Updates and background for this project (Digest)
SCOPE OF CJCs ACTIVITIES
2.1 The CJCs Act currently contains no formal objects clause, setting out the scope of its activities, but it does contain a provision which states that “Community Justice Centres shall be established and operated in accordance with this Act for the purpose of providing mediation services”.1
Provision of mediation services
2.2 In order to understand what is meant by “mediation services” reference must be had to the definition of mediation in the Act. “Mediation” is broadly defined as including:
(a) the undertaking of any activity for the purpose of promoting the discussion and settlement of disputes,
(b) the bringing together of the parties to any dispute for that purpose, either at the request of one of the parties to the dispute or on the initiative of the Director, and
(c) the follow-up of any matter the subject of any such discussion or settlement.2
The principal purpose of the definition is to identify the activities for which the protections under the Act are offered.3 However, it may also have the effect, when combined with the current “objects” clause, of appearing to limit the services which CJCs provide.
2.3 In the narrow, technical sense in which it is usually defined, mediation is only one option for the management of disputes. That technical sense is encapsulated in the NADRAC definition of the term as:
Other alternative dispute resolution activities
2.4 CJCs activities are broader than mediation in this narrow sense. In addition to the core activity of conducting mediation sessions, CJCs currently also provide pre-mediation, conflict resolution services, and stage facilitated meetings,5 as well as carrying out functions associated with the provision of these services, training, promotion and so on.6 There are many specific examples of CJCs having provided services other than the conduct of mediation sessions. For example, CJCs have provided input/assistance into the development of mediation schemes established in other contexts:
- A program of peer mediation in High Schools was developed by the Department of School Education in partnership with CJCs in 1995.7
- A pre-release mediation program for inmates of correctional centres and their families was developed in conjunction with the Department of Corrective Services in 1994.8
- CJCs initially administered the Community Youth Conferencing Program (involving mediation between victims, offenders, families and other community members) in 1993/1994 and conducted training programs for mediators (including police) to take part in the Program.9
- In 1998/1999 CJC mediators were contracted to undertake conciliation with parties prior to formal hearings before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.
2.5 In the United States there has been a similar experience with community mediation programs expanding the types of services that they provide. Many of the developments have been the result of requests by local courts, prosecutors, bar associations and local government. For example, family courts have sought assistance with custody disputes and local governments have sought assistance with resolving disputes between street gangs. Some programs have broadened the services they provide to disputing parties at least partly with a view to diversifying their funding bases. For example, some programs have provided assistance and training to organisations that want to establish in-house mediation schemes. Programs have also moved into areas such as dispute prevention initiatives, public policy disputes (for example, planning and environment matters) and victim-offender mediation.10
Conflict management and community development
2.6 Providing services in the area of conflict management and community development is potentially an important function for CJCs.11
2.7 Some submissions to the Commission envisaged a more proactive role for CJCs in conflict management within particular communities.12 This is consistent with the use of community mediation to empower individuals and communities. As already noted,13 this was one of the driving forces in the early history of the community mediation movement in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s14 and is still recognised in some of the formal documentation emanating from CJCs.15 Some submissions suggested that CJCs should be more active in identifying and dealing with community-based issues such as ethnicity, prejudice and juvenile offending in particular communities and then offering their services in promoting dialogue within the community on these issues.16
2.8 An example of such an approach can be found in the active attempts in the 1970s to promote community relations in Aboriginal communities as part of the conciliation function of the Commissioner for Community Relations under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).17 It was noted that multiple conciliation conferences could have an impact in smaller provincial centres:
Thus, when in one centre, five compulsory conferences involving discrimination against Aboriginals in housing were held in one week - two in respect of estate agents and three in respect of landlords - there was quite a profound impact on the community. The local Aboriginal people were stimulated into greater activity in asserting their rights and the local non-Aboriginal people became more appreciative of their obligations...18
