This section reports on aspects of the Family Court of Australia's corporate governance arrangements.
The Chief Justice, assisted by the Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the Court.
Under the Constitution, judicial power is vested in judges who administer that power in courts. The Family Law Act defines the Court as being a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice and the judges appointed to that court. By delegation from the Chief Justice, case management judges assist in administering judicial functions in particular areas, such as case management.
The Family Court is autonomously governed, that is, the judiciary has the responsibility for the administration of the Court. To enable the effective and efficient administration of justice, the judiciary needs support to deal with its workload. Non-judicial court employees, public servants accountable to the executive government through the Chief Executive Officer, provide that support.
The Chief Executive Officer's powers are broad, although subject to directions from the Chief Justice. The Chief Executive Officer holds the responsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealth financial management and public service legislation.
Figure 6.1 shows the organisational structure of the Court.
At 30 June 2012, there were 30 judges of the Court, including the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice is responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the Court (s 21B Family Law Act) and for managing its administrative affairs (s 38A). The Chief Justice is assisted in judicial responsibilities by the Deputy Chief Justice (s 21B) and in administrative responsibilities by the Chief Executive Officer (s 38B). The Chief Justice's chambers are located in the Melbourne registry.
Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO was appointed Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia on 5 July 2004. She had previously been the inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate overseeing the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court, a position she held for four years.
The Deputy Chief Justice assists the Chief Justice in the judicial administration of the Family Court. Particular responsibilities include case management, complaints about judges, the collection and strategic assessment of statistics, pastoral care and the oversight of the Court's committees.
In the absence of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice performs and exercises the powers of the Chief Justice (s 24). The Deputy Chief Justice's chambers are located in the Canberra registry.
Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks was appointed as a Family Court judge on 12 October 1994. He was appointed as Deputy Chief Justice on 25 June 2004.
| The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO | 5 July 2004 |
| The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks | 25 June 2004 |
| The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn | 10 August 1993 |
| The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman | 31 March 1999 |
| The Honourable Justice Michelle May | 6 February 2003 |
| The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray (Chief Judge Family Court of Western Australia) | 16 November 2006 |
| The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland | 14 December 2009 |
| The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace | 9 July 2010 |
(according to order of seniority)
| The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland | 22 November 1999 |
| The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe (Case Management Judge) | 3 March 1997 |
| The Honourable Justice Michelle May | 5 September 1995 |
| The Honourable Justice Graham Rodney Bell | 27 February 1976 |
| The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Madonna O'Reilly | 10 January 2003 |
| The Honourable Justice Peter John Murphy (Case Management Judge) | 11 October 2007 |
| The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest | 1 February 2011 |
| The Honourable Justice Michael Patrick Kent | 12 July 2011 |
| The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks | 11 October 1994 |
| The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn | 2 July 1990 |
| The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin | 19 August 2005 |
| The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant AO | 5 July 2004 |
| The Honourable Justice Linda Marion Dessau AM | 20 June 1995 |
| The Honourable Justice Peter Young | 26 August 2002 |
| The Honourable Justice Victoria Jane Bennett | 30 November 2005 |
| The Honourable Justice Paul Cronin (Case Management Judge) | 20 December 2006 |
| The Honourable Justice Kirsty Marion Macmillan | 14 December 2011 |
| The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin | 13 July 2009 |
| The Honourable Justice Margaret Ann Cleary | 8 July 2010 |
| The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman | 18 April 1991 |
| The Honourable Justice David John Collier (Case Management Judge) | 19 July 1999 |
| The Honourable Justice William Phillip Johnston | 12 July 2010 |
| The Honourable Justice Ian James Loughnan | 12 July 2010 |
| The Honourable Justice Ann Margaret Ainslie-Wallace | 9 July 2010 |
| The Honourable Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood Stevenson | 18 May 2001 |
| The Honourable Justice Mark Frederick Le Poer Trench | 10 October 2001 |
| The Honourable Justice Garry Allan Watts (Case Management Judge) | 14 April 2005 |
| The Honourable Justice Judith Maureen Ryan | 31 July 2006 |
| The Honourable Justice Stuart Grant Fowler AM | 16 November 2007 |
| The Honourable Justice Judith Anne Rees | 15 December 2011 |
Note: Judges of the Family Court of Western Australia also hold Commissions
in the
Family Court of Australia.
| Date of Family Court commission | |
|---|---|
| The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray, Chief Judge | 1 December 2004 |
| The Honourable Justice Carolyn Elvina Martin | 19 November 1996 |
| The Honourable Justice Jane Crisford | 14 December 2006 |
| The Honourable Justice Stephen Dexter Crooks | 22 October 2007 |
| The Honourable Justice Simon Moncrieff | 31 August 2009 |
Note: Some judges of the Family Court hold appointments in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Presidential Members.
Judicial officer appointments:
| The Honourable Justice Justice Michael Patrick Kent | 12 July 2011 |
| The Honourable Justice Kirsty Marion Macmillan | 14 December 2011 |
| The Honourable Justice Judith Anne Rees | 15 December 2011 |
Judicial officer retirements:
| The Honourable Justice Peter Rose | 28 July 2011 |
| The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin | 30 November 2011 |
| The Honourable Justice Robert Monteith | 30 November 2011 |
| The Honourable Justice Rodney Burr AM | 25 May 2012 |
The Chief Justice, under the Family Law Act, is responsible for the administration of the Court and is assisted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO's powers are broad (s 38D), although subject to directions from the Chief Justice (s 38D(3)). The CEO holds the responsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealth financial management and public service legislation, but is appointed under terms similar to those of judicial officers. The CEO is supported by the staff of the National Support Office and is located in the National Support Office, Canberra. Mr Richard Foster was appointed CEO in May 2000.
The Principal Registrar provides high level legal and procedural advice to support the judicial functioning of the Family Court. As a senior lawyer, she discharges the statutory duties assigned to that position by the Family Law Act 1975, works closely with the Chief Justice and judges in administering the Act and related legislation, and identifies areas in need of reform. The Principal Registrar presides in Court and holds the delegated power to make orders in interim parenting cases, maintenance cases and some enforcement of financial obligations. The Principal Registrar also oversees the performance of, and provides direction to, the Court's registrars. Her chambers are in the Brisbane registry.
The Principal Child Dispute Services advises the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive Officer on the provision of quality child dispute services to the Court. She ensures that the services delivered by the family consultants are effective and consistent with the strategic and business objectives of the Court. The Principal also has responsibility for the development of strategic external relationships that promote and position the child dispute services of the Court within the family law framework. Pam Hemphill was appointed Principal Child Dispute Services in April 2011.
