Family Court of Australia Annual Report 2014–2015

Transcription

Family Court of Australia
Annual Report
2014–2015
Annual Report
2014–2015
ISSN: 1035–9060 (print version)
ISSN: 2203–1863 (online version)
© Commonwealth of Australia 2015
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 communication@familylawcourts.gov.au
Enquiries
If you would like to comment on this annual report, or have any queries, please contact:
National Communication
Family Court and Federal Circuit Court
GPO Box 9991
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Ph: +61 2 6243 8690
Fax: +61 2 6243 8737
Email: communication@familylawcourts.gov.au
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 2014–15 Attorney-General’s Portfolio Budget Statements.
Acknowledgments
This report reflects the efforts of many people. Special thanks go to the Court staff involved in contributing
and coordinating material, as well as the following specialist contractors:
Design and typesetting: Papercut Graphic Design
Printing: Paragon Printers
This annual report is printed on Monza Recycled Satin Artboard (cover) and Monza Recycled Satin (inside pages).
Monza Recycled is Certified Carbon Neutral by The Carbon Reduction Institute (CRI) in accordance with the
global Greenhouse Gas Protocol and ISO 14040 framework. Monza Recycled contains 55 per cent recycled
fibre, and 45 per cent elemental chlorine free pulp. 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
ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 iii
Contents
Reader’s guide
Acronyms and abbreviations
Glossary of court-specific terms
III
X
XI
XIV
1 The Court’s year in review 2014–151
Highlights
3
Appeals
4
Court and the community
5
Finance and administration
6
2014–15 financial result
6
2 Overview of the court
9
About the Court
10
Portfolio Budget Statements outcome and program
11
Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements
14
Court service locations
28
Court initiatives
30
International cooperation
42
3 Report on court performance
47
Outcome and program 48
Changes to previously published figures
48
Historic performance against KPIs 49
Judicial services 50
Summary of performance 51
Detailed report on performance 52
National coverage as appellate court
65
Social justice and equity impacts
65
Registry and National Enquiry Centre services
69
Summary of performance
69
Detailed report on performance
71
Client feedback and complaints management
75
iv FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
4 Appeals79
Appeal Division 80
Appeals 80
Full Court sittings 81
Administration of appeals 81
Trends in appeals
81
Proportion of notices of appeal filed by jurisdiction
84
Appeal demographics
86
Age of finalised appeals 87
Appeals to the High Court of Australia 87
5 Significant and noteworthy judgments
89
F Firm & Ruane and Ors 92
Fields & Smith 94
X Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) & Milstead and Anor 96
Teo & Guan 97
6 Management and accountability
99
Corporate governance
100
Judicial officers of the Family Court of Australia 102
Judges assigned to the Appeal Division
103
Judges
103
Appointments, retirements and resignations
106
Senior executives 107
Judicial committees reporting
109
Judicial committee highlights
111
Collaborative committees
118
Senior management committees
119
Corporate and operational planning and associated performance reporting and review
122
Internal audit
123
Risk management
123
Financial risk
124
Fraud prevention and control
124
Information Publication Scheme
125
Ethical standards
125
Management and accountability
126
Service Charter and Service Commitments
126
Feedback and service improvements
127
ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 v
External and internal scrutiny
127
External evaluations
129
Internal evaluations
129
Management of human resources
130
Workforce planning, retention and turnover
132
Workforce turnover
137
Agreement making
138
Training, learning and development
139
Disability reporting
141
Productivity gains
142
Financial management
142
Purchasing, consultants and contracts
147
Assets and property management
148
Correction of errors in 2013–14 report
151
7 Financial statements
153
Index to the financial statements
154
Notes to and forming part of the financial statements
168
8 Appendixes
213
Appendix one
214
Appendix two
215
Appendix three
216
Appendix four
226
Appendix five
229
Appendix six
230
Appendix seven
235
Appendix eight
236
Appendix nine
241
Appendix ten
249
Appendix eleven
259
Appendix twelve 263
9 Indexes
267
List of requirements
268
Alphabetical index
273
vi FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
List of Tables
Table 2.1
Registered users of the Commonwealth Courts Portal, 2011–12 to 2014–15
24
Table 2.2Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court,
2011–12 to 2014–15
25
Table 2.3
Family Court of Australia service locations
28
Table 3.1
Summary of performance against all KPIs targets from 2010–11 to 2014–15
49
Table 3.2
Summary of performance—judicial services
51
Table 3.3
Appeal caseload 2010–11 to 2014–15
65
Table 3.4
Summary of performance—client services
70
Table 3.5
National Enquiry Centre performance, 2010–11 to 2014–15
74
Table 4.1Notice of appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction,
2010–11 to 2014–15 82
Table 4.2
Other applications filed in appeal cases, 2010–11 to 2014–15
83
Table 6.1
Categories of Family Court and Federal Circuit Court expenditure
144
Table 6.2Categories of Family Court and Federal Circuit Court
Administration expenditure
146
Table 8.1
Entity Resource Statement 2014–15
214
Table 8.2
Expenses for Outcome 1
215
Table 8.3
Staff by location
216
Table 8.4
Staff by gender
217
Table 8.5
Staff by attendance status
218
Table 8.6
Ongoing staff by location and classification
219
Table 8.7
Non-ongoing staff by location and classification
219
Table 8.8
Indigenous staff by location, gender and employment status
220
Table 8.9
Total number of judges, 30 June 2015
220
Table 8.10
Workforce turnover
221
Table 8.11Family Court and Federal Circuit Court employees covered by the
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia
Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014
222
Table 8.12
Employees covered by other agreements
223
Table 8.13
AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification
224
Table 8.14Classification structure and pay rates in accordance with the
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia
Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014*
225
Table 8.15Family Court and Federal Circuit Court
environmental impact/usage data, 2012–13 to 2014–15
230
ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 vii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1
The outcome and program of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court
48
Figure 3.2
Summary workload by application type, 2014–15
52
Figure 3.3
Issues sought on Final Order cases filed, 2014–15
53
Figure 3.4
Attrition and settlement rates in the Court’s caseload, 2010–11 to 2014–15
54
Figure 3.5
Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2010–11 to 2014–15
55
Figure 3.6
Final orders applications, 2010–11 to 2014–15
56
Figure 3.7
Applications in a case, 2010–11 to 2014–15
56
Figure 3.8
Consent orders applications, 2010–11 to 2014–15
57
Figure 3.9
All applications, 2010–11 to 2014–15
57
Figure 3.10
All applications, clearance rates, 2010–11 to 2014–15
58
Figure 3.11
Age of pending applications, 2010–11 to 2014–15
59
Figure 3.12
All applications, time pending, 2010–11 to 2014–15
60
Figure 3.13Reserved judgments outstanding (pending)
less than three months, as at 30 June 2010–11 to 2014–15
61
Figure 3.14Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending),
at 30 June 2010–11 to 2014–15
61
Figure 3.15
Applications finalised within 12 months, 2010–11 to 2014–15
62
Figure 3.16
All applications, time to finalise, 2010–11 to 2014–15
63
Figure 3.17Reserved judgments delivered within three months,
2010–11 to 2014–15 (all reserved judgments)
63
Figure 3.18Time to deliver reserved judgments 2010–11 to 2014–15
(all reserved judgments)
64
Figure 3.19
64
Total judicial services complaints, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Figure 3.20Proportion of litigants’ representation status, finalised cases,
2010–11 to 2014–15
66
Figure 3.21
Proportion of litigants’ representation status, at trials, 2010–11 to 2014–15
66
Figure 3.22
Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2010–11 to 2014–15
67
Figure 3.23Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse
or risk of family violence is filed, 2010–11 to 2014–15
67
Figure 3.24
Magellan cases, 2010–11 to 2014–15
68
Figure 3.25
Administration complaints issues 2014–15
76
Figure 4.1
Notice of appeals, 2010–11 to 2014–15 83
Figure 4.2Proportion of notice of appeals filed by jurisdiction of decree,
2010–11 to 2014–15
84
Figure 4.3
85
Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 2010–11 to 2014–15 viii FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Figure 4.4Proportion of Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation,
2010–11 to 2014–15
85
Figure 4.5
Proportion of appellants by gender, 2010–11 to 2014–15
86
Figure 4.6
Proportion of appellants’ representation status, 2010–11 to 2014–15
86
Figure 4.7
Months to finalise appeals, 2010–11 to 2014–15
87
Figure 6.1
Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2015
101
Figure 6.2Family Court and Federal Circuit Court expenditure ($205.778 million),
2014–15 ($million)
143
Figure 6.3Family Court and Federal Circuit Court Administration
(FC&FCC Admin) expenditure ($62.240 million), 2014–15
145
ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 ix
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 2014–15 reporting
year. Prepared according to parliamentary reporting requirements, the report outlines the goals
stated in the Court’s Portfolio Budget Statements and relates them to the results achieved during
the year.
PART 1: The year in review—the Chief Justice’s overview highlighting significant issues and
initiatives the Court has undertaken during the reporting year.
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 above
outcome and related program. The performance reports are based on the outcome and program
framework and performance information in the 2014–15 Portfolio Budget Statements and the
Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2014–15 for the Attorney-General’s portfolio.
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 Full Court
decisions made during 2014–15.
PART 6: Management and accountability—information on corporate governance, external scrutiny,
human resource management, financial management, purchasing, consultants and contract
management, legal services, assets management and other activities relevant to the general
administration of the Court.
PART 7: Financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2015—the audited financial statements
for 2014–15.
PART 8: Appendices—the resource statement, resources for outcomes, staffing profile, work health
and safety, advertising and market research, ecologically sustainable development and
environmental performance, grant programs, committees, external involvement, judicial activities,
international visitors and contact details.
PART 9: Index and list of requirements
The following should assist readers to locate information in the annual report and to understand
court-specific language:
−− Acronyms, abbreviations and a glossary of court-specific terminology—pages XV–XIV
−− List of requirements—pages 268
−− Alphabetical index—pages 273
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/
x FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Acronyms and abbreviations
AAT
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
AGD
Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department
AGIMO
Australian Government Information Management Office
AHS
After Hours Service
ALAF
Australian Leadership Awards Fellowship
ALS
Aboriginal Legal Service
AM
Member of the Order of Australia
ANAO
Australian National Audit Office
AO
Officer of the Order of Australia
APS
Australian Public Service
ASL
Average Staffing Level
ATSI
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AUSTLII
Australasian Legal Information Institute
AWA
Australian Workplace Agreement
BSDO
Business Systems Development Officer
CaLD
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
CCP
Commonwealth Courts Portal
CDS
Child Dispute Services
CEI
Chief Executive Instruction
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
CJ
Chief Justice
CLC
Commonwealth Law Courts
CMAG
Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group
COMP
Court Ordered Mediation Program
CPC
Chief Justice’s Court Policy Committee
CPSU
Commonwealth and Public Sector Union
CSA
Client Service Advice
CSO
Client Service Officer
ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 xi
CSSMG
Client Services Senior Managers Group
CthCommonwealth
DCJ
Deputy Chief Justice
DHS
Department of Human Services
ECN
Environmental Champions Network
ECONET
Ethics Contact Officer Network
EDCS
Executive Director Client Services
EIU
Early Intervention Unit
EL
Executive Level of the Australian Public Service
EMS
environmental management system
ESD
ecologically sustainable development
FAIM
Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management
FC
Family Consultant
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
ISDN
Integrated Services for Digital Network
IT
information technology
IVR
interactive voice recognition
Jjudge
KPI
Key Performance Indicator
xii FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MA
The Supreme Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Agung)
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
NEC
National Enquiry Centre
NSO
National Support Office
PBS
Portfolio Budget Statements
PGPA
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013
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
ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 xiii
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.
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.
xiv FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
1
THE YEAR
IN REVIEW
Goal
The Court’s goal is to deliver
excellence in service for
children, families and parties
through effective judicial
and non-judicial processes
and high-quality and timely
judgments, while respecting
the needs of separating
families.
Purpose
The purpose of the Court,
as Australia’s superior court
in family law, is to:
• determine cases with the
most complex law, facts
and parties
• cover specialised areas in
family law, and
• provide national coverage
as the appellate court in
family law matters.
The core services of the
Court are those that:
• are prescribed by
legislation
• enable and support judges
to determine cases, and
• meet duty of care
requirements.
Vision
The Court’s vision provides for:
• putting children and
families first in the design
and delivery of services
• furthering functional
family relstionships after
separation
• ensuring independence
and impartiality in the
judicial process
• having staff who are valued
for providing quality service
for families
• providing quality child
dispute services for
families, and
• being at the forefront of the
development of services.
Highlights
11,951
Growth in registered
users of Commonwealth
Courts Portal of
provisions of
proof that divorces
were granted
43,773
Average 187
live chats per day
75 per cent
of court users surveyed are satisfied
with their experience at the registries
356
appeals finalised
33,178
calls to the NEC
82,446
divorce orders were
printed and posted
to clients
74,842
emails sent in
response to
telephone enquiries
1519
first instance judgments published
20,397
total
applications
filed
195,598
documents eFiled
13,457
consent
orders
finalised
225,101
counter enquiries
The Court’s year in review 2014–15
THE YEAR IN REVIEW
1
After several years of significant change in the
Family Court’s judiciary, due to a series of
retirements, the 2014–15 financial year has
presented a period of relative stability. At the end
of the 2014–15 reporting year, the Family Court
had a total of 33 judges with the retirement of one
judge, Justice Graham Bell, in February 2015 and
the appointment of Justice Robert McClelland who
commenced in Sydney in June 2015. This period
of stability has been in contrast to the previous
two financial years when six judges retired.
The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO
The timely replacement of judicial officers is
imperative at a time when the cases that come
before the Court have become increasingly
complex, and the community, quite appropriately,
is demanding more resources and attention on
issues such as family violence.
Whilst the number of filings in the Court remain stable, the workload of the Court continues to
be extremely demanding as the judges deal with cases involving issues of family violence and/
or allegations of child abuse, cases involving mental illness and/or substance abuse, which are
increasing in frequency, cases relating to international family law (including Hague Convention
abduction matters and the 1996 Protection Convention), medical procedures for which court
approval is required as well as property cases, including those involving accrued jurisdiction
and third parties.
Appeals
Whilst the number of filings for first instance work has been steady, the Appeal Division of the Court
has experienced an 18 per cent increase in the number of notice of appeal cases. The number
of unrepresented litigants in an appeal case has increased slightly. Cases involving unrepresented
litigants increase the time required in a case and places additional demands on the Court,
particularly on staff. On 12 March the Honourable Justice Murray Aldridge was appointed to the
Appeal Division and a new position of National Coordinating Appeals Registrar was created to
assist with the coordination of appeals across the four appeal regions.
4 FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
The Court has made submissions to two inquiries concerning family violence: the Senate Finance
and Public Administration References Committee’s Inquiry into Domestic Violence in Australia;
and the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence. The submissions explained the way in
which the various sections in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) concerning family violence interact
and the Rules; how the sections on family violence in the Act interact; some jurisprudence; as well
as rules, practices and procedures including screening processes for family violence.
Arising from these inquiries some continuing misunderstandings about the Court continue to
prevail, in particular the assertion that the work of the Court is carried out in secrecy and without
scrutiny. This is not the case and subject only to the inhibitions in s 121 of the Act. The Court
is open and anyone may attend and listen to cases. The judgments of the Court delivered after
contested hearings are published on AustLII and are available in hard copy publications for all
members of the community to read. The Court is inhibited by s 121 which prevents publication
of an account of proceedings which would identify parties, children or witnesses. As a result of
this, the cases on AustLII use pseudonyms rather than the actual names of the parties, however
the judgments are otherwise unaltered. There is nothing to prevent anyone who attends court
from discussing what has occurred with members of the public as long as the identification of
the parties, children or witnesses is not made. The manner in which the Court makes its decisions
in accordance with the Family Law Act is set out in the judgments which, as a superior court,
are a fundamental feature of decision making which must always be transparent.
The Family Law Act itself has been significantly amended nearly 80 times and been the subject
of numerous reviews since its inception 40 years ago. At the present time, the Family Law Council
has a reference in relation to looking at increased collaboration between the federal family law
system and the state-based child protection systems, including looking at enhanced information
sharing. The Australian Institute of Family Studies is also conducting an evaluation of the
amendments to the Act in 2011 with an emphasis on family violence and the extent to which the
legislative changes have brought about changes in decision making and orders the parties reach
by agreement. It is conceivable that once these reports have been concluded and considered by
Government even further amendments to the Act will occur.
A major achievement this year was the development of the Australian Standards of Practice for
Family Assessments and Reporting. This publication, created by the Family Court of Australia,
the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and the Family Court of Western Australia, aims to establish
a nationally consistent approach when family assessments are undertaken and reports are
prepared for the courts. The standards aim to:
−− promote good practice in conducting reporting in full family assessments by social workers
and psychologists in family law matters such as those completed under s 62G of the
Family Law Act and family reports commissioned privately,
−− provide information to the judiciary, agencies, legal professions and parties who utilise the
services of family assessors to increase the understanding in the broader sector as to what
constitutes good practice in family assessments and reporting, and
−− inform what can be expected as a minimum standard of practice when conducting family
assessments and preparing reports and they were the subject of wide stakeholder consultation.
ANNUAL REPORT 2014–2015 5
THE YEAR IN REVIEW
1
Court and the community
THE YEAR IN REVIEW
1
Finance and administration
As part of the 2015–16 Federal Budget, the current Government announced its intention to
implement reforms to the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court.
These reforms, to take effect from 1 July 2016, merge the corporate functions of all three courts
to form a single administrative body with a single appropriation under the Public Governance,
Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth). These changes will have a significant impact on
the future operations of the Family Court and at the time of writing this report, details of how these
reforms will be implemented and precisely how budgets will be allocated is yet to be determined.
2014-15 financial result
In accordance with the courts’ forecast of significant deficits for this and the outgoing years, the
underlying result for the 2014–15 financial year for the joint administration was a loss of $4,700,000.
The final report from the International Framework for Court Excellence implementation committee
was completed. As part of the implementation of the recommendations from this report, internal
arrangements for court governance have undergone some change. The Chief Justice’s Policy
Advisory Committee has been replaced with the Court Policy Committee and a number of changes
to the membership of committees has also occurred. Significant work has been done by each of
the members of the committees responsible for various areas. In particular, work is being done
internally by the Chair of the Court Performance Committee to ensure the maximum homogeneity
of court practices and processes across the different registries. Further details are provided in this
report at Part six.
During the year the appointment of the Honourable Linda Dessau AM as Governor of Victoria
from 1 July 2015 was announced. Her Honour is a former Judge of the Family Court who retired
in 2013 and we congratulate her on her appointment.
IN FOCUS
Court tour goes interactive
The Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court of Australia have launched an online video
for unrepresented litigants which explains what to expect when attending a court appointment or
hearing for the first time.
The video, which can be accessed from the courts’ YouTube channels, provides an insight into
preparing for court including:
−− what to bring to court
−− what to do when you arrive at court
−− the layout of a courtroom
−− how to address a judge, and
−− general court etiquette.
Many people involved in family law cases have never needed to attend court before and this video
aims to remove unnecessary stress or anxiety about what to expect.
In the Family Court, almost 30 per cent of cases involved at least one party with no legal
representation. Unrepresented litigants provide a unique challenge to the courts as they often
require extra resources to finalise their cases in a timely manner.
‘It is easy for clients of the courts to feel overwhelmed when attending
a court hearing or appointment. This video will help them to be more
prepared and more comfortable with the surroundings and the procedures
they need to follow.’
Richard Foster, Chief Executive Officer
To view the Court Tour visit the Family Court of Australia’s YouTube channel at:
www.youtube.com/familycourtAU
SCAN FOR VIDEO
2
OVERVIEW OF
THE COURT
OVERVIEW OF THE COURT
2
Overview of the Court
About the Court
The Family Court of Australia, through its specialist judges and staff, helps Australians to resolve
their most complex family disputes.
The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record established by Parliament in 1975
under Chapter III of the Constitution. It commenced operations on 5 January 1976 and consists
of a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and other judges. The Court maintains registries in all
Australian states and territories except Western Australia.
Goal
The Court’s goal is to deliver excellence in service for children, families and parties through effective
judicial and non-judicial processes and high-quality and timely judgments, while respecting the
needs of separating families.
Purpose
The purpose of the Court, as Australia’s superior court in family law, is to:
−− determine cases with the most complex law, facts and parties
−− cover specialised areas in family law, and
−− provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.
The core services of the Court are those that:
−− are prescribed by legislation
−− enable and support judges to determine cases, and
−− meet duty of care requirements.
Vision
The Court’s vision provides for:
−− putting children and families first in the design and delivery of services
−− furthering functional family relationships after separation
−− ensuring independence and impartiality in the judicial process
−− having staff who are valued for providing quality service for families
−− providing quality child dispute services for families, and
−− being at the forefront of the development of services.
The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record and deals with more complex matters.
These may include, for example:
−− Parenting cases including those that involve 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; complex cases where
orders sought would have the effect of preventing a parent from communicating with or
spending time with a child; multiple expert witnesses; complex questions of law and/or
special jurisdictional issues; international child abduction under the Hague Convention;
special medical procedures; and/or international relocation.
−− Financial cases that involve multiple parties, valuation of complex interests in trust or corporate
structures, including minority interests, multiple expert witnesses, complex questions of law
and/or jurisdictional issues (including accrued jurisdiction) or complex issues concerning
superannuation (such as complex valuations of defined benefit superannuation schemes).
The Court also has original jurisdiction under certain Commonwealth Acts, including the:
−− Marriage Act 1961
−− Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988
−− Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, and
−− Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Portfolio Budget Statements outcome and program
The Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia FMA Act agencies were
merged into a single FMA Act agency from 1 July 2013, known as the Family Court and
Federal Circuit Court. On 1 July 2014 FMA Act agencies became non-corporate Commonwealth
entities under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
The outcome and program framework of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court sets out the
agency’s commitments to the Government. Each year, details of the framework are outlined in the
Portfolio Budget Statements, along with relevant performance information. Government outcomes
are the intended results, impacts or consequences of actions by the Government on the Australian
community. Agencies deliver programs that are government actions taken to deliver the stated
outcomes. Agencies are required to identify the programs that contribute to government outcomes
over the Budget and forward years.
Outcome
The outcome of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court is described below:
Provide access to justice for litigants in family and federal law matters within the jurisdiction of
the courts through the provision of judicial and support services.
2
Jurisdiction
2
Program
The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court has a single program under which all services are provided:
The program objectives for the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court are managed via three
separate components:
1. Family Court of Australia
−− The objective of the Family Court of Australia is to support Australian families involved in
complex family disputes by deciding matters according to the law, promptly, courteously and
effectively. This involves:
–– providing decisions in complex family disputes for separating Australian couples and
families through the determination of matters, and
–– providing national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.
2. Federal Circuit Court of Australia
−− The objective of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia is to provide a simple and accessible
alternative to litigation in the Family Court and Federal Court.
−− Where practical, parties are encouraged to resolve their disputes through dispute resolution
and negotiation methods.
3. Family Court and Federal Circuit Court administration
−− The objective of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court administration is to assist the
courts to achieve their stated purpose by:
–– maintaining an environment that enables judicial officers to make determinations
–– providing effective and efficient registry services
–– effectively and efficiently managing resources, and
–– providing effective information and communication technologies.
Deliverables and key performance indicators
The deliverables and key performance indicators associated with each component encompass
core service standards for judicial services and client services (that is, the family law registries,
where people attend in person, and the National Enquiry Centre, the first point of contact for
telephone and email enquiries).
Although a single entity for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability
Act 2013, the Family Court of Australia remains a separate Chapter III Court under the Australian
Constitution and the deliverables and Key Performance Indicators applicable to the Court,
as identified in the 2014–15 Portfolio Budget Statements are shown on the next page.
Judicial services deliverables
Goal (total number for 2014–15)
Final order finalisations
2822
Interim order finalisations
3367
Consent order finalisations
13,200
Other finalisations
Registries and NEC deliverables
375
Goal (total number for 2014–15)
Telephone enquiries served
270,800
Counter enquiries served
150,000
Email enquiries responded to
50,000
Key performance indicators
Judicial services deliverables
Clearance rate (final orders)
Target
100 per cent
Cases pending conclusion that are less than 12 months old
75 per cent
Reserved judgments are waiting less than three months after
the conclusion of the trial
75 per cent
Number of complaints as a percentage of applications received
1 per cent
Registries and NEC KPIs
Goal (total number for year)
National Enquiry Centre telephone enquiries answered within
90 seconds
80 per cent
Counter enquiries served within 20 minutes
75 per cent
Email enquiries responded to within two working days
80 per cent
Applications lodged processed within two working days
75 per cent
2
Judicial services KPIs
2
Strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget Statements
International Framework for Court Excellence
In 2013, the Chief Justice committed the Family Court of Australia to holistically implementing the
International Framework of Court Excellence (the framework).1 Early in 2013, the Chief Justice
formed a Court Excellence Committee, chaired by Justice Murphy, and comprising Justices Finn,
Cronin, Austin and Loughnan with support from Regional Registry Manager, Jane Reynolds.
Having completed a comprehensive internal survey of all judges and staff in 2013 to obtain a robust
‘self-assessment’ of the Court’s functioning against the principles promoted in this framework in the
first year, the Court has spent this financial year implementing the central recommendations arising
from that assessment in order to improve the Court’s performance. The main achievements are
reported below.
The Appeal Division
The Appeal Division is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court and is considered the ‘flagship’
of the Court’s work. To ensure the Appeal Division is properly supported, it has been recommended
that judicial commissions be made to this Division to reflect the legislative provisions of the Act.
Pending appointments being made by the Executive to the Appeal Division, the Family Court has
ensured that the Full Courts are scheduled in a timely way and deliver timely decisions by assigning
first instance judges to the Appeal Division. Further, additional registrar and coordination resources
have been assigned to support the judicial work of the Full Courts and reporting by the Appeal Division.
Governance and communication
On the recommendations of the Court Excellence Committee, the Chief Justice reformed the
governance model of the Court by establishing a new Court Policy Committee to oversee five
new standing committees (see page 109 for more information on the new committee governance
structure). This arrangement has successfully delivered improved decision making,
judicial participation in the business of the Court, and enhanced approaches to implementation
of decisions.
The Chief Justice noted that internal communication could be improved and has implemented a
quarterly report to the judges which sets out the critical developments of the quarter. Her Honour
also provides periodic and timely updates to judges on the business of the Court Policy
Committee, and any other significant deliberations outside of her Honour’s quarterly report.
Strategic Plan
The Court has set in process the development of a strategic plan on critical matters such as its
jurisdiction vis-a-vis the Federal Circuit Court. Noting that jurisdiction for first instance matters is
almost completely concurrent with the Federal Circuit Court’s family law jurisdiction, the strategic
plan is designed to set out a preferred approach for the transfer of matters to the Family Court of
Australia, noting the judicial resources of the Court and its priority to the Appeal Division.
1 www.courtexcellence.com
A critical area of the framework is taking account of court user’s views of their experience of
registry services. In 2014, the courts undertook a second comprehensive court user satisfaction
survey. This survey entailed face-to-face and online surveys of litigants, lawyers and others who
attend the courts.
Over 75 per cent of those surveyed reported overall satisfaction with their experience at the registries.
Users reported that they found staff professional and respectful, the processes of the courts fair and
that the judges listened to their cases.
Areas for improvement included that more courts should start on time and litigants reported that
they would like better information about what to expect when they attend court.
The results of the 2014 survey were, in many respects, similar to those reported in 2011.
Significantly, the survey included detailed questions for litigants not represented by a lawyer.
While those court users reported greater difficulty with some of the processes and procedures
than those who are represented, their satisfaction with staff and with the courts overall, was not
markedly different to those who are represented.
Staff had their say
The staff of the Court participated fully in the court excellence assessment process. The most
central finding was that staff generally enjoy their work and rate the work of the Court highly.
The area for improvement identified in the staff surveys was a call for improved internal
communication, or more precisely, better consultation and engagement about critical matters.
The Executive Director, Client Services, with the registry managers, has worked on this feedback
by convening more regular two-way discussions with staff. One of the outputs of those processes
is the Registry Services Delivery Strategy 2014–19 which sets out a vision for services to the public
and to judges and is reflective of court excellence. See page 33 for more information on this strategy.
Access and inclusion framework for registry services
The Court will continue 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.
2
Court user satisfaction
2
The current plans under the framework are:
−− Multicultural Plan
−− Family Violence Plan
−− Indigenous Action Plan
−− Disability Action Plan (under development), and
−− Mental Health Support Plan (to be developed).
The Court recognises that people do not neatly fit into a single target client group, hence the
Court has tried to adopt a flexible model of service delivery that allows staff to tailor services
to the individual’s need.
Multicultural Plan 2013–15
The Multicultural Plan was developed in response to a Commonwealth Government requirement.
As part of its development, the Court engaged Maria Dimopoulos of Myriad Consulting to undertake a
comprehensive review of multicultural access and equity at the Court. The review’s findings and
recommendations have informed the projects currently being implemented under the plan.
The following provides highlights of the completed, ongoing and new work undertaken to improve
access and equity for the Court’s culturally and linguistically diverse clients. These have occurred
in addition to work undertaken to improve services at a local registry level.
New projects
Let’s Talk: Cultural Competence e-learning
The Let’s Talk cultural competence e-learning
package provides staff with the knowledge, skills
and awareness needed to work competently with
culturally diverse clients across a range of service
scenarios. Using a specifically built website,
the package uses adult learning principles to deliver
over two hours of training that combines text with
videos, podcasts, TED talks, interactive scenarios,
quizzes, reflection exercises and links. With the
package now complete, staff will commence the
online training in August 2015.
The new Let’s Talk cultural competence
e-learning package
Through the use of hover text, family law terminology used on the Application for Divorce form on
the Commonwealth Courts Portal is now accompanied by plain English definitions. Litigants are
able to hover their mouse over a particular word to view a plain English explanation of its meaning.
This project specifically targets litigants experiencing language barriers and unrepresented litigants.
The court forms available on the Portal also provide links to the LawTermFinder, a website which
allows clients to search for plain English definitions for 400 commonly used family law terms and
view translations, for these terms, into Arabic, Vietnamese, Spanish, Simplified and Traditional
Chinese. LawTermFinder is a joint project between the Attorney-General’s Department and
Macquarie University.
Website rebuild – culturally and linguistically diverse client pages
The Court’s new website (launched in May 2015)
incorporates information and resources for
culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD)
clients that will help them navigate the family law
system and get the support they need. A landing
page has been specifically designed for CaLD
clients to provide a single and easy gateway to
tailored information, forms, resources and links
to relevant external support.
The culturally and linguistically diverse client
landing page on the Family Court website
National Enquiry Centre (NEC) post-inquiry email
The post-telephone inquiry email, sent by the NEC to clients, now includes updated and
improved links to support clients who require interpreters, those who need mental health
support, Indigenous families, people experiencing family violence and individuals who need
language assistance.
Forced marriage
Staff across the country participated in a workshop held by the Attorney-General’s Department
to raise awareness of forced marriage and trafficking issues for frontline officers who are likely
to come into contact with people in, or at risk of, a forced marriage. The workshop included
best-practice information on how to respond effectively to suspected cases of forced marriage,
including information on the forced marriage legislative framework, key indicators and referral
pathways. Staff have been made aware of the fact sheets and resources that were supplied at
the workshops and copies are available for staff to access.
2
Commonwealth Courts Portalplain language hover text
2
Ongoing work
There are a wide range of standard practices and policies that are specifically aimed to support
CaLD clients and are continually reassessed and updated:
−− staff are skilled to organise and provide access to interpreter services
−− the Court’s community language allowance encourages staff with language skills to develop
and use their language skills with clients
−− all webpages and emails sent to clients provide a link to the LawTermFinder
(lawtermfinder.mq.edu.au) as a source of plain English and translated definitions
of family law terms
−− through collaboration with the Department of Human Services (DHS), the judiciary and staff
have access to DHS’s online guide to ethnic naming practices which covers the naming
conventions of 66 languages, including some from newly emerging Australian communities
−− registry staff refer CaLD clients, where appropriate, to community support services, and
−− the Court participates in a range of Harmony Day activities including recognising outstanding
contributions through Harmony Day Awards.
The NEC
To support CaLD clients, the NEC takes calls in other languages through the Telephone Interpreter
Service. Further, they provide procedural information and legal referrals on a range of topics
often relevant to CaLD clients such as getting documents translated, getting a divorce if you were
married overseas, and information about using interpreters for court events. The NEC has ongoing
involvement with the Forced Marriage Network through workshops and meetings. They also
maintain a close working relationship with the Family Relationship Advice Line who are able to
link CaLD clients, and others with specific support needs, to community and Government services.
Family Violence Plan 2014–16
Family violence remains widespread in Australia affecting adults
and children who experience and or live in fear of it. It directly
affects the physical and emotional wellbeing of families.
The Court’s family violence plan was developed in recognition of
the importance of having a plan which sets out specific actions
to support those experiencing, or at risk of, family violence.
The Family Violence Plan 2014–16
Family Violence Screening Tool
During 2014, Child Dispute Services worked with the American authors of the Mediator’s Assessment
of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC) tool to develop a Family Court specific family violence
screening tool. Since April 2015, this tool has been piloted at the Melbourne and Brisbane
registries, using a method in which parents complete and submit responses prior to their interview.
Family consultants can then use an individual’s responses to better target their examination of
family violence risks during clinical interview.
Despite trialling alternate methods for family violence screening – which may or may not be adopted
nationally – there are comprehensive professional directions for family consultants regarding the
assessment of violence risks. These outline a clear, stepwise, and prescriptive process that clinical
staff must undertake when addressing family violence during assessments.
Safety at court
In Brisbane, staff worked with security personnel to ensure that clients who fear for their safety
are able to access Child Dispute Services in a safe and secure manner. This removed previously
existing ambiguity about how clients presented to security staff and steps to be taken.
Ongoing professional development and training
Family consultants
All family consultants joining the Court participate in a mandatory formal clinical induction process
which includes two x 30 minute lectures on family violence within their first six months in the role
and a requirement to read a summary of six academic papers relating to family violence.
Following the substantial legislative amendments in the area of family violence to the Family Law
Act in 2012, family consultants completed a full day of training to ensure that they were apprised
of the legislative changes, and afforded an opportunity to reflect on the manner in which their
clinical practice needed to adapt in line with these amendments.
Ongoing professional development in family violence in 2014–15 was delivered as a series of
three Family Violence Clinical Training Modules to all clinical staff and a monthly seminar series.
The modules focused on the types of personal and professional biases that can impact on clinical
practices, with a particular emphasis on balanced, robust and thorough examination/ reporting
of family violence in written documents. The monthly seminar series involves an external expert
presenting to staff on a topic relevant to their work. In relation to family violence, clinical staff
were provided with regular updates on the empirical trends and practice methods relating to
the assessment and treatment of family violence with topics including Men’s Behaviour Change
Programs – Do They Work and Should We Refer? (Professor Thea Brown); Forensic Examination
of Violence in a Family Law Context (Dr Chris Lennings); and Post-Separation Arrangements in
High Conflict Families (Professor Matthew Sanders).
With different registries seeing different presenting issues in litigants, registries are able to initiate
additional and tailored professional development activities. For example, in Brisbane,
Professor Cathy Humphries presented family violence, separated parents and fathering empirical
insights and intervention challenges to local family consultants.
2
New projects
2
Resources – family consultants
A range of resources are maintained, updated and made available to family consultants to ensure
they access the most up-to-date information and publications relating to family violence (and other
topics). Resources include an extensive collection of chapters and academic papers organised
by topic along with Connections, a software package which hosts video records of seminars and
conferences, as well as slides and academic papers, and includes a recently introduced series of
four x 70 minute videos of a conference delivered by international expert, Dr Phillip Stahl, the first
of which focussed on family violence.
Referrals to community and support organisations
All registries and the NEC provide contact details to litigants for community organisations including
organisations that provide support to those experiencing, or at risk of, family violence.
Some registries have arrangements to provide onsite support. For example, through Domestic
Violence NSW, the Women’s Family Law Support Service is located onsite in the Sydney registry,
and where appropriate, registry services staff advise clients of the service. In Adelaide, the SA
Women’s Information Service Court Support Program Volunteers assist women experiencing
family violence at the Family Court.
Other activities
The physical layout, court listing practices and the use of safety plans are all designed to protect
those who fear for their safety. When litigants have fears about attending a court appointment
at the same time, or in the same room, as a former partner, safe rooms are available in many
registries and provision can sometimes be made for separate entry and exit points for the client.
Alternatively litigants may be able to attend by phone or by video. Court staff are skilled in
developing safety plans and putting measures in place to assure a litigant’s safety.
Registry staff in Adelaide revisited training in relation to the FCC Notice of Risk to ensure they were
clear of the procedures to be undertaken when litigants requests forms and/or seek procedural
information about applications where there are allegations of family violence, risk of family violence,
child abuse and/or risk of child abuse.
In response to a change in the organisations contracted to provide security services to the courts,
registries have provided Safety at Court training for the incoming security guards.
For more information see the Family Violence Committee report on page 116.
The Family Court has a long history of promoting and improving access to justice for Indigenous
families dating back to 1993. In 2004 it developed the Family Court Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Plan and an Indigenous Plan for 2010 to 2013. In 2013 the Chief Justice set up the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach Committee to ensure that the Court’s administration
and judiciary work hand in hand to enable and facilitate participation of Indigenous Australians in
court processes.
The Court has consulted widely with Indigenous people and through its Indigenous Action Plan
2014–16, has identified and sought to make its services more responsive to the needs of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families. Some of the measures adopted by the
Family Court include cross-cultural education for judicial officers, registrars and family consultants
within the Court; the creation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander positions; the provision of
appropriate information and referrals, and the continued development of relationships with key
organisations and elders in the community.
Two full day training sessions on Indigenous Cultural Competence were held in Sydney and
Townsville attended by regional coordinators, senior family consultants and family consultants
from all registries. The sessions were led by Stephen Ralph, a Forensic Psychologist with
extensive experience working in the field of family law and child protection who is a Koori and a
descendent of the Gumbaynggirr people of the mid-north coast of NSW. Aboriginal people from
local communities attended the training. The Indigenous Cultural Competence training gave
family consultants skills in the particular clinical assessment needs of the Aboriginal community,
a better understanding legislative requirements and the opportunity to build relationships with
Aboriginal community members. At the conclusion of the training, professional directions were
reviewed and were found to be consistent with good practices.
Reconciliation week activities were held in some registries with attendance by local elders and
Aboriginal legal practitioners.
Indigenous courtroom at the Adelaide registry
2
Indigenous Action Plan 2014–16
2
Disability
The Court is currently working with disability experts to develop a Disability Action Plan for 2015–17.
The Family Court will continue to strive to be a court where clients with disability receive the services
and support needed to receive a fair hearing and obtain an appropriate outcome. The Court also
aims to encourage, enable and empower our employees with disability, and those with a carer role,
to achieve their full potential.
New projects
The Court’s new website incorporates information and resources for people with a disability and
their carers that will help them navigate the family law system and get the support they need.
A ‘landing page’ has been specifically designed to provide a single and easy gateway to tailored
information, forms, resources and links to relevant external support.
Ongoing work
There are a wide range of standard practices and policies that are specifically aimed to support
people with a disability. Hearing loops are provided in court proceedings for hearing impaired
litigants, and staff facilitate the presence of hearing dogs/ seeing eye dogs/ support animals in
courtrooms. The Court supports Hearing Awareness Week each year.
Mental health
Through the development of a Mental Health Action
Plan, the Court hopes to build on extensive work
done previously on setting up processes, referrals,
responses and support needed to assist those who
are mentally unwell or distressed.
The Court recognises that separation and divorce
is stressful and that it has an obligation, through its
practices, to support people wherever possible.
The mental health client landing page on the
Family Court website
−− referral to community organisations that are able to provide counselling and mental health
support during separation and divorce
−− protocols to get the right immediate assistance in situations where someone is threatening
to harm themselves or others either in person or over the telephone
−− providing resources to clients about handling stress, and
−− the recent launch of a single landing page on the Court’s new website for those with mental
health and/or emotional support needs which links to a range of resources and support.
Enhancing service to court users through information technology
The courts are continuously seeking to enhance access to justice and to provide meaningful
information necessary to advance litigation via their information technology systems. The courts’
IT strategies include being attentive to the needs of those who live in regional Australia, those who have
limited means, those who do not have legal representation, and those who may be disadvantaged
as a result of violence or language or some other barrier to justice.
Strategic initiatives to advance this effort include:
Ongoing improvement to the Commonwealth Courts Portal
The Commonwealth Courts Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au), launched in July 2007, is a continuing
initiative of the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court. The Portal provides
free web-based access to information about cases that are before these courts.
After registering, lawyers and parties can keep track of their cases, identify documents that have
been filed and view outcomes, orders made and future court dates. Users log on using a single
user ID and access multiple jurisdictions from a single central web-based system.
A popular function of the Portal is the ability for users to elect to be notified of any recent activity
on their files. In 2014–15 more than 250,000 such notifications were sent.
2
In previous training, staff were given skills in mental health first aid, on how to give appropriate
initial help and support to someone experiencing a mental health issue. Further, the Court has
in place a range of standard practices and policies that support people with mental health issues
or who are experiencing emotional distress. Current practices include:
2
The eFiling functions continue to be expanded and a number of enhancements were made to
the Portal, including:
−− application for Consent Orders can now be eFiled
−− a number of supplementary documents can now be eFiled
−− mandatory Notice of Risk has been added to Initiating Application and Initiating Application
Response eForms to assist in identifying cases with a risk of family violence, and
−− a new function to allow members of the public to request a copy of their divorce certificate for
divorces granted before implementation of the Commonwealth Courts Portal (certificates can
be downloaded directly from the Portal for more recent divorces).
Work has also continued to ensure that the Commonwealth Courts Portal complies with version
2.0 Level ‘AA’ of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. In addition, a complete end-to-end
usability review of the Portal was undertaken with a user experience expert advising on improved
screen designs. Development of these screens is expected to commence in 2015–16.
The following statistics highlight the significant growth in the number of Portal users as at 30 June 2015:
−− 5943 firms now registered (up from 4900 at 30 June 2014)
−− lawyer registrations have increased to 12,007 (up from 10,000 at 30 June 2014)
−− total registered users now at 196,865 (up from 153,092 at 30 June 2014).
Table 2.1 Registered users of the Commonwealth Courts Portal, 2011–12 to 2014–15
30 June 2012
30 June 2013
30 June 2014
30 June 2015
Number of law
firms registered
3280
4134
4965
5943
Number of lawyers
registered
6746
8370
9921
12,007
78,586
109,738
143,171
184,858
85,332
118,108
153,092
196,865
Other users
Total registered users
2011–12
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15
4912
7121
8927
10,797
Albury
501
802
1114
1695
Alice Springs
109
136
70
84
27,379
35,666
41,609
48,362
Cairns
1076
1350
1918
2619
Canberra
2004
2914
3420
4160
863
1000
1452
1757
5331
7594
9251
10,339
Darwin
359
519
822
1071
Dubbo
363
660
874
1257
Hobart
562
700
1001
1255
Launceston
734
876
902
976
1109
1672
2274
2658
Melbourne
19,329
31,650
37,747
45,774
Newcastle
4724
6700
8734
11,469
Parramatta
7736
11,101
13,441
17,729
746
1311
1664
1909
10,466
15,372
18,998
23,925
Townsville
2115
2787
2904
3758
Wollongong
1444
2352
3341
4004
91,862
132,283
160,463
195,598
Adelaide
Brisbane
Coffs Harbour
Dandenong
Lismore
Rockhampton
Sydney
Total
In Western Australia there were 7460 documents eFiled during 2014–15.
2
Table 2.2 Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, 2011–12 to
2014–15
2
Major Casetrack enhancement
Casetrack is the courts’ case management system introduced in 2002. A major enhancement
is currently underway to improve its useability. The changes will introduce new and updated
functionality, including a modern browser-based technology that provides a simplified approach
to managing the work done in chambers and in other areas of the courts’ operations. The first
new module was implemented in March 2014 and was specifically designed to simplify the
way chambers manage their dockets. Development of additional functionality continued during
2014–15.
Over recent years, and in response to the emerging challenging financial position, the courts
have separately, and as a combined entity, undertaken significant initiatives to reduce costs
and generate efficiencies; however there are still significant financial pressures upon the
Family Court and Federal Circuit Court.
Following consideration of various reviews into the courts’ structural funding issues, the Government
announced in its 2015–16 Budget that the following initiatives would be undertaken to assist the
courts in funding their operations into the future:
−− the courts’ fees would be raised to generate additional funding, part of which would be
retained by the courts to assist in meeting future funding requirements
−− the efficiency dividend arrangements applied by Government to agency funding would be
adjusted to recognise that judicial salaries were not a controllable cost of the courts
−− losses for 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18 were approved, and
−− the courts’ shared corporate service arrangements would be consolidated,
effective 1 July 2016, into the Federal Court of Australia.
The above initiatives are expected to allow the courts to operate at their current activity levels and
staffing in 2015–16. The resourcing plans for the consolidated shared service arrangements from
2016–17 will be finalised as part of the corporate consolidation process with the Federal Court
of Australia.
Outlook for 2015–16
In 2015–16, the following may have an impact on the Court and its delivery of services:
−− the implementation of the Government’s 2015–16 Budget decision to streamline the courts
corporate shared services arrangements by consolidating these functions into the Federal Court
of Australia from 1 July 2016. A significant amount of work and resources will be required
in 2015–16 to prepare for this consolidation of services to ensure an efficient and effective
transition is achieved
−− any Government decisions during the year that relate to the Australian Public Service
employment arrangements
−− Government or other initiatives relating to dealing with family violence, and
−− ongoing work concerning the adoption of the International Framework for Court Excellence.
2
Budgetary pressures
2
Court service locations
Table 2.3 Family Court of Australia service locations
Australian Capital Territory
Canberra (J, R, FC, CS)
New South Wales
Albury R&R (CS, RC), Armidale (RC, FamC),
Coffs Harbour (JC, RC), Dubbo R&R (CS, JC, RC, FC),
Lismore R&R (CS, JC, RC, FC), Newcastle (J, R, FC, CS),
Parramatta (J, R, FC, CS), Port Macquarie (FamC),
Sydney (J, R, FC, CS), Tamworth (RC, FamC),
Wollongong R&R (R, CS, FC)
Northern Territory
Alice Springs R&R (JC, FamC), Darwin (CS, JC, RC, FC)
Queensland
Brisbane (J, R, FC, CS),
Cairns R&R (R, FC, CS, JC), Mackay (JC, RC, FamC),
Rockhampton R&R (CS, JC, RC, FamC),
Townsville (J, R, FC, CS)
South Australia
Adelaide (J, R, FC, CS)
Tasmania
Devonport R&R (RC), Hobart (J, R, FC, CS),
Launceston R&R (CS, FC, JC, RC)
Victoria
Ballarat (RC), Bendigo (RC), Dandenong (R, FC, CS),
Geelong (RC), Melbourne (J, R, FC, CS), Mildura (RC),
Morwell (RC), Shepparton (RC), Warrnambool (RC)
Legend
J – Judge
R – Registrar
FC – Family Consultant
CS – Client Services
JC – Judicial Circuit
RC – Registrar Circuit
FamC – Family Consultant Circuit
R&R – Rural and Regional Registry
Registry or rural and regional registry
Circuit location
2
DARWIN
BRISBANE
ADELAIDE
SYDNEY
CANBERRA
MELBOURNE
HOBART
2
Court initiatives
Live Chat
Live Chat was launched on the courts’ websites in April 2014.
Live Chat is a cost effective and easily manageable channel of communication. Staff can multi-task
and manage up to four conversations at once and it also provides a convenient way for clients to
access the courts and engage with client service officers.
Since its launch, the courts have received 46,459 live chats.
Key statistics
−− 187 live chats per day.
−− 27 per cent of questions are about Portal support
−− 73 per cent are general questions, and
−− the most popular questions are about applying for a divorce and parenting applications.
Live Chat is available during business hours and can be accessed from the homepages of:
www.familycourt.gov.au, www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au and www.comcourts.gov.au
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.
−− attracted 976 new followers, bringing the total number of followers to 1974
−− tweeted 324 times– an average of over six tweets per week
−− was re-tweeted 635 times, and
−− had a potential reach of 1,393,251.
Follow the Court on Twitter https://twitter.com/FamilyCourtAU
YouTube
The Court’s YouTube channel provides information to clients in a different way to the usual form or
fact sheet. Videos currently available include:
−− How to apply for a divorce: serving divorce papers
−− File your application online with the Commonwealth Courts Portal
−− Islamic family law in Australia book launch
−− Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO – family violence interview
−− Australian leadership award – improving women’s access to justice in family law in the Pacific
−− Mediation – what to expect, and
−− Court Tour.
