Tag Archives: Dispute resolution

The Lawyer-Assisted Family Law Property Mediation: Legal Aid Commission Trial vs The Priority Property Pool: Which Should You Choose?

Posted on by
Reply

By Amy Li

This post is part of a series of the best posts written by undergraduate law students enrolled in 2024 in Non-adversarial Justice at Monash University.

Victims of abusive relationships are at a higher risk of being financially disadvantaged and at poverty after separation. They are more likely to accept unfair property settlements and are three times more likely to receive less than 40% of the property pool. Parties who perpetrate abuse can continue to abuse them through the legal system, by delaying legal procedures, sending unnecessary legal letters, deliberately increasing their legal fees and causing the victim to be the subject of harsh cross-examinations. Due to little funding in Legal Aid, only 8% of Australian households are eligible to access a grant to receive legal aid.

Image by <a href=”http://<a href=”https://www.vecteezy.com/free-photos/business”>Business Stock photos by VecteezyArrmypicca

Due to these issues, the Lawyer-Assisted Family Law Property Mediation: Legal Aid Commission Trial and Priority Property Pools were recently established and aimed to increase access to resolving post-separation property matters through efficient and low-cost avenues aimed at parties experiencing family violence and economic abuse.

This article aims to provide a comparative analysis of the evaluation of the Lawyer-Assisted Family Law Property Mediation: Legal Aid Commission Trial (the LAC Trial) and the Priority Property Pools under $500,000 (PPP500) pilot programs. This post is designed to be especially useful for women who are experiencing ongoing severe financial hardship as a result of family violence and are seeking a family law property settlement in the State of Victoria, Australia, where the author is based.

The LAC Trial

The LAC Trial was initially established in 2020 and was funded to be a two-year trial. It provides legally assisted mediation for dividing property where net assets are $500,000 or less (excluding superannuation). The applicant must also be a priority client of the Family Dispute Resolution Service, a Legal Aid service designed to organise family dispute resolution conferences between parties at no cost (excluding the cost of legal representation). Priority clients includes people who have experienced, or is at risk of experiencing family violence.

If the application is successful, the applicant will be appointed a lawyer who will make an application on behalf of the client. A case manager can also provide the applicant with referrals to family violence support services and provide alternative solutions if mediation is deemed inappropriate. In Victoria, financial disclosure must be required before the first conference, which is intended to make the process more efficient. If resolved, parties are encouraged to sign a Heads of Agreement and lawyers apply for consent orders.

This program allows more women experiencing financial hardship to access legal representation for a property settlement. The more intensive case management is helpful for vulnerable parties as they are able to work with non-legal professionals to get the support and advice needed. The legal representation can level out the playing field for a victim who has a lack of bargaining power in private negotiations. Participants are also less likely to agree to a minority settlement as they receive constant advice from their lawyers and have a realistic proposal in mind. Where a party has experienced extensive family violence, mediation can be held between lawyers on behalf of the parties privately. The outcome is legally binding which allows victims to ‘move on’ and have separate finances without a connection. The fact that Legal Aid is involved removes another aspect of systems abuse, as Legal Aid can fund to obtain certain forms of financial disclosure for the vulnerable parties and avoid obstructive behaviour from the aggravating party.

However, the primary reason why this option may not be suitable for some clients experiencing financial hardship is that mediation requires cooperation from the other party. If the case manager does not receive a response from other party or they decline to participate, the matter is closed. The requirement of needing financial disclosure before the first mediation could also backfire for victims of abuse. This is because victims experiencing family violence may have limited access to financial information as well as the necessary documentation. Furthermore, during the pilot program, some legal professionals observed that parties who had a history of perpetrating family violence were likely to be obstructive in their financial disclosure. These parties would ‘drag their feet’ and be very slow with their paperwork, decreasing the efficiency of this program and increasing trauma for victims. There is also less incentive for parties to settle during mediation as they are not funding the process. However, it should be noted that these are aspects of systems abuse and are not unique to the LAC Trial.

Priority Property Pool

The priority property pool (PPP) was established as a pilot program in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in 2020. It was designed to provide access to more simple and efficient court processes for property dispute settlements in family law. It was created for similar reasons of ensuring the court-led process would mitigate any power imbalances and ensuring that disclosure occurs expediently and efficiently while achieving just and equitable outcomes. To be eligible, the main requirement is for parties to file their initial application seeking a property or financial order only and that the value of the net assets must be less than $550,000 (excluding superannuation). Neither party can seek a parenting order unless the court makes an exception and declares the case to be a PPP case. There are two streams:

  1. a registrar-led stream where a judicial registrar assists the parties to resolve their property and financial arrangements by consent; and
  2. a judge-led limb which is a simpler procedural process and ends in a judicial determination if the registrar-led limb is unsuccessful.

In comparison to standard litigation, PPP is able to assist parties who were unable to negotiate out of court. Vulnerable parties are naturally more intimidated by the court process but can have better access due to simplified forms and reducing the number of forms required during the proceedings. This leads to a much more efficient court procedure, with an average turnaround of 6 months, much shorter than the years long standard litigation process. A timely resolution is important for vulnerable parties as to not increase financial hardship and trauma. Furthermore, the streamlined court process removes the requirement to file affidavit material which could reduce trauma for victims of family violence as they would not need to recount their experience or hear the other party’s affidavit as well. The registrar-led limb also has a more ‘hands-on’ case management approach and are able to identify unequal bargaining power or other dynamics. The other parties seem to be more compliant even in the registrar-limb, which focuses on a consensual solution, and parties take the process more seriously compared to mediation.

Similar to the LAC Trial, there could be difficulties with parties refusing to make frank financial disclosures and vulnerable parties having little access to financial documents, however, in PPP, judges can make orders. The major issue with PPP is that it leaves a gap for people experiencing family violence who fall within the PPP program but are ineligible for legal aid representation. Therefore, for a client who is experiencing financial hardship and unable to afford private representation, PPP may not be as helpful as the LAC Trial. It also excludes victims who are seeking a parenting order as well. While judges can make findings about family violence, the absence of affidavit material can decrease the likelihood for family violence allegations to be identified. Registrars have limited capacity to manage complex dynamics when it comes to non-compliance from the other party and usually requires the matter to be referred to a judge, which could increase the time required to finalise the outcome.

Continuation after the Pilot Programs

The LAC Trial and PPP were very successful during their pilot program period and have since been expanded by Victoria Legal Aid and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia respectively. The LAC Trial has been transformed into the Family Law Property Program and eligibility requirements for clients remain the same. Since the pilot program, funding has been extended twice with a current end date of 30 June 2025. The grants are capped for 20 parties per month and a lawyer can apply through Victoria Legal Aid’s online system, ATLAS.

The PPP program has continued since the pilot program and have expanded to all filing registries since. After an application has been made, a Judicial Registrar will review the application and determine whether it is a PPP case. If the applicant has an asset pool under $550,000, the required documents to initiate the process are the initiating application, a financial summary and a genuine steps certificate.

Overall, the LAC Trial is suited to a client who is in severe financial hardship and has experienced family violence, where the other party is willing to have mediation to resolve the dispute. The PPP is most suited towards a client whose other party is unwilling to engage with the client as the courts can help to make a judicial decision as it is a comparatively more formal setting. Both programs are suited towards clients who have serious financial hardship, however the LAC Trial guarantees legal representation. They are also both sensitive to that fact that a majority of the client base includes parties who have experienced family violence and try to even out unequal bargaining powers.

About Amy Li

Amy Li is a penultimate year student completing her Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and Commerce double degree at Monash University. Amy is currently a paralegal at a plaintiff class actions firm and volunteers to assist refugees. Through her studies, she has developed a strong interest to improving access to the legal system for vulnerable individuals.

TIPS FOR NEW PRACTITIONERS: Getting your documents in order

Posted on by
1

Samantha Hardy
This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within The Conflict Management Academy.