The Executive Director Client Services is responsible for the delivery of client services in all family law registries. The Executive Director ensures that high quality registry services and support are provided to all judicial officers, litigants and legal practitioners, consistent with the strategic and business objectives of the Family Law Courts (the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court). Stephen Andrew was appointed permanently to this position in July 2011.
The Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services provides strategic vision, leadership and management of the Court's communication, applications, information management, infrastructure and statistics services. Phil Hocking was the acting Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services at 30 June 2012.
The Executive Director Corporate provides strategic leadership and management of the Court's human resources, property and contracts, finance, management accounting and procurement and risk management.
Under the Family Law Act, the Chief Justice is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the Court. The Chief Justice is assisted by the Chief Executive Officer and can also delegate any of her administrative powers to judges of the Court. In practice, the Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the registries and operational management, and the judges also participate in the management of matters affecting the judiciary, such as practice and procedure and related issues, through a collegiate style of governance. A committee structure facilitates the involvement of the judges in the administration of the Court and in addition the judicial officers of the Court meet annually in plenary, or more often if required, to consult and advise the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice also convenes a monthly teleconference of all judges, in which current issues are discussed.
At the strategic level, the Chief Justice's Policy Advisory Committee is the peak policy making body within the Court. The Committee's primary role is to support the Chief Justice in the administration of the Court and to provide strategic advice and policy direction, particularly about legislative, procedural and administrative changes likely to affect the Family Court and its users.
Chaired by the Chief Justice, the committee meets quarterly and comprises:
A number of standing judicial committees are also active in providing high-level policy advice in specialised areas. Meeting regularly or as required, they are (in alphabetical order):
Many of these committees have been established as joint committees, comprising membership from the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The joint committees are: Benchbook Committee, Family Violence Committee, Information Technology Judicial Reference Group, Judicial Development Committee, Library Committee, Property Management Committee and Research and Ethics Committee.
The Family Court of Australia is also represented on the Joint Costs Advisory Committee.
Two ad hoc committees were also established during 2011-12, being the Children's Committee, and the courts' Information Committee.
For detailed information on the judicial committees of the Court, see appendix8.htm.
This section summarises the work of some of the judicial committees during 2011-12.
The Rules Committee is established under section 123 of the Family Law Act 1975, which provides that a majority of judges may make rules of court in relation to practices and procedures to be followed in the Family Court of Australia.
The Rules Committee meets quarterly to consider proposed changes to the Family Law Rules 2004 with a view to improving the efficiency, accessibility and cost effectiveness of the Family Court for its clients. The Committee also undertakes detailed consideration of discrete issues as required. During 2011-12 the Committee met in person in November 2011 and March 2012, with Justice Ryan continuing to chair it. Committee members during the year were Justice Murphy, Justice Loughnan, Magistrate Moroni, Senior Registrar FitzGibbon, Registrar Kearney and Neil Wareham (legal counsel to the Family Court).
In 2011-12, the Committee worked on a number of important projects, including two sets of amendments to the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth): the Family Law Amendment Rules 2011 (No. 2), which were made on 19 December 2011, and the Family Law Amendment Rules 2012 (No. 1), which were made on 28 May 2012. The Family Law Amendment Rules 2011 (No. 2) made the following major changes:
The Family Law Amendment Rules 2012 (No. 1) made the following major changes:
The rules made to coincide with the commencement of Schedule 1 of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011, in particular, occupied a considerable amount of the Rules Committee's time during 2011-12. The Committee undertook consultation with the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, and with other constituent bodies, in relation to the proposed amendments.
Throughout 2011-12, the Committee continued to undertake work in relation to eFiling and the production of documents electronically. Discussions between the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court continued with a view to developing a common approach. The Rules Committee also considered rules concerning applications for consent orders, arbitration, automatic release of subpoenas and changes to forms.
The Family Court's Law Reform Committee considers and comments upon proposed legislation and law reform initiatives.
The Committee's membership is Justice Strickland (Chair), Chief Justice Bryant, Deputy Chief Justice Faulks, Justice Finn, Justice Watts and Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar).
During 2011-12, the Committee continued to identify matters for amendment in family law legislation, provided comment on draft principal and subordinate legislation (often at short notice), provided comment on law reform proposals and made submissions to Parliamentary and other inquiries on matters relevant to the Family Court. In addition, the Committee kept a 'watching brief' on bills introduced into federal parliament and scrutinised legislation to ascertain whether there would be any effect on the jurisdiction and powers of the Family Court.
Details of the Committee's work follows.
The Law Reform Committee also commented on the draft Family Law Amendment Regulation (No.2) 2012.
Throughout 2011-12, the Law Reform Committee continued to hold discussions with the Attorney- General's Department as to numerous technical amendments required to the Family Law Act 1975 and other legislation under which judges of the Family Court exercise jurisdiction.
The Family Violence Committee is a joint committee of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The Committee's principal responsibility is to provide advice to the Chief Justice, the Chief Federal Magistrate and the CEO of both courts on family violence issues. As part of this responsibility the Committee regularly reviews and updates the two courts' family violence strategy and family violence best practice principles, as well as undertaking discrete projects.
The Family Violence Committee comprises Justice Ryan (Chair), Justice Collier, Justice Stevenson, Federal Magistrate Brown, Federal Magistrate Hughes, Federal Magistrate Altobelli, Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar, Family Court), Di Lojszczyk (family consultant) and Kristen Murray (Senior Legal Research Advisor to the Chief Justice). The Committee met in person in Melbourne on 24 November 2011 and in Sydney on 11 May 2012. The Committee otherwise held ad hoc discussions as required.
In addition to the ongoing review of the Family Violence Strategy, the major task for the Committee during 2011-12 was reviewing and updating the Family Violence Best Practice Principles to take account of the amendments contained in Schedule 1 of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (Cth). The revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles act as a checklist of matters that judges, federal magistrates, court staff, legal professionals and litigants may wish to have regard to at each stage of the litigation process. The best practice principles required extensive amendment to take account of the changes to the Family Law Act, Family Law Rules and practice and procedure in both courts. It is anticipated that the third edition of the best practice principles will be launched in October 2012.
Members of the Family Violence Committee participated in the development of a national training program for registrars and family consultants about the family violence amendments and presented on the changes to the substantive law. The one-day training program was delivered prior to the commencement of the amendments on 7 June 2012. The Chair of the Committee also provided comment on the draft fact sheet and ‘Frequently Asked Questions' document prepared by the Attorney-General's Department.
During 2011-12 members of the Committee also:
The Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee was established by the Heads of Jurisdiction of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in late 2011 in response to a recommendation in the then draft Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General's portfolio (the Skehill Review) to encourage greater administrative cooperation between the three courts.
The Committee comprises:
The Committee meets quarterly to discuss and agree upon a program of work for the examination and, where feasible and desirable, the implementation of initiatives for joint or shared administration across the three courts. Such initiatives are primarily directed to the achievement of increased efficiency and effectiveness in the management of the courts, but may also identify financial savings that could be either re-invested within the courts or returned to the Budget.
