Part 8: Appendices

• Appendix 1 Agency Resource Statement
• Appendix 2 Expenses and Resources for Outcome
• Appendix 3 Staffing profile
• Appendix 4 Work health and safety
• Appendix 5 Advertising and market research
• Appendix 6 Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance
• Appendix 7 Grant programs
• Appendix 8 Committees
• Appendix 9 External involvement
• Appendix 10 Judicial activities
• Appendix 11 International visitors
• Appendix 12 Contact details

Appendix 1: Agency Resource Statement

Table 8.1 Agency Resource Statement - 2011-12

^aAppropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-12 and Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2011-12
This may also include prior year departmental appropriation and s 31 relevant agency receipts.

^bSpecial Public Money special accounts, litigants fund special account, other trust moneys, and services for other government and non-agency bodies have been excluded from the above table, consistent with the Resource Statement for the 2011-12 Budget.

^cUnspent Departmental Annual Appropriations for 2010-11 per Note 22 - Table C.

^dDepartmental Appropriations for Ordinary Annual Services per Note 22 - Table A Appropriation Act (No.1 & No.3) 2011–12.

^eIncludes cash on hand at 30 June 2012.

^fSection 30 Receipts per Note 22 - Table A.

Appendix 2: Expenses and Resources for Outcome 1

Table 8.2 Expenses and Resources for Outcome 1

¹Full year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2011-12 Budget.

²Departmental Appropriation combines Ordinary annual services (Appropriation Bill No. 1 and No. 3) and 'Revenue from independent sources (s 31)'

³Includes depreciation and amortisation, liabilities assumed by related entities for the Judges Pension Scheme and resources received free of charge for Australian National Audit Office Services.

⁴Special public money special accounts, Litigants Fund Special Account and other trust moneys, have been excluded from the table above, consistent with the Resource Statement for the 2011-12 budget.

Appendix 3: Staffing profile

Staffing profile

At 30 June 2012, the Court had a total workforce of 601 employees covered by the Enterprise Agreement and AWAs (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees), 14 less than at 30 June 2011.

Of the Court's 601 employees:

• 179 (29.78 per cent) were male and 422 (70.22 per cent) were female compared with 187 and 428, respectively, at 30 June 2011
• 524 (87.19 per cent) were ongoing employees and 77 (12.81 per cent) were non-ongoing employees.

The following tables show staff statistics by location, gender, full-time and part-time status, and ongoing and non-ongoing.

Table 8.3 Staff* by location

Note: Actual occupancy at 30 June 2012 includes full and part time staff* with the exception of judicial officers and casual employees.

*All figures in the above table are based on actual headcount.

Table 8.4 Staff by gender

Table 8.5 Staff by attendance status

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

Table 8.6 Ongoing staff by location and classification

Table 8.7 Non-ongoing staff, by location and classification

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

Judicial officers

At 30 June 2012, there were 30 judges, including the Chief Justice; 13 female and 17 male.

Table 8.8 Total number of judges, 30 June 2012

Workforce turnover

During 2011-12, 83 employees and judicial officers left the Court (28 were non-ongoing, 51 were ongoing employees and four were holders of Public Office), being an annual turnover rate of 13.1 per cent against total staff numbers at 30 June 2012.*

Table 8.9 Workforce turnover

Note: The above figures do not include non-ongoing employees whose actual period of engagement reached their non-ongoing contract date of expiry.

*Total staff numbers for the above table include all employees and public office holders (judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer) as at 30 June 2012 (total headcount of 632).

Agreement making

Collective Agreement and Enterprise Agreement

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011-14 came into effect on 1 July 2011. The Agreement has a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2014, however, under present arrangements it will continue to operate after that date until replaced or formally terminated.

At 30 June 2012, 568* Family Court employees were covered by the Enterprise Agreement.

Table 8.10 Family Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14

*excludes casual employees.

Other agreements

While legislation no longer allows for the making of new AWAs, at 30 June 2012, 31 employees had enforceable AWAs in place. In some limited cases, the Family Court has used common law contracts and determination 24 instruments pursuant to the Australian Public Service Act 1999 to build upon existing AWA arrangements. At 30 June 2012:

• 16 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts
• 46 employees had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments.

Table 8.11 Employees covered by other agreements

Non-salary benefits

Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include motor vehicles, car parking, superannuation, computers including home-based computer access, membership of professional associations and organisations, mobile phones 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 2011-12.

Table 8.12 AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification

Table 8.13 Classification structure and pay rates*

*excludes casual employees

Appendix 4: Work health and safety

Maintaining the health and safety of staff and all those who must use the Court's premises is integral to the business and values of the Court. The Court is therefore committed to:

• implementation and compliance of the new Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act 2011)
• compliance by itself and its personnel with all applicable statutory and other health and safety obligations, including the Act
• maintaining a healthy and safe workplace
• preventing injuries by managing risk, including identifying and mitigating workplace hazards to health and safety, and
• making good work health and safety practice part of business as usual for all managers and staff.

During 2011-12, the Court continued to work to achieve this through:

• actively preventing work related injury and illness via regular workplace checks and inspections
• providing access to information, training, professional support and advice on WHS issues, via the Court's intranet, training programs, E-learning, induction and other means
• consulting with staff and their representatives on the development and variation of health and safety management arrangements
• advising managers and staff of their WHS responsibilities, and
• ensuring health and safety representatives have the time and resources to reasonably perform their role.

The Court recognises that effective health and safety management reduces the social and financial costs of occupational injury and illness.

