Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2167] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 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.