Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T00:01:56.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law Reform in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

A. F. Mason
A. F. Mason*
Affiliation:
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There was a time when Australia, in common with New Zealand, provided a lead to the world in formulating new and constructive legislative measures; the statutes relating to the system of Torrens title, testators family maintenance and industrial arbitration were the expression of a legislative spirit which was anxious to grasp difficult problems and solve them with an imaginative and practical approach. It may be said that this legislation was primarily social in character and that it was the distinctive contribution of the democratic and egalitarian society which had emerged in this part of the world towards the end of the nineteenth century. The substantial accuracy of this observation may be admitted, except in its application to the Torrens title legislation, but the comment should not be allowed to obscure the very considerable legislative activity which took place contemporaneously and which was of domestic significance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 1971 , pp. 197 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sutton, K. C., “The Pattern of Law Reform in Australia”. An inaugural lecture delivered at the University of Queensland on 5 August 1969Google Scholar.

2 In Victoria, the Statute Law Revision Committee. of the State Parliament and the Chief Justice's Law Reform Committee share the functions of law reform. The former Committee was established in 1941 on the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Revision of the Laws; it is a joint committee with twelve members, six coming from each House of Parliament.

3 H R. Deb. Vol. 67, 2353, 2355.

4 MacDonald, J. W., “The New York. Law Revision Commission” (1965) 28Google Scholar Mod. L.R. 1, 1-2.

5 The Hon. N.. H. Bowen, Q.C., M.P., then Attorney-General for the Commonwealth in his paper “The Work of the Standing Committee of Attomeys-General” presented at the, Sixteenth Australian Legal Convention.

6 The South Australian Committee has a membership of five, on a part-time basis, but the Committee has power to appoint to sub-committees persons not members of the Committee to carry out research and perform other duties incidental to the functions of the Committee. The Tasmanian Committee has seven part-time members. The Law Reform Committee of Western Australia has a permanent secretary and some members are obliged to devote substantial time to its activities. See Bennett, J. M., “Historical Trends in Australian Law Reform” (1969-1970) 9Google Scholar West. Aust. L. Rev. 211, 233-237; 43 A.L.J. 94, 298-299.

7 Bowen, op. cit., supra, n. 4.

8 The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Menzies, K.T., Q.C., M.P., speaking with reference to the report of the Vemon Committee of Economic Inquiry in the House of Representatives, H. R. Deb. Vol. 47, 1078, 1085.

9 MacDonald, J. W., “The New York Law Revision Commission” (1965) 28Google Scholar Mod. L.R. 1, 2-3.

10 Ibid.

11 See, for example, the reports of the English Criminal Law Revision comittee.

12 See the comments of the Hon. L. J. King, Attorney-General for Australia on 9 July 1971, at the Sixteenth Australian Legal Convention on the paper “The Work of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General”.

13 Marshall, O. R., “The Law Commissions” (1967) 20Google Scholar Current Legal Problems 64, 66.

14 Law Reform Commission Act 1967 (N.S.W.) s. 10.

15 Sawer, G., “Legal Theory of Law Reform” (1970) 20Google Scholar University of Toronto Law Journal 183, 194.

16 20 Current Legal Problems 64, 65.