O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apoth—I'm going to start again. I'm actually tongue-tied already; this is bad. I'm as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apothecary. I am eudemonic—in fact I am ebullient although I will admit I am also just a little bit esurient. Just for the sake of the Labour Party I want to repeat what I said at the start: I'm as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apothecary.Now those who know me know that that's me speaking quite plainly actually. People who know me as someone who likes to use the English language to its full extent—that's rather plain for me. I use that because of course the first thing is the Labour Party have no idea what I've just said because they really don't understand the English language. Part of that of course is that the Labour Party's been very happy up to recent days to see the end of Shakespeare. So in that vein and to offer them a little I'll buy Stuart Nash or the likes a beer if they can quote where this came from in Shakespeare: Prithee nuncle be contented; 'tis a naughty night to [be swimming]." So you have about eight minutes and 47 seconds to quickly google that and tell me which of the wonderful Shakespearean plays.But long and short the thing about language is it's varied and it's subjective—it's varied and it's subjective. This is one of the most problematic elements we have here coming through this bill. I don't take away from the intentions of Rachel Boyack who is putting it forward but there's a fatal misconception that there is something called plain language that there's just this amazing singular amount of language which somehow everyone from all distinctive cultures and ages is going to understand and that's a false premise. Thaumaturgist apothecary—it's perfectly plain to me; it's probably not to others. It's not complex. "Apothecary" is just as simple to me as the word "chemist" OK? The problem that you may have or someone else may have is just illustrating the point: it's very subjective. That's the nature of language. There are degrees of understanding. Language is contextual. We've heard some from the other side complain about jargon. Well actually if you're in any profession—let's take the medical profession. I much prefer they use complicated jargon to get the message across quickly than trying to explain in plain English that someone I love is having a major heart issue OK? I'd much prefer they just get straight to it and say "It's a pulmonary aneurysm." rather than "Well actually in plain English the heart which is pumping is having just a slight problem moving in and out." while my friend is now dead on the floor. Same with military things—when you're coming under heavy fire I'd much prefer you got to the point quickly in jargon than in plain English other than "Duck!" and "Shit I'm about to die." Granted it's not English but to enable the House we should say it in Latin: "Stercus stercus stercus moriturus sum." Granted not English. All right. Look it's important though. Language is contextual. The other thing is I've worked to try and develop plain English documents believe it or not—believe it or not. It was a great project at the start. It was in the insurance and legal space. But what we realised really swiftly is it's hard. It's really really hard. All the best intentions in fact are illustrated again through Shakespeare through what Creative New Zealand was doing or trying to do in recent days—actually there comes a moment where there are distinctions and the need for precise language. Creative New Zealand was saying that—you know they were arguing that there is a difference between funding and investment. As they were being challenged in recent days around investment applications they were really keen to tell people in plain English "No it's not about investment; it's about funding." Actually they are right; there is a subtle distinction and that's the nature again of language.I want to just illustrate it even further. Emily Henderson and other lawyers will know we often use—and actually in insurance too—the term "force majeure". Now granted not all English. "Force" is; "majeure" not so much. But it talks about these events which are beyond our control. It's just a standard—Simon Court: C'est français Monsieur O'Connor.SIMON O'CONNOR: Très bien. C'est vrai. It's true; "force majeure". But it's a term now very common in English and it gets just straight to the point. It means in two words "That which is bringing something outside of our control." Now in plain English we could simply have said—of course it would take a long time—you know catastrophic events which are beyond your control; things like war strikes riots epidemics an asteroid strike Australia winning the Rugby World Cup or of course Labour winning the 2023 election would be catastrophic. I'm just parodying this because actually the whole idea of what is and is not plain is not clear. I do want to put it to the other side too: New Zealand is becoming a blended language in some ways. We are integrating te reo into English. I actually can see some benefits in that but others would suggest we're developing a pidgin language or over time that's what will develop. I have to say having been overseas recently and as someone who has studied Māori at university they don't understand—the Germans the French the Africans the Nigerians—"Oh yeah there's a smart-arse over there who of course has done"—excuse me; smart-arse is actually sort of a plain colloquialism isn't it?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr O'Connor for a man who is standing sort of showing off his command of the English language you have reverted to some very bad potty language twice now so can I just keep your language above the waist please.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you very much. Of course I would like to make the argument that it is plain language and colloquial language that people use. But what we are seeing is as I say a development of language in New Zealand which is not plain to other English speakers in the world. So I can talk about pūtea to my French colleagues; they've got no idea that I'm talking about money. I can talk happily about rangatahi and tamariki and they know I'm talking about young people—well a New Zealander might know I'm talking about young adults and children but of course my Nigerian colleagues have no idea. Is that a good or a bad thing? I don't know; that's subjective. But where is plain language going to go and where's that bill going to fit in with this as we develop this as I say blended if not sometimes pidgin language?Look the other elements we need to consider just on the practical side: who gets to decide what is plain English? OK we're going to have these what 14000 or so plain English officers in each Government department—costs about $1.8 billion—telling people how to write. Are they expert grammarians? Can they sense solipsism at pace? I mean who's defining this? It's one of Lenin's great desires from way back to control language to control what it means. I'm a great free speech advocate. I am very nervous about who gets to control what is defined as free speech.Joseph Mooney: The kid that can't read and write properly.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well you've even got that. I mean there actually was one thing—I think it was Glen Bennett who raised it earlier in terms of this debate was actually the notion of education. So instead of passing a law in Parliament to define that we have to have some plain language officers what about trying to actually get the young people to learn better English to actually understand grammar structure linguistics? Get them to learn a second language. I think the Minister who tried to interrupt earlier around Māori could probably have done a few lessons or two in that language. It's a good thing. This is where we should be putting our investment. In fact I would have really liked to see and be very supportive of a second language bill. I personally think a compulsory second language in New Zealand is a good idea. I don't particularly care what that language is because actually all the research tells you that it's good for cognitive development and it's actually good for understanding certainly the primary language of this country which is English.Look fundamentally I do have that as I say philosophical problem with who gets to define what is plain English. You know to slightly illustrate the point again are you an Oxford—sorry I can't use the "you" term. Does the member supporting this bill—is she a supporter of the Oxford comma or not? It's a small question—Hon Member: Oh!SIMON O'CONNOR: —and someone sighs. "Oh no; it's just too hard to think about." Actually for those of us who enjoy English who revel in grammar we know that actually the placement of something so simple and plain as a comma can change the entire meaning—the entire meaning—of a sentence. So are we going to have Oxford comma sort of I don't know dictates or not? Again some at home might think that sounds silly but this is about plain English. Do you want to understand what's actually been said or not? I can't think of the particular laws but we in this House and while I've been in this Parliament have literally passed laws where the wrong placement of a comma or an "and" or—I believe actually it was to do with police oaths; we had to come back under urgency because the simplest mistake in legislation meant that we had to change the whole meaning. So this is just well intentioned but as with all intentions it comes with a major set of problems and I just think we should not be doing this. If there was any way we wanted to do this educate the children better perhaps by ministerial dictate encourage people to produce better English but fundamentally understand that English as with any language is deeply subjective and what might be plain to some can be more difficult to others and what may be difficult to others may be plain to some. It's highly subjective and I do not support this bill."