24 approach   to   law   reform.   This   was   acknowledged   in   New   Zealand:   The Development of its Laws and Constitution published in 1967:¹³ For the most part the [Law Revision] Committee has called for reports in order to decide matters for investigation, to review progress on matters under investigation, and   finally   to   make   recommendations   to   the   government.   In   approach,   the Committee  has  been  empirical  and  it  has  not  thought  in  terms  of  a  far-reaching comprehensive programme of law reform. … What appears to be sought is a more comprehensive and systematic approach and certainly a more energetic one. 96.    The size of the LR Committee was also a major restriction.  By the 1960s the Committee had 16-17 members making it inefficient and unwieldy.¹⁴  Although theoretically  members  held  office  at  the  Minister’s  pl easure,  in  practice  those who were not ex officio remained indefinitely.¹⁵   97.    Thus, while the LR Committee had been sufficient in the early years, it appeared that  it  had  not  kept  up  with  New  Zealand’s  legislative  needs,  which  had increased both in volume and complexity. The Hanan publication articulated a wider vision for law reform¹⁶ positing the establishment of a Law Commission for New Zealand, noting several advantages and disadvantages in this approach and making various recommendations.  In summary, Hanan’s recommendations were: (a)     The Department of Justice should  continue to be directly responsible for advising the Government on policy aspects of all law reform proposals; (b)     That  there  is  a  need  for  considerable  strengthening  and  expansion  of  the Law Drafting Office; (c)     That  the  present  LR  Committee  be  reconstituted  as  a  Law  Revision Commission, to allocate items to standing committees, special committees or other bodies and to review progress annually;                                                                                                                                              12    J R Hanan above n4, 6. 13   J L Robson (ed) 2ed (Stevens & Sons, London, 1967) 496-497. 14   B  J  Cameron, above n4, 125.  In 1965  the  Committee  comprised  the  Minister  of  Justice  and Attorney-General  as  the  Chairman,  4  representatives  of  the  New  Zealand  Law  Society,  one representative from the faculty of law of each of the four universities teaching law (usually the Dean  of  Law),  a  member  of  the  Parliamentary  Opposition,  the  Chairman  of  the  Statutes Revision Committee of the House of Representative, a former Member of Parliament who was also a lawyer, a lawyer who formerly represented university teachers of law on the Committee, the Solicitor-General, the Law Draftsman, and the Secretary for Justice, above n13, 493. 15    B J Cameron, above n4, 125.