2.9 As already noted, there is a view that community mediation has generally not realised this community development objective. Community mediation’s close connection with the communities it serves, its responsiveness to local needs and demands, has diminished in many cases in favour of greater institutionalisation and attachment to the formal justice system and the State.19 CJCs have reported that they continually review their services to ensure that they remain accessible. A recent review has identified possible strategies for promotion to young people and ethnic communities.20 One submission observed that the offering of CJCs services to a greater geographic area may have resulted in “a lessening of visibility of the CJC in some of the most troubled inner city communities”.21
Training of mediators
2.10 The training of mediators is an important function of CJCs. The CJCs’ initial mediator training program is seen by the mediation industry as being of good quality.22 Indeed, one submission expressed concern about the quality of training offered by the for-profit sector and saw CJCs as offering a good training ground for those seeking to enter the mediation market.23 It was estimated that some 10-20% of mediators in private practice had received training from CJCs.24 Specific issues relating to training are discussed in detail in Chapter 8.25
Development of ADR
2.11 It is important that CJCs play a leading role in the mediation industry as the State-wide, not-for-profit, general mediation service provider. The mediation industry, if such a term can be applied to so broad a range of service providers, covers the not-for-profit, government, industry funded, and commercial sectors.26 It has been suggested that CJCs’ position within government allows them to contribute to whole of government approaches and makes them pivotal because of their links to government, other ADR services and mediators.27
2.12 The mediation industry is currently characterised by an absence of common standards and codes of practice.28 In such a context it is important that an organisation like CJCs operates above industry standards so that it can influence the development of better standards within the industry. CJCs can also influence the mediation industry as a provider of training,29 as a community educator, as a standards or policy setter,30 or as a participant in forums concerned with mediation and the development of standards. Such details should be included in management and organisational objectives.31
Promotion of ADR
2.13 Another important role for CJCs is the promotion of ADR. This role can be seen as supporting CJCs’ role in the development of ADR. Promoting ADR can operate at many levels. It can involve promoting mediation and other ADR approaches generally as alternatives to traditional methods for dealing with disputes. CJCs, as a government mediation service provider, may be well placed to perform this role. For example, one view expressed in consultations was that there is currently no identifiable part of government that promotes alternative forms of dispute management and that CJCs could take on this role.32
2.14 The promotion of ADR can involve raising the profile of community mediation. Public awareness of community mediation services is generally low. The same situation would appear to apply in the United States. 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.33
2.15 At a more specific level, the promotion of ADR can also involve the promotion of the work of CJCs.34 However, even raising the profile of CJCs may prove to be a difficult and costly task. CJCs have reported that at present “work to raise the profile of CJCs is a priority, is ongoing and requires continual resourcing”.35 For example, CJCs will make presentations promoting their services to all of the key referring agencies in a region. However, one presentation will often be insufficient and additional problems can occur in regional agencies where there is a high turnover of key staff, for example, in the Police Service.36 Raising the profile of CJCs within the mediation industry itself will be part of the work of the reconstituted CJCs Council that is recommended in Chapter 3. 37
2.16 Adequate promotion of ADR and the work of CJCs will ultimately depend on the availability of resources. In this context, the question also needs to be asked whether CJCs would have the resources to cope with increased demand caused by effective publicity.38 So while, the lack of awareness (and acceptance) of ADR alternatives may affect the take up rate of mediations at CJCs,39 it is also possible that successful promotion might place too great a strain on resources if it were to lead to more people seeking to resolve disputes through CJC mediations. However, it is important that the promotion of ADR and CJCs’ services is not lost sight of and this role should be included in an objects clause.
OBJECTS CLAUSE
2.17 IP 23 asked whether an objects clause should be included in the CJCs Act to reflect the actual and potential activities of CJCs.40 Few submissions commented on this issue. One supported the inclusion of an objects clause on the grounds that it would allow performance to be measured and provide the basis on which to build consistent operational objectives, business plans and staff performance and planning programs.41 One submission pointed out that the Act has functioned without an objects clause for 20 years.42
2.18 It has become common practice to include objects clauses in legislation that establishes agencies and regulates the provision of services. Examples of such clauses include those relating to the system for dealing with complaints against lawyers, disability services, optometrists, and the Community Relations Commission.43 By contrast, the CJCs Act gives no indication of the activities undertaken by CJCs apart from “mediation”.
