The New South Wales Law Reform Commission was required to inquire into and report on the need for training and accreditation of mediators. This Report presents the results of the Commission's inquiries, its conclusions and recommendations.

The focus of the Report is consensual dispute resolution:

where a neutral third party uses a structured process in a formal manner and setting to assist the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution of matters in dispute between them.

Mediation is the primary process covered by this description and is used as a representa-tive term for consensual dispute resolution in the Report. Without limiting this definition, the Commission considers that processes such as conciliation and facilitation are also covered. Excluded from the Commission's focus and recommendations are arbitration, case management techniques within courts and tribunals, and informal conflict resolution. A narrow, prescriptive approach to classification has not been adopted in the Report.

An overview of current consensual dispute resolution practice in Australia presented in the Report covers programs and practices in community mediation, family and commu-nity dispute resolution, programs in courts, tribunals and administrative agencies and other areas in which the processes have been adopted.

Need for training

The Commission accepts that training is desirable as an effective way for mediators to become competent, and to demonstrate the credibility of the process. However, the Commission is not persuaded that there is a need for the law to require all mediators to practice only after completing specified training. The Commission therefore does not make any recommendation to make training mandatory. The Commission believes that the management of agencies and programs which employ or accredit mediators and mediators themselves, have the primary responsibility for training.

Need for government regulation

The Commission considers that government regulation of mediators and consensual dispute resolution is necessary only to meet a clearly demonstrated need. It must be for the benefit of the public rather than the private interests of practitioners. There is no evidence that the risks to clients warrant government intervention so as to prevent the unauthorised practice of mediation. The forms of regulation which currently operate provide sufficient control over the quality of service and adequate consumer protection for the clients of mediators. The practice of mediation in Australia is in the early stages of evolution, with clear standards of practice yet to be established. It is therefore not appropriate to impose a rigid regulatory framework.

The Commission recommends that no government regulation for the accreditation of mediators is currently required.

Court and Tribunal Connected Dispute Resolution

The use of consensual dispute resolution within the justice system has increased significantly in recent years. Less formal and less adversarial procedures have been adopted to reduce costs and court congestion and improve the satisfaction of litigants. The Commission considers that the State has a responsibility for the quality, integrity and accountability of consensual dispute resolution processes used within courts and tribunals.

The Commission recommends that dispute resolution programs connected with courts and tribunals must operate in accordance with clear guidelines and adequate resources to ensure the integrity of the process and quality of service. One aspect of this concerns program objectives. Case management should not be the sole or primary reason for implementation of a program thereby reducing rather than enhancing the rights of parties.

The Commission also recommends that program guidelines require that mediators undergo appropriate training in dispute resolution techniques as a condition of their employment The Commission makes no other specific recommendations about the content of guide-lines because of the formative nature and diversity in application of dispute resolution processes to the justice system.

Advisory Council and Dispute Resolution Data Base

The Commission recommends that an Advisory Council on Dispute Resolution be established with the primary function of advising the Government on dispute resolution policy issues.

Members of the Advisory Council should be broadly representative of practices, programs, and users which will ensure that its advice to the Government will enable policies to be developed which are effective across the diversity of dispute resolution practice.

The Commission further recommends that the Advisory Council have responsibility for the creation and publication of a Database of Dispute Resolution containing information about programs, agencies, practi-tioners and training, which will assist the advisory Council in prepar-ing advice to the Government and allow the public to make more informed choices about dispute resolution options.