Plain Language Review: Meeting Australian Government Style Manual Standards

The Australian Government Style Manual is clear: government content must be written in plain language. Every federal agency, state department, and local council is expected to communicate in language that's accessible, inclusive, and easy to understand.

Most government content fails this standard. Internal audits consistently find documents written at a university reading level when the target audience includes people with varying literacy, people reading in their second language, and people under stress trying to navigate government services. The gap between the Style Manual's requirements and actual government writing is significant — and measurable.

This guide covers what the Style Manual actually requires, how to assess your content against those requirements, and how to build a systematic review process that catches plain language failures before documents reach the public.

What the Australian Government Style Manual Requires

The Style Manual isn't a suggestion. It's the standard for all Australian Government communications. While state and territory governments have their own style guides, most reference or align with the federal Style Manual.

Core Plain Language Principles

Accessibility Requirements

Plain language is also an accessibility obligation. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 — which Australian Government agencies must meet under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 — include plain language as part of cognitive accessibility.

The Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) requires all government digital content to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA. This includes making content understandable — not just technically accessible.

Key accessibility-related plain language requirements:

• Reading level — content should be understandable by someone with a Year 8-9 reading level (Flesch-Kincaid Grade 8-9)
• Consistent terminology — use the same term for the same concept throughout
• Defined acronyms — spell out on first use, every time
• Clear link text — "Apply for the grant" not "Click here"
• Logical structure — headings follow a hierarchy (H1 → H2 → H3, never skipping levels)

Why Most Government Content Fails Plain Language Standards

Government content fails plain language standards for predictable, systemic reasons — not because writers don't care.

1. Legal and Policy Language Seeps into Public Communications

Policy officers write in policy language. Legal teams write in legal language. When these teams draft public-facing content, they write for their colleagues, not for citizens. The result: "Eligible applicants who satisfy the requisite criteria as outlined in Section 4.2(b) of the Programme Guidelines may submit an application for consideration."

Plain language version: "You can apply if you meet the eligibility criteria. See the full criteria in the Programme Guidelines (Section 4.2b)."

2. Review Processes Check for Accuracy, Not Readability

Most government content goes through extensive review — but reviewers check for policy accuracy, legal compliance, and political sensitivity. Nobody checks whether a member of the public can actually understand it. The content is technically correct and practically incomprehensible.

3. Template Creep

Templates designed years ago get reused and adapted. Each adaptation adds complexity. Nobody rewrites the template from scratch. The result: letters and forms that have been through dozens of iterations, each one adding a clause or caveat, until the original plain language is buried under layers of bureaucratic additions.

4. Fear of Oversimplification

Writers worry that plain language means dumbing down content or losing precision. They add qualifiers, caveats, and exceptions to cover every scenario. The result: content that's technically complete but practically useless because nobody can parse the 80-word sentence that contains the answer they need.

5. No Measurement

If you don't measure readability, you don't know you have a problem. Most government teams have never run their content through a readability checker. When they do, the results are often sobering — content written at a university level when the audience includes people who left school at Year 10.

How to Assess Content Against the Style Manual

Readability Metrics

Start with measurable readability scores. These aren't perfect, but they're a solid baseline.

You can run your content through a readability checker to get these scores instantly. If your government document scores a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 14, it's written at a university level — well above the Style Manual's target.

Content Audit Checklist

Beyond readability scores, manually check for these common Style Manual violations:

Word choice:

• No Latin phrases (e.g., "inter alia", "per se", "ad hoc") — use English equivalents
• No unnecessarily complex words ("facilitate" → "help", "utilise" → "use", "commence" → "start", "endeavour" → "try")
• No nominalisation ("make an assessment" → "assess", "give consideration to" → "consider")
• No bureaucratic filler ("it should be noted that", "it is important to note", "in relation to")

Sentence structure:

• Average sentence length under 20 words
• No sentences over 30 words (split or restructure)
• Active voice used by default
• One idea per sentence

Document structure:

• Key information in the first paragraph (inverted pyramid)
• Headings are descriptive and scannable
• Lists used for 3+ related items
• Short paragraphs (2-4 sentences maximum)
• Tables used for comparative or reference information

Audience awareness:

• Written for the reader, not the department
• "You" and "we" used instead of third person
• Technical terms defined on first use
• Actions required are clearly stated with deadlines

Building a Systematic Plain Language Review Process

Step 1: Baseline Your Current Content

Before improving, measure where you are. Select 20-30 representative documents across different content types (web pages, letters, forms, policies, fact sheets) and score them.

