Council of Australian Law Deans

Meeting 2006#3 Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Law Brisbane

30 & 31 October 2006

MINUTES

CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Council of Australian Law Deans Meeting 2006#3 Faculty of Law, QUT, 30 & 31 October 2006 MINUTES Present Deans (16) Professor Michael Coper Australian National University Professor Duncan Bentley Bond University Professor Gary Davis Flinders University Professor Rob McQueen Griffith University Professor Paul Havemann James Cook University Professor Hon Michael Lavarch Queensland University of Technology Professor Bee Chen Goh Southern Cross University Professor Paul Fairall University of Adelaide Professor Murray Raff University of Canberra Professor Michael Crommelin University of Melbourne Professor Stephen Colbran University of New England Professor David Dixon University of New South Wales Professor Jill McKeough University of Technology Sydney Professor Bill Ford University of Western Australia Professor Carolyn Sappideen University of Western Sydney Professor Stuart Kaye University of Wollongong

Deputising (5) Professor Rafiq Islam Macquarie University Professor HP Lee Monash University Dr Vernon Nase Murdoch University Professor Patrick Parkinson University of Sydney Professor Neil Andrews Victoria University

In attendance (5) Ms Jennifer Braid CALD Secretary Ms Karen Heuer PA to Dean Coper Ms Allayne Webster PA to Dean Fairall Mr Christopher Lee ILSAC Secretariat Mr Christopher Roper Consultant (31 October) Apologies (13) Mr Dennis Clark Charles Darwin University Professor Sam Cusumano Deakin University A/Professor Mark Stoney Edith Cowan University Professor Gordon Walker La Trobe University Professor Rosalind Croucher* Macquarie University Professor Arie Freiberg* Monash University Professor Gabriel Moens* Murdoch University Professor Ted Wright University of Newcastle Professor Michael Gillooly University of Notre Dame, Australia Professor Charles Rickett University of Queensland Professor Ron McCallum* University of Sydney Professor Don Chalmers University of Tasmania Professor Chris Arup* Victoria University (Acting) *Represented by Deputy

2 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1.1. *Attendance and welcome The meeting began at 2.00 pm on Monday 30 October 2006. The Chair thanked Dean Lavarch (QUT) for hosting the CALD meeting in Brisbane and for providing such excellent support that allowed the smooth meeting and pre-meeting arrangements. The Chair welcomed everyone, particularly the new Deans, Dean Bee Chen Goh (Southern Cross University) and Dean David Dixon (UNSW), and the deputies appointed by their Deans to represent their respective law schools (see list above). Dean Lavarch responded to the Chair’s welcome and extended the welcome of QUT.

All attendees at the meeting introduced themselves. Several Deans told the meeting of their imminent departures from their deanships and thus from CALD from the end of 2006: Deans Sappideen (UWS), Kaye (Wollongong), and McQueen (Griffith). Several other Deans indicated that their current terms would expire in 2007 (Deans Davis (Flinders) and Fairall (Adelaide)) and that their future as Deans was uncertain. Dean McCallum (Sydney) was retiring from his Deanship in mid-2007 and Dean Crommelin (Melbourne) at the end of 2007. Dean Raff (ex-VU) was attending his first meeting in his new capacity as Dean at the University of Canberra.

The Chair had introduced a new dynamic to the meeting structure of CALD. To enable a thorough discussion of all matters on the CALD agenda, CALD extended its meeting time to a half-day (Monday 30 October), followed by the traditional CALD dinner in the evening, and a full-day (Tuesday 31 October).

1.2. Apologies The apologies were noted (see list above).

1.3. *Starring of items Items with one star were for discussion; items with two stars were priorities; unstarred items were taken as read and noted. The Chair explained the structure of the meeting, bringing ‘Item 7: Internationalisation’ forward to the half-day meeting on 30 October 2006, as Mr Christopher Lee, representing the International Legal Services Advisory Council (ILSAC), had kindly attended the CALD meeting to present the ILSAC report.

The Chair noted that the priority items for meeting 2006#3 were the election of office bearers (item 2.2), the business plan (item 2.3), the Carrick project (item 4.4), the standards project (item 5.4), the academic misconduct paper (item 6.4), and the ILSAC report (item 7.1).

1.4. *Confirmation of minutes of meeting 2006#2 The draft minutes of meeting 2006#2 held on 4 July 2006 at Victoria University, Melbourne, had been circulated and were accepted as true and correct.

Resolution 2006/34: That the Minutes of the previous meeting be approved.

3 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

1.5. *Matters arising from the minutes The Chair provided an update on matters arising from the 2006#2 meeting Action Sheet Checklist. Members were invited to raise any matters not otherwise arising on the agenda.

The Chair noted two such matters: the employment of a research assistant to examine and organise the CALD archives, particularly with a view to extracting relevant material for inclusion on the CALD website (item 2.3, meeting 2006#1, pending); and the drafting of a resolution relating to the prolonged detention of David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay (item 2.8, meeting 2006#2, pending). The Chair undertook to report progress on the first matter at meeting 2007#1; Dean Fairall indicated that he would raise the Hicks matter for discussion on day 2 of the present meeting.

2. COUNCIL MATTERS

2.1. Membership/Constitution No business under this item.

2.2. **Election of office bearers The current terms of office of the CALD Executive, comprising Deans Coper (ANU, Chair), Ford (UWA, Deputy Chair), Raff (UC, Treasurer), Colbran (UNE), Croucher (Macquarie), and Lavarch (QUT), were all due to expire at the end of 2006. The Chair called for nominations, but foreshadowed that his ideas for the development of a business plan for 2007-2008 (see below) would, if accepted, have some implications for the structure of the Executive (the potential size of which is unlimited under the current CALD Constitution). The Chair also noted that he was not averse to continuing as Chair for one more year (that is, to the end of 2007), and indeed was keen to bring to fruition or at least make significant progress on many of the major projects that were just getting underway.

Resolution 2006/35: That Dean Coper be re-elected as Chair for a further 12 months, that the current Executive remain in place for the time being, and that the structure and membership of the Executive be further considered at meeting 2007#1 in the light of progress made in relation to the Chair’s proposals for better succession planning, and for the establishment of CALD Standing Committees, as foreshadowed in the Chair’s paper ‘Notes for the Development of a Business Plan for 2007-2008’.

2.3. **Treasurer’s report The Treasurer’s report and attachments were circulated for discussion. The report provided graphs to explain the budgetary outlays and to give a clear picture of CALD’s current financial position, both as an end in itself and in order to assist discussion of the proposed Business Plan. The Treasurer explained that the bottom line of CALD’s profit and loss statement looked healthy, mainly because of the injection of funds from the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), a one-off grant of $22,000 to support the redesign of a major CALD initiative, the publication of ‘Studying Law in Australia’ (discussion under Item 7.1.4).

However, the statement was but a ‘snapshot’ of the current situation, and the DEST grant was expected to be fully spent on the SLIA project. CALD’s primary source of

4 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

income is the membership of the 29 law schools (currently $1,600 per school). All subscriptions for 2006 have been paid. The Treasurer thanked Deans for their commitment and diligence in this respect, which had not always been the case in the past.

Business Plan 2007-2008: The Chair had circulated just prior to the meeting and now tabled his paper entitled ‘Notes for the Development of a Business Plan for 2007- 2008’. The Chair spoke to the paper, which is attached to these minutes. The paper dealt with (1) CALD’s goals and objectives (in need of some refining and restatement); (2) CALD’s projects (in need of being crystallised, prioritised, and supported by substantial resources); (3) Enhancing CALD resources (two different approaches to membership fees were set out); and (4) CALD executive structures (six standing committees were proposed, as well as better succession planning, possibly on the basis of a rolling arrangement of Chair, Chair Elect, and Immediate Past Chair).

The Chair was thanked for his paper, which was seen as important in improving the future operation of CALD as the peak body of Australian law schools, especially between plenary meetings. The proposal as to standing committees was adopted, with the current interim Executive to pursue the further issues of succession planning and the optimal structure of the CALD Executive in the light of the new committee system. The six standing committees are on Legal Research, Legal Education, Standards and Accreditation, Legal Practice, International Matters, and Development of the CALD Website.

The only contentious matter was how to approach CALD membership fees for 2007 (bearing in mind that this was a major, but not the only, way to enhance CALD’s resources, with attention being necessary also to grant possibilities, such as the recent DEST grant to develop an electronic version of Studying Law in Australia and the pending Carrick Institute grant to enhance teaching and learning).

The meeting considered two alternative approaches to membership fees for 2007, the common ground being that a substantial increase was justified to allow for an enhanced secretariat and more ambitious and effective project development. This common ground had been established at meeting 2006#2 (see minutes of that meeting for more detail), though Deans Bentley and Davis now observed that there was potential danger, as possibly illustrated by the experience of the AVCC, in an enhanced secretariat turning into a free-standing think-tank that produced papers and proposals that went beyond the consensus of the membership.

The two approaches were: (a) a uniform fee for all law schools, or (b) a three-tiered fee, grouping law schools within bands. To assist consideration of the latter option, the Chair tabled a workbook that set out the Equivalent Full Time Student Load (EFTSL) for each law school for the period 2003-2005 (attached). After robust discussion of the merits of considering EFTSL as a proxy for law school wealth or capacity to pay, and the possibilities for other workable proxies, the meeting considered two motions: motion 1: a flat fee of $2,500 for 2007 (proposed by Dean McKeough, seconded by Dean Dixon), and motion 2: three bands according to EFTSL ($2,500; $3,500; $5,000) (proposed by Dean Lavarch; seconded by Dean Fairall). On a show of hands, motion 2 was defeated and motion 1 was carried. (It was not unambiguously clarified whether the new fee of $2500 was inclusive or exclusive of the $100 contribution towards the cost of the meeting dinners (that contribution now well-outstripped by the actual cost), but the former has been assumed.)

5 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Resolution 2006/36: That CALD establish six standing committees as per the Chair’s paper ‘Notes for the Development of a Business Plan for 2007-2008’, and the current interim CALD Executive give further consideration, in the light of this development, to CALD’s executive structure generally and to succession planning.

Resolution 2006/37: That, when the standing committees are established and the future CALD executive structure is settled, work commence on the detail of the Business Plan for 2007-2008, in the light of the principles set out in the Chair’s paper ‘Notes for the Development of a Business Plan for 2007-2008’.

Resolution 2007/38: That the Secretariat invoice all law schools at the beginning of 2007 for the 2007 CALD membership fee of $2,500.

2.4. Secretariat/Executive report The Secretariat report was circulated and noted. Future secretariat arrangements to depend on development of the Business Plan for 2007-2008.

2.5. *Next meetings (2007)

2007 Meeting 1 22 March 2007 (with Sydney (in conjunction possible half-day on 21 with Australian Legal March 2007) Convention) Meeting 2 July 2007 (date TBA) Perth (in conjunction with ALTA) Meeting 3 November 2007 (date Canberra or Byron Bay TBA) (TBA)

The original timetable for CALD meetings for 2007 had provisionally allocated meeting 2007#3 to either Flinders University or the University of Adelaide. Deans Davis and Fairall both advised that, in view of the uncertainty surrounding the Deanships at those two law schools (see item 1.1 above), new arrangements should be made for meeting 2007#3. Some support was expressed for having the meeting at ANU in Canberra, to which the Chair was amenable. Dean Bee Chen Goh also volunteered Southern Cross University as host, with the meeting then capable of being held at either Lismore or Byron Bay, where SCU regularly holds a summer school. Meeting 2007#1 to further consider the relative merits of national capital versus beach paradise.

Resolution 2006/39: That the Chair and Secretariat liaise with Dean Goh on the practicalities of SCU hosting CALD meeting 2007#3 and report back to meeting 2007#1.

