fmc annual report 2011-12

ANNUAL REPORT 2011–12

Copyright

© Commonwealth of Australia 2012 ISSN 1444–6707 (print version) ISSN 1447–5065 (online version)

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia provides all material (unless otherwise noted and with the exception of the Coat of Arms) with Creative Commons (CC) Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported licensing. Material may be distributed, as long as it remains unchanged and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia is credited as the creator. More information can be found at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ If you have any questions about Creative Commons or licensing generally, please email [email protected]

Enquiries

If you would like to comment on this annual report, or have any queries, please contact the editor at:

Janelle McLoughlin National Manager Family Law Courts National Communication Federal Magistrates Court of Australia GPO Box 9991 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Ph: +61 2 6243 8690 Fax: +61 2 6243 8737 Email: [email protected]

Alternative formats

An electronic version of this report is available on the Federal Magistrates Court website at: http://www.fmc.gov.au/pubs/html/annual.html

The online version contains links to the 2011–12 Attorney-General’s Portfolio Budget Statements.

Acknowledgments

This report reflects the efforts of many people. Special thanks go to the Court staff involved in contributing and coordinating material, as well as the following specialist contractors:

Produced by: Family Law Courts National Communication Designed by: 2B Advertising & Design Printing: Bluestar

This annual report is printed on Impress Satin FSC (cover) and Impress Satin FSC (inside pages).

Made from elemental chlorine free bleached pulp, sourced from well-managed forests. It is PEFC certified and is manufactured by an ISO 14001 certified mill using renewable energy sources.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/

mailto:[email protected]


PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW iii

iv Federal Magistrate's Court of Australia Annual Report 2011–12

CONTENTS

Reader’s Guide vi

Acronyms and abbreviations vii

Glossary of court-specific terms viii

PART 1: The year in review 1

Part 1: The Year in Review 2

From the Chief Federal Magistrate 2

Statistics at a glance 4

Developments during 2011–12 5

Joint initiatives of the courts 8

PART 2: Overview of the Federal Magistrate's Court 21

Part 2: Overview of the Federal Magistrates Court 22

About the Court 22

Organisational structure 28

PART 3: the work of the court in 2011–2012 33

Part 3: The work of the Court in 2011–12 34

The Court’s performance 34

Workload 36

Specialist panel arrangements 39

Report on work in family law 39

Report on work in general federal law 45

Delivery of judgments 56

Dispute resolution in family law 58

Dispute resolution in general federal law 61

Improving access to the Court 62

Service Charter 76

Complaints 76

PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW v

PART 4: management and accountability 79

Part 4: Management and Accountability 80

Corporate governance 80

Corporate and operational planning and associated performance reporting and review 85

Risk management, fraud control and internal audit 86

External and internal scrutiny 89

Management of human resources 93

Financial performance 103

Asset management 104

Purchasing, consultants and contracts 105

PART 5: financial statements 109

Index to the Notes of the Financial Statements 111

Table of Contents – Notes 124

PART 6: appendices 161

Appendix A: Summary Resources 162

Resource statement 162

Expenses and Resources for Outcome 1 163

Appendix B: Staffing profile 164

Judicial Officers 166

Workforce turnover 167

Agreement making 168

Appendix C: Freedom of information 170

Access to information outside the Freedom of Information Act 170

Categories of documents 171

Other documents 171

Privacy 171

Appendix D: Advertising and market research 172

Appendix E: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 173

Review and improvement strategies 177

Additional ESD implications 177

Appendix F: Fraud control certification 178

vi Federal Magistrate's Court of Australia Annual Report 2011–12

READER’S GUIDE

The purpose of this report is to inform the Attorney-General, the Parliament, court clients and the general public about the performance of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in the financial year ending 30 June 2012.

Prepared according to parliamentary reporting requirements, the report outlines the goals in the Court’s Portfolio Budget Statements and Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements and relates to the results achieved during the year to those goals. It provides information on the Court’s performance in relation to its stated outcome:

To provide the Australian community with a simple and accessible forum for the resolution of less complex disputes within the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.

PART 1: The Chief Federal Magistrate’s year in review—comprises the Chief Federal Magistrate’s overview highlighting significant issues and initiatives the Court has undertaken during the reporting year as well as joint initiatives of the Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Court and the Federal Court.

PART 2: Overview of the Court—provides information about the Court, including its role, functions, changes to jurisdiction during 2011–12 rule amendments during 2011–12, and organisational structure.

PART 3: The work of the Court in 2011–12—reports on how the Court performed during the period against the outcome and the related program. The performance reports are based on the outcome and program framework and performance information in the 2011–12 Portfolio Budget Statements and 2011–12 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements for the Attorney-General’s portfolio.

PART 4: Management and accountability—provides information on corporate governance, external and internal scrutiny, human resource management, financial management, purchasing, consultants and contract management, legal services, asset management and other activities relevant to the general administration of the Court.

PART 5: Financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2012—contains the audited financial statements for 2011–12.

PART 6: Appendices—includes the resource statement, staffing profile, freedom of information data, information about committees and judicial activities, and contact details.

The following references will assist readers to locate information in the annual report:

• Table of contents

• Compliance index—page 212

• Alphabetical index—page 216.

An electronic version of this annual report is available from the Federal Magistrates Court website http://www.fmc.gov.au

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Publications_AnnualReports_AnnualReport2007_Overview_Overview

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Publications_AnnualReports_AnnualReport2007_PerformanceReports-Outcome1_PerformanceReports-Outcome1

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Publications_AnnualReports_AnnualReport2007_ManagementandAccountability_ManagementandAccountability

http://w

PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AGD Attorney-General’s Department

ABGR Australian Building Greenhouse Rating

AIJAAustralasian Institute for Judicial Administration

AM Member of the Order of Australia

ANAO Australian National Audit Office

AO Officer of the Order of Australia

APS Australian Public Service

ATSI Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

ASICAustralian Securities and Investments Commission

AWA Australian Workplace Agreement

BCP Business Continuity Plans

CCP Commonwealth Courts Portal

CEI Chief Executive Instructions

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CFM Chief Federal Magistrate

CJ Chief Justice

CMFM Case Management Federal Magistrate

CSSMG Client Service Senior Manager’s Group

CPSUCommonwealth and Public Sector Union

Cth Commonwealth

ELExecutive Level of the Australian Public Service

ESS Employee Self Service System

FAIMFellow of the Australian Institute of Management

FCA Federal Court of Australia

FCoA Family Court of Australia

FLC Family Law Courts

FM Federal Magistrate

FMA ActFinancial Management and Accountability Act 1997

FMC Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

FOI freedom of information

GST goods and services tax

HR human resources

ICTInformation, Communications and Technology

IT information technology

NEC National Enquiry Centre

NCoCMNational Coordinator of Case Management

PMDSPerformance Management Development System

PSM Public Service Medal

QPILCHQueensland Public Interest Law Clearing House

SESSenior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service

YEAG Young Employees Advisory Group

viii Federal Magistrate's Court of Australia Annual Report 2011–12

GLOSSARY OF COURT-SPECIFIC TERMS

AffidavitA written statement by a party or witness. An affidavit is the main way of presenting the facts of a case to the Court.

Appeal An application to a higher court to review a decision of a lower court or tribunal.

ApplicantThe individual, organisation or corporation who/which applies to the Court to commence legal proceedings against another person or persons. Also known as ‘plaintiff’ in admiralty and corporations matters and in some other courts.

Application The document that starts most proceedings in the Court.

Case The matter before the Court.

Circuit A place the Court regularly visits in rural and regional Australia.

Dispute resolutionProcedures and services to help resolve disputes before or during a court hearing without the need for a judicial decision. It may include mediation, conciliation or counselling.

Docket systemA system by which each case is allocated to a particular federal magistrate who generally manages the matter from commencement to disposition.

eFilingThe procedure of electronically lodging a document through the Commonwealth Courts Portal.

eLodgmentThe procedure of electronically lodging general federal law documents in the Federal Magistrates Court.

FilingThe process of the Court accepting a document or documents lodged by a party to a proceeding.

In personam An action or right against a specific person.

In rem An action against certain property.

Judgment

The final order or set of orders made by the Court after a hearing, often accompanied by reasons which set out the facts and law applied in the case. A judgment is said to be ‘reserved’ when the Court postpones the delivery of the judgment to a later date to allow the presiding judicial officer time to consider the evidence and submission. A judgment is said to be ‘ex tempore’ when the presiding judicial officer gives the judgment orally at the hearing or very shortly thereafter.

Jurisdiction The extent of legal authority or power of the Court to apply the law.

LitigantsIndividuals, organisations or companies who/which are the parties to a proceeding before the Court.

PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW ix

OrdersA court order is a document that sets out what the parties must do. Orders can be urgent, interim (temporary) or final. Courts usually have wide-ranging powers to make orders to enforce judgments.

PartiesPeople involved in a court case. Applicants, respondents and defendants are generally called ‘parties’.

Pro bonoLegal work performed without charge for litigants who cannot afford the cost of a lawyer and are not eligible for legal aid. Pro bono legal work is done at a substantially reduced rate or in some circumstances, at no cost.

ProceedingThe regular and orderly progression of a matter including all acts and events between the time of commencement and judgment.

RegistrarA court lawyer who has been delegated power to perform certain tasks on behalf of a federal magistrate; e.g. grant divorces, sign consent orders and determine the next step in a case.

RegulationsThe Federal Magistrates Regulations 2000 which prescribe the filing and other fees that must be paid for proceedings in the Court.

Respondent A party to court proceedings against whom relief is claimed.

Rules

Rules made by the federal magistrates that set out the procedures for conducting a proceeding in the Court. The rules of the Federal Magistrates Court are the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 and the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006.

Self-represented litigant A party to a matter who does not have legal representation and represents themself before the Court.

Supplementary documentAny document lodged against an existing cause of action that does not attract a fee and does not require follow up action by court staff once lodged.

PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW

2 Federal Magistrate's Court of Australia Annual Report 2011–12

PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW

FROM THE CHIEF FEDERAL MAGISTRATE

The Federal Magistrates Court has grown over time to become Australia’s principal federal trial court. When members of the community seek access to justice in the federal sphere, whether they are in a capital city or rural and regional Australia, they are most likely to file in this court. The Court is among the largest intermediate courts in the country in terms of the number of judges and is – arguably – the leading court in terms of the number of matters disposed of annually. Accordingly, the Court pays close attention to its capacity to meet the needs of users and places a high priority on dealing with matters both fairly and efficiently.

It is pleasing that the future of the Court has been resolved with the Attorney-General’s announcement in April 2012 that

the proposal to restructure the Court has been abandoned. The Attorney-General noted the important role of the Court in providing access to justice for all Australians, and its position in the hierarchy of federal courts. The Court and its judicial officers will be renamed to reflect its current role. These changes will enhance the Court’s role as an intermediate level trial court with jurisdiction across all areas of federal law.

The coming year is likely to see formal merger of the administration of the Court with the administration of the Family Court of Australia (Family Court). Both courts have successfully operated a joint administration for some time which has delivered significant efficiencies and consequent cost savings to Government. The joint administration has also enhanced overall cooperation between the courts at every level. I do not anticipate that this administrative restructure will have any major implications for the way in which the public engages with the Court. The Court will participate in detailed discussions with Government and the Family Court as the blueprint for a joint administration is developed over the coming year.

The Court continues to be highly efficient in its disposal of matters. The clearance rate for final orders was 96 per cent, up from 95 per cent achieved in the preceding financial year. This means that the Court is finalising slightly less of its core trial work than it receives, which inevitably leads to additional strain on the Court’s already stretched human and financial resources. It is hoped that the Court will receive further judicial appointments when the Government’s budget position improves.

The Court retains its flexibility and capacity to respond to ongoing jurisdictional reform. Changes to the definition of family violence through recent legislation is one example of reform which has impacted on the Court’s role. In this respect, I note that the Court has seen the number of notifications of family violence rise threefold over

Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe

PART 1: THE YEAR IN REVIEW 3

the past five years. The Court has also responded to changes in the scope of judicial review in migration law. Members of the Court handled a large number of applications for review of asylum claims over the past 12 months, a caseload which carried numerous logistical and geographic challenges, for all parties. The Court continues to accrue jurisdiction in diverse areas of federal law with significant increases in both migration and fair work caseloads during the year.

Two new appointments were made to the Court in the past 12 months: Federal Magistrate Ronald Curtain, appointed in Melbourne; and Federal Magistrate Mathew Myers, appointed in Newcastle. These appointments reflect important dimensions of the work of the Court. The first is the consistent rise in the Court’s workload, which has increased in every year of the Court’s existence. I am conscious of the importance of the Court continuing to dispose of matters in a timely manner and I continue to work with federal magistrates to ensure that case management practices remain sustainable and responsive. Judicial resources are very important in this regard.

The second dimension is the diversity of the communities the Court serves. Federal Magistrate Myers is the first federal judicial appointment of an Indigenous Australian and I am extremely proud that he was appointed to this court. This court has the great privilege of serving a very diverse community and is committed to ensuring access to justice for all Australians. It is an important part of the Court’s role to engage with all sectors of the community and where possible to ensure that the Court meets cultural and other specific needs. I am strongly committed to ensuring that over time the judiciary of this court reflects the richness and diversity of modern Australia.

The Court is taking positive steps to improve access for Indigenous Australians especially those in remote areas and a special working group of the Court has been established to examine possible initiatives.

Courts, like all public institutions, continue to feel the impact of reduced public spending. The Court ended the financial year with a deficit of $3.6m – the fifth consecutive year in which the Court has operated at a loss. Further administrative rationalisation, as proposed, is unlikely to relieve any of the financial pressures facing the Court. Budget constraints will make it more difficult for the Court to meet the needs of the public with resources being reduced in the next financial year. The Court is working positively with the Attorney General and her department to ensure that it is able to continue to provide efficient and readily available access for all Australians to the federal justice system.


STATISTICS AT A GLANCE

Table 1.1 Filings and finalisations in family law and general federal law

Family law Filings Finalisations

2011–12 2010–11 2011–12 2010–11

Final orders 17,415 17,515 16,785 16,552

Interim orders 20,332 19,612 20,080 18,841

Divorce applications 46,031 44,964 45,685 45,390

Other 1771 2003 1877 1987

Total family law 85,549 84,094 84,427 82,770

General federal law Filings Finalisations

2011–12 2010–11 2011–12 2010–11

Bankruptcy 4590 4848 4728 4988

Migration 1464 959 1172 864

Administrative 15 15 12 19

Admiralty 7 4 6 10

Consumer 56 89 63 104

Copyright 44 50 53 49

Human rights 81 94 88 105

Industrial 736 561 665 435

Total general federal law 6993 6620 6787 6574


DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2011–12

Federal courts restructure

The Report of the Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General's Portfolio (the Skehill Review) was released by the Attorney-General on 8 June 2012 and is available at www.finance.gov.au. The report has recommended a range of practical measures to improve the operation and reduce duplication between federal courts.

The key focus of the work on the federal courts is the efficiency and effectiveness of court 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 utilisation of court buildings.

In considering the efficiency and effectiveness of court administration, the Skehill Review found the move to shared administration for the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family 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 Government has 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 and 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 change to 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.

South Australia pilot project

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

During 2011–12, stakeholders were trialling initiatives in four key areas:

• expanding the exercise of current jurisdiction

• case management and information sharing

• relationship building, and

• risk identification and assessment.


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

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

The Dandenong Project

In early 2010, the Federal Magistrates Court implemented the Dandenong Project (the Project) at the Dandenong Family Law Courts Registry. The aim of the Project was to test a new approach to listing and case management that could contribute to ensuring each court event was constructive while advancing the matter towards resolution.

The Project’s implementation was underpinned by ceasing to operate Dandenong as a circuit location and introducing a docket for Dandenong based federal magistrates. Federal magistrates used a triage system of assessment and sought to utilise a wide range of innovative dispute resolution services to encourage the early resolution of matters.

A review commissioned to evaluate and document the Dandenong Project was conducted with funding from the Attorney-General’s

Department. In recognition of the multiple objectives of the Project, information was gathered through a range of collection methods and sources. Data sources were selected for their reliability, availability and appropriateness.

The findings of the Project suggest that overall, the changes made to case management processes and techniques had a positive impact, with more cases settling earlier without judicial determination and with less court events. This reduced the burden of litigation on parties by reducing legal fees and the time required to resolve a case.

The Project has resulted in an increase in the number of cases that settle with a significant increase in the number of cases that settle early. Forty per cent of all cases in Dandenong settled in two or less court events, the highest early settlement rate across the Federal Magistrates Court.

The triaging of matters and early access to family consultants for child inclusive and child dispute conferences, known as section 11F interventions (s11F) assisted in increasing settlement rates and facilitating the early resolution of matters. Section 11F of the Family Law Act 1975 allows the Court to order parties to attend appointments with family consultants.

The effectiveness of s11F and conciliation conferences in resolving matters is enhanced by (a) not setting a trial date, a practice which focuses parties away from the trial and toward resolution events and (b) conducting those events on a sitting day where lawyers, parties, federal magistrates, family consultants/registrars are all present and focused on finding ways to resolve a dispute.


A ‘kiosk’ was established with the assistance of the Collaborative Dispute Resolution Services Group to assist the Court and parties in connecting with community support. It aims to promote awareness that alternatives to litigation remain open once court proceedings have commenced. The kiosk delivers a range of benefits including increased awareness of, and access to, services provided by the community sector as well as improving links between those that work in the family law systems. It provides the opportunity for parties to receive a broader range of support and services that cannot be offered by the Court alone.

Overall, Dandenong’s performance against standard court performance metrics improved under the Project and Dandenong performed above national averages in many areas. However measures regarding judicial workload raised questions regarding the sustainability of the project.

The full review is located on the Federal Magistrates Court website at www.fmc.gov.au

Review of family violence strategy

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.

Melbourne Relocation List Pilot

A Relocation list has been established as a 12 month pilot project for the hearing of certain family law proceedings in Melbourne. This involves applications to vary existing orders or parenting arrangements primarily as a result of a proposed change of residence of a person with primary, majority, or shared care of children.

The Relocation list has been established to meet the needs of children who would be prejudiced if their carers are unable to expeditiously obtain a decision when seeking orders permitting them to change the place of residence of the children, where such a change would result in the parent being unable to comply with existing parenting orders or arrangements. Commonly there is a need for an expeditious determination, such as an offer of employment or a transfer of a place of employment of a parent or another significant person in the life of the parent or child.

Federal Magistrates Hartnett and McGuire have been nominated to conduct the relocation lists that commenced on 16 March 2012. As at 30 June 2012 a total of 31 matters had been placed in the list with an average time to trial of eight weeks. A review of the list will be undertaken progressively with a full review at the end of 12 months to determine its future.

Full details of the pilot can be found on the Courts website at www.fmc.gov.au

http://www.fmc.gov.au/pubs/html/dandenong.html


Federal Magistrates Court 2010–11 Annual Report wins silver

The Federal Magistrates Court 2010–11 Annual Report (hard copy) was awarded a prestigious ‘silver’ in the Institute of Public Administration’s ACT Annual Report Awards. Each report is scrutinised and judged on stringent criteria for hard copy and online versions. The awards are designed to honour the achievements of public sector work groups, units and teams that produce and table annual reports. The awards test accountability, transparency and quality. Through its annual reports and other means, the courts will continue to strive for excellence and good governance in public sector administration.

Self Represented Litigant Pilot – General Federal Law

The Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House (QPILCH) Self Representation Pilot Service is an initiative of the Federal Court in

conjunction with QPILCH. The Federal Magistrates Court has supported the pilot which extends to assisting parties in the Federal Magistrates Court (Brisbane registry) in bankruptcy and human rights proceedings. The initiative consists of two components: a self-representation service providing discrete task assistance by experienced volunteers co-ordinated by QPILCH; and the provision of Court Network. The pilot is the subject of an independent review.

Outlook for 2012–13

In 2012–13, the following may have an impact on the Court and its delivery of services:

• budgetary pressures

• implementation of the recommendations contained in the Skehill Review

• implementation of changed fees from 1 January 2013, and

• increasing notifications in respect to allegations of risk.

JOINT INITIATIVES OF THE COURTS

Throughout 2011–12, the Federal Magistrates Court was involved in a number of joint initiatives. These new and ongoing initiatives included the following:

Commonwealth Courts Portal

The Commonwealth Courts Portal www.comcourts.gov.au was launched in July 2007 as a joint initiative of the Federal Magistrates Court, Family Court and Federal 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. In addition the portal, allows lawyers and parties to eFile various documents and to initiate applications by completing the forms online, paying by credit card and selecting a first court date.


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. Parties to a divorce application may also print off a copy of their divorce order. Users log on using a single user ID and access multiple jurisdictions from a single central web-based system.

The number of portal users has continued to grow rapidly since its inception with a further significant increase in registered users recorded in 2011–12. The number of registered users has grown from 57,602 at 30 June 2011 to 85,332 at 30 June 2012. As at 30 June 2012 there were 3280 registered law firms and 6746 individual lawyers and barristers. Table 1.2 provides further detail regarding the number of portal users.

Table 1.2 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

eFiling rates continued to increase in 2011–12 with 7952 divorce applications and 1541 other forms of applications lodged electronically. The number of applications made by eFiling is expected to continue to grow in 2012–13.

A total of 96,228 supplementary documents such as affidavits were eFiled. The content of each of these documents is available for viewing online by registered parties to a matter. This alleviates the need for these parties to attend a court registry to view the physical file.


Improvements made to the portal during 2011–12 included:

• a subpoena screen which allows parties to check if their request to inspect a document has been approved

• a screen showing a complete list of all documents filed in a matter which has filters to enable searches to be conducted on:

– date filed on

– date filed to

– type of document, and

– name of filing party

• a ‘recent activity on starred files’ section which highlights changes such as a document being filed, an order being made, or an event being listed

• tabs on the homepage were reduced to improve the look and usability of the page and a new series of themed icons provides a fresh look for the homepage

• a new alpha/numeric search feature allows users to search for party names or file numbers within their ‘available files’ collection

• increased performance through the introduction of a new server and further code tuning, and

• a global list of documents which creates a single list of all documents on a file in reverse chronological order.

Table 1.3 shows the number of supplementary documents eFiled in Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court for the past four years by location.


Table 1.3 Documents eFiled in the Federal Magistrates Court and Family 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

Note: In Western Australia 827 divorce applications and 3228 supplementary documents were eFiled during 2011–12

Enhancements expected to be introduced or advanced in 2012–13 include:

• the capability for users to create a global list of all orders on a file

• the completion of work to ensure Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are complied in accordance with government mandated time lines

• introduction of court lists in the portal

• commencement of a refresh of the portal look and feel, and

• investigation of the possibility of introducing electronic service via the portal.


A study of Indigenous Australians access to and usage of the Family Law Courts

In 2011–12 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 covers issues of access to justice and recommends steps towards improved service delivery. It will 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 their experiences and perceptions 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:

• From 2007–08 there has been a shift in filing trends in Indigenous matters, including a decline in the number of Indigenous applicants, an increase in Indigenous people as respondents, and an increase in matters where both parties are Indigenous.

• Indigenous litigants were much less likely to have attended dispute resolution via a Family Relationship Centre than non-Indigenous litigants, and were more likely to have attended a legal aid conference as the first dispute resolution event.

• Indigenous litigants were twice as likely to cite non-attendance at dispute resolution by the other party as the reason for failure to resolve the dispute.

• Indigenous litigants rated family violence as the most important issue for them and/or the other party when ranking all of the issues involved in going to court. For the non-Indigenous group, relocation was rated as the most important issue for them and/or the other party.

• A large majority in each group found court staff to be somewhat helpful or better in providing information and assistance. A majority in each group also reported that they had been treated with respect and sensitivity by court staff when attending court.


• There was a higher level of dissatisfaction expressed by the non-Indigenous litigants when compared to the Indigenous litigants, but this needs to be viewed in the context of sampling differences.

• Indigenous litigants were more balanced in their views of the Court’s handling of their case and in most instances expressed relatively equal levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction

• Fifty-three per cent of Indigenous participants indicated that the Court had not properly considered the cultural needs of Indigenous children. Thirty-three per cent of the group ‘strongly’ disagreed with the statement that the children’s cultural needs had been properly considered by the Court.

• Less than 30 per cent of the Indigenous group believed that the Court displayed respect and understanding in response to their concerns about culture and its importance for children.

• Indigenous litigants were critical of the family report writer on all aspects of the family report, but particularly the report writer’s ability to deal with Indigenous cultural issues.

• Fifty-nine per cent of the Indigenous group did not believe that the report writer had done their best to understand and report upon the cultural issues affecting the children, and

• Practitioners expressed higher levels of satisfaction and confidence with the court’s handling of the Indigenous cases than that expressed by Indigenous litigants. Practitioners were generally less satisfied with the Court’s handling of Indigenous cultural issues than they were with the overall handling of their client’s case. Only 46 per cent of practitioners reported that the cultural needs of the children had been properly considered by the Court. Practitioners tended to have a negative view of family reports in these cases and were consistently critical of report writers when it came to the assessment of cultural issues.

Issues that the courts are now considering, guided by the Indigenous Working Group, include:

• accessibility of pre-filing Family Dispute Resolution Services for Indigenous Australians

• a need to ensure that reliable and accurate data exists in relation to monitoring of court usage by Indigenous Australians, and

• improving judicial education and awareness of Indigenous cultural issues, and improving the capacity of family report writers to assess Indigenous cultural issues.

A copy of the final report is expected to be published later in 2012.

Registrar Workload Project

The Registrar Workload Project continued during 2011–12. In October 2010, the Chief Federal Magistrate and Chief Justice had established a working group to identify, quantify and report on the work undertaken by registrars for the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family 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 Internal Evaluations on page 92.


Client Service Senior Manager’s Group

The Client Service Senior Managers’ Group (CSSMG) comprises registry managers and registry and judicial service managers from the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family 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:

• the Q-Matic ticketing system and implementation of a new centrally managed system

• the intranets and the creation of a client service wiki to ensure staff have access to the most up-to-date procedural information

• the client service induction process which has resulted in new starters receiving a comprehensive package of information and training. This package complements the overall induction program to the courts, which is available to all staff, and

• eFiling procedures to ensure that the most efficient use of the technology is being implemented in response to the growth in eFiling. This will be ongoing as the take-up rates continue to increase.

User Satisfaction Survey

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 and services of 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 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’ ability. The final report is on the Federal Magistrates Court website at www.fmc.gov.au

Family violence screening within Child Dispute Services

In June 2011, a working group was established to consider the most effective and efficient ways of implementing family violence screening processes within the 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:

• better ensure client safety while they are engaged within the Child Dispute Services pathway

• ensure that client safety and security are considered when planning future Child Dispute Services interventions, and

• provide information to the courts that assists with the integration of safety measures into proposed parenting arrangements.

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:

• the presence of apprehended violence orders

• fear of harm

• threats to harm

• spousal abuse history

• injuries

• recent escalation

1 Ellis, D & Stuckless, N (2006) Domestic Violence, Dove and Divorce Mediation , Family Court Review, Vol 44(4); Holtzworth-

Munroe, A, Beck, C & 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, & 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, JE and Ralfs, C (2012) The

Family Law DOORS Handbook, Canberra, Australian Government Attorney General’s Department.

http://www.fmc.gov.au


• concurrent child abuse, and

• concurrent psychological abuse.

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.

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.

Revised Family Violence Best Practice Principles launched

In July 2011, the (then) Attorney-General Robert McClelland, Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe and Chief Justice Bryant 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 Federal Magistrates Court–Family 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 on when commencement would be, 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 7 of this report.

Sydney family law settlement service

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, New South Wales Bar Association, Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court.

The aim of the service is to settle as many family law property matters as early as 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 have been identified as suitable for mediation (excluding those with allegations of family violence, for example). These matters have already had a conciliation conference. 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 will facilitate 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.

Statement of Strategic Intent

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. The Statement of Strategic Intent is expected to be released early in 2012–13.

Courts win 2011 AIJA Award for Excellence in Judicial Administration

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 is 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.

http://is


In initiating YEAG, the Court recognised that in Australia and within the courts generally, there is an ageing workforce, which needs to be addressed. 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.

Launch of new online Performance Management Development System

The Australian Public Service Commission’s State of the Service survey results (2008–2009 and 2009–2010) indicated that developing and managing performance was an area in which some improvement was necessary. To address this, the courts’ first joint Enterprise Agreement in 2010 sought to strengthen the courts’ Performance Management Development System (PMDS) so that it not only reflected performance development but also had a strong emphasis on managing performance.

This was important because progression through the increments of a particular level and the productivity pay increases under the enterprise agreement are both tied to satisfactory performance.

A new online tool—Career Manager—was launched in October 2011. This tool allows discussions to be recorded in the Performance Management Development Plan via the Employee Self Service (ESS) system, making processing increments and pay rises on 1 July each year a simpler process.

It also has advantages to employees, such as career enhancement, salary progression and job satisfaction.

Environmental Champions Network

The Environmental Champions Network was formed in 2010 as a result of a project by the YEAG in 2009–10.

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 groups notable projects for 2011–12 include:

• Earth Hour

• National Recycling Week

• Mobile Muster

• Christmas shutdown drive


• desktop computer shutdown drive

• launch of the courts’ environmental logo, and

• forming an Environmental Champions Network Connections community.

Connecting our staff

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:

• create a profile—upload a photo, record contact information and list past experience, skills, and interests

• create or join a community—share information and interact with other staff with similar roles or projects. Participate in a discussion forums, share bookmarks and feeds with other members

• subscribe to feeds—keep up-to-date with the latest information, and participate in or start a discussion

• write or read a blog—give feedback or share information by writing text, adding a link or uploading an image or video. Blogs are updated daily like an online journal

• write, read or edit a wiki—collaboratively author, view or edit information. A wiki is for multiple users to create and modify the pages

• create an activity—organise a team or an individual’s work, assign ownership and create due dates for actions involving one or more individuals, and

• share files and content with others—upload presentations, documents, videos or files into a file-sharing library. Keep them private, semi-private, or public and add tags, rating, add recommendations and see comments.

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 that software had shortcomings in terms of the courts’ needs. From late 2007 to early 2008 a range of other products were evaluated. As a result, a Collaboration Technical Options Paper was delivered in October 2009 and a decision was made to proceed with Connections.

A trial of Connections was undertaken with 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 over 50 communities had been established.

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.

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.

PART 2: OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT


PART 2: OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

ABOUT THE COURT

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia was established by the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (the Act) as an independent federal court under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. The Court was established to handle less complex matters in the areas of family law and general federal law.

The Court is a federal court of record and a court of law and equity. It sits in all capital cities and selected major regional centres.

Objective

The objective of the Court is to provide a simple and more accessible alternative to litigation in the Family Court of Australia (Family Court) and the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) and to relieve the workload of the superior federal courts.

The provisions of the Act enable the Court to operate as informally as possible in the exercise of judicial power, use streamlined procedures and make use of a range of dispute resolution processes to resolve matters without judicial decisions.

Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of the Court includes family law and child support and the following areas of general federal law: administrative law, admiralty law, bankruptcy, consumer law (formerly trade practices), copyright, human rights, industrial, migration and privacy. The Court shares these jurisdictions with the Family Court and the Federal Court. The provisions of the Act enable the Court to operate as informally as possible in the exercise of a range of dispute resolution processes to resolve matters without decisions.

Family law and child support

The Court exercises all aspects of jurisdiction in the Family Law Act 1975 with the exception of adoption and applications for nullity or validity of marriage. The Court has the same jurisdiction as the Family Court in relation to child support.

PART 2: OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT 23

This includes:

• applications for divorce

• applications concerning spousal maintenance

• property disputes (including de facto jurisdiction)

• all parenting orders, including those providing for where a child lives, who a child spends time and communicates with, and maintenance or specific issues

• enforcement of orders made by either the Federal Magistrates Court or the Family Court

• location and recovery orders as well as warrants for the apprehension or detention of a child

• determination of parentage and recovery of child-bearing expenses, and

• any matter transferred to it by the Family Court.

General federal law

The Court deals with a wide range of matters, sharing jurisdiction with the Federal Court and, in some cases, state courts. The Court’s rules and procedures are simpler and less formal and aim to reduce the cost and number of court appearances.

The Court can hear and decide matters relating to administrative law, admiralty law, bankruptcy, consumer law (formerly trade practices), copyright, human rights, industrial, migration, and privacy and any matter transferred from the Federal Court. Where the Court has jurisdiction in a matter, it also has jurisdiction to determine associated or inseverable claims which would otherwise not be within jurisdiction.

Following is more information about the Court’s jurisdiction in these various areas of general federal law.

Administrative

• Matters under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997, and

• Appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal remitted from the Federal Court.

Admiralty

• In personam actions (claims against a specific person or company) such as freight claims, damage claims and seafarers’ wages, and

• In rem actions remitted by the Federal Court and state supreme courts.

Bankruptcy

All civil claims and matters under the Bankruptcy Act 1966, except those requiring jury trials.


Consumer

The Court has jurisdiction with respect to claims under the following provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (formerly the Trade Practices Act 1974):

• Section 46 (Misuse of Market Power)

• Section IVB (Industry Codes)

• Part XI (Application of the Australian Consumer Law as a law of the Commonwealth), and

• Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law).

The Court can provide injunctive relief and award damages up to $750,000.

In relation to certain claims for $40,000 or less, litigants can elect to use the small claims procedure of the Court.

Copyright

Civil claims and matters under Parts V, VAA, IX and section 248J of the Copyright Act 1968, such as claims for injunctions and damages for breach of copyright.

Human rights

Federal unlawful discrimination matters under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 relating to complaints under the:

• Age Discrimination Act 2004

• Disability Discrimination Act 1992

• Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and

• Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

Industrial

The Federal Magistrates Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court for matters under the:

• Fair Work Act 2009

• Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009, and

• Workplace Relations Act 1996 (in so far as it continues to apply).

This jurisdiction is to be exercised by the Fair Work Division of the Court.

The Fair Work Act 2009 confers small claims jurisdiction on the Court for various matters if the compensation is not more than $20,000.

The Court also has jurisdiction in relation to certain matters under the:

• Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (note this jurisdiction ceased 1 June 2012), and

• Independent Contractors Act 2006.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00003

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00003


Migration

Most first instance judicial reviews of visa-related decisions of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. In addition, the Court has jurisdiction in relation to review of offshore entry person’s determination. The Court does not have jurisdiction to undertake a merits review of these types of decisions.

Privacy

Enforcing determinations of the Privacy Commissioner and private sector adjudicators under the Privacy Act 1988.

The Court also has jurisdiction to hear any matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court which the Federal Court transfers to the Federal Magistrates Court.

Changes to the Court’s jurisdiction during 2011–12

The Attorney-General announced on 26 April 2012 that the Government would not proceed with the proposed merger of the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court. In addition it was announced that the name of the Federal Magistrates Court and title of federal magistrates will change to better reflect their important role in the judicial system. Consultation is now underway as to an appropriate name before legislation is introduced to implement this change.

As part of this announcement, the Attorney-General indicated that in the context of the family law jurisdiction, consideration would be given to developing a clearer and better understood apportionment of work and jurisdiction between the courts.

The following Acts have received assent during the year and impact on the general federal law jurisdiction of the Court:

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 came into force on 1 January 2012. The Act gives the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court a broad jurisdiction in any civil proceedings under the Act concurrent with state/territory courts. The Act makes provision for certain applications to be exercised in the Fair Work Division of the Court.

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 will commence 15 April 2013 and includes amendments conferring jurisdiction under the Designs Act 2003 and the Trade Mark Act 1995. The Court will have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions, directions and orders of the registrar.

Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Act 2012 commenced 1 July 2012. The Act amends the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA) to extend the operation of most provisions of the FWA to contract outworkers in the textile clothing and footwear industry and provide a mechanism for such outworkers to recover unpaid amounts up the supply chain.

Road Safety Remuneration Act 2012 (and consequential Act) commenced 1 July 2012. The Act will establish a new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal which will be empowered to inquire into sectors, issues and practices within the road transport industry and, where appropriate, determine mandatory minimum rates of pay and related


conditions for employed and self-employed drivers. The Bill also establishes a compliance regime and confers compliance powers on the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). This jurisdiction will be analogous to the jurisdiction conferred on the courts by the FWA and the Independent Contractors Act 2006.

Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Act 2012 commences on 20 September 2012. The Act amends the Extradition Act and the Mutual Assistance Act, to confer personal powers on a federal magistrate who has provided consent, to exercise powers under these Acts.

As one part of a package of legislation in relation to the shipping industry, the Parliament passed the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 which provides for the regulatory framework for a vessel’s access to coastal trading in Australian waters. The Act provides for civil penalty provisions and confers jurisdiction from 1 July 2012 on the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 commenced on 29 January 2012 and conferred certain civil penalty powers of the Court.

Amendments to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Federal Magistrates Court Amendment Rules 2012 (No 1)

These rules included the following amendments to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001:

• consequential amendments as a result of the implementation of the Federal Court Rules 2011

• consequential amendments to facilitate the ‘family violence’ amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 as implemented by the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011

• amendments to the address for service rules to facilitate the authorisation of ordinary service by email, and

• amendments to Schedule 1 – costs – to increase the amounts fixed consistent with recommendations of the Joint Costs Advisory Committee and to introduce a new Part 2 of Schedule 1 being costs certain child support proceedings.

Most of these amendments commenced on 25 May 2012, save for the amendments made as a consequence of the family violence amendments of the Family Law Act, which commenced on 7 June 2012.

Amendments to the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006

Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Amendment Rules 2011 (No 1)

These Rules commenced on 1 January 2012 as a consequence of:

• amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Bankruptcy Act) and Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Bankruptcy Regulations) made in 2010 by the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 2010 by the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 2010 and Bankruptcy Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1), and

• amendments to the Federal Court Rules 2011 on 1 August 2011.


Practice Directions/Information Notices

The following practice/information notices were published during the year:

• Consent Orders in Proceedings Involving a Federal Tribunal – Practice Direction No 1 of 2012

• Electronic Engrossment of Orders – Family Law Matters – Victorian and Tasmanian Registries and Circuits, and

• Relocation List – Melbourne Registry.

A full list of all practice and information notices is available from the Court’s website at: www.fmc.gov.au

Amendments to the Federal Magistrates Regulations 2000

Federal Magistrates Amendment Regulation 2012 (No 1)

The Regulation took effect on 12 May 2012. The amendment was in response to the decision in Beasley v The Australian National University [2011] FMCA 792 where the Court found that, due to the operation of section 14 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (LIA) the Rules did not incorporate the rules of the Federal Court as in force from time to time but in the form they stood at the time they were adopted for application in the Court. The amendment was to modify the provisions of the LIA in their application to the Court, to allow any rules of the Court to apply, adopt or incorporate, with or without modification, any rules of other courts, as in force from time to time.

