closing the gap – the delivery of family dispute resolution to aboriginal and torres strait...

1

Closing the Gap – The delivery of Family Dispute Resolution to Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander people By Matthew Myers AM

The views expressed in this paper are the personal views of the author and do not reflect in any way the views of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

2

“….nowhere is this dearth of (culturally appropriate services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) more apparent than in the domain of family law.” (Stephen Ralph, 2010)

3

Introduction

This paper addresses the delivery of Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) people. Drawing on the seminal “Solid Work Report” and other literature, as well as direct experience in FDR practice and some related original research, it provides an overview of:

_ The need for FDR and the intention of the legislation _ Structures created for delivery of this important service _ Barriers to access for ATSI people _ Ways to improve access for ATSI people.

The need for FDR and intention of the legislation

When parents separate, they are often unable to reach agreement about where the children should live and how much time they will spend with each parent. Both parents may view their own proposal for the children as being in the best interests of the children and the other parent’s proposal as unacceptable.

When parents are unable to reach a compromise unassisted, they may _ resort to the Family Court of Australia or Federal Circuit Court to

make these decisions for them _ seek mediation as a way of reaching a compromise agreement.

Those who choose to litigate their child dispute before a court may experience substantial costs, delays in having their matter determined and sometimes no absolute outcome is achieved, all of which can lead to strong dissatisfaction. In comparison, those who choose mediation frequently achieve a compromise outcome that is acceptable to both parties in far less time, with far less cost.

For these reasons, the Australian Government introduced an amendment to the Family Law Act know known as Section 60I, which requires separating parents to attempt mediation prior to commencing court proceedings. The 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2 0 0 5 explanatory memorandum stated:

“The object of new section 60I... is to ensure that parties attempt to resolve their disputes about children’s matters... commencing a court process. This will assist people in resolving family relationship issues outside of the court system, which is costly and can lead to entrenched conflict.”

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, in effect implemented recommendations from:

_ Every picture tells a story: Report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation (2003)

4

_ the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report on the exposure draft of the Bill

_ the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.

In essence, Section 60I provides a staged process that requires parents who want to apply to a court for a parenting order to first attend family dispute resolution (FDR), with some exceptions such as cases involving child abuse and family violence.

Family Dispute Resolution

Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) is essentially a controlled and ordered discussion, offered to separating parents to assist them in decision making about parenting and/or property. FDR provides an opportunity for parents to discuss how each can best continue to parent, while maintaining a focus on their child’s best interests being served.

Section 10F of the Family Law Act defines FDR as:

“a process (other than a judicial process) in which an FDR practitioner helps people affected, or likely to be affected, by separation or divorce to solve some or all of their disputes with each other; and in which the practitioner is independent of all the parties involved in the process”.

The issues discussed in family dispute resolution may include: _ problems that have arisen during or after separation _ the effect these problems have had on the children _ how the child’s interests can best be served within the new structure of

their family _ parenting plans _ property and finances.

All discussions during FDR are confidential, unless either party discloses child abuse or an intention to harm a person or their property (see S.10J Family Law Act 1975).

To comply with the requirements of Section 60I of the Family Law Act, mediators engaged must be accredited through the Office of the Federal Attorney General. These accredited mediators are known as Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners (FDRP).

FDRP are required to act as a neutral mediator, as they assist parents in developing parenting plans, but in discussions involving the welfare of the children, the practitioner may adopt an advisory role, to keep focus on the best interests of the children. FDRP do not provide legal advice.

Under the Family Law Act, any person attending FDR to discuss parenting concerns will be issued with a Section 60I Certificate that reflects their

5

engagement with the FDR process. A Section 60I Certificate is required prior to making an application to the court for a parenting order. Not all cases are suitable for FDR. Where the FDRP considers a case unsuitable, a Section 6 0 I Certificate reflecting this decision will be issued. If one party chooses not to participate in FDR, a Section 60I Certificate reflecting their refusal will be issued.

There is general agreement amongst stakeholders about the benefits of FDR.

The Federal Circuit Court fact sheet Dispute Resolution in Family Law Proceedings, lists the following benefits:

_ Parties can make their own decisions. _ The parties can greatly reduce the financial and emotional costs of

legal proceedings. _ Mediation allows the parties to continue their relationship as parents. _ Parties are better able to move forward and make a new life for

themselves. _ Parties are able to use the process to improve communication with one

another and give them the tools necessary to be better able to resolve disputes in the future. (http://www.fmc.gov.au/pubs/html/dispute_resolution.html)

According to Legal Aid Victoria, benefits of FDR include that: _ “it is usually quicker than a court case _ you make your own decisions _ you can sort out disagreements in your own time _ it may help your communication with your former partner and others

involved _ it is usually less expensive than a court case _ it may be less stressful.”

(http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/familydisputes.htm)

According to Alison Manning (2009) a spokesperson for Centacare, a church- based NGO, providing FDR ensures:

_ Children are the primary focus _ It is less costly and stressful than going to court _ Parties having control over decisions affecting their family _ It help quickly resolve differences allowing parties to get on with their

life _ It enables and assists parties to find solutions the parties can live with. _ It allows parties to have their your point of view expressed and heard _ It is allows parties a confidential, safe and neutral place in which to

discuss parenting and financial issues _ Parties are able to reaching agreements respectfully.

6

According to Relationships Australia, another church-based NGO, FDR: _ “saves money and delays, because it is cheaper and quicker than the

Court process. _ promotes co-operation and improves communication that can enhance

an ongoing relationship which assists parenting and other relationships.

_ provides a structure in which future disputes can be resolved more readily.

_ maintains an individual's control in the decision-making process: there are no imposed decisions.

_ is generally less stressful or traumatic than court proceedings. _ is a more effective means of conflict resolution: people are less likely to

breach agreements that they have made themselves.”

The alternatives to FDR identified by Relationships Australia are poor: _ “doing nothing _ continue the conflict _ seek the assistance of friends in resolving the dispute _ seek Arbitration, which is a less formal legal process to resolve the

dispute than going to Court _ _ instruct lawyers to negotiate agreements on your behalf _ _ commence court proceedings _ _ resolve the issues yourselves, without professional assistance.” (http://relationshipsvictoria.com.au/sub_services/sub_resolution/fdr_process.html)

Ross, Mallard and Fisher (2010), drawing on their experience as Aboriginal people and also FDRPs make the comment:

“Many Aboriginal people in Central Australia describe problems as having weakened them due to the burdens that they are carrying around. Tackling the issues they face is one way to become stronger. By taking responsibility for dealing with the conflict in a proactive way, people can feel empowered. Of course, conflict is one of the heaviest loads that a person can carry. So a process of mediation, even one that is only partially effective, can help individuals and families to feel stronger. The ‘venting’ of the story to the mediators can itself be valuable to the parties because they feel that somebody has listened to them and they have been relieved of a burden. Clients describe talking about the problem as a ‘release valve’ and often express thanks for the chance to have their story heard.