[Post-meeting note: subsequent to the CALD meeting, the dates for the ALTA Conference 2007 were shifted from July to September. This will necessitate revisiting the pattern of meetings for 2007. One possibility is simply to shift meeting 2007#2 (Perth) from July to September and retain meeting 2007#3 (Canberra or Byron Bay) in November. Another is to move meeting 2007#2 forward to June, hold it in Canberra or Byron Bay (the latter distinctly more attractive in the winter), and hold meeting 2007#3 in Perth in September in conjunction with ALTA. For further consideration.]

6 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

2.6. Correspondence Correspondence circulated, tabled and noted:

1. Letter from the Chair to the Secretary, Bar Council of India, seeking clarification of aspects of recognition of Australian law schools (19 September 2006): see item 7.2.1 2. Letter from the Chair to the Director, IRAP Project, Melbourne Institute, seeking clarification of aspects of Melbourne Institute project to rank Australian law schools (9 October 2006): see item 5.5. 3. Letter to the Chair from the Director, IRAP Project, Melbourne Institute (18 October 2006): see item 5.5.

2.7. Website No discussion under this item.

2.8. *Other matters In the minutes of meeting 2006#2, under item 2.8, the matter of CALD making public statements on matters of public concern was considered, with particular reference to the incarceration without trial of Mr David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay. Resolution 2006/21 stated that Dean Fairall would draft a resolution on the importance of the rule of law. Because of time constraints, Dean Fairall spoke only briefly to this item. The consensus was that a resolution was highly appropriate, but that rather than be some abstract statement, it should be tailored closely to the current circumstances in the Hicks matter, which appeared to be in a state of flux. Dean Fairall agreed to keep a watching brief on the matter and put forward a resolution as appropriate, outside of the plenary meeting schedule if necessary.

Resolution 2006/40: That Dean Fairall draft a resolution, for endorsement by CALD, on the importance of the rule of law in the resolution of the David Hicks matter, as and when developments occur that warrant a response.

3. LEGAL RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP

3.1. *Australian Academy of Law (AAL) The meeting briefly discussed the worthwhile venture of the new Australian Academy of Law. Unfortunately, progress on the establishment of AAL has been slow, but it is believed that a launch and symposium will now occur in Sydney in early 2007.

3.2. *Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS) CALD is an institutional member of CHASS (http://www.chass.org.au/). The Chair reported that he had successfully negotiated a membership fee of CHASS at level 1, $220 pa; CHASS had originally proposed a fee at level 2, $880 pa (see previous minutes). The Chair also reported that he had apologised to Dean Havemann (JCU) for failing to put his name forward in sufficient time for him to be considered for nomination as a CHASS Board member (see previous minutes). The CHASS newsletter for September 2006 provided the following information:

7 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

“6. Humanities and Law: Panel 11. CHASS was asked to provide advice on the proposed RQF Expert Advisory Panel 11: Humanities and Law. This request was made in response to concerns expressed within the sector that Panel 11 is likely to experience difficulty in assessing the wide range of disciplines included in that panel with the limited number of assessors (12-15 people) envisioned for each panel. Nearly 50 written submissions were received from our members, and your views will be reflected in the final advice we provide to DEST.”

CALD’s advice was not sought by DEST, nor was CALD informed about the request made to CHASS or approached by CHASS for advice in relation to law. Neither the CHASS website nor the DEST website discloses what CHASS’s final advice was. Some Deans had evidently heard on the grapevine that a process for reviewing Panel 11 was in place, but none had heard directly.

Resolution 2006/41: That the Chair seek to clarify what processes were followed by DEST and CHASS in relation to the review of RQF Panel 11, and why CALD was not involved in those processes, despite being a member of CHASS and despite having made two submissions, as the peak body of Australian law schools, on why law should have a separate panel.

[Post-meeting note: In The Recommended RQF, released by the RQF Development Advisory Group (DAG) subsequent to the CALD meeting, it is noted at p21 that ‘to accommodate all research areas and to ensure a balanced distribution of workload for Assessors, an additional panel has been created by disaggregating Panels 8 and 11 and creating a new Panel for professional disciplines and education. Final adjustments to the panel structure may be necessary following the outcomes of the pre- implementation trials and panel-specific workshops.’ There is no further information about the thinking behind the location of law, just as there was no discussion at all in the previous report about why law was moved from social sciences to humanities. See http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/re search_quality_framework/rqf_development_2006.htm#The_Recommended_RQF .

Chair’s observation: each of these two shifts has probably been, on balance, good for law – the first to a less metric context and the second closer to law as a stand- alone discipline – though it would be unfortunate if law were now to be stereotyped as about professional practice only and the dimension of law as an intellectual discipline minimised or even overlooked. This reinforces the case for law to have its own panel, the only way to ensure that the panel encompasses and understands the rich mix of the social sciences, humanities and professional practice that go to make up the discipline.]

3.3. *Law Research Network (LawRN) Dean Colbran (UNE) reported on LawRN in the context of the establishment at UNE of the Australian Law Postgraduate Network (ALPN) (funded by a CASR grant to provide an Australia-wide law postgraduate research network, see item 4.5). ALPN (http://www.alpn.edu.au) is now an active site that promotes a culture of collaboration, structural change and leadership across the law education sector; disseminates information about Australian law postgraduate research; initiates a national postgraduate law research and supervision conference; and encourages a national and international postgraduate research culture. Most law schools are involved with the ALPN project, and personnel have been appointed to maintain ALPN presence.

8 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Dean Colbran reported that LawRN, the network of the law schools’ Associate Deans or Directors of Research, was not operating as it should. The Chair sought advice from Dean Colbran and others on the best way that CALD could assist. It was felt that the new CALD Standing Committee on Legal Research may be the best vehicle to assist both LawRN and ALPN, which had overlapping though not identical concerns. It was also suggested that LawRN may be assisted by linking it with ALPN, and by linking the CALD and ALPN websites. Dean Dixon suggested that, in the first instance, a comprehensive list of all the current Research Deans should be compiled and the network facilitated through the CALD website. Resolution 2006/42: (i) that the new CALD Standing Committee on Legal Research take responsibility for fostering LawRN and ALPN; (ii) that Dean Colbran continue to be responsible for liaising between CALD and LawRN, especially in light of the synergies between LawRN and ALPN; (iii) that, at least when the leadership of LawRN is clarified, a LawRN homepage be established on the CALD website, with links to and from the ALPN website; and (iv) that Dean Colbran compile or cause to be compiled, for publication on the CALD website, as the beginnings of a LawRN homepage, an up- to-date list of the current Research Deans in Australian law schools.

3.4. *Research Quality Framework (RQF) [See also Post-meeting note, item 3.2 above] The Chair reported that the RQF Development Advisory Group (DAG) had released a number of papers, some of which were included in the meeting papers. Members expressed widespread concern with the RQF process and stressed the importance of meeting with the Minister. The Chair undertook to continue to attempt to arrange that meeting (all attempts to date having fallen through – see previous minutes), hopefully in conjunction with CALD meeting 2007#1 in Sydney just prior to the Australian Legal Convention. Following extensive discussion of the perceived problems with the RQF, the Deans agreed to send to the Chair a series of dot points relating to those problems that could be used either as the basis of a paper or simply for the purpose of preparing for the discussion with the Minister.

The Deans also agreed that, irrespective of the RQF, it remained very important for CALD to have a position on the concept and nature of quality in legal research and how to get it rated as world-class. It was important also, especially but not only in the context of the RQF, to be proactive in developing our own measures of quality, not just criticise the measures proposed by others. This could be usefully pursued in conjunction with the standards project (item 5.4) and possibly even the Carrick project (item 4.4).

In relation to the current state of CALD’s pursuit of the development of relevant measures of quality and impact, the Chair apologised that, because of other commitments, he and Dean Colbran had yet been able to get together to assess the draft paper provided by Professor Bryan Horrigan of Macquarie University for meeting 2006#2. The Chair and Dean Colbran will do so prior to meeting 2007#1 in Sydney on 22 March 2007.

Resolution 2006/43: That the Deans provide the Chair with their lists of dot points on the perceived difficulties with the RQF for the purpose of preparing for the proposed meeting with the Minister.

9 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Resolution 2006/44: That the Chair and Secretariat write to the Minister’s Office to extend an invitation to her to attend a session of CALD meeting 2007#1 in Sydney on 22 March 2007.

Resolution 2006/45: That the Chair and Dean Colbran assess the draft paper on legal research prepared by Professor Bryan Horrigan and advise on appropriate next steps.

3.5. *Other matters (legal research and scholarship generally) Dean Dixon (UNSW) raised for discussion the important issue of comparative data on research performance and benchmarking. Concern was raised about the accuracy of DEST data. The Deans discussed the possibility of CALD undertaking benchmarking exercises. Previous experience, or at least perceptions (though perhaps in a different and less cooperative climate) indicated that this was difficult; in any event, it was suggested that it might, in many cases, be better driven by particular law schools seeking particular information. Benchmarking might also be considered in the context of the standards project (item 5.4), and even as a task for a permanent Centre should such a viable body emerge as mooted in the Carrick Institute proposal (item 4.4).

4. LEGAL EDUCATION

4.1. *Australian Law Students Association (ALSA) A report from the ALSA President, Faraz Maghami, was circulated to the Deans and noted. The report summarised ALSA’s key educational objectives for 2006-2007 and recent activities in the ALSA education portfolio.

Resolution 2006/46: That the Secretariat write to the ALSA President to thank ALSA for its report and to encourage ALSA to maintain its outstanding commitment to the improvement of legal education.

4.2. *Australasian Law Teachers Association (ALTA) Two documents were circulated from ALTA: ALTA Chair Professor Paul Moyle’s report to ALTA’s 2006 Annual General Meeting, and his report to CALD. Professor Moyle highlighted in his report the need for the Deans to encourage institutional membership of ALTA. CALD supports institutional membership, though it was pointed out that ALTA’s current institutional membership list did not appear to be entirely accurate.

The Deans also pointed out that at the CALD Melbourne meeting (2006#2) there had been a useful discussion of the need for a special (additional) ‘Deans’ Issue’ of Legal Education Review (LER). The meeting noted that there was no mention of this in the ALTA Chair’s report.

Resolution 2006/47: That the Secretariat write to the Chair of ALTA to thank him for his report and to enquire about progress on the idea of a special ‘Deans’ Issue’ of Legal Education Review.

10 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

4.3. *Curriculum Issues

4.3.1 Internationalisation of the curriculum The joint working party of CALD and ILSAC met on Monday 30 October immediately prior to the CALD meeting. Matter discussed under item 7.1.3.

4.3.2 Legal education and a law reform perspective No business under this item.

4.4. **Teaching and learning The Chair had discussed with and received feedback from the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching on a draft proposal for funding a major pilot project on improving learning and teaching in the discipline of law. This is part of the Carrick Institute’s ‘Discipline-Based Initiative’ (DBI), in which projects in two other disciplines (science and ICT) are also likely to be funded. The CALD working group on the project met prior to the CALD meeting to discuss and refine the draft proposal. The draft proposal had been circulated to the Deans.

The Deans thanked the Chair for his extensive work on the proposal, and made some further comments on the draft, which ranged from the view that there was not enough detail to the view that there was too much detail. Dean Davis emphasised that the proposal needed more of a student perspective. The Chair thought that CALD should ask for $250,000 to finance the project, which required additional administrative support and also involved a feasibility study for a permanent Centre for Legal Education.

The Chair stressed the tight deadline for the final submission, which was due on 9 November 2006 so that it could be considered by the Carrick Standing Committee, and asked the Deans to email him any further comments as soon as possible. Dean Davis will represent CALD at a Carrick Institute meeting in Adelaide on 17 November 2006 to report on the concept of the proposal and on progress.

The Deans were also requested to encourage colleagues in their law schools to apply for Carrick Institute fellowships, which could usefully tie in with the CALD project. See http://www.carrickinstitute.edu.au/carrick/go/home/fellowships .

