Episode 4: Jamila Savoy

Top of Their Game — In-Game Learning

"Each and every public servant has a responsibility to be communicating in a clear, direct, and easy-to-understand way. And doing that by writing in plain language actually doesn't cost anything. It's just — I never say this so bluntly — but it's just doing your job. It's just doing your job right."

Bob: Hello and welcome to Top of Their Game, the show where we speak with the people making communications clearer, fairer, and just plain better. I'm your host, Bob Milstein, a lawyer and plain language trainer, practitioner, and advocate. Today I'm excited to speak with an emerging leader in the field of plain language advocacy, Jamila Savoy. Jamila is co-founder of Plain Language Matters. For nearly 20 years, she has helped organizations communicate clearly and accessibly, whether it's rewriting dense policy, shaping public health messages, or coaching teams to write with confidence and purpose. In today's episode, we'll talk about how Jamila first developed a passion for plain language, how she managed to persuade government — in her case, the government of Victoria, Australia — that plain language was worth investing in, and lessons she's learned as a leading plain language advocate. And now, Jamila Savoy. Jamila, thank you for joining us.

Jamila: Fantastic to be here, Bob.

Bob: Now, like a good interviewer, I've done my due diligence and I took a look at your LinkedIn, and I see you describe yourself as an accessible-communications enthusiast.

Jamila: Yeah.

Bob: But you also say plain language is your superpower. So I wanted to start with a double-barreled question — a shocking thing for an interviewer to do, but here we go. Plain English, plain language, accessible communications: what's the difference, where's the overlap, and how and when did you get into either of those worlds, and why?

Jamila: Yeah. Brilliant question. Thanks, Bob.

Bob: That's why they pay me the big bucks.

Jamila: I guess I probably entered the accessible-communications world first through a role I had at Vision Australia, a national provider of services to people who are blind or have low vision. We knew clearly that we had to provide information accessibly for people who are blind or have low vision. That often meant thinking about accessible formats — making sure our information was accessible online in digital formats, but also provided in braille, in audio, maybe in large print for people with low vision. Delving more into plain language came a bit after that, when I came across a definition from the University of Oxford of accessible communications. It talks about the information being provided in a clear, direct, and easy-to-understand way — ting ting ting, that's plain language, plain English — and then delivered in a format suitable for the intended audience. That's where the alternate-format piece comes in. So under this accessible-communications banner, I could see two pillars: the words, and what you're doing with those words structurally, and then the format you deliver them in, making sure you're doing that for your intended audience.

Bob: Right. And before your work with Vision Australia, what were you doing?

Jamila: My background is in communications — my undergraduate study majored in journalism and public relations, and I always thought I'd be a journalist. I actually wanted to be on radio, but I realized journalism was a touch too fast-paced for me — writing something, getting it out the door that day, and never being able to go back to it, wasn't for me. So I ended up in communications and worked across lots of different industries. I worked on a construction project in a regional town in WA, which taught me a lot about community engagement. I worked for members of Parliament, which was very interesting. And I did a lot of media relations, which let me keep that journalism interest, but from the media-relations side.

Bob: So was the lightbulb moment for plain language something that happened during your Vision Australia time?

Jamila: A little bit of both. I think I've always had a personal writing style I was never able to label. It was when I was working at the Victorian government, looking at an accessible-communications policy, that I stumbled across the term "plain language" or "plain English." I read into it and it coincided with the ISO standard about to come out, and everything clicked into place. I thought, "I actually have a label for the way I do things. I just didn't realize it existed, and that there had been this whole world working on it for decades." And when the standard came out, I thought, this is the perfect time, because we've got an internationally recognized standard showing people how we should do it. It's not just little old Jamila saying, "Why don't you change this word, or add some headings, or restructure this document?" It actually legitimized plain language, which is fantastic.

Bob: In the interviews I've done so far, I've spoken to leading lights in advocacy, academia, training. What I haven't yet done, and I'm keen to explore with you, is the experience of someone who's been inside an institutional environment and driven a policy. I'd love to hear what you did, how it worked, and what the challenges were.

