NSW Budget Estimates 2019-20: putting access to justice on the agenda

Context

In 2018-19, twelve community legal centres received a total of $423,000 to deliver child protection legal services under Legal Aid NSW’s Care Partners Program.

On 30 May 2019, just one month before current contracts were due to expire, Legal Aid NSW advised Community Legal Centres NSW and the twelve funded centres that contracts would be extended for just three months to 30 September 2019, pending a review.

Community Legal Centres NSW asked Legal Aid NSW to extend current funding contracts to 30 June 2020. This would have enabled our sector to participate in a genuine and transparent review process. Our interest was to ensure the Care Partners Program was properly prioritised by Legal Aid NSW and continued to deliver high-quality services and positive outcomes for families and children in NSW.

However, on 28 August 2019, Legal Aid NSW advised Community Legal Centres NSW and the 12 funded centres that it would discontinue the program from 30 October 2019. From 1 November 2019, Legal Aid NSW will deliver early intervention child protection legal services in-house.

Community Legal Centres NSW believes defunding the Care Partners program will have long-lasting and irrevocable impacts on people, communities, affected centres and employees. People at risk of having their children permanently removed will lose access to holistic, community-embedded, time-intensive support services. This risk is heightened in rural, regional and remote areas, where existing legal services are limited and unable to meet demand. Centres will lose dedicated and highly skilled staff and will yet again have to review their staffing and service delivery at short notice. Employees will lose their jobs and livelihoods.

In our view, the decision is short-sighted and fails to recognise the unique value of community legal centres’ services.

Through the budget estimates process, we asked for information about the program review process and outcomes to better understand the drivers for the decision to defund this critical program.

Summary of hearing proceedings

David Shoebridge led questioning in the morning estimates session. The AG deferred to Legal Aid, noting that it was a Legal Aid rather than Ministerial decision to defund the program and bring services in-house.

David Shoebridge (see pp. 43-44):

• Asked when the decision was made to review the program
• Raised the arguments that CLCs do more than just legal advice/tasks/representation, and that the broader work we do contributes to reduced court appearances and better support for families
• Suggested the fact that fewer cases are being run is a measure of the program’s success (i.e. better early intervention = fewer cases going to court).
• Suggested Legal Aid used the wrong measures to evaluate the program

Legal Aid (see pp. 43-44):

• Gave a brief history of the program – including establishment under Safe Home for Life (SHFL) Reforms, the 2017 program review and decision to decrease funding by 50% up to the present.
• Confirmed that contracts have been extended to 31 October to provide additional time for ‘transition’ but will not be renewed. From 1 November, Legal Aid will deliver the services in-house through its Family Law practice
• Cited as key reasons for the decision to discontinue program funding:
  • Declining demand for CP legal services across everyone working in the child protection jurisdiction, including Legal Aid, where demand for care and protection services has dropped between 16 and 25%. He noted in this context that the original expectation was that under SHFL demand for legal services would increase, but that this has not been the case.
  • ‘Very low service numbers’ being delivered by CLCs, measured across legal advice, legal tasks, and legal representation. He cited individual CLCs service statistics for the last 6 months (without naming centres). For example:
    • CLC 1: 0 representations and 6 legal tasks
    • CLC 2: 10 representations and 5 legal tasks
    • CLC 3: 23 representations and 16 legal tasks
    • CLC 4: 1 representation and 4 legal tasks
    • CLC 5: 5 representations and 0 legal tasks
  • This is interesting because (a) he initially assured us that low service numbers weren’t a factor in the decision and (b) he doesn’t mention advice statistics at all
• Didn’t dispute our figure of 800 families assisted broadly, but argued that the ‘substantive legal work’, i.e. legal advice, legal tasks and legal representation/court duty services, is much lower
• Argued that based on these statistics, Legal Aid is very confident that:
  • It can easily pick up clients currently serviced by CLCs through its 24 offices, 100 outreaches and 240 private practitioners appointed specifically to Care work
  • No clients will go unassisted as a result of the decision
• Noted that contracts have been extended to 31 October to allow CLCs and affected employees to ‘transition’ out of the program.

Adam Searle and David Shoebridge led further questioning in the afternoon session. Questions were directed to Legal Aid (see pp. 85–86 and 88–90).

Adam Searle:

• Cited Legal Aid NSW’s letter to Tim and asked how the decision to defund the program was reached and who was consulted
• Asked who led the review into the Care Partners Program and why the CLC sector was not involved
• Suggested that the reduction in demand for Legal Aid’s child protection services may be a justification for reducing Legal Aid services but not, by necessary extension, CLC services
• Asked whether the review considered that many clients are reluctant to engage with government agencies, given negative experiences with and mistrust of FACS in particular
• Asked whether the review considered the fact that the very services provided through the Care Partners Program may actually contribute in a reduction in the number of matters reaching the courts and whether the decision might be a ‘prevention mechanism cut off’
• Asked whether the child protection legal services provided by Legal Aid NSW and CLC Care Partners are the same services and not different services

David Shoebridge:

• Asked for confirmation of when the review was conducted and how it was possible to conduct a meaningful review given that significant changes to the Care and Protection Act only came into force from March this year
• Asked whether CLCs were consulted on the work they do and the extent to which it diverts families and children from the statutory system
• Asked MCT whether the 12 weeks’ notice provided to CLCs about the decision to defund the program was adequate, and whether the Department will review how programs are reviewed, noting that this is common practice across government funded programs, despite significant impacts on employment, livelihoods and identity, as well as on people who use services

Legal Aid:

• Stated that the Care Partners Program review was conducted ‘in the context of the examination of the program as a whole from when it started … in 2015’ and that it was conducted by the Deputy CEO in the Community Funding section of Legal Aid.
• Reiterated that demand for Legal Aid’s child protection services has declined between 16 and 25%, including both representation and early intervention work. He also reiterated that figures for the Care Partners Program, in terms of CLCs providing ‘meaningful’ assistance to people are very low and that he is confident Legal Aid can manage the volume of people who would otherwise have been supported by CLCs through the Care Partners program.
• Noted that the early intervention services provided by Legal Aid identical to those provided CLCs under the Care Partners program, including health justice partnerships, and birth alerts work
• Suggested that it is drawing too long a bow to suggest a small number of interactions in the CLC network – as good as they are – has driven the reduction in care and protection work that we are seeing
• Suggested that, ultimately, continuing the investment was not worth it, based on the numbers of clients being seen/legal work being done through the program
• Argued that there has been ongoing, ‘intimate’ engagement with all Care Partners over the life of the program, particularly at an operational level, e.g. constant referrals from the Legal Aid early intervention unit to CLC Care Partners (and vice versa)
• Disagreed with the assertion that people would lose access to services because of the decision on the basis many would be reluctant to engage with a government agency. Argued that Legal Aid represented 4000 people in care and protection matters in 2018-19, most of whom would have a negative perception of FACS, and that he has no concern about the most disadvantaged people seeking help from Legal Aid in care and protection matters
• Noted that Legal Aid employs hundreds of specialist family lawyers and has access to a couple of hundred specialist child protection lawyers via its private lawyer panel.
• Reiterated his absolute confidence that no-one will be disadvantaged by the change.
• Suggested that the decision simply re-establishes the care and protection legal system that was in place before 2015.
• Accepted that the decision will have consequences for centres and CLC employees doing Care Partner work and that he takes no pleasure in ending the program and the consequences the decision will have for all involved
• However, argued that there was consistent and clear communication to the CLC sector that the program would be time-limited (initially to 2 years) and that it would not continue indefinitely

Michael Coutts-Trotter:

• Accepted that generally, giving 12 weeks’ notice for the end of program funding is not ideal and that the government is looking at ways to provide more certainty for funded NGOs and reduce the burden of resource-intensive tender processes on the sector.
• Noted, however, that there will always be egregious examples of people being given late notice under these arrangements.

Care Partner Program (pg. 20, David Shoebridge)

Q44. What was the time frame of the review into the CLC Care Partner Program?

I am advised:
Legal Aid NSW has continuously monitored the Care Partner Program since its inception in 2015. The decision to reduce the number of community legal centres that were funded was based on lower than anticipated demand for services that fell within the program's scope of work between 2015 and 2016. In 2019, Legal Aid NSW decided to deliver the current Care Partner Program services in house through its Family Law Division, due to a continued decline in demand for services.

Q45. Who conducted the review?

I am advised: Please see the answer to Supplementary Question 44.

Q46. Which CLCs did the reviewers of the CLC Care Partner Program visit during the review process?

I am advised:
Between 2015 and 2019, Legal Aid NSW had ongoing engagement with all community legal centres connected to the Care Partner Program. Legal Aid NSW received data about the services provided by each community legal centre and engaged with them about the operational management and delivery of services under the program.

