pARt 6 MAnAGeMent AnD AccountABilitY - Family Court of Australia

The Honourable Justice Nahum MushinThe Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth DaweThe Honourable Justice Robert James Charles BenjaminAppointments, retirements and resignationsJudicial officer appointments:The Honourable Justice Stewart Austin 13 July 2009The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland was assigned to the Appeal Division 14 December 2009Judicial officer retirements:PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Honourable Justice Julienne Penny (Family Court of Western Australia) 3 July 2009The Honourable Justice Colleen Ann Moore 31 July 2009The Honourable Justice Lloyd Waddy 22 December 2009The Honourable Justice Brian Edward Jordan 31 December 2009The Honourable Justice Bernard John Warnick 31 March 2010The Honourable Justice Robyn Sylvia Flohm 29 April 2010The Honourable Justice Sally Elizabeth Brown AM 2 June 2010Senior executives of the Family Court of AustraliaChief Executive Office, Richard Foster.Chief Executive OfficerRichard Foster PSM FAIM, Chief Executive OfficerThe Chief Justice, under the Family Law Act, is responsible for theadministration of the Court and is assisted by the Chief ExecutiveOfficer (CEO). The CEO’s powers are broad (s 38D), although subjectto directions from the Chief Justice (s 38D(3)). The CEO holds theresponsibilities and powers of an agency head under Commonwealthfinancial management and public service legislation, but is appointedunder terms similar to those of judicial officers. The CEO is supportedby the staff of the National Support Office and is located in theNational Support Office, Canberra. Mr Richard Foster was appointedCEO in May 2000.102 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Principal RegistrarAngela Filippello, Principal RegistrarThe Principal Registrar provides high level legal and procedural adviceto support the judicial functioning of the Family Court. As a seniorlawyer, she discharges the statutory duties assigned to that positionby the Family Law Act 1975, works closely with the Chief Justice andjudges in administering the Act and related legislation, and identifiesareas in need of reform.Principal Registrar, Angela Filippello.The Principal Registrar presides in Court and holds the delegatedpower to make orders in interim parenting cases, maintenance casesand some enforcement of financial obligations. The Principal Registraralso oversees the performance of, and provides direction to, the Court’sregistrars. Her chambers are in the Brisbane registry.Principal Child Dispute ServicesPrincipal Child Dispute Services, DianneGibson.Dianne Gibson, Principal Child Dispute ServicesThe Principal Child Dispute Services is responsible for advising the ChiefJustice and the Chief Executive Officer on the provision of quality childdispute services to the Court. The Principal ensures that the servicesdelivered by the family consultants are effective and consistent with thestrategic and business objectives of the Court. The Principal also hasresponsibility for the development of strategic external relationshipsthat promote and position the child dispute services of the Court withinthe family law framework.Executive Director Client ServicesThe Executive Director Client Services is responsible for the deliveryof client services in all family law registries. The Executive Directorensures that high-quality registry services and support are provided toall judicial officers, litigants and legal practitioners, consistent with thestrategic and business objectives of the Family Law Courts (the FamilyCourt of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court).PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYStephen Andrew was the Acting Executive Director Client Services at30 June 2010Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010103

Executive Director Information, Communication andTechnology ServicesStephen Andrew, Executive Director Information, Communicationand Technology ServicesThe Executive Director Information, Communication and TechnologyServices provides strategic vision, leadership and management ofthe Court’s communication, applications, information management,infrastructure and statistics services.Executive Director, ICT and a/g ExecutiveDirector Client Services, Stephen Andrew.Executive Director CorporateGrahame Harriott, Executive Director CorporatePART 6The Executive Director Corporate provides strategic leadership andmanagement of the Court’s human resources, property and contracts,finance, budgets and business improvements and procurement and riskmanagement.MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYExecutive Director Corporate, GrahameHarriott.Judicial committeesChief Justice Bryant maintains a collegiate style of governance, and the judicial officers of the Court meetannually or more often if required in plenary. The Chief Justice also convenes a monthly teleconference ofall judges, in which current issues are discussed. In addition, judicial officers participate in a number ofcommittees that develop policies across a range of matters.Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory CommitteeAt the strategic level, the Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee is the highest policymaking bodywithin the Court. The committee’s primary role is to support the Chief Justice in the administration of theCourt and to provide strategic advice and policy direction, particularly in relation to legislative, proceduraland administrative changes likely to affect the Family Court and its users. Chaired by the Chief Justice,the committee meets quarterly, and in 2009–10 its membership comprised:• Deputy Chief Justice Faulks• Justice Finn• Justice Strickland• Justice Watts104 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• Justice Ryan• Justice Cronin• Justice Murphy• Chief Executive Officer (Mr Richard Foster)• Principal Registrar (Ms Angela Filippello)• Principal Child Dispute Services (Ms Dianne Gibson).A joint meeting of the Policy Advisory Committees of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court washeld in Melbourne on 7 April 2010. Attendees from the Federal Magistrates Court were:• Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe• Federal Magistrate Baumann• Federal Magistrate Donald• Federal Magistrate Riethmuller• Federal Magistrate Cassidy• Mr Richard Foster (Acting CEO)• Mr Steven Agnew (Deputy CEO)• Mr Stephen Andrew (Executive Director Information Communication and Technology Services, FamilyCourt and Federal Magistrates Court).Items discussed included joint budget savings strategies and increased efficiencies, allocation of workbetween the two Courts and the effective use of information technology. The meeting was productiveand participants agreed to continue to meet annually.Other committeesA number of standing judicial committees are also active in providing high-level policy advice inspecialised areas. Meeting regularly or as required, they are (in alphabetical order):• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Committee• Benchbook Committee• Costs Committee• Cultural Diversity Committee• eFiling Committee• Family Violence Committee• Information and Communication Technology Committee• Judicial Development Committee• Judicial Remuneration Committee• Law Reform Committee• Magellan CommitteePART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010105

