King Colin: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2173] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 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.