Visit the Family Court’s YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/familycourtAU
Online proof of divorce
An online proof of divorce request process was introduced to streamline the process for people
wanting to obtain a copy of their divorce order from the courts. The process involves a person
completing an online interactive form and submitting payment online by credit card. The Court
then provides an original copy of the divorce.
The new process has been very successful and to date 2454 requests have been made since
the online interactive from was introduced on 28 March 2015.
The new process has also streamlined the process for the courts in reducing the amount of back
office paperwork and time to process the requests.
2
During 2014–15 the Court:
2
Registry waiting times
Data from the courts’ client queue management system concerning client service waiting times and
the number of clients waiting for service at registry counters is transferred to the courts’ websites.
This provides lawyers and litigants with a view of wait times in the registry in real time. It informs
lawyers and litigants about the best time to visit registries, when demand is lower and they are
likely to spend less time waiting. It also assists registry staff in providing a better client service.
This is a small, low cost initiative aimed at improving customer service, providing better visibility
for litigants and lawyers regarding wait times, and using our existing resources efficiently and
effectively by spreading demand across business hours.
Counter waiting times are available for the Adelaide, Brisbane, Dandenong, Melbourne, Parramatta and
Sydney registries.
Intranet upgrade
Significant progress on the intranet upgrade has been made, however due to limited resources
and realignment of priorities, the intranet upgrade project has been delayed and the new intranet
is yet to be launched. The intranet will, however, benefit from a number of lessons learned from
the website redevelopment.
There was a change of scope for the intranet search requirement to include enterprise search
which has now been implemented and provides the intranet with enhanced search capabilities
across multiple platforms.
Work still to be done includes:
−− completion of content migration – to date over 5000 content items have been migrated
−− undertake quality assurance of content, and
−− resolve a small number of outstanding technical issues.
It is expected that the intranet launch will take place in 2015–16.
Registry Services Return
In 2015 a new reporting framework called the Registry Service Quarterly Return (RSR) was developed.
The RSR is designed to demonstrate that the operations in support of both courts in each registry are
being managed appropriately and effectively.
The RSR ensures a consistent focus with the Registry Services Strategy; demonstrates a systematic
approach to monitoring and managing registry services; monitors areas of important compliance
formally and regularly; identifies and mitigates areas of challenge and share success; and identifies
issues of national impact so that a holistic strategic response can be developed and implemented.
−− electronic filing
−− subpoena management
−− identification of inefficient registry practices
−− circuit management issues, and
−− new initiatives commenced within the registries.
The consolidated RSR provides a great deal of value to the courts as it:
−− provides visibility and sharing of challenges and successes across registries on a quarterly
basis, and assists in building a cohesive registry services management team
−− places greater importance on key management reports to improve understanding of the
dynamics and operations of the registry they lead
−− helps registry managers refocus regularly on agreed priorities, both tactical and strategic
−− demonstrates to stakeholders, in a structured way, how registry services are managed
recognising the budget and resources provided, and
−− further supports key objectives of the Court’s Excellence Framework.
Registry Services Delivery Strategy 2014–19
Registry managers met in May 2014 to develop a service delivery strategy for 2014–19.
The strategy, which is reviewed annually, focuses on the courts’ priorities over a five year period.
Key initiatives in the strategy include:
−− provide services that can be easily used via a range of pathways (live chat, portal, website,
phone and counter) with 24/7 access via the portal and website
−− adapt our services to the needs of court users, and empower them to prepare and manage
their cases
−− provide timely and high level support to the judiciary of both courts
−− ensure that our staff are adding value by being knowledgeable, well trained and courteous
−− provide user-friendly forms, simplified processes and accurate, up-to-date information
−− provide technologically innovative solutions such as the electronic court file
−− maintain up-to-date user-friendly websites that effectively meet the needs of litigants,
lawyers and the public
−− develop a range of innovative online services such as lodgment of consent orders and divorce
applications and enable payments
−− make available a range of services provided by staff with the training and experience to show
empathy for clients in a challenging period of their lives, and
−− provide face-to-face assistance to litigants who have special needs and/or require greater levels
of support.
2
The RSR also provides for reporting on broader issues, including:
2
Projects that will be gradually introduced over the next few years include:
−− an electronic court file that integrates the needs of the judiciary, increases accessibility for
litigants and lawyers and minimises administrative overheads
−− a ‘virtual registry’ that enables lawyers to leverage their own systems to access all the court-related
information they need, as well as enabling them to initiate applications, make payments and
complete all of their transactions with the courts online
−− specialised counter and telephone services for litigants who are unable to find the information
they need, or complete the relevant transactions online, and
−− training to ensure our staff are able to help litigants, lawyers and the judiciary derive maximum
benefit from the gradual introduction of new technologies.
Projects that will be further explored over the next few years include:
−− a smart phone/tablet application designed to facilitate access to specific services such as
fee payments and event reminders
−− utilisation of social networking tools to provide users with current information about registry services
−− partnerships with State and Commonwealth agencies designed to enhance and streamline
the provision of services in rural and regional Australia, and
−− a move to a model of registry service where the legal profession interacts with the courts by
electronic means.
At the first annual review, the Executive Director Client Services advised that the strategy remained
current and that many of the identified projects were well advanced, including the cashless
registry, eDivorce, eConsent and the registry services Wiki.
Client Service Senior Manager’s Group
The Client Service Senior Managers’ Group (CSSMG) comprises registry managers and registry and
judicial service managers from the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. The group aims to be
innovative in the development of new ideas and seeks to identify and implement ways to continually
improve service delivery across the courts by streamlining procedures, ensuring consistency in work
practice, providing better information and enhancing client contact with the courts.
During the reporting period, the group met on four occasions by video-link as well as communicating
via the courts’ Connections technology through a ‘CSSMG community’. Through this community
members can discuss issues, provide reports, post blogs and upload files for discussion within
the group.
−− developing a strategy to move to a cashless registry environment by 1 July 2015
−− ongoing exploration of eFiling procedures to ensure that the most efficient use of the
technology is being implemented in response to the growth in eFiling
−− enhancing the staff Peer Support Program, which provides practical and emotional support
for court staff when there are distressing events at work
−− assisting with the implementation of the new Notice of Risk form in the Federal Circuit Court –
a mandatory form for any person who files an application or response seeking parenting orders
in the Federal Circuit Court on or after 12 January 2015, and
−− assisting with debt collection strategies for unpaid fees.
There are other initiatives that are still under development, which will be implemented in the next
financial year.
Child Dispute Services fact sheets
CHILD DISPUTE SERVICES
chilD Dispute seRvices
FACT SHEET
Seeing a family consultant in the Family Court –
Frequently asked questions
I have been ordered to attend an appointment
with a family consultant.
Who are family consultants?
Family consultants are qualified social workers or
psychologists, with skill and experience in working
with children and families. They are appointed by
the Court to help parents and judges achieve the
best outcomes for children. Family consultants are
recognised as court experts in children’s matters.
Where do family consultants fit into the court
process?
Family consultants are advisors to the Court. They are
only involved with disputes about children. They are
not involved in disputes about property or finances.
In the Family Court, your case may be heard first
by a registrar, who will make orders about how
the case proceeds. The registrar may order that the
family takes part in the Child Responsive Program.
This program is aimed at helping the judge and the
parents understand what the children need. There
are a series of steps in the Child Responsive Program,
which include individual interviews with the parents/
carers (known as an Intake and Assessment Meeting)
and usually interviews with the child/ren (known as a
Child and Family Meeting).
For more information, see the fact sheet Child
Responsive Program.
After these interviews, the family consultant will write
a Children and Parents Issues Assessment and may
attend court on the first day of the trial. The trial
happens in stages. On the first day of the trial, after the
judge has heard initial information from the parents/
carers and the family consultant, the judge may ask the
family consultant to interview the parties and children
again and make a full, detailed assessment of what is
happening in the family and what the child/ren need,
and make recommendations about what is best for
the child/ren. The written report of this assessment is
known as a Family Report. Once the Family Report
has been prepared, the trial will resume. The family
consultant may be a witness at the trial.
For more information, see the fact sheet Family Reports.
family Dispute Resolution (hague Matters)
What is a hague convention case?
How soon after the order is made in court will
I receive notification of my appointment?
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international treaty under
which arrangements are made for the return of children who have been wrongfully removed from or retained
outside their country of habitual residence.
Appointments for an Intake and Assessment Meeting
and a Child and Family Meeting are made to fit with
your next court date.
The Convention sets up a central authority in each signature country to deal with applications for the return of
children taken to or from each country. The Australian Government Attorney-General's Department is the central
authority for Australia.
Appointments for a Family Report are made so that
the report is available by the due date given by the
Court. This may be some time after the order is made.
The Court will always try to make sure that you have
as much notice as possible.
How long will the appointment take?
Guiding principles and objectives

For an Intake and Assessment Meeting you should
allow approximately two hours.
The Hague Convention operates on the guiding
principles that:
it applies only to matters where the subject child
is under the age of 16. Proceedings under the
Convention cease on the day a child turns 16,
and
For a Child and Family Meeting you should allow
half a day.

the child’s welfare is best protected by a rapid
response to a parent having removed a child from
their country of habitual residence, and

the child must have habitually resided in a
contracting state directly before rights of custody
or access were breached.

child abduction in general must be prevented.
A judicial officer hearing a Hague matter may indicate
early in the process that dispute resolution may be
of assistance to parties, not just in relation to the
matter of return but in relation to parenting matters
generally. The judicial officer would encourage the
parties to agree on a dispute resolution process. If
the parties agree to participate in a dispute resolution
process, discussion then occurs about the most
suitable service provider. Due to the timeliness of
any Hague intervention, there are occasions where
it is more suitable for a family consultant (who has
undertaken specific training in dispute resolution)
located within Child Dispute Services, to undertake
the work. Other services in the community are well
placed to provide such services but may not be well
placed to provide the service in a timeframe that
aligns with judicial timeframes and expectations.
For a Family Report appointment, the appointment
letter may spell out how long you will need. Otherwise
you should allow a full day, as there may be a series
of appointments throughout the day. The family
consultant may also need to see you more than once.
The Convention aims to:
I am worried about my safety when I’m at court.
What can I do?
If you have any concerns about your safety while
attending court, or any appointment ordered by the
Court, call the National Enquiry Centre on 1300
352 000 before your court appointment or trial.
Options for your safety will be discussed. The Court
takes allegations of violence very seriously and a safety
plan will be put in place where the Court is aware
of concerns. By law, people must inform a court if
there is an existing or pending family violence order
involving themselves or their children.
For more information see the brochure
Do you have fears for your safety when attending court?

secure the prompt return of a child wrongfully
removed to or retained in a country which is
party to the Convention (‘contracting state’) to
the country (‘state’) of habitual residence

ensure that rights of custody and/or access of the
state of origin are respected, with judgement on
the custody to be rendered in that country, on
the assumption that the court in the country of
habitual residence is best able to make decision
for the child, and

ensure the relevant court in the country of
habitual residence is best able to make decisions
for the children.
The Convention operates under the following specific
conditions:
Can I bring a support person to my
appointment?

You can have a support person with you in the
waiting area, but it is up to the family consultant to
decide whether your support person is included in the
interview, and in what way. The family consultant will
discuss this with you.
This fact sheet provides general information only and does not provide legal advice. If you have a legal issue, you should contact a lawyer
before making a decision about what to do or applying to the Court. The Family Court cannot provide legal advice.
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
fact sheet
If the matter is suitable for referral to Child Dispute
Services, a notation is made in orders that the parties
agree to the process.
it applies only between contracting states, and
so only has force where both countries are
signatories to the Convention
This fact sheet provides general information only and does not provide legal advice. If you have a legal issue, you should contact a lawyer
before making a decision about what to do or applying to the Court. The Family Court cannot provide legal advice.
1
Seeing a family consultant FAQ –
faMily couRt of austRalia
Family Dispute Resolution
(Hague Matters)
Two new fact sheets were added to the Child Dispute Services fact sheet range:
−− Seeing a family consultant FAQ – Family Court of Australia, and
−− Family Dispute Resolution (Hague Matters).
This brings the Child Dispute Services range to eight fact sheets. These can be accessed on
the Family Court website under Publications > By topic.
2
CSSMG was involved in several priority projects during 2014–15 including:
2
How do I?
In conjunction with the launch of the Court’s
new website, a series of new How do I?
pages have been developed. These include:
−− Apply for a divorce
−− Serve a divorce
−− Serve a divorce by hand
−− Serve a divorce by post
−− Apply to the Court for a dispensation of service or
substituted service order when I cannot find the
respondent to serve the application for divorce
−− Apply for consent orders
−− Apply for parenting orders
The How do Is section is designed to help
unrepresented litigants through the common
court processes
−− Apply for property and financial orders
−− Apply to the Court when parenting orders have
been breached or not complied with
−− Serve an initiation application
−− Electronically file an application, and
−− Register for the Commonwealth Courts Portal.
The How do I’s are designed to help unrepresented litigants through the common court processes
by providing a step-by-step guide, related links and frequently asked questions.
These can be accessed through the homepage of the Court’s website at www.familycourt.gov.au
IBM Connections
Connections has continued to provide a forum for planning activities and projects as well as
supporting communication and collaboration across the courts.
Key achievements in 2014–15 include:
−− growth in the number of communities from 143 at 30 June 2014 to 150 at 27 May 2015
−− increased use of wikis in providing a centralised platform to share information. There are
currently 119 wikis totalling 2357 pages. To date they have been utilised as knowledge
bases for professional development, procedures and training materials as well as supporting
day-to-day operations across the courts. Examples include:
–– a client service wiki which has been developed to support the work of the NEC
–– the development of a wiki aimed to support Registry Services staff by providing improved
access to procedures and processes. The wiki will provide a platform for staff to share
knowledge and best practice ideas
−− increased use of Blogs as a communication tool within teams and communities. There are
currently 92 blogs across the courts.
During 2014–15 a number of changes and upgrades were made to the courts’ IT infrastructure to
meet the courts’ needs and improve performance and stability.
Infrastructure improvements in the financial year included:
−− all of the courts’ Blackberry devices were replaced with Apple iPhones
−− new laptops were purchased to replace the courts’ laptop fleet
−− a new Wide Area Network (WAN) was implemented to deliver increased bandwidth to all
court registries
−− migration to a new Internet Gateway was completed
−− modelling showed potential weaknesses in the courts’ database servers, so these were
upgraded to cope with increased load as the courts move towards an Electronic Court File
−− a trial of technology on the Bench commenced, with a view to understanding options for
providing information electronically to judges sitting in court
−− recording functionality was added to the courts’ videoconferencing system to allow recording
of presentations for later viewing, and
−− IT infrastructure was installed in new premises in Sydney and Darwin.
Court tour goes interactive
In December 2014 the Family Court of Australia
and Federal Circuit Court of Australia added a
new video-based court tour to their YouTube
channels. The video has been developed for
unrepresented litigants who have a matter in
front of a judge or registrar.
The court tour covers important areas such as:
−− preparing for court
−− how to speak to court officers and members
of the judiciary
−− what to expect in the courtroom
−− court orders, and
−− feeling safe in court.
The court tour aims to assist unrepresented
litigants who have a matter in front of a judge
or registrar
To view the court tour, go to youtube.com/user/familycourtAU
2
Infrastructure improvements
2
Independent Children’s Lawyers conference
The Children’s Committee of the Family Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and
the Family Court of Western Australia, in conjunction with National Legal Aid and the Family Law
Section, held the inaugural national conference for Independent Children’s Lawyers in Sydney in
October 2014.
The conference attracted over 140 delegates, with keynote speakers including Justice Colin Forrest
(Family Court), Chief Judge Pascoe (Federal Circuit Court) and Chief Judge Thackray (Family Court
of Western Australia).
Key topics discussed included children’s participation; initiatives to support ICL practices;
keeping children safe; ethical jeopardy and how it works; and honouring the role.
Family law registries cashless from 1 July 2015
Family law registries are going
cashless from 1 July 2015
Payment for filing and
event based fees can still
be made in registries via:
• eftpos
• debit card
• credit card
A proposal to remove cash payments was first presented to
the Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group in
2005, however was not supported at that time due to other
priorities. The significant technological advances in recent
years, particularly in card payments and e-lodgment, provided
the impetus for the courts’ administration to reconsider the
issue, including considering the removal of cheque payments,
which aligns with the Registry Services Delivery Strategy 2014–19.
Prior to proceeding, approximately 80 per cent of respondents
to a survey question indicated they would be unaffected by
the removal of cash and cheques. Specifically, by increasing
the number of processes that can be completed online,
additional resources can be available for tailored face-to-face
services. Additionally, the courts identified that the removal of
cash and cheque payments from registries offered significant
reductions in direct and indirect costs, and would reduce the risk to staff health and safety
resulting from cash management.
Some court filing fees
can also be paid
online when filing using
the Commonwealth
Courts Portal
www.comcourts.gov.au
www.familycourt.gov.au
www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au
In 2014 an implementation plan for eliminating cash and cheque payments was developed.
After consultation with internal and external stakeholders, a two stage approach was developed.
Stage one involved the removal of cash payments from registries from 1 July 2015. This change
was communicated to the general public and the legal profession through the websites and
signage from March 2015.
Stage two involves consultation with the legal profession about eliminating cheques from early
2016. The administration has made a formal representation to the Family Law Section of the
Law Council and will advance the concept with the legal profession informally at meetings and
other forums during 2015. The administration will also continue to develop online payment
options to assist law firms and clients to transition to a cashless and chequeless environment.
The Family Court website (www.familycourt.gov.au)
and the Federal Circuit Court website
(www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au) have been upgraded
and rebuilt, with the new websites officially launched
on 29 May 2015.
The Family Law Courts website
(www.familylawcourts.gov.au) was decommissioned
at that time with content moved onto the
Federal Circuit Court website. Links to the Family Law
Courts website have been redirected to either
the Family Court or Federal Circuit Court website.
The upgrade was a significant project which was
in response to changes in requirements and
expectations by the Government, practitioners and
the general public.
2
New websites deliver improved access to court services
The new Family Court website was launched on
29 May 2015
The new design and layout of the websites reflects
best practice for web design and incorporates feedback from a sample of key stakeholders.
The new websites deliver improved access to court services, better structured information, an easy
to follow navigation and a greater focus on e-services. The websites provide specific site areas
for those parts of the community who have special requirements. In addition, they will provide a
translation and read back facility in multiple languages in the coming months.
For more information about the project see page 77 (In focus) or to provide feedback email
communication@familylawcourts.gov.au
Mediation – what to expect
Mediation – what to expect, is the latest video available on the Family Court’s YouTube channel.
The video was produced for the 5th LawAsia, Family Law and Children’s Rights Conference in
Sapporo Japan which was held in June 2014. The video was also used for the Australia–Indonesia
justice partnership, in light of Indonesia’s introduction of mediation to family law disputes.
The video shows a mock mediation between a couple (an Australian father and Japanese mother)
who are trying to come to an agreement about parenting arrangements. In particular, whether their
two children will live with their father in Australia or with their mother in Japan. In light of Japan’s
signing of the Hague Convention at the beginning of 2014, the video is a timely and useful resource
for people who are going into mediation, not knowing what to expect.
Justin Dowd, a long standing member of LawAsia’s Family Law and Children’s Rights Section
and an instrumental part of the video’s production, presented the video at the LawAsia
conference in Sapporo, along with members of the legal profession from Singapore, Japan and
the United Kingdom.
2
Australian Standards of Practice for Family Assessments and Reporting
On 11 February 2015 the Family Court of Australia, Family Court
of Western Australia and Federal Circuit Court of Australia,
launched the Australian Standards of Practice for Family
Assessments and Reporting, a publication developed by the
three courts which aims to establish a nationally consistent
approach when family assessments are undertaken and reports
developed for the courts that deal with family law within Australia.
The publication outlines best practice and identifies a range
of minimum standards that are expected by the courts in the
development of family reports. The quality and consistency in
the information provided to the judicial officer overseeing the
case is critical in determining what is in the best interests of
the child in each case.
This publication will not only assist those who develop the
reports, but will provide transparency and assist lawyers and
those involved in family law, to better understand what family
assessments and reports entail and what can be expected
from the process.
The Australian Standards of
Practice for Family Assessments
and Reporting
Chief Justice Bryant, Chief Judge Pascoe and Chief Judge Thackray have stated that, ‘It is
imperative that judicial officers, and all of those involved in children’s cases, are fully informed
of the issues relevant to those families. This document will assist in ensuring that we have
uniformity and consistency in the quality of information that is prepared for the courts’.
For more information see the Australian Standards of Practice for Family Assessments and
Reporting at www.familycourt.gov.au
Seventh International Courts Administration Conference
In September 2014 the International Association for Court
Administration’s (IACA), Seventh International Conference
took place in Sydney with over 40 countries represented
and more than 250 delegates attending, including staff and
members of the judiciary of both the Family Court of Australia
and Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
This year’s conference was titled International Perspectives on
Justice Administration 10 years on… and provided delegates
with a unique opportunity to meet and collaborate with court
administrators from around the world.
Chief Executive Officer of the Family Court and Federal Circuit
Court and outgoing President of IACA, Richard Foster said
‘The discussions that took place over the three days of the
conference will go a long way to enhancing and improving the
delivery of court services and access to justice around the world’.
IACA
International Association
for Court Administration
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR COURT ADMINISTRATION
CONFERENCE
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
International Perspectives on Justice
Administration 10 years on...
International Framework for Excellence and
measuring performance
An exploration of the roles of judicial officers and
court administrators and how the relationship
between them may be improved and enhanced
Current developments in court technology
International perspectives on best practice in
courtroom design and court security
Professional development and managing change in
the legal environment
Managing succession in courts administration
Access to justice in developing countries
Facilitating access to courts for disadvantaged
groups and children
Alternate Dispute Resolution practices
Courts working with multicultural communities
Courts cooperating with volunteers, non-government
organisations and support services
Communication with Court Stakeholders and
provision of information to Court Clients
www.iaca.ws
24 – 26 September 2014
Over 40 countries were represented
at the International Association
for Court Administration’s seventh
International Conference
IACA’s international conferences are held every two years. The next conference will be held
in the USA.
Mobile application and booths in registries
A free mobile app’ – called iRefer Vic – launched in 2014,
provides users with a searchable directory of programs and
services that are available to families experiencing separation.
The app’, developed by the Victorian Family Law Pathways
Network, provides people with information that will
complement, supplement or pre-empt agreements made
by parties, or orders of the courts. It provides information
and referral pathways to services that avoid conflict in the
courtroom, or continuing conflict at home, with services
grouped into categories such as counselling, family dispute
resolution and mental health services.
iRefer provides a directory of
programs and services for
families experiencing separation
In addition to the iRefer app’, Victorian Family Law Pathways,
with the support of the courts, have established booths,
staffed by law students, in the Melbourne and Dandenong
registries to assist litigants with referral/ contact details to
external legal services.
Community relationships and consultation
Registry managers of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court assist the Court with community
relationship building. Much of this work is done at the local level. Engagement with local
communities, community-based organisations concerned with family support and the family law
system, community forums, law societies, family law pathway networks, volunteer networks and
other government agencies, including many at the State level, are something that the Court has
been reporting in some detail in recent years in an appendix to the annual report.
The reporting shows that different registries take different approaches, reflecting local needs
and opportunities and capacity for action. Activities are highlighted in Appendix nine.
2
A range of court administrators, international judicial members and academics presented on
topics including succession planning in court administration, access to justice for vulnerable
groups and building and sustaining public confidence through communication strategies and
social media.
2
International cooperation
Indonesia court-to-court cooperation – 10 years on
The Family Court of Australia’s engagement with the Indonesian courts first began in 2004 under
the court-to-court partnership funded by the Australian Government. The Court has collaborated
on a wide scope of activities, involving many judges, court staff and court administrators from both
Indonesia and Australia.
This work has been underpinned by a strong research focus in collaboration with the courts,
Indonesian research institutes and civil society organisations. It identified access to justice barriers
which the courts then sought to resolve using a variety of innovative and effective approaches.
By removing these barriers to justice, the Indonesian courts have witnessed a significant increase
in the ability of women, the poor and people living in remote areas to access the courts for their
family law matters.
In 2013, more than 85 per cent of all civil cases heard in Indonesian courts and more than 70 per cent
of all cases heard in Indonesia related to family law and legal identity matters. Matters included
marriage legalisation cases, divorce cases and birth certificate cases. Therefore the need to legalise
marriage, formalise a divorce, or recognise children from a marriage are critical for Indonesian
citizens regardless of their wealth, level of education or place of residence.
Over the last decade the collaboration between the Family Court of Australia and the Supreme Court
of Indonesia has focussed on three major research undertakings culminating in widely circulated
publications in 2008, 2010 and February 2014.
The research, supported by successive Australian Government law and justice programs,
identified barriers faced by women who are poor in accessing the courts for their marriage legalisation
and divorce cases. This research, and the Supreme Court of Indonesia’s access to justice initiatives
being implemented in the Religious Courts, have been highlighted in a number of international
publications including:
−− the 2011 Progress of the World’s Women report produced by United Nations Women, and
−− the 2012 World Development Report on Gender Equality and Development.
Some key findings from the research include:
−− nine out of every 10 women who were poor were unable to access the Religious Courts due to
cost, distance and lack of understanding of the process. For the large number of Indonesians
living under the poverty line, and for those in rural and remote areas, court fees and transport
costs can often amount to two times their average monthly income
−− nine out of 10 women would be more motivated to obtain a legal divorce if court fees were
waived and if a circuit court were held in a nearby town
−− the majority of couples surveyed did not have a marriage certificate and three quarters of their
children do not have birth certificates.
−− the Indonesian Government estimates suggest that as many as 50 million Indonesians and
60 per cent of all Indonesian children under five do not have birth certificates, and
−− the failure to obtain legal documentation in relation to marriage and divorce is associated with
56 per cent of children from these marriages not obtaining birth certificates.
2
Collaborating on this research was an important step; however the Indonesian courts went much
further in terms of the policies it implemented over subsequent years to attempt to address barriers
faced by women, the poor and people living in remote areas in accessing the Indonesian courts.
Some of these polices include:
−− the publication of online court judgments to improve transparency
−− the introduction of court fee waivers for the poor
−− the introduction of circuit courts so that judges can deliver justice to those marginalised rural
and remote groups
−− the introduction of legal aid providers in court buildings so vulnerable litigants can obtain free
information and advice
−− the provision of paralegal services provided by women’s non-government organisations
(NGOs), and
−− the development of a series of legal aid handbooks and citizens’ guides to the law on family
law and birth certificate cases.
2
The policy reforms emanating from the research and introduced by the Supreme Court have had
a significant impact on the ability of women, the poor and those living in remote areas to access
the Religious Courts for their legal identity cases. In fact since 2009, the Religious Courts have:
−− doubled the number of cases heard at a circuit court
−− doubled the number of women bringing cases to the Religious Courts of Indonesia to more
than 250,000
−− more than tripled the number of marriage legalisation cases in Indonesia, and
−− quadrupled the number of court fees waived – a total of more than 12,000 in 2012.
The program has assisted with:
−− a major expansion of free legal aid services in courts across Indonesia, funded by the state.
By 2012, 189 General Courts and 69 Religious Courts had legal aid posts, supported by
228 legal aid organisations, and serving 42,505 clients in the General Courts and 55,860
in the Religious Courts
−− the introduction of PEKKA NGO paralegals to assist individuals with their family law and
legal identity matters. In 2014 they assisted more than 100,000 individuals in 19 provinces
to obtain legal identity documents, and
−− the provision of PEKKA NGO Legal Aid clinics (KLIK) at the village level. In six months this NGO
provided legal advisory services to more than 3800 individuals at village level, 85 per cent of
whom were women.
Access to the courts in family law and legal identity matters is critical to supporting broader human
rights for individuals. Guaranteeing people’s access to a legal identity is not only essential in order
to comply with human rights principles, but it is also a fundamental aspect of good governance
and inclusive development.
Legal identity goes beyond providing people with a piece of paper. Birth, marriage and divorce
certificates are a critical part of a modern civil registration and statistics system. The Constitutional
Court of Indonesia stated in a decision in 2013 (No 18/ PUU–XI/2013) that ‘a person without
a birth certificate does not exist in a legal sense in a state’. An unregistered child is in an
official state of non-existence. Legal identity is therefore fundamental to counting the number
of individuals every government is accountable for, in terms of delivering health, education,
social services and legal protection.
In Indonesia, the provision of a birth certificate document to a child with both the mother and
father’s name on it requires evidence of a legal marriage. In Indonesia, it is the courts that
undertake the task of legalising marriages – the Religious Courts for Muslims and the General
Courts for non-Muslims. It is only then that the other government agencies can issue a marriage
certificate and birth certificate.
Therefore, in Indonesia, the courts are central to removing the ‘official state of non-existence’
that millions of children in Indonesia currently face. All of the Family Court’s collaboration on
improving access to the courts for vulnerable groups supports this work.
For more information see Ten years of court-to-court partnership: assessing the impact of
Australian engagement on judicial reform in Indonesia, available at
http://www.aipj.or.id/en/news_media/general_stories_detail/ten-years-cooperation
IN FOCUS
Australia–Japan co-mediation program
The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction (“1980 Convention”) entered into force between Japan and
Australia on 1 April 2014.
In October 2014, Justice Bennett travelled to Japan to attend a conference of the International
Bar Association and, while there, was involved in various meetings about the operation of the
1980 Hague Convention between Australia and Japan. Her Honour visited the Supreme Court of
Japan, where she met with Justice Okabe, a sitting Judge of that Court. Her Honour also met with
officers of the Family Bureau, including the director of the Bureau, Judge Kentaro Oka, to discuss
contact centres and enforcement of contact orders in Australia. Finally, Justice Bennett met with
the Japanese Central Authority, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Upon Justice Bennett’s return to Australia, her Honour began to put together a proposal to build
a family law mediation and electronic access resource between Japan and Australia. Working in
conjunction with members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese lawyers and Australian
legal practitioners with expertise in Hague matters, Justice Bennett (joined by Justice Benjamin)
created a proposal which was submitted to the Attorney-General’s Department as an application
for funding to create a system comprised of bi-national co-mediators and social scientists who
would be trained together in Japan; an online mediation service which would operate at little
or no expense to users; and an online supervised access service which would be affordable to
produce and use.
Image: Hague Convention Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 16 October 2014. From left: Matsuura Mie
(Case Worker), Yuta Yamasaki (Deputy Director), Satoshi Taketa (Deputy Director), Justice Bennett (Australia),
Kaoru Magosaki (Director), Yuri Yamazaki (Case Worker), Chie Maekoya (Case Worker), Takumi Kawano
(Deputy Director)
IN FOCUS
The overall objectives of the project are:
−− to establish an integrated system for use in international child abduction and access cases
between Japan and Australia, and
−− to enable children whose parents live across international borders to know both their parents
where it is in the child’s best interests to do so, in an atmosphere of enhanced awareness by
each country of the other country’s laws, cultural values and social conventions.
In March 2015, funding to send an Australian delegation to Japan for co-mediation training was
approved by the Attorney-General’s Department.
The delegation has now been finalised and will travel to Japan in September 2015 for the training.
The Australian participants are:
−− The Honourable Justice Robert Benjamin AM (Family Court of Australia)
−− Dr Ben Jones (Family Court of Australia / Federal Circuit Court of Australia)
−− Ms Paule Eckhaus (Family Court of Australia / Federal Circuit Court of Australia)
−− Ms April O’Mara (Family Court of Australia / Federal Circuit Court of Australia)
−− Ms Deborah Fry (Family Court of Australia / Federal Circuit Court of Australia)
−− Ms Freia Carlton (Victoria Legal Aid)
−− Mr Walter Ibbs (Victoria Legal Aid)
−− Ms Jill Raby (Victoria Legal Aid)
−− Ms Lynette Hill (Legal Aid Western Australia)
−− Ms Helen Freris (International Social Service)
−− Ms Kay Hardefeldt (International Social Service)
−− Ms Mary Louise Hatch (Relationships Australia Victoria)
−− Ms Amanda Humphreys (Kennedy Partners)
−− Mr Maurice Edwards (Watts McCray Lawyers).
The training will be conducted by Eberhard Carl, former International Hague Network Judge
and Judge of the Regional Superior Court at Frankfurt/Main, Germany; and Sybille Kiesewetter,
a psychologist, mediator and trainer who co-edited the handbook Cross-Border Family Mediation:
International Parental Child Abduction, Custody and Access Cases (Wolfgang Metzner Verlag,
2nd ed, 2014).
The Australia–Japan co-mediation program will lead the world, serving as a pilot project to assist
bilateral processes between other Asian states using the structure we are creating as a broad
geopolitical resource.
3
REPORT ON
COURT PERFORMANCE
REPORT ON COURT PERFORMANCE
3
Report on court performance
Outcome and program
The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court has a single outcome and single program on which it
reports in 2014–15. See Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 The outcome and program of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court
Outcome 1
Provide access to justice for litigants in family and federal law matters within
the jurisdiction of the courts through the provision of judicial support services.
Program 1.1
Whilst the Court’s reporting is for the single program, this report presents information in two streams:
−− judicial services (maintaining an environment that enables judicial officers to make
determinations), and
−− registry/client services (provision of effective and efficient registry services).
This approach is considered by the Court to provide clearer reporting of the Court’s performance
against its deliverables and key performance indicators, as set out in the Portfolio Budget
Statements 2014–15.
Changes to previously published figures
The Court continually conducts data quality activities on its electronic case data. This is done
to ensure that our case management system, as best as it can, reflects the information that is
contained on the paper-based file. Due to the complex nature of the data captured, and the
changing circumstances of the case, it is not unusual for data entries needing to be updated
and refreshed. As a result of the activities in the past few years, the Court has decided to entirely
refresh the historical data for the previous four years. This means that figures published in this
report for historical years may not always be the same as those published in previous annual
reports. Any changes in figures should be relatively insignificant.
The Court has eight key performance indicators (KPIs) against which it has reported for the past
five years to 2014–15. Table 3.1 shows the results of each of those years.
Table 3.1 Summary of performance against all KPIs targets from 2010–11 to 2014–15
Key Performance
Indicators/target
2010–11
result
2011–12
result
2012–13
result
2013–14
result
2014–15
result
104%
100%
101%
98%
99%
75% of matters pending
conclusion are less than
12 months old
70%
72%
71%
72%
72%
75% of reserved judgments are
waiting less than three months
after the conclusion of trial
(at 30 June)
73%
50%
51%
50%
56%
75% of all counter enquiries
are served within 20 minutes
97%
88%
93%
92%
91%
75% of applications lodged are
processed within two working days
97%
97%
97%
98%
97%
80% of calls answered within
90 seconds (NEC only)
32%
33%
21%
28%
34%
80% of emails answered within
two days (NEC data only)
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2%
0.6%
0.9%
0.7%
0.8%
4
5
5
4
4
Clearance rate more than 100%
Complaints—1% of total
applications received
Number of KPI/targets achieved
The Court has, for three out of five years, met its aim to finalise more cases in a year than start in
that year—in other words, to have a clearance rate of at least 100 per cent. Achieving this target
means the Court is able to ‘clear out’ as many cases as the number that commence, so that the
backlog of cases does not increase.
This year the Court achieved 99 per cent, despite a 3.9 per cent increase in finalisations during
the year, but this was offset by an increase in filings resulting in more cases starting than could
be finalised.
3
Historic performance against KPIs
3
The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending (active) applications less than
12 months old. The Court has, over the past five years, continued to almost achieve this target,
suggesting that strategies from previous years are having some effect on improving performance.
These strategies have included:
−− implementing operational reports to monitor and review the ageing cases, and
−− judges and registry managers actively coordinating and managing the ageing cases to ensure
they progress without unnecessary delays.
Reserved judgment delivery times are an important focus for the Court. The Court aims for 75 per cent
being delivered in less than three months.
For the past five years the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) has not been able to meet its target to
answer 80 per cent of calls within 90 seconds. The NEC provides a critical client service and is
the main point for providing information about many aspects of the Court’s services (and those
of the Federal Circuit Court). Its role has expanded, including support for the Commonwealth
Courts Portal, and for that and other reasons, it has been unable to meet the high standard it is
trying to achieve. More information about factors that have affected performance in 2014–15 is
included later in this part.
The performance indicators for counter enquiries, the processing of lodged applications,
email response times and complaints as a percentage of all applications were all met.
More detailed information about performance against the eight KPIs is contained in the
following reporting.
Judicial services
Judicial services include:
−− determining cases that are complex in law and/or facts and/ or have multiple parties
−− covering specialised areas in family law, and
−− providing national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.
In order to better understand the Court’s performance, it is necessary to understand that the
Court’s caseload is predominantly applications for final orders, applications in a case, and consent
orders applications. These three types of cases contribute most to the Court’s overall workload
and performance.
Final orders applications are mostly cases where clients commence litigated proceedings to
obtain parenting and financial orders. The applicants set out their claims to spend time with
their children and/or split their financial portfolios (including property and other assets).
Applications in a case are additional proceedings in which a client seeks interim or interlocutory
orders before a final hearing.
Consent orders applications are where the clients have agreed or settled on terms relating to
the parenting and/or financial issues and they are seeking the Court ratify these by way of making
them binding court orders.
In 2014–15, the Court achieved two judicial key performance indicators and deliverables and
was unable to achieve five.
Table 3.2 summarises the Court’s results in delivering judicial services against the key performance
indicators and deliverables published in the 2014–15 Portfolio Budget Statements.
Table 3.2 Summary of performance—judicial services
Key performance Target/
indicators and
deliverable
deliverables
2013–14 2013–14 2014–15 2014–15
target result***
target
result
2014–15
target
achieved
Deliverables
Number of
finalisations
per annum
Final order
finalisations
3000
2839
2822
3028
Interim order
finalisations
3600
3270
3367
3333
10,700
12,968
13,200
13,457
300
279****
375
290
100%
98%
100%
99%
Consent order
finalisations
Other order
finalisations*
KPIs**
Clearance rate
100%
Backlog indicators
More than 75%
of matters pending
conclusion
are less than
12 months old
75%
72%
75%
72%
More than 75%
of reserved
judgments are
waiting less than
three months after
the conclusion
of trial
75%
50%
75%
56%
* The Family Court ‘Other Finalisations’ estimates include other family law finalisations such as Hague, contempt,
contraventions, child support appeals and enforcement summons.
** The Court also has a KPI about complaints. This is reported upon in Table 3.4
*** Updated figures due to data quality fixes on historical data which may have revised previously published figures.
**** This figure was incorrectly reported last year as 324.
Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables between judicial services and client services
to assist with interpreting the differences. See also Table 3.4 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.
3
3
Summary workload for 2014–15
The Court deals with the most complex and difficult family law cases containing either parenting
or financial issues or a combination of both.
Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 show the summary caseload during 2014–15
Figure 3.2 Summary workload by application type, 2014–15
Application/Case Type
Filed
% Filed
Finalised
Pending
Final orders applications
2936
14%
3028
2982
Application in a case (Interim)
3476
17%
3333
1428
13,662
67%
13,457
1012
323
2%
290
222
20,397
100%
20,108
5644
Consent orders applications
Other applications
Total
Issues sought on Applications for Final Orders
Parenting only
30%
Financial only
55%
Parenting and financial
13%
Other
2%
3
Figure 3.3 Issues sought on Final Order cases filed, 2014–15
3
Case attrition
The Court’s cases are made up of complex matters that often involve multiple parenting or
financial issues that have higher levels of conflict between the parties. The parties in these cases
are less likely to arrive at an agreement on their dispute and, as a result, will have a high chance
of requiring a judicial decision after conducting a trial. Of all the cases finalised during 2014–15,
about 40 per cent were placed into a judges docket which meant that efforts to have them settle
did not work and so they needed to be managed by a judge towards proceeding to trial. As a
result, 15.3 per cent of cases required a judge to make the final judgment.
Figure 3.4 shows the changing settlement and attrition trend of the Court’s completed cases
and the case management phase where they finalised.
Figure 3.4 Attrition and settlement rates in the Court’s caseload, 2010–11 to 2014–15
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 3.5 provides the number of cases that are finalised at first instance trial. The Court had
a similar number of trials in 2014–15 as the previous two years, reflecting about the same number
of cases coming before the Court.
Figure 3.5 Cases finalised at first instance trial, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Number of finalisations
During 2014–15, the Court had the following finalisation deliverables it wished to obtain:
−− 2822 final order cases
−− 3367 interim orders applications
−− 13,200 consent orders applications, and
−− 375 other orders applications.
The targets were based on the Court’s historical achievements; its resource level including judges;
the estimated new applications initiated each year; and the number of active cases (pending).
Each application type requires a different 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 are mainly administration of cases where parties agree to
terms prior to filing. The Court also deals with discrete applications, such as contraventions,
contempt and applications made pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction.
3
First instance trials
3
Final orders
During 2014–15, 3028 applications for final orders were finalised, about 7.3 per cent above the
target and 6.7 per cent more than in 2013–14.
Figure 3.6 displays five year trends in filings, finalisations and pending (active) applications.
Figure 3.6 Final orders applications, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Applications in a case (interim)
During 2014–15, 3333 applications in a case were finalised, only 1.0 per cent less than the target
and 1.9 per cent more than in 2013–14. These applications are associated with an existing case
and typically can be dealt with in a shorter time.
Figure 3.7 Applications in a case, 2010–11 to 2014–15
During 2014–15, 13,457 consent orders applications were finalised, which is 1.9 per cent more
than the target and 3.8 per cent more than were finalised in 2013–14. These applications vary in
complexity and are presented to the Court as an agreement between the parties to be considered
and ratified by a registrar.
Figure 3.8 Consent orders applications, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Figure 3.9 displays five year trends in filings, finalisations and all applications.
Figure 3.9 All applications, 2010–11 to 2014–15
3
Consent orders
3
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 keep up with its new work and prevent an increase in
its backlog of pending cases. In 2014–15, the Court achieved a clearance rate of 99 per cent.
Figure 3.10 shows the five year trend in clearance rates.
Figure 3.10 All applications, clearance rates, 2010–11 to 2014–15
The ‘backlog’ is the number of applications that are pending (that is, still active) at the end of
the year. These applications are being actively managed for their next court event. In particular,
ageing applications that are beyond the timeliness target are a focus for the Court to have them
resolved as soon as practicable.
Age of pending applications
The Court has a backlog of active cases to ensure there is sufficient level of workload to manage,
while new cases commence and cases finalise during the year. The Court’s goal is to ensure
its pending cases are commensurate in size with its resources and it is continually adjusting as
cases are filed and finalise, and in particular, those pending cases are not aged excessively.
The Court aims to have more than 75 per cent of its pending applications that are less than
12 months old. At 30 June 2015, the Court nearly met this target by achieving 72 per cent of
pending applications being less than 12 months old, which is stable with last year.
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 dealt with in a timely manner.
Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12 show the five year trend in the age distribution of backlog applications.
Figure 3.11 Age of pending applications, 2010–11 to 2014–15
3
Backlog indicators
Figure 3.12 All applications, time pending, 2010–11 to 2014–15
3
Age of reserved judgments outstanding
The Court aims to have 75 per cent of reserved judgments delivered within three months after
the hearing. The Court did not meet this target in 2014–15, with 56 per cent of judgments not
yet delivered at 30 June 2015 less than three months old and 44 per cent were more than
three months.
Figure 3.13 shows the five year trend in reserved judgments outstanding at 30 June each year,
compared with the target of 75 per cent. Figure 3.14 shows the five year trend in time for reserved
judgments outstanding at 30 June each year.
Figure 3.14 Time for reserved judgments outstanding (pending), at 30 June 2010–11
to 2014–15
This measure is a snapshot at a particular point in the year and does not fully encapsulate the actual
time it takes the Court to deliver a reserved judgment throughout the whole year (75 per cent
within three months). The actual time for a judgment to be delivered is better explained in the
following section.
3
Figure 3.13 Reserved judgments outstanding (pending) less than three months,
as at 30 June 2010–11 to 2014–15
3
Percentage of cases finalised
The Court aims to finalise cases within 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. As a result, the Court also recognises the need to allow clients the time to deal with
many emotions that a family breakdown and the Court process can cause. It is difficult to set and
achieve a timeliness target because the number of variables affecting the parties involved in each
case has unquantifiable impacts on its progress towards a decision.
Although the Court does not have performance indicators in the Portfolio Budget Statement about
the time to finalise cases, the Court monitors the age of its finalised cases to assist with determining
resource allocation and the effort required to dispose cases.
Age of finalised applications
The Court’s internal target for timeliness to finalisation is based on previous case history and its
case management processes. The ability to get clients before the Court relies heavily on various
factors: the Court’s case management principles, delays between court interventions, available
resources, and the clients. The Court aims to finalise 75 per cent of applications within 12 months,
the other 25 per cent are the most complex applications, many of which cannot be expected to be
managed within that timeframe.
During 2014–15 the Court finalised about 93 per cent of applications within 12 months which is
above the target and remains steady for the past five years.
Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16 show the five year trend in the age distribution of applications finalised.
Figure 3.15 Applications finalised within 12 months, 2010–11 to 2014–15
3
Figure 3.16 All applications, time to finalise, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Age of reserved judgments delivered
The Court aims to deliver 75 per cent of reserved judgments within three months of the completion
of a trial. The Court met this target in 2014–15 as 505 (78 per cent) of the 647 reserved judgments
(excluding judgments on appeal cases) were delivered within that timeframe.
Figure 3.17 shows the five year trend of reserved judgments delivered within three months and
Figure 3.18 shows the breakdown of time to deliver reserved judgments.
Figure 3.17 Reserved judgments delivered within three months, 2010–11 to 2014–15
3
Figure 3.18 Time to deliver reserved judgments 2010–11 to 2014–15
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 2014–15, the Court received 91 complaints relating to judges or judicial registrars—42 concerning
judicial conduct and 49 on the time taken in delivery of a judgment.
This represented 0.5 per cent of all applications filed (20,397), under the Portfolio Budget
Statements target of one per cent (when judicial services complaints and administrative complaints
are combined they total 0.8 per cent).
The number of judicial services complaints received by the Court in 2014–15 is shown in
Figure 3.19, which also shows the breakdown between complaints about judicial conduct
and complaints about delays.
Figure 3.19 Total judicial services complaints, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Summary of appeal caseload
The Court’s Appeal Division deals with all Full Court appeals. The matters are from decrees of
the Family Court of Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia and the Federal Circuit Court
of Australia.
Table 3.3 summarises the appeals workload. More information about appeals is in Part 4 of
this report.
Table 3.3 Appeal caseload 2010–11 to 2014–15
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15
% Change
Appeals filed
367
374
318
330
389
18%
Appeals finalised
355
328
334
337
356
6%
Appeals pending
233
279
263
256
289
13%
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.
However, the use of legal representation can indicate that the parties consider their matter to be
complex and best handled by legal representatives. Figure 3.20 shows litigants who had
representation at some point in their proceedings and Figure 3.21 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 remain 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 really proceeded beyond filing. These cases often did
not have legal representation parties included on their records as it was often incomplete as parties had not provided
this information at the time of filing (whether or not they were represented).
3
National coverage as appellate court
3
Figure 3.20 Proportion of litigants’ representation status, finalised cases,
2010–11 to 2014–15
Figure 3.21 Proportion of litigants’ representation status, at trials, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Under section 60K of the Family Law Act, the Court must consider and take action on notices
of risk of abuse or family violence. The prescribed notice is to be considered within seven days
and dealt with within 28 days of filing. On 7 June 2012, the definition of what constitutes family
violence was amended to more broadly define such acts that could fall under the reasoning for
filing a Notice of abuse or risk of family violence. This had an immediate impact on the courts
and significantly increased the number of such applications being filed with final order cases.
Figure 3.22 shows that owing to the changes highlighted above, the number of notices filed has
increased. The relative increase in the rate of notices in proportion to final order cases filed in
the Court also continues to increase.
Figure 3.22 Notices of child abuse or risk of family violence filed, 2010–11 to 2014–15
* On 7 June 2012, new definitions and rules on Family Violence were enacted.
Figure 3.23 Proportion of final order cases in which a notice of child abuse or risk
of family violence is filed, 2010–11 to 2014–15
* On 7 June 2012, new definitions and rules on Family Violence were enacted.
3
Family violence and abuse (or risk)
3
Magellan cases
Magellan cases involve allegations of serious physical abuse or sexual abuse of a child and
undergo special case management. When a Magellan case is identified, it is managed by a small
team consisting of a judge, a registrar and a family consultant. Magellan case management
relies on collaborative and highly coordinated processes and procedures. A crucial aspect is
strong interagency coordination, in particular with state and territory child protection agencies.
This ensures that problems are dealt with efficiently and that high-quality information is shared.
An independent children’s lawyer is appointed in every Magellan case, for which legal aid
is uncapped.