Conflict can lead individuals to say and do things that they later regret. Where their actions cause a loss of face or damage to a person’s reputation, they may carry the shame with them for a long time. Mediation can enable individuals to regain lost respect by being seen to be involved in a process designed to resolve the conflict. In an important sense, they are able to close one unhappy chapter and open a new one in which they can restore their dignity and status. This can be achieved by the individual or family being seen to cooperate and compromise in order to achieve a better situation for all…” (Ross et al, 2010, p 56)

7

In comparison with the Federal Circuit Court, where 85 per cent of family law applications were completed within six months and 95 per cent were completed within twelve months (Federal Circuit Court of Australia Annual Report 2009–2010) or the Family Court, where the Court finalised about 91 per cent of cases (applications) within 12 months (Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010), FDR can often provide a quick resolution to a parenting dispute.

Law Pathways Networks

Section 10G of the Family Law Act defines those able to provide FDR:

“ (1) A family dispute resolution practitioner is: (a) a person who is accredited as a family dispute resolution practitioner under the Accreditation Rules; or (b) a person who is authorised to act on behalf of an organisation designated by the Minister for the purposes of this paragraph; or (c) a person who is authorised to act under section 38BD, or engaged under subsection 38R(1A), as a family dispute resolution practitioner; or (d) a person who is authorised to act under section 93D of the Federal Circuit Act 1999 , or engaged under subsection 1 1 5 (1A) of that Act, as a family dispute resolution practitioner; or (e) a person who is authorised by a Family Court of a State to act as a family dispute resolution practitioner.

(2) The Minister must publish, at least annually, a list of organisations designated for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of family dispute resolution practitioner.”

The Federal Attorney General’s Department has established the Family Dispute Resolution Register (http://fdrregister.familyrelationships.gov.au ) to provide online information to the public and courts about individuals and organisations who meet requirements under the Act to provide FDR. All FDR providers, except for practitioners providing FDR on behalf of a court, are required to be included on the FDR Register in order to be able to issue valid FDR certificates for clients to take to court. To be registered, a family dispute resolution provider (FDRP) must have met the required standards of training, experience and suitability for inclusion on the register.

The Australian Government also funds Family Law Pathways Networks around Australia. Each Network is comprised of professionals operating within the Family Law system who focus on information sharing and networking opportunities in their local area and develop and maintain cross-sector training to help build stronger working relationships across the Family Law system.

8

Each Family Law Pathways Network is administered by a Steering Committee that develops an Annual Work Plan for the Network. Membership of Networks typically includes (but is not limited to):

_ Family Court _ Federal Circuit Court _ Legal Aid Commissions _ Community Legal Centers _ Family Violence Prevention Legal Services _ Family Relationship Services (Family Relationship Centres, Children’s

Contact Services, Parenting Orders Programs, Family Dispute Resolution Services, Post Separation Cooperative Parenting Services, Support Children after Separation Programs, Counselling Services, Men and Family Relationship Services)

_ Family Relationship Advice Line _ Family law lawyers _ Child Support Agency, and _ Centrelink.

The Networks contribute to the Family Law system by:

_ “assisting with maintaining appropriate referral mechanisms between locally based organisations operating as part of or alongside the family law system

_ developing and maintaining a shared understanding of the roles of Network members and key organisations operating as part of or alongside the family law system, and

_ developing and maintaining awareness of products, services and training available to Network members.” (http://www.ema.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Families_FamilyLawP athwaysNetwork)

All Networks are required to meet regularly and encourage new members.

Currently there are: _ 1 0 Networks in New South Wales _ 8 in Queensland _ 5 Networks in Victoria _ 2 in the Northern Territory _ 2 in Tasmania _ 1 in South Australia _ 1 in the Australian Capital Territory.

The Legal Aid FDR Model

The Australian Government, under Commonwealth Legal Aid Agreements, funds the provision of legal aid for family law matters by Commissions. Before making a grant of legal aid in a family law matter, Commissions are required to consider whether or not a matter could be settled through dispute resolution such as FDR. If the Commission considers that dispute resolution is appropriate and the parties meet a merits and income test, a grant of

9

assistance will be made for a conference where a lawyer can represent the assisted party.

Legal Aid Commissions provide FDR services, drawing on a pool of trained and qualified FDR practitioners (known within Legal Aid as Conference Chairpersons). The Chairperson conducts the conference and assist the parties to negotiate an agreement. Upon completion of the conference, the FDR practitioner prepares a report to Legal Aid as to whether Legal Aid funding for litigation should be made available where parties do not settle their dispute and provides a section 60I certificate confirming that the parties have participated in conferencing.

The Attorney General’s Department commissioned KPMG to evaluate FDR services provided in Legal Aid Commissions throughout Australia (Family Dispute Resolution Services in Legal Aid Commissions Evaluation Report, 2 0 0 8 ) . This review involved extensive consultation with stakeholders within various state and territory Legal Aid Commissions, including the Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners employed within the various Commissions. Findings relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) people are summarised below by Sate or Territory.

New South Wales

The New South Wales Commission has actively recruited Indigenous FDR practitioners to its panel and developed an Indigenous Traineeship Program to increase the cultural competence of their FDR services. The Commission undertakes to allocate lawyers experienced in working with ATSI people to the matter. Despite this effort, FDR management agreed that there was scope for the delivery of FDR services to ATSI clients to be improved.

Queensland

The Queensland Commission, in partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service, provides an Indigenous Mediation Service for ATSI parties. However, FDR management believe that the provision of FDR to ATSI clients could be significantly improved, particularly by ensuring that models of conferencing are culturally appropriate. Conference organisers advised that they relied upon lawyers to notify them of any particular client needs. Lawyers reported that, the Commission has arranged interpreters for clients for whom English is a second language, but that there was need to explore more culturally competent models of FDR for both ATSI and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) people. Most FDR practitioners said that FDR in Queensland does accommodate the needs of people from diverse backgrounds, but noted that very few, if any, of their conferences involved ATSI or CALD parties and said that there were no differences in the way they chaired conferences for people from ATSI or CALD backgrounds.

10

Victoria

The Victorian Commission provides interpreter services for people from non- English speaking backgrounds and aids for people with a disability. Case managers and FDR practitioners are provided with specialist training in working with Arabic communities and more general cross-cultural training, with particular reference to the impact of family violence. While case managers do come from an array of cultural backgrounds, FDR practitioners acknowledged that the provision of FRD to ATSI clients could be improved.

South Australia

The South Australian Commission has a large internal Migration Unit which provides advice to FDR practitioners on migrant issues and CALD groups to ensure they are fully informed of how to work with these clients. The Commission also arranges interpreters for conferences when required. Lawyers agreed that the current processes to support people from diverse backgrounds (predominantly CALD) are appropriate. However the report concluded that there was significant room for improvement in supporting ATSI clients’ access to dispute resolution through the Commission.

Western Australia

The Western Australian Commission provides interpreter services for people from non-English speaking backgrounds and aids for people with a disability. FDR management acknowledged the importance of exploring culturally competent models of FDR for ATSI and CALD parties and the Commission was exploring a co-chair mediation model for ATSI parties, which might involve an experienced FDR practitioner and an ATSI mediator or Elder where appropriate. FDR practitioner opinions were divided: some said FDR services did accommodate the needs of people from diverse backgrounds, but a substantial minority did not agree that appropriate measures were in place.

Northern Territory

FDR practitioners reported that the Northern Territory Commission’s practices do accommodate the needs of people from diverse backgrounds, but advised that the current FDR model is not appropriate for ATSI people. The Commission does arrange interpreters for conferences when required and the Commission has adapted the model to allow the full extended family to sit at the conference table for conferences in Darwin and Alice Springs. However, when parties are in regional or remote areas, the conference is conducted by telephone or video, which is not appropriate for ATSI families.

Tasmania

The FDR coordinator advised that few clients with special needs present in Tasmania. When a party has a disability, the carer (if relevant) is encouraged to participate in conferences, with the agreement of the other party. While Tasmanian FDR practitioners said that FDR accommodates the needs of

11

people from diverse backgrounds, the report concluded that the Commission could make improvements by exploring culturally competent FDR models for parties from ATSI and CALD backgrounds.

Australian Capital Territory

Like the Tasmanian Commission, the FDR manager advised that few clients with special needs present, but where a party has a disability, the carer (if relevant) is encouraged to participate in conferences, with the agreement of the other party. Lawyers also agreed that the current processes to support people from diverse backgrounds (predominantly people with a disability or those requiring an interpreter service) are appropriate. Although ACT FDR practitioners agreed that FDR accommodates the needs of people from diverse backgrounds, the report recommended that more could be done to accommodate the needs of parties from ATSI and CALD backgrounds.

Barriers to FDR access for ATSI people

The Australian Institute of Family Studies (2009) evaluation of the 2006 Family Law reforms found that professionals in the family relationship sector lacked confidence in engaging with ATSI people.

The Civil Justice Division of Attorney General’s Department paper Towards A National Blueprint For The Family Law System (Feb, 2009, p16) noted that funding had been provided for:

_ advisers for ATSI clients in 12 Family Relationship Centres _ Indigenous Information Officers on the Family Relationship Advice Line _ the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Program _ the Legal Aid for Indigenous Australians Program.

While strategies were being developed in relation to providing FDR services to ATSI clients, the paper identified the need to further improve the experience of ATSI clients in the Family Law system.

The Federal Court of Australia Indigenous Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management Case Study Project produced a report entitled Solid Work You Mob Are Doing (Allen, O’Donnell and Williams, 2009). While not solely focused on the provision of FDR services, the “Solid Work Report”, provides research evidence and resources to support the development of more effective approaches to managing conflict involving ATSI Australians.

The Solid Work Report identified some barriers that confront ATSI people when they need to access FDR through such agencies as Family Relationship Centres. These include:

_ widespread absence of culturally appropriate FDR services for ATSI people

_ lack of accredited ATSI FDR practitioners able to provide dispute resolution services to ATSI families.

12

Scattered across metropolitan and regional Australia, government Family Relationship Centres, are at the forefront of delivering FDR services. The FRCs are tasked with providing information, advice and dispute resolution to help people reach agreement on future parenting arrangements. All centers are required to provide flexible and culturally sensitive and accessible service to Indigenous clients and have in place strategies to achieve this. Indigenous Advisors are employed in some of these centers. Their roles include:

_ helping the centers to develop innovative and effective approaches to delivering FRC services to Indigenous families

_ conducting community education to Indigenous communities about FRC services

_ liaising with Indigenous communities and with other agencies servicing those communities

_ coordinating arrangements for service delivery (egg arranging visits by FRC staff to communities)

_ providing cultural advice and training to FRC staff.

Various reports have suggested that culturally appropriate FDR can best be delivered by ATSI people who are qualified as FDR practitioners (FDRP).

Cunene, Bluff, Menses and Ralph (2005) interviewed 21 clients who participated in the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Family Mediation Program (ATSIFAM). Nearly half of the respondents indicated that having an Indigenous mediator made a difference. One respondent said “It was so much easier to talk—we didn’t have to lay out or the explain the unwritten Kooris laws” (Cunene, Bluff, Menses and Ralph, 2005).

The National Alternative Dispute Resolution Council (NADRC), in its 2006 report Indigenous Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management, also argued that the recruitment of ATSI mediators is important.

“The recruitment and training of Indigenous people as ADR practitioners or for a liaison role is a critical factor in improving the effectiveness of dispute resolution and conflict management services for Indigenous people. Evaluations have shown that the presence of Indigenous mediators and staff has led to usage of services by Indigenous clients who had previously avoided such services.” ( NADRC, p13)

However, the Solid Work Report noted that only 12 of Australia's 65 Family Relationship Centres (FRC) are specifically funded to employ Indigenous Advisors and, where they exist, actual delivery of FDR services by Indigenous practitioners is conspicuously missing from their roles. The report gave as an example the situation of an FRC Indigenous Advisor, referred to as Hamish.

“Hamish had undertaken some training but the opportunities for him to access courses that would allow him to meet the accreditation requirements for family dispute resolution practitioners were very limited. Opportunities for him to access dispute resolution training with a focus on working with Indigenous people were virtually nonexistent” (Allen et al, 2 0 0 9 , p122).

13

Searching for ATSI specialist FDR providers

A small empirical study revealed the extreme difficulty of locating FDR providers with the appropriate skills for working with ATSI people.

The Register of FDR practitioners has a search facility that recognises the terms “Indigenous” and “Aboriginal”, as well as suburb or postcode locators. A search conducted 17 August 2011 revealed that there were 296 registered FDR providers in New South Wales. However, a search within NSW using the term “Aboriginal” produced only three providers, all of them individuals who, enquiries revealed, did not identify as ATSI.

A similar search within NSW using the term “Indigenous” elicited 84 FDR providers that had included the term under the descriptor “Areas covered”, but usually as the last of many categories of client, presumably indicating a willingness to serve this potential client population, rather than any specialist skills or approaches.

In fact the Application for Accreditation as a FDR practitioner provides no specific opportunity for an ATSI person to identify themselves in this way, so if there are any accredited FDR practitioners who are ATSI people, there is no easy way to find them and no way for the Federal Government to monitor the number of ATSI people with or seeking accreditation as FDR practitioners.

Pursuing a local interest, the Gosford NSW area known as, The Central Coast, was addressed. The Central Coast of NSW has a large Aboriginal population, the Traditional Owners being the Darkinjung People. The Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council has more than 600 active members. The Eleanor Duncan Aboriginal Heath Centre, located at Wyong, employs 25 staff to serve a population of more than 2,000 Aboriginal people, so it is reasonable to assume that this population would produce a significant number of ATSI people requiring FDR. A search of the Register within Gosford, using the term “Indigenous” returned 25 results, which seemed promising, but only two of these 25 were actually located on the Central Coast of NSW (Interrelate Gosford and the Family Relationship Centre in Erina). In fact, some were as distant as Brisbane, Maroochydore and Perth.

Ralph (2010) noted that the lack of accredited Indigenous FDR practitioners and delays in closing this gap are resulting in mounting frustration for ATSI families. Ralph (2010) argued that the shortage or absence of accredited Indigenous FDR practitioners is in part an outcome of the current system of accreditation that requires specific qualifications as well as demonstration of competency through case discussions and interview. While acknowledging that accreditation can be via credit for prior learning and demonstrated competency, he suggested that many ATSI people who might be interested and able to deliver this service well would not be able to satisfy the current criteria for accreditation without undertaking a course of formal study that would primarily focus on dispute resolution in a non-Indigenous context.

14

Qualifications for accreditation as an FDR practitioner

Any person wishing to be accredited as an FDRP who has not previously undertaken FDR is required by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 5 of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 to undertake the following:

1 . Obtain a Vocational Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution; or 2 . Be accredited by a recognised Mediation Accreditation Body, such as

LEADR, and be assessed as competent by a registered training organisation undertaking 6 of the compulsory units required to complete the Vocational Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution.

Numerous registered training organisations and universities provide courses leading to the Vocational Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution, but there are pre-requisites for entry.

_ All accept a Bachelor degree in disciplines such as Psychology, Social Work, Law, Conflict Management, Dispute Resolution or Family Law Mediation

_ Most accept Certificate IV in Mediation or a Diploma level qualification in conflict management or dispute resolution from an accredited institution

_ Most accept relevant work experience in a family dispute resolution environment in a job role involving self directed application of knowledge with substantial depth in some areas, exercise of independent judgment and decision making and a range of technical and other skills. (See appendix A).

Some time ago, the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council Primary Dispute Resolution In Family Law Report to the Attorney General (1997) addressed Part 5 of Family Law Regulations. In relation to ATSI mediators, they suggested that requiring a tertiary qualification to qualify as a family and child mediator may indirectly discriminate against ATSI people because they are less likely to have tertiary qualifications, due to social and educational disadvantage, and they are therefore less likely to qualify under the regulations, although the tertiary qualification is not essential to competent professional practice in the same way it is for medicine.

Drawing on Larissa Behrendt’s work (1995), the report noted that, where the parties are negotiating within the framework of the Family Law Act, mediation by an Aboriginal mediator or including an Aboriginal co-mediator may be highly desirable and that in such circumstances qualified mediators should be available. While many ATSI people may informally provide mediation services in relation to family matters, the Act and regulations presently make no special provision for Indigenous mediators and Aboriginal mediators who mediate in family disputes that could be the subject of proceedings under the

15

Family Law Act, but have no tertiary qualifications and do not meet the practice requirements, are technically breaching the law.

The report considered several options including instituting an exemption for ATSI mediators in relation to the tertiary qualification requirement or a discretionary procedure for the authorisation of ATSI mediators. However, either of these options could have the effect of lowering the quality of the mediation received by ATSI people. Being a member of an appropriate racial group and/or having the necessary language skills may be necessary or important for the mediation of some disputes, but these do not amount to sufficient qualification to mediate the difficult issues which often arise in family disputes, where strong skills in mediation are also important. The tasks of Aboriginal mediators are often complicated by difficult issues concerning the relationship between Aboriginal culture and values and non-Aboriginal culture and values. Further, authorisation schemes that require discretionary judgements can be very costly to administer.

Another option considered was implementation of special measures to assist ATSI mediators to meet the requirements of the regulations. Special funding could be made available:

_ to ATSI people to assist them with the costs of tertiary study _ to tertiary institutions to assist them in developing courses that: o are more readily accessible by ATSI people o have curricula appropriate to the practice of Indigenous mediators,

using appropriate models of mediation o have admission criteria that would encourage enrolment by ATSI

people o and offer the supports necessary to enable Indigenous mediators to

successfully qualify.

The Council recommended: _ a limited authorisation scheme for ATSI mediators who are

providing mediation services to ATSI people and who cannot reasonably meet the tertiary qualification requirements

_ that in the longer term, that special measures be implemented to enable ATSI mediators to acquire appropriate tertiary qualifications

_ and noted need to develop models of mediation that are culturally relevant, but consistent with the high standard of mediation available to the general community.

Making FDR culturally appropriate for ATSI people

The FRC Indigenous Adviser “Hamish” interviewed for the Solid Work Report commented that the policies employed by the FRC in which he worked were not sufficiently flexible to accommodate the kind of service delivery he would like to see the FRC provide to ATSI clients (Allen et al, 2009).

16

Cuneen and Schwartz (2008) argued that cultural awareness is crucial to providing effective legal services to ATSI people. They noted that cultural awareness is vital in more traditionally-oriented communities and required in all ATSI contexts. They noted that the provision of services (legal advice, education and advocacy) to Indigenous people can be complex and far more time consuming than comparable work in non-Indigenous communities. They noted cross-cultural issues including who has the right to speak, Indigenous kinship relations, gratuitous concurrence, eye contact and temporal and spatial definitions.

The Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria (AFVPLSV), who AFVPLSV interviewed both lawyers and ATSI people accessing FDR, also argued that culturally appropriated FDR must be made available to ATSI people. AFVPLSV proposed that all parties attending FDR should be asked whether they identify as ATSI prior to commencing FDR intake screening and that ATSI identifying people should then be offered the option of direct referral to an ATSI or other legal service. All FDR providers should offer referral sheets detailing ATSI and mainstream referral options. AFVPLSV further argued that all FRCs must ensure that staff have been provided with ongoing ATSI cultural awareness training that includes issues related to general and family violence. To illustrate, they quoted an Aboriginal person who said, “…mediator knew Aboriginal issues…knew about family connections…found her good”. (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, 2010, p14).

The Solid Work report identified culturally appropriate FDR practices that foster clients’ ownership of the process and promote engagement as being critical to effective mediation. The report concluded that “skilled practitioners who know local conditions, language and culture are irreplaceable and in short supply” (Allen et al, 2009).

Ralph (2010) suggested that FDR appropriate to ATSI people would be charactised by:

_ “Services delivered by Indigenous practitioners, supported by good workforce development;

_ Fostering skills and attributes in non-Indigenous practitioners to ensure they work effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients;

_ Tailoring services and FDR processes to meet the needs of Indigenous families, rather than referral into mainstream services;

_ Education and awareness-raising within Indigenous communities of dispute resolution processes available;

_ Community engagement, and organisational partnering in the provision of services; and

_ Funding arrangements that allow for flexible and timely modes of service delivery.” (Ralph, 2010, p15).

Armstrong, Butler and Bruce (2010), drawing on the experiences of AngliCare and CatholicCare FDR services, proposed that in order to deliver culturally responsive FDR, providers must:

17

_ understand the service needs of the local community _ implement initiatives that will develop relationships to better

understand communities and develop referral pathways _ identify and build local networks _ engage community leaders; _ work with or in partnership with community agencies.

According to Armstrong et al, it is important to remember that it takes time to build trust. The more FDR providers speak with members of the community, the more they can learn about the community’s needs and establish trust that the work will be ongoing. Best practice would see the FDR dedicate resources to implementing initiatives such as employing an ATSI community liaison officer.

