|
|
National Mediator Accreditation System Draft Proposal for Public Consultation |
The
Accreditation Sub-Committee of the National Mediation Conference Pty Ltd is
pleased to be able to provide this initial draft document. The document seeks to achieve several aims,
principally:
- Inform the community of some options
- Seek feedback as to their preferences
More information
about the operation of the sub-committee and the National Mediation Conference
can be found at the web site - www.mediationconference.com.au
. This website will also allow you to
view the document in a variety of electronic formats and to provide feedback to
the facilitator engaged by the committee.
Feedback will be
collated considered and a further draft will be issued. Following this a broad public consultation
is to be undertaken by the facilitator (Professor Laurence Boulle) in
association with members of the sub-committee.
The document does
not represent any settled or considered view of the committee individually or
collectively.
Scott Pettersson
For the
Sub-committee
-------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
Part 1 Background and Procedure
Part II Basic Accreditation Proposal
Part III Key Issues for Consideration
Part IV General Consultation Questions
Part VI Flow-Chart of Proposed National
|
Part I Background and
Procedure There has been considerable debate in Australia over the last 15 years over issues of accreditation, training, standards, codes of conduct and professional organisations for mediators. The debate has been conducted in the literature, at conferences and consultations, within policy-advisory bodies such as NADRAC, in commission reports, and in numerous other contexts.[1] This debate has occurred in the absence of any national mandatory system of mediator accreditation in Australia, and the existence of numerous individual accreditation systems. The actual appointment of mediators is often based on word of mouth ‘accreditation’ and the professional status of mediators, regardless of their formally-recognised competence in the mediation process and mediator techniques. This document does not canvas, analyse and evaluate the well-known themes and arguments relating to accreditation issues as found in the literature, policy documents, reports and other sources. While there is an enormous diversity of views in relation to accreditation, the ‘conventional wisdom’ is that there should be some movement towards a uniform system of mediator accreditation in Australia. This view was reflected in the decision of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department to make funds available to the National Mediation Conference Pty Ltd (NMC) for the development of a proposal for a national system of Mediator Accreditation in Australia. The proposal in this paper is therefore based on the assumption that some form of uniform mediator accreditation is appropriate at this stage of Australian mediation history. The case has been made and it is time to develop a specific proposal. Against this background the paper puts forwards various structures, processes and options for achieving the goal. It attempts to propose a system which is simple, achievable and would obtain significant support from credible players in the mediation movement. Defining
Accreditation At its most basic level accreditation involves the formal recognition of individuals, organisations or programs in a particular profession, occupation or pursuit, in terms of specified objective standards relating to qualifications, competence and performance. Accreditation usually occurs in the context of organisational schemes designed to promote quality, standards and accountability among practitioners. It could apply to individual practitioners, to organisations which provide particular services, to specific service-providing programs, or to employers engaging practitioners in the area.
Accreditation involves an initial assessment against objective criteria of individuals, programs or organisations in the light of particular information and evidence.[2] It usually also involves some degree of ongoing monitoring, and the removal of accreditation (or de-accreditation) where the criteria are no longer satisfied. Accreditation systems are often reinforced in the promotion of quality, standards and ethics by practice requirements relating to codes of conduct, service delivery, compliance mechanisms and complaints-handling systems. Nature of
Consultation Process The facilitator was engaged by an ad hoc committee appointed by the
National Mediation Conference Pty Ltd. The NMC
selected a broadly-based committee to appoint a facilitator for this
undertaking, to oversee the facilitation process, and to report back to the
Attorney-General’s Department. The committee comprises Helen Marks,
Mary Walker, Warwick Soden, Scott Petterson, Sandra Boyle, Robert Crick,
Franca Petrone, Bill Field, Gordon Tippett, Salli Browning and Karen Dey. The
committee appointed Laurence Boulle to undertake the facilitation and report
back. Neither the facilitator nor the committee has any decision-making
authority in relation to accreditation issues. The budget for the initiative
is approved by the committee from funds granted to the NMC by the
Commonwealth Attorney-General for this purpose. The objective of the facilitation process is to obtain consensus in the mediation community about accreditation issues. Here consensus refers neither to unanimity on all issues, nor to bare majoritarianism, but to a process which allows all relevant views to be aired, which considers options and refines those options in relation to key issues, which increases understanding within the community, and which produces outcomes which are perceived as legitimate because of the participatory and transparent nature of the processes followed. The facilitation process commenced with a
