New Zealand's Law Commission () was established in 1986 by the Law Commission Act 1985.Establishment. Law Commission Act 1985—Section 4. "For the purpose of this Act, there is hereby established a commission to be called the Law Commission."Short Title and commencement. Law Commission Act 1985—Section 1. "This Act shall come into force on 1 February 1986." The commission is an independent Crown entity as defined in the Crown Entities Act 2004.Crown Entities Act 2004 p91
The main objective of the Law Commission, as declared in its founding legislation, is to monitor and critically analyse the laws of New Zealand with a view to identifying—and proposing solutions to—their possible shortcomings."Functions". Law Commission Act 1985—Section 5. "The principal functions of the Commission are (...) to take and keep under review in a systematic way the law of New Zealand (...) to make recommendations for the reform and development of the law of New Zealand (...) to advise on the review of any aspect of the law of New Zealand conducted by any government department or organisation (...)." The Law Commission reviews, reforms and develops New Zealand law. It then makes recommendations to the Government to improve the law. It also advises its Responsible Minister and government agencies on how to make the law more accessible and easier to understand.
The commission has a commitment to consult the public on areas of law that it reviews. It promotes discussion and consultation by publishing Issues Papers. It invites submissions from the public before it makes recommendations to the Responsible Minister. It publishes these recommendations in a report to Parliament. The Minister tables the report and the government then decides whether and how it will amend the law.
The commission is part of the Commonwealth Association of Law Reform Agencies (CALRAs). CALRAs aims to, among other objectives, provide training in law reform, engage with governments to seek high quality law reform, and maintain strong relations with relevant legal organisations. The organisation also holds regular international conferences.
In 2001, the commission published a notable report on the influence tikanga Māori on Pākehā law conventions.
Current commissioners As of February 2026, the Law Commission comprises three commissioners:
Dr Mark Hickford (President) Claudia Geiringer Geof Shirtcliffe
History
Predecessors The Law Commission was not New Zealand’s first law reform body. Prior to the creation of the Law Commission in 1985 a number of other law reform bodies existed. The first dedicated law reform body in New Zealand was the Law Revision Committee which was established in 1937 by Rex Mason, the Attorney General. It was created on the recommendation of the 1936 New Zealand Law Conference and inspired by the English Law Revision committee, which had been established three years earlier.
The Law Revision Committee was chaired by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. The committee’s large membership was otherwise made up of lawyers from government and private practice, as well as academics. Notably no judges where on the committee.
In 1965 the Law Revision Committee was replaced by a new system of law reform, a Law Revision Commission and five standing Law Reform Committees. The Law Revision Commission was chaired by the Minister of Justice and members included the Solicitor General, deans of the university law schools, representatives from the legal profession and a judge. The standing Law Reform Committees each had six to ten members from the legal profession, as well as a representative from the Department of Justice and Parliamentary Council Office. Each Law Reform Committee focused on a different specialist area of law, with a separate committee for property and equity law, contracts and commercial law, public administrative law, torts and general law and criminal law.
The specialised committees did not report back to the Law Revision Commission, reporting directly to the Minster of Justice instead. While these committees did most of the substantive work of law reform, the Law Revision Commission’s role was meant to be to “overview initiate and recommend on polices and priorities”. However, the members of the Law Revision Commission wanted to focus more on reviewing, improving and criticising the work of the Law Reform Committees. This slowed down the progress of their reports. This lack of clarity around its purpose made the body ineffective and, while it was smaller than the preceding Law Revision Committee, it was still large. These critiques lead to it being replaced in 1975 by the Law Reform Council.
The Law Reform Council had only nine members; the chairmen of each of the law reform committees, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice and Chief Parliamentary Counsel. This body focused more on an oversight than its predecessor, helping coordinate the work of the five law reform committees who still did the bulk of substantive law reform.
This system of law reform successfully produced a large number of reports, with the Law Reform Committees’ producing 150 reports between them and the suggestions having high legislative uptake. Despite this, the system was seen as unsatisfactory. Everyone that worked on the Law Reform Committees was also practising or working for the government, so time was limited. This meant the committees were not able to undertake large scale or detailed law reform and reports tended to be brief or slow to produce. The part time nature of the committees also meant public communication was not prioritised. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer put it “ over all was the shadow of lack of time and resources”.