Since the Committee's formation, reviews have commenced of the courts' information technology systems, library services and space use within Commonwealth Law Courts (CLC) buildings. Arrangements have also been made for closer cooperation in media management, a review of library holdings to avoid duplication and increased sharing of court facilities in the Brisbane CLC building.
The Committee reports to the Attorney-General on a biannual basis with its first report to the Attorney- General being submitted in March 2012.
During the reporting period the Committee met in November 2011, February 2012 and May 2012.
The Family Law Courts Advisory Group has a critical governance role in resourcing both courts and coordinates various administrative relationships between the two courts.
The Group comprises:
The Group met in August 2011, December 2011 and May 2012.
The Joint Costs Advisory Committee comprises representatives of the four federal courts: the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. During 2011-12, the Committee comprised:
The Committee reviews and recommends variations to the quantum of costs contained in the rules made by federal courts and advises on other matters about those costs as may be referred to it by a federal court. The Committee tabled its fourth report on legal practitioners' costs in September 2011, in which it recommended a 3.7 per cent increase in the scale of costs specified in the Rules of the High Court, Family Court, Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The Committee also resolved to write to the respective courts and bring to their attention:
Chaired by the Chief Justice, the national Family Law Forum meets to discuss shared issues arising within the family law system.
The forum consists of representatives from the Family Court, the 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, and a range non-government organisations and community legal centres.
The Family Law Forum did not meet in 2011-12.
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Richard Foster, maintains an inclusive style of management. The senior executive managers of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court meet annually to establish the strategic direction and priorities for the effective administration of both courts. In addition, senior executive managers of the Family Court participate in a number of committees that provide high level operational and policy advice to the CEO.
The Chief Executive Officer's Management Advisory Group provides operational and policy advice to the CEO on key areas that affect the administration of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Chaired by the CEO of the Family Court and acting CEO of the Federal Magistrates Court, Richard Foster, the group meets every six to eight weeks and comprises:
Support is provided by the Executive Advisor to the CEO.
A number of administrative committees were also active during 2011-12 and provided high level operational and policy advice. Meeting on a regular or ad hoc basis, they included:
This section highlights the work of senior management committees during 2011-12. Appendix 8 has details of membership and terms of reference for the various committees.
In 2011-12, the Chief Executive Officer's Management Advisory Group continued to provide advice to the CEO on new policy and other initiatives. These included budget savings measures, the application of family violence amendments, social media policy and protocols, the client satisfaction survey, the resource planning model, the statement of strategic intent, the ICT work plan, the child dispute services work plan, the Family Law Courts' tablet policy and changes to case management practices.
The Audit and Risk Committee is established in accordance with section 46 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. It supports the Chief Executive Officer to ensure that the Court's financial accounts are in accordance with the Finance Minister's Orders and provide a true and accurate description of the Court's financial position. The Committee comprises an external chair and two senior managers from the Court's administration.
During 2011-12, the Committee considered a range of issues including the Court's internal audit plan, strategic risk and fraud risk treatments, and oversight of the Australian National Audit Office and internal audit report recommendations.
The National Consultative Committee is a key forum through which the Court consults with staff about broader issues that have a national perspective. Elected staff delegates actively present the views of staff regarding issues that impact nationally on staff and the management and future direction of the Court.
The Committee's areas of focus include:
In 2011-12, the Staff Development Committee (SDC) continued to meet to discuss the developmental needs across all areas of the courts. The Committee is integral to the courts' approach to the continuing career development of staff. It is a key forum through which staff representatives have shared responsibility for identifying and determining development needs and opportunities.
As a result of the staff development survey conducted by the Young Employees Advisory Group (YEAG) in 2009-10, the SDC provided a snapshot of how the courts have responded by using the results and comments to help inform human resources strategy. This snapshot was promoted through the courts via the Corporate Services newsletter. The earlier survey also prompted a total overhaul of the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS), which went live in 2011-12. The new online PMDS was widely publicised during the year, particularly through staff newsletters. Feedback so far has been supportive of the new structure and Human Resources will monitor the success of the system over time.
After a two year tenure, the Committee composition changed considerably during 2011-12, with the replacement of five representatives in the areas of Information, Communication and Technology Services, registry management, registrars, family consultants and associates.
The Committee funded the printing of 1000 bookmarks promoting the courts' service commitments, as part of a training package on disability awareness. It also funded the travel component of this course, which was presented by Human Resources.
At 30 June 2011, there were 615 ongoing and non-ongoing court employees (excluding judicial officers and the CEO) in all states and territories except Western Australia.
Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the Court's intranet and website:
The Court's geographically dispersed judiciary and staff are informed of significant changes and events through the following:
The Court has, as part of its corporate governance arrangements, appropriate mechanisms to manage general business risk as well as fraud risk.
In 2011-12, the Court's internal audit services were provided by Oakton Services Pty Ltd and monitored by the Audit and Risk Committee.
The 2011-12 Internal Audit Plan was developed taking into account the risk drivers in the Risk Management Plan and after discussion with the Audit and Risk Committee and the senior management team.
Internal audits conducted during the year included:
The Audit and Risk Committee monitored the implementation of individual audit report recommendations generated as part of the above mentioned audits, through quarterly status reports.
The Court promotes a culture that supports the identification, analysis, assessment, treatment, monitoring and review of all strategic, operational, compliance and financial risks. This is supported by the Court's Risk Control and Compliance Framework.
The framework provides policies, procedures and tools to promote effective risk management. The framework is available to all court staff on the intranet for the principal purpose of achieving better services and outcomes for judicial services, clients and staff.
The Court continued to participate in the annual Comcover benchmarking survey, which measures risk and assesses the extent of cultural change within agencies. The Court's overall result continued to improve, reflecting its efforts in the area of risk management.
The Court continued to further revise the courts' Business Continuity Plans (BCPs). A desktop scenario test was undertaken in the Brisbane registry in December 2011 and, at 30 June 2012, recommendations from the test were being incorporated into the BCPs.
The Procurement and Risk Management section continued to provide, as a standing agenda item, regular updates on risk related activities to the Audit and Risk Committee.
The Court manages financial risk in accordance with the Risk Control and Compliance Framework. The relevant mechanisms are:
The Court's Fraud Control Plan 2010-12 complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011.
During 2011-12, the Audit and Risk Committee continued to receive reports on the implementation status of fraud risk treatments. It had in place fraud investigation, and reporting and data collection procedures that met the needs of the Court and complied with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines.
The Court continued to monitor the Fraud Control Plan, which is available to all court staff via the intranet. The plan was developed in consultation will key stakeholders across all areas of court activities.
