QUT ePrints

Consultation, commissions and context : a comparative study of the Law Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission

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.

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.

Impact and interest:

Citation countsare sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

236 since deposited on 05 Feb 2009
31 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 17521
Item Type: Thesis (PhD)
Keywords: Law reform, Law reform commissions, Public consultation, Comparative law
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000) > LAW (180100) > Legal Institutions (incl. Courts and Justice Systems) (180120)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000) > LAW (180100)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000) > LAW (180100) > Comparative Law (180106)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000) > LAW (180100) > Law and Society (180119)
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Law
Current > Research Centres > Law and Justice Research Centre
Current > Schools > School of Law
Institution: University of Oxford
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2005 [please consult the author]
Deposited On: 06 Feb 2009 08:30
Last Modified: 09 Jun 2010 23:19

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page