Specific initiatives taken by the Court during 2011-12 to ensure the health, safety and welfare of staff included the following:

• providing all management and staff their legislative obligations, accountability, consultative requirements, communication on leadership and legal obligations
• providing guidance for officers (as designated under the WHS Act 2011) in exercising 'due diligence' and 'duty of care'
• providing a powerpoint presentation on induction for all managers to use with their teams, including a template for induction and an education check list
• providing all Registry and Business Unit Managers with resources for preventing and managing bullying and harassment in the workplace
• updating overseas travel guidelines and approval delegation, and
• providing Comcare's resources for workplace bullying to all harassment contact officers.

The Court's work health and safety employee benefits include ergonomic assessments of workstations, ergonomic furniture, access to a free employee assistance program, annual influenza vaccinations, access to peer support officers, first aid officers and harassment contact officers.

In 2011-12, there were no notifiable incidents and there were no investigations or notices issued under Part 10 of the Act.

The Court's local occupational health and safety committees continued to meet throughout 2011-2012. None of the Court's locations reported occupational health and safety audits requiring serious investigations during the year.

Workers' compensation and early intervention management

The strong educational program on work health and safety for the Court throughout the year ensured staff were focused on safety at work. Minimal stress claims were received in 2011-12, with early intervention keeping injury rates low.

In addition, the Court continued to manage its workers compensation cases proactively throughout the year. As well as benefits to staff, this approach results in a continued low number of claims being lodged and reduced future total costs associated with all such claims.

Comcare has advised that the compensation scheme is experiencing the pressure of liabilities across all agencies growing significantly due to an increasing number of people harmed at work and high expected future cost of workers' compensation claims. As a result there has been a significant increase in premiums for 2012-13. However, the increase in premium for the Court was significantly lower (more than half a per cent lower) than average Comcare premium increases. This reflects the continued proactive management of the Court's workers' compensation cases.

Table 8.14 Comcare premium rates, 2007-08 to 2011-12

Appendix 5: Advertising and market research

Under section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Court is required to disclose particulars of payments of $11,900 or more (inclusive of GST) for advertising, market research, polling organisations, direct mail and media advertising.

The Court spent a total of $23,298 during 2011-12 in advertising and market research, comprising mainly payments to media advertising organisations for recruitment and tender notices.

Appendix 6: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance

The following information is provided in accordance with Section 516A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999.

Court activities and ecologically sustainable development

As noted in its Environmental Policy, the Family Court:

"...recognises the importance of implementing sound environmental practices in all court functions..."

This overarching commitment to ecologically sustainable development (ESD) was augmented in multiple ways by the Family Court of Australia during 2011-12 as detailed below.

Impacts on the environment

The Court impacts on the environment in a number of areas, primarily in the consumption of resources.

Table 8.15 lists environmental impact/usage data where available. Data for the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court cannot be accurately separated; therefore the data provided in Table 8.15 is total combined data for both courts unless specified. Any data relating to Commonwealth Law Courts (CLCs) has been calculated using the occupation apportionment percentage allocated to the Court, as the CLCs are shared by multiple jurisdictions.

Table 8.15 Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court environmental impact/usage data

* There was a data adjustment made to the figure published in the 2010-11 annual report for stationary emissions. The figure quoted above is the correct figure.

** FMC transport was not included in the total figure in 2009-10.

Measures to minimise the Court's environmental impact

Environmental Management System

The Court is currently developing a corporate Environmental Management System (EMS) to ensure an overarching and systematic approach to improving its environmental performance. The EMS is being developed to conform to the relevant Australian and international standard (AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004). A number of elements of the Court's EMS have already been completed, and are reviewed and/or updated where relevant in accordance with the EMS standard. Elements completed to date include:

• an environmental policy outlining the Court's broad commitment to environmental management
• an environmental risk register identifying significant environmental aspects and impacts for the Court and treatment strategies to mitigate them. This register has been reviewed annually since its development
• an environmental legal register to identify any relevant environmental legal requirements for the Court (this register also includes other requirements such as applicable Federal Government policy requirements). This register has been reviewed annually since its development, and is available on the intranet
• an environmental annual plan (environmental objectives, targets and programs) to identify environmental targets and associated performance indicators. The plan has since been reviewed and a revised plan was under development at 30 June 2012
• an EMS management review report has been submitted to ensure management is informed of the status of the EMS and to provide an opportunity for feedback, improvement and endorsement
• an EMS manual outlining procedures for each element of the EMS, as well as summary information on each element, and
• a range of forms to accompany the EMS procedures and other requirements.

Other measures

During 2011-12, the Court worked within its EMS to minimise its environmental impact through a number of specific measures, either new or continuing, as follows.

Energy

• An energy reduction project was completed. It involved implementing feasible recommendations from energy audits conducted at several sites. Recommendations implemented included:
  • lighting upgrades at the Newcastle, Darwin, Dandenong and Townsville registries to more energy efficient lights and more effective controls
  • installation of supplementary air conditioning controls
  • timers reprogrammed in kitchen hot water units, and
  • rationalisation of electronic equipment such as printers.

Whilst it is difficult to accurately quantify savings from the measures, electricity data for the sites that received lighting upgrades indicate energy usage reductions of up to 30 per cent and savings of approximately $25 000 in 2011-12.

Electricity contracts continue to be reviewed to ensure value for money. New energy supply contracts negotiated for the Commonwealth Law Courts and the Dandenong registry in 2010-11 resulted in estimated savings of $380 000 during 2011-12 (CLC savings calculated as per occupation percentages apportioned to the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court).