Typically, a Magellan case is one where a notice of abuse or family violence is filed, although not
all 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. Therefore, it does not automatically follow that an increase in the filing of notices of
abuse or family violence with its wider definitions would automatically mean a higher number
of Magellan cases.
Figure 3.24 details the number of Magellan cases commenced and finalised in the past five years.
Figure 3.24 Magellan cases, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Registry services are provided to people who wish to file an application or are considering filing
an application in the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
Registry services include:
−− provision of effective support to the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court
of Australia
−− family law telephone and referral services, and
−− family law document processing.
These services are complemented by the services of the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) to which
all family law 1300 telephone calls, enquiry emails and live chats are received in the first instance,
as well as follow up enquiries from parties or lawyers about their Family Court or Federal Circuit
Court files.
During 2014–15, family law registries and the NEC provided a high level of service to clients and
other users of the courts and to the judiciary of both courts. The NEC responded to increased
demand in emails and calls relating to Commonwealth Courts Portal support.
The client services’ Portfolio Budget Statement (PBS) deliverables for counter enquiries and email
were met as well as the deliverable for the number of telephone calls taken. Three of the four key
performance indicators (KPI) were also met. The fourth KPI, with a target of 80 per cent of telephone
calls to the NEC being answered in 90 seconds, was not met. The NEC continues to try to improve
this area by streamlining process and introducing new initiatives. The KPI for complaints as a
percentage of total applications was met this year.
More detailed reporting of the results follows.
Table 3.4 summarises the performance of the various client services functions of the Court against
PBS key performance indicators and deliverables. Please note the data in this table relates to
services provided for both the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court by the family law registries
and the NEC, with the exception of the complaints KPI, which is Family Court specific.
3
Registry and National Enquiry Centre services
3
Table 3.4 Summary of performance—client services
Key performance
indicators and deliverables
2013–14
target
2013–14
result
2014–15
target
2014–15
result
Telephone enquiries served*
238,400
356,004
270,800
330,178
Counter enquiries served*
187,400
255,792
150,000
225,101
83,600
113,163
50,000
111,388
75 per cent of all counter
enquiries served within
20 minutes
75%
92%
75%
91%
75 per cent of all applications
lodged processed within
two working days
75%
98%
75%
97%
NEC 80 per cent of calls
answered within 90 seconds
80%
28%
80%
34%
80 per cent of email enquiries
responded to within two
working days
80%
100%
80%
100%
1%
0.7%
1%
0.8%
2014–15
achieved
Deliverables
Email enquiries responded to**
KPIs
Complaints***—1 per cent
of total applications received
* This figure is calls answered, not calls received at the PABX.
** NEC figures only. This figure covers emails sent in response to emails received by the courts, and emails sent by
the courts as part of responding to telephone calls.
*** This figure includes complaints about the administration of the Court and judicial services complaints, for which
detailed information is reported elsewhere in this Part.
Note: the Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for greater transparency in its reporting for
judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.1 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.
Family law registries
There are 19 family law registries. These are in every state and territory (except Western Australia).
Family law registries provide registry services to both the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court.
The key functions of the registries are to:
−− provide information and advice about court procedures, services and forms, external options and
referrals to community organisations that enable clients to take informed and appropriate action
−− ensure that available information is provided in an accurate and timely fashion to support
the best outcome through file management and quality assurance—from the initiation of
proceedings, to hearing and to archiving
−− make the best use of court time by facilitating an orderly, secure flow of clients’, files and exhibits
−− enhance community confidence and respect by responding to clients’ needs and assisting
with making the court experience a more positive one
−− progress cases by providing administrative services in accordance with court processes and
to manage external relationships to assist with the resolution of cases
−− schedule and prioritise matters for hearing and intervention to achieve the earliest resolution
or determination
−− monitor and control the flow of cases, and
−− assist in the evaluation of caseloads by reporting on trends and exceptions to facilitate
improvements in processes and allocation of resources.
Counter enquiries
Staff working on the counters in family law registries handle general enquiries, lodge documents
relating to proceedings, provide copies of documents and/or orders and facilitate the viewing of court
files and subpoenas. Client service staff provided an efficient and effective service when dealing with
litigants in person and the legal profession face-to-face at registry counters across Australia.
It is estimated that the registries dealt with 225,101 counter enquiries in 2014–15 from clients
or other people seeking information face-to-face. This compared to 255,792 counter enquiries
in 2013–14.
In 2014–15, an estimated 91 per cent of clients were served within 20 minutes, against a target
of 75 per cent, compared to 92 per cent in 2013–14.
3
3
Document processing
Family law registries receive and process applications lodged at registry counters and in the
mail. The service target of 75 per cent being processed within two working days of receipt
was significantly exceeded (97 per cent of applications were processed within that timeframe).
The NEC continued to provide family law telephone, email and Live Chat support services to the
Family Court and Federal Circuit Court in 2014–15.
The NEC’s responsibilities include:
−− first telephone contact to the courts via the 1300 number
−− first email contact to the courts via enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.au
−− first contact to the courts via Live Chat
−− a large proportion of telephone and email contacts from existing parties, lawyers and other
court stakeholders
−− support for users of the Commonwealth Courts Portal including Family Court of Western
Australia and the Federal Court
−− after hours service
−− printing of divorce orders
−− processing of proof of divorce requests, and
−− Twitter notifications of procedural and registry information.
Enquiries are received via three public channels including: telephone via the 1300 number;
emails via enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.au; and via Live Chat. The NEC’s focus is to provide
parties and stakeholders with appropriate information as efficiently and simply as possible
through these channels.
Callers to the 1300 number are given options depending on the nature of their call. These include
divorce, portal support and general enquiries. These three options are supported by agents with
the skill sets required to answer the enquiry. Emails and live chats are monitored by staff trained
in responding to written requests.
With the growth of portal registrations, portal support was a major factor contributing to the work
of the NEC in 2014–15.
The NEC regularly refers parties to various stakeholders including the Family Relationships Advice
Line (FRAL), legal aid, government agencies and community legal centres. The NEC has maintained
a close relationship with FRAL and regularly consults with them.
−− providing ongoing coaching and training
−− enhancing wellbeing by providing ergonomic training assessment to all staff.
−− providing peer support and mentoring
−− ensuring information knowledge management systems are up-to-date, and
−− holding regular meetings with staff to provide a two way process of information flow.
Workload and performance enhancing projects conducted in 2014–15 include:
−− the introduction of an online interactive form and payment for proof of divorce requests. This has
enhanced the ability for persons wishing to obtain proof of divorce from the courts’ websites
without having to interact with the Court and streamlined the back office processes, and
−− streamlined and enhanced reporting practices for staff including introducing basic reporting
codes for telephone calls. Each staff member is required to utilise a ‘transaction code’ after
each call to determine what the call was about.
Summary of NEC performance
−− The NEC did not meet the KPI for the percentage of calls answered within 90 seconds,
but met all other performance targets. The NEC achieved a service level of 34 per cent
which is up compared to 28 per cent last year.
−− Callers waited an average of five minutes and 17 seconds for their call to be answered,
compared to five minutes and 21 seconds in 2013–14.
−− The average time of a call was four minutes and 22 seconds, compared to four minutes and
12 seconds in 2013–14.
−− The NEC received a total of 330,178 calls (compared 356,004 in 2013–14). Of these calls,
201,268 were queued to talk to a staff member.
−− There was a eight per cent decrease overall in calls received to the NEC compared with
2013–14. Factors contributing to this include: better service at the first point of contact
by emailed information; there being no requirement to call back; better structured
information on the website; increased use of the Portal; and the introduction of Live Chat.
−− 20,430 calls were received for Portal support. The average time for a Portal call is significantly
more, as technical support is required. The average time of a Portal call is six minutes and
five seconds.
−− 6579 calls abandoned while queued. This is a decrease of 356 from 2013–14. The decrease
in calls abandoned in the queue can be attributed to a flow on effect from fewer phone calls
which contributed to reduced wait times.
3
The NEC continued its commitment to support staff in their work and encourages a collaborative
work place by:
3
−− 1608 calls were transferred to a family law registry by the NEC. NEC staff are aware of the
importance of completing the transaction at the first point of contact, and only transfer calls
if absolutely necessary.
−− 30,108 emails were sent in response to an email enquiry.
−− 74,842 emails were sent in response to a telephone enquiry, compared with 65,274 in 2013–14.
−− 11,951 proof of divorce requests were processed. This is a five per cent increase from 2013–14.
−− 82,446 divorce orders were printed and posted to clients.
−− 171 calls were received by the After Hours Service, of which 14 were referred to a registrar.
Of these 13 orders were made by a judge.
−− 46,459 live chats or an average of187 per day have been received since its launch in May 2014.
Table 3.5 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Performance indicators
and internal targets
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15
80% of calls answered
within 90 seconds
32%
45%
21%
28%
34%
Less than 5% of calls
abandoned when queued
20%
8%
5%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Less than 10% of calls
transferred to a registry
80% of emails answered
within two days
The Family Court is committed to responding effectively to feedback and complaints, and to complying
with Australian Standard AS ISO 10002—2006 (complaints handling) and the Commonwealth
Ombudsman’s Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling.
The Court’s client feedback management system allows all areas of the Court to efficiently and
consistently manage complaints and client feedback, while also identifying clients’ issues and
monitoring trends.
The Court has a:
−− complaints and feedback policy
−− judicial complaints procedure, and
−− complaints and feedback form.
The complaints and feedback form explains how clients can make complaint or provide feedback to
the Court. This can be found on the Family Court website (www.familycourt.gov.au) and accessed
via the ‘Quick Links’ section of the homepage (the ‘feedback’ link).
Clients can address complaints or feedback to the Court in writing, orally, or by email to
clientfeedback@familycourt.gov.au. Complaints made about judicial conduct or delays in delivery
of judgments are referred to the Judicial Complaints Advisor.
The Court aims to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days and, where possible,
to send a formal response within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.
During 2014–15, the Family Court recorded:
−− 62 complaints about administrative matters of which approximately 13 were found to
be groundless. These are complaints relating to family law registries which service both
the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, and include complaints about court
administrative procedures and processes, staff personal conduct, privacy, security and
the client feedback process
−− 49 complaints about judicial delays and 42 about judicial conduct (see Figure 3.19).
These matters are referred to the Judicial Complaints Advisor in the Chambers of
the Deputy Chief Justice, and
−− 20 compliments.
At 62, the number of administrative complaints represented 0.3 per cent of all applications
received. Combined with 91 judicial complaints (see judicial services complaints on page 64
for more detail) complaints represented 0.8 per cent of applications received, thus achieving
against the KPI (for complaints to be no more than one per cent of applications received).
3
Client feedback and complaints management
3
Figure 3.25 provides a breakdown across ten categories of administrative complaints issues in
2014–15.
During 2014–15, the Court also recorded 87 complaints about matters as family law legislation,
matters in other jurisdictions, family assessment processes and reports prepared by family
consultants for judicial proceedings, and the conduct and outcomes of judicial proceedings.
These are matters that may not be addressed by the administration of the Court as they concern
matters of law reform on the one hand, and the conduct of specific judicial proceedings on
the other.
Figure 3.25 Administration complaints issues 2014–15
It is noted that this year the Court received a record number of compliments on staff performance
and agency processes.
As a result of client feedback during 2014–15, aside from issues being resolved for clients on an
individual basis, the Court was able to examine and improve the following:
−− communication procedures between registries with regard to document management
−− privacy issues relating to publication of judgments and court systems
−− instructions on forms
−− systems features, and
−− updating of documents published on the website.
IN FOCUS
New court websites
In May 2015 the courts launched two new and improved websites.
At the same time the Family Law Courts website (www.familylawcourts.gov.au) was decommissioned
and information from that site was transferred to the Family Court (www.familycourt.gov.au)
and Federal Circuit Court (www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au) websites.
The decision to remove the Family Law Courts website and update the other two sites was made
for several reasons:
−− outdated design and navigation
−− duplication of information between three sites
−− manual processing of things like court lists and judgments
−− confusion amongst litigants, and
−− different navigation between the three old sites.
Our goal was to improve the websites and make it easier for litigants to find
the information they need. When people need to access the courts they are
often in stress and we need to make the process as easy as possible.
Richard Foster PSM, Chief Executive Officer
SCAN FOR WEBSITE
IN FOCUS
Changing technology
The new court websites are dynamic, more contemporary and based on client and stakeholder
feedback. Some of the new features include:
−− automation of the Court lists
−− client landing pages and multiple entry points
−− responsive design for mobile and tablet users
−− new online services section
−− new How Do I section
−− new online subscription form, and
−− consistency in navigation between the two sites.
What next?
We have received some good feedback on the new websites, but they remain very much a work
in progress.
The courts continue to encourage feedback and through this we have identified further
improvements and refinements that need to be made. Changes that will be introduced over
the coming months include:
−− introduction of Readspeaker and Google translate
−− refinements on search issues
−− ongoing plain-English updates
−− adjustments to how judgments are displayed, and
−− technical enhancements to responsible display of court lists.
4
APPEALS
Appeals
APPEALS
4
Appeal Division
Sections 21A, 22(2AA), (2AB) and (2AC) of the Family Law Act 1975 provide for an Appeal
Division for the Family Court.
The members of the Appeal Division of the Court are the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice
and such other judges, not exceeding nine in number, as are assigned to the Appeal Division.
At 30 June 2015, the judges assigned to the Appeal Division were:
−− Justice Finn
−− Justice May
−− Justice Thackray (Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia)
−− Justice Strickland
−− Justice Ainslie-Wallace
−− Justice Ryan
−− Justice Murphy, and
−− Justice Aldridge.
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia is made up of three or more judges of the Court;
the majority must be members of the Appeal Division (Family Law Act 1975 s 4).
Appeals
The appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court is defined in Part X of the Family Law Act 1975,
in Part VIII of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and Part 7 of the
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.
An appeal lies to the Full Court from a decree of the Family Court, constituted otherwise than
as a Full Court, exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) under the
Child Support Acts.
An appeal also lies to the Full Court of the Family Court from a decree of the Family Court of
Western Australia; or the Supreme Court of a state or a territory, constituted by a single judge
exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) under the Child Support Acts.
An appeal also lies to the Family Court of Australia from a decree of the Federal Circuit Court of
Australia exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and (with leave) the Child Support Acts.
The jurisdiction of the Court in relation to such appeals is to be exercised by a Full Court unless
the Chief Justice considers it appropriate for a single judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the
Court in relation to such an appeal (s 94AAA(3)).
During 2014–15, the Full Court sat for 24 weeks (including some part-weeks and including in
some weeks in different locations).
Administration of appeals
Appeals are administered by an Appeals Registrar in three areas:
−− Northern—Queensland, northern New South Wales and Northern Territory
−− Eastern—eastern, western and southern New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, and
−− Southern—Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.
Western Australia is separately administered by a Registrar of the Family Court of Western Australia.
Trends in appeals
As a result of data quality activities conducted on appellate proceedings in the Court’s electronic
case management system, the Court has updated the historical data for the previous years.
This means that figures published in this section may not be the same as those published in
previous annual reports.
The number of appeals filed in 2014–15 increased by 18 per cent from 330 in 2013–14 to 389.
The number of appeals finalised increased by six per cent to 356. The pending (active) cases as
at 30 June 2015 was 289, which has increased from 256.
There was a 21 per cent increase in the number of appeals from the Federal Circuit Court to
216 cases, whilst appeals from the Family Court rose by 15 per cent.
Many appeals from the Federal Circuit Court are dealt with by a single judge and do not require
the convening of a bench of three or more judges.
Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 show the trend in Notices of Appeal filed, finalised and pending during
the last five financial years.
APPEALS
4
Full Court sittings
APPEALS
4
Table 4.1 Notice of appeals filed, finalised and pending by jurisdiction,
2010–11 to 2014–15
Filed
2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15
% change
from
2013–14 to
2014–15
166
161
152
151
173
15%
Federal Circuit Court
201
213
166
179
216
21%
Appeals filed
367
374
318
330
389
18%
Per cent from
45%
43%
48%
46%
44%
-2%
Per cent from
55%
57%
52%
54%
56%
2%
2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15
% change
from
2013–14 to
2014–15
Finalised
152
140
150
150
143
-5%
203
188
184
187
213
14%
Appeals finalised
355
328
334
337
356
6%
Per cent from
43%
43%
45%
45%
40%
-5%
Per cent from
57%
57%
55%
55%
60%
5%
2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15
% change
from
2013–14 to
2014–15
Pending
120
141
143
144
174
21%
113
138
120
112
115
3%
Appeals pending
233
279
263
256
289
13%
Per cent from
52%
51%
54%
56%
60%
4%
Per cent from
48%
49%
46%
44%
40%
-4%
4
APPEALS
Figure 4.1 Notice of appeals, 2010–11 to 2014–15
In addition to the Notice of Appeal, appellate proceedings may include a number of other
applications filed seeking orders directly relating to the appeal. These can affect how the appeal will
proceed. Such applications are a significant resource burden on the Appeal Division as they often
require interlocutory hearings and judgments prior to, and during, dealing with the Notice of Appeal.
Table 4.2 shows the number of these additional applications that are filed.
Table 4.2 Other applications filed in appeal cases, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Filed
Application for Extension of Time
Application in an Appeal
Notice of Cross-Appeal
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15
51
39
28
63
63
271
237
235
249
250
15
16
10
11
14
APPEALS
4
Proportion of notices of appeal filed by jurisdiction
The proportion of family law appeals arising from decrees of the Family Court has fallen slightly
from 46 per cent to 44 per cent in 2014–15.
Figure 4.2 shows the proportion of appeal filings resulting from a decree made either in the
Federal Circuit Court or in the Family Court.
Figure 4.2 Proportion of notice of appeals filed by jurisdiction of decree,
2010–11 to 2014–15
The number of appeals that were allowed or dismissed increased by six per cent to 58 per cent
in 2014–15.
During 2014–15, the total number of appeals withdrawn or abandoned fell by seven per cent,
from 159 to 148. Withdrawn applications fell from 67 to 57, while there were 91 abandoned cases
which is steady compared to 2013–14.
Figure 4.3 Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Figure 4.4 Proportion of Notice of appeals finalised by type of finalisation,
2010–11 to 2014–15
Note: Figures may not add to 100%, this is due to rounding only.
4
APPEALS
Figure 4.3 shows the trend in the manner in which appeals were finalised.
APPEALS
4
Appeal demographics
The historical trend in gender remains generally consistent, although there was a small increase in
the proportion of males lodging appeals (57 per cent) than females (40 per cent) (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.6 shows a change in the trend towards self-representation. In 2014–15, the proportion of
self-represented appellants increased to 39 per cent.
Figure 4.5 Proportion of appellants by gender, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Figure 4.6 Proportion of appellants’ representation status, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Of the appeals finalised in 2014–15, 75 per cent were finalised within 12 months. Figure 4.7
shows the time taken to finalise appeals over the past five years.
Figure 4.7 Months to finalise appeals, 2010–11 to 2014–15
Appeals to the High Court of Australia
Section 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that an appeal does not lie to the High Court from
a decree of a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, whether original or appellate,
except by special leave of the High Court.
During 2014–15:
−− 24 applications for special leave to appeal were filed in the High Court from judgments of the
Family Court
−− 22 applications for special leave were determined or disposed of by the High Court: 19 were
refused, one discontinued, two deemed abandoned and none granted, and
−− No appeals were heard by the High Court.
APPEALS
4
Age of finalised appeals
IN FOCUS
How the Commonwealth Courts Portal saved the day
Ms M. was due to marry her fiancé at a marriage ceremony booked at a local court in NSW.
The bride and groom turned up for the ceremony, ready to start their lives together but before
the ceremony could commence, the bride was required to demonstrate proof of divorce from
a previous marriage. Unfortunately Ms M. did not bring the proof of divorce order with her.
The local court called the National Enquiry Centre (NEC) as the bride stood anxiously by the
phone. The NEC emailed the court the details on how to register and log onto the Commonwealth
Courts Portal, on behalf of the bride.
In a matter of minutes, the bride was able to register, link to her file and print the proof of
divorce order.
The bride and groom were relieved that the ceremony didn’t have to be re-scheduled and the
marriage could go ahead.
Did you know?
If a divorce was finalised after 13 February 2010, a proof of divorce can be obtained from
the Commonwealth Courts Portal at no cost.
SCAN FOR WEBSITE
5
SIGNIFICANT
AND NOTEWORTHY
JUDGMENTS
5
F Firm & Ruane and Ors
SIGNIFICANT AND NOTEWORTHY JUDGMENTS
[2014] FamCAFC 189 (2 October 2014)
(May, Thackray and Strickland JJ)
Fields & Smith
[2015] FamCAFC 57 (17 April 2015)
(Bryant CJ, May and Ainslie-Wallace JJ)
X Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) & Milstead and Anor
[2015] FamCAFC 50 (30 March 2015)
(Thackray, Strickland and Tree JJ)
Teo & Guan
[2015] FamCAFC 94 (21 May 2015)
(Thackray, May and Crisford JJ)
In 2014–15, 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. The Court
recognises that the accessibility of its judgments to the public is important. It commits the
resources required to ensure that every final judgment delivered is anonymised and published
consistent with s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Virtually all judgments, after anonymisation, are published in full text on the Australasian Legal
Information Institute (AustLII) website. There is a link to the AustLII site from the Court’s website
(www.familycourt.gov.au). Recent decisions are also published on the Court’s website for a
period of two months. This policy has enabled the Court to better respond to community interest
and concerns about particular cases highlighted in the media and demonstrates the commitment
of the Court to being open and accountable for its judgments.
5
Significant and noteworthy judgments
5
[2014] FamCAFC 189 (May, Thackray and Strickland JJ) –
delivered on 2 October 2014.
Appeal—binding financial agreements—accrued jurisdiction
This matter involved an application for leave to appeal and, if leave was granted, an appeal to the
Full Court against orders made by Justice Murphy, which dismissed the appellant’s application
in a case. The appellant was a law firm that had acted on behalf of the wife, who was the second
respondent to the appeal. The first respondent was the husband and the third respondent was
a barrister who had been instructed by the appellant to advise the wife in respect of a financial
agreement entered into by the husband and the wife following separation.
Following an application by the husband to set the agreement aside, which was resisted by the wife,
Justice Cronin found that the financial agreement was not binding as it failed to comply with s 90G
of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The wife subsequently joined the appellant and the
third respondent to the proceedings and sought that the appellant pay her costs, indemnify her for
any loss arising from the husband’s application, or pay her damages for breach of contract and/
or negligence, together with interest and costs. In response, the appellant sought that the wife’s
application be dismissed and that the appellant and the third respondent be removed as parties to
the proceedings. Justice Murphy dismissed the appellant’s application. In so doing, Justice Murphy
found that there was accrued jurisdiction to hear the wife’s claims against the appellant and the
third respondent for breach of contract, negligence, breach of duty of care or breach of fiduciary
duty. These orders were the subject of the appeal.
The major issue arising in the appeal was whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Court
had jurisdiction to hear the claims in negligence and, in particular, whether his Honour erred in
failing to follow the earlier Full Court decision in Noll & Noll (2013) FLC 93–529. In Noll, an appeal
against a decision that held that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings by the
husband against the wife’s solicitors, in the context of financial proceedings between the husband
and wife relating to a financial agreement, was dismissed.
Each member of the Full Court delivered separate reasons. However, Justice May recorded that she
largely agreed with the judgments of Justice Thackray and Justice Strickland, and Justice Thackray
recorded that he agreed generally with Justice Strickland’s reasons, save for the issue of the
relevance of any factual distinction between the matter under appeal and Noll.
Justice Strickland stated that the principles relevant to when intermediate courts of appeal may
depart from their own earlier decision were well settled. The first consideration was whether there
was a factual difference between the two cases that has any relevant legal significance. If that
question is answered in the negative, the decision can only be departed from if the Full Court
considers that it is “plainly wrong”. Justice Strickland then recorded that the authorities state
that an earlier decision should only be departed from cautiously and when the Court is compelled
to the conclusion that the decision is wrong. His Honour then confirmed that, according to the
authorities, a discretion to depart from the decision exists, even where the later Full Court forms
the view that the earlier decision is “plainly wrong”.
Justice Thackray identified a number of factual distinctions between Noll and the matter under
appeal, including the fact that the husband brought the action against the wife’s solicitors in
Noll whereas in the present case the wife joined her own solicitors. Justice Thackray found this
distinction to be irrelevant. Justice Thackray said:
It seems to me that it cannot be right that the Court has accrued jurisdiction to determine a claim
for damages by one party against their own solicitor, while not having jurisdiction to determine a
damages claim against the other party’s solicitors, in circumstances where both claims arise out
of a Part VIIIA agreement.
Justice Thackray said the focus should be on deciding whether there was one controversy.
After considering various indicia, Justice Thackray was satisfied that those indicia pointed to the
conclusion that the damages claim in Noll was part of one wider controversy, and that the Court
in Noll erred in finding that the husband’s damages claim was not essential to the determination
of the federal element of the dispute. Justice Thackray said he was satisfied that, upon closer
examination, part of the Full Court’s decision in Noll was inconsistent with authority. However,
Justice Thackray did not consider it necessary to decide whether or not Noll was “plainly wrong”.
Justice May stated that although she did not disagree with Justice Strickland’s finding that the
Full Court was able to depart from Noll by reason of the factual difference, her Honour was also
of the view that there were aspects of principle espoused in Noll about which there could be
more than reasonable disagreement.
The Full Court allowed the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.
5
On the facts of the case, Justice Strickland found that there was a relevant factual distinction
between Noll and the instant case. That distinction was found in the fact that the husband in
Noll instituted proceedings against the wife’s solicitors, whereas in the case at hand, the wife’s
proceedings were against her own solicitors. Therefore, the respective claims were differently
based because the husband in Noll could not plead breach of retainer, breach of duty of care
or breach of fiduciary duty. Justice Strickland also observed that, as a result of the different legal
basis for the claims, they crystallised at different times. Justice Strickland stated that the nature
of husband’s claims in Noll was at least arguably related to the finding that those claims were
“completely separate and distinct” from the proceedings under the Act. Therefore, there was
relevant legal significance in the factual distinction between the two cases.
5
Fields & Smith
[2015] FamCAFC 57 (Bryant CJ, May and Ainslie-Wallace JJ) –
delivered 17 April 2015.
Appeal—property settlement—contributions
In this matter the wife appealed property settlement orders which effected a division of the parties’
assets as to 60 per cent to the husband and 40 per cent to the wife. The wife’s contention on
appeal was that a proper assessment of the parties’ respective contributions should result in the
assets being divided equally. The husband also cross-appealed the property settlement orders
but contended that the assets should have been divided as to 70 per cent in his favour and
30 per cent to the wife.
At the time of separation in 2008 the parties had been married for almost 30 years. At the
beginning of their marriage they had no assets of real significance. Approximately 11 years into
their marriage the parties commenced their own construction company, Y Pty Ltd. By the time
of separation, Y Pty Ltd was a successful business with a value of between $21,800,000 and
$29,600,000. The total property pool by the time of separation was valued at between
$32,321,000 and $39,816,000.
During the marriage the husband was the main breadwinner, working as the managing director
of Y Pty Ltd. The wife fulfilled homemaker and parenting duties for the parties’ three children.
However, the wife was also a director of and equal shareholder in the business.
The majority judgment on appeal was delivered by Chief Justice Bryant and Justice Ainslie-Wallace.
Justice May delivered separate reasons for judgment agreeing with the outcome of the appeal.
The key issue on appeal, as it was at trial, was the assessment of the parties’ respective
contributions and their subsequent percentage entitlements to property, particularly their
shareholding in Y Pty Ltd and their interest in the former matrimonial home.
In their consideration of the trial judge’s reasons for judgment, Bryant CJ and Ainslie-Wallace J
noted with approval the trial judge’s rejection of the notion that there is a particular type of
contribution that relates to “special skills” which results in a particular finding in respect of
contributions. Their Honours confirmed similar statements from other Full Courts in Kane & Kane
[2013] FamCAFC 205 and Hoffman & Hoffman [2014] FamCAFC 92.
In considering the complaints raised on appeal, Bryant CJ and Ainslie-Wallace J firstly accepted
that upon reading the trial judge’s findings that apparently related to the pre-separation period,
it would be “difficult to infer that his Honour had something other than equality of contributions
by each of the parties in mind”.
Their Honours then considered the apparent findings in relation to the pre-separation period
against the trial judge’s findings concerning post-separation contributions, and the ultimate
disparity of a 20 per cent entitlement differential. Bryant CJ and Ainslie-Wallace J held that the
trial judge’s ultimate findings of disparity of contribution post-separation were inconsistent with
his apparent findings of equality of contribution for the pre-separation period. Their Honours
further held that a result that seemed in conflict with a finding of equality required adequate
explanation by the trial judge, and none was provided.
However, their Honours also said that the appeal would not necessarily be allowed on that basis
alone. Their Honours then turned to a consideration of the complaint raised by the wife that the
trial judge’s inclusion of a table of “Comparable Cases” in his reasons for judgment acted as an
impermissible fetter on his otherwise extraordinarily wide discretion. The table included reference
to six other cases with categories such as “assistance with children by husband” and “work by
wife in business”. The percentage entitlements awarded to the wives in each case ranged from
a lower limit of 27.5 per cent and an upper limit of 40 per cent. Bryant CJ and Ainslie-Wallace J
accepted that the trial judge’s apparent reliance on the table led him into error, noting in particular
that the wife was in fact awarded 40 per cent of the property, which was also the upper limit of
entitlement outlined in the table. Their Honours also noted that the table gave no real indication of
the relevant facts in the apparently similar cases and it could “only inform the glibbest of comparisons”.
Bryant CJ and Ainslie-Wallace J (with May J agreeing) determined that it was open to the Full
Court to re-exercise the discretion. In so doing, their Honours assessed the evidence as reflecting
equality of contribution by both parties in relation to both the pre and post-separation periods.
Their Honours further determined to make no adjustment under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act
1975 (Cth) and made orders providing for the equal division of assets.
5
In their consideration of the trial judge’s findings in relation to post-separation contributions,
Bryant CJ and Ainslie-Wallace J also considered what evidence, if any, was before the trial
judge that would support a finding that in the post-separation period there was a diminution in
the wife’s contributions as compared to the husband that would justify a disparity of 20 per cent
between the parties. Their Honours ultimately concluded that there was no such evidence. In so
finding, their Honours emphasised that while the fact of separation will mean in some cases that
the contribution to the welfare of the family will be different, the role does not necessarily cease.
Their Honours also focused on the fact that in the relatively short post-separation period in this
case, the parties did not acquire further assets, nor was there evidence of improvement of their
existing assets and, importantly, there was no evidence that the husband had made any greater
contribution than the wife to the conservation of the assets in the post-separation period.
5
X Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) & Milstead and Anor
[2015] FamCAFC 50 (Thackray, Strickland and Tree JJ) –
delivered 30 March 2015.
Appeal—property settlement—power to make orders where a third party company
is in administration
In this matter the Voluntary Administrator of X Pty Ltd (“X Pty Ltd”) appealed all orders made by
the trial judge which effected property settlement as between the husband and the wife, being the
first and second respondents to the appeal. The orders appealed provided for money to be paid
jointly or severally by the wife and X Pty Ltd to the husband and, if that money was not paid within
60 days, real property of X Pty Ltd was to be sold and the proceeds distributed to cover the cash
payment to the husband. The husband opposed the appeal but the wife supported it.
The key issue on appeal, as argued by X Pty Ltd, was that all the orders made by the trial judge were
contrary to certain provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Corporations Act”) because after
the trial was completed and while judgment was reserved, X Pty Ltd went into administration.
On appeal the Full Court’s consideration focused on the argument that the orders were made
contrary to the provisions of s 440D of the Corporations Act. Section 440D relevantly provides
that during the administration of a company, a proceeding in a court cannot be proceeded with
except with the written consent of the administrator or the leave of the Court. The issue for the
Full Court was whether, where X Pty Ltd went into administration while judgment was reserved,
the subsequent making of orders constituted proceeding with a matter contrary to s 440D.
In considering this question the Full Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation and
made reference to the object of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act, being the Part of that Act where
s 440D appears. The object of that Part as set out in s 435A is relevantly expressed as being to
provide for the business, property and affairs of an insolvent company to be administered in a way
that maximises the chances of the company continuing in existence or, if that is not possible, in a
way that results in a better return for the company’s creditors. The Full Court then considered the
legislative history of s 440D before saying:
41. It can therefore be seen that the purpose for the initial enactment of what is now s 440D
of the Corporations Act was to, so far as possible, and insofar as the company was not the
moving party, freeze the financial circumstances of the company in question, to permit the
administrator to devise a plan of action for the future of the company in conformity with the
statutory objects of s 435A. The legislature did so by prohibiting proceedings or enforcement
being commenced, and by statutorily staying any extant proceedings or enforcement process.
Given that purpose, it would be anomalous if s 440D permitted the adjudication upon extant
proceedings, either against the company or in relation to its property, to nonetheless conclude
by judgment during the moratorium period. That is because a judgment may create rights
and liabilities which otherwise do not exist either at law or in equity, or adjust rights.
The judgment in question is a good example of that, in that it created a liability on the part of
X Pty Ltd which did not exist prior to judgment, and further required [real property belonging
to X Pty Ltd] to be sold to satisfy the debt just created if it was not paid within 60 days.
(emphasis added)
The Full Court ultimately found that the trial judge should not have proceeded to deliver judgment
and make the orders. The Full Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judge’s orders
and remitted the matter for rehearing.
[2015] FamCAFC 94 (Thackray, May and Crisford JJ) –
delivered 21 May 2015.
Appeal—property—power of the Family Court of Australia and Family Court of
Western Australia to grant anti-suit injunctions
In this matter the husband appealed against an order made by a judge of the Family Court of
Western Australia restraining him from pursuing proceedings instituted in the High Court of the
Republic of Singapore. In determining the appeal the Full Court considered the power of both the
Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia to grant anti-suit injunctions.
By way of background, the husband and the wife married in 1984 and separated in 2010. They had
three children. The husband spends about seven months of the year in Perth and the balance of
his time in Singapore. The wife lives in Perth and is an Australian citizen. In February 2012 the
parties and their three children executed a Deed of Family Arrangement. The Deed was governed
by Singaporean law and its effect was to share assets equally between the five parties. Two clauses
of the Deed were of particular relevance to the matter, one provided that the division of assets
provided for by the Deed would constitute full and final settlement between the parties, and the other
stated that the Deed would be governed and construed in accordance with the Laws of Singapore.
In December 2013 the wife filed proceedings in the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to
s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) seeking to have the Deed set aside and for assets to be
divided equally. In February 2014 the husband filed proceedings in the High Court of the Republic of
Singapore seeking that the wife withdraw her Australian proceedings and that the Deed be declared
as valid and binding. In March 2014 the wife filed an application in a case seeking that the husband
be restrained by injunction from prosecuting his proceedings in Singapore. The trial judge found that
the Family Court of Western Australia had jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction and made such
an order (the Full Court noted that technically the trial judge made an anti-anti-suit injunction). The
trial judge’s finding as to jurisdiction was a key issue challenged on appeal.
In considering the husband’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Western Australia,
the Full Court first considered the source of the Family Court of Australia’s power to grant anti-suit
injunctions. The Full Court provided an extensive discussion of authorities before concluding that:
45. …
the power [to grant anti-suit injunctions] must be one which is conferred expressly
by or under [the Family Law Act]; or arises by way of an implication from that Act;
or is incidental and necessary to the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by that Act.
The Full Court further held that:
67. …
It is sufficient for present purposes to say that there is strong authority for the
proposition that an anti-suit injunction may be granted by the Family Court of Australia
in the exercise of its inherent, or more correctly, its implied powers [to control its
own process].
5
Teo & Guan
5
The Full Court also found that it is arguable that s 114(3) of the Family Law Act gives power to
grant an anti-suit injunction, although as the issue was not fully argued on appeal, they made
no absolute finding.
In relation to the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Western Australia to grant anti-suit injunctions
the Full Court said:
81. C
onstruing the subject matter, scope and purpose of the State and federal Acts, we find
a clear intention that a State Family Court should have precisely the same powers in the
exercise of federal jurisdiction as the Family Court of Australia. Since it is accepted that
the Family Court of Australia has the power to grant an anti-suit injunction, we consider
the [Family Court of Western Australia] has the same power…
Upon finding that the Family Court of Western Australia had jurisdiction, the Full Court had to
consider whether the trial judge otherwise erred in granting the anti-suit injunction. The Full Court
found no error on the part of the trial judge and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
6
MANAGEMENT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
6
Corporate governance
This section reports on aspects of the Family Court of Australia’s corporate governance arrangements.
The Chief Justice, assisted by the Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for managing the
administrative affairs of the Court.
Under the Constitution, judicial power is vested in judges who administer that power in courts.
The Family Law Act defines the Court as being a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and the
judges appointed to that court. By delegation from the Chief Justice, case management judges
assist in administering judicial functions in particular areas, such as case management.
The Family Court is autonomously governed; that is, the judiciary has the responsibility for
the administration of the Court. To enable the effective and efficient administration of justice,
the judiciary needs support to deal with its workload. Non-judicial court employees, public
servants accountable to the executive government through the Chief Executive Officer,
provide that support.
The Chief Executive Officer’s powers are broad, although subject to directions from the
Chief Justice. The Chief Executive Officer holds the responsibilities and powers of an agency
head under Commonwealth financial management and public service legislation.
The judges’ committee structure facilitates collegiate involvement of the judges of the Court.
Figure 6.1 shows the organisational structure of the Court.
6
Figure 6.1 Organisational structure of the Family Court of Australia, 30 June 2015
Denotes professional responsibility
6
Judicial officers of the Family Court of Australia
At 30 June 2015, there were 33 judges of the Court, including the Chief Justice and the Deputy
Chief Justice.
Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia
The Chief Justice is responsible for ensuring the 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.
The Honourable Chief
Justice Diana Bryant AO
Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO was appointed Chief Justice of the
Family Court of Australia on 5 July 2004. She had previously been the
inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate overseeing the establishment of the
then Federal Magistrates Court, a position she held for four years.
Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia
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). The Deputy Chief
Justice’s chambers are located in the Canberra registry.
The Honourable Deputy
Chief Justice John Faulks
Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks was appointed as a Family Court
judge on 12 October 1994. He was appointed as Deputy Chief Justice
on 25 June 2004
The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks Appointed to the Appeal Division
5 July 2004
25 June 2004
The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn 10 August 1993
The Honourable Justice Michelle May 6 February 2003
The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray
(Chief Judge Family Court of Western Australia) 16 November 2006
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
Judges
Adelaide
The Honourable Justice Steven Andrew Strickland The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe The Honourable Justice David Michael Berman 22 November 1999
3 March 1997
18 July 2013
Brisbane
The Honourable Justice Michelle May 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 The Honourable Justice Jenny Deyell Hogan 12 July 2011
14 January 2013
Canberra
The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks 2 July 1990
25 June 2004
6
Judges assigned to the Appeal Division
6
Hobart
The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin AM 19 August 2005
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 The Honourable Justice Sharon Louise Johns The Honourable Justice Christine Thornton 31 January 2013
29 July 2013
12 August 2013
Newcastle
The Honourable Justice Stewart Craig Austin 13 July 2009
The Honourable Justice Margaret Ann Cleary 8 July 2010
Parramatta
The Honourable Justice Garry Frederick Foster The Honourable Justice Hilary Rae Hannam 8 August 2013
13 August 2013
Sydney
The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace The Honourable Justice Judith Maureen Ryan The Honourable Justice Murray Robert Aldridge The Honourable Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood Stevenson The Honourable Justice Mark Frederick Le Poer Trench 9 July 2010
31 July 2006
13 December 2012
18 May 2001
10 October 2001
The Honourable Justice Garry Allan Watts 14 April 2005
The Honourable Justice Judith Anne Rees 15 December 2011
The Honourable Justice William Philip Johnston 12 July 2010
The Honourable Justice Ian James Loughnan 12 July 2010
The Honourable Justice Robert Bruce McClelland 104 FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
16 June 2015
The Honourable Justice Peter William Tree 14 January 2013
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 Jane Crisford 24 October 2006
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
New Presidential Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal include:
The Honourable Justice Janine Stevenson
The Honourable Justice Victoria Bennett
The Honourable Justice Colin Forrest
The Honourable Justice David Berman
The Honourable Justice
Janine Stevenson
Victoria Bennett
Colin Forrest
David Berman
Continuing Presidential Members are:
The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn
The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe
The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin AM
6
Townsville
6
Appointments, retirements and resignations
Judicial officer appointment
The Honourable Justice Robert McClelland
was appointed on 16 June 2015
Judicial officer retirement
The Honourable Justice Graham Bell
retired on 27 February 2015
Robert McClelland
Graham Bell
Justice Benjamin AM was a recipient of a Member of the Order of Australia
in the 2015 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. Justice Benjamin was
recognised for significant service to the judiciary and to the law, to legal
education, mediation and arbitration, and to professional standards.
In May 2015 Justice Benjamin was awarded an Honorary Master’s
Degree in Applied Law and was made a Fellow of the College of Law.
This was as a reflection of his many years of service to the College
as a board member, member of the Academic Board, and Chairman.
The College of Law was set up in New South Wales in the 1970s to
provide practical legal training for law graduates to become solicitors.
Justice Benjamin became Director in 1998 when the internet was
Robert Benjamin AM
beginning to grow. The College of Law developed combined electronic
and face-to-face training for young graduates and eventually expanded the training programs
to Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and New Zealand. The training at that time was effective and
revolutionary. His Honour remained on the Board of the College until shortly after his appointment
as a Judge. At one stage he was the Chairman of that Board. After leaving the Board, His Honour
moved to the Academic Board of the College. Over the last 10 years, online Masters Degrees
in Applied Law have been created. These include practical training in commercial litigation,
commercial transactions, in-house practice, property law and wills and estates. The College of
Law is now in the top half dozen tertiary institutions providing Masters Degrees. The training for
these degrees can be accessed from home or from the office. They are often a major step towards
specialist accreditation.
His Honour is proud of the work of the College of Law and the consequent structured career
development for solicitors.
Justice Benjamin has been a Family Court judge since 2005.
Richard Foster PSM FAIM
Chief Executive Officer,
Richard Foster PSM FAIM
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 Chief Executive Officer holds the
responsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealth
financial management and public service legislation, but is appointed
under similar terms as judicial officers. The Chief Executive Officer is
supported by the staff of the National Support Office. Richard Foster
was appointed Chief Executive Officer in May 2000.
Principal Registrar
Angela Filippello
Principal Registrar,
Angela Filippello
The Principal Registrar provides high level legal and procedural advice
to support the judicial functioning of the Family Court. As a senior
lawyer, she discharges the statutory duties assigned to that position
by the Family Law Act 1975, works closely with the Chief Justice and
judges in administering the Act and related legislation, and identifies
areas in need of reform. The Principal Registrar presides in court and
holds the delegated power to make orders in interim parenting cases,
maintenance cases and some enforcement of financial obligations.
The Principal Registrar also oversees the performance of, and provides
direction to, the Court’s registrars. Angela Filippello was appointed
Principal Registrar in July 1999.
Principal, Child Dispute Services
Jane Reynolds (acting)
The Principal, Child Dispute Services advises the Chief Justice and the
Chief Executive Officer on the provision of quality child dispute services
to the Court. The Principal ensures that the services delivered by the
family consultants are effective and consistent with the strategic and
business objectives of the Court. The Principal also has responsibility
for the development of strategic external relationships that promote
and position the child dispute services of the Court within the family
law framework. Jane Reynolds was appointed acting Principal,
Child Dispute Services in February 2015.
Principal, Child Dispute
Services, Jane Reynolds (acting)
6
Senior executives
6
Executive Director, Client Services
Stephen Andrew
The Executive Director, Client Services is responsible for the delivery
of client services in all family law registries. The Executive Director
ensures that high quality registry services and support are provided
to all judicial officers, litigants and legal practitioners, consistent with
the strategic and business objectives of the Court. The Executive
Director, Client Services also has responsibility for statistical services.
Stephen Andrew was appointed Executive Director, Client Services in
July 2011.
Executive Director, Client
Services, Stephen Andrew
Chief Information Officer
Paul Stace (acting)
The Chief Information Officer provides strategic vision, leadership
and management of the Court’s applications, information management
and infrastructure services. Paul Stace was appointed acting
Chief Information Officer in February 2015.
Chief Information Officer,
Paul Stace (acting)
Executive Director, Corporate
Adrian Brocklehurst
The Executive Director, Corporate provides strategic leadership
and management of the Court’s human resources, property and
contracts, finance, management accounting and procurement and
risk management. Adrian Brocklehurst was appointed Executive
Director, Corporate in September 2014. Adrian holds a Bachelor of
Commerce (Accounting) degree from the University of Newcastle
and is a Fellow of CPA Australia.
Executive Director, Corporate,
Adrian Brocklehurst
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 has introduced five new standing
committees.
These committees facilitate a more inclusive, analytical and transparent discussion of important
policy issues faced by the Court and result ultimately in a more integrated and accountable
decision-making process.
6
Judicial committees reporting
6
Court Policy Committee
The Court Policy Committee was established to oversee five new standing committees. 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 Court Policy Committee met for the first time in its new form in December 2014.
The Committee comprises:
−− The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO (Chair)
−− The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks
−− The Honourable Justice David Berman
−− The Honourable Justice Judy Ryan
−− The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin
−− The Honourable Justice Colin Forrest
−− The Honourable Justice Ann Ainslie-Wallace
−− Chief Executive Officer Richard Foster PSM (exofficio), and
−− Leisha Lister (secretariat).
This section summarises the work of some of the judicial committees during 2014–15.
At the direction of Chief Justice Bryant, a committee was formed to consider how best to
implement the International Framework of Court Excellence in the Court. The primary goal was to
develop a comprehensive framework to better assess and improve the ability of the Family Court
to provide for the delivery of justice and efficient court administration using best practice.
The result of the Committee’s work is contained in a report published in November 2013 entitled
Achieving Court Excellence.
Finance
A core recommendation was the formation of the Finance Committee with the principal focus of
its work being directed to the following:
−− consider and define the full cost and budgetary requirements of the Family Court
−− consider spending and budgetary priorities that affect core judicial work
−− a mechanism by which judges can be involved in a discussion about budgetary priorities
and the allocation of financial resources, and
−− ensure transparency in respect of expenditure and the setting of budgetary priorities that
affect core judicial work.
During 2014–15 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 Executive Director, Corporate, Adrian Brocklehurst.
The work of the Finance Committee is ongoing.
Rules
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 2014–15, the Committee met in person in August 2014, November 2014,
April 2015 and otherwise by video-conference.
Justice Ryan continued to chair the Rules Committee during 2014–15. Committee members
during the year were Justice Loughnan, Justice Berman, Justice Hogan, Magistrate Moroni,
Senior Registrar FitzGibbon, Registrar Kearney (until April 2015), Neil Wareham (legal counsel
to the Family Court) and Registrar Paxton (from April 2015).
6
Judicial committee highlights
6
In 2014–15, the Committee worked on a number of important projects, including amendments
to the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). These amendments were secured by the Family Law
(2014 Measures No 1) Rules 2014, which were made on 1 January 2015. The amending rules
increased the scale costs by 2.8 per cent in conformity with the increase approved nationally by
all superior courts and:
−− To describe the methods by which the seal of the Court can be attached to documents.
−− To give effect to the commencement on 12 April 2013 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Legislation Amendment Act 2013. This amending Act inter alia changed the name of the
Federal Magistrates Court to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and its judicial officers to
Chief Judge and Judges.
−− To make a rule convenient to implement amendments made by the Access to Justice
(Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Act 2012 which commenced on 12 June 2013, to enable
the Court to produce a certificate stating whether a person is or has been the subject of a
vexatious proceedings order.
−− To make a rule requiring a coversheet is attached to all documents that are not forms, but
nonetheless are required to be filed.
−− Without detracting from a party’s obligation to serve parties with filed copies of documents,
the removal of the requirement of a filing party to produce sufficient additional copies of
original documents at the time of filing.
−− To expand the class of persons who are automatically entitled to access the court record to
include (in certain cases) child welfare officers of a State or Territory.
−− To rectify the inadvertent repeal of Schedule 2 Family Law Amendment Rules 2011 (No. 2)
which occurred upon the commencement of the Attorney-General’s (Spent and Redundant
Instruments) Repeal Regulation 2013 so as to implement, where possible, the Trans-Tasman
Proceedings Act 2010, including the empowering of Registrars to make decisions and orders
with respect to Trans-Tasman subpoenas.
The Committee consulted with the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia and with
other constituent bodies about the proposed rule amendments.
The Rules Committee is also:
−− engaging in further consultation regarding the electronic accessibility of court documents
and court processes
−− designing rules for arbitration
−− designing the method of entry of orders, and
−− designing Financial Statements and Balance Sheets for use in financial proceedings.
