New Zealand Sign Language Bill

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) Link to this

Thank you for the call on the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Members know that they have reached the pinnacle of their careers when their whips call them up at short notice and ask them to take a call on such important legislation. I will probably be accused of being a little insensitive because—[ Interruption]; did some member call out and make a contribution to that—my first response when I was asked to take a call was to question why Parliament is being asked to spend its time on this legislation. I will need a little convincing that it is, in fact, necessary. That does not mean to say that I do not care about people who are deaf. I also care about lots of people, though, who have other impairments, and I wonder why deaf people in particular have been singled out.

Why I am bothered, and why I have taken the time to raise my concern at the outset, is that I look at what is being proposed here within the purpose of the legislation in clause 3 and see that we will now declare New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of New Zealand, and that the bill will provide for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings. That latter part is the part I am most concerned about. I wonder whether those who proposed this bill actually did a costing of what this move will impose on taxpayers in this country. How many people actually come before our courts who are so profoundly deaf—there is no other way they can be communicated with—that we have to go to the bother of legislating to have someone interpreting in New Zealand Sign Language in our courts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, when those courts are in action? I suggest that the number is very few, indeed. I just wonder why we have had to go to all this difficulty and bother to single out that one area of impairment.

The other reason I am concerned is that this language, I am told, is unique to New Zealand. That is all well and good, but I would have thought that if we were imposing an official language on New Zealand, we might have had a language that had some universal connection. Why will this language be understood only by New Zealanders? Why is it not a language that can be used and understood around the rest of the globe? So those were a couple of concerns I raised, in the first instance.

I have said that I did not mean to say I did not care—because I do. My own father, in fact, is now profoundly deaf, and I have seen him over the years retreat into his own world because he cannot communicate. He feels, and we feel, that he has been diminished somewhat as a response to that situation, but that does not mean to say that I should have come to Parliament wanting to put in place legislation specifically for him. What I did, with the rest of my family, was to endeavour to get him really good help to overcome his impairment so that he can participate. But I had to do that by putting my hand in my own pocket. Rather than making it a problem for the taxpayers of New Zealand, I took some personal responsibility and fixed the issue. Now my father can communicate, and he is taking an active role in family life and in social life, once again. He is just one example, but that aspect of the bill bothers me.

I am also bothered by the fact that we are told this language will not have any official standing other than in our courts—and my addition to that statement is: yet. I am told that the guiding principles will be distributed to Government departments, but that those departments will have no compulsion to use them. I say that that is how these things start, and then become bigger than Ben Hur. I believe that we are going down the track of creating something that will in time be a rod for our own backs. I think that the legislation could have been thought through, and a better solution arrived at.

Having said that, I tell the Committee that National’s view, as a caucus, is that of course we will support this legislation, but I have voiced some concerns I would like members to be cognisant of through the Committee stage. I think that we as a country, and we as legislators in particular, are falling into this trap all the time: when something seems socially acceptable we take the easy option and start legislating. Sign language is one of those things that in its own right will endure, because there is a need for it. But legislating for it will not make it any better or any worse—and, of course, that is my point. I think it is unnecessary that the Parliament of New Zealand has had to be bothered with becoming involved in something that will endure in its own right. That is the point I wanted to make, but I do not want to be recorded as being unsympathetic; I was just trying to introduce a touch of reality to these proceedings.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

New Zealand First is very pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Clause 3 outlines the purpose of the bill. It is very clear. The key message is that sign language can be used in legal proceedings, and the bill also promotes the use of sign language in Government departments. I was very pleased to see that the Wellington City Council offers a sign language interpreting service.

New Zealand First believes it is important to acknowledge the rights of members of the Deaf community and their equal value in society. The more options deaf New Zealanders have to participate in the community, and in society overall, the richer their lives will be. In this area they have not been afforded the same right to their language as other New Zealanders.

I note the previous speaker said that sign languages are not universal. Guess what? English is not totally a universal language. New Zealand Sign Language is unique to New Zealand; it is not used anywhere else in the world. Other countries have their own sign language. This is just like Māori, which is not a universal language, but we need to take note of that language and include it as an official language as well. Sign language includes signs that express Māori language and Māori culture. In this way it is very inclusive and assures that Māori New Zealanders who do not hear have access to their language and their culture, and that is what needs to happen.

New Zealand First was very pleased to see in clause 4 that the interpretation of terms includes people who identify with the Deaf community, as the bill must include hearing people within the definition. New Zealand First believes that today is an opportunity to make progress on the legal status of the New Zealand Sign Language and to advance the recognition of sign language.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, on behalf of National. During this process I have learnt a great deal about New Zealand Sign Language and its importance to the Deaf community. One of the things I have learnt is that when we are speaking to people who are using a sign language interpreter—and I am delighted to see that we have one in the House this afternoon—it is important to speak slowly. So that is something I have learnt and I am making a conscious effort to put into practice.

On that premise, I think learning is one of the great things about sharing other people’s stories and valuing their contribution, and understanding a little of what they experience every day. I was intrigued to note that even the Deaf community change their language, and the New Zealand Sign Language, as they learn, develop, and evolve. In being sensitive to other communities and their needs, they have changed some of their signing.

Brian Connell raised an interesting point when speaking to Part 1. Yes, members of the Deaf community have protections under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but I am pleased to see that those protections are enhanced by the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. One of the things that was very important to me was to see that the appropriate sign language interpreters are available during any criminal process, and that includes where deaf people might be apprehended.

In my initial speech in the House I related a story that was shared with me by the Deaf community, regarding a policeman who was trying to give an instruction to somebody who was deaf. Because the policeman was standing behind the deaf person, the deaf person was unaware of the policeman requiring him to do something. So what happened? The policeman probably got mad, and, of course, the deaf person was still unaware of that taking place. As a consequence, having been cautioned a number of times, the person was then duly arrested. None of us likes to see those sorts of situations taking place. We like to see people being given the due consideration, care, and attention that is necessary, but it is hard to know whether someone is deaf and whether he or she can understand us in that kind of situation.

There have been forums between the Deaf community and the police, and there have been some very positive discussions highlighting some areas where there is room for improvement. My understanding from those forums and discussions is that some very positive relationships already exist between the Deaf community and the police, but there were also some areas where improvements could be made. I am sure that in the ongoing training of our police personnel, their understanding of the Deaf community will be broadened quite substantially.

Hospitals is another area where there is a concern around interpreters being available. We need to ensure that the diagnosis and the explanation of symptoms is very clear and understood, and not misinterpreted. This does, of course, require a level of great expertise on the part of the interpreter, and there are differing degrees of capability with interpreters. There is no provision, as was pointed out by my colleague Brian Connell, for ongoing costs associated with the provision of interpreters.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) Link to this

I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak in support of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill and to address Part 1. The irony of my doing that is not lost upon me. I do not believe that there will be many occasions in this House when I will rise to support legislation promoted by the Labour Government and its partner in Government, New Zealand First. Unlike those parties, I believe in the inherent worth of every New Zealand individual, and I have no desire at all to see more and more of our people being made dependent on the State.

I reflect upon my 32 years as an educator and upon the parents I got to know who had children who were deaf. I think that something like 95 percent of children who are deaf have parents who have hearing, and I never cease to be amazed by the commitment and the drive that those mums and dads have to learn sign language so they can assist their children. Let us be very, very clear about one thing. It is not possible for an individual to function in our community and take part in our economy if they cannot communicate in formal language, and that is what this bill will do for the Deaf members of our community. It will give their language a status, a standing, and bring respect to it. It is amazing what one learns. After 32 years in education I would have thought that I would learn one or two things, but I never appreciated that New Zealand Sign Language is actually distinctive to New Zealand. I had always taken for granted that sign language was sign language. On studying this bill I developed a whole new perspective on that, and for that reason I believe that the bill is worthy of support.

I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for the fine work it has done on the bill. It is a simple law, it is straightforward, and its purpose is clearly stated, and the passage of the bill in this House will mean an enormous amount to the 28,000 people in New Zealand who used sign language, and in particular to the 7,000 Deaf New Zealanders who are using sign language. It is hard to believe that sign language has been in New Zealand for something like 125 years. Yet only in the last 20 years has the drive been there to have it made an official language. Today, as a result of the work of this House, the select committee, and many other people, sign language is one step closer to being official. In other words, we are one step closer to saying to those New Zealanders who are deaf that their language is important and that their language is the way in which they communicate formally and structurally with other New Zealanders, and I think that that is a great thing.

It is a great thing that we are giving official recognition to New Zealand Sign Language, and I think that the principles laid out in the bill are commendable. Sign language is not theatre sport. It is not drama, it is not theatrics; it is a formal, structured language with grammar and expression, and it gives anybody who is using it every opportunity to express the full range of human thought. It is precise and carefully constructed, and, as I say, it has its own grammar and syntax. It is a language in its own right.