In 2011-12, no instances or allegations of fraud against the Court were reported.
In accordance with guideline 2.8 of the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011, issued by the Minister for Justice and Customs, pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997, I hereby certify that I am satisfied that:
[Signed]
Richard Foster, PSM
Chief Executive Officer
Family Court of Australia
28 August 2012
Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) are required to publish information to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme (IPS). This requirement is in Part II of the FOI Act and has replaced the former requirement to publish a section 8 statement in an annual report. Each agency must display on its website a plan showing what information it publishes in accordance with the IPS requirements.
Information about FOI and the IPS agency plan for the Family Court can be found via a link at the bottom of the homepage of the Family Court's website at www.familycourt.gov.au.
The Court received three Freedom of Information requests during 2011-12.
At 30 June 2012, there were no matters outstanding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The Court's Strategic Plan states that integrity, respect and responsiveness underpin its approach to business. The Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct contained in the Public Service Act 1999 apply to all employees of the Court.
In 2011-12, the Court maintained an ongoing information and education promotion to ensure that all staff were aware of their rights, responsibilities and obligations in relation to privacy, ethics and other factors such as environmental responsibility, data management and data quality.
The Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court together maintain web-based Service Charter and Service Commitments publications. These outline the services clients may expect of the courts.
The Court is committed to supporting employees to adhere to the APS Values and comply with the Code of Conduct. Employees receive information about the Values and the Code through all-staff emails, the intranet and induction and other training programs. Employees also receive information and guidance about conduct and behaviour expectations from their managers.
Compulsory nationwide training sessions that were conducted on ethical behaviour, the APS Code of Conduct and APS Values in all major court registries and the National Support Office during 2010 were this year extended to the smaller and more remote locations.
The Court's Research and Ethics Committee considers, monitors and overviews all research and evaluation proposals (internal and external) for approval. Membership of the committee is in Appendix 8.
Established in May 2009, the Australian Public Service Commission's Ethics Contact Officer Network (ECONET) plays a key role in supporting the ongoing work of the Ethics Advisory Service. The service has responsibility for promoting the Government's ethical agenda, which is focussed on enhancing ethics and accountability in the Commonwealth public sector.
The Human Resources Manager is the Court's representative at the ECONET forum.
In May 2012, the Court introduced a social media policy, which is intended to clarify the responsibilities of court employees in relation to the use of social networking sites, blog sites and forums or information sites and sites allowing instant messaging. Use of social media will be monitored for compliance with the Court's policy in the same way as other internet use.
The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have joint Service Charter and Service Commitments documents.
The Service Charter outlines the service level standards clients can expect from staff of the courts and how clients and other users of court services may make suggestions or complaints about services, policy, practice or procedures.
The Service Commitments document highlights what clients of the courts can expect from client services staff, what the staff cannot do, clients rights and responsibilities and how clients can help the courts to help them.
Both documents are available on the Family Law Courts website: www.familylawcourts.gov.au.
The Auditor-General made no report specific to the Family Court of Australia during 2011-12.
An applicant appealed to the AAT against a decision to refuse an application for reduced fees in a matter before the Court. It became clear that the applicant had incorrectly completed the original application for reduced fees and had omitted relevant details of the applicant's financial commitments. The Court cooperated with the applicant's lawyer in ensuring that the AAT substituted a decision that correctly reflected the applicant's financial position.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman made no report specific to the Family Court during 2011-12.
Proceedings have been brought in the Federal Court of Australia against a Family Court registrar and a federal magistrate to attempt to litigate in that Court proceedings in the family law jurisdiction and to prevent the Family Court from exercising its jurisdiction in the matter. The case raises for consideration the jurisdiction of the Family Law Courts in the family law jurisdiction, the role of the Federal Court in relation to that jurisdiction and the question whether an attempt to so re-litigate matters represents an abuse of process.
The Australian Government Solicitor, on the instructions of the courts' Legal Counsel, instructed Ms E Ford of Counsel in the matter. The courts' legal team has appeared in the Federal Court opposing an application for interim orders made by the applicants. The application for interim orders amongst other things to stay proceedings in the Full Court of the Family Court was refused with costs against the applicant. The Court through the Australian Government Solicitor sought the intervention of the Attorney- General in the case and the Attorney has subsequently intervened. The matter is proceeding.
An unsuccessful litigant in the family law jurisdiction has purportedly brought proceedings of a criminal nature against the judicial officers who dealt with the matter in the Family Law Courts. The matter is before the State Magistrates Court. The Family Law Courts, through the courts' Legal Counsel, have arranged representation by the Australian Government Solicitor for the judicial officers.
Through the Australian Government Solicitor, application has been made for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over the prosecutions with a view to discontinuing them. The Director of Public Prosecutions has informed the parties that his office will take over the prosecutions on a number of the matters in question. However, it will not take over the prosecutions in matters where it considers that the allegations made cannot amount to any offence known to law. In such a case there is nothing properly to take over. This means that the courts will need to continue to pursue, at some expense, those matters to finality on behalf of the judicial officers.
During 2011-12, the Court participated in a number of whole-of-government ICT initiatives. The initial driver for these was the earlier independent review of the use of ICT across the Australian Government (the Gershon review, released in 2008 and its recommendations endorsed in full by the Government in November 2008). Following is a summary of related activities for the Court in 2011-12:
In addition to the ongoing response to the Gershon Review, managed through AGIMO, the Court responded to archival requirements for information quality. It undertook the National Archives of Australia check up assessment of the courts' information and records management capability, in response to the Government's digital transition policy. At 30 June 2012, the assessment results were being reviewed to identify any areas of high risk in the courts' information and records management as well as opportunities for improvement.
Senior Executive Service staff of the Court attend Senate estimate committee hearings to answer questions about the Court's activities. In 2011-12, 26 Senate estimate questions on notice were received and answered.
The financial health check commissioned by the courts during 2010-11 was tabled in support of the courts as part of the Skehill Review (see Federal Courts restructure in Part 2). The Oakton report confirmed that the courts have been subject to funding pressures for some time and have been actively pursuing opportunities to identify and harvest savings. Oakton recommended that the courts adopt a more systemic approach (activity based costing) to identify further opportunities for savings.
The courts completed an update of their activity based costing model (Resource Planning Model) in the first quarter of 2011-12 and this confirmed that the courts resources were optimally deployed and that there were no obvious areas from which to achieve further savings without significant reductions in services to clients.
The Indigenous Working Group engaged Stephen Ralph, an independent Aboriginal consultant with extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in the area of family law, to undertake a study of the views and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families who had recently been involved in family law proceedings.
The study was to cover issues of access to justice and recommend steps towards improved service delivery. It was to help the courts develop a better understanding of how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people access the Family Law Courts, how they use the services provided by the courts, and their experience of litigating their family disputes.
