CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (MEDIATION CONFERENCES) REGULATIONS 2010

Mediation conference. A structured meeting convened under section 49 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, intended to allow family members and other participants to develop and agree on a plan for safeguarding the wellbeing of a child who is the subject of child protection concerns. The regulation does not define “mediation conference” directly but prescribes its content and procedure. The conference is not a court hearing; it is a facilitated discussion that aims to produce an agreement, but the regulation does not give that agreement binding legal effect independent of the Act.

Convenor. The person appointed under section 49(5) of the Act to convene and conduct the conference. Regulation 11 sets the eligibility requirements: accreditation under the Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards (as in force from time to time) or relevant experience. The definition in regulation 3 incorporates the external accreditation standards by reference, meaning they can change without amending the regulation. The convenor has broad discretion in how to conduct the conference (regulation 8(1)) but must as far as practicable follow the three-stage order and act in a manner appropriate to the child’s cultural, ethnic, and religious background.

Participant. Any person who attends the conference. The regulation does not limit attendance to family members; the convenor may invite any person considered appropriate (regulation 5(3)). Participation status matters for signing agreements (regulation 8(3)) and receiving reports (regulation 9(1)(a)).

Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards. A reference to standards published by the Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards Board. Because the regulation says “as in force from time to time”, if the board revises the standards, the qualification requirements for convenors automatically update without a legislative amendment. This creates a degree of regulatory uncertainty for aspiring convenors, who must monitor external documents.

Personal information. Defined in regulation 10(5) as “information from which a person’s identity is apparent or reasonably able to be ascertained”. This is broader than the definition in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) in that it does not require the information to be recorded; it covers any information that identifies or can identify the individual. The definition applies only to regulation 10; the report under regulation 9 must disclose certain identifying information such as names and details of participants, but the report itself must not disclose other matters discussed (regulation 9(3)).

Suitable person. Used in regulation 6(2) to describe who the convenor may appoint to present or assist the child in presenting wishes and views. The convenor must consider whether the person will “accurately and effectively” present those views, taking into account cultural, ethnic, and religious background. The term is deliberately elastic, giving the convenor wide discretion but also creating risk of inconsistency.

Proposal. A plan developed by family members during the private session under regulation 8(2)(b). The proposal is the family’s own solution, not one imposed by the convenor. It is then presented to all participants for negotiation. The regulation does not stipulate what the proposal must contain, only that it is for “safeguarding the wellbeing of the child”.

The CEO of the Territory’s child protection authority (now the Chief Executive Officer under the Act). The CEO is the gatekeeper who initiates the process by giving the convenor written notice under regulation 4. The CEO also receives the convenor’s report within 28 days (regulation 9(1)(b)) and must be notified if the conference is not convened (regulation 7). The CEO’s information gathering and disclosure obligations under regulation 4 are the starting point for everything that follows; any omission or error in that notice can affect the convenor’s ability to prepare properly.

Convenors. The regulation imposes a series of mandatory duties on the convenor: explain the conference to the child (if appropriate), discuss representation and support, explain to family members, invite appropriate persons, appoint a representative for the child if requested, decide whether to proceed, conduct the conference in the prescribed order, record agreements, produce a report within 28 days, and maintain confidentiality subject to penalty. The convenor bears the primary compliance burden. The broad discretion given to convenors - such as whether explaining to the child is “appropriate to do so, having regard to the child’s maturity and understanding” (regulation 5(1)(a)) - means that two convenors facing identical facts could reach different decisions, affecting children and families inconsistently.

Children who are the subject of conferences. The regulation gives the child a limited voice. The child may request a person to be appointed to present their wishes (regulation 6(1)). The child’s views may be included in the report only if the child agrees and the convenor considers it in the child’s best interests (regulation 9(2)(e)). The child may also want a support person to attend (regulation 5(1)(a)(iii)). However, the child is not necessarily a participant in the private family session; regulation 8(2)(b) gives that opportunity only to “family members of the child who are attending the conference”. If the child is not considered a family member (the regulation does not define “family member”), the child may be excluded from the private discussion that forms the heart of the conference.