Children who are born deaf, to deaf parents, learn sign language naturally from their parents. Children who are born deaf to parents who are not deaf face a major challenge. As I spent 32 years as an educator, I used to watch the signers who used to assist those children, and I was just stunned by their patience and skill. I watched a signer in the House this afternoon. I noted the skill and the patience; it was quite extraordinary. Being able to sign opens up a whole range of possibilities for our young people—for those children who are born deaf and who need, and want, to make their way in the world on the basis of their individual merits and effort.

In speaking to Part 1, I take the opportunity, as a former educator, and as a member of Parliament—as I understand that I am allowed to wear two hats—to pay tribute to New Zealand’s two residential special schools for the deaf and the hearing impaired. Those schools are in Auckland and Christchurch.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this

I rise to speak to Part 1 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, and I refer to my colleague Allan Peachy’s comment that New Zealand Sign Language was not theatre sports and it was not theatre. However, I want to go back to some of the principles that underline the theatre, because I believe that theatre, like sign language, is about communication, and is about communicating in the most effective way that a person has at his or her disposal with the people with whom that person wants to communicate.

When I was an actor, as I was for a number of years, as part of training it was pointed out to us, and we were to discover for ourselves, that in order to communicate effectively with either a person or a group of people it was necessary to realise that words themselves make up around 6 percent of the effectiveness of communication. The intonation—what we actually hear, the ups and downs of those words—comprises around 14 percent of communication; and body language—what we do with our hands, our facial expressions, and in fact, our whole bodies—comprises 80 percent of what is made up of communication.

The interpreter within this Chamber is using sign language and body language to communicate. That communication is being understood very well by the people with whom she is communicating. So when I say that the theatre, and theatre training, is relevant to sign language, I go back to those principles.

Further, when one is on stage, or when one is in front of a camera, and is communicating with his or her body to an audience—a single person, or a group of people—one must always be looking out for how that is received. Because how that is received determines one’s next words; the way one delivers those next words through one’s body language determines the way in which one proceeds. So body language—and, I rather suspect, sign language—is very much a two-way process, and that is what communication is all about.

I was stunned and amazed when I was talking to a friend of mine who works as an early childhood educator. One of the ways in which she communicates with her very little children is by using sign language. They use sign language in early childhood centres, mostly to find out when kids want to go to the loo, because kids often cannot express themselves through words, but they can certainly express themselves through signing. They find it really useful in this particular early childhood centre because if the little children are in a room full of sleeping children, the kids who want to go to the toilet can simply make a sign. The question can be asked and can be answered effectively by very little children without disturbing others. To me, 2-year-olds using sign language is very effective, and, of course, as parents, we all use sign language.

In Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote and maintain the use of New Zealand Sign Language by—“. Well, I would maintain that it is to promote and maintain the use of effective communication. Clause 4, “Interpretation”, states: “Deaf community means—(a) the distinct linguistic and cultural group of people who are deaf and who use New Zealand Sign Language as their first or preferred language;”.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Already, through reading the bill and watching the signers operate in the House, I realise that I need to be very deliberate in my delivery this evening to give them the courtesy of understanding how I will speak about and address the bill.

Many people have hearing disabilities, and I want to talk about just a couple of examples close to home. My father, who is a farmer and has operated a lot of machinery in his time, has a severe hearing disability. The huge amount of joy he got when he was fortunate enough to get some hearing aids was incredible. He likened it to being in a forest hearing birds that he had not been able to hear for the previous two or three decades. He also told me that it was funny when he got up in the middle of the night and went to the toilet, for he had not heard that sound for a long, long time.

I also have a friend who is a veterinarian up in Matamata who suffered a very, very bad skiing accident where he burst one of his eardrums. That has had a severe impact on his profession, particularly when he works with deer in an enclosed space. Those animals are particularly fast, and he said that the lack of balance, as a result of having only one ear operating properly, means that it is extremely dangerous for him to be circulating with those animals in their yards.

So I think it is important that we acknowledge not only the 7,000 people in New Zealand who are Deaf but also the others who have severe hearing disabilities. I think it is also important to take a moment to ponder how those people miss out in today’s society. The bill helps to address that, and we, the National Party caucus, are extremely supportive of it. It is a step in the right direction, and is unique to New Zealand. I was surprised to read in Hansard that sign language is not acknowledged internationally, but just here in New Zealand. That is partly, I guess, because of our Māori culture. I tell people in the Chamber this evening that I recall that at primary school, when I did not listen intently enough, the teacher would often say: “Nathan, open up your taringas.”, which I am doing here this evening.

