Speech of The Honourable Diana Bryant
Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia
Melbourne, Victoria June 17 2008
I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Kulin nation, and pay my respects to their elders, past and present.
Good morning and welcome to the launch of the Commonwealth Courts Portal.
I thank Acting Chief Justice Gray for his introduction and I specifically thank the Attorney-General for agreeing to launch the Commonwealth Court’s Portal and for his comments on the use of technology in civil litigation especially in Commonwealth Courts.
Attorney - thank you for sharing your time with us this morning; it is an honour to have you with us at the launch of this important joint initiative and we appreciate you giving us some priority especially as parliament is sitting this week.
My role this morning is to tell you about the vision for the Commonwealth Courts Portal. Before I do that however, on behalf of the Family Court I would like to thank the Federal Court for hosting this morning. But for an unfortunate accident of timing, the launch would have been held in my chambers and I appreciate the Federal Court’s hospitality and goodwill today.
To return to the subject of vision.
Vision can be represented or thought of in two ways:
1. What you want to achieve when you first have an idea (initiating vision) or
2. How the concept will develop once it has been brought to an operational starting point (future vision).
It is appropriate to address both types of vision today.
The initial vision came about after the Family Court developed a case-management system called Casetrack.
The Federal Magistrates Court opted to use Casetrack when exercising its family law jurisdiction and, in 2003, the Federal Court decided that Casetrack was a useful application in its jurisdiction.
This was an important development as the Commonwealth courts had not previously shared a common case management system, there was no perceived imperative for the Federal Court to adopt Casetrack and they were actively looking at other case management systems.
Looking back I think we might now all agree that it was serendipitous that we did decide on a uniform case management system as the Portal would not otherwise have come about.
For myself, I think that not having a common system for Commonwealth courts, especially for the Federal Magistrates Court operating in two jurisdictions, would now be inconceivable.
I suspect that we had previously thought that such different jurisdictions wouldn’t find enough common ground and that one or other might be impeded in their progress. If that was a concern, then the opportunities created by modern technology soon revealed themselves.
Once all the courts were using this system, its potential to operate online for use by all court clients became, if not apparent, at least the germ of an idea.
Prior to the adoption of Casetrack by the three courts, the Federal Court had provided a public access computer terminal for people to check on bankruptcies and related matters.
The combination of Casetrack and the fact that the Federal Court had a group of people used to accessing files and undertaking self-help searches gave further impetus to the idea of a web-based application.
We had a prototype, of sorts, under our noses which provided the first opportunity to step into the web space.
Initially, the vision was to provide a common platform to advance online services for the three courts. In other words, develop a system by which all three courts can implement a range of e-services together in recognition of our common position in the Federal jurisdiction.
The vision included a platform for future growth of online services.
The way to do that was through a portal, or single doorway, into each of the three courts so that lawyers with cases before any or all of the courts could gain access to records of matters in which they were involved.
The Commonwealth Courts Portal is that doorway.
One of its advantages is that lawyers and other users don’t need multiple log-ins and passwords and don’t have to master three different filing or data presentation systems.
Regardless of the jurisdiction you are interested in, the Commonwealth Courts Portal looks and behaves in the same way. This of course builds familiarity which brings with it more proficiency and greater user speed.
From an internal perspective, the Commonwealth Courts Portal provides significant cost savings which are less interesting to the users but which no doubt the Attorney-General will be pleased to hear about.
The cost to the courts of the development of the Portal has been one million dollars, or to put it into even more perspective, about $330,000 per Court.
Imagine in the Family law context:
1. A client changing solicitors, knowing there is a court date looming in the Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court but not sure when it is, and vague about what has happened. The new solicitor logs onto the portal and the history and future hearing date is available.
2. The solicitor or barrister logs on over the weekend and reviews all court commitments for the next month in the various matters they have; or checks the terms of an order to see what has to be prepared.
3. A self represented litigant logs in and checks the terms of an order.
The last two will shortly be available, the first is available now.
Today the portal is a reality, but a reality that our future vision is to improve.
Clearly, in the family law jurisdiction, the future vision involves ensuring confidentiality remains watertight. All the courts take the privacy of their parties and the confidentiality of information very seriously and this will receive close attention at each stage.
Access to the Portal has been deliberately staggered to make sure each stage is functioning before the next is added.
The benefit is that developments by one court can be adapted and shared with others.
While the system currently allows existing documents to be viewed, the future vision is likely to include such things as:
So that is the potential for the Commonwealth Courts Portal.
The possibilities are very exciting. I thank all those who have made it possible so far, but particularly Stephen Andrew from the Family Court and Tony Landsell, a consultant assisting all three courts, who have been the main drivers.
Go back to top of page