This gives you a clear picture: which content types need the most work, and what specific metrics are failing.

Step 2: Prioritise by Audience Impact

Not all content needs the same level of plain language rigour. Prioritise based on:

1. Public-facing, high-volume content — web pages, forms, fact sheets that thousands of people read. Fix these first.
2. Vulnerable audience content — content for people in difficult situations (welfare, healthcare, emergency). These audiences have the least capacity to decode complex language.
3. Decision-critical content — letters and notices that require the reader to take action. If they can't understand the letter, they can't comply.
4. Internal policies — important but lower priority. Staff can ask for clarification; the public often can't.

Step 3: Train Writers on Style Manual Standards

Training is more effective than editing. Give writers:

• Before/after examples from your own content (not generic examples)
• The Style Manual's plain language checklist — printed, on desks, in templates
• Readability score targets — writers should check their own scores before submitting
• Permission to simplify — explicitly tell writers they can (and should) rewrite complex policy language into plain language

Step 4: Implement Review Gates

Add a plain language check to your content approval process:

1. Writer drafts content
2. Writer self-checks readability score (target: FK Grade 8-9)
3. Content submitted for review
4. Reviewer checks against Style Manual criteria
5. Content that fails gets specific feedback and revision
6. Re-check after revision
7. Publish only when plain language standards are met

Step 5: Measure and Report

Track readability scores over time. Report to leadership quarterly:

• Average readability score across all published content
• Percentage of content meeting target (FK Grade ≤ 9)
• Trend — is it improving?
• Worst offenders — which content types or teams consistently fail?

Using AI to Review Government Content at Scale

Government departments produce enormous volumes of content. Manually reviewing every document against the Style Manual is impractical for most teams.

What AI-Assisted Plain Language Review Can Do

• Readability scoring — instant Flesch-Kincaid, Reading Ease, and sentence length analysis
• Complex word detection — flag words that have simpler alternatives
• Passive voice identification — highlight passive constructions and suggest active alternatives
• Sentence length analysis — flag sentences over 25 words
• Jargon detection — identify bureaucratic phrases and suggest plain language replacements
• Structure assessment — check heading hierarchy, paragraph length, list usage

What It Cannot Do

• Replace editorial judgement about what information to include
• Determine whether simplified content is still technically accurate
• Understand the political sensitivity of specific phrasing
• Replace consultation with the target audience
• Guarantee Style Manual compliance — only a human familiar with the full guide can make that call

Practical Example: Building a Style Manual Reviewer

In TeamBench, you could configure a reviewer for Australian Government content:

Reviewer name: Australian Government Style Manual Reviewer

System prompt:

You are a plain language reviewer for Australian Government content. Review documents against the Australian Government Style Manual standards. Check for readability (target Flesch-Kincaid Grade 8-9), passive voice usage (target under 15%), sentence length (target average 15-20 words, no sentence over 30 words), complex vocabulary, nominalisations, bureaucratic filler phrases, and document structure. Use Australian English spelling. Flag specific passages that fail and suggest plain language alternatives. Be constructive — the goal is to help writers improve, not to criticise.

Evaluation criteria:

• Readability Level (weight: 3) — Flesch-Kincaid Grade 8-9, appropriate for general public
• Plain Vocabulary (weight: 3) — Simple words, no unnecessary jargon or Latin phrases
• Active Voice (weight: 2) — Active constructions, clear subject-verb relationships
• Document Structure (weight: 2) — Headings, short paragraphs, lists, front-loaded information
• Audience Awareness (weight: 1) — Written for the reader, uses "you" and "we", defines technical terms

Quality gate: Minimum score: 70.

Upload the Style Manual's key chapters, your department's style guide, and your approved terminology list into a Knowledge Base. The reviewer then checks content against both the national standard and your department-specific requirements.

You could also pair this with the readability checker as a quick first-pass tool — run content through the free checker to see your readability score before submitting for full review.

Common Plain Language Rewrites

Here are real-world examples of government language rewritten to Style Manual standards.

Example 1: Grant Eligibility

Before (FK Grade 16):

"Organisations seeking to avail themselves of the funding opportunity outlined herein must demonstrate compliance with the eligibility criteria as set forth in Schedule 2 of the Programme Guidelines, including but not limited to the requirement that the applicant organisation is a body corporate incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 or equivalent state or territory legislation."