When setting up your practice, it’s important to have all your documents in order. Many people don’t prepare in advance and then are in a last-minute panic when the first client turns up and they need paperwork! 

It’s also important to remember that each client may need different types of paperwork, so you adapt and tailor your documents to each client and context.

What documents do you need?

During your training as a coach or mediator, you probably discussed things like agreements to mediate, or coaching contracts, but these are not all you need. You will also need things like:

  • Enquiry-related documents (e.g. information sheets and brochures for parties, lawyers, support people or employers)
  • Business-related documents (e.g. proposals, scope of work, invoices or client databases)
  • Service-related documents (e.g. questionnaires and intake forms agreements to participate, privacy and confidentiality agreements, record of mediation outcomes, spreadsheet for recording property items, value or distribution documents)
  • Correspondence templates
  • Feedback sheets, surveys, and evaluation documents

You may need a few versions of each kind of document for different clients and situations. For example, when an employer is involved as sponsor or when there are multiple parties involved in the conflict (whether a workplace or family conflict) or documents related for different services (e.g. mediation and coaching).

How do you make these documents available?

As well as the content of these documents, you should consider carefully when and how they are made available to prospective or current clients. For example:

  • Are the documents (in a generic version) made available publicly (e.g. on your website)?
  • Are the documents sent to prospective or current clients (as templates or with their details added)?
  • How important is it that the clients read and/or understand the documents? How do you ensure this is likely to happen? What happens if the client does not read the documents you provided?
  • Do you recommend and/or suggest clients obtain (legal or other) advice about the contents of any documents provided?
  • How accessible are your documents (e.g. for people who have visual or other impairments)?
  • What opportunities are there for clients to discuss the contents of the documents with you?
  • Do clients need to sign any documents? Do these need to be witnessed (by anyone, a lawyer or JP)? Can they be signed electronically?

You may have been provided with pro-forma examples of documents, like agreements to mediate or confidentiality agreements, from your trainers or your accreditation bodies, and these are a useful foundation to work from. However, using them “out of the box” is not ideal, as your brand, your clients, and your context are unique, and you need documents that are designed for your particular practice.

I highly recommend you go through any template very carefully and identify any contents or language that needs adjusting.  You should do this when creating your own branded template, but you should also do a quick check for each client, to ensure that each document is tailored appropriately for the specific client and their situation.

Check the content is applicable

Check that the content of the document suits your client and their situation. For example:

  • Is there is an employer or sponsor involved?
  • Is this a two-party or a multi-party situation?
  • Will you be working in person or online?
  • Is the process going to be confidential, or are there reporting requirements (e.g. to an employer)?
  • Does the template refer to laws (e.g. in relation to a mediator’s obligation to disclose information to authorities in certain circumstances) that might vary across jurisdictions?
  • Does the document use terminology that is not relevant to your client’s context. For example, does the document refer to litigation or going to court when this isn’t something your client is likely to be considering, or include statements like “settlement is legally binding” which may not apply to your client’s situation.

Check that the language is suitable

Formal or informal? The language used will differ greatly depending on your client-base. If you are working as a mediator in a legal context, many of your lawyer-clients may be repeat clients so will not need a great deal of information. However, referring lawyers may be providing information to their clients (e.g. a panel of three mediators for the client to choose between) and so you may also want to provide information suitable for lawyers to give to their clients to help inform the client’s choice.

How the people involved are referred to? If you are working with two employees involved in a personality clash at work, they may not find it comfortable to be referred to as “disputants” or “parties”. Try to accommodate language that is suitable for the dispute. For example, if it is a family dispute involving children, referring to the parties as “parents”.

How is the situation or conflict described? If your clients are currently involved in litigation, it might be perfectly acceptable to refer to the situation using language like “the dispute”. However, if you are mediating between family members in a personal conflict or employees who have a personality difference, this terminology might not sit well with them. You might be better using language like “your concerns” or “your working relationship”. Try to be sensitive to what would be comfortable for your clients.

Is it consistent with your brand? If your brand is down-to-earth, plain English, and informal, then providing clients with documents full of legal-ease or formal terminology and language may create a disconnect for your clients. This doesn’t mean you don’t include necessary information, but rather try to use language that is clear and also consistent with your brand ‘voice’.

Is it ambiguous, overstating, or misleading?  Be very careful not to use sweeping statements that may be misinterpreted. Terms to be careful about include “voluntary” and “confidential”. Depending on the client’s circumstances, these terms may not apply in a straightforward manner and can create confusion and distrust (and even sometimes lead to complaints).  For example, an employee who is required to attend mediation as a condition of their employment may not feel that their participation is voluntary. Similarly, if following a workplace mediation, one participant breaches an agreement to keep the discussions confidential by talking with a colleague about what happened, there is often very little anyone can do about this.  This can lead to the other person complaining that “the mediator said it was confidential and yet they couldn’t stop them from talking about what happened”.

Conclusion

Getting your documents in order and knowing how to adapt them when needed is important to build credibility and professionalism in your work.

In our Beyond the Table course accessible on the Conflict Management Academy, we have created an entire module on Your Documents which can help you review a broad variety of examples of different kinds of documents and be tailored to fit your practice and your brand.

We consider different categories of documents, including:

  • Enquiry-related documents (e.g. information sheets and brochures for parties, lawyers, support people or employers)
  • Business-related documents (e.g. proposals, scope of work, invoices or client databases)
  • Service-related documents (e.g. questionnaires and intake forms agreements to participate, privacy and confidentiality agreements, record of mediation outcomes, spreadsheet for recording property items, value or distribution documents)
  • Correspondence templates
  • Feedback sheets, surveys, and evaluation documents

Author Biography

Dr Samantha (Sam) Hardy is the Director and Lead Trainer of the Conflict Management Academy. Sam is an experienced mediator, conflict coach, and the founder of the REAL Conflict Coaching System™. She provides conflict support to managers and leaders across the world as well as professional development training, supervision and mentorship to mediators and coaches who work with clients in conflict. Sam is an accredited mediator under the Australian National Mediation Accreditation System (NMAS), a certified transformative mediator by the United States Institute of Conflict Transformation, and a certified narrative coach. She has been awarded Conflict Coach of the Year at the Australian Dispute Resolution Awards in 2022 as well as the Australian Resolution Institute Award for Service to Dispute Resolution in 2021 for her leadership and innovation in the field. Sam also publishes widely in dispute and conflict resolution, including Dispute Resolution in Australia, Mediation for Lawyers and Conflict Coaching Fundamentals: Working with Conflict Stories.

Designing a Trauma-Informed Family Dispute Resolution Process

Posted on by
4

By Shanza Shafeek       

This is the first blog post in a series written by undergraduate law students enrolled in Monash University’s Non-Adversarial Justice unit in 2024. The very best posts have been published here.

Family disputes are inherently stressful, but for those who have experienced trauma—especially from domestic and family violence—the process can be even more overwhelming.

While the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)  promotes Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) as a flexible, less adversarial alternative to litigation, it often fails to adequately address the unique needs of trauma survivors. This highlights the urgent need for a trauma-informed FDR service that supports victims while promoting healing.

In this blog post, we will explore the concept of FDR, the importance of a trauma-informed approach, the key elements that make it effective, the challenges it presents, and how these elements contribute to a more empathetic, supportive process.

What is Family Dispute Resolution?

FDR is a process where an accredited Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner (‘FDRP’) helps families resolve disputes related to separation or divorce outside of court.

The FDRP assists in creating parenting plans that outline future arrangements based on the best interests of the children. The goal is to resolve issues through ‘genuine effort’before resorting to court orders, promoting ‘cooperative parenting’.

Mandatory FDR requirements include exemptions for cases involving child abuse, family violence, urgency, or an inability to participate, ensuring that FDR is only used when appropriate.

