|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Competition Policy Review Discussion Paper
The importance of the establishment of a statutory body to carry out these functions was emphasised in the observation that Council performed “a public duty and a public service in the reporting of court decisions. Those reports form just as important a part of the law as the printed Acts of this Parliament….[Therefore] it is equally important that those who are charged with the responsibility of writing up case law emanating from our courts should have as much assistance and…support as our own staff and organisation get here in the reporting of statutory law.” 8 At the time that the legislation was enacted there was a trend towards the duplication and over-reporting of law reports generally, and this was perceived by legal professional bodies to be problematical. It was noted that over-reporting may lead to a situation of “the less significant and trivial cases being reported along with the more significant and substantial ones, that in turn represents a prejudice to the profession as a whole.”9 It was anticipated that the Council would co-ordinate the law reporting process so as to eliminate duplication, and to improve the speed, accuracy and range of reporting. It is understood that the cost to the legal profession associated with having to purchase several series of reports and the level of professionalism were primary motivations for the introduction of the legislation. The Parliamentary debate also raised issues that are relevant to the current review of the Act. The control of the publication of the reports by the Government, rather than private enterprise was justified on the basis of the need to preserve professionalism: “In a system of law such as our British system, in which the principle of stare decisis is deeply embedded and in which the individual decided case takes on a role of tremendous significance, it is important indeed that the whole of the law reports should conform to high standards of accuracy.”10 The Attorney General also noted that it would not be satisfactory to place the administration of justice in the hands of free enterprise.11 In this context it is noted that Members of both the Government and the Opposition made references to the role of the Council of Law Reporting as being an ancillary function to the administration of the courts and to the reports forming just as important a part of the law as the printed Acts of Parliament. ___________________________________ 7 Mr McCaw, Attorney General and Member for Lane Cove, Hansard, Legislative Assembly 9 Sept., 1969, at p.761. 8 Mr Mannix, MP, Member for Liverpool ibid., at p.763. 9 ibid., at p.766. 10 Mr Cameron, MP, Member for Northcott ibib., at p.766. 11 Mr McCaw, Attorney General and Member for Lane Cove, Hansard, Legislative Assembly 9 Sept., 1969, at p.767. Next Page - Copyright in Judgments |
|
|
|