, it could not be concluded that the mother was a member of the father’s family for the purposes of s 4AB(1) of the Act.

60 On appeal it was argued that if the mother was not a member of the father’s family within the meaning of the provisions, the actions of the father could not fall within the definition of family violence. Bryant CJ, Murphy and Kent JJ noted that the father sought to mount an argument on appeal which not only was not raised by the father before the trial judge but which was directly contrary to the case he advanced at trial. At trial the father had said the parties had lived together for about three years between early 2008 and January 2011. On appeal it was held that the father’s contention, upon which each of his foreshadowed grounds of appeal depended, was doomed to fail, deriving, as they did, from a misconceived interpretation of s 4(1AB) of the Act. Section 4(1AC) relevantly provides that for the purposes of subsection (1AB), “a relative of a person” includes “a father” and “a mother” of the person (subparagraph (a)) or “a son” of the person (subparagraph (b)). The combined effect of s 4(1AB)(e) and s 4(1AC) is that for relevant purposes: (d) The child is a member of the family of the father, and vice versa, and (e) The child is a member of the family of the mother, and vice versa. It was never in issue in the proceedings that, at all material times, the mother ordinarily or regularly resided with the child, a member of the family of the father within the meaning of these provisions. Thus, by operation of subparagraph (h) of s 4(1AB), the mother was, at all material times, a member of the father’s family. Further, within the meaning of subparagraph (i) of s 4 (1AB) each of the mother and the father, respectively and alternatively, “is or has been a member of a family of a child of [the other]”. It followed that, by operation of either of these subparagraphs, as a matter of law the mother was at all material times, for the purposes of s 4AB of the Act, a member of the father’s family or a “family member” as there referred to. The appeal was dismissed.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

Britt & Britt

[2017] FamCAFC 27 (May, Aldridge and Cronin JJ)

Appeal—Property—Admissibility of evidence—Whether the appellant’s evidence of family violence was properly taken into account by the primary judge The parties’ relationship lasted some 30 years from their marriage in 1988 until their separation in November 2011. They raised four, now adult, children. The parties were farmers and for most of their married life lived and worked on a property described in the judgment as “Property D”. The property was owned by the husband prior to the commencement of the relationship. Property D was found to be on a valuable coal seam deposit and in 2009 it was sold for $3.4 million. Of that sum, $1.9 million was used to purchase Property E, which the parties farmed together until separation. With both parties involved in the farming operations and the care of the children, the trial judge held that contributions were equal. The initial contribution of the farm by the husband was recognised by an adjustment of 0.05 per cent in the husband’s favour. Thus the entitlements were found to be 50.05 per cent to the husband and 49.95 per cent to the wife. The trial judge rejected parts of the wife’s evidence as to family violence. Her Honour 61 considered that the evidence consisted of conclusions, was “just too general” and lacked particularity. In particular, her Honour was critical of adjectives such as “regularly”, “routinely”, “repeatedly” and “often” in describing the family violence, stating that these words lacked specificity and were too general. Her Honour was of the view that such evidence gave no indication as to “whether [the family violence] happened once a week or once a decade”. The most significant grounds of appeal were, for convenience, grouped under the following topic: Was the evidence of family violence properly taken into account? The wife contended that her contributions towards the property of the parties and the welfare of the family were made more onerous by the coercive and controlling behaviour of the husband and the physical violence he inflicted upon her (see Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757). However, much of the evidence regarding family violence, as relied upon by the wife, was rejected by the primary judge. The primary judge ultimately did not accept the evidence of the wife, with her Honour stating: 94. I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any of the evidence the wife gave about the husband’s aggression or violence is true. The wife was not a witness of credit … The wife clearly has aggressive tendencies herself which leaves open to question whether she would have meekly put up with the husband assaulting her. On appeal, it was held that the statements made by the primary judge, to the effect that the evidence was too general and was in the form of conclusions, confused admissibility with weight. Whilst the evidence could have been more specific, any generality went to the ultimate weight to be given to the evidence and not to whether it should be admitted or not. It was stated that evidence is commonly given in general terms and, when taken in conjunction with other evidence, it can be tolerably clear what was meant. Thus one would

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

not expect any person who had been in a long relationship to remember the exact nature and frequency of recurring events throughout that relationship, let alone specific dates. It was held on appeal that the Court could not be satisfied that the excluded evidence would have made no difference to the outcome if it had been admitted. Thus it was determined that the matter must be remitted for a re-hearing. It was submitted by the husband that because the primary judge did not accept the evidence of the wife on the issues of violence, no miscarriage of justice had occurred. That submission was not accepted. It was held that the wife, by reason of the primary judge’s error, had lost the opportunity to have her case determined on all of the admissible evidence available. That meant that the credit finding itself was not based on all of the available evidence.

62

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS

Atkins & Hunt and Ors

[2017] FamCAFC 79 (Bryant CJ, May and Murphy JJ)

Appeal—Practice and Procedure—Discussion of the alter ego principle in relation to corporate entities This appeal came before Bryant CJ, May and Murphy JJ. Bryant CJ and Murphy J (May J dissenting) held that the wife was not entitled to raise certain issues not raised at trial. The relevant business was run by a corporate structure, N Pty Ltd. The wife’s central contention on appeal was that the nature, degree and extent of the husband’s control over N Pty Ltd – described by senior counsel for the wife as both “ultimate control” and “absolute control” – should have led his Honour to conclude that N Pty Ltd was the husband’s “alter ego” and that the husband asserted total control over N Pty Ltd. However, these were not arguments run before the trial judge. The High Court has stated that “a point cannot be raised for the first time upon appeal when it could possibly have been met by calling evidence below”: Water Board & Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491 at 497 (“Moustakas”). There are limited exceptions to that principle: where “all the facts have been established beyond controversy or where the point is one of 63 construction or of law”, the Court in its discretion may “find it expedient and in the interests of justice to entertain the point, but otherwise the rule is strictly applied”: Moustakas at 497. It was found that N Pty Ltd is a significant and long-standing trading entity. One of the husband’s children was a director of N Pty Ltd at the time of the trial. He had been a director of that corporation (together with the husband) for over 15 years prior to the trial. He was, and had been, active in the day-to-day running of the business. He gave evidence at the trial. It was not suggested to him at any time that, as a director, he did his father’s bidding or did not otherwise independently exercise his mind in and about the direction of the company. The question of the direct control of the day-to-day operations of the company (held to have little relevance by the trial judge) may have had significant relevance if the alter ego argument had been agitated at first instance. Bryant CJ and Murphy J held that it could not be said that all of the facts upon which the alter ego argument rested were established in the Court below. Indeed many had not been referred to at all. It was also held that the questions now sought to be decided on appeal were questions of fact, not law. They therefore could not be entertained as questions of law or construction based on uncontroversial facts. Ultimately the appeal was allowed but based on the separate issue of discretionary error of the trial judge relating to different grounds.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 Cooperation and Coordination: An evaluation of the Family Court of Australia’s Magellan case-management model

Dr Daryl J. Higgins Australian Institute of Family Studies IN FOCUS MAGELLAN CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Magellan Program commenced in Victoria in the late 1990s and was implemented in all family law registries in 2003. It is designed to identify and deal effectively and efficiently with cases involving allegations of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse of a child. These are the most resource-intensive cases and involve the most vulnerable children.

Magellan involves >> Priority early intervention so that, from the outset, resources are directed toward the dispute and evidence gathering to enable the case to be listed for trial. >> A designated team headed by a judge, or other judicial officer, a Magellan registrar, senior family consultants and court administrative staff specifically assigned to handle the case from start to finish. >> A target time to finalisation of six months. >> Use of a court-ordered Independent Children’s Lawyer in every case, funded by Legal Aid with the cap for parents to qualify for Legal Aid lifted. >> The state and territory child protection 2. The second but less common way for and welfare agencies commencing a a case to be designated a Magellan comprehensive initial investigation matter is when a file is transferred by founded upon the filed Notice of Child order of a judge of the Federal Circuit Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Court to the Family Court, requesting Violence together with close liaison and it to be considered for designation attention to what other management as such. In these cases, the file is of the file or evidence may be required referred to the Magellan registrar from external information providers to assess its suitability. If it is found and single experts including police suitable, the usual arrangements and medical and forensic experts. and procedures apply for the case >> Setting the case down for trial, with the to be listed as soon as practicable. intention that a comprehensive family Early steps in a Magellan case report prepared by a court family consultant be completed shortly >> The Magellan registrar makes orders for prior to trial. the appointment of the Independent There is a protocol between the Children’s Lawyer and for filing of any Family Court, state and territory Legal other documentation prior to its first Aid authorities and the departments substantive listing. At that listing a judge, responsible for child protection, or the Senior Registrar, will make such reflecting agreed procedures and other appropriate orders as may be outcomes. required to protect a child because of risk until the matter comes to trial. How a case is designated >> A Magellan report by the state and Magellan territory agency may be ordered and may include: 1. When a Notice of Child Abuse, –– a summary of its investigation Family Violence or Risk of Family including what persons, agencies Violence form is filed with an and others may have been spoken application initiating proceedings with or interviewed, as well as for parenting orders, the notice, setting out any history of prior application and any affidavit are engagement of the department, referred to the Magellan registrar for including notifications and outcomes assessment. If suitable, the case is then listed as appropriate. The Magellan judge, or other judicial officer, hears and determines all interim and interlocutory applications and substantive matters including making trial directions for final hearing. Matters that impact the target timelines The Court cannot direct or require the police forces of the states and territories if they are undertaking investigation with the potential for criminal charges to be laid to do so in a timeline that satisfies the Magellan target dates. Likewise, suitably qualified experts such as psychiatrists, paediatricians, forensic psychologists or psychiatrists who can undertake risk –– whether, as a result of investigation, assessment, may take a number of months the department concludes the to commence and complete the reports. existence of a risk and its reasoning in Victoria, a trial program which and conclusions about that, if the Note: places a family law liaison officer from department intends to intervene in the Department of Health and Human the proceedings and any particular Services’ Child Protection in the Court suggestions and recommendations registry, has significantly aided the ability about orders the Court may to follow up and ensure things are done, consider making pursuant to the protocol. The officer in – – whether or not it considers a child place is also able to assist by answering, or children is/are at risk, and if so, as far as is appropriate and permitted, what level of risk and from whom. questions and queries about matters >> This report is prepared and available they have from the Court or from legal for a substantive listing before a representatives as to dates and times to judge and the file produced so that ensure that reports, if ordered, can be the report, which is a summary of the completed and provided to the Court content and case notes, is available without unnecessary or wasted listings for inspection by legal representatives and costs expended or lost as a result. and child representatives. National oversight of the Magellan list A Family Court judge, at the request of the Chief Justice, is designated the national Magellan judge. That judge, currently His Honour Justice Stewart Austin of the Newcastle registry, oversees the Magellan lists.

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABiLiTY :6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Corporate governance 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 court. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) states that the Court shall consist of: a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and senior judges and other judges. By delegation from the Chief Justice, case management judges assist in administering judicial functions in particular areas, such as case management. The judges’ committee structure facilitates collegiate 70 involvement of the judges of the Court. The Family Court is autonomously governed; that is, the Chief Justice 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, who are public servants, provide that support. In addition, there are arrangements in place with other courts for the supply of services. The Chief Executive Officer is subject to directions from the Chief Justice. The Chief Executive Officer has been delegated all of the responsibilities and powers of an agency head under the public service legislation for any matter that relates to the administration of the affairs of the Court. Figure 6.1 shows the organisational structure of the Court.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Figure 6.1: Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2017

Chief Justice Deputy Chief Justice Hon Diana Bryant AO Vacant

Judges

Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Registrar Executive Patricia Christie Officer Leisha Lister Associates

71

Judgment Marshal Registrars Media Publication Services

Denotes Professional responsibility

Services provided under arrangements with other courts

Federal Court Federal Circuit Court Federal Circuit Court of Australia of Australia of Australia CORPORATE SERVICES CHILD DISPUTE SERVICES REGISTRY OPERATIONS Executive Director, Principal, Executive Director, Corporate Child Dispute Services Operations Catherine Sullivan Janet Carmichael Steve Agnew

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Judicial officers of the Family Court of Australia At 30 June 2017, there were 34 judicial positions in the Court, including the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice (vacant), a vacancy in Adelaide, and Justice Coate who is currently seconded to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Chief Justice The Chief Justice is responsible for ensuring the effective, 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. 72 She had previously been the inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate overseeing the establishment of the then Federal Magistrates Court, a position she held for four years.

