Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T20:52:33.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Process of Law Reform: Conditions for Success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Laura Barnett
Laura Barnett*
Affiliation:
(University of Toronto); University of Sydney;
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Changing the law can be a tricky business. Seen from the perspective of non-governmental organisations, law reform can mean years of lobbying governments and politicians for change; seen from inside government, law reform may signify months or years of consultation, drafting bills, and holding one’s breath for Parliament; seen from Parliament, law reform may mean a relatively simple examination and passage of a Bill or months of political haggling; from the perspective of the public, law reform may appear variously political, idealistic, long and drawn out or hasty. Law reform is all of these things.

Most often when we think about the strict process of changing laws in Westminster systems our minds turn to parliamentary examination and passage of government sponsored and private member bills. However, beyond the focus on this one piece of the law reform process, it is worth remembering that proposed legislation often stems from much broader studies of larger legal and policy issues.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 161 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was undertaken with financial support from the Australian Research Council (ARC) via a discovery grant ‘Changing Law/s, Changing Communities’ awarded to Professor Reg Graycar of the University of Sydney and Professor Jenny Morgan of the University of Melbourne. The comments contained in this paper are those of the author alone, and do not reflect the opinions of the Library of Parliament or any other individual or organisation.

References

1 For example, Australia's Family Law Council.

2 For example, lobbying undertaken by organisations such as Amnesty International.

3 For example, the Canadian government's Interdepartmental Working Group on Trafficking in Persons which seeks to improve the government's response to trafficking by coordinating efforts in different departments, proposing policies and exchanging information with respect to law reform and other initiatives.

4 For example, courts in Canada may strike down legislation that is found to be unconstitutional, requiring the legislature to reformulate the law.

5 This paper does not discuss the history of these law reform mechanisms in any depth, as such information is already well documented elsewhere. See, eg: Kate, Warner, ‘Institutional Architecture’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 55Google Scholar; Michael, Tilbury, ‘A History of Law Reform in Australia’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 3Google Scholar; JusticeMichael, Kirby, ‘Are We There Yet?’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 433Google Scholar; Roderick, Macdonald, ‘Continuity, Discontinuity, Stasis and Innovation’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 87Google Scholar; Gavin, Murphy, ‘Revived Ontario Agency Continues a Positive Trend for Provincial Law Reform in Canada’ (2008) 2 Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law 135Google Scholar; Gavin Murphy, Law Reform Agencies (2004) Department of Justice Canada <http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/icg-gci/lr-rd/index.html>; Audrey, O’Brien and Marc, Bosc (eds), ‘Chapter 20 – Committees', House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd ed.) (Thomson Reuters, 2009)Google Scholar; John, Halligan, Robin, Miller and John, Power, Parliament in the Twenty-First Century: Institutional Reform and Emerging Roles (Melbourne University Publishing, 2007)Google Scholar; John Halligan, ‘Overall Contribution of the House of Representatives Committee System’ (Paper presented at the Seminar on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the House of Representatives Committee System, Canberra, 15 February 2008); Ronald, Sackville, ‘Law Reform Agencies and Royal Commissions: Toiling in the Same Field?’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 274Google Scholar; George, Gilligan, ‘Royal Commissions of Inquiry’ (2002) 35 The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 289Google Scholar; Oonagh Gay, , Investigatory Inquiries and the Inquiries Act (2009) House of Commons Library <http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-02599.pdf>; Helen, Grant, ‘Participation Rights of Witnesses Before a Commission of Inquiry’ (2005) 18 Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice 89Google Scholar; New Zealand Law Commission, A New Inquiries Act, Report No 102 (2008).

6 The Ontario Law Reform Commission was established in 1964, the Law Commission of England and Wales in 1965, and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in 1967.

7 Marcia, Neave, ‘Institutional Law Reform in Australia: The Past and the Future’ (2005) 23 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 343, 352Google Scholar.

8 For example, the Law Reform Commission of Canada was abolished, then re-established as the Law Commission of Canada, then abolished again in 2006.

