Annual report [1997-98] - Family Court of Australia

FAMILY 

COURT 

of 

AUSTRALIA 

Family Court of Australia – annual report 1997-98 

ISSN 1035-9060 

© Family Court of Australia 1998 

Design and production: Family Court of Australia Publications Office 

Front cover: The cover, designed by Karen Overman, incorporates a graphic representation 

of the new Federal Court building in Melbourne which will house the Family Court of 

Australia’s Melbourne registry and offices. The new building is expected to be completed 

by mid-1999. 

This work is copyright. Apart from use permitted under the Copyright Act 1969, no part 

may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Chief 

Executive Officer of the Family Court of Australia, GPO Box 9991 Canberra 2601.

The Family Court of Australia – annual report 1997-98 

Contents 

Introduction 

VI 

Part one – overview 1 

Establishment 2 

Organisation 2 

Functions and powers 3 

Objective 3 

Financial and staffing resources summary 4 

Organisational structure at 30 June 1998 5 

Judiciary 6 

Visitors to the court 10 

Overseas travel summary 12 

Registries and offices 14 

Part two – year in review by the Chief Justice 17 

Part three – workings of the court 27 

Cases seen by the Counselling Service 28 

Mediation 31 

Program performance 32 

Appeal division 38 

Significant judgments 44 

Social justice and equity 49 

Government’s charter of public service in a culturally diverse society 44 

Publications program 51 

Internet 53 

Complaints 54 

Internal and external scrutiny 56 

Freedom of information 57 

Privacy 58 

Workplace diversity and equal employment opportunity 59 

Occupational health and safety 61 

Industrial democracy 62 

Part four – court statistics 63 

Part five – appendices 89 

1 Staffing overview 90 

3 Financial statements 95 

4 Summary table of resources 132 

2 Advertising 132 

5 Service charter 133 

Glossary of abbreviations 135 

Compliance index 135 

Alphabetical index 136


Introduction 

This is the ninth annual report of the Family Court of Australia. 

Part One provides a brief introduction to and overview of the Court – its objective, its management, 

new organisational structure and the location of its offices and registries. 

Part Two contains the Chief Justice’s annual ‘Year in Review’covering initiatives across 

all areas of the Court and issues affecting its operations. This review provides a contextual 

backdrop for the more detailed reports that appear in Part Three – The Workings of the 

Court which makes up the main body of the Report. Cross-references are used to link these 

two sections. 

Part Three includes key information relating to the Court’s counselling and mediation services, 

performance standards, appeal division workload, significant judgments, major initiatives 

in social justice and equity programs and internal and external scrutiny. This part 

also details significant achievements in the programs which provide the administrative 

background to the work of the Court, including workplace diversity programs and equal 

employment opportunity, occupational health and safety, industrial democracy and freedom 

of information. 

Statistics detailing the Court’s workload throughout 1997-98 are contained in Part Four. 

These tables also provide information on family breakdown and the types of applications 

filed and orders sought. 

Part Five contains financial statements, the staffing overview and other appendices including 

a copy of the Court’s new Service Charter. 

Enquiries relating to information contained in this Report and additional information held 

in accordance with Attachment 3 of the ‘Requirements for Departmental Annual Reports’ 

should be addressed to the following contact officer: 

Mr Bill Jackson 

Manager, Public Relations 

Family Court of Australia 

PO Box 9991 

Melbourne 3001 

Tel: (03) 9242 5888 

Fax: (03) 9602 2105 

VI

Part one – overview 

Establishment 

Organisation 

Functions and powers 

Objective 

Financial and staffing resource s summary 

Organisational structure 

Judiciary 

Visitors to the court 

Overseas travel summary 

Registries and offices 

1


Establishment 

The Family Court of Australia is a superior court of record which has been operating since 

5 January 1976 following the enactment of the Family Law Act 1975. The Act makes provision 

for the establishment of State Family Courts but only Western Australia has done so. 

Organisation 

The Court consists of the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and 50 judges, including two 

Judge Administrators. The Chambers of the Chief Justice are located in Melbourne. 

Judicial registrars and registrars exercise certain powers of the Court which have been delegated 

under Family Law Rules. 

Changes to the Family Law Act in 1990 vested in the Chief Justice the responsibility for the 

management of the Court’s administrative affairs. The amendments also created the position 

of Chief Executive Officer to assist with the administration of the Court and vested that position 

with powers equivalent to a Secretary of a Department of State in respect of staff 

employed under the Public Service Act. Other senior management positions consist of the 

Principal Registrar, the General Manager Corporate Services, General Manager Customer 

Services, General Advisor Dispute Resolution, Chief Finance Officer and Area Managers. 

At the end of the reporting period the Office of the Chief Executive (OCE) was located in 

Sydney with some elements located in Canberra. However most OCE positions are scheduled 

to be relocated to Canberra in the first quarter of 1998-99. The Area Managers are 

located in Sydney and Melbourne. 

The original jurisdiction of the Family Court and jurisdiction in appeals from courts of 

summary jurisdiction may be exercised by one or more judges. Appeals from decisions of 

its own judges and judges of the Family Court of Western Australia are heard by a Full 

Court comprising three or more judges. An application may be made to the Court to review 

the exercise of a power delegated to a judicial registrar or registrar. 

Proceedings may be started at all filing registries of the Family Court. Primary dispute resolution 

services, including counselling and mediation, are also provided. The Court’s 

major filing registries are located in Sydney, Parramatta, Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, 

Adelaide, Dandenong, Hobart, Brisbane, Townsville, and Darwin. It has counselling subregistries 

at Wollongong, Albury, Dubbo, Lismore, Coffs Harbour, Gold Coast, Cairns, 

Rockhampton, Alice Springs and Launceston (mediation is available at Melbourne, 

Brisbane, Sydney and Parramatta). Throughout 1997-98 limited filing services were 

extended to a number of the counselling sub-registries, including Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, 

Lismore, Rockhampton and Wollongong. 

Resident judges are located at all major filing registries except Darwin. The Court conducts 

circuit court sittings at Darwin, the counselling sub-registries and in many other country 

centres on a regular basis. 

Program management 

For the purposes of the Government’s Program Management arrangements, the Court lies 

within the Attorney-General’s portfolio as sub-program 4.2. 

2

The Family Court of Australia – annual report 1997 - 98 

Functions and powers 

The Family Court has jurisdiction over all matrimonial causes and associated responsibilities. 

This includes: 

■ proceedings for divorce (dissolution of marriage) nullity, maintenance, division and 

settlement of property and injunctions 

■ children’s matters such as residence, contact and specific issues and including the 

powers referred by the State in relation to children born outside marriage 

■ matters under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Child 

Support (Assessment) Act 1989 

■ some State matters under cross-vesting and corporations legislation 

■ some matters under the Bankruptcy Act, Trade Practices Act, Administrative 

Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act which are 

transferred from the Federal Court 

■ appeals from decisions of its own judges and judges of the Family Court of Western 

Australia and reviews of decisions of a judicial registrar or registrar 

■ provision of a counselling service primarily to separated couples to help them to work 

out the future arrangements for the children without the need to go to Court 

■ the issuing of orders, warrants and writs as prescribed by the Family Law Act 

■ enforcing its orders and some orders of other courts 

■ punishing contempts of its powers and authority 

■ exercising some functions under the Marriage Act 1961. 

Objective 

The Court’s objective is to serve its clients and the interests of the Australian community 

by providing for the just, equitable and timely administration of justice in all matters within 

its jurisdiction. Its primary emphasis is on achieving outcomes that are in the best interests 

of the children and on helping people to come to their own agreements without a judicial 

determination. The Court’s case management process emphasises conciliation through 

primary dispute resolution services. The Court’s Simplified Procedures program, which 

has been in place since January 1996, is also aimed at minimising the time, cost and stress 

involved in family law disputes. 

During the year under review the Court prepared a Service Charter after consulting widely 

on its content. The Charter, which is scheduled for printing and distribution in the first quarter 

of 1998-99, appears as Appendix 5 of this Report. It will be distributed through the 

Court’s publications mailing list and will be available to the public in all registries and subregistries. 

Staff members, who also participated in the consultation process, will each 

3


receive a copy together with directions regarding implementation of the Charter. The 

Charter provides for an annual review and performance against the objectives of the Charter 

will be monitored. 

Throughout 1997-98 the Court has also reviewed its Corporate Plan which has been in 

place since 1990-91. The new Strategic Plan is scheduled for implementation during the 

coming financial year. 

Financial and staffing resources summary 

Table 1.1 Aggregate financial and staffing resources data 1997-98 

$(‘000) and actual staff years 

Budget & AEs(a) Actual Actual 

(1997-98) (1997-98) (1996-97) 

Budgetary (cash) basis 

Components of Appropriation: 

Running costs (RC) 105,659 100,544 99,951 

Other program costs (excluding RC) 902 897 170 

Total 106,561 101,441 100,121 

Less adjustments - - - 

Total Outlays 106,561 101,441 100,121 

Total Revenue (b) 14,691 15,560 15,270 

Accrual basis 

Net cost of service delivery (c) 96,041 96,011 

Other program costs (excl. service delivery) - - 

Total Costs 96,041 96,011 

Program revenues 105,552 111,620 

Total (allocated) assets 36,828 25,990 

Total (allocated) liabilities 19,105 17,778 

Staffing 

Staff years (actual) 822 783 

(a) Budget figure amended to include Additional Estimates (AEs). 

(b) See Budget Paper 1 for a description of items included in revenue. 

(c) Includes ‘revenue from independent sources’ as shown in the Operating Statement included in the financial 

statements. 

4


Organisational structure at 30 June 1998 

Chief Justice 

Personal 

Staff 

Deputy 

Chief Justice 

Marshal 

Internal 

Auditor 

Chief Executive 

Officer 

Principal 

Registrar 

General 

Manager 

Corporate 

Services 

General 

Manager 

Customer 

Services 

Judge 

Administrators 

General 

Advisor Dispute 

Resolution* 

Area 

Dispute 

Resolution 

Advisers 

Area Legal 

Advisers 

Chief Finance 

Officer 

Manager 

Finance 

Manager 

Information 

Services 

Area 

Managers 

Judges 

(Appeal Div) 

Judges 

(General Div) 

Judicial 

Registrars 

Manager 

Strategic 

Planning 

Manager 

Personnel 

Manager 

Workplace 

Relations 

*also Principal 

Director of 

Court 

Counselling and 

Principal 

Director of 

Mediation 

SES 

Registrars 

Manager 

Information 

Technology 

Manager 

Property 

Manager 

Library Services 

Registry 

Managers 

Managers Legal 

Managers 

Counselling 

Area structure and registries 

North –Alice Springs*, Brisbane, Cairns*, Coffs Harbour, Darwin, Dubbo, Gold Coast*, Lismore, 

Parramatta, Newcastle, Rockhampton, Sydney, Townsville, Wollongong. 

South – Adelaide, Albury*, Dandenong, Canberra, Hobart, Launceston*, Melbourne 

*counselling service only 

5


Judiciary 

There were five judicial appointments and five judicial retirements during the year under 

review. At 30 June 1998 the Court consisted of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, 

50 judges and eight judicial registrars, two of whom work on a part-time basis. The Family 

Law (Judges) Regulations prescribe the maximum number of judges in addition to the 

Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice as being 54. 

During the year, Justices Peter Underhill of the Brisbane Registry, John Gun and Doreen 

Bulbeck both of the Adelaide Registry, Peter Hase of the Melbourne Registry and Rodney 

Purvis of the Parramatta Registry retired after many years of distinguished service with the 

Court – a total of 88 years between them. Justice Anthony Graham from the Melbourne 

Registry will retire in early July 1998. 

Justice John Jerrard was appointed a judge of the Court on 2 March 1998 and sits in the 

Brisbane Registry. Justice Jerrard was admitted to practise as a barrister in Queensland in 

1970 and held various appointments with the Solicitor General’s office and also as a Crown 

Prosecutor. His Honour was awarded a Master of Laws degree from London University 

and held a commission as an acting judge of the District Court of Queensland in 1991. He 

took silk in 1992 and was a member of the Criminal Law Division of the Litigation Reform 

Commission. He was appointed President of the Queensland Community Corrections 

Board during 1997. Justice Jerrard replaces Justice Peter Underhill who retired in January 

1998. 

Justice John Steele was appointed a judge of the Court in December 1997 and sits in the 

Sydney Registry. His Honour was admitted to practise as a solicitor in New South Wales 

in 1965, joined the Bar in 1975 and took silk in 1992. He had the distinction of being the 

last Queen’s Counsel to be appointed in New South Wales. His Honour was the replacement 

for Justice Butler who sat in Tasmania and retired in June 1997. 

Justice Doreen Bulbeck, who retired in January 1998, was replaced by Justice Rodney Burr 

who was appointed a judge of the Court on 2 April 1998. Justice Burr was admitted to practise 

as a solicitor in South Australia in 1971. His Honour has held many appointments on 

committees and associations including past-president (1987-88) of the Law Society of 

South Australia, Member of the Board of Management of the Australian Institute of Family 

Studies, various committees of the Law Society of South Australia and is also a former 

chairman of the Law Council of Australia’s Family Law Section. Justice Burr achieved 

international prominence by co-organising the first two International Congresses on 

Family Law and the Rights of the Child, the first of which was held in Sydney in 1993 and 

the second in San Francisco in 1997. 

Justice John Barlow was appointed a judge of the Family Court of Western Australia in 

February 1998 and a judge of the Family Court of Australia in July 1998. His Honour was 

admitted to practise as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia 

in 1968. His Honour practised mainly in the area of family law for the next 20 years until 

he was appointed as a judge of the District Court of Western Australia in 1988. His Honour 

has been actively involved in many committees and associations including membership of 

6


the Executive of the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, Vice-President 

of the Family Law Practitioners’ Association and Family Law Committee of the Law 

Society of Western Australia. 

Justice Paul Guest was appointed a judge of the Family Court of Australia on 1 May 1998 

to sit in the Melbourne Registry. Admitted to practise in 1965, his Honour signed the role 

of counsel of the Victorian Bar some four years later and took silk in 1983. His Honour 

was a member of the Bar Ethics Committee from 1989 to 1997, chairman of the Family 

Law Bar Association from 1986 to 1998 and organised and participated in the family law 

component of the Bar Readers Course. His Honour also had the distinction of representing 

Australia in the 1960, 1964 and 1968 Olympics at rowing. Justice Guest replaces Justice 

Peter Hase who retired in early 1998. 

Justice Heather Carter was appointed a judge of the Family Court of Australia on 27 May 

1998 to sit in the Melbourne Registry. Her Honour was admitted to practise as a barrister 

in 1971 in New South Wales and as a barrister and solicitor in Victoria in 1972 and signed 

the role of counsel in that State in 1978. Her Honour was an occasional lecturer in Family 

Law at the Leo Cussen Institute in Melbourne and was Secretary of the Victorian Family 

Law Bar Association. Her Honour moved to Western Australia in 1990, practised at the Bar 

and in 1995 was appointed a deputy registrar and stipendiary magistrate of the Family 

Court of Western Australia before returning to the Victorian Bar in 1996. Justice Carter 

replaces Justice Graham who retired in July 1998. 

Justice Peter Underhill retired in December 1997 after almost 20 years on the Bench, having 

been appointed in 1978. His Honour held many varied appointments to do with children 

including President UNICEF Committee (Queensland), National Vice-President 

UNICEF, Chairman, Handicapped Persons Committee and Chairman Queensland 

Government Committee for the International Year of the Child. His Honour was awarded 

the UN Peace Medal in 1977 and made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 

1977. 

Justice Peter Hase retired in January 1998 having been appointed to the bench in 1979, thus 

serving almost 20 years. 

Justice Doreen Bulbeck of the Adelaide Registry retired in January 1998 after 16 years 

service. 

Justice John Gun, also of the Adelaide Registry, retired in February 1998 after 22 years on 

the Bench, having been appointed in 1976. 

Justice Rodney Purvis retired in March 1998 after 13 years on the bench having been 

appointed in 1985. He was Chairman of the Trade Practices Committee of the Law Council 

of Australia for 12 years from 1978 and was also a presidential member of the 

Administrative Appeals Tribunal from 1986. His Honour also served in a formidable variety 

of other capacities as a member, chairman or president of various committees and 

organisations. 

Previous Annual Reports have warned of the diminution of judicial strength due to the 

absence of judges on long service leave. With the passing of the Court’s 22nd anniversary, 

7


judges appointed in the period 1976-77 have now completed 20 years on the bench and 

will, in the near future, be retiring. The following judges have indicated that they will 

shortly retire: 

■ The Deputy Chief Justice the Honourable Justice AJ Barblett – August 1998 

■ The Honourable Justice M ARenaud – September 1998 

■ The Honourable Justice J F Fogarty – October 1998 

■ The Honourable Justice E Baker – January 1999 

Prior to retirement judges clear accrued leave which causes listing problems in registries. 

Also, judges cannot sit immediately prior to retirement. Ideally judges should be replaced 

prior to retirement or, if this is not possible, no later than the actual date of retirement. Not 

to do so would put further pressure on already overcrowded lists. 

Of the present 52 judges, 12 (or 23%) are women and of the eight judicial registrars, one 

is female. There will be a further female appointment in September 1998 with the replacement 

for Justice Gun in the Adelaide Registry. 

Judges and judicial registrars 

Family Court judges and judicial registrars at 30 June 1998 are listed below. 

Chief Justice 

Justice Alastair Nicholson, AO, RFD, 

Melbourne 

Deputy Chief Justice 

Justice Alan Barblett, AO, RFD, 

AE, Perth 

Northern Area 

Justice Neil Buckley, 

Judge Administrator, Northern 

Area, Brisbane 

Sydney 

Justice John Ellis, 

Judge of the Appeal Division 

Justice Alwynne Rowlands, AO, RFD 

Justice Josephine Maxwell 

Justice Mary Jane Lawrie 

Justice Peter Moss 

Justice John Cohen 

Justice Colleen Moore 

Justice Richard Chisholm 

Justice Stephen O’Ryan 

Justice John Steele 

Parramatta 

Justice Eric Baker, 


Justice Richard Gee 

Justice John Purdy 

Justice Warwick Rourke 

Justice Ian Coleman 

Justice Lloyd Waddy* 

Newcastle 

Justice Margaret Renaud 

Justice Graham Mullane 

Brisbane 

Justice Travis Lindenmayer, 


Justice Graham Bell 

Justice Peter Hilton 

Justice Bernard Warnick 

Justice Brian Jordan 

Justice Michelle May 

Justice John Jerrard 

8


Townsville 

Justice James Barry 

Southern Area 

Justice Hubert Frederico, 

Judge Administrator, Southern Area, 

Melbourne 

Melbourne 

Justice John Fogarty AM, 


Justice Joseph Kay, 


Justice Roderick Joske 

Justice Adrian Smithers 

Justice Anthony Graham 

Justice Nahum Mushin 

Justice Sally Brown 

Justice Linda Dessau 

Justice Susan Morgan 

Justice Paul Guest 

Justice Heather Carter 

Canberra 

Justice Mary Finn, 


Justice John Faulks 

Dandenong 

Justice John Wilczek 

Adelaide 

Justice Kemeri Murray 

Justice Hugh Burton 

Justice Christine Dawe 

Justice Rodney Burr 

Justice Ann Robinson* 

Hobart 

Justice Michael Hannon 

Judicial registrars 

MrAndrew Forbes, Adelaide 

Mr Constantine Nikakis, Melbourne 

(part-time) 

MrWilliam Johnston, Sydney 

Mr Max Knibbs, Sydney (part-time) 

Mr David Halligan, Parramatta 

Mr Jonathon Ramsden, Melbourne 

Ms Dianne Smith, Brisbane 

Mr Ian Loughnan, Sydney 

Joint commissions 

Federal Court 

Justice Alastair Nicholson 

Family Court of Western Australia 

The following judges of the Family 

Court of Western Australia also hold 

commissions in the Family Court of 

Australia: 

Justice Alan Barblett 

Justice Michael Holden 

Justice David Anderson AM 

Justice Nicholas Tolcon 

Justice Carolyn Martin 

Justice John Barlow 

Administrative Appeals Tribunal 

Justice Alwynne Rowlands 

Justice James Barry 

Justice Peter Moss 

*The Attorney-General announced the appointment of Justice Lloyd Waddy and Justice Ann 

Robinson to the Family Court of Australia on 18 June 1998 however their appointments do not 

commence until the 1998-99 financial year. 

9


Visitors to the court 

1997 visitor registry/event 

August The Honourable Justice Murray Gleeson AC, Judges’Conference 

Chief Justice of New South Wales 

The Honourable Justice John Toohey AC 

The Honourable Justice Michael Scott, 

High Court, Fiji 

His Honour, Judge Toru Matsuda, 

Yokohama Family Court, Japan 

His Honour, Judge Pat Mahony, 

District Court of New Zealand 

His Honour, Judge Don Inglis, 

Family Court of New Zealand 

His Honour, Judge Paul Whitehead 

District Court of New Zealand 

His Honour, Judge Tan Puay Boon, 

Family and Juvenile Division, Singapore 

His Honour, Judge Tagaloa Enoka Puni, 

Western Samoa 

Judges’Conference 








Mr Ian Burns CB, Director General, Policy, Judges’Conference 

Lord Chancellor’s Department, United Kingdom and Sydney 

Representatives of the Australian Law Reform 

Commission, including Dr Kathryn Cronin, 

Commissioner, and Michael Barnett and 

Miiko Kumar 

The Honourable Justice Mukhdar Ahmed Junejo, 

Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 

Melbourne 

Sydney 

10


September – 

December Anumber of federal politicians accepted Information Morning 

invitations to attend Information Mornings 

hosted by judges in each of the Melbourne, 

Parramatta, Dubbo, Sydney and Brisbane 

registries 

1998 

January Professor Tian Sen, President, Chinese Centre Brisbane 

for Research of Contemporary and Professor 

of Sociology of Chinese Academy of Social 

Sciences 

February Mr Kelli Cimmino and Mr Robert Skelton, Brisbane 

Attorneys of Coshocton, Ohio, on Rotary 

Exchange 

March The Honourable Justice Fyed Alwee, Sydney 

District Judge of the Subordinate Courts, 

Singapore 

April The Honourable Justice Aaron Melmed, Melbourne 

Chief Justice of the Juvenile Courts of Israel 

May Ms Judena Goldring, Director of Law Reform, Sydney 

Office of Law Reform, Northern Ireland 

13 senior level public servants from Sydney 

Department of Health and Family Services, 

India attending AusAid Course at Newcastle 

University 

Tirtha Man Sakya, Secretary, Ministry of Law 

and Justice of Nepal 

Sydney 

June Delegation representing South African Sydney 

Commission on Gender Equality 

11


Overseas travel summary 

Brown J 

Brown, GADR 

Buckley J 

Dessau J 

Eather, GMCS 

Filippello, PR 

Frankland, CFO 

Glare, CEO 

Harrison, M 

Jerrard J 

Klarkowski, AM(N) 

The Philippines – to attend LAWASIAConference 

Canada – to attend the International Association of Women Judges 

Conference (travelling allowance/incidentals/ registration fees 

only, travel undertaken during leave) 

Holland – to attend the seminar for judges on the International 

Protection of Children conducted by the Hague Conference on 

Private International Law (airfare only, other expense met by host) 

Singapore – to present a paper at the International Mediation 

Conference (no expense to the Court, all costs met by the host) 

Singapore – Consultant to Singapore Subordinate Courts (costs to 

be reimbursed by Singapore) 

Holland – to attend the International Mediation Conference (no 

expense to the Court, full costs met by the host) 

USA– to attend AFCC 35th Annual Conference (travel 

allowance/incidentals/registration fees only) 

Singapore/Hong Kong – to examine the use of technology in 

Singapore and Hong Kong Courts 

Canada – to attend International Association of Women Judges 

Conference 

USA– to attend the Association of Family and Conciliation 

Courts (AFCC) 35th Annual Conference and to examine the 

unified Family Court in Hawaii 

USA– to attend the 5th World Technology Conference 

Singapore/Hong Kong to examine the use of technology in 

Singapore and Hong Kong Courts 

USA– to attend AFCC 35th Annual Conference 

New Zealand – to attend accrual budgeting sessions with New 

Zealand Government and meetings with NZ Family Court 

South Africa – to attend the conference of the International 

Society of Family Law and conduct discussions with South 

African Court officials 

New Zealand – to attend accrual budgeting sessions with New 

Zealand Government and meetings with NZ Family Court 

South Africa – to deliver a paper at the conference of the 

International Society of Family Law 

New Zealand – to attend the Family Law Council meeting 

USA– to attend AFCC 35th Annual Conference 

New Zealand – to attend Judicial Orientation Conference 

USA– to attend the course in ‘Managing Human Resources/Team 

building in the Courts 

12


Nicholson CJ South Africa – to attend Conference of the International Society 

of Family Law (entirely at the expense of the Chief Justice) 

USA– to preside over meetings of th e AFCC Executive 

Committee and seminars of Custody Evaluation and Parent 

Education (entirely at the expense of the Chief Justice) 

USA– to preside over meetings of the Board of the National 

Council of Family and Juvenile Judges, meetings at Hofstra 

University Ne w York, meetings with the Chief Justice of the 

Family Division of Massachusetts Superior Court and family 

lawyers and other professionals and to preside over th e AFCC 

Executive Committee meeting (airfares only – all other travel and 

expenses met by the Chief Justice or th e AFCC) 

USA, Holland, London – t o ABAConference on Unified Family 

Courts; to preside over 35t h Annual Conference of th e AFCC; to 

attend the seminar for judges on the International Protection of 

Children conducted by the Hague Conference on Private 

International Law and to visit London for discussions with the 

Lord Chancello r, the President of the Family Division of the High 

Court and other English judges and lawyers (airfares onl y, all 

other travel and expenses met either by the conference o rganisers 

or the Chief Justice) 

All travel by the Chief Justice was carried out during periods of 

leave and long leave. 

Passie r, G Lebanon – to prepare Rabay Family Report – PA4488/96 (no 

expense to the Court, all costs met by the client) 

Piot r owski, DCC USA– to attend the 3rd International Symposium on Child 

Custody Evaluations & Parent Education Programs 

USA– to attend th e AFCC 35t h Annual Conference (travelling 

allowance/incidentals/registration fees only) 

Steele J New Zealand – to attend Judicial Orientation Conference 

Kay J; Bake r J; 

Mullane J; 

Edne y, C; 

Raby, J; USA– to attend th e AFCC 35t h Annual Conference (travelling 

Marr one, P; allowance/incidentals/registration fees only) 

Cook, J; 

Gr eenfield, J; 

Conno r, S; 

Graham J 

Notes – Costs are fully paid by the Court unless otherwise indicated. 

Some of the travel was undertaken during leave. 

13


Registries and offices 

Chief Justice’s Chamber 

Marland House 

570 Bourke Street 

MELBOURNE, VIC 3000 

(03) 9242 5888 

Office of the Chief Executive – 

Canberra 

(including Corporate Services, 

Management Information and Research, 

Information Services) 

15 London Circuit 

CANBERRA, ACT 2601 

(02) 9212 4734 

Sydney 

(including Principal Registrar, General 

Advisor Dispute Resolution, and Policy 

Practices and Procedures Unit) 

Lionel Bowen Building 

97-99 Goulburn Street 

SYDNEYNSW 2000 

(02) 9212 4679 

Resources Branch 

(Finance, Property, Corporate Systems) 

Level 4, Parramatta Law Courts 

1-3 George Street 

PARRAMATTANSW 2150 

(02) 9893 5555 

Northern Area 

Northern Area Office 




(02) 9212 4664 

Alice Springs Sub-Registry 

Centrepoint Building 

Hartley Street 

ALICE SPRINGS NT 0870 

(08) 8952 8222 

Brisbane Registry 

Commonwealth Law Courts 

119 North Quay 

BRISBANE QLD 4000 

(07) 3248 2200 

Cairns Sub-Registry 

Commonwealth Offices 

107 Lake Street 

CAIRNS QLD 4870 

(07) 4041 2377 

Coffs Harbour Sub-Registry 

26 Gordon Street 

COFFS HARBOUR NSW 2450 

(02) 6651 5395 

Darwin Registry 


26 Mitchell Street 

DARWIN NT 0800 

(08) 8981 1488 

Dubbo Sub-Registry 


Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra Street 

DUBBO NSW 2830 

(02) 6885 8460 

Gold Coast Sub-Registry 

Zurich House 

8 Karp Court 

BUNDALLQLD 4217 

(07) 5574 2221 

Lismore Sub-Registry 

Manchester Unity Building 

29-31 Molesworth Street 

LISMORE NSW 2480 

(02) 6621 8977 

Newcastle Registry 

61 Bolton Street 

NEWCASTLE NSW 2300 

(02) 4926 1255 

14


Parramatta Registry 


1-3 George Street 

PARRAMATTANSW 2150 

(02) 9893 5555 

Rockhampton Sub-Registry 


Cnr East & Fitzroy Streets 

ROCKHAMPTON QLD 4700 

(07) 4921 2939 

Sydney Registry 




(02) 9217 7111 

Townsville Registry 

Northtown Shoppingtown 

280 Flinders Mall 

TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810 

(07) 4722 9333 

Wollongong Sub-Registry 


43 Burelli Street 

WOLLONGONG NSW 2500 

(02) 4226 0200 

Southern Area 

Southern Area Office 

Marland House 


MELBOURNE VIC 3000 

(03) 9604 2900 

Adelaide Registry 

Grenfell Centre 

25 Grenfell Street 

ADELAIDE SA5000 

(08) 8205 2666 

Albury Sub-Registry 

Mercantile Credits Building 

Cnr Kiewa and Smollett Streets 

ALBURYNSW 2640 

(02) 6021 8944 

Canberra Registry 

Cnr Childers Street and University Avenue 

CANBERRACITYACT 2600 

(02) 6267 0511 

Dandenong Registry 

53-55 Robinson Street 

DANDENONG VIC 3175 

(03) 9767 6200 

Geelong (Circuit) 

200 Malop Street 

GEELONG VIC 3220 

(03) 5229 0011 

Hobart Registry 


39-41 Davey Street 

HOBARTTAS 7000 

(03) 6232 1725 

Launceston Sub-Registry 

Australian Airlines Building 

69 Brisbane Street 

LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 

(03) 6334 2111 

Melbourne Registry 

Marland House 


MELBOURNE VIC 3000 

(03) 9604 2900 

15


16

Part two – year in review 

by the Honourable Alastair Nicholson 

Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia 

17


In his review of the Family Court Professor Peter Coaldrake described it as a complex and 

still evolving organisation. These characteristics were particularly apparent during the year 

in review in which, once again, a number of challenges presented themselves and several 

significant changes were implemented. 

In addition to its domestic profile, the Court continues to be highly regarded internationally, 

particularly for its initiatives in the areas of dispute resolution and case management. Judges 

and staff have been called upon to assist with the development of counselling services in several 

overseas jurisdictions, and the Court’s family violence, indigenous and ethnic awareness 

policies attract considerable interest. 

The killing of a woman outside the Dandenong registry late last year reinforced the concerns 

we all have about the prevalence of family violence and made us all painfully aware 

once again of how fragile are the lives of many who seek the Court’s assistance. 