Legal Aid support for child protection matters (pp. 21-23, David Shoebridge)

Q47. What is the average cost of a Legal Aid NSW lawyer and parent advocate delivering early support services to parents encountering the child protection system? How much of this time is in court? How much is out?

I am advised:
Legal Aid NSW lawyers provide early intervention legal services to both parents and children involved in care and protection matters. Legal Aid NSW does not employ Parent Advocates. The average cost for an early intervention service, such as advice or minor assistance, ranges from $150 to $200. Legal Aid NSW does not measure the time spent in and out of court by a lawyer undertaking care and protection matters.

Q48. How much time on average do Legal Aid NSW lawyers and parent advocates spend providing early support services to these parents, in court and out of court?

I am advised:
Legal Aid NSW provides the following legal services in the care and protection jurisdiction, ranging from early intervention services through to advocacy in court proceedings:

• Early intervention services through Legal Aid NSW Early Intervention Unit and the family law in-house practice in advice sessions and outreach.
• Advice, minor assistance and extended legal assistance.
• Duty services at all specialist Children's and all Local Courts where the Children's Court sits.
• Representation in section 86 Contact Dispute Conferences.
• Legal representation in care and protection, and adoption proceedings.
• Community Legal Education through face to face training, online resources and printed materials.

Q49. What conditions do parents need to meet in order to get assistance from Legal Aid NSW lawyers or parent advocates?

I am advised:
Almost all lawyers providing legal services to parents in care and protection matters are funded by Legal Aid NSW. The Aboriginal Legal Service (via Legal Aid NSW funding and their own funding sources) also provide a range of legal services to parents in care and protection matters. Legal Aid NSW does not apply a means test to its advice and minor assistance services.

Q50. Do people accessing Legal Aid NSW’s child protection services need to conduct a means test?

I am advised:
Almost all lawyers providing legal services to parents in care and protection matters are funded by Legal Aid NSW. The Aboriginal Legal Service (via Legal Aid NSW funding and their own funding sources) also provide a range of legal services to parents in care and protection matters. Legal Aid NSW does not apply a means test to its advice and minor assistance services.

51. Are Legal Aid NSW’s child care and protection services able to be accessed by people who are in prison?

I am advised:
Legal Aid NSW provides legal services to people in prison who are involved in care and protection proceedings. About 5% of all care and protection legal services are provided to parties in custody.

Context

The community legal centre sector received a copy of the panel report from the Community Legal Service Program (CLSP) funding tender process the week before Budget Estimates hearings began. We had been asking to see the report since the tender outcomes were announced in May 2019, to help community legal centres understand the rationale for funding decisions, particularly for those centres who received less funding in 2019-2020 as compared to 2018-19.

As well, two key recommendations from the Cameron Review remain unimplemented. These relate to the management of the CLSP program and the development of an outcomes framework for the community legal centre sector.

Summary of hearing proceedings

Adam Searle asked questions of Legal Aid on this, based on questions submitted by CLCNSW in the afternoon session, pp. 94-97

Adam Searle asked:

• Why 13 CLCs received a combined reduction in funding of $926,000
• Who was on the independent panel that assessed funding applications in the 2018 tender process? Adam noted that given the panel included both government and non-government representatives, it was really only semi-independent
• When the Attorney received the panel’s recommendations
• Whether a new timetable will be implemented in future tender rounds, given CLCs received only 9 weeks’ notice of the change to their funding
• How confident Legal Aid NSW is about the panel’s decisions, particularly where centres were required to increase deliverables but only received the same quantum of funding, given no panel members had experience working in CLCs
• How the perceived conflict of interest for Legal Aid NSW in its administration of the CLC funding program can be removed or addressed
• Whether the CLC sector will be involved in developing the outcomes framework for the sector as recommended by the and what funding it will receive/has received

Legal Aid:

• Gave a brief history of sector funding since 2016-17 and the Cameron review process and recommendations, including for a tender process administered by Legal Aid NSW and overseen by an independent board
• Noted that the AG released the panel’s assessment report to the CLC sector the week before the estimates hearing
• Noted that no CLC received a lower amount of funding than they received in 2016-17, which was the year the Cth initially reduced its funding commitment under the NPA and then restored it, and the state government committed to making up the shortfall, but didn’t withdraw the additional funding when the Cth reversed its decision (i.e. effectively leaving the CLC sector $3m better off)
• Noted that the independent panel included bureaucrats from Department of Justice, and ED from DPC, 3 panelists from the non-government sector, including 2 partners from private law firms (who manage pro-bono practices), and an independent procurement advisor
• Noted that funding decisions were announced before the end of the financial year and the report provided to the AG before that time.
• Noted the impact of the different funding cycles (State, Cth, PPF) on the timing of the tender funding announcements and that there is an intention to bring these funding cycles into line through the current negotiations for a new NPA for legal assistance
• Noted that the panel made comparisons across CLCs regarding the numbers of people seen and services required, and based decisions to require some CLCs to increase their deliverables based on these comparisons. Confirmed that essentially, ‘level of activity’ was a key metric for assessing applications
• Accepted that there is a challenge for Legal Aid as the administrator of contracts/funder for CLCs and trying to work in partnership with CLCs to deliver services on the ground
• Noted that, “without naming organisations, there have been times in the past 18 months where I have had to make management decisions about performance questions of certain CLCs, appoint investigators, auditors, those kinds of things, that you would normally do in any kind of funding program”.
• Noted that Legal Aid tries to manage that tension through regular communication between the CLC program in Legal Aid and CLC NSW, e.g. through collaborative service planning, and through structuring its relationship with CLCNSW
• Noted his understanding that CLCNSW has a plan to develop that outcomes framework with additional funding, of $100,000 (to be confirmed on notice) from the state government and that a national body is working on a national plan.

Responses to Questions on Notice

Question 69 (pg. 75, The Hon Adam Searle): Who was on the independent panel (for the Cameron tender process for CLC funding)?

I am advised:
The panel consisted of:

• Kathrina Lo, (then) Deputy Secretary, Justice Services, Department of Justice
• Kristina Hickey, (then) Executive Director, Justice & Community Safety, Department of Premier and Cabinet
• Anne Cregan, Partner, Pro Bono Group, Gilbert+Tobin
• David Hillard, Partner and National Practice Group Leader-Pro Bono, Clayton Utz
• Bran Black, (then) CEO, NUW Alliance
• Mia Zahra, Manager, Community Legal Centres Program, Legal Aid NSW (Panel convenor, non-voting)

Question 70 (pg. 77, The Hon Adam Searle): When did the Attorney receive the panel's recommendations?

I am advised:
The Attorney General’s office received the panel's recommendations in a Tender Assessment Report on 20 February 2019, seven working days prior to the commencement of the NSW Government caretaker period.

Question 71 (pg. 78, The Hon Adam Searle): What are some of those changed targets or revised deliverables? What sorts of things are we talking about?

I am advised:
Community Legal Centres (CLCs) were required to set targets for the numbers of services only.

• CLC A's target for total representation services opened was increased from 12 per year to 24 per year.
• CLC B's targets for all services were increased, including legal advice in person from 100 per year to 145 per year, legal tasks from 95 per year to 138 per year, and duty lawyer services from 440 per year to 640 per year.
• CLC C's target for Court/Tribunal representation services was increased from 5 opened per year to 10 opened per year.

Question 72 (pg. 79, The Hon Adam Searle) What level of government funding has the CLC sector received to participate in the process to develop an outcomes framework?

I am advised:
Legal Aid NSW provided $65,000 excluding GST to CLCNSW on 20 June 2019. Funding was allocated from the Community Legal Services Program budget.

Responses to Supplementary Questions

Q5. What work has been done to assess the likely impact of the $1 million shortfall in funding for community legal centres in NSW?

I am advised:
There is no funding shortfall for community legal centres in NSW from the Community Legal Services Program. Record funding of more than $40 million is being invested in the community legal sector over the next three years, representing a State funding boost of more than 85 per cent since 2015-16. The NSW Government has provided an additional $5.2 million per year in funding to the community legal sector from 2019-20. This includes $2.2 million in State funding to address critical service gaps. One-off funding of $3.041 million per year was provided in 2017-18 and 2018-19 in response to a threatened cut in Commonwealth funding. This one-off funding will also be provided over the next three years.

Q6. What is the anticipated financial impact on the community of the shortfall in funding experienced by the Welfare Rights Centre?

I am advised:
The Welfare Rights Centre does not have a shortfall in its core funding. From 2019-20 onwards, the Welfare Rights Centre will receive over $152,000 more per year in core State Community Legal Services Program funding than in 2016-17. In 2017- 18 and 2018-19, the centre received $483,760 in one-off, temporary State funding in addition to its core funding. As at 1 July 2019, the Centre advised that it has almost $280,000 of that additional funding left to be spent.