• National Case Management Committee• Property Management Committee• Research and Ethics Committee• Rules Committee.At the joint meeting of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court Policy Advisory Committees inApril 2010 it was agreed that some committees would be joint, with membership drawn from bothcourts. The joint committees are:PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee• Benchbook Committee• Cultural Diversity Committee• eFiling Committee• Family Violence Committee• Information and Communication Technology Committee• Judicial Development Committee• Property Management Committee• Research and Ethics Committee.For detailed information on the judicial committees of the Court, see Appendix 10.Judicial committee highlightsThis section summarises highlights of the work of some of the judicial committees during 2009–10.Rules CommitteeIn 2009–10, the Rules Committee worked on various significant projects, including:• Rules harmonisation, in which it worked with the Federal Magistrates Court and the legal professionwith the object of providing the best, most efficient and cost-effective system for court users.Opportunities for rules harmonisation were identified in areas such as service of process, discovery ofdocuments and the form of affidavits.• Considering the single expert rules in financial matters. In concert with the Family Law Section of theLaw Council of Australia, the Committee consulted with valuers and single experts about the rulesand through that process identified possible areas of improvement, particularly with respect to theform of communication with single experts.In addition, the Committee considered:• rules governing the eFiling process (along with the Court’s eFiling group)• whether rules are required for the process of making suppression or non-publication orders• whether rule 10.15A should be expanded in scope106 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• s 69ZU of the Family Law Act 1975 as to sworn evidence and whether that section requires familyconsultants to swear affidavits if child and family issues assessment reports and family reports are tobe relied upon in court• the ‘permission rule’ with respect to subpoenasand also:• looked at interest rates, and• prepared miscellaneous Rules amendments.Law Reform CommitteeThe Law Reform Committee identified matters for amendment in family law legislation and providedinput in relation to various amendments under consideration. It also considered and, where appropriate,commented on the following.Law reform and legislation• Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010• Access to Justice (Family Court Restructure and Other Measures) Bill 2010: Application, Saving andTransitional Provisions Bill 2010• Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010• draft bill on Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders• drafting instructions on a bill to respond to the High Court’s decision in MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4• Federal Justice System (Efficiency Measures) Bill 2009 (‘Black and Black amendments’)• Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2010• Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill 2009• Uniform Evidence Bill developed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) and theEvidence Regulations 1995• proposed amendments for inclusion in a Family Law Amendment Bill 2010, and• proposal to enhance family dispute resolution.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYIssues papers and reports• National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council report, The Resolve to Resolve: EmbracingADR to Improve Access to Justice in the Federal Jurisdiction, September 2009.• Family Courts Violence Review—a report by Professor Richard Chisholm, 27 November 2009.Family Violence CommitteeThe Family Violence Committee was reconstituted as a joint committee of the Family Court and FederalMagistrates Court after the release of these reports on 28 January 2010:• Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies• Family Courts Violence Review by Professor Richard Chisholm, andFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010107

• Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System by the Family Law Council.The Committee’s principal responsibility is to complete the implementation of the Court’s Family ViolenceStrategy and provide advice to the Chief Justice, Chief Federal Magistrate and CEO on family violenceissues.During the year the Committee established sub-committees to consider each of the above reports. Inaddition:• a separate sub-committee was reviewing and updating the Family Court’s Family Violence Strategywith a view to expanding the strategy to encompass the Federal Magistrates Court• another sub-committee was reviewing the Family Court’s Family Violence Best Practice Principles toextend their ambit to the Federal Magistrates Court and to take account of changes in practice andprocedure in both Courts, and• the Committee coordinated a response to the Australian Law Reform Council/NSW Law ReformCouncil’s consultation paper, Family Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks (a document of morethan 1000 pages).PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CommitteeIn 2008–09, the Family Law Courts Advisory Group agreed to establish a joint Family Court-FederalMagistrates Court Indigenous Working Group to examine the needs of Indigenous people in theFamily Law Courts. The Group became a formal committee of the courts in April 2010. The Committeeconsidered:• the impact of the shift in the provision of services to Indigenous clients, previously provided byIndigenous Family Liaison Officers of the Family Court, to Family Relationship Centres• how to manage applications for parenting orders concerning residence, contact and specific issuesas a result of traditional and customary adoption practices by Torres Strait Islanders (Kupai Omasker)• how to meet the needs of Indigenous clients of both courts within existing resources, includingrecommendations as to how the Courts can ensure proper information is provided to this clientgroup, internally and externally, and• the development of a joint Reconciliation Action Plan, as required by Government, which identifiesthe steps the Courts will take to build relationships and enhance respect with IndigenousAustralians. It will include areas such as building relationships with the Indigenous communities,staff education, attracting and retaining Indigenous staff and ensuring that judges and familyconsultants have access to appropriate expertise to deal with Indigenous families.During 2009–10, the Committee engaged Stephen Ralph, an independent Aboriginal consultant withextensive experience in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in the area of familylaw, to undertake a study of the views and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander familieswho had recently been involved in family law proceedings. The research was to examine the interfacebetween Indigenous families and the Family Law Courts, including issues of access to justice and stepstowards improved service delivery. At 30 June 2010, it was anticipated that the results of the researchwould be published in early 2011.Other initiatives of the Committee during 2009–10, in consultation with the Courts’ Communication108 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

team, included:• information material for Indigenous clients in family law including»»a brochure Indigenous Families and the Family Law Courts»»an ATSI web page http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/Communities+and+Individuals/Indigenous+Australians/»»an ATSI intranet page for client service staff.The Committee also worked on the Courts’ ATSI Employment Strategy.At 30 June 2010, it was anticipated the Reconciliation Action Plan and the employment strategy wouldbe completed by January 2011.Collaborative committeesFamily Law Courts Advisory GroupThe Family Law Courts Advisory Group has a critical governance role in resourcing both courts andcoordinates various administrative relationships between the two courts. The group endorsed a plan tofurther integrate the administrative structures of the courts and will oversee the plan’s implementation.The Family Law Courts Advisory Group comprises:• Chief Justice Bryant (Family Court)• Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe (Federal Magistrates Court)• Justice Watts (Family Court)• Federal Magistrate Baumann (Federal Magistrates Court)• Elizabeth Kelly (Attorney-General’s Department)• Richard Foster (CEO Family Court and acting CEO Federal Magistrates Court).Senior management committeesThe Chief Executive Officer, Richard Foster, maintains an inclusive style of management. The seniorexecutive managers of the Courts meet annually to establish the strategic direction and priorities for theeffective administration of the Court. In addition, senior executive managers participate in a number ofcommittees that provide high-level operational and policy advice to the CEO.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYChief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory GroupThe Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group provides operational and policy advice to theCEO on key areas that affect the administration of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.Chaired by the CEO of the Family Court and acting CEO of the Federal Magistrates Court, Richard Foster,the group meets every six to eight weeks and comprises:• Acting Deputy, CEO Federal Magistrates Court• Executive Director Information, Communication and Technology ServicesFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010109

