5 – This chapter deals with three major issues of relevance to the Commonwealth Courts: structures for the administration of the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (and the Military Court of Australia, when it is created); the application of the Efficiency Dividend to those Courts; and the use of Commonwealth Law Courts Buildings (other than the High Court building in Canberra). Court-specific detail is set out in Appendices 1 (Federal Court of Australia), 2 (Family Court of Australia) and 3 (Federal Magistrates Court of Australia). Administration of the Commonwealth Courts Introduction The section deals with structures for the administration of the federal courts, other than the High Court of Australia. The Courts to which it relates are referred to as “Commonwealth Courts”. It takes as given the following propositions: the separation of powers entrenched in the Australian Constitution; the need to ensure that, within that framework, optimum use is made of public resources; and the ongoing existence of the Family Court of Western Australia (which is not separately discussed hereafter). Traditional Commonwealth Court administration structure The and the respectively Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Family Law Act 1975 declare that the Federal Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia comprise only their judicial officers. Traditionally all administrative support for each Court was provided by officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and Chief Justices had no lawful capacity to direct the duties of relevant departmental officers (unless so delegated by the Secretary of the Department). In the estimation of the Review Leader, experience under this structure was that: Chief Justices either refrained from seeking to direct officers (which provided no incentive for departmental officers to better serve the judicial arm of the Court), or purported to direct those officers without legal authority or the associated accountability (and often with adverse financial and other impacts for the Department); officers assigned to the Courts were located distant from the departmental executive and were largely ignored by the Canberra-based executive in terms of day-to-day oversight;
5 – This chapter deals with three major issues of relevance to the Commonwealth Courts: structures for the administration of the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (and the Military Court of Australia, when it is created); the application of the Efficiency Dividend to those Courts; and the use of Commonwealth Law Courts Buildings (other than the High Court building in Canberra). Court-specific detail is set out in Appendices 1 (Federal Court of Australia), 2 (Family Court of Australia) and 3 (Federal Magistrates Court of Australia). Administration of the Commonwealth Courts Introduction The section deals with structures for the administration of the federal courts, other than the High Court of Australia. The Courts to which it relates are referred to as “Commonwealth Courts”. It takes as given the following propositions: the separation of powers entrenched in the Australian Constitution; the need to ensure that, within that framework, optimum use is made of public resources; and the ongoing existence of the Family Court of Western Australia (which is not separately discussed hereafter). Traditional Commonwealth Court administration structure The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the Family Law Act 1975 respectively declare that the Federal Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia comprise only their judicial officers. Traditionally all administrative support for each Court was provided by officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and Chief Justices had no lawful capacity to direct the duties of relevant departmental officers (unless so delegated by the Secretary of the Department). In the estimation of the Review Leader, experience under this structure was that: Chief Justices either refrained from seeking to direct officers (which provided no incentive for departmental officers to better serve the judicial arm of the Court), or purported to direct those officers without legal authority or the associated accountability (and often with adverse financial and other impacts for the Department); officers assigned to the Courts were located distant from the departmental executive and were largely ignored by the Canberra-based executive in terms of day-to-day oversight;
strategic_review_ag.docx