Updates and background for this project (Digest)
9.1 The terms of reference for this review include the requirement that the Commission considers:
Whether the current structure of Community Justice Centres sufficiently meets the needs of the indigenous community of New South Wales.
9.2 The particular history of dispossession of Indigenous people and inappropriate treatment by the justice system1 requires, in many cases, a response that is different to that which needs to be adopted for immigrant cultural, ethnic and other groups. There are many Indigenous communities in New South Wales, including rural, urban, traditional and historical communities.2 Each will have different needs to be considered.
9.3 The diversity of Indigenous communities in New South Wales and the need to involve Indigenous people fully in decisions that concern them are recognised in the four principles contained in the New South Wales Attorney General’s Aboriginal Justice Agreement:
1. Accepting that Aboriginal people know their own problems and issues and that Aboriginal people are best situated to solve those problems.
2. Actively encouraging and supporting local Aboriginal community innovation which aims to address justice problems and concerns.
3. Recognising and respecting the significant cultural diversity in the NSW Aboriginal community and that each Aboriginal community has its own distinct problems and needs.
4. Acknowledging that crime in Aboriginal communities has a deep set of underlying causes and that we share responsibility in addressing these causes.3
9.4 The four overall aims of the Aboriginal Justice Agreement are:
1. To improve Aboriginal access to justice.
2. To improve the quality and relevance of justice that Aboriginal people receive.
3. To provide a framework for ongoing partnership between the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council and the Attorney General in addressing justice issues.
4. To allow Aboriginal people to take a leadership role and make key decisions in solving their own justice concerns.4
9.5 In light of the dispossession and oppression of Indigenous people, the provision of mediation services to Indigenous communities is important because it may help Indigenous communities to achieve the resolution of disputes without recourse to the formal justice system.5 There is the potential, within community mediation, for Indigenous people to develop methods of resolving disputes that are appropriate to Indigenous culture and needs.6 However, this is not to say that community mediation currently does, or will, deal adequately with Indigenous culture and needs.7
9.6 However, there is a danger that recent Western models of dispute resolution could be imposed on Indigenous communities in ways that are inappropriate. Commentators have highlighted the problems associated with imposing the forms of mediation developed for the general community as a “solution” for Indigenous people:
A reading of anthropological and related literature in regard to Australian Aboriginal studies leaves little doubt that the traditional Aboriginal world views are ... ontologically and epistemologically different; Aboriginal culture and non-Aboriginal Australian culture in their conceptualisation of how people relate to each other and how people relate to the universe are fundamentally different. It may therefore follow that a transplanted mainstream dispute resolution process will not necessarily strike.8
Put simply, it is possible, that Indigenous conceptions of “mediation” may be vastly different to those accepted more generally.9
9.7 Two broad considerations arise from the responses to IP 23. One is the question of the appropriate model for delivery of services to Indigenous people and communities. Another is the question of what services ought to be delivered. Both considerations require consultation with Aboriginal communities across the State at many levels with views being sought from representatives of communities, focus groups and individuals.10 Such consultations are consistent with government policy that recognises the right of Indigenous people “to negotiate and participate in decisions that affect them”.11 External input is important in this process. The current CJCs Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Network,12 while important as a forum for Indigenous mediators, cannot provide external input as it is a body internal to CJCs and cannot represent the diversity of Indigenous communities in New South Wales.13
CURRENT PROVISION
9.8 CJCs currently make some provision for the needs of Indigenous people and communities, principally through their mediation and training program and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander network. This is consistent with one of CJCs’ “key objectives” which is to provide:
culturally appropriate ADR services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities throughout NSW.14
Mediation and training program
9.9 As part of this approach CJCs have recently recruited and trained 15 Indigenous mediators in the CJCs’ northern region.15 The training program was based on the CJCs’ basic mediation training16 and was adapted for Indigenous people, the aim being to meet the needs of participants and provide culturally appropriate mediation. The Indigenous mediators were accredited in May 2003 and are now mediating through the northern region CJCs office.17 These were in addition to 18 Indigenous mediators across all regions who were already mediating with CJCs by 2002.18 A project officer position has been created at CJCs to evaluate the program in the northern region and to plan the implementation of the CJCs Indigenous program across the State.19
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Network
9.10 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Network was established to advise the CJCs Directorate on matters concerning Indigenous communities and mediation. The Network has no formal status within the Attorney General’s Department. Network members have a primary obligation to the self-determination and well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and to the Network.20