Following restructure of the Court’s governance by the Chief Justice in late 2014, the Court
Performance Committee was established to ensure the implementation and maintenance of
case management systems to achieve maximum efficiency in the disposition of the Court’s work.
The Committee is chaired by Justice Austin and its membership comprises all registry case
management and Magellan judges.
Thus far, the work of the Committee has been directed to streamlining the case management
system operated by the Court, refining implementation of the Magellan protocol, and extending
the National Calendar project.
Case management
Incrementally over recent years, differences in the Court’s case management system emerged in
the three largest registries. The Committee met in March 2015 and resolved a set of principles to
guide the operation of the Court’s ‘trial docket’ system of case management. The principles were
endorsed by the Court Policy Committee and adopted by the Chief Justice. The implementation
of those principles will enhance greater consistency in the way the Court manages the case flow
in its various registries.
Magellan
The Magellan protocol was introduced more than a decade ago and 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.
In February 2015, the Chief Justice, on advice from the Court Policy Committee, authorised some
refinements in the way the Magellan definition is applied, so that only deserving cases attract the
combined resources of the Court and the state-based child welfare, police and legal aid agencies.
The Magellan definition should generally only capture cases involving allegations of ‘recent abuse’,
not ‘recent allegations’ of abuse. The requirement for recency ordinarily applies to the alleged
conduct, not the report of the conduct.
The definition captures cases in which there are allegations of actual abuse, but not cases involving
allegations of unacceptable risk of abuse, the existence of which risk depends upon evidence other
than direct allegations of abuse.
The definition does not capture cases if the ‘abuse’ allegations are not actually controversial. If it
is known and admitted the abuse actually occurred, valuable resources need not be exhausted
collecting evidence about it. The case will be limited to determination of the parenting orders
needed to manage the clear risk to the child.
Magellan cases are now being identified and processed by reference to those refinements,
which merely clarify how the system was always intended to operate.
6
Court performance
6
National calendar
As a national court, the services delivered by the Family Court should be, as far as resources allow,
nationally uniform. Many variables affect the uniform delivery of services, but some variables are
beyond the Court’s control. An obvious example is the appointment by Government of replacement
judges for retiring judges.
In an effort to render its services uniform and to avoid delays, the Court maintains statistical data
about case flow in its registries. The national calendar represents an attempt to tabulate the need
for judicial resources in each registry by reference to such statistical data, permitting decisions
about the temporary re-allocation of judges between its registries. This is to ensure some consistency
of judicial services across Australia as appropriate to a federal court.
Judicial development and welfare
Judicial development
Judicial education should strike a balance between topics which directly affect the judges and
topics which inform judges about issues in the wider community.
The Court provides a two-day program each year to provide education to judges. It is recognised
that judges will have access to other programs developed by providers outside the Family Court,
such as those conducted by the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration and the
National Judicial College of Australia. However, the role of this committee is to ensure a program
that is particularly relevant to the work of family law judges. It is also the committees role to provide
focussed orientation for new appointees.
The Committee, which is chaired by Justice Ainslie-Wallace, will also assist the Chief Justice in the
dissemination of such information as her Honour considers should be brought to the attention of
the judges.
Judicial welfare
The Committee will focus on the following activities:
−− topics of relevance to general resilience will be included in any education program provided
to judges, for example maintaining psychological and physical health of the judiciary
−− providing mentoring for judges
−− ensuring that judges are aware of the support services available to them to assist in dealing
with matters of concern and that the services can be accessed directly by the judges so as
to maintain both anonymity and confidentiality.
The Court Services portfolio oversees and reports to the Court Policy Committee on governance
and policy considerations pertaining to the Court’s provision of services to the public, the judges
and the Court’s staff. In doing so, it also oversees the work of the following sub-committees:
−− Children’s Committee
−− Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach Committee
−− Unrepresented Litigants Working Group, and
−− Family Violence.
Court Services also oversees matters that were previously dealt with by the Cultural Diversity
sub-committee, and the Property Management sub-committee. It also deals with information
technology requirements for judges.
Work of the sub committees
Children’s Committee
The Children’s Committee was established in 2012 to consider what (if any) further work needed
to be undertaken with respect to the involvement of children in parenting cases and how the
Family Court and Federal Circuit Court might ascertain whether children feel their voices have
been heard in proceedings that involve them.
The Committee, with the assistance of Legal Aid NSW, organised and held the first National
Independent Children’s Lawyers’ Conference in Sydney in October 2014. The Conference was
well attended and facilitated the exchange of best practice ideas and information between
independent children’s lawyers from all over Australia. The Committee has commenced planning
for the next conference that will be held in Melbourne in 2016.
The Committee has also been working with Kids’ Help Line, Sydney University academics
Professor Patrick Parkinson and Professor Judy Cashmore, and others, to facilitate a research
project that taps into the thousands of children and young people who contact Kids’ Help Line
each week in order to anonymously ascertain their views about their experiences of family
breakdown and any involvement they have had with the family law system. The project is also being
designed to learn how children see matters affecting them in the aftermath of family breakdown
and the conclusion of court proceedings. The study, via various social media platforms, will focus
on young people aged 13 and older. Funding for the start-up phase of the project is currently being
sourced from various organisations around the country.
The Committee was involved in the development of age-appropriate, child-focused content for
the new children’s section on the courts’ websites and in producing fact sheets for distribution
to children who come into contact with the courts.
6
Court services
6
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Committee seeks to continue 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 hand-in-hand to enable and facilitate the participation
of Indigenous Australians in the Court’s processes.
Chair of the Committee, Justice Benjamin, and other committee members attended and participated
in sessions at the World Indigenous Legal Conference in Brisbane in 2014. Committee members also
attended and participated in an Aboriginal Family Law Conference in Sydney in November 2014.
The Committee prepared a submission to the Senate Finance and Public Administration
Committee’s inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experience of law enforcement and
justice services.
Justice Benjamin recently accepted an invitation from the Australian Institute of Judicial
Administration to sit on its National Indigenous Policy Committee.
The Committee is currently working on the following activities:
−− converting the Court’s Indigenous Action Plan 2014–16 into a Reconciliation Action Plan
−− developing a court protocol for Acknowledgment of Country at court events
−− examining the potential of a resource of information relevant to ATSI outreach issues to be
placed on the courts’ intranets
−− establishing and building links with local Indigenous leaders around each of the Court’s registries
−− working cooperatively with the Family Court of Western Australia, Federal Circuit Court,
state courts and tribunals, the National Judicial College and relevant state judicial education
authorities such as the Judicial Commission of NSW, and
−− identifying, for the judges, the family consultants in each registry with Indigenous competence
training, noting that training sessions for Indigenous cultural competency were conducted
during the last year for family consultants in Sydney and Townsville.
Family violence
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 of both courts on family violence issues. In discharging this
responsibility the Committee reviews and updates the courts’ family violence strategy and family
violence best practice principles, as well as undertaking discrete projects.
During 2014–15, members of the Family Violence Committee were Justice Ryan (Chair),
Justice Stevenson, Justice Hannam, Judge Brown, Judge Hughes, Judge Altobelli,
Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar, Family Court of Australia), Di Lojszczyk (family consultant)
and Kristen Murray (Senior Research Adviser to Chief Justice Bryant). The Committee held three
meetings via video-conference.
The Family Violence Committee also worked on issues raised by:
−− The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence
−− Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Inquiry into Domestic Violence
−− Parties and children in witness protection, and
−− Internal review processes on the death of a child or party.
Unrepresented litigants
The Unrepresented Litigants Working Group is chaired by Justice Le Poer Trench and consists
of representatives from the Federal Circuit Court, the courts’ administration, family consultants,
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 produced draft simplified forms for consideration by the judges.
The group is also considering a number of other initiatives such as the development of web-based
interactive documents, web-based information on requirements of running a court case, and the
provision of court delivered information sessions for unrepresented litigants.
Cultural diversity
Justice Berman continues to represent the Court on the national Judicial Council on Cultural
Diversity, established by the national Council of Chief Justices. In that role, Justice Berman
also recently participated in a roundtable on access to justice by women from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds.
The Court’s administration developed a Multicultural Plan 2013–15 in response to a Commonwealth
Government requirement, using an external consultant to undertake a comprehensive review of
multicultural access and equity at the Court. That review’s findings and recommendations have
informed projects now being implemented under the Plan.
An e-learning, online cultural diversity awareness training module for staff has been produced. It is
called Let’s Talk Cultural Competency and is a module-based training program with self-assessment
tasks to complete on starting and completion. For more information see page 16.
6
The Committee’s major project was the implementation of the Family Violence Plan 2014–16.
The Plan 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.
6
Property management
Recent developments of relevance to this Court include a move from separate leased premises in
Darwin into the Northern Territory Supreme Court Building, in which a particular part of that building
has been refitted to meet the needs of this court and the Federal Circuit Court. The new registry
became operational from 1 June 2015. The new accommodation is regarded as a vast improvement.
The Court’s current lease on the premises occupied by the Newcastle registry expired on
31 July 2015. An agreement has now been reached with the lessor to enter into an eight year
lease, with no increase in the commencing rental and a fit-out incentive of $500,000 for capital
works to be decided by the two courts who occupy the space. The lessor is also proposing
to undertake significant base building works in line with the new lease term that will include
upgrading the air conditioning.
Improvement works at Parramatta included the completion of additional toilets in the public areas,
so facilities are now available on each floor.
Judicial information technology requirements
A Casetrack review project has recently commenced, with a view to ensuring that information
technology supports the courts’ processes and needs. Fujitsu Australia Pty Ltd has been contracted
to undertake this project over six months and to deliver a report which maps the courts’ current and
future requirements. Fujitsu is utilising consultants with extensive experience in judicial operations in
NSW, who will be consulting widely with all stakeholders.
Collaborative committees
Joint Costs Advisory Committee
The Joint Costs Advisory Committee comprises representatives of the four federal courts:
the High Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia and
the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. During the reporting period the committee comprised:
−− Judge of the Family Court of Australia (Justice Benjamin) (Chair)
−− Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia (Andrew Phelan)
−− Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia (John Mathieson)
−− Principal Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Adele Byrne), and
−− Principal Registrar of the Family Court of Australia, (Angela Filippello) (who participates as
an observer).
The Committee reviews and recommends variations to the quantum of costs contained in the rules
made by federal courts and advises on other matters relating to those costs as may be referred to
it by a federal court.
The senior executive of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court continued to meet annually
to establish the strategic direction and priorities for the effective administration of both courts.
Senior executives of both courts participate in a number of committees that provide high level
operational and policy advice to the Chief Executive Officer Richard Foster.
The Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group (CMAG) provides operational and policy
advice on key areas that affect the administration of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court.
Chaired by the Chief Executive Officer, CMAG meets bi-monthly and comprises:
−− Executive Director, Client Services (Stephen Andrew)
−− Executive Director Operations, Federal Circuit Court (Steve Agnew)
−− Executive Director, Corporate (Adrian Brocklehurst)
−− Executive Advisor, Family Court (Leisha Lister)
−− Principal Registrar, Family Court (Angela Filippello)
−− Principal Registrar, Federal Circuit Court (Adele Byrne)
−− Principal, Child Dispute Services (Jane Reynolds (acting))
−− Director of Administration, Federal Circuit Court (Stewart Fenwick)
−− Director, Human Resources (Claire Golding)
−− Chief Information Officer (Paul Stace (acting)), and
−− Regional Registry Managers.
Other committees
A number of administrative committees were also active during 2014–15 and provided high level
operational and policy advice. Meeting on a regular or ad hoc basis, they included:
−− Audit and Risk
−− National Consultative
−− Staff Development
−− Property Management, and
−− Work Health and Safety.
6
6
Senior management committee highlights
This section highlights the work of senior management committees during 2014–15.
Appendix eight has details of membership and the terms of reference for the various committees.
In 2014–15, CMAG continued to provide advice to the Chief Executive Officer on new policy and
other initiatives. These included:
−− continued work with the Attorney-General’s Department on the review of the federal courts
−− implementation of the International Framework for Court Excellence, Family Violence
Screening Tool Pilot, Multicultural Plan and cultural competency training
−− financial and human resource planning
−− staff compliance training and development
−− information technology initiatives
−− human resource management policies and practices, and
−− social media communication strategy.
Audit and Risk Committee
The Audit and Risk Committee is established in accordance with section 45 of the Public Governance
and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). The Chief Executive Officer must establish and maintain
an audit committee for the agency, with the functions and responsibilities required by PGPA Rule
Section 17. The functions must include reviewing the appropriateness of the courts and financial
reporting, performance reporting, system of risk oversight and management and system of internal
control. The Committee comprises an external chair and two senior managers from the courts’
administration.
During 2014–15, the Committee considered a range of issues, including the Court’s internal audit
plan, strategic risk and fraud risk treatments and business continuity. It also provided oversight of
the Australian National Audit Office and internal audit report recommendations.
Mr Chris Doogan retired from the Committee at the February 2015 meeting, with Mr Brian Acworth
being appointed as Chair of the Committee from that point. Ms Maria Storti was appointed as a
second external member of the Committee and attended her first meeting in February 2015.
Mr Jamie Crew and Mr Greg Thomas also retired from the Committee at the conclusion of
the June 2015 meeting. A new member will be appointed to the Committee to commence in
August 2015.
The National Consultative Committee is a key forum through which the Court consults with staff
about broader issues that have a national perspective. Elected staff delegates actively present
the views of staff regarding issues that impact nationally on staff and the management and future
direction of the Court.
The Committee met once in 2014–15. Its areas of focus continued to be:
−− the objectives of the Court and how these might be achieved
−− financial and human resource planning
−− information technology initiatives
−− security
−− management and review processes, including proposed changes
−− work health and safety matters
−− equal employment opportunity issues
−− accommodation and amenities, and
−− human resource management policies and practices.
National Work Health and Safety Committee
The National Work Health and Safety Committee met twice during the year to discuss and resolve
national work health safety issues in addition to:
−− developing and reviewing health and safety management arrangements, policies and practices
−− consulting with staff on health and safety issues
−− developing and refining processes to regularly audit health and safety in the Court’s registries
including eliminating identifiable hazards and mitigating known risks
−− reviewing any workplace incidents or accidents to develop prevention strategies
−− making recommendations on the work health and safety impact of changes in the workplace, and
−− discussing and resolving work health and safety issues in the Court.
6
National Consultative Committee
6
Corporate and operational planning and associated
performance reporting and review
At 30 June 2015, there were 772 ongoing and non-ongoing agency employees (excluding judicial
officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees) in all states and territories except
Western Australia.
Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the Court’s
intranet and website:
−− administration policies and procedural documents including guidelines, procedures and manuals
from the finance, human resources and information, communication and technology areas
−− APS Values and Code of Conduct
−− Corporate Plan and business area plans (for the National Support Office)
−− Courts Exchange, the courts’ staff newsletter
−− HR information bulletins
−− Service Charter and Service Commitments documents
−− Registry Services Delivery Strategy
−− Statement of Strategic Intent, and
−− case management policies and manuals related to the management of family law cases from
the Chief Justice, the Principal Registrar and the Principal, Child Dispute Services.
The Court’s geographically dispersed judiciary and staff are informed of significant changes and
events through the following:
−− Chief Justice eMessages—emails from the Chief Justice to the judiciary and all staff
−− Chief Executive Officer eMessages—emails from the Chief Executive Officer to all staff
−− Chief Executive Instructions—the official mechanism by which the Chief Executive
Officer communicates and directs the Court’s compliance with the Public Governance,
Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth)
−− Client service advices—from the Executive Director, Client Services to all client service staff
working in the registries
−− Courts Exchange—the courts’ internal staff newsletter, which is issued four times per year and
includes columns from the Chief Justice, Chief Judge and Chief Executive Officer. This is the
primary vehicle for sharing information and celebrating the achievements and successes of
court staff, and
−− Intranet messages—latest news.
The Court has, as part of its corporate governance arrangements, appropriate mechanisms
to manage general business risk as well as fraud risk.
In 2014–15, the Court’s internal audit services were provided by RSM Bird Cameron and
monitored by the Audit and Risk Committee.
The 2014–15 Internal Audit Plan was developed taking into account the risk drivers in the
Strategic Risk Management Plan and after consultation with the Audit and Risk Committee
and the senior management team.
Internal audits conducted during the year included:
−− records management
−− payroll and leave management
−− court fees (non-event based)
−− travel
−− IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Framework, and
−− business continuity testing.
The Court’s Audit and Risk Committee monitored the implementation of individual audit report
recommendations generated from those audits, through quarterly status reports.
Risk management
The Court promotes a culture that supports the identification, analysis, assessment, treatment,
monitoring and review of all strategic, operational, compliance and financial risks. This is supported
by the Court’s Risk Control and Compliance Framework.
The Risk Control and Compliance Framework provide policies, procedures and tools to promote
effective risk management. The Framework is available to all court staff on the intranet for the
principal purpose of achieving better services and outcomes for clients, judicial services and staff.
The Court continued to participate in the annual Comcover benchmarking survey, which measures
risk and assesses the extent of cultural change within agencies. The Court’s overall result continued
to improve, reflecting the Court’s efforts in the area of risk management.
The Court continues to further revise the Business Continuity Plan with regular reviews, testing and
updating of the Plan being undertaken.
The Procurement and Risk Management section continues to provide, as a standing agenda item,
regular updates on risk-related activities to the Court’s Audit and Risk Committee.
6
Internal audit
6
Financial risk
The Court manages financial risk in accordance with the Risk Control and Compliance Framework.
The relevant mechanisms are:
−− risk assessments for annual business plans
−− risk assessments for identified projects
−− Accountable Authority Instructions available to all staff on the intranet, and
−− monthly financial reports to the Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group and
oversight by the Audit and Risk Committee.
Fraud prevention and control
The Court’s Fraud Control Plan 2013–15 complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control
Guidelines 2011.
The Court has in place fraud investigation, reporting and data collection procedures that met
the needs of the Court and comply with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011.
During 2014–15, the Audit and Risk Committee continued to receive reports on the
implementation status of fraud risk treatments.
The Court continued to monitor the Fraud Control Plan 2013–15, with the Plan being available
to all court staff via the intranet. The Plan was developed in consultation with key stakeholders
across all areas of court activities.
No incidents of fraud were noted within the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court during 2014–15.
Fraud control certification
In accordance with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework 2014, issued by the Minister
for Justice, pursuant to Section 10 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability
Rule 2014, I hereby certify that I am satisfied that:
−− the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court has prepared fraud assessments and has in place
a fraud control plan that complies with the Guidelines
−− appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting procedures and processes
are in place, and
−− annual fraud data has been collected and reported that complies with the Guidelines.
Richard Foster, PSM
14 August 2015
Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) are required to publish
information to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme (IPS). This requirement is
in Part II of the FOI Act and has replaced the former requirement to publish a section 8 statement
in an annual report. An agency plan showing what information is published in accordance with the
IPS requirements is accessible from agency websites.
Information about FOI and the IPS agency plan for the Family Court can be found via a link on
the homepage of the Family Court’s website at www.familycourt.gov.au
The Court received three Freedom of Information requests during 2014–15. At 30 June 2015,
there were no matters outstanding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Ethical standards
The Court’s Strategic Plan states that integrity, respect and responsiveness underpin its approach
to business. The Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct contained in the
Public Service Act 1999 apply to all employees of the Court.
In 2014–15, the Court maintained ongoing information and education activities to ensure that all
staff are aware of their rights, responsibilities and obligations in relation to privacy, ethics and other
factors such as environmental responsibility, data management and data quality.
The Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court together maintain web-based Service Charter and
Service Commitments publications. These outline the services clients may expect of the courts.
The Court is committed to supporting employees to adhere to the APS Values and to comply with
the Code of Conduct. Employees receive information about the Values and the Code through
all-staff emails, the intranet and induction and other training programs. Employees also receive
information and guidance about conduct and behaviour expectations from their managers.
Policy and practices on the establishment and maintenance of appropriate
ethical standards – Ethics Contact Officers
Established in May 2009, the Australian Public Service Commission’s Ethics Contact Officer Network
(ECONET) plays a key role in supporting the ongoing work of the Ethics Advisory Service. The service
has responsibility for promoting the Government’s ethical agenda, which is focused on enhancing
ethics and accountability in the Commonwealth public sector.
The Director, Human Resources and the Workforce and Policy Manager are the Court’s representatives
at the ECONET forum.
6
Information Publication Scheme
6
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 came into effect on 15 January 2014. The Act promotes
integrity and accountability in the Australian public sector by encouraging the disclosure of
information about suspected wrongdoing, protecting people who make disclosures and requiring
agencies to take action. A Public Interest Disclosure is, essentially, a disclosure made by a current
or former public official of suspected wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector.
The courts are committed to complying with all applicable laws and with best practice.
Corrupt practices, breaches of the law and other conduct that is disclosable under the Act are
contrary to our values. If they occur, reporting them is encouraged so that they may be addressed
properly. With that in mind, the courts established formal procedures under the Act, the Public
Interest Disclosure Rules and the Public Interest Disclosure Standards. These procedures are
published on the courts’ intranets and websites.
Authorised officers appointed by the Chief Executive Officer for the courts are the Executive
Director, Client Services, Regional Registry Manager Sydney, and Director, Human Resources.
Service Charter and Service Commitments
Our service commitments
Service Charter
for the Family Court of Australia
and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
This document outlines the service you can expect from the administrative staff
of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. It does
not relate to the work that is performed by judges.
More information can be found in the Courts’ Service Charter, available under the publications
section of the website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au
The Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia are independent courts but
cooperate to provide streamlined access to the federal family law system. The Federal Circuit Court
also deals with general federal law matters.
What you can expect from our staff
Our staff will:
n
Service Charter
Be courteous, helpful and respectful to your individual needs.
n
Respect your rights whether you have legal representation or not and treat all parties fairly.
n
Give you prompt and responsive service.
n
Respect your privacy (unless there are legal requirements to disclose information).
n
Deliver services for parties and lawyers in a safe and secure environment.
n
Provide information about the interests of the children in parenting matters, conciliation in
property and financial disputes and where appropriate, refer you to community-based support
services.
n
Provide accurate up-to-date information that is clear and understandable.
n
Assist, where possible, to overcome any personal barriers to a person’s dealings with the
courts – such as distance, physical, hearing or visual difficulties, or non-English speaking
background.
Service Commitments
The aim of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court is to give clients and other users of
the courts the best services they possibly can. What the courts mean by this is set out in the
joint Service Charter and Service Commitments documents.
The Court also has a Portfolio Budget Statement Key Performance Indicator specifically about
complaints. This, along with the Service Charter, is a central part of the Court’s service monitoring
and response mechanism.
The Service Charter outlines the service level standards clients can expect from staff of the courts
and how clients and other users of court services may make suggestions or complaints about services,
policy, practice or procedures. An aspect of the Charter, in terms of community expectations of the
courts, is that it makes clear what court staff cannot do. This is important because frequently clients
or prospective clients have expectations that the courts cannot meet.
The Service Charter and Service Commitments documents (which summarise information
about what clients of the courts can expect from client services staff, what the staff cannot do,
clients rights and responsibilities and how clients can help the courts to help them) are available
on www.familycourt.gov.au
Feedback and service improvements
Feedback helps to drive service improvement and the courts invite feedback, including suggestions
and complaints about administrative things such as the standard of client service received in a registry,
a privacy matter, a security matter, a court policy, or the way correspondence has been handled.
Full details about feedback and complaints is in Part three—Report on Court Performance—but in
summary, in 2014–15, the Court received:
−− 62 complaints about administrative matters, including court administrative procedures and
processes, staff personal conduct, privacy, security and the client feedback process
−− 49 complaints about judicial delays
−− 42 complaints about judicial conduct, and
−− 20 compliments.
External and internal scrutiny
External scrutiny
Reports by the Auditor-General
The Auditor-General made no report specific to the Family Court during 2014–15.
There were no relevant proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Commonwealth Ombudsman
The Commonwealth Ombudsman made no report specific to the Family Court during 2014–15.
6
The context is that for many clients, the family courts are the only courts they will ever have anything
to do with—so the processes, procedures and legal environment are completely unfamiliar and
this unfamiliarity occurs at what may be one of the most stressful times of their lives because of the
breakdown of family relationships. The courts appreciate this, however, must work impartially and
professionally: thus the information about what people can expect but also what staff cannot do.
For example, staff cannot give legal advice or tell people what words to use in their court papers or
what to say in court; they cannot tell someone whether or not they should bring their case to court.
Staff cannot recommend a certain lawyer to act on a client’s behalf or interpret, change or enforce
orders made by a judge or other judicial officer.
6
Action in defamation
There were no actions in defamation during 2014–15.
Freedom of Information
The Court received three Freedom of Information requests during 2014–15.
Whole-of-government Information, Communication and Technology (ICT)
initiatives
During 2014–15, the courts participated in a number of whole-of-government ICT initiatives:
−− In early December 2014, the annual ICT benchmarking report for the Family Court and
Federal Circuit Court was submitted to the Australian Government Information Management
Office (AGIMO). The reporting requirements were significantly reduced as the courts were
redefined as a small agency. The report covered all ICT operating and capital expenditure
for the 2013–14 financial year and included some quantitative measures about staffing and
quantities of ICT equipment.
−− A contract for wide area network services under the Internet Based Network Connection
Services panel was signed in July 2014. The new network was implemented between
December 2014 and May 2015.
−− Migration of all internet gateway services to Macquarie Telecom was completed during the year.
This work was undertaken as part of the Government Internet Gateway consolidation program.
−− Work continued against the internal ICT Sustainability Plan, developed to address the Australian
Government’s ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15. Further information on progress can be found in
Appendix six.
−− Whole-of-government supply contracts are mandatory across a broad number of areas.
By 30 June 2015, the courts were using the Microsoft volume sourcing arrangement,
the desktop hardware panel, the telecommunications commodities, carriage and associated
services panel, the major office machines panel, and the data centre panel.
−− As part of the Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy, the courts are required to update
online government information and services to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 2.0 standard for website accessibility. The courts’ websites www.familycourt.gov.au and
www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au were upgraded in late May 2015 and are now Double A compliant.
Senate estimates committee hearings
Senior Executive Service staff of the Court attend Senate estimates committee hearings to answer
questions about the Court’s activities. In 2014–15, six questions on notice were received and
answered by the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. In addition, there were 85 departmental
responses.
KPMG and Ernst & Young reviews of courts performance and funding
The Attorney-General’s Department engaged KPMG in late December 2013 to undertake a review
of the performance and funding of the federal courts to support future strategic decision making.
As part of the response to this review, the Department undertook further work with Ernst & Young
in 2014–15 to develop costing scenarios to support options for consideration by Government as
part of the 2015–16 Budget process.
A key theme emerging from these two reviews and the previous Skehill and Semple reviews,
has been the financial difficulties exhibited by the courts, particularly the Family Court and
Federal Circuit Court.
Following consideration of the Ernst & Young review, the Australian Government announced,
as part of the 2015–16 Budget, that the corporate functions of the Family Court and
Federal Circuit Court will be merged with those of the Federal Court of Australia to form a single
administrative body with a single appropriation under the Public Governance, Performance and
Accountability Act 2013 from 1 July 2016.
Productivity Commission Public Inquiry into Access to Justice Arrangements
The courts participated, with a range of other stakeholders, in the Commission’s inquiry to examine
the current costs of accessing justice services and securing legal representation, and the impact of
these costs on access to, and quality of justice. The final report was delivered in September 2014.
Further details can obtained at www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/access-justice
Internal evaluations
There were no internal evaluations during 2014–15.
6
External evaluations
6
Management of human resources
Overview
The Human Resources section of the Corporate Services Division supports all areas of the Court
by managing a range of human resources, entitlements processing services, and advice to the
Court’s judiciary and staff.
In 2014–15 Human Resources focussed on:
−− recruitment services such as advertising support, recruitment tips and assistance, probation,
letters of offer and contracts
−− payroll, entitlements and conditions of employment
−− payroll system, including support for Aurion/employee self-service reporting
−− workforce capability services including planning, Performance Management and Development
Scheme, learning and development and workplace wellbeing
−− workplace relations support including Enterprise Agreement and National Consultative
Committee, policy and legislation advice
−− implementing systems to support workplace health and safety legislation, and
−− employee wellbeing and respectful behaviours.
Enterprise Agreement
The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement
2011–2014 has a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2014, however it continued to operate during
2014–15 and will continue in existence until it is replaced or otherwise terminated.
The Enterprise Agreement covers all non-SES staff of the courts and delivered salary increases
of three per cent for each of the three years 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14. Salary increases
under the Agreement are now exhausted.
In March 2014 the Australian Government Public Sector Workplace Bargaining Policy was released.
Among other things, the policy provides:
“2.1Improvements in pay and conditions are to be funded from within existing budgets, without the
redirection of programme funding.
2.2If the total cost of a proposed agreement is not affordable within an agency’s existing budget,
the Ministers [the Public Service Minister and, in the Court’s case, the Attorney-General]
must not approve the agreement.
3.1Agencies can only negotiate remuneration increases which are affordable, consistent with
Australian Government policy, and offset by genuine productivity gains which satisfy the
Australian Public Service Commissioner.”
Had he decided to negotiate such an agreement, it would have included reduced terms and
conditions and/or a radical reduction in our staff number and service delivery in order to provide any
pay rise. The Chief Executive Officer was not prepared to negotiate in that environment (noting that
a pay rise for our workforce is an annual spend in millions and difficult (if not impossible) to offset
via savings). It is also noted that the courts have already, over the last five years, delivered savings
by reduced spending in operations and by reducing staff numbers in certain areas.
Accordingly, the terms and conditions of the Enterprise Agreement carry over (with no further pay
rises, unless and until there is a new negotiation under revised budgetary conditions).
The Enterprise Agreement directly supports the Court’s strategic objectives and complements its
performance planning, management arrangements and improvements at the team and individual level.
The Court is committed to supporting employees to adhere to the Australian Public Service Values
and comply with the Code of Conduct. During 2014–15, employees continued to receive information
about the Values and the Code through all-staff emails, the intranet and induction and other
training programs. Employees also receive information and guidance about conduct and behaviour
expectations from their managers.
6
Against that background, the Chief Executive Officer advised staff that, in circumstances where
the Court continued to deliver annual operating deficits, and where he considered it unlikely that
the Court could find the necessary productivity/savings offsets in advance of any pay rise, he could
not, in good faith, negotiate a new Enterprise Agreement with annual pay rises.
6
Workforce planning, retention and turnover
Workforce planning
As at 30 June 2015, 22.79 per cent* of court staff were eligible to retire. Accordingly, the Court
continued to develop appropriate human resource strategies to ensure future capability and
resourcing and to cope with staff turnover. These included promoting a clearer understanding of
the capacity and capability of the Court’s workforce and developing a risk management strategy
that strengthens succession management for critical roles and leadership positions in the Court.
The strategies were communicated to managers and staff, helping to ensure that succession
plans were developed at local levels.
* As a percentage of staff numbers, excluding the judiciary and casuals
Retention strategies
Strategies to support the wellbeing of staff and to encourage staff retention are integral to the Court’s
commitment to workplace diversity. The strategies include the following options, benefits and initiatives.
Balancing work and personal life
The Court recognises the need to balance the operational needs of the Court and the personal
lives of staff. Its employment arrangements provide for general and individual flexible working
arrangements, including flex time, time off in lieu, part-time work, working from home
opportunities, purchased leave, maternity, adoption, fostering and supporting partner’s leave,
salary sacrifice arrangements and paid time off work over Christmas and the New Year.
A safe and healthy work environment
The Court provides a family-friendly and non-discriminatory work environment with strong policies
against harassment and bullying. The Court and its employees are committed to measures that
will assist with preventing and managing illness and injury, psychological injuries, and assisting
absent staff to return to work as soon as reasonably practical. Other healthy work environment
strategies include an employee assistance program that provides free professional counselling
to employees and members of their immediate families and free annual influenza vaccinations.
Workplace diversity
The Court recognises that diversity among its staff is one of its greatest assets. Valuing the distinctive
characteristics in every employee and drawing on the diversity of our backgrounds, skills, talents and
views to enhance the Court’s working environment and the work of the Court, underpins the current
workplace diversity plan.
Recognition of staff in the form of positive feedback and celebration of achievement is an important
part of the Court’s culture and business practice. The Court’s reward and recognition schemes
recognise and reward employees for the achievement of corporate goals, providing non-cash
rewards and recognition.
Australian Day achievement medallions
The Australia Day 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.
The Court’s 2015 Australia Day Awards recognise the significant contribution and outstanding
service provided by employees to the Court.
The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO and Fern McDonnell
Fern McDonnell, Adelaide registry
Fern has been with the Court for 22 years as an associate.
Fern is responsible for the effective running of Justice Strickland’s chambers which requires her to
undertake a myriad of tasks. Fern attends to these tasks with formidable efficiency and boundless
good humour. Her organisational skills are nonpareil.
Fern is fiercely loyal to, and protective of, her judge and her colleagues. She is a highly organised,
hardworking, dedicated and skilled employee, who has given two decades’ service to the Family
Court of Australia.
6
Rewards and recognition
In 2015 the Family Court, in joint recognition with the Federal Circuit Court, awarded Australia Day
achievement medallions to:
6
Athena Sikiotis
Athena Sikiotis, Melbourne registry
Athena has been with the courts for 28 years and is a registrar.
Athena has distinguished herself in the course of her multiple responsibilities, including docket
registrar, trainer, union delegate and other associated tasks. In each role she demonstrates
commitment, diligence, professionalism, integrity and many other attributes.
Athena is knowledgeable and consistently provides accurate and sound advice. She is an active
listener, sympathetic of clients with special needs, easily approachable and displays professionalism
and drive at all times when undertaking her different roles which she embraces with dedication.
From left: Akasha Atkinson, Chief Justice Bryant, Trent Lister and Chief Judge Pascoe
Akasha has been with the courts for six years and is the Director, Property. Trent has been with
the courts for eight years and is Property Project Manager.
Akasha and Trent have provided an outstanding level of service in the area of property
management for the courts. Consistently providing high quality advice and workable solutions
and always maintaining a high level of professionalism in their dealings with the judiciary.
Akasha and Trent have worked tirelessly to ensure that the best outcomes possible are provided
under difficult circumstances including limited budgets, the strict demands of designing space
for judicial operations and, above all, with a very limited range of suitable properties.
The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO and Ron Jarrett
Ron Jarrett, Brisbane registry
Ron has been with the courts for 24 years and is a business system development officer (BSDO).
Ron is a genuine role model and leader within the BSDO team who exemplifies dedication in the
traditional model of the public service and often exceeds the defined limits of his role.
Ron applies his technical and exemplary analytical skills to his role and for this is well respected by
staff and judiciary. Ron is the embodiment of continuous improvement and is attuned to applying and
communicating his considered opinions in a cool and calm manner. Ron is not one to be satisfied
with the status quo when there are glaring opportunities for the Court to improve its practices and
procedures and links these opportunities to ultimately benefit the public.
6
Akasha Atkinson and Trent Litster, National Support Office, Canberra
6
Nadia and Michael Hristovaki
Nadia and Michael Hristovaki, Sydney registry cleaners
Nadia and Michael have been cleaning contractors for the courts’ Sydney registry for 21 years.
Nadia and Michael are responsible for cleaning the entire Sydney registry, from the basement
including the garage, up to Level 12, inside and out as well as the elevators. They clean around
78 bathrooms, numerous kitchens, floors and bins.
Years of service awards
Years of service awards are presented to employees who have been in court administration for more
than 20, 25, 30 and 35 years. Recipients in 2014–15 follow:
20 years
−− Peter Cimbaljevic – Client Service Officer, Brisbane
−− Pauline Schaeffer-Steel – Client Service Officer, Brisbane
−− Paula Spain – Client Service Officer, Melbourne
−− Beverley Mendies – Client Service Officer, Newcastle
6
25 years
−− Nandira Ram – Client Service Officer, Melbourne
−− Georgina Barber – Client Service Officer, Newcastle
−− Susan Tran – Collector of Public Monies, Sydney
30 years
−− Mark Conroy – Client Service Officer, Newcastle
−− Diane Lojszczyk – Family Consultant, Newcastle
Workforce turnover
During 2014–15, 86 employees and judicial officers left the Court. Of these, 45 were non-ongoing
and 41 were ongoing employees, representing an annual turnover rate of 11.1 per cent against
total staff numbers (772) at 30 June 2015 (see Table 8.10 at Appendix three).
This compares with ongoing staff separations of 11.5 cent in 2013–14, 10.1 per cent in 2012–13
and eight per cent in 2011–12.
Staffing profile
At 30 June 2015, the Court had 772 employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of
Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014, common law contracts
or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), but excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive
Officer and casual employees. This was a 0.6 per cent increase compared with 767 employees
at 30 June 2014. Appendix three provides a breakdown of staff by location, gender, attendance,
ongoing and non-ongoing employment status.
Judicial officers
At 30 June 2015, the Court had 33 judges, including the Chief Justice (16 female and 17 male).
For further information see Table 8.8 at Appendix three which shows the number of judges by
location. The remuneration arrangements for all judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer
are governed by enforceable determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details
including relevant determinations are available at: www.remtribunal.gov.au
Indigenous employment
At 30 June 2015, the Court had 10 employees who identified as Indigenous (one male and
nine female); 1.3 per cent of total employee numbers.
The Australian Public Service Commissioner wrote to the Chief Executive Officer seeking support
to improve the representation of Indigenous employees in the Commonwealth public sector.
6
Agreement making
A single enterprise agreement for the courts
As mentioned previously, the courts’ Enterprise Agreement came into effect on 1 July 2011,
and although it has passed its nominal expiry date of 30 June 2014, under present arrangements,
it will continue to operate until it is replaced or otherwise terminated.
Other agreements
Offers of AWAs to court employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with government
policy; however at 30 June 2015, 27 employees had enforceable AWAs in place. Table 8.12 at
Appendix three sets out the AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification. In some
limited cases the Court has used common law contracts or individual flexibility arrangements
to provide supplementary conditions of employment for individuals covered by the Enterprise
Agreement and determinations made by the Agency Head under section 24 of the Public Service
Act 1999, to build upon existing AWA arrangements.
At 30 June 2015, 10 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable common
law contracts and two had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments.
See Table 8.11 at Appendix three for more detail.
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 (for
example, as a way of retaining high-value employees).
AWAs may also be supported by individual s 24(1) determinations or common law contracts to
provide for pay increases or additional terms and conditions, including non-salary benefits.
Senior Executive Service remuneration
Terms and conditions for the Court’s Senior Executive Service (SES) employees are in common
law contracts, AWAs and individuals 24(1) determinations made by the Chief Executive Officer.
SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and take account of the
Court’s budgetary position and the Government’s workplace bargaining policy.
6
Non-salary benefits
Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include:
−− motor vehicles
−− car parking
−− superannuation
−− access to salary sacrificing arrangements
−− computers, including home-based computer access
−− membership of professional associations
−− mobile phones
−− studies assistance
−− leave flexibilities
−− workplace responsibility allowances (for example, first aid, fire warden, community language), and
−− airline club memberships.
Performance pay arrangements
During 2014–15, the Court neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paid
performance pay to any employee.
Training, learning and development
There have been a number of training initiatives run throughout the year. These include:
Family consultant training
−− Family violence modules
During the latter part of 2014, Child Dispute Services staff at each registry completed a series
of three x 90 minute models on the topic of perceptions, core beliefs and unbiased report
writing. This was primarily in relation to the assessment of family violence. There were several
delivery modes used for this initiative, including in-person delivery, co-facilitation with a local
senior family consultant, and direct delivery by the local senior. An evaluation of this program
was undertaken.
−− Dyadic peer consultation
There were three x two day training sessions delivered by an external consultant to introduce
Child Dispute Services clinicians to a model of peer consultation that they could use on
an ongoing basis to reflect on their clinical work. These sessions occurred in Melbourne,
Sydney and Brisbane, and the ongoing peer consultation framework was implemented in
September 2014.
6
−− Indigenous cultural competence
Two Indigenous cultural competence training sessions were held in 2014 in Sydney and
Townsville, facilitated by Aboriginal forensic psychologist Stephen Ralph. These were attended
by a representative from each registry across the country to ensure that family assessments
involving an Aboriginal parent could be completed by a clinician that had undertaken the
cultural competence syllabus.
−− Emotional availability scales
In October 2014, 10 family consultants were selected to complete an eight day (online)
training program on emotional availability scales.
−− Seminar series
One hour seminars continued to run each month with the clinical group within Child Dispute
Services. Judges and family lawyers attended these sessions on occasion. Speakers included a
range of Australian and international experts, covering topics such as sex offender assessment,
cross examination strategies, child maltreatment, psychopathology, post-separation services,
children’s language development, and attachment/family systems.
−− Clinical induction program
In the latter half of 2014, a comprehensive (redesigned) clinical induction program was
launched for all new family consultants joining the Court. This required new clinicians to
become familiar with the research systems within the courts, write a summary of several
empirical articles on a given topic, and present to their peers at a monthly meeting.
−− Core knowledge database
In late 2014, the core knowledge database (an expansive repository of articles/chapters/papers)
for Child Dispute Services was upgraded to include a rating system for materials contained on
the database. This allows users to easily see how other clinicians have rated the document, with
longer term implications for better filtering of documents and upgrading the materials contained
on the database.
−− Senior family consultant needs assessment
In early 2015 a comprehensive review of senior family consultant needs was undertaken.
The resulting report outlined a series of future options to address the areas identified,
which will ultimately inform the training packages offered in the latter half of 2015.
Registrar training
The focus on registrar professional development this year has been on the development of skills in
the identification of risk of family violence and abuse cases, with a view to developing a series of
diagnostic question to assist registrars in delivery of case assessment conferences and conciliation
conferences. Training is also being provided to coordinating registrars through attendance at
leadership expansion programs delivered through Australian Public Service Commission to support
them in enhancing their skills in the management of professional staff and in service delivery.
Team leader training
Following the team leader development program conducted last year, two project groups were
created to develop and implement business improvements. These groups, facilitated by Human
Resources, are ongoing.
The Peer Support Officer Network was introduced in 2007 following the integrated client support
training that was rolled out across the country.
Late last year Human Resources conducted a review into the peer support program within the
Court. The review incorporated targeted discussions and a tailored survey aimed at identifying
employee perceptions of the program to date, viability of the program, opportunities for
improvement and peer support officer training and support needs.
Following wide consultation, it was agreed that the program was to be refreshed and re-launched.
The peer support program was set up to provide a network of trained staff in the workplace to ensure
that skilled support is available for immediate assistance should an individual experience a distressing
situation or difficult event. This program is designed to complement the existing Employee Assistance
Program and allows support to be available immediately should an incident occur.
Following a rigorous recruitment process, nine participants undertook a two-day workshop called the
Accidental Counsellor which was conducted by Lifeline. The course focused on the importance of
communication and resilience in the workplace, and how to communicate with people experiencing
crisis within a court context. The attendees were provided with a solid foundation for crisis
intervention, mental health awareness, suicide awareness, self-care and stress management.
Disability reporting
Since 1994, Commonwealth departments and agencies have reported on their performance as
policy adviser, purchaser, employer, regulator and provider under the Commonwealth Disability
Strategy. In 2007–08, reporting on the employer role was transferred to the Australian Public
Service Commission’s State of the Service Report and the APS Statistical Bulletin. These reports
are available at www.apsc.gov.au
From 2010–11, departments and agencies have no longer been required to report on these
functions.
The Commonwealth Disability Strategy has been overtaken by the National Disability Strategy
2010–2020, which sets out a ten year national policy framework to improve the lives of people
with disability, promote participation and create a more inclusive society. See www.dss.gov.au
Employee assistance program
The Family Court and its employees, through the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family
Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014, have a commitment to ensuring psychological
and physical wellbeing.
The Court’s Employee Assistance Program provided by Converge International, is a free,
confidential counselling service for all court employees and their immediate families who are
experiencing personal or work-related problems.
Converge also provide a dedicated Managers Assistance Program to confidentially discuss issues
which may arise as a result of being in a supervisory position.
6
Peer support officer training
6
Productivity gains
The creation of the new agency with all court staff working under a single Enterprise Agreement
continued to produce efficiency savings for the courts through the more efficient allocation of
resources, elimination of duplicated services and the rationalisation of court services. Synergies were
achieved in the area of training where program delivery was made available to the staff of both
courts, thus reducing cost and capturing a greater number of staff.
Financial management
The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court is a non-corporate commonwealth entity under the
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
Operating revenue and expenses
Total revenue for the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court in 2014–15 was $190.418 million,
including appropriations from Government ($148.683 million), other revenue ($1.968 million),
and other gains ($39.767 million). Other gains reflects notional revenue to pay for services
received free of charge, comprised of Commonwealth Law Courts rent from the Department of
Finance ($18.889 million), registry, migration and library services received from the Federal Court
($9.865 million), liabilities assumed by related entities for the Judges Pension Scheme
($10.918 million), and Australian National Audit Office audit fees ($0.095 million).
Operating expenditure for the 2014–15 financial year amounted to $205.756 million. Figure 6.2
provides a breakdown of the actual costs incurred by the courts for 2014–15. Of the total amount,
32 per cent is directly attributable to the Federal Circuit Court; 13 per cent directly attributable
to the first instance jurisdiction of the Family Court; and four per cent directly attributable to the
appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court. Depreciation and Amortisation, Asset Movements and
Bad Debts, and property and other notional expenses not directly attributable to either jurisdiction
comprise 21 per cent of the expenditure. The remaining 30 per cent of expenditure relates to
services shared between the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court for Registry and Corporate
Services (Family Court and Federal Circuit Court administration). A breakdown of the costs directly
attributed to the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court administration is shown in Figure 6.3.
For 2014–15 the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court recorded an underlying loss of $4.735 million.
Figure 6.2 Family Court and Federal Circuit Court expenditure ($205.756 million),
2014–15 ($million)
6
Operating result
6
Table 6.1 Categories of Family Court and Federal Circuit Court expenditure
Family Court of
Australia direct
expenditure
Expenses directly incurred by the judiciary appointed as First Instance
judicial officers within the Family Court of Australia and includes judicial
salary (and entitlements such as long leave and notional pension scheme
contributions), judicial support staff costs (and employee entitlements,
such as annual leave, long service leave and superannuation), travel costs
(for circuits, judicial calendaring/relief), and court operation expenses
(Regulation 7 Family Reports, court recording, transcription, interpreters).
Family Court of
Expenses directly incurred by the judiciary assigned to the appellate
Australia appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia and include judicial salary
direct expenditure (and entitlements such as long leave and notional pension scheme
(for Full Court, judicial calendaring/relief) and court operation expenses
Federal Circuit
Court of Australia
direct expenditure
Expenses directly incurred by the judiciary appointed to exercise
federal and family law jurisdiction within the Federal Circuit Court of
Australia and include judicial salary (and entitlements such as annual
leave, long service leave, superannuation, and notional pension scheme
(for circuits, judicial calendaring/relief), and court operation expenses
Includes registry and migration services provided free of charge in federal
law matters to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia from the Federal Court
of Australia.
Family Court and
Federal Circuit
Court admin:
employee and
supplier expenses
Employee and supplier expenses incurred by registry and corporate
services in supporting both the Family Court of Australia and the
Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Details shown in Figure 6.3.
Property and
library services
received free
of charge
Expenses which the courts recognise but do not require any appropriation
revenue from Government. Includes services provided free of charge
from the Department of Finance for courtrooms and chambers within
Commonwealth Law Courts and library services from the Federal Court,
and audit services from the Australian National Audit Office.
Shared property
expenses
Rent and property operating costs the courts incur for leased and
Commonwealth Law Court premises. These are property costs for
which the court received appropriation revenue funding.
Depreciation and
amortisation
Expenses which the courts recognise but do not require any appropriation
revenue from Government. Appropriation funding for depreciation and
amortisation ceased 30 June 2010 with the move to ‘net cash’ funding
and was replaced with a Departmental Capital Budget to fund the
replacement of court assets.
6
Figure 6.3 Family Court and Federal Circuit Court Administration (FC&FCC Admin)
expenditure ($62.240 million), 2014–15
6
Table 6.2 Categories of Family Court and Federal Circuit Court Administration expenditure
Corporate services
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to finance,
human resources, property services, contract services.
Information
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the provision of
technology services technology services to the courts.
Corporate costs
Corporate costs are the employee entitlements expenses (long service
leave, annual leave, superannuation) incurred by the Family Court and
Federal Circuit Court support staff, along with fringe benefit expenses
incurred by the Court’s judiciary and SES for Fringe Benefit Tax liabilities
for the provision of motor vehicles and other fringe benefits.
Principal, Child
Dispute Services
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the courts’
Principal, Child Dispute Services.
CEO and support
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the Office of the
Chief Executive Officer.