Information technology

• An internal ICT sustainability plan was developed to address the requirements for the Federal Government's ICT Sustainability Plan 2010-15. This plan has been incorporated into the environmental risk register. To date, ICT specific actions progressed have included:
  • a program to shutdown desktops automatically after hours (in test phase). In the meantime, staff are encouraged to shut down their desktops at the end of the day and regular site specific shutdown statistics are published on the intranet to assist with increasing staff awareness
  • E-waste is recycled or reused where possible, including auctioning redundant but still operational equipment
  • using whole-of-government procurement of IT equipment where available
  • ensuring ICT Sustainability Plan 2010-15 equipment standards are met when procuring new equipment
  • ensuring fully recyclable packaging where possible
  • replacing printers with more energy efficient models and rationalising where possible as part of a national printer replacement project
  • introducing tablets (significantly more energy efficient) as an alternative to laptops, and
  • a national desktop and monitor replacement project. Existing equipment was replaced with more energy efficient models and rationalised where possible.

Paper

• Paperless invoice processing was introduced by the Court's finance section, allowing registries to forward invoices for payment electronically.
• Fifty per cent recycled content paper was implemented nationally from July 2011. This met a mandatory target of the Federal Government's ICT Sustainability Plan 2010-15.
• A working group was set up to investigate issues impacting on paper usage.
• Secure paper (confidential etc) continued to be shredded and recycled for all court locations. Non-secure paper recycling was available at 15 sites.

Waste/cleaning

• A waste recycling (plastics, metal, cardboard etc) program was implemented at the National Support Office in 2010. In 2010-11, about 25 per cent of waste previously sent to landfill was recycled. In 2011-12 this increased to about 50 per cent.
• The number of sites with recycling facilities for printer toner cartridges increased by two to a total of 19.
• Recycling facilities for staff personal mobiles have increased by one site to a total of 11.
• Electronic media (CDs, work mobiles etc.) continue to be securely shredded and components recycled where possible.

Corporate culture/communication

• The Court's Environmental Champions Network (ECN) continues to offer the opportunity for staff to provide their input to environmental matters for the courts. The volunteer membership has increased from five members in 2010 to 20 members representing 13 sites nationally in 2011-12. Projects to date have included:
  • Earth Hour
  • national recycling week
  • mobile muster campaign
  • Christmas electronic equipment shutdown drive
  • launch of environmental logo (below) specific to the courts, and
  • ECN internal online national 'community' for interactive communication between members.
• An environmental management intranet page provides information on environmental issues for the Court.
• Regular articles about the Court's environmental status are included in the internal e-newsletters Courtside.
• The Court continues to be represented as a member on the (federal) Government Agency Environmental Network (GAEN), an interagency network facilitating the sharing of best practice environmental information. Its membership includes about 30 agencies. The Court's Environmental Manager is currently chairing one of the GAEN subgroups (the Environmental Management System subgroup).

Property

Fitouts and refurbishments continue to be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner including by:

• recycling demolished materials where possible
• maximising reuse of existing furniture and fittings
• engaging consultants with experience in sustainable development where possible, and
• maximising use of environmentally friendly products such as recycled content in furniture and fittings, low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paint and adhesives, and energy efficient lighting and air conditioning.

Travel

Portable videoconferencing facilities have been upgraded at many sites to improve accessibility. Whilst some travel is unavoidable due to the nature of the Court (e.g. travel required for circuit registries), improved access to videoconferencing provides an alternative option in other situations.

Review and improvement strategies

Environmental Management System

The primary tool used for reviewing and improving effectiveness of environmental impacts is the Court's Environmental Management System (EMS). Whilst the EMS is still under development, elements of it (as detailed above) have established benchmarking and treatment strategies for identified environmental impacts.

At 30 June 2012, annual reviews of the following elements were completed or close to completion, helping ensure continual improvement of measures and effectiveness:

• the environmental risk register (significant environmental aspects and impacts)
• the EMS management review
• the environmental annual plan (objectives, targets and programs), and
• the environmental legal and other requirements register.

Other measures

External reporting requirements, such as under the Energy Efficiency in Government Operations (EEGO) Policy and the Australian Packaging Covenant, provide annual snapshots of the Court's performance in areas associated with the environment. These requirements enabled the Court to track its progress in areas such as energy use and identify areas of potential improvement.

Additional ESD implications

In 2011-12, the Court did not administer any legislation with ecologically sustainable development (ESD) implications nor did it have outcomes specified in an Appropriations Act with ESD implications.

Appendix 7: Grant programs

The Family Court made no grant payments during 2011–12.

Appendix 8: Committees

Table 8.16 Judicial committees, 30 June 2012

Senior management committees

Table 8.17 Senior management governance committees, 30 June 2012

Appendix 9: External involvement

The Family Court has a number of strategies for strengthening its partnerships with clients and other stakeholders within the family law system, such as legal practitioners, non-government organisations and government agencies and departments.

External stakeholders at the strategic level influence, either directly or indirectly, the direction of the family law system within Australia. They include:

• the Attorney-General's Department
• other government departments and agencies
• child welfare authorities
• the Child Support Program (formerly the Child Support Agency)
• legal services commissions and community legal centres
• law societies and councils
• community-based and non-government organisations
• the Australian Federal Police.

Relationships with these groups are managed either by the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, other judges on behalf of the Chief Justice, the Chief Executive Officer and/or other senior executives.

There are a number of established channels through which external stakeholders may inform the Court and affect its processes and client service delivery, including the following.

Family Law Council

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.

Family Law Forum

The Chief Justice chairs the national Family Law Forum, which consists of representatives from the Family Court, Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Law Council, the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, National Legal Aid, the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Program, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, non-government organisations and community legal centres. The Family Law Forum did not meet in 2011-12.

Committees

In addition to the Family Law Forum, a number of external stakeholders contribute to court direction by contributing to or being members of various court committees, for example, as members of the Court's Magellan Committee, the Audit and Risk Committee and the Family Law Courts Advisory Group. For more information on court committees, see Appendix 8.

Improving the interface between the child protection and family law systems

The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department (AGD) is involved in several projects with the states and territories to improve the interface between the child protection and family law systems.

