CHAPTER 2


CHAPTER 2

ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATUTORY BODIES

2.1        The annual reports of the following statutory bodies for the financial year 2010-11 were referred to the committee for examination and report during the period 1 May to 31 October 2011:

Attorney-General's Portfolio

  • Administrative Review Council
  • Administrative Appeals Tribunal
  • Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
  • Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
  • Australian Federal Police
  • Australian Government Solicitor
  • Australian Law Reform Commission
  • Classification Board and Classification Review Board
  • CrimTrac Agency
  • Family Law Council
  • Family Court of Australia
  • Federal Court of Australia
  • Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
  • Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
  • National Native Title Tribunal
  • Office of Parliamentary Counsel

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

  • Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal
  • Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (Sub-program 1.1.3)

2.2        The committee has determined to consider, but not report on, the annual report of the Australian Federal Police, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has specific responsibility for overseeing that agency.

2.3        On this occasion, the committee has decided to examine in more detail the reports of the Family Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.

Family Court of Australia

2.4        The annual report of the Family Court of Australia was presented out of session on 14 October 2011 and was therefore available to the committee for the Supplementary Budget Estimates hearings on 17 and 18 October 2011.

2.5        The Chief Justice outlined the expansion of the range of measures of court work to assist in monitoring performance and to assess whether objectives are being met. Statistics will now be kept on areas such as clearance rates of matters that come to the court, the number of times that parties attend court, the number of matters that settle, and the timeliness of hearings and delivery of judgements. It was further noted that comparable data is produced for the Federal Magistrates Court, and the expansion of these measures to the Family Court will enable a more coordinated approach to managing resources.[1]

2.6        The Chief Justice also commented on budgetary pressures and the impact of reduced funding as a result of the increase in the efficiency dividend rate in 2011-12 (1.5 per cent, as opposed to 1.25 percent in 2010-11). She advised that the court will be operating with less in 2011-12, resulting in a reduction in staff numbers which may affect services.[2]

2.7        The committee was impressed with the court's presentation of performance information. The report on court performance for deliverables and KPIs provided a 'clear read' from the PBS. Performance information was presented in tabular format with the target and results for 2010-11 (and for 2009-10 for comparative purposes). The last column in the performance tables contained a tick/cross, providing a quick reference to indicate whether the target for the current year had been achieved.[3]

2.8        Four of the eight KPIs for the court were not achieved in 2010-11, and the report discusses the reasons why the court failed to achieve these targets.[4] Three of the four KPI targets which were not achieved were, however, close to the target.

2.9        The report on court performance also included detailed statistics on the work of the court for the year under review, along with figures from the previous four years to provide trend information.

2.10      The report closely follows the Requirements for Annual Reports and provides a thorough account of the performance of the Family Court of Australia for the 2010-11 reporting year. A number of suggested items from the Requirements for Annual Reports were included, in addition to the mandatory items. The committee considers the report to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

2.11      The committee also notes that the Chief Executive Officer of the Family Court of Australia and the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia has also prepared a separate report detailing the combined administration of the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court.[5]

Federal Court of Australia

2.12      The report of the Federal Court of Australia was presented out of session on 14 October 2011 and was available to the committee for the Supplementary Budget Estimates 2011-12 hearings on 17 and 18 October 2011.

2.13      The report followed up on the practice initiatives that have been implemented in response to the Native Title Amendment Act 2009 (the Act), to ensure, where possible, that native title cases are resolved more easily and delivered in a more timely, effective and efficient fashion.[6]

2.14      Native title cases are prioritised across Australia, on a regional basis and within the area covered by each native title representative body. A priority list of cases was published on the court's website on 1 July 2010 and is regularly updated to reflect changing priorities and finalisation of cases.[7]

2.15      The Act gives the court responsibility for managing all aspects of native title proceedings, including referral of a matter to mediation before a person or body other than the National Native Title Tribunal or a registrar of the court. A list of mediators has been finalised and is available on the court's website. The report advised that three matters have been identified as suitable for referral to private mediators.[8]

2.16      Other significant developments for the court during the reporting year included the first major revision of the court's rules since they were promulgated on 1 August 1979, and substantial change to the court's website in relation to Freedom of Information content, following amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982.[9]

2.17      The report addressed both KPIs listed in the Portfolio Budget Statement, indicating that both targets were met for 2010-11.[10] While the committee commends the court for achieving its performance targets, clearer identification of performance results against KPI targets within the report would assist the reader. For example, the result for the KPI concerning the reduction in the number of matters over 18 months old was presented within the section on 'The Work of the Court in 2010-11'[11] but did not specifically identify this result as exceeding the KPI performance target of 20.5 per cent.

