PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is just a matter of clarification. If members have to speak more slowly, will the clock go a little more slowly?

Mr SPEAKER: Unfortunately, no.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) : I move, That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

This bill provides official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language, the unique language of Deaf New Zealanders. New Zealand Sign Language is the natural visual and gestural language of over 7,000 Deaf New Zealanders. I speak on behalf of the Deaf people of New Zealand, to whom New Zealand Sign Language and deaf culture belong. We know that language and cultural issues are best represented by members of that culture and, ideally, this bill would be presented to the House by a deaf member of Parliament. But in the absence of a deaf member of Parliament, I am honoured to do this.

Deaf people make up a distinct and dynamic cultural group. New Zealand Sign Language is central to their culture. Deaf culture, like all cultures, brings together a rich body of distinct customs, mannerisms, art, humour, and history, as well as language. I have attended many Deaf community events and am constantly impressed with their strong sense of community.

New Zealand Sign Language is a real language. It has its own grammatical structure different from that of either English or Māori. Contrary to popular misconception, it is not a collection of gestures or mime. It is like all other languages in that it can communicate a full range of concepts. Sign languages are not universal. This means that New Zealand Sign Language is unique to our country. It is not used anywhere else in the world. It is also unique because it includes signs that express concepts from Māori culture. Deaf Māori describe New Zealand Sign Language as a tool for accessing their Māori language and culture.

The introduction of this bill to the House is very timely. The New Zealand Deaf community has been seeking official recognition of its language for over 20 years. This moment would not be occurring without their advocacy, and I commend them for their drive and persistence. Historically, in New Zealand and around the world, the use of sign language was actively prohibited. This was a result of longstanding misconceptions that sign languages were not real languages and were inferior to spoken languages. Today, linguistic research confirms that sign language is a real language. Internationally, a few countries have officially recognised their native sign languages. Most countries, however, have not yet achieved this. By passing this bill, we will be setting an example of best practice. There has already been significant international interest in this bill.

The New Zealand Sign Language Bill before the House today was built up from the Deaf community. A Deaf advisory group was established, then under the advice of that group officials travelled to the main Deaf communities around New Zealand seeking their guidance. These consultation processes provided a wealth of information and clear directions for the bill. Consultation also highlighted why official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language is fundamental to ensuring the dignity of Deaf people. Deaf people report that they experience language barriers when accessing Government services. Consultation showed that Government agencies’ perceptions about the accessibility of their services were very different from the actual experiences of Deaf people. For example, Deaf people report sometimes being unable to access interpreters in legal proceedings. In education, some Deaf children are unable to access the curriculum via New Zealand Sign Language. Upon finishing school, Deaf people are often unemployed or underemployed. Deaf women report difficulties in accessing sexual and reproductive health services. Many of these barriers reinforce each other in a cyclical manner. Poor access to New Zealand Sign Language early in life contributes to poor educational achievement. This in turn limits employment opportunities, access to public information and services, and participation in society.

This bill clarifies the legal status of New Zealand Sign Language. As demonstrated by the consultation I referred to, under the current law there are serious problems with its status. A gap in our laws means that Deaf people’s rights to use their language are not protected. They have the legal right to an interpreter in some situations, but not in others. So this bill declares New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of our country. It has the further objectives of promoting and maintaining the language. Of course, official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language will not affect the status of our other two languages, English and Māori. It will not affect the rights of any other minorities in New Zealand. Many languages are spoken here, and this bill is not intended to diminish the status of any of them. Those languages generally share a common feature: that is, they are legally recognised in their home countries or countries of origin. Giving New Zealand Sign Language recognition in its home country will give it equal status with spoken languages.

The bill provides the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings where a person’s first or preferred language is New Zealand Sign Language. It includes a general regulation-making power to provide for any matter that may be necessary for its administration. For example, we may need to have regulations to prescribe competency standards for interpreters in legal proceedings. Work is now under way to ensure that standards of interpreter competence in legal proceedings can be implemented by the time the bill is passed. It does not impose any specific rights or obligations, apart from the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings.