Biennial increase from 1 July 2012

Pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Regulations 2000, the fees payable are subject to an automatic biennial increase from 1 July 2012 to reflect changes to the consumer price index.

Fair Work Amendment Regulations 2011 (No 4)

The Regulations enable an official of an industrial association to represent a party in a small claims proceeding in circumstances where the party is granted leave by the Federal Magistrates Court or a state magistrates court. The Regulations were developed in response to a decision of the Court in Corcoran & Ors v Bansley Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 440 not to allow the applicants in the matter to be represented by an industrial association. The case identified that while subsection 548(8) of the Act provides that an officer of an industrial association may represent a party in a small claims proceeding in circumstances specified in the Principal Regulations, no such regulations had been made under this provision.

http://www.fmc.gov.au/practice/index.html


ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

Figure 2.1 Federal Magistrates Court organisational structure, 30 June 2012.

Federal Magistrates andJudicial Committees

Acting Deputy Chief Executive

Officer

Steve Agnew

Principal Registrar

Adele Bryne

Executive Director Client

Services

Stephen Andrew

Executive Director Information

Communication and Technology

Acting

Phil Hocking

Acting Chief Finance Officer

Grahame Harriott

Judgment Publication

RegistriesMarshal and

Security ServicesCommunicationsApplications Finance

StatisticsInformation

ManagementHuman

Resources

Infrastructure Property

Procurement and Risk Management

Chief Federal MagistrateJohn Pascoe AO CVO

Acting Chief Executive OfficerRichard Foster PSM

Management Accounting

Judicial officers

Federal magistrates are appointed by the Governor-General by commission as justices in accordance with Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. A federal magistrate is appointed for a term expiring when they reach the age of 70 years.

Section 8 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 provides that the Court consists of a Chief Federal Magistrate and such other federal magistrates as appointed. At 30 June 2012, 63 federal magistrates held appointment to the Court (including the Chief Federal Magistrate). More detail on judicial officers can be found at Appendix B.

Note: The remuneration arrangements for all judicial officers and the Acting Chief Executive Officer are governed by enforceable determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details including relevant determinations are available at www.remtribunal.gov.au

http://www.remtribunal.gov.au


Details of the federal magistrates follow in the table below:

Table 2.1 Federal magistrates, 30 June 2012

Chief Federal Magistrate Location Date of appointment

John Pascoe Sydney 14 July 2004

Federal magistrate Location Date of appointment

Warren Donald Parramatta 13 June 2000

Christine Mead Adelaide 13 June 2000

Michael Baumann Brisbane 19 June 2000

Jim Brewster Canberra 19 June 2000

Norah Hartnett Melbourne 19 June 2000

Stephen Scarlett Sydney 19 June 2000

John Coker Townsville 26 June 2000

Rolf Driver Sydney 31 July 2000

Kenneth Raphael Sydney 31 July 2000

Stuart Roberts Launceston 4 December 2000

Maurice Phipps Melbourne 18 December 2000

Michael Connolly Melbourne 4 June 2001

John Walters Melbourne 29 October 2001

Stewart Brown Adelaide 5 November 2001

Shenagh Barnes Sydney 5 November 2001

Giles Coakes Newcastle 12 January 2004

Stuart Lindsay Adelaide 19 January 2004

Michael Jarrett Brisbane 2 February 2004

Sylvia Emmett Sydney 5 July 2004

Grant Riethmuller Melbourne 19 July 2004

Michael Lloyd-Jones Sydney 26 July 2004

Daniel O’Dwyer Melbourne 2 August 2004

Matthew Smith Sydney 2 August 2004

Nick Nicholls Sydney 23 August 2004

Robyn Sexton Sydney 27 September 2004

Kevin Lapthorn Newcastle 29 August 2005

Louise Henderson Parramatta 28 November 2005

Kate Hughes Melbourne 30 January 2006

Heather Riley Melbourne 3 July 2006

Philip Burchardt Melbourne 10 July 2006

John O’Sullivan Melbourne 10 July 2006

David Halligan Parramatta 31 July 2006

Toni Lucev Perth 14 August 2006


Federal magistrate Location Date of appointment

Frank Turner Melbourne 3 October 2006

Robert Cameron Sydney 3 October 2006

Tom Altobelli Sydney 13 November 2006

Michael Burnett Brisbane 24 November 2006

Stephen Coates Brisbane 27 November 2006

Leanne Spelleken Brisbane 11 December 2006

Charlotte Kelly Adelaide 12 March 2007

Janet Terry Darwin 10 April 2007

Denys Simpson Adelaide 12 June 2007

Warwick Neville Canberra 2 July 2007

Dale Kemp Sydney 4 July 2007

Paul Howard Brisbane 9 July 2007

Susan Purdon-Sully Brisbane 15 October 2007

Margaret Cassidy Brisbane 5 November 2007

Evelyn Bender Melbourne 15 September 2008

Anne Demack Brisbane 22 September 2008

Judith Walker Sydney 22 September 2008

Terry McGuire Melbourne 6 October 2008

David Dunkley Sydney 13 October 2008

Barbara Baker Hobart 27 October 2008

Geoffrey Monahan Melbourne 3 November 2008

Peter Cole Adelaide 24 November 2008

Josephine Willis Cairns 27 January 2009

Dominica Whelan Melbourne 24 May 2010

Joseph Harman Parramatta 7 June 2010

Leanne Turner Darwin 7 June 2010

Garry Foster Newcastle 18 April 2011

Matthew Myers Newcastle 23 January 2012

Ron Curtain Melbourne 23 January 2012

Appointments and retirements, 2011–12

There were two appointments and no retirements during the 2011–12 reporting period.

• Federal Magistrate Matthew Myers was appointed on 23 January 2012.

• Federal Magistrate Ron Curtain was appointed on 23 January 2012.


Vale

Federal Magistrate Slack

Federal Magistrate Keith Slack passed 17 December 2011, surrounded by his loving family, after a long and brave struggle with cancer.

Keith was appointed to the Brisbane registry of the Federal Magistrates Court on 12 September 2005, following a career both at the Bar and in private practise spanning more than 25 years. As a practitioner, he volunteered his time to a number of organisations with a strong social focus, such as the Woodridge Youth and Family Service, the Youth Advocacy Centre and Queensland Advocacy Incorporated.

His significant contribution as a federal magistrate, in a busy registry, benefited from his extensive experience as a practitioner. He established the Toowoomba circuit and worked the Lismore circuit.

Keith’s career with the Court was marked by good humour and collegiality. He faced the trials of his illness with great courage, and through this difficult period in his life he maintained the same positive spirit with which he tackled his court duties.

A special valedictory sitting of the Court was held on 26 April 2012 commemorating the life and work of Keith Slack. Federal magistrates and Keith’s family joined members of the profession, friends and colleagues to fill court 1 in the Brisbane registry. The sitting was a fitting tribute to the impact that Keith made both in relation to his work as a member of the Court and, more generally, family law. He will be greatly missed.

Staff of the Court

Court staff are employed under the Public Service Act 1999. At 30 June 2012, the Court had 165 employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014 and Australian Workplace Agreements (excluding judicial officers, the Acting Chief Executive Officer and casual employees). This was a 2.94 per cent decrease compared with 170 employees at 30 June 2011. More details on staffing levels can be found at Appendix B.

Most staff are employed in the chambers of federal magistrates. Each federal magistrate is supported by two employees, who undertake the administrative responsibilities associated with the day-to-day management of chambers and court, including duties required in the courtroom.

PART 3: THE WORK OF THE COURT IN

2011–2012


PART 3: THE WORK OF THE COURT IN 2011–12

THE COURT’S PERFORMANCE

Outcome and program

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, which are the Government actions taken to deliver the stated outcomes. Agencies are required to identify the programs that contribute to government outcomes over the Budget and forward years.

Outcome

The Federal Magistrates Court’s outcome is:

Program

The Court has a single program under which all services are provided:

The Federal Magistrates Court’s program objective is to provide a simple and accessible alternative to litigation in the Family Court and the Federal Court. Where practical, parties are encouraged to resolve their disputes through dispute resolution and negotiation methods.

Summary of performance

Table 3.1 summarises the Court’s results in delivering services against the key performance indicators (KPIs) and deliverables, published in the 2011–12 Portfolio Budget Statements.

OUTCOME 1

To provide the Australian community with a simple and accessible forum for the resolution of less complex disputes within the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.

PROGRAM 1.1

Provision of a Federal Magistrates Court

PART 3: THE WORK OF THE COURT 2011–12 35

Table 3.1 Deliverables and key performance indicators, 2011–12 Portfolio Budget Statements

Deliverables Performance

Number of cases litigated and divorce cases processed In 2011–12, the Court litigated 92,542 cases.

KPIs* Performance

Time goal: the time taken from filing to disposition is less than six months in 90 per cent of cases.

In 2011–12, 83 per cent of all applications (family law and general federal law) were completed within six months and 95 per cent were completed within 12 months.

In family law, 84 per cent of applications were completed within six months and 95 per cent were completed within 12 months.

98 per cent of divorces were completed within six months and 100 per cent were completed within 12 months.

In general federal law, 78 per cent of applications were completed within six months and 94 per cent were completed within 12 months.

Performance goal: less than one per cent of cases litigated or divorces processed are subject to complaint

In 2011–12, the number of complaints represented 0.16 per cent of cases.

Performance goal: 60 per cent of matters are resolved before trial

In 2011–12, 70.5 per cent of matters filed were resolved without the need for judicial determination.

*The wording of this measure differs slightly from the PBS to better reflect the intent of the measure

Historic performance against KPIs

The Court has three KPI's against which it is reporting in 2011–12. The Court also reported on the same KPIs for the periods 2009–10 and 2010–11. In each of these periods, including 2011–12, the Court achieved two of the three KPIs.

The Court aims to complete 90 per cent of all applications filed within six months and was short of achieving this target in 2011–12, achieving 83 per cent. The Court has continued developing strategies to achieve this key performance indicator in the future including:

• the continued development of operational reports that enable the Court to better understand its workload

• focusing on the accuracy of data entry to ensure that reports truly reflect the position of the Court

• the ongoing review of the Court’s oldest active cases with a view to ensuring an understanding of the reasons for delay and deciding how older cases may be dealt with more quickly, and

• Case Management Federal Magistrates collectively work on improving the performance of the Court on a national and regional basis.

During 2011–12, the Court continued to meet the two performance goals of:

• Less than one per cent of matters litigated being subject of a complaint, and

• 60 per cent of matters resolved before trial.


Developments since the end of the financial year

There have been no specific developments since June 2012 that require reporting here.

WORKLOAD

Figure 3.1 Family law and general federal law applications filed 2011–12

Family law Total % of total

Final orders 17,415 19

Interim orders 20,332 22

Divorce 46,031 50

Other 1771 2

Total family law 85,549 93

General federal law

Bankruptcy 4590 5

Migration 1464 1

Other 939 1

Total general federal law 6993 7

Grand total 92,542 100%

Final orders 19%

Interim orders 22%

Divorce 50%

Other (family) 2%

Other (general federal) 1%Migration 1%

Bankruptcy 5%


CASE MANAGEMENT

The Court uses a docket case management process designed to deal with applications in a flexible and timely way. The docket case management process has the following principles:

• matters are randomly allocated to a federal magistrate who generally manages the matter from commencement to disposition. This includes making orders about the way in which the matter should be managed or prepared for hearing, and

• matters in areas of law requiring expertise in a particular area of jurisdiction are allocated to a federal magistrate who is a member of the relevant specialist panel.

The docket case management system provides the following benefits:

• consistency of approach throughout the matter’s history

• the federal magistrate’s familiarity with the matter results in more efficient management of the matter

• fewer formal directions and a reduction in the number of court appearances

• timely identification of matters suitable for dispute resolution, and

• it allows issues to be identified quickly and promotes earlier settlement of matters.


Figure 3.2 Case management approach

Case Management Approach(docket system)

Compulsory Certificate required byfamily dispute Family Relationship Centre

resolution (for family law matters only)

Obtaining legal advice is optional

File in Federal Magistrates Court

6-8 week period allowedfor service of documents

Trial date

Case resolution by judgment

Dispute Proceduralresolution adjournment

ConciliationCase resolution

conference (for family by settlement

law matters only)

First trial datebefore Federal

Magistrate

Completeapplication


SPECIALIST PANEL ARRANGEMENTS

The Court has specialist panels in areas of general federal law and child support which ensure that matters of a specialist legal nature are allocated to a federal magistrate with expertise in that particular area of the Court’s jurisdiction. Specialist panel members meet regularly with user groups and judicial colleagues from other courts to respond to issues of practice and procedure in these specialist jurisdictions.

The following panels support the work of the Court:

• Commercial (including consumer, copyright and bankruptcy)

• Migration and administrative law

• Human rights

• Industrial law

• National security

• Admiralty law

• Child support.

The panel arrangements equip the Court with the ability to effectively utilise judicial resources in specialist areas of family and general federal law. They are an essential element of continuing judicial education within the Court.

REPORT ON WORK IN FAMILY LAW

The family law workload of the Court in 2011–12 represented 93 per cent of all applications filed with the Court, remaining at the same levels as in 2010–11. The Court currently deals with 85 per cent of all federal family law matters filed (excluding Western Australian family law matters). This compares to 86 per cent in 2010–11 and 82 per cent in 2009–10.

During the year, the Government announced that the proposed merger of the Federal Magistrates Court and Family Court would not proceed. The Attorney-General has indicated that she will be considering, in consultation with the courts, more clearly defined and articulated roles in relation to the apportionment of shared work and jurisdiction. The family law jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court is almost as extensive as the Family Court.

Figure 3.3 Family law applications filed by type, 2011–12

Application Filed %

Final Orders applications 17,415 21

Interim applications 20,332 23

Divorce applications 46,031 54

Other applications 1771 2

Total 85,549 100


Figure 3.3 (continued) Family law applications filed by type, 2011–12

Application in a Case (Interim) 23%

Final Orders Applications 21%

Other Applications 2%

Divorce Orders Applications 54%

Figure 3.4 Issues sought in Final Order applications, 2011–12

Children Only 54%

Children and Financial 11%

Financial Only 35%

The family law workload (excluding divorce) can be broken into three categories. During 2011–12, 54 per cent of family law applications related specifically to matters concerning children; a further 11 per cent involved both children and property and 35 per cent involved discrete property applications.

A discrete aspect of property applications is the defacto property jurisdiction which has continued to increase, with 1042 applications having been filed in the Court during the reporting year compared with 810 during 2010–11.


Figure 3.5 De facto property only orders sought, 2007–08 to 2011–12

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

De Facto Property Only Orders Sought

800

600

1200

1000

400

200

0

Figure 3.6 Final order applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

Filed Finalised Pending

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

1493

9

1457

2

1015

2

1557

1

1531

0

1041

3

1681

8

1540

7

1182

4

1751

5

1655

2

1289

9

1741

5

1678

5

1359

5


Figure 3.7 Interim order applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12

20000

15000

10000

5000

0


2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

1439

7

1401

4

5044

1634

0

1628

6

5098

1845

0

1825

8

5290

1961

2

1884

1

5912

2033

2

2008

0

6002

Legislative amendments in family law

The Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012 retrospectively validated de facto property and maintenance orders made by the Court and the Family Court. A proclamation should have been made in early 2009 to enable the courts to validly make these orders.

The family violence provisions of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 commenced on 7 June 2012. The aim of these legislative provisions is to give greater legislative emphasis to family violence in the context of parenting disputes. The amendments include, amongst others, an expanded definition of family violence and child abuse and new provisions which requires the courts, when determining what is in a child’s best interests, to give greater weight to the primary consideration that protects the child from harm in cases if there is inconsistency in applying the considerations.

On 22 July 2012, the National Justice Chief Executive Officers’ Group approved a project plan for the development of national initiatives to improve collaboration between the federal family courts and child welfare authorities to better protect children. The Federal Magistrates Court is very supportive of this initiative and representatives attended various national stakeholder meetings to further identify barriers and improve the interface between the systems. Most parenting applications are commenced in the Federal Magistrates Court and various reports have highlighted the prevalence of family violence and child abuse allegations raised in parenting proceedings. It is important that the Court has access to information of any child welfare involvement at an early date. Representatives from court have set up local links with the state and territory child welfare agencies to better facilitate information exchange.


Divorce

Other than in Western Australia where divorce is undertaken by the Family Court of Western Australia, almost all divorce applications filed in Australia proceed in the Federal Magistrates Court. Uncontested divorce applications are heard by registrars (both sessional and in-house) with delegated powers. The Court appreciates the role that registrars play in efficiently dealing with the high volume of divorce applications.

A total of 46,031 divorce applications were filed with the Court in 2011–12. This was an increase on the 44,964 applications filed in 2010–11 but lower than the 47,174 applications filed in 2009–10.

Subsection 55(5) of the Family Law Act was replaced with a new provision which expressly provides that a review of a registrar’s decision falls within the definition of appeal with the effect that an application for review will stay the operation of a divorce order which has been pronounced but not yet come into effect: see Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 Act No. 189, 2011, Sch 2 Pt 1 Item 9.

The jurisdiction is one which attracts a significant number of self-represented litigants. Information is available which sets out the process and aims to assist litigants by way of a step-by-step kit. Many divorce enquiries are directed to the NEC which sends out more than 1000 kits by post and email every month. The NEC explains the requirements for filing, service and court attendance to callers. The role of the NEC in assisting with queries in respect to divorce is acknowledged and appreciated.

On 26 September 2009, the courts implemented the capacity for litigants to file divorce applications electronically via the CCP. The process for lodging applications was part of the evolution of electronic filing and built on the courts’ capacity to file supplementary documents electronically. The development of the eFiling process has been staged over several years, with divorce applications being the first application type available for electronic filing. This provides an additional option for litigants, particularly those in rural and regional areas who may not be able to attend in person at a registry.

The trend towards eFiling applications has continued to increase, with 9493 applications filed in 2011–12 via the CCP as opposed to 6765 in 2010–11. On average, 663 divorce applications were eFiled per month in 2011–12. There are clear benefits to litigants in being able to eFile their application, including the ability to lodge an application without having to physically attend a registry.

All divorce orders are generated electronically and in an enhanced quality with improvements having been made to the appearance of the order. Registered users of the CCP are able to download a copy of their divorce order from the CCP upon it becoming final.

The Court does not have jurisdiction in relation to Applications for Declarations of Validity of a Marriage or Annulment. The conferral of this jurisdiction is seen as desirable to complement the divorce workload of the Court.


Figure 3.8 Divorce applications, 2007–08 to 2011–12


2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

20000

15000

30000

25000

40000

35000

50000

45000

10000

5000

0

4435

3

4419

7

7132

4521

2

4477

6

7568

4717

4

4643

7

8305

4496

4

4539

0

7925

4603

1

4568

5

8317

Child support

As noted in previous annual reports, there are differing pathways by which child support matters come before the Court and differing layers of review and remedies depending upon the pathway. There would appear to be scope for greater consistency in child support review processes.

Since 1 January 2007, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) is the forum for external review for most decisions of the Child Support Agency (now known as the Child Support Program). The Court has limited first instance child support jurisdiction, but hears appeals from the SSAT. An appeal lies only on a question of law and is not a merits review of the SSAT decision. The Court has established a panel of federal magistrates to hear such appeals. The convenor of the panel, Federal Magistrate Halligan, addressed members of the profession during the year on Child Support Remedies as part of a continuing education program.

A limited number of child support matters come to the Court in respect of a Departure Prohibition Order for which there are no internal objection processes but provision for appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court.

During 2011–12, there were 29 appeals from the SSAT filed. This compares with 48 appeals filed during 2010–11.

The obligation on the SSAT to provide documents to the Court is a narrower obligation than the obligation imposed on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which is required to send all documents that were before the Tribunal, rather than just those documents that are relevant to the appeal. While there are not infrequent


difficulties in establishing the basis of an appeal from the notice filed, the Court is mindful that a significant number of litigants who appear before the Court in relation to child support appeals are not represented. Consistent with the legislative mandate, federal magistrates have sought to adopt processes and procedures which facilitate access to the Court and have set up arrangements with the SSAT for the provision of documents. A prescribed brochure is required to be served on a respondent which sets out information to assist litigants.

A few child support matters come before the Court by way of the Court’s other administrative law remedies.

A significant component of the enforcement work of the Court is in respect of recovery proceedings for child support arrears.

During the year a representative from the Court attended the Child Support National Stakeholder Engagement Group meetings at which recent developments were discussed.

Included within amendments to the Rules which came into effect on 25 May 2012, was a new Part 2 of Schedule 1 (costs) being specific fixed costs for child support appeals and enforcement proceedings: Federal Magistrates Court Amendment Rules 2012 (No 1).

REPORT ON WORK IN GENERAL FEDERAL LAW

Filings in general federal law continue to represent seven per cent of all filings in the Court.

A total of 6693 matters were filed in the Court’s general federal law jurisdiction in 2011–12, with 6787 matters finalised within the reporting period. Of the finalised matters, 5301 (78 per cent) were completed within six months. A total of 6388 matters, (94 per cent) were completed within 12 months.

Figure 3.9 General federal law applications filed by type, 2011–12

Application Filed %

Bankruptcy 4590 65.64

Migration 1464 20.94

Administrative law 15 0.21

Admiralty law 7 0.10

Consumer law 56 0.80

Intellectual property 44 0.63

Human rights 81 1.16

Industrial 736 10.52

Total 6993 100


Figure 3.9 (continued) General federal law applications filed by type, 2011–12

Bankruptcy

Migration

Administrative law

Admiralty law

Consumer law

Intellectual property

Human rights

Industrial

Administrative

The number of applications for judicial review filed in the Court by way of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) are very small. A total of 15 applications were filed in 2011–12. Most judicial review matters come to the Court by way of a challenge to statutory appeal rights under the Migration Act which fall outside the ambit of the ADJR Act statutory review mechanisms.

In relation to appeals on questions of law from the AAT, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to matters remitted from the Federal Court and precludes appeals from decisions of the AAT constituted by a presidential member.

In a consultation paper released by the Administrative Review Council, the future direction of judicial review was examined and, in particular, questions were raised as to:

• the need for statutory review mechanisms, both general and specific, in light of the fact that constitutional judicial review is entrenched and cannot be excluded by legislation

• the ambit and provisions of a general statutory review scheme, if such a scheme is to be effective, and

• the general principles that should to apply to any statutory review scheme, and guidance as to whether and when specific statutory review mechanisms are appropriate.

The Court considers there is scope for expanding the jurisdiction of the Court to encompass some review rights under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 and revisit the restriction on the need for remittal of AAT appeals in respect of appeals such as those relating to child support.

Admiralty

There were seven admiralty law applications commenced in the Court during 2011–12. The jurisdiction is confined to actions in personam maritime claims or claims for damage to a ship. There is, however, provision for remittal of in rem proceedings from the Federal Court or Supreme Court.


The conduct of admiralty law proceedings is confined to panel federal magistrates. The Court has issued a notice to practitioners entitled Conduct of Admiralty and Maritime Work in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia which is available from the Court’s website at www.fmc.gov.au

The notice to practitioners clarifies that the use of Federal Court forms constitutes sufficient compliance with the admiralty proceedings form requirements in the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. Additionally, the Federal Magistrates Court has arranged for all of its general federal law forms to be available from its website in unprotected format to enable practitioners to make changes to the Federal Magistrates Court General Federal Law Application to comply with any requirements under the Admiralty Rules.

The jurisdiction can raise issues of private international law. Treaties impacting on recognition and enforcement of judgments have been entered into prior to the establishment of the Court. Though a court of record, the Court is not a superior court and its judgments may not be automatically enforced in foreign jurisdictions. In view of the international nature of admiralty law, any incapacity in respect of the recognition or enforcement of the Court’s judgments is an impediment.

Bankruptcy

While the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court under the Bankruptcy Act 1966, most applications under this head of jurisdiction are filed in the Federal Magistrates Court and dealt with by registrars with certain delegated powers. The Court appreciates the significant role that registrars play in the bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Bankruptcy applications continue to comprise a significant proportion of the general federal law work of the Court at 66 per cent. The filings in respect to bankruptcy matters have fallen since 2009–10 when 5402 applications were filed with the Court. In 2010–11 a total of 4843 applications were filed and 4590 in 2011–12.

Figure 3.10 Bankruptcy applications filed and finalised, 2007–08 to 2011–12

4800

5000

4600

4400

4200

40002007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

Filed Finalised

5400

5600

5200


The types of bankruptcy matters being filed includes applications for sequestration orders in respect of acts of bankruptcy, annulment applications and discharges as well as matters arising from the administration of bankrupt estates. There are also personal powers under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 that eligible federal magistrates can exercise for the issue of a warrant for seizure of property connected with a bankruptcy.

In view of the shared bankruptcy jurisdiction, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court have harmonised bankruptcy rules and forms. In addition both courts participate in regular liaison meetings with representatives from Insolvency and Trustee Services Australia (ITSA) to discuss current issues and significant case law.

Amendments to the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 came into force on 1 January 2012 by way of the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Amendment Rules 2011 (No 1). These amendments were as a consequence of amendments made by the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 2010 and Bankruptcy Amendment Regulations 2010 (No 1); and to the Federal Court Rules 2011.

A practice notice was issued, Ex Parte Applications for Substituted Service in Bankruptcy Proceedings and Applications for Examination Summonses Under section 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. This practice notice commenced on 6 February 2012 in conjunction with a practice notice issued by the Federal Court for hearing and deciding these matters using the Federal Court eCourt procedures.

The Personal Property Securities Register, administered by ITSA, commenced operation on 30 January 2012. The Federal Magistrates Court and a number of other Australian courts have jurisdiction (subject to limits) for parties wishing to enforce their rights under a secured agreement: see s.207 Personal Property Securities Act 2009. During the year, the Registrar of Personal Property Securities, Mr David Bergman, gave an address to Melbourne bankruptcy panel federal magistrates, outlining aspects of the new personal property securities regime.

The conferral of some corporations law jurisdiction, at least in respect of corporate insolvency, is seen as desirable to complement the significant personal bankruptcy jurisdiction exercised.

Consumer

During 2011–12 there were 56 consumer law applications filed as opposed to 89 in 2010–11.

The Court’s consumer jurisdiction has a statutory limit of $750,000 on the amount of damages that the Court can award. This limitation may impact on the small volume of consumer law matters that are commenced in the Court.

Following the transfer of the regulation of credit to the Commonwealth, some of the bodies that previously dealt with such matters no longer have a formal regulatory function. A consumer credit user group meeting was convened in Melbourne to consider issues of accessibility to the Court of the jurisdiction. It was noted that there is currently no reduction in fees for the smaller credit claims and this was seen as a possible impediment to filing. In addition, dispute resolution processes are in place to provide internal and external dispute resolution with courts only being contemplated when these processes are unable to resolve the matter or where such processes are not considered appropriate.


Copyright

The intellectual property jurisdiction of the Court has been extended to include trade mark and design but not patents. The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 will commence 15 April 2013 and includes amendments conferring jurisdiction under the Designs Act 2003 and the Trade Mark Act 1995. The Court will have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions, directions and orders of the registrar but will not be able to hear an appeal from another court.

The Court has specialist panels to deal with this head of jurisdiction.

The protection of copyright in a digital environment presents some challenges and has been the focus of recent decisions: Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & Ors v iiNET Limited [2012] HCA 16; SSSingtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 34. On 30 March 2012, the Attorney-General’s Department released draft terms of reference for the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into the operation of copyright exceptions in the digital environment. The Attorney-General noted that the draft terms of reference were reflective of the constantly evolving technology which tested the boundaries of copyright law.

During the year the Court considered action over alleged copyright infringement of moral rights in the integrity of authorship of a work. In Perez v Fernandez [2012] FMCA 2, the Court found such an infringement by the unauthorised mixing of a promotional recording into a song. The Court had earlier considered infringement of moral rights in Meskenas v ACP Publishing Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136.

The Federal Magistrates Court provides all material (unless otherwise noted and with the exception of the Coat of Arms) with Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unspotted licensing. Material may be distributed, as long as it remains unchanged and the Court is credited as the creator. Australia is one of over 50 countries who has taken up the Creative Commons (CC) project. The use of CC licensing puts the Court among those government agencies embracing open licensing of public sector information.


Human rights

The human rights workload comprises a small but significant component of the overall general federal law workload of the Court. In 2011–12, a total of 81 applications were filed, as opposed to 94 in 2010–11.

Figure 3.11 Human rights applications filed and finalised 2007–08 to 2011–12

40

20

02007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

Filed Finalised

80

60

120

100

In the context of discrimination in the workplace, there are alternative remedies that can be pursued by way of Fair Work Act provisions. It is noted that proceedings under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 are subject to the genuine steps statement requirement under the Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011. This is so even though there is a requirement for conciliation as a condition precedent to applying to the Court and notwithstanding that parties raising these issues seeking remedies under the Fair Work Act 2009 are excluded from such an obligation.

The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 passed on 25 November 2011 and commenced on 4 January 2012. The Act introduces a requirement for Statements of Compatibility to accompany all new Bills and disallowable legislative instruments and establishes a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. During the year, officers from the Court attended the launch of the Australian Public Service Human Rights Officers Network which aims to foster human rights awareness in the Commonwealth public sector.

The Government has indicated an intention to consolidate Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws into a single Act and launched a discussion paper with the aim of draft legislation being released for public consultation later in 2012: Consolidation of Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination Laws Discussion Paper. The discussion paper considers the current complaints and compliance framework with discussion around the Court process.


The Age Discrimination Act 2004 was amended in May 2011 to create an office for an Age Discrimination Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission and on 30 July 2011, an Age Discrimination Commissioner was announced.

Legislation to establish a National Children’s Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission was introduced into Parliament on 23 May 2012. The Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children’s Commissioner) Bill 2012 provides for the Children’s Commissioner to take a broad advocacy role to promote public awareness of issues affecting children, conduct research and education programs, consult directly with children and representative organisations as well as monitor Commonwealth legislation, policies and programs that relate to children’s rights, wellbeing and development.

Industrial

The industrial law jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court is attracting an increasing proportion of the industrial law filings in the federal courts. In 2011–12, 736 applications were filed representing 10.52 per cent of the Court’s general federal law workload. In 2010–11, there were 561 applications representing 8.47 per cent of the Court’s workload. There continues to be a steady increase in the filings in the industrial jurisdiction of the Court.

Figure 3.12 Industrial law matters filed and finalised 2007–08 to 2011–12

400

500

300

200

100

0

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

Filed Finalised

700

800

600

The jurisdiction is being expanded which may have workload impacts. The cumulative impact on judicial and registrar resources is an issue which will need to be monitored.


The Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Act 2012 commenced 1 July 2012. Under this Act the Court can hear proceedings relating to the recovery of unpaid amounts from entities up the supply chain. This could impact on existing workload and the conduct of small claims and other matters in the Court’s general industrial law jurisdiction.

The Road Safety Remuneration Act 2012 commenced 1 July 2012. This Act inter alia establishes a compliance regime and confers compliance powers and will be analogous to the enforcement jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts by the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) and the Independent Contractors Act 2006.

The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 came into force on 1 January 2012. The Act gives the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court a broad jurisdiction in any civil proceedings under the Act concurrent with state/territory courts. The Act makes provision for certain applications to be exercised in the Fair Work division of the Court.

From 1 June 2012, the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 became known as the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012. The Federal Magistrates Court no longer has jurisdiction in relation to matters arising under the Act.

In the area of the small claims jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act there has been a steady increase in filing particularly in the Melbourne and Sydney registries. The Court has established a pilot to deal with these matters in a summary way. Sessional registrar resources have been made available to facilitate settlement with contested matters going before a federal magistrate. Staff from the Fair Work Ombudsman have been available to provide assistance to litigants. The success of this model, which was first piloted in the Melbourne registry, is such that the Court has extended the model to the Sydney registry.

The Court’s jurisdiction and less formal legislative mandate means that a significant number of parties present as self-represented litigants. It is pleasing that representatives from the Court have been involved in a project of LawAccess NSW in the preparation of resource material about general protections dismissal proceedings for self-represented litigants.

In 2012, a review of the Fair Work Act 2009 was established following a commitment made during passage of the Bill to review the operation of the legislation two years after it was fully implemented (that is, 1 January 2012). While the terms of reference did not extend to matters impacting on the Court process, some questions were formulated for those making submissions which touched on the institutional framework.

There is a degree of overlap with this area of jurisdiction and the human rights jurisdiction.

The scope of adverse action claims is the subject of a reserved High Court decision in Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay and Anor with some clarification of what is an objective versus a subjective test.


Migration

The 2011–12 financial year has seen a significant increase in migration applications with 1464 applications filed. This included 419 applications offshore entry applicants. This reverses a downward trend from a peak in the filings in 2007–08. See table 3.13.

The migration workload within the total general federal law workload for the 2011–12 financial year comprised approximately 20.7 per cent of all matters as opposed to 14.5 per cent in 2010–11. Excluding bankruptcy filings (4641 matters) that are predominantly managed by registrars, migration filings represent approximately 60 per cent of the general federal law workload.

A total of 1175 matters were finalised in the reporting period. Of the matters finalised, 71 per cent of matters were finalised within six months and 98 per cent within 12 months. The average number of days taken to finalise the migration applications is 150.

As at 30 June 2012, the Court had 717 migration applications pending with 75 per cent of these matters being less than six months old and 95 per cent less than 12 months.

Figure 3.13 Migration matters filed and finalised 2007–08 to 2011–12

2000

2500

1500

1000

500

02007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

Filed Finalised


Judicial review of migration decisions is generally confined to the Federal Magistrates Court with the role of the Federal Court being largely appellate. The Migration Act confers on the Court the same jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court under the Constitution s 75(v) and the High Court has power to remit any migration matter commenced in its original jurisdiction that falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The migration workload is increasing following the High Court decision in Plaintiff M61/2011E and Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 243 CLR 319 which extended judicial review to offshore entry persons. During the year, two additional federal magistrates were appointed to cope with expected additional caseload. The Court expects increasing challenges in meeting its performance targets in light of the increasing caseload the tribunals are experiencing with backlogs and delays.

The Court seeks to actively manage the migration workload which is currently confined to panel members. However as the workload is expected to continue to increase, additional federal magistrates may be assigned if the need arises. Although not frequently used, there is provision in Part 44 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 for a show cause hearing and the Court has power to dismiss at an early stage if not satisfied that the application raises an arguable case.

In the Melbourne registry the Court is assisted in the management of the migration workload by registrars who make directions at the first court event. Duty lawyers from Victorian Legal Aid are also in attendance to assist unrepresented applicants. The Court is grateful for this assistance and for the considerable pro bono contribution of the profession which is facilitated through organisations such as PILCH.

The hearing of offshore entry applicants who are in remote detention, presents significant challenges for the Court. These challenges were noted by Professor John McMillan AO in his Report to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship which was released during the year. The provision of legal representation to such applicants greatly assists the courts with the effective resolution of such cases and this was noted in the report. Efforts have been made during the year to continue regular liaison between court administration and departmental officers with a view to managing this particular issue.

On 25 November, the Government announced a decision to process all offshore entry persons onshore while placing them in the community on bridging visas where possible. It also announced that a single review process would be established through the Refugee Review Tribunal with the process of reviews by the Independent Protection Assessment Officer ceasing once their current workload had been completed. This new review process commenced on 24 March 2012 being the same date as the commencement of complementary protection legislation: Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2012. This legislation amended s 36 of the Migration Act to produce a statutory regime for assessing claims that may engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under various human rights treaties other than the Refugee Convention. It is expected that the complementary protection legislation will impact on the complexity of the cases coming before the courts due to the new legislative texts introduced.

There have been a number of significant Federal Court and High Court decisions impacting on the migration jurisprudence.


In Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration; Plaintiff M106/2011 v Minister for Immigration (2011)280 ALR 18; {2011] HCA 32, the majority of the High Court found that the Minister’s declaration of Malaysia as a ‘specified country’ in the context of s 198A of the Migration Act, had been made beyond power. The legislative response to this decision by way of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011 failed to gain legislative support.

In addition there are a number of High Court reserved migration decisions which have the potential to impact on the workload of the Court. This branch of administrative law is often illustrative of the tension between legislative measures to constrain migration litigation and rule of law principles.

Personal Powers

The following Acts confer non-judicial functions on federal magistrates who have consented and been approved to exercise issuing functions:

• Australian Crime Commission Act 2002

• Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) 2005

• Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

• Bankruptcy Act 1966

• Criminal Code Act 1995

• Extradition Act 1988

• Inspector of Transport Security Act 2006

• Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006

• Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987

• National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011

• Product Stewardship Act 2011

• Surveillance Devices Act 2004

• Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

• Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, and the

• Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011.


DELIVERY OF JUDGMENTS

Judgments

During 2011–12, a total of 2277 judgments of the Court were settled into a written format. This compares with 2313 during the previous year. While a significant number of the Court’s decisions are delivered orally at the conclusion of a hearing or soon after, not all oral decisions are then settled in writing in view of the additional time that is required for this task. In addition, the need to anonymise family law decisions imposes an additional resource impost. However the Court is conscious of the important public interest in disseminating its decisions widely and in addition to ensuring most written decisions are available from the Australian Legal Information Institute’s (AustLii) website, it also distributes to a wide range of external stakeholders. Members of the public can subscribe via the Court’s website and receive regular updates of decisions when posted on www.fmc.gov.au. It is pleasing that during the year 143 judgments of the Court were published in law reports.

The legislative requirement of the Court to proceed without undue formality does not detract from the requirement for the provision of adequate reasons. However the judgment writing task is an onerous one in view of the significant sitting workload of federal magistrates. While many decisions are delivered orally at the conclusion of a final hearing, there are instances where decisions will necessarily involve more consideration and are reserved.

The Court has set a benchmark of three months for the delivery of reserved decisions. It is of regret that while 69 per cent of reserved decisions are delivered within the three month benchmark the Court has set, there are still a significant proportion delivered outside the benchmark and complaints in relation to reserved decisions comprise the largest category of overall complaints received. The Chief Federal Magistrate is seeking to actively monitor reserved decisions in view of this and is mindful of the need for federal magistrates to set aside adequate judgment writing time.

The role that AustLii in hosting the decisions of the Court is acknowledged, and in view of this the Court has continued to provide support with funding of $25,000 this financial year.