Jamila: I feel very lucky to have had the role I did. My title was Principal Advisor, Accessible Communication, in the Victorian Government at the Department of Premier and Cabinet. This role came about after the very tough times Victoria went through — not only COVID but also bushfires and floods around 2019 to 2021. Government reviews and reports recognized that communication wasn't accessible to everyone who needed it. So they found funding, created my role and another, and part of my job was to create a whole-of-government policy around accessible communication. And —

Bob: So not just for the Department of Premier and Cabinet, but the whole of Victorian government.

Jamila: For the whole of Victorian government. Having never worked in the public service, I was a smidge naive going in. I understood governments are big, but I didn't realize how truly enormous it is trying to develop a policy that works for departments, agencies, organizations, and subsidiaries sitting under all those departments. I had to think hard about who was actually going to use it — would hospitals, would Victoria Police be required to meet this policy? So there was a bit of governance work first, to unpack who the policy was really for.

Bob: How did you go about addressing those challenges?

Jamila: I had to speak to people much wiser than me, and the Victorian Public Service Commission was a great entity to engage with. They really understood the distinctions in the Public Administration Act, which governs the difference between a department and a special body in the Victorian government. I made sure never to become an expert in that space — I wanted to engage with the people who understood, who could advise on who the policy should be written for. Essentially it's written for departments and special bodies. It's not a requirement that hospitals, for example, meet the policy. But I wanted it to be public, because even if someone isn't required to follow it, it's a good place to understand what you could be doing to make your communication accessible to as many people as possible.

Bob: So it's a resource for Victorian bureaucrats to use, but there's no stick and limited carrots? Or are there carrots?

Jamila: There's no stick, which was one of the challenges — trying to figure out what mechanisms could ensure people were following the policy. Honestly, there's not a lot. That's why, alongside the policy, my work focused on awareness and engagement, especially with leadership, but also the rest of the public service. The policy itself, while fantastic that it's now published and accessible to anyone, was only one part. The other parts — raising awareness, education, lots and lots of training with public servants across Victoria — matter just as much. It's a bit of both: having the policy so people getting pushback from approvers can point to it and say, "You may not be aware we have this policy — it says we need to adhere to the international standard on plain language, and that's why this information has been done in a particular way."

Bob: You mentioned pushback. How frequently did you encounter what I loosely call the "yeah but" phenomenon — "This is all well and good, but we're special, we're complex, we're different, this won't work for us"?

Jamila: Daily? No, that's probably unfair. There were definitely talking points I had to have up my sleeve for that commentary, which I got very often. The other common comment was around cost. I'd always go back to: each and every public servant has a responsibility to communicate in a clear, direct, and easy-to-understand way, and doing that in plain language doesn't cost anything. It's just — I never say this so bluntly — but it's just doing your job right.

Bob: There is, I guess, one cost — I sometimes call it the dirty little secret of plain language writing — that if it doesn't come naturally, and you want to get better at it, it costs time.

Jamila: Time. Yes, yes, it does. That's why I wanted training always available for people, as part of the bigger accessible-communication project alongside the policy and the awareness-raising. People would often say, "But policy alone isn't going to fix the problem." Of course not — it's about all of those things together, and it takes time. This kind of cultural change — which is what I branded it when I sat down and thought about what we were trying to achieve over a couple of years — is about embedding a culture of plain language and accessible communications. That takes time, most likely generational change. So the question becomes: what are the small things every day that contribute to that change over time?

Bob: How important was it, in your experience, to identify plain language or accessibility champions within sectors?

Jamila: Incredibly important. It felt lonely at the beginning, and I networked furiously to find champions — people already doing this fabulous work. I am absolutely not about reinventing the wheel. Once I identified them, we brought everyone together into a community of practice: first, a space for people already working in this space to engage with like-minded people and learn from each other; and second, a space for people who were interested but weren't sure how to get started, where they could come, join, and access resources. The Victorian government is very big, and it can feel like you're the only one struggling with a particular challenge. A community of practice like this is a great way to feel a little less alone.

Bob: When you tried to get this up and running, were there any models you could look to — elsewhere in Australia or internationally?

Jamila: We were very lucky — the Victorian government already has a platform for communities of practice. But we did a fair bit of research on what we wanted this one to achieve, aligning it with the overall objective of the Accessible Communications project: making government information easier to understand and access. As for actual plain language communities of practice, I didn't do too much research and don't think I saw any to draw from. But my instinct is that the success we had in the Victorian government could absolutely extend beyond it, to the general public — starting, perhaps, with plain language enthusiasts or professionals currently outside government.