The level of social exclusion experienced by Deaf people suggests a need to protect and enforce their linguistic rights in many different situations. So the bill sets out principles to guide Government agencies in how to give effect to the provisions in the bill. Those principles include that Government services and information should be made accessible to the Deaf community, and that the Deaf community should be consulted on matters that affect their language. Progress reports will monitor the implementation of the bill’s principles. Rather than creating a new reporting mechanism, we are using the existing mechanism of the New Zealand disability strategy.

The bill itself will assist in implementing the disability strategy. The vision of that strategy is of a society that highly values the lives of disabled people and continually enhances their full participation. The New Zealand Sign Language Bill will help remove barriers that prevent Deaf people from contributing to society. The disability strategy identified negative attitudes as the biggest barrier to participation. The bill will go some way in influencing the attitudes of society in recognising and valuing New Zealand Sign Language. We are committed to equal rights for disabled people, including giving legal status to the language of Deaf people.

This bill is a tremendous achievement for both the Deaf community and the New Zealand Government. However, legislation alone is not enough to reduce the inequalities experienced by Deaf people. Deaf people report language barriers in every facet of their daily lives. They have highlighted four priority areas that need immediate and long-term improvements: education, health, employment, and public broadcasting. One way that language barriers can be removed is to utilise the services of qualified sign language interpreters, as we have in the House today. But I wish to stress that interpreters are not the whole solution. Public information is largely inaccessible to Deaf people, as English is their second language. To make information more accessible, we need to translate written information into plain English and use modern technology, such as videoconferencing, and signed video clips on the Internet and on television.

In conclusion, I reiterate that this bill is a monumental milestone for the Deaf community. This bill gives due honour and respect to Deaf people, and their unique language and culture. By declaring New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of New Zealand, we are acknowledging the Deaf community’s presence, its rights, and its equal value in New Zealand society. I commend this bill to the House.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : The introduction of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill to Parliament is of huge significance to the Deaf community—a significance of such immense importance and meaning that those of us who have not shared in the experiences of the Deaf community can only guess at. New Zealand Sign Language is a language, and it is unique to New Zealand and to the Deaf community of New Zealand. New Zealand Sign Language is the Deaf community’s most important tool for effective communication—effective communication for learning, for building self-esteem, for achievement, and for social well-being. As people, as a community, and as a nation, we all benefit from recognising, understanding, and supporting New Zealand Sign Language as being core to the culture of the Deaf community. I acknowledge the 20-year battle undertaken by the Deaf community, including the Deaf Association of New Zealand, in seeking official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language, and I pay tribute to the dedication, commitment, and leadership of all those involved during that time.

A number of New Zealanders, like myself, have had very little involvement with the Deaf community. Recent experiences have helped me to understand more and to appreciate the communication barriers that exist. Jennifer Brain, the chief executive officer of the Deaf Association of New Zealand, kindly loaned me a videotape that portrayed two young Deaf people being apprehended by the law. Being stopped by the police, being taken to the police station, and subsequently being processed was a clear example, in the video, of how a simple misunderstanding can have serious consequences and could have resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. What understanding do we in this House have of such a situation?

I ask members of the House to picture this situation. It is night-time. The car I am in is pulled over, and my driver steps out. Being the passenger, I am told to stay in the car, but I do not, because I am Deaf and cannot hear the instruction, and because my first instinct is to make sure my driver is OK. I get out of the car and stand with my back to the policeman to look at my friend, the driver, who is also Deaf. I forget all about the policeman behind me, who is now busy telling me to place my hands on the car and spread them. I am concentrating on what is happening to my friend. I cannot hear the policeman repeating his instructions, so it is not me who is getting mad. When the policeman surprises me from behind by grabbing my shoulder and I accidentally hit him with a reflex protective action, then, boy, I am in trouble. On go the handcuffs, and we are bundled off to the police station.

