4.2 This chapter provides an overview of the Community Visitor Scheme, briefly describes Community Visitor programs operating in other contexts, and reports both the support for the Community Visitor Scheme and the need to change certain aspects of its operation. It outlines the key aspects of the Community Visitor Scheme: the independence and appointment of Community Visitors; skills and qualifications for appointment; Community Visitors’ functions; the frequency of visits; the jurisdiction of the Community Visitor Scheme; training; monitoring and supervision; Community Visitors’ powers; and a right for residents to see a Community Visitor. Arguments are canvassed about possible changes that need to be made to the Community Visitor Scheme.

OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY VISITOR SCHEME

4.3 Services covering three target groups of consumers are visited under the Community Visitor Scheme:

• children and young people in care;
• children and young people with a disability; and
• adults with a disability.⁷

4.5 Soon after the Community Visitor Scheme commenced, the then Minister for Community Services wrote to service providers and stated:

The appointment of Community Visitors is one of the most exciting initiatives of the CAMA legislation. It enables us to reach into the community and to ensure that quality services are provided to children and young people in care and people with a disability in the care of both ... [DOCS] and funded non-government service providers.¹¹

• protecting and advocating for the interests of children, young people and adults in residential care, including those with disabilities;
• providing advice to the Minister and the Commissioner for Community Services about how to improve residents’ quality of care; and
• giving priority to visiting those residents at greatest risk.¹²

• informing the Minister for Community Services and the Commissioner about service quality by reporting to the CSC after each visit and identifying issues affecting the well-being of residents;
• promoting residents’ rights by raising any problems with service providers and attempting to resolve them quickly and locally;
• consulting with residents to identify concerns and the solutions they would like to see; and
• providing information to service providers about good practice.¹⁵

4.9 Community Visitors play a “trouble-shooting” role which often relies more on “nuance than documentable fact”.¹⁹ This is particularly true given the relatively short amount of time a Community Visitor may be at an institution conducting a visit. The standard allotment of time per visit is three to four hours: this includes the visit as well as any follow-up or administration required.²⁰ This inevitably means that Community Visitors can only get a “snapshot” of a service when they visit.²¹ Particularly in large residential settings, Community Visitors will often pick up potential problems by simply being alert to indicators, clues or impressions which may warrant further investigation. For instance, Commission staff accompanied one Community Visitor on a visit to a large institution for people with disabilities. On observing that a resident had bruising to his face, the Visitor questioned the resident about the cause of the injury and noted that she would seek further information on any relevant incident from staff and official records.

4.10 In 1997-98 some of the problems most commonly identified by Community Visitors as a result of their visits were:

• poor or non-existent service plans or inadequate systems for recording plans;
• lack of access by residents to friends and family members, and the community;
• inadequate management practices (for instance, concerning recruitment, training, definition of staff roles, and implementation of policies and procedures);
• concerns about policies and practice concerning behaviour management (such as inadequate or non-existent policies, or inadequate implementation in practice);²²
• poor environment and conditions within the facility; and
• safety issues.²³

OTHER COMMUNITY VISITOR SCHEMES

4.11 There are a variety of Community Visitors (or Official Visitors as they are sometimes called) operating in other contexts in NSW and elsewhere in Australia. These include, for example, juvenile justice centres,²⁴ psychiatric institutions,²⁵ correctional centres,²⁶ children’s residential services,²⁷ and services for people with intellectual disabilities.²⁸ These Schemes operate in a similar way to the CAMA model. Some of these programs will be referred to in this chapter for comparative purposes.

4.12 Where reviews of Community Visitor programs have been conducted, the reports generally indicate that Community Visitors play a valuable role in increasing the “accountability and transparency” of service provision²⁹ and advocating for the welfare of residents.³⁰ They also assist in the rapid and effective resolution of complaints at a local level.³¹ The independence of Community Visitors from the institutions visited is regarded as a key strength.³² Some limitations have also been identified, however, such as residents’ inability to contact Community Visitors (for example, due to lack of knowledge or prevention by staff),³³ failure by staff to follow up on issues raised by Community Visitors,³⁴ ambiguity about the role of Community Visitors, and ensuring that they complement (but do not duplicate) other monitoring mechanisms.³⁵ Some other Community Visitor programs are also currently being reviewed.³⁶

SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY VISITOR SCHEME

4.13 There was very strong support for the concept of the Community Visitor Scheme in submissions and at the Commission’s public seminars. This support came from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including peak consumer bodies,³⁷ advocacy bodies,³⁸ families of people with disabilities,³⁹ service providers,⁴⁰ government advisory bodies,⁴¹ the CSC,⁴² and the Community Visitors themselves.⁴³ For example People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc argued that:

The Community Visitors Scheme is a “pro-active” means of promoting the rights and interests of children and young people in care [and people with disabilities]. It does not rely for its effectiveness on a complaint being lodged with the CSC. This is vitally important, as many [residents] are unable to make complaints ... [themselves]. The ... Scheme is an extremely effective way to monitor patterns and trends in service delivery across the State from the perspective of the consumer ... ⁴⁴

RECOMMENDATION 31

The Community Visitor Scheme should be retained.

4.14 Many people also made suggestions to the Commission about how they felt the Community Visitor Scheme could be made more effective. This is perhaps not surprising given the short period of time for which the Community Visitor Scheme has been in operation, and the fact that the process has reportedly required “a very steep learning curve” for both the Community Visitors and the CSC.⁴⁶ In the remaining part of this chapter, the Commission examines ways that the Community Visitor Scheme may be improved.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMUNITY VISITORS

Current process for appointment

4.15 Community Visitors are appointed by the Minister for Community Services, following consultation with the Review Council.⁴⁷ In practice, the CSC deals with recruitment (advertising, culling and interviewing) and provides informal recommendations to the Minister.⁴⁸ Community Visitors can report to both the CSC and the Minister for Community Services.⁴⁹ They are not employees of the CSC. Therefore, the Public Sector Management Act 1988 (NSW) does not apply to them,⁵⁰ and they do not have access to the conditions of employment of public servants. Community Visitors are paid on an hourly basis according to the rates established for part-time, statutory appointees by the Premier applicable to all NSW government agencies.⁵¹

4.16 When CAMA was being developed in the early 1990s, the Official Visitors argued that their independence should be enhanced under the new legislation.⁵² When CAMA was introduced into Parliament, the then Minister for Community Services emphasised that the independence of Community Visitors was critically important to their role:

These community visitors will provide residents of ... [community] services with an independent person who can provide a sympathetic ear for any needs, concerns or difficulties that clients may wish to share with someone who is not directly involved in the delivery of those services.⁵³

Should the process be changed?

