Connell Brian: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2166] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have heard some very fine speeches in support of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill this evening and their sentiments of course I agree with. 
When I took my first call I criticised the need for this bill but I did not criticise New Zealand Sign Language and I point out to colleagues that there is quite a difference between the two. I continue to argue as to whether this legislation is necessary given that New Zealand Sign Language is so universally accepted now and so enduring that it would have continued under its own steam without the need to bother Parliament. In particular I am concerned about the clauses that pertain to interpreters being present at all legal proceedings in this country. I ask those who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill to take a call to explain how many examples were given where people in our court systems had been severely disadvantaged. Were they so many that we have to impose on all of New Zealand legislation that will come with a considerable price tag? 
I have built the argument before and I will repeat it: if New Zealanders would simply take more responsibility for their own actions legislators would have a lot less to do and Barbara Stewart’s bill that calls for 20 fewer legislators in this country might have a fair chance of getting through this House. 
Is it really necessary to build costs into our court system by having an interpreter for every one of the courts that is listed in the schedule? I will read out the names of the courts because the point is very central to my argument. All of these courts will now have an interpreter: the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal the High Court District Courts the Employment Court the Family Courts Youth Courts the Maori Land Court the Maori Appellate Court and the Environment Court. The tribunals are then listed: the Waitangi Tribunal the Employment Relations Authority the Human Rights Review Tribunal the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunals which are established under section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 and the tenancy tribunal. In my view this will become a bureaucratic nightmare. I ask again—and the Minister in the chair the Minister for Disability Issues might be able to take a call to explain—why those things were not costed into the bill in the first place. Now that the Minister has had the question put to her she might be able to answer how many examples were offered to the select committee to show that this legislation was in fact necessary. 
What I see happening here is our heartstrings being pulled and our minds being overruled by our hearts. That might sound cold but it is not meant to; it is just meant to sound realistic. I believe that the legislators of this country have a fiducial responsibility to make sure that the legislation we are putting in place is in fact necessary. I qualify that statement by saying as I have said right throughout the course of this debate that New Zealand Sign Language itself is such an enduring part of our landscape now that it would have continued without this legislation being necessary in the first instance. What bothers me is that it will not stop here. If New Zealand Sign Language is in our courts today then I believe that within the next 10 years it will be imposed in all Government departments. Some might argue that that is a good thing and of course if one is profoundly deaf one will argue that it is a good thing.