The Government has announced its intention to repeal the Plain Language Act, legislation introduced to ensure public sector communications are written in clear, accessible English. On the surface, most commentary around this move seems to agree; the change sounds like a backward move. After all, who would argue against making government information easier for people to understand?
But when you look beyond the good intentions and examine what the Act requires and, more importantly, what it doesn’t, it becomes clear that the legislation was more about creating the appearance of action than delivering real change.
But let’s cut through the rhetoric and look at what the Act actually does and, more importantly, its impact.
A Law With Good Intentions and Poor Impact
Like many well-intentioned pieces of government legislation, the Plain Language Act is built on a familiar but flawed assumption: simply adding a compliance requirement to agencies will produce better outcomes. It defines and mandates lead indicators, the steps the Government can control without creating legally binding requirements for things harder to manage and measure. The Act obliged public service agencies to encourage the use of plain language in official documents. It required the appointment of plain language officers. It made agencies responsible for promoting clarity in communication and reporting activity to the Public Service Commission.
The often quoted “what gets measured gets managed” is very apt in this circumstance. The Act didn’t ask agencies to measure whether citizens actually understood what was written, mandate feedback loops, or require user testing, and it didn’t integrate with service delivery or performance frameworks.
This creates a “theatre of improvement”: the appearance of progress, measured through the lens of compliance reporting, rather than through meaningful outcomes.
Lead Indicators Must Lead Somewhere
Lead indicators are not bad things in themselves. They are early signals of progress and can help guide behaviour in the right direction. But they are only part of the story.
For real change to happen though, lead indicators must quickly be followed by measuring whether the intended benefits are being delivered. It’s not enough to measure whether agencies promote plain language or report on training; we must also measure whether the public finds government communications easier to understand and more useful and thats where the act fell short.
The Hidden Cost of Symbolic Legislation
Consequently, some commentators have noted that they believe there has been no tangible improvement in plain language communications since the Act was passed, with others suggesting that investment in improving communication has declined. Of course, no evidence supports or refutes this because the Act doesn’t require agencies to report on investment levels or actual outcomes.
However, the issue isn’t just about money, as complying with the Act doesn’t require significant investment. The real problem is focus. If agencies prioritise compliance to meet legislative requirements, they may not prioritise delivering real, measurable improvements for those who rely on government services. Dedicated and skilled staff, who are already driving genuine improvements in communication, could find themselves sidelined as the organisational focus shifts from making meaningful progress to meeting compliance requirements.
This raises a difficult question: Is ineffective legislation better than no legislation? If it creates the appearance of action while allowing the real problems to continue, it might do more harm than good, reducing the urgency to drive genuine, measurable change.
Repealing the Plain Language Act isn’t an attack on clear communication. It’s a recognition that clarity isn’t achieved through compliance alone. If the repeal clears space for more practical, outcome-focused initiatives, it will be a step forward, not back.
Most of the commentary on plain language and public communication circles back to the same basic truth: there is a real need to make government communications clearer, simpler, and more accessible. Few people disagree with this goal. But five years after the idea gained real momentum and nearly two years after the Plain Language Act was passed, it’s difficult to point to any meaningful improvement.
To demonstrate the gap between intention and impact, I took a practical step: assessing the readability of public service websites.
In the absence of any outcome-based measures under the Plain Language Act, I wanted to see how easily this kind of evaluation could be done and what it might reveal. Using AI, I assessed the homepage content of a range of government agencies against three standard readability models: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and the SMOG Index.
The results offer a snapshot of how accessible, or not, government communication really is. While some agencies performed well, others still present significant barriers to understanding. Notably, the Ministry of Social Development stood out with the highest readability score among those reviewed.