The Need for a Trauma-Informed FDR Service

Trauma-informed care recognises the profound impact trauma has on individuals and strives to create a safe, supportive environment for survivors. Despite some exemptions, around 41% of family violence victims still use FDR to address their needs. However, the adversarial nature of disputes, the presence of perpetrators, and the language used in FDR can trigger past trauma, making the process harmful for victims.

Philippa Davis from the Women’s Legal Service emphasises the importance of having ‘safe processes’ for family violence survivors. Around 23% of victims report feelings of fear and power imbalances during FDR, which often leads to pressure to accept unsafe and undesired agreements. A trauma-informed FDR service, on the other hand, facilitates safer participation, enhances communication, and increases the likelihood of reaching mutually satisfactory agreements.

For example, Rachael Field and Angela Lynch introduced the ‘Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution’ (CFDR) model in 2009—a trauma-informed, four-phase framework. Piloted in five Australian locations, this model was evaluated as ‘holistic and safe’ for victims, demonstrating the positive impact of trauma-informed practices in FDR.

Elements of a Trauma-Informed FDR Service

A trauma-informed FDR service must integrate six key elements to address trauma.

  1. Before the Session:

Assessments:

A trauma-informed FDR service must start with comprehensive suitability and risk assessments to ensure the process is both safe and supportive for victims. These assessments should evaluate critical factors such as violence, power imbalances, and the psychological well-being of participants to determine whether FDR is suitable.

FDRPs should be trained to conduct trauma assessments effectively in cases involving trauma. Studies show that around 30% of parents feel FDRPs lack the necessary expertise to address abuse, highlighting a significant gap in knowledge. This points to an urgent need for targeted training in trauma-informed practices, including safety planning and psychological first aid, so FDRPs can perform these assessments effectively.

Cultural competence is also a key component of these assessments, especially when working with diverse trauma survivors. Susan Armstrong emphasises that FDRPs have reported ‘less confidence’ in cultural competence, indicating the need for cultural training (including First Nations traditions) to ensure parties feel understood, respected and supported from the outset.

Once FDR is deemed suitable, practitioners and domestic violence workers should adopt a ‘multidisciplinary’ approach to develop risk management plans that address the specific trauma needs identified during assessments. Andrew Bickerdike highlights that these plans may include measures such as separate waiting areas and virtual FDR options to create a more supportive environment for victims.

Information:

Clear and comprehensive information must be provided to participants before FDR sessions. As Joanne Law highlights, this information should include details on participation requirements, the roles of FDRPs and lawyers, any necessary religious or cultural accommodations, and the availability of breaks.

Participants should also be informed of their right to have a support person, their ability to express discomfort or withdraw from the process, and the trauma-informed practices in place, such as promoting autonomy and empowerment. Eugene Opperman emphasises that providing this information helps alleviate pre-session anxiety, as it ensures participants are fully aware of their rights and the measures in place to safeguard their well-being.

  • During the Session:

Safe Participation

During the sessions, it is crucial to create a safe environment that encourages active participation. A ‘co-mediation approach’ as suggested by Field and Lynch for the CFDR model, can be particularly effective. This approach involves using gender-balanced mediators and legal advocates for both parties to prevent ‘gender bias’– an issue highlighted in the Post-2006 Evaluation Report.

FDRPs must cultivate a welcoming atmosphere using calming language, offering private rooms to ensure confidentiality, and ‘giving ample time for each party to speak’—strategies emphasised by Dee Hardy. Such an environment helps parties make decisions that align with their own interests and the best interests of their children, rather than feeling pressured into ‘unfavourable choices’, which has been a noted concern.

Corinne Henderson and Isobel Everett further recommend minimising staffing changes, offering a variety of choices, and avoiding arbitrary rules to ensure consistent participation. These elements enhance trauma-management and foster open communication, ultimately making the process more effective for everyone involved.

Validation:

Validation is a crucial component of a trauma-informed FDR service. FDRPs should actively listen to participants, ask trauma-sensitive questions like “How did that make you feel?” and express genuine empathy. These actions help bolster participants’ self-worth and support their emotional well-being, addressing the high levels of acrimony and self-doubt reported by 17% of parties in family disputes.

FDRPs should also remain attuned to participants’ emotional states throughout the session. The concept of the ‘window of tolerance,’ as described by Pat Ogden, Clare Pain and Janina Fisher, is particularly useful. This framework helps FDRPs recognise when a participant is approaching the limits of their emotional regulation—whether in a state of hyperarousal (anxiety) or hypo-arousal (shutdown).

By adjusting the process to stay within the participant’s ‘their ‘optimal state of balance’, FDRPs create a supportive and constructive environment.

  • After the Session:

Summaries:

After each session, FDRPs should provide a clear summary of the outcomes and outline the next steps to ensure that all parties understand the progress made, helping to alleviate anxiety.

Conducting a debriefing immediately after the session allows participants to reflect on their experiences, validate their emotions, and address any lingering concerns. By actively involving them in determining the next steps, this trauma-informed approach enhances their sense of control and supports their healing.

Follow-Ups:

Follow-ups are essential for providing ongoing support and ensuring the long-term effectiveness of agreements. Around 19% of parents who reach an FDR agreement no longer have one a year later. To address this, a follow-up within 1-3 months should assess the agreement’s effectiveness and evaluate parties’ evolving needs. Itshould also include a specialist risk assessment for any new concerns and seek feedback on the trauma-informed FDR service.

A second follow-up, 6-12 months later, should focus on the long-term impact of the mediation, review any additional support needs (such as counselling), and explore the possibility of further mediation. Similar to the CFDR approach, this continued access to resources ensures that parties receive sustained support throughout their healing journey.

Challenges:

Designing a trauma-informed FDR service comes with its challenges. The AIFS evaluation of CFDR found that “some parents still experienced considerable emotional difficulty, even trauma, in mediation,” highlighting the ongoing challenge of effectively addressing trauma within FDR processes.

Additionally, Field and Lynch point out that trauma can significantly impair communication skills, suggesting that specialised training in ‘communication’ and negotiation strategies is essential for trauma-informed FDR services—though such training can be costly.

A trauma-informed FDR service also requires substantial resources, including ongoing, high-quality training for FDRPs and regular evaluations. These challenges must be carefully managed to ensure that trauma-informed FDR services are effective and sustainable.

A trauma-informed FDR service is crucial to effectively support trauma survivors. By integrating the six core elements, FDR can foster healing and achieve outcomes that the adversarial system often fails to provide. As our understanding of trauma continues to grow, FDR services must evolve to offer the compassionate care that victims truly need.

ChatGPT use:

This blog post was developed with the assistance of ChatGPT to identify key issues, which were subsequently fact-checked and supported with relevant journal articles. The insights provided by ChatGPT helped shape the initial framework, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of the topic.

About the author:

My name is Shanza Shafeek, and I am a fourth-year Law/Arts student at Monash University, specialising in sociology. I am currently working as a paralegal in institutional abuse and as a marketing team member for the Muslim Legal Network. I have also been actively involved as a Monash Law Ambassador and a Human Rights Project member for Amnesty International. I am passionate about legal policy, family law, and promoting culturally responsive approaches within legal practice to support diverse communities. I can be found on Linked In.

A Fresh Perspective on Conflict Management: Upcoming 7th Edition of a Seminal Text

Posted on by
Reply

The enduring relevance of Conflict Management: A Practical Guide lies in its comprehensive exploration of approaches, strategies, tactics, and techniques essential for adopting a constructive and positive approach to conflict. Originally published in 1991 as a foundational text for practitioners, educators, and scholars in the field of conflict resolution, the book has evolved alongside the dynamic field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Australia. Now, the text is set to enter its seventh edition, reaffirming its significance in the discipline.

