^{EXECUTIVE SUMMARY}

^{THEME ONE - THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA’S SOCIETY’S AND ECONOMY}

^{This theme is addressed in detail in this submission. It focuses on the role the government should play in ensuring a commitment to access and equity in the higher education sector, placing particular emphasis on:}

^{• the Relative Funding Model;}

^{• the introduction of differential HECS;}

^{• the current funding arrangements of practical legal training; and}

^{• the introduction of up front fees for Australian students.}

^{ALSA submits that the Relative Funding Model should be adjusted for law to provide a level of funding that:}

^{• is consistent with the placement of law in the highest tier of the differential HECS scheme;}

^{• represents a fair contribution to the cost of a legal education in comparison to other disciplines; and}

^{• meets the demands for a high quality professional education.}

^{ALSA submits that the placement of law in band 3 of differential HECS has serious implications for access and equity to the legal profession.}

^{ALSA submits that legal practice courses which are required for initial admission to the legal profession should be classified as ‘undergraduate’ and be HECS liable to enable equity of access to the legal profession.}

^{ALSA is opposed to the introduction of up front fees for Australian students.}

^{ALSA submits:}

^{• that the introduction of up front fees for Australian students has serious implications for access and equity to higher education;}

^{• that in the present form, the proposed introduction of merit and socio-economic based scholarships is insufficient.;}

^{• that Australia should not move to the American user-pays system.}

^{THEME TWO - FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEMAND FOR AND PROVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION}

^{This part of the submission seeks to focus on the effect of up front fees on the demand for law courses in newly established, small and regional law faculties.}

^{ALSA submits that the introduction of up front fees will adversely affect newly established, small and regional law faculties.}

^{THEME THREE - REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR HIGHER EDUCATION}

^{This part of the submission looks at how the quality of higher education courses and teaching can be assured having regard to:}

^{• student and employer demands concerning the content and delivery of legal education;}

^{• the impact of the Relative Funding Model on the quality of legal education; and • diverse and innovative approaches to the teaching of law courses.}

^{ALSA submits that the funding of law at a relative funding rate of 1.0 makes it difficult for law schools to be adequately equipped with library and computer resources required for a quality legal education.}

^{ALSA submits that the Relative Funding Model should be adjusted for law to provide a level of funding that is consistent with the:}

^{• demands for a high quality professional education; and}

^{• the placement of law in the highest tier of the differential HECS scheme.}

^{ALSA submits that the diverse and innovative teaching of institutions should be encouraged through adequate funding for small group teaching and the integration of practical skills into the undergraduate curriculum.}

^{ALSA submits that there should be diversity and flexibility within law schools in relation to the integration and provision of practical legal training requirements in higher education institutions.}

^{THEME FOUR - FINANCING HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHING}

^{This theme is addressed in detail in this submission. It considers the appropriate balance between private and public contributions for legal education concentrating on the introduction of differential HECS. It also looks at the costs and benefits of introducing full fees in the Australian system.}

^{ALSA submits that:}

^{• there should be a fair balance between private and public contributions to higher education across all courses; and}

^{• that there is sufficient public value in legal education for the element of public subsidy to be strongly subsidised.}

^{ALSA submits that the differences shown in Table 4.1 constitute sufficient grounds for the exclusion of law from the highest HECS bracket, and its inclusion in a lower bracket with more comparable courses.}

^{ALSA submits:}

^{• that law students should not be required to pay 80.5% of their course costs; and}

^{• that it is inequitable to fund law at the lowest level under the Relative Funding Model and place it in the highest tier of differential HECS with the disciplines that have the highest course costs and are funded at the highest level under the Relative Funding Model.}

^{ALSA submits that it is inequitable to assume all law graduates will earn disproportionately large salaries, and hence charge HECS at the highest rate to all law students.}

^{ALSA submits that the investment in the intellectual capital of the workforce should be encouraged, not discouraged by the imposition of higher HECS charges.}

^{ALSA submits that demand for course should not be a basis for determining HECS charges. However, if it is endorsed as an appropriate basis, ALSA submits that law is more comparative to the demand levels of courses in lower HECS brackets.}

^{ALSA submits that it is inequitable to place law in the highest tier of differential HECS when it is the only discipline in band 3 which does not qualify a graduate to practice by taking only HECS-liable courses.}

^{ALSA submits that the most appropriate basis for setting up front fees is average faculty cost.}

^{THEME FIVE - FUNDING OF HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH}