2.19 In IP 23 the Commission asked what recognition, if any, needs to be accorded in the CJC Act to services other than mediation.44 Submissions were generally supportive of CJCs providing dispute resolution services other than the conduct of mediation sessions.45
The Commission’s conclusion
2.20 An argument can be made that the CJCs Act is only required to regulate and protect the mediation activities of CJCs and that any other activities can be carried out on an administrative level without the need for a formal objects clause in the Act. However, the current arrangement whereby only the provision of “mediation services” is specifically identified as a function of CJCs can be seen as limiting. The training, educational and promotional roles of CJCs are integral and should be identified as the sort of activities that a government mediation service ought to be providing. In identifying the functions of CJCs it is essential that any list not be limiting.
2.21 The Act should, therefore, state that the role of CJCs is to provide dispute resolution and conflict management services, including the mediation of disputes and matters incidental to the provision of such services, such as:
- the training of mediators;
- the promotion of alternative dispute resolution; and
- contributing to the development of alternative dispute resolution in New South Wales by co-operating, interacting and liaising with the legal profession, courts and tribunals, the academic sector and other providers of alternative dispute resolution services.
The chief function of s 14 of the Act is to establish CJCs. Consequential amendments will need to be made to s 14 to take account of the insertion of a separate objects clause in the Act.
Services to minorities and disadvantaged groups
2.22 IP 23 raised the issue of whether specific reference should be made in any objects clause to the provision of mediation services to minorities or disadvantaged groups.46 If CJCs are expected to provide a service to “the community” this means the community in all its diversity, including ethnic, religious and racial communities as well as other communities of interest (for example, housing tenants and young people). This issue was raised because it was suggested that mediation, by providing an informal alternative to the formal justice system, may be an appropriate means for resolving disputes that involve members of particular groups in society who may, for various reasons, be wary of the traditional justice system. Examples include members of immigrant minorities, gay men and lesbians, people with disabilities and young people.47 In IP 23 the Commission also asked whether there should be specific reference to the provision of services to Indigenous people.48
2.23 Mediation has the advantage of being flexible and able to respond to varying cultural assumptions and needs. It can be adapted to the needs of various communities – for example, by the adoption of special procedures, by the identity and skills of the mediator, by location, and by language. It has been noted that forms of alternative dispute resolution have long been used in “many ethnic, cultural and religious communities”.49 The provision of flexible and culturally appropriate services to minority cultural groups has been seen as an important function of CJCs.50 The recognition of the special needs of members of such groups might involve, for example:51
- the recruitment of mediators who represent the particular communities; and
- the training in relevant cultural issues of CJC mediators who do not come from the particular communities.52
The appropriateness of one or other of these approaches will depend on the context of each dispute. These issues are dealt with in more detail in Chapter 8.53
2.24 Few submissions considered the issue of whether specific reference should be made in the objects to the provision of mediation services to minorities or disadvantaged groups.54 One submission stated that specific reference should not be made in the objects to the provision of mediation services to minorities or disadvantaged groups because the absence of such a clause has not stopped CJCs delivering services to such groups.55 Another submission opposed a list of groups on the grounds that any attempt to enumerate groups will inevitably lead to one worthy group being left out.56 One submission suggested that “without a legislative imperative the needs of Indigenous people and communities will not be considered a priority issue”.57 CJCs have suggested that it may be useful to include a statement in an objects clause that CJCs aim to provide services to all sections of the New South Wales community.58
2.25 One way that has been suggested for providing services to particular communities is to have culturally-based community-specific CJCs in addition to the existing geographically based services so that, for example, CJCs could provide specific services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as well as ethnic communities and communities of interest (for example, housing tenants and young people).59 Nothing in the Act would appear to prevent this from occurring. The specific question of CJCs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is discussed in Chapter 9.60
2.26 While the establishment of community-specific CJCs may be appropriate in some circumstances, some submissions opposed the idea.61 One submission suggested that community-specific CJCs may:
- create barriers for people belonging to more than one community; and
- lead to confusion about which CJC to use.62
Even if the development of community-specific CJCs is not currently appropriate, it can still be argued that the current regionally-based CJCs should be equipped to provide services to particular communities within their regions. While one submission considered that there was no need to make further provision to meet the needs of particular communities,63 others were supportive of providing resources for the existing regional network of CJCs so that each region can better respond to the needs of particular groups within its community.64
2.27 An objects clause does not need to deal with questions of coverage of particular communities. Such issues are subject to government policy and to the availability of resources and are not suitable for inclusion in an objects clause for CJCs. They can be identified as part of CJCs’ strategic or organisational objectives from time to time. For example, the answer to the question of whether specific reference to the provision of services to Indigenous people should be made in an objects clause will depend on what is determined as being the best way of providing mediation services for Indigenous people, including issues of Indigenous control of the services.65 Indigenous communities may be better served by an objects clause that is broad enough to allow the development of services that can be tailored to meet Indigenous needs.66 The Commission does not, at this stage, favour the introduction of community-specific CJCs.
