Mr. Justice Bernard Barton:

There should be, if only to do that. Obviously, it would increase the time but it would have to be a reasonable time and I hope it would encourage people to look at it and seriously consider advice about alternative dispute resolution, and especially in defamation. I believe the committee could do that.

While we are on this, one of the difficulties is encountered in the report, which is very detailed. I am aware that officials from the Department are here and I would not like anything that I have said in writing or anything I have said here to be taken as undue criticism of the Department. In fact, it is quite the opposite. There is a huge body of work done here, which must be recognised. It is very thorough research. Unlike a judge's judgment, there are all the propositions, the arguments for and the arguments against, and then recommendations, but what one does not have is a rationed or reasoned argument as to why we are recommending option one or option four, as opposed to why we are not recommending options three and seven, for example. One does not know quite how high a particular option is. In chapter 8, there is a kind of small summation as to why a proposal is going through. It is certainly not as reasoned as one would like to see it, especially for some very significant changes. This is just another example where we do not know why a particular option, which was considered, did not make it. The committee should review it and have a look at it again.