Updates and background for this project (Digest)
8.1 This chapter considers issues relating to mediators including their accreditation, training and development, and status and remuneration. The handling of complaints about mediators has been dealt with in Chapter 7.1
ACCREDITATION AND REACCREDITATION
8.2 A person cannot be a mediator at a CJC unless they have been accredited.2 The Attorney General accredits mediators on the recommendation of the Director subject to any policy guidelines and directions of the Council. A mediator can be accredited for a term not exceeding three years and accreditation may be renewed upon expiry. Decisions refusing to grant or revoking accreditation can be challenged in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.3 The current practice is that a potential mediator must undertake initial training before they can be considered for accreditation. After successful completion of the initial training, they are accredited for a period of 12 months and, following mentoring and assessment, may be accredited for a further period of three years. The relevant CJC regional co-ordinator is responsible for the supervision and assessment of mediators during the initial period of accreditation.4 For the purposes of reaccreditation the performance of mediators is assessed on their compliance with a set of mediator competencies that have been adopted by CJCs.5
8.3 Guidelines for the accreditation of mediators have been adopted by CJCs.6 CJCs are currently developing new policies and processes for accreditation, reaccreditation, supervision, grievances and non-accreditation of mediators.
SELECTION OF MEDIATORS
8.4 CJCs aim to appoint as mediators people from all walks of life, who are recruited from the communities which they intend to serve. No special occupational or educational qualifications are required of mediators.
8.5 The selection process for CJC mediators involves a number of discrete stages. The initial stages are aimed at assessing the suitability of applicants to take part in the basic mediator training program. Prospective mediators must first submit an application addressing matters such as future availability, geographic location and ability to travel. An information session on CJCs and mediation is then held for applicants followed by a group discussion which allows applicants to be observed interacting in a group. These activities are followed by a half-hour written exercise aimed at further testing the suitability of applicants. Following an assessment of applicants based on the above, together with relevant demographic criteria, applicants may be invited to attend a personal interview if one is considered necessary. Successful applicants are then invited to attend a 72-hour basic mediator training course.7 Successful completion of the course makes a trainee eligible for accreditation by the Attorney General.
Desirable characteristics in CJCs mediators
Representativeness
8.6 When first established, the panels of mediators were intended to reflect the composition of the communities in which they operated:
Mediators are selected to reflect the ethnic origins of members of the community, their primary or basic language, their educational and socio-economic backgrounds, their religious beliefs and cultural tradition.8
8.7 In some circumstances it can be important to achieve cultural matching between disputants and mediators within the existing service delivery model.9 A representative group of mediators may improve access for marginal groups who might otherwise be discouraged from taking part in mediations.10 For example, Indigenous people might feel more comfortable with an Indigenous mediator present, especially if the other disputant was not from an Indigenous background.11 CJCs currently aim to engage mediators who will represent a wide cross-section of the community taking into account “age, gender, availability, ethnic and cultural background or specific program needs”.12
8.8 Although it is sometimes regarded as important to match the culture of the mediator with that of the participants, there may be cases where this is undesirable – for example where the parties and the mediator come from the same small community and have social links which might provoke fears about confidentiality or bias. It is sometimes the case that it is more desirable for mediators to be highly skilled at mediating cross-cultural issues rather than for them to belong to the same community as the parties. This is an issue of training, rather than selection.13
8.9 Few submissions considered the question whether CJCs mediators are sufficiently representative of the communities in which they operate. One considered that they were,14 one was uncertain15 while another considered that more needed to be done to recruit young people and representatives from “emerging communities”.16
8.10 Some questions have been raised about the interaction between any program of positive recruitment of mediators from disadvantaged groups and the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). There are two ways of dealing with any inconsistency. One way is for CJCs to seek exemptions from the Anti-Discrimination Act.17 Such exemptions are available under the Anti-Discrimination Act for special needs programs and activities.18 Another way would be to include a special measures provision in the CJCs Act.19 The Commission does not consider that a special measures provision is warranted. The Commission has no evidence to suggest that there has been a problem with recruitment of particular groups.
