“give priority to law reform proposals already received from the Law Commission which update key statutes, for example in the property law area”.⁵    4 The  issue  of  how  to  secure  governmental  legislative  and  official  attention  once law reform reports are produced is certainly a significant problem.  Justice Kirby is  correct  in  saying  that  nowhere  has  this  issue  been  effectively  tackled.    In another recent analysis, he reaches the following dismal conclusion: In terms of this logjam in our institutions, we are certainly not ‘there’.  In my view, we are not even on the way to ‘there’.  We are no closer to ‘there’ than we were 30 years  ago  when  I  began  my  work  with  law  reform  agencies.    No  one  is  ‘there’.   ‘There’  seems  to  be  an  illusion.    Sometimes  we  think  we  see  it.    Thus,  law reformers cultivate officials and look for the ‘triggers of activation’ that will gain an advocate in Cabinet who will initiate official consideration and action on a law reform report.  But it seems amazing that our constitutional government should be so   dependent   on   chance   factors   of   that   kind.      If   it   could   be   explained   by controversy  and  difficulty,  the  impediment  would  be  more  understandable  and tolerable.⁶ 5 In this lecture I shall attempt to throw some light on what I believe the real nature of  the  underlying  issue  to  be  and  suggest  some  possible  ways  of  approaching resolution of it. There lurks beneath this implementation issue something deeper than political indifference to worthy projects.    6 I shall begin by outlining the nature of the New Zealand Law Commission and my own  approach  to  law  reform  and  background  in  it.    What  follows  is  a  set  of observations  on  post-modern  philosophical  approaches  to  the  law  that  pose obstacles  for  statutes  and  for  law  reform  projects.    I  go  on  to  make  some suggestions  on  how  to  approach  the  problem  of  the  design  of  statute  law,  the                                                 5   Rt Hon Helen Clark, “Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament” (14 February 2006) 11.   There is work currently being done to implement the Commission’s reports on changes to the  Arbitration  act  1996  (New  Zealand  Law  Commission  Improving  the  Arbitration  Act 1996 (NZLC R83, Wellington, 2003)); a new Wills Act to replace the Wills Act 1837 (New Zeland   Law   Commission   Succession   Law:   A   Succession   (Wills)   Act   (NZLC   R   41, Wellington,  1997));  Homicidal  Heirs  (New  Zealand  Law  Commission  Succession  Law: Homicidal  Heirs  (NZLC  R38,  Wellington,  1997));  as  well  as  the  Property  Law  reform report prepared by Commissioner Blanchard (as he then was) in 1994 (New Zealand Law Commission A New Property Law Act (NZLC R29, Wellington, 1994)).  I am optimistic that there will be legislation introduced to implement these reports. Work is also proceeding on the Life Insurance Report (New Zealand Law Commission Life Insurance (NZLC R87, Wellington, 2004)) and Apportionment of Civil Liability (New Zealand Law Commission Apportionment of Civil Liability (NZLC R47, Wellington, 1998).   6   Michael Kirby “Are We There Yet?” in Brian Opeskin and David Weisbrot The Promise of Law Reform (The Federation Press, Sydney, 2005) 433, 445. 3