Table 3.2 Family law judgments available in written format in 2011–12

Jurisdiction Number of judgments

Child support 70

Family law 1228

Total in family law 1292

Of the 1292 judgments relating to family law and child support, 562 were anonymised and published on the AustLii website.

Table 3.3 General federal law judgments available in written format in 2011–12

Jurisdiction Number of judgments

Administrative law 11

Bankruptcy law 161

Consumer law (formerly trade practices) 15

Human rights 14

Industrial law 124

Migration 660

Total in general federal law 985

During 2011–12, 143 judgments of the Court were published in law reports. This figure is broken down into areas of jurisdiction as set out in Table 3.4 below.

Table 3.4 Judgments published in law reports by jurisdiction, 2011–12

Jurisdiction Number of judgments published

Administrative law 2

Bankruptcy law 40

Consumer law (formerly trade practices) 3

Family law 18

Human rights 2

Industrial law 46

Migration 32

Total judgments published 143


Appeals

Generally, appeals are possible as of right from final decisions of federal magistrates to either the Family Court or Federal Court.

The appeal provisions of the Federal Court to provide that appeals from the Court are to be heard by a single judge unless a judge considers that it is appropriate that the appellate jurisdiction is to be exercised by a Full Court. In relation to appeals to the Family Court, the Chief Justice must determine if it is appropriate for the appeal jurisdiction from the Federal Magistrates Court to be exercised by a single judge.

Family law and child support

The number of appeals has increased in 2011–12 by 14 per cent as opposed to the 193 appeals lodged in 2010–11 while the family law workload of the Court remained constant.

During 2011–12, 220 appeals were lodged from decrees of the Federal Magistrates Court compared to 193 appeals during 2010–11. The number of appeals remains low in the context of the Court’s family law workload, with 220 representing 1.26 per cent of final order applications filed in the Court.

General federal law

Prior to the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Act 2009, appeals in relation to general federal law jurisdiction (other than migration appeals) were heard by a Full Court unless the Chief Justice of the Federal Court considered it appropriate for the appeal to be heard by a single judge. This Act introduced amendments to the appeal provisions of the Federal Court with the result that all appeals to the Federal Court are to be heard by a single judge unless a judge considers that it is appropriate for the appellate jurisdiction of the Court be exercised by a Full Court. The majority of the general federal law appeals continued to be heard and determined by single judges exercising the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

There was an increase in general federal law appeals and related applications, with 449 appeals in 2011–12 as opposed to 408 in 2010–11. This increase has reversed a downward trend that had been evident since 1067 appeals were filed in 2007–08. The increase in appeals appears to be consistent with an increasing migration workload. The 2011–12 financial year has seen a significant increase in the migration workload with 1464 applications filed as opposed to 959 matters in 2010–11.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN FAMILY LAW

In family law matters, parties may be ordered to attend any or a combination of dispute resolution services. The aim is to assist parties to reach agreement, identify or limit issues in dispute and ultimately provide assistance to the Court in respect to case management and judicial decision making.


In parenting matters dispute resolution services include privileged dispute resolution, family counselling and/or parent education programs which are provided by external community-based organisations (see administered appropriation below).

In the past family consultants provided in-house privileged dispute resolution services however these are now provided in the community sector. The role of family consultants has changed and they now assist parties and the Court by providing various services pursuant to s11F of the Family Law Act 1975. These services include child dispute conferences and child inclusive conferences however the primary focus is no longer on resolution.

The purpose of s11F interventions is to:

• provide expert advice which will assist and inform the Court in making interim orders, establishing the most appropriate case management path within the Court, and identifying and (where possible) facilitating appropriate community resources, and

• assist parties to resolve their dispute when (and if) possible.

The process necessitates making an assessment which is, by definition, both preliminary and limited in scope, and includes a preliminary assessment in relation to risk for children and/or parties

In financial matters the Court:

• offers privileged conciliation conferences conducted by registrars of the Court

• offers privileged conciliation and/or mediation in appropriate property matters via the Administered Appropriation (see below), and

• refers appropriate matters to private mediation.

In 2011–12, registrars held 5072 conciliation conferences and settled 1826 of these matters.

Administered appropriation

The Court receives an administered appropriation to source dispute resolution services such as counselling, mediation and conciliation from external organisations.

In 2001 the Federal Magistrates Court engaged various community-based organisations around Australia to provide dispute resolution services for litigants in family law. In 2006 the Family Law Act was amended and the contracts with providers became outdated and to some extent redundant. The language in the Family Law Act changed and the government cemented dispute resolution in the community sector with the implementation of Family Relationship Centres and a focus on dispute resolution pre-filing in children’s matters.

As a result of the legislative changes and the expiration of contracts, the Court has recently completed a tender process and engaged external providers to deliver a range of services that are appropriate to the new environment. The providers offer services to the Court in over 200 locations throughout Australia.


A major focus of the administered fund is to provide services to litigants particularly in rural and regional areas of Australia in support of its circuit work. The Court is seeking to enhance the services provided to litigants and allow for greater flexibility in the provision of those services by utilising the fund to allow providers:

• to undertake property mediation where the external provider will be located within the same location as the litigants and in a position to offer more timely interventions, and

• to provide counselling and mediation services to litigants locally in appropriate circumstances.

The changes in legislation and in the community sector have increased the Court’s capacity to refer property applications to external dispute resolution. To date, the Court has been limited to the services of in-house registrars to conduct conciliation conferences in respect to property matters. The registrar resource is limited and:

• this is causing a delay in litigants gaining access to conferences and has the potential to delay the resolution of matters in the Court

• registrars roster visits to regional areas and may only attend a location three times a year and this limits the opportunities for litigants to access services. The provision of services by external providers via the administered appropriation allows for more timely interventions and an earlier resolution of matters, and

• the cost of registrars travelling to circuit locations is becoming more expensive and may need to be reduced in light of the Court’s current financial position.

The use of the administered fund to provide a new range of services is an innovative way of providing access to justice to litigants, particularly to those in rural and regional Australia where services are limited. The fund will provide an alternative to the conciliation conferences undertaken by registrars of the Court.

Family reports

A family report is a written report ordered by the Court under section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 to assist a federal magistrate in determining parenting disputes. It is an independent, professional assessment of a family, including the children. Family reports are prepared by internal family consultants and/or external family consultants appointed under regulation 7 of the Family Law Act 1975. In 2011–12 the number of reports ordered continued to decline.

Table 3.5 Family reports ordered by state in 2009–12

Number of reports ordered ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC Total

2009–10 212 1075 53 1069 488 84 1777 4758

2010–11 200 1124 98 953 478 94 1704 4651

2011–12 284 1013 94 876 505 95 1700 4567


DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN GENERAL FEDERAL LAW

The general federal law dispute resolution provisions are contained in Part 4 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999. The Court operates a docket management system and referrals by federal magistrates for mediation is the most frequently used procedure in general federal law proceedings. While referrals can be made externally, most mediation is undertaken by registrars.

In 2011–12, a total of 487 matters were referred to mediation, with 207 matters (or 43 per cent) resolving. A total of 128 matters were unresolved, with the remaining 17 matters being either partially resolved, a report given or an other outcome recorded.

Figure 3.14 Matters ordered to dispute resolution

2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

418388

487400

500

300

200

100

0

600

Figure 3.15 Outcomes of matters ordered to dispute resolution

100

50

0

2010–11 2011–12

Not resolved Resolved Other

200

150

250


The Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 commenced operation on 1 August 2011. The object of the Act is to ensure that people take genuine steps to resolve disputes before certain civil proceedings are instituted. Division 4.2 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 sets out specific rules in relation to the genuine steps obligations. The Court can take into account the failure to take steps when exercising its existing case management directions and costs powers.

Family law proceedings are excluded from the genuine steps requirement as there are pre-filing legislative requirements which apply to parenting proceedings. The Attorney-General’s Department is commissioning an evaluation of the Act, 12 months after operation, with data sought for the purposes of the evaluation.

A representative from the Court attended a forum in May hosted by the Attorney-General’s Department to explore future directions in the area of alternative dispute resolution. The forum included representatives from across the portfolio.

The Australian Centre for Court and Justice System Innovation at Monash University issued a background discussion paper as part of its research into pre-action protocols and obligations that are used to encourage the resolution of disputes before commencing proceedings: Resolving Disputes without Courts—Measuring the Impact of Civil Pre-action Obligations, March 2012.

IMPROVING ACCESS TO THE COURT

Circuit program

The Court is committed to providing access to justice for every Australian regardless of geographic location and aims to do so in a timely and efficient manner. To this end, the Court conducts an extensive circuit program with visits to rural and regional locations across Australia. In 2011–12 the Court allocated approximately 145 weeks to the circuit program, enabling parties to have their matters heard locally alleviating the need to travel to major centres. The Federal Magistrates Court is the only federal court in Australia with a program of regular circuits.

In a speech to the Federal Magistrates Plenary in Brisbane on 26 April 2012 the Attorney-General the Honourable Nicola Roxon noted:

“I see the Federal Magistrate’s Court as meeting a clear need in the community, and particularly for people living in regional areas. Your regular circuit work puts you at the front line – and often at the end of a very long docket – of difficult matters exacerbated by remoteness and lack of services. This regional access is of growing importance.”

The Court recognises the need to ensure that circuit programs are run efficiently and within budgetary constraints. As a result, federal magistrates conduct some procedural and urgent hearings by video link and telelink in between visits to the rural or regional location. The use of this technology increases the efficiency of circuits ensuring that time spent at the various locations is fully utilised. The Court is continually considering how best to deliver services to rural and regional Australia.


The introduction of eFiling has further assisted litigants and practitioners located in rural and regional locations with the filing of applications and various documents. A growing uptake of eFiling has enhanced access to justice for rural and regional Australians by reducing costs to parties associated with travelling to registries in major centres and costs associated with postage. It is anticipated that eFiling will continue to grow as the Court continues to develop and improve the functionality.

During 2011–12, the Court sat in 33 rural and regional locations as part of the circuit program. Details of circuit locations are included at Appendix J.

Community relations

Local registry consultations

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

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

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

A significant innovation this year was the courts’ user satisfaction survey, conducted at all major and medium sized registries. The survey process is consistent with one of the seven platforms for excellence in the international courts excellence framework. The feedback from the survey has informed registries about the areas in which the courts can perform more effectively and encouraged registries to keep on doing the things which court users say they do well. This data has also informed registries’ discussions with stakeholders.

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

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


Registry-specific activities

ACT/NSW

Sydney

• Sydney met quarterly with family law practitioners to communicate Family Law Court initiatives and seek feedback. The meetings were chaired by the Registry Manager and attended by the Case Management Federal Magistrate and Case Management Judge.

• A Child Dispute Services representative attended monthly meetings of the Greater Sydney Families in Transition Group (Pathways).

• Whilst not consultation, ongoing relationship building and awareness raising occurs in a number of other ways. For example, family consultants from the registry were regular guest speakers at the University of NSW, both for law students and Master of Psychology students. Topics included the role of the family consultants in the family court system, the various issues and problems that may present to the Courts (e.g. drug and alcohol use, family violence, attachment relationships, child protection issues, etc) and the potential impact of these on children and young people; parenting capacity and family functioning in general.

Parramatta

• A senior family consultant attended the meetings of the Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways Network when meetings were held in Western Sydney.

• The registry, including the Case Management Federal Magistrate and the Case Management Judge, met quarterly with the local family law practitioners.

Dubbo

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

Wollongong

• Staff attended the Illawarra Family Law Pathways meeting every two months.

• Family consultants in Wollongong worked with the Illawarra Pathways, Southern Highlands Pathways, Shoalhaven Pathways and Shoalhaven Domestic Violence Network. Family consultants were on panels discussing family law and family violence issues.

Canberra

• ACT Pathways met every six weeks to plan and develop strategies for seamless referrals for clients between the various family law service providers in the ACT. The group also undertook educative activities, seminars, about family law (children’s issues), family violence and mental health issues.

• The Canberra Registry Consultative Committee met twice during the year, facilitating two-way feedback


between the Court and the legal profession on topics such as new legislation, new case management procedures and any local issues. Attendees included judicial officers and registry staff, and representatives of the legal profession, the bar association, Attorney-General’s Family Law Section, ACT Human and Community Services and Legal Aid lawyers.

Newcastle

• Court personnel attended the monthly Pathways meeting and also were involved in organising activities such as information days.

• A Newcastle registrar attended the monthly Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association meetings.

SA/NT

Adelaide

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

• Training and support was provided to the Women’s Information Service court support program and the Women’s Legal Service volunteer program.

• Regular meetings and discussions were held with the Family Law Practitioners branch on topics such as registry practices. There was on going relationship building between Family Law Courts administrative staff and staff of the prescribed welfare authority, Families SA, in relation to Magellan matters.

• The Court continued its active involvement with the Child Support Program (formerly Child Support Agency) Community Stakeholders Group, Pathways and the Family Relationship Centres.

• Information sessions were provided to family dispute resolution practitioners from Uniting Care Wesley, Centacare and Family Relationship Centres.

• Throughout the year the registry worked with the University of Western Sydney on the ‘Fortress or Sanctuary’ research program examining court security.

• Training days were hosted for Aboriginal Justice Officers from the Courts Administration Authority South Australia.

• Information sessions were provided to law students from the University of South Australia. Students also visited the registry as part of the University’s family law training program.

• ‘Family Law Court: Request for most recent orders relating to children of the parties’ was developed with South Australian Police (SAPOL) to comply with the changes to the South Australian family violence legislation. The jointly-developed pro forma and protocol include information from the Court to assist SAPOL in seeking an ‘interim intervention order’ in the state courts.

Further to the above, judicial officers, registrars and family consultants contributed to the following:

• inaugural Adelaide Family Law Intensive, 2011: chairperson/commentator, on the topic of essentials of family law practice.


• Law Society of South Australia, 2012: chair, continuing professional development seminar.

• Relationships Australia, 2012: participant, training DVD for family dispute resolution practitioners mediating property disputes, and

• Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department: working group member, South Australian pilot project in relation to improving the interface between the child protection systems and the family law system.

Darwin

• The Registry Manager is a member of the steering committee of Family Pathways. This group met quarterly to discuss the objectives and outcomes of the Pathways network, and to progress the work of the network.

• The Registry Manager attended quarterly meetings of the Family Relationships Centre (FRC) Consortium Group to discuss local issues and identify new programs to which clients can be referred.

• Meetings chaired by the Federal Magistrate were held quarterly with family law practitioners. The meetings aim to streamline processes, seek new case management procedures and provide a forum for practitioners to provide feedback to the courts.

Alice Springs

• The Alice Springs Family Pathways network is supported by the Darwin network and it met quarterly. The Federal Magistrate attended once during the year.

• Two practitioner meetings were held by the Federal Magistrate while she was on circuit in Alice Springs.

Queensland

• A key outcome of local consultations during 2011–12 has been the greatly increased the uptake of filing via the CCP throughout the region, evidenced by Brisbane registry being by far the busiest eFiling registry nationally (see Part 1 for details).

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

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

Brisbane

• Brisbane registry continued its regular meetings with various user groups including the family law practitioners, Legal Aid and Child Support Stakeholders Group.

• The registry, in conjunction with Bond University, hosted a number of moot courts for law students and provided registrar assistance and provided guest speakers for Bond University.

• Speakers were provided for external training sessions, including on special medical procedures for medical specialists, on consent orders for Legal Aid and on contravention applications for family law practitioners.


• Federal magistrates and courts staff worked in conjunction with the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) to run moot courts for bar practice course participants and also provided opportunities for QUT law students as interns in Chambers at the courts.

• Representatives from Child Dispute Services attended regular meetings with the Brisbane and Gold Coast Pathways Group and the registry also met with the Queensland Legal Aid Independent Children’s Lawyers group.

• The Registry and Judicial Services Managers attended liaison meetings with their counterparts in state and district courts administrations.

• There was regular liaison with the local Pathways representatives at Coffs Harbour during Federal Magistrates Court circuit sitting weeks.

North Queensland (including Townsville, Cairns and Rockhampton)

• The Townsville Registry Manager regularly attended meetings with the North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, the Family Law Pathways Network, the Family Relationship Centre (Centacare), and Relationships Australia, as well as ad hoc meetings with the profession and various state government agencies, as required.

• Federal magistrates in Townsville and Cairns participated in moot courts for law students from James Cook University.

• Staff representatives met with the Family Law Practitioners Network, Family Relationship Centres and Domestic and Family Violence Support groups in Cairns and Rockhampton on an ad hoc basis.

VIC/TAS

Melbourne

• A key focus was to enliven relationships with the Department of Human Services after a recent review of the protocol between the Department and the courts for child abuse cases. Particular attention was given to exchange of information, improved liaison with regional offices for case management and reporting, and improved understanding of each other’s requirements in these complex cases. The Victorian registries also wanted to put in place mechanisms to achieve effective notification of child abuse cases to the Department in the context of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (Cth), commencing June 2012.

• The Registry Manager and Coordinating Registrar attended Court Practice Committee meetings of the Family Law Section of the Law Institute Victoria, responding to queries about eFiling, resources, the role and function of the NEC, trends in filing and case management procedures. The Case Management Federal Magistrate also attended those meetings to ensure flow of information to lawyers on case management policy and procedure. Specific issues that arose included the impact of the Court’s budget situation on case management and listings and also lawyers’ experience of and feedback on the NEC.

• The Registry Services Manager liaised regularly with Victorian Legal Aid to ensure support for their services at the Melbourne registry. This resulted in better support for eFiling procedures for legal aid and an additional room for seeing clients at the Melbourne courts.


• The Registry Manager had regular contact with Victorian Court Network, sharing information on developments in the family law jurisdiction, ensuring that network volunteers are up to date and supported in their role assisting self-represented litigants.

• Representing the Chief Executive Officer, the Registry Manager attended the Law Institute President’s meetings. These are convened for Commonwealth and Victorian courts’ CEOs for the exchange of information and advice on issues in courts administration in Victoria. Of particular interest in the discussions this year was security arrangements at metropolitan and regional courts, the impact of technology upon court processes and the evolution of alternative dispute resolution in the respective jurisdictions.

• The Victorian Pathways Network has been invigorated and held several successful forums this financial year with assistance from the Melbourne registry and, in particular, the Registry Child Dispute Services Coordinator. The forums covered topics including child protection and post-separation parenting arrangements in cases where there is property and parenting issues in dispute.

• Registry managers liaised with Family Relationship Centres (FRC) and attend FRC meetings on invitation. FRCs, in a collaborative initiative with the courts, also had a presence at some registries to provide referral and wait list information (such a service was in place at Dandenong during the year and was being planned for the Melbourne registry).

• The Registry Manager periodically attended the Victorian Department of Justice Family Violence Stakeholder Forums where there is useful exchange about legislative and policy reform and also community-based initiatives. Of particular value was the discussion of how commonwealth and state policy, programs, laws and jurisdictions intersect and function together as a service to the community.

• The Registry Manager engaged regularly with state courts and in particular with the Director of Regional Registrars who supports the Federal Magistrates Court regional service at state court houses. Specific issues that arose during the year were listing arrangements and security. These were resolved.

• The Regional Coordinating Registrar attended Centacare giving a presentation on family law developments, which was well received.

Dandenong

• The key focus for registry engagement in Dandenong continued to be the coordination of the Collaborative Dispute Resolution Group. This group met quarterly and comprised representatives from five Family Resource Centres in the catchment area, registry staff, the Victorian Pathways group and local community based organisations. The main focus of the group was to coordinate a ‘drop in’ service at the registry three mornings each week. Experienced dispute resolution practitioners were available to provide information and direct referrals to local family relationship services to assist the federal magistrates, legal practitioners and self represented clients.

• The Dandenong Registry Manager is a member of Family Relationship Centre Reference Groups including Berwick, Frankston and Chadston and was involved in supporting Ringwood.


Tasmania

• The Court participated in the Hobart Family Relationship Centre reference group, Pathways South, North and North-West as well as the Hobart Pathways reference group, the Child Support Program Stakeholder Engagement Group, and the steering committee for the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution pilot.

• The biannual state-wide Family Law Courts’ Family Violence Consultative Committee meeting, a forum for all public sector agencies concerned with improved responses to violence, including Tasmanian Police, Department Health and Human Services and Department of Justice, was convened.

• The Legal Aid Commission and Family Law Practitioners Association supported the monthly Family Law Courts case management committee meetings in order to advance the management and passage of cases in the family law system.

Albury

• Albury is represented on the Albury Wodonga Family Law Pathways Network, which met bi-monthly.

• On duty list days the coordinator of the Pathways Network attended court and was available to provide information to lawyers and clients about services in Albury, Wagga Wagga, Griffith and Wangaratta areas, including for courses and waiting list times for Contact Changeover Centres, parenting orders programs, Community Health Services, Family Relationship Centres, parenting programs in the catchment area.

• The Family Consultant attended local and regional meetings with other service providers.

Self-represented litigants

The Court’s jurisdiction is such that a significant number of parties present as self-represented litigants, particularly in the areas of family law, child support, bankruptcy and migration.

The status of a litigant’s legal representation may change during their case. For example, a litigant may commence proceedings without legal representation and then have legal representation at the final hearing. The Court’s database captures details of self-represented litigants in respect of finalised applications for final orders in family law only. These details are reported at Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Family law final applications by party representation, finalised in 2011–12

Party representation Number of applications Percentage

Both have legal representation 11,959 68.86

Neither have legal representation 1253 7.22

Only applicant has legal representation 3548 20.43

Only respondent has legal representation 606 3.49

Total 16,019 100.00


General federal law pro bono and duty lawyer scheme for self-represented litigants

A court-based pro bono scheme is in operation, similar to that which operates in the Federal Court. Part 12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 sets out rules in relation to the court-administered scheme which is similar to the scheme operating in the Federal Court. Referrals for pro bono have generally been confined to general federal law matters. With a significant proportion of migration-related matters involving self-represented litigants, the Court has been able to facilitate assistance to litigants through its pro bono and other legal assistance schemes. In Melbourne, Victoria Legal Aid has a Migration Duty Solicitor Scheme in operation. Assistance is also provided in various states by way of organisations such as PILCH. The Court appreciates the generosity of those members of the legal profession who agree to give their valuable time voluntarily to assist in such matters

Family law duty lawyer schemes

Self-represented litigants with family law matters before the Court are assisted by duty lawyer schemes operating in capital cities and regional areas. The Court partners with legal aid commissions and other organisations that make the services of legal practitioners available to assist litigants on the day of their matter being heard. Some examples of assistance provided include provision of legal advice, negotiating consent orders and, in urgent matters, the preparation of documents and representation.

Public information

Throughout 2011–12, the Court continued to produce a range of brochures and fact sheets encompassing all areas of its jurisdiction. The Court’s website is the primary communication tool for providing information about the Court. Information available from the site includes details on court processes, forms, fees and charges, dispute resolution information, relevant legislation, publications, circuit details, daily court listings, the CCP, as well as contact details and corporate information. The website is regularly updated and provides a subscription service.

In addition to providing public information through the Court’s website, information on family law is provided through the Family Law Courts website www.familylawcourts.gov.au. This website is shared with the Family Court and provides a centralised location for all information relating to the federal family law courts.

Registry and National Enquiry Centre services

Registry services are provided to people who wish to file an application or are considering filing an application at the Family Law Courts (comprising the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court).

Registry services include:

• provision of effective support to the Family Law Courts

• family law telephone and referral services, and

• family law document processing.

Registry services are complimented by the services of the NEC. All first instance calls to the Courts 1300 number (1300 352 000) and emails to [email protected] go to the NEC. The NEC also assists with follow up enquiries from litigants regarding their matters in the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court.


Summary of performance

Family law registries and the NEC provided a high level of service to litigants and other users of the Family Law Courts as well as to federal magistrates and judges throughout 2011–12. Staff responded to increased counter enquiries, emails and phone calls, and improved performance in meeting deliverables and key performance indicators (KPIs).

The NEC is required to report against the Portfolio Budget Statement (PBS) deliverables of the Family Court relating to counter, email and telephone enquiries. The NEC provides services to the Federal Magistrates Court as part of shared administrative arrangements. In 2011–12 the NEC achieved the targets as set out in the PBS deliverables. See Table 3.7.

The PBS also requires the NEC to meet four KPIs. Three of the four KPI were met while the fourth, a target of eighty per cent of telephone calls to the NEC being answered in ninety seconds, was not met. A significant improvement was made in the average times that callers waited on line for their calls to be taken, compared with 2010–11. A number of factors contributed to this, including the implementation of an Interactive Voice Responsive system that helps direct callers more effectively, including to other sources of information, and improved support for staff, which enables them to more quickly respond to callers.

The KPI for complaints as a percentage of total applications was met.

More detailed reporting of the results follows.

Table 3.7 summarises the performance of the various client services functions of the Court against PBS deliverables and KPIs. The data in this table relates to services provided for both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court by the family law registries and the NEC, with the exception of the complaints KPI, which is Family Court specific.

Table 3.7 Summary of performance—client services

Key performance indicators and deliverables Target/deliverable 10–11

Target/result11–12 result

11–12 target achieved

Deliverables

Counter enquiries 161,800 counter enquiries handled 159,500 / 150,156 187,665

Telephone enquiries served (NEC only)

253,800 telephone enquiries served

359,800 / 378,420 267,995

Email enquiries (NEC only) 53,900 email enquiries 53,200 / 50,052 83,700*


Key performance indicators and deliverables Target/deliverable 10–11

Target/result11–12 result

11–12 target achieved

KPIs 11–12 target achieved

Counter enquiries75% of all counter enquiries are served within 20 minutes

75% / 97% 88%

Time taken to process applications lodged

75% of applications lodged are processed within two working days

75% / 96.5% 97.3%

NEC telephone calls answered

80% of calls answered within 90 seconds

80% / 32% 33%

Email response times (NEC only)

80% of emails answered within two days

80% / 98% 100%

ComplaintsComplaints, 1% of total applications received

1% / 1.5% .6%**

* This figure covers emails sent in response to emails received by the courts, also emails sent by the court as part of responding to telephone callers. See further information in the detailed reporting about the NEC which highlights the increasing use and value of emails, in part driven by the high usage of smart phones, which give people better access to emails.

** This figure includes complaints about the administration of the Court and judicial services complaints, for which detailed information is reported elsewhere in this Part.

Note: The Court has separated its reporting for KPIs and deliverables for greater transparency in its reporting for judicial services and client services. See also Table 3.1 for additional Portfolio Budget Statements reporting.

Detailed report on performance

Family law registries

There are 19 family law registries located in every state and territory (except Western Australia). Family law registries provide registry services to both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court. The key functions of the registries are to:

• provide information and advice about court procedures, services and forms, external options and referrals to community organisations that enable litigants to take informed and appropriate action

• ensure that available information is provided in an accurate and timely fashion to support the best outcome through file management and quality assurance; from the initiation of proceedings, to hearing and to archiving

• make the best use of court time by facilitating an orderly secure flow of litigants, files and exhibits

• enhance community confidence and respect by responding to litigants’ needs and assisting with making the court experience a more positive one

• progress cases by providing administrative services in accordance with court processes and to manage external relationships to assist with the resolution of cases

• schedule and prioritise matters for hearing and intervention to achieve the earliest resolution or determination

• monitor and control the flow of cases, and

• assist in the evaluation of caseloads by reporting on trends and exceptions to facilitate improvements in processes and allocation of resources.


Counter enquiries

Staff working on the counters in family law registries handle general enquiries, lodge documents relating to proceedings, provide copies of documents and/or orders and facilitate the viewing of court files and subpoenas. Client service staff provided an efficient and effective service when dealing with litigants in person and the legal profession face-to-face at registry counters across Australia (except Western Australia).

During 2011–12, the family law registries continued to provide a high level of service and met noticeably increased volume of counter enquiries.

As detailed in Table 3.7, it is estimated that the registries dealt with 187,665 counter enquiries in 2011–12 from clients or other people seeking information face-to-face. This compared to 150,156 2010–11. In fact, the actual numbers would have exceeded this, as in a number of the smaller registries facilities are not available for counting of enquiries.

In 2011–12, an estimated 90 per cent of clients were served within 20 minutes, against a target of 75 per cent. This is down on the estimated figure for 2010–11.

Document processing

Family law registries receive and process applications lodged at registry counters and in the mail. The service target of 75 per cent being processed within two working days of receipt was significantly exceeded (97.3 per cent of applications were processed within that timeframe, compared to 96.5 per cent in 2010–11).

National Enquiry Centre (NEC)

Telephone and email enquiry and referral services

The NEC provides a single point of entry for telephone and email enquiries from litigants and legal practitioners to the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court. The courts’ 1300 telephone number ensures all calls automatically go to the NEC, as do emails using the address [email protected]. The NEC also prints and posts all divorce orders made by the two courts; there were 85,532 in 2011–12.

In addition, it is also the first point of contact for:

• the Family Law Courts after hours service, and

• the Commonwealth Courts Portal (provide first level help-desk technical support) to the Family Law Courts, the Family Court of Western Australia and Federal Court of Australia.

In 2011–12, the NEC made significant performance improvements compared with 2010–11. A key factor was the introduction of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system in October 2011. It provides a second tier for helping to direct callers to the most effective and efficient service for their particular needs, being in addition to the initial recorded message.


If callers do not choose to go elsewhere for information at that initial stage, the IVR gives options for more specific direction of calls, including, for example, to divert callers to staff with particular skill sets. In addition to the IVR, the NEC embraced the courts’ use of the Connections technology which improved the efficiency of staff with the electronic sharing of information and improved capability to email clients immediately with relevant information and links. There was an 82 per cent increase in the volume of emails sent in 2011–12 compared with 2010–11. This also reflects how the NEC’s approaches to caller needs evolved during the year, particularly in response to the greatly increased use of emails and smart phones in the community.

These improvements not only had benefits for litigants, lawyers and others who contact the courts, but also there were consequential benefits for the costs of the NEC. For example, the reduced times people spent on hold, waiting to be answered resulted in significant reductions in the monthly telephone bills attributable to the 1300 number. Postage costs also benefited from the increased use of email.

These improvements mean that in 2011–12, the NEC met two of its three PBS deliverables (for telephone enquiries served and email responses made).

In summary, in 2011–12 the NEC:

• had a total of 399,724 telephone calls, of which:

– 292,002 remained online waiting to talk to a staff member and, of these, 267,995 or 92 per cent were actually served, compared with 245,052 or 61 per cent of those waiting to be served in 2010–11. Thus there was a nine per cent improvement in the percentage of calls actually served/answered between the two years and by individual staff members, a 35 per cent increase in the number of calls taken.

• had abandonments as follows at the three possible stages:

– 79,093 (20 per cent) were abandoned during the initial pre-recorded message stage. Whilst it is not possible to measure, it is anticipated many of these are ‘good’ abandonments in that the callers are redirected to a better source of information for their needs as a result of the information they hear. The message provides detailed information about other ways in which clients can get information, forms etc such as via the CCP or the Family Law Courts website

– 28,629 (seven per cent) were abandoned during the IVR, again it is likely many of these calls are ‘good’ abandonments given the IVR provides callers with further options for assistance

– 26,975 (6.7 per cent) were abandoned while the callers were in the queue waiting for their call to be answered. Whilst higher than the courts would like, it compares favourably with 2010–11 when 94,217 (24 per cent) were abandoned at this point.

• transferred 5760 (one per cent) of calls to a family law registry, when the caller needed specific information unavailable to the NEC staff

• sent 83,700 emails in response to either email enquiries or in following up telephone enquiries, compared with 45,853 in 2010–11, and

• re-printed 6006 divorces on request, a 14 per cent increase on the 5177 in 2010–11.


The NEC did not achieve against the KPI for the time taken to answer calls. The target is for 80 per cent of calls to be answered in 90 seconds. In 2011–12, the NEC answered 88,931 calls within 90 seconds, taking an average of three minutes and 15 seconds for calls to be answered. This time was halved compared to 2010–11. Key factors in achieving this improvement included the IVR and the use of the Connections technology, which provides NEC staff with better access to the information needed to respond more quickly and also provides them with better capability for sending emails in response to telephone calls.

Key factors that contributed to the NEC’s inability to meet the KPI include:

• the growth in the total volume of calls

• a significant increase in email demand inwards and outwards; in two years the number of emails sent by the NEC has more than tripled with 24,513 in 2009–10 to 83,700 in 2011–12, and

• peaks in demand when the courts change processes.

Table 3.8 summarises the NEC’s performance against internal benchmarks.

Table 3.8 National Enquiry Centre performance, 2008–09 to 2011–12

Performance indicators and internal targets 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

Less than 5% of calls abandoned when queued 2% 18% 24% 8%

Less than 10% of calls transferred to a registry 5% 4% 2% 1%

Commonwealth Courts Portal and eFiling

The Commonwealth Courts Portal (www.comcourts.gov.au), launched in July 2007, is an initiative of the Federal Magistrates Court, Family Court and the Federal Court. It 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 CCP has been rapid over the five years since its introduction. For more information on the progress of the portal and efiling during 2011–12, see Part 1.

eLodgment

On 24 May 2010 the Federal Court released a new online electronic filing facility, eLodgment. This enables any member of the public to electronically lodge general federal law documents with the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.


eLodgment may be used to commence an action in either jurisdiction by enabling the lodgement of initiating documents and any supporting documents. Similarly, documents pertaining to existing matters may be lodged via eLodgment as long as the file number is known.

As the document(s) remain accessible via eLodgment, users can monitor the progress of their eLodgments as well as review the processed document(s) through their Lodgment History and in the CCP. They can access the sealed electronic versions of the documents should they require them to email or print out for service.

SERVICE CHARTER

The Federal Magistrates Court and Family Court have a joint Service Charter and Service Commitments document.

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

COMPLAINTS

During 2011–12 the Court received 157 complaints, slightly higher than the number of complaints received during the previous year. Complaints are categorised as follows:

• Conduct – Federal Magistrate or Registrar (42)

• Dispute Resolution (32)

• Judicial Decision (10)

• Conduct – chambers (4)

• Registry – family (4)

• Proceedings – pending (2)


• Divorce (2)

• Enforcement of court orders (1)

• Legal Process (1)

• Perjury (1)

• Conciliation Conference (1)

• Delays – existing proceedings (3)

• Overdue Judgments (54)

While the number of overall complaints is small, it is of concern that the largest category of complaints continues to be in respect of reserved decisions, that is, those decisions outside the three month benchmark that the Court has set for delivery. The Chief Federal Magistrate is seeking to actively monitor delays in delivery of reserved decisions and ensure that sufficient days out of court are assigned to enable federal magistrates to meet the three month benchmark set.

Where possible, parties are advised to put their complaints in writing and are able to email their complaint via [email protected].

Copies of the Court’s complaints policy and judicial complaints policy are available from the Court’s website. Parties are also able to forward a complaint about a delay in the delivery of a judgment through the relevant state or territory law society or bar association.

If the complaint raises concerns about a judicial decision, the complainant is advised that the means of review is by way of the appeal process. Information on appeals, including the fact sheet Appealing a Federal Magistrate’s Decision is available on the Court’s website or on request from the NEC.

The Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Bill and the Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Bill were introduced into Parliament on 14 March 2012 and referred to the House of Representatives Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee and the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report.

The first Bill makes provision for the establishment of a parliamentary commission following resolution by each House of Parliament to investigate specified allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity. The second, provides a statutory basis for heads of jurisdiction to deal with complaints and outlines measures that may be taken should the head of jurisdiction believe this to be reasonably necessary. The measures include temporarily restricting the judicial officer to non-sitting duties. There is also provision for the head to establish a Conduct Committee to investigate and handle complaints.

PART 4: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY


PART 4: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

This section reports on aspects of the Federal Magistrates Court’s corporate governance arrangements.

The legal framework for the Court’s corporate governance practices is set out in the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Public Service Act 1999.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, the Chief Federal Magistrate is responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the Federal Magistrates Court and management of the administrative affairs of the Court. In the latter role, the Chief Federal Magistrate is assisted by the Chief Executive Officer.

The Chief Executive Officer has the responsibilities and powers of an agency head for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 and the responsibilities of a chief executive of an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The Chief Executive Officer’s agency head powers under the Public Service Act apply to the Australian Public Service employees of the Court. The Financial Management and Accountability Act imposes obligations on the Chief Executive Officer to manage the affairs of the Court in a way which promotes the efficient, effective and ethical use of Commonwealth resources.

Senior executives

At 30 June 2012, the Court’s principal executive group comprised:

RICHARD FOSTER PSM FAIM, ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Mr Foster PSM FAIM was appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Magistrates Court on 25 November 2008. The Chief Executive Officer has the responsibilities and powers of an agency head for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 and the responsibilities of a chief executive of an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

STEVEN AGNEW, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The Deputy Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the delivery of court services and administrative functions. This includes the network of regional offices, dispute resolution services, strategic policy and communications.

PART 4: MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 81

GRAHAME HARRIOTT, ACTING CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER

The Acting Chief Financial Officer provides strategic leadership and management of the Court’s human resources, property and contracts, finance, management accounting and procurement and risk management.

ADELE BYRNE PSM, PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR

The Court’s Principal Registrar supports the judicial functioning of the Court through the provision of high-level legal and procedural advice within the Court.

Committees

The Court’s corporate governance framework includes a range of committees and cross-agency mechanisms to support the effective management of the Court. This is in accordance with section 93 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 which provides for the Court to form advisory committees on the following aspects of the Court’s business:

• the exercise of powers under the Federal Magistrates Act 1999

• the making of the Rules of Court, and

• management of the administrative affairs of the Court.

Policy Advisory Committee

The Policy Advisory Committee provides advice to the Chief Federal Magistrate in relation to the Court’s overall strategies and policies for the delivery of court services. Advice is also provided to the Chief Federal Magistrate and the Chief Executive Officer regarding the support and assistance required by federal magistrates to best exercise the judicial powers of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Committee met four times in 2010–11, considering administrative and financial matters. The Committee comprises:

• Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe

• Federal Magistrate Baumann

• Federal Magistrate Donald

• Federal Magistrate Emmett

• Federal Magistrate Riethmuller

• Federal Magistrate Burchardt

• Federal Magistrate Cassidy

• Federal Magistrate Kelly


• Acting Chief Executive Officer (Richard Foster)

• Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Steve Agnew)

• Secretariat (Stewart Fenwick)

Working groups of federal magistrates are also established as required to provide recommendations to the Chief Federal Magistrate about specific areas of policy and practice. During the past year a working group examined the Court’s listing practices and the Chief Federal Magistrate established a working group to consider access to the court by Indigenous Australians. Judicial education was also the subject of extensive discussion with stakeholders at the national level as part of a concerted effort to expand the availability of judicial education opportunities for members of the Court.

