A New Era in the Right to Sign

He Houhanga Rongo te Tika Ki Te Reo Turi

Report of the New Zealand Sign Language Inquiry

September 2013 Human Rights Commission InfoLine 0800 496 877 (toll free) Fax 09 377 3593 (attn: InfoLine) Email [email protected] www.hrc.co.nz

Language Line and NZ Sign Language interpreter available

If you have a hearing or speech impairment, you can contact the Commission using the New Zealand Relay Service. NZ Relay is a telecommunications service and all calls are confidential. www.nzrelay.co.nz

Tämaki Makaurau – Auckland Level 3 Zurich House, 21 Queen Street PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street, Tämaki Makaurau/Auckland 1141 Waea/telephone 09 309 0874 Waea whakaahua/fax 09 377 3593

Te Whanganui ä Tara – Wellington Level 1 Vector Building, 44-52 The Terrace PO Box 12411, Thorndon, Te Whanganui ä Tara/Wellington 6144 Waea/telephone 04 473 9981 Waea whakaahua/fax 04 471 6759

Ötautahi – Christchurch Level 2 Moeraki Suite, Plan B Building 9 Baigent Way, Middleton PO Box 1578, Ötautahi/Christchurch 8140 Waea/telephone 03 379 2015 Waea whakaahua/fax 03 353 0959 A New Era in the Right to Sign

He Houhanga Rongo te Tika Ki Te Reo Turi

Report of the New Zealand Sign Language Inquiry

September 2013 ISBN 978-0-478-35652-6 (print) 978-0-478-35653-3 (online) Auckland, September 2013

Cover image: John Casey, Silver Image Photography, courtesy of HANDMADE PRODUCTIONS AOTEAROA. Contents

Foreword 5

Acknowledgements 7

Executive summary 8

Recommendations 14

1 Background information 17

2 Education 30

3 The rights of deaf people to access communication, information and services through NZSL 50

4 Promoting and maintaining NZSL as an official language of New Zealand 74

Appendix 1 Terms of reference for the NZ Sign Language Inquiry 90

Appendix 2 NZSL interpreter support available through the Ministry of Health’s contract with Deaf Aotearoa NZ 91

Appendix 3 List of abbreviations 92

Endnotes 94

3 © Royce Flynn, Flynn Express Photo Restoration and Enhancement.

4 Foreword

Deaf people, and sign language, deserve equality in New Zealand. In 2006 New Zealand passed an Act to enshrine this belief ... today, we have the potential and capacity to achieve the dream, and change futures for Deaf people now and for future generations. All we need now is for decision-makers to listen, and develop the will to act. – Sonia Pivac

E ng ¯a mana, e ng¯a reo, rau rangatira m¯a, and audible applause. The rights of disabled t ¯en¯a koutou. Tihei Matariki. people, including the language and cultural rights of deaf people became international Ka p ¯o, ka ao, ka awatea. law in May 2008 when the Disability Convention came into force. This was a new To you all as leaders with wisdom and era in disability rights, the sign of a new diverse languages, greetings. dawn for disabled people around the world.

Matariki emerges from the darkness and A few years later earthquakes devastated breathes again, the sign of a new dawn. the Canterbury region. Many of the usual ways of communicating and informing When the New Zealand Sign Language people of what was happening were not (NZSL) Act was passed by Parliament, the available. Some of the early television gallery of deaf people erupted, raising broadcasts included NZSL interpreters. and waving their hands in applause. For many New Zealanders this was seeing NZSL became an official language of something new – realising that NZSL is a New Zealand alongside English and te whole and vibrant language. The use of reo M ¯aori. It was a new era in the right to NZSL interpreters recognised the diversity sign, the sign of a new dawn for deaf New of people and communication needs within Zealanders. our communities. It was a first sign of hope emerging amid the devastation – the sign of Later that year, the United Nations adopted a new dawn for all New Zealanders. the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Disability Convention). However, leading up to the initial post- Again, this was met with a mix of visible quake response on TV, the situation behind

5 the scenes was very different. Deaf early childhood education; when all deaf, people and their allies had to fight to get hearing impaired, and speech impaired interpreters and to receive vital information children learn to sign; and when every about civil defence, clean drinking water, citizen can sign the national anthem. In sanitation, and health and safety issues. these ways the unique contribution of articulate deaf people is valued not only in Before and during this Inquiry, we heard their own community but across all parts of many stories of the denial of people’s rights New Zealand society. And at bedtime, once to communicate using NZSL, and children the hearing aids and cochlear implants have and families being discouraged to learn been taken off, any mother or father can their language. Battles like these must not say “Goodnight, I love you” in NZSL to their happen in future. small deaf child.

This Inquiry also found many encouraging Our call to action is to make this real, and signs. New Zealand has a strong deaf to implement the recommendations of this community with high expectations. Inquiry. To ensure that, from now on, at Frequent gatherings are held where the dawn of every child’s life there will be culture is strengthened and history passed the opportunity to learn our latest official on. There are groups beyond the deaf language, NZSL. Taking these steps together community for which NZSL can prove life will mark a new era in the right to sign. changing. There are new technologies to assist people in remote locations, an interested public who want to learn basic NZSL and increasing use of te reo M ¯aori. Government departments have Paul Gibson shown a new willingness to engage with Disability Rights Commissioner NZSL aspirations and goals, and Ministers Kaihaut ¯u Tika Hau ¯atanga understand links between language and culture and are ready to act. There is recognition that all disabled people’s rights in the Disability Convention must be made real.

I look forward to a time when NZSL is constantly visible in our streets, schools, hospitals, and on TV. Imagine a time when every child learns the basics of NZSL in

6 Acknowledgements

The Human Rights Commission would like to thank everybody who has worked on, contributed to, and responded to this Inquiry report and its early drafts. The Commission particularly acknowledges the deaf community who have “had to constantly retell their stories and restate their rights”.

The Inquiry team was helped by Dr Rachel McKee and Victoria University’s Deaf Studies Research Unit, whose research and guidance were significant to the Inquiry. Thank you to the Commission’s staff, especially Victoria Manning. Her unique capability as an NZSL user and expert, policy analyst, and deaf community member and leader made the Inquiry both possible and credible.

The Commission would also like to acknowledge Deaf Aotearoa and Handmade Productions Aotearoa for allowing us to use their images in this report.

7 Executive summary

Background This Inquiry has considered the human rights implications of the barriers that In 2006, after many years of lobbying by deaf people continue to face. Its areas of the deaf community, the New Zealand Sign focus were closely informed by priorities Language Act was passed, making New identified in the Disability Convention Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) an official and through previous consultations language of New Zealand. However, the with the deaf community. The Inquiry Human Rights Commission continues to also recognises that NZSL is important receive enquiries and complaints from deaf for hearing people with communication people about discrimination they experience difficulties, and for family/wh ¯anau, friends trying to access or use NZSL. and others communicating with a NZSL user. Therefore the Inquiry’s three priority The Commission began this NZSL Inquiry areas have been: because of concerns about the barriers 1 the right to education for deaf people deaf people continue to experience when and other NZSL users using their own language. Barriers restrict their quality of life and full enjoyment of 2 the right to freedom of expression and fundamental human rights. opinion including the right to receive and impart information using NZSL In 2008, New Zealand ratified the United interpreter services Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Disability Convention). 3 the promotion and maintenance of This Convention recognises sign languages NZSL as an official language of New as equal to spoken languages. It requires Zealand. governments to progressively strengthen the status of sign language in different fields New Zealand has a responsibility to of a person’s life. These steps are necessary promote and protect its official languages. to respect, protect and promote the right NZSL and te reo M ¯aori are each vital to to dignity, equality, freedom of expression the expression of culture and identity. and independence for deaf people and other There is a strong practical need for NZSL’s NZSL users. official status as deaf people have limited

8 A New Era in the Right to Sign or no access to New Zealand’s two spoken support for families is not enough. It makes official languages, English and te reo it too difficult to create a natural learning M ¯aori. In addition, there is a deep historic environment for children to acquire NZSL justification for the official status of te reo, skills as a foundational language. based on the rights affirmed in the Treaty of Waitangi. There is much to be learnt from previous reports and good practice examples. These include “deaf nests” and K ¯ohanga Reo in Education in NZSL New Zealand, and other countries which support sign language tuition and resources Article 24 of the Disability Convention for children and their families. highlights the right to education including how this can be realised for deaf children. Deaf students, other students reliant on It requires ensuring education “in the NZSL to communicate and their families most appropriate languages”. For deaf need access to NZSL. This is true whether people this includes learning through sign they are in regular schools, special units, language. resource centres or schools for deaf children. While some NZSL support and The right to education has been identified resources are available, opportunities to as a high priority because of deaf people’s come together with NZSL signing peers are persistent under-achievement in the scarce. Wherever a deaf child is schooled, education system. Improving education face-to-face NZSL learning opportunities outcomes for deaf children and young should be available alongside those people will have a significant impact in options that can be accessed through video many other areas of their life including technologies. their right to work and right to an adequate standard of living. The status of sign language users throughout history has been closely bound It is crucial that children acquire language up with how education systems have skills early in life. Children born deaf or responded to providing deaf children with who become deaf before their speech is access to sign language. Deaf schools play well-established often depend on NZSL to an important role in the transmission and communicate. Most deaf children are born maintenance of sign languages. into hearing families who do not have prior experience of childhood deafness. The Training in NZSL and deaf culture is minimal current mix of locally available evening for staff working with deaf students. classes, minimal NZSL resources and limited Interpreters need to be an available option

9 in schools alongside steps to increase NZSL Section 9 of the NZSL Act sets out the fluency amongst all staff. Training deaf principles that government departments people for roles in early intervention teams should be guided by, so far as reasonably is another way to help create NZSL learning practicable. These include that NZSL should environments. be used to promote government services and provide information to the public, and to Deaf people require NZSL interpreter and make government services and information translation services in order to access accessible to the deaf community. tertiary education and have the same range of tertiary courses and providers While not covered by the NZSL Act, as other students. Current Equity funding providing NZSL interpreters has been an does not recognise the high costs of NZSL explicit expectation of the health service services and excludes private training since well before the NZSL Act. This establishments. The Commission strongly includes expectations in the Code of Health suggests that Equity funding for deaf and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. students is reviewed in order to improve Without access to NZSL interpreters and deaf students’ enrolment and achievements resources, it is impossible for many deaf levels in tertiary education. people to realise their rights. These are the rights to effective communication, to be Both the NZSL Act and the Disability fully informed, to make an informed choice Convention highlight the importance of and give informed consent, and to have consultation with the deaf community their cultural needs taken into account. on matters relating to sign language. The These expectations are also in the Operating Commission is concerned that there is no Policy Framework of the Crown Funding formalised mechanism for the Ministry of Agreement with District Health Boards Education or other government agencies (DHBs). Yet the Ministry of Health collects to access such expert, strategic advice and no monitoring information from DHBs about guidance on NZSL. this requirement.

