Evaluating Alternative Dispute Resolution in taxation disputes
Introduction
The Australian Centre for Justice Innovation (ACJI) based at Monash University
has been engaged by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to design and
implement a mechanism for independently evaluating the ATO’s use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in taxation disputes.
Aim of project
The aim of the project is to design and implement an independent mechanism for
obtaining timely feedback from all participants involved in ADR processes
regarding taxation disputes. Results will be collated and analysed in order to
assess the effectiveness of current processes, and identify opportunities to
improve future processes and enhance ATO dispute resolution capability.
An important element of this project is in ensuring transparency of user
experiences to help build community confidence in the ATO’s use of ADR.
Feedback will therefore be published externally but in a form that does not
identify any feedback provider.
Scope of evaluation
The project will consider participant experiences in a range of dispute resolution
processes in relation to tax and superannuation disputes, including conciliation,
mediation, neutral evaluation, case appraisal and facilitation.
Background and business drivers
The Inspector-General of Taxation conducted a review into the ATO’s use of early
and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Recommendation 5.4 of the review recommends that, for the purpose of
identifying opportunities to enhance its dispute resolution capability, the ATO
should:
 implement an independent system to collate and assess feedback from all
parties, their representatives and ADR practitioners as to the effectiveness of
the process, including the conduct of the ATO’s representatives when
engaging in ADR and any suggestions for improvement; and
 publish this feedback to imbue public confidence in the use of ADR, internally
recognise good performance of ATO representatives and to identify areas for
improvement.
The ATO agreed to recommendation 5.4 in its entirety and further suggested that
given successful ADR depends on the effective participation of all parties, the
feedback mechanism should include feedback regarding the conduct of all parties
involved.
Benefits and outcomes of independent evaluation
Independent evaluation of ADR processes will provide valuable learnings on the
quality of ATO engagement and potential areas for improvement for ATO officers
involved in ADR.
Additionally, it will identify opportunities for the ATO to recognise good
performance in ADR and use this as a means of encouraging greater engagement
and enhancing capability. More importantly, it will also provide greater insight
into how the ATO can assist ADR practitioners and taxpayers to maximise the
benefits available through use of ADR processes leading to improvements in how
the ATO approaches ADR.
Further information on ATO dispute resolution
ATO project background document – This background document and other
relevant information is available on the ATO website
ADR facilitation pilot - overview – in-house facilitation to resolve smaller and less
complex indirect tax objections
Disputes policy – sets out the ATO’s disputes policy
Dispute management plan 2012-13 – links to the ATO’s plan relating to
management of tax and superannuation disputes
Your case matters - provides key data and analysis about Australia's tax and
superannuation litigation, offering an insight into the statistical trends in this
litigation over recent years.
Law Administration Practice Statement PS LA 2007/23 - Alternative Dispute
Resolution in ATO disputes and litigation
Survey participants
In order to implement an independent feedback review system for evaluation of
the ATO’s ADR services and processes, ACJI will survey all parties that have been
involved in a finalised ADR process utilised in a taxation dispute, including
taxpayers and their advisors, ATO staff, and ADR practitioners (including AAT and
Court representatives).
Survey period
Surveys will be undertaken by ACJI over a 12 month period in 2013-2014,
beginning from 1 July 2013. ACJI will provide quarterly interim reporting on
results, so that where feasible, changes can be introduced in real-time and
measured throughout the evaluation period.
Final findings will be presented in a report in July 2014, and published online. The
process is outlined below.
Project Methodology
Step 1: Design and develop survey instruments. Criteria and evaluation
questions to be based on current research and industry approaches used to
review ADR.
Customise surveys for seven target groups
 The Taxpayer (external to ATO)
 The Taxpayer’s Solicitor (external)
 ATO Case Officer (Internal)




