Words that should be banned from government writing


When it comes to language, we all have our pet peeves: words that are overused, misused, or just plain abused. But should we go a step further and ban the worst offenders?

Of course, any talk of banning words immediately draws accusations of “dumbing down” the linguistic glory of the likes of Shakespeare and Churchill, Austen and Twain. I’m talking about the opposite: avoiding the inefficient, unclear and downright ugly words our great writers would never have put on paper.

Winston Churchill, for example, exhorted his nation to “fight on the beaches”, not to “engage in hostilities in the intertidal zones”. Shakespeare’s Hamlet pondered whether “to be or not to be” rather than “to give consideration to the identified options of being”.

Yet government writing today still dresses in a complex linguistic garb because this has more “gravitas” — even when it says the same thing as a simpler alternative.

The words to watch for fall into four categories.

FREE membership to The Mandarin

Receive unlimited access, get all the latest public sector news and features, plus The Juice, our daily news update sent direct to your inbox.

The Mandarin is where Australia's public sector leaders discuss their work and the issues faced within modern bureaucracy. Join today to discover the latest in public administration thinking and news from our dedicated reporters, current and former agency heads and senior executives.

  • Nulligravida

    I loathe all goverments’ passive prose.

    “It was decided that…” or “A decision was made…”

    Really? Who decided? This is not my style fascism nor grammar pedantry. When a writer uses active prose it tells the reader WHO did WHAT. Government agencies and their staff frequently appear to sing about governance and accountability but they do not dance to it.