2.18      The committee notes that the workload of the court has increased significantly during the reporting year. The total number of filings (including appeals) increased by 36 per cent, and filings in the court's original jurisdiction (excluding appeals) increased by 46 per cent. The report further notes that the majority of the increases involved the court's corporations workload, which increased by 70 per cent.[12]

2.19      The court had an operating deficit of $8.367 million for 2010-11. It was noted that this was primarily due to the revaluation and write-off of non-current assets and that, leaving these technical accounting processes aside, the loss would have been limited to approximately $250,000.[13] The court nevertheless noted that it:

...is forecasting ongoing operating losses over the next three financial years. Whilst the Court is actively examining measures to bridge the forecast funding shortfall, the extent of savings previously realised in past years is now limiting further options. An independent consultant has been commissioned to conduct an organisational health check to ensure that all available strategies and savings measures are being considered.[14]

2.20      The committee will continue to monitor the court's financial position.

2.21      The annual report adheres to the Requirements for Annual Reports and the committee considers it to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

2.22      The annual report of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia was presented in the Senate on 17 October 2011 and was therefore available to the committee for examination during the Supplementary Budget Estimates hearings.

2.23      The Chief Federal Magistrate in his review of the year noted that the breakdown of the work of the court is 93 per cent family law and seven per cent general federal law. He reported an increase in the percentage of national filings (excluding Western Australia) in the family law jurisdiction handled by the court from the previous year, with 86 per cent in 2010-11. He also reported an increase in the caseload in several jurisdictions for general federal law, particularly in relation to industrial law and copyright law.[15]

2.24      Performance information for the court was well presented. The court achieved two of the three KPI targets. The court failed to meet the time goal to complete 90 per cent of all applications filed within six months, instead achieving 84 per cent. The committee welcomed the discussion on strategies developed to meet this KPI in the future. Such strategies include:

  • the further development of operational reports enabling the Court to gain a better understanding of its workload;
  • the ongoing review of the Court’s oldest active cases with a view to ensuring an understanding of the reasons for delay and deciding how older cases may be dealt with more quickly; and
  • Case Management Federal Magistrates collectively working on improving the performance of the Court on a national and regional basis.[16]

2.25      The court met the other two performance targets of less than one per cent of matters litigated or divorces processed being the subject of a complaint (0.13 per cent achieved), and 60 per cent of matters resolved before trial (71 per cent achieved).[17]

2.26      The court reported an operating loss of $3.960 million for 2010-11, which compares with a $2.201 million loss in 2009-10. The Chief Federal Magistrate reported that the court budget was a principal topic of discussion at a meeting of the combined Policy Advisory Committees of the Federal Magistrates Court and Family Court in April 2011. He further noted his concerns regarding court resources:

Resources have been and will continue to be directed towards ensuring that the Court maintains an appropriate balance between timeliness and providing high quality decisions. There remains, however, a significant possibility that innovation in case management and the energy of members of the Court will not provide a sustainable solution to the issue of the Court's workload, and that its ability to meet existing protocols will diminish unless additional resources are provided.[18]

2.27      The Chief Federal Magistrate also remarked on the challenge the Federal Magistrates Court faces with regard to the restructure of the federal courts:

While the Australian Government announced that it would retain the Federal Magistrates Court to hear general federal law matters (in May 2010) uncertainty still remains, making long term planning for the Court difficult.[19]

2.28      The committee's examination of the report was assisted with the inclusion of the List of Requirements in Part 7 of the report. The report complies with the Requirements for Annual Reports and the committee considers the report to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page