Ross, Mallard and Fisher (2010) also emphasised the importance of gaining trust during the mediation process:

“Although the quality of the interactions between mediators and the parties to a dispute is very important in any mediation process, a particular feature of work with Aboriginal families is the need for trust and a relationship to be built as part of the preparatory phase. In other words, trust should not be assumed to be granted to mediators simply because they are professionals working for an organisation. Building trust requires an investment of time to meet, listen to and understand people during the preparatory phase of the process and a willingness to be flexible”. (Ross et al, 2010, p 31)

Harman, Ebsworth and Coady (2009) noted that FDR services employ a rigid model that controls discussion and limits attendance in the FDR process to parents. These processes are often inaccessible and intimidating to ATSI clients and do not acknowledge the roles of extended family and community.

Ross et al (2010) also noted that the range of participants in FDR for ATSI people often differs from that typical for non-ATSI people:

“In mediation processes involving Aboriginal families in Central Australia, there is a need to include other family members in the process, sometimes including members of a wide extended family. Although it is not desirable to generalise across Australian Aboriginal cultures, in Central Australia it is common for grandparents to play the leading role in raising children. Separating couples sometimes expect their parents and other relatives to be directly involved in the mediation process. In some cases, grandparents of the children will be the main parties”. (Ross et al, 2010, p 33)

Armstrong (2009), drawing on her experience as chief researcher in a three year project for two FRCs in south-western Sydney to investigate culturally responsive family dispute resolution, argued that FDRPs would need to ensure that parties understand the FDR process, the role of the practitioner, and the self-determinative role of parties in FDR, particularly where mediation may be culturally unfamiliar. FDRPs should also enquire whether clients understand the best interests principle and explore cultural expectations of child-rearing and development. Armstrong noted that many

18

FRCs require parties to attend group information sessions to encourage parents to focus on their children’s needs and the cultural fit and context of such programs and group sessions would need to be explored with each party. Attention to these matters may require a longer period of preparation for the process when parties are from culturally diverse backgrounds.

Ross et al similarly commented that the pace at which the FDR process is undertaken between ATSI participants may be slower than for non-ATSI participants:

“Many Aboriginal people have different understandings of the pace of a mediation process when compared with most processes involving non- Aboriginal people. Often, urgency is not considered as important as proper consideration of the full story behind the dispute and adequate time for processing the issues between meetings.” (Ross et al, 2010, p.32)

Ross et al noted that the necessary preparation and reinforcement of an ATSI person’s role in the mediation, as well as the conduct of the mediator during the mediation, may be different for ATSI participants:

“In the Aboriginal context in Central Australia, effective preparation of the parties often involves mediators doing the following:

� Working out where people fit within the history of the dispute and whether they are relevant to the mediation

� Asking how key individuals wish to be involved and negotiating with them a suitable place in the process.

� Encouraging and motivating people to take responsibility for their role and the outcomes of the process.

� Supporting people to feel safe and comfortable to speak up where they have specific contributions to make to the mediation.

� Making sure that all concerns are going to be discussed in the joint mediation meeting, to avoid later derailing of the process by issues that were not properly addressed at the time.

� Agreeing the way in which privacy and confidentiality will be handled and then reinforcing this agreement throughout the process.” (Ross et al, 2 0 1 0 , p 38)

It is paramount that FDRPs facilitate and encourage ATSI parties attending FDR to actively engage in owning and resolving the conflict between them, rather than passively accepting a solution devised for them by an unrelated third party.

A potential problem for a FDRP when engaging ATSI people in FDR is to ensure that their encouragement and positive feedback to the parties is not misinterpreted as a loss of impartiality or construed as the FDRP having taken the side of one party. Support must be provided to all parties engaged in the FDR process. Reinforcing the importance of the parties’ input in the FDR process can be achieved by the FDRP continuing to consult with the parties during the process and continuing to invite their contributions.

19

Ross et al considered that the use of shuttle mediation, where the mediator breaks the parties apart, as opposed to the facilitative model of mediation where parties are kept together, is often more culturally appropriate for ATSI people undertaking FDR, but argued that the shuttle process must not become the entire process:

“In the Aboriginal context of Central Australia, shuttle processes have an important role in the preparatory phase and are considered appropriate by many Aboriginal people, for whom avoidance is not uncommon in cultural practice and is considered a suitable way to progress a conversation on a topic which is in dispute. For mediators, shuttle processes offer the following benefits: _ As a means of building trust as they enable the mediator to work with the

parties for a period before they meet and for the mediators to prove themselves;

_ To support short-term negotiations as a path to longer-term resolution of the dispute through, for example, addressing an immediate practical issue around living arrangements or time spent with children by parents. Again, this is a proving ground for the mediators and the process;

_ To develop the discussion in the short-term as part of the steps that lead to a joint mediation meeting, in effect starting the process in a practical way;

_ As a way to attract parties into the mediation process more effectively than intake meetings followed by an early mediation meeting, a prospect that does not sit well with the preferences of many Aboriginal people for the pacing of the process;

_ To build the story on both sides of the dispute…

However, it is important that shuttle processes do not become the mediation. People need to meet and take responsibility for the situation that they are in, rather than expecting the mediators to come up with solutions. The parties must become active in the process of mediation and not passive recipients of messages delivered by the mediators from the other party. The mediators should therefore not allow a pattern to develop where they are taking messages back and forth. The overall challenge for the mediators is to set clear boundaries and not fall into a situation where they are doing unnecessary tasks for clients that detract from the overall objectives of the mediation process as a whole”. (Ross et al, 2010, p 46- 4 7 )

Ross et al noted that neutrality is an important factor during the FDR process:

“The concept of neutrality is best understood by most clients as ‘standing in the middle’. The Law and Justice Group in Yuendumu, a remote community in Central Australia, talks about ‘standing in the middle and not taking sides’. In being neutral, we seek to remain engaged with the parties but in an even and fair way, rather than stepping back from the discussion. For the Family Relationship Centre, our approach with Aboriginal families in Central Australia is to be objective about the problem but not the people

20

involved in the dispute. We invest in the relationship we have with them because it is crucial to the eventual outcome.

Mediators have to work hard to ensure that no misconceptions about their role are created. Where a mediator is preparing one of the parties for the joint mediation or is engaged in shuttle discussions between the two parties, it is important that impartiality is maintained. This means that neither party thinks that they are receiving preferential treatment or that the mediator is expressing a view that their case is somehow stronger than that of the other party. This can be a challenge in small towns because sometimes the mediators will have connections to people involved in the dispute. In these cases, the FRC may choose to involve other mediators in the process so that there is no perception of loss of neutrality”. (Ross et al, 2 0 1 0 , p 53)

Steps towards culturally appropriate FDR services

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC Report 114) noted that, while FDR has the potential to be able to accommodate the cultural, religious and social values and practices of ATSI communities, the development of culturally responsive FDR will require significant planning and resources. The ALRC also noted stakeholder concerns that “culturally responsive approaches should be developed and implemented in a comprehensive, strategic and holistic way, rather than on an ad hoc basis”.(ALRC Report 114, p. 1017)

Ross et al (2010), drawing on experiences at an FRC, described five ways of promoting FDR services to ATSI communities:

_ word of mouth _ organising events _ visiting communities _ building relationships with other organisations in contact with ATSI

communities _ providing simple, culturally appropriate promotional resources.

FRCs and NGO FDR providers do appear to be making an effort to make ATSI clients more comfortable with accessing their services, although this is occurring on a piecemeal basis rather than systemically.

The Lismore branch of Interrelate, for example, claims to be developing their “own reconciliation plan” and aims to engage with a broader section of the Aboriginal community through “our healing and well-being groups, women’s groups, Work at Balanda (Tabulam), self-esteem groups in schools, parent education, counselling and mediation services…We have made a commitment to do this and we are committed to reconciliation and closing the gap between Aboriginal people and other Australians. As part of this initiative we have commenced a Wednesday drop in centre for Aboriginal people at 5 Market St Lismore. Mereki and Mel will be providing support to all Aboriginal people. There is no cost…” http://www.interrelate.org.au/pages/centres/lismore.php)

21

The opening of the Western Australia Midland Family Relationship Centre in July 2007 featured Phillip Narkle, an Aboriginal Elder, who provided a “thought provoking and warm Welcome to Country”. Guests at the opening heard from “Jeremy, Midland’s Indigenous Police Officer” who performed some local songs on Didgeridoo and then retold some local ancient stories of outback life and stories containing contemporary themes of family relationships. During the opening, the newly appointed Aboriginal FDRP, presented the centre with a large Aboriginal artwork (2007 Newsletter, http://www.centrecare.com.au/resources/Midland-FRC-December-2007.pdf)

The Midland Centre holds relaxed outdoor barbecues, which anyone can attend, coming and going as they please, where they can find out about the service through informal conversations. Centre staff visit other agencies to build and maintain relationships with individuals who may be in a position to refer clients they encounter in relation to other matters, such as local shire council offices, women’s groups, church organisations, housing agencies and community or non-government organisations working with families or community development programs. They also invite people from other service agencies and community organisations to visit them.

“Indigenous Advisors at Midland FRC, Karen Kickett and Sunita Ridgeway have been working hard in the last few months to promote the Midland FRC in the community and what it has to offer. They have formed good working relationships with agencies such as Aboriginal Legal Services (ALS) and Aboriginal Violence Services (AVS) as well at Bandyup Women ’ s prison. Karen and Sunita hope to be working closely with other agencies such as Derrible Yirrigan, Yorgum Counselling and various high-schools in the area. Both Karen and Sunita are pleased with the recent outcomes of their networking and look forward to further strengthening relationships within the community”. (2009 Newsletter www.centrecare.com.au/resources/Midland- FRC-Newsletter-Dec-2009.pdf)

Engagement with other organisations may include _ running a workshop or information session on aspects of the work of the

organisation, to share ideas or discuss how to tackle particular challenges

_ attending inter-agency meetings and the significant events of other organisations

_ contributing as needed to the work of the local social and community sector network.

Explaining how mediation services work and who can benefit is challenging, but a simple print resource about the FDR service can raise awareness if made available through a range of agencies in the local network. The most effective print resources rely primarily on graphics to convey the work of the organisation, rather than text. Promotion through local radio is another good way of building awareness of FDR services, especially using short community announcements. The Community Justice Centre in Darwin has used short examples of disputes in television advertisements and community service announcements to promote their work.

22

Awareness of FDR in Aboriginal Medical/Health Services

Aboriginal Medical/Health Services are important contact points within ATSI communities for FDR providers, because

_ AM/HS staff are likely to become aware of clients being involved in family disputes through their various professional roles

_ AM/HS staff are a trusted source of referral to other services for clients _ AM/HS staff have expertise in cultural issues that need to be

considered by any agency seeking to serve ATSI people.

A small telephone survey of Aboriginal Medical/Health Services located in NSW areas with a Family Law Pathways Network (FLPN) was conducted, aiming to gauge:

_ the extent of awareness and engagement with FDR practitioners _ the extent of awareness and engagement with local FLPNs _ the extent of interest in building relationships and providing some

cultural awareness input to FLPNs _ whether any ATSI staff would be interested in undertaking training

towards becoming an FDR practitioner, if scholarships were made available to support this

_ and collect some advice about how FDR providers could in the short term become more welcoming to ATSI people in need of FDR service.

Responses were consistent across all AM/HSs consulted (Table follows): _ there was no awareness of the local FLPN (or any other) _ while a few were aware of clients using a legal service in relation to

family matters, there was no specific awareness of FDR practitioners _ there was interest in meeting FLPN members to exchange information

about FDR services and relevant ATSI cultural issues and to build relationships

_ all could identify at least one staff member who would be interested in undertaking formal training as an FDR practitioner if a scholarship were made available to cover costs.

Informants made many suggestions about how FRD providers could become more welcoming to ATSI people in need of this service. They included:

_ in the waiting room: _ display a sign acknowledging the traditional owners of the land _ display the “Aboriginal Tribal Map” _ obtain or seek the presentation of a piece of local Aboriginal art _ subscribe to the National Indigenous Times and Koorie Mail and

have them available _ don’t display ATSI posters provided by government departments

that do not relate to the actual service being provided. _ build awareness within and relationships with key community

organisations such as the AM/HS by _ visits and exchange of speaker invitations, attending key events and

meetings, including inter-agency meetings and events _ contribute to NAIDOC Week events (eg prizes) _ provide simple referral flyers for clients in need of FDR.

23

Service name and location

Client need for FDR

Relationships with FDR Practitioners

Awareness of FLPN

Interest in building relationships

Staff interest in FDRP training

with scholarship Yerin Aboriginal Health Service aka Eleanor Duncan Aboriginal Health Centre, Wyong

Many clients need FDR

No relationships with FDR practitioners

No prior awareness of FLPN

Interested in meeting FLPN, providing cultural awareness input, member for Steering Group

staff member identified

Gurgun Bulahggelah Aboriginal Health, Lismore


Clients have used Legal Aid; no other relationships


Interested in meeting FLPN, speaking with

2 interested staff members identified

Grafton Aboriginal Health Service

Some clients need FDR



Interested in building relationship, talking about cultural issues

staff member can be identified

The Aboriginal Medical Service Western Sydney

1 7 ,000 ATSI, some need FDR



Interested in building relationship FLPN, providing speaker


Albury Wodonga Aboriginal Health Services




Interested in providing speaker for FLPN


Armajun Aboriginal Health Service at Inverell






Illawarra Aboriginal Medical Service






Awabakal Aboriginal Medical Centre, Newcastle


Hunter Community Legal Centre used, but no relationships with FDR practitioners




Orange Aboriginal Medical Service




Interested in meeting FLPN staff member can be identified

Tamworth Aboriginal Medical Service




Interested in meeting FLPN staff member can be identified

24

Recommendations

1 . A National Government Response: a. Change the questionnaire that is required to be filled out by

people wishing to be accredited as FDRP by including a question that identifies the applicant as being ATSI.

