Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 844 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

There was strong support from both government and non-government agencies for the view that endorsement of an appropriately skilled mediator is a function best left with the particular agency engaged in mediation. I support that view, as it will ensure that the experts in the area of mediation are making the relevant decisions. I will publish in the Gazette a determination identifying as prescribed agencies those organisations which at present provide mediation services in the ACT. These include the ACT Law Society and the Dispute Resolution Centre. Members will note that mediators will be approved for a maximum of three years and must be reassessed as competent according to the standards I have already referred to. This will ensure that, over time, there will be a certain uniformity in the standard and quality of mediation services in the Territory.

The confidentiality of anything said or done during a mediation session is an important provision in the present Bill, as it was in the exposure draft. However, there is a notable change as to the exceptions to that privilege between the exposure draft and the Bill I have just tabled. Whereas the exposure draft outlined a number of circumstances when the privilege would not apply, the present Bill provides that the admissibility of evidence will be governed by section 131 of the Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995. Section 131 is a more comprehensive provision. It will also provide for consistency between the Commonwealth and the ACT in regard to the exclusion of evidence of settlement negotiations.

Although this Bill is small in terms of its volume, it nevertheless heralds the beginning of a new era in enhancing access to justice in the ACT. Its importance must be seen in the context of governments in general becoming increasingly concerned about the escalating cost of access to justice through litigation. In tabling the exposure draft I quoted words of His Honour the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan. I believe his words merit repeating. His Honour said:

If no new methods of dispensing justice are devised, the number of cases requiring resolution by trial will increase, trials will become more difficult and more time consuming and, in consequence, the cost of litigation and the amount of public funds that will have to be spent on litigation will escalate.

The aim of this Bill is precisely to meet the concern expressed by His Honour - to enhance an alternative method of resolving legal disputes through mediation. I am looking to extend the use of mediation in the ACT, including the option of court-linked mediation. This Bill represents the first stage in that process. Future stages will involve an acceptance by the courts, their clients and the legal profession that mediation is a viable alternative to litigation, and I will be working towards that end. Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .