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.
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.
The purpose of the Court, as Australia's superior court in family law, is to:
The core services of the Court are those that:
The Court's vision provides for:
The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record and deals with more complex matters. These may include, for example:
The Court also has original jurisdiction under certain Commonwealth Acts, including the:
To ensure the Court fulfils its stated purpose, it has four programs of work:
The balance of family law work has evolved significantly over some years, with most family law applications now filed in the Federal Magistrates Court. This has enabled the Family Court to become a smaller, more specialised court that generally deals with appeals and the most complex range of family law cases. The complexity of cases that are now before the Family Court inevitably leads to lengthier trials and means matters are less likely to settle.
The Court's outcome and program framework sets out its commitments to the Government. Each year, details of the framework are outlined in the Portfolio Budget Statements, along with relevant 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.
The Family Court's outcome is described below.
As Australia's specialist superior family court, determine cases with complex law and facts, and provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.
The Court has a single program under which all services are provided:
Provision of a Family Court.
The Family Court's program objective is to support Australian families involved in complex family disputes by deciding matters according to the law, promptly, courteously and effectively. This involves:
The Family Court's seven deliverables and eight key performance indicators encompass core service standards for judicial services and client services (that is, the family law registries, where people attend in person, and the National Enquiry Centre, the first point of contact for telephone and email enquiries).
On the next page is is a summary of the deliverables and KPIs. Detailed reporting, including specifics of the Court's effectiveness in achieving its planned outcomes - in other words, how far it has progressed towards the achievement of these stated outcomes - is in Part 3 (see Table 3.1 for a summary of performance for judicial services and Table 3.3 for a summary for client services' performance).
Judicial services KPIs
| Judicial services deliverables | Goal (total number for year) |
|---|---|
| Final order finalisations | 3,200 |
| Interim order finalisations | 3,800 |
| Consent order finalisations | 10,900 |
| Other finalisations | 300 |
| Registries and NEC deliverables | Goal (total number for year) |
| Counter enquiries (registries) | 161,800 |
| Telephone enquiries served (NEC) | 253,800 |
| Email enquiries (NEC) | 53,900 |
Key performance indicators
| Judicial services deliverables | Target |
|---|---|
| Clearance rate (final orders) | 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 | One per cent across judicial and client services |
| Registries and NEC KPIs | Goal (total number for year) |
| Counter enquiries served within 20 minutes (registries) | 75 per cent |
| Applications lodged processed within two working days (registries) | 75 per cent |
| Telephone enquiries answered within 90 seconds (NEC) | 80 per cent |
| Applications lodged processed within two working days (registries) | 75 per cent |
| Telephone enquiries answered within 90 seconds (NEC) | 80 per cent |
| Email enquiries responded to within two working days (NEC) | 80 per cent |
| Number of complaints as a percentage of applications received (this KPI applies to the judicial services of the Court also) | One per cent across judicial and clients services |
The Court's 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements identified a number of specific initiatives that the Court would be progressing. Each of these is reported here.
The legislation, the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011, came into effect on 7 June 2012, after the Bill had been passed by Parliament in November 2011.
All forms, publications and the websites were reviewed and updated in light of the legislative changes.
The review of the Court's family violence strategy was not completed during 2011-12 due to the incoming legislative amendments. Work, however, was underway at year's end on a review of the family violence policy to ensure it aligns with the amended legislation.
The Report of the Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General's Portfolio (the Skehill Review) including the courts, was released by the Attorney-General on 8 June 2012. The report recommended a range of practical measures to improve the operation of and reduce duplication between federal courts.
The key focus of the work on the federal courts was the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts' administration. The Government has agreed to the key recommendation to improve court administration and collaboration, and identify efficiencies, through a new consultative committee comprising heads of jurisdiction, chief executive officers and other relevant officers, including an observer from the Attorney- General's Department. Similarly, the courts and the Government will work more closely on strategic planning for use of court buildings.
In considering the efficiency and effectiveness of court administration, the Skehill Review found the recent move to shared administration for the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court has been a genuine success. This finding was crucial to the Skehill Review's recommendation that the family law restructure should not proceed. Instead, the Skehill Review recommended, and the Government agreed, that the shared administration arrangement be formalised, together with a formal process to encourage closer cooperation between the federal courts. This will promote clarity, including for the ongoing role of the Federal Magistrates Court, and provide certainty for the future.
The Government will also change the name of the Federal Magistrates Court and title of Federal Magistrates to better reflect their important role in the judicial system. The Government will begin by consulting with the courts as to what the name of court and the title of Federal Magistrates should be before introducing legislation to make the changes.
The Skehill Review recommended a further review be undertaken of the courts' financial viability. While the Government considers that the issue requires further attention, another formal review is not necessary. At 30 June 2012, the Government had commenced working closely with the courts to consider options to address any financial pressures and maintain services. The Government also did not agree with the Skehill Review's view that some aspects of court expenditure should be exempt from the efficiency dividend. The Skehill Review is available at http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/ strategic-reviews/attorney-general.html
The International Framework for Court Excellence was launched in Australia at the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration's Court Quality Forum in September 2008. The Family Court has voluntarily adopted the framework.
One of the key initiatives under the framework that is aimed at better understanding the needs and perceptions of court users is a client user satisfaction survey. Such a survey will provide robust measurement of users' perceptions of their court visit and experience, establishing a benchmark against which regular re-evaluations can be made to determine if satisfaction levels are changing and to identify areas for improvement.
The courts commenced such a survey in June 2011. See Initiatives of the Family Court later in this Part for more information about the client survey, also Appendix 9.
The Commonwealth Courts Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au) was launched in July 2007 as a joint initiative of the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The portal provides free web-based access to information about cases that are before these courts as well as the Family Court of Western Australia.
After registering, lawyers and parties can keep track of their cases, identify documents that have been filed and view outcomes, orders made and future court dates. Users log on using a single user ID and access multiple jurisdictions from a single central web-based system.
The growth of the portal has been rapid over the five years since its introduction. The number of registered users has grown from 57 602 at 30 June 2011 to 85 332 at 30 June 2012. Included at 30 June 2012 were 3280 registered law firms and 6746 individual lawyers and barristers. See Table 2.1 for more detail about the number of portal users, with comparative data for the past four years.
Table 2.1 Registered users of the Commonwealth Courts Portal, 2008-09 to 2011-12
| 30 June 2009 | 30 June 2010 | 30 June 2011 | 30 June 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of law firms registered | 667 | 1279 | 2466 | 3280 |
| Number of lawyers registered | 1761 | 2827 | 5026 | 6746 |
| Total registered users | 5900 | 24 073 | 57 602 | 85 332 |
During 2011-12, the popularity of eFiling continued to increase. By 30 June 2012, more than 750 eFiled divorce applications were being received each month with 7952 in total for the year and 1541 other forms of applications were also eFiled. The number of applications made by eFiling is expected to continue to grow in 2012-13.
In addition, 96 228 supplementary documents (such as affidavits) were eFiled. The content of each of these documents is now available for viewing online by the parties, saving a visit in person to a court registry to view the paper copy.
Improvements made to the portal during 2011-12 included:
Table 2.2 shows the number of supplementary documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court for the past four years by location.
Table 2.2 Documents eFiled in the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court 2008-09 to 2011-12
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adelaide | 191 | 1679 | 2353 | 4912 |
| Albury | 3 | 18 | 166 | 501 |
| Alice Springs | - | 1 | 19 | 109 | Brisbane | 943 | 9077 | 18,936 | 27,379 |
| Cairns | 10 | 64 | 209 | 1076 |
| Canberra | 5 | 643 | 1321 | 2004 |
| Coffs Harbour | 26 | 114 | 286 | 863 |
| Dandenong | 66 | 832 | 2217 | 5331 |
| Darwin | 13 | 129 | 212 | 359 |
| Dubbo | - | 9 | 125 | 363 |
| Hobart | 27 | 85 | 210 | 562 |
| Launceston | 15 | 311 | 575 | 734 |
| Lismore | 57 | 174 | 418 | 1109 |
| Melbourne | 425 | 4904 | 10,983 | 19,329 |
| Newcastle | 52 | 1046 | 2822 | 4724 |
| Parramatta | 187 | 2029 | 5016 | 7736 |
| Rockhampton | 33 | 374 | 444 | 746 |
| Sydney | 125 | 2870 | 6207 | 10,466 |
| Townsville | 35 | 634 | 1568 | 2115 |
| Wollongong | 10 | 102 | 430 | 1444 |
| TOTAL | 2223 | 25,095 | 54,517 | 91,862 |
In Western Australia there were 827 divorces and 3228 supplementary documents eFiled during 2011-12.