b. Modify the internal search engine within the FDRP Register to allow for a FDRP’s cultural background to be a criterion within the search, and limit the geographical description to allow an ATSI person to find a truly local ATSI FDRP.

c. Put in place a series of scholarships available to ATSI identified people to undertake FDRP training and/or require Universities and other training institutions providing courses qualifying students with a Vocational Graduate Diploma to offer at least one free place in each FDRP training course to an ATSI person.

d. Fund a national conference to be known as the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Family Dispute Resolution Conference, to which representatives of all FRCs, NGOs providing FDR, Members of AMSs, members of ALSs, Members of LALCs and the State Aboriginal or Torres Strait Land Councils are invited, to workshop issues and create a uniform strategy that can be adopted across all FRC and NGOs providing FDR to address such issues as recruitment, training and employment of ATSI FDRP and other staff within FRC and NGOs providing FDR and cultural competence training for all staff.

e. Create an oversight body of acknowledged experts to develop a list of issues and strategy topics to be addressed at the proposed National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Family Dispute Resolution Conference.

2 . At Family Law Pathways Network level: Build relationships for consultation, exchange of information and referral with key ATSI community organizations such as AMSs by:

a. Inviting and continuing to invite staff from the local AMS or Aboriginal Legal Service to attend the Network meetings.

b. Actively recruiting a representative from a local ATSI community organisation to join the Steering Committee of the Network.

25

c. Seeking permission to conduct a meetings of the Network at the Local AMS or similar oreganisation.

d. Sponsoring a prize or hosting an event during NAIDOC week. e. Sponsoring a local ATSI person to undertake FDRP training, if

funding is available. f. Co-ordinate showcase presentations of Family Law Services

that are available to local ATSI people either as stand alone events or as part of a wider community event or LALC meeting.

3 . At FDR provider level: Create a service that is welcoming and culturally responsive to the needs of ATSI people by:

a. Creating an Indigenous Liaison position within the FRC or NGO so that there is one contact point for ATSI people or ATSI service providers such as AMSs or ALSs.

b. Subscribing to the two national ATSI newspaper publications The National Indigenous Times and Koorie Mail and placing copies of in the waiting room area.

c. Obtaining and then displaying a copy of the Aboriginal Australia Map from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies at http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/asp/map.html

d. Creating and installing a sign at the FRC/ NGO that acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land on which the FRC/NGO is located including naming the tribe.

e. If the FRC is a church-based NGO, displaying a written apology that acknowledges and apologises for the role played by churches and their institutions in removing ATSI children from their families. (The UnitingCare Apology at Appendix B provides an example.)

f. Seeking the donation/presentation of a piece of local ATSI art from the Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) to be displayed in the waiting room, with a framed notice acknowledging the donation from the LALC.

g. Request presentations by representatives of the local AMS or LALC to FRC staff about the issues affecting the local ATSI community, including information about the existence of any local ATSI community groups that meet on a regular basis.

h. Seeking permission that would allow the attendance of the Indigenous Liaison Officer within the FRC to attend local ATSI community groups.

26

i. Offer assistance, attend and run a stall advertising the FRC services at local NAIDOC Week celebrations.

j. Sponsor a prize or assist in fundraising activities during NAIDOC week.

k. Sponsor the training of an ATSI community member to undertake studies to become a FDRP.

l. Advertise employment positions that become available at the FRC on the notice board at the local AMS, in the newsletter of the LALC and via email to ATSI contacts obtained through meetings with members of the local ATSI community.

m. Conduct ongoing training within the FRC/NGO about cultural practices and etiquette of the local ATSI people and where possible utilise the knowledge of a local community Elder.

n. Contact and then remain in contact with the Elders of the local ATSI community, inviting them to any official or unofficial functions at the FRC/NGO, such as a celebration of the anniversary of opening or a function put on for a visiting dignitary such as the Federal Attorney General.

o. If the FRC has a steering or management committee, ask a local community Elder or senior member within the local AMS or LALC to join the steering or management committee.

p. Have the FRC/NGO present an information session at one of the LALC meetings about the services that the FRC/NGO offers.

q. Have the FRC/NGO place an advertisement within the LALC newsletter.

r. Seek permission from the LALC to place a link on the website of the LALC to the FRC website.

s. Create an ATSI page within the FRC website that provides answers to frequently asked questions and that details the involvement of the FRC in the local community.

t. Run regular information session evenings where a representative of the FRC/NGO delivers a talk about their services to clients of the local AMS.

u. Develop an email list of local ATSI Elders and community members and email information such as newsletters to ATSI people within the list.

27

Bibliography

2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 The Parliament of The Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 Explanatory Memorandum.

Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria Improving accessibility of the legal system for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims/survivors of family violence and sexual assault. Policy Paper Series June 2010 Paper 3 of 3.

Allen, D. O’Donnell, M. Williams, R. Solid work you mob are doing- Case Studies in Indigenous Dispute Resolution & Conflict Management in Australia, Report to the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council by the Federal Court of Australia’s Indigenous Dispute Resolution & Conflict Management Case Study Project, 2009.

Attorney General’s Department Family Dispute Resolution Services in Legal Aid Commissions Evaluation Report, December 2008.

Armstrong, S. Culturally Responsive Family Dispute Resolution in Family Relationship Centres, Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Relationships Quarterly Issue 13, 2009.

Armstrong. S. Butler.R. & Bruce, P. Culturally responsive Family Dispute Resolution: an initiative of Anglicare and CatholicCare, 3rd National FRSA Conference, Melbourne, 3-5 November 2010.

Australian Law Reform Commission Family Violence A National Legal Response Report No.114

Australian Institute of Family Studies, Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms (2009).

Behrendt Larissa Aboriginal Dispute Resolution, Federation Press, Sydney, 1995.

Cunneen, C. Schwartz,M. The family and civil law needs of Aboriginal people in New South Wales Final Report Law Faculty, University of NSW, 2008.

Cuneen, C., Luff, J., Menzies, K., & Ralph, N. (2005). Indigenous family mediation: The New South Wales ATSIFAM Program. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter, 1.

Family Court of Australia — Annual Report 2009–2010

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Annual Report 2009–2010

28

Federal Circuit Court, Dispute Resolution in Family Law Proceedings, fact sheet – downloaded from http://www.fmc.gov.au/pubs/html/dispute_resolution.html on 20 August 2 0 1 1 .

Harman, J. Ebsworth, R. Coady, L. White Fella Law Black Fella Lore Paper delivered at The 2nd National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Family and Community Strengths Conference, University of Newcastle, 1 December 2009.

The House Standing Committee Family and Community Affairs Every picture tells a story: Inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation, tabled Monday 29 December 2003.

The National Alternative Dispute Council (NADRC) report Indigenous Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management 2006.