9.11 The Network has undertaken a number of tasks, including:
- “work on the design of the most appropriate model of service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities”;21 and
- involvement in training programs for Indigenous staff of the Attorney General’s Department.22
THE STRUCTURE FOR PROVIDING SERVICES
9.12 The following paragraphs consider two models for providing CJCs services to Indigenous people. One is to establish separate Indigenous CJCs and the other is to follow the current CJCs approach to the provision of mediation services to Aboriginal communities, namely to integrate the administration of those services into CJCs’ usual administrative framework.23 One of the main questions that arises in the context of such proposals is the extent to which an Indigenous CJC should be carried on under the umbrella of a government department and the extent to which it should be directed by Indigenous people themselves. When circumstances are favourable Indigenous communities can develop and use their own methods of managing disputes.24 Such dispute resolution methods, where they have been developed by communities, ought to be preserved.25 By the same token, arguments for community generated schemes ought not to be taken as excluding all government involvement. For example, Government can still have a role in supporting and co-ordinating local Indigenous initiatives.26
9.13 One commentator has observed that for Indigenous mediation projects to work:
it is vital that an approach other than a bureaucratic and impersonal one be adopted. The literature is strewn with dismal failures of impositions upon Aboriginal communities essentially telling them what has been good for them. The present mode is to adopt an extensive consultative approach requiring high levels of physical endurance, patience and the ability to listen.27
Integrated service delivery
9.14 It can be argued that the current CJCs, organised as they are in geographic regions, should be equipped to provide services to, and meet the needs of, Indigenous communities in their regions. This is the current approach of CJCs and has seen the recruitment and training of 15 Aboriginal mediators in the CJCs’ northern region.
9.15 One submission suggested that equipping CJCs to provide services to, and meet the needs of, Indigenous communities in their regions was best practice and preferred the present situation whereby meeting the needs of Indigenous people is part of the core business of CJCs.28
Indigenous CJCs
9.16 The possibility of culturally-based community-specific CJCs has been raised in recent years. In particular it has been suggested that an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CJC be established to meet better the needs of Indigenous people.29 One commentator has suggested that “the Aboriginal community needs more than to have programs of mediation... which exist within the dominant legal structures merely transferred into the Aboriginal community with mediators who have had cultural training so that they are sensitive to Aboriginal concerns”.30 One submission strongly supported a service that operates “from the premise of Aboriginal self-determination” and that has a majority of staff who are Indigenous.31
9.17 A separate CJC that specifically provides services to Indigenous people and communities might, by providing a space for any special adaptations that may need to be made to the general model of CJCs, better meet the needs of Indigenous people and communities. One submission, however, suggested that a separate Indigenous service would have the effect of marginalizing Indigenous community in the delivery of mediation services.32
9.18 CJCs have reported that since the establishment of the northern region’s Aboriginal mediation scheme Indigenous people have been involved in 7% of the total referrals received by CJCs. This figure is considerably larger than the proportion of Indigenous people in the New South Wales population which currently stands at 1.9%. CJCs have suggested that these figures justify a further examination of the expansion of the service that is currently being offered and an examination of appropriate structures for the delivery of CJCs services, including an autonomous or semi-autonomous service to Indigenous people. The evaluation of the northern region’s scheme is considering alternatives to the current approach bearing in mind, however, the budgetary constraints that may apply.33
The Commission’s view
9.19 At present, future directions with regards to Indigenous CJCs will depend, in part, on an assessment of the current program being operated by CJCs in the northern region.34
9.20 The Commission is of the view that this will be a matter for the CJCs Council and management to consider once the assessment of the northern region scheme has been completed and appropriate consultations have been held with the Indigenous communities across the State.
TYPES OF SERVICES
9.21 Whatever model is chosen for delivery, the questions remain as to what services are required and whether they involve the use of pre-existing services, the adaptation of pre-existing services or the introduction of different services to meet the needs of Indigenous people and communities. Needs will vary and can be either general or specific. These can be determined through appropriate consultations with the various Indigenous communities in New South Wales.
9.22 There are two broad approaches to the question of the type of services that ought to be delivered to Indigenous people and communities. One is to adapt existing mediation services to meet Indigenous needs and the other is to introduce different services to meet specific needs.
9.23 Whatever approaches are adopted by CJCs, they need to be the result of creative, responsive engagement with the relevant Indigenous communities.