Enhancements expected to be introduced or advanced in 2012-13 include:
Details about the Court's operating deficits and ongoing budgetary pressures are contained in Part 6, Management and Accountability (see 'Operating deficits and ongoing budgetary pressure').
In 2012-13, the following may have an impact on the Court and its delivery of services:
The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) continued its support of the ongoing activities under the court-to-court Memorandum of Understanding between the Family Court and the Supreme Court of Indonesia.
In 2011-12, the Family Court and the Supreme Court of Indonesia progressed the following key areas of cooperation:
In 2011, the Family Court organised and hosted a two week capacity-building program for a delegation of family law stakeholders from Zimbabwe.
The program aimed to strengthen the ability of key family law stakeholders in Zimbabwe to support a new family court, due to be introduced after the passage of legislation in 2013. The visit also allowed delegates to develop approaches for overcoming identified access to justice barriers in Zimbabwe.
The program included dialogue with the Family Court, Federal Magistrates Court, Victoria Children's Court, Magistrates Court of Victoria, Legal Aid Victoria and Relationships Australia Victoria.
In addition to hosting the delegation from Zimbabwe, which builds on work the Court had been assisting with in that country, during 2011-12 the Court's work continued to be recognised internationally. Official visitors also attended from Malaysia, Bhutan, Singapore, Japan, Ireland and Germany to look at different aspects of the Court's work.
Appendix 11 contains more information about each of the delegations.
There are 19 family law registries across Australia (except in Western Australia). Registries provide services to the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. These services include lodgement of documents, providing procedural advice and responding to enquiries, mail handling, and listing of cases. The Court also conducts circuits to regional areas. For details on circuit listings, go to the Court lists section on the Family Court of Australia website at www.familycourt.gov.au.
Table 2.3 Family Court of Australia service locations
| Location | Judge/s | Registrar/s | Family consultants | Client services | Judicial circuit | Registrar circuit | Family consultant circuit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Australia/Northern Territory | |||||||
| Adelaide | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Darwin | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||
| Alice Springs | Yes | ||||||
| Victoria/Tasmania | |||||||
| Dandenong | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||
| Bairnsdale | Yes | ||||||
| Moe | Yes | ||||||
| Hobart | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Launceston | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Burnie | Yes | Yes | |||||
| Melbourne | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Albury | Yes | Yes | |||||
| Ballarat | Yes | ||||||
| Bendigo | Yes | ||||||
| Geelong | Yes | ||||||
| Hamilton | Yes | ||||||
| Mildura | Yes | ||||||
| Shepparton | Yes | ||||||
| Warrnambool | Yes | ||||||
| New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory | |||||||
| Armidale | Yes | Yes | |||||
| Canberra | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Newcastle | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Port Macquarie | Yes | ||||||
| Tamworth | Yes | ||||||
| Parramatta | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Bathurst | |||||||
| Dubbo | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||
| Sydney | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| Wollongong | Yes | Yes | |||||
| Queensland/Northern New South Wales | |||||||
| Brisbane | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Coffs Harbour | Yes | Yes | |||||
| Lismore | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||
| Rockhampton | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Townsville | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Cairns | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
| Mackay | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||
This section highlights new and ongoing initiatives of the Court in 2011 - 12. Additional activities are reported in Part 6 (Management and Accountability) and Appendix 8 (Committees). See also the strategic initiatives included in the Portfolio Budget Statements, earlier in this part, including the review of the family violence strategy, the international framework for court excellence and the Commonwealth Courts Portal. See also (earlier in this part) the report on international cooperation and the lead role which the Court has in initiatives through AusAID in Indonesia.
The Family Law Courts, with the help of 102 university students and volunteers, conducted over 1300 user satisfaction surveys at 13 court locations during June and July 2011.
The aim was to gauge the level of satisfaction that litigants, lawyers and even people making an enquiry had regarding their interaction with the courts on family law matters. It did not look at decisions or rulings made by the courts, rather the experiences of and services received by individuals while dealing with the courts.
