CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of – Law School 8-9 March 2010

Council of Australian Law Deans

Meeting 2010#1 – Law School 8-9 March 2010

DRAFT MINUTES

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 1

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

PRELIMINARY MATTERS Deans (25) Professor Bill Ford (Chair) University of Western Professor Michael Coper Australian National University Professor Gary Davis Charles Darwin University Professor David Bamford Flinders University Professor Stephen Graw James Cook University Professor Ted Wright University of Newcastle Professor Peter Radan Macquarie University Professor Arie Freiberg Professor The Hon Michael Lavarch Queensland University of Technology Dr Jennifer Nielsen Southern Cross University Professor Gerard Evans University of Notre Dame, Australia Professor Murray Raff University of Canberra Assoc Professor Jürgen Bröhmer University of New England Professor David Dixon University of New South Wales Professor Ross Grantham University of Queensland Professor Paul Fairall University of South Australia Professor Gillian Triggs University of Sydney Professor Anne Rees Deakin University (Day 1) Professor Mark Stoney ECU Professor Luke McNamara University of Wollongong Professor Margaret Jackson (Day 2) RMIT Professor Margaret Otlowski University of Tasmania Professor Geraldine McKenzie Bond University Professor Michael Crommelin Mr David Parker Victoria University

Mr David Wishart La Trobe University A/Prof Mac Collings University of Western Sydney Associate Dean Bronwyn Olliffe University of Technology, Sydney Deputising (3)

By invitation (6) Professor Rosalind Mason Queensland University of Technology Professor Sally Kift Queensland University of Technology Ms Sunila Srivastava ILSAC Ms Roslyn Kriskans CALD Secretariat Ms Lauren White Assisting CALD Secretary

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 2

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

Apologies (10) Professor Jill McKeough (Deputy Chair)* University of Technology, Sydney Professor Jianfu Chen* La Trobe University Professor Gabriel Moens Murdoch University Professor Michael Adams* University of Western Sydney Professor Andrew Clarke* Victoria University Professor Rosemary Owens University of Adelaide A/Professor Jane Power* University of Notre Dame, Australia Professor Michael Robertson University of Southern Queensland Professor Paula Baron Griffith University Professor Carol Adams La Trobe *represented by Deputy

0.1 Welcome and attendance (Deans or deputisers) The meeting formally opened at 1.30pm, following a tour of the new Sydney University Law School conducted by the Dean of the Law School Professor Gillian Triggs. Professor Triggs warmly welcomed everyone to the University of Sydney. The Chair thanked Deans and Deputies for their attendance, in particular Professor Margaret Otlowski who has succeeded Professor Don Chalmers as Dean of the University of Tasmania Law School. The Chair proposed that the meeting formally extend its thanks to Professor Chalmers for the exceptional contribution he had made to CALD over many years. He then also welcomed the invited guests, including Ms Sunila Srivastava, Assistant Director (Secretariat, ILSAC) and Professor Sally Kift, ALTC Senior Fellow (attending for the session on Legal Education and Student Matters). After introducing the new secretary of CALD, Ms Roslyn Kriskans (replacing Mrs Barbara Williamson who is on a 12 month secondment within UWA), the Chair advised the meeting that the special guest speaker at dinner that evening would be Justice James Allsop, President of NSW Court of Appeal (and a distinguished graduate of Sydney University Law School).

Apologies (9)

The apologies as recorded above were noted. The Chair made particular mention of Professor Jill Mckeough is currently taking a well earned break on long service leave. The Chair proposed that the meeting send Professor Michael Adams its best wishes as Michael recovers from a serious illness.

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 3

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

*Starring of items 0.3 Items with one star are suggested for discussion; items with two stars are suggested as priorities; unstarred items are taken as read and noted. Members are invited to star or double star any items not already appropriately starred if more extended discussion is required.

0.4 *Confirmation of minutes of meeting 2009#3 Resolution 2010/1: That the minutes of meeting 2009#3 be approved subject to the re-drafting of the several minor amendments.

0.5 *Matters arising from the minutes There were no matters arising from the previous minutes.