Resolution 2006/48: That the Deans send any further comments on the draft Carrick proposal to the Chair, who, with assistance from CALD’s Carrick project group (the Chair and Deans Colbran, Davis and McKeough), will finalise and submit the proposal to the Carrick Institute by Thursday 9 November 2006.

[Post-meeting note: with considerable input from Dean Davis, the final proposal was submitted and has been accepted by the Carrick Institute, with funding of $250,000 over 18 months. Implementation to commence in early 2007.]

4.5. *Other matters (legal education and student matters generally) 1. Student competitions. Dean Moens (Murdoch) requested a discussion on the implications of the proliferation of student mooting and other competitions. Dr Vernon Nase (representing Murdoch) spoke to this item. He stressed that Murdoch is

11 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

committed to mooting programs, especially to the major domestic moots, and called upon other law schools to support them as well. For Murdoch, however, geographical remoteness entailed budgetary constraints. The Deans discussed ways of supporting mooting on a national basis, including promotion through the CALD website, but saw some difficulties, such as justifying why mooting should be prioritised over other kinds of student competitions (eg negotiation, client interviewing, and witness examination), and the problematic nature of any attempted cost equalisation. The Chair noted that the discussion had sensitised the meeting to the equalisation issue and it was agreed that the matter of student competitions should lie on the table. 2. Australian Law Postgraduate Network (ALPN). Dean Colbran (UNE) spoke to the Australian Law Postgraduate Network (ALPN) under item 3.3.

5. LAW SCHOOL MATTERS

5.1. External funding No business under this item.

5.2. Internal funding No business under this item.

5.3. Governance and management No business under this item.

5.4. **Accreditation issues and external monitoring of standards The Chair introduced and welcomed Mr Christopher Roper, who has been engaged as a consultant for CALD’s project on minimum standards for law schools and legal education. Mr Roper was concerned in the first instance to tease out, with the assistance of the Deans, the scope of the project. The Carrick Institute has indicated that it will fund the project, at least so far as it relates to the Carrick DBI initiative (see item 4.4 above).

Mr Roper set out how he envisaged the project and how it might be conducted. He noted that there was a difference between ideal or aspirational standards, and minimum standards. There were also issues of content of the standards: curriculum, library resources, staffing, and so on. He will examine, inter alia, select overseas systems: the US, the UK and Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. He suggested that there were three basic approaches, not mutually exclusive, to developing a set of standards:

1. Functional: standards reflect the philosophical statement of what a law school wants to be - eg, if it wants to promote critical thinking, then a relevant standard might be small-group teaching.

2. Comparative: standards might be set by reference to best practice in an international context.

3. Modelling: what do we want to be? Where do we sit in comparison with other disciplines?

12 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

The Chair opened the topic for discussion. Points made or issues raised included: (i) How will diversity amongst law schools be accommodated and preserved? (ii) The project might usefully include standards for reviews of law schools (often thought to be a weak spot in the Australian accreditation system) (iii) Should a review question the assumptions or goals set by a law school or simply examine whether a law school had achieved its stated goals? (iv) Was there a role for CALD in coordinating or assisting institution-driven reviews of individual law schools? (v) Arbitrary standards should be avoided – eg a set figure for minimum library expenditure (vi) What is the objective or real-politik of this project? Is it to drive standards up? (vii) There is risk to some, perhaps all, law schools in this project, but the exercise will be useless if it panders to the lowest common denominator (viii) Reviews inevitably raise resource issues, which universities characteristically exclude from the purview of the review (ix) We need to look at both minimum and aspirational standards (x) Standards are not just about process but must be substantive as well (xi) We must engage the profession, and indeed go to the profession with a set of standards, not have them imposed on us (xii) It is appropriate to consider ideal or aspirational standards, as this is what benchmarking is all about (xiii) Aspirational standards can be helpful – eg, that the integrity of the discipline of law demands that it should be organised as a separate faculty or like organisational unit within a university (xiv) Multi-campus institutions do not benchmark well against single campus law schools (xv) Who is the audience for the statement of standards: peers, university hierarchies, government, the profession, law schools, admitting authorities, the community? (Tentative answer: all, but especially admitting authorities.) (xvi) If the project is to be included within the Carrick Institute funding, then it must encompass the enhancement of teaching and learning and set standards in this context.

The Chair thanked Mr Roper for his outline, and agreed to send to him all the Carrick material. Mr Roper observed that, although there were dangers whether one focused on minimum or aspirational standards, he was delighted to be involved in such an important project, and looked forward to working with CALD.

Resolution 2006/49: That the Chair send a copy of the Carrick proposal to Mr Roper.

13 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

5.5. *Other matters Law school rankings. The Chair wrote to the Melbourne Institute as requested at meeting 2006#2 (letter and reply circulated and noted). There was more support at this meeting than at the previous meeting for CALD to be proactive and strategic to ensure that rankings, which were perceived as a fait accompli, use rigorous methodology and standardised data, and acknowledge genuine diversity in the law school community.

Resolution 2006/50: That the matter of law school rankings, and the possibility of CALD critiquing existing rankings, be progressed by the new CALD Standing Committee on Standards and Accreditation.

6. LEGAL PRACTICE AND LEGAL PROFESSION MATTERS

6.1. *National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA) The NJCA Director's report was circulated and noted. The report highlighted the NJCA’s public conferences, judicial programs, and work on minimum standards, and a core curriculum, for professional development of judges (developed with the assistance of Chris Roper as consultant). The Chair informed the meeting that his term as the CALD representative on the NJCA Consultative Committee expired in November 2006 (and that he may be called upon in any event to continue as a member of that committee in his capacity as Dean of the NJCA’s host law school). The Chair called for nominations for the next CALD representative on the NJCA Consultative Committee. Dean Raff (UC) was nominated and agreed to be the representative.

Resolution 2006/51: That the Secretariat inform the NJCA that Dean Murray Raff (UC) will be CALD’s representative on the NJCA Consultative Committee for a two-year term from 2007-2008.

6.2. *Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC) Dean Coper attended a meeting of LACC in Sydney on 8 September 2006 (ex officio member as CALD Chair). Items of interest to CALD considered at that meeting were: achieving consistency in the recognition of foreign legal qualifications in Australia; CALD’s draft guidelines on the handling of academic misconduct issues in the context of admission to practice (see item 6.4 below); and the Chair’s paper (written for a US audience) on the Australian system of law school accreditation. By way of reporting on the LACC meeting, the Chair circulated the LACC draft minutes.

An issue of concern to the Deans was the lack of consistency amongst admitting authorities in relation to insistence on whether Trust Accounts had to be studied as an LLB/JD subject (as the Uniform Admission Rules require on their face) or whether it was sufficient to take that subject as part of a Professional Legal Training (PLT) program. This lack of consistency had caused confusion particularly for graduates moving between jurisdictions.

CALD members felt strongly that Trust Accounts should be taught only at the PLT level. The Chair requested that Dean Davis (Flinders), who had raised the matter, draft a letter to LACC, having first canvassed the Deans for relevant supporting information. The letter will be sent to LACC under the Chair’s signature.

14 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

The infrequency of LACC meetings was seen as problematic, but not as a reason for not taking this course of action.

Resolution 2006/52: That Dean Davis gather information from the Deans about difficulties caused by the nominal requirement of the Uniform Admission Rules that Trust Accounts be taught as part of the LLB/JD program, and/or by varying insistence on that requirement from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and then draft a letter to LACC, to be signed by the CALD Chair, putting CALD’s view that Trust Accounts should not form a compulsory part of an LLB/JD program.

6.3. *Pro bono practice issues The Director of the National Pro Bono Resource Centre wrote a submission to CALD to explore ways in which the Centre and CALD could work together to enhance ‘law school pro bono’. Dean Sappideen, CALD’s representative on the National Pro Bono Resource Centre Board, spoke to the submission. Dean Sappideen informed the meeting that CALD needed to appoint a new representative, as her term as Dean at UWS expired at the end of 2006. It was agreed that CALD should explore whether Dean Dixon (UNSW), who was already on the Board in another capacity, could also assume the position of CALD representative.

Dean Sappideen stressed the need to introduce pro bono to the agenda of all Australian law schools. She suggested that Deans should seek advice on how best to progress this initiative by visiting the National Pro Bono Resource Centre website http://www.nationalprobono.org.au/ where there are templates and course suggestions.

Resolution 2006/53: That Dean Dixon investigate the possibility of whether he could assume the position of CALD representative on the National Pro Bono Resource Centre Board. Resolution 2006/54: That the Secretariat contact the National Pro Bono Resource Centre to arrange for a link from the CALD website to the NPBRC. Resolution 2006/55: That the role and ethos of law school pro bono be included in the Carrick project.

6.4. **Admission to practice — academic misconduct issues As agreed at meeting 2006#2, the Chair and Dean Croucher refined the Chair’s initial draft of principles to assist universities and admitting authorities to handle academic misconduct issues consistently in the context of the obligations of disclosure for the purpose of admission to practice (‘the Second Draft’). The Second Draft was circulated to Deans and also sent to the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC) for comment (see item 6.2 above). LACC’s comments are summarised in the minutes of the LACC meeting of 8 September 2006, which were also circulated to Deans.

Although the matter was not fully discussed, the Deans felt that there was still quite a bit of work to be done on the draft paper. Differing views were expressed in relation to whether CALD should be endeavouring to secure the agreement of LACC, with a view to making a joint statement, or whether the paper should simply represent the position of CALD.

15 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

The Chair asked for any further comment to be emailed to him, and it was agreed that the matter should then be progressed by the new CALD Standing Committee on Legal Practice (see item 2.3).

Resolution 2006/56: That the Deans send any further comment on the Second Draft of the academic misconduct paper to the Chair, and that the matter then be progressed by the CALD Standing Committee on Legal Practice.

6.5. *Other matters Law Council of Australia. The Chair met with the President, Mr Tim Bugg, and Executive of the Law Council of Australia on 15 September 2006, to discuss matters of common interest and to explore possibilities of cooperation between CALD and LCA. The idea of a joint committee on legal education was positively received. It was suggested that the new CALD Standing Committee on Legal Education could progress this initiative and that its membership might also form the nucleus of the joint committee.

Resolution 2006/57: That the Chair communicate to the President of the Law Council of Australia CALD’s enthusiasm for closer cooperation and in particular for the establishment of a joint committee on legal education.

7. INTERNATIONAL MATTERS

7.1. **International Legal Services Advisory Council (ILSAC) The ILSAC report was circulated. Mr Christopher Lee, Legal Officer at the ILSAC Secretariat, spoke to the report on Monday 30 October 2006. Mr Lee gave an historical background to ILSAC and its membership. Dean Fairall raised for clarification, as he had on a previous occasion, the role of Deans Bentley and Coper on ILSAC. The Chair pointed out that, in a nutshell, each was appointed by the Attorney-General in a personal rather than a representative capacity (in contrast, for example, to the Chair of CALD's ex officio position on LACC), though their appointments to ILSAC were obviously a consequence of their work and experience in (and commitment to) the area of the internationalisation of legal education and legal services, that work having been undertaken in their capacities as Deans and as members of CALD. In other words, while they are strictly members of ILSAC in a personal capacity, each clearly brings to bear on ILSAC a law school and CALD perspective and is an effective conduit for the expression of the viewpoint of the law school sector.

Resolution 2006/57: That, without impugning the integrity of the current academic members of ILSAC or doubting their ability to informally represent CALD as appropriate, the Chair raise with the Chair of ILSAC the possibility of CALD being officially represented as such on ILSAC, to ensure continuity of representation and to formally recognise CALD's stakeholder status and important role in the internationalisation of legal education and legal services.