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) Link to this

I have heard some very fine speeches in support of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill this evening, and their sentiments, of course, I agree with.

When I took my first call, I criticised the need for this bill but I did not criticise New Zealand Sign Language, and I point out to colleagues that there is quite a difference between the two. I continue to argue as to whether this legislation is necessary, given that New Zealand Sign Language is so universally accepted now and so enduring that it would have continued under its own steam without the need to bother Parliament. In particular, I am concerned about the clauses that pertain to interpreters being present at all legal proceedings in this country. I ask those who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill to take a call to explain how many examples were given where people in our court systems had been severely disadvantaged. Were they so many that we have to impose on all of New Zealand legislation that will come with a considerable price tag?

I have built the argument before, and I will repeat it: if New Zealanders would simply take more responsibility for their own actions, legislators would have a lot less to do, and Barbara Stewart’s bill that calls for 20 fewer legislators in this country might have a fair chance of getting through this House.

Is it really necessary to build costs into our court system by having an interpreter for every one of the courts that is listed in the schedule? I will read out the names of the courts, because the point is very central to my argument. All of these courts will now have an interpreter: the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, District Courts, the Employment Court, the Family Courts, Youth Courts, the Māori Land Court, the Māori Appellate Court, and the Environment Court. The tribunals are then listed: the Waitangi Tribunal, the Employment Relations Authority, the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunals, which are established under section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, and the tenancy tribunal. In my view, this will become a bureaucratic nightmare. I ask again—and the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Disability Issues, might be able to take a call to explain—why those things were not costed into the bill in the first place. Now that the Minister has had the question put to her she might be able to answer how many examples were offered to the select committee to show that this legislation was in fact necessary.

What I see happening here is our heartstrings being pulled and our minds being overruled by our hearts. That might sound cold, but it is not meant to; it is just meant to sound realistic. I believe that the legislators of this country have a fiducial responsibility to make sure that the legislation we are putting in place is in fact necessary. I qualify that statement by saying, as I have said right throughout the course of this debate, that New Zealand Sign Language itself is such an enduring part of our landscape now that it would have continued without this legislation being necessary in the first instance. What bothers me is that it will not stop here. If New Zealand Sign Language is in our courts today, then I believe that within the next 10 years it will be imposed in all Government departments. Some might argue that that is a good thing, and of course if one is profoundly deaf, one will argue that it is a good thing.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) Link to this

It gives me great pleasure to contribute to the debate. I first acknowledge the very widespread support and engagement that the bill has received through to this stage, and I am sure will receive through the Committee stage as well. It is not often that we have an opportunity to debate a bill that is supported by all but one of the parties in Parliament, and it has been a real pleasure to be involved in it.

The amendments that have been arrived at during the select committee are a bit of an indication of the way that process went. In clause 7(1)(b), clause 7(3), clause 9(1A), and clause 10A, all the new amendments from the select committee have been promoted in a unanimous fashion. I certainly support them. It is just worth noting that it is not often that we get that from a select committee.

In terms of the entire Part 2, the most important part is clause 6, which states: “New Zealand Sign Language is declared to be an official language of New Zealand.” That is not just a declaration of the recognition of the language; it is a declaration of the recognition of Deaf culture, and therefore the importance when one is recognising a culture of also recognising its language. Although I think at least one of the points that Brian Connell raised in his contribution was worthy of consideration, I do think he overlooked the fundamental point that recognition of a culture through its language is one of the primary drivers.

He is right to suggest that it does imply a right to have New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings, and I cannot imagine that it is a right that anyone in the country would debate, frankly. In fact, every single member of Parliament during the previous consideration of the bill said that that was correct. The only debate was about the mechanism for doing it. In fact, clause 10B states quite specifically that it does not affect the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is just debatable whether the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would be an appropriate place to give recognition to a culture. In my view, this is a much more appropriate mechanism for doing so. The Deaf community itself has promoted the idea of legal proceedings being an appropriate place for the right to have one’s own language being made available through interpreter services, and I support that.

I certainly hope that what sounded like a fear from Mr Connell of the use of New Zealand Sign Language spreading throughout Government departments and agencies is a fear that is realised. For me, it would be fantastic for all New Zealanders whose first language is from New Zealand to have their language made available to them so that access to information—

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am delighted that the Minister has made a contribution to the House. I think it is really important to reiterate at this time the need for everybody participating in the debate to speak slowly, out of courtesy to the interpreter and also to those people who want to understand the content of the debate, through the interpreter.

