Consultation, Commissions and Context: a Comparative Study of the Law Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Consultation, Commissions and Context: a Comparative Study of the Law Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ White, Benjamin P. (2005) Consultation, commissions and context : a comparative study of the Law Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission. PhD thesis, University of Oxford. © Copyright 2005 [please consult the author] CONSULTATION, COMMISSIONS AND CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION BEN WHITE TITLE: CONSULTATION, COMMISSIONS AND CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION NAME: BEN WHITE COLLEGE: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DEGREE: DPHIL IN LAW SUBMITTED: HILARY 2004 ABSTRACT This thesis compares the consultation conducted by the Law Commission (‘LC’) and the Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’). Its first goal is to describe the process in detail, which begins with the purposes of consultation. Next, the process of consultation is described with a discussion of each of the techniques employed by the Commissions. Although there is much overlap in how the LC and the ALRC consult, they do approach the exercise differently and these differences are discussed. The description of the Commissions’ consultation concludes by examining its impact. A second goal is to compare the two Commissions’ approach to consultation and this comparison is aided by the development of two models: the English Commission’s expert model of consultation and the Australian Commission’s more inclusive model. Underpinning the comparison between the two Commissions and these different models is the intended target of the consultation exercise. It is argued that the LC’s decisions are motivated by the goal of securing expertise, more than is the case at the ALRC. By contrast, the Australian Commission is influenced more than is its English counterpart by a desire to include as many consultees as possible. An important part of this comparative study is to explain why the two Commissions consult differently. The most significant reasons are the history of two Commissions, especially the role of the founding Chairmen, and the types of projects that the Commissions undertake. A third goal, albeit only a tentative one, is to suggest ways in which the Commissions could improve their consultation. These comments are scattered throughout the thesis, but one theme that emerged was that there seems to be insufficient thought given to a number of important stages in the consultation process. - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1. Why the Law Commission, the Australian Law Reform Commission and Consultation? 1 2. Literature Review 5 2.1 Three Categories of Literature 5 2.1.1 Calls for a Commission 6 2.1.2 Introducing the Commissions 8 2.1.3 Critiquing the Commissions 11 2.2 Two Important Works 20 2.3 Reflections on the Literature 26 3. Goals and Arrangement of Thesis 31 CHAPTER 2: THE COMMISSIONS IN CONTEXT 34 1. Introduction 34 2. Establishing the Commissions 34 3. Functions 36 4. Source of Projects 38 5. Composition 40 5.1 Structure 40 5.2 Commissioners 43 5.3 Staff 45 6. Constitutional Role 46 7. Other Features 47 8. Context 49 9. Conclusion 53 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY 54 1. Terminology 54 1.1 Consultation 54 1.2 Types of Consultation 58 1.3 Models of Consultation 60 2. Preliminary Comments on Method 63 2.1 Empirical Qualitative Research 63 2.2 A Comparative Study 64 2.3 Values in Consultation 65 2.4 General Limits 68 3. Access 71 4. The Interviews 72 4.1 The Sample 72 - v - 4.1.1 Sampling Strategies 72 4.1.2 Representativeness of the Sample 76 4.2 The Interviews 82 4.2.1 Administration 82 4.2.2 Format of Interview 85 4.2.3 Assessing the Interviewees 89 5. The Analysis 93 5.1 The First Phase 93 5.1.1 Transcribing 93 5.1.2 Coding 94 5.1.3 Summarising 96 5.2 The Second Phase 97 5.2.1 Rationale for Second Phase 97 5.2.2 Selection of Interviewees 98 5.2.3 Transcribing, Coding and Summarising 99 5.3 The Master Summaries 100 5.4 Periodic Reflection 102 6. Other Empirical Research 104 6.1 Documents 104 6.2 Meetings 105 7. Testing Validity with Interviewees 107 7.1 The Draft Thesis 107 7.2 Ongoing Correspondence 112 8. Ethical Considerations 113 CHAPTER 4: INFLUENCES ON THE CONDUCT OF CONSULTATION 115 1. Introduction 115 2. Contrasting Influences 116 2.1 History 116 2.2 Project Topics 120 2.3 Generalist Commissions 128 2.4 The Constitutions 130 2.5 Society and Geography 132 2.6 Conclusion 133 3. Similar Influences 134 3.1 Composition of Commissions 134 3.2 Other Influences 139 4. Relationship with Government 141 4.1 Introduction 141 4.2 Influences on Relationship 142 4.2.1 Constitutional Role 142 4.2.2 Other Factors 147 4.3 The Actual Relationship 150 4.4 Encouraging Government to Consult 157 5. Conclusion 158 - vi - CHAPTER 5: THE