Case Management Federal Magistrates Committee

In each court region, the Chief Federal Magistrate delegates a senior federal magistrate the responsibility of assisting him and the National Coordinator of Case Management (NCoCM) in the case management for that region. The role of the Case Management Federal Magistrate (CMFM) adds to the communication throughout the Court on all aspects of workload, timeliness and court practice. CMFMs are also a local contact point for regional stakeholders. The CMFMs meet quarterly with the Chief Federal Magistrate, the NCoCM, Principal Registrar and Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer to share information about workload trends and issues in their regions and to enhance the adoption of consistent case management practices at registry, regional and national levels.

Legal Committee

The Legal Committee considers possible rule amendments and wider legal issues about the jurisdiction of the Court. The Committee refers its recommendations to the Chief Federal Magistrate for the consideration of the Court as a whole. Legislation requires that the Rules of Court be approved by all or a majority of federal magistrates. Meeting monthly, the Committee:

• considers legislative developments before introduction to ensure the Court is prepared for such developments

• oversees the development of Rules and practice notices and makes recommendations to the Chief Federal Magistrate about the adoption of Rules and forms

• oversees the operation of Rules and notices to ensure their efficacy and continued suitability

• liaises with the Family Court and the Federal Court in relation to Rules, forms and fees, where appropriate, and

• liaises with other committees, as required, to achieve their respective objectives and to provide coordinated advice to the Chief Federal Magistrate and Chief Executive Officer.

Audit and Risk Committee

The Audit and Risk Committee is established in accordance with section 46 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and is a senior management committee of the Court.


This Committee 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.

Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group

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 Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court. Chaired by the acting CEO of the Federal Magistrates Court and CEO of the Family Court, Richard Foster, the group meets every six to eight weeks and comprises:

• Acting Deputy CEO, Federal Magistrates Court

• Executive Director, Client Services

• Regional Registry Managers

• Executive Director, Corporate

• Executive Director, Information, Communication and Technology Services

• Principal, Child Dispute Services

• Executive Advisor, Client Services

• Manager, Chief Federal Magistrate’s Chambers.

Support is provided by the Executive Advisor to the Chief Executive Officer.

In 2011–12, the Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group continued to provide advice to the Chief Exectuive Officer 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.

Other committees

A number of other Federal Magistrates Court committees and joint committees with other federal courts are also active in providing high level advice in specialised areas. These include:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee (joint with the Family Court)

• Family Law Courts Advisory Group (joint with the Family Court)

• Family Violence Committee (joint with the Family Court)

• Information Technology Judicial Reference Group


• Harmonised Bankruptcy Rules Monitoring Committee (joint with the Federal Court and representatives of the Family Court and the profession)

• Federal Court Costs Advisory Committee (joint with the High Court, Family Court and Federal Court)

• National Consultative Committee (joint with the Family Court)

• Property Management Committee (joint with the Family Court)

• Staff Development Committee (joint with the Family Court).

Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee

In late 2011, in response to a recommendation in the then draft Report of the Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General’s Department by Mr Stephen Skehill (the Skehill Review), the Heads of Jurisdiction of the Federal Court (FCA), Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court agreed to establish a Consultative Committee to formalise existing unofficial arrangements and foster greater administrative cooperation between the three courts.

The Committee meets quarterly and is supported by the Chief Executive Officers of the three courts. Senior officials from the Attorney-General’s Department attend the Committee’s meetings as observers. Three meetings were held in the reporting year (November 2011 and February and May 2012).

In addition to including information about the Committee’s activities in the courts’ annual reports, the Committee provides a report to the Commonwealth Attorney-General twice in each calendar year. The first of these reports was submitted in March 2012.

Since the Committee’s formation in late 2011, reviews have commenced of the courts’ Information Technology systems, library services and space utilisation 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 and Melbourne CLC buildings.

The review of the CLC buildings has highlighted their extensive use by bodies external to the courts. This includes providing rooms and workspace to organisations assisting litigants, and court and conference rooms for public lectures, university mooting competitions and workshops for the legal profession. These activities highlight the important public function that CLC buildings serve.

National Consultative Committee

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 on issues that impact staff and management at a national level and the future direction of the Court.

The Committee’s area of focus includes:

• the objectives of the Court and how these might be achieved

• financial and human resource planning

• information technology initiatives


• security

• management and review processes, including proposed changes

• work health and safety matters

• equal employment opportunity issues

• accommodation and amenities, and

• human resource management policies and practices.

Staff Development Committee

In 2011–12, the Staff Development Committee (SDC) continued to meet to discuss the developmental needs across all areas of the courts.

As a result of the staff development survey that YEAG conducted 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 was promoted through the courts via the Corporate Services newsletter. The survey also prompted a total overhaul of the PMDS. The new online PMDS has been widely publicised, 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 this year 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. The committee also funded the travel component of this course which was presented by Human Resources.

The Committee is integral to the Court’s approach to the continuing career development of staff, and being a key forum through which staff representatives have shared responsibility for identifying and determining development needs and opportunities.

CORPORATE AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING AND ASSOCIATED PERFORMANCE REPORTING AND REVIEW

As at 30 June 2012, the Court employed 165 employees (excluding judicial officers, the acting Chief Executive Officer and casual employees) in all states and territories across Australia.

Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the Court’s intranet and website:

• administration policies and procedural documents including guidelines, procedures and manuals from the finance, human resources and information, communication and technology areas


• APS Values and Code of Conduct

• Corporate Plan and business area plans (for the National Support Office)

• The Court Exchange, the Federal Magistrates Court's staff newsletter

• Service Charter and Service Commitments documents

• Statement of Strategic Intent, and

• case management policies and manuals related to the management of family law cases.

The Court’s staff and judicial officers are informed of significant changes and events through the following:

• Chief Federal Magistrate eMessages

• CEO eMessages—email from the Chief Executive Officer to all staff

• Chief Executive Instructions—the official mechanism by which the Chief Executive Officer communicates and directs the Court’s compliance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997

• Client service advices—from the Executive Director Client Services to all client service staff working in the family law registries

• The Court Exchange—the Court’s internal staff newsletter, which is issued four times per year and includes columns from the Chief Federal Magistrate, the Acting Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar. This is the primary vehicle for sharing information and celebrating the achievements and successes of court staff

• Intranet messages—latest news available to staff on the Court’s intranet

• Connections—a social networking environment that supports staff to communicate and collaborate in the work environment, and

• CEO visits—the CEO also regularly visits registries to talk to staff about key and emerging issues.

RISK MANAGEMENT, FRAUD CONTROL AND INTERNAL AUDIT

Internal audit

The Court has, as part of its corporate governance arrangements, appropriate mechanisms to manage general business risk as well as fraud risk.

The Court’s internal audit services were provided by Oakton Services Pty Ltd and monitored by the Audit and Risk Committee.

The 2011 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:

• asset management


• collection of fees, and

• project management.

The Court’s Audit and Risk Committee monitored the implementation of individual audit report recommendations generated as part of the above mentioned audits, through quarterly status reports.

Risk management

The Court promotes a culture which supports the identification, analysis, assessment, treatment, monitoring and review of all strategic, operational, compliance and financial risks. This is supported by the Court’s Risk Control and Compliance Framework.

The Risk Control and Compliance Framework provide policies, procedures and tools to promote effective risk management. The framework is available to all court staff on the intranet for the principal purpose of achieving better services and outcomes for 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 the Court’s efforts in the area of risk management.

The Court continues to further revise the courts’ Business Continuity Plans (BCPs). A desktop scenario test was undertaken in the Brisbane registry in December 2011, with recommendations resulting from the test currently being incorporated into the BCPs.

The Procurement and Risk Management section continues to provide, as a standing agenda item, regular updates on risk related activities to the courts’ Audit and Risk Committee.

Financial risk

The Court manages financial risk in accordance with the Risk Control and Compliance Framework. The relevant mechanisms are:

• risk assessments for annual business plans

• risk assessments for identified projects

• Chief Executive Instructions (CEIs) available to all staff on the intranet

• monthly financial reports to the CEO’s Management Advisory Group, and

• oversight by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Fraud prevention and control

The Court’s Fraud Control Plan 2010–2012 complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011. The Audit and Risk Committee continues to receive reports on the implementation status of fraud risk treatments.


The Court has in place fraud investigation, reporting and data collection procedures that meet the needs of the Court and comply with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines.

The Court continues to monitor the Fraud Control Plan 2010–2012. This document has been made available to all court staff via the intranet. The plan was developed in consultation will key stakeholders across all areas of court activities.

No instances or allegations of fraud against the Court were reported in 2011–12.

Ethical standards

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.

At times, over the course of a career, a staff member may be confronted by an ethical issue on which they would like to seek advice or guidance. In that regard the Australian Public Service Commission has established the Ethics Contact Officer Network (ECONET). ECONET assists all APS employees by providing advice on public sector ethical issues.

The Court’s Human Resource Manager is the Court’s representative at the ECONET forum. The Ethics Contact Officer’s role is to:

• provide a point of contact for the dissemination of ongoing Commission information and advice on ethical decision making

• provide information on the courts’ internal ethical advice systems and contacts that callers to the service might, in some circumstances, be referred to

• provide a point of contact in the courts for advice on the resolution of systemic or sensitive internal ethical issues

• build capability within the courts for ethical decision making

• share information, experience and good practical advice on ethical decision making, and

• provide feedback on current and emerging ethical issues, including any data to supplement the service reporting to Parliament.

Social media policy (making public comment and participating online)

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.


EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SCRUTINY

External scrutiny

Reports by the Auditor-General

The Auditor-General made no report specific to the Federal Magistrates Court during 2011–12.

Reports by a Parliamentary committee

The Court was not the subject of any reports by a Parliamentary committee during 2011–12.

Commonwealth Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman received 14 complaints about the Federal Magistrates Court for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. Of these approaches, none were investigated and 15 complaints were closed within the financial year (one approach carried from the previous financial year).

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has jurisdiction only in relation to the administrative affairs of the Court and does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the judicial process.

Proceedings

During 2011–12 the Federal Magistrates Court was the subject of a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. This complaint was closed following satisfactory resolution.

Privacy Commission

The Federal Magistrates Court was not the subject of any complaints made to the Privacy Commission during 2011–12.

Senate estimate committee hearings

Senior Executive Service staff of the Court attended Senate estimate committee hearings to answer questions about the Court’s activities. In 2011–12, 25 Senate estimate questions on notice were received and answered.

Whole-of-government ICT initiatives

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 October 2011, the Court submitted the annual ICT benchmarking report to AGIMO (Australian Government Information Management Office). The report covered all ICT operating and capital expenditure for 2010–11 and included quantitative measures about capacity and quantities of ICT equipment.


• The Court also reported to AGIMO on:

– an ICT skills survey

– progress towards the 31 December 2012 deadline for IPv6 to be enabled on the courts’ internet gateway and websites, and

– details of the courts software applications for the Government Solutions Register.

• The Court will implement the Government Desktop Common Operating Environment (COE) Policy in the Court’s (standard operating environment) SOE upgrade project in 2012–13. During 2011–12 preparations were being made for this.

• Significant progress was made against the internal ICT Sustainability Plan, developed to address the Australian government’s ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15. Further information on progress can be found at Appendix E.

• Whole-of-government supply contracts are mandatory across a broad number of areas. By 30 June 2012, the Court was using the Microsoft volume sourcing arrangement, desktop hardware panel, telecommunications commodities, carriage and associated services panel, and major office machines panel. This was the first year in which the major office machines panel was used by the Court.

• As part of the Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy, the Court is required to update its online government information and services to meet the WCAG 2.0 standard for website accessibility. During the year, the Court worked towards meeting the compliance deadlines. This included completing the conversion of a substantial amount of policy documents to HTML and commencing conversion of all other documents to ensure compliance.

In addition to the ongoing response to the Gershon Review, managed through AGIMO, the Court also responded to archive requirements regarding 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.

External evaluations

Oakton Consulting Technology Financial Health Check

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 page 5). 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.


Internal evaluations

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:

• From 2007–08 there has been a shift in filing trends in Indigenous matters, including a decline in the number of Indigenous applicants, an increase in Indigenous people as respondents, and an increase in matters where both parties are Indigenous.

• Indigenous litigants were much less likely to have attended dispute resolution via a Family Relationship Centre than non-Indigenous litigants, and were more likely to have attended a legal aid conference as the first dispute resolution event.

• Indigenous litigants were twice as likely to cite non-attendance at dispute resolution by the other party as the reason for failure to resolve the dispute.

• Indigenous litigants rated family violence as the most important issue for them and/or the other party when ranking all of the issues involved in going to court. For the non-Indigenous group, relocation was rated as the most important issue for them and/or the other party.

• A large majority in each group found court staff to be somewhat helpful or better in providing information and assistance. A majority in each group also reported that they had been treated with respect and sensitivity by court staff when attending court.

• There was a higher level of dissatisfaction expressed by the non-Indigenous litigants when compared to the Indigenous litigants, but this needs to be viewed in the context of sampling differences.

• Indigenous litigants were more balanced in their views of the Court’s handling of their case and in most instances expressed relatively equal levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

• Fifty-three per cent of Indigenous participants indicated that the Court had not properly considered the cultural needs of Indigenous children. Thirty-three per cent of the group ‘strongly’ disagreed with the statement that the children’s cultural needs had been properly considered by the Court.


• Less than 30 per cent of the Indigenous group believed that the Court displayed respect and understanding in response to their concerns about culture and its importance for children.

• Indigenous litigants were critical of the family report writer on all aspects of the family report, but particularly the report writer’s ability to deal with Indigenous cultural issues. Fifty-nine per cent of the Indigenous group did not believe that the report writer had done their best to understand and report upon the cultural issues affecting the children, and

• Practitioners expressed higher levels of satisfaction and confidence with the Court’s handling of the Indigenous cases than that expressed by Indigenous litigants, although they were generally less satisfied with the Court’s handling of Indigenous cultural issues than they were with the overall handling of their client’s case. Only 46 per cent of practitioners reported that the cultural needs of the children had been properly considered by the Court. Practitioners tended to have a negative view of family reports in these cases and were consistently critical of report writers when it came to the assessment of cultural issues.

Issues that the courts are now considering, guided by the Indigenous Working Group, include:

• accessibility of pre-filing Family Dispute Resolution Services for Indigenous people

• a need to ensure that reliable and accurate data exists in relation to monitoring of court usage by Indigenous people

• improving judicial education and awareness of Indigenous cultural issues, and

• improving the capacity of family report writers to assess Indigenous cultural issues.

The final report is expected to be published later in 2012.

Registrar workload project

Work on the registrar workload project continued during 2011–12. In October 2010, the Chief Federal Magistrate and Chief Justice 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:

• identify the categories of work undertaken by registrars in each registry

• identify the key drivers of the registrars’ workload

• quantify the workload, including the allocation of registrar resources in each registry to each court and the use of that resource

• report on the workload analysis, and

• make appropriate recommendations on resourcing.


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 acting Chief Executive Officer that a detailed implementation plan be developed, pending acceptance by the Chief Federal Magistrate and Chief Justice 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.

MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

Overview

During 2011–12, the process of consolidating the merged administration of the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family 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 Acting Chief Executive Officer on 29 March 2011. Bargaining was 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 and Family Court 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 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.


Workforce planning

During 2011–12 the Court developed appropriate human resource strategies to ensure future capability and resourcing and to cope with staff turnover. These included, 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 Australians 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.

Retention strategies

Strategies to support the wellbeing of staff and to encourage staff retention are integral to the Court’s commitment to workplace diversity. The strategies include the following options, benefits and initiatives.

Balancing work and personal life

The Court recognises the need to balance the operational needs of the Court and the personal lives of staff. Its employment arrangements provide for general and individual flexible working arrangements, including flex time, time off in lieu, part-time work, working from home opportunities, 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.


A safe and healthy work environment

The Court provides a family-friendly and non-discriminatory work environment with strong policies against harassment and bullying. The Court and its employees are committed to measures that will assist with preventing and managing illness and injury, 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.

Workplace diversity

The Court recognises that diversity among its staff is one of its greatest assets. Valuing the distinctive characteristics in every employee, and drawing on the diversity of our backgrounds, skills, talents and views to enhance the Court’s working environment and the work of the Court, underpin the current workplace diversity plan.

Rewards and recognition

Recognition of staff in the form of positive feedback and celebration of achievement is an important part of the Court’s culture and business practice. The Court’s reward and recognition scheme, the Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award and Australia Day Medallions recognise and reward employees for the achievement of corporate goals, providing non-cash rewards and recognition.

Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award

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:

• ethical standards and integrity

• innovation and pro-activity

• respect for people and cultures, and

• cooperation and positive behaviours.

The winner for 2011 was Sally Mashman from the National Enquiry Centre (NEC).

Sally commenced with the Federal Magistrates Court as an Associate in January 2001 before transferring to her present role as manager of the NEC in August 2009. Sally performed to a high standard with her contribution to the courts going 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:

• Roland Andronicos, Sydney/Parramatta, Systems Support Officer

• Kate Clarke, Newcastle, Judicial Associate

• Sarah Hession, Melbourne, Associate to FM Bender

• Kym Hopwood, Brisbane, Judicial Services Team Leader

• Greg Johannesen, North Queensland, Registry Manager

• Megan Junker, Brisbane, Client Service Officer

• Teresa Kane, Brisbane, Registrar

• Julie Kearney, Newcastle, Registrar

• Kristen Murray, Melbourne, Senior Legal Advisor, and

• Andrew Tavares, National Support Office, IT Help Desk analyst.

Australian Day achievement medallions

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:

Susan Haysom – Brisbane registry

Susan is recognised for her exemplary qualities and her dedication to the work and the ideals of the Court. She is reliable, discreet and willing to take on any task.

Susan has been with the Court for eight years. Most of that time in the role of Associate to Federal Magistrate Jarrett, and more recently as the Judicial Services Team Leader.

While in the role of Associate, Susan undertook the additional circuit commitments of the chambers with good humour and often worked long hours. A highly respected member of the team she often freely and enthusiastically provided advice and assistance to other associates and deputy associates. Susan’s willingness to accept a challenge is exemplified by the fact that she acted in the role of Judicial Support Team Leader for some time and has now taken on the role of acting Registry and Judicial Services Manager.

Emma Crutchfield – Brisbane registry

Emma is recognised for her exemplary qualities and her dedication to the Court.

Emma has worked for the Court for almost eight years as an Associate to Federal Magistrate Jarrett and Federal Magistrate Demack. Emma has since commenced working in the position of Team Leader of Judicial Services in Brisbane.


Emma is generous with her knowledge and has taken on the role of trainer and mentor which has seen new members of the team transition smoothly and effectively into the work of the Court. She was responsible for overseeing the development of the many procedural guides which are now used nationally, and are of enormous benefit for those new to the systems of the Court.

Workforce turnover

During 2011–12, 25 employees and judicial officers left the Court. Of these, 12 were ongoing employees, representing an annual turnover rate of 5.26 per cent against total staff numbers at 30 June 2012 (see Table B.6 at Appendix B). This compares with ongoing staff separations of 10.34 per cent in 2010–11, and 15 per cent in 2009–10.

Staffing profile

At 30 June 2012, the Court had 165 employees (excluding judicial officers, the Acting 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 2.9 per cent decrease compared with 170 employees at 30 June 2011. Tables B.1 to B.4 at Appendix B provide a breakdown of staff by location, gender, attendance, ongoing and non-ongoing employment status.

Judicial officers

At 30 June 2012, the Court had 63 federal magistrates, including the Chief Federal Magistrate (21 female and 42 male). Table B.5 at Appendix B has further detail.

Agreement making

A single Enterprise Agreement for the courts

As mentioned previously, the Federal Magistrates Court and Family Court 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.

Other agreements

Offers of AWAs to court employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with government policy; however, at 30 June 2012, three employees had enforceable AWAs in place. Table B.8 at Appendix B sets out the AWA maximum salary ranges by classification.

In some limited cases the Court has used determinations made by the acting Agency Head under section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999, to provide supplementary conditions of employment for individuals covered by the Enterprise Agreement or AWAs. At 30 June 2012, seven employees had employment arrangements governed by determination 24 instruments. See Table B.9 at Appendix B for more detail.


Relationship between agreements

Terms and conditions of employment in the Court are governed by one or more of the following industrial instruments:

• The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–14, effective from 1 July 2011, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs

• AWAs, or

• individual determinations under s 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999.

The Enterprise Agreement, like its predecessors, is a comprehensive agreement, however, for some employees, it may be supported by a s 24(1) determination 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 to provide for pay increases or additional terms and conditions, including non-salary benefits.

SES remuneration

Terms and conditions for the Court’s senior executive service employees are in AWAs and individual s 24(1) determinations made by the Acting Chief Executive Officer. SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and take account of the Court’s budgetary position.

Non-salary benefits

Non-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include motor vehicles, car parking, superannuation and access to salary sacrificing arrangements, home-based computer access, membership of professional associations, mobile phones, studies assistance, leave flexibility, workplace responsibility allowances (for example, fire warden, community language), and airline club memberships.

Performance pay

During 2011–12, the Court neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paid performance pay to any employee.

Training and staff development

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 array of learning and development opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge for current and future roles and responsibilities. The Court achieves this by assisting employees to meet their development and career needs consistent with the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) and available resources. It also provides studies assistance including leave and support for employees undertaking relevant tertiary studies.


Financial constraints mean that the Court relies principally on in-house training and, where available, it ‘piggybacks’ on training packages or courses provided by the Attorney-General’s Department or the Australian Public Service Commission.

The Court’s in-house training facilities include self-paced, online learning courses on a range of topics including APS and court specific induction training, work health and safety, accounting basics, project management, business communications and the Windows XP suite (Excel, Word, PowerPoint).

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.

To further enable the roll-out of the Court’s new online PMDS training was provided to managers and supervisors about how to conduct a performance discussion including how to have difficult conversations.

During the year the Court introduced an online software system to enable webinars (web-based training seminars) and online meetings. This has been very successful and has now expanded through the Court to enable various groups to collaborate more closely across the country.

Performance Management and Development System

The Court’s Enterprise Agreement endorses significant improvements in the Court’s operations to be achieved through a range of corporate efficiency/productivity measures identified in 2011–12 and ongoing to 2013–14.

The aim of the Court’s PMDS is 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. The PMDS is designed to:

• ensure that the standards of performance expected of an employee are clearly articulated

• enable an employee and supervisor, in partnership, to focus on present and future skills development

• enhance an employee’s work performance by providing regular and structured feedback

• ensure that the Court’s employees are able to do the best job they can, and are encouraged and recognised for their contributions

• encourage a shared commitment and understanding of corporate goals amongst all staff

• assist managers and employees in discussing individual and team performance and enable both parties to develop and implement improvement strategies, and

• provide a mechanism for managing performance.

The Court encourages regular ongoing discussions between employees and their managers about performance, together with two formal performance reviews each financial year. The initial performance review takes place during October and November and the final review occurs during April and May each year. Outcomes are captured in the Court’s newly-implemented online performance management system.

The target in 2011–12 was for 100 per cent of employees participating in the system. This was achieved.


Employee Assistance Program

The Court’s employee assistance program provides a free, confidential counselling service to the judiciary, court employees and their immediate families experiencing personal or work-related problems. The service also provides a telephone advisory service for managers.

Converge International continued to manage the program and provided generic data to the Court to guide the development of wellbeing strategies.

Peer support network

The nature of the Court’s core business means that employees may be exposed to and involved in highly sensitive and stressful situations. During 2011–12, the Court continued its proactive approach to lessening the risk of stress in the workplace, with a peer support system within registries and the National Support Office being actively promoted and used.

The system 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 difficult event. The system is designed to complement the employee assistance program and allows support to be available immediately should an incident occur.

Peer support officers from any location can provide assistance as required, that is, there is no restriction on staff accessing officers from outside their immediate work area. All communication with trained peer support officers is strictly confidential.

Productivity gains

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, as part of 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.

Work Health and Safety (WHS)

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

• implementation and compliance of the new Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act 2011)


• compliance by itself and its personnel with all applicable statutory and other health and safety obligations, including the Act

• maintaining a healthy and safe workplace

• preventing injuries by managing risk, including identifying and mitigating workplace hazards to health and safety, and

• making good work health and safety practice part of business as usual for all managers and staff.

The Court will achieve this through:

• actively preventing work related injury and illness via regular workplace checks and inspections

• providing access to information, training, professional support and advice on WHS issues, via the Court’s intranet, training programs, E-learning, induction and other means

• consulting with staff and their representatives on the development and variation of health and safety management arrangements

• advising managers and staff of their WHS responsibilities, and

• ensuring health and safety representatives have the time and resources to reasonably perform their role.

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

Throughout 2011–2012 the Court has:

• rolled out to all management and staff their legislative obligations, accountability, consultative requirements, communication on leadership and legal obligations

• provided guidance for officers (as designated under the WHS Act 2011) in exercising ‘due diligence’ and ‘duty of care’

• provided a power point presentation on induction for all managers to use with their teams, including a template for induction and education checklist

• rolled out resources for preventing and managing bullying and harassment in the workplace to all registry and business unit managers

• updated overseas travel guidelines and approval delegation, and

• rolled out Comcare’s resources for workplace bullying to all Harassment Contact Officers.

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

Whilst the Court’s local occupational health and safety committees continued to meet throughout 2011–2012, none of the Court’s locations reported occupational health and safety audits requiring serious investigations during the year.


Workers’ compensation and early intervention management

The Court continued to manage its workers compensation cases proactively with only one claim being lodged during the year. This has ensured a continued savings in the Court’s workers’ compensation premium for 2011–12.

Table 4.1 Comcare premium rates, 2007–08 to 2012–13

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Federal Magistrates Court 0.67% 0.50% 0.41% 0.41% 0.31% 0.21%

All agencies combined 1.55% 1.36% 1.25% 1.20% 1.41% 1.77%

Variance -0.88 -0.86 -0.84 -0.79 -1.10 -1.56%

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

Changes to disability reporting

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 2010–12, departments and agencies are no longer required to report on these functions. The Commonwealth Disability Strategy has been overtaken by a new National Disability Strategy, which sets out a ten 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


FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

The Federal Magistrates Court is a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

Operating revenue and expenses

Total revenue for the Court in 2011–12 was $100.567 million, including appropriations from government ($53.481 million), other revenue ($0.135 million) other gains ($46.951 million). Other gains included notional revenue for resources provided free-of-charge from the Family Court and Federal Court (as described below), and liabilities assumed by related entities for the Federal Magistrates Pension Scheme (Invalidity).

Operating expenses for the 2011–12 financial year amounted to $104.156 million, being a $7.756 million increase from 2010–11. The movement in nominal dollars is primarily a result of a $5.496 million increase in resources provided free-of-charge from the Family Court (from $31.672 million in 2010–11 to $37.168 million in 2011–12), and an increase in employee benefits of $2.589 million (rising from $35.068 million in 2010–11 to $37.657 million in 2011–12).

Operating deficit and ongoing budgetary pressures

For 2011–12 the Court has recorded an operating deficit1 attributable to the Court of $3.591 million, compared with an operating deficit of $3.960 million reported in 2010–11.

Contributing to the operating deficit is $1.589 million in depreciation expenses (compared with $1.464 million in 2010–11), $0.593 million as a result of changes to the government bond rate, and $0.132 million in losses from the sale of assets.

The remaining $1.277 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 court resources and potential better outcomes for litigants.

Service provided free-of-charge

The Federal Magistrates Court relies on infrastructure and support provided by both the Family Court and the Federal Court.

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:

• court staff, who perform work on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court, and

• accommodation, including access to courtrooms.

1 Equivalent to the Total comprehensive (loss) as reported in the Statement of Comprehensive Income Financial Statements for the period

ending 30 June 2012. Depreciation is included in the comprehensive (loss) due to the Court not having a Departmental Capital Budget

for 2011–12 (and 2010–11).


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. Services provided by the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Court during 2011–12 was estimated at $8.855 million.

Administered revenue and expenses

The Court received $31.557m in 2011–12 on behalf of the Commonwealth, mainly in court fees. Administered revenue is not available to offset the Court’s operating costs. The Court also receives an administered appropriation to source primary dispute resolution services such as counselling, mediation and conciliation from community-based organisations. In 2011–12 the Court incurred $0.057m for these primary dispute resolution services. Further offsetting the administered revenue collected by the Court on behalf of the Government were refunds of fees ($0.137 million) and write down and impairment of assets ($0.004 million). The resulting total comprehensive income of $31.359 million was returned to Government.

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Property

The Federal Magistrates Court is located in shared Commonwealth-owned facilities in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Parramatta, Sydney and Perth. The Court also occupies privately leased facilities in Albury, Cairns, Darwin, Dubbo, Launceston, Lismore, Newcastle, and Wollongong. Accommodation is provided as part of the shared services arrangement with the Family Court.

The most significant property-related activities at various court locations in 2011–12 are detailed below.

Sydney

John Maddison Tower

The Federal Magistrates Court was required to hand back two of the three floors subleased from the NSW Department of Attorney General and Justice. There were eight federal magistrates in total occupying three floors. This resulted in three federal magistrates being relocated and the remaining five federal magistrates being consolidated onto one floor. An additional chamber was constructed in order to meet their requirements.

80 William Street

As a result of the reduction in space at John Maddison Tower, three federal magistrates were accommodated within Fair Work Australia’s accommodation. Minor works were undertaken to accommodate the federal magistrates with chambers and courtrooms provided by Fair Work Australia. This arrangement is for two years until long term accommodation for the federal magistrates can be secured.

Lionel Bowen Building

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 undertaken in November 2011 delivering four much needed new courtrooms in the Sydney CBD. Whilst the fitout


was funded by the Family Court, the courtrooms will be a shared resource and predominately used by the Federal Magistrates Court.

Dandenong

The Family Court entered into a new five year lease in March 2012 (while the lease is in the Family Court’s name, a high proportion of matters are heard by federal magistrates in Dandenong). 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.

PURCHASING, CONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTS

Purchasing

The Family Court Procurement and Risk Management section, as a result of the Corporate Services amalgamation, assists staff in the Federal Magistrates Court 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 posted on the intranet as reference material for 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 have provision for the Auditor General to access contractor’s premises.

Consultants

During 2011–12:

• one new consultancy contract was entered into involving total actual expenditure of $70,535.14 (GST inclusive), and

• one ongoing consultancy contract was entered into involving total actual expenditure of $2000 (GST inclusive).

Total actual expenditure on consultancy contracts for 2011–12 was $72,535.14 (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:

A – skills currently unavailable within the Court

B – need for specialised or professional skills

C – need for independent research or assessment.


Depending on the particular needs, value and risks (as set out in the Court’s Procurement Framework) the Court uses open tender, select tender or direct sourcing for its consultancies.

The Court is a relatively small user of consultants. As such, the Court has no specific policy by which consultants are engaged, other than within the broad frameworks above, related to skills unavailability within the Court or when there is need for specialised and/or independent research or assessment.

Information on expenditure on all court contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website at www.tenders.gov.au

Consultants and competitive tendering

No contracts were let to an organisation for the delivery of services previously performed by the Court during the reporting period.

Exempt contracts

During the reporting period no contracts or standing offers were exempt from publication on AusTender in terms of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

Legal services expenditure

Paragraph 11.1 of the Legal Services Directions 2005 states that the Chief Executive Officer of the Court has the responsibility for ensuring that:

• arrangements for legal services are handled efficiently and effectively, and

• appropriate systems and procedures are in place to comply with these directions.

In accordance with paragraph 11.1 (ba) of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Court incurred the following legal services expenditure during 2011–12.

All expenditure figures include GST.

Pursuant to paragraph 11.2 of the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Chief Executive Officer has issued a certificate to the Office of Legal Services Coordination of the Attorney-General’s Department stating that the Family Court of Australia:

• has appropriate systems and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the directions, and

• has no record of any alleged, possible or determined breach of the directions during the 2011–12 financial year

http://www.tenders.gov.au


Table 4.2 Legal services expenditure, 2011–12

Totals

Total costs recovered1 $0.00

Total external legal services expenditure $55,849.46

Total internal legal services expenditure $0.00

Total (external + internal) expenditure $55,849.46

Summary of external legal services expenditure

Total value of briefs to counsel (A) $6,589.50

Total value of disbursements (excluding counsel) (B) $16.50

Total value of professional fees paid (C) $49,243.46

Total external legal services expenditure (A + B + C) $55,849.46

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 1

Number of direct briefs to female counsel 1

Total number of direct briefs to counsel 2

Total value of briefs to male counsel (including direct briefs)2 $0.00

Total value of briefs to female counsel (including direct briefs)2 $6,589.50

Total value of briefs to counsel (A)3 $6,589.50

Disbursements

Total value of disbursements (excluding counsel) (B) $16.50

Professional fees

Australian Government Solicitor $27,002.69

Blake Dawson $3537.77

Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing $18,703.00

Total value of professional fees paid (C) $49,243.46

1 Includes the value of direct briefs.

2 Includes all expenditure on counsel.

Discretionary grants

The Federal Magistrates Court made no grant payments during 2011–12.

PART 5: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


Federal Magistrates Court

Financial Statementsfor the Period Ended 30 June 2012

-1-

PART 5: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 111

Index to the Notes of the Financial Statements

Statement by CEO and CFO 3

Statement of Comprehensive Income 4

Balance Sheet 5

Statement of Changes in Equity 6

Cash Flow Statement 7

Schedule of Commitments 8

Administered Schedule of Comprehensive Income 9

Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities 10

Administered Reconciliation Schedule 11

Administered Cash Flow Statement 12

Schedule of Administered Commitments 13

Schedule of Administered Contingencies 13

Table of Contents Notes 13

Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 14

Note 2: Events After the Reporting Period 20

Note 3: Expenses 21

Note 4: Income 22

Note 5: Financial Assets 23

Note 6: Non-Financial Assets 24

Note 7: Payables 28

Note 8: Provisions 28

Note 9: Cash Flow Reconciliation 29

Note 10: Contingent Liabilities and Assets 29

Note 11: Senior Executive Remuneration 30

Note 12: Remuneration of Auditors 33

Note 13: Financial Instruments 33

Note 14: Financial Assets Reconciliation 35

Note 15: Administered - Expenses 36

Note 16: Administered - Income 36

Note 17: Administered - Financial Assets 37

Note 18: Administered - Payables 38

Note 19: Administered - Cash Flow Reconciliation 38

Note 20: Administered Contingent Assets and Liabilities 39

Note 21: Administered - Financial Instruments 39

Note 22: Administered Financial Assets Reconciliation 40

Note 23: Appropriations 41

Note 24: Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund 45

Note 25: Special accounts and FMA Act Section 39 46

Note 26: Compensation and Debt Relief 47

Note 27: Reporting of Outcomes 48

-2-

INDEX TO THE NOTES OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Statement by CEO and CFO 114

Statement of Comprehensive Income 115

Balance Sheet 116

Statement of Changes in Equity 117

Cash Flow Statement 118

Schedule of Commitments 119

Administered Schedule of Comprehensive Income 120

Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities 121

Administered Reconciliation Schedule 122

Administered Cash Flow Statement 123

Schedule of Administered Commitments 123

Schedule of Administered Contingencies 123

Table of Contents Notes 124



Note 3: Expenses 132

Note 4: Income 133



Note 7: Payables 139








Note 15: Administered – Expenses 147

Note 16: Administered – Income 147

Note 17: Administered – Financial Assets 148

Note 18: Administered – Payables 149

Note 19: Administered – Cash Flow Reconciliation 149


Note 21: Administered – Financial Instruments 150








FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

STATEMENT BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER

In our opinion, the attached financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2012 are based on properlymaintained financial records and give a true and fair view of the matters required by the Finance Minister's Ordersmade under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, as amended.

Mr Richard Foster PSM Mr Grahame HarriottActing Chief Executive OfficerFederal Magistrates Court

Acting Chief Finance OfficerFederal Magistrates Court

31 August 2012 31 August 2012

-3-



Statement of Comprehensive Income

for the period ended 30 June 2012

2012 2011Notes $'000 $'000

EXPENSESEmployee benefits 3A 37,657 35,068Supplier 3B 64,773 59,809Depreciation and amortisation 3C 1,589 1,464Finance costs 3D 5 2Loss from sale of assets 3E 132 57Total expenses 104,156 96,400

LESS:OWN-SOURCE INCOMEOwn-source revenueContributions from other Courts - restructure 4A - 30,705Rental income 4B 6 5Other revenue 4C 129 2,763Total own-source revenue 135 33,473

GainsOther gains 4D 46,951 36,823Total gains 46,951 36,823Total own-source income 47,086 70,296Net cost of services 57,070 26,104Revenue from Government 4E 53,481 22,144Surplus (deficit) attributable to the Australian Government (3,589) (3,960)

OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOMEChanges in asset revaluation surplus (2) -Total other comprehensive income (loss) (2) -

Total comprehensive income (loss) attributable to the AustralianGovernment (3,591) (3,960)

The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.

-4-


Fed

era

l M

ag

istr

ate

s C

ou

rt

Sta

tem

en

t o

f C

han

ges i

n E

qu

ity

for

the p

eri

od e

nded 3

0 J

une 2

012

Reta

ined

earn

ing

sA

sset

revalu

ati

on

su

rplu

sC

on

trib

ute

deq

uit

y/

cap

ital

To

tal

eq

uit

y

20

12

$'0

00

2011

$'0

00

20

12

$'0

00

2011

$'0

00

20

12

$'0

00

2011

$'0

00

20

12

$'0

00

2011

$'0

00

Op

en

ing

bala

nce

Bala

nce c

arr

ied f

orw

ard

fro

m p

revio

us p

eri

od

(1

,61

3)

2,3

47

2,5

32

2,5

32

8,2

09

8,2

09

9,1

28

13,0

88

Adju

stm

ent

for

err

ors

--

--

--

--

Ad

juste

d o

pen

ing

bala

nce

(1

,61

3)

2,3

47

2,5

32

2,5

32

8,2

09

8,2

09

9,1

28

13,0

88

Co

mp

reh

en

siv

e i

nco

me

Oth

er

com

pre

hensiv

e incom

e-

-(2

)-

--

(2

)-

Surp

lus (

Deficit)

for

the p

eriod

(3

,58

9)

(3,9

60)

(3

,58

9)

(3,9

60)

To

tal

co

mp

reh

en

siv

e i

nco

me (

loss)

(3

,58

9)

(3,9

60)

(2

)-

--

(3

,59

1)

(3,9

60)

Tra

nsacti

on

s w

ith

ow

ners

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns b

y o

wn

ers

Depart

menta

l capital budget

--

--

--

--

Su

b-t

ota

l tr

an

sacti

on

s w

ith

ow

ners

--

--

--

--

Clo

sin

g b

ala

nce a

s a

t 3

0 J

un

e(5

,20

2)

(1,6

13)

2,5

30

2,5

32

8,2

09

8,2

09

5,5

37

9,1

28

The a

bove s

tate

ment

should

be r

ead in c

onju

nction w

ith t

he a

ccom

panyin

g n

ote

s.