INCIDENTAL ISSUES
Definition of mediation
2.28 In IP 23 the Commission asked whether the definition of “mediation” in the CJC Act needed to be changed.67 Some submissions suggested that the definition does not need to be changed68 because it is broad enough to encompass the activities of CJCs and can adapt to changing community needs.69
2.29 The CJCs’ submission suggested that if CJCs’ activities were to be stated more broadly in the Act, “mediation” could be defined more precisely along the lines of the NADRAC definition.70
2.30 However, a definition of mediation that is more precise than the one currently contained in the Act may be problematic. NADRAC has observed that while consistency is desirable any definitions should recognise the “diversity, flexibility and dynamism in dispute resolution practices and processes”.71 It has to be borne in mind that not all terms have the same meaning to all people and that some terms will have different meanings in different cultures.72 This could well be the case with CJCs and their broad coverage across the State. Too rigid a definition may have an unnecessarily prescriptive effect and may exclude some forms of mediation from the protections offered by the Act. The question of what mediators may or may not do, for example, in terms of advice, may be better dealt with by regulation or codes of practice.73 For example, the Act already makes it clear that a mediator may not adjudicate or arbitrate upon a dispute that is undergoing mediation.74
2.31 There is a need to identify the purposes for which mediation needs to be defined in the Act. The primary purpose of the current definition is to identify the activities that are protected by the provisions that offer exoneration from liability, confidentiality of proceedings and various privileges. The current definition is sufficient to identify the activities that are protected by the Act and is also broad enough to encompass pre-mediation and intake assessment. The Commission considers that the definition of mediation should not be changed.
Organisational objectives
2.32 A statement of objects in the CJCs Act will not preclude the identification and development from time to time of organisational objectives and strategies. Organisational objectives are necessary so that outcomes of programs can be measured.
2.33 In Issues Paper 23 the Commission identified lists of objectives that could be adopted in relation to mediation service providers, in particular, court-connected mediation schemes.75 These objectives dealt with effective case or list management, the provision of cost effective services; the provision of services appropriate to the needs of disputing parties; the provision of services in a way that could bring about a change in community attitudes and approaches to the resolution of disputes; the provision of services that are of good quality; and liaison with other people or organisations interested in the provision of ADR services.76 Objectives will differ depending on the nature of the service provided.
2.34 Some submissions opposed the placing of objectives in the CJCs Act on the following grounds:
- objectives will change - the Act needs to be flexible, not too restrictive;77 and
- objectives are already stated in CJCs’ business planning processes78 and in annual reports.79
2.35 Organisational objectives are currently provided for in greater detail and in other ways than in the CJCs Act. For example, the 2002-2003 annual report of CJCs listed the following organisational goals:
- To contribute to the safety and harmony of communities by improving individual, group and community responses to, and resolution of, conflict.
- To provide quality mediation and conflict management services for metropolitan and regional NSW.
- To provide services that are confidential, impartial, accessible and voluntary.
- To empower people to take ownership of the dispute and transfer conflict resolution skills and knowledge to the community.80
2.36 The most recent annual report lists a number of “key objectives”:
- The provision of innovative, accessible and equitable ADR services throughout NSW.