There is no monitoring of the quantity or Access to NZSL cost of NZSL interpreter services within or across government agencies, including DHBs. NZSL interpreter services help provide This makes it extremely difficult to know access to everyday life, recognise deaf whether the guiding principles of the NZSL people’s human rights and autonomy, and Act are being followed, let alone whether give them the opportunity to achieve their deaf people’s rights under the Disability full potential and aspirations. Convention or domestic laws and policies

10 A New Era in the Right to Sign are being realised. This report recommends additional work-related costs directly that government agencies either develop related to being deaf. The Training Support their own monitoring of NZSL provision, fund can be used for interviews, training, including any unmet demand, or contract an education or work experience as part of a external booking agency to play this role. plan to gain open employment. Interpreters’ fees have increased in recent years yet There continue to be reports of the maximum annual payment under the government agencies refusing to arrange Job Support fund has not changed in over or pay for qualified NZSL interpreters and 10 years. It does not meet the needs of inappropriately writing notes or asking a deaf people in jobs that require significant deaf person’s unqualified family member amounts of communication using NZSL to interpret. Access to NZSL interpreters interpreters. and information in NZSL cannot be solely a reactive process, dependent on deaf people The lifetime limit for the Training Support asserting their right to a NZSL interpreter fund is insufficient to cover the interpreting or translator. In particular, it is difficult for costs of fulltime study on many courses, let many deaf people to question a decision by alone for subsequent career development someone in authority that an interpreter is or training. Submitters were unsure not necessary. whether this fund is available for job interviews. They were also concerned it Government funding of NZSL interpreter was too low to cover the rising work-search services is piecemeal and the funding gaps obligations for deaf people, which result create often insurmountable barriers for from welfare reforms. deaf people. Specific groups within the deaf community face additional barriers accessing It is in everyone’s interest to improve NZSL interpreter services, including those the level of collaboration, monitoring, who require trilingual, deafblind or deaf accountability and information that will relay interpreters. Monitoring gaps in access enable good practice to be identified. The to NZSL interpreter services should not be roll-out of video remote interpreting (VRI) is entirely dependent upon complaints from one positive example of such collaboration. deaf people. Monitoring would be assisted It is also essential that VRI complements if there was a centralised point within face-to-face interpreting, which will often government providing such an overview. continue to be the most appropriate and accessible service for deaf people. Workbridge administers two Ministry of Social Development funds that deaf people It is impossible to adequately recognise can access. Job Support funds cover the the place of NZSL as an official language

11 without valuing the role played by NZSL Disability Convention and NZSL Act. It would interpreters. There are no minimum acknowledge the vital role deaf people play interpreter standards outside court in the maintenance, promotion and survival settings or any system to assess or rank of their language. the competency level of interpreters after graduation. Workforce development There is no monitoring of when and options, such as potential registration if government agencies consult with processes and a more robust complaints representatives of the deaf community on mechanism, need some external resourcing matters relating to NZSL, or with whom they to be sustainable. The current focus on consult. The Commission proposes improving encouraging a greater supply of interpreters this by establishing a formalised partnership is unlikely to be successful unless there is mechanism. funding to cover current interpreting gaps. There should also be incentives for people In countries that have recognised a national to work away from larger cities or to gain sign language some have created an entity specialist skills. with custodial responsibilities for the language. In 2005, the Justice and Electoral Select Committee considered submissions Promoting and maintaining on the NZSL Bill. It recommended that NZSL serious consideration be given to several improvements. These included establishing Under international and domestic law, the an advisory group to monitor the effects of New Zealand Government has obligations the NZSL Act, providing a focus for contact to maintain and protect NZSL. It must between government and the community, closely consult and actively involve and looking at new areas in which work disabled people in this work. The NZSL could be done. Act has been criticised for not providing a mechanism for promoting and maintaining This Inquiry revisits that recommendation. the language. It has considered overseas models as well as the role Te Taura Whiri i te Reo M¯aori This Inquiry report has drawn from the 2011 (the M ¯aori Language Commission) plays in Waitangi Tribunal findings that spelt out relation to te reo M ¯aori. It agrees with the what is necessary for an effective language Select Committee’s choice of an advisory strategy for te reo M ¯aori. These emphasised group. But this should only be as an interim the importance of partnership. Partnership measure to develop options for an NZSL with the deaf community would give real Statutory Board, similar to the successful effect to government obligations under the model in Belgium.

12 A New Era in the Right to Sign

A Statutory Board would provide a stronger formal partnership between government agencies and the deaf community. It would have the greater degree of permanence needed to develop a longer term NZSL strategy within the context of a national languages policy. On the other hand, it would be considerably less expensive than a NZSL commission.

This Inquiry’s strong preferred option is that the Ministry of Education would lead the development of such a Statutory Board, given the pivotal role education plays in access to NZSL. However, it is one of a range of government agencies contributing to the promotion and maintenance of NZSL. Therefore, the Inquiry recommends that decisions about a lead agency and progressing options for an NZSL Statutory Board are made by the Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues, based on advice from the proposed Expert Advisory Group on NZSL.

Both the Statutory Board and Expert Advisory group should include a majority of members who are deaf NZSL users. Other members should be recognised experts with demonstrated experience in developing, promoting and protecting NZSL.

13 Recommendations

A Education e ensuring the collection and analysis of early childhood data that can Early childhood be disaggregated by deafness and NZSL usage That the Ministry of Education, in consultation with other relevant government f continuing to promote and develop agencies and the proposed interim Expert the use of NZSL in all early Advisory Group on NZSL and ultimately the childhood education centres. NZSL Statutory Board Schools 1 increases NZSL resources and support That the Ministry of Education, in to enable the acquisition of NZSL consultation with other relevant in early childhood by deaf children, government agencies and the proposed children with communication difficulties interim Expert Advisory Group on NZSL and and their families, including by: ultimately the NZSL Statutory Board: a increasing levels of NZSL fluency amongst staff in early intervention 2 increases access to education via NZSL services including by financially by: recognising NZSL skills a increasing levels of NZSL fluency b exploring options for new roles to amongst staff working in the provide NZSL support within the compulsory school sector including home by financially recognising NZSL skills c facilitating the development of local language nests as an opportunity b exploring options for new roles for pre-school children and their for people fluent in NZSL in the families to learn NZSL compulsory school sector

d reviewing and further developing c establishing a funding stream for NZSL resources and promoting these NZSL interpreting (educational to families where a child is deaf or interpreters) within schools has communication difficulties

14 A New Era in the Right to Sign

d increasing opportunities for That DHBs: deaf children and children with 6 consider a sub-regional pilot that communication difficulties to would pool existing budgets for NZSL interact with signing peers and interpreting services and trial working fluent NZSL users with a single booking agency to provide these services. e reviewing and further developing NZSL curriculum resources. That government agencies: 7 explore the option of allocating current That District Health Boards: expenditure on NZSL interpreting services 3 prioritise training in disability to an external booking service that has awareness, NZSL, deaf culture and experience working with deaf people. human rights for health care early intervention staff, including audiologists, That the Ministry of Health: ear, nose and throat specialists, and 8 continues to monitor the scope, uptake other specialists working with children and value of its contract with Deaf with communication difficulties. Aotearoa and explores options for Deaf Aotearoa to report on requests B Access to NZSL for NZSL interpreters that fall outside the contract’s criteria or cannot be met

That government agencies and DHBs: within the current level of funding.

4 develop and/or review their NZSL That the Ministry of Social Development: interpreting and translation policies, 9 reviews Job Support funding including including through close consultation the adequacy of the yearly limit, ways with the deaf community, monitor their to reduce the administrative burden effectiveness and share good practice on deaf people and the feasibility of models of providing access to NZSL contingency funding for situations interpreting and translation services where a person needs additional support 5 allocate sufficient funds to meet current (including access to NZSL services) to demand for NZSL interpreter and undertake their paid job translation services and explore options 10 explores how the Training Support to monitor demand for, supply of and fund could better meet the additional expenditure on these services (including costs incurred by deaf people when associated travel costs and for deafblind, undertaking education or training deaf relay and trilingual interpreting). necessary to gain employment in the open labour market.

15 That Workbridge: C Promotion and maintenance 11 monitors and reports on expenditure of NZSL recommendations of Job Support and Training Support funding on NZSL interpreter and That the Ministerial Committee on translation services, including the Disability Issues: number and proportion of deaf people 14 progresses options for establishing an whose Job Support funding runs out NZSL Statutory Board in 2014/15 to before their annual funding renewal oversee the promotion and maintenance anniversary. of NZSL, in consultation with the proposed interim Expert Advisory Group That the Ministry for Business, Innovation on NZSL. and Employment:

12 develops reporting mechanisms for That the Office for Disability Issues, measuring uptake of video remote in consultation with deaf community interpreting (VRI), in consultation stakeholders and other NZSL users: with other government agencies, to 15 establishes an interim Expert Advisory enable government agencies to make Group on NZSL, with a majority of deaf comparisons between usage of VRI and NZSL users as members, by 31 December face-to-face interpreter services. 2013, for the purposes of advising the Ministerial Committee on Disability That the Office for Disability Issues and Issues on options for establishing an relevant government agencies: NZSL Statutory Board that would: 13 scope a project on workforce development issues for NZSL a develop a strategy for the promotion interpreters to inform the proposed and maintenance of NZSL NZSL strategy, in consultation with b advise, guide and monitor the proposed interim Expert Advisory government agencies’ use and Group on NZSL and the Sign Language promotion of NZSL Interpreters’ Association of New Zealand (SLIANZ). c provide NZSL expertise into a national languages policy.