-6-


Balance Sheet

as at 30 June 2012

2012 2011Notes $'000 $'000

ASSETSFinancial AssetsCash and cash equivalents 5A 752 724Trade and other receivables 5B 8,278 10,349Total financial assets 9,030 11,073

Non-Financial AssetsLand and Buildings 6A 6,145 6,149Property, plant and equipment 6B,C 2,161 1,515Intangibles 6D,E 43 66Other non-financial assets 6F 170 572Total non-financial assets 8,519 8,302Total assets 17,549 19,375

LIABILITIESPayablesSuppliers 7A 1,171 912Other payables 7B 1,182 1,024Total payables 2,353 1,936

ProvisionsEmployee provisions 8A 9,497 8,021Other provisions 8B 162 290Total provisions 9,659 8,311Total liabilities 12,012 10,247Net assets 5,537 9,128

EQUITYContributed equity 8,209 8,209Reserves 2,530 2,532Retained surplus (accumulated deficit) (5,202) (1,613)Total equity 5,537 9,128


-5-


Fed

era

l M

ag

istr

ate

s C

ou

rt

Sta

tem

en

t o

f C

han

ges i

n E

qu

ity

for

the p

eri

od e

nded 3

0 J

une 2

012

Reta

ined

earn

ing

sA

sset

revalu

ati

on

su

rplu

sC

on

trib

ute

deq

uit

y/

cap

ital

To

tal

eq

uit

y

20

12

$'0

00

2011

$'0

00

20

12

$'0

00

2011

$'0

00

20

12

$'0

00

2011

$'0

00

20

12

$'0

00

2011

$'0

00

Op

en

ing

bala

nce

Bala

nce c

arr

ied f

orw

ard

fro

m p

revio

us p

eri

od

(1

,61

3)

2,3

47

2,5

32

2,5

32

8,2

09

8,2

09

9,1

28

13,0

88

Adju

stm

ent

for

err

ors

--

--

--

--

Ad

juste

d o

pen

ing

bala

nce

(1

,61

3)

2,3

47

2,5

32

2,5

32

8,2

09

8,2

09

9,1

28

13,0

88

Co

mp

reh

en

siv

e i

nco

me

Oth

er

com

pre

hensiv

e incom

e-

-(2

)-

--

(2

)-

Surp

lus (

Deficit)

for

the p

eriod

(3

,58

9)

(3,9

60)

(3

,58

9)

(3,9

60)

To

tal

co

mp

reh

en

siv

e i

nco

me (

loss)

(3

,58

9)

(3,9

60)

(2

)-

--

(3

,59

1)

(3,9

60)

Tra

nsacti

on

s w

ith

ow

ners

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns b

y o

wn

ers

Depart

menta

l capital budget

--

--

--

--

Su

b-t

ota

l tr

an

sacti

on

s w

ith

ow

ners

--

--

--

--

Clo

sin

g b

ala

nce a

s a

t 3

0 J

un

e(5

,20

2)

(1,6

13)

2,5

30

2,5

32

8,2

09

8,2

09

5,5

37

9,1

28

The a

bove s

tate

ment

should

be r

ead in c

onju

nction w

ith t

he a

ccom

panyin

g n

ote

s.

-6-



Cash Flow Statement


2012 2011Notes $'000 $'000

OPERATING ACTIVITIESCash receivedAppropriations 56,106 55,730Contribution from the Family Court of Australia - 27,565Contribution from the Federal Court of Australia - 6,946Net GST received 1,681 1,825Other 607 3,247Total cash received 58,394 95,313

Cash usedEmployees 35,332 32,927Suppliers 20,106 26,028Section 31 receipts transferred to OPA 589 35,412Total cash used 56,027 94,367Net cash from operating activities 9 2,367 946

INVESTING ACTIVITIESCash receivedProceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment - 2Total cash received - 2

Cash usedPurchase of property, plant and equipment 2,339 1,578Total cash used 2,339 1,578Net cash from (used by) investing activities (2,339) (1,576)

Net increase (decrease) in cash held 28 (630)Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period 724 1,354Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period 5A 752 724


-7-



Schedule of Commitments

as at 30 June 2012

2012 2011$'000 $'000

BY TYPECommitments receivableNet GST recoverable on commitments 1,280 1,296Total commitments receivable 1,280 1,296

Commitments payableOther commitmentsOperating leases1 (14,083) (14,251)Total other commitments (14,083) (14,251)Net commitments by type (12,803) (12,955)

BY MATURITYCommitments receivableOther commitments receivableOne year or less 263 281From one to five years 432 403Over five years 585 612Total other commitments receivable 1,280 1,296

Commitments payableOperating lease commitmentsOne year or less (2,888) (3,088)From one to five years (4,752) (4,434)Over five years (6,443) (6,729)Total operating lease commitments (14,083) (14,251)Net commitments by maturity (12,803) (12,955)

Note: Commitments are GST inclusive where relevant.

1 Operating leases are non-cancellable and comprise:

Nature of lease General description of leasing arrangement

Agreements for the provision of motorvehicles to statutory appointees

No contingent rentals exist. There are no renewal or purchase optionsavailable to the Court.

Leases for office accommodation All lease commitments for both commercial and special purpose courtbuilding leases include annual increases and market rate revieweswhere applicable. A large proportion of these commitments are forCommonwealth Law Court buildings (CLC) - Adelaide and Brisbane.The funding arrangements for the CLC are currently being reviewed.Under proposed new arrangements, approximately 80% of leasecommitments for CLC will be transferred to the Department ofFinance and Deregulation.

This schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.

-8-



Administered Schedule of Comprehensive Income


2012 2011Notes $'000 $'000

EXPENSESSupplier expenses 15A 57 110Write-down and impairment of assets 15B 4 5Other expenses 15C 137 126Total expenses administered on behalf of Government 198 241

LESSOWN-SOURCE INCOMEOwn-source revenueNon-taxation revenueFees and fines 16A 31,557 30,495Total own-source income administered on behalf of Government 31,557 30,495Net cost of (contribution by) services (31,359) (30,254)Total comprehensive income 31,359 30,254


-9-



Administered Schedule of Assets and Liabilities

as at 30 June 2012

2012 2011Notes $'000 $'000

ASSETSFinancial assetsCash and cash equivalents 17A 394 405Trade and other receivables 17B 86 1Total financial assets 480 406Total assets administered on behalf of Government 480 406

LIABILITIESPayablesSuppliers 18A 14 -Total payables 14 -Total liabilities administered on behalf of Government 14 -

Net assets 466 406


-10-



Administered Reconciliation Schedule

2012 2011$'000 $'000

Opening administered assets less administered liabilities as at 1 July 406 272

Surplus (deficit) items: Plus: Administered income 31,557 30,495 Less: Administered expenses (non CAC) (198) (241)Administered transfers to/from Australian Government:

Appropriation transfers from OPAAnnual appropriations for administered expenses (non CAC) 45 116Special appopriations (unlimited) (non-CAC) S28 Refunds 201 162Special appopriations (unlimited) (non CAC) S30A GST 2 6

Transfers to OPA (31,547) (30,404)Closing administered assets less administered liabilities as at 30 June 466 406

-11-



Administered Cash Flow Statement


2012 2011Notes $'000 $'000

OPERATING ACTIVITIESCash receivedFees 31,383 30,261Fines 151 272Net GST received 2 7Total cash received 31,536 30,540

Cash usedSuppliers 47 122Refunds of fees 137 126Other 64 36Total cash used 248 284Net cash flows from operating activities 31,288 30,256

Net increase in cash held 31,288 30,256

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period 405 269Cash from Official Public Account for:

- Appropriation Act (No.1) 2009-10 - 1- Appropriation Act (No.1) 2010 -11 - 115

- Appropriation Act (No.1) 2011-12 45 -- Appropriation GST payments (s30A FMA) 2 6- Appropriation refunds of receipts (s28 FMA) 201 162

248 284Cash to Official Public Account for:

-Transfer to other entities (Finance - Whole of Government) (31,547) (30,404)Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period 17A 394 405


-12-


Table of Contents - Notes



Note 3: Expenses 21

Note 4: Income 22



Note 7: Payables 28








Note 15: Administered - Expenses 36

Note 16: Administered - Income 36

Note 17: Administered - Financial Assets 37

Note 18: Administered - Payables 38

Note 19: Administered - Cash Flow Reconciliation 38


Note 21: Administered - Financial Instruments 39







-13-

TABLE OF CONTENTS – NOTES



Note 3: Expenses 132

Note 4: Income 133



Note 7: Payables 139








Note 15: Administered – Expenses 147

Note 16: Administered – Income 147

Note 17: Administered – Financial Assets 148

Note 18: Administered – Payables 149

Note 19: Administered – Cash Flow Reconciliation 149


Note 21: Administered – Financial Instruments 150








Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

1.1 Objectives of the Federal Magistrates Court

The Federal Magistrates Court (the Court) is an Australian Government controlled entity. It is a not-for-profitentity.The objective of the Court is to provide a simple and accessible alternative to litigation in the Family Courtand the Federal Court.

The Court is structured to meet the outcome of providing the Australian community with a simple and accessibleforum for the resolution of less complex disputes within the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court.

The continued existence of the Court in its present form and with its present programs is dependent on Governmentpolicy and on continuing funding by Parliament for the Court's administration and programs.

The Court's activities contributing toward this outcome are classified as either departmental or administered.Departmental activities involve the use of assets, liabilities, income, and expenses controlled or incurred by the Courtin its own right. Administered activities involve the management or oversight by the Court, on behalf of theGovernment, of items controlled or incurred by the Government.

The Court conducts the following administered activity:

- providing dispute resolution services such as counselling, mediation and conciliation from community-basedorganisations.

1.2 Basis of Preparation of the Financial Report

The financial statements are general purpose financial statements and are required by section 49 of the FinancialManagement and Accountability Act 1997.

The Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with:a) Finance Minister's Orders (FMOs), for reporting periods ending on or after 1 July 2011; andb) Australian Accounting Standards and Interpretations issued by the Australian Accounting Standards

Board (AASB) that apply for the reporting period.

The financial statements have been prepared on an accrual basis and in accordance with the historical costconvention, except for certain assets and liabilities at fair value. Except where stated, no allowance is made for theeffect of changing prices on the results or the financial position.

The financial statements are presented in Australian dollars and values are rounded to the nearest thousand dollarsunless otherwise specified.

Unless an alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard or the FMOs, assets and liabilitiesare recognised in the balance sheet when and only when it is probable that future economic benefits will flow to theCourt or a future sacrifice of economic benefits will be required and the amounts of the assets or liabilities can bereliably measured. However, assets and liabilities arising under executor contracts are not recognised unlessrequired by an accounting standard. Liabilities and assets that are unrecognised are reported in the schedule ofcommitments.

Unless alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard, income and expenses arerecognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income when and only when the flow, consumption or loss ofeconomic benefits has occurred and can be reliably measured.

1.3 Significant Accounting Judgement and Estimates

In the process of applying the accounting policies listed in this note, the Court has made the following judgementthat has the most significant impact on the amounts recorded in the financial statements:

the fair value of land and buildings has been taken to be the written down replacement cost asdetermined by an independent valuer.

No accounting assumptions or estimates have been identified that have a significant risk of causing a materialadjustment to carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next accounting period.

-14-


1.4 New Australian Accounting Standards

Adoption of New Australian Accounting Standard Requirements

No accounting standard has been adopted earlier than the application date as stated in the standard. The newstandards and amendments to standards that were issued prior to the sign off date applicable to the currentreporting period have no material financial impact on the Court.

Future Australian Accounting Standard Requirements

It is estimated that the impact of adopting the new standards, amendments to standards and interpretations thathave been issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board prior to the sign off date for future periods willhave no material financial impact on future reporting periods.

1.5 Revenue

Revenue from the sale of goods is recognised when:a) the risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to the buyer;b) the Court retains no managerial involvement nor effective control over the goods;c) the revenue and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; andd) it is probable that the economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow to the Court.

Revenue from rendering of services is recognised by reference to the stage of completion of contracts at the reportingdate. The revenue is recognised when:

a) the amount of revenue, stage of completion and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; andb) the probable economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow to the Court.

The stage of completion of contracts at the reporting date is determined by reference to the proportion that costsincurred to date bear to the estimated total costs of the transaction.

Receivables for goods and services, which have 30 day terms, are recognised at the nominal amounts due less anyimpairment allowance account. Collectability of debts is reviewed at the end of the reporting period. Allowances aremade when collectability of the debt is no longer probable.

Revenues from GovernmentAmounts appropriated for departmental appropriations for the year (adjusted for any formal additions and reductions)are recognised as Revenue from Government when the Court gains control of the appropriation, except for certainamounts that relate to activities that are reciprocal in nature, in which case revenue is recognised only when it hasbeen earned. Appropriations receivable are recognised at their nominal amounts.

1.6 Gains

Resources Received Free of Charge

Resources received free of charge are recognised as gains when, and only when, a fair value can be reliablydetermined and the services would have been purchased if they had not been donated. Use of those resources isrecognised as an expense.

Resources received free of charge are recorded as either revenue or gains depending on their nature.

Contributions of assets at no cost of acquisition or for nominal consideration are recognised as gains at their fairvalue when the asset qualifies for recognition, unless received from another Government entity as a consequence ofa restructuring of administrative arrangements (Refer to Note 1.7).

Sale of Assets

Gains from disposal of assets are recognised when control of the asset has passed to the buyer.

1.7 Transactions with the Government as Owner

Equity InjectionsAmounts appropriated which are designated as 'equity injections' for a year (less any formal reductions) andDepartmental Capital Budgets (DCBs) are recognised directly in contributed equity in that year. FMC does not havea DCB for the current reporting period.

Restructuring of Administrative ArrangementsNet assets received from or relinquished to another Australian Government entity under a restructuring ofadministrative arrangements are adjusted at their book value directly against contributed equity.

-15-


Other Distributions to OwnersThe FMOs require that distributions to owners be debited to contributed equity unless it is in the nature of adividend.

1.8 Employee Benefits

Liabilities for ‘short-term employee benefits’ (as defined in AASB 119 Employee Benefits) and termination benefitsdue within twelve months of the end of the reporting peiord are measured at their nominal amounts.

The nominal amount is calculated with regard to the rates expected to be paid on settlement of the liability.

Other long term employee benefits are measured as net total of the present value of the defined benefit obligationat the end of the reporting period minus the fair value at the end of the reporting period of plan assets (if any) outof which the obligations are to be settled directly.

Leave

The liability for employee benefits includes provision for annual leave and long service leave. No provision has beenmade for sick leave as all sick leave is non-vesting and the average sick leave taken in future years by employeesof the Court is estimated to be less than the annual entitlement for sick leave.

The leave liabilities are calculated on the basis of employees' remuneration, at the estimated salary rates that willbe applied at the time the leave is taken, including the Court's employer superannuation contribution rates, to theextent that the leave is likely to be taken during service rather than paid out on termination.

The liability for long service leave has been determined by reference to the work of an actuary this financial year.The estimate of the present value of the liability takes into account attrition rates and pay increases throughpromotion and inflation.

Separation and Redundancy

Provision is made for separation and redundancy benefit payments. The Court recognises a provision fortermination when it has developed a detailed formal plan for the terminations and has informed those employeesaffected that it will carry out the terminations.

Superannuation

Staff of the Court are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS), the Public SectorSuperannuation Scheme (PSS), or the PSS accumulation plan (PSSap).

The CSS and PSS are defined benefit schemes for the Australian Government. The PSSap is a defined contributionscheme.

The liability for defined benefits is recognised in the financial statements of the Australian Government and issettled by the Australian Government in due course. This liability is reported by the Department of Finance andDeregulation's administered schedules and notes.

The Court makes employer contributions to the employees' superannuation scheme at rates determined by anactuary to be sufficient to meet the current cost to the Government. The Court accounts for the contributions as ifthey were contributions to defined contribution plans.

Federal Magistrates and certain non-ongoing staff are not members of these schemes. The Court contributes toeligible superannuation funds nominated by the employees.

The liability for superannuation recognised as at 30 June represents outstanding contributions for the final fortnightof the reporting period.

-16-


1.9 Leases

A distinction is made between finance leases and operating leases. Finance leases effectively transfer from thelessor to the lessee substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of leased assets. An operatinglease is a lease that is not a finance lease. In operating leases, the lessor effectively retains substantially all suchrisks and benefits.

Where an asset is acquired by means of a finance lease, the asset is capitalised at either the fair value of the leaseproperty or, if lower, the present value of minimum lease payments at the inception of the contract and a liability isrecognised at the same time and for the same amount.

The discount rate used is the interest rate implicit in the lease. Leased assets are amortised over the period of thelease. Lease payments are allocated between the principal component and the interest expense.

Operating lease payments are expensed on a straight-line basis which is representative of the pattern of benefitsderived from the leased assets.

1.10 Cash

Cash is recognised at its nominal amount. Cash and cash equivalents includes: a) cash on hand;

b) demand deposits in bank accounts with an original maturity of 3 months or less that are readily covertibleto known amounts of cash and subject to insignificant risk of changes in value;

c) cash held by outsiders; and

1.11 Financial Assets

The Federal Magistrates Court classifies its financial assets in the following categories:

a) financial assets at fair value through profit or loss;b) held-to-maturity investments;c) available-for-sale financial assets; andd) loans and receivables.

The classification depends on the nature and purpose of the financial assets and is determined at the time of initialrecognition.

Financial assets are recognised and derecognised upon trade date.

The Court's financial assets are limited to loans and receivables.

Effective Interest Method

The effective interest method is a method of calculating the amortised cost of a financial asset and of allocatinginterest income over the relevant period. The effective interest rate is the rate that exactly discounts estimatedfuture cash receipts through the expected life of the financial asset, or, where appropriate, a shorter period.

Income is recognised on an effective interest rate basis except for financial assets that are recognised at fair valuethrough profit or loss.

Loans and Receivables

Trade receivables, loans and other receivables that have fixed or determinable payments that are not quoted in anactive market are classified as 'loans and receivables'. Loans and receivables are measured at amortised costusing the effective interest method less impairment. Interest is recognised by applying the effective interest rate.

-17-


Impairment of Financial Assets

Financial assets are assessed for impairment at the end of each reporting period.

Financial assets held at amortised cost - if there is objective evidence that an impairment loss has been incurredfor loans and receivables or held to maturity investments held at amortised cost, the amount of the loss ismeasured as the difference between the asset's carrying amount and the present value of estimated future cashflows discounted at the asset's original effective interest rate. The carrying amount is reduced by way of anallowance account. The loss is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income.

1.12 Financial Liabilities

Financial liabilities are classified as either financial liabilities 'at fair value through profit or loss' or other financialliabilities. Financial liabilities are recognised and derecognised upon trade date.

The Court's financial liabilities are limited to other financial liabilities.

Other Financial Liabilities

Other financial liabilities, including borrowings, are initially measured at fair value, net of transaction costs. Theseliabilities are subsequently measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method, with interest expenserecognised on an effective yield basis.

The effective interest method is a method of calculating the amortised cost of a financial liability and of allocatinginterest expense over the relevant period. The effective interest rate is the rate that exactly discounts estimatedfuture cash payments through the expected life of the financial liability, or, where appropriate, a shorter period.

Supplier and other payables are recognised at amortised cost. Liabilities are recognised to the extent that the goodsand services have been received (and irrespective of having been invoiced).

1.13 Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets

Contingent liabilities and contingent assets are not recognised in the balance sheet but are reported in the relevantschedules and notes. They may arise from uncertainty as to the existence of a liability or asset or represent anasset or liability in respect of which the amount cannot be reliably measured. Contingent assets are disclosed whensettlement is probable but not virtually certain and contingent liabilities are disclosed when settlement is greaterthan remote.

1.14 Acquisition of Assets

Assets are recorded at cost on acquisition except as stated below. The cost of acquisition includes the fair value ofassets transferred in exchange and liabilities undertaken. Financial assets are initially measured at their fair valueplus transaction costs where appropriate.

Assets acquired at no cost, or for nominal consideration, are initially recognised as assets and income at their fairvalue at the date of acquisition, unless acquired as a consequence of restructuring of administrative arrangements.In the latter case, assets are initially recognised as contributions by owners at the amounts at which they wererecognised in the transferor's accounts immediately prior to the restructuring.

-18-


1.15 Property, Plant and Equipment

Asset Recognition Threshold

Purchases of property, plant and equipment are recognised initially at cost in the balance sheet, except forpurchases costing less than $2,000, which are expensed in the year of acquisition (other than where they form partof a group of similar items which are significant in total).

The initial cost of an asset includes an estimate of the cost of dismantling and removing the item and restoring thesite on which it is located. This is particularly relevant to ‘make good’ provisions in property leases taken up by theCourt where there exists an obligation to restore the property to its original condition. These costs are included inthe value of the Court's leasehold improvements with a corresponding provision for the ‘make good’ recognised.

Revaluations

Fair values for each class of asset are determined as shown below:

Asset Class Fair value measured at

Leasehold improvements Depreciated replacement cost

Plant and equipment Market Selling Price

Following initial recognition at cost, property plant and equipment are carried at fair value less subsequentaccumulated depreciation and accumulated impairment losses. Valuations are conducted with sufficient frequencyto ensure that the carrying amounts of assets do not differ materially from the assets’ fair values as at thereporting date. The regularity of independent valuations depends upon the volatility of movements in marketvalues for the relevant assets.

Revaluation adjustments are made on a class basis. Any revaluation increment is credited to equity under theheading of asset revaluation reserve except to the extent that it reverses a previous revaluation decrement of thesame asset class that was previously recognised in the surplus/deficit. Revaluation decrements for a class of assetsare recognised directly in the surplus/deficit except to the extent that they reverse a previous revaluationincrement for that class.

Any accumulated depreciation as at the revaluation date is eliminated against the gross carrying amount of theasset and the asset restated to the revalued amount.

Depreciation

Depreciable property, plant and equipment assets are written-off to their estimated residual values over theirestimated useful lives to the Court using, in all cases, the straight-line method of depreciation.

Depreciation rates (useful lives), residual values and methods are reviewed at each reporting date and necessaryadjustments are recognised in the current, or current and future reporting periods, as appropriate.

Depreciation rates applying to each class of depreciable asset are based on the following useful lives:

2012 2011Leasehold improvements 2 to 20 years 1 to 20 yearsPlant and equipment 2 to 15 years 2 to 15 years

Impairment

All assets were assessed for impairment at 30 June 2012. Where indications of impairment exist, the asset’srecoverable amount is estimated and an impairment adjustment made if the asset’s recoverable amount is less thanits carrying amount.

The recoverable amount of an asset is the higher of its fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. Value in useis the present value of the future cash flows expected to be derived from the asset. Where the future economicbenefit of an asset is not primarily dependent on the asset’s ability to generate future cash flows, and the assetwould be replaced if the Court were deprived of the asset, its value in use is taken to be its depreciatedreplacement cost.

Derecognition

An item of property, plant and equipment is derecognised upon disposal or when no further future economicbenefits are expected from its use or disposal.

-19-


1.16 Intangibles

The Court's intangibles comprise purchased software for internal use. These assets are carried at cost lessaccumulated amortisation and accumulated impairment losses.

Software is amortised on a straight-line basis over its anticipated useful life. The useful lives of the Court's softwareis 3-7 years (2010-11: 3-7 years).

All software assets were assessed for indications of impairment as at 30 June 2012.

1.17 Taxation / Competitive Neutrality

The Court is exempt from all forms of taxation except Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) and the Goods and Services Tax(GST).

Revenues, expenses and assets are recognised net of GST:

a) except where the amount of GST incurred is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office; andb) for receivables and payables.

1.18 Reporting of Administered Activities

Administered revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash flows are disclosed in the schedule of administereditems and related notes.

Except where otherwise stated below, administered items are accounted for on the same basis and using the samepolicies as for departmental items, including the application of Australian Accounting Standards.

Administered Cash Transfers to and from the Official Public Account

Revenue collected by the Court for use by the Government rather than the Court is administered revenue.Collections are transferred to the Official Public Account (OPA) maintained by the Department of Finance andDeregulation. Conversely, cash is drawn from the OPA to make payments under Parliamentary appropriation onbehalf of Government. These transfers to and from the OPA are adjustments to the administered cash held by theCourt on behalf of the Government and reported as such in the statement of cash flows in the schedule ofadministered items and in the administered reconciliation schedule.

Revenue

All administered revenues are revenues relating to ordinary activities performed by the Court on behalf of theAustralian Government. As such, administered appropriations are not revenues of the individual entity that overseesdistribution or expenditure of the funds as directed.

Revenue is generated from fees for ongoing applications with the Court and fines ordered by the Court.Administered fee revenue is recognised when applications are made or fines are collected. Collectability of debts isreviewed at the end of the reporting period. Allowances are made when collectability of the debt is judged to beless, rather than more likely.

Loans and Receivables

Where loans and receivables are not subject to concessional treatment, they are carried at amortised cost using theeffective interest method. Gains and losses due to impairment, derecognition and amortisation are recognisedthrough profit or loss.

Note 2: Events After the Reporting PeriodDepartmentalThe Court had no events occuring after the reporting period that had an affect on the ongoing structure and financialactivities of the Court.

However the Attorney General's Department has announced that in the future there will be a move by the FamilyCourt of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court to a single agency. The timing and the financial effect of thisrestructure is yet to be determined.

Administered

The Court had no events occuring after the reporting period that had an affect on the ongoing structure andfinancial activities of the Court.

-20-


Note 3: Expenses

2012 2011 $'000 $'000

Note 3A: Employee BenefitsWages and salaries 28,312 26,827Superannuation:

Defined contribution plans 4,089 3,420Defined benefit plans 1,321 1,373

Leave and other entitlements 3,935 3,446Separation and redundancies - 2Total employee benefits 37,657 35,068

Note 3B: SupplierGoods and servicesContractors and consultants 8,642 8,041Administration and travel 6,755 6,896Resources received free of charge from Family Court 37,168 31,672Court registry and migration services* 8,855 8,761Total goods and services 61,420 55,370

Goods and services are made up of:Provision of goods - external parties 872 846Rendering of services - related entities 47,662 42,010Rendering of services - external parties 12,886 12,514Total goods and services 61,420 55,370

Other supplier expensesOperating lease rentals - related entities:

Minimum lease payments 780 1,363Operating lease rentals - external parties:

Minimum lease payments 2,468 2,962Contingent rentals 6 4

Workers compensation premiums 99 110Total other supplier 3,353 4,439Total supplier 64,773 59,809

* Court migration and registry services have been provided free of charge by the Federal Court of Australia from 1January 2011.

Note 3C: Depreciation and AmortisationDepreciation:

Leasehold improvements 1,118 1,012Plant and equipment 447 411

Total depreciation 1,565 1,423

Amortisation:Computer software 24 41

Total amortisation 24 41Total depreciation and amortisation 1,589 1,464

Note 3D: Finance CostsUnwinding of discount 5 2Total finance costs 5 2

Note 3E: Losses from Sale of AssetsLand and buildings:

Carrying value of assets sold 37 -Property, plant and equipment:

Proceeds from sale - (4)Carrying value of assets sold 95 59Selling expense - 2

Total loss from sale of assets 132 57

-21-


Note 4: Income

2012 2011 $'000 $'000

OWN-SOURCE REVENUE

Note 4A: Contributions from other Courts - restructure Contribution from the Family Court of Australia - 23,764Contribution from the Federal Court of Australia - 6,941Total contributions from other Courts - 30,705

Note 4B: Rental incomeRental income 6 5Total rental income 6 5

GAINSNote 4C: Other revenueContribution from the Family Court of Australia - family law transfer - 2,375Contribution from the Federal Court of Australia - federal law transfer - 387Other 129 1Total other revenue 129 2,763

Note 4D: Other GainsResources received free of charge from the Family Court of Australia 37,168 31,672Resources received free of charge from the Federal Court of Australia 8,855 4,380Resources received free of charge from the Australian National Audit Office 44 44Gain on cessation of makegood 135 -Liabilities assumed by related entities 749 727Total other gains 46,951 36,823

The Court receives administrative support services from the Family Court of Australia and audit services by theAustralian National Audit Office (ANAO). From 1 January 2011 the Court also received registry and migrationservices from the Federal Court of Australia. The value of these services is estimated by the Family Court, theFederal Court and the ANAO and recorded as resources received free of charge.

REVENUE FROM GOVERNMENT

Note 4E: Revenues from GovernmentAppropriations:

Departmental appropriations 53,481 22,144Total revenue from Government 53,481 22,144

-22-


Note 5: Financial Assets

2012 2011 $'000 $'000

Note 5A: Cash and Cash EquivalentsCash at bank 752 724Total cash and cash equivalents 752 724

Note 5B: Trade and Other ReceivablesGoods and Services

Goods and services - related entities 25 7Goods and services - external parties 2 52

Total receivables for goods and services 27 59

Appropriations receivable:For existing programs 8,101 10,137

Total appropriations receivable 8,101 10,137

Other receivables:GST receivable from the Australian Taxation Office 150 153

Total other receivables 150 153Total trade and other receivables 8,278 10,349

Receivables are expected to be recovered in:No more than 12 months 8,278 10,349

Total trade and other receivables 8,278 10,349

Receivables are aged as follows:Not overdue 8,101 10,339Overdue by:

0 to 30 days 176 -31 to 60 days 1 1061 to 90 days - -More than 90 days - -

Total receivables 8,278 10,349

Credit terms for goods and services were within 30 days (2011: 30 days).

-23-


Note 6: Non-Financial Assets

Note 6A: Land and BuildingsLeasehold improvements:

Work in progress - at cost 28 -Fair value 8,131 7,253Accumulated Depreciation (2,014) (1,104)

Total land and buildings 6,145 6,149

No indicators of impairment were found for leasehold improvements.

No leasehold improvements are expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months.

Note 6B: Property, Plant and EquipmentOther property, plant and equipment:

Work in progress - at cost 429 -Fair value 2,545 1,939Accumulated depreciation (813) (424)

Total property, plant and equipment 2,161 1,515

No indicators of impairment were found for property, plant and equipment.

No property, plant or equipment is expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months.

Revaluations of non-financial assets

Revaluations are conducted in accordance with the revaluation policy stated at Note 1.

Revaluations were not undertaken in 2012 or 2011.

-24-


Note 6C: Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Property, Plant and Equipment 2012

Leasehold OtherImprovements P,P & E Total

$'000 $'000 $'000

As at 1 July 2011Gross book value 7,253 1,939 9,192Accumulated depreciation and impairment (1,104) (424) (1,528)

Net book value 1 July 2011 6,149 1,515 7,664

AdditionsBy purchase 1,151 1,188 2,339

Depreciation expense (1,118) (447) (1,565)Disposals:

Other (37) (95) (132)

Net book value 30 June 2012 6,145 2,161 8,306

Net book value as of 30 June 2012 represented by:Gross book value 8,159 2,974 11,133Accumulated depreciation and impairment (2,014) (813) (2,827)


Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Property, Plant and Equipment 2011

Leasehold OtherImprovements P,P & E Total

$'000 $'000 $'000

As at 1 July 2010Gross book value 5,935 1,760 7,695Accumulated depreciation and impairment (92) (35) (127)

Net book value 1 July 2010 5,843 1,725 7,568

Additions:By purchase 1,318 260 1,578

Depreciation expense (1,012) (411) (1,423)Disposals:

Other - (59) (59)


Net book value as of 30 June 2011 represented by:Gross book value 7,253 1,939 9,192Accumulated depreciation and impairment (1,104) (424) (1,528)


-25-


2012 2011 $000 $000

Note 6D: Intangibles

Computer software:Externally acquired - at cost 263 314Accumulated amortisation (220) (248)

Total computer software (net) 43 66Total intangibles 43 66

No indicators of impairment were found for intangible assets.

No intangibles are expected to be sold or disposed of within the next 12 months.

Note 6E: Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Intangibles 2012

Computersoftware

purchased$'000

As at 1 July 2011Gross book value 314Accumulated amortisation and impairment (248)

Net book value 1 July 2011 66

AdditionsBy purchase -

Amortisation (24)Disposals:

Other -

Net book value 30 June 2012 43

Net book value as at 30 June 2012 represented by:Gross book value 263Accumulated amortisation and impairment (220)


Reconciliation of the Opening and Closing Balances of Intangibles 2011

Computersoftware

purchased$'000

As at 1 July 2010Gross book value 570Accumulated amortisation and impairment (463)

Net book value 1 July 2010 107

AdditionsBy purchase -

Amortisation (41)Disposals:

Other -


Net book value as of 30 June 2011 represented by:Gross book value 314Accumulated amortisation and impairment (248)


-26-


2012 2011$'000 $'000

Note 6F: Other Non-Financial AssetsPrepayments 170 572

Total other non-financial assets 170 572

Total other non-financial assets - are expected to be recovered in:No more than 12 months 170 572

Total other non-financial assets 170 572

No indicators of impairment were found for other non-financial assets.

-27-


Note 7: Payables

2012 2011 $'000 $'000

Note 7A: SuppliersTrade creditors and accruals 1,171 912Total supplier payables 1,171 912

Supplier payables expected to be settled within 12 monthsRelated entities 197 137External parties 974 775

Total 1,171 912

Settlement was usually made within 30 days.

Note 7B: Other PayablesWages and salaries 828 698Superannuation 126 105Fringe benefits tax payable 228 221Total other payables 1,182 1,024

Total other payables are expected to be settled in:No more than 12 months 1,182 1,024

Total other payables 1,182 1,024

Note 8: Provisions

Note 8A: Employee ProvisionsAnnual leave 4,448 4,109Long service leave 5,049 3,912Total employee provisions 9,497 8,021

Employee provisions are expected to be settled in:No more than 12 months 3,490 3,277More than 12 months 6,007 4,744

Total employee provisions 9,497 8,021

Note 8B: Other ProvisionsProvision for restoration obligations 162 290Total other provisions 162 290

Other provisions are expected to be settled in:No more than 12 months - 135More than 12 months 162 155

Total other provisions 162 290

Provision forrestoration Total

$'000 $'000

Carrying amount 1 July 2011 290 290Additional provisions made - -Amount used - -Amounts reversed (135) (135)Change in discount rate 2 2

Unwinding of discount or change in discount rate 5 5

Closing balance 2012 162 162

The Court currently has 2 (2011: 2) agreements for the leasing of premises which have provisions requiring theCourt to restore the premises to their original condition at the conclusion of the lease. The Court has made aprovision to reflect the present value of this obligation.

-28-


Note 9: Cash Flow Reconciliation

2012 2011 $'000 $'000

Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents as per Balance Sheet toCash Flow Statement

Cash and cash equivalent as per:Cash flow statement 752 724Balance sheet 752 724

Difference - -

Reconciliation of net cost of services to net cash from operating activities:Net cost of services (57,070) (26,104)Add revenue from Government 53,481 22,144

Adjustments for non-cash itemsDepreciation /amortisation 1,589 1,464Loss on disposal of assets 132 57Makegood provision represented in reserves (2) -

Change in assets / liabilitiesDecrease in net receivables 2,071 2,083Decrease in accrued revenue - 402Decrease in prepayments 401 11Increase / (decrease) in supplier payables 259 (753)Increase / (decrease) in other payables 158 226Increase in employee provisions 1,476 1,414Increase / (decrease) in other provisions (128) 2

Net cash from / (used by) operating activities 2,367 946

Note 10: Contingent Liabilities and Assets

Quantifiable Contingencies

The Court has no quantifiable contingent assets or liabilites as at 30 June 2012 (2011: Nil)

Unquantifiable Contingencies

The Court has no unquantifiable contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2012 (2011: Nil).

Significant Remote Contingencies

The Court has no significant remote contingencies as at 30 June 2012 (2011: Nil).

-29-


Note 11: Senior Executive Remuneration

Note 11A: Senior Executive Remuneration Expense for the Reporting Period2012 2011

$ $Short-term employee benefits:

Salary (including leave taken) 186,937 180,236Annual leave accrued 14,583 14,035Performance bonus - -Vehicle allowance 5,366 4,786

Total short-term employee benefits 206,886 199,057

Post-employment benefitsSuperannuation 25,462 29,016

Total post-employment benefits 25,462 29,016

Other long-term benefitsLong service leave 4,682 4,697

Total other long-term benefits 4,682 4,697Termination benefits - -Total employment benefits 237,030 232,770

Notes:

Note 11A was prepared on an accruals basis (so any performance bonus disclosed above will differ from the cash'Bonus paid' in Note 11B).

Note 11A excludes acting arrangements and part-year service where remuneration expensed for a senior executivewas less than $150,000.

-30-


No

te 1

1:

Sen

ior

Execu

tive R

em

un

era

tio

n (

co

nti

nu

ed

)

No

te 1

1B

:Avera

ge A

nn

ual

Rem

un

era

tio

n P

aid

to

Su

bsta

nti

ve S

en

ior

Execu

tives d

uri

ng

th

e R

ep

ort

ing

Peri

od

20

12

Avera

ge a

nn

ual

rep

ort

ab

le r

em

un

era

tio

n 1

Sen

ior

Execu

tives

Rep

ort

ab

le

sala

ry2

.

Co

ntr

ibu

ted

su

pera

nn

uati

on

3.

Rep

ort

ab

le

all

ow

an

ces

4.

Bo

nu

s p

aid

5.

To

tal

No

$$

$$

$

To

tal

rem

un

era

tio

n (

inclu

din

g p

art

-tim

e a

rran

gem

en

ts):

$210 0

00 -

$239,9

99

11

86

,93

82

5,4

62

5,3

66

-2

17

,76

6

To

tal

1

20

11

Avera

ge a

nn

ual

rep

ort

ab

le r

em

un

era

tio

n 1

.

Sen

ior

Execu

tives

Rep

ort

ab

lesala

ry2

.

Co

ntr

ibu

ted

su

pera

nn

uati

on

3.

