Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Federal Court of Australia Reports 1999-2000


Download PDF Download PDF

The image on the cover features the Court’s new judges’ robes. The seven different bands are

representative of the seven vertical "tucks" which appear on the judges’ robes. These are intended to

provide visual interest and to be symbolic of federal jurisdiction. The six States and the territories are

symbolised by seven elements, as they are for example in the seven points of the Federation Star.

The spacings illustrate the geographical and jurisdictional breadth of the Court’s work. The new robes

have been worn by judges since 7 February 2000, the commencement of the 2000 Law Term.

FEDERAL COURT

OF

AUSTRALIA

Annual Report

1999 - 2000

© Commonwealth of Australia 2000

ISSN 1035-5863

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth available from Auslnfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be directed to the Manager, Legislative Services, Auslnfo, GPO Box 1920, Canberra ACT 2601.

CHIEF JUSTICE’S CHAMBERS FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 305 WILLIAM STREET MELBOURNE VIC. 3000

25 September 2000

The Hon Daryl Williams AMQCMP Attorney-General Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Attorney-General

I have the pleasure in submitting, in accordance with section 18S of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, a report of the management of the administrative affairs of the Court during the financial year 1999-2000 and the financial statements in respect of that financial year. The report also includes information about the Court, its composition, jurisdiction and workload.

This is the Court's eleventh annual report.

Yours sincerely

M E J BLACK Chief Justice

FEDERAL COURT REGISTRIES

Principal Registry Level 17 Law Courts Building Queens Square Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: (02) 9230 8472 Fax: (02) 9223 7706

International Enquiries: +612 9230 8281 E-mail: query@fedcourt.gov.au http://www.fedcourt.gov.au Hours: 8.30am-5.30pm

Australian Capital Territory District Registry Childers Street Canberra City ACT 2601 Phone: (02) 6267 0566 Fax: (02) 6267 0625 TTY: (02) 6267 0537 E-mail: actman@fedcourt.gov.au Counter Hours: IOam- 1pm; 2pm-4pm Contact Hours: 8.15am-5.30pm

New South Wales District Registry Level 16 Law Courts Building Queens Square Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: (02)9230 8567 Fax: (02)9230 8535 TTY: (02) 9230 8270

E-mail: nswdr@fedcourt.gov.au Counter Hours: 9.00am-4.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm

Northern Territory District Registry Level 1 TCG Building 80 Mitchell Street Darwin NT 0800 Phone: (08)8941 2333 Fax: (08) 8981 6081 TTY: (08) 8982 0838 E-mail: ntreg@fedcourt.gov.au Counter Hours: 9.30am-4pm Contact Hours: 8.15am-5.30pm

Queensland District Registry Level 6 Commonwealth Law Courts 119 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000 Phone: (07) 3248 1100 Fax: (07) 3248 1260 TTY: (07) 3248 1272 E-mail: qldreg@fedcourt.gov.au Counter Hours: 9.00am-4.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm

South Australia District Registry 8th Floor Grenfell Centre 25 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Phone: (08)8205 4436 Fax: (08)8205 4439 TTY: (08) 8205 4416 E-mail: sareg@fedcourt.gov.au Counter Hours: 9.00am-4.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm

Tasmania District Registry Commonwealth Law Courts Building 39-41 Davey St Hobart TAS 7000 Phone: (03)6232 1715 Fax: (03) 6232 1701 TTY: (03)6232 1865 E-mail: tasreg@fedcourt.gov.au Counter Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.15pm

Victoria District Registry 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: (03) 8600 3333 Fax: (03) 8600 3281 TTY: (03) 9670 0320 E-mail: vicreg@fedcouit.gov.au Counter Hours: 9am-4.30pm Contact Hours: 8.15am-5.15pm

Western Australia District Registry Level 6 Commonwealth Law Courts 1 Victoria Avenue Perth WA 6000 Phone: (08)9268 7100 Fax: (08) 9221 3261 TTY: (08) 9325 7053 E-mail: waregistry@fedcourt.gov.au Counter Hours: 8.30am-4.00pm Contact Hours: 8.15am-5.15pm

Contact officer for Annual Report Deputy Registrar, Principal Registry Level 17 Law Courts Building Queens Square Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: (02) 9230 8336 Fax: (02) 9223 1906 Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm

An electronic version of the annual report is available at http://www.fedcourt.gov.au

ii

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

CONTENTS OF ANNUAL REPORT 1999-2000

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1

1.1 Establishment 1

1.2 Functions and Powers 1

1.3 Objectives 1

1.4 The Court’s Outcome and Output Structure 1

1.5 The Court 2

Judges 2

Judges of the Court 3

Appointments and retirements 6

1.6 Judicial Registrars 6

1.7 Registries 7

Registrar 7

Principal and District Registries 7

Officers of the Court 8

Staff of the Court 8

1.8 Management of the Court 9

Judges' Committees 9

Judges' Meetings 9

Principal Registry 9

District Registries 10

CHAPTER 2 THE YEAR IN REVIEW 11

2.1 Introduction 11

2.2 Significant Issues and Developments 11

Corporations Law and cross-vesting 11

Native title matters 11

Human rights jurisdiction 11

Federal Magistrates Court 12

New case management system 12

Table o f Contents

Establishment of the Strategic and Communication Services Unit and the Community Relations Program 12

New judges' robes 12

2.3 The Court’s Performance and Financial Results 13

Workload 13

Migration matters 13

Appeals 13

Performance against time standards 13

External review by the Australian Law Reform Commission 14

Financial results 14

2.4 The Outlook for 2000-01 14

Changes to jurisdiction and the mix of cases before the Court 14

Restoration of Corporations Law matters 15

Native title matters 15

The new case management system and electronic filing project 15

Community relations 15

Remaining a world class civil court 15

CHAPTER 3 THE WORK OF THE COURT 16

3.1 Introduction 16

3.2 Management of cases and deciding disputes by the Court 16

Introduction 16

General 16

Decisions o f Interest 19

Management of the workload of the Court 40

Workload Trends 43

3.3 Management o f cases and deciding disputes by Tribunals 53

Introduction 53

Australian Competition Tribunal 54

Copyright Tribunal 55

Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal 56

Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal 57

3.4 Services Provided to Government 57

Introduction 57

iv

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Information to the Parliament 58

Requests for information and comments on proposed legislation 58

3.5 Services Provided to International Jurisdictions 59

Introduction 59

Commissions in overseas’ courts 59

Legal education programs 59

Participation in international committees and conferences 61

Library services to the South Pacific and Thailand 62

Other support for international jurisdictions 62

Visitors to the Court 62

Judicial exchange program 62

Pegasus Scholarship Trust 62

3.6 Ensuring the Quality of, and Access to, the System of Justice 63

Introduction 63

Improving the operation and accessibility of the Court 63

Improving accessibility and quality o f the justice system generally 70

CHAPTER 4 ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT 76

4.1 Workplace Diversity 76

4.2 Workplace Relations 76

4.3 Occupational Health and Safety 77

4.4 Workplace Bargaining 78

4.5 Training and Development 78

4.6 Staffing Overview 79

Performance Management 83

Performance pay 83

4.7 Internal and External Security 83

Audit and fraud control 83

Internal and external audit 84

4.8 Property Managment 84

4.9 Technology services 85

Development of a new case management system 85

Internal and external Internet access for judges 85

Table o f Contents

Y2K Project 85

Native Title Benchbook 85

Electronic filing 85

Enterprise management services 86

4.10 Library and Information Services 86

Internet home page 86

Live audio and video broadcast on the Internet 86

Embedding images into judgments 87

On-line databases 87

Intranet 87

Library databases 87

Library review 87

Darwin library 87

Library assistance to the South Pacific 88

Records management 88

Unicorn Library Management System 88

Library collections 88

4.11 Advertising and Market Services 88

4.12 Consultancy Services 88

4.13 Financial Management Services 89

Appendix 1 Financial Statements 1999-2000 90

Appendix 2 Management Structure 118

Appendix 3 Registrars of the Court 119

Appendix 4 Statutes under which the Federal Court of Australia may Exercise Jurisdiction 122

Appendix 5 Performance Information 1999-2000 126

Appendix 6 Workload Statistics 128

Appendix 7 Overseas visitors to the Federal Court 150

Appendix 8 Equal Employment Opportunity Statistics 155

Appendix 9 Statement under Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 156

vi

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1.1 ESTABLISHMENT

The Federal Court of Australia, created by the Federal Court o f Australia Act 1976, began to exercise its jurisdiction on 1 February 1977. It assumed jurisdiction formerly exercised in part by the High Court of Australia and the whole of the jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Court and of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy.

The Court is a superior court of record and a court of law and equity. It sits in all capital cities and elsewhere in Australia from time to time.

1.2 FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

The Court's original jurisdiction is conferred by over 140 statutes of the Parliament. A list o f these Acts appears in Appendix 4 on page 122.

The Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over decisions of single judges of the Court, decisions of the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island, decisions of the Federal Magistrates Court and certain decisions of State Supreme Courts exercising federal jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction is more fully described in Chapter 3.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the Court are to:

• decide disputes according to law - promptly, courteously and effectively; and in so doing to interpret the statutory law and develop the general law of the Commonwealth, so as to fulfil the role of a court exercising the judicial power o f the Commonwealth under the Constitution;

• provide an effective registry service to the community; and

• manage the resources allotted by Parliament efficiently.

1.4 THE COURT’S OUTCOME AND OUTPUT STRUCTURE

In October 1998, the Court adopted a new outcome and output structure, which was to replace the program structure under the new accrual budgeting arrangements for the 1999-2000 budget year.

Details of the outcome and output structure, and its relationship to the old program structure, are set out in Table 1.1 on page 2. A report on the resources to achieve the outcome is contained in Table 5.2 on page 127.

l

Chapter 1 - Overview o f the Federal Court o f Australia

Table 1.1

Relationship between Old Program Structure and New Outcome Structure

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OUTCOME STRUCTURE

T h e F e d e ra l C o u rt o f A u s tra lia is re sp o n sib le for th e a d m in istra tio n o f su b -p ro g ra m s 4.1 and 4.5 w ith in P ro g ra m 4 - A d m in is tra tio n o f Justice.

Outcome 1

T h r o u g h its ju ris d ic tio n , th e C o u rt w ill a p p ly a n d u p h o ld th e ru le o f la w to d e liv e r re m e d ie s and

e n fo rc e rig h ts a n d in so d o in g , c o n trib u te to th e

s o c ia l a n d e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t a n d w ell-b ein g o f a ll A u stra lia n s.

Sub-Programs Output Groups

Sub-Program 4.1: F e d e ra l C o u rt o f A ustralia Output Group 1.1: M a n a g e m e n t o f cases and d e c id in g d isp u te s a c c o rd in g to la w - F ederal C o u rt.

Sub-program 4.5: O th e r T rib u n a ls Output Group 1.2: M a n a g e m e n t o f cases and

d e c id in g d isp u te s a c c o rd in g to la w - T rib u n als.

Output Group 1.3: S e rv ic e to G o v e rn m en t.

Output Group 1.4: S e rv ic e s p r o v id e d to in te rn a tio n a l ju ris d ic tio n s .

Output Group 1.5: E n s u rin g th e q u a lity of, an d a c c e s s to , th e sy s te m o f ju s tic e .

1.5 THE COURT

Judges

The Federal Court of Australia Act provides that the Court consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as are appointed. The Chief Justice is the senior judge of the Court and is responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the Court.

Judges o f the Court are appointed by the Governor-General, by commission. Judges may not be removed except by the Governor-General on an address from both Houses of Parliament, in the same session, praying for the judge's removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or

incapacity. This requirement is contained in section 72 of the Commonwealth o f Australia Constitution Act 1901 and Part II of the Federal Court of Australia Act.

Until 1977 judges were appointed for life. As a consequence of the constitutional referendum in that year, all judges appointed after 1977 must retire at the age of 70.

Judges, other than the Chief Justice, may hold more than one judicial office at the one time. Most judges have other commissions and appointments.

2

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

As at 30 June 2000 there were 50 judges of the Court. They are listed on pages 3 to 6 in order of seniority. The list gives details about each judge and any other commissions or appointments held on courts or tribunals. Of the 50 judges, there were 7 whose work as members of other courts or tribunals occupied all or most of their time.

Judges of the Court (as at 30 June 2000)

1 Judge \ Location | Other Commissions/Appointments

Chief Justice

The Hon Michael Eric John BLACK AC Melbourne

Judges

The Hon John Foster GALLOP AM, RFD

Canberra Supreme Court of the ACT - Judge Supreme Court of the NT - Judge Supreme Court of Christmas Island - Judge Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal - President

The Hon Bryan Alan BEAUMONT

Sydney Supreme Court of Norfolk Island - Chief Justice Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member Supreme Court of Vanuatu - Acting Judge Privy Councillor of Tonga Tongan Court of Appeal - Judge

The Hon Murray Rutledge WILCOX Sydney Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Chief Justice Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge

Supreme Court of Norfolk Island - Judge

The Hon Jeffrey Ernest John SPENDER Brisbane Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge

Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member

The Hon Peter Ross Awdry GRAY Melbourne Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member

The Hon James Charles Sholto BURCHETT Sydney Privy Councillor of Tonga Court of Appeal of Tonga - Judge

Copyright Tribunal - President

The Hon Jeffrey Allan MILES AO

Canberra Supreme Court of the ACT - Chief Justice

The Hon Donnell Michael RYAN Melbourne Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge

The Hon Robert Shenton FRENCH Perth Supreme Court of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands - Judge Supreme Court of Christmas Island - Additional Judge

Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member

3

Chapter 1 — Overview o f the Federal Court o f Australia

1 Judge T Location 1 Other Commissions/Appointments

The Hon Marcus Richard EINFELD AO Sydney Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court - Judge

High Court of Justice. Dominica - Judge

The Hon Alastair Both wick NICHOLSON AO, RED Melbourne Family Court of Australia - Chief Justice

The Hon Malcolm Cameron LEE Perth Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge Supreme Court of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands - Additional

Judge

The Hon Howard William OLNEY Melbourne Supreme Court of the NT - Additional Judge Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member

Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal - Deputy President Aboriginal Land Commissioner

The Hon John William von DOUSSA

Adelaide Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member Australian Competition Tribunal - President

Australian Law Reform Commission - Commissioner Supreme Court of Vanuatu - Acting Judge Court of Appeal

The Hon Donald Graham HILL Sydney Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member

The Hon Maurice Francis O'LOUGHLIN Adelaide

The Hon Deirdre Frances O'CONNOR Sydney Administrative Appeals Tribunal - President

The Hon Terence John HIGGINS

Canberra Supreme Court of the ACT - Judge

The Hon Peter Cadden HEEREY

Melbourne

The Hon Douglas Paton DRUMMOND Brisbane Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member

The Hon Richard Ellard COOPER Brisbane Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge

The Hon Antony Philip WHITLAM Sydney Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal - President

The Hon Christopher John Seymour Metford CARR

Perth

The Hon Michael Francis MOORE Sydney Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge

The Hon Catherine Margaret BRANSON Sydney

4

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

| Judge | Location | Other Commissions/Appointments 1

The Hon Jane Hamilton MATHEWS

Sydney National Native Title Tribunal - Deputy President

The Hon Brian John Michael TAMBERLIN Sydney

The Hon Ronald SACKVILLE

Sydney

The Hon Susan Mary KIEFEL

Brisbane

The Hon Robert David NICHOLSON

Perth Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Presidential Member

The Hon Paul Desmond FINN Canberra

The Hon Ross Alan SUNDBERG

Melbourne

The Hon Shane Raymond MARSHALL Melbourne Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge

The Hon John Robert Felix LEHANE Sydney

The Hon Anthony Max NORTH

Melbourne Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge

The Hon Rodney Neville MADGWICK Sydney Industrial Relations Court of Australia - Judge Supreme Court of the ACT - Additional Judge

The Hon Ronald MERKEL

Melbourne

The Hon John Ronald MANSFIELD

Adelaide

The Hon Alan Henry GOLDBERG

Melbourne Australian Competition Tribunal - Deputy President

The Hon Arthur Robert EMMETT

Sydney

The Hon Raymond Antony FINKELSTEIN Melbourne Copyright Tribunal - Deputy President

The Hon Geoffrey Michael GIUDICE Melbourne Australian Industrial Relations Commission - President

The Hon Mark Samuel WEINBERG

Melbourne Australian Law Reform Commission - Commissioner

5

Chapter 1 - Overview o f the Federal Court o f Australia

| Judge | Location | Other Commissions/Appointments

The Hon John Alfred Brisbane

DOWSETT

The Hon Leslie Sydney Sydney

KATZ

The Hon Peter Graham Sydney Australian Competition Tribunal - Deputy President HELY

The Hon Susan Coralie Melbourne

KENNY

The Hon Roger Vincent Sydney

GYLES AO

In July 1999 the Chief Justice was absent from Australia. During his absence, Justice Spender acted as Chief Justice from 1 to 2 July, Justice Beaumont from 3 to 11 July, Justice Wilcox from 12 to 18 July, and Justice Gallop from 19 to 20 July.

The judges of the Court must devote an increasing proportion of their time to other courts and tribunals on which they hold commissions or appointments. In addition to the time spent hearing cases, time was necessarily devoted to other work related to those commissions or appointments,

such as writing reserved judgments.

Some judges are identified as designated persons under various Acts, which means they may issue warrants authorising telephone interceptions and the use of listening devices. These functions add to their workload.

Members of the Court also spend a significant amount of time on other activities related to legal education and the justice system. More information about these activities is set out in Chapter 3.

Appointments and retirements

During the year no judges were appointed to, or retired from, the Court.

On 10 November 1999, Justice John von Doussa was appointed President, and Justice Peter Hely was appointed a Deputy President, of the Australian Competition Tribunal. Both appointments are for a term of five years.

On the Queen’s Birthday 2000, Justice Roger Gyles was appointed an Officer in the Order of Australia.

1.6 JUDICIAL REGISTRARS

On 26 May 1997, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia was transferred to the Federal Court by the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996. That Act appointed the judicial registrars of the Industrial Relations Court o f Australia as judicial registrars of the Federal Court pursuant to section 18AA of the

Federal Court of Australia Act. The appointments continued for the balance o f the term of each judicial registrar’s appointment as a judicial registrar of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia. The appointments were usually for periods of up to five years as either a full-time

6

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

or part-time judicial registrar. As at 30 June 2000 there were no judicial registrars of the Court.

1.7 REGISTRIES

Registrar

Mr Warwick Soden is the Registrar of the Court. The Registrar is appointed by the Governor- General on the nomination of the Chief Justice. The Registrar has the same powers as the Head of a Statutory Agency of the Australian Public Service in respect of the officers and staff of the Court employed under the Public Service Act 1999 (section 18Q of the Federal Court of Australia Act).

Principal and District Registries

The Principal Registry of the Court, located in Sydney, is responsible for the overall administrative policies and functions of the Court's registries.

There are District Registries in each State capital city, in Canberra and in Darwin.

The District Registries provide operational support for the Court as well as an information service to legal practitioners and members of the public. The registries also receive court and related documents, assist with the arrangement of court sittings and facilitate the enforcement of orders made by the Court.

Legal staff of the registries perform statutory functions assigned to them by the Federal Court of Australia Act and Federal Court Rules. These include issuing process, taxing costs and settling appeal indexes. They also conduct examinations of bankrupt individuals and associated persons under the Bankruptcy Act 1966, and examinations of company officers and others under the

Corporations Law. The power to conduct examinations under the Bankruptcy Act and the Corporations Law is delegated by judges. Senior legal staff exercise additional powers delegated by judges. These include the power to make sequestration (bankruptcy) orders, orders for the winding up of companies and the setting aside o f statutory demands.

Most District Registries are also registries for the following federal tribunals: the Australian Competition Tribunal, the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal and the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal. The Tasmania District Registry is a joint registry for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the National Native Title Tribunal. The Registry of the Copyright Tribunal is located in the New South Wales District Registry of the Court.

The registries of the Federal Court are also registries for the Industrial Relations Court of Australia until the work of that Court is completed, and for the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to non-family law matters.

The Northern Territory District Registry is administered by the Family Court of Australia which provides registry services to the Federal Court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the National Native Title Tribunal under service contracts.

7

Chapter 1 — Overview o f the Federal Court o f Australia

Officers of the Court

Officers o f the Court are appointed by the Registrar under section 18N of the Federal Court of Australia Act. The officers of the Court are:

(a) a District Registrar for each District Registry; (b) Deputy Registrars and Deputy District Registrars; (c) a Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs; and (d) Marshals under the Admiralty Act.

The Registrar, District Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Deputy District Registrars must take an oath or make an affirmation o f office before undertaking the duties of registrar (section 18Y of the Federal Court of Australia Act). A schedule o f registrars appears in Appendix 3 on page 119 and a list of District Registrars appears in Table 1.2 below.

Table 1.2

District Registrars (as at 30 June 2000)

Registry District Registrar

Australian Capital Territory John Mathieson

New South Wales John Mathieson

Northern Territory Vacant*

Queensland Graham Ramsey

South Australia Greg Fisher

Tasmania Alan Parrott

Victoria Peter Seccombe

Western Australia Martin Jan PSM

* The South Australia District Registrar has delegations which allow for the performance of statutory and judge directed functions for the Northern Territory when required.

Staff of the Court

The officers and staff of the Court (other than the Registrar and some Deputy Sheriffs) are appointed or employed under the Public Service Act. On 30 June 2000 there were 349 persons employed Australia-wide as registry staff or as judges' personal staff. Generally, judges have two personal staff members. Details of staffing are set out in Tables 4.1 to 4.3 in Chapter 4 on pages 80 to 82.

8

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

1.8 MANAGEMENT OF THE COURT

The Chief Justice is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the Court. He is assisted by the Registrar (Part IIA sections 18A-18Y of the Federal Court of Australia Act).

The Chief Justice may delegate any of his administrative powers to judges. The Registrar may assist the Chief Justice by exercising powers on his behalf in relation to the Court's administrative affairs. The Chief Justice may give directions to the Registrar about the exercise of these powers.

The management structure of the Court is set out in Appendix 2 on page 118.

Judges' Committees

There are 16 standing committees which assist in the administration o f the Court:

Admiralty Assisted Dispute Resolution Audit Bankruptcy Information Technology Library Native Title Coordination

Practice and Procedure

Corporations Equality and the Law Federal Court Reports Finance

Remuneration Rules Security Transcript

An ad hoc Enterprise Bargaining Steering Committee was convened during the reporting year to assist in the development of the Court’s second Workplace Agreement under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. This Agreement was being developed as at 30 June 2000.

Each committee is supported by staff of the Court and its role is defined by its terms of reference.

Judges' Meetings

There were two meetings of all judges of the Court during the year. The matters dealt with included reforms to the Court's practice and procedure and amendments to the Rules of Court.

Principal Registry

The Principal Registry, headed by the Registrar, has overall responsibility for the management of the Court's registries. The Principal Registry also provides various services to the Court including strategic and communication services, personnel services, financial management, computing support, library services, property management and support to the Judges’ Committees.

In August 1999 a Strategic and Communication Services Unit was established within the Principal Registry to provide professional services in the area of research and analysis, planning and development, corporate planning, critical issue management and

communication. The Unit is the focal point for the identification and management of strategic issues as well as the provision of strategic advice, information, reports and specialist services

Chapter I - Overview o f the Federal Court o f A ustralia

to the Registrar, the Chief Justice and the Judge’s Committees. It is also responsible for identifying best practice measurement models and monitoring the Court’s operational performance against those measures. Importantly, the Unit also has carriage of the Community Relations Program for the Court. The work of this Program is discussed in Chapter 3 on page 70.

Critical strategic issues which are managed by the Unit include the oversight of the Court’s annual strategic planning process, the provision o f advice in relation to management of emerging issues, and corporate projects.

District Registries

To facilitate access to the Court and to enable the Court to exercise its jurisdiction nationally, there is a District Registry in each of the States and mainland Territories of Australia. These are managed by a District Registrar supported by legal and administrative staff.

District Registrars and Deputy District Registrars also perform important legal functions including the exercise of judge-delegated functions and statutory functions under the Federal Court of Australia Act and Rules and the Bankruptcy Act. District Registrars and their staff are a first point of contact for the community and the legal profession in seeking advice on Court procedures and in the processing of documents for those using the Court.

10

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

CHAPTER 2

THE YEAR IN REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The year under review saw the Court continue to achieve its objective of promptly, courteously and effectively deciding disputes according to law so as to fulfil its role as a court exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth under the Constitution. Through its jurisdiction, the Court applied and upheld the rule of law to deliver remedies and enforce rights and in so doing, contributed to the social and economic development and well-being of all Australians. The Court’s innovative approach to managing its work, and the way the Court operates as an organisation, brought further recognition of its role as a world class civil court.

2.2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENTS

During the reporting year the Court managed and, in most cases, successfully dealt with a number o f significant issues and developments. These include the following.

Corporations Law and cross-vesting

The High Court’s decision in Re Wakim Ex parte McNally & Anor in June 1999 effectively removed the Court’s jurisdiction in Corporations Law matters. As the number of Corporations Law cases had already been declining prior to the decision, the loss of the jurisdiction did not, of itself, reduce the Court’s workload. Any reduction that did occur was,

in any event, completely consumed by the native title and other workload of the Court.

Native title matters

As a result of the amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 which commenced on 30 September 1998, the Court continued to be responsible for managing native title matters. During the reporting year the Court implemented a number of initiatives in this jurisdiction, including: •

• proposing a time goal of three years from commencement for the completion of pending and new native title claims; • implementing a national case allocation system which enables the Court to use all its judicial resources across Australia for managing and hearing native title matters; • introducing a range of practice and procedure changes designed, among other things, to

reduce the size of claims (by combining applications) and to refine the range of issues in dispute between the parties (by case management conferences).

Details about these and other initiatives are set out in Chapter 3 of this report.

Human rights jurisdiction

In April 2000 the Court acquired jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints alleging unlawful discrimination under the Race Discrimination A ct 1974, Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The Court adopted specific mles and ‘user-

11

Chapter 2 - The Year in Review

friendly’ forms for the new jurisdiction. It conducted briefing sessions in most State and Territories for the community and the legal profession, and published brochures, guides and information on its Internet home page. The information on the home page is available in eleven community languages. The Court has received very complimentary comments about the briefing sessions and its approach to the new jurisdiction.

Federal Magistrates Court

The Court worked extensively with the new Federal Magistrates Court to put in place arrangements for the provision of registry services and other assistance to the Federal Magistrates Court in its non-family law jurisdiction. The registrars of the Court have been appointed as registrars of the Federal Magistrates Court, and the staff of the Federal Court's registries provides customer services for the new Court.

New case management system

Considerable progress was made in developing the Court’s new case management information technology system. The new system will assist judges in the management of their docket caseload, enhance the collection and analysis of information about the Court’s work, and provide better access to case information for litigants, lawyers and the public. The design process has involved extensive input from judges and staff of the Court about the services the

system must provide.

The design also provides for e-commerce involving parties to proceedings and their representatives. The Court continues to consult closely with the representatives of parties who have an interest in the development of the Court's proposed electronic filing system.

Establishment of the Strategic and Communication Services Unit and the Community Relations Program

In August 1999 the Court established a Strategic and Communication Services Unit within the Principal Registry to provide strategic management and communication advice, information, reports and specialist services to the Chief Justice, the Court’s Committees and the Registrar. The Unit is also responsible for the Court’s Community Relations Program. This Program aims to enhance public understanding and confidence in the Court by providing community information, and seeking comments from Court users and the community about their needs and the issues affecting them.

New judges' robes

Since the commencement o f the 2000 Law Term on 7 February 2000, judges of the Court have worn two newly designed robes - one for hearing first instance matters and another for appellate cases. The design o f the robes is intended to break some of the more traditional notions of judicial dress, by conveying an image o f the Court as a contemporary and

accessible institution and reflects the enduring symbolism of the importance of the independent judicial function.

The design is based on a square, with a series of seven vertical ‘tucks’, intended to provide both visual interest and to be symbolic o f federal jurisdiction. The six States and the Territories are symbolised by seven elements, as they are in the seven points of the

12

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Federation Star. The spacing between each tuck varies to illustrate the differences in geographical and jurisdictional breadth o f the Court’s work across each State and Territory.

Appellate robes also include a series of seven equally-spaced vertical tucks running the full length of the front and back of the robe, to suggest equality and fairness. These tucks are in ribbon of a deep red, the Court’s traditional colour and also the colour o f the Senate.

2.3 THE COURT’S PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL RESULTS

Workload

During the year there were a number of changes to the Court’s jurisdiction, as outlined in Chapter 3 of this report. These changes resulted in the Court losing some work and gaining other work. At the same time, the time and resources devoted to native title matters increased. This occurred as more cases were managed by the Court towards resolution or trial. At the same time, the Court's appellate workload increased - not simply in terms of the number of appeals, but also by the type and complexity of the issues in dispute. Native title matters on appeal before the Full Court of the Federal Court have taken up an extraordinary amount of the Court's judicial time. One appeal took three weeks to hear and many months afterwards to collate and consider the volumes of transcript and other documents. There is also an increase in the trend for persons to appear without legal representation in appeals before the Full Court. Parties appearing without representation often take more time to present their appeal than those who are represented.

Detailed information about the Court's workload can be found in Chapter 3.

Migration matters

Migration Act cases continue to form a large part of the Court's work. Since the 1995-96 reporting year the number of Migration Act cases has increased by more than 150 per cent (from 331 cases in 1995-96 to 829 cases in 1999-2000). Many migration cases proceed to

appeal, and now make up 36 per cent of the Court’s appellate workload (compared to 8 per cent in 1995-96).

Appeals

The appellate work o f the Court continues to increase. Almost the same number of appeals were filed in 1999-2000 as in 1998-99, representing an increase of almost 150 per cent in the Court’s appellate workload since 1995-96. As previously mentioned, many of the appeals

arise from native title matters which, given their complexity and the long hearing time at first instance, usually take a long time to hear on appeal. This will be a substantial issue for the Court to manage in the next few years as the number of native title matters finalised at first instance increases. The Chief Justice has established an Appeals Management Taskforce within the Court to identify critical issues and propose solutions to those issues.

Performance against time standards

The Court has two key standards, referred to as time goals. The first concerns the time cases should take from filing to completion. The second concerns the time within which reserved judgments are delivered.

13

Chapter 2 - The Year in Review

85 per cent of cases completed within 18 months o f commencement

The Court has previously reported that it had set a time goal of 98 per cent of cases to be disposed within eighteen months from commencement. In the light of the large number of long cases, particularly native title matters, coming before it, the Court decided to reduce that percentage to 85 per cent for the time being. This percentage is regularly reviewed by the Court.

Notwithstanding the revised time goal, in 1999-2000 the Court completed 90.8 per cent of cases within eighteen months - a small increase in the percentage of completed cases for 1998-99. Further details about the completion o f cases is set out in Chapter 3.

Judgments to be delivered within three months

The Court has set the period of three months as the goal within which reserved judgments will be delivered. The degree to which the Court will meet this goal is dependent upon the complexity of the case and the pressure of other business upon the Court. During 1999-2000 the Court handed down some 1,150 reserved judgments, with almost 75 per cent of them delivered in less than three months from the date of being reserved.

External review by the Australian Law Reform Commission

In January 2000 the Australian Law Reform Commission completed its review of the federal civil justice system when it published its final report, Managing Justice - A review o f the federal justice system (ALRC 89). The Commission, in its report and the preceding discussion and background papers, generally praised the operations of the Court. In

Managing Justice, it notes that in “consultations and submissions, the Commission heard consistent high praise about the quality judging and effective management o f the Federal Court” - comments which the report later describes as a “significant accolade” of the Court.

Financial results

As a result of careful management, the Court achieved a surplus for the reporting year. The surplus mainly comprises unexpended native title funding which is likely to be used in the next financial year and 2001-02 as more native title matters come before the Court for intensive case management and determination.

2.4 THE OUTLOOK FOR 2000-01

Changes to jurisdiction and the mix of cases before the Court

The Court expects the proportion of complex cases coming before it will increase as a result of changes to its jurisdiction and the availability to parties of the Federal Magistrates Court for simpler matters. During 2000-01 the Court will continue to develop and implement practices and procedures for ensuring complex cases are dealt with efficiently. At the same time, the Court will free resources for complex cases by transferring simpler matters to the Federal Magistrates Court.

14

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Restoration of Corporations Law matters

The Court expects that its Corporations Law jurisdiction will be restored during 2000-01. Given its existing workload, the Court will be giving careful consideration as to how the return of this jurisdiction can be handled most effectively.

Native title matters

The management o f native title matters is likely to become increasingly complex and resource intensive for the Court as more cases complete the case management and mediation stages and, if not resolved by agreement, proceed to trial. To meet its three year time goal, the Court will continue to develop and implement innovative procedures for the management and resolution of native title matters.

The new case management system and electronic filing project

Development of the Court’s new case management system will continue in the next year. Work will also continue on developing strategies for the implementation of the system, including the need for ‘re-engineering’ various work processes, and for providing training and support to judges and Court staff.

The next year will also see the Court continue the implementation of its electronic filing project. Over the next twelve months the Court will introduce the rules and technology for documents to be both filed and served electronically.

Community relations

A major project of the Court’s Community Relations Program for the next year will be to contribute to the community’s civic knowledge during the Centenary of Federation by developing educational materials which will form part of the national civics curriculum for schools. As part of the project, the Court will host a national art competition and two awards

will be given in each State and Territory for art produced by school students in lower secondary to year 10. The key objective of this project is to promote a greater understanding of the legal system and the role of the Federal Court in delivering justice. The Court will undertake this initiative with Curriculum Corporation, a national non-profit organisation which has developed the national civic education program Discovering Democracy.

Remaining a world class civil court

The Court will continue to attempt to maintain its reputation as a world class civil court through pursuing all the initiatives and targets mentioned above.

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

CHAPTER 3

THE WORK OF THE COURT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

As previously stated, the outcome for the Federal Court is, through its jurisdiction, to apply and uphold the rule of law to deliver remedies and enforce rights and in so doing, contribute to the social and economic development and well-being of all Australians. This chapter reports on the five output groups for the Court’s outcome, namely

• Management o f cases and deciding disputes according to law - Federal Court; • Management o f cases and deciding disputes according to law - Tribunals; • Service to Government; • Services provided to international jurisdictions; and • Ensuring the quality of, and access to, the system of justice.

A summary of the Court’s performance in relation to these output groups is set out in Table 5.1 on page 126.

