66 new team who had to revisit much of the Commission’s  original thinking. Advisers in the Ministry of Justice had also departed. So when it came to look seriously at the new legislation it was a case of “fr esh faces”. 136 The Commission’s work on evidence reform began under  the leadership of Hon Sir John Wallace QC and continued under Sir Kenneth Keith and Justice Baragwanath. I attended a function in 1999 to celebrate the completion of the reports. That is now 5 years ago and other key Commission members, particularly Judge Margaret Lee, are no longer at the Commission. In relation to the property law reform, succession, and evidence reports, at least the key players are still alive. 137 Moreover, it is also hard to explain why a recommendation to modernise the law on habeas corpus is able to take precedence over modernisation of property law and wills. Without wishing to diminish the importance of habeas corpus, few people apply for the writ; almost everyone makes a will. 138 This state of affairs is not good. It shows the difficulties faced in getting traction for law reform proposals and the consequences of delay. It also indicates a disturbing lack of principle in determining what proceeds and what does not. Resorting to the tactic of having Law Commission Bills introduced into Parliament through the back door  mechanism  of  a  back  bench  member  is  understandable,  but  it  is  not  good process. There ought to be more success stories. 139 A  law  reform  agency  cannot  expect  to  have  every  recommendation  it  makes endorsed by a government. The government has to support the passage of the Bill through Parliament. If the agency sticks to “black letter law”, the risk of gove rnment rejection may be lessened, but it does not follow that the prospects of reform are any better. Experience in New Zealand suggests the prospects are worse. The terms of reference of the New Zealand Law Commission are not so confined anyway and it