Matters from the ILSAC report considered were:

7.1.1 Recognition of Australian law degrees overseas See item 7.2 below.

16 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

7.1.2 Admission to practice in Australia of overseas qualified lawyers Mr Lee informed the meeting that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) had endorsed the principle that 'consistent, uniform and transparent assessment processes in respect of admission of overseas qualified lawyers should apply across all jurisdictions in Australia'. The Chair of ILSAC and the Secretary of SCAG sought support on this project from the Law Admissions Consultative Council (LACC) and the Council of Chief Justices (to which LACC reports), and also from CALD (see below).

Although both ILSAC and LACC had common goals in this matter, namely, the achievement of uniform rules and consistent processes and outcomes, irrespective of the particular jurisdiction in which an applicant sought recognition, there was some tension between their respective approaches, and perhaps some mutual suspicion: ILSAC suspecting that LACC was overcomplicating the matter, taking it too slowly, and was insufficiently attentive to the international imperatives (namely, that more streamlined recognition of foreign lawyers would facilitate corresponding recognition of Australian legal qualifications overseas), and LACC suspecting that ILSAC was oversimplifying the matter, had unrealistic expectations of how a federal system worked, and was insufficiently attentive to the need to maintain standards (implicitly pushing, for example, for the lowest common denominator). Whatever the mutual suspicions, real or imagined, ILSAC's official position is that its only concern is that the relevant standards are consistent, the actual content of the standards being a matter for LACC, whereas LACC, for its part, officially acknowledges the international dimension.

CALD was encouraged to provide comments on the development by LACC of uniform admission rules. The Chair recommended that the new CALD Standing Committee on Legal Practice could oversee this item, perhaps with input from the CALD Standing Committee on International Matters. It was also suggested that CALD could play a useful (and revenue-earning) role in the assessment of applicants' academic qualifications, at least if a centralised arrangement like the current Canadian model is adopted. The Chair (who is the only person who is simultaneously a member of CALD, ILSAC and LACC) agreed to raise the matter at the next LACC meeting.

ILSAC's initial paper on this subject is available from the ILSAC Secretariat and has been previously circulated. LACC's work on it is ongoing.

Resolution 2006/58: That, through its relevant Standing Committees, CALD monitor and comment on as appropriate the progress of current efforts to bring uniformity to the recognition of overseas legal qualifications, and that the Chair raise at the next LACC meeting the possibility that CALD could play a role in assessing, or overseeing the assessment of, overseas academic qualifications.

[Post-meeting note: Justice Priestley having resigned as Chair of LACC (known, accordingly, ever since its inception, as 'the Priestley Committee'), a new Chair has been appointed: Professor Sandford Clark, former Dean of Melbourne Law School and now a consultant to Blake Dawson Waldron. Sandy was the main author of the Uniform Admission Rules that brought consistency to the admission of Australian lawyers, and is taking the lead on the current LACC project to bring consistency to the admission of foreign lawyers.]

17 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

7.1.3 Internationalisation of the Australian law degree Dean Bentley (Bond), who chairs the ILSAC committee on legal education and training, reported on the joint CALD/ILSAC working group meeting (item 4.3 above). The working group had a lunch-time meeting on Monday 30 October 2006, just prior to the CALD meeting. The primary aim of the meeting was to develop a document that would supersede the rather contentious ILSAC report on internationalisation and, rather than dictate what law schools should do, provide encouragement and a resource to assist law schools with the internationalisation of their law degrees, and to inform government and government agencies and seek their support, including funding, to promote the export of Australian legal education, both through international students coming to Australia and Australian law degrees being recognised overseas. Those who attended the meeting were: Dean Coper, Dean Bentley, Ms Iyla Davies (QUT), Professor Bee Chen Goh (SCU), Professor Neil Andrews (VU) and Mr Christopher Lee (ILSAC). Under the banner ‘Internationalisation of Australian Legal Education’, the working group proposed (paper tabled and noted): Aims and objectives: • Produce a resource and materials identifying the benefits of, and developing, maintaining and promoting, internationalisation of Australian legal education; • Promote internationalisation as a means to make the Australian law degree more attractive (and more portable) to both overseas and Australian students; • Enhance the export of Australian legal services. Role of CALD and ILSAC in joint working group: • CALD: take the lead in progressing this initiative • ILSAC: provide assistance and support Scope of the project: • Build upon earlier work undertaken by CALD and ILSAC • Produce a resource and materials to document and promote internationalisation giving: o Broader context including international trends and developments o Curriculum context o Examples of best practice (including courses that both quarantined and integrated international perspectives) from a scholarly perspective Audience: • Australian law schools and the wider legal community • CALD and ILSAC to assist in progressing the internationalisation initiative and commitment • The Australian government and AVCC in support of the internationalisation commitment • Law schools, governments and businesses overseas to inform them of internationalisation developments in Australia and commitment to collaboration in this process. Funding: • Approach DEST for continuation of original funding

18 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

• Incorporate into Carrick Institute discipline-based funding • Research other forms of funding or sponsorship that could use the material collected in a variety of ways Practical matters: • CALD/ILSAC endorsement of project • CALD/ILSAC working group make recommendations as to detail of the project and for approval by CALD/ILSAC on approach and methodology • Supervision of any project by a CALD/ILSAC working group to ensure objectives are achieved.

At the CALD meeting, the Deans discussed the concept of internationalisation of the Australian law degree, which it was felt had never really been comprehensively or precisely defined. Various issues were raised: what is internationalisation?; why do we want it?; what is the justification for it?; will it give our students a better education?; will it give them better employment prospects?; is it at the core of CALD’s mission?; is there a danger of exploiting international students?; would the planned resource suffer the same neglect as the former DEST toolkit on gender issues?

Dean Bentley acknowledged this healthy scepticism, but reaffirmed that CALD would decide its priorities, in a context where it has multiple goals and tasks. There was considerable support for CALD's international agenda, though it was more relevant to some law schools than others and it was never intended to threaten the diversity of priorities and particular strengths amongst Australian law schools.

The Chair noted that the internationalisation project, which had been under discussion since the ILSAC report was first discussed at meeting 2005#1, could also be usefully progressed as part of the Carrick project (see item 4.4 above), though with additional support from ILSAC.

Resolution 2006/59: That the project on internationalisation of Australian legal education be progressed by the CALD Standing Committee on International Matters, in consultation with the CALD Standing Committee on Legal Education, and in consultation with ILSAC, and under the umbrella of the Carrick Institute project on learning and teaching in law.

7.1.4 Studying Law in Australia Mr Lee reiterated that ILSAC considers the publication of Studying Law in Australia (SLIA) as an important avenue to promote and encourage overseas students to study law in Australia. The Chair reported on the progress of the 14th edition of SLIA and gave a demonstration of the new CD-ROM format, in draft form, for the purpose of obtaining feedback from the Deans before the CD-ROM was finalised. SLIA is being converted from hard copy to electronic form, with the support of a one-off grant from DEST of $22,000. Mr Christopher Roper has come on board as a consultant to write the new introductory chapters.

The Chair also reported that he had asked the non-university practical legal training (PLT) providers for a contribution to the cost of SLIA for the first time (they had previously been free-riders). On the basis of the approximate cost to each law school of the typical hard-copy total production cost of around $12,000 (expected to reduce with the move to the electronic version), this amounted to $400 each. Of the five

19 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

institutions approached, the College of Law and the Leo Cussen Institute paid the requested amount.

The Chair asked the Deans to comment particularly on whether there was enough or too much detail, a matter on which the collective opinion fluctuated. At the end of the day, as a matter of broad principle the Deans thought it best to err on the side of inclusion, but to eliminate detailed information that regularly changes; the key was to direct readers to the law schools' own websites for detail and the most up-to-date information. This provoked the question of why SLIA was necessary at all, if prospective students were best served by consulting individual law school websites, to which the resounding answer was given that SLIA was all about selling Australia, a necessary precondition for the promotion of particular law schools and beyond the capacity of any of them individually. The reminder of and focus on this raison d'etre was itself useful in clarifying some of the issues of inclusion and exclusion.

Dean Colbran thought that the CD-ROM, at least in its current draft, was rather boring, and did not reach the true potential of the electronic format; he suggested that future editions could include, for example, video presentations of student testimonials. Dean Sappideen saw the need to explain combined degrees to an international audience. The Chair observed that this particular version of SLIA was a prototype, and would be successively improved upon in later editions.

The Chair raised the matter of the possible conflict of interest that he had previously emailed the Deans about. The graphic design of the CD-ROM was to have been contracted out to a third party, but when that arrangement fell through after the intended contractor withdrew, and because of consequential time constraints, it was decided to offer the task to the ANU IT unit, which had the relevant skills. This arrangement also had the added advantages of the convenience of physical proximity and the ANU being in a position to absorb any cost overrun beyond the amount allocated in the DEST grant. AGD and DEST were comfortable with the revised arrangements, and none of the Deans had any objection.

Resolution 2006/60: That CALD proceed with the current arrangements for the production of SLIA 2007, that a revised draft CD-ROM be sent to the Deans for final approval, and that the Deans respond with that approval and any final comments within one week of receipt of the draft CD-ROM.

7.1.5 Australian Legal Services Missions Mr Lee told the Deans about the successful Australian Legal Services Mission to China (Beijing and Shanghai, 2-7 July 2006) led by the Commonwealth Attorney- General. The Mission’s aim was to engage in dialogue on the regulation of the Australian and Chinese legal sectors and transnational practice. The Mission was an opportunity to explore with the Chinese the export of Australia’s legal education and training services. Following the Mission, ILSAC formed a China working group on legal services.

Deans Ford (UWA) and Crommelin (Melbourne) represented CALD at the Australia- China Legal Dialogues. Dean Ford referred to the paper on legal education in Australia that he and Dean Crommelin had prepared and that he presented, which had its origins in a paper written originally some years ago by Professor Paul Redmond (then of UNSW and in his capacity as Chair of CALD) and adapted by successive CALD

20 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Chairs for the purposes of subsequent Missions to a range of countries. The paper dealt with combined degree programs; postgraduate coursework programs; teaching and curriculum development; research, research infrastructure, and research training; clinical legal education; continuing legal education; globalisation; the growth of Australian law schools; the main elements of Australian legal education; the wide benefits of a legal education; goals and challenges; and internationalisation. Dean Crommelin observed that China's generally protectionist attitude tended to form a bit of a cloud over the Mission, and that US firms attempting aggressively to practise in China had created quite a stir, making it more difficult for others trying more moderately to open up the market.

Dean Raff (UC) tabled and spoke to his report on the First Sino-Australian Law Deans Conference, hosted by the University of Canberra and the Renmin University of China and held in Beijing from 4-7 July 2006 to coincide with the Australian Legal Services Mission. Dean Raff said that a number of Australian law schools had sent their Deans, or other colleagues, generally China specialists, to represent their Deans, and that the conference was very successful for those who participated. He noted that the opening of the conference with the Chinese Chief Justice and the Australian Attorney-General received good media coverage in China.

7.1.6 Statistics on international students studying in Australia

As foreshadowed in the ILSAC briefing document, Mr Lee presented statistical information, in the form of graphs, relating to overseas students studying law or legal studies in Australia. This information was provided by Australian Education International (AEI), a part of DEST.

The graphs provided information on commencements (absence of growth); enrolments; the proportion of overseas students studying law or legal studies as a percentage of all overseas high education students (decreasing); preference for LLB/JD, Masters by coursework and Graduate Diplomas over PhDs and Masters by Research; top 10 nationalities of origin; total higher education overseas students numbers; and student provenance by region.

Mr Lee asked the Deans to let him know what other kinds of statistical information they required or would find useful.

7.2. *Recognition overseas of Australian law degrees 7.2.1 India The Chair wrote to the Bar Council of India on 19 September 2006 (letter circulated) seeking clarification from the Bar Council of aspects of its recent recognition of selected Australian law degrees, and advice on the recognition of further Australian law degrees. Despite email follow-up, as of the date of the CALD meeting there had been no reply from the Bar Council.