Manning, A. Family Dispute Resolution New Opportunities for Separating Families, Catholic Observer August 2009 Page 12 Midland FRC in Focus December 2007, Newsletter of the Midland Family Relationship Centre – downloaded from http://www.centrecare.com.au/resources/Midland-FRC-December- 2 0 0 7 . pdf on 20 August 2011.

Midland FRC in Focus December 2009, Newsletter of the Midland Family Relationship Centre – downloaded from http://www.centrecare.com.au/resources/Midland-FRC-Newsletter-Dec- 2 0 0 9 . pdf on 20 August 2011.

Ralph, S. Family dispute resolution services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families: Closing the gap? Family Relationships Quarterly No.17 2010.

Ross C, Mallard D and Fisher S. Model of Practice for Mediation with Aboriginal Families in Central Australia. Relationships Australia Family Relationship Centre, Alice Springs, 2010

29

Appendix A: FDR accreditation training pre-requisites

Relationships Austraila NSW entrance requirements are: _ An undergraduate degree (or higher) in Psychology, Social Work, Law,

Conflict Management, Dispute Resolution, Family Law Mediation or equivalent.

_ An accredited Diploma or Advanced Diploma in conflict management or dispute resolution.

_ Certificate IV in Community Mediation with significant experience. or

_ Learners undertaking this qualification not possessing the above academic attainments need to have previous experience in a dispute resolution environment. The job role needs to have involved the self- directed application of knowledge with substantial depth in some areas, the exercise of independent judgement and decision making, and a range of technical and other skills directly applicable to the field of Family Dispute Resolution.

(http://www.nsw.relationships.com.au/en/courses/airs/AIRS%20Courses/vgdf dr.aspx)

Anglicare requires one of: _ An undergraduate degree or higher qualification in Psychology, Social

Work, Law, Conflict Management, Dispute Resolution, Family Law Mediation or equivalent, OR

_ An accredited qualification in conflict management or dispute resolution at Diploma or Advanced Diploma level, OR

_ Certificate IV in Community Mediation together with significant relevant vocational practice,

_ Previous experience in a dispute resolution environment, in a job role involving self directed application of knowledge with substantial depth in some areas, the exercise of independent judgement and decision making, and a range of technical and other skills.

(http://www.anglicarewa.org.au/training-services/registered-training- courses/graduate-diploma-in-family-dispute-resolution.aspx)

CSU Training, a New South Wales registered training organisation requires: _ Undergraduate degree or higher qualification in: Psychology; Social

Work; Law; Conflict Management _ Dispute Resolution; Family Law Mediation or equivalent _ Accredited Diploma in conflict management or dispute resolution _ Accredited Advanced Diploma conflict management or dispute

resolution _ Certificate IV in Community Mediation PLUS significant relevant

experience _ Significant vocational experience in dispute resolution environment,

relevant skills and knowledge.

30

(http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/53756/GDFDR- Enrolment-Form-vs-3.pdf) Bond University requires: “A person who wants to be accredited as a family mediator in Australia, and who does not have an undergraduate university degree in law or social science, has an extra requirement. These people must (i) complete two subjects or “4 units” mentioned above; plus (ii) complete another elective course known as “units 7-10” in order to acquire a Vocational Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution (CHC80207) - usually at a TAFE. Bond University has a number of elective postgraduate subjects in dispute resolution in both intensive and full semester teaching mode from which to choose in order to acquire a Bond Diploma of Dispute Resolution - this is an equivalent to the "Vocational Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution". The assessment in those courses involves multiple practical exercises and major writing projects on family mediation topics, and amounts to the equivalent of the Vocational Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution”. (http://www.bond.edu.au/faculties-colleges/dispute- resolution/accreditation/index.htm)

FMC Training Services, a Victorian Registered Training organisation at its website requires:

_ An undergraduate degree or higher in : Psychology, Social Science, Law, Conflict Management, Dispute Resolution, Family Law Mediation or equivalent

_ An accredited qualification in Conflict Management or Dispute Resolution at Diploma level or above OR Certificate IV in Community Mediation plus significant, relevant vocational practice

_ Previous experience in a Dispute Resolution Environment, the job role would have involved the self directed application of knowledge with substantial depth in some areas, the exercise of independent judgement and decision making and a range of technical & other skills.

(http://www.mediation.com.au/files/BCHR%20-%20VGD_2012%20- %20V1.03%20Jul%2011.pdf)

Uniting Care Institute of Family Practice requires one of: _ An undergraduate degree or higher qualification in Psychology, Social

Work, Law or relevant social science _ A relevant accredited qualification in conflict management or dispute

resolution at Diploma or Advanced Diploma _ A Certificate IV in Mediation together with significant relevant

vocational practice _ _ “Applicants undertaking this qualification need to have previous

experience in a dispute resolution environment, the job role would have involved the self directed application of knowledge with substantial depth in some areas, the exercise of independent judgement and decision making, and a range of technical and other skills”.

(http://www.ifp.nsw.edu.au/courses/familydisputeresolution.htm

31

The Australian Institute of Family Relations specifies that candidates seeking entry to this qualification must provide evidence of one of the following:

_ An undergraduate degree or higher qualification in Psychology, Social Work, Law, Conflict Management, Dispute Resolution, Family Law Mediation or equivalent

_ An accredited qualification in conflict management or dispute resolution at Diploma or Advanced Diploma level

_ Certificate IV in Mediation _ Previous experience in a family dispute resolution environment in a job

role involving self directed application of knowledge with substantial depth in some areas, exercise of independent judgement and decision making, and a range of technical and other skills”.

(http://socialrelations.edu.au/InformationFor/NationalRecTraining/VocGradDip FDR.aspx)

The University of Queensland requires: _ “Bachelor degree or equivalent. Applicants are required to submit

curriculum vitae with academic and two professional references”. (http://www.uq.edu.au/study/program.html?acad_prog=5455

32

Appendix B: UnitingCare Apology.

“UnitingCare

Children, Young People and Families

Apology to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families recognise that Australia’s first peoples, The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the traditional owners and custodians of the land. We express deep sorrow for the mistreatment and trauma that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have experienced and continue to experience through colonization and dispossession of land.

UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families Affirms the Uniting Church in Australia’s recognition of the churches and their institutions in implementing racist and paternalistic government policies. In particular UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families apologises for any participation our agencies had, knowingly or unknowingly in the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, community and country.

We are sorry for the deep trauma, hurt and grief experienced by Australian’s Stolen Generation. We acknowledge that the past policies and practices to remove children from their families have torn at the heart and essence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We honour Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for their strength and resilience in the face of these enduring injustices.

UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families commits to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to assist in healing the wrongs of the past by addressing the serious and ongoing impacts of disadvantage. We will do this by respecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander values, knowledge and culture and seeking to rebuild trusting relationships with aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children,

33

young people, families and their communities by working respectfully together.

UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families Board September 2010.” (http://www.childrenyoungpeopleandfamilies.org.au/info/indigen ous/apology_statement).

closing the gap – the delivery of family dispute resolution to aboriginal and torres strait...

Government & Nonprofit