0.6 *Meeting papers The papers for the meeting had been posted on the password-protected area of the CALD website as they became available. The Secretariat has continued the practice of making the meeting papers available on the password-protected section of the CALD website. The papers for meeting 2010#1 were as follows:

0.0 Revised Agenda 2010-1 0.4 Draft Minutes of meeting 2009#3 1.3 Treasurer's Report 1.6 Correspondence 2.1.1 BCI Visit 2010 Shanghai World Expo May-October 2010 Letter from Indian Bar Council 3.1 Revised Standards document as at March 2010 Draft Guidelines for Australian Law Schools Standards Committee 3.2 Higher Education Revolution 3.5 Strengthening the AQF 4.1 ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines ERA 2010 Technical Specifications ERA 2010 Discipline Matricies 5.1 COAG National Legal Profession Reform 5.2.1 LACC Agenda Minutes 5.2.2 LACC PLT Standards LACC Statutory Interpretation 6.2 Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project - Background Law Discipline Group

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 4

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

1. COUNCIL MATTERS

1.1. Membership/Constitution There were no matters for discussion.

1.2. Election of office bearers • Chair The meeting noted that Professor Jill McKeogh had indicated that although she was an apology for this meeting she was prepared to succeed Professor Ford as Chair in 2011 should this be the wish of the Council. Professor Ford was then nominated and re-elected as Chair (unopposed) for a further period of 12 months. Professor Ford indicated that he proposed to stand down from the position after the third meeting for 2010. • Deputy Chair Professor Jill McKeough • Treasurer  Murray Raff • Membership of Standing Committees • International Matters  Gillian Triggs (Chair)  Bill Ford  Jürgen Bröhmer  Murray Raff  Michael Crommelin • Standards and Accreditation  Michael Coper (Chair)  Bill Ford  Jill McKeough  Arie Freiberg  Ross Grantham  Rosemary Owens  David Bamford • Legal Research and Scholarship  Luke McNamara (Chair)  Margaret Otlowski  Geraldine McKenzie  Jill McKeough  Peter Radan

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 5

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

 David Bamford • Legal Education and Student Matters  Geraldine Mackenzie (Chair)  Anne Rees  Jill McKeough  Gary Davis • Legal Practice and Legal Profession Matters  Michael Lavarch (Chair)  David Dixon  Gary Davis  Mark Stoney  Paul Fairall

• Information Communication Technology The meeting decided that in the circumstances this committee of CALD should now be disestablished

1.3. Treasurer’s report The Treasurer Murray Raff advised the Council that $22,000 of CALD income was unspent in 2009. This included an amount of $9000 which had been notionally allocated in the budget to meet travel costs. He indicated that he would like to place a significant portion of the unexpended monies into one or more term deposits of at least 3 months and perhaps up to one year.

In this connection the Chair raised the matter of his attendance at LACC meeting as CHAIR of CALD. He pointed out that to date the cost of his attendance at these meetings has been met entirely by UWA. He expressed the view that this was not appropriate, and requested that the meeting authorise that in future at least 50% of these costs (flexible economy airfares and hotel accommodation) be reimbursed by CALD. There was general agreement that such expenses should indeed be met by CALD. Michael Lavarch suggested that any reasonable travel costs incurred in discharging the duties properly associated with the office of Chair of CALD should be reimbursed from CALD funds.

Resolution 2010/2: ‘The report of the Treasurer be accepted. Further, the Council authorises that the reasonable costs of travel to and attendance at official meetings by the Chair of CALD (or by an approved delegate of the Chair) acting in that capacity be met by CALD”

1.4. Secretariat report There were no matters for discussion under this item.

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 6

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

1 1.5. Schedule of future meetings (2010, 2011) Meeting number 2 of 2010 will be held at the University Of Auckland Law School in early July. New Zealand Law Deans will be invited to attend and participate in the proceedings although strictly speaking they will be present as observers. The Law School of the University of New England will host meeting number 3 of 2010 in Armidale in November. An expression of interest had been received from the Dean of UniSA to host meeting number 1 of 2011 in Adelaide. This matter would be further discussed and a decision made at the meeting in Auckland in July.

