Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in support of the Plain Language Bill. I would like to start my contribution by echoing the words of Mr Ian McKelvie in congratulating Rachel Boyack on shepherding this bill through the House and for her work on the select committee which has obviously earned her respect from across the select committee table which is really good to hear. I would like to reaffirm my support for this bill and I will endeavour to do that in the next few minutes in plain language.The Plain Language Bill obviously promotes the use of plain language in official documents and websites and what it does is actually require the Government to lead by example and to start making that happen. Mr McKelvie outlined that there are several Government organisations that are already having this requirement but we need to lead by example to make sure that in practice this is also taking place. It has been said before but I would like to repeat it because I think it's a really important statement that New Zealand is at its best when we all can understand and easily participate in our democracy. Every day Government agencies are engaged in communication with the public and when Government agencies are explaining services and benefits or how to comply with requirements if they don't use plain language and if they go back into using more convoluted language and jargon you disempower people from participating in that process.Mr McKelvie spoke about constituents approaching him. And likewise when people come to our office in Warkworth they sometimes bring documentation with them that they may have received from Government agencies and ask us—sometimes in quite frank wording—what the something" this letter actually means. So we have to go through it with them line by line and explain what it actually says and sometimes that takes quite a bit of reading ourselves. There was one recently that I was in the office for. Someone had a letter from the Ministry of Justice on outstanding fines but the next action that needed to be taken was kind of hidden in between all the other sentences and it wasn't that easy to get to it. So again using plain language and simple words to make those sentences easier to understand makes it easier to scan makes the information more accessible to people.I wasn't part of the select committee that dealt with this particular bill but I had the pleasure of reading through quite a few of the submissions and there were some really valid submissions made that dealt specifically with accessibility. For example Margaret Stefanitsis mentioned that "Clear and straightforward writing will make it easier for those who do business with the government to have faith in government agencies and build a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness." And on accessibility she said that "Plain language supports accessibility because it works well with assistive devices and is easier to translate." So here is actually a really practical issue: that using plain language makes it much easier for translation devices and assistive devices to support people.Parents of Vision Impaired (NZ) Inc said "We have noticed that many communications require a very high level of English language comprehension and this language is a barrier for families. Families who are dealing with a disabled child and particularly during the process of diagnosis and grappling with what that means are under pressure in distress and/or feeling anxious and worried." What the organisation said was that "Using clear plain language would assist families and alleviate some of the stressors that they are under." I haven't heard much about this aspect of accessibility but I think it is a really valid one and thank you to those who came to the select committee and made that particular point. I thought it was really helpful.On some of the bill's history the Plain Language Bill has in fact been long awaited rather than its being an answer looking for a problem as Mr Simeon Brown called it. I like to think of it more in line with the balanced contribution from Mr McKelvie in that there is a need for this bill. The bill was originally drafted by the Hon Chris Hipkins in 2012 and he did that after similar legislation was passed in the United States in 2010. The US Congress passed the Plain Writing Act of 2010 on 13 October that year. It required the US Federal Government to write all new publications forms and publicly distributed documents in a clear concise well organised manner that follows the best practices of plain language writing. The purpose of the Plain Writing Act of 2010 is "to improve the effectiveness and accountability of Federal agencies … by promoting clear Government communication that the public can understand and use."I'd like also to reiterate again the stellar job that the select committee did in general but in particular the role of Rachel Boyack in that process because looking through the commentary to the bill there were a lot of changes and improvements and practical recommendations made to make this a better bill that is being brought back to the House. Now I won't be able to run through all of those changes. Other colleagues may want to pick that up because there are some really interesting aspects to it but I fear I may run out of time since I'm only allocated 10 minutes and I see I'm already quite far into that time line. So I will give that part a miss.Just a little bit back on the history then: the bill was first introduced on 23 September 2021—a very special date in fact because it was the day that my son had his 20th birthday and three years prior I think I got into this job on 23 September. It was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee on 15 February 2022 and on 6 April evidence was heard from the member in charge of the bill Rachel Boyack. Submissions were called and closed on 31 March 2022 and from what I understand there were 68 submissions received and considered from various groups and individuals. And again I think it's not an insignificant number. So that would indicate to me that there was quite a bit of interest in this particular topic. The select committee heard oral evidence from 20 submitters on this particular bill.Now just on the second language aspect of this bill I think being an immigrant myself I have quite often been in situations where—and I won't even go into slang because I could tell you a whole lot of other stories but they're probably not very suitable for here in the House. But I have plenty of stories of where the difficulty of words made it much harder to participate in certain processes in the country. In fact I started a law degree when I was in my mid-forties and the amount of words that you have to use in that kind of study would blow you away. It shouldn't be impossible for other people to be able to do it but in fact it clearly is. So I feel that plain language clearly is a matter of social justice and a democratic right and a healthy democracy rests upon clear speaking and writing—ideas that are expressed in a way that everybody can understand.There was a submission in fact from Andreea Calude Senior Lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Waikato and she expressed the following about the bill talking about that linguistic equality: "Minority migrant and marginalised communities have more difficulty understanding complex and jargon-laden documents which tips the scales even further against them." I think this was the point that my colleague Glen Bennett in his excellent contribution made previously: there already is inequality in society and having non - plain language that people have to use just basically tips those scales of inequality further against people. Not everybody has the privilege to grow up in New Zealand so speaking a second language and not everybody has the privilege to attend university or participate in further education to learn to use the type of complicated bureaucratic language.So I think this bill as opposed to what has been said before is a really important bill. It'll make Government and democracy more accessible to everyone. I thank Rachel Boyack for her work on it the select committee for their work on it and I commend it to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker."