THE PRESS MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1981. Law reform and revision

Press, 22 June 1981, Page 18

THE PRESS MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1981. Law reform and revision

The Labour Party, judging by the frequent pronouncements of its spokesman for constitutional affairs, Mr G. W. R. Palmer, is concerned that much of the country's law is out of date and written in such a way that ordinary people find difficulty in knowing exactly what the law means. The ,party is also apparently banking on the •issue’s having electoral appeal. Although much law reform is non-partisan, some party pressure to improve the revision of law in general is all to the good.

One of the remedies that the Labour Party has proposed is that all laws should have specific expiry dates written into them in what is commonly called a “sunset clause.” The idea is to ensure that all statutes are reviewed after a certain time. Laws are already being reviewed all the time. Experience dictates the need for changes and whole statutes are always under review so that past amendments and new ones can be consolidated. The review process has always been haphazard and is generally undertaken only when there is pressure from the electorate or from a particular group affected by the law. Pressure for such piecemeal review can come from the public or from within a Government department. It may come from the legal profession, from unions, employers, party conferences or from any of a host of groups seeking changes in the law. It is not entirely satisfactory to bring laws up to date by frequent, sometimes haphazard amendments. Unless an act, as amended, is reprinted frequently it is often very difficult for a lay person to workout exactly what it says. The reprinting of all statutes was begun in 1979, and makes for a tidier presentation of law; but it is a huge task and consolidation processes have already overtaken what was done in 1979. If non-urgent amendments were held over until a law came up for its periodic review under a “sunset • clause,” Parliament’s calendar could be cleared for the more important matters and the statute Books would be less confusing to ordinary people whose lives are regulated by them. Even this kind of approach has its shortcomings. If a change in a law is needed and wanted, there could be danger in a tendency to shelve all amendments until the date specified for review of the whole law. Convenience could dominate the process. Many amendments to legislation are required by changes in society or by unforeseen events, by economic changes, or by new institutions. If changes are postponed, for even a few years for the sake of convenience, injustice or harm could easily be done. A “sunset clause” would not preclude all amendment before' an act's. expiry date, and if amendments are made whemthe time.is : ripea further review, prescribed by a “sunset clatise,” might just, waste everyone’s • .time and effort when the formal revision is quired.

A further drawback of including a “sunset clause” in all .enactments is that some laws can safely remain on the statute book, unchanged and unchallenged, for years. The Labour Party's proposal for such clauses takes account of this: it has not suggested that all laws should expire after a uniform period. Although this seems to be a good idea in theory, it would require some time-consuming and intricate juggling of the calendars of Parliament

and of any law reform body to avoid the bunching of the expiry dates. If reviews are to be made in haste to meet the expiry deadlines, they are likely to be hasty and inadequate. The statute Books would be better left on their shelves until they can be properly reviewed when the alternative is a perfunctory examination and their return to .the shelf for another 10 years or " so. A forthcoming review might even be 'offered as an excuse for doing nothing in the meantime; the pressure of „ Parliamentary work, and the pressures on law reform committees and the Parliamentary counsel are often offered as reasons for delaying action. The blanket application of a rule that laws should expire after a certain length of time, even if the length of time varies for different laws, is neither needed nor wise. The idea has a superficial appeal, but the practicability of it is open to considerable doubt, especially when Parliamentarians already have their hands full. The Labour Party, however, is proposing to do more than this to update the country’s law and to ensure that it is as intelligible as is possible for the ordinary citizen. The Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, may have singled out the Labour Party’s proposal for “sunset clauses” for criticism; other Labour Party proposals appear to have considerable value. In recent months new, laws have been coming into force ' 'before copies of the law are readily available and heavily amended acts have not been reprinted as promptly as desirable. A better service to the public is now hoped for. Clarity in the drafting of the law is also vital to its interpretation by lawyers, let alone the ordinary citizen. Arguments in the courts are not usually about the intended meaning of the law, but about its application in specific instances. Simplicity of expression 'is obviously desirable; an;assumption that complicated law, drawn up to serve the honest citizen and to exclude the actions of cunning or ingenious evaders of the fine print, can be written always in a> simple fashion is a dangerous assumption. The law should be readily understood; but it is not necessarily easily read.

Some of the faults in keeping laws up to date may lie in the system by which laws are reformed. Parliament itself and its committees, the party caucuses and individual members of the House, the Law Reform Council and its five committees with specific areas of responsibility all have a hand in the revision of the law. They must all be responsive to the wishes of the community. Given greater means they might all ensure the timely review of laws. An improvement in the printing of laws in force, and, their amendments, and a more rapid reprinting, of the statutes might-., do much to satisfy the need that is evident in such- proposals as a “sunset clause.” The New Zealand Law Society has proposed setting up a law reform commission to ensure the regular and systematic review of the country’s laws. The Government would be wise to cull the best of the many proposals which have been made to improve the country’s system of law reform for it is a matter of some importance that the country’s laws be relevant, intelligible, and accessible to the people whose lives are governed by them.