8.11 In IP 23 the Commission asked the further question of whether the aim of recruiting mediators who reflect the community in which they operate should be included in legislation.20 While at least one submission acknowledged the wisdom of recruiting mediators who are representative of their communities,21 submissions that considered this issue opposed the inclusion of such an aim in legislation.22 One submission suggested that including this aim would be too restrictive and suggested that it might be more desirable that mediators be highly skilled in dealing with cross-cultural issues.23
8.12 The Commission considers that ultimately such matters cannot be legislated for. The representativeness of mediators is a matter to be covered by policies and guidelines and for the Director to bear in mind when he or she makes decisions about the recruitment and appointment of mediators.
Suitability to act as mediators
8.13 One submission suggested that potential mediators should “undergo a ‘self-awareness’ assessment to ensure that they are temperamentally suited to becoming mediators before they start their training”.24 The current selection procedure described above would appear to be adequate. No change is warranted at this stage.
Prior qualifications
8.14 Particular qualifications, such as tertiary degrees or diplomas, are not required for people to become CJCs mediators. One reason for this is that requiring particular qualifications for mediators may make it difficult to appoint mediators who reflect the diversity of the local community, particularly members of minority groups.25 This would especially be the case if tertiary qualifications were to be required.26 It has also been observed that:
[Formal] qualifications can be cumbersome and complex to develop and maintain. Such a requirement may also make ADR more of a ‘profession’ and create greater exclusivity.27
8.15 The Commission considers that there should be no change to the current practice whereby mediators are not required to hold tertiary degrees, diplomas or other qualifications for the generalist mediation services provided by CJCs.
Recognition of previous training and experience
8.16 Some people who seek to be CJCs mediators may already be mediating for other mediation service providers which will also have accreditation and training requirements. Presently there is no provision for the recognition of previous training and mediation experience.
8.17 One submission suggested that any candidate who had received training elsewhere should have to “demonstrate their suitability to join the CJC panel using supervised co-mediation with an experienced mediator”.28 This approach is not possible with CJCs, since the Act does not allow for any probationary period. People cannot act as mediators for CJCs, and be eligible for the protections offered under the Act, unless they have already been accredited. The Commission is of the view that CJCs should investigate matters and develop a protocol if thought necessary for the recognition of previous training and experience.
INITIAL TRAINING
8.18 The training referred to in this section is that which takes place before mediators are accredited. Issues of continuing education, training and development of CJCs mediators are dealt with later in this chapter.29
8.19 The training of mediators is essential for all providers of mediation services. In 1991 the New South Wales Law Reform Commission concluded that training of mediators was necessary:
Failure to undergo training in the process increases the risk that a mediator’s behaviour will be incompetent and unethical, and of harm to clients.30
However, it did not recommend that such training be made mandatory in legislation. There were two reasons for this position. First, the need for mandatory requirements had not been demonstrated. Secondly, it was premature to prescribe the training required by mediators at what was then seen as an early stage of the development of the field.31 The Commission preferred to leave the question of qualifications and training to the administering agencies.32 As with most mediation services, this is still the case with CJCs which provide their own initial training program.
8.20 The CJCs’ initial training course is widely acknowledged in the mediation industry as being of the highest quality and as meeting the needs of the organisation.33 It has been noted that most other mediation providers were unable to provide initial training of the same duration or quality as CJCs.34
STATUS AND REMUNERATION OF MEDIATORS
Status of CJC mediators
8.21 CJCs mediators are accredited by the Attorney General on the recommendation of the Director of CJCs.35 Mediators are specifically not included within the category of “staff of Community Justice Centres” and are therefore not appointed or employed under the Public Sector Management Act 1988 (NSW).36 As ministerial appointees they are not subject to an award. However, they are expected to comply with the Attorney General’s Department’s Code of Conduct and the CJCs’ Mediators’ Code of Professional Conduct.