• Acting Executive Director, Client Services• a Regional Registry Manager representative• Executive Director, Corporate.with support provided by the Executive Advisor to the CEO.Other committeesA number of administrative committees were also active at this level during 2009–10 and provided highlevel operational and policy advice. Meeting on a regular or ad hoc basis, they included:• Audit and Risk• National Consultative• Staff Development• Property Management• Information and Communication.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYSenior management committee highlightsThis section provides highlights of the work of senior management committees during 2009–10.Appendix 10 has details of membership and terms of reference for the various committees.Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory GroupIn 2009–10, the Chief Executive Officer’s Management Advisory Group focused on providing advice tothe CEO on new policy initiatives including environmental policy, electronic communication, a combinedService Charter, budget strategies and staff development. The Group also helped review current policies,including records management.Audit and Risk CommitteeThe Audit and Risk Committee considered a range of issues during the year, including the Court’s internalaudit plan, strategic risk and fraud risk treatments, and oversight of the Australian National Audit Officeand internal audit report recommendations.National Consultative CommitteeThe National Consultative Committee is a key forum through which the Court consults with staff aboutbroader issues that have a national perspective. Elected staff delegates actively present the views of staffon issues that impact at a national level on staff and the management and future direction of the Court.The Committee’s area of focus include:• the objectives of the Court and how these might be achieved• financial and human resource planning• information technology initiatives110 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• security• management and review processes, including proposed changes• occupational health and safety matters• equal employment opportunity issues• accommodation and amenities, and• human resource management policies and practices.Staff Development CommitteeIn 2009–10, the Staff Development Committee arranged for various staff training and development toolsto be added to the E-learn portal of the Court’s intranet. This included modules on countering bullyingand harassment; also for dealing with difficult and persistent clients.The Committee also facilitated staff exchanges between different locations.The Committee is integral to the Court’s approach to the continuing professional and careerdevelopment of staff, being a key forum through which staff representatives have shared responsibilityfor identifying and determining development needs and opportunities.Corporate and operational planning and associated performancereporting and reviewAt 30 June 2010, the Court employed 619 ongoing and non-ongoing employees (excluding judicialofficers and the CEO) in all states and territories except Western Australia.Guidance for staff is contained in the following documents, available to all staff on the Court’s intranetand website:• Strategic Plan• administration policies and procedural documents including guidelines, procedures and manualsfrom the finance, human resources and information, communication and technology areas• APS Values and Code of Conduct• Corporate Plan and business area plans (for the National Support Office)• Service Charter and Service Commitments documents• Family Law Registries National Business Plan 2008–2010, and• case management policies and manuals related to the management of family law cases from theChief Justice, the Principal Registrar and the Principal Child Dispute Services.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Court’s geographically dispersed staff and the judiciary are informed of significant changes andevents through the following:• Chief Justice’s eMessage—emails from the Chief Justice to all staff and the judiciary• CEO eMessages—emails from the Chief Executive Officer to all staffFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010111

• Chief Executive Instructions—the officialmechanism by which the Chief ExecutiveOfficer communicates and directs the Court’scompliance with the Financial Managementand Accountability Act 1997• Client service advices—from the ExecutiveDirector Client Services to all client servicestaff working in the registries• Courtside—the Court’s internal staffnewsletter, which is issued four times peryear and includes columns from the ChiefJustice and CEO. This is the primary vehiclefor sharing information and celebrating theachievements and successes of court staff,and• Intranet messages—latest news.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYInternal auditThe Court has, as part of its corporategovernance arrangements, appropriatemechanisms to manage general business risk aswell as fraud risk.The Court’s internal audit services were provided by Oakton Services Pty Ltd and monitored by the Auditand Risk Committee.The 2009–10 Internal Audit Plan was developed taking into account the risk drivers in the RiskManagement Plan and after discussion with the Audit and Risk Committee and senior management.Internal audits conducted during the year included:Courtside.• HR payroll compliance and quality assurance processes• human resource management performance (benchmarking diagnostics)• collection of revenues and the recording of these revenues in Casetrack• management of the Executive Vehicle Scheme vehicles / fleet management, and• risk management review (strategic risk and fraud control risk assessments).The Court’s Audit and Risk Committee monitored the implementation of individual audit reportrecommendations generated by the above audits through quarterly status reports.Risk managementThe Court promotes a culture that supports the identification, analysis, assessment, treatment,monitoring and review of all strategic, operational, compliance and financial risks. This is supported bythe Court’s Risk Control and Compliance Framework—a risk management approach grounded in theAustralian/ New Zealand Risk Management Standard (AS/NZS IS0 31000: 2009).112 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

The framework provides policies, procedures and tools to promote effective risk management. It isavailable on the Court’s intranet to help achieve better services and outcomes for judicial services, clientsand staff.During 2009–10, the Court continued to participate in the annual Comcover benchmarking survey,which measures risk and assesses the extent of cultural change within agencies. The Court’s overallresult continued to improve, reflecting the implementation of the Court’s Risk Control and ComplianceFramework.Work started during 2009–10 on developing a single Business Continuity Plan for the variousjurisdictions in the Commonwealth Law Court building in Brisbane. The Court is working incollaboration with members of the National Law Courts Building Management Committee on thisproject. At 30 June 2010, it was expected that the various stakeholder consultations on the single planwould occur early in 2010–11. Subject to assessment testing for suitability, it was anticipated that thesingle business continuity plan would be extended to other Commonwealth Law Courts early in 2011.As a result of a risk management review undertaken during 2009–10, the Court committed to raisingawareness of risk management with all staff. A risk awareness training package was designed for thispurpose, including to raise awareness of the benefits of incorporating risk assessments into businessplanning. Training with the package was completed during 2009–10.The Court continuously monitors its Strategic Risk Management Plan to take into consideration new oremerging risks that may impact the achievement of the Court’s strategic objectives. The plan identifiesareas of risk for the Court and the strategies required to effectively manage and mitigate those risks. At30 June, the Court was well-advanced on preparing an updated Strategic Risk Management Plan for theperiod 2010–2012.Financial riskThe Court manages financial risk in accordance with the Risk Control and Compliance Framework. Therelevant mechanisms are:• risk assessments for annual business plans• risk assessments for identified projects• Chief Executive Instructions on the intranet• monthly financial reports to the CEO’s Management Advisory Group, and• oversight by the Audit and Risk Committee.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYFraud prevention and controlThe Court’s Fraud Control Plan 2007–09 complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines2002. The Audit and Risk Committee has received reports on the implementation status of fraud risktreatments.The Court has in place fraud investigation, reporting and data collection procedures that meet the needsof the Court and comply with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines.The development of a revised 2010–12 Fraud Control Plan was commenced during the year and at30 June 2010, it was expected it would be completed in the first quarter of 2010–11.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010113

