OpenAccess

Plain Language Act repeal may breach UN human rights obligations

Callum McMenamin — 20 May 2025

In this article, I analyse how the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) applies to the Government’s current plans to repeal the Plain Language Act.

Introduction

In an earlier post, I covered the accessibility implications for disabled people, for the Government’s intentions to repeal the Plain Language Act: National Party attacks accessibility for disabled people. I recommend reading that post first if you haven’t already — as it contains important context.

In this post, I examine how the repeal relates to the Government’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

What is the UNCRPD?

The UNCRPD is an international human rights treaty.

Its goal is to help governments around the world to implement existing human rights for disabled people.

The New Zealand Government signed the UNCRPD in 2007, and ratified it in 2008.

When a government ratifies the UNCRPD, it has an obligation to implement its requirements.

Governments do not need to implement all requirements within the UNCRPD immediately, instead they may implement it through “progressive realisation”, which means to gradually implement its requirements as resources allow.

While the UNCRPD is not incorporated into domestic New Zealand law, the New Zealand Government has a binding international obligation to implement it.

Courts may refer to the UNCRPD when interpreting laws, especially when disability rights are involved.

Additionally, pre-existing mechanisms under the Human Rights Act exist, to enforce disability rights — the Human Rights Act makes disability-based discrimination unlawful.

Is the UNCRPD being breached?

I believe several sections of the UNCRPD are either being directly or indirectly breached by the Government’s proposed repeal of the Plain Language Act.

I have reviewed the UNCRPD’s requirements, and I have identified several areas that are relevant to the repeal of the Plain Language Act:

UNCRPD Article 9 — Accessibility

Article 9 — Accessibility of the UNCRPD basically requires State Parties (governments) to:

• enable disabled people to fully and independently participate in society
• take appropriate measures to provide access to:
  • the physical environment
  • transportation
  • information and communications
  • information and communications technologies and systems
  • other facilities and services open or provided to the public.

Repealing the Plain Language Act arguably breaches Article 9, as it explicitly states that the Government shall take “appropriate measures” to ensure the accessibility of information and communications.

Article 9 also goes further — it specifically requires that State Parties shall “develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public”.

The Plain Language Act 2022 precisely meets the above requirements, for example:

• Section 9 clearly establishes a “minimum standard” for accessibility
• Section 10 clearly requires that plain language guidelines be released
• Section 12 clearly requires the implementation of those standards and guidelines to be monitored.

From my above analysis, it is obvious how the Plain Language Act directly assists the New Zealand Government in implementing Article 9 of the UNCRPD.

Read UNCRPD Article 9 — Accessibility — social.desa.un.org.

UNCRPD Article 4 — General Obligations

Article 4 has multiple requirements that I believe are breached by repealing the Plain Language Act.

The most relevant requirements in Article 4 are that State Parties shall:

• adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative, or other measures to implement the rights recognised in the UNCRPD
• take into account the protection and promotion of the rights of disabled people in all policies and programmes
• refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the UNCRPD
• consult with the disabled community in the development of legislation related to implementing the UNCRPD.

It’s likely that repealing the Plain Language Act breaches Section 4 of the UNCRPD.

It is unlikely that the rights of disabled people were taken into account when the Government decided to repeal the Plain Language Act.

In Judith Collins’ press release on the repeal, she does not mention disabled people even once.

In the first reading of the repeal bill, no right-wing politician considered the rights of disabled people in any speech. Read the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill first reading on Hansard.

The Cabinet paper and minute

The Cabinet paper and minute for the repeal of the Plain Language Act was proactively released. Read the Cabinet paper and minute.

There are several aspects of the Cabinet paper and minute for the repeal bill that are severely alarming.

Cabinet acknowledges accessibility impact, then ignores disabled voices

The Cabinet paper directly acknowledges that the repeal of the Plain Language Act will impact accessibility for disabled people. It’s written in black and white. It is acknowledged that when the Plain Language Act was first introduced, representatives of disabled people’s rights expressed support for the bill. Then, the Cabinet paper proceeds to ignore what disabled people say or want.

What happened to “nothing about us without us”?

