29 towards radicalism, but easily capable of becoming enthusiastic for a reform whose usefulness   is   demonstrated.   Its   strength   stems   partly   from   its   widely-based membership,  and  not  least  from  the  fact  that  the  Minister  himself  personally presides  over  all  its  deliberations.  Though  its  decisions  have  no  real  operative effect,  and  bind  nobody,  what  is  said  in  the  course  of  discussion  is  said  in  the presence of the Minister, who makes no bones about being influenced by the trend of opinion in the Commission. 115.  It should be noted that Turner J, as a member of the LR Commission, was not an objective  voice  in  relation  to  its  operation.  The  LR  Commission  met  only  12 times between 1965 and 1976, reflecting its lack of activity. This inactivity arose out  of  the  structure  that  had  been established.  The  LR  Commission  was  never told what its tasks were when it was established, and it soon became evident that nothing  more  was  expected  of  the  LR  Commission  other  than  to  approve  the work  of  the  Law  Reform  Committees.  The  purpose  and  functions  of  the  LR Commission  were  never  set  out  in  precise  terms,  so  that  each  year  it  was  a struggle  for  it  to  find  any  tasks  to  perform.  In  addition,  it  appears  that  the unwieldy  size  of  the  organisation  hindered  the  LR  Commission,  as  it  had  its predecessor.²⁶   116.  Thus,  in  1975  the  LR  Commission  was  replaced  by  the  Law  Reform  Council (“the Council”) whose membership consisted of the Attorney General, Solicitor General,    Chief    Parliamentary    Counsel,    Secretary    for    Justice    and    the Chairpersons of the five standing Law Reform Committees. 117.  The purpose of the Council was to provide a forum for discussions among the Chairpersons,  to  give  the  Chairpersons  direct  and  informal  access  to  the Government, and to make suggestions over the broad field of law reform. The Council also reviewed matters being considered by the Law Reform Committees, and gave indications of the priority to be accorded to each matter.   118.  The  two-tiered  system,  of  the  Law  Reform  Council,  and  the  Law  Reform Committees  continued  working  and  producing  legislative  reforms  until  1986. During this time the committee system produced nearly 150 published reports. According to the analysis of one author over 60% of these reports passed into legislation in New Zealand, in whole or in part.²⁷ It is fair to say that the Law                                                  26   David B Collins, above n24, 444. 27    G Hammond “The Part-Time Law Reform Committees: An Overview” (1988) 13 NZULR 135, 136.