In this essay, Hunt questions the desirability of “plain language” in legislation. He argues that members of the public are not interested in reading raw legislation and, consequently, “the arguments in favour of plain language legislative drafting are very weak”. Moreover, plain language does not necessarily equal clear language. “Utilising plain language in legislative drafting is likely to increase the incidence of vagueness and ambiguity in legislation – this is a consequence which drafters cannot allow to occur”. As an alternative, Hunt proposes a differentiation between the drafting of legislation and the dissemination of legislation. “There is a need to recognise that the principal function of a legislative drafter is to enshrine policy in an accurate and precise manner. In doing so we must also recognise that the communication of the law is an entirely different task. Neither the drafter, nor the legislation itself should be regarded as a vehicle of communication to the public – rather it should form the basis from which the explanatory materials should take root. These explanatory materials, specifically directed at members of the public, should seek to illustrate in plain and simple language, the nature and effect of each piece of legislation.