NADRAC NATIONALALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONADVISORYCOUNCIL
WHOSAYSYOU’REAMEDIATOR?
TowardsaNationalSystemfor AccreditingMediators
The NationalADR AdvisoryCouncil (NADRAC) is anindependentbody which providesadviceon ADR tothe
Australian Attorney-General.
MembersofNADRAC as atMarch2004 are: TheHon. Justice MurrayKellam(Chair)
Ms Helen Bishop
MrAlanCampbell*
Ms BarbaraFilipowski
TheHon. John Hannaford
Federal Magistrate Norah Hartnett
MrIan Govey
Mr Warwick Soden* Prof.TaniaSourdin * MrJohnSpender QC* Ms Lynn Stephen
•Membersofthe Quality andAccreditation Committee
To obtainmore information or copiesof other publications contact: NADRACsecretariat
RobertGarranOffices,BARTON ACT 2600
Phone 02 6250 6272 Fax 02 6250 5980 e-mail
or visit NADRAC’s web-site
Whosaysyou’reamediator?
Towardsanational systemforaccreditingmediators
Thispaperaimstoobtaininformationandtostimulatediscussionintheleadup toa
workshop on mediatoraccreditation,whichwillbeheldattheNationalMediationConference inDarwin on 30 June to2 July2004.1NADRAC willconvenetheworkshop withaviewto encouragingmediationorganisationsandpractitionerstowork togethertodevelopaviable
andeffectivenationalsystemfor mediatoraccreditation.
NADRAC notesthatdisputeresolutionpractitionersandorganisationsarealreadytalking aboutvariousmodelsof accreditationandthattheremaybesignificantdevelopmentspriorto theJune 2004 workshop. Thispaperisintendedtosupport, notcutacross, such discussions. NADRAC alsoemphasisesthatitsees itselfas takingsolelya facilitativerole.As anadvisory body totheCommonwealthAttorney-General,ithas neitherthemandatenor thewish to becomeanaccreditationagencyitself.
UnderpinningNADRAC’s interestinthisareaisitsdesiretoensurethatanyprocess to developanaccreditationsystemfor mediatorsshouldbeopenandinclusive,andshould support boththequalityandthediversityof mediatorsandmediationpractices.
NADRAC inviteswrittenresponses tothequestionsraisedbelow.Theseresponses willbe summarisedfor the2004 MediationConferenceandincludedintheworkshop materials.Note thatanyresponses shouldbeconsideredas publicmaterialsthatcouldbepublishedinwhole or inpartby NADRAC or by theNationalMediationConference.On request,thenameor organisationof anyonemakingaresponse maybekeptconfidential.
Responses 14 May 2004.
1see about theconference.
Keyquestions
Informationandopinionsaresoughtonanyor allof thefollowingmatters:
1) Any arguments,factorsor considerationsthateithersupport or constrainthedevelopment of anationalaccreditationsystemformediators.In particular,NADRACwouldbe interestedinhearingof instanceswhereanimprovedaccreditationsystemwould have helpedtoovercomeproblemssuch as:
a) inadequatestandardsof serviceandlackof consumerrecoursefor such service b) lackof ‘market’or referrerconfidenceinthequalityof mediationservices
c) difficultiesfor potentialADR practitionersingainingrecognitionoftheirskills,and d) otherrisks andproblems(seepage2 for furtherexamples).
2) Any currentinitiativesto:
a) developanaccreditationsystemformediators
b) reviewor refineanexistingsystemfor mediators,or
c) buildlinksof creategreaterconsistencyacross differentaccreditationsystems.
Theseinitiativescouldbeattheagencyor sectorlevels,or involvegovernmentinitiatives attheState,Territory,Commonwealthor nationallevels.Seepage5 for information
aboutsomeof theseinitiatives.
3) Any commentson NADRAC’s proposalfor asystemtoaccreditbodiesthatinturn accreditmediators,including:
a) commonstandardsfor accreditation
b) theformation,structure,membership,fundingandnamefor abody thatwouldoversee thedevelopmentof such standards.
4) Any othercommentsrelevanttotheissue of mediatoraccreditation.
