We were committed to ensuring the NMAS Review was conducted responsibly, ethically and with integrity. While the NMAS Review was not conducted under the auspices of a traditional research institution, we recognised the potential for it to make an important contribution to the field of industry-based research into dispute resolution. Within this context, the NMAS Review 2020-22 adopted The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the Code) which articulates the broad principles that characterise an honest, ethical and conscientious research culture. It establishes a framework for responsible research conduct that provides a foundation for high-quality research, credibility and community trust in the research endeavour.
Please direct queries or complaints about the conduct of the NMAS Review 2020-22 to the NMAS Review Team
The main purpose of the review was to:
For example, changes and additions may include (subject to the feedback received):
The NMAS Review utilised a well-established methodology that incorporated thorough consultation and culminated in a series of recommendations. The MSB is currently considering these recommendations and anticipate releasing the revised NMAS later in 2023.
The consultation component of the review included carefully designed surveys and workshops that targeted specific parts of the DR community at different points in the review process.
Stakeholders involved in the consultation component included, but were not limited to:
Over the life of the NMAS Review, we advised the dispute resolution community about opportunities to contribute. This was predominantly done via email, announcements on this website and LinkedIn.
If you have not yet connected with Resolution Resources on LinkedIn we invite you to do so here.
You might also consider contacting your local RMAB, NMAS training organisation or other professional dispute resolution peak organisation to find out more about how they contributed to the review.
Thank you to everyone who was involved in this important process.
No, we did not take written submissions.
The methodology for the review was collaborative and interactive. During the reference group and workshop phases, representatives were invited to engage in open professional dialogue and problem solving to collectively consider potential changes and additions to the NMAS.
Apart from the examples for consideration noted in the purpose, there were no pre-existing areas identified for consideration. That was the work of the representatives in the reference groups, and to a lesser extent the workshops, and formed the basis of the NMAS Review Survey.
Every stakeholder had an opportunity to provide their input via the main NMAS Review Survey.
This website was specifically curated to provide information about the NMAS Review. It includes materials from workshops and reports coming out of the review. Subscribe below to receive updates in your inbox.