PURPOSES OF CONSULTATION 162 1. Introduction 162 2. Clarity of Purpose 163 3. The Purposes 169 3.1 Better Reports 169 3.2 Reception of Reports 172 3.3 Principled Purposes 177 3.4 Promoting the Commission 179 4. Conclusion 180 CHAPTER 6: THE PROCESS OF CONSULTATION 191 1. Introduction 191 2. Overview 191 3. Tailoring Consultation 195 4. Project Launch 198 5. Lists of Consultees 199 5.1 General Lists 199 5.2 Project Specific Lists 202 5.2.1 Compiling the List 202 5.2.2 Membership of List 206 6. Reaching Additional Consultees 215 7. Consultants 221 8. Introductory Letter 228 9. Early Informal Consultation 228 10. Publications 230 10.1 Types of Publications 230 10.2 Format of Publications 234 10.3 Distribution of Publications 238 11. Travelling Consultations 245 11.1 Public Hearings 246 11.2 Other Travelling Consultations 254 12. Other Formal Consultation 256 13. General Informal Consultation 258 14. Empirical Research 263 15. Processing Consultation Results 265 16. Contact with Consultation 270 17. Who is Consulted 273 17.1 General Consultees 273 17.2 Consultation with Government 278 17.3 Evaluation of Consultees 280 18. Reflecting on Consultation 284 19. Conclusion 285 - vii - CHAPTER 7: THE IMPACT OF CONSULTATION 292 1. Introduction 292 2. The Impact of Consultation 293 2.1 Better Reports 294 2.2 Reception of Reports 300 2.3 Principled Impacts 308 2.4 Promoting the Commission 310 2.5 General Evaluation of Consultation 310 3. Persuasiveness of Consultation 313 3.1 Approach to Consultation 314 3.2 Persuasive Arguments 317 3.3 Identity 318 3.4 Numerical Support 320 3.5 Other Factors 325 4. Factors Other Than Consultation 326 5. Conclusion 331 CHAPTER 8: OTHER CONSULTATION ISSUES 339 1. Introduction 339 2. Project Selection 339 2.1 Reference Projects 340 2.2 Programmes of Law Reform 346 2.3 Other Sources 351 3. Post Report ‘Consultation’ 354 4. Conclusion 361 CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION 364 1. Two Models of Consultation 365 2. Comparative Analysis 370 3. Consultation in Context 374 4. Improving Consultation 379 APPENDICES: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND TABLES 386 1. Bibliography 386 1.1 Books, Articles and Reports Cited 386 1.2 Cases Cited 400 1.3 Legislation Cited 400 1.4 Commission Reports Cited 401 1.4.1 LC Reports 401 1.4.2 ALRC Reports 403 1.4.3 Other Commission Reports 405 1.5 Other Sources Cited 405 2. Complete List of Reports from 1990 to Present 407 2.1 LC Reports 407 2.2 ALRC Reports 411 - viii - 3. Tables 414 3.1 Tables of Interviewees 414 3.1.1 Table 2: LC Interviewees 414 3.1.2 Table 3: ALRC Interviewees 417 3.1.3 Table 4: Other Interviewees 420 3.2 Tables of Internal Documents Analysed 421 3.2.1 LC Documents 421 3.2.2 ALRC Documents 423 - ix - - x - CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. WHY THE LAW COMMISSION, THE AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION AND CONSULTATION? The Law Commission (the ‘LC’) and the Australian Law Reform Commission (the ‘ALRC’) make recommendations to their respective Governments about the reform of particular areas of the law. Once an area is identified as appropriate for the Commissions to consider, the LC and the ALRC rigorously investigate and then publish a report with recommendations as to how any problems can be remedied. One of the important components of this investigation is a consultation exercise where interested parties are invited to give their views on the area of law being considered. This thesis explores and compares how this consultation process occurs at the LC and the ALRC. Investigating the consultation conducted by these Commissions is an important and worthwhile exercise. Both Commissions are relatively influential bodies. Although concerns are expressed sometimes about the slow rate of implementation of their recommendations, the LC and the ALRC have produced many reports that have prompted changes to the law. According to the Commissions’ Annual Reports, the most recent figures indicate that over two-thirds of LC and ALRC reports have had been implemented or at least - 1 - CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION partially implemented.1 Some of this legislative success has also been in important areas. Probably the best example of this is the LC’s significant contribution to English family law. But the number of reports implemented is not the only measure of the Commissions’ influence.2 As permanent bodies charged with keeping the law up to date, they have increased the profile of the law and its reform. Lawyers, and indeed some ordinary citizens, now have a greater awareness of the particular legal issues that the Commissions have investigated. Further, it was suggested by some of those interviewed for this thesis that the role of law in society and the means by which it can be changed is also more widely known.3 In addition, the LC and the ALRC have made a contribution to the law as an academic discipline.
Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Friday Volume 497 16 October 2009 No. 125 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Friday 16 October 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 551 16 OCTOBER 2009 552 Solicitor-General to make a statement about the Yvonne House of Commons Fletcher case? It emerged last night that, two years ago, a senior lawyer carried out an independent review of Friday 16 October 2009 the case for the Crown Prosecution Service in which he said that the two Libyans involved could be charged for conspiracy to cause death. Neither had diplomatic The House met at half-past Nine o’clock immunity; they escaped from the Libyan embassy. The report made it clear that both those men played an instrumental role in the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. PRAYERS Last night, as I said, it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service had confirmed that, two years on, The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the police had still not provided it with the final case file the Chair as Deputy Speaker (Standing Order No. 3). containing the admissible evidence. Surely the Home Secretary should make a statement explaining why the NEW WRIT Metropolitan police are sitting on that vital evidence, Ordered, and to put our minds at rest by assuring us that Britain’s That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the trade interests are not being put before the interests of Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to bringing criminals to justice.
    [Show full text]
  • A State of Play: British Politics on Screen, Stage and Page, from Anthony Trollope To
    Fielding, Steven. "Introduction." A State of Play: British Politics on Screen, Stage and Page, from Anthony Trollope to . : Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. 1–26. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 30 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472545015.0005>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 30 September 2021, 22:10 UTC. Copyright © Steven Fielding 2014. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. Introduction Depicting Democracy Anybody who wants to understand what the British think about their democracy – that is the elections, parties, leaders and legislatures that give it shape – as well as why they think it, should take fiction seriously.1 This is because plays, novels and films, along with television dramas and comedies, have long articu- lated Britons’ hopes and (more often and increasingly) fears about the exercise of political power. Looked at in the right way, these can tell us much about Britain’s political culture. Building on the insight that elections are but ‘the final ceremony of a long process’, A State of Play argues that culture is an integral part of the formal political process.2 From Benjamin Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ to House of Cards’ ‘You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment’ and The Thick of It’s ‘omnishambles’, concepts, characters and phrases originating in fiction have not only fashioned Westminster politicians’ discourse but also, and more insidiously, helped mould how those millions beyond the Commons Chamber regard – accurately or not – the reality of democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Past ACA Payments
    House of Commons Members Estimate Committee Review of past ACA payments First Report of Session 2009–10 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 2 February 2010 HC 348 Published on 4 February 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £23.00 Members Estimate Committee The Members Estimate Committee has the same Members as the House of Commons Commission: Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker Sir Stuart Bell MP Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, Leader of the House Nick Harvey MP Rt Hon David Maclean MP Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Shadow Leader of the House The Committee is appointed under Standing Order No 152D (House of Commons Members Estimate Committee): 152D.—(1) There shall be a committee of this House, called the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee. (2) The members of the committee shall be those Members who are at any time members of the House of Commons Commission pursuant to section 1 of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978; the Speaker shall be chairman of committee; and three shall be the quorum of the committee. (3) The functions of the committee shall be— (a) to codify and keep under review the provisions of the resolutions of this House and the Guide to Members’ Allowances known as the Green Book relating to expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members; (b) to modify those provisions from time to time as the committee may think necessary or desirable in the interests of clarity, consistency, accountability and effective administration, and conformity with current circumstances; (c) to provide advice, when requested by the Speaker, on the application of those provisions in individual cases; (d) to carry out the responsibilities conferred on the Speaker by the resolution of the House of 5th July 2001 relating to Members’ Allowances, Insurance, &c.; (e) to consider appeals against determinations made by the Committee on Members’ Allowances under paragraph (1)(d) of Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2012 Audit
    How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit By Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Andrew Blick and Stephen Crone 2.6. Integrity in public life First published on-line, July 2012, by Democratic Audit, Liverpool. http://democracy-uk-2012.democraticaudit.com/ © Democratic Audit 2012 All rights reserved. Any part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted for non-commercial purposes providing that the source of the material is clearly cited. Our preferred form of citation is as follows: Wilks-Heeg, S., Blick, A., and Crone, S. (2012) How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit, Liverpool: Democratic Audit, http://democracy- uk-2012.democraticaudit.com/ Democratic Audit 2.6. Integrity in public life Executive Summary This chapter reviews the available evidence relating to the five ‘search questions’ concerned with integrity in public life. Our analysis in this chapter identifies a number of changes and continuities since our last full Audit of UK democracy. These are summarised below under three separate headings: (a) areas of improvement; (b) areas of continuing concerns; and (c) areas of new or emerging concern. (a) Areas of improvement 1. The establishment of an independent body to oversee MPs' expenses, pay and pensions. In response to the public scandal over MPs’ expenses, the government announced in May 2009 that it would bring forward legislation to create an independent body to oversee the expenses regime for MPs. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 established the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) (covering the Commons only). Significantly, the Commons has surrendered its previous ability to make decisions on expenses. The act also gave the independent regulator responsibility for maintaining the register of financial interests and for an accompanying statutory code of conduct on financial interests, to operate alongside the house’s existing non-statutory code of conduct on other issues; and created a new commissioner for parliamentary investigations to investigate breaches of the code of conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • The Office of Lord Chancellor — Evidence
    SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION The Office of Lord Chancellor Oral and written evidence Contents Sir Alex Allan KCB, Permanent Secretary, Department of Constitutional Affairs then Ministry of Justice, 2004-07, and Sir Thomas Legg KCB, Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor’s Department, 1989-98 — Oral Evidence (QQ 63-75) .................................................................. 4 Dr Gabrielle Appleby, Deputy Director of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit, University Of Adelaide — Written evidence (OLC0018) ........................................................................... 17 Archives and Records Association — Written evidence (OLC0024) ........................................ 25 Association of Personal Injury Lawyers — Written evidence (OLC0015) ................................ 28 The Bar Council — Written evidence (OLC0026) ..................................................................... 31 Bindmans LLP — Written evidence (OLC0023) ........................................................................ 38 The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law — Written evidence (OLC0022) .............................. 41 Chartered Institute of Legal Executives — Written evidence (OLC0017) ................................ 43 Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, 2010-12, and Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, 2003-07 — Oral Evidence (QQ 76-85) ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Monday Volume 493 1 June 2009 No. 82 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 1 June 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; Tel: 0044 (0) 208876344; e-mail: [email protected] HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT MEMBERS OF THE CABINET (FORMED BY THE RT.HON.GORDON BROWN,MP,JUNE 2007) PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt. Hon. Alistair Darling, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS—The Rt. Hon. David Miliband, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE AND LORD CHANCELLOR—The Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT—The Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH—The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS,ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM—The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mandelson SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT,FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS—The Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT—The Rt. Hon. Douglas Alexander, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE—The Rt. Hon. John Hutton, MP LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITY—The Rt. Hon. Harriet Harman, QC, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—The Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a – Breakdown of Interviews
    Appendix A – Breakdown of Interviews The interviews were drawn from four ESRC projects: • The Changing Role of Central Government Departments in Britain ESRC Award No.L124251023 [Research conducted 1995–1998] • Labour and the Reform of Whitehall: Inheritance, Transition and Accommo dation ESRC Award No.R000222657 [Research conducted 1998–2000] • Public Service Delivery Programme: Analysing Delivery Chains in the Home Office. ESRC Award. No.RES.153-25-0037. [Research conducted 2005–7] • Building Bridges between Political Biography and Political Science – A Methodo- logically Innovative Study of the Core Executive Under New Labour ESRC Award No. RES-000-22-2040. [Research conducted 2006–7] Interviews Numbers Senior civil servants 149 Other civil servants 48 Labour ministers 15 Conservative ministers 21 Special advisers 6 NGO representatives 63 204 Appendix B – Permanent Secretaries and Their Relevant Departments 1996–2004 1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) 1996 Permanent R J Packer Secretary 1997 (before the Permanent R J Packer general election) Secretary 1997 (after the Permanent R J Packer general election) Secretary 1998 Permanent R J Packer Secretary 1999 Permanent R J Packer Secretary 2000 Permanent Brian Secretary Bender In 2001, combined with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) to form the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2. Cabinet Office 1996 Secretary of the Cabinet and Robin Butler Head of the Home Civil Service Permanent Secretary (Office of R Mountfield
    [Show full text]
  • Read Publication
    prelims.qxd 10/13/2003 18:57 Page 1 About Policy Exchange Policy Exchange is an independent think tank whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas which will foster a free society based on limited government, strong communities, personal freedom and national selfconfidence. Working in partnership with independent academics and experts, we commission original research into important issues of policy and use the findings to develop practical recom mendations for government. Policy Exchange seeks to learn lessons from the approaches adopted in other countries and to assess their relevance to the UK context. We aim to engage with people and groups across the political spectrum and not be restricted by outdated notions of left and right. Policy Exchange is a registered charity (no: 1096300) and is funded by individuals, grant making trusts and companies. Trustees Chairman of the Board: Michael Gove Adam Afriyie Colin Barrow Camilla Cavendish Iain Dale Robin Edwards John Micklethwait Alice Thompson Ian Watmore Rachel Whetstone prelims.qxd 10/13/2003 18:57 Page 2 . Charles Banner is a Research Fellow at Policy Exchange. He read Classics at Lincoln College, Oxford, and Law at City University. He has worked in management consultancy and contributed to two Policy Exchange publications about the police in 2002. He teaches constitu- tional law at City University and is a part-time volunteer adviser in European Union and human rights law at the AIRE Centre in London. He is due to start work as a pupil barrister at Landmark Chambers in October 2004. Alexander Deane is a Research Fellow at Policy Exchange.
    [Show full text]