The segregation of law reform into five committees also hindered large scale law reform that spanned multiple areas of law. This drove a focus on purely legal issues rather than larger scale social reform. While the Law Reform council attempted to coordinate the work of the committees, there was still a lack of an overall plan or agenda for law reform.Law Commission (2012). "Briefing paper for the minister responsible for the Law Commission". These issues eventually contributed to the demise of the Law Reform Council and standing Law Reform committees and they were replaced with the current system of law reform in 1985.
Establishment of the Law Commission The Law Commission was established in 1985 by the fourth labour government. Its establishment was a part of the party’s election manifesto and focus on open government. It responded to pressure from the Law Society, which had been lobbying for a full time law reform body. The Law Society’s support for this new system was evident in its President’s address to the select committee on the Law Commission bill. The President stated that the Society “acknowledges the importance of the bill as a major step forward in the task of law reform and that the effective performance of that task is essential to new Zealand’s social progress and welfare.”
The Law Commission Act 1985 created a full-time Law Commission to act as a “central advisory body for the review, reform, and development of the law of New Zealand” and replace the separate Law Reform Committees that had done the bulk of law reform in the preceding 48 years. This crown entity would have three to six members each appointed for a five-year term. The first president of the Law Commission was Sir Owen Woodhouse and the other original members were Sir Kenneth Keith, Dame Sian Elias, Jack Hodder and Mr. B Cameron.
Modifications to the Law Commission No major changes have occurred to New Zealand’s law reform machinery since the creation of the Law Commission in 1985. However, some more minor changes have occurred to the way the Law Commission interacts with the rest of Government in efforts to improve its performance. The Commission’s President has also been given the additional responsibility of certifying revision bills.
Most of these changes were driven by the Law Commission’s own recommendations in its August 2000 Annual report. The report expressed concern at a lack of uptake of the Commission’s recommendations, saying that “an average of one significant statue a year is not really good enough for a body of this character”.Law Commission (2000). "Report of the Law Commission Te Aka Matua o te Ture for the year ended 30 June 2000." p. 24 Criticism about the lack of cooperation and coordination between the Law Commission and other government agencies could also have driven these changes. For example, the Commission published a report on Intellectual property in 1990 while the Department of Justice and the Ministry of Commerce were also working on reform in this area.
To increase the uptake of the Commission’s recommendations, the report suggested three key changes. Firstly, it suggested that the House of Representatives should have to respond to the Law Commission’s reports within six months of receiving them. Secondly, it requested that the Parliamentary Counsel Office should have funding to draft any bills required to enact the Law Commission’s recommendations.Law Commission (2000). "Report of the Law Commission Te Aka Matua o te Ture for the year ended 30 June 2000." p. 25 It was hoped that if this was done the Government would have more confidence that measures recommended by the Commission were professionally drafted and met legislative requirements.Thirdly, it proposed that there should be a Minister responsible for law reform whose portfolio included the Law Commission. This was so that there would be a greater Government focus on law reform.
These changes where implemented. The Government adopted a practice of responding to reports within six months of their release. Funding was provided to the Parliamentary Counsel Office to draft Law Commission bills. This was highlighted in their 2006-2009 statement of intent which states that “Drafters are already working with the Commission and the Ministry of Justice on drafting Bills to implement existing reports and are likely to draft Bills to implement further reports of the Commission”.Parliamentary Counsel Office (2006). "Statement of intent for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2009." p.19 Lastly the Law Commission Amendment Act 2002 changed the language of the Act to allow for there to be a Minister whose portfolio included responsibility for the Law Commission.
In 2007 the Government’s practice of responding to the Law Commission’s reports within six months changed to be more efficient. The Minster responsible for the Law Commission would now submit a Cabinet paper on the Law Commission’s recommendations.Cabinet Office (2 August 2007). "CO (07) 4 Law Commission: Processes for Project Selection and Government Response to Reports". This paper would be prepared by the Law Commission on the Minster’s behalf reflecting the views of the Minster and all relevant agencies. If Cabinet accepted the recommendations, it would invite the relevant Minster or the Law Commission itself to issue drafting instructions and add the bill to the legislative program. If this occurred, no other formal Government response was needed.
However, if the recommendations where rejected would the Government have to formally respond by presenting a paper to the House of Representatives within 120 working days of the Commission’s report. The then Prime Minister Helen Clark hoped that this change would “ensure law reform proposals are considered in a timely fashion and in general should result in legislation being introduced expeditiously”.