Our submission against the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill

We celebrated the Plain Language Awards at Parliament in 2023 and will again this year | Image of LCC Chamber in the New Zealand Parliament by Hellie Hadfield

We’ve made a submission against the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill. You can read it below!

Submission of the WriteMark Plain English Awards Trust against the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill

The WriteMark Plain English Awards Trust strongly opposes the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill.

The Act supports effective, efficient, and cost-effective government

The 2022 Plain Language Act was something New Zealand could be proud of — a forward thinking, citizen-centric piece of legislation that supported more effective, efficient, and cost-effective government. It should have been bipartisan, but it wasn’t.

In 2022 we made a submission in support of the Plain Language Bill. The reasons for our support then are the very same reasons that we now oppose the repeal of the Act. For that reason, we have pasted relevant parts of our 2022 submission below.

Excerpt from the Trust’s 2022 submission

‘Over the past 17 years our interactions with public and private sector organisations, and members of the public, have given us an insider’s view of how language quality affects organisational outcomes and citizens’ lives. We can say unequivocally, that much public sector writing falls far short of the label ‘plain’. Many documents are unclear, lack a human-centred approach, and do not fulfil their purpose.

So, we strongly support any initiative to improve the quality of public-facing government documents. Our view is coloured by both the negatives mentioned below from the People’s Choice category and, conversely, by surveys that capture the real-world impact of excellent documents.

The public speak — evidence of harm and frustration from poorly written documents

In particular, documents and websites nominated in the People’s Choice Worst Brainstrain Communication category emphasise the degree of harm and frustration, not to mention the waste of time and resources, created by poor writing.

A high proportion of the nominations in the Brainstrain category are complaints and concerns about communications from government agencies. They document the damage, frustration, and stress caused by unclear or misleading information, forms, and policies. Just a few examples of government agencies ‘dobbed in’ by the public include the Reserve Bank, Inland Revenue, Commerce Commission, Ministry of Education, Department of Internal Affairs, Parliamentary Service, Earthquake Commission, and the (then State) Services Commission.

In many of the Brainstrain category nominations, we hear the real-world stories from people who were not served well by their government. They missed a deadline, couldn’t access a health service, missed out on the right benefit, underpaid tax, or didn’t apply for a government job — all because they didn’t understand, or they misunderstood. Most of these cases paint a picture of members of the public feeling vulnerable, disillusioned, and unheard.

Applying lessons from the good

Of course, the Plain Language Awards are mostly about celebrating the good. We see outstanding examples of plain language every year and applaud those government agencies who write for the public with clarity and empathy. What would happen if all agencies wrote to that high standard? What if excellence were the norm?

Those agencies that write well give us a glimpse of what the Plain Language Act could achieve. Based on the outcomes noted on the entry forms of category winners, we’d see a positive transformation in writing quality inside government agencies. This shift would in turn result in a positive change in public perceptions.

In government agencies we’d see:

- - significant efficiencies in producing documents, saving time and salaries
  - greater ability to meet deadlines, with a better-quality result
  - fewer misunderstandings
  - more coherent, better planned messaging — getting it right the first time
  - less time and angst answering the public’s queries because confusion has been removed
  - less time editing or reworking colleagues’ documents that fall short of the basic standards of plain language
  - less money being wasted on civil servants having to learn new ways of writing every time they move departments
  - the likelihood that government ministers would drop their personal preferences that cost so many writers so much time.

We’d also see:

- - easier working lives and greater job satisfaction for ministers and civil servants alike — this means reduced stress, fewer sick days, few resignations, and reduced likelihood of unmotivated workers
  - a recognisable government style that is clear, human, and helpful.

For members of the public, we’d see:

- - people feeling empowered to access the information they need
  - more equitable access to information because people can find and understand the information they need
  - reduced need to contact agencies to clarify information or instructions
  - greater trust and confidence in government communications
  - an observable humanising of tone, even in communications from regulatory agencies.

Additionally, businesses and other organisations would gain a touchstone for what good writing looks like — an impact that cannot be underestimated.’

The passing of the Act mirrored a worldwide trend towards adopting professional plain language standards in business and government

We are also dismayed and, quite frankly, embarrassed that the New Zealand government should so publicly and actively signal their indifference and lack of support for clarity in government communications. The repeal comes at a time when the ISO International Plain Language Standard is being adopted by organisations around the world, and many governments now have legislation or regulations requiring plain language. Although the government says it still supports plain language, the repeal bill will create cognitive dissonance and disharmony for the general public.

Retain the Act and uphold the Spirit of Service

We hope the Select Committee will see the sense in retaining the Plain Language Act to require clear, accessible government communications and to deliver significant cost savings.

Retaining the Act will also help live up to the long-held public sector aspiration, and indeed the fundamental characteristic of the public service, Te Hāpai Hapori — the Spirit of Service.

See our full submission below.