In September 1966 the Commission published its first program containing 13 topics, including:
It was realised that such a large number of items of very wide scope and significance could not be completed for many years; nevertheless, the bulk of this work was completed in the first decade of the Commission’s operation, while some references were later withdrawn as developments overtook the need for reform. The terms of the references on administrative appeals, personal injuries, testator’s family maintenance and sale of goods were later reviewed, and substituted references issued in September 1966. More subjects were referred to the Commission, and by March 1968 when the second program was issued, 20 references had been received, of which four had been the subject of reports. During the first few years, progress was not made on many of these, and the expectation that the process of law reform was a slow one came to be fulfilled. However, the Commission answered impatient critics by saying:
We continue to believe that quality is the keynote and have not made a report until we have done our best to ensure the accuracy of statements and the comprehensiveness, adequacy and quality of its proposals.16
In October 1969 Justice Manning resigned to take up an appointment to the Court of Appeal and was succeeded by Justice Reynolds. The death of one Commissioner and the appointment of three new Commissioners by January 1970 (making six in all) brought different interests and directions. The implementation of the first report on Supreme Court procedure and the completion of certain large references allowed work on other existing references to be commenced. Between 1971 and 1973 the Attorney General referred ten new subjects to the Commission. These included commercial arbitration, court procedure, and powers of attorney in relation to persons suffering a mental or physical disability. The Commission was also charged with reviewing the results of its work on the new Supreme Court Act. In 1971, after discussions as to the possibility of being located in the new Commonwealth-State Law Courts Building, the Commission moved into the newly completed Goodsell Building in Chifley Square, where the chief offices of the Attorney General’s Department were to be situated.
Justice Meares became the third Chairman in 1972 on the elevation of Justice Reynolds to the Court of Appeal. During his tenure the Commission attained a normal staffing level of six commissioners, an executive member, a chief legal officer, three research assistants and four secretarial staff, as well as the personal staff attached to the Chairman in his capacity as a judge. The period of Justice Meares’ Chairmanship was one of consolidation and completion. Although only one new reference was received during each of the years 1974 and 1975, seven reports were issued in that time. By the time Justice Meares returned to the bench in November 1976, most of the Commission’s active projects had been completed.
As the only full-time law reform body in Australia, the Commission saw one of its functions as being the co-ordination of other law reform agencies. It liaised with committees established by the legal professional associations and with the Government, and provided assistance when similar Commissions were established in other States and by the Commonwealth. It was also given responsibility for developing uniform reform proposals for the Standing Committee of Attorneys General until this task was taken over by the Australian Law Reform Commission, which was established in 1975. In performing its co-ordination task, the Commission organised the first two Australian Law Reform Agencies Conferences (ALRAC) in 1973 and 1975. These conferences allowed law reform bodies to exchange views and co-ordinate their work and have since become a regular biennial event.
While many of the Commission’s early reports were rapidly implemented by the Government, a backlog began to build up in 1972.17 Rather than treat its work on a reference as completed once a report had been presented, the Commission found it necessary to engage in continuing consultations to ensure that its recommendations were understood. While some reports received attention, the backlog continued and in 1976 the Commission expressed disappointment that implementation of its reports had “tended to be slow and uncertain”.18 However, this problem was remedied in the next few years as all outstanding reports were reviewed by the Government.
Taken as a whole, the work of the Commission during its first decade involved complex technical aspects of the law which were of interest mainly to lawyers. While some of its references were of limited scope, many required the review of large areas of doctrine and procedure with significant social and economic implications. The earlier references in particular often called for an assessment of whether changes made elsewhere (usually England) should be adopted in New South Wales. This did not prevent the Commission from eschewing novel proposals where they did not seem warranted or from going further than the original models which had been proposed. The recommendations which it put forward were largely directed at the simplification and modernisation of the law within well-established judicial principles. Thus, in its work on the limitation of actions, the Commission strove for a more simple and rational system of limitation periods, while in its report on civil liability for animals, it recommended that the archaic complex of special rules should be abolished and that the ordinary principles of negligence should apply.
The method of the Commission was tailored to the technical nature of its work. Usually one Commissioner was responsible for work on a reference, although all were consulted before the production of a final report. Lengthy working papers were produced which contained detailed discussion and assessment of the existing law and reforms in other jurisdictions. These were circulated to a limited number of individuals or bodies with a special knowledge of, or interest in, the area. These papers often contained well-developed proposals for reform on which specific comment was invited. The final published report would therefore be quite short, containing only a few pages which stated the conclusions and recommendations reached without attempting to duplicate or summarise the working paper. To the report was usually appended a draft bill, followed by compendious notes explaining each proposed provision in detail. The reports were not, therefore, intended to spark further discussion; rather, they were designed to receive immediate adoption and implementation by the legislature. Nor was the Commission a particularly public body with a consciously high profile, although public seminars were occasionally arranged to discuss its work. Only in its reference on the law of defamation was considerable public interest aroused: notices were published inviting submissions and the working paper naturally received widespread attention by the media.