2010 Meeting 2 Saturday 3 July (nb 1 day University of Auckland (in meeting only) conjunction with ALTA Conf Sunday 4 – Wed 7 July) Shanghai World Expo July 15-16 Shanghai

2nd Sino-Australian Law July 19-20 Beijing Deans Meeting Meeting 3 early November (TBC) University of New England

2011 Meeting 1 March Expression of interest received from University of SA Meeting 2 July TBA - In conjunction with ALTA 1.6 **Correspondence Date Recd Sender Details Action INWARDS 4 Feb (Email) Gary Fellows, ILSAC Shanghai World Expo (CALD For discussion sessions 16-17 July) item 2.1.1 11 Feb (letter) Justice M H Tobias, NSW Nomination to Legal For noting Court of Appeal Profession Admission Board 26 Feb LACC, Professor SD Clark Statutory Interpretation For discussion items 5.2 & 6.3 OUTWARDS 10 Feb Professor W Ford Nomination of Professor Luke McNamara to the LPAB 18 Feb Professor W Ford Sino-Australian Deans For discussion Conference: Renmin 2.1.1 University as possible host

1 The principles guiding the organisation of the schedule of plenary meetings can be found in the minutes of meeting 2005#2.

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 7

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

1.6. Website (http://www.cald.asn.au/) No matters for discussion.

1.7. Other matters (including public statements) No matters for discussion.

2. LEGAL RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP

2.1 Report of CALD Standing Committee on Legal Research There was no formal report from this Standing Committee.

2.1.1 **ILSAC: Invited guest (Assistant Director, Sunila Srivastava)

• BCI visit 2010 The Assistant Director of ILSAC, Ms Sunila Srivastava, provided an oral briefing to the Deans on the proposed forthcoming visit to Australian by the delegation of the Bar Council of India. She explained that the BCI has made it has made it clear that the it is very concerned about the reported attacks on Indian students in Australia. Delays in the scheduling of the councils visit to some extent reflect these concerns. The seven applicant law schools need to be aware of the seriousness with which the BCI regards this matter. The BCI has suggested sending a delegation of 12 of its members. While in Australia delegation would for certain purposes split into two groups of six delegates. One of these groups would have discussion with the Law Council and other stakeholders in the profession on issues of ‘market access’. The other group would carry out inspections of the applicant university law schools. ILSAC advised they would fund all costs except for international airfares. Following this the BCI had written separate letters to the law schools asking for the delegation’s international airfare costs to be covered. It has been unclear to ILSAC as to which schools had responded to the Bar Council’s letter. The total cost of the international airfares is approximately $30,000 (this being for economy airfares only). The first tranche of Australian university law schools accredited by the BCI some years ago contributed approximately $5000.00 each toward the costs of the BCI’s earlier visit. Sunila advised that ILSAC regarded it as very important that the cost of the international airfares for members of the delegation be met. In the circumstances CALD or the applicant Universities may well have to contribute additional funds to ensure that this was possible.

Initially the Law Council of Australia was going to commit some funds towards the visit but now reports that it is unable to do so. CALD and ILSAC

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 8

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

should explore the possibility of securing additional government funding although the likelihood of these enquiries being successful was not great.

In this context Michael Coper pointed out that recognition of an LLB degree awarded by an Australian law school was only the first step towards admission to legal practice in India. Graduates must still sit and pass a bar examination. It appears that to date only about 10 students have sat the Indian bar examination and it is not clear how many of them have passed. ILSAC advised that in order to qualify to sit the Indian bar exam Australian graduates must be an Indian nationals of at least 21 years of age and hold a law degree from an Australian law school recognized by the BCI. Professor Gillian Triggs commented that CALD should be prepared to invest time and resources in the process of facilitating recognition and that this should be regarded as simply on aspect of a much longer term international strategy extending to various other foreign jurisdictions (e.g. United States of America).

It was agreed that CALD should assist ILSAC in the coordination of the proposed programme. ILSAC undertook to approach DEEWR and if necessary the seven applicant law schools for additional funding so as to ensure that the BCI visit went ahead. The additional monies will be directed towards the cost of the international airfares of the members of the delegation.

Resolution 2010/3: That the Chair of CALD be authorised to continue to liaise with ILSAC and if appropriate with the BCI on the issue of the additional funding required to ensure that the visit by the BCI delegation to inspect the applicant law schools for accreditation purposes takes place as soon as possible. The Chair should keep the applicant universities informed of any relevant developments and endeavour to ensure that members of CALD (and in particular the CALD Executive) are afforded an appropriate opportunity to discuss recognition issues more generally with the BCI during the visit.

