Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1458] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The National Party supports the second reading of this historic New Zealand Sign Language Bill and we congratulate all those who have worked so hard to achieve it and to bring it about today. Although I was not personally on the Justice and Electoral Committee I understand that the 195 submitters—although I hear from the Minister for Disability Issues Ruth Dyson that the total figure was actually 293 submitters—all supported this bill. 
The genesis of this landmark bill goes back a long way but the Deaf community in particular must be congratulated on the long hard and consistent work it has done over more than 20 years to bring New Zealand Sign Language to being recognised as an official language in New Zealand. People have asked what is an official language. At present New Zealand has two official languages: English and Maori. Maori is official because it has been declared so by statute and English is official by convention dating back many hundreds of years into English law. 
It is important to acknowledge that New Zealand Sign Language is a wholly visual language with its own grammatical structure which is different from that of English and Maori. It is distinct and it differs from the sign language of other countries such as Australia America Canada and Britain. I am also told that a deaf person fluent in Maori who has no English and a deaf person fluent in English who has no Maori may equally learn and communicate with New Zealand Sign Language. 
The modern history leading up to the second reading of this bill has been more rapid than the long history of obstacles that deaf people in New Zealand have had to confront since the mid-1850s and probably long before that as well. As I noted in the first reading of this bill the Deaf Association of New Zealand has provided fascinating information demonstrating how British sign language was introduced to New Zealand back in the 1880s by deaf migrants pupils attending schools for the deaf and tutors working here in New Zealand. But how extremely difficult it must have been if one was a deaf person or child living and working in isolation out on a farm—or perhaps on a whaling station as my forebears were—to have access to those facilities. There was certainly no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in those days; in fact for the majority of New Zealanders there was simply no access to services whatsoever. 
 In 1878 the very insightful South Island MP William Rolleston introduced a bill to fund an institution for the deaf. By the 1880s school leavers from Sumner and overseas formed deaf communities. School signs and the British sign language combined to form the New Zealand Sign Language which has since evolved as a sign language absolutely unique to New Zealand. In 1904 an Act of Parliament meant that parents had to enrol their deaf children at Sumner but signing was forbidden. However children signed in dormitories and developed their own signs. So it was from these very early beginnings that I understand the New Zealand Sign Language has evolved and developed. 
In 1983 the Deaf Association of New Zealand was persuaded by its hearing president to accept signed English as the official sign language in the belief that anything else would prevent deaf children from having any kind of access to manual communication. From there work carried on so that by 1992 a New Zealand Sign Language dictionary was started at Victoria University. In the latter part of that year the New Zealand Sign Language Tutors Association was started. In 1997  
A Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language 
 was published. That was a major milestone and contribution. 
So today we get one step closer to the recognition of New Zealand Sign Language becoming an official language. At this stage the bill states that official status does not create any legally enforceable right except in respect of legal proceedings. My colleague Sandra Goudie spoke vividly in the first reading debate of the huge misunderstandings that had arisen when deaf drivers were apprehended by the police and communication virtually broke down until sign language came to the rescue. Dr Richard Worth another of my eminent National colleagues will also emphasise the profound difference to the fair working of the courts when sign language was made an official and an enforceable right in legal proceedings. 
I absolutely endorse clause 10A which requires a review of operations of the Act as soon as practicable after 1 March 2009. This requires a report on firstly the operation of this Act since its commencement and secondly on whether any amendments to the scope and contents of the Act are necessary or desirable. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended the inclusion of “an explicit statement to confirm that aside from enforcing the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in any legal proceedings the bill does not extend rights to the Deaf community beyond those already provided in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and does not limit their rights in any way.” Again I understand that clause 10B covers this effectively by stating: “Nothing in this Act affects the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” 
I am concerned however that there was no fiscal impact report on the bill. I do see it as inevitable and in fact as right and proper that in time there will be further provisions for expansion of signing services into health education and other areas. It is important therefore that the fiscal implications of this bill are taken seriously. The select committee was told that at this stage further spending would have to come from Vote Justice baseline funding. It is therefore vital and fundamental that Vote Justice is adequately prepared and that in the future if changes are made they are well-thought-out so they can be sustained effectively into the future. 
This bill has had the consistent backing and support of the Deaf community. We now learn that the 293 submissions to this bill were all supportive of it. It is with great pleasure that National supports its second reading.