Authors Expertise

Dr. Peter Condliffe, the book’s author, has a distinguished career in the field. Serving as a Director on the Mediator Standards Board since 2018 and its Chairperson from 2023 to 2024, Peter has played a pivotal role in the NMAS Review and the transition to AMDRAS in Australia. As a practicing barrister and mediator in Victoria, his career has included leadership roles in management, human rights, and ADR, such as CEO of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, Director of Dispute Resolution Centres in Queensland’s Department of Justice and Attorney-General, and engagements with the United Nations. Across its six editions, the book has maintained a multidisciplinary framework reflective of Peter’s extensive expertise.

The upcoming edition will introduce Dr. Claire Holland as co-author. Claire is a practicing mediator, conflict coach, workplace facilitator, and trainer who brings a wealth of academic and practical knowledge to the text. Having used the book extensively in her teaching career, she will incorporate fresh perspectives and insights. Notably, Claire will introduce two new frameworks:

  1. Conflict Analysis Framework: Co-developed with Dr. Judith Herrmann-Rafferty, this tool supports parties in conflict—and the professionals assisting them—to understand the dynamics of a conflict and make informed decisions about next steps.
  2. Planned Approach to Conflict Engagement: Also co-developed by Herrmann-Rafferty and Holland, this framework provides advanced strategies for managing ongoing conflict. It integrates insights and approaches from neuroscience on emotional regulation, fostering cultural awareness, and emphasises sustainable methods for addressing ongoing conflict.

Call for Feedback

Condliffe and Holland are seeking input from practitioners, researchers, and readers to shape the new edition. Feedback on areas to retain, adapt, or expand is particularly welcome. As a text designed for both practical application and academic instruction, the authors are keen to ensure the content remains relevant to its diverse audience, from university courses to professional development settings.

Key Updates in the 7th Edition

The new edition, retitled Conflict Management and Resolution: Theory and Practice, reflects an evolving understanding of conflict. It acknowledges that resolution is not always achievable or desirable and incorporates broader perspectives on conflict engagement. Planned updates include:

  • Reflections on the new AMDRAS regulatory standards in Australia.
  • Expanded coverage of specialties, such as mediation, restorative justice, First Nations processes, complaints management, and group facilitation.
  • Updates on negotiation concepts and processes, incorporating recent scholarship.
  • Insights into online and AI-assisted dispute resolution.
  • Expanded references to feminist theory and contemporary ADR approaches, including dispute system design.
  • A comprehensive update to the history of ADR in Australia.

Proposed Topics for the New Edition

The seventh edition will include chapters on:

  • Navigating Conflict
  • Responding to Conflict
  • Managing Difficult Conversations
  • History of Dispute Resolution in Australia
  • Collaborative Practice
  • Contemporary Approaches to Conflict Management and Resolution
  • Negotiation
  • Mediation
  • Group Facilitation
  • Key Practitioner Skills in Conflict Management and Resolution
  • Managing Ongoing Conflict
  • Dispute System Design

Engage with the Authors

Practitioners and academics are encouraged to contribute by sharing research, case studies, or ideas that could enhance the upcoming edition. Your insights will help ensure that Conflict Management and Resolution: Theory and Practice continues to be an indispensable resource for anyone engaging with conflict management in theory or practice.

Stay tuned for the release of this significant update in late 2025—a resource designed to reflect the latest developments in conflict resolution and equip readers with the tools they need to navigate the complexities of modern conflicts.

Please feel free to contact or write to either of the authors:
Dr Peter Condliffe: pc@vicbar.com.au
Dr Claire Holland: claire.holland@jcu.edu.au

The Role of Intermediaries in Enhancing Access to Justice in ADR

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Oz Susler & Dr John Taggart

Introduction

Over the past thirty years, there has been a ‘sea change’ in the treatment of vulnerable court and tribunal users in the United Kingdom. As noted by Lady Justice Hallett in the case of R v Lubemba: ‘Advocates must adapt to the witness, not the other way round.’ Formal rules now place a duty on judges in both civil and criminal cases to ensure that ‘every reasonable step’ is taken to facilitate the participation of witnesses in proceedings.

Emblematic of this culture shift has been the introduction of a new role known as the ‘intermediary’. The intermediary, a communication specialist, is one of a range of ‘special measures’ which were introduced in 1999 through the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCEA) to improve the quality of evidence available to a court and reduce the stress associated with the justice process. The function of the intermediary is to communicate ‘questions put to the witness ’and ‘to any person asking such questions, the answers given by the witness in reply to them’. As well as assisting witnesses to give evidence in court, intermediaries also advise lawyers and judges on how best to communicate with the witness more broadly.

Background

In England and Wales, the first cohort of intermediaries was introduced in 2004 through what has become known as the ‘Witness Intermediary Scheme’ (WIS) which is run by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The WIS matches the vulnerable witness with an intermediary based on their communication needs. The majority of intermediaries operating in England and Wales are speech and language therapists; however, there has been an increase in numbers from other backgrounds, such as teaching, nursing, social work, psychology, and occupational therapy.

In Northern Ireland, a slightly different intermediary scheme operates compared to England and Wales. In 2013, the Department of Justice of Northern Ireland (DOJ) developed a model for the provision of intermediaries in the criminal justice system. This was based on the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1999, which effectively mirror the provisions of the YJCEA. In Northern Ireland, intermediaries are all trained, registered, and regulated by the DOJ. As in England and Wales, the vast majority of those on the Registered Intermediary Scheme (RIS) register are speech and language therapists, with a number coming from a social work background. A crucial distinction between the intermediary schemes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is that in the latter, both witnesses and defendants can access the services of registered intermediaries. The DOJ concluded that respect for the principle of ‘equality of arms’ demanded that all vulnerable individuals should be eligible for intermediary assistance.

Beyond Criminal Courts

The special measures regime in both England, Wales and Northern Ireland were originally intended to apply solely to criminal proceedings. However, requests began to be made for intermediary assistance in other justice fora, such as family courts and employment tribunals. Intermediaries now commonly assist vulnerable individuals in these settings in both jurisdictions. In a recent case in England and Wales, the High Court noted how the fundamental role of the intermediary in family courts and criminal courts is the same.1 As intermediaries have become more commonplace in criminal courts and family courts, relevant guidance has been developed to regulate the scope of their role in court. For example, in 2016, Mr Justice Charles, the Vice President of the Court of Protection in England and Wales published practical guidance entitled ‘Facilitating participation of ‘P’ and vulnerable persons in Court of Protection proceedings’. Another significant development in Great Britain has been the introduction of Practice Direction 1A, which also highlights the intermediary role in assisting vulnerable individuals to participate. In Northern Ireland, Practice Direction No.2/2019 contains detailed guidance on the intermediary role in criminal proceedings. Despite intermediaries regularly attending family court hearings, no equivalent guidance for civil courts has been issued.

Challenges

The intermediary role has played a significant part in the move towards promoting ‘best evidence’ and accommodating the needs of vulnerable individuals in court. In this regard, the role has been ‘little short of revolutionary’. The Victims’ Commissioner in England and Wales recently described it as ‘the single biggest improvement in the criminal justice system over the last thirty years’. While the intermediary role is becoming further embedded into justice processes, the role has encountered several challenges. Here are a few of the most important ones:

Duration of Appointment

Ultimately, the duration of an intermediary’s appointment is at the discretion of the court. The court may allow for an intermediary to assist the vulnerable individual for the period of oral evidence or for the entire court proceedings (or possibly for something in between). Understandably, the role of a defendant in a criminal trial is different from a witness so the length of time communication assistance will be required can vary. For example, a defendant will have legal conferences with their lawyers throughout a trial whereas a witness will not. The relevant Practice Direction in Northern Ireland states that the intermediary role is restricted to the period of oral testimony while in England and Wales, a court may exercise its powers to appoint an intermediary for longer. Again, this is at the discretion of the judge. Certain commercial providers of intermediaries, such as Communicourt, strongly argue that communication as a concept is broad and that providing intermediary assistance only for the period of evidence is superficial. The counterargument to this point is that with limited resources, intermediaries should be appointed where they are most needed.

