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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2877 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

in order to accommodate the comments I have received from representatives of the Law Society, the Resolution Centre, the Bar Association, Canberra Mediation Services and lawyers engaged in alternative dispute resolution. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the time and effort that those people have devoted to providing me with their comments.

It would have been possible simply to draft some amendments to the Mediation Bill introduced on 10 April 1997. However, for ease of reference and to avoid confusion, I believe that it is in the interests of all members to have a consolidated version of the Bill available for their consideration. The new Bill is substantially the same as the one introduced on 10 April, with a number of editorial alterations.

I should point out at the outset that the Bill deals only with registered mediators; that is, mediators registered by approved agencies. Approved agencies are those organisations identified in the regulations as providing mediation services. I am aware that there are some mediators practising mediation in the ACT who have not been accredited by any agency. The position of those mediators will remain unchanged by the passage of this Bill. They will continue to provide mediation services as they do now. However, they will not be covered by the provisions of the Bill.

I now wish to deal with the substantive changes in the new Bill. Members will recall that the original Bill had a grandfather clause, which provided that those mediators who are at present accredited by an approved agency would be recognised for a period of two years as registered mediators under the Act. There was disagreement among the representatives of mediation services over the desirability of this type of provision. The benefit in having a grandfather clause is that it would have allowed the accreditation of mediators to be phased in over a two-year period. However, against this, it was argued that such a provision would result in two levels of registration for the first two years of the Act's operation - one based on status and one determined by competence. This might undermine public confidence in the competence of registered mediators from the outset.

The Government has decided that a level playing field should apply from the commencement of the substantive provisions of the Act. This means that the same requirements for the registration of a mediator, whether new to the field or already practising mediation, will apply from the outset. However, the Government is aware that agencies will need considerable time to put in place the procedures necessary to give effect to the requirements of the Act, and has therefore decided that the commencement date for the substantive provisions of the Act should be delayed until 1 July 1998. This time period will allow agencies to assess existing mediators against competency standards and to develop a code of ethical and professional conduct and a mechanism for addressing consumer complaints. These are matters to which I will have regard when considering an agency's application for approval under the Act for the purposes of registering mediators.

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