30 Reform  Committees  had  a  substantial  impact  on  New  Zealand’s  body  of legislation. Nevertheless, there were still systematic defects in this system. The main criticisms made of the system of Law Reform Committees were that:²⁸ (a)     The Law Reform Committees did not have the time to conduct adequate research.   (b)     A great deal of work was done by Committee Members without payment.   (c)     It  was  very  difficult  for  Committee  Members  to  find  adequate  time  to attend meetings and do the associated work as all were working full time in either the private or public sector. (d)     Parliamentary   Counsel   gave   priority   to   the   Government’s   legislative programmes, as opposed to drafting Bills for the Committees. (e)     As   a   result   of   the   above   problems   reports   from   Committees   were sometimes delayed for years. (f) Some   topics   of   importance   and   even   urgency   proved   beyond   a Committee’s capacity (too large or too co mplex). Topics best dealt with by the Committees were of a discrete, technical and non-contentious nature.²⁹ (g)     Important areas of law overlapped the fields of two or more Committees, while  some  areas  of  law  were  not  covered  by  a  Committee  at  all  (eg. family law, where it was thought by the Department of Justice that ad hoc committees would be more appropriate).³⁰ (h)     The  choice  of  matters  referred  to  the  Committees  was  piecemeal  and somewhat arbitrary; (i) The quality of reports varied significantly, both between Committees and over time. (j) Once a report had been made, there was often a significant delay in giving effect to it.                                                  28    B J Cameron, above n4, 129-131. 29    Above n13, 497. 30    Above n27, 138.