It was found that almost 92 per cent of respondents were satisfied with the services provided to them and more than 85 per cent were generally satisfied with their overall visit to the courts. The survey also found strong, positive responses regarding facilities, safety and the service that they received, with respondents describing staff as 'friendly', 'helpful' and 'cheerful'.
Areas for improvement included the need for greater clarity on the next steps for litigants, and general timing issues. Respondents also commented about more court staff being needed to speed up document filing at counters.
It is intended that the survey will be held regularly, at least once every two years, to help the courts refine their services and ensure that users' needs are met to the best of the courts' abilities. The final report is on the Family Court's website at www.familycourt.gov.au.
In June 2011, a working group was established to consider the most effective and efficient ways of implementing family violence screening processes within the Family Law Courts' Child Dispute Services. The screening helps identify the existence of family violence as an issue as early as possible. This enables family consultants to:
Following an extensive review of literature and existing screening instruments,1 as well as consultation with Dr Jennifer McIntosh, clinical child psychologist, six family violence screening questions were developed for use in child dispute conferences, child dispute duty conferences and child inclusive conferences. The questions were based on acknowledged risk factors relating to the safety of parents and children.
The questions were trialled in all registries in October 2011 and evaluated through a written questionnaire and telephone conferences with participating family consultants. The evaluation confirmed that formal screening helped considerably in identifying family violence. For example, in response to a question about threats to physical safety one or other party answered 'yes' in 85.5 per cent of cases.
Based on trial feedback, two additional questions were included. The final set of eight questions target the following risk factors:
An implementation plan was developed with training for all family consultants and then subsequent monitoring of implementation in each registry. Training was based on the family violence screening guidelines that accompany the screening questions. The guidelines and the screening process highlight the thematic links between the questions and the revised and expanded definition of family violence as set out the 2011 amendments to the Family Law Act (which came into effect on 7 June 2012).
Implementation across all locations of the courts was completed in May 2012. The standardised screening questions now form part of the opening phase of all child dispute conferences, child dispute duty conferences and child inclusive conferences.
In July 2011, the (then) Attorney-General Robert McClelland, Chief Justice Bryant and Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe launched the revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles.
The principles were first developed in 2009 by the Family Court's Family Violence Committee and were reviewed and updated by a joint Family Court-Federal Magistrates Court committee to ensure they optimally assisted their intended audiences.
Protecting families and children who are engaged with the family law system from the effects of family violence is a priority for both courts. The principles assist by acting as a checklist of matters that judges, federal magistrates, court staff, litigants and legal professionals can refer to at each stage of the litigation process.
The Committee considered delaying the release of the updated best practice principles until the commencement of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011, however due to uncertainty last year as to the time of commencement of the substantive amendments, it was decided to release the principles with the understanding that further revision would be required when the family violence amendments passed into law.
Further information about a review of the courts' family violence strategy (a Portfolio Budget Statements strategic initiative) is on page 25 of this report.
In July 2011, a joint protocol about a child's need for protection and to ensure the best possible outcomes for a child was developed between the Department of Human Services' Child Protection Program, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.
The protocol is designed to assist cooperation, clarify procedures and improve decision making in cases that may occur in either or both the Commonwealth and state jurisdictions. It articulates the statutory and non-statutory responsibilities of the Department and the two courts to each other. While the protocol aids effective communication between the three organisations, it does not replace the requirement for open and collaborative relationships between each at the operational level. The Department and the courts are committed to providing the highest level of service. Working together will ensure professional, sensitive and well-targeted responses to children and young people who are at significant risk of harm. A copy of the protocol can be found on the Family Law Courts website at www.familylawcourts.gov.au.
In late May 2012, the Sydney family law settlement service started and is to continue until October 2012, after which it will be evaluated. It is a joint initiative of the Law Society of New South Wales, the New South Wales Bar Association, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.
The service aims to settle early as many family law property matters as is possible without a court hearing (trial), thus avoiding the cost and time of a fully defended hearing and reducing the number of cases awaiting final hearing in the courts.
A total of 125 Sydney and Wollongong property matters were identified as suitable for mediation through the service, being matters for which a conciliation conference had been held but excluding cases, for example, with allegations of family violence. Parties will be invited to voluntarily agree to attend the service and where consent is not given by both parties, a judicial officer may consider whether any orders should be made that the parties attend the service.