3.2 MANAGEMENT OF CASES AND DECIDING DISPUTES BY THE COURT

Introduction

This output group refers to the management of cases that come before the Court. It includes a range o f activities which assist judicial decision making, such as the provision o f registry services to accept and process documents for court proceedings, the collection o f court fees, the listing of matters for hearings, the monitoring of the work of the Court, and to otherwise assist the management and determination of proceedings. It also includes the provision of infrastructure for Court hearings, including hearing rooms, furniture, equipment and transcript services.

This part of the annual report examines the Court’s jurisdiction, management of cases, workload and use of assisted dispute resolution.

A summary of the Court’s performance in relation to this output group is set out in Table 5.1 on page 126.

General

Jurisdiction

The Court's jurisdiction is broad, covering almost all civil matters arising under Australian federal law and some summary criminal matters. Cases arising under Part IV (restrictive trade practices) and Part V (consumer protection) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 constitute a significant part o f the workload of the Court. These cases may raise important public interest issues involving such matters as mergers, misuse o f market power, exclusive dealing or false advertising. Other cases may only concern the immediate parties. See Figure 6.6 on page 137 for comparative statistics regarding Trade Practices Act matters.

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Administrative law is an important area of jurisdiction. Many cases arise under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. This Act provides for judicial review of most administrative decisions made under Commonwealth enactments on grounds relating to the

legality, rather than the merits, of the decision (see Table 6.4 on page 146 for a list o f some of the enactments under which decisions have been made). Many cases also arise under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 which provides for a review on the merits by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of many Commonwealth administrative decisions, and which

also provides for a right of appeal from the Tribunal to the Court on questions of law. The Court has jurisdiction under the Migration Act 1958 to hear applications for judicial review of decisions of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. See Figure 6.7a on page 140 for comparative statistics regarding Migration Act matters.

The Court hears taxation matters on appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, mostly concerning income tax and, until its abolition from 1 July 2000, sales tax. It exercises a first instance jurisdiction to hear objections to decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation.

The Court shares first instance jurisdiction with the Supreme Courts o f the States and Territories in the complex area o f intellectual property (copyright, patents, trade marks and designs). All appeals in these cases, including appeals from the Supreme Courts, are to a Full Federal Court.

A significant part o f the Court’s jurisdiction derives from the Native Title Act. Since 30 September 1998, the Court has had jurisdiction to hear and determine native title determination applications, revised native title determination applications, compensation applications, claim registration applications, applications to remove agreements from the Register o f Indigenous Land Use Agreements and applications about the transfer o f records. Applications filed with the National Native Title Tribunal (“the NNT Tribunal”) as at 30 September 1998 were transferred to the Court on that date. The Act provides that, when dealing with native title matters, the Court is bound by the rules of evidence, except to the extent that it otherwise orders (section 82(1)), and may take account of the cultural and customary concerns o f indigenous people, but not so as to prejudice unduly any other party to the proceedings (section 82(2)). The Court also hears appeals from the NNT Tribunal and matters filed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act involving native title.

See Figure 6.12 at page 145 for statistical information on Native Title matters.

Another important part of the Court's jurisdiction derives from the Admiralty Act 1988. The Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories to hear maritime claims under this Act. Ships coming into Australian waters may be arrested for the purpose of providing security for money claimed from ship owners and operators. If security is not provided, a judge may order the sale of the ship to provide funds to pay the claims. During the reporting year the Court’s Admiralty Marshal arrested 14 vessels. In March 2000 the Court ordered the temporary release of the general cargo vessel “Assets Venture” which had been arrested at Christmas Island so that it could travel to Indonesia to refuel and replenish its supplies. The temporary release was necessary because of the lack of facilities at Christmas Island. The vessel sailed to Indonesia and returned in accordance with the terms of the order. In April 2000 the Court ordered the judicial sale of the “Spartan”. The sale had not been completed as at 30 June 2000. See Figure 6.8 on page 141 for a comparison of Admiralty Act matters filed in the past five years.

Until the High Court’s decision in Re Wakim in June 1999, the Court's jurisdiction under the Corporations Law covered a diversity of matters ranging from the appointment of provisional

17

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

liquidators and the winding up of companies, to applications for the orders available in relation to fundraising, corporate management and misconduct by company officers. This jurisdiction was exercised concurrently with the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories. The High Court’s decision has led to a dramatic reduction in the number o f Corporations Law matters commenced in the Court. See Figure 6.5 on page 135 for a comparison of Corporations Law matters filed in the last five years.

The Court exercises jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act. It has power to make sequestration (bankruptcy) orders against persons who have committed acts of bankruptcy and to grant bankruptcy discharges and annulments. The Court's jurisdiction includes matters arising from the administration of bankrupt estates. Figure 6.11 on page 144 provides statistical information on bankruptcy matters.

The Court has a substantial and diverse appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from decisions of single judges of the Court and also exercises general appellate jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters on appeal from the Supreme Court o f the Australian Capital Territory and the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. It also hears appeals from the Federal Magistrates Court in non-family law matters. Appeals on points of law from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and other tribunals are within the original jurisdiction o f the Court. Figure 6.9 on page 142 provides

statistical information concerning the number o f Full Court appeals.

This summary refers only to some of the principal sources of the Court's work. Other matters heard by the Court range from cases involving anti-dumping notices, tariff concession orders, to cases arising under Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. Statutes under which the Court exercises jurisdiction are listed in Appendix 4 on page 122.

New jurisdiction

The Court's jurisdiction during the year was enlarged or otherwise affected by several statutes including: •

• Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 1999 • Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Act 1999 • Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act 1999 • National Measurement Amendment (Utility Meters) Act 1999 • Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment

Act 1999

• Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Sendee Standards) Act 1999 • Health Legislation Amendment (No 3) Act 1999 • Border Protection Legislation Amendment Act 1999 • Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1999 • Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Act 1999.

18

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Federal Court Rules and Practice Notes

The judges are responsible for making the Rules of Court under the Federal Court of Australia Act. The Rules provide the procedural framework within which matters are commenced and conducted in the Court. The Rules of Court are made as Commonwealth Statutory Rules. The Rules are drafted by the Court's Rules Committee with the assistance of a Deputy Registrar. An officer of the Office of Legislative Drafting within the Attorney-General's Department assists with the form and publication of the new Rules.

The Rules are kept under review. New and amending mles are made when needed to ensure that the Court's procedures are up to date and responsive to the needs of modern litigation. They also provide the framework for new jurisdiction conferred upon the Court. A review of the Rules will be undertaken as a consequence of the changes to the Court's practice and procedure described elsewhere in this report.

During the reporting year, new mles to coincide with the Court’s new jurisdiction under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 were made. New mles were also introduced in relation to discovery, Court appointed expert assistants, and facsimile filing. Minor amendments were made to a number of other mles.

In December 1999 the Court replaced Order 71 of the Federal Court Rules with the Corporations Law Rules 2000, which set out the rules for proceedings in the Court under the Corporations Law and the ASC Law. The new Rules were prepared by the Council of Chief Justices’ Committee on Harmonisation of Practice and Procedure under the Corporations Law, and have also been adopted by the Supreme Court of each State (except Queensland) and T erritory.

Practice Notes supplement the procedures set out in the Rules of Court. During the reporting year the Chief Justice issued a revised Practice Note No 14 on the Court’s approach to orders for discovery. He also issued Practice Notes on:

• Information to be provided to the Court to enable the appropriate treatment of persons coming before it (Practice Note No 15); • Affirmations and Oaths (Practice Note No 16); and • Guidelines for the use of information technology in litigation in any civil matter

(Practice Note No 17).

Practice Notes are available without charge through District Registries and on the Court’s Internet home page. They have been reproduced in looseleaf services by law publishers. The Court has also published a guide to instituting an appeal in the Federal Court and various notices to practitioners issued by the District Registries. These are also available from the District Registries and in looseleaf legal services.

Decisions of Interest

During the year the judges published 1,877 decisions. To give some illustration o f the Court’s work, a few of these decisions are summarised below. The range of decisions highlights the varied jurisdiction o f the Court.

19

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

Trade Practices - Pyramid selling - Misleading and deceptive conduct

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd (26 August 1999, Justice Lindgren)

Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd ("Giraffe World") had been engaged in a business in Sydney, and other Australian cities, of selling a mat or mattress, suitable to be connected to an electricity supply ("the Mat"). In association with that activity it had been promoting a "Giraffe Club" and a "Grow Rich System". A person was introduced to the product and to the possibility of becoming a member of the Giraffe Club and the Grow Rich System through presentations at "Happiness Circle" meetings.

Giraffe World claimed that when connected to a source of electricity, the Mat emitted negative ions which would benefit the health o f a person who slept on it. If a person bought a Mat and joined the Giraffe Club and the Grow Rich System, that person could earn commissions by introducing others, and yet further commissions if those people also joined the Giraffe Club and the Grow Rich System and introduced yet further newcomers.

Justice Lindgren concluded that Giraffe World was promoting a pyramid selling scheme in contravention of section 61 o f the Trade Practices Act. As well, he concluded that it was engaging in referral selling in contravention of section 57 of that Act.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("the Commission") also alleged that in its selling of the Mat, particularly at the Happiness Circle Meetings, Giraffe World engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and represented that the Mat had approvals, performance characteristics, uses or benefits it did not have, in contravention o f sections 52 and 53(c) of the Act. Ultimately, Giraffe World accepted that on the evidence, it could not support some of the representations that had been made. But some 60 individuals testified that their health had improved in various ways after using the Mat. The Commission led a considerable body o f scientific evidence directed to showing that there were no reasonable grounds for thinking that the use of the Mat would produce health benefits. The Commission suggested that in light o f the expert testimony, the individuals who testified to the benefits of using the Mat were the sincere but mistaken victims of autosuggestion.

Giraffe World sought to portray the case as a battleground between conventional and alternative health care systems, and between the approaches of modem Western science and medicine on the one hand and an older Oriental approach to human health and well-being on the other. But Justice Lindgren considered his function as being limited to deciding the issues presented for decision, by applying the law to the facts proved by evidence.

The Judge concluded that on the expert evidence before him, and the submissions made to him, Giraffe World contravened the Act to the extent that it represented to prospective buyers that there was medical, scientific or other objective support for the proposition that the Mat would operate, by means of negative ions, to benefit their health.

Justice Lindgren also dismissed a related proceeding brought by Giraffe World against the Commission for defamation.

20

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Genocide - Internationa! Law

Nulyarimma v Thompson Buzzacott v Hill (1 September 1999, Justices Wilcox, Whitlam and Merkel)

In two separate cases it was claimed that the conduct of various government ministers, members of parliament and the Commonwealth had or would contribute to the destruction of the Aboriginal people as an ethnic or racial group and hence constitute genocide. The matters were heard together and one set of reasons was delivered by the Court.

In the first matter, Nulyarimma v Thompson, the conduct complained of was the fonnulation and support of amendments to the Native Title Act, known as the government’s “Ten Point Plan”. The amendments eventually passed into legislation as the Native Title Amendment Act 1998. The Act provides for the modification and extinguishment of some native title rights, as well as the validation or protection of certain acts in respect to land (for example, the creation

of leases or erection of buildings) that might have been invalid for reason of native title.

The case arose when four Aboriginal applicants asked a Canberra magistrate to issue warrants of arrest for the Prime Minister, John Howard, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, independent Senator Brian Harradine and Pauline Hanson, MP (at the relevant time), for the crime of genocide. When the magistrate refused to issue warrants of arrest, on the

grounds that genocide was not a crime known to Australian law, the decision was appealed first to a single judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, and then to the Full Court of the Federal Court.

The second matter, Buzzacott v Hill, was a motion to strike out proceedings instituted on behalf of the Arrabunna people of the Lake Eyre region, against the Commonwealth, the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade for their failure to proceed with an application to place the Arrabunna people’s traditional lands on the World Heritage List. It was claimed that activities, such as mining, affect waterholes and native flora and fauna on the lands and, as a result, threaten the Arrabunna people’s traditional way of

life. The applicant did not seek to institute a criminal prosecution, but sought an order compelling the Government to take steps to protect the land, as well as damages.

Genocide at international law

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment o f the Crime o f Genocide defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, and lists examples such as killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to group members, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Court accepted that genocide is a universal crime under customary international law and that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (and accordingly has the status of “jus cogens”). The norm imposes an obligation on all states to either prosecute or extradite perpetrators of genocide found within their borders whether the acts were committed in their territory or not.

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

Genocide and Australian law

While genocide is recognised as a universal crime in international law, and Australia is a signatory to the Genocide Convention, Australia has not passed legislation which states it is a criminal offence to commit genocide (other than legislation relating specifically to war crimes).

The question for the Court was whether a person can be tried in Australia for the crime of genocide, even though there is no Australian legislation which states that genocide is a punishable offence. Or put another way, what is the legal status of a peremptory norm of

international law (“jus cogens”) in an Australian court.

Majority Judgments - Jus Co gens and Australian Law

Justices Wilcox and Whitlam delivered separate judgments, each determining that, as a general principle of Australian law, customary international law is of no force in Australia unless carried into force by Australian legislation or recognised by common law.

Justice Whitlam did not consider that the status of jus cogens compelled the recognition of genocide, or any other customary international law, as part of the common law of Australia, and held that in a number of Australian States the creation of new crimes by common law is expressly forbidden by statute.

Justice Wilcox noted that in Australian law, a treaty, to which Australia is a signatory, has no force, unless carried into force by legislation. He said it would be curious if a customary rule had greater effect. Justice Wilcox did not accept that genocide was a crime in Australian common law. While he accepted that some civil rules of international law form part of Australia's common law, he considered it undesirable for policy reasons that a law creating a serious criminal offence should be enforced in Australia absent specific legislation.

Dissenting Judgment - Jus Cogens and Australian Law

Justice Merkel did not share that view. He concluded that a rule o f customary international law could be adopted into Australian law, without enacting legislation, if the rule is not inconsistent with Australian statute law or with general policies of Australian common law.

Justice Merkel considered that the adoption of the crime of genocide was not inconsistent with Australian common law; as it was an adoption o f an international crime, not the creation of a new one, its adoption was not inconsistent with the policy against the creation of new crimes by courts. In addition, given the existence of the universal crime, it could not be said that offenders would not have been aware that their actions were punishable. For similar reasons, he concluded that adoption of the crime was not a usurpation of parliamentary power.

Could the conduct complained of constitute genocide?

All three Judges agreed that an essential element of the crime of genocide was the existence of an intent to destroy an ethnic or racial group. The Court did not accept that in either case such an intent had been proven. In relation to the second proceeding, Justice Merkel also

22

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

noted that there were unrelated administrative law considerations, which meant that the decision was not reviewable.

Intellectual Property — Copyright - Test for whether copying occurred

Clarendon Homes (Aust) v Henley Arch Pty Ltd (7 October 1999, Justices Heerey, Sundberg and Finkelstein)

This case concerned a dispute between project home builders over the copyright in plans.

The appellant claimed that the respondent had copied its plans and therefore did not have copyright in the plans that it claimed were infringed.

The Full Court set down an appropriate test to apply when determining whether copying has occurred:- When the defendant’s work is the same as the plaintiffs work then it is clear that the inference of copying can be drawn. In the event that the copyist has not reproduced the plaintiff s work in its entirety the plaintiff must show, in the absence of evidence of access, that the similarities are so strong as to preclude the possibility of the defendant having arrived at the same result independently.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal.

Migration - Protection in non-Convention country

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Al-Sallal (29 October 1999, Justices Heerey, Carr and Tamberlin)

An applicant claimed to be a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention and therefore entitled to a protection visa. The applicant was a Bedoon bom in Kuwait. He was a stateless person, never having had a nationality. After the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and Iraq’s subsequent defeat the applicant was detained and questioned as a suspected collaborator. He fled to Iraq where he lived for five years but, fearing conscription for military service, he paid a smuggler to take him across the border to Jordan. Jordan is not a party to the Refugees Convention. However the Refugee Review Tribunal found that Jordan

had a tolerant attitude towards Bedoons. Also Jordanian law made provision for residency permits and international laissez-passers for stateless persons.

The Full Court held that Australia’s obligations under the Refugees Convention could be satisfied by sending back (or “refoulement”) an asylum seeker to a third country notwithstanding that such country was not a party to the Convention.

The Full Court said:

“So long as, as a matter of practical reality and fact, the applicant is likely to be given effective protection by being pemiitted to enter and live in a third country where he will not be under any risk of being refouled to his original country - that will suffice. The fact that a country is a party to the Convention is relevant but not determinative either way.”

23

Chapter 3 — The work o f the Court

Workplace Relations - Freedom of association

CFMEU v Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd (5 November 1999, Justice Branson)

This case involved an application by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“CFMEU”) for the Court to impose penalties on Coal and Allied Operations for conduct which the CFMEU claimed breached the freedom o f association provisions o f the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (Part XA) (“the Act”). In six instances, members of the CFMEU

employed by Coal and Allied Operations had applied for leave to perform their duties as an employee representative. The leave was not approved and, in each case, warnings were issued and entries made on the employment files o f the members for unapproved absence from work. In each case Justice Branson found that, by issuing a written warning o f a serious or major breach to one of its employees, Coal and Allied Operations altered the position of that employee to the employee’s prejudice within the meaning of section 298K(1) of the Act.

Justice Branson considered first whether each of the employees on each of the occasions in question was absent “for the purpose of carrying out duties or exercising rights as an officer of an industrial association” (section 298L(m)) The Judge found that attending a hearing before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for the purposes of being able to give instructions to the applicant’s counsel, and of reporting to Lodge members with respect to the appeal hearing, was for the purpose of carrying out duties or exercising rights as an officer of an industrial association. She also found that attending a meeting concerned with “matters ... affecting the interest of the [Lodge of which the employee was President]” was for the purpose of carrying out duties or exercising rights as an officer of an industrial association. Given the locally focused nature of the Lodge Committees, the Judge was not satisfied that attendance by the Vice-President and Secretary o f a Lodge at a meeting of CFMEU divisional delegates held in Melbourne was for the purpose o f carrying out duties or exercising rights as an officer of an industrial association.

Justice Branson next considered whether leave was unreasonably refused in each case. In doing so, Justice Branson had regard to: the purpose for which leave was sought; the circumstances surrounding the refusal; the impact of the refusal on the employee and on the legitimate interests of his or her industrial association; and the impact the approval of leave would have had on the employer and its legitimate industrial interests. There was significant

confusion within the management of Coal and Allied Operations concerning the policy to be applied to applications for the type of leave sought. The Judge found that leave was unreasonably refused in three o f the six instances.

Justice Branson was careful to make clear that her conclusions were conclusions of law and not findings concerning legal entitlement to be granted leave for particular purposes.

Justice Branson found that the CFMEU succeeded in establishing that Coal and Allied had engaged in conduct in contravention of the freedom o f association provisions in three instances.

24

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Native Title - Recognition of native title in the sea and sea-bed

Commonwealth o f Australia & Ors v Yarmirr & Ors (3 December 1999, Justices Beaumont, von Doussa and Merkel)

These were appeals against a determination of native title made on 4 September 1998 by Justice Olney. The determination was made under the Native Title Act, before its amendment in 1998. The proceedings raised several important questions, including whether native title may be recognised, and protected, in relation to Australia’s coastal seas, and if so, the extent of such recognition and protection. The appeals were heard in Darwin over five days by a Full Court.

The case at first instance

The application for determination of native title before Justice Olney was made on behalf of the Mandilarri-Ildugij, Mangalara, Murran, Gadura-Minaga and Ngaynjaharr peoples (“the claimant group”). The claim was, in essence, for the ownership and exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of an area o f seas, including the sea-bed and its resources, in the vicinity of Croker Island in the Northern Territory.

Justice Olney upheld the claim in part. His Honour’s findings, and conclusions, in summary, were:

• The provisions of the Native Title Act expressed Parliament's specific intention to recognise that native title rights, if proved, are capable of recognition in relation to offshore seas and waters.

• The evidence established the existence of traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed, whereby the claimant group had continuously, since prior to non-aboriginal intervention, used the waters o f the claimed area for the purpose of hunting, fishing and gathering to provide for their sustenance, and for other purposes associated with their cultural, ritual and spiritual obligations, beliefs and practices.

• These native title rights and interests were regulated, but not extinguished, by Northern Territory and Commonwealth fishing legislation and administrative action. His Honour found that by virtue of the provisions of section 211 o f the Native Title Act, the claimant group was not required to hold any statutory licence or permit in order to exercise their native title rights.

• The claimant group did not enjoy any exclusive rights to possess, occupy, use and enjoy the subject waters because:

(a) the evidence failed to establish that any exclusive right was part of traditional laws and customs; and (b) in any event, (i) Australia’s obligations under international law of the sea treaties precluded the

possibility of recognition o f a exclusive possession or occupation, or of a right to control access by others to the area; and (ii) recognition of any such exclusive right would also contradict the public rights of navigation and fishing at common law.

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

• The claim to the resources within the sea-bed, and the subsoil, including any minerals therein, failed, first because of the absence o f evidence to suggest that any local traditional law or custom related to the acquisition or use of, or trade in, such minerals; and secondly because the Crown had, by the exercise of its legislative powers, appropriated to itself an interest which amounted to full beneficial ownership, and no native title rights could have survived the acquisition.

• Although it was not necessary for his Honour to decide (given his construction of the Native Title Act), Justice Olney found that the territorial limits of the Northern Territory (including its “bays and gulfs” within the claimed area) included the waters of Mission Bay, but otherwise did not extend beyond the low water mark o f the coastline of the mainland and islands.

For these reasons, Justice Olney determined that:

(a) native title existed in relation to the sea and sea-bed within the claimed area; and (b) that this title was held by the Aboriginal peoples who were the members o f the claimant group who traced or claimed their descent through the male line (“the yuwurmmu”).

However, his Honour rejected the claim for exclusive possession, holding that the native title rights and interests did not confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the sea and sea-bed within the claimed area to the exclusion o f all others.

His Honour also determined that the relevant native title rights and interests of the claimants were:

(a) to fish, hunt and gather within the claimed area for the purpose of satisfying their personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs, including observing traditional, cultural, ritual and spiritual laws and customs; and (b) to have access to the sea and sea-bed within the claimed area -

(i) to exercise the above rights to travel through, or within, the claimed area; and (ii) to visit and protect places within the claimed area which were o f cultural or spiritual importance; and (iii) to safeguard the cultural and spiritual knowledge of the claimants.

His Honour further declared that the native title rights and interests of the claimants could be “affected” by rights and interests in relation to the sea and sea-bed within the claimed area that were validly granted, or which existed, or which may thereafter exist, pursuant to Commonwealth or Northern Territory laws.

The issues on the appeals

The Commonwealth (with the support of the Northern Territory and the fishing industry parties) and the claimant group appealed from different parts of Justice Olney’s judgment and orders.

26

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

In summary, the grounds of the Commonwealth’s appeal were:

• That the trial Judge wrongly construed the Native Title Act so as to provide for the recognition of native title beyond the limits of the Northern Territory.

• That there was no basis for the recognition of native title beyond the limits of the Northern Territory, because the common law did not apply outside such limits; and no law provided for that recognition.

• That the native title rights specified in the determination were already exercisable under other public rights - that is, the public rights to fish and navigate at common law; and that these rights were not capable of separate recognition.

• (Alternatively) that there was no evidence, or no sufficient evidence, of traditional or other occupation or use of certain areas to the north and north-east of New Year Island such as to warrant a finding that native title existed in that particular area.

For their part, the claimant group challenged the following conclusions of the trial judge:

• That their native title rights and interests were not held to the exclusion of all others.

• That the content of the native title rights as found by Justice Olney did not include: a right to fish, hunt and gather for the purposes of trade; a right to exploit and control access to and exploitation of resources in the sea, sea-bed and subsoils; the right to exclude persons seeking to explore or mine for minerals pursuant to a

law of the Commonwealth or Northern Territory; a right to exclude persons generally.

• That their traditional laws and customs did not “bind” others.

The judgments on the appeals

Two reasons for judgment were delivered on the appeals - one a joint judgment of Justices Beaumont and von Doussa, the other by Justice Merkel.

Justices Beaumont and von Doussa held that both the appeals must fail, essentially for the reasons given by the primary Judge.

Justice Merkel dissented. His Honour would have dismissed the appeal by the Commonwealth, allowed the appeal by the claimant group and remitted the matter back to the trial judge for further hearing. Justice Merkel agreed with Justices Beaumont and von Doussa that native title rights and interests in respect of offshore waters are recognised and protected under the Native Title Act, but disagreed with their Honours as to the nature and content of the rights and interests in two significant respects. The first was that, in his Honour’s view, under the Native Title Act, the native title claimed must be established to exist at the date sovereignty was acquired by the Commonwealth over the offshore waters in the claimed area and at the date of the commencement of the Native Title Act, being 1 January 1994. The second was that his Honour concluded that a right to an exclusive fishery in a particular offshore area can be recognised and protected as a native title right or interest under the Native Title Act. Justice Merkel regarded the right to an exclusive fishery as capable of being

27

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

regulated, but not extinguished, by the extensive legislative and regulatory regimes that apply to fishing in offshore areas which form part of or are adjacent to the Northern Territory.

The formal order of the Court, by majority, was to dismiss the appeals with no order as to costs.

The Full Court’s decision is the subject of an appeal to the High Court.

Administrative law - Standing

Transurban City Link v Allan (10 December 1999, Chief Justice Black, Justices Hill, Sundberg, Marshall and Kenny)

The issue for determination in this case was whether Mr Allan had standing to challenge a decision of the Development Allowance Authority (the “DAA”) to grant to Transurban City Link Ltd (“Transurban”) a certificate, the effect o f which would be to provide a tax incentive to those lending money to the City Link Project (the “Project”). Mr Allan claimed to be a “person affected” by this decision within the meaning of the Development Allowance Authority Act 1992 (Cth), and requested that the DAA review its decision. At the time, Mr Allan lived 100 metres away from part of the Project, and also claimed to be a member of the Australian Conservation Foundation and concerned about the environmental impact of the Project. The DAA was not satisfied that this was sufficient to make Mr Allan a “person affected” by its decision; nor was the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), on review.

Mr Allan had succeeded in an earlier appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court (in proceedings to which Transurban was not a party), where the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration. By that stage, however, Mr Allan had moved away from the vicinity of the Project, and on this basis the Tribunal again dismissed his application, stating that standing had to be established not only at the time the original application was brought but also in light of any changed circumstances. On review, Justice Merkel did not agree and held that Mr Allan had an “accrued right” to standing. It was that decision which Transurban

(having since been joined as a party) appealed to the Full Court.

On the basis of Mr Allan’s previous Full Court decision, and an argument by Transurban that the decision ought to be overturned, a bench of five was convened for the appeal.

Apart from endorsing the approach taken by the Tribunal, Transurban argued that the context of the legislative scheme made it clear that the only person who could be “affected” by a decision of the DAA to issue a certificate is the Commissioner of Taxation, who was required to be notified of the decision. In the alternative, it submitted that Mr Allan’s application was frivolous or vexatious, as he no longer lived near the Project. Transurban further argued that, the Project having been completed, Mr Allan had no effective remedy available. In response, Mr Allan endorsed the approach of the trial judge, and further added that the Court should follow the previous Full Court decision unless it was plainly wrong.

In a single judgment, the Court began by observing that unless a previous decision of a Full Court is clearly erroneous, the doctrine of precedent dictated that it should be followed; it is not sufficient that a differently constituted Full Court might come to a different conclusion.

28

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

The absence of Transurban from the earlier proceedings, however, justified a re-examination of the issues.

The Court examined the authorities and held that standing was to be determined by the interest that an applicant has in the decision under review. There would be no standing, however, where the actual outcome of the review would not affect the applicant. In the present case, Mr Allan was seeking to prevent the Project from going ahead, but challenging the decision of the DAA could not have achieved that goal; indeed, the outcome of that challenge would not affect Mr Allan at all. Accordingly, Mr Allan lacked standing to challenge that decision; the previous Full Court judgment was wrong and could not prevail.

Although not necessary for its decision, the Court indicated that it was o f the view that where, after the date of application to the Tribunal but before the relevant hearing or decision, circumstances have changed so that the applicant no longer has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, that application should be dismissed for lack of standing. There was no principle of “accrued standing”.

The Full Court’s decision is the subject of an appeal to the High Court.

Constitutional law - Validity of Trade Practices Act section 51AA - separation of legislative and judicial powers

Australian Competition < £ Consumer Commission v C G Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (14 January 2000, Justice French)

This application primarily concerned allegations of unconscionable conduct in contravention of section 51 AA of the Trade Practices Act. The conduct in question was that of a shopping centre owner in relation to the renewal and assignment of retail tenancies in the centre.

At the beginning of the trial, the Court expressed the view that it was arguable that section 51 AA may be beyond the power o f the Commonwealth Parliament due to the apparent attempt to confer legislative power upon the judicial branch of government. Notices under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) notifying the Attomeys-General of the Commonwealth and the States were issued. After hearing argument on the matter, Justice French concluded that section 51 AA is a valid exercise of the constitutional power o f the Commonwealth for the following reasons.

In raising the question as to the validity of section 51 AA the Court referred to the decision of the High Court in State o f Western Australia v Commonwealth (“the Native Title Act case”) which held invalid section 12 of the Native Title Act. That section provided:

“Subject to this Act, the common law of Australia in respect of native title has, after 30 June 1993, the force of a law of the Commonwealth.”

Section 51AA(1) o f the Trade Practices Act provides:

“A corporation must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is unconscionable within the meaning of the unwritten law, from time to time, of the States and Territories.”

The High Court, in striking down section 12 of the Native Title Act, said:

29

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

“If the “common law” in section 12 is understood to be the body of law which the courts create and define, section 12 attempts to confer legislative power upon the judicial branch of government. That attempt must fail either because the Parliament cannot exercise the powers of the courts or because the courts cannot exercise the powers of the Parliament.”

The preliminary questions in Berbatis turned on whether the reasoning o f the High Court in relation to section 12 of the Native Title Act also applied to impugn the validity of section 51AA by reason of its apparent adoption of the unwritten law with respect to unconscionable conduct.

His Honour observed that Australian case law has been concerned about unconscionable conduct within the framework of specific doctrines identifying particular classes of conduct albeit their boundaries tend to be blurred by the generality of the notion of unconscionability in equitable doctrine.

In considering the contention that “unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law” in section 51 AA refers to some kind of legal dictionary, it was important to observe that it had no settled technical meaning. It offers a standard determined by judicial decision-making rather than a rule, albeit it may for the present be subject to limitation in its factual field of operation by the existence of specific doctrines.

The term “the unwritten law” is a reference to the common law or judge-made law of Australia. The term “unconscionable” is found in the dictionary. Its meaning is not altered by the common law. What the common law does presently is to confine its operation to certain classes of case.

His Honour observed that section 51 AA does not purport to adopt the common law relating to unconscionable conduct and give it the force o f statute. In form, the section prohibits conduct which under the common law would be treated as unconscionable. In this respect,

section 51AA differs from section 12 of the Native Title Act which exceeded the legislative power o f the Commonwealth by taking the whole of the common law in respect of native title and purporting to confer upon it the force of a law of the Commonwealth.

In the Native Title Act case, however, the High Court, having acknowledged that an extra parliamentary text can be adopted as a law of the Commonwealth, said that:

. .the common law is not found in a text; its content is evidenced by judicial reasons for decision.”

Justice French said that courts, particularly the High Court and ultimate appeal courts in the common law world, exercise a law making function in the development of the common law and through processes o f statutory construction. The myth that courts merely find and declare the law and that the judges are, to use the words of Blackstone, “living oracles”, is long exploded. There is no clear definition of the limits of judicial law making. For the most part it is incremental subject to self imposed restraints which themselves derive from recognition of the overriding principle that laws are made by parliaments. Neither is there, nor has there ever been, an impermeable boundary between statute law and judge-made law.

30

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

The judge deciding a case under section 51 AA will have regard to the case law on unconscionable conduct generally, but in the end will have to make an assessment whether the conduct in question is unconscionable within the class o f case for which the common law or equity provides a remedy. The possibility that those classes may expand incrementally or by some sudden rationalisation o f the concept of unconscionability at the level o f the High Court does not put the judge in any more difficult a position than the judge applying the wider statutory prohibitions on unconscionable conduct in section 51AB or section 51 AC of the Trade Practices Act. The application would occur in the light o f the common law or otherwise in accordance with established approaches to statutory construction. His Honour said that there was no express line of logic to be found in the reasoning in the Native Title Act case drawing a clear distinction between the considerations which led to the invalidation of section 12 and the position in cases such as the present. But the form of section 12 and the direct operation o f external judicial decisions on the content of the law, which is transmuted directly into Commonwealth law, was significantly closer as a matter of degree to authorising judicial legislation than section 51AA.

Aboriginal Land Rights - Whether affected by common law or statutory rights to fish

Arnhem/and Aboriginal Land Trust v Director of Fisheries (Northern Territory) (24 February 2000, Justice Mansfield)

In a broad sense, this case concerned the relationship between the land rights granted to Aboriginal people under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) to the low water mark and the line across the mouths of rivers and estuaries from the extremities of the low water mark, the public right to fish, and licences granted under the Fisheries Act

1988 (NT).

The central questions concerned whether a holder of a licence granted by the Director of Fisheries under section 10 of the Fisheries Act was able, by virtue of that licence and the public right to fish, to fish and engage in other related activities (such as affixing nets or other objects to the land and entering the seas by boat) in tidal waters over land granted to the Amhemland Aboriginal Land Trust above the low water mark up to the high water mark and in rivers streams and estuaries which are affected by the tides.

It was the applicant’s primary contention that the grant of land to the Amhemland Aboriginal Land Tmst abolished any right to fish in any of the tidal waters whatsoever other than that pursuant to the grant. They contended that the establishment of the statutory licensing scheme under the Fisheries Act abolished the common law right to fish or alternatively that such a right did not extend to the waters and estuaries affected by tides. It was also submitted that the grant of licences by the Director detracted from the enjoyment of that land by

Aboriginals, and was therefore inconsistent with the grant.

Justice Mansfield held that the land grant did not include power to exclude persons from use of waters in the intertidal zone between the low water mark and the high water mark. It was not inconsistent with the exercise of public fishing rights in those areas. His Honour found, however, that the land grant did impliedly abolish the public right to fish in tidal waters in rivers streams and estuaries to the landward side of the line joining the mean high water mark on opposite sides o f those rivers streams and estuaries. In effect, the public right to fish and the rights of license holders under the Fisheries Act could be exercised notwithstanding the land grant in tidal waters, but only up to the high water mark and in rivers, streams and

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

estuaries seaward o f a line joining the mean high water mark on opposite sides of those rivers streams and estuaries.

