Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13776] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 The introduction of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill to Parliament is of huge significance to the Deaf community—a significance of such immense importance and meaning that those of us who have not shared in the experiences of the Deaf community can only guess at. New Zealand Sign Language is a language and it is unique to New Zealand and to the Deaf community of New Zealand. New Zealand Sign Language is the Deaf community’s most important tool for effective communication—effective communication for learning for building self-esteem for achievement and for social well-being. As people as a community and as a nation we all benefit from recognising understanding and supporting New Zealand Sign Language as being core to the culture of the Deaf community. I acknowledge the 20-year battle undertaken by the Deaf community including the Deaf Association of New Zealand in seeking official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language and I pay tribute to the dedication commitment and leadership of all those involved during that time. 
A number of New Zealanders like myself have had very little involvement with the Deaf community. Recent experiences have helped me to understand more and to appreciate the communication barriers that exist. Jennifer Brain the chief executive officer of the Deaf Association of New Zealand kindly loaned me a videotape that portrayed two young Deaf people being apprehended by the law. Being stopped by the police being taken to the police station and subsequently being processed was a clear example in the video of how a simple misunderstanding can have serious consequences and could have resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. What understanding do we in this House have of such a situation? 
I ask members of the House to picture this situation. It is night-time. The car I am in is pulled over and my driver steps out. Being the passenger I am told to stay in the car but I do not because I am Deaf and cannot hear the instruction and because my first instinct is to make sure my driver is OK. I get out of the car and stand with my back to the policeman to look at my friend the driver who is also Deaf. I forget all about the policeman behind me who is now busy telling me to place my hands on the car and spread them. I am concentrating on what is happening to my friend. I cannot hear the policeman repeating his instructions so it is not me who is getting mad. When the policeman surprises me from behind by grabbing my shoulder and I accidentally hit him with a reflex protective action then boy I am in trouble. On go the handcuffs and we are bundled off to the police station. 
That situation could have led to a grave miscarriage of justice—so why did it not do so? A New Zealand Sign Language interpreter saved the day underscoring the necessity of ensuring that people have the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings including in the courts although those interpreters need to be highly proficient in New Zealand Sign Language. In the story I have just related the young man changed his interpreter. One of the reasons for that was the need for an interpreter with a greater degree of proficiency than the initial interpreter could provide. 
 One of the main provisions of the bill is that a presiding officer must ensure that a competent interpreter is available. 
Apart from the requirements of clauses 6 and 7 relating to legal proceedings the bill does not create any legal enforceable rights. The bill does have principles to guide Government departments which have been spoken about by the Hon Ruth Dyson. Those are firstly that the Deaf community should be consulted on matters that affect its language—including for example the promotion of the use of New Zealand Sign Language—secondly that Government departments should use New Zealand Sign Language in the promotion of their services and information to the public and thirdly that Government services and information should be accessible to Deaf people including being accessible through the use of New Zealand Sign Language. The bill also has provisions to authorise the making of regulations which include specifying the competency standards for persons acting as New Zealand Sign Language interpreters in legal proceedings. It is my understanding that any additional requirements for Government departments as a consequence of the enactment of this legislation must come from their existing departmental budgets. Although the general policy statement at the front of the bill recognises that provisions for the use of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters are inadequate no reference has been made to any funding required as a consequence of the bill’s enactment. 
It has been said elsewhere that the demand for interpreters will be fuelled by the passage of this bill. Access to services and interpreters by rural communities needs to be assured as too often rural communities miss out in favour of more populated areas especially if services are population-based. That is my plug for the rural sector. 
I have been talking to all sorts of people about this bill and was told by someone of a family whose members could all sign but of whom only the father was Deaf. Such was the proficiency of the family’s use of sign language that when the mother wanted to express her feelings to the daughter she felt able to do that more effectively by signing than by speaking. The power of signing as a language is clearly illustrated by that example where two people who are not Deaf prefer to converse using signing. 
We now all have an opportunity through the process of this bill to communicate with and to develop an understanding and appreciation of the Deaf community through the language of that community—New Zealand Sign Language. We look forward to that privilege. National supports the bill.