This new process is required under the Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 which came into force today. According to the Federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, the changes to Australia’s legal system  will result in more people resolving disputes before going to court, saving money, time and stress.

Mr McClelland said the reforms commencing today as part of the will fundamentally change the way people resolve issues in the federal courts: Australia’s legal system is changing – we are moving away from an adversarial culture of litigation to a resolution-based approach to disputes, this means greater opportunities for resolution, rather than a system that prioritises ‘winners and losers’.

Read the full press release here: REFORM_TO AUSTRALIAN_FEDERAL_LEGAL_SYSTEM

NSW farmers are concerned about mining exploration for coal and coal-seam gas on their land.  This prompted the NSW Farmers Association to invite farmers, solicitors, government and industry speakers to a 2 day forum at their Sydney headquarters on 29/30 June 2011.

Mediation & Arbitration Chambers  members, Derek Minus and Brydget Barker-Hudson were invited by the NSW Farmers Association to address the seminar on dispute resolution techniques. The NSW Mining and Petroleum (Onshore) Acts direct the procedure for dispute resolution and other related access matters  for mining activities.  Mediation & Arbitration Chambers welcomed this opportunity to talk with the farming community and their legal representatives, predominantly rural-based, concerning the benefits of the Med-Arb process.  They have also offered to give similar presentations to the mining / gas industry.

Derek Minus provided a presentation on the use of  mediation (which is not identified as a process available under the Acts) and other dispute resolution techniques to negotiate access arrangements. He  focussed on the benefits of early dispute resolution through mediation prior to the statutory process being commenced.  The use of negotiation and mediation in other situations was also developed by both Chambers members particularly in business development and farming family related and family-business related situations.

Being a Member of the NSW Mining Minister’s Arbitration Panel, Brydget Barker-Hudson focussed on the process of Conciliation to the development of an agreed Access Arrangement.  If issues are unresolved the following statutory process of arbitration was discussed.  Brydget highlighted the role of solicitors / advisers in this process.  She outlined ways rural solicitors, who know their farm-based clients well, can assisting their clients and community to develop useful, liveable outcomes in Exploration Access Arrangements / Agreements.

Mediation & Arbitration Chambers is happy to advise parties and their legal advisers, about developing dispute resolution through Mediation, Med-Arb and Arbitration in coal and coal-seam gas and other farm / rural related and commercial issues.

In New South Wales, Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) are established under the ALRA as the elected representatives for Aboriginal people in NSW. There are a total of 121 LALCs divided into nine regions, Sydney/Newcastle, North Western, Northern, South Coast, North Coast, Western, Central, Central Coast and Wiradjuri.

These new provisions of the ALRA make fundamental changes to the way that  the LALCs are required to go about handling land dealing proposals. LALCs must now apply to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council for approval of almost all land dealings (s 42F ALRA). If the NSW Aboriginal Land Council approves of a LALC land dealing then it is to issue an approval certificate (s 42K ALRA). Pursuant to s 42G ALRA, the NSW Aboriginal Land Council may refuse to approve a land dealing if it considers it contrary to the interests of the members of the LALC or other Aboriginal persons within the area of that Council.

According to a government statement:

“The NSW Government strongly supports the principles of self-determination and self-management for NSW Aboriginal communities … [but] In some cases, if there is no other way to deal with serious financial or administrative problems at a Land Council, then the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs may consider appointing an Investigator or Administrator.”

The NSW Government is currently seeking to appoint independent investigators and administrators to assist with the resolution of problems identified in the management of Local Aboriginal Land Councils.

The object of the CDR is to ensure that people take ‘genuine steps’ to resolve disputes before instituting civil proceedings in the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court. The aim of the Bill is to:

• change the adversarial culture often associated with disputes;
• focus on resolution before parties become entrenched in litigation;
• ensure that, where disputes proceed to court, the issues are properly identified, thereby reducing the time required for determination.