Q7. What is the anticipated impact of these on communities across NSW?

I am advised:
There is no funding shortfall for community legal centres in NSW from the Community Legal Services Program.

No community legal centre that provides services to vulnerable clients is worse off in State Government and Public Purpose Fund funding in 2019-20 than in 2016-17. The funding for some centres in 2019-20 is lower than in 2017-18 or 2018-19 because additional, temporary State funding was allocated to centres in those years, in response to a threatened cut in Commonwealth funding.

• Aboriginal deaths in custody on behalf of the National Justice Project, specifically whether the government would authorise an inquest into the deaths of Jacinta Rose Smith and Mona Lisa Smith, pp. 34-36 (Adam Searle)
• Over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in NSW prisons and whether the government will support a trial of the Walama Court proposal, pg. 83-84 (Shaoquette Moselmane, Adam Searle)
• Access to the ALS for people detained by police for public drunkenness and expansion of the Custody Notification Scheme (David Shoebridge)
• Additional funding for the ALS (David Shoebridge)
  • The AG noted there has been additional funding from the Cth for police and also for the ALS custody notification scheme
• Justice Reinvestment, including plans for expanding and funding justice reinvestment initiatives, pg. 88 (David Shoebridge)
• Cultural awareness training for judicial and court officers, pg. 94 (David Shoebridge)
• The Cunneen Inquiry into police investigations of certain child sexual abuse allegations against the Catholic Church and the release of the final report of the inquiry, pg. 41 (David Shoebridge)

Context

At the meeting of the Council of the Attorneys-General (CAG) 23 November 2018, the participants agreed to an investigation into whether to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years of age. The Age of Criminal Responsibility Working Group has been established to review the matter, directed to draw from relevant jurisdictional and international experience. In the 28 June 2019 meeting of CAG, the participants noted updates on the work of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Working Group. The Working Group is expected to report its findings to the Council in or before November 2019.

The material below is based on questions provided by Youth Law Australia.

Summary of hearing proceedings

• The age of criminal responsibility, including whether the AG is on the working group, whether NSW has a position on the issue, when and how it will determine its position, and whether it will bring forward the review of the Young Offenders Act to align with the timeframes of the working group, pg 41-44 (David Shoebridge)
  • The AG noted that Paul McKnight is representing NSW on the age of criminal responsibility working group and that he can provide
  • He noted that NSW does not yet have a position on whether the age of CR should be raised and, if so, what age is appropriate
  • WA is taking the lead on this at the COAG level and is due to report back to the Council of Attorneys General by the end of the year
  • NSW is working on developing a position ahead of the Council of AGs meeting, probably to be held in November or December this year
  • NSW is taking a holistic approach to the issue and its position will be informed by inter-jurisdictional and international research and evidence

Answers to Questions on Notice

Question 8 (pg. 9, David Shoebridge): Can you provide a copy of the terms of reference for the Council of Attorneys-General Working Group on the Age of Criminal Responsibility?

I am advised:
At the 23 November 2018 meeting of the Council of Attorneys-General (CAG), Attorneys General agreed that it would be appropriate to examine whether to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years of age. It established an inter-jurisdictional Working Group, chaired by Western Australia, to conduct that examination. All Australian jurisdictions, including NSW, are represented on that Working Group. The Working Group has been tasked with assessing whether the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be maintained or increased, and the implications any increase may have for the doli incapax principle. It is anticipated that the Working Group will provide a report back to CAG before the end of 2019. To facilitate free and frank exchange of views, CAG operating procedures provide that documents prepared for meetings or projects of CAG are to remain confidential unless CAG agrees to their release. To date, CAG has not taken a decision on the release of the Working Group’s Terms of Reference.

Question 9 (pg. 10, David Shoebridge): Are you considering advancing the review of the Young Offenders Act so that it could be completed in time for you to take a fully informed position to the Council of Attorneys-General on this issue?

I am advised:
The age of criminal responsibility in NSW is legislated under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. The review of the Young Offenders Act 1997 (YOA) being conducted by the Department of Communities and Justice is considering the legislative framework for youth diversion under the YOA. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety Inquiry into the adequacy of youth diversionary programs in NSW.

Answers to Supplementary Questions

Q22. How many children in NSW would be spared from involvement in the formal criminal justice system (including fines, cautions and conferences) each year if the age was raised: (a) to 12? (b) to 14?

I am advised:
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has records of 5,280 persons of interest aged 10 to 13 receiving a legal action by police in 2018. Of the 5,280 persons of interest: 1,403 were proceeded against to court, 206 were referred to Youth Justice Conference by police, 1,436 received a formal police caution under the Young Offenders Act 1997, 112 received an infringement notice, and 2,123 received a warning under the Young Offenders Act 1997. Attorney General and Prevention of Domestic Violence 12

Q23. How many of these children would identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander or be children with a cognitive impairment or mental illness?

I am advised:
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research does not hold records on the number of persons of interest with a cognitive impairment or mental illness.

Breach of bail and ‘technical breach of bail, based on questions submitted by PIAC (questions submitted on notice, rather than discussed in session), pg. 71 (David Shoebridge).

• The Cunneen Inquiry into police investigations of certain child sexual abuse allegations against the Catholic Church and the release of the final report of the inquiry, pg. 41 (David Shoebridge)
• Laws to enable people to bring civil claims for historical child sexual abuse, pg. 59 (David Shoebridge)
• Mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse and particularly exemptions for clergy to report evidence of child sexual abuse gained under the confessional seal, pp. 59-61 (David Shoebridge)
• Tracking implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse, pg. 87 (David Shoebridge)

• Proposed expansion of the drug courts trial at Dubbo , pg. 56 (Adam Searle)
• Court resourcing, including number of judges, workload pressures etc across District, Local and other courts, pp. 62-64 (David Shoebridge, Adam Searle)
• New service model for regional court circuits, including the north-west local court circuit based at Dubbo, including resources, reduction in staff numbers, impact of efficiency dividend on services etc, pg. 66-67 (Shaoquette Moselmane), impact of closure of court registries outside circuit court sitting dates on communities, pg. 67 (David Shoebridge)
• Investment to address District Court and Local Court backlogs, pp. 67-69 (David Shoebridge)
• Cutting of court services across NSW, and impacts on the administration of justice in NSW, pg. 71 (Shaoquette Moselmane)
• Court security issues, pg. 81-82 (Shaoquette Moselmane)
• New court precinct in South-West Sydney, pg. 84-85 (Adam Searle)
• Recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of Family Law and devolution of responsibility for family courts back to states and territories, pg. 94 (David Shoebridge)

• Services for women who delay leaving domestic violence situations because of fears about animal welfare, pp. 39-40 (Emma Hurst)
• The Premier’s Priority on Domestic Violence, it’s deferral to 2023 and the change to its measure of success, which has caused concern amongst the community, pg. 45-46 (Adam Searle)
• The Link2Home program and funding for specialist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander DV programs, pg. 47 (Adam Searle)
• The New South Wales Government’s decision to cease funding to the Women's Family Law Support Service and the Sydney Family Court, pg. 46 (Shaoquette Moselmane)
• The implementation of recommendations from the Women’s Alliance ‘Safe State’ election platform, including safety for women victims in DV matters in court, including cross-examination practices, use of AVL and CCTV technology to give evidence, safe rooms, about the expansion of WDVCAS case management services by WDVCAS’, the creation of specialist DV courts or specialist DV lists/list days, education and training for judicial officers etc, pg.pg. 48-5149 (Abigail Boyd)
  • The AG noted he’s unlikely to go down the specialist court route
• Respectful relationships education, pg. 51-52 (Abigail Boyd)
• Funding for women’s health centres, pg. 52 (Abigail Boyd)
• Cancellation of tender process for WDVCAS, pg. 54 (Adam Searle); commitment to ongoing funding for expansion of case management services delivered by WDVCAS, pg. 85 (Adam Searle)
• Domestic Violence Justice Strategy, including funding expended under program, including through Victims Services, in 2018-19, pg. 65 (Adam Searle)
• Responsibility for Domestic Violence under the new departmental/ministerial portfolio structure, e.g. who has responsibility for court services, specialist accommodation, relevant Premier’s Priorities etc, pg. 74-75 (Abigail Boyd)
• Number of dedicated crisis beds across NSW for DV victims, and costs per year of specialist refuge accommodation, pg. 76 (Abigail Boyd)
• Men’s behaviour change programs, including evaluation of these programs, pg. 77-78 (Abigail Boyd); number of programs funded and number of participants supported, how they’re being evaluated and outcomes from 2014-15 – 2018-19, pg. 79-80 (Adam Searle)
• % of department’s funding spent on DV initiatives, pg. 78 (Abigail Boyd)
• Finalisation of NSWLRC Inquiry into consent laws, pg. 78 (Abigail Boyd)
• Provision of culturally safe supports for Aboriginal women, LGBTIQ people, CALD communities etc, pg. 79 (Adam Searle)
• Expenditure on integrated domestic violence services from 2014-15 – 2018-19, pg. 80 (Adam Searle)
• Staying Home Leaving Violence and delineation of responsibility between AG and Minister Ward, pg. 81 (Adam Searle)
• Number of children/families assisted through the DV Response Enhancement, pg. 82-83 (Adam Searle)

