| Abstract: | Good legislation depends on clearly articulated policy objectives. This paper argues that a significant threat to effective consumer protection is posed by fuzzy thinking at the policy-making stage. Three major Australian law reform initiatives are examined: the Contracts Review Act 1980 (New South Wales); new uniform truth in lending laws; and product liability legislation. In each case, effective policy choices were left unresolved, either because the choice was politically too difficult or simply because of a failure by the policy makers to perceive that there was a choice needing to be made. In each case, the problem has been disguised by resort to drafting at a high level of abstraction, and this serves to make rhetorical claims in support of the legislation seem plausible. The truth, however, is that legislation drafted this way is bound to be indeterminate and it is left to the courts to invent policy as part of the interpretation process. This is not a legitimate judicial function. |