16 1 Background information

Töku reo, töku ohooho My language is my awakening*

1.1 Introduction b the right to freedom of expression and opinion including the right to This section considers the official language receive and impart information using status given to New Zealand Sign Language NZSL interpreter services (NZSL) in 2006 through the New Zealand Sign Language Act (NZSL Act). What does c the promotion and maintenance of it mean to be recognised as an official NZSL as an official language of New language? What lessons can be learnt from Zealand. the official recognition of te reo M ¯aori in New Zealand and of sign languages in other countries? How does the history of sign 1.2 Views of deaf people language in New Zealand influence the situation today and the possibilities in the According to the World Federation of the future? Deaf, the human rights of deaf people are contingent upon the right and the In answering these questions, this chapter opportunity to acquire and use sign highlights the underpinning human rights language. This is necessary to fulfil the standards that can guide ongoing legislative right to communication itself, which is the and policy development. The following fundamental basis of a person’s mental and chapters apply this framework to the three social existence.1 areas of focus in the Inquiry’s terms of reference. These look at: The Human Rights Commission (the Commission) took seriously the principle a the right to education for deaf in section 9(1)(a) of the NZSL Act. This people and other NZSL users states that the deaf community should be

17 consulted, so far as reasonably practicable, deaf people continue to experience when on matters relating to NZSL. It looked at the using their own language. Barriers restrict deaf community’s priorities and aspirations their quality of life and full enjoyment of for their language when considering how fundamental human rights. These concerns to give effect to the official status of NZSL. were based on evidence drawn from: These priorities have been drawn from various government and non-government a complaints and enquiries the engagements, research and reports. In order Commission received about of importance, they are that: discrimination and language barriers that deaf people faced 1 education is available in NZSL

2 deaf children and their families/wh¯anau b extensive community consultations can access NZSL resources in early carried out by the Commission in childhood 2010 and 2011

3 quality NZSL interpreter services enable c the Convention Coalition’s deaf people to access government independent monitoring report on services and information and to New Zealand’s implementation participate in society of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with 4 a designated strategic body has Disabilities (the Disability responsibility for maintaining and Convention, also known as promoting NZSL.2 UNCRPD or CRPD)4

d reports from disabled people’s 1.3 Methodology organisations (DPOs) such as Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand and The Commission is a Crown entity, research papers on deaf people in independent of the Government. Its New Zealand. functions and powers are set out in section 5 of the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA). These The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference (see include the authority to inquire generally Appendix 1) were closely informed by the into any matter [that] … involves, or may requirements of the Disability Convention. involve, the infringement of human rights”.3 This includes the importance placed on the deaf community’s priorities for their The Commission began this NZSL Inquiry language. because of concerns about the barriers

18 A New Era in the Right to Sign

The Commission’s approach has been to in speech articulation, lip-reading and focus on working with those government preparation for employment in manual departments responsible for the priority vocations.6 But for most prelingually deaf areas identified above. It has explored how children, an oral approach compromised these agencies give effect to the official meaningful access to education and self- status of NZSL and provide accessible esteem.7 services to NZSL users. The use of sign language was forbidden By bringing this information together in one in New Zealand deaf schools until 1979. place, the Inquiry sought to build on existing However, an underground “language of the NZSL work. The aim is to identify steps hands” thrived among the playgrounds, in forward for ensuring greater realisation of the hostels of the deaf schools and among linguistic human rights for deaf people. ex-school students in the community. Since the mid-1980s this language has been known as NZSL. 1.4 New Zealand Sign Language history The stigma that positioned sign languages as inferior to spoken languages was Bringing a critical mass of deaf people influenced by an historical view. This saw together enables the development of a sign languages as a symbol of “otherness” signing community.5 In New Zealand this is and a sure path to alienation from society.8 first known to have occurred when a deaf The view was reinforced by a traditional school was established in Christchurch in medical approach to deafness that focused 1880. This was followed later by two more on the physical condition of “not hearing”. deaf schools in the North Island. All other aspects of deaf people’s lives were interpreted through that lens.9 This deficit These schools taught using the oral method approach contrasts starkly with a human (training in speech and lip-reading) only rights approach which recognises the and forbade the use of sign language by inherent dignity and equality of deaf people teachers and pupils. This was consistent and values their linguistic and cultural with international methods of educating identity. deaf children at that time. The oral method elevated the status of spoken language over Since the 1970s, deaf communities around sign language. It used spoken language as the world, including in New Zealand, have the medium and goal of education for deaf been speaking for themselves. They have children. As a result, the education of deaf been challenging the historical view of children was largely dedicated to training deafness as a problem. Deaf people in New

19 Zealand formed a national association linguistic research that documented to gain a representative voice for their sign languages, including NZSL, as real community. They began to assert that languages. Sign language is different from insufficient attention to their language spoken languages because it is wholly needs had led to social disadvantage in visual, with its own grammatical structure. education, health, justice and access to It is a common misconception that sign welfare services.10 Deaf people began to language is somehow more limited than claim their “otherness” in a positive way, spoken languages. NZSL however, like calling for recognition and support of their other sign languages, is comprehensive and minority language status. able to express all communications and ideas. Within signing communities, sign In the 1980s, this shift in focus moved language is the bedrock foundation of Deaf from people burdened by hearing loss to a culture. It has enabled the passing on of vibrant cultural-language group. This was shared values, norms, behaviours, history, supported by international and national humour, art, stories, poetry and traditions.

I Am Deaf: LetÕs Talk – 25 Signs to learn at work booklet. © Deaf Aotearoa.

20 A New Era in the Right to Sign

Since the 1980s, deaf New Zealanders Although rights and obligations do not flow have assumed a more positive sense of automatically from official recognition, it is ownership of their language and asserted a usual for some specific rights to be assigned Deaf cultural identity. NZSL was accepted to those wishing to use an official language. for use in deaf education from 1993. Other Most often these involve the right to use significant developments since the 1990s an official language in the justice system, in include establishing the NZSL interpreter public administration and in the education training course, documenting NZSL (for sector.11 In the case of a minority language, example through NZSL dictionaries) and declaring that language to be “official” expanding teaching of NZSL. In 2006, implies an expectation on a country to adopt after many years of lobbying by the deaf measures that enable this language to be community, NZSL was made an official used in day-to-day public interactions language of New Zealand with the passing of the NZSL Act. 1.5.1 Official recognition of sign languages

1.5 Official recognition Internationally, a growing number of of a language countries have recognised the rights of sign language users, through a variety of Internationally, there are different legislative and policy measures including approaches to the term “official language” amendments to a country’s constitution. as it applies to spoken languages. The legal These have implemented specific sign framework and consequences of official language provisions or clarified sign language status vary between countries and for users’ rights under anti-discrimination or different languages. Typically, a country’s education laws and policies.12 official languages are also administrative language(s) used in society, schools and Most often, recognition has occurred in government. However, not all official education law and policy. These clarify languages are in such common usage. the linguistic rights of sign language users, Minority languages are often made official setting out how these are to be implemented too, in order to promote a less dominant in the education sector. Recognition, for language and improve equality of outcomes symbolic purposes, has typically followed for that population group. This may involve such education changes.13 For example, promoting the rights of minority groups to Swedish Sign Language was legally speak their language and ensuring they will recognised in 1981 specifically to mandate not be discriminated against for doing so. It the provision of bilingual education for can include protecting the language itself. deaf children. This included provisions for

21 their families to learn sign language from and, in part, the Act’s provisions “restore or the time of diagnosis.14 Norway, Finland compensate for losses”.17 and Uganda are among other nations that have recognised sign language as a rightful The purpose of the NZSL Bill was first language of deaf children. They have to remedy the fact that “deaf New provided substantial government resources Zealanders have not been afforded the for parent and child education in sign same right to their language as other New language from an early age.15 Zealanders”. They have suffered serious disadvantage as a result.18 These proposals were motivated both by disability rights 1.6 New Zealand’s official principles of inclusion (such as the NZ languages Disability Strategy) and by language rights principles that recognise deaf people’s New Zealand has two official languages, te language and culture. reo M ¯aori and NZSL. However, English is a “de facto” third official language by virtue Parliamentary debates during the Bill’s of its widespread use. passage through Parliament highlighted its potential to reduce the social exclusion Te reo M¯aori became an official language in of NZSL users and improve deaf people’s 1987. NZSL was made an official language educational and employment prospects.19 of New Zealand in April 2006. It is one of nine sign languages internationally to be 1.6.1 NZ Sign Language Act recognised in law. However, there is no clarification in New Zealand law about The New Zealand Sign Language Act was what it means to be an official language. the result of over twenty years of lobbying No such information is found in either the by the deaf community for recognition NZSL Act or the M ¯aori Language Act 1987 of their language. It was promoted in (MLA). Parliament by the then Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson. She had In 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal published its affiliations with the deaf community as comprehensive report on the te reo M ¯aori patron of the Deaf Society of Canterbury claim.16 It found that te reo was a taonga and through her involvement with the guaranteed protection under article 2 of the Van Asch Deaf Education Centre located Treaty of Waitangi and that the Crown had within her electorate. significant responsibilities for protecting and promoting the language. The MLA was Section 3 of the NZSL Act sets out the a response to the Waitangi Tribunal’s report purpose of the legislation, namely “to