- The provision of culturally appropriate ADR services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities throughout NSW.
- To establish proactive partnerships with key referrers.
- To provide an environment in which all staff and mediators contribute fully to the values and outcomes of the organisation and are appropriately trained, supported and supervised.
- To provide an administrative structure that meets the needs of the business, that is flexible, innovative, practical and cost effective.81
These key objectives will change from time to time when different focuses are required. For example, the current key objectives no longer refer to the provision of services which meet the needs of people from culturally diverse backgrounds or people with disabilities or to “the establishment of partnerships with key stakeholders within the Attorney General’s Department and with related government and non-government agencies in order to promote a whole of government approach to the management of conflict in the community”.82
Renaming Community Justice Centres
2.37 In IP 23 the Commission raised the issue of changing the name of CJCs. This question is related to the question of the functions of CJCs because the name of the organisation can convey some of its functions to the community.
2.38 The name “Community Justice Centres” has a level of currency in the mediation industry and among government bodies who refer matters to CJCs. In these circles in New South Wales the term “community justice centre” has, therefore, come to refer to a service that provides mediation to the community. It is this meaning that has been adopted by the Macquarie Dictionary which defines “community justice centre” as “a centre offering a free and confidential mediation service as an alternative to normal legal channels in disputes between parties who have an on-going relationship, as members of a family, neighbours, etc”.83
2.39 However, this meaning would appear to apply only to New South Wales. Queensland, for example, has Dispute Resolution Centres and Victoria has Dispute Settlement Centres, whereas “community mediation services” would appear to have some currency in other States. In South Australia, for example, the Southern Community Justice Centre offers, in addition to mediation through the Community Mediation Service, legal assistance, advice and referral, legal representation and specialist services in relation to child support issues.84
2.40 Elsewhere in the world a “Community Justice Centre” will be a “non-profit, community based, research, educational, and crime prevention organisation” in New York,85 an institution offering restorative justice conferencing for minor criminal matters in Comox Valley, British Columbia, or, in Liverpool in the UK involve:
A multi-purpose community building bringing services and facilities to local people. A court to handle low-level crime where the community is often the victim. Court sentences which combine punishment with support to help offenders kick their crime habit. Community punishments which do the jobs local people want done. Community involvement in helping to steer people away from the crime route.86
2.41 Notwithstanding the clearly established identity of “Community Justice Centres” in the New South Wales mediation community and among government instrumentalities, some problems have been identified with the name in New South Wales, particularly as it relates to potential users of the services provided by CJCs.
2.42 First, “community justice” does not adequately reflect to potential users either the core or generic services currently offered by CJCs.87 CJCs’ documentation now refers to its services as “mediation and conflict management services”. This description is 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”.88
2.43 Secondly, “community justice” may discourage some potential users from participating either through a misunderstanding of what “community justice” entails or a justified antipathy to the “justice system”.89 For example, it has been suggested that the use of the word “justice” may, in fact, lead some potential users to think of CJCs as part of the criminal justice system.90 This can cause problems when attempts are made to include groups who have not traditionally had a good experience in the formal criminal justice system, for example, Indigenous people.91 Further, the use of the term “justice” may lead some people to expect more than CJCs can in fact deliver. In the Commission’s view, the use of the term “justice” is probably the most problematic component of the current name.
2.44 Finally, the word “centres” does not reflect the current structure of CJCs. “Centres” are really part of an outmoded structure, when the model was more along the lines of 1970s-style neighbourhood centres. CJCs no longer deliver services from discrete (“neighbourhood”) centres and now provide “services” to a range of clients.92
2.45 Many suggestions have been made as to possible names, most of them involving combinations of terms such as “community”, “mediation”, “dispute resolution” or “conflict management” and “service”. Some combinations could be seen as presenting problems of being either too cumbersome, too obscure or promising too much. Some submissions that favoured retaining the current name have pointed to the confusion, expense and inconvenience that are likely to result from changing the name.93 The Commission considers that the confusion, expense and inconvenience caused by a name change will probably be outweighed by the positive benefits of a name change.