Deputy Chief Justice 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 oversight of the Court’s committees. In the absence of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice performs and exercises the powers of the Chief Justice (s 24). Deputy Chief Justice Faulks retired in October 2016 and a new Deputy Chief Justice is yet to be appointed.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Judges assigned to the Appeal Division

Appointed to the Appeal Division The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO 5 July 2004 The Honourable Justice Michelle May AM 6 February 2003 The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray 16 November 2006 (Chief Judge Family Court of Western Australia) The Honourable Justice Steven Andrew Strickland 14 December 2009 The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace 9 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Judith Maureen Ryan 27 September 2012 The Honourable Justice Peter John Murphy 27 September 2012 The Honourable Justice Murray Robert Aldridge 12 March 2015 The Honourable Justice Michael Patrick Kent 10 December 2015

Judges 73 Adelaide The Honourable Justice Steven Andrew Strickland 22 November 1999 The Honourable Justice David Michael Berman 18 July 2013

Brisbane The Honourable Justice Michelle May AM 5 September 1995 The Honourable Justice Peter John Murphy 11 October 2007 The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest 1 February 2011 The Honourable Justice Michael Patrick Kent 12 July 2011 The Honourable Justice Jenny Deyell Hogan 14 January 2013 The Honourable Justice Catherine Carew 7 March 2016

Canberra The Honourable Justice Shane Leslie Gill 16 May 2016

Hobart The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin AM 19 August 2005

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Melbourne The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO 5 July 2004 The Honourable Justice Victoria Jane Bennett 30 November 2005 The Honourable Justice Paul Joseph Cronin 20 December 2006 The Honourable Justice Kirsty Marion Macmillan 14 December 2011 The Honourable Justice Jennifer Ann Coate 31 January 2013 The Honourable Justice Sharon Louise Johns 29 July 2013 The Honourable Justice Christine Thornton 12 August 2013

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

Parramatta

74 The Honourable Justice Garry Frederick Foster 8 August 2013 The Honourable Justice Hilary Rae Hannam 13 August 2013

Sydney The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace 9 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Judith Maureen Ryan 31 July 2006 The Honourable Justice Murray Robert Aldridge 13 December 2012 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 14 April 2005 The Honourable Justice William Philip Johnston 12 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Ian James Loughnan 12 July 2010 The Honourable Justice Judith Anne Rees 15 December 2011 The Honourable Justice Robert Bruce McClelland 16 June 2015

Townsville The Honourable Justice Peter William Tree 14 January 2013

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Family Court of Western Australia (The following judges of the Family Court of Western Australia also hold Commissions in the Family Court of Australia) Date of Family Court commission Chief Judge The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray 1 December 2004 The Honourable Justice Simon Moncrieff 31 August 2009 The Honourable Justice John Myer Walters 6 December 2012 The Honourable Justice Susan Janet Duncanson 6 December 2012 The Honourable Justice Richard O’Brien 12 April 2016

Administrative Appeals Tribunal The Honourable Justice Janine Stevenson The Honourable Justice Victoria Bennett The Honourable Justice Colin Forrest The Honourable Justice David Berman 75 The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin AM

Appointments, retirements and resignations Judicial officer retirements The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn retired on 3 July 2016. The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks retired on 30 October 2016. The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe retired on 3 March 2017.

The Honourable Justice The Honourable Deputy The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn Chief Justice John Faulks Christine Elizabeth Dawe

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Senior executives Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Registrar

Patricia Christie The Chief Executive Officer is appointed to assist the Chief Justice to administer the Court. The Chief Executive Officer’s powers are broad (s 38D Family Law Act 1975), although subject to directions from the Chief Justice (s 38D(3)). The acting Principal Registrar provides high level legal and procedural advice to support the judicial functioning of the Family Court. In her capacity as acting Principal Registrar she discharges the statutory duties assigned to that position by the Family Law Act 1975, works closely with the Chief Justice and judges in administering the Act and related legislation, and identifies areas in need of reform. The acting Principal Registrar also oversees the performance of, and provides direction to, the Court’s registrars. Patricia Christie was appointed Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Registrar in 76 November 2016.

Senior Registrar

John DB FitzGibbon This is the most senior quasi-judicial position in the Court and has been held by John FitzGibbon since 1999. John sits in court full-time, hearing and determining cases in both parenting and financial proceedings. Most of his court work concerns urgent and interim parenting applications, including all of Victoria’s Magellan cases involving serious allegations of child physical abuse and child sexual abuse and family violence. He assumed that responsibility in 2011 at the request of the Chief Justice. In addition to his usual duties, he was Acting Principal Registrar from June to November 2016. John is also a member of the Rules Committee and is regularly sought to assist in training lawyers.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Judicial committees reporting Chief Justice Bryant maintains a collegiate style of governance, and the judicial officers of the Court meet annually, or more often if required, in plenary. In addition, judges participate in a number of committees that develop policies across a range of matters. As part of the implementation of the International Framework for Court Excellence, and following consultations with the judges of the Court, the Chief Justice introduced five standing committees in 2014. These committees facilitate an inclusive, analytical and transparent discussion of important policy issues faced by the Court and result in an integrated and accountable decision-making process.

Chief Justice Family Court of Australia

Deputy Chief Justice Family Court of Australia

77 Chief Justice Court Policy Committee Chief Justice, Administrative Judge for Appeals, Chairs of Standing Committees (5) and Chief Executive (exofficio) Leisha Lister (secretariat)

Finance Rules Court Court Professional Law Reform Performance Services Development and Legislation and Judicial Welfare

Berman J Rees J Austin J Forrest J Ainslie-Wallace J Strickland J

• Budgeting • Case • Cultural • Professional • Judicial Management Diversity development Remuneration • Magellan • Aboriginal and programs including • Audit and • IT (case Torres Strait orientation Risk mangement Islanders system, eFiling • Unrepresented • Judicial and eCourt) Litigants welfare • National • Property • Research Calendar Management and Ethics • Family Violence • Children’s Committee

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Court Policy Committee At the strategic level, this committee is the peak policy making body within the Court. The committee’s role is to support the Chief Justice in the administration of the Court and to provide strategic advice and policy direction, particularly in relation to legislative, procedural and administrative changes likely to affect the Family Court and its users. The committee comprises: >> The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO (Chair) >> The Honourable Justice Michelle May AM (Justice Thackray joined the committee in March 2017 in place of Justice May) >> The Honourable Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace >> The Honourable Justice Anne Rees >> The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin >> The Honourable Justice Colin Forrest >> The Honourable Justice David Berman >> Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Registrar Patricia Christie, and 78 >> Leisha Lister (secretariat).

Judicial committee highlights This section summarises the work of some of the judicial committees during 2016–17.

Finance Committee The Finance Committee’s principal focus is to: >> consider and define the full cost and budgetary requirements of the Family Court >> consider spending and budgetary priorities that affect core judicial work >> discuss budgetary priorities and the allocation of financial resources >> consider the budgetary requirements of the Court following the changes to the administration of the Family Court pursuant to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and >> ensure transparency in respect of expenditure and the setting of budgetary priorities that affect core judicial work. During 2016–17 members of the Finance Committee were Justice Berman (Chair), Justice Watts and Justice Austin. The committee met in person, by audio visual conferencing and by telephone. The committee was significantly assisted in its deliberations by the attendance from time to time of Chief Justice Bryant and the then Executive Director Finance, Adrian Brocklehurst.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Rules Committee The Rules Committee is established in contemplation of section 123 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which provides that a majority of judges may make rules of court in relation to practices and procedures to be followed in the Family Court. The Rules Committee meets on a regular basis to consider proposed changes to the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) with 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 2016–17 the Rules Committee met in person on 19 October 2016 and on 5 May 2017. Justice Rees is the Convenor of the committee and the members during the year were Justice Ryan, Justice Loughnan, Justice Berman, Magistrate Moroni, Senior Registrar FitzGibbon and Registrar Paxton. During 2016–17 the committee worked on a number of projects including amendments to the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) secured by the Family Law Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Rules 2016. The amending rules commenced on 1 January 2017 with the exception of amendments relating to the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (CALAA) which commence at the same time as Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the CALAA. 79 In summary the amending rules:

Subpoenas generally 1. Limit the requirement of service of subpoenas by hand to subpoenas to give evidence and subpoenas for production and to give evidence. 2. Provide that subpoenas for production be served by ordinary service. 3. Enable the issuing party and the named person to agree about an alternative method of service of subpoenas for production. 4. Enable the issuing party and each other party, any interested person and the independent children’s lawyer (if any) to be served by an agreed manner of service. 5. Remove the requirement of filing an affidavit of service as a precondition to filing a Notice of Request to Inspect.

Subpoenas in arbitrations 1. Limit the requirement of service of subpoenas by hand to subpoenas to give evidence and subpoenas for production and to give evidence. 2. Provide that subpoenas for production be served by ordinary service. 3. Enable the issuing party and the named person to agree about an alternative method of service of subpoenas for production. 4. Enable the issuing party and each other party and any interested person to be served by an agreed manner of service. 5. Remove the requirement of filing an affidavit of service as a precondition to filing a Notice of Request to Inspect.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Judge managed court events 1. Amend the terminology in Chapter 16 and elsewhere (where relevant) to distinguish the first day before the Judge (‘the trial management hearing’) from the subsequent conventional trial in parenting matters. 2. Amend the terminology in Chapter 16 in relation to the first day before the Judge in financial matters from ‘the procedural hearing’ to ‘the trial management hearing’.

Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Act 2016 1. Substitute ‘Chief Executive Officer’ for ‘Principal Registrar’ in the Rules.

Cases to which the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 applies 1. Remove the current general delegation of powers to Deputy Registrars in relation to subpoenas in Trans-Tasman proceedings. 2. Specify the particular powers to be delegated to Deputy Registrars by reference to particular provisions in the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 in relation to subpoenas in Trans-Tasman proceedings. 80 Costs 1. Increase by 1.7 per cent the costs allowable for work done and services rendered by lawyers and itemised in the scale of costs in schedule 3 of the Rules. The committee consulted with the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia and with other constituent bodies about the proposed rule amendments.

Court Performance Committee The Court Performance Committee is chaired by Justice Austin and its membership comprises all registry Case Management and Magellan judges.

Case management The principles devised in 2015 to guide the operation of the Court’s ‘trial docket’ system of case management have been implemented in all registries, enhancing consistency across the Court in the way it manages its case-flow. The system envisages that only those cases which cannot be consensually resolved by intervention of registrars are allocated to judicial dockets for procedural management by judges to final trial. Now that the trial docket system is managed more consistently across the court’s registries, the committee has concentrated upon expansion of the National Calendar to attempt to harmonise the experience of litigants and lawyers in all registries in terms of the time elapsed between filing and trial. There are still variations, but the amplitude of variation is decreasing. A rolling list was trialled in Sydney in early 2017, using four visiting judges in combination with the seven Sydney judges, in an attempt to clear some backlog. The Sydney profession were uniformly satisfied with the initiative.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Magellan The Magellan protocol is a discrete case management pathway designed to ensure that cases involving allegations of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse of children are heard within six months of such allegations being raised in the litigation before the Court. Due to the increasing vigilance of the registry Magellan teams, cases are not categorised so easily as ‘Magellan’, which means the truly deserving cases are getting closer and faster attention. There are 139 live Magellan files, which represents an annual decrease of 25 files per annum.