Registry services—
client service
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to client service staff
providing front line support to both the Family Court of Australia and
Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
registrars
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to registrar staff
providing front line support to both the Family Court of Australia and
family consultant
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to family consultant
staff providing front line support to both the Family Court of Australia and
administration
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to administration
staff providing front line support to both the Family Court of Australia
and Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
Indigenous Family
Liaison Officers
Employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to Indigenous Family
Liaison Officer staff providing front line support to both the Family Court
of Australia and Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
Administered revenue
The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court received $58.120 million on behalf of the Commonwealth
for court fees and fines. Administered revenue is not available to offset the courts’ operating costs.
Offsetting the administered revenue collected by the courts on behalf of the Commonwealth
were refunds of fees ($0.270 million), and write down and impairment of assets ($0.382 million).
The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court also receive an administered appropriation to source primary
dispute resolution services such as counselling, mediation and conciliation from community-based
organisations for litigants in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. In 2014–15 the Family Court
and Federal Circuit Court incurred $0.291 million for these primary dispute resolution services.
This resulted in a total comprehensive income of $57.177 million which was returned to Government.
There were no subsequent events that had the potential to significantly affect the ongoing structure
and financial activities of the courts.
Purchasing, consultants and contracts
The Procurement and Risk Management section assists staff undertaking procurement and
manages a number of corporate contracts. The section also manages, or has significant
involvement in, all complex procurement undertaken by the Court to ensure compliance with
legislative obligations and the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. The Accountable Authority
Instructions, the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and the Court’s Procurement Framework
are all on the intranet as reference material for court staff.
The core policies and principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules were, as far as
practicable, adhered to throughout 2014–15. The Court’s Annual Procurement Plan was
published meeting mandatory reporting requirements. An appropriate market approach was
made for all procurements covered by the rules.
All contracts let in 2014–15 had provision for the Auditor-General to access contractors’ premises.
Consultants
During 2014–15:
−− six new consultancy contracts were entered into involving total actual expenditure of $200,574
(GST inclusive), and
−− five ongoing consultancy contracts were active involving total actual expenditure of $173,988
(GST inclusive).
Total actual expenditure on consultancy contracts for 2014–15 was $374,562 (GST inclusive).
The process of engagement of all consultants is required to adhere to the procedures described
in the Court’s Procurement Framework and is categorised in accordance with the following:
A—skills currently unavailable within the Court
B—need for specialised or professional skills
C—need for independent research or assessment.
Depending on the particular needs, value and risks (as set out in the Court’s Procurement
Framework) the Court uses open tender, prequalified tender and limited tender for its
consultancies. The Court is a relatively small user of consultants. As such the Court has no
specific policy by which consultants are engaged, other than within the broad frameworks
above, related to skills unavailability within the Court or when there is need for specialised
and/or independent research or assessment.
Information on expenditure on all court contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender
website www.tenders.gov.au
No contracts were let to an organisation for the delivery of services previously performed by the
Court during the reporting period.
6
Events after the reporting period
6
Exempt contracts
During the reporting period no contracts or standing offers were exempt from publication on
AusTender in terms of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Procurement initiatives to support small business
The Court supports small business participation in the Commonwealth Government procurement
market. Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) and Small Enterprise participation statistics are
available on the Department of Finance’s website at
www.finance.gov.au/procurement/statistics-on-commonwealth-purchasing-contracts/
The Court recognises the importance of ensuring that SMEs are paid on time. The results of the
Survey of Australian Government Payments to Small Business are available on the Treasury’s
website at www.treasury.gov.au
In doing so, the Court utilises some of the following initiatives or practices:
−− the Commonwealth Contracting Suite for low-risk procurements valued under $200,000, and
−− electronic systems or other processes used to facilitate on-time payment performance,
including the use of payment cards.
Assets and property management
Asset management
The Family Court of Australia is located in shared Commonwealth owned facilities (Commonwealth Law
Courts) in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Parramatta and Sydney. The Court
also occupies privately leased facilities in Albury, Cairns, Dandenong, Dubbo, Launceston, Lismore,
Newcastle, Townsville, and Wollongong, and shares the state court facility in Alice Springs,
Coffs Harbour, Darwin, and Rockhampton.
6
Projects
Dandenong
An upgrade to the subpoena viewing room was completed in November 2014. The project
addressed security concerns and issues with lack of space by increasing the area available
to clients and increasing visibility to staff.
Darwin
The courts moved to the Supreme Court building in June 2015, co-locating with the Department
of Attorney-General and Justice (Northern Territory) after extensive negotiations. The co-location
endorses the Federal Government expectation to achieve accommodation efficiencies (as per
the Commonwealth Property Management Framework), and in ‘sharing’ accommodation,
where practicable. The fit out for the new location included a registry, two chambers and a
courtroom. The co-location arrangement provides a central and primary location for practitioners
and litigants accessing court services in Darwin.
National compactus replacement
File storage is an ongoing issue across the courts. The compactus units, especially at the
Commonwealth Law Courts, are outdated and inefficient. A program to replace the compactus
units nationally commenced in 2013–14, with Sydney and Brisbane both replaced. In 2014–15
the Melbourne compactus was replaced and an additional compactus was installed in Parramatta.
Parramatta
Additional bathroom facilities were installed on level three. The additional facilities were required
to ensure that sufficient amenities were available for NEC staff located on this level, and litigants
attending court.
Townsville
Additional supplementary courtroom air conditioning was provided to address ongoing issues
and improve amenity for judges, staff and litigants using the Court.
Wollongong
The Wollongong registry client and registry counter areas were upgraded to increase facilities and
amenity for litigants, legal practitioners and staff, and to address safety concerns. The project
delivered a safe room for clients, a significantly expanded subpoena room, an additional interview
room, a dedicated child and family waiting area and updated registry counters and associated
staff work area.
Works are planned to improve various areas within the registry, and the first stage delivered is
the replacement of furniture. The furniture replacement also addresses the lack of seating within
the public waiting areas.
Roller door
A high-speed roller door was replaced in the Lionel Bowen Building in Sydney to improve security.
Correction of errors in 2013–14 report
The Court has no matters to report.
6
Newcastle
IN FOCUS
Harmony Day 2015
Harmony Day is held on 21 March each year. It is managed by the Department of Immigration
and Citizenship and coincides with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination.
It is a day of cultural respect, widely celebrated across schools,
childcare centres, community groups, churches, businesses and federal,
state and local government agencies.
The courts participate in Harmony Day to recognise and celebrate the rich cultural diversity
that exists in our workplaces.
Mrs Josephine Akee, Indigenous Family Liaison Officer from Cairns, was the recipient of
the Family Court and Federal Circuit Courts’ 2015 Harmony Day Award, announced by
the Chief Executive Officer Richard Foster.
Image: Cairns Registry Manager, Greg Johannesen with Harmony Day award winner Mrs Akee
7
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
7
Financial statements
Index to the financial statements
Independent Auditor’s Report 155
Statement by the Accountable Authority and Chief Finance Officer 157
Statement of Comprehensive Income 158
Statement of Financial Position 159
Statement of Changes in Equity 160
Cash Flow Statement 161
Schedule of Commitments 162
Administered Schedule of Comprehensive Income 164
Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities 165
Administered Reconciliation Schedule 166
Administered Cash Flow Statement 167
Notes to and forming part of the financial statements 168
7
7
Family Court & Federal Circuit Court
STATEMENT BY THE ACCOUNTABLE AUTHORITY AND CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER
In our opinion, the attached financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 comply with subsection 42(2) of the Public
Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act), and are based on properly maintained financial records as per
subsection 41(2) of the PGPA Act.
In our opinion, at the date of this statement, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the non-corporate Commonwealth entity will
be able to pay its debts as and when they fall due.
Signed................................
Signed................................
Mr Richard Foster PSM
Accountable Authority (Chief Executive Officer)
Mr Adrian Brocklehurst
Chief Finance Officer
1st September 2015
1st September 2015
Family Court & Federal Circuit Court – Annual Report 2014-2015 Financial Statements
1
7
7
Statement of Comprehensive Income
for the period ended 30 June 2015
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
4A
4B
4C
4D
4E
119,321
75,551
10,603
214
13
54
205,756
119,757
74,076
11,203
142
1
201
205,380
Own-Source Income
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services
Other revenue
5A
5B
1,274
694
1,968
1,256
628
1,884
Gains
Other gains
5C
39,767
39,767
38,964
38,964
Notes
NET COST OF SERVICES
Expenses
Employee benefits
Suppliers
Depreciation and amortisation
Finance costs
Write-down and impairment of assets
Losses from asset sales
Total expenses
Total own-source revenue
Total gains
41,735
(164,021)
40,848
(164,532)
148,683
172,113
Surplus/(Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government
(15,338)
7,581
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Items not subject to subsequent reclassification to net cost of
services
Changes in asset revaluation surplus
-
-
(15,338)
7,581
Total own-source income
Net (cost of)/contribution by services
Revenue from Government
Total comprehensive income/(loss) attributable to the
Australian Government
5D
3
The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.
2
7
Statement of Financial Position
as at 30 June 2015
Notes
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
7A
7B
1,396
17,683
1,238
22,145
8A,C
8B,C
8D,E
8F
8G
24,596
11,464
5,905
63
1,955
25,023
14,049
5,562
73
1,844
LIABILITIES
Payables
Suppliers
Other payables
9A
9B
3,843
2,992
3,930
2,896
Interest bearing liabilities
Leases
10A
3,271
3,271
3,321
3,321
Provisions
Employee provisions
Other provisions
11A
11B
36,059
2,885
38,944
34,966
3,371
38,337
49,050
48,484
41,462
22,864
(50,314)
14,012
33,562
22,864
(34,976)
21,450
ASSETS
Financial Assets
Cash and cash equivalents
Trade and other receivables
Total financial assets
Non-Financial Assets
Land and buildings
Property, plant and equipment
Intangibles
Inventories
Other non-financial assets
Total non-financial assets
Total assets
Total payables
Total interest bearing liabilities
Total provisions
Total liabilities
Net assets
EQUITY
Contributed equity
Reserves
Retained surplus/(Accumulated deficit)
Total equity
19,079
43,983
63,062
6,835
14,012
23,383
46,551
69,934
6,826
21,450
3
Notes
12
(50,314)
-
(15,338)
(15,338)
(34,976)
(34,976)
(34,976)
(42,557)
(42,557)
7,581
7,581
-
Retained earnings
2014
2015
$'000
$'000
Closing balance as at 30 June
Total transactions with owners
Transactions with owners
Contributions by owners
Departmental capital budget
Restructuring
Total comprehensive income/ (loss)
Comprehensive income
Other comprehensive income
Surplus/(Deficit) for the period
Adjusted opening balance
Opening balance
Balance carried forward from previous period
Statement of Changes in Equity
22,864
-
-
22,864
22,864
22,864
22,864
22,864
-
-
Asset revaluation
surplus
2014
2015
$'000
$'000
41,462
7,900
7,900
-
33,562
33,562
33,562
8,358
25,204
33,562
-
-
Contributed
equity/capital
2014
2015
$'000
$'000
14,012
7,900
7,900
(15,338)
(15,338)
21,450
21,450
21,450
8,358
5,511
13,869
7,581
7,581
-
Total equity
2014
2015
$'000
$'000
4
7
7
Cash Flow Statement
Notes
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Cash received
Appropriations
Sales of goods and rendering of services
Net GST received
Other
Total cash received
Cash used
Employees
Suppliers
Cash used - other
Section 74 receipts transferred to OPA
Total cash used
Net cash from/(used by) operating activities
13
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Cash received
Proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment
Total cash received
Total cash used
Net cash from/(used by) investing activities
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Cash received
Contributed equity
Total cash received
Cash used
Repayment of borrowings
155,514
2,744
5,193
689
164,140
157,391
3,436
4,593
165,420
107,671
52,943
86
3,305
164,005
108,740
59,127
3,271
171,138
22
16
5,746
1,972
4,902
1,979
135
7A, 13
(5,718)
16
7,718
(7,696)
6,881
(6,865)
8,124
8,124
6,881
6,881
405
Total cash used
Net Cash from/(used by) financing activities
Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period
2014
$'000
22
Cash used
Purchase of property, plant and equipment
Purchase of intangibles
Net increase (decrease) in cash held
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period
2015
$'000
-
405
7,719
6,881
158
(5,702)
1,238
1,396
6,940
1,238
5
7
Schedule of Commitments
as at 30 June 2015
BY TYPE
Commitments receivable
Net GST recoverable on commitments1
Total commitments receivable
Commitments payable
Capital commitments
Buildings²
3
Total capital commitments
Other commitments
Operating leases
4
Other
5
Total other commitments
Total commitments payable
Net commitments by type
BY MATURITY
Commitments receivable
Other commitments receivable
Within 1 year
Between 1 to 5 years
More than 5 years
Total other commitments receivable
Commitments payable
Capital commitments
Within 1 year
Total capital commitments
Operating lease commitments
Within 1 year
More than 5 years
Total operating lease commitments
Other Commitments
Within 1 year
More than 5 years
Total other commitments
Total commitments payable
Net commitments by maturity
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
4,340
4,340
3,155
3,155
60
22
28,997
29,939
58,867
59,009
34,668
34,709
1,052
2,923
365
4,340
844
1,950
361
3,155
142
142
41
41
6,249
15,647
7,101
7,660
18,421
3,858
7,020
1,585
59,009
54,669
34,709
31,554
82
142
29,870
54,669
28,997
22,817
33
29,870
19
41
4,729
31,554
29,939
3,030
114
4,729
6
7
Schedule of Commitments
as at 30 June 2015
Note:
1. . Commitments were GST inclusive where relevant.
2. Outstanding contractual payments for fitout works on buildings.
3. Plant and equipment commitments were primarily contracts for purchases of furniture and IT equipment.
4. Operating leases included are effectively non-cancellable and are in the nature of office leases and motor vehicle leases.
5. Other commitments include communications, property management, internal audit and security guarding services. The Courts
originally entered into a $30.8m contract for security guarding services commencing 1 January 2015 for five years. The contract is
managed by the Courts for other participating jurisdictions (The High Court of Australia, Family Court of WA, Federal Court of
Australia, The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Fair Work Australia) as well as the entity itself. Of the $30.8m, $20m relates to
guarding services for the Courts.
The above schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.
7
7
Administered Schedule of Comprehensive Income
Expenses
Suppliers
Other expenses - refunds of fees
Total expenses
Notes
18A
18B
18C
2015
2014
$'000
$'000
291
189
943
1,104
58,120
55,138
58,120
57,177
55,138
54,034
382
270
632
283
Income
Revenue
Non-taxation revenue
Fees and fines
Total non-taxation revenue
Total revenue
19A
Total income
Net contribution by services
Total comprehensive income
58,120
58,120
57,177
55,138
55,138
54,034
The above schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes
8
7
Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities
as at 30 June 2015
ASSETS
Financial Assets
Total assets administered on behalf of Government
Notes
20A
2015
2014
$'000
$'000
20B
1,318
1,901
583
203
21A
40
-
1,861
939
736
939
LIABILITIES
Payables
Suppliers
Total liabilities administered on behalf of Government
Net assets/(liabilities)
40
-
9
7
Administered Reconciliation Schedule
Opening assets less liabilities as at 1 July
Income
Expenses
Payments to entities other than corporate Commonwealth entities
Transfers (to)/from the Australian Government
Appropriation transfers from Official Public Account
Annual Appropriation for administered expenses
Special appropriations (unlimited) S77 PGPA Act Repayments
GST increase to Appropriations S74 PGPA Act
Appropriation transfers to OPA
Transfers to OPA
Closing assets less liabilities as at 30 June
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
939
735
58 120
55 138
(943)
(1 104)
252
189
285
309
25
19
(56,817)
(54,347)
1,861
939
10
7
Administered Cash Flow Statement
2015
2014
$'000
$'000
57,107
67
54,288
79
277
270
207
284
Net cash from operating activities
56,635
53,868
Net increase in cash held
56,635
53,868
203
165
252
25
189
19
(56,817)
(54,347)
583
203
Notes
Cash received
Fees
Fines
Net GST received
23
57,197
Total cash received
Cash used
Suppliers
Refunds of fees
Other
15
562
Total cash used
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period
Cash from Official Public Account for:
Appropriation Act 1 (2014-15)
GST Increase to Appropriations (s74A PGPA Act)
Special Appropriation - repayments (s 77 PGPA Act)
285
562
Total cash from official public account
Cash to Official Public Account for:
Transfer to OPA
Total cash to official public account
(56,817)
20A
17
54,384
25
516
309
517
(54,347)
11
7
Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 169
Note 2: Events After the Reporting Period 176
Note 3: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements 176
Note 4: Expenses 177
Note 5: Own-Source Income 179
Note 6: Fair Value Measurements 180
Note 7: Financial Assets 182
Note 8: Non-Financial Assets 183
Note 9: Payables 187
Note 10: Interest Bearing Liabilities 188
Note 11: Provisions 189
Note 12: Restructuring 189
Note 13: Cash Flow Reconciliation 190
Note 14: Contingent Liabilities and Assets 190
Note 15: Senior Management Personnel Remuneration 191
Note 16: Financial Instruments 192
Note 17: Financial Assets Reconciliation 194
Note 18: Administered Expenses 195
Note 19: Administered Income 195
Note 20: Administered Financial Assets 196
Note 21: Administered Payables 197
Note 22: Administered Cash Flow Reconciliation 198
Note 23: Administered Contingent Assets and Liabilities 198
Note 24: Administered Financial Instruments 198
Note 25: Administered Financial Assets Reconciliation 199
Note 26: Appropriations 200
Note 27: Special Accounts 204
Note 28: Reporting of Outcomes 205
Note 29: Budgetary Reports and Explanations of Major Variances 206
7
Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
1.1
Objectives of the Family Court & Federal Circuit Court
The Family Court & Federal Circuit Court (the Courts) is an Australian Government controlled entity. It is a not-for-profit entity.
The objectives of the Family Court, as Australia’s superior court in family law, are to:
a) determine cases with the most complex law, facts and parties;
b) cover specialised areas in family law; and
c) provide national coverage as the appellate Court in family law matters.
The objective of the Federal Circuit Court is to provide the Australian community with a simple and accessible forum for the
resolution of less complex disputes within its jurisdiction.
The Courts are structured to meet the outcome of providing access to justice for litigants in family and federal law matters within the
jurisdiction of the Courts through the provision of judicial and support services.
The continued existence of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court in its present form and with its present programs is dependent
on Government policy and on continuing funding by Parliament for the Courts' administration and programs.
The Courts' activities contributing toward this outcome are classified as either departmental or administered. Departmental activities
involve the use of assets, liabilities, income and expenses controlled or incurred by the Courts in its own right. Administered
activities involve the management or oversight by the Courts, on behalf of the Government, of items controlled or incurred by the
Government.
The Courts’ administered activities are to provide dispute resolution services such as counselling, mediation and conciliation from
community-based organisations and are also related to fees charged for access to the Courts’ services. The Courts’ administered
expenses relate to refunds of fees to clients.
1.2
Basis of Preparation of the Financial Statements
The financial statements are general purpose financial statements and are required by section 42 of the Public Governance,
Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
The Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with:
a) Financial Reporting Rule (FRR) for reporting periods ending on or after 1 July 2014; and
b) Australian Accounting Standards and Interpretations issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board
(AASB) that apply for the reporting period.
The financial statements have been prepared on an accrual basis and in accordance with the historical cost convention, except for
certain assets and liabilities at fair value. Except where stated, no allowance is made for the effect of changing prices on the results or
the financial position.
The financial statements are presented in Australian dollars and values are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars unless otherwise
specified.
Unless an alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard or the FRR, assets and liabilities are recognised in
the statement of financial position when and only when it is probable that future economic benefits will flow to the Courts or a future
sacrifice of economic benefits will be required and the amounts of the assets or liabilities can be reliably measured. However, assets
and liabilities arising under executor contracts are not recognised unless required by an accounting standard. Liabilities and assets
that are unrecognised are reported in the schedule of commitments.
Unless alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard, income and expenses are recognised in the statement
of comprehensive income when and only when the flow, consumption or loss of economic benefits has occurred and can be reliably
measured.
The Australian Government continues to have regard to developments in case law, including the High Court’s most recent decision
on Commonwealth expenditure in Williams v Commonwealth [2014] HCA 23, as they contribute to the larger body of law relevant to
the development of Commonwealth programs. In accordance with its general practice, the Government will continue to monitor and
assess risk and decide on any appropriate actions to respond to risks of expenditure not being consistent with constitutional or other
legal requirements.
13
7
1.3
Significant Accounting Judgements and Estimates
No accounting assumptions or estimates have been identified that have a significant risk of causing a material adjustment to the
carrying amount of assets and liabilities within the next reporting period.
1.4
New Australian Accounting Standards
Adoption of New Australian Accounting Standard Requirements
The following accounting standard has been adopted earlier than the application date as stated in the standard. Of the new standards,
amendments to standards and interpretations issued prior to the sign-off date that are applicable to the current period, none have a
material impact on the Courts.
Standard/ Interpretation
AASB 13 Fair Value
Measurement
Nature of change/s in accounting policy adjustment to the financial
statements
Disclosure of quantitative information about the significant unobservable
inputs used in fair value measurements and the sensitivity of certain fair value
measurements to changes in unobservable inputs will no longer be required.
The following new/revised accounting standards and interpretations were issued prior to the signing of the statement by the
accountable authority and chief financial officer, were applicable to the current reporting period and had a material effect on the
entity’s financial statements:
Standard/ Interpretation
AASB 1055 Budgetary
Reporting
Nature of change/s in accounting policy adjustment to the financial
statements
AASB 1055 sets out budgetary disclosure requirements for whole-ofgovernment financial statements, each government’s General Government
Sector (GGS) financial statements and financial statements for each not-for
profit entity within the GGS.
AASB 1055 requires disclosure of the Original Budget as well as
explanations for major variances between the Original Budget and the actual
amount disclosed in the financial statements.
The Original Budget is the first budget presented to Parliament for the
reporting period.
Where Budget information has not been presented on the same basis and
classification as the financial statements, AASB 1055 requires Budget
information be restated to be consistent with the financial statements.
AASB 1055 requirements apply to both departmental and administered items.
Major variance explanation disclosures are those relevant to the information
needs of users when assessing performance and accountability.
AASB 1055 does not require prior-year budget comparatives.
Future Australian Accounting Standard Requirements
Of the new, revised or amending Standards or Interpretations that were issued prior to the sign-off date and are applicable to future
reporting periods are not expected to have a future material impact on the Courts’ financial statements.
1.5
Revenue
Revenue from the sale of goods is recognised when:
a) the risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to the buyer;
b) the Courts retain no managerial involvement or effective control over the goods;
c) the revenue and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; and
d) it is probable that the economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow to the Courts.
Revenue from rendering of services is recognised by reference to the stage of completion of contracts at the reporting date. The
revenue is recognised when:
a) the amount of revenue, stage of completion and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; and
b) the probable economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow to the Courts.
14
The stage of completion of contracts at the reporting date is determined by reference to the proportion that costs incurred to date bear
to the estimated total costs of the transaction.
Receivables for goods and services, which have 30 day terms, are recognised at the nominal amounts due less any impairment
allowance account. Collectability of debts is reviewed at the end of the reporting period. Allowances are made when collectability of
the debt is no longer probable.
Interest revenue is recognised using the effective interest method as set out in AASB 139 Financial Instruments: Recognition and
Measurement.
Amounts appropriated for departmental appropriations for the year (adjusted for any formal additions and reductions) are recognised
as Revenue from Government when the Courts gain control of the appropriation except for certain amounts that related to activities
that are reciprocal in nature, in which case revenue is recognised only when it has been earned. Appropriations receivable are
recognised at their nominal amounts.
1.6
Gains
Resources Received Free of Charge
Resources received free of charge are recognised as gains when, and only when, a fair value can be reliably determined and the
services would have been purchased if they had not been donated. Use of those resources is recognised as an expense.
Resources received free of charge are recorded as either revenue or gains depending on their nature.
Contributions of assets at no cost of acquisition or for nominal consideration are recognised as gains at their fair value when the asset
qualifies for recognition, unless received from another Government entity as a consequence of a restructuring of administrative
arrangements (refer to Note 1.7).
The Courts recognise the following revenue and corresponding expense items as “Resources received free of charge”:
-
Resources received free of charge from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) – audit services.
Resources received free of charge from the Department of Finance (DoF) – use of Commonwealth Law Courts.
Resources received free of charge from the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) – library services and migrations & registry
services.
Resources received free of charge – Justices and Judges notional superannuation.
Sale of Assets
Gains from disposal of assets are recognised when control of the asset has passed to the buyer.
1.7
Transactions with the Government as Owner
Equity Injections
Amounts appropriated which are designated as 'equity injections' for a year (less any formal reductions) and Departmental Capital
Budgets (DCBs) are recognised directly in contributed equity in that year.
Restructuring of Administrative Arrangements
Net assets received from or relinquished to another Government entity under a restructuring of administrative arrangements are
adjusted at their book value directly against contributed equity.
1.8
Employee Benefits
Liabilities for ‘short-term employee benefits’ (as defined in AASB 119 Employee Benefits) and termination benefits expected within
twelve months of the end of reporting period are measured at their nominal amounts.
The nominal amount is calculated with regard to the rates expected to be paid on settlement of the liability.
Justices, Judges and other long-term employee benefits are measured as net total of the present value of the defined benefit obligation
at the end of the reporting period minus the fair value at the end of the reporting period of plan assets (if any) out of which the
obligations are to be settled directly.
Leave
The liability for employee benefits includes provision for annual leave and long service leave. No provision has been made for sick
leave as all sick leave is non-vesting and the average sick leave taken in future years by employees of the Courts are estimated to be
less than the annual entitlement for sick leave.
15
7
7
The leave liabilities are calculated on the basis of employees' remuneration at the estimated salary rates that will be applied at the
time the leave is taken, including the Courts’ employer superannuation contribution rates to the extent that the leave is likely to be
taken during service rather than paid out on termination.
The liability for long service leave has been determined by reference to the work of an actuary as at 30 June 2015 and is reviewed
every three years. The estimate of the present value of the liability takes into account attrition rates and pay increases through
promotion and inflation.
Separation and Redundancy
Provision is made for separation and redundancy benefit payments. The Courts recognise a provision for termination when it has
developed a detailed formal plan for the terminations and has informed those employees affected that it will carry out the
terminations.
Superannuation
The majority of the Courts’ staff (excluding the Judiciary) are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS), the
Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) or the PSS accumulation plan (PSSap).
The CSS and PSS are defined benefit schemes for the Australian Government. The PSSap is a defined contribution scheme.
The liability for defined benefits is recognised in the financial statements of the Australian Government and is settled by the
Australian Government in due course. This liability is reported in the Department of Finance's administered schedules and notes.
The Courts make employer contributions to the employees' superannuation scheme at rates determined by an actuary to be sufficient
to meet the current cost to the Government. The Courts’ accounts for the contributions as if they were contributions to defined
contribution plans.
Federal Circuit Court Judges and certain non-ongoing staff are not members of these schemes. The Courts contribute to eligible
superannuation funds nominated by the employees.
The Courts’ Justices are entitled to a non-contributory pension upon retirement after 10 years. As the liability for these pension
payments is assumed by the Australian Government, the Courts do not recognise a liability for unfunded superannuation liability. It
does, however, recognise a revenue and corresponding expense item "Resources received free of charge - Justices and Judges
superannuation."
The liability for superannuation recognised as at 30 June represents outstanding contributions for the final fortnight of the year.
1.9
Leases
A distinction is made between finance leases and operating leases. Finance leases effectively transfer from the lessor to the lessee
substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of leased assets. An operating lease is a lease that is not a finance lease.
In operating leases, the lessor effectively retains substantially all such risks and benefits.
Where an asset is acquired by means of a finance lease, the asset is capitalised at either the fair value of the lease property or, if
lower, the present value of minimum lease payments at the inception of the contract and a liability is recognised at the same time and
for the same amount.
The discount rate used is the interest rate implicit in the lease. Leased assets are amortised over the period of the lease. Lease
payments are allocated between the principal component and the interest expense.
Operating lease payments are expensed on a straight-line basis which is representative of the pattern of benefits derived from the
leased assets.
1.10
Borrowing Costs
All borrowing costs are expensed as incurred.
1.11
Fair Value Measurement
The Courts deem transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy to have occurred at the end of the reporting period.
1.12
Cash
Cash is recognised at its nominal amount. Cash and cash equivalents includes:
a) cash on hand;
b) demand deposits in bank accounts with an original maturity of 3 months or less that are readily convertible to
16
7
known amounts of cash and subject to insignificant risk of changes in value; and
c) cash held by outsiders.
1.13
Financial Assets
The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court classifies its financial assets in the following categories:
a) financial assets at fair value through profit or loss;
b) held-to-maturity investments;
c) available-for-sale financial assets;
d) loans and receivables.
The classification depends on the nature and purpose of the financial assets and is determined at the time of initial recognition.
Financial assets are recognised and derecognised upon trade date. The Courts only hold financial assets classified as loan and
receivables.
Effective Interest Method
The effective interest method is a method of calculating the amortised cost of a financial asset and of allocating interest income over
the relevant period. The effective interest rate is the rate that exactly discounts estimated future cash receipts through the expected
life of the financial asset, or, where appropriate, a shorter period.
Income is recognised on an effective interest rate basis except for financial assets that are recognised at fair value through profit or
loss.
Loans and Receivables
Trade receivables, loan and other receivables that have fixed or determinable payments that are not quoted in an active market are
classified as 'loans and receivables'. Loans and receivables are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method less
impairment. Interest is recognised by applying the effective interest rate.
Impairment of Financial Assets
Financial assets are assessed for impairment at the end of each reporting period.
Financial assets held at amortised cost - if there is objective evidence that an impairment loss has been incurred for loans and
receivables or held to maturity investments held at amortised cost, the amount of the loss is measured as the difference between the
asset's carrying amount and the present value of estimated future cash flows discounted at the asset's original effective interest rate.
The carrying amount is reduced by way of an allowance account. The loss is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income.
1.14
Financial Liabilities
Financial liabilities are classified as either financial liabilities 'at fair value through profit or loss' or other financial liabilities.
Financial liabilities are recognised and derecognised upon 'trade date'.
Other Financial Liabilities
Other financial liabilities are initially measured at fair value, net of transaction costs. These liabilities are subsequently measured at
amortised cost using the effective interest method, with interest expense recognised on an effective yield basis.
The effective interest method is a method of calculating the amortised cost of a financial liability and of allocating interest expense
over the relevant period. The effective interest rate is the rate that exactly discounts estimated future cash payments through the
expected life of the financial liability, or, where appropriate, a shorter period.
Supplier and other payables are recognised at amortised cost. Liabilities are recognised to the extent that the goods or services have
been received (and irrespective of having been invoiced).
1.15
Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets
Contingent liabilities and contingent assets are not recognised in the statement of financial position but are reported in the notes.
They may arise from uncertainty as to the existence of a liability or asset or represent an asset or liability in respect of which the
amount cannot be reliably measured. Contingent assets are disclosed when settlement is probable but not virtually certain and
contingent liabilities are disclosed when settlement is greater than remote.
1.16
Acquisition of Assets
Assets are recorded at cost on acquisition except as stated below. The cost of acquisition includes the fair value of assets transferred
in and liabilities undertaken. Financial assets are initially measured at their fair value plus transaction costs where appropriate.
17
7
Assets acquired at no cost, or for nominal consideration, are initially recognised as assets and income at their fair value at the date of
acquisition, unless acquired as a consequence of restructuring of administrative arrangements. In the latter case, assets are initially
recognised as contributions by owners at the amounts at which they were recognised in the transferor's accounts immediately prior to
the restructuring.
1.17
Property, Plant and Equipment
Asset Recognition Threshold
Purchases of property, plant and equipment are recognised initially at cost in the statement of financial position, except for purchases
costing less than $2,000, which are expensed in the year of acquisition (other than where they form part of a group of similar items
which are significant in total).
The initial cost of an asset includes an estimate of the cost of dismantling and removing the item and restoring the site on which it is
located. This is particularly relevant to ‘make good’ provisions in property leases taken up by the Courts where there exists an
obligation to restore the property to its original condition. These costs are included in the value of the Courts’ leasehold
improvements with a corresponding provision for the ‘make good’ recognised.
Revaluations
Following initial recognition at cost, property plant and equipment were carried at fair value less subsequent accumulated
depreciation and accumulated impairment losses. Valuations were conducted with sufficient frequency to ensure that the carrying
amounts of assets did not differ materially from the assets’ fair values as at the reporting date. The regularity of independent
valuations depended upon the volatility of movements in market values for the relevant assets.
Revaluation adjustments were made on a class basis. Any revaluation increment was credited to equity under the heading of asset
revaluation reserve except to the extent that it reversed a previous revaluation decrement of the same asset class that was previously
recognised in the surplus/deficit. Revaluation decrements for a class of assets were recognised directly in the surplus/deficit except to
the extent that they reversed a previous revaluation increment for that class.
Any accumulated depreciation as at the revaluation date is eliminated against the gross carrying amount of the asset and the asset
restated to the revalued amount.
Depreciation
Depreciable property, plant and equipment assets are written-off to their estimated residual values over their estimated useful lives to
the Courts using, in all cases, the straight-line method of depreciation. Land and buildings – leasehold improvements are depreciated
on a straight-line basis over the lesser of the estimated useful life of the improvements or the unexpired period of the lease.
Depreciation rates (useful lives), residual values and methods are reviewed at each reporting date and necessary adjustments are
recognised in the current, or current and future reporting periods, as appropriate.
Depreciation rates applying to each class of depreciable asset are based on the following useful lives:
Leasehold improvements
2015
lease term
2 to 15 years
2014
lease term
2 to 15 years
Impairment
All assets were assessed for impairment at 30 June 2015. Where indications of impairment exist, the asset’s recoverable amount is
estimated and an impairment adjustment made if the asset’s recoverable amount is less than its carrying amount.
The recoverable amount of an asset is the higher of its fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. Value in use is the present
value of the future cash flows expected to be derived from the asset. Where the future economic benefit of an asset is not primarily
dependent on the asset’s ability to generate future cash flows, and the asset would be replaced if the Courts were deprived of the
asset, its value in use is taken to be its depreciated replacement cost.
Derecognition
An item of property, plant and equipment is derecognised upon disposal or when no further future economic benefits are expected
from its use or disposal.
1.18
Intangibles
The Courts’ intangibles comprise internally developed software and purchased externally software for internal use. These assets are
carried at cost less accumulated amortisation and accumulated impairment losses.
Software is amortised on a straight-line basis over its anticipated useful life. The useful life of the Courts’ software is 3 to 7 years
(2014: 3 to 7 years).
18
7
All software assets were assessed for indications of impairment as at 30 June 2015.
1.19
Inventories
Inventories held for sale are valued at the lower of cost and net realisable value.
Inventories held for distribution are valued at cost, adjusted for any loss of service potential.
Costs incurred in bringing each item of inventory to its present location and condition are assigned as follows:
a) raw materials and stores - purchase cost on a first-in-first-out basis; and
b) finished goods and work in progress - cost of direct materials and labour plus attributable costs that can be
allocated on a reasonable basis.
Inventories acquired at no cost or nominal consideration are initially measured at current replacement cost at the date of acquisition.
1.20
Taxation
The Courts are exempt from all forms of taxation except Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Revenues, expenses and assets are recognised net of GST except:
a) where the amount of GST incurred is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office; and
b) for receivables and payables.
1.21
Reporting of Administered Activities
Administered revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash flows are disclosed in the administered schedules and related notes.
Except where otherwise stated below, administered items are accounted for on the same basis and using the same policies as for
departmental items, including the application of Australian Accounting Standards.
Administered Cash Transfers to and from the Official Public Account
Revenue collected by the Courts for use by the Government rather than the Courts is administered revenue. Collections are
transferred to the Official Public Account (OPA) maintained by the Department of Finance. Conversely, cash is drawn from the OPA
to make payments under Parliamentary appropriation on behalf of Government. These transfers to and from the OPA are adjustments
to the administered cash held by the Courts on behalf of the Government and reported as such in the schedule of administered cash
flow and in the administered reconciliation table.
Revenue
All administered revenues are revenues relating to the course of ordinary activities performed by the Court on behalf of the
Australian Government.
Fees are charged for access to the Courts’ services. Administered fee revenue is recognised when an application for the service is
lodged with the Courts. It is recognised at its nominal amount. Collectability of debts is reviewed at the end of the reporting period.
Allowances are made when collections of the debt is judged to be less rather than more likely.
19
7
Note 2: Events After the Reporting Period
Departmental
There was no subsequent event that had the potential to significantly affect the ongoing structure and financial activities of the
Courts.
Administered
There was no subsequent event that had the potential to significantly affect the ongoing structure and financial activities of the
Courts.
Note 3: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
Total comprehensive income/(loss) less depreciation/amortisation expenses
1
previously funded through revenue appropriations
Plus: depreciation/amortisation expenses previously funded through revenue
appropriation
(4,735)
18,784
(10,603)
(11,203)
Total comprehensive income/(loss) - as per the Statement of Comprehensive Income
(15,338)
7,581
1. From 2010-11, the Government introduced net cash appropriation arrangements, where revenue
appropriations for depreciation/amortisation expenses ceased. The Courts now receives a separate
capital budget provided through equity appropriations. Capital budgets are to be appropriated in the
period when cash payment for capital expenditure is required.
2. As the pre-merger cash remaining from prior years appropriations ($19.4m) was re-appropriated at
additional estimates in May 2014, these amounts are required to be included in the Courts revenue for
2013-14 (refer to Note 4D Revenue).
Prior year appropriations were unavailable to the Courts on 1 July 2013, (refer to Note 11 Restructuring for the effect on
net assets) as an FMA Act section 32 determination was not provided to enable their transfer. Such s32 determination
transfers are accounted for against equity and therefore do not have an impact on the current year’s operating result.
20
7
Note 4: Expenses
Note 4A: Employee benefits
Justices and Judges remuneration
Justices leave and other entitlements
Judges leave and other entitlements
Justices and Judges notional superannuation
Wages and salaries
Superannuation:
Defined contribution plans
Defined benefit plans
Leave and other entitlements
Separation and redundancies
Total Justices, Judges and employee benefits
Note 4B: Suppliers
Goods and services supplied or rendered
IT & communications
Consultants & contractors*
Property
Property - resources received free of charge - DoF
Courts operation and administration
Travel
Resources received free of charge - Federal Court
Other
Total goods and services supplied or rendered
Goods supplied in connection with
External parties
Total goods supplied
Services rendered in connection with
Related parties
External parties
Total services rendered
Total goods and services supplied or rendered
Other suppliers
Operating lease rentals in connection with
Related parties
Minimum lease payments
External parties
Contingent rentals
Workers compensation expenses
Total other suppliers
Total suppliers
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
33,347
1,726
2,640
10,918
50,346
34,830
1,517
2,412
10,358
50,762
7,798
4,288
8,193
65
119,321
7,807
4,597
7,409
65
119,757
5,247
1,680
6,834
18,889
11,907
4,054
9,865
1,615
60,091
5,237
1,545
7,015
18,734
12,161
4,426
9,770
1,699
60,587
1,047
1,047
1,030
1,030
29,326
29,718
59,044
29,098
30,459
59,557
5,770
5,417
8,098
728
864
15,460
7,315
757
13,489
60,091
75,551
60,587
74,076
*KPMG was engaged by the ANAO in 2014–2015 to provide financial statement audit services to the Courts. KPMG provided other
services and fees for other services were $50,400 in 2015 (2014: $14,000).
21
7
Note 4C: Depreciation and Amortisation
Depreciation
Property, plant and equipment1
Leasehold improvements1
Total depreciation
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
4,784
4,457
1,629
1,508
4,190
8,974
5,238
9,695
1. Depreciation expenses for finance leases were included in the Property, plant and equipment
($3,248) and Leasehold improvements ($381,272) above.
Amortisation
Intangibles
Total amortisation
Total depreciation and amortisation
Note 4D: Finance Costs
Finance leases
Unwinding of discount - makegood
Total finance costs
Note 4E: Write-Down and Impairment of Assets
Other
Total write-down and impairment of assets
1,629
10,603
1,508
11,203
86
128
214
8
134
142
13
1
13
1
22
7
Note 5: Own-Source Income
Own-Source Revenue
Note 5A: Sale of Goods and Rendering of Services
Sale of goods in connection with
External parties
Total sale of goods
Rendering of services in connection with
Related parties
External parties
Total rendering of services
Total sale of goods and rendering of services
Note 5B: Other Revenue
Other
Total other revenue
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
2
2
1
1
100
1,172
1,272
348
907
1,255
694
628
95
18,889
9,865
10,918
39,767
101
18,734
9,771
10,358
38,964
148,683
148,683
172,113
172,113
1,274
694
1,256
628
Gains
Note 5C: Other Gains
Resources received free of charge:
Resources received free of charge - from the ANAO
Resources received free of charge - from the DoF
Resources received free of charge - from the FCA
Liabilities assumed by related entities - Justices and Judges superannuation
Total other gains
Note 5D: Revenue from Government
Appropriations
Departmental appropriation
Total revenue from Government
As the pre-merger cash remaining from prior year’s appropriations ($), was re-appropriated at additional estimates in May 2014,
these amounts are required to be included in the Courts revenue for 2013-14. These prior year appropriations therefore are
recognised in the Courts’ operating result in the current year (refer to Note 30 for the effect on the operating result).
Prior year appropriations were unavailable to the Courts on 1 July 2013 to meet existing commitments, as an FMA Act section 32
determination was not provided to enable their transfer (refer to Note 11 Restructuring for effect on assets and liabilities) Such s32
determination transfers are accounted for against equity and are not included in current year revenue.
23
39,072
39,072
36,060
14,049
25,023
36,060
11,464
24,596
Level 2
Level 3
Depreciated replacement cost
Depreciated replacement cost
4. Recurring and non-recurring Level 3 fair value measurements - valuation processes
The Courts procured valuation services from Preston Rowe Paterson NSW Pty Ltd (PRP) and relied on valuation models provided by PRP. The Courts tests the procedures of the valuation
model at least once every 12 months. PRP provided written assurance to the Courts that the model developed is in compliance with AASB 13. There was no full revaluation undertaken in
2014-15.
Comparable service capacity, adjusted for obsolescence
New replacement cost, consumed economic benefits and
obsolesce of asset
Inputs used
For Levels 2 and 3 fair value measurements
Valuation technique(s)2
3. Fair value measurements - highest and best use differs from current use for non-financial assets (NFAs)
The highest and best use of all non-financial assets are the same as their current use.
2. No change in valuation technique occurred during the period.
Total fair value measurement of assets in
the statement of financial position
Other property plant and equipment
Non-financial assets3
Fair value measurements at the end of
the reporting period
2014 Category (Level
2015
1, 2 or 34)
$'000
$'000
Note 6A: Fair Value Measurements, Valuation Techniques and Inputs Used
Level 1: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity can access at measurement date.
Level 2: Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.
Level 3: Unobservable inputs for the asset or liability.
The following tables provide an analysis of assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value.
The different levels of the fair value hierarchy are defined below.
Note 6: Fair Value Measurements
24
7
24,596
(157)
25,023
4,412
(5,238)
24,596
3,763
(4,190)
$'000
25,023
3,763
(4,190)
25,023
$'000
26,006
$'000
2015
Non-financial assets
2015
2014
The Courts' policy for determining when transfers between levels are deemed to have occurred can be found in Note 1.
Total as at 30 June
Disposals
As at 1 July
Purchases
Depreciation
Recurring Level 3 fair value measurements - reconciliation for assets
Note 6B: Reconciliation for Recurring Level 3 Fair Value Measurements
(157)
25,023
4,412
(5,238)
26,006
2014
$'000
25
Total
7
7
Note 7: Financial Assets
Note 7A: Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash at bank
Cash on hand
Total cash and cash equivalents
Note 7B: Trade and Other Receivables
Goods and services receivables in connection with
Related entities
External parties
Total goods and services receivables
Appropriations receivable:
Existing programs:
Operating
Departmental Capital Budget
Total appropriations receivable
Other receivables:
Statutory receivables (GST)
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
1,384
12
1,396
1,228
10
1,238
3
99
20
273
15,774
1,252
17,026
19,300
1,476
20,776
555
1,076
102
293
Total other receivables
Total trade and other receivables (gross)
555
17,683
1,076
22,145
Total trade and other receivables (net)
17,683
22,145
17,683
17,683
22,141
4
22,145
17,626
22,044
51
6
2
9
90
Trade and other receivables (net) expected to be recovered
No more than 12 months
More than 12 months
Trade and other receivables (gross) aged as follows
Not overdue
Overdue by:
0 to 30 days
31 to 60 days
61 to 90 days
More than 90 days
17,683
22,145
Credit terms for goods and services were within 30 days (2014: 30 days)
26
7
Note 8: Non-Financial Assets
Note 8A: Buildings
Leasehold improvements:
Work in progress
Fair value
Accumulated depreciation
Total leasehold improvements
Total buildings
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
149
33,526
(9,079)
24,596
484
29,742
(5,203)
25,023
682
19,657
(8,875)
1,823
16,633
(4,407)
24,596
25,023
No indicators of impairment were found for buildings.
No buildings were expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months.
Note 8B: Property Plant and Equipment
Work in progress
Fair value
Accumulated depreciation
Total property, plant and equipment
11,464
14,049
No indicators of impairment were found for property, plant and equipment.
No property, plant or equipment is expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months.
Revaluations of non-financial assets
All revaluations were conducted in accordance with the revaluation policy stated at Note 1. On 30 June 2013, an
independent valuer (Preston Rowe Paterson NSW Pty Limited) conducted the revaluations.
There was no full revaluation undertaken in 2014-15.
27
7
Note 8C: Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Property, Plant and Equipment
Reconciliation of the opening and closing balances of property, plant and equipment for 2015
Buildings Property,
Leasehold
plant &
Improvements
equipment
$’000
$’000
As at 1 July 2014
Gross book value
Accumulated depreciation and impairment
Total as at 1 July 2014
Additions
Purchase
Finance lease
Revaluations and impairments recognised in other comprehensive
income
Depreciation
Disposals
Other - with proceeds
Other - without proceeds
Restructuring
Total
$’000
30,226
(5,203)
18,456
(4,407)
48,682
(9,610)
3,471
292
2,275
-
5,746
292
(4,190)
(4,784)
(8,974)
-
(13)
(63)
-
(13)
(63)
-
25,023
14,049
39,072
Total as at 30 June 2015
24,596
11,464
36,060
Total as at 30 June 2015 represented by
Gross book value
33,675
(9,079)
20,339
(8,875)
54,014
(17,954)
Reconciliation of the opening and closing balances of property, plant and equipment for 2014
Buildings Property,
Leasehold
plant &
Improvements
equipment
$’000
$’000
Total
$’000
As at 1 July 2013
Gross book value
Accumulated depreciation/amortisation and impairment
Additions:
Purchase
Finance lease
Depreciation
Disposals
Other - Without proceeds
Other - With proceeds
Restructuring
Total as at 30 June 2014 represented by
Gross book value
24,596
11,464
-
-
-
1,041
3,371
(5,238)
3,861
12
(4,457)
4,902
3,383
(9,695)
(157)
26,006
25,023
(18)
(42)
14,693
14,049
(18)
(199)
40,699
39,072
30,226
(5,203)
25,023
18,456
(4,407)
14,049
48,682
(9,610)
39,072
36,060
28
7
Note 8D: Intangibles
Computer software
Internally developed – in progress
Internally developed – in use
Purchased
Accumulated amortisation
Total computer software
Total intangibles
No indicators of impairment were found for intangible assets.
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
695
10,159
4,175
(9,124)
505
9,092
3,460
(7,495)
5,562
5,562
5,905
5,905
No intangibles are expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months.
Note 8E: Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Intangibles
Reconciliation of the opening and closing balances of intangibles for 2015
As at 1 July 2014
Gross book value
Accumulated amortisation and impairment
Additions:
Purchase or internally developed
Reclassifications - net adjustment
Amortisation
Disposals:
Impairments recognised in net cost of services
Restructuring
Total as at 30 June 2015 represented by:
Gross book value
Computer
software
internally
developed
$’000
Computer
software
purchased
Total
$’000
$’000
9,597
(5,450)
4,147
3,460
(2,045)
1,415
13,057
(7,495)
5,562
1,275
(1,219)
697
(410)
1,972
(1,629)
-
-
4,203
1,702
5,905
10,872
(6,669)
4,203
4,157
(2,455)
1,702
15,029
(9,124)
5,905
29
7
Reconciliation of the opening and closing balances of intangibles for 2014
As at 1 July 2013
Gross book value
Additions:
Purchase or internally developed
Reclassification - net adjustment
Amortisation
Disposals:
Other - without proceeds
Restructuring
Total as at 30 June 2014 represented by:
Gross book value
Note 8F: Inventories
Inventories held for distribution
Total inventories
Computer
software
internally
developed
$’000
Computer
software
purchased
Total
$’000
$’000
-
-
-
-
-
1,511
(1,034)
468
(474)
1,979
(1,508)
3,670
1,421
5,091
9,597
(5,450)
3,460
(2,045)
13,057
(7,495)
4,147
4,147
1,415
1,415
-
5,562
5,562
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
63
63
73
73
During 2014-15, $359 of inventory held for distribution was recognised as an expense (2014: $210).