The experiences and perceptions of Indigenous Australians who had recently litigated in the Family Law Courts were studied and compared with those of a representative sample of non-Indigenous Australians. Interviews with other stakeholders, such as legal practitioners working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, were also held.
Major findings of the evaluation include:
Issues that the courts are now considering, guided by the Indigenous Working Group, include:
The final report is expected to be published later in 2012.
In 2010, a review of judicial support was held. In July and August 2011, registry managers implemented recommendations from the review. A number of registries undertook training to ensure staff were equipped to perform the required functions within client services, including in court support to judges. The case coordination aspects of the review, including the review of client services were not progressed while the Court awaited the outcome of the Skehill Review (on restructuring of the Federal courts, seePart 2 of this report for more detail).
Work on 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.
The Working Group is led by Stephen Andrew (Executive Director Client Services) and also includes Steve Agnew (A/Deputy CEO FMC), Angela Filippello (Principal Registrar Family Court), Adele Byrne (Principal Registrar FMC), Marianne Christmann (Regional Registry Manager NSW/ACT) and Jamie Crew, (Registry Manager, Newcastle). Its terms of reference were to:
By 30 June 2012, the working group had completed the collection and analysis of significant data and information concerning registrars' work and workloads and had commissioned an independent evaluation of the functions associated with hearing divorce applications. Extensive consultation had also been undertaken with the judiciary, registrars, sessional registrars, registry managers and other key review stakeholders.
During the year, the group recommended to the Chief Executive Officer that a detailed implementation plan be developed, pending acceptance by the Chief Justice and Chief Federal Magistrate of some or all of the recommendations. The Executive Director Client Services will be responsible for the implementation of the report's recommendations and will formally report progress within six months of any final decision being made.
During 2011-12, the process of consolidating the merged administration of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court continued. It was supported by the introduction of a replacement enterprise agreement on 1 July 2011 that, like its predecessor, covered the combined courts' non-SES staff.
Following the introduction of the Government's Australian Public Service Bargaining Framework, which took effect on 31 January 2011, the courts gave notice of the commencement of bargaining with a message to all staff by the Chief Executive Officer on 29 March 2011. Bargaining commenced soon after with the Community and Public Sector Union and individual staff bargaining representatives.
Following a favourable vote by staff, the new agreement, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014, was approved by Fair Work Australia on 24 June 2011.
The courts' intranets were the primary vehicles for keeping staff informed of developments, with regular news and announcements about issues such as the courts' budgetary position, technological improvements, operational reviews and the progress of negotiations for the new Agreement. Management also kept employees informed through all-staff emails.
The Agreement covers all non-SES staff of the courts and delivers salary increases of three per cent from the commencement of the Agreement on 1 July 2011, together with further pay increases of three per cent on 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013. The pay increases are offset by productivity savings to be funded from corporate efficiency/productivity savings outlined in clause 2.2 of the Agreement.
The agreement directly supports the Family Court's strategic objectives and complements the Court's performance planning and management arrangements and improvements at the team and individual level.
Consistent with the single enterprise agreement, the process of producing mirror images of policies, procedures and guidelines across the two courts continued throughout 2011-12.
The Court is committed to supporting employees to adhere to the APS Values and comply with the Code of Conduct. Employees receive information about the Values and the Code through all-staff emails, the Court intranet and induction and other training programs. Employees also receive information and guidance about conduct and behaviour expectations from their managers.
Statistics from the Agency Benchmarking Report (State of the Service Series 2010-11) noted that 23 per cent of Family Court staff were eligible to retire. Accordingly, during 2011-12 the Court developed appropriate human resource strategies to ensure future capability and resourcing to cope with staff turnover. These included, for example, adopting an ICT workforce plan, giving the Federal Magistrates Court a clearer understanding of the capacity and capability of the Court's ICT workforce and developing a risk management strategy that strengthens succession management for critical roles and leadership positions in the Court. The strategies were communicated to managers and staff, helping to ensure that succession plans were developed at local levels.
In addition, the Court is focused on providing an inclusive, diversity-friendly workplace and ensuring equal opportunity for all its employees. Workplace diversity assists in meeting client service obligations.
The Court also has a longstanding and ongoing commitment to ensuring that the needs of its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and clients are recognised and met appropriately. It reinforces that commitment by identifying and addressing barriers to the recruitment and career development of Indigenous Australians through its recruitment policies, training and mentoring programs.
The Court facilitates access to its services for Indigenous people by ensuring that information about the Court is widely available across the Indigenous community in suitable formats and delivered in culturally appropriate ways. The Court also develops partnerships with a range of Indigenous stakeholder groups at the national and local registry levels. It also provides appropriate and ongoing education to judicial officers and staff on the cultural background of Indigenous Australians.
The Court recognises the significant contribution made by mature aged employees in the workplace. Accordingly, the Court encourages the use of the flexible working arrangements available under the Enterprise Agreement relating to the balance between work and private life as a means to retain mature aged employees beyond normal retirement age or to assist them in the transition to retirement.
The Court is committed to maintaining a workplace culture where all employees are treated with dignity and respect, so that everyone is able to contribute their best in the workplace. It is the responsibility of all employees to contribute to the ongoing achievement and maintenance of a workplace free from bullying, harassment, discrimination and violence. The Court's Bullying and Harassment Policy was reviewed and strengthened during 2011-12 and the updated policy was communicated to all employees.
Strategies to support the wellbeing of staff and to encourage staff retention are integral to the Court's commitment to workplace diversity. The strategies include the following options, benefits and initiatives.
The Court recognises the need to balance the operational needs of the Court and the personal lives of staff. Its employment arrangements provide for general and individual flexible working arrangements, including flex time, time off in lieu, part-time work, working from home opportunities, overtime, purchased leave, maternity, adoption, fostering and supporting partner's leave, salary sacrifice arrangements and paid time off work over the Christmas and New Year period.
The Court provides a family-friendly and non-discriminatory work environment with strong policies against harassment and bullying. The Court and its employees are committed to measures that will assist with preventing and managing illness and injury, including psychological injuries, and assisting absent staff to return to work as soon as reasonably practical. Other healthy work environment strategies include an employee assistance program that provides free professional counselling to employees and members of their immediate families and free annual influenza vaccinations.
The Court recognises that diversity among its staff is one of its greatest assets. Valuing the distinctive characteristics in every employee, and drawing on the diversity of our backgrounds, skills, talents and views to enhance the Court's working environment and the work of the Court, underpin the current workplace diversity plan.
Recognition of staff in the form of positive feedback and celebration of achievement is an important part of the Court's culture and business practice. The courts' reward and recognition scheme, the Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award, Australia Day Medallions and the Years of Service awards recognise and reward employees for the achievement of corporate goals, providing non-cash rewards and recognition.
The Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award honours the late Janet Kitcher (a Family Court employee at the time of her death). It aims to bestow recognition on high achieving employees of the courts for their outstanding contributions to the workplace. Recipients of this award perform extraordinarily well within their role, excelling to achieve outstanding client service by demonstrating:
The winner for 2011-12 was Sally Mashman from the National Enquiry Centre (NEC).
Sally has worked for both courts, commencing with the Federal Magistrates Court in January 2001 and then transferring to her present role as manager of the NEC in August 2009. Sally has performed to a high standard and her contribution to the courts has gone beyond that which is ordinarily required of an employee in her role. In particular, Sally has been proactive in implementing innovative work practices and is solutions focussed.
Other nominees in 2011-12 were:
The Australia Day Medallions are awarded to a select group of Australian citizens each year, recognising excellence in contribution by employees of government organisations.
In 2012 the Court awarded medallions to the following staff:
Diane Lojszczyk, Newcastle registry: Diane was recognised for her outstanding contribution to the Court, and her ability to enhance the reputation of the Court. Diane worked for the Court from 1985 until 1986. She returned in 1996 as a court counsellor and has been a senior family consultant since 1998. She has been involved with various court committees and projects such as the Resource Planning Model and the Family Violence Committee, and has given presentations at numerous conferences. Diane is also the Court's representative on the Steering Committee for the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution Project. During her many years of service, Diane has earned a significant amount of respect and is highly regarded by the judiciary and those with whom she works.
Nathan Lozberis - National Support Office: Nathan was recognised for his continuous improvements to the Court across a range of corporate services. Nathan has been with the Court for seven years and is the courts' Management Accounting Manager. He was directly responsible for developing the courts' Risk Control and Compliance Framework, Project Management Framework and Management Accounting Framework. Nathan contributed significantly to the successful merger of the courts' corporate services, including assuming increased workload and responsibilities and did so displaying the utmost professionalism, leadership, and enthusiasm at all times. Nathan is highly regarded by his clients and his colleagues.
Jolie Lamont, Canberra registry: Jolie was recognised for her outstanding service to the Court and to the Honourable Justice Finn. She has provided outstanding administrative and organisation support to Justice Finn in her capacity as the most senior Judge of the Appeal Division of the Family Court for the past six years. Jolie went above the call of duty by organising an event to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Justice Finn's appointment to the Court. In addition, Jolie is Team Leader (support) in the Canberra registry and diligently supervises and provides pastoral care and support to staff. Jolie's friendly, professional, courteous, and cheerful disposition is a considerable benefit to the Court.
Years of service awards are presented to employees who have been with the Court for more than 20, 25 and 30 years.
Recipients in 2011-12 follow.
20 years
25 years
* Not included in the 2010-11 report
During 2011-12, 83 employees and judicial officers left the Court. Of these, 51 were ongoing employees, representing an annual turnover rate of eight per cent against staff numbers at 30 June 2012 (see Table 8.9 at Appendix 3). This compares with ongoing staff separations of nine per cent in 2010-11, and eight per cent in both 2009-10 and 2008-09.
At 30 June 2012, the Court had 601 employees (excluding judicial officers, the Chief Executive Officer and casual employees) covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011-14 or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). This was a 2.28 per cent decrease compared with 615 employees at 30 June 2011. Tables 8.3 to 8.7 at Appendix 3 provide a breakdown of staff by location, gender, attendance, ongoing and non-ongoing employment status.
At 30 June 2012, the Court had 30 judges, including the Chief Justice (13 female and 17 male). Table 8.8 at Appendix 3 has further detail.
The remuneration arrangements for all judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer are governed by enforceable determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details including relevant determinations are available at www.remtribunal.gov.au.
As mentioned previously, 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.
Offers of AWAs to court employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with government policy, however, at 30 June 2012, 31 employees had enforceable AWAs in place. Table 8.12 at Appendix 3 sets out the AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification.
In some limited cases the Court has used common law contracts to provide supplementary conditions of employment for individuals covered by the Enterprise Agreement and determinations made by the Agency Head under section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999, to build upon existing AWA arrangements. At 30 June 2012, 16 employees had employment arrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts and 46 had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments. See Table 8.11 at Appendix 3 for more detail.
Terms and conditions of employment in the Court are governed by one or more of the following industrial instruments:
The Enterprise Agreement, like its predecessors, is a comprehensive agreement, however, for some employees, it may be supported by either a s 24(1) determination or a common law contract that provides additional terms and conditions (for example, as a way of retaining high-value employees).
AWAs may also be supported by individual s 24(1) determinations or common law contracts to provide for pay increases or additional terms and conditions, including non-salary benefits.
Terms and conditions for the Court's senior executive service employees are in AWAs and individual s 24(1) determinations made by the Chief Executive Officer. SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and take account of the Court's budgetary position.
Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees included:
During 2011-12, the Court neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paid performance pay to any employee.
The Court recognises the value of a well-educated workforce that is able to contribute effectively to meeting its objectives. It provides staff with an extensive range of learning and development opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge for current and future roles and responsibilities. The Court achieves this by supporting employees in meeting their development and career needs consistent with the Performance Management and Development System and available resources. It also provides studies assistance, including leave for study and examination attendance for employees undertaking work-related tertiary studies. Financial constraints mean that the Court relies predominantly on inhouse training and, where available, staff attend training courses provided by the Attorney-General's Department or the Australian Public Service Commission.
Specific training during the year included:
The Court's in-house training facilities include self-paced, online learning courses on a range of topics including Australian Public Service (APS) and Court specific induction training, work health and safety, accounting basics, project management, business communications and the Windows XP suite (Excel, Word, PowerPoint).
During the year the Court introduced a web conferencing/on line training software system to enable webinars (web-based training seminars) and online meetings. This has been very successful and was expanded through the Court to enable various groups to collaborate more closely across the country.
The Court's Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) aims to foster a high performance culture by emphasising the personal development of staff and the relationship between the Court's goals and individual skills, responsibilities and performance.
In 2011-12, the PMDS underwent a major overhaul. Various factors influenced this, including internal surveys, and the Australian Public Service Commission's State of the Service survey results for the Court (2008-2009 and 2009-2010) as well as the APS Reform Blueprint, all of which had indicated that developing and managing performance was an area in which some improvement was necessary across the public service.
As background, the courts' first joint Enterprise Agreement (2010) had sought to strengthen the PMDS, to give it emphasis on both performance development and management. This was important because progression through the increments of a particular level and the productivity pay increases under the enterprise agreement were both tied to satisfactory performance.