• Legal Aid funding and why criminal defendants are unable to get funding for Legal Aid representation for lengthy trials. pp. 36-37 (Shaoquette Moselmane); justification for 2.6% funding cut for Legal Aid in 2019-20, pp. 72-74 (Adam Searle)36-37 (Shaoquette Moselmane)
  • The AG noted that he and the Commission are paying close attention to Legal Aid rates for private practitioners, which have not increased for 12 years
  • The AG noted that the Commission is currently working on a business case re why headline rates should go up and that the government will consider the business case for the 2021 budget or sooner
  • The AG noted that the government has increased the number of public defenders by 4 in recent years and that Legal Aid funding has gone up by 80% since 2010-11 (pg. 36-37)
  • Brendan Thomas noted there has been no funding cut, the higher expenditure in 2018-19 was because they spent cash reserves (pg. 72)
• Work security in the DPP, and across government more broadly, as well as about the delayed statutory review into coronial services in NSW, pp. 37-38 (Adam Searle)

• NSW Police use of strip searches, pg. 69 (David Shoebridge)
• Use of Criminal Infringement Notices (CIN) for minor drug offences, pg. 70 (David Shoebridge)
• Regional inconsistencies in policing practices, evidenced in BOCSAR data, pg. 70 (David Shoebridge)

Context

In the lead up to Budget Estimates hearings the Department had not yet made available Victims Services data profiles for 2018-2019. These data profiles are now available online here.

There have been significant delays in Victims Services making determinations, including for immediate needs. The Immediate Needs Support package for Victims of DV has been available since 3 June 2019 as a response to delays.

Community legal centres are interested in the difference between the number of applications for counselling compared to financial assistance and recognition payments, especially for sexual assault, domestic violence and child abuse and the impact of time limits on accessing these payments. 

We are also interested in the impact of the changes to documentary evidence and the lapsing provision (these took effect from 14 January 2019).

Summary of hearing proceedings

* Note: these are loosely based on questions submitted by Women’s Legal Service NSW

• Delays within Victims Services, particularly in processing times for recognition and immediate needs payments, pg. 47, and the efficiency dividend imposed on Victimes Services pg. 57 (Shaoquette Moselmane)
  • The AG and MCT noted there has been a surge in demand and that VS is working hard to manage the blowout
  • To manage delays, VS has brought on a new IT system and also hired causal staff to work through the backlog
  • The KPI for processing payments is 15 days and there have been significant improvements
  • In Aug 2019, the average processing time for payments was at 9 days
  • AG took the majority questions for specific data about access for women experiencing DV (provided by WLS) on notice
  • AG noted that DV victims no longer need receipts to access immediate needs payments up to $5000
  • Also noted that ‘immediate needs’ is not a crisis payment and would be better characterised as an ‘urgent needs’ payment
  • MCT noted that Victims Services is characterised as frontline services, which departments aim to ringfence from efficiency dividends (i.e. efficiency dividends will target administrative and back of house efficiencies first, rather than frontline services)
• Dysfunction and bullying within Victims Services and the review into culture and bullying within the organisation, pg. 47-48, pg. 55 (Shaoquette Moselmane)
• Complaints handling by Victims Services, pg. 53 (Adam Searle)
• Victim Services payment statistics (based on questions provided by Women’s Legal Service NSW), pp. 65-66 (Adam Searle)

Responses to Questions on Notice

Question 14 (pg. 15, The Hon. ADAM SEARLE): Could I ask you to find out whether all the persons who have complained [about bullying at Victims Services] were able to be interviewed or were interviewed and, if they were not, was that because of some assessment about the information or simply because there were too many complaints to do in the time?

I am advised: The independent investigator did not interview all staff who provided information. The investigator undertook a review of the information received and identified who to interview for the purposes of obtaining further clarification or additional information relevant to the investigation.

Question 21 (pg. 22, The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: for 2018-19 how many victims of family and domestic violence were assisted through Victims Services? And, allied to that, how many are projected to be assisted in the current financial year?

I am advised: Victims Services data is reported on the number of cases, not the number of victims. A victim may make multiple applications for different acts of violence. The numbers of domestic violence cases in which Victims Services provides assistance are presented below. The cases may have provided counselling, financial assistance or recognition payments, may have received 1, 2 or all 3 support types and may also have been assistance across multiple years.

Question 22 (pg. 23, The Hon. ADAM SEARLE): How many victims of sexual assault were assisted through Victims Services, again, in 2018-19 and projected to be assisted? How many victims of family and domestic violence were assisted through the immediate needs support package? What was the average payment and what were the total payments made— again, 2018-19 and projected for 2019-20?

I am advised:
Victim Services provides data on an application or a claims basis, not on the number of victims, as victims may lodge multiple claims for multiple acts of violence.

The number of sexual assault claims assisted by Victims Services are presented below. The claims may have provided counselling, financial assistance or recognition payments, or any combination of all three support types and the support may also have been across multiple years.

The number of claims involving domestic violence or sexual assault matters, where counselling is provided are shown below.

Generally, the number of claims awarded, the average payment, and total amount awarded to victims of family and domestic violence assisted through the immediate needs support package are presented in the table below.

The Immediate Needs Support Package was introduced in June 2019. The table below is data relating to the period from June 2019 to August 2019.

There are no forecasts available for 2019-20 in relation the projected number of cases in which Victims Services provides assistance to this financial year.

Question 23 (pg. 25 The Hon. ADAM SEARLE): How many were assisted through receiving financial assistance for economic loss? What was the average payment and what were the total payments made—again, same time periods? You are providing that information for 2018-19 and projected for 2019-20. Can I also get the back years' figures, going back to 2013-14?

I am advised:
The table below sets out the number of claims, average payments and total amounts awarded regarding the receipt of financial assistance for economic loss.

The table below sets out the number of claims, average payments and total amounts awarded regarding the receipt of victim recognition payments by victims of family and domestic violence.

There are no forecasts available for 2019-20 in relation the projected number of cases in which Victims Services provides assistance to this financial year.

Answers to Supplementary Questions

Q102. When will the Victims Services data profiles for 2017-18 and 2018-19 be released?

I am advised:
Victims Services data profiles for 2017-18 are on the Victims Services website here.

Finalised data profiles are not currently available for 2018-19 and will be published when available.

Q117. How many applications have been supported with evidence from NGOs from 14 January 2019 – 30 June 2019? (a) Since 1 July 2019?

I am advised: This information is not available.

Q118. How many applications lapsed in 2018-19?

I am advised: This information is not available.

Q121. Of the internal reviews that were successful what number and proportion had legal representation for: (a) Sexual assault? (b) For domestic violence? (c) For child abuse?

I am advised: This information is not available.

The Greens and Labor submitted supplementary questions provided by CLCs on:

• Age of criminal responsibility, pg. 4
• Bail and breach of bail, pp. 3-4
• Care Partners funding, pp. 5-6
• CLC funding and tender outcomes, pg. 2
• Domestic violence, including temporary accommodation (pg. 31), specialist refuges (pg. 32), support for Aboriginal women and children (pg. 33), generalist homelessness services (pg. 34), Link2Home (pg. 35), Domestic violence justice strategy (pg. 36), WDVCAS (pg. 37), Staying Home Leaving Violence (pg. 38), Premier’s Priority (pg. 40)
• Victims Services, pp. 10-13

Access the supplementary questions here.

• Transcript
• Questions on Notice (full transcript, questions taken on notice highlighted in yellow)
• Supplementary questions (answers due by Thursday, 26 September)

NSW Government strategies for Aboriginal people, e.g. the Aboriginal Outcomes Strategy and the NSW Aboriginal Child, Youth and Family Strategy and the status of/ outcomes achieved under these strategies: pp. 89-90 (Penny Sharpe).

Context

We’re interested to know how many families have benefited from a focus on family preservation and restoration since the Tune review, particularly Aboriginal families.