South Australia pilot project

A pilot project in South Australia is developing and implementing initiatives to improve collaboration between the federal family law system and the South Australian child protection system.

During 2011-12, stakeholders were trialling initiatives in these key areas:

• expanding the exercise of current jurisdiction
• case management and information sharing
• relationship building, and
• risk identification and assessment.

The stakeholders include judicial officers from the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Youth Court of SA and representatives from the Family Court, AGD, the SA Attorney-General's Department, the SA Legal Services Commission and Families SA (a division of the Department of Education and Child Development).

By 30 June 2012, stakeholders had met five times since February 2011 and significant progress had been made. The pilot will continue to be monitored to identify whether these initiatives could be implemented nationally.

National child protection and family law collaboration meeting

The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department hosted two national child protection and family law collaboration meetings during 2011-12. Stakeholders from the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Court of Western Australia and each of the state and territory child welfare authorities attended the meetings, the purpose of which was to:

• provide an opportunity for stakeholders to share experience and learning
• provide clarity and dialogue around the nature of current initiatives to improve outcomes for children and their families
• identify impediments to change
• identify possibilities for implementing new processes and practices, and
• assist in developing agreed principles on protocols and/ or a Memorandum of Understanding between the child protection authorities and the courts.

The meetings were successful, with significant positive feedback received from stakeholders.

Local registry consultations

During 2011-12, the family law registries engaged at the local level with law societies, family law pathways networks, court user forums and community-based organisations concerned with family support and the family law system. This consultation ensured that registries received regular feedback about users' experiences of registry services and the courts and were able to improve the service and approach to clients. It also ensures that the Court is well placed to make effective referrals to community-based services for clients who may require ongoing support.

Local pathways groups or networks are a key forum for engagement. Pathways is a family law interagency network, established in 2005 and funded by the Federal Attorney-General's Department. It aims to facilitate a more integrated family law system, particularly for community-based agencies that deal with separated families, family dispute resolution and associated issues such as family violence. In some areas members include those involved with health and child protection.

In addition to general consultations, registries continued to engage with community-based organisations and other jurisdictions about best practice approaches to support those clients who are subject to, or fear, violence from their partner, former partner or other family members.

A significant innovation in 2011-12 was the courts' user satisfaction survey, conducted at all major and medium sized registries. The survey process is consistent with one of the seven platforms for excellence in the international courts excellence framework. The results of the survey can be found in Part 2 (see Initiatives of the Family Court) The feedback from the survey has informed registries about the areas where the courts can perform more effectively and encouraged registries to keep on doing the things which court users say they do well. This data also informed registries' discussions with stakeholders.

The registries also worked with universities, offering or participating in moot courts and other opportunities and information for students; and with the legal profession at the local level, including with continuing professional development. Whilst not consultation as such, initiatives such as these are important in terms of relationship building and awareness building about the particular circumstances and needs of family law and of the people who need to use family law services. Some aspects of this work is reported below.

Following is information about specific consultative activities undertaken by the Court's registries.

Registry-specific activities

ACT/NSW

Sydney

• Sydney met quarterly with family law practitioners to communicate Family Law Court initiatives and seek feedback. The meetings were chaired by the Registry Manager and attended by the Case Management Judge and Coordinating Federal Magistrate.
• A Child Dispute Services representative attended monthly meetings of the Greater Sydney Families in Transition Group (Pathways).
• The Sydney Pathways Network and the Aboriginal community held an Aboriginal Family Law Conference in February 2012. The aim was to provide information to Aboriginal workers and community members about the different courts that affect Aboriginal people: the Children's Court, the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Local Court. About 150 people attended over the three days. Judicial officers and a family consultant attended.
• Members of the judiciary, court staff, and representatives from the Department of Human Services, the Police Service, Legal Aid and legal practitioners attended two meetings of the Magellan Steering Committee during the year. The committee considered issues associated with the implementation of the Magellan protocol in the Sydney, Parramatta and Newcastle registries.
• Whilst not consultation, ongoing relationship building and awareness raising arises in a number of other ways. For example, family consultants from the registry were regular guest speakers at the University of NSW, both for law students and Master of Psychology students. Topics included the role of the family consultants in the family court system, the various issues and problems that may present to the Court (e.g. drug and alcohol use, family violence, attachment relationships, child protection issues, etc) and the potential impact of these on children and young people; parenting capacity and family functioning in general.

Parramatta

• A senior family consultant attended the meetings of the Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways Network when meetings were held in Western Sydney.
• The registry, including the Case Management Judge and the Coordinating Federal Magistrate, met quarterly with the local family law practitioners.

Dubbo

• The NSW Central West Family Law Pathways Network met every two months, video-linked between Dubbo and Bathurst. The network held two family law training events, one each for lawyers and family dispute resolution practitioners.

Wollongong

• Staff attended the Illawarra Family Law Pathways meeting every two months.
• Family consultants in Wollongong worked with the Illawarra Pathways, Southern Highlands Pathways, Shoalhaven Pathways and Shoalhaven Domestic Violence Network. Family consultants were on panels discussing family law and family violence issues.

Canberra

• ACT Pathways met every six weeks to plan and develop strategies for seamless referrals for clients between the various family law service providers in the ACT. The group also undertook educative activities - seminars - about family law (children's issues), family violence and mental health issues.
• The Canberra Registry Consultative Committee met twice during the year, facilitating two-way feedback between the Court and the legal profession on topics such as new legislation, new case management procedures and any local issues. Attendees included judicial officers and registry staff, and representatives of the legal profession, the bar association, Attorney-General's Family Law Section, ACT Human and Community Services and Legal Aid lawyers.

Newcastle

• Court personnel attended the monthly Pathways meeting and also were involved in organising activities such as information days.
• A Newcastle registrar attended the monthly Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association meetings.