Misleading statements in Cabinet paper

Then, the next paragraph in the Cabinet paper contains a misleading statement, which may have even misled Cabinet:

While it is true that the NZ Govt Web Accessibility Standard does support accessibility for disabled people, it does not contain any requirement for plain language. Additionally, the Web Accessibility Standard is not mandatory for the entire health system, including ACC.

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) Accessibility Guide is not an adequate or equivalent replacement for a clear mandate to provide plain language. MSD’s guide contains just a few paragraphs on plain language, and it is hosted on a website that is not accessible for disabled people (it fails the Web Accessibility Standard!). The Accessibility Guide from MSD has not been updated since 2021. Read MSD’s Accessibility Guide.

Ministry of Disabled People not consulted

One of the most significant procedural issues I see in this Cabinet paper, is they consulted several public service departments when preparing the paper, but failed to consult Whaikaha — Ministry of Disabled People:

Based on the evidence available in this Cabinet paper, the Government failed to consult the one agency dedicated to advising on disability rights.

It is utterly bizarre that the Ministry for the Environment was consulted, and the Ministry for Disabled People was not.

This failure to consult the Ministry of Disabled People is not only deeply unfair — it may also represent a serious procedural flaw in the Government’s policy-making process. I believe it may constitute a breach of the Cabinet Manual, as Sections 7.29 and 7.34 state:

Failure to recognise human rights implications

Another alarming section in the Cabinet paper, is the section on human rights:

I hope I have made it abundantly clear in this blog post so far, how accessibility is directly connected to human rights. The Cabinet paper states that repealing the Plain Language Act has no human rights implications, which is obviously a serious mistake. The fact the UNCRPD had no mention in this Cabinet paper or minute is extremely disturbing — it is obvious a serious process error has occurred in government.

Failure to recognise international UN Convention

In this document: Plain Language Act Repeal Bill: Approval for Introduction, it states the following:

It seems clear that the UNCRPD was not considered at all in this document, despite it being a binding international human rights treaty.

The claim that the bill complies with the Legislation Guidelines (2021 edition) is demonstrably false, as Section 9. Treaties and international obligations explicitly states:

The relevant Minister did not draw attention to aspects of the repeal that have UNCRPD implications — so this potentially constitutes a breach of both the Cabinet Manual (s. 7.68), and the Legislation Guidelines.

In short: the Government claimed this bill was compliant, without doing the work. Perhaps they were hoping nobody would mark their homework.

Cabinet contradicts itself

Publicly, Ministers have been claiming the Plain Language Act is a “make-work scheme” for public servants, and has caused a waste of resources within the Government.

However, in the Cabinet minute, a revealing little statement appears:

This is fascinating, as it is clear that Cabinet acknowledges the Plain Language Act had a “minimal resource demand” on agencies.

Cabinet admits no impact on staffing

While Ministers argued in Parliament that the Plain Language Act resulted in an explosion in the Public Service headcount, the Government’s own Cabinet Paper directly contradicts those statements:

It is clear that even Cabinet itself agreed that repealing the Plain Language Act would have no impact on staffing numbers.

However, in the first reading debate on the repeal bill, multiple National MPs claimed the Plain Language Act resulted in a proliferation in public servants. These statements in the first reading were not supported by evidence, including Cabinet’s own documents.

The Public Service Commission’s 2023 Annual Report confirms: “All agencies have appointed a plain language officer to oversee their plain language work. In all cases this is the appointment of an existing staff member who has had plain language responsibilities added to their role.”

UNCRPD Article 21 — Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information

This Article in UNCRPD basically requires State Parties to take appropriate measures to “ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice”.

It specifically requires State Parties to achieve this by: “Providing information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost”.

The provision of accessible information by the government is clearly achieved by the Plain Language Act, helping it to meet the requirements in Article 21.

Conclusion: A word on Sir Robert Martin

Sir Robert Martin was one of Aotearoa’s greatest disability rights advocates. Sir Robert was born with learning disability — and he made history — by being the very first person with learning disability elected to a United Nations treaty body, when he was elected to the UNCRPD.

This is a legacy we, as New Zealanders, must all be proud of. It’s a truly incredible achievement.

The reason I reflect on Sir Robert Martin’s legacy is that plain language is essential for people with learning disability, like Sir Robert.

It deeply saddens me that our current government is looking to destroy the very foundations that would have supported people like Robert.

— Callum