^{This theme is not addressed in this submission. However, a brief comment is made as to what should be the outcome of higher education research as it impacts on students.}

^{ALSA submits that the higher education research and research training funding framework should be developed such that benefits flow to students and the wider community.}

^{THEME ONE - THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA’S SOCIETY’S AND ECONOMY}

^INTRODUCTION

^{1.1 The role of higher education in Australia’s society and economy is to provide highly trained professionals to service the community. Further, legal education has a specific role in that both economic development and an orderly society depend upon a well developed legal infrastructure and respect for the rule of law.}

^{1.2 In order to operate effectively in their personal and professional lives in this emerging environment, law graduates require a quality legal education. The Law Council of Australia has stated that:}

^{"to ensure the effective functioning of the legal system and the effective delivery of legal services, there must be a system of legal education which instils in the student:}

^{• a good understanding of the rule of law;}

^{• a good grounding in the knowledge of the law;}

^{• an understanding of the role and nature of the profession in the administration of justice;}

^{• a commitment to the highest ethical principles of the legal profession;}

^{• a good grounding in the skills necessary to practise the law.}

^{It goes on to say that the course of study should provide:}

^{• a well rounded education in the law;}

^{• a level of scholarship usually associated with a course leading to an undergraduate degree;}

^{• a good grounding in the analytical, communication and other skills required of a lawyer in a modern society;}

^{and which places the theory in a practical context."}

^{ROLE OF GOVERNMENT}

^{Equity and access}

^{1.3 One of the six major elements of policy announced in the Higher Education Budget Statement 1996 was a commitment to equity. However, as noted by the Higher Education Council in its report to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the 1996 Higher Education Budget Statement itself contains several developments which may have an effect on equity of access to education programs and the profile of enrolments in entry level professional education courses. These areas include the introduction of differential HECS and the capacity for universities to charge up front fees for Australian undergraduate students. The report also acknowledges the equity issues that arise from the imposition of up front fees on postgraduate courses which are required for admission into a profession, such as practical legal training.}

^{1.4 These equity issues surround the participation in the higher education sector with respect to rural students, indigenous students and students of a non-English speaking background, females and those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Access by these groups to law faculties is important regardless of economic status. Otherwise, the fairness and justice of our legal system will be compromised.}

^{1.5 Further, there are issues of equity surrounding the distribution of Commonwealth funding to universities on the basis of the relative funding model whereby law students are now required to pay 80.4% of their course costs.}

^{Relative Funding Model}

^{Disparity between contribution and funding}

^{1.6 Law is in the top band of HECS contribution and the lowest band of the Relative Funding Model.}

^{1.7 Law students are now required to pay 80.5% of the cost of their higher education. As is evident from table 1.1, this figure is extremely inequitable when compared with the contribution made by students in other courses. The Relative Funding Model is thrown into complete obscurity by the placing of law in the top HECS bracket while at the bottom of the funding band in cluster 1. There is no equitable reason why law students should be funding the education of other courses or funding their own course in such a disproportionate manner to students in other courses.}

^{Table: 1.1 The proportion of cost contributed by students in various discipline groups.}

^{1.8 Further, as outlined below , the placement of law in cluster 1 of the Relative Funding Model has led to inadequate funding of law schools.}

^{ALSA submits that the Relative Funding Model should be adjusted for law to provide a level of funding that}

^{• is consistent with the placement of law in the highest tier of the differential HECS scheme;}

^{• represents a fair contribution to the cost of a legal education in comparison to other disciplines; and}

^{• meets the demands for a high quality professional education.}

^{Differential HECS}

^{1.9 The Higher Education Council suggests that under the differential HECS system, students from poorer backgrounds are less likely to commit to debt and fewer will be able to afford to pay the charge up front than at present. It indicates that as a result, the profile of students enrolled in undergraduate entry level professional courses such as law which has been placed in the highest tier is likely to change because of the differential charges and fewer students overall may decide to pursue vocational courses.}

^{1.10 As outlined further below, the placement of law in band 3 of the differential HECS system is itself inequitable. One reason is that law is the only discipline in the third and most expensive band of HECS in which a large proportion of graduates take their professional practice in fee-paying postgraduate courses, the average cost of which is significant.}

^{ALSA submits that the placement of law in band 3 of differential HECS has serious implications for access and equity to the legal profession.}

^{Practical Legal Training}

^{1.11 The Higher Education Council has stated that the review of higher education policy and funding should examine the issue of funding of professional education, including whether or not professional education should be consolidated at the undergraduate level or exempt from fees.}

