8.30 At a workshop on case management in 2008 conducted jointly by the Federal Court and the Australian Law Council (Law Council), Justice Finkelstein outlined a proposal for the introduction of discovery masters in the Federal Court with broad authority. This included a draft of a proposed new O 72A of the Federal Court Rules, prepared along the lines of r 53 of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Justice Finkelstein proposed that the rule provide that:
Unless the appointing order directs otherwise, a master may:
(A) regulate all discovery proceedings and disputes;
(B) take all appropriate measures to perform the assigned duties fairly and efficiently; and
(C) if conducting an evidentiary hearing, exercise the assigned duties fairly and efficiently.
8.31 However, there are three differences between Justice Finkelstein’s model and the US model. First, r 53 allows a master to impose sanctions but the proposed O 72A does not. Secondly, r 53 allows a party 20 days in which to file objections to a master’s report, whereas Justice Finkelstein only allowed seven days. Thirdly, Justice Finkelstein limited a discovery master’s rulings to managing pre-trial discovery, whereas r 53 allows a master to be involved at any stage.
8.32 However, for pre-trial discovery, Justice Finkelstein would allow masters to direct the proceedings. Order 72A also mirrors the court’s powers of review in r 53. Also consistent with r 53, the costs of a discovery master in a particular case would be paid for by the parties, rather than the court.
 R Finkelstein, Discovery Reform: Options and Implementation (2008), prepared for the Federal Court of Australia, Annexure E.
 Ibid, Annexure E, Rule 3.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2009 (US) r 53(c)(2).
 Ibidr 53(f)(2).
 R Finkelstein, Discovery Reform: Options and Implementation (2008), prepared for the Federal Court of Australia, Annexure E, r 6(2).
 Ibid, Annexure E r 1(1).
 Ibid, Annexure E r 6(5).
 Ibid, Annexure E r 6(3), (4).
 Ibid, Annexure E r 7(2).