Members of the ACPS were first appointed by the Home Secretary in 1966 to make recommendations on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders. The Council was not authorized by statute, and no regulations were announced concerning its constitution or working methods. The Council that completed its term in 1978 had published nine reports and included seven members in judicial, police, or corrections fields. In advocating reconstitution of the ACPS, the argument is rejected that review of penal policy would best be done by one of four other agencies or groups: the Prison Department, Parliament, practitioners within the penal system, and independent pressure and policy groups. The ACPS is judged best able to develop long-range penal policy by reason of the expertise of its members and its independence from administrative exigencies, party ideology, and vested interests. A number of recommendations are made concerning the desirable characteristics of a new ACPS. For instance, the report suggests that the Council should be a truly standing or permanent body, that it should have its existence sanctioned by statute, that it should be given sufficient resources to initiate and commission its own research, and that emphasis should be placed on expertise in selection of ACPS membership. Also, if ACPS is large enough to be a specialist parliament, provision should be made for creation of subcommittees, working parties, and study groups, and close working relationships with government corrections and other justice agencies should not preclude the exercising of independent initiatives by the Council. Recommended clauses for a criminal justice bill that would provide the ACPS with a statutory base are listed.