Public life in recent years has been characterised by large cuts in public expenditure; reductions in staffing levels in the public service; and the increasing use of outside experts and consultants. However in this era of “razor gangs”, “privatisation” and “fast-tracking”, the value of thoroughness, scholarship, intellectual rigour, attention to detail, consultation and public participation need to be reiterated.

There is increasing competition within the public sector for prominence in policy formation and the resources that come with this function. Bodies which are, in effect, standing royal commissions have been established, such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in New South Wales and the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland; Parliamentary Committees, particularly in upper houses, such as the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Law and Justice, are increasingly likely to undertake inquiries on matters of social policy; and other government departments have their own legal staffs and are less reliant on advice from a central source, such as the Attorney General's Department.

Many public agencies have adopted some of the forms and trappings of law reform commissions, such as releasing issues papers and discussion papers. However, on closer inspection, their modes of operation are closer to the traditional public service ones, with tight deadlines, far less emphasis on comparativism, detailed research and consultation, and little effort to stimulate and participate in public debate. This is not a general criticism, as it is entirely proper that many legal problems be identified and remedied expeditiously and with a minimum of fuss. It does become a problem, however, where the false belief develops or is promoted that these bodies do the same things that law reform commissions do, although more quickly and inexpensively.

In the late 1980s, the Law Reform Commissions in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia all seemed to be on the verge of dissolution, there were rumours about the continued viability of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission was closed and replaced with a single Commissioner in a reversion to the ad hoc approach of earlier times. More recently the Victorian Law Reform Commission was abolished (1992) as was the Office of the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission (1996). In Tasmania the Director of the Legal Aid Commission carried the title of Director of Law Reform. Tasmania now has a Law Reform Institute connected with the University of Tasmania. The Victorian Law Reform Commission was re-established in 2001. The Australian, Queensland and Western Australian Commissions have all undergone significant restructures.

It is clear that the future of law reform commissions is not assured, but rather is contingent upon the continued demonstration of their value and the recognition of their particular role in the law reform process, in combination with other agencies and institutions also charged with the review and reform of aspects of the legal system.

In conclusion, it is worth quoting at length from the keynote address of the former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Anthony Mason, delivered at the 27th Australian Legal Convention in Adelaide, on 8 September 1991:

The Law Reform Commissions have played a significant part in shaping the law. The procedures which they follow ensure an input from all interested parties and groups. They have, by publicising the relevant issues, holding hearings and publishing well-reasoned discussion papers and reports, promoted public awareness and debate. I have always thought that the Commissions should be given the responsibility of maintaining a continuous overview of our laws with a view to drawing attention to those which do not appear to be working satisfactorily. At the same time, more use can be made of expert committees in specific projects.

In the legislative area, most of the difficulties arise in the areas of contentious policy - areas where the government has found it necessary to change its policy from time to time - often in a hurry. Just how one overcomes these problems is by no means obvious. What is obvious is that is a problem which needs to be addressed.