The Law Society is facilitating the coordination and administration of the service. Practitioners who are experienced in mediating in family law matters and are on the Law Society's and NSW Bar Association's mediation panels will be engaged to participate.
An evaluation, planned for November and December 2012, will determine if the service should be continued, including more widely, in the courts.
A study of Indigenous Australians access to and usage of the Family Law Courts was initiated in 2009 - 10 and work on it continued in 2011-12. The study aimed to examine the views and experiences of Indigenous people who have been involved in family law litigation. Data was obtained from 36 Indigenous litigants, 54 non-Indigenous litigants and 30 family law practitioners who had represented Indigenous clients in court. In addition, six focus groups were held in metropolitan and regional areas. For more information about the study, see page 122.
To assist with strategic planning, the Family Law Court's administration is developing a statement of strategic intent. The document outlines the challenges, directions and priorities of the courts' administration for 2012-13 and builds on the work already achieved since the merger of the administrations in 2009. At 30 June 2012, it was expected that the statement of strategic intent would be released early in 2012-13.
In October 2011, the Young Employees Advisory Group (YEAG) initiative was awarded the 2011 Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration (AIJA) Award for Excellence.
The courts entered the YEAG initiative in the award because it was a first for Australian courts: it was designed to enable younger employees to bring a different perspective to issues and approaches in court administration. The AIJA Award for Excellence in Judicial Administration has been running since 2002 and is designed to recognise outstanding achievement in the administration of justice within Australia. It is awarded biennially. Nominations for the award must have improved access to justice, demonstrated innovation and delivered real benefits for the justice system.
In initiating YEAG, the Court recognised that in Australia and within the courts generally, there is an ageing workforce. Further, giving younger employees a forum to express their views and, through project work, put ideas into practice, creates a deeper awareness of the courts' business, administrative and governance arrangements. This assists in the professional development of younger employees.
Also recognised is that access to justice is not just about improving the way the courts deliver their services externally. Internal improvements also have an impact by having the right people to deliver services and having healthy and robust staff better able to meet the needs of clients.
Since its formation in 2008, the YEAG initiative has improved the day-to-day internal and external operations of the Family Law Courts in a number of ways, all of which have had a positive affect on improving access to justice. For example, working with the legal profession to increase awareness of the Commonwealth Courts Portal and electronic filing; involvement with a targeted recruitment campaign to attract young people to a career with the courts; conducting research into particular client groups, such as self represented litigants and Indigenous Australians and internally; introducing health initiatives for staff, and improved internal communications.
The Family Court celebrated its 35th anniversary in 2011 and to acknowledge that, Chief Justice Bryant hosted a formal dinner for all past and present judges in Melbourne on 25 November 2011.
The two previous chief justices of the Court, the Honourable Elizabeth Evatt and the Honourable Alastair Nicholson AO RFD, were present. The dinner was particularly special for those judges who were appointed to the Court at the time of its establishment and during its early years, including their Honours Austin Asche, Hugh Burton, John Gun, John Fogarty, Margaret Lusink and Adrian Smithers.
The early years of the Court were difficult with political, legal and social change. At the dinner, the Chief Justice noted that there was now more understanding as well as recognition of the extraordinarily difficult decisions that have to be made by the Court's judicial officers every day.
A highlight of the evening was the presentation of a DVD featuring all judges, current and former, appointed to the Court.
Also capturing some of the early history of the Court was a book titled Born in Hope - The early years of the Family Court of Australia. Researched and written by Shurlee Swain, a professor at the Australian Catholic University, it covers the history of the first 10 years of the Court. The book records an oral history of the Court based on interviews with key people who were involved in the establishment of the Court in its early days, as well as all three Chief Justices and many former judges.
The Family Court and the National Judicial College of Australia jointly sponsored the production of a 30 minute DVD on judicial leadership. The DVD was used at a judicial leadership workshop in October 2011, and will be used as a future education resource. It explores the following concepts:
Representatives from the District Court of NSW, District Court of SA, Family Court, Federal Court, Federal Magistrates Court, Local Court of NSW, Magistrates Court of SA, Supreme Court of NSW and Supreme Court of SA participated in the project.