4.17 The NSW Government argued that the independence of Community Visitors is sufficiently safeguarded by the current Act.⁵⁵ The Disability Council of NSW supported this view.⁵⁶ This is consistent with the comment in the report by the Task Force on Private “For Profit” Hostels in 1993, that Community Visitors under CAMA have much greater independence from DOCS than do Official Visitors to mental health facilities from the Department of Health.⁵⁷

4.18 However, most submissions to the Commission on the issue of Community Visitors’ appointment and accountability criticised the current process.⁵⁸ It was argued that there was potential conflict of interest and scope for political interference created by the Minister also being responsible for services monitored by Community Visitors.⁵⁹ Visitors also have very limited access to busy Ministers in practice.⁶⁰ Community Visitors further argued that their status as Ministerial appointees makes it difficult to negotiate their conditions of employment. For example, there is no established process for reviewing Community Visitors’ work conditions, schedules or performance, or establishing protocols on issues such as occupational health and safety.⁶¹

4.19 Other options suggested for appointment of Community Visitors were:

• appointment by the CSC and a PJC;⁶²
• appointment by the Attorney General either directly⁶³ or in consultation with a PJC;⁶⁴ or
• changing Community Visitors’ status to employees of the CSC.⁶⁵

4.21 However, there are two amendments which in the Commission’s view should be made to the provisions governing the appointment process for Community Visitors. First, the Act should state that the Minister appoint Community Visitors on the recommendation of the Commissioner. This would simply formalise the current practice.

4.22 Secondly, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, the Commission recommends abolition of the Review Council.⁶⁹ The requirement for the Minister to consult with the Review Council before appointing Community Visitors should therefore be removed from the Act.

4.23 It is important that Community Visitors be selected on merit and that appropriate community representatives are involved in the selection process. This issue has been discussed in Chapter 3 in relation to the appointment of the Commissioner.⁷⁰

RECOMMENDATION 32

Section 7(1) should be amended to require that the Minister appoint Community Visitors on the recommendation of the Community Services Commissioner. The requirement for the Minister to consult with the Community Services Review Council should be removed.

Section 7(4) should be retained. This exempts Community Visitors from the operation of the Public Sector Management Act 1988 (NSW).

4.24 A Community Visitor is appointed for a period not greater than three years (originally two years) and is eligible to be re-appointed for further terms, not exceeding a total of six years (originally four years).⁷¹

4.25 Very few submissions addressed the appropriateness of the length of Community Visitors’ appointments.⁷² Only one submission suggested that there be any change to the current term – to make the original term five years instead of three.⁷³ There are two factors to be balanced in deciding whether there are grounds for making Community Visitors’ terms either longer or shorter.

4.26 On the one hand, short terms of appointment may be preferable to longer ones since service providers may become familiar with and adapt to the Community Visitors’ modus operandi.⁷⁴ As has been argued in the context of another Visitor Scheme, Community Visitors can develop a “symbiotic relationship” with the staff at the institutions visited and form a set of assumptions about what investigations are necessary and practicable.⁷⁵ Community Visitors can also become burnt out and cynical by becoming too familiar with or even by being “captured” by “the system”.⁷⁶

4.27 On the other hand, a longer term may be beneficial because it can often take a considerable time to develop knowledge of and rapport with service providers and consumers.⁷⁷ It also allows Community Visitors to complete work on projects they have started,⁷⁸ and provides a greater degree of job stability and security for Visitors. The Commission does not consider that the current term of appointment of Community Visitors should be altered, given the balance that needs to be made between these competing factors.

Termination of appointment

4.28 There are no provisions in the current legislation outlining the circumstances in which a Community Visitor’s appointment can be terminated.

4.29 Of those submissions which addressed this issue, the majority favoured inclusion of criteria in the legislation.⁷⁹ The CSC argued that this would strengthen the independence of Community Visitors by removing their vulnerability to “the impact of political disfavour”.⁸⁰ A further submission favoured inclusion in the Regulation or administrative guidelines only.⁸¹

4.30 Four models were suggested in submissions as appropriate criteria for termination of appointment, namely:

• those used for members of the CS Division of the ADT, other than the President (that is, a set of very specific circumstances such as death, bankruptcy and mental incapacity, coupled with a general power for removal by the Governor-in-Council on the grounds of incapacity, incompetence, or misbehaviour);⁸²
• breach of a set of general principles modelled on those governing people who exercise functions under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW);⁸³
• a set of criteria more closely tied to specific aspects of the Community Visitor’s role (for instance, failure to complete visits or fulfil their other functions);⁸⁴ or
• serious misbehaviour, incompetence, incapacity or dereliction of duty.⁸⁵

RECOMMENDATION 33

The Minister should be given the power to terminate a Community Visitor’s appointment on the grounds of incapacity, incompetence or misbehaviour.

SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Current skills and qualifications

4.32 CAMA lays down certain skills and qualifications which are required of Community Visitors. These are:

• appropriate knowledge and expertise in the matters relating to the community services in which he or she would be most involved;
• a commitment to the objectives of the community welfare legislation; and
• skills in solving problems about access to, and the use of, community services.⁸⁷

• people with a disability;
• family members of people with a disability;
• former state wards;
• people who were in care as children;
• advocates; and
• professionals.⁸⁹

with strong consumer focus and in some instances, direct experience as consumers, rather than people with professional or service provider backgrounds.⁹⁰

4.35 No submissions objected to the current criteria laid down for appointment of Community Visitors. Some submissions argued that the current criteria are adequate,⁹¹ while others favoured the inclusion of further items such as:

• cultural and linguistic competencies;⁹²
• commitment to the human rights of consumers of community services; ⁹³
• an ability to monitor services in the best interests of consumers;⁹⁴ and
• a broad understanding of welfare issues and structures and skills in communicating with children and young people.⁹⁵

4.36 The Commission agrees that the above skills and qualities are valuable for Community Visitors to possess. However, in our view they are adequately covered by the current appointment criteria. There is therefore no need for legislative amendment on this issue.

4.37 In appointing Community Visitors, however, consideration should be given to ensuring that the pool of Visitors is as diverse as possible, in terms of factors such as race and ethnicity, language skills, gender, occupation, geographical location, and experience of service provision.

4.38 Some of the above issues identified in submissions may also be appropriate to examine further in training of Community Visitors. This is particularly true of skills in communicating with children and young people, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or people from a non-English speaking background. The issue of training is discussed further below.⁹⁷

RECOMMENDATION 34

Section 7(2)(a)-(c) should be retained. This sets out the criteria for appointment of Community Visitors.

4.39 Visitor Schemes often exclude certain persons from being appointed as Visitors due to a potential conflict of interest.⁹⁸ This is also true of the CAMA Community Visitor Scheme. Permanent or temporary employees of DOCS and ADD are excluded from employment as Community Visitors.⁹⁹ However, there are other categories of people who may also face a similar conflict of interest for example, those working for non-government service providers. The Commission agrees with submissions¹⁰⁰ which considered that the exclusion in the legislation should therefore be broadened to take account of this.

RECOMMENDATION 35

Section 7(2)(d) should be amended to provide that a person should not be appointed as a Community Visitor if that person is employed in a capacity which could create an actual or perceived conflict between the interests of residents and those of the Community Visitor or his or her employer.

FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNITY VISITORS

Functions and powers to be outlined in CAMA

4.40 As a preliminary matter, the Commission considers it vital that the functions and powers conferred on Community Visitors be located in the primary legislation, not the Regulation, as is currently the case.¹⁰¹ This was strongly supported in submissions.¹⁰² Accordingly, the Commission recommends that CAMA be amended to incorporate the functions of the Community Visitors as detailed in the CAMA Regulation, and clearly outline their powers.

RECOMMENDATION 36

Part 2 of the Act should be redrafted to clearly identify the functions and powers of Community Visitors.