• Shanghai World Expo May-October 2010 (CALD – July 16-17) (Attachment distributed) In her report Sunila explained the World EXPO is organised by a permanent Exhibitions and Expositions bureau (the BIE) which has its head-quarters in Paris, having been established pursuant to an international convention that had come into force in 1931. The present Expo in Shanghai has as its theme ‘Better City, Better Life’, representing ‘the common wish of the whole of humankind for a better living in future environments’. Approximately 183 countries have been invited to participate and it is estimated that 80-90 million people will visit Expo, with 8-9 million expected to visit the Australian Pavilion.

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 9

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

The opening legal event will take place on Thursday 15 July. It will involve a formal dinner, followed on the morning of Friday 16th July by a series of discussion and focus groups. A special legal education dinner is scheduled to be held on the late afternoon/early evening of that same day. The dinner would be attended by a number of distinguished guests, including Mr. Roger Wilkins, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department. It is not clear whether the Attorney General himself will be present. ILSAC is also inviting the Chief Justice of Australia to speak at the dinner if he is available and willing to do so. ILSAC is seeking CALD’s strong support of this event to ensure that it is successful. Indeed CALD is being invited and encouraged to co-host the dinner (costs of which would be met by the Federal Government) and to play a major role in organising the programme. After some discussion the Chair indicated that in order to guarantee the success of the event he believed that a minimum of 20 Australian Law Deans/Delegates would have to commit to attending. On a show of hands it appeared that at least 15 Deans would be likely to attend. The Chair undertook to email all Deans within a fortnight of the Sydney meeting to ask for confirmation of these expressions of interest.

• Second Sino-Australian Law Deans Conference

Renmin University Law School – the host of the first Sino-Australian Deans conference – is holding a conference in Beijing in early October this year as part of its 60th Anniversary celebrations. It seems unrealistic to expect many Australian law Deans to be in a position to attend the World Expo in Shanghai in July and then to return to Beijing in October in order to participate in a (second) Sino-Australian Law Deans Conference. The Chair suggested that he explore the possibility of arranging a roundtable meeting of Chinese and Australian Law Deans at the Australian Pavilion in Shanghai immediately following the special legal education dinner on the 16th July. The Dean of Renmin University Law School, Professor Han Dayuan, had indicated that he believed there would be considerable interest among the Chinese Law Deans in such a conference being held although his own preference was that it takes place in Beijing. The Chair pointed out that if the conference took place in the Australian Pavilion on Saturday 17 July and was supported financially by the Attorney General’s Department the Australian law deans would incur very little additional expense should they already be attending the other legal events at Expo. ILSAC is enthusiastically supportive of the conference taking place and would provide whatever assistance it could to ensure that the meeting was successful. The real problems however were not so much financial as logistical, as it was difficult to organise such a conference in China without substantial assistance from one or more of the leading Chinese law schools. Following

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 10

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

discussion, the Chair undertook to pursue the matter further with Dean Han Dayuan of Renmin University Law School.

2.1.2 Internationalisation of the Australian law degree No matters for discussion under this item

2.1.3 *Studying Law in Australia (SLIA) (http://www.cald.asn.au/slia/) It was suggested that Chris Roper be approached as soon as possible to co- ordinate revision of SLIA. Currently SLIA costs $20,000 for hard copies. These costs could be reduced if the brochure was only available online. DEEWA regards SLIA as a valuable publication and reports that it is quite widely used in China and Korea (feedback from AEI). The Executive (specifically the Chair and Michael Coper0 was authorised to continue negotiations on the revision of SLIA with a view to the updated version of the publication being completed in time (if possible) for the legal events scheduled to take place at the World Expo in Shanghai in mid July.

