Is the Federal Court’s yearly party budget $100k or nothing at all?

Did the Federal Court of Australia throw parties at a total cost of $424,498 over three years, or did it not? It depends who you ask. 

In 2023, and again in early 2024, Liberal Senator Jane Hume asked the Attorney-General’s Department how much money its agencies had spent on functions. Both times, she was told “the Federal Court of Australia” had “not held any functions or official receptions” in the relevant timeframe. 

But when Greens Senator David Shoebridge asked the same question in November last year, he got a wildly different answer. 

In a recently published reply to Shoebridge’s question, the court said it had spent $106,236 on functions in the 2021-22 financial year, $173,114 in the following financial year, and $145,148 in the one after that. The money was spent on events such as seminars, welcome and farewell ceremonies for justices, and on hosting delegations of judges from abroad.

It might seem weird, even inconsistent, that the answers to Hume and Shoebridge should be so dramatically different.

But according to the court, there’s an explanation. It may require some bureaucratic brain gymnastics to follow along, but we’ll do our best to explain.

Hume, the court said, directed her question to the Attorney-General’s Department, while Shoebridge asked the court itself. 

The department includes as an agency in its portfolio the “Federal Court of Australia Entity”, but not the court’s chief justice, judges and registrars. Therefore, the true answer to Hume’s question was that no money had been spent. 

“In responding to Senator Hume’s question, regarding ‘expenditure on any functions or official receptions etc hosted by the department or agencies in the portfolio’, the Federal Court of Australia Entity has accurately provided a nil response because the Federal Court of Australia Entity has not hosted any relevant function,” the court said. 

“In contrast, Senator Shoebridge specifically asked questions of the Federal Court of Australia (which includes the chief justice and judges) regarding the costs of events hosted by the court, such as judicial welcome and farewell ceremonies, judges and registrar plenaries, and other engagements with the legal profession etc.”

Shoebridge told Crikey he was far from impressed with the court’s reasoning. 

“I’m utterly fed up with agencies and ministers answering the questions they wish were asked instead of what was actually asked,” he said, claiming the court was trying to “avoid accountability regarding expenditure for functions” and that it was “treating Parliament with contempt”. 

“It used to be hard to imagine a government less committed to accountability and transparency than the former Morrison government but the Albanese government seems intent on outdoing it. Hiding expenses and refusing to answer basic questions erodes trust in government.”

Shoebridge said he would continue to press for answers about the “lavishly catered” farewells for outgoing judges and try to find out “exactly who was involved in hiding the truth here”. 

Hume’s office declined to comment. The attorney-general was contacted for comment. 

Have something to say about this article? Write to us at [email protected]. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.