Bob: So perhaps Victoria will be the exemplar.

Jamila: Could be. We had so many people who wanted to join, and we'd say, "I'm so sorry, you have to be a Victorian public servant to join."

Bob: You mentioned the framework incorporates the International Plain Language Standard. That standard has a lot of moving parts — a lot of very good content, but a lot of it. Does your initiative seek to capture all of it?

Jamila: It does. The policy references adhering to the standard, partly for the legitimacy that comes with international standards. I also love how the standard is set out, with what I call the "top and tail" of the principles: understanding your audience, understanding your reader, and then evaluation. People can focus just on the middle two — the doing, the words, shortening sentences, which I talk about ad nauseam — but I wanted to capture the essence of plain language, which is understanding your reader. And how do you know you've done a good job unless you're evaluating?

Bob: That brings me neatly to this: does the policy, or the Victorian government independent of it, take steps on a regular basis to evaluate and monitor?

Jamila: Sometimes. In digital, which is the beauty of digital platforms, evaluation and monitoring are often built in — many websites use something as simple as "Was this website helpful? Thumbs up, thumbs down." The tough part about producing a piece of communication meant for the entire Victorian community is evaluating whether it met the needs of every subsection within that community. I don't have the answer, but I always want it to be a consideration.

Bob: Because, of course, there are very significant literacy challenges out there in the community —

Jamila: Incredible —

Bob: — including legal literacy.

Jamila: Incredible literacy challenges. Multicultural communities, especially in Victoria, are highly represented, and we love that — it makes Victoria what it is — but we need to think about English-language literacy within multicultural and multi-faith communities. People living with disability, an ageing population, and the intersectionality between getting older and being from a multicultural, multi-faith community where English maybe isn't your first language. There are so many elements to think about within what someone might call the Victorian community.

Bob: I imagine that sometimes, thinking through those challenges, the answer is that a document isn't the way to go.

Jamila: Yeah, absolutely. In my personal opinion, we should be providing information in many different formats, and more audio. Audio is a really good medium. As someone learning other languages, it's much easier for me to understand an audio conversation than a block of text. One of the languages I'm learning is Persian, and it's a bit confronting to be presented with dialogue on a page in a language I'm still learning — but that same conversation in audio, I can often pick up words quite easily and get the gist. So I think audio is fantastic and underused. We sometimes get a little too focused on video and visuals — which absolutely have a part to play — but people should always be thinking about the best way to provide information to their reader or audience.

Bob: Jamila, I wanted to take you back to some of the obstacles you faced in socializing certain departmental officials to this way of communicating. What do you say to people — I might be thinking of lawyers here, but I wouldn't say that — who say this is a matter of irreducible complexity, and that plain language communication not only runs the risk of but guarantees a dangerous dumbing-down of important communication?

Jamila: The dumbing-down myth. It's incredible, isn't it? I often go back to research — I think by Nielsen Norman — about how experts prefer information in plain language too. If I feel that will resonate with the person I'm talking to, I use it. But even before any arguments, I have to acknowledge it's a long game. I don't have to win every little battle to win the war, because I know we'll get there eventually. Picking my battles was always a big thing, but I leaned on that stat about experts preferring plain language. Sometimes I'd say things like, "So you don't want 20% of the population to understand this? That's cool. No worries. That's on you."

Bob: Love a bit of passive aggressive. Well played.

Jamila: Put it back on the person writing it. There has to be a level of ownership around the piece of information you're crafting. If you're educated with all the facts and still wish to proceed a certain way, that's on you too. But one of the things I made sure I did as best I could was role-model plain language principles in every piece of communication I wrote, down to my Teams messages. So when I had the opportunity to write a brief for senior executives who weren't on the same page, or submit the policy itself for endorsement, I made sure it was the best example of plain language in a brief people had ever seen. They may not have realized that consciously, but slowly, when the feedback came back as "fantastic brief," it gave me another way to engage and have that conversation.

Bob: So, using the brief as an example, what specific flourishes or gestures did you conscientiously invoke to make it a "you beaut, Ridgey Didge" model?

