constituted   the   overarching   principle   behind   the   thinking   that   set   the   Law Commission on its way.    29 The  establishment  of  the  Law  Commission  was  not  based  on  post-modern thinking,  rather  the  reverse.    It  was  fuelled  by  the  vision  that  the  law  could  be accessible,  understandable,  coherent  and  administered  fairly  by  institutions  that are  neutral  and  behave  with  integrity.    These  are  hopes  that  ought  not  to  be abandoned lightly.    30 Consider what I have said so far in light of one of the principal functions of the Law Commission, this is:¹⁸ To take and keep under review in a systematic way the law of New Zealand.   31 What  does  this  mean?    How  does  one  carry  out  a  task  as  vast  as  that?    The existing statute law of New Zealand is anything but systematic.  That of course does not mean to say that reviews of it cannot be systematic.  In some ways the objective   may   suggest   something   along   the   lines   of   a   Jeremy   Bentham codification  project.    This  was  certainly  the  feeling  that  drove  the  English  Law Commission  at  its  inception  and  it  was  stated  as  one  of  its  objects.    But  little progress has been made.  It has been virtually abandoned as utopian.  If one takes the first principal function mentioned in the Law Commission Act 1985 and adds to it the fourth, does that make a difference?:¹⁹ To advise the Minister of Justice [and the responsible minister] on ways in which the  laws  of  New  Zealand  can  be  made  as  understandable  and  accessible  as  is practicable. Looking at these goals 20 years later, one would have to conclude that they are highly aspirational goals and probably no nearer completion, and perhaps further away, than they were in 1985 when the Law Commission Act was passed.                                                     18   Law Commission Act 1985, s 5(1)(a).   19   Law Commission Act 1985, s 5(1)(d). 11