03/9165
14 April2004
TheHon. PhilipRuddockMP Attorney-General
ParliamentHouse
CANBERRA ACT 2600
DearAttorney-General
FEDERAL CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM STRATEGY PAPER
Thankyou for theinvitationtocommenton your Department’sFederalCivilJusticeSystem
StrategyPaper.
I congratulatetheDepartmentfor such awide-rangingdocumentanditswell-considered recommendations.NADRAC alsoappreciatedtheopportunitytobeinvolvedinconsultationsas thepaperwas beingprepared.
NADRAC stronglyagreeswiththekeyconclusionof thepaper,namelyfor ‘Governmentto continuetotakealeadershiproleinfacilitatingthecoordinationofthevariouselementsofthe federalciviljusticesystem[includingADR] andtakesaholisticapproachtothesystemwhen undertakingpolicydevelopment’.A similarconclusionwas reachedby theFamilyLaw Pathways Advisory Group. Practicalstrategiesareneedednow tofostersuch acoordinatedand holisticapproachon anongoingbasis, andtobuildon thegoodwilldevelopedthroughthe consultationprocess. NADRAC would behappytocontributetowards thedevelopmentand implementationof thesestrategiesinconjunctionwithyour Departmentandportfolioagencies.
General comments on the paper
Thesecommentsconcernthesectionsof thepaperthatdo notcontainspecific
recommendations.Responses tospecificrecommendationsareincludedlaterinthissubmission.
Cultural andbehaviouralchange(Chapter5)
NADRAC agreesthatthereisaneedto‘changetheadversarialmindset’andfor ‘individualsto takemoreresponsibilityfor theirsituation’.Itagreesthatthe‘Governmentshouldencourage lawyers’movetowards theadoptionof less adversarialapproachestodisputeresolution’.
Thechallengefor thelegalprofession, however,isnotsimplyamatterof adoptingless adversarialpracticesandattitudes,butalsobeingskilledinbeingableto moveelegantly betweenadversarialandconsensualor collaborativeapproaches.An adversarialapproachmay
RobertGarranOffices
NationalCircuitBARTONACT2600
ph(02)62506897 fax(02)62505911
web
TheHon.JusticeMurrayKellam,ChairMsHelenBishopMrAlanCampbellMsBarbaraFilipowskitheHon.JohnHannaford
MrIanGoveyMsNorahHartnett MrWarwickSoden ProfessorTaniaSourdin MrJohnSpenderQC MsLynn Stephen
beappropriateinsomedisputes,or ataparticularstageof adispute.Such anapproach,however, shouldnotdominatepracticesthroughoutthelifecycleof alldisputes.Skilledlegalpracticecould involve,for example,support for theuse of mediationinordertoattempttosettleadisputeatan earlystage,usingadversarialcourtprocesses todealwithspecificissues, such as violenceor abuseof power, thenreturningto mediationtoresolveongoingissues.
Although,as thepaperpointsout,such changesmustlargelybedrivenfromwithinthelegal profession, theGovernmentcouldconsidersupportingarangeof strategiesas follows:
Innovativedisputeresolutionapproachesby legalpractitionerscouldbeformallyevaluated todeterminetheirefficacyandcost-effectiveness.
Disputeresolutioncourses couldbedeliveredwithininitialandcontinuinglegaleducation.
Therearemanysuch courses currentlyinexistenceanditisnotedthattheParliamentary InquiryintoChildCustodyArrangementsrecommendedinclusionof disputeresolution trainingfor familylawpractitioners.
As mentionedinNADRAC’s response torecommendation20 below,pre-actionprotocols developedby thecourtscanhelptochangeexpectationsandnormsof behaviour.Theuse of presumptiveADR mentionedintheresponse torecommendations18 and19 belowalso helps tobuildanexpectationthatalternativeformsofdisputeresolutionwillbefully explored priortoacourthearing.