Contents
Keyquestions...... iii
INTRODUCTION...... 1
Background...... 1
Scope...... 1
THE NEED FORACCREDITATION...... 2
Risksandproblems withthecurrentsituation...... 2
Whatwe meanby‘accreditation’...... 3
Whatshouldaccreditationaimtodo?...... 3
Keyelementsof accreditation...... 4
Factors tobeconsidered inanaccreditationsystem...... 4
Other accreditationinitiatives...... 5
MODELSFORANATIONALMEDIATORACCREDITATIONSYSTEM...... 6
Professionalassociation...... 6
Industry body...... 7
Government...... 7
Commercialenterprise...... 7
Accreditationof organisationsthataccredit individuals...... 8
NADRAC’SPROPOSAL...... 9
Introduction
Background
NADRAC’s2001 reporton standards1recommendedaframeworkinwhichADR service providersdeveloptheirown standardswhichtakesaccountof theelementsof acodeof practice.Oneof theelementsspecifiedthatADR serviceprovidersdescribetheknowledge skillsandethicsrequiredby practitioners,andtheserviceproviders’andpractitioners’ obligationstoensurethequalityof theADR process.
Thereportalsosuggestedseveralprinciplesfor theaccreditationof ADR practitioners, organisationsor programs.NADRAC suggestedthat,as structuresandbenchmarkswere developed,abroad-basedaccreditationschemefor ADR maybeappropriateinthefuture.
Scope
Thetaskof developinganationalaccreditationsystemfor ADR isachallengingone.To make thetaskmoreachievable,NADRAC has narrowedthescopetowhatissees as thearea of greatestneed,namelymediatoraccreditation,inotherwords, ‘how individualsgain recognitionas mediators’.
Thepaperdoes notaddress issues associatedwiththeestablishmentof apeakbody with functionsbroaderthanaccreditation.Theseissues werecanvassedinNADRAC’s standards report.Therehavebeencallsovermanyyearsfor theestablishmentof apeakbody for ADR. Thereare,however,diverseviews abouttheneedfor, andnatureof, anypeakbody. There seems,however,tobebroadagreementof theneedtofurtherdevelopaccreditationand recognitionprocesses for ADR practitioners.
Thepaperisconcernedwithaccreditationof mediatorsandnotwithpractitionersengagedin determinativeandadvisoryprocesses, such as arbitrationor expertappraisal.Althoughthere arecommonalitiesacrossdiversedisputeresolutionprocesses, differentprofessional obligationsapplytothosegivingadvice,makingdeterminationsor helpingpartiestocome theirown agreements.Thescopeof ‘mediator’accreditationmay,however,encompass similarfacilitativeprocesses,such as facilitationandfacilitatednegotiation.Thepapermay alsoberelevanttothefacilitativeaspectof combinedprocessessuch as conciliationor mediation-arbitration.
1NationalAlternativeDispute Resolution Advisory Council(2001)A Framework for ADR Standards, availableat
Theneedforaccreditation
Risksandproblemswiththecurrent situation
NADRAC acknowledgestheexcellentwork donebytherangeof organisationsthathave developedcomprehensivesystemsfor accreditingmediators.
Thereis,however,no overallsystemfor accreditationin mediation.Ratherthereisaplethora of accreditationsystemswhichuse differentbenchmarksor standards.Thereislittleempirical dataabouttheimpactof this.Somehypotheses,basedon anecdotalinformationfollow:
•Users of mediationservicesareunclearas thequalityandnatureof theservicesoffered.
Nor do theyhavesatisfactoryavenuesof recourseifdissatisfiedwiththelevelofservice received.
•Referrers(such as courtsandlawyers)similarlymaynottrustthequalityof mediation servicesofferedandso either(a)establishtheirown formalor informalsystemsof accreditation,(b) provideservicesin-house,(c)relyon word of mouthrecommendations or (d) choosemediatorson thebasis of themediators’personalstatusratherthantheir mediationskills.
•Prospectivepractitionersandstudentsmayneedto meetmultipleandinconsistent standardstoenterthemediationfield.Trainingeffortsthereforemaybedirectedto completingaseriesof similarentrylevelcoursesratherthanacontinuousupgradingof skillsandknowledgedevelopment.
•Moreover,therelianceon word of mouthandinformalaccreditationcanmakeitdifficult for new mediatorstogainwork, thuspreventingnew ideasandenergyfromenteringthe mediationfield.
•Fragmentationinaccreditationandtheoftencompetingclaimsmadeby rivalmediation organisationsreducecommunityandgovernmenttrustinthemediationmovement.