literature and resource search; liaison with the committee in face-to-face
meeting and through email and telephonic contacts; consultation with experts
on facilitating group consensus; investigation of software options for
capture and sorting of submissions; and drafting of several versions of this
proposal with feedback from committee members. Outcomes The proposals emanating from the facilitation process will be submitted to the Attorney-General’s Department, as the funder of the initiative, and to the NMC for discussion and approval by participants at the National Mediation Conference in Hobart from 3-5 May 2006. Time-table Mid-November
2005: Dissemination of Draft Proposal to all sectors of the Australian
mediation community. Mid-November
2005 to late January 2006: First Phase of Community Consultation Process
during which electronic responses to the Draft Proposal can be submitted via
the website. Early
February 2006: Redrafting of Accreditation Proposal in light of responses
received during first consultation phase. Mid-to
Late February 2006: Second Phase of Community Consultation Process
involving Public Forums in major centres attended by facilitator for consideration,
discussion and refinement of proposal. March
2006: Meeting between Facilitator and Committee and Final Drafting of
Accreditation Proposal. Mid-March
2006: Approval of Accreditation Proposal by Committee and Submission to the
Attorney-General’s Department. May
2006: Consideration and Approval of Accreditation System at National
Mediation Conference, Hobart. Part
II Basic Accreditation Proposal Objectives The main objectives of the National Mediator Accreditation System are the creation of a practical and credible system for the uniform recognition, certification or accreditation of mediators in Australia in order to improve mediator knowledge, skills and ethical standards, to promote quality of mediation practice, to serve and protect the needs of consumers of mediation services and provide accountability where they are not met, to enable mediators to gain external recognition of their skills, and to broaden the credibility and public acceptance of mediation. A further objective of the scheme is to create greater consistency across different accreditation systems by providing some commonality in educational and training standards and competency assessment. While the proposed system is not comprehensive or compulsory, it would in the short term provide some entry level consistency for new mediators who chose to participate in it. This implies support by existing accreditation organisations of the new system.[3] |
Throughout this document the term ‘Accreditation’ is used to refer to the
recognition of mediators in terms of the National Mediator Standard, and ‘accreditation’ is used to refer
mediator recognition outside of this proposal, for example in terms of
specific mediator programs, such as a community justice system. The conventional view is reflected, inter alia, in
NADRAC reports referred to in this work, in community responses to those
reports, and in views expressed at the 2004 National Mediation Conference in
Darwin. While simplicity is an admirable goal, complexity
awaits at many turns. Similar terms to accreditation, with their own
connotations, are registration, certification and licensing. The Family
Law Regulations 1984 provide for a partial licensing system in the provision
for ‘approved mediators’. |
||||
|
Defining Factors The specific features of this proposal are based on the
following considerations:
|
It follows the guidelines of NADRAC in its Standards
Paper; some accreditation systems, such as that in Austria, are
legislatively-based There may be support from certain stakeholders for some
degree of state regulation or a mixture of external regulation and
self-regulation. This proposal, however, is based on self-regulation. See
Part V, S 3 below. |
||||
|
Key Proposal That Australian mediators will be able to achieve the status of Mediators Accredited according to the National Mediation Standard if they satisfy the requirements referred to in the National Mediator Accreditation system. Scope of
Accreditation System Applicable to
Mediators The Accreditation system will apply only to mediators and mediation and not to other dispute resolution practitioners such as arbitrators, case appraisers or neutral evaluators providing advisory or determinative processes. Here the term mediation is understood in terms of the NADRAC definition of the process.[7] Voluntary System The Accreditation system will be voluntary and optional for those mediator practitioners who wish to hold themselves out as being accredited according to the National Mediation Standard. Initial Stage of
Accreditation The system will be of a basic nature in relation to the requirements for Accreditation and the consequences of Accreditation. As a first stage of Accreditation it may be replaced by a more extensive model in the future, involving features such as licensing, regulation and practice monopolies and additional levels or grades of Accreditation. It is, however, a stand-alone system which could endure in its own right, even if there is not another more extensive stage of Accreditation; it therefore makes no assumptions about future Accreditation developments. Single Level of
Accreditation The system provides for only one level of mediator
Accreditation and leaves open the option of intermediate or advanced
Accreditation being developed at future stages. Scope for Additional
accreditation The system allows for additional requirements to be prescribed for the individual accreditation systems established by legislation and regulations, or by membership organisations, service-providers and users of mediation such as courts and tribunals. |
