University of Tasmania

File(s) under permanent embargo

Perils of Public Participation in Parliamentary Process: An active research law reform example

conference contribution
posted on 2023-05-24, 10:15 authored by Thomas Baxter
Growing recognition of the importance of research impact is one driver towards more active research in pursuit of law reform. Such research is to be encouraged. Proponents of social change should expect to encounter systemic inertia or resistance, combined with active pushback from those with interests in maintaining the status quo. This applies to researchers advocating law reform, even when engaging through formal avenues for policy review. Positive recommendations from a review process, law reform body or other formalised inquiry may be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for law reform. In controversial policy areas, formal recommendations for law reform inevitably intersect with politics: indeed, successful statutory law reform ultimately depends upon garnering sufficient reformist political will. At this nexus of policy, politics and law, interesting issues can arise as to academic independence and ‘objectivity’. My PhD research examines Australia’s primary environmental statute, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘EPBC Act’), specifically its exemptions for Regional Forest page 10 Agreement (‘RFA’) forestry operations. During my candidature, two significant reviews inquired into the EPBC Act’s operation: • a Senate Committee Inquiry; and • an independent review of the Act, required under s 522A, headed by Dr Allan Hawke. As flagged in my PhD Preliminary Research Plan (though the former Inquiry was unanticipated), I made substantive written and oral submissions to both these reviews. Based on my research, I recommended law reform to amend the EPBC Act so as to: (a) strengthen it objects by remedying legal weaknesses therein, apparent from judicial reasoning in Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729; and (b) repeal its ss 38–42 and 75(2B) exemptions for RFA forestry operations. The Senate Committee’s first report adopted my reasoning for (a) as its Recommendation 1, citing ‘Governance expert Mr Tom Baxter’ amongst other submissions. The Committee made consideration of (b), EPBC Act ss 38–42, the sole subject of its second and final report. In a dissenting report, three Coalition Senators devoted a paragraph to ‘note the heavy reliance of the majority report on the evidence of Mr Tom Baxter, and also the failure to disclose that he is a member of the management committee of both the Environmental Defender’s Office and the National Parks Association.’ Their term ‘the failure to disclose’ was, in my view, unwarranted. During recent debate over the proposed resource super profits tax, the shadow finance minister attacked ‘a working paper by a graduate student at North Carolina University’, describing it as ‘the shonkiest piece of work you’ve ever seen’ . Researchers need thick skin and should not be deterred by the possibility of political attacks. If your robust research recommends law reform which would challenge vested interests, anticipate a backlash which may ‘play the man’ (or woman) instead of the ball, by attacking you rather than the substance of your arguments. Such attacks may be an indicator of research impact.


Publication title

National Graduate Law Conference Abstracts Book


Mark Nolan






Australian National University College of Law

Place of publication


Event title

National Graduate Law Conference

Event Venue

Australian National University College of Law

Date of Event (Start Date)


Date of Event (End Date)


Repository Status

  • Restricted

Socio-economic Objectives

Environmental policy, legislation and standards not elsewhere classified

Usage metrics

    University Of Tasmania


    Ref. manager