No items of inventory were recognised at fair value less cost to sell.
All inventories are expected to be distributed in the next 12 months.
Note 8G: Other Non-Financial Assets
Prepayments
Total other non-financial assets
Other non-financial assets expected to be recovered
Total other non-financial assets
1,955
1,955
1,844
1,844
1,955
1,955
1,844
1,844
No indicators of impairment were found for other non-financial assets.
30
7
Note 9: Payables
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
3,297
546
3,843
3,392
538
3,930
3,696
147
3,843
3,734
196
3,930
382
3,461
3,843
355
3,575
3,930
Total other payables
2,018
301
201
452
20
2,992
1,721
273
25
427
430
20
2,896
Other payables expected to be settled
2,992
2,896
Note 9A: Suppliers
Trade creditors and accruals
Operating lease rentals
Total suppliers
Suppliers expected to be settled
More than 12 months
Total suppliers
Suppliers in connection with
Related parties
External parties
Total suppliers
Settlement was usually made within 30 days.
Note 9B: Other Payables
Wages and salaries
Superannuation
Separations and redundancies
Unearned income
Statutory payable (FBT)
Other
Total other payables
2,992
2,896
31
7
Note 10:
Interest Bearing Liabilities
Note 10A: Leases
Finance leases
Total leases
Leases expected to be settled
Within 1 year
Future finance charges
In 1 to 5 years
In more than 5 years
Total leases
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
3,271
3,321
476
(83)
428
(93)
2,051
(218)
1,817
(243)
1,074
(29)
3,271
1,471
(59)
3,321
3,271
3,321
In 2015, a Finance lease existed in relation to building and property, plant and equipment assets. The lease was non-cancellable and
for a fixed term of 8 years. The interest rate implicit in the lease was 2.7%. The lease assets secure the lease liabilities.
32
7
Note 11:
Provisions
Note 11A: Employee Provisions
Annual leave
Judges annual leave
Long service leave
Judges long service leave
Justices long leave
Total employee provisions
Employee provisions expected to be settled
More than 12 months
Total employee provisions
Note 11B: Other Provisions
Provision for restoration obligations
Total other provisions
Other provisions expected to be settled
More than 12 months
Total other provisions
As at 1 July 2014
Additional provisions made
Change in provisions
Amounts used
Unwinding of discount
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
6,204
4,532
11,572
4,786
8,965
36,059
6,141
4,564
11,459
4,538
8,264
34,966
10,129
25,930
36,059
9,010
25,956
34,966
2,885
2,885
3,371
3,371
1,565
1,320
2,885
1,222
2,149
3,371
Provision for
restoration
$’000
$’000
3,371
(614)
128
2,885
3,371
(614)
128
2,885
Total
The Courts currently has 10 agreements for the leasing of premises which have provisions requiring the Courts to restore
the premises to their original condition at the conclusion of the lease. The Courts has made a provision to reflect the
present value of this obligation.
Note 12:
Restructuring
At the beginning of the comparative period, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia merged with the Family Court of
Australia.
As a part of the merger process the assets and liabilities of Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court of
Australia were consolidated into the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court (the Courts) and are reflected in the Courts'
accounts for 2013-14. In respect of function assumed, the assets and liabilities were transferred to the Courts for no
consideration.
33
7
Note 13:
Cash Flow Reconciliation
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents as per statement of financial position to cash flow
statement
Cash and cash equivalents as per
Cash flow statement
Statement of financial position
1,396
1,396
-
1,238
1,238
-
(164,021)
148,683
(164,532)
172,113
10,603
54
62
(223)
11,203
201
(62)
1,476
4,462
10
(111)
(19,855)
(20)
(152)
1,093
(87)
96
(486)
135
1,675
(7,347)
(554)
136
(5,718)
Discrepancy
Reconciliation of net cost of services to net cash from/(used by) operating activities
Adjustments for non-cash items
Depreciation / amortisation
Loss on disposal of assets
Finance lease represented in accruals
Movement in the appropriation receivable recognised in equity
Movements in assets and liabilities
Assets
(Increase) / Decrease in net receivables
(Increase) / Decrease in inventories
Increase / (Decrease) in prepayments received
Liabilities
Increase / (Decrease) in employee provisions
Increase / (Decrease) in supplier payables
Increase / (Decrease) in other payable
Increase / (Decrease) in other provisions
Note 14:
Contingent Liabilities and Assets
Quantifiable Contingencies
The Courts had no quantifiable contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2015 (2014: none).
Unquantifiable Contingencies
The Courts had no unquantifiable contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2015 (2014: none).
Significant Remote Contingencies
The Courts had no significant remote contingencies as at 30 June 2015 (2014: none).
34
7
Note 15:
Senior Management Personnel Remuneration
Short-term employee benefits
Salary
Vehicle allowance
Other
Total short-term employee benefits
Post-employment benefits
Superannuation
Total post-employment benefits
Other long-term employee benefits
Annual leave
Long-service leave
Total other long-term employee benefits
Termination benefits
Total senior executive remuneration expenses
2015
$
2014
$
1,452,251
72,431
64,043
1,940,051
74,763
63,876
289,443
289,443
328,424
328,424
149,257
48,662
197,919
167,350
80,697
248,047
1,588,725
-
2,076,087
2,078,690
-
2,655,161
The total number of senior management personnel that are included in the above table are 9 (2014: 10).
35
7
Note 16:
Financial Instruments
Note 16A: Categories of Financial Instruments
Financial Assets
Loans and receivables
Financial liabilities measured at amortised cost
Trade creditors
Finance leases
Total financial liabilities
Note 16B: Net Gains or Losses on Financial Liabilities
Financial liabilities measured at amortised cost
Interest expense
Net gains/(losses) on financial liabilities measured at amortised cost
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
1,396
102
1,238
293
1,836
3,271
5,107
1,857
3,321
5,178
86
86
8
8
1,498
1,531
Note 16C: Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The carrying amounts of the Court's financial assets and liabilities are a reasonable approximation of the fair value.
36
7
Note 16D: Credit Risk
The Courts are exposed to minimal credit risk as loans and receivables are cash and trade receivables. The maximum
exposure to credit risk is the risk that arises from potential default of a debtor. This amount is equal to the total amount of
trade receivables $102,000 (2014: $293,000). The Courts have assessed the risk of the default on payment and have
allocated nil in 2015 and 2014 to the impairment allowance account for trade receivable.
The Courts manage credit risk by restricting credit to approved customers. In addition the Courts have policies and
procedures that guide employee's debt recovery techniques that are to be applied.
The Courts hold no collateral to mitigate against credit risk.
Credit quality of financial instruments not past due or individually determined as impaired
Trade receivables
Total
Not past due
nor impaired
2015
$'000
Not past due
nor impaired
2014
$'000
Past due or
impaired
2015
$'000
Past due nor
impaired
2014
$'000
1,396
45
1,441
1,238
192
1,430
57
57
101
101
31 to 60 days
$'000
61 to 90 days
$'000
90+ days
$'000
Total
$'000
-
51
51
6
6
57
57
31 to 60 days
$'000
61 to 90 days
$'000
90+ days
$'000
Total
$'000
2
2
9
9
90
90
101
101
Ageing of financial assets that were past due but not impaired for 2015
Trade receivables
Total
Ageing of financial assets that were past due but not impaired for 2014
Trade receivables
Total
37
7
Note 16E: Liquidity Risk
The Courts' financial liabilities are payables to suppliers. The exposure to liquidity risk is based on the notion that the
Courts will encounter difficulty in meeting its obligations associated with financial liabilities.
This is highly unlikely as the Courts are appropriated funding from the Australian Government and the Courts manage
budgeted funds to ensure it has adequate funds to meet payments as they fall due. In addition, the Courts have policies in
place to ensure timely payments are made when due and have no past experience of default.
Maturities for non-derivative financial liabilities 2015
Trade creditors
Finance leases
Total
On
demand
$'000
-
Within 1
year
$'000
1,836
476
2,312
Maturities for non-derivative financial liabilities 2014
Trade creditors
Finance leases
Total
On
demand
$'000
-
Within 1
year
$'000
1,857
428
2,285
Between
1 to 2
years
$'000
490
Between
2 to 5
years
$'000
1,561
More than
5
years
$'000
1,074
Total
$'000
1,836
3,601
Between
1 to 2
years
$'000
434
Between
2 to 5
years
$'000
1,383
More than
5
years
$'000
1,471
Total
$'000
1,857
3,716
490
434
1,561
1,383
1,074
1,471
5,437
5,573
Note 16F: Market Risk
The Courts hold basic financial instruments that did not exposed the Courts to certain market risks, such as 'Currency risk'
and 'Other price risk'.
Interest rate risk
The only interest-bearing item on the statement of financial position was the 'finance leases'. The bear interest at a fixed
interest rate and its value did not fluctuate due to changes in the market interest rate.
Note 17:
Financial Assets Reconciliation
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
19,079
23,383
17,026
555
17,581
20,776
1,076
21,852
1,498
1,531
Notes
Total financial assets as per statement of financial position
Less: non-financial instrument components
Appropriation receivables
Statutory receivable (GST)
Total non-financial instrument components
Total financial assets as per financial instruments note
7B
7B
38
7
Note 18:
Administered Expenses
2015
2014
$'000
$'000
Services rendered
Supply of primary dispute resolution services
291
189
Services rendered in connection with
External parties
291
189
Note 18B: Write-Down and Impairment of Assets
Other
382
632
270
270
283
283
Note 18A: Suppliers
Total services rendered
Total suppliers
Total write-down and impairment of assets
Note 18C: Other Expenses
Refunds of fees
Total other expenses
Note 19:
Administered Income
Revenue
Non-Taxation Revenue
Note 19A: Fees and Fines
Fees
Fines
Total fees and fines
291
291
382
2015
189
189
632
2014
$'000
$'000
58,053
67
55,059
79
58,120
55,138
39
7
Note 20:
Administered Financial Assets
Note 20A: Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash on hand or on deposit
Total cash and cash equivalents
2015
2014
$'000
$'000
583
583
203
203
1,162
485
3
3
1
1
Note 20B: Trade and Other Receivables
Good and services receivable (fees and fines) in connection with
Related parties
External parties
Total goods and services receivables
Other receivables
Statutory receivable (GST)
Total other receivables
285
1,447
304
789
1,450
790
Less impairment allowance account:
Goods and services
(132)
(54)
1,318
1,318
736
736
-
-
633
414
227
319
1,450
790
Total impairment allowance
Trade and other receivables (net) expected to be recovered in:
Trade and other receivables (gross) aged as follows
Not overdue
Overdue by
0 to 30 days
31 to 60 days
61 to 90 days
More than 90 days
The impairment allowance account is aged as follows:
Not overdue
Overdue by
0 to 30 days
31 to 60 days
61 to 90 days
More than 90 days
Total impairment allowance account
(132)
1,318
291
112
61
183
-
-
-
-
(55)
(132)
(54)
(54)
(77)
(54)
736
-
40
7
Reconciliation of the Impairment Allowance Account:
Movements in relation to 2015
As at 1 July 2014
Amounts written off
Increase recognised in net contribution by services
Movements in relation to 2014
As at 1 July 2013
Amounts written off
Increase recognised in net contribution by services
Note 21:
Administered Payables
Note 21A: Suppliers
Trade creditors and accruals
Other Creditors
Operating lease rentals
Total supplier payables
Supplier payables expected to be settled within 12 months:
Related entities
External parties
Total
Supplier payables expected to be settled in greater than 12 months:
Related entities
External parties
Total
Total supplier payables
Goods and
services
Total
(23)
101
(23)
101
$'000
54
132
$'000
54
132
Goods and
services
$'000
Total
$'000
52
54
52
54
4
(2)
4
(2)
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
40
-
40
-
-
-
-
-
40
40
-
-
-
40
-
41
7
Note 22:
Administered Cash Flow Reconciliation
2014
2015
$'000
$'000
583
203
57,177
54,034
(582)
(166)
Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents as per administered schedule of
assets and liabilities to administered cash flow statement
Cash and cash equivalents as per
Schedule of administered cash flows
Schedule of administered assets and liabilities
Discrepancy
Reconciliation of net contribution by services to net cash from operating activities:
Movements in assets and liabilities
Assets
Increase in net receivables
Increase in supplier payables
Net cash from operating activities
Note 23:
Administered Contingent Assets and Liabilities
Note 24:
Administered Financial Instruments
203
-
583
-
40
56,635
53,868
The Courts have no quantifiable, unquantifiable or significant remote administered contingent liabilities and assets as at
30 June 2015.
Note 24A: Categories of Financial Instruments
Financial Assets
Carrying amount of financial assets
583
583
203
203
-
-
At amortised cost
Suppliers
Carrying amount of financial liabilities
-
-
Note 24B: Net Income and Expense from Financial Assets
The Courts did not receive any income or incur any expense from administered financial assets for the period ending
30 June 2015.
Note 24C: Net Income and Expense from Financial Liabilities
The Courts did not receive any income or incur any expense from administered financial liabilities for
the period ending 30 June 2015.
Note 24D: Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The carrying amounts of the Courts' financial assets and liabilities are a reasonable approximation of the fair value.
42
7
Note 24E: Credit Risk
The Courts' maximum exposure to credit risk at the reporting date in relation to each class of recognised financial assets is
the carrying amounts of those assets as indicated in the administered schedule of assets and liabilities.
The Courts' credit risk policy is to restrict credit to approved customers and in this case the maximum exposure to credit
risk is the carrying amount of the related financial assets.
The Courts have no significant exposure to any concentrations of credit risk.
The Courts hold no collateral to mitigate against credit risk.
Note 24F: Liquidity Risk
All financial liabilities are short-term with settlement terms of 30 days.
The Courts' governance and internal control framework ensures that obligations associated with financial liabilities are
able to be met as and when they fall due.
The Courts have no derivative financial liabilities in either the current or prior year.
Note 24G: Market Risk
The Courts have no exposure to market risk including currency risk, other price risk or interest rate risk.
Note 25:
Administered Financial Assets Reconciliation
Total financial assets as per schedule of administered assets and
liabilities
Less: Non-financial instrument components
Fees and fines
GST receivable
Total non-financial instrument components
Total financial assets as per administered financial instruments note
Notes
2015
2014
$'000
$'000
1,901
939
(1,315)
(3)
(735)
(1)
(1,318)
583
(736)
203
43
Appropriations
-
-
884
884
-
-
156,583
-
156,583
-
-
3,305
-
3,305
Section 74
$'000
-
-
-
-
-
Section 75
$'000
PGPA Act
884
884
-
159,888
-
159,888
Total
appropriation
$'000
252
252
-
164,001
-
164,001
Appropriation
applied in 2015
(current and prior
years)
$'000
632
632
-
(4,113)
-
(4,113)
Variance(2)
$'000
44
1. In 2014-15, there were no appropriations that have been quarantined. In 2014-15, there was $168,000 adjustment (Internet based network connection services panel arrangement – savings $150,000
and reduced funding of communication functions $18,000) that met the recognition criteria of a formal reduction in revenue (in accordance with FRR Part 6 Div 3), but at law the appropriations had not
been amended before the end of the reporting period.
2. The material variance reflects movement in cash ($3,750,000), net GST receivable $159,000 and appropriation receivable ($521,000).
Total administered
Total departmental
Administered
Ordinary annual services
Administered items
Payments to Corporate Commonwealth entities
Other services
State, ACT, NT and local government
New administered outcomes
Administered assets and liabilities
Payments to CAC Act bodies
Departmental
Other services
Equity
Loans
AFM
$'000
Appropriation Act
Annual
Appropriation(1)
$'000
Note 26A: Annual Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive')
Annual Appropriations for 2015
Note 26:
7
-
181,778
181,778
874
874
-
-
3,271
3,271
Section 31
$'000
-
-
-
-
Section 32
$'000
FMA Act
874
874
-
185,049
185,049
Total
appropriation
$'000
189
189
-
169,467
169,467
Appropriation
applied in 2014
(current and prior
years)
$'000
45
685
685
-
15,582
15,582
Variance(2)
$'000
1. Appropriations reduced under Appropriation Acts (No. 1,3,5) 2013-14: sections 10, 11, 12 and 15 and under Appropriation Acts (No. 2,4,6) 2013-14: sections 12,13, 14.
Departmental appropriations do not lapse at financial year-end. However, the responsible Minister may decide that part or all of a departmental appropriation is not required and request
the Finance Minister to reduce that appropriation. The reduction in the appropriation is effected by the Finance Minister's determination and is disallowable by Parliament. The Courts
had no reduction in 2014.
2. The departmental variance reflects movement in cash ($5,702,000), net GST receivable $509,000 and appropriation receivable $20,775,000.
Departmental
Other services
Equity
Loans
Previous years' outputs
Total departmental
Administered
Administered items
Payments to Corporate Commonwealth entities
Other services
Administered assets and liabilities
Payments to CAC Act bodies
Total administered
AFM
$'000
Annual
Appropriation(1)
$'000
Note 26A: Annual Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive') (continued)
Annual Appropriations for 2014
Appropriation Act
7
7,900
-
7,900
8,124
Payments for
non-financial
assets(2)
$'000
-
Payments
for other
purposes
$'000
8,124
Total payments
$'000
Capital Budget Appropriations applied in 2015
(current and prior years)
8,358
-
8,358
6,881
Payments for
non-financial
assets(2)
$'000
-
Payments for
other
purposes
$'000
6,881
Total payments
$'000
Capital Budget Appropriations applied in 2014
(current and prior years)
1. Departmental and Administered Capital Budgets are appropriated through Appropriation Acts (No.1,3,5). They form part of ordinary annual services, and are not separately
identified in the Appropriation Acts. For more information on ordinary annual services appropriations, please see Table 26A: Annual appropriations.
2. Payments made on non-financial assets include purchases of assets, expenditure on assets which has been capitalised, costs incurred to make good an asset to its original
condition, and the capital repayment component of finance leases.
Budget(1)
Departmental
Ordinary annual services - Departmental Capital
2014 Capital Budget Appropriations
Appropriation Act
FMA Act
Total Capital
Annual Capital
Budget
Budget
Section 32
Appropriations
$'000
$'000
$'000
1. Departmental and Administered Capital Budgets are appropriated through Appropriation Acts (No.1,3,5). They form part of ordinary annual services, and are not separately
identified in the Appropriation Acts. For more information on ordinary annual services appropriations, please see Table 26A: Annual appropriations.
2. Payments made on non-financial assets include purchases of assets, expenditure on assets which has been capitalised, costs incurred to make good an asset to its original
condition, and the capital repayment component of finance leases.
Budget(1)
Departmental
Ordinary annual services - Departmental Capital
2015 Capital Budget Appropriations
Appropriation Act
PGPA Act
Total Capital
Annual Capital
Budget
Budget
Section 75
Appropriations
$'000
$'000
$'000
Note 26B: Departmental and Administered Capital Budgets ('Recoverable GST exclusive')
1,477
Variance
$'000
(224)
Variance
$'000
46
7
7
Note 26C: Unspent Departmental Annual Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive')
Authority
Departmental
Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2013-14
Appropriation Act (No.3) 2013-14
Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2013-14 - Capital budget
Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2014-15
Total
2014
2015
$'000
$'000
17,171
720
532
2,929
17,608
1,477
-
22,014
18,423
Unspent departmental appropriations reflect the balance of funds to be drawn from the OPA as well as cash and cash
equivalents.
Note 26D: Special Appropriations ('Recoverable GST
exclusive')
Authority
Public Governance, Performance
and Accountability Act 2013,
Section 77, Administered
Total
Type
Refund
Purpose
Repayments of amounts paid in
accordance with the Family law
regulations (subsection 8 and 9) of the
Family Law Act 1975 and amounts
paid in accordance with the Federal
Court and Federal Circuit Court
Regulations of the Federal Circuit
Court of Australia Act 1999 that are
subsequently refunded.
Appropriation applied
2014
2015
$'000
$'000
285
309
285
309
47
7
Note 27:
Special Accounts
Note 27A: Special Accounts (Recoverable GST exclusive)
Balance brought forward from previous period
Increases
Costs recovered
Other receipts
Litigations Fund Special
Account (Administered - SPM)1
2015
$'000
548
2014
$'000
309
Total increases
1,421
1,421
1,540
1,540
Total decreases
(1,483)
(1,483)
(1,301)
(1,301)
Available for payments
Decreases
Administered
Payments made
Total balance carried to the next period
1,969
486
1,849
548
1. Appropriation: [Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act section 80].
Establishing Instrument: Determination 2013/06.
The Finance Minister has issued a determination under Subsection 20(1) of the FMA ACT 1997 (repealed) establishing the Family
Court and Federal Circuit Court Litigants’ Fund Special Account when the Courts merged on 1 July 2014. The legislation allows for
the continued existence of the Special Account despite the repeal of the FMA Act.
Purpose: Litigants Fund Special Account (Administered - SPM) is
(a) for amounts received in respect of proceedings of the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
(formerly the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia);
(b) for amounts received in respect of proceedings that have been transferred from another court to the Family Court of Australia or
to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (formerly the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia);
(c) for amounts received from the Family Court of Australia Litigants’ Fund Special Account or the Federal Magistrates Court
Litigants’ Fund Special Account.
(d) to make payments in accordance with an order (however described) made by a court under the Family Law Act 1975, the Family
Court of Australia, or a Judge of that Court;
(e) to make payments in accordance with an order (however described) made by a court under the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Act 1999 (formerly the Federal Magistrates Act 1999), the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (formerly the Federal Magistrates Court
of Australia), or a Judge (formerly Federal Magistrate) of that Court;
(f) to repay amounts received by the Commonwealth and credited to this Special Account where an Act of Parliament or other law
requires or permits the amount to be repaid;
(g) to reduce the balance of this Special Account without making a real or notional payment.
48
7
Note 28:
Reporting of Outcomes
Note 28A: Net Cost of Outcome Delivery
Departmental
Expenses
Own source income
Administered
Expenses
Own source income
Net cost of outcome delivery
Outcome 1
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
Total
2015
$'000
2014
$'000
(205,756)
41,735
(205,380)
40,848
(205,756)
41,735
(205,380)
40,848
(943)
58,120
(1,104)
55,138
(943)
58,120
(1,104)
55,138
(106,844)
(110,498)
(106,844)
(110,498)
Outcome 1 is described in Note 1.1. Net costs shown include intra-government costs that are eliminated in calculating the
actual budget outcome. Refer to Outcome 1 Resourcing Table of this Annual Report.
49
7
Note 29:
Budgetary Reports and Explanations of Major Variances
The following tables provide a comparison of the original budget as presented in the 2014-15 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) to
the 2014-15 final outcome as presented in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards for the Courts. The Budget is not
audited. Variances are considered to be ‘major’ based on the following criteria:
-the variance between budget and actual is greater than 10%: and
-the variance between budget and actual is greater than 2% of total expenses: or
-the variance between budget and actual is below this threshold but is considered important for the reader’s understanding or is
relevant to an assessment of the discharge of accountability and to an analysis of performance of the Courts.
In some instances, a budget has not been provided for in the PBS, for example non-cash items such as asset revaluations, foreign
exchange and sale of assets adjustments. Unless the variance is considered to be ‘major’ no explanation has been provided.
Note 29A: Departmental Budgetary Reports
Statement of Comprehensive Income
for the period ended 2015
Actual
2015
$'000
Expenses
Employee benefits
Suppliers
Depreciation and amortisation
Finance costs
Losses from asset sales
Total expenses
Budget estimate
1
2
Original
Variance
2015
2015
$'000
$'000
119,321
75,551
10,603
214
13
54
205,756
118,222
71,214
10,083
100
199,619
1,099
4,337
520
114
13
54
6,137
1,274
694
1,968
940
500
1,440
334
194
528
39,767
39,767
41,735
(164,021)
39,245
39,245
40,685
(158,934)
522
522
1,050
(5,087)
Surplus/(Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government
148,683
(15,338)
148,851
(10,083)
(168)
(5,255)
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Items not subject to subsequent reclassification to net cost of
services
Changes in asset revaluation surplus
Total comprehensive income/(loss) attributable to the
Australian Government
-
-
-
(15,338)
(10,083)
(5,255)
Own-Source Income
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services
Other revenue
Total own-source revenue
Gains
Other gains
Total gains
Total own-source income
1. The Courts' original budgeted financial statement that was first presented to parliament in respect of the reporting period [i.e. from
the Courts' 2014-2015 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS)].
2. Between the actual and original budgeted amounts for 2015. Explanations of major variances are provided further below.
50
7
Statement of Financial Position
as at 30 June 2015
Actual
2015
$'000
Budget estimate
Original1
Variance2
2015
2015
$'000
$'000
ASSETS
Financial Assets
Other financial assets
1,396
17,683
-
6,941
23,736
330
31,007
(11,928)
Non-Financial Assets
Land and buildings
Intangibles
Inventories
Other non-financial assets
24,596
11,464
5,905
63
1,955
22,954
12,663
5,566
53
1,692
42,928
73,935
1,642
(1,199)
339
10
263
1,055
(10,873)
3,843
2,992
6,835
4,694
7,287
11,981
(851)
(4,295)
3,271
3,271
-
3,271
3,271
Total provisions
36,059
2,885
38,944
37,337
3,238
40,575
(1,278)
(353)
(1,631)
Total liabilities
49,050
52,556
(3,506)
41,462
22,864
(50,314)
14,012
40,762
22,861
(42,244)
21,379
700
3
(8,070)
(7,367)
Total assets
LIABILITIES
Payables
Suppliers
Other payables
Total payables
Interest bearing liabilities
Leases
Total interest bearing liabilities
Provisions
Employee provisions
Other provisions
Net assets
EQUITY
Contributed equity
Reserves
Retained surplus/(accumulated deficit)
Total equity
19,079
43,983
63,062
14,012
21,379
(5,545)
(6,053)
(330)
(5,146)
(7,367)
51
(42,244)
-
(50,314)
(10,083)
(15,338)
-
(10,083)
(32,161)
(32,161)
(15,338)
(34,976)
(34,976)
2015
$'000
2015
$'000
22,864
(8,070)
-
-
(5,255)
-
-
22,864
22,864
(5,255)
(2,815)
(2,815)
2015
$'000
2015
$'000
2015
$'000
22,861
-
-
-
-
22,861
22,861
3
-
-
-
-
3
3
41,462
7,900
7,900
-
-
-
33,562
33,562
2015
$'000
40,762
7,200
7,200
-
-
-
33,562
33,562
2015
$'000
14,012
7,900
700
700
7,900
-
(15,338)
(15,338)
21,450
21,450
2015
$'000
Actual
700
-
-
-
-
2015
$'000
Contributed equity/capital
Actual
Budget Estimate
1
2
Original
Variance
21,379
7,200
7,200
-
(10,083)
(10,083)
24,262
24,262
2015
$'000
(7,367)
700
700
-
(5,255)
(5,255)
(2,812)
(2,812)
2015
$'000
Total equity
Budget Estimate
1
2
Original
Variance
1. The Courts' original budgeted financial statement that was first presented to parliament in respect of the reporting period [i.e. from the Courts' 2014-2015 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS)].
Closing balance as at 30
June
Total transactions with
owners
Transactions with owners
Contributions by owners
Departmental capital budget
Restructuring
(loss)
Comprehensive income
Other comprehensive income
Surplus/(Deficit) for the
period
Adjusted opening balance
Balance carried forward from
previous period
Opening balance
2015
$'000
Statement of Changes in Equity for not-for-profit Reporting Entities
as at 30 June 2015
Retained earnings
Asset revaluation surplus
Actual
Budget Estimate
Actual
Budget Estimate
1
2
1
2
Original
Variance
Original
Variance
52
7
7
Cash Flow Statement
as at 30 June 2015
Actual
2015
$'000
Budget estimate
Original1
Variance2
2015
2015
$'000
$'000
Cash received
Appropriations
Sales of goods and rendering of services
Other
Net GST received
Total cash received
155,514
2,744
689
5,193
164,140
148,851
940
500
4,867
155,158
6,663
1,804
189
326
8,982
Cash used
Employees
Suppliers
Cash used - other
Net GST paid
Section 74 receipts transferred to OPA
Total cash used
107,671
52,943
86
3,305
164,005
135
107,869
42,422
4,867
155,158
-
(198)
10,521
86
(4,867)
3,305
8,847
135
22
22
-
22
22
5,746
1,972
7,718
(7,696)
7,200
7,200
(7,200)
(1,454)
1,972
518
(496)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Cash received
Contributed equity
Total cash received
8,124
8,124
7,200
7,200
924
924
Cash used
Repayment of borrowing
Total cash used
Net Cash from/(used by) financing activities
405
405
7,719
7,200
405
405
519
Net increase/(decrease) in cash held
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the reporting
period
158
-
158
1,238
1,396
6,941
6,941
(5,703)
(5,545)
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Cash received
Proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment
Total cash received
Cash used
Purchase of property, plant and equipment
Purchase of intangibles
Total cash used
Net cash from/ (used by) investing activities
53
7
Note 29B: Departmental Major Budget Variances for 2015
Explanation of major variances
Rendering of services
The variances to both Original and Revised Budget, were due to
additional one off receipts of $250k from the Family Court of
WA for access to our case management system and portal, and
higher than anticipated revenue from ongoing sales of file
documents.
Other revenue
The variances were due to unforeseen additional revenue to
cover costs associated with the secondment of Justice Coate to
the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse.
Suppliers expenses
The variances of $4.3m between actual and both Original and
Revised Budget were mainly due to underestimated supplier
expenses. There was also lower than budgeted appropriation
receivable as the Courts drew down more than the budgeted
amount to cover the higher than budgeted supplier expenses.
Cash balance
The variance to Original Budget was due to the Original Budget
being based on the previous year’s opening balance. This had
been approved for temporary increase by Department of Finance
due to the Courts merger. This variance was addressed in the
Revised Budget.
Suppliers payables
The variance was due to actual Guarding and Outgoings and
miscellaneous expenses of Commonwealth Law Courts being
lower than expected. Also some planned property works were
deemed to be no longer required resulting in lower than
anticipated repairs and maintenance costs.
Other payables
Other payables variance was mainly due to Finance leases of
$3.3m being recognised in this item in the Original Budget. This
was changed to be reported separately in the Revised Budget,
consistent with recognition in the financial statements.
Affected line items (and statement)
Sale of goods and rendering of services (Statement of
Comprehensive Income). Operating activities - cash
received (Cash Flow Statement).
Other revenue (Statement of Comprehensive Income).
Operating activities - cash received (Cash Flow
Statement).
Suppliers expenses (Statement of Comprehensive
Income). Trade and other receivables (Statement of
Financial Position). Operating activities - cash used
(Cash flow statement). Operating activities - cash
received (Cash flow statement).
Cash and cash equivalents (Statement of Financial
Position)
Suppliers payables (Statement of Financial Position).
Operating activities - cash used - suppliers (Cash flow
statement).
Other payables (Statement of Financial Position),
Interest bearing liabilities - Leases(Statement of
Financial Position). Operating activities - cash used
(Cash flow statement).
54
7
Note 29C: Administered Budgetary Reports
Administered Schedule of Comprehensive Income
for the period ended 2015
Actual
Budget estimate
2015
Original1
2015
Variance2
2015
Expenses
Suppliers
291
884
(593)
Total expenses
943
1,184
(241)
Non-taxation revenue
Fees and fines
58,120
55,751
2,369
57,177
54,567
2,610
Other expenses - refunds of fees
$'000
$'000
$'000
300
382
270
382
(30)
Income
Revenue
Total non-taxation revenue
Total revenue
Surplus before income tax on continuing operations
Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities
as at 30 June 2015
ASSETS
Financial assets
Total financial assets administered on behalf of Government
55,751
55,751
58,120
58,120
2,369
2,369
54,567
54,567
57,177
57,177
Actual
2,610
2,610
Budget estimate
2015
Original1
2015
Variance2
2015
583
165
571
736
418
747
1,165
40
1
39
1,861
735
1,165
$'000
1,318
1,901
$'000
$'000
LIABILTIES
Payables
Suppliers
Total liabilities administered on behalf of Government
Net assets
40
1
39
1. The Courts' original budgeted financial statement that was first presented to parliament in respect of the reporting period
[i.e. from the Courts' 2014-2015 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS)].
55
7
Note 29D: Administered Major Budget Variances for 2015
Explanation of major variances
Affected line items (and statement)
Suppliers Expense
The variance was due to a lower than expected amount of clients
accessing mediation and conciliation services.
Suppliers Expense(Statement of Comprehensive
Income).
The variance from budget is a result of the Courts' debt collection
processes. The Courts did not budget for write-down and
impairment of assets.
Fees and Fines
Arises from increased number of filings.
Writedown and impairment of assets (Statement of
Comprehensive Income).
Non-taxation revenue (Statement of Comprehensive
Income).
56
8
APPENDIXES
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix one
Entity resource statement 2014–15
Table 8.1 Entity Resource Statement 2014–15
Actual available
appropriation
2014–15
$’000
Payments
made
2014–15
$’000
Balance
remaining
2014–15
$’000
181,902 3
163,479 18,423 4
181,902 163,479 18,423 Outcome 15
884 252 632 6
Total
884 252 632 Ordinary annual services1
Departmental appropriation2
Total
Administered expenses
Total ordinary annual services
182,786
163,731
19,055
Special Appropriations Special appropriations limited by criteria / entitlement
Public Governance,
Performance and
Accountability Act 2013 s 77 7
300
285
15
Total
300 285 15 Special accounts8
Opening balance
– – – Appropriation receipts
– – – Total special accounts
– – – Total net resourcing for agency
183,086
164,016
19,070
1 A
ppropriation Act (No.1) 2014–15 and Appropriation Act (No.3) 2014–15. This also includes Prior Year departmental
appropriation and S.74 relevant agency receipts.
2 Includes an amount of $7.900m in 2014–15 for the Departmental Capital Budget. For accounting purposes,
this amount has been designated as ‘contributions by owners’.
3 Includes $156.583m in Appropriations (Appropriation Bill No. 1 & 3), and $3.305m in section 74 Receipts per
Note 26 A of the Financial Statements, and $1.238m in Cash – Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of
the reporting period – per Cash Flow Statement, and $20.776m in Appropriations Receivable per note 7B of
the Financial Statements. Excludes other statutory receivables (GST).
4 Unspent departmental annual Appropriations per Note 26 C of the Financial Statements.
5 Administered Appropriations per Note 26 A of the Financial Statements.
6 Administered appropriation balance remaining will be used to make payments of $0.040m in 2015–16 for accrued items.
7 Repayments not provided for under other appropriations.
8 Does not include ‘Special Public Money’ held in accounts like Other Trust Monies Account (OTM).
8
APPENDIXES
Appendix two
Expenses and resources for outcome 1
Table 8.2 Expenses for Outcome 1
Outcome 1: Provide access to
justice for litigants in family
and federal law matters
within the jurisdiction of the
courts through the provision of
judicial and support services.
Budget1
2014–15
$’000
Actual Expenses
2014–15
$’000
Variation
2014–15
$’000
(a) (b)
(a) – (b)
Program 1.1: Family Court and Federal Circuit Court
Administered expenses
Ordinary Annual Services
(Appropriation Bill No. 1 & No. 3)
884
291 2
593
Expenses not requiring
appropriation in the Budget year
0
382 3
-382
300
270 4
30
Special appropriations
Departmental expenses
Departmental Appropriation
(Appropriation Bill No. 1 & No. 3)5
156,273 155,386 887
Expenses not requiring
appropriation in the Budget year6
49,390 50,370 -980
206,847 206,699 148
2013–14 2014–15 Total expenses for Outcome 1
Average Staffing Level (number)
786 775
1 F
ull year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2014–15 Budget per 2014–15 Estimated
Actual expenses in table 2.1 of the 2015–16 Attorney General’s Portfolio Budget Statements page 303.
2 Administered Expenses (Services Rendered) per note 18 A of the Financial Statements.
3 Includes write down and impairment of assets for bad and doubtful debts per Note 18 B of the Financial Statements.
4 S
pecial appropriations consist of refunds of fees paid under section 77 of the Public Governance, Performance and
Accountability Act 2013.
5 Departmental Appropriation combines ‘Ordinary annual services (Appropriation Bill No.1 and No.3) and ‘s 74
retained revenue receipts’.
6 Includes depreciation and amortisation, liabilities assumed by related entities for the Judges Pension Scheme
(Family Court of Australia), resources received free of charge, Judges Pension Scheme (Invalidity)
(Federal Circuit Court of Australia).
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix three
Staffing profile
The Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (Administration) Act 2012 came into effect on
1 July 2013 formalising merged administrative arrangements that had been in place for some
years. The Act also formalises the arrangements for there to be a single Chief Executive Officer
for both the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court.
At 30 June 2015, the agency had a total workforce of 772 employees that either support a specific
court e.g. direct judicial support to a Family Court Justice or a Federal Circuit Court Judge, or provide
shared services e.g. registrars, family consultants, registry services and corporate services.
Of the agency’s 772 employees:
−− 195 (25.26 per cent) were male and 577 (74.74 per cent) were female, and
−− 601 (77.85 per cent) were ongoing employees and 171 (22.15 per cent)
were non-ongoing employees.
The following tables show staff statistics by location, gender, full-time and part-time status,
and ongoing and non-ongoing.
Table 8.3 Staff by location
Level
ACT
NSO
NSW
APS 1
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
Total
1
APS 2
2
2
17
APS 3
8
6
77
APS 4
6
12
60
APS 5
4
23
43
APS 6
2
23
6
EL 1
4
33
33
EL 2
2
15
SES 1
2
SES 2
3
Total
NT
28
119
1
18
59
7
36
187
12
4
33
1
157
21
8
5
27
1
134
2
3
17
6
23
12
3
1
2
4
2
1
14
6
34
15
29
4
40
5
20
119
2
9
66
1
6
3
261
7
131
53
23
148
2
772
Note: Actual occupancy at 30 June 2015 includes full and part-time staff with the exception of judicial officers and
casual employees. All figures are based on actual headcount.
Legend
SES – Senior Executive Service Officer
NSO – National Support Office
Level
Gender
APS 1
Male
APS 2
Female
1
Male
1
Female
4
Male
4
Female
4
9
Male
2
Female
4
APS 3
APS 4
APS 5
ACT
Female
2
Male
EL 1
EL 2
SES 2
Total
2
NT
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA Total
6
1
13
10
4
4
6
12
44
6
15
59
3
24
9
6
25
136
18
1
10
6
1
11
51
52
24
10
4
29
132
3
8
5
2
15
36
19
8
8
7
2
15
5
2
8
1
Female
3
8
29
Male
1
25
Female
2
Male
SES 1
NSW
1
Male
APS 6
NSO
2
1
25
4
22
1
111
1
5
23
4
30
2
1
15
4
4
2
2
5
15
7
3
10
8
5
Female
4
1
10
5
15
80
5
39
1
8
41
1
1
25
1
2
1
Male
2
Female
1
1
Male
2
2
28
119
2
261
7
131
4
53
23
148
2
772
APPENDIXES
8
Table 8.4 Staff by gender
APPENDIXES
8
Table 8.5 Staff by attendance status
Level Attendance ACT
NSO NSW
APS 1 Part-time
APS 2 Full-time
2
2
5
49
Part-time
1
1
APS 4 Full-time
6
Part-time
4
Part-time
TAS
VIC
WA Total
45
4
4
14
5
25
137
28
5
2
2
11
50
9
53
26
9
3
29
3
7
3
3
1
4
19
38
20
8
5
21
4
5
1
2
19
5
Part-time
1
4
1
Full-time
3
29
21
Part-time
1
4
Full-time
2
15
Part-time
SES 1 Full-time
2
SES 2 Full-time
3
28
14
13
1
119
4
2
29
APS 6 Full-time
Total
14
6
7
EL 2
SA
1
11
APS 3 Full-time
EL 1
QLD
1
Part-time
APS 5 Full-time
NT
2
3
1
136
21
1
118
6
16
4
34
6
1
12
4
1
14
85
12
5
2
4
6
34
16
10
2
1
7
53
7
2
1
1
2
13
1
2
1
6
3
261
7
131
53
23
148
2
772
Note: Judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer, who are holders of public office, and casual employees are not
included in the above tables.
Level
ACT
NSO
APS 1
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
1
APS 2
1
2
11
APS 3
4
5
55
APS 4
3
10
35
APS 5
2
21
35
APS 6
2
23
6
EL 1
4
31
28
EL 2
1
15
SES 1
1
SES 2
3
Total
NT
17
111
Total
1
14
37
5
30
142
9
2
17
94
20
8
5
19
2
3
15
6
20
11
3
1
2
1
2
1
6
3
29
13
18
1
113
3
39
4
17
106
2
9
61
1
5
3
192
4
103
45
18
110
1
601
VIC
WA
Total
Table 8.7 Non-ongoing staff by location and classification
Level
ACT
NSO
NSW
APS 2
1
APS 3
4
1
22
APS 4
3
2
APS 5
2
2
NT
QLD
SA
8
3
5
2
25
11
3
8
1
6
3
TAS
4
22
2
6
45
2
16
APS 6
EL 1
EL 2
2
1
SES 1
Total
5
2
3
1
1
1
8
21
1
1
3
13
5
1
11
8
63
1
69
3
28
8
5
38
1
171
APPENDIXES
8
Table 8.6 Ongoing staff by location and classification
APPENDIXES
8
Table 8.8 Indigenous staff by location, gender and employment status
Employment
Status
Gender ACT NSO NSW
Ongoing
Female
NT QLD
4
SA TAS
1
1
Male
Non-ongoing
Female
Total
1
VIC
WA
Total
1
7
1
1
1
5
1
2
2
2
Judicial officers
At 30 June 2015, there were 33 judges, including the Chief Justice; 16 female and 17 male.
Table 8.9 Total number of judges, 30 June 2015
Location
Judges
New South Wales
14
Victoria
1 Chief Justice
6
Queensland
6
South Australia
3
Tasmania
1
1 Deputy Chief Justice
1
Total
33
10
During 2014–15, 86 employees left the agency (45 were non-ongoing, 41 were ongoing employees),
being an annual turnover rate of 11.1 per cent against total employee numbers (772) at 30 June 2015.
Table 8.10 Workforce turnover
Employment Type
Reason
Non-ongoing employees – 5.83%
Resignation
Total non-ongoing employees
Ongoing employees – 5.31%
Total
45
45
Inter department transfer
9
Redundancy
3
Resignation
19
Retirement age under 60
2
Retirement age 60 – 65
4
Retirement age over 65
4
Total ongoing employees
41
Total
86
Note: The above figures do not include non-ongoing employees whose actual period of engagement reached their
non-ongoing contract date of expiry.
APPENDIXES
8
Workforce turnover
8
Agreement making
APPENDIXES
Enterprise Agreement
The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement
2011–2014 continued to operate during 2014–15. 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 2015, 733* Family Court and Federal Circuit Court employees were covered by the
Enterprise Agreement.
Table 8.11 Family Court and Federal Circuit Court employees covered by the
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise
Agreement 2011–2014
Level
Female
APS 1
Male
Total
1
1
APS 2
43
15
58
APS 3
136
51
187
APS 4
132
25
157
APS 5
111
23
134
APS 6
29
10
39
EL 1
78
30
108
EL 2
37
12
49
Total
566
167
733
* Excludes casual employees
Offers of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA) to agency employees ceased from 13 February 2008,
in accordance with government policy; however, at 30 June 2015, 27 employees had enforceable
AWAs in place.
In some limited cases, the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court has used common law contracts
and determination 24 instruments pursuant to the Australian Public Service Act 1999 to build
upon existing AWA arrangements.
Table 8.12 Employees covered by other agreements
Australian
Workplace
Agreements
Common
law
contracts
Individual
Flexibility
Arrangements
Determination
24
arrangements
Level Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total
APS 1
0
0
0
APS 2
1
1
0
0
0
APS 3
0
0
0
0
APS 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
APS 5
1
0
APS 6
1
EL 1
2
6
8
1
2
3
1
5
6
EL 2
4
8
12
7
7
3
5
8
SES 1
1
1
2
1
3
4
0
0
SES 2
1
2
3
0
0
0
10
17
27
2
Total
12
14
0
5
10
15
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
APPENDIXES
8
Other agreements
APPENDIXES
8
Non-salary benefits
Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include motor vehicles, car parking,
superannuation, access to salary sacrificing arrangements, computers including home-based
computer access, membership of professional associations, mobile phones, studies assistance,
leave flexibilities, workplace responsibility allowances (for example, first aid, chief and deputy
chief 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 2014–15.
Table 8.13 AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification
Classification
Salary Range ($)
APS 2
59,311 – 59,311
APS 3
N/A
APS 4
N/A
APS 5
84,754 – 84,754
APS 6
82,194 – 89,217
EL 1
102,137 – 130,000
EL 2
131,082 – 188,665
SES 1
175,434 – 209,650
SES 2
209,650 – 215,237
APS classification
APS 1
APS 2
APS 3
APS 4
APS 5
APS 6
EL 1
EL 2
Salary rates on 1 July 2012
Salary rates on 1 July 2013
$42,779
$44,063
$43,937
$45,256
$45,745
$47,118
$46,841
$48,247
$49,395
$50,877
$51,945
$53,504
$54,740
$56,383
$56,129
$57,813
$57,583
$59,310
$61,356
$63,197
$62,950
$64,839
$64,562
$66,499
$66,325
$68,315
$68,404
$70,457
$70,330
$72,440
$72,036
$74,198
$75,867
$78,144
$82,285
$84,754
$91,831
$94,586
$95,497
$98,362
$99,161
$102,136
$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
Note: The Courts’ Enterprise Agreement came into effect on 1 July 2011, and, although it has passed its nominal
expiry date of 30 June 2014, under present arrangements it will continue to operate until it is replaced or otherwise
terminated. As a consequence, there was no salary rate increase on 1 July 2014.
APPENDIXES
8
Table 8.14 Classification structure and pay rates in accordance with the
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise
Agreement 2011–2014*
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix four
Work health and safety
Maintaining the health and safety of staff and all those who use the Court’s premises is integral
to the values and business of the Court. The Court is committed to:
−− a continuous improvement approach to comply with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011
and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
−− providing and maintaining a healthy and safe workplace
−− preventing injuries by managing risk, including identifying and mitigating workplace hazards
to health and safety
−− developing strategies aimed at preventing work-related injury and illness
−− promoting awareness and understanding of work health and safety within the Court
−− fostering a cooperative relationship between the Court and its workers which provides for
constructive consultation on health, wellbeing, safety and welfare at work, and
−− monitoring and evaluating work health and safety performance to assess the effectiveness of
the measures taken.
During 2014–15 the Court continued to work to achieve this through:
−− promoting the importance of health, safety and wellbeing through encouraging discussions at
team meetings
−− actively preventing work-related injury and illness via regular workplace checks and inspections
−− providing access to information, training, professional support and advice on workplace health
and safety issues, via the Court’s intranet, training programs, e-learning and induction
−− consulting with staff and their representatives on the ongoing review of the Work Health and
Safety Management Plan, the Rehabilitation Management System and the Work Health and
Safety Strategic Plan 2014–16
−− advising managers and staff of their health and safety responsibilities, and
−− ensuring health and safety representatives have the time and resources to reasonably perform
their roles.
−− development and implementation of the Court’s Work Health and Safety Management Plan
−− continued implementation and review of the Rehabilitation Management System
−− development and implementation of the Court’s Work Health and Safety Strategic Plan 2014–16
−− drafting of Work Health and Safety Risk Assessment Guidelines
−− development of Due Diligence training for staff of the Court
−− review of reporting processes which included the implementation of a new Hazard Notification
and Report Form
−− advising all management and staff of their legislated obligations, accountability, consultative
requirements, communication and leadership responsibilities in relation to health and safety
−− providing all registry and business unit managers with resources for early intervention
including roles and responsibilities, and
−− monitoring of national issues and trends through the National Work Health and Safety Committee.
Ongoing wellbeing initiatives included:
−− reconvening of the National Work Health and Safety Committee, with meetings held twice a year
−− re-establishment of the Health and Safety Representative Network and the First Aid Officer
Network. Meetings are held twice a year providing members with the opportunity to network.
Members can also access tools and information online as well as obtain support from the
human resources team
−− providing regular health and safety updates through the quarterly HR Newsletter
−− ergonomic assessments of workstations, provision of ergonomic furniture, access to a free
employee assistance program, annual influenza vaccinations, access to peer support officers,
first aid officers and harassment contact officers were all provided for the Court’s employees
on an ongoing basis
−− the Court’s local health and safety committees continued to meet throughout 2014–15.
No locations reported health and safety audits requiring serious investigations during the
year, and
−− re-launch of the peer support network with nine people attending specialist counselling training.
8
APPENDIXES
The Court recognises that effective health and safety management reduces the social and financial
costs of work-related injury and illness. Specific initiatives taken by the Court during 2014–15 to
ensure the health, safety and welfare of staff included:
APPENDIXES
8
Workers’ compensation and early intervention management
Consistent with the Court’s continuous improvement approach, we have realised a decrease in
the Court’s workers compensation premium for a third consecutive year.
The Rehabilitation Management System (RMS) outlines the Court’s approach to wellbeing and
rehabilitation, through identifying suitable approaches for effectively managing the incidence
and severity of work-related injury/illness and to assist employees to return to work following an
absence. The RMS has been in place for two years and its implementation is further supported
through activities identified in the Work Health and Safety Strategic Plan 2014–16. The Court
continues to proactively manage its workers compensation cases and early intervention, which has
further contributed to reducing the total future costs of all claims.
Advertising and market research
Under sections 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the courts are required to disclose
particulars of payments of $12,566 or more (inclusive of GST) for advertising, market research,
polling organisations, direct mail and media advertising.
The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court spent a total of $17,479 (GST inclusive) during the
2014–15 financial year in advertising and market research, comprising mainly payments to media
advertising organisations for recruitment notices.
During 2014–15, the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court did not conduct any market research
or advertising campaigns.
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix five
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix six
Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance
The following information is provided in accordance with Section 516A of the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999.
Court activities and ecologically sustainable development
As noted in its Environmental Policy, the Court:
“…recognises the importance of implementing sound environmental practices in all
court functions…”
This overarching commitment to ecologically sustainable development (ESD) was implemented
in a number of ways by the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court during 2014–15.
Impacts on the environment
The Court impacts on the environment in a number of areas, primarily in the consumption of
resources. Table 8.15 lists environmental impact/usage data where available (noting data is for
the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court).
Table 8.15 Family Court and Federal Circuit Court environmental impact/usage
data, 2012–13 to 2014–15
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15
Energy usage privately
leased sites (stationary)
6490 GJ (Giga joules) 6237 GJ
Data not available
until October 2015
Transport vehicles—
energy usage
6100* GJ
6035 GJ
5871 GJ
Transport Flights
(estimated)
3,101,516 kms
3,461,665 kms
2,843,969 kms
860 tonnes CO2
962 tonnes CO2
783** tonnes CO2
Paper usage
(office paper)
27,181 reams
23,964 reams
30,385 reams
* this figure was originally reported as 6035 GJ. The correct figure is listed above.
** this figure does not include the emissions for 45,830 kms travelled under a new travel booking provider
for the courts which commenced in May 2015 (emission figures not available at this time). The 45,830 kms
is included in the total kilometres travelled listed above.
Environmental Management System
The Court’s Environmental Management System (EMS) has many of the key elements now in place.
These include:
−− an environmental policy outlining the Court’s commitment to environmental management
−− an environmental risk register identifying significant environmental aspects and impacts for
the Court and treatment strategies to mitigate them
−− an environmental legal register to identify any relevant environmental legal requirements
for the Court (this register also includes other requirements such as applicable Australian
Government policy requirements)
−− an EMS manual outlining procedures for each element of the EMS, as well as summary
information on each element, and
−− a range of forms to accompany the EMS elements as required.
Other measures
During 2014–15, the Court worked within its EMS to minimise its environmental impact through
a number of specific measures, either new or continuing.
Energy
−− annual stationary energy use continued to reduce as noted in Table 8.15 (2014–15 data is
not available until October 2015)
−− electricity contracts were reviewed to ensure value for money. Energy supply contracts
negotiated in recent years has resulted in estimated savings of $15,000 during 2014–15, and
−− ongoing staff education to reduce energy use where possible, such as shutting down desktops
and switching off lights and other electrical equipment when not in use.
Information technology
−− in addition to the auto desktop shutdown program that commences at 7pm, staff continued
to be encouraged to shut down their desktops as they leave work to maximise energy savings
−− e-waste was recycled or reused where possible, including auctioning redundant but still
operational equipment
−− ensuring ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15 equipment standards are met when procuring new
equipment, and
−− ensuring fully recyclable packaging where possible.
8
APPENDIXES
Measures to minimise the Court’s environmental impact
APPENDIXES
8
Paper
−− most facsimile machines were set to email to reduce printing costs
−− affidavits of 100 pages or more are no longer printed
−− one-sided paper was reused for notepaper in some registries
−− clients were encouraged to use the online portal system, and staff were encouraged to send
emails rather than letters where feasible
−− secure paper (confidential etc.) continued to be shredded and recycled for all court locations
−− non-secure paper recycling was available at 19 sites, and
−− most printers were set to default double sided printing and monochrome.
Waste/cleaning
−− cleaning contracts for the Commonwealth Law Courts (via the Department of Finance who act
as the lessor) and the majority of the privately leased sites came into effect in 2014. Provision
for waste commingled recycling (such as non-secure paper, cardboard, recyclable plastics,
metals and glass) forms a part of both contracts, with regular waste reporting included in the
contract requirements for the privately leased sites
−− printer toner cartridges continued to be recycled at the majority of sites
−− recycling facilities for staff personal mobiles were permanently available at 11 sites
−− electronic media (CDs, work mobiles etc.) continued to be securely shredded and components
recycled where possible
−− as noted previously, secure paper recycling was available at all sites, and
−− fluorescent light globes continued to be recycled for all sites.
−− the Environmental Champions Network (ECN) continued to offer the opportunity for staff
to provide input about environmental matters for the courts. The volunteer membership
comprises 17 members representing 13 sites nationally.
Projects in 2014–15 included:
–– Earth Hour
–– a national ‘Transport Challenge’, where staff earned points for walking, riding etc. or using
public transport to go to and from work over a two week period, as well as for exercising (as a
points option encouraging healthy behaviour for those who could not use alternative transport)
–– Christmas electronic equipment shutdown drive
–– ECN internal online national ‘community’ for interactive communication between members, and
–– an environmental management intranet page provided information on environmental
issues for the courts
−− regular articles about the courts’ environmental status were included in the national internal
e-newsletter Courts Exchange, and
−− a court-specific ‘envirosmart’ logo was used as branding when promoting environmental initiatives.
Property
Fitouts and refurbishments continued to be conducted in an environmentally responsible
manner including:
−− recycling demolished materials where possible
−− maximising reuse of existing furniture and fittings
−− engaging consultants with experience in sustainable development where possible and including
environmental performance requirements in relevant contracts
−− maximising the use of environmentally friendly products such as recycled content in furniture
and fittings, low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paint and adhesives, and energy efficient
appliances, lighting and air conditioning, and
−− installing water efficient appliances.
Travel
Whilst some travel is unavoidable, staff are encouraged to consider alternatives if possible,
including using videoconferencing facilities.
−− As noted in Table 8.15, travel in 2014–15 reduced in comparison to 2013–14 for both flights
and vehicle travel.
8
APPENDIXES
Corporate culture/communication
APPENDIXES
8
Review and improvement strategies
As is noted in its Environmental Policy under the EMS, the Court is committed to ‘continual
improvement in environmental performance’. Reviews of environmental impacts and improvement
strategies are periodically conducted.
In 2014–15 the Court:
−− reviewed its environmental risk register (significant environmental aspects and impacts), and
−− collected and reported relevant energy use data under the Energy Efficiency in Government
Operations Policy.
Additional ESD implications
In 2014–15, the Court did not administer any legislation with ESD implications, nor did it have
outcomes specified in an Appropriations Act with ESD implications.
Grant programs
The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court made no grant payments during 2014–15.
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix seven
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix eight
Committees
Judicial committees, 30 June 2015
Committee
Terms of reference
Court Policy Committee
−− To support the Chief Justice in the governance
of the Court and to provide advice on strategy
and the future direction of the Court.
Chief Justice Bryant (Chair)
Standing Committee
Terms of reference
Finance
−− To provide judicial input to the Court’s annual
budget in relation to the funding and resourcing
of judicial work, including the national calendar
for interstate judicial travel.
Justice Berman (Chair)
–– Budgeting
–– Judicial remuneration
–– Audit and risk
Rules
Justice Ryan (Chair)
Court Performance
Justice Austin (Chair)
−− To consider all necessary or proposed rule changes.
Section 123 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that
a majority of judges may make rules of court in relation
to practices and procedures to be followed in the
Family Court.
−− To ensure the implementation and maintenance of case
management systems designed to achieve maximum
efficiency in the discharge of the Court’s work.
–– Case management
–– Magellan
Court Services
Justice Forrest (Chair)
–– Cultural diversity
–– Unrepresented litigants
–– Property management
−− To oversee and report on the provision of services to
the public, including the equitable delivery of access
to justice, mindful of barriers created by the cost
of litigation, race, religious, cultural and language
diversity, family violence and physical 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
Terms of reference
Professional Development
and Judicial Welfare
−− To develop, implement and oversee the ongoing
judicial education in the Court, including orientation
for new appointments, by formulating a comprehensive
plan for judicial education.
Justice Ainslie-Wallace (Chair)
–– Professional development
–– Judicial welfare
–– Research and ethics
−− To put in place and monitor mechanisms to support
judges to maintain resilience.
−− To oversee the research and ethics committee.
Senior management committees, 30 June 2015
Title
Chair
Members
Terms of reference
Chief Executive
Officer’s
Management
Advisory Group
Chief Executive
Officer
Family Court
and Federal
Circuit Court
(Richard Foster)
−− Executive Director,
Corporate
To provide operational
and policy advice to
the Chief Executive
Officer regarding key
areas that are likely
to be affected by the
integration of the
administrations of the
Family Court and the
Federal Circuit Court.
Client Services
−− Executive Advisor,
Family Court
−− Executive Director
Operations,
−− Principal Registrar,
Family Court
−− Principal,
−− Principal Registrar,
−− Regional Registry
Managers
−− Director of
Administration,
−− Director,
Human Resources
−− Chief Information
Officer
APPENDIXES
8
Standing Committee
APPENDIXES
8
Title
Chair
Members
Terms of reference
Audit and Risk
Committee
Brian Acworth
(external member)
Members
Monitor and where
necessary recommend
improvements to:
−− Maria Storti
(external member)
Manager South
Australia and
Northern Territory
(Greg Thomas)
Manager Queensland
(Jamie Crew)
Observers
−− Executive Director
Corporate and CFO
(Adrian Brocklehurst)
−− ANAO representatives
(including KPMG)
−− RSM Bird Cameron
representatives
−− RSM Bird Cameron
also provide
secretariat services
−− Risk management
identification and
amelioration
−− Internal control
processes
(including fraud
control)
−− The financial
reporting process
−− The functioning
of the internal
audit unit
−− The external audit
process
−− Processes for
monitoring
compliance
with legislation,
regulations and
government policy
Maintain an effective
working relationship
with the ANAO
Chair
Members
Terms of reference
National
Consultative
Committee
Chief Executive
Officer’s
representative –
Director,
Human Resources
(Claire Golding)
Members are selected
by vote and represent:
Consultative forum
for staff about issues
with a national
perspective, such as
industrial democracy,
security, the
strategic objectives
of the courts,
equal employment
opportunities,
new technology,
accommodation
and amenities,
and personnel and
staffing policies and
practices.
−− Associate
(Megan Cunnane)
−− Client Services –
major registries
(Chris Cole)
−− Client Services –
regional registries
(Duncan Fyfe)
−− National Enquiry
Centre (Ebony Fenner)
−− Family Consultant
(Louise Salmon)
−− National Support
Office (Annie Fenn)
−− Registrar
(Athena Sikiotis)
−− Secretariat
(Jane Morgan)
−− A representative from
the Community and
Public Sector Union is
also invited to attend
Delegates present
staff views on
issues that affect
the management
and future direction
of the courts and
provide feedback
and briefings to the
workplace nationally.
8
APPENDIXES
Title
APPENDIXES
8
Title
Chair
Members
Work Health and
Safety
Director Human
Resources
(Claire Golding)
Corporate Services
(Adrian Brocklehurst)
−− National Property
Manager
(Akasha Atkinson)
−− Health and Safety
representative
(Brian Hartley)
−− First Aid Officer
(Bernadette
Henderson)
−− Registry Manager
(Greg Johannesen)
−− Workforce and
Policy Manager
(Jane Morgan)
−− Work Health and
Safety Advisor
(Lisa Wilson –
Secretariat)
−− Director,
Procurement and Risk
(Patrick Lamb)
−− Case Manager and
Wellbeing Adviser
(Sharon Briggs)
Terms of reference
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
−− the Australian Federal Police.
Relationships with these groups are managed either by the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice,
other judges on behalf of the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive Officer and/or other senior
executives. There are a number of established channels through which external stakeholders
may inform the Court and affect its processes and client service delivery, including the following.
Family Law Council
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 and the Deputy Chief Justice meet quarterly with the Family Law Section of the
Law Council of Australia. There are regular liaison meetings between the state law societies and
bar associations and each of the Court’s registries.
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix nine
APPENDIXES
8
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 Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 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 Audit and Risk Committee. For more information on court
committees, see Appendix eight.
Local registry consultations and other activities for improved service delivery
Ongoing engagement with local community-based organisations, community forums, law societies,
family law pathway networks, volunteer networks and other government agencies, including many
at the State level, was again a priority of registries in 2014–15.
Local pathways groups or networks continued to be a key forum for engagement. Pathways is a
family law interagency network, established in 2005 and funded by the Federal Attorney-General’s
Department. It aims to facilitate a more integrated family law system, to include lawyers and
community-based agencies that deal with separated families, family dispute resolution and
associated issues such as family violence. Each network develops and maintains cross-sector
training to help build stronger working relationships in the family law system.
Regular consultation also provides feedback about users’ experiences of registry services and the
courts. This leads to service improvements and ensures that the courts are better placed to make
effective referrals to community-based services for clients who may require ongoing support.
In addition to general consultations, registries engaged with community-based organisations and
other jurisdictions about best practice approaches to support those clients who are subject to,
or fear, violence from their partner, former partner or other family members.
Some of the regional highlights during the year follow:
New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory
Sydney
−− Key collaborative engagements continued in 2014–15, with the following services being
delivered in the Sydney registry:
–– expanded Legal Aid Family Law Duty Service
–– Legal Aid NSW Court Ordered Mediation Program
–– Information and Referral Service (provided by the Sydney City Family Relationship Centre), and
–– Women’s Family Law Support Service.
−− Continuing Legal Education seminars were held approximately every two months for members
of the profession.
−− A Child Dispute Services representative attended meetings of the Greater Sydney Families in
Transition Group (Pathways).
Newcastle
−− Staff from the Child Dispute Services team attended the monthly Greater Newcastle Family Law
Pathways Network (FLPN) meetings. The judiciary presented at FLPN events on Indigenous
issues and at the annual FLPN conference on ‘Mental Health and Family Law’. Child Dispute
Services staff also presented at two conferences on the topics of drug and alcohol and mental
health issues.
−− Judicial officers and staff held quarterly meetings with members of the legal profession.
−− Judicial officers and registrars attended the annual conference of the Hunter Valley Family
Law Practitioners Association.
−− Regular lunchtime seminars were held for members of the legal profession, with judges,
lawyers and special guest speakers presenting on topics such as:
–– Commonwealth Courts Portal
–– FACS intervention in court proceedings
–– divorce applications
–– Magellan list and the role of the Independent Children’s Lawyer
–– Section 106B and transactions to defeat claims
–– dealing with unrepresented litigants
–– privilege
–– caveats and caveatable interests, and
–– parents and children with mental health issues.
−− The registry hosted visits from students from the University of Newcastle as part of their family
law training program, as well as high school students conducting mock trials.
Wollongong
−− The management team engaged with the local legal profession to work through administrative
issues, and the Child Dispute Services representative attended local Pathways meetings.
Parramatta
−− The Early Intervention Unit (EIU) duty solicitor scheme continued, with two or three full-time
solicitors onsite. EIU services are delivered to increase access to earlier, expert legal assistance
for unrepresented individuals seeking legal help; assist clients to take timely and appropriate
action to progress or resolve their family law matters efficiently and effectively; and improve
the efficiency of the courts by reducing the impact of unrepresented litigants on the workload
of registry staff and the court process. Significant numbers of matters were settled at
mediation, which otherwise would have been listed before a judicial officer.
8
APPENDIXES
−− The Magellan Steering Committee met in February 2015. The expansion of the Magellan protocol
that commenced in March 2014 has seen a broad spread of reports across 15 districts.
APPENDIXES
8
−− The Court Ordered Mediation Program (COMP), which began as a pilot at Parramatta registry
in 2011, continues to operate with one permanent full-time equivalent Legal Aid mediator
onsite. Parties in children’s matters may be referred (or ordered) to COMP at any stage of
the litigation process if there is a connection to Legal Aid NSW (i.e. at least one party has
Legal Aid funding or if an Independent Children’s Lawyer has been appointed in the matter).
COMP has resulted in full or partial settlement for a majority of matters, saving a significant
number of court days and legal aid funded days.
−− Family consultants attended a national Independent Children’s Lawyer training program –
a three day event held in July–August 2014 and hosted by Legal Aid NSW.
−− A pilot commenced in January 2015 for a permanent Aboriginal Legal Service solicitor
available daily from 9.00am –1.00pm, dealing with parenting matters.
−− The Family Law Settlement Service (FLSS) is a joint initiative of the courts, the NSW Bar
Association and the Law Society of NSW. FLSS assists with financial/property matters, usually at
the post-conciliation conference and pre-final hearing stage of proceedings. The NSW Law
Society met with Parramatta judicial officers and the Parramatta legal profession to explain the
FLSS process. The FLSS settlement rate has also positively contributed to a material saving of
court days.
−− Staff continued to provide a significant number of briefings to secondary, TAFE and
university students.
−− The Family Court case management judge, the Federal Circuit Court coordinating judge,
other judicial officers, and the registry management team, met regularly with members of
the legal profession.
−− The senior family consultant continued to facilitate Family Relationship Centre (FRC)
attendance at court, as part of FRC training and familiarisation.
−− Registrars and family consultants attended a Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways education
and networking event at which keynote speakers addressed dealing with the views and
rights of children. The senior family consultant attended steering group meetings and local
interagency events held by Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways.
−− A Parramatta registrar, whose first language is Vietnamese, was guest speaker at a NSW
Vietnamese Women’s Association seminar (in partnership with Liverpool Multicultural Health
Service) on the subject of ‘Improving the wellbeing of Vietnamese seniors and planning ahead’.
This registrar was also guest speaker at a Vietnamese community conference ‘Law in your
daily life’ on the subject of family law. Finally, representatives from NSW health programs,
(Transcultural Mental Health Service and Multicultural Problem Gambling Service) have spoken
at a Parramatta Child Dispute Services team meeting.
−− The senior family consultant attended a ‘Forced Marriage Workshop’, convened by the Federal
Attorney-General’s Department.
−− A family consultant was the keynote speaker at the opening of the new premises for Blacktown
Children’s Contact Centre.
−− The family consultant continued to chair the NSW Central West FLPN. This group provides a
bi-monthly forum for family law professionals in the NSW Central West region, with the forum
being held via video link between Dubbo and Bathurst. The FLPN held three training events in
the NSW Central West for legal practitioners and family dispute resolution practitioners during
the financial year.
−− The family consultant provided an overview and orientation of the registry for new family dispute
resolution practitioners from the Dubbo FRC.
Canberra
−− The Senior Family Consultant has regular interaction with ACT Pathways. ACT Pathways meets
regularly to plan and develop strategies for seamless referrals for clients between the various family
law service providers in the ACT. The group also undertakes educative activities about family law.
−− The Senior Family Consultant is a committee member of the Australian Association for Infant
Mental Health Incorporated for the Canberra region. The group meets monthly to discuss raising
awareness of the importance of psycho-social development in infancy through education,
advocacy, research and professional networking.
South Australia/ Northern Territory
−− During 2014–15 the Adelaide registry has been active in promoting electronic filing with
practitioners and unrepresented clients. Staff have also undertaken further training to enable
them to assist clients in accessing the Commonwealth Courts Portal.
−− The registry has implemented a practice for providing information and procedural advice via
email for those clients with access to email facilities.
−− Other activities in South Australia included:
–– Continued involvement with stakeholder and community groups, including Pathways,
Family Relationship Centres, Children’s Contact Services, family law practitioners,
Grandparents for Grandchildren Inc., law students from the Adelaide University and the
University of South Australia, and the South Australian Police call centre staff training.
–– Facilitated a court user satisfaction survey and coordinated the involvement of university
students to assist with the collection of survey data.
–– Hosted the Australian Advocacy Institute advocacy skills training workshop.
–– Hosted a visit from Ms Silvia Atiola from the Legislative Assembly of Tonga. Ms Atiola was
undertaking a research project entitled ‘Advancing Domestic Violence Victim’s Access
to Justice in Tonga: Barriers preventing Victim’s Access’. The primary purpose of the
visit was to explore access to justice for women escaping family violence and see what
could be implemented in Tonga. Ms Atiola also took the opportunity to look at how the
Adelaide registry identified security concerns and initiated safety plans for clients who
have concerns when attending court events.
–– Convened a NAIDOC Week planning committee with the Federal and South Australian
state courts.
8
APPENDIXES
Dubbo
APPENDIXES
8
Queensland
−− The Brisbane registry has maintained a collaborative approach with the State Magistrates
Court in maximising the use of their Justice of the Peace (JP) service to the community.
Presentations were conducted in October 2014, and February and March 2015 to the JP
Branch. The presentations focused on the particular requirements for witnessing family
law documents and to encourage volunteers to offer time as JPs in the registry.
−− Brisbane registry staff continued meetings with the Brisbane Magistrates Court.
−− Brisbane registry also held regular meetings with family law practitioners, Legal Aid,
the Department of Human Services, Child Support and the Magellan Stakeholders Group.
These meetings provide opportunities for information exchange and building stronger
networks across the family law system.
−− The benefits of eFiling continued to be promoted to clients, with Queensland, once again,
experiencing the largest volume in the number of documents eFiled.
−− The Registry Manager and staff representatives attended regular meetings with the
North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, the Family Law Pathways Network,
the Family Relationship Centre (Centacare), and Relationships Australia, as well as ad hoc
meetings with the profession and representatives from State Government departments.
−− The Family Law Pathways Network hosted the Legal and Community Sector Forum at the
Townsville registry on 16 December 2015 and Justice Tree spoke on considering the needs
of children in the context of domestic and family violence, child abuse and substance abuse
issues of one or both, of the parents.
−− Presentations were made to JPs and Commissioners for Declarations at the invitation of the
JP Branch in North Queensland.
−− The Registrar conducted presentations to the Profession on Urgent Applications and Preparing
for Financial Conferences in North Queensland.
Melbourne
−− Regular liaison continued with the family law section of the Law Institute of Victoria (via the
monthly Court Practice Committee), the Family Law Section of the Victorian Bar (via the Case
Management Judge’s regular consultations with the Chair) and with the Victorian Legal Aid
Commission (via meetings with relevant senior managers). Matters discussed included case
management processes, the commencement and collection of new fees, the implementation
of the international court excellence framework, and any issues arising with respect to registry
services and facilities.
−− The collaborative relationship between the federal family law jurisdictions and state child
welfare authorities continued and the initiative of a co-located child protection worker at
the Melbourne and Dandenong registries was consolidated. The vision was that working
together with the dedicated focus of a specialist senior child protection practitioner, would
ensure professional, sensitive and well-targeted responses to children and young people
who are at significant risk of harm. This work was steered by a committee comprising the
courts, the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services and Victoria Legal Aid.
Funding was assigned by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal
Attorney-General’s Department to evaluate this initiative. That evaluation has been briefed
to the Australian Institute of Family Studies who will report in 2015. Anecdotal reports from
judges, the Victorian Department and the registries is that this initiative is achieving the
objective of ensuring exchange of relevant and timely information so that arrangements can
be made to protect children at risk.
−− Justice Bennett re-established the Court Liaison Committee which includes the President of the
Children’s Court, the Deputy Chief Magistrate, Victoria Legal Aid, Victoria Police, the Australian
Federal Police and the Department of Health and Human Services. Early discussions have
focussed on collaboration to reduce risk in complex family cases.
−− Significant support of Victoria Pathways has continued, including helping with the design of
events and providing a venue for those events. The Victorian Regional Coordinator for Child
Dispute Services is central to this support of Pathways.
−− The registry hosted a Japanese delegation of Family Court judges and senior administrators,
with a special interest in Hague cases, and specifically in the development of a specialised
mediation service in these cases as Japan is now a signatory to the Convention. This collaborative
initiative, under the leadership of Justice Bennett and funded by the Federal Attorney-General’s
Department (with further funding contributions by Victoria Legal Aid, Relationships Australia and
a number of law firms) involves a delegation of Australian family law professionals travelling to
Japan in 2015 to participate in an intensive, cooperative training program around The Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (see page 45 for more information).
APPENDIXES
8
Victoria/Tasmania
APPENDIXES
8
Dandenong
−− Quarterly meetings were held with the registrar and the three agencies providing free legal
advice at the registry. The purpose of the meetings is to exchange information about process
changes and registry practices, particularly as they relate to unrepresented litigants.
−− As part of the collaborative relationship with the Department of Health and Human Services
(Victoria), the registry manager facilitated and improved the exchange of information between
the registry and the local region of the Victorian Department. Several meetings were held
during the year between Dandenong judges, senior registry staff and senior staff of the
Department of Health and Human Services, including the part-time co-located child protection
liaison officer, in order to foster cooperation and understanding.
−− Quarterly meetings of community-based legal practitioners, local Family Relationship Centres,
Victorian Family Pathways Network and other community-based dispute resolution services
were held. It is a forum of service providers with a common client base, sharing information
and discussing family dispute resolution issues and challenges.
Tasmania
−− The Tasmania Family Violence Consultative Committee forum is convened biannually
and includes members of the community sector, Department of Justice (Safe at Home),
Department of Health and Human Services, Tasmania Police and staff of the Family Court
and Federal Circuit Court. The forum is convened by Senior Family Consultant Antonia Dunne
and is arranged in Hobart with video link to Launceston. Discussions have included the courts’
safety plan process, user satisfaction survey results in relation to interviewee’s feeling of safety
when attending court, Professor Chisholm’s report The Sharing of Experts’ Reports between
the Child Protection System and the Family Law System, the courts’ Family Violence Plan,
family violence training modules and professional development for family consultants, and the
family violence screening tool pilot.
−− Registrar Andrew Weidman convenes and chairs quarterly meetings between the courts,
Child Protection and Legal Aid Commission Tasmania to raise new developments,
discuss stakeholder concerns and review the informal protocol between the courts and
Child Protection.
−− The registrar delivered a lecture to family law students at the University of Tasmania Law
School on conciliation conferences, chaired by registrars in financial matters and family
consultants have presented to the Tasmanian Young Lawyers Group.
−− The Tasmanian registries actively support both the southern, northern and north west family
law pathways groups.
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 2014–15, and other activities undertaken during this period, follow:
Chief Justice’s activities
Conferences attended and papers delivered
3–5 July 2014
5th LAWASIA Family Law and Children’s Rights Conference and
IAML Hague Symposium in Sapporo, Japan.
Paper delivered: Visitation Enforcement: Enforcement of
visitation orders and parental alienation by spouses and children:
an Australian perspective
30 July–1 August 2014
13th AIFS Conference 2014.
Paper delivered: Representing the best interests of children and young
people and facilitating their participation in family law proceedings
7–8 August 2014
Human Rights Under the Charter: The Development of Human
Rights Law In Victoria conference at the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Paper delivered: The international experience in human rights law
15 August 2014
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC)
Australian Chapter conference in Melbourne.
12 September 2014
7th Australian Institute of Judicial Administration’s Appellate Judges’
Conference in Sydney.
22 September 2014
Australian Leadership Awards Fellowship Programme in Sydney
Women’s Access to Justice in the Family Law in the Pacific.
23 September 2014
Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Court Administrators’
Conference in Sydney.
Paper delivered: Succession Planning
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix ten
APPENDIXES
8
Conferences attended and papers delivered
24 September 2014
International Association of Court Administrators 7th International
Conference in Sydney. Co-presented with Chief Justice Warren of
the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Paper delivered: Court Excellence and the Perfect Storm –
International Perspectives on Justice Administration – 10 years On
24–26 September 2014
New Zealand Family Court Judges’ Triennial Conference in
Wellington, New Zealand.
3–5 October 2014
Australian Women Lawyers 5th National Conference in Adelaide.
7–10 October 2014
Family Law Section 16th Biennial Conference in Sydney.
Paper delivered: Heads of Jurisdiction State of the Nation
30 October 2015
Seminar at Levan Legal in Perth.
Paper delivered: The Internationalisation of Family Law
5 November 2014
Family Relationship Services Conference in Adelaide.
Paper delivered: Seeing and Hearing: the work of the Children’s
Committee in enhancing children’s involvement in parenting proceedings
20–22 November 2014
Third meeting on Article 13(1)(b) in The Hague, Netherlands.
29–30 November 2014
Family Conference III – International Family Policy Conference in
Istanbul, Turkey.
Paper delivered: Modern Family – Surrogacy and its Problems
27 March 2015
Law Institute of Victoria Continuing Professional Development
series in Melbourne.
Paper delivered: Call for Inquiry into Commercial Surrogacy
17 April 2015
Australian Association of Women Judges lecture in Brisbane.
Paper delivered: Surrogacy – whose rights are we concerned with?
29 April 2015
Affinity Intercultural Foundation, monthly lecture series in Sydney.
Paper delivered: Surrogacy – a form of 21st century family
27–30 May 2015
52nd Association of Family Conciliatory Courts Annual Conference
in New Orleans.
22 June 2015
National Judicial College of Australia’s National Judicial Orientation
Program in Broadbeach, Queensland.
−− Attended as special guest The Family Law ‘Detection Of Overall Risk Screen’ (known as
the DOORS) risk screening tool launch in Adelaide on 8 July 2014.
−− Met with a Nigerian judicial delegation in Melbourne on 12 August 2014.
−− Spoke at the Inaugural Women in the Tax Leadership Roundtable lunch in Melbourne on
20 October 2014.
−− Attended the Australian Academy of Law’s Patron’s Address – ‘The Common Law Litigation
Process – Time for a rethink?’ in Sydney on 23 October 2014.
−− Attended the National Judicial College of Australia’s Heads of Jurisdiction Leadership Program
in Coogee on 23–24 October 2014.
−− Spoke at the Australian Association of Women Judges’ launch of the book Australian Feminist
Judgments: Writing and Rewriting the Law in Brisbane on 2 December 2014.
−− Met with a Malaysian judicial delegation in Melbourne on 28 January 2015.
−− Met with a Japanese judicial delegation in Melbourne on 6 February 2015.
−− Launched the Australian Standards of Practice For Family Assessments and Reporting in
Sydney with Chief Judge Pascoe of the Federal Circuit Court on 11 February 2015.
−− Attended the 2015 Constitutional Law Conference and Dinner in Sydney on 13 February 2015.
−− Participated in a roundtable discussion of the legal, social, economic, scientific and medical
facets of surrogacy conducted by the House of Representatives Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Committee on 5 March 2015.
−− Participated in Law Institute of Victoria’s Continuing Professional Development series on
15 September 2014 and 27 March 2015.
−− Organisation of the upcoming Commonwealth and Common Law International Family Justice
Conference in Coogee 16–19 November 2015.
−− Held regular meetings with the Family Law Section executive throughout the financial year.
−− Attended quarterly Heads of Jurisdiction meetings.
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 President of the Australian Chapter of the AFCC.
The Chief Justice is the sole patron of Australian Women Lawyers, a patron of the 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.
8
APPENDIXES
In addition, the Chief Justice:
APPENDIXES
8
Activities of judges
Papers presented and conference, seminars and workshops conducted and/or attended
−− Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners’ Annual Conference, Hunter Valley (Children – Are they
seen and not heard in the Courts?) July 2014.
−− Child Dispute Services, national seminar series (Fathers and their children: attachment and
the ongoing relationship of fathers in contemporary society) Dr Richard Fletcher, July 2014.
−− Queensland Family Law Practitioners’ Annual Conference, Gold Coast (session chaired
Spousal Maintenance) August 2014.
−− Queensland Law Society, 29th Annual Family Law Residential, Gold Coast (The Intersection
of Family Law and Succession Law) August 2014.
−− Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Appellate Judges Conference, Sydney,
September 2014.
−− Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Court Administrators Conference, Sydney,
September 2014.
−− International Association for Court Administration, 7th International Conference, Sydney,
September 2014.
−− Queensland Family Law Practitioners, Brisbane (Caveats) September 2014.
−− Queensland Child Protection Practitioners’ Association, Annual Oration (Making decisions in
children’s matters: The role of social science evidence and children’s views) chair of oration
by Professor Judith Cashmore.
−− Australian Bar Association, Appellate Advocacy Course, Sydney, September 2014.
−− University of Queensland, Presentation to Advocacy Students, Brisbane (Advocacy in the
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia) September 2014.
−− Judicial College of Victoria, JOACAC Koori Twilight (Supports for Koori Offenders)
Magistrate Rose Falla, September 2014.
−− Queensland Family Law Practitioners’ Conference, Cairns, October 2014.
−− Queensland Young Lawyers Association, Brisbane (Issues for Young Lawyers) October 2014.
−− Family Law Section, National Conference, Sydney (session chaired on Hague Convention
and participated in a parenting orders scenario) October 2014.
−− Judicial Conference of Australia, Colloquium, Noosa, October 2014.
−− Law Council of Australia – Family law section, 16th National Family Law Conference,
Sydney, (Game Changers – the six most revolutionary decisions under the Family Law Act);
Breakfast speech (Interaction of Child Protection and Family Law) October 2014.
−− Family Law Practitioners Association Annual Conference, Cairns, October 2014.
−− International Bar Association Annual Conference, Tokyo (The voice of the child in Hague Child
Abduction proceedings: the Australian Experience) October 2014.
−− Annual Conference of the Judges of the Family Court of Australia, November 2014.
−− Women’s Legal Service, White Ribbon Day Breakfast, Supreme Court, Brisbane, November 2014.
−− Riverina Law Society, Annual General Meeting and CLE conference, Griffith (Interaction of
Child Protection and Family Law) November 2014.
−− Industrial Court of Queensland Annual Conference, Noosa (Litigants in person) November 2014.
−− Family Court of Australia, National Registrars Training Day, Brisbane, (ATO & Darling and six
defining cases) November 2014.
−− First regional seminar of the Working Party on Mediation in South East Asia, International
Islamic University, Malaysia, panelist plenary session (Wrongful removal and retention of
children across international borders: an overview of regional perspectives and responses)
November 2014.
−− South East Asia Regional Seminar of the Working Party on Mediation in the Context of the
Malta Process, Kuala Lumpur (An Overview of Australia’s Perspective on and Response to
Wrongful Removal and Retention of Children Across International Borders) November 2014.
−− Judicial College of Victoria, JOACAC Koori Twilight (Indigenous River Walk) November 2014.
−− Melbourne University, Family and Children’s Law Research Group, Associate Professor
Lisa Young, Murdoch University (Child Sexual Abuse Allegations and Family Law Act 1975
(Cth) s 60CC(2A): A New Era?) November 2014.
−− Greater Sydney Indigenous Pathways, Indigenous Family Law Conference (The Family Law
System) November 2014.
−− Law Institute of Victoria, Leadership Lunch, White Ribbon Day, Rosie Batty, Phil Cleary, Ken Lay,
November 2014.
−− Australian Indonesia Partnership for Justice, Meeting with Indonesian judiciary,
Jakarta (The progress on the International Framework for Court Excellence implementation
in the Family Court of Australia) December 2014.
−− Victoria Legal Aid, Insight Event, Melbourne, Keynote Address (Let’s Celebrate 10 Years of
RDM … What’s Next?) December 2014.
−− Melbourne University, Family and Children’s Law Research Group, Professor Susan B. Boyd,
University of British Columbia and Dr Fiona Kelly, La Trobe, (Autonomous Motherhood?
A Socio-Legal Study of Choice and Constraint) December 2014.
−− Law Society of Northern Territory, Darwin (Interaction of Child Protection and Family Law)
January 2015.
−− Law Society of Northern Territory, Darwin, Start at the Top Family Law Conference, session chair
(Child Protection Convention and Hague – How it Works) January 2015.
−− Law Council of Australia, Family Law Section, Family Law Intensive, Sydney (The latest and
greatest of 2014) February 2015.
−− National Judicial College of Australia, Children’s Conference, Canberra, February 2015.
8
APPENDIXES
−− Family Court of Australia, Continuing Legal Education seminars for local legal profession and
students, Parramatta registry (Cross Examination on Affidavits) October 2014.
APPENDIXES
8
−− Launch of Hellenic Australian Lawyers Association, Queensland Branch, Supreme Court,
Brisbane, February 2015.
−− National Judicial College of Australia, Children’s Voices in the Courts conference,
Australian National University, Canberra, February 2015.
−− National Judicial College of Australia, Judgment Writing Course, Adelaide (Writing better judgments)
March 2015.
−− Legal Conferences, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Havana, Cuba, March 2015.
−− Greater Sydney Pathways Network, Annual ‘Main Event’, Sydney (What about what I want?
How the courts deal with the child’s rights and views, and take them into account) March 2015.
−− College of Law, CLE Family Law Autumn Intensive, Sydney (The Vexed Issue of Vaccination)
March 2015.
−− National Judicial College of Australia (Judges Speaking with Children) March 2015.
−− University of Queensland, Presentation to family law students, Brisbane (Introduction to
the Family Court) March 2015.
−− Bar Association of Queensland Annual Conference, Gold Coast (Challenges of Litigants in Person)
March 2015.
−− Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Cultural Diversity & the Law conference,
Sydney (Conference welcome and introduction of Attorney-General; Court Management and
Leadership Enhancing Public Trust and Confidence in Courts and Tribunals) March 2015.
−− Judicial College of Victoria, JOACAC Twilight, (Understanding Kinship), March 2015.
students, Parramatta registry (Divorcing the Assets: Things you should know about tax and
family law but were afraid to ask) March 2015.
−− Family consultant presentation (Distortion, Distress, Disruption and Danger: Personality function
and dysfunction in the context of parental separation) Dr Peter Krabman, March 2015.
−− NSW Judicial Commission, Conference of District Court Judges, (Unrepresented Litigants)
April 2015.
−− Judicial College of Victoria, JOACAC Koori Twilight (A conversation on reconciliation)
the Hon. Fred Chaney, April 2015.
−− South Australian Pathways Network, Annual Forum, Adelaide (Panel discussion:
Conflict, Trauma & Everything in Between) May 2015.
−− Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Justice Without Barriers Conference,
Brisbane, May 2015.
−− Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 52nd Annual Conference, New Orleans, May 2015.
−− Annual Oration, Hellenic Australian Lawyers Association, Queensland Branch, Supreme Court,
Brisbane, May 2015.
−− Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Technology and the Courts conference,
Brisbane, May 2015.
−− North Queensland Law Association Annual Conference, Hamilton Island (The Latest and
Greatest in each Jurisdiction) May 2015.
−− Griffith University Law School, Presentation, Brisbane (Gender Dysphoria) May 2015.
−− Central West NSW Pathways Network, Forum, Dubbo, (What about what I want? How the
courts deal with the child’s rights and views, and take them into account) May 2015.
−− Victoria University, Lecture (The Operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention
and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention) May 2015).
−− Address to the Symposium on Court Proceedings in the Era of Globalization, Tokyo,
by electronic link to Japan (Australia’s Experience of Giving Evidence Remotely and the
Hague Network of Judges) May 2015.
−− Melbourne University Law School (Reflections of a Visiting Japanese Judge – A Seminar
in English) Judge Aya Kobayashi, Tokyo District Court, Japan, May 2015.
−− Meeting of Canadian and American Networks of Judges, New Orleans, co-authored with the
Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO and presented by the Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO
(Updates on the 1996 Hague Convention) May 2015.
−− Queensland Legal Walk for Justice, May 2015.
−− Child Dispute Services, national seminar series (Distortion, Distress, Disruption, Damage and
Danger: Personality function and dysfunction in the context of parental separation)
Dr Peter Krabman, May 2015.
−− Child Dispute Services, national seminar series (Post-Separation Interventions in High Conflict
Families) Professor Matt Saunders, May 2015.
students, Parramatta registry (BFAs: the Good, the Bad and the (very) Ugly) May 2015.
−− Family Court of Australia, National Registrars Training Day, Brisbane (The latest and greatest
of 2014) June 2015.
−− Brisbane Family Law Pathways Group (A View from the Bench) June 2015.
−− St Vincent de Paul, CEO Sleepout, Brisbane, June 2015.
−− The Hochelaga Lectures 2015: The Family Court and the wellbeing of the Child, Hong Kong
University (The Handling of Parental Responsibility Disputes by the Australian Family Court
Following a Decade of Reform) 24 June 2015.
−− Wellbeing of the Child through the Hague Child Abduction Convention and Protection of
Children Convention: An Asia-Pacific Symposium, Macao (Complementarity between the 1980
Hague Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention: How the
Conventions Support Each Other) 25–26 June 2015.
−− Judicial Commission of NSW, National Reconciliation Week event, panel member (Violence at
home is everybody’s business: legal responses to family violence) June 2015.
−− NSW Law Society, 5th National Access to Justice and Pro Bono Conference, panel member
(Human rights in the home: a conversation) June 2015.
8
APPENDIXES
−− Legal Aid Queensland, Launch of Best Practice Guidelines for Representing Children,
Brisbane, May 2015.
APPENDIXES
8
Professional legal development
Family Court judges contribute to professional legal development through their membership of and
participation in professional and research-based associations.
The Family Court has been consistently represented on the Family Law Council since its
establishment. During 2014–15 the Family Court’s judicial representative on the Family Law Council
was Justice Benjamin from the Hobart registry. The Family Law Council is considering a reference
on the intersection of family law and child protection. In December 2014 the Family Law Council
produced, to the Attorney-General, a detailed report on surrogacy in Australia which is now being
considered by Government.
Justice Benjamin is also a Chair of the Family Court’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach
Committee and continues to serve on the Academic Committee of College of Law, including the
continuing development of Master qualifications for practitioners in family law. Justice Benjamin
lectures at the University of Tasmania once per year and provides papers for local legal profession
conferences such as the Family Law Practitioners Association conference and Independent
Children’s Lawyer conference.
Justice May from the Brisbane registry is President of the Australasian Institute of Judicial
Administration; Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law; Member of the Advisory Board for the
Australian Centre for Justice Innovation at Monash University; Member of the Bar Association
of Queensland; Member of the steering committee of the Council of Australasian Tribunals
Inc.; Judicial Fellow of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers; and Advisory Board
member of the Judges Forum of the International Bar Association.
Justice Murphy from the Brisbane registry is a Member of the Applied Family Law Advisory
Committee of the College of Law; Member of the National Advisory Council of the Family Law
Section of the Law Council of Australia; Member of the Judgment Writing Committee of the
National Judicial College of Australia; Member of the Advisory Board of the World Congress
on Family Law and Children’s Rights; Governing Council Member of the Judicial Conference
of Australia; Member of the Judicial Education Committee of the Family Court of Australia;
and Chair of the Court Excellence Committee.
Justice Strickland from the Adelaide registry is the Family Court’s nominated director on the
board of the Australian Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and Mediators and is its longest serving
director. Justice Strickland is also the judge representing the Family Court on the Council of
Chief Justices Rules Harmonisation Committee and is President Elect of the Australian Chapter
of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.
Justice Berman from the Adelaide registry is a member of the Judicial Council on Cultural
Diversity (a national body convened by the Chief Justice of the High Court and other Heads of
Jurisdiction) and was a member of the steering committee that organised a national cultural
diversity conference in Sydney in March 2015.
Justice Bennett from the Melbourne registry is a member of the Judicial Officers Aboriginal
Cultural Awareness Committee, which is chaired by the Hon. Justice Kaye of the Supreme Court
of Victoria; Member of the Law Institute of Victoria Courts Practise Committee; and Member of
the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s User Group 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.
Judges regularly present to law societies and bar associations in their respective jurisdictions,
as well as hold informal meetings with members of the legal profession and participate in
stakeholder meetings. Judges are often asked to speak at secondary schools and lecture at law
schools about particular topics and their work generally.
For example, Justice Strickland was involved in continuing legal development with the Law Society
of South Australia and Adelaide Law School GDLP Advocacy Coaching Clinics and the South
Australian Bar Readers Course. Justice Berman assisted with the Bar Readers Course at the
Family Court. Justice Benjamin and Judge Baker have, over the last few years, provided a full
day mock trial practice for students undertaking the practical legal training course in that state.
Justice Bennett from the Melbourne registry is primary contact judge designated for Australia to
the International Hague Network of Judges. During 2014–15, Justice Bennett undertook direct
(case specific) judicial communication, including enquiries, mediation and mirror orders, with the
following countries:
−− United Kingdom
−− Scotland
−− Republic of Ireland
−− United States of America
−− New Zealand
−− Northern Ireland
−− Austria
−− Brazil
−− Paraguay
−− Portugal
−− Canada, and
−− Turkey.
Justice Bennett also had general network judicial communications with all countries to ascertain
procedures within their respective jurisdictions for enforceability of measures recognised under the
Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and
Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children.
8
APPENDIXES
Justice Bennett undertook the National Judicial Institute of Ontario’s Hague Child Abduction
Convention: International Perspectives program – a five week online program providing a unique
experience to share experiences, insights and communicate with judges from Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States.
APPENDIXES
8
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
−− Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated
−− Australian Academy of 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
−− Council of Australasian Tribunals Inc.
−− Family Law Council
−− Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia
−− 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
−− LawAsia
−− Law Society of South Australia, and
−− Victorian Bar Association.
International visitors
The Court’s work in Indonesia during 2014–15 is covered in detail in Part two. In addition,
during 2014–15, the Court had visitors from the following countries.
Bangladesh
In September 2014, the Court’s Sydney registry hosted a judicial delegation from Bangladesh.
The delegation met with the Family Court of Australia and other Australian service providers to
gain information on the administration of the justice system in Australia, as well as reforms and
initiatives to improve the efficiency and accessibility of judicial services. The delegation was also
interested in the Court’s experience in the implementation of the International Framework for
Court Excellence.
Nigeria
The Chief Justice hosted a delegation from Nigeria in August 2014 at the request of the Royal Courts
of Justice in London. The delegates were interested in building a network with the Australian
Judiciary so that an exchange program could be established with the Nigerian judiciary and a
hands-on application of international best practices could be achieved. This visit enabled the heads
of superior courts of Nigeria to gain a greater understanding of the family law jurisdiction in Australia
and the ongoing work in the area of judicial performance and the implementation of the International
Framework for Court Excellence.
Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Palau – ALAF Program
The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO and Natasha Stott Despoja AM, Ambassador for Women and
Girls with the Australian Leadership Awards fellows in Melbourne
In September 2014, the Family Court of Australia, through the Australian Leadership Awards
Fellowship (ALAF) program, supported nine delegates from Papua New Guinea, Palau and Fiji
to assist with the development of strategies for the reduction of violence against women and
increasing access to support services and to justice for survivors of violence.
APPENDIXES
8
Appendix eleven
APPENDIXES
8
The two-week program focused on strengthening access to justice in family law for disadvantaged
groups. The program identified ways to strengthen the delivery of family law services to women,
children and persons with a disability and aimed to improve access to the family courts for women
and other disadvantaged groups. The program was also assisted by a delegation from Indonesia.
It began by identifying barriers faced by disadvantaged groups in accessing family courts. Through a
dialogue with the Family Court of Australia and other relevant Australian partner organisations,
the fellows developed proposed solutions and approaches to overcome the identified access to
justice barriers and to strengthen the delivery of family law and family violence services to women,
children and persons with disabilities.
At the conclusion of the program, ALAF fellows prepared and presented ‘return to work plans’
which detailed their initiatives to:
−− overcoming barriers women face in accessing the family law system
−− building referral mechanisms to government and non-government services that support
survivors of violence, and
−− enabling stronger integration between family law and family violence processes to support
women and children.
United Kingdom
In November 2014, Professor Nancy Marder, Director of the Justice John Paul Stevens Jury Center,
and Co-Director of the Institute for Law and the Humanities (and keynote speaker for the annual
Australasian Jury Research and Practice Conference), met with the Chief Justice to discuss the role
of female judges in Australia.
Kenya
Representatives from the Kenyan Judicial Service Commission visiting the National Support Office in Canberra
In June 2015 the Court hosted a delegation from the Judicial Service Commission of the Republic
of Kenya. As part of their study tour, the delegation met with Dennis Beissner, Manager of the
Statistical Services Unit in Canberra, to discuss the Court’s case management, performance and
reporting systems and how they works towards improved efficiency in administration of justice.