Mutual recognition is easier at the training and
assessment levels first, while organisations could have different additional
criteria for accreditation, depending on the context of their mediation
practice. As this stage of Accreditation is voluntary and does
not involve mandatory licensing, the proposal does not deal with many of the
potentially problematic definitional issues in ADR field. It will not constitute a licensing system which would
exclude those not accredited to the National Mediation Standard from holding
themselves out as practising mediators. Most current
accreditation systems in Australia are voluntary. A disadvantages of a system
that is not voluntary is that it would require attention to the definition
and scope of mediation so that it is distinguished from comparable processes
such as conciliation, facilitation and counselling. A mandatory system would
also require more rigorous attention to accreditation of practitioners
involved in ‘hybrid’ dispute resolution processes, such as med-arb. Some membership organisations have provisions for
Basic and Advanced levels of accreditation. For example the Family Law Regulations 1984 already
have higher level requirements than proposed for the National Mediation
Standard. |
||||
|
A Professional
Association or Peak Body The Accreditation system does not depend on the establishment of a peak body, professional association or industry body for mediators.[8] The Accreditation system may create impetus for a professional association or peak body but this option is beyond the terms of the current investigation and report. Infra-structural
Requirements Although the Accreditation system does not require the establishment of a professional association or peak body, it does necessitate consideration of some level of infra-structure to administer and support specific aspects of the system. The system requires the following functions to be exercised through appropriate structural arrangements and procedures:
Organisational options are suggested in Part III below for the performance of these functions and attention will be given to them during the consultation processes. |
See Part III, below There are well-established professional associations
in the law, medicine, accounting and psychology, all regarded as independent
‘professions’. |
||||
|
Compliance Compliance with the Accreditation system will mainly occur through the Recognition and Supervision of Mediator Accreditation function and the Feedback, Complaints and Discipline function. Indirect compliance will occur through the role of Recognised Mediator Accreditation Bodies (RMABs), consumer choice, disclosure and publicity and other factors associated with reputation and voluntary compliance. Accrediting of
Mediators The National Mediator Accreditation System will result in the Accreditation of individual mediators according to the National Mediator Standard, and not in the accreditation of programs or service-providers. |
|
||||
|
Recognised Mediator
Accreditation Bodies Individuals will be certified as Accredited according to the National Mediation Standard by Recognised Mediator Accreditation Bodies (RMABs). RMABs will be those bodies whose education, training and assessment credentials have been approved from time to time through the Recognition and Supervision of Mediator Accreditation function. In order to be approved through the Recognition and Supervision of Mediator Accreditation system, institutions will have to provide standardised information on:
Recognition in terms of these criteria will be given for a period of xxx years and must be renewed after expiration of this period. Where a RMAB loses its recognition as an approved body, the status of the mediators it has Accredited will not be affected during the currency of their Accreditation. Additional
Responsibilities of Recognised Mediator Accreditation Bodies Besides the functions of educating, training and assessing prospective mediators, RMABs will provide the Continuing Professional Development required in terms of the National Mediator Accreditation System and will make information about mediators’ involvement in these programs available for purposes of Maintaining the Mediation Register. |
This accords with the NADRAC view that there should
be a system to approve organisations which accredit mediators. Institutions such as universities, community
organisations, member organisations and government agencies could all qualify
as RMABs. Initially there will be no requirement that the
trainers are themselves accredited according to the NMS. See Part V S 9, below. |
||||
|
Admission to
Mediator Accreditation Programs RMABs have the discretion as to which individuals are admitted to their mediator education, training and assessment programs. There will be no formal pre-requisites, such as tertiary qualifications or professional status, for entry into such programs. [9] |
Pre-requisites are required by some accreditation
systems, for example under the Family Law Regulations 1984. Accreditation will promote consistency in mediator
standards by evaluating the demonstrated knowledge, skills and ethical
understanding of proposed mediators and not in terms of other pre-existing
qualifications or professional status |
||||
|
The National
Mediation Standard (NMS) In order to be accredited according to the NMS, mediators must have successfully attended and displayed understanding and competence in an education and training course comprising theory, experiential involvement in mediation simulations, and consideration of ethical issues. The training will have the following features: 1. It is conducted by a RMAB. 2. It is of a minimum of xxx hours in duration. 3. It covers the following areas of substantive knowledge:
4. There must be instruction and skills development in the following techniques:
5. Each course participant shall be involved in at least six simulated mediation sessions, in at least two of which they perform the role of the mediator. Competence in the two mediator simulations will be assessed by two different members of the training team, and will be recorded in written form in an assessment instrument. 6. Each course participant will have to complete written debriefing evaluations of two simulated mediations, one in which they were a disputant and the other a mediator, in an evaluation form prescribed by the RMAB. 7. There will be a written examination of between 45 and 90 minutes in duration in which participants will be asked to suggest appropriate or preferred ways of dealing with specific ethical dilemmas, tactical issues or difficult scenarios which can arise in mediation. 8. The overall assessment of participants for Accreditation will be based on competence displayed in mediation simulations, awareness displayed in the written debriefings, performance in the examination, and general course participation such as contributions to the discussions on ethical or critical issues. 9. RMABs will provide certification to the effect than an individual has satisfied the criteria for Accreditation according to the National Mediator Standard. Disclosure by RMABs RMABs are required to make information about their courses, instructors, programs, assessment schemes and fee structures available and accessible to the public. Any changes to these features must be notified to the Recognition and Supervision of Mediator Accreditation system on an annual basis. |
See Part IV Q 9, below. In Australian practice mediation training courses are
between 24 and 60 hours in duration. Some European programs are considerably
longer. See Part IV Q 6, below. Written examinations on practical, legal and ethical
issues are conducted in arbitration and other dispute resolution education and
training. |
||||
|
Fees and Other
Charges RMABs will be able set their own fees and charges for education and training, assessment, and other services associated with Accreditation according to the National Mediator Standard. |
|
||||
|
Membership of
Organisations The consultation process should determine whether Mediators Accredited according to the National Mediation Standard should be required to maintain ongoing membership of a ‘mediator organisation’, whether it be a commercial entity, such as IAMA or LEADR, or a not-for-profit organisation, such as ADRA or VADRA. |
See Part V Q 7 , below. |
||||
|
Duration of
Accreditation Accreditation will be for a period of xxx years, subject to compliance with continuing professional development requirements (see below) and the mediator not being de-accredited during this period. Upon expiry of the Accreditation period mediators will have to undergo re-accreditation according to the guidelines established by the Recognition and Supervision of Mediator Accreditation system and be re-certified by a RMAB as a Mediator Accredited according to the National Mediator Standard. Decisions about re-accreditation will be taken on relevant information and evidence required by RMABs, such as surveys of clients and advisors, co-mediator debriefings, supervisors’ reports, references and other relevant material. |
See Part V Q 10, below. |
||||
|
Ongoing Practice
and Continuing Professional Development Requirements In order to retain Accredited status, mediators are required to satisfy stipulated continuing professional development (CPD) requirements each year. Here CPD refers to any form of education or training relating to the delivery of mediation services. The CPD requirements will be:
The RMABs will be responsible for conducting CPD courses and programs on a fee-for-service basis. They will provide information on course attendance for purposes of updating the Register of Accredited Mediators. |
Details of these requirements will be considered in
the consultation phases. See Part V S 11, below. For these purposes undertaking a mediation will
ordinarily refer to acting as mediator in the mediation proper and not to
only performing intake or preliminary work. Requirements could focus on ‘qualitative’ factors, involving
specific mediator functions, rather than specifying the number of attendance
hours |
||||
|
Relationship with
Other Accreditation Systems The National Mediator Accreditation System will not supplant other existing, or future, mediator accreditation systems. Essentially it would overlap with such systems and neither override them nor be subordinate to them. Mediators could continue to be accredited by courts, tribunals, industry bodies, community organisations or member organisations. Existing forms of accreditation have their own requirements in relation to qualifications, training, standards, supervision and accountability and these would be left intact. A mediator could be accredited according to the National Mediator Standard and also in relation to a private or government mediation service. However only those accredited in terms of the National Mediator Accreditation System will be able to hold themselves out in marketing, promotional and professional material as being accredited in terms of the National Mediation Standard. Client Feedback,
Complaints and Discipline System Where an Accredited mediator is alleged to be in breach of an applicable mediator Code of Conduct, the criminal law or other relevant professional standard, a complainant would be expected to first seek redress from the mediator or service-providing institution, before registering a complaint with the Complaints and Discipline system. |
Several law societies have regimes for practitioners
to become ‘specialists’ in mediation practice. Bodies whose ‘accreditation’ systems are equal or
