Peter Condliffe PhD
Chair, AMDRAS

This post is the first in a four-part series as written by Peter Condliffe and based on his presentation in the Australian Dispute Resolution Association ‘International Mediation Conference’ on 15 August 2024 at Sydney.

The Australian system appears to be a unique industry-based system which allows for a common accreditation of mediators across a wide spectrum of professional disciplines. Furthermore, it is a decentralised and diverse system allowing for different styles of mediation whilst maintaining robust central standards for both initial and ongoing training. This latter aspect has been given more emphasis in the new AMDRAS system. The decentralisation of the Australian system makes it flexible in allowing for the cohabitation of the dispute resolution space by different species of practitioners and organizations which are widely divergent in their interests and social functions. The regulatory landscape of Australia provides for some legislative intervention in particular categories of disputes and dispute resolution which allows for a strong culture of private practice and referrals alongside a range of government run or funded services. These unique factors have caused a fusion of thought and practice which has positioned Australia as a country where mediation, and dispute resolution more generally, has matured and diversified under the rubric of a common set of core values. The combination of a decentralised system with adherence to a core set of principles has served the Australian community well since 2008 and will continue to do. Importantly, it will also fit more easily into trends identified in the international mediation field.

Background

As Nadja Alexander a Singapore based academic and an expert on comparative Australian and international conflict management systems stated in a recent paper,

“lf the 20th century was the arbitration century then this century, without a doubt, is the mediation century. The need for greater flexibility, diversity and accessibility in dispute resolution has challenged legal and arbitration systems and opened the door to dispute resolution mechanisms that feature co- operative, interest-based approaches to decision-making that can move easily across cultures…”

What Alexander concluded was that mediation as a process was increasingly the “process of choice” in international dispute resolution in the 1990s and, more recently, the legal instruments to regulate it. She argues that the growing internationalisation of mediation has led to a greater appreciation of diverse practice models and the cultural assumptions underpinning them. To her, and others, it is clear that mediation and other dispute resolution processes have both to be understood in both cultural and international contexts. This was something that the Mediator Standards Board (now the AMDRAS Board) also considered when, in 2019 it began to consider changes to the Australian accreditation system. As part of the tender process the contractor was asked to “…include a review of comparative international regulatory dispute resolution systems…”. It was clear that we had to place ourselves both in cultural and international contexts so as to better understand what we were undertaking.

At about the same time as the international context of mediation was changing in the 1990s my own professional practice took me into a number of pivotal experiences that informed how I think about the interaction of conflict management processes, place and culture. The first was my experience in Cambodia in the 1990s as a United Nations Human Right worker and educator. Cambodia, at that time was a society where the rule of law and civil authority were minimal, and it impacted upon the ways in which its members managed conflict. This experience had a significant impact on me and pricked my interest particularly in restorative justice processes but also how conflict is managed in different cultural contexts. There is one incident that was particularly informative and that was to do with the murder of a “witch” in a town called Sisophon in the then wilds of north-west Cambodia. She practised her craft in a nearby village. Unfortunately, the village had experienced some unexpected bad luck, which resulted in several deaths and illnesses. The relatives of the victims blamed the witch. They decided that the best course of action was to kill her. They approached the headman of the village with their plan and he approved. The unfortunate witch was killed.

The police were called in. Rather than arresting the suspects, the police called a meeting of the witch’s aggrieved relatives and the perpetrators. The meeting was held to discuss compensation to the witch’s relatives. This done, the matter was closed. Presumably, the police and the headman both received a share of the proceeds.

No attempt was made to bring the perpetrators of the crime to justice. No formal charges were laid. It was as if the State of Cambodia with its panoply of Western-style laws did not exist. The idea that the State may have an interest in these events was not contemplated or, if it were, it was an interest of very low priority. The very idea of ‘crime’ was different here. These events reminded of similar stories from the medieval Europe.

This was only one of a large number of instances that came to my attention where Cambodian citizenry and officials reached their own solutions to problems and conflicts. The desire to engage in ‘self-help’ or third-party interventions outside the formal legal system was widespread. The killing of “witches” in Cambodia appeared to be common, as I came across a number of prisoners described in the official records as ‘witch killers’.

Unlike our concept of public wrongs, which entitles the State to interfere in the lives of its citizens, the fate of the witch of Sisophon was determined by proto-State concepts of private and communal interests. The definition of crime was not the prerogative of the State but that of the people directly involved and according to their local customs. In Cambodia, even today there is often little understanding of, or perceived need for, a high-level justice system to protect citizens from often authoritarian or fearsome regimes. The rhythm of life beats to a different drum. Conflict and its various manifestations are perceived and dealt with differently in this society than they are others or in our own. In other words the context in which conflict and social wrongs occurs is critical to the form and function of processes engaged to deal with them.

The second major influence upon me was the work of John Paul Lederach whom I first encountered in the 1990s when I began to teach conflict management courses. Lederach argues that understanding conflict requires an understanding of the culture of a group. Lederach interprets culture to mean the shared knowledge schemes created by a set of people for perceiving, interpreting, expressing and responding to social realities around them. By comparing dispute processes in various cultures he provides clear examples of how dispute managers go through similar functions or phases but the form of these may vary widely.

The third was my contact with First Nations approaches to conflict which I began to be involved in as a mediator in the 1990s in Queensland. What I found through this experience was that my presumptions about mediation process and functions needed to be significantly adapted to this different cultural milieu. More recently some research partly funded by the AMDRAS Board and managed by Professor Tania Sourdin of Newcastle University has clearly indicated these differences and the inadequacy of our understanding of them. The key questions this research, and others like it poses, is how do we better understand indigenous systems of conflict management and how can we both adapt to them and engage them. This has been and still is a particular challenge for our national mediation accreditation system. So, what is this Australian accreditation system?

Author Biography

Peter is a Barrister, qualified teacher and mediator. He has also been previously employed in several management and human rights roles including with the United Nations. He is an experienced teacher presenting courses in universities and other organizations. His book “Conflict Management: A Practical Guide” (Lexis Nexis, 2019, 6th Ed.) is well known to many dispute resolution practitioners and negotiators with a 7th edition to be published in 2025. He is Chair of the Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards Board (formerly the Mediator Standards Board) and has served as a Director since 2019 holding positions as Secretary and Convenor of the Research and Review Committees. As well he was the initial drafter of mediation courses for the Dispute Resolution Centres of Victoria; Department of Justice (QLD); the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators (IAMA – now part of the Resolution Institute) and the Victorian Bar. He is the Principal Instructor in the Victorian Bars’ Lawyers Mediation Certificate which is a specialist course for lawyer mediators. He was the founding President of The Victorian Association for Restorative Justice and is Deputy Chair, ADR Committee of the Victorian Bar, Deputy-President, Council of the Ageing (Vic.), and Member, Senior Rights Victoria Advisory Committee.