That situation could have led to a grave miscarriage of justice—so why did it not do so? A New Zealand Sign Language interpreter saved the day, underscoring the necessity of ensuring that people have the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings, including in the courts, although those interpreters need to be highly proficient in New Zealand Sign Language. In the story I have just related, the young man changed his interpreter. One of the reasons for that was the need for an interpreter with a greater degree of proficiency than the initial interpreter could provide.

One of the main provisions of the bill is that a presiding officer must ensure that a competent interpreter is available.

Apart from the requirements of clauses 6 and 7 relating to legal proceedings, the bill does not create any legal, enforceable rights. The bill does have principles to guide Government departments, which have been spoken about by the Hon Ruth Dyson. Those are, firstly, that the Deaf community should be consulted on matters that affect its language—including, for example, the promotion of the use of New Zealand Sign Language—secondly, that Government departments should use New Zealand Sign Language in the promotion of their services and information to the public, and, thirdly, that Government services and information should be accessible to Deaf people, including being accessible through the use of New Zealand Sign Language. The bill also has provisions to authorise the making of regulations, which include specifying the competency standards for persons acting as New Zealand Sign Language interpreters in legal proceedings. It is my understanding that any additional requirements for Government departments as a consequence of the enactment of this legislation must come from their existing departmental budgets. Although the general policy statement at the front of the bill recognises that provisions for the use of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters are inadequate, no reference has been made to any funding required as a consequence of the bill’s enactment.

It has been said elsewhere that the demand for interpreters will be fuelled by the passage of this bill. Access to services and interpreters by rural communities needs to be assured, as too often rural communities miss out in favour of more populated areas, especially if services are population-based. That is my plug for the rural sector.

I have been talking to all sorts of people about this bill, and was told by someone of a family whose members could all sign but of whom only the father was Deaf. Such was the proficiency of the family’s use of sign language that when the mother wanted to express her feelings to the daughter, she felt able to do that more effectively by signing than by speaking. The power of signing as a language is clearly illustrated by that example, where two people who are not Deaf prefer to converse using signing.

We now all have an opportunity through the process of this bill to communicate with, and to develop an understanding and appreciation of, the Deaf community through the language of that community—New Zealand Sign Language. We look forward to that privilege. National supports the bill.

LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I wish to begin by paying tribute to the Hon Ruth Dyson for her stewardship of the disability issues portfolio. Ruth Dyson has committed 100 percent to delivering on all aspects of the Disability Strategy, and the introduction of this bill is another promise fulfilled. The Minister has made it her mission to consult with the wide range of communities she is accountable to, in order to ensure she has a very clear understanding of all the issues. Her understanding of, and respect for, New Zealand’s Deaf communities are evident today as she introduces this bill. However, I can confirm that she is personally committed to Deaf communities beyond the introduction of this bill, even to learning some signing herself, which unfortunately she did not share with us today.

That being said, I cannot understate or overstate—depending on perspective—the significance of what is happening in this Parliament today. I was very pleased to hear that the National Party will support the introduction of this bill, because of that importance. Essentially, the Government is recognising that New Zealand Sign Language is an official language of New Zealand. It is a language in its own right, and of equal status to spoken languages. I am glad the Minister has explained to the House that New Zealand Sign Language is unique, and is not signed English. I can sign my name in signed English, but the name I was given by the Deaf Society of Canterbury is unique to me; it means bright eyes. It was given to me in recognition of my light blue eyes, and I thank the society for giving me that name in its language.

I am pleased that the bill contains within it the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in any legal proceedings. That is an important component of what is called access to justice. It is what we should all—all New Zealanders—be able to take for granted. I am sure that over time it will extend into other areas of Government service and delivery, and out into the wider community.