National calendar The Court’s national services should ideally be delivered as uniformly as circumstances allow. With that goal in mind, the Court operates a National Calendar under which trial judges are moved between registries to try and balance the case-flows in different registries. Even though resources do not permit complete equivalence in all registries, the National Calendar significantly reduces disparity. During 2016–17, 90 weeks of trial judge time was moved between the Court’s registries to supplement the resources of registries in greatest need. 81 Professional Development and Judicial Welfare Committee The aim of the Professional Development and Judicial Welfare Committee is to develop, implement and oversee judicial education in the Court by formulating a comprehensive plan for ongoing and extensive judicial education and to provide advice to the Chief Justice on judicial education and welfare issues. The committee, chaired by Justice Ainslie-Wallace, assists the Chief Justice in the dissemination of information her Honour considers should be brought to the attention of the judges. Topics and issues covered in 2016–17 included: >> unacceptable judicial behaviour >> judges and justice in the Third Reich >> preparation of judgments for publication – the work of the judgments office, and >> cyber safety – keeping children safe. The committee also develops education programs and puts in place mechanisms to support judges to maintain resilience and to provide orientation for new appointments. Key activities for 2016–17 include: >> maintaining awareness of the systems in place to support resilience and health of judges >> providing an orientation program for new judges, and >> providing access to judgment writing courses for new judges.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Court Services Committee The Court Services Committee is responsible for overseeing and reporting to the Court Policy Committee on governance and policy considerations pertaining to: >> the Court’s provision of services to the public, including the provision of services through the built environment in the form of court buildings and courtrooms and through electronic media, but also in terms of the equitable delivery of access to justice, mindful of barriers created by the cost of litigation, race, religious, cultural and language diversity, and physical and mental health disabilities >> the Court’s provision of services to its judges and staff, including by way of the development and/or provision of appropriate information and other technology, as well as adequate training and ongoing support in its use, and >> the Court’s maintenance and storage of its records. In doing so, it also oversees the work of the following sub-committees: >> Children’s Committee >> Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach Committee, and 82 >> Unrepresented Litigants Working Group.

Work of the sub-committees

Children’s Committee The Children’s Committee, a joint initiative between the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, met regularly during the reporting year and its business included the successful planning and staging of the second National Independent Children’s Lawyers’ Conference held in Melbourne in October 2016. Plans are now well underway for the staging of the third such conference in Brisbane in October 2018. Three research projects are underway: a) Yourtown – Kids’ Helpline and the University of Sydney, which aims to identify concerns of children during and after involvement in family law matters and to determine who they want to talk to and how, why and what they hope to gain support about. It is expected to produce some results by the end of 2017. b) The committee’s Chair, Judge Cole from the Federal Circuit Court, has been heavily involved in a pilot project with a Young Persons Family Law Advisory Group in Adelaide. The project has worked well and it is hoped sufficient funding will be obtained to enable it to continue, and for consideration to be given to introducing such groups in other states. c) The Attorney-General’s Department has commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies to develop a better understanding of the experiences of children and young people after their parents separate and to hear what they think about how the family law system can better meet their needs.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The committee has established and is building links with the Australian Children’s Contact Services Association and will be sending a delegate to that Association’s coming national conference. The committee will also be providing input to National Legal Aid in the development of training modules to be used in the training of Independent Children’s Lawyers.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach Committee The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach Committee continues the long history of the Court in promoting and improving access to justice for Indigenous families, by ensuring the Court’s administration and judiciary work together to enable and facilitate the participation of Indigenous Australians in the Court’s operations and processes. The committee continues to undertake work to >> develop a court protocol for Acknowledgement of Country at Court events >> examine the potential for a resource of information relevant to ATSI outreach issues to be available for general access >> establish and build a link between the Court’s registries and local Indigenous leaders, and >> work collaboratively with the Family Court of Western Australia, the Federal Circuit Court, 83 state courts and tribunals, the National Judicial College and relevant state judicial education authorities such as the Judicial Commission of NSW. Members of the committee participated in the following events: >> Committee Chair, Justice Benjamin, represented the Family Court at the AIJA Indigenous Justice Conference in Alice Springs in August 2016. >> In August 2016 Justices Benjamin and Bennett attended a seminar in Melbourne organised by the Victorian Judicial Commission as to the ongoing legacy of the Stolen Generation. >> On 2 August 2016 Justices Benjamin and Bennett met with Wayne Muir, the Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, and Nerita Waight, a lawyer at the Family and Youth Practice, to discuss issues regarding the interaction between Indigenous families and the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court in Victoria. >> Justices Benjamin and Bennett regularly attend the Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee which is chaired by Justice Kaye of the Supreme Court of Victoria. >> In March 2017 Justice Benjamin attended a Back to Country in Wathaurong Country near Geelong with members of the Federal Circuit Court. The conference was organised by the Judicial College of Victoria. >> Federal Circuit Court Judge Myers is leading an inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration. Justice Benjamin met with Judge Myers in June 2017 in relation to providing a family law perspective to that inquiry. >> Justice Benjamin has attended regular AIJA meetings, providing a broader judicial response in respect of Indigenous issues including the promotion of Indigenous barristers in Victoria which may be extend to Queensland. >> The committee has undertaken work on the Reconciliation Action Plan and this plan was referred to the Chief Justice for consideration in mid-2017.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

84

Dennis Ho, practitioner from Hong Kong, Baroness Hale of Richmond, the Honourable Justice Victoria Bennett and Chief Justice the Honourable Diana Bryant AO at the Plenary Session Are Children Humans?, delivered by Lady Hale to open the 7th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights, Dublin 5–7 June 2017

Unrepresented Litigants Working Group The Unrepresented Litigants Working Group is chaired by Justice Le Poer Trench and consists of representatives of the NSW Bar Association, the NSW Law Society, community legal centres and others. The group has worked on simplifying documents and processes around contravention applications and has produced a number of simplified forms for consideration by the Court. The committee is also exploring the option of using the pro bono services of retired judges to assist in areas where the Chief Justice considers it may be helpful. Significant work was also undertaken on educative initiatives to assist unrepresented litigants with conducting a hearing in the Court. The progression of this work is subject to funding.

Cultural Diversity Justice Berman and Leisha Lister continued to represent the Family Court on the Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity (JCCD), established by the Australian Council of Chief Justices in cooperation with the Migration Council of Australia.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The JCCD is an advisory body formed to assist Australian courts, judicial officers and administrators to positively respond to Australia’s diverse needs, including the particular issues that arise in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The Council reports to the Council of Chief Justices (CCJ) and provides policy advice and recommendations to the CCJ for approval. Over the last year, that council has released the following reports: >> A consultation paper on the Australian National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals >> Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters and Tribunals

Family Violence Committee The Family Violence Committee is a joint committee of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. The committee’s principal responsibility is to provide advice to the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge and the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar of both courts on the issue of family violence. In discharging this responsibility, the committee reviews and updates the courts’ Family Violence Plan and Family Violence Best Practice Principles, as well as undertaking discrete projects. 85 During 2016–17, members of the Family Violence Committee included: >> Justice Ryan, Family Court, Chair >> Justice Stevenson, Family Court >> Justice Hannam, Family Court >> Judge Brown, Federal Circuit Court >> Judge Hughes, Federal Circuit Court >> Judge Bender, Federal Circuit Court >> Phillip Cameron, Coordinating Registrar, Family Court >> Leisha Lister, Executive Officer, Family Court, and >> Di Lojszczyk, Family Consultant. The committee’s major project was the continued implementation of the Family Violence Plan 2014–16 which forms part of the commitment both courts have made to addressing family violence, including the measures contained in the joint Family Violence Best Practice Principles (an amended version of the Family Violence Best Practice Principles was issued in December 2016). The Family Violence Committee also worked on issues raised by: >> the report from the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence >> the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Inquiry into Domestic Violence, and >> internal review processes on the death of a child or party.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Collaborative committees Federal Costs Advisory Committee (FCAC) The 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 Circuit Court of Australia. It first met in November 2007. Membership of the Committee is as follows: >> The Hon Justice R Benjamin, Family Court of Australia (Chair) >> Mr A Phelan, Chief Executive and Principal Registrar, High Court of Australia >> Mr J Mathieson, Deputy Principal Registrar, Federal Court of Australia >> Ms A Byrne, Deputy Principal Registrar, Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and >> Patricia Christie, Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Registrar .

Terms of reference The committee’s terms of reference are: 86 a) to review and recommend variations in the quantum of costs contained in the rules made by the federal courts, and b) to advise on such other matters relating to those costs as may be referred to it by a federal court. In undertaking its functions the committee must inform itself by having regard to: a) previous decisions of the FCAC b) the FCAC formula as an indicative mechanism to be adjusted according to the available data (including but not exclusive to statistics provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics) c) written submissions from the Law Council of Australia or any other interested party regarding any circumstances to be taken into account by the committee in consideration of the application of the FCAC formula d) reasonable expenses incurred by lawyers in the conduct of their practices, and e) any other relevant factors.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Scales of Costs The current costs scales for each of the federal courts are provided for in the following legislation: >> High Court Rules 2004 Schedule 2 >> Federal Court Rules 2011 Schedule 3 >> Family Law Rules 2004 Schedule 3, and >> Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 Schedule 1.

The committee’s last report The committee’s ninth report was published in September 2016 and recommended an increase of 1.7 per cent to the scales of costs of each of the four federal courts.

Information Publication Scheme Entities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) are required to publish information to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme (IPS).

Information about FOI and the IPS entity plan for the Family Court can be found via a link 87 on the homepage of the Family Court’s website at www.familycourt.gov.au The Court received six Freedom of Information requests during 2016–17. At 30 June 2017, there were no matters outstanding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Feedback and service improvements Feedback helps to drive service improvement and the Court invites feedback, including suggestions and complaints about administrative things such a privacy matter, a security matter, a court policy, or the way correspondence has been handled. Full details about feedback and complaints are contained in Part three—Report on Court Performance—but in summary, in 2016–17, the Court received: >> seven complaints about Family Court services >> sixteen complaints arising from services provided by the Federal Circuit Court or other third parties and relating to Family Court matters >> ten complaints about judicial conduct, and >> sixteen complaints about the time taken in delivery of a judgment.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

External and internal scrutiny External scrutiny

Commonwealth Ombudsman The Commonwealth Ombudsman made no adverse report specific to the Family Court during 2016–17.

Freedom of Information The Court received six Freedom of Information requests during 2016–17.

Action in defamation There were no actions in defamation during 2016–17.

Senate Estimates Hearings – Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Senior Executive Service staff of the Court attend estimates committee hearings to answer questions about the Court’s activities. In 2016–17, 17 questions on notice were received and 88 answered by the Family Court.

Correction of errors in 2015–16 report The Court has no matters to report.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 IN FOCUS HOW DO I? WEB PAGES

The Court has been working to improve our online resources, particularly the ‘How do I?..’ webpages. The ‘How do I?’ pages explain application processes for litigants by using dynamic features which enables users to self-select content specific to their situation. The pages can be accessed from the homepage of the Family Court website.

How do I eFile? The How do I eFile? page has been divided into application types, making it clearer what is required when eFiling specific types of applications with the courts using the Commonwealth Courts Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au). www.familycourt.gov.au/howdoi

How do I apply for parenting orders? The How do I apply for parenting orders? page features clear information about a range of parenting matters and includes a link to Attorney-General’s Department’s publication Parenting Orders – what you need to know, which was launched on 19 October 2016. www.familycourt.gov.au/howdoi

How do I? for lawyers

A new ‘How do I?...’ for lawyers section has been developed as a dedicated resource specifically for lawyers and firms to self-administer their Portal accounts. It covers topics like registering a law firm, adding or changing an administrator, barristers getting access to files and setting up direct debit facilities. www.familycourt.gov.au/howdoi

APPENDIXES :7 APPENDIXES

APPENDIXES

Appendix 1 Outcome and program statement – Family Court of Australia

Table A1.1: Outcome 2 – Family Court of Australia

Outcome 2: Apply and uphold the rule of law for Budget Actual Variation litigants in the Family Court of Australia through 16–17 16–17 the resolution of family law matters according ($’000) ($’000) ($’000) 92 to law, particularly more complex family law matters and through the effective management of the administrative affairs of the Court. Program 2.1 – Family Court of Australia Administered Expenses 30 43 -13 Departmental Appropriation 31,447 31,620 -173 Expenses not requiring appropriation 10,609 10,316 293 in the budget year Total for Program 2.1 42,086 41,979 107 Total expenses for outcome 2 42,086 41,979 107

Average staffing level (number)* 108 85

* Please note that average staffing levels have been compared with budgeted figures rather than prior year figures. This is due to the amalgamation of the commonwealth courts corporate services on 1 July 2016, which makes comparison with prior years not meaningful.

The full financial statements can be found in Appendix 1 of the Federal Court of Australia’s 2016–17 annual report.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Appendix 2 Staffing profile As at 30 June 2017, the Family Court had a total workforce of 95 employees. Of the Court’s 95 employees: >> 15 (16 per cent) were male and 80 (84 per cent) were female, and >> 66 (69 per cent) were ongoing employees and 29 (31 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 A2.1: Staff by location

Level ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total APS1 – – – – – – – – 0 APS2 – – – – – – – – 0 APS3 1 1 – – – – – – 2 93 APS4 1 8 – 4 2 1 6 – 22 APS5 1 19 – 8 2 1 7 – 38 APS6 3 – – – – – 2 – 5 EL1 2 – – – – – 2 – 4 EL2 2 12 – 2 1 – 5 – 22 SES1 – – – – – – – – 0 SES2 – – – 1 – – 1 – 2 Total 10 40 0 15 5 2 23 0 95

Note: Actual occupancy at 30 June 2017 includes full and part-time staff with the exception of judicial officers and casual employees. All figures are based on actual headcount.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Table A2.2: Staff by gender

Level Attendance ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total APS1 Female – – – – – – – – 0 Male – – – – – – – – 0 APS2 Female – – – – – – – – 0 Male – – – – – – – – 0 APS3 Female 1 – – – – – – – 1 Male – 1 – – – – – – 1 APS4 Female – 7 – 4 1 1 4 – 17 Male 1 1 – – 1 – 2 – 5 APS5 Female 1 18 – 7 2 1 7 – 36 Male – 1 – 1 – – – – 2 94 APS6 Female 2 – – – – – 2 – 4 Male 1 – – – – – – – 1 EL1 Female 2 – – – – – 2 – 4 Male – – – – – – – – 0 EL2 Female 1 9 – 2 1 – 5 – 18 Male 1 3 – – – – – – 4 SES1 Female – – – – – – – – 0 Male – – – – – – – – 0 SES2 Female – – – – – – – – 0 Male – – – 1 – – 1 – 2 Total 10 40 0 15 5 2 23 0 95

Note: Judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar, who are holders of public office, and casual employees, are not included in the above table.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Table A2.3: Staff by attendance status

Level Attendance ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total APS1 Full–time – – – – – – – – 0 Part–time – – – – – – – – 0 APS2 Full–time – – – – – – – – 0 Part–time – – – – – – – – 0 APS3 Full–time – 1 – – – – – – 1 Part–time 1 – – – – – – – 1 APS4 Full–time – 8 – 4 2 – 4 – 18 Part–time 1 – – – – 1 2 – 4 APS5 Full–time 1 18 – 8 2 1 5 – 35 Part–time – 1 – – – – 2 – 3 APS6 Full–time 2 – – – – – 2 – 4 95 Part–time 1 – – – – – – – 1 EL1 Full–time 2 – – – – – 2 – 4 Part–time – – – – – – – – 0 EL2 Full–time 2 8 – 2 1 – 4 – 17 Part–time – 4 – – – – 1 – 5 SES1 Full–time – – – – – – – – 0 Part–time – – – – – – – – 0 SES2 Full–time – – – 1 – – 1 – 2 Part–time – – – – – – – – 0 Total 10 40 0 15 5 2 23 0 95

Note: Judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar, who are holders of public office, and casual employees, are not included in the above table.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Table A2.4: Ongoing staff by location and classification

Level ACT NSW QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total APS1 – – – – – – – 0 APS2 – – – – – – – 0 APS3 1 1 – – – – – 2 APS4 – – – – – 2 – 2 APS5 1 17 7 2 1 7 – 35

APS6 3 – – – – 1 – 4 EL1 1 – – – – 1 – 2 EL2 2 9 2 1 – 5 – 19 SES1 – – – – – – – 0 SES2 – – 1 – – 1 – 2 96 Total 8 27 10 3 1 17 0 66

Note: Judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar, who are holders of public office, and casual employees, are not included in the above table.

Table A2.5: Non-ongoing staff by location and classification

Level ACT NSW QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total APS1 – – – – – – – 0 APS2 – – – – – – – 0 APS3 – – – – – – – 0 APS4 1 8 4 2 1 4 – 20 APS5 – 2 1 – – – – 3 APS6 – – – – – 1 – 1 EL1 1 – – – – 1 – 2 EL2 – 3 – – – – – 3 SES1 – – – – – – – 0 SES2 – – – – – – – 0 Total 2 13 5 2 1 6 0 29

Note: Judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar, who are holders of public office, and casual employees, are not included in the above table.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Indigenous employment At 30 June 2017, the Court had one employee who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Table A2.6: Indigenous staff by location, gender and employment status

Employment Gender ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total status

Ongoing Female – 1 – – – – – – 1 Male – – – – – – – – 0 Non-Ongoing Female – – – – – – – – 0 Male – – – – – – – – 0 Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Judicial officers 97 At 30 June 2017, the Family Court had 32* judges, including the Chief Justice; 16 female and 16 male. The remuneration arrangements for all judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Registrar are governed by enforceable determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details including relevant determinations are available at www.remtribunal.gov.au

Table A2.7: Number of judges, at 30 June 2017

Location Judges Australian Capital Territory 1 New South Wales 14 Northern Territory 0 Queensland 7 South Australia 2 Tasmania 1 Victoria 7** Western Australia 0 Total 32*

* This numbers does not include the Deputy Chief Justice position which is currently vacant; and a vacant position in Adelaide. ** This includes Justice Coate who is currently seconded to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Workforce turnover During 2016–17, 25 employees left the Court (19 were non-ongoing, six were ongoing employees), representing an annual turnover rate of 20 per cent against total employee numbers at 30 June 2017.

Table A2.8: Workforce turnover

Employment type Reason Total Non-ongoing Specified Term Expiration of contract 7 Resigned 12 Ongoing Employee Age – 60 to 65 years 1 Resigned 1

98 Voluntary Redundancy 4 Total 25

Agreement making

Enterprise Agreement The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014 continued to operate during 2015–16. 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 2017, 93 Family Court employees were covered by the Enterprise Agreement.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Table A2.9: Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014

Level Female Male Total APS1 – – 0 APS2 – – 0 APS3 1 1 2 APS4 17 5 22 APS5 36 2 38 APS6 4 1 5 EL1 3 – 3 EL2 18 4 22 Total 80 13 93

99 Relationship between agreements Terms and conditions of employment in the Court are governed by one or more of the following industrial instruments: >> the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014, 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 an individual flexibility agreement, a s 24(1) determination or a common law contract that provides additional terms and conditions. AWAs may also be supported by individual s 24(1) determinations or common law contracts.

Other agreements Offers of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA) to court employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with government policy; however at 30 June 2017, three employees had enforceable AWAs in place. In some limited cases, the Family Court has used common law contracts and determination 24 instruments pursuant to the Public Service Act 1999, to build upon existing AWA arrangements.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Employees covered by other agreements During the reporting period, the Family Court had a total of: >> three employees on AWAs >> three employees on common law contracts >> two employees on individual flexibility agreements, and >> two SES employees on determination 24 arrangements.

Senior Executive Service remuneration Terms and conditions for the Court’s Senior Executive Service employees (SES) are in common law contracts, AWAs and individual 24(1) determinations made by the Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Registrar. SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and take account of the Court’s budgetary position and the Government’s workplace bargaining policy.

Non-salary benefits 100 Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include motor vehicles, car parking, superannuation, access to salary sacrificing arrangements, computers, including home-based computer access, membership of professional associations, mobile phones, studies assistance, leave flexibilities, workplace responsibility allowances (for example, first aid, chief and deputy fire warden, community language) and airline club memberships.

Performance pay arrangements The Court’s industrial instruments do not include provision for performance based pay to employees. No employees received performance pay during 2016–17.

Table A2.10: AWA minimum salary ranges by classification

Classification Salary range ($) APS2 0 APS3 0 APS4 0 APS5 0 APS6 0 EL1 0 EL2 140,260 to 188,665 SES1 0 SES2 211,851

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Table A2.11: Classification structure and pay rates in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014*

APS classification Salary rates on 1 July 2012 Salary rates on 1 July 2013 APS 1 $42,779 $44,063 $43,937 $45,256 $45,745 $47,118 APS 2 $46,841 $48,247 $49,395 $50,877 $51,945 $53,504 APS 3 $54,740 $56,383 $56,129 $57,813 $57,583 $59,310 101 APS 4 $61,356 $63,197 $62,950 $64,839 $64,562 $66,499 APS 5 $66,325 $68,315 $68,404 $70,457 $70,330 $72,440 APS 6 $72,036 $74,198 $75,867 $78,144 $82,285 $84,754 EL 1 $91,831 $94,586 $95,497 $98,362 $99,161 $102,136 EL 2 $108,424 $111,677 $111,736 $115,089 $120,081 $123,684 $121,079 $125,639 $124,095 $127,818 $127,264 $131,082

*excludes casual employees

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Appendix 3 Committees

Judicial committees, 30 June 2017

Committee Terms of reference

Court Policy Committee >> To support the Chief Justice in the governance of the Court and to provide advice on strategy Chief Justice Bryant (Chair) and the future direction of the Court.

Standing Committee Terms of reference

Finance >> To provide judicial input to the Court’s annual budget in relation to the funding and resourcing Justice Berman (Chair) of judicial work, including the national calendar –– Budgeting for interstate judicial travel. 102 –– Judicial remuneration –– Audit and risk

Rules >> To consider all necessary or proposed rule changes. Section 123 of the Family Law Act 1975 Justice Rees (Chair) provides that a majority of judges may make rules of court in relation to practices and procedures to be followed in the Family Court.

Court Performance >> To ensure the implementation and maintenance of case management systems designed to Justice Austin (Chair) achieve maximum efficiency in the discharge of –– Case management the Court’s work. –– Magellan –– National calendar

Court Services >> To oversee and report on the provision of services to the public, including the equitable delivery of Justice Forrest (Chair) access to justice, mindful of barriers created by –– Cultural diversity the cost of litigation, race, religious, cultural and –– Unrepresented litigants language diversity, family violence and physical –– Property management and mental health disabilities. > –– Library > The provision of services to judges and staff. > –– Family violence > The Court’s maintenance and storage of its records. –– Children’s –– IT judicial requirements

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Standing Committee Terms of reference Professional Development >> To develop, implement and oversee the and Judicial Welfare ongoing judicial education in the Family Court, including orientation for new appointments, Justice Ainslie-Wallace (Chair) the formulation of a comprehensive plan for Professional development judicial education and the annual Judicial programs including: Education Conference. –– Orientation >> To put in place and monitor programs which –– Judicial welfare assist judges to maintain resilience as judges. > –– Research and ethics > To oversee the research and ethics committee.

103

The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Appendix 4 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 2016–17, and other activities undertaken during that period, follow:

Chief Justice’s activities

Conferences attended and papers delivered 104 6–8 July 2016 Presented at the International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice Conference ‘Culture, Dispute Resolution and the Modernised Family’ in London: 40 Years of Innovative Family Law and The Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention: A Progress Report with Professor Nick Bala and was a panellist on Restructuring Families: a Paradigm for the 21st Century 11–12 July 2016 Fifth meeting on Article 13(1)(b) in The Hague, Netherlands 21–23 July 2016 Presented at the 2016 Queensland Law Society and Family Law Practitioners’ Association Family Law Residential: Adapting to the Changing Legal Landscape 29–30 July 2016 Panellist on areas of overlap and gaps between the state or territory courts and the federal family courts at the National Judicial College of Australia’s Facilitation Skills Program in Sydney 18–20 August 2016 Panellist at the AFCC 3rd Australian Chapter meeting: Children’s Best Interests where there are allegations of family violence: Does the legislative framework support good decision making? in Brisbane 26–27 September 2016 Presented the opening address at the Symposium on Cross-border Child Issues in Singapore: A Judicial Perspective on Modern Complexities in Cross-border Child Issues

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Conferences attended and papers delivered 28 September 2016 Presented at the meeting of the Singaporean International Advisory Council: Contravention of Parenting Orders: An Australian Perspective 29–30 September 2016 Presented the keynote address at the Singapore International Family Law Conference in Singapore: Four decades of Australian Family Law: A retrospective 19–21 October 2016 Panellist on the State of the Nation address, Women in Law Breakfast: Celebrating 40 years of the Family Law Act at the Family Law Section’s 17th National Family Law Conference in Melbourne 27–28 October 2016 Panellist at the Australian Bar Association 2016 Conference in Melbourne: National and International Developments of Modern Litigation and Courts Practice (Rule of Law) 10 November 2016 Presented at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ Australia event: Family Law Financial Arbitration: Arbitration in Family Law in Brisbane 105 20 February 2017 Presented at the National Judicial College of Australia’s National Judicial Orientation Program: Maintaining psychological health in Melbourne 27–28 March 2017 Attended the AIJA/Victorian Supreme Court’s Innovation and Excellence in Courts Conference in Melbourne 5 April 2017 Panellist at the Women Lawyers of Western Australia’s event: Career Paths for Women in the Legal Profession in Perth 27–30 April 2017 Panellist at the IAWJ Asia Pacific Regional Conference/AAWJ National Conference in Sydney 19 May 2017 Presented at the ARC Justice’s Talking Justice Conference in Bendigo 26–27 May 2017 Presented at the Family Law Workshop to Barbados Judiciary and Barbados Bar Association: Developments in the Law of Maintenance (including enforcement of maintenance arrears); Development of the Australian Family Court, lessons learned and future development; New developments in the Law of Matrimonial Property on Divorce and the success that the Family Law Act has had in improving gender relations; Protecting children and reducing domestic violence in Barbados

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Conferences attended and papers delivered 1–3 June 2017 Attended the 54th Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ Conference in Boston 4–7 June 2017 Attended the 7th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights in Dublin, Ireland 12 June 2017 Presented at the International Centre for Family Law Policy and Practice’s conference ‘Experts’ Meeting on Issues of Domestic/ Family Violence and the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention’ a public lecture The Abduction Convention in a post-Brexit era: the law will survive the changes to the political landscape in London 13–14 June 2017 Attended the IACLaR Research Meeting in London

106

Justice Austin, Justice Ainslie-Wallace, Chief Justice Bryant AO, Justice Gill and Deputy Chief Justice Faulks

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

In addition, the Chief Justice: >> Attended the Monash University Lucinda Lecture, The People and the Constitution, by the Honourable Justice Patrick Keane AC on 11 August 2016. >> Hosted a Deakin University delegation of Sri Lanka Judiciary on 15 August 2016. >> Hosted a Victoria University delegation of Chinese lawyers on 21 September 2016. >> Attended an International Hague Network Judges’ meeting on 26–27 September 2016 in Singapore. >> Attended the first meeting of the Singapore Family Justice Courts’ International Advisory Council on 28 September 2016 in Singapore. >> Hosted a luncheon for Muslim Women’s Leadership group on 11 October 2016. >> Held an Annual Judges’ conference in Melbourne 17–18 October 2016. >> Hosted a delegation of Hong Kong Judiciary on 18 November 2016 in Melbourne. >> Hosted a delegation of Japanese Judiciary in Canberra on 14 February 2017. >> Hosted a delegation from the USA Central Authority and Attorney-General’s Department in Melbourne 27–28 February 2017. >> Attended the 2017 Dame Roma Mitchell Memorial Lunch and address by Tasneem Chopra 107 on 10 March 2017. >> Attended the FCLRG Seminar at Melbourne University on Family Legal Aid cuts in England and Wales on 27 March 2017. >> Attended the 48th Meeting of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand in Brisbane on 11 April 2017. >> Held regular meetings with the Family Law Section executive throughout the financial year. >> Attended quarterly meetings of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. 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 (AFCC) and is a past President of the Australian Chapter of the AFCC. The Chief Justice is the sole patron of Australian Women Lawyers, a patron of Court Network and a patron of Gordon Care. The Chief Justice is Chair of the working group to develop a Guide to Good Practice on the Interpretation and Application of Article 13(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. This year the Chief Justice became a Member of the American Law Institute.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Activities of judges

Papers presented and conference, seminars and workshops conducted and/or attended >> July 2016, College of Law intensive advocacy skills workshop. >> July 2016, participant, Family Violence Taskforce Workshop, Melbourne. >> 19–30 July 2016, Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions, Advocacy Skills Workshop, Brisbane. >> 21 July 2016, Finding the evidence in evidence based practice: three real world illustrations from family law interventions, by Prof Amy Holtzworth-Munroe (Indiana University, USA), Melbourne. >> 22 July 2016, Newcastle Bar Association, Annual Dinner, Newcastle. >> 23 July 2016, Queensland Law Society and Family Law Practitioners Association, Family Law Residential, Chair: Parenting Stream, Gold Coast. >> 29 July 2016, 2016 Hunter Valley Family Law Conference, Hunter Valley, presented: How to get the Best out of a Family Report and How to Deal with an Unfavourable Report, 108 presented by Justice Cleary, Vincent Papaleo, Psychologist & Dr Simon Kennedy, Psychologist. Interactive Question and Answer Session: You be the Judge Justice Stewart Austin and Justice Margaret Cleary. >> August 2016, Lawyers Learning for Charity 2016, Bondi Junction, presented: The Vexed Question of Vaccination. >> 3 August 2016, The Ongoing Legacy of the Stolen Generations, Judicial College of Victoria, Koori Twilight, Magistrate Rose Falla, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Melbourne. >> 10 August 2016, Law Society of NSW, Family Law Issues Committee Meeting, Parramatta. >> 12–13 August 2016, Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions, Advocacy Skills workshop, Sydney. >> 17 August 2016, The Royal Commission into Family Violence, Family and Children’s Law Research Group Seminar, Melbourne Law School, The Hon Marcia Neave AO, Magistrate Anne Goldborough, Joanna Fletcher, CEO Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Nathan De Guara, Services Manager, No to Violence and Men’s Referral Service, Melbourne. >> 19–20 August 2016, AFCC, Annual Conference, Brisbane. >> 25 August 2016, Monash Lecture, Melbourne. >> 25 August 2016, Freedom from Family Violence, Does a Human Rights Framework Help? Lecture introduced by the Hon Chris Maxwell AC, President of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria. Lecture presented by Marcia Neave AO, Former Justice of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria and Chair of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, Higinbotham Lecture, RMIT, Melbourne. >> 25–26 August 2016, AIJA, Indigenous Justice Conference, Alice Springs. >> 29 August–3 September 2016, Advanced Advocacy Training, UK Advocacy Training Council, Keble College Oxford.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

>> 31 August 2016, Flashpoints in Family Law: When Current Models of Risk Assessment Fail, Lecture presented by Dr Jennifer Neoh, Clinical Psychologist, Child Dispute Services Seminar Series, Melbourne. >> 12–17 September 2016, Supreme and National Courts Waigani, NCD Port Moresby Papua New Guinea, Pacific Judicial Conference 2016, Port Moresby, presented: Self Represented Litigants. >> 23–24 September 2016, Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions, Advocacy Skills workshop, Melbourne. >> 26–27 September 2016, Symposium on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children, Perspectives on Family Disputes Involving Children in a Globalised Society, Singapore, presented: legal framework and operation of the Hague 1980 and 1996 Conventions. >> 29–30 September 2016, International Family Law Conference 2016, Singapore, presented: International frameworks relating to separating couples: a better place for the child in Hague Return Proceedings. >> 30 September 2016, Newcastle University – Law School, Students’ graduation, Newcastle. >> 4–5 October 2016, JD Family Law lectures; University of Melbourne, Melbourne. >> 7–8 October 2016, Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions, Advocacy Skills 109 workshop, Adelaide. >> 7–9 October 2016, Judicial Conference of Australia, Annual Conference, Canberra. >> 10 and 12 October 2016, Newcastle University Law School, Student’s training – Mock Courts, Newcastle. >> 14–15 October 2016, Advocacy General Skills Workshop, Sydney. >> 17–18 October 2016, Judges’ Conference, Melbourne. >> 17–18 October 2016, Judicial Education conference, Melbourne. >> 18–21 October 2016, Law Council of Australia, Family Law Section, National Family Law Conference 2016, Melbourne. >> 19 October 2016, Parramatta and District Law Society dinner, Parramatta. >> 20–21 October 2016 AIJA, Appellate Judges Conference, Melbourne. >> 22–25 October 2016, Monash Student Placements, Melbourne. >> 29–30 October 2016, Riverina Law Society weekend, Griffith. >> 4 November 2016, Newcastle Law Society, Annual Members’ Dinner, Newcastle. >> 4–5 November 2016, ICL Advocacy Training, Legal Aid, Sydney. >> 8 November 2016, Dubbo and Districts Pathways, Pathways event, Dubbo, presented: Indigenous Issues in Family Law. >> 11–12 November 2016, Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions, Advocacy Skills workshop, Sydney. >> 16 November 2016, Domestic and Family Violence Forum Discussion, Spotlight on Economic Abuse, Norton Rose, Melbourne.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

>> 17–18 November 2016, Justice and Society Symposium, The Cranlana Programme, Melbourne. >> 18–19 November 2016, Advocacy Skills Family Law, Perth. >> 25 November 2016, Newcastle Bar Association, Cocktail Party, Newcastle. >> 29 November 2016, Reunite International Child Abduction Centre, Seminar on 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, Seoul, presented: 30 years’ experience of the 1980 Hague Convention — the Australian perspective. >> 5–10 December 2016, Investigation, expert witness and advocacy skills training, Securities and Futures Commission, Hong Kong. >> 12 December 2016, Rules, Principles and Discretion in Financial Remedy Law, Family and Children’s Law Research Group Seminar, Melbourne Law School, Professor Jo Miles (Cambridge University), Melbourne. >> 13–15 December 2016, Investigation technique training, Hong Kong Monetary Authority. >> 14 December 2016, Australasian Centre for Human Rights and Health, Continuing Tradition of Dowry without Harm? National anti-dowry forum, Melbourne. >> 18–20 January 2017, Law Council of Australia, Start at the Top Family Law Conference, 110 Darwin. >> 7 February 2017, Uniting Church, Parramatta, Commencement of the Law Term Service, Parramatta. >> 8 February 2017, Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways Network, Men’s Behaviour Change Roadshow, Caringbah, panel discussion. >> 24 February 2017, Newcastle Bar Association, Lunch, Newcastle. >> 25 February 2017, Toongabbie Legal Centre, Family Law Day, presented: Crime pays: Finding and using material from criminal proceedings in parenting proceedings. >> 3 March 2017, College of Law, Judges’ Continuing Professional Development Day 2017, Sydney, presented: Unacceptable Risk and Interim Parenting Orders. >> 9 March 2017, Women’s Legal Service, speaker, volunteer training session on domestic violence, Brisbane. >> 10 March 2017, Newcastle Law Society, Newcastle Law Society CPD, Newcastle, presented: The Forensic Challenge of Family Violence. >> 10–11 March 2017, Advocacy Teacher Training Workshop, Sydney. >> 14 March 2017, Women’s Legal Service, speaker, volunteer training session on domestic violence, Brisbane. >> 15 March 2017, Newcastle University Law School, Student’s training, Newcastle, presented: Family Violence in context of Financial Interest. >> 17–18 March 2017, Queensland Law Society, QLS Symposium 2017, Brisbane, panellist – Negotiating a Better Future for your Clients. >> 17–18 March 2017, Back to Country Weekend, Bendigo. >> 18 March 2017, NSW Bar Association: Written Advocacy.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

>> 22–26 March 2017, International Academy of Family Lawyers, European Chapter meeting, Lisbon. >> 24–25 March 2017, General Advocacy Skills training workshop, Sydney. >> 4 April 2017, Newcastle University, presented to law students: Framework and Principles for Decision Making in Children’s Matters, Newcastle University. >> 5 April 2017, Advocacy presentation, Goodenough House, University College, London. >> 7–9 April 2017, Advanced Advocacy Skills Training (Medical Experts), Inner Temple, UK. >> 8 April 2017, The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, Non Adversarial Justice Conference, Sydney, presented: Fact finding in family law disputes. >> 26–28 April 2017, Law Institute of Victoria, Judicial Mentoring Program, Melbourne. >> 5 May 2017, Victoria Legal Aid, ICL Advocacy Program, Evidence lecture, Melbourne. >> 8 May 2017, Parramatta Family Law Pathways Interagency Meeting, Child Abduction Workshop, Parramatta, panel discussion. >> 13–14 May 2017, Riverina Law Society, meeting, Griffith. >> 18 May 2017, Newcastle University Law School, Law Week Event – panel discussion during Law Week, Newcastle. 111 >> 22 May 2017, Newcastle Law School, Symposium on Evidence Based Law and Practice, Newcastle Museum. >> 24 May 2017, Kurri Kurri High School, presented to Legal Studies students, Newcastle registry. >> 27–28 May 2017, Family Law Practitioners Association of Tasmania, State Conference, Launceston, presented: Crime Pays: Aspects of Forensic Preparation in Family Law Proceedings. >> 26 May 2017, Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Conference, Launceston. >> 1 June 2017, Justice Benjamin participated in a consultation with Judge Myers, Sabina Wynn (Executive Director, Australian Law Reform Commission) and Emma Bastable (Research Officer) regarding the ALRC Indigenous Incarceration Inquiry. >> 1 June 2017, Family Law Practitioners Association, Early Career and Experience Practitioner Twilight Event, presented: Preparation and court practice, Brisbane. >> 4–7 June 2017, World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights, Dublin, Ireland. >> 12 June 2017, Expert’s Meeting on Issues of Domestic/Family Violence and the 1980 Hague Convention, Westminster Law School, London, United Kingdom, hosted by Professor Marilyn Freeman PhD. >> 16 June 2017, Cultural Sensitivity in the Courtroom, Judicial College of Victoria, Melbourne. >> 29 June 2017, Law Institute of Victoria, accredited specialisation discussion group, Melbourne. >> 30 June 2017, Greater Newcastle Family Law Pathways Network, Family Law Pathways Conference, Newcastle, presented: Case Management for the Future.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Professional legal development Family Court judges contribute to professional legal development through their membership of, and participation in, professional and research-based associations. Justice Benjamin from the Hobart registry is Chair of the Family Court’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach Committee, Chair of the Joint Courts Costs Committee, and throughout 2016, chaired a sub-committee of the Family Law Council’s National Family Law Conference. His Honour continues to serve on the Academic Committee of College of Law, including the continuing development of Master qualifications for practitioners in family law. His Honour continues to be part of the Centre for Legal Studies Tasmanian Legal Practice Course and participated in a one day moot in May 2017 with the students. Justice May from the Brisbane registry was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in the Queen’s Birthday honours list on 12 June 2017. Justice May is Past President and member of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration; Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law; Member of the Australian Association of Women Judges; Member of the Bar Association of Queensland; Judicial Fellow of the International Academy of Family Lawyers; 112 Member of the Judicial Conference of Australia; and Advisory Board member of the Judges Forum of the International Bar Association. Justice Ainslie-Wallace from the Sydney registry is Master of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple London; Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law; Chair, College of Law Master of Applied Law (Family Law) Advisory Committee; Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Technology, Sydney; Chair of the Australian Advocacy Institute (AAI); Chair of the AAI Management Committee; Visiting Faculty Member National Institute for Trial Advocacy (USA); Committee Member, College of Law, Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee; Committee Member, NJCA Dialogues Program; Steering Committee Member, NJCA Family Violence Training Program; Council Member, National Judicial College of Australia; and UTS High Achiever program mentor. Justice Bennett from the Melbourne registry is a Continuing Presidential Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; member of the Judicial Officers Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee; a member of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, Family Violence Taskforce; member of the Judicial Advisory Group on Family Violence; Chair of the Court Liaison Committee; and member of the Court’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach Committee and Court Education Committee. 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.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

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. Judges are often asked to speak at secondary schools and lecture at law schools about particular topics and their work generally. Justice Bennett from the Melbourne registry is one of the Hague Network Judges for Australia, Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO being the other. During 2016–17, Justice Bennett undertook direct (case specific) judicial communication with the following countries: >> New Zealand: return of children to New Zealand – operable orders in NZ to be applicable on return of children. >> New Zealand: at the request of Department of Health and Human Services (Victoria) to obtain details of orders made in New Zealand affecting the child and father who sailed from NZ to Australia. >> Israel: procedural information as to how orders can be made and be enforceable for travel purposes. >> Portugal: enquiry from Portugal as to possibility of family adopting child in Portugal – referred to the Australian Central Authority. 113 >> Germany: request from Germany as to the terms of orders and procedure for enforceability in Australia. >> Spain: status of proceedings in Spain where orders made for return of child. >> Canada: procedure for enforceability of access orders pending travel to Canada by child to visit mother. >> United Kingdom: Registration of orders under 1996 convention. >> United States of America: procedural for mirror orders to be made. Justice Bennett also undertook the following general network judicial communications: >> Commenced a coordinating project with the Chief Justice, to prepare a photographic profile of all International Hague Network Judges for dissemination to the network judges ahead of the 2017 Special Commission. >> Safe Harbour Orders: communications and meeting with Office of the Head of International Family Justice for England and Wales to compile orders which are commonly sought in relation to children returned under the 1980 Convention. >> New Zealand: communications to ascertain state of jurisprudence within New Zealand about power to order conditions on return where no exception to return has been made out. >> New Zealand: to provide information on the harvesting of gametes from deceased males (responses undertaken by Justice Robert Benjamin).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Membership of professional associations Judges of the Family Court are members of various professional organisations, some of which include: >> Association of Family and Conciliation Courts >> Association of International Family Judges >> Association of International Judicial Administration >> Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated >> Australian Academy of Law >> Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law >> Australian Association of Women Judges >> Australian Centre for Justice Innovation >> Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law >> Bar Association of Queensland >> Centre for Childhood Development and Education 114 >> Council of Australasian Tribunals Inc. >> Family Law Council >> Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia >> Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association >> International Academy of Family Lawyers >> International Association of Court Administration >> International Association of Women Judges >> International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers >> International Bar Association >> Judicial Conference of Australia >> Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity >> Judicial Officers Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee >> LawAsia >> Law Society of South Australia >> Menzies School of Health Research >> National Judicial College of Australia >> Newcastle University Advisory Committee >> Newcastle Bar Association >> NSW Bar Association >> NSW Law Society >> Taulumande Youth Service – Board Member >> Victorian Bar Association.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

A conversation about culture On 15 November 2016, Justice Bennett chaired a session entitled Koori Twilight: a conversation about culture with Richard Frankland. The session was hosted by the judicial officers’ Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee and the Judicial College of Victoria. Richard Frankland is a well-known Aboriginal singer/songwriter, author and film maker. For many years he has run workshops on cultural safety and lateral violence. His work aims to facilitate problem solving and encourage freedom of cultural expression. Richard gave an engaging and interactive talk that provided valuable insight into the issues that affect the Aboriginal community, including cultural meaning and identity, cultural safety, trauma, cultural loads and the Treaty.

115

From left: The Honourable Justice Bromberg (Federal Court of Australia); The Honourable Justice Gordon (High Court of Australia); Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO (Family Court of Australia); Richard Frankland; The Honourable Justice Kaye AM (Court of Appeal, Supreme of Victoria); The Honourable Justice Vickery (Supreme Court of Victoria)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Appendix 5 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 Department of Human Services >> legal services commissions and community legal centres >> law societies and the Law Council of Australia >> community-based and non-government organisations, and 116 >> the Australian Federal Police. Relationships with these groups are managed either by the Chief Justice, other judges or the CEO on behalf of the Chief Justice. 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 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.

Australian Institute of Family Studies The Australian Institute of Family Studies was established under section 114B of the Family Law Act and is a forum for exchange of information and research.

Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia The Chief Justice meets quarterly with the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Family Law Forum The Chief Justice chairs the national Family Law Forum, which consists of representatives from the Family Court, Federal Circuit 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 Social Services, Child Support, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, non-government organisations and community legal centres. 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 and the Family Law Advisory Group.

117

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Appendix 6 Contact details

Chief Justice’s Chambers Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 (GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)

National Enquiry Centre The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all telephone and email enquiries for Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court of Australia matters. The NEC provides information and procedural advice, forms and brochures, and referrals to community and support services. NEC staff cannot provide legal advice. The NEC is open from 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday. PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2124 118 Phone: 1300 352 000

TTY/voice calls: Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or for Speak and Listen calls contact 1300 555 727 International: +61 2 8892 8590 Email: [email protected] Family Court website: www.familycourt.gov.au Twitter: @FamilyCourtAU YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/familycourtAU

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

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)

New South Wales

Albury Level 1, 463 Kiewa Street Albury NSW 2640 (PO Box 914, Albury NSW 2640) Dubbo Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra Streets 119 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 2124 (PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2124) Sydney Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts 97–99 Goulburn Street Sydney NSW 2000 (GPO Box 9991, Sydney NSW 2001)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

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

Northern Territory

Alice Springs Westpoint Building Cnr Railway Terrace and Stott Terrace Alice Springs NT 0870 (GPO Box 9991, Darwin NT 0801) Darwin Supreme Court Building State Square Darwin NT 0800 (GPO Box 9991, Darwin NT 0801) 120 Queensland

Brisbane Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts 119 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000 (GPO 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) Townsville Level 2, Commonwealth Centre 143 Walker Street Townsville QLD 4810 (PO Box 9991, Townsville QLD 4810)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

South Australia

Adelaide Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts 3 Angas Street Adelaide SA 5000 (GPO Box 9991, Adelaide SA 5001)

Tasmania

Hobart Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts 39–41 Davey Street Hobart TAS 7000 (GPO Box 9991, Hobart TAS 7001) Launceston Level 3, ANZ Building Cnr Brisbane and George Streets 121 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 Peter Durack Commonwealth Law Courts 150 Terrace Road Perth WA 6000 (GPO Box 9991, Perth WA 6848) 08 9224 8222

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 APPENDIXES

Appendix 7 Information required by other legislation

Legislation Page reference Bankruptcy Act 1966 11 Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 11, 49 Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 11, 49 Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Act 2016 4, 11, 26, 80, 79 Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Act 2012 45 Family Law Act 1975 5, 10, 42, 49, 58, 60, 70, 76, 79, 102, 116, 126 Freedom of Information Act 1982 87 Marriage Act 1961 11 122 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 80

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17

INDEXES :8 INDEXES

INDEXES

List of requirements The annual reporting requirements (as set out by Section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and Sections 17AA – 17AJ of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act Rule 2014) only applies to the non-corporate Commonwealth entity known as the Federal Court of Australia, as defined in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Although the Family Court of Australia has chosen to prepare a separate annual report, as required under section 38S of the Family Law Act 1975, this report is not required to 126 individually meet these requirements. Where information is contained in the Federal Court of Australia 2016–17 annual report, it is noted in the table below.