22 A New Era in the Right to Sign promote and maintain the use of New c government services and Zealand Sign Language by”: information should be made accessible to the Deaf community a declaring New Zealand Sign using appropriate means (including Language to be an official language the use of NZSL). of New Zealand The NZSL Act is silent on the use of sign b providing for the use of New language in education. This has been Zealand Sign Language in legal criticised given the importance the deaf proceedings community places on access to NZSL in schools. There is a known positive link c empowering the making of between the status of a sign language and its regulations setting competency use within the education sector.20 standards for the interpretation in legal proceedings of New Zealand The provisions and wording of the NZSL Sign Language Act draw closely on those of the MLA. But there is a significant difference between d stating principles to guide the provisions in the two acts. This is the government departments in the absence in the NZSL Act of powers similar promotion and use of New Zealand to those assigned to the M¯aori Language Sign Language. Commission. This has the power to foster and regulate community and official uses of Section 9(1) clarifies that government the language and the associated government departments should be guided, so far as funds for implementation.21 The MLA also reasonably practicable, by the following provides more direction regarding the principles: administration of competency standards for interpreters in legal proceedings. a the Deaf community should be consulted on matters relating to The government has responsibilities to NZSL (including, for example, the promote and protect both of its official promotion of the use of NZSL) languages. Te reo M¯aori and NZSL are each vital to the expression of culture and b NZSL should be used in the identity. In addition, there is a deep historic promotion to the public of justification for the official status of te reo, government services and in the based on the rights affirmed in the Treaty provision of information to the of Waitangi. In the case of NZSL, there is a public strong practical need for its official status.

23 This is because without access to NZSL b wise policy – based on the Crown’s many deaf people have limited or no access right to govern under article 1 of to New Zealand’s two spoken “official the Treaty and reflecting the status languages”, English and te reo M¯aori. of te reo as a taonga of utmost importance 1.6.2 The Treaty of Waitangi, MLA and Waitangi Tribunal Claims c appropriate resources to achieve policy goals – particularly given The Waitangi Tribunal questioned “whether the protection guaranteed to te reo the principles and broad objectives of the under article 2 of the Treaty Treaty can ever be achieved if there is not a recognised place for the language of one of d a M ¯aori-speaking government – to the partners to the Treaty”.22 The centrality give effect to the Tribunal’s 1986 of these Treaty obligations to the MLA is recommendations that M¯aori reflected upfront, in its preamble.23 speakers should be able to engage with all agencies of the State in te Twenty five years later, the Waitangi reo as of right.26 Tribunal’s 2011 report examined claims about New Zealand law and policy that The Wai 262 report also defined duties affects M ¯aori culture and identity. The for M ¯aori around speaking their language Tribunal re-examined the position of te (k ¯orero M¯aori) and their role in such reo M ¯aori. It reflected on M¯aori language a partnership approach. The Tribunal initiatives and Treaty of Waitangi litigation concluded there has been a failure of and policy development in the intervening partnership as M¯aori lack meaningful input decades. into decisions about their own language. Policy developments have also come The Tribunal’s report Ko Aotearoa t‘nei, too late and have been under-resourced. also known as claim Wai 262, identifies As well, the Government has not met four primary duties on the Crown and two its obligations to become more M¯aori- on M ¯aori in respect to te reo.24 The Crown’s speaking.27 duties are: The Commission considers all of these a partnership – this Treaty principle duties relevant to the maintenance and requires each party to act promotion of NZSL and its status as an reasonably and with utmost good official language. In part, this reflects some faith to the other25 common underlying human rights principles contained in the Disability Convention

24 A New Era in the Right to Sign and the United Nations Declaration on the people by progressively realising all of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). the Convention’s provisions. This requires These include the concepts of partnership, regularly reporting on steps taken to close consultation and full and effective meet its obligations under the Disability participation.28 Convention.

Each of the following chapters in this report The Disability Convention is the first attempt to identify further opportunities for international treaty that recognises sign a partnership approach. Such an approach languages as equal to spoken languages.30 would support the development of policies It establishes the right to accessibility and practice that adequately reflect the for disabled people. For deaf people official status of NZSL. this requires professional sign language interpreter services and information in sign language.31 The Disability Convention 1.7 International and domestic provides the right to interact in sign human rights standards languages, and to get information and to express oneself in sign language, including The following section summarises the key in official interactions.32 States are also international and domestic human rights urged to recognise and promote sign standards. They are referred to throughout languages and to facilitate their use.33 this report and underpin its analysis and recommendations. Article 24 of this convention has been described as the most important provision 1.7.1 United Nations Convention for deaf people as it focuses on the right 34 on the Rights of Persons with to education. Indepth discussion of Disabilities these obligations is provided in the next chapter of this report. Articles 2, 9, 21, It cannot be highlighted enough that 24 and 30 aim to strengthen the status states have to recognize the importance of sign language in different fields of a of services, information, education and deaf person’s life. This would realise deaf culture available in sign language in people’s right to dignity, equality, freedom order to assure Deaf people’s human of expression and independence. rights.29 (World Federation of the Deaf) 1.7.2 NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 New Zealand ratified the Disability Convention in 2008 and is bound to respect, There are two sections in the New Zealand protect and promote the rights of deaf Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) that are

25 relevant to the recognition of NZSL. Firstly, There has been very little case law in New section 24(g) guarantees the right to the Zealand that has examined the meaning free assistance of an interpreter where a and interpretation of section 20 of the person charged with an offence does not NZBORA. International jurisprudence, understand the language used in court. especially the work of the United Nation’s Section 24(g) supports other NZBORA Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), is rights such as the right to a fair trial and particularly relevant given that section 20 to present a full answer in defence to any is based on article 27 of the International charges. Presumably these NZBORA rights Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Many underpin the focus in section 7 of the commentators have argued for a more NZSL Act on the right to use NZSL in legal expansive, free-standing duty to promote proceedings. minorities’ culture, religion and language. However, that approach has not found Secondly, section 20 of NZBORA stipulates support within the UNHRC. the rights of minorities, namely: 1.7.3 Human Rights Act 1993 A person who belongs to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority in New “Language” is not a prohibited ground of Zealand shall not be denied the right, discrimination under New Zealand’s HRA. in community with other members of This was commented on by the UNHRC that minority, to enjoy the culture, to in 2002 when New Zealand reported on profess and practise the religion, or to progress implementing the International use the language, of that minority. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee expressed regret that New This is a negative right, that is, the right Zealand does not consider it necessary to to not be denied the rights set out above. protect all of the prohibited grounds of “Expressed in this way s20 of NZBORA discrimination stated in the Covenant, in does not place positive obligations on the particular language.36 New Zealand Government to promote a particular minority’s enjoyment of its These concerns were reflected in the culture, religion or language”.35 However, Minister of Disability Issues’ proposal to the it does impose positive obligations on the Cabinet Social Development Committee State to avoid known threats to such rights, seeking policy agreement for the NZSL Bill: in particular circumstances. Arguably, current pressures on the survival of both The legal status of the right to NZSL (and te reo M ¯aori) represent such language has caused problems threats. with the recognition of NZSL, the

26 A New Era in the Right to Sign

first or preferred language of Deaf not prevent the Human Rights Commission New Zealanders. Language is not from accepting related complaints. However, a separate prohibited ground of it does mean that they are either considered discrimination under our human rights as an aspect of discrimination based on one’s law but is usually dealt with as an race or ethnic or national origins.38 Or, in aspect of race or ethnicity. This does the case of deaf people, they are considered not afford Deaf New Zealanders the as an aspect of disability discrimination.39 same right to their language as other Complaints of discrimination under the HRA, New Zealanders. The language of whatever ground is cited, revolve around the Deaf New Zealanders needs specific facts of the individual case. legal status as a unique New Zealand language, by way of the NZSL Bill.37 Complaints under s21 of the HRA focus solely on the right to freedom from The absence of language as a separate discrimination. Therefore they are narrower ground of prohibited discrimination does in scope than the full range of relevant

I Am Deaf: LetÕs Talk – 25 Signs to learn for the weekend. © Deaf Aotearoa.

27 human rights set out in the Disability 1.8 Who this report refers to Convention. This NZSL Inquiry focuses on key issues for Between January 2000 and December 2012, current and potential users of NZSL. This the Commission received 396 complaints includes deaf people, hearing people with and enquiries related to discrimination communication difficulties, family/wh ¯anau and access issues for deaf people.40 Before members, friends, and professionals. the passage of the NZSL Act this was an average of 22 complaints or enquiries 1.8.1 Deaf with a “D” or a “d” a year. Since the Act was passed, there has been an average of 38 complaints The capitalised “D” in “Deaf” is used each year. Since January 2000, about internationally to recognise a group of deaf half of these were about the actions of people who use sign language as their first government agencies, most commonly or preferred language. They are members education providers. These complaints of a deaf community and identify with Deaf and enquiries fall under Part 1A of the culture. The small “d” in “deaf”, however, HRA. The remainder related to actions of refers to a description of hearing impairment. individuals, groups and businesses outside It includes people who may or may not government and come under Part 2 of the use sign language or identify with the deaf HRA. Most commonly they were about community. This report uses the small “d” employment issues, with 90 enquiries and because the boundaries between Deaf and complaints received from deaf people deaf people are sometimes not clear. All deaf about employment discrimination. people should have opportunities to use NZSL throughout their lives. A capital “D” Of the 396 complaints and enquiries, 79 has only been used to describe Deaf culture made specific reference to NZSL. Further or in citations or names that use that format. analysis of these is provided in chapter 3 of this report. The number of complaints The owners and originators of sign languages and enquiries has remained consistent are deaf people who identify with Deaf despite the passage of the NZSL Act, with culture. Most of them were deafened prior 44 lodged from 2007 onwards, after NZSL to learning spoken language. They have a became an official language.41 strong visual orientation to the world. In New Zealand, this group are the “native speakers” of NZSL and it is typically their primary language. They have a leadership role around maintaining and promoting NZSL.

