Peter Condliffe PhD
Chair, AMDRAS

This post is the fourth 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.

Where Does Australia Sit in the International Dispute Resolution Field?

The research conducted for the MSB, referred to above, used several key indicators for establishing a comparison between a number of jurisdictions: Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Honk Kong, United Kingdom, USA and also against the multi-national International Mediation Institutes system. These indicators were:

• Regulation of Mediation
• Accreditation Systems
• Mediation Style
• Specialisations

Let me deal with each of these aspects in turn.

Regulation

What the researchers concluded was that Australia sits approximately “in the middle” of regulatory regimes. They contrast Australia with the Italian legislated system which mandates areas where mediation may be conducted and also with the UK and USA systems where mediation is largely unregulated. Australia, like all of these jurisdictions does have civil procedure rules that promote the use of dispute resolution and dispute resolution processes. However, what is noteworthy about both Australia and New Zealand jurisdictions is that they do legislate for the use of conciliation across a range of conflict areas and for dispute resolution processes in family law matters. In Australia family dispute resolution practitioners (FDRPs) are required to have obtained certain qualifications and be registered to practice in that field. This is contrasted with the situation in Singapore where judges take a proactive approach in managing family disputes where they can appoint anyone to act as mediator as there are no legislative requirements for mediator qualifications. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Hong Kong, maintain registers or panels of family mediators, but again without any legislative scheme for the requirements of mediators.

In Australia likewise many conciliation schemes require certain qualifications for practice including mediation (NMAS) accreditation in many instances. Our own review research showed that most conciliators reported that they followed a “mediation” type process.

Accreditation

In reference to accreditation all of the mediator accreditation systems analysed require training (usually a five-day course) with an assessment and application process. There are national mediator accreditation systems in Australia, Hong Kong and Italy. Hong Kong and Italy operate centralised accreditation systems (Hong Kong Mediation Accreditation Association Limited (HKMAAL) and the Italian Ministry of Justice, respectively), while Australia has a decentralised system through Registered Mediator Accreditation Bodies (RMABs). However, in other countries, accreditation systems are generally managed by professional organisations, which each have their own standards. Therefore, the credibility or status of accreditation in these latter countries is organization and often discipline dependent.

Mediation Style

In relation to mediation style there appears to be a consensus among jurisdictions that mediation standards either do not presume a particular style of mediation or presume the facilitative style of mediation. It is clear that the “definition” of mediation in NMAS could be regarded as a facilitative one. However these Standards also allowed for a “blended process” which could involve the giving of advice. They also allowed for conciliation to be recognised as part of a mediators practice. In other words, the Australian system allows for some flexibility in mediation style. This seems to be replicated in other jurisdiction New Zealand and the European Union. There has been a slight change under the new AMDRAS regime where facilitative mediation is preferred as the training model for accreditation and is not defined but rather described. This is coupled with the adoption of a broad-based outline of professional practice called the “four professional domains” which are outlined in detail in Part V of the AMDRAS standards. These provide a much more wholistic description of mediation practice than one limited to a definition.

There were several reasons for this preference for a definition. Like Boulle I find the use of definitions for mediation (and other dispute resolution practices) problematical in that a definition is like a picture of a dancer on a wall. It gives you a static glimpse of something but does not allow for the spontaneity, fluidity and improvisations that a real dancer may go through. I also note that NADRAC, when it provided a comprehensive glossary of dispute resolution terms in 2003, suggested that it is better to describe rather than define such terms. Also, an expert legal drafter that the MSB used to provide advice upon an early draft of the revised standards advised against providing a definition because it could potentially add to liability problems for mediators both in terms of process and outcomes.

The AMDRAS standards provides therefore, in effect, for a range of mediation type practices in acknowledgement that this is how practice is done. My view is that it is generally best to teach a facilitative model in initial mediation training to equip mediators with a wide and inclusive variety of skills but fame in against the reality of actual practice. This realistically reflects the increasing diversity in mediation practice both domestically and internationally.

Specialisations

Regulatory attempts to allow for specialisation seem to be limited globally. In Australia conciliation is historically regarded as distinct from mediation and there is interest in developing it as a specialisation. A report by ADRAC in 2021 showed that over 100 pieces of legislation prescribe conciliation as part of a dispute resolution process. This Report attempted to discern separate definitional and operational domains for conciliation. However, I agree with Professor Laurence Boulle’s 2022 critique that the ADRAC’s attempt to define conciliation so as to differentiate it from mediation is not convincing and instead demonstrates a considerable number of similarities and overlaps. He argues that “…definitionally, practically and professionally…” attempts to differentiate the two “twins”, as he termed the processes, are undermined by the diversity inherent in both. Also, it is my view that attempts by certain groups organisations to promote this differentiation is and will be counterproductive and goes against both practice trends and wider developments internationally. It was notable that the initial research for the review of the standards commissioned by the MSB, demonstrated that most conciliators tend to use the same process as mediators and seek the same CPD activities as mediators. The context of practice is obviously important as most conciliation is conducted under regulatory schemes where they have a legislated right or obligation to ensure compliance with the scheme. This distinction between the two processes does not seem to be as apparent in other jurisdictions outside Australia. Further, it is clear that internationally the trend is to incorporate conciliation within the rubric of mediation.

It is noted that the Singapore Convention, which Australia is a party to, has adopted a more inclusive terminology by formally incorporating a number of processes within the term “mediation.” It is also worth noting that whilst UNCITRAL introduced conciliation rules in 1980 these were amended in 2018 to become the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation. The UNCITRAL model law offers member and non-member states a regulatory model for adoption, with or without amendment, into their domestic legislation. The change in nomenclature from “conciliation” to “mediation” is not insignificant and reflects the international trends towards the latter. One could also, amongst others, note the EU Mediation Directive on Civil and Commercial Aspects of Mediation. This Directive establishes a regulatory framework within which EU member states are required to address aspects of crossborder civil and commercial mediation law throughout the European Union.

What AMDRAS does now is to allow for the possibility of specialisations where a practitioner is both registered as an accredited mediator and “….has met the criteria of specialist accreditation specified from time to time by the Board.” The AMDRAS Board may act on its own motion, or on application from a relevant organisation or organisations for recognition under AMDRAS of a Specialist Dispute Resolution program which the organisation/s administers. The criteria, including CPD and practice requirements, once set by the Board will be published as an addendum to the Standards. This would provide an avenue for specialisations within the dispute resolution field to seek and apply national standards. It potentially addresses some of the developmental issues occurring in the field and would, for example, allow national recognition of international mediation, online dispute resolution, conciliation, elder mediation and family dispute resolution programs and processes.

As noted, the new AMDRAS provides a broad description, but not a definition, of mediation and dispute resolution which would encompass a variety of processes including conciliation just as the previous NMAS did. Further, it recognizes that mediators practice across a broad spectrum of non-determinative dispute resolution practices using a broad range of methodologies.

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.