• Community Justice Centres Council
• Reference groups and networks
• Centres
• Directors and deputy directors
• Records
• Payment for services
• Evaluations
• Publicity
• Renaming Community Justice Centres?

5.1 When the CJC pilot scheme Act was introduced it was stated that the new legislation did:

not attempt to prescribe hard and fast operational rules and principles for the centres which may prove unworkable in practice. The bill is therefore drafted to allow flexibility so that the centres will be able to apply the knowledge they gain from experience.¹

COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTRES COUNCIL

5.2 The Act establishes the CJCs Council and provides for its constitution, procedures and functions.

Functions

5.3 The Act states that the functions of the Council include the following:

(a) to determine policy guidelines for, and give directions with respect to, the operation of Community Justice Centres,

(b) to make such reports or recommendations to the Minister on any matter relating to Community Justice Centres, or on any other matter to which this Act relates, as the Council considers necessary or appropriate,

(c) to report on and make recommendations concerning the need for an evaluation under section 26 and to assist with the making of such an evaluation, and

(d) to do such supplemental, incidental and consequential acts as may be necessary or expedient for the exercise of its functions or the establishment and operation of Community Justice Centres.²

5.5 Despite these clearly delineated roles identified in the Act, it appears to have become a common belief that the Council exists only as a ministerial advisory body:

The reasoning behind the Council’s existence was that it would be a body of people who are independent of the direct service providers (the Department, the public servants and the mediators) and, as a representative sample of the wider community, would provide a community voice directly to the Minister.⁶

5.6 The Council is stated to be subject to the “control and direction” of the Attorney General “except in relation to the contents of a report or recommendation made by it” to the Attorney General.⁷ The Director of CJCs is stated to be “subject to the control and direction of the Council”.⁸ However, CJCs are also stated to “operate within and as parts of” the Attorney General’s Department.⁹ The reality is that the Centres are operated as a business centre of the Attorney General’s Department and this determines the substantive financial and policy decisions of the organisation. This effectively makes the Council an advisory body within a departmental structure.¹⁰ The Council last performed an advisory role at the time when the current CJC regions were established in 2001.

Membership

5.7 The Council comprises the Director of CJCs (who is an ex officio member)¹¹ and the following persons appointed by the Attorney General:

• a magistrate nominated by the Chief Magistrate;
• a person nominated by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales;
• two officers selected by the Attorney General; and
• not more than five persons selected “by reason of their having such special interests or experience as the [Attorney General] considers would be of assistance in the administration of [the] Act, at least one of whom is to have expertise in training”.¹²

Future role for the Council

5.9 A number of questions arise with respect to the future of the Council, including:

• whether the Council is needed at all;
• whether the Council requires a statutory base to operate;
• what functions the Council should carry out.

As the council’s time and resources permit, it may provide comment on matters relevant to its charter to any Commonwealth, State and Territory or private organisations with an interest in alternative dispute resolution.¹⁷

5.12 The Queensland Act, which also makes provision for a council, merely states that “the principal function of the council is to provide advice to the Minister on the operation of [the] Act, dispute resolution generally and the provision of mediation services under [the] Act”.¹⁹

Possible functions

5.13 Possible functions for the Council cover a wide range from acting merely as an advisory body to setting guidelines, standards and codes of practice. The Council could potentially carry out some or all of these functions. NADRAC has, however, noted that some of the various functions may not be compatible if carried out by the same body. For example, should the same body be responsible for handling complaints as well as promoting mediation?²⁰

5.14 Some suggested models include the Privacy Advisory Committee and the Anti-Discrimination Board. The functions of the Privacy Advisory Committee are stated to be:

(a) to advise on matters relevant to the Privacy Commissioner’s functions,

(b) to recommend material to the Privacy Commissioner for inclusion in guidelines to be issued by the Privacy Commissioner in exercising the Commissioner’s functions,

(c) to advise the Minister on such matters as may be referred to it by the Minister.²¹

(a) carry out investigations, research and inquiries relating to discrimination ...

