Dear Federal Court of Australia,
On 19 April 2018, Sia Lagos sent a memorandum to all registrars of the Federal Court of Australia. The memorandum is a six page document.
In the memorandum, Sia Lagos, at the time the National Operations Registrar, identified a set of key outcomes. There are 12 key outcomes in the memorandum.
Outcome 1 reads as follows:
To appropriately recognise the important role of a Federal Court registrar and to transition the role to a dual national / local role (with an emphasis on legal work, drawing on specialised skill and knowledge), registrar titles will be amended. During the consultation process with judges, there was overwhelming support in favour of acknowledging and improving the status of the Federal Court registrar role, including adding the title ‘judicial’ to appropriate registrar roles. That table below outlines the titles for existing registrar role …”
In the table, Sia Lagos noted that:
a) the person with the title of “National Operations Registrar” would take on the “grander” title of “Principal Judicial Registrar & National Operations Registrar”;
b) the person with the title of “Deputy National Operations Registrar” would take on the risible and unruly title of “Deputy Principal Judicial Registrar & Deputy National Operations Registrar”;
c) the people with the titles of “District Registrar”, which is an office of registrar under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (see ss 18N(1)(a) and 34(3)), would take on the title of “National Judicial Registrar & District Registrar”;
d) the person with the title of “National Appeals Registrar” would take on the title of “National Judicial Registrar – Appeals”;
e) the person with the title on “National Native Title Registrar” would take on the title of “National Judicial Registrar – Native Title”;
f) the people with the titles of “Deputy District Registrar”, which is an office of registrar under s 18N(1)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), would take on the title of “Judicial Registrar”;
g) the persons with the title of “Native Title Registrar” would take on the title of “Judicial Registrar – Native Title”; and
h) the persons with the title of “NCF Registrar” would take on the title of “National Registrar”.
Outcome 1 then continues as follows:
“Timing: The new titles will be used for the upcoming registrar recruitment exercise (see below). At an appropriate time in the coming months, wither during or at the completion of the recruitment exercise, the new titles will be formally implemented across all registrar positions.”
Outcome 2 reads as follows:
“Increase in registrar resources
To address the reduction in registrar resourcing over the past few years, including the recent departure of four District Registrars, and to ensure that core registrar work can be carries our in a timely manner with increased capacity to provide additional case management for judges, a recruitment exercise for registrar swill be undertaken on a priority basis, so that:
* The four vacant registrar position in the VIC, QLD, WA and TAS registrars are replaced with senior registrars who will undertake a leadership role in the registry and be the key liaison for judges and the profession. These would be based locally, but with the ability to perform national work also.
* Additional registrar positions are recruited, at senior levels, to undertake core registrar work, additional case management work for judges and manage critical functions of the Court including the allocation and management of judicial and registrar work and the national management of migration work.
Timing: It is proposed to commence the recruitment process in late April 2018 and registrar will be advised when the positions are advertised.”
Outcome 3 reads as follows:
“Local leadership role of senior registrars
The National Judicial Registrar and District Registrar will be the senior registrar role in each registry and will undertake a leadership and mentoring role amongst registrars and staff in the registrar and will be a key liaison for judges based locally in relation to issued of any nature that affect judges and registrars work, in addition to any national role they may perform. In that sense, although the formal management role has shifted, many important leadership aspects of the former ‘District Registrar’ role will be preserved. The National Judicial Registrar and District Registrar, with high level skills and local knowledge, will also play a key interface role with the local legal profession to ensure the reputation of the Court is maintained and enhanced.
Timing: The above arrangement are effective immediately.”
Outcome 4 is titled “National arrangements for management and allocation of registrar work”.
Outcome 5 is titled “Registrar legal support model”.
Outcome 6 is titled “Registrar learning & development”.
Outcome 7 is titled “Mediation and case management support for judges”.
Outcome 8 is titled “National registrar support for NPAs”.
Outcome 9 is titled “Additional legal support for judges/chambers”.
Outcome 10 is titled “Nationally consistent approach to practice & procedure”.
Outcome 11 is titled “Registrar NCF reporting framework”.
Outcome 12 is titled “National management plan for SRLs”.
The final paragraph of the memorandum is titled “Next Steps”.
The memorandum ends with the words:
“I look forward to our meeting and working with you collaborative on all of the above.
National Operations Registrar”
Under the FOI Act, I request access to the six page memorandum that Sia Lagos sent to registrars of the Federal Court on 19 April 2018 setting out the outcomes identified in this FOI request.
I have no interest in Outcomes 4 – 12, which are set out on pages 3 – 5 of the memorandum. I give you permission to redact the content on pages 3 – 5 of the memorandum under section 22 of the FOI Act. Otherwise, I do not provide permission to redact content in the memorandum.
Please provide the requested document by return email.
Dear Ray B1
I acknowledge receipt of your request, dated 28 October 2022 and communicated by email to [email address], for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act).
Based on the Court's preliminary assessment of your FOI request, it has been determined that, at this stage, you are not liable to pay a charge. If that changes, the Court will inform you and will issue you with a notice of charge as required by the FOI Act.
Federal Court of Australia
Dear Ray B1
Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.
Federal Court of Australia