14
can be both free of control but responsive to the legitimate expectations of the
community.
Around the world there has been an enormous amount of very high quality research
done by Commissions which thereafter has sat on a shelf and not been responded to.
This is in part due to the nature of the work. Often reforms will be uncomfortable or
challenging to some who are particularly influential within society and who will
endeavour to avoid change being implemented. New Zealand has no better hit rate than
anywhere else. I am not satisfied that implementation is not the only measure of
success. Often Law Commission reports are a superb repository of high-quality
research which can be available generally within the community (both legal and lay)
and will have influence even if there is not wholesale adoption of particular
recommendations. Cannibalisation of reports is certainly well known. If this occurs
there has been a positive outcome.
It goes without saying that all work must be carried out with absolute objectivity, total
integrity, high quality research, meaningful community involvement and participation
and that the report is written in plain language.
The manner in which we express our recommendations remains problematic. There are
some who believe everything must be in the mode favoured in judgments or embraced
by academics. But we have to communicate effectively with a wider audience. The
primary lawmakers, and thus the implementers of law reform, are politicians. We have
to capture and excite their interest and that of their advisers.
The law is for, and affects, the entire community. We need to express ourselves
carefully, precisely and accurately, but in a form that is generally understood. If all or
any of those hallmarks are missing, then the work is diminished and its effect reduced.
Even where well informed and well intentioned people could reasonably disagree with a
conclusion, the setting out of the problem, the coverage of the way in which it is