17
First, there has to be a clear acceptance and demonstration that there is a need for law
reform. I suspect that there is never going to be a shortage of candidates within this
category. All of our statute books are replete with legislation which is outmoded in its
approach or expression. There are constant new challenges about issues which require
attention. It is not sensible, however, to use a law commission as a place to deal with
matters which are not a high priority for the government, or as a mechanism to get an
issue off the political agenda, or because its the hobby- horse of some individual
commissioner.
Secondly, there needs to be a clear indication that reform could have a significant
impact on the life of New Zealand and New Zealanders and is viewed as a priority.
Special pleading for interest groups is not a good initiator. There will be matters which
affect some but not all, where reform is needed to overcome injustice and inequity, but
the law commission should not be a repository of arcane and irrelevant studies.
We should only be involved in work which does have a priority within the overall
society. Indulging in fascinating academic issues which are peripheral, or so near the
edge as to be irrelevant, is not a good use of public funds.
Thirdly, we do best in projects which require a substantial and sustained, long-term
commitment. There may be some narrow one-off issues which can be attended to, but
basically those will best be dealt with in ministries or other governmental operational
agencies. They are better fixed by policy advisers within law reform sections. Law
commissions can sensibly consider those matters which otherwise suffer from or are
neglected because of short-term electoral cycles. In every society changes of approach
and operation which lack profile or excite high level interest, can impact beneficially on
so many.
Next I am of the view that law reform work is, by its very nature, consultative and it
must be consultative beyond the immediate interest group. Some have advocated law