No instances or allegations of fraud against the Court were reported in 2009–10.Fraud control certificationIn accordance with guideline 2.8 of the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2002, issued bythe Minister for Justice and Customs, pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Financial Management andAccountability Regulations 1997, I hereby certify that I am satisfied that:• the Family Court of Australia has prepared fraud assessments and has in place a fraud control planthat complies with the Guidelines• appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting procedures and processes are inplace.Annual fraud data has been collected and reported that complies with the Guidelines.Richard Foster, PSMPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYChief Executive OfficerFamily Court of Australia13 August 2010Ethical standardsThe Court’s Strategic Plan states that integrity,respect and responsiveness underpin itsapproach to business. The Australian PublicService (APS) Values and Code of Conductcontained in the Public Service Act 1999 apply toall employees of the Court.In 2009–10, the Court maintained an ongoinginformation and education promotion toensure that all staff were aware of their rights,responsibilities and obligations in relationto privacy, ethics and other factors such asenvironmental responsibility, data managementand data quality.In addition, the Court, jointly with the FederalMagistrates Court, produced new Service Charterand Service Commitments publications. Theseoutline the service expected from staff of theCourts.Fraud-awareness training was conducted inSeptember 2009 and the Court’s eLearningService Charter.114 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

module has been updated to further reinforce the APS Code of Conduct and APS values.The Court’s Research and Ethics Committee considers, monitors and overviews all research and evaluationproposals (internal and external) for approval. Membership of the Committee is in Appendix 10.Joint Client Service Charter and Service CommitmentsDuring 2009–10, the separate Service Charters of the Family Court and the Federal MagistratesCourt were amalgamated. The joint Charter sets out the service level standards clients can expectfrom dealing with staff of the Courts and how clients and other users of court services may makesuggestions or complaints about services, policy, practice or procedures. This document is availableon www.familycourt.gov.au and www.fmc.gov.au and on the Family Law Courts websitewww.familylawcourts.gov.au.The joint summary Service Commitments document is on display at all registries and on the websites.It highlights what clients of the Courts can expect from client services staff, what the staff cannot do,clients rights and responsibilities and how clients can help the Courts to help them.External and internal scrutinyExternal scrutinyReports by the Auditor-GeneralThe Auditor General made no report specific to the Family Court of Australia during 2009–10.Administrative Appeals TribunalThere are no matters to report.Commonwealth OmbudsmanThe Commonwealth Ombudsman made no report specific to the Family Court during 2009–10.District Court of New South WalesPotkonyak and Ors v Commonwealth [2009] NSWDC 198PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYMr Potkonyak sought to bring proceedings against the Commonwealth in the District Court ofNSW, claiming damages for alleged breaches of duty on the part of Family Court personnel. On16 September 2009, Judge Levy SC, struck out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and dismissed theproceedings.Judge Levy noted his view that what the plaintiffs sought to do in the District Court proceedings was tomount a collateral attack on earlier decisions of the Family Court. This it was said must not be permitted.Recognising that the procedural step of summary dismissal must be exercised with exceptional caution,and only where it is clear that there is no real question to be tried, Judge Levy considered this to be sucha case. The allegations made were held to be an abuse of the process of the court.The case confirms that where a matter lies within the jurisdiction of the Family Court which hasconsidered what it will and will not do in the matter, it is not open to attempt to re-litigate the matter byoriginal proceedings brought in a State court.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010115

Family law services reviewOn 24 May 2010 the Attorney-General, the Honourable Robert McClelland MP, announced thegovernment’s decision about the restructure of the federal courts. This followed:• March 2008, the Attorney-General initiated the Semple Review of the administration and delivery offamily law services by the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.• November 2008, the Attorney-General released a discussion paper, Future Governance Options forFederal Family Law Courts in Australia—Striking the Right Balance.• May 2009, the Australian Government released its decision on the future of the courts. The Attorney-General announced that the government proposed to merge the Federal Magistrates Court with theFamily Court and the Federal Court.At the end of the 2008–09 financial year, the government had been preparing legislation to facilitate themerger and had been working towards having legislation in place in the first part of 2010. However, therestructure was delayed due to the government considering the implications of the High Court’s decisionin Lane v Morrison.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYIn terms of family law, on 24 May 2010 the Attorney-General announced that:• The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia would be retained to hear general federal law matters,with the Federal Court assuming responsibility for the administration of the FMC.• The Family Court would be the single court dealing with all family law matters and would berestructured into two divisions. Federal Magistrates exercising mostly family law jurisdiction wouldbe offered commissions in the Family Court.(At the time of publication of this Report, Parliament had been prorogued and the Bill as introduced haslapsed).Independent review of the Australian Government’s use of ICTDuring 2009–10, the Court undertook significant reporting to the Department of Finance andDeregulation as recommendations of the ‘Review of the Australian Government’s use of Information andCommunication Technology’ (ICT) by Sir Peter Gershon were implemented.In October 2009, the Court submitted the ICT Review Benchmarking report. It covered all ICT operatingand capital expenditure for 2008–09 financial year and included some quantitative measures aboutcapacity and quantities of ICT equipment.The Gershon review led to the Court’s 2009–10 appropriation being reduced by 2.5 per cent of ICTbusiness as usual (BAU) costs as calculated for the 2007–08 financial year. Various efficiency initiativeswere undertaken to maintain ICT services with a reduced budget. This included reducing the number ofICT contractors. This is consistent with government requirements, which are to reduce ICT contractorsby 10 per cent in 2009, 25 per cent in 2010 and 50 per cent in 2011. By 30 June 2010, the Court hadachieved the first year’s target reduction.In response to the pursuit of whole-of-government arrangements for various ICT goods and services,during the year the Court provided feedback and information to the Department of Financial andRegulation on areas including:• data centre use and requirements116 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• desktop common operating environment and PC and notebook requirements• implementation of a common ICT chart of accounts• information about custom and bespoke applications development and details of all ICT software andapplications used in the Court• ICT skills survey• internet gateway and major office machine requirements, and• status of green ICT initiatives.The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) is managing a whole-ofgovernmenttransition from IPv4 to IPv6. The Court is following the schedule of milestones.In the second quarter of 2009–10 the Department of Finance and Deregulation requested that theCourt commence an implantation of the Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model(P3M3). A certified external consultant was engaged to assess the Court maturity level and develop abusiness improvement plan to raise the Court’s maturity level in line with the time frame suggested. By30 June 2010, the assessment had been completed and a draft business improvement plan submitted forevaluation.Senate estimate committee hearingsSenior Executive Service staff of the Court attend Senate estimate committee hearings to answerquestions about the Court’s activities. In 2009–10, more than 25 Senate estimate questions on noticewere received and answered.External evaluationsFamily consultants and registrars review and restructureEarly in 2009–10, Des Semple and Associates completed a review of family consultants and registrars.The review had these terms of reference:• Review the current management structure and processes of family consultant and registrar servicesand advise on the appropriate governance and management structure for the future provision ofthese services to the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, recognising the separate casemanagement processes and procedures of the two courts.• Recommend the future quantum of family consultant and registrar resources for future allocation tothe Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court on the proportion of the number of cases finalisedby both courts.• Propose management systems that ensure transparent and dedicated allocation of resources to bothcourts according to the number of case matters finalised.• Propose the management templates and executive information management reports that accuratelymonitor case management outcomes according to the predetermined resource allocations.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYIn August 2009, the Chief Justice, Chief Federal Magistrate and Chief Executive Officer approvedrecommendations on the transfer of resources arising from the Semple review.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010117