After (FK Grade 8):

"To apply for this grant, your organisation must be incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 or equivalent state or territory law. See Schedule 2 of the Programme Guidelines for all eligibility criteria."

Example 2: Service Notification

Before (FK Grade 14):

"Please be advised that the department has commenced a review of your current service arrangements. It is anticipated that this review will be finalised within a period of approximately six to eight weeks from the date of this correspondence, at which time you will be notified in writing of the outcome of the review and any resultant changes to your service provision."

After (FK Grade 7):

"We're reviewing your current services. We expect to finish the review within 6-8 weeks. We'll write to you with the results and any changes to your services."

Example 3: Privacy Collection Notice

Before (FK Grade 15):

"The personal information collected in this form is collected pursuant to the Privacy Act 1988 and is necessary for the purpose of assessing your eligibility for the programme. The information may be disclosed to other Commonwealth agencies for the purposes of programme administration and compliance monitoring."

After (FK Grade 8):

"We collect your personal information under the Privacy Act 1988 to assess your eligibility for this programme. We may share it with other government agencies to administer the programme and check compliance."

State and Territory Style Guides

While the federal Style Manual is the primary reference, state and territory governments have their own guides:

If your organisation operates across jurisdictions, build to the federal Style Manual standard and add jurisdiction-specific requirements as needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Australian Government Style Manual mandatory?

For federal government agencies, yes — the Style Manual is the standard for all communications. State and territory governments typically have their own guides that align with the federal Style Manual. For private sector organisations, it's not mandatory but represents best practice for clear communication.

What reading level should government content target?

The Style Manual recommends content that's accessible to the broadest possible audience. A Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 8-9 (Year 8-9) is the standard target for public-facing content. Some content for specialist audiences may be higher, but public communications should always aim for this range.

How do I convince leadership that plain language matters?

Frame it as a service delivery issue, not a writing issue. Content that people can't understand leads to more phone calls, more complaints, more errors in applications, and lower compliance. The UK Government Digital Service found that rewriting a single form in plain language reduced errors by 50% and phone enquiries by 35%. Similar results are reported by Australian agencies that have invested in plain language.

Does plain language mean dumbing down content?

No. Plain language means expressing complex ideas clearly. A clearly written document about tax law is still about tax law — it's just written so the reader can understand it without a law degree. The complexity is in the content, not the language.

How do I handle technical terms that have no simple alternative?

Define them on first use. If a technical term is necessary (e.g., "superannuation", "means test"), use it — but explain what it means the first time it appears. Don't assume the reader knows.

Can AI reliably check content against the Style Manual?

AI can reliably check measurable elements: readability scores, sentence length, passive voice percentage, complex word usage, and document structure. It cannot reliably assess whether content is politically appropriate, technically accurate after simplification, or culturally sensitive. Use AI for the quantitative checks and human reviewers for the qualitative ones.

How often should we review existing content?

Public-facing web content should be reviewed annually at minimum. High-traffic pages should be reviewed quarterly. Letters and forms should be reviewed whenever the underlying policy changes. Set a schedule and track compliance — most agencies find that without a schedule, content is never reviewed.

What's the relationship between plain language and accessibility?

Plain language is a component of accessibility. WCAG 2.2 includes guidelines on making content understandable (cognitive accessibility). The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requires Australian Government services to be accessible. Content that's written at a university reading level effectively excludes people with lower literacy, cognitive disabilities, or limited English — which is a potential accessibility failure.

Key Takeaways

• The Australian Government Style Manual mandates plain language for all government communications — it's a standard, not a suggestion.
• Most government content fails basic readability tests, typically scoring at a university level when the target is Year 8-9.
• Target a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 8-9 and a Flesch Reading Ease score of 60-70 for public-facing content.
• The five main causes of failure are legal language seeping into public content, review processes that check accuracy but not readability, template creep, fear of oversimplification, and lack of measurement.
• Measure before you improve — baseline your current content, prioritise by audience impact, and track scores over time.
• AI-assisted review can check readability, vocabulary complexity, passive voice, and structure at scale, but cannot replace editorial judgement on accuracy or sensitivity.
• Plain language is an accessibility obligation — WCAG 2.2 includes cognitive accessibility, and the Disability Discrimination Act requires accessible services.
• Training writers is more effective than editing their output. Give them targets, examples, and permission to simplify.

---

This article provides general information about plain language standards for Australian Government content. Always consult the Australian Government Style Manual directly for the most current guidance and your agency's specific requirements.