2.2 **Recognition overseas of Australian law degrees 2.2.1 India (see above at item 2.1.1) 2.2.2 Singapore. Standing item SINGAPORE –The JD appears still not to be formally recognised. The question was raised as to whether those law schools which continued to offer the LLB have experienced problems with recognition of their associated JD programmes. Michael Coper indicated that the ANU College of Law had taken this matter up with the admitting authority in Singapore and is waiting for a formal response. It was suggested that perhaps the most effective way of addressing this matter might be through ILSAC. In supporting this proposal some members cautioned against law schools continuing to try to tackle this problem individually for fear of fragmented approaches simply confusing the issue and inviting a negative response to the general question of recognising Australian JD programmes. 2.2.3 International visitors — sharing of information/dates to facilitate a coordinated approach to international visiting academics etc.

2.3 Association of American Law Schools (AALS) (http://www.aals.org/) Standing item.

2.4 International Association of Law Schools (IALS) (http://www.ialsnet.org/) Standing item.

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 11

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

2.5 **Relations with New Zealand law schools • CALD meeting/ALTA Conference in July 2010, University of Auckland

2.6 Other matters

3. LAW SCHOOL MATTERS: SC CHAIR MICHAEL COPER 3.1 **Report of Standing Committee on Standards and Accreditation • Draft guidelines for, and membership of, the Australian Law Schools Standards Committee

The Chair opened discussion by referring to a short paper prepared by Professor Michael Coper on the basis of a teleconference of the members of the Standing Committee on Standards and Accreditation. The CALD Standards having now been adopted (17 November 2009), the further refinement of those Standards was likely to be heavily dependent on the development of the commentaries which would emerge from the work of the Standards Committee in considering the certification (and accreditation) of individual law schools. Professor Coper emphasised that the discussion needed to separate two distinct issues. The first was the matter of the Standards themselves. These had been settled for the moment. The second issue – namely the composition and general operation of the Standards Committee – was what now had to be debated as under the existing proposals the deliberation of that Committee and the application of the Standards to applicant law schools would be independent of CALD (in the sense of not being directed and controlled by CALD). The membership of Standards Committee was therefore critically important. He and the Chair pointed out that the brief document setting out a list of possible members was intended merely to prompt and guide discussion.

Some concern was expressed by several members about the ‘imbalance’ in the list of names contained in the document that had been distributed (namely that it was dominated by retired Judges) and about the very tight timelines that were being proposed for further consideration and submission of other possible nominations. They pointed out that as the Standards Committee was likely to exercise enormous indirect influence over the future shape of legal education in Australia, the issue of the membership of that Committee was a matter that deserved extended discussion, consultation and feedback. Professor Gillian Triggs questioned why the list as presented contained so few names of experienced senior academic staff. She also drew attention to the relative paucity in the list of the names of senior legal practitioners. Professor Triggs proposed that it be regarded as a pre-condition to membership of the Standards Committee

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 12

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

that those ultimately selected have demonstrable and extensive familiarity with contemporary issues in legal education. There was general agreement on this point, and also on the principle that although members should be drawn from the judiciary, the practising profession and academia they should not be regarded as actually representing those various stakeholders. The guiding consideration should be one of ‘balance of interests’ - not representation. The Chair suggested that it would be unwise and probably impractical in an operational sense to have a committee of fewer than seven persons given the likely unavailability of some members from time to time through work commitments. This was also agreed. A consensus emerged that at least three and perhaps even as many as four members of the Committee should be either current or former legal academics with extensive experience in university teaching and research.

It was unanimously decided that all nominations should be placed on a secure section of the CALD website and that the search committee should be the CALD Executive. The meeting also decided that further suggestions as to possible nominees for membership of the Standards committee should be forwarded to the Chair of CALD for distribution to the CALD Executive. The Executive would consider these nominations and then circulate its recommendations to all members of the Council by fax or through the secure section of the CALD website. Deans would then be given a short period in which to offer confidential comment on the proposed list to the Chair, who would then report the outcome of this feedback to the Executive. The final list of nominees (and the order of preference in which they should be approached to become members of the Standards Committee) would be determined by the Executive at a teleconference called for this specific purpose.

.

Resolution 2010/4: – “Members of the Council to be given 10 days during which to offer comment and suggest additional names for possible membership of the Standards Committee. The CALD Executive to consider these comments and suggestions and then to circulate its recommended list to all members of the Council for further comment. Following receipt of these comments the Executive is to finalise the list of possible members (in order of preference) and to circulate it to members of the Council. The Chair is then authorised to commence discussions with the nominees so as to ascertain their preparedness to serve on the Standards Committee.