4.41 The provision in CAMA headed “Functions of Community Visitors” actually deals more with the powers of Community Visitors.¹⁰³ The description of Visitors’ functions is in fact found in the Regulation rather than in the Act.¹⁰⁴ These functions are:

• to inform the Minister and Community Services Commissioner on matters affecting the welfare, interests and conditions of residents in visitable services;
• to encourage the promotion of legal and human rights of these residents, including the right to privacy, confidentiality, adequate information and consultation about their services and the right to complain;
• to consider matters raised by residents and staff of those services and people with a genuine concern for the welfare, interests and conditions of residents;
• to inform residents about advocacy services available to them to help them present a complaint and, in appropriate cases, assist them to access such services; and
• to facilitate, wherever reasonable and practicable, the early and speedy resolution of complaints affecting residents by referring those complaints to service providers or other appropriate bodies.

4.42 Submissions generally argued that the functions given to Visitors were appropriate.¹⁰⁵ They are generally comparable to those found in other Visitor Schemes.¹⁰⁶ The Commission does not consider that the functions of Community Visitors require any amendment.

FREQUENCY OF VISITS

How often are services currently visited?

4.43 There is no minimum requirement in CAMA concerning how often services should be visited. In practice the frequency of visits has been steadily cut back.¹⁰⁷ Although there has been a marked increase in the number of services deemed “visitable”,¹⁰⁸ the resourcing of the Community Visitor Scheme has not allowed more frequent visits.¹⁰⁹

4.44 As a consequence, the frequency of visits to group homes in the Sydney area has been halved, with these facilities being visited only once every 12 months, instead of once every 6 months.¹¹⁰ The current rates of visiting are as follows:

• 30% receive one visit in 12 months;
• 35% receive two visits in 12 months;
• 19% receive four visits in 12 months;
• 5% receive six visits in 12 months; and
• 8% receive more than six visits in 12 months.¹¹¹

4.45 The comparative frequency of visits to institutions is determined by the CSC on the basis of a set of risk indicators,¹¹² with those services receiving higher scores being allocated a higher number of Community Visitor contact hours.¹¹³ These scores are calculated from a series of questions on the following topics:

· physical isolation of the service;

• potential change within the service in the future (for example, in the case of a disability service, whether a transition plan has been approved);
• secure care;
• managing challenging behaviour;
• the degree of community access;
• congregate care;
• residents of non-English speaking background or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;
• health care policies for residents;
• programming and planning for residents’ individual needs;
• the age of residents;
• the disability-related needs of residents;
• the quality of life of residents;
• the rating of the service on a five-point scale; and
• the number of residents.¹¹⁴

4.46 One of the most commonly voiced complaints about the Community Visitor Scheme, both in submissions and at the Commission’s public seminars, was that it does not provide sufficiently frequent visits to enable the Community Visitors to fulfil their functions effectively. The fear was that this makes the Community Visitor Scheme rather tokenistic in nature. This view was expressed by a wide range of stakeholders, including service providers,¹¹⁵ peak consumer groups,¹¹⁶ consumers,¹¹⁷ advocacy groups,¹¹⁸ family members of people with disabilities,¹¹⁹ the CSC¹²⁰ and the Community Visitors themselves.¹²¹

4.47 The CSC argued that whereas the uniform coverage of services provides an invaluable opportunity for Community Visitors to identify and monitor issues across the entire sector, the current frequency of visits denies many residents in visitable services reasonable access to Community Visitors. This severely hampers the development of relationships with residents, the identification of service quality issues and the ability to provide follow-up of issues.¹²² The CSC also considers that the infrequency of visits means that community expectations of the Community Visitor Scheme are not being met.¹²³

4.48 Some stakeholders made suggestions as to an appropriate minimum frequency of visits. These included:

• four visits annually;¹²⁴
• six visits annually;¹²⁵
• 12 visits annually with a maximum of six weeks between visits;¹²⁶ and
• 52 visits annually for children in care.¹²⁷

4.50 As the CSC points out, comparison of the CAMA Community Visitor Scheme with the minimum frequency of visits laid down for other Visitor programs demonstrates clearly that the CAMA system provides much less frequent visits than those typical in other contexts.¹²⁹ These include:

• once a week in children’s institutions in the ACT;¹³⁰
• for services for people with intellectual disabilities in Victoria, once a month for residential institutions¹³¹ and two visits per year for community residential settings;¹³²
• once a fortnight in prisons and detention centres in NSW;¹³³
• every two weeks for juvenile justice centres in NSW;¹³⁴ and
• for psychiatric services in NSW, every month for psychiatric hospitals, and every six months for health care agencies.¹³⁵

4.51 In the Commission’s view, the Community Visitor Scheme can only be effective if it is adequately resourced to enable regular, frequent visits to be made to services. However, it is inappropriate to mandate a minimum level of visiting in the Act. This is an operational matter to be examined by the CSC in consultation with the Community Visitors and is dependent on resources. However, the Commission’s view is that there is a clear need for the frequency of visits by Community Visitors to be increased.

JURISDICTION

Visitors’ current jurisdiction

4.52 The jurisdiction of the Community Visitor Scheme is determined by the definition of “visitable service”. Community Visitors cannot visit any other place. A “visitable service” is provided by:

• DOCS;
• ADD;
• a funded service where the person using the service is in the full-time care of the service provider; or
• a service provided by the regulations as a visitable service.¹³⁸ No service has yet been prescribed.

4.53 Submissions suggested a number of ways in which the jurisdiction of the Community Visitor Scheme should be extended. There was marked support in submissions for expansion to cover three areas in particular:

• people with disabilities living in:
  
  - licensed boarding houses;¹³⁹

  - some of the more flexible arrangements for supported accommodation,¹⁴⁰ such as those people living in private or rented accommodation who receive significant support,¹⁴¹ or those living in accommodation which is provided by a service provider but leased in the name of the resident;¹⁴² and

• children living in foster care.¹⁴³

• people with disabilities using respite care services;¹⁴⁴
• people with disabilities and children using SAAP services, such as youth refuges;¹⁴⁵
• children and adults who move from visitable services to other places;¹⁴⁶
• children in professional care living in the homes of those carers;¹⁴⁷
• children and young people¹⁴⁸ and people with disabilities¹⁴⁹ not living in visitable services who directly request access to a Visitor;
• HAAC services;¹⁵⁰
• people with disabilities living in aged care facilities;¹⁵¹
• people with disabilities in the criminal justice system;¹⁵² and
• children in the juvenile justice system.¹⁵³

• people with disabilities living in aged care facilities;
• people with disabilities in the criminal justice system; and
• children in the juvenile justice system.

4.56 There are two further principles which the Commission adopted in examining whether the other populations discussed above should be included within the Visitors’ jurisdiction. First, the focus of Visitor Schemes in other contexts is on monitoring publicly funded services.¹⁵⁵ Consistently with this, the CAMA Community Visitor Scheme should be limited to those services which are publicly funded by the NSW Government. It therefore follows that the jurisdiction of the Community Visitor Scheme should not be extended to include:

• people with disabilities living in licensed boarding houses;
• children in foster care;
• children in professional care living in the homes of those carers;
• flexible supported accommodation arrangements as discussed above;
• HACC services since they are partially funded by the Commonwealth Government;
• children and young people and people with disabilities not living in visitable services who directly request access to a Community Visitor; and
• children and adults who move from visitable services to other places.