In reaching these conclusions his Honour made the following findings:

• Citing Yamirr v Northern Territory’ (No 2) and several land claim reports, that the land grant did not exclude any public or statutory right to fish in the waters; • That the public right to fish could only be abrogated by statute, relevantly the Fisheries Act and its predecessors; • That the public right to fish was preserved by section 10(2) of the Fisheries Act despite

that subsection being limited to fishing for subsistence or personal use; • That the rights and privileges granted to licence holders did not constitute some form of interest in land but were, adopting the characterisation of Chief Justice Mason, Justices Deane and Gaudron in the High Court decision of Harper v Minister for Sea Fisheries,

“an entitlement of a new kind” something like a profit a prendre (that is, a right to take something from another’s land), but in fact a discrete statutory entitlement; • That the land grant, and the powers of the applicant under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in respect of land the subject of the land grant, were

inconsistent with the exercise of public fishing rights to fish in rivers, streams and estuaries landward of the high water line mark or its continuation across the mouths of rivers streams and estuaries; • That the temporary affixing of nets to the land surface underlying tidal waters falls

within the reasonable exercise of the public right to fish, as does the right of passage upon the waters.

The case represents an important explanation o f the extent of native title rights granted under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.

The decision is the subject of an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court.

Native Title - The meaning and extinguishment o f native title

State of Western Australia & Others v Ben Ward & Others (3 March 2000, Justices Beaumont, von Doussa and North)

These were appeals, and a cross-appeal, against a determination of native title made by Justice Lee in favour of the Miriuwung and Gajerrong people. The claim covered an area of land and waters in the north-east of Western Australia, known as the East Kimberley District, and adjoining land in the Northern Territory. The total claim area was approximately 7,900 square kilometres and included part of the township o f Kununurra, Lake Argyle and Lake Kununurra, part of the Ord River irrigation area and the Argyle Diamond Mine. The claim area also included some vacant Crown land and Crown land that had been leased or reserved for various purposes, including for conservation, preservation of Aboriginal art, mining and the Keep River National Park. At one time or another a great deal of the claim area has been the subject of pastoral leases.

32

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

The trial

The hearing of the trial before Justice Lee occupied 83 days with much of the applicants’ primary evidence being taken at various sites within the claim area. The transcript of the trial ran to more than 9,000 pages. Justice Lee’s judgment was 277 pages.

Justice Lee held that ordinarily native title is a communal interest in land, determined by reference to the Aboriginal community’s traditional laws and customs and that community’s connection with the land. His Honour held that native title may be extinguished by an act of the Crown, but only if the Crown demonstrates a clear and plain intention to extinguish native title. Furthermore, he held that if rights over the land were granted to a third party in a way that regulated or modified the exercise of the native title rights, such as by a grant of a pastoral lease, licence or reserve, native title was not necessarily extinguished. For extinguishment to occur, Justice Lee held that the rights granted must be permanently

inconsistent with the native title rights and have the effect of removing all connection of the indigenous people with the land. Where some lesser effect was shown native title rights may be suspended, curtailed or otherwise regulated.

The trial judge held that native title was proved to exist over most of the area claimed, as the Miriuwung and Gajerrrong people had substantially maintained their connection with the land. The only extinguishment of that native title which had occurred was effected by the

construction of roads, permanent public works, freehold grants and some reserves.

The appeal

The appeal was heard in Perth and lasted for 15 days, making it one of the longest appeals in the Court’s history. The written submissions ran into thousands of pages. The hearing of the appeal was greatly assisted by the Court’s technological facilities so that the CD-Rom version of the transcript of the trial could be viewed by both counsel and the bench via computer

screens centrally operated in Court.

The Full Court was called upon to consider a large number of issues. Two reasons for judgment were delivered on the appeals and cross-appeal - one a joint judgment o f Justices Beaumont and von Doussa, the other by Justice North which dissented in part.

Connection of the claimants with the land

The existence of native title is a question of fact to be ascertained by evidence of the connection of the Aboriginal community with the land at the time of occupation and evidence of the maintenance o f that connection since that time.

The judgment of the trial judge was based on a thorough analysis o f evidence from many sources, including evidence from senior members of the Miriuwung and Gajerrong community as well as anthropological evidence. Both the majority and the dissenting judge upheld the trial judge’s findings of fact in relation to the connection o f the present Miriuwung and Gajerrong community with the land claimed, and their connection with the Aboriginal people in occupation of the claim area at the time of sovereignty.

The other major issue dealt with by the Full Court was whether or not native title had been extinguished.

33

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

Extinguishment of native title

The majority judgment found that the principles by which the trial judge determined whether extinguishment had occurred departed from the test approved by the High Court in The Wik People v The State o f Queensland and Fejo v Northern Territory ofAustralia. In relation to the rights granted by the Crown, there is no requirement in Australian law that the rights be permanently inconsistent with native title, nor that the rights actually be exercised.

Furthermore, the majority held that it is possible for some of the “bundle of rights”, which together make up native title, to be extinguished. Where this happens, “partial extinguishment" occurs. This concept has not been authoritatively detenuined by the High Court in the cases that had come before it to date. Nor had it been determined by a Full Court o f this Court until this case.

The majority found that in relation to the pastoral leases, the grant of the leases in the claim area partially extinguished native title. Most of the pastoral leases contained reservations which protected Aboriginal peoples’ rights of access and use o f the land under lease. In Western Australia this is limited to areas that are unenclosed and unimproved. This has the result that there may be areas within the Western Australian pastoral leases where native title has been extinguished altogether. In the Northern Territory the majority found that there had not been total extinguishment in any of the areas, as the explicit protection of the Aboriginal rights is not limited in the same way.

The majority agreed with the trial judge that the creation of the Keep River National Park did not extinguish native title. Similarly, reservations of land for a public purpose do not automatically cause extinguishment. However, the majority held that native title had been wholly extinguished in respect of the areas covered by the Ord Irrigation Project and the Argyle Diamond Project. The nature of such major projects and the range o f activities

involved are completely inconsistent with the continued enjoyment of native title. The majority also found that native title rights in minerals and petroleum in the claim area had been wholly extinguished by legislation. Further, the majority held that the grant of mining leases in the Western Australian portion of the claim area had wholly extinguished native title in the areas covered by the leases.

The dissenting judge, Justice North, differed from the majority decision primarily on the question of the proper approach to extinguishment. His Honour held that native title is not a bundle of rights but a fundamental right to land. Accordingly, there can be no “partial extinguishment” of some o f those rights. His Honour held that extinguishment will only occur where there is a total and pennanent inconsistency between the rights granted and the native title. Where a lesser degree of inconsistency exists, native title is not extinguished but merely temporarily suspended or impaired.

Justice North agreed with the trial judge’s interpretation of the law relating to extinguishment and his Honour’s application o f that law to the claim in question. Justice North also recognised a native title right to maintain, protect and prevent the misuse of cultural knowledge.

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

In the result, the appeals failed on the “connection” issues, but by a majority (Justices Beaumont and von Doussa) the appeals were allowed in part on the extinguishment issues. Justice North, dissenting, would have dismissed the appeals. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

The Full Court’s decision is the subject of an appeal to the High Court.

Workplace relations - Freedom o f association

BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union (7 April 2000, Chief Justice Black, Justices Beaumont and Ryan)

In late 1999, BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd (“BHPIO”) adopted a practice of offering individual workplace agreements to employees presently covered by certain awards (“award employees”). The new agreements, which were in a relatively standard form and purported to

import the terms of the awards, would then be registered under the Workplace Agreements Act 1993 (WA). The evidence also suggested that, at the same time, BHPIO had adopted a firm stance of refusing to engage in collective bargaining with various unions in relation to the terms covering award employees.

The Australian Workers’ Union (“AWU”) asserted that this conduct was contrary to the Workplace Relations Act in a number of respects, and specifically that it breached several of the freedom of association provisions contained in the Act. In essence, the AWU alleged that BHPIO’s conduct was designed to eliminate the presence of unions from its workplaces and

deprive its workers of any effective union representation. The AWU made three substantive submissions.

First, the AWU argued that as a result of its actions, BHPIO was disadvantaging award employees who refused to sign an individual agreement, because the new agreements offered benefits not made available to those who did not sign (although the agreements had potential disadvantages as well). Second, it argued that BHPIO’s stance on collective bargaining meant that union membership became irrelevant for those covered by individual agreements, so that

in effect BHPIO was unlawfully encouraging workers to stop being members of a union. In these two arguments the AWU alleged an attack on freedom of association, with BHPIO, in effect, offering incentives to its workers to stop being members of union and punishing those employees who did not accept those offers.

Third, the AWU argued that the conditions of employment governing award employees included a term of an award that prohibited BHPIO from contracting with any employee in a manner inconsistent with the award, and that the offering and making of individual agreements breached this term.

The AWU sought an interlocutory injunction restraining BHPIO from offering any further individual workplace agreements. Because that application was for interlocutory relief pending the final determination of the issues, the trial judge, Justice Gray, only needed to be satisfied that there was a serious question to be tried, and that the balance of convenience lay toward the grant o f an injunction.

His Honour held that it was strongly arguable that award employees had been injured in their employment, or at least had had their position altered to their prejudice. He was also satisfied that union membership was likely to decline among employees who signed an individual

35

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

agreement, and therefore it was seriously arguable that BHPIO’s conduct was designed to induce those employees to stop being union members. He also found that it was arguable that BHPIO was in breach of contract with respect to its award employees.

The Full Court granted leave to appeal this interlocutory decision. On the “injury” point, the Full Court found that what the legislation impliedly prohibited was intentional acts of an employer directed to an individual employee or prospective employee. In the present case, BHPIO had offered the new agreements indiscriminately to all of its employees, and any “injury” could not be said to result from any intentional act on its part; nor was there sufficient evidence that BHPIO had yet discriminated against those who did not sign the agreements.

Similarly, the Full Court was not satisfied that BHPIO was in breach of contract. It doubted that the relevant document incorporating the awards terms was meant to have the effect asserted by the AWU, and in any event express provisions are needed if an award is to be incorporated into an employment contract.

As to the alleged inducement to cease union membership, the Full Court rejected the approach taken by the trial judge of disregarding any absence o f intention on the part of the employer, stating that intention was an important element when characterising the conduct of the employer (viewed in the overall context). The Full Court was satisfied that, on the evidence, however, there remained a serious question to be tried on this point.

Accordingly, the Full Court was satisfied that an interlocutory injunction in the general terms ordered by the trial judge was appropriate and that the balance of convenience lay toward its grant. The Full Court noted, however, that the injunction might impair BHPIO’s competitiveness and prejudice those workers actually wishing to enter into individual agreements, and so varied the orders of the trial judge to alter the duration of the injunction and require that the substantive application be prosecuted as expeditiously as possible.

Bankruptcy - Validity o f bankruptcy notices - Whether Full Court bound by prior Full Court decision

Bendigo Bank Ltd v Williams (18 April 2000, Justices Moore, Kiefel and Lehane)

In this case the Full Court considered whether a bankruptcy notice in which interest is claimed on a judgment debt but which fails to state the statutory provision under which interest is claimed is a valid bankruptcy notice. The Bankruptcy Regulations contain the prescribed form of a bankruptcy notice, and this form includes a note that a document must be attached to the notice setting out the statutory provision under which interest is claimed.

Another Full Court had previously considered this issue in Kirk v Ashdown. In that case, the Full Court determined that such an omission from a bankruptcy notice is a mere “formal defect or irregularity” and causes “no substantial injustice”. Accordingly, by operation of section 306 of the Bankruptcy Act, the omission does not invalidate the notice.

In Bendigo Bank Ltd v Williams, the Full Court considered the legislative scheme and authorities governing the information that must be included in a bankruptcy notice.

36

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

In the majority judgment, Justices Moore and Lehane concluded that a complete failure to include a piece of information required by the prescribed form is not a mere “formal defect or irregularity”. The current prescribed form, which was inserted into the Bankruptcy Regulations in 1996, and the scheme of the Bankruptcy Act and Regulations, evince an intention on the part of Parliament and the Executive to provide a debtor with detailed information, enabling the debtor to know the precise basis on which the elements of the debt are claimed. Accordingly, the complete omission of the statutory provision under which

interest is claimed invalidates a bankruptcy notice.

Justices Moore and Lehane referred to the principles governing one Full Court not following another Full Court, contained in Transurban City Link Ltd v Allan. In application of those principles, their Honours observed that prudent creditors are unlikely to order their affairs in reliance on Kirk v Ashdown by consciously omitting information required by the prescribed form from bankruptcy notices.

In a dissenting judgment, Justice Kiefel did not consider a failure to specify the legal basis for interest claimed to be a substantive defect capable of invalidating a bankruptcy notice. Her Honour distinguished mere requirements o f form, such as those criteria referrable only to the regulations and its prescribed forms, and those made essential by the Act. The latter were identified as being requirements consistent with the objects and purposes of the Act, and were pre-requisites for a valid bankmptcy notice. The general scheme of the Act, and particularly the identification o f circumstances constituting an act of bankruptcy pursuant to section 40(1 )(g), did not identify the additional information as significant. A statutory stipulation that notices comply with the prescribed form could not elevate the status of all elements of the prescribed form, where some terms were not reflected by the purposes of the Act. In any event, the legal basis for interest was construed as being a minor detail, and not one the legislature would have envisaged as being pivotal to the validity of the notice. Her Honour applied the decision of the Full Court in Kirk v Ashdown.

The decision of the Full Court in Kirk v Ashdown is the subject of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The application before the High Court has been adjourned pending the hearing and determination by a specially constituted five member Full Court of the Federal Court o f three matters in which the same issue is raised: Royal & Sim Alliance

Workers' Compensation Ltd v Oakes, Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd v Lewis and Metropolitan Fire & Emergency Services Board v Zemlic.

Representative Proceedings - Validity Of Federal Court O f Australia Act Part IVA

Femcare Limited V Kerrie Bright (19 April 2000, Chief Justice Black, Justices Sackville and Emmett)

Ms Bright brought an action under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act as representative of a group of women who had undergone a sterilisation process, parts of which involved the use o f products manufactured by Femcare Limited. It was alleged that those products were defective and that each of the women had suffered damage as a result. Compensation was sought, in part, under Part V of the Trade Practices Act.

Part IVA provides a mechanism in which the separate claims of a group of people can be consolidated into a single action conducted by a representative of that group, provided that each of those claims arises out of “the same, similar or related circumstances” and gives rise

37

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

to “a substantial common issue of law or fact”. It is, in effect, a class action. Each of the people who comprise the represented group must be given the chance to “opt out” of the grouped proceeding, but if they do not then they effectively forfeit the ability to pursue an

individual action should the grouped proceeding fail. The nature of the scheme is such that consent of the individual group members is not required, and indeed some members of the group may be represented without their knowledge. On the other hand, the scheme grants to the Court a supervisory role in a number of important areas, such as settlement of the claim, the substitution of a more appropriate group representative, the adequacy o f the notice given o f the representative action and the hearing of individual claims and issues.

Femcare challenged the constitutional validity o f the Part IVA procedure, and at first instance Justice Lehane rejected that submission. On appeal, Femcare contended that Part IVA authorises the Court to conduct proceedings other than in accordance with judicial process, because group members might not receive notice of important determinations and otherwise have very little say in the conduct of their claim, and because the representative may be forced to pursue some claims that lack a reasonable basis. Femcare argued also that a representative proceeding would not involve the resolution of any justiciable “matter” or “controversy” (a Constitutional requirement for federal courts) where a group member had not received notice or was not even aware that they had a claim. Finally, Femcare asserted that by giving control to a single representative over the group members’ claims. Part IVA effected an acquisition o f property other than on just terms, contrary to the guarantee contained in section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

The Full Court did not agree and dismissed the appeal. In a joint judgment, it held that there was nothing in the authorities dealing with grouped proceedings to suggest that individual notice to those represented was an intrinsic part of the judicial process; nor is individual control over an action inherent in that process. Instead, the courts have been concerned to develop procedures designed to do justice, especially in those cases where individual attempts to enforce rights would not be feasible. In any event, the scheme includes mechanisms to preserve individuals’ freedom o f choice and to ensure that they do not suffer unfair disadvantage as a result of the nature of the proceeding.

Further, the Full Court held that even if a judicial “matter” requires awareness of the controversy, there is nothing unusual about judicial power being exercised in relation to controversies generated by one person on behalf of another. On the issue o f “hypothetical questions”, the Full Court noted that Part IVA requires the Court to be satisfied that each claim gives rises to a substantial common issue, and while this might prove difficult in some cases it did not make the exercise hypothetical.

The Full Court’s decision is the subject of an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal.

Human Rights - Disability discrimination - “Unjustifiable hardship ”

Hills Grammar School v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission & Ors (18 May 2000, Justice Tamberlin)

In this case the Court was asked to review a finding by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”) that the Hills Grammar School (“the School”) had unlawfully discriminated against Scarlett Finney, a prospective student. The Court did

38

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

not review the original decision on the merits, but considered whether the Commission had made an error of law.

Scarlett suffered from spina bifida, a spinal condition that can lead to reduced mobility, the need for a wheelchair, incontinence, and some learning difficulties. However the symptoms suffered by any particular person vary and the evidence was that Scarlett’s current disability at present was mild.

In 1997 Scarlett applied for enrolment in kindergarten at the School. Her application was rejected on the ground that the School did not have the resources to adequately meet her special needs. It was accepted by all parties that this refusal amounted to discrimination on the ground of Scarlett’s disability. The issue was whether that discrimination was unlawful.

Section 22(4) of the Disability Discrimination Act provides that it is not unlawful for a school to discriminate against a prospective student by refusing to admit them if the student’s admission would cause the school “unjustifiable hardship”. Before the Commission the

School argued it would need to spend about $1.1 million on renovations, and modify its distinctive curriculum, to accommodate the special needs of Scarlett. The School said that the “hardship” suffered by it should be assessed on the assumption that Scarlett would remain at the School until Year 12. The Commission rejected these submissions, and made findings

critical of the process the School had engaged in when assessing Scarlett’s application.

On the review application the Court determined the Commission had made no error of law. As to the length of Scarlett’s enrolment, the Court noted the Commission had referred to the uncertainties of life before predicting that Scarlett would remain at the School until Year 6. It was considered appropriate for the Commission to make this estimate, and assess the level of

hardship against this time-span. That the School offered education from kindergarten to Year 12 was not determinative of the issue.

As to the financial hardship alleged, the School’s estimate had not been based on Scarlett’s particular circumstances. Many of the proposed modifications were found by the Commission to be unnecessary. The Commission’s finding that the cost of modifications would amount to “a small fraction” of $1.1 million was based on an assessment of the level of Scarlett’s

disability and was supported by evidence. Nor was the fact that the Commission did not give a precise dollar figure an error.

The Commission’s reference to the admission application process, and the way in which parties should deal with circumstances such as these, did not amount to taking an irrelevant matter into account. The circumstances of the School’s refusal were part of the overall

context of the case, and it was appropriate for an administrative tribunal such as the Commission to recommend approaches that could avoid disputes in the future.

Finally, as to the adequacy of the reasons given by the Commission, the Court noted that the reasons of an administrative decision maker are there to inform, and should not be reviewed with a fine tooth comb. Reasons do not need to consider every piece of evidence, but must illustrate the essential reasoning process undertaken by a decision maker. The reasons given by the Commission did this.

39

Chapter S - The work o f the Court

Practice and procedure — Vexatious litigant

Skyring V Ramsey (9 June 2000, Justices Ryan, O ’Connor and Weinberg)

This was an appeal against an order by Justice Sackville under Order 21 rule 1(1) of the Federal Court Rules. His Honour had found that the appellant had “habitually and persistently”, and without any reasonable ground, instituted vexatious proceedings in the Court. The consequence of that finding was that the appellant was disqualified from instituting or continuing legal proceedings in the Court without first obtaining leave.

In making his decision, Justice Sackville had had regard to a number o f proceedings commenced by the appellant. The common feature o f these proceedings was an assertion by the appellant that paper currency or coinage in use in Australia is invalid or that the legislation authorising the issue of paper currency or coinage is invalid. The appellant’s pursuit of judicial recognition, in some form, of that assertion had ranged over some 15 years o f litigation in a number o f forums, including the High Court. Justice Deane’s rejection of that assertion in 1985 (affirmed on appeal to the Full High Court in the same year) rendered any future attempt to litigate the issue in the Federal Court entirely hopeless.

However, as Justice Sackville found, the appellant had continued to institute and prosecute litigation, predicated on the same assertion. Much of that litigation has been instituted in the Federal Court. His Honour concluded that by initiating that litigation, the appellant had brought himself within Order 21 rule 1 by “habitually and persistently”, and without reasonable grounds, instituting proceedings which were correctly characterised as vexatious.

The Full Court upheld the conclusion reached by Justice Sackville. The Court also discussed whether any future argument based on section 36(2) of the Reserve Bank Act 1959 would be sufficiently distinct from that which had previously been rejected by the High Court in relation to section 36(1) o f that Act, to enable the appellant to have some prospect of success, despite the High Court’s ruling. The Court’s conclusion was that any proceedings instituted by the appellant in reliance on section 36(2) of the Act could not succeed.

The orders of Justice Sackville affirmed on appeal, do not absolutely preclude the appellant from recourse to the Court in the future. They simply make any such recourse subject to leave first being obtained from a judge, thereby ensuring that the resources o f the Court and of prospective respondents are not unnecessarily expended on revisiting contentions which have been conclusively rejected.

Management of the workload of the Court

Caseflow Management

One of the key caseflow management principles is the establishment of a time goal v/ithin which cases will be disposed. A related principle is the implementation of practice and procedure designed to dispose of cases within the time goal.

The Court has previously reported that it had set the period of eighteen months from commencement as the goal within which it should dispose of at least 98 per cent of its cases. During the year under review the Court reconsidered this percentage and reduced it to 85 per

40

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

cent. The reduction was due to an increase in long, complex and difficult cases (including native title matters), and a decrease in less complex matters, such as winding up and related applications under the Corporation Law.

When considering the time goal, the number of native title matters now before the Court was of particular significance. In this regard, the Court has set a time goal, from filing to disposition, of three years for its native title matters. For many matters this may not be achieved because o f their complexity, the issues involved, the number of parties and the location of the native title claim. In addition, in some matters the trial Judge’s decision may be appealed to a Full Court, and that Full Court decision itself may then be appealed to the

High Court of Australia. The time goal, however, will ensure that all parties involved in native title litigation will be aware, from the commencement of proceedings, that their cases will be actively case managed through all stages of the litigation.

Notwithstanding the revised time goal, the Court expects that the majority of cases will be disposed of well within the eighteen month period, with only particularly large and/or difficult legal and/or factual cases requiring more time. Indeed, many cases need to be disposed quickly after commencement and the Court’s practice and procedure facilitates this. During the year, 64.3 per cent of cases were disposed of in less than six months.

During the five year period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 2000, 88.3 per cent of matters were completed in less than eighteen months, 81.1 per cent in less than twelve months and 64.8 per cent in less than six months (see Figure 6.4 on page 133). By focussing upon achievement of

its time goal, the Court has increased the percentage of cases disposed of in less than eighteen months. Figure 6.4a on page 134 shows the percentage o f matters completed within eighteen months over the last five reporting years. The figure shows a steady rise leading to 90.8 per cent of matters in 1999-2000 being completed within eighteen months.

Figure 6.4a also shows that in 1995-96, 3,879 matters were completed compared to 4,883 matters in 1996-97 - an increase in the completion rate of 26 per cent. In 1997-98, 7,357 matters were completed, an increase of 51 per cent over the previous reporting year. For the current reporting year, 6,613 matters were completed - a decrease of 12.4 per cent from the 7,546 completed in the 1998-99 reporting year.

As is mentioned elsewhere in the report, bankruptcy and related cases are included in the total completed figure from 16 December 1996.

A key factor in the ability of the Court to maintain its disposal rate is the mix of cases. If the number of bankruptcy cases were to increase or decrease substantially then it could be expected, if the rest o f the case mix remained unchanged, for the disposal rate to rise or fall (as the case may be). This is because bankruptcy matters, the majority o f which are dealt with by registrars in sequestration proceedings, are usually completed in less than six months.

However, working against such a trend may be another major change in the case mix, such as the large increase in native title matters.

The mix o f cases will therefore affect the Court’s ability to meet its goal of disposing o f 85 per cent of matters within 18 months. The Court may need to further revise its goal in the light of changes to the incoming workload and the resources available to dispose o f that workload.

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

The Court believes that the increased disposal rates for reporting years 1996-97 onwards is, in a large measure, attributable to the Individual Docket System and associated practice and procedural reforms. Under this system, a matter will ordinarily stay with the same judge from commencement until disposition, leading to greater familiarity with, and management of, the proceeding. The key elements of the Individual Docket System are set out in the Court’s Annual Report for 1998-99. The Australian Law Reform Commission, in its report Managing Justice - A review o f the federal justice system (ALRC 89), observed that “there was

unanimous positive feedback in consultations and submissions about the operation of the individual docket system. This is a significant accolade”.

By enhancing the Court’s ability to provide greater efficiency and flexibility in setting dates for interlocutory applications, short hearings and trials, the Individual Docket System appears to be contributing to the increase in the number o f matters completed by the Court within its

time goal of eighteen months. Figure 6.4a shows that 90.8 per cent of matters were completed within eighteen months o f commencement in the reporting year, compared to 83.2 per cent in 1995-96 and 90.6 per cent in 1998-99.

Appellate jurisdiction

The Court’s appellate workload is substantial and has increased significantly in recent years. The number of appeals to the Full Court has increased from 282 in 1995-96 to 407 in 1999-2000 (see Figure 6.9 on page 142 for comparative filings). Towards the end of each calendar year, the

Court publishes its program o f Full Court sittings for the following year. In the 2000 calendar year, four Full Court sittings have been programmed for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin. Once appeal books are prepared by the parties, an appeal can usually be listed for the next scheduled Full Court sitting in the capital city where the matter was heard at first instance. During the reporting year, 34 special Full Court hearings (totalling 49.75 hearing days) were held to enable the early disposition of urgent appeals. On occasions when matters have been sufficiently urgent, it has been necessary to either convene an urgent sitting of a Full Court in a capital city other than that in which the case was originally heard or use video-conferencing facilities.

Delivery of judgments

In the reporting period, 1,877 Full Court and single judge judgments were delivered. This figure includes both written judgments and judgments delivered ‘ex tempore’ on the day of the hearing. When decisions are published, they are immediately made available to the parties

and the media.

The Court provides electronic copies of judgments to legal publishers and other subscribers. Judgments are e-mailed to subscribers of this service several times a day as they are indexed. At the end of the reporting year, this e-mail service had 14 external users.

Judgments are also available on the Internet at the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) site. These judgments are accessible directly from the Federal Court’s home page. The availability of judgments electronically assists the speedy dissemination o f the Court's judgments to the legal and wider community.

The nature of the Court's workload means that a substantial proportion of the matters coming before the Court will go to trial and that the decision o f the trial judge will be reserved at the

42

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

conclusion of the trial. The nature of the Court's appellate work also means that a substantial proportion of appeals require reserved judgments.

The Court has set the period of three months from the date a judgment is reserved within which it should deliver the judgment. The degree to which the Court is able to meet this goal will depend on the complexity of each case in question and other issues, such as the pressure

of the business of the Court. For the reporting period, the median time between reserving and delivery o f judgments, for single judge matters and Full Court appeals, was 31 days. Some 53 per cent of reserved judgments in matters in the Court’s original jurisdiction were delivered within 30 days. In the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, over 55 per cent of reserved judgments were delivered within 60 days. It is important to note that these figures do not take into account the significant number of single judge and Full Court judgments delivered on the day of the hearing. Judgments involving judicial registrars, registrars and Industrial Relations Court o f Australia matters were excluded from the above calculations.

Any party having a concern about delay in delivery of a reserved judgment may direct an inquiry to the President of the appropriate Bar Association or Law Society. The President then refers the inquiry to the Chief Justice for attention without disclosing which of the parties has raised the matter.

Workload Trends

General trends

In previous Annual Reports the Court reported upon a number of factors which affected its workload. Some o f those factors continued in the reporting year and are set out below.

• Since 26 May 1997, matters which would have been filed in the Industrial Relations Court of Australia are filed in the Court. In the reporting year, 273 workplace relations matters were filed in the Court. In addition, of the 381 matters transferred from the Industrial Relations Court of Australia on 26 May 1997, 8 were still current.

• The High Court’s decision in Re Wakim Ex parte McNally & Anor meant that the Court could no longer hear Corporations Law matters unless they relate to a Territory Corporation or fall within the pendent or associated jurisdiction of the Court. The loss of jurisdiction led to a dramatic reduction in the number of Corporations Law matters commenced in the Court. Prior to the decision there was already a decline in Corporations Law matters, mainly due to the large filing and other fees introduced in late 1996.

Figure 6.5 on page 135 sets out details of the Corporations Law matters filed in the Court since 1995-96. •

• Since December 1996, the Insolvency and Trustee Service, Australia, has been responsible for a number bankruptcy administration functions previously undertaken by officers of the Court. One consequence of this change is that bankruptcy statistics, formally recorded in their own database, are now recorded in the Court’s general

applications database, the Federal Court Case Management System (“FEDCAMS”).

43

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

• Since 30 September 1998, all new applications for a determination of native title (including a revised determination) or compensation must be made to the Court. On the same date, all the applications that had been made to the NNT Tribunal were transferred to the Court. At 30 June 2000, 99 new native title matters had been commenced in the Court, and 605 of the 794 matters transferred from the NNT Tribunal remained current.

In addition, the following factors in the reporting year impacted upon the Court’s workload and will continue to do so in future.

• On 13 April 2000 the Court was given jurisdiction under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act (“HREOC Act”) to hear and determine complaints of unlawful discrimination made under the Sex Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act and Disability Discrimination Act. These complaints were previously dealt with by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As at 30 June 2000 there had been 103 applications made to the Court under the HREOC Act.

• The Federal Magistrates Court was established on 23 December 1999 to deal with less complex matters arising under certain federal laws. It has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court in relation to matters under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, Bankruptcy Act, F1REOC Act and Part V of the Trade Practices Act. The Federal Court may also transfer certain appeals from the Administrative Appeals

Tribunal to the Federal Magistrates Court. Each court may transfer a proceeding to the other. As the Federal Magistrates Court did not commence operations until 23 June 2000, it had no impact on the Federal Court’s workload during the reporting year. However, the Court expects that in future years a greater proportion o f its workload will consist of complex cases as simpler matters are commenced in, or transferred to, the Federal Magistrates Court. This will have an impact on the Court’s ability to meet its goal of disposing o f 85 per cent of matters within 18 months.

Incoming work

Table 6.1 on page 129 is a summary of workload statistics for the reporting years 1995-96 to date. The table shows that 6,276 cases were commenced in 1999-2000, a decrease of 1,769 compared to 1998-99, when 8,045 cases were commenced. The decline in filings between the two reporting years was due principally to a reduction in bankruptcy (478 fewer filings) and

Corporations Law (662) matters, and the one-off effect of 794 native title matters transferred to the Court from the NNT Tribunal on 30 September 1998 pursuant to provisions of the Native Title Amendment Act.

In last year’s annual report the Court commented on the apparent decline in incoming matters caused by the reduction in Corporations Law filings and the effect of one-off transfers, such as the 381 workplace relations matters transferred to the Court from the Industrial Relations Court o f Australia in 1997. The Court, however, concluded that the underlying trend for the reporting period 1995-96 to 1998-99 was that its workload increased in each reporting year, with the exception of 1995-96.

Similarly, if the number of filings in the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 reporting years are considered and adjusted in light of the factors noted above, then the incoming workload of the Court in 1999-2000 was in fact 147 matters more than in 1998-99.

44

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Matters completed

Table 6.1 allows for a comparison between the number o f matters commenced and the number completed. The number of matters (including bankruptcy matters) completed during the report year was 6,613, as against 7,546 in the previous reporting year. This decline in completed matters was against the trend, commencing in 1995-96, o f the number of matters completed increasing in every reporting year. If completed Corporations Law, bankruptcy and native title matters are excluded, there was a decrease of only eight matters completed in the reporting year compared to 1998-99.

Matters on hand

The total number of matters on hand in the reporting year was 4,666 (see Table 6.1), which is 165 fewer than for the previous reporting year. This figure can be explained by the decline in the number of current Corporations Law and bankruptcy matters filed in the reporting year. That is, a decline from 239 to 42 in the number of Corporations Law matters, and from 1,181 to 1,150 in bankruptcy matters. However, if Corporations Law, bankruptcy and native title matters are excluded from the total number of matters on hand, then the balance of 2,695 as

at 30 June 2000 is 129 higher than it was at 30 June 1999 (see the last section of Table 6.1).

Appellate workload

As previously reported, the trend has been for the number of Full Court appeals to increase in all reporting years since 1995-96, with the largest percentage increase of 27 per cent occurring between the reporting years 1997-98 (330 appeals) and 1998-99 (419 appeals).

In this reporting year, 407 appeals were made to the Full Court (see Figure 6.9 on page 143). This was 12 appeals, or 2.9 per cent, less than the number of appeals in 1998-99. The number of Full Court appeals is dependent on many factors including the number of first instance matters disposed of in a reporting year, the mixture and the types o f matters filed in the Court, and whether the jurisdiction of the Court is enhanced or reduced by legislative changes or decisions of the High Court of Australia as to the constitutionality of legislation. For example, in 1998-99 there were 95 migration, 34 bankruptcy and 20 Corporations Law appeals to the Full Court, whereas in 1999-2000 there were 146 migration, 40 bankruptcy and 3 Corporations Law appeals.

Although it is difficult to predict future appellate workload, the Court believes on the basis of its current jurisdiction and workload mix that the number of Full Court appeals is likely to remain around 400 matters a year, or to increase progressively above that figure in future

reporting years.

Increases in the number of Full Court hearings, which are usually constituted by three and sometimes five judges, add to the workload of the Court and its ability to dispose of first instance work. Judges sitting on Full Courts may not be available for first instance work, or

have less time to devote to their own individual docket workload.

The Court will continue to monitor the effects on its workload of an increase in the number of appeals and, as necessary or relevant, introduce changes to appellate practice and procedure

45

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

to ameliorate or limit these effects, so that the Court continues to deal with its appellate and first instance work in an efficient, effective and timely manner.