Pre-existing services
9.24 The core work of CJCs is to deliver a community mediation service. There would appear to be sufficient work in this general area in the Indigenous communities of New South Wales. For example one submission drew attention to the fact that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services provide priority assistance to clients who potentially face custodial sentences. This means that 89% of matters handled by the Services are in relation to criminal matters. It was suggested that CJCs could assist in civil and family law matters where Indigenous people are often unrepresented in the formal justice system:35
Community Justice Centres have the potential to alleviate unmet need emanating from the under-resourcing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (ATSILS), by ensuring that the mediation provided by CJCs is effective, culturally appropriate and that Indigenous mediators are available where requested.36
There are two issues considered here: first, so far as pre-existing services are relevant to Indigenous people, what adaptations need to be made; and, secondly, whether more provision needs to be made for suitable mediators for disputes that may involve one or more Indigenous people.
9.25 In dealing with both these questions, a number of different types of disputes should be considered, namely disputes between Indigenous people from the same community, disputes between Indigenous people from different communities and disputes between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people.
Necessary adjustments
9.26 Some questions arise as to whether any of the requirements in the Act or general standards or codes stand in the way of adapting CJCs’ services to meet Aboriginal needs. Areas where adaptations may be required in appropriate cases include:37
- Voluntary participation may need to be reassessed in light of the needs of the welfare of a particular community as well as to those of particular individuals within it. In some communities, for example, elders may exert strong pressure on parties to mediate.38
- Confidentiality of disputes may prove difficult to achieve or may be undesirable in some cases, for example, where Indigenous communities “do not resemble the same dispersed and private living arrangements as those found particularly in urbanised Australian society”,39 especially when it becomes a multi-party dispute, involving family, friends and other community members.40 While mediators are bound by an oath of confidentiality, the extent to which any of the parties is bound to maintain confidentiality may depend on particular cultural contexts but will generally be a matter for agreement between the parties.41
- Neutrality of mediators may be difficult to achieve if the mediators come from the same community as the disputants.42 However, “neutrality” may not be appropriate since Indigenous disputants may look to the mediator to carry “moral authority” and be known and respected within the relevant community.43
- The scope of matters appropriate for mediation may need to be revised. For example, in some communities, issues of domestic violence may be suitable for mediation, especially given the close-knit nature of some Indigenous communities and also the unwillingness of some victims to seek protection from the formal justice system, in light of the historical experience of Indigenous people in the justice system.44
9.27 Concerns have also been raised about the appropriateness of current pre-mediation procedures to Indigenous people, for example the reliance on telephone and letters to communicate with disputants.45 CJCs have reported that while the basic process of CJC mediation is highly flexible further research and study needs to be carried out to address these and other issues.46
9.28 The Commission is of the view that nothing currently prevents appropriate adaptation of the services that CJCs provide to Indigenous people. The adaptations that are required are appropriately a matter for the management and Council of CJCs after appropriate research and consultation with Indigenous communities.
Provision of appropriate mediators
9.29 In addition to the 15 Indigenous mediators working in the northern region, there are other Indigenous mediators in the other CJC regions. However, more Indigenous mediators are needed in all regions,47 not only to assist with disputes within Indigenous communities but also in situations where only one of the parties to a dispute is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. The presence of Indigenous mediators may help to counter such factors as historical and structural power imbalances when non-Indigenous people are also parties to the mediation.48 The program in the northern region will be evaluated before consideration can be given to expanding the service.
9.30 The need for mediators with Indigenous backgrounds was highlighted by the Department of Housing’s submission. Responses from their local client service teams suggested that a mediator with an Indigenous background would be useful so that Indigenous clients would feel “supported”.49 The Coalition of Aboriginal Legal Services also emphasised the need to train mediators who reflect the diversity of Indigenous communities in the State, having regard to age, sex, tribe, language and background.50
9.31 There may be particular problems with providing Indigenous mediators in situations where one of the disputants is non-Indigenous. In such circumstances it may not be appropriate to have an Indigenous mediator who is too closely connected to the Indigenous disputant’s community since it may give rise to the appearance of bias in the eyes of the non-Indigenous disputant.51 However, it will be important for some Indigenous disputants to have an Indigenous mediator present so that they feel that their concerns will be listened to and acknowledged.52 Any concerns about an Indigenous mediator who is not known to the Indigenous disputant can be dealt with in pre-mediation.53
9.32 In some cases non-Indigenous mediators with training in Indigenous cultural issues will be all that is required.54 For example, 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.55
9.33 The allocation of mediators appropriate to the dispute and the disputants where at least one Indigenous person is involved is a question that needs to be dealt with at intake assessment. Some concerns have been expressed about the failure to identify some Indigenous parties where they have not been the ones to approach CJCs in the first instance.56 This problem can be overcome by a more rigorous approach to pre-mediation intake assessment.57
Different services
9.34 Some submissions suggested that the range of services offered to Indigenous communities ought to be broadened beyond the mediation services currently available.