Family consultantsIn October 2009, a single management structure was introduced and the first allocation of dedicatedfamily consultant and registrar resources was made for the Federal Magistrates Court. The new structurereplaced the previous positions of Manager Child Dispute Services positions with Regional Coordinatorsin Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. Deputy Managers Child Dispute Services were replaced by six newSenior Family Consultant positions at these same registries, with three assigned to each Court to managethe pool of available resources. An additional six Senior Family Consultants will be located in NorthQueensland, Newcastle, Parramatta, Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart.Resources continue to be moved between the Courts to meet the needs of the judiciary and clients.RegistrarsThe regional management and appeals structure of registrars was maintained. In October 2009 apredetermined level of registrar resources for each location was decided, to be made available throughthe pool of registrars in each location.The approaches to the use of registrar resources to support both courts was ongoing at 30 June 2010.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYResource allocationAt 30 June 2010, the management information reporting continued its development. It is an essentialtool for accurately determining the distribution of the available family consultant and registrar resources.The transition to the new arrangements for both family consultants and registrars is another key stepin ensuring the success of the single administration. The ongoing management of resources will beachieved at a regional level through a transparent management process that will be monitored andregularly report to the Family Law Courts Advisory Group.Internal evaluationsIntegration of Courts’ administrationAs reported last year, in March 2009, in advance of the government’s decision about the future of theCourts, a plan to further integrate the administration of the Family Court and the Federal MagistratesCourt was made by the Family Law Courts Advisory Group. This was done to maximise the efficiency andresources of the Courts and to help address the challenging financial position facing both Courts.The integration of the administrations proceeded. The integrated administration continued to recognisethat the two jurisdictions remained as independent courts.In addition to the restructuring of registrar and family consultant resources, a number of changes weremade to regional and registry management structures and to client services within registries.Single regional and registry management structureThe Courts now have a single regional management structure, managed through four regions by fourRegional Registry Managers under the leadership of the Executive Director, Client Services (StephenAndrew):118 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• New South Wales/ACT: Marianne Christmann• Queensland/Northern New South Wales: James Cotta• Victoria/Tasmania: Jane Reynolds• South Australia/Northern Territory: Greg Thomas.A new position of Business Development Manager was created during the year, with responsibililty foreFiling and portal development, the National Enquiry Centre and the business systems developmentofficers.A two-day planning workshop for seniors managers of both Courts was held in March 2010. The focus ofdiscussions was critical issues affecting both Courts, such as strategies for the combined administration,budget strategies (including savings options), governance, roles and expectations, and key elements ofthe change process necessary to ensure an effective way forward.Client services restructureAfter consulting with staff over several months, the implementation of new registry-level managementstructures was completed in all registries in January 2010.The new structure includes two arms—judicial services and registry services. Both arms provide localisedand integrated management arrangements to lead and support the staff of both courts.Judicial support reviewIn February 2010, a review of the Court’s case coordinator and court officer functions and resourcescommenced in order to:• determine the most effective and efficient model for support of Family Court judges, including themembers of the Full Court• recommend to the Chief Justice and Chief Executive Officer a model that ensures appropriatesupport in court and in the management of cases.The recommended model needs to make savings without compromising effective support to judges.The review team comprises Bob Gregory, National Projects Manager; Simon Kelso, Acting ManagerHuman Resources; and Jamie Crew, Registry Manager Newcastle.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYBy 30 June 2010, the review team had consulted extensively with judicial officers and staff in Sydney,Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Parramatta, Newcastle, Hobart, Townsville and Canberra, and theCommonwealth and Public Sector Union. A draft consultative report had been completed and was beingconsidered by judges and managers.If accepted, the review recommendations are expected to be fully implemented by March 2011.Child Responsive ProgramThe Child Responsive Program was implemented nationally in the Family Court of Australia in January2008. An internal review of the program, looking at its implementation and its effectiveness with lessadversarial trial procedures, was conducted in April 2009 and made generally available in early 2009–10.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010119