Mr Lee spoke to this long-running matter. The Bar Council of India announced in June 2006 that it would recognise the law degrees of ANU, Bond, Griffith, QUT and UNSW (Melbourne having been recognised in 2001). This enables Indian graduates from these Australia law schools to sit the bar examination in India.

21 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Discussion followed on next steps. It was suggested that the Chair could call by email for expressions of interest from law schools wishing to be part of the 'next wave', following the theory that a restrained and organised approach will continue to be superior to flooding the Bar Council with applications and thus running the risk of alienating it. An organised approach would also have the advantage of official support and possible assistance with the cost of having the application assessed (for example, with the potentially substantial cost of site visits by the Bar Council). CALD adheres to its policy of supporting and wishing to progress the recognition of all Australian law schools, but the way forward remains as murky as ever.

Some Deans indicated that their law schools were impatient to proceed and wished to do so soon. Dean Fairall (Adelaide) gave notice that, if clarification from the Bar Council of India was not received soon, or if in any event a collective response through CALD did not eventuate soon, then his law school would make application on its own behalf. Mr Lee pointed to the risk that, in a fragmented approach, the applicant law schools may have to cover all of the costs of their application, including the cost of bringing the Bar Council of India assessors to Australia.

The Chair agreed to gauge interest by emailing the Deans and then re-assess the situation in the light of how many law schools wished to go forward. He thought it was desirable to keep the prospect of a collective approach alive, but conceded that there was nothing (and indeed never had been anything other than self-restraint) to stop individual law schools from going ahead and applying on their own behalf. He also offered to make available the ANU application in case any other law school would find it useful as a model (though with the caveat that, although the application had been successful, there was no feedback to indicate what was important and what was not).

Mr Lee added that ILSAC was hopeful that the Joint Australian-India Consultative Committee on Legal Services (JAICCOLS) will be established within the next few months to develop and strengthen mutually beneficial Australia-India links in law and legal services, including legal education and training.

Resolution 2006/61: That the Chair continue to follow-up with the Bar Council of India clarification of the matters raised in his letter to the Bar Council of 19 September 2006; that, with or without this clarification, the Chair email the Deans to gauge the level of interest amongst the remaining law schools in applying to the Bar Council for recognition of their law degrees; and that the situation be reviewed in the light of the Deans' responses, with a view to facilitating, if at all possible, a collective response under the CALD banner, with all of the advantages that brings.

7.2.2 Pakistan Mr Lee had nothing further to report under this item.

7.2.3 Singapore Mr Lee advised that the Singaporean Ministry of Law announced on 16 October 2006 that graduates from recognised universities can gain exemption from the requirement of being ranked in the top 30 per cent of their cohort if they are in the top 70 per cent, have three years relevant work experience, and undergo and pass an interview conducted by the Board of Legal Education (see www.minlaw.gov.sg).

22 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Australia is urging Singapore to consider recognising law degrees from a greater number of Australian law schools under the second review of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) (Singapore currently recognises 10 Australian law degrees).

The Deans reiterated CALD’s fundamental position (which is also the Australian Government’s position) that all Australian law degrees should be recognised. The present situation is seen to be discriminatory, both vis-à-vis Australia in comparison with other countries (in relation to which Singapore has imposed different conditions of recognition), and between Australian law schools. CALD’s position is that, if any restriction is to be imposed as to ranking in the graduating cohort, the ranking cut off should be the top 40 per cent, as applies to the US, not the top 30 per cent.

There was also some discussion, as there had been at the previous meeting, of the statistics requested by Singapore for the purpose of the current negotiations, and it was agreed that the relevant law schools (the ten recognised law schools) should supply those statistics, so long as they did not identify any individual.

Resolution 2006/62: That the Secretariat write to each of the ten recognised Australian law schools to request statistical information about the number of Singaporean students who have graduated from those law schools since recognition, and the number who have graduated in the top 30 per cent of their graduating cohort.

7.2.4 Malaysia Mr Lee told the meeting that, in view of delay in the introduction of a common bar examination, the Malaysia Legal Profession Qualifying Board is considering lifting its current suspension of the university recognition process. The Board is currently studying the development of a standard process for assessing and recognising law degrees, and a report will likely be tabled by the end of 2006 and a system put in place thereafter.

7.2.5 Brunei Mr Lee addressed the issue of recognition of law degrees in Brunei. He advised the meeting that this matter had now concluded: the Brunei Legal Profession Act had been amended to give similar recognition to Australian practising certificates as to those in the United Kingdom, Malaysia and Singapore, recognising citizens or permanent residents of Brunei who have qualified as a barrister, solicitor, or barrister and solicitor, in the Supreme Court of any Australian state or territory.

The Deans requested that Mr Lee confirm that there is now no restriction based on the university from which the Australian law degree is held, and to clarify what kinds of practising certificates will suffice (eg full/restricted), in particular whether the recognition of practising certificates is based on eligibility to apply or possession.

Resolution 2006/63: That, in light of the discussion, the Secretariat follow up with ILSAC the precise details of the new system in Brunei for recognition of Australian practising certificates.

23 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

7.2.6 United States Mr Lee informed the meeting on the latest developments under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and the establishment of a Working Group on Professional Services, which provides an opportunity for Australian lawyers, law firms and law graduates to gain access to the United States. The Chair spoke on his and Dean Crommelin’s visit to Washington in May (representing CALD) as part of the Law Council of Australia/Attorney-General’s Department (ILSAC)/DFAT delegation. The basic rule in the US is that eligibility to sit a state bar exam requires a law degree from an American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited law school. Also, to the extent that there are exceptions to this (eg in New York and California), there is no national system, as there is in Australia, for mutual recognition in other jurisdictions of admission gained in one jurisdiction. The Chair acknowledged, however, that there was enthusiasm amongst the ABA representatives for the Australian delegation's proposal for wider recognition of Australian qualifications.

A further delegation from the Law Council of Australia met subsequently with the US Conference of Chief Justices, which is considering a revised proposal that would encourage all US jurisdictions to permit Australian lawyers, and indeed lawyers from common law countries generally, to sit the bar exam without additional prerequisites, and to register as foreign legal consultants without having to satisfy unnecessary requirements. The Chair wrote a background paper for the delegation on the system of accreditation of Australian law schools, in order to persuade the Americans of the integrity and robustness of our system, although different in key respects from theirs (eg no uniform system in Australia, comparable to ABA five-yearly inspections, for regular re-accreditation).

The situation is the US is complex and subtle, one issue being whether to let sleeping dogs lie and take advantage of the current hospitable regimes in New York and California, which permit Australians to take the bar exam, although on the basis of the exercise of discretion in the individual case, or to seek more formal and generalised recognition of Australian qualifications, which could possibly turn out to be more restrictive. The Deans also discussed the concept of Australian lawyers undertaking a course in Australia to prepare for the New York bar exam; a company offering this service has sought recognition for this course as part of the postgraduate program of some Australian universities.

The Deans also discussed the concept of student exchanges and similar programs. These have traditionally been difficult with the US, both ways: Australian students have been perceived as undergraduates and thus ineligible to do law in the US where it is a graduate program, and US students have difficulty in having their Australian study recognised in the US, as the Australian law schools are not ABA-accredited. However, the Chair gave an example of a successful program at his law school, in which ANU and University of Alabama students took joint courses together both at ANU and Alabama; however, this did require the ABA to visit the ANU and accredit the program for US purposes.

7.3. International visitors — sharing of information No business under this item.

24 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

7.4. Association of American Law Schools (AALS) No business under this item.

7.5. *International Association of Law Schools (IALS) No discussion under this item, beyond a reminder from the Chair that the Association was up and running and open for Australian law schools to join.

7.6. Relations with New Zealand law schools No business under this item.

7.7. Other matters No business under this item.

8. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR DEANS

8.1. Exchange of information No business under this item.

9. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. The Chair thanked the retiring Deans for their contribution to CALD – Deans Sappideen (UWS), Kaye (Wollongong), and McQueen (Griffith) – and wished them well for the future. The meeting closed at 4pm on Tuesday 31 October 2006. CALD will reconvene and meet in conjunction with the 35th Australian Legal Convention organised by the Law Council of Australia at the Intercontinental Hotel, Sydney, on Thursday 22 March 2007, with the possibility of an additional half-day on Wednesday 21 March 2007 (to be determined).

25 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Cumulative List of Resolutions from 2005

Meeting 2005#1

Resolution 2005/1: That any agenda items not starred at the beginning of meetings will be taken as noted and will not be discussed.

Resolution 2005/2: That the minutes of the previous meeting be approved.

Resolution 2005/3: That Edith Cowan University be admitted to CALD as it fulfilled the criteria as stated in Clause 2.2 of the CALD Constitution so far as those criteria were capable of being fulfilled at this stage of the development of the new law school.

Resolution 2005/4: That Clause 7.1 of the CALD Constitution be amended to read: “The officers of the Council will be the Chair, the Deputy Chair, and the Treasurer, and ‘at least’ two Executive Members elected to those positions by the members of the Council.”

Resolution 2005/5: That the Executive be asked to appoint a member of CALD to liaise with the Law Research Network.

Resolution 2005/6: That the Executive would call for suggestions for a consultant to: (i) marshal existing information from law schools and to prepare a paper on the nature of legal research, with emphasis on its distinctiveness and affinities with other disciplines; (ii) make recommendations on how to measure the quality, including the impact, of legal research; and (iii) make recommendations for how any review of quality should proceed.

Resolution 2005/7: That CALD: (i) acknowledges that internationalisation is important; (ii) acknowledges the contribution of the [ILSAC] report; (iii) encourages the wider and more complete gathering of information to indicate how different institutions have tackled the issues in the report; (iv) supports the possibility of a conference to discuss and debate the issues, to facilitate the sharing of ideas and best practice, and to demonstrate and discuss innovative teaching methods; and (v) cautions that Australian law schools appropriately have diverse priorities and that one size does not necessarily fit all.

Meeting 2005#2

Resolution 2005/8: That, subject to the [agreed] changes, the minutes of the previous meeting be approved.

Resolution 2005/9: That the accounts be clarified and re-issued for the next meeting; that the relevant accounting period be confirmed as the calendar year rather than the financial year; that the cheque signatories be updated; that the additional fee of $100 agreed at the last meeting to cover the cost of the pre-meeting dinners be properly integrated into the fee structure; and that the Executive take overall responsibility for getting the accounts into order for the next meeting, rendering whatever assistance was necessary to the Treasurer.

26 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Resolution 2005/10: That Ms Massy-Greene be thanked for her outstanding contribution to the operation of CALD over the past 5 years, and be sent a letter of appreciation to this effect and wishing her well for the future.

Resolution 2005/11: That Ms Jennifer Braid be confirmed as the new Secretary to CALD; that the existing remuneration arrangements be continued until the end of the year and then reviewed; and that Ms Braid be asked to retrieve all of the current CALD records from her predecessor and to commence work on the retrieval and restoration of past records.

Resolution 2005/12: That the Chair proceed to organise the next CALD meetings in accordance with the propositions and principles set out in the minutes.

Resolution 2005/13: That the CALD Secretary take whatever steps are necessary to terminate the website hosting arrangements with Tilda Communications, and, taking into account the work already done at ECU, re-establish the CALD website at the ANU.

Resolution 2005/14: That the Chair should write to ALSA President, Ms Elizabeth Hundt, to encourage ALSA to channel any requests for financial support through CALD, so that all law schools are properly aware of the broader picture, or at least to keep CALD informed of such requests.

Resolution 2005/15: That law schools that did not currently do so should consider supporting ALTA through paying for its staff to be ALTA members.

Resolution 2005/16: That the proposal from ALTA for a flat fee contribution from law schools to support LER not be supported at the present time, but that ALTA be encouraged to propose to its members an increase in the ALTA membership fee to meet the costs of producing LER.