•In theabsenceof agenerallyrecognisedaccreditationsystem,inappropriateregulation may beintroduced,such as theestablishmentof thresholdacademicor professional credentialsthatarenotdirectlyrelevanttomediationcompetence.Such thresholdsmay eliminatehighlycapablemediatorsas wellasthosefromspecificsocialbackgrounds,and so reduceboththeoverallskilllevelof mediatorsandthediversityof theirbackgrounds.
•As aresultof therivalrybetweenorganisationsfor thework available,mediationcould becometrainingandsupplierdrivenratherthanserviceanddemanddriven.
•Publicandprivateresourcesarewastedasorganisationsestablishingtheirown accreditationsystemsandindividualpractitionersseekto meetinconsistentcriteriaacross differentaccreditationsystems.
Whatwemeanby‘accreditation’
In itsstandardsreportNADRAC differentiatedassessmentandaccreditationas follows:
‘Assessment’isaprocess of collectingevidenceandinterpretingthatevidenceto makea decision.Thatdecisionmayrelatetopersonal,organisationalor programperformanceor suitability.An assessmentmayservedifferentpurposes, includingselection,engagement, employment,theissuingof aqualification,reviewor disciplinaryproceedingsand accreditation.An assessing body or person has aresponsibilityfor ensuringthe appropriatenessof theassessmentprocess andof theevidencefor makingadecision.
‘Accreditation’isaprocess of formalandpublicrecognitionandverificationthatan individual,(or organisationorprogram)meets,andcontinuesto meet,definedcriteria.An accreditingbody or person isresponsiblefor thevalidationofanassessmentprocess or processes, for verifyingtheongoingcompliancewiththecriteriasetthroughmonitoringand review,andfor providingprocesses for theremovalof accreditationwherecriteriaareno longermet.
Thereisa varietyof termsused whichfiteitherof theabovedefinitions.Thesetermsinclude
‘approval’,‘registration’,‘licensing’,‘recognition’,‘certification’and‘credentialing’.
Whatshould accreditationaimtodo?
NADRAC suggests thatanyaccreditationsystemshouldpromotethefollowingobjectives:
•enhancethequalityandethicsof mediationpractice
•protectconsumersofmediationservices
•buildconsumerconfidencein mediationservices,and
•buildthecapacityandcoherenceof themediationfield.
Althoughamovetowardmoreconsistentandmeaningfulaccreditationisdesirable,thereare alsodangersifaccreditationisused as ameanstostiflediversity,constrainpracticesor toput professionalinterestsaboveclientandcommunityinterests.
Accreditationdoes notnecessarilymeanstandardisationof practicesor practitioner qualifications.Itissimplyaway of sayingthatpersonA meetscriteriaX or Y. Thesecriteria mayvarywidelyaccordingtotheneedsof theservice,theusers andthecommunity.They mayvarybothinscope(egtypeof disputeshandled)or levels(egentrylevel,advanced,etc).
Nor does accreditationofpractitionersofitselfguaranteeservicequality.Serviceproviders needalsotoattendtoaspectsof servicedelivery,such as servicedesign,monitoringand professionalsupervision,compliance,complaintshandlingandphysicalfacilities.
Keyelementsofaccreditation
Accreditationisaformof publicrecognition.An accreditingbody has continuing responsibilitiestotheperson beingaccredited,toothersitaccredits,tootheraccrediting bodies,toconsumersandtothepublicatlarge.Accreditationprocessesthereforeneedto:
•clearlydefinethestandardsrecognisedthroughtheaccreditation
•bebasedon validandreliableassessment
•includemonitoring,reviewor auditprocesses
•providefairnesstothoseseekingaccreditation
•betransparentandpubliclyavailable,and
•beconsistentandcomparablewithsimilaraccreditationregimes.
Factorstobeconsideredinanaccreditationsystem
Any accreditationsystemmayneedtotakeintoaccountseveralimportantpolicy considerations:
1) Competitionandregulatoryreformpolicieshavebeenadoptedby Commonwealthand StateandTerritoryGovernments2.Thesepoliciesemphasisetheneedtoensureand promoteacompetitiveenvironmentthatisconsistentwithpublicpolicyinterests.A strong caseneedstobe madebeforegovernmentwould attempttocontroldirectlythe provisionof goods andservices.Itisalsodesirabletoavoidtheproblemof compliance withseparateregulatoryregimesacross differentjurisdictions.Theneedfor regulatory reformwithrespectto establishedprofessions, such as lawandmedicine,has alsobeen
raised.A new mediation‘profession’ modelledon existingprofessionalgroups couldface similarcriticism.