In speaking to Part 2, I will look to the courts and tribunals outlined in the schedule, and make some comment about that. The system that was used before, and that will continue to be used, is that those people who come before the courts and tribunals will have access to a sign language interpreter. Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act they have that right now, and once the bill is enacted they will continue to have that right. But, as a consequence of this bill, it will be stated more clearly as a requirement. I am very pleased to see that happen because it can be bad enough for people like myself who can hear, and see, to access what we see as justice—I had a letter in that regard today—but it must be even worse when somebody has the difficulty of not being able to hear, and perhaps does not have access to a sign language interpreter in order to be able to understand the proceedings of the court or tribunal process.

The procedure in the courts will not change significantly, because any person who has a hearing difficulty and needs to use a sign language interpreter can do that now. That will not change, but it will be enhanced, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will be supported by the fact that it is now a requirement through this sign language legislation. The costings were not done, but I think it is quite right to identify that as a concern. That concern was considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. But, as the Minister has pointed out, the review will provide an opportunity to look at what has been positive and negative about the enactment of the legislation, and the fact that there have been 3 years in which to consider its effects.

The select committee worked well to ensure that any concern raised as to the wording of the bill was addressed, and there was a great deal of comment and debate about some of the more intricate wording in the bill. As members will see, we did strike out unanimously the definition of interpretation. We needed to be very clear about what was being said, and we made every endeavour to do that. We got quite excited and carried away by the discussion, and we had to keep reminding ourselves that the sign language interpreters needed us to talk slowly and to speak one at a time, and although we did not always do that, the interpreters were very, very patient and pulled us into line occasionally.

So many stories were shared by submitters during the select committee process. One of the stories was of a woman who was constantly called dumb at secondary school. She was punished because she could not understand what her teachers were saying, and she hated that. She now spends her time helping deaf and hearing impaired people find the services they need. So she is actively involved in making sure that hearing impaired or deaf people do not have to experience the same sorts of problems that she did. That is one of the many stories we valued, as a part of the process of this bill.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

On behalf of New Zealand First I am delighted to take a call on Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. New Zealand First supports Part 2. This bill, to us, is basically about communication and accessing information, which we believe all people have a right to do. Part 2 outlines the circumstances where New Zealand Sign Language can be used. It emphasises the fact that a competent interpreter must be available. We believe this will be challenging, because the bill does not determine competency, and we believe competency must be determined. In this House we are very aware that this is a very significant issue for the Deaf community.

We in New Zealand First believe competency should ensure that certification, by successfully graduating from a course, is a basic requirement of competency. We must ensure that information is relayed correctly. We all know that a lack of competency in this particular area could have significant consequences for a deaf person, particularly in a health or a legal environment. This is a very significant and important issue. We believe that minimum standards of competency must be set as a priority.

There must also be a focus on ensuring sufficient numbers of interpreters are available to provide the service. This means that there must be some incentive for providers to offer this training throughout New Zealand. We know that the Auckland University of Technology offers this training, and I was very pleased to read on the Internet that a second course has been set up in Otago. I am very mindful that the courses are of 2 years’ duration, so it may be some time before we see those students graduate. We know that there is currently a shortage of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters, so it will be quite some time before graduates of those courses can actually meet the demand for interpreters.

We must acknowledge the interpreter in the House today, who is using sign language. It does require a lot of skill. We must emphasise that this is important legislation, which will ensure that New Zealand Sign Language has equal status to spoken language. As other speakers have said, this is a vital communication issue, and we look forward to the speedy passing of this bill through the House.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this

It is a privilege to stand here and speak about the process that is before the Committee—the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, especially Part 2. My only experience with hearing impaired people was in a previous life when I was a shearing instructor.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) Link to this

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Clause 6 declares that New Zealand Sign Language is to be an official language of New Zealand. I took a little bit of convincing about that. During 16 years as a school principal, I very strongly advocated the teaching of languages. I believe that, as New Zealanders, we do not put sufficiently high value on our young people learning more than their first language. Many of our young people suffer a disadvantage when compared with youngsters from other parts of the world in this respect. I took a moment to review modern linguistic research and writing, and I am now convinced that sign language is indeed a real language and is worthy of respect.

Clause 7 provides for the use of sign language in legal proceedings. In most cases, I have no difficulty agreeing with the reservations expressed by my colleague Mr Connell about that issue. However, I am one of those people who believe that when it comes to the judicial system, the stakes are very high when one is appearing in court, and we must get it right—for every New Zealander. We should make whatever effort we need to in order to ensure that that happens.