8.22 In IP 23 the Commission asked whether CJCs mediators should be employed under the Public Sector Management Act 1988 (NSW) or whether they should continue to be ministerial appointees.37
8.23 Submissions were generally supportive of mediators continuing to be ministerial appointees. The main reason for this support was the independence ministerial appointment is seen to give mediators.38 Independence is important because it reassures clients and allows mediators to carry out their work without fear or favour.39 It was also suggested that ministerial appointment helps to ensure that CJCs mediators are representative of the community.40
8.24 CJCs submitted that mediators should continue to be ministerial appointees and observed that their pay and conditions can be determined by administrative action without the need for them to be under the Public Sector Management Act 1988 (NSW).41
8.25 The Commission agrees that, in light of the independence afforded by ministerial appointment, CJCs mediators ought to continue to be accredited by the Attorney General on the recommendation of the Director of CJCs.
Remuneration and conditions
8.26 The Act provides that a mediator is “entitled to be paid such remuneration as is determined in respect of the mediator by the Minister”.42 When CJCs were originally established it was felt that, while mediators’ efforts should receive some financial recognition, “there should be no encouragement to mediators to think of their CJC activities as a conventional job or as a major source of income”.43
8.27 In IP 23 the Commission asked how the remuneration of CJCs mediators should be structured.44 The responses received come under a number of headings.
How should remuneration and conditions be governed?
8.28 Despite not being covered by the Public Sector Management Act 1988 (NSW), mediators receive some of the benefits that would otherwise be available to public sector employees. In addition to an hourly rate, mediators receive one-twelfth of annual gross earnings as a leave loading and also an employer contribution to superannuation based on gross earnings and payment of expenses. They are also provided with training and professional development opportunities.
8.29 There are a variety of options for the engagement of CJC mediators apart from bringing them under the Public Sector Management Act 1988 (NSW), such as making them casual employees of the Attorney General’s Department. It has also been suggested that CJC mediators should have an award to govern their remuneration and other employment conditions, as is the case with some other ministerial appointees, for example, judges’ associates.45 Relationships Australia has an enterprise agreement in place.46
8.30 One submission suggested that mediators should be given the opportunity to have their employment conditions governed by an award if they so wish.47
Pay rates
8.31 CJCs mediators are currently paid $24.41 per hour.48 Some submissions have highlighted the fact that this rate is not in line with those offered by other services.49 For example, the rates for Relationships Australia mediators range from $28 to $33.50 per hour50 and $150 per hour is the base level for commercial mediation.51 The Law Society has observed:
A review of the remuneration for mediators is timely in the light of the importance of their role in the overall success of the CJC. The remuneration rate for CJC mediators should be increased in line with other statutory mediation programs and be reflective of the effort the mediators have to contribute to maintain their CJC accreditation.52
8.32 The comparatively low rate gives rise to a number of concerns that were raised in some submissions:
- CJCs may be dealing with disputes which should be dealt with in the commercial sector. The low pay of CJCs mediators may give rise to equity and competition concerns in this context.53
- It may be difficult to develop an industry of mediation professionals where there are mediators offering their services for so low a rate. If professional development is to be considered the responsibility of the individual, CJCs mediators on their current rates of pay will simply be unable to justify pursuing professional development opportunities such as attending conferences or engaging in additional training or development.54
- While CJCs mediators are usually very committed, mediators often stop working for CJCS for financial reasons.55
8.33 It has also been suggested that CJCs mediators may be subject to exploitation. While it is true that CJCs mediators, as holders of a statutory office, are not being forced to accept the office they hold,56 their level of remuneration may, if insufficient, amount to exploitation.