Resolution 2005/17: That the Chair should circulate to members for finalisation a draft response to the ILSAC report [on internationalisation] as previously agreed, but in the simple terms of the resolution from the last meeting rather than incorporating the detail of the discussion leading to the conclusions expressed in the resolution.

Resolution 2005/18: That the new CALD Executive take on as a major project the development of a model for the accreditation and external monitoring of standards of law schools in Australia, and initiate discussion of the issue within CALD at the earliest opportunity.

Resolution 2005/19: That the CALD Executive, co-opting others as appropriate, address the matter of disclosure of academic misconduct on admission to practice in conjunction with the broader issue of accreditation and the external monitoring of standards (see Resolution 2005/18 above) and report back to CALD’s November meeting.

Resolution 2005/20: That members should update their Studying Law in Australia entries ASAP and send them to the CALD Secretary for inclusion in SLIA 2006.

Resolution 2005/21: That the Chair request Mr Glenn Ferguson of the Law Council of Australia to act as CALD’s agent in relation to the applications for recognition of

27 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Australian law degrees presently before the Bar Council of India, and, as volunteered by Mr Ferguson, to call on the Bar Council in person and urge it to progress those applications.

Resolution 2005/22: That the CALD Executive progress the sharing of information about international visitors in conjunction with the upgrading of the CALD website.

Resolution 2005/23: That CALD supported the establishment of the International Association of Law Schools, and should continue to monitor developments and to facilitate the exchange of information that would enable individual law schools to make informed decisions about participation.

Meeting 2005#3

Resolution 2005/24: That the Secretary, upon receipt of the CALD archives, endeavour to ascertain the number of times that CALD has met.

Resolution 2005/25: That the Minutes of the previous meeting be approved.

Resolution 2005/26: That the meeting unanimously endorsed Dr Murray Raff as Treasurer for 2006-07.

Resolution 2005/27: That the Secretariat (i) clarify and follow up on the debtors and (ii) raise membership invoices in January 2006 for $1,600 for each law school.

Resolution 2005/28: That the following meeting schedule be agreed:

2006 Meeting 1 March 2006 (date TBA) University of Tasmania, Hobart Meeting 2 4 July 2006 Victoria University, Melbourne (in conjunction with ALTA) Meeting 3 TBA TBA 2007 Meeting 1 23 March 2007 Sydney, in conjunction with Australian Legal Convention Meeting 2 July 2007 (date TBA) Edith Cowan University, Perth, (in conjunction with ALTA) Meeting 3 TBA TBA

Resolution 2005/29: That the Chair draft and send a letter to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, The Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP, to reflect the concerns of the Deans about political interference in the ARC process.

Resolution 2005/30: That CALD congratulate the proponents of the NTRB Internship Scheme and support the scheme in principle, but make it clear that financial support was a matter for individual law schools.

28 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Resolution 2005/31: That Dean Fairall write a paper on the accreditation issue for circulation and dissemination at the first meeting 2006.

Resolution 2005/32: That CALD support the initiative [for national standards for professional development for judges] in principle, and that members forward any particular comments on the draft paper to the NJCA.

Resolution 2005/33: That members pass any relevant comments on the paper, ‘Admission to Practice in Australia of Overseas Qualified Lawyers’, to the CALD Chair or Secretary, well in advance of the SCAG meeting in February 2006.

Resolution 2005/34: That the Chair request Dean Sappideen to write to the National Pro Bono Centre and complete the necessary membership documentation.

Resolution 2005/35: That the Chair set up a small working group to provide principles or guidelines on this matter for discussion at the first meeting in 2006.

Resolution 2005/36: That a joint committee of CALD and ILSAC be formed to update and develop the ILSAC report [on internationalisation] and to put forward strategies to promote internationalisation of Australian legal education (though not as a matter of uniform national policy); and that CALD and ILSAC should work towards a national conference to raise awareness both within academia and practice of the impact of globalisation of legal services on legal education, and to consider further the way forward.

Resolution 2005/37: That CALD set up a working group on Studying Law in Australia, with the CALD secretariat to liaise with Deans, ILSAC and the Department of Education, Science and Training to progress the publication and redevelop its format, with a view to finalisation by early May 2007.

Resolution 2005/38: That the Chair explore possible interest amongst Deans in being part of the proposed Legal Services Mission to China in July 2006.

Resolution 2005/39: That CALD members provide views on the DFAT paper ‘Washington Workshop: issues and objectives’.

Resolution 2005/40: That CALD explore ways of optimising CALD’s engagement with ILSAC, and that the matter be discussed at meeting 2006/1.

29 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Cumulative List of Resolutions from 2006

Meeting 2006#1

Resolution 2006/1: That, like any organisation, CALD should occasionally revisit and address its fundamental purposes and objectives, and this could be usefully done in the context of a planning session at meeting 2006#3.

Resolution 2006/2: That the Minutes of the previous meeting be approved.

Resolution 2006/3: That the proposal that the Chair of ALTA have a standing invitation to attend CALD meetings be rejected, but that the Chair of ALTA be invited to attend on a regular basis the standing item dealing with ALTA.

Resolution 2006/4: That the Chair work with the Executive to develop and present a Business Plan at the next CALD meeting.

Resolution 2006/5: That the Chair progress the project on scanning the CALD archives onto the CALD website to make them available to Deans.

Resolution 2006/6: That the following meeting schedule be agreed:

2006 Meeting 2 4 July 2006 Victoria University, Melbourne, in conjunction with ALTA Meeting 3 Oct/Nov 2006 (date Queensland University of TBA) Technology 2007 Meeting 1 23 March 2007 Sydney, in conjunction with Australian Legal Convention Meeting 2 July 2007 (date TBA) Perth,(in conjunction with ALTA Meeting 3 Oct/Nov 2007 (date Adelaide or Flinders (TBC) TBA)

Resolution 2006/7: That the Chair form a working group to work on the continued improvement of the website.

Resolution 2006/8: That the Chair write to CHASS indicating support for the ‘Expending Horizons’ event as discussed.

Resolution 2006/9: That the relationship between CALD and LawRN continue to be under discussion, and that a replacement for Professor Moyle be found to be the CALD liaison person between CALD and Law RN.

Resolution 2006/10: That the Chair invite those identified to prepare a discussion paper on quality and impact in legal research, if possible for the next meeting. In the meantime, the CALD submissions on the RQF should be posted on the CALD website.

30 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Resolution 2006/11: That CALD and the ALTA executive should have a joint meeting in Melbourne on 4 July, and that one of the topics on the agenda should be the optimal forms of association for Australian law schools, law Deans, law teachers and law researchers.

Resolution 2006/12: That CALD notes the range of law reform initiatives already undertaken in Australian law schools; commends Dean Coper’s paper on ‘Law Reform and Legal Education' as worthy of further consideration by law schools in the course of their reviews of curriculum; and encourages the exploration by law schools of law reform partnerships of which Tasmania’s experience provides one example.

Resolution 2005/13: The Chair to set up a working group to progress the project on developing minimum standards for law schools and legal education, and approach Mr Chris Roper in relation to a possible consultancy on the subject.

Resolution 2006/14: That the Chair and Dean Croucher refine the CALD Statement of Academic Misconduct principles in the light of the discussion, and sent it in draft form to LACC for comment.

Resolution 2006/15: That the Secretary liaise with Dean McKeough and progress the SLIA project.

Resolution 2006/16: That the Chair report to ILSAC that Singapore’s request for statistical information was ‘under consideration’.

Meeting 2006#2

Resolution 2006/17: That the Minutes of the previous meeting be approved.

Resolution 2006/18: That the Chair and the Executive develop and present a Business Plan and Budget at meeting 2006#3.

Resolution 2006/19: That the next CALD meeting at QUT (Brisbane) should be held in October, the Chair and Secretariat to liaise with QUT Dean Lavarch for precise dates and venue. The meeting should run over one and a half days, to allow more time for discussion of substantive items, including the business plan, current policy issues, and international matters, and consideration should be given to this as the standard format for future meetings.

Resolution 2006/20: That it was appropriate for CALD to make public statements on matters of public concern relating to CALD’s functions, and, subject to limited resources, CALD should be alert to the opportunity to do so.

Resolution 2006/21: That it was indefensible that David Hicks should remain incarcerated without trial. Dean Fairall to draft an appropriate resolution focusing on the importance of the rule of law for endorsement by CALD and public dissemination to carry this matter forward.

Resolution 2006/22: That Dean Havemann (JCU) be put forward for consideration as a CHASS Board Member.

31 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Resolution 2006/23: That the Chair write to the President of CHASS, Professor Malcolm Gillies, to negotiate with CHASS on the setting of an appropriate subscription for CALD, preferably the lowest level (level 5). Resolution 2006/24: That CALD endorses the appointment of Dean Colbran (UNE) as the CALD member with responsibility for liaising with LawRN, and thanks him for taking on this role.

Resolution 2006/25: That the Chair, in consultation with Dean Colbran, assess the Horrigan Report on assessing quality and impact in legal research and recommend next steps.

Resolution 2006/26: That the Secretariat to contact the Minister’s office to arrange a meeting with the Minister, or, in the alternative, with the Minister’s Adviser in the first instance.

Resolution 2006/27: That the sub-group of CALD to progress the Carrick DBI project to comprise CALD Chair Dean Michael Coper (ANU), Dean Gary Davis (Flinders), Dean Stephen Colbran (UNE), Dean Jill McKeough (UTS), and possibly the yet to be appointed Dean of Law at the University of Wollongong.

Resolution 2006/28: That Dean Colbran having suggested that information about the post-graduate network should be included in Studying Law in Australia, the Chair and Secretariat to follow up on this suggestion.

Resolution 2006/29: That the Chair and Secretariat to progress the Roper consultancy on minimum standards by setting up a steering group, possibly comprising Deans Chalmers, Crommelin and Fairall, and organising a teleconference between Chris Roper and the group prior to the next meeting.

Resolution 2006/30: That the Chair to write to the Melbourne Institute seeking more information about the survey and requesting that the Institute allay the concerns of many of the CALD members.

Resolution 2006/31: That the Chair and Dean Croucher to prepare a revised draft of the Chair’s Hobart paper on dealing with academic misconduct issues in the context of admission to practice, and to send it to LACC for comment, prior to CALD finalising and adopting the document as a CALD position paper.

Resolution 2006/32: That the Chair to write to all law Deans with a timeframe for the receipt of their two-page information about their respective law schools. It was also decided that the new SLIA should include a page about the Australian Postgraduate Law Network and also Dean Coper’s article ‘Studying Law in Australia’ (2006) 7(2) International Graduate p 12.

Resolution 2006/33: That the Chair to request the ten law schools whose degrees are recognised by the Singapore for the purpose of admission to practice in Singapore to supply the requested statistical information to the CALD Secretariat for aggregation and report to the ILSAC Secretariat for transmission to the SAFTA negotiators.

32 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Meeting 2006#3

Resolution 2006/34: That the Minutes of the previous meeting be approved.

Resolution 2006/35: That Dean Coper be re-elected as Chair for a further 12 months, that the current Executive remain in place for the time being, and that the structure and membership of the Executive be further considered at meeting 2007#1 in the light of progress made in relation to the Chair’s proposals for better succession planning, and for the establishment of CALD Standing Committees, as foreshadowed in the Chair’s paper ‘Notes for the Development of a Business Plan for 2007-2008’.

Resolution 2006/36: That CALD establish six standing committees as per the Chair’s paper ‘Notes for the Development of a Business Plan for 2007-2008’, and the current interim CALD Executive give further consideration, in the light of this development, to CALD’s executive structure generally and to succession planning.

Resolution 2006/37: That, when the standing committees are established and the future CALD executive structure is settled, work commence on the detail of the Business Plan for 2007-2008, in the light of the principles set out in the Chair’s paper ‘Notes for the Development of a Business Plan for 2007-2008’.