SA/NT

Adelaide

Throughout 2011-12, the Adelaide registry continued its collaborative involvement with stakeholder agencies. There was a strong focus on court training and developing partnerships with agencies delivering services to the Court's clients. Following is specific information about this work.

• Training and support was provided to the Women's Information Service court support program and the Women's Legal Service volunteer program.
• Regular meetings and discussions were held with the Family Law Practitioners branch on topics such as registry practices. There was ongoing relationship building between Family Court administrative staff and staff of the prescribed welfare authority, Families SA, in relation to Magellan matters.
• The Court continued its active involvement with the Child Support Program (formerly Child Support Agency) Community Stakeholders Group, Pathways and the Family Relationship Centres.
• Information sessions were provided to family dispute resolution practitioners from Uniting Care Wesley, Centacare and Family Relationship Centres.
• Throughout the year the registry worked with the University of Western Sydney on the 'Fortress or Sanctuary' research program examining court security.
• Training days were hosted for Aboriginal justice officers from the Courts Administration Authority South Australia.
• Information sessions were provided to law students from the University of South Australia. Students also visited the registry as part of the University's family law training program
• 'Family Law Court: Request for most recent orders relating to children of the parties' was developed with South Australian Police (SAPOL) to comply with the changes to the South Australian family violence legislation. The jointly-developed proforma and protocol include information from the Court to assist SAPOL in seeking an 'interim intervention order' in the state courts.
• Further to the above, judicial officers, registrars and family consultants contributed to the following:
  • the inaugural Adelaide Family Law Intensive, 2011: chairperson/commentator, on the topic of the essentials of family law practice
  • Law Society of South Australia, 2012: chair, continuing professional development seminar
  • Relationships Australia, 2012: participant, training DVD for family dispute resolution practitioners mediating property disputes, and
  • Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department: working group member, South Australian pilot project in relation to improving the interface between the child protection systems and the family law system (reported on earlier in this appendix).

Darwin

• The Registry Manager is a member of the steering committee of Family Pathways. This group met quarterly to progress the work of the network.
• The Registry Manager attended quarterly meetings of the Family Relationships Centre (FRC) Consortium Group to discuss local issues and identify new programs to which clients can be referred.
• Meetings were held quarterly with family law practitioners and were chaired by the Federal Magistrate. The meetings aim to streamline processes, seek new case management procedures and provide a forum for practitioners to provide feedback to the courts.

Alice Springs

• The Alice Springs Family Pathways network is supported by the Darwin network and it met quarterly. The Federal Magistrate attended once during the year.
• Practitioner meetings were held by the Federal Magistrate while she was on circuit, usually each quarter.

Qld

A key outcome of local consultations during 2011-12 was the greatly increased uptake of filing via the Commonwealth Courts Portal (the portal) throughout the region, evidenced by Brisbane registry being by far the busiest eFiling registry nationally (see Part 2, Table 2.2 for details).

In support of this outcome, the Regional Registry Manager and Business Systems Development Officer held information sessions on the portal in Brisbane, Coffs Harbour, Lismore, Townsville, Cairns and Mackay. They also conducted information sessions for the Caxton Legal Centre, for a recent delegation from the Bhutanese Court system, and for a meeting of non-government organisations in Brisbane. In addition, specialised training was provided to local practitioners and to other practitioners across the region via video.

Following is more specific detail, at registry level of other consultative activities for 2011-12.

Brisbane

• Brisbane registry continued its regular meetings with various user groups including the family law practitioners, Legal Aid and Child Support Stakeholders Group.
• Speakers were provided for external training sessions, including on special medical procedures for medical specialists, on consent orders for Legal Aid and on contravention applications for family law practitioners.
• Representatives from Child Dispute Services attended regular meetings with the Brisbane and Gold Coast Pathways Group and the registry also met with the Queensland Legal Aid Independent Children's Lawyers group.
• The Registry and Judicial Services Managers attended liaison meetings with their counterparts in State and District courts administrations.
• There was regular liaison with the local Pathways representatives at Coffs Harbour during Federal Magistrates Court circuit sitting weeks.
• Whilst not consultation and liaison, the Federal Magistrates and courts staff worked in conjunction with the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) to run moot courts for Bar Practice course participants and also provided opportunities for QUT law students as interns in Chambers at the courts.
• The registry, in conjunction with Bond University, hosted a number of moot courts for law students and provided registrar assistance and provided guest speakers for Bond University.

North Queensland (including Townsville, Cairns and Rockhampton)

• The Townsville Registry Manager regularly attended meetings with the North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, the Family Law Pathways Network, the Family Relationship Centre (Centacare), and Relationships Australia, as well as meetings as required with the profession, and various State government agencies, again as required.
• Staff representatives met with the Family Law Practitioners Network, Family Relationship Centres, and Domestic and Family Violence Support groups in Cairns and Rockhampton as required.
• Federal Magistrates in Townsville and Cairns participated in moot courts for law students from James Cook University.