Afterwards the delegation met with Deputy Chief Justice Faulks to discuss judicial performance,
case management and complaint handling.
August 2014
The Melbourne registry hosted Professor Makiko Mizuno and two lawyers from the Kyoto Bar
Association. The party was interested in legal interpretation and, in particular, court interpreting.
February 2015
The Chief Justice, Justice Bennett and Judge Stewart hosted a delegation from Japan which
included Judge Murai, Judge Tobisawa, visiting Research Scholar from the Asian Law Centre at
the Melbourne Law School, Judge Aya Kobayashi, and Ms Satomi Asaki, Family Court Probation
Officer and Visiting Research Scholar from the ANU College of Law.
The delegation viewed proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court, met with family consultants,
reviewed redacted reports prepared by family consultants, met with private lawyers who handle Hague
Convention cases, and met with Victorian Legal Aid. The delegation also met with the Chief Justice
and Justice Bennett to discuss Hague Convention cases and international mediation proposals.
February 2015
Ms Satomi Asaki, a Family Court Probation Officer from the Fukuoka High Court and visiting scholar
at the ANU, spent time at the Canberra registry investigating the role of the family consultant in
children’s cases. Ms Asaki was interested in family court procedures, and the system that supports
these cases such as family lawyers, Legal Aid, Independent Children’s Lawyers and other agencies
external to the Court which work with families and young people.
March 2015
Mr Yamazaki, the Assistant Chief of Personnel Division of High Court in Japan, met with the
Deputy Chief Justice and the Human Resources team to discuss the development of human
resources in the Family Court of Australia.
May 2015
Dr Hitoshi NASU, Court Clerk / Family Probation Officer from Japan visited the Canberra registry
to gain a better understanding of eFiling and the Commonwealth Courts Portal.
APPENDIXES
8
Japan
IN FOCUS
Family Court assistance with the Historical Institutional
Abuse Enquiry, Northern Ireland
In July 2014, the Chambers of Justice Bennett was approached by Mr Stephen Magee of the
Historical Institutional Abuse Enquiry, Northern Ireland. Contact was at the suggestion of an
Irish court colleague who had had dealings with Chambers to arrange a video link for a hearing
in Ireland for Hague mirror orders.
The Historical Institutional Abuse Enquiry, chaired by Sir Anthony Hart, is running a Public Inquiry
looking into the abuse of children under 18 who were in care of various state and voluntary
institutions. Some children were sent to Australia under Child Migration Schemes and there are
some 60 applicants who now live in Australia. As it was not cost-effective to fly a number of these,
possibly with companions, to Northern Ireland to give evidence, the inquiry wanted to facilitate
them using video conferencing technology.
In discussion with Jane Reynolds, Regional Registry Manager, and with the approval of the
Chief Executive Officer, Richard Foster, the Chambers of Justice Bennett provided personnel who
arranged the video links and were available to host the visitors to the Court on the evenings when
they gave their evidence to the Commission.
This has enabled us to speak directly to applicants from Northern Ireland
who migrated from institutions here to Australia. They have provided
valuable evidence to this enquiry.
Sir Anthony Hart
8
APPENDIXES
Appendix twelve
Contact details
Chief Justice’s Chambers
Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts
305 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
(GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)
Deputy Chief Justice’s Chambers
Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts
Cnr University Avenue and Childers Street
Canberra ACT 2600
(GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)
15 London Circuit
Canberra ACT 2601
The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all telephone and email enquiries on
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 opened from 8.30am to
5.00pm Monday to Friday.
PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2124
Phone: 1300 352 000
TTY/voice calls: Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or for Speak and Listen calls
contact 1300 555 727
International: +61 2 8892 8590
Email: enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.au
Family Court website: www.familycourt.gov.au
Federal Circuit Court website: www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au
Twitter: @FamilyCourtAU
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/familycourtAU
APPENDIXES
8
Family law registries
Canberra
Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts
Cnr University Ave and Childers Street
Canberra ACT 2600
New South Wales
Albury
Level 1, 463 Kiewa Street
Albury NSW 2640
(PO Box 914, Albury NSW 2640)
Dubbo
Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra Streets
Dubbo NSW 2830
(PO Box 1567, Dubbo NSW 2830)
Lismore
Level 2, 29–31 Molesworth Street
Lismore NSW 2480
(PO Box 9, Lismore NSW 2480)
Newcastle
61 Bolton Street
Newcastle NSW 2300
(PO Box 9991, Newcastle NSW 2300)
Parramatta
Garfield Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts
1–3 George Street
Parramatta NSW 2123
(PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2123)
Sydney
Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts
97–99 Goulburn Street
Sydney NSW 2000
(GPO Box 9991, Sydney NSW 2001)
8
Wollongong
APPENDIXES
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
(PO Box 9991 NT 0871)
Darwin
Supreme Court Building
State Square
Darwin NT 0800
(GPO Box 9991, Darwin NT 0800)
Queensland
Brisbane
Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts
119 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000
(PO Box 9991, Brisbane QLD 4001)
Cairns
Commonwealth Government Centre
Level 3 and 4, 104 Grafton Street
Cairns QLD 4870
(PO Box 9991, Cairns QLD 4870)
Rockhampton
Virgil Power Building
Ground Floor
46 East Street (Cnr Fitzroy Street)
Rockhampton QLD 4700
(PO Box 9991, Rockhampton QLD 4700)
Townsville
Level 2, Commonwealth Centre
143 Walker Street
Townsville QLD 4810
(PO Box 9991, Townsville QLD 4810)
APPENDIXES
8
South Australia
Adelaide
Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts
3 Angas Street
Adelaide SA 5000
(GPO Box 9991, Adelaide SA 5001)
Tasmania
Hobart
Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts
39–41 Davey Street
Hobart TAS 7000
(GPO Box 9991, Hobart TAS 7001)
Launceston
Level 3, ANZ Building
Cnr Brisbane and George Streets
Launceston TAS 7250
(PO Box 9991, Launceston TAS 7250)
Victoria
Dandenong
53–55 Robinson Street
Dandenong VIC 3175
(PO Box 9991, Dandenong VIC 3175)
Melbourne
Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts
305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000
(GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)
Western Australia
Perth
Peter Durack Commonwealth Law Courts
150 Terrace Road
Perth WA 6000
(GPO Box 9991, Perth WA 6848)
08 9224 8222
9
INDEXES
List of requirements
INDEXES
9
Part of Report Description
Requirement
Page of
this report
Mandatory
III
Table of contents
Mandatory
IV
Index
Mandatory
273
Glossary
Mandatory
XIV
Contact officer(s)
Mandatory
II
Internet home page address
and Internet address for report
Mandatory
II
Review by departmental secretary
Mandatory
4
Summary of significant issues and
developments
Suggested
14
Overview of department’s performance
and financial results
Suggested
48
Outlook for following year
Suggested
27
Significant issues and
developments – portfolio
Portfolio
departments –
suggested
Review by Secretary
4
Departmental Overview
Role and functions
Mandatory
10
Organisational structure
Mandatory
101
Outcome and programme structure
Mandatory
48
Where outcome and programme
structures differ from PB Statements/PAES
or other portfolio statements accompanying
any other additional appropriation bills
(other portfolio statements), details of
variation and reasons for change
Mandatory
NIL TO
REPORT
Portfolio structure
Portfolio
departments –
mandatory
N/A
Requirement
Page of
this report
Report on Performance
Review of performance during
the year in relation to programmes
and contribution to outcomes
Mandatory
52
Actual performance in relation
to deliverables and KPIs set out
in PB Statements/PAES or other
portfolio statements
Mandatory
51
Where performance targets differ
from the PBS/PAES,
Mandatory
NIL TO
REPORT
Narrative discussion and analysis
of performance
Mandatory
52
Trend information
Mandatory
52
Significant changes in nature
of principal functions/services
Suggested
NIL TO
REPORT
Performance of purchaser/provider
arrangements
If applicable,
suggested
Factors, events or trends influencing
departmental performance
Suggested
48–76
Contribution of risk management
in achieving objectives
Suggested
123
Performance against service
charter customer service standards,
complaints data, and the
department’s response to complaints
If applicable,
mandatory
126
Discussion and analysis of the
department’s financial performance
Mandatory
142
Discussion of any significant changes
in financial results from the prior year,
from budget or anticipated to have a
significant impact on future operations
Mandatory
4
Agency resource statement and
summary resource tables by outcomes
Mandatory
214-215
details of both former and new
targets, and reasons for the change
142
9
INDEXES
INDEXES
9
Requirement
Page of
this report
Management and Accountability
Corporate Governance
Agency heads are required to certify their
agency’s actions in dealing with fraud
Mandatory
124
Statement of the main corporate
governance practices in place
Mandatory
100
Names of the senior executive
and their responsibilities
Suggested
107
and their roles
Suggested
119
Corporate and operational plans and
associated performance reporting
and review
Suggested
122
Internal audit arrangements including
approach adopted to identifying areas
of significant financial or operational risk
and arrangements to manage those risks
Suggested
123
Policy and practices on the establishment
and maintenance of appropriate ethical
standards
Suggested
125
How nature and amount of remuneration
for SES officers is determined
Suggested
138
Significant developments in
external scrutiny
Mandatory
127
Judicial decisions and decisions of
administrative tribunals and by the
Australian Information Commissioner
Mandatory
127
Reports by the Auditor-General,
a Parliamentary Committee,
the Commonwealth Ombudsman
or an agency capability review
Mandatory
127
External Scrutiny
Requirement
Page of
this report
Management of Human Resources
Assessment of effectiveness in managing
and developing human resources to
achieve departmental objectives
Mandatory
130
Workforce planning, staff retention
and turnover
Suggested
132
Impact and features of enterprise or
collective agreements, individual flexibility
arrangements (IFAs), determinations,
common law contracts and Australian
Workplace Agreements (AWAs)
Suggested
138
Training and development undertaken
and its impact
Suggested
139
Work health and safety performance
Suggested
132
Productivity gains
Suggested
142
Statistics on staffing
Mandatory
216
Statistics on employees who identify
as Indigenous
Mandatory
220
Enterprise or collective agreements,
IFAs, determinations, common law
contracts and AWAs
Mandatory
222
Performance pay
Mandatory
139
Assets
management
Assessment of effectiveness of
assets management
If applicable,
mandatory
148
Purchasing
Assessment of purchasing against
core policies and principles
Mandatory
147
Consultants
The annual report must include a summary
statement detailing the number of new
consultancy services contracts let during
the year; the total actual expenditure on
all new consultancy contracts let during
the year (inclusive of GST); the number of
ongoing consultancy contracts that were
active in the reporting year; and the total
actual expenditure in the reporting year
on the ongoing consultancy contracts
(inclusive of GST). The annual report must
include a statement noting that information
on contracts and consultancies is available
through the AusTender website
Mandatory
146
9
INDEXES
INDEXES
9
Requirement
Page of
this report
Australian
National Audit
Office Access
Clauses
Absence of provisions in contracts
allowing access by the Auditor-General
Mandatory
147
Exempt
contracts
Contracts exempted from publication
in AusTender
Mandatory
147
Small business
Procurement initiatives to support small
business
Mandatory
148
Financial
Statements
Financial Statements
Mandatory
154
Work health and safety (Schedule 2, Part 4
of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011)
Mandatory
226
Advertising and Market Research
(Section 311A of the Commonwealth
Electoral Act 1918) and statement
on advertising campaigns
Mandatory
229
Ecologically sustainable development and
environmental performance (Section 516A
of the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999)
Mandatory
230
Compliance with the agency’s obligations
under the Carer Recognition Act 2010
If applicable,
mandatory
N/A
Grant programmes
Mandatory
235
Disability reporting – explicit and
transparent reference to agencylevel
information available through other
reporting mechanisms
Mandatory
141
Information Publication Scheme statement
Mandatory
125
Correction of material errors in previous
annual report
If applicable,
mandatory
151
Agency Resource Statements
and Resources for Outcomes
Mandatory
214–215
List of Requirements
Mandatory
268
Other Mandatory Information
Alphabetical index
A
INDEXES
9
relations between agreements, 138
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI)
Committee, 116
Aboriginal Legal Service solicitor, 244
access and inclusion framework for registry services,
15–16
access to justice arrangements see Productivity
Commission Public Inquiry into Access to
Justice Arrangements
Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment
Act 2012, 112
Accidental Counsellor (Lifeline), 141
Accountable Authority Instructions, 124
accrued jurisdiction see F Firm & Ruane and Ors
Achieving Court Excellence, 111
Acknowledgment of Country protocol, 116
Ackworth, Brian
Audit and Risk Committee, 120, 238
action in defamation, 128
Adelaide registry
contact details, 266
and electronic filing and Commonwealth
Courts Portal, 245
judges, 103
see also Australian Workplace Agreements
(AWAs); common law contracts;
determination 24 instruments (s 24(1)
Public Service Act 1999); Federal Magistrates
Court of Australia and Family Court of
Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14;
individual flexibility arrangements
Ainslie-Wallace, Hon. Justice Ann Margaret
Appeal Division, 80, 103
Court Policy Committee, 110
and Fields & Smith, 94
Judicial Development Committee, 114
Professional Development and Judicial
Welfare Committee, 237
Sydney registry, 104
Akee, Josephine
Harmony Day Award, 152
Albury registry
Aldridge, Hon. Justice Murray Robert
Appeal Division, 4, 80, 103
Alice Springs registry
and SA Women’s Information Service Court
Support Program Volunteers, 20
Altobelli, Judge Tom
training in relation to FCC Notice of Risk, 20
Andrew, Stephen see Executive Director, Client Services
Family Violence Committee, 116
administered revenue, 146
Annual Procurement Plan, 147
appeal caseload, 65
judges, 105
appeal demographics, 86
proceedings, 125, 127
Appeal Division, 4, 14, 65, 80
administrative matters
complaints about, 75, 76
advertising and market research, 229
and Full Court, 80
judges, 80, 103
appeals, 4, 79–87
age of finalised appeals, 87
abandoned, 84, 85
age of finalised applications, 62–3
administration of, 81
age of pending applications, 59–60
age of finalised appeals, 87
age of reserved judgments delivered, 63–4
allowed, 84, 85
age of reserved judgments outstanding, 60–1
dismissed, 84, 85
Agnew, Steve see Executive Director Operations, FCC
to High Court of Australia, 87
agreement making, 138, 222–5
INDEXES
9
other applications than Notice of Appeal, 83
see also Notices of Appeal
Australia Day achievement medallions, 133–6
Australia–Indonesia justice partnership
trends in, 81–3
and Mediation – what to expect video, 39
withdrawn, 84, 85
Australia–Japan co-mediation program, 45–6
see also F Firm & Ruane and Ors;
Fields & Smith; Teo & Guan; X Pty Ltd
(Administrator Appointed) & Milstead and Anor
Australian Advocacy Institute advocacy skills
training workshop, 245
Appeals Registrar, 81
Australian Association for Infant Mental Health
Incorporated for the Canberra region, 245
appellate court
national coverage as, 65
Court service locations, 28–9
applications for final orders see final orders
applications
registry contact details, 264
see also New South Wales/
applications in a case, 50
applications in a case (interim) see interim
orders applications
Australian Capital Territory Pathways, 245
Australian Constitution
appointments to the Court, 4, 106
FCA under Chapter III of, 10, 12
assets and property management, 148–51
asset management, 148
projects, 150–1
and judges, 100
Australian Government Information Management
Office (AGIMO)
Atiola, Silvia
visit of, 245
Atkinson, Akasha
Australia Day achievement medallion, 135
and ICT benchmarking report, 128
Australian Government Public Sector Workplace
Bargaining Policy, 130
Australian Institute of Family Studies, 241
and amendments to Family Law Act, 5
Attorney-General’s Department
forced marriage workshop, 17
and KPMG review of Court’s performance
and funding, 129
and Pathways, 242
Attorney-General’s (Spent and Redundant
Instruments) Repeal Regulation 2013, 112
Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
National Indigenous Policy Committee, 116
Australian Leadership Awards Fellowship (ALAF)
program, 259–60
Australian Public Service Commission
APS Statistical Bulletin, 141
Audit and Risk Committee, 119, 120, 238, 242
Ethics Contact Officer Network, 125
and financial risk, 124
and fraud prevention and control, 124
and internal audit, 123
Auditor-General
reports, 127
AusTender
and exempt contracts, 148
State of the Service Report, 141
Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code
of Conduct, 125, 131
Australian Standards of Practice for Family
Assessments and Reporting, 5, 40
Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), 137,
138, 223
minimum and maximum salary ranges by
classification, 224
Austin, Hon. Justice Stewart Craig
Court Excellence Committee, 14
Court Performance Committee, 113, 236
Finance Committee, 111
Newcastle registry, 104
B
backlog indicators, 59–61
Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, 114
balancing work and personal life, 132
Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII)
Bangladesh
judgments published on website, 5, 91
delegation from, 259
Bell, Hon. Justice Graham
retirement, 4, 106
Benjamin AM, Hon. Justice Robert James Charles
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI)
Committee, 116
Academic Committee of College of Law, 256
9
C
Cairns registry
Canberra registry
and ACT Pathways, 245
activities, 45, 256
and Australian Association for Infant Mental Health
Incorporated for the Canberra region, 245
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 105
Hobart registry, 104
Member of the Order of Australia, 106
Bennett, Hon. Justice Victoria Jane
judges, 103
case attrition, 54
case flow data, 114
activities, 45, 256–7, 257
case management, 113
case management system, electronic, 81
Court Liaison Committee, 247
caseload, 50
and Historical Institutional Abuse Enquiry,
Northern Ireland, 262
cases finalised
Melbourne registry, 104
Berman, Hon. Justice David Michael
activities, 256
Adelaide registry, 103
Finance Committee, 111, 236
Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity, 117
Rules Committee, 111
binding financial agreements see F Firm &
Ruane and Ors
Blacktown Children’s Contact Centre, 244
Brisbane Magistrates Court, 246
Brisbane registry
and Brisbane Magistrates Court, 246
judges, 103
and State Magistrates Court, 246
Brocklehurst, Adrian see Executive Director, Corporate
Brown, Judge Stewart
Bryant AO, Hon. Chief Justice Diana
see also Chief Justice
budgetary pressures, 27
appeal, 65
percentage of, 62–4
see also finalisations
Casetrack, 118
enhancements, 26
cashless registries, 38
changes to previously published figures, 48
Chief Executive Instructions, 122
and Enterprise Agreement, 131
joint arrangement with Federal Circuit Court, 216
role and responsibilities, 100, 107
and senior management committees, 119
Chief Executive Officer eMessages, 122
(CMAG), 119, 120, 237
and financial risk, 124
Chief Information Officer
Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory
Group, 119
role and responsibilities, 108
Chief Justice
bullying at work see harassment and bullying at work
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Outreach
Committee, 21
Business Continuity Plan, 123
activities, 31, 249–51
Byrne, Adele see Principal Registrar, FCC
conferences attended and papers delivered,
249–50
INDEXES
Bankruptcy Act 1966, 11
INDEXES
9
and Australian Standards of Practice for
Family Assessments and Reporting, 40
and case management system, 113
chambers contact details, 263
Cleary, Hon. Justice Margaret Ann
Newcastle registry, 104
client feedback and complaints management,
75–6, 127
see also feedback
client service advices, 122
Court Performance Committee, 113
Court Policy Committee, 110, 236
Client Service Senior Managers’ Group (CSSMG),
34–5
Family Law Forum, 242
client services
and International Framework for Court
Excellence, 14, 111
deliverables and key performance indicators,
69–70
clinical induction program, 140
Coate, Hon. Justice Jennifer Ann
collaborative committees, 118
and Magellan cases, 113
committees, 236–40
role and responsibilities, 10, 100, 102, 109
year in review, 4–6
Chief Justice eMessages, 122
Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee
replaced by Court Policy Committee, 6
and core knowledge database, 140
and dyadic peer consultation, 139
fact sheets, 35
and family violence modules (training), 139
and family violence screening tool, 19
and Greater Newcastle Family Law Pathways
Network, 243
see also judicial committees; senior
management committees
common law contracts, 137, 138, 223
Commonwealth Contracting Suite, 148
Commonwealth Courts Portal
documents eFiled, 25
improvements to, 23–4
NEC response relating to, 69
plain language hover text, 17
and proof of divorce example, 88
registered users, 24
training for, 245
Commonwealth Disability Strategy, 141
and Greater Sydney Families in Transition
Group (Pathways), 243
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
and safety at court, 19
Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework 2014, 124
seminar series, 140
Commonwealth Ombudsman
and Wollongong Pathways, 243
and advertising and market research, 229
reports, 127
child physical abuse, 4, 113
Commonwealth Procurement Rules, 147
child sexual abuse, 4, 11, 113
Commonwealth Property Management Framework, 150
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, 11
the community
Part 7: appellate jurisdiction of FCA, 80
Child Support (Registration and Collection)
Act 1988, 11
Part VIII: appellate jurisdiction of FCA, 80
Children’s Committee, 115
and Independent Children’s Lawyers
conference, 38
cleaning see waste/cleaning
clearance rate
target, 58
the Court and, 5
community and support organisations
referrals to, 20
community relationships and consultation, 41
see also local registry consultations and other
activities to improve service delivery
compactus see national compactus replacement
complaints, 127
KPI for, 69, 126
see also client feedback and complaints
management; judicial services complaints
court tour
compliments, 75, 127
Connections, 36
Client Service Senior Managers’ Group and, 34
and family consultants, 20
on YouTube, 37
Court user satisfaction survey, 15
Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment
(Administration) Act 2012, 216
consent orders applications, 50, 55, 57
Courts Exchange, 122
Constitution see Australian Constitution
Crew, Jamie
Audit and Risk Committee, 120
consultants, 147–8
consultations see community relationships and
consultation; local registry consultations and
other activities to improve service delivery
Crisford, Hon. Justice Jane
Family Court of WA, 105
Cronin, Hon. Justice Paul Joseph
contact details, 263–6
and Court Excellence Committee, 14
see also Court service locations
and F Firm & Ruane and Ors, 92
contributions see Fields & Smith
Converge International
and Employee Assistance Program and
Managers Assistance Program, 141
cultural diversity see Judicial Council on
Cultural Diversity; Multicultural Plan 2013–15
cultural diversity awareness training module, online, 117
core knowledge database, 140
see also Let’s Talk: Cultural Competence
e-learning package
corporate and operational planning and associated
performance reporting and review, 122
Cultural Diversity sub-committee, 115
corporate culture/communication
culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) clients
and environmental impact minimisation, 233
practices and polices in relation to, 18
corporate functions
merger of FCA, FCC and Federal Court into
one administrative body, 6, 129
corporate governance, 100–1
Corporate Services Division
Human Resources section, 130
website resources for, 17
D
Dandenong registry
correction of errors in 2013–14 report, 151
asset management project, 150
Council of Chief Justices
consultations and other activities to improve
service delivery, 248
and Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity, 117
counter enquiries, 69, 71
Court initiatives, 30–1
Court Liaison Committee, 247
Court Ordered Mediation Program, 244
Court performance, 113–14
Court Performance Committee, 6, 113, 236
Court Policy Committee, 14, 110, 236
and Court Services portfolio, 115
and Magellan cases, 113
replacement for Chief Justice’s Policy
Advisory Committee, 6
see also contact details
Court Services Committee, 236
Court Services portfolio, 115
and Department of Health and Human Services
(Victoria), 248
Darwin registry
asset management project, 118, 150
Dawe, Hon. Justice Christine Elizabeth
defamation see action in defamation
deliverables
judicial services, 13
registries and NEC, 13
deliverables and key performance indicators, 12–13
Department of Health and Human Services
(Victoria), 248
9
INDEXES
complaints and feedback form, 75
INDEXES
9
Department of Human Services
online guide to ethnic naming practices, 18
Deputy Chief Justice
E
early intervention management, 228
Early Intervention Unit (EIU) duty solicitor scheme, 243
chambers contact details, 263
ecologically sustainable development, 234
role and responsibilities, 10, 100, 102
Dessau AM, Honourable Linda
appointment of as Governor of Victoria, 6
Court activities and, 230
ecologically sustainable development and
environmental performance, 230–4
eFiling, 24, 25, 245, 246
determination 24 instruments (s 24(1)
Public Service Act 1999), 138, 223
e-learning see cultural diversity awareness training
module, online
Dimopoulos, Maria
electronic case management system, 81
and Multicultural Plan, 16
Director, Human Resources
email enquiries
NEC and, 69, 72
Chief Executive Officer’s Management
Advisory Group, 119
emotional availability scales, 140
energy
National Consultative Committee, 239
and public interest disclosure, 126
Work Health and Safety Committee, 240
Director of Administration, FCC
Advisory Group, 119
Disability Action Plan for 2015–17, 22
disability, people with
resources and support for, 22
disability reporting, 141
divorce see online proof of divorce
Employee Assistance Program, 141
usage reduction, 231
Enterprise Agreement, 130–1, 138, 142, 222
see also Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
and Family Court of Australia Enterprise
Agreement 2011–14
entity resource statement 2014–15, 214
environment
Court impacts on, 230–4
measures to minimise, 231–3
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999, 230
document processing, 72
Environmental Champions Network, 233
domestic violence see family violence and abuse
(or risk)
Environmental Management System, 231, 234
Domestic Violence NSW
and Women’s Family Law Support Service, 20
Doogan, Chris
Dubbo Family Relationship Centre, 245
Dubbo registry
and Dubbo Family Relationship Centre, 245
and NSW Central West Family Law Pathways
Network, 245
environmental performance
review and improvement strategies, 234
Environmental Policy, 230, 234
Ernest & Young
review of funding, 129
errors in 2013–14 report
correction of, 151
ethical standards, 125
see also Australian Public Service (APS)
Values and Code of Conduct
Due Diligence training, 227
Ethics Contact Officer Network (ECONET)
(Australian Public Service Commission), 125
Duncanson, Hon. Justice Susan Janet
events after the reporting period, 147
dyadic peer consultation, 139
Executive Director, Client Services
Advisory Group, 119
and client service advices, 122
Advisory Group, 119
merger with Federal Circuit Court into single
FMA Agency, 11
merger with Federal Circuit Court into single
non-corporate Commonwealth entity, 11, 142
overview, 9–44
Executive Director Operations, FCC
Advisory Group, 119
purpose, 2, 10
reforms, 6
report on court performance, 47–76
exempt contracts, 148
significant and noteworthy judgments, 89–98
expenditure
vision, 2, 10
administration expenditure, 145
categories of, 146
categories of, 144
highlights, 3
expenses and resources for outcome 1, 215
appeals from, 80
external evaluations, 129
external involvement, 241–8
Family Assessments and Reporting, 5, 40
external scrutiny, 127–8
judges, 105
see also Registrar of the Family Court of
Western Australia
F
Family Law (2014 Measures No 1) Rules 2014, 112
[2014] FamCAFC 189 (May, Thackray and
Strickland JJ) – delivered on 2 October 2014,
92–3
family assessments, 5
see also Australian Standards of Practice
for Family Assessments and Reporting
family consultant training, 139–40
family consultants
professional development and training, 19–20
single FMA Agency
Portfolio Budget Statements outcome and
program, 11–13
Family Court of Australia (FCA)
appeals, 4, 79–87
Family Law Act 1975
amendments, 5
re family violence, 19
and appeals, 80
and Australian Institute of Family Studies, 241
and Family Law Council, 241
and family violence, 5
Part X: appellate jurisdiction of FCA, 80
s 60K: Court to take prompt action in relation to
allegations of child abuse or family violence, 67
s 62G: Reports by family consultants, 5
s 94AAA: Appeals to Family Court from
the Federal Magistrates Court and the
Magistrates Court of Western Australia, 80
s 95: Appeals to High Court, 87
composition, 10
s 121: Restriction on publication of court
proceedings, 5, 91
financial statements, 153–212
s 123: Rules of Court, 111
functions, 10
ss 21A, 22(2AA), (2AB) and (2AC):
Appeal Division, 80
goal, 2, 10
joint Chief Executive Officer with Federal Circuit
Court, 216
Family Law Amendment Rules 2011 (No. 2)
jurisdiction, 11
family law and legal identity in Indonesia, 42–4
management and accountability, 99–151
Family Law Council, 241, 256
merger of with Federal Court and FCC into
one administrative body, 6, 129
Schedule 2, 112
and collaboration between federal family law
system and state based child protection
systems, 5
9
INDEXES
Executive Director, Corporate
INDEXES
9
Family Law Forum, 242
Federal Court of Australia
family law registries, 71
and Joint Costs Advisory Committee, 118
functions, 71
merger of with FCA and FCC into one
administrative body, 6, 129
report on performance, 71–2
reforms, 6
see also registries; registries and NEC
Family Law Rules 2004
amendments to, 111, 112
Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia,
112, 241
Family Law Settlement Service, 244
Family Relationship Advice Line, 18
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and
Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement
2011–14, 130, 137, 138, 141, 222
classification structure and pay rates, 225
see also Enterprise Agreement
feedback
and service improvements, 127
Family Relationship Centre, 244
see also client feedback and complaints
management
Family Relationships Advice Line (FRAL), 72
family violence and abuse (or risk), 4, 5, 11, 67–8
amendments to Family Law Act in relation to, 19
inquiries concerning, 5
Tonga, 245
feedback and complaints form, 75
Fenwick, Stewart see Director of Administration, FCC
Fields & Smith
[2015] FamCAFC 57 (Bryant CJ, May and
Ainslie-Wallace JJ) – delivered 17 April 2015,
94–5
see also Magellan cases
Family Violence Best Practice Principles, 117
Family Violence Clinical Training Modules, 19
Family Violence Committee, 116–17
Fiji
delegation from, 259–60
family violence modules (training), 139
filings, 4
Family Violence Plan 2014–16, 18, 117
Filippello, Angela see Principal Registrar
family violence screening tool, 19
final orders applications, 50, 55, 56
Faulks, Hon. Deputy Chief Justice John
finalisations
Canberra registry, 103
number of, 55–7
see also Deputy Chief Justice
target, 49, 62
Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCC)
appeals from, 80, 81
proportion of notice of appeals filed by, 84
see also cases finalised
finalised applications see age of finalised applications
finance and administration, 6
Family Assessments and Reporting, 5, 40
Finance Committee, 111, 236
and Family Violence Committee, 116
financial management, 142–7
joint Chief Executive Officer with Family Court, 216
financial cases, 11
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997
(FMA Act) see FMA agencies
jurisdiction vis-a-vis FCA, 14
financial result, 6
merger of with FCA and Federal Court into one
administrative body, 6, 129
financial risk, 124
merger with Family Court into single FMA
Agency, 11
Finn, Hon. Justice Mary Madeleine
merger with Family Court into single
non-corporate Commonwealth entity, 11, 142
Notice of Risk, 20, 35
reforms, 6
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation
Amendment Act 2013, 112
financial statements, 153–212
Canberra registry, 103
First Aid Officer Network, 227
first instance trials, 55
FMA agencies, 11
forced marriage
Attorney-General’s Department workshop, 17, 244
Forced Marriage Network, 18
Forrest, Hon. Justice Colin
activities, 38
9
H
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction, 4, 11, 45, 55
Japan and, 39, 45, 247
Hannam, Hon. Justice Hilary Rae
Parramatta registry, 104
harassment and bullying at work, 132
Brisbane registry, 103
Harmony Day, 18, 152
Harmony Day Awards, 18
Court Services Committee, 236
Hazard Notification and Report Form, 227
Foster, Hon. Justice Garry Frederick
Parramatta registry, 104
health and safety committees, local, 227
Health and Safety Representative Network, 227
Foster PSM FAIM, Richard see Chief Executive Officer
health and safety representatives, 226
framework see International Framework for
Court Excellence
Hearing Awareness Week, 22
fraud control certification, 124
Fraud Control Plan 2013–15, 124
fraud prevention and control, 124
Freedom of Information Act 1982, 125
and exempt contracts, 148
Freedom of Information requests, 125, 128
Fujitsu Australia Pty Ltd
and Casetrack, 118
Full Court
composition of, 80
sittings, 81
Full Court Appeals, 65, 80
High Court of Australia
appeals to, 87
Historical Institutional Abuse Enquiry,
Northern Ireland, 262
Hobart registry
judges, 104
Hogan, Hon. Justice Jenny Deyell
How do I?
on website, 36
HR Newsletter
and health and safety, 227
G
Hristovaki, Nadia and Michael
gender of appellants, 86
Golding, Claire see Director, Human Resources
governance and communication, 14
governance arrangements
changes to, 6, 113
Government Internet Gateway consolidation
program, 128
Hughes, Judge Kate
Human Resources
and peer support program, 141
human resources management, 130–1
Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association, 243
grants programs, 235
Greater Newcastle Family Law Pathways Network, 243
Greater Sydney Families in Transition Group
(Pathways), 243
Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways, 244
INDEXES
FitzGibbon, Senior Registrar John
INDEXES
9
I
J
ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15, 128, 231
Japan
Independent Children’s Lawyer training program,
244
Independent Children’s Lawyers conference, 38
Indigenous Action Plan 2014–16, 21, 116
Indigenous Cultural Competence
training, 21, 140
Indigenous employment, 137
individual flexibility arrangements, 138, 223
Indonesia
court-to-court cooperation – 10 years on, 42–4
family law and legal identity in, 42–4
Australia–Japan co-mediation program, 45–6
delegations from, 261
and Hague Convention, 39, 45, 247
Japanese delegation
Jarrett, Ron
Johns, Hon. Justice Sharon Louise
Johnston, Hon. Justice William Phillip
and mediation in family law disputes, 39
Joint Costs Advisory Committee, 118
see also Australia–Indonesia justice partnership
judges
information and communications technology (ICT)
Adelaide, 103
benchmarking report, 128
whole-of-government initiatives, 128
Appeal Division, 103
Information Publication Scheme, 125
Brisbane, 103
information technology
Canberra, 103
and Court services, 23–6, 115
Family Court of Western Australia, 105
and energy usage reduction, 231
Hobart, 104
infrastructure improvements, 37
Melbourne, 104
requirements, 118
Newcastle, 104
and waste reduction, 231
Parramatta, 104
interim orders applications, 55, 56
internal audit, 123
Sydney, 104
Townsville, 105
Internal Audit Plan, 123
judgments see significant and noteworthy judgments
internal evaluations, 129
judicial activities, 249–58
International Association for Court Administration
judicial committees, 109–14, 236–7
Seventh International Conference, Sydney, 40–1
sub-committees, 115–18
international cooperation, 42–4
Judicial Complaints Advisor, 75
international family law, 4
Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity, 117
International Framework for Court Excellence,
14–15, 27
judicial delays
and access and inclusion framework, 15
implementation committee report, 6
and judicial committees, 109, 111
International Hague Network of Judges, 257
international visitors, 259–61
Internet Based Network Connection Services panel, 128
intranet upgrade, 32
iRefer Vic, 41
complaints about, 75
judicial information technology requirements, 118
see also information technology
judicial officers, 102–6, 137, 220
timely replacement of, 4
key performance indicators, 13
judicial services complaints, 64
Judicial Welfare Committee, 114
jurisdiction, 11
vis-a-vis FCC, 14
Lister, Leisha
Advisory Group, 119
Kearney, Registrar Julie
Kent, Hon. Justice Michael Patrick
Kenya
key performance indicators (KPIs)
complaints, 69, 126
Litster, Trent
Live Chat, 30, 72
local pathways groups or networks, 242
local registry consultations and other activities
to improve service delivery, 242–8
see also community relationships and
consultation
historic performance against, 49–50
registries and NEC, 13
see also deliverables and key performance
indicators
Lojszczyk, Di
Loughnan, Hon. Justice Ian James
Kids’ Help Line, 115
KPMG review of Court’s performance and funding, 129
Loughnan, Justice Ian
L
Launceston registry
Law Council of Australia see Family Law Section
of the Law Council of Australia
LawAsia, Family Law and Children’s Rights 5th
Conference, Sapporo Japan, 39
LawTermFinder, 17, 18
Le Poer Trench, Hon. Justice Mark Frederick
Unrepresented Litigants Working Group, 117
Legal Aid NSW
and National Independent Children’s Lawyers’
Conference, Sydney, October 2014, 115
M
McClelland, Justice Robert Bruce
appointment, 4, 106
McDonnell, Fern
Macmillan, Hon. Justice Kirsty Marion
Macquarie Telecom, 128
Magellan cases, 11, 68, 113
Magellan Committee, 242
Magellan protocol, 113
Legal Education seminars, 242
Magellan Steering Committee, 243
legal identity see family law and legal identity
in Indonesia
management and accountability, 99–151
legal representation, 65
market research see advertising and market
research
see also unrepresented litigants
Let’s Talk: Cultural Competence e-learning package,
16, 117
Managers Assistance Program, 141
Marriage Act 1961, 11
May, Hon. Justice Michelle
letter of transmittal, iii
activities, 256
Lifeline
and Accidental Counsellor, 141
Lismore registry
and F Firm & Ruane and Ors, 92, 93
mediation see Australia–Japan co-mediation
program; Court Ordered Mediation Program
9
INDEXES
K
INDEXES
9
Mediation – what to expect video, 39
deliverables, 12
mediation in family law disputes
performance, 72–3
Indonesia, 39
Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Issues and
Concerns (MASIC) tool
and family violence screening tool, 19
summary, 73–4
post-inquiry email, 17
and proof of divorce example, 88
response target, 50
medical procedures, 4
responsibilities, 72
Melbourne registry
services, 69
see also registries and NEC
National Independent Children’s Lawyers’
Conference, Sydney, October 2014, 115
and Japanese delegation, 247
National Judicial College of Australia, 114, 257
judges, 104
National Judicial Orientation Program, 257
and Victoria Pathways, 247
Hon, Justice Robert Benjamin AM, 106
Mental Health Action Plan, 22–3
mental health first aid training, 23
mental illness, 4, 11
mobile application and booths in registries, 41
Moncrieff, Hon. Justice Simon
Moroni, Magistrate Alan
National Work Health and Safety Committee, 121, 227
see also Work Health and Safety Committee
New South Wales
registry contact details, 264–5
New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory
service delivery, 242–5
Multicultural Plan 2013–15, 16, 117
New South Wales Central West Family Law Pathways
Network, 245
Murphy, Hon. Justice Peter John
New South Wales Vietnamese Women’s Association, 244
activities, 256
Newcastle registry
and F Firm & Ruane and Ors, 92
Murray, Kristen
Myriad Consulting
and Multicultural Plan, 16
judges, 104
and property management, 118
Nigeria
non-salary benefits, 139, 224
Northern Ireland see Historical Institutional Abuse
Enquiry, Northern Ireland
N
Northern Territory
NAIDOC Week planning committee, 245
national calendar, 114
national compactus replacement, 150
see also South Australia/Northern Territory
National Consultative Committee, 119, 121, 239
Notice of abuse or risk of family violence, 67
National Co-Ordinating Appeals Registrar, 4
Notice of Risk (FCC), 20, 35
National Disability Strategy 2010–2020, 141
Notices of Appeal
National Enquiry Centre (NEC), 12
and CaLD clients, 18
proportion filed, by jurisdiction, 84–5
trend in, 81–5
Pascoe, Chief Judge John (FCC)
online cultural diversity awareness training module, 117
online guide to ethnic naming practices
(Department of Human Services), 18
online proof of divorce, 31, 88
online video for unrepresented litigants, 8
operating result, 143
operating revenue and expenses, 142
Order of Australia, Member of the
Hon, Justice Robert Benjamin AM, 106
organisational structure, 101
outcome 1, 11, 48
expenses and resources for, 215
outlook for 2015–16, 27
overview of the Court, 9–44
conference, 38
Pathways, 242
Paxton, Registrar Jenny
peer support network, 227
Peer Support Officer Network, 141
peer support officer training, 141
Peer Support Program, 35, 141
pending (active) applications
target, 50, 59
see also age of pending applications
performance of Court, 113–14
performance pay arrangements, 139, 224
P
performance report, 47–76
detailed report, 52–64
Palau
family law registries
paper
NEC, 72–3
usage reduction, 232
papers presented and conference, seminars and
workshops conducted and/or attended, 252–5
summary, 73–4
Registry and NEC services
Chief Justice, 249–50
Papua New Guinea
parenting cases, 11
Parramatta registry
summary, 69–70
performance summary, 51
Perth
and Aboriginal Legal Service solicitor, 244
planning see corporate and operational planning
and associated performance reporting and review
Portfolio Budget Statements
and Blacktown Children’s Contact Centre, 244
and Court Ordered Mediation Program, 244
and Early Intervention Unit (EIU) duty solicitor
scheme, 243
and Family Law Settlement Service, 244
and Family Relationship Centre, 244
and ‘Forced Marriage Workshop’
(Attorney-General’s Department), 244
and Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways, 244
Outcome and Program
Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, 11–13
see also outcome 1; program 1.1
strategic initiatives, 14–27
power of the Family Court of Australia and
Family Court of Western Australia to grant
anti-suit injunctions see Teo & Guan
power to make orders where a third party
company is in administration see X Pty Ltd
and Independent Children’s Lawyer
training program, 244
previously published figures
judges, 104
Principal, Child Dispute Services
and NSW Vietnamese Women’s Association, 244
and property management, 118
changes to, 48
Advisory Group, 119
9
INDEXES
O
INDEXES
9
Principal Registrar
Public Service Act 1999
Advisory Group, 119
and APS Values and Code of Conduct, 125
determination 24 instruments, 138, 223
purchasing, consultants and contracts, 147–8
Principal Registrar, FCC
Advisory Group, 119
Procurement and Risk Management section, 123, 147
Q
Queensland
Procurement Framework, 147
procurement initiatives to support small business, 148
Productivity Commission Public Inquiry into Access
to Justice Arrangements, 129
productivity gains, 142
Professional Development and Judicial Welfare
Committee, 237
professional development and training
family consultants, 19–20
professional legal development, 256–7
program 1.1, 48
objectives for the Family Court and
administration, 12
Family Court of Australia, 12
Federal Circuit Court of Australia, 12
property
see also Teo & Guan
property cases, 4
property management, 118
Property Management Committee, 119
Property Management sub-committee, 115
property settlement see Fields & Smith; X Pty Ltd
Protection Convention 1996, 4
Public Governance and Accountability Act Rule
and Audit and Risk Committee, 120
Public Governance, Performance and
Accountability Act 2013, 6, 12, 122, 129, 142
and Audit and Risk Committee, 120
Queensland Magistrates Court, 246
R
Ralph, Stephen
and Indigenous cultural competence training,
21, 140
Reconciliation Action Plan, 116
Reconciliation Week, 21
recycling, 231, 232
Rees, Hon. Justice Judith Anne
referrals to community and support organisations, 20
Regional Registry Manager
Regional Registry Manager Sydney
Regional Registry Managers
Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory
Group, 119
Registrar of the Family Court of Western Australia, 81
registrar training, 140
registries
cashless, 38
mobile application and booths in, 41
see also family law registries
registries and NEC
and FMA agencies, 11
deliverables, 13
and non-corporate Commonwealth entities, 11, 142
detailed report of performance, 71–2
Public Interest Disclosure, 126
key performance indicators, 13
Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, 126
services, 69–74
Public Interest Disclosure Rules, 126
Public Interest Disclosure Standards, 126
summary of performance, 69–70
Registry Service Quarterly Return, 32–3
access and inclusion framework for, 15–16
Registry Services Delivery Strategy 2014–19, 15, 33–4
and removal of cash and cheque payments, 38
Registry Services Strategy
Senate Finance and Public Administration
Committee
inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
experience of law enforcement and justice
services, 116
registry waiting times, 32
Senate Finance and Public Administration
References Committee’s Inquiry into Domestic
Violence in Australia, 5
Rehabilitation Management System, 226, 227, 228
Senior Executive Service (SES) remuneration, 138
reserved judgment delivery times
senior executives, 107–8
and Registry Service Return, 32
target, 50, 60, 63
senior family consultant needs assessment, 140
see also age of reserved judgments delivered
senior management committees, 119–21, 237–40
reserved judgments outstanding (pending) see age
of reserved judgments outstanding
Service Charter, 125, 126–7
retention strategies, 132
sexual abuse of a child see child sexual abuse
retirements from the Court, 4, 106
rewards and recognition, 133–7
Reynolds, Jane see Principal, Child Dispute
Services; Regional Registry Manager
Service Commitments, 125, 126–7
significant and noteworthy judgments, 89–98
Sikiotis, Athena
risk management, 123
Skehill review (Strategic Review of Small and
Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General’s
Portfolio, 2012), 129
Rockhampton registry
small business
Risk Control and Compliance Framework, 123, 124
RSM Bird Cameron
and internal audit, 123
Rules Committee, 111–12, 236
Ryan, Hon. Justice Judith Maureen
procurement initiatives to support, 148
social justice and equity impacts, 65–8
South Australia
South Australia/Northern Territory
South Australian Women’s Information Service
Court Support Program Volunteers
and Adelaide registry, 20
Stace, Paul see Chief Information Officer
S
Staff Development Committee, 119
safe and healthy work environment, 132
staff guidance documents, 122
safety at court, 19, 20
staff participation in Court excellence assessment
process, 15
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, 226
staff Peer Support Program, 35, 141
scrutiny
see also Peer Support Officer Network
alleged lack of, 5
staffing, 122
see also external scrutiny
staffing profile, 137, 216–21
secrecy, 5
Stevenson, Hon. Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood
self-represented appellants, 86
Semple review (Future governance options for
federal family law courts in Australia, 2009), 129
Senate estimates committee hearings, 128
9
INDEXES
registry services, 69
INDEXES
9
Storti, Maria
Thomas, Greg
strategic initiatives in the Portfolio Budget
Statements, 14–27
Thornton, Hon. Justice Christine
strategic plan, 14, 125
Tonga
Strategic Risk Management Plan, 123
Strickland, Hon. Justice Steven Andrew
domestic violence in, 245
Townsville registry
activities, 256, 257
and Family Law Pathways Network, 246
sub-committees, 115–18
judges, 105
training, learning and development, 139–41
substance abuse, 4
Supreme Court (of state or territory)
appeals from, 80
Survey of Australian Government Payments to
Small Business, 148
Sydney registry
collaborative engagements, 242
judges, 104
and Women’s Family Law Support Service, 20
see also professional development and training
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, 112
travel
Tree, Hon. Justice Peter William
Townsville registry, 105
‘trial docket’ system of case management, 113
Twitter, 30–1
U
United Kingdom
T
Tasmania
United Nations International Day for the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination, 152
unrepresented litigants, 4, 65–6
see also Victoria/Tasmania
Tasmania Family Violence Consultative Committee, 248
video for, 8
Unrepresented Litigants Working Group, 117
user satisfaction see Court user satisfaction survey
team leader training, 140
telephone enquiries (via 1300 number)
NEC and, 69, 72
Teo & Guan
[2015] FamCAFC 94 (Thackray, May and
Crisford JJ) – delivered 21 May 2015, 97–8
Thackray, Hon. Justice Stephen Ernest
(Chief Judge Family Court of WA), 105
V
Victoria
Victoria Pathways, 247
Victoria/Tasmania
service delivery, 247–8
Victorian Family Law Pathways Network
conference, 38
Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, 5
and iRefer Vic and booths in Victorian registries, 41
Workforce and Policy Manager
waiting times see registry waiting times
workforce planning, 132
Walters, Hon. Justice John Myer
workforce turnover, 137, 221
workload, 4
summary, 52–3
Wareham, Neil
waste reduction, 231
waste/cleaning, 232
Watts, Hon. Justice Garry Allan
Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy, 128
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0,
24, 128
workplace diversity, 132
World Indigenous Legal Conference, Brisbane,
2014, 116
X
X Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) & Milstead
and Anor
[2015] FamCAFC 50 (Thackray, Strickland and
Tree JJ) – delivered 30 March 2015, 96
website (Family Court), 39, 77–8
How do I?, 36
and people with disability, 22
website (Family Law Courts)
decommissioned, 39, 77
website (Federal Circuit Court), 39, 77
Western Australia see Family Court of
Western Australia
whole-of-government Information, Communication
and Technology (ICT) initiatives, 128
Y
highlights, 3
years of service awards, 136–7
YouTube, 31
court tour, 37
Wollongong Pathways, 243
Wollongong registry
local Pathways meetings, 243
Women’s Family Law Support Service
and Sydney registry, 20
work environment see safe and healthy
work environment
work health and safety, 226–8
Work Health and Safety Act 2011, 226
Work Health and Safety Committee, 119, 240
see also National Work Health and Safety
Committee
Work Health and Safety Management Plan, 226, 227
Work Health and Safety Risk Assessment
Guidelines, 227
Work Health and Safety Strategic Plan 2014–16,
226, 227, 228
workers’ compensation, 228
9
INDEXES
W