Neutrality

As a relatively new actor to the justice system, the scope of the intermediary role has been contested. One key aspect of the role is that intermediaries operate as officers of the court and, as such, are impartial. How intermediaries operate to facilitate communication and remain impartial is a question that warrants attention. For example, if an intermediary assisting an extremely emotional witness feels that reassuring them might help them and reduce anxiety, is this breaching their impartiality? One anecdotal example from Northern Ireland involved an intermediary putting their arm around a young witness in court to comfort them. It was ultimately held by the judge that this ‘crossed the line’ and the intermediary’s involvement in the case ceased. Regardless of the venue, consideration should be given to how intermediaries can be enabled to carry out their primary role of facilitating communication and be viewed as impartial.

Skills and Qualifications

As discussed above, the majority of intermediaries in both England, Wales and Northern Ireland come from a background in speech and language therapy or social work. The MOJ in England and Wales has tried in recent years to diversify the registered intermediary cohort. In terms of the ‘matching’ of intermediaries to vulnerable individuals based on the nature of the communication issue, it is preferable that there is a wide pool of background and skillsets. For example, some intermediaries work exclusively with young children while others work with the elderly or with people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder2 or an intellectual disability. Ultimately, a court or tribunal appointing an intermediary should have the confidence that the intermediary has the requisite skillset to facilitate communication and provide clear, practical advice to the legal professionals. Although increasingly rare in practice, some courts have permitted lawyers to effectively cross-examine the intermediary about their experience and suitability for the role. It is suggested such a practice could underline the legitimacy of the role as well as the matching process undertaken by the DOJ or MOJ which have recruited, trained and ‘matched’ the intermediary to the vulnerable individual.

Intermediaries in Australia: Scope and Application

Following on from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, New South Wales was the first Australian jurisdiction to pass legislation for intermediaries in 2015.3 Currently, intermediaries are used within the criminal justice system in Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia4, New South Wales, Victoria5 and the Australian Capital Territory.6 Intermediaries are primarily used to assist vulnerable witnesses including children to give evidence for sexual offences and homicide cases.7 In the Victorian and ACT programmes, in addition to young people, any adult with a mental illness, intellectual disability, dementia or brain injury may be eligible to have an intermediary assist them in giving evidence in a police interview or court for particular criminal matter hearings.8 The reality is that vulnerable individuals experience barriers in access to justice not only in the criminal justice system, but, also in other areas that are connected to the broader legal system, including the civil justice system and court ordered Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR). In Australia, ADR processes are highly integrated in the legal system, thus many courts refer parties to participate in an ADR process. In many jurisdictions  attempting to participate in the ADR process may be a prerequisite to the matter proceeding to a hearing before the court.9

Potential Applications of the Intermediary in the Australian Civil Legal System

It can be argued that particular individuals who are identified as more likely to encounter greater barriers in access to justice than the general population, such as Autistic persons, or otherwise neurodivergent individuals, those living with a mental health condition or other neurological/intellectual disabilities, stand to benefit from an intermediary programme that is available in court ordered or legislation-based ADR processes.  Although it is recognised that ADR processes can be varied, this post focuses on the needs of Autistic persons who are subject to court ordered mediation.  While there is no research focused specifically on access to justice for Autistic people, there is significant research in relation to access to justice for people with disabilities.10 The Australian Law Reform Commission’s report11 details issues that may commonly arise when people with disabilities seek access to justice which include ‘communication barriers’ and ‘issues associated with giving instructions to legal representatives and capacity to participate in litigation’. The Report also discusses the issue of capacity to make decisions in their own best interest and in particular, the need for support in Decision-Making.12 Legal reform is likely to have limited practical impact if people do not have access to the support necessary to enable them to participate in legal processes.13 It is at this juncture that intermediaries have the opportunity to play an important role in supporting such individuals who participate in court ordered mediations, hence fostering greater access to justice.

Autistic people communicate differently to non-Autistic people. Further, Autistic people may misinterpret communication by others and may be misinterpreted in their own communication.14 This may give rise to challenges in access to justice in ADR contexts, particularly in mediation which is based on communication between the parties facilitated by a mediator. To fulfil the aims of the International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities,15 Autistic parties engaging in court-ordered ADR processes should have access to an intermediary for support if necessary. A pilot programme may be trialled where intermediaries are made available for court ordered16 family dispute resolution (FDR) mediations, based on clear eligibility criteria. Given the role of the intermediary is to facilitate communication and communication challenges being one of the most commonly challenging aspects of mediation for Autistic persons, this presents a valuable opportunity for Australia to lead other courts and extend the role of the intermediary into a new realm. Drawing on the experiences of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Australia stands to benefit in taking part in such a significant step towards improving access to justice in ADR for vulnerable individuals, who often experience disadvantage as parties in ADR processes.17

Author Biography

Dr Özlem Sűsler is a graduate of the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University. She holds degrees in Arts, Education and Law and has been admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Özlem is a senior lecturer at La Trobe University, School of Law, where she coordinates and teaches ADR and Contract Law in the JD and LLB programmes. She is the immediate past director of the JD Programme. Dr Susler has researched and published internationally on ADR in the fields of international commercial arbitration and the scholarship of learning and teaching. More recently she has conducted qualitative research into the experience of Autistic persons engaging in ADR processes (publication forthcoming). Dr Susler has also played a key role in coaching La Trobe Law students in various ADR Mooting competitions. She is a graduate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Australian Institute of Company Directors and an AMDRAS accredited mediator.

Dr John Taggart is a Lecturer in Law at Queens’ University, Belfast and the Director of the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice (ICCJ). He holds a PhD in Law from the London School of Economics (LSE) and is a member of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland and a member of Lincoln’s Inn. John’s research focuses on the criminal process, criminal justice and socio-legal approaches to criminal law. John’s research looks at special measures in criminal courts and the role of the intermediary as a communication specialist for vulnerable court users. He has recently worked as an academic consultant to the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Human Rights Commission and as a legal trainer to the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. John has published widely in publications including the Criminal Law Review, International Journal of Evidence and Proof, International Journal of Law in Context and the Journal of Law and Society.

  1. West Northamptonshire Council (acting via Northamptonshire Children’s Trust) v KA (Mother & Anor) (Intermediaries) [2024] EWHC 79 [43].
    ↩︎
  2. Autism Spectrum Disorder is referred to as ‘autism’ hereafter.  The term ‘autism’ throughout this paper intends to refer to individuals with a diagnosis of autism and no co-occurring intellectual disability. This article uses identity-first language (e.g., ‘Autistic person’) because many autistic people prefer it (Bury et al., 2020; Kenny et al., 2016), and it is considered less discriminatory (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021).
    ↩︎
  3. See Criminal Procedure Amendment (Child Sexual Offence) Evidence Pilot Act 2015 (NSW).
    ↩︎
  4. South Australia provides a communication assistance scheme. See Evidence Act 1929 (SA) and Summary Offences Regulations 2016 (SA).
    ↩︎
  5. New South Wales introduced an intermediary programme in 2016 and Victoria in 2018.
    ↩︎
  6. Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act 2019 (ACT).
    ↩︎
  7. See eg <https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/justice-system/courts-and-tribunals/intermediary-program/about-the-intermediary-program#program-history>.
    ↩︎
  8. See eg <https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/justice-system/courts-and-tribunals/intermediary-program/about-the-intermediary-program#program-history>. In Victoria the criminal matters are restricted to witnesses in homicide matters and victims of sexual abuse.
    ↩︎
  9. For example. the Federal and Family Circuit Court of Australia generally makes it mandatory (unless exceptions apply) for the parties to be referred to Family Dispute Resolution under s.13C(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to attempt to resolve their disputes.
    ↩︎
  10. See, eg, ‘The Justice Project’ Final Report, Part 1 ‘People with Disability’ (August 2018) Law Council of Australia <https://lawcouncil.au/justice-project/final-report>.
    ↩︎
  11. Australian Law Reform Commission, Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws – Final Report, August 2014 available at <https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/equality-capacity-and-disability-in-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-124/>.
    ↩︎
  12. Australian Law Reform Commission, Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws (Final Report, August 2014) p 4. (Access to justice issues | ALRC).
    ↩︎
  13. Ibid p 7.
    ↩︎
  14. See eg, Maya Albin, Isabella Chawrun, and Ami Tint, “Rethinking Social Communication Support: Exploring Communication Partner Training for Autistic Adults and Their Neurotypical Communication Partners” (2024) Autism in Adulthood <https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0>
    ↩︎
  15. ‘International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities’ (2020) United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Hereinafter referred to as ‘Guidelines’.
    ↩︎
  16. This programme would be implemented through the Australian Family and Federal Circuit Courts.
    ↩︎
  17. Forthcoming qualitative research article on the disadvantage experienced by Autistic adults who participated as a party to mediation is available upon request from Dr Ozlem Susler.
    ↩︎