Thebehaviourandattitudesoforganisationalrepresentativesalsocontributestoanadversarial mindsetandrelianceon thecourtsystem.Althoughthereislittleempiricalevidenceon this matter,practitionershaveexpressedtheviewthatmanyrepresentativesoflargeorganisations do nothaveanincentive,or arenotgivenappropriateauthority,tosettlematters.Theyoften feeluncomfortableaboutcompromisingandmayprefertoleavedifficultdecisionstoothers, includingthecourts.NADRAC’s 2003 conferenceon business use of ADR demonstrated strategiesthatorganisationscoulduse toempowerstafftobetterpreventandmanagedisputes. TheGovernmentcantakealeadinthisregardby encouragingor requiringCommonwealth agenciesthemselvestodevelopless adversarialapproachesandto makegreateruse of ADR. SeeNADRAC’s response torecommendation19 below.
ResolvingdisputesthroughADR:theplaceofADRwithin theciviljustice system(Chapter5)
NADRAC supports mostof thepaper’sobservationswithrespecttoADR, andagreesthatADR
isanintegralpartoftheciviljusticesystem.Theway inwhichADR fitsintothesystem requiresfurtherclarification,however.
ADR isprobablybetterdescribedas partof astrategyfor resolvingdisputes‘throughthemost appropriateprocess’ ratherthan‘atthelowestappropriatelevel’as suggestedby titleof Chapter 5 andtheADR sectionof thepaper.Thelattertermtendstoreinforceatraditionaland
hierarchicalviewof thejusticesystem,inwhichjudicialdeterminationisseenas asuperiorbut
slow andexpensivemeanstoresolvedisputes,andthat,whileADR offers acheaperandquicker process, itcouldbeseenas aninferiorformof justice.As theexamplesinthepaperillustrate, differentformsofbothjudicialdecision-makingandADR operateat multiplelevels,andeach has thepotentialtooffera‘better’formof justicefor particulardisputes.For example,judicial officersthemselvesareincreasinglyapplyingalternativedisputeresolutionprocesses atanearly stageinproceedings.Conversely,formsof ADR, such as appellatemediationandinternational commercialdisputeresolution,operateatarelatively‘high’level,andsomeforms,such as multi-partyfacilitation,maywellbeprotracted.Such formsof ADR, however,may
offersolutionsthatarenotreadilyachievablethroughjudicialdetermination.
Describingthestrategyas ‘resolvingdisputesthroughthemostappropriateprocess’ reflects morerecentthinkingaboutdesigningdisputesystems,namelythatanarrayof dispute resolutionoptionsshouldexist,andthatthesystemshouldenablethemostappropriateoption
or optionstobeused attherightstageineachsituationtakingintoaccountmatterssuch as cost, timeliness,accessibility,fairnessandeffectiveanddurableresolution.
QualityofADRproviders(Chapter5)
As thepaperpointsout,thequalityof ADR iscentraltoitsacceptance,efficacyand effectiveness.At itsessenceADR shouldassistinthefairresolutionof adispute.Theoutcomes of, andsatisfactionwith,theprocess arepivotalissues,and,as thefairnessof theprocess willto someextentdependon theabilitiesoftheADR practitioner,adeterminationofthe
practitioner’scompetencyisvital.
Theissue of accreditationof practitionershas beenraisedespeciallywithrespectto mediation andotherfacilitativeprocesses, whichrelyon theskillsofthepractitionertoassistpartiesto reachtheirown agreementaboutmattersindispute.NADRAC’s recentlyreleasedpaperon mediatoraccreditationwillassistincarryingthismatterforward. As mentionedinour letterto you aboutthispaper,theGovernmentmaywish togiveconsiderationas tohow itcanbest support movesby ADR organisationstodevelopcommonstandardsfor theaccreditationof mediators.
Cultural factors (Chapter5)
NADRAC agreeswiththecommentsmadeinthissectionof thepaper.
Withrespecttothesectionon IndigenousAustralians,NADRAC has now conductedthree consultativeforumswithIndigenouspeopleinAliceSprings, BrisbaneandMelbourne.The forumshavereinforcedNADRAC’s viewthatimprovedADR processes andservicesto IndigenousAustraliansisacriticalissue. Such improvementswould needtoaddress issues such as fairness,accessibility,effectiveness,relevanceandsustainability.Wewillkeepyou advisedof furtherdevelopmentsas NADRAC’s Indigenousdisputeresolutionprojectproceeds.
