2                                                 What is the Law Commission? 1 The year 2006 marks the 20^th birthday of the Law Commission in New Zealand.   The   Commission’s   aim   is   to   “promote   the   systematic   review,   reform   and development of the law of New Zealand”.¹    2 The Commission carries out that aim: · By making recommendations to the Minister of Justice for the reform and development  of  a  particular  aspect  of  the  law,  on  a  reference  from  the Minister or on its own initiative; · By advising Government departments and other public sector organisations on their own reviews of aspects of the law and on proposals made as a result of the review.   3 The  Commission  is  required  to  advise  on  ways  in  which  the  law  can  be  made more  understandable  and  accessible.    The  emphasis  on  these  features  is  well placed.    As  Lord  Oliver  put  it  “Edmund  Burke  observed  that  bad  laws  are  the worst form of tyranny.  But, equally, well intentioned laws that are badly drafted or not readily accessible are also a form of tyranny”.²  The Law Commission is obliged as well to take into account Te Ao Maori (the Maori dimension) and to give consideration to the multi-cultural character of New Zealand. 4 The Commission has a scholarly research culture.  It produces reasoned reports with extensive research and analysis to back its recommendations.   In short, the Law  Commission  is  a  law  reform  agency.    In  the  new  lingua  franca  of  public administration, it is an independent Crown Entity.  The independence is important – the Law Commission is not the same as a Department of State.  It has the same sort of independence as Judges in formulating its recommendations.  Yet it must be  attentive  to  both  the  Executive  Government  and  Parliament.    These  are  the 1   Law Commission Act 1985, section 3.  I am most grateful to George Tanner QC, Chief Parliamentary counsel and Andrew Bridgman, Deputy Secretary of Justice for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.  Needless to say they cannot be held responsible for its content. 2   Lord Oliver of Aylmerton “A Judicial View of Modern Legislation” (1993) 14 Stat. Law Review 1, 2.