Most controversial was whether parties to a dispute, needed to show that they had taken genuine steps, as the Bill proposed, or rather reasonable steps as is used in the Victorian Civil Procedure Act 2010 and is proposed for amendments to the NSW Civil Procedure Act 2005. It was argued that the use of the term ‘reasonable steps’ was more certain and less likely to lead to disputes of interpreting comparative legislative provisions. Despite a contrary written view by the two Liberal Senators on the committee that the term ‘reasonable steps’ should be preferred, the committee took the bold move of endorsing the recommendation of NADRAC, that the Bill require a ‘genuine’ effort to be made by disputing parties.

In summary, the committee recommended that, subject to the recommendations in relation to the definition of the word ‘genuine’, the consideration of position of disadvantaged litigants and the protection of the privacy of documents, that the Senate pass the Bill.

The committee conclusions and recommendations from the report are set out below.

Conclusions

3.58 The committee notes that the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010 is part of the government’s moves to improve access to justice. It also reflects a cultural shift in how the position of the courts is perceived in the justice system. Through the ‘genuine steps’ obligation, the Bill aims to support the resolution of certain civil disputes in the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court before litigation is commenced. The committee considers that the introduction of this obligation is an important initiative in ensuring that there is a focus on resolving a matter before costly and time consuming litigation is undertaken. Even when matters are not resolved, there will be a benefit to parties as the issues in dispute will be clarified and narrowed.

3.59 The committee has carefully considered arguments that the Bill introduces mandatory pre-action protocol. The committee is satisfied that this is not the case. Rather, while it is obligatory to provide a genuine steps statement, the Bill provides flexibility to the parties to determine the steps that they wish to take to resolve their dispute and allows for circumstances when genuine steps cannot be undertaken. The Bill provides examples of genuine steps but does not mandate those that should be taken. This is the case with ADR: although witnesses focused on mandatory ADR, the Bill only provides ADR as an example of a genuine step, not a mandated step.

3.60 However, the committee believes that the Bill would benefit from the addition of an inclusive definition of ‘genuine’ to better reflect the intention of the NADRAC report and to provide guidance to the parties involved.

Recommendation 1

3.61 The committee recommends that the Bill be amended to provide for an inclusive definition of the word ‘genuine’ to better reflect the intention of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council report.

3.62 The committee has also considered the extensive discussion in evidence in relation to the exclusions to the genuine steps obligation. The committee is satisfied that the list of exclusions is appropriate and that, as indicated by the Department, should the need arise, further additions to the list can be made through regulation.

3.63 In relation to disadvantaged litigants, the committee has noted the comments by the Attorney-General’s Department and NADRAC that disadvantaged litigants may benefit from less stress, cost and delay through the genuine steps obligation. In addition, disadvantaged litigants will benefit from the additional resources provided by the Australian Government through its Access to Justice measures. However, the committee considers that the Bill should be amended to ensure that disadvantaged people benefit from the proposed regime and are not further disadvantaged or denied access to justice by ensuring that the court, in considering the genuine steps taken by a person when it is exercising its powers or performing its functions, takes into account the circumstances of disadvantaged litigants.

Recommendation 2

3.64 The committee recommends that the Bill be amended so that the court, when taking into consideration the genuine steps that have been taken by a person when it is exercising its powers or performing its functions, also takes into account the circumstances of disadvantaged litigants.

3.65 The committee has also noted the concerns raised by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and the NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General in relation to the disclosure of information and the possible interference with a right to privacy. The committee considers that the Bill would be improved if it contained provisions to ensure that information disclosed cannot be used for any purpose outside the resolution of the dispute at hand.

Recommendation 3

3.66 The committee recommends that the Bill be amended so that information disclosed during the genuine steps obligation cannot be used for any other purpose outside the resolution of the dispute at hand.

3.67 As a final matter, the committee was concerned about the comments made in evidence in relation to the consultation undertaken by the Department before the Bill was introduced. While many stakeholders contributed to the NADRAC report, the committee considers that the Department would have been well served by engaging more thoroughly with stakeholders before the Bill was introduced in the Parliament.