The review showed that the program was well established and integrated with less adversarial trials.Judges reported a high level of satisfaction with the way the program focussed on the needs of childrenand integrated with the first day of the less adversarial trial. The Child Responsive Program has becomemore flexible to accommodate the needs of the particularly complex matters now before the Court andto ensure that families do not undergo duplicated assessments when matters are transferred betweencourts.Management of human resourcesOverviewIn 2009–10, the Court’s human resources area undertook significant work associated with the merger ofthe administration of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court, which had commenced in March2009. A people management framework and related strategies were essential for the merged workforce.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYTerms and conditions of employment was a key issue. Staff on similar classifications, working side-bysideand performing similar duties had different terms and conditions of employment including differentrates of pay. This was a result of different pay structures within the courts, and different employmentconditions and salary outcomes from the respective Collective Agreements.A high priority of the Chief Executive Officer of the Family Court and Acting Chief Executive Officer ofthe Federal Magistrates Court was for a single Enterprise Agreement with a single set of terms andconditions for all staff of both courts. That could not be accomplished immediately following the mergerof the administration. The Federal Magistrates Court’s Collective Agreement had a nominal expiry date of30 June 2009 and the last pay rise under it was on 1 July 2008. The Family Court’s Collective Agreementnominally expired on 30 June 2010, with a pay rise of 4.4 per cent from 1 July 2009. As a result the payrates applying to staff of the respective courts were significantly out of alignment.As an interim measure, the Chief Executive Officer, by determination under section 24 of the PublicService Act 1999, aligned the salary rates of the two courts on 9 September 2009. This followedconsultation with staff and the Community and Public Sector Union, and the approval of the Attorney-General and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Also in September 2009, the Government introduced new policy parameters for agreement makingin the Australian Public Service, the Australian Government Employment Bargaining Framework.Negotiations then commenced for a replacement Enterprise Agreement involving the Courts’management, the CPSU and individual staff bargaining representatives.The Courts’ intranets were the primary vehicles for keeping the employees informed of developments,with regular news and announcements about issues such as salary alignment, registry reviews and theprogress of negotiations for the new Agreement. Management also kept employees informed throughall-staff emails.The aim was for a replacement Enterprise Agreement to be in place by 1 July 2010. On 18 June 2010,Fair Work Australia approved the new Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court ofAustralia Enterprise Agreement 2010. It commenced on 25 June 2010. See ‘Agreement Making’ later inthis Part for more details.120 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Workforce planning, retention and turnoverWorkforce planningThroughout 2009–10, the Family Court continued to improve its human resources systems andreporting to develop a better, evidence-based understanding of the factors driving various workforceissues. Workforce metrics were extracted and analysed by the Chief Executive Officer’s ManagementAdvisory Group on a monthly basis. Potential risks and key trends were addressed through appropriatehuman resource strategies to ensure future capability and resourcing and to cope with staff turnover.The strategies were communicated to managers and staff, helping ensure that succession plans weredeveloped at local levels. The Court promotes diversity in the workforce and remained committed to promoting equity inemployment and supporting an inclusive, safe, productive and fair workplace that is free fromdiscrimination and harassment.The Court also has a longstanding and ongoing commitment to ensuring that the needs of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander employees and clients are recognised and met appropriately. It reinforcesthat commitment by identifying and addressing barriers to the recruitment and career development ofIndigenous Australians through its recruitment policies, training and mentoring programs.The Court facilitates access to its services for Indigenous people by ensuring that information aboutthe Court is widely available across the Indigenous community in suitable formats and delivered inculturally appropriate ways. The Court also develops partnerships with a range of Indigenous stakeholdergroups at the national and local registry levels. It also provides appropriate and ongoing education tojudicial officers and staff on the cultural background of Indigenous Australians. These partnerships andrelationships assist the Court in assessing whether there is a need for targeted recruitment in particularcultural areas and informs staff as part of their role.The Court also recognises the significant contribution made by mature aged employees in the workplace.Accordingly, the Court encourages the use of the flexible working arrangements available under theEnterprise Agreement relating to the balance between work and private life as a means to retain matureaged employees beyond normal retirement age or to assist them in the transition to retirement.Retention strategiesStrategies to support the wellbeing of staff and to encourage staff retention are integral to the Court’scommitment to workplace diversity. The strategies include the following options, benefits and initiatives.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYBalancing work and personal lifeThe Court recognises the need to balance the operational needs of the Court and the personal lives ofstaff. Its employment arrangements provide for general and individual flexible working arrangements,including flex time, time off in lieu, part-time work, working from home opportunities, overtime,purchased leave, maternity leave, salary sacrifice arrangements and paid time off work over theChristmas and New Year period.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010121

Staffing profileAt 30 June 2010, the Court had 619 employees (excluding judicial officers, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and casual employees) covered by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and FamilyCourt of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). Thiswas a three per cent decrease compared with 638 employees at 30 June 2009. Tables 8.3 to 8.7 atAppendix 3 provide a breakdown of staff by location, gender, attendance, ongoing and non-ongoingemployment status.Judicial officersAt 30 June 2010, the Court had 30 judges, including the Chief Justice (10 female and 20 male) and twomale judicial registrars. Table 8.8 at Appendix 3 has further detail.The remuneration arrangements for all judicial officers and the Chief Executive Officer are governedby enforceable determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Further details including relevantdeterminations are available at: www.remtribunal.gov.auAgreement makingA single Enterprise Agreement for the CourtsFor most of the reporting year the employees of the Family Court were covered by the Family Courtof Australia Collective Agreement 2007–10. On 18 June 2010, Fair Work Australia approved the newFederal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010. TheAgreement was negotiated between the Courts and the Community and Public Sector Union andindividual staff bargaining representatives. It commenced on 25 June 2010, replacing the individualCollective Agreements of both Courts.The nominal expiry date of the new Agreement is 30 June 2011. However, under present arrangementsthe Agreement will continue to operate after that date until replaced or formally terminated. It applies toall employees of the Courts employed under the Public Service Act 1999, other than SES employees.The achievement of the Agreement was a significant event. It means that within the two Courts,staff working side-by-side doing similar work are employed under the same terms and conditions ofemployment. It positions the Courts for future developments in the conduct of workplace relations withinthe government sector.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Agreement supports significant improvements in the Courts’ operations to be achieved through therange of corporate efficiency/productivity measures produced following reviews of child dispute services,judicial support, library and guarding services, user pays options, divorce processes and procedures,including conciliation conferences, use of interpreters, technology (video links and teleconferencing),circuits and provision of transcripts.The Agreement provides that in order to receive the salary increases, or to progress from one pay pointto the next in the pay scale of a classification, an employee must participate in the Courts’ PerformanceManagement and Development System (PMDS) and be assessed as ‘meeting requirements’ or higher ator before the date of the pay increase.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010123

