⁴⁴Michèle A sprey, Plain Language For L awyers, 3rd ed, The Federation Press, 2003, p  3.      ⁴⁵Ibid, p 65.      ⁴⁶NZLC R 17. 29 ascertaining the meaning of legislation already presents many challenges, the easier it is to understand the statutory text the better, and  even if the only concern was for lawyers and judges, the easier it is for them to understand it the better. We do not live in an age where learning is a privilege enjoyed by a handful of citizens like judges and clerics.  In the words of Michele Asprey, lawyers are no longer seen as “the learned custodians of unknowable secr ets”.⁴⁴ 51 Secondly, the assumption that people don’t read  legislation is simply wrong. One need only look at the list of best sellers to see which statutes are in greatest demand. They are not all “lawy ers’ law ”. The numbers of “hits”  on the New Zealand website of up-to-date legislation also shows that the public reads legislation. Thirdly, and not surprisingly, legislators want to understand the legislation they are invited to enact. The public also want understand it so that they can influence its final form. That is an important component of access to justice. Clearly drafted legislation also exposes bad policy, especially in the development phase. If an unpleasant message has to be communicated, and not all legislative messages are pleasant ones, the message ought not to be hidden in a mass of words. 52 Steps have been taken in New Zealand in recent years to change the way in which legislation is drafted. As Michèle Asprey observes, “[s]everal  Law Commission and Committee reports proved to be catalysts for much of the progress made in the plain language   movement   in   the   last   30   years   or   so”.⁴⁵   The   New   Zealand   Law Commission was the catalyst for reform in this country through the publication of 3 separate reports: Report No 17 published in 1990 and called A New Interpretation Act Is To Avoid “Prolixity and Tautology”, ⁴⁶ Report No 27 published in 1993 and