Implementation of the Coaldrake recommendations 

The recommendations made by Professor Peter Coaldrake following completion of his 

review of the senior administrative services of the Court were considered during the year. 

His report, made available toward the end of the 1996-97 financial year, suggested that the 

Court’s organisational structure needed to be simplified and that the structure should recognise 

the ‘fusion’of the legal and social science operations in relation to staffing and service 

delivery. The vast majority of recommendations in the report, which provided a comprehensive 

and achievable blueprint for change, have been accepted by the Court and the 

necessary staffing changes have been put in place. 

We have been pleased to welcome Mr Andrew Phelan to the newly created position of 

General Manager Corporate Services. Mr Ron Eather (formerly Southern Area Manager) 

now occupies the new position of General Manager Customer Services and Mr Mario 

Cattapan has replaced him as Southern Area Manager. Ms Jackie Klarkowski, Northern 

Area Manager, has taken 12 months leave of absence and Ms Jennie Cooke, formerly 

Deputy Director of Court Counselling (North), is now acting as Northern Area Manager. 

We would like to thank Professor Coaldrake for his contribution and I have no doubt that 

the changes will improve levels of service delivery. 

Report of the Evaluation of Simplified Procedures Committee 

The Committee responsible for the Evaluation of Simplified Procedures completed its 

report during the year. It was most comprehensive in its coverage, and its content and recommendations 

benefited from a considerable amount of consultation with judges, Court 

staff and members of the legal profession. The task involved the statistical analysis of 

existing Court data and several specific surveys were commissioned to complement existing 

information or answer previously unanswered questions. 

I would particularly like to thank Justice Sally Brown, the Committee’s convenor, for her 

hard work and dedication to this extremely complex task. The evaluation was fraught with 

difficulties, not the least of which were the negative attitudes of some members of the legal 

profession to the very introduction of simplified procedures. Justice Brown was well 

18


served by a steering committee representing the Court, the Attorney-General’s Department, 

the profession and legal aid authorities. 

The report made a number of recommendations, some of which were put in place shortly 

after its completion. Several others were awaiting my final consideration at the time the 

Court embarked on a major strategic planning exercise just after the end of the financial 

year. Early feedback from this project suggested to me that the case management guidelines 

required re-visiting and that the evaluation report would be affected by such an exercise. 

As a consequence the remaining recommendations will be re-considered when these issues 

are brought together for the purposes of future planning. 

Primary Dispute Resolution (PDR) 

During the previous financial year the Attorney-General foreshadowed his intention to 

review the provision of counselling and mediation services within the Court. A 

Departmental discussion paper, ‘Delivery of PDR Services in Family Law’, was subsequently 

tabled. The Court responded to this by way of a major submission which was forwarded 

to the Attorney-General in late 1997 and was also widely circulated to interested 

organisations and individuals. 

The submission canvassed the various options available to the Government in considering 

issues of coverage and possible overlap of service delivery. It stressed the importance of 

maintaining primary dispute resolution within the Family Court as a diversion from litigation, 

reiterated the high settlement figures obtained, particularly at the voluntary level, and 

noted that attention needed to be given to issues such as security, the professional expertise 

developed by Court counsellors and mediators and the extent to which legal practitioners 

and others are confident in referring customers to them. 

The Court argued that were PDR services to be made less accessible to customers – for 

example, if the existing counselling and mediation services were reduced or removed – 

opportunities for litigation would increase. This would result in additional family distress 

(particularly in children’s matters) and more private and public costs. 

This concern proved to be correct. Charges for voluntary counselling and mediation were 

imposed in mid-1997 and the Senate disallowed the legislation five months later. During 

the period in which the Court was required to collect these charges the counselling customer 

base decreased by 10% and the numbers of post-filing cases increased by approximately 

25%. Such an increase in the numbers of people entering the litigation pathway carries 

with it an attendant risk that more cases will proceed to trial. 

I have for some time been concerned that the Court’s narrow definition of ‘mediation’and 

broad use of ‘counselling’fail to describe accurately the services it provides. Both here and 

overseas ‘mediation’is used as an all embracing term, which includes a number of processes 

ranging from the purist non-directive model to dispute resolution which falls short of litigation. 

‘Counselling’is a rarely used term and ‘conciliation counselling’is also not commonly 

understood. The historical rationale for the Court’s adherence to the purist view was 

to minimise confusion between the services provided by its conciliators and mediators. 

There is some evidence to suggest that customers are confused by the nature of the differ- 

19


ent services and that men in particular are reluctant to attend counselling sessions because 

they see them as being intrusive and biased in favour of women. 

If an overly restricted use of terminology is obscuring the nature of our primary dispute 

resolution direction it may be time to reconsider the language we use, although no decisions 

will be made until extensive internal and external consultation has taken place. 

Proposals for reform of superannuation law 

In May the Attorney-General’s Department released a discussion paper which set out its 

proposals to amend the law relating to the treatment of superannuation in family law. This 

paper emphasised the uncertainty and inconsistency which result from the current treatment 

of superannuation and pointed out that this may lead to inappropriate outcomes. 

The major recommendation of the paper is that where parties are unable to agree about the 

division of the proceeds of superannuation the Family Law Act should be amended to 

include a presumption that the interest acquired by a spouse from the commencement of 

cohabitation to the time of separation should be divided between the spouses equally. 

The Court has responded to the paper. Its response recognises the need for the issue of 

superannuation to be considered but warns that any reforms must be accompanied by a consideration 

of all the financial provisions of the Act, given that widespread amendments in 

this area (except for superannuation) were contained in the Amendment Bill which lapsed 

with the calling of the 1996 election. The Court’s response also cautions that the adoption 

of a presumptive approach to the division of superannuation is inconsistent with the broad 

discretion available under the Act in relation to the property of parties. It sees the proposals 

as representing a significant – but unacknowledged – shift towards a community property 

approach rather than the current separate property regime which underscores the Act. 

Arbitration proposals 

For several years the Attorney-General’s Department and the Court have been engaged in 

discussions about the role arbitration might play as an alternative to litigation. The 1991 

amendments provided for the inclusion of both mediation and arbitration, with the momentum 

to establish mediation resulting in the establishment of the Melbourne pilot shortly 

thereafter. 

The Court proposed a Court-annexed model of arbitration which would have allowed integration 

with its other PDR services. The Attorney-General’s preferred model is one which 

may be Court-referred, but which will essentially be provided outside the Court. 

There will be no opportunity for non-consensual, Court-ordered arbitration, no requirement 

for a rehearing by the Full Court on review of private arbitration, nor for a full rehearing 

on review of court-referred arbitration. Amendments to the Family Law Act and 

Regulations will be required and Rules will need to be drafted. 

I see the proposed model as being a step in the right direction, but the reduction in the 

Court’s ability to provide arbitration as it does in relation to other PDR services is likely to 

detract from its success and widespread use. 

20


Evaluation of the integrated client services project 

Previous annual reports have described the characteristics of the Integrated Client Services 

(ICS) program and foreshadowed the evaluation of the pilot being carried out at the 

Parramatta registry. Consultants Kearney McKenzie and Associates were asked to evaluate 

the Parramatta ICS pilot and their report was delivered in March 1998. Briefly, the evaluation 

recommended that there be a cautious extension of ICS across registries and this 

would need to be accompanied by the necessary computer support. 

As I have previously explained, any decisions about the widespread adoption of ICS within 

the Court must also await the Attorney-General’s decision about the future of the Court’s 

primary dispute resolution services. However, as a normal part of improving its services, 

the Court is extending its computer network and building infrastructure which will have a 

capacity to support ICS when needed. 

Legal Aid matters 

Restrictions in the provision of legal aid to Family Court customers have unfortunately continued 

to be a feature of proceedings throughout the year. The impacts vary from State to 

State and are to some extent dependent upon the approach of the State Legal Aid 

Commissions to the implementation of very tight Commonwealth guidelines. However, 

overall the trend is for aid to be severely restricted and for this to have impacts on the families 

concerned and on the Court’s operations. Judges remain concerned that women 

involved in disputes in which violence is a factor are unable to obtain legal representation 

and as a consequence are required to cross-examine or be cross-examined by an allegedly 

violent partner. Registrars report possible settlement opportunities being lost because unrepresented 

litigants are unwilling or unable to negotiate with each other. In some States mediation 

is a pre-requisite for an aid application, but this mediation appears to be directive rather 

than facilitative and scant attention is paid to the suitability of the dispute for mediation. 

There continue to be cases involving children where representation is denied, not on the 

basis of its need, but because the parents are not legal aid recipients. Where aid is provided 

caps apply, usually with rigour. 

Largely as a consequence of the legal aid restrictions, the percentage of cases involving 

unrepresented litigants continues to increase. It is currently estimated that (excluding applications 

for divorce) 40% of both first instance and appeal matters involve one or both parties 

who are unrepresented. 

Andrews Committee Report 

‘To Have and to Hold’– a report of the Inquiry into Aspects of Family Services – was presented 

by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional 

Affairs in June 1998. This was preceded some months earlier by the Committee’s review 

of Audit Report No. 33, ‘The Administration of the Family Court’in which it commented 

on several issues relating to that report. Specifically, the Committee criticised the Audit 

Report for omitting any reference to the administration of primary dispute resolution procedures 

or to the ICS model. It recommended that there was a prima facie case for retaining 

control of PDR services in the Court and argued that any proposal to do otherwise 

21


should be based on solid evidence that those services could be improved by different 

administrative arrangements. 

‘To Have and to Hold’concentrated mainly on the methods available for supporting relationships 

and preventing their breakdown. It recognised that the Court’s services are, by 

necessity, directed at the acute needs of couples who have decided to separate, and that the 

focus of these is therefore different from the marriage and relationship counselling/therapy 

offered by the community-based organisations. For this reason it recommended that the 

Court’s conciliation counselling services be re-named as separation counselling services. 

The report considered the Court’s PDR services to be an integral part of its operations and 

recommended that they remain a part of it. 

Judicial training 

Queenscliff seminar 

Anumber of judges and judicial registrars attended a training seminar in early April at 

Queenscliff in Victoria. The seminar enabled several newly appointed judges to participate 

in a forum at which papers were delivered on topics such as adversarial procedures, unrepresented 

litigants, gender awareness, simplified procedures and judgment writing. 

Cooktown workshop 

Those judges and judicial registrars who work in registries where there are likely to be 

indigenous customers were provided with training in Cooktown in late April 1998. One aim 

of the workshop was to promote the Court’s ongoing development of initiatives and strategies 

to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to access its services in a way that 

best meets their needs. Representatives of indigenous communities were able to meet with 

Court staff and discuss a range of issues related to families and to consider how the Court’s 

services and procedures may best be adapted to better service the needs of indigenous families 

and communities. With the appointment of two family consultants for Far North 

Queensland, the workshop also helped promote awareness of the consultants and their role. 

Delay reduction programs 

The Court is most concerned that delays in the settlement of final hearings have, if anything, 

increased over the year in review, particularly in Melbourne, Newcastle, Adelaide and 

Brisbane. This has occurred despite the efforts in a number of registries in both the northern 

and southern areas to reduce waiting times by running particular delay reduction programs. 

Such efforts are usually successful in the short term, but require a huge effort from already 

overworked judges and staff and a major injection of resources. Moreover, they can provide 

no more than ‘band aid’solutions to what is an inherent structural problem. 

The difficulties have been exacerbated by delays in the replacement of retiring judges and 

a failure by the Government to implement the Court’s proposal that part-time judges be 

appointed to cope with backlogs and periods of judicial illness and long leave. In the major 

registries an increasing volume of interim matters requiring determination can only be met 

by judges sitting in discrete duty lists, thereby compounding delays in the listing of final 

hearings. The Court has recently proposed that senior registrars be granted additional delegated 

powers in order to allow them to hear interim parenting applications. 

22

The Family Court of Australia - annual report 1997-98 

Management of child abuse cases 

Related to the issue of delays, I have been concerned for some time that cases involving child 

abuse allegations are taking too long to be dealt with, both because of their inherent difficulty 

and because the lists in several registries are growing ever longer. My concerns grew 

when they were mirrored in the research findings of a Monash University study into the 

management of child abuse allegations in the Family Court. As a result, the Melbourne 

Registry, in cooperation with the Federal Government, Victoria Legal Aid and the 

Department of Human Services, is piloting a project (the ‘Magellan Project’) which involves 

special case management of 100 cases which are identified as involving allegations of sexual 

and/or serious physical abuse. The exercise is being evaluated by Professor Thea Brown 

and her team from Monash University. My thanks go to Justice Linda Dessau who has personally 

oversighted the project from its inception and who is acting as the designated judge. 

Information technology 

Akey component of the Court’s Corporate Information Technology Plan (CITP) is the 

development of the new computerised case management system: the Blackstone replacement. 

The ‘user requirements’which will constitute a significant component of the Request 

for Tender material are expected to be finalised in September 1998. Two other developments 

of note during the year are the Defended Hearing Statistics and the Judicial 

Benchbook. The Defended Hearing Statistics System was developed late in the year to 

enable data capture from the start of 1998-99. The Judicial Benchbook, which is currently 

under development, will replace the paper folder used by judicial officers in the courtroom. 

The Court’s Wide Area Network has been extended to both Hobart and Townsville, bringing 

staff in both sites onto the Court’s electronic mail system. Additional cabling is planned 

for Newcastle (new network), Dandenong, Sydney and Brisbane. 

The implementation o f Windows95 is to begin in July 1998 and will deliver a standard desktop 

to sta ff while providing the infrastructure for the introduction of many smaller systems. 

Programming has begun on the Court’s core systems (Blackstone and CRIS) to ensure Year 

2000 compliance . This is expected to be completed, including testing, by December 1998. 

Annual judges conference 

Asuccessful judges conference was held in Wollongong in New South Wales in August. A 

paper was delivered by the Hon AM Gleeson AC, then the Chief Justice of New South 

Wales. Other papers focussed on trial management, judgments and family law initiatives 

in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom. For the latter papers the Court was fortunate 

to have as attendees Judge Don Inglis from the Family Court of New Zealand and Mr 

Ian Burns, Director General Policy, Lord Chancellor’s Department, United Kingdom. The 

program also included a lecture and workshop on unrepresented litigants conducted by Ms 

Judith Ryan and several colleagues from Legal Aid New South Wales, Ms Rosemary 

Hunter of Melbourne University and Ms Michelle Howard, Deputy Registrar, Brisbane. 

Information mornings fo rpoliticians 

Throughout the year the Court ran a series of information mornings in Brisbane, Canberra, 

Sydney, Melbourne, Parramatta and Dubbo. These were most successful in achieving their 

23


objectives, which were to inform Federal and State politicians and their staff about the 

Court’s operations and jurisdiction and thus assist them in responding to the enquiries of 

their constituents. The meetings are designed to explain the Court’s primary dispute resolution 

processes and case management procedures by way of information sessions and 

observation of counselling and mediation sessions and defended hearings. They have 

proved to be popular and well attended and will be continued in subsequent years. 

I welcome the opportunity for the Court to explain the variety of its services and to answer 

any questions that politicians and those working in their electoral offices may have. 

Politicians of all persuasions are often called upon to comment on a variety of committee 

and other reports on family law issues. Their responses may be influential but they sometimes 

reflect confusion about the respective legal responsibilities of the State and Federal 

governments and ignorance about the Family Court’s powers and services and the complexity 

of the jurisdiction. 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues 

The report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Awareness Committee elsewhere 

(see Part three) contains more detail of the initiatives the Court has developed for the benefit 

of its indigenous customers. 

The Court’s equal opportunity initiatives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 

were recognised during the year when it won the open category award for its indigenous 

employment strategy. The awards formally recognise Australian Public Service agencies 

that have achieved good practice in equal employment opportunity. (See also ‘Workplace 

diversity and equal opportunity’.) 

The Court’s awards submission focussed on the range of access to justice initiatives which 

it had introduced, largely through the work of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

Awareness Committee chaired by Justice Colleen Moore. These include a video, ‘Family 

Court of Australia Aboriginal Services’, and the provision of information about the Court’s 

counselling services by way of brochures in Aboriginal languages and a Phantom Comic. 

In a further move, the Court has also formulated a Recruitment and Career Development 

program to help increase the employment rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 

to 2% by 2000. 

Justice Moore has shown a great commitment to the work of the ATSI committee. Her 

energy and enthusiasm has been matched by that of the committee and I am grateful to 

them all. 

The Court and ethnic communities 

In its continuing endeavour to make its services more accessible to customers from diverse 

cultural backgrounds, the Court has approved the establishment of two half-time Ethnic 

Liaison Officer positions in Melbourne. It is anticipated that these position will be advertised 

early in the new financial year. The liaison officers will work with the Vietnamese and 

Chinese communities to establish a process to ensure services of the Family Court are provided 

in a way that respects their cultural needs and are of relevance and benefit to families. 

In another significant move, work has also begun on a series of audiotapes in 

Vietnamese, Cantonese, Mandarin and Arabic to provide information about the Court’s 

24


services, family separation and children’s issues in a culturally appropriate and sensitive 

way. This follows the success of the 1995 pilot project which produced a similar audiotape 

for the Turkish community. The report of the Advisory Committee on Ethnic Issues (see 

Part three) contains more detail on these initiatives and the Court’s continuing liaison with 

ethnic community groups. 

Awareness about special medical procedures for children 

The Court continues to be called upon to determine a remarkably small number of matters 

in which authorisation is sought for the performance of a major medical procedure such as 

is involved in the sterilisation of a young person. This may be because such a procedure is 

correctly considered to be a step of last resort and alternative methods have been relied on. 

Alternatively, it may indicate that these procedures are being performed without the necessary 

authorisation, despite the High Court’s clear decision in Marion’s Case. 

To help improve awareness on the issue, the Court, in conjunction with the Office of the 

Public Advocate and Victoria Legal Aid and supported by the Department of Human 

Services, launched the book ‘A Question of Right Treatment – The Family Court and 

Special Medical Procedures for Children’at a seminar on medical procedures in Victoria 

in March. The book is an introductory guide for use in Victoria and follows the publication 

of a similar guide for use in Queensland published in December 1996. The books use plain 

language to explain what types of procedures need authorisation, the help available from 

relevant agencies and the steps along the legal pathway towards court authorisation. 

Standard affidavit for interim parenting orders 

In May the Court introduced a style of standard affidavit for use when interim residence, 

contact or specific issues are sought. The pro forma affidavit, developed following the 

oversighting of a pilot by Judicial Registrar Diane Smith in Brisbane, was adopted after 

national consultation. It came into operation as Practice Direction 1 of 1998. 

Relationships with external bodies 

The Court has continued to consult formally with representatives of the Attorney-General’s 

Department, the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, legal aid bodies and 

representatives of peak bodies Centacare, Relationships Australia and Family Services 

Australia. Such consultation occurs primarily through the mechanism of the Chief Justice’s 

Consultative Council (CJCC), but also takes place via conferences and other meetings. 

Additional liaison occurs from time to time as necessary on particular issues. In addition, 

the General Advisor Dispute Resolution, Dr Carole Brown, and Senior Legal Advisor to 

the Chief Justice, Ms Margaret Harrison, attend Family Law Council meetings as observers 

and contribute to the work of the Council through their membership of several committees. 

Australian Institute of Judicial Administration 

I would like to pay a particular tribute to Justice Neil Buckley who, by the time of publication, 

will have completed his term as President of the Australian Institute of Judicial 

Administration. He is the first judge of this Court to have occupied that position and has 

been responsible for a wide range of innovations and improvements to the work of that 

25


body. Of the many achievements of his presidency, the 2nd Asia Pacific Courts Conference 

held in Sydney last year was his crowning success. 

Deputy Chief Justice Barblett 

Although he retired after the conclusion of the period in review, I wish to record my gratitude 

here to the Deputy Chief Justice, Alan Barblett, for the tremendous service to me over 

the past 10 years, and to the Court generally since its inception. Justice Barblett’s connection 

to the Family Courts of Australia and of Western Australia dates to the period before their 

establishment; indeed it began in the early 1970’s when the concept of a specialist Family 

Court was first hotly debated. His knowledge therefore goes beyond the technical aspects of 

the legislation and the Court and incorporates its history, and indeed raison d’etre. 

As Deputy Chief Justice Alan Barblett has been a source of infinite wisdom and common 

sense. His widespread knowledge of family law matters was always matched by great 

attention to detail and he had the ability to reach to the heart of an issue. He was tireless in 

his attention to his workload and managed the numerous trips across the Nullarbor with 

seeming ease and constant good humour. The Court is fortunate that he has agreed to 

restrict his new-found freedom in retirement by continuing to chair the Trial Management 

Committee and to assist with a number of other projects. 

General acknowledgments 

I wish to record my sincere thanks to the judges and staff for their tireless commitment to 

the Court and its operations. It is not unusual to hear public statements about the importance 

and difficulty of the Family Court’s jurisdiction, but rarely is this matched with a true 

recognition of the importance of ‘getting it right’ when it comes to the management and 

resolution of family-related disputes. 

The greatest responsibility for the Court’s operations of necessity falls upon my shoulders 

and those of the Deputy Chief Justice, the Judge Administrators and the members of the 

senior management team. I would like to acknowledge and thank Deputy Chief Justice 

Barblett, Justices Frederico and Buckley, Mr Len Glare, Ms Angela Filippello, Dr Carole 

Brown, Mr Bruce Frankland, Mr Ron Eather and Mr Andrew Phelan for their hard work, 

their loyalty and their support throughout what has been a difficult and demanding year. 

There are also many staff whose contributions to the Court are less visible and yet without 

whom the services we provide could not be maintained. These staff are in capital cities and 

provincial centres and many have been with us for a considerable period of time. 

The emotional toll taken by family breakdown, the relentless nature of the work and the 

impacts our decisions have on women, men and children provide an environment of constant 

pressure on everyone associated with the Court. The impacts these have on all 

involved have become more apparent recently with the involvement of a large proportion 

of judges and staff in the strategic planning exercises upon which the Court has embarked. 

I hope that these will help the Court in facing the additional challenges which the next millennium 

will obviously provide. 

Finally, I would like to record my thanks to my personal staff for their continued support 

throughout the year, as always. Fortunately they bring to the many and varied tasks I delegate 

to them a combination of considerable skill, enthusiasm and good humour, all of 

which I greatly appreciate. 

26

Part three – workings of the court 

Cases seen by the Counselling Service 

Mediation 

Program Performance 

Appeal division 

Significant judgments 

Social justice, access and equity 

Internal and external scrutiny 

Freedom of information 

Privacy 

Workplace diversity and equal employment opportunity 

Occupational health and safety 

Industrial democracy 

27


Cases seen by the Counselling Service 

The Family Court Counselling Service works predominantly to help separated parents to 

reach agreement about the future arrangements for their children without litigation. This 

may involve reaching an agreement which they may then seek to have made into consent 

orders by the Court. Often it requires helping them to overcome emotional blocks, make 

significant adjustments to their changed circumstances and educate them about the needs 

of their children as preliminary steps in resolving the dispute. Agreement rates vary 

depending on when the parents approach the Counselling Service. Where they seek conciliation 

counselling before filing an application 78% reach agreement on at least one of 

the substantive issues in dispute; where ordered by the Court to attend, 67% and 66% reach 

full or partial agreement depending on whether they attend before their first day in Court 

or after this date respectively. 

In 1997-98 the Counselling Service dealt with 25,297 cases in person and 14,086 telephone 

cases, crisis calls and intake assessments. At the same time, 59,678 interviews in 

person were held and 34,116 telephone interviews, crisis calls and intake interviews were 

held. 

Of all the cases seen in person, 93% were seen in the Counselling Service’s conciliation 

counselling program. The remaining 7% of cases were those where a Family Report was 

prepared. These reports were ordered in disputed cases involving children and, of those 

cases, some reached agreement during and after the preparation of the report and did not 

proceed to a contested hearing. In report cases, the family has usually had previous contact 

with the counselling section for conciliation counselling. As the discussions that have taken 

place in conciliation counselling are not admissible as evidence in Court, the report is 

always prepared by a different Court counsellor. 

As many as 40% of all cases seen came on a voluntary basis to use the Court’s primary dispute 

resolution service. This is consistent with the Court’s encouragement that people 

resolve their disputes preferably without recourse to litigation. In all, 20% were referred to 

counselling by the Court after an application for a parenting order in relation to residence, 

contact or specific issues was filed but prior to the matter first coming before the Court; 

and a further 33% were referred by the Court after the first directions hearing. 

The year saw the introduction of fees on 1 July 1997 and the later disallowance of this by 

the Senate on 24 November resulting in fees being collected over a five-month period. 

This, combined with the announcement by the Federal Attorney-General that he was 

reviewing the delivery of dispute resolution services in family law, saw a reduction in the 

number of voluntary cases seen in person by the Counselling Service over the past year 

compared to the previous year (12,191 in 1996-97 compared to 10,187 in 1997-98). In contrast, 

telephone services, which did not attract a fee, were not affected and were slightly up 

on last year (13,809 compared with 14,086). 

Overall there was an improvement in the number of registries that were able to meet the 

time standard for court-ordered conciliation counselling as indicated in the ‘Performance 

Indicators’section elsewhere in Part three of this Report. While some registries were not 

28


able to meet time standards throughout some months of the year, it should be noted that 

urgent requests for appointments were able to be met within the time standard in all registries. 

Single interviews in violence cases 

In keeping with the Court’s Family Violence Policy, single interviews are offered when 

there has been a history of violence in the relationship and one of the parties indicates they 

are worried about their physical safety and are afraid of attending a joint interview with the 

other party. This option is offered in all appointment letters, information sessions and 

through notices in waiting rooms. There were 8632 cases where separate interviews were 

requested and held because of family violence. 

Information sessions 

These sessions are held regularly in all registries to inform customers of what to expect 

when they come to Court and to prepare them for any conciliation counselling (children’s 

matters) or conciliation conferences they may attend with registrars (financial matters). In 

smaller registries they are offered on an ‘as needed’basis. These sessions are also provided 

in some remote areas through the visiting counselling services. In 1997-98, 1085 hours 

were devoted to information sessions. 

Community liaison work 

In the spirit of s43 of the Family Law Act 1975, the Counselling Service has, from the 

beginning, sought to be proactive in reducing undue personal and interpersonal conflicts 

arising from marital breakdown and to assist other helpers to cope with problems arising 

from their client’s marriage breakdown to help avoid the demands placed on services when 

conflicts reach crisis point. The Counselling Service’s community work role is a major 

expression of this aim. Over 3313 hours were spent on this work – down 15% on 1997-98. 

The types of people contacted included: students, practitioners in allied professions 

(including, among others, doctors, nurses, police, welfare workers, teachers, interpreters, 

lawyers), members of community organisations (including refuges and shelters, citizen 

advice bureaux, self-help groups, migrant resource centres, government departments, marriage 

counselling organisations and community health centres) as well as the general public 

through public meetings and the media. 

Customersurveys 

During 1997-98 the Family Court published a preliminary report on ‘Perceptions of the 

Clients of the Family Court of Australia on the Location of Primary Dispute Resolution 

Services’ in its response to the Attorney-General’s Department Discussion Paper on 

‘Primary Dispute Resolution Services in Family Law’. This preliminary report was based 

on a survey of 553 conciliation counselling and mediation customers who attended the 

Court Counselling Service and Mediation Service and addressed some of the issues raised 

in the Attorney-General’s Discussion Paper concerning the accessibility of services, preference 

as to the location of services, the likelihood of court-based services increasing litigation, 

perceived benefits associated with proximity to the court and legal system, confidence 

in the Court’s services and issues of safety and cost. 

29


The results of the survey illustrated that there was no empirical support for removing 

Primary Dispute Resolution services from the Family Court. To the contrary there was a 

high degree of confidence in Court-based services. The majority felt more confident having 

their matter dealt with through a Court-related service (64%) and while they saw these 

services as part of the legal system this was a positive perception rather than a negative 

one. The majority of customers (61%) saw the Family Court’s services as more accessible 

than other services and when asked if similar services to those provided by the Court were 

to be located in the community only 12% said they would choose those community services. 

The majority had no opinion about the issue (58%) or said they would still choose the 

Family Court (30%). 

Figure 3.1: Counselling cases opened 1997-98 (Number = 25,297) 

Reports Allocated to 

Welfare Officers (0.64%) 

Reports (6.20%) 

Access Enforcement (1.86%) 

Joint Conferences (0.95%) 

Post-FDH Counselling 

(29.66%) 

Voluntary Counselling 

- In Person (40.28%) 

Pre-FDH Counselling (20.41%) 

Figure 3.2: Counselling interviews held 1997-98 (Number = 59,678) 

Reports (20.71%) 

Access Enforcement (1.64%) 

Joint Conferences (1.15%) 

Voluntary Counselling 

– in person (30.62%) 

Post-FDH Counselling (30.88%) 

Pre-FDH Counselling (15%) 

30


Mediation 

Mediation continues to be offered from the Court’s Brisbane, Melbourne, Parramatta and 

Sydney registries. As seen with the Counselling Service, the Mediation Service was also 

affected by the introduction of fees on 1 July 1997. The five months in which fees were 

collected before being disallowd by the Senate, together with the Federal Attorney- 

General’s announcement of a review of the delivery of dispute resolution services in family 

law, saw a reduction in the number of cases opened by mediators over the past year 

compared to the previous year (406 compared to 556). 

The year has consequentially been spent attempting to consolidate the Mediation Service 

and to increase referrals. Mediation is now fully integrated into the Court’s primary dispute 

resolution services. Mediators conduct mediation sessions as well as conciliation conferences 

in their core discipline. Resources were at times reallocated from mediation due to 

the demand in the counselling and legal sections. 

One of the Court’s indigenous family consultants was appointed as a Court mediator by the 

Chief Justice this year. Otherwise, no other appointments were made by the Court in 1997- 

98 and the service was provided by existing staff. 

The Family Law Regulations require a community or private mediator to undertake at least 

12 hours education and training in family and child mediation each calendar year if they 

want to retain their accreditation. They must not undertake mediation if longer than a year 

has elapsed since last undertaking training. The Court has chosen to replicate the standards 

set in the Regulations for community or private mediators in its training program. In the 

same way, the Court has aimed to provide Court mediators with 12 hours education or 

training to maintain their skills. 

During 1997-1998, 170 mediation information sessions were conducted with 984 people 

attending. Mediators conducted 818 mediation sessions averaging two sessions for each 

matter. Of the matters closed, 51% of disputes related to both children and financial issues. 

Overall, 38% related to financial issues only and just under 10% dealt with children’s 

issues only. Of all matters seen, 60% were fully settled and a further 10% settled in at least 

one substantive issue. 

31


Program performance 

Performance standards in respect of the timely delivery of services provided by the Court 

are assessed against established standards set out in the Case Management Guidelines and 

the time periods prescribed by the Family Law Rules. The Case Management Guidelines 

prescribe time standards between each significant step in the progress of a matter along the 

case management pathway and the Rules prescribe time standards as to procedural matters 

such as service of documents and the allocation of hearing dates. The standards are intended 

to establish targets in relation to the timeliness of the provision of services but are also 

intended to take into consideration the individual needs of a matter. 

Performance against individual standards 1997-98 

This Report covers the second full year in which Simplified Procedures and the consequential 

amendments to time standards applied. This should be kept in mind when considering 

the extent to which performance standards were met this year in comparison to years 

prior to the introduction of simplified procedures. Performance against individual standards 

reflect the increasing workload in the Court and ensuing resource issues. 