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 13

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

3.2 *External/internal funding. Standing item.

No business under this item

3.3 *Governance and management. Standing item.

No business under this item

3.4 *Law school rankings

No business under this item

3.5. **AQF Council: Strengthening the AQF (implications for law degrees, esp the LLM)

This matter was referred to the CALD Standing Committee on Legal Education with a request that it receive urgent attention. The general view of the meeting was that CALD should resist strongly any attempt to extend the length of coursework LLM degrees to 1.5 or 2 years given the long-established current arrangements. The Chair indicated that he would place the issue on the agenda again for the next CALD meeting scheduled to be held in Auckland in early July as it warranted much closer and more detailed consideration by the council.

3.6 *Other matters. Standing item.

No business under this item

4 LEGAL RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP: SC CHAIR DAVID DIXON

4.1 **Report of Standing Committee on Legal Research

• ERA report and update. Members of CALD are referred to the Key 2010 documents on the ARC website at the flowing link http://www.arc.gov.au/era/key_docs10.htm Note in particular the first three of these documents.

David Dixon provided an oral report on some concerns that had been raised (for example, by the international lawyers) in relation to the re-ranking of law journals by the ARC. He pointed out that CALD had agreed to take part in the ERA process only on the basis of a process which produced a ranked list which had broad acceptance across the discipline. The list used by the ARC for the ERA trial had departed some important respects from the list proposed by the ‘ad

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 14

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

hoc’ committee CALD had established for this purpose. Of even greater concern was the fact that since the ERA trial the journals list and rankings had been further modified without proper consultation with CALD or even the ‘ad-hoc’ Committee. So, for example, the Australian Yearbook of had been downgraded from an A to a C journal. He urged CALD to seek to have these modifications reversed and to adopt the position that it would discourage universities from placing any reliance on the current list for purposes of individual assessment and promotion until the present situation had been rectified. It was generally agreed that the manner in which the list and rankings had been altered was not consistent with the process CALD had been led to believe would be followed. The procedures adopted by the ARC in making those changes lacked transparency and threatened to undermine the credibility of the entire exercise. Several members suggested that the Chair should seek a face-to-face meeting with the relevant officers of the ARC if this was possible in order to attempt to persuade them to reconsider the changes that had been made.

Resolution 2010/5: That the Chair be authorised and encouraged to make representations to the ARC about the unacceptability of the procedures that had been followed in altering the journal list /rankings and to explore the possibility of a face-to face meeting to explain and discuss CALD concerns

4.2 **Australian Academy of Law (AAL) • Membership (nomination and election of Fellows)

• Sydney function to be hosted at Admiralty House by the Governor-General (June 2010)

• Symposium: Brisbane in late June

4.3 *4.3.1 Law Research Network (LawRN) *4.3.2 Australian Law Postgraduate Network (ALPN)

4.4 *Other matters

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 15

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

5. LEGAL PRACTICE AND LEGAL PROFESSION MATTERS: SC CHAIR MICHAEL LAVARCH

5.1 **Report of Standing Committee on Legal Practice & the Legal Profession 5.1.1 National Legal Profession Taskforce: Update

Professor Michael Lavarch (Chair of the National Legal Profession Consultative Committee) briefly summarised the developments that had occurred since the last CALD meeting in relation to the National Legal Profession Project. These included the drafting of the Model Legal Profession Bill and the proposed public release of the National Legal Profession Reform Taskforce consultation package. The matters upon which Professor Lavarch reported have since been conveniently outlined in the publication prepared by the Law Council of Australia entitled ‘National Profession Project’ which can be viewed at http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/programs/national_profession/national_profession_ home.cfm

5.2 **Law Admissions Consultative Committee (‘LACC’) 5.2.1 Report from the CALD Chair on last meeting held 25 February 2010

The LACC Agenda continued to be dominated by the issue of the admission to practice of overseas educated legal practitioners. The central question LACC was grappling with in this connection was the extent to which experience in legal practice should be regarded as appropriately offsetting the existing long standing academic requirements concerning the prescribed areas of legal knowledge (the so-called ‘Priestley requirements’).