9 For example, the Law Commission of Ontario, the Victorian Law Reform Commission and the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute.

10 For example, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, the Law Commission of England and Wales, the Law Commission of New Zealand and the Alberta Law Reform Institute.

11 Some of the less ‘traditional’ studies in recent years include:

• Protection of human genetic information (Australian Law Reform Commission 2003)

• Privacy law (Australian Law Reform Commission 2008)

• Indigenous legal traditions (Law Commission of Canada 2005–06)

• What is a Crime? (Law Commission of Canada 2003–05)

• Custom and human rights in the Pacific (New Zealand Law Commission 2005–06)

• Physical punishment of children (Tasmanian Law Reform Institute 03)

• Family violence (Victorian Law Reform Commission 2002–06)

12 Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, New Zealand, England, Ireland and Canada (until abolished).

13 Tasmania, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

14 Australia, New Zealand, England and Canada (until abolished).

15 Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth) s 20; New South Wales Law Reform Commission Act 1967 (NSW) s 10. See also Reg, Graycar and Jenny, Morgan, ‘Law Reform: What's in it for Women?’ (2005) 23 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 393, 406Google Scholar.

16 Law Commissions Act 1965 (UK) c 22, s 3; Law Commission Act 1985 (NZ) s 6; Tasmania Law Reform Institute Founding Agreement s 4.

17 For example, the commissions in England and New Zealand have a Chairperson supported by four full-time Commissioners and significant research and administrative teams. New South Wales has a Chairperson and one full-time Commissioner accompanied by a number of part-time Commissioners. The Australian Law Reform Commission has a President with three part-time Commissioners accompanied by full-time research and administrative staff.

18 In Australia, the Attorney-General must table the report in Parliament within 15 sitting days (Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth) s 23). The same was true in Canada until the Law Commission was abolished (Law Commission of Canada Act 1996 SC 1996, c 9, s 24). In New Zealand the report must be tabled ‘as soon as is practicable’ (Law Commission Act 1985 (NZ) s 16). However, in other jurisdictions, like New South Wales, there is no time limit and it may be years before a report is tabled.

19 Section 5(2) of the Law Commission of Canada Act SC 1996, c 9 states that The Minister of Justice shall respond to the Commission with respect to any report that the Minister receives from the Commission under this section.

20 In New Zealand, the government's obligation to respond within six months of the report being tabled in Parliament is not a statutory obligation, but is contained in paragraphs 7–14 of instructions to Cabinet: 15 November 2001 Cabinet Office Circular CO (01) 13 (see also Cabinet Office Circular CO (07) 4).

21 Michael, Tilbury, ‘Why Law Reform Commissions? A Deconstruction and Stakeholder Analysis from an Australian Perspective’ (2005) 23 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 313Google Scholar, 319.

22 Roderick, Macdonald, ‘Recommissioning Law Reform’ (1997) 35 Alberta Law Review 831, 833Google Scholar.

23 In these pages we will not examine committees that undertake scrutiny of estimates and proposed legislation; instead, we focus on parliamentary committees that engage in broader inquiries leading to recommendations to government for legal reform.

24 Although there are exceptions to this rule: in the Australian Senate general purpose Standing Committees are composed of half government members and half non-government members. Parliament of Australia, ‘Chapter 16 – Committees', Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice (12th ed, 2008).

25 In Canada, House of Commons Standing Committees have 12 members and a maximum of 15 on Special Committees. However, Australian House of Representatives committees can have anywhere between seven and 32 members.

26 O’Brien and Bosc, above n 5; Canada House of Commons, Compendium – Procedure Online, Committees (2006) <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_committees-e.htm>; UK House of Lords, Briefing: Committee Work (2009) <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofLBpCommitteeWork.pdf>; New Zealand Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Parliament Brief: Select Committees (2006) 2 <http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/FDB2C1CD-25E6-47A9-BED7-D97AAC853A9B/19108/5selectcommittees3.pdf>; IC Harris (ed), House of Representatives Practice (2005) 637–638; Australia House of Representatives, Committees: Infosheet No. 4 (2008) <http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is04.pdf>; Parliament of Australia, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, above n 24; Parliament of Australia, Senate Committees: Senate Brief No 4 (2010) <http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/pubs/briefs/brief04.htm>.