9.35 Early intervention before disputes escalate (“conflict anticipation”)58 may be a useful role that CJCs can play in Indigenous communities so that CJCs “can assist agencies and communities to predict conflict and put in place strategies that reduce the likelihood of conflict”.59 Such an approach, however, may require the allocation of substantial resources away from the current core work of CJCs.
9.36 One example of such work is the Queensland Attorney-General’s Department’s Community Justice Program’s collaboration in the early 1990s with the people of Doomadgee who were experiencing problems with the management of alcohol and levels of violence in their community:
After seeking permission from all major groups (the women, the Council, and so on) within Doomadgee, consultation with the Aboriginal Coordinating Council staff and attending a full Aboriginal Coordinating Council meeting, a team of three mediators (two white, one black) flew to Doomadgee and began a five to six-day process of meeting separately and then in groups together with the wider communities to assist them to identify their major concerns, discuss them fully and establish priorities for the way forward. The role of the mediators was to act as a neutral, third party, willing to preserve the confidentiality of the issues and able to encourage all parties to speak fully and constructively to each other about past concerns and future options and directions.60
9.37 Several submissions noted a need to find new approaches to relationships between Indigenous people and police.61 Suggestions included the facilitation of meetings between Indigenous communities and the Police62 and the provision of intermediaries to negotiate between Police and Indigenous young people.63 In Queensland, dispute resolution services have facilitated dealings between government agencies and Indigenous people.64 It was also suggested that some Indigenous parents required an intermediary or neutral observer to assist with dealings between them and school principals concerning disciplinary actions against their children.65 Another submission suggested that CJCs could consider offering victim-offender mediation and conferencing options in the context of offering services to Indigenous people.66
9.38 Even if CJCs do not expand their operation beyond current services, Indigenous people’s experience of mediation at CJCs may be taken into other contexts. One submission suggested that CJCs’ service “needs to be promoted as a part of a community toolbox that builds the capacity of the community to better deal with their problems” and that the skills obtained through experience in CJCs mediations could be utilised in other processes, for example, Circle Sentencing,67 Community Aid Panels,68 and even civil court processes, to name a few.69 One of the aims of the Community Justice Program in Queensland in the early 1990s was to provide Indigenous community members with conflict management skills.70
9.39 Such suggestions would take the work of CJCs beyond the usual range of mediation services currently offered. It is questionable whether some of these activities are appropriate for CJCs. Because CJCs provide a free service, there is sometimes a tendency to expect CJCs to provide beneficial “alternative” services to the community. Some of the support services required are more in the nature of counselling or advocacy services rather than strictly mediation or ADR. Ultimately it may be a matter for Government to provide and resource appropriate support services that go beyond the services currently provided by CJCs.
9.40 CJCs have advised that they are committed, so far as resources allow, to providing the most appropriate services to meet the needs of the Indigenous communities of New South Wales. To this end, the current evaluation of the northern region’s Aboriginal mediation scheme will involve undertaking research and consultation to establish the most appropriate models that can fit within existing frameworks or be expanded beyond them.71
THE COMMISSION’S VIEW
9.41 As a State-wide organisation offering a generalist mediation service, CJCs is well placed to provide a range of services to the various Indigenous communities throughout New South Wales. There would appear to be nothing in the Act that prevents collaboration with Indigenous communities and the adaptation of the services that CJCs currently provide to meet the needs of Indigenous people. The revised objects clause72 will help to ensure that there are no impediments in situations where CJCs are called upon to advise on, help to develop or provide a range of services not confined to mediation but including, for example, facilitation, conferencing, circle sentencing and healing ceremonies. No further legislative provision would appear to be necessary to continue CJCs’ provision of services to the Indigenous population of New South Wales.