• respite care; and
• SAAP services.¹⁵⁸

RECOMMENDATION 37

TRAINING

Current training

4.58 Community Visitors receive comparatively little formal training in their roles. They are required to attend training sessions and Community Visitor conferences organised by the CSC.¹⁶⁰ Currently, they undertake an initial induction training of two days when they commence their appointment, and attend an annual conference for three days.¹⁶¹ CAMA requires the CSC to convene at least one meeting of all the Community Visitors annually.¹⁶² Visitors from each of six regional groups attend Regional Meetings between three and four times annually as well. These are primarily for peer support rather than training, and to consult with Community Visitors about management and priorities for the Community Visitor Scheme.¹⁶³ Sometimes the CSC pays for Community Visitors to attend conferences or training courses run by other relevant organisations, usually at the request of the person concerned.¹⁶⁴ When first appointed, Community Visitors also usually participate in some joint visits with a more experienced Community Visitor before starting their own visits alone.¹⁶⁵

4.59 The CSC hopes to eventually produce a regular newsletter for Community Visitors giving updates on relevant practice issues and discussing ideas for good practice, although only two of these have so far been produced.¹⁶⁶ Such issues are also discussed in the Community Visitors’ Annual Reports, in particular the most recent one.¹⁶⁷

Is there a need for further training?

4.60 Some submissions and participants in the Commission’s public seminars argued that there is a need for further training of Community Visitors.¹⁶⁸ In their responses to the Community Visitor Survey and in their submission to the Commission, Community Visitors expressed a strong desire for more training.¹⁶⁹ Overall, 13 or 76% of the Community Visitors who responded to the Community Visitor Survey felt that the training currently provided is inadequate. Community Visitors raised two main shortcomings:

• insufficient training; and
• the training tends by necessity to be relatively general in nature, which may not satisfy the very specific training needs of individual Visitors.

all Visitors cannot be expected to have all of the skills or expertise of all the other Visitors. One Visitor can’t be a registered nurse, psychologist, occupational therapist, policy expert, service management expert etc.¹⁷⁰

• lengthen the annual conference;
• provide more frequent conferences to enable Community Visitors to receive training and discuss issues between themselves; and
• allow Community Visitors to access training by other bodies on topics relevant to their individual needs.¹⁷¹

It is the [Children’s] [C]ommissioner’s duty to ensure official visitors are adequately and appropriately trained to carry out their functions effectively and efficiently.¹⁷⁵

the ... [Community Visitor] budget does not allow for other additional training.¹⁷⁷

4.65 As discussed above,¹⁸⁰ there are two areas in particular where training for Community Visitors would be beneficial. These are to improve communications with first, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people from a non-English speaking background, and secondly, children and young people.

Training on cultural issues

4.66 In addition to dealing with their disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people from a non-English speaking background with disabilities are often confronted with an inability to access services.¹⁸¹ This was confirmed by the Commission’s focus groups with consumers¹⁸² and submissions. For example, the Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of NSW Inc reports that people from a non-English speaking background are markedly under-represented amongst disability service users, and that:

government and non-government organisations appear unable to provide services in a culturally and linguistically appropriate, and therefore accessible, manner.¹⁸³

4.68 CAMA Community Visitors should therefore seek to raise awareness of their role amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people from a non-English speaking background who reside in institutions, facilitate access by such residents to appropriate services, and encourage service providers to make their services culturally appropriate.¹⁸⁶ The importance of cultural issues has been recognised in the Official Visitors’ Program for NSW mental health facilities, where the Code of Conduct for Visitors requires that in their work “the cultural needs of patients be specifically addressed”.¹⁸⁷

4.69 It could also be useful for Community Visitors to be able to liaise with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mentors to ensure greater involvement with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. These mentors have an understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural and social issues and have been used to facilitate the work of a variety of professionals such as health workers and journalists.¹⁸⁸

Training on communication with children and young people

4.70 Another area where training would assist Community Visitors is in communicating with children and young people. Burnside argues that the Community Visitors it has seen at its services “do not appear to have the skills to effectively engage young people or interest them in their functions”.¹⁸⁹ Similar concerns were also raised by the focus groups conducted by SNYPIC for the Commission. It was found that the Community Visitor Scheme “is not working” for the young people currently or formerly in care who were consulted.¹⁹⁰ Most were unclear about the role of the Community Visitor. Four of the 12 had made complaints to Community Visitors, and all of these were dissatisfied with the outcomes of their complaints which were generally that “nothing had happened, nothing had changed”.¹⁹¹

4.71 This is consistent with the findings of a NSW Child Protection Council report which found that young people in care have virtually no awareness of the role of independent complaints bodies such as the CSC.¹⁹² The Standing Committee on Social Issues has also argued that the Community Visitor Scheme must attempt to redress the fact that children and young people in care often feel afraid to complain.¹⁹³ The CSC has recognised the need to develop its work with children in care further by its appointment of a Children’s Liaison Officer.¹⁹⁴

RECOMMENDATION 38

The CSC should ensure that all Community Visitors receive adequate and appropriate training to carry out their functions effectively and efficiently. This includes training on cultural issues and communication with children and young people.

MONITORING AND SUPERVISION OF COMMUNITY VISITORS

Current monitoring

4.72 Associated with the absence of processes for review of Community Visitors’ working conditions¹⁹⁵ is the lack of procedures governing performance management issues in relation to Community Visitors’ work.¹⁹⁶ This includes monitoring of work performance,¹⁹⁷ and provision of support and supervision.¹⁹⁸

4.73 The Community Visitors Manual, produced by the CSC, governs the Community Visitor Scheme.¹⁹⁹ It is distributed to all Community Visitors upon appointment.²⁰⁰ It covers issues such as:

• Community Visitors’ roles and responsibilities;
• a code of conduct;
• reporting to the CSC and referrals; and
• policies on privacy and confidentiality issues and how to conduct and record a visit.

Is there a need for further monitoring?

4.75 It was suggested to the Commission in submissions and at our public seminars that there should be some form of “quality control” measures to monitor and regulate Community Visitors’ performance.²⁰⁴ The Community Visitors also commented on the isolation they experience and the inadequate support for, and performance monitoring of, their work.²⁰⁵ Two Community Visitors also nominated the provision of such monitoring as a way to improve the Community Visitor Scheme.²⁰⁶

4.76 The Commission’s consultations reveal that visiting practices vary considerably, and often seem to depend largely on the skills and views of the individual Community Visitor involved. Some service providers also wanted further feedback from Community Visitors. For example, one service provider reported that:

Feedback from Community Visitors is excellent and very useful to service development. ...

Consistency in Community Visitors’ training and assessment needs attention. We have had three different visitors who have given us vastly different feedback which seems to be based more on their personal background, experience and values, than any formalised assessment process. This assessment process should be more transparent, with more information provided to services.²⁰⁷

4.78 One of the strengths of the CAMA Community Visitor Scheme is that it draws on the skills and ‘styles’ of a wide variety of individuals. Some of the operational problems of the Community Visitor Scheme also arise from the nature of the program itself: coordinating a large number of Visitors to visit a large number of services.²¹⁰

4.79 Nonetheless, in the Commission’s view, the development of processes to ensure greater consistency and monitoring of performance would increase the effectiveness of the program. This enhanced accountability would benefit residents and their families and advocates, service providers and Community Visitors themselves.