Everyone has inherent human rights—rights that this bill seeks to address. However, it goes further, beyond the human rights that we would see written in legislation. It really talks of the right of participation, the sense of belonging that is important to each and every one of us, and the ability to communicate with each other, enabling us to build understanding across diverse cultures. Our Deaf communities have much to offer those of us who sometimes stand accused of listening without hearing. They have much to offer, because their experience is different. This bill is an important component of the attitudinal change needed to bridge the divide that can limit people’s ability to participate fully in society.

I close by also paying tribute to the Deaf Association of New Zealand, and to all members of all Deaf communities throughout New Zealand. The 20-year battle for recognition of this real and equal language unique to New Zealand is almost over. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I shall look forward to receiving this bill for our scrutiny, the hearing of submissions, and its return to the House. I commend the bill to the House, and congratulate the Minister once more.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We will support the bill’s referral to the select committee because we believe it is an essential way of encouraging those New Zealanders most affected by this bill to take an active interest and to have their points of view heard and noted in the select committee. New Zealand First can appreciate that this bill promises to give New Zealand Sign Language official recognition and that it will acknowledge New Zealand Sign Language as a real language. This will represent a significant step forward for the Deaf community, as sign language forms the basis of Deaf culture in New Zealand.

As the Minister pointed out, the immediate effect of this bill will be to provide people with the right to use sign language in any legal proceedings, including the courts—and here there is an issue with resources. How many people are currently trained to ensure that this service can be provided? There is little point in giving sign language official recognition if we are setting up a system that cannot be adequately resourced for this very special group of New Zealanders. At this time New Zealand First can see a resource challenge that will, hopefully, be addressed at the select committee stage. We believe that there is currently a shortage of interpreters and financial resources to ensure that this need is met. Most of the current interpreters would currently be employed and, no doubt, have all the work they can handle. The demand for interpreters will be fuelled by this legislation in much the same way as occurred with the official recognition of the Māori language. It took some time for the demand to be met.

In New Zealand First we were very pleased to read recently in the New Zealand Herald that a diploma in sign language interpreting has been designed to prepare interpreters for work in the Deaf and hearing communities. It is a 2-year programme that will be run at the Auckland University of Technology in central Auckland at the Deaf Association in Avondale. As far as I am aware, this is the only course available specifically for sign language interpreting at this particular time. The successful completion of this programme must be a prerequisite for employment, because the role of the interpreter is a very specialised one, with responsibility for facilitating and being an essential part of the communication between the Deaf and the hearing people in society.

Signing relies on a very accurate exchange of information, often at a demanding rate, with complex concepts or processes that need to be discussed. There is no way that the quality of the communication can be poor. We can list the accessing of university and tertiary education, and indeed all educational institutions, the court system, the health system, and there are so many more. This bill will give recognition to this special group of New Zealanders, and in doing so will, hopefully, reduce barriers and improve the participation of the Deaf community in society.

As many as one in five New Zealanders have been identified as having a permanent impairment or disability. It is a sad but well-known fact that many New Zealanders with impairments are excluded from fully participating in society. Ignorance, prejudice, and discrimination towards the Deaf and other disabled groups act as a major barrier at all levels. This has an insidious effect and reduces the quality of life of those affected. There is also a cumulative loss to society as a whole. Communication and access to information are key issues. All too often people are not able to participate fully in society because they cannot get the information they need in the form they need it. The Deaf community should be fully equipped with the resources necessary to enable its members to fully participate within their communities, and the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is a positive step in this direction.

The Deaf community has its own identity. It faces unique challenges that require a special method of communication and learning. Acknowledgment of each person’s unique identity lies at the heart of a fully inclusive society. As a group, Deaf people are likely to have lower incomes and fewer financial and family resources than the general population. This economic disadvantage is further compounded by the financial cost of disability. The earning potential of families with disabled children can be curtailed by their need to provide support for their children or live and work in areas where they can access family or professional support. This can be improved by providing essential support networks and employment opportunities for the Deaf within their communities.