(b) acquire and disseminate knowledge on all matters relating to the elimination of discrimination and the achievement of equal rights,

(c) arrange and co-ordinate consultations, discussions, seminars and conferences,

(d) review, from time to time, the laws of the State,

(e) consult with governmental, business, industrial and community groups and organisations in order to ascertain means of improving services and conditions affecting minority groups and other groups which are the subject of discrimination and inequality,

(f) hold public inquiries, and

(g) develop human rights programmes and policies.²²

5.15 Other Councils carry out certain quasi-legislative functions. For example, one of the principal functions of the Air Transport Council is “to determine, with the concurrence of the Minister, application and license fees under [the Air Transport Act 1964 (NSW)]”.²³ The Osteopaths Registration Board, in addition to having the functions of promoting and maintaining standards of osteopathy practice, advising the Minister and publishing and distributing information, also has the functions of recognising courses of study and accreditation bodies and of establishing and maintaining a code of professional conduct.²⁴ Some of these functions could conceivably be adapted to CJCs, so that the Council could be responsible for developing codes of practice regarding, for example, the appropriateness of disputes, termination of ADR, confidentiality and accreditation requirements. The CJC Professional Reference Group supports accreditation and reaccreditation being the subject of policy guidelines approved by the CJCs Council.²⁵ This is consistent with the functions, identified by NADRAC, that peak bodies might appropriately perform:

• to oversee the development and implementation of standards for ADR organisations and practitioners;
• to provide quality assurance, accreditation or registration for ADR trainers, practitioners, organisations or programs;
• to receive, monitor and publicise complaints about ADR service providers;
• to act as a clearinghouse to collect and disseminate information about good practice in ADR;
• to provide training and ongoing professional development;
• to facilitate or conduct ADR research and evaluation;
• to promote ADR.²⁶

5.17 Some of the functions outlined above are already being carried out by CJCs without apparent input from the Council but in some cases with input from various reference groups and networks.²⁷ The question remains as to how many of these functions ought to be performed by the CJCs Council rather than carried out under current arrangements.

ISSUE 35
(a) Should the CJCs Council be retained?

(b) If so, what should its role(s) be?

(c) Should it have a more general role of advising the Attorney General on dispute resolution matters?

5.18 The CJCs Council has suggested that a reconstituted advisory committee could contain the following:

• A chairperson “high profile” community representative with standing in the community (legal, government and/or non government);
• A Magistrate;
• A non judicial Local Courts representative;
• Representatives from one or two State Government Departments (such as DoCS and/or Police);
• An academic or other person with particular expertise in dispute resolution theory and practice;
• A representative from NCOSS;
• A representative with particular expertise in training;
• A mediator nominated by the CJC professional reference group.²⁸

5.20 Another submission suggested three broad categories of membership:

• representatives of government agencies whose clients use CJCs, for example, Local Courts, Police, Departments of Housing, Community Services, Aboriginal Affairs, Health and Education, and the Public Guardian;
• representatives of non-government agencies such as NCOSS, ATSIC and the Ethnic Communities Council;
• expert mediators who provide CJC services, with one representative each from metropolitan, regional and isolated communities.³¹

5.22 The Anti-Discrimination Board has suggested that a person with expertise in discrimination matters be included in the list.³⁴ There would, however, appear to be no legislative precedents for this course of action.

5.23 Finally, if proposals to establish a broader advisory council on dispute resolution not limited to CJCs were to be adopted, the composition of such a council would have to take into account interests other than those currently associated with CJCs. For example, if the council was also to provide advice to the Attorney General about court-connected alternative dispute resolution in New South Wales courts and tribunals, the fact that this is the biggest area of ADR in practice would mean that these bodies would have to be strongly represented on the Council.

ISSUE 36
(a) Who should be members of the CJCs Council?

(b) If there is to be a broader advisory council on dispute resolution matters, who should its members be?

5.24 Two reference groups were formed in 2001/2002:

• Professional Reference Group which comprises managers, staff and mediators and has the aim of looking at “quality issues regarding the theory and practice of alternative dispute resolution”;³⁵
• Training Group which comprises managers and mediators and was formed “to provide trainers to conduct the statewide training program”.³⁶

5.25 These groups have no legislative base, being established by CJCs as a business centre of the Attorney General’s Department. Their main aim is to provide forums for dealing with practical matters relating to the operation of CJCs. They are not necessarily intended to cover the policy advice and standard setting roles of the CJCs Council. However, in a number of instances these groups would appear to have objectives and roles that could duplicate potential objectives and roles of the CJCs Council.

ISSUE 37
Is the CJCs Council, however constituted, necessary in light of the role and functions of the CJCs Professional Reference Group, Training Group and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Network?