Motivating people to engage in conflict resolution services

Posted on by
Reply

Samantha Hardy
This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within The Conflict Management Academy.

When we look at how people typically promote conflict-related services, such as mediation, the services are often presented as a better option than other alternatives. In fact, this thinking is even found in the name “alternative dispute resolution”.

However, psychological research shows that using ‘scare’ tactics to try to motivate someone to do something tends not to work. This can be explained by what Wayne Hershberger (1986) first called “the law of approach and avoidance” and means that we tend to move towards pleasure and away from pain.

While you might think that telling someone about all the bad things that might happen if they leave their conflict unresolved would motivate them to move away from those bad things towards something better (e.g. mediation), the problem is that we have promoted our service by reference to the bad things, so they may well subconsciously move away from us!

When we feel an emotion that we find unpleasant, our brain’s natural response is to move away from the thing related to that emotion. In contrast, when we feel an emotion that we find pleasant, our brain is wired to approach.

However, in Shari Talbot’s book The Influential Mind, she explains that when we are trying to influence someone to do something, we have to be careful how we apply this logic. While we tend to move away from something that we see as unpleasant, we can also stop moving altogether if we are not sure about what we are moving towards.

Our brains are wired in such a way that anticipating a reward not only triggers approach, it is more likely to elicit action altogether. If you want someone to act quickly, promising a reward that elicits an anticipation of pleasure may be better than threatening them with a punishment that elicits an anticipation of pain.

In short – if we are trying to avoid something bad, we may move away from it, but we may also freeze if we are uncertain about what lies ahead of us. In contrast, if we know that something positive and rewarding lies ahead of us, we are more likely to actively take steps towards that better option.

This works for both words and images. 

A study of crowd funding requests carried out by Alexander Genevsky and Brian Knutson in 2015 examined 13,500 online requests for funding. These requests were often for financial support for people needing expensive medical treatment, and counter-intuitively, the research found that crowd funding requests were more likely to raise money if they showed someone happy and well rather than someone sick in a hospital bed.

If you search online stock photo libraries for photos relating to “conflict resolution”, you will perhaps be surprised to find that many of the images do not illustrate “resolution” but rather show people in conflict.

Here are some examples:

As well as the law of approach and avoidance, we need to consider people’s need for a sense of certainty and control.

Warnings and threats limit people’s sense of control, so instead we need to emphasize what needs to be done to reap rewards – which increases their sense of control.

So, what does this mean for marketing a service like mediation?

Firstly, talk about the benefits that clients will achieve by participating using an approach framework. Don’t just talk about the bad things they will avoid; also talk about the good things they will gain so that they can manage risk and also know what they can work towards.

Secondly, emphasise the client’s opportunities to make choices and take control of their future.

Thirdly, use positive images on your website, that show how people will feel and behave after they have used your services. 

Here are some examples:

Review your promotional material. If you want to make sure you are marketing your mediation services effectively, think about how much of your content is about what clients can avoid by engaging your services and how much of your content is about what clients can gain (rewards, pleasure) by engaging your services.

Think about the kinds of images you use. Consider whether those images show the problem a client wants resolved or how the client will feel after they work with you? Consider ideas that describe the outcomes people will gain from working with you and the associated positive emotions that those people will elicit.

Author Biography

Dr Samantha (Sam) Hardy is the Director and Lead Trainer of the Conflict Management Academy. Sam is an experienced mediator, conflict coach, and the founder of the REAL Conflict Coaching System™. She provides conflict support to managers and leaders across the world as well as professional development training, supervision and mentorship to mediators and coaches who work with clients in conflict. Sam is an accredited mediator under the Australian National Mediation Accreditation System (NMAS), a certified transformative mediator by the United States Institute of Conflict Transformation, and a certified narrative coach. She has been awarded Conflict Coach of the Year at the Australian Dispute Resolution Awards in 2022 as well as the Australian Resolution Institute Award for Service to Dispute Resolution in 2021 for her leadership and innovation in the field. Sam also publishes widely in dispute and conflict resolution, including Dispute Resolution in Australia, Mediation for Lawyers and Conflict Coaching Fundamentals: Working with Conflict Stories.

Defending Community Mediation: The Urgent Need to Save the CJC

Posted on by
Reply

This is a post by guest author, Professor Lise Barry. Professor Barry is Dean of Macquarie Law School and editor with David Spencer and Lola Akin Ojelabi of the 4th and 5th Editions of “Dispute Resolution in Australia: Cases, Commentary and Materials” (Thomson Reuters). Lise is an accredited mediator and has been a member of the NSW Community Justice Panel since 2004.

On 17th October this year, I received a surprising email from the Department of Communities and Justice, announcing that the Government had decided to close down the Community Justice Centre (CJC) in NSW and repeal The Community Justice Centres Act 1983 (the Act), which establishes and governs the operation of the service, effective 30 June 2025. Mediators are in the dark about the basis on which this decision has been made.

What a terrible loss to the community.  To understand a little about the CJC it is useful to look at its history.

CJC was established as a pilot in 1980.  Writing at the time of the creation of pilot program for CJC, Deputy Chief Magistrate Kevin Anderson wrote:

“To a magistrate who has for years been acutely conscious of the failings of the conventional justice system, Community justice Centres hold great promise. The Community Justice Centre pilot project is an important development in the evolution of law and society in this country.  The experiment deserves support.”

Introducing the Community Justice Centre Act of 1980, the then Attorney General and Minister for Justice, the Hon Frank Walker QC, echoed the hope that “the availability of mediation will ease significantly the present burden on magistrates courts in dealing with minor disputes where the cost and emotional upset involved are entirely disproportionate to the results achieved at the hearing.”  Mr Walker praised “the 106 people from all walks of life and representing most ethnic communities who have shown such enthusiasm and dedication in their training to be mediators.”

I was struck when reading about the recruitment of mediators for this new service.  The Law Foundation of NSW conducted the pilot review, noting,

“Two or three hundred people initially applied for selection at each of the three centres…. Each centre aimed to recruit a group of trainees which was diverse in age, sex, educational background and country of birth.  Further criteria for selection included such personal characteristics as tolerance, assertiveness, and ease of manner.” 

These are qualities that todays’ mediators would also do well to possess.

By 2001, the name “Community Justice Centre” had made its way into the Macquarie Dictionary, defined as “a centre offering a free and confidential mediation services as an alternative to normal legal channels in disputes between parties who have an on-going relations, as members of a family, neighbours, etc.” (Macquarie Dictionary 3rd ed, 2001, 396).