Concurrent with the Agreement, management strategies are being developed aimed at ensuring thatstaff turnover rates and staff absences are within APS best practice parameters and are not inconsistentwith averages identified in the state of the service report.Other agreementsOffers of AWAs to Court employees ceased from 13 February 2008, in accordance with the AustralianGovernment Employment Bargaining Framework; however, 34 employees have enforceable AWAs inplace. Table 8.12 at Appendix 3 sets out the AWA minimum and maximum salary ranges by classification.In some limited cases the Court has used common law contracts to provide supplementary conditions ofemployment for individuals covered by the Family Court Collective Agreement (which was supersededby the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010on 25 June 2010) and determinations made by the Agency Head under section 24 of the Public ServiceAct 1999, to build upon existing AWA arrangements. At 30 June 2010, 14 employees had employmentarrangements governed by enforceable common law contracts and 51 had employment arrangementsgoverned by determination 24 instruments. See Table 8.11 at Appendix 3 for more detail.PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYRelationship between agreementsTerms and conditions of employment in the Court are governed by one or more of the followingindustrial agreements:• The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010,effective from 25 June 2010, and before that the Family Court of Australia Collective Agreement2007–2010, covering all non-SES employees except those on AWAs• AWAs• individual determinations under s 24(1) ofthe Public Service Act 1999, or• individual common law contracts.The new Enterprise Agreement, like itspredecessor, is a comprehensive agreement;however, for some employees, it may besupported by either a s 24(1) determination ora common law contract that provides additionalterms and conditions (for example, as a way ofretaining high-value employees).AWAs may also be supported by individuals 24(1) determinations or common law contractsto provide for pay increases or additional termsand conditions, including non-salary benefits.SES remunerationTerms and conditions for the Court’s seniorexecutive service employees are in AWAs andindividual s24(1) determinations made by theService Commitments.124 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Chief Executive Officer. SES salaries are benchmarked against other public sector agencies and takeaccount of the Court’s budgetary position.Non-salary benefitsNon-salary benefits provided by the Court to employees include:• motor vehicles• car parking• superannuation• access to salary sacrificing arrangements• computers, including home-based computer access• membership of professional associations• mobile phones• studies assistance• leave flexibilities• workplace responsibility allowances (for example, first aid, fire warden, community language), and• airline club memberships.Performance pay arrangementsDuring 2009–10, the Court neither entered into any performance pay arrangements nor paidperformance pay to any employee.Training, learning and developmentThe Court recognises the value of a well-educated workforce that is able to contribute effectively tomeeting the Court’s objectives. It provides staff with an extensive array of learning and developmentopportunities to develop their skills and knowledge for current and future roles and responsibilities. Itachieves this by assisting employees to meet their development and career needs consistent with thePerformance Management and Development System and available resources.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Court’s in-house training facilities include the provision of self-paced, on-line learning courses on arange of topics including APS induction training, OH&S, Accounting Basics, Effective Project Management,Business Communications and the Windows XP suite (Excel, Word, PowerPoint). In addition, during theyear training was provided in a number of specific areas, including on how to deal with difficult clients,family violence training for professionals working in family law, courtroom technology, bullying andharassment, risk awareness and fraud awareness. The Court also has a peer support network, for whichtraining is provided as required.The Court facilitates staff participation in the comprehensive range of leadership, learning anddevelopment programs provided by the Australian Public Service Commission. It also provides studiesassistance including leave and support for employees undertaking relevant tertiary studies.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010125

Performance Management and Development SystemThe Courts’ Performance Management and Development System aims to align individual outcomes toteam and branch business plans, leading ultimately to achieving the two Courts’ visions and businessplans. Participation is mandatory for all employees except probationers. Employees must participate inthe system to be eligible for the salary increases provided under the new Enterprise Agreement and forsalary advancement within their classification scale.Performance management and development provides a framework to develop individual performance toassist an employee to achieve his or her potential. It is a continuous process and imposes responsibilitieson both individual employees and their supervisors/managers. It relies on ongoing and open discussionsto provide clarity on what is expected to be done, how it could or should be done, and to recogniseprogress and achievement against agreed outcomes. It fosters a working environment that values theCourt’s people, recognises diversity and acknowledges their contribution to organisational success.The target in 2009–10 was for 100 per cent of employees participating in the system. This was achieved.Employee assistance programPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe Court’s employee assistance program provides a free, confidential counselling service to the judiciary,Court employees and their immediate families experiencing personal or work-related problems. Theservice also provides a telephone advisory service for managers.Converge International managed the program and provided generic data to the Court to guide thedevelopment of wellbeing strategies.Peer support networkThe nature of the Court’s core business means that employees may be exposed to and involved inhighly sensitive and stressful situations. During 2009–10, the Court continued a proactive approach tolessen the risk of stress in the workplace by introducing a peer support system within registries and theNational Support Office.The system provides a network of trained staff in the workplace to ensure that skilled support is availablefor immediate assistance should an individual experience a distressing situation or difficult event. Thesystem is designed to complement the employee assistance program and allows support to be availableimmediately should an incident occur.Peer support officers from any location can provide assistance as required, that is, there is no restrictionon staff accessing officers from outside their immediate work area. All communication with trained peersupport officers is strictly confidential.Productivity gainsThe first full year of the single administrative structure for the Family Court and the Federal MagistratesCourt continued to produce efficiency savings through the more efficient allocation of resources,elimination of duplicated services and the rationalisation of court services.Synergies were achieved in the area of training where program delivery was made available to the staffof both courts, thus reducing cost and capturing a greater number of staff.As part of the single administration, the review of client services and registry management structuresresulted in a number of changes being introduced to further reduce duplication, improve the overall126 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

structure through a more integrated approach and clarify reporting relationships within registries. Thishas resulted in a reduction in staff numbers without affecting service delivery to clients or the judiciary.The resulting reduction in management positions in the registries will produce significant recurrentemployee expenses savings.A number of productivity gains also formed part of the Enterprise Agreement negotiations mentionedearlier in this part.Commonwealth Disability StrategyIn accordance with the Commonwealth Disability Strategy, the Court undertook a number of activitiesduring 2009–10, including the following:• Through its senior management group and other committees, the Court continued to focus onmeeting the needs of staff and clients, including those with disabilities and other special needs.• The Court, through its National Occupational Health and Safety Committee, ensures that thephysical needs of staff and clients are being met. For example, the use of the checklist ensures thatpassageways are kept clear and fire drills take into account the physical needs of staff and visitors.• The Court’s staff induction programs address access and equity in client services, raising theawareness of staff about the need to be flexible and understanding in meeting the needs of allCourt users.• The Court continued to implement initiatives from its Workplace Diversity Plan, the aim of whichis to accommodate, as far as possible, the personal circumstances of all staff, including staff withdisabilities.The Court is committed to ensuring that its facilities are accessible to all members of the community,including people with disabilities. It has noted the Government response to the House of RepresentativesStanding Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ report Access All Areas. Building andconstruction works on existing and proposed buildings for which the Court has responsibility will takeinto account the needs of people with disabilities.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYChief Justice Bryant unveils the memorial plaque at the 20th anniversary memorial of the Family Court bombings at Parramatta.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010127