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report 17AD(g) Letter of transmittal 17AI A copy of the letter of transmittal signed Mandatory iii and dated by accountable authority on date final text approved, with statement that the report has been prepared in accordance with section 46 of the Act and any enabling legislation that specifies additional requirements in relation to the annual report 17AD(h) Aids to access 17AJ(a) Table of contents Mandatory iv 17AJ(b) Alphabetical index Mandatory 126 17AJ(c) Glossary of abbreviations and acronyms Mandatory xii 17AJ(d) List of requirements Mandatory 126 17AJ(e) Details of contact officer Mandatory ii

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report 17AJ(f) Entity’s website address Mandatory ii 17AJ(g) Electronic address of report Mandatory ii 17AD(a) Review by accountable authority 17AD(a) A review by the accountable authority Mandatory 4 of the entity 17AD(b) Overview of the entity 17AE(1)(a)(i) A description of the role and functions Mandatory 10 of the entity 17AE(1)(a)(ii) A description of the organisational Mandatory 71 structure of the entity 17AE(1)(a)(iii) A description of the outcomes and Mandatory 11 programmes administered by the entity 127 17AE(1)(a)(iv) A description of the purposes of the Mandatory 2 entity as included in corporate plan 17AE(1)(b) An outline of the structure of the Portfolio NA portfolio of the entity departments – mandatory 17AE(2) Where the outcomes and programmes If applicable, NA administered by the entity differ Mandatory from any Portfolio Budget Statement, Portfolio Additional Estimates Statement or other portfolio estimates statement that was prepared for the entity for the period, include details of variation and reasons for change 17AD(c) Report on the performance of the entity

Annual performance statements 17AD(c)(i); Annual performance statement in Mandatory Federal Court 16F accordance with paragraph 39(1)(b) of of Australia the Act and section 16F of the Rule 2016–17 annual report: page 204

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report 17AD(c)(ii) Report on financial performance 17AF(1)(a) A discussion and analysis of the entity’s Mandatory Federal Court financial performance of Australia 2016–17 annual report: page 65 17AF(1)(b) A table summarising the total resources Mandatory 92 and total payments of the entity 17AF(2) If there may be significant changes in If applicable, NA the financial results during or after the Mandatory previous or current reporting period, information on those changes, including: the cause of any operating loss of the entity; how the entity has responded 128 to the loss and the actions that have been taken in relation to the loss; and any matter or circumstances that it can reasonably be anticipated will have a significant impact on the entity’s future operation or financial results 17AD(d) Management and accountability Corporate governance 17AG(2)(a) Information on compliance with Mandatory Federal Court section 10 (fraud systems) of Australia 2016–17 annual report: page 49 17AG(2)(b)(i) A certification by accountable authority Mandatory Federal Court that fraud risk assessments and fraud of Australia control plans have been prepared 2016–17 annual report: page 49 17AG(2)(b)(ii) A certification by accountable authority Mandatory Federal Court that appropriate mechanisms for of Australia preventing, detecting incidents of, 2016–17 investigating or otherwise dealing with, annual report: and recording or reporting fraud that meet page 49 the specific needs of the entity are in place

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report 17AG(2)(b)(iii) A certification by accountable authority Mandatory Federal Court that all reasonable measures have been of Australia taken to deal appropriately with fraud 2016–17 relating to the entity annual report: page 49 17AG(2)(c) An outline of structures and processes Mandatory Federal Court in place for the entity to implement of Australia principles and objectives of corporate 2016–17 governance annual report: page 46 17AG(2)(d) A statement of significant issues If applicable, Federal Court – (e) reported to Minister under Mandatory of Australia paragraph 19(1)(e) of the Act that relates 2016–17 to noncompliance with Finance law and annual report: action taken to remedy noncompliance page 47 129 External scrutiny 17AG(3) Information on the most significant Mandatory 88 developments in external scrutiny and the entity’s response to the scrutiny 17AG(3)(a) Information on judicial decisions and If applicable, 88 decisions of administrative tribunals Mandatory and by the Australian Information Commissioner that may have a significant effect on the operations of the entity 17AG(3)(b) Information on any reports on If applicable, 88 operations of the entity by the Mandatory AuditorGeneral (other than report under section 43 of the Act), a Parliamentary Committee, or the Commonwealth Ombudsman 17AG(3)(c) Information on any capability reviews If applicable, NA on the entity that were released during Mandatory the period

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report Management of Human Resources 17AG(4)(a) An assessment of the entity’s Mandatory Federal Court effectiveness in managing and of Australia developing employees to achieve entity 2016–17 objectives annual report: page 57–58 17AG(4)(b) Statistics on the entity’s APS employees Mandatory 93 on an ongoing and nonongoing basis; including the following: >> Statistics on staffing classification level >> Statistics on fulltime employees >> Statistics on parttime employees >> Statistics on gender 130 >> Statistics on staff location >> Statistics on employees who identify as Indigenous 17AG(4)(c) Information on any enterprise Mandatory 98 agreements, individual flexibility arrangements, Australian workplace agreements, common law contracts and determinations under subsection 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999 17AG(4)(c)(i) Information on the number of SES Mandatory 99 and nonSES employees covered by agreements etc. identified in paragraph 17AD(4)(c) 17AG(4)(c)(ii) The salary ranges available for APS Mandatory 101 employees by classification level 17AG(4)(c)(iii) A description of nonsalary benefits Mandatory 100 provided to employees 17AG(4)(d)(i) Information on the number of employees If applicable, 100 at each classification level who received Mandatory performance pay 17AG(4)(d)(ii) Information on aggregate amounts If applicable, NA of performance pay at each Mandatory classification level

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report 17AG(4)(d)(iii) Information on the average amount of If applicable, NA performance payment, and range of such Mandatory payments, at each classification level 17AG(4)(d)(iv) Information on aggregate amount of If applicable, NA performance payments Mandatory Assets management 17AG(5) An assessment of effectiveness of assets If applicable, Federal Court management where asset management Mandatory of Australia is a significant part of the entity’s 2016–17 activities annual report: page 52 Purchasing 17AG(6) An assessment of entity performance Mandatory Federal Court 131 against the Commonwealth of Australia Procurement Rules 2016–17 annual report: page 50 Consultants 17AG(7)(a) A summary statement detailing the Mandatory Federal Court number of new contracts engaging of Australia consultants entered into during the 2016–17 period; the total actual expenditure on annual report: all new consultancy contracts entered page 51 into during the period (inclusive of GST); the number of ongoing consultancy contracts that were entered into during a previous reporting period; and the total actual expenditure in the reporting year on the ongoing consultancy contracts (inclusive of GST) 17AG(7)(b) A statement that “During [reporting period], Mandatory Federal Court [specified number] new consultancy of Australia contracts were entered into involving total 2016–17 actual expenditure of $[specified million]. annual report: In addition, [specified number] ongoing page 51 consultancy contracts were active during the period, involving total actual expenditure of $[specified million]”

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report 17AG(7)(c) A summary of the policies and Mandatory Federal Court procedures for selecting and engaging of Australia consultants and the main categories of 2016–17 purposes for which consultants were annual report: selected and engaged page 50 17AG(7)(d) A statement that “Annual reports contain Mandatory Federal Court information about actual expenditure of Australia on contracts for consultancies. 2016–17 Information on the value of contracts annual report: and consultancies is available on the page 50 AusTender website.” Australian National Audit Office Access Clauses 17AG(8) If an entity entered into a contract with If applicable, Federal Court a value of more than $100,000 (inclusive Mandatory of Australia 132 of GST) and the contract did not provide 2016–17 the AuditorGeneral with access to the annual report: contractor’s premises, the report must page 51 include the name of the contractor, purpose and value of the contract, and the reason why a clause allowing access was not included in the contract Exempt contracts 17AG(9) If an entity entered into a contract or If applicable, Federal Court there is a standing offer with a value Mandatory of Australia greater than $10,000 (inclusive of GST) 2016–17 which has been exempted from being annual report: published in AusTender because it page 51 would disclose exempt matters under the FOI Act, the annual report must include a statement that the contract or standing offer has been exempted, and the value of the contract or standing offer, to the extent that doing so does not disclose the exempt matters

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report Small business 17AG(10)(a) A statement that “[Name of entity] Mandatory Federal Court supports small business participation of Australia in the Commonwealth Government 2016–17 procurement market. Small and Medium annual report: Enterprises (SME) and Small Enterprise page 51 participation statistics are available on the Department of Finance’s website.” 17AG(10)(b) An outline of the ways in which the Mandatory Federal Court procurement practices of the entity of Australia support small and medium enterprises 2016–17 annual report: page 51 17AG(10)(c) If the entity is considered by the If applicable, Federal Court 133 Department administered by the Mandatory of Australia Finance Minister as material in nature—a 2016–17 statement that “[Name of entity] annual report: recognises the importance of ensuring page 51 that small businesses are paid on time. The results of the Survey of Australian Government Payments to Small Business are available on the Treasury’s website.” Financial statements 17AD(e) Inclusion of the annual financial Mandatory Federal Court statements in accordance with of Australia subsection 43(4) of the Act 2016–17 annual report: page 90–131

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

PGPA Rule Description Requirement Page of Reference this report 17AD(f) Other mandatory information 17AH(1)(a)(i) If the entity conducted advertising If applicable, NA campaigns, a statement that “During Mandatory [reporting period], the [name of entity] conducted the following advertising campaigns: [name of advertising campaigns undertaken]. Further information on those advertising campaigns is available at [address of entity’s website] and in the reports on Australian Government advertising prepared by the Department of Finance. Those reports are available on the Department of Finance’s website.” 134 17AH(1)(a)(ii) If the entity did not conduct advertising If applicable, Federal Court campaigns, a statement to that effect Mandatory of Australia 2016–17 annual report: page 65 17AH(1)(b) A statement that “Information on grants If applicable, Federal Court awarded to [name of entity] during Mandatory of Australia [reporting period] is available at [address 2016–17 of entity’s website].” annual report: page 65 17AH(1)(c) Outline of mechanisms of disability Mandatory Federal Court reporting, including reference to of Australia website for further information 2016–17 annual report: page 58 17AH(1)(d) Website reference to where the entity’s Mandatory 87 Information Publication Scheme statement pursuant to Part II of FOI Act can be found 17AH(1)(e) Correction of material errors in previous If applicable, 88 annual report Mandatory 17AH(2) Information required by other Mandatory 122 legislation

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

Alphabetical index

A judges assigned to, 48, 73 national coverage of, 40 abbreviations, ix–xi number of appeals finalised, 3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach Committee, 83–4 Year in Review, 6 access issues, 14 applications to the Court accountability, 69–88 performance on, 25–45 acronyms, ix–xi total number filed, 3 Adelaide, judges based in, 73 appointments of judicial officers and senior staff, 4, 6 arbitrations, subpoena rules in amended, 79 Administrative Appeals Tribunal, judges on, 75 135 admissibility of evidence, 61–2 Asche, Austin, 10 age of applications, 34–6 Atkins & Hunt and Ors judgment, 63 Agnew, Steve, 71 attendance status, staff by, 95 agreements with staff, 98–9 Attorney-General’s Department, commissions report from AIFS, 82 Ainslie-Wallace, Ann Margaret, 106 attrition and settlement of cases, performance on, 29 assigned to Appeal Division, 48, 73 Austin, Stewart Craig, 106 based in Sydney, 74 based in Newcastle, 74 committee memberships, 78, 81, 103 committee memberships, 78, 80, 102 professional legal development, 112 oversees Magellan lists, 67 Aldridge, Murray Robert Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), assigned to Appeal Division, 49, 73 6, 58 based in Sydney, 74 Australia Day Awards, 15–16 alter ego principle, Atkins & Hunt and Ors Australian Children’s Contact Services Association, 83 judgment, 63 Australian family law authority established on anonymity policy, 58 AustLII, 6 Appeal Division, 47–53 Australian Institute of Family Studies, 82, 116 Atkins & Hunt and Ors judgment, 63 Australian Law Reform Commission review of the Britt & Britt judgment, 61–2 family law system, 5 CJ Thackray heads, 6 Australian Workplace Agreements, 99 Clarence & Crisp judgment, 59 greater resourcing for, 13–14

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

B C Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), 11, 122 Calendar, National, management of, 81 Bender, Judge, on Family Violence Committee, 85 Cameron, Phillip, on Family Violence Committee, 85 Benjamin, Robert James Charles Canberra based in Hobart, 73 family law registry, 119 committee memberships, 83, 86 Justice Gill based in, 73 on AAT, 75 Carew, Catherine, based in Brisbane, 73 professional legal development, 112 Carmichael, Janet, 71 Bennett, Victoria Jane, 84 Chief Executive Officer based in Melbourne, 74 see also Christie, Patricia chairs Koori Twilight, 115 responsibilities of, 70, 76 on AAT, 75 Chief Justice on ATSI Outreach Committee, 83 see also Bryant, Diana professional legal development, 112–13 contact details, 118 Berman, David Michael judicial activities, 104–7 based in Adelaide, 73 Letter of Transmittal, iii committee memberships, 78–9, 102 responsibilities of, 70–2 136 on AAT, 75 Year in Review, 4–7 Brisbane, judges based in, 73 child abuse Britt & Britt judgment, 61–2 see also family violence issues Brocklehurst, Adrian, 78 Magellan case management, 44, 64–7 Bromberg, Justice, 115 notices of child abuse or risk of family violence, Brown, Judge, on Family Violence Committee, 85 42–3, 66 Bryant, Diana, 7, 21, 72, 84, 106, 115 child dispute services provided by FCC, 71 see also Chief Justice Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), 11, 122 activities as Chief Justice, 72, 104–7 Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 as Hague Network judge, 113 (Cth), 11, 122 assigned to Appeal Division, 48, 73 Children’s Committee, 82–3 attends Finance Committee meetings, 78 Christie, Patricia, 76 see also based in Melbourne, 74 Chief Executive Officer committee memberships, 6, 78, 102 appointment of, 4 endorses IFCE, 13 as CEO and acting Principal Registrar, 76 Letter of Transmittal, iii committee memberships, 78, 86 opens dialogue with Indonesian Religious Clarence & Crisp judgment, 58–9 Courts, 20 classification, staff by, 96 Saska & Radavich judgment, 60 clearance rates, 26, 34 Year in Review, 4–7 Cleary, Margaret Ann, based in Newcastle, 74 Byrne, A, on Federal Costs Advisory Committee, 86 Coate, Jennifer Anne, based in Melbourne, 74 Cole, Judge, Young Persons Family Law Advisory Group and, 82