4.80 The CSC reported that it is currently considering a variety of options to address these difficulties, in consultation with the Community Visitors. These include:

• having a smaller number of Community Visitors working a larger number of hours each;
• creating a position of Principal or Senior Community Visitor responsible for overall co-ordination of the Visitors and acting as a representative Visitor where required. This might in practice simply require the further development of the role of the existing Community Visitor Co-ordinator based at the CSC, who performs at least part of this role. A similar position exists for some other Visitor Schemes;²¹¹ or
• appointing Community Visitors as CSC employees.²¹²

4.81 The CSC has in fact adopted a three-stage plan to review all aspects of the Community Visitor Scheme between November 1998 and June 2000, including:

• identification of any limitations of the Community Visitor Scheme (including those discussed in this Report);
• development of proposals for reform, following consultation with a reference group of Community Visitors and external stakeholders, to be submitted to the Minister for approval; and
• implementation of any proposed changes.

4.83 Thirdly, the Commissioner should take on an enhanced role in monitoring and supervising the performance of Community Visitors. Community Visitors should enter into performance agreements with the CSC. This is the current practice for staff of the CSC, and is a common process for staff in government departments generally. Although the Commissioner has a general oversight and co-ordination role in relation to the Community Visitor Scheme already,²¹⁷ the suggested measure would be facilitated by an explicit statement in CAMA that the Commissioner has responsibility for monitoring and supervision of Community Visitors.

RECOMMENDATION 39

Section 9 should be amended to provide that the Community Services Commissioner is also responsible for the monitoring and supervision of Community Visitors.

POWERS OF COMMUNITY VISITORS

4.84 The powers provided to Community Visitors to carry out their role are to:

• enter and inspect a place at which a visitable service is provided (at any reasonable time);
• confer alone with any person who is a resident or employee of such a place; and
• inspect any document held at such a place which concerns the operation of a visitable service.²¹⁸

4.85 Most submissions agreed that the powers given to Community Visitors are sufficient and appropriate.²²⁰ These powers are generally comparable to those given to Visitors under other programs.²²¹ As has been observed in relation to another Visitor Scheme, if Visitors are to adequately protect residents’ rights it is important for them to have the necessary “teeth” to undertake this task.²²²

Power of entry without notice

4.86 The only power on which there was some division of opinion in submissions was the power permitting Community Visitors to enter services without notice at any reasonable time. The peak group representing service providers, ACROD, expressed concern that Community Visitors had sometimes demanded entry to a community home at a time considered inappropriate for the residents. This included occasions when the residents have not been at home or have been stopped from leaving in order to talk to the Community Visitor. ACROD also reports that:

many of the support staff in group homes have been placed in the unenviable position of allowing someone entry to the house without knowing fully who they are, or what they want.²²³

4.87 However, other submissions argued that it was vital to allow a Community Visitor access without notification, because otherwise the service provider is able to prepare for the visit. The Community Visitor will therefore not necessarily get an accurate picture of what is happening at a service.²²⁵ The Commission agrees with this view. Access without notice is central to Community Visitors’ monitoring role. This is also a standard hallmark of other Visitor Schemes.²²⁶

4.88 The Community Visitors favoured broadening the entry power to remove the requirement that the time of access be “reasonable”. They argued that the requirement could potentially be used as a basis for time-consuming and expensive appeals by service providers to the CS Division of the ADT or criminal charges of trespass.²²⁷ They do not, however, report any instances where this has actually occurred. In the absence of evidence that this has led to problems in practice, the Commission considers that the requirement of “reasonableness” should remain in the legislation. It would however be useful for the policy guidelines in the Community Visitors Manual on the exercise of this power to be further developed.²²⁸

4.89 The Commission also considers that it is the responsibility of service providers to train their staff about the existence, functions and powers of Community Visitors so that the problems identified by ACROD are less likely to occur. Community Visitors are currently required to produce their signed authority from the Minister or identification card when entering a service.²²⁹ If this is not happening in practice, this requirement could be reinforced in further training of Visitors.

RECOMMENDATION 40

The power in s 8(1)(a)-(c) should be retained. This gives Community Visitors the right to enter and inspect visitable services at any reasonable time, confer alone with residents or staff there, and inspect documents on the premises.

A RIGHT FOR RESIDENTS TO SEE A COMMUNITY VISITOR

4.90 CAMA currently only states that a Visitor may confer alone with residents,²³⁰ rather than more proactively stating that each resident has the right to confer with a Visitor. Inclusion of the latter was recommended in one submission.²³¹ The absence of such a provision in the Queensland Official Visitor legislation attracted criticism from the National Children’s and Youth Law Centre.²³² The legislation governing the Victorian Community Visitor Scheme does contain such a proactive statement:

(1) Any resident ... [in services covered by the Scheme] may request the designated officer or senior officer to arrange for the resident to be seen by a community visitor.

(2) The designated officer or senior officer must within 7 days of receiving a request under sub-section (1) advise one of the community visitors for the region that a request has been made.²³³

4.91 The Commission believes that a legislative amendment of this nature could improve the awareness of and use of the Community Visitor Scheme, with the minor modification that the consumer has the right to confer with the Community Visitor alone. This is the case under the ACT Official Visitor Scheme for children in residential institutions.²³⁵ It is also consistent with the current right of Community Visitors to confer with residents alone under CAMA. The inability to meet with a Community Visitor alone was one of the complaints made by the young people in care or formerly in care who participated in the SNYPIC focus groups.²³⁶ Such a provision would also be consistent with CAMA’s philosophy of upholding consumers’ rights.

RECOMMENDATION 41

Any person resident in a visitable service should have the right to confer alone with a Community Visitor.

RESOURCES

4.92 In the Commission’s view, the Community Visitor Scheme is a valuable program whose effectiveness has been limited by the inadequate resources currently allocated to it. Many submissions supported this view.²³⁷ Lack of resources is a problem commonly reported by other Visitor Schemes.²³⁸

4.93 Some of the changes recommended in this chapter have resource implications, particularly the need to increase the frequency of visits. This should be considered by the NSW Government. As discussed in Chapter 3,²³⁹ the 1996 Premier’s Department review recommended that the CSC be given extra funding for both its own operations and the Community Visitor Scheme, but most of this funding was not provided.

1. New South Wales, Community Visitors, Annual Report 1997/98 (CSC, Sydney) at 3. A much smaller Official Visitor Scheme previously operated in NSW under the Community Welfare Act 1987 (NSW) s 3B, repealed by CAMA Sch 2. The Community Visitor Scheme under CAMA is unrelated to the Community Visitor Scheme run by the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in NSW: Young Men’s Christian Association of Sydney, “The YMCA of Sydney: Community Visitors” (pamphlet, 1997). This latter program is part of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services’ Community Visitor Scheme which funds community-based organisations to run programs of volunteer Visitors to visit lonely or isolated elderly and disabled people residing in aged care facilities: Australia, Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, The Community Visitors Scheme: Visitors Handbook (3rd edition, 1997) at 1.