5.26 CJCs have established a Professional Reference Group. The Act makes no provision for the establishment or constitution of the Professional Reference Group. The Group’s functions are governed by a charter which states that the Group is subject to the direction of the Director of CJCs “in consultation with the CJCs management team”.³⁹

5.27 The Professional Reference Group’s Charter states that its purpose is:

to provide support and advice to the CJCs to ensure a mediation and conflict management service to regional New South Wales which conforms with best practice principles and which is the recognised industry leader in mediation and related conflict management process.⁴⁰

5.28 The Group’s Charter further states that its members shall do the following with respect to mediation and conflict management theory and practice:

• ensure best practice standards are met
• inform CJC mediators and staff about current issues
• respond to requests for advice from staff and mediators
• identify training opportunities and advise the Training Group
• conduct and/or [oversee] research
• write and present papers for conferences, seminars, etc
• write papers to be published in industry journals
• assist the Director and the Business Development and Training Manager as required.⁴²

5.29 Provision is currently made for 21 members of the Professional Reference Group. Three officers of the CJCs are ex-officio, namely the Director, the Business Development and Training Manager and the Executive Officer. The following are appointed by endorsement by their peers:

• two CJC coordinators;
• two CJC interviewing officers;
• one member of the CJC Directorate’s administrative staff;
• one Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CJC mediator; and
• one representative of the CJC Training Group.

5.30 The majority, if not all, of the positions on the Professional Reference Group are internal appointments. Without adequate external representation it may be argued that the Reference Group cannot perform some of the functions that could possibly be performed by the CJCs Council.

Training Group

5.31 The Training Group is an informal group that currently consists of about 20 people including the CJCs Business Development and Training Manager, the regional co-ordinators and accredited mediators who have completed “train the trainer training”.⁴⁶

5.32 Objectives of the Training Group include:

• participation in writing, designing, identifying and evaluating courses;
• offering best practice training in order to provide consistency and uniformity across the State; and
• meeting accreditation and re-accreditation requirements.⁴⁷

CENTRES

5.33 The activities of CJCs may be carried on at a number of different venues. The Act currently draws distinctions between these venues. CJCs may be “established at such premises as the Governor may determine by order published in the Gazette”.⁴⁹ Such a gazetted premises would appear to be a “principal office” of a particular CJC.⁵⁰ However, the activities of a CJC may also be carried on at such other places as the Director approves from time to time.⁵¹ Such premises, apparently, do not require gazettal.

5.34 The current procedures are cumbersome and probably unnecessary.⁵² CJCs ought to be able to open offices anywhere in the same way that other offices of the Attorney General’s Department are established.

ISSUE 38
Should the requirement for gazettal of CJCs be removed?

5.35 CJCs are now administered in four regions – the northern, southern, western and Sydney regions⁵³ and every effort is made to provide coverage to all parts of the State. In 2000/2001 services were expanded to the Central West of the State with mediators available to work in Bathurst, Orange, Lithgow, Parkes, Condobolin, Narromine and Dubbo. A CJC service was also launched in the Riverina with mediators available to work in Griffith, Darlington Point, Yenda, Colleambally and Leeton.⁵⁴ In 2001/2002 panels were established at Monaro, the Murray and the Far West.⁵⁵ One issue is whether improved access to CJC services is required for country and regional areas. Submissions have suggested that new centres are required in country towns.⁵⁶ A different view is that rural areas are unlikely to need CJCs because in country centres there is “a greater degree of person to person tolerance and neighbourly co-operation”,⁵⁷ however, without any evidence to support such a view, the Commission doubts that this is likely to be the case. Another submission has noted that the CJC in the Wollongong region could be expanded having regard to the population in the southern districts and the “current limited use of mediation and ADR in these areas”.⁵⁸ Local government authorities in the north east of the State have suggested that the Centre in Newcastle is too remote for initial contact.⁵⁹

5.36 There are various ways of approaching the need for further resources in country regions of the State. For example, each CJC regional office has a 1800 toll-free telephone number which may obviate the need for a more decentralised system of administration. At one stage it was proposed to spread the CJCs program throughout the State under the auspices of the clerk of the local court.⁶⁰ Such an approach, while desirable in terms of efficient use of government resources, may not be desirable for other reasons.⁶¹

5.37 Although it can be argued that a centralised system, whether wholly centralised in the State capital or partly centralised in regional centres (for example, Newcastle and Wollongong) means that the organisation, even if it does technically serve all areas of the State, may be less responsive to the needs of particular local communities.

ISSUE 39
(a) Is there a need for greater coverage by CJCs?

(b) If so, how should the need be met?