8.34 Some submissions have suggested remuneration rates be increased to from between $30 and $40 per hour57 to between $60 to $70 per hour.58
8.35 One submission suggested that pay rates should be on a scale that reflects the experience and skill levels of individual mediators.59 For example, Relationships Australia pays its mediators according to a predetermined scale and mediators move up the scale after annual performance reviews.60
8.36 The Commission understands that the remuneration of mediators is currently under review by CJCs61 which is in the best position to determine the rates it can pay based on available resources. However, in deciding on an appropriate rate or scale of rates there are some factors that should be taken into account:
- Co-mediation at CJCs might not be economically viable if mediators were paid commercial rates.62 However, co-mediation might also be a factor in keeping pay rates lower than they would be for mediators conducting single-mediator mediations, since co-mediation lessens the load of responsibility on the individual.63
- The mere fact of experience at CJCs is valuable, making it worthwhile for mediators to seek experience with CJCs notwithstanding the low pay offered. However, it should be noted that those seeking to move into more remunerative areas, for example, commercial work, or family mediation, might still need some additional training or experience that is not offered by CJCs.64
- Most CJCs mediators are very committed to the broad objectives of CJCs and offer their services for less tangible reasons than remuneration.65
- Substantially increasing rates for CJCs mediators might lead to the need to charge for mediation in some cases. Such charges might deter people from agreeing to mediate even if they could afford it.66
- The minimum two hour attendance fee for no-shows and ultra-short mediations may not be adequate compensation for “what is usually a major disruption to the mediator’s day”.67
- That, while the current interim travel policy (effective 1 September 2002)68 goes some way to addressing the travel allowance issue for mediators operating outside the urban areas of the State,69 it is possible that the travel allowance may not sufficiently take into account the distances to be travelled in country New South Wales and that the remuneration may not adequately cover the cost of running the vehicle.70
Training and professional development
8.37 While training and development opportunities are provided, the time mediators spend in training is not remunerated. This is a contentious point for mediators who have to sacrifice paid time in other employment to attend training that is mandatory for continuing accreditation.71 This situation may be exacerbated when mediators feel that the training has not been particularly valuable.72 Two submissions suggested that mediators should be remunerated for attending training sessions.73 The Commission is of the view that this is a matter that should be considered by CJCs management.
CONTINUING EDUCATION
8.38 Continuing education and mediation experience is required in order for mediators to be re-accredited with CJCs. CJCs currently provide mediators with opportunities for learning and development with the aim of maintaining mediator competency and standards. The CJC Directorate and regional co-ordinators develop training programs in consultation with the Training Group and Professional Reference Group. Mediators can also seek approval from the regional co-ordinators to attend other programs of education and training in alternative dispute resolution that CJCs will recognise. The CJCs have developed a system whereby a mediator must accrue a certain number of “Continuing Mediation Accreditation points” in order to be considered for re-accreditation as a mediator. The 100 CMA points that mediators must accrue each year represent the completion of activities in the areas of practice, learning and development and organisational context.74 There is no legislative backing for this system of Continuing Mediation Accreditation.
8.39 In IP 23 the Commission noted the strong views in favour of continuing education for mediators as being essential for the practice of mediation75 and noted a number of legislatively based continuing education requirements for mediation and other professional groups.76 These requirements were aimed at ensuring that relevant skills are reinforced and enhanced and that ethical and other relevant matters are addressed.
8.40 Most submissions considered that some form of continuing education/training should be required for CJC mediators.77 Some concerns were raised about the content, quality, rigour and value of the training and continuing education programs offered to mediators for the purposes of continued accreditation.78 One submission has also suggested that reliance on train-the-trainer sessions has proved problematic.79 The question of convenience has also been raised with one submission suggesting that distance education models could be adopted to obviate the need for personal attendance at courses.80
Need for specialised training
8.41 Several submissions dealt with the need to provide training in specialised areas. Specialised training can be divided into two broad categories - the sort of specialised training that is generally necessary to the practice of mediation in a community-based service like CJCs and the sort that is required for dealing with particular types of disputes.
