New Zealand Sign Language Bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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;”.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

💬 Shane Jones: Good to see it continued into adulthood!

That is right. I tell Mr Jones that I know a little bit of te reo.

New Zealand Sign Language is a vital communication tool for those people in our country who are deaf. I believe that it is extremely important that we acknowledge that this evening as we move forward. It is important to note that in 3 years’ time, on 1 March 2009, a review will be undertaken. I believe that it is very important to acknowledge that 3 years from now we will be able to take a step back and fine-tune anything that may need to be addressed.

In reading the bill, I am interested to note that, going forward, no fiscal implications have been budgeted for. I see that the need for signers in the courts is acknowledged, but that the need for them in other places is not acknowledged—places such as hospitals and Parliament. So I challenge the Minister for Disability Issues this evening to take a call to explain to me why some of those budgeting items were not included in the bill.

It is also interesting to note that so far this evening we have heard nothing on the bill from members on the other side of the Committee, and I thought they were supporting it. I challenge them to take a call this evening so we can hear their endorsement of the bill. I specifically challenge the Minister—

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I think members will have much more scope under Part 2. The debate is tending to get a bit repetitive.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 New Zealand Sign Language