2002 saw the development of Indigenous mediation services, initially in the Northern CJC region, resulting in accreditation of 63 Indigenous mediators trained in NSW by the year 2006.Writing about the Indigenous service in the Indigenous Law Bulletin of 2006, Bill Pritchard, Senior Aboriginal Programs Officer at CJC wrote: “The acceptance of the program by Indigenous people and communities is reflected in the number of mediations undertaken by CJCs where at least one party identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.” He noted the rise from 62 cases in 2001/2002 to a reported 258 mediations undertaken in the 10 months to 1 May 2006. 

In 2004, in preparation for a Law Reform Commission Inquiry into CJC, a survey of CJC clients was conducted and the findings published in Report 12. 76 mediation participants were interviewed, almost half of them neighbours, with approximately one third reporting that an Apprehended Personal Violence Order was involved.  Participants commented on the mediators skill, the opportunity for discussion, avoiding court and that the service was free.  Interestingly, the most common suggestion of participants was to increase public awareness of the free service. 

Success rates for CJC are high.  Report 12 noted “Of the 2,786 cases that were mediated at CJCs between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003, 82% resulted in an agreement between the parties.”  76% of participants reports that mediation had improved their situation. Today, CJC fact sheets report that over 80% of participants reach an agreement.

In 2005 a further review of CJC by NSW Law Reform Commission Report 16, recommended the inclusion of an objects clause into the CJC Act.  Relevantly, the current Objects of the CJC Act read:

3   Object of Act

The object of this Act is to provide for the establishment and operation of Community Justice Centres for the purpose of:

(a)  providing dispute resolution and conflict management services, including the mediation of disputes, and

(b)  training persons to be mediators, and

(c)  promoting alternative dispute resolution, and

(d)  contributing to the development of alternative dispute resolution in New South Wales by entering into connections and partnerships with the legal profession, courts, tribunals, the academic sector and other providers of alternative dispute resolution services, and

(e)  undertaking other matters incidental to the provision of dispute resolution and conflict management services.

The 2005 Report noted that the CJC mediations were conducted “by Mediators who provide their services on a sessional basis (receiving small remuneration)…”  The small remuneration remains true, with mediators currently earning $41.60 per hour – this is a role that CJC mediators take on for love, not money. 

You can imagine then how disappointed some long-term mediators were, some of whom had over 30 years of service to the community of NSW, when they were provided with two lines of thanks for their service in the emailed announcement.

One of those long term mediators was Barbara Jean Armitage OAM, who sadly passed away on 29th October this year, her SMH obituary noting, that Barbara was a “Feminist, committed activist and crafter, life member of the Australian Labor Party. Waverley Municipal Council Alderman 1979-1997, Mayor of Waverley 1987-1997, Local Government Grants Commission Chair 1999, Premier’s Crime Prevention Council member and accredited mediator with the Community Justice Centre.”  Barbara’s pride in her service as mediator so clear and so poignant.

CJC mediators are well trained.  I fondly recall the three weeks of full-time training that I undertook before commencing work with CJC.  More recently, CJC have provided much needed supervised experience for new mediators and are a source of much needed accreditation hours for panellists for whom mediation is a passion, but not a full-time job. They have been the Recognised Mediator Accrediting Body for hundreds of mediators in NSW.

The initial email I received, advised that the Dept Community and Justice will be establishing a new inhouse mediation service for court mandated referral from 1 July 2025.  Advice to the current panel members suggest that this service will primarily be in connection with the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

While services for victims of domestic and personal violence are desperately needed, the dissolution of the CJC will be a terrible blow to the community.

In the 20 years of mediation I have completed for CJC, I have helped countless neighbours resolve disputes about everything from trees, to noise, to construction, to parking.  I have mediated employment disputes about pay, bullying and harassment and disputes over promotions.  I have mediated commercial disputes, assisted local registers to manage unrepresented litigants on List Days, mediated disputes between builders and homeowners, between committee members of small craft organisations, and multi-party disputes involving community groups.  I have assisted separating couples with property disputes and worked with tenants in disputes with their landlords and mediated disputes between parents and teenagers and between schools and chronic school avoiders. Not a single client paid for these services.

The decision to close CJC is likely to lead to increased legal costs, drawn out and escalating disputes, pressure on local councils and the Land and Environment Court who rely on CJC to manage so many tree and fencing disputes, and of course, pressure on disputants. As several of my fellow mediators have asked, what steps will be taken to manage the increased pressure on police and the court system, once CJC is closed?

Many incorporated community associations, who have a constitution based on the Model Rules provided by Fair Trading, and which directs associations to CJC for mediation in the event of disputes, will be affected by the decision. What will be done to manage the impact on these associations?

s9 of the Model Constitution currently reads

Resolution of internal disputes

  • The following disputes must be referred to a Community Justice Centre within the meaning of the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 for mediation:
    • a dispute between 2 or more members of the association, but only if the dispute is between the members in their capacity as members, ora dispute between 1 or more members and the association.

    • If the dispute is not resolved by mediation within 3 months of being referred to the Community Justice Centre, the dispute must be referred to arbitration.

On Tuesday 12th November, the Hon Gareth Ward put a question on notice to the Premier: “I have in my hand documents indicating that the Government will be closing Community Justice Centres and sacking mediators across the State, who provide a valuable service. Will the Premier reverse these cuts?”

Let’s hope the answer will be yes.

The CJC has been a cornerstone of alternative dispute resolution in New South Wales, providing free and effective mediation that has benefited countless individuals and communities. The loss of the CJC will not only increase the burden on our legal system but also deprive many of a crucial resource for resolving conflicts amicably. I urge all mediators, legal professionals, and supporters of community justice to lobby the government to reconsider this decision.

The Problem with ‘Genuine Effort Certificates’ in Family Law and Options for Law Reform

Posted on by
1

Emma Mills
Monash University

In Australia, most parents who are trying to resolve a parenting dispute must first attempt family dispute resolution (‘FDR’), usually in the form of mediation. This must be done before commencing family law court proceedings. If FDR is unsuccessful, a family dispute resolution practitioner (‘FDRP’) will issue parties with a certificate to take to the court, which outlines why parties were unable to resolve their dispute during FDR. These are known as ‘genuine effort certificates’. However, genuine effort certificates given by FDRPs pose many issues, such as the lack of clarity about what a genuine effort looks like, lack of consistency and negatively impacting vulnerable parties. Due to these issues, I argue that changes should be made to the Family Law Act (‘FLA’). Specifically, I propose two separate solutions that could be considered. First, I propose that genuine effort should be a term that is defined in the FLA and second, that genuine effort certificates should be abolished and replaced with attendance certificates.

What is the genuine effort certificate and FDR?

In 2006, the Australian Government introduced changes to improve the Australian family law system. The main reason behind the sweeping reforms was to find ways for parents to come to a parenting agreement collaboratively, rather than commencing legal proceedings. Due to these reforms, attendance at FDR is effectively a pre-requisite for family law matters involving children. FDR is where a FDRP, who is independent to the parties, acts as a mediator to facilitate parties coming to a solution between themselves, so that they can seek to resolve their dispute outside of court. A court is unable to hear an application regarding a parenting dispute, unless a genuine effort certificate is issued by a FDRP or an exception applies. The certificates are based on whether parties have made a ‘genuine effort’ to participate in FDR. For example, a parent could be issued with a certificate that says that they ‘did not make a genuine effort to resolve the issue’ (‘non-genuine effort certificate’). The type of certificate issued can determine whether the court decides to send parties back to FDR and can be a consideration when determining to award costs against a party.

As a result of the genuine effort certificate scheme, FDRPs have been referred to as being ‘gatekeepers to family courts’. There are some advantages to this. For instance, the genuine effort requirement places an obligation on parties to take responsibility to resolve the dispute before going to court. Following the introduction of the FDR requirement, there was a 25% reduction in court filings and parties reported high levels of satisfaction with the process. However, genuine effort is not defined in the FLA. The FLA does not provide any guidance as to what circumstances, conduct or factors constitute a ‘genuine’ or a ‘non-genuine’ effort. This means that the implementation of this requirement is problematic in practice.