Age o f pending caseload

The comparative age of matters pending as at 30 June for the reporting year and the four previous reporting years is set out in Table 3.1 below.

In looking at Table 3.1, consideration needs to be given to the effect in 1999 and 2000 of the 794 native title matters transferred to the Court on 30 September 1998. At 30 June 1999 the 3,650 pending matters included 726 of the native title transfers - this distorted the trend, evident from the reporting year ending 30 June 1997, for the Court’s pending matters to reduce. If comparisons are to be properly made with previous years, then the 726 matters should not be considered in the 3,650 pending matters. If they are not included then the 2,924 pending matters at 30 June 1999 is less than the pending matters at 30 June 1998.

At 30 June 2000, 605 of the transferred native title matters were current. As in the previous reporting year, this distorts the pending workload. It is also responsible for a significant increase in the number of matters over 18 months old. If the 605 matters are not included in the 3,516 pending matters, then the balance o f 2,911 pending matters is less than the equivalent figure at 30 June 1999 and the trend for the number of pending matters to decline continues in the reporting year, albeit more slowly than in previous years.

Since 1997 the number o f cases over 18 months old has been decreasing. However, at 30 June 2000 the number o f cases over 18 months old was 1,325 - a significant increase from the 753 cases over 18 months old as at 30 June 1999. This increase is due to the inclusion of 605 native title matters transferred to the Court on 30 September 1998. If these matters are not included in the total, then the number of matters over 18 months old is 720, 33 fewer than

at 30 June 1999. It is appropriate that the transferred native title matters not be included in the cases over 18 months old for two reasons. First, in light of the issues involved, the number of parties, the complexity and the remote location o f most native title claims, the Court has set a separate time goal from filing to disposition of three years for native title matters. Second, although the matters transferred to the Court were deemed to be filed in the Court on and from 30 September 1998, the majority continued to be substantively under the control of the NNT Tribunal with regards to mediation, the registration test and other legislative requirements of the Native Title Act.

The Court will continue to focus on reducing its pending case load and the number of matters over 18 months old by avoiding and reducing delay, and introducing appropriate practice and procedure reforms and Rule changes to assist, enhance and improve its case management.

46

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Table 3.1

Current matters (including Corporations Law matters) - historical

Age of matters Current as at 30-Jun-96

Current as at 30-Jun-97

Current as at 30-Jun-98

Current as at 30-Jun-99

Current as at 30-Jun-OO

under 6 months 1,444 1,427 1,196 1,257 1,161

6-12 months 754 729 631 1,378 717

12-18 months 769 390 391 262 313

Under

18 months 2,967 2,546 2,218 2,897 2,191

18-24 months 232 256 268 197 843

over 24 months 588 825 582 556 482

over

18 months 820 1,081 850 753 1,325

Total 3,787 3.627 3,068 3,650 3,516

(These figures do not include bankruptcy matters consisting of creditors petitions and related applications.)

A collection of graphs and statistics concerning the workload of the Court is contained in Appendix 6 to this report commencing on page 128.

Migration matters

Figure 6.7a on page 140 sets out details o f the Court’s workload in matters concerning decisions under the Migration Act for the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000. The migration workload of the Court, although national in nature, is concentrated in New South Wales, Victoria and lately in Western Australia. In 1995-96, 331 matters under the Migration Act were filed, of which 169 were filed in New South Wales, 153 in Victoria, 8 in Queensland

and one in South Australia. In the reporting year, 829 Migration Act matters were filed, of which 569 were in New South Wales, 227 in Victoria, 13 in Western Australia and the remaining 20 in South Australia, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, in 1999-2000 there were 116 migration applications filed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (see Table 6.4 on page 146), of which 89 were filed in Western Australia, 15 in South Australia and the remaining 12 in New South Wales (7), Victoria (1), Queensland (2) and the Australian Capital Territory (2).

Migration Act matters also form an important and sensitive part of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. In 1995-96 there were 282 appeals to the Full Court (see Figure 6.9 on page 142), of which 23 or 8.16 per cent concerned the Migration Act. This can be contrasted with

the reporting year, where 146 or 35.9 per cent of the 407 Full Court appeals were Migration

47

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

Act matters. Most o f the 146 Migration Act appeals to the Full Court were filed in New South Wales (115 matters), Victoria (13 matters) and Western Australia (7).

As noted above, in 1999-2000 there were 89 matters under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act filed in Western Australia which related to decisions under the Migration Act. This is a significant increase from previous years, which may in turn lead to an increase in number o f appeals filed in the Western Australia registry. If such an increase occurs, it may be necessary to constitute additional Full Courts from judges outside of Western Australia.

Native title matters

Native title workload

The role of the Court in native title matters was significantly changed when amendments to the Native Title Act commenced on 30 September 1998. The amendments established a new regime where the Court has responsibility for the mediation and determination of native title applications. To perform its new functions the Court was given a wide range o f powers in relation to the management and resolution of native title applications.

Under the new regime, applications are filed in the Court and not the NNT Tribunal. Applications that satisfy the Court’s requirements are referred to the NNT Tribunal, which applies a registration test to determine whether the native title applicant has the right to negotiate. The NNT Tribunal will also mediate applications referred to it by the Court.

When the amendments commenced, 794 native title applications before the NNT Tribunal were taken to be filed with the Court. In addition, at that time some 65 matters were already before the Court having been referred by the NNT Tribunal under section 74 o f the old Native Title Act. As at 30 June 2000, the Court had before it 779 native title and related applications.

The reduction in native title matters since 30 September 1998 is due in part to active judicial case management which has identified overlapping claimant applications. This has led to an substantial number of claimant applications being amended, combined, withdrawn or discontinued. Leaving aside applications for the review of decisions by the Native Title Registrar and for interlocutory matters, the consolidation and streamlining of native title matters means that there are, in practical terms, 546 claimant applications being heard by the Court. The case management of native title matters has also meant, despite the reduction in the number of matters, that the Court’s native title workload will increase, at least for the next 4 to 5 years, as matters become ready for, or go to, trial.

Time span of active caseload

The average time span from filing to disposition for native title matters determined by consent is 3 years and 5 months, and for matters determined by a trial judge it is 4 to 5 years. As previously mentioned, the Court has set a time goal of three years from filing to disposition for native title matters. The Court expects this time goal will be achieved through the active case management o f matters, and the implementation and refinement of the Court’s initiatives set out below.

48

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

National allocation of matters

The Court has a national allocation protocol for the case management and listing of native title matters. The protocol provides that each case is allocated provisionally to a Judge (“the Provisional Docket Judge”) who, with the assistance o f a Deputy Registrar, is responsible for initially managing the case. The provisional allocation

usually continues while the matter is being considered for registration by the Native Title Registrar, and, where relevant, while it is in active mediation with the NNT Tribunal. When the matter requires substantive action ( such as the hearing of a contentious interlocutory application), or is ready for a main hearing, the matter is referred to the Court’s Native Title Secretariat for substantive allocation to a trial judge.

Court initiatives

The Court has continued to introduce various initiatives in relation to the management of native title matters. These include the following:

• regular review hearings by the Provisional Docket Judge, conducted approximately every 3 months, for the purpose of reducing the number of times that parties need to appear before the Court; • the active use of video-conferencing and telephone conferences for case

management; • a coordinated approach to the listing of matters to ensure that overlapping or related proceedings are heard at the same time; • the combining of applications; • the use of case management or mediation conferences at discrete times during a

proceeding, particularly prior to notification; • the delegation of directions hearings to the Court’s Registrars in appropriate cases; • consideration o f alternatives, where appropriate, to the taking of evidence where

the evidence is of a non-contentious nature; • the recruitment of experienced staff as Deputy Registrars for Native Title and native title case managers who can assist the Provisional Docket Judge in the

review hearing process, and help applicants and other parties to a native title proceeding comply with the practice and procedure of the Court; • the review and amendment of Order 78 “Native Title Proceedings” of the Federal Court Rules to remove ambiguity and uncertainty, and assist the

management o f cases; • the preparation, under the auspices of the Court's Native Title Coordination Committee, of notes to assist practitioners, unrepresented applicants and other interested persons to understand the Court’s practice and procedure in native

title cases;

• the convening of native title user groups by the Provisional Docket Judges in each State and Territory - in general terms, the aim of each native title user group is to allow the Court to explain its procedures to the people who use the Court, and to allow the users to give the Court feedback about their requirements and the need for any procedures to be improved;

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

• in complex multi-party cases, ensuring that at an early stage a party list is settled and that parties are allocated to appropriate and manageable groups.

Evidence

Judges o f the Court consider it appropriate, and in keeping with the requirements of the Native Title Act, for at least part of a native title hearing to be conducted in the area which is the subject of the native title claim. In this regard, the Court is developing considerable expertise in dealing with the logistical requirements o f remote locality hearings.

Native title cases

The transitional provisions of the amended Native Title Act and a number o f the provisions o f the Native Title Act itself have been the subject o f judicial consideration. Judgments of the Court have clarified:

• the administration o f the registration test (Bullen v State o f Western Australia, Strickland v Native Title Registrar and State o f Western Australia v Native Title Registrar & Ors); • the requirements for amending an application (Donnelly v Minister fo r Land & Water

Conservation); • the level of authorisation required for the filing and amendment o f an application {Moran v Minister fo r Land and Water Conservation and Drury v State o f Western Australia)', and • the notice requirements of the Native Title Act and the extent of the duty and discretion

of the Native Title Registrar (Robert Charles Bropho v The State o f Western Australia).

During the reporting year there was one judgment on the determination of native title - the first concerning land in and around a major town. The trial in Myra Hayes & Ors v Northern Territory> o f Australia was held in Alice Springs and, at the request of the applicants and respondents, a number of sites were visited in the course of the 35 day hearing. In its judgment the Court determined that the applicants held native title in respect of a number of Crown Land allotments around the town of Alice Springs.

On 3 March 2000 the Full Court of the Federal Court delivered its judgment in Western Australia v Ward and Northern Territory v Ward (the Miriuwung Gajerrong appeals). The Full Court considered the common law approach to the construction of native title, the application o f this approach to the facts of the case, and the extinguishment of native title at common law. A summary of the judgment is on page 32.

A Full Court heard the appeal in Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria in August 1999. The principal issues to be decided include the nature and extent o f the connection required to establish native title, and the weight which ought to be afforded to the various forms of evidence presented to the trial judge. The Full Court’s decision is reserved.

In the matter of Wilson v Anderson, a Full Court considered whether native title could coexist with grazing leases in western New South Wales. The matter before the Full Court arose out of an application on behalf of the Euahlay-I Dixon Clan for a determination of native title in respect o f land in the Western Division of New South Wales. The Full Court found it

50

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

unnecessary to answer the question of whether native title could coexist with grazing leases, as such a question must be addressed on a case by case basis.

Matters transferred to and from the Court

Matters may be remitted or transferred to the Court under:

Judiciary Act 1903, section 44 Cross-vesting Scheme Acts Corporations Law Federal Magistrates Act 1999.

During 1999-2000, 58 matters were remitted or transferred to the Court:

49 from the High Court of Australia 2 from the Family Court of Australia 6 from State or Territory Supreme Courts 1 from State District or County Courts

Matters may be transferred from the Court under:

Federal Court o f Australia Act 1976 Jurisdiction o f Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Bankruptcy Act 1966

Trade Practices Act 1974 Corporations Act 1989 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

During 1999-2000, 57 matters were transferred from the Court:

3 to the Family Court of Australia; 46 to State or Territory Supreme Courts; and 6 to State District or County Courts

2 to State or Territory Local or Magistrates Courts.

Cross-Vesting Monitoring Committee

The Chief Justice o f the Federal Court is the Convenor of a body known as the Cross-Vesting Monitoring Committee. The other members of the committee, usually judges, are the nominees of the Chief Justices of the Family Court of Australia and the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories.

The purposes of the Cross-Vesting Monitoring Committee are:

• to monitor and compile statistics on the operation of the cross-vesting scheme; • to identify problems in the operation of the scheme and to consider how they may be resolved; and • to consider, in the light of the experience of the operation of the scheme, possible

improvements to it.

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

The Cross-Vesting Monitoring Committee prepares a report each year for the Council of Chief Justices.

Assisted Dispute Resolution

The Court’s program of Assisted Dispute Resolution (ADR), which commenced in 1987, is o f the type described as a court-annexed mediation program. The only matters dealt with in the program arise out of proceedings in the Court. Mediations are normally conducted by the Court’s registrars who have been trained as mediators. However, when parties wish to use the services of appropriately qualified external mediators, the Court facilitates their doing so. Figure 3.1 on page 53 sets out the number of matters referred to mediators during the period

1995-96 to 1999-2000. The program has proved popular, with a total o f 2,030 matters referred to mediation since its commencement in 1987. Of that total, 1,296 were referred in the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000, or an average of 260 referrals per reporting year.

The types of matters referred can relate to most matters in the Court’s jurisdiction. However, the majority of referrals have been in matters concerning trade practices, intellectual property, native title, taxation, workplace relations, bankruptcy and admiralty.

Prior to 17 April 1997, the program was based upon parties consenting to mediation. However, from that date, section 53 A of the Federal Court of Australia Act was amended to provide for non-consensual mediation.

With the introduction o f the Individual Docketing System, greater emphasis has been put on the identification, at an early stage, of cases suitable for assisted dispute resolution. In the reporting year, 312 matters were referred compared with 347 in 1998-99.

The settlement rates of cases referred to mediation since the commencement of the program in 1987 has averaged 55 per cent. Settlement rates at mediation should not, however, be the sole criteria by which the program is evaluated. Many matters which do not settle proceed to trial with issues better defined, or on the basis o f agreed facts settled by the parties with the assistance of the mediator. In some instances, the parties also agree that the Court should only be asked to determine liability or quantum. These types of results mean savings in costs to the

parties and the Court.

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Figure 3.1

Assisted Dispute Resolution (ADR) 1995-96 to 1999-2000 (matters referred for mediation)

350 T

300 --

200 - -

100 - -

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

External mediation

Eight matters were referred to external mediators in 1995-96, 70 in 1996-97, 28 in 1997-98, 76 in 1998-99 and 56 in the reporting year. These figures are included in Figure 3.1.

Complaints about the Court’s processes

During the reporting year, 24 complaints were made to the Court in relation to its procedures, rules, forms, timeliness or courtesy to users. This figure does not include complaints about the merits of a decision by a Judge or the Court, which may only be dealt with by way of

appeal.

3.3 MANAGEMENT OF CASES AND DECIDING DISPUTES BY TRIBUNALS

Introduction

The Court provides operational support to the Australian Competition Tribunal, Copyright Tribunal, Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal and Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal. This support includes the provision of registry services to accept and process documents for tribunal proceedings, collect tribunal fees (where payable), list matters for bearings, and to otherwise assist the management and determination of proceedings. The

Court also provides the infrastructure for tribunal hearings, including hearing rooms, furniture, equipment and transcript services.

Chapter 3 — The work o f the Court

A summary of the Court’s performance in relation to this output group is set out in Table 5.1 on page 126.

Australian Competition Tribunal

Functions and powers

The Australian Competition Tribunal was established under the Trade Practices Act to hear applications for the review o f

• determinations by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) in relation to the grant or revocation of authorisations which permit conduct or arrangements that would otherwise be prohibited under the Trade Practices Act for being anti-competitive; • decisions by the Minister or the ACCC in relation to allowing third parties to have

access to the services o f essential facilities o f national significance, such a electricity grids or gas pipelines; and • determinations by the ACCC in relation to notices issued under section 93 of the Trade Practices Act in relation to exclusive dealing.

A review by the Tribunal is a re-hearing or a re-consideration of a matter, and it may perform all the functions and exercise all the powers of the original decision-maker for the purposes of the review. It can affirm, set aside or vary the decision under review.

The Minister may also refer to the Tribunal, for inquiry and report, issues concerning certain practices by ocean cargo carriers.

Practice and procedure

Hearings before the Tribunal normally take place in public. Parties may be represented by a lawyer. The procedure o f the Tribunal is, subject to the Trade Practices Act and regulations, within the discretion of the Tribunal. The Trade Practices Regulations 1974 set out some procedural requirements in relation to the making and hearing of review applications.

Proceedings are to be conducted with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition, as the requirements of the Act and a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permit. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence.

Membership and staff

The Tribunal consists o f a President and such number of Deputy Presidents and other members as are appointed by the Governor-General.

During the reporting year, the President of the Tribunal was Justice von Doussa and the Deputy Presidents were Justices Goldberg and Hely.

The Registrar and Deputy Registrars of the Tribunal are all officers of the Federal Court. Their details are set out in Appendix 3 on page 119.

54

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Activities

The business of the Tribunal during the year consisted entirely o f review proceedings. No matters were referred by the Minister for inquiry and report.

Five review proceedings were current at the start of the reporting year. During the year, one proceeding was commenced and five matters were finalised. One matter is pending.

No complaints were made to the Tribunal about its procedures, rules, forms, timeliness or courtesy to users during the reporting year.

Copyright Tribunal

Functions and powers

The Copyright Tribunal was established under the Copyright Act 1968 to hear applications dealing with five main types of matters:

• to inquire and determine the amount of royalty payable in respect of the recording o f musical works; • to fix royalties or equitable remuneration in respect of compulsory licences; • to arbitrate disputes in relation to the terms of existing and proposed licensing schemes; • to deal with applications for the grant of licences; and • to set terms for the use of copyright material for the services of the Commonwealth or a

State or Territory.

Practice and procedure

Hearings before the Tribunal normally take place in public. Parties may be represented by a lawyer. The procedure o f the Tribunal is, subject to the Copyright Act and regulations, within the discretion of the Tribunal. The Copyright Tribunal (Procedure) Regulations 1969 set out procedural requirements for the making and hearing of applications.

Proceedings are to be conducted with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition, as the requirements of the Act and a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permit. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence.

Membership and staff

The Tribunal consists of a President and such number of Deputy Presidents and other members as are appointed by the Governor-General.

During the reporting year, the President of the Tribunal was Justice Burchett and the Deputy President was Justice Finkelstein.

The Secretary of the Tribunal is an officer of the Federal Court. Details o f the Secretary are set out in Appendix 3 on page 119.

55

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

Activities

Four proceedings were current at the start of the reporting year. During the year, three proceedings were commenced, one matter was finalised and three stated cases arising from two matters were referred to the Federal Court. Six matters (including the two matters in which stated cases were referred to the Federal Court) are pending.

No complaints were made to the Tribunal about its procedures, rules, forms, timeliness or courtesy to users during the reporting year.

Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal

Functions and powers

The Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal was established under the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1974 to hear and determine appeals by persons who have been

• convicted of a service offence, or • who have been acquitted of a service offence on the ground of unsoundness of mind (“a prescribed acquittal”)

by a court martial or a Defence Force Magistrate under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.

The Tribunal may dismiss or allow the appeal, substitute for a conviction a prescribed acquittal, or, if satisfied the appellant was unfit to stand trial, quash the conviction or prescribed acquittal and direct that the appellant be kept in strict custody until the pleasure of the Governor-General is known.

Practice and procedure

Flearings before the Tribunal normally take place in public. Parties may be represented by a lawyer. The procedure o f the Tribunal is within its discretion.

Membership and staff

The Tribunal consists of a President, a Deputy President and such other members as are appointed by the Governor-General.

During the reporting year the President of the Tribunal was Justice Gallop.

The Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal are both officers of the Federal Court. Their details are set out in Appendix 3 on page 119.

Activities

The Tribunal dealt with one appeal during the year.

No proceedings were current at the start of the reporting year. During the year, one proceeding was commenced and finalised. No matters are pending.

56

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

No complaints were made to the Tribunal about its procedures, rules, forms, timeliness or courtesy to users during the reporting year.

Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Functions and powers

The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal was established under the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 to deal with disciplinary offences under the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations. In addition, the responsible Minister may refer to the Tribunal for inquiry and report a matter relating to the Australian Federal Police.

Practice and procedure

Hearings before the Tribunal normally take place in public. Parties may be represented by a lawyer. Proceedings are to be conducted with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition, as the requirements of the Act and a proper consideration of the matters

before the Tribunal permit. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence.

Membership and staff

The Tribunal consists o f a President and such number of Deputy Presidents and other members as are appointed by the Governor-General.

During the reporting year, the President of the Tribunal was Justice Whitlam and the Deputy President was Justice Olney.

The Registrar and Deputy Registrars of the Tribunal are all officers of the Federal Court. Their details are set out in Appendix 3 on page 119.

Activities

No disciplinary proceedings were current at the start of the reporting year. During the year, no proceedings were commenced. Nor were any matters referred by the Minister for inquiry and report.

No complaints were made to the Tribunal about its operations during the reporting year.

3.4 SERVICES PROVIDED TO GOVERNMENT

Introduction

This output group refers to the Court’s responsibility for maintaining an effective relationship with the Attorney-General ’ s Department and other government departments, and its accountability to the Parliament in relation to its effective management of resources. This includes such activities as the Court’s appearances at Senate Estimates hearings, drafting

prompt, accurate responses to Parliamentary questions, Ministerial correspondence, and responding to requests for comment on proposed legislation. These activities are included as

57

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

an output group because they are services provided by the Court in addition to managing cases and deciding disputes according to law.

A summary of the Court’s performance in relation to this output group is set out in Table 5.1 on page 126.

Information to the Parliament

The Registrar and senior officers of the Court appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee during the Consideration of Estimates on 1 December 1999, 9 February 2000 and 29 May 2000. The Court also responded to 47 Parliamentary questions during the reporting year.

In August 1999 the Registrar and Senior Deputy Registrar gave evidence to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in relation to the legislation to establish the Federal Magistrates Court.

Requests for information and comments on proposed legislation

The Court is often asked to provide information concerning issues under consideration by the Executive Government, or to comment on proposed legislation. During the reporting year the Court responded to over 5 requests for information and more than 15 requests for comment.

While the Court does not comment on the policy that may underlie a particular Bill or legislative proposal, it will, where appropriate, identify any technical problems with the legislation or proposal. This year the Court was invited to comment on legislation in relation to a number of areas, including the Federal Magistrates Court, the proposed Administrative Review Tribunal, and amendments to the Migration Act and Workplace Relations Act.

Although the number o f requests for information and comments was relatively small, some involved extensive work by judges and Court staff. For example, the information and comments provided by the Court on the proposals for a Federal Magistrates Court involved the Chief Justice and several judges of the Court, as well as the Registrar and a number of senior staff.

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

3.5 SERVICES PROVIDED TO INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTIONS

Introduction

This output group refers to the provision o f judicial and non-judicial services by the Federal Court to assist the continuing development of international jurisprudence. Activities include individual judges holding second commissions in overseas’ courts, participation in international committees and conferences, provision of training to judges and staff of overseas’ courts, and provision of library services to a number of South Pacific nations.

A summary of the Court’s performance in relation to this output group is set out in Table 5.1 on page 126.

Commissions in overseas’ courts

Several o f the Court’s judges hold commissions in overseas’ courts.

The following judges o f the Court hold commissions with courts in the South Pacific (excluding Australian territories).

Justice Beaumont Judge of the Court of Appeal of Tonga and Privy Council Acting Judge of the Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Justice Burchett Judge of the Court of Appeal of Tonga and Privy Council

Justice von Doussa Acting Judge of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Legal education programs

Members of the Court are involved in a range o f activities in providing judicial training and other assistance to courts in the South Pacific and Asia. These activities include training programs in Indonesia, the Philippines, China and the South Pacific, details of which are set out below.

Indonesia

During 1999-2000, the Court conducted a training program for the Indonesian judiciary, with the assistance of funding of $250,000 from AusAid’s Government Sector Linkages Program (GSLP). The Court’s program worked closely with the Indonesian judiciary and its primary training facility, the Supreme Court Training Centre (SCTC) in Jakarta, to run training

sessions for Indonesian judges in Australia and Indonesia.

The training involved five workshops in Indonesia, four of which were conducted by judges of the Federal Court. In total, over 150 Indonesian judges participated in the workshops which covered the Australian legal system and issues of particular interest to the Indonesian judges, including public confidence in the judiciary, the independence of the judiciary and

social and cultural issues relating to judicial process. Justices Gray, RD Nicholson and Merkel each visited different regions of Indonesia to conduct the two-day training workshops.

59

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

As part of the program, 16 Indonesian judges spent three weeks in Sydney and Melbourne in May and June 2000 to attend a series of seminars with the Federal Court, the NSW Judicial Commission and the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration. They also visited other Australian courts o f all levels, and organisations such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Court received very positive feedback on the program and has received further AusAID funding of nearly $250,000 for another training program in 2000-2001. The next program will also assist the SCTC with its management and technical expertise, and the upgrading of its legal resources.

The Philippines

During March 2000, the Court participated in a judicial exchange program with judges of the Supreme Court of the Philippines coordinated by the Centre for Judicial Studies in Sydney, the Centre for Democratic Institutions at the Australian National University and the Philippines Judicial Academy. The program involved 8 Philippine judges spending several days with judges of the Federal Court in Sydney. In exchange, Justices Beaumont and

Emmett undertook a four-day visit to the Philippines where they were involved in a training program with Philippine judges which included a forum with judges of the Philippine Court of Appeals and visits to various local courts. There has been some suggestion that the Court be involved in another, similar program.

China

In June 2000 the Court in Sydney hosted a week-long visit by 5 Chinese judges from the Supreme People’s Court o f China which was organised by HREOC with funding under AusAID’s Australia-China Human Rights Technical Assistance Program. The Chinese judges attended seminars conducted by judges of the Court, observed cases and were briefed on the administration of the Court.

At the invitation o f the Supreme Peoples’ Court o f China, the Registrar visited courts in Shanghai, Beijing and Wuhan during the first week of June 2000. This visit followed an earlier visit in 1998 by the Chief Justice and the Registrar which coincided with an international judicial administration conference in Shanghai. These visits are part of an ongoing program o f exchange that is building a strong working relationship between the two courts.

South Pacific

Justice Beaumont regularly represents the Court and Australia at the biennial meetings of the South Pacific Judicial Conference (SPJC). Justice Beaumont is also involved in a Steering Committee oversighting a SPJC project to strengthen judicial training services in the Pacific. The Pacific Judicial Training Project is being funded by a partnership of the Asian Development Bank, the United Nations Development Program and the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The project is based at the University of the South Pacific in Suva and its aim is to establish a reference centre and an ongoing regional training program forjudges and court officials from courts in the South Pacific.

60

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Other legal education activities

Justice von Doussa presented a paper on “Legal Protection of Cultural Artistic Works and Folklore” to the South Pacific Judges’ Conference in Samoa.

Justice Sackville delivered papers to the Legal Theory Workshop at McGill Law School, the International Law Association in Montreal and Ottawa, the Canadian Department of Justice’s Continuing Legal Education Program, and the Global School Program of the New York University.

Participation in international committees and conferences

A number of Federal Court judges actively participated in international committees and conferences during the reporting year. For example,

Justice Beaumont is a member of the South Pacific Judicial Committee Sub-Committee for the Establishment of a Centre for Judicial Education in the South Pacific, and a member of the American Law Institute Advisory Committee on its Transnational Civil Procedural Law Project.

Justice Cooper is a member of the Board of Governors of the International Maritime Organisation World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.

Justice Branson presented a paper at Partnership across borders: An international forum on access to justice, a conference hosted by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Justice Mathews presented a paper at a conference of the International Women Judges’ Association in Buenos Aires.

Justice Tamberlin attended the World Trade Organisation and World Intellectual Property Organisation in Geneva where he participated in a number of seminars on the legal regime, and the resolution of disputes, in relation to international trade and intellectual property.

Justice RD Nicholson is Chair of the International Advisory Board of the International Judicial Academy. He presented a paper on “Capturing and Maintaining Public Confidence in the Courts” to the Conference of Chief Justices of the LAW ASIA Region in Seoul. During the year he also presented training sessions to Indonesian judges in

Indonesia and Australia

Justice Finn is a member of the Unidroit Working Group for the preparation o f the Second Edition of the Uni droit Principles.

Justice Weinberg presented a paper on “Commercial and Financial Fraud: A Comparative Perspective” to the 13th International Conference of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law in Malta. He travelled to Indonesia to advise on the preparation of terms of reference for a comprehensive review of the operational policies and

procedures of the Indonesian Attorney-General ’ s Department.

61

Chapter 3 — The work o f the Court

Library services to the South Pacific and Thailand

To assist law libraries in the South Pacific the Court has a program in place that is assisted by a five-year AusAid grant. The Court donates library materials in the form of textbooks and bound law reports to law libraries in Vanuatu, Kiribati, Western Samoa and Tonga. In addition intellectual property books are sent to a specialist court in Thailand. During the year a total o f 185 items were donated. A further 17 boxes of library books, donated by Justice Lockhart when he retired from the Court, were sent to Thailand.

Other support for international jurisdictions

At the request of the Acting Chief Justice of Vanuatu, the Hon Vincent Lunabek, the Registrar in April 2000 spent a week in Port Vila preparing a report for the Courts of the Republic of Vanuatu on court administration. While the Registrar’s report focussed on

developing recommendations for the introduction of an effective case management system in the Courts, it also included comments on a proposed Judicial Service and Courts Bill for the Republic of Vanuatu, and advice on management issues within the Courts’ registries. It is likely that the report will provide a basis for the Republic of Vanuatu to seek some outside assistance to implement improvements to their court administration

Visitors to the Court

The Court was visited by a significant number o f judges and officials from overseas jurisdictions. These visits provided the judges and staff o f the Court with an opportunity to develop relationships and learn from people involved in the administration o f justice from around the world. The number of visits reflects the international reputation of the Federal

Court as a leading court, in its administration and its practice and procedure.

During the reporting year over 150 visitors from 15 countries came to the Court. A list of visitors is set out in Appendix 7 on page 150. These visits require significant planning and coordination by judges and senior Court staff.

Judicial exchange program

The judicial exchange program had its origins in 1997 when the Chief Justice visited Washington DC and had discussions with Mr James Apple, head of the Interjudicial Affairs Office at the Federal Judicial Centre.

In the reporting year there was no exchange of judges to or from Australia under the program. The Court, however, is committed to continuing the program and expects that exchanges will take place in the next reporting year.

Pegasus Scholarship Trust

The Pegasus Scholarship Trust was established in England to make it possible for gifted young lawyers to learn about the practical working o f the common law system in countries other than their own, and to form enduring links with lawyers in those countries. Since 1987 the Trust has been sponsoring Pegasus scholars from overseas to study and work in England,

and Pegasus scholars from England to live and work abroad. The Trust is supported by the

62

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Inns o f Court, several major law firms, the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust, and government and commercial agencies.

During the reporting year the Chief Justice arranged for the Court to host a Pegasus Scholar. Mr Matthew Chapman, a young London barrister, spent three weeks with the Court in Melbourne - two weeks as an Associate to Justice Heerey and one week as a research assistant to Melbourne judges generally.

The Court will host two Pegasus scholars in the next reporting year.

3.6 ENSURING THE QUALITY OF, AND ACCESS TO, THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE

Introduction

This output group refers to the Court’s commitment to ensuring, and enhancing, the quality and accessibility o f the justice system. The activities in relation to this output group fall into two broad categories.

The first category consists of activities directed at improving the operation and accessibility of the Court. These include reforms to the Court’s practices and procedures, the revision of its rules, improvements to the accessibility o f the Court’s services, the exemption and waiver of fees, and the availability of information about the Court and its work.

The second category consists of activities directed at improving the accessibility and quality of the justice system generally. These include the participation of judges in various judicial committees; the involvement of judges and Court staff in such bodies as the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Judicial Conference and other law reform activities; and the participation of judges and Court staff in educational and community activities.

A summary of the Court’s performance in relation to this output group is set out in Table 5.1 on page 126.

Improving the operation and accessibility of the Court

Practice and procedure reforms

The Practice and Procedure Committee, with a membership of ten judges, is responsible for developing and refining changes to the Court’s practice and procedure.

Some of the issues considered by the Committee during the reporting year are set out below.

• Experts

In September 1999 the judges adopted a recommendation by the Practice and Procedure Committee and the Rules Committee that the Rules be amended to allow a judge, in appropriate cases and with the consent of the parties, to appoint a Court expert who would report to the judge on specific issues within the expert’s field. A new Order 34B, giving effect to this amendment, commenced on 3 December 1999.

63

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

• Discovery

In September 1999, the judges adopted a recommendation by the Practice and Procedure Committee and the Rules Committee to amend Practice Note No 14 and Order 15 of the Rules to replace the Peruvian Guano test with a test o f direct relevance. The former test often led to the discovery o f numerous documents that were never used in evidence in the case. Under the new test, unless the docket judge directs more limited discovery, or discovery on some other basis, a party needs only discover documents which are directly relevant, being documents on which a party relies, or documents which, to a material extent, undermine that party’s case or support another party’s case.

The revised Practice Note and the changes to Order 15 commenced on 3 December 1999. The Committee is monitoring the operation of the new test.

• Responsibility for pleadings During the reporting year the Committee continued to consult with the Law Council of Australia about the Court’s proposals that (a) pleadings be verified by the party on whose behalf the pleading is filed, and (b) a pleading filed by a lawyer be accompanied by a Certificate o f the Legal Practitioner.

• Management of Appeals For some time the Committee has been developing proposals to ensure that the increasing number o f appeals do not impair the Court’s ability to continue to deal with appeals efficiently, effectively and in a timely manner. In April 2000 the judges adopted a recommendation by the Committee that the Court seek amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act to broaden the categories o f decisions requiring leave to appeal, and allow certain categories of appeals to be determined by two judge benches. The Committee is also working with the Management of Appeals Committee to revise Practice Note No 1, which deals with appeals.

• Long cases

The Committee continued to consider the effect of long cases on the Individual Docket System. •

• Other issues

The Committee examined a number of other issues, including: > the reduction of documents on Court files - research is underway to determine how often particular documents presently required to be filed are actually used by the Court; > the circumstances in which people may intervene or appear as amicus in

proceedings, and the consequences o f them doing so; > the delegation o f additional judicial functions to registrars o f the Court; > a national listing system to manage the growing number of applications in migration matters; > a proposal by Professor Williams for the revision o f rules and scales relating to

costs;

> rules and protocols for the Court’s jurisdiction relating to the Federal Magistrates Court; > national procedures relating to the issue o f subpoenas; and > consideration o f the Australian Law Reform Commission Discussion Paper No 62

and Report No 89, Managing Justice: A review o f the federal civil justice system.