Performance indicators relating to time from filing to hearing indicate that the demand for 

hearing time is greater than the Court’s capacity to provide hearing dates with the current 

level of judicial resources. 

Table 3.1: Performance indicators at 30 June 1998 

NORTHERN SOUTHERN FCWA 

BR DN NC PA SY TV AD CA DG HB ML 

Q.1 Dissolutions can be heard within 

10 weeks? no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no 

Mean waiting time (Weeks): 11.7 10.7 9.5 7.3 5.5 6.0 10.0 6.8 8.5 6.7 7.7 10.8 

Q.2 Form 7 Ancillary Applications listed 

within 6 weeks? no no no no no yes no yes no no no yes 


Q.3 Form 8 Interim or Procedural 

Applications listed within 4 weeks? no no yes yes yes yes yes yes no no yes no 


Q.4 Conciliation Conference in Standard 

Track Financial Matters available within 

12 weeks from Directions Hearing? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes 


Q.5 Conciliation Counselling available within 

3 weeks from Directions Hearing? no no no yes yes yes no no no yes no yes 


Q.6 Direct Track Matters heard within 

6 mths (26 weeks)? no no no no no no no yes no yes no yes 

Average (mean) time from filing (Weeks): 32.3 36.0 32.3 44.0 55.0 26.3 26.7 13.0 44.3 21.0 54.3 13.3 

Q.7 Standard Track Child Matters heard 

within 10 months (43 weeks)? no no no no no no no no no no no no 

Average (mean) time from filing (Weeks): 86.7 52.0 88.7 70.3 47.7 56.5 93.3 76.0 85.0 46.1 92.0 49.3 

Q.8 Standard Track Financial Matters heard 

within 11 months (48 weeks)? no no no no no no no no yes no no no 

Average (mean) time from filing (Weeks): 87.0 52.0 103.7 69.3 63.0 51.5 98.7 74.7 30.0 60.7 99.7 50.0 

Q.9 Complex Track Matters heard within 

12 months (52 weeks)? no n.a. n.a. yes no n.a. no n.a. n.a. n.a. no yes 

Average (mean) time from filing (Weeks): 75.0 50.0 79.0 139.0 104.0 49.3 

32


1 Dissolution (divorce) hearings 

Standard: Dissolutions of marriage can be heard within 10 weeks of filing 

Outcome: This standard was met by all but two of the 11 filing registries in the last quarter 

of the financial year. Darwin Registry was just outside the performance standard as at 

the end of the financial year and this is expected to improve following the appointment of 

a Darwin-based SES Registrar. Six registries met the standard every month during the year, 

two met the standard in 10 months, one in nine months and two in eight months. While this 

represents a slight drop in performance over the previous year’s figures in terms of the 

number of months in which the standard was met, registries were rarely over one-and-ahalf 

weeks beyond the standard. 

2 First directions hearings 

Standard: Form 7 ancillary applications listed within six weeks 

Outcome: Two of the registries were able to meet the time standard in the last quarter of 

the financial year compared with only one registry at the end of last financial year. 

Generally registries found this standard difficult to meet, with only one registry meeting 

the standard for 10 months and one for eight months. Two registries did not meet the standard 

in any month, three registries met the standard in three months, two in four months, 

one in five months and one in six months. However, most registries were able to reduce the 

number of weeks they were over the standard or meet the standard more often in the second 

half of the financial year. 

3 Form 8 applications 

Standard: Form 8 interim or procedural applications listed within four weeks 

Outcome: Seven registries were able to meet this time standard in the last quarter of the 

year. Although no registry was able to meet the time standard for every month, in most registries 

the delay was only slightly beyond standards. Brisbane Registry did not meet the 

time standard in any month but was able to reduce the average waiting time by almost a 

week. However, the extent of the delay as at the end of the final quarter remains a concern. 

Darwin met the time standard in only two months, four other registries met the standard 

for 5 months of the year, two for eight months, two for nine months and one for 10 months. 

4 Registrars conferences 

Standard: Conciliation conference in standard track financial matters available 

within 12 weeks from directions hearing 

Outcome: Six of the registries were able to meet this time standard for every month and 

one registry met the time standard in all the months in which a conciliation conference was 

required. All but two registries increased or equalled the number of months for which this 

time standard was met compared to the previous year. By the last quarter of the year all 

registries except one were meeting the standard. 

5 Conciliation counselling 

Standard: Conciliation counselling available within three weeks from 

first directions hearing 

Outcome:This standard was met by four of the 11 registries in the last quarter of the financial 

year; Sydney and Hobart registries were able to meet the standard for the 12 months 

33


of the year with a further three registries meeting the standard for 11 months of the year. 

Three other registries (Parramatta, Darwin and Townsville) met the standard for nine, 

seven and five months respectively. Overall, there has been an improvement on last years 

figures. It should be noted, however, that urgent requests for appointments were able to be 

met within the time standard in all registries. 

6 Direct track matters 

Standard: Direct track matters heard within six months 

Outcome: This time standard was met by only one registry (Canberra) for the 12 months 

of the financial year. Four other registries increased the number of months for which this 

standard was met compared with the previous year. However, four registries were unable 

to meet the standard in any month. 

7 Standard track child matters 

Standard: Standard track child matters heard within 10 months 

Outcome: No registry was able to meet this time standard in the last quarter of the financial 

year. However, Hobart met the standard in four months in the financial year and 

Sydney met the standard in three months and was outside by no more than two months for 

most of the rest of the year. Seven registries were unable to meet this time standard in any 

month while the other two registries met it for one month. These figures reflect the demand 

on judicial hearing time. 

8 Standard track financial matters 

Standard: Standard track financial matters heard within 11 months 

Outcome:One registry managed to meet this time standard in the last quarter of the financial 

year. Only three registries managed to meet the standard in any month. Most registries 

were considerably outside the standard for the duration of the year. As with other standards 

measuring delays from filing to hearing, these figures indicate there is insufficient judicial 

resources to meet demand. 

9 Complex track matters 

Standard: Complex track matters heard within 12 months 

Outcome: These matters are judge-managed and relatively few in number. One complex 

case with particular needs requiring special management may take some time to complete, 

resulting in the mean delay being high. Parramatta Registry met the standard in four out of 

the five months in which it dealt with complex track matters and only exceeded the standard 

by six weeks in the remaining month. This registry was the only registry within time 

standards as at the end of the financial year. Sydney met the standard for three months and 

Melbourne for one month during the year. Neither Brisbane nor Adelaide could meet the 

standard in any of the months in which complex matters were dealt with. 

34


Figure 3.3a: Extent to which performance standards were met 1989-90 to 1995-96* 

*Note – Due to the implementation of Simplified Procedures in 1996, the Court’s performance standards were 

revised. Table 3.3b contains the revised indicators of 1996-97 and 1997-98. 

Figure 3.3b: Extent to which performance standards were met 1997-98 

100 

93.2 

88.6 

85.6 

80 

79.5 

Performance Standard Met: Percentage 

60 

40 

20 

43.9 

34.8 

59.1 

50 

57.6 59.5 18.9 

28.6 

9.1 

6.9 

16.8 

96/97 

97/98 

4 

13 

14 

0 

Divorces Ancilliary Interim & Conciliation Conciliation Direct 

Procedural Conf. Couns. Track 

Std Track- 

Child 

Std Track- 

Financial 

Complex 

Track 

35


Figure 3.4: Birth, marriage and divorce rates 1931-97 

Figure 3.5: Major indicators 1989-90 to 1997-98 – files opened and applications 

36


Figure 3.6: Orders sought 1989-90 to 1997-98 

Figure 3.7: Orders sought 1997-98 (Number = 106,460) 

Other 23.5% 

Residence/Specific Issues 

33.6% 

Injunctions 6.8% 

Child maintenance 

1.4% 

Spouse maintenance 

2.7% 

Property 11.6% 

Contact 20.4% 

37


Appeal division 

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia is constituted by three or more judges of 

the Court, the majority of whom are required to be members of the Appeal Division 

(Family Law Act sections 4 and 21A). As a consequence of the Family Law (Amendment) 

Act 1983 and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of 

Powers) Act 1988, the Appeal Division of the Court is constituted by eight judges. They 

are the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice and such other judges (not exceeding six) 

as are assigned to that Division. 

At 30 June 1998, the judges assigned to the Appeal Division were: 

Justice Ellis 

Justice Fogarty AM 

Justice Baker 

Justice Lindenmayer 

Justice Finn 

Justice Kay 

On average, each of the appeal judges sat on appeals for approximately 12 weeks during 

the year. When they are not sitting on appeals, appeal judges are available to sit at first 

instance. 

Appeals 

The right of appeal and the powers of the Full Court on appeal are set out in Part X of the 

Family Law Act. An appeal lies to the Full Court from a decree of the Family Court, constituted 

otherwise than as a Full Court, exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Actor 

under any other law except proceedings transferred from the Federal Court to the Family 

Court under the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of 

Powers) Act 1988. Those appeals are heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of 

Australia. 

An appeal also lies to the Full Court of the Family Court from a decree of the Family Court 

of a State (that is, the Family Court of Western Australia) or the Supreme Court of a State 

or a Territory constituted by a single judge exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law 

Act or in proceedings continued in accordance with s9 of that Act. 

Under s94(1)(AA) an appeal lies to the Full Court from the decision of a judge exercising 

jurisdiction under the Family Law Act rejecting an application that he or she should disqualify 

himself or herself from further hearing the matter. That provision was enacted in 

amendments to the Family Law Act in 1987. Prior to that time those matters usually went 

directly to the High Court by way of prerogative writ: as to which see the observations of 

the High Court in: R v Cook; Ex parte Twigg (1980) 147 CLR 1; Re Wilkie; Ex parte 

Johnston(1980) 55 ALJR 191 at 192; and Re Family Court of Australia; Ex parte Herbert 

(1992) FLC 92-280. 

Section 94(2) empowers the Full Court on the hearing of the appeal to make such decree 

or decision as in the opinion of the Court ought to have been made at first instance and by 

s93A(2) the Court may admit further evidence on the hearing of the appeal. 

38


Section 94Aenables a judge to state a case for determination by the Full Court. 

The Act and Rules (s94(1) and Order 32) provide that an appeal shall be instituted within 

one month after the decree appealed from or within such further time as the Court directs. 

Leave to appeal 

As a result of amendments made to the Family Law Act by the Law and Justice Legislation 

Amendment Act 1990, s94AAwas enacted and it provides that an appeal does not lie to the 

Full Court from a ‘prescribed decree’except by leave of the Full Court. 

A‘prescribed decree’is defined to mean an interlocutory decree other than a decree in relation 

to a ‘child welfare matter’. A‘child welfare matter’is also defined. 

That amendment came into operation in January 1991. In the year 1997-98 there were 35 

such applications. The legislation also provides that the Court may by Rules of Court make 

provision enabling applications for leave to appeal to be dealt with ‘without an oral hearing’. 

Rules of Court have been made to that effect: see Order 32Aof the Family Law Rules, 

and many of these applications were dealt with by this procedure. 

Both the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Child Support 

(Assessment) Act 1989 provide that appeals to the Full Court from the decisions of a judge 

of the Family Court under such legislation shall only be by leave of the Full Court. During 

the year there were 19 such applications for leave. 

Conciliation in appeals 

The Family Law Rules enable confidential conferences under Order 24 to be held in 

appeals. This is in furtherance of the policy of the Court to provide facilities to enable parties 

to negotiate and reach agreement on issues in dispute between them at any stage of the 

litigation. 

The parties to an appeal are informed that this service is available to them. If the parties 

agree a confidential conference will be arranged, but the Court does not compel the holding 

of such a conference in the absence of agreement. Conferences can be conducted by an 

appeal judge. That judge does not sit on any later hearing of that appeal. Very few conferences 

were sought during this year. 

Full Court sittings 

During 1997-98 the Full Court sat for 30 weeks (or part weeks) as follows: 

Sydney 13 

Melbourne 5 

Brisbane 5 

Adelaide 2 

Perth 2 

Hobart 2 

Darwin 1 

Appeals may also be heard by way of video-link from time to time. 

The policy of the Court is to ensure that an appeal is heard no later than six months from 

the time the notice of appeal is filed. Increases in numbers of appeals this year and financial 

restraints have made it more difficult to adhere to that policy in recent years. 

39


Appeals in administration 

Appeals are administered by an appeal registrar in three areas, namely: the Northern area 

which covers Queensland, Northern Territory and Northern New South Wales: Eastern, 

which covers the balance of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory; and 

Southern, which covers Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. There is also a particular 

registrar to locally administer appeals in each major registry of the Court. Western 

Australia is separately administered by a registrar of that Court. The appeal registrars during 

this year were Ms Susan Gardiner (Northern), Ms Barbara Guthrie (Eastern) and Ms 

Vala Marino (Southern). 

General trends in appeals during this year 

The statistical information set out later in this section indicates there has been a substantial 

increase in the number of appeals over the past few years compared with previous years. 

The total for this year (302) is the second highest annual total since the Court commenced 

in 1976, being exceeded only in 1980 when there were 315 appeals. In addition, there were 

a total of 54 applications for leave to appeal, which is a greater figure than in any previous 

year, and some of those have led to the filing of appeals which are included in the above 

total and some of which would not have because leave to appeal was refused but which 

required an oral or written hearing. 

During the year the Court heard 180 appeals of which 77 (42%) were allowed and 103 

(57%) were dismissed. In addition, 24 appeals were abandoned and 97 were withdrawn. 

The total number of appeals disposed of during the 12 months was 301. At the end of June 

1998, 133 appeals were outstanding, being 21 reserved judgments and 112 awaiting hearing 

(some of which may ultimately be abandoned or withdrawn). 

During the 12-month period 45 applications for leave to appeal were dealt with and in 19 

of those leave to appeal was granted and in 26 the application was dismissed. In that 

period five such applications were abandoned and 33 were withdrawn, and judgment is 

reserved in two further applications. Of the 45 applications for leave to appeal heard by the 

Court, approximately 45% were successful. 

Other significant matters to be drawn from the statistics include: 

■ Property issues represented 31% 

■ Residence, contact and specific issues orders represented 40% of appeals 

■ The percentage of appellants who were male was approximately 56% and female 41% 

and the balance being corporations or third party appellants – in the previous year the 

male/female percentages were respectively 56.4% and 41.3% 

■ The number of appellants in person was approximately 36% and in applications for 

leave to appeal it was 37% – in the previous year in the percentages were 26% and 40% 

respectively 

Appeals to the High Court of Australia 

Section 95 of the Family Law Act provides that an appeal does not lie to the High Court 

from a decree of a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Actwhether original 

40


or appellate except by special leave of the High Court or upon a certificate of a Full Court 

of the Family Court that an important question of law or public interest is involved. 

During the year there were 16 applications for special leave to appeal filed in the High 

Court from judgments of the Family Court. Of these, two were discontinued, leave was 

refused in eight matters, leave was granted in one matter and judgment in that appeal is 

reserved, and five are still pending. 

Figure 3.8: Appeal trends 

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

180 

1989-90 212 

1990-91 177 

1991-92 171 

1992-93 169 

1993-94 243 

1994-95 243 

1995-96 246 

1996-97 281 

160 

1997-98 302 

89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 

96/97 97/98 

Figure 3.9: Issues raised in notices of appeal 1997-98 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Property (31.5%) 

Residence (16.2%) 

Contact (18.9%) 

Specific Issues (5.5%) 

Jurisdiction (1%) 

Hague Convention (0%) 

Injunction (3.1%) 

Spousal Maintenance (4.1%) 

Child Maintenance (1.4%) 

Child Support (1.7%) 

Costs (8.1%) 

Other (8.6%) 

41


Table 3.2: Summary of appellants 1997-98 

Summary of appellants Number Percentage 

Male 171 56.4 

Female 125 41.3 

Corporate/Other 5 1.7 

Joint 2 0.7 

Table 3.3: Appellants in person 1997-98 

Appellants in person Number Percentage 

Number of appellants in person 108 35.8 

Number of applications for leave in person 20 37.0 

Table 3.4: Full Court appeals and results 1 July 1997 – 30 June 1998 

Registry Filed Allowed Dismissed Abandoned Withdrawn Outstanding 

at 30/6/98* 

Eastern 

Sydney 58 19 24 1 19 20 

Parramatta 31 10 11 0 16 12 

Newcastle 14 1 4 0 6 9 

Canberra 14 5 5 0 5 9 

Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Eastern 117 35 44 1 46 50 

Southern 

Melbourne 45 13 13 12 6 23 

Dandenong 11 4 3 0 1 4 

Hobart 9 2 3 1 2 0 

Launceston 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Adelaide 18 4 4 1 6 11 


Southern 83 23 23 14 15 38 

Northern 

Brisbane 59 12 26 5 18 25 

Townsville 10 2 2 2 4 4 

Darwin 6 0 5 0 1 2 


Northern 75 14 33 7 23 31 

FCWA 27 5 3 2 13 14 

Total 302 77 103 24 97 133 

*Outstanding as at 30 June 1998 includes cases not heard and judgments reserved. 

42


Table 3.5: Full Court applications for leave to appeal 1997-98 

Registry Filed Allowed Dismissed Abandoned Withdrawn Outstanding 

at 30/6/98* 

Eastern 

Sydney 9 4 5 0 4 3 

Parramatta 2 1 0 0 1 0 

Newcastle 3 0 0 0 3 0 

Canberra 4 0 0 0 1 4 


Eastern 18 5 5 0 9 7 

Southern 

Melbourne 13 0 1 0 2 10 

Dandenong 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hobart 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Launceston 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Adelaide 6 1 0 0 5 4 


Southern 21 1 1 0 8 14 

Northern 

Brisbane 8 2 2 1 0 8 

Townsville 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Darwin 0 0 0 0 0 0 


Northern 8 2 2 1 0 8 

FCWA 7 2 2 0 3 2 

Total 54 10 10 1 20 31 

*Outstanding as at 30 June 1998 includes cases not heard and judgments reserved 

Table 3.6: Full Court applications forleave to appeal relating to child support 1997-98 

Number of applications for leave to appeal 

Child support 19 

Other 35 

Number 

Table 3.7: Other types of applications 1997-98 

Other types of applications 

Number 

Cases stated, 42AApplications not related to any appeal etc. 6 

Table 3.8: Collection of filing fee 1997-98 

Collection of filing fee Number Percentage 

Fee collected 159 52.5 

Legal Aid 8 2.6 

Fee waived or not payable 136 44.9 

43


Significant judgments 

Following are some of the more significant decisions of the High Court, the Family Court 

and the Adminsitrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to family law during 1997-98. 

Fresh evidence 

In VJ v CJ(1997) FLC 92 -772, the Full Court allowed an appeal by the wife against orders 

changing the residence of the two younger children of the marriage (aged six and eight) 

from the wife to the husband. The court granted the wife’s application to introduce fresh 

evidence and remitted the matter for rehearing. The parties’adopted teenage daughter had 

committed suicide during the marriage and the relationship between the wife and the parties’other 

adopted teenage daughter had subsequently broken down. The trial judge found 

the wife to be suffering from an anxiety state and unable to cope with teenage children. The 

Full Court allowed the wife to introduce evidence from a grief counsellor as to the manner 

in which the wife had coped appropriately with her daughter’s suicide. While the evidence 

the wife sought to introduce upon appeal might have been available at trial, the Full Court 

found that, if accepted, the evidence may lead to different conclusions being reached about 

the wife’s behaviour subsequent to her daughter’s death and better put into perspective the 

wife’s long-term parenting abilities. At issue was whether the rules relating to further evidence 

being introduced on appeal were subservient to the “paramountcy of the best interests 

of the child” principle which governs cases concerning children’s welfare. The Full 

Court concluded that the best interests of the children may not be served by allowing the 

residence order to stand and that this was a rare and exceptional case where the discretion 

to admit further evidence should be exercised. In March 1998, the husband obtained special 

leave to appeal to the High Court. Judgment has been reserved. 

Costs and s117C offers 

In Pennisi(1997) FLC 92-774, the Full Court allowed an appeal by the wife against orders 

requiring her to pay the husband’s costs of the trial. The Full Court held that an appellate 

court has a duty to reconsider a trial order when it disturbs a finding of fact material to the 

making of such an order. In this case, the trial judge had made the order for costs after having 

regard to the quantum of the difference between the amount ordered in property proceedings 

and the greater value of the husband’s s117C offers. The wife successfully 

appealed some aspects of the property orders, as a result of which her award was increased. 

The Full Court found its task was to determine the costs issue on the evidence before the 

trial judge at the time save for the finding of fact disturbed. The Full Court also found that 

the plain words of s117(2A)(f) do not limit a Court’s attention to offers which are greater 

than the amount awarded and that the closer that the offer is to the award when the offer is 

under the amount awarded by the Court, the more weight that should be given to this factor 

in considering the question of costs. 

Children’s happiness in a finely balanced residence dispute 

In K v Z (1997) FLC 92-783, the parties, who both resided in Hobart, had shared the care of 

the children for three years following separation. The wife subsequently moved to 

44


Launceston to complete her studies and sought an order for the children to reside with her. 

The trial judge found both parents capable of caring for the children but found the wife’s 

move to be motivated by self-interest and made orders that the children reside with the husband. 

The Full Court allowed the wife’s appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in taking 

the wife’s move into account as a negative aspect, as it was necessary if she was to complete 

her studies. The Full Court held that where a residence dispute is finely balanced, the happiness 

of the children in one household as compared to the other becomes a significant, almost 

determinant, factor in deciding where a child should live. As there was clear evidence that 

the children were suffering distress in the husband’s care which the husband had been unable 

to alleviate, the Full Court concluded that this was a case where the discretion of the trial 

judge could be substituted and orders were made for the children to reside with the wife. 

Contact – supervision required – unacceptable risk that father might harm children 

In Av A(1998) FLC 92-800, the wife had sustained horrific injuries as a result of an assault 

upon her in the former matrimonial home which appeared to be an attempt to kill her. The 

wife could not recall the assault but believed the husband was the perpetrator. There were 

a number of objective facts which supported the wife’s belief but by the time the husband’s 

application for unsupervised contact came before the trial judge, the police had not charged 

anyone with the offence. The trial judge held that it was not for the Family Court to investigate 

criminal activity, even where such activity may have bearing upon the issues the 

court is called upon to decide and made orders for the husband to have unsupervised contact 

after an initial period of supervised contact. On appeal, the Full Court held that the 

proper approach was to determine whether the evidence was such as to establish that there 

would be an unacceptable risk to the children if they were to have unsupervised contact 

with the husband. The Full Court concluded that there was such a risk and made orders that 

the husband have supervised contact. 

Adding new grounds to a notice of appeal 

In Bradley v Weber (1997) FLC 92-770, the Full Court held that amendments to a Notice 

of Appeal, even those that radically alter the nature of the appeal, can be made as of right, 

providing they are made within the time limits imposed by the Family Law Rules and 

proper notice is given of the proposed amendment. In this case, the wife’s original Notice 

of Appeal sought only to appeal orders dismissing her application for spousal maintenance. 

Her amended Notice of Appeal filed a week before the appeal was due to be heard sought 

to appeal against orders in relation to alteration of property interests in addition to the 

orders for spousal maintenance. As the wife had complied with the prescribed time limits 

and had given proper notice of the proposed amendment, the court found she was entitled 

to proceed with her amended Notice of Appeal. 

Specific issues orders and s112AD 

In Vlug v Poulos (1997) FLC 92-778, the husband sought to have the wife dealt with for 

breaching an order appointing the parties joint guardians of the children of the marriage 

after the wife allegedly christened the children without reference to the husband and 

changed the schooling arrangements for the elder child. The trial judge found that a joint 

guardianship order which became a specific issues order as a result of the introduction of 

45


the Family Law Reform Act 1996, could not be the subject of a contravention application 

under s112AD of the Family Law Act. On appeal, the Full Court held that a specific issues 

order for joint long-term responsibility is capable of being the subject of a contravention 

application under s112AD of the Family Law Act. The Court also discussed the procedure 

to be followed in hearing a s112AD application. 

Child support 

In Strauss (1998) FLC 92-797, the husband had sought a credit for payments made to the 

wife and to third parties before any child support liability had been registered. The Full 

Court upheld the finding by the trial judge that sections 71 and 71A of the Child Support 

(Registration and Collection) Act 1988apply only to payments made to a payee or to a third 

party in respect of a maintenance liability which is registered when the payments are made. 

In Rocca v Corelli (1998) FLC 92-794, an issue arose as to whether a child living in the 

household of a liable parent was a ‘relevant dependant child’where the liable parent was 

not the ‘sole or principal provider of ongoing daily care’but shared the care of the child 

with some other person. The trial judge held that the expression “the sole or principal 

provider of ongoing daily care” in the definition of “relevant dependant child” needs to be 

read as applying to “the sole or a principal provider of ongoing daily care” so as to give 

effect to the intention of Parliament, namely, that the exempted income amount of a liable 

parent be calculated having regard to other commitments that that liable parent has to support 

children other than those the subject of the application. The trial judge found that to 

not make allowance for the support provided by a liable parent to children living in his or 

her household where the care of the children was shared with some other person would be 

manifestly absurd. 

In Bertuch v Lynch (1998) 92-796, the trial judge discussed in detail the status of child support 

agreements which have not been accepted under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 

1989 and registered under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. 

Specific consideration was given by the trial judge to the enforceability and variability of 

an unregistered and unaccepted child support agreement. 

Surrogacy 

In Re Evelyn (1998) FLC 92-807, the trial judge made orders that a child born as a result of 

a surrogacy arrangement reside with the biological mother, her husband and their three children. 

The biological mother had been inseminated with sperm from the biological father and 

following the birth, the child had resided with the biological father, his wife and their adopted 

son for approximately a year. Central to the decision of the trial judge were his findings 

that the biological mother was better able to deal with the complex problems that would 

confront the child, that the biological mother would suffer extreme grief as a result of the 

loss of the child and that there were greater advantages to the child in growing up with her 

biological siblings as compared to her adopted brother. An application by the biological 

father to admit fresh evidence from an American psychologist who had practised in the area 

of surrogate parenting for 15 years was refused by the Full Court, the Court finding that 

with due diligence, the evidence would have been available at trial. While indicating that 

members of the Full Court may not have accepted the expert evidence as readily as the trial 

46


judge nor drawn the same conclusions from it, the Full Court found the trial judge had made 

no appealable error and affirmed the decision of the trial judge. In so doing, the Court 

stressed that nothing in the case raises a presumption in favour of a biological parent nor a 

presumption in favour of the biological mother where the child is female. 

In June 1998, the biological father and his wife filed an application seeking special leave 

to appeal to the High Court. In July 1998, a differently constituted Full Court of the Family 

Court heard an appeal by the biological father and his wife seeking the issue of a certificate 

pursuant to s95(b) of the Family Law Act permitting an appeal to the High Court and 

an order continuing the stay of the orders of the trial judge pending the determination of 

proceedings in the High Court. Judgment has been reserved. 

Preparation of Family Reports 

In Renshaw v Reschke (1997) FLC 92-777, the Full Court held that a court can only order 

the preparation of an expert’s report in proceedings involving children where such proceedings 

are pending. Accordingly, where an application for a parenting order is dismissed, 

as it was in this case, the Court could not make an order for an expert assessment. The Full 

Court also considered the validity of Order 23 Rule 5(5) of the Family Law Rules which 

prohibits the calling of a child as a witness without the leave of the Court. Although the 

Court found it unnecessary to determine the question in the present case, the Court indicated 

there was considerable force in the submissions that Order 23 Rule 5(5) is beyond 

the rule-making power of the Court. 

Section 79(5) adjournments 

In Grace (1998) FLC 92-792, the wife appealed the decision of the trial judge refusing to 

adjourn property proceedings until the husband’s interest in a family trust vested and/or 

until his mother died whereupon the husband would realise his 50% remainderman interest 

in the estate of his late father. The Full Court allowed an appeal by the wife. The Court 

held that the preconditions necessary to invoke the adjournment are that there is likely to 

be a change in financial circumstances, the likely change is a significant one, it is reasonable 

to adjourn the proceedings and an order made if that significant change occurs is more 

likely to do justice and equity between the parties than an immediate order. 

Freedom of information – counsellor’s notes 

In O’Sullivan v The Family Court of Australia(1997) FLC 92-769, a senior member of the 

Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that handwritten notes made by a Family Court 

counsellor containing the content of counselling sessions or of conversations a counsellor 

has had with members of a family engaged in Family Court proceedings involving children 

are not “documents relating to matters of an administrative nature” within s5 of the 

Freedom of Information Act 1982. 

Costs orders 

In Re JJT & Ors; Ex Parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) FLC 92-812, the trial judge made 

orders which included an order that Victoria Legal Aid provide a specified sum for the 

future costs of the child representative or facilitate the making available of the child rep- 

47


resentative’s services and provide for the payment of counsel’s fees in advance of such proceedings. 

The order was expressed to be made pursuant to s117 of the Family Law Act.On 

appeal to the High Court, it was held (per Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ; 

Kirby J dissenting) that as the subject matter of the order made by the trial judge was not 

costs, as required by s117, but the provision of legal aid, jurisdiction was not conferred by 

s117 to make the order. The High Court discussed the costs power and the capacity to make 

provision for costs in advance of proceedings. 

Section 79A(1)(a) “Miscarriage of justice” by reason of “any other circumstance” 

In Bigg v Suzi (1998) FLC 92-799, the husband sought to have consent property orders set 

aside. The husband alleged that he had agreed to the property settlement because he had 

been led to believe he would receive substantial benefits from the wife’s family. Such belief 

was mistaken and the husband submitted that this amounted to a “miscarriage of justice” by 

reason of “any other circumstance” as identified in s79A(1)(a) of the Family Law Act. The 

trial judge dismissed the husband’s application summarily. On appeal, the Full Court upheld 

the finding by the trial judge that a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of s79A(1)(a) 

must arise out of the judicial process and that the husband’s belief did not satisfy that 

requirement. The Full Court also discussed the source of the Court’s jurisdiction to dismiss 

an application summarily and the factors bearing upon the exercise of that jurisdiction. 

Requirements for a valid marriage ceremony 

In W v T (1998) FLC 92-808, the wife sought a decree of nullity of marriage on the basis 

that the parties had not been validly married. The celebrant who had conducted the marriage 

ceremony was not an authorised celebrant. An authorised celebrant had been present 

in the church throughout the ceremony, although the parties were unaware of his presence 

and the trial judge found that the marriage had therefore been “solemnised…in the presence 

of an authorised celebrant” as required by s41 of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). On 

appeal, the Full Court upheld the decision of the trial judge. The Full Court held that providing 

the authorised celebrant had consented to attend the ceremony for the purpose of 

ensuring its validity, mere physical presence, rather than any active participation, is sufficient 

for the purposes of the Marriage Act.The Full Court also discussed the requirements 

of a valid marriage, both at common law and under the current legislation. 