Jamila: One thing I noticed a lot is that, while we had a good briefing template, people got confused about what a heading was supposed to be. Often their heading was a full sentence, and that sentence was actually the only one they needed in the whole paragraph underneath it. So I was very particular about making my headings short, clear, and accurate. I made sure my structure was down pat, with the most important information right at the top. In training I used to say: it's naive to think someone's going to get to the bottom of your document unless they're paid to do so. In these cases they were paid to, but I still wasn't going to rest on that — I wanted the structure and the signposting throughout to be top-notch too.

Bob: What do you mean by signposting?

Jamila: Making sure that when people are scanning a document — which everyone does when reading — they can identify the sections they really want to interrogate.

Bob: We have a view on signposting between sentences, and I'll raise the frequent-flyer issue of starting a sentence with "and," "but," "so," or "because." Where do you sit on that?

Jamila: I like it.

Bob: Me too.

Jamila: What I love most, I think, is that it was so clearly taught to us in school not to do it — "You can't start a sentence with and, you can't start a sentence with but." So there's a chance I love it partly because I feel like I'm going against my high school teachers. But mostly I just think you should make your information easy to glide through, and if that means starting a sentence with "so" or "but," so be it.

Bob: I know you run training through your business, Plain Language Matters. Do you encounter pushback from participants — as we do in our training — along the lines of, "That's just not grammatical," or, "Even if it's arguably grammatical, that's not how professionals communicate"?

Jamila: Yes. Usually that question is framed around tone — can you really use plain language and still have a professional, formal tone? Yes, of course you can. I always come back to: this is about your reader, the person you're writing for. It's not about you. If you want to get hung up on it, fine, we can debate it — but when it comes to providing information to someone or a group, you need to do it the way they want to receive it.

Bob: One objection put to me, when people cave a little on the first couple of points, is: "Fair enough, I accept what you say, but if I wrote this way, my supervisor would never permit it to go out." I guess that goes to a bigger cultural issue.

Jamila: Yes, this is exactly it. You need — to use a term I only ever heard in government and now find myself using outside it, shuddering as I do — an "authorizing environment," the chain of people who have to approve something before it's made public. If only one person in that chain is writing from the plain language playbook, it's going to be very hard for the piece to stay that way by the time it goes out. So part of the work is that cultural piece — making sure, at least within teams, everyone's writing from the same plain language playbook. Say we've done the same training, had a conversation as a team, made a commitment, stuck to a style guide — there are many ways to ensure you're all on the same page. But unless you've specifically and intentionally made that decision, when I send something to you as my manager, you'll do whatever you want with it. And when you send it to the next person up the chain, they'll say, "Oh no, this looks nothing like I want," and change it again.

Bob: And the poor junior person who diligently —

Jamila: — did the right thing.

Bob: — invoked best-practice principles — it's just a morale-buster.

Jamila: Absolutely, absolutely. I heard this anecdotally a lot in the Victorian government, and it fed directly into my strategy: we can do training with people who want to do the right thing, we have policy for governance, but there's a significant leadership piece needed too, to make sure everyone's on the same page.

Bob: I know you have a marketing background, so maybe you can comment on this. I've always thought the phrase "plain language" or "plain English" is, in some ways and at times, its own worst enemy — it sets you up for antagonism, because naysayers say "plain is bad, plain is cookie-cutter, vanilla-flavored, lowest-common-denominator, simplistic writing." But it's not about plain — it's about clear, reader-focused, about flow. I think we need the marketing department to get onto that.

Jamila: Yeah. Unfortunately, Bob, we might be a little too far gone.

Bob: Yeah, I think so.

Jamila: But it is. On that same thread, when I talk about words specifically, I never say "use simple words" — I say use everyday words, because this isn't about simplicity. It's about using the words and phrases your reader uses. If you're writing for a group of doctors, their everyday words in a professional sense aren't my everyday words — they'll be different. But there's nothing necessarily "simple" about that. It's really about grounding yourself in writing for your reader or audience.

Bob: There's reader-appropriate jargon and reader-inappropriate jargon.

Jamila: Absolutely, absolutely.

Bob: So in the training you deliver, what are the key tips you want to reinforce about making writing accessible and plain?