^{Barriers to entry to the profession}

^{1.12 The Higher Education Council believes that the higher education system should provide fair and equitable access to professional education courses up to the level of entry to the profession. It reports that many professional fields have significantly biased enrolment profiles in fee-paying postgraduate courses with under-representation from female students, indigenous students those from rural and isolated areas and those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.}

^{1.13 The imposition of up-front fees for practical legal training as a postgraduate course creates a barrier to entry into the legal profession for students from middle and lower socio-economic backgrounds. Clearly, the charging of fees has a detrimental effect on a representative postgraduate profile and as a consequence on the profile of the legal profession.}

^{1.14 In a review of post-graduate fee-paying courses, the Stanley report found that the participation of students from low socio-economic backgrounds is lower for fee paying postgraduate courses than for non fee paying post graduate courses. The data shows that 52% of students from low socio-economic backgrounds are enrolled in HECS liable courses and defer HECS payments and that 16% enrol in fee-paying courses. Alternatively, if we examine participation in fee-paying postgraduate courses, almost half are from the highest socio-economic group; only 8.5% are from the lowest group. This demonstrates that up-front fees for fee-paying postgraduate courses and the educational debt accumulated for undergraduate qualifications through HECS, represents an enormous disincentive to undertake postgraduate study for students from low socio-economic backgrounds.}

^{1.15 The Stanley Report identified that women are very much under-represented in fee paying postgraduate courses with the proportion of women enrolled being significantly lower than the proportion in non-fee paying courses. For example, in the first semester of 1994, over 54% of students enrolled in non-fee paying postgraduate courses were women. In comparison, women were less than 41% of students enrolled in fee-paying courses. The imposition of up front fees is therefore a major barrier to the participation of women in postgraduate courses.}

^{1.16 The Australian paid legal profession exhibits a high degree of vertical gender segregation. Both women and men work in the same profession, but males tend to occupy primary positions whereby women tend to represent lower status and less financially rewarding positions. Any further deregulation or restrictions in the number of publicly funded postgraduate places can only reinforce and exacerbate existing segregation in the work force.}

^{1.17 Any equity issues arising stem from the fact that fees have to be paid up front rather than through the deferred taxation system through HECS The participation rates of equity groups in fee paying post graduate programs are much lower than in HECS liable courses.}

^{1.18 ALSA supports the following statements made by the Higher Education Council:}

^{• that the profession should be representative of the profile of the general community, that entry level qualifications should therefore not discriminate against different groups, and access should not be related to a person’s ability to pay;}

^{• that entry level professional education should be embedded in a pricing structure which is appropriate to undergraduate education rather than postgraduate education;}

^{• that funding of professional education should be consistent within a given profession and should be substantially publicly subsidised to ensure equity of access}

^{ALSA submits that legal practice courses which are required for initial admission to the legal profession should be classified as ‘undergraduate’ and be HECS liable to enable equity of access to the legal profession..}

^Fees

^{1.19 The introduction of up front fees will lead to inequitable outcomes by creating severe financial barriers to access. A full-scale fees system in law will negatively effect substantial diversification of the socio-economic composition of the student body in law and consequently the profession. This is also contrary to merit based principles which have been paramount to the development of the Australian tertiary system.}

^{1.20 Evidence suggest students from high socio-economic backgrounds are already over represented in law faculties. At Monash University 78% of new law students graduated from private secondary education. Up front fees can only institutionalise this disparity, especially in light of recent restrictions on AUSTUDY payments.}

^{1.21 Other proposals further amplify this inequity. The University of Sydney is considering the introduction of a voucher system which allows prospective full fee paying students to reserve a place in their preferred course, providing they can pay the $500 application fee.}

^{1.22 Up front fees will disadvantage the same equity groups that are affected by fee paying practical legal training requirements including females, indigenous students, students from rural and isolated areas and those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.}

^{1.23 Both universities and government bodies have acknowledged the equity concerns of up front fees. The Executive Director of the Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee, Mr Stuart Hamilton, recognised that "were costs of university education to rise much above the present levels—especially if there were also to be a change to the up front payment—many potential students and their families simply could not afford the ...cost of a university education."}

^{1.24 Furthermore, the Higher Education Council concedes that up front fees "may bias the total enrolment profile...towards male, urban students from high socio-economic status backgrounds" and that "these changes have immediate implications for equity and participation...and in the longer term on the profile of professional practitioners". Diversity within the profession is vital to its integrity, but if access is restricted to elite groups in accordance with economic status, such diversity—and therefore, such integrity may be lost.}