We’re also interested in the impact of recent legislative amendments which require ADR prior to a court application for care orders (unless it is not appropriate due to exceptional circumstances: s37(1A) and (1B).  These amendments took effect from 4 February 2019.

Finally, we’re interested in the cost to government of rolling out Family Functional Therapy – Child Welfare (FFT-CW) across NSW and the evidence base for the effectiveness of this model for children and families in the child welfare system and families affected by domestic violence.

FFT is an American program that was developed to reduce delinquency, criminal behaviour and illicit drug use in young people. In NSW (under TFM), the model has been used to develop Family Functional Therapy – Child Welfare (FFT-CW), which is now being as an in-home support for families with children at risk of removal. The NSW government has sent NGO therapists to America to be trained in FFT at great expense.

However, there is very limited evidence that FFT-CW is effective with this cohort. We’re aware of just one paper presented at the TFM Conference in February 2019.

FFT trainers have also stated specifically that FFT is not designed to work with DV perpetrators. But we understand that up to 80% of FACS referrals into the program have DV as the main cause for child protection concerns and FACS is sending therapists alone into homes where there is significant DV. There was a very slow referral rate into the program to begin with, but we understand that it’s now very busy and are not sure what has happened within FACS to see this massive increase. 

Summary of hearing proceedings

Note: some of these informed by questions submitted by Women’s Legal Service NSW, including about the number of matters filed in court, the number of adoptions in NSW, including of Aboriginal children, the number of case plans with restoration as the permanency goal.

• Number of in children alternative care (motels, hotels or serviced apartments), pp41-45 (David Shoebridge).
• Permanent Placement Principles, the permanency support program and the % of children removed from their families and being supported by NGOs who have restoration as their permanency goal, including requests for breakdowns by children in NGO vs. FACS care, and by Aboriginal vs. non-Aboriginal children pp. 51-53 (David Shoebridge) (WLS)
• Number of children reported at ROSH who receive a face-to-face assessment by FACS and trends in this data, pg. 53 (David Shoebridge, Penny Sharpe)
• Raising the age for Ministerial responsibility for children in care to 21, pg. 54 (David Shoebridge)
• Priority population groups under TFM for cross-sector investment, pg. 54 (David Shoebridge)
• Number of adoptions from care, including of Aboriginal children, and whether Aboriginal children adopted into Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal families pg. 55 (David Shoebridge) (WLS)
• Numbers of children on non-custodial orders in OOHC, pp. 55-56 (Penny Sharpe)
• Actual funding for Targeted Early Intervention and what is being delivered under the reform program, pp. 75-76 (David Shoebridge); pg.95 (Abigail Boyd)
• TFM budget and patterns of expenditure and service delivery and uptake under TFM, pg. 76-77 (David Shoebridge)
• Number of children in Temporary Care Arrangements (i.e. unsupported, voluntary OOHC), pg. 85 (David Shoebridge)
• Total number of children in OOHC in NSW, % Aboriginal kids, and % of kids in OOHC with a care plan, pg. 85 (David Shoebridge)
• Number of children released from OOHC into homelessness or unstable accommodation, pg. 85 (David Shoebridge)
• Policy guidance and training for FACS workers on the implications of removing children from their families, pg. 86 (David Shoebridge)
• Newpin and Resilient Families social benefit bonds and social benefit bonds generally, pp. 88-89 (Penny Sharpe)
• Meghan Davis’ review of Aboriginal children in OOHC, pg. 90 (Penny Sharpe)
• Status of commitment (made to Absec) to delivering targeted, proportional funding for Aboriginal-controlled child protection organisations (30%), pg. 90 (Penny Sharpe)
• Funding for Permanency Support Program, Intensive Family Preservation and Restoration, Intensive Family-Based Services etc., pg. 94-95
• Child protection statistics, including, number of care applications to court since Feb 2019, number of case reviews, pg. 95-96 (Abigail Boyd) (WLS)
• Foster carer recruitment, pg. 96 (Penny Sharpe)
• Number of Aboriginal kids in care without cultural plans, pg. 106 (Penny Sharpe)
• FACS caseworkers, recruitment, retention, training and supervision, pg. 106 - 107 (Penny Sharpe)

Answers to Questions on Notice

QUESTION (hearing transcript pg. 52, Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE): I have put to you the figure that suggests that of the children who are in NGOs only 3 per cent have a case plan goal of restoration. I am asking you, across the sector, this is one of the key issues about restoration, you must have some handle on the proportion of case plans that have restoration as a goal.

I am advised:
Annual case planning is a requirement of all accredited out of home care providers. Case plan goals change depending of the needs of the child.

QUESTION (hearing transcript pg. 85, Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE): How many children are currently in out-of-home care in New South Wales? What proportion of those are Aboriginal children and how many as well?

I am advised:
The preliminary number [for total number of children currently in out-of-home-care] is 16,880-a preliminary number for 30 June 2019, which is about a 3 per cent fall on the number of children that were in care the year before.

Preliminary data for 2018-19 shows that as at 30 June 2019, there were around 6,800 Aboriginal children in care, representing approximately 40% of the total NSW out-of-home care population.

QUESTION (hearing transcript pp. 85-86, Mr DAVID SHOE BRIDGE): What proportion of the children in out-of-home care have a care plan? There are repeated concerns about the proportion of children in out-of-home care who exit between the ages of 16 and 17 and either enter into incarceration or into homelessness. Do you have data on that? What about those who move into public housing? Data produced about five years ago shows that once a child went into care, they were 10 times more likely to later have their child removed. Is there any further data on that?

I am advised that all children in statutory out-of-home care (OOHC) have a care plan. Care plans are filed as part of Children's Court proceedings. The Stronger Communities Investment Unit - Their Futures Matter (TFM) has not updated the analyses presented in 2018 around people leaving OOHC and the likelihood that their children would enter OOHC. Finalised data for use in reporting for the 2018-19 financial year will not be available until 31 October 2019. The data required to respond to this question is not part of the core set of data regularly reported and hence will need to be extracted separately. It will be possible to report on the number of children aged 16 to less than 18 years who have exited to a youth justice placement during the year. If a young person finds themselves without accommodation when leaving care they are able to seek support up until the age of 25. The department works with children and young people in out of home care from the age of 15 years to plan and support their transition to independence and leaving care. This includes planning and exploring housing options, including social housing pathways, Rent Choice Youth and the Premiers Youth Initiative that prioritise young people who have been in care, depending on their circumstances. Premier's Youth Initiative program provides services to young people aged 16 to 17 years, leaving statutory OOHC and identified as being at risk of homelessness to permanently divert them from the homelessness service system. Through the Premier's Youth Initiative care leavers have access to a personal advisor, education and employment mentoring and help in finding and maintaining long-term affordable accommodation. Data showing whether children aged 16 to less than 18 years who exited OOHC and entered social housing before they turned 18 is not readily available

QUESTION (hearing transcript pg. 53, Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE): I have put to you the figure that suggests that of the children who are in NGOs only 3 per cent have a case plan goal of restoration. I am asking you, across the sector, this is one of the key issues about restoration, what proportion of case plans have restoration as a goal? Could you please give a breakdown between the proportion with the case plan goal of restoration for those in NGO care as opposed to those in – And lastly, if you could break it down by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.

I am advised information on the number of case plans broken down by plan goal in 2018-19 has not been finalised.

Answers to Supplementary Questions

Q3. Of the seven Aboriginal children that were adopted in the past financial year how many were adopted into Aboriginal families?

I am advised that the seven children were adopted to non-Aboriginal carers. The children and young people were aged from 5 to 17 years and three young people gave sole consent to their adoption. All of the children had been in the care of their prospective adoptive parents from the age of 1 year old or younger. The decision-maker which is the Supreme Court of New South Wales must be satisfied that adoption is clearly preferable to any other action that may be taken by law. A cultural plan is developed and attached to the Registered Care Plan for any Aboriginal child placed for adoption. The Cultural Plan requires thorough Aboriginal consultation and sets out the ways in which the child with remain connected to their culture and community.

Q14. How many Family Action Plans (preservation) were made in 2017-18? (a) Of these how many resulted in family preservation? (b) Guardianship? (c) Adoption? (d) Care of the Minister?

I am advised that Family Action Plans are not currently part of standard routine reporting and data is therefore not available.

Q16. How many case reviews in 2018-19 have considered the potential for successful restoration?

I am advised:
In accordance with legislation, determining whether a child can be safely restored to their family is always considered when a child first comes into care. In line with policy, case plan reviews must occur annually for all children and where appropriate the case plan goal may change.

Q19. How many intensive family preservation support packages were provided to Aboriginal families following restoration in 201 8-19?

I am advised:
Information about the number of Aboriginal children and young people receiving an intensive family preservation service is published annually. Data for 2018-19 will be released in 2020. Data for previous years is available in the FACS Statistical Report here.

Q20. What is the incentive-based pricing structure and amount for out-of-home-care NGO contracts with respect to family preservation? (a) Restoration? (b) Guardianship? (c) Adoption?

I am advised information on pricing is available here. This information is available at the following location on the Department's external site.

Q21. How many referrals to early legal advice were made by FACS in 2017-18 and 2018-19?

I am advised:
DCJ provides a variety of support services to families across its portfolio areas. While the number of referrals to early legal advice cannot be drawn from our databases the department works with Legal Aid NSW in Alternate Dispute Resolutions, adoption matters, and a variety of legal contexts, including Victims Services.

22. How many children in NSW had case plans in NSW in 2017-18? (a) How many of these had a goal of family preservation? (b) Restoration? (c) Guardianship? ( d) Adoption? (e) Long term care?

I am advised:
All accredited out of home care providers are required to case plan for children annually. Case plans. All plans are required to include information about the appropriate permanency goal for the child.

Q23. How many children in NSW had case plans in NSW in 2018-19? (a) How many of these had a goal of family preservation? (b) Restoration? (c) Guardianship? (d) Adoption? (e) Long term care?

I am advised: All accredited out of home care providers are required to case plan for children annually. Case plans. All plans are required to include information about the appropriate permanency goal for the child.

Q24. How many care applications have been made to the court since 4 February 2019?

I am advised that there have been approximately 623 initiating care applications filed in the NSW Children's Court since 4 February 2019.

Q25. How many Family Group Conferences have taken place prior to an application to the court for care orders since 4 February 2019? (s 37(1A)- Requirement for ADR prior to care application took effect from 4 February 2019)

I am advised:
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a term used to describe a variety of different processes used by the Department of Communities and Justice including Family Group Conferencing. A range of ADR mechanisms can be used by Department of Communities and Justice practitioners including:

• Family Group Conferencing (facilitated by a Communities and Justice family group conferencing facilitator)
• Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) (facilitated by Legal Aid or a Family Dispute Resolution Service)
• Care and Protection Mediation (facilitated by Legal Aid)
• Mediation (facilitated by a Community Justice Centre mediator)
• Private mediation (facilitated by an accredited mediator - this could be a mediator chosen or agreed to by the family).

Data on forms of ADR other than family group conferencing is not currently available but will be reported following modifications to Open Practice and ChildStory by end 2019. Since 4 February 2019 until end August 2019, 54 Family Group Conferences have taken place prior to an application to the court.

Q26. How many children received an annual review of their case plan in 2017-18? 2018-19? (a) In how many of these did the child actively participate in the review? (b) In how many of these to the parents actively participate in the review?

I am advised:
Annual case planning is a requirement of all accredited out of home care providers. Children and young people, their families and the people caring for them must be given opportunities to participate in case planning processes. Data for 17 /18 is not available. Data for 2018-19 is not yet available.

Q27. How many guardianship orders have been made by consent in 2018-19 (a) How many of these relate to Aboriginal children?

I am advised: This data is not currently available.

Q29. How many applications were made for adoption in NSW in 2018-19?

I am advised:
DCJ does not hold the entirety of this information, the full data set would need to be provided by the Supreme Court of NSW. Information relating to adoption data can be found here.

Q30. How many adoptions were there in NSW in 2018-19?

I am advised: There were 134 out of home care adoptions were made in NSW in 2018/19. For further data relating to all adoptions, please visit here.

Q31. How many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in NSW were adopted in 2018-19?

I am advised: There were 7 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children or young people adopted in NSW in 2018-19.

Family Functional Therapy and Their Futures Matter (pp. 1 – 2)

Q32. Family Functional Therapy (FFI) was developed in the US to reduce delinquency, criminal behaviour and illicit drug use in young people. What evidence base does the NSW government have that this model is effective with families with children at risk of removal and families affected by domestic violence?

I am advised that the NSW Government provides funding for the Stronger Families, Better Communities project, which provides Functional Family Therapy for families with adolescents who use violence.

https://www.women.nsw.gov.au/commissioning/domestic-and-family-violence-innovation-fund/domestic-and-family-violence-innovation-fund-round-2

Q33. How much did it cost the NSW government in 2017-18 and 2018-19 to rollout FFT - Child Welfare (FFT-CW) across NSW? (a) What are the program's projected costs for 2019-20 and 2020-21?

NOTE: There does not seem to be an answer provided for this question.

Q35. The 2019-20 NSW Budget Children and Families facts sheet announced a $166.5 million commitment to Their Futures Matter. (a) What was the actual spend in 2018-19 for the overall Their Futures Matter budget by program?

I am advised that as part of the 2016-17 Budget, the NSW Government committed an additional $190 million over four years to respond to the David Tune's Independent Review of Out of Home Care in New South Wales What are the 2019-20 funding allocations for the overall Their Futures Matter budget by program, including forward estimates?

• Review of the Disability Inclusion Act 2014: pp. 59–60 (Penny Sharpe)
• Royal Commission into abuse, neglect of people with a disability, concerns over Commissioners’ conflicts of interest and funding for advocacy and victims support: p. 59 (Penny Sharpe)
• Funding for disability advocacy organisations and the Stand By Me campaign: pp. 62-65 (Abigail Boyd)
• Funding for and powers of the NSW Disability Commissioner: pp. 65–66 (Abigail Boyd)
• Transition to NDIS: p. 102 (Penny Sharpe)
• State funding for the AbilityLinks disability inclusion program: pp. 56-58 (Penny Sharpe); pp. 103-104 (Penny Sharpe)

• Who is responsible for Domestic Violence within government and how the issue is being addressed by government: p.39 (Penny Sharpe)
• Women requiring temporary accommodation due to domestic or family violence: pp. 45-47 (Rose Jackson and Penny Sharpe)

• The effect of the 1.75% indexation being paid to community services being lower that the amount required under the Social and Community Services Equal Remuneration Order (SACS ERO), and the impact that will have on services: pp. 36-38 (Penny Sharpe); p. 40 (David Shoebridge); pp. 86-87 (Penny Sharpe)
• NGO service contracts and commissioning, including timeframes for commissioning where service contracts are due to expire in June 2020, and the how commissioning will be approached in future, particularly in relation to universal services: pp. 70-71
• How data is being used to inform service commissioning and delivery and service investment: pp. 71–73
• Engagement with peaks on service commissioning: p. 74 (David Shoebridge)

• NSW Homelessness Strategy (p. 47, Rose Jackson), Link2Home and the HOST program housing/homelessness (pp. 96–97, Rose Jackson)
• Public housing maintenance and tenant safety, and transfer requests: pp. 90–94 (Abigail Boyd)
• Public housing waiting lists: p. 92 (Abigail Boyd)

• Youth justice, including responsibility for funding youth justice initiatives within the new departmental structure; what is being done to ensure young offenders are not housed with adult offenders – including the age at which it is appropriate to transfer young offenders (noting youth justice is responsible for offenders up to the age of 21); the number of young offenders on remand and the response to violent incidents in Juvenile Justice centres in NSW: pp. 47-51 (Rose Jackson, Penny Sharpe and David Shoebridge)
• Staff numbers/ratios, staff training and incidences of self-harm and rates of mental illness in juvenile justice facilities, diversion programs and average length of stay in JJ: pp. 77-82 (Rose Jackson, Penny Sharpe, David Shoebridge)
• Numbers of children on remand in NSW, including for technical breach of bail: p. 82 (David Shoebridge)
• Rates of Aboriginal incarceration in youth justice facilities and strategies to reduce over-representation of Aboriginal youth in JJ: pp. 82-83 (David Shoebridge)
• Access to drug and alcohol services in JJ: pp. 83- 84 (David Shoebridge)
• Diversion and education programs, recidivism rates, strip searches conducted in youth justice facilities in 2018-19: pp. 98-100 (Rose Jackson)
• Disturbances in youth justice facilities: p. 105 (Rose Jackson)

The Greens and Labor submitted supplementary questions provided by CLCs on:

• Child protection statistics and outcomes, including questions by WLS on the numbers of case reviews, Family Action Plans, family preservation support packages, referrals to early legal advice, adoptions, etc (p. 2-5) and questions by EELC on Family Functional Therapy (p. 5)
• Their Futures Matter (p. 5, pp. 8-9)
• Funding indexation for FACS funded services (p. 15)
• Aboriginal services (p. 18)
• Intensive Family-Based services (p. 18)
• Ageing and Disabilities Commissioner (pp. 46-47)
• Ability Links and funding for disability advocacy services (pp. 47-48)

• Hearing transcript
• Questions on notice (full transcript, questions taken on notice highlighted in yellow)
• Supplementary questions (answers due by Monday, 30 September)

Context

The over imprisonment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is an issue of national significance. The manner in which Aboriginal people are policed is one factor that contributes to this significant issue. For many people, arrests for technical breach of bail, mean that they will spend many nights in custody for offences for which they will never receive a custodial sentence. In this way, arrests for technical breach of bail increase the imprisonment of young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Section 77 of the Bail Act 2013, which replaced section 50 of the Bail Act 1978, gives police a number of options when they suspect someone has breached their bail, including to issue them with a warning, or a court attendance notice, as well as to arrest them and bring them before a court. As well as being arrested because they have committed a new offence, individuals can be arrested for what is just a ‘technical breach’, such as breaching their curfew, or living at a different address.