Cross-culturalmediationpracticesareofspecificimportancewithrespecttonativetitlematters. In itsDecember2003 Reporton theEffectivenessof theNationalNativeTitleTribunal,the
JointParliamentaryCommitteeon NativeTitleandtheAboriginalandTorresStraitIslander LandFund expressedtheviewthat‘effectivemediationinnativetitlemattersrequiresunique and specialistskills’(paragraph3.48). NADRAC’s consultationswithIndigenousgroups would support thisviewandunderlinetheimportanceof continuingtodevelopthecross-culturalskills of membersof theNNTT andothersinvolvedinnativetitlemediation.Our consultationsalso support theneedfor increasedIndigenousrepresentationon theNNTT, as recommendedby the JointCommittee.
JudicialconductofADR(Chapter5)
NADRAC agreesthatjudicialADR isacontentioustopic.Itrecentlyorganisedajointsession withtheFamilyLawCounciltoexaminethisissueandwillmaintainacloseinterestinthe topic.NADRAC would generallysupport thepaper’sconclusionthat‘judicialinvolvementin ADR needstobe managedcarefully,… isonlyused strategically,incasesidentifiedas being specificallysuitedtojudicialADR, andthatitdoes notbecomethestandardfeatureof case
managementpathadoptedby thecourts’.NADRAC would alsorepeatitsadvicewithrespectto theestablishmentof theFederalMagistratesCourt,namelythatajudicialofficerconductingan ADR process shouldbeappropriatelyskilledtoconductthatprocess andthatajudicialofficer conductingADR shouldbedisqualifiedfromlaterhearingthesamecase.
Relatedtotheissue of judicialconductinADR istheapplicationof ADR techniqueswithinthe traditionaladjudicativerole.Such techniquescaninclude,for example,conflictanalysis,re- framing,theuse of non-adversariallanguageandfacilitativeprocesses inrelationtoexpert witnesses. Most judicialofficerswould havereceivedtheirtrainingandexperiencewithinthe adversarialculturementionedintheearliersectionofthepaper.Thereisvaluethereforein judicialofficers,as wellas legalpractitioners,undertakingtrainingandeducationinnon- adversarialapproaches.
Maximisingperformanceofthesystem(Chapter6)
NADRAC agreesthataneedexistsfor good qualitydatacollectionandevaluationof thecivil justicesystem(includingADR) tounderpinperformanceimprovement.NADRAC has for some timeemphasisedtheneedfor improvedandcomparabledatacollectionaboutADR across
courtsandtribunals.Ithas recentlyprovidedyou withacopyof aresourcepaperon ADR research,includingachapteron evaluatingtheeffectivenessof ADR. For thepasttwo years, NADRAC has producedacompendiumof publishedstatisticson ADR. NADRAC proposes thisyeartodevelopamorecomprehensivestatisticalsummaryof courtandtribunaluse of ADR thatgoes beyondthestatisticspublishedinannualreports.Itwould welcomethe assistanceof your Departmentandportfolioagenciesinundertakingthistask.
Specific recommendations
NADRAC’s commentson specificrecommendationsinthepaperarebelow.
Chapter3
Recommendation1:That,aspart of initiativesinthedevelopment of acommoncivics education curriculum,greateremphasisbeplacedontheroleandfunctionsof thefederal civiljusticesystem,anditsplaceinAustraliansociety.
AND
Recommendation2:Thatfederalcourtscontinuetodevelopinformationinitiativessuch asstudent resource materialsandinformationforthegeneralpublic,bothon-lineandin printedform,andthat,wherenotalready doingso, consider:
(a)participatinginthedevelopment of curriculummaterials,and
(b)engagingincommunity outreachactivities,suchasattending activitieswith schoolsandcommunity organisationstoincreaseawareness of theroleand functionsof thefederalcourts.
Such educationalinitiativescouldalsobelinkedtothedevelopmentofdisputeresolutionskills in schoolcurricula.Thereisnow awiderangeof peermediationprogramsinschools, andmany lawsocietiesnow run SCRAM (SchoolConflictResolutionandMediation)competitions.In
linewiththeconclusionsof thepaperthatADRisintegraltothejusticesystem,itwould be usefultoemphasisetheplaceof ADR, includingpeermediation,withingrievanceanddispute handlingprocesses.