2.46 On balance, the Commission considers that a sufficient case has been made for a name change that will better enable CJCs to promote its activities to the whole New South Wales community. In particular, the use of the term “justice” should be avoided as presenting an unnecessary barrier to some potential participants. While the Commission considers that “Community Mediation Service” is appropriate as adequately reflecting the primary activity of CJCs, it prefers to leave the final decision about a change of name to the organisation itself.
FOOTNOTES
1. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 14.
2. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 4(1).
3. The protections are discussed in Chapter 6.
4. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, Dispute Resolution Terms (2003) at 9.
5. For example, in relation to planning disputes or disputes surrounding the changing of government policy: See T Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Lawbook Co, Sydney, 2002) at 119.
6. CJCs, Submission 1 at 4.
7. NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Council, 30 October 1995 at 2581. School-based mediation schemes have spread rapidly across the US: D McGillis, Community Mediation Programs: Developments and Challenges (US National Institute of Justice, 1997) at 27-28.
8. See CJCs, Annual Report 1993/1994 at 5; NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Council, 30 October 1995 at 2581.
9. See CJCs, Annual Report 1993/1994 at 5; NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Joint Estimates Committee (Attorney General and Justice), 20 October 1994 at 4302.
10. D McGillis, Community Mediation Programs: Developments and Challenges (US National Institute of Justice, 1997) at 25-30.
11. See T Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Lawbook Co, Sydney, 2002) at 118.
12. C Courcier-Jones, Submission at 1;
13. Para 1.34.
14. D McGillis, Community Mediation Programs: Developments and Challenges (US National Institute of Justice, 1997) at 7. W Faulkes and R Claremont, “Community Mediation: Myth and Reality” (1997) 8 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 177 at 178.
15. For example, promoting the “empowerment of individuals and communities” is an objective of the Memorandum of Understanding Between NSW Local Courts and the Community Justice Centres, NSW (28 January 2000).
16. LEADR, Consultation; ACDC, Consultation.
17. M Thornton, “Equivocations of Conciliation: The Resolution of Discrimination Complaints in Australia” (1989) 52 Modern Law Review 733 at 738.
18. P Pentony, Conciliation Under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975: A study in theory and practice (Australia, Human Rights Commission, Occasional Paper No 15, 1986) at 147.
19. D Spencer, “Exploding the Empowerment Myth of ADR” (1996) 3 Commercial Dispute Resolution Journal 13 at 19. See also H Astor and C Chinkin, Dispute Resolution in Australia (2nd edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, 2002) at 14-15, 33-37.
20. CJCs, Submission 1 at 10.
21. C Courcier-Jones, Submission at 1.
22. LEADR, Consultation; ACDC, Consultation.
23. ACDC, Consultation.
24. LEADR, Consultation.
25. See para 8.18-8.20 and para 8.38-8.54.
26. ACDC, Consultation.
27. CJCs, Submission 1 at 2.
28. ACDC, Consultation.
29. The CJCs’ initial mediator training program is seen by the mediation industry as being of good quality: LEADR, Consultation; ACDC, Consultation. See para 8.18-8.20 below.
30. ACDC, Consultation.
31. See para 2.34-2.36.
32. ACDC, Consultation.
33. D McGillis, Community Mediation Programs: Developments and Challenges (US National Institute of Justice, 1997) at 86-87.
34. A number of submissions and preliminary submissions noted that CJCs do not have a very high profile and suggested that something should be done about this: 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; Confidential 2, Submission at 4; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 13; R G Jones, Submission at 5; Confidential, Consultation.
35. CJCs, Submission 1 at 21.
36. CJCs, Consultation.
37. See para 3.18, 3.19, 3.24.
38. See Ballina Shire Council, Preliminary Submission.
39. NSW Department of Housing, Preliminary Submission at 4.
40. IP 23 Issue 3.
41. R G Jones, Submission at 1.
42. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 2.
43. Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 123, s 124, s 125; Disability Services Act 1993 (NSW) s 3; Optometrists Act 2002 (NSW) s 3; Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 (NSW) s 12.