5.38 When CJCs were first established there was one Director for each of the three Centres.⁶² This was really a way of coping with the pilot/development phase where early plans included the possibility that each Centre might develop along different lines as a sort of controlled experiment.⁶³ In 1983 it became possible to have one person as a Director of multiple Centres. In 1992, amendments were passed to reflect the reality that there was in fact one Director for all CJCs, and also to provide for the appointment of Deputy Directors.⁶⁴

5.39 According to the Act a Deputy Director has no specific role that could not also be allocated to any other member of staff. As such, references to a “Deputy Director” are unnecessary since a Deputy Director need not be appointed for the Director to be able to delegate such functions under the Act to that officer as a “member of staff”. All references to a “Deputy Director” could, therefore, be removed from the Act.⁶⁵

ISSUE 40
Should references to the “Deputy Director” be removed from the Act?

ISSUE 41
Should the Director of CJCs be “subject to the control and direction of the Council”?

5.41 The Act makes provision for the keeping of CJCs’ records and for the CJCs Council’s access to them.⁶⁹ It has been suggested that the provision that the Council is entitled to inspect any records of a CJC should be repealed because of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).⁷⁰

ISSUE 42
Should the provision relating to the keeping of records and access to them be removed from the CJC Act?

5.42 There are a number of services offered by CJCs for which payment could be requested. For example, in recent years CJCs has entered into agreements whereby specific institutions undertake to pay for the provision of certain mediation services.⁷¹

5.43 In Queensland the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Department of Justice and Attorney General (which operates the Dispute Resolution Centres) also offers “fee-based conflict-management training to individuals and organisations outside the Department”.⁷²

5.44 There is some controversy over whether government should fund alternative dispute resolution. For example, it could be argued that disputing parties who obtain the benefit of mediation should be required to bear some of the costs where they are able. However, the imposition of charges would discriminate against people who cannot afford them and could have the effect of sending some disputes back to the traditional court system. Cost/benefit analyses will ultimately depend on answers to questions such as whether mediation actually does divert matters from the overburdened traditional court system and whether mediation offers other benefits to the community.⁷³

5.45 In relation to other institutions paying for the provision of certain mediation services, one preliminary submission has observed:

This process has not been consistent nor transparent and should be a matter for resolution to ensure that all members of the community have equal access to the services of the CJC.⁷⁴

ISSUE 43
(a) Should it be possible for CJCs to require payment for its services?

(b) For what services and in what circumstances should payments be allowed?

5.46 The Act currently provides that “The Minister may cause or arrange for an evaluation to be made, at such times and in respect of such periods as the Minister thinks fit, of Community Justice Centres and of their operation and activities”.⁷⁶ Some submissions noted that periodic reviews are a good thing.⁷⁷ Current drafting practice in New South Wales now includes stricter review requirements (since 1992), specifying dates for commencement of reviews and for the tabling of reports in Parliament. A standard statement, in addition to the time limits, is:

The Minister is to review this Act to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives.

ISSUE 44
Should a clause requiring periodic review be inserted in the CJC Act?

5.47 Many preliminary submissions noted that CJCs do not have a very high profile and suggested that something should be done about this.⁷⁹ The lack of awareness of CJCs and what they do may affect the take up rate of mediations when parties are referred to CJCs from other agencies.⁸⁰ There is probably not a legislative response that can force action, given that adequate publicity will depend on the availability of resources. It is also possible that successful publicity might place too great a strain on resources if it were to lead to more people seeking to resolve disputes through CJC mediations. The question needs to be asked whether CJCs would have the resources to cope with increased demand caused by effective publicity.⁸¹

5.48 It is also the case in the United States that public awareness of community mediation services is relatively low. Three reasons have been suggested for this:

• the media have paid little attention to them;
• program caseloads have been relatively small so few members of the public get the opportunity to experience community mediation;
• extensive public education campaigns have been rare.⁸²


ISSUE 45
Do CJCs need to raise their profile?

5.49 Some view the current nomenclature of “Community Justice Centres” as inappropriate. A number of problems can be identified with the current terminology.