Rep

ort

ab

leall

ow

an

ces

4.

Bo

nu

s p

aid

5.

To

tal

No

$$

$$

$

To

tal

rem

un

era

tio

n (

inclu

din

g p

art

-tim

e a

rran

gem

en

ts):

$210 0

00 -

$239,9

99

1180,2

35

29,0

16

4,7

86

-214,0

37

To

tal

1

Notes:

1.

This

table

report

s s

ubsta

ntive s

enio

r executives w

ho r

eceiv

ed r

em

unera

tion d

uring t

he r

eport

ing p

eriod.

Each r

ow

is a

navera

ged f

igure

based o

n h

eadcount

for

indiv

iduals

in t

he b

and.

2.

'Report

able

Sala

ry' in

clu

des t

he f

ollow

ing:

(a)

gro

ss p

aym

ents

(le

ss a

ny b

onuses p

aid

, w

hic

h a

re s

epara

ted o

ut

and d

isclo

sed in t

he 'bonus p

aid

' colu

mn);

(b)

report

able

fringe b

enefits

(at

the n

et

am

ount

prior

to 'gro

ssin

g u

p' to

account

for

tax b

enefits

); a

nd

(c)

exem

pt

fore

ign e

mplo

ym

ent

incom

e.

3.

The 'contr

ibute

d s

upera

nnuation' am

ount

is t

he a

vera

ge a

ctu

al supera

nnuation c

ontr

ibutions p

aid

to s

enio

r executives in t

hat

report

able

rem

unera

tion b

and d

uring t

he r

eport

ing p

eriod,

inclu

din

g a

ny s

ala

ry s

acrificed a

mounts

, as p

er

the indiv

iduals

'payslips.

4.

'Report

able

allow

ances' are

the a

vera

ge a

ctu

al allow

ances p

aid

as p

er

the 'to

tal allow

ances' line o

n indiv

iduals

' paym

ent

sum

maries.

5.

'Bonus p

aid

' re

pre

sents

avera

ge a

ctu

al bonuses p

aid

during t

he r

eport

ing p

eriod in t

hat

report

able

rem

unera

tion b

and.

The

'bonus p

aid

' w

ithin

a p

art

icula

r band m

ay v

ary

betw

een f

inancia

l years

due t

o v

arious f

acto

rs s

uch a

s indiv

iduals

com

mencin

gw

ith o

r le

avin

g t

he e

ntity

during t

he f

inancia

l year.

6.

Various s

ala

ry s

acrifice a

rrangem

ents

were

available

to s

enio

r executives inclu

din

g s

upera

nnuation,

moto

r vehic

le a

nd

expense p

aym

ent

frin

ge b

enefits

. Sala

ry s

acrifice b

enefits

are

report

ed in t

he 're

port

able

sala

ry' colu

mn,

exclu

din

g s

ala

rysacrificed s

upera

nnuation,

whic

h is r

eport

ed in t

he 'contr

ibute

d s

upera

nnuation' colu

mn.

7.

Tw

o e

xecutives o

f th

e F

edera

l M

agis

trate

s C

ourt

who a

re n

ot

inclu

ded a

bove h

ave 5

0%

of

their r

em

unera

tion r

ecognis

ed a

sre

sourc

es r

eceiv

ed f

ree o

f charg

e.

Their

2011-1

2 t

ota

l re

munera

tion a

mounting t

o $

642,7

60 (

2010-1

1:$

576,9

33)

is p

aid

by

and f

ully r

ecognis

ed b

y t

he F

am

ily C

ourt

of

Austr

alia.

-31-


No

te 1

1:

Sen

ior

Execu

tive R

em

un

era

tio

n (

co

nti

nu

ed

)

No

te 1

1C

: O

ther

Hig

hly

Paid

Sta

ff

20

12

Avera

ge a

nn

ual

rep

ort

ab

le r

em

un

era

tio

n1

.S

taff

Rep

ort

ab

le

sala

ry2

.

Co

ntr

ibu

ted

su

pera

nn

uati

on

3.

Rep

ort

ab

le

all

ow

an

ces

4.

Bo

nu

s p

aid

5.

To

tal

No

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

To

tal

rem

un

era

tio

n (

inclu

din

g p

art

-tim

e a

rran

gem

en

ts):

$150 0

00 -

$179,9

99

21

35

,26

83

2,6

32

--

16

7,9

00

To

tal

2

20

11

Avera

ge a

nn

ual

rep

ort

ab

le r

em

un

era

tio

n1

.S

taff

Rep

ort

ab

lesala

ry2

.

Co

ntr

ibu

ted

su

pera

nn

uati

on

3.

Rep

ort

ab

leall

ow

an

ces

4.

Bo

nu

s p

aid

5.

To

tal

No

$$

$$

$

To

tal

rem

un

era

tio

n (

inclu

din

g p

art

-tim

e a

rran

gem

en

ts):

$150 0

00 -

$179,9

99

1124,9

13

46,1

93

--

171,1

06

To

tal

1

Notes:

1.

This

table

report

s s

taff

:a)

who w

ere

em

plo

yed b

y t

he e

ntity

during t

he r

eport

ing p

eriod;

b)

whose r

eport

able

rem

unera

tion w

as $

150,0

00 o

r m

ore

for

the f

inancia

l period;

and

c)

were

not

required t

o b

e d

isclo

sed in T

able

s A

, B o

r directo

r dis

clo

sure

s.

Each r

ow

is a

n a

vera

ged f

igure

based o

n h

eadcount

for

indiv

iduals

in t

he b

and.

2.

'Report

able

Sala

ry' in

clu

des t

he f

ollow

ing:

(a)

gro

ss p

aym

ents

(le

ss a

ny b

onuses p

aid

, w

hic

h a

re s

epara

ted o

ut

and d

isclo

sed in t

he 'bonus p

aid

' colu

mn);

(b)

report

able

fringe b

enefits

(at

the n

et

am

ount

prior

to 'gro

ssin

g u

p' to

account

for

tax b

enefits

); a

nd

(c)

exem

pt

fore

ign e

mplo

ym

ent

incom

e.

3.

The 'contr

ibute

d s

upera

nnuation' am

ount

is t

he a

vera

ge a

ctu

al supera

nnuation c

ontr

ibutions p

aid

to s

taff in t

hat

report

able

rem

unera

tion

band d

uring t

he r

eport

ing p

eriod,

inclu

din

g a

ny s

ala

ry s

acrificed a

mounts

, as p

er

the indiv

iduals

' payslips.

4.

'Report

able

allow

ances' are

the a

vera

ge a

ctu

al allow

ances p

aid

as p

er

the 'to

tal allow

ances' line o

n indiv

iduals

' paym

ent

sum

maries.

5.

'Bonus p

aid

' re

pre

sents

avera

ge a

ctu

al bonuses p

aid

during t

he r

eport

ing p

eriod in t

hat

report

able

rem

unera

tion b

and.

The 'bonus p

aid

'w

ithin

a p

art

icula

r band m

ay v

ary

betw

een f

inancia

l years

due t

o v

arious f

acto

rs s

uch a

s indiv

iduals

com

mencin

g w

ith o

r le

avin

g t

he e

ntity

during t

he fin

ancia

l year.

6.

Various s

ala

ry s

acrifice a

rrangem

ents

were

available

to o

ther

hig

hly

paid

sta

ff inclu

din

g s

upera

nnuation,

moto

r vehic

le a

nd e

xpense p

aym

ent

frin

ge b

enefits

. Sala

ry s

acrifice b

enefits

are

report

ed in t

he 're

port

able

sala

ry' colu

mn,

exclu

din

g s

ala

ry s

acrificed s

upera

nnuation,

whic

h is

report

ed in t

he 'contr

ibute

d s

upera

nnuation' colu

mn.

-32-


Note 12: Remuneration of Auditors2012 2011$'000 $'000

Financial statement audit services were provided free of charge to the Court by theAustralian National Audit Office (ANAO).

Fair value of the services provided Financial statement audit services 44 44

Total 44 44

No other services were provided by the auditors of the financial statements.

Note 13: Financial Instruments

Note 13A: Categories of Financial InstrumentsFinancial AssetsLoans and receivables:

Cash and cash equivalents 752 724Trade and other receivables 27 59

Carrying amount of financial assets 779 783

Financial LiabilitiesAt amortised cost:

Trade creditors 332 147Carrying amount of financial liabilities 332 147

Note 13B: Net Income and Expense from Financial AssetsThe Court did not receive any income or incur any expense from financial assets for the period ended 30 June 2012(2011: Nil).

Note 13C: Net Income and Expense from Financial Liabilities

The Court did not receive any income or incur any expense from financial liabilities for the period ended 30 June2012 (2011: Nil).

Note 13D: Fair Value of Financial InstrumentsThe carrying value of the Court's financial assets and liabilities are a reasonable approximation of their fair value.

-33-


Note 13E: Credit Risk

The Court is exposed to minimal credit risk as loans and receivables are cash and trade receivables. The maximumexposure to credit risk is the risk that arises from the potential default of a debtor. This amount is equal to the totalamount of trade receivables (2012: $27,079 and 2011:$58,500). No amount has been allocated to an impairmentallowance account as there is very low risk of default by a debtor.

The Court manages its credit risk by restricting credit to granting receivables to approved customers only. Inaddition the Court has policies and procedures that guide employee debt recovery techniques that are to be applied.

The Court holds no collateral to mitigate against credit risk.

Credit quality of financial instruments not past due or individually determined as impaired

Not past duenor impaired

Not past duenor impaired

Past due orimpaired

Past due orimpaired

2012 2011 2012 2011$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Loans and receivablesCash 752 724 - -Trade and other receivables 26 49 1 10

Total 778 773 1 10

Ageing of financial assets that are past due but not impaired for 2012

0 to 30 31 to 60 61 to 90 90+ Totaldays days days days Total

Loans and receivablesTrade and other receivables - 1 - - 1

Total - 1 - - 1

Ageing of financial assets that are past due but not impaired for 2011

0 to 30 31 to 60 61 to 90 90+ Totaldays days days days Total

Loans and other receivablesTrade and other receivables - 10 - - 10

Total - 10 - - 10

-34-


Note 13F: Liquidity Risk

The Court's financial liabilities are suppliers and other payables. The exposure to liquidity risk is based on the notionthat the Court will encounter difficulty in meeting its obligations associated with financial liabilities.

This is highly unlikely as the Court is appropriated funding from the Australian Government and the Court managesits budgeted funds to ensure it can adequately meet payments as they fall due. In addition the Court has internalpolicies and procedures in place to ensure timely payments are made when due and has no past experince ofdefault.

Maturities for non-derivative financial liabilities 2012

Ondemand

within 1year

1 to 2years

2 to 5years > 5 years Total

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Trade creditors - 332 - - - 332

Total - 332 - - - 332

Maturities for non-derivative financial liabilities 2011

On demandwithin 1

year 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years > 5 years Total$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Trade creditors - 147 - - - 147

Total - 147 - - - 147

The Court has no derivative financial liabilities in both the current and prior years.

Note 13G: Market Risk

The Court's financial instruments have no exposure to market risk including currency risk, other price risk andinterest rate risk.

Note 14: Financial Assets Reconciliation

2012 2011$'000 $'000

Financial assets Notes

Total financial assets as per balance sheet 9,030 11,073

Less: non-financial instruments componentsAppropriation receivable 8,101 10,137GST receivable 150 153Total non-financial instruments component 8,251 10,290

Total financial assets as per financial instruments note 779 783

-35-


Note 15: Administered - Expenses

2012 2011$'000 $'000

EXPENSES

Note 15A: SuppliersSupply of Primary Dispute Resolution services - external parties 57 110Total suppliers 57 110

Note 15B: Write-down and impairment of assetsImpairment on financial assets 4 5Total write-down and impairment of assets 4 5

Note 15C: Other expensesRefund of fees 137 126Total other expenses 137 126

Note 16: Administered - Income

OWN-SOURCE REVENUE

Non-Taxation Revenue

Note 16A: Fees and FinesFees 31,406 30,223Fines 151 272Total fees and fines 31,557 30,495

-36-


Note 17: Administered - Financial Assets

2012 2011$'000 $'000

Note 17A: Cash and Cash EquivalentsAdministered bank account -Federal Magistrates Court 394 405Total cash and cash equivalents 394 405

Note 17B: Trade and Other ReceivablesFees and fines receivable 87 2GST Receivable 1 -Total trade and other receivables (gross) 88 2

Less: impairment allowance account:Other (2) (1)

Total impairment allowance account (2) (1)Total trade and other receivables (net) 86 1

Receivables are expected to be recovered in:No more than 12 months 86 1

Total receivables (net) 86 1

Trade and other receivables were aged as follows:Not overdue 84 -Overdue by:

0 to 30 days 2 131 to 60 days 1 -61 to 90 days - -More than 90 days 1 1

Total receivables (gross) 88 2

The impairment allowance account is aged as followsNot overdue - -Overdue by:

0 to 30 days (1) -31 to 60 days - -61 to 90 days - -More than 90 days (1) (1)

Total impairment allowance account (2) (1)

Reconciliation of the Impairment Allowance Account:

Movements in relation to 2012

Advancesand Loans

TaxationReceivables

OtherReceivables Total

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Opening balance - - (1) (1)Amounts written off - - 3 3Increase/decrease recognised in net surplus - - (4) (4)

Closing balance - - (2) (2)

Movements in relation to 2011

Advances andLoans

TaxationReceivables

OtherReceivables Total

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Opening balance - - - -Amounts written off - - 4 4Increase/decrease recognised in net surplus - - (5) (5)

Closing balance - - (1) (1)

-37-


Note 18: Administered - Payables

2012 2011$'000 $'000

PAYABLES

Note 18A: SuppliersTrade creditors and accruals 14 -Total suppliers 14 -

Supplier payables expected to be settled within 12 months:Related entities - -External parties 14 -

Total suppliers 14 -

Settlement was usually made within 30 days

Note 19: Administered - Cash Flow Reconciliation

Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents as per Administered Schedule ofAssets and Liabilities to Administered Cash Flow Statement

Cash and cash equivalent as per:Schedule of administered cash flows 394 405Schedule of administered assets and liabilities 394 405

Difference - -

Reconciliation of net cost of services to net cash from operating activities:Net contribution of services 31,359 30,254

Change in assets / liabilities(Increase) / decrease in net receivables (85) 3Increase / (decrease) in supplier payables 14 (1)

Net cash from operating activities 31,288 30,256

-38-


Note 20: Administered Contingent Assets and Liabilities

The Court has no quantifiable or unquantifiable administered contingent liabilities or assets at 30 June 2012(2011:Nil).

Significant Remote Contingencies

The Court has no significant remote contingencies at 30 June 2012 (2011:Nil)

Note 21: Administered - Financial Instruments

2012 2011$'000 $'000

Note 21A: Categories of financial instrumentsFinancial AssetsLoans and receivables:

Cash and cash equivalents 394 405Carrying amount of financial assets 394 405

Financial LiabilitiesAt amortised cost:

Suppliers 14 -Carrying amount of financial liabilities 14 -

Note 21B: Net Income and Expense from Financial AssetsThe Court did not receive any income or incur any expense from administered financial assets for the period 30June 2012 (2011: Nil).

Note 21C: Net Income and Expense from Financial Liabilities

The Court did not receive any income or incur any expense from administered financial liabilities for the period 30June 2012 (2011: Nil).

Note 21D: Fair Value of Financial InstrumentsThe net fair value of cash and non-interest-bearing monetary financial assets and liabilities equate to their carryingamounts disclosed in the financial statements.

Note 21E: Credit riskThe Court's maximum exposures to credit risk at reporting date in relation to each class of recognised financialassets is the carrying amounts of those assets as indicated in the Balance Sheet.

The Court's credit risk policy is to restrict credit to granting receivables to approved customers and in this case themaximum exposure to credit risk is the carrying amount of the related financial assets.

The Court has no significant exposure to any concentrations of credit risk.

Note 21F: Liquidity riskAll financial liabilities are short-term with settlement terms of 30 days.

The Court's governance and internal control framework ensures that obligations associated with financial liabilitiesare able to be met as and when they fall due.

Federal Magistrates Court has no derivative financial liablities in both the current and prior year.

Note 21G: Market RiskThe Court has no exposure to market risk including currency risk, other price risk and interest rate risk.

-39-


2012 2011$'000 $'000

Note 22: Administered Financial Assets Reconciliation

2012 2011$'000 $'000

Financial assets

Total financial assets as per schedule of administered assetsand liabilities 480 406Less: non-financial instruments componentsFees and fines (85) 1GST receivable (1) -Total non-financial instruments component (86) 1

Total financial assets as per financial instruments note 394 405

-40-


No

te 2

3:

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

s

Tab

le A

: A

nn

ual A

pp

rop

rati

on

s (

'Reco

vera

ble

GS

T e

xclu

siv

e')

20

12

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

sA

pp

rop

riati

on

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

Act

FM

A A

ct

ap

pli

ed

in

20

12

An

nu

al

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

sre

du

ced

1.

AFM

Secti

on

30

Secti

on

31

Secti

on

32

To

tal

ap

pro

pri

ati

on

(cu

rren

t an

dp

rio

r years

)V

ari

an

ce

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

DEP

AR

TM

EN

TA

LO

rdin

ary

an

nu

al

serv

ices

53

,53

8-

--

71

4-

54

,25

25

6,2

06

(1

,95

4)

To

tal

dep

art

men

tal

53

,53

8-

--

71

4-

54

,25

25

6,2

06

(1

,95

4)

AD

MIN

IS

TE

RE

DO

rdin

ary

an

nu

al

serv

ices

Adm

inis

tere

d ite

ms

87

8(8

21

)-

--

-5

74

51

2

To

tal

ad

min

iste

red

87

8(8

21

)-

--

-5

74

51

2

No

tes:

1.

Appro

priations r

educed u

nder

Appro

priation A

cts

(N

o.

1,3

,5)

2011-1

2:

sections 1

0,

11 a

nd 1

2 a

nd u

nder

Appro

priation A

cts

(N

o.

2,4

,6)

2011-1

2:

sections 1

2,1

3 a

nd 1

4.

Depart

menta

l appro

priations d

o n

ot

lapse a

t financia

l year-

end.

How

ever,

the r

esponsib

le M

inis

ter

may d

ecid

e t

hat

part

or

all o

f a d

epart

menta

l appro

priation is n

ot

required a

nd r

equest

the F

inance M

inis

ter

to r

educe t

hat

appro

priation.

The r

eduction in t

he a

ppro

priation is e

ffecte

d b

y t

he F

inance M

inis

ter's d

ete

rmin

ation a

nd is d

isallow

able

by P

arlia

ment.

In 2

012 t

here

was n

o r

eduction in d

epart

menta

l appro

priations.

As w

ith d

epart

menta

l appro

priations,

the r

esponsib

le M

inis

ter

may d

ecid

e t

hat

part

or

all o

f an a

dm

inis

tere

d a

ppro

priation is n

ot

required a

nd r

equest

that

the F

inance M

inis

ter

reduce t

hat

appro

priation.

For

adm

inis

tere

d a

ppro

priations r

educed u

nder

section 1

1 o

f Appro

priation A

cts

(N

os.

1,3

&5)

2011-1

2 a

nd s

ection 1

2 o

f Appro

priation A

cts

(2,4

&6)

2011-1

2,

the

appro

priation is t

aken t

o b

e r

educed t

o t

he r

equired a

mount

specifie

d in T

able

D o

f th

is n

ote

once t

he a

nnual re

port

is t

able

d in P

arlia

ment.

All a

dm

inis

tere

d a

ppro

priations m

ay b

e a

dju

ste

dby a

Fin

ance M

inis

ter's d

ete

rmin

ation,

whic

h is d

isallow

able

by P

arlia

ment.

2.

The d

epart

menta

l variance r

eflects

the m

ovem

ent

in c

ash

, G

ST r

eceiv

able

and a

ppro

priation r

eceiv

able

.

3.

The a

dm

inis

tere

d v

ariance r

eflects

unpaid

invoic

es o

f $12011.8

7

4.

No a

gency s

pends m

oney f

rom

the C

RF o

n b

ehalf o

f th

e C

ourt

.

-41-


Tab

le A

: A

nn

ual A

pp

rop

rati

on

s (

'Reco

vera

ble

GS

T e

xclu

siv

e')

(co

nti

nu

ed

)

20

11

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

sA

pp

rop

riati

on

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

Act

FM

A A

ct

ap

pli

ed

in

20

11

An

nu

al

ap

pro

pri

ati

on

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

sre

du

ced

1.

AFM

2.

Secti

on

30

Secti

on

31

Secti

on

32

To

tal

ap

pro

pri

ati

on

(cu

rren

t an

dp

rio

r years

)V

ari

an

ce

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

DEP

AR

TM

EN

TA

LO

rdin

ary

an

nu

al

serv

ices

25,1

42

(3,2

57)

--

33,6

07

-55,4

92

54,5

94

898

To

tal

dep

art

men

tal

25,1

42

(3,2

57)

--

33,6

07

-55,4

92

54,5

94

898

AD

MIN

IS

TE

RE

DO

rdin

ary

an

nu

al

serv

ices

Adm

inis

tere

d ite

ms

859

(744)

--

--

115

116

(1)

To

tal

ad

min

iste

red

859

(744)

--

--

115

116

(1)

No

tes:

1.

Appro

pri

ations r

educed u

nder

Appro

pri

ation A

cts

(N

o.

1,3

) 2010-1

1:

sections 1

0,

11,1

2 a

nd 1

5 u

nder

Appro

pri

ation A

cts

(N

os.

2&

4)

2010-1

1:

sections 1

2,1

3,1

4 a

nd 1

7.

Depart

menta

l appro

priations d

o n

ot

lapse a

t financia

l year-

end.

How

ever,

the r

esponsib

le M

inis

ter

may d

ecid

e t

hat

part

or

all o

f a d

epart

menta

l appro

priation is n

ot

required a

nd

request

that

the F

inance M

inis

ter

reduce t

hat

appro

priation.

The r

eduction in t

he a

ppro

priation is e

ffecte

d b

y t

he F

inance M

inis

ter's d

ete

rmin

ation a

nd is d

isallow

able

by P

arlia

ment.

O

n 3

0 J

une 2

011,

the F

inance M

inis

ter

issued a

dete

rmin

ation t

o r

educe d

epart

menta

l appro

priation f

ollow

ing a

request

by t

he M

inis

ter

for

Att

orn

ey-G

enera

l's.

The a

mount

of

the

reduction u

nder

Appro

pri

ation A

ct

(No 3

) 2010-1

1 w

as $

3,2

57,0

00.

As w

ith d

epart

menta

l appro

priations,

the r

esponsib

le M

inis

ter

may d

ecid

e t

hat

part

or

all o

f an a

dm

inis

tere

d a

ppro

priation is n

ot

required a

nd r

equest

that

the F

inance M

inis

ter

reduce

that

appro

priation.

For

adm

inis

tere

d r

educed u

nder

section 1

1 o

f Appro

priation A

cts

(N

os.

1,3

&5)

2010-1

1 a

nd s

ection 1

2 o

f Appro

priation A

cts

(2,4

&6)

2010-1

1,

the a

ppro

priation is

taken t

o b

e r

educed t

o t

he r

equired a

mount

specifie

din

Table

F o

f th

is n

ote

once t

he a

nnual re

port

is t

able

d in P

arlia

ment.

All a

dm

inis

tere

d a

ppro

priations m

ay b

e a

dju

ste

d b

y a

Fin

ance M

inis

ter's d

ete

rmin

ation,

whic

h is d

isallow

able

by P

arlia

ment.

2.

Advance t

o t

he F

inance M

inis

ter

(AFM

) -

Appro

priation A

cts

(N

o.

1,3

) 2010-1

1:

section 1

3 a

nd A

ppro

priation A

cts

(N

o.

2,4

) 2010-1

1:

section 1

5.

3.

The d

epart

menta

l variance r

eflects

the m

ovem

ent

in c

ash -

$630,0

00 ,

GST r

eceiv

able

-$39,0

00 a

nd a

ppro

priation r

eceiv

able

in A

CM

of

$1,5

67,0

00.

4.

The a

dm

inis

tere

d v

ariance r

eflects

the p

aym

ent

of

prior

year

cre

ditor

bala

nces in t

he c

urr

ent

period.

-42-


Table B: Unspent Annual Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive')

2012 2011Authority $'000 $'000

DEPARTMENTALAppropriation Act (No. 3) 2010-11 - 10,598Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2011-12 7,138 -Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2011-12 1,513 -

Total 8,651 10,598

ADMINISTEREDAppropriation Act (No 1) 2011-2012 833 -

Total 833 -

Unspent departmental appropriations reflect the balance of funds to be drawn from the OPA as well as cash at bank.

Table C : Special Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive')

Appropriation applied2012 2011

Authority Type Purpose $'000 $'000

Financial Management andAccountability Act 1997 Administered

Refund

Amounts paid inaccordance with theFederal MagistratesRegulations of the Federal Magistrates Act1999 that aresubsequently refunded. 137 162

Total 137 162

-43-


Table B: Unspent Annual Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive')

2012 2011Authority $'000 $'000

DEPARTMENTALAppropriation Act (No. 3) 2010-11 - 10,598Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2011-12 7,138 -Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2011-12 1,513 -

Total 8,651 10,598

ADMINISTEREDAppropriation Act (No 1) 2011-2012 833 -

Total 833 -

Unspent departmental appropriations reflect the balance of funds to be drawn from the OPA as well as cash at bank.

Table C : Special Appropriations ('Recoverable GST exclusive')

Appropriation applied2012 2011

Authority Type Purpose $'000 $'000

Financial Management andAccountability Act 1997 Administered

Refund

Amounts paid inaccordance with theFederal MagistratesRegulations of the Federal Magistrates Act1999 that aresubsequently refunded. 137 162

Total 137 162

-43-

Tab

le D

: R

ed

ucti

on

in

Ad

min

iste

red

Ite

ms (

'Reco

vera

ble

GS

T e

xclu

siv

e')

Am

ou

nt

req

uir

ed

(3

) -

by

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

Act

To

tal

am

ou

nt

To

tal

am

ou

nt

To

tal

red

ucti

on

20

12

req

uir

ed

(3

)ap

pro

pri

ate

d(4

)(5

)

Ord

inary

An

nu

al

Serv

ices

Act

(N

o.

1)

Outc

om

e:

15

6,5

65

.67

56

,56

5.6

78

78

,00

0.0

08

21

,43

4.3

3

Notes:

(1)

Num

bers

in t

his

section o

f th

e t

able

must

be d

isclo

sed t

o t

he c

ent.

(2)

Adm

inis

tere

d ite

ms f

or

2012 w

ere

reduced t

o t

hese a

mounts

when t

hese fin

ancia

l sta

tem

ents

were

table

d in P

arlia

ment

as p

art

of th

e C

ourt

's

2011-1

2 a

nnual re

port

. This

reduction is e

ffective in 2

012-1

3,

but

the a

mounts

were

reflecte

d in T

able

A in t

he 2

011-1

2 fin

ancia

l sta

tem

ents

in t

he c

olu

mn 'Appro

priations r

educed' as t

hey a

re a

dju

stm

ents

to

2011-1

2 a

ppro

priations.

(3)

Am

ount

required a

s p

er

Appro

priation A

ct

(Act

1 s

.11;

Act

2 s

.12).

(4)

Tota

l am

ount

appro

priate

d in 2

011-1

2.

(5)

Tota

l re

duction e

ffective 2

012-1

3

Am

ou

nt

req

uir

ed

(3

) -

by

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

Act

To

tal

am

ou

nt

To

tal

am

ou

nt

To

tal

red

ucti

on

20

11

req

uir

ed

(3

)ap

pro

pri

ate

d(4

)(5

)

Ord

inary

An

nu

al

Serv

ices

Act

(N

o.

1)

Outc

om

e:

1115,1

15.9

1115,1

15.9

1859,0

00.0

0743,8

84.0

9

Notes:

(1)

Num

bers

in t

his

section o

f th

e t

able

must

be d

isclo

sed t

o t

he c

ent.

(2)

Adm

inis

tere

d ite

ms f

or

2010-1

1 w

ere

reduced t

o t

hese a

mounts

when t

hese fin

ancia

l sta

tem

ents

were

table

d in P

arlia

ment

as p

art

the C

ourt

's 2010-1

1 a

nnual re

port

. This

reduction w

as e

ffective in 2

011-1

2,

but

the a

mounts

were

reflecte

d in T

able

A in t

he 2

010-1

1 fin

ancia

l sta

tem

ents

in t

he c

olu

mn 'Appro

priations r

educed' as t

hey a

re a

dju

stm

ents

to

2010-1

1 a

ppro

priations.

(3)

Am

ount

required a

s p

er

Appro

priation A

ct

(Act

1 s

.11;

Act

2 s

.12).

(4)

Tota

l am

ount

appro

priate

d in 2

010-1

1(5

)Tota

l re

duction e

ffective 2

011-1

2

-44-


Note 24: Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund

Section 83 of the Constitution provides that no amount may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund exceptunder an appropriation made by law. The Department of Finance and Deregulation provided information to allagencies in 2011 regarding the need for risk assessments in relation to compliance with statutory conditions onpayments from special appropriations, including special accounts

During 2011-12, the agency developed a plan to review exposure to risks of not complying with statutory conditionson payments from appropriations. The plan involved:

identifying each special appropriation and special account; determining the risk of non-compliance by assessing the difficulty of administering the statutory conditions

and assessing the extent to which existing payment systems and processes satisfy those conditions; determining procedures to confirm risk assessments and to quantify the extent of non-compliance, if any.

The agency identified 2 appropriations involving statutory conditions for payment, comprising:

1 special appropriation; and 1 special account

As at 30 June 2012 this work had been completed in respect of all appropriations with statutory conditions forpayment:

Appropriations identified as subject to conditions Expenditurein 2011-12

$'000

Special Appropriation - Note 23 Table C 137Special Account - Note 25A 858

The work conducted so far has identified no issues of compliance with Section 83

-45-


Note 25: Special accounts and FMA Act Section 39

Note 25A: Special Accounts (Recoverable GST exclusive)

Federal Magistrates CourtLitigants Fund Special

Account (Administered)1

2012 2011$'000 $'000

Balance brought forward from previous year: 844 533

Increases:

Receipts from third parties 268 837

Total increases 268 837

Available for payments 1,112 1,370

Decreases:

Administered

Payments made - refunds of amounts held as secuirty by the Court (858) (526)

Total administered decreases (858) (526)Total decreases (858) (526)

Total balance carried to next period 254 844

1. Appropriation: Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 section 20.

Establishing Instrument: Determination 2004/05 - Federal Magistrates Court Litigants' Funds Special Account

Purpose: To hold and disburse money paid into Court in accordance with an order made by the Federal MagistratesCourt or a Federal Magistrate under s.15 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 or in any case in accordance with anorder of the Federal Magistrates Court or a Federal Magistrate.

-46-


Note 26: Compensation and Debt Relief

2012$

2011$

Compensation and Debt Relief - Departmental

No 'Act of Grace' expenses were incurred during the reporting period (2011: nil). - -

No waivers of amounts owing to the Australian Government were made pursuantto subsection 34(1) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.(2011: nil) - -

No payments were provided under the Compensation for Detriment caused byDefective Administration (CDDA) Scheme during the reporting period. (2011 : nil) - -

No ex-gratia payments were provided for during the reporting period. (2011: nil) - -

No payments were provided in special circumstances relating to APS employmentpursuant to section 73 of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) during the reportingperiod. (2011: nil) - -

Compensation and Debt Relief - Administered2012

$2011

$

No 'Act of Grace' expenses were incurred during the reporting period (2011: nil). - -

No waivers of amounts owing to the Australian Government were made pursuantto subsection 34(1) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.(2011: nil). - -

Under Federal Magistrates Regulations 8 and 9, a reduction of fees may be grantedto people who are eligible for legal aid or qualify for certain government socialsecurity benefits, and fees may also be reduced if they would cause financialhardship. In family law matters, there were 28789 fee reductions in 2012 (2011:29513). 10,036,579 10,866,623

Under Federal Magistrates Regulations 8 and 9, a reduction of fees may be grantedto people who are eligible for legal aid or qualify for certain government socialsecurity benefits, and fees may also be reduced if they would cause financialhardship. In general federal law matters, there were 1293 fee reductions in 2012(2011: 871). 428,057 373,231

No payments were provided under the Compensation for Detriment caused byDefective Administration (CDDA) Scheme during the reporting period. (2011: nil). - -

No ex-gratia payments were provided for during the reporting period. (2011: nil). - -

No payments were provided in special circumstances relating to APS employmentpursuant to section 73 of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) during the reportingperiod. (2011: nil). - -

-47-


No

te 2

7:

Rep

ort

ing

of

Ou

tco

mes

No

te 2

7A

:

Net

Co

st

of

Ou

tco

me D

elivery

Ou

tco

me 1

To

tal

20

12

2011

20

12

2011

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

$'0

00

Dep

art

men

tal

Expenses

(1

04

,15

6)

(96,4

00)

(1

04

,15

6)

(96,4

00)

Ow

n-s

ourc

e incom

e4

7,0

86

70,2

96

47

,08

670,2

96

Ad

min

iste

red

Expenses

(1

98

)(2

41)

(1

98

)(2

41)

Ow

n-s

ourc

e incom

e3

1,5

57

30,4

95

31

,55

730,4

95

Net

co

st

(co

ntr

ibu

tio

n) o

f o

utc

om

e d

elivery

(2

5,7

11

)4,1

50

(2

5,7

11

)4,1

50

Outc

om

es 1

is d

escribed in N

ote

1.1

.

Net

costs

show

n inclu

de intr

a-g

overn

ment

costs

that

are

elim

inate

d in c

alc

ula

ting t

he a

ctu

al Budget

outc

om

e.

Refe

r to

Outc

om

e 1

Resourc

ing T

able

in t

his

Annual Report

.

-48-

PART 6: APPENDICES


APPENDIX A: SUMMARY RESOURCES

RESOURCE STATEMENT

The Court’s Agency resourcing statement is shown below.

Table A.1 Agency Resource Statement, 2011–12

Actual available appropriation Payments made Balance remaining

2011–12 2011–12 2011–12

$’000 $’000 $’000

Ordinary annual servicesa

Departmental appropriation

Prior Year Departmental Appropriation 10,598c 10,598 –

Departmental appropriation 53,538d 44,887 8651e

s31 relevant agency receiptsf 714 714 –

Total 64,850 56,199 8651

Administered expenses

Outcome 1 878 57 –

Total 878 57 –

Total ordinary annual services 65,728 56,256 8651

SPECIAL ACCOUNTSb

Opening balance – –

Appropriation receipts – – –

Total special accounts – – –

Total net resourcing for agency 65,728 56,256 8651

a Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2011–12 and Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2011–12. This may also include prior year departmental appropriation and s31 relevant agency receipts.

b Special Public Money special accounts, Litigants Fund Special Account, Other Trust Moneys, and Services for Other Government and Non-Agency Bodies have been excluded from the above table, consistent with the Resource Statement for the 2011–12 Budget.

c Unspent Departmental Annual Appropriations for 2010–11 per Note 23 – Table B

d Departmental Appropriations for Ordinary Annual Services per Note 23 – Table A Appropriation Act (No.1 & No3) 2011–12

e Includes cash on hand at 30 June 2012.

f Section 31 Receipts per Note 23 – Table A

PART 6: APPENDICES 163

EXPENSES AND RESOURCES FOR OUTCOME 1

The table below shows the total resourcing for the Court’s Outcome on an expense basis.

Figure A.2 Resources for outcomes, 2011–12

Resources for Outcome 1

Outcome 1: To provide the Australian community with a simple and accessible forum for the resolution of less co mplex disputes within the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.

Budget1

Actual

expensesVariation

2011–12$’000

2011–12$’000

2011–12$’000

Program 1.1: Provision of a Federal Magistrates Court

Administered expenses

Ordinary annual services (Appropriation Bill No.1) 878 198 680

Departmental expenses

Departmental appropriation2 55,500 55,616 (116)

Expenses not requiring appropriation in the budget year3 43,126 48,540 (5414)

Total expenses for Outcome 14 99,504 104,354 (4850)

2010–11 2011–12

Average staffing level (number) 219 218

1. Full Year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2011–12 budget.

2. Departmental Appropriation combines “Ordinary annual services (Appropriation Bill No. 1 and No.3) and “Revenue from independent sources (s31)”.

3. Includes depreciation and amortisation, liabilities assumed by related entities for the Notional Federal Magistrate Pension Scheme (Invalidity), resources received free of charge for Australian National Audit Office Audit services, Family Court of Australia services, and Federal Court of Australia services.

4. Special Public Money Special accounts, Litigants Fund Special Account and other Trust moneys, have been excluded from the table above, consistent with the Resource Statement for the 2011–2012 budget.


APPENDIX B: STAFFING PROFILE

At 30 June 2012, the Court had a total workforce of 165 employees covered by the Enterprise Agreement and AWAs (excluding judicial officers and casual employees).

Of the Court’s 165 employees:

• 144 (87.3 per cent) were female and 21 (12.7 per cent) were male compared with 84.1 per cent and 15.9 per cent, respectively at 30 June 2011, and

• 123 (74.5 per cent) were ongoing employees and 42 (25.5 per cent) were non-ongoing employees compared with 74.7 per cent and 25.3 per cent, respectively at 30 June 2011.

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

Table B.1 Staff by location

Level ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total

APS 3 1 6 7

APS 4 2 26 2 14 8 2 20 1 75

APS 5 2 23 1 12 7 2 18 1 66

APS 6 2 1 3

EL 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 11

EL 2 1 1 2

SES 1 1 1

Total 4 58 4 28 16 5 48 2 165

Table B.2 Staff by gender

Level Gender ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total

APS 3 Female 1 6 7

APS 4 Female 2 20 2 11 7 1 18 1 62

Male 6 3 1 1 2 13

APS 5 Female 2 21 1 12 7 2 18 1 64

Male 2 2

APS 6 Female 1 1 2

Male 1 1


Level Gender ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total

EL 1 Female 4 2 1 1 8

Male 1 1 1 3

EL 2 Female 1 1

Male 1 1

SES 1 Male 1 1

Total 4 58 4 28 16 5 48 2 165

Table B.3 Staff by attendance status

Level Attendance ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total

APS 3 Full-time 1 5 6

Part-time 1 1

APS 4 Full-time 2 26 2 14 7 2 19 1 73

Part-time 1 1 2

APS 5 Full-time 2 22 1 12 7 2 17 1 64

Part-time 1 1 2

APS 6 Full-time 2 1 3

EL 1 Full-time 3 1 1 1 1 1 8

Part-time 2 1 3

EL 2 Full-time 1 1 2

SES 1 Full-time 1 1

Total 4 58 4 28 16 5 48 2 165

Table B.4 Staff by location and ongoing and non-ongoing employment status

Ongoing Non-ongoing Total

Location Female Male Female Male

Adelaide 13 2 1 16

Albury 1 1

Brisbane 19 2 1 1 23

Cairns 3 3

Canberra 2 2 4

Dandenong 1 1

Darwin 2 1 1 4


Ongoing Non-ongoing Total

Dubbo 1 1

Hobart 1 1 2

Launceston 3 3

Melbourne 26 2 18 1 47

Newcastle 6 6

Parramatta 8 1 3 12

Perth 1 1 2

Sydney 19 5 8 4 36

Townsville 2 2

Wollongong 2 2

Total 109 14 35 7 165

JUDICIAL OFFICERS

At 30 June 2012, there were 21 female and 42 male federal magistrates.