48


Social justice, access and equity 

Government’s charter of public service in a culturally diverse society 

The Court’s focus on improving customer services includes an acknowledgment that 

strategies to meet the needs of a culturally diverse society are vital in ensuring a fair and 

equitable distribution of services in a manner that is accessible to all Australians. To this 

end, initiatives this year have focused on community liaison in an effort to make Court 

services more relevant to families from diverse cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds. 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAwareness Committee 

■ The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Awareness Committee, chaired by Justice 

Colleen Moore, continues to focus on registry-based initiatives designed to establish a 

framework for ongoing consultations between Court staff and locally based indigenous 

communities. The aim of the consultations is to ensure Court practices and procedures 

help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to access the services they require. 

■ The future of the Alice Springs sub-registry and the role of the four Aboriginal Family 

Consultants employed in Darwin and Alice Springs was subject to review in June 1997. 

Asummary of the subsequent report, ‘Evaluation of the Alice Springs Counselling 

Service and the engagement of Aboriginal Family Consultants in Alice Springs and 

Darwin’was published in May 1998. The Evaluation assessed whether the Counselling 

Service in Alice Springs and the engagement of Family Consultants in both centres had 

been successful in meeting the aims and objectives of the Counselling Service, particularly 

in relation to the services provided to the indigenous community, in a culturally sensitive 

and appropriate way. It also considered appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, 

possibilities for further improvement, and cost-effectiveness.The Evaluation found there 

was almost universal support for the Counselling Service in Alice Springs, and in particular 

for the value of having Aboriginal Family Consultants. 

■ In Darwin there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of customers from 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. For voluntary counselling the proportion 

rose from 5% to 27% in the first year of operation. The Evaluation suggested that the 

engagement of the Family Consultants was the major reason for the change. 

■ The comments made in the Evaluation by clients, counselling staff and people from 

other agencies about the Family Consultants were overwhelmingly favourable. The 

consultants have greatly improved the quality of the service to Aboriginal customers in 

many ways and have been resoundingly successful in achieving the Court’s objectives. 

There is widespread support for the continuation and expansion of this initiative from 

within the Court, the customers themselves and those in outside agencies. 

■ In response to these comments the Court has expanded the Family Consultant project 

to staff two further positions in Far North Queensland, based in Cairns. 

■ Following the appointment of the indigenous family consultants for Queensland a judicial 

training workshop was held in Cooktown for those judges and judicial registrars 

who work in registries where there are likely to be indigenous customers. 

49


■ One consistent response received from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities 

in consultations with the Court is the need to increase the number of indigenous people 

employed throughout the Court. To this end the Court has developed an Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander Recruitment and Career Development Plan. 

Chief Justice’s Advisory Committee on Ethnic Issues 

The Committee, chaired by Justice Nahum Mushin, has been working of a number of initiatives 

throughout 1997-98, with two significant projects now under way: 

■ At the Committee’s instigation the Court has agreed to fund the production of audio 

tapes in Vietnamese, Cantonese, Mandarin and Arabic to provide information about the 

Court’s services, family separation and children’s issues in a culturally appropriate and 

sensitive way. This follows the pilot project which produced an audiotape for the 

Turkish community. It is anticipated that the project will be completed by mid-1999. 

■ The Court has also approved the establishment of and funding for two half-time Ethnic 

Liaison Officer positions to be based in Melbourne. These officers are to work with the 

Vietnamese and Chinese communities and the achievements of the pilot program will be 

evaluated at the end of 12 months. The responsibilities of these positions are primarily to 

establish a process to ensure services of the Family Court are provided to communities in 

a way that respects their cultural needs and are of relevance and benefit to families. 

The Committee has also continued its involvement in liaison activities with a range of 

ethnic communities throughout 1997-98. Examples of this include: 

■ Consulting with representatives of the Philippino community 

■ Guest attendance at the Committee’s March meeting by Mr Stephan Romaniw, Chair of 

the Victorian Multicultural Commission, together with Commissioner Due-Dung Tran. 

They outlined the Commission’s work and indicated support for the court’s committee. 

■ Organising an information session for representatives of the Islamic Arabic community 

led by Sheik Imam Fehmi at the Melbourne Registry. 

■ Addressing a meeting of the Vietnamese Buddhist community to speak on family 

separation and court process issues. 

■ Guest address by Professor Kee Poo Fong, Director of the Centre for Asia Pacific 

Studies at the Victoria University of Technology, at a meeting of judges and judicial registrars 

of the Melbourne and Dandenong registries on issues of culture and ethnicity in 

the Australian community. 

■ As part of the continuing cultural awareness program a member of the committee, Mr. 

B.D.Kamat spoke to a group of staff from the Melbourne Registry about the experience 

of migrants to Australia. 

■ Planning for the Ethnic Issues Conference to take place in Sydney in August 1998. 

Commonwealth Disability Strategy 

■ Work within the property section of the Court continues to ensure that new fit outs and 

lease negotiations provide suitable access and accommodation for staff and clients with 

disabilities. The Court has developed and is implementing a Disability Action Plan which 

includes strategies to meet the service and access needs of clients with disabilities. 

50


Publications program 

The Family Court continues its commitment to enhancing access to justice and in 1997-98 

the Court expanded its range of information resources to explain its procedures and services, 

with a particular focus on the needs of the increasing number of unrepresented litigants 

using the Court’s services. 

■ In June 1998 a new kit was made available to help unrepresented litigants prepare for a 

final hearing in the Family Court. This takes the Court’s catalogue of plain language doit-yourself 

kits to four, with it joining the Consent Orders kit, the Divorce Kit and 

Parenting Plan Kit. 

■ Two new brochures were developed for children attending counselling when a Family 

Report has been ordered. 

■ The Court, in conjunction with Victoria Legal Aid, the Office of the Public Advocate 

and with the support of the Department of Human Services, produced a book called ‘A 

Question of Right Treatment. The Family Court and Special Medial Procedures for 

Children – an introductory guide of use in Victoria’. The book is similar to that produced 

by the Court in December 1996 for use in Queensland. Both aim to increase 

awareness of the need for Family Court authorisation for special medical procedures on 

children and young adults. 

■ Changes to the Family Law Regulations in relations to fees, exemptions and waivers 

prompted the Court to review its related procedures and included the production of a set 

of new forms drafted in plain language for use in our registries to help simplify the 

process for applying for an exemption or waiver. An information sheet on fees and a 

guide on how to apply for a waiver based on financial hardship was also produced. 

■ Areview of the Court’s brochures undertaken in the past financial year, particularly of 

those materials provided to customers attending Information Sessions, saw work begin 

on a major new project to consolidate the information into one small pocket-sized book. 

The publication, to be called the Family Court Book, will also incorporate a wide range 

of additional procedural advice. It is expected to be available late 1998. 

■ The Court is preparing a second video on its counselling services for Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islanders following the appointment of two indigenous family consultants 

for Far North Queensland. Asimilar video was produced in 1996-97 for use in the 

Northern Territory. It is expected to be available early 1999. 

Forms on Disk 

At 30 June 1998, the Court’s Forms on Disk product was in release 3.1 which was made 

available in time for the launch of the new pro forma ‘Affidavit – interim residence, contact 

and specific issues’ introduced nationally under Practice Direction 1 of 1998 on 11 

May. Currently 48 forms are available as automated word-processing templates in five formats: 

Word 6 for Windows; Word 6.01 for Macintosh, Word 2 for Windows, WordPerfect 

5.1 for DOS and WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows. The disk sets are made available on a costrecovery 

basis. Release 3.1 is available at $160 from the Court’s publications unit on tel 

(03) 9642 4748. 

51


The Court’s catalogue* of general (Non-prescribed) information materials includes: 

■ Information Sessions – find out more about children and property – brochure 

■ Financial matters (conciliation counselling) – brochure 

■ Parental responsibility and parenting orders – brochure 

■ Appeal Procedure – advice to appellant in person – brochure 

■ Confidential Counselling in the Family Court – brochure 

■ Information about counselling for children – brochure for older children 

■ Why am I coming to see a counsellor – brochure for young children 

■ Questions & Answers: these frequently asked questions may help you – information 

sheet 

■ No longer partners but continuing as parents – information sheet 

■ Parent and child relationships after separation – information sheet 

■ Questions and Answers about Divorce for Children – a booklet for children involved 

in family breakdown 

■ Children and Separation; a guide for parents – a booklet to help parents understand 

children’s reactions to family breakdown and to help them minimise the trauma 

experienced by children. 

■ Divorce Kit – for when there are children 

■ Divorce Kit – for when there are no children 

■ Parenting Plan Kit 

■ Consent Orders Kit 1 (for all applicable orders) 

■ Consent Orders Kit 2 (for use when no children’s orders are sought) 

■ How to prepare for a hearing in the Family Court – kit 

■ Moving Forward – video (based on the Court’s Information Sessions) 

■ Changes to the Family Law Act – ‘The Importance of Children’– video (produced in 

conjunction with the Attorney-General’s Department) 

■ The Family Court of Australia – Aboriginal Services – video 

Single copies of all printed materials are free from each registry of the Court. Bulk supplies 

are available in accordance with the Court’s cost-recovery policy. Under the policy, 

practitioners and organisations funded wholly or in party by the Commonwealth to provide 

services in the family law area are provided with supplies in bulk with charges based on 

postage and printing costs. Bulk supplies of prescribed materials required to be distributed 

in accordance with the Family Law Rules incur only postage charges. Community-based 

organisations not funded to provide family law services are asked only to meet postage 

costs. 

*A number of brochures were withdrawn from the inventory during the last quarter of 1997-98 as 

existing stocks were depleted in anticipation of the new Family Court Book becoming available. 

Others were replaced by information sheets. Brochures withdrawn from the inventory have been 

omitted from this list. 

52


Internet 

www.familycourt.gov.au 

During 1997-98 the Court continued the development of its internet site. The main focus 

of the site has been to provide a simple and easy-to-use structure. The Court has aimed to 

take advantage of the internet as a way of distributing information and material to its customers 

and the legal profession. The site has also been seen as a mechanism for increasing 

an awareness of the Court’s operations and issues associated with family breakdown. 

The site includes new developments, contact details, information about the Court, its procedures 

and services, Court lists, legislation, judgments, practice directions, case management 

guidelines, legal costs, brochures, publications, reports and links to other sites. 

The Court recognises the potential of the internet as a medium for enhancing the communication 

and the dissemination of information. In 1998-99 the Court aims to review the 

function, management and maintenance of its internet site with a view of maximising the 

site’s potential. 

The site has been found to be a timely and efficient mechanism for distributing reportable 

judgments when compared to the previous paper-based practice. From the 1 January 1998 

to 30 June 1998, 1282 copies of reportable judgments delivered in 1998 were downloaded 

from the Court’s site. Over this period Re Evelyn[1998] FamCA55 was the most common 

download at 204 times. Other frequently downloaded judgments included Aand A [1998] 

FamCA(114) and G v G [1998] FamCA52 (105). It is considered that the judgments have 

been downloaded by members of the legal profession, Court customers, publishers and 

other interested parties. The global nature of the internet also means that the Court site 

allows world-wide access to its judgments. 

During 1997-98 the Court made the majority of its forms available on its site in Adobe 

Acrobat format. The aim of this was to allow interested parties to readily obtain copies of 

required forms. From the 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1998, 5069 copies of the Court’s forms 

were either viewed or downloaded via the site. Once downloaded the user could print as 

many copies of a specific form as they require. The most common forms requested from 

the site were: Form 4 – Application for Divorce (when there are children under 18) – 526; 

Form 4 – Application for Divorce (where there are no children under 18) – 311; Form 7 – 

Application for Final Orders – 306; Form 12A – Application for Consent Orders – 299; 

Form 16 – Affidavit – 255; Form 8 – Application – 242; Form 1A – Cover Sheet – 215; 

Form 17 – Financial Statement – 205; Form 26A– Application for Parenting Plan – 143. 

Arange of general information and links were provided. Much of this material was taken 

from the Court’s set of brochures. The most popular pages in this section of the site were 

Legal Advice (414), Separation and Divorce (375), Family Violence (313) and Child 

Support (295). 

The Court’s practice directions and case management guidelines (CMGs) were made available 

on the site. From the 1 January to 30 June 1998, 58 copies of the CMGs were downloaded. 

The most popular chapters of the CMGs visited on the site were Chapter 1 Primary 

Dispute Resolution (136) and Chapter 5 Summary and Miscellaneous Provisions (95). The 

most requested practice direction was No.1 of 1998 (Affidavit – Interim residence, contact, 

special issues order) (140). 

53


Complaints 

Complaints provide the Court with important information on the level of customer satisfaction 

and the quality of the service delivered to the Australian community. An effective 

complaints system allows individuals to express their grievance about the service they 

received and expect an accurate and concerned response. This process provides the Court 

with the opportunity to demonstrate that it is accessible and user friendly. Following a 

recent review of its complaints policy the Court defines a complaint as “an expression of 

dissatisfaction concerning its policy, practices, charges or service delivery”. 

Complaints may be received directly by the Court or referred by another agency or department 

such as the Attorney-General’s Department, the Ombudsman’s Office or as a representation 

through a local member. Most complaints are dealt with at the registry or area 

level. More complex complaints and representations are forwarded to the Chief Executive 

Officer who assesses the matter and, if necessary, refers the matter for a report and draft 

response. The Complaints Officer maintains a central register of all complaints received. 

Number of complaints 

During 1997-1998, the Complaints Officer registered 342 complaint, 16 of which were 

outside the Court’s jurisdiction. The remaining 326 represented 0.5% of the total number 

of all files opened during the financial year. Of the 309 complaints concerning a specific 

registry, the highest percentage was recorded against the Brisbane (21%), Sydney (19%), 

and Melbourne (13%) registries. These registries also handled the greatest number of all 

files registered with the Court. 

Complaints by type 

Concerns raised in complaints are categorised for the purposes of data collection and 

analysis. In 1997-98, 477 complaint types were recorded. Of these, 38% were classified as 

‘legal process’; 13% as ‘proceedings’and ‘behaviour’and 12% as ‘administration’. 

■ Legal process 

Most of the complaints recorded as ‘legal process’ concerned grievances about Court 

orders, delays, the law itself and fees. 

■ Orders 

Some 101 complaints received during 1997-1998 concerned orders. Fifty of these were 

further classified into the types of orders that gave rise to complaints. Orders made during 

final hearings topped the list (17) followed by concerns that orders were being contravened 

by the other party (16); disappointment with the Court for not enforcing its orders (six); 

and dissatisfaction with orders made by consent (four), during appeals (three) and interim 

hearings (two). Two complainants alleged that orders were either inaccurate or biased. 

■ Delays 

Thirty-four complaints concerned delays. Further information about the types of delays creating 

complaints was derived from 30 grievances. Nineteen related to delays experienced 

for a final hearing. Of these, six were recorded against the Melbourne Registry followed by 

Brisbane (four), Adelaide, Canberra and Dandenong (two) and Darwin, Parramatta and 

54


Sydney (one). Other delays giving rise to complaints involved the handing down of judgements 

(eight), the other party manipulating the system to induce delays and circuits. 

■ Law itself 

Several complaints concerned sections of the Family Law Act 1975. Three complaints concerned 

s66k(5), 100Aand s79A. Seven complaints alleged that the Act was biased against 

males or females, unrepresented parties and non-residential parents. 

■ Fees 

Most of the complaints about fees concerned the cost of solicitors. 

■ Proceedings 

This category includes complaints about what happened during Court proceedings. This 

financial year, 69 complaints were included in this field. Allegations of perjury produced 

the greatest concern. Many of the complaints received about ‘proceedings’ revealed that 

complainants did not understand what was happening to their application when in Court. 

Twelve letters contained requests for advice on how to bring matters before the Court. In 

10 of the letters the writers said they did not follow or understand the proceedings. 

■ Behaviour 

Complaints recorded in this category report behaviour allegedly exhibited by Court staff or 

members of the judiciary. Where a complaint is about an identifiable staff member the officer 

is made aware of the terms of the complaint and given an opportunity to comment. The 

Court received 70 complaints about behaviour. Of these, 66 referred to particular sections 

of the Court. Court counsellors (16), member of the judiciary (12) and registrars (7) were 

the focus of most complaints about behaviour. Five of the 16 complaints about counsellors 

alleged that the services received were unprofessional while four complainants thought the 

counsellor was rude. Afurther four complainants perceived the counsellor as biased. Three 

believed the bias was directed against males. Similar findings can be reported for registrars. 

■ Administration 

The Court received 62 complaints about administration primarily related to access, filing and 

security. Complaints about access predominantly involved telephone access to Brisbane, 

Canberra, Sydney and Parramatta registries. The primary complaint about filing concerned 

sealed orders not being received. Complaints about the Court’s security included concerns 

that there is too much security and there was inadequate security. 

■ Timeliness 

The Court has a standard performance indicator that a final response should be provided 

within two weeks of receipt of the complaint if it does not need to be referred to an area or 

registry manager for a report, and four weeks if it does. With the statistics at hand it is not 

possible to identify the complaints that were referred on for a report. Of the 342 complaints 

registered, 247 were closed at 30 June 1998. The majority (69%) were finalised in less than 

four weeks. Of these, 88 were resolved in less than one week. However, 13% took more 

than 10 weeks to resolve. One complaint took 27 weeks to resolve. Fifteen complaints 

received during 1997-98 remain open. At 30 June 1998, four of these had been open for 

16, 17, 19 and 48 weeks. The remaining 80 complaints were not included in this statistic 

as either the date received or date closed was not recorded. 

55


Internal a nd external scrutiny 

Australian National Audit Office reviews 

■ 1996-97 Financial Statements Audit – Sept 1997 

■ Receipting and Banking – Sydney, Parramatta, Melbourne and Brisbane Registries – 

Assurance and control assessment (ACA) audit – June 1998 

External reviews 

■ Report ‘To Have and to Hold’published 1998. The end product of an inquiry into 

aspects of family services by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on 

Legal and Constitutional Affairs chaired by Senator Andrews (see also page 21). 

Decisions of courts and tribunals 

At 30 June 1998, the Family Court is involved in preparing for a hearing before the 

Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to a request made under the Freedom of 

Information Act 1982. The Court is seeking to rely on s24 of the Family Law Act to refuse 

to grant access to the documents in the request on the grounds that processing the request 

would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the Court from its operations. 

Internal audit reviews 

■ Termination Payments August – October 1997 

■ Assets – compliance audit – November 1997 to February 1998 

■ Transcription and Recording November 1997 to February 1998 

■ Registries – compliance audits – November 1997 to January 1998 

Internal reviews and academic thesis 

■ Evaluation of Simplified Procedures (FCACommittee, August 1997 – see also page 21) 

■ Comparison of voluntary and court-ordered counselling clients (FCAresearcher and 

mediator, November 1997 – see also page 29) 

■ Response of the Family Court of Australia to the Attorney-General’s Department 

paper on ‘Primary dispute resolution services in family law’(FCADecember 1997 – 

see also pages 19 and 29) 

■ Management of child abuse allegations in custody and access disputes before the 

Family Court (Academics, February 1998 – see also page 23) 

■ Impact of FCAproceedings on young adults (Academic, early 1998) 

■ Mediator styles in the Family Court (Phd thesis, April 1998) 

■ Splitting of siblings in custody arrangements (Masters thesis) 

■ Comparison of shared residence with sole residence arrangements (FCAcounsellor, 

April 1998) 

■ Survey of outcomes after conciliation counselling (FCAresearchers, May 1998) 

■ Are cases becoming more complex? (Final-year thesis) 

■ Community attitudes to marriage and divorce (External researcher, May 1998) 

■ Client perceptions about the location of primary dispute resolution services (FCA 

researchers, mid-1998) 

■ Use of Administrative Service Officers for Information Sessions in Melbourne 

Registry (Consultant, March 1998) 

56


Freedom of information 

The Court handled six Freedom of Information matters during the past financial year. 

Arrangements for outside participation 

The Family Court regularly consults with outside organisations: 

■ The Family Law Council, established by the Attorney-General under s115 of the 

Family Law Act, confers with Family Court personnel in the course of its 

consideration of particular aspects of family law. 

■ The Australian Institute of Family Studies was established under s114B of the Family 

Law Act. The Institute is a separate entity but there is some contact with the Court 

over the collection of information and the exchange of research. 

■ The Chief Justice’s Consultative Council meets quarterly with the Family Law Section 

of the Law Council of Australia, national legal aid representatives, and representatives 

of non-government organisations and the Attorney-General’s Department. 

In addition, persons or bodies outside the Family Court’s administration may participate in 

its policy formulation by making representations in writing to the Family Law Council or 

to the Court. 

Categories of documents 

The Court maintains the following categories of documents: 

■ general correspondence 

■ documents concerning the development and implementation of policy 

■ documents concerning administration and financial aspects of the operation of the 

Court and its registries 

■ documents relating to research projects including statistical information gathered by 

Court staff 

■ lists of matters awaiting final determination in chronological order 

■ case files, comprising all documents filed (for example, formal applications and supporting 

affidavits) and records of all orders made in Family Court proceedings 

■ an alphabetical index in card form, or a computerised recording system, in each 

registry, of all proceedings commenced or continued in that registry 

■ counsellor interview records (card and/or computer system), which records particulars 

of any persons presenting themselves to the counselling section of the Court, whether 

voluntary or under Court direction 

■ forms of non-payment of filing fees with the results endorsed. 

Other documents 

The following documents are made available to individual customers of the Court (otherwise 

than under the Freedom of Information Act) free of charge upon request: 

Prescribed brochures 

■ Marriage, Families and Separation (required for distribution under Order 25 Rule 3 of 

the Family Law Rules) 

57


■ Mediation – Pathway to Agreement (required for distribution under Order 25Arule 21 

of the Family Law Rules) 

■ Cost of Family Law Proceedings (required for distribution under Order 38 Rule 27 of 

the Family Law Rules) 

■ Notice of Rights – Costs disputes (required for distribution under Order 38 rule 38(2) 

■ Summary Maintenance Procedure – information for applicants (required for 

distribution under Order 38 Rule 8 of the Family Law Rules) 

■ Summary Maintenance Procedure – information for respondents (required for 

distribution under Order 38 Rule 8 of the Family Law Rules) 

■ Costs of children figures (required for distribution under Order 11 rule 5(1) and (2) of 

the Family Law Rules. 

The Court also provides a wide variety of general (non-prescribed) information materials 

including brochures, booklets and videos (see Publications program). 

Prescribed forms 

There are more than 60 prescribed family law forms. These are set out in Schedule 1 to the 

Family Law Rules. Printed copies are available from all registries of the Court. In the past 

financial year the Court has also introduced a number of pro formas to help simplify procedures 

such as applying for an exemption or waiver of a fee and the pro forma affidavit 

for interim residence, contact and specific issues orders (see also Publications program). 

Facilities forAccess 

Freedom of Information inquiries are handled at the national, area and registry level 

according to the type of information that is being requested. Section 5 of the Freedom of 

Information Act affects the availability of Family Court documents that do not relate to 

administrative matters. The availability of documents outside the Freedom of Information 

Act is subject to the Family Law Actand Family Law Rules which generally confine access 

to Court files or registry indexes to parties to particular proceedings or their representatives. 

Facilities for examining documents and obtaining copies are available at Court’s registries 

and offices listed in Part One. Freedom of Information inquiries should be directed to the 

FOI Co-ordinator, PO Box 9991 in the city or town where the office or registry is located 

Single copies of all printed materials listed above as being outside the Freedom of 

Information Act can be obtained free of charge upon request from all registries of the 

Court. 

Privacy 

The Privacy Commission did not refer any matters to the Court during the past financial 

year. The Privacy Audit on the Parramatta Registry Case Files Register undertaken in the 

last financial year was completed. The Commission accepted the Court’s response to the 

recommendations which are being progressively implemented in all registries. 

58


Workplace diversity and equal employment opportunity 

The Court has implemented the 1995-98 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Plan and 

will be maintaining the work done in this area through its inclusion of Equal Employment 

Opportunity principles in the Diversity Strategy that was recently completed. 

Implementation of the strategy will proceed in the next financial year. 

Amajor achievement during the life of this Plan is the Court winning the open category of 

the 1997 Equity Awards (sponsored by the Public Service and Merit Protection 

Commission and the Institute of Public Administration in Australia) for its success with the 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Family Consultant project. This project has resulted 

in a number of significant initiatives, among them the selection of five Aboriginal staff 

members and one Torres Strait Islander staff member to provide Court counselling consultancy 

services to their local communities in the Northern Territory and Queensland (see 

also Year in Review – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues). 

Other significant achievements are the completion of the Court’s Disability Action Plan and 

implementation of a detailed workplace harassment policy. The Action Plan was completed 

by a working group set up to develop a strategy incorporating EEO requirements and the 

directions included in the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. The group is part of the EEO 

sub-committee to the National Consultative Committee and was joined by staff with disabilities 

and/or staff interested in assisting staff with disabilities. 

As previously reported, implementation of the 1995-98 EEO Plan has resulted in the 

Australian National Audit Office recognising the Court’s employment of women, especially 

in senior management, as best practice. EEO statistics for women at the SES level show the 

Court is outperforming most other agencies and is ahead of year 2000 targets. 

Resources 

Throughout 1997-98 the senior executive responsible for EEO was the Chief Finance 

Officer (formerly Principal Director Administration) – this position is Senior Executive 

(Generalist) Band 1 located in the Office of the Chief Executive in Sydney. The EEO coordinator 

was the Assistant Director of Policy Practices and Procedures (Senior Officer 

Grade C). There were two managers in the Sydney-based Policy, Practices and Procedures 

Unit with the responsibility of being EEO contact officers to assist Court staff. 

Harassment contact officers are located in each registry and appointments are made only 

after the nominated staff member has attended appropriate training such as a Public Service 

Commission program. They report quarterly to the EEO coordinator. 

Due to a restructuring, EEO responsibilities will pass to new positions next year. 

Consultative mechanisms 

The Staff Equity sub-committee to the National Consultative Committee met three times 

in 1997-98. The sub-committee has equal management and union representation and considers 

national EEO issues. Area offices and registries hold regular consultative meetings 

and EEO is a standing agenda item. This year the sub-committee, as well as staff with disabilities, 

were involved in the development of the Disability Action Plan. 

The Court has two committees to look after the interests of clients from culturally diverse 

backgrounds: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Awareness Committee and the Chief 

Justice’s Advisory Committee on Ethnic Issues (see also Social Justice, Access and Equity). 

59


Equal Employment Opportunity statistics 

The representation of EEO groups for permanent Family Court staff who have voluntarily 

provided their EEO information as at 30 June 1998 is provided in the following table: 

■ Notes: 

■ KEY: 

EEO target groups are not mutually exclusive and any individual officer 

may be included in more than one group 

Salary groupings are based on maximum salary for a classification. 

ATSI – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 

CLDB – People with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds 

PWD – People with disabilities 

Table 3.9: Representation of EEO groups for permanent staff at 30 June 1998 

Salary range total 

staff 

women ATSI CLDB PWD 

$26,955 & below 19 13 2 4 1 

$27,091-30,042 296 187 3 7 5 

(incl. ASO 2 & GSO 5) 

$30,857-33,304 196 152 1 23 5 

(incl. ASO 3) 

$33,953-37,341 110 93 1 8 1 

(incl. ASO 4) 

$38,359-40,675 47 32 5 4 2 

(incl. ASO 5) 

$41,430-47,591 29 18 0 1 0 

(Incl. ASO 6, 

ITO 2, & PO 2) 

$50,931-58,160 151 103 0 18 3 

(Incl. SOG C, 

SPO C, ITOC) 

$57,983-68,497 49 24 1 6 0 

(Incl. SOG B, 

SPO B, SOG A 

& SPO A) 

$31,793-70,331 50 31 0 5 2 

(Incl. Legal 1 

Legal 2) 

$68,228 & above 37 11 0 2 2 

(Incl. SES, SPAO2 

JR & CEO) 

Total 984 664 13 78 21 

60


Occupational health and safety 

The Court conducted a Quality of Working Life Survey in 1997-98. This led to a number 

workplace planning sessions where interested staff used the survey information to develop 

local initiatives to improve their working environment. The results, to be implemented in 

1998-99, will enable staff to become further involved in Occupational Health and Safety 

(OH&S) improvements. Office/registry managers and OH&S representatives also carried 

out inspections on all workplaces, with reports from these used for ongoing improvement. 

The Court has 14 designated work groups with elected OH&S representatives and six 

deputy representatives. Measures taken in 1997-98 to ensure the health, safety and welfare 

at work of Court employees and contractors include the continuing OH&S committees 

which meet regularly throughout the year to monitor health and safety issues and procedures, 

maintaining the Employee Assistance Program, organising ergonomic inspections of 

workplaces and individual workstations, providing eye tests, maintaining first aid officers 

and equipment at all locations, and developing policies specific to the Court’s requirements. 

Test and investigations undertaken in 1997-98 

■ Regular legionella testing on all properties in accordance with the legislation. 

■ Full technical assessment on one existing property (Launceston) and two proposed 

properties (Townsville, Canberra). 

■ Annual property inspection by the Court’s agent KFPW on all leased properties to 

check compliance with Commonwealth and industry accommodative standards – all 

defects found were promptly rectified. 

■ AS1428 compliance review regarding access and modifications for people with 

a disability. 

■ Review of all properties to determine impact of the Millennium Bug on building 

services systems (for example lifts and air conditioning) was commenced and should 

be completed early in 1998-99. 

There were no Provisional Improvement Notices issued under s47 of the Occupational 

Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act. 

Comcare Australia conducted a Planned Workplace Investigation on Brisbane Registry. The 

resulting recommendations, which included continuation of training programs and increasing 

staff awareness of manual handling processes and injury prevention, were put into effect. 

Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences reported under s68 of theOccupational Health and 

Safety(Commonwealth Employees) Act 1991 to Comcare are as follows: 

Incident NSW ACT VIC SA QLD NT TAS 

Body stress 6 0 1 3 0 0 0 

Mental stress 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Falls, trips and slips 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 

Hit by moving object 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 

Back injury 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Electricity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 12 1 3 5 5 0 1 

61


Industrial democracy 

The Family Court is committed to the principles and practice of industrial democracy. The 

Court adheres to an Industrial Democracy Plan (recently revised to incorporate the requirements 

of the Workplace Relations Act 1996) and promotes the use of formal industrial 

democracy processes and consultative arrangements at all levels in decision making and 

planning. The Court encourages managers to apply the principles of industrial democracy 

and participative decision making in the workplace through the consultative mechanisms 

covering all staff. 

The National Consultative Committee which is chaired by the Chief Executive Officer 

meets every four months. This committee has equal representation from the Family Court 

and the Community and Public Sector Union and deals with national strategies and procedures 

as well as monitoring the implementation of the Industrial Democracy Plan. The 

committee is supported by local committees at the area and registry levels. 

Staff Equity, Occupational Health and Safety, Human Resource Development, 

Organisational Change, Security and Information Technology sub-committees to the 

National Consultative Committee were all active throughout 1997-98, dealing with issues 

such as health and safety policies in the workplace, structural change in the workplace, 

staff equity policies, procedures and staff equity strategies, continued work on the draft 

Court Security Manual and the finalisation and implementation of the Corporate 

Information Technology Plan (CITP). The Equal Employment Opportunity sub-committee 

changed its name during year to the Staff Equity sub-committee. 

62

Part four – court statistics 

63


Court statistics 

The statistics in this chapter detail the workload of the Court throughout 1997-98 as well 

as providing information on family breakdown and the types of applications filed and 

orders sought. 

The statistics are on a financial year basis to allow ready comparison with financial reports. 