27 O’Brien and Bosc, above n 5; Harris, above n 26, 639–41; Parliament of Australia, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, above n 24.

28 O’Brien and Bosc, above n 5; Canada House of Commons, above n 26; UK House of Lords, above n 26; New Zealand Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, above n 26, 21–23; Parliament of Australia, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, above n 24; Parliament of Australia, Senate Committees: Senate Brief No 4, above n 26; Harris, above n 26, 643; Peter, C Grundy, ‘Parliamentary Committees – A Secretary's Role’ (2003) 18 Australasian Parliamentary Review 95, 99Google Scholar.

29 For example, Australia's parliamentary committee Hansards can be found at: <http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/index.htm>.

30 For example, see Canada's ParlVu websites for webcasts of House of Commons and Senate committees: <http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/UpcomingEvents.aspx?lang=en> and <http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx>; or Australia's live broadcasting site: <http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting>.

31 Canada House of Commons, above n 26; Harris, above n 26, 651; Parliament of Australia, Senate Committees: Senate Brief No 4, above n 26; New Zealand Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Parliament Brief: Select Committees, above n 26.

32 For example, the UK House of Lords.

33 For example, the Canadian House of Commons.

34 Some examples of important policy-oriented statutory and non-statutory inquiries over the last few decades include:

• Canada: Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (1996); Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada (2002)

• Australia: Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies (1985); National Human Rights Consultation (2009); Victoria Inquiry into Prostitution (1985)

• United Kingdom: Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords (2000)

• New Zealand: Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (2001).

35 Australia has the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth); New Zealand has the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 (NZ); Canada has the Inquiries Act, RSC 1985, c I-11; and the United Kingdom has the Inquiries Act 2005 (UK) c 12.

36 Jack, Beatson, ‘Should Judges Conduct Public Inquiries?’ (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 221, 221Google Scholar; Australian Law Reform Commission, Making Inquiries: A New Statutory Framework, Report No 111 (2010) 68, 151, 174.

37 Grant, above n 5, 89, 93.

38 Inquiries Act 2005 (UK), c 12, s 26.

39 However, although there is no such statutory obligation in Australia, the government generally does table Royal Commission reports in Parliament — see Australian Law Reform Commission, Making Inquiries, above n 36, 157.

40 Patricia, Hughes, ‘Law Commissions and Access to Justice: What Justice Should We Be Talking About?’ (2008) 46 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 773, 803Google Scholar.

41 Robert, Centa and Patrick, Macklem, ‘Securing Accountability through Commissions of Inquiry: A Role for the Law Commission of Canada’ (2001) 39 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 117Google Scholar, 128–29; Diana, Woodhouse, ‘Matrix Churchill: A Case Study in Judicial Inquiries’ (1995) 48 Parliamentary Affairs 24, 25–26Google Scholar; Australian Law Reform Commission, Making Inquiries, above n 36, 56–57.

42 Rosalind Croucher, ‘Law Reforming — the Whys, Wherefores and Where-Tos’ (Paper presented at the Legal Studies Teachers Conference, Sydney, 24 August 2007); Justice Michael Kirby, ‘Law Reform — Ten Attributes for Success’ (Speech delivered to the Law Reform Commission of Ireland, Dublin Castle, Ireland, 17 July 2007); Halligan, Miller and Power, above n 5, 237.

43 Halligan, Miller and Power, above n 5, 39.

44 Australian Senator Andrew Murray in a speech concerning a Senate inquiry into children in institutional care, quoted in Kathleen, Dermody, Ian, Holland and Elton, Humphery, ‘Parliamentary Committees and Neglected Voices in Society’ (2006) 74 The Table 45, 54Google Scholar.

