Lewis StephSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of the Plain Language Bill. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague and friend Rachel Boyack on having her first member's bill drawn from the ballot. I know contrary to views expressed by members opposite she is genuinely excited to have this bill drawn and I'm genuinely excited to be supporting her on this bill.See I remember back in my law school days—where they do teach plain English there now—and in the first year we were told that historically drafters were paid per word. It's how we ended up with many long convoluted and complex pieces of law that somebody in the street just can't understand without legal training or help. It's how we ended up with phrases like null and void" and "common practice". Both words mean the same thing either one would do but why use just one when you could get paid for two!There are laws in effect today that were still drafted under those times and I believe if you expect people to follow the laws then they need to be able to read them understand them so they know their rights their obligations and what's expected of them. They should be able to be understood easily at a glance with one read through by somebody in the street. I support this bill because it will go some way towards achieving that goal by promoting the use of plain language in official documents and on official websites.As the member my colleague Rachel Boyack said earlier every day Government agencies are communicating key messages to people in our communities to the general public. And when they are providing information about their services as I said individuals need to clearly know what their rights and responsibilities are. So that means that the onus is on those agencies communicating the messages to keep those messages clear concise and as simple as possible. That way New Zealanders can easily understand and participate in our democracy.Plain language as discussed tonight is about using simple clear concise language that is well ordered and easy to understand. But take this sentence for example "It was a written notice by a tenant given pursuant to the lease agreement." It's much simpler to say "The tenant gave notice under the lease agreement." See that sentence has been shortened by five words and used words that are easier to understand without losing any of the meaning. There are lots of examples in official documents and on websites where multiple words are used where just one would be sufficient. For example "a number of" could simply be out as "some". Likewise there are lots of examples of words which could be simplified in plain English standards: "accorded" could become "given" "adjacent to" could simply become "next to" "adversely impact" could become "hurt" or "harmed". You get the idea; the list goes on and on and on.Like many other MPs in this House I too have helped many constituents who've walked into my office struggling to understand the documents that they've been provided with by our public sector agencies. That is why we need this bill. We need plain language so as our democracy is accessible to everyone in our communities. I commend this bill to the House."