Recommendation4:Thatthecourtscontinuetodevelop,whereappropriate,uniform proceduresforthoseareasof lawinwhichthesamejurisdictioncanbeexercisedinmore thanonecourt.
Thecontinuingwork of theCouncilof ChiefJusticesindevelopinguniformproceduresfor the
FederalCourtandStateandTerritorySupremeCourtsisencouraged.
In thisregard,NADRAC would alsoencouragetheCouncilof ChiefJusticestowork on harmonisationof ADR referralmechanismsacross thecourts.
Chapter4
Recommendation6:Thatfederalcourtsworktogether toimplement recommendationsof theFamilyCourt’s DiversityCommittee andtheRoundtableonCulturalDiversity,tothe extentthattheyhavenotalready doneso. Thismightincludeinitiativessuchas:
(a)providing informationandtrainingforcommunity workers aboutthepurpose andservicesof thecourts
(b)developingacomprehensiveinformationstrategy onmulticulturalissues
(c)developingadistributionstrategy thatincorporatesvariousmethodsof disseminationof information,suchastheuseof community radioand newspapers
(d)developinganintegratedcross-culturaltrainingprogramforstaff
(e)activelyexploringtheemployment of bilingualstaffandcounsellors,and
(f)providing adequatefacilitiesforinterpreters. AND
Recommendation7:Thatconsiderationbegiventoenhancingtheavailability of lowcost interpreters,particularlyface-to-faceinterpretersforCommunity LegalCentres and similarservicesthatofferlegalassistancetopeoplefromlinguisticallydiverse backgrounds.
AND
Recommendation8:Thatthefederalcourtstakeintoaccounttheneedsof Indigenous
Australianswhenconsideringtheimplementationof recommendation6. AND
Recommendation11:Thatconsiderationbegiventoexpandingcourtsupportnetworks to allfederalcourts,andthatsuchexpansionincludeliaisonwithappropriate
representativesof peoplewithdisabilitiesandpeoplefromculturallyandlinguistically diversebackgrounds,includingAboriginal andTorres Strait Islanderpeople,toensure optimallevelsof supportandassistancetothosepeople.
NADRAC supports theserecommendationsinprincipleandbelievesthattheyshouldbe extendedtocoveralternativedisputeresolutionservicesauspicedor fundedby the Commonwealth,or towhichfederalcourtsreferparties.
Recommendation10: Thatthefederalcourtsworktogether tofindwaysof expanding courtservicesforpeopleinrural,regionalandremoteAustralia,including:
(a)implementing orincreasingregularcircuitcoverage
(b)implementing orincreasinghearings inplacesotherthanpurpose-builtcourt buildings,whereappropriate
(c)inalllocationswheretheFederal MagistratesCourt hasaregistry presence, implementing theabilitytofilebothFederal MagistratesCourt familylawand generalfederallawmatters,and
(d)increasingtheuseof technology,inparticular:
audioandvideoequipment totakeevidenceandfacilitatehearings in remoteareas,and
telecommunicationstechnology(forexample,facsimileande-mail)to facilitatecommunicationwiththecourtandthefilingof court documents.
In implementingthisrecommendation,thefacilitiesfor courtconnectedalternativedispute resolutionservicesshouldalsobetakenintoaccount.Considerationmayneedtobegivento, for example,videoandaudio-conferencingfacilities,separatewaitingareas,separatesound proofedinterviewroomsand,especiallyinfamilydisputes,confidentialrecord-keepingand appropriatearrangementstoensurethesafetyof parties(for example,safeexitareas).
Not operatinginpurpose-builtcourtscreatesitsown specialdifficultiesfor courts,litigantsand ADR practitioners,especiallysecurity.Tobringsuch venuesup toanappropriatestandard would beveryexpensiveandsignificantfundingby theCommonwealthmayberequired.
