Opposing the Plain Language Act Repeal
This page is a quiet stand — not against complexity, but against confusion used as a shield. It shares what the repeal quietly removes, why that matters, and how clarity itself is worth protecting.
What the Repeal Quietly Removes
- Ends the right to clear public information: The original Act helped ensure government forms, guides, and rights were readable by all — especially those with disabilities, second-language speakers, and everyday citizens.
- Removes internal accountability: Plain language officers and reporting obligations kept agencies honest. This repeal ends that, quietly.
- Lets government hide behind jargon: Without plain language, the public must navigate complex laws and services without support.
- Repeals without replacement: There is no plan to improve communication, only a plan to stop trying.
Why It Matters for Everyone
- Language is access: If people can’t understand the system, they can’t use it — or challenge it.
- Repeal increases exclusion: From migrants to Māori, rural communities to disabled whānau — many rely on clarity to participate.
- It’s a Treaty issue too: The repeal ignores obligations of equity and partnership, making engagement harder for iwi and hapū.
- Repeal wastes what’s already working: Agencies have already invested time and money into training for plain communication. This wipes that away.
Who Is Behind the Repeal
Judith Collins, Attorney-General and Minister for Defence, proposed the repeal. Her record is one of power consolidation, not public inclusion:
- She leads the repeal of transparency measures like this Act — framing it as red tape when it’s really respect.
- She holds multiple roles controlling legal, security, and bureaucratic systems — all now harder to understand for the public.
- Her political legacy includes division, dog whistles, and control through complexity.
This repeal fits that pattern: the less the public can understand, the more power is kept where it already sits.
If This Page Speaks to You
This page isn’t loud. It’s just clear. The Plain Language Act wasn’t a perfect tool — but it was a good one. Removing it is a step away from public participation, and a step toward quiet confusion.
If you believe rights should be understood — not hidden — you are welcome to oppose the repeal. Gently, sincerely, in your own voice.
"Language is power. When clarity is lost, so is trust. This repeal is not reform — it’s erasure of public voice." — Ukes Baha