45 Siobhan Leyne, ‘The Changing Role of Parliamentary Committees and the Place of the Community’ (Paper presented at the Seminar on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the House of Representatives Committee System, Canberra, 15 February 2008) 72–73; Marc, Bosc, ‘E-Democracy and the Work of Parliamentary Committees’ (2004) 72 The Table 26, 28Google Scholar. As an example, consider the case of a parliamentary committee examining immigration entry requirements for ‘entertainers’ and the various groups that might want to have their voices heard in the committee room.

46 J N, Lyon, ‘Law Reform Needs Reform’ (1974) 12 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 421, 431Google Scholar.

47 Graycar and Morgan, above n 15, 407–10.

48 For more information on this study see the Subcommittee's website: <http://www2.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/StudyActivityHome.aspx?Cmte=SSLR&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&Stac=1736071>.

49 Bruce J Robertson, ‘Law Reform: What is our Knitting? How do we Stick to it?’ (Paper presented at the ALREASA Conference, Cape Town, 15–17 March 2005).

50 Nathalie, Des Rosiers, ‘In Memoriam: La Commission du droit du Canada/The Law Commission of Canada, 1997–2006’ (2007) 22 Canadian Journal of Law and Society 145, 166Google Scholar; Roderick, A Macdonald, ‘Law Reform: Your Idea is Good in Practice, but it Won't Work in Theory’ (2006) 44 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 11, 20Google Scholar; Marcia, Neave, ‘The Ethics of Law Reform’ (2004) 13 Res Publica 18, 21–23Google Scholar; Marcia, Neave, ‘Law Reform and Social Justice’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 358, 365–367Google Scholar; Anthony Marinac, ‘The Usual Suspects? “Civil Society” and Senate Committees’ Papers on Parliament No 42 (2004) Senate of Australia, 137, <http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/pubs/pops/pop42/marinac.pdf>; Graycar and Morgan, above n 15.

51 Neave, ‘Institutional Law Reform in Australia', above n 7, 362.

52 Dermody, Holland and Humphery, above n 44, 55.

53 Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, The Interaction of WA Law with Aboriginal Law and Culture, (2006) Appendix F <http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/ACL/FR/Appendix_F.pdf>.

54 Australian Law Reform Commission, Making Inquiries, above n 36, 426–28.

55 Neave, ‘The Ethics of Law Reform', above n 50, 23; Roslyn, Atkinson, ‘Law Reform and Community Participation’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 160, 168Google Scholar.

56 Leyne, above n 45, 67–68.

57 Victoria, Inquiry into Prostitution, Final Report (1985) 33–37.

58 Leyne, above n 45, 79.

59 In addition to the Canadian Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws and the Victorian Inquiry into Prostitution, there are many examples to draw from, including the 2004–05 Australian Senate inquiry into children in institutional care, which received over 740 submissions, many of which were confidential and chronicled individual tales of abuse; and the Victorian Law Reform Commission's 2001–04 study on sexual offences which developed various innovative methods of reaching out to Aboriginal women, non-English speaking women, new immigrants and individuals with cognitive impairments. For more information about these studies, see: Dermody, Holland and Humphery, above n 44; Senate Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into Children in Institutional Care, Parliament of Australia <http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/inst_care/index.htm>; Marcia, Neave, ‘Making Law Reform Work – The Promise and Limits of Law Reform’ (2007) 13 James Cook University Law Review 7Google Scholar; and Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sexual Offences<http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Law+Reform/Home/Completed+Projects/Sexual+Offences/>.

60 Neave, ‘Law Reform and Social Justice', above n 50, 368; Ian, Davis, ‘Targeted Consultations’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 148, 159Google Scholar; John Halliday, Quinquennial Review of the Law Commission (2003), Department of Constitutional Affairs, [5.4] <http://www.dca.gov.uk/majrep/lawcom/halliday.htm>.

61 Victoria, Inquiry into Prostitution, above n 57, 34.

62 For more information on this Consultation, see the Consultation website: <http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/>.

63 National Human Rights Consultation, National Human Rights Consultation Report, <http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/nhrcc.nsf/Page/Report>.