Recommendation15:ThattheAttorneyGeneral’s DepartmentliaisewiththeLegalEthics
Committee of theLawCouncilof Australiaandotherinterestedstakeholdersregarding thedevelopment of modelconductrulesdesignedtoprovideguidancetolawyersengaging indiscretetaskrepresentation.
AND
Recommendation16:ThatthecourtsliaisewiththeAttorneyGeneral’s Department,the LawCouncilof Australia,andotherinterestedstakeholdersregardingpossible amendmentstocourtrulesdesignedtoclarifytheobligationsof lawyerswhentheyarenot actingonanongoingbasisinlitigation.
NADRAC supports theserecommendationsas theywould assistinclarifyingtherolesand responsibilitiesof lawyersinvolvedindelivering‘unbundled’legalservices.Thisisespecially importantwithrespecttolawyerswho arerepresentingpartiesinvolvedinADR processes.
Chapter5
Recommendation18:ThattheGovernmentsupportamendmentstotheFederalCourtof
AustraliaAct1976 to:
(a)imposeanobligationontheCourt andlegalpractitionerstoconsiderwhether to advisetheparties of theADRoptionsavailabletothemtoresolvethedispute, and
(b)requiretheCourt toadvisetheparties touseanADRmethodiftheCourt considersitmayhelptheparties toresolvethedispute.
NADRAC agreesthattheobligationtoadvisepartiesaboutADR optionsthatcurrentlyapplyin otherjurisdictionsshouldalsoapplytotheFederalCourtofAustraliaAct1976.
Therecommendationat18(a)above,however,does notgo farenoughbecause‘toconsider whethertoadvise’does notcreateanobligationtoactuallyadvise.Legalpractitionerswho, for whateverreason,areopposed toADR mayarguethattheyhaveconsideredwhethertoadvise butformedtheviewthatitwas inappropriate.Althoughthismaybeasmallminority,itis preciselythesepractitionersfor whomanobligationtoadviseon ADR would be mostrelevant. NADRAC thereforesuggests deletingthewords ‘toconsiderwhether’.
Recommendation18(b) alsoisoverlyrestrictiveas itmayrequirethecourttocometoanexplicit conclusionthatanADR methodmayhelpthespecificpartiesinacase.As therecentpaperon courtreferraltoADR by NADRAC andtheAIJA shows, empiricalevidenceidentifiesfew clearcutpredictorsfor thesuccess of differentformsof ADR. In theexperienceof NADRAC members,ADR has ledtosatisfactoryresolutionin manymatters,which,on facevalue,would nothaveappearedtohavebeencapableof settlement.NADRAC’s viewisthatthereshouldbea presumptionthatADR would beused exceptwhere,especiallyon mattersof principle,acase clearlyshouldbedealtwithby judicialdetermination.In NADRAC’s viewthisrecommendation would bebetterexpressedas ‘requiretheCourttoadvisethepartiestouse anADR process unless such adviceisinappropriate’.
If thecourtrequiresapartytouse ADR, thenconsiderationmustbegivenas towho pays. If thereistobeadegreeof compulsion,theCommonwealthmustlookatthefundingissue (see alsothecommentson recommendation21 below).
Recommendation19:ThattheLegalServicesDirectionsgoverningCommonwealthlegal servicesbeamended toencouragetheCommonwealth andCommonwealth agenciestouse ADRinresolvingdisputesinappropriatecases.
Theamendmentsshouldbesettledfollowingconsultation withrelevant stakeholders throughtheAttorney-General’sDepartment’sdiscussionpaper onthereviewof theLegal ServicesDirections.
NADRAC generallyagreeswiththisrecommendationandwillbe makingaseparatesubmission inresponse totheIssues Paperon theReviewof theLegalServicesDirections.
As mentionedearlierinthissubmission,theCommonwealthcantakealeadershiprolein helpingtocreatealess adversarialculturethroughpromotingtheuse of ADR by itsown agencies.
In keepingwithNADRAC’s response torecommendation18 above,however,thereshouldbea presumptivepositionwithregardtotheuse of ADR, especiallywithdisputesof acorporateor business nature.A presumptiveposition,thatis,touse ADR ‘exceptwhereinappropriate’rather thantouse ADR ‘whereappropriate’,createsasense thatusingADR isnormalandavoidsthe possibilitythatinitiatingor acceptingADR isseenas aconcessionor asignof weakness, or as indicatingthattherearespecialfeaturesaboutaparticularcase.