44. IP 23 Issue 4.
45. Confidential 2, Submission at 1; CJCs, Submission 1 at 4; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 2.
46. IP 23 Issue 14.
47. H Astor and C Chinkin, Dispute Resolution in Australia (2nd edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, 2002) at 168.
48. IP 23 Issue 53
49. M Thornton, “Equivocations of Conciliation: The Resolution of Discrimination Complaints in Australia” (1989) 52 Modern Law Review 733 at 738.
50. CJCs, Annual Report 2001-2002 at 5. But see CJCs, Annual Report 2002-2003 at 1 and CJCs, Annual Report 2003-2004 at 1 where this has been dropped from the key objectives.
51. See H Astor and C Chinkin, Dispute Resolution in Australia (2nd edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, 2002) at 168-169. Services to Indigenous people and communities are dealt with below in Chapter 6.
52. See also D Spencer and T Altobelli, Dispute Resolution in Australia: Cases, Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, Sydney, 2005) at 451-454.
53. See para 8.2-8.12.
54. Confidential 2, Submission at 1; CJCs, Submission 1 at 4; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 3.
55. CJCs, Submission 1 at 4.
56. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 3.
57. L Kelly, Submission at 31
58. CJCs, Preliminary Submission at 6.
59. CJCs, Annual Report 2001-2002 at 12.
60. See para 9.16-9.20.
61. Confidential 2, Submission at 2; CJCs, Submission 1 at 9.
62. CJCs, Submission 1 at 9.
63. Confidential 2, Submission at 2.
64. Department of Community Services, Submission at 1; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 6.
65. See para 9.16-9.18 below.
66. See para 9.21-9.41.
67. NSWLRC IP 23 Issue 2
68. Confidential 2, Submission at 1; CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 3; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 2.
69. CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 3; CJCs, Preliminary Submission at 2; J Hallinan, Preliminary Submission at 2.
70. CJCs, Submission 1 at 3. For the NADRAC definition see para 2.3 above.
71. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, Dispute Resolution Terms (2003) at 1.
72. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, Dispute Resolution Terms (2003) at 1.
73. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, Dispute Resolution Terms (2003) at 2.
74. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 21(4). See also J Schwartzkoff and J Morgan, Community Justice Centres: A Report on the New South Wales Pilot Project, 1979-81 (Law Foundation of New South Wales, 1982) at 25.
75. IP 23 at para 2.8-2.9.
76. See, eg, H Astor, Quality in Court Connected Mediation Programs: An Issues Paper (Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Inc, 2001) at 5; New Jersey Court Rules 1969 r 1:40-3(b).
77. Confidential 2, Submission at 1.
78. CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 3; CJCs, Submission 1 at 4.
79. CJCs, Submission 1 at 4.
80. CJCs, Annual Report 2002-2003 at 1.
81. CJCs, Annual Report 2003-2004 at 1.
82. See CJCs, Annual Report 2001-2002 at 5.
83. Macquarie Dictionary (3rd edition rev, 2001) at 396.
84. South Australian Community Legal Centres, “Centre Detail: Southern Community Justice Centre” (as at 18 October 2004) «http://www.saccls.org.au/public/centres/detail/6».
85. “Community Justice Centre, USA” (as at 8 December 2004) «http://www.iisd.org/50comm/commdb/desc/d20.htm».
86. UK, Department for Constitutional Affairs, “Appointment of Community Justice Judge, Liverpool” (2004) «http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/appointments/cjjl04/cjjlvs04.htm»
87. M S Dewdney, Preliminary Submission at 1; CJCs, Preliminary Submission at 1; CJCs, Submission 1 at 22; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 13.
88. CJCs, Preliminary Submission at 1.
89. J Delaney, Submission.
90. Cessnock City Council, Preliminary Submission; NSW Department of Housing, Preliminary Submission at 2.
91. Coalition of Aboriginal Legal Services, Preliminary Submission at 1.
92. R G Jones, Submission at 7; CJCs, Submission 1 at 22; CJCs, Preliminary Submission at 1.
93. D Rollinson, Submission at 2; CJCs Professional Reference Group, Preliminary Submission at 1-2; N Takacs, Submission at 1.