The Australian Bureau of Statistics produces calendar-year statistics from Family Court 

data. 

Notes – 

Some tables show substantial differences between registries. These differences are largely 

due to different demographic and socio-economic factors in each of the catchment areas, 

varying legal culture and the availability and usage of other community services, such as 

marriage and relationship counselling organisations and local courts. 

Abbreviations are explained in the glossary on page 135. 

64


Table 4.1: Number of dissolutions (divorces) granted 1976 – 1987-98 

1976 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1997 

NORTHERN 

Alice Springs - 73 34 7 1 3 1 - - - - - 0.0% 

Brisbane 6654 5347 5982 5311 6268 6152 5812 8469 8372 8682 9429 10228 19.9% 

Coff’s Harbour - - - - - 133 180 - - - - - 0.0% 

Coolangatta - - - - - 381 664 - - - - - 0.0% 

Darwin 388 255 241 428 420 416 408 382 357 386 486 416 0.8% 

Lismore - 371 380 472 557 514 422 - - - - - 0.0% 

Newcastle - 1670 1481 1692 1920 2066 2494 2412 2487 2506 2706 2725 5.3% 

Parramatta 747 3501 4054 4383 3929 4636 4202 5021 4953 4865 5792 5218 10.2% 

Sydney 16258 6873 6345 6668 6565 6449 7253 7320 6559 7574 7486 6712 13.1% 

Rockhampton - - 336 349 483 463 563 - - - - - 0.0% 

Townsville - 1200 992 991 1201 1291 1343 1466 1390 1510 1567 1516 3.0% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 4740 4050 4031 3740 4066 4215 4074 4063 4192 4199 4358 4115 8.0% 

Canberra 1331 1600 1697 1731 1804 1970 1875 2061 2071 1787 1610 1528 3.0% 

Dandenong - 2088 2594 2600 2931 3137 3023 3281 3256 3592 3768 3680 7.2% 

Hobart 744 547 587 612 658 697 698 749 790 696 861 1200 2.3% 

Launceston 685 568 633 657 512 686 667 716 754 583 721 121 0.2% 

Melbourne 12919 7538 7656 7653 7475 7997 7510 7769 8064 8246 8723 8783 17.1% 

FCA Total 44466 35681 37043 37294 38790 41206 41189 43709 43288 44672 47507 46242 90.2% 

FCWA 3044 4044 3964 4089 3845 4446 4540 4654 5024 5040 4959 5046 9.8% 

Aust. Total 47510 39725 41007 41383 42635 45652 45729 48363 48312 49712 52466 51288 100.0% 

Matrimonial 

Causes Act 15720 

Grand Total 63230 Total 1976-1997 983768 

DIVORCES INVOLVING CHILDREN* 

Total 

76-’93,’97 

Number 39624 23293 23585 22874 23707 24726 24174 25461 na na 28138 27694 512894 

% of Total 62.7% 58.6% 57.5% 55.3% 55.6% 54.2% 52.9% 52.6% na na 53.6% 54.0% 57.9% 

No. of Children 73645 44050 44395 43317 44913 46697 45704 48106 na na 52455 51742 994896 

Av. per Family 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 na na 1.9 1.9 1.9 

*Australian data were not published for 1994 and 1995 because Family Court children data for Victoria were incomplete. 

65


Table 4.2: Demographic information relevant to the work of the Family Courts, by State, 1997 

Est. Resident Births Marriages Divorces 

State/ Population 

Territory No. % No. % Rate % No. % Rate No. % Rate 

(1,000’s) Aust. Aust. Ex-nuptial Aust. Aust. 

NSW 6306.3 33.8% 87608 34.5% 13.9 25.4% 36679 34.4% 5.8 14655 28.6% 2.3 

VIC 4627.3 24.8% 61921 24.4% 13.4 21.6% 25456 23.8% 5.5 12463 24.3% 2.7 

QLD 3430.3 18.4% 46938 18.5% 13.7 32.6% 20868 19.6% 6.1 11744 22.9% 3.4 

SA 1482.8 8.0% 18349 7.2% 12.4 30.1% 7945 7.4% 5.4 4115 8.0% 2.8 

TAS 471.7 2.5% 6023 2.4% 12.8 34.3% 2672 2.5% 5.7 1321 2.6% 2.8 

ACT 308.9 1.7% 4362 1.7% 14.1 25.2% 1873 1.8% 6.1 1528 3.0% (a) 

NT 189.1 1.0% 3576 1.4% 18.9 57.8% 786 0.7% 4.2 416 0.8% 2.2 

FCA Area 16816.4 90.3% 228777 90.2% 13.6 27.0% 96279 90.2% 5.7 46242 90.2% 2.7 

WA 1811.1 9.7% 24856 9.8% 13.7 30.9% 10456 9.8% 5.8 5046 9.8% 2.8 

Other Territories 3.1 0.0% 40 0.0% 9.5% 

Australia 18630.6 100% 253673 100% 13.6 27.4% 106735 100% 5.7 51288 100% 2.8 

Notes 1 All numbers are obtained from Australian Bureau of Statistics publications and some are still preliminary. 

2 The proportions of ex-nuptial births are for 1996, as 1997 figures are not yet available. 

3 Other Territories includes Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Jervis Bay Territory. 

(a) Due to the large number of divorces granted in the ACT to usual residents of another State, the divorce rate is not representative. 

66


Table 4.3A: Court statistics – July 1997 to June 1998 

NORTHERN SOUTHERN FCA FCWA AUST 


FILES OPENED 

Ex-nuptial Files Opened 951 118 370 660 345 211 824 171 497 286 808 5241 721 5962 

Total Files Opened 11793 673 3374 7032 8761 2031 5258 1953 4842 1822 11126 58665 6439 65104 

DIVORCES AND NULLITIES 

Forms 4 Filed - Application for Divorce 10374 443 2730 5476 7196 1610 4149 1527 3745 1382 8964 47596 5344 52940 

Remissions of Fees (a) 4561 103 1251 1951 1512 626 1772 521 1532 700 3143 17672 1373 19045 

Applicants in Person 7471 388 2173 3658 4216 1174 3454 1223 2693 1164 5535 33149 4559 37708 

Divorces Granted - Decree Nisi 9453 408 2654 4785 6818 1521 4089 1504 3438 1321 8377 44368 5113 49481 

Nullities Granted 6 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 17 0 17 

ANCILLARY APPLICATIONS 

Forms 7 Filed in Ex-nuptial Files 883 101 385 771 358 161 978 183 556 277 986 5639 592 6231 

Total Forms 7 Filed - Final Orders (b) 3678 281 1379 2639 2655 630 2886 730 1746 918 4650 22192 2459 24651 

Forms 7A Filed - Response to Form 7 2221 162 826 1601 1673 348 1565 478 987 473 2322 12656 1400 14056 

Forms 7B Filed - Reply to Form 7A 88 4 32 50 75 15 47 16 17 26 55 425 61 486 

Forms 8 Filed in Ex-nuptial Files 965 133 322 544 266 102 1194 205 649 229 1155 5764 691 6455 

Total Forms 8 Filed - Interim/Procedural Orders 3431 326 1009 2076 2136 418 3346 750 2013 678 4979 21162 2912 24074 

Forms 12 Filed - Maintenance 366 24 89 138 186 48 417 95 172 82 472 2089 549 2638 

Forms 12A Filed in Ex-nuptial Files 222 24 33 41 32 77 61 38 72 113 95 808 37 845 

Total Forms 12A Filed - Consent Orders 2648 188 720 1129 1985 602 1428 592 1361 895 2366 13914 1217 15131 

Forms 26A Filed in Ex-nuptial Files 23 5 31 4 6 15 23 3 19 3 16 148 1 149 

Total Forms 26A Filed - Parenting Plan 98 11 63 13 48 28 51 15 48 5 47 427 11 438 

Forms 43 Filed - Notice of Appeal (O32r22) 28 3 23 43 44 5 7 6 5 2 42 208 73 281 

Transfers from Other Courts 597 35 159 626 501 82 104 88 87 20 1105 3404 108 3512 

ORDERS SOUGHT - FORMS 7 (including 

additional orders sought on a 7A, 8 & 12) 

Residence in Ex-nuptial Files 1274 145 439 814 347 177 1363 236 790 318 1218 7121 613 7734 

Total Residence 3322 312 1047 2114 1652 464 2849 637 1871 708 4066 19042 1905 20947 

Contact in Ex-nuptial Files 1441 154 492 919 427 193 1273 289 890 344 1535 7957 776 8733 

Total Contact 3795 339 1176 2427 1960 528 2901 799 2197 792 4776 21690 2268 23958 

Specific Issues in Ex-nuptial Files 1041 112 350 656 379 172 1274 166 662 263 1126 6201 44 6245 

Total Specific Issues 2743 259 854 1764 1747 458 2622 457 1628 586 3638 16756 708 17464 

Property 2072 86 595 1163 1859 277 1273 422 986 339 3254 12326 1531 13857 

Spouse Maintenance 680 13 79 157 360 66 476 53 197 71 755 2907 219 3126 

Child Maintenance in Ex-nuptial Files 37 7 10 16 6 6 75 11 21 15 34 238 114 352 

Total Child Maintenance 278 20 65 113 105 38 289 80 137 63 279 1467 502 1969 

Injunctions 696 105 196 782 722 78 1565 275 574 343 1883 7219 850 8069 

Costs 2002 48 191 880 103 265 798 216 371 738 1139 6751 82 6833 

Discharge Orders 389 61 56 459 290 62 583 124 376 123 1089 3612 0 3612 

Other 1692 226 726 1696 1539 249 2103 497 1956 471 3535 14690 1206 15896 

Total Orders Sought - Children 9860 910 3077 6305 5359 1450 8372 1893 5696 2086 12480 57488 4881 62369 

(a) Remissions of fees are for July to March as data are not yet available for the June quarter. (b) Form 12A figures have been excluded from the Form 7 counts. Form 12A figures 

are now reported separately. (c) Total files opened figures for Darwin in 1997-98 are much lower than the 1996-97 figures which were inflated due to a backcapture of files. 

67


Table 4.3B: Court statistics – July 1997 to June 1998 


CASES DISPOSED OF 


FIRST DIRECTIONS HEARINGS 

1 Cases Listed n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

2 Cases Finalised n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

3 Cases Adjourned n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

FURTHER DIRECTIONS HEARINGS n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

1 Cases Listed n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

2 Cases Finalised n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

3 Cases Adjourned n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

DIRECT TRACK DEFENDED MATTERS 

1 Cases Listed 212 23 196 331 248 27 79 40 92 10 124 1382 159 1541 

2 Cases Finalised 182 16 169 236 215 17 48 31 61 9 98 1082 128 1210 

3 Cases Adjourned 30 7 27 95 33 10 22 9 31 1 26 291 31 322 

STANDARD TRACK DEFENDED MATTERS 

1 Cases Listed 271 35 134 579 781 124 241 110 125 240 395 3035 191 3226 

2 Cases Finalised 229 23 112 434 653 95 150 95 81 163 316 2351 159 2510 


COMPLEX TRACK DEFENDED MATTERS 

1 Cases Listed 27 2 1 7 24 0 24 2 8 0 19 114 1 115 

2 Cases Finalised 25 2 1 5 20 0 14 1 8 0 11 87 1 88 


AGREEMENTS 

S.86 Maintenance Agreements Registered 34 7 0 0 2 4 3 14 0 21 12 97 203 300 

S.87 Maintenance Agreements Approved 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 10 18 31 3 34 

DEFENDED ISSUES FINALISED 

DIRECT TRACK DEFENDED MATTERS FINALISED 182 16 169 236 215 17 48 31 61 9 98 1082 128 1210 

Residence/Contact in Ex-nuptial Files 28 6 40 35 12 5 29 7 5 2 14 183 21 204 

Total Residence/Contact 87 9 84 116 52 13 25 29 22 8 50 495 58 553 



Property 82 2 65 118 98 3 22 9 13 1 57 470 39 509 




Injunction 7 2 7 22 3 0 7 6 4 0 8 66 1 67 

Other 33 1 30 110 15 7 15 2 32 2 12 259 29 288 

Note: Directions Hearings – ‘Cases disposed Of’ are not reported due to different methods of collection in registries during the September quarter. 

Figures for Launceston are now included in the Hobart Registry figures. 

68


Table 4.3C: Court statistics – July 1997 to June 1998 


DEFENDED ISSUES FINALISED - Continued 


STANDARD TRACK DEFENDED MATTERS FINALISED 229 23 112 434 653 95 150 95 81 163 316 2351 159 2510 


Total Residence/Contact 290 18 75 381 206 65 81 108 55 109 207 1595 98 1693 



Property 126 8 44 173 269 40 107 48 35 92 150 1092 90 1182 




Injunction 14 1 0 70 14 1 12 2 16 14 15 159 3 162 

Other 19 2 16 181 29 25 15 5 36 87 53 468 17 485 

COMPLEX TRACK DEFENDED MATTERS FINALISED 25 2 1 5 20 0 14 1 8 0 11 87 1 88 


Total Residence/Contact 46 2 1 6 4 0 10 0 6 0 7 82 1 83 



Property 2 1 0 2 12 0 9 1 1 0 9 37 1 38 




Injunction 2 0 0 2 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 12 0 12 

Other 0 0 0 2 3 0 6 0 3 0 4 18 0 18 

REGISTRARS WORK 

Available Days 2305 103 661 1386 2334 407 1298 429 539 504 2238 12202 n.a. n.a. 

Divorces Listed 11896 434 3328 6242 8506 1724 4474 1784 3824 1617 9200 53029 n.a. n.a. 

Directions Hearings Dealt With 3209 470 1977 2094 2735 444 3665 617 865 836 2861 19773 n.a. n.a. 

Interim/Summary & Other Matter Dealt With 4154 184 2015 4235 6641 590 4929 1291 2510 1205 5831 33585 n.a. n.a. 

Conciliation Conferences Held 1181 45 460 627 1276 191 654 300 463 244 1371 6812 n.a. n.a. 

Conciliation Conferences Resolved 549 17 234 287 513 103 279 137 167 88 507 2881 n.a. n.a. 

Conciliation Conferences Adjourned 160 6 66 72 160 17 53 29 26 18 64 671 n.a. n.a. 

Pre-Hearing Conferences Held 1611 121 270 1144 1412 79 539 220 239 451 696 6782 n.a. n.a. 

Pre-Hearing Conferences Resolved 464 34 76 308 357 25 86 42 43 151 100 1686 n.a. n.a. 

Pre-Hearing Conferences Adjourned 144 22 31 166 245 5 77 37 17 52 24 820 n.a. n.a. 

Taxation of Costs Held 141 8 28 40 66 3 39 27 22 25 79 478 n.a. n.a. 

Information Sessions Held 221 7 43 480 74 36 102 34 41 82 15 1135 n.a. n.a. 

Chamber Orders - Order 14 Received 4529 225 1501 1831 3134 838 1763 1006 1581 1456 3439 21303 n.a. n.a. 

Chamber Orders - Order 14 Made 3734 183 951 1455 2402 720 1483 917 1415 1128 2543 16931 n.a. n.a. 

Parenting Plans Received 132 9 55 7 40 28 64 13 59 7 45 459 n.a. n.a. 

Parenting Plans Registered 81 8 49 6 37 21 45 12 54 3 36 352 n.a. n.a. 

Parenting Plans revoking previous Parenting Plans 1 15 1 15 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 36 n.a. n.a. 

69

TheFamilyCourt of Australia – annual report 1997-98 

Table 4.4: Sundry forms and applications lodged 1997-98 

FORM APPLICATION LEGAL NORTHERN SOUTHERN FCA FCWA AUST. 

NO. STATUS BR DN NC PA SY TV AD CA DG HB ML TOTAL TOTAL 

0 Oral Applications M 567 28 59 128 338 57 357 29 573 28 1313 3477 - 3477 

X 238 20 27 49 53 23 294 4 346 6 469 1529 - 1529 

2 Applications for Decree of Nullity M 17 0 1 5 11 2 3 0 0 0 7 46 2 48 

3 Joint Applications for Decree of Nullity M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 

6 Applications for Declaration as to Validity M 1 0 0 4 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 12 1 13 

44 Applications for Review of Exercise of Power M 53 4 29 57 86 3 43 10 26 6 48 365 1 366 

X 5 0 9 19 11 0 11 1 7 4 11 78 0 78 

45B Enforcement Summonses - Child Support M 8 1 6 0 0 13 3 32 0 4 59 126 18 144 

X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 19 

46 Enforcement Summonses M 86 9 25 38 78 12 42 15 25 40 111 481 115 596 

X 3 0 2 0 4 1 5 2 5 2 5 29 17 46 

47 Applications - Contempt M 4 1 2 3 13 0 8 2 1 0 18 52 11 63 

X 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 13 3 16 

48 Applications - Contravention of Order M 43 4 16 8 34 2 38 15 30 13 72 275 35 310 

X 4 0 3 3 5 0 2 2 0 4 8 31 2 33 

49 Applications - Contravention of Child Order M 198 10 66 133 105 16 97 56 118 21 241 1061 224 1285 

X 114 7 41 79 39 9 60 24 77 19 129 598 76 674 

57 Notices Disputing Costs M 103 2 11 26 62 3 9 6 15 5 75 317 25 342 

X 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 1 10 

63 Child Support Application/Appeal M 152 5 28 67 92 21 115 41 40 39 162 762 203 965 

X 25 1 10 13 10 3 90 5 11 21 19 208 155 363 

64 Appeal from Decision of Child Support Registrar M 13 0 2 6 13 3 7 1 4 0 11 60 8 68 

X 3 1 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 14 3 17 

TOTAL 1643 93 339 643 963 168 1188 245 1281 212 2769 9544 918 10462 

70

Table 4.5: Court statistics July 1997 to June 1998 – Percentage changes from 1996-97 



FILES OPENED 


Ex-nuptial Files Opened 6 4 17 23 8 14 6 -9 13 -4 -7 6 -7 4 

Total Files Opened -0 4 -3 2 3 1 -4 -5 2 -3 0 0 -1 -0 

DIVORCES AND NULLITIES 

Forms 4 Filed - Application for Divorce 5 -3 -8 -2 1 -1 -8 -7 -1 -3 -0 -1 -1 -1 

Remissions of Fees -6 -46 -21 -22 -22 -4 -24 -12 -21 -21 -13 -16 -13 -16 

Applicants in Person 8 0 -7 -4 1 6 -8 -5 -2 -3 -0 -0 -3 -1 

Divorces Granted - Decree Nisi -4 -14 -8 -17 -3 -2 -6 -10 -7 -6 -10 -8 2 -7 

Nullities Granted - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

ANCILLARY APPLICATIONS 

Forms 7 Filed in Ex-nuptial Files 8 3 -3 36 21 -7 26 -2 26 -9 4 12 -1 11 

Total Forms 7 Filed - Final Orders 0 10 -2 11 5 -4 13 -10 7 -23 2 2 -2 2 

Forms 7A Filed - Response to Form 7 3 10 11 15 -2 10 12 6 23 -25 2 5 3 5 

Forms 7B Filed - Reply to Form 7A 22 - 39 39 -6 - 0 - - - -20 9 13 9 

Forms 8 Filed in Ex-nuptial Files 11 39 2 38 3 -26 4 -2 32 -16 15 11 2 10 

Total Forms 8 Filed - Interim/Procedural Orders 5 40 7 5 -5 -1 -3 -6 23 -14 7 4 9 4 

Forms 12 Filed - Maintenance -35 -33 -28 -26 -41 -32 -18 -19 -26 -50 -36 -32 -23 -30 

Forms 26A Filed in Ex-nuptial Files -50 - 55 - - - -50 - - - - -32 - -32 

Total Forms 26A Filed - Parenting Plan -32 - 19 - -19 -35 -56 - -13 - -46 -34 - -35 

Forms 43 Filed - Notice of Appeal (O32r22) -24 - -23 -7 13 - - - - - 11 -8 9 -4 

Transfers from Other Courts 25 21 5 13 46 19 -48 -14 -30 - -14 2 5 2 

- Percentage changes are not displayed where numbers are inadequate for comparative purposes. Note: Numbers of files opened published in 1996-97 were inflat - 

ed by 7161 due to a backcapture of files in Darwin associated with the implementation of Blackstone. hen calculating These have the been percentage excluded w 

changes between 1996-97 and 1997-98. Figures for Launceston are now included in the Hobart Registry figures. 

71


Table 4.6A: Court counselling statistics July 1997 to June 1998 


AS BR CH CS DN DU GC LS NC PA RK SY TV WL AD AL CA DG HB LN ML 

New Interventions Opened 

Number of New Interventions Opened in each category 

Voluntary privileged counselling - in person* 56 443 205 409 215 318 531 492 805 456 134 487 263 209 845 448 863 558 590 525 

Court-ordered privileged counselling before FDH 19 1035 24 70 144 17 120 90 338 895 75 268 145 51 546 107 215 339 193 213 

Court-ordered privileged counselling after FDH 13 736 85 45 126 111 48 141 469 940 34 932 65 162 1053 107 22 667 115 198 

Access enforcement counselling 0 140 0 4 3 3 2 4 3 27 0 18 4 4 9 1 4 86 6 1 

Joint conferencing 0 4 0 0 2 3 0 5 23 48 0 15 18 1 4 0 2 21 32 16 

Reports 4 93 20 22 20 41 15 23 73 217 13 182 22 48 108 39 84 107 32 37 

Reports allocated to welfare officers 0 0 0 3 3 12 1 8 18 43 0 31 3 0 5 0 2 11 1 2 

Total new interventions opened 92 2451 334 553 513 505 717 763 1729 2626 256 1933 520 475 2570 702 1192 1789 969 992 

Telephone Counselling* 22 1388 97 604 109 452 72 96 902 187 166 648 321 75 4365 961 1005 717 349 190 

1335 10187 743 10930 

258 5162 839 6001 

1432 7501 664 8165 

152 471 72 543 

45 239 1 240 

368 1568 216 1784 

19 162 0 162 

3609 25290 2535 27825 

1360 14086 3986 18072 

Percentage of new interventions opened in each category 

Voluntary privileged counselling - in person* 60.9 18.1 61.4 74.0 41.9 63.0 74.1 64.5 46.6 17.4 52.3 25.2 50.6 44.0 32.9 63.8 72.4 31.2 60.9 52.9 

Court-ordered privileged counselling before FDH 20.7 42.2 7.2 12.7 28.1 3.4 16.7 11.8 19.5 34.1 29.3 13.9 27.9 10.7 21.2 15.2 18.0 18.9 19.9 21.5 

Court-ordered privileged counselling after FDH 14.1 30.0 25.4 8.1 24.6 22.0 6.7 18.5 27.1 35.8 13.3 48.2 12.5 34.1 41.0 15.2 1.8 37.3 11.9 20.0 

Access enforcement counselling 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 4.8 0.6 0.1 

Joint conferencing 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.3 1.8 0.0 0.8 3.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.2 3.3 1.6 

Reports 4.3 3.8 6.0 4.0 3.9 8.1 2.1 3.0 4.2 8.3 5.1 9.4 4.2 10.1 4.2 5.6 7.0 6.0 3.3 3.7 

Reports allocated to welfare officers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 2.4 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2 

Total new interventions opened 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of Interviews Held 

Voluntary privileged counselling - in person* 103 757 462 841 353 491 1131 928 1639 796 251 1052 615 431 1450 650 1427 834 992 782 

Court-ordered privileged counselling before FDH 42 1649 100 221 246 36 324 202 608 1355 126 567 452 146 884 204 331 422 276 370 

Court-ordered privileged counselling after FDH 30 2657 427 266 271 254 298 446 921 1994 135 2519 640 541 1710 277 65 951 182 432 

Access enforcement counselling 0 252 1 12 10 30 2 9 23 72 0 51 8 18 16 25 32 130 10 1 

Joint conferencing 0 244 12 2 5 8 4 14 32 68 2 50 36 7 6 0 8 30 41 26 

Reports 19 678 144 123 152 220 155 291 699 1901 28 1699 309 202 736 357 450 1078 201 224 

Telephone Counselling* 64 3081 621 1517 284 671 1478 1472 1894 651 327 1431 971 203 6928 1564 1983 2192 1496 554 

37.0 40.3 29.3 39.3 

7.1 20.4 33.1 21.6 

39.7 29.7 26.2 29.3 

4.2 1.9 2.8 2.0 

1.2 0.9 0.0 0.9 

10.2 6.2 8.5 6.4 

0.5 0.6 0.0 0.6 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

2290 18275 1208 19483 

390 8951 1157 10108 

3414 18430 1102 19532 

277 979 109 1088 

89 684 3 687 

2693 12359 257 12616 

4734 34116 5762 39878 

Performance Indicators 

Voluntary privileged counselling (in person*) 

At least 50% of cases are voluntary yes no yes yes no yes yes yes no no yes no yes no no yes yes no yes yes 

Percentage 61 18 61 74 42 63 74 64 47 17 52 25 51 44 33 64 72 31 61 53 

Direct client and client related work 

Counsellors 

60% of Counsellor time in direct client contact: no no no no no no yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no 

Percentage of direct client contact 22 53 47 45 42 45 60 59 53 43 39 46 52 33 50 50 51 50 53 52 

Percentage of client related work 34 28 25 20 35 39 20 27 28 37 40 36 26 31 35 22 22 31 24 32 

Direct client and client related work 

Casework Supervisors 

33-50% of CWS time in direct client contact - no yes no - yes yes yes - no - no - yes no yes - yes yes yes 

Percentage of direct client contact - 18 41 19 - 48 48 53 - 30 - 24 - 36 29 37 - 50 36 45 

Percentage of client related work - 50 26 39 - 39 27 32 - 34 - 23 - 32 54 24 - 0 26 22 

no no no no 

37 40 29 39 

no no no no 

52 49 54 52 

30 31 27 29 

no no no no 

17 25 19 22 

48 26 37 31 

* A new system for collecting Court Counselling statistics began 1 January 1996. Previously not all telephone counselling statistics were collected and those that were collected counted as 

Voluntary Privileged Counselling only if they were pre-arranged. The current system counts telephone intake -arranged assessments and crisis and pre telephone counselling and does not 

distinguish between these. Some of the interventions and interviews reported as Telephone Counselling would s V oluntary have been Privileged counted Counselling a before January 1996. 

72


Table 4.6B: Court counselling statistics July 1997 to June 1998 


Available Days 

AS BR CH CS DN DU GC LS NC PA RK SY TV WL AD AL CA DG HB LN 

ML 

Counsellor days worked 165 2034 242 511 366 449 522 529 1471 2360 356 2353 663 486 1887 426 945 1490 657 446 

Casework Supervisor days worked 0 236 238 233 0 224 214 31 0 221 0 256 0 223 220 233 0 1 66 171 

Director days worked 0 238 0 0 223 0 0 216 240 197 0 250 221 0 218 1 197 178 170 66 

Total available days 165 2508 480 744 589 673 736 776 1711 2778 356 2859 884 709 2325 660 1142 1669 893 683 

3360 21718 2167 23885 

547 3114 215 3329 

210 2625 192 2817 

4117 27457 2574 30031 

Targets Set out in Strategic Plan 

Interviews per New Intervention Opened 

Voluntary privileged counselling - in person 1.8 1.7 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 

Voluntary privileged counselling - telephone 2.9 2.2 6.4 2.5 2.6 1.5 20.5 15.3 2.1 3.5 2.0 2.2 3.0 2.7 1.6 1.6 2.0 3.1 4.3 2.9 

Ordered before FDH 2.2 1.6 4.2 3.2 1.7 2.1 2.7 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.1 3.1 2.9 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.7 

Ordered after FDH 2.3 3.6 5.0 5.9 2.2 2.3 6.2 3.2 2.0 2.1 4.0 2.7 9.8 3.3 1.6 2.6 3.0 1.4 1.6 2.2 

Reportable 4.8 7.3 7.2 5.6 7.6 5.4 10.3 12.7 9.6 8.8 2.2 9.3 14.0 4.2 6.8 9.2 5.4 10.1 6.3 6.1 

1.7 1.8 1.6 1.8 

3.5 2.4 1.4 2.2 

1.5 1.7 1.4 1.7 

2.4 2.5 1.7 2.4 

7.3 7.9 1.2 7.1 

Interviews per day worked 1.6 3.7 3.7 4.0 2.2 2.5 4.6 4.3 3.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.4 2.2 5.0 4.7 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.5 

3.4 3.4 3.7 3.4 

Counsellor Activities 

Hours spent on specified activities 

Group Counselling: Hours 0.0 72.8 2.5 15.3 75.5 0.0 130.1 8.8 144.5 204.6 0.0 111.8 0.0 29.8 0.0 45.0 104.6 0.0 31.0 1.3 

Information Sessions: Hours 2.8 215.1 15.1 12.3 18.6 15.3 41.1 25.9 92.8 34.8 21.5 111.4 50.6 18.1 116.5 2.0 27.9 66.6 56.4 29.6 

Oral Reports and Cross Examination: Hours 2.5 29.8 14.0 13.8 22.5 10.0 14.5 2.8 40.5 142.1 7.0 111.6 8.6 11.2 22.9 12.5 18.3 109.8 10.8 7.0 

Report Preparation: Hours 57.3 1645.4 304.3 360.9 480.0 500.1 306.1 431.8 1339.1 4012.9 169.0 3380.6 577.5 436.5 1547.8 326.4 790.8 1864.6 297.4 144.8 

Casework Travel Time: Hours 58.8 51.8 65.5 217.8 115.2 179.8 84.0 199.1 169.9 148.6 90.1 60.9 292.4 147.0 497.4 226.6 216.3 296.6 43.0 367.0 

Community Liaison: Hours 73.4 373.3 38.5 521.6 51.3 182.8 40.3 94.9 171.3 322.9 99.1 167.6 163.8 108.8 323.5 112.1 106.3 113.6 96.6 22.1 

Professional Supervision: Hours 54.9 851.1 125.6 182.1 166.1 210.3 129.3 175.6 302.1 626.6 150.4 907.9 360.8 159.1 1123.3 90.1 137.6 383.1 325.6 199.8 

Total hours for 6.1.1 to 6.1.7: Hours 249.7 3239.3 565.5 1323.8 929.2 1098.3 745.4 938.9 2260.2 5492.5 537.1 4851.8 1453.7 910.5 3631.4 814.7 1401.8 2834.3 860.8 771.6 

32.8 1010.4 693.4 1703.8 

111.5 1085.9 267.5 1353.4 

252.9 865.1 12.8 877.9 

3179.0 22152.3 1027.5 23179.8 

579.1 4106.9 313.1 4420.0 

130.1 3313.9 164.6 3478.5 

936.1 7597.5 620.1 8217.6 

5221.5 40132.0 3099.0 43231.0 

Other Counselling Activities 

Total Single Interviews - Family Violence 49 849 188 364 222 153 269 254 377 931 117 511 268 133 1453 545 84 138 252 480 

Late Cancellations or Failures to Attend 38 66 83 93 137 94 132 100 202 536 3 417 53 126 500 19 82 132 33 45 

Child Abuse Notifications 3 78 14 4 12 6 5 74 8 93 7 76 9 0 2 10 7 23 35 36 

995 8632 423 9055 

197 3088 164 3252 

12 514 n.a. 514 

na – Figures were unavailable for the Family Court of W estern Australia. 

