Concurrent session Thursday 12th November

1. 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. 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. 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
2004-2005 Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia House of
Representatives Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill
2005 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. 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. 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
60I 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. 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. 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
115(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. 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:
_ 10 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. 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,
2008). 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. 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. 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. 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,
2009, p122).

13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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,
2010, 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. 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-
47)
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. 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,
2010, 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. 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. 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. 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
Many clients need
FDR
Clients have used Legal
Aid; no other
relationships
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in meeting FLPN,
speaking with
2 interested staff
members identified
Grafton Aboriginal Health
Service
Some clients need
FDR
No relationships with
FDR practitioners
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in building
relationship, talking about
cultural issues
staff member can be
identified
The Aboriginal Medical
Service Western Sydney
17,000 ATSI, some
need FDR
No relationships with
FDR practitioners
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in building
relationship FLPN, providing
speaker
staff member can be
identified
Albury Wodonga Aboriginal
Health Services
Many clients need
FDR
No relationships with
FDR practitioners
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in providing speaker
for FLPN
staff member can be
identified
Armajun Aboriginal Health
Service at Inverell
Some clients need
FDR
No relationships with
FDR practitioners
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in building
relationship FLPN, providing
speaker
staff member can be
identified
Illawarra Aboriginal Medical
Service
Many clients need
FDR
No relationships with
FDR practitioners
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in building
relationship FLPN, providing
speaker
staff member can be
identified
Awabakal Aboriginal Medical
Centre, Newcastle
Some clients need
FDR
Hunter Community
Legal Centre used, but
no relationships with
FDR practitioners
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in building
relationship FLPN, providing
speaker
staff member can be
identified
Orange Aboriginal Medical
Service
Many clients need
FDR
No relationships with
FDR practitioners
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in meeting FLPN staff member can be
identified
Tamworth Aboriginal Medical
Service
Some clients need
FDR
No relationships with
FDR practitioners
No prior awareness
of FLPN
Interested in meeting FLPN staff member can be
identified

24. 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. 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. 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. 27
Bibliography
2004-2005 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. 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
2011.
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-
2007.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-
2009.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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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).