For most people, the opportunity to work is a fundamental part of their lives. Deaf people face significant barriers in getting and keeping jobs. A Deaf person is several times more likely to be unemployed than a hearing person. Accessible training courses and tertiary study should be made available through special aids, equipment, and sign language to ensure that Deaf people have the best employment opportunities. The Government says that further developments will proceed gradually and that Cabinet has also agreed to look at ways to improve access to New Zealand Sign Language in education, health, employment, and public broadcasting, as well as for Māori Deaf. I hope that the Government continues its commitment to working with the Deaf community through consultation and cooperation as to how best to proceed.

I say in conclusion that New Zealand First supports this bill—with a cautionary note to the Government to take progressive steps to ensure that Deaf people do not need to wait a further 20 years before the next step towards progress is made. There are many resource challenges inherent in this legislation that must be met. New Zealand First congratulates the Deaf Association and the Deaf community on all the work they have done to ensure that this legislation has reached Parliament. We will be watching the progress of this bill through the select committee process with interest.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : On behalf of the Green Party I should like to congratulate the Labour Government and the New Zealand Deaf community on the introduction of this bill. It has been a long time coming and I am sure there will be some celebrations tonight—and even more when the bill finally passes later this year. I would like to assure everyone who has had a role in supporting and drafting this legislation that the Green Party heartily endorses it and will be voting for the bill at every stage of its process through the select committee and the House, taking into account, of course, any necessary amendments that might arise from closer consideration of the detail.

The New Zealand Sign Language Bill before the House this afternoon is aimed at providing formal legal recognition of New Zealand Sign Language for the first time, and marks a significant step forward in the history of how our society treats Deaf people and their culture and history.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, as in other parts of the world, there has been a long and difficult struggle in terms of getting sign language understood for what it is—a real and living language that is part of a culture and that has as much depth and validity as anyone else’s. As one of those who come from the majority culture, with little prior knowledge of sign language and the history it embodies, I have to acknowledge our own shameful history as a nation, in which the use of sign language actually used to be prohibited in New Zealand and in which for many years Deaf children were condemned to inadequate and often inappropriate teaching and learning in speaking and lip-reading, rather than using their own language.

In our country, as in others overseas, the hearing society discouraged generations of Deaf people from using sign language, in the misguided belief that the only way they could and should survive was by using English. This led to low literacy levels, multilevel misunderstandings between Deaf and hearing people, and a cycle of oppression and disenfranchisement that is still with us today.

As the Deaf community has tried to tell the rest of us over and over again, sign language is a language that is just as real as Māori, English, or any other spoken language around the world. Just as there is a gap in understanding and cultural awareness between people who cannot comprehend or speak each other’s oral language, the same thing happens when our majority culture is unable to understand or communicate sign. When that incomprehension and inability on our part is added to the patronising attitudes that have so often characterised majority society’s approach to people who are Deaf, it adds up to a situation in which a substantial minority of people are scorned, derided, and denied the major tool that might allow them to achieve and maintain a sense of identity and pride. As one person said: “Stop wanting to cure us. Accept us as we are. Deafness is part of our identity.” Sign language encapsulates and expresses that identity, and I cannot comprehend how those of us who are not Deaf have dared to deny those who are Deaf the right to full use of their own language.

Sign language is the native language of many Deaf people, and often of their close family members and teachers, too. Sign language not only helps define the Deaf community, it also allows the community’s members better access to all other parts of education and training, including the ability to learn other languages and skills. Beyond that, Deaf people in our country have also had, and continue to have, a really hard time within the justice and medical systems—places where an inability to communicate clearly and well can ultimately have even life-threatening consequences.

It is great that we finally have a party in Government that is committed to recognising New Zealand Sign Language as an official language of our country. It is a pity it has taken Labour this long, since the 1999 election, to get this bill to the House, but at least it is happening now. It is also good that the Government took the time to carry out a consultation process in 2003, in an effort to get the thoughts and feelings of the Deaf community on priorities for the bill.