superior to those contained in this proposal could apply to become RMABs. Accreditation systems are run by private
service-providing organisations, commercial enterprises, courts and
government agencies. There is no automatic mutual recognition among the
schemes although the private organisations have increased such recognition in
recent years. Governments accredit mediators in terms of legislation for
specific purposes relating to a legislative scheme or court program.[10] |
||||
|
The Complaints and Discipline system will initially deal with the complaint in an informal and expeditious manner with the object of resolving the issues between the complainant and mediator or institution consensually in light of their mutual interests. Where the complaint process has not been completed satisfactorily through the informal manner, the complainant may refer it to a Mediator Disciplinary Board. The Mediator Disciplinary Board will be part of the Complaints and Discipline function and will be constituted in a manner agreed during the consultation process. The Mediator Disciplinary Board must, with due regard to the rules of procedural fairness for all parties, make a determination on whether the Accredited mediator is in breach of an applicable Code of Conduct, law or other relevant standard. The determination must be made in light of the established facts of the situation and the provisions of the applicable Code of Conduct. Where the mediator is found to be in breach, the Disciplinary Board may temporarily suspend the mediator’s Accreditation for a defined period or withdraw the Accreditation altogether. Where Accreditation is withdrawn the mediator will not be able to re-apply for Accreditation until the lapse of at least xxx years. The general procedures to be followed in the complaints process and the disciplinary determination shall be set out by the Complaints and Discipline system and shall be publicly available to mediators and mediation clients. Recognition of Prior Mediator Training
and Experience The Accreditation system will indicate the extent to which prior training and experience of mediators is to be taken into account in assessing the credentials of mediators applying to be Accredited in terms of the new system. |
See Part III, below. See Part V S 12. See Part III, below. |
||||
|
Consequences of
Accreditation Mediators who have satisfied the requirements of the National Mediator Accreditation System will be able to hold themselves out as being Accredited according to the National Mediation Standard in any marketing, promotional or professional materials. There would be no sanctions within the system in relation to mediators who falsely held themselves out to be Accredited according to the National Mediation Standard, but they could still be subject to sanctions under statute or at common law.[11] Register of
Mediators Accredited According to the National Standard There will be a single national Register of Mediators
Accredited in terms of the scheme. The Register will contain standardised
information on listed mediators and will be updated on an annual basis in the
light of new accreditations, accreditation renewals, lapsed accreditations
and de-accreditations. Information on the Register would be accessible to the
public. |
Mediation providers may elect to make referrals only
to NMS-Accredited mediators. Mediation bodies funded by government may be
required to use only NMS-Accredited mediators.[12]
‘Trust marking’ might be used by commercial enterprises where their mediators
are NMS-Accredited. Contractual dispute resolution clauses, industry codes
and other instruments may require the provision of services by NMS-Accredited
mediators. This follows from the lack of legislative backing for
the system. See Part V S 6, below. |
||||
|
Review, Evaluation
and Adaptation The Accreditation system will be independently evaluated and reviewed after xxx years of operation through the Evaluation and Review system. In the light of this evaluation, consideration will be given to adapting and modifying the system. |
See Part V S 13, below. An appropriate format for this function will be
considered during the consultation processes. |
||||
|
Part III Key Issues for
Consideration Recognition of
Prior Training and Experience As the recognition of prior training and experience is likely to be a controversial feature of any mediator Accreditation system it is proposed that it be dealt with extensively in the public consultation process. As an initial Accreditation regime it is recommended that the emphasis in the National Mediator Accreditation system should remain on demonstrated skills, knowledge and understanding in relation to mediation, regardless of how these are achieved by mediators. It should not allow these factors to be undermined by recognising other prior training and experience too readily. From a practical point of view it would not be possible for all mediators to have to satisfy the requirements of the National Mediator Accreditation System immediately as there would be insufficient capacity for education, training and assessment in the short term. The system is also optional so that there would be no compulsion to qualify. There are two options for an interim period:
Functions within
the System In its 2004 paper NADRAC invited comments on the formation, structure, membership, funding and name for a body that would oversee the development of accreditation standards.[13] This relates to the frequently-discussed question of a peak body or professional association for mediators in Australia. |
This is referred to as the ‘grand-parenting’
arrangement in terms of which all those with prescribed prior training and