28 A New Era in the Right to Sign

1.8.2 People with communication Survey showed that some 7700 partially or difficulties completely deaf adults living in households use NZSL. Other lower estimates, such as Hearing people with communication those done by Munro-Ludders, Dugdale and difficulties are included in the scope of this Johnston, are based on the assumption that report. Some currently use NZSL and many many deaf adults may not rely primarily others may potentially benefit from access on NZSL. Their estimate is that there are to NZSL. International research highlights approximately 4000 signing deaf people in the benefits of providing sign language New Zealand.44 learning and teaching for hearing disabled children, including children with autism, M ¯aori make up a large proportion of Down’s Syndrome and learning disabilities.42 the deaf population in New Zealand, In New Zealand a trust has been established significantly higher than across the general to foster the use of sign language and visual population. The most recently available communication for children with Census data found that, in 2006, 39 per communication difficulties, their families cent of deaf people under the age of 19 and teachers.43 were M ¯aori.

1.8.3 People who use NZSL

Given the official status of NZSL, it is relevant to consider its wider use in New Zealand. The 2006 census figures reveal that 24,000 New Zealanders identify themselves as being able to use NZSL. This figure includes deaf people, their children, parents, siblings, spouses and friends, disabled people with communication difficulties, and interpreters. It is also likely to include adults who are second language learners of NZSL. The Inquiry’s analysis and recommendations have also considered the needs and aspirations of this wider group.

There are no exact statistics on the number of signing deaf NZSL users in New Zealand. Statistics New Zealand’s 2006 Disability

29 2 Education

If I say yes to another person’s language, I have said yes to that person.

If I say no to a language, I have said no to the person, because language is a part of one’s self.**

2.1 Introduction It is crucial that a child acquires language skills early in life.46 Early language fluency Education is both a right in itself and an supports social development, cognitive indispensable means towards realising development and further language other rights. The right to education has development.47 For prelingually deaf been identified as a high priority for deaf children their right to language can be people because of persistent under- dependent on access to both sign language achievement in the education system. and spoken/written language. It is an area where significant gains can be made to realise deaf people’s human Sign languages have been characterised rights.45 as natural languages for deaf people and “the language one acquired first and/or A key priority for the deaf community is identifies with and/or uses as a primary that deaf children are able to realise their means of communication”.48 Deaf children right to education through NZSL. This exposed to fluent users of the language are chapter considers what that would require, able to learn sign languages naturally and what is currently provided and what can spontaneously.49 be improved. Given the centrality of NZSL to education, the initial focus is on how Sign language gives deaf children and when support is provided to families unambiguous and total access to human as the first and primary teachers of deaf language and thought processes through children. The chapter then considers policy a visual modality.50 It is a wholly visual and practices in place to support children’s language that is specifically designed for access to NZSL in schools. deaf people. Research on sign languages demonstrates that they are acquired and

30 A New Era in the Right to Sign used in parallel ways to spoken languages. Advancements in hearing technologies They have all the requisite grammatical (such as hearing aids and cochlear implants) properties of a full language, including style can provide some deaf children with and tone.51 access to spoken language. It is important to remember, however, that “hearing The status of sign language users throughout with current implant technology is still history has been closely bound up with not normal and even the best [cochlear] how education systems have responded implant users struggle to hear in some to providing deaf children with access to situations, particularly in background language and education.52 In most countries, noise.”55 For prelingually deaf children, special residential schools for the deaf hearing technologies typically do not have created a critical mass of deaf peers provide complete access to spoken that enables the learning and transmission language in everyday settings, on an equal of sign language between generations.53 basis with hearing people.56 Sign language “Changes to the status of sign languages are can offer these deaf children windows into rarely effected without consideration of its the world and other avenues for learning.57 use in the education of deaf children”.54

Children signing at Titahi Bay School celebrating NZSL Week. © Deaf Aotearoa.

31 There are some strong views on the support from the Ministry of Education’s provision of sign language and assistive Communication Services. technologies for deaf children. The Commission acknowledges the value of offering both sign language and hearing 2.2 What is required technologies together. This means parents have access to both and then opt out of, 2.2.1 International framework rather than into, a specific approach. The right to education for all children was There are an estimated 3000 deaf recognised in the Universal Declaration of and hearing impaired students who Human Rights (UDHR, Article 26) in 1948. need specialist support to access the It has since been articulated in a range curriculum.58 Their levels of need range of international treaties including the from those who are profoundly deaf to International Covenant on Economic, Social those with a mild or unilateral (one ear) and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966) and hearing impairment. It is estimated that 98 the Convention on the Rights of the Child per cent of these deaf and hearing impaired (UNCROC, 1989). students are enrolled in regular schools. A small number are enrolled in the Kelston or The right to education is set out in articles Van Asch Deaf Education Centres (DECs) in 28 and 29 of the UNCROC. In addition, Auckland and Christchurch, or in satellite article 23 recognises children with physical units.59 The two DECs are schools for deaf or mental disabilities are entitled to enjoy children and national providers of specialist a “full and decent life” in conditions that outreach services. ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in This diverse group of learners covers the community. a range of cultures, ages and abilities. It includes an estimated 300 to 500 Article 24 of the Disability Convention prelingually deaf children whose learning addresses the right to education, specifying could benefit from NZSL to develop how this right can be realised for deaf language effectively and to access the children. It has been described as the curriculum.60 In addition, there are non- most important article for deaf people.61 deaf students with communication It assures the right to education “in the difficulties who may benefit from access most appropriate languages” which for to NZSL. There are 7250 children who deaf people includes learning through sign have difficulties with talking, listening and language. The Disability Convention calls understanding language, and who receive on governments to take appropriate steps

32 A New Era in the Right to Sign to facilitate the learning of sign language Principle 6 of the Special Education Policy and the linguistic identity of the deaf Guidelines is applicable to deaf children. community. It also requires them to employ It states that a student’s language and teachers who are appropriately qualified in culture must be taken into consideration in sign language.62 planning programmes.65

2.2.2 New Zealand framework The New Zealand curriculum is a statement of official policy relating to teaching Disabled children have the same rights in and learning in schools. It recognises the relation to education as all other children official status of NZSL and the right of in New Zealand. In particular, section 8(1) deaf learners to access education in NZSL. of the Education Act 1989 confirms that The official languages section of the NZ “people who have special educational curriculum states that English, M¯aori and needs (whether because of a disability or NZSL may be studied as first or additional otherwise) have the same rights to enrol and languages. They “may also be the medium receive education at state schools as people of instruction across all learning areas”.66 who do not”.

Under subsection 60A(1) of the Education 2.3 Early childhood Act 1989 the Minister of Education is empowered to publish national education 2.3.1 What is provided goals, curriculum policy and statements, and administration guidelines. These set the In the last few years, New Zealand has regulatory framework for schools. National increased its focus on providing early Education Goals (NEGs) that form part of intervention services to families with a the National Education Guidelines lay out child who has a hearing impairment. In national priorities for education. These are July 2007, the Government introduced the statements of desirable achievements by Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and schools and of government policy objectives Early Intervention Programme (UNHSEIP). for the school system.63 They include The UNHSEIP aims to identify newborns opportunities for equality of education by with hearing loss “so that appropriate removing barriers to achievement, ensuring assistance can be provided as soon as those with special needs receive appropriate possible, leading to better outcomes for support. The guidelines also ensure that children as well as their families/wh ¯anau early years’ programmes include support for and society”.67 One goal of the programme parents in their vital role as their children’s is to complete audiology assessments first teachers.64 before a child is three months old.

33 Another is to begin appropriate medical, One of the aims of the early intervention audiological and early intervention services services is to establish and maintain a before the child is six months old. language programme that meets the needs and choices of the family and child. The This programme is jointly led by the goal is to achieve a strong foundation Ministries of Health and Education. in the chosen communication approach The Ministry of Health then provides “so that foundation language skills can the hearing assessment services (by be developed to an academic level for audiologists within district health boards). educational learning”.72 NZSL is included The Ministry of Education then provides in the information and choices provided to the follow-on early intervention services. families. The Ministry of Education states Where significant hearing loss is identified, that information and advice on support an audiologist refers the baby or child options is impartial. It aims to enable to medical specialists and provides families to make an informed choice based information to the family/wh¯anau on on the family’s and baby’s needs. deafness.68 Parents may also be referred to the Ministry of Education’s advisors on The northern and southern cochlear deaf children (AODC) and parent support implant programmes receive funding organisation, the NZ Federation for Deaf from the Ministry of Health. They accept Children (NZFDC).69 referrals from medical specialists, audiologists, AODCs and family doctors. The AODCs provide advice and guidance The programmes provide cochlear implant to families and schools, and coordinate services and follow-on early intervention an interdisciplinary team of specialists services for deaf children who have who provide ongoing support to the child cochlear implants, including listening and and family. Specialists, such as speech speech therapy. language therapists and educational psychologists, work together for the best Pre-school children enrolled in the DECs outcome for each learner. The AODC may have access to audiology services such also make referrals to other specialists if as fitting, checking and maintenance of needed or where requested. These include hearing aids. The DECs’ Resource Teachers: NZSL instructors or tutors,70 depending on Deaf (RTDs) provide an average of three availability. The Ministry of Education has hours per week support to children aged advised that changes to the AODC role, three or older who are attending an early giving greater focus to their involvement childhood centre. in a child’s early years, are currently being trialled.71

