Roy Heather: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Third Reading 
Roy Heather: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2595] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak to this third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. As we all know there are many people from the Deaf community in the gallery today who are here for this third reading. I welcome them. 
As those people in the gallery know it is not easy being a minority group. The ACT party is opposing this bill and that makes us a minority group in this House today. I ask the Deaf community not to be offended because we mean no offence. We applaud the intent of this bill but we fear the wider-reaching implications of it. 
After the second reading of this bill and ACT’s opposition to it we received several pieces of correspondence. ACT leader Rodney Hide visited the Deaf community in Auckland and he was very impressed with what he saw. He outlined our position and he felt that it was very well received. 
As we know the Opposition’s job is to raise concerns about legislation. My good conscience prevents me from voting in favour of this bill when the Government fails to address some very important issues that have been raised. 
It does not always take legislation to allow good things to happen. I will explain that statement. The Government proposes to create rights for the Deaf to use New Zealand Sign Language but has no plan in place to fund the provision of the services that would be necessary for those rights to be met. I ask those people who think that the money will be found to think again. The Government guards its surplus millions very closely. We are yet to see a commitment to the funding that this bill will require. 
We have seen legislation like this many times before with the establishment of rights on paper that do not exist in reality. The absence of any Treasury comment on this bill or of any regulatory impact statement implies that nobody in authority has even begun to think about how to pay for the provisions. 
Good intentions alone do not automatically translate into good lawmaking. Making New Zealand Sign Language an official language will not in itself achieve very much without proper support and definite funding allocations. As I said there has been no evidence of this. 
One very positive thing that has resulted from this bill is that it has highlighted the issue of communication for the Deaf. The Minister Ruth Dyson may be surprised to hear me say this but I congratulate her on raising the issue and on the hard work that has obviously gone into this bill. The discussion and debate that the bill has attracted have certainly heightened general awareness of the issue and that in itself is extremely positive. That is why ACT supported this bill at its first reading allowing it to progress to the select committee. 
I have already said that the intention of the bill is very creditable. ACT members also agree that in legal processes it is essential that a deaf person like any other New Zealander be presented with information in a way that is readily understood by him or her. History has many examples of injustices suffered by the deaf because they could not follow proceedings. In this day and age that is clearly unacceptable. 
From my previous career as a health professional I know that in the hospital setting the provision of translation services is a frequent problem. It is a problem for the deaf and for patients who do not speak English. It is usually possible to organise translators but when interviewing patients health professionals are conscious that they are relying on the translator’s goodwill. Translators are expected to provide the service in their own time or if they are hospital employees in addition to their usual duties. In this situation there is a tendency to make use of family members as translators but this in itself can create problems when sensitive issues are being discussed. 
 Of course these obstacles are not confined to just the hospital setting; they also impinge on every facet of life. As the National Party member Dr Hutchison pointed out perhaps a better approach and one that is used in Britain for example is to provide a budget for translators so that they get paid for their work and in proportion to the time they devote to it. It is a simple and relatively cheap practical measure that will help people get more accurate diagnosis and better treatment and it will assist everybody involved. 
In Australia the Deaf community is recognised as a language group. What does this mean? It is now increasingly recognised that signing Deaf people constitute a group like any other English-speaking language group in Australia with a distinct subculture that is recognised by a shared history social life and sense of identity and united and symbolised by fluency in Auslan which is the principal means of communication within the Australian Deaf community. 
Another issue that should be mentioned is that sign languages differ from country to country. The international sign language as those people in the gallery will know is Gestuno. This is used at international conferences and meetings. Previously in this House I have used the obvious comparison with the world of music. A musical score can be read by those with musical training no matter what their native language is be it Spanish Arabic Cantonese English or any other language. To give New Zealand Sign Language official status as the bill proposes automatically disadvantages those signing in any other sign language. 
We have just had the census and it will not have escaped anybody’s notice that New Zealand Sign Language was one of the options in the “most commonly used language” category for New Zealanders. The most up-to-date figures we have at the moment are those from the 2001 New Zealand disability survey which showed that 7700 partially or completely deaf adults living in households used New Zealand Sign Language and/or signed English and 51000 New Zealanders were able to lip-read. 
When this bill is passed I predict that the necessary services to fulfil obligations of organisations will not be in place. Our current Government will then move slowly to fill the gap hiring full-time translators who will then spend very little of their working day doing the job they were hired for. 
One area where the Government could do better is in the treatment of deafness. Waiting lists are very long and in some cases as I think has already been mentioned to this House people will wait for a very long time and perhaps never receive treatments that could revolutionise their lives such as cochlear implants. When researching this subject I discovered that 21 percent of partially or completely deaf adults in households had an unmet need for some type of special equipment or service related to their disability. The most common reason for this unmet need was a financial one. It seems that if Government money is to be spent then this might well be a very good place to start. 
Politics is not confined to just this debating chamber. I am aware that some people in the Deaf community look on lip-reading as the poor relation. Yet it should not be forgotten that 51000 hearing-impaired Kiwis lip-read. 
To conclude I tell members that the ACT party supports the aspiration of the Deaf community to integrate fully into society and it accepts that this will quite rightly involve greater use of sign language. We have doubts about the wisdom of making New Zealand Sign Language an official language and we feel that this bill as it stands will give the appearance of progress but possibly achieve very little—and that outcome would be a travesty. 
I understand the excitement and the great sense of achievement after a lot of hard work that is being felt today in our public gallery. I hope having expressed my fears and opposing this bill on behalf of the ACT party that I will be proven wrong.