BOCSAR have released several research reports recently on arrests for breach of bail, the remand population and the contribution of remand to individuals receiving sentences, where they might not have otherwise.

It appears, however, difficult to understand the true extent of this issue because police do not collect complete data on the actions they take when someone is suspected of breaching their bail.

In addition, the failure of NSW Police to consider alternatives to arrest for a suspected breach of bail may leave them open to civil action where a person was not actually in breach of their bail but was suspected of being so because information from the Courts was not transferred properly to the police database. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre brought an action on behalf of young people falsely arrested for breach of bail that settled in 2016 with over $2million being paid in compensation to the young people. We continue to receive referrals in relation to people who have been arrested for breach of bail, where they were not actually in breach.

Summary of hearing proceedings

David Shoebridge and Rose Jackson asked questions on:

• Strip searches, including questions based on the Redfern Legal Centre/UNSW report: pp. 7-11, 59–60, 82-83, and 87
• STMPs: pp. 63-64, 96
• Breach of bail, including technical breach of bail: pp. 96-98

David Shoebridge submitted supplementary questions on:

• Strip searches in 2018/19: p. 30
• Drug dog ticket removal: p. 32
• STMP (provided by PIAC): p. 33
• Breach of bail, including technical breach of bail (provided by PIAC): p. 33
• Criminal Infringement Notices (CINs): p. 34

Breach of bail (pp. 9-11)

Q16. In 2018, how many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were arrested for a technical breach of bail only, that is, a breach of bail that involved no further offending?

I am advised:
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has a record of 4,821 distinct people proceeded to court for a breach of bail only* in 2018. Of these 4,821 people, 1,941 were identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, 2,813 were identified as nonAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people and 67 had an unknown Aboriginality status. * These people had court proceedings for breach of bail and no other court proceedings for offences with the same offence date as the bail breach. Attorney General and Prevention of Domestic Violence 10

Q17. In 2018, how many non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were arrested for technical breach of bail only, that is, a breach of that involved no further offending?

I am advised:
Please see the answer to Supplementary Question 16.

Q18. In 2018, how many young people under 18 were arrested for a technical breach of bail only?

I am advised:
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has records of 647 distinct young people aged under 18 proceeded to court for a breach of bail only* in 2018. * These people had court proceedings for breach of bail and no other court proceedings for offences with the same offence date as the bail breach.

Q19. In 2018, how many children under 14 were arrested for a technical breach of bail only?

I am advised:
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has records of 66 distinct young people aged under 14 proceeded to court for a breach of bail only* in 2018. * These people had court proceedings for breach of bail and no other court proceedings for offences with the same offence date as the bail breach. Attorney General and Prevention of Domestic Violence 11

Q20. In 2018, how many people did NSW Police issue warnings for breach of bail to?

I am advised:
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has a record of 20 juveniles receiving a warning under the Young Offenders Act 1997 for a breach of bail conditions in 2018.

Q21. Do NSW Police collect data with respect to the different actions taken by police with respect to suspected breaches of bail?

Answer This question should be directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

Breach of bail (pp. 59-61)

Q229. In 2018, how many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were arrested for a technical breach of bail only, that is, a breach of bail that involved no further offending?

I am advised 1025.

Q230. In 2018, how many non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were arrested for technical breach of bail only, that is, a breach of that involved no further offending?

I am advised: 3093.

231. In 2018, how many young people under 18 were arrested for a technical breach of bail only?

I am advised: 710.

234. Do NSW Police collect data with respect to the different actions taken by police with respect to suspected breaches of bail?

I am advised: Yes.

235. At the November 2017 Budget Estimates Commissioner Fuller spoke to about a trial regarding individuals being able to record two addresses for the purposes of their bail conditions. Have NSW Police implemented this policy state-wide now?

I am advised:
This question is best directed to the Attorney-General.

236. Have any other programs or policies been implemented to address the issue of arrests for breach of bail and its contribution to the over incarceration of Aboriginal people?

I am advised:
NSWPF has been and continues to be a member of the Aboriginal Over-Representation Steering Committee within the Stronger Communities cluster including ALS (NSW/ACT). The 'Reducing Aboriginal Over-representation in the Criminal Justice System 2018 - 2020' has been developed and implemented. NSWPF, under the plan, has implemented the Dubbo Bail Project in which flexible bail conditions are set with a view to reducing the number of breaches of bail. The plan tasks all Stronger Communities cluster agencies with responsibility for implementation of a raft of other strategies aimed at reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the Police and Emergency Services – answers to supplementary questions 61 justice system. If successful, the Bail Project may be extended to other commands. Priority 3 of the NSWPF 'Aboriginal Strategic Direction 2018 - 2023' highlights the need for police to consider diversionary options specifically to reduce the over-representation issue, e.g. Protected Admissions.

237. In 2018, how many individuals were arrested for breach of bail, when they were not actually in breach of their bail?

I am advised: This information is not available.

Strip searches (pp. 50-51, 57)

Q176. What training is provided at police academy about appropriate methods to carry out strip searches?

I am advised:
All sessions of the ADPP include theory, practical learning and examinations in relation to person searches (including strip searches). At the Academy, powers are revised and reinforced in each lesson during the program. Students are required to pass a 'powers examination' directly linked to LEPRA use at the end of sessions 1 and 2 with a 100% pass mark. During the period as probationary constables in Commands, students are assessed by the FTAO, EDO and their Commander in relation to operational policing incidents. They also undertake a practical assessment where the Probationary Constable has to show competence in the task and use of powers. This is a PASS/FAIL competency.

Q177. When will the Lessons Learnt Unit- internal report - about ‘strip searches’ – November 2018 be made publicly available?

I am advised:
The internal report authored by the Lessons Learned Unit in November 2018 on strip searches is not appropriate for public release. The NSWPF has recently updated its Standard Operating Procedures that relate to strips searches and are incorporated into the Police Handbook.

Q178. How many strip searches were carried out by police in 2018/19?

• Of these, how many were following a drug dog indication?
• Of the strip searches carried out:
• How many found a traffickable quantity of drugs?
• How many found a personal use quantity of drugs>
• How many found something else that constituted an offence? 

I am advised:
Statistics on strip searches is available on the NSW Police website.

Q179. Of the strip searches following a drug dog indication:

• How many found a traffickable quantity of drugs?
• How many found a personal use quantity of drugs?
• How many found something else that constituted an offence?
• Please refer to the answer to Supplementary Question 178.

Q180. How many strip search/privacy tents do the NSW Police Force have?

I am advised: The Privacy and Dignity Rules for All Person Searches within the NSWPF Person Search Manual states that Police should conduct the search in a way that provides reasonable privacy for the person searched. When person searches are conducted in large events/planned operations, Police utilise facilities available/provided by the event organisers - be it a room or a marquee for the purposes of privacy when required to conduct person searches.

Q217. How many people have been denied entry to music events and festivals following false positive searches following sniffer dog indications?

I am advised: NSW Police Force currently does not collect such data to identify whether a person was denied entry to a festival, following a drug dog indication.

Context

The Suspect Targeting Management Plan (STMP) is a secret police policy that identifies and targets individuals suspected of being at risk of committing crimes. The policy is not publicly available, it has never been evaluated, and young people subject to it have no way of knowing why they are on it or how to be removed. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and young people are over-represented on the STMP. In 2017 the Youth Justice Coalition published a report on the impact of the STMP on young people.

In the November 2017 Budget Estimates, Commissioner Fuller advised that the youngest children subject to an STMP were one nine-year-old and two ten-year-olds. He further advised that over 50% of the targets on the STMP at that time were Aboriginal.

At the NSW Parliament’s Inquiry into the adequacy of youth diversionary programs in NSW in May 2018, Assistant Commissioner Cassar stated that youth diversion was a priority for the NSW Police Force. He advised that no child under the age of 12 years could be placed on the STMP without approval at the Assistant Commissioner level, and that every alternative would be explored before doing so. Assistant Commissioner Cassar also advised that Commissioner Fuller wants to see a move towards a higher age bracket of 13 or 14 years. In June 2018, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission announced that it was undertaking a review into the use of the STMP with respect to young people under 18.