8.42 The former category includes such matters as anti-discrimination issues,81 techniques for working with young people,82 disability awareness (including psychiatric disability),83 and cultural awareness/sensitivity in relation to the communities in which CJCs provide services.84 Issues involving violence are also included in this category.85
8.43 A focus on issues relevant to the mediation of disputes in the communities served by CJCs might be particularly appropriate,86 especially issues of cultural responses to disputes. One submission stressed the importance of the need for mediators to receive training in cross-cultural awareness.87 Training in cross-cultural mediation is important because parties sometimes prefer mediators not to come from their community for fear that their private business might be spread around. It has been suggested that parties from other cultures are sometimes simply looking for a respectful attitude of the mediator, not necessarily someone from their own culture.88 The coverage of such issues also aims to overcome systemic discrimination; to identify inequalities and power imbalances in existing relationships; and to improve access to disadvantaged groups.89 One submission encouraged CJCs:
to provide cultural training to non-Indigenous mediators to enable sufficient understanding about the issues facing Indigenous participants in mediation. This ensures that all Indigenous contact with Community Justice Centres will be dealt with in a culturally appropriate manner.90
8.44 An example of a legislative provision that requires specialised training in such areas may be found in relation to legal practitioners in New South Wales who are required to undertake, at least once every three years, a course that includes:
a component relating to the management of the practice of law that deals predominantly with the following issues:
(a) the principles of equal employment opportunity,
(b) the law relating to discrimination and harassment,
(c) occupational health and safety law,
(d) employment law...91
This provision was included in the Legal Profession Regulation 2002 (NSW) in order to promote greater understanding of the significance of these issues to legal practice.92
8.45 The second category, specialised training that is required for dealing with particular types of disputes, includes the gaining or updating of legal knowledge, for example in relation to matters that may be mediated under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW), Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) and Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)93 and local government planning regulations,94 especially where changes have occurred that are relevant to the areas in which they mediate.95
8.46 It has been suggested that particular expertise in the areas under dispute is not necessary because CJCs mediators are facilitators of a process and are, therefore, not required to be experts in the technical details of the particular areas under dispute.96
8.47 The extent to which these matters ought to be considered in initial training or continuing education will vary from time to time. These matters are appropriately determined by the Director following consideration by the CJCs Training Group and Professional Reference Group and with advice from the CJCs Council.
The content of courses
Determination of content
8.48 The content of CJCs training courses is currently determined by the CJCs Training Group. 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”.97
8.49 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.98
Mediators from the Training Group are now conducting the CJC’s training program.99
8.50 Most submissions opposed prescribing the content of continuing education courses in legislation,100 principally on the grounds that CJCs should have the flexibility to determine training programs according to current needs which will change from time to time.101
8.51 One submission highlighted the need for CJCs to co-opt external specialists on the question of training needs in order to avoid being too “inwardly focussed and self-referring”.102
Evaluating content
8.52 Current arrangements for evaluating the content of training courses are that the CJCs Directorate and Training Group annually evaluates the CJCs training programs.103 Feedback is received at the end of each training session and is taken into account in the development of the courses in the following year.104
8.53 In IP 23 the Commission asked what provision, if any, should be made for the accreditation and evaluation of CJCs mediator training programs.105 Few submissions considered this issue directly. One suggested that the accreditation and evaluation of CJCs mediator training programs should remain a matter of policy and practice.106
The Commission’s view
8.54 Determining the training needs of CJCs and assessing current training programs is clearly a responsibility of the Director. At present the Director makes use of the Training Group to discharge this responsibility. The Commission considers this appropriate. The Commission also believes that, in future, the Director will benefit from the advice of the reconstituted CJCs Council.
Recognition of other training and experience
8.55 It has been suggested there is a need to recognise training and experience gained in mediation beyond that conducted by CJCs. There are a number of reasons for this. First recognition of external training will encourage mediators to seek professional development that will complement in-house training programs.107 Secondly, there are practical reasons arising from the fact that some CJC mediators mediate for other panels which also have accreditation and training requirements.108 The Law Society has also observed that there are a significant number of CJC mediators on other panels:
Most panels require a minimum number of mediations per annum for re-accreditation as well as attendance at training and education sessions. There is an urgent need for inter-agency liaison to formulate a mutual agreement to allow for ‘recognition of prior learning’ also referred to as ‘advanced standing’ to avoid undue duplication.109
NADRAC has, therefore, suggested that “it is desirable for accrediting bodies to develop a degree of mutual recognition... so that wastage of time and resources is avoided”.110 However, the widely varying standards and criteria for accreditation will be problematic if some form of mutual recognition is to be provided for.111 NADRAC has noted that the limited scope for mutual recognition within the ADR sector is consistent with the diversity of services offered.112
8.56 The Law Reform Commission has also previously noted that:
There are serious difficulties in establishing comparability among courses. It is likely to introduce an undesirable rigidity and inflexibility for courses which are in a constant state of change as theory and practice develop.113
8.57 CJCs have reported that they are currently investigating the establishment of a system to recognise training provided by other organisations.114 It is appropriate that the matter should be dealt with in this way.
