ABSTRACT Being governmental, the law reform processes of a country are closely associated with the constitutional framework of the country concerned. In the case of Australia, the framework combines English and American constitutionalism. Professor Saunders neatly describes the result as ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’. After a brief overview of sources of law reform advice in Australia, the article focuses on one part of Australian law reform processes—law reform bodies established by statute that advise in a particular area (‘specialist statutory advisors’). The main question the article poses is—like the constitutional framework, are specialist statutory advisors ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’? The research hypothesis is informed by an influential stream of Australian historical and legal thought. A number of commentators have propounded that Australian democracy is distinctive, and that Australians have time and again accepted a commanding role for government, and continue to give it great respect. It is said that Benthamite utilitarianism and legislation lie at the heart of the dominant political ideology. The article examines the Australian law reform scene in the light of these theories. The research hypothesis is that these distinctive aspects of Australian political life will manifest themselves in processes of law reform, namely specific legislative processes for facilitating law reform. The article identifies and analyses specialist law reform agencies established under statutes passed by parliaments of the Commonwealth, the States, and the Territories. This analysis is followed by an assessment of specialist advisors. They are compared with two other types of law reform bodies: Ministerial committees and generalist law reform bodies. The article concludes by reflecting on how specialist statutory advisors reflect the country’s constitutional framework. In their own way—on the ground and on tap—they too are found to be ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’.

中文翻译：

---

实地考察——法律改革，澳大利亚风格

摘要 作为政府，一个国家的法律改革进程与相关国家的宪法框架密切相关。就澳大利亚而言，该框架结合了英美宪政。桑德斯教授巧妙地将结果描述为“混合的、衍生的但最终是澳大利亚的”。在简要概述了澳大利亚法律改革建议的来源之后，本文重点介绍了澳大利亚法律改革进程的一部分——根据法规建立的、在特定领域提供建议的法律改革机构（“专业法定顾问”）。这篇文章提出的主要问题是——与宪法框架一样，专业法定顾问是否“混合、衍生但最终是澳大利亚人”？研究假设是由澳大利亚历史和法律思想的一个有影响力的流所决定的。多位评论人士提出，澳大利亚的民主是有特色的，澳大利亚人一次又一次地接受了政府的指挥角色，并继续给予其极大的尊重。据说边沁功利主义和立法是占主导地位的政治意识形态的核心。本文根据这些理论考察了澳大利亚的法律改革情况。研究假设是，澳大利亚政治生活的这些独特方面将在法律改革过程中体现出来，即促进法律改革的具体立法过程。本文确定并分析了根据英联邦、州和领地议会通过的法规设立的专业法律改革机构。此分析之后是对专家顾问的评估。将它们与其他两种类型的法律改革机构进行比较：部长级委员会和一般法律改革机构。文章最后反思了专业法定顾问如何反映国家的宪法框架。以他们自己的方式——在地面上和在水龙头上——他们也被发现是“混合的、衍生的，但最终是澳大利亚的”。