Recommendation20: Thatthefederalcourtsconsiderthefeasibilityof implementing pre-actionprocedurestoencourageparties toundertakeconductdesignedtofacilitate settlementbeforeproceedingsarefiled.
NADRAC agreeswiththisrecommendation.Courtsplayacriticalroleinsettingthenormsfor negotiationandlitigation,andappropriatepre-actionprocedurescouldhaveasignificantimpact on therateandtimingof settlementandthecostof courtproceedings.
Toencouragetheuse ofpre-actionprocedures,legalpractitionersneedtobeabletochargefor such work. As recommendedinNADRAC’s 1999 reporton theestablishmentof theFederal MagistratesCourt,courtsshouldhavethepower to makeruleswhichallowcosts chargedby legalpractitionersfor pre-litigationwork aimedatfacilitatingsettlementofthedispute, includingthecosts of privateADR processes, tobeallowedas costs inthelitigation.
Recommendation21: Thatthemediationfeescurrentlypayableunder theFederal Court of AustraliaRegulations1978 andtheFederal MagistratesRegulations2000 beabolished.
NADRAC does notnecessarilydisagreewiththisrecommendation,butbelievesthattheissue of feesfor ADR needstobeconsideredmorebroadly.
NADRAC believesthattheCommonwealthshoulddevelopmoreconsistentpolicieswith respect tofeesfor ADR takingintoaccounttheimpactof feeson theaccessibilityandequityof ADR services,theneedtoencouragetheearlyuse of ADR, andtheneedtocreatea‘level playingfield’inchoosingbetweencourt-basedandprivateor community-basedADR services.
Recommendation22: ThattheGovernmentsupportamendmentstotheFederalCourtof AustraliaAct1976 toallowtheCourt toreferproceedings, orapart of them,to conciliation,caseappraisalorneutralevaluation, eitherwithorwithouttheconsentof the parties totheproceedings.
AND
Recommendation23: ThattheGovernmentsupportamendmentstotheFederal MagistratesAct1999 toallowtheCourt toreferproceedings, orapart of them,tocase appraisalorneutralevaluation, eitherwithorwithouttheconsentof theparties tothe proceedings.
NADRAC supports theserecommendations.
Theissue of feesfor such processes needstobeconsideredinconjunctionwithconsiderationof mediationfeesabove.
NADRAC alsosuggests thatcaseappraisalor neutralevaluationbeconsideredinthecontextof pre-actionprotocolsandproceduresas outlinedinrecommendation20 above.
Chapter6
Recommendation26:ThatthefederalcourtsconsidersupplementingexistingADR
processesthroughtheincreased useof informationandcommunicationtechnology.
NADRAC agreeswiththisrecommendation,andre-iteratesitsposition,containedinthepaper on Information TechnologyandDisputeResolution,thattheformof communication,including technologicallyassistedcommunication,needsto matchthetaskandsituationathand.
NADRAC alsosuggests thattherecommendationbeextendedtootherCommonwealth agenciesthatfund or auspiceADR services.
Recommendation31:ThattheGovernmentsupportamendmentstotheActsgoverning thepractice andprocedureof thefederalcourtstoprovide,exceptinfamilylaw proceedings, that:
(a)beforeanapplicationordefencemaybeacceptedforfilingfromalegally representedlitigant,thelegalrepresentativemustcertifythatthereare reasonable grounds forbelievingonthebasisof provablefactsandareasonably
arguableviewof thelawthattheclaimorthedefence(asappropriate)has reasonable prospects of success
(b)ifitappearstothecourtthatalegalrepresentative(whether actingfromthe commencementof proceedingsornot)hasprovidedlegalservicestoaparty withoutreasonable prospects of success,thecourtmayof itsownmotionoron theapplicationof anyparty totheproceedingsmakeeitherorbothof the followingorders inrespectof thelegalrepresentativewhoprovidedtheservices:
anorder directingthelegalrepresentativetorepaytotheparty towhom theserviceswereprovidedthewholeoranypart of thecoststhatthe party hasbeenorderedtopaytoanyotherparty,
anorder directingthelegalrepresentativetoindemnifyanyparty other thantheparty towhomtheserviceswereprovidedagainstthewholeor anypart of thecostspayablebytheparty indemnified, and
(c)alegalrepresentativeisnotentitledtodemand, recoveroracceptfromtheir clientanypart of theamount whichthecourtdirectsthatthelegal representativeistopayto,orindemnify,aclient.