5.2.2 Statutory Interpretation

The Chair drew the attention of the meeting to a very recent paper (entitled ‘Rethinking Academic Requirements for Admission’) prepared by Professor Sandy Clark, the Chair of LACC. Professor Clark had indicated that he was happy to have paper circulated to members CALD. The paper reviewed the evolution of the prescribed academic requirements (the Priestly requirements) and endeavoured to place those requirements in the broader context of legal education more generally. As Professor Clark points out, the focus of consideration by LACC is now increasingly on the question of standards and ‘learning outcomes’. The ongoing discussion of the teaching statutory interpretation in law schools is perhaps best viewed in that broader context. A recent letter from Professor Clark concerning the teaching of statutory interpretation is included in the CALD meeting papers. The Chair reported that LACC appears to have accepted that no decision should be made at present to prescribe Statutory Interpretation as an additional academic requirement. A discussion at the last LACC meeting on

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 16

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

this issue had proved to be very constructive. There continues to be concern among the members of LACC however about how most appropriately to address the issues that have been raised by a number of senor members of the Judiciary. In this connection LACC has repeatedly emphasised the point that if, as CALD asserts, statutory interpretation is currently regarded as a fundamental aspect of the law curriculum and is generally taught on an embedded basis, this suggests that law schools should have no difficulty in statutory interpretation being made a prescribed area of knowledge, provided only that it does not have to be taught as a stand-alone subject.

In the discussion that followed, Professor Margaret Otlowski proposed that the issues surrounding the treatment of statutory interpretation in the LLD/JD curricula be referred to Sally Kift and Mark Israel for consideration as part of the current ALTC Project on Threshold Learning Outcomes in Law. At the conclusion of that project CALD could then consider whether it should endorse the recommendations made by the Discipline Scholars concerning the teaching of statutory interpretation. There was general agreement that this should be the approach adopted by CALD in order to progress discussion of the matter with LACC.

Resolution 2010/6: Issues concerning the teaching of statutory interpretation should be referred to the Discipline Scholars for consideration by them as part of the project on Threshold Learning Outcomes.

5.3 *Pro bono practice issues 5.4 *Admission to practice — academic misconduct issues: update from Victorian Law Deans

5.5 *Other matters

6. LEGAL EDUCATION AND STUDENT MATTERS: SC CHAIR JILL MCKEOUGH

6.1 **Report of Standing Committee on Legal Education

6.2 **ALTC Standards Project: Law Discipline Scholar Group – Report from Sally Kift/Mark Israel As part of the broader federally funded Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project, Prof. Sally Kift (QUT) and Prof. Mark Israel (UWA) have been appointed Discipline Scholars by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. They commenced

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 17

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010 their appointments in February and will spend most of the year working with law schools and other relevant stakeholders to draft Threshold Learning Outcomes (LOs) for the LLB and JD. They are working to a very tight deadline and will be reporting to the Federal Government in November.

It is likely that the Threshold Learning Outcomes will further develop the relevant parts of the CALD Standards (2.3.2 and 2.3.3), align them with the requirements of the Australian Qualifications Framework and, where appropriate, take account of recent relevant developments in the United Kingdom and United States. The ALTC has already held one major Forum in Melbourne which was attended by, among others, representatives of CALD, LACC, and the Australian Academy of Law.

Professor. Kift briefed CALD on the work of the Discipline Scholars and explained the proposed approach that they will take to knowledge, skills and attribute-based Threshold Learning Outcomes. Law is in a relatively strong position as the Law Discipline Scholars are essentially focusing on one degree in a single discipline and already have the CALD Standards as a starting point. CALD’s engagement is crucial to ensuring that the Threshold Learning Outcomes as drafted are relevant and appropriately pitched, and that the resources identified by the ALTC for TEQSA are constructive and valued.

In discussion, the Chair pointed to the potential for TEQSA reviews of the work of Law Schools to be based on the Threshold Learning Outcomes. In response, Prof. Kift noted that it is unclear how TEQSA will actually operate but that some of the suggestions have involved peer review, sampling of student work and benchmarking. There was discussion of the difference between the LLB and the JD in terms of Threshold Learning Outcomes and their relationship to the requirements of the Australian Qualifications Framework with respect to Bachelors (Level 7) and Masters (Level 9) degrees. Arie Freiberg (Monash) and Michael Lavarch (QUT) suggested that the CALD Standards might be amended to incorporate (by reference) the Threshold Learning Outcomes. Gillian Triggs (USyd) raised the possibility that there might well be tensions between institution-level graduate attributes and the Threshold Learning Outcomes and that it will be important that these be appropriately meshed or reconciled. It was recognised that PLT would need to develop its own Threshold Learning Outcomes.

