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.

Peter Condliffe PhD
Chair, AMDRAS

This post is the third 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 Review

When in 2019 we started the review of the NMAS it was with one eye on international and cultural undercurrents that it may interact with it as noted above. Accordingly, Resolution Resources (RR), the independent contractor employed to do the initial research, provided the Board as part of its contracted wori a document titled, “Situating the Current NMAS Within the Broader Dispute Resolution Field: An International Comparative Analysis NMAS Review 2020- 21.”

When in 2019 we started the review of the NMAS it was with one eye on international and cultural undercurrents that it may interact with it as noted above. Accordingly, Resolution Resources (RR), the independent contractor employed to do the initial research, provided the Board as part of its contracted work a document titled, “Situating the Current NMAS Within the Broader Dispute Resolution Field: An International Comparative Analysis NMAS Review 2020- 21.”

More generally before and through the course of the review it had also become apparent to the Board that there were a number of issues with the system that required addressing including:

• How to respond to the emergence of disparate non-determinative dispute resolution practices (NDR) that could possibly benefit from access to an accreditation scheme.
• Issues in interpretation of the standards and interaction with public (website based) information.
• Constitutional arrangements around MSB membership which seemed to be moribund.
• A need for greater MSB oversight of training including the establishment of training objectives and attributes.
• The engagement with and involvement of indigenous communities.
• The lack of a structure for advancement and recognition of practice experience.
• The need for a clearer and accessible complaints mechanism for users of services.
• A lack of understanding in some areas of the dispute resolution community about the scope and advantages of a national system of accreditation

The review process involved extensive engagement and conversations with all MSB members, State and Commonwealth courts and tribunals, universities and training organisations, accredited and non-accredited mediators, and various other stakeholders across the dispute resolution community.

RR delivered its final report in the second half of 2022 which included a finding that, whilst the facilitative model of mediation remains a strong foundation, many accredited and nonaccredited mediators step outside of that model in their day-to-day practice. The research highlighted that the practice of mediation has evolved over time and developed a wide reach including to legal systems, workplaces, elder mediation, restorative justice processes and indigenous peacebuilding. It is because of these developments that the Board considered that there was a need to rewrite and further develop the standards to make them more up to date, more flexible and consistent with the perceived needs of those providing and practising in this field.

The research also found that there was a perceived need for greater clarity in the training requirements for accreditation and how, once accredited, mediators could seek further opportunities, if they desired, to seek more advanced levels of accreditation. The trainers engaged in training our mediators perhaps required some more guidance and the Board itself needed to ensure that those doing the training were accredited so that there was both some understanding of and commitment to the standards. Up until this time training as it developed under NMAS, in the sense of who did it and how it was delivered appeared ad hoc and piecemeal. In my view this has been an enduring weakness in the system.

Since the delivery of the research the MSB has spent significant time developing a revised set of national standards recognising these key findings whilst seeking to stay true to the original objects of the MSB. That is, to promote and maintain consistent and quality mediation training, accreditation and practice, primarily for reasons of consumer protection.

The new standards are structured in a way that will provide more guidance to stakeholders and the opportunity for the standards to continue to evolve alongside the practice of “dispute resolution” in Australia. I prefer the words “conflict management” but “dispute resolution” is a term more commonly in use. “Conflict management” is, in my view, a more inclusive term and provides a better framework for practice for the simple reason that while many conflicts cannot be resolved, most can be managed. Further, in many situations the generation or escalation of conflict is both an honourable and worthwhile objective if managed properly. So, while the aim of much conflict management is the resolution of that conflict, it is more realistic (and logical) to accept that this will not always be achievable, or even desirable, in some circumstances. In other words, the term avoids the possible assumption that to be successful or to have a positive outcome the conflict must be resolved.

In late 2023, a draft of the revised standards was published. What followed was an extensive consultation process, including a series of online presentations and Q&A sessions presented by MSB directors. The MSB also received and has since reviewed dozens of written responses from various stakeholders and dispute resolution practitioners as well as members. This feedback led to further amendments to the earlier draft, with the final version released on 1st May 202424. The box below outlines the major changes to the system.

Key Features of AMDRAS

• Facilitative mediation remains the foundation for initial training and accreditation but, as before, there is provision to allow accredited mediators to deliver other models.
• Mediation is described (but not defined) and four core “Professional Practice Domains” are defined and articulated to give a more rounded overview of what the knowledge and practice base of mediation encompasses. These are Professional Knowledge, Professional Skills, Professional Ethics and Responsibilities and Professional Development. These guide the development of key principles in the standards and through training delivery and continuing professional development.
• Initial training has been increased from 38 to 45 hours and ongoing training requirements have been further developed and clarified.
• The potential for specialisation have been introduced and it is expected that these specialisations will involve training additional and supplementary to the core training.
• Levels of accreditation are introduced, namely Accredited Mediator, Advanced Mediator and Leading Mediator, each with different practice and CPD requirements. Apart from the initial Accredited Mediator level these are voluntary and noncompulsory components of the system.
• A code of ethics is included for the first time.
• Training providers under AMDRAS will need to be registered.
• A model complaints management outline has been provided as an appendix to AMDRAS. This is based on a verified widely used model and intended as a guide to the minimum requirements for such a process.

In April 2024 the Board released a set of “transition rules.” The transitional provisions provided that all training and accreditation bodies would have a period of 12 months to transition from NMAS to AMDRAS. During this time existing RMABs and accredited mediators will be automatically re-registered under the new system with the opportunity to begin training and accrediting to the AMDRAS standards once the revised processes have been reviewed and approved by the Board. The transition period will begin on 1 July 2024 and last until 30 June 2025.