64

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

The Committee met during the reporting year with the Law Council of Australia’s Federal Court Practice and Procedure Committee to discuss matters concerning the Court’s current and proposed changes to practice and procedure.

Amendments to the Federal Court Act

During the reporting year, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General seeking a number of amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act. These included an amendment to section 20 to allow a single judge to hear and determine interlocutory matters in proceedings that must be dealt with by the Full Court under section 20(2 ) of the Federal Court of Australia

Act, and an amendment to make clearer provision for the use of audio and video links in proceedings before the Court.

Rules Revision Project

In September 1998 the Judges’ Meeting established a project to revise the Court’s Rules. The goals o f the project are that the Court have Rules which:

(a) facilitate access to justice; (b) promote efficiency in the administration of the law; (c) complement and reflect the Court’s case management philosophy and systems; (d) take into account current and future advances in information technology (eg

facsimile filing and electronic filing); (e) are easily capable of being updated; and (f) are simple and clear.

The revised Rules will contain a preamble in the nature of a statement of overriding objectives, and will, where practicable, not use legal jargon or Latin terms. Work on the project is continuing.

Gender Issues

Since 1993 there has been a standing committee of judges of the Court which considers and advises the Chief Justice and other judges o f the Court on a wide range of issues related to gender, including gender issues within the administration of the Court and the provision o f its services. The Committee also provides advice on judicial studies on gender issues.

The Equality and the Law Committee, chaired by Justice Catherine Branson, has broad terms of reference to consider issues related to gender equity in both the Court's internal operations and in external matters which impact upon the Court. During the reporting year, the Committee undertook a number of activities related to gender issues. These included meetings between the Court and female legal practitioners. The Committee also actively monitored the activities of Bar Councils across Australia in response to the report

commissioned by the Victorian Bar Association in late 1998, entitled Equality o f Opportunity for Women at the Victorian Bar. Through its meetings with women practitioners, and its work arising from its consideration of the report, the Committee has been particularly interested in identifying and addressing difficulties which women practitioners may experience in their

contact with the Court.

65

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

In terms of the Court’s internal operations, during the reporting year the Committee gave particular consideration to strategies to increase the representation o f women in senior positions in the Court. The Committee’s work on this issue continues.

Disability, race and sex discrimination

The Equality and the Law Committee's terms o f reference include oversight of the provision o f the Court's services to ensure that in all aspects o f the Court's operations, persons who have contact with the Court are treated fairly and equitably and that, where necessary, special services are provided to people who face particular disadvantage in accessing the Court. The Committee also considers disability, race and sex discrimination issues as they may effect staff of the Court. The Committee undertook a range of activities in this area during the reporting year, including:

• Monitoring the implementation and issues arising from the Court’s human rights jurisdiction, with particular emphasis on the provision of appropriate public information about the Court’s role, and the Court’s capacity to cater for parties, in human rights cases. • Initiating a review o f the Court’s current user groups and other consultative mechanisms

to ensure that the Court’s consultations with all its users are as effective as possible. • Monitoring the development of the Court’s printed materials to ensure that the Court’s brochures are easily accessible to its users, and that appropriate information is provided to users with particular needs, such as witnesses and litigants in areas o f the Court’s

jurisdiction such as migration. • Consideration of the Court’s employment o f women (mentioned above), Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and the development of strategies to improve employment opportunities in the Court for these groups • Development of Practice Note No 15, which requires practitioners to provide information

to the Court on any special needs of their clients, including appropriate manners of address, in advance o f court hearings. The Practice Note was developed in consultation with the Law Council of Australia and was issued by the Chief Justice on 1 November 1999.

In addition, during the year the Registrar and officers from the Principal Registry continued their regular meetings with officers from the HREOC to consider issues arising from implementation of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999. Under this Act, the Court was given jurisdiction to hear complaints alleging unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. In consultation with HREOC, the Court developed rules and forms for the new jurisdiction, which commenced on 13 April 2000.

Interpreters

The Court is aware of the difficulties faced by litigants who have little or no understanding of the English language. The Court will not allow a party or the administration of justice to be disadvantaged by a person’s inability to secure the services of an interpreter. It has therefore put in place a system for providing professional interpreter services to people who need those services but can not afford to pay for them. In general, the Court’s policy is to provide these services for litigants who are unrepresented and who do not have financial means to purchase the services, and for litigants who are represented but have been granted a waiver of fees under the Federal Court Regulations.

66

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Accessibility - facilities and registry services

The Federal Court registries are centrally located in each of the State and Territory capital cities. The locations and business hours of the registries are set out in the front of this report. Pamphlet guides on Federal Court registry services are available from each of the registries.

The Court is conscious of the need for its facilities to be available to all members of the community and is committed to ensuring that there are no access problems for those with disabilities.

The Court shares many of its buildings with other jurisdictions. Facilities are managed by Local Building Management Committees which consist of representatives of the occupants. A National Building Management Committee sets budgets, deals with matters o f common interest and maintains an overall management brief. The Court contributes to capital, maintenance and operating costs of shared buildings.

In 1997-98, the National Committee commissioned a national audit of court buildings to identify areas where access could be improved. The audit included registries, courtrooms and other facilities used by the Court. The report provided detailed recommendations. These were prioritised by local committees and developed into a national works program.

The program has now reached the stage where the majority of works have been completed. During the reporting period, $161,000 was spent on buildings occupied by the Court. Works included modifications to stairways, handrails, signage, walkways, toilet facilities, doorways, lighting, public telephones and floor surfaces.

In other developments, registry counters are being altered in Brisbane and Adelaide to ensure they are more user friendly to those with disabilities. The works include modifications to counters, benches, notice boards, publication racks and furniture as well as new facilities to

assist those with hearing impairment.

In Sydney, courtroom 20E has been refurbished to allow evidence to be presented in electronic form during hearings. The opportunity was also taken to improve access to the courtroom. A new raised floor has been installed with integrated ramps to provide easy access for all persons using the courtroom. The design of a new, fully accessible witness box for the courtroom was finalised and this will be installed in 2000-01.

Facsimile and electronic filing

In September 1999 the Court amended its Rules to allow documents to be lodged, and for any fees to be paid, by facsimile transmission.

The Court also continued work on a project to allow for the electronic filing, lodgement, service and handling of documents in proceedings that come before it. The project consists of four stages, with the final stage being the implementation of an electronic document system which is fully integrated with the Court’s case management and finance management systems.

67

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

The first stage of this project is to allow for documents to be filed and lodged electronically. Users will be able to send documents to the Court, and to pay any fees, electronically. The documents will then be printed and handled in the same manner as documents delivered to the Court or sent by post, document exchange or facsimile transmission. The Court has put into place the rules and technology required to implement stage one, which it expects to commence early in the next financial year.

Remote hearings

Where appropriate, the Court will conduct hearings in remote locations. For example, in a number of native title cases the Court has travelled to remote areas of Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory for the purpose of taking evidence from witnesses who may not otherwise be able to attend the Court. The opportunity is also taken to view sites at these locations which are relevant to the claims.

Hearings by video-conference

The Court uses video technology for the taking of submissions and evidence in appropriate cases. The use of video links helps parties and witnesses who live, or have their place of business, in different towns or States avoid having to travel long distances to attend directions hearings or final hearings of their cases.

Remission or waiver of court and registry fees

Under the Federal Court of Australia Regulations, fees are charged for commencing a proceeding and for setting a matter down for hearing (including a daily hearing fee). A setting down fee is not payable on all matters and the amount of the daily hearing fee will vary depending on the nature of the hearing. The court fees were increased on 1 July 1998 in accordance with regulation 2AC, which provides a formula for increasing specific court fees every two years from 1 July 1996.

The Federal Court o f Australia Regulations authorise registrars to remit or waive fees payable where a person:

• has been granted legal aid by a body approved by the Attorney-General; or • is the holder of a health care card, a health benefit card, a pensioner concession card, or a Commonwealth seniors health card; or • is the holder of any other card issued by the Department of Social Security or the

Department of Veterans Affairs certifying entitlement to Commonwealth health concessions; or • is an inmate of a prison or is otherwise lawfully detained in a public institution; or • is a child under the age o f 18 years; or • is in receipt of an AUSTUDY allowance; or • is in receipt of an ABSTUDY allowance.

Registrars also have a discretion to waive or remit a fee where a payment would cause financial hardship to a person, taking into account the person's assets, day-to-day living expenses, income and liabilities. A registrar's decision to refuse an application to waive a fee is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not receive any

applications to review any such decisions during the reporting period.

68

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Details of the fees exempted or waived during the reporting year are set out in Appendix 1 on page 90.

Public information

The Court’s Director Public Information (“DPI”) advises the Chief Justice on media issues and assists journalists throughout the country with inquiries on specific cases. The DPI is based in Melbourne and is a member of the personal staff of the Chief Justice.

Through the work of the DPI, the Court continued to gain valuable experience in the area of court television. During the reporting year, television cameras were permitted to record judgment summaries in matters of public interest on eight occasions. The recordings were done on a pool basis and shared amongst television and radio stations. Recordings can be

seen by visiting the Court’s audio-visual archive on its Internet home page.

Of particular note was the first live broadcast (known as “streaming”) on the Internet of a judgment summary by an Australian court. Justice Lindgren’s decision in Australian Olympic Committee Inc v Big Fights Inc was also carried live by the cable channel Sky News. The broadcast was repeated on the home page several hours later, and the number of unique visits

for the day totalled 734 (plus 921 reloads). This compared to the average number of unique visits to the home page of 135. The Internet has provided the Court with the option of live streaming other judgment summaries and, possibly, proceedings in the future.

The Internet also provides a speedy method of delivering the full text of judgments and judgment summaries.

On two occasions the Court allowed independent documentary makers to record appeals to a Full Court - one was a native title matter and the other concerned a decision of a judge of the Supreme Court o f the ACT.

The DPI was responsible for the production o f several videos during the year, including one about achieving major organisational change in the Court, and another about the new Commonwealth Law Courts Building in Melbourne.

Searches on the Court database

Public access is available to FEDCAMS at registry computer terminals. Anyone may inspect initiating documents filed with the Court, subject to any order of a judge to the contrary, or to any limitation or fee imposed by the Federal Court Rules or Regulations.

Fees for copying documents are prescribed by the Federal Court of Australia Regulations.

69

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

The Court’s Internet home page

The Court’s home page on the Internet has continued to enable access to judgments within hours, and sometimes within minutes, of being handed down. In addition, visitors to the home page can access, among other things, the Court Rules, Forms and Practice Directions, and can link to other legally related Internet sites. The Court is developing ways in which the Internet

can be put to greater use to disseminate information about the Court and its work.

Community Relations Program

In September 1999, the Court established the Community Relations Program. The first of its kind in Australia, the Program’s focus is toward enhancing public confidence in judges and courts.

The aims of the Community Relations Program include the development of national strategies to promote community information about the Court, and to initiate education programs which raise general awareness about the Court and the justice system. Other functions are to encourage feedback about the Court from the community and user groups, generate discussion within the Court about the needs and issues affecting the Australian community, and develop information for Court users.

During the reporting year, the Court conducted community infonnation sessions in most States and Territories for individuals and organisations affected by the Federal Court’s new role in hearing complaints o f unlawful discrimination under the HREOC Act. A civics education program for the Court is being developed for implementation in Australian schools

during the Centenary of Federation. The Court also participated in Law Week activities during May 2000, and will play an even greater role in 2001.

A range of publications has been produced about the Federal Court, human rights, mediation, bankruptcy and each of the Court’s Registries. These publications have been complemented by a Community Information site on the Court’s home page, which contains information on the Court’s human rights jurisdiction that can be downloaded in 11 community languages.

Specific strategies have been initiated to promote greater community understanding in relation to native title and migration in the next financial year.

Improving accessibility and quality of the justice system generally

Judges ’ Committees

There are 9 standing and other committees, involving 33 of the 43 judges who do not have substantial commitments to other courts or tribunals, whose work is directed at enhancing the accessibility and quality of the Court and the justice system generally:

Admiralty Assisted Dispute Resolution Equality and the Law Information Technology Management of Appeals

Native Title Coordination Practice and Procedure Rules Transcript

70

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

When necessary, the Chief Justice also establishes ad hoc committees to deal with particular issues.

The committees perform their functions using a range of techniques. Committees may hold regular meetings (either in person or by teleconference), work solely “on the papers”, or use a combination of both to carry out their functions. While it is, for this reason, difficult to provide a precise statement of the amount of work carried out by the committees, the workload is substantial and involves a considerable commitment from the judges and senior Court staff.

Reform activities

The Court is an active participant in a range of activities aimed at improving the justice system.

Examples o f the Court’s significant involvement in this area include the following.

Justice Gallop is the Chair of the Steering Committee o f the Supreme Court and Federal Court Judicial Conference and has been a member of the Steering Committee of the Australian Judicial Conference since January 1995.

Justice Beaumont is Convenor of the Council of Chief Justices Sub-Committee on Harmonisation of Appellate Practice and Procedure. He is also a member of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Advisory Committee on the review of the Judiciary Act 1903.

Justice Wilcox chaired a session of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s “Managing Justice” Conference.

Justice Gray is a member of the Australian Institute o f Judicial Administration’s National Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee. He is also Chair of the Advisory Board, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law at the University of

Melbourne.

Justice Burchett is a member of the Commonwealth Evidence Act Advisory Committee.

Justice French was a Member of the Council and Board of Management of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration and Convenor of its Research Committee during the reporting period. He is a member of the Council of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law, and of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration’s National Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee.

Justice von Doussa is a part-time Commissioner of the Australian Law Reform Commission.

Justice O’Connor is Chair, Communications Law Centre Limited.

Justice Higgins is a member of the Council of Chief Justices’ Committee on Harmonisation of Practice and Procedure under the Corporations Law.

71

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

Justice Cooper is the Presiding Member of the Admiralty Rules Committee which is responsible for rules made under the Admiralty Act, and a member o f the advisory panel to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Review of the Maritime Insurance Act 1909.

Justice Moore is a member of the Commonwealth Evidence Act Advisory Committee.

Justice Branson is President of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.

Justice Lindgren is Convenor of the Council of Chief Justices’ Committee on Harmonisation of Practice and Procedure under the Corporations Law. He organised a national conference on 20 May 2000 on the subject of Court Rules which was attended by representatives of Courts, Governments and the legal profession.

Justice Tamberlin is a member o f the advisory panel to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Review of the, Maritime Insurance Act 1909.

Justice Sackville is Chairman, Advisory Board o f the Justice Research Centre.

Justice Kiefel is a member of the National Institute for Law, Ethics and Public Affairs Advisory Board; a member of the Advisory Board of the Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance; and a foundation member of the Queensland Academy of the Arts and Sciences.

Justice RD Nicholson is a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, Secretary of the LAWASIA Judicial Section, and Member of the Advisory Board to the Journal ofLaw and Medicine. He was Guest Editor of the 1999 Yearbook of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers.

Justice Madgwick was a member of the November 1999 Mission to Turkey from the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (a component of the International Commission of Jurists) — the Mission’s Report was published in July 2000 and concerns issues of judicial independence and official impunity for torture in Turkey.

Justice Weinberg is a part-time Commissioner of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and a member of its Advisory Committee on the Judiciary Reference - Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). He delivered a paper to the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration’s conference “Reform of Criminal Trial Procedure”.

Justice Dowsett attended the Second World Conference on New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence in Amsterdam. He also participated in a strategic planning exercise conducted by a committee of the Bar Association of Queensland.

Justice Katz is a member of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary Reference - Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). He also participated in the national conference on Court Rules.

In addition, the Registrar of the Court is a member of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee, and a Council member of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration. Senior Court staff also participated in various committees and other activities directed at improving the justice system during the reporting year.

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Legal education programs in Australia

The Court is an active supporter of legal education programs, both in Australia and overseas. Information about legal education for international jurisdictions is described on page 59 above. During the reporting year the Chief Justice and many judges and registrars presented papers, gave lectures and chaired sessions at judicial conferences, judicial administration meetings, continuing legal education courses, university law schools, Bar reading courses, Law Society meetings and many other public meetings.

Examples of the Court’s significant contribution to legal education include the following.

Justice Gallop delivered the Blackburn Lecture on the topic “The Role of the Attorney- General”.

Justice Beaumont spoke on native title to the NSW Bar Readers Course, and chaired a session on intellectual property and competition law at the Trade Practices and Consumer Law Conference in Sydney. He contributed chapters to The Oxford Companion to the High Court o f Australia and to the Australian Federal Judicial System.

Justice Wilcox presented papers to the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association and the Australian Institute of Insurance Law.

Justice Gray presented a paper at the International Association of Law Librarians Conference, and delivered seminars to the Faculty of Law at Deakin University and the Probus Club of Moorleigh. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the Australian Journal o f Labour Law.

Justice French presented papers and lectures to the University of Western Australia, Monash University, Melbourne University, Sydney University, Murdoch University and the Law Society of Western Australia. He participated in the 25th Anniversary Conference for the Trade Practices Act, and the National Conference of Insolvency Practitioners o f Australia. Justice French also contributed a chapter to the Australian Federal Judicial System.

Justice Hill is the Challis Lecturer in Taxation (part time) at the Faculty of Law, University o f Sydney (LLM degree). He was a visiting Judicial Fellow at Flinders University. His Honour presented a paper on “International Aspects of the Goods and Services Tax” in Potsdam, and a paper on “Goods and Services Tax Avoidance” to the

Tax Law Teachers Association Annual Conference.

Justice von Doussa is Chair of the Advisory Committee that oversees the South Australian Practical Legal Training Course conducted by the Law Society of South Australia, a member of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Legal Education (NSW) and a member of the Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council (SA).

Justice Cooper is a member of the Board of Management of the Queensland Bar Practice Centre which conducts practical legal training courses as a joint venture of the Bar Association of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology.

73

Chapter 3 - The work o f the Court

Justice Branson was a Visiting Judicial Fellow at Flinders University, and participated during the reporting year in advocacy training for the legal profession with the Australian Advocacy Institute. Justices Branson and Lindgren are advisory editors of a new loose-leaf service, Federal Litigation Precedents, which was published during the reporting year.

Justice Mathews presented a paper to the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

Justice Lindgren is Chair of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Legal Education (NSW) and, for the first half of the reporting year, was also Chair of the Legal Education Committee of the New South Wales Bar Association and a member o f the Board of Directors of the College of Law (NSW). For a second year, Justice Lindgren organised, under the auspices of the College of Law, a series of seminars for legal practitioners under the title “The Judges’ Series - Practical Litigation in the Supreme Court and the Federal Court”. Each seminar was presented by a Federal Court Judge and a Supreme Court Judge. Justice Lindgren presented, or commented on, papers at seminars and conferences, including the 1999 annual conference of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, a seminar and a conference on the Trade Practices Act, and several seminars for the profession on aspects of practice and procedure.

Justice Tamberlin delivered papers to the NSW College of Law, and the Swiss-Australian Chamber of Commerce.

Justice Sackville presented papers to the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association Conference, the Australian National University’s Public Law Weekend and the conference “Administrative Law in a Federal System: A Seminar to Honour Sir Anthony Mason”. He contributed a chapter to The Oxford Companion to the High Court o f Australia.

Justices Kiefel and Dowsett participated in the Colloquium of the Judicial Conference of Australia. Justice Kiefel also delivered a paper on the relationship between courts and media to the Oceania Press Council, a paper on Leadership and Law at Edith Cowan University, and a paper on Australian and German law relating to guarantees by family members to the Annual Conference o f Supreme and Federal Court Judges. She chaired a session and participated in the 1999 Fulbright Symposium “Beyond the Republic: Meeting the Global Challenges to Constitutionalism”.

Justice RD Nicholson is Deputy Convenor o f the Tmstees of the Francis Burt Education Centre, and a member of the Advisory Board of the Murdoch University Law School.

Justice Lehane is an occasional lecturer in Principles of Equity and in Corporate Finance at the Sydney University Law School.

Justice Marshall presented papers on workplace relations to conferences in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. He also assisted the Leo Cussen Institute’s labour law program and the Victorian Bar Readers Course.

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Justice Mansfield is Chair of the Professional Development Advisory Group, Law Society of South Australia; and Chair, Board of Examiners, National Course in Arbitration and Mediation.

Justice Emmett is the Challis Lecturer in Roman Law and a member of the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney. He lectured at the NSW College of Law, and addressed visiting lawyers and judges during the year.

Justice Weinberg is a Board member of the Faculty of Law at Monash University.

Justice Dowsett is a member of a sub-committee established by the Judicial Conference of Australia and the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration to consider questions associated with judicial education. He delivered the closing address on “Creating the Future - A Strategic Plan for the Bar?” at the Queensland Bar Practice Course. He also represented the Bar Association of Queensland and the Bar Practice Centre at the

annual Bar Practice Education Forum in Sydney. He delivered a paper on “Towards an Immigration Policy for the Future” to the annual conference of the Migration Institute of Australia.

Justice Katz assisted the NSW Bar Reading Course.

75

Chapter 4 - Administration o f the Court

CHAPTER 4

ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT

4.1 WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

The Court continues to develop and maintain a working environment that encourages and respects the different skills, cultural perspectives and approaches o f staff. Some achievements during 1999-2000 were as follows:

• Actions arising from the Court’s Workplace Diversity Plan continued to be implemented, including the updating o f all selection documentation for jobs to include an appropriate criterion requiring the ability to demonstrate a knowledge of workplace diversity.

• The provision of workplace diversity awareness training for all staff.

• The review of human resource policies and procedures to ensure both their relevance and compliance with the workplace diversity requirements of the new Public Service Act. All policies and procedures, as well as the Court’s Certified Agreement, are now available electronically through the Court’s information technology network.

• Work commenced on developing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (“ATSI”) cadetship program, aimed at increasing the representation of this Equal Employment Opportunity group within the Court. ATSI employees currently constitute 1.2 per cent of total staff numbers.

As in the previous reporting year, the Court had a high proportion o f women occupying executive level and professional positions. This was 45.6 per cent at the end of the reporting period, with 25 per cent of Senior Executive Service (“SES”)

positions in the Court being held by women. Women comprise 57 per cent of the Court’s staff as at 30 June 2000.

4.2 WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Workplace relations activities in the Court were primarily focussed on the continuing implementation of the Court’s 1998-2000 Certified Agreement, in particular the Court’s Performance Management program which commenced on 1 July 1999. Training on giving and receiving feedback was offered nationally to all staff, and a performance bonus of 1 per cent of total salary was paid to most staff under the terms

of the Certified Agreement. The Court will draw on this experience to improve and simplify the performance management process in its next agreement.

The Court also implemented a 360 degree feedback program for managers in the Principal Registry and for all District Registrars. It may in the future include Federal Court Managers (Executive Levels 1 and 2) in the program.

76

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

The Court’s National Consultative Committee, which was established under the 1998­ 2000 Certified Agreement, met regularly during the reporting year. Among other things, the Committee helped to facilitate the direct involvement of staff in workplace relations issues — a trend that is expected to continue under the next agreement.

The Court developed and implemented a range of new policies in response to the new Public Service Act. National information sessions were conducted for all staff on the Act, which focussed on, among other things, the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct and the associated misconduct policy. Training on staff selections under the Act was also conducted, with a particular emphasis on using the new

framework to achieve better selection outcomes.

4.3 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

The Court is committed to the health and safety of all its employees. Achievements during the year included:

• The finalisation and implementation of a new Occupational Health and Safety Agreement and policy.

• The establishment of a national Occupational Health and Safety Committee to address matters of national importance and concern.

• The provision of training in workplace occupational health and safety to all staff of the Court.

No provisional improvement notices were issued under section 29 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 (“OH&S Act”). A provisional improvement notice may be issued where a health and safety representative believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person is, or is likely to

contravene a provision of the Act or related regulations.

No directions or notices under section 46 of the OH&S Act were served on the Court during the year prohibiting the use of any workplace, plant or substance.

There was one notification under section 68 of the OH&S Act of a dangerous occurrence or accident as defined by the Act, concerning an electric shock received by a staff member. An investigation of the incident was undertaken by the National OH&S Coordinator and a report made to Comcare. No further action in relation to

this incident was deemed necessary by Comcare.

A total of 83 working weeks were lost due to work related injuries, compared to 75.2 weeks lost during 1998-1999. The increase is due to one staff member being absent for the entire reporting period, and another being absent for almost 18 weeks. Were it not for these two cases, the Court’s total absence due to work related injuries would have been 13 weeks.

The Court’s Comcare premium rose this financial year from 0.72 per cent to 0.98 per cent of the Court’s total salary and wages bill. This increase was due to a shift in the

77

Chapter 4 — Administration o f the Court

Comcare premium pool and several high cost claims by other agencies in the pool. Nevertheless, the Court remains in the lowest premium pool grouping.

The Court continued to support staff by providing access to WorkCare Australia, the Court’s employee assistance program provider, which offers free, confidential counselling to staff on issues that may affect their personal and working lives.

4.4 WORKPLACE BARGAINING

The Court’s current Certified Agreement expired on 30 June 2000. Negotiations on a new agreement were continuing as at that date. In light of the consultative arrangements for the last agreement, a survey of staff showed support for a consultative process involving both the Community and Public Sector Union and staff representatives drawn from different work areas within the Court.

To help foster open communication and a sense of direct involvement, the Court funded one of the elected staff representatives to work exclusively with staff of all Registries to discuss and refine proposals for the new agreement. It is expected that this will result in a better understanding and acceptance o f the final agreement.

During the reporting period, Australian Workplace Agreements were re-negotiated for all of the Court’s SES employees.

4.5 TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

Training and development of staff remains an integral part of the Court’s commitment to a skilled and productive workplace. Development activities are closely aligned to both the strategic direction and business plans of the Court.

Training strategies include:

• on the job training;

• national training programs, such as occupational health and safety, workplace diversity and staff selections; • external programs; and • continued support for tertiary studies through the Court’s Studybank scheme.

Training is carefully targeted towards the core needs of the Court and the essential skill and development needs of staff. The Court expended over $231,000 on external training during the reporting period. Over $23,000 was paid towards the cost of staff obtaining tertiary qualifications through the Court’s Studybank scheme.

The Court conducted a number of in-house training and development programs during the year, including:

Introduction o f the Goods and Services Tax Workplace diversity Introduction of the new Public Service Act

Occupational health and safety Best practice staff selection Effective Writing Workplace Relations

78

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

4.6 STAFFING OVERVIEW

At 30 June 2000 the Court employed 349 employees under the Public Service Act - 176 were on-going full-time employees, 16 were on-going part-time employees and 157 were non-ongoing employees. The number of non-ongoing employees is due to the nature of employment of Judges’ associates (who are typically employed for only

12 months) and casual court officers. The Court had an average staffing level of 314.31 during the reporting period.

Table 4.1 on page 80 contains an overview of the Court’s staffing by location at 30 June 2000. Table 4.2 on page 81 contains details of the number of staff in each District Registry and the Principal Registry who assist the judges of the Court. Table 4.3 on page 82 contains details of the Court’s staff who are members of the SES.

During the reporting period, no formal grievances were lodged by staff.

79

Chapter 4 - Administration o f the Court

Table 4.1

Staffing Overview by Location

(actual occupancy as at 30 June 2000 — includes full and part time staft)

Level PR NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS ACT Total

SES1 2 3 1 1 1 " 8

FCL2 1 3 4 2 1 2 1 14

FCL1 3 1 1 - 1 6

FCM2 13 1 2 1 1 1 " 19

FCM1 9 1 3 3 1 2 2 21

FCS5 11 2 4 1 1 2 1 22

FCS4 13 52 43 15 7 10 1 3 144

FCS3 5 11 7 6 5 7 3 44

FCS2 - 21 23 10 2 6 1 63

FCS1 - 7 1 - - - " 8

Total 54 * 104 89 39 18 32 6 7 349

Key: PR - Principal Registry

SES - Senior Executive Service officer PCS - Federal Court Staff PCM - Federal Court Manager FCL - Federal Court Legal

* - This total includes 4 staff members on a joint Registry IT Project

80

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Table 4.2

Judges and Court staff (as at 30 June 2000)

Judges and Judicial Registrars Staff

Principal Registry 1 R e g is tra r

2 D e p u ty R e g istra rs

52 S ta f f

New South Wales 18 J u d g e s 1 D is tric t R e g is tra r

103 S ta ff

Victoria C h i e f Ju s tic e 1 D istric t R e g istra r

11 J u d g e s 88 S ta f f

Queensland 5 J u d g e s 1 D is tric t R e g istra r

38 s ta f f

South Australia 3 J u d g e s 1 D is tric t R e g istra r

17 S ta f f

Western Australia 4 J u d g e s 1 D is tric t R e g istra r

31 S ta f f

Australian Capital 1 J u d g e 1 D is tric t R e g is tra r *

Territory 7 S ta ff

Tasmania N o R e sid e n t J u d g e 1 D is tric t R e g istra r

5 S ta f f

Notes: * Mr John Mathieson is District Registrar o f New South Wales and the Australian Capital T erritory.

(1) Only judges whose main work is as a judge of the Federal Court are included in this table. (2) The Court has no staff in the Northern T erritory. Registry services for the Court for the Northern Territory are provided on a fee for service basis by the Family Court of Australia.

81

Chapter 4 - Administration o f the Court

Table 4.3

Senior Executive Service (as at 30 June 2000)

Principal Registry

Senior Executive Service Grading Occupied

Senior Deputy Registrar Alan Dawson Senior Executive Band 1

Manager, Court Resources Rod Tout Senior Executive Band 1

New South Wales District Registry

District Registrar John Mathieson Senior Executive Band 1

Deputy District Registrar

Deputy District Registrar

Victoria District Registry

Margaret Quinn PSM

Jennifer Hedge Part-Time

Senior Executive Band 1 (Specialist) Senior Executive Band 1 (Specialist)

District Registrar Peter Seccombe Senior Executive Band 1

Queensland District Registry

District Registrar Graham Ramsey Senior Executive Band 1

Western Australia District Registry

District Registrar Martin Jan PSM Senior Executive Band 1

82

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Performance Management

The terms of the Certified Agreement allowed the Court to develop a simpler and more streamlined system of performance management for its staff. The principal feature of the system is the development of a comprehensive job description for each staff member that focuses on objectives and measurable performance outcomes.

These job descriptions, along with specific objectives from local business plans, serve as the basis for assessment of individual performance at the end of each annual cycle.

The new system has enhanced communication between staff and their supervisors concerning the requirements of individual jobs and the performance of staff within those jobs.

Performance pay

Performance pay for SES officers and staff in equivalent positions was paid this financial year for the appraisal period ending 30 June 1999.

Nine SES officers were eligible for performance pay, and a total of $71,300 was paid to these officers. During the reporting period one SES officer resigned and the position is now filled at the Legal 2 level.

Details of payments made during the year are shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4

Performance Pay to Senior Executive Service Officers For appraisal period ending 30 June 1999

Classification Rating No of staff Male Female

Senior Executive Officers 4 9 7 2

4.7 INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SECURITY

Audit and fraud control

Activities and achievements during the year included:

• commencement of the development of a new fraud control policy; and

• a comprehensive review of the Court's financial management policies.

83

Chapter 4 - Administration o f the Court

Internal and external audit

Key areas audited during the reporting period were purchasing and procurement, debt management, management of the Court's litigant and investment accounts, care and custody of public moneys, and payroll processing.

In order to ensure that the Court's financial management policies remain relevant to the current financial environment, a comprehensive review of these policies was conducted. This review resulted in a number of amendments being made to existing policies.

Staff of the Australian National Audit Office inspected the Court's 1998-99 financial statements and provided an unqualified audit certificate which noted that the Court had continued the high standard of financial reporting set in past years.

4.8 PROPERTY MANAGMENT

The major achievements and activities in regard to property management for the Court were:

• Completion o f new court and registry facilities in Darwin. • Further technology and infrastructure improvements. • Completion o f stage 1 of a project to refurbish judges’ chambers, public areas and courtrooms in Sydney.

• Assisting the Federal Magistrates Court with its accommodation requirements in Federal Court premises. • Planning for the proposed Commonwealth Law Courts building in Adelaide.

During the year, the Family Court of Australia, in conjunction with the Federal Court o f Australia, completed new court and registry facilities at 80 Mitchell Street in Darwin. The facility was commissioned in January 2000, and features a courtroom specially configured to meet the needs of indigenous litigants and witnesses.

The Court continues to upgrade facilities and infrastmcture to enable the use of cost effective technology. During the year, data cabling was upgraded in Sydney and a new computer room was commissioned in Brisbane.

In Sydney, the refurbishment of Court 20E was completed. The courtroom now features a special raised floor to accommodate cables necessary for computers to be used. The courtroom has been designed to allow the furniture layout to be adjusted to meet the needs of particular litigants and types o f hearings.

In Sydney, works were commenced to refurbish judges’ chambers, public areas and courtrooms. Public corridors and waiting areas are also being repainted.

Work continued during the first half o f the reporting year on national programs to address public liability issues and finalise preparations for the Ύ 2Κ ’ bug. Ultimately, the Y2K bug did not impact on the building management systems or otherwise affect the Court’s accommodation. Extensive prior planning and rectification of potential problems undoubtedly assisted in this regard. The Court continues to benefit from the

84

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

upgraded infrastructure, hardware and contingency planning that occurred in the run up to 31 December 1999.

Substantial work was completed to improve access for people with disabilities. This included adjustments to doors, pathways, stairs, signage and handrails in Melbourne; improvements to the visibility of steps in Perth; and new hand rails in Perth and Hobart.

4.9 TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

Development of a new case management system

The Court entered into a contract with Oracle Corporation Australia to develop a new case management system (“CMS”) which will replace the existing, aged legacy case management system known as FEDCAMS. While based on a system developed for another court, the CMS is being customised to meet the requirements of the Court's Individual Docket System.

Considerable progress was achieved in planning the design of the system, with development and testing of the CMS scheduled for the next financial year.

Internal and external Internet access forjudges

The Court established a system forjudges to obtain both their internal and Internet mail through a single computer screen from anywhere in Australia or overseas. This provides judges with enhanced flexibility, particularly when travelling interstate or to remote locations to hear matters.

Y2K Project

The Court undertook an extensive program of Y2K testing and upgrading to ensure it was compliant and to minimise the impact of any problems. The business of the Court was not effected by the Y2K bug.