A group of New Zealanders will benefit from this law. They will benefit from having their own unique language recognised as an official language. They will have better access to the legal system, the health system, and the education system as a result of this bill.

I come back to those parents, grandparents, and other family members who are learning, or who have learnt, New Zealand Sign Language in order to assist one of their children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, nieces, or nephews. In effect, those people are learning a second language. It must be a great affirmation and reassurance to them to know that this Parliament is giving the first language of their children official recognition. For a child who is born deaf and who learns to sign, sign language is that child’s first language. I commend all those parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, and, sometimes, friends who make the effort to learn that second language in order to support their fellow New Zealanders.

People who are deaf need, deserve, and are entitled to the same protection from any misunderstanding or unfair treatment in our legal system, health system, and education system that might result from a lack of communication or a lack of understanding. Anything we can do to reduce that risk for a group of New Zealanders—and we should remember that 7,000 Deaf New Zealanders use sign language—is worth doing.

Clause 8 deals with the effect of recognising New Zealand Sign Language. Clause 9 lays down the principles that Government departments should be guided by in giving effect to the objectives of the bill. The Deaf community is to be consulted on all matters relating to New Zealand Sign Language. That is appropriate, and that is how it should be. New Zealand Sign Language is to be used to provide information and to promote Government services, and—most important, I think—Government services and information are to be accessible to the Deaf community.

Clause 10 authorises the Minister to report on progress. I particularly commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its insertion of a new clause 10A into the bill, which provides for a review of the operation of this legislation 3 years from the date of its commencement. Like many members of the House, and I am sure, now, many New Zealanders, I take a lot of comfort from the knowledge that when that review occurs—

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this

I rise to speak to the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I turn, firstly, to the schedule of the bill, “Courts and tribunals before which New Zealand Sign Language may be used”. I want to talk about that subject from a personal perspective. It would be very easy to be somewhat flippant about the beneficial effect that having an interpreter to represent somebody before the courts may have.

Some 20 years ago I was a supervisor working for the Salvation Army. I supervised young people who were failing—or had failed—under the education system, who had left school, and who were unable to get work. Those people were offered the opportunity—and I do say it was an opportunity—to be part of a Salvation Army work scheme, the purpose of which was to teach not only work skills to young people but also life skills.

When I was a supervisor with the Salvation Army, there was a young man who was profoundly deaf. When he first came on the scheme as one of my trainees, it was very hard to communicate with him, because, apart from that fact that he had let his hair grow down over his eyes so he did not have to look at people, he had a bit of an attitude. He was an angry and not a very happy young man, so it was difficult to communicate with him. When we did begin to communicate with him—of course, the communication would be: “Go and dig over that piece of ground and we’ll grow some spuds.”, or something like that—he began to become part of our team, and I think he enjoyed his time as a trainee.

I turn to Part 2 of the bill. Clause 7 outlines the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings. I will tell members why I think that it is terribly, terribly important for people to have that right. In the years that went by, the young man I have talked about—and I am going back 20 years now; he was 17 or 18 at the time I knew him—then began to appear in the district court, over what could be seen as relatively trivial matters to do with motor vehicles and vandalism. Although he might have been represented by counsel to the best of their ability, one can only imagine the effectiveness of counsel who were trying to communicate with somebody who was profoundly deaf.

Having known that young man, I know that he, like a great many other young people, was actually very scared and very vulnerable underneath. When one is faced with an appearance in the district court, which is somewhat like a factory, it is frightening and very scary, and every person in New Zealand deserves all the help he or she can get. So I support the right of everybody in New Zealand, including those people who require the use of New Zealand Sign Language, to have that service available to them in any court in the land. I guess that privilege would have to be extended to the Family Court. Members can imagine how very difficult it is for anyone to appear in front of any kind of judicial court. So I completely support the provisions in clause 7 of Part 2.

I just want to turn to new section 10A, “Review of operation of Act”, which is proposed to be inserted by clause 10 of the bill. That provision gives the Minister the opportunity to sit back and evaluate whether the legislation is really working, and again I think it is a very good part of the bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Chairman. Kia ora tātou katoa. I want to talk about the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, but in terms of the Māori language. I think back to the days when people were not allowed to speak Māori. My own grandfather wrote a book Teach Yourself Māori but he never taught any of his children, so consequently they never taught any of us. They all got strapped for speaking Māori. Therefore, in the 1970s we had to push hard to bring the Māori language back into schools. I congratulate groups like Ngā Tamatoa, Te Reo Māori Society here in Pōneke, and others on pushing to bring back the language—and now I can hear it anywhere.