Parents and family members. They are the central actors in the private session and are expected to develop the proposal for safeguarding the child’s wellbeing. They receive reports and are entitled to present views. However, the regulation does not require that they be given legal advice or representation. They act without the safeguards of court proceedings.

Appointed representatives and assistants. A person appointed under regulation 6(1) to present the child’s wishes must be “suitable” and must keep personal information confidential (regulation 10(3)). Similarly, a person of similar cultural, ethnic, or religious background who assists the convenor under regulation 5(4) is bound by the non-disclosure obligation (regulation 10(2)). These individuals face penalty exposure if they breach confidentiality, yet the regulation does not provide them with any immunity for good-faith disclosures during the conference itself.

Other invited participants. Anyone the convenor considers should attend (regulation 5(3)) - for example, a teacher, a counsellor, or a community elder. They have the right to present views and to receive the report. They are also bound by confidentiality obligations only if they are convenors, assistants, or appointed representatives; other participants are not expressly covered by regulation 10, which creates a gap: non-participant guests could potentially disclose personal information without penalty under this regulation (though other laws may apply).

Duty of the CEO to provide written notice. As soon as practicable after appointing a convenor, the CEO must give the convenor a notice containing the child’s name and contact details, the parents’ contact details, any family members or other persons whom the CEO or a parent considers should be invited, the child’s cultural, ethnic, and religious background, the purpose of the conference, and any other information the CEO considers appropriate (regulation 4). This duty is mandatory. If the CEO omits important information, the convenor’s preparation may be hampered, but the regulation does not specify consequences.

Duty of the convenor to prepare adequately. Before convening the conference, the convenor must take certain actions “if appropriate to do so, having regard to the child’s maturity and understanding”: explain the purpose to the child, discuss whether the child wants a person appointed under regulation 6(1) to present their wishes, and discuss whether the child wants a particular support person to attend (regulation 5(1)(a)). The convenor must also explain the purpose to appropriate family members and discuss who should be invited (regulation 5(1)(b) and (c)), but this duty is excused if the convenor cannot contact the family member after reasonable attempts (regulation 5(2)). The convenor must invite any person considered appropriate (regulation 5(3)). The use of “must” indicates these are mandatory obligations, but the qualifiers (“if appropriate”, “as the convenor considers appropriate”, “reasonable attempts”) give significant discretion. A convenor who judges a child too immature to explain the purpose may skip that step without breaching the regulation.

Right of the child to request a representative. If the child requests a person to present or assist in presenting their wishes and views, the convenor must appoint a suitable person if the convenor considers it in the child’s best interests (regulation 6(1)). This creates a conditional right: the child’s request triggers a duty only if the convenor also decides the appointment is in the child’s best interests. The regulation does not provide a mechanism for the child to challenge the convenor’s refusal.

Duty of the convenor to conduct the conference in a prescribed order. Regulation 8(2) sets out three stages that must occur as far as practicable: (a) convenor’s explanation and participant views, (b) private family session to develop a proposal, (c) presentation and negotiation of the proposal. The phrase “as far as practicable” gives the convenor an out if the stages are impossible or inappropriate in a given case. However, the regulation does not define what “practicable” means, which could lead to disputes if a parent argues that the private session was not given sufficient opportunity.

Duty to record and report. If an agreement is reached, the convenor must make a written record of the agreement details, the names of participants who are party to the agreement, and whether they attended in person or by other means, and must arrange for the record to be signed by each participant attending in person (regulation 8(3)). The convenor must then prepare a written report within 28 days and give copies to each participant and the CEO (regulation 9(1)). The report must contain specific information listed in regulation 9(2), including a summary of concerns and outcomes, the child’s views if the child agrees and it is in the child’s best interests, and if an agreement was reached, a copy of the record and a statement whether the convenor considers the child’s wellbeing will be safeguarded through the agreement. The report must not disclose other matters discussed (regulation 9(3)).