2. Community Welfare Act 1987 (NSW) s 3B, repealed by CAMA Sch 2.

3. CAMA s 7.

4. CAMA s 8.

5. CAMA s 9.

6. CAMA s 10.

7. New South Wales, Community Visitors, Annual Report 1997/98 (CSC, Sydney) at 6.

8. There were 30 Visitors at 8 April 1999: Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 1.

9. New South Wales, Community Visitors, Annual Report 1997/98 (CSC, Sydney) at 3.

10. CAMA s 8(1)(a). The CSC does not collect data on the proportion of visits which are with and without notice: Information supplied by the CSC (23 March 1999) at 3. See para 4.86.

11. Letter from the Hon R Dyer, Minister for Community Services, to service providers, 1 November 1995.

12. New South Wales, Community Visitors, Annual Report 1997/98 (CSC, Sydney) at 3.

13. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 46.

14. “Visitable services” is defined at para 4.52.

15. New South Wales, Community Visitors, Annual Report 1997/98 (CSC, Sydney) at 11-13.

16. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 47 and 49.

17. New South Wales, CSC, Suffer the Children: The Hall for Children Report (1997); New South Wales, CSC, Inquiry into Care and Treatment of Residents of Cram House (1998); and CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48.

18. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48. See also J Quilty, “Hall for Children: Closure and Update” (1997) 10 Can Do 1 at 3.

19. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 12.

20. Information supplied by CSC (30 March 1999) at 1.

21. Information supplied by T Stacey (11 December 1998).

22. Information supplied by CSC (22 March 1999).

23. New South Wales, Community Visitors, Annual Report 1997/98 (CSC, Sydney) at 11, 19 and 28.

24. Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 8A; and Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 1995 (NSW) cl 19(4).

25. Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) Pt 2 of Chap 8 and Sch 5.

26. Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) s 8A, 8B and Sch 4A; and Prisons (General) Regulation 1995 (NSW) Pt 11 Div 1.

27. Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld) Pt 4; and Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19A and 19B.

28. Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Vic) Div 5 and Sch 3.

29. Australian Capital Territory, Department of Education and Training and the Children’s, Youth and Family Services Bureau, Review of the Children’s Services Act 1986: Appendix to Public Consultation Paper (1997) at 45. See also K L Thomas and S McCulloch (ed) “Correctional Reform in Queensland: At the Cross Roads Post-Kennedy” (1994) 5(4) Criminology Australia 2 at 2 and 3.

30. New South Wales, Official Visitors’ Advisory Committee, A Report to the Minister for Health (Official Visitors’ Program, Sydney, 1996) at 25. See also E Mushins, “Proposal for Review of Community Visitors Program” (Unpublished paper, Office of the Public Advocate, Victoria, 1996) at 4.

31. M Fulford, “Official Visitors’ Scheme” [1989] New South Wales Department of Corrective Services Information Bulletin (9 August) 2 at 2.

32. S McCulloch, “The Official Visitor Program in the Queensland Correctional System” (1994) 94 Prison Service Journal 47 at 50.

33. McCulloch at 50.

34. McCulloch at 50.

35. Review of the Queensland Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunal Act 1996: An Issues Paper (paper prepared for the Hon Anna Bligh, MLA, Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care, Brisbane, by Dispute Management Services in association with P Gordon and S Parker, 1998) (the “Bligh paper”) at 20-21; and Australian Capital Territory, Department of Education and Training and the Children’s, Youth and Family Services Bureau, Review of the Children’s Services Act 1986: Appendix to Public Consultation Paper (1997) at 45-46.

36. These are first, the Scheme run by the Office of the Public Advocate in Victoria (covering three streams of Visitors, including facilities for people with intellectual disabilities). Secondly, the Visitor Scheme covering children’s residential facilities which is included in the review of the Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld): Bligh paper at 19-21.

37. Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 5; Physical Disability Council of NSW Inc, Submission at 14; and NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, CAMA Submission at 9.

38. Western Sydney Intellectual Disability Support Group Inc, CAMA Submission at 2.

39. Action for Citizens with Disabilities, Submission at 18; and L Moffit, Submission at 2.

40. ACROD Ltd NSW Division, Submission at 6.

41. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 48 and 52-53.

42. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 47-48.

43. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 20-22.

44. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 22.

45. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 23.

46. New South Wales, Community Visitors Manual (CSC, Sydney, November 1997) Section 1 at 1.

47. CAMA s 7(1).

48. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 45; and Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 5.

49. CAMA s 8(1)(d).

50. CAMA s 7(4).

51. New South Wales, Community Visitors Manual (CSC, Sydney, November 1997) Section 7 at 1 and 3.

52. New South Wales, DOCS, 1992 Annual Report: Official Visitor Scheme, NSW Department of Community Services Residential Care for Wards at 20.

53. New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Assembly, 11 March 1993, the Hon J Longley, Minister for Community Services, Second Reading Speech at 767.

54. Citizen Advocacy NSW, Submission at 10; NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 11; B Semmler, Submission at 1 (Appendix); P Hutten, Submission at 37; Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 48; and M Bowles, Submission at 10.

55. NSW Government, CAMA Submission at 6.

56. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 49.

57. New South Wales, Task Force on Private “For Profit” Hostels, Report of the Task Force on Private “For Profit” Hostels December 1993 (Office on Disability, Sydney, 1993) Volume 1 at 56.

58. Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 5; Action for Citizens with Disabilities, Submission at 18; NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 11; Physical Disability Council of NSW Inc, Submission at 15; P Hutten, Submission at 37; NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, CAMA Submission at 10; M Bowles, Submission at 9; Barnardos Australia, Submission at 8; Autism Association of NSW, Submission at 12; and People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 20. This was also the view of the majority of respondents to the Community Visitor Survey.

59. Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 5; NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 11; Physical Disability Council of NSW Inc, Submission at 15; M Bowles, Submission at 9; Barnardos Australia, Submission at 8; Autism Association of NSW, Submission at 12; People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 20-21; and Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 7.

60. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 46; and Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 13-15. See NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 11.

61. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 8-10. See also CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 46. As discussed below at para 4.74, the CSC is currently developing a policy on occupational health and safety issues.

62. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 45; Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 5; Physical Disability Council of NSW Inc, Submission at 15; NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, CAMA Submission at 10; and Action for Citizens with Disabilities, Submission at 18. A PJC is discussed at para 3.24-3.29.

63. Autism Association of NSW, Submission at 12; and NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 11.

64. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 20.

65. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 7 and 9-11.

66. Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) s 8(A)(1); Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 8A(1); and Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 228(1).

67. Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19A(1). But see Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld) s 29.

68. See para 4.43-4.51.

69. See Recommendation 65 at para 6.29.

70. See para 3.30.

71. CAMA s 7(3).

72. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 12; People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 20; and NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, CAMA Submission at 9.

73. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 20.

74. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 12.

75. S Bottomley and R Woellner, “Safeguarding Mental Patients’ Rights” (1981) 6 Legal Service Bulletin 277 at 279.

76. Community Visitor Survey.

77. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 12; and Community Visitor Survey.

78. Community Visitor Survey.

79. CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 45; NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 11; Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 49; and Autism Association of NSW, Submission at 13.

80. CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 45.

81. NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, CAMA Submission at 10.

82. ADT Act Sch 3 cl 8; CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 45. The CSC’s recommendation refers to the now repealed s 103 of CAMA, which governed the termination of appointment of members of the former Community Services Appeals Tribunal. However, these old criteria are essentially similar to those under the new legislation.

83. Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) s 4. These general principles are discussed at para 2.25 and 2.32.

84. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 49.

85. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 21.

86. CAMA s 78(4). See para 3.33.

87. CAMA s 7(2)(a)-(c).

88. New South Wales, Official Visitors’ Advisory Committee, Official Visitors NSW Mental Health Act 1990 Practice Manual (2nd edition, Official Visitors’ Program, Sydney, October 1997) at 9.

89. New South Wales, Community Visitors, Annual Report 1997/98 (CSC, Sydney) at 4.

90. CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 47.

91. CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 45; Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 49; and People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 21.

92. Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of NSW Inc, Submission at 9. See the Recruitment Package for the Official Visitor Program for NSW mental health facilities, which encourages “persons who represent a range of Aboriginal and ethnic viewpoints” to apply: “Recruitment Package for Official Visitors” in New South Wales, Official Visitors’ Advisory Committee, A Report to the Minister for Health (Official Visitors’ Program, Sydney, 1996).

93. CAMA Submission at 9.

94. P Hutten, CAMA Submission at 37.

95. Burnside, Submission at 4.

96. New South Wales, Child Protection Council, Having a Say: A Report on the “Giving a Voice to Children” Project, about Children and Young People Participating in Processes and Decisions which Relate to their Care and Well-being (1998) at 105-106.

97. See para 4.58-4.71.

98. Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Vic) Sch 3 cl 1(2); Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 8A(2) and s 3 definition of “officer”; Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 241; and Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) Sch 4A cl 3A.

99. CAMA s 7(2)(d).

100. CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 45; and People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 21.

101. CAMA Reg cl 4.

102. Action for Citizens with Disabilities, Submission at 18; NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 12; Carers NSW Inc, Submission at 14; and Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 50.

103. CAMA s 8.

104. CAMA Reg cl 4.

105. The Northcott Society, Submission at 3; CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 47; and People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 22.

106. Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Vic) s 54; Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 8A(4); Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) s 8A(4); Prisons (General) Regulation 1995 (NSW) cl 133; Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 227 and 232; Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19B; and Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld) s 35. Note that as discussed at para 4.41, “functions” are sometimes conflated with “powers” in the legislation governing some Visitor Schemes.

107. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48; and Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 27.

108. The CSC reports a 30% increase in visitable services from 659 to 863 services between June 1995 and June 1998: see CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48.

109. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48.

110. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 49.

111. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 49.

112. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48.

113. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 1.

114. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at Appendix 1.

115. Burnside, Submission at 4.

116. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 23.

117. RR 9 at para 3.28 and 3.33. See also RR 9 at para 3.19.

118. NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 12.

119. Action for Citizens with Disabilities, Submission at 18; H Seares, Submission at 6; and M Bowles, Submission at 9.

120. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 49.

121. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 27. This was also a concern expressed by many of the respondents to the Community Visitor Survey.

122. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48.

123. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 49. See also Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 27.

124. NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 12.

125. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 49; and Action for Citizens with Disabilities, Submission at 18.

126. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 23.

127. M Bowles, Submission at 9.

128. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48-50.

129. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 49.

130. Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19B(1)(a).

131. Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Vic) s 56(2).

132. Information supplied by E Mushins, Community Visitor Co-ordinator, Office of Public Advocate, Melbourne (8 February 1999).

133. New South Wales, Department of Corrective Services, Director, Ministerial Liaison Unit, Official Visitor Scheme (June 1998) at 9.

134. New South Wales, Department of Juvenile Justice, Official Visitor Scheme Manual (1996) at para 2.1.

135. Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 230(1).

136. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 23; and NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 12. See CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 49-50.

137. Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19B(1)(a); Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Vic) s 56(2) (rate of visiting for residential institutions but not community residential settings); Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 230(1); and Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) s 8A(4)(a). Note that under the latter Scheme the frequency of visiting in practice (every 2 weeks) is twice that laid down in the legislation (every month).

138. CAMA s 8(4).

139. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 24; NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, CAMA Submission at 10; Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 52; C Ferguson, Submission at 4; Coalition for Appropriate Supported Accommodation, Submission at 3; NSW Statewide Disability Coalition, CAMA Submission at 2; Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 34; and CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 51-52. This was also recommended in New South Wales, Task Force on Private “For Profit” Hostels, Report of the Task Force on Private “For Profit” Hostels December 1993 (Office on Disability, Sydney, 1993) Volume 1 at 56-57; and Coalition for Appropriate Supported Accommodation for People With Disabilities, Room to Move: A Position Paper on Licensed Boarding Houses (Sydney, 1998) at 11-12.

140. NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, CAMA Submission at 10; Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 52; NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 12; and Action for Citizens with Disabilities, Submission at 18.

141. Australian Quadriplegic Association Ltd (NSW), Submission at 4; and People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 24. See Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 34.

142. Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 6. See Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 33-34.

143. Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 6; People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 24; Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 52; Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of NSW Inc, Submission at 9; Barnardos Australia, Submission at 8; Burnside, Submission at 4; Action for Citizens with Disabilities, Submission at 18; and Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 34. This was also suggested by some of the young people who participated in SNYPIC’s focus groups: RR 9 at para 3.34. This issue is also currently being considered by the review of the Queensland Official Visitor Scheme for children’s residential services: Bligh paper at 20.

144. Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 6; People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 24; NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, CAMA Submission at 10; and CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 50-51.

145. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 24; Barnardos Australia, Submission at 8; NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 12; Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 34; and CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 51.

146. Physical Disability Council of NSW, Submission at 15; Autism Association of NSW, Submission at 13; and Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 33.

147. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 34; and CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 51-52.

148. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 52.

149. People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 13.

150. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 34.

151. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 52.

152.. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 52.

153. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 51-52.

154. See para 3.136-3.144.

155. Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) s 8A(1); Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 8A; Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19B(1)(a); Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld) s 35(a); and Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 230(1).

156. Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) s 8A; Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld) s 35; and Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 8A.

157. CAMA s 8(4)(a).

158. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 50-51.

159. New South Wales, CSC, Respite Care – A System in Crisis: A Review of the Respite Care System in NSW by the Community Services Commission (1998) at vi.

160. New South Wales, Community Visitors Manual (CSC, Sydney, November 1997) Section 4 at 3.

161. Information supplied by CSC (24 March 1999) at 1.

162. CAMA s 9(2) and (3).

163. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 1-2.

164. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 2.

165. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 2.

166. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 2.

167. New South Wales, Community Visitors, Annual Report 1997/98 (CSC, Sydney).

168. Kurrajong-Waratah Industries, Submission at 3; Citizen Advocacy NSW, Submission at 10; and Burnside, Submission at 4.

169. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 11.

170. Community Visitor Survey (emphasis in original).

171. Community Visitor Survey.

172. New South Wales, DOCS, 1992 Annual Report: Official Visitor Scheme, NSW Department of Community Services Residential Care for Wards at 20.

173. E Mushins, “Proposal for Review of Community Visitors Program” (Unpublished paper, Office of the Public Advocate, Victoria, 1996) at 4.

174. New South Wales, Official Visitors’ Advisory Committee, A Report to the Minister for Health (Official Visitors’ Program, Sydney, 1996) at 9-10, 21 and 26.

175. Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld) s 34.

176. See para 4.43-4.51.

177. Community Visitor Survey.

178. CAMA s 9(1).

179. CAMA s 9(2).

180. See para 4.38.

181. L Bostock, “Meares Oration: Access and Equity for the Doubly Disadvantaged”, paper presented at the Disability Advisory Council of Australia National Conference (Perth, 20 February 1991) at 4 and 5.

182. RR 9 at para 1.59-1.73. See RR 9 at para 2.84.

183. Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of NSW Inc, Submission at 1.

184. See para 3.128.

185. Queensland Transcultural Mental Health Centre, Annual Report 1996/1997 (as at 7 January 1999) «http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/ ~atmhn/www/members/qtmhc-ar9697.html».

186. For a discussion of some of the relevant issues in communicating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in a culturally appropriate manner, see L Bostock, The Greater Perspective: Protocol Guidelines for the Media when Entering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (SBS, Sydney, 1997).

187. New South Wales, Official Visitors’ Advisory Committee, Official Visitors NSW Mental Health Act 1990 Practice Manual (2nd edition, Official Visitors’ Program, Sydney, October 1997) at Appendix V. See also “Recommendations of the Bureau of Immigration Research Conference on Women in Migration” (1992) 6 Bureau of Immigration Research Bulletin 39 at 40; and New South Wales, Juvenile Justice Advisory Council of NSW, Green Paper: Future Directions for Juvenile Justice in New South Wales (1993) at 198.

188. Information supplied by L Bostok, Aboriginal Disabilities Service (24 March 1999). Lists of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mentors are available through Regional Aboriginal Land Councils and Aboriginal Medical Services: Information supplied by L Bostok, Aboriginal Disabilities Service (24 March 1999).

189. Burnside, Submission at 4.

190. RR 9 at para 3.21.

191. RR 9 at para 3.21.

192. New South Wales, Child Protection Council, Having a Say: A Report on the “Giving a Voice to Children” Project, about Children and Young People Participating in Processes and Decisions which Relate to their Care and Well-being (1998) at 58.

193. New South Wales, Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Social Issues, Inquiry into Children’s Advocacy (1996) at 180.

194. New South Wales, Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Social Issues, Inquiry into Children’s Advocacy (1996) at 176; and NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 5.

195. See para 4.18.

196. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 9; and CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 46.

197. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 9.

198. CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 46.

199. New South Wales, Community Visitors Manual (CSC, Sydney, November 1997).

200. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 2.

201. New South Wales, Community Visitors Manual (CSC, Sydney, November 1997) Section 1 at 1.

202. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 2.

203. Information supplied by CSC (23 March 1999) at 2.

204. Burnside, Submission at 4; Barnardos Australia, Submission at 8; and Kurrajong-Waratah Industries, Submission at 3.

205. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 28 and 29.

206. Community Visitor Survey.

207. Kurrajong-Waratah Industries, Submission at 3.

208. Australian Capital Territory, Department of Education and Training and the Children’s, Youth and Family Services Bureau, Review of the Children’s Services Act 1986: Appendix to Public Consultation Paper (1997) at 45; K L Thomas and S McCulloch (eds) “Correctional Reform in Queensland: At the Cross Roads Post-Kennedy” (1994) 5(4) Criminology Australia 2 at 3; and E Mushins, “Community Visitor Discussion Paper” (Unpublished paper, Office of the Public Advocate, Victoria) at 1.

209. Victoria, Office of the Public Advocate, Annual Report 1998 at 28.

210. CSC, CAMA Submission 2 at 46.

211. There is a Principal Official Visitor for the Scheme for NSW mental health facilities: Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 226 and 227. For a detailed description of the nature of this Visitor’s role, see “Recruitment Package for Official Visitors” in New South Wales, Official Visitors’ Advisory Committee, A Report to the Minister for Health (Official Visitors’ Program, Sydney, 1996) at Pt 4. A similar role is performed by the Community Visitors Co-ordinator for the Victorian Official Visitor Scheme, which, for example, covers services for people with intellectual disabilities: Victoria, Community Visitors, Annual Report of Community Visitors 1998: Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Office of the Public Advocate, Melbourne) at 10. There is also a Senior Visitor and a Coordinator for the Visitor Scheme covering NSW juvenile justice centres: New South Wales, Department of Juvenile Justice, Official Visitor Scheme Manual (1996) at para 3.2 and 3.5.

212. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 46.

213. See para 4.20.

214. CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 47.

215. New South Wales, Community Visitors Manual (CSC, Sydney, November 1997) Section 5.

216. The Official Visitors’ Program for NSW mental health facilities developed a job description to be included in recruitment packages with the aim of encouraging high-quality applicants: New South Wales, Official Visitors’ Advisory Committee, A Report to the Minister for Health (Official Visitors’ Program, Sydney, 1996) at 10-11 and 22.

217. CAMA s 9(1).

218. CAMA s 8(1)(a)-(c).

219. CAMA s 8(3).

220. NSW Government, CAMA Submission at 6; Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 52-53; and Physical Disability Council of NSW Inc, Submission at 15.

221. Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld) s 36; Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Vic) s 57; Community Welfare Act 1987 (NSW) s 3B(4) (now repealed); Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) s 8A(4); Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 8A(4); Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 230; and Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19B.

222. A Knowsley, “NZ’s New, Progressive Mental Health Act” (1993) 2(1) Australian Health Law Bulletin 3 at 5.

223. ACROD Ltd NSW Division, Submission at 6.

224. ACROD Ltd NSW Division, Submission at 6.

225. Disability Council of NSW, Submission 2 at 53; L Moffit, Submission at 2. See also Carers NSW Inc, Submission at 14.

226. Children’s Commissioner and Children’s Services Appeals Tribunals Act 1996 (Qld) s 36(1)(a); Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Vic) s 57(1)(a); Community Welfare Act 1987 (NSW) s 3B(4)(a) (now repealed); Correctional Centres Act 1952 (NSW) s 8A(4)(a) and (b); Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 8A(4)(a); Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 230(1); and Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19B(1)(a).

227. Community Visitors, CAMA Submission at 35-36.

228. New South Wales, Community Visitors Manual (CSC, Sydney, November 1997) Section 10 at 5-6.

229. New South Wales, Community Visitors Manual (CSC, Sydney, November 1997) Section 10 at 6.

230. CAMA s 8(1)(b).

231. NCOSS, CAMA Submission at 13.

232. National Children’s and Youth Law Centre, “A Children’s Commissioner for Queensland: the Cutting Edge Proves Blunt” (1997) 22(1) Alternative Law Journal 38 at 39.

233. Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Vic) s 58(1) and (2).

234. Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) s 234; and Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19B(2) and (3).

235. Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT) s 19B(3).

236. RR 9 at para 3.33.

237. Disability Safeguards Coalition, CAMA Submission 1 at 5; People With Disabilities (NSW) Inc, CAMA Submission at 23; and CSC, CAMA Submission 1 at 48.

238. K L Thomas and S McCulloch (ed) “Correctional Reform in Queensland: At the Cross Roads Post-Kennedy” (1994) 5(4) Criminology Australia 2 at 3; and Victoria, Community Visitors, Annual Report of Community Visitors 1998. Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (Office of the Public Advocate, Melbourne) at 7.