19
that there is not yet a final determination, but this business of secrecy and subterfuge I
find counter-productive and unattractive.
In my view in life generally, best outcomes arise where every proposition is open to
challenge, scrutiny and assessment. If law reform agencies are not operating at that
level, I suggest that they lose their reason to exist.
It takes considerable skill sometimes to assess who can be affected and who can make a
contribution. Sometimes, in seeking to do so, you are likely to face hostility from those
who consider that the patch is theirs alone. Most people now accept that, in the law
generally, we have traditionally failed, rather abysmally, in our processes and
procedures as well as in our decision- making to have sufficient regard to economic
consequences. Too often, in a desire to be consistent, we fail to recognise that the same
response will have enormously different consequences for some individuals. Doing the
same thing in the same way might be termed justice, but it is frequently unfair and
inequitable. Law reform is about tackling these problems.
A constant challenge is the possibility of becoming involved in collaborative projects
where other arms or organs of government which are looking at issues and we are seen
as having a contribution to make. This is a thorny area. It has the potential for us to
become subsumed into the process of others and for our independence to be
consequently distorted. On the other hand, if we have the capacity and the skill to deal
with a matter which requires a principled assessment, then we should not be aloof or
detached.
The core test must always be whether there is a guarantee of independence in the
process, assessment and recommendation. If any of those have to be compromised, then
the Law Commission should not be involved. If there is a conclusion which is to be
argued towards as a fundamental requirement of the exercise, then the Commission has
no part to play.