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

committees E collaborative, 86 Eastern Region, 49 judicial, 77–85, 102–3 efficiency, cases finalised within 12 months, 3 Commonwealth Ombudsman, 88 Ellis, John, 10 complaints management, 39, 45, 87 enabling legislation, 10–11, 87, 122 consent orders, performance on, 3, 27, 32–3 Enterprise Agreement, 98–9 contact details, 118 equity issues, 40 corporate governance, 70 errors, correction of, 88 costs Evatt, Elizabeth, 10 increasing allowance for in rules, 80 external involvement, 116 legislation allowing for, 87 external scrutiny, 88 Court Excellence Committee, 13 Court Network, 54–5 Court Performance Committee, 80–1, 102 F Court Policy Committee, 78, 102 Family Court of Australia Court Services Committee, 82, 102 see also judges Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Act appeals filed from decisions of, 51 2016 (Cth) consultants and registrars funded, 5 137 amendments to rules resulting from, 80 external involvement, 116 creates Federal Court of Australia, 11 Full Court sittings and administration, 49 impact of, 4, 25 initiatives of, 12–14 information relating to, 122 judicial activities, 104–11 Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Magellan case management, 64–7 Act 2012 (Cth), 122 web pages, 89 court-specific terms, xii Family Court of Western Australia Cronin, Paul Joseph, based in Melbourne, 74 cases administered by, 49, 51 cultural diversity, judicial council on, 84–5 judges holding FCA commissions, 75 Family Courts for Muslim citizens in Indonesia, 20–1 D Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Dawe, Christine Elizabeth, 6, 75, 75 FCA established under, 10 de facto relationships, Clarence & Crisp judgment, information relating to, 122 58–9 judgments anonymised under, 58 Department of Health and Human Services on composition of the Court, 70 Victoria, 67 Family Law Council, 116 departmental appropriations, 92 Family Law Forum, 117 Deputy Chief Justice, responsibilities of, 72 Family Law registries, 119 Digital Court File, move to, 5 Family Law Section of the Law Council of Duncanson, Susan Janet, based at FCWA, 75 Australia, 116 Durham, Janet, Australia Day Award, 16 family law system, ALRC Review, 5 Family Violence Best Practice Principles, 18 Family Violence Committee, 85

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

family violence issues Foster, Garry Frederick, based in Parramatta, 74 Britt & Britt judgment, 61–2 Foster, Richard, retirement of, 4 Family Violence Committee, 85 Frankland, Richard, 115, 115 FVOs filed, 42–3 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), 122 Magellan case management, 44, 64–7, 81 Freedom of Information requests, 87–8 notices of child abuse or risk of family violence, full court judgments, number published, 3 42–3, 66 reports and events, 18 G Saska & Radavich judgment, 60 Year in Review, 6 gender, staff by, 93–4 Family Violence Plan, 14 Gill, Shane Leslie, 73, 106 Faulks, John, 75, 103, 106 glossary of court-specific terms, xii retirement of, 6, 75 Gordon, Justice, 115 Federal Circuit Court of Australia governance issues, 4–5, 70 collaborates on Children’s Committee, 82 Grist, Helen, Australia Day Award, 16 funding for additional staff, 5 manages registry services, 4 H services provided to FCA by, 71 138 Hale, Brenda Marjorie, Baroness, 84 Federal Costs Advisory Committee, 86–7 Hannam, Hilary Rae Federal Court of Australia based in Parramatta, 74 creation of, 11 on Family Violence Committee, 85 services provided to FCA by, 4, 71 Higgins, Daryl J, 64–7 Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family High Court, appeals to from Family Court, 53 Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement, 98–9 highlights of 2016–17, 2 feedback management, 45, 87 Ho, Dennis, 84 Filippello, Angela, retirement of, 4 Hobart, Justice Benjamin based in, 73 final order applications Hogan, Jenny Deyell, based in Brisbane, 73 age of, 36 How do I. . .? webpages, 89 performance on, 27–8, 31 Hughes, Judge, on Family Violence Committee, 85 where notice of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 43 Finance Committee, 78, 102 I financial orders, performance on, 28 inclusion issues, 14 Finn, Mary Madeleine, 75 Independent Children’s Lawyers retirement of, 75 in Magellan cases, 65–6 first instance judgments, performance on, 3, 30 National Conference, 82 FitzGibbon, John DB, 76 training for, 83 as Senior Registrar, 76 Indigenous Action Plan, 14 on Rules Committee, 79 Indigenous Australians Forrest, Colin James employed by the Court, 97 based in Brisbane, 73 participation in Court operations and processes, committee memberships, 78, 102 83–4 on AAT, 75

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

Indonesia Australia Legal Development Facility, 20 L Information Publication Scheme, 87 Law Council of Australia, Family Law Section, 116 initiatives of the Family Court, 12–14 lawyers, online resources for, 89 interim applications, performance on, 27, 32 Le Poer Trench, Mark Frederick internal scrutiny, 88 based in Sydney, 74 International Consortium Resources website, 14 chairs Unrepresented Litigants Working international cooperation, 19–21 Group, 84 International Framework for Court Excellence, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 88 12–14, 77 Letter of Transmittal, iii list of requirements, 126–34 J Lister, Leisha Johns, Sharon Louise, 22, 74 Australia Day Award, 15–16 Johnston, William Philip, based in Sydney, 74 on Court Policy Committee, 78 judges on Family Violence Committee, 85 committee memberships, 77–86, 102–3 location judicial activities, 104–11 of judges, 73–5, 97 location of, 73–5, 97 staff by, 93, 96 numbers of, 97 Lojszczyk, Di, on Family Violence Committee, 85 139 of the FCA, 72–5 Loughnan, Ian James professional association memberships, 114 based in Sydney, 74 judgments, significant and noteworthy, 58–63 on Rules Committee, 79 Judgments Publications Office, establishment of, 6 judicial activities, 104–11 M judicial committees, 77–85 Macmillan, Kirsty Marion, 22 Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity, 84–5 based in Melbourne, 74 judicial officers of the FCA Magellan case management, 44, 64–7, 81 see judges management and accountability, 69–88 judicial services complaints, 39 Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), 11, 122 jurisdiction of the Family Court, 11 Mathieson, J, on Federal Costs Advisory Committee, 86 K May, Michelle assigned to Appeal Division, 48, 73 Kaye, Justice, 115 awarded AM, 15 Kent, Michael Patrick based in Brisbane, 73 assigned to Appeal Division, 49, 73 Britt & Britt judgment, 61–2 based in Brisbane, 73 on Court Policy Committee, 78 Saska & Radavich judgment, 60 professional legal development, 112 Koori Twilight: a conversation about culture, 115 retirement of, 6

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

McClelland, Robert Bruce, based in Sydney, 74 O Melbourne, judges based in, 74 O’Brien, Richard, based at FCWA, 75 mission of the Court, 2 online resources Moncrieff, Simon, based at FCWA, 75 Twitter account, 3, 17, 118 Moroni, Magistrate, on Rules Committee, 79 web pages, 89 Muir, Wayne, 83 organisational structure, 71 Multicultural Plan, 14 outcome and program, 11, 26, 92 Murphy, Peter John overview of the court, 10–18 assigned to Appeal Division, 49, 73 based in Brisbane, 73 chairs Court Excellence Committee, 13 P Saska & Radavich judgment, 60 parenting orders, 28, 89 Muslim citizens in Indonesia, Family Courts for, 20–1 Parramatta, judges based in, 74 Myers, Judge, inquiry into Aboriginal and Pawley, Ken, 10 Torres Strait Islander incarceration, 83 Paxton, Registrar, on Rules Committee, 79 pay rates for staff, 100–1 N pending applications, age of, 34 performance pay arrangements, 100 140 National Calendar, management of, 81 performance report, 25–45 National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, 6 Appeal Division, 50–3 National Enquiry Centre, 4, 118 Phelan, A, on Federal Costs Advisory Committee, 86 National Independent Children’s Lawyers’ practice and procedure, 63, 80 Conference, 82 Principal Registrar position, responsibilities of, 76 National Judicial College of Australia, professional association memberships, 114 family violence training course, 6 Professional Development and Judicial Welfare National Support Office, staff leaving, 4 Committee, 81, 103 New South Wales, family law registries, 119–20 professional legal development, 112 Newcastle, judges based in, 74 program, 11, 26, 92 non-ongoing staff, 96 Public Governance, Performance and Accountability non-salary benefits, 100 Act 2013 (Cth), 4 Northern Region, 49 Public Service Act 1999 (Cth), workplace agreements under, 99–100 Northern Territory, family law registries, 120 Publications noteworthy judgments, 58–63 see also online resources Notices of Appeal and Cross-Appeal, 51–3 Family Violence Best Practice Principles, 18 notices of child abuse or risk of family violence, 42–3, 66 Information Publication Scheme, 87 Parenting Orders–what you need to know, 89 purpose of the Court, 2, 10, 27

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

Q Stevenson, Janine Patricia Hazelwood based in Sydney, 74 Queen’s Birthday Honours List, Justice May awarded AM, 15 on AAT, 75 Queensland, family law registries, 120 on Family Violence Committee, 85 Strickland, Steven Andrew assigned to Appeal Division, 48, 73 R based in Adelaide, 73 Reader’s Guide, viii subpoenas, rules for amended, 79 Rees, Judith Anne Sullivan, Catherine, 71 based in Sydney, 74 Supreme Court of Indonesia, relations with, 20–1 committee memberships, 78–9 surrogacy issues, Clarence & Crisp judgment, 58–9 registry operations provided by FCC, 71 Suryadi, Bapak, 20 Religious Courts in Indonesia, 20 Sydney, judges based in, 74 reserved judgements, age of and time to deliver, 38 retirements of judicial officers, 4, 6, 75 T Reynolds, Jane, on Court Excellence Committee, 13 Rules Committee, 79–80, 102 Tasmania, family law registries, 121 Thackray, Stephen Ernest Ryan, Judith Maureen 141 assigned to Appeal Division, 49, 73 based at FCWA, 75 based in Sydney, 74 Clarence & Crisp judgment, 58–9 committee memberships, 79, 85 heads Appeal Division, 6, 48, 73 on Court Policy Committee, 78 Thornton, Christine, 22, 74 S timely completion of cases, 26 Saska & Radavich judgment, 60 Townsville, Justice Tree based in, 74 Senate Estimates Hearings, 88 transparency issues, 6 Senior Executive Service, 76, 100 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth), Senior Registrar, responsibilities of, 76 amendments to rules resulting from, 80 service locations, 12 Tree, Peter William, based in Townsville, 74 settlement of cases, performance on, 29 turnover in workforce, 98 sexual abuse Twitter see child abuse; family violence issues contact details, 118 significant and noteworthy judgments, 58–63 FCA Twitter account, 17 social justice issues, 40 number of followers, 3 social media, 17 South Australia, family law registries, 121 Southern Region, 49 Staffing, 93–101

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 INDEXES

U unrepresented litigants, 40–1, 84

V values of the Court, 2 Vickery, Justice, 115 Victoria Court Network service, 54–5 family law registries, 121 Victoria University Internship Program, 22–3 Violence see child abuse; family violence issues vision of the Court, 2, 10

W Waight, Nerita, 83 142 Walters, John Myer, based at FCWA, 75 Watts, Garry Allan based in Sydney, 74 on Finance Committee, 78 website, resources on, 89 Western Australia administered by a FCWA registrar, 49 appeals from, 51 family law registries, 121 FCWA judges holding FCA commissions, 75 Widiana, Bapak Wahyu, 20 workforce turnover, 98 World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights, 84

Y Year in Review, 4–7 Young Persons Family Law Advisory Group, 82 Yourtown research project, 82 YouTube channel, 17

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17 FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 16:17