2) Responsibilityfor policyandlegislationaffectingmediationissharedbetweenthe CommonwealthandtheeightStatesandTerritories.For example,whilefamilymediation isaCommonwealthresponsibility,neighbourhoodor tenancymediationisa State/Territoryresponsibility.
3) Professionalstandardslegislationcurrentlyexistsintwo jurisdictions(WAandNSW)and considerationisbeinggiventoextendingsuchlegislationtootherjurisdictions.An occupationalassociationmayapplytotheProfessionalStandardsCouncilfor approvalof
aschemetolimitthecommonlawliabilityoftheassociation’smembers(or aclassof members)3.In orderfor aschemetobeapprovedby theProfessionalStandardsCouncil theassociationmustensurethatmembershaveinsurancetocovertherelevantlevelof
liability,haveestablishedacomplaints-handlinganddisciplinaryprocedurefor complaints
2See NationalCompetition Council at
3SeeProfessional StandardsCouncilat
_index
againstitsmembers,andhaveestablishedarisk managementstrategytobeimplemented by its members.
Otheraccreditationinitiatives
An importantdevelopmentatthenationallevelisthePractitionerApprovalStandardsProject commissionedby theAttorney-General'sDepartment4.Theaimof theprojectistodevelop draftstandardsfor practitionersseekingtobeapprovedundertheFamilyLawAct1975
(Cth.).Itwilleventuallycover‘allpractitionerswho engagedirectlyas thirdpartiesin facilitativeprocesses to manage,settleor resolvefamilyconflictarisinginconnectionwith familyseparation’.Thisprojectiscurrentlyinprogress andfurtherdetailsmaybeavailable by thetimeof theNationalMediationConference.
Any additionalnationalaccreditationsystemwouldneedtoconsiderwhetherit‘satabove’,
‘nextto’or‘overlappedwith’asystemfor accreditingfamilymediators.Thatis,anational accreditationsystemcould:
1) includeaccreditationoffamilymediatorsas oneof itscomponents
2) createaseparateaccreditationsystemfor areasofpracticeapartfromfamilymediation,or
3) sharecommonelements,for example,recognitionof particularclassesof practitionersor of trainingcourses.
Any processof skillsrecognitionfor mediatorswould alsoneedtoconsidertheunitsof competencyin mediationthathavebeenapprovedrecentlyby theAustralianNational TrainingAuthority(ANTA)5.Such unitswould underpinaccreditationof thetrainingand assessmentof mediatorswithinthenationalVocationalEducationandTraining(VET) system.
NADRAC alsounderstandsthatthereareinitiativesattheStateandTerritorylevelto implementor reviewprocesses for theaccreditationof mediators.Furtherinformationon such initiativesissought.
4SeeAttorney-General's Department at
5To view mediationcompetency unitsand qualifications go toNational TrainingInformationService
at prompts.
Modelsforanational mediator accreditation system
Therearemanyoptionsfor amediationaccreditationsystem.Thesewereoutlinedin NADRAC’sreporton standardsandhavebeenraisedby disputeresolutionpractitionersand organisations.
In generaltermsaccreditationcouldapplyto:
•theindividualmediator,or
•theorganisationthatprovidesservicesandemploysor accreditsmediators.
Professionalassociation
Mediatorscouldformaprofessionalassociation.Thefunctionsof such anassociationcould include:
•settingrulesfor admission,includingtheapprovalof courses ofstudyacceptabletothe professionalassociation
•settingstandardsof practiceandongoingprofessionaldevelopment
•disciplineof members(includingexpulsion)
•advocacyonbehalfof theprofession.
Such anassociationcouldseekspecialprivilegesfromgovernmentandfromindustry– such as throughlegislationor preferredsupplierstatus– so thatnon-membersarerestrictedintheir capacitytoofferADR services.Thiscouldbeachievedby registration(or licensing)boards. Registrationboards formallyapprovepractitionerstoenablethempracticeinaparticulararea, wheregovernmentlegislationor courtrulesrestrictsuch practicetodefinedpersons.
