pARt 6 MAnAGeMent AnD AccountABilitY - Family Court of Australia

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 7 and 8: The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin
Page 9 and 10: Executive Director Information, Com
Page 11 and 12: • National Case Management Commi
Page 13 and 14: • Improving Responses to Family
Page 15 and 16: • Acting Executive Director, Cli
Page 17 and 18: • Chief Executive Instructions
Page 19: No instances or allegations of frau
Page 23 and 24: Family consultantsIn October 2009,
Page 25 and 26: The review showed that the program
Page 28 and 29: Staffing profileAt 30 June 2010, th
Page 30 and 31: Chief Executive Officer. SES salari
Page 32 and 33: structure through a more integrated
Page 34 and 35: Judges and support: All employee an
Page 36: • four new consultancy contracts

pARt 6 MAnAGeMent AnD AccountABilitY - Family Court of Australia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?