Right to receive the report. Each participant has a right to receive a copy of the report. This gives participants access to the documented outcomes, which may be important for later court proceedings or implementation of the agreement. However, the report is a convenor’s summary, not a verbatim transcript; participants have no right to correct factual errors in the report.

Right to present views and raise concerns. Regulation 8(2)(a)(ii) gives each participant the opportunity to present his or her views and raise concerns relevant to the purpose of the conference. This is the only express right granted to participants in the body of the regulation, and it is qualified by the convenor’s broad power to conduct the conference “in any way the convenor considers appropriate” (regulation 8(1)). The convenor could, for instance, impose time limits or restrict repetitive statements.

Obligation of confidentiality. Convenors, persons who assist the convenor under regulation 5(4), and persons appointed under regulation 6(1) must not disclose any personal information about the child or a family member obtained as a result of the conference process, except as required by regulation 9 (disclosure in the report) or as otherwise authorised or required by law (regulation 10). The maximum penalty is 200 penalty units, which as of 2026 is approximately $52,000 (based on a penalty unit value of $264 in the Northern Territory). This creates a strong disincentive against leaks but also imposes a compliance burden on those who may need to share information with other professionals, such as child protection workers or police, outside the specific exceptions.

Penalty for unauthorised disclosure of personal information. Regulation 10(1), (2), and (3) each carry a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units. This applies to three categories of persons: the convenor (subsection (1)), a person assisting the convenor under regulation 5(4) (subsection (2)), and a person appointed under regulation 6(1) to represent the child (subsection (3)). The penalty applies only to disclosures of “personal information” as defined in subsection (5): information from which a person’s identity is apparent or reasonably able to be ascertained. The definition is broad; it would cover a name, address, photograph, or any combination of facts that could identify the child or family member.

Defence or exception. Regulation 10(4) provides that the regulation does not prevent disclosure if “authorised or required to do so by law”. This would cover, for example, a mandatory reporting obligation under the Care and Protection of Children Act, a court order, or a subpoena. The exception is limited to legal compulsion; voluntary disclosure to a third party who is not a participant would likely be an offence.

Enforcement mechanism. The penalty provision is a criminal offence (it uses the language “must not disclose” with a maximum penalty). Enforcement would be by prosecution in the Local Court or Supreme Court, presumably by the Director of Public Prosecutions on referral from the CEO or police. Because the regulation does not create a civil cause of action, an individual whose personal information was disclosed could not sue for damages under this regulation, though they may have other remedies (e.g., under privacy torts or the Information Act (NT)).

Practical enforcement difficulty. The offence requires proof that the convenor or other person “obtains [the information] as a result of convening a mediation conference” or “as a result of the person’s appointment”. If the information is already known from another source, the offence may not apply. The prosecution would also need to prove the information was personal information; if it is anonymised or aggregated, the definition may not be satisfied.

No penalties for non-compliance with procedural duties. The regulation does not attach a penalty to the convenor’s failure to explain the purpose to the child, invite appropriate persons, conduct the conference in the prescribed order, or produce a report within 28 days. These are mandatory duties but the only consequence for breach is an application for judicial review or a complaint to the CEO, who could decide not to appoint that convenor in the future. This means the duties are effectively aspirational unless someone takes enforcement action.

No penalty for participants who breach confidentiality. Participants who are not convenors, assistants, or appointed representatives are not caught by regulation 10. A family member who discloses details of the conference to outsiders may not be penalised under this regulation, though other laws (such as the Care and Protection of Children Act itself, or prohibitions on publishing information identifying a child in care proceedings) may apply.

Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 (NT). These regulations are subordinate legislation made under section 49 of that Act. The Act empowers the CEO to arrange a mediation conference and provides for the appointment of a convenor. The regulations specify the procedure. The Act also contains provisions on confidentiality, mandatory reporting, and care orders that may intersect with the conference process. For example, section 12(2) of the Act (as noted in the regulation’s note under regulation 5(3)) directs that when a decision or arrangement is made for an Aboriginal child, the person making it must, where practicable, give primary consideration to the child’s cultural background and the importance of maintaining family and cultural connections. The regulation picks this up by requiring the convenor to conduct the conference in a manner appropriate to the child’s cultural, ethnic, and religious background (regulation 8(1)).