CALD members endorsed the broad approach outlined by the Discipline Scholars to drafting Threshold Learning Outcomes and agreed to support the work of the project. In particular, members agreed: (1) to encourage and support the presence of their Assistant or Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching) at a Forum to be held in May or June in either Melbourne or Sydney; (2) to encourage dissemination of and engagement with the work of the Discipline Scholars in their Law Schools, and (3) to provide other strategic support to the Discipline Scholars as necessary.

The Discipline Scholars will report back to CALD at CALD’s second and third meetings of 2010 and will circulate a full draft of Threshold Learning Outcomes before the third meeting. They can be contacted at [email protected] and [email protected]

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 18

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

6.3 Statutory Interpretation (see above: 5.2.2 LACC) 6.4 *Australian Law Students Association (ALSA) (http://www.alsa.edu.au/) The Chair introduced Ms Fiona Cunningham, Vice President of ALSA, and invited her to give a brief report. Ms Cunningham had prepared a written report. In speaking to that report she explained that ALSA has been working on a project to harmonise the Clerkship Scheme nationally. It has been consulting with a number of law firms in connection with the project. ALSA would now like the support and assistance of CALD in progressing this matter. The Chair commented that in his experience law schools had little control or even influence over the details of the clerkship schemes from state to state. He then invited comment from members of CALD. The second issue ALSA and its constituent law student societies have been focusing on lately is the contributors to stress, anxiety and depression among law students. One of the concerns that had emerged from these discussions is that certain assessment practices are seen as causing excessive stress and anxiety and perhaps triggering or exacerbating depression. These included the use of 100% exams and also the use of various forms of take home exams. It was suggested that as CALD had earlier undertaken a review of grading it could revisit that exercise with a view to encouraging law schools to reconsider these particular practices. The Chair commented that CALD did not of course dictate assessment or learning and teaching policies to member law schools although it did provide a convenient and important forum for considering pedagogical issues of that nature. He then invited responses and comments from deans on the concerns that had been raised by Ms Cunningham. In the discussion that followed Gillian Triggs suggested that ALSA might profitably to talk to Dr Ian Hickey of the ‘The Brain and Mind Institute’ about the implications of his research in this regard. A show of hands was invited as to the existence of institutional policies limiting the use of 100% assessment by way of final examinations. It was clear from the response that most law schools at least claim to prohibit or strongly discourage such practices. Another show of hands was invited in relation to the usage of take home exams. Many schools had strictly regulated this form of assessment owing to concerns about the opportunities these arrangements presented for plagiarism and impermissible collaboration. Professor Luke McNamara indicated that his law school (at Wollongong University) had launched a program called ‘Vitality for Life and Law’ which was aimed at addressing the incidence of high levels of depression and anxiety often experienced by law students and young legal practitioners. He said that he would be happy to provide further details of the programme to ALSA and to law schools and deans interested in learning more about that initiative.

6.5 **Australasian Law Teachers Association (ALTA) (http://www.alta.edu.au/) Professor Ros Mason presented a brief report on the current work and activities of ALTA. Particular mention was made of the considerable effort that was being devoted to

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 19

CALD Draft Minutes, Meeting 2010-01 University of Sydney – Law School 8-9 March 2010

enhancing the standing and general quality of the Legal Education Review given the likely future significance and impact of the ERA. Preparations for the forthcoming ALTA Conference in Auckland were well advanced and the organising committee was confident that it would be a successful event. .A number of abstracts have already been submitted and approved. Currently the deadline for the submission of abstracts remains 6 April. Early registrations close on 7 May

6.6 *Other matters. There was brief and inconclusive discussion of a proposal that CALD should consider actively supporting a meeting of law school faculty managers each year, coinciding with a scheduled meeting of CALD.

Meeting Closed Tuesday 9 March – at 12.40pm

DRAFT Mins Mtg 2010-01 20