82 A major aspect of building the evidence base to support the formulation of ALRC recommendations for reform is consultation, acknowledging that widespread community consultation is a hallmark of best practice law reform. Under the provisions of the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth), the ALRC ‘may inform itself in any way it thinks fit’ for the purposes of reviewing or considering anything that is the subject of an inquiry.
83 The process for each law reform project may differ according to the scope of the inquiry, the range of stakeholders, the complexity of the laws under review, and the period of time allotted for the inquiry. For each inquiry the ALRC determines a consultation strategy in response to its particular subject matter and likely stakeholder interest groups. The nature and extent of this engagement is normally determined by the subject matter of the reference and the timeframe in which the inquiry must be completed under the Terms of Reference. While the exact procedure is tailored to suit each inquiry, the ALRC usually works within an established framework, outlined on the ALRC’s website.
84 Following ALRC established practice, a multi-pronged strategy of seeking community comments was used in this Inquiry. Two consultation documents were released to facilitate focused consultations in a staged way throughout the Inquiry: an Issues Paper, in December 2014 and an Interim Report in July 2015.
85 Two national rounds of stakeholder consultation meetings, teleconferences and roundtables were also conducted following the release of each of the consultation documents. The Terms of Reference for this Inquiry directed the ALRC to ‘identify and consult with relevant stakeholders, including relevant Commonwealth departments and agencies, the Australian Human Rights Commission, and key non-government stakeholders’. The individuals, departments, agencies and the many bodies consulted in the Inquiry are listed in Appendix 3. In a broad-reaching inquiry of this kind, the consultations and the submissions received were particularly valuable in assisting the ALRC to achieve the balance in breadth and depth necessary to discharge the brief set out in the Terms of Reference.
86 The ALRC received 151 submissions. Submissions were received from a wide range of people and agencies, including: individuals; academics; lawyers; unions; employer organisations; employment agencies; community legal centres; law societies and representative groups; state and federal government agencies; and peak bodies.
87 In this Inquiry the ALRC also conducted a national series of symposia, in September and October 2015, focusing on aspects of the Inquiry raised in the Interim Report. The first, held in Brisbane, focused on property rights. In Perth the focus was ‘Freedom’s Limits: Speech, Association and Movement in the Australian Legal System’. In Melbourne, the topic was ‘Fair trial, procedural fairness and other traditional rights’; and the Sydney topic was ‘Proportionality and the Constitution’.
88 The ALRC acknowledges the contribution of all those who participated in the consultation rounds, the symposia and in preparing submissions. It is the invaluable work of participants that enriches the whole consultative process and the ALRC records its deep appreciation for this contribution.
89 The ALRC also convened an Advisory Committee of experts, which met twice during the Inquiry. The Committee comprised 13 members, and their names appear at the beginning of the Report. Professor Barbara McDonald of the University of Sydney also provided crucial assistance, particularly in the preparation of the Issues Paper.
90 In this Inquiry, the ALRC was able to call upon the expertise and experience, as part-time Commissioners, of the Hon Justice John Middleton of the Federal Court of Australia and, from 9 July 2015, Emeritus Professor Suri Ratnapala. Invaluable input was also provided by six expert readers who commented on certain chapters of the report. Their names appear at the beginning of the Report.
91 While the ultimate responsibility in each inquiry remains with the Commissioners of the ALRC, the establishment of a panel of experts as an Advisory Committee, and the enlisting of expert readers, are invaluable aspects of ALRC inquiry processes—assisting in the identification of key issues, providing quality assurance in the research and consultation effort, and assisting with the development of reform proposals. The ALRC acknowledges the considerable contribution made by the Advisory Committee and the expert readers in this Inquiry and expresses its gratitude to them for voluntarily providing their time and expertise.
92 Once tabled in the Australian Parliament, the Report becomes a public document. ALRC reports are not self-executing documents. The ALRC is an advisory body and provides recommendations about the best way to proceed—but implementation is a matter for others. However, the ALRC has a strong track record of having its advice followed. The Annual Report 2014–15 records that 60% of ALRC reports are substantially implemented and 26% are partially implemented, representing an overall implementation rate of 86%.
Brian Opeskin, ‘Measuring Success’ in Brian Opeskin and David Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform (Federation Press, 2005) 202.
Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth) s 38.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Traditional Rights and freedoms—Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws, Issues Paper No 46 (2014); Australian Law Reform Commission, Traditional Rights and Freedoms—Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws, Interim Report No 127 (2015).
These are all published on the ALRC website. Seven confidential submissions were also received.
Presentations from the symposia are available on the ALRC website.
The Attorney-General is required to table the report within 15 sitting days of receiving it: Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth) s 23.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Annual Report 2014–2015, Report No 128 (2015) 27. See also Appendixes F and G.