The courts' 2011-14 Enterprise Agreement requires significant further improvements to be achieved through a range of corporate efficiency/productivity measures that are ongoing to 2012-13. The strengthened PMDS included the launch in October 2011 of a new online tool, Career Manager. It allows discussions to be recorded in the Performance Management Development Plan via the Employee Self Service (ESS) system, ensuring performance, career planning and agreed development plans are monitored.
The PMDS is designed to:
The nature of the Court's core business means employees may be exposed to and involved in highly sensitive and stressful situations. The Court has continued to manage the risk of stress in the workplace through its peer support system within registries and the National Support Office.
The Peer Support program provides a network of trained staff in the workplace to ensure that skilled support is available for immediate assistance should an individual experience a distressing situation or a difficult event. This program is designed to complement the Employee Assistance program.
Trained peer support officers from any location can provide assistance as required. There is no restriction on staff accessing officers from outside their immediate work area. All communication with peer support officers is strictly confidential.
For more information about work health and safety, see Appendix 4.
The Family Court is committed to the wellbeing of its employees and to managing all workplace health, safety and working environment issues effectively, efficiently and beneficially for all employees. The Court and its employees have therefore committed themselves, through their Enterprise Agreement, to measures that will assist to prevent and manage illness and injury, including psychological injury. The focus is, as much as possible, on assisting staff to avoid absences due to illness and injury and, if absent, to return to work as soon as reasonably practicable.
The Court's Employee Assistance program provides a free, confidential counselling service to Court employees experiencing personal or work-related problems and their immediate families. Staff are encouraged to use it. In addition, managers may access a dedicated Managers' Help Line for assistance for those with the added pressures of supervisory/managerial positions.
Converge International continued to provide this service to the Court throughout 2011-12. Converge International also provided a lunch and learn information session to one registry and a critical incident response session was held in another registry to ensure staff could debrief.
During 2011-12, the combination of the merged administration and working under a single Enterprise Agreement continued to produce efficiency savings for the courts through the more efficient allocation of resources, elimination of duplicated services and the rationalisation of court services. Synergies were achieved in the area of training where program delivery was made available to the staff of both courts, thus reducing cost and capturing a greater number of staff.
Additionally, the single administration, the review of client services, the registrar review and improvements in records management have resulted in a number of changes being introduced to further reduce duplication and improve efficiency. A number of productivity gains also formed part of the enterprise agreement negotiations.
Since 1994, the Court has reported on its performance as employer and provider under the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. In 2007-08, reporting on the employer role was transferred to the Australian Public Service Commission's State of the Service Report and the APS Statistical Bulletin. These reports are available at www.apsc.gov.au.
From 2010-11, departments and agencies have no longer been required to report on these functions. The Commonwealth Disability Strategy has been overtaken by a new National Disability Strategy, which sets out a 10 year national policy framework for improving life for Australians with disability, their families and carers. A high level report to track progress for people with disability at a national level will be produced by the Standing Council on Community, Housing and Disability Services to the Council of Australian Governments and will be available at www.fahcsia.gov.au.
The Social Inclusion Measurement and Reporting Strategy agreed by the Government in December 2009 will also include some reporting on disability matters in its regular How Australia is Faring report and, if appropriate, in strategic change indicators in agency annual reports.
The Court's recruitment, training and development, occupational health and safety, and access and equity policies take account of the Government's social inclusion agenda: the vision of a socially inclusive society in which all Australians feel valued and have the opportunity to participate fully in the life of our society. These policies are published on the Court's intranet and are available on application to the Court's Human Resource Manager.
More detail on social inclusion matters can be found at www.socialinclusion.gov.au.
The Family Court of Australia is a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
Total revenue for the Court in 2011-12 was $131.811 million, including appropriations from Government ($120.078 million), other revenue ($3.307 million), and other gains ($8.426 million). Other gains include liabilities assumed by related entities for the Judges Pension Scheme of $8.362 million.
Operating expenses for the 2011-12 financial year amounted to $143.196 million, being a $22.184 million reduction from 2010-11. The movement in nominal dollars is primarily a result of a decrease in contributions to the Federal Magistrates Court of $26.139 million due to appropriations associated with the restructure of federal courts being returned to the Federal Magistrates Court from 1 January 2011. Increases across employee and suppliers categories were experienced, mainly as a result of the impact on employee provisions due to changes to the government bond rate ($1.943 million) and increased lease costs in Commonwealth Law Courts ($0.966 million).
Figure 6.2 provides a breakdown of the actual costs incurred by the Court for 2011-12. It shows that the Court had a significant proportion of fixed costs (58 per cent) relating to property, judicial officers and their support, and depreciation. Of the remaining expenditure, 28 per cent provided direct support to the judicial officers in determining cases, 10 per cent provided indirect support to the judicial officers through the provision of information technology and corporate services (along with meeting statutory reporting requirements for the Court), and four per cent of expenditure was attributable to corporate overheads. Details of the expenditure categories are shown in Table 6.1.
| Judges and support | All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judges and their support staff. |
|---|---|
| Depreciation | All depreciation, amortisation and other expenses associated with asset movements. |
| Property | Lease rentals for Commonwealth Law Courts and leased premises, and all property operating expenses (such as cleaning, energy, repairs, maintenance and management fees) associated with these premises. |
| Registrars | All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to registrars. |
| Family consultants | All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to family consultants. |
| Client services | All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to client service staff. |
| Corporate support | All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to finance, human resources, property services, contract services and the CEO. |
| Information technology services | All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the provision of information technology services. |
| Corporate overheads | Workers Compensation and ComCover insurance premiums, Fringe Benefit Tax expenditure, ComSuper management fees, legal and audit fees, corporate salary overheads attributed to registry management, corporate support and IT services staff, and expenditure related to project activity in the Court (some of which is externally funded). |
For 2011-12 the Court recorded an operating deficit3 attributable to the Court of $4.301 million, compared with an operating deficit of $1.268 million reported in 2010-11.
Contributing to the operating deficit is $1.943 million arising as a result of changes to government bond rate, and $0.276 million from losses on sale of assets.
The remaining $2.082 million component is the result of ongoing pressure on the Court's operating budget, noting that the Court has over recent years undertaken significant initiatives to reduce costs and generate efficiencies. The government is working with the Court to address these ongoing pressures. In addition the Court is identifying new and innovative ways to provide better access to justice for family law litigants, in the context of limited resources and potential better outcomes for litigants.
The court received $2.468 million in 2011-12 on behalf of the Commonwealth, mainly in court fees. Administered revenue is not available to offset the Court's operating costs.
Offsetting the administered revenue collected by the Court on behalf of the Government were refunds of fees ($0.050 million) resulting in total comprehensive income of $2.418 million which was returned to Government.
The Family Court provides resources free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court in accordance with sections 90, 92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999. Resources provided free of charge include:
It is estimated that the cost of resources provided free of charge by the Family Court to the Federal Magistrates Court during 2011-12 was $37.168 million.