FOOTNOTES
1. Para 7.79-7.93.
2. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 4(1).
3. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 11.
4. CJCs, Policy and Procedures on Mediator Accreditation (November 2001).
5. See para 7.8-7.10.
6. CJCs, Submission 1 at 11.
7. CJCs, Interim Policy - Recruitment and Selection of Mediator Trainees (December 2001).
8. NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Council, 22 November 1983 at 3025.
9. Confidential, Consultation.
10. Anti-Discrimination Board, Preliminary Submission at 5.
11. Redfern Community Centre, Consultation. See para 9.29-9.33 below.
12. CJCs, “Becoming an accredited mediator with the Community Justice Centres” «http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/cjc.nsf/pages/training4» (as at 1 September 2003).
13. The training of CJC mediators is dealt with at para 8.18-8.20 and para 8.38-8.57 below.
14. Confidential 2, Submission at 2.
15. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 6.
16. CJCs, Submission 1 at 10-11. See also Anti-Discrimination Board, Preliminary Submission at 8.
17. CJCs, Submission 1 at 11.
18. Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 126A.
19. Anti-Discrimination Board, Preliminary Submission at 8. One model can be found in the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) which provides that, in the event of any inconsistency between the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and the provisions of an equal employment opportunity management plan, the provisions of the management plan prevail: Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) s 346.
20. IP 23 Issue 16(b).
21. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 6.
22. Confidential 2, Submission at 2; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 6.
23. Confidential 2, Submission at 2.
24. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 7.
25. See D McGillis, Community Mediation Programs: Developments and Challenges (US National Institute of Justice, 1997) at 70.
26. H Astor and C Chinkin, Dispute Resolution in Australia (2nd edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, 2002) at 212. See also National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, Primary Dispute Resolution in Family Law (A Report to the Attorney-General on Part 5 of the Family Law Regulations, 1997) at para 4.20-4.23.
27. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, A Framework for ADR Standards (Report to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, 2001) at 57.
28. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 7.
29. Para 8.38-8.57.
30. NSWLRC, Training and Accreditation of Mediators (Report 67, 1991) at para 3.6.
31. NSWLRC, Training and Accreditation of Mediators (Report 67, 1991) at para 3.7-3.8.
32. NSWLRC, Training and Accreditation of Mediators (Report 67, 1991) at para 3.9.
33. LEADR, Consultation; Confidential 2, Submission at 2; CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 7; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 8.
34. LEADR, Consultation; ACDC, Consultation.
35. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 11(1).
36. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 12.
37. IP 23 Issue 20.
38. Confidential 1, Preliminary Submission at 4; R G Jones, Submission at 1; CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 8; Confidential 4, Submission 1 at 3.
39. Confidential 1, Preliminary Submission at 4.
40. CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 8.
41. CJCs, Submission 1 at 13.
42. Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (NSW) s 12(2).
43. 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 15.
44 IP 23 Issue 21.
45. J Hallinan, Preliminary Submission at 3.
46. Relationships Australia (NSW), Consultation.
47. R G Jones, Submission at 4.
48. Information supplied by D Sharp, Director, CJCs (10 January 2005).
49. M S Dewdney, Preliminary Submission at 3. LEADR, Consultation.
50. Relationships Australia (NSW), Consultation.
51. LEADR, Consultation.
52. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 8.