We have Māori radio stations, Māori television and, thanks to the Prime Minister, we hear the national anthem in Māori every time the All Blacks play football. So the Māori language has come back, almost from the dead. When I think of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, I congratulate everybody on their efforts in bringing this bill to Parliament, and I think also of a time at Waitangi, a couple of years ago, when a group of Deaf people came there. All the kōrero on the marae was in Māori, of course. The interpreter, the person who did the sign language, just happened to be fluent in Māori and he was able to sign directly in Māori to all the Deaf people there. It was really quite something to see them all laughing at the same jokes we were all laughing at, at the same time. But the thing I really laughed at was when somebody tried to take it the next step, by then translating from sign language into English. Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done there, because the English translated from the signing in Māori was just not the same story but it was lovely to watch.

When I hear people talk about the number of Deaf people—there are only 4,000, or whatever—I think of Māori, and of how it has enriched our nation. So I do not see the New Zealand Sign Language Bill in terms of offering something to a small group in society; I see it as offering something to the whole of society, and opening us up to be more comfortable with people who speak to one another in different ways. It is actually sign language that shows me how hard it must be for a whole lot of Pākehā people, when a bunch of us Māori get together and start talking to one another in Māori. When we start talking in Māori, nobody understands us, and when I call in at the local cafe in Kaitāia where all the Deaf people meet and they all start talking in New Zealand Sign Language, I do not understand them, either.

I wish joy to those who are promoting this bill, and to those who will use this language. I say to us not to see it as something we begrudge to a small sector of our community but as something we can revel in and be proud of, now that I know it only happens here, in Aotearoa. It reminds us that in a society that is pretty monocultural, any attempt to break us out of thinking along only one paradigm has to be a good idea. I congratulate the Minister and all of those who have spoken so far, and I sincerely hope in the years to come, when the next captain of the All Blacks sings the national anthem—Tana never ever sings it in Māori; but that is OK because he never sings it in English, either—he will do it in Maori, in English, and even in New Zealand Sign Language, as well.

NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this

I would like everyone in the Committee to picture this: there has been an unfortunate situation and someone has ended up in court, but the person is deaf, and is relying on a translator. I think it is important under clause 4 of Part 2 that we really have a close look at that situation. If I were in court, and if I were deaf, I would want to ensure that I had the best translator—the most competent one I could find. When I look through some of the submissions, I find them very interesting. I see one there from Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori down in Wellington, which states that its concern is the recognition that when people use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings, they should be able to express themselves in Māori or English, as they choose.

I would be really interested in the Minister taking a call to let me know how many Māori translators there are in this country. It would be really interesting to know. I think there is a real issue around whether we have enough signers, and whether they are all at a good level of competency and up to a high level of translation. I think it is also interesting to note that there is a diploma course available in Auckland. I just wonder how many people are going through and taking up that diploma and whether we have enough signers in New Zealand who can translate in Māori and English.

I move to clause 10A, which is all about the review in 3 years’ time. That review will be quite interesting, I believe, because, potentially, it will throw up the true costs and indicate any amendments that may have to be made. It is really important that when that review is done in 3 years’ time—or thereabouts, whenever practically possible—the Deaf community are consulted. That is very, very important. When I looked through some of the submissions, I found quite an interesting comment from Freyberg High School in Palmerston North, which is near my area. It states: “Many deaf people get upset with so many people patronising them. We can’t stand this. We think we are equal to others, and we are. We are equal with hearing people, and with education too. Deaf people can do everything except hear. We have intelligence, knowledge, and good learning. This is where the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, our visual language, actually helps. We receive this through our eyes, not our ears.”

The bill is supported by the National caucus. Through reading the submissions, reading the bill today, and going through the bill part by part, I have learnt an extremely large amount about the bill. I support it wholeheartedly.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this

I follow on from what I was speaking about before on Part 1 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, but I move this time on to Part 2.

