Bradford Sue: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1463] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I say how delighted we are to see this bill finally come back before the House. It seems like a long time since we first debated this bill back in June 2004 nearly 2 whole years ago. I am sorry that the processes of Parliament and the election have intervened to slow it down so seriously. I am just glad that this Government is sufficiently committed to disability issues to make sure that we are now dealing with this bill as a matter of priority. At least we are getting there. As of 1 March 2006 New Zealand Sign Language will be an official language of this country. 
I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee that dealt with this bill and I must first of all say what a privilege it was to be part of a process in which all proceedings were interpreted between New Zealand Sign Language and English and as an MP to begin to get even the smallest of insights into the language and culture of the Deaf community in New Zealand. I had had virtually no contact with New Zealand Sign Language prior to that experience so it was a steep learning curve. Apart from anything else I now have enormous respect for the skills and stamina of any New Zealand Sign Language interpreters. Select committee processes are long and difficult anyway—to have to cope with and interpret for submitters officials and politicians must have been quite something. 
A wide range of issues were canvassed during our consideration of this bill and a number of amendments have been developed in response to submitters’ concerns—although as with any legislation it was impossible to accommodate everyone’s hopes and dreams. Above all submitters revealed the deep need that exists for quality interpreting services in all aspects of the interface between the Government and citizens not just as part of formal legal proceedings. People came to the select committee to talk to us about for example what it is like to deal with the mental health system when one is profoundly deaf and has no way of communicating clearly with doctors and nurses. We heard of problems with police and prisons education and welfare. Deaf people face enormous barriers when trying to access services and information from Government departments much less when they get caught up with the State as for example a patient or prisoner. 
I acknowledge that even though this bill is about to go through there is still an enormously long way to go. Like others I am pleased that interdepartmental working-groups are working to improve performance in four key areas: health education employment and public broadcasting. 
The committee also asked that the justice sector be added as a top priority for although this bill as enacted will provide for the use of sign language in legal proceedings there will still be a wide range of gaps at critical junctures even within the justice system—for example when a person is first facing the police or when he or she becomes a prisoner. From my own experience of being on that end of the law I know how hard communication can be even when one is a hearing person with a good education and sound grasp of the English language. It is almost unimaginable what it must be like to be deaf and under threat or in the reality of arrest or suffering the ongoing impacts of incarceration without understanding what is going on or being able to tell one’s own side of the story. 
Another area in which the committee took a particular interest was in the definition of interpretation. We reworded that so as to make clear the impacts in relation to both English and our country’s other official language Maori. We also had a number of interesting discussions about how competency in interpretation might be defined. We discovered that a lot of work is continuing in this area and although some of us would have liked to create a definition in this bill it will still be possible for that to happen through regulation later on if necessary. 
One fact became glaringly obvious as submissions proceeded and that was the existence of a severe shortage of fully trained and qualified interpreters in this country. For forward movement in this area it will be absolutely critical that the Government does everything it can to support the maintenance and development of the training that does exist and facilitate the access of keen would-be interpreters to that training. I was pleased to hear the comments the Minister made earlier about that area. 
Each qualified interpreter is worth his or her weight in gold and so far there have been far too few of them. Some submitters put forward the view that this bill should establish a New Zealand Sign Language commission in the same way that we have Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori. After discussion and advice we considered that in this case it would be preferable to establish an advisory group with strong representation from the Deaf community. The purpose of that advisory group would be to monitor the effects of the legislation to make sure it is achieving its stated goals and to advise the Government on further steps it should take in future to promote New Zealand Sign Language. I sincerely hope the Government does make that happen and does not just see this bill or the Minister’s report that is required after 1 March 2009 as the end of the story. 
In conclusion I acknowledge all those who took the time and trouble to make submissions to us particularly those from the Deaf community who have had such a long struggle to make this bill a reality. I realise that they may remain considerably frustrated by the slow pace of progress but I see this bill as a critical first step on a journey towards a society and Government that fully recognises and uses their language as part of its operations. I thank them for all their work and for the privilege of sharing even a tiny portion of their lives language and culture with us. This bill is a testament to their courage.