VIC/TAS

Melbourne

• A key focus was to enliven relationships with the Department of Human Services after a recent review of the protocol between the department and the courts for child abuse cases. Particular attention was given to exchange of information, improved liaison with regional offices for case management and reporting, and improved understanding of each other's requirements in these complex cases. The Victorian registries also wanted to put in place mechanisms to achieve effective notification of child abuse cases to the department in the context of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (Cth), commencing June 2012.
• The Registry Manager and Coordinating Registrar attended Court Practice Committee meetings of the Family Law Section of the Law Institute Victoria, responding to queries about eFiling, resources, the role and function of the National Enquiry Centre, trends in filing and case management procedures. The Case Management Judges also attended those meetings to ensure flow of information to lawyers on case management policy and procedure. Specific issues that arose included the impact of the Court's budget situation on case management and listings and also lawyers' experience of and feedback on the courts' National Enquiry Centre.
• A special meeting was convened by the Senior Registrar to discuss Family Court management of Magellan matters and was attended by Victorian Legal Aid, the Law Institute and the Victorian Bar.
• The Registry Services Manager liaised regularly with Victorian Legal Aid to ensure support for its services at the Melbourne registry. This resulted in better support for eFiling procedures for legal aid and an additional room for seeing clients at the Melbourne courts.
• The Registry Manager had regular contact with Victorian Court Network, sharing information on developments in the family law jurisdiction, ensuring that network volunteers are up to date and supported in their role assisting self-represented litigants.
• Representing the Chief Executive Officer, the Registry Manager attended the Law Institute President's meetings. These are convened for Commonwealth and Victorian Courts' CEOs for the exchange of information and advice on issues in courts administration in Victoria. Of particular interest in the discussions this year was security arrangements at metropolitan and regional courts, the impact of technology upon court processes and the evolution of alternative dispute resolution in the respective jurisdictions.
• The Victorian Pathways Network has been invigorated and held several successful forums during 2011-12 with assistance from the Melbourne registry and, in particular, the registry's Child Dispute Services Coordinator. The forums covered topics including child protection and post-separation parenting arrangements in cases where there are property and parenting issues in dispute.
• Registry managers liaised with Family Relationship Centres (FRC) and attend FRC meetings on invitation. FRCs, in a collaborative initiative between the courts and the FRCs, provided referral and wait list information at the Dandenong registry during the year and a similar service was being planned for the Melbourne registry.
• The Registry Manager periodically attended the Victorian Department of Justice Family Violence Stakeholder Forums where there was useful exchange about legislative and policy reform and also community-based initiatives. Of particular value was the discussion of how Commonwealth and State policy, programs, laws and jurisdictions intersect and function together as a service to the community.
• The Registry Manager engaged regularly with state courts and in particular with the Director of Regional Registrars who supports the Federal Magistrates Court regional service at state court houses. Specific issues that arose during the year were listing arrangements and security. These were resolved.
• The Regional Coordinating Registrar attended Centacare giving a presentation on family law developments, which was well received.

Dandenong

• The key focus for registry engagement in Dandenong continued to be the coordination of the Collaborative Dispute Resolution Group. This group met quarterly and comprised representatives from five Family Resource Centres in the catchment area, registry staff, the Victorian Pathways group and local community based organisations. The main focus of the group was to coordinate a 'drop in' service at the registry three mornings each week. Experienced dispute resolution practitioners were available to provide information and direct referrals to local family relationship services to assist the federal magistrates, legal practitioners and self-represented clients.
• The Dandenong Registry Manager is a member of Family Relationship Centre Reference Groups including Berwick, Frankston and Chadston and was involved in supporting Ringwood.

Tasmania

• The Court participated in the Hobart Family Relationship Centre reference group, Pathways South, North and North-West as well as the Hobart Pathways reference group, the Child Support Program Stakeholder Engagement Group, and the steering committee for the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution pilot.
• The biannual state-wide Family Law Courts Family Violence Consultative Committee meeting, a forum for all public sector agencies concerned with improved responses to violence, including Tasmanian Police, Department Health and Human Services and Department of Justice, was convened.
• The Legal Aid Commission and Family Law Practitioners Association supported the monthly Family Law Courts case management committee meetings in order to advance the management and passage of cases in the family law system.
• There was ongoing liaison with child protection about Magellan matters to ensure the smooth and coordinated management of cases where child abuse is alleged.

Appendix 10: Judicial activities

In addition to hearing and determining cases, the Family Court's judges actively contribute to the development of the law and legal education, both in Australia and internationally. This is achieved through attending conferences and seminars, membership of relevant bodies, presenting papers and lectures, addressing academic institutions, professional associations and community-based organisations, meeting international delegations and liaising with judicial colleagues around the world.

Many judges also serve as members of organising committees for conferences as well as working in the community with a variety of legal and non-legal organisations.

A summary of conferences and seminars attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice and Family Court judges during 2011-12, and speaking engagements of the Chief Justice during that period, follows.

Chief Justice's activities

Table 8.18 Conferences attended and papers delivered by the Chief Justice, 2011-12

Table 8.19 Chief Justice's speaking engagements, 2011-12

In addition, the Chief Justice:

• attended the opening of the Commonwealth Law Ministers' Meeting, the Women's Event and a session on the Hague Child Abduction Convention, 11-14 July 2011
• chaired the plenary session 'Hague Convention Matters' at the 26th annual Queensland Law Society conference, 10 September 2011
• attended the Family Law Practitioners Association of Western Australia annual conference, 17-18 September 2011
• attended the National Judicial College of Australia leadership program for the Council of Chief Justices in Hobart, 13-14 October 2011
• chaired the 'Resolutions' session at the 4th Asia Pacific Annual Conference: The Work of the Hague conference on Private International Law, 28 October 2011
• attended Court Network's annual state conference in Melbourne, 21 November 2011, and
• met with the Family Law Section Executive throughout the 2011-12 year.

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.

The Chief Justice is the sole patron of Australian Women Lawyers, a patron of Court Network and a patron of Gordon Care.

On 26 January 2012 the Chief Justice was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the judiciary and to the law, particularly to family law policy reform and practice, through the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court, and to the advancement of women in the legal profession.

