Thank you for the question.
We actually are not in disagreement. The starting point for us is that there should not be an automatic exclusion of ADR because it does work for some women. They are able to get the kinds of outcomes they're looking for. However, there are many cases involving family violence where ADR may not be appropriate. The change we're asking for in the wording of the bill is that there be no preference given, nor indeed a requirement, for any clients to be encouraged to pursue ADR. That may be quite inappropriate for all the range of reasons that LEAF has outlined today.
The difference, the shift in language that we're looking for, is the requirement for all legal representatives to present to their clients the full range of legal options available to them, to listen to their clients and to help them determine what process will work well for them and what will not. Sometimes ADR is absolutely inappropriate for women in the context of family violence, and sometimes women will choose to pursue it for the range of reasons that apply directly to them.
That's the change we're looking for.