Jamila: Everything I talk about, with regards to accessible communications and plain language, is always about putting your reader at the heart of it. It's funny — we've been talking a while and the word "empathy" hasn't come up, but essentially it's all grounded in having empathy for your reader when they're reading whatever it is. That might mean their circumstances — if they're in the middle of a crisis — or it might be someone from a multicultural, multi-faith background, or someone living with disability. It's about bringing the person reading your information to the center of what you're doing, and actually thinking about them. Even internally — thinking, "I need to send something to my manager, who's really busy dealing with all sorts of things I might not even know about. How do I make sure that when I send this email, I'm respecting their time and energy?" Everything I try to do is about grounding the reader. And then, of course, we talk about ways to do that in your writing. I really want people to feel, when they finish our training, that they can go away and immediately implement something — that's the other underlying part of it. You don't have to leave as an expert, but if you commit to doing one thing differently —

Bob: Exactly. Because —

Jamila: — that one thing turns into another, and soon becomes part of your habit. But you've got to start somewhere.

Bob: I'm not a big jargon person, but I think in training-speak that's called the transition from unconscious incompetence to unconscious competence. But —

Jamila: You're exactly right.

Bob: — you don't want to overwhelm yourself after a training. Just pick one or two things and commit.

Jamila: Just one thing. Yep.

Bob: Is there a common myth about writing you wish more people would challenge?

Jamila: Two things come to mind. First, that plain language is dumbing something down — really, everyone appreciates when something is written well, clear, direct, and easy to understand. A former colleague of mine — who I'm sure stole it from someone else, maybe even you, Bob, I'm not sure — often says, "No one's ever complained that something was too easy to read." That's the essence of what we're trying to do: make things easier for people.

Bob: I don't think I own that sentence, but I've certainly uttered very similar things.

Jamila: You can pretend to own it if you like, Bob.

Bob: All right, I do. How dare you use my intellectual property.

Jamila: And not quote you? The second thing is for people already in this space: really backing yourself and trusting your gut. If you know you've done something right in a particular way, talk about it, say why — so it's not just left to someone else to read and approve in their own way. Back yourself with how you've written something, because you had your reader at the center of it.

Bob: That can sometimes be a very challenging matter, just from the simple power dynamics at play.

Jamila: Very, very. If you're coming from a place of doing your best with your reader at heart, then at least at the end you can feel confident you did your part the best you could.

Bob: Now we're coming toward the end of our time, Jamila, but I had a couple more questions. Who or what has inspired you most in your accessibility and plain language career?

Jamila: I bet when you ask this you're thinking of someone in the plain language or accessible-communications industry, but —

Bob: I just read the questions. I have no idea what they mean.

Jamila: — I think of my many colleagues, now friends, from Vision Australia. One of its organizational KPIs was the percentage of people employed with lived experience. I think about those colleagues and friends, and how, day to day, I could see how important it was for a piece of communication to be accessible. We'd engage consultants, and so often I'd have to send a PowerPoint back and say, "I can't take this to my board — at least 20 to 30% of them are blind. Can we make sure they can read this as well as everyone else?"

Bob: My next question is around plain language. Are there any resources — books, podcasts, or leaders in communications — you'd recommend to someone wanting to grow in this area?

Jamila: There are so many, aren't there?

Bob: Got any favorites?

Jamila: Who are my favorites — you, Bob? Can I say you?

Bob: Oh, that is the correct answer. But if you've got any more?

Jamila: Right, it is about you. One of the first people in the plain language world I connected with is someone you're very familiar with, Bob: Christopher Bamford. He's been fantastic at helping me understand the history of plain language, where it came from, where it could go, and how Australia sits internationally.

Bob: And he had a very prominent role in the International Plain Language Standard too.

Jamila: Absolutely, absolutely. That was something that, when it was released, really clicked a lot into place for me around how we bring that into government. Who else — Annetta Cheek is someone I definitely look to for how we might get legislation in our state or federal government in Australia, because sometimes, in a government context, the only thing that creates change is legislation. We have to acknowledge that.

Bob: It's interesting, because New Zealand has legislation, but even with a legislative model, there's a fair bit of negotiation over what, if any, teeth the legislation ought to have.

Jamila: That's an important conversation to have, but definitely a challenge.

Bob: Where do you see the whole plain language movement heading? And what role do you think technology — generative AI, chatbots, agentic AI, whatever comes next — will play?