NADRAC suggests that,inimplementingRecommendation31(a),considerationalsobegiven to includingcertificationthat‘reasonablesteps havebeentakentosettlethedispute,including use of ADR’. Such arequirementcouldbeconsideredinthecontextof thepre-actionprotocols atrecommendation20.
Recommendation34:ThattheGovernmentsupportamendmentstothelegislation governingthepractice andprocedureof thefederalcourtstoallowthecourtstomake rulesregulatingthereception of expertevidence,includingthenumberof expertwitnesses inparticularfieldsof expertiseandthesubjectmatteruponwhichtheyarecalledasan expertwitness. Inthelongerterm,theGovernmentshouldsupportsimilaramendments
totheEvidenceAct1995.
NADRAC suggests that,inimplementingthisrecommendation,furtherconsiderationbegivento supportingtheuse of facilitativeprocesses toassistinnarrowingandclarifyingtechnicalissues. Whilstthepaperreferstojointconferencesof experts,such conferencesoftentakeplaceon an unassistedbasis. Theremaybeadvantageswhen theyarestructuredandfacilitatedby askilled andimpartialperson. AmendmentstocourtrulesandtotheEvidenceAct1995mayneedtotake intoaccounttheseassistedprocesses.
A recentexampleof theeffectiveuse of such aprocess was aFederalCourtnativetitle determinationapplicationinwhichthecourtorderedthat‘theauthorsof anydraft anthropologicalreports... shallmeettoconferon mattersandissues aboutwhichtheiropinions areinagreementandaboutwhichtheiropinionsdiffer’.Theconferencewas convenedby registrarsof thecourt.As aresultof theconferenceareportwas providedtotheparties,which
includedaglossary of vernaculartermsandrecommendationsfor considerationby theparties. NADRAC has beeninformedthattheconferenceassistedintheefficiencyof theproceedingsin two importantrespects.Firstly,itallowedthepartiestorefinethescopeof theirchallengetothe expertanthropologicalevidenceand,inparticular,tofocus theircross examinationtoissues of substantivedispute.Secondly,theareasof agreementamongtheexpertshavebeenassistingthe partiesintheirconsiderationof theareasof factsandissues whichmayalsobeagreed.Indeed
atalaterdirectionshearing,therespondentsindicatedthattheywereinapositionto make substantialconcessionsas totheexistenceof non-exclusive,non-commercialnativetitleso that thecoreoutstandingfactualandlegalissues couldbethefocus of thetrial.Thereisthepotential for manyweeks oftrialtobesavedwithsubstantialreductionsinthetrialtimecosts tothe
Courtandtothepartiesandinconveniencetotheparties.Whilsttheprocess isnotyetcomplete, theefficiencygainsbeingappeartobeattributable,atleastinpart,totheprocess.
Chapter7
Recommendation46:ThattheFederal Court, theFamilyCourt andtheFMC,in consultation withtheAttorney-General’sDepartment,considerwaysto:
(a)expandthesharing of services,includinginregionallocations,and
(b)implement mechanismsthatensurethatshared servicesadequatelymeetthe needsof allthecourtsforwhichtheyareprovided.
As mentionedintheresponse toRecommendation10, considerationalsoneedstobegiventothe facilitiesfor courtconnectedADR services.Inaddition,thepossibilityof greatersharingof resourcesandfacilitieswithStateandTerritoryfundeddisputeresolutionservices,especiallyin regionallocations,shouldalsobeexplored.
Wetrustthatyou willfindtheabovecommentsof value.NADRAC would behappytowork withyour Departmentandportfolioagenciestofurtherpursue thesematters.
Yours sincerely
JusticeMurray Kellam
Chair