73


Table 4.7: Number of court files opened 1976 and 1987-98 

1976 1987 1988 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 97/98 

NORTHERN 

Brisbane 11510 7543 7571 7683 8255 9045 9599 9973 10063 11039 11500 11825 11793 18.1% 

Darwin - 396 314 567 546 534 573 574 576 621 3936 7810 673 1.0% 

Newcastle - 2109 2212 2555 2609 2909 3035 3094 3136 3196 3301 3491 3374 5.2% 

Parramatta 2017 4967 4498 4925 4982 5603 5451 5930 6229 6301 6553 6918 7032 10.8% 

Sydney 18125 8131 8472 7837 8611 8659 8700 8298 8460 8559 8794 8492 8761 13.5% 

Townsville - 1375 1413 1397 1455 1579 1737 1710 1822 1923 1967 2018 2031 3.1% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 7785 4602 4945 4986 5094 5344 5389 5423 5289 5346 5493 5464 5258 8.1% 

Canberra 2065 2087 2331 2830 2357 2400 2555 2473 2516 2553 1965 2049 1953 3.0% 

Dandenong - 3269 3687 3641 3674 4001 4031 4300 4360 4467 4652 4740 4842 7.4% 

Hobart 1360 699 831 898 924 981 1028 975 1109 1009 1019 1876 1822 2.8% 

Launceston 1050 697 732 771 819 911 1060 953 993 985 978 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 20016 9701 9794 10080 9619 9993 10071 9571 9943 10366 11053 11112 11126 17.1% 

FCA 

Total 63928 45576 46800 48170 48945 51959 53229 53274 54496 56365 61211 65795 58665 90.1% 

FCWA 

Perth 6685 4599 5326 5335 5078 5589 5839 5921 6251 6185 6346 6478 6439 9.9% 

Australia 

Total 70613 50175 52126 53505 54023 57548 59068 59195 60747 62550 67557 72273 65104 100.0% 

Note 1995-96 and 1996-97 figures for Darwin are inflated due to a backcapture of files. From 1996-97 Launceston figures are included in Hobart figures. 

74


Table 4.8: Total number of orders sought 1977 and 1987-98 


NORTHERN 

Brisbane 6133 7293 5784 7652 7690 7733 12216 11566 13408 10291 9445 16847 17669 15.3% 

Darwin - 327 46 496 690 605 685 577 433 492 821 1151 1469 1.3% 

Newcastle - 2354 2115 2499 3839 4362 4078 3987 4105 3514 3317 4852 4985 4.3% 

Parramatta 4314 9357 8599 10493 10201 10911 9238 8119 8202 6345 6472 10006 11555 10.0% 

Sydney 6494 5284 6643 8486 7050 6418 9238 9118 10092 8061 6682 9637 10337 8.9% 

Townsville - 1492 1279 1826 1656 1763 1855 1900 2082 1452 1448 2350 2485 2.1% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 3456 6366 4140 8393 12414 12024 10774 10958 11295 9210 9434 12999 15459 13.4% 

Canberra 1401 2566 1887 3240 3789 3302 3008 2645 2921 1918 1864 3646 3560 3.1% 

Dandenong - 6380 4850 7011 7285 6488 6133 6512 6565 5386 5327 8482 10293 8.9% 

Hobart 1113 1329 1158 1524 1361 1684 1484 1556 1825 1302 1457 4583 4234 3.7% 

Launceston 597 706 536 720 531 588 1146 1174 1234 1128 1083 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 7560 17448 13537 17892 17770 15929 18263 12962 14718 13408 14145 22147 24414 21.1% 

FCA 

Total 31068 60902 50574 70232 74276 71807 78118 71074 76880 62507 61495 96700 106460 92.0% 

FCWA 

Perth 1995 8058 7258 8707 6828 5053 6544 6166 6203 5245 6028 8534 9271 8.0% 


Total 33063 68960 57832 78939 81104 76860 84662 77240 83083 67752 67523 105234 115731 100.0% 

Orders Sought 

per file opened 0.5 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.8 

Note From 1996-97 Launceston figures are included in Hobart figures. 

The increase in orders sought shown in 1996-97 is partly due to procedural changes resulting from the introduction of Simplified Procedures. 

75


Table 4.9: Number of residence/specific issues orders sought in ancillary applications 1977 and 1987-98 


NORTHERN 

Brisbane 1984 984 1226 1229 1307 1500 2014 2075 2296 1852 1667 5786 6065 15.8% 

Darwin - 81 127 159 134 152 122 97 121 201 430 571 1.5% 

Newcastle - 323 371 449 918 1174 718 693 721 644 595 1721 1901 4.9% 

Parramatta 1065 1970 1721 2033 1939 2364 2099 1569 1610 1223 1269 3130 3878 10.1% 

Sydney 1602 755 588 923 941 952 1561 1466 1663 1256 1051 3001 3399 8.8% 

Townsville - 212 259 290 224 267 317 363 395 303 282 820 922 2.4% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 1048 869 1346 1860 3618 3473 1959 2112 2239 1933 1794 4527 5471 14.2% 

Canberra 371 250 522 807 1008 1039 622 550 685 367 372 1206 1094 2.8% 

Dandenong - 789 1205 1375 1499 2091 1322 1472 1526 1157 1131 2705 3499 9.1% 

Hobart 341 210 210 288 230 434 231 227 301 223 254 1269 1294 3.4% 

Launceston 167 89 102 113 70 100 134 141 164 180 176 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 2045 2904 4448 4986 4751 4757 5640 3018 3190 2866 2638 6542 7704 20.1% 

FCA 

Total 8623 9355 12079 14480 16664 18285 16769 13808 14887 12125 11430 31137 35798 93.2% 

FCWA 

Perth 757 1519 1730 1733 1353 1148 1438 1677 1374 1190 1165 2167 2613 6.8% 


Total 9380 10874 13809 16213 18017 19433 18207 15485 16261 13315 12595 33304 38411 100.0% 

As a % of all 

orders sought 28.4% 15.8% 23.9% 20.5% 22.2% 25.3% 21.5% 20.0% 19.6% 19.7% 18.7% 31.6% 33.2% 

Note From 1996-97 Launceston figures are included in Hobart figures. Prior to 1996-97 the orders reported in this table relate to guardianship/custody orders 

76


Table 4.10: Number of contact orders sought in ancillary applications 1977 and 1987-98 


NORTHERN 

Brisbane 612 690 864 859 981 1087 2031 2212 2457 2009 1793 3634 3795 15.8% 

Darwin - 63 102 121 96 123 120 102 121 209 275 339 1.4% 

Newcastle - 283 263 304 565 760 734 745 763 708 668 1097 1176 4.9% 

Parramatta 585 1381 1386 1635 1812 2137 2003 1751 1752 1407 1407 1959 2427 10.1% 

Sydney 604 713 476 739 861 916 1532 1548 1745 1440 1220 1756 1960 8.2% 

Townsville - 166 174 187 199 228 296 355 411 244 287 476 528 2.2% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 411 408 725 1034 1868 1630 1544 1756 1898 1778 1735 2665 2901 12.1% 

Canberra 342 193 387 515 603 664 640 587 727 524 463 846 799 3.3% 

Dandenong - 702 1078 1192 1315 1238 1353 1460 1601 1285 1292 1837 2197 9.2% 

Hobart 144 153 170 229 215 325 240 257 341 272 297 859 792 3.3% 

Launceston 64 75 65 88 48 87 133 151 167 196 194 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 1016 1499 2078 2326 2673 2660 3443 2831 3148 3022 2899 4316 4776 19.9% 

FCA 

Total 1977 6263 7729 9210 11261 11828 14072 13773 15112 13006 12464 19720 21690 90.5% 

FCWA 

Perth - 976 1217 1409 1179 907 1305 1198 1144 1138 1350 2177 2268 9.5% 


Total 1977 7239 8946 10619 12440 12735 15377 14971 16256 14144 13814 21897 23958 100.0% 


orders sought 11.4% 10.5% 15.5% 13.5% 15.3% 16.6% 18.2% 19.4% 19.6% 20.9% 20.5% 20.8% 20.7% 

Note From 1996-97 Launceston figures are included in Hobart figures. Prior to 1996-97 the orders reported in this table relate to access orders. 

77


Table 4.11: Number of property orders sought in ancillary applications 1977 and 1987-98 


NORTHERN 

Brisbane 1343 1937 2238 2399 2511 2480 3403 3194 3559 2130 1511 1906 2072 15.0% 

Darwin - - 65 102 208 185 184 171 116 99 135 101 86 0.6% 

Newcastle - 922 810 812 1075 1349 1162 1162 1225 751 523 606 595 4.3% 

Parramatta 1050 2658 2544 2936 2770 2908 2553 1878 1974 1369 1075 1216 1163 8.4% 

Sydney 1981 3125 2332 3465 2729 2324 3531 3218 3441 1732 1707 1898 1859 13.4% 

Townsville - 445 424 461 441 544 526 504 586 294 229 270 277 2.0% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 656 1239 1978 2298 2583 2698 2436 2439 2222 1294 900 1119 1273 9.2% 

Canberra 213 805 1104 1177 1146 1102 1062 959 950 378 368 488 422 3.0% 

Dandenong - 1438 2012 2123 2143 1842 1781 1854 1807 1069 860 973 986 7.1% 

Hobart 186 393 451 444 428 508 450 499 535 219 157 388 339 2.4% 

Launceston 149 202 235 241 238 269 322 343 440 227 150 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 1794 3698 4632 4719 4613 4711 5797 4002 4215 2915 2646 3146 3254 23.5% 

FCA 

Total 7372 16862 18825 21177 20885 20920 23207 20223 21070 12477 10261 12111 12326 89.0% 

FCWA 

Perth 504 2199 2090 2125 1692 1456 1777 1611 1824 1233 1331 1416 1531 11.0% 


Total 7876 19061 20915 23302 22577 22376 24984 21834 22894 13710 11592 13527 13857 100.0% 


orders sought 23.8% 27.6% 36.2% 29.5% 27.8% 29.1% 29.5% 28.3% 27.6% 20.2% 17.2% 12.9% 12.0% 


78


Table 4.12: Number of maintenance orders sought in ancillary applications 1977 and 1987-98 


NORTHERN 

Brisbane 1806 1154 1731 1876 1896 1307 1864 1742 1742 1096 470 754 958 18.8% 

Darwin - - 64 100 116 95 76 43 29 38 39 43 33 0.6% 

Newcastle - 400 522 634 951 733 492 346 257 176 100 131 144 2.8% 

Parramatta 1071 1171 1403 1716 1642 1121 645 459 391 281 126 260 270 5.3% 

Sydney 1788 1741 548 1162 1028 1021 958 767 741 1367 282 518 465 9.1% 

Townsville - 193 305 395 380 349 240 154 155 124 38 66 104 2.0% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 1044 628 1088 1607 2909 2989 2380 2304 1820 1048 441 598 765 15.0% 

Canberra 326 217 457 650 750 345 344 217 184 153 45 161 133 2.6% 

Dandenong - 660 1245 1463 1408 786 567 476 453 314 165 294 334 6.6% 

Hobart 282 234 318 377 322 234 130 138 116 72 54 162 134 2.6% 

Launceston 170 115 148 138 112 66 115 94 95 56 28 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 2081 1675 3424 3393 3180 2122 1869 1277 1163 923 627 899 1034 20.3% 

FCA 

Total 8568 8188 11253 13511 14694 11168 9680 8017 7146 5648 2415 3886 4374 85.8% 

FCWA 

Perth 286 1397 1558 1588 1048 563 518 442 458 351 231 791 721 14.2% 


Total 8854 9585 12811 15009 15742 11731 10198 8459 7604 5999 2646 4677 5095 100.0% 


orders sought 26.8% 13.9% 22.2% 19.0% 19.4% 15.3% 12.0% 11.0% 9.2% 8.9% 3.9% 4.4% 4.4% 


79


Table 4.13: Number of injunctions sought in ancillary applications 1977 and 1987-98 


NORTHERN 

Brisbane 388 446 410 422 388 448 580 684 699 601 588 682 696 9.3% 

Darwin - - 17 24 31 13 32 17 15 15 49 74 105 1.0% 

Newcastle - 179 181 144 280 252 254 206 190 199 183 201 196 2.8% 

Parramatta 543 898 598 519 551 515 494 590 484 420 421 636 782 8.7% 

Sydney 519 410 207 651 405 254 492 642 746 690 575 664 722 9.1% 

Townsville - 80 76 102 70 74 100 120 97 95 96 97 78 1.3% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 297 365 592 788 1436 1234 1071 1152 1233 1260 1491 1481 1565 20.3% 

Canberra 149 44 63 88 141 208 147 109 118 203 142 209 275 2.9% 

Dandenong - 145 228 251 270 336 357 380 353 381 439 476 574 6.5% 

Hobart 160 113 111 119 103 167 95 100 143 139 143 320 343 4.4% 

Launceston 47 53 46 37 25 45 81 90 81 95 90 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 624 669 713 576 715 331 365 734 1042 1161 1414 1650 1883 22.6% 

FCA 

Total 2727 3402 3242 3721 4415 3877 4068 4824 5201 5259 5631 6490 7219 88.9% 

FCWA 

Perth 448 581 502 488 391 317 439 472 597 544 637 808 850 11.1% 


Total 3175 3983 3744 4209 4806 4194 4507 5296 5798 5803 6268 7298 8069 100.0% 


orders sought 9.6% 5.8% 6.5% 5.3% 5.9% 5.5% 5.3% 6.9% 7.0% 8.6% 9.3% 6.9% 7.0% 


80


Table 4.14: Number of all types of ancillary applications reported 1976 and 1987-98 


NORTHERN 

Brisbane 3850 4150 4318 4652 4673 5672 8626 8580 8872 9439 10619 12265 12372 15.3% 

Darwin - 298 194 310 390 366 382 370 369 149 810 867 984 1.2% 

Newcastle - 1693 1672 1762 2472 3262 3452 3328 3281 3328 3804 3953 4046 5.0% 

Parramatta 855 5188 5252 5576 5640 6438 5806 6140 6115 6278 6623 7014 7626 9.4% 

Sydney 5161 5599 3665 5892 5994 6474 7288 7731 7729 7824 8073 8649 8679 10.7% 

Townsville - 819 920 970 792 954 1370 1418 1574 1646 1809 2035 2051 2.5% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 2788 2398 4370 5817 7040 7018 7516 7800 7754 7791 9115 9314 9649 11.9% 

Canberra 1172 1351 1751 2063 1848 2418 2348 2260 2367 2336 2242 2778 2651 3.3% 

Dandenong - 2240 3268 3399 3754 3452 3797 4017 3995 4289 4820 5512 6284 7.8% 

Hobart 845 762 823 881 911 1126 1127 1064 1283 1205 1458 3499 3048 3.8% 

Launceston 370 432 494 518 423 503 904 941 954 1189 1201 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 6021 6106 8258 8446 7446 7945 8708 9270 10125 11226 12939 14500 14831 18.3% 

FCA 

Total 21062 31036 34985 40286 41383 45628 51324 52919 54418 56700 63513 70386 72221 89.3% 

FCWA 

Perth 2549 4345 4668 4538 5058 5026 5539 5271 6220 6240 7349 8507 8610 10.7% 


Total 23611 35381 39653 44824 46441 50654 56863 58190 60638 62940 70862 78893 80831 100% 

Note This table shows the total number of forms 7, 8 and 12A (or their equivalent in earlier years) plus, since 2 1989, and 43. forms 7A, 1 

From 1996-97 Launceston figures are included in Hobart figures. 

81


Table 4.15: Number of applicants in person – divorces – 1981 and 1987-98 

1981 1987 1988 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 97/98 

NORTHERN 

Brisbane 1397 1918 2573 2559 2758 3275 6103 4691 4567 5375 6371 6920 7471 19.8% 

Darwin - - 90 196 238 250 282 259 154 286 501 387 388 1.0% 

Newcastle 429 1032 974 1025 917 1120 1615 1640 1763 1832 2050 2348 2173 5.8% 

Parramatta 1404 1885 1619 1727 1667 2114 2445 2782 2860 3360 3640 3822 3658 9.7% 

Sydney 1703 2150 2236 2350 2413 2875 2952 3083 3100 3584 4672 4158 4216 11.2% 

Townsville 175 512 460 420 390 585 750 768 773 942 1139 1108 1174 3.1% 

SOUTHERN 

Adelaide 1405 1751 2226 2243 2258 2563 3267 2908 2945 3434 3572 3749 3454 9.2% 

Canberra 453 539 670 738 734 1026 1515 1362 1436 1464 1230 1285 1223 3.2% 

Dandenong - 931 1054 1058 1140 1060 2371 1903 1945 2262 2663 2755 2693 7.1% 

Hobart 234 388 366 399 412 411 622 620 598 444 665 1199 1164 3.1% 

Launceston 238 434 447 486 509 557 666 607 668 601 611 - - 0.0% 

Melbourne 2001 1874 1880 1796 2248 2804 3146 4471 3985 4549 5772 5559 5535 14.7% 

FCA 

Total 9439 13414 14595 14997 15684 18640 25734 25094 24794 28133 32886 33290 33149 87.9% 

FCWA 

Perth 1558 2511 2602 2955 2543 2424 3686 3627 4368 4476 4431 4692 4559 12.1% 


Total 10997 15925 17197 17952 18227 21064 29420 28721 29162 32609 37317 37982 37708 100.0% 

As a % of 

total divorce 25.3% 38.8% 42.3% 43.0% 43.8% 46.2% 61.4% 59.1% 59.0% 63.6% 71.0% 71.1% 71.2% 

applications 


82


Table 4.16: Number of mediation information sessions held 1997-98 

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Annual Total 

Registry July 1–Sep 30 Oct 1–Dec 31 Jan 1–Mar 31 Apr 1–June 30 

Brisbane 13 12 12 13 50 

Melbourne 15 9 13 11 48 

Parramatta 11 5 7 7 30 

Sydney 12 11 12 7 42 

Total 51 37 44 38 170 

Table 4.17: Number of people who attended mediation information sessions 1997-98 



Brisbane 64 89 69 70 292 

Melbourne 71 59 94 57 281 

Parramatta 45 20 40 28 133 

Sydney 72 60 60 86 278 

Total 252 228 263 241 984 

83


Table 4.18: Number of mediation cases opened 1997-98 



Brisbane 24 25 23 30 102 

Melbourne 30 32 41 24 127 

Parramatta 10 22 14 13 59 

Sydney 30 25 25 38 118 

Total 94 104 103 105 406 

Table 4.19: Number of mediation sessions held 1997-98 



Brisbane 59 43 53 50 205 

Melbourne 108 71 73 86 338 

Parramatta 23 16 16 25 80 

Sydney 57 33 42 63 195 

Total 247 163 184 224 818 

84


Table 4.20: Average number of mediation sessions to settlement 1997-98 



Brisbane 2.43 2.28 1.76 1.67 2 

Melbourne 2.4 2 2.5 2.58 2.4 

Parramatta 1.6 1.5 1.25 1.2 1.4 

Sydney 2.2 1.8 2 1.8 2 

Total 2.16 1.9 1.9 1.8 2 

Table 4.21: Full settlement rates in mediation 1997-98 



Brisbane 85.71% 50% 61.9% 66.67% 66.1% 

Melbourne 65.22% 65.2% 42.9% 81.5% 63.6% 

Parramatta 58.33% 50% 38% 93.3% 59.9% 

Sydney 64.5% 53.8% 50% 46.2% 53.6% 

Total 68.44% 54.75% 48.2% 71.9% 60.8% 

85


Table 4.22: Partial settlement rates in mediation 1997-98 



Brisbane 0% 11.11% 4.76% 8.33% 6.1% 

Melbourne 10.87% 13.1% 17.8% 6.25% 12% 

Parramatta 25% 25% 12% 6.7% 17.2% 

Sydney 6.5% 7.7% 8.3% 3.8% 6.6% 

Total 10.59% 14.23% 48.2% 6.3% 10.5% 

Table 4.23: Mediation – Percentage of pre-filing cases* 1997-98 



Brisbane 79% 80% 74% 83% 79% 

Melbourne 88.9% 100% 93% 85.8% 92% 

Parramatta 63.63% 81% 100% 92% 84% 

Sydney 80% 72% 76.9% 89.7% 80% 

Total 77.9% 83.25% 10.7% 87.6% 83.7% 

*The remaining cases were referred by the consent of the parties after an application had been filed. 

86


Table 4.24a: Issues presenting in mediation – joint issues 1997-98 



Brisbane 33.3% 56% 43% 50% 45.6% 

Melbourne 58% 48% 57% 61.2% 56.1% 

Parramatta 59% 37.5% 50% 40% 46.6% 

Sydney 62% 48% 72% 46.7% 57.2% 

Total 53.1% 47.4% 55.5% 49.5% 51.4% 

Table 4.24b: Issues presenting in mediation – property issues only 1997-98 



Brisbane 66.7% 33% 52% 25% 44.2% 

Melbourne 40% 48% 36% 33.3% 39.3% 

Parramatta 33% 37.5% 37.5% 30% 34.5% 

Sydney 32% 48% 21% 46.7% 36.9% 

Total 42.9% 41.6% 36.6% 33.8% 38.7% 

Table 4.24c: Issues presenting in mediation – children’s issues only 1997-98 



Brisbane 0% 11% 5% 25% 10.2% 

Melbourne 2% 4% 7% 5.5% 4.6% 

Parramatta 8% 25% 12.5% 30% 18.8% 

Sydney 6% 4% 7% 6.6% 5.9% 

Total 4% 11% 7.9% 16.8% 9.9% 

87


88

Part five – appendices 

Staffing overview 

Financial Statements 

Summary table of resources 

Advertising 

Service charter 

89


Appendix 1 


The full-time equivalent staffing level over the year was 822. At 30 June 1998 the total 

number of paid staff and judicial officers was 1041. 

Senior Executive Service 

At 30 June 1998 there were 27 full-time and one part-time Senior Executive Service positions 

in the Family Court. Eight of these full-time positions are Senior Executive 

Generalist positions. All of these positions are filled with permanent officers, one on a 

temporary transfer basis. 

The subsequent 20 positions are Senior Executive (Specialist) positions of senior registrars 

and registrars, with 17 of the positions being filled by their nominal occupants and 

three filled on a temporary transfer basis. 

Performance pay of $7000 each was paid to three female and two male SES staff for the 

1997-98 financial year. 

There were two commencements this financial year and no separations. 

Human Resource Development 

Nationally during the 1997-98 financial year the Court spent $1,158,667 on Human 

Resource Development (HRD). This amount includes all training costs and salaries for participants 

and presenters engaged in training activities, staff development scheme fees and 

scholarships, administrative costs and salary for all HRD staff. The number of training 

days for the Court nationally was 1922. 

Days spent in training by EEO target group members: 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff 33.5 

Staff from a non-English Speaking background 209 

People with disabilities 32 

Women 1277 

Throughout 1997-98 the HRD unit continued with its emphasis on developing programs to 

support the core business of the Court. This has included the preparation and delivery of 

packages on the introduction of counselling fees, new fee waiver forms and procedures, 

the new proforma affidavit for interim residence, contact and specific issues orders, 

enhancements for the mainframe computer (Blackstone) and revenue collection systems in 

relation to fees. The Court’s internal mediation program for the accreditation of Courtappointed 

mediators was completed and training continued in Integrated Client Services. 

The HRD unit also continued to assist with training for the Court’s computer systems. This 

included training for the counselling case management system (CRIS) in Albury, Canberra, 

Darwin and Hobart registries. Other major programs included the development of the User 

Manual for the automated Defended Hearing Statistic system and delivery of the related 

training program nationally and the coordination of a national PC training program involving 

457 staff. HRD members participated in the user groups for both CRIS and Blackstone 

90


as well as having membership of the Corporate Information Technology Plan planning 

committee. 

The unit was also involved in major change programs in the Court and this saw the 

development and part presentation of training sessions on the Corporate Information 

Technology Plan and facilitating the preparation of local business plans. 

National development activities were held for all professional staff. This included 

programs for the directors and deputy directors of Court counselling. There were also 

workshops for counsellors and programs for senior and deputy registrars presented by an 

eminent expert, Dr Peter Jaffe, on the impact of Family Violence on Children. Ongoing 

training programs in pre-hearing conferences and court skills were also delivered for 

registrars. 

Ahighlight of the year for the unit was the successful Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

workshop held in Cooktown. The workshop, an initiative of the Court’s Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander Awareness Committee, was attended by 85 delegates from the Family 

Court and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and groups. (See also Year in 

Review – judicial training; and Social justice, access and equity). 

The HRD unit and area staff administered Studybank for 69 participants nationally. 

Consultants 

There were 21 consultants engaged during 1997-98, and payments totalling $460,929.10 

were made. 

Total paid staff at 30 June 1998 (both permanent and temporary) 

Component one: Judges, judicial registrars and support staff 

Component two: Registrars, deputy registrars and support staff 

Component three: Counsellors and support staff 

Component four: Other administrative staff 

Table 5.1a: Total paid staff at 30 June 1998 – Office of the Chief Executive 

Component one two three four total 

Gender M F M F M F M F M F T 

Judge 2 - - - - - - - 2 - 2 

CEO - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 

SESband 2& equiv - - - 1 - - 2 - 2 1 3 

SES band 1& equiv - 1 2 1 - 1 1 - 3 3 6 

SNR PAO 2 1 - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

Legal 2 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 2 

SOG C-A & equiv - 2 - - 2 3 15 11 17 16 33 

PO 2 - - - - - - - 3 - 3 3 

ASO 1-6 & equiv 3 2 - - - - 24 24 27 36 63 

total 7 5 2 3 2 4 43 48 54 60 114 

91


Table 5.1b: Total paid staff at 30 June 1998 – Northern Area 



Judge 23 5 - - - - - - 23 5 28 

Judicial Registrar 4 1 - - - - - - 4 1 5 

SES band 1 & equiv - - 7 3 - - - 1 7 4 11 

Legal 2 - - 10 17 - - - - 10 17 27 

SOG C-A & equiv - - - - 24 62 7 4 31 66 97 

ASO 1-6 & equiv 1 37 3 22 7 49 83 128 94 236 330 

total 28 43 20 42 31 111 90 133 169 329 498 

Table 5.1c: Total paid staff at 30 June 1998 – Southern Area 



Judge 16 6 - - - - - - 16 6 22 

Judicial Registrar 4 - - - - - - - 4 - 4 

SES band 1 & equiv - - 4 2 - - 1 - 5 2 7 

Legal 2 - - 8 12 - - - - 8 12 20 

SOG C-A& equiv - - - - 20 44 6 2 26 46 72 

ASO 1-6 & equiv - 31 2 21 - 37 84 129 86 218 304 

total 20 37 14 35 20 81 91 131 145 284 429 

Table 5.1d: Total paid staff at 30 June 1998 – whole court 



Judge 41 11 - - - - - - 41 11 52 

Judicial Registrar 8 1 - - - - - - 8 1 9 

CEO - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 

SES band 2 & equiv - - - 1 - - 2 - 2 1 3 

SES band 1 & equiv - 1 13 6 - 1 2 1 15 9 24 

SNR PAO 2 1 - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

Legal 2 1 0 18 30 - - - - 19 30 49 

SOG C-A & equiv - 2 - - 46 109 28 17 74 128 202 

PO 2 - - - - - - - 3 - 3 3 

ASO 1-6 & equiv 4 70 5 43 7 86 191 291 207 490 697 

total 55 85 36 80 53 196 224 312 368 673 1041 

92


Part-time staff at 30 June 1998 (both permanent and temporary) 

Table 5.2a: Part-time staff at 30 June 1998 – Office of the Chief Executive 



SOG C-A& equiv - - - - - - - 1 - 1 1 

PO2 - - - - - - - 1 - 1 1 

ASO 1-6 & equiv - - - - - - - 1 - 1 1 

total - - - - - - - 3 - 3 3 

Table 5.2b: Part-time staff at 30 June 1998 – Northern Area 

component one two three four total 

gender M F M F M F M F M F T 


Legal 2 - - - 5 - - - - - 5 5 

SOG C-A&equiv - - - - 2 16 - - 2 16 18 

ASO 1-6 & equiv - 2 - 1 2 15 14 12 16 30 46 

total 1 2 - 6 4 31 14 12 19 51 70 

Table 5.2c: Part-time staff at 30 June 1998 – Southern Area 




SES 1 & equiv - - - 1 - - - - - 1 1 

Legal 2 - - - 5 - - - - - 5 5 

SOG C-A& equiv - - - - 1 13 - - 1 13 14 

ASO 1-6 & equiv - 2 - 7 - 12 23 36 23 57 80 

total 1 - - 13 1 25 23 36 25 76 101 

Table 5.2d: Part-time staff at 30 June 1998 – whole court 




SES 1 & equiv - - - 1 - - - - - 1 1 

Legal 2 - - - 10 - - - - - 10 10 

SOG C-A & equiv - - - - 3 29 - 1 3 30 33 

PO 2 - - - - - - - 1 - 1 1 

ASO 1-6 & equiv - 4 - 8 2 27 37 49 39 88 12 

total 2 4 - 19 5 56 37 51 44 130 174 

93


Temporary staff at 30 June 1998 (both permanent and temporary) 

Table 5.3a: Temporary staff at 30 June 1998 – Office of the Chief Executive 



SES 1 & equiv - 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 

SOG C-A & equiv - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 

ASO 1-6 & equiv 1 4 - - - - 2 9 3 13 16 

total 1 5 - - - - 3 9 4 14 18 

Table 5.3b: Temporary staff at 30 June 1998 – Northern Area 



Legal 2 - - - 2 - - - - - 2 2 

SOG C-A & equiv - - - - 1 2 - - 1 2 3 

ASO 1-6 & equiv - 6 - 4 3 18 23 27 26 55 81 

total - 6 - 6 4 20 23 27 27 59 86 

Table 5.3c: Temporary staff at 30 June 1998 – Southern Area 



Legal 2 - - - 2 - - - - - 2 2 

SOG C-A & equiv - - - - - 1 - - - 1 1 

ASO 1-6 & equiv - 7 - 2 1 18 36 54 37 81 118 

total - 7 - 4 1 19 36 54 37 84 121 

Table 5.3d: Temporary staff at 30 June 1998 – whole court 



SES 1 & equiv - 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 

Legal 2 - - - 4 - - - - - 4 4 

SOG C-A & equiv - - - - 1 3 1 - 2 3 5 

ASO 1-6 & equiv 1 17 - 6 4 36 61 90 66 149 215 

total 1 18 - 10 5 39 62 90 68 157 225 

Key to abbreviations: 

CEO – Chief Executive Officer; SES – Senior Executive Service; SNR PAO2 – Senior Public Affairs 

Officer Grade 2; SOG C-A & equiv – Senior Officer Grade C-A and equivalent; PO2 – Professional 

Officer Class 2; ASO 1-6 – Administrative Service Officer 1-6 and equivalent. 