64 Ian Marsh, ‘Can Parliamentary Committees Contribute to “Social Learning“?’ (Paper presented at the Seminar on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the House of Representatives Committee System, Canberra, 15 February 2008) 39.

65 Mark Rodrigues, ‘Parliamentary Inquiries as a Form of Policy Evaluation’ (Paper presented at the Seminar on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the House of Representatives Committee System, Canberra, 15 February 2008) 257. To further this goal, in 1999, the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure issued a report explicitly recognising the importance of reaching out to communities. The recommendations contained in It's Your House: Community Involvement in the Procedures and Practices of the House of Representatives and its Committees resulted in wider variety in the means of advertising of studies, more information on how to contribute, more frequent use of seminars and informal discussions, and some effort towards establishing innovative means of submission (For more information on this study, see the Committee's report: <http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/proc/reports/cominv/report.htm>).

66 David Weisbrot, ‘What's the Value of a Full-Time Standing Law Reform Commission? (You Mean Besides Independence, Quality Scholarship, Extensive Public Consultation, Corporate Memory, Cost Effectiveness…?)’ (Paper presented at the Australian Law Reform Agencies Conference, Darwin, 20 June 2002); David, Weisbrot, ‘The Future for Institutional Law Reform Consultations’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 18, 33Google Scholar; Atkinson, above n 55, 171–73.

67 Hughes, above n 40, 801; Bosc, above n 45, 30.

68 For example, in 2010 the Australian government significantly reduced the Australian Law Reform Commission's budget, causing it to streamline inquiries and consultation practices by, among other things, focussing more on e–consultation.

69 David, Weisbrot, ‘Comment’ (2008) 92 Reform 2Google Scholar, 2. For more information on this study, see the ALRC website: <http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc108/index.html>.

70 Hughes, above n 40, 801.

71 One example is the targeted website built by the British Columbia Legislative Assembly Select Standing Committee on Health to reach out to youth during its 2006 study on childhood obesity and physical inactivity: Select Standing Committee on Health, British Columbia Legislative Assembly, A Strategy for Combatting Childhood Obesity and Physical Inactivity in British Columbia (2006).

72 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, Parliament of Australia, Promoting Community Involvement in the Work of Committee (2001) 11.

73 Building on experiences in 2002 when a UK committee was struck to examine legislation on domestic violence set up an online forum that received 1000 ‘pieces of information from women who had suffered or were suffering domestic violence.’ (Kevin Rozzoli, ‘Evolution of the Committee System in the House of Representatives’ (Paper presented at the Seminar on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the House of Representatives Committee System, Canberra, 15 February 2008) 94). See also John Baczynski, ‘House Committee Use of Information Communication Technology’ (Paper presented at the Seminar on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the House of Representatives Committee System, Canberra, 15 February 2008) 135–42.

74 For example, the Consultation hosted a number of Facebook pages. Its online media contributions can also be found at: <http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/nhrcc.nsf/Page/ConsultationNews_Inthemedia>.

75 In some cases, advocacy groups generate form letters and encourage interested persons to submit these en masse to law reform agencies to indicate a broad level of support for an issue.

76 Bosc, above n 45, 29–32.

77 Robertson, above n 49, 18.

78 SirPeter, North, ‘Problems of Law Reform’ (2002) New Zealand Law Review 393, 405Google Scholar.

79 Rodrigues, above n 65, 257.

80 Graycar and Morgan, above n 15, 406.

81 Peter, K Doody, ‘Commissions of Inquiry, Fairness, and Reasonable Apprehension of Bias: Protecting Unnecessary and Inappropriate Damage to Reputation’ (2009) 22 Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice 19, 31Google Scholar. This may be the case more so with investigative (as opposed to policy-oriented) inquiries dealing with an immediate scandal, such as Canada's 2004–06 Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, which was followed religiously on television by a large segment of the Canadian population in Quebec.

82 For example, the Canadian Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws or the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights’ 2007 study on children's rights which stretched over two and a half years.

83 For example, in 2008 the Australian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitution Affairs completed an inquiry into the effectiveness of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act in eliminating discrimination and promoting gender equality in just six months, holding only three days of hearings.