The Court reports on its performance against the core performance role of provider (see Table 8.16 inAppendix 8). In addition, the Court reports on its role as an employer through the State of the ServiceReport survey conducted by the Australian Public Service Commission.Financial managementThe Family Court of Australia is a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and AccountabilityAct 1997.The Court’s 2009–10 Budget, as published in the Portfolio Additional Estimates, was $158.1 million. Thecourt has reported a surplus of $1.0 million for the 2009–10 financial year, compared to a breakevenforecast in the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2009–10. This surplus represents only 0.6 percent of the Family Court’s 2009–10 budget.Figure 6.2 provides a further breakdown of actual costs for 2009–10 which shows that the Family Courthas a significant component of fixed costs (57 per cent) relating to property, judicial officers and theirsupport, and depreciation.The Family Court provides resources free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court in accordance withsections 90, 92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999. Resources provided free of charge include:PART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY• court staff, who perform work on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court, and• accommodation, including access to courtrooms.It is estimated that the cost of resources provided free of charge by the Family Court to the FederalMagistrates Court during 2009–10 was $30.162m.The Family Court also provides resources free of charge to the Federal Court. It is estimated that thecost of these resources in 2009–10 was $0.616m. The resources provided free of charge includeaccommodation and other property costs for Sydney Commonwealth Law Courts.Figure 6.2 Family Court’s expenditure, 2009–10Corporate Support 4%Corporate Overheads 5%VariableFixedInformation TechnologyServices 6%Client Services 16%Judges & Support 20%Judges Registrars & Support 1%Depreciation 4%Property 32%Family Consultants 5%Registrars 4%Case Coordinators 1%Court Officers 2%128 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Judges and support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judges and their supportstaff.Judicial registrars and support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to judicialregistrars and their support staff.Depreciation: All depreciation, amortisation and other expenses associated with asset movements.Property: Lease rentals for Commonwealth Law Courts and leased premises, and all property operatingexpenses (such as cleaning, energy, repairs, maintenance and management fees) associated with thosepremises.Registrars: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to registrars.Family consultants: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to family consultants.Client services: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to client services staff.Case coordinators: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to case coordinators.Court officers: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to court officers.Corporate support: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to finance, human resources,property services, contract services and the CEO.Information technology services: All employee and supplier expenses directly attributed to the provisionof IT services.Corporate overheads: Workers compensation and Comcover insurance premiums, fringe benefit taxexpenditure, ComSuper management fees, legal and audit fees, corporate salary overheads attributed toregistry management, corporate support and IT services staff, and expenditure related to project activityin the Court (some of which is externally funded).Services provided free of chargeThe Family Court provides resources free of charge to the Federal Magistrates Court under sections 90,92 and 99 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, including:• court staff, who perform work on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court• accommodation, including access to courtrooms.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYThe estimated cost of those free of charge resources for the Federal Magistrates Court in 2009–10 was$30.162m.The Family Court also provided resources free of charge to the Federal Court with an estimated costof $0.616m in 2009–10. This included accommodation and other property costs for the SydneyCommonwealth Law Courts.Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010129

Figure 6.3Services provided free of charge to the Federal Magistrates CourtCorporate Support 4%Corporate Overheads 5%VariableFixedInformation TechnologyServices 6%Client Services 16%Judges & Support 20%Judges Registrars & Support 1%Depreciation 4%Property 32%Family Consultants 5%Registrars 4%Case Coordinators 1%Court Officers 2%Shared ResourcesPART 6MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYPurchasing, consultants and contractsThe Procurement and Risk Management section assists staff undertaking procurement and managesa number of corporate contracts. The section also manages, or has significant involvement in, allcomplex procurement undertaken by the Court to ensure compliance with legislative obligations andthe Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. The Chief Executive Instructions, the CommonwealthProcurement Guidelines and the Court’s Procurement Framework are all posted on the intranet asreference material for Family Court staff.The core policies and principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines were, as far aspracticable, adhered to throughout 2009–10. The Court’s annual procurement plan was published asrequired. An appropriate market approach was made for all procurements covered by the guidelines.Access by the Auditor-GeneralAll contracts let in 2009–10 had provision for the Auditor-General to access contractors’ premises.Exempt contractsDuring 2009–10, no contracts or standing offers were exempt from publication in the Purchasing andDisposal Gazette in terms of the Freedom of Information Act.External consultantsThe Court engages external consultants to support Court activities where specialised expertise is notavailable in house or where an independent assessment or evaluation is required. Table 6.1 showsconsultant services contracts of $10 000 or more let during 2009–10.During 2009–10, total actual expenditure on consultancy contracts was $474 155 (GST inclusive),comprising:130 Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

• four new consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure of $260 921• four ongoing consultancy contracts with total actual expenditure of $213 234.Annual reports contain information about actual expenditure on contracts for consultancies. Informationon the value of contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website: www.tenders.gov.auConsultants and competitive tenderingDuring 2009–10, no contracts were let to other organisations for the delivery of services previouslyperformed by the Court.Table 6.1Consultant services contracts let during 2009–10, of $10 000 or moreConsultant name Description of services Contract price(Inc GST)Selectionprocess (1)Justification (2)Catherine Argall PSMIce DesignOakton ServicesStephen RalphLEGEND(1) Explanation of selection process terms:Provision of a head negotiator for the2009–2010 Enterprise Agreementmaking processes for the Family LawCourtsVideo conferencing consultancyservicesConsultancy services to conductimpendent assessments oforganisational program and projectcapability based on P3M3 capabilityServices to undertake a study ofIndigenous Australians access andusage of the Family Law Courts$85 000 Direct sourcing B$22 000 Direct sourcing B$32 296 Open tender B$60 000 Direct sourcing B/COpen tender: A procurement process in which a request for tender is published inviting all businesses that satisfy the conditions forparticipation to submit tenders. Public tenders are sought from the market place using national and major metropolitan newspaperadvertising and the Australian Government AusTender internet site.Select tender: a procurement procedure in which the procuring agency selects which potential suppliers are invited to submittenders. Tenders are invited from a short list of competent suppliers.Direct sourcing: A form of restricted tendering, available only under certain defined circumstances, with a single potential supplier orsuppliers being invited to bid because of their unique expertise and/or their special ability to supply goods and/or services sought.Panel: An arrangement under which a number of suppliers, usually selected through a single procurement process, may each supplyproperty or services to an agency as specified in the panel arrangements. Tenders are sought from suppliers that have pre qualifiedon the agency panels to supply to the government. This category includes standing offers and suppliers panels where the consultantoffers to supply goods and services for pre-determined length of time, usually at a pre-arranged price.PART 6 MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY(2) Justification for decisions to use consultancyA: skills currently unavailable within the CourtB: need for specialised or professional skillsC: need for independent research or assessmentFamily Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010131