FOOTNOTES
1. See, for example, L Behrendt, Aboriginal Dispute Resolution: A step towards self-determination and community autonomy (Federation Press, Sydney, 1995) at 41-50. See also NSWLRC, Sentencing: Aboriginal Offenders (Report 96, 2000) at para 1.6-1.17; J Lock, The Aboriginal Child Placement Principle (NSWLRC RR 7, 1997) at para 2.2-2.32.
2. CJCs, Submission 2 at 2.
3. Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council, Aboriginal Justice Agreement (2002).
4. Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council, Aboriginal Justice Agreement (2002).
5. L Behrendt, Aboriginal Dispute Resolution: A step towards self-determination and community autonomy (Federation Press, Sydney, 1995) at 51-72; H Astor and C Chinkin, Dispute Resolution in Australia (2nd edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, 2002) at 170.
6. See H Astor, “Mediation initiatives and the needs of Aboriginal women” paper delivered at Second International Mediation Conference: Mediation and Cultural Diversity (Adelaide, South Australia, 18-20 January 1996) at 3-4.
7. See, eg, P R Grose, “Towards a better tomorrow: A perspective on dispute resolution in Aboriginal communities in Queensland” (1994) 5 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 28 at 38; M Dodson, “Power and cultural difference in Native Title mediation” paper delivered at Second International Mediation Conference: Mediation and Cultural Diversity (Adelaide, South Australia, 18-20 January 1996).
8. P R Grose, “Towards a better tomorrow: A perspective on dispute resolution in Aboriginal communities in Queensland” (1994) 5 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 28 at 30.
9. See also, for example, M Sauvé, “Mediation: towards an Aboriginal conceptualisation” (1996) 3(80) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 10.
10. See Confidential 3, Submission at 7.
11. NSW, The NSW Government Statement of Commitment to Aboriginal People (1997) at 5.
12. See para 9.10-9.11 below.
13. CJCs, Submission 2 at 8-9.
14. CJCs, Annual Report 2003-2004 at 1.
15. Information supplied by D Sharp, Director, CJCs (25 August 2003).
16. See para 8.2 and para 8.5 above.
17. Information supplied by D Sharp, Director, CJCs (4 September 2003).
18. CJCs, Submission 2 at 1.
19. NSW, Public Sector Notices (28 January 2004) at 12.
20. CJCs, Charter of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Network.
21. CJCs, Annual Report 2001-2002 at 9.
22. CJCs, Annual Report 2001-2002 at 9.
23. CJCs, Submission 1 at 24.
24. L Behrendt, Aboriginal Dispute Resolution: A step towards self-determination and community autonomy (Federation Press, Sydney, 1995) at 74; A Ackfun, “Aboriginal Mediation: A Personal Perspective” [1993] Queensland ADR Review (April) 2 at 3.
25. M O’Donnell, “Mediation within Aboriginal Communities: Issues and Challenges” in S McKillop (ed), Aboriginal Justice Issues: Proceedings of a Conference held 23-25 June 1992 (Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Proceedings No 21, 1992) at 35.
26. See P Memmott, “Community-based strategies for combating Indigenous violence” (2002) 25 University of New South Wales Law Journal 220 at 225-226.
27. P R Grose, “Towards a better tomorrow: A perspective on dispute resolution in Aboriginal communities in Queensland” (1994) 5 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 28 at 28-29.
28. Confidential 3, Submission at 4.
29. CJCs, Annual Report 2001-2002 at 12.
30. L Behrendt, Aboriginal Dispute Resolution: A step towards self-determination and community autonomy (Federation Press, Sydney, 1995) at 6.
31. L Kelly, Submission at 15-16.
32. Confidential 3, Submission at 4, 9.
33. CJCs, Submission 2 at 6.
34. See para 9.9 above.
35. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services, NSW State Office, Submission at 1-2.
36. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services, NSW State Office, Submission at 1.
37. P R Grose, “Towards a better tomorrow: A perspective on dispute resolution in Aboriginal communities in Queensland” (1994) 5 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 28 at 31-32.
38. M O’Donnell, “Mediation within Aboriginal Communities: Issues and Challenges” in S McKillop (ed), Aboriginal Justice Issues: Proceedings of a Conference held 23-25 June 1992 (Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Proceedings No 21, 1992) at 41-42; L Kelly, Submission at 3-4. Pressure to mediate in the context of Indigenous communities may present no more problem for voluntary participation than court ordered mediation or strong pressure from judicial officers: see para 5.2-5.24 above.