Activities of judges

Papers presented by the judges of the Family Court during 2011-12 include:

• 'Cross examination of expert witnesses', Bar Association of Queensland, September 2011
• 'Child protection: everyone's business', Child Protection Practitioners Association of Queensland, September 2011
• 'The challenge of the self-represented litigant viewed from the Bar and the Bench', Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners' conference, Newcastle, October 2011
• 'The gentle art of advocacy in the Family Court', Bar Association of Queensland Pupils' CDP Seminar, Brisbane, November 2011
• 'Sentencing', Monash University, Medico Legal Conference, Cortina, Italy, January 2012
• Presentation to the Magistrates Court of Tasmania annual conference, Hobart, February 2012
• Presentation as part of the Family Law Intensive, Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia, Sydney, February 2012
• 'Pre-action procedures and disclosure obligations in the Family Court of Australia', Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration discovery seminar, Melbourne, March 2012
• 'Determining whether there is a de facto relationship', North Queensland Law Association conference, Mackay, May 2012.

Conferences and seminars attended by judges of the Family Court during 2011-12 include:

• College of Law conference, Sydney, August 2011
• Central West Law Society conference, Orange, September 2011
• Queensland Law Society family law residential, Queensland, September 2011
• Queensland Bar Association conference, Queensland, October 2011
• Judicial Conference of Australia, Alice Springs, October 2011
• Riverina Law Society conference, Griffith, November 2011
• International Bar Association annual conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, October-November 2011
• Family law advocacy workshop, Brisbane, November 2011
• Facilitation skills workshop, Brisbane, December 2011
• 6th USA Pacific legal conference, New York, United States, December 2011
• Brothers and Sisters in Law conference, Sydney, March 2012
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 49th annual conference, Chicago, United States, June 2012.

Judges contribute to professional legal development through their membership of professional and research-based associations. The Family Court has been consistently represented on the Family Law Council since its establishment.

During 2011-12 the Family Court's judicial representative on the Family Law Council was Justice Watts (Sydney registry).

Justice May (Brisbane) is the Deputy President and member of the Council of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, as well as being the Convenor of the Project and Research Committee and a member of the Indigenous Justice Committee of that organisation. Justice May is also the Co-Chair of the Judges Forum of the International Bar Association.

Justice Strickland (Adelaide) is the Family Court's nominated director on the board of the Australian Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and Mediators.

Justice Young (Melbourne) is a member of the Governing Council of the Judicial Conference of Australia.

Justice Ainslie-Wallace (Sydney) is the Deputy Chair of the Australian Advocacy Institute and Chair, Advisory Board, College of Law Applied Family Law Masters Program.

Justice Murphy (Brisbane) is a National Advisory Council Member of the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, an Advisory Board Member of the World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights and a Council Member of the National Judicial College of Australia.

Judges are members of organisations including:

• the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• the International Bar Association
• the Association of International Judicial Administration
• the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law
• the Australian Centre for Court and Justice System Innovation
• the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
• the Bar Association of Queensland
• the Centre for Children and Young People
• Children's Rights International
• the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (Qld)
• the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia
• the International Association of Women Judges
• the Judicial Conference of Australia
• LawAsia
• Melbourne University Law School
• the National Academic Committee of the College of Law
• the National College of Judicial Education
• the Victorian Bar Association, and
• the Advisory Board, Family Law Practice for the NSW College of Law.

Judges are also involved in the development and conduct of the National Judicial Orientation Program, delivered through the National Judicial College, and teaching for other judicial education bodies throughout Australia. Judges regularly present to law societies and bar associations in their respective jurisdictions, as well as holding informal meetings with members of the legal profession and participating in stakeholder meetings. For example, Justice Forrest (Brisbane) is a Judge Mentor for the Bar Association of Queensland's Indigenous Law Students' Mentoring Program, Justice Ainslie-Wallace mentors law students at the University of Technology, Sydney and Justice Benjamin (Hobart) mentors a law student in Melbourne. Judges are also often asked to speak at secondary schools and lecture at law schools about particular topics (such as the rule of law) and about their work generally.

Family Court judges are also engaged in organising local, national and international conferences. During 2011-12 these included the Family Court of Australia's biennial judges' conference, the Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration's conference Doing Justice for Young People in Australia and New Zealand and preparatory work for the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights, to be held in 2013.

Where appropriate, judges also participate in judicial development programs involving judges and lawyers from other countries. Justice Benjamin spent three weeks in Zimbabwe assisting in drafting a Zimbabwean family law bill. Justice Benjamin also assisted in the education of post graduate students at the Women's Law Centre at the University of Zimbabwe. In November 2011, Justice Benjamin was also involved in running a program in Melbourne to provide information to a number of Zimbabwean judges, members of the Zimbabwean Opposition, a professor of law and members of the legal profession. Justice Murphy from the Brisbane registry hosted Bhutanese judges and attorneys in Brisbane in January and February 2012. Justice Ainslie-Wallace was an instructor at the Monash University trial practice and advocacy course in Kuala Lumpur. Justice Bennett (Melbourne) hosted visiting Japanese judges in February 2012 and co-hosted a visit to Melbourne by a German judge who gave a presentation on interviewing children in family law cases.

Justice Bennett is the Family Court's Hague Child Abduction Convention Liaison Judge and during 2011-12 undertook judicial network communications, including mediation and mirror orders, with the following countries:

• United Kingdom
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Japan
• Germany
• Northern Ireland
• United States of America, and
• Singapore.

In addition, Justice Bennett met with the Japanese Parliamentary Vice-Minister in Canberra, in August 2011, to discuss issues associated with Japan's ratification of the child abduction convention and attended the sixth Special Commission meeting at The Hague in January 2012.

Several judges of the Family Court hold commissions as members of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Appendix 11: International visitors

During 2011-12, the Court continued to be recognised internationally with official visitors from Malaysia, Zimbabwe, Bhutan, Singapore, Japan, Ireland and Germany looking at different aspects of its work.

