Roy Heather: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1468] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. Some people will be disappointed to learn that the ACT party is opposing the bill. I ask them not to be offended for we mean no offence. We applaud the intent of the bill but fear the wider-reaching implications of it. 
In the first reading of the bill ACT’s Gerry Eckhoff spoke movingly of his own experience of deafness and in particular of the difficulties that he faced growing up as a hearing-impaired child. He described his difficulty in the classroom the school reports stating he did not pay attention in class and could try harder and his reputation as a troublemaker because he switched off when he could not follow what was going on. I am sure that many will be able to relate to that situation. 
The reason that we oppose the bill is that it is unlikely to do anything to help members of the Deaf community. The reason for that is simple. The Government is proposing to create rights for Deaf people to use New Zealand Sign Language but it has no plan in place to fund the provision of the services that would be necessary for those rights to be met. There are people who think that the money will be found just because the right is established. I ask them to think again. The Minister of Finance guards his surplus millions closely and can scarcely bring himself to part with a single cent. We have seen legislation like this before with the establishment of rights on paper that do not exist in reality. The absence of any Treasury comment on this bill means that nobody in authority has even begun to think of how to pay for its provisions. 
Perhaps the best thing about this bill and there are many good things in it is that it has highlighted the issue of communication for the deaf. The discussion and debate it has attracted has certainly heightened general awareness and that in itself is very positive. That is why ACT supported the bill at its first reading and its progress to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The intention of the bill is very creditable. 
We also agree that in legal processes it is essential that a deaf person like every New Zealander be presented with information in a way that he or she is readily able to understand. History has many examples and we have heard some today of injustices suffered by the deaf because they could not follow proceedings. 
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 deaf patients and for people 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 that situation there is a tendency to make use of family members as translators but that can create problems of its own with regard to sensitive issues. Those obstacles are not of course confined just to the hospital setting but impinge on every facet of life. 
A better approach is the one that is used in Britain for example. It is to provide a budget for translators so that they are paid for their work and in proportion to the time they devote to it. It is a simple and relatively cheap practical measure that would help people to get more accurate diagnosis and better treatment and it would assist everybody involved. 
However 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. There is absolutely no evidence of that in this bill. In ACT’s view it would be more useful to follow the Australian example of recognising the Deaf community as a language group. In Australia the policy is as follows: “It is now increasingly recognised that signing deaf people constitute a group like any other non-English speaking language group in Australia with a distinct sub-culture recognised by shared history social life and sense of identity united and symbolized by fluency in Auslan the principal means of communication with the Australian Deaf Community.” ACT believes that that approach would be more appropriate for the New Zealand situation. 
Another issue is that sign languages differ from country to country. The international sign language was Gestuno. Now called International Sign Language that is what is used at international conferences and meetings. The obvious comparison is in the world of music. A musical score can be read by those with musical training no matter whether their native language is 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. According to the 2001 New Zealand disability survey some 7700 partially or completely deaf adults live in households using New Zealand Sign Language and/or Signed English and another 51000 are able to lip-read. Although that is a significant number the question that must be asked is whether that is sufficient for New Zealand Sign Language to constitute an official language. 
An unintended consequence of awarding official recognition to New Zealand Sign Language may well be for other non - English speaking groups to then seek official recognition of their languages. For example can we expect demands for Braille to be extended similar status or for other spoken languages such as Mandarin or Cantonese to receive official status? 
If this bill is passed I predict that the services necessary to fulfil the 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. I have to wonder whether the money could not be better spent on the treatment of deafness. In my research into 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 that unmet need was financial. It seems that if Government money is to be spent then that might be a good place to start. 
Politics is not confined just to this debating chamber and I am aware that some in the Deaf community look on lip-reading as a poor relation to sign language. Yet approximately 51000 hearing-impaired Kiwis lip-read—a fact that should not be overlooked. 
To conclude the ACT party supports the aspiration of the Deaf community to integrate fully into society and accepts that that 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 feel that this bill as it stands will give the appearance of progress but achieve very little. That outcome is the worst of all worlds.