53. LEADR, Consultation.
54. LEADR, Consultation.
55. CJCs, Consultation.
56. NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Council, 2 June 1998 at 5478.
57. R G Jones, Submission at 4.
58. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 8. Another submission has provided a detailed salary structure proposal for CJC mediators based on current Public Service grades: J Hallinan, Preliminary Submission at 3-4.
59. LEADR, Consultation.
60. Relationships Australia (NSW), Consultation.
61. CJCs, Submission 1 at 13.
62. Confidential, Consultation.
63. R G Jones, Submission at 4.
64. ACDC, Consultation.
65. Confidential, Consultation; CJCs, Consultation.
66. Confidential, Consultation.
67. R G Jones, Submission at 4.
68. CJCs, Policy: Interim Travel Policy (effective 1 September 2002).
69. NSW, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Assembly, 19 September 2001 at 16873.
70. Confidential 1, Submission.
71. R G Jones, Submission at 4.
72. R G Jones, Submission at 4.
73. C Courcier-Jones, Submission at 2; R G Jones, Submission at 4.
74. CJCs, Policy and Procedures on Mediator Accreditation (November 2001). For example, the conduct of 6 mediations amounts to 60 points, completion of one core compulsory training course (of 6 hours) amounts to 10 points.
75. NSWLRC, Training and Accreditation of Mediators (Report 67, 1991) at para 3.35; US Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators item IX.
76. See New Jersey Court Rules 1969 r 1:40-12(b)(3); Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 57N and Legal Profession Regulation 2002 (NSW) cl 142.
77. D Rollinson, Submission at 1; Confidential 2, Submission at 2; CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 7; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 7.
78. Confidential 1, Preliminary Submission at 3; G Barclay, Preliminary Submission at 1; Confidential 4, Submission 1 at 2; R G Jones, Submission at 3.
79. C Courcier-Jones, Submission at 2.
80. C Courcier-Jones, Submission at 2.
81. Anti-Discrimination Board, Preliminary Submission at 7.
82. R G Jones, Submission at 3.
83. R G Jones, Submission at 3; Anti-Discrimination Board, Preliminary Submission at 7.
84. Anti-Discrimination Board, Preliminary Submission at 7; Coalition of Aboriginal Legal Services, Preliminary Submission at 2.
85. Training in relation to issues of violence has been considered at para 4.63-4.65.
86. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 7.
87. Confidential, Consultation.
88. Relationships Australia (NSW), Consultation.
89. Anti-Discrimination Board, Preliminary Submission at 4, 5.
90. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services, NSW State Office, Submission at 3.
91. Legal Profession Regulation 2002 (NSW) cl 142.
92. NSW Attorney General’s Department, Regulatory Impact Statement: Legal Profession Regulation 2002 (2002) at 64.
93. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 2.
94. R G Jones, Submission at 3.
95. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 7.
96. CJCs, Consultation.
97. Information supplied by D Sharp, Director, CJCs (29 August 2003).
98. CJCs Training Group, Minutes of Meeting (3 June 2002).
99. CJCs, Annual Report 2001-2002 at 9.
100. Confidential 2, Submission at 2; Law Society of NSW, Submission at 7; CJCs, Submission 1 at 12; Professional Reference Group, Submission at 7; D Rollinson, Submission at 1.
101. Confidential 2, Submission at 2; CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 7.
102. R G Jones, Submission at 3.
103. CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 7; CJCs, Submission 1 at 13.
104. CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at 7; CJCs, Submission 1 at 13.
105. IP 23 Issue 19.
106. CJCs, Professional Reference Group, Submission at
107. C Courcier-Jones, Submission at 2.
108. M S Dewdney, Preliminary Submission at 4.
109. Law Society of NSW, Submission at 8.
110. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, A Framework for ADR Standards (Report to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, 2001) at 83.
111. H Astor and C Chinkin, Dispute Resolution in Australia (2nd edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, 2002) at 232-233.
112. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, A Framework for ADR Standards (Report to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, 2001) at para 4.48.
113. NSWLRC, Training and Accreditation of Mediators (Report 67, 1991) at para 5.22.
114. CJCs, Submission 1 at 11.