5.50 The term “Community Justice” does not adequately reflect the activities currently undertaken by CJCs.⁸³ CJC documentation now refers to its services as “mediation and conflict management services”. This description in intended to cover the full range of mediation services presently offered by CJCs, including “facilitation, pre-mediation, dispute analysis, dispute counselling, mediation and post-mediation”.⁸⁴

5.51 Some submissions have supported the retention of “Community Justice” because the term is grounded in the history of the community mediation movement and refers to a system of informal justice as opposed to the formal justice system of the courts.⁸⁵ This is, however, an esoteric point. Potential users of the services of CJCs should not need an understanding of the background and history of community mediation to understand what “Community Justice” denotes. If potential users or organisations do not clearly understand what “Community Justice” entails they will often fail to refer appropriate cases.⁸⁶ The use of “Community Justice” does not, by itself, sufficiently distinguish itself from the formal justice system. Further, the use of the word “Justice” may, in fact, lead some potential users to think of CJCs as part of the criminal justice system.⁸⁷ For example, a submission from the Department of Housing (based on responses from local client service teams) noted:

Whilst there is some awareness among [Department of Housing] clients about what the CJC does, the majority would appear to be unclear about what the CJC has to offer. Those with some awareness see the CJC as adversarial and that, as in law courts, they may be sentenced.⁸⁸

5.52 “Centres” are really part of an outmoded structure, when the model was more along the lines of 1970s style neighbourhood centres. CJCs are no longer so locality based and now provide “services” to a range of clients.⁹⁰ Objections that the word “Centre” does not only refer to a “physical locale”⁹¹ cannot be sustained by the plain meaning of the word.

5.53 An alternative might be “Community Mediation Services”. However, in Victoria it was noted that “Mediation” in their Neighbourhood Mediation Centres was sometimes mistakenly taken to be “meditation” or “medication”.⁹²

5.54 Another alternative might be “Community Dispute (or Conflict) Management Services”. This is preferable to “Community Dispute (or Conflict) Resolution Services” which could be seen as promising too much. Another proposal, “Community Mediation and Conflict Management Service”⁹³ could be seen as too cumbersome.⁹⁴

5.55 Other preliminary submissions, however, expressed the view that the name should not be altered because CJCs already have a profile and changing the name now would only cause confusion.⁹⁵ However, it must be noted that a large proportion of matters are referred by Local Courts (46%) and State and Local Government bodies (24%). These government agencies are unlikely to be confused, or remain confused for long, by the name change of another government agency. More information is required to assess what level of knowledge of CJCs the parties had in the 14% of matters that involved self-referral.

ISSUE 46
(a) Should Community Justice Centres be renamed?

(b) If so, what should they be called?

1. NSW Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Council, 26 November 1980 at 3585. See also J Schwartzkoff and J Morgan, Community Justice Centres: a report on the New South Wales pilot project, 1979-81 (Law Foundation of NSW, 1982) at 25.

2. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 6(1).

3. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 16(2), s 20(1) and s 21(1).

4. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 22(1).

5. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 17(3).

6. CJCs, Annual report 2001-2002 at 13.

7. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 7.

8. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 10.

9. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 18.

10. CJCs, Preliminary submission at 3.

11. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) Sch 1 cl 1(3).

12. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) Sch 1 cl 1(2).

13. Community Justice Centres (Pilot Project) Act 1980 (NSW) Sch 1 cl 1(2).

14. CJCs Council, Report to Legislation and Policy: review of the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (September 2001) at 3.

15. See NSW Law Reform Commission, Training and accreditation of mediators (Report 67, 1991) at para 7.1-7.16.

16. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, Annual report 2001-2002 at 3.

17. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, Annual report 2001-2002 at 4.

18. CJCs, Preliminary submission at 3.

19. Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990 (Qld) s 3(2).

20. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, A framework for ADR standards (Report to the Commonwealth Attorney General, 2001) at 88.

21. Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) s 61.

22. Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 119.

23. Air Transport Act 1964 (NSW) s 2B(b).

24. Osteopaths Act 2001 (NSW) s 8, s 19, s 86.

25. CJCs Professional Reference Group, Preliminary submission at 5.

26. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, A framework for ADR standards (Report to the Commonwealth Attorney General, 2001) at 88.

27. See para 5.24-5.32 and para 6.12-6.13 below.

28. CJCs Council, Report to Legislation and Policy: review of the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (September 2001) at 5.

29. CJCs, Preliminary submission at 3. See also CJCs Professional Reference Group, Preliminary submission at 3.

30. Para 6.24-6.30.

31. J Hallinan, Preliminary submission at 3.

32. M S Dewdney, Preliminary submission at 5.

33. See NSW Law Reform Commission, Training and accreditation of mediators (Report 67, 1991) at para 4.8.

34. Anti-Discrimination Board, Preliminary submission at 8.

35. CJCs, Annual report 2001-2002 at 4.

36. CJCs, Annual report 2001-2002 at 4.

37. See CJCs, Annual report 2001-2002 at 9.

38. At para 6.12-6.13.

39. CJCs, Professional Reference Group Charter.

40. CJCs, Professional Reference Group Charter. See also CJCs Profession Reference Group, Preliminary submission at 1; CJCs, Annual report 2001-2002 at 8.