I guess my main concern now is that the bill does not go far enough, but at least it is a beginning. Not only will New Zealand Sign Language become an officially recognised language, with the ability for people to use it in all court proceedings, but the bill also lays the way open for the setting of competency standards and principles to guide Government departments on the use they should make of New Zealand Sign Language.

I am very interested in what the next steps will be after this bill, particularly in areas like public broadcasting, education, and health. A lot more needs to be done to ensure that all Deaf people gain the ability to participate fully in our society. I hope that the passage of the bill later this year will pave the way for much greater recognition of and financial support for the provision of New Zealand Sign Language training for Deaf children, for Deaf adults who are eager to study New Zealand Sign Language academically, for Deaf people who want to learn it for the first time, and for teachers and other professionals who work with Deaf children and adults. I also hope that the mass media will become more responsible in the provision of translation and captioning so that Deaf adults and children can enjoy and benefit from a much wider range of movies and television programmes, and that the profession of sign language interpreting becomes recognised, supported, and resourced to a greater degree than at present. I also look forward to the day that we see the first MP in this House from the Deaf community, who is able to represent his or her sector to the rest of us in New Zealand Sign Language with the same linguistic ease as speakers of Māori and English.

In conclusion, once again I would like to reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill. We acknowledge that it could go a lot further, and that it will take more than a simple Act of Parliament to bring about all the changes that are needed, but at least we are on the road to achieving official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language by 1 January 2005, and this is indeed something worthy of celebration.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : It is as if by some chance of fate that I have just lost battery power to one ear. I thought it would be appropriate to remove both of my hearing aids for the purpose of this speech. It would seem that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is designed to give Deaf New Zealanders the right to an officially recognised and unique language for a grouping of unique New Zealanders. The bill is designed to give legal status to communication between Deaf people, and between Deaf and hearing people. Deaf people need to have legally recognised that most fundamental requirement of human beings—that is, the ability to communicate with each other. There is no greater inherent need than to interact with our fellow beings. Throughout the animal kingdom there is a common thread that we all share. To be shut off from our world by an inability to relate to one another must be the ultimate form of loneliness. To be able to express fully to others the joys and sorrows we feel from time to time is the thing that truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

The right and the need to express real emotion, opinion, thoughts, disapproval, love, and indeed, hate, by language is, to me, the most essential part of my being. The language of the Deaf is every bit as real as the words spoken and received by those of us who are blessed with hearing. It is right and proper that those who share this special way of communicating should be officially recognised, along with their language, and I thank the Government and the Minister for that. But I ask: what of the unintended consequence of this bill? For example, will the bill require all workplaces—as, indeed, Parliament—in future to have a sign language exponent? If so, what impact will that have on business already struggling under the cost of compliance? Is this bill just another politically correct example of the Government wanting to ingratiate itself with sector groups? Hopefully, the select committee will answer those questions.

I do not presume to understand what it must be like to live in a silent world, although I do have a very real hearing loss. Apparently, I have been deaf since birth, and have exacerbated the problem with the use of tractors and chainsaws, but I do have some small understanding of the problems that the Deaf face on a daily basis. I used to joke: “How do I know what I think unless I hear what I say?”. Members should think about that for a moment. As a child I recall constantly asking the kid sitting next to me in school what the teacher was saying, and what word was that. The kids would get sick of answering my question and I would get sick of asking, so I switched off. My report cards used to state constantly: “Doesn’t pay attention in class. Could try harder.” Often I would be caned for distracting the class or fooling around, because my world was often one of blurred sounds—as it is today. I would be accused of selective hearing, as some words and sounds are, of course, much easier to understand than others. I have been ridiculed in this very Chamber because I did not hear the Speaker call me. I miss so much of the repartee that occurs in this debating chamber. However, all of these small things pale into insignificance alongside those who can communicate only by sign language. To deny the Deaf the right to be officially heard through sign language is simply wrong.