Children’s Court proceedings. The mediation conference is intended to divert matters from formal court proceedings, but it operates alongside them. If the conference fails or no agreement is reached, the CEO may still apply for a protection order under the Act. The report produced under regulation 9 is not evidence in court unless admitted by agreement or under a court’s practice direction; the regulation does not address admissibility. However, the record of agreement signed by participants could be used in later proceedings to show what was agreed or not agreed.

Privacy legislation. The Northern Territory Information Act 2002 regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by public sector agencies. The CEO is likely a public sector organisation subject to that Act. The regulation’s confidentiality obligation in regulation 10 may be either additional to or overlapping with the Information Act. The regulation carves out disclosures “authorised or required by law”, which includes disclosures under the Information Act’s exceptions. However, the regulation does not state it operates to the exclusion of the Information Act.

National mediator accreditation standards. Regulation 11 requires convenors to be accredited under the Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards. Those standards are published by the Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards Board, which may update them without legislative amendment. A convenor who was accredited under an earlier version of the standards may need to maintain ongoing accreditation to continue to qualify. The alternative pathway - “experience relevant to convening a mediation conference” - is undefined, which could lead to inconsistent appointment decisions.

Mandatory reporting laws. If during the conference a participant discloses that a child is at risk of harm, the convenor or other participant may be required by section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act to make a report. Regulation 10(4) permits such a disclosure because it is “required by law”. Similarly, if the agreed proposal for safeguarding the child’s wellbeing involves a plan that a participant knows will not protect the child, that participant may have a legal obligation to report.

Statute Law Revision and Repeals Act 2026 (NT). This amending Act, which commenced on 10 February 2026, made amendments to regulations 3 and 11. The specific effect of those amendments is not detailed in the source, but they likely updated the reference to the accreditation standards board and possibly simplified the qualification provision. The regulations as in force at 10 February 2026 incorporate those changes.

The Care and Protection of Children (Mediation Conferences) Regulations 2010 (SL No. 4, 2010) were notified on 12 May 2010 and commenced on 18 August 2010, the same day that Chapter 2, Part 2.1, Division 6 of the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 commenced (as provided by regulation 2 and the relevant gazette notice). The regulations have been amended once, by the Statute Law Revision and Repeals Act 2026 (Act No. 3, 2026), which received assent on 9 February 2026 and commenced on 10 February 2026. That amending Act made two specific amendments: it amended regulation 3 (the definitions) and regulation 11 (qualifications of convenor) by section 64 of the 2026 Act. Because the source does not reproduce the pre-amendment text, it is not possible to state verbatim what changed. However, given the nature of a Statute Law Revision and Repeals Act, the amendments were likely formal or updating in character - for example, updating the name of the accreditation standards board or removing obsolete references. The regulations were also subject to general amendments of a formal nature by the Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Act No. 22 of 2018), which amended regulations 1 and 2 (citation and commencement) to standardise formal drafting elements. No other amendments are listed. The regulations have not been repealed or replaced. As at 10 February 2026, they are in force. Given that the principal Act (Care and Protection of Children Act 2007) has been amended several times, including changes to the child protection framework, the regulations may be due for a more comprehensive review, but none is indicated by the source. The amendment history is sparse, suggesting that the procedural model established in 2010 has been largely accepted without legislative controversy. However, the lack of amendment does not necessarily mean the regulations are functioning well; it may also reflect low political priority or limited litigation.