39. M O’Donnell, “Mediation within Aboriginal Communities: Issues and Challenges” in S McKillop (ed), Aboriginal Justice Issues: Proceedings of a Conference held 23-25 June 1992 (Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Proceedings No 21, 1992) at 42.
40. On the multi-party nature of Aboriginal dispute management, see M Sauvé, “Mediation: towards an Aboriginal conceptualisation” (1996) 3(80) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 10 at 10-11.
41. L Kelly, Submission at 5-6.
42. See M Sauvé, “Mediation: towards an Aboriginal conceptualisation” (1996) 3(80) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 10 at 10-11; L Behrendt, Aboriginal Dispute Resolution: A step towards self-determination and community autonomy (Federation Press, Sydney, 1995) at 63.
43. M O’Donnell, “Mediation within Aboriginal Communities: Issues and Challenges” in S McKillop (ed), Aboriginal Justice Issues: Proceedings of a Conference held 23-25 June 1992 (Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Proceedings No 21, 1992) at 42; L Kelly, Submission at 6-7.
44. M Sauvé, “Mediation: towards an Aboriginal conceptualisation” (1996) 3(80) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 10 at 11-12; M O’Donnell, “Mediation within Aboriginal Communities: Issues and Challenges” in S McKillop (ed), Aboriginal Justice Issues: Proceedings of a Conference held 23-25 June 1992 (Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Proceedings No 21, 1992) at 42. See also L Kelly, Submission at 7-11. Compare the attitudes of Indigenous and non-(Indigenous women in relation to restorative justice programs and domestic violence: J Stubbs, Restorative Justice, Domestic Violence and Family Violence (Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearing House, Issues Paper 9, 2004) at 8-9.
45. L Kelly, Submission at 14; CJCs, Submission 2 at 6.
46. CJCs, Submission 1 at 23, 24.
47. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services, NSW State Office, Submission at 2; CJCs, Submission 1 at 23.
48. See, eg, M Dodson, “Power and cultural difference in Native Title mediation” paper delivered at Second International Mediation Conference: Mediation and Cultural Diversity (Adelaide, South Australia, 18-20 January 1996); L Behrendt, Aboriginal Dispute Resolution: A step towards self-determination and community autonomy (Federation Press, Sydney, 1995) at 64-65.
49. NSW Department of Housing, Preliminary Submission at 3.
50. Coalition of Aboriginal Legal Services, Preliminary Submission at 2.
51. L Kelly, Submission at 7.
52. Redfern Community Centre, Consultation; L Kelly, Submission at 13-14.
53. L Kelly, Submission at 7.
54. See para 2.23 and para 8.8.
55. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services, NSW State Office, Submission at 3.
56. L Kelly, Submission at 13-14; CJCs, Submission 2 at 6.
57. See para 5.36-5.41.
58. See para 2.6-2.9.
59. L Kelly, Submission at 26, 30.
60. M O’Donnell, “Mediation within Aboriginal Communities: Issues and Challenges” in S McKillop (ed), Aboriginal Justice Issues: Proceedings of a Conference held 23-25 June 1992 (Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Proceedings No 21, 1992) at 36-37.
61. Redfern Community Centre, Consultation; L Kelly, Submission at 30.
62. L Kelly, Submission at 30.
63. Redfern Community Centre, Consultation.
64. C Nolan, “Alternative Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal and Islander Communities: The Community Justice Program’s Experience” in S Egger and C D Egger (ed), Australian Violence: Contemporary Perspectives 2 (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1995) at 292; A Ackfun, “Aboriginal Mediation: A Personal Perspective” [1993] Queensland ADR Review (April) 2 at 2.
65. Redfern Community Centre, Consultation.
66. L Kelly, Submission at 27.
67. For an explanation of circle sentencing, see NSWLRC, Sentencing: Aboriginal Offenders (Report 96, 2000) at para 4.30-4.34.
68. For an explanation of Community Aid Panels, see NSWLRC, Sentencing (DP 33, 1996) at para 9.85-9.87.
69. Confidential 3, Submission at 9.
70. A Ackfun, “Aboriginal Mediation: A Personal Perspective” [1993] Queensland ADR Review (April) 2 at 2.
71. CJCs, Submission 2 at 11.
72. See para 2.17-2.21 and Recommendation 1.