On 1st May 2024 the MSB published a series of guidelines for each of the major stakeholder groups (mediators, accreditation bodies and training providers). The Board, recognises that the transition from NMAS to AMDRAS will likely impact resourcing and requirements of all organisations involved in mediator training and accreditation. To this end the MSB has begun a review of this aspect.

The culmination of the review process and introduction of AMDRAS represents an important evolution of mediator accreditation, training and practice in the Australian dispute resolution landscape. The introduction of the possibility of developing specialisations within a national regulatory framework in an innovative development which will take some time to evolve and develop. Once settled and operating the system will hopefully continue to evolve and be adaptable to the changing requirements of a more diverse and complex environment.

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.

Peter Condliffe PhD
Chair, AMDRAS

This post is the second 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 Evolution of the Australian Way

The NMAS was a very Australian way of regulating practitioner training, skills development and registration. Since its commencement in 2008 it has, until this recent review, remained virtually static as the mediation field around it has evolved. But even after this review its four central core features of voluntariness and decentralisation, reflexiveness and responsiveness remains.

It relies on voluntary compliance by the accreditation bodies (formerly called Recognised Mediator Accreditation Bodies (RMABs) and now termed Recognised Accreditation Providers) that agree to accredit mediators in accordance with the requisite standard. Involvement in the system is not mandatory and is reliant upon voluntary compliance and membership.

It can be described as an industry based decentralised system where training (both initial and ongoing) as well as registration is conducted by a number of disparate organisations known as Recognised Mediator Accreditation Bodies (RMABs). In many ways it both mirrored and accommodated the Australian federal constitutional system which “spreads” various aspects of governance and administration across multiple representative parliaments and bodies to accommodate the needs of widely disparate but culturally contiguous geographical regions. This decentralized regulatory system is replicated in many parts of the Australian workplace and economy. In part this is a recognition of the vast distances involved but also of the protection of more localised interest groups.

At about the time the NMAS was formed in 2008 Nadja Alexander insightfully described it as a “self-regulatory” approach to regulation embodying reflexive and responsive approaches or theories. These terms she defines as:

“Responsiveness refers to collaboration between government and the group or collective being regulated. Reflexion means that actors have the opportunity to identify issues, reflect upon them and negotiate their own solutions. In their purest form self-regulatory approaches refer to community-based initiatives embracing collaborative, consultative and reflective processes, as distinct from top down policy regulation.”

If one looks at the foundation documents that relate to the formation of the NMAS one can see these core elements being engaged. The role of government seeding grants and reports published by affiliated government bodies associated with a groundswell from industry groups and mediators themselves came together to create the initial framework. It is a regulatory framework that contrasts with more highly centralised regulatory regimes in such disparate places as Hong Kong and Italy (the Hong Kong Mediation Accreditation Association Limited (HKMAAL) and the Italian Ministry of Justice, respectively) which Alexander would probably term a “formal legislative approach”. But it also can be contrasted with more open association market-based systems such as presently operating in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. In many ways it can be seen as a “middling approach” to regulation and compliance.

The provenance of this model went back, at least, to the year 2000 when a government affiliated advisory body known as the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) launched a discussion paper on “The Development of Standards for ADR” which formed the basis for consultation on this issue. This Report stated that:

“NADRAC proposes a framework for the development of standards for ADR, in which responsibility is shared across service providers, practitioners, and government and non-government organisations (Recommendation 1). It proposes the following strategies:

(i) Facilitate the ongoing development of standards at the sector, program and service provider level, in order to improve the quality of ADR practice and to enhance the credibility and capacity of the ADR field.

(ii) Implement particular standards, within a code of practice, in order to educate and protect consumers, and build consumer confidence in ADR processes.”

One can see in these initial proposals the genesis of the decentralised model. In March 2004, NADRAC released a further paper on mediator accreditation, “Who Says You’re a Mediator? Towards a National System for Accrediting Mediators”. The aim of this paper was to obtain information and to stimulate discussion in the lead‐up to a national workshop on mediation standards. Discussion on it was facilitated at the 7th National Mediation Conference in Darwin on 2 July 2004. With the help of a grant from the federal Attorney-General’s Department the Conference established a broad-based Committee to work on implementation and the establishment of the standards. Notably, for the system’s subsequent development this Committee was representative of the various industry sectors involved, reflected the geographic and disciplinary diversity of practitioners and included members who were suitably experienced in both the practice of mediation and its administration.

At a subsequent conference in 2006 the National Mediation Committee was then formed to attempt to move the proposal forward and to assist to draft standards and a system for mediator accreditation. However, this committee was not able to move the proposal forward and no accreditation system was established at this time. It was not until a further grant was obtained in 2007 by the Western Australian Dispute Resolution Association (WADRA) and a further period of consultation and refinement of the draft Standards made that they were finally operationalized at the beginning of 2008. Professor Tania Sourdin, the academic who conducted this second consultation, recommended and cemented in place the establishment of a voluntary industry system under which organisations that met certain criteria could accredit mediators. This has been a cornerstone of the system ever since. With the help of some more funding the National Mediator Accreditation Committee (NMAC) became the Mediator Standards Board in 2010.

In launching the MSB, his Honor Justice Murray Kellam AO, the then Chairman of NADRAC noted that Australia was the only country to have established a national scheme for mediator standards and accreditation and that the NMAS had ‘prompted the biggest transformation to the professional landscape in the history of mediation in Australia by providing an overarching, base level of accreditation for all mediators irrespective of their field of work.’ Whilst government seeding funds to initiate the NMAS had been obtained it was clear from the onset of these developments that the MSB would need to be wholly funded by RMABs and for practical purposes, by mediators seeking accreditation through RMABs. The MSB passed a significant milestone in 2015 when it successfully concluded a process of consultation and minor revision of the NMAS. The introduction of the new AMDRAS system represents the first significant review of the Standards.

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.

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.