What are the negative impacts of the genuine effort certificates?

Undermining the Impartiality of a Mediator

The main role of a FDRP in mediation is to be ‘independent’ from parties. The neutrality of the FDRP is a fundamental component of the practice of mediation. Neutrality is described as going ‘to the heart’ of mediation theory and means ‘freedom from bias’. Field and Crowe talk about the ‘folklore of neutrality’, which suggests that true neutrality can be difficult to achieve. This concept is especially true in the context of the genuine effort certificates.

When issuing a genuine effort certificate, FDRPs must make a subjective judgement about whether each party has genuinely attempted FDR. The FDRP may have to make a judgement about whether the party has acted reasonably. This can occur in situations where a party refuses to move from their initial position, which could be perceived as the party being unrealistic and unreasonable by the FDRP. Also, whilst FDRPs are trained to be as objective as possible, decisions about whether parties have been genuine in their effort may be unavoidably influenced by their own personal values, experiences and subconscious biases, particularly in the context of family and separation. This can mean that FDRPs may potentially act in a biased way when deciding on the type of certificate to issue.

The genuine effort requirement, therefore, places immense pressure on FDRPs to make a judgement about how they perceive each party to be genuinely participating in the process. This function is arguably well beyond a FDRP’s scope as mediators, when they take on a role of being an ‘assessor’. The requirement for a FDRP to issue a genuine effort certificate is a legislative obligation that overrides the fundamental obligation of FDRPs to treat parties impartially, which is central to mediation.

Lack of Clarity and Consistency

As discussed earlier, the FLA does not define genuine effort. Therefore, whether a party has genuinely participated in FDR is a highly subjective analysis which must be undertaken by FDRPs in the absence of guidance on how a genuine effort is to be determined. Due to the lack of clarity, pressure is placed on parties to appear reasonable and cooperative, so that they can satisfy the individual FDRPs perception of genuine effort. This strain may impact parties to the extent that they do not feel like they can participate in the process in a full and frank manner, or negotiate effectively. For example, parties may change their behaviour, possibly to their detriment, if they know that the FDRP will be making a judgement about their behaviour. This strain placed upon parties, lawyers and FRDPs is a result of the genuine effort requirements being unclear and undefined.

Since there is no definition of genuine effort, it is extremely difficult to promote consistency in the issuing of genuine effort certificates. FDRPs are often influenced by a range of factors, including their prior professional experiences and their personal views. This can mean that there is a lack of consistency for parties, which can create apprehension about what certificate they may be issued. Therefore, due to the lack of clarity about what is a genuine effort, it creates an area of law that is inconsistent and unreliable.

Gendered Implications

For parties to appear as though they are genuinely participating in the process, it is likely that the party must present as rational, reasonable and cooperative. This poses a risk for parties who may appear difficult, angry or unreasonable, to be seen as not genuinely participating.  This expectation can create problems, especially for vulnerable individuals, who might not fully understand what is expected of them.

Viewing this through a gendered lens, Rachael Field argues that women are more likely to face unfair judgements and to be labelled as being ‘unreasonable’ after separation. This can make it harder for women to show FDRPs that they are genuinely trying to participate in the process. After separation, women are often already enduring gendered disadvantage, such as distress, poverty or repercussions of family violence, which can affect both how they behave and how their behaviour is perceived during FDRP. Also, when FDRPs evaluate how genuine parties are, they may be influenced by their societal views and values of women, including what they consider to be stereotypically feminine behaviour. This raises the possibility that if a woman behaves in a way that falls outside of gendered norms, she may then be issued with a non-genuine effort certificate. This can worsen the post separation vulnerability that women experience, especially if they then run the risk of receiving a cost order against them once the case progresses to court.

What are the solutions?

As discussed, the way that genuine effort certificates are operationalised in practice may undermine the overall aim of increased participation in FDR for parenting disputes. There are two separate potential avenues for reform that I will now consider, which could assist in working towards addressing these problems.

  • Defining Genuine Effort

As mentioned earlier, the lack of clarity around what counts as a genuine effort in FDR creates significant problems, especially for vulnerable parties and women post separation. Without a clear definition of genuine effort in the FLA, it reduces consistency for parties. Therefore, one solution is that the FLA should be amended to include a definition of genuine effort. This definition would provide a guideline for FDRPs, lawyers and parties. For example, the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) includes a provision where the holder of a certain visa has made a ‘genuine effort’ to commence employment or engage in business. A list of factors is included to help with the assessment of what is considered genuine effort in the circumstances. Whilst the factors included in the Migration Act are not helpful in assessing genuine effort in FDR, this provides an example of how the FLA can include such guidelines to assist in the interpretation of genuine effort.

The possibility of using a list of factors has already been considered by leading family law scholars. For instance, Hilary Astor suggests that a definition of genuine effort should include factors such as the ‘willingness to consider options put forward by the other party’, ‘willingness to consider putting forward options’ and ‘willingness to focus on the needs and interests of the children’. These factors would help to give parties a guide on how they should act in FDR. These factors align with broader comments made by Einstein J in Aiton Australia Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd (1999) 153 FLR 236 [at 156], where he says that parties should be open minded and receptive in mediation and be willing to put forward options for a resolution.

These factors, therefore, could be legislated in the FLA. This would provide much needed clarity about what genuine effort means, which would in turn help to create consistency and provide parties with a clearer understanding about what is required of them during FDR.

  • Abolishing the Genuine Effort Certificate

There are significant issues with issuing genuine effort certificates, which defining genuine effort in the FLA cannot alleviate alone. Therefore, an alternative solution that has been suggested is to abolish the types of genuine effort certificates issued altogether. Whilst defining genuine effort in the FLA may be of some assistance, determining whether parties are giving a genuine effort in FDR is still highly contextual in nature and would still require the FRDP to make a discretionary judgement. Simply providing FDRPs with a set of factors to be considered may not resolve the issue of FDRPs making a subjective decision about the type of certificate to issue or clarify FDRPs’ role within mediation.

Instead, through abolishing the types of genuine effort certificates issued, the FDRP would instead issue an attendance certificate. This would simplify the process and would just require the FDRP to note whether participants did or did not attend FDR. An attendance certificate would help FDRPs to maintain their position of independence and neutrality within mediation, and would eliminate the issues around the lack of clarity and consistency. It would also help to alleviate the potential repercussions for parties who are issued with a non-genuine effort certificate, especially for women post separation. In addition, without having to assess parties’ behaviour, it would enable FDRPs to focus on their main goal: to assist parties to find a workable arrangement between themselves.

Next Steps

Whilst the genuine effort requirement has been an important factor in encouraging parties to try and resolve their parenting disputes through FDR, its implementation poses issues for parties, lawyers and FDRPs. In this post, I have proposed two separate pathways that could be followed to begin to address these problems. Introducing a factor-based definition of genuine effort into the FLA provides a small, short-term adjustment that can assist in clarifying the standard of genuine effort for parties. On the other hand, a more radical, longer-term solution is to abolish the genuine effort certificates altogether and replace them with mere attendance certificates. Attendance certificates would remove the evaluative function of FDRPs altogether, whilst still mandating engagement with FDR.

Author Biography

Emma Mills is a Law and Criminology student in the Faculty of Law at Monash University. Emma has a particular interest in social justice and volunteers with the Epilepsy Foundation in her spare time. After graduation, Emma wants to pursue a career in family law and to dedicate herself to creating a fairer legal system.

Mediation: Australia’s Place in the International Scene (Part 4 of 4)

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Mediation: Australia’s Place in the International Scene (Part 3 of 4)

Posted on by
Reply

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.