What is the language of Australia – by example

What is the language of Australia? Are we following OXFORD, WEBSTER or MACQUARIE diction?  And, what about a bit Wikipedia too being quoted to explain words not otherwise existing – maybe being invented?

Until Abbott, and particular reference is made to strict language requirements of the Howard era, we were clearly following the style guide to policy writing that favoured Macquarie.  The a recent Australian Government document named Green Army Programme Draft Statement of Requirements Consultation Process as issued 21 January 2014, and in opening statements says “The Department is releasing this draft Statement of Requirements for the Green Army Programme 2014–2017 for the purpose of obtaining feedback from stakeholders and potential tenderers about the operationalisation of the proposed Programme design, as described in the SOR.  By seeking feedback on the draft SOR, the Australian Government hopes to benefit from industry expertise and ensure that the SOR describes the best way of delivering the Programme.”

Note the repeated use of ‘programme’ (OXFORD) and the use of ‘operationalisation’ (WIKIPEDIA). Does this mean ‘real’ language is just what suits?

Or does it simply reflect we are not capable of original thinking today, we just select ‘off the shelf’ policies from elsewhere, language and all?

What is the mater of concern:

As a Noun: Program or Programme?

  • American English always uses program British English uses programme
  • Australian English recommends program for official usage.


Historically, ‘program’ is UK based language, until the 20th century when fashion came to the UK to adopt French flair and words, it was then when the spelling “programme” became more common — yes, the French managed to influence the English and the adopted the French word “programme”.


Therefore, assuming our ‘off the self’ policy is direct from England we should assume you can earn ‘brownie’ points by knowing how to use the noun programme and program correctly, examples:

  • We’re still drawing up the programme for the concert.
  • This computer program won’t run on my PC.
  • I missed my favourite television programme last night.


What about the Verb: To Program, Programmed, Programming?

Did you not know the word program is also a verb? Time to get a little different here as both American and British English use “to program” and not to programme. But wait we can still confuse you:

In American English it is valid to use –

  • programed
  • programing


In Oxford English, the far more widespread usage is –

  • programmed
  • programming


In Australia, is –

  • to program.

CO2Land org has a point to this: Just make sure you are consistent, and government should take note of this – lives can depend on it, as sure as a comma in the wrong place can be totally misunderstood. A good place to start is the government’s own style guide or a rule on which form of the word to use.



Its Real – again

That word ‘real’ has popped up again – and we must prepare to again endure the use of a synonym and have it portrayed as the truth. Perfect for politicians is the use of the word or term ‘real’ as it can be seen as a initial or promised activity increase and not guarantee an increased activity (it could be real activity and still lead to a decrease of activity!!). So if I say it was real at the time I acted; I have been true to my intent to act in good faith, and equally a review of my intent can happen when convenient. The issue with the word ‘real’ in this context is it literally means the activity is a cause of change.

To put this in context in August 2012, Co2Land org wrote two stories that looked at the use of ‘real’ with implications for the Carbon Farming Initiative its legislation and regulations. In the Story

Time for a real review Posted on August 20, 2012 by co2land , the opening paragraphs said:

‘Smart forms of research has found that customer service and sales skills are considered the least important when building a brand, and it would seem big brand and government know this very well. This might explain why any meaningful programs are explained in a way of the language of spin. For what is done would we not prefer to hear or feel that our policy makers value some measure of the actions and actively seek feedback from those that influence our lives at least every 6 to 12 months from a startup campaign. This view suggests government is a business – a business that must please its total stakeholder basis.

Why should this happen? Take a look at quotes taken from the writings of Laurissa Smith and Anna Vidot (www.abc.net.au ), on Monday, 20/08/2012, the story ‘Carbon farmers challenged by rigorous process’: “The guidelines which set out how they can make money from schemes like the Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative are still being developed…It’s still sitting under consideration with the Domestic Offset Integrity Committee which is the committee tasked under the clean energy regulator to review the methodologies…So we hope that it’s going to become available for public interest by early 2013.” This is extremely frustrating when you consider the Department responsible made announcements of a body as set up for Carbon Offsets in June 2010.”

While numerous new methodologies are now approved – what holds true is that branded entities and those that were transitioned from the Greenhouse Friendly Program benefited, and most farmers that hoped to earn credits have not.

Then in the story Real, Additionality, RECs Posted on August 14, 2012 by co2land , the opening paragraphs it was said:

“Observing CTi’s Carbon Offsets 2 day Masterclass offering, it occurred that a US based mob was on about getting real about ‘real’ carbon offsets. Curiosity led to checking out the reporting standard AS/NZS ISO 14064, finding it is silent on the word or term ‘real’ and completely avoids the topic of additionality, was fascinating given that you can’t even conceive of an offset without the concept of additionality!

CO2Land org now ponders: If ‘real’ cannot be a guarantee of a good project outcome. It follows that the use of the word or term ‘real’ can be seen as a initial or promised activity increase and not be seen as a guarantee of an increase in the carbon offset (it could be real activity and still lead to a decrease of carbon offsets). So if I say it was real at the time I acted; it was an act in good faith only. The issue with the word ‘real’ is it literally means the activity is a cause of change.

This lead to thinking of the impact this has on the Carbon Farming Initiative as legislated when the Gold Standard and Carbon Fix require that projects be “real”, but no international standard could explain what they mean by using the terms”.

Then if you consider where ‘real’ is covered with a contrived definition and includes the concepts of completeness and accuracy in accounting, and leakage. It does so as no more than use ‘real’ as a synonym!

It would also appear that additionality is the next condition that might be the excuse that you cannot be real and CO2Land org looked a little harder (we don’t want this post to be no more than ‘hot air’) and found:

Specifically ISO 14064-2 (project accounting) does not include ‘Real’ because during development of ISO 14064-2 ‘Real’ was regarded as a programmatic rule/criteria, which is outside the scope of ISO 14064-2.

ISO 14064-2 is a standard rather than a program

ISO 14064-2 (Clause 5.4) specifies the following requirement in regards to additionality: “The project proponent shall select or establish, justify and apply criteria and procedures for demonstrating that the project results in GHG emissions reductions or removal enhancements that are additional to what would occur in the baseline scenario.”

Additionality is incorporated into ISO 14064-2 is based on the core principles of ISO standards in general, i.e. that ISO standards not be a barrier to trade (WTO-TBT – anyone following development of ISO 14067 (product) will know this is a major issue). As such, ISO standards must be policy-neutral (extended to include program-neutrality). This is of course very important for market confidence.

ISO 14064 deals with the concept of additionality by requiring that the GHG project has resulted in GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements in addition to what would have happened in the absence of that project. It does not use the term “additionality”…Thus the project proponent may apply additionality criteria and procedures, or define and use boundaries consistent with relevant legislation, policy, GHG programmes and good practice.”

Although the concept/requirement of additionality is within the requirements of ISO 14064-2, the simple reason why the ‘term’ additionality is not present within the requirements of ISO 14064-2 is because of certain sensitivities/perceptions/politics of certain parties involved in the development of the standard –

And, the following references helpful in gaining a more complete understanding:

ISO 14064-2 addresses ‘additionality’ with a general requirement and reference-out to the program rules (link = http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/policy/ISO14064.html#Additionality).

Also http://ghginstitute.org/2012/01/25/how-do-you-explain-additionality/