94


Appendix 3 

Financial Statements 1997-98 

Contents: 

Independent Audit Report 

Statement by the Chief Executive Officer 

Departmental Review and Expenses 

Administered Revenues and Expenses 

Departmental Assets and Liabilities 

Administered Assets and Liabilities 

Departmental cash flows 

Administered cash flows 

Schedule of commitments 

Schedule of contingencies 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

95

The Family Court of Australia– annual report 1997-98 

96


97


98


FAMILYCOURTOF AUSTRALIA 

DEPARTMENTALREVENUES AND EXPENSES 

for the year ended 30 June 1998 

NET COST OF SERVICES 

Notes 1997/98 1996/97 

$ $ 

Expenses 

Employees 4 59,954,778 58,772,759 

Suppliers 5 34,902,184 37,810,768 

Depreciation and amortisation 6 2,452,068 1,908,931 

Interest 7 0 3,860 

Write down of assets 8 805 51,571 

Net losses from sales of assets 9 43 4,220 

Total expenses 97,309,878 98,552,109 

Revenues from independent sources 

Sales of goods and services 10 916,885 646,360 

Net gains from sales of assets 11 0 4,717 

Interest 12 351,887 4,136 

Other 13 0 1,886,317 

Total revenues from independent sources 1,268,772 2,541,530 

Net cost of services 96,041,106 96,010,579 

REVENUES FROM GOVERNMENT 

Appropriations used for: 

Ordinary annual services (net appropriations) 26 100,011,073 106,110,199 

Liabilities assumed by other departments 14 5,457,480 5,338,992 

Resources received free of charge 15 83,450 170,498 

Total revenues from government 105,552,003 111,619,689 

Operating surplus 9,510,897 15,609,110 

Accumulated results at 1 July 1997 8,212,689 (7,396,421) 

Accumulated results at 30 June 1998 16 17,723,586 8,212,689 

The accompanying notes form part of these financial statements 

99



ADMINISTERED REVENUES AND EXPENSES 



$ $ 

REVENUES 

Fees and Fines 10 14,637,103 14,626,808 

Total revenues 14,637,103 14,626,808 

EXPENSES 

Net write down of assets 8 0 500 

Total expenses 0 500 

Net contribution 14,637,103 14,626,308 

TRANSFERS 

Cash to Commonwealth Public Account 14,628,233 14,562,828 

Net change in administered net assets 8,870 63,480 

Accumulated results at 1 July 1997 150,000 86,520 

Accumulated results at 30 June 1998 16 158,870 150,000 


100



DEPARTMENTALASSETS AND LIABILITIES 

as at 30 June 1998 


$ $ 

PROVISIONS AND PAYABLES 

Employees 17 17,904,977 16,960,512 

Suppliers 18 1,199,800 817,194 

Total provisions and payables 19,104,777 17,777,706 

EQUITY 

Accumulated results 16 17,723,586 8,212,689 

Total equity 17,723,586 8,212,689 

Total liabilities and equity 36,828,363 25,990,395 

FINANCIALASSETS 

Cash 19 115,717 101,893 

Receivables 20 7,322,709 6,572,288 

Other 21 18,062,758 7,942,155 

Total financial assets 25,501,184 14,616,336 

NON-FINANCIALASSETS 

Land & buildings 22 3,982,961 4,793,209 

Infrastructure, plant and equipment 22 7,188,184 6,443,854 

Inventories 24 156,034 136,996 

Total non-financial assets 11,327,179 11,374,059 

Total assets 36,828,363 25,990,395 

Current liabilities 6,421,668 5,128,985 

Non-current liabilities 12,683,109 12,648,721 

Current assets 25,657,218 14,753,332 

Non-current assets 11,171,145 11,237,063 


101

The Family Court of Australia – annual report1997-98 


ADMINISTERED ASSETS AND LIABILITIES 



$ $ 


Suppliers 18 150 0 

Total provisions and payables 150 0 

EQUITY 

Accumulated results 16 158,870 150,000 

Total Equity 158,870 150,000 

Total liabilities and equity 159,020 150,000 

FINANCIALASSETS 

Cash 19 153,200 139,720 

Receivables 20 5,820 10,280 

Total financial assets 159,020 150,000 

Current liabilities 150 0 

Non-current liabilities 0 0 

Current assets 159,020 150,000 

Non-current assets 0 0 


102



DEPARTMENTALCASH FLOWS 



$ $ 

OPERATING ACTIVITIES 

Cash received 

Appropriations 26 100,532,970 99,565,590 

Sale of goods and services 908,235 647,120 

Interest 10,410 4,136 

Total cash received 101,451,615 100,216,846 

Cash used 

Employees (53,520,786) (53,278,277) 

Suppliers (45,648,439) (44,033,916) 

Borrowing costs - Interest 7 0 (3,860) 

Total cash used (99,169,225) (97,316,053) 

Net cash from operating activities 25 2,282,390 2,900,793 

INVESTING ACTIVITIES 

Cash received 

Proceeds from sales of property, 

plant and equipment 2,994 6,564 

Total cash received 2,994 6,564 

Cash used 

Purchase of property, plant and equipment (2,271,560) (2,882,282) 


Net cash used by investing activities (2,268,566) (2,875,718) 

Net increase in cash held 13,824 25,075 

add cash at 1 July 1997 101,893 76,818 

Cash at 30 June 1998 19 115,717 101,893 


103



ADMINISTERED CASH FLOWS 



$ $ 

OPERATING ACTIVITIES 

Cash received 

Fees and Fines 14,641,713 14,618,528 

Total cash received 14,641,713 14,618,528 

Cash used 

Cash to Commonwealth Public Account (14,628,233) (14,562,828) 

Other 8 0 500 


Net cash from operating activities 25 13,480 55,200 

Net increase in cash held 13,480 55,200 

add cash at 1 July 1997 139,720 84,520 

Cash at 30 June 1998 19 153,200 139,720 


104



SCHEDULE OFCOMMITMENTS 


BYTYPE 

Notes Departmental Administered 

1997/98 1996/97 1997/98 1996/97 

$ $ $ $ 

CAPITALCOMMITMENTS 

Infrastructure, plant and equipment 455,880 126,147 0 0 

Total capital commitments 455,880 126,147 0 0 

OTHER COMMITMENTS 

Operating leases 2.7 72,384,189 78,653,130 0 0 

Other commitments 36,864,815 35,193,279 0 0 

Total other commitments 109,249,004 113,846,409 0 0 

Net commitments 109,704,884 113,972,556 0 0 

BYMATURITY 

All net commitments 

One year or less 15,076,218 14,174,609 0 0 

From one to two years 12,775,091 22,074,424 0 0 

From two to five years 51,213,820 51,884,156 0 0 

Over five years 30,639,755 25,839,367 0 0 


Operating Lease Commitments 

One year or less 5,854,936 6,584,649 0 0 

From one to two years 7,906,361 15,090,284 0 0 

From two to five years 38,036,947 38,832,104 0 0 

Over five years 20,585,945 18,146,093 0 0 



105



SCHEDULE OFCONTINGENCIES 


There were no Departmental or Administered contingent losses or gains as at 30 June 1998. 

SCHEDULE OF UNQUANTIFIABLE CONTINGENCIES 

There were no unquantifiable contingencies as at 30 June 1998. 


106


Note Description 

1 Objective of the Family Court of Australia 

2 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 

3 Events occurring after Balance Date 

REVENUES AND EXPENSES 

4 Employee Expenses 

5 Suppliers Expenses 

6 Depreciation and Amortisation 

7 Interest - Expenses 

8 Write down of Assets 

9 Net Losses from Sale of Assets 

10 Sale of Goods and Services 

11 Net Gains from Sale of Assets 

12 Interest - Revenue 

13 Other - Abnormal Revenue 

14 Liabilities assumed by Other Departments 

15 Resources received Free of Charge from Other Departments 

EQUITY 

16 Equity 


NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OFTHE FINANCIALSTATEMENTS 



17 Provisions and Payables - Employee Liabilities 

18 Provisions and Payables - Suppliers 

ASSETS 

19 Financial Assets - Cash 

20 Financial Assets - Receivables 

21 Financial Assets - Other 

22 Non-financial Assets 

23 Analysis of Property, Plant and Equipment 

24 Non-financial Assets - Inventories 

OTHER INFORMATION 

25 Cash Flow Reconciliation 

26 Expenditure from Annual Appropriation 

27 Receipts and Payments of the Trust Funds (Commonwealth Activities) 

28 Receipts and Payments of the Trust Fund 

(Bank Accounts outside the Commonwealth Public Account) 

29 Executives’Remuneration 

30 Services Provided by the Auditor-General 

31 Act of Grace Payments, Exemptions, Waivers and Write-offs 

32 Financial Instruments 

107





NOTE 1 - OBJECTIVE OFTHE FAMILYCOURT OFAUSTRALIA 

The Family Court of Australia operates in Australia to serve the interests of the 

Australian community by providing for the just and equitable administration of 

justice in all matters within the Court’s jurisdiction, with emphasis in its family 

jurisdiction on the conciliation of disputes and the welfare of children. 

NOTE 2 - SUMMARYOFSIGNIFICANTACCOUNTING POLICIES 

2.1 Reporting requirements 

The Financial Statements are required by section 49 of the Financial Management 

and Accountability (FMA) Act 1997 and are a general purpose financial report. 

The statements have been prepared in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Finance 

Minister’s Orders issued by the Minister for Finance and Administration in June 

1998. This Schedule requires that the financial statements are prepared: 

in compliance with Australian Accounting Standards, Accounting Guidance 

Releases and Urgent Issues Group Consensus Views issued by the Australian 

Accounting Research Foundation, and 

having regard to Statements of Accounting Concepts. 

2.2 Basis of accounting 

The financial statements have been prepared on an accrual accounting basis and are 

in accordance with the historical cost convention except for library collections 

which, as noted in Note 2.10, are at valuation. They do not take into account the 

effect of changing money values on the results or the financial position. The 

accounting policies have been consistently applied. 

The continued existence of the Court in its present form is dependent on 

Government policy and on continuing appropriations by Parliament for the Court’s 

administration. 

2.3 Departmental and Administered items 

Departmental assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses are those items that are 

controlled by the Court including: 

property, plant and equipment used in providing services; 

liabilities for employee entitlements and suppliers; 

revenues from running costs appropriations and from user charging etc. where 

the proceeds are appropriated under section 31 of the FMAAct 1997; and 

employee expenses and other administrative expenses incurred in providing 

services. 

108





Administered items are those items which are controlled by the Commonwealth 

Government and managed in a fiduciary capacity by the Court. These items include 

court fees and fines received on behalf of the Commonwealth Government. 

The purpose of the separation of administered and departmental items is to enable 

the assessment of administrative efficiency of the Court in providing services. 

Administered items are distinguished from departmental items in the financial 

statements by shading. 

The basis of accounting referred to in Note 2.2 applies to both departmental and 

administered items. 

Schedule 2 requires that administered transactions are accounted for on a double 

entry basis. The effect of this requirement is that transfers of cash to and from the 

Official Commonwealth Public Account (CPA) will be reported on the face of the 

Statement of Administered Revenues and Expenses where operating transactions 

are involved, and that, where transactions involving financial assets and liabilities 

not arising from operations are involved, receivables from and payables to the CPA 

will be recognised in the Statement of Administered Assets and Liabilities. 

2.4 Appropriations 

Schedule 2 requires that amounts received as appropriations for running costs 

operations are to be recognised as revenue according to their nature under the 

Running Costs Arrangements. Under these arrangements the Court received a base 

amount of funding by way of appropriation for running costs. The base amount has 

been further supplemented by a carryover from the previous year of unspent 

appropriations within an allowable limit. 

The Court has recognised an amount equal to the running costs appropriations 

received as revenue and an amount of unspent appropriation carried over to the 

next financial year as receivable. 

2.5 Resources received free of charge from other departments 

Resources received free of charge are recognised in the Departmental Statement of 

Revenues and Expenses as revenue where the amounts can be reliably measured. 

Use of those resources is recognised in the Net Cost of Services in the 

Departmental Statement of Revenues and Expenses. Adescription of resources 

received free of charge is provided in Note 15. 

2.6 Employee entitlements 

The provision for employee entitlements encompasses salaries, annual recreational 

leave, long service leave, Judges long leave and superannuation. It represents the 

109





amount which the Court has a present obligation to pay resulting from employees’ 

services provided up to the balance date. 

Leave 

The provision for annual recreational leave reflects the value of total annual leave 

entitlements of all employees as at balance date and has been calculated at nominal 

amounts based on current pay rates and includes related on-costs. 

No provision has been made for sick leave as all sick leave is non-vesting and the 

average sick leave as taken in future years by employees of the Court is estimated 

to be less than the annual entitlement for sick leave. 

Long service leave entitlements are accrued in respect of all employees with over 

3.5 years service, except for Judges. The liability for Judges long leave 

entitlements is calculated from commencement of service. In determining the 

present value of the liability for employee entitlement to long service leave and 

Judges long leave, the Court has taken into account estimated future salary rates 

and salary increases through promotion and inflation. 

The determination of the current portion of the liability for long service leave is 

based on past history of payments and the non-current portion is recognised and 

measured at the present value of the estimated future cash flows. 

Superannuation 

The staff of the Family Court of Australia contribute to either the Commonwealth 

Superannuation Scheme or the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. 

Employer superannuation contributions amounting to $10,676,522 (1996/97 

$11,231,028) in relation to these schemes have been expensed in these financial 

statements. 

Anotional amount for employer contributions to Judges non-contributory pensions 

is accounted for as part of employee expenses and an equal amount is included in 

“Liabilities assumed by other departments”. The notional amount is calculated by 

multiplying a contribution rate of 62% per annum by a Judge’s annual salary. The 

contribution rate has been provided by the Australian Government Actuary. 

2.7 Leased assets 

Leases of infrastructure, plant and equipment under which all the risks and benefits 

incidental to ownership are effectively retained by the lessor are classified as 

“operating leases”. Rental payments for operating leases are charged as an expense 

to the Departmental Statement of Revenues and Expenses on a basis which is 

representative of the pattern of benefits derived from the leased assets. 

110





Leases of infrastructure, plant and equipment under which all the risks and benefits 

incidental to ownership are effectively transferred from the lessor to the lessee are 

classified as “finance leases”. Where assets are acquired by means of finance 

leases, the present value of the minimum lease payments is capitalised as an asset 

at the inception of the lease term and amortised on a straight line basis over the 

expected useful life of the leased assets. A corresponding liability is also 

recognised and each lease payment is allocated between the liability and finance 

charge. 

As at balance date the Court did not have any assets acquired under finance lease. 

2.8 Financial Instruments 

Accounting policies for financial instruments are stated at note 32. The Court is 

complying with the requirements of AAS33, Presentation and Disclosure of 

Financial Instruments, which applies to the Court for the first time in 1997-98. 

2.9 Receivables 

All outstanding accounts were reviewed at 30 June 1998 and a provision for 

doubtful debts was not considered necessary. 

2.10 Property, plant and equipment 

The carrying amount of property, plant and equipment disclosed in the 

Departmental Statement of Assets and Liabilities is the cost of acquisitions less 

accumulated depreciation or amortisation as at balance date. The year end balance 

of these assets disclosed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities reflects the 

remaining service potential of assets capitalised. 

The carrying amounts of property, plant and equipment held by the Court have 

been reviewed to determine whether they are in excess of their recoverable 

amounts. In assessing recoverable amounts the relevant cash flows have not been 

discounted to their present value. 

Asset Capitalisation Threshold 

All items of property, plant and equipment with an expected economic life 

exceeding twelve months and historic costs equal to or in excess of $2,000 are 

capitalised in the year of acquisition. Assets with historical costs less than $2,000 

are expensed in the year of acquisition unless they form a large group of similar 

assets which is significant in total. 

Library Collections 

The Court valued its library collections with an expected economic life exceeding 

twelve months on hand at 30 June 1997. The collections were valued according to 

111





the deprival value methodology and in accordance with Australian Accounting 

Standard 29, Financial Reporting by Government Departments. 

Revaluations 

Schedule 2 requires that property, plant and equipment be progressively revalued 

in accordance with the deprival method of valuation by 1 July 1999 and thereafter 

be revalued progressively on that basis every three years. 

The Court is implementing its progressive revaluation to satisfy the above 

requirement as follows; 

leasehold improvements will be revalued in the financial year 1998-99 for the 

first time on a geographical basis; 

plant and equipment assets are initially being revalued over the financial years 

1997-98 and 1998-99; 

thereafter, these items will be revalued on the same basis every three years. 

Assets in each class acquired after the commencement of the progressive 

revaluation cycle will be reported at cost for the duration of the progressive 

revaluation then in progress. 

The financial effect of the move to progressive revaluation is that the carrying 

amounts of assets will reflect current values and that depreciation charges will 

reflect the current cost of the service potential consumed in each period. 

2.11 Depreciation and amortisation of non-financial assets 

Items of leasehold improvement, infrastructure, plant and equipment and 

intangibles are depreciated or amortised over their estimated useful lives or the 

unexpired period of the lease, on a straight line basis, when installed and ready for 

use. Estimated useful lives to the Court are reviewed annually. 

Depreciation and amortisation rates applying to each class of depreciable assets are 

as follows: 

1997/98 1996/97 

Leasehold improvements 8 years 8 years 

or 

or 

Lease term Lease term 

Plant and equipment 3 to 6 years 3 to 6 years 

The aggregate amount of depreciation and amortisation allocated to each class of 

asset during the year is disclosed in Note 23. 

112


2.12 Inventories 




Inventories mainly represent the stock of Court forms on hand at balance date. 

Costs have been assigned to inventory quantities using the first in first out basis. 

These stock items are carried at the lower of cost and net realisable value. 

2.13 Commitments 

Commitments reflect agreements between the Family Court of Australia and third 

parties in which neither party has fulfilled any contractual obligations and 

agreements in which both parties have performed to an equal extent some of their 

obligations while other obligations have yet to be honoured. 

Commitments for future property operating payments that are not recognised as 

liabilities in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities have been disclosed in the 

Schedule of Commitments. These commitments are mainly for rental of buildings 

which are occupied by the Family Court’s registries and offices. Alarge proportion 

of the payments are for special purpose court buildings owned by the 

Commonwealth of Australia and there are no formal lease agreements executed 

which detail future payments. 

However, the projected rentals to be paid for the special purpose court buildings for 

the next six years have been reliably measured by the providers of property 

management service, KFPW Pty Ltd. These amounts have been disclosed as they 

are expected to be payable under the arrangement with the Commonwealth of 

Australia. Although it is expected that the special purpose buildings will be 

continuously utilised by the Court, the rental beyond six years cannot be reliably 

measured. The amounts to be paid for non-special purpose buildings have been 

disclosed according to the details specified in existing lease agreements. 

2.14 Taxation 

The Family Court of Australia is exempt from all forms of taxation except Fringe 

Benefits Tax. 

2.15 Insurance 

The Family Court of Australia pays an annual insurance premium to Comcare to 

cover its liability in respect of payments under the Safety Rehabilitation and 

Compensation Act 1988. In accordance with Commonwealth Government policy, 

other insurable risks and assets are not insured and any losses that may arise are 

expensed as they are incurred. 

113


2.16 Program statement 

As the Family Court of Australia constitutes a sub-program of the Attorney- 

General’s portfolio and there is no separate component recognised within the subprogram, 

program statements are not required to be prepared. 

2.17 Comparative figures 




Where necessary, the comparative figures have been adjusted to conform with 

changes in presentation in the current reporting period. 

NOTE 3 - EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER BALANCE DATE 

The Court is not aware of any events that have occurred since balance date that 

would impact these Financial Statements materially. 

114





NOTE 4 - EMPLOYEE EXPENSES 


$ $ 

Remuneration (for service provided) 59,596,745 57,904,255 

Separation and redundancy payments 358,033 868,504 

Total employee expenses 59,954,778 58,772,759 

NOTE 5 - SUPPLIERS EXPENSES 


$ $ 

Supply of goods and services 

Auscript and legal expenses 1,566,183 1,687,951 

Computer and office supplies 2,957,112 4,098,098 

Freight and incidentals 1,357,523 1,215,686 

Other property operating expenses 7,297,236 9,877,037 

Phones and security expenses 2,066,767 2,045,735 

Travel and subsistence 4,945,980 4,379,023 

Training and personnel expenses 1,043,352 802,388 

21,234,153 24,105,918 

Operating lease rentals 13,668,031 13,704,850 

Total suppliers expenses 34,902,184 37,810,768 

NOTE 6 - DEPRECIATION AND AMORTISATION 


$ $ 

Depreciation of property, plant and equipment 2,452,068 1,905,731 

Amortisation of leased assets 0 3,200 

Total depreciation and amortisation 2,452,068 1,908,931 

NOTE 7 - INTEREST - EXPENSES 


$ $ 

Finance charges 0 3,860 

Total interest 0 3,860 

115





NOTE 8 - WRITE DOWN OFASSETS 


$ $ 

Non-financial assets 

Infrastructure, plant and equipment 805 51,571 

Total write down of assets 805 51,571 

WRITE DOWN OFADMINISTERED ASSETS 

Financial assets 

Receivables 0 500 

Total write down of administered assets 0 500 

NOTE 9 - NET LOSSES FROM SALES OFASSETS 


$ $ 



Total net losses from sales of assets 43 4,220 

NOTE 10 - SALES OFGOODS AND SERVICES 


$ $ 

FMAAct 1997 - Section 31 revenue earned (user charges) 

Remittances and receipts 287,495 236,741 

Client services 235,857 215,606 

Sale of assets 9,152 16,268 

Public phones and photocopies 48,049 59,563 

Other 336,332 118,182 

Total sale of goods and services 916,885 646,360 

116





ADMINISTERED FEES AND FINES 


$ $ 

Fees 14,622,747 14,621,858 

Fines 14,356 4,950 

Total fees and fines 14,637,103 14,626,808 

NOTE 11 - NET GAINS FROM SALE OFASSETS 


$ $ 



Total net gains from sale of assets 0 4,717 

NOTE 12 - INTEREST - REVENUE 


$ $ 

Bank and other accounts 351,887 4,136 

Total interest 351,887 4,136 

NOTE 13 - OTHER - ABNORMALREVENUE 


$ $ 

Valuation of Library Collections 0 1,886,317 

Total abnormal revenue 0 1,886,317 

NOTE 14 - LIABILITIES ASSUMED BYOTHER DEPARTMENTS 

Liability for Judges’non-contributory pensions has been calculated as disclosed in Note 2.6 


$ $ 

Attorney-General’s Department 

(Judges’non-contributory pensions) 5,457,480 5,338,992 

5,457,480 5,338,992 

117

The Famil yCour to fAustra lia –ann ualrep ort1997-98 


NOTES TO AND FORMING PARTOFTHE FINANCIALSTATEMENTS 

forthe yearended 30 June 1998 

NOTE 15 - RESOURCES RECEIVED FREE OFCHARGE 

FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS 

The resources received free of cha rge from the following departments have been 

recognised in the Departmental Statement of Revenues and Expenses. 


$ $ 

Australian Nationa l Audit O ffice 

for provision of audit services (refer Note 30) 68,000 66,000 

Department of Finance 

for processing of receipts, payments, salaries 

and financial transactions 0 18,198 

Other Departments 

for provision of accommodation 15,450 86,300 

83,450 170,498 

The resources received free of cha rge from the following departments have not been 

recognised in the Departmental Statement of Revenues and Expenses as the cost or 

value of these services cannot be reliably measured: 

The Attorney-General ’s Department 

provision of services related to the administration of salaries an 

Court ’s judges 

d conditions for the 

The Department of Finance 

administration of budgets and funding arrangements 

The expenditure for the services provided has been met from the appropriation 

departments or agencies concerned. 

s of the 

NOTE 16 - EQUITY 

Departmental equity 

Item Accumulated Total Equity 

Results 

$ $ 

Balance as at 1 July 1997 8,212,689 8,212,689 

Operating results 9,510,897 9,510,897 

Balance as at 30 June 1998 17,723,586 17,723,586 

118





EQUITY 

Administered equity 

Item Accumulated Total Equity 

Results 

$ $ 

Balance as at 1 July 1997 150,000 150,000 

Operating results 8,870 8,870 

Balance as at 30 June 1998 158,870 158,870 

NOTE 17 - PROVISIONS AND PAYABLES - EMPLOYEE LIABILITIES 


$ $ 

Salaries and wages 1,062,809 393,661 

Leave 16,682,280 16,509,435 

Superannuation 159,888 57,416 

Aggregate employee entitlement liability 17,904,977 16,960,512 

NOTE 18 - PROVISIONS AND PAYABLES - SUPPLIERS 


$ $ 

Trade creditors 1,196,751 809,466 

Operating lease rentals 3,049 7,728 

Total payables 1,199,800 817,194 

ADMINISTERED PROVISIONS AND PAYABLES - SUPPLIERS 


$ $ 

Trade creditors 150 0 

Total payables 150 0 

119

TheFamilyCourtofAustralia–annualreport1997-98 




NOTE 19 - FINANCIALASSETS - CASH 


$ $ 

Cash at bank and on hand - petty cash and advances 94,071 90,656 

Cash on hand - FMAAct 1997 - Section 31 receipts 21,646 11,237 

Total cash 115,717 101,893 

ADMINISTERED FINANCIALASSETS - CASH 

Cash at bank and on hand - revenue collections 153,200 139,720 

Total administered cash 153,200 139,720 

NOTE 20 - FINANCIALASSETS - RECEIVABLES 


$ $ 

Appropriations 6,930,946 6,544,609 

Goods and services 391,763 27,679 

Total receivables 7,322,709 6,572,288 

Receivables are aged as follows: 

Not overdue 7,286,436 6,548,452 

Overdue by: 

less than 30 days 17,640 1,387 

30 to 60 days 5,205 2,280 

more than 60 days 13,428 20,169 

Total receivables 7,322,709 6,572,288 

ADMINISTERED FINANCIALASSETS - RECEIVABLES 

Goods and services 5,820 10,280 

Total administered receivables 5,820 10,280 

Receivables are aged as follows: 

Not Overdue 0 0 

Overdue by: 

less than 30 days 0 6,300 

30 to 60 days 0 0 

more than 60 days 5,820 3,980 

Total administered receivables 5,820 10,280 

120





NOTE 21 - FINANCIALASSETS - OTHER 


$ $ 

PREPAYMENTS FOR: 

Suppliers expenses 1,454,555 238,774 

Property operating expenses 16,608,203 7,703,381 

Total prepayments 18,062,758 7,942,155 

NOTE 22 - NON-FINANCIALASSETS 


$ $ 

Land and buildings 

Leasehold improvements - at cost 8,886,428 8,611,234 

Less: Accumulated amortisation 4,903,467 3,818,025 

Total land and building 3,982,961 4,793,209 

Plant and equipment 

Plant and equipment received free of charge - at cost 136,808 145,294 

Less: Accumulated depreciation 86,612 71,019 

50,196 74,275 

Plant and equipment - at 1997 valuation 2,687,374 2,560,760 

Less: Accumulated depreciation 32,301 0 

2,655,073 2,560,760 

Plant and equipment - at cost 9,396,215 7,880,225 

Less: Accumulated depreciation 4,913,300 4,071,406 

4,482,915 3,808,819 

Total plant and equipment 7,188,184 6,443,854 

121





NOTE 23 - ANALYSIS OFPROPERTY, PLANTAND EQUIPMENT 

TABLE A - Movement summary 1997-98 forall assets i respective of valuation basis 

Item Land Buildings Total Land Plant & Total 

& buildings equipment 

Gross Value at 1/7/97 0 8,611,234 8,611,234 10,586,279 19,197,513 

Additions 0 275,194 275,194 1,996,366 2,271,560 

Revaluations 0 0 0 0 0 

Disposals 0 0 0 (468,239) (468,239) 

Write-Off 0 0 0 (21,226) (21,226) 

Other Movements 0 0 0 127,217 127,217 

Gross Value at 30/6/98 0 8,886,428 8,886,428 12,220,397 21,106,825 

Accumulated Depreciation/ 

Amortisation at 1/7/97 0 3,818,025 3,818,025 4,142,425 7,960,450 

Depreciation/amortisation 

charge for assets held 1/7/97 0 1,079,405 1,079,405 1,276,575 2,355,980 

Depreciation/amortisation 

charge for Additions 0 6,037 6,037 90,050 96,087 

Adjustment for Disposal 0 0 0 (465,201) (465,201) 

Adjustment for Write-off 0 0 0 (20,421) (20,421) 

Adjustment for Other 

Movement 0 0 0 8,785 8,785 

Accumulated Depreciation/ 

Amortisation at 30/6/98 0 4,903,467 4,903,467 5,032,213 9,935,680 

Net Book Value at 30/6/98 0 3,982,961 3,982,961 7,188,184 11,171,145 

Net Book Value at 1/7/97 0 4,793,209 4,793,209 6,443,854 11,237,063 

TABLE B - Summary of balances of assets at valuation as at 30 June 1998 

Item Land Buildings Total Land Plant & Total 

& buildings equipment 

As at 30 June 1998 

Gross value 0 0 0 2,687,374 2,687,374 

Accumulated Depreciation 0 0 0 32,301 32,301 

Other Movements 0 0 0 0 0 

Net Book Value 0 0 0 2,655,073 2,655,073 

As at 30 June 1997 

Gross value 0 0 0 2,560,760 2,560,760 

Accumulated Depreciation 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Movements 0 0 0 0 0 

Net Book Value 0 0 0 2,560,760 2,560,760 

122

The Family Court ofAustralia – annual report 1997-98 




NOTE 24 - NON-FINANCIALASSETS - INVENTORIES 


$ $ 

Court forms 131,203 110,066 

Consumable stores 24,831 26,930 

Total inventories 156,034 136,996 

NOTE 25 - CASH FLOWRECONCILIATION - DEPARTMENTAL 


$ $ 

RECONCILIATION OF NET COST OF SERVICES TO 

NET CASH PROVIDED BYOPERATING ACTIVITIES 

Net cost of services (96,041,106) (96,010,579) 

Depreciation and amortisation 2,452,068 1,908,931 

(Profit)/Loss on sale of non-current assets 43 (497) 

Write offs - non-current assets 805 51,571 

Abnormal revenue 0 (1,886,317) 

Revenue from government 105,552,003 111,619,689 

(Increase)/decrease in other assets (118,432) 23,549 

Increase in receivables (750,421) (6,549,193) 

(Increase)/decrease in inventories (19,038) 39,376 

Increase in prepayments (10,120,603) (6,470,856) 

Increase/(decrease) in payables 382,606 (25,164) 

Increase in provision 944,465 213,407 

Decrease in leases 0 (13,124) 

Net cash provided by operating activities 2,282,390 2,900,793 

CASH FLOWRECONCILIATION - ADMINISTERED 

RECONCILIATION OF NET CONTRIBUTION TO NET CASH 

PROVIDED BYOPERATING ACTIVITIES 

Net contribution 14,637,103 14,626,308 

Cash to Commonwealth Public Account (14,628,233) (14,562,828) 

(Increase)/decrease in receivables 4,460 (8,280) 

Increase in payables 150 0 

Net cash provided by operating activities 13,480 55,200 

123


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA 


for the yearended 30 June 1998 

NOTE 26 - EXPENDITURE FROM ANNUALAPPROPRIATION 

ORDINARY ANNUAL SERVICES OF GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATION ACT No’s: 1 & 3 

1997/98 1997/98 1997/98 1997/98 1996/97 

Budget Additional Total Actual Actual 

Estimates Appropriations Appropriation Expenditure Expenditure 

Act No. 1 Act No. 3 Act No. 1 & 3 

$ $ $ $ $ 

DIVISION 133 

1 Running costs 105,421,000 238,000 105,659,000 99,636,286 99,395,271 

2 Judges’ long leave 735,000 163,129 898,129 892,702 170,319 

3 Other services 

Compensation for detriment caused by 

defective administration 0 3,982 3,982 3,982 0 

Total Appropriation Acts No. 1 and 3 106,156,000 405,111 106,561,111 100,532,970 99,565,590 

124






$ $ 

Running costs appropriation spent (Division 133) 100,532,970 99,565,590 

Less: appropriation under FMAAct - Section 31 908,234 0 

Add: Carryover 30 June 6,930,946 6,544,609 

Less: Carryover 1 July 6,544,609 0 

Running Costs Revenue (Included in Operating Statement) 100,011,073 106,110,199 

NOTE 27 - RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS OFTHE TRUST FUNDS 

(COMMONWEALTH ACTIVITIES) 

Moneys Held in Trust for Persons and Authorities other than the Commonwealth 

(a) OTHER TRUST MONEYS 

Other trust moneys account operates for the purpose of moneys which are held by the 

Court on behalf of third parties, but which are not for the use or the benefit of the 

Court. 