The source text does not refer to any cases or litigation history. The regulations are procedural and narrow in scope, which may explain why they are not frequently litigated. Any disputes arising from the regulations would likely involve the exercise of the convenor’s discretion - for instance, whether the convenor properly considered the child’s maturity before deciding not to explain the conference’s purpose, or whether a refusal to appoint a representative was unreasonable. Such challenges would be brought in the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal or the Supreme Court by way of judicial review of the convenor’s decision. However, because the regulation uses broad discretionary language (“as far as practicable”, “if appropriate”, “considers appropriate”), courts would typically give significant deference to the convenor’s judgment, making successful challenges difficult. The confidentiality offence under regulation 10 could be prosecuted, but no reported decisions are known from the source. The absence of litigation history in the source may indicate that the regulations operate in the shadow of the Act’s broader care and protection proceedings; matters that would give rise to a dispute under the regulations might instead be resolved in the context of a protection application in the Children’s Court, where the mediation outcome could be tendered as evidence without directly challenging the regulation. Additionally, because the conference process is intended to be non-adversarial and consensual, participants may be reluctant to mount legal challenges that would further entrench conflict. The mediation conference is not a determinative proceeding; its outcome does not override court orders, so there is less incentive to litigate about its procedural regularity. The most likely source of litigation would be a breach of confidentiality under regulation 10, which is a criminal offence and would appear in criminal appeal records, but none are cited in the source. The regulation’s interaction with the Act’s section 49 has not been the subject of any noted appellate decision. Overall, the litigation history is effectively a blank slate; the regulations have not been tested in court in any reported manner that the source discloses.

The child’s views may be excluded from the report. Under regulation 9(2)(e), the summary of the child’s views may be included in the report only if the child agrees and the convenor considers it in the child’s best interests. This creates a double gate. A child who does not agree to inclusion loses the opportunity to have their views formally documented, even if inclusion would be beneficial for later decision-making. Conversely, the convenor could refuse inclusion even if the child agrees, based on a subjective “best interests” assessment. The report could therefore present a family’s proposal without the child’s perspective, skewing the record.

The agreement is not binding. Nothing in the regulations makes the agreement reached at the mediation conference legally enforceable. The convenor’s record under regulation 8(3) is a written record of what was agreed, but it does not have the force of a court order. If a participant later reneges, the other participants have no remedy under the regulations. The CEO could use the agreement to inform later decisions or court applications, but there is no mechanism for specific performance.

The private family session excludes the child. The third stage of the conference (regulation 8(2)(b)) gives “family members” an opportunity to meet in private to develop a proposal. If the child is not considered a family member - a term not defined in the regulation - the child may be excluded from the most substantive part of the conference. Even if the child is included, the regulation does not require that the child’s wishes be given any particular weight in the private session. The child could be physically present while adults discuss their future.

The convenor’s discretion is wide but its exercise may not be reviewable. Regulation 5(1)(a) says the convenor “must” take certain actions “if appropriate to do so, having regard to the child’s maturity and understanding”. A convenor who decides that explaining the purpose to a 12-year-old is not appropriate may be unreviewable if the decision was made in good faith. The regulation provides no guidance on maturity or understanding thresholds, increasing the risk of inconsistent treatment across children of similar ages.

The 28-day reporting timeline may be unrealistic. Regulation 9(1) requires the convenor to give the report to participants and the CEO within 28 days after the conference. If the conference produced a complex or contested agreement, or if the convenor needs to obtain signatures from participants who attended by electronic means (who do not sign the record under regulation 8(3)(b)), meeting the deadline could be difficult. The regulation does not provide for extensions; a late report is a procedural breach with no stated penalty, but it could affect the CEO’s ability to act promptly on the outcome.

The definition of “personal information” is circular. Regulation 10(5) defines personal information as “information from which a person’s identity is apparent or reasonably able to be ascertained.” This would include the child’s name, which the convenor must already disclose in the report under regulation 9(2)(a) - which lists “details of the time and place” of the conference but does not explicitly list the child’s name, though the report implicitly would include it. A cautious convenor might worry that including too much detail in the report (such as descriptions of family dynamics) could breach regulation 10 if the detail is not strictly required by regulation 9(2). The safe harbour is regulation 10(4) (disclosure authorised by law), but only if the report is required by regulation 9.

