McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise this evening on behalf of ACT to speak on this bill. So the purpose of this bill according to the text here says The purpose of this Act is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of the Public Service by requiring their communications to be clear and accessible to the public." Well that sounds like a great idea. I think we probably needed that on 4 October when the Prime Minister announced the Government's phased approach to reducing alert levels in Auckland which is apparently going to give way to a traffic light system anyway. So you never know actually this bill could do some damage—it could be a problem for the Government especially as the wheels of the well-oiled PR machine slowly start to fall off. I also can't quite tell if this is a good or a bad thing for taxpayers in the long run with Labour spending something like $300 million since 2017 on spin doctors. They might even need more with this so a little bit of a worry there.Definition in the bill: "plain language means language that—(a) the intended reader can easily understand after 1 reading;". Well thank you for clarifying that and also thank you to the member sponsoring this bill for pointing out that this doesn't include New Zealand Sign Language. That was an important point that we needed I think somehow. In Part 2 clause 6(1) "A reporting agency must ensure that all relevant documents for which it is responsible use plain language." The problem with all of this with simplifying language is that we can create different meanings and different interpretations and all sorts of different standards from Government and the last thing we want to do is cause confusion. In clause 8—Chris Bishop has already landed on this a little bit—the plain language officers: "A reporting agency must appoint … plain language officers". What a fantastic sounding bureaucrat honestly! And no later than six months after this Act the reporting agency must report to the commissioner its appointment of a plain language officer. And I just think "What on every Government agency and how many will they actually need within six months?" I mean we've got a bit of a skills shortage right now don't you realise. It might actually be quite hard to find people to do this. So I mean just imagine the amount of unnecessary red tape that this bill if it becomes an Act will cause. I just wanted to also touch on the issue around migrants and English as a second language. Look I think that's a well-meaning thought but frankly I think this is a solution looking for a problem. I've worked with migrants for years not just here of course but also in an immigration law firm and I've read countless letters from Immigration New Zealand. Admittedly they are a little bit convoluted at times and that's being generous but this bill will not solve that. Those one-on-one or transactional letters from Immigration New Zealand are usually case officers or immigration managers to clients. There is no way this bill with its plain language standard and its plain language officers is going to change that. There are thousands of letters and emails sent every day. I think it's just such a nonsense argument to use the letters from Immigration New Zealand to justify this.But in any case this bill has been floating around for years. I kind of hoped that it would come here to die. And I agree with Chris Bishop I think this is just one of the stupidest bills I've ever read. We oppose this bill. Thank you."