But I am not sure that we need to pass a bill into statute. Do we? I am not sure. Deaf people are often thought of as being slow—especially when I was quite young—but of course nothing can be further from the truth. But they do face major hurdles in life. I am told, for example, that more Deaf people commit suicide and end their life than other people who have physical impairments. The reason for that must surely be the frustration at not being able to communicate well with their fellow human beings. I am not at all sure that giving official recognition to sign language will change the public’s attitude to those with handicaps such as deafness.

It seems to me that in New Zealand we are inclined to help those who choose not to help themselves, and ignore the plight of those in genuine need. In my view the blind, the Deaf, or those who are handicapped in a physical or mental way, should be at the top of the list of those seeking Government assistance. They should not have to raise money through appeals and raffles, to ensure a reasonable quality of life.

Let us hope that this bill is the start of a new awareness of the needs of our Deaf community. ACT will support it to the select committee, with some reservations as to the unintended consequences of this well-meaning bill.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in the first reading debate of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, a bill that directly affects the lives of 28,000 New Zealanders who use this language, and facilitates for them communication and participation in the daily rigours of life. Eight percent of the adult population in New Zealand is affected by some level of hearing impairment, making it the third most common disability amongst adults. Most of us take for granted our good hearing and the ease with which we can access the benefits of information services, employment, recreation, education, and even the most basic human rights unhindered.

The Deaf community and the Deaf Association of New Zealand have been seeking official recognition for their language for 20 years. The fundamental aim of the disability strategy is to remove barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating fully in society. It is fitting that this House officially recognise this language and that we congratulate those who have worked hard to assemble the first New Zealand Sign Language dictionary. In addition to a huge group of dedicated contributors and advisers, I particularly wish to commend the editorial team who have made huge efforts to see this work come to fruition—general editor, Graeme Kennedy; consulting editors, David and Rachel McKee; graphic artist, Shaun Fahey; technical editor, David Moskovitz; and compilation editors, Pat Dugdale and Richard Arnold, who is the nephew of my United Future colleague Gordon Copeland.

Why does this House need to officially recognise this language? To begin with, whenever society mandates the participation of its citizens in some aspect of our life together—like attendance in court proceedings—we must make that participation equitable for everyone. To date, court appearances have been at times a nightmare for the hearing impaired. It has not been uncommon for folk to be denied interpreters, and there have been cases where disorderly conduct charges have been laid because the use of New Zealand Sign Language was misinterpreted as some sort of aggressive behaviour.

One of the most exciting aspects about the fact that we have a distinctly New Zealand Sign Language is that it dovetails beautifully into the existing official Māori and English spoken languages. It has been developed so that it includes signs that express concepts from Māori culture, and increases the likelihood of people being able to use New Zealand Sign Language at hui, marae events, and tangi. It has been tailor-made to express clearly many aspects of Kiwi mannerisms, including our Kiwi sense of humour. There are many misconceptions about sign language that, hopefully, over time we will see disappear as its use becomes better integrated into every aspect of community life.

Sign languages are not universal, nor is Braille the universal written language of the blind. Braille is merely a coded version of the English language. Sign languages must of necessity relate directly to the language or languages spoken in the community. Sign languages are not sophisticated charades or mimes, but are detailed visual languages capable of communicating a wide range of ideas and serving a wide range of purposes.

United Future is very happy to support the first reading of this bill and looks forward to the select committee process, and in particular to the addressing of the ongoing implications for the funding—and other resource issues—that will be required if this is to be seriously implemented.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : It gives me great pleasure to support this very important New Zealand Sign Language Bill on behalf of the National Party. Like other members, I find the genesis and history of this bill both concerning and fascinating, but definitely inspiring. I want to pay tribute to members of the Deaf Association of New Zealand, who, over many years, have worked extremely hard to overcome the many obstacles and hurdles that have confronted them. Today we celebrate their success.