Native Title Benchbook

The Benchbook is an electronic document intended to assist judges, their staff, and other Court staff in the case management of native title proceedings. It incorporates examples of orders made in native title matters, decisions and reasons given,

secondary source material and links to Internet sites for the purpose of further research. The Benchbook consists of one core document with several links to other Word 97 documents and Internet sites. The structure is loosely based on the various

stages o f a native title case. It is intended that the Benchbook will be updated on a monthly basis, but this may occur more often depending on the availability of material.

Electronic filing

As discussed in Chapter 3, an electronic filing project was commenced in the second half of 1999 as part of the Court’s commitment to enhancing accessibility. Once

85

Chapter 4 - Administration o f the Court

implemented, the project will allow litigants and the profession to electronically file documents with the Court using the Internet. Filing and other fees will also be payable electronically. It is expected that electronic filing will be available from September 2000 .

Enterprise management services

The Court implemented a single management and maintenance service to cover all its network equipment across its Local and Wide Area Networks (“LAN/WAN”). This allowed the Court to consolidate existing service agreements, and to provide a range of key network services on a national basis. These services include:

• Monitoring the operation of the Federal Court LAN/WAN communication links 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, enabling the early detection and rectification of faults.

• Monthly performance reporting of all traffic loads on the WAN, and of detected problems and their status or resolution.

• Tracking of all network assets.

4.10 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES

The Court manages a national library network, which delivers a comprehensive library service to judges and staff of the Court. Library access is also available to the legal profession and litigants in person in Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.

Key achievements in 1999-2000 are set out below.

Internet home page

The Court’s home page has been in operation since December 1996. During the year the home page was improved by the addition of information on the Court’s new human rights jurisdiction, and a table setting out information about the progress of appeals. A search engine was added, the metatags revised and the forms section redesigned in anticipation of electronic filing.

The HREOC report Accessibility o f electronic commerce and new service and information technologies for older Australians and people with a disability noted that “A number of Commonwealth agencies merit recognition as having made particular progress in achieving accessibility at this point. These include... the Federal Court of Australia.” It was particularly pleasing to receive this recognition as human rights is a growing area of the Court’s jurisdiction.

Live audio and video broadcast on the Internet

On 3 August 1999 the judgment of Justice Lindgren in Australian Olympic Committee Inc v Big Fights Inc was delivered via live streaming video and audio on the Internet. A video archive of decisions of the Court is available on the home page. This will assist the public to be more informed about procedures in the Federal Court. A

86

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

proposal to establish a technology court in Sydney so that live streaming on the Internet is permanently available is being investigated. This would allow whole, or parts of, a proceeding, as well as the delivery of the judgment, to be shown live on the Internet.

Embedding images into judgments

The Court is establishing standards for, and has commenced, embedding images into judgments which are available via the Internet through the Court’s home page. Images being incorporated into judgments include trademarks, intellectual property matters

and maps in native title claims. Images presently appear in 5 per cent of the Court’s judgments.

On-line databases

To complement the CD-ROM network, the Court now subscribes to several on-line databases accessed via the Internet. The on-line databases provide information that is more current than that on the off-line CD-ROMs. Some of the on-line services also

update the CD-ROMs on the network.

Intranet

Following last year’s scoping study to implement an Intranet within the Court, a supplier was selected and the project commenced with an expected completion date of November 2000. The Intranet will improve the delivery of legal research and administrative information across the Court.

Library databases

The introduction of a new library system has enabled the catalogue records to be upgraded by downloading records from Kinetica, the database maintained by the National Library of Australia. This gives access to enhanced records, including tables of contents, and replaces in-house cataloguing.

Full-text of all judgments since the Court began are now accessible via the judgments index. The early judgments are scanned images and the later judgments are word processed documents.

Library review

To ensure the appropriateness and effectiveness of library services and collections a review was undertaken by Jacqueline Elliott, the High Court Librarian assisted by AIMA Training & Consultancy Services Ltd. The recommendations of the review are being considered by the judges.

Darwin library

The relocation of the Registry in Darwin required the library collection to be moved. As part of the move, the collection was reorganised and culled.

87

Chapter 4 - Administration o f the Court

Library assistance to the South Pacific

As noted in Chapter 3, the Court, with the assistance of an AusAid grant, donates textbooks and bound law reports to law libraries in Vanuatu, Kiribati, Western Samoa and Tonga. In addition, intellectual property books are sent to a specialist court in Thailand. During the year a total of 185 items were donated. A further 17 boxes of

library books donated by Justice Lockhart when he retired from the Court were sent to Thailand.

The Court has developed a policy of providing shipments every six months in order to keep the sets as up to date as possible.

Records management

A Records Management Taskforce has completed the first stage o f examining what records should be put on the Court file and what should be permanently retained in archives as a record o f the Court.

A proposal has been drafted to implement a new document management system to replace RecFind, the Court’s current records management software. The new system will complement and support the Court’s electronic filing strategy and new case management system.

Unicorn Library Management System

Implementation o f the new library system is well advanced. The software was loaded and the first round of training completed in March 2000. Work has commenced on building the new databases, which includes a complete stocktake of all collections to ensure the records added to the system are accurate. Staff in all libraries will start using the system for day to day operations in August 2000, and the catalogue and judgment indexes will be available to users in October 2000.

Library collections

In order to more efficiently achieve audit stocktake requirements, a project to barcode the library collections across the Court was commenced.

4.11 ADVERTISING AND MARKET SERVICES

A total of $36,416.67 was paid to AIS Media for recmitment advertising services throughout the reporting period.

The Court does not use market research organisations, polling organisations, direct mail organisations or media advertising agencies.

4.12 CONSULTANCY SERVICES

The Registrar may engage consultants under section 18R o f the Federal Court of Australia Act. When consultants are engaged, the Court follows Commonwealth Procurement

88

Federal Court o f Australia — Annual Report 1999-2000

Guideline No 13: Contracting fo r Consultancy Services. Table 4.5 shows the consultants engaged during 1999-2000.

Table 4.5

Consultants engaged during 1999-2000

CONSULTANT AMOUNT PURPOSE

@rtrix $5,109 Design, Production and Publication of

NEWS ( d f E DC OURT

Bold New Media $7,500 Design of Native Title and Human Rights

Internet site

Interim HR Solutions $2,438 Recruitment Services

Pink Elephant Australia $9,000 IT Process Improvement Review

Travelsearch ( Australia) $9,000 Assessment of Travel Contract Tenders Datawatch Consultancy Services $8,125 Quetzal Consulting Quadriga Consulting $19,850 Specialist Advice on Intranet

Creative Digital Technology $24,180 Electronic Filing Project e-law $17,500 Electronic Filing Project

Citadel Security $24,180 Secure Remote Network Access Advice

AIMA $57,777 Review of National Library Services

Stace Management Services $8,500 Strategic Directions Workshop IRS Australia $4,800 Workplace Ergonomic Assessments

4.13 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Court has been proactive in ensuring that it is able to meet the requirements imposed by the Federal Government's introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (“ GST”).

During the reporting period the Court:

• researched the statutory requirements of the GST legislation applying to the Court; • identified the impact that the GST will have on the Court's financial operations; • developed policies and procedures to meet the Court's obligations under the GST

legislation; • provided GST training sessions to over 40 staff members; and • upgraded the Court's financial management information system to cater for the requirements o f the GST.

The beginning o f the reporting period also saw the Court become responsible for managing its banking and treasury functions. This required the Court to enter into a relationship with the Reserve Bank for its transactional banking.

89

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

APPENDIX 1

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1999-2000

INDEPENDENT AUDIT REPORT

To the Attorney-General

I have audited the financial statements of the Federal Court of Australia for the year ended 30 June 2000. The financial statements comprise:

• Statement by the Registrar

• Operating Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cashflows, Schedule of Commitments and Schedule of Contingencies

• Statements of Administered Revenues and Expenses, Assets and Liabilities, and Cashflows, and Schedules of Administered Commitments and Contingencies

• Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements.

The Court’s Registrar is responsible for the preparation and presentation of the financial statements and the information they contain. I have conducted an independent audit of the financial statements in order to express an opinion on them to you.

The audit has been conducted in accordance with the Australian National Audit Office Auditing Standards, which incorporate the Australian Auditing Standards, to provide reasonable assurance as to whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Audit procedures included examination, on a test basis, of evidence supporting the amounts and other disclosures in the financial statements, and the evaluation of accounting policies and significant accounting estimates. These procedures have been undertaken to form an opinion as to whether, in all material respects, the financial statements are presented fairly in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards, other mandatory professional reporting requirements and

statutory requirements so as to present a view of the Federal Court of Australia which is consistent with my understanding of its financial position, its operations and its cash flows.

The audit opinion expressed in this report has been formed on the above basis.

PO Box A456 Sydney S o u th NSW 1235 130 E lizabeth S tre e t SYDNEY NSW

P hone (02) 9367 7100 Fax (02) 9367 7102

90

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Audit Opinion

In my opinion,

(i) the financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Finance Minister’s Orders

(ii) the financial statements give a true and fair view, in accordance with applicable Accounting Standards, other mandatory professional reporting requirements and Schedule 2 of the Finance Minister’s Orders, of the financial position of the Federal Court of Australia as at 30 June 2000 and the results o f its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended.

Paul Hinchey Senior Director

Delegate of the Auditor-General Sydney 11 September 2000

Australian National Audit Office

91

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Statement by the Registrar

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Statement by the Registrar

In ray opinion, the attached financial statements give a true and fair view o f the matters required by Schedule 2 to the Finance Minister’s Orders made under section 63 of die Financial Management and Accountability A ct 1997.

Warwick Soden Registrar

f f September 2000.

92

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA OPERATING STATEMENT for the year ended 30 June 2000

Notes 1999-00 1998-99

$'000 $'000

Operating revenues Revenues from government 4.1 70,057 54,850

Sales of goods and services 4.2 245 144

Interest 4.3 993 -

Total operating revenues 71,295 54,994

Operating expenses Judges and employees 5.1 33,675 33,115

Suppliers 5.2 30,018 21,921

Depreciation and amortisation 5.3 2,010 1,877

Net losses from sales and disposals of assets 5.4 65 1,332

Write down of assets 5.5 - 1,961

Total operating expenses 65,768 60,206

Operating surplus/(deficit) 5,527 (5,212)

Net surplus/(deficit) attributable to the Commonwealth 5,527 (5,212)

Accumulated surpluses at the beginning of the reporting period 13,096 18,308 Total available fo r appropriation 18,623 13,096

Capital use provided for or paid (2,581) -

Correction in accounting treatment 6.1 4,208 -

Accumulated surpluses at the end of the reporting period 12.1 20,250 13,096

ST A TEMENT OF ADMINISTERED REVENUES AND EXPENSES for the year ended 30 Jane 2000

Notes 1999-00 1998-99

$'000 $'000

Operating revenues Non-taxation ! Other sources of non-taxation revenues 7.1 7,451 8,931

Total non-taxation 7,451 8,931

Total operating revenues 7,451 8,931

Operating expenses Net write-down of assets 5.6 209 143

Refund of court fees and fines 166 153

Total operating expenses 375 296

Net contribution to the Budget Outcome 7,076 8,635

Transfer tc Official Commonwealth Public Account (7,024) (8,603)

Net surplus/(deficit) 52 32

Accumulated results at the beginning of the reporting period 291 259

Accumulated results at the end o f the reporting period 12.2 343 291

The above statements should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.

93

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BALANCE SHEET as at 30 June 2000

Notes 1999-00 1998-99

S’000 $'000

ASSETS Financial assets Cash 8.1 9,018 44

Receivables 8.3 276 4,827

Total financial assets 9,294 4,871

Non-financial assets Land and buildings 9.1 3,931 3,457

Infrastructure, plant and equipment 9.2 9,614 9,909

Intangibles 9.3 2,486 406

Other 9.5 13,082 11,019

Total non-financial assets 29,113 24,791

Total assets 38,407 29,662

LIABILITIES Debt Other 10.1 1,158 1,362

Total debt 1,158 1,362

Provisions and payables Capital use 11.1 350 -

Judges and employees 11.2 11,256 9,821

Suppliers 11.3 489 479

Total provisions and payables 12,095 10,300

Total liabilities 13,253 11,662

EQUITY Capital 12.1 4,585 4,585

Reserves 12.1 319 319

Accumulated surpluses 12.1 20,250 13,096

Total equity 25,154 18,000

Total liabilities and equity 38,407 29,662

Current liabilities 4,181 3,311

Non-current liabilities 9,072 8,351

Current assets 18,144 11,723

Non-current assets 20,263 17,939

S T A TEM ENT OF A D M IN ISTE R E D A SSE TS AND L IA B IL IT IE S as a) 30 June 2000

Notes 1999-00 1998-99

$'000 $'000

ASSETS Fin ancial Assets Cash 8.2 43 31

Receivables 8.4 300 260

Total financial assets 343 291

Total assets 343 291

EQUITY Accumulated results 12.2 343 291

Total equity 343 29Ϊ|

Cur rent liabilities „ 1

Non-current liabilities - -

Current assets 343 29l|

Non-current assets - -|

The above statements should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.

94

Appendix I - Financial Statements 1999-2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS for the year ended 30 June 2000

Notes 1999-00 1998-99

$'000 $'000

OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash received Appropriations for outputs 63,452 53,623

Sales of goods and services 1,013 579

Interest 348 -

Other 3,585 -

Total cash received 68,398 54,202

Cash used Judges and employees (28,318) (27,163)

Suppliers (24,741) (22,625)

Total cash used (53,059) (49,788)

Net cash from operating activities 13.1 15,339 4,414

INVESTING ACTIVITIES Cash received Proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment 3 68

Total cash received 3 68

Cash used Purchase of property, plant and equipment (4,137) (4,459)

Total cash used (4,137) (4,459)

Net cash from investing activities (4,134) (4,391)

FINANCING ACTIVITIES Cash used Capital use paid (2,231) -

Total cash used (2,231) -

Net cash used by financing activities (2,231) -

Net increase in cash held 8,974 23

Cash at the beginning of the reporting period 44 21

Cash at the end o f the reporting period 8.1 9,018 44

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED CASH FLOWS for the year ended 30 June 2000 Notes 1999-00 1998-99

$'000 $'000

OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash received Fees and fines 7,037 8,636

Cash from Official Commonwealth Public Account 180 152

Other 158 120

Total cash received 7,375 8,908

Cash used Refund of court fees and fines (159) (153)

Cash to Official Commonwealth Public Account (7,204) (8,755)

Total cash used (7,363) (8,908)

Net cash from/(used by) operating activities 13.2 12 -

N et i/,.crease/(decrease) in cash held 12 -

Cash at the beginning of the reporting period 31 31

Cash at the end o f the reporting period 8.2 43 31

The above statements should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.

95

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SCHEDULE OF COMMITMENTS as at 30 June 2000___________________________________________________________________________

Notes Federal Court of Australia Administered

1999-00 1998-99 1999-00 1998-99

________________________________________________ S'OOO________ S'OOO_________ S'OOO______ S'OO O

BY TYPE

CAPITAL COMMITMENTS Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment 902 176 - -

Total capital commitments 902 176 - -

OTHER COMMITMENTS Operating Leases 2.14 124,214 119,614 - -

Goods and services contracts 1,264 5 - -

Total other commitments 125,478 119,619 - -

Total commitments payable 126,380 119,795 - -

COMMITMENTS RECEIVABLE - - - -

Net commitments 126,380 119,795 - -

BY MATURITY

All net commitments One year or less 12,439 12,450 - -

From one to two years 11,734 11,927 - -

From two to five years 36,528 35,782 - -

Over five years 65,679 59,636 - -

Net commitments 126,380 119,795 - -

Operating Lease Commitments One year or less 11,418 12,269 - -

From one to five years 47,779 47,709 - -

Over five years 65,017 59,636 - -

Net commitments 124,214 119,614 - -

All 1999-00 commitments are Goods and Services Tax inclusive where relevant. The Comparatives have not been adjusted to reflect the Goods and Services Tax.

SCHEDULE OF CONTINGENCIES as at 30 June 2000

There were no contingent losses or gains as at 30 June 1999 and 30 June 2000.

SCHEDULE OF UNQUANTIFIABLE CONTINGENCIES as at 30 June 2000

A claim for damages has been lodged in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the Commonwealth. The liability of the Commonwealth, if any, cannot be estimated at this time as it is subject to the outcome of the proceedings.

The above schedules should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.

96

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended 30 June 2000__________________________________________

Note Description 1 Court Objectives

2 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 3 Events Occurring after Balance Sheet Date 4 Operating Revenues - Federal Court of Australia 5 Operating Expenses

6 Adjustment in respect of Correction in Accounting Treatment 7 Operating Revenues - Administered 8 Financial Assets

9 Non-Financial Assets

10 Debt

11 Provisions and Payables 12 Equity

13 Cash Flow Reconciliation 14 Appropriations

15 Special Accounts

16 Reporting of Outcomes 17 Remuneration of Executives 18 Services Provided by the Auditor-General 19 Waivers and Act of Grace Payments 20 Average Staffing Levels

21 Financial Instruments

97

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-201

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 June 2000

NOTE 1: COURT OBJECTIVES

The role of the Federal Court of Australia is to decide disputes according to law promptly, courteously ar effectively; and in so doing to interpret the statutory law and develop the general law of the Commonwealth, so as fulfil the role of a court exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth under the Constitution. The Objectives i the Court are contained in the objectives section of the Court's Annual Report.

The Court also provides administrative support to the Copyright Tribunal, the Defence Force Discipline Appe, Tribunal, the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal and the Australian Competition Tribunal.

The Court is structured to meet the following outcome:

Outcome: To apply and uphold the mle of law to deliver remedies and enforce rights and in so doing, contribute 1 the social and economic development and well-being of all Australians.

NOTE 2: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

2.1 Basis of Accounting

The financial statements are required by s. 49 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and are general purpose financial report.

The statements have been prepared in accordance with: § Requirements f o r the Preparation o f Financial Statements o f Commonwealth Agencies and Authorities made by the Minister for Finance and Administration in August 1999 (Schedule 2 to the Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Orders); § Australian Accounting Standards; § other authoritative pronouncements of the Australian Accounting Standards Board; and § the Consensus Views of the Urgent Issues Group.

The statements have been prepared having regard to: § Statements of Accounting Concepts; and § The Explanatory Notes to Schedule 2 issued by the Department of Finance and Administration.

The financial statements have been prepared on an accmal basis and are in accordance with historical cost conventior except for certain assets which, as noted, are at valuation. Except where stated, no allowance is made for the effect o changing prices on the results or the financial position.

The continued existence of the Court in its present form, and with its present programs, is dependent on Govemmen policy and on continuing appropriations by Parliament for the Court’s administration and programs.

2.2 Changes in Accounting Policy

Changes in accounting policy have been identified in this note under their appropriate headings.

2.3 Federal Court of Australia and Administered Items

Federal Court of Australia assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses are those items that are controlled by the Court They are used by the Court in producing its outputs, including: § property, plant and equipment used in providing goods or services;

§ liabilities for Judge and employee entitlements; § revenues from appropriations or independent sources in payment of outputs; and § judge, employee, supplier and depreciation expenses incurred in producing its outputs.

Administered items are those items which are controlled by the Government and managed or oversighted by the Cour on behalf of the Government. These items include fees and fines.

The purpose of the separation of Court and administered items is to enable the assessment of administrative efficienc) of the Court in providing goods and services.

The basis of accounting described in Note 2.1 applies to both Court and administered items.

98

Appendix I - Financial Statements 1999-2000

Administered items are distinguished from Court items in the financial statements by shading.

2.4 Reporting by Outcomes

A comparison of budget and actual figures by outcome specified in the Appropriation Acts relevant to the Court is presented in Note 16. The net cost to budget outcomes shown includes intra-government costs that are eliminated in calculating the actual budget outcome for the Government overall.

2.5 Revenues from Government

Revenues from Government are revenues relating to the core operating activities of the Court. Details of revenues from Government are given in Note 4.1.

Appropriations

From 1 July 1999, the Commonwealth Budget has been prepared under an accruals framework.

Appropriations for the production of the Court's departmental outputs are recognised as revenue to the extent that the appropnations have been received into the Court’s bank account or are entitled to be received by the Court at the end of the reporting period.

Appropriations to the Court for departmental capital items are recognised directly in equity, to the extent that the appropriations have been received into the Court’s bank account or are entitled to be received by the Court at the end of the reporting period.

The appropriations for departmental capital items for 1999-2000 include, as carryovers, the reappropriation to the Court of certain unspent amounts from 1998-1999. These amounts were recognised directly in equity in the financial statements for 1998-1999.

This is a change in the policy adopted in prior years when the Court’s appropriations, other than running costs, were recognised as revenue to the extent that the appropriations were spent. Amounts appropriated for the Court’s running costs were recognised as revenue in the year of appropriation, except to the extent of; § unspent amounts not automatically carried over into the new financial year, and

§ running costs borrowing.

Resources Received Free of Charge

Services received free of charge are recognised in the Operating Statement as revenue when and only when a fair value can be reliably determined and the services would have been purchased if they had not been donated. Use of these resources is recognised as an expense in the Operating Statement.

The Court has, for the first time, recognised as a resource free of charge, rent and outgoings associated with the accommodation occupied by the Court in the Law Courts Building located in Sydney, New South Wales. This building is owned by Law Courts Limited, a joint venture between the NSW State and Commonwealth Governments. Details of this amount are given in Note 4.1.

Contributions of assets at no cost of acquisition or for nominal consideration are recognised at their fair value when the asset qualifies for recognition, unless received from another government agency as a consequence of a restructuring of administrative arrangements.

In the latter case, the assets are initially recognised at the amounts at which they were recognised by the transferring agency immediately prior to the transfer.

2.6 Other Revenue

Recognition of other revenue items is as follows: § Revenue from the sale of goods is recognised upon the delivery of goods to customers. § Revenue from the rendering of a service is recognised by reference to the stage of completion of contracts or other agreements to provide services to Commonwealth bodies. § Interest revenue is recognised on a proportional basis taking into account the interest rates applicable to the

financial assets. § Revenue from disposal of non-current assets is recognised when control of the asset has passed to the buyer. § Revenue from fees and fines is recognised in the period in which the invoice for fees and fines is raised.

99

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

All revenues described in this note are revenues relating to the core operating activities of the Court, whether in its own right or on behalf of the Commonwealth. Details of revenue amounts are given in Notes 4 and 7.

2.7 Cash

Cash includes cash on hand and deposits held at call, with a bank or financial institution, which are readily convertible to cash on hand.

2.8 Financial Instruments

Accounting policies in relation to financial instruments are disclosed in Note 21.

2.9 Receivables

All outstanding accounts are reviewed periodically and debts are written off as bad when so identified. The write-off is to expense or, to the extent that a provision for a doubtful debt already existed, as a reversal of the provision. A provision is raised for any doubtful debts based on a review of all outstanding accounts at the year end.

2.10 Property, plant and equipment

Assets recognition threshold

Purchases of all depreciable non-financial assets are recognised initially at cost in the Balance Sheet, except for purchases of: § assets other than information technology equipment costing less than $2,000; and

§ information technology equipment costing less than $1,500 which are expensed in the year of acquisition, unless they form a large group of similar assets, which are significant in total.

Assets acquired at no cost, or for nominal consideration, are initially recognised as assets and revenues at their fair value at the date of acquisition, unless acquired as a consequence of restructuring administrative arrangements. In the latter case, assets are initially recognised at the amounts at which they were recognised in the transfer agency’s accounts immediately prior to the restructuring.

Revaluations

Schedule 2 requires that buildings, infrastructure, plant and equipment be revalued progressively in accordance with the 'deprival1 method of valuation in successive 3-year cycles.

The Court revalued all of its property, plant and equipment during the 1998-99 financial year in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 2. These valuations were carried out by independent valuers. Assets acquired after the commencement of the revaluation are reported at cost.

The Court recognises property plant and equipment at its depreciated replacement cost.

Any assets, which would not be replaced or are surplus to requirements, are valued at net realisable value. At 30 June 2000, the Court did not have any such assets.

Recoverable Amount Test

Schedule 2 requires the application of the recoverable amount test to non-current assets in accordance with AAS 10 Accounting for the Rex’aluation of Non-Current Assets. The carrying amounts of these non-current assets have been reviewed to determine whether they are in excess of their recoverable amounts. In assessing recoverable amounts, the relevant cash flows have been discounted to their present value.

Depreciation and Amortisation

Depreciable non-current assets are written-off to their estimated residual values over their estimated useful lives. Estimated useful fives are reviewed at each balance date and necessary adjustments are recognised in the current, or current and future reporting periods, as appropriate. Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method, which reflects the pattern of usage of the Court's depreciable non-current assets. Residual values are re-estimated for a change in prices only when assets are revalued.

Leasehold improvements are amortised on a straight-line basis over the lesser of the estimated useful life of the improvements or the unexpired period of the lease.

100

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

Depreciation and amortisation rates applying to each class of depreciable asset are based on the following useful lives: 1999-00 1998-99

Leasehold improvements 10 years or 10 years or

Lease term Lease term

Plant and equipment - excluding library materials 4 to 10 years 4 to 10 years Plant and equipment - library materials 5 to 40 years 5 to 40 years

Intangible assets are amortised on a straight-line basis over their anticipated useful lives. Useful lives are:

1999-00 1998-99

Software 5 years 5years

The aggregate amount of depreciation and amortisation allocated for each class of asset during the reporting period is disclosed in Note 5.3.

2.11 Judges' and Employee Entitlements

Leave

The provision for employee entitlements encompasses annual leave and long service leave. No provision has been made for sick leave as all sick leave is non-vesting and the average sick leave taken in future years by employees of the Court is estimated to be less than the annual entitlement for sick leave.

The liability for annual leave reflects the value of total annual leave entitlements of all employees at 30 June 2000 and is recognised at the nominal amount.

The long service leave provision is based on the Federal Court's estimated liability at balance date for long service leave entitlements of its employees. Court staff employed under the Public Service Act accrue 3 months long service leave after 10 years service, and progressively thereafter on a proportional basis. The Federal Court accrues this provision for each employee based on the probability that long service leave will be taken in the future or paid out once the employee meets the qualifying 10 years. Judges accrue 6 months long leave after 5 years of service. In recognition of the nature of Judges' tenure, a provision is accmed from the first year of service.

The non-current portion of the liability for long service leave is recognised and measured at the present value of the estimated future cash flows to be made in respect of all employees at 30 June 2000. In determining the present value of the liability, the Court has taken into account attrition rates and pay increases through promotion and inflation.

Judges ’ Pension

Under the Judges' Pension Act 1968 Federal Court judges are entitled to a non-contributory pension of 60% of current judicial salary after attaining the age of 60 years and having served 10 years or more as a judge or upon retirement on the ground of invalidity. Pro rata pension is payable after 6 years service as a judge upon retirement. As the liability for these pension payments is assumed by the Commonwealth, the Court has not recognised a liability for unfunded

superannuation liability.

The Court has, however, recognised both an expense and a corresponding revenue item, “Liabilities assumed by other agencies", in respect of the notional amount of the employer contributions to Judges’ non-contributory pension for the reporting period amounting to $4,615,425 (1998-99 $4,729,070). The amount has been calculated by multiplying a contribution rate of 51.7% (1998-99: 56%) per annum by the judges’ total annual salary in respect of Federal Court judges. The contribution rate has been provided by the Australian Government Actuary.

The Court has also recognised an additional expense of $374,219 in relation to the notional amount of the employer contribution to Judges’ pension in respect of the relevant portion of Judges’ accrued leave, which is expected to be taken in the future. An equal amount has been included in ‘Liabilities assumed by other agencies’’. In prior years, these notional amounts were not recognised as expense or revenue.

Staff Superannuation

Staff of the Court contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. Employer contributions including the Employer Superannuation Productivity Benefit in relation to these schemes have been expensed in these financial statements. No liability is shown for superannuation in the Balance Sheet as the employer contributions fully extinguish the accruing liability which is assumed by the Commonwealth.

Provision is also made for employer contributions, including the Employer Superannuation Productivity Benefit, in respect of the relevant portion of accrued leave which is expected to be taken in the future. In prior years, the

101

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

liabilities as a result of this correction in accounting treatment were not recognised; however, an amount in relation to prior years has been recognised in the Operating Statement as an adjustment to “Accumulated surpluses”.

2.12 Leases

A distinction is made between finance leases which effectively transfer from the lessor to the lessee substantially all the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of leased non-current assets and operating leases under which the lessor effectively retains substantially all such risks and benefits. As at balance date the Court did not have any assets

acquired under finance lease. Therefore, all leased assets have been classified as operating leases. Operating lease payments are charged to the Operating Statement on a basis which is representative of the pattern of benefits derived from the leased assets.

Lease incentives taking the form of "free" leasehold improvements and rent-free holidays are recognised as liabilities. These liabilities are reduced by allocating lease payments between rental expense and reduction of the liability.

2.13 Capital Usage Charge

A capital usage charge of 12% is imposed by the Commonwealth on the net departmental assets of the Court. The charge is adjusted to take account of asset gifts and revaluation increments during the reporting period.

2.14 Commitments

Commitments at 30 June reflect agreements between the Court and third parties in which neither party has fulfilled any contractual obligations and unperformed portion of contractual obligations in agreements in which both parties have performed some of their obligations while other obligations have yet to be honoured.

Commitments for future property operating payments that are not recognised as liabilities in the Balance Sheet have been disclosed in the Schedule of Commitments. These commitments are mainly for rental of special purpose court buildings which are occupied by the Court’s registries. These court buildings are owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, except the New South Wales court building which is owned by Law Courts Limited, a joint venture between the NSW State and Commonwealth Governments. There are no formal lease agreements executed which detail future payments. However, the rental amounts have been reliably measured and disclosed as they are the amounts expected to be payable under the arrangement with the Commonwealth and State Governments.

2.15 Resources provided free of charge

Legislation passed by Federal Parliament in late November 1996, specifically Schedule 16 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (WROLA), provided for the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Industrial Relations Court of Australia to be transferred to the Federal Court on 26 May 1997.

Despite the transfer of the industrial relations jurisdiction to the Federal Court, the Industrial Relations Court of Australia continues to have jurisdiction over certain matters where a substantive hearing in the proceedings had commenced, or where hearings had been completed before the transfer date. Schedule 16 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 provides that the Chief Justice of the Federal Court may arrange with the Chief Justice of the Industrial Relations Court for staff, facilities and any other necessary support to be made available to the Industrial Relations Court for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Court. It is estimated that the cost of the resources provided free of charge by the Federal Court to the Industrial Relations Court during 1999-00 was $256,451

(1998-99: $2,839,404).

2.16 Taxation

The Court is exempt from all forms of taxation except fringe benefits tax and the goods and services tax. However, from 1 July 2000, the Court’s fees are not subject to goods and services tax.

2.17 Insurance

The Commonwealth’s insurable risk managed fund, called ‘Comcover’, commenced operations from 1 July 1998. The Court has insured with the fund for risks other than workers compensation, which is dealt with via continuing arrangements with Comcare. It should be noted that, workers compensation in respect of the Chief Justice and other Justices of the Court is not covered by this arrangement.

2.18 Comparative Figures

Comparative figures have been adjusted to conform to changes in presentation in these financial statements where required.

102

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

Comparatives are not presented in Notes dealing with die Reporting of Outcomes, due to 1999-2000 being the first year of the implementation of accrual budgeting.

2.19 Rounding

Amounts have been rounded to the nearest $1,000 except in relation to the following: § transactions of the Special Accounts; § act of grace payments and waivers; § remuneration of executives; and § remuneration of auditors.

NOTE 3: EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER BALANCE SHEET DATE

The Court is not aware of any significant events that have occurred since balance date which warrant disclosure in these statements.

NOTE 4: OPERATING REVENUES - FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

4.1: Revenues from Government

1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Appropriation for outputs 58,867 49,356

Reimbursement of ACT Supreme Court Judges’ remuneration 622 599

Resources received free of charge 5,579 166

Liabilities assumed by other agencies 4,989 4,729

Total 70,057 54,850

Resources received free of charge includes an amount of $5,407,000 in respect of the rent and outgoings associated with the accommodation occupied by the Court in the Law Courts Building located in Sydney, New South Wales. This building is owned by Law Courts Limited, a joint venture between the NSW State and Commonwealth Governments.

4.2: Sales of Goods and Services 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $'000

Goods 125 39

Services 100 95

Resources received free of charge 20 10

Total 245 144

4.3: Interest 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Interest from deposits 993 -

Total 993 -

103

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

NOTE 5: OPERATING EXPENSES

5.1: Judges' and Employee Expenses 1999-00 1998-99

$'000 $'000

Remuneration (for services provided) 26,566 26,497

Superannuation 6,801 6,346

Separation and tedundancy payments 165 201

Total remuneration 33,532 33,044

Other employee expenses 143 71

Total 33,675 33,115

5.2: Suppliers Expenses 1999-00 1998-99

$'000 $"000

Supply of goods and services 17,025 11,770

Operating lease rentals 12,993 10,151

Total 30,018 21,921

5.3: Depreciation and Amortisation

1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $'000

Leasehold improvements 507 576

Plant and equipment 1,404 1,277

Computer Software 99 24

Total 2,010 1,877

5.4: Net Losses from Sales and Disposals of Assets

1999-00 1998-99

Non-fmancial assets: $’000 $’000

Leasehold improvements 4 1,074

Plant and equipment 61 258

Total 65 1,332

5.5: Write Down of Assets - Federal Court of Australia 1999-00 1998-99

Non-fmancial assets: $’000 $’000

Library Holdings - 1,961

Total revaluation decrement " 1,961

|| 5.6: Write Down of Assets - Administered I 1999-00 1998-99

Financial assets: $’000 $'000

I Bad and doubtful debts expense 209 143

Total 209 143

NOTE 6: ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF CORRECTION IN ACCOUNTING TREATMENT

6.1: Prior Period Adjustment

1999-00 1998-99

$'000 $'000

Superannuation - (refer note 2.11) (435) -

Year 2000 Seed funding allocation from the Office of Government 3,585 -

Information Technology previously held in trust Prepayment not previously recognised 853 -

Other 205 -

Total 4,208 -

104

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

NOTE 7: OPERATING REVENUES - ADMINISTERED

7.1: Other sources of non-taxation revenues

1999-00 $'000

1998-99 $'000

Fees 7,233 8,809

Fines 60 1

Other 158 121

Total 7,451 8,931

NOTE 8: FINANCIAL ASSETS

8.1: Cash - Federal Court of Australia 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $ ’000

Cash on hand 6 14

Cash at bank 9,012 3^

Total Cash 9,018 44

8.2: Cash - Administered 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Cash on hand 27 23

Cash at bank 16 8

Total Cash 43 31

8.3: Receivables - Federal Court of Australia 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Goods and services 276 242

Appropriations - 4,585

Total 276 4,827

Receivables (gross) which are overdue are aged as follows: Overdue by: - Less than 30 days 9 7

- 30 to 60 days 47 -

- 60 to 90 days 7 -

- More than 90 days - 2

'■ 8.4: Receivables - Administered 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Fees 549 443

Less: provision for doubtful debts (249) (183)

Total Receivables 300 260

Receivables which are overdue are aged as follows: Overdue by: - Less than 30 days 173 116

- 30 to 60 days 49 27

- 60 to 90 days 23 -

- More than 90 days 303 290

105

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

NOTE 9: NON-FINANCIAL ASSETS

9.1: Land and Buildings 1999-00 1998-99

$•000 $'000

Leasehold Improvements - at cost 2,266 1,282

Accumulated amortisation (235) (5$)

2,031 1,227

Leasehold Improvements - at 1999 valuation 3,267 3,275

Accumulated amortisation (1,367) (L045)

1,900 2,230

Total Land and Buildings 3,931 3,457

9.2: Plant and Equipment

Plant and Equipment - at cost 3,246 2,016

Accumulated depreciation (624) (101)

2,622 1,915

Plant and Equipment - at 1999 valuation 9,785 10,184

Accumulated depreciation (2,793) (2,190)

6,992 7,994

Total Plant and Equipment 9,614 9,909

9.3: Intangibles Computer Software Purchased - at cost 910 430

Computer Software Purchased - work in progress 1,699 -

Accumulated amortisation (123) (24)

2,486 406

Total Intangibles 2,486 406

All revaluations were completed before 30 June 1999 in accordance with the policy stated in Note 2.10.

