EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Issued by the Authority of the Attorney‑General
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Summary Courts Jurisdiction - Child Support (Assessment) Proclamation 2007
Subsection 99(3) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides that the Governor-General may fix a date by Proclamation on and after which proceedings in relation to matters arising under the Act may not be instituted in, or transferred to, a court of summary jurisdiction in a specified State or Territory. Paragraph 99(4)(b) of the Act provides that a Proclamation under subsection 99(3) may be expressed to apply to the institution of proceedings in, or the transfer of proceedings to, a court of summary jurisdiction in a specified part of a State or Territory.
The Proclamation states that, on and after 23 April 2007, proceedings under the Act may not be instituted in, or transferred to, the Downing Centre Local Court, the Central Local Court Sydney, the Local Court North Sydney and the Local Court Newtown, all located in New South Wales.
The NSW Government relocated the St James Local Court Sydney to the Children’s Court complex in Parramatta on 13 November 2006. The St James Court had provided specialist family law services pursuant to an agreement between the Commonwealth and NSW under the Act. The NSW Attorney General subsequently requested a Proclamation be made to prevent family law proceedings that would previously have been dealt with in the St James Court being lodged in, or transferred to, nearby Local Courts that lack specialist family law expertise. The presence of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court in the Sydney CBD presents an alternative to matters being instituted in or transferred to the Local Courts.
The Proclamation is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and commences on 23 April 2007.
The Office of Best Practice Regulation was consulted about this legislative instrument and advised that a Regulation Impact Statement was not mandatory as it did not have a direct or significant indirect impact on business. The Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court were consulted and did not oppose this legislative instrument.