34 A New Era in the Right to Sign

The NZFDC advocates for deaf and hearing reaching implications not only for a child impaired children and their families. It but also for a family. Restricted or delayed provides information kits to families,73 language acquisition adversely affects newsletters, tutor fee assistance, an communication, parent-child attachment, assistive equipment subsidy, and annual socio-emotional health, literacy and scholarships for tertiary students. It also educational and career possibilities.75 It is organises social events.74 crucial therefore that the early intervention model enables effective language learning 2.3.2 What is needed in the family and at home, so that this is not delayed until entry to school.76 Early intervention services The Government’s focus on newborn Families’ decisions about the screening, early intervention and enabling communication modality for their deaf families to make informed choices is child occur within a context that is skewed positive and accords with New Zealand’s towards medical rather than linguistic international human rights obligations. responses to deafness. For example, the However, the Commission is concerned family may follow a medical approach and that too little is being done too late to an oral-aural mode of communication. facilitate children’s and families’ access This is resourced through access to hearing to NZSL in these crucial early years. Even aids and cochlear implants. In contrast, when impartial information is provided families who want or need to use NZSL to about language options, and referrals communicate with their child are largely made to NZSL tutors, there are insufficient left to develop NZSL skills on their own.77 resources available to support families who want NZSL to be their child’s foundational Current support for NZSL in the early years language. mainly involves providing sign language resources such as information booklets78 Most deaf children are born into hearing and an introductory NZSL DVD.79 Support families who do not have prior experience may include referral to an AODC whose of childhood deafness. The communication role and skill base is not directed at needs of the entire family are therefore teaching NZSL other than to a basic level.80 altered by the diagnosis of a deaf child. With respect to NZSL, a challenge for A family might be encouraged to learn early intervention services is to support sign language through adult community families, not just the deaf children, to education classes. However, these are learn sign language skills. If this does not typically night classes which can be occur at an early stage there can be far- an impractical time for parents and/

35 or young siblings to attend. Community Until recently, some cochlear implant education classes focus on adult-to-adult programmes typically advised families communication. They are unlikely to be that a child should not learn sign language sufficient to meet a family’s needs to pick unless the technology failed to achieve the up a new language and learn how to use expected language outcomes. This could it with a baby or toddler. The availability mean delayed language development for of community classes in NZSL was also some children, compared to potential significantly reduced following major cuts progress through a bilingual approach.82 to adult community education programmes This is unfortunate given there is no in 2009. Currently there is a combination of evidence that early use of sign language in locally available evening classes, minimal children with cochlear implants impedes NZSL resources and limited support for speech development. Conversely, the use families. This is not enough to provide the of sign language can support or co-exist natural learning environment for children with the successful development of spoken to acquire NZSL skills as a foundational language.83 language. It is important that those working with Relatively more assistance is available deaf infants and children provide balanced to those who live in Auckland and advice for parents to make informed Christchurch. Kelston DEC has an early decisions about their deaf child’s education childhood centre and Van Asch DEC or health.84 Article 25(d) of the Disability provides an early intervention service. Convention highlights the need to train Both use NZSL to some extent. But families health professionals in order to raise outside these areas have limited or no “awareness of the human rights, dignity, access to acquiring NZSL as a foundational autonomy and needs” of disabled people.85 language through the early intervention For health professionals working with deaf system. children this should include training on NZSL and about Deaf culture. In 2010, the Ministry of Education commissioned a scoping report on support The Commission supports a bilingual needed by NZSL users in order to access approach in early intervention that provides the curriculum. The final document, known sign language and hearing technologies as the Fitzgerald Report, recommended a together. This could offer early access new approach to early intervention that to NZSL support and services to all formally allowed for bilingual language families with a child who is deaf or who development in both NZSL and English has communication difficulties. Parents (written and spoken).81 may opt out of either approach (assistive

36 A New Era in the Right to Sign hearing technologies or NZSL services). support available at an early age is likely They may also have support if they choose to be needed to make the option of using both approaches together. NZSL a real one.

Good practice in language support A bilingual approach requires more NZSL in early childhood fluent personnel within early intervention services. AODCs, as the key support people There are lessons to be learnt from other for families, generally have a level of basic early language initiatives in New Zealand. NZSL competency but most are not fluent users or teachers of the language. The The Ministry of Education provide Fitzgerald Report showed that, although kaitakawaenga positions to help Special some NZSL training for early intervention Education provide culturally appropriate staff was occurring, there was a large gap if services to M ¯aori children, their wh¯anau fluent NZSL is expected. and educators. The Fitzgerald Report suggested this model could be mirrored Parents and the deaf community valued with the provision of Deaf cultural the early intervention role undertaken by advisors.87 the deaf mentors/deaf resource person positions employed by the DECs between K ¯ohanga Reo provide total immersion 2000 and 2010. These were NZSL fluent in te reo M ¯aori for wh¯anau and children para-professionals who provided NZSL from birth to six years. K ¯ohanga Reo instruction and Deaf cultural support to were community initiated and are now families. The Fitzgerald Report proposed government funded. They have been that “a broader range of early childhood central to the transmission of te reo M ¯aori intervention staff is required to ensure and to wh¯anau development.88 adequate development of sign language”. It said this should include new positions DECs provide immersion in NZSL in for deaf consultants and NZSL tutors.86 The Auckland and Christchurch. Outside these Commission supports this proposal. areas, there is potential to develop “deaf nests” along similar lines to K ¯ohanga Currently the Ministry of Education and Reo. Deaf nests have existed in the past Ministry of Health are reviewing processes and could provide opportunities for full to ensure parents of deaf children are able immersion in NZSL for pre-school children to make fully informed choices. This work is and their families.89 Establishing these important and requires input from parents would require resourcing and leadership. and other stakeholders, including the deaf community. Increasing NZSL services and

37 In addition, New Zealand can learn from 2.4 Compulsory education overseas examples. Sweden, Norway and Finland provide substantial government 2.4.1 What is provided funding for sign language tuition and resources for families from the time a child Schools are directly funded by government is identified as deaf.90 In Norway, parents to provide support for the majority of are offered a total of 40 weeks of training children with special education needs. If a in sign language over the first 16 years of child has high or very high needs related to their deaf child’s life. Government support a disability, a school can call on additional includes covering the costs of tuition, support from the Ministry of Education.95 travel, accommodation and compensation A needs assessment outlines how much for loss of earnings whilst training.91 Deaf help a child will require to join in and children whose parents received sign learn alongside their peers. The Ministry language training were described as more of Education directly funds a higher level knowledgeable and well-adjusted when of support for a child with high or very starting school. These positive outcomes high needs through a range of schemes or were attributed to the children’s early services. These include the: exposure to sign language.92 a Ongoing Resourcing Scheme The Fitzgerald Report discussed the (ORS) that provides support for strengths and weaknesses of international children with severe or multiple initiatives and suggested options for needs through additional specialist New Zealand. It recommended that a teachers, teacher’s aides or other broader range of early intervention staff specialists, or through purchasing be employed, including fluent and trained items a child might need in the NZSL instructors to provide 1.5 hours per classroom week of NZSL support to children and their families at home.93 The report further b Communication Service which suggested that deaf people with existing provides support for children who sign language skills could be trained to be have difficulties with talking, early intervention deaf consultants and listening and understanding NZSL tutors, in order to improve services language.96 and options for deaf children.94 Services to deaf and hearing impaired children and young people are offered by a variety of providers, such as:

38 A New Era in the Right to Sign

a the two deaf education centres through ORS funding.99 At March 2013, 365 which function as schools for deaf deaf children were ORS verified as deaf and children and national providers of receiving ORS funded support. This does not specialist outreach services. These include children who are verified as having include satellite “Deaf units” and another disability and who are also deaf. specialist Resource Teachers: Deaf who support children to access the Each student who is deaf or has a hearing curriculum in their regular school97 impairment and is ORS verified as having “high” or “very high” needs, receives 0.1 b resources and technical services to or 0.2 fulltime equivalent (FTE) additional support access to the curriculum, specialist teacher support (usually a including assistive listening devices Resource Teacher: Deaf). The “fund holder” and NZSL resources also receives $10,561 (high needs) or $18,209 (very high needs) annually for each c Ministry of Education regional of these students.100 This funding is used offices which provide access to to provide additional support including specialist services including AODCs, specialist services (such as AODC and speech language therapists, speech language therapy support) and para- educational psychologists and professional support from teacher’s aides. kaitakawaenga Up to 70 per cent of the funding component may be used for para-professional support, d regular schools that receive ORS with the remainder being used for specialist funding, for verified students support services, consumables and a small amount for administrative costs. e audiological services provided through district health boards, Teacher’s aides are usually employed by private audiologists and the local school. Their role is to work audiologists based in the DECs. alongside the classroom teacher to provide access to the curriculum, helping In 2010, there were 125 deaf students with communication and language enrolled in the DECs. A further 750 were development.101 enrolled in regular schools and receiving services from the DECs.98 The RTD is a specialist teacher, with post graduate qualification. He or she is trained The Ministry of Education’s support to in language development for both NZSL school age children who are classified and spoken English, the use of assistive as severely or profoundly deaf is largely technology and deaf students’ learning

39 needs. RTDs teach students and support DEANZ produced a National Plan for classroom teachers in the DECs, satellite Education of Deaf and Hearing Impaired classes or in regular schools.102 Children. This involved significant consultation with key stakeholders including AODCs are usually qualified teachers DECs, parents of deaf children, cochlear experienced in working with deaf children. implant programme staff, NZSL experts and In most cases, the AODC is a family’s key the Ministry of Education. Principle 7 of contact person. Once the child starts school, the plan stated that “all deaf and hearing the AODC typically supports the family and impaired children will be able to access advises the school about how to access NZSL and Deaf culture from a young age”. information and services to meet the child’s It also says that “children and young people needs.103 As already noted, the AODC role is will have access to a nationally developed undergoing change and is likely to involve a Deaf Studies Curriculum”.104 Further, the greater focus on early intervention. plan identified the deaf community as a partner in the process, stating it is “a natural Progress in deaf education community of interest and is a cultural Since the 1990s significant steps have been resource in relation to deaf and hearing taken in NZ to facilitate deaf children’s impaired children”.105 access to education. As occurred with the revival of te reo M ¯aori, the driving In 2003, DEANZ developed a “Service force for much of the change has been the Matrix” which outlined the outcomes and community. services required to implement its national plan. Further work, including a gap analysis, In 1994, a group called the Deaf identified key priorities for action. These were: Education Access Forum was formed by professionals, parents and deaf community 1 improving early linguistic development in representatives. The forum’s purpose was early intervention services to advocate for deaf students’ access to the curriculum through NZSL. In particular, it 2 raising the NZSL skill levels of personnel recommended the employment of qualified who work with deaf children NZSL interpreters in schools. In 2002, the Ministry of Education established the Deaf 3 consistent access to resources nationally Education Aotearoa NZ (DEANZ) charitable trust to address some of the issues raised 4 services to M ¯aori and Pacific families by the Deaf Education Access Forum and to provide stakeholder advice to the Ministry 5 standardised assessment and on deaf education. monitoring.106