The Environmental Champions Network was formed in 2010 as a result of a project by the 2009-10 Young Employees Advisory Group.
Membership now comprises 19 staff (up from the original five), representing 13 sites nationally. The network is chaired by the environmental manager and meets via teleconference every six to eight weeks.
Representatives discuss local registry issues as well as those that have a national impact. This has included paper use, the cost of photocopying, the impact of eFiling, environmentally friendly products, new printers, signage issues, and the availability of recycling. The representatives also encourage others at their registries to improve environmentally sustainable behaviour such as increasing recycling, shutting down computers, and turning off lights.
Some of the group's notable projects for 2011-12 included:
Appendix 6 reports in detail on environmental performance matters.
Connections is a social networking environment that supports staff to communicate and collaborate in the work environment. Connections was officially launched to staff on 1 May 2012. It allows staff to:
The use of Connections is governed by a number of existing court-wide policies and staff must ensure their use of it, in terms of access to official and private records and the release of information, also complies with the APS Code of Conduct.
The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) had been trialling the use of a Lotus wiki since 2006 for sharing information related to client enquiries and court procedures, however, concluded that that software did not meet the courts' needs. From late 2007 to early 2008 a range of other products were evaluated. As a result, the Family Court ICT Collaboration Technical Options Paper was delivered in October 2009 and a decision was made to proceed with Connections.
A staff survey in 2011 found that 75 per cent of respondents had used social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and My Space and almost half had been using these for two to four years. It was then decided to launch Connections to all staff.
A trial of Connections was undertaken in the NEC from March to June 2011. After analysing the trial outcomes (including technical and other issues) it was decided to provide the software to further groups of early adopters including a number of project groups, the Client Services Senior Managers Group and family consultants. By January 2012, more than 50 communities had been established.
While it is early days, at 30 June 2012, it was expected that Connections will provide staff with a tool that will increase their capacity to collaborate, especially with staff in other court locations. This will have a positive effect on staff development, liaison and opportunities for sharing ideas, and will lead to improved service delivery.
The upgrading of the courts' PABX systems was completed during 2011-12. This has led to all PABX systems being networked, so what was previously 20 systems now operates as one, allowing internal phone calls to be carried by the courts' network. It is expected that this will lead to a significant reduction in the cost of external telephone calls.
The registrar workload project continued during 2011-12. In October 2010, the Chief Justice and Chief Federal Magistrate had established a working group to identify, quantify and report on the work undertaken by registrars for the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Broadly, the project terms of reference require categories of workload and drivers of workload to be identified, also resource allocations and recommendations for future resourcing. For more information about the workload project, see on page 123.
The Client Service Senior Managers' Group (CSSMG) comprises registry managers and registry and judicial service managers from the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The group aims to identify and implement ways to continually improve service delivery across the courts by streamlining procedures, ensuring consistency in work practice, providing better information and enhancing client contact with the courts.
The group meets by telelink monthly and uses the Family Law Courts' Connections technology through a CSSMG community. Through this community members can discuss issues, provide reports, post blogs and upload files for discussion within the group.
CSSMG was involved in several priority projects during 2011-12 including review of:
A number of other significant initiatives aimed at maximising the efficiency and resources of the courts and to help ensure improved, targeted service delivery were progressed during the year, such as the courts' ongoing response to the Gershon Review into the use of whole-of-government ICT.
Initiatives such as these are reported elsewhere in this annual report, particularly in Part 6, Management and Accountability.
Initiatives that have a direct focus on community engagement and improved client service delivery are reported throughout this report, including in Appendix 11 which details engagement and liaison at the local (registry) level.
1 Ellis, D. and Stuckless, N. (2006) Domestic Violence, Dove and Divorce Mediation, Family Court Review, Vol 44(4); Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Beck, C. and Applegate, A. (2010) Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC): A screening interview for intimate partner violence and abuse available in the public domain, Family Court Review, 48(4), p646-662. Kropp, P., Hart, S., Webster, C., and Eaves, D. (1995). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA). Vancouver, British Columbia: British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence; McIntosh, J. E., (2012) DOOR 1. "Parent self report screen" in McIntosh, J. E. and Ralfs, C. (2012) The Family Law DOORS Handbook, Canberra, Australian Government Attorney General's Department.