106

9.4: Analysis of Property, Plant, Equipment and Intangibles

Table A: Movement summary 1999-00 for all assets irrespective of valuation basis

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

Item Leasehold Total land Other Total Intangibles Total

improvements and infrastructure, property. buildings plant and plant and equipment equipment $’000 $'000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Gross Value:

As at 1 July 1999: 4,557 4,557 12,200 16,757 430 17,187

Additions/replacements: 353 353 1,605 1,958 2,179 4,137

Revaluations: - - " - - -

Written-off: (9) (9) (166) (175) - (175)

Disposals: - - (230) (230) - (230)

- other: 632 632 (378) 254 - 254

As at 30 June 2000 5,533 5,533 13,031 18,564 2,609 21,173

Accumulated Depreciation or Amortisation: As at 1 July 1999 Depreciation charge for:

1,100 1,100 2,291 3,391 24 3,415

- assets held at 1 July 501 501 1,286 1,787 86 1,873

- additions 6 6 118 124 13 137

Adjustment for: - revaluation „

- written-off (5) (5) (141) (146) - (146)

- other disposals - - (189) (189) - (189)

- other - - 52 52 - 52

As at 30 June 2000 1,602 1,602 3,417 5,019 123 5,142

Net Book Value as at 30 June 2000

3,931 3,931 9,614 13,545 2,486 16,031

Net Book Value as at 1 July 1999

3,457 3,457 9,909 13,366 406 13,772

Table B: Summary of balances of assets at valuation as at 30 June 2000

Item Leasehold

improvements

$’000

Total land and buildings

$000

Other

infrastructure, plant and equipment $’000

Total

$’000

As at 30 June 2000

Gross value 3,267 3,267 9,785 13,052

Accumulated Depreciation (1,367) (1,367) (2,793) (4,160)

Net book value 1,900 1,900 6,992 8,892

As at 30 June 1999 Gross value 3,275 3,275 10,184 13,459

Accumulated depreciation (1,045) (1,045) (2,190) (3,235)

Net book value 2,230 2,230 7,994 10,224

107

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

9.5: Other

Prepayments: 1999-00 1998-99

S'000 $’000

Library Expenses 228 198

Accommodation Expenses 12,649 10,728

Other 205 93

Total Prepayments 13,082 11,019

NOTE 10: DEBT

10.1 Other 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Lease Incentives: 1,158 1,362

Total 1,158 1,362

NOTE 11: PROVISIONS AND PAYABLES

11.1: Capital Use 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Capital use charge 350 -

350

11.2: Judges and Employees 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Salaries 385 449

Leave 10,175 9,151

Superannuation 518 33

Fringe Benefits Tax 178 188

Aggregate Judge and employee entitlement liability 11,256 9,821

11.3: Suppliers 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Trade Creditors 485 464

Operating lease rentals 4 15

Total 489 479

NOTE 12: EQUITY 12.1 Equity - Federal Court of Australia

Item Capital Accumulated

results

Asset revaluation reserve Total equity

1999-00 $'000 1998-99 $'000

1999-00 $'000 1998-99 $'000

1999-00 $'000 1998-99 $'000

1999-00 $'000 1998-99 $'000

Balance 1 July 4,585 - 13,096 18,308 319 - 18,000 18,308

Operating result - - 5,527 (5,212) - - 5,527 (5,212)

Net revaluation increases

- " - " 319 319

Capital Use Charge - - (2,581) - - - (2,581) -

Correction in accounting treatment - - 4,208 - - 4,208 "

Capital injection - 4,585 - - - - 4,585

Balance 30 June 4,585 4,585 20,250 13,096 319 319 25,154 18,000

12.2 Equity - Administered Accumulated Total

Results Equity

$'000 $'000

Balance 1 July 1999 291 291

Contribution to budget outcome 7,076 7,076

Amount to Commonwealth Official Public Account (7,024) (7,024)

Balance 30 June 2000 343 343 1

II

108

NOTE 13: CASH FLOW RECONCILIATION

13.1 Cash flow reconciliation - Federal Court of Australia

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

Reconciliation of operating surplus/(deficit) to net cash from operating activities. 1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

Operating surplus (deficit) 5,527 (5,212)

Depreciation/amortisation expense 2,010 1,877

Losses on disposal of non-current assets 65 1,332

Write down of assets - 1,961

Decrease (increase) in receivables 4,551 (440)

Decrease (increase) in prepayments (2,063) (695)

Other changes in non-current assets (202) 12

Increase (decrease) in liability to suppliers 10 196

Increase in provisions forjudge and employee entitlements 1,436 1.001

Increase (decrease) in other liabilities (203) (203)

Initial recognition of assets 4,643 -

Initial recognition of liabilities (435) -

Capital injection - 4,585

NET CASH FROM (PROVIDED BY) OPERATING ACTIVITIES 15,339 4,414

13.2 Cash flow reconciliation - Administered

Reconciliation of net contribution to the budget outcome to net cash from operating activities.

1999-00 1998-99

$’000 $’000

NET CONTRIBUTION TO THE BUDGET OUTCOME 7,076 8,635

Transfer to Commonwealth Official Public Account (7,024) (8,603)

Net surplus/(deficit) 52 32

Changes in assets and liabilities Decrease (increase) in receivables (40) (32)

NET CASH FROM (PROVIDED BY) OPERATING ACTIVITIES 12 -

NOTE 14: APPROPRIATIONS

14.1 Annual appropriations for Departmental items (price of outputs)

Balance available at 1 July Add: Appropriation Act No 1& 3 credits: Section 6 - Act 1 - basic appropriations (budget) Section 6 - Act 3 - basic appropriations

Add: FMA Act Section 31 appropriations Total appropriations available for the year Expenditure during the year Balance of appropriations for outputs at 30 June

14.2 Annual appropriations for Departmental non-revenue items - Carryovers

Balance available at 1 July Add: Appropriation Act No 2 & 4: Expenditure during the year Balance of appropriations for capital at 30 June

1999-00 $

58,382,000 485,000

1,325,700 60,192,700 55,290,280 4,902,420

1999-00 $

4,585.000 4,136,526 448,474

109

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

NOTE 15: SPECIAL ACCOUNTS

15.1: Other Trust Moneys

Legal Authority- Financial Management and Accountability Act, 1997: section 20 Purpose - to account for funds held by the Commonwealth while acting as trustee for private moneys in Its possession.

1999-00 $

Balance as at 1 July 1999 3,900,368

Add: Receipts from other sources 390,113

Less: Expenditure for 1999-00 (3,895,492)

Balance as at 30 June 2000 394,989

Represented by: Cash 394,989

Investments _____ ~

Total 394,989

15.2 Federal Court of Australia Litigants' Fund

Legal Authority - Order 63 rule 2 Federal Court Rules Purpose - to hold private moneys for litigants pending acceptance of moneys paid into Court by litigants; security for costs or pursuant to an order of a Federal Court Judge.

1999-00 $

Balance as at 1 July 1999 1,310,374

Add: Receipts from other sources 6,328,849

Less: Expenditure for 1999-00 (5,813,725)

Balance as at 30 June 2000 1,825,498

Represented by: Cash 1,825,498

Investments 1

Total 1,825,498

15.3 Other Investments

Legal authority - Order 63 rule 4 of the Federal Court Rules Purpose - to invest private moneys paid by litigants pursuant to an order of a Federal Court Judge, pending an order for payment out by a Federal Court Judge.

1999-00 $

Invested Balance at 1 July 1999 31,264,192

Purchase of Investments 33,680.493

Realisation of Investments (9,032,469)

Balance at 30 June 2000 55,912,216

Investments - The balance of investments as at 30 June 2000 consisted of cash management and fixed term bank accounts to which various interest rates apply. Money is paid out pursuant to orders of the Court. A summary o f these accounts is set out below:

Cash Management Accounts Fixed Deposits Balance at 30 June 2000

Face Value Cost of Rate of Date of

Investment Investment Interest Maturity

$ $ %

1,703,569 54,208,647

1,710,074 50,753,576

Various Various

Various Various

55,912,216 52,463,650

110

NOTE 16: REPORTING OF OUTCOMES

16.1 Reporting by Outcomes for 1999-2000

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

Outcome 1 Total

Budget Actual Budget Actual

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Net cost of entity outputs 56,707 53,340 56,707 53,340

Net Cost to Budget Outcome 56,707 53,340 56,707 53,340

Total assets deployed as at 30/06/00 30,030 38,407 30,030 38,407

Net assets deployed as at 30/06/00 18,000 25,154 18,000 25,154

111

NOTE 16: REPORTING OF OUTCOMES (CONTINUED)

16.2 Reporting by Outcomes by Funding Source for 1999-2000

Expense against Revenue from other sources

(C)

11,316

Total Expenses against Outputs

65,768

Appropriation Act 2 & 4 Departmental Capital Actual Total Appropriations

Actual

Total

Appropriations $’000

(D) = (A) + (B)

Total Expenses $’000

54,452 65,768

4,137

58,589

S5

S

§

tteme i

NOTE 17: REMUNERATION OF EXECUTIVES

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

The number of executive officers of the Court who received, or were due to receive, in relation to the financial year, directly or indirectly from the Court or any related body, whether as executive officer or otherwise, total remuneration that exceeded $100,000 is as follows:

Total Remuneration 1999-00 1998-99

Number Number

$100,001 to $110,000 1 -

$120,001 to $130,000 - 3

$130,001 to $140,000 - 6

$140,001 to $150,000 4 -

$160,001 to $170,000 2 -

$180,001 to $190,000 1 1

$220,001 to $230,000 ___________2_ -_

____________ 10_ ____________ 10_

The aggregate amount of total remuneration of executive officers shown above $1,642,419 $1,365,246

The aggregate amount of separation and redundancy payments during the year to executive officers shown above $144,281 Nil

NOTE 18: SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE AUDITOR-GENERAL 1999-00 1998-99

$ $

Financial statement audit services are provided free of charge to the Court by the Australian National Audit Office. The fair value of audit services provided was: _____60,000 62,000

The audit fees for the Industrial Relations Court of Australia were borne by the Federal Court and have been included in the amounts disclosed in this note. No other services were provided by the Auditor-General during the financial year.

113

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

NOTE 19: WAIVERS AND ACT OF GRACE PAYMENTS

19.1 Waivers

No payments were waived during the financial year 1999-00 under sub-section 34(1) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

The following details are furnished in relation to amounts waived during the financial year under legislation administered by the Court. Registrars are given the authority to waive or postpone fees where payment would cause hardship or where the potential payer is in receipt of legal aid from an approved organisation.

1999-00 1998-99

Number Amount $ Number Amount $

Sub-rule 183(3) Bankruptcy Rules - -

Sub-regulation 2(4) Federal Court Regulations - Sub-regulation 2(4)(a) (Legal Aid) 121 45,914 265 81,751

- Sub-regulation 2(4)(b) (Holder of Pension or Health Card or Prison Inmate) 646 283,049 557 287,120

- Sub-regulation 2(4)(c) (Waive on basis of level of income) 683 295,861 567 296,664

Sub-regulation 2A(2) Federal Court Regulations - Sub-regulation 2A(2)(e) (Legal Aid) 105 42,824 135 39,203

- Sub-regulation 2A(2)(f) (Holder of Pension or Health Card or Prison Inmate) 168 51,914 198 56,969

- Sub-regulation 2A(2)(g) (Waive on basis of level of income) 199 88,780 182 75,991

Sub-regulation 2AA(2) Federal Court Regulations - Sub-regulation 2AA(2)(f) (Legal Aid) 68 67,483 86 86,723

- Sub-regulation 2AA(2)(g) (Holder of Pension or Health Card or Prison Inmate) 351 356,710 289 292,915

- Sub-regulation 2AA(2)(h) (Waive on basis of level of income) 576 586,714 452 460,224

Total 2,917 1,819,249 2,731 1,677,560

19.2 Act of Grace Payments

No Act of Grace Payments were made during the reporting period.

NOTE 20: AVERAGE STAFFING LEVELS

Average staffing levels for the Court in 1999-00 were 314.3 (308 for 1998-99)

114

Nature of underlying instrument (including significant terms & conditions affecting the amount, timing and certainty of cash flows)

From 1 July 2000 monies in the Court’s bank accounts are swept into the Official Public Account nightly and interest is earned on the daily balance at rates based on money market call rates. Rates have averaged 4.67% for the year (1998-99: nil). In addition, rates averaging 8.7% (for the year) have been earned on prepaid accommodation expenses.

Receivables are entities that are both internal and external to the Commonwealth.

As for receivables for goods and services. The payments of fees are set out in the Federal Court rules.

The Court has received fitout incentives on entering a property operating lease in September 1995.

Creditors are entities that are both internal and external to the Commonwealth. Settlement is usually made net 30 days.

NOTE 21: FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS (Continued)

Interest Rate Risk: Federal Court of Australia

Floating Interest Rate

Financial Fixed Interest Rate Weighted

Average

Effective Interest Rate

Total

1 year or less 1 to 2 years Numbers 2 to 5 years Instrument > 5 years Interest Bearing

98-99 $'000

98-99 $’000

99-00 $’000

99-00 $’000

99-00 $’000

98-99 $’000

98-99 $’000

99-00 $’000

99-00 98-99 $’000 $’000

98-99 $’000

98-99 99-00 $’000 98-99 $’000

99-00 $’000

99 00

Financial Assets Cash Receivables for goods and services

Total Financial Assets (recognised) 4,871

Total assets 29,662 38,407

Financial Liabilities Lease incentives Trade creditors

Total Financial Liabilities (recognised) Total liabilities 11,662

21.3 Interest Rate Risk : Administered Floating Interest Rate

Fixed Interest Rate

1 to 2 years 2 to $ years ! > S years

99-00 98-99 S’QOfl $’000;

99(H) 98-99 $’000 $'000

99 00 98-99

$’000

99-00 98-99

Financial Assets

300 260

Total financial assets (recognised)

___

Total Financial

Total Liabilities

\dix 1

Appendix 1 - Financial Statements 1999-2000

NOTE 21: FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS (continued)

21.4 Net Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Financial assets

The net fair values of cash and non-interest-bearing monetary financial assets approximate their carrying amounts.

Financial liabilities

The net fair values for lease incentives and trade creditors are approximated by their carrying amounts.

21.5 Credit Risk Exposures

The Court's maximum exposures to credit risk at reporting date in relation to each class of recognised financial assets is the carrying amount of those assets as indicated in the Balance Sheet.

The Court has no significant exposures to any concentrations of credit risk. All figures for credit risk referred to do not take into account the value of any collateral or other security.

117

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

APPENDIX 2

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

Queensland

Northern Territory

Library & Information Services

Executive Australian Capital Territory

Tasmania

Western Australia

Victoria

South Australia

Court Resources Branch

Technology Services

Human Resources & Finance Services

JUDGES’ STANDING COMMITTEES

Strategy & Communications

REGISTRAR WARWICK SODEN

CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon Μ E J Black & JUDGES

DISTRICT REGISTRIES

New South Wales

118

Appendix 3 - Registrars o f the Court

APPENDIX 3

REGISTRARS OF THE COURT (as at 30 June 2000)

Registry Name Appointments under other Acts

Principal Registry

Registrar Warwick Soden

Senior Deputy Registrar Sheriff of the Federal Court of Australia

Alan Dawson Marshal in Admiralty (under Admiralty Act)

Deputy Registrar Philip Kellow

New South Wales

District Registrar John Mathieson Registrar, Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal

Deputy District Registrars

Margaret Quinn PSM

Jennifer Hedge Registrar, Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Geoffrey Segal Registrar, Australian Competition Tribunal

Anthony Tesoriero Secretary, Copyright Tribunal

Stephanie Kavallaris Deputy Registrar, Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Anna Quilter

Kim Lackenby

Victoria

District Registrar Peter Seccombe Deputy Registrar, Australian Competition Tribunal Deputy Registrar, Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Deputy District Registrars

Jamie Wood

John Efthim

Peter Fary

Brenda Conway

Jane Manning

Laurence Kenyon

119

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Registry Name Appointments under other Acts

Queensland

District Registrar Graham Ramsey Deputy Registrar, Australian Competition Tribunal Deputy Registrar, Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal Deputy Registrar, Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Deputy District Registrars

Caroline Reynolds

David Robson

Heather Baldwin

Western Australia

District Registrar Martin Jan PSM Deputy Registrar, Australian Competition Tribunal Deputy Registrar, Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Deputy District Registrars

Corryn Rayney

Elizabeth Stanley

Alison Murphy

South Australia

District Registrar Greg Fisher Deputy Registrar, Australian Competition Tribunal

Deputy Registrar, Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Tasmania

District Registrar Alan Parrott District Registrar, Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Deputy Registrar, Australian Competition Tribunal Deputy Registrar, National Native Title Tribunal

Australian Capital Territory

District Registrar John Mathieson

(Based in Sydney)

Deputy District Registrars

Margaret Quinn PSM (Based in Sydney)

Jennifer Hedge (Based in Sydney)

Geoffrey Segal (Based in Sydney)

1 2 0

Appendix 3 - Registrars o f the Court

Anthony Tesoriero (Based in Sydney)

Stephanie Kavallaris (Based in Sydney)

Anna Quilter (Based in Sydney)

Kim Lackenby (Based in Sydney)

Natalie Cujes

Northern Territory

Deputy District Registrars Greg Fisher (based in Adelaide)

Sally Walker

Kay van Brederode

Brendan McKeon

121

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

APPENDIX 4

STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION (as at 30 June 2000)

[ONLY PRINCIPAL ACTS ARE INCLUDED]

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976

Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act 1987

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

Admiralty Act 1988

Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1994

Air Navigation Act 1920

Airports Act 1996

Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act 1998

Australian Federal Police Act 1979

Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970

Australian National Railways Commission Sale Act 1997 Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989

Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990

Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980

Banking Act 1959

Bankruptcy Act 1966

Broadcasting Act 1942

Broadcasting Services Act 1992

Building Industry Act 1985

Charter o f the United Nations Act 1945

Circuit Layouts Act 1989

Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959

Close Corporations Act 1989

Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Act 1998

1 2 2

Appendix 4 - Statutes under which the Federal Court o f Australia may exercise Jurisdiction

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961

Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981

Constitutional Convention (Election) Act 1997

Copyright Act 1968

Corporations Act 1989

Crimes Act 1914

CSL Sale Act 1993

Customs Act 1901

Dairy Produce Act 1986

Debits Tax Administration Act 1982

Defence Act 1903

Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955

Designs Act 1906

Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act 1978

Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Employment Services Act 1994

Endangered Species Protection Act 1992

Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914

Evidence Act 1995

Evidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act 1994

Export Markets Development Grants Act 1997

Extradition Act 1988

Federal Court o f Australia Act 1976

Federal Court o f Australia (Consequential Provisions) Act 1976

Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981

Financial Corporations Act 1974

Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998

Financial Sector (Transfer o f Business) Act 1999

Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988

Fisheries Management Act 1991

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975

Foreign Evidence Act 1994

Foreign Judgments Act 1991

Foreign Proceedings (Excess o f Jurisdiction) Act 1984

Foreign States Immunities Act 1985

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986

Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Act 1998

Gift Duty Assessment Act 1941

Great Barrier R eef Marine Park Act 1975

Hazardous Waste (Regulation o f Exports and Imports) Act 1989

Health Insurance Act 1973

Health Insurance Commission Act 1973

Health Insurance Commission (Reform and Separation o f Functions) Act 1997

123

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Hearing Services Administration Act 1997

Hearing Services and Aghs Reform Act 1997

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989

Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993

Insurance Acquisition and Takeovers Act 1991

Insurance Act 1993

International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995

Judiciary Act 1903

Jurisdiction o f Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987

Jurisdiction o f Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1987

Lands Acquisition Act 1989

Life Insurance Act 1995

Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984

Migration Act 1958

Moomba-Sydney Pipeline System Sale Act 1994

Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989

National Crime Authority Act 1984

National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Act 1998

National Health Act 1953

National Measurement Act 1960 National Transmission Network Sale Act 1998

Native Title Act 1993

Navigation Act 1912

Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987

Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987

Ombudsman Act 1976

Ozone Protection Act 1989

Patents Act 1990

Payments Systems (Regidations) Act 1998

Petroleum (Australia-Indonesia Zone o f Cooperation) (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990

Petroleum Products Pricing Act 1981

Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987

Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980

Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 1991

Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994

Prices Surveillance Act 1983

Privacy Act 1988

Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1997

Protection o f the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Act 1993

124

Appendix 4 - Statutes under which the Federal Court o f Australia may exercise Jurisdiction

Qantas Sale Act 1992 Radiocommunications Act 1992

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

Removal o f Prisoners (Territories) Act 1968

Retirement Savings Account Act 1997

Royal Commissions Act 1902

Sales Tax Assessment Act (No 1) 1930

Sendee and Execution o f Process Act 1992

Shipping Registration Act 1981

Snowy’ Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997

Space Activities Act 1998

Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997

Superannuation Industry (Superwision) Act 1993

Superannuation (Resolution o f Complaints) Act 1993

Svdney Airport Demand Management Act 1997

Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996

Taxation Administration Act 1953

Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982

Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax- Promoters) Act 1982

Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax-Vendors) Act 1982

Telecommunications Act 1997

Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Serwice Standards) Act 1999

Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979

Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1997

Telstra Corporation Act 1991

Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997

Trade Marks Act 1995

Trade Practices Act 1974

Treasury Bills Act 1914

Wool International Privatisation Act 1999

Workplace Relations Act 1996

World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983

125

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

APPENDIX 5

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 1999-2000

Table 5.1

Performance Information and Level of Achievement 1999-2000

Output Groups Performance Information (1999-2000 revised) Achievement 1. Management of

cases and deciding disputes according

Q uality The number of complaints about process* are less than 1% of all matters disposed.

24 complaints about process received in 1999-2000, being 0.0036% of all matters disposed.

to law - Federal Q uantity 7 522 cases disposed 6 613 cases disposed.

Court. P rice $8 415 per case disposed $9 716 per case disposed

2. Management of cases and deciding disputes according

Q uality The number of complaints about process* are less than 1% of all matters disposed.

No complaints about process received in 1999-2000.

to law - Tribunals. Q uantity 21 cases disposed 7 cases disposed

P rice $49 097 per case disposed $49 165 per case disposed 3. Service to Government. Q uality 100% of responses accepted

without requiring further information.

Information from Principal Registry about number of responses made to government and number of requests for further information.

Q uantity 31 services provided to Government 71 services were provided to Government. P rice $6 212 per service $2 307 per service

4. Services provided to international jurisdictions.

Q u a lity Services provided meet the expectations of the nation requesting the service

All nations requesting assistance were satisfied with the services provided.**

Q uantity 12 services provided to international jurisdictions 30 services provided.*** P rice $14 695 per service $4 395 per service

5. Ensuring the quality of, and access to the system of justice.

Q uality (a) Papers presented meet expectations; (b) 50% of the Court’s judges participate in standing committees,

thus representing a broad representation (c) Participation in developing initiatives and policy relevant to the

objectives of the Court meet the expectations of the body involved (d) Successful completion of educational activities.

(a) All papers presented met expectations of the recipients.** (b) 75% of Judges available to participate in standing committees

did so.

(c) Court’s participation in developing initiatives and policy met the expectations of the body involved.**

(d) Educational activities were successfully completed.**

Q uantity Participation in 342 activities related to (a), (b), (c) and (d) above.

350 activities related to (a), (b), (c) and (d).***

P rice $ 1 992 per activity $2 511 per activity

* A “complaint about process” is a complaint about the Court’s or Tribunal’s procedures, rules, forms, timeliness or courtesy to users. This figure does not include appeals from a decision by a Judge, the Court or a Tribunal. Appeals are lodged where there is doubt about the law and should not be considered to be complaints. The number of complaints is the result of an informal collection process. A more comprehensive collection process is being developed. ** While no formal feedback mechanism was in place for the reporting year, all feedback received by the Court was

complimentary. *** This figure is the result of an infonnal collection process. In the absence of a reliable and comprehensive information system, the figure is likely to be an understatement and should be treated as a minimum figure.

126

Appendix 5 - Performance Information 1999-2000

Table 5.2

Resources for Outcomes 1999-2000

(1)

Budget* 1999-2000 $'000

(2)

Actual Expenses 1999-2000 $'000

Variation (column 2 minus column 1)

Budget** 2000-2001 $'000

Price of Departmental Outputs Output Group 1.1 - Management of cases and deciding disputes according to law - Federal Court

63 298 64 249 951 64 293

Subtotal Output Group 1.1 63 298 64 249 951 64 293

Output Group 1.2 - Management of cases and deciding disputes according to law - Tribunals

1 031 344 (687) 516

Subtotal Output Group 1.2 1 031 344 (687) 516

Output Group 1.3 - Service to government

194 164 (30) 217

Subtotal Output Group 1.3 194 164 (30) 217

Output Group 1.4 - Services provided to international jurisdictions

177 132 (45) 154

Subtotal Output Group 1.4 177 132 (45) 154

Output Group 1.5 - Ensuring the quality of. and access to, the system of justice

681 879 198 546

Subtotal Output Group 1.5 681 879 198 546

Revenue from Government (Appropriation) for Departmental Outputs

58 867 90%

54 452 83%

(4 415) 59 125

90%

Revenue from Other Sources 6 514 11 316 4 802 6 601

Total Price of Outputs 65 381 65 768 387 65 726

TOTAL FOR OUTCOME (Total Price of Outputs)

65 381 65 768 387 65 726

1999-2000 2000-2001

| Staff Years (Number) 314.3 310

* Full-year budget, including additional estimates * * Budget prior to additional estimates

127

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

APPENDIX 6

WORKLOAD STATISTICS

Introduction

The statistics in this appendix provide comparative historical information in relation to the work of the Court, in particular, comparative statistics concerning aspects of the Court’s jurisdiction.

It should be noted that, in this report, the figures reported may be marginally different from figures reported in previous years. The variations have occurred through refinements or enhancements to the Court’s FEDCAMS database which necessitated the checking or verification and possible variation of data previously entered, and secondly, from random audits of earlier data.

It should also be noted that Bankruptcy Act matters, consisting of creditors petitions and other related applications have been included, have been included in Table 6.1 and Figures 6.1 to 6.4a and 6.10 as part of the Court’s general statistics. Bankruptcy matters have been recorded in the FEDCAMS database since 16 December 1996 as a result of changes to certain bankruptcy administrative functions occasioned by the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 1996. Bankruptcy statistics in earlier reports were shown separately to enable

a true comparison to be made with reporting years prior to 1995-96. However, as the current report looks at workload statistics from 1995-96 onwards, it is now appropriate to include bankruptcy statistics as part o f the Court’s general workload statistics.

128

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Table 6.1

Summary of Workload Statistics

W o rk lo a d 1995-96 1 9 9 6 -9 7 1 9 9 7 -9 8 1998-99 1 9 9 9 -0 0

T o ta l m a tte rs

F ile d 4 ,3 0 7 5 ,7 8 0 7 ,0 2 7 8,045 6 ,2 7 6

C o m p le te d 3 ,8 7 9 4 ,8 8 3 7 ,3 5 7 7 ,5 4 6 6 ,6 1 3

C u rre n t 3 ,7 8 7 4 ,6 6 9 4 ,2 4 8 4,831 4 ,6 6 6

C o rp o ra tio n s L a w n a tte rs o n ly

F ile d 1,946 1 ,0 9 6 832 66 8 6

C o m p le te d 1,836 1 ,4 2 0 9 5 6 811 2 2 8

C u rre n t 7 4 2 4 3 9 35 0 2 3 9 42

B a n k ru p tc y m a tte rs o n ly (C re d ito rs p e titio n s a n d re la ted a p p lic a tio n s f 'o m 1 6 /1 2 /9 6 )

F ile d n /a 1,925 3 ,5 3 0 3 ,5 2 2 3 ,0 4 4

C o m p le te d n /a 88 7 3 ,2 7 2 3 ,5 4 7 3,121

C u rre n t n /a 1,042 1,180 1,181 1,150

N a tiv e T itle m a tte r in c lu d in g tr a n s f ;rs o n 3 0 /9 /9 8

F ile d 12 11 37 875 99

C o m p le te d 10 4 7 78 162

C u rre n t 11 18 48 845 7 7 9

T o ta l m a tte rs (e x c lird in g C o rp o ra tio iis L a w , B a n k ru p t cy m a tte rs , a n d > a tiv e T itle m a tte rs)

F ile d 2 ,3 4 9 2 ,7 4 8 2 ,6 2 8 2 ,9 8 0 3 ,1 2 7

C o m p le te d 2 ,0 3 3 2 ,5 7 2 3 ,1 2 2 3 ,1 1 0 3 ,1 0 2

C u rre n t 3 ,0 3 4 3 ,1 7 0 2 ,6 7 0 2 ,5 6 6 2 ,6 9 5

In e a rlie r re p o rts , b a n k r u p tc y c re d ito rs p e titio n s a n d re la te d b a n k ru p tc y a p p lic a tio n s re c o rd e d in th e F E D C A M S d a ta b a s e s in c e D e c e m b e r 1996 w e r e n o t in c lu d e d f o r 1 9 9 6 -9 7 , 1 9 9 7 -9 8 a n d 1 9 9 8 -9 9 so th a t a tru e c o m p a ris o n c o u ld be m a d e w ith e a r lie r y e a rs. T h e C o u rt h a s d e c id e d to in c lu d e b a n k ru p tc y

sta tistics in th e C o u r t’s g e n e ra l sta tis tic s , a n d th e y a re so in c lu d e d in th e “ T o ta l m a tte rs” s e c tio n o f

T ab le 6.1 as to file d , c o m p le te d a n d c u rre n t m a tte r s fo r the re p o rtin g y e a rs 1 9 9 6 -9 7 o n w a rd s.

129

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Figure 6.1

Matters filed 1995-96 to 1999-2000

(including bankruptcy applications from 16 December 1996)

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

■ General Matters □ Corporations Law

The decline in filings between the 1998-99 and 1999-00 was due principally to a reduction in the number of bankruptcy and Corporations Law matters, and the one-off effect of 794 native title matters transferred to the Court from the NNT Tribunal on 30 September 1998 pursuant to provisions o f the Native Title Amendment Act.

130

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Figure 6.2

Matters finalised 1995-96 to 1999-2000

(including bankruptcy applications from 16 December 1996)

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

■ Number Filed 13 Number Finalised

The number finalised refers to those matters finalised in the relevant financial year regardless of when these matters were originally filed.

From 16 December 1996, the number filed and the number finalised include creditors' petitions and other bankruptcy applications as shown below:

Year Filed Finalised

1996-97 1,925 887

1997-98 3,530 3,272

1998-99 3,522 3,547

1999-00 3,044 3,121

131

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Figure 6.3

Current Matters 1995-96 to 1999-2000

(including bankruptcy applications from 16 December 1996)

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

® Number Filed □ Number Still Current

A total of 4,666 matters remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age o f these are shown in the graph above. There were 110 applications still current relating to periods before those shown in the graph.

The total filed in 1998-99 includes 794 native title matters transferred from the National Native Title Tribunal on 30 September 1998. O f these, 605 matters remain current at 30 June 2000 .

132

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Figure 6.4

Time span to complete

Matters completed in the period 1 July 1995 to 30 June 2000 (including bankruptcy applications from 16 December 1996)

70.0% η

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

64.8%

0-6 m onths 6 -12 1 2 -1 8 1 8 -2 4 Over 24

m onths m onths m onths months

A total o f 30,120 matters were completed during the 5-year period ended 30 June 2000 excluding Native Title matters. The time span, from filing to disposition of these matters, are shown in the graph above.

133

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Figure 6.4a

Time span to complete 1995-96 to 1999-2000

(including bankruptcy matters from 16 December 1996)

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

I Completed within 18 m onths —♦—98% Benchm ark

The total number of applications completed for each of the last five years and the time span for completion are shown below:

Year Number Percentage Completed

under over

18 months 18 months

1995-96 3,879 83.2 16.8

1996-97 4,883 85.1 14.9

1997-98 7,357 87.0 13.0

1998-99 7,546 90.6 9.4

1999-00 6,613 90.8 9.2

During the reporting year the Court resolved to adopt a new benchmark o f 85%. This will be applied from the 2000-01 reporting year.

134

Appendix 6 — Workload Statistics

Figure 6.5

Corporations Law current matters 1995-96 to 1999-2000

2,500 η

2,000 -

1,500

1998-99 1999-00 1997-98 1996-97 1995-96

■ Number Filed □ Number Still Current

A total of 42 Corporations Law matters remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age of these are shown in the graph above. There were 7 matters still current relating to periods before those shown in the graph.