ATO Legal Services Branch Officer (internal)
Tax Counsel Network (internal)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Representative (external)
Private ADR Practitioner (external)
Step 2: Gain Ethics Approval of project design and methodology through Monash
University Human Research Ethics Committee
Step 3: Develop public information about the independent evaluation system
including specific information for survey participants regarding confidentiality and
privacy
Step 4: Administer/implement survey instruments via online technology and
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews as appropriate
Step 5: Interpret results and distil these into feedback which can be employed
in:
 user-focused reports
 internal recommendations for process improvements
Step 6: Provide quarterly summaries of findings which can be fed back into
practice
Step 7: Develop an annual report on survey feedback, make recommendations
for improvement and endorse good practice at ATO
Step 8: Publish findings online on at the Civil Justice Research Online site
managed by ACJI (http://www.civiljustice.info), the ACJI website
(http://www.law.monash.edu/centres/acji) and the ATO website
(www.ato.gov.au)
Project Outcomes
The outcomes of the ACJI’s independent evaluation system for the purposes of
this Project will be:
 Provision of effective and holistic data about the experiences of participants in
ADR processes undertaken to resolve taxation disputes under Part IVC of the
Taxation Administration Act 1953.
 Effective and ethical survey of the views of participants in those dispute
resolution processes about their experiences of them
 The data collection and survey process is transparent to ATO stakeholders and
information about the process is readily available online
 Provision of quarterly and annual reports that interpret the survey outcomes
and analyse their implications as a basis for real time and future
improvements in the ATO’s ADR policy and practices and managing
stakeholder relationships.
The longer term outcomes of the project for the ATO include:
 Providing a means to acquire data which will provide opportunities for
improvements to ADR processes through holistic intelligence gathering
 Demonstrating transparency of the ATO processes which leads to increased
public confidence in our ability to utilise ADR processes
 Staff skilling and training needs are identified and as appropriate,
recommendations are made leading to targeted strategies to build up dispute
resolution capability in the ATO.
 Opportunities for improvement are identified and as appropriate,
recommendations are made to impacted areas of the ATO for their future
implementation.



Greater intelligence around how the ATO can assist ADR practitioners and
taxpayers to maximise the benefits available through utilisation of ADR
processes leading to improvements in how the ATO approaches ADR.
Opportunities for utilising ADR are being identified as early as possible in the
dispute resolution process.
Increased awareness and utilisation of ADR strategies, where appropriate, to
minimise and manage dispute risk.
The Research Team
The research team is composed of independent ADR experts who are external to
the ATO and have a wealth of expertise both in conducting ADR and in designing
mechanisms to evaluate the use of ADR. The research team includes members
who have expertise in quantitative and qualitative analysis.
The research team is headed by Professor Tania Sourdin, who is the Director of
the ACJI. The ACJI is a Research Centre in the Faculty of Law at Monash
University, which has been created with the assistance of the Australasian
Institute for Judicial Administration (AIJA). ACJI is administratively supported by
Monash University. ACJI engages in three core streams of activity:
 Research to provide the intellectual underpinnings for increased court
efficiency and effectiveness and to support improved governance, the
continued development and implementation of court innovations and the
adoption of non-adversarial justice and ADR approaches.
 Research consultancy in the areas of program design, piloting, monitoring and
evaluation of court innovations and non-adversarial justice and ADR
approaches.
 Education and training involving the delivery to law students, legal
practitioners, court and justice system administrators, judicial staff and allied
professionals to achieve innovations in the court system and non-adversarial
justice and ADR concepts and practice.
Professor Tania Sourdin – Chief Investigator
Professor Sourdin has extensive experience in the litigation system, court
processes and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Professor Sourdin has also
conducted evaluations of specific ADR processes for bodies such as Financial
Industry Complaints Service (FICS) and The Society of Consumer Affairs
Professionals (SOCAP).
Professor Sourdin has considerable experience in relation to evaluating ADR
systems and processes and she also has relevant and extensive content expertise
in relation to court based and ADR processes (on a practical as well as a
theoretical level). She is well placed to ensure that the overarching and specific
objectives the project are met.
Serena Beresford-Wylie – Expert Consultant
Serena has extensive experience in ADR policy, legislation and program
management with the Federal Government. Her experience included twice
serving as Director of the Secretariat for the National Alternative Dispute
Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC), the body responsible for advising the
Attorney-General on federal ADR policy.
Adrien March – Project Manager
Adrien is a Senior Researcher at ACJI. She has wide-ranging experience in ADR
research, including project design, project management and research ethics.
Adrien is also skilled in preparing and conducting telephone and online surveys of
ADR stakeholders.
Alan Shanks – Expert Qualitative and Quantitative
Analyst
Alan’s professional research experience spans some 20 years, including leading
and supporting research projects for state government and tertiary education
institutions.
In his current role with the ACJI, Alan provides support to research and
evaluation programs in the areas of court administration, operation, innovation,
non-adversarial justice and alternative dispute resolution.
For further information


For more information about design and implementation of the evaluation
mechanism, contact Professor Tania Sourdin, Director, Australian Centre for
Justice Innovation on (03) 9903 8536.
For more information about the ATO’s input into this body of work, contact
Sirla Jafri, Director, Law Practice Management on (02) 6216 2664.