experience are automatically registered into the new system. Australian Mediation Accreditation Council Association for Mediator Accreditation This is referred to as the basis ‘grand-parenting’
arrangement in terms of which all those with prescribed prior training and
experience are automatically registered into the new system. One of the unintended consequences of a voluntary
system is that mediation could be come more expensive for organisations with
existing high standards while it is entirely ignored by solo practitioners. It should be noted that NADRAC has already been
consulted on a future involvement in the Accrediation system and does not
regard itself as a suitable body for any role. References are included for
completeness sake but reality dictates that NADRAC is unlikely to play any
such role. National Association for Translators and
Interpreters Ltd http://www.naati.com.au/
Provides accreditation at four levels NAATI is a
national standards body owned by the Commonwealth, State and Territory
Governments of Australia. It is a company limited by guarantee under the
Commonwealth Corporations Law 2001. cothis could split See below, xxx Need question below. See questions below A grading system for arbitrators has been common for
man years. See questions below, xxx See question xxx below, |
||||
|
Peak or industry bodies are associated with the collective interests of various occupations, industries and professions, in particular with external representation, advocacy and lobbying to government, the private sector and the media. A professional association normally goes beyond advocacy and representation and is involved in the development of admission rules for the practice in question, setting codes of conduct and imposing disciplinary measures on members where appropriate and in other matters of professional governance. In return for these self-regulatory functions professional associations customarily negotiate with the state to prevent non-members through legislation or regulation from pursuing the particular occupational practice. The National Mediator Accreditation system is based on the object of avoiding elaborate infra-structural requirements and the organisational and financial burdens they impose. One of the advantages of a basic, devolved model is that is does not require a peak body, official association or other elaborate infra-structure. The ‘framework’ approach recommended by NADRAC[14] entails individual organisations establishing their own standards systems; these organisations could be educational bodies, service providing institutions, government agencies, court or tribunals. The current proposal builds on that approach, in particular in relation to the education, training and assessment requirements. However it is still necessary to designate which bodies would be able to Accredit individuals according to the National Mediation Standard and to perform the other supervisory roles required in the system. The main function required by this model is that of designating the RMABs. This is referred to as the Recognition and Supervision of Mediator Accreditation function. This could be provided through a body established, permanently or from time to time, from nominees of various mediation organisations operating in a collaborative ‘confederal’ arrangement. Organisations would likely require a prior indication of this body’s structures and procedures before committing to it. As with the other infra-structure, it also raises questions about funding and resources. As regards the Complaints-Handling and Discipline function, the current model implies that some of this infra-structure can be provided by participating bodies, for example RMABs could be required to deal with complaints against mediators whom they have Accredited. It would be easier to require RMABs to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction in respect of mediators it had Accredited if the mediators were required to have continuing membership of that body, and less easy to do so if they were not. However it is likely that other structures and resources will still be required to address complaints in a facilitative way and to make determinations when this is not successful. This could be a relatively small body based more on expertise than representativeness, for example a body of experienced mediators who volunteer their services, an existing ombudsman-type body contracted for the purpose, or a retired judge or mediator appointed when there is a need. As regards the functions related to the Register of Accredited Mediators are concerned, these are essentially of an administrative nature and could be conducted by a single institution on a contracted basis. As regards the Review, Evaluation and Adaptation function this could involve an ad hoc, single-issue body which will only operate once the time for review arises. It would require both legitimacy in the mediation community and expertise in relation to professional review and evaluation of systems and processes. It could be a group appointed by the National Mediation Conference Pty Ltd, a private organisation contracted for the purpose, or even a ‘peak body’ or professional association if such has been established in the interim period. In due course a peak body or professional association, involving memberships, fees, legal organisation and administrative personnel, could be developed to perform all or some of the above functions. However the committee considered that at this stage of Accreditation such a body was not necessitated. The following possible options exist for dealing with the four functions: |
The options below have been considered by NADRAC
which has emphasised that options B and C would not fit within the role and
status of that body. NADRAC has never been a peak body or professional
association and is unlikely to have its Charter altered for this purpose.