I remember very vividly as a child living with my 90-year-old grandmother for a further 9 years until she was 99. She was profoundly deaf, and we literally used to have to get very close to her and make extremely loud noises in her ear. At times that could be frustrating both for my grandmother and for us. However, the point of saying this is that in the 1960s our household had no concept of using sign language. That clearly was an omission by us, but perhaps it was also a reflection of the times and just what obstacles Deaf people had to confront and overcome.

I want to spend a few moments going over some of the long history of obstacles that Deaf people in New Zealand have had to confront since the mid-1850s. I noted the history from the notes that were provided by the Deaf Association of New Zealand. Apparently, British sign language was introduced to New Zealand back in the 1980s by Deaf migrants, pupils attending Deaf schools, and tutors working in New Zealand. But how difficult it must have been—if one were living in isolation out on farms, or perhaps out even on a whaling station, as my forebears were—for a Deaf child to have access to these facilities.

But in 1878, William Rolleston, one of the South Island MPs, introduced a bill to fund an institution for the Deaf. The Government, however, decided on oral education only. There was no acceptance, at that stage, of sign language, but a few years later Gerrit van Asch, an expert on oral education, came to New Zealand to open a school for the Deaf in Sumner. What was concerning was that only 14 students enrolled at Sumner, as no signing students were accepted at the time.

By the 1880s, school-leavers from Sumner and overseas formed Deaf communities. School signs and British Sign Language combined to form the New Zealand Sign Language, which has since evolved as a sign language absolutely unique to New Zealand, and one with the characteristics appropriate and sensitive to the various cultures of our country. In 1904 an Act of Parliament meant parents had to enrol their children at Sumner, but signing was forbidden. However, children signed in dormitories and developed their own signs. Some staff were former pupils, and probably introduced some of the signing, as well. So it is from those early beginnings that I understand that the New Zealand Sign Language has evolved and developed.

But 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 had started at Victoria University, and in the latter part of that year the New Zealand Sign Language Tutors’ Association was started up. In 1998 the Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language was published—a milestone.

I understand that sign language itself is a visual, gestural language used by Deaf people, and I believe it is a great honour and privilege to see this happening as we speak today. It is a unique experience for me as a parliamentarian, and I feel extremely humbled to be part of the process that has brought this legislation into the House today. I note that sign languages differ from country to country, just as spoken languages do. The International Sign Language is Gestuno, which is used at international conferences and meetings, and the European Union recognises sign language as an official language.

I will be very interested how the select committee deals with the ability of the New Zealand Sign Language to be consistent with—and, hopefully, absolutely in line with—the International Sign Language, so that New Zealanders who are familiar with the New Zealand Sign Language have no difficulty with the universal sign language, which is clearly acceptable throughout the world. I also understand that the New Zealand Sign Language is unique, in that it includes signs that express concepts from Māori culture.

As an obstetrician, I have been incredibly mindful of the fact that hearing disabilities from birth can profoundly disadvantage people, affecting them both in terms of their ability to gain school qualifications and to achieve gainful employment. It was obvious to me in the 1970s and 1980s that many children in New Zealand were missing out on appropriate access to doctors and modern ear surgery and became profoundly deaf at an early age. They had difficulty in school, they often did not gain qualifications, they could not get jobs, and an even worse scenario was that some turned to crime. Even worse, they got caught because they could not hear the policeman coming! This was backed up by a study taken of the Mount Eden Prison muster in 1980, where something like 90 percent had some form of hearing defect, and many had profound deafness.

I end by just pointing out that we in the National Party are hugely mindful of the milestone that has been achieved by this legislation today, and we support it. I pay tribute to the Deaf Association of New Zealand for having overcome all of those obstacles and hurdles that have bedevilled many people with hearing disabilities over the last 120 years. Today, indeed, is a landmark day, and I wish to celebrate it with those from the Deaf Association who are here in the Parliament today, with the passing of this New Zealand Sign Language Bill.

• Bill read a first time, and referred to theJustice and Electoral Committee.