32 That is not to say progress has not been made as a result of the Law Commission itself.  The Commission can take much credit for such developments as: · The Interpretation Act 1999 and plain English drafting; and · Reports on the format, structure and style of legislation. These  are  signal  achievements  and  deserve  to  be  celebrated.  Indeed,  all  Law Commission   reports,   however   narrow   the   topic,   make   recommendations   to simplify the law and make it more accessible.²⁰   33 There may be ways to rectify the situation.  I turn next to one of them. Accessibility of statute law in New Zealand 34 There is one practical approach I intend to explore at the Commission as a means of making the primary statute law more accessible.  In New Zealand, unless one knows  the  name  of  the  principal  Public  Act,  there  is  good  chance  that  relevant provisions can be overlooked.  The New Zealand statute book is both massive and unmanageable.  More useful is the American approach, where both at State and Federal  level,  a  code  is  produced  of  all  State  law  or  Federal  law  passed  by  the legislature, rearranged under topic headings.²¹ I intend to use the State of Iowa in this example because I am reasonably familiar with its statute law.  It is a state of three  million  people  with  an  emphasis  on  primary  industries,  a  characteristic  it shares with New Zealand.  I use the Iowa Code of 2003 in the text because I have it in hard copy, but the 2005 Code is now available and can be searched online.    35 The Code allows people in both the public sector and the private sector to locate and read all the relevant primary statute law that may be important to a particular concern.  All the law on, for example, “animals” can be found in one place but with full cross referencing.  In New Zealand, by way of contrast, the 2005 Tables                                                  20   See   George   Tanner   “Imperatives   in   Drafting   Legislation:   A   Brief   New   Zealand Perspective” (2005) 31 CLB 33, 35–37.   21   The code here is not used in the same sense as in which Bentham discussed codification.   He saw codes “as complete and self-sufficient and not to be supplemented or modified save 12