The “experience” pathway for convenor qualifications is vague. Regulation 11(b) allows a person to be appointed if they have “experience relevant to convening a mediation conference”. There is no guidance on what qualifies as relevant experience - whether it requires prior mediation experience, experience in child protection, or experience in facilitative processes. This could lead to the appointment of convenors who lack mediation skills but have, for example, only administrative experience in child protection. Conversely, it could allow skilled community elders to act as convenors even if they are not accredited.

No conflict of interest provisions. The regulations do not address what happens if the convenor has a prior relationship with the child or family, or a personal interest in the outcome. A convenor who is also a relative or a treating professional could potentially influence the process. The only safeguard is the broad discretion given to the CEO to appoint the convenor initially, but the CEO may not be aware of the conflict.

The report must not disclose “any matters that were discussed” except as required. Regulation 9(3) prohibits disclosure of matters discussed beyond what is required in the report. This could be interpreted as preventing the convenor from including context necessary to understand the agreement - for instance, why a particular proposal was favoured. The convenor faces a conflict between the duty to provide an informative report and the duty to avoid extraneous disclosure.

For a convenor, compliance requires following the sequence set out in regulations 4 through 9. Start by receiving the CEO’s written notice under regulation 4. Cross-check that the notice contains the child’s details, contact information for parents and suggested invitees, the child’s cultural, ethnic, and religious background, and the purpose. If any information is missing, seek it from the CEO before proceeding. Next, undertake the preparatory actions under regulation 5. Assess the child’s maturity and understanding; if the child is old enough (likely from age 8 or older, though the regulation does not specify), explain the purpose of the conference, discuss whether they want a person appointed to present their wishes, and discuss whether they want a support person. Document these conversations, noting why you decided to take or not take each action. Make reasonable attempts to contact family members the CEO has identified; if you cannot reach them after two or three attempts by phone and written correspondence, document those attempts and note that you are excused from explaining the purpose to them under regulation 5(2). Invite any other person you consider should attend, such as an elder, a teacher, or a therapist. If the child is Aboriginal, consider section 12(2) of the Act as per the note to regulation 5(3). You may engage a person of similar cultural, ethnic, or religious background to assist in preparation or conduct - but ensure that person signs a confidentiality agreement given the penalty exposure under regulation 10(2). If the child requests a representative under regulation 6, decide whether it is in the child’s best interests. If yes, appoint a person who can accurately and effectively present the child’s wishes, taking into account cultural background. If no, document the reasons. Before convening, consider regulation 7: if you form the view the conference should not proceed (e.g., because the child is not ready or the family is in crisis), or that it cannot be convened within a reasonable time, notify the CEO in writing with grounds. If you proceed, set the conference. At the conference, follow the order in regulation 8(2): first, explain the purpose and give each participant an opportunity to speak; second, allow family members to meet privately to develop a proposal (note: if the child is a family member, decide whether they should be in the private session; there is no clear rule); third, present the proposal and negotiate toward agreement. Document the time and place. If agreement is reached, make a written record with the details, names of participants who are party to the agreement, and whether they attended in person or by other means. Get in-person participants to sign the record. Within 28 days, prepare the report under regulation 9. Include all items in regulation 9(2): time and place, invitees, participants, summary of concerns and outcomes, child’s views (only with the child’s consent and if in their best interests), and if there was an agreement, a copy of the record and your statement on whether the child’s wellbeing will be safeguarded. Do not include anything else discussed. Give copies to each participant and the CEO. Finally, protect personal information: do not disclose the child’s or family’s details outside the report or other legal requirements. If you engage an assistant or a child representative, brief them on their confidentiality obligations under regulation 10. For the CEO, ensure the notice under regulation 4 is complete and prompt. For participants, if you are invited, attend and participate in good faith. If you are a parent or family member, use the private session to develop a realistic proposal. If you are the child, consider requesting a representative if you want your views strongly presented, and think about whether you want your views in the report (you can agree or refuse). For appointed representatives, understand that you must not disclose personal information except as authorised by law; you are not immune from that obligation simply because you are acting in the child’s best interests.