84 Atkinson, above n 55, 166.

85 Geoffrey Palmer, Evaluation of the Law Commission: Report for the Associate Minister of Justice and Attorney-General Hon. Margaret Wilson (2000) New Zealand Law Commission, 86 <http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/speeches/2000/04/Evaluation%20of%20the%20Law%20Commission%202000.pdf>.

86 For a discussion of the term ‘social facts', see Kylie, Burns, ‘The Way the World Is: Social Facts in High Court Negligence Cases’ (2004) 12 Torts Law Journal 215Google Scholar.

87 Michael Kirby, ‘Law Reform : Past, Present, Future’ (Speech delivered at the Alberta Law Reform Institute, Edmonton, 2 June 2008), 16; Hughes, above n 40, 795. Clearly, this discussion of ‘real research’ raises (but does not delve into) the important issue of research methodology, which is unfortunately too large a subject, with too broad an existing literature, to be tackled in this paper.

88 Weisbrot, ‘What's the Value of a Full-Time Standing Law Reform Commission?', above n 66, 10.

89 Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Parliament of Canada, The Challenge of Change: A Study of Canada's Criminal Prostitution Laws (2006) 5.

90 Graycar and Morgan, above n 15, 411–19.

91 Gay, above n 5, 21; Rodrigues, above n 65, 256; George Cash, ‘Committees: Investigations, Privilege and Related Matters’ (Paper presented at the ANZACATT Professional Development Seminar, Perth, 23 January 2007).

92 Des Rosiers, above n 50, 164.

93 Former Commissioners with the Australian Law Reform Commission, Jenny Morgan and Reg Graycar, note that in the family law context, fathers’ groups testifying before parliamentary committees tend to rely on anecdote and personal history, while women's groups attempt to avoid the personal by providing more empirical research. Graycar and Morgan, above n 15, 411–19.

94 New Zealand Law Commission, above n 5, 5; Gilligan, above n 5, 302; Doody, above n 81, 21.

95 See discussion of this issue in Reg, Graycar and Jenny, Morgan, ‘Equality Unmodified?’ in Margaret, Thornton (ed), Sex Discrimination in Uncertain Times (Australian National University E Press, 2010) 175Google Scholar.

96 Rodrigues, above n 65, 256; Cash, above n 91; Halligan, Miller and Power, above n 5, 237–38.

97 O’Brien and Bosc, above n 5; Canada House of Commons, above n 26.

98 Parliament of Australia, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, above n 24; Harris, above n 26, 635; Australia House of Representatives, above n 26.

99 This issue is currently a hot topic for the Australian Law Reform Commission, which saw its complement of full-time commissioners reduced to one in 2010 amid discussion of budget cuts and focussing on project-specific expertise.

100 For example, the New Zealand Law Commission, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, the now abolished Law Commission of Canada and the Law Reform Commission of Ireland.

101 Murphy, ‘Revived Ontario Agency Continues a Positive Trend for Provincial Law Reform in Canada', above n 5, 142; Murphy, Law Reform Agencies, above n 5, 35–36; Neave, ‘Institutional Law Reform in Australia', above n 7, 361; Neave, ‘Law Reform and Social Justice', above n 50, 363–65; Audrey, Macklin, ‘Law Reform Error: Retry or Abort?’ (1993) 16 Dalhousie Law Journal 395, 410Google Scholar; Warner, above n 5, 70; Hughes, above n 40, 775–76, 792–95, 800–01.

102 Robertson, above n 49, 9.

103 New Zealand Law Commission, above n 5, 32; Sackville, above n 5, 285–87.

104 Neave, ‘Institutional Law Reform in Australia', above n 7, 364; Sackville, above n 5, 285–86.

105 Australian Law Reform Commission, Annual Report 2009–2010, Report No 113 (2010) 78.

106 Law Reform Commission of Canada, 2006 Annual Report (2006) 20.

107 Law Commission of England and Wales, Annual Report 2009–2010, Law Com No 323 (2010) 69.

108 New Zealand Law Commission, Annual Report 2009–2010 (2010) 21.

109 At the same time, it must be recognised that some studies are forced onto the backburner when Commissions are overwhelmed with multiple study mandates, some with tighter deadlines.