135

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Table 6.2

Corporations Law current matters - historical 1995-96 to 1999-2000

Age o f matters Current as at 30-Jun-96

Current as at 30-Jun-97

Current as at 30-Jun-98

Current as at 30-Jun-99

Current as at 30-Jun-00

under 6 months 468 194 183 111 1

6-12 months 129 79 59 45 2

12-18 months 74 44 24 20 6

under

18 months 671 317 266 176 9

18-24 months 30 57 30 19 10

over 24 months 41 65 54 44 23

over

18 months 71 122 84 63 33

Total 742 439 350 239 42

136

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Figure 6.6

Trade Practices Act matters filed and current 1995-96 to 1999-2000

A total of 527 Trade Practices Act matters remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age of these are shown in the graph above. There were 33 matters still current relating to periods before those shown in the graph.

137

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Table 6.3

Trade Practices Act current matters - historical 1995-96 to 1999-2000

Age o f matters Matters current as at 30-Jun-96

Matters current as at 30-Jun-97

Matters current as at 30-Jun-98

Matters current as at 30-Jun-99

Matters current as at 30-Jun-00

under 6 months 180 153 104 128 103

6-12 months 166 142 99 108 204

12-18 months 116 86 84 41 54

under

18 months 464 381 287 277 361

18-24 months 98 82 67 51 50

over 24 months 186 177 175 161 116

over

18 months 284 259 242 212 166

Total 746 640 529 489 527

138

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Figure 6.7

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act matters filed and current 1995-96 to 1999-2000

ϋ Number Filed □ Number Still Current

A total of 152 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act matters remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age of these are shown in the graph above. There were 4 matters still current relating to periods before those shown in the graph.

139

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Figure 6.7a

Migration Act matters filed and current 1995-96 to 1999-2000

1,000 η

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

@ Number Filed Ξ Number Still Current

A total of 481 Migration Act matters remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age of these are shown in the graph above. There were 2 matters still current relating to periods before those shown in the graph.

Some migration applications are filed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and these are shown in Table 6.4 on page 146.

140

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Figure 6.8

Admiralty Act matters filed and current 1995-96 to 1999-2000

140 η

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

1 Number Filed □ Number Still Current

A total of 88 Admiralty Act matters remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age of these are shown in the graph above. There was one matter still current relating to a period before those shown in the graph.

141

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Figure 6.9

Appeals to the Full Court filed and numbers still current 1995-96 to 1999-2000

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

m Number Filed ® Number Still Current

A total of 221 appeals to the Full Court remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age of these are shown in the graph above. There were 2 appeals still current relating to periods before those shown in the graph.

142

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Figure 6.10

Matters current as at 30 June each year 1995-96 to 1999-2000 (including bankruptcy applications from 16 December 1996)

5,000 -

4,000 -

3,000

2,000 -

1,000 -

4,669

4,831 4,666

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

1 General Matters II Corporations Law

The number of current matters at the end of each year as a percentage of the number of matters filed during that year is shown below:

year percent

1995- 96 87.9

1996- 97 80.8

1997- 98 60.5

1998- 99 60.0

1999- 00 74.3

143

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Figure 6.11

Bankruptcy Act matters filed and current 1995-96 To 1999-2000

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

■ Number Filed □ Number Still Current

Bankruptcy matters consisting of creditors petitions and other related applications have been recorded in the FEDCAMS database since 16 December 1996. These were previously recorded in a separate database.

The newly formed Federal Magistrates Court, which commenced on 23 June 2000, also has jurisdiction in Bankruptcy Act matters. As a consequence, the workload in this area is expected to reduce in the Federal Court.

A total of 1,150 Bankruptcy Act matters remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age of these are shown in the graph above. There were no matters still current relating to periods before those shown in the graph.

144

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

Figure 6.12

Native Title Act matters filed and current 1995-96 to 1999-2000

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

^ Number Filed □ Number Still Current

A total of 779 Native Title matters remain current as at 30 June 2000. The age of these are shown in the graph above. There was one matter still current relating to a period before those shown in the graph.

Included in the figures for 1998-99, there were 794 matters transferred from the National Native Title Tribunal on 30 September 1998. Of these, 605 matters remain current as at 30 June 2000.

145

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Table 6.4

Applications filed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act from 1995-96 to 1999-2000

ENACTMENT UNDER WHICH DECISION MADE 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission 5 9 1 2 2

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection 3 3 - 1 1

Aboriginal Councils and Associations 1 2 1 2 1

Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) 1 1 - 2 -

Administrative Appeals Tribunal 7 3 - - 4

Aged Care - - - 1 3

Aged or Disabled Persons 1 - - - -

Air Force 1 - - 1 -

Air Navigation 1 - - - -

Anti-Dumping Authority - - 2 3 -

Audit - 2 - - -

Australian Citizenship 4 - - - 1

Australian Federal Police - - - 1 1

Australian Heritage Commission 1 1 - - -

Australian Maritime Safety Authority - - 2 - -

Australian Securities Commission 6 3 2 2 1

ACT Ordinances and Acts 3 1 4 1 1

Bankruptcy 3 2 - - 2

Broadcasting 1 - - - -

Broadcasting Services 4 7 - - -

Child Care 1 - - - -

Child Support (Registration and Collection) - - 2 2 -

Christmas Island Ordinances and Acts - 1 - - -

Civil Aviation - - 1 2 1

Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) - 1 - - -

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) - " 1 -

Corporations 5 2 5 4 2

Crimes 5 2 3 4 2

146

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

ENACTMENT UNDER WHICH DECISION MADE 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

Custom s 2 8 1 2 5

Custom s T ariff - - 1 1 -

Defence - - 2 2 -

Defence Force D iscipline 1 - - 1 -

D evelopm ent A llow ance Authority - 1 - - -

D irector o f Public P rosecution - 1 - - -

D isability D iscrim ination - 4 7 2 4

D isability Services - - 1 - -

Em ploym ent, E ducation and Training - 1 2 - -

Environm ent P rotection (Sea Dum ping) 1 - - - -

E nvironm ental P rotection ( Impact o f Proposals) 2 1 3 2 -

Excise - - - 1 -

Export Control - - - 1 -

E xport M arket D evelopm ent Grants 1 - - - -

Extradition - 2 - - -

E xtradition (C om m onw ealth Countries) - - - 1 -

Fair T rading - - 1 - -

Fam ily Law 2 - - 1 1

Federal Airports Corporation 2 1 - - -

Federal Court o f A ustralia 3 2 - 2 3

Fisheries M anagem ent 3 - - - 1

Forest Industries Research Levies - - - 1 -

Freedom o f Inform ation - - - 1 -

Great Barrier R e e f M arine Park - - 1 1 -

H ealth Insurance 34 7 33 20 1

Higher E ducation F unding 1 - - - 1

Hum an Rights and E qual Opportunity Com m ission

3 5 10 6 10

Income Tax A ssessm ent 8 5 10 44 4

Industrial R esearch and Developm ent Incentives 2 2 - - -

Insurance (Agents and Brokers) - - - - 1

Insurance Contracts - - - 1 -

Judiciary 11 6 19 15 22

Justices (NSW) - - 1 - -

147

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

ENACTMENT UNDER WHICH DECISION MADE 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

Life Insurance - 1 - - -

M arriage - - 1 - -

M erit Protection (A ustralian G overnm ent E m ployees) 1 - 1 - -

M eteorology - 1 - - -

M igration 113 95 13 38 114

M igration Act (R efugee Status) 63 25 2 8 2

M utual A ssistance in C rim inal M atters - 1 - - -

N ational Crim e A uthority 8 - 1 1 1

N ational Health 7 4 6 2 2

N ational Health and M edical R esearch Council - 1 - 1 -

N ative Title 1 5 1 5 2

P atents 1 - 1 2 2

P etroleum (Subm erged L ands) - 2 - - 1

P rices Surveillance 1 - - - -

Public Service 5 7 9 2 11

Q uarantine - - 1 - -

R acial D iscrim ination 1 2 7 2 -

R adiocom m unications 1 - - - -

Safety R ehabilitation and C om pensation 4 1 2 1 2

Sales T ax A ssessm ent 2 1 3 2 1

Securities Industries Code 1 - - - -

Sex D iscrim ination 2 5 3 - -

S ocial Security 1 2 1 2 3

S uperannuation - 2 3 - 1

S uperannuation (R esolution o f Com plaints) - 1 1 - 0

T axation A dm inistration 1 - 2 - 2

T axation (U npaid C om pany T ax) A ssessm ent 1 - - - -

T elecom m unications - 1 1 - -

T elecom m unications (Interception) 1 - - - -

T herapeutic G oods - 1 1 - 1

T rade M arks - - 1 - 1

T rade Practices 1 2 2 2 3

V eterans' E ntitlem ents 3 2 1 2 5

148

Appendix 6 - Workload Statistics

ENACTMENT UNDER WHICH DECISION MADE 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

W orkplace R elations - 2 - - 1

W orld H eritage P roperties Conservation - 1 - - -

TO TA LS 348 251 179 204 230

149

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

APPENDIX 7

OVERSEAS VISITORS TO THE FEDERAL COURT

Visitors to the Court in 1999-2000 included the following:

Canada

Ms Mary-Woo Sims, Chief Commissioner o f the British Colombia Human Rights Commission Mr Mario Bouchard, General Counsel, Copyright Board of Canada

England

The Honourable Dame (Mrs Justice) Heather Steel, Judge, Queen’s Bench Division of High Court of Justice Mr David Beattie, Queen’s Bench Division of High Court of Justice

Hong Kong

The Hon Mr Justice Michael Hartman,Court o f First Instance Hong Kong The Hon Judge Ian Carlson, District Court of Hong Kong The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Li, Chief Justice o f Hong Kong The Hon Mr Justice Patrick Chan, Chief Judge of the High Court of Hong Kong The Hon Mr Justice Richard Hawkes, Chief Judge of the District Court of Hong Kong Mr Richard Tsui, Judiciary Administrator, Hong Kong

India

Mr Soli Sorabjee, Attorney-General of India Mr Arjuna Nadaraja, Advisor

Indonesia

The Court was visited by over 75 judges, court officials and legal practitioners from Indonesia. These included the following visitors.

Mrs Susanti Adi Nugroho, S.H. Judge, Court o f Appeal and Coordinator, Judicial Research and Training Centre at the Supreme Court Training Centre Mr Sudharsono, S.H. Judge, Jakarta State Administrative Court of Appeal Mr Drs. H Zainuddin Fajari, S.H. Judge, District Court of Religious Affairs (Southern Jakarta) Mr Subiharta S.H. Judge, District Court of Demak Mr Edi Widodo, S.H. Judge, District Court of Gresik Mr Mohamand Dalail, S.H., MBA, PhD, Judge, High Court of Denpasar Mr Supamo, S.H. Judge, High Court of Southern Sulawesi Capt. M Adnan Madjid, S.H., M.H. Judge, Military Court III-16 Mr Rahmat Soemandipradja, Senior partner in Soemadipradja & Haher Mr Erwin Mangatas Malau, Judge, District Court Central Jakarta Mrs Artha Theresia, Judge, District Court Cibinong

150

Appendix 7 - Overseas Visitors to the Federal Court

Mrs CH Krishpumami Wulan, Judge, Commercial Court Central Jakarta Mr Mangast Siturieang, Chief of Intelligence Section on Tangerang District Mrs Nurvita Kusumawardani, Public Prosecutor, Jakarta High Prosecution Office Mr Achmad Dimhyata, Judge of Watampone District Court Mrs Alia A1 Hasna, Judge, Tangerrang Religion Court Mr Ari Mohammad, Head of Advocacy ICEL

Mr Bambang Henri Mulyono, Judge, Dompu District Court Mr Jon Effreddi, Judge, Payakumbuh District Court Mr Budhy Hertantiyo, Judge, Sungai Liat District Court

Mrs Josi Khatarina, ADR Department Officer Mr Lucas Prakosa Judge, Ende District Court Mr Nixon FLP Silalahi, Staff of Directorate EIA, BAPEDAL Mr PPH Sitorus, Judge, Bangil District Court Mr Pastra Joseph Ziraluo, Judge/Vice Chairman, Mempawah District Court Mrs Siti Suryani, Judge, Indramayu District Court Mrs Sudharmawatinin Gsih, Judge, Demak District Court Mr Taufan Mandala, Judge, Selong District Court Mr Teguh Haryanto, Judge, Slawi District Court Mr Yazid, Staff o f Dir. Compliance & ADR, BAPEDAL Mrs Yuli Effendi, Judge, Mamuju District Court Mr Iswan Herwin, Judge, State Administrative Court, Makasar Mr Sudharsono S.H., Jakarta State Administrative Court of Appeal Mr Indra Surya, Head of International Affairs Division, Law Enforcement Bureau of the Capital Market Supervisory Agency

Japan

Mr Yoshiki Matsuani, Judge, Tokushima District Court Mr Fusanori Otsuka, Attorney at law Mr Koichiro Kakiuchi, Attorney at Law Mr Hiroshi Kawano, President of Kyushu Federation of Bar Associations.

Mr Setsuo Hatano, Attorney at Law Mr Yasuhiko Matsunaga, Lawyer Mr Gunnpei Yoneda, Attorney, Tochigi Prefecture Mr Nobumasa Takahashi, Attorney, Tochigi Prefecture Mr Mitsuharu Takagi, Attorney, Tochigi Prefecture Mr Mauhiro Yamaguchi, Attorney, Tochigi Prefecture Mr Yoshio Onose, Attorney, Tochigi Prefecture

Mr Mineaki Kondoh, Attorney, Tochigi Prefecture Mr Kenji Ushioda, Attorney, Tochigi Prefecture Mr Hisashi Satah, Attorney, Shizuoka Prefecture Mr Katsuya Hanatani, Attorney, Saitama Prefecture

Ms Syumi Ohta, College student Ms Yuko Takahashi, College student Miss Yuki Onose, School student Ms Yohko Ishido, Interpreter

Ms Yasue Ishido, Interpreter Mr Tatsuo Matsui, Office worker

151

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Kuwait

Chief Justice Mohamed Yousel Al-Refai, Chief Justice of Kuwait Justice Abdulla A. Al-Eisa, Vice President, Supreme Court of Kuwait Justice Ahmed Musaed Al-Ajeel, Director General, Kuwait Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies Justice Jamal Hamad Al-Shamiri, Justice of Appeal Court Mr Abdul Hakim A. Al-Rashed, Judge, Administrative Degree in Court of First Instance Mr Saad M. Al-Rukaibi, Administration Director, Office of the President of the Higher Judicial Council Mr Syed Manzar Alam, Secretary

N ew Zealand

The Rt. Hon. Dame Sian Elias, GNZM, Chief Justice of the High Court of New Zealand The Hon Justice Bruce Robertson, High Court of New Zealand

People’s Republic of China

Mr Justice Zheng Gang, Vice President of Beijing High People’s Court Mr Justice Zhang Yean, Vice President of FangShan District People’s Court Mr Justice Zhu Jiang, President of HaiDjan District People’s Court Mr Justice Liu Jingang, Division Director of Beijing High People’s Court Mr Justice Jia Zhengqi, Vice President o f Chao Yang District People’s Court Mr Justice Wang Shicang, Vice President of ChangPing County People’s Court The Hon Justice Yafei Xu, Deputy Chief Justice, Hubei Province Mr Justice Houru Xi, Chief Justice of Filing Division, Supreme Court o f Hubei Mr Justice Zhongquan Wu, Chief Justice of Research Division, Supreme Court of Hubei Mr Justice Xinlai Zhu, Chief Justice of Xinogan Intermediate Court of Hubei Province Mr Justice Zhichao Quan, Chief Justice o f Jingmem Intermediate Court of Hubei Province Mr Zhao Xiaoping, Director-General, Department o f Price Supervision, State Development Planing Commission Mr Jim Jingmin, Deputy Director-General, Training Centre, State Development Planing Commission Ms Kang Ying, Vice President, High People’s Court, Fujian Province Ms Dong Pei Lan, Judge, Supreme People’s Court Ms Xu Shi Qin, Judge, Supreme People’s Court Mr Lin Guo Ping, President, District Court, Shandong Province Mr Yang Sheng, Chief Judge, Administrative Division, Shandong Province Mr Zeng Zhao Hui, Interpreter, National Judge’s College, Beijing The Hon Chief Justice Yilong Teng, President of the Supreme Court of Shanghai Mr Justice Xu Chen, Chief Justice, First Intermediate Court of Shanghai Mr Justice Xinlong Ying, Chief, Commercial Division, Shanghai Second Intermediate Court of Shanghai Ms Justice Meiying Liu, Chief, Research Division, Supreme Court of Shanghai Mr Qingshan Lin, Director, Law Society of Shanghai Ms Biying Li, Assistant Judge, Supreme Court of Shanghai Ms Ziva G He, Interpreter His Excellency Mr Han Zhubin, Procurator-General in the Government o f the People’s Republic of China

152

Appendix 7 - Overseas Visitors to the Federal Court

Mr Xu Haifeng, Chief Procurator, Beijing Mr Li Xuebin, Chief Procurator, Henan Mr Jiang Wei, Director-General, Case Review & Prosecution Department Mr Ye Feng, Director-General, Foreign Affairs Bureau

Mr Wang Yongjun, Commissioner ( Secretary to Procurator-General)

Philippines

Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, Supreme Court Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Court of Appeals Justice Cipriano A. del Rosario, Sandiganbayan (Anti-corruption court) Ret. Justice Antonio M. Martinez, Vice-Chancellor of Philippines Judicial Academy Justice Adriano R. Osorio, Executive Judge, Criminal Law, Valenzuela City; Justice Josefma G. Salonga, Executive Judge, Makati City Justice Neri G. Duremdes, Executive Judge, San Jose

Justice Verginia H. Europa, Executive Judge, Davao City

South Africa

Justice Arthur Chaskalson SC, President, Constitution Court of South Africa

United Kingdom

Dr Richard Comes, Senior Research Fellow, The Constitution Unit, University College, London

United Nations

Ms Erika Feller, Director of International Protection, UNHCR

United States of America

Professor Deborah Hensler, Stanford University and Senior Fellow of the Institute of Civil Justice. RAND Institute Mr Eli Rosenbaum, Director, Office of Special Investigations, Department of Justice Judge Joan Zeldon, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Washington DC

Vietnam

Mr Dinh Van Que, Deputy Chief Judge, Criminal Court of the Supreme People’s Court Mr Nguyen Thanh Thuoc, Justice, Chief of HR Department, Central Military Court of the Supreme People’s Court Mr Le Ba Than, Justice of the Supreme People’s Court

Mr Dao Van Tien, Justice of the Supreme People’s Court Mr Dang The Loi, Justice of the Supreme People’s Court Mrs Tmang Chau Nga, Justice o f the Supreme People’s Court Mr Nguyen Huu Lo, Justice of the Supreme People’s Court

Mrs Le Thi Hien, Justice of the Supreme People’s Court Mr Nguyen Gia Cuong, Editor-in-Chief, “People’s Court Journal” and “Justice Defender Magazine”, Supreme People’s Court

153

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Mr Dinh Thai Phien, Legal Inspector, Criminal Court of the Supreme People’s Court Mr Nguyen Dinh Lan, Legal Inspector, Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court Mr Nguyen Van Tien, Legal Inspector of the Supreme People’s Court Mrs Nguyen Thi Tu, Bureau Chief, Institute for Judicial Sciences of the Supreme People’s Court Mrs Tran Thi Hue, Deputy Chief Department, Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City Mr Doan Ngoc Ninh, Chief of Administrative Department, Central Military Court of the Supreme People’s Court Mr Bui Van Du, Chief Judge, Hoa Binh Province Mr Van Dao, Chief Judge, Binh Dinh Province Mrs Pham Thi Tran, Acting Chief Judge, Tay Ninh Province Mr Nguyen Thanh Bo, Chief Judge, Thanh Hoa Province Mr Ngo Due, Chief Judge, Quany Ninh Province Mr Hoang Van Tu, Legal Expert, ONA, Interpreter Mrs Bui Thi Hai, Justice o f the Economic Division, Supreme People’s Court Mrs Nguyen Thi Quoc Te, Legal Expert of the Personnel Division, Supreme People’s Court Mr Hoang Van Lien, Legal Inspector of the Secretariat, Supreme People’s Court Mrs Bui Thi Minh, Legal Inspector o f the Criminal Division, Supreme People’s Court Mrs Hoang Thi Bac, Legal Inspector of the Labour Division, Supreme People’s Court Mr Le Man Hung, Legal Expert of the Institute for Judicial Science, Supreme People’s Court Mrs Le Thi Ngan Hanh, Legal Inspector of the Representative Office o f the Supreme People’s Court, Ho Chi Minh City Mr Vo Ngoc Mau, Judge o f the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province Mr Vo Minh Tien, Judge of the People’s Court of Qang Ngai Province Mr Tran Viet Hung, Court Clerk of the People’s Court of Thanh Xuan District, Hanoi

154

Appendix 8 - Equal Employment Opportunity Statistics

APPENDIX 8

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STATISTICS (as at 30 June 2000)

Representation of EEO Groups within occupational groups

Occupational Group

Total staff

Women NESB1 NESB2 ATSI PWD

SES 8 2 1 - - -

P C S a n d r e la te d 31 6 182 23 15 4 8

P ro fe s s io n a l 25 15 4 2 - -

T O T A L 34 9 199 28 17 4 8

Representation of EEO Groups within salary levels

Salary

Total staff

Women NESB1 NESB2 ATSI PWD

$ 2 5 1 4 5 - 2 7 7 9 0 FCS1

8 2 1 1 - -

$ 2 8 4 5 7 - 3 1 5 5 6 F C S 2

6 3 2 7 5 1 1 4

$ 3 2 4 1 2 - 3 4 9 8 2 F C S 3

4 4 2 8 5 2 - -

$ 3 6 1 2 5 - 4 2 7 2 5 F C S 4 & e q u iv a le n t

1 4 4 1 0 3 7 8 2 2

$ 4 3 5 1 8 - $ 4 9 9 9 0 F C S 5 & e q u iv a le n t 2 2 8 2 1 1 1

$ 5 5 7 0 0 - 6 7 7 4 9

F C M 1 /F C L 1 2 7 17 5 2 - -

$ 6 4 2 1 2 - 7 7 1 8 2 F C M 2 /F C L 2

3 3 12 2 2 - 1

SES

8 2 1 - - -

T O T A L 3 4 9 1 9 9 2 8 17 4 8

Note: EEO target groups are not mutually exclusive. Any individual officer may be included in more than one group. Salary groupings are based on maximum salary for a classification. Key: NESB1 - people of non-English speaking background, first generation NESB2 - people of non-English speaking background, second generation

ATSI - Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders PWD - People with disabilities PCS - Federal Court Staff PCM - Federal Court Manager FCL - Federal Court Legal

155

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

APPENDIX 9

STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982

Information on the particulars of the establishment, organisation, functions and powers of the Court is contained throughout this report.

Categories of documents

The Federal Court Registries maintain the following categories of documents:

• documents relating to matters heard by, or applications or appeals lodged with, the Court including applications, notices of appeal, affidavits, pleadings, transcripts and copies of judgments;

• registers and indexes in bound volumes of matters coming to the Court (documents dealing with matters coming to the Court are also generated by computer);

• statistical information;

• documents concerning staff matters;

• documents concerning the administrative and financial aspects of the Court's operations;

• internal working documents and correspondence; and

• registry manuals.

The District Registries also maintain a computer database containing details of matters commenced in the Court since 1 January 1984.

The following categories o f documents are open to public access according to an enactment (other than the Freedom o f Information Act 1982) where the access is subject to a fee or other charge:

• documents filed in a proceeding or purported proceeding (available upon application, subject to the Rules of Court and upon payment of the fees set out in the Federal Court Regulations).

The following categories o f documents are available for purchase by the public in accordance with arrangements referred to below:

• transcripts of proceedings (inquiries may be made at the relevant District Registry to ascertain the service provider for the relevant State or Territory);

156

Appendix 9 - Statement under Section 8 o f the Freedom o f Information Act 1982

• copies of documents filed in the Registry (available upon application, subject to the Rules of Court, and upon payment of the fees set out in the Federal Court of Australia Regulations); and

• reasons for judgment (available upon application and payment of the fees set out in the Federal Court o f Australia Regulations).

The following categories of documents are open to public access according to an enactment (other than the Freedom of Information Act) free of charge on request:

• Registers of proceedings in the Court.

The following documents are available free of charge upon request:

• procedural guides to: > instituting appeals to the Federal Court of Australia; > commencing an action in the Federal Court of Australia (for litigants in person); > appearing in Court in relation to a creditor's petition (for unrepresented debtors); > completing certain forms prescribed by the Rules of Court; > filing documents in the Court by facsimile transmission.

• a list of Full Court sittings (published yearly);

• Court lists (published daily);

• various practice notes made by the Chief Justice; and

• Video-conference Protocol.

Facilities for access

Facilities to examine documents and to obtain copies are available at the Court's registries as initial contact points.

Registers open to public inspection are available at all initial contact points. Transcript is available from the relevant reporting service provider.

FOI procedures and initial contact points

FOI contact officers will assist applicants to identify the particular documents they seek. The only officer authorised to deny access to documents is the Registrar of the Court.

The availability of some documents under the Freedom of Information Act will be affected by section 5 of that Act, which states that the Act does not apply to any request for access to a document of the Court unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature.

Inquiries concerning access to documents or other matters relating to freedom of information should be directed to the District Registrar of the relevant District Registry or, in the case of the Principal Registry, to the Registrar. The addresses are listed on page (ii) at the front of this report.

157

Index

INDEX

Membership and staff, 54

=jl· Practice and procedure, 54 $ President, 4

" Registrar, 119

registries, 7 Australian Industrial Court, 1 Australian Industrial Relations Commission

President, 5 Australian Law Reform Commission, 14 Commissioner, 4, 5

Aboriginal Land Commissioner, 4 Access to Justice Discrimination, 66 Electronic filing, 67

Gender issues, 65 Interpreters, 66 Reform activities, 71 Remote hearings, 68 Access to Justice

Accessibility of services, 67 Amendments to the Federal Court Act, 65 Electronic filing, 15 Facsimile filing, 67 Improving accessibility and quality of the justice

system generally, 70 Internet home page, 70 Legal education, 73 Practice and procedure reforms. 63 Public information, 69 Remission or waiver of fees, 68 Searches on court databases, 69 Administration of the Court

Financial Management Services, 89 Technology services, 85 Training and development, 78 Workplace bargaining, 78 Administration of the Court

Advertising and Market Survey Services, 88 Performance management, 83 Workplace Diversity, 76 Administrative Appeals Tribunal District Registrar, 120 joint registries, 7 jurisdiction of Court to review, 17 President, 4 Presidential members, 3, 4, 5 review of refusal to waive fees, 68 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 17 Admiralty Admiralty Act 1988, 17 Admiralty Marshal, 8, 119 Admiralty Rules Committee, 72 Appeals delivery ofjudgments, 42 from Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 18 from Federal Magistrates Court, 18 from Supreme Courts, 18 Full Court sittings, 42 jurisdiction, 42 Appointments, 3 judges, 3, 6 judicial registrars, 6 registrars, 119 Assisted Dispute Resolution, 52 matters referred for mediation, 53 Attorney-General, 19 Australian Competition Tribunal Activities, 55 Deputy President, 5, 6 Functions And Powers, 54

B II

Bankruptcy, 7, 144 jurisdiction, 18 workload statistics, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 143

c HI

Caseflow Management, 40 Disposal of cases, 40 Chief Justice, 2, 3, 7, 9, 43, 51, 62, 73, 81. 157 Committees, 9, 70

Admiralty, 9, 70 Assisted Dispute Resolution, 9, 70 Audit, 9, 70 Bankruptcy, 9, 70 Corporations, 9, 70 Equality and the Law, 9, 70 Federal Court Reports, 9, 70 Finance, 9 Information Technology, 9, 70 Library, 9 Native Title Coordination, 9, 70

Practice and Procedure, 9, 70 Remuneration, 9 Rules, 9, 70 Security, 9 Transcript, 9, 70 Ci^nmunity Relations Program, 10, 12, 15. 70 Complaints

About the Australian Competition Tribunal. 55 About the Copyright Tribunal, 56 About the Court’s processes, 53 About the Defence Force Discipline Tribunal, 57 About the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal, 57 Copyright Tribunal, 7

Activities, 56 Deputy President, 5 Functions and powers, 55 Membership and staff, 55 Practice and procedure, 55

President, 3 Corporations Law, 7, 11, 15, 17 Court establishment, 1

functions and powers, I judges, 2 objectives, 1 Cross-vesting

monitoring committee, 51 Cross-Vesting, 51 Monitoring Committee. 51

158

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

p HI

Decisions of interest Trade Practices - Misleading and deceptive conduct, 20 Decisions of interest, 19

Aboriginal Land Rights Whether affected by common law or statutory rights to fish, 31 Administrative law

Standing, 28 Bankruptcy Validity of bankruptcy notices, 36 Constitutional law

Validity of Trade Practices Act s 51AA, 29 Genocide, 21 Human Rights

Disability discrimination, 38 Intellectual property Test for whether copying occurred, 23 Migration

Protection in non-Convention country, 23 Native Title Recognition of native title in the sea and sea-bed, 25

The meaning and extinguishment of native title, 32 Practice and procedure Vexatious litigant, 40 Representative Proceedings

Validity Of Federal Court Of Australia Act Part IVA, 37 Trade Practices - Pyramid selling, 20 Workplace relations

Freedom of association, 35 Workplace Relations Freedom of association, 24 Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal, 7

Activities, 56 Functions and powers, 56 Membership and staff, 56 Practice and procedure, 56 President, 3 Registrar, 119 registries, 7 District Registrars

list of district registrars, 8 District Registries, 7, 10

Enterprise Bargaining, 9

F J

Family Court of Australia Chief Justice, 4 provision of registry services to Federal Court, 7

Federal Court Case Management System public access, 69 Federal Court of Australia Chief Justice, 2

establishment, 1 functions and powers, 1 Judges, 2

jurisdiction, 16 list of judges, 3 objectives, 1 Federal Court of Australia Act, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 51,

52, 65. 123 Federal Court of Australia Regulations, 68 Federal Court of Bankruptcy, 1 Federal Court Rules, 19 Federal Magistrates Court, 1, 7, 12 Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Activities, 57 Deputy President, 4 Functions and powers, 57 Membership and staff, 57 Practice and procedure, 57 President, 4 Registrar, 119 registries, 7 Fees, 68 Financial statements, 90, 126 Freedom of Information Act

facilities for access, 157 procedures, 157 Full Court appeals filed and current, 142

sittings, 42

G ____________ 1

Governor-General appointment of judges, 2 appointment of Registrar, 7 removal of judges, 2

H

Hearings Full Court, 42 High Court of Australia, 1,51 Human rights, 11, 44

' II

industrial Relations Court of Australia Chief Justice, 3 Judge, 3, 4, 5 judicial registrars, 6

Registries, 7 transfer of jurisdiction, 6, 43 Internet home page, 70, 86

j τι

Judges, 2 appointment, 2 appointments and retirements, 6 committees, 9 law related activities, 6 list of current judges. 3 meetings, 9 removal, 2

Judges' robes, 12 Judgments, see Decisions of interest delivery, 42

159

Index

electronic availibility, 42 number delivered, 42 Judicial exchange program, 62 Judicial Registrars, 6 Jurisdiction, 14, 16, 42

list of statutes, 122 New jurisdiction, 18 Justice System, 63 Improving accessibility and quality of the justice

system generally, 70 Improving the operation and accessibility of the Court, 63

l .. I I

Legal education, 59, 73 Life appointment judges, 2

M HI

Management of cases and deciding disputes by the Court, 16 Management of cases and deciding disputes by tribunals, 53 Mediation

assisted dispute resolution, 52 external mediation, 53 Migration matters, 13, 47

Migration Review Tribunal jurisdiction of Court to review, 17

N II

National Native Title Tribunal, 7, 17 Deputy President, 5 Native title, 11, 13, 17,48 Native Title Benchbook. 85 Native title matters, 15, 145

Ο II

Officers of the Court, 8

P II

Parliament removal of judges, 2 Pegasus Scholarship Trust, 62 practice and procedure, 9, 19, 40, 41, 65

Practice and procedure, 63 Practice Notes, 19 Principal Registry, 7. 9 Public information, 69 Public Service Act

staff of the Court, 8

R

Refugee Review Tribunal jurisdiction of Court to review, 17 Registrar, 8

appointment, 119 appointment of officers, 8 assistance to the Chief Justice, 9 oath of office, 8 Registrars

list, 119 Registries, 7, 9 Rules of Court, 9, 19 Rules Revision Project, 65

Services to Government, 57 Information to the Parliament, 58 requests for information, 58

Services to international jurisdictions Commissions in overseas’ courts, 59 International committees and conferences, 61 Legal education programs, 59 Library services to the South Pacific and Thailand,

62, 88

Other support. 62 Sheriff, 8, 119 Staff appointment, 8

Senior Executive Service, 82 Strategic and Communication Services Unit, 9 Strategic and Communications Unit, 12 Supreme Court of Christmas Island, 3 Supreme Court of Christmas Island - Judge, 3 Supreme Court of Norfolk Island, 3

Chief Justice, 3 Supreme Court of the ACT, 3, 4, 5 Supreme Court of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, 3, 4 Supreme Court of the NT, 3, 4 Supreme Court of Vanuatu, 3, 4, 59

T 1

Technology services New case management system, 12, 15 Technology Services, 85 New case management system, 85 Time standards, 13

delivery ofjudgments, 14, 43 disposal of matters, 14, 41 Tongan Court of Appeal and Privy Council, 3, 59 Trade Practices Act, 16

.~ V ' I I

Visitors to the Court, 62

w ||

Workload, 43 Age of pending caseload, 46 Appellate workload, 13,45 current matters, 135, 136, 138, 143 General trends, 13, 43

Incoming work, 44 Matters completed, 45 Matters on hand, 45 Matters remitted or transferred, 51

160

Federal Court o f Australia - Annual Report 1999-2000

Migration matters, 13, 47 Native title, 48 Trends, 43 Workload Statistics, 128

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review), 17, 51, 122. 139, 140, 146 Admiralty Act matters, 141 Corporations Law, 135 Corporations Law current matters, 136 Corporations Law matters, 47 Current matters, 47, 132 full court appeals, 18, 43

matters filed, 130 matters finalised, 131 Time span to complete, 133, 134 Trade Practices Act current matters, 138 Trade Practices Act matters filed and current, 137 Workplace Relations

Performance management, 83 Performance Management, 76 Performance pay, 83 Training and development, 78 Workplace bargaining, 78

161

1 '

162

>" ' ’ - .