Weisbrot, David --- "Comment" [2001] ALRCRefJl 16; (2001) 79 Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal 1

---

Reform Issue 79 Spring 2001

This article appeared on pages 1 & 70 of the original journal.

Comment

Professor David Weisbrot

Like Blanche Dubois, the Tennessee Williams character from A Streetcar Named Desire, law reformers generally need to rely on ‘the kindness of strangers’.

One of the major benefits of a law reform commission is that it is able to generate and harness an extraordinary volunteer effort in the course of its work, to supplement its in-house research and expertise.

It is now standard operating procedure for the ALRC to establish a broad-based, expert advisory committee to assist with the development of all of its inquiries. Where there are diverse issues and fields involved in a reference, the Commission also may establish a number of specialist working groups. For example, in the major inquiry into the federal civil justice system, which culminated in the Managing Justice report, the Commission utilised working groups on tribunals; technology; costs; family proceedings; civil litigation; legal education and training; and alternative dispute resolution — complementing the over-arching advisory committee.

The advisory committee and any working groups meet several times during the course of an inquiry, to provide general advice and assistance to Commissioners and staff. These bodies have particular value in helping the inquiry maintain a clear focus and arrange its priorities, as well as in providing quality assurance in the research and consultation effort, and commenting upon the practicability of reform proposals.

By definition, we seek to involve the acknowledged leaders in their fields — people who must already be extremely busy. It has been particularly gratifying, therefore, that almost all invitations to serve on our committees are accepted, and the rare knock-backs generally come with a good reason.

The nature of each reference determines the ultimate composition of the advisory committee. References that are primarily about black-letter law or ‘technical’ procedural matters tend to be comprised largely of lawyers, judges and legal academics. For example, the recently completed review of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and related legislation had an advisory committee that featured a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia; a number of state and federal court judges; a state Solicitor-General; constitutional law professors; and senior private practitioners and government lawyers.

The multidisciplinary nature of the current joint inquiry into the protection of human genetic information (see page 5) means that it has been essential to include leaders in the areas of genetic and molecular biological research; medicine, clinical genetics and genetic counselling; community health; indigenous health; health administration and community education; insurance and actuarial practice; law; and privacy and anti-discrimination. A separate Working Group on Law Enforcement and Evidence also has been established, with experts on forensic medicine, DNA profiling, policing and trial practice.

My welcome to these new committee members noted that the ALRC could not possibly pay them what they are worth or could easily command as consultants on the private market. Instead, we could only offer our deep appreciation (and, admittedly, some good coffee, food and pastries) and the opportunity to help shape important areas of law and policy.

The law reform effort also is always well served by the many individuals and organisations that make submissions — sometimes long and heavily researched, sometimes brief and personal — or participate in consultation meetings and public hearings.

My recent experience as Chair of the Attorney-General’s National Pro Bono Task Force has heightened my appreciation of the generosity of lawyers and others in providing their time and expertise without charge for the benefit of the community. The Task Force noted that there is ‘an important role for government in encouraging and supporting — but not controlling — pro bono initiatives’, such as through the provision of resources to improve coordination of such services.

In the same way, the direct expenses involved in operating a law reform commission may be seen as a form of ‘pump priming’, providing the focus and coordination that enables much greater public participation as well as a vast volunteer effort in the law reform process.