Malaysia

November 2011: a delegation from Malaysia visited the Sydney registry. The delegation comprised the Hon Mr Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister of the Prime Minister's Department and Chairman of Malaysia Law Reform Committee; Mr Saripuddin Kasim, Director General, Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister's Department; Ms Ira Biswas, Member of Malaysia Law Reform Committee and Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya; Ms Lee Kim Keat, Federal Counsel, Malaysia Law Reform Committee Unit, Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister's Department; Datuk Lim Ming Hoo, Special Officer to YB Datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister, Prime Minister's Department; and Mr Kok Yuk Ken, Private Secretary to YB datuk Liew Vui Keong, Deputy Minister, Prime Minister's Department. The delegation was provided with an overview of the child responsive program and the use of court experts in cases involving children, and visited the child dispute services facilities.

Zimbabwe

November 2011: delegates from the Zimbabwe Supreme Court attended a judges' orientation course, run by the Judicial College in Melbourne. The delegation also visited the courts and was formally greeted by Chief Justice Bryant. A tour of the Melbourne registry included an overview of the courts by Justice Benjamin. Finally, the delegation visited Relationships Australia, Richmond Children's Contact Centre and met with representatives from Victoria Legal Aid. The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, under a grant from AusAID, have been providing the Zimbabwe Supreme Court with family law expertise and advice in the area of Australian family law, with a particular focus on alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, counselling for litigants, and the application of a less adversarial trial.

Bhutan

January-February 2012: Delegates from the Bhutanese Court system, including five judges (including a High Court justice) and five attorneys, visited the Brisbane registry. The visit was organised through the Queensland University of Technology's (QUT) Faculty of Law and AusAID and at the Court, the delegates were introduced to the systems operating in court and the registry. They were interested in how judicial officers run matters, their approaches in dealing with complex matters and the 'management' of self-represented litigants. Of particular interest was the role of the independent children's lawyer and family consultants in assisting the Court with child-related matters. The courts' eFiling systems were seen as an excellent opportunity for the Bhutanese courts where, due to Bhutan's landscape, judges and attorneys often spend days travelling by car to hear matters or meet with litigants.

Singapore

February 2012: District Judge Crystal Ong and Ms Sophia Ang, Director Counselling and Therapeutic Services from the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, visited the Court's Sydney registry. They spent time with the child dispute services team, observed a child dispute event, sat in court, met with judges and federal magistrates and attended a Magellan stakeholders meeting. They also met with the Legal Aid Commission and a group of independent children's lawyers.

Japan

February 2012: Justice Kiyoko Okabe from the Supreme Court of Japan met with Justice Bennett at the Melbourne registry as part of a visit organised by the Asian Law Centre through the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University (ANU). Justice Okabe met with Justice Bennett to discuss family law in Australia and Hague Convention cases. She also observed Justice Bennett in court and later met with family consultants about the role of social science in Australian family law cases. Justice Okabe, who has extensive experience as both an assistant judge and judge in Japan's family court, also gave lectures on family law in Japan, at Melbourne University and the ANU in Canberra during her visit.

Ireland

March 2012: Mr Alan Shatter TD, Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence of Ireland, visited the Sydney registry. As well as receiving a presentation on the Court's child responsive program, including child inclusive interventions, he visited the child dispute services, including mediation and child observation areas, and observed a property and children's matter.

Germany

May 2012: the Australian Attorney-General's Department offered specialised training in international family mediation for a group of experienced family dispute resolution (FDR) practitioners, including two of the Court's family consultants and the Principal Child Dispute Services. The aim of the training was to develop a core group of suitably qualified Australian-based senior accredited FDR practitioners who can mediate in high conflict cases involving international family disputes, particularly for applications under the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction and Australia's bilateral agreements on the welfare of children. The training was provided in Australia by MIKK, a German-based organisation specialising in international family disputes. Judge Eberhardt Carl, a retired judge from Germany and his colleague, Dr Jamie Walker, provided the training. The visitors also met with the Chief Justice, judges and family consultants in Melbourne to discuss the training and the implications for practice.

Appendix 12: Contact details

Chief Justice's Chambers

Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts
305 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
(GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)

Deputy Chief Justice's Chambers

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

National Support Office

Chief Executive Officer
15 London Circuit
Canberra ACT 2601
(GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT 2601)

National Enquiry Centre

The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all telephone and email enquiries on Family Law Court (Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court) matters. The NEC provides information and procedural advice, forms and brochures, and referrals to community and support services. NEC staff 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 Law Courts website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au
Family Court website: www.familycourt.gov.au

Family Law Registries

Australian Capital Territory

Canberra

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

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)

Wollongong

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

Northern Territory

Alice Springs

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

Darwin

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

Queensland

Brisbane

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

Cairns

Commonwealth Government Centre
Level 3 and 4, 104 Grafton Street
Cairns QLD 4870
(PO Box 9991, Cairns QLD 4870)

Rockhampton

Virgil Power Building
Ground Floor
46 East Street (Cnr Fitzroy Street)
Rockhampton QLD 4700
(PO Box 9991, Rockhampton QLD 4700)

Townsville

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

South Australia

Adelaide

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

Tasmania

Hobart

Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts
39-41 Davey Street
Hobart TAS 7000
(GPO Box 9991, Hobart TAS 7001)

Launceston

Level 3, ANZ Building
Cnr Brisbane and George Streets
Launceston TAS 7250
(PO Box 9991, Launceston TAS 7250)

Victoria

Dandenong

53-55 Robinson Street
Dandenong VIC 3175
(PO Box 9991, Dandenong VIC 3175)

Melbourne

Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts
305 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
(GPO Box 9991, Melbourne VIC 3001)

Western Australia

Perth

Family Court of Western Australia
150 Terrace Road
Perth WA 6000
(GPO Box 9991, Perth WA 6848)
08 9224 8222