This simple exercise highlights what the legislation failed to require: a clear, measurable picture of whether public communication is improving for the people who rely on it.
| Agency Name | URL | Flesch Reading Ease | Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level | SMOG Index |
| Te Tari Ture o te Karauna (Crown Law Office) | crownlaw.govt.nz | 42.0 | 12.0 | 13.0 |
| Te Papa Atawhai (Department of Conservation) | doc.govt.nz | 54.0 | 9.5 | 10.5 |
| Ara Poutama Aotearoa (Department of Corrections) | corrections.govt.nz | 50.0 | 10.0 | 11.0 |
| Te Tari Taiwhenua (Department of Internal Affairs) | dia.govt.nz | 55.0 | 9.5 | 10.0 |
| Te Tari o te Pirimia me te Komiti Matua (DPMC) | dpmc.govt.nz | 46.0 | 11.0 | 12.0 |
| Te Tari Arotake Mātauranga (Education Review Office) | ero.govt.nz | 50.0 | 10.0 | 11.0 |
| Te Tira Tiaki (Government Communications Security Bureau) | gcsb.govt.nz | 45.0 | 11.5 | 12.5 |
| Toitū Te Whenua (Land Information New Zealand) | linz.govt.nz | 52.0 | 9.8 | 10.5 |
| Manatū Taonga (Ministry for Culture and Heritage) | mch.govt.nz | 54.0 | 9.5 | 10.0 |
| Te Manatū mō Ngā Iwi ō te Moana-nui-ā-Kiwa (Ministry for Pacific Peoples) | mpp.govt.nz | 56.0 | 9.0 | 9.5 |
| Manatū Ahu Matua (Ministry for Primary Industries) | mpi.govt.nz | 53.0 | 9.7 | 10.5 |
| Te Manatū Waeture (Ministry for Regulation) | regulation.govt.nz | 49.0 | 10.5 | 11.5 |
| Manatū Mō Te Taiao (Ministry for the Environment) | mfe.govt.nz | 51.0 | 10.0 | 11.0 |
| Manatū Wāhine (Ministry for Women) | women.govt.nz | 57.0 | 8.5 | 9.0 |
| Hīkina Whakatutuki (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) | mbie.govt.nz | 52.0 | 9.8 | 10.5 |
| Manatū Kaupapa Waonga (Ministry of Defence) | defence.govt.nz | 44.0 | 11.5 | 12.5 |
| Whaikaha (Ministry of Disabled People) | whaikaha.govt.nz | 58.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 |
| Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga (Ministry of Education) | education.govt.nz | 55.0 | 9.0 | 10.0 |
| Manatū Aorere (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade) | mfat.govt.nz | 47.0 | 10.5 | 11.5 |
| Manatū Hauora (Ministry of Health) | health.govt.nz | 50.0 | 10.0 | 11.0 |
| Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development) | hud.govt.nz | 53.0 | 9.7 | 10.5 |
| Te Tāhū o te Ture (Ministry of Justice) | justice.govt.nz | 47.0 | 10.5 | 11.5 |
| Te Puni Kōkiri (Ministry of Māori Development) | tpk.govt.nz | 56.0 | 9.0 | 9.5 |
| Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora (Ministry of Social Development) | msd.govt.nz | 60.0 | 8.0 | 8.5 |
| Te Manatū Waka (Ministry of Transport) | transport.govt.nz | 52.0 | 9.8 | 10.5 |
| Te Mana Ārai o Aotearoa (New Zealand Customs Service) | customs.govt.nz | 54.0 | 9.5 | 10.0 |
| Te Pā Whakamarumaru (New Zealand Security Intelligence Service) | nzsis.govt.nz | 47.0 | 10.5 | 11.5 |
| Oranga Tamariki (Ministry for Children) | orangatamariki.govt.nz | 56.0 | 9.0 | 9.5 |
| Te Kawa Mataaho (Public Service Commission) | publicservice.govt.nz | 45.2 | 11.0 | 12.0 |
| Te Tari Hara Tāware (Serious Fraud Office) | sfo.govt.nz | 50.0 | 10.0 | 11.0 |
| Toi Hau Tāngata (Social Investment Agency) | sia.govt.nz | 58.0 | 8.5 | 9.0 |
| Tatauranga Aotearoa (Stats NZ) | stats.govt.nz | 48.0 | 10.0 | 11.0 |
| Te Tai Ōhanga (The Treasury) | treasury.govt.nz | 46.0 | 11.0 | 12.0 |