Resolution 2007/38: That the Secretariat invoice all law schools at the beginning of 2007 for the 2007 CALD membership fee of $2,500.

Resolution 2006/39: That the Chair and Secretariat liaise with Dean Goh on the practicalities of SCU hosting CALD meeting 2007#3 and report back to meeting 2007#1.

Resolution 2006/40: That Dean Fairall draft a resolution, for endorsement by CALD, on the importance of the rule of law in the resolution of the David Hicks matter, as and when developments occur that warrant a response.

Resolution 2006/41: That the Chair seek to clarify what processes were followed by DEST and CHASS in relation to the review of RQF Panel 11, and why CALD was not involved in those processes, despite being a member of CHASS and despite having made two submissions, as the peak body of Australian law schools, on why law should have a separate panel.

Resolution 2006/42: (i) that the new CALD Standing Committee on Legal Research take responsibility for fostering LawRN and ALPN; (ii) that Dean Colbran continue to be responsible for liaising between CALD and LawRN, especially in light of the synergies between LawRN and ALPN; (iii) that, at least when the leadership of LawRN is clarified, a LawRN homepage be established on the CALD website, with links to and from the ALPN website; and (iv) that Dean Colbran compile or cause to be compiled, for publication on the CALD website, as the beginnings of a LawRN homepage, an up- to-date list of the current Research Deans in Australian law schools.

Resolution 2006/43: That the Deans provide the Chair with their lists of dot points on the perceived difficulties with the RQF for the purpose of preparing for the proposed meeting with the Minister.

33 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Resolution 2006/44: That the Chair and Secretariat write to the Minister’s Office to extend an invitation to her to attend a session of CALD meeting 2007#1 in Sydney on 22 March 2007.

Resolution 2006/45: That the Chair and Dean Colbran assess the draft paper on legal research prepared by Professor Bryan Horrigan and advise on appropriate next steps.

Resolution 2006/46: That the Secretariat write to the ALSA President to thank ALSA for its report and to encourage ALSA to maintain its outstanding commitment to the improvement of legal education.

Resolution 2006/47: That the Secretariat write to the Chair of ALTA to thank him for his report and to enquire about progress on the idea of a special ‘Deans’ Issue’ of Legal Education Review.

Resolution 2006/48: That the Deans send any further comments on the draft Carrick proposal to the Chair, who, with assistance from CALD’s Carrick project group (the Chair and Deans Colbran, Davis and McKeough), will finalise and submit the proposal to the Carrick Institute by Thursday 9 November 2006.

Resolution 2006/49: That the Chair send a copy of the Carrick proposal to Mr Roper.

Resolution 2006/50: That the matter of law school rankings, and the possibility of CALD critiquing existing rankings, be progressed by the new CALD Standing Committee on Standards and Accreditation.

Resolution 2006/51: That the Secretariat inform the NJCA that Dean Murray Raff (UC) will be CALD’s representative on the NJCA Consultative Committee for a two-year term from 2007-2008.

Resolution 2006/52: That Dean Davis gather information from the Deans about difficulties caused by the nominal requirement of the Uniform Admission Rules that Trust Accounts be taught as part of the LLB/JD program, and/or by varying insistence on that requirement from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and then draft a letter to LACC, to be signed by the CALD Chair, putting CALD’s view that Trust Accounts should not form a compulsory part of an LLB/JD program.

Resolution 2006/53: That Dean Dixon investigate the possibility of whether he could assume the position of CALD representative on the National Pro Bono Resource Centre Board.

Resolution 2006/54: That the Secretariat contact the National Pro Bono Resource Centre to arrange for a link from the CALD website to the NPBRC.

Resolution 2006/55: That the role and ethos of law school pro bono be included in the Carrick project.

Resolution 2006/56: That the Deans send any further comment on the Second Draft of the academic misconduct paper to the Chair, and that the matter then be progressed by the CALD Standing Committee on Legal Practice.

34 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Resolution 2006/57: That the Chair communicate to the President of the Law Council of Australia CALD’s enthusiasm for closer cooperation and in particular for the establishment of a joint committee on legal education.

Resolution 2006/58: That, through its relevant Standing Committees, CALD monitor and comment on as appropriate the progress of current efforts to bring uniformity to the recognition of overseas legal qualifications, and that the Chair raise at the next LACC meeting the possibility that CALD could play a role in assessing, or overseeing the assessment of, overseas academic qualifications.

Resolution 2006/59: That the project on internationalisation of Australian legal education be progressed by the CALD Standing Committee on International Matters, in consultation with the CALD Standing Committee on Legal Education, and in consultation with ILSAC, and under the umbrella of the Carrick Institute project on learning and teaching in law.

Resolution 2006/60: That CALD proceed with the current arrangements for the production of SLIA 2007, that a revised draft CD-ROM be sent to the Deans for final approval, and that the Deans respond with that approval and any final comments within one week of receipt of the draft CD-ROM.

Resolution 2006/61: That the Chair continue to follow-up with the Bar Council of India clarification of the matters raised in his letter to the Bar Council of 19 September 2006; that, with or without this clarification, the Chair email the Deans to gauge the level of interest amongst the remaining law schools in applying to the Bar Council for recognition of their law degrees; and that the situation be reviewed in the light of the Deans' responses, with a view to facilitating, if at all possible, a collective response under the CALD banner, with all of the advantages that brings.

Resolution 2006/62: That the Secretariat write to each of the ten recognised Australian law schools to request statistical information about the number of Singaporean students who have graduated from those law schools since recognition, and the number who have graduated in the top 30 per cent of their graduating cohort.

Resolution 2006/63: That, in light of the discussion, the Secretariat follow up with ILSAC the precise details of the new system in Brunei for recognition of Australian practising certificates.

35 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Action Sheet Checklist

Actions from Task Responsible Status as at Meeting 2006/1 January 2007

1.3 Starring of items Organise focused Chair/Secretary/Exec Dealt with in part at planning session meeting 2006#3 in about role and context of business objectives of CALD plan and how these can best be achieved (for meeting 2006#3)

2.3 Treasurer’s Develop business plan Chair/Treasurer/Exec Chair’s ‘sketch’ of Report for meeting 2006#2 possible plan discussed at meeting 2006#2; 'notes for the development of a business plan' discussed at meeting 2006#3

Scan CALD archives Chair/Secretary Pending for inclusion on CALD website

2.7 Website Form working group to Chair/Secretary In train improve website

3.2 CHASS Write to CHASS to Chair Done support ‘Expanding Horizons’ event in principle

3.3 LawRN Find replacement for Chair Done (Dean liaison person Colbran) between CALD and LawRN

3.4 RQF Post CALD RQF Secretary Done submissions on CALD website.

36 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Invite Professors Chair Done (received in Byrnes (UNSW) and draft just before Horrigan (Macquarie) meeting 2006#2) to prepare discussion paper on concept of quality and impact in legal research.

4.2 ALTA Organise CALD/ALTA Chair/Secretary/ALTA Done Executive to have joint Chair session at next CALD meeting

5.4 Accreditation Form working group to Chair In progress progress project on minimum standards for law schools and legal education

Explore availability of Chair Done Chris Roper for consultancy on minimum standards

6.4 Admission to Refine CALD Chair/Dean Croucher Done (but still under practice – academic Statement of Academic discussion) misconduct issues Misconduct principles and send draft to LACC for comment

7.1.4 Studying Law Revamp SLIA Chair/Secretary In progress in Australia publication

7.2.3 Singapore Report to ILSAC on Chair Done gathering of statistics ('under consideration')

Actions from Task Responsible Status as at Meeting 2006/2 January 2007

2.3 Treasurer’s Preparation of Chair & Executive In progress report business plan and budget, including Secretariat arrangements, for 2007

37 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

2.5 Next meeting Arrange meeting Chair, Secretary, Done 2006#3 at QUT Dean Lavarch Brisbane in October

2.8 Other matters Drafting of resolution Dean Fairall On hold relating to prolonged detention of David Hicks

3.2 CHASS (i) Put forward Dean Chair (i) Not done Havemann as possible CHASS Board (ii) Done member

(ii) Negotiate better subscription rate

3.3 LawRN Appoint CALD/LawRN Chair Done (Dean liaison person Colbran)

3.4 Research Quality Letter of thanks to Secretary Pending Framework Professor Horrigan

Assessment and Chair / Dean Colbran Pending development of Horrigan report

Arrange meeting with Chair / Secretary Dates fixed twice but Minister Bishop or arrangements fell Minister’s Adviser in through on both first instance occasions – efforts continuing

4.4 Teaching and Form sub-group to Chair Done (Deans Coper, learning work on proposal for Davis, Colbran, Carrick Institute McKeough)

4.5 Legal education Inclusion of Australian Chair / Secretary / Done and student matters Law Postgraduate Dean Colbran Network info in SLIA

5.4 Accreditation (i) Set up sub-group to Chair In progress issues and external work with Chris Roper monitoring of on minimum standards standards project

38 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

(ii) Arrange teleconference before next meeting Secretary Deferred

5.5 Law school Letter to Melbourne Chair Done matters – other Institute re rating business survey of Australian law schools

6.4 Admission to Refine CALD paper Chair / Dean Croucher Done practice - academic and send to LACC for misconduct issues comment

7.1.4 Studying Law All law schools to send Secretary Done in Australia the required information

7.2.3 Singapore Request to 10 law Chair / Secretary Pending schools to provide information required by Singapore

Actions from Task Responsible Status as at Meeting 2006/3 January 2007

2.2 Election of office Revisit structure and Chair, Executive Pending bearers membership of Executive at meeting 2007#1 in light of progress on succession planning

2.3 Treasurer’s Establish six standing Chair, Executive In progress report committees as agreed

Develop business plan Chair, Executive Pending

Invoices to be raised Treasurer / Secretary In progress for 2007 CALD membership fee of $2,500

2.5 Next meetings Explore practicality of Dean Goh / Secretary In progress SCU hosting CALD meeting 2007#3

39 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

2.8 Other matters Draft resolution on Dean Fairall Pending importance of rule of law in David Hicks matter, as & when developments occur

3.2 CHASS Clarification of the Chair, Secretary Pending processes followed by DEST and CHASS on the review of RQF Panel 11

3.3 LawRN / ALPN Foster LawRN and CALD Standing C’tee Pending ALPN on Legal Research

Liaise between CALD Dean Colbran In progress and LawRN

LawRN homepage to Dean Colbran / Pending be established on Secretary CALD website with links with ALPN

Compile list of current Dean Colbran / Pending Research Deans in Secretary Australian law schools

3.4 RQF Deans to provide Secretary / Deans Pending Chair with a list of dot points on perceived difficulties with RQF for detailing to Minister Bishop

Invite Minister Bishop Chair / Secretary In progress to attend meeting 2007#1

Assess draft legal Chair / Dean Colbran Pending research paper (Bryan Horrigan) and advise on next steps

4.1 ALSA 'Thank you' letter to Secretary Pending President of ALSA.

40 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

4.2 ALTA 'Thank you' letter to Secretary Pending Chair of ALTA and enquire on progress of ‘Deans’ Issue’ of Legal Education Review

4.4 Teaching and Send further Chair / Deans Colbran, Done learning comments on the draft Davis and McKeough Carrick proposal, then submit final proposal

5.4 Accreditation Send Carrick proposal Chair, Secretary Done issues and external to Chris Roper monitoring of standards

5.5 Other matters: Consider law school CALD Standing C’tee Pending Law school rankings rankings and on Standards and possibility of CALD Accreditation critiquing existing rankings

6.1 NJCA Inform NJCA of CALD Secretary Done representative (Dean Raff) on NJCA Consultative Committee

6.2 LACC Gather information on Dean Davis Pending difficulties with Uniform Admission Rules requirement that Trust Accounts be taught as part of LLB/JD program; draft letter to LACC

6.3 Pro bono Replace Dean Dean Dixon to Pending practice issues Sappideen as CALD’s investigate whether he representative on can assume role National Pro-Bono Resource Centre Board

Link CALD & NPBRC Secretary Pending websites

41 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

Ensure inclusion of Chair Pending role and ethos of law school pro bono in Carrick project

6.4 Admission to Deans to provide Deans, CALD Standing Pending practice: academic further comment on C’tee on Legal Practice misconduct issues second draft of academic misconduct paper to Chair; then progress

6.5 Other matters: Write to President of Chair / Secretary Pending Law Council of Law Council of Australia Australia expressing CALD’s willingness to establish joint committee on legal education

7.1 ILSAC Raise with ILSAC the Chair Pending possibility of CALD being officially represented on ILSAC

7.1.2 Admission to Monitor moves CALD relevant Pending practice in Australia towards uniformity in Standing C’tees of overseas qualified recognition of lawyers overseas legal qualifications

Raise at LACC Chair Pending meeting CALD’s possible role in assessing overseas academic qualifications

7.1.3 Progress CALD Standing C’tees Pending Internationalisation internationalisation on International of the Australian law project Matters / Legal degree Education

7.1.4 Studying Law Send draft SLIA 2007 Secretary Done in Australia CD-ROM to Deans for final approval

42 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

7.2.1 Recognition Follow-up clarification Chair In progress overseas of of conditions of Australian law recognition with Bar degrees: India Council of India; ascertain interest of remaining law schools in applying for recognition; review with view to collective response

7.2.3 Singapore Request statistical Secretary Pending information from 10 recognised law schools on Singaporean students who graduated since recognition and number in top 30%

7.2.5 Brunei Clarify new system in Secretary Pending Brunei for recognition of Australian practising certifications

43 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

[Attachment 1] COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN LAW DEANS Notes for the Development of a Business Plan for 2007-2008

1. CALD goals and objectives

The goals and objectives of CALD are in need of some refining and sharpening in the light of recent discussions (see, in particular, minutes of the joint CALD/ALTA business session at meeting 2006#2 at VU in Melbourne (2006#3 meeting papers pp 9-10) and the Chair's 'Why Are We Here?', Summary of Dinner Discussion, Athenaeum Club, Hobart, 16 March 2006 (previously circulated)).

Slightly paraphrased, the objects set out in the current CALD Constitution are fourfold: • Consultation with a view to the adoption of common policies • Furtherance of legal education and legal research • Promotion of cooperation between law schools and between CALD and other bodies • Representation of law schools in dealings with government, higher education bodies, the profession and the community

The 2004 CALD Business Plan (written for 2005-2006) amplified this a little by adding • Collection, exchange and publication of data about law school functions and needs • Sharing of information about governance and professional development for Deans

The celebrated Hobart dinner added one or two other dot points: • Providing a collegial forum for informal networking and sharing of information about individual law school issues • Identification of minimum standards for law schools, legal education and legal research • Following on from the above two points, benchmarking, for the benefit of all law schools • Providing 'useful mentoring for new Deans and a therapeutic experience for jaded ones' • Raising the profile of Australian law schools internationally • Enhancing the status and general understanding of the discipline of law • Receiving information on behalf of all law schools from external bodies

The Hobart dinner of course also exposed what some regarded as failures of CALD, most notably the failure to influence public policy on big issues like the funding of legal education (despite having made, from within limited resources, a number of submissions over the years), and a failure to find sufficient common interest to make CALD any more than 'peripheral' to the 'main game' of running our own law schools. Some consensus was

44 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

achieved that whether one concluded that CALD overall had been a success or a failure depended on whether one's focus was on the big issues of public policy or on more limited and achievable goals, and that, so far as CALD had not realised in practice the aspirations embodied in its abstract goals, this was directly related to its lack of serious funding.

In any event, the fact is that CALD is the peak body of Australian law schools, and it is timely to reshape the statement of its goals and objectives in that light and in the context we find ourselves in today.

2. CALD projects

One has only to scan the most recent minutes of CALD to get an idea of the current and potential projects that CALD is attempting to or might usefully undertake, covering the whole gamut of activities or areas of interest and concern to law schools. The 2004 CALD Business Plan identified a number of then current or prospective projects: • Establishing the Academy of Law • Supporting a network comprising Associate Deans or Directors of Research (LawRN) • Holding a major legal education conference in Queensland in 2005 • Defining minimum standards for law libraries • Promoting the international recognition of Australian law degrees • Making submissions on the funding of legal education • Revisiting accreditation in the context of moves towards a national legal profession • Developing uniform national guidelines for disclosure of plagiarism on admission to practice • Examining the provision of continuing legal education (CLE) in cooperation with the profession

The extent to which the effective furtherance of these projects was dependent on appropriate funding of course varies, as some are more suited to progression by expert consultancy than others, but all, no doubt, would have benefited from a better resourced secretariat. In any event, in the light of more recent discussions, to the above list may be added: • Enhancing our capacity to make public statements, appropriate to a peak body of Australian law schools, on matters of public interest, and organising the dissemination of those statements • Making submissions on the proposed Research Quality Framework (RQF), including commissioning a paper on the nature of quality and impact in legal research • Benchmarking research performance in law by compiling and sharing comparative data • Developing a national curriculum, at least as to broad parameters and the place of values, skills, critical thinking, international dimensions, and other general considerations

45 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

• Identifying minimum standards for law schools and legal education • Examining and improving the methodology for law school ratings or rankings, or developing a critique of existing models or ethical and prudent guidelines for their use • Pursuing CALD's initiatives in the international arena • Developing the CALD website, especially as a source of information for and about prospective international visitors and prospective staff exchanges (international and domestic) • Creating databases of relevant information about legal education and legal research in Australia

The key to progress on many of these projects is clearly a better resourced secretariat, possibly with part-time academic support as well as administrative support. CALD needs to crystallise and prioritise its projects for 2007-2008 and beyond (for which the above list is indicative rather than exhaustive), and to decide the extent to which they can be supported, whether through the secretariat or through discrete consultancies or a combination of both.

3. Enhancing CALD resources

The minutes of meeting 2006#2 (2006#3 meeting papers pp 4-5) disclose strong support for a minimum membership fee of around $2400, yielding annual revenue of $69,600, with possible invocation of separate tiers for law schools if the fee were to go beyond that. A flat fee of $3000 would yield annual revenue of $87k, a flat fee of $4000 would yield $116k, and a flat fee of $5000 would yield $145k.

There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here, in that one could approach this in either of two ways: first, identify (and possibly limit) the projects to go forward and then set the fee accordingly, or, alternatively, set the fee as high as we can reasonably bear and do as much of the project work as that covers. Of course, it is more complicated than that, as we expect the fee to sustain a stronger secretariat, not just to cover separately costed consultancies.

Another complication is that we seem likely to receive substantial funding from the Carrick Institute, which will cover some of the projects in the area of legal education, at least for a fixed period. That may make it difficult at this meeting (2006#3) to make a final decision about fees (though we should make an interim one).

If we were to go down the track of different fees for different classes of law school, then the obvious issue is, what criteria should be used? In particular, should there be, say, three fee levels, with law schools free to choose on a voluntary basis, or should there be agreed allocations to these levels according to, say, law school size?

If the latter course were taken, there may be difficult questions of exactly what should be measured or what might be regarded as a reasonable proxy for relative wealth. Clearly we do not want to get into complex calculations of net income, profit, or even contestable

46 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

student/staff ratios. One proxy, which is on the public record (DEST statistics), is student numbers (EFTSL). I will table comparative data for all law schools showing the total EFTSL (undergrad, postgrad, HECS, fee paying, coursework, research) for 2003-2005. If one is to use a proxy at all, then arguably this is a good one, as it covers most forms of income on the education side. How that money is spent, and thus how 'profit' or 'loss' is estimated, is a matter for individual law schools (and what overheads are deducted is also a matter for individual universities). What 'bands' might be used to group law schools is a matter for discussion, as is whether the relevant statistic is that relating strictly to 'Law' EFTSL or to 'Law' EFTSL plus 'Justice and Law Enforcement' EFTSL.

Without wishing to pre-empt discussion, my recommendation, in the light of all the above, would be that we try as hard as possible to set a uniform fee; that we try to set that fee as high as is reasonably possible to provide us with secretariat and other support that will give us a better chance of making a difference; and that, if we must go for bands, we look seriously at total EFTSL as a reasonable proxy for relative wealth or capacity to pay.

4. CALD executive structures

A better resourced secretariat would take some of the pressure off the need for significant contributions of time and effort from very busy and hard-pressed Deans. It would not take all of the pressure off, nor would that be desirable; organisations like CALD must continue to depend on the pro bono efforts of those seeking to enhance their discipline. But there is a limit to the gains that can be made on these worthy efforts of decanal volunteers alone. Hence the compelling case for some kind of fee increase as set out above and as previously discussed.

In addition to that, though, I think we also need a better executive structure to drive the CALD projects along and to make sure that they are progressed, especially between plenary meetings. We have an executive in place, and it has been entirely my fault that it has not been more called into play; with insistent local work pressures followed by suddenly looming CALD deadlines, I have tended to force myself into the position of having to write a paper or do a draft because there is too little time to call on substantial assistance from other members of the executive. This could be avoided in part by better planning on my part, but also, I think, by having a more focused committee structure. This would have the added advantage of involving more members of CALD and thus give us all an enhanced sense of ownership of the enterprise.

We will always have the need for ad hoc working groups, but I propose the following standing committees, each with a standing Chair (the CALD Chair could be on each committee, but not necessarily Chair of any committee). The CALD Executive could comprise, or at least include, the committee Chairs, but that is a matter of detail. The suggested committees (broadly following our comprehensive agenda) are:

• CALD Committee on Legal Research (with responsibility for matters arising under item 3 of our agenda, including, for example, overseeing the current RQF- driven project on the nature of quality and impact in legal research)

47 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

• CALD Committee on Legal Education (with responsibility for matters arising under item 4 of our agenda, including, for example, preparation and follow-up of the Carrick Institute submission). [The Carrick group already includes Stephen Colbran, Gary Davis, and Jill McKeough.] • CALD Committee on Standards and Accreditation (with responsibility, in particular, for overseeing the consultancy on minimum standards for law schools and legal education (item 5 of our agenda)) • CALD Committee on Legal Practice (with responsibility for matters arising under item 6 of our agenda, including the further development of guidelines on the handling of academic misconduct in the context of admission to practice) • CALD Committee on International Matters (with responsibility for matters arising under item 7 of our agenda, including overseas recognition of Australian law degrees, production of Studying Law in Australia, and internationalisation of the curriculum). [This group already includes Duncan Bentley, Gabriel Moens, and Don Chalmers.] • CALD Committee on Development of the CALD Website (of pivotal importance for the future, but currently under-resourced).

Any other suggestions gratefully received.

A final suggestion in relation to the CALD Executive addresses 'succession planning', which, in my nine years of experience on CALD, has been largely absent, though understandably so given the uncertain tenure of Deans, periods of sabbatical leave, and so on. Succession planning would be assisted, in my view, if we had in place a system not dissimilar from that used by the Law Council of Australia, that is, a rolling three-year plan in which the Executive would include (in addition to other members) a Chair, an Incoming Chair, and an Immediate Past Chair. This would improve corporate memory, avoid unseemly scrambling to find office-bearers at the last minute, and give more continuity to the work of CALD. It would be easy enough to amend clause 7 of our Constitution (given the wise absence of a requirement for a majority of Deans in a majority of States!), as we have already done during my tenure as Chair (and have done electronically to boot).

Professor Michael Coper CALD Chair 2005-2006

29 October 2006

48 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2006#3 – QUT, Brisbane – 30 & 31 October 2006

[Attachment 2]

49