These options have been retained here for completeness’ sake but it is clear
that that they are unlikely to be practical possibilities under current
arrangements. |
|
|||
|
Model |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Issues Arising |
|
|
|
A. Committee established by
a Commonwealth government department |
Funding borne by
government. Shows government commitment
to mediation. May encourage various
governments to use accredited mediators. |
Problems over jurisdiction. Could be seen as a form of
state regulation. Susceptible to changing
government policy |
Might this model encourage
more mediators into the voluntary system? |
|
|
|
B. NADRAC and its
secretariat |
High status and legitimacy. Existing secretariat in
place. |
Not within charter of
NADRAC. Changes NADRAC independence
and advisory nature. Would require additional
resources. |
Could NADRAC undertake some
activities on an interim only basis? |
|
|
|
C. Expanded NADRAC, or body
appointed by NADRAC, with permanent representation of different sectors |
High status through
association with NADRAC. Body could be
representative of different mediation interest groups. |
Would require additional
resources from government. Could be seen as too close
to government. |
As above. |
|
|
|
D. National Mediation
Conference Pty Ltd |
Existing institution with
legal persona. Legitimacy in mediation
sector. Has the running of the
current initiative. |
Not a representative body. Lack of permanent
infra-structure. |
Would accredited mediators
be prepared to pay $ xx a year to fund this body? |
|
|
|
E. New Not for Profit
Organisation (National Mediator Standards Pty Ltd) |
Dedicated body with
specific focus on standards. Permanent positions for
different interest groups. Could report to AG’s
department or NADRAC. |
Requires incorporation and
accompanying expenses. Becomes in effect a peak
body. |
How would the Directors and
Members be appointed? Would accredited mediators
be prepared to pay $ xx a year to fund the body? |
|
|
|
F. Federal or confederal
body with nominees of participating institutions |
No government-funding
entailed. Representative in design
and nature. Security for all
participating bodies. Would require collaborative
efforts across movement. |
Costs borne by
participating bodies and ultimately consumers. Some interested bodies
might not have resources or personnel to participate. The problem of
‘volunteerism’. |
Would the ad hoc nature of
such a body lead to important issues being over-looked? |
|
|
|
G. State- and
territory-based infra-structure |
Acknowledge state-based
nature of much mediation regulation, funding and practice. |
Less consistency than with
national model. Creates eight devolved
problems instead of a single national one. |
Some States and territories
might not move ahead at all on mediator accreditation. |
|
|
|
H. National Peak Body |
Can undertake wide-ranging
functions. Give effect to
self-regulation philosophy. Funded by institutional or
individual membership fees and not government. |
Would involve extensive
community consultations and legal outlays. Would be a ‘political
body’. Might not accommodate
diversity in mediation field. |
Could this lead to
licensing and a closed shop for mediators? Would mediators be prepared
to fund it? |
|
|
|
Where the different functions are performed through different structures and processes, it could give rise to governance issues. Thus there may be gaps and deficiencies in the overall system, for example in making connections between education and training requirements, on one hand, and complaints, on the other. A more integrated system would allow for interaction and feedback between the two. These functions will be extensively canvassed in the consultation processes. Sector-based
Accreditation NADRAC recommended that there should not be a single pathway for mediator accreditation, but that it should be determined on a sector by sector basis. This followed from the diversity principle which acknowledged the value of the many different contexts and styles of mediation practice.[15] This raises the question of whether the National Mediator Standard should be diversified to take account of different areas of mediation practice, such as family mediation, native title mediation or personal injuries mediation, or whether the specialised sector-based accreditation should be left up to relevant courts, industry bodies or existing professional associations. Levels of
Accreditation The proposal refers to only one level of Accreditation. Some existing accreditation systems provide for basic accreditation and post-basic accreditation, in the form of accreditation as an intermediate or advanced practitioner. This subject will be canvassed during the consultation processes. Common Mediator
Code of Conduct The current proposal allows RMABs to select a Code of
Mediator Conduct for purposes of education, training and assessment. This
could lead to different standards being imposed in complaints and
disciplinary procedures. During the consultation process it may be regarded
as appropriate to develop a common Code of Mediator Conduct which is used by
all RMABs and in all complaints and disciplinary processes conducted in terms
of the system. Costs Implications Any system of Accreditation involves financial and other resource costs, for example in relation to the running of the Complaints and Discipline function or maintaining the Register of Accredited Mediators. The devolved system involves some rationalisation of resources through the use of existing infra-structure of various organisations. The additional costs for these bodies will be recouped through the training and assessment process and could ultimately involve higher user costs for mediation consumers. Resource issues require attention during the consultation
processes. Correlation with
other Systems There needs to be clarity on how the National Mediator Accreditation System correlates with systems such as the Australian National Training Authority’s competency standards for mediation which provide benchmarks for training programs. The standards provide a basis for the Certificate IV course in Community Mediation, CHC Med 404A.[16] |
See Part V S 8, below. See Part IV Q 1, below. See Part IV Q 10 As part of this system the TAFE sector has established training courses for accreditation of different vocational groups including mediators. |
General Consultation
Questions
Q 1 To what extent would it be advisable in the initial stages of the Accreditation system to have more than one level of Accreditation, for example Basic, Intermediate and Advanced?