Examplesof such professionalbodiesaretheLawSocietiesandBarAssociationsineach StateandTerritory,theInstitutionofEngineersAustralia,theAustralianAssociationof SocialWork(AASW), andtheAustralianPsychologicalSociety.Registrationandlicensing boards includenursing andpsychologistregistrationboards.
Itisnotedthatotherprofessions havecomeundercriticisminrecenttimesfor restrictive practices,lackof transparencyandlackof recoursetoindependentcomplaintsmechanisms. Therecouldbestrong resistancetosettingup anexclusivebody thatrestrictedcompetitionor gavespecialprivilegesto membersof aspecificgroup. Therearealsodivergentviews about thedesirabilityof ‘professionalising’ADR, especiallywheremediationisseenas a parttime activityratherthanasourceof fulltimeemployment.
Industrybody
Anindustrybody brings togetherkeystakeholderstodefineandadvancepracticesina particularsectoror industry.An ADR industrybody couldcomprise,for example,ADR organisations,courtsandotherreferringagencies,alliedprofessions, fundingbodies, educationandtrainingprovidersandresearchorganisations.
An industrybody couldcreateguidelinesfor accreditation,adviseon (orset)serviceand qualitystandards,approvetrainingcourses andgenerallypromotetheinterestof theindustry.
Examplesof industrybodiesarethePharmacyGuild,TelecommunicationsIndustry
AssociationandtheHousing Industry Association.
A furtherexampleisindustrytrainingadvisorybodies(ITABs). Such bodiesdevelop competenciesandtrainingpackagesrelevanttotheirown industries,whicharethenendorsed by theAustralianNationalTrainingAuthority(CommunityServicesandHealthTraining Australiaissuch anITAB. Ithas alreadydevelopedcompetenciesfor mediators.)
Althoughmediationissometimesreferredtoas an‘industry’,itisunclearwhetherthisisan appropriateterm.Mediationisasmallbuthighlydiverseareaofpracticethatfallswithin many‘industries’.For manyorganisationsandpractitioners,mediationisan‘addon’ areaof activityratherthancorebusiness.
Government
Legislationmayenableaminister,or adefinedofficialor agency,torecogniseor accredit practitioners.
Such aprocess alreadyoccursin ADR.For example,the‘minister’(ietheNSWAttorney General)may‘accredit’mediatorsundertheCommunityJusticeCentresAct1983(NSW). Thechiefexecutivemay‘accredit’mediatorsundertheDisputeResolutionCentresAct1990 (Qld). TheEvidenceAct1958(Vic.)enablestheSecretarytotheDepartmentof Justiceto
‘gazette’mediatorswiththeDisputeSettlementCentres.TheFamilyLawAct1975 (Cth) enabletheChiefJusticeof theFamilyCourttoappointcourtmediators.TheFarmDebt MediationAct(NSW) enablestheRuralAssistanceAuthorityto‘institutearrangements’to accreditmediators.
Thisformof accreditationrequiresahighlevelof governmentinvolvementandisusually introducedas partof aspecificgovernmentinitiativeor reform.A nationalgovernment scheme toaccreditall mediatorswould belikelytoencounteroppositionfrommanyquarters as itwould beseenas directandcentralgovernmentcontrol.Itwouldbeinconsistentwiththe principleof self-regulationpreviouslyrecommendedby NADRACandwould belikelyto
giverisetoaraftof jurisdictionalproblems.
Commercialenterprise
A furtheroptionisthecreationof acommercialenterprisewhichofferedarangeof services on afeefor servicebasis.Such servicescouldincludetrainingandreferraltoapanelof mediators.SeveralAustralianADR bodiesalreadyoperateon thisbasis. An enterprisecould
alsoprovidedirectservicesandaccreditthepractitionersthatitused. Or itcouldhavea narrowerfocus andconcentratesolelyon assessmentandaccreditation,such as occurswith theNationalAccreditationAuthorityfor TranslatorsandInterpretersLtd.(NAATI).
An enterpriseabletoguaranteethequalityofitsservicescouldgaincredibilitywith governmentandwithpurchasersof mediationservices,andcouldmarketitsservicesthrough
‘trustmarking’.
Internaltensionsmayarisebetweenthecommercialandservicegoalsof aprivate organisation.For example,pressures tobringinincomeby runningtrainingfor new practitionersmayunderminetheneedtosupport existingpractitionersor to meetothergoals of theorganisation.