$ $ 

Balance at beginning of financial year 56,596 44,881 

Receipts 109,874 113,842 

Payments 113,527 102,127 

Balance at end of financial year 52,943 56,596 

(b) SERVICES FOR OTHER GOVERNMENTAND NON-DEPARTMENTAL 

BODIES (COMCARE) 

Comcare account operates for the purpose of receiving from Comcare amounts 

payable to employees under a determination under the “Safety Rehabilitation and 

Compensation Act 1988”. 


$ $ 


Receipts 150,940 177,887 

Payments 99,410 130,489 


125





TOTALTRUST FUNDS 


$ $ 


Receipts 260,814 291,729 

Payments 212,937 232,616 


Represented by: 

Cash on hand 6,587 128,710 

Investments 170,000 0 

Total 176,587 128,710 

The above investment was made on 30 June 1998 in the Department of Finance and 

Administration’s ‘Internal Treasury Bills’at interest rate of 1% per annum. Principal will 

be repaid in full at maturity, 30 June 1999. 

NOTE 28 - RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS OFTHE TRUSTFUND (BANK 

ACCOUNTS OUTSIDE THE COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC ACCOUNT) 

Moneys held by the Court on behalf of third parties (Legal Authority - Family Law 

Rules Order 33 Rule 10). 


$ $ 

Moneys received 27,290 18,368 

Total 27,290 18,368 

NOTE 29 - EXECUTIVES’REMUNERATION 

The number of executive officers of the Court who received or were due to receive total 

remuneration of $100,000 or more: 


REMUNERATION OF NUMBER NUMBER 

$100,000 - $110,000 8 13 

$110,001 - $120,000 3 6 

$120,001 - $130,000 2 1 

$130,001 - $140,000 2 1 

$140,001 - $150,000 1 0 

$150,001 - $160,000 2 0 

$180,001 - $190,000 1 1 

The aggregate amount of total remuneration of 

executive officers shown above 2,349,910 2,463,338 

The aggregate amount of performance pay paid 

during the year to executive officers shown above 70,000 nil 

126

The Family Court of Australia – annual report1997-98 




NOTE 30 - SERVICES PROVIDED BYTHE AUDITOR-GENERAL 


$ $ 

The fair value of audit services provided by the 

Auditor-General in connection with auditing the 

financial statements for the reporting period 68,000 66,000 

The services are provided free of charge and the fair value has been brought to account 

in the financial statements as ‘Resources received free of charge from other departments’ 

(refer Note 15). 

No other services were provided by the Auditor-General. 

NOTE 31 - ACTOFGRACE PAYMENTS, EXEMPTIONS, WAIVERS AND 

WRITE OFFS 

(a) ACT OF GRACE PAYMENTS 

No Act of Grace payments were made during the reporting period. 

(b) WAIVERS 

No payments were waived during the financial year 1997/98 under sub-section 34(1) 

of the FMAAct 1997. 

(c) EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVERS 

In accordance with the Family Law Regulations (F LRegs) of the Family Law Act 

1975, fees are not payable where a person has been granted legal aid (F LRegs 11 

(7) (c) ) or is a holder of a card issued by the Department of Social Security - Centre 

Link (F LRegs 11 (7) (c) - (d)). Persons not eligible for exemption under the Family 

law Regulations may apply to have the fee waived by the Family Court due to 

financial hardship (F LRegs 11 (7) (e)). 


(Number) (Number) 

Number of exemptions and waivers 37,189 31,282 

$ $ 

Aggregate amount of the recovery which was 

exempted and waived 13,690,688 11,810,052 

(d) AMOUNTS WRITTEN OFF - LOSSES OR 

DEFICIENCIES OF PUBLIC MONEYS 

There were no material losses or deficiencies of public moneys and property during 

the financial year. 

127




for the yearended 30 June 1998 

NOTE - 32 - Financial Instruments 

a) Terms, conditions and accounting policies 

Financial Instrument Notes Accounting Policies and Methods (including ecognition r 

Nature of underlying instrument (including 

criteria and measur ement basis) significant terms & conditions affecting the 

amount, timing and certainty of cash flows) 

Financial Assets Financial assets are recognised when control over 

future economic benefits is established and the amount 

of the benefit can be reliably measured. 

Cash on hand and at bank 19 Deposits are recognised at their nominal amounts. Interest is credited Cash includes revenue receipts and cash 

to revenue as it accrues for the moneys held in commercial banks. advances. Interest is earned on the daily 

balance at commercial bank rates. Rates 

have averaged 2% for the year (1996-97: 1%) 

Receivables for goods 20 These receivables are recognised at the nominal amounts due. Receivables are with entities both internal and 

and services Collectability of debts is reviewed at balance date. Provisions are external to the Commonwealth. 

made when collection of the debt is judged to be less rather 

than more likely. 

Prepayments 21 Prepayments are recognised at the nominal amounts. Court has paid property rental in advance 

Interest is credited to revenue as it accrues. which accrues interest at commercial bank 

rates. Interest rates have averaged 3.7%. 

(1996-97 - n/a) 

Financial liabilities Financial liabilities are recognised when a present obligation 

to another party is entered into and the amount of the liability 

can be reliably measured. 

Trade creditors 18 Creditors and accruals are recognised at their nominal amounts, Creditors are entities that are both internal 

being the amounts at which the liabilities will be settled. Liabilities and external to the Commonwealth. 

are recognised to the extent that the goods or services have been received 

(and irrespective of having been invoiced). 

128



NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 


NOTE - 32 - Financial Instruments (cont.) 

(b) Interest Rate Risk : Departmental 

Financial Notes Floating Interest Fixed Interest Rate Non-Interest Total Weighted 

Rate Bearing Average 

Instrument 1 year or less 1 to 2 years 2 to 5 years > 5 years Effective 

Interest Rate 

97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 % % 

Financial Assets 

Cash at Bank 19 23 30 - - - - - - - - 92 72 115 102 2% 1% 

Receivables for 

goods and 

services 20 - - - - - - - - - - 7,323 6,572 7,323 6,572 n/a n/a 

Prepayments 21 16,608 7,703 1,455 239 18,063 7,942 3.7% n/a 

Total Financial 

Assets 

(Recognised) 16,631 7,733 - - - - - - - - 8,870 6,883 25,501 14,616 

Total assets 36,828 25,990 

Financial 

Liabilities 

Trade creditors 18 - - - - - - - - - - 1,200 817 1,200 817 n/a n/a 


Liabilities 

(Recognised) - - - - - - - - - - 1,200 817 1,200 817 

Total liabilities 19,105 17,778 

129



NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 



(b) Interest Rate Risk : Administered 

Financial Notes Floating Interest Fixed Interest Rate Non-Interest Total Weighted 

Rate Bearing Average 

Instrument 1 year or less 1 to 2 years 2 to 5 years > 5 years Effective 

Interest Rate 

97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 % % 


Cash 19 - - - - - - - - - - 153 140 153 140 n/a n/a 

Receivable 20 - - - - - - - - - - 6 10 6 10 n/a n/a 

Total financial 

assets 

(recognised) - - - - - - - - - - 159 150 159 150 

Total assets 159 150 

130






(c) Net FairValues of Financial Assets and Liabilities 

1997-98 1996-97 

Total Aggregate Total Aggregate 

carrying net fair carrying net fair 

amount value amount value 

Note $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 

Departmental 


Cash at Bank 19 115 115 102 102 

Receivables for Goods 

and Services 20 7,323 7,323 6,572 6,572 

Prepayments 21 18,063 18,063 7,942 7,942 

Total Financial Assets 25,501 25,501 14,616 14,616 

Financial Liabilities 

(Recognised) 

Trade creditors 18 1,200 1,200 817 817 


Liabilities (Recognised) 1,200 1,200 817 817 

Administered Financial Assets 

Cash 19 153 153 140 140 

Receivable 20 6 6 10 10 

Total Financial Assets 159 159 150 150 

Financial assets 

The net fair values of cash and non-interest-bearing monetary financial assets 

approximate their carrying amounts. 

The net fair values for prepayments are short-term and are approximated by their carrying 

amounts. 

Financial liabilities 

The net fair values for trade creditors are short-term in nature and are approximated by 

their carrying amounts. 

(d) Credit Risk Exposures 

The Court’s maximum exposures to credit risk at reporting date in relation to each class 

of recognised financial assets is the carrying amount of those assets as indicated in the 

Statement of Assets and Liabilities. 

The Court has no significant exposures to any concentrations of credit risk. 

All figures for credit risk referred to do not take into account the value of any collateral 

or other security. 

131


Appendix 3 

Summary table of resources 

Table 5.4: Reconciliation of programs and appropriation elements for 1997-98 ($’000) 

Appendix 4 

A + B + C + D = E - F = G 

Program Approp Approp Special Program Adjustments Program 

Number Bills Nos Bills Nos Approps Annotated Approps Outlays 

1 and 3 2 and 4 Approps* 

4.2 106,561 - - 1,001 107,562 - 107,562 

Total 106,561 - - 1,001 107,562 - 107,562 

* Annotated appropriations are a form of special appropriations to allow a department access to the money it earns. 

Advertising 

In 1997-98 the Court engaged TMP Worldwide and AGPS Gazettals for advertising. 

Table 5.5: Total advertising for 1997-98 

Agency OCE Northern Southern Total 

TMPWorldwide non-campaign 54921.75 55825.24 15875.06 126622.05 

campaign 0.00 

Sub-total 54921.75 55825.24 15875.06 126622.05 

AGPS Gazettals non-campaign 4279.60 3648.60 3204.18 11132.38 

campaign 0.00 

Sub-total 4279.60 3648.60 3204.18 11132.38 

Other non-campaign 278.45 3444.90 122.40 3845.75 

campaign 0.00 

Sub-total 278.45 3444.90 122.40 3845.75 

Sub-totals for 

non-campaign non-campaign 59479.80 62918.74 19201.64 141600.18 

and campaign campaign 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 59479.80 62918.74 19201.64 141600.18 

132

The Family Court of Australia - annual report 1997-98 

Appendix 5 

Service charter 

The purpose of the Family Court of Australia is to facilitate the resolution of disputes 

arising from family separation. The Court has power under the Family Law Act 1975to 

grant divorces. In addition the Court makes orders relating to: 

■ arrangements for children (whether the parents were married to each other or not) 

■ the distribution of property of the parties 

■ spousal maintenance 

■ child maintenance and child support reviews 

■ the protection of a party. 

The Court is completely separate from the Child Support Agency but may hear applications 

for the review of a child support assessment or to vary child support arrangements. 

The Court operates in all States and Territories except in Western Australia which has a 

State court. 

Court services 

The focus of the Court is on helping families to resolve their disputes by agreement rather 

than proceeding to a formal hearing by a judge which is regarded as the last resort. 

■ The Court is committed to providing a range of services designed to assist you to 

reach agreement in disputes about arrangements for children and property distribution 

and to provide services to parties to formal proceedings. 

■ Separation counselling, mediation (where available) and conciliation services in 

financial matters are provided by trained, professional Court staff, including 

indigenous consultants in some locations. 

■ Registrars, judicial registrars and judges hear and decide upon applications made by 

parties who are otherwise unable to resolve their disputes. 

Court services are available in capital cities and some other centres. The location of our 

services is shown at the end of this brochure*. 

We will help you by: 

■ being courteous, helpful and sensitive to your individual needs 

■ giving prompt and responsive service 

■ providing dispute resolution services appropriate to your needs or referring you to 

a community agency where appropriate 

■ endeavouring to deliver these services in a safe and secure environment 

■ providing accurate and up-to-date information that is clear and understandable 

(however Court sta ff cannot provide legal advice to people who are or may be 

involved in legal proceedings). 

You can help us to help you by: 

■ letting us know if you have any particular problems or needs, including telling us if 

there is any history or fear of family violence 

■ giving us complete and accurate information 

■ letting us know if you cannot keep an appointment you have made with us 

■ attending any hearing unless excused by the Court. 

133


You have a right to: 

■ fair and helpful assistance 

■ have your privacy respected and information about you kept confidential where the 

law requires 

■ a fair and just hearing in a safe environment 

■ timely decisions by the Court 

■ restricted access to information on the file held by the Court in relation to your 

proceedings 

In some circumstances, children may be entitled to separate representation. 

You are responsible for: 

■ complying with any orders, decrees and directions of the Court 

■ full and frank disclosure of information 

■ co-operating with any requests or directions of Court sta ff 

■ behaving courteously and peaceably in the Court precincts. 

Suggestions and complaints 

If you are happy with the service provided to you, please let us know. AService 

Improvements Box has been placed in an accessible location in each registr y. If you are 

unhappy with the service provided please raise your concern with the person with whom 

you have been dealing. If that person cannot satisfy your concern they will refer it quickly 

to someone who can help you and will advise you accordingly. Written complaints may be 

made to the Chief Executive Officer, GPO Box 9991, Canberra ACT2601. 

If you need more information … 

Further information about your rights and responsibilities and our services is contained in 

a number of brochures available free from all registries of the Court. 

■ Application forms for commencement of proceedings are available from the Court’s 

registries and internet site. Self-help kits covering divorce, consent orders, parenting 

plans and preparing for a hearing can be obtained by contacting your nearest registr y. 

■ Information sessions are available in each registry if you need more detailed information. 

■ Registries can also advise upon the availability of interpreter services. 

■ The Court maintains an after-hours recorded message service to handle eme rgencies; 

the number is in your local telephone director y. 

■ Fees may be payable for some Court proceedings, subject to your financial position. 

You should contact your nearest Court registry to find out whether you will be 

required to pay a fee. 

■ Our postal addresses are shown at the end of this Charter*. 

■ Our internet site is at http://www.familycourt.gov.au. 

Enquiries concerning the provision of legal services should be made to the law society in 

your State or Territor y. Information about the availability of legal aid may be obtained from 

the Legal Aid Commission in your State or Territor y. 

Your views, and review of this Charter 

Your views about us are important . We are committed to continuing to improve our 

services. This Charter was developed in consultation with clients, community and 

professional groups and people in the Court. It will be reviewed annuall y. 

*Addresses have been omitted from this appendix . They are listed in Part One of this Report. 

134


Glossary of abbreviations 

AD Adelaide 

AL 

Albury 

Ancill Ancillary 

Apps Applications 

AS Alice Springs 

Blackstone Computerised principal case management 

system 

BR Brisbane 

CA Canberra 

CH Coffs Harbour 

Confs Conferences 

Cnslr Counsellor 

CRIS Computerised counselling case management 

system 

CS Cairns 

DG Dandenong 

DN Darwin 

DU Dubbo 

F 

Form 

FCA Family Court of Australia 

FCWA Family Court of Western Australia 

FDH First directions hearing 

Forms 4 & 5 Application for divorce (dissolution of marriage) 

and joint application for dissolution of marriage 

respectively. In February 1995 the Form 4 was 

revised to include both single and joint 

applications and the Form 5 was omitted. 

Form 7 Application for final orders 

Form 7A Response to application for final orders 

Form 7B 

Form 8 

Form 8A 

Form 12 

Form 12A 

Form 26A 

Form 43 

Form 63 

GC 

HB 

Hrg 

J 

JR 

LN 

LS 

M 

ML 

NC 

PA 

Regis 

RK 

SY 

TV 

v/tary 

Wl 

X 

Reply 

Application (for interim or procedural orders) 

Response to Form 8 application 

Maintenance Application (summary procedure) 

Application for consent orders 

Application – Parenting Plan 

Notice of appeal from court of summary 

jurisdiction 

Child Support Assessment Act 1989 – Child 

Support (Registration & Collection Act) 1988 – 

application/appeal 

Gold Coast 

Hobart 

Hearing 

Justice 

Judicial Registrar 

Launceston 

Lismore 

Married 

Melbourne 

Newcastle 

Parramatta 

Registrars 

Rockhampton 

Sydney 

Townsville 

voluntary 

Wollongong 

Ex-nuptial 

Compliance index 

The Court has used the guidelines fo r Annual Reports issued 

by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in March 

1994 (updated in April 1998) as the basis for this Report and 

has sought to comply with them where appropriate. In addition, 

information at the end of this index has been provided in 

response to the ‘Report on the Examination f oAnnual Reports 

by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee 

No.1 of 1998’. 

Letter of transmission 

iii 

Aids to access 

Introduction 

vi 

Table of contents 

v 

Alphabetical index 136 


Contact officer – see Introduction 

vi 

Corporate overview 

Structure and senior management 

– see Organisation 2 

Significant reorganisation 

– see Year in Review: 

Implementation of Coaldrake recommendations 18 

Evaluation of Integrated Clients 

Services project 21 

– see Organisation 2 

Organisational structure (chart) 5 

Social justice and equity 

Government’s Charter of Public Service in 

a Culturally Diverse Society 49 

– see also Publications program 51 

– see also also Internet 53 

– see also Complaints 54 

– see also Year in Review: 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues 24 

The Court and ethnic communities 24 

Workplace diversity programs and equal employment 

opportunity 59 

– see also Year in Review: 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Issues 24 

The Court and ethnic communities 24 

EEO statistics 60 


Australian National Audit O ffice reviews 56 

Reviews by Parliamentary Committees 

– see External Reviews 56 

– see Year in Review: Andrews Committee 21 

Decisions of courts and tribunals 56 

Privacy Commission 58 

Freedom of Information cases 57 

Internal audit reviews 56 

Service Charter 3, 4, 133 

Program performance reporting 

Program management 2 

Summary table of financial staffing and 

resources – se Table 1.1 4 

Reconciliation of program and appropriation 

elements – se Table 5.4 132 

Performance against individual standards 32 

135



Total number of employees 90, 91, 92 

Part-time staff numbers 93 

Temporary staff 94 

Numbers of men and women in the Court and 

in various categories 91-94 

Senior Executive Service 90, 91-94 

Summary statements 

Performance pay 90 

Training 

– see Human Resource Development 90 

Consultants 91 

Financial Statements 95 

Legislated requirements 

Industrial Democracy 62 

Occupational Health and Safety 61 

Committees 61 

Representatives 61 

Measures taken 61 

Incident statistics (accident, etc) 61 

Investigations and tests 61 

Notices 61 

Freedom of Information 57 

Advertising and Market Research 132 

Response to the Report on the Examination f Annual o 

Reports by the Senate Legal and Constitutional 

Legislation Committee No.1 of 1998 

In relation to paragraphs 2.21-2.25 

– see Decisions of Courts an d Tribunal s 56 

In relation to paragraph 2.26 (point 1) 

Request for the Court to indicate (if possible) 

“the percentage if any, of people who were not 

given access to the counselling service”: 

– No one is turned away if the services ffered o by 

the Court are appropriate to the customer’s needs. 

In relation to paragraph 2.26 (point 2) 

Request for the Court to indicate (if possible) “the 

number or percentage of cases, if an y, which were 

resolved ... without litigation”. 

– see Cases seen by Counselling Service 28 

(It should be noted that these percentages 

are based on survey material. Plans are in hand 

to collect this information on a ongoing basis.) 

Alphabetical index 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander(s) 51 

Awareness Committee 24, 49, 59 

communities 50 

family consultant 59 

initiatives 22 

issues 24 

Recruitment and Career Development program 24, 50 

staff 60, 90 

workshop 91 

(see also Indigenous) 

Access to justice 24, 51 

Act 

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) 3 

Bankruptcy 3 

Child Support (Assessment) 3, 39, 46 

Child Support (Registration and Collection) 3,39, 46 

Income Tax Assessment 3 

Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and 

Exercise of Powers) 38 

Family Law 2, 3, 20, 29, 31, 39, 46, 47, 48, 55, 56. 134 

Family Law Reform 46 

Freedom of Information 47, 56, 57, 58 

Law and Justice Legislation Amendment 39 

Marriage 3, 8 

Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth 

Employees) 61 

Public Service 2 

Trade Practices 3 

Workplace Relations 62 

Administrative Appeals Tribunal 44, 47 

Administrative services 18 

Advertising 132 

Affidavit – interim residence contact and 

specific issues 25, 51, 90 

Agreement rates 28 

see also Settlement rates 

Andrews Committee 21 

Appeal(s) 2, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48 

Division 37 

issues raised in 41 

notice of 45 

trends 40, 41 

Appellants in person 40, 42 

Applicants in person (see also Unrepresented litigants) 82 

Application(s) 33, 43, 46, 48, 64, 134 

statistics 74-81 

Arbitration 20 

Area Manager(s) 2 

North(ern) 12, 18 

South(ern) 18 

Area structure 5 

Attorney-General 19, 20, 21, 28, 31, 57 

(see also Williams, D) 

Attorney-General’s Dept. 19, 20, 25, 29, 54, 56, 57 

Audiotape(s) 24, 25, 50 

Audit 21, 56, 57, 96 

Australian Institute of Family Studies 57 

Australian Institute of Judicia l Administration (AIJA) 25 

Australian National Audit O ffice 56, 59, 96 

Baker J 8, 38 

Barblett J( see also Deputy Chief Justice) 8, 26 

Barlow J 6 

Birth, death and divorce rates 36 

Blackstone 23, 90 

Brochure(s) 24, 51, 52, 53 

Brown J 12, 18 

Brown, C (see also Genera l Advisor Dispute Resolution) 26 

Brown, Professor Thea 23 

Buckley J 12, 25 

Bullbeck J 6, 7 

Burns, I 23 

Burr J 6 

Butler J 6 

Callinan J 48 

Carter J 7 

136


Case Management 3, 18 

computerised 23 

guidelines 19, 32, 43 

procedures 24 

Centacare 25 

Charges (see also Fees) 19 

Charter 

Court’s Service 3, 4, 133, 134 

Government’s, in a culturally diverse society 49 

Chief Executive Officer (see also Glare, L) 2, 12, 62, 135 

Chief Finance Officer (CFO) (see also Frankland, B) 2, 12, 53 

Chief Justice iii, 2, 6, 13, 38 

Chief Justice’s Advisory Committee on Ethnic Issues 50, 59 

Chief Justice’s Consultative Council (CJCC) 25, 57 

Child abuse 23, 56 

Child Representative 47 

Child support 43, 46, 134 

Child Support Agency 134 

Child welfare matter 39 

Children 26, 28, 45, 47, 134 

best interests of 3, 44 

special medical procedures for 25, 51 

risk to 45 

Children’s matters/issues 19, 25, 31,34 

Circuit(s) 2, 55 

Coaldrake, Professor Peter 18 

Comcare 61 

Commonwealth Disability Strategy 50, 59 

Complaints 54, 55, 135 

Compliance index 135 

Consultants 21, 91 

family/indigenous 22, 31, 49, 59, 134 

Consultation(s) 3, 18, 20, 49, 50 

Contact 45, 53 

Contact officer 

vi 

Contents 

v 

Corporate Informatio n Technology Plan 23, 62, 91 

Corporate Plan 4 

Cost(s) 19, 29, 44, 47, 48, 53 

Counselling 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 28, 

29, 30, 31, 33, 49, 56, 91, 134 


Counsellor(s) 19, 28, 91 

CRIS 23, 90 

Decisions of courts and tribunals 56 

Defended Hearing Statistics 23, 90 

Delay(s) 22, 23, 33, 34, 54 

Department of Human Services 23, 25, 51 

Deputy Chief Justice (see also Barblett J.) 2, 6, 26, 38 

Deputy Director Court Counselling (North) 19 

Dessau J 12, 23 

Disability Action Plan 50, 59 

Dispute resolution 18, 31 

see also Primary Dispute Resolution 

Divorce 21, 36, 53, 65 

Eather, R 18, 26 

Ellis J 28 

Equal Employment Opportunity 24, 59, 90 

statistics 60 

Establishment 2 

Ethnic 

awareness policies 18 

communities 24 

issues 25, 50, 59 

Liaison officer 24, 50 

External reviews 56 

Family consultants 22, 31, 49, 59 

Family Court of Western Australia 2, 3, 6, 38 

Family law 6 20, 24, 28, 29, 44, 57 

Family Law (Judges) Regulations 6 

Family Law Regulations 20, 31, 51 

(also referred to as Regulations) 

Family Law Rules 20, 31, 39, 45, 47, 57, 58 

(also referred to as Rules and Rules of Court) 

Family Reports 28, 47 

Family Services Australia 25 

Family violence (see also Violence) 18, 91 

Federal Government 23 

Fee(s) 28, 31, 55. 90, 135 

collection of filing 43 

exemptions/waivers 43, 51 

Files opened and applications 36 

Filing registries 2, 

Filippello, A (see also Principal Registrar) 26 

Financial and staffing resources summary 4 

Financial issues/matters 29, 31, 134 

Financial Statements 95-131 

Finn J 38 

Fogarty J 8, 38 

Forms 51, 53, 58, 90, 135 

Frankland, B (see also Chief Finance Officer) 26 

Frederico J 26 

Freedom of information 47, 57 

Full Court 20, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 

Gaudron J 48 

General Advisor Dispute Resolution (GADR) 2, 12, 25 

(see also Brown, C) 

General Manager Corporate Services (GMCS) 2, 18 

(see also Phelan , A) 

General Manager Customer Services (GMCS) 

(see also Eather, R) 2, 12, 18 

Glare, L (see also Chief Executive Officer) 26 

Gleeson CJ 23 


Graham J 6, 7, 13 

Guest J 7 

Gummow J 48 

Gun J 6, 7, 8 

Harassment contact officers 59 

Harrison, M 12 

(see also Senior Lega l Advisor to the Chief Justice) 

Hase J 6, 7 

Hayne J 8 

Hearings 22, 24, 3 

High Court 25, 44 

Howard, M 23 

Human Resource Development 62, 90 

Hunter, R 23 

Indigenous 

awareness policies 18 

consultants 134 

customers 22 

employment strategy 24 

family consultants 22, 31, 49, 59 

(see also Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander(s)) 

Industrial democracy 62 

Information mornings 23 

Information Sessions 29, 31, 52, 56, 135 

137

The Family Court of Australia – annualr eport 1997-98 

Information technology 23 

(see also Corporate Information Technology Plan) 

Inglis J 23 

Integrated Client Services (ICS) 21, 90 

Interim 

matters 22 

parenting applications/orders 22, 25, 51, 90 


Internal audit reviews 56 

Internal reviews and academic thesis 56 

Internet 53, 135 

Introduction 

vi 

Jerrard J 6, 12 

Judge Administrator(s) 2, 8, 9, 26 

Judge(s) 6, 8, 18, 21, 23, 26, 31, 39, 47, 48, 134 

leave 7, 8 

retiring/retirement of 6, 8, 22 

part-time 22 

Judicial registrars 2, 6, 8, 134 

Judicial strength 7 

Judiciary 6 

Jurisdiction 2, 3, 24, 26, 38, 48 

Kay J 38 

Kirby J 48 

Kit(s) 51, 52, 135 

Law Council of Australia 6, 7 

Family Law Section of 7, 25, 57 

Legal aid 19, 21, 23, 25, 47, 48, 51, 52, 135, 

Legal practitioners/profession 18, 19, 53 

Letter of transmission 

iii 

Lindenmayer J. 38 

Lists 8, 22, 23, 53 

Litigation 19, 20, 28, 29, 39 

Maintenance 45, 46, 134 

Mediation 2, 19, 20, 24, 29, 31, 124 


Mediators 19, 90 

Men 20, 26 

Monash University 23 

Moore J 49 

Mullane J 13 

Mushin J 50 

Objective(s) 3, 4 

Occupational Health and Safety 61, 6 

Office of the Chief Executive 14, 91. 93, 94 

Office of the Public Advocate 25, 51 

Ombudsman’s Office 54 

Order(s) 25, 28, 37, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 64 

Organisation 2, 18 

Organisational structure 5, 18 

Overseas travel summary 12 

Overview 1 

Parenting Plan 52,53 

Performance indicator(s) 28, 32 

Performance standard(s) 32, 33, 35, 54 

Phantom Comic 24 

Phelan, A 18, 26 

(see also General Manager Corporate Services) 

Practice direction(s) 25, 53 

Primary dispute resolution (PDR) 2, 3, 19,20, 21, 

(see also Dispute resolution) 24, 28, 30, 31, 56 

Principal Registrar (PR) (see also Filippello, A) 2, 12 

Program management 2 

Program performance 32 

Property 20, 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 134 

Publications 3, 50, 51, 53 

Purvis J 6, 7 

Reform 20 

Registrars 2, 21, 22, 91, 134 

Registries 2, 14 

Relationships Australia 25 

Relationships with external bodies 25 

Renaud J 8 

Residence 28, 40, 45, 53, 56 

Resource(s) 4, 32 

judicial 32, 34 

Summary table of 132 

Senior Executive Service 59, 90 

Senior Legal Advisor to the Chief Justice 25 

(see also Harrison, M) 

Settlement rates 85, 86 

Significant judgments 44 

Simplified Procedures 3, 18, 22, 32 

Smith JR 25 

Social Justice, Access and Equity 49, 59 

Special medical procedures 25, 51 

Staff 3, 4, 18, 22, 26, 49, 60, 61, 62, 90, 91, 93, 94, 

Staffing overview 90 

resources summary 4 

Standard(s) 33, 34, 55 

time 29, 31 

performance against individual 31 

(see also Performance standards) 

Statistics 

applicants in person 82 

divorce 65 

demographic 66 

Counselling 72-73 

Court 67-71 

EEO 60 

Files, orders, applications 74-81 

Mediation 83-87 

Steele J 6, 13 

Sterilisation 25 

Strategic planning 19, 26 

Studybank 91 

Sub-registries 2 

Summary table of resources 132 

Superannuation 20 

Surrogacy 46 

Survey(s) 18, 29, 30 

Quality of Working Life 61 

Training 31, 61, 90, 91 

judicial 21, 49 

Trial Management Committee 26 

Underhill J 6, 7 

Unrepresented litigants 21, 22, 50 

(see also Applicants in person and Appellants in person) 

Video link 39 

Video(s) 24, 51 

Violence 21, 28 

Visitors to the court 10 

Williams, Daryl (see also Attorney-General) 

iii 

Women 8, 20, 21, 26, 59, 90 

Workings of the court 27 

Workload 32, 64 

Workplace diversity and equal employment opportunity 59 

138

Annual report [1997-98] - Family Court of Australia

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?