Q 2 If there is a national Register of Accredited Mediators, what information should be kept on the Register, apart from the fact of Accreditation, and to what extent should information be accessible to the public?
Q 3 To what extent should the RMABs be responsible for keeping records of Accredited mediators and what information should they, or should they not, make available to bodies dealing with complaints and discipline?
Q 4 Should there be restrictions on course instructors also acting as assessors of mediator competence, or on a person who has coached a participant in a practice session subsequently acting as an assessor?
Q 5 Where use is made of staff other than instructors to assess the competence of participants in mediation simulations, should there be requirements in relation to the assessors’ own qualifications and experience?
Q 6 What is a desirable instruction period, in hours, for the conduct of education, training and assessment to qualify for Accreditation according to the National Mediator Standard?
Q 7 What further specificity is required about the qualifications and experience of members of the RMABs, for example as teachers or practitioners?
Q 8 To what extent should the proposal allow for bodies to become RMABs even though they have not traditionally provided training and educational services?
Q 9 What improvements could be made to the proposed National Mediation Standard for it to suit the purposes of the system?
Q 10 Would complaints and discipline procedures be based on the varying Codes of Conduct used by different training and education bodies and what might the implications of this arrangement be for the goal of consistency?
Q 11 To what extent should the ‘re-accreditation’ system be defined, and how different should the requirements be to those for original Accreditation?
Q 12 To what extent do you support the proposed system’s reliance on the extensive education and training facilities currently available throughout Australia and the decision not to propose in this stage of Accreditation a new national training and accreditation authority?
Q 13 To what extent could one of the unintended consequences of a voluntary system be that the provision of mediation is made more expensive for organisations with existing high standards while it is ignored entirely by sole practitioners, and how might this problem be addressed?
Please add any comments on the proposal which do not fall under the
above headings.
Survey Questions
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
S 1 If there is a uniform system of National Mediator Accreditation are you in favour of it being optional for mediators? |
|
|
|
S 2 Are you in favour of the National Mediator Accreditation system providing for the Accreditation of mediators to be undertaken on a devolved basis by a plurality of Recognised Mediator Accreditation Bodies? |
|
|
|
S 3 If there is a National Mediator Accreditation system for mediators are you in favour of it being operated without state regulation? |
|
|
|
S 4 If there is a system of National Mediator Accreditation are you in favour of it being a ‘basic’ system in the sense that qualifications, training, competencies and other elements are at the relatively low end of the scale of such requirements? |
|
|
|
S 5 Are you in favour of a ‘professional association’ or ‘peak body’, representative of the mediation community, to organise and maintain a system of uniform national mediator accreditation? |
|
|
|
S 6 If there is a system of National Mediator Accreditation are you in favour of there being a national Registrar of Accredited Mediators? |
|
|
|
S 7 Should continuing Accreditation require membership of an organisation or body such as IAMA, LEADR, VADR, ADRA or other equivalent bodies? |
|
|
|
S 8 Should there be separate Accreditation systems for discrete areas of practice, such as family mediation? |
|
|
Mark an X
where applicable
|
S 9 RMABs should be approved for the purposes of Accrediting mediators for an initial period of: |
1 year |
|
|
2
years |
|
|
|
3
years |
|
|
|
4
years |
|
|
|
S 10 The period for which mediators should be Accredited in terms of the National Mediator Accreditation system should be: |
1
year |
|
|
2
years |
|
|
|
3
years |
|
|
|
4
years |
|
|
|
S 11 Accredited Mediators should be required to attend approved continuing Professional Development Courses each year for a period of: |
3
hours |
|
|
6 hours |
|
|
|
10
hours |
|
|
|
S 12 Where an Accredited mediator has their Accreditation withdrawn they should be able to apply for re-accreditation after: |
1 year |
|
|
2 years |
|
|
|
3 years |
|
|
|
4 years |
|
|
|
S 13 The National Mediation Accreditation System should be subjected to review and evaluation after: |
3 years of operation |
|
|
4 years of operation |
|
|
|
6 years of operation |
|
Please refer to the infra-structural models discussed in Part III, and attaching rankings from 1 to 8 to the various models, 8 indicating your greatest support and 1 indicating your least support:
|
Model |
Rank |
|
Model A |
|
|
Model B |
|
|
Model C |
|
|
Model D |
|
|
Model E |
|
|
Model F |
|
|
Model G |
|
|
Model H |
|
Part VI
Flow Chart of Proposed
National Mediator Accreditation System