Accreditationoforganisationsthataccredit individuals
Insteadofaccreditingindividualpractitioners,itwouldbepossibletoestablishasystemto accredit(or approve)organisationswhich,inturn,engage(or accredit)individual practitioners.Thebody whichaccreditsorganisationscoulditselfbea professional association,industrybody, governmentagencyor privateenterprise.
Thereareseveralcurrentaccreditationsystemsthatoperateon thisbasis.
•TheMediationAct1997(ACT) enablestheACT Attorney-Generaltoapprovemediation agenciestoaccreditindividualmediatorsaccordingtotheACT MediationCompetencies. (Thissituationmayneedtobereviewedascompetencieshavenow beenendorsedatthe nationallevel.)
•TheFamilyLawAct1975 (Cth.)enablestheAustralianAttorney-Generaltoapprove organisationsthatprovidecounsellingor mediationservices.Funded bodiesneedto satisfythestandardsofaqualityaccreditationsystem(FAMQIS) thatincludetheentry andongoingtrainingof practitioners.(Therequirementsfor mediators,however,are definedby theFamilyLawRegulations.Thisarrangementiscurrentlyunderreview,see page5.)
•In thehealthsystem,theQualityImprovementCouncilsetstandardsfor theaccreditation of healthservicesthroughaqualityassurancesystem.AswithFAMQIS, accredited servicesneedtohaveappropriatelyqualifiedstaff.
•In thevocationaleducationandtrainingsystem,StateandTerritorytrainingauthorities register(ieaccredit)trainingorganisationsthatundertakea qualityassuranceprocess, whichalsorequiretrainersandassessors tobeappropriatelyqualifiedandtrained.
Itisnotedthatmanyoftheseschemesinclude‘accreditation’(ieengagement)ofpractitioners as partof anoverallorganisationalqualityaccreditationprocess. As notedinNADRAC standardsreport,such aprocess maywellbeunwieldyfor organisationsthatdo notthemselves providedirectmediationservicestothepublicandthosethathavemediationas onepartof theiroperations.Standardsapplyingtotheaccreditationprocess alonecouldbemorelimited thantheoverallqualityassurancesystemsapplyingtoorganisationsengaged
directlyinservicedelivery.(However,organisationsthatprovidedirectservicescouldinclude referenceto mediatoraccreditationstandardswithintheiroverallservicestandards).
NADRAC’sproposal
Thefollowingpreliminaryproposalisputforwardtofurtherstimulatediscussionandreflects thecurrentthinkingof NADRAC members.
NADRAC believesthatasimple,achievableandcrediblesystemfor accreditingmediatorsis neededtoadvancethequalityandacceptanceof mediationinAustralia.
Itisnotfeasibletoestablishasinglebody toaccrediteachmediatoron anindividualbasis. As wellas beingunwieldysuch abody would cutacross themanyexistingarrangementsthat currentlyexist.
Insteadasystemisrequiredtoapprove(ieaccredit)organisationswhichinturnaccredit mediators.Theapprovalof such organisationswould requirethedevelopmentof common standardsfor initialassessment,as wellas ongoingmonitoring,reviewanddisciplinary processes for mediators.Standardsfor theaccreditationof mediatorscouldbeexpressedinan agreedcodeof practiceor similardocument.
Such asystemwould needthesupportof existingaccreditingorganisations.Itwould needto recognisecurrenteffortstopromotequalitypracticeandprovideanopenandtransparent process wherebyexistingandnew bodiescouldcomplywithaccreditationstandards.
Theprocess for approvingmediatoraccreditationorganisationsneedstobeoverseenby a nationalbody developedon aconsensualbasis. Issues tobeconsideredinthecreationof such abody include:
•formation,for example,afederationof bodiescreatedattheStateandTerritorylevel,or theformationof asinglenationalbody
•structure,for example,sectionsor divisionswithspecificinterestandfunctions,or State andTerritorybranchesor chapters
•membership,for example,mediators,mediationorganisations,courts,consumergroups, otherprofessions, government
•funding,for example,government,membershipsubscriptions,feefor service
•whattheorganisationistobecalled,forexample,‘AustralianMediationAccreditation
Council’or the‘Associationfor MediationAccreditation’.
NADRAC welcomescommenton theproposalaboveandanyviewsaboutcommonstandards for theaccreditationof mediators.