Jamila: On the first part, I really feel we're at a moment where accessible communications and plain language will start to become more of the norm. I say that partly because of a recommendation from the Disability Royal Commission around a national accessible-communications framework or plan. People are becoming more aware that different communities need information in different ways. I feel we're nearly at the point where it becomes a lot more mainstream. Social media has helped too — outlets like The Daily Aus say, "We offer young Australians a digestible and engaging way to access the news," and they've named who they're talking to in their purpose. So I think it's coming.

Bob: Sorry to interrupt — it's certainly been our observation, doing training for lawyers and others, that there's an in-principle embrace of plain language now; that's not really a debate any longer. People say, "Yeah, it's a good thing, and we do it," but we ask, "Do you, really? Is it more than just word substitution?" So there's the first step of willingness and the next step of capacity-building.

Jamila: Yes, yes. And maybe an overlay: once you have a really in-depth understanding of plain language, you may want to see it done "perfectly." But let's not let perfection get in the way of the good — build on where people are at. It's been accepted; harness that, and build toward some sort of perfection, knowing that good is a good start.

Bob: Yeah. Now the second part of my double-barrel was about technology.

Jamila: I'm a big fan of gen AI. I think it can help make writing clearly and directly slightly more mainstream, as another tool in the toolbox. But it has limitations, and it will always need a human reviewing and assessing what it produces. When it comes to the way the standard looks at plain language — sure, maybe gen AI can help you shorten a sentence or two, or make sure you only have one idea per sentence. But there are still things only humans can do — only a human can empathize with someone standing next to their house as a bushfire approaches, and know what information they need at that very moment. And only a human can evaluate, in my opinion, whether that information hit the mark at the end of your plain language cycle. So it's a fantastic tool in the toolbox, but not to be used on its own.

Bob: Jamila, your reference to empathy — not the first time you've used that word — really should be the moment I end this interview, because that would be a beautiful circuit close-up. But I am just going to ask a couple of fast and furious questions about you as a person.

Jamila: Okay, I'll try to answer them fast and furiously.

Bob: Take your time. What's your favorite novel?

Jamila: I'm a big fan of James Patterson. I like really easy-to-read detective novels, so I'll choose a series: the Women's Murder Club series.

Bob: Dog person or cat person?

Jamila: Dog.

Bob: That was fast.

Jamila: That was easy.

Bob: Yeah, me too. Any favorite podcasts — not necessarily language stuff, just whatever floats your boat?

Jamila: Similar to my reading tastes, I like really easy-to-listen-to podcasts. I've been listening to Good Hang with Amy Poehler — very funny, and I love that at the end of every episode she asks her guest what's making them laugh lately. And when I want to get my brain thinking a bit, I listen to Work Life, a podcast by Adam Grant, the American organizational psychologist. He has really interesting guests, and I like thinking about embedding plain language as a culture — how do we think about organizational psychology with regard to plain language in organizations?

Bob: For journalism, where do you go?

Jamila: I'll say The Daily Aus, which I mentioned. I may not be the young Australian they're talking to, but I appreciate the stories they cover, how digestible they make them, and how they deliver on social media.

Bob: Right, final question: outside your professional life, what's a hobby or interest people might find surprising?

Jamila: I'm a big fan of reality TV. Not all of it, but I enjoy the relaxing nature of some Geordie Shore or Keeping Up with the Kardashians — which are all probably done now, so maybe that's not a surprise.

Bob: That's maybe a bit of a holiday.

Jamila: That's really all I'm looking for when watching TV.

Bob: Fair enough.

Jamila: What a way to end.

Bob: Well, I know. On that televisual note, can I thank you, Jamila, for your time? That was terrific speaking with you.

Jamila: Thank you, Bob.

Bob: And I'm sure we'll catch up again.

Jamila: I hope so.

Bob: All the best.

Jamila: Thanks. Thanks, Bob.

Bob: It was great to hear Jamila reminding us that writing in a way that's clear, direct, and easy to understand isn't just the nice thing to do — it's everyone's job. To learn more about Jamila's work, be sure to check out our show notes. Top of Their Game has been brought to you by In-Game Learning: the most fun you'll ever learn. Visit ingamelearning.com and see just how fun online plain language training can be. If you enjoyed today's episode, share it with a colleague, leave us a review, or — better yet — rewrite something terrible and send it to us. We'll love you forever, and so might your target readers. I'm Bob Milstein, and until next time, go forth and clarify.

‍