41. CJCs, Professional Reference Group Charter.

42. CJCs, Professional Reference Group Charter.

43. See para 5.3-5.23 above.

44. CJCs, Professional Reference Group Charter.

45. CJCs, Professional Reference Group Charter.

46. Information supplied by D Sharp, Director, CJCs (29 August 2003).

47. CJCs Training Group, Minutes of meeting (3 June 2002).

48. CJCs, Annual report 2001-2002 at 9.

49. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 15.

50. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 16(1).

51. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 16(2).

52. See CJCs, Preliminary submission at 4.

53. See CJCs, Annual report 2001-2002 at 8.

54. NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Assembly, 18 September 2001 at 16691.

55. CJCs, Annual Report 2001-2002 at 10.

56. Law Society of NSW, Preliminary submission at 1; Severn Shire Council, Preliminary submission.

57. NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Council, 22 November 1983 at 3023.

58. Law Society of NSW, Preliminary submission at 1.

59. Subregional Group of Local Government Authorities (NE NSW), Preliminary submission.

60. NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Council, 20 April 1994 at 1417.

61. See para 2.70-2.78 above.

62. Community Justice Centres (Pilot Project) Act 1980 (NSW) s 9. See also NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Assembly, 19 October 1983 at 1881.

63. The proposals were never followed through. See W Faulkes, “The modern development of alternative dispute resolution in Australia” (1990) 1 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 61 at 63-64; J Schwartzkoff and J Morgan, Community Justice Centres: a report on the New South Wales pilot project, 1979-81 (Law Foundation of NSW, 1982) at 9-10, 13, 31.

64. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 3) 1992 (NSW) Sch 1.

65. Community Justice Centres, Preliminary submission at 1; CJCs Reference Group, Preliminary submission at 2.

66. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 10(2).

67. CJCs, Preliminary submission at 3.

68. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 18.

69. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 17.

70. CJCs, Submission at 4; CJCs Professional Reference Group, Submission at 6.

71. For example, a formal tender relationship was entered with Warringah Council: CJCs, Annual report 2000-2001 at 4.

72. Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Annual report 2001-2002 at 154.

73. See NSW Law Reform Commission, Training and accreditation of mediators (Report 67, 1991) at para 6.36.

74. City of Newcastle, Preliminary submission at 1.

75. Confidential 1, Preliminary submission at 10.

76. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 26.

77. See, eg, D Oldfield, Preliminary submission.

78. CJCs, Preliminary submission at 5.

79. See especially: Law Society of NSW, Preliminary submission at 1; NSW Department of Housing, Preliminary submission at 2-4; G Barclay, Preliminary submission at 1; Wyong Shire Council, Preliminary submission; Blacktown City Council, Preliminary submission at 1; Orange City Council, Preliminary submission; Cessnock City Council, Preliminary submission; Subregional Group of Local Government Authorities (NE NSW), Preliminary submission; Severn Shire Council, Preliminary submission.

80. NSW Department of Housing, Preliminary submission at 4.

81. See Ballina Shire Council, Preliminary submission.

82. D McGillis, Community mediation programs: developments and challenges (US National Institute of Justice, 1997) at 86-87.

83. M S Dewdney, Preliminary submission at 1.

84. CJCs, Preliminary submission at 1.

85. CJCs Professional Reference Group, Preliminary submission at 1; J Hallinan, Preliminary submission at 1.

86. M S Dewdney, Preliminary submission at 1.

87. Cessnock City Council, Preliminary submission.

88. NSW Department of Housing, Preliminary submission at 2.

89. Coalition of Aboriginal Legal Services, Preliminary submission at 1.

90. CJCs, Preliminary submission at 1.

91. J Hallinan, Preliminary submission at 1; CJCs Professional Reference Group, Preliminary submission at 1.

92. Victoria, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Assembly, 30 October 1990 at 1572.

93. CJCs, Submission at 1. See also M S Dewdney, Preliminary submission at 2.

94. CJCs Professional Reference Group, Preliminary submission at 1.

95. CJCs Professional Reference Group, Preliminary submission at 1-2.