Figure 6.3 shows the expenditure categories in which the services provided free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court are provided.
Figure 6.3 2011-12 expenditure resources shared with the Federal Magistrates Court
The Court's Procurement and Risk Management section assists staff undertaking procurement and manages a number of corporate contracts. The section also manages, or has significant involvement in, all complex procurement undertaken by the Court to ensure compliance with legislative obligations and the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. The Chief Executive Instructions, the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines and the Court's Procurement Framework are all on the intranet as reference material for court staff.
The core policies and principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines were, as far as practicable, adhered to throughout 2011-12. The Court's Annual Procurement Plan was published meeting mandatory reporting requirements. An appropriate market approach was made for all procurements covered by the guidelines.
All contracts let in 2011-12 had provision for the Auditor-General to access contractors' premises.
During 2011-12:
Total actual expenditure on consultancy contracts for 2011-12 was $381 066 (GST inclusive).
The process of engagement of all consultants is required to adhere to the procedures described in the Court's Procurement Framework and are categorised in accordance with the following:
Depending on the particular needs, value and risks (as set out in the Court's Procurement Framework) the Court uses open tender, select tender or direct sourcing for its consultancies.
The Court is a relatively small user of consultants. As such, it has no specific policy by which consultants are engaged, other than within the broad frameworks above, related to skills unavailability within the Court or when there is need for specialised and/or independent research or assessment.
Information on expenditure on all Court contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website www.tenders.gov.au.
No contracts were let to an organisation for the delivery of services previously performed by the Court during the reporting period.
No contracts or standing offers were exempt from publication on AusTender in terms of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 during the reporting period.
Paragraph 11.1 of the Legal Services Directions 2005 states that the Chief Executive Officer of the Court has the responsibility for ensuring that:
In accordance with paragraph 11.1 (ba) of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Court incurred the legal services expenditure shown in Table 6.2 during 2011-12. All expenditure figures include GST.
Consistent with paragraph 11.2 of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Chief Executive Officer issued a Certificate to the Office of Legal Services Coordination of the Attorney-General's Department stating that the Family Court of Australia:
Table 6.2 Legal services expenditure
| Total costs recovered | $0.00 |
| Total external legal services expenditure | $37,556.81 |
| Total internal legal services expenditure | $194,766.15 |
| Total (external and internal) expenditure | $232,322.96 |
| Summary of external legal services expenditure | |
| Total value of briefs to counsel | $0.00 |
| Total value of disbursements (excluding counsel) | $0.00 |
| Total value of professional fees paid | $37,556.81 |
| Total external legal services expenditure | $37,556.81 |
| Counsel | |
| Number of briefs to male counsel | 0 |
| Number of briefs to female counsel | 0 |
| Total number of briefs to counsel | 0 |
| Number of direct briefs to male counsel | 0 |
| Number of direct briefs to female counsel | 0 |
| Total number of direct briefs to counsel | 0 |
| Total value of briefs to male counsel (including direct briefs) | $0.00 |
| Total value of briefs to female counsel (including direct briefs) | $0.00 |
| Total value of briefs to counsel | $0.00 |
| Disbursements | |
| Total value of disbursements (excluding counsel) | $0.00 |
| Professional fees | |
| Australian Government Solicitor | $20,698.92 |
| Ashurst | $2,007.72 |
| Blake Dawson Waldron | $8,220.17 |
| Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing | $6,630. 00 |
| Total value of professional fees paid | $37,556.81 |
The Family Court of Australia is located in shared Commonwealth-owned facilities in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Parramatta and Sydney. It also occupies privately leased facilities in Albury, Alice Springs, Cairns, Coffs Harbour, Dandenong, Darwin, Dubbo, Launceston, Lismore, Newcastle, Townsville and Wollongong, and shares the state court facility in Rockhampton.
The most significant property-related activities at various court locations in 2011-12 are detailed below.
In January 2011, the Federal Court of Australia vacated level one of the Commonwealth Law Courts, Lionel Bowen Building. The vacated space provided an opportunity to redress a shortage of courtrooms in Sydney. A project was completed in November 2011, delivering four much needed new courtrooms in the Sydney CBD.
A reconfiguration of the Adelaide subpoena viewing room was completed in June 2012. This project moved the subpoena viewing area, which had been situated in the south-eastern corner of the ground floor and entered from a small corridor, to the main registry area. There were multiple issues with the former location, including accessibility and security. The subpoena viewing room is now within the immediate environ of the Adelaide registry (ground floor) where the majority of resources are available to support clients and practitioners.
To address the shortage of judicial accommodation in Brisbane, two additional chambers were constructed on level nine in June 2012, to accommodate visiting judiciary and full court sittings and provide visiting chambers for federal magistrates when required. An upgrade of the Brisbane subpoena viewing room was completed in December 2011.
The area was originally an office area and, consequently, there were multiple issues with the room, including security, lack of storage and configuration not conducive with the function. The upgrade provides an improved amenity for clients and practitioners.
The Family Law Courts National Enquiry Centre (NEC), based at the Parramatta registry building, was established in April 2006 to provide a centralised telephone and email service to people contacting the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. The NEC has grown over time, which had placed demands on the accommodation - there was limited space for staff. An upgrade of the facility was undertaken early in 2012 to improve staff amenities, including additional work points and an improved mail dispatch area.
A furniture replacement program was also implemented at the Parramatta registry. This replaced furniture in chambers and registrars' offices that had been in place since the construction of the building in 1991.
The Family Court entered into a new five-year lease in March 2012. As a result various works were undertaken at the registry to sustain the additional five year term. The works included the upgrade of the judicial conference room, replacement of furniture in the public waiting areas, and an upgrade of the kitchens and bathrooms throughout the building both in judicial areas and in the public areas. The works have lifted the appearance and functionality of the registry and provide improved amenities for clients, practitioners and staff.
Two projects were undertaken at the Hobart registry in 2011-12. The registry counters were reconfigured to establish a safe room for the courts' clients who require separation whilst attending court. The project improved the functionality of the area and an improved work point layout. Additional work was undertaken to establish a small conference room, improve the registry manager's office and upgrade the staff kitchen facilities.
The registry underwent a significant fit out in 2009 with the remainder of the works delivered in 2011-12. This included the replacement of public seating in the courtroom. All works are now complete and provide improved amenities for clients, practitioners and staff.
Improved visual and physical security was provided in March 2012 by installing additional perimeter fencing at the Canberra registry.
Carpet replacement was undertaken in both chambers and the courtroom. This has improved the aesthetics of an aging space.
The Court has no matters to report.
3Equivalent to the total comprehensive (loss) less depreciation/amortisation expenses previously funded through revenue appropriations as reported in Note 27: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements per the Financial Statements for the period ending 30 June 2012.