^{1.25 The government and universities have sought to address equity concerns by introducing merit and socio-economic based scholarships. For example, Monash University proposes to subsidise one full-fee paying student for every twenty full fee-paying students in each course. This is inadequate because:}

^{• the students are still required to pay their subsidised fees up front (being the equivalent of the HECS contribution—$5,500 for law students);}

^{• no scholarships will be awarded if there are fewer than 20 students in each course, While there may be more than 20 full fee paying students studying law in 1998, when these are divided into their respective double-degree courses, it is unlikely any single course will have more than 20 full fee paying students.}

^{1.26 Further, the introduction of up front fees signifies a move to the American user-pays system, which raises serious equity issues and ignores the positive externalities of education that are enjoyed by the community as a whole.}

^{1.27 At the Harvard University School of Law, annual fees in 1995 were US$19,080. Even at ‘public’ universities, fees are prohibitively high. At the University of California at Berkeley, the costs was still US$12,349 in 1995.}

^{ALSA is opposed to the introduction of up front fees for Australian students.}

^{ALSA submits:}

^{• that the introduction of up front fees for Australian students has serious implications for access and equity to higher education;}

^{• that in the present form, the proposed introduction of merit and socio-economic based scholarships is insufficient.;}

^{• that Australia should not move to the American user-pays system.}

^{THEME TWO - FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEMAND FOR AND PROVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION}

^INTRODUCTION

^{2.1 This theme is not addressed in detail in this submission. Instead we raise concerns about the effect of up front fees on the demand for legal education in the small, regional areas.}

^{FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DEMAND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION PLACES OVER THE NEXT 10 TO 20 YEARS}

^Demographic

^{2.2 Newly established, small and regional law faculties will be adversely affected by the introduction of up front fees.}

^{2.3 The imposition of up front fees will jeopardise the continuing existence of some newly established, small and regional law faculties. Many students will elect to pay up front fees to attend more established law faculties instead of taking HECS positions at less established universities. This will have the following effects:}

^{• some faculties will decrease student intake or face closure. The University of New England for example cannot meet its HECS quota, let alone consider charging fees;}

^{• the decline in regional faculties will deprive regional students of the opportunity to study law, and regional communities may see a decline in legal services;}

^{• there will be a perceived widening gap between the quality of established law faculties and new law faculties.}

^{2.4 In essence, established universities will charge a premium for the privilege of graduating with their crest. This may have serious flow on effects into the legal profession.}

^{2.5 At the time of writing this submission, note that the universities who have elected to accept full fee paying local students are established universities such as the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne and Monash University. Others likely to follow are the University of NSW, Queensland University and the University of Technology, Sydney.}

^{2.6 On the other hand, the universities that have decided not to accept full fee paying local students are regional, small or newly established and include the University of Tasmania, Wollongong and New England, Flinders, La Trobe, Charles Sturt, James Cook, Southern Cross Universities and Victoria University of Technology.}

^{2.7 Higher Education commentator, Gavan Moodie, writes "the large universities in large cities have the courses that have high status, high demand and which attract the high socio-economic status students whose families are able and willing to pay full tuition fees."}

^{ALSA submits that the introduction of up front fees will adversely affect newly established, small and regional law faculties.}

^{Globalisation}

^{2.8 This issue is addressed in paragraphs 3.16-3.17.}

^{Changes to structure of legal profession}

^{2.9 This issue is addressed in paragraph 3.16-3.17 which refers to the growing globalisation of legal education and the potential to move into the Asian market if Australian law students are equipped with the necessary education.}

^{2.10 Further, as noted by the Law Council of Australia, there is continuing growth in the potential for the export of legal education services and the export of Australian legal services generally. This has significant implications for the community and the economy.}

^{Scope to improve flexibility and responsiveness of higher education providers}

^{2.11 Organisational change in universities should provide flexibility in teaching and learning and train lawyers to meet social, cultural and economic changes. It is important that universities are equipped with the resources for technological change.}

^{2.12 In order for law schools to be able to adapt to technological changes, there must be funds provided to update resources required, particularly in law libraries. This necessitates re-consideration of the funding of legal education according to the Relative Funding Model. The problems associated with the current funding of universities by DEETYA at a rate of 1.0 according to the Relative Funding Model are outlined in detail under Theme Three in relation to the quality of legal education.}

[Go to Part 2] [ Return to Index]