Table B.5 Number of federal magistrates, at 30 June 2012

Location Federal magistrates

Australian Capital Territory 2

New South Wales 1 Chief Federal Magistrate

23 federal magistrates

Northern Territory 1

Queensland 12

South Australia 6

Tasmania 2

Victoria 15

Western Australia 1

Total 63


WORKFORCE TURNOVER

Table B.6 Workforce turnover

Employment type Reason Total

Non-ongoing employees Dismissed –

5.26% Retirement age 60–65 –

Retirement age over 65 –

Inter department transfer –

Resignation 12

Total non-ongoing employees 12

Ongoing Employees Retirement age 60–65 –

5.26% Retirement age over 65 1

Inter department transfer 1

Resignation 10

Redundancy –

Total ongoing employees 12

Public office holders Deceased 1

0.43% Resigned –

Retirement –

Total public office holders 1

Total 25

*Total staff numbers for the above table include all employees and public office holders as at 30 June 2012 (a headcount of 228).

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


AGREEMENT MAKING

Enterprise Agreement

Table B.7 Federal Magistrates Court employees covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014

Level Female Male Total

APS 3 7 – 7

APS 4 62 13 75

APS 5 64 2 66

APS 6 1 1 2

EL 1 8 3 11

EL 2 – 1 1

Total 142 20 162

Other agreements

Table B.8 AWA maximum salary ranges by classification

Classification Salary Range ($)

APS 4 –

APS 5 –

APS 6 79,800

EL 1 –

EL 2 153,081

SES 1 193,293

Table B.9 Employees covered by other agreements*

Australian Workplace Agreements Determination 24 arrangements

Level Female Male Total Female Male Total

APS 3

APS 4

APS 5 1 1

APS 6 1 1 1 1


Australian Workplace Agreements Determination 24 arrangements

Level Female Male Total Female Male Total

EL 1 1 1 2

EL 2 1 1 1 1 2

SES 1 1 1 1 1

Total 2 1 3 4 3 7

* At 30 June 2012 there were three AWAs in place and each of these were supplemented by agency head determinations made under section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999. A further seven section 24 determinations supplemented the terms and conditions of staff covered by the Enterprise Agreement.

Table B.10 Classification structure and pay rates of staff covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011–2014

APS Classification and no. of staff *Salary rates at

1 July 2011Salary rates at

1 July 2012

APS 3 – 7 employees $53,145 $54,740

$54,494 $56,129

$55,905 $57,583

APS 4 – 75 employees $59,568 $61,356

$61,116 $62,950

$62,681 $64,562

APS 5 – 65 employees $64,393 $66,325

$66,411 $68,404

$68,281 $70,330

APS 6 – 2 employees $69,937 $72,036

$73,657 $75,867

$79,888 $82,285

EL 1 – 9 employees $89,156 $91,831

$92,715 $95,497

$96,272 $99,161

EL 2 – 0 employees $105,266 $108,424

$108,481 $111,736

$116,583 $120,081

$118,426 $121,079

$120,480 $124,095

$123,557 $127,264


APPENDIX C: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not apply to any request for access to documents of the Court unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature

No freedom of information applications were made to the Court for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 April 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, in Part II of the FOI Act, has replaced the former requirement to publish a section 8 statement in an annual report. An agency plan showing what information is published in accordance with the IPS requirements is accessible from agency websites.

Information about FOI and the IPS agency plan for the Federal Magistrates Court can be found on the Federal Magistrates Court website at www.fmc.gov.au/html/foi.html

ACCESS TO INFORMATION OUTSIDE THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Rule 2.08 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 provides that a search of the Court’s records may be undertaken by: the Attorney-General (in family law proceedings), a party, a lawyer for a party, a child representative (in family law proceedings) or a person granted leave by the Court or a registrar. Leave may be granted if a proper interest is shown and may be subject to conditions. In relation to access to documents in general federal law proceedings, the Court applies the same rule as that prescribed by the Federal Court. This Rule identifies certain categories of court documents as being available for inspection without leave.

There are other legislative provisions which limit publication in various proceedings. For example; s121 Family Law Act 1975, s110X Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and s91 Migration Act 1958. In addition section 61 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 gives the Court general power to prohibit publication of evidence. The Government has indicated that they will be introducing model provisions to provide for consistency in the processes and grounds for seeking suppression and non-publication orders across Australian courts.

Enquiries concerning access to documents or freedom of information matters generally should be directed to:

Chief Executive Officer Federal Magistrates Court of Australia GPO Box 9991 CANBERRA ACT 2601

http://www.fmc.gov.au/html/foi.html


CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS

The registries of the Family Court and Federal Court maintain the following categories of documents on behalf of the Court:

• documents relating to matters heard by the Court including applications, affidavits, transcripts, orders and copies of judgments

• registers and indexes of matters coming to the Court, and

• general correspondence.

The Federal Magistrates Court maintains the following categories of documents:

• general correspondence

• documents concerning the development and implementation of policy, guidelines and procedures, and

• documents concerning the Court’s administrative and financial operations.

OTHER DOCUMENTS

The Court holds and makes available on request a range of documents including brochures, fact sheets and general information leaflets. These are available on the Court’s website at www.fmc.gov.au and on the Family Law Courts website at www.familylawcourts.gov.au

PRIVACY

The Court holds personal information for two purposes, being to:

• help resolve and, if necessary, determine matters before the Court (the judicial purpose), and/or

• assist in administration (the administrative purpose).

Information used for judicial purposes is held in case files and the case management computer system (Casetrack). This information is exempt from the Privacy Act 1988 and Freedom of Information Act 1982. Other statutory provisions and non-publication powers of the Court, designed to protect parties and their children, are applicable to this information.

Information used for administrative purposes is collected as part of the day-to-day running of the Court. This includes information about:

• employees of the Court

• suppliers of goods and services to the Court, and

• security matters.

The collection, storage and disclosure of this information is governed by the provisions of both the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au


APPENDIX D: ADVERTISING AND MARKET RESEARCH

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

The Court spent a total of $10,100 during the 2011–12 financial year in advertising and market research, comprising mainly payments to media advertising organisations for recruitment and tender notices.

During 2011–12, the Federal Magistrates Court did not conduct any advertising campaigns.


APPENDIX E: ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

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

Court activities and ecologically sustainable development

As noted in its Environmental Policy, the Court:

“…recognises the importance of implementing sound environmental practices in all court functions…”

This overarching commitment to ecologically sustainable development (ESD) was augmented in multiple ways by the Federal Magistrates Court during 2011–12 as detailed below.

Impacts on the environment

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

Table E.1 lists environmental impact/usage data where available. Data for the Federal Magistrates Court and Family Court cannot be accurately separated; therefore the data provided in Table E.1 is total combined data for both courts unless specified. Any data relating to Commonwealth Law Courts has been calculated using the occupation apportionment percentage allocated to the Court, as the Commonwealth Law Courts are shared by multiple jurisdictions.

Table E.1: Federal Magistrates Court and Family Court environmental impact/usage data, 2009–10 to 2011–12

2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

Energy usage (stationary)

50,191 GJ (Gigajoules)

11,305 tonnes CO2-e*

48,538 GJ

10,758 tonnes CO2-e

Data not available until October 2012

Paper usage 22,375 reams office paper 22,510 reams office paper 24,165 reams office paper

Water usage (Commonwealth Law Courts only)

25,680 kL (kilolitres) 24,519 kL 21,943kL


2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

Transport

Vehicles

-energy usage

1,681 GJ (Gigajoules)**

113 tonnes CO2-e**

5,646 GJ

374 tonnes CO2-e

Data not available until October 2012

Transport

Flights (estimated)Not available Not available

3,452,811 kms (kilometers)

975 tonnes CO2

* There was a data adjustment made to the figure published in the 2010–2011 Annual Report for Stationary emmissions.

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

Measures to minimise the Court’s environmental impact

Environmental Management System

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

• an environmental policy outlining the Court’s broad commitment to environmental management

• an environmental risk register identifying significant environmental aspects and impacts for the Court and treatment strategies to mitigate them. This register has been reviewed annually since its development

• an environmental legal register to identify any relevant environmental legal requirements for the Court (this register also includes other requirements such as applicable Federal Government policy requirements). This register has been reviewed annually since its development and is available on the intranet

• an environmental annual plan ( environmental objectives, targets and programs) to identify environmental targets and associated performance indicators. The plan has since been reviewed and a revised plan is currently being developed

• an EMS management review report has been submitted to ensure management is informed of the status of the EMS and to provide an opportunity for feedback, improvement and endorsement

• an EMS manual outlining procedures for each element of the EMS as well as summary information on each element, and

• a range of forms to accompany the EMS procedures and other requirements.

Other measures

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


Energy

• An energy reduction project was completed in 2012. The project involved implementing feasible recommendations from energy audits conducted at several sites. Recommendations implemented included:

– lighting upgrades at Newcastle, Darwin, Dandenong and Townsville registries to more energy efficient lights and more effective controls.

– installation of supplementary air conditioning controls

– timers reprogrammed in kitchen hot water units, and

– rationalisation of electronic equipment such as printers.

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

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

Information technology

• An internal ICT sustainability plan was developed to address the requirements for the Federal Government ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15. This plan has been incorporated into the environmental risk register. To date, ICT specific actions progressed have included:

– a program to shutdown desktops automatically after hours (in test phase). In the meantime, staff are encouraged to shut down their desktops at the end of the day and regular site specific shutdown statistics are published on the intranet to assist with increasing staff awareness

– e-waste is recycled or reused where possible, including auctioning redundant but still operational equipment

– utilising whole-of-government procurement of IT equipment where available

– ensuring ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15 equipment standards are met when procuring new equipment

– ensuring fully recyclable packaging where possible

– replacing printers with more energy efficient models and rationalising where possible as part of national printer replacement project

– introducing tablets (significantly more energy efficient) as an alternative to laptops, and

– a national desktop and monitor replacement project. Existing equipment was replaced with more energy efficient models and rationalised where possible.

– networking of the courts' 20 PABX systems was completed in 2011–12 allowing internal phone calls to be carried out by the courts' data network. This will lead to significant cost reductions for internal phone calls.


Paper

• Paperless invoice processing was introduced by the Court’s finance section, allowing registries to forward invoices for payment electronically.

• 50 per cent recycled content paper was implemented nationally from July 2011. This met a mandatory target of the Federal Government ICT Sustainability Plan 2010–15.

• A working group was set up to investigate issues impacting on paper usage.

• Secure paper (confidential etc.) continued to be shredded and recycled for all court locations. Non-secure

paper recycling is available at 15 sites.

Waste/cleaning

• A waste recycling (plastics, metal, cardboard etc.) program was implemented at the National Support Office in 2010. In 2010–11 approximately 25 per cent of waste previously sent to landfill was recycled. In 2011–12 this increased to approximately 50 per cent.

• The number of sites with recycling facilities for printer toner cartridges increased by two to a total of 19.

• Recycling facilities for staff personal mobiles have increased by one site to a total of 11 sites.

• Electronic media (CDs, work mobiles etc.) continue to be securely shredded and components recycled

where possible.

Corporate culture/communication

• The Court’s Environmental Champions Network (ECN) continues to offer the opportunity for staff to provide their input to environmental matters for the Court. The volunteer membership has increased from five members in 2010 to 20 members representing 13 sites nationally in 2011–12. Projects to date have included:

– Earth Hour

– national recycling week

– mobile muster campaign

– Christmas electronic equipment shutdown drive

– launch of environmental logo specific to the Court

– ECN internal online national ‘community’ for interactive communication between members

• An environmental management intranet page provides information on environmental issues for the Court.

• Regular articles about the Court’s environmental status are included in the internal e-newsletter The Court Exchange.

• The Court continues to be represented as a member on the (federal) Government Agency Environmental Network (GAEN); an interagency network facilitating the sharing of best practice environmental information. Its membership includes approximately 30 agencies. The Court’s Environmental Manager is currently

chairing one of the GAEN subgroups (the Environmental Management System subgroup).


Property

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

• recycling demolished materials where possible

• maximising reuse of existing furniture and fittings

• engaging consultants with experience in sustainable development where possible, and

• maximising use of environmentally friendly products such as recycled content in furniture and fittings, low

VOC (volatile organic compounds) paint and adhesives, and energy efficient lighting and air conditioning.

Travel

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

REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

Environmental Management System

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

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

• environmental risk register (significant environmental aspects and impacts)

• EMS management review

• environmental annual plan (objectives, targets and programs), and

• environmental legal and other requirements register.

Other measures

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

ADDITIONAL ESD IMPLICATIONS

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


APPENDIX F: FRAUD CONTROL CERTIFICATION

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:

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia has prepared fraud assessments and has in place a fraud control plan that complies with the Guidelines.

Appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting procedures and process are in place.

Annual fraud data has been collected and reported that complies with the Guidelines.

Richard Foster, PSM Acting Chief Executive Officer Federal Magistrates Court of Australia 28 August 2012


APPENDIX G: COMMITTEES

COMMITTEES

Table G.1 provides details of the membership and functions of the Federal Magistrates Court committees (alphabetical order), at 30 June 2012.

Table G.1 Federal Magistrates Court Committees 30 June 2012

Title Members Terms of Reference

Audit and Risk Committee

Chris Doogan AM (external member) (chair)

Acting Chief Finance Officer (Grahame Harriott)

Registry Manager representative (Jamie Crew, Newcastle)

Representatives of the Family Court of Australia, ANAO representatives and the Court’s internal auditors also attend meetings as observers

Oakton Services Pty Limited, secretariat services

Monitor and where necessary, recommend improvements to:

• risk management identification and amelioration

• internal control processes (including fraud control)

• the financial reporting process

• the functioning of the Internal Audit Unit

• the external audit process

• processes for monitoring compliance with legislation, regulations and government policy

• maintain an effective working relationship with the ANAO

Case Management Federal Magistrates Committee

FM Baumann (National Coordinator of Case Management)

FM Mead

FM Coker

FM Raphael (to Dec 2011)

FM Roberts

FM Walters (to Oct 2011)

FM Barnes (from Jan 2012)

FM Riethmuller (from Nov 2011)

FM Terry

FM Spelleken

FM Henderson

FM Altobelli (to Dec 2011)

FM Kemp (from Jan 2012)

Acting CEO (Richard Foster)

Acting Deputy CEO (Steve Agnew)

Principal Registrar (Adele Byrne)

Manager of Chief Federal Magistrates Chambers (Stuart Fenwick)

With support from Lucy Schodel (to Dec 2011)

With support from Halyee Hobbs (from Jan 2012)

To assist the Chief Federal Magistrate and the National Coordinator of Case Management in the case management of the Court and to enhance the adoption of consistent case management practices throughout the Court.



Legal Committee

FM Baumann (chair)

FM Brewster

FM Driver

FM Phipps

FM Jarrett

FM Riethmuller

FM Cameron

FM Whelan

FM Foster

Principal Registrar, Adele Byrne (minutes)

To consider and refer recommendations to the Chief Federal Magistrate on possible rule amendments and wider legal issues concerning the Court’s jurisdiction.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEES


Policy Advisory Committee

CFM Pascoe

FM Baumann

FM Donald

FM Emmett

FM Riethmuller

FM Burchardt

FM Cassidy

FM Kelly

Acting CEO (Richard Foster)

Acting Deputy CEO (Steve Agnew)

Secretariat (Stewart Fenwick)

To provide advice to the Chief Federal Magistrate in relation to the Court’s overall strategies and policies for the delivery of court services.

Research Ethics Committee

CFM Pascoe

FM Baumann

With support from Acting Deputy CEO (Steve Agnew)

To consider, monitor and overview all research and evaluation proposals (whether internal or external) for approval and disseminate research papers/results as necessary.


JOINT COMMITTEES

Table 2 provides details of the membership and functions of the joint committees (alphabetical order) of the Federal Magistrates Court at 30 June 2012.

Table H.2 Joint committees, 30 June 2012

Committee Members Terms of reference

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee

Justice Benjamin, FCoA (chair)

FM Donald

Executive Advisor, FCoA (Leisha Lister)

Stephen Ralph (Research Consultant)

To examine the needs of Indigenous people in the Family Law Courts.

Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group

Acting CEO, FMC and CEO, FCoA (Richard Foster) (chair)

Acting Deputy CEO, FMC (Steve Agnew)

Acting Chief Finance Officer, FMC and Executive

Director Corporate, FCoA (Grahame Harriott)

Executive Director Client Services, FCoA (Stephen Andrew)

Principal Child Dispute Services (Pam Hemphill)

Acting Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology Services, FCoA (Phil Hocking)

Manager of Chief Federal Magistrates Chambers (Stewart Fenwick)

With assistance by the Executive Advisor to the CEO (Leisha Lister)

Executive Advisor, Client Services (Simon Kelso)

Regional Registry Managers

To provide operational and policy advice to the Chief Executive Officer’s regarding key areas that are likely to be affected by the integration of the administrations of the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court.

Family Law Courts Advisory Group

CJ Bryant, FCoA

CFM Pascoe

Justice Watts, FCoA

FM Baumann

Acting CEO, FMC and CEO, FCoA (Richard Foster)

AGD representative (David Fredericks and Louise Glanville)

Assisted by Leisha Lister

The Family Law Courts Advisory Group has a critical governance role in resourcing the Federal Magistrates Court and Family Court and coordinates various administrative relationships between the two courts.



Family Violence Committee

Justice Ryan, FCoA (chair)

Justice Collier, FCoA

Justice Stevenson, FCoA

FM Brown

FM Hughes

FM Altobelli

Principal Registrar, FCoA (Angela Filippello)

Family consultant (Diane Lojszczyk)

Senior Legal Research Advisor, FCoA (Kristen Murray)

To complete the implementation of the courts’ Family Violence Strategy and provide advice to the Chief Federal Magistrate, Chief Justice of the Family Court and Chief Executive Officer on family violence issues.

Harmonised Bankruptcy Rules Monitoring Committee

Justice Greenwood, FCA (convenor)

FM Burchardt,

Principal Registrar, FMC (Adele Byrne)

Representatives from the FCoA

Representatives from the profession

To monitor the operation of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2005 and the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 and identify such amendments as may be necessary to address any legislative or procedural changes, or to resolve any difficulties.

Joint Costs Advisory Committee (JCAC)

Justice Benjamin, FCoA (chair)

Andrew Phelan, Chief Executive and Principal Registrar, HCA

John Mathieson, Deputy Registrar, FCA

Adele Byrne, Principal Registrar, FMC

Angela Filippello, Principal Registrar, FCoA

To advise the justices of the High Court of Australia, judges of the Federal Court of Australia, judges of the Family Court of Australia, and federal magistrates of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (annually) on variations in the quantum of costs for legal practitioners (including expenses and fees for witnesses) which may be fixed in the rules for which they are respectively responsible.

National Consultative Committee

CEO’s representative: Claire Golding (A/g Manager Human Resources) (Chair)

Members are selected by vote and represent:

National Support Office: Annie Fenn (HR Officer)

Associates: Emma Crutchfield (FMC, Brisbane)

Registrars: Debra Parker (Canberra)

Client Services: Carol McPherson (Lismore) and Chris Cole (Adelaide)

Family consultants: Louise Salmon (Sydney)

A representative from the Community and Public Sector Union is invited to attend

Consultative forum for staff about issues with a national perspective such as industrial democracy, security, the strategic objectives of the Court, equal employment opportunities, new technology, accommodation and amenities and personnel and staffing policies and practices.

Delegates present staff views on issues that affect the management and future direction of the Court and provide feedback and briefings to the workplace nationally.

Property Management Committee

Justice Dawe, FCoA (chair)

FM Donald

Acting CEO, FMC and CEO, FCoA (Richard Foster)

Executive Director Corporate, FCoA (Grahame Harriott)

Registry Manager representative

National Manager Contracts and Property (Akasha Atkinson)

To plan and assess the current and future needs of the courts in relation to property services including contracting, refurbishment and construction activity.



Staff Development Committee

Claire Golding (A/g Manager Human Resources),(Chair)

Registry Manager representative: Brenda Field (Dandenong)

Child Dispute Services: Stacey McGuinness (FMC Sydney)

Registrars: Debra Parker

Client Services: Rupal Patal (NEC Parramatta), Haylee Hobbs (FMC Melbourne)

Information Technology and Communications Services: Sona Muradyan (Sydney)

Registry services team leader: Julie Greig (Adelaide)

HR representative, Workforce and Policy Manager: Deb McDermott (A/g)

To identify and/or develop national training and development initiatives, policies and programs.


APPENDIX H: EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENT

The Chief Federal Magistrate, federal magistrates and the Chief Executive Officer participate in a range of consultative and strategic forums including the following:

Australian Courts Administrators’ Group

The Acting Chief Executive Officer represents the Court at this forum which meets to progress issues surrounding courts administration across Australia and New Zealand. The group meets quarterly.

Family Law Council

The Family Law Council provides advice and recommendations to the Attorney-General on the workings of the Family Law Act 1975 and other family law legislation, legal aid in family law, and any other matters relating to family law. The Court was represented on the Council by Federal Magistrate Lapthorn with the Principal Registrar, Adele Bryne as an observer to the Council.

National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council

The National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) is an independent body that provides policy advice to the Attorney-General on the development of alternative dispute resolution practices. The Court notes the significant emphasis it places on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes and recognised the range of beneficial outcomes ADR can deliver for parties.

Child Support Program

The Court’s Principal Registrar, Adele Byrne, is a member of the Child Support National Stakeholder Engagement Group which is a representative forum of key stakeholders with expertise and an interest in child support matters. The establishment of this group was in response to a recommendation of the Ministerial Taskforce report into child support, In the Best Interests of Children-Reforming the Child Support Scheme.

Social Security Appeals Tribunal

Regular liaison occurred during 2010–11 between the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and court representatives in order to facilitate appeal processes.


Insolvency and Trustee Service of Australia

During 2011–12, regular liaison meetings were held with representatives from the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA), the Federal Magistrates Court, and the Federal Court, with an update on recent trends and developments. This included an inspection of the National Service Centre in Adelaide which handles enquiries in relation to the Personal Property Securities (PPS) Register hosted by ITSA.

Zimbabwe Supreme Court

The Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court, under a grant from AusAID, have been providing the Zimbabwe Supreme Court with family law expertise and advice as appropriate to stakeholders in the area of Australian family law, with a particular focus on alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, counselling for litigants, and the application of a Less Adversarial Trial (LAT).

National child protection and family law collaboration meeting

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

• provide an opportunity for stakeholders to share experience and learning

• provide clarity and dialogue around the nature of current initiatives to improve outcomes for children and their families

• identify impediments to change

• identify possibilities for implementing new processes and practices, and

• assist in developing agreed principles on protocols and/ or a Memorandum of Understanding between the child protection authorities and the courts.

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

INTERNATIONAL VISITORS

Vietnamese – September 2011

The Federal Magistrates Court remains actively involved with the Vietnamese legal system. The Chief Federal Magistrate and other members of the Court attended a family law conference in Hanoi, Vietnam; and in October, a delegation led by the Chief Justice of Vietnam visited the Court in Sydney.


The Chief Justice of Vietnam was joined by several senior court administrators in his visit to Australia, which was coordinated by the Federal Court of Australia. Federal Magistrate Emmett hosted the delegation on behalf of Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe. Federal Magistrate Emmet was joined by Federal Magistrate Kemp and Acting Deputy CEO Steve Agnew. In addition to learning about our family and general federal law jurisdictions, the guests heard first hand about the challenges of managing the Court’s operations.

One of the highlights of the visit was the invitation extended by Federal Magistrate Altobelli for the Chief Justice of Vietnam to join him on the bench. The visitors were also introduced to registry operations and were given a preview of the new courtrooms under construction on level three of the Lionel Bowen Building in Sydney.

Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe delivered the opening address at the first Vietnam Family Law Conference in Hanoi. Federal Magistrates Sexton and Lapthorn also contributed as guest speaker and panel chair respectively. In his opening address, Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe said that ‘the ties between Vietnam and Australia are growing stronger, making events like this conference both possible and desirable.’

He also outlined some of the demographic and cultural changes that have taken place in Australia during the past four decades, and noted the impacts that these changes have had on the practice of family law.

‘Issues of language, heritage and values are daily fare in the Court,’ he said. ‘In short, our work represents the dynamic and multi-cultural society which is Australia today.’


APPENDIX I: FEDERAL MAGISTRATE ACTIVITIES

FEDERAL MAGISTRATE ACTIVITIES

Acronyms used in Appendix I

AAWJ Australian Association of Women Judges

AFCC Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

AIJA Australian Institute of Judicial Administration

AILA Australian Insurance Law Association

ALLA Australian Law Librarian’s Association

CLE Continuing Legal Education

CQLA Central Queensland Law Association

FM Federal Magistrate

FLBA Family Law Bar Association

FLS, LCA Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia

FLPA Family Law Practitioners Association

GDLP Graduate Diploma In Legal Practice

IARLJ International Association of Refugee Law Judges

IACA International Association for Court Administration

IAWJ International Association of Women Judges

IBA The Industrial Bar Association

JCA Judicial Conference of Australia

NJCA National Justice College of Australia

NQLA North Queensland Law Association

SSAT Security Appeals Tribunal

QLS Queensland Law Society


Federal Magistrate Conferences, presentations, papers and other activities to external organisations

Chief Federal Magistrate

John Pascoe AO CVO

Ceremonial Sittings

• Federal Magistrate Ronald Curtain

• Federal Magistrate Matthew Myers

• Valedictory sitting for Federal Magistrate Keith Slack OAM

Professional Memberships

• Judicial Conference of Australia

• LawAsia

• Internation Association for Court Administration

Conferences

• New Zealand Family Court Judges Conference, Wellington, 3–5 August 2011

• International Association for Court Administration Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, 13–5 June 2012

Presentations

• LegalWise Vietnam Family Law Conference, Australian Family Law & Cultural Inclusion, Opening Address and Panel member on Meet the Judicial, Hanoi, Vietnam, 13–15 September 2011

• 24th LawAsia Conference, ‘Asian Lawyers: Where are we and Where are we headed?’, ‘The rise of surrogate parenting: Family Law and Human Rights implications in Australia and Internationally’, Seoul, South Korea, 9–12 October 2011

• Family Relationship Services Australia National Conference, Workforce and Innovation: Building Future Capacity, ‘Collaborative and Creative approaches to family dispute resolution: Perspectives from the Bench’, Gold Coast, 8–10 November 2011

• Youth Health 2011: It’s totally important!, The 8th Australian and New Zealand Adolescent Health Conference, 3rd International Association for Adolescent Health Asia Pacific Congress, ‘Counting the cost of abuse’, Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, 9–11 November 2011

Facilitating

• 24th LawAsia Conference, Judging of the Finals at the 6th LAWASIA International Moot Competition, Seoul, South Korea, 11 October 2011

FM HartnettProfessional Memberships

• International Association of Refugee Law Judges

FM Baumann AM

Presentations

• JCA Colloquium 2011, ‘Innovations in Court Procedures’, Alice Springs, 16 October 2011

• Family Law Intensive, Sydney, 11 February 2012

• 2012 National Rural and Regional Law and Justice Conference, Coffs Harbour, 18 May 2012

Facilitating

• Overseas Case Management Tour, May/June 2011

FM Scarlett

Presentations

• 9th Annual Family Law Summitt, presented a paper titled ‘Getting it Right’, Brisbane, 6 June 2012



FM Coker


• North QLD Law Association

• North QLD Bar Association, judicial

• QLD Law Society

Conferences

• North Queensland Law Association Conference, Chaired and commentated upon papers, Mackay, 25–26 May 2012

Facilitating

• Advocacy Course, James Cook University, Moot Court Judge and Commentator, Townsville, 18 June 2011, 6 weeks

FM Driver


• Vice President of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges


• NSW Bar Association

Conferences

• International Association of Refugee Law Judges World Conference, Bled, Slovenia, 6–8 September 2011

• Law Council Immigration Law Conference, Sydney, 10 March 2012

• Learned Friends Conference, Lord Howe Island, 31 March–7 April 2012

Presentations/Papers

• Presentation to Salvo’s Legal Launch, Sydney, 27 July 2011

• Paper, ‘Over the Horizon – The Truth About Asylum Seekers and Refugees’, The Greek Conference, September 2011

• Presentation to the International Association of Refugee Law Judges Regional Conference presentation, Melbourne, 3 February 2012

• Paper on ‘Confusion and clarity across the Tasman – A comparison of the regimes for refugee status determination in Australia and New Zealand’, Learned Friends Conference, April 2012

• Presentation to the Migration Law Presentation, Sydney, 16 April 2012

Facilitating

• International Association of Refugee Law Judges and UNHCR Global Review, Geneva, 14–17 November 2011

• ‘Country of Origin Information and Due Process Working Group Discussion, International Association of Refugee Law Judges, Procedures Working Party/COI Working Party, London, 22 May 2012

• International Association of Refugee Law Judges Governing Council Meeting, Paris, 24 May 2012



FM Roberts



• Family Law Section, Law Council Of Australia

Conferences

• Family Law Practitioners Association, Launceston Tasmania, 26 May 2012

Presentations

• Family Law Pathways Group, Burnie, 24 November 2011

Other external activities

• Young Lawyers, Launceston, 4 August 2011

• North West Coast Practitioners, 2 February 2012

• Launceston Practitioners, 9 February 2012

FM Phipps

Papers

• Paper on ‘Shared Parental Responsibility – What it means’, Victorian Legal Aid Community Seminar Family Maters, 21 October 2011

FM WaltersConferences

• Family Law Conference, New Zealand, 3–5 August 2012

FM Barnes


• Australian Association of Women Judges

• Internation Association of Women Judges

Conferences

• International Association of Women Judges Conference, London, England, 2–5 May 2012

FM Coakes



• Law Council of Australia, Family Law Section

• Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association


• The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration

• Relationships Australia

Conferences

• Learned Friends Professional Education Conference, Vietnam, 7–14 January 2012


• Learned Friends Professional Education, ‘Is it always Black & White’, paper on Judicial Prejudice, Vietnam, 9 January 2012

• Facilitating lunchtime lectures for the profession, Newcastle Family Law Courts, commencing 5 June 2012 and ongoing

FM LindsayConferences

• FM Plenary, Brisbane, 26–27 April 2012



FM Jarrett


• Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand

Conferences

• Family Law Practitioners Association, Family Law Residential, 9 September 2011

• Coffs Harbour Family Law Practitioners/Pathways Network Conference, 18 May 2012

Presentations

• Queensland University of Technology Briefing, Drafting interim and final orders and applications, 16 August 2011

• Family Law Practitioners Association, Family Law Residential, Presentation on contravention and contempt, RACV Royal Pines Resort, 9 September 2011

• South East Queensland, Pathways Day, 13 October 2011

• Briefing on the Federal Magistrates Court, Bar Practice Course, Queensland University of Technology, March 2012.

• Opening speech, Coffs Harbour Family Law Practitioners, Pathways Network Conference, 18 May 2012

Facilitating

• Advisor to Queensland University of Technology Oxford Intellectual Property Moot Team, February 2012

• Mock hearing courts, Bar Practice Course, Queensland University of Technology, March 2012

• Coordinator for Federal Magistrates Court, Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology Internship Program


• Official Launch of the Child Protection Practitioners Association of Queensland, 13 September 2011

• Editor, Reports, Queensland Lawyer, Thomson Reuters

FM Emmett

Presentations

• Bar Association Readers Practice Course, Federal Court, October 2011

• Vietnamese Judges Conference, October 2011

• Bar Association Readers Practice Course, Federal Court, May 2012



FM Riethmuller


• Law Council of Australia, Family Law Section


• The Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand

Conferences

• 9th International Association of Refugee Judges World Conference, Bled, Slovenia 7–9 September 2011

Presentations

• 2011 Law Institute of Victoria Family Law Conference, Melbourne, 14 October 2011

• Administrative Law Symposium, Melbourne, 14 October 2011

• Legalwise Bankruptcy Essentials Seminar, Melbourne, 16 November 2011

• Ballarat Family Law Pathways Network Event, The Workings of the Federal Magistrates Court, Ballarat, 7 December 2011

• Relocation List Seminar with the Family Law Section (VicBar), Melbourne, 26 March 2012

• Relocation List with the APS Family Law and Psychology Interest Group, Melbourne, 17 May 2012


• Law Institute of Victoria Family Law Section Courts Practice Committee

• Consultant Editor for Child Support Handbook and Federal Magistrates Court Handbook

• Member of Editorial Board, Australian Journal of Family Law

FM Lloyd-Jones


• Chairman, Advisory Board to the Centre of Media and Communications Law, Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne



• Australian Corporate Lawyers Association


• Honorary Judicial Member, NSW Law Society



FM Sexton


• International Association for Women Judges

• Australian Women Lawyers Association


• Family Law Section of the Law Society

Conferences

• Legal Aid Conference, Sydney, 25–26 August 2011

• Family Law Conference 2011, Hanoi, 13–15 September 2011


• International Association of Women Judges 11th Biennial International Conference on Keeping Safe, Keeping Well, 2012, London, 2–5 May 2012

• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 49th Annual Conference on Attachment, Brain Science and Children of Divorce: The ABCDs of Child Development for Family Law 2012, Chicago, 6–9 June 2012


• ‘Parenting Arrangements for the 0–4 Age Group’, presented at the National Legal Aid Conference, Sydney, 26 August 2011

• ‘Parenting Arrangements for the 0–4 Age Group’, presented at Family Law Conference, Hanoi, 14 September 2011

• ‘Tips on Appearing in the Federal Magistrates Court Duty List’ presented at Family Law Courts CLE Seminar Series, Sydney, 2 February 2012

• ‘Judicial Officers Forum: Infants, Attachment and the Courtroom: Practical Guidelines for the Busy Judge’, AFCC 49th Annual Conference, Chicago, 7 June 2012

• Paper on ‘Parenting Arrangements for the 0–4 Year Age Group’‘, Volume 22(2) Australian Family Lawyer Autumn 2012


• Board Member and Member of Governance Committee of KU Children’s Services

FM Lapthorn


• Family Law Council of Australia


• Australian Institute of Judicial Administration

• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia


• Bar Association of QLD

Conferences

• Panel discussion on Observations from the Bench on property matters, Vietnam Family Law Conference, Hanoi, 13–15 September 2011

• Chaired a session at the Queensland Law Society and Family Law Practitioners Association: 26th Annual Calabro SV Consulting Family Law Residential September 2011

• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, Chicago, 6–9 June 2012



FM Henderson



Conferences

• Children’s Contact Service Conference, Albury Wodonga, 21 July 2011

• New Zealand Family Court Judge’s Conference, Wellington, 3–5 August 2011

• Family Law Pathways Network Conference, Albury Wodonga, 20 October 2011

• Fundamentals of Family Law CLE Seminar Series, Client Wrangling, Parramatta, 8 February 2012

• Fundamentals of Family Law CLE Seminar Series, What not to do in a property matter, Parramatta, 22 June 2012

Presentations

• Greater Sydney Family Law Pathways Network Committee, Reflections on the 2006 Family Law Reforms, Parramatta, 22 March 2012

FM Hughes

Conferences

• Witness Assessment Program, hosted by the National Judicial College of Australia, 17–18 May 2012

Presentations

• ‘Family Law Legislation Amendment Family Violence and Other Measures Act 2011’, 31 May 2012


• NSW College of Law Applied Family Law Advisory Committee

• Judicial Officers Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee

• Family Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Family Violence Committee

FM Riley



Conferences

• Attended and facilitated, International Association of Refugee Law Judges Australasian Chapter Regional Conference, The Refugee Convention and Beyond, 3 February 2012



FM Burchardt


• The Industrial Bar Association

• Intellectual Property Committee of the Law Council of Australia

• The Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand

• Migration User Group Committee

• Bankruptcy Listing Committee

• Listing Working Group

Conferences

• 9th International Association of Refugee Judges World Conference, Bled, Slovenia 7–9 September 2011


Presentations

• Paper on the ‘The Springboard Effect’ to LIV & Victorian Bar Family Law Residential Conference 26 August 2011.