110 Available at: <http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r88toc>.

111 Available at: <http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r92toc>.

112 Available at: <http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/evidence-law-codification-hearsay-and-principles-reform?quicktabs_23=report>.

113 Palmer, above n 85, 13, 109.

114 Although they may also request extensions.

115 For example, the Canadian Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws was established in October 2003 and managed to revive its study through three Parliaments to finally report in December 2006. The Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights’ study on children's rights also survived two Parliaments, running from November 2004 to April 2007.

116 J, Uhr, ‘Parliamentary Measures: Evaluating Parliament's Policy Role’ in I, Marsh (ed), Governing the 1990s, An Agenda for the Decade (Longman Cheshire, 1993), 374–75Google Scholar, cited in Clare James, ‘Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Inquiries (Paper presented at the Seminar on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the House Committee System, Canberra, 15 February 2008) 177.

117 Michael, Kirby, ‘Reflections on Law Reform and the High Court’ (2009) 34 Alternative Law Journal 41, 42Google Scholar.

118 Weisbrot, ‘The Future for Institutional Law Reform Consultations', above n 66, 35–36.

119 Michael Kirby, ‘More Promises of Law Reform — An Antipodean Reflection’ (Speech delivered to the Law Reform Commission of Ireland, Dublin Castle, Ireland, 17 July 2007).

120 That is, substantial implementation of final reports. Australian Law Reform Commission, Annual Report 2009–2010, above n 105, Appendix G; Law Commission of England and Wales, Annual Report 2009–2010, above n 107, Appendix A.

121 Kirby, ‘Are We There Yet?', above n 5, 437.

122 Macdonald, ‘Continuity, Discontinuity, Stasis and Innovation', above n 5, 95; Murphy, Law Reform Agencies, above n 5, 50; Graycar and Morgan, above n 15, 404; Weisbrot, ‘What's the Value of a Full-Time Standing Law Reform Commission?', above n 66; Macklin, above n 101, 411.

123 Weisbrot, ‘The Future for Institutional Law Reform Consultations', above n 66, 36.

124 Murphy, Law Reform Agencies, above n 5, 60–61.

125 Des Rosiers, above n 50, 170.

126 Macdonald, ‘Continuity, Discontinuity, Stasis and Innovation', above n 5, 95.

127 Hughes, above n 40, 804; Roderick, Macdonald, ‘Law Reform and its Agencies’ (2000) 79 Canadian Bar Review 99, 105–06Google Scholar; Brian, Opeskin, ‘Measuring Success’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (2005) 202, 218Google Scholar; David, Weisbrot, ‘The Role of the ALRC in Influencing Legal Change’ (2007) 19(1) Legaldate 5Google Scholar; David Weisbrot, ‘The Future for Institutional Law Reform Consultations', above n 66, 36; Robertson, above n 49, 14; Leyne, above n 45, 74. A good example of this process may be the global debate over the spanking of children. Since spanking was first prohibited in Sweden in 1979, approximately 29 states around the world have abolished corporal punishment, often by repealing the defence of reasonable correction allowed to parents in national criminal legislation. The lobby group for abolition has grown strong and vocal, but Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States remain significant holdouts, with advocates often arguing that change needs to start with education, not legislative change which would simply open the floodgates to litigation. In 2003, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute recommended abolishing the Criminal Code defence available to parents, but this recommendation has not been implemented. Nevertheless, this recommendation, and many like it around the world, has contributed to the lobby movement, sparking the very education and awareness-raising that anti-abolitionists argue for and providing further support for legal changes happening elsewhere in the world. The clamour for change is audible and the number of countries amending their law each year clearly an indication of a groundswell of support. (For more information, see: Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, States with Full Abolition (2009) <http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html>; Coalition on the Physical Punishment of Children and Youth, Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth (2004) <http://www.cecw-cepb.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/JointStatementReportE.pdf> (endorsed by more than 220 professional organisations in Canada); Tasmania Law Reform Institute, Physical Punishment of Children, Final Report No 4 (2003).