I found it very informative that the bill places a lot of responsibility back on to the person who is profoundly deaf and requires the support of New Zealand Sign Language to be able to communicate adequately in a court of law. Clause 7(6) states: “Any such regulations or rules of court or other appropriate rules of procedure may make failure to give the required notice a relevant consideration in relation to an award of costs, but no person may be denied the right to use NZSL”—or New Zealand Sign Language—“in any legal proceedings because of any such failure.” I think that is a very considerate and compassionate provision. It is good to see that that right is accommodated in Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, because it places a level of responsibility upon the presiding officer of the court, and it means that he or she should, at the first notification, ensure that profoundly deaf people are duly supported and are able to communicate their thoughts and their opinions via New Zealand Sign Language. One would say that this measure was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as many speakers have done today. It is basically just what we would expect in any country with a First World quality of life.

Although we have talked particularly about New Zealand Sign Language—and it is unique and something we should be proud of—37 other countries in the world have their own unique sign languages. When we look down through the list, we see those countries that we would expect to see, and it is therefore only appropriate that New Zealand is on the list, too. I believe, on that basis, we are taking an appropriate step forward.

I say to those people who consider that the policy behind this legislation may be doubtful or may get out of control that I was very impressed to learn that there is a considerable difference between interpretation and translation. Something that really needs to be borne in mind here is the cut and thrust of the court. When things are moving very, very quickly, interpretation is far more real time. On that basis, I am very, very comfortable that that provision is available. It goes the other way, as well. It is important that translation is provided for people whose first choice of language is New Zealand Sign Language, so that they are able to have their thoughts and details of explanation relayed back accurately, and their side of the story heard and given respect.

Moving on to the review situation, I refer to the date that is mentioned in the bill—1 March 2009. I see that the wording in new clause 10A(1) is accurate: “The Minister must, as soon as is practicable after 1 March 2009, require a report to be prepared …”. I would strongly urge the body of people who are representative of the profoundly deaf, and those who depend on New Zealand Sign Language, to remain organised and vigilant, so that when the time comes for the Minister to be consulting and progressing matters, they will have achieved in 3 years what it has taken them 20 years to achieve today. I believe that those people have earned credibility and have come of age in the sense that they have won respect and dignity for the difficulties they have had to face. I also tell them to keep an eye on the level of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters who are able to be at their call, and to bear in mind that there are many courts throughout the land—I am thinking here of provincial centres.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) Link to this

I appreciate the opportunity to continue my contribution to Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I return to clause 10A, which provides for a review of the operation of the Act, and I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for making provision for that review. I note that under the Minister’s proposed amendment the review is to take place 3 years after the date on which the Act comes into force. I guess that means that the review will occur sometime in 2009, and I, I think like an increasing number of New Zealanders, take a lot of confidence from the knowledge that when that review is conducted the Minister responsible for it will be a Minister in a National Government. New Zealanders cannot wait for that to happen.

Clause 11 provides for the making of regulations, and again I commend the select committee for not recommending the establishment of a New Zealand Sign Language commission. This bill is not about bureaucracy. Let us be very, very clear about this: we do not want legislation in New Zealand that simply creates more bureaucrats for the sake of having more bureaucrats. This bill will not require more office workers, more bureaucrats, or more people ticking boxes and filling out forms, and using words like compliance and accountability. What will be required is more people who are trained as sign language interpreters. I believe that the final test of the success of this bill, when it is implemented, will be our ability to deliver on that.

I believe that whenever we are dealing with any issue of disability, the focus must always be on what an individual can do, not on what an individual cannot do. The focus is not on whether an individual can hear; the focus is on what an individual can do—and that individual can communicate. One of the means by which deaf people can communicate is through sign language. For many of those people—for the 7,000 Deaf New Zealanders who use sign language—that is their first language. It is the key to their being able to communicate in a formal sense and in an informal sense, and the key to their being able to participate as fully contributing and involved members of our community. Sign language is the key to their being able to make a contribution to our community, to stand on their own two feet, and to take responsibility for themselves. That is what language is all about. It is about the inherent worth of the individual, and the ability of that individual to communicate and to participate. As I have said once before, New Zealand Sign Language is a formal language. It has structure, it has grammar, it has syntax, and it has expression. It is worthy of our recognition as an official language.

I have a sense from the Committee that I may be the last speaker, and if that is the case it is a privilege to be able to speak finally, before the vote is put. I conclude by once again paying tribute to those people who make the effort to learn a second language—to those people who understand that disability is not about what an individual cannot do; it is about what an individual can do. But there is little point, for example, in a child who is deaf learning sign language if others in his or her immediate community are not prepared, or are not able, to do so. I know from my own observations and my own experience as an educator that in those families where mum and dad, grandad, and brothers and sisters take the trouble to be involved with the child and to learn the child’s first language, it means that that child can participate fully in family life.