Summary of hearing proceedings

• The NSW Greens (David Shoebridge and Rose Jackson) asked questions on:
  • Strip searches, including questions based on the Redfern Legal Centre/UNSW report pp. 7-11, pp. 59 – 60, pp. 82-83, pg. 87
  • STMPs, pp. 63-64, pg. 96
  • Breach of bail, including technical breach of bail, pp. 96-98
• The NSW Greens (David Shoebridge) submitted supplementary questions on:
  • Strip searches in 2018/19, pg. 30
  • Drug dog ticket removal, pg. 32
  • STMP (provided by PIAC), pg. 33
  • Breach of bail, including technical breach of bail (provided by PIAC), pg. 33
  • Criminal Infringement Notices (CINs), pg. 34

Answers to Questions on Notice

Question (pg. 75 David Shoebridge): Can you provide a copy of the Suspect Target Management Plan (STMP) operating guidelines?

I am advised:
The NSWPF cannot release the Suspect Target Management Plan (STMP) Framework and related documents because they contain detailed methodology and information police use to identify and engage with repeat offenders.

Question (pg. 75, David Shoebridge): How many children, if any, under the age of 12 have been the subject of an STMP since November 2017?

I am advised: No children were under the age of 12 when an STMP case was initiated.

Question (pg. 104, David Shoebridge): At what age is an Assistant Commissioner required to assess minors subject to STMPS (12 or 14)?

I am advised:
In April 2018, an Intel Note was released in relation to STMP nominations of POIs 12 years and under. The Intel Note required that all STMP nominations for POIs 12 years and under require assessment and approval from the Assistant Commissioner, Capability, Performance and Youth Command. The Intel note stated that from 1 May 2018 if a command nominated a STMP aged 12 and under, all supporting documentation should be sent to Y&CP Command for review and final approval by the Commander (Assistant Commissioner) CPYC. In October 2018, the Intel Note was updated to apply to YPs under the age of 14 years. Further documentation was distributed state-wide from 13 August 2018 that all Commands were to comply with the new (age) criteria. On 22 October 2018, Assistant Commissioner disseminated further correspondence to all Commanders and Directors advising of the previous Intel Note and asking for them to reinforce with relevant commands.

Answers to Supplementary Questions

Q222. How any people are currently subject to an STMP?

I am advised: As at 3 September 2019, 325.

Q223. What proportion of those individuals subject to the STMP are Aboriginal?

I am advised: There is no identifying information specific to the STMP case creation.

Q224. Since November 2017, how many children under the age of 12 have been subject to the STMP?

I am advised: None.

Q225. Since November 2017, how many children under the age of 14 have been subject to the STMP?

I am advised: 9.

Q226. Since November 2017, how many children under the age of 18 have been subject to the STMP?

I am advised: 224.

Q227. Does the Commander for Youth, Commissioner Cassar, now review all children under the age of 14 proposed to be subject to an STMP, or only those under 12?

I am advised: Yes, all STMP proposals for persons under the age of 14.

Q228. Since November 2017, have any amendments been made to the manner in which STMP targets are identified and targeted?

I am advised: The STMP policy and guidelines are updated as necessary to ensure they aligned to best practice and suit the needs of the NSW Police Force and community.

• Hearing transcript
• Questions on Notice
• Supplementary Questions

There is not much of direct relevance to CLCs in the hearing transcript.

Supplementary questions:

• Supplementary questions relating to Aboriginal Affairs are on pp. 45-53
• Treaties, pg. 46 (David Shoebridge)
• Government’s response to Aboriginal incarceration rates: p. 46 (David Shoebridge)
• Coronial inquests into Aboriginal deaths in custody: pp. 47-49 (Mark Buttigeig)
• Aboriginal Legal Service funding: p. 52 (Mark Buttigeig)
• Stolen generation payouts: p. 52 (Mark Buttigeig)

• Hearing transcript
• Questions on notice (full transcript with questions taken on notice highlighted in yellow)
• Supplementary Questions (answers due by 25 September):

Note: questions were predominantly answered by Stephen Brady from Revenue NSW.

• What processes Revenue NSW has in place for ensuring its staff comply with the Fines Act: p. 64
• Whether Revenue NSW uses private debt collection agencies, how many, what policies they are subject to, and how they are paid: pp. 65-66
• Whether Revenue NSW accesses private credit databases and for what purposes: p. 66
• Relationship between Service NSW and Revenue NSW in the administration and ‘customer service’ around fines: p. 66
• Fines statistics for 2018/19, including number of penalty notices issues, revenue raised, resolution rates, amounts written off etc. Stephen Brady provided the following responses:
  • Penalty notices (pp. 68-69)
    • 2,989,833 issued
    • 949,427 enforced
    • Face value of penalty notices issued: $772,961,321
    • $42.7 million (or 6.6% of total fines receivable) written off (compared to $30.9 million or 4.7% written off in 2017-18). Stephen Brady took a question about the reason for the increase on notice, but did note there was a large volume of electoral notices received last financial year
  • Average resolution rate
  • Enforcement (pp. 70-72)
    • Confirmed enforcement actions include imposing additional fees ($65), suspending licenses, cancelling registrations. Took on notice questions about the total $$ value of additional fees imposes, licences suspended, registrations cancelled, businesses terminated etc.
    • Confirmed that Revenue NSW has the power to seize and auction property and to garnishee people’s wages and bank accounts for non-payment. Took on notice questions about the number of people subject to these powers and the number of times the powers were utilised.
    • Confirmed that Revenue NSW uses the bank account garnishee powers more extensively than the wages garnishee power.
    • Confirmed the Sheriff is responsible for property seizures. Took on notice questions about the number of seizures last year and how much Revenue NSW paid the Sherriff for services.
    •  
    • Confirmed that Revenue NSW does not collect demographic data about people against whom enforcement action is taken.
  • Work development orders (WDO) (pp. 72)
    • Took on notice questions about the number of people on WDOs, the number of NGOs registered with the program and which NGOs participate
    • Confirmed that Revenue NSW does not maintain demographic data on WDOs either
    • Confirmed that NGOs report on compliance to Revenue NSW. If someone breaches a WDO, the order is cancelled, the person is in deemed in default on their fine and enforcement action proceeds
• Interaction between fines collection, the criminal justice system and mass-incarceration of First Nations people: p. 74
  • Stephen Brady confirmed that Revenue NSW does not maintain specific demographic analysis on the interaction of Indigenous peoples with the fines system, ‘because it is not necessary for someone to identify whether they are Aboriginal or not.’
  • Noted that Revenue NSW has not been asked to be involved in law reform in this area, but that they are interested in understanding what more they can do to support Aboriginal people and youth in particular.
  • Took on notice a question about what specific work Revenue NSW will embark on in this space later this year.
• Government agencies Revenue NSW provides debt collection services for, pp. 75-76
  • Stephen Brady noted Revenue NSW collects fines on behalf of some local councils (parking fines, library fines), the Ambulance Service, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (workers compensation, non-compliance), Fair Trading, Safe Work, Fire and Rescue, the Point to Point Commission (the private operators transport levy), and is about to start working with IPART.
  • Took on notice questions about what specific work Revenue NSW is doing for SIRA and local councils, and how much they are paid for this work.
• The private transport operators levy: pp. 76–77
• Payroll tax, including final collection rates, amounts received and outstanding, amounts written off, number of audits, number of disputed assessments, number of disputes lodged with NCAT etc: pp. 77-79

• Hearing transcript
• Questions on Notice
• Supplementary Questions

• Links between domestic violence and animal abuse: pp. 45-47 and 66 (Emma Hurst)
• Premier’s Priority on domestic and family violence and abandonment of the 25% reduction in reoffending rates for reoffending, including BOCSAR’s recommendations in relation to the target: pp. 48-49 (Rose Jackson)
  • The Minister essentially stated that responsibility for DV sits with the AG
• Incorporation of the Change the Story framework (part of Our Watch) into the NSW Women’s Strategy: p. 49 (Rose Jackson)
• The government’s Regional Youth Strategy and regional taskforce: p. 50 (Rose Jackson)
• Gender pay gap statistics, why NSW is going backwards and the government’s response: pp. 50-51 (Emma Hurst)
• Investing in Women Funding Program: pp. 77-78 (Rose Jackson)
• Incarceration rates for women in NSW, including Aboriginal women, and what the government is doing to address increases: p. 80 (Rose Jackson)

• Hearing transcript
• Questions on Notice
• Supplementary Questions

• Hearing transcript
• Supplementary Questions

• Hearing transcript
• Supplementary Questions