• Policy Advisory Committee Meetings, Brisbane, 26 April 2012, Melbourne August 2011

• The Admiralty and Maritime Judges of the Federal Court of Australia conducted an Admiralty Judicial Education Day for the Judges to share and enhance their knowledge, 25 August 2011

• FMs met with Dr Toussaint, Director of Innovation & Business Development, Interrelated, 5 September 2011

• Professor Nicholas Bala ‘Parental Alienation and Family Law Presentation, 20 February 2012

• Dr Debbie Kirkwoods Presentation, ‘Just say Goodbye, Parents who kill their children’

• Thank Barristers for their Pro bono Contribution Awards, 15 May 2012

FM Halligan


• Change of Child’s Name, 2011 Fundamentals of Family Law Seminar Series, Parramatta, 20 April 2011

• Recovery Orders and Location Orders, 2011 Fundamentals of Family Law Seminar Series, Parramatta, 20 April 2011

• Expert Opinion Evidence in Family Law Proceedings, 2011 Fundamentals of Family Law Seminar Series, Parramatta, 20 April 2011

• Presenting a Case at an Undefended Hearing, 2011 Fundamentals of Family Law Seminar Series, Parramatta, 22 June 2011

• Enforcing an Order other than by Contempt or Contravention proceedings, 2011 Fundamentals of Family Law Seminar Series, Parramatta, 17 August 2011

• Child Support, Court Remedies, 2011 Fundamentals of Family Law Seminar Series, Parramatta, 21 September 2011

• Family Law Seminar Series, Parramatta, 21 September 2011

• Court Remedies Available in Child Support Matters, The AustLaw Family Lawyers Meeting Sydney, 2 December 2011

• A paper titled ‘The Family Violence Amendments to the Family Law ACT 1975’ for the 2012 Fundamentals of Family Law Seminar Series, Parramatta, 30 May 2012



FM Lucev


• WA Bar Association, Honorary Judicial Member

• State Indigenous Justice Committee

Presentations

• Advocacy, Turning the Tide, Australian Labour and Employment Relations Association National Conference, Fremantle, 6–8 October 2011

• The Federal Magistrates Court: jurisdiction, practice and procedure, Seminar for WA Court’s summer clerks, Perth, 13 December 2011

FM L Turner


• Family Law Council

• National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council

• Family Law Pathways Network Alice Springs

Presentations

• Presentation at the Indigenous Families in the Family Law System Forum, Alice Springs, 27–28 October 2011

• Presentation by telephone to the NTLAC Family Advocacy training Darwin, 27 October 2011

• Presentation to the 2012 Continuing Profession Development Workshop, Darwin, 23 January 2012


• 2012 NJC, Judgment writing course, Adelaide 17–19 August 2011

FM Cameron


• Australian Labour Law Association

• Australian Insurance Law Association

• Honorary Judicial Member, NSW Law Society

• LawAsia

Conferences

• Credit Law Conference, Brisbane, 28–30 September 2011

Presentations

• Unions NSW Seminar, Presentation on the ‘Practice and Procedure in the Fair Work Division of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia’, Sydney, 20 October 2011

• Insurance Council of Australia Cross Liability Protocol Group, ‘The Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth), Genuine Steps to Resolve Disputes’; Sydney, 17 November 2011



FM Altobelli


• Judicial member, Law Society of NSW

• Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia

• Family Issues Committee, Law Society of NSW



• Dubbo Pathways Seminar, ‘Some issues confronting the Family Law sector’, 28 July 2011

• Australian Psychological Society, ‘Has confidentiality in family law reached its used by date’, Melbourne, 11 August 2011

• Legal Aid Commission NSW Annual Family Law Conference, ‘Issues Arising in Recent Parenting Cases’, Sydney, 26 August 2011

• Family Law Practitioners Association, Queensland Family Law Residential, ‘When a child rejects a parent’, Gold Coast, 9 September 2011

• Parramatta CLE series, ‘Differentiating family violence’

• Fifth Annual National Family Law Conference, Gold Coast, ‘Ethical Dilemmas for the Family Courts and Lawyers: Clients who try to frustrate the family law process’, 27–28 October 2011

• Family Pathways Network Conference, ‘Privilege and admissibility – legal perspectives’, Tamworth, 30 May 2012

• AFCC 29th Annual Conference, ‘Neuroscience and Family Law’ and ‘Has confidentiality in family dispute resolution reached its use-by date?, Chicago, 6–9 June 2012

• Paper on ‘Cyber-abuse: a new worldwide threat to children’s rights’ 2010 (39) Family Court Review

• Paper on ‘When a child rejects a parent’ 2011 (25) Australian Journal of Family Law


• Member, Editorial Boards, Australian Journal of Family Law, Australasian Journal of Dispute Resolution

FM Burnett


• Insolvency Practitioners Association


• Australian Chapter, International Association of Refugee Law Judges

Conferences

• International Association of Refugee Law Judges, Bled, Slovenia, 7–9 September 2011


• Deputy Judge Advocate General, Air Force

• Board Member, Royal Flying Doctor Service



FM Coates




Conferences

• Judicial Conference of Australia, Alice Springs, 15 October 2011

Presentations

• Binding Financial Agreements and Family Violence, New York, USA, 29 June 2012

FM Kelly


• Law Society of SA

• Women Lawyers Association




• National Justice College of Australia Indigenous Justice, SA Committee

• Australian Association of Judicial Administration

Conferences

• International Association of Women Judges, London, UK, 2–5 May 2012

Presentations

• GDLP Session, 3 August 2011

• Pathways Network, Family Law Inaugural Family Law Conference 'Social Media and the Family System', Adelaide, 4 August 2011

FM Terry


• Panel member, ‘Theory into practice: the practicality of improving our work for children’ Family Law Pathways Conference, ‘Maintaining Child Focussed Responses in the Family Law System: Family Violence, Attachment Theory, Neurobiology and Childhood Trauma’, Newcastle, 8 June 2012

FM Simpson




• Honorary Member, Law Society of SA



• Participation in field trip by Federal and South Australian judicial officers to the Anunga Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands in far north west of South Australia, 29 August–3 September 2011



FM Neville


• ACT Bar Association

• St Thomas More Society

Presentations

• Presentation to Independent Children’s Lawyer Program, Canberra, July 2011


• Chair, Bench for ANU International Law Society 2012 International Humanitarian Law Moot, May 2012

FM Kemp


• Anglo-Australasian Lawyers Society

• NSW Law Society Honorary membership

Conferences

• CatholicCare, Keeping Kids in Mind Program, Sydney, 14 July 2011

• DibbsBarker Book Launch, An Introduction to Australian Law, Sydney 28 November 2011

Presentations

• Presented and Panel member, Central West Family Law Pathways Network, Pathways through separation, Dubbo, 28 July 2011

• Chair, FMC and Family Court presentation, Tips on appearing in a Duty List in the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, Sydney, 2 February 2012

• Led discussion group, Dubbo Aboriginal Community Justice Group, Family Law Pathways with the Indigenous Community, Dubbo, 2 March 2012

• NSW Young Lawyers 2012 Annual one day Family Law CLE seminar, Appearing in the FMC Duty Lists and issues of interim hearings, Sydney, 10 March 2012

• Seminar by the Sea, Co-presented with Federal Magistrate Foster, Appearing in the FMC Duty Lists and issues of interim hearings, Wollongong, 17 March 2012

FM Howard


• Judicial Section, Bar Association of QLD

• Judicial Association of Australia

• Judicial Section, LawAsia

• Ex Officio Council Member, LawAsia

Conference

• 24th Conference, LawAsia, Session Chair, Children’s Rights and Family Law, Seoul, South Korea 9–12 October 2011



FM Purdon-Sully



• International Association of Women Judges

• Women Lawyers Association of Qld Inc


• International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

• Judicial College of Australia

Conferences/Papers

• AAWJ Conference and discussion paper, Brisbane, 6 August 2011


Presentations

• Collaborative Law, Queensland Law Society, 25 July 2011

• AAWJ Conference, Do women judges have a public role in responding to human rights abuses? The implications of speaking out, Brisbane, 6 August 2011

• Ethics and the Law, Asian Pacific Law Conference, Hamilton, New Zealand, 2 June 2012


• Member, Committee of AAWJ

• Member, Humanitarian Sub-Committee AAWJ

• Member, Supreme Court of Queensland Library Selections Committee

• Member, Women in Cricket Committee, Queensland Cricket

• Woman Lawyer of the Year Award Dinner, Brisbane Club, 9 September 2011

• Lecture of The Hon Keith Mason ACQC, 20th Anniversary of Queensland Court of Appeal, 24 October 2011

• Meeting with the Gold Coast profession, Southport, 19 April 2012

FM Cassidy


• Women Lawyers Association of QLD


• Judicial Association of Australia

Conferences

• PAC Meetings, 23 February 2011, 24 April 2012, 28 June 2012

• QLD Family Law Residential, Gold Coast, 25th Annual Calabro SC Consulting Family Law, Conference Chair 7B Advocacy Stream, Gold Coast, 9–10 September 2011

• Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium 2011, Alice Springs, 14–16 October 2011

• Central Queensland Law Association Annual Conference, 21–23 October 2011


Presentations

• ‘Advocacy in the Federal Magistrates Court’, Drawing the Appropriate Material, QUT Law School Masters Program Guest Lecture, 8 October 2011.

• ‘Advocacy in the Federal Magistrates Court’, Central Queensland Law Association Annual Conference, 21 October 2011.



FM Bender

Conferences

• FM Plenary in Brisbane, 26–27 April 2011


• Independent Children’s Lawyer Training Program, paper delivered, 'An Overview of the Role of the Independent Children’s Lawyer', 18 August 2011

• Eight Annual Family Law Conference, paper delivered, ‘Family Violence Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975’, 20 March 2012

• Family Law Section Intensive, paper delivered, ‘Parental Responsibility’, 5 May 2012

FM Demack


• Family Law Practitioners Association

• QLD Bar Association


Conferences

• Australian Association of Women Judges Conference, Brisbane, 6–7 August 2011

• Family Law Residential, 9–11 September 2011

• CQLA Conference, Rockhampton, 22 October 2011

• Queensland Law Society Symposium, 31 March 2012

• International Association of Women Judges Conference, London UK, 2–5 May 2012

• North Queensland Law Association Conference, Mackay, 26–27 May 2012

Presentations

• Presented paper, CQLA Conference, Rockhampton

• Presented paper, NQLA Conference, Mackay

FM Walker

Professional memberships


• LawAsia

Conferences/Papers

• Presented ‘The relationship between the Court Expert and Independent Children’s Lawyer’ at Legal Aid NSW Child Representation conference themed ‘Future Directions in Child Representation', Sydney, 26 May 2012.


FM McGuire

Presentations

• Presentation to the North West Young Lawyers Committee on Federal Magistrates Court procedure, Tasmania, May 2011

• Presentation given to visiting Zimbabwe Justice Delegation on the Dandenong Pilot Project, 17 November 2011

• Presentation to the Victorian Family Law Bar Association on the Melbourne Relocation List Pilot Project, 26 March 2012

Other External Activities

• Participated in the Dandenong Pilot Project, 2011

• Participation in Melbourne Relocation List Pilot Project, commencing March 2012



FM Dunkley

Professional memberships


Conferences

• Lexis Nexis Advocacy Seminar, Mini Workshop Family Law Stream: Practice to master the art of advocacy, 14 October 2011



• Presentation at the Family Law Pathways Network, on Self represented litigants and challenges for family lawyers, Central Coast NSW, 27 October 2011

• Presentation and panel member, Legal Aid New South Wales ICL training on the Role of ICL at final hearings, 19 October 2011

• Orana Law Society, paper on ‘principles of relocation matters and handling contravention applications’, Dubbo, 22 February 2012


• Meeting with Aboriginal Community Justice, Group Dubbo, 9 February 2012

• CLE Parramatta, How to draft an Affidavit, legal practitioner continuing training, 16 May 2012

FM Baker


• Family Law Practitioners Association, Tasmania

Presentations

• Informal Session Family Law Practitioners Association, Family Violence, 13 June 2012

• Moot Court Legal Practice, 4 May 2012

• Presentation at Legal Practice , Practice and Procedure in the FMC, 4 April 2012

FM Monahan


• International Bar Association

• Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia.

• Law Society of NSW

Conferences

• International Bar Association, Annual Conference, Dubai, UAE, 30 October–4 November 2011


• Judges Forum, International Bar Association committee member and Communications Officer

• Family Law Review, Editor – Recent Cases and Editorial Board member



FM Cole



• Law Society of SA

• Law Society of WA



• Family Law Practitioners Association WA and Qld

• Family Law Council, Family Law Section

Conferences

• WA Family Law Practitioners Association Conference, Perth, September 2011

• Family Court of WA Conference, Perth, November 2011

• Family Law Seminar, Darwin, January 2012

• Family Law Intensive, Perth, March 2012

• Family Law Conference, Convenor, Bali, June 2012,

Presentations

• Pathways Conference, Adelaide, August 2011

• WA Family Law Practitioners Association Conference, Property Hypothetical, Perth, September 2011

• Family Law seminar, Co-ordinator and presenter, Darwin, January 2012

• Port Augusta Pathways, Launch Dreaming DVD, FRC Port Augusta, March 2012

• Family Law Intensive, Parenting Orders, Adelaide, May 2012

FM Willis


• Qld Bar Association


• Family Law Practitioners Association

• Association of Women’s Judges


Conferences

• NQLA Conference, Townsville 27–28 May 2011

• Family Court Triennial Judges Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 1–5 August 2011

• International Association of Women Judges Conference, London, 2–4 May 2012

• Concurrent Judicial Education Session, Hobart, 11–12 October 2012


• Presented a paper with Justice Watts, FLPA Cairns Conference, 19 March 2011

• FLPA Cairns , Conducted training session to Cairns FLPA group, ‘Mock Contravention’, 21 July 2011

• Qld Law Society, North a Queensland Symposium, Presented a paper 'Practice and Procedure 2011’, 19 November 2011



FM Whelan


• Industrial Relations Society VIC

• Australian Labour Law Association

• International Association of Women Judges


Presentations

• LIV Workplace Relations Accredited Specialists Breakfast, 19 August 2011

• National Independent Children’s Lawyer Training Day, 20 August 2011

• Australian Labour Law Association, Victorian Chapter, ‘Workplace Litigation in the Federal Magistrates Court’, 3 November 2011

• ACTU Lawyers and Industrial Officers Training Day, ‘Appearing in the Federal Magistrates Court’, 26 March 2012

FM Foster

Memberships

• American Bar Association, Family Law Section and Judicial Division

• Law Council of Australia

• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia

Conferences

• Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association CLE Weekend, Port Stephens NSW, October 2011

Presentations

• ‘Advocacy Case Theory’, Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioner Association Annual Conference, Port Stephens, October 2011

• ‘Advocacy Case Theory’, Law Society of NSW, Young Lawyers Section Advocacy Weekend, September 2011

• ‘Developments: Federal Magistrates Court Wollongong & Mediation’ Wollongong & District Regional Law Society, Wollongong, March 2012

• ‘The Role of Family Consultants’ presentation to Family Consultants, FMC Wollongong, July 2011

• ‘The New Violence Amendments’, presentation to practitioners, FMC Wollongong, June 2012.

• Advocacy Training Seminar Skills Workshop, Australian Advocacy Institute presentation to Legal Aid Queensland, Brisbane, August 2011


• Board member, Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and Mediators



FM Myers


• Presented paper on Family law mediation for Indigenous parties to the Family Law Pathways Network, Newcastle, March 2012

• Before giving the presentation in Taree, talked to 25 aboriginal students and their parents about the role of the FMC and the importance of the students staying on at school and pursuing higher education

• Presented at the Central Coast Family Law pathways network before talk was delivered by Ryan J about the Role of Family Law Pathways Networks

• Presented to the graduates of the Indigenous Financial Counseling Course and presented certificates of attainment at the awards dinner, 29 June 2011


• Member of the Steering Committee for the Central Coast Family Law Pathways Network

• Member on the Advisory Council for Centacare

FM Curtin



• Family Law Section

• Victorian Bar, Judicial List

• Family Law Bar Association


APPENDIX J: COURT LOCATIONS

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

CANBERRA

NEW SOUTH WALES

PARRAMATTA, NEWCASTLE, SYDNEY

Circuits to: Albury, Armidale, Broken Hill, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Lismore, Orange, Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Wagga Wagga, Wauchope, Wollongong

NORTHERN TERRITORY

DARWIN

Circuits to: Alice Springs

QUEENSLAND

BRISBANE, CAIRNS, TOWNSVILLE

Circuits to: Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Ipswich, Mackay, Maroochydore, Rockhampton, Southport, Toowoomba

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE

Circuits to: Mt Gambier

TASMANIA

HOBART, LAUNCESTON

Circuits to: Burnie

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

PERTH

VICTORIA

MELBOURNE

Circuits to: Ballarat, Bendigo, Castlemaine, Cobram, Dandenong, Geelong, Mildura, Moe (Gippsland), Shepparton, Warrnambool

COURT LOCATIONSCIRCUITS

PERTH


Mackay

Rockhampton

Bundaberg

Hervey Bay

Alice Springs

Maroochydore

Southport

Ipswich

Toowoomba

Mt Gambier

Mildura

ArmidaleCoffs Harbour

Lismore

Tamworth

Port MacquarieWauchopeDubbo

Orange

Wollongong

Burnie

WarnamboolGeelong

Ballarat

Dandenong

Shepparton

Wagga Wagga

Albury

BendigoCastlemaine

DARWIN

NEWCASTLE

SYDNEY

CANBERRA

MELBOURNE

ADELAIDE

BRISBANE

CAIRNS

TOWNSVILLE

HOBART

Broken Hill

Cobram

Moe

PARRAMATTA


FAMILY LAW REGISTRIES

National Enquiry Centre

Telephone enquiries:

TTY/Voice calls

International:

Email:

1300 352 000

Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or Speak & Listen contact 1300 555 727

+61 2 8892 8590

[email protected]

Australian Capital Territory

CanberraNigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Building Cnr University Avenue and Childers Street, Canberra ACT 2600

New South Wales

Albury Level 1, 463 Kiewa Street, Albury NSW 2640

Dubbo Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra Streets, Dubbo NSW 2830

Lismore Westlawn Building, Level 2, 29–31 Molesworth Street, Lismore NSW 2480

Newcastle 61 Bolton Street, Newcastle NSW 2300

ParramattaGarfield Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts Building 1–3 George Street, Parramatta NSW 2150

SydneyLionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Building 97–99 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000

Wollongong Level 1, 43 Burelli Street, Wollongong NSW 2500

Northern Territory

Alice Springs Level 1, Centrepoint Building, Hartley Street, Alice Springs NT 0870

Darwin TCG Building, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin NT 0800

Queensland

BrisbaneHarry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building 119 North Quay, Brisbane QLD 4000

CairnsCommonwealth Government Centre, Level 3 and 4, 104 Grafton Street, Cairns QLD 4870

RockhamptonVirgil Power Building, Ground Floor 46 East Street, Cnr Fitzroy Street, Rockhampton QLD 4700

Townsville Level 2,Commonwealth Centre, 143 Walker Street, Townsville QLD 4810

South Australia

AdelaideRoma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts Building 3 Angas Street, Adelaide SA 5000

Tasmania

HobartEdward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 39–41 Davey Street, Hobart TAS 7000

LauncestonANZ Building, Level 3, Cnr Brisbane and George Streets, Launceston TAS 7250

Victoria

Dandenong 53–55 Robinson Street, Dandenong VIC 3175

MelbourneOwen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street, Melbourne VIC 3000


GENERAL FEDERAL LAW REGISTRIES

All enquiries should be directed to the relevant registry, contact details follow. TTY/Voice calls – Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or Speak & Listen contact 1300 555 727

Australian Capital Territory

CanberraNigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Building Cnr University Avenue and Childers Street Canberra ACT 2601

Phone: (02) 6267 0566 Fax: (02) 6267 0625 Email: [email protected]

New South Wales

SydneyLaw Courts Building Level 17, Queens Square Sydney NSW 2000


Northern Territory

DarwinLevel 3 Supreme Court Building State Square Darwin NT 0800


Queensland

BrisbaneLevel 6 Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building 119 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000


South Australia

AdelaideLevel 5 Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts Building 3 Angas Street Adelaide SA 5000


Tasmania

HobartEdward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 39–41 Davey Street Hobart TAS 7000


Victoria

MelbourneOwen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000


Western Australia

PerthPeter Durack Commonwealth Law Courts Building 1 Victoria Avenue Perth WA 6000



APPENDIX K: CONTACT DETAILS

Chambers of the Chief Federal MagistrateChief Federal Magistrate John Pascoe AO CVO GPO Box 9991 Sydney NSW 2000

Phone: (02) 9234 0002

Fax: (02) 9234 0052

Office of the Acting Chief Executive OfficerMr Richard Foster PSM GPO Box 9991 Canberra ACT 2601

Phone: (02) 6243 8725

Fax: (02) 6243 8737

National Enquiry Centre

The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all telephone and email enquiries on Family Law Court (Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court) matters. The NEC provides information and procedural advice, forms and brochures, and referrals to community and support services. NEC staff cannot provide legal advice.

Opening Hours: 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday Phone: 1300 352 000 International: +61 2 8892 8590

Postal Address: PO Box 9991, Parramatta NSW 2124

TTY/voice calls: Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or for Speak and Listen calls contact 1300 555 727 Email: [email protected]

Websites

www.fmc.gov.au

www.familylawcourts.gov.au

Commonwealth Courts Portal – www.comcourts.gov.au

Email

[email protected]

[email protected]

Commonwealth Courts Portal – [email protected]

Communication enquiries – [email protected]


http://www.fmc.gov.au/

http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au



PART 7: INDEXES


PART 7: INDEXES

LIST OF REQUIREMENTS

Description Requirement Page of this report

Letter of transmittal Mandatory iii

Table of contents Mandatory iv

Index Mandatory 216

Glossary Mandatory viii

Contact officer(s) Mandatory Inside cover

Internet home page address and Internet address for report Mandatory Inside cover

Year in review

Review by Chief Federal Magistrate Mandatory 2–3

Summary of significant issues and developments Suggested 5

Overview of performance and financial results Suggested 34–36

Outlook for 2012–13 Suggested 8

Significant issues and developments – portfolio departments Suggested N/A

Court overview

Role and functions Mandatory 22

Organisational structure Mandatory 28

Outcome and program structure Mandatory 34

Where outcome and program structures differ from PB Statements/PAES or other portfolio statements accompanying any other additional appropriation bills (other portfolio statements), details of variation and reasons for change

Mandatory Nil to report

Portfolio structure – portfolio departments Mandatory N/A

Report on performance

Review of performance in relation to programs and contributions to outcomes

Mandatory 34–35

Actual performance in relation to deliverables and KPIs set out in PB Statements/PAES or other portfolio statements

Mandatory 35

PART 7: INDEXES 213


Where performance targets differ from the PBS/ PAES, details of both former and new targets, and reasons for the change

Mandatory Nil to report

Narrative discussion and analysis of performance Mandatory 34–77

Trend information Mandatory 34–77

Significant changes in nature of principal functions/ services Suggested 25

Performance of purchaser/ provider arrangements Suggested (if applicable) Nil to report

Factors, events or trends influencing the Court’s performance Suggested 34–77

Contribution of risk management in achieving objectives Suggested 87

Social inclusion outcomes Suggested 102

Performance against service charter customer service standards, complaints data, and the Court’s response to complaints

If applicable, mandatory 76–77

Discussion and analysis of the Court’s financial performance Mandatory 103

Discussion of any significant changes from the prior year from budget or anticipated to haved a significant impact on future operations.

Suggested 26

Agency resource statement and expenses (and resources) by outcomes

Mandatory 162

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Corporate governance

Agency head certification about compliance with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines

Mandatory 178

Statement of the main corporate governance practices in place Mandatory 80–81

Names of the senior executive and their responsibilities Suggested 80–81

Senior management committees and their roles Suggested 81–85

Corporate and operational planning and associated performance reporting and review

Suggested 85–86

Approach adopted to identifying areas of significant financial or operational risk

Suggested 86–87

Policy and practices on the establishment and maintenance of appropriate ethical standards

Suggested 88

How nature and amount of remuneration for SES officers is determined

Suggested 98

External scrutiny

Significant developments in external scrutiny Mandatory 89–90



Judicial decisions and decisions of administrative tribunals Mandatory 89

Reports by the Auditor-General, a Parliamentary Committee or the Commonwealth Ombudsman

Mandatory 89

Management of human resources

Assessment of effectiveness in managing and developing human resources to achieve Court objectives

Mandatory 93

Workforce planning, staff turnover and retention Suggested 94

Impact and features of enterprise or collective agreements, individual flexible arrangements (IFAs), determinations, common law contracts and AWAs

Suggested 97–98

Training and development undertaken and its impact Suggested 98

Work health and safety performance Suggested 100–101

Productivity gains Suggested 100

Statistics on staffing Mandatory 164–169

Enterprise or collective agreements, IFAs, determinations, common law contracts and AWAs

Mandatory 168–169

Performance pay Mandatory 98

Assets management and purchasing

Assessment of effectiveness of assets management If applicable, mandatory 104–105

Assessment of purchasing against core policies and principles Mandatory 105

Consultants

Summary statement—the number of new consultancy contracts let and actual expenditure; and the number of active ongoing consultancy contracts and total expenditure

Mandatory 105–106

Contract information statement re the AusTender website Mandatory 106

Australian National Audit Office access clauses Mandatory 89

Contracts exempt from the AusTender website Mandatory 106

Financial statements

Financial statements Mandatory 113–159

Other information

Work health and safety Mandatory 100–101

PART 7: INDEXES 215


Advertising and market research and statement on advertising campaigns

Mandatory 172

Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance

Mandatory 173–177

Compliance with Carer Recognition Act 2010 If applicable, mandatory N/A

Grant programs Mandatory 107

Disability reporting – explicit and transparent reference to what Court information is available through other reporting mechanisms

Mandatory 102

Information Publication Scheme statement on the Court’s IPS plan publishing

Mandatory 170

Correction of material errors in previous annual report If applicable, mandatory N/A

List of requirements Mandatory 212–215


ALPHABETICAL INDEX

A

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee 181

Adelaide Registry

address and contact details 208–9

community consultations and liaisons 64

eFiled, number of documents 11

Administrative Appeals Tribunal 23, 44

appeals on questions of law 46

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 23, 46

administrative law

Federal Magistrates Court jurisdiction 23

filing and finalisations 4, 45–6

specialist panel arrangements 39

Administrative Review Council 46

admiralty law

conduct of proceedings 47


filing and finalisations 4, 45–6

private international law 47

specialist panel arrangements 39

advertising and market research 172

age discrimination 51

Age Discrimination Act 2004 51

agreement making

enterprise agreement 97, 168

other agreements 97, 168

Staffing Profile 168–9

Albury Registry

address 208



Alice Springs Registry

address 208



Annual Report Awards 8

annulments and validity of marriage 22, 43

appeals from Federal Magistrates Court 58

family law and child support 58

general federal law 58

asset management 104–5

Audit and Risk Committee 82–3, 87

Auditor-General 89

audits

independent auditor’s report 110–111

internal 86–7

Austlii 56–7

Australasian Institute for Judicial

Administration (AIJA)

Award for Excellence 17

Australian Courts Administrators Group 184

Australian Human Rights Commission 89

B

bankruptcy 47–8

Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Amendment Rules 2011 26, 47

Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 26, 47


filing and finalisations 4, 36, 45–7

Harmonised Bankruptcy Rules

Monitoring Committee 182

jurisdiction concurrent with

Federal Court 47

practice note 48

QPILCH Self Representation Pilot Service 8

specialist panel arrangement 39

types of applications 48

Brisbane Registry




C

Cairns Registry

address 208



Canberra Registry




PART 7: INDEXES 217

case management 37–8

Case Management Federal

Magistrates Committee 82

Dandenong Project 6–7

docket process 37–8

Chief Executive Officer’s Management

Advisory Group 83

Chief Federal Magistrate 2–3, 16, 28–9, 81, 180–1, 188

Year in review 2–3

Child Dispute Services 15–16

Child Inclusive and Child Dispute Conferences

(s11F interventions) 6

purpose 59

child protection

National child protection and family law

collaboration meeting 185

National Justice Chief Executive Officer’s Group 42

child rights 51

child support 44–5

Child Support National Stakeholder

Engagement Group 184

Child Support Program 44, 184

costs 45

Departure Prohibition Order 44

Federal Magistrates Court jurisdiction 22, 44–5

Social Security Appeals Tribunal 44


circuit program 62–3

Client Service Senior Manager’s Group 14–15

Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 26

Coffs Harbour Registry


Collaborative Dispute Resolution Services Group 7

commercial matters


committees 81–5, 179–83

Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Committee 181

Audit and Risk Committee 82–3, 179

Case Management Federal

Magistrates Committee 82, 179

Chief Executive Officer’s

Management Advisory Group 83, 181

Family Law Courts Advisory Group 181

Family Violence Committee 182



Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee 84

Joint Costs Advisory Committee 182

Legal Committee 82, 180

National Consultative Committee 84, 182

other committees 83–4

Policy Advisory Committee 81, 180

Property Management Committee 183

Research Ethics Committee 180

Staff Development Committee 85, 183

Commonwealth Courts Portal 8–9

eFiling documents 8–9, 11

email address 210

improvements 10–11

performance report 75

registered users 9

website 210

Commonwealth Ombudsman 89

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 24

complaints 76–7

email address to send 77

Connections 19, 86

consent orders

practice direction 27

Constitution 28

consultants 105–6

consumer law 48

damages, statutory limit 48


filing and finalisations 4, 45–6, 48


contact details 210

copyright law 49


filing and finalisations 4

specialist panel arrangement 39, 49

intellectual property jurisdiction 49

costs


court locations and circuits 206–7

family law registries, addresses 208

general federal law registries 209


cultural issues

Indigenous children and 13

judicial education and awareness 13

customer service email address 210

D

damages

consumer jurisdiction statutory limit 48


Dandenong Registry 6–7

address 208



Darwin Registry




de facto property applications 40

Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012 42

final orders 41

interim orders 42

property only applications 41

disability reporting 102

dispute resolution

Collaborative Dispute Resolution Services Group 7


family law 58–60

general federal law 61–2

National Alternative Dispute Resolution

Advisory Council 184

divorce 43

applications for review 43

eFiling 43

filing and finalisations 4, 36, 39–40, 44

NEC answering queries 43, 70

orders 43

uncontested 43

documents maintained by court 171

Dubbo Registry

address 208



E

Ecologically Sustainable Development

and Environmental Performance 173–7

eFiling 63

Commonwealth Courts Portal, through 8–9

divorce applications 43

number of documents filed from 2008–2012 44

eLodgment 75–6

enquiries, email addresses 210

employees see staff

energy reduction 175

enterprise agreement 97, 168

other agreements 97, 168

relationship between 98

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 173

Environmental Champions Network 18–19, 176

environmental impacts, minimisation 173–7


Environmental Champions Network 176

Environmental Management System 174

ICT sustainability plan 175

paper usage 176

recycling waste 176

refurbishments and fitouts 177

review and improvement strategies 177

travel 177

Environmental Management System 174, 177

ethical standards 88

expenses and resources for Outcome 1 163

external involvement 184–6

Australian Courts Administrators Group 184

Child Support National Stakeholder

Engagement Group 184

Family Law Council 184

Insolvency and Trustee Service of Australia 185



National child protection and family

law collaboration meeting 185

Social Security Appeals Tribunal 44, 184

PART 7: INDEXES 219

external scrutiny 89–90

ICT, whole-of-government initiatives 89–90

Ombudsman, Commonwealth 89

Senate estimate committee hearings 89

Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Act 2012 26

F

Fair Work Act 2009 52

small claims proceedings 52

Fair Work Amendment Regulations 2011 27

Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Act 2012 25, 52

Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012 52

Fair Work Division

increase in caseloads 3

small claims proceedings 52

Family Court

appeals to 58

merger of administration with Federal Court 2, 5

registries, addresses 208

Service Charter 76

family law

categories of 40

de facto property applications 40

dispute resolution 58–60

duty lawyer schemes 70


filings and finalisations 4, 36, 39–40, 44

final orders 4, 36, 39–40, 44

interim orders 4, 36, 39–40, 44

National child protection and family

law collaboration meeting 185

percentage of Court workload 39

performance of registries 72–3

self-represented litigants 69–70

Family Law Act 1975amendments 26

Federal Magistrates jurisdiction under 22–3

s11F interventions 6

Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012 42

Family Law Council 184

Family Law Courts Advisory Group 181

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 7, 26, 42

family violence

Family Violence Committee 182

screening processes 15–16

Family Violence Best Practice Principles 16

Federal Court

appeals 58

bankruptcy jurisdiction 47

concurrent jurisdiction 24

federal courts

restructure 5

federal law, general

dispute resolution 61–2

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 22, 28, 80

Federal Magistrates activities 187–205

Federal Magistrates Court 2

appeals 58

asset management 104–5

case management 37–8

circuit program 62–3

clearance rates 2

committees 81–5

community relations 63–9

complaints 76–7

consultants 105–6

court locations and circuits 206–7

deficit 3

duty lawyer schemes 70

employees and staff see staff

establishment 22

ethical standards 88

external evaluations 90

external scrutiny 89–90

financial performance 103–4

financial risk management 87

fraud prevention and control 87–8

growth and size 2

human resources management 93–103

internal audit 86–7

internal evaluations 91–3

judgments 56–8

judicial officers 28


jurisdiction 22, 43

legal services expenditure 106–7

merger of administration with Family Court 2, 5

objectives 22

organisational structure 28

performance 34–5, 72–5

pro bono scheme 70

public information provision 70

purchasing 105

renaming 2, 5

Resource Statement 162

risk management 87

self-represented litigants 69–70

Service Charter 76

social media policy 88

specialist panels 39

website 7

workload 36

Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 26

Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Amendment Rules 2011 26

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

amendments 26

Federal Magistrates Regulations 2000 27

Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 80

financial performance 103–4

administered revenue and expenses 104

operating revenue and expenses 103

service provided free-of-charge 103


Financial Statements 113–59

fraud prevention and control 87–8

Fraud Control Certification 178

Fraud Control Plan 2010-2012 87–8

freedom of information 170–1

access outside the Freedom of Information Act 170

documents maintained by the Court 171

limitations on publication 170

Freedom of Information Act 1982 170

H



Heads of Jurisdiction Consultative Committee 84

Hobart Registry




human resources management 93–103

employee assistance program 100

enterprise agreement 97


non-salary benefits 98

overview 93

peer support network 100

Performance Management

Development System 18, 99

performance pay 98

productivity gains 100

retention strategies 94–7

SES remuneration 98

staffing profile 97

training and development 99–100

work, health and safety 100–1

worker’s compensation 102

workforce planning 94

workforce turnover 97

human rights matters 50–1

age discrimination 51

Australian Human Rights Commission 89

children’s rights 51



QPILCH Self Representation Pilot Service 8

reforms, proposed 50


workplace discrimination 50

I

ICT

sustainability plan 175

whole-of-government initiatives 89–90

independent auditor’s report 112–113

Indigenous Australians access 12–13

evaluation 12–13

see also Indigenous Working Group

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee 181

PART 7: INDEXES 221

Indigenous Working Group 12–13, 91–2

evaluation of persons experience and

perception of family law 12–13

industrial law 51–2




information

collection, storage and disclosure 171

documents maintained by the Court 171

freedom see freedom of information

personal 171

information technology see ICT

Insolvency and Trustee Services Australia 48, 185

intellectual property law

see also copyright law

filings 45–6

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 25

internal evaluations

Indigenous Working Group evaluation 91–2

Registrar workload project 92–3

International Visitors 185–186

J


judgments 56–8

published in law reports 57

judicial officers

remuneration 28

staff profile 166

jurisdiction

administrative law 23

admiralty law matters 23

bankruptcy law 23

consumer rights law 24

copyright law 24

Family Law Act 1975 22–3

general federal law 23

human rights law 24

industrial law 24

migration law 25

privacy law 25

L

Launceston Registry

address 208


Law Society of NSW 16–17

Legal Committee 82

legal services expenditure 106–7

Lismore Registry

address 208


M

Melbourne Registry




Melbourne Relocation List Pilot 7

practice direction 27

migration 53–5

asylum claim reviews 3

case management 53

Federal Magistrates Court jurisdiction 25, 54

filing and finalisations 4, 36, 45–6, 53

increase in caseloads 3


Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2012 54

Migration Review Tribunal 25

minimisation of environmental impacts 174–7


Environmental Champions Network 176

Environmental Management System 174

ICT sustainability plan 175

paper usage 176

recycling waste 176

refurbishments and fitouts 177

travel 177

N



National Consultative Committee 84, 182


National Enquiry Centre 43, 70

contact details 208, 210

divorce queries 43

information sharing trial 19

Key performance indicators and performance 71–2

performance report 73–5

website and phone 70

National Justice Chief Executive Officer’s Group 42

national security


Newcastle Registry

address 208



O

Oakton report 90

Oakton Services Pty Limited 179

offshore entry applicants 53

Organisational structure 28

Outcome 34, 163

outlook for 2012–2013 8

P

paper usage 176

Parramatta Registry

address 208



performance 34–5

detailed report 72–5

family law registries 72–3

financial see financial performance

key performance indicators 35

National Enquiry Centre 73–5

outcome and program 34

overview 34–5



Career Manager 18

Employee Self Service system 18

Personal Property Securities Register 48

Personal Powers 55

Perth Registry

address and contact details 209

Policy Advisory Committee 81

Portfolio Budget Statement 71

practice directions 27

bankruptcy matters 48

Privacy 171

privacy law, jurisdiction 25

pro bono scheme 70

Product Stewardship Act 2011 55

Program 34

property management 104–5

Property Management Committee 183

Public Service Act 1999 31, 80

R

recycling waste 176

Refugee Review Tribunal 25

Registrar Workload Project 13, 92–3

registries

family law, addresses 208

general federal law, addresses 209

community relations 63–69

Registry services 70–1

remuneration

judicial officers, remuneration 28


performance pay 98

SES remuneration 98

Remuneration Tribunal 28

Research Ethics Committee 180

Resource Statement 162, 163

risk management 87


Road Safety Remuneration Act 2012 25–6, 52

Rockhampton Registry

address 208



PART 7: INDEXES 223

S


purpose 59

Self-Represented Litigants 69–70

Self Represented Litigant Pilot 8

Senate estimate committee hearings 89

Service Charter 76

settlement



Sydney family law settlement service 16–17

Skehill Review 5, 84, 90

small claim proceedings 24, 27, 52

social media policy 88

Social Security Appeals Tribunal 44, 184

South Australia pilot 5–6

collaboration between federal family

law and child protection, trial 5

stakeholders 6

staff 31

communication mediums 86

employee assistance program 100

enterprise agreement 97

guidance, documents providing 85–6


networking through Connections 19


overview 93

peer support network 100



performance pay 98

retention strategies 94–7

SES remuneration 98

Staff Development Committee 85, 183

staffing profile 97


training and development 99–100

workforce planning 94


Staff Development Committee 85

staff retention strategies 94–7

balancing work and personal life 94

rewards and recognition 95–7

safe and healthy work environment 95

workplace diversity 95


agreement making 168–9

attendance status 165

gender 164


location and employment status 164


Statement of Strategic Intent 17

Sydney family law settlement service 16–17

Sydney Registry




T

Tasmania registry


Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency Act 2011 26

Townsville Registry

address 208



U

User Satisfaction Survey 14–15, 63

W

websites 210

Australian Public Service Commission 102

Commonwealth Courts Portal 8–9, 210

Family Law Courts 210

Federal Magistrates Court 7, 210

NEC 70, 210

Remuneration Tribunal 28

Wollongong Registry

address 208




work, health and safety 100–1

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 25, 52

worker’s compensation 102

workload 36

Y

Young Employees Advisory Group 17–18

Z

Zimbabwe Supreme Court 185

PART 7: INDEXES 225