128 Macklin, above n 101.

129 See discussion in Graycar and Morgan, above n 15, 403–10.

130 Weisbrot, ‘The Future for Institutional Law Reform Consultations', above n 66, 37; Opeskin, above n 127, 218.

131 Halligan, Miller and Power, above n 5, 226–27; David Monk, ‘Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder: A Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Parliamentary Committees’ (Paper presented at the Seminar on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Establishment of the House of Representatives Committee System, Canberra, 15 February 2008) 199.

132 Opeskin, above n 127, 219.

133 Michael, Sayers, ‘Co-operation Across Frontiers’ in Brian, Opeskin and David, Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 243, 252Google Scholar.

134 Law Commission of England and Wales, Damages for Personal Injury: Non-Pecuniary Loss, Report No 257 (1999); Heil v Rankin [2001] QB 272; Sayers, above n 133, 251.

135 JusticeMichael, Kirby, ‘The ALRC: A Winning Formula’ (2003) 82 Reform 58, 61Google Scholar; Opeskin, above n 127, 219; Australian Law Reform Commission, Annual Report 2009–2010, above n 105, Appendix H.

136 Kirby, ‘More Promises of Law Reform', above n 119, 29.

137 Australian Law Reform Commission, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Report No 31 (1986).

138 Kirby, ‘Law Reform', above n 42, 17; Kirby, ‘Are We There Yet?', above n 5, 440; Weisbrot, ‘The Role of the ALRC in Influencing Legal Change', above n 127; Weisbrot, ‘The Future for Institutional Law Reform Consultations', above n 66, 37; Graycar and Morgan, above n 115, 405.

139 Doody, above n 81, 21.

140 In the lead-up to the 2001 federal election, the Howard government alleged that asylum-seekers approaching Australia by ship had thrown children overboard to ensure that they were rescued and taken to Australia. For more information on this study see the Committee website: <http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/index.htm>.

141 Halligan, Miller and Power, above n 5, 126, 235–36; John, Halligan, ‘Parliamentary Committee Roles in Facilitating Public Policy at the Commonwealth Level’ (2008) 23 Australasian Parliamentary Review 135, 144–51Google Scholar; James, above n 116, 166–71.

142 Lyon, above n 46, 430–31.

143 For example, Justice Gomery, who headed the investigative Canadian Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, was found by the Federal Court to be biased against former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and some of the findings from the Inquiry's 2005 report were set aside. For further information, see: Doody, above n 81, 36–45.

144 Kirby, ‘Law Reform', above n 87, 22–24.

145 Halligan, Miller and Power, above n 5, 39, 148; Marinac, above n 50, 130; UK House of Lords, ‘Briefing: Committee Work', above n 26.

146 Although this is not a statutory obligation, but is contained in instructions to Cabinet.

147 See, eg, the few pages of Government Response to the Canadian Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws’ 139-page report: Robert Nicholson, Government Response to the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Parliament of Canada <http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2822406&File=0>.

148 Kirby, ‘Law Reform', above n 87, 29–30.

149 Neave, ‘Making Law Reform Work', above n 59, 12; Neave, ‘Institutional Law Reform in Australia', above n 7, 357–58; Murphy, Law Reform Agencies, above n 5, 4; Weisbrot, ‘The Future for Institutional Law Reform Consultations', above n 66, 22; Macdonald, ‘Continuity, Discontinuity, Stasis and Innovation', above n 5, 93; Warner, above n 5, 57

150 Neave, ‘Institutional Law Reform in Australia', above n 7, 257; Macdonald, Recommissioning Law Reform', above n 22, 870–71.

151 Gus, Van Harten, ‘Truth Before Punishment: A Defence of Public Inquiries’ (2003) 29 Queens Law Journal 242, 245, 281Google Scholar; Hughes, above n 40, 805–06.