40 A New Era in the Right to Sign

DEANZ was disestablished in 2007 and capability and the quality of specialist in its place the Ministry of Education teachers.110 Another initiative from the established a “Deaf Education Steering review was enhancing “early language Group” comprising members from the acquisition – oral and NZSL – for access to DECs, parent groups and deaf community the curriculum and building identity”.111 representatives. The steering group met a These are yet to be implemented. few times a year and helped the Ministry plan for the Deaf Education Review that In conjunction with the Review of Special occurred in 2010. It last met in June 2011. Education, a Deaf Education Review was undertaken in 2010. The aim was to In 2009 and 2010, the Government consider the role of the deaf education conducted a review of special education. centres and how they could best work The review resulted in the development together to achieve a national strategy for of the Success for All: Every School, Every deaf education. The key recommendation Child vision for special education. It set a from this review was that the two DECs target that 80 per cent of schools would be governed by a single board to improve provide inclusive education by 2014. In consistency and equity of services. This has 2012, a Taskforce for Inclusive Education been implemented.112 was established within the Ministry of Education to progress this goal.107 This is The DECs and the Blind and Low Vision part of the Government’s broader focus Education Network (BLENZ) have started on raising the rate of participation in early to look at options for aggregating para- childhood education and the percentage of professional resources for students with 18 year olds with NCEA Level 2.108 sensory impairments. They will determine whether this could provide more responsive The Government also decided to aggregate and flexible use of available resources to lift and improve resources for students with achievement outcomes. vision and hearing impairments through the two DECs. The intent was to create The Ministry of Education reports a number more flexibility and scope for customising of other initiatives have been recently resources to deaf students’ needs by using undertaken to improve deaf education, specialist teachers, note-takers, interpreters including: and new specialist roles.109 1 additional funding for more study A work stream, developed from the special awards for RTDs and more NZSL education review to address workforce interpreter training scholarships capability, specifically included NZSL

41 2 research reports on ways to support Ministry of Education statement on deaf NZSL users to access the curriculum learners:

3 improved data collection projects to … to be successful deaf students will enhance the Ministry’s use of available have strengthened identity, language data and identify data gaps and achievement outcomes including gaining NZSL and oral language skills 4 transitions work to support students early.113 between secondary schooling and further study or employment. However, there are important issues that remain to be addressed if these goals are to The Ministry has developed a curriculum be realised for deaf students. for teaching NZSL as a second language Achievement levels to year 7 and 8 students, as part of the ‘learning languages’ strand of the national There is little New Zealand data about the curriculum. This includes online teaching comparative achievement levels of deaf materials and is called Thumbs Up. children. However, research in New Zealand and other countries has identified that many In 2013, the Ministry recognised the deaf children leave school with poor levels specific needs of students whose parents of achievement and a lower than average are deaf NZSL users. The Ministry now written language literacy age.114 Average funds NZSL interpreters for deaf parents achievement for severe and profoundly deaf to contribute to and participate in their children has been described as “significantly children’s core educational activities. This lower than the national average at all was an important step given the vital role ages”.115 parents play in their children’s education. At the same time, deaf people are reported 2.4.2 What is needed to have levels of intelligence that are close to the mean for hearing people.116 As outlined above, a number of initiatives This suggests that other factors impact on have been implemented to progress lower achievement rates for deaf students, deaf education in NZ since the 1990s. including the level of support and resources The Commission strongly supports the available to meet deaf children’s learning Government’s focus on making schools needs.117 more inclusive and on lifting achievement levels of all students, including those who Disadvantage in education begins with are deaf. It also supports the following linguistic delay in early childhood and is

42 A New Era in the Right to Sign compounded by school environments that environment for deaf students. Providing do not provide full access to language and/ NZSL learning environments that bring or the curriculum.118 Inadequate support together deaf children and adults fluent in to deaf children in schools can include NZSL is vital for deaf children to have the linguistic isolation and a lack of appropriate option of NZSL as a foundational language. teaching strategies for deaf students. Another issue is the over-dependence Deaf students and their families need real on teacher’s aides with insufficient choices in education. These include access support from qualified teachers and other to NZSL whether they are in mainstream specialists.119 schools, special units, resource centres or schools for deaf children. Wherever a Language environments deaf child is schooled, face-to-face NZSL Acquiring a language requires environments language learning opportunities should that bring together a critical mass of users be available alongside options that can of that language, including fluent users. In be accessed through video technologies. the case of te reo M ¯aori, K¯ohanga Reo and Enabling deaf peers to come together in Kura Kaupapa have played a critical role this way brings to life the importance of in creating such environments for M ¯aori connection and linguistic identity set out children and their wh ¯anau. M¯aori children in the New Zealand Disability Strategy and cannot be expected to acquire te reo and the Disability Convention respectively.121 M ¯aori culture in a classroom where they NZSL support and resources in schools are the only M ¯aori person and where there are no fluent M ¯aori speakers. Access to education for many prelingually deaf children depends on sufficient Similarly, deaf children cannot acquire sign language resourcing. This includes NZSL and deaf culture in mainstream a sufficient level of NZSL proficiency classrooms where there are no other amongst those involved in educating deaf fluent signers. In most countries, special children. However, there are concerns residential schools for the deaf have about the low level of NZSL competency created a critical mass of deaf peers that amongst the professionals and para- enables the transmission of sign language professionals involved in deaf education. between generations.120 Training in NZSL and deaf cultural issues is minimal for teacher’s aides, RTDs, AODCs In New Zealand, if parents choose an and other staff working with deaf students. NZSL approach for their child there are very few educational environments that Some staffing for deaf education supports provide a bilingual educational and social can now be aggregated and customised to

43 learner needs. But there remain concerns aides most of whom are not trained or that the ORS framework does not provide qualified for the complex demands of sufficient NZSL resources and support mediating classroom communication in necessary for some deaf students. For NZSL.123 This practice is documented in example, the use of qualified sign language the literature on educational interpreting interpreters as a support role in schools is as creating an illusion of access. But not well established in the ORS framework. it risks restricting or distorting a deaf NZSL interpreters are not yet included in student’s access to the communication the list of approved ORS specialists and environment.124 ORS funding may be insufficient to enable the use of interpreters for full access to the The option of interpreters in schools needs curriculum.122 to be available. Other options include considering ways to increase NZSL fluency Qualified NZSL interpreters are rarely amongst staff, create NZSL language employed to support deaf students in environments, and use visual technologies. mainstream schools. In most cases, the The existing tertiary level NZSL courses interpreting role is undertaken by teacher’s available at Auckland University of

Pupils at Yaldhurst Model School. © Margaret MacDonald.

44 A New Era in the Right to Sign

Technology (AUT) and Victoria University of little measureable change in the level and Wellington (VUW) could be an avenue for range of NZSL resources available to deaf increasing NZSL proficiency levels of staff in students in schools. deaf education. Although numbers of deaf children are Valuing NZSL proficiency is an important small, the Fitzgerald Report proposed that incentive for upskilling the current the priority was to develop systems that education workforce that supports deaf would support NZSL users to access the students. This includes the remuneration curriculum. This is regardless of the number linked to NZSL proficiency. While most of students involved. It emphasised that education personnel working with deaf families would determine demand – and students are not fluent NZSL users, a small that would be highly dependent on the number are. The Commission understands availability of quality NZSL resources.127 that, while this is reflected in an additional language payment for teaching staff, there Use of information technology will play a is no equivalent payment for teacher’s aides key role in NZSL planning for the future. who are proficient in NZSL. It presents ever-increasing opportunities to overcome some of the disadvantages Training deaf people who already have of a small and dispersed deaf population. linguistic and cultural skills for working with The Government has funded an initiative deaf students has been identified as another to provide ultrafast broadband Internet way of increasing NZSL competency in access to all schools. Currently, broadband deaf education. This might include training enables some visual communication for deaf people for roles in early intervention deaf students through video programmes teams. They could be teacher’s aides, such as Skype. language assistants or take on other roles in schools which would support NZSL learning New technology has the potential to enable environments. These issues should be real-time video conferencing and virtual explored and progressed further.125 classrooms. This could play a valuable role linking deaf students to NZSL. Options Some NZSL resources and curriculum include using peers in other locations, materials for teaching have been developed increasing the NZSL capacity of the deaf by the DECs. The Fitzgerald Report education workforce, and expanding NZSL suggested reviewing current resources access to the curriculum.128 and developing additional ones to address identified gaps.126 Since then, the In determining the Wai 262 claim, the Commission understands there has been Waitangi Tribunal was highly critical of the

45 Crown having failed to plan and allocate Disabled Persons Assembly, and individuals’ resources for actual and projected demand and stakeholders’ input on projects. for te reo M ¯aori.129 This was found to have a direct impact on the maintenance of te The Commission is concerned that there is reo, as older native speakers passed away no formalised mechanism for the Ministry or and were not being replaced in sufficient other government agencies to access expert, numbers by younger speakers.130 The strategic advice and guidance on NZSL. Tribunal emphasised the importance of Chapter 4 of this report considers possible the Government providing M ¯aori medium options to meet this gap. education programmes that are highly effective and appropriately resourced.131 To The recommendations in this chapter focus avoid similar criticism in relation to NZSL, more specifically on steps required to it is a matter of urgency that steps are enable deaf children to realise their right to taken by the Government to improve the education through NZSL. In implementing level of NZSL fluent staff and resources in these recommendations, it is vital that the education. Ministry consults closely with deaf NZSL users, other NZSL users, the DECs, parents Partnership of deaf children and Deaf Aotearoa NZ. Over the years the Ministry of Education These groups would also have a role to play has engaged with the deaf community, within structures proposed in chapter 4 to parents of deaf children and the wider support the maintenance and promotion of sector to address the challenges of deaf NZSL. This is one reason why the Commission education. The DEANZ Trust was one strongly supports the Ministry of Education example of a government-community being the lead agency for any such body. partnership. It operated between 2000 and 2007, represented a wide range of deaf If the Ministry of Education is not the lead sector viewpoints and included a strong agency for maintaining and promoting NZSL expert presence. DEANZ aimed to NZSL, then the Commission strongly provide a strategic approach to promoting suggests that the Ministry establishes and providing NZSL in education. its own NZSL advisory group to provide specific guidance on deaf children’s access Since the ending of DEANZ, the Ministry of to education through NZSL. However, Education reports that it has continued to this is not the Commission’s preferred work with the deaf sector through a range option, given the reduced ability for cross- of forums and approaches. These include agency collaboration on all of the Inquiry’s the Special Education Advisory Group, the recommendations. DECs’ board of trustees, NZFDC, DANZ, the

46 A New Era in the Right to Sign

2.5 Tertiary education Equity funding for disabled students is available to universities, institutes of While the Commission’s NZSL Inquiry has technology, polytechnics and w ¯ananga, but largely focused on early childhood and excludes private training establishments. compulsory education, submitters also This is different to the equity funding for raised concerns about access to tertiary M ¯aori and Pacific students that is available education for deaf people. Tertiary to all tertiary education organisations, education is crucial for participation in the including private training establishments. labour force and is important to human rights outcomes. Therefore a brief summary Equity funding is not intended to be the of current provision and gaps is outlined sole or primary source of funding used to below. support disabled students. It is a “top-up” to general funding, in recognition of the The Government provides equity funding higher costs that can be associated with to tertiary education institutions to supporting these students. The funding improve equity of access and achievement amount is based on the total number of all for M ¯aori, Pacific and disabled students. students – the equivalent fulltime students This funding is in response to evidence (EFTS) – at an institution. that these three groups experience clear disadvantages within the tertiary education Deaf people require NZSL interpreter and system. translation services in order to access tertiary education. Comments on the Improving equity of access and NZSL Inquiry draft report stated that the achievement for all learners is a core part current system is problematic and is not of the tertiary sector’s contribution to New encouraging deaf people to gain tertiary Zealand’s educational priorities. The Equity education. Submitters described how funding recognises additional support is tertiary providers that had a track record needed to improve participation, retention, of supporting deaf students often became completion and progression of learners “magnet” institutions. They attracted a from these targeted groups. Government higher proportion of deaf students and expectations about the type of support greater associated NZSL interpreter costs. offered to disabled students are set out Costs double where courses involve full day in Kia …rite: Achieving Equity. This is a and/or long hours of class time that require voluntary code of practice for an inclusive two interpreters working as a team. tertiary education environment for students with impairments.132 NZSL interpreter services for a fulltime undergraduate deaf student can be as much

47 as $30,000 per semester. One institution Equity funding for deaf students in order reported that they spent 80 per cent of to improve deaf students’ enrolment and their Equity funding on the provision of achievement levels in tertiary education. NZSL interpreter services to about 12 deaf Options to be explored would include: students. These made up less than four per cent of their total disabled student 1 increasing the funding level to cover the population. Smaller tertiary education costs of NZSL interpreter services institutions may struggle to fund the high costs of NZSL interpreters. 2 broadening the range of eligible tertiary education organisations to include Deaf students may also apply to use their private training establishments Workbridge Training Support funds for tertiary study. However, this is a capped 3 investigating whether such funding one-off, lifetime limit of $15,600 which should be tagged to individual deaf could be depleted very quickly in many students rather than allocated according tertiary education courses. Deaf people are to total enrolments. sometimes wary of using this limited funding when they might require it for future career- Recommendations related training. In implementing the recommendations The current system of support for deaf below, the Ministry of Education is students to gain tertiary education strongly encouraged to consider the qualifications is problematic. It does not recommendations of the Fitzgerald Report. recognise the high costs of NZSL interpreter It should also explore technological services in tertiary education settings and opportunities such as those provided by limits deaf people’s participation in tertiary ultrafast broadband Internet. education. Deaf people should have access to the same range of tertiary courses and Early childhood providers as other people. Submitters suggested that the funding model should be That the Ministry of Education, in improved to realistically recognise the costs consultation with other relevant government of NZSL interpreter services. It should be agencies and the proposed interim Expert tagged to the deaf student irrespective of Advisory Group on NZSL what tertiary provider or course they attend. and ultimately the NZSL Statutory Board:

The Commission strongly suggests that the 1 increases NZSL resources and support to Tertiary Education Commission reviews enable the acquisition of NZSL in early

48 A New Era in the Right to Sign

childhood by deaf children, children Advisory Group on NZSL and ultimately the with communication difficulties and NZSL Statutory Board: their families, including by: 2 increases access to education via NZSL a increasing levels of NZSL fluency by: amongst staff in early intervention services including by financially a increasing levels of NZSL fluency recognising NZSL skills amongst staff working in the compulsory school sector including b exploring options for new roles to by financially recognising NZSL skills provide NZSL support within the home b exploring options for new roles for people fluent in NZSL in the c facilitating the development of local compulsory school sector language nests as an opportunity for pre-school children and their c establishing a funding stream for families to learn NZSL NZSL interpreting (educational interpreters) within schools d reviewing and further developing NZSL resources and promoting these d increasing opportunities for to families where a child is deaf or deaf children and children with has communication difficulties communication difficulties to interact with signing peers and e ensuring the collection and analysis fluent NZSL users of early childhood data that can be disaggregated by deafness and NZSL e reviewing and further developing usage NZSL curriculum resources.

That District Health Boards: f continuing to promote and develop the use of NZSL in all early 3 prioritise training in disability awareness, childhood education centres. NZSL, deaf culture and human rights for health care early intervention Schools staff, including audiologists, ear, nose and throat specialists, and other That the Ministry of Education, in specialists working with children with consultation with other relevant government communication difficulties. agencies and the proposed interim Expert

49 3 The rights of deaf people to access communication, information and services through NZSL

New Zealand Sign Language is not only about access, it is the voice of dreams, hopes, ambition and aspirations. It is the life force of the Deaf community. – Kellye Bensley, 2013

3.1 Introduction Way report and the 2011 NZSL Act Review. Deaf people have said that their 3.1.1 Barriers faced by deaf people language and cultural needs are often not recognised, resulting in general feelings of Having a language, sharing it and disempowerment and isolation.135 communicating with others is essential for any person to participate within Translating information into NZSL video their family, community and society. clips enables deaf people to access When information is not provided in information independently at a time and accessible ways it limits disabled people’s place that is convenient to them. Some opportunities and excludes them.133 government departments have begun Therefore it is not surprising that deaf providing some of their information in people have prioritised access to NZSL NZSL video clips. But this progress is slow as a prerequisite for realising their human and inconsistent both within and across rights. For many deaf people, access government agencies. Overall, only a to information and communication is small proportion of information about dependent on having NZSL interpreters government services is accessible through and information translated into NZSL.134 NZSL. The NZSL Act Review found:

Deaf people have consistently identified The low level of information on the barriers they face trying to access government services accessible government information and services. through NZSL, especially key These were reported through consultations information, needs to be improved. on the development of the NZSL Bill Government agencies clearly need to between 2003 and 2005, the 2010 Deaf be more proactive in this area.136

50 A New Era in the Right to Sign

Access to government information and respects a deaf person’s right to privacy services in NZSL is highly variable and nor considers whether the sign language generally poor.137 It includes instances of fluency of a family member is sufficient to key agencies that have national policies enable effective communication. on providing interpreters. Yet they have patchy provision at the local level, Government agencies as well as deaf depending on the interests and awareness people are sometimes confused about of local staff.138 This suggests some when interpreters must be provided and agencies may be struggling to apply their who is responsible for booking and paying own policies. for them.140 Deaf people are also denied access to information or services because There continue to be reports of there is no funding available for NZSL government agencies refusing to arrange interpreters or resources, or the approval or pay for qualified NZSL interpreters. process is ad hoc or slow. Given these Instead, staff inappropriately write notes barriers, there is a strong sense among deaf or ask a deaf person’s unqualified family people of having to fight for or justify their member to interpret.139 This neither need for interpreters in most situations.141

NZSL Learners having fun at an NZSL Taster Class in Wellington. © Deaf Aotearoa.

51 In the words of a deaf person: countries need to ensure equal access to information, communications and to Why should we have to fight every public facilities and services.143 For deaf time to get an interpreter?142 people this includes providing professional sign language interpreters and resources During this Inquiry, deaf people also raised translated into NZSL.144 For some deaf concerns about funding gaps for NZSL people, realising these rights is entirely interpreter services or resources. These, dependent on access to these NZSL services. coupled with administrative hurdles that restricted access to available funds, Article 21 of the Disability Convention meant deaf people did not have the focuses on freedom of expression and same opportunities as hearing people. opinion, and access to information. It Deaf people were concerned that some explicitly addresses deaf people’s right to government agencies made decisions an interpreter when accessing government based on reducing potential interpreter or services and the need to recognise and translation costs rather than on the most promote the use of sign languages. appropriate intervention for a specific deaf Therefore countries, such as New Zealand, person. that have ratified the Disability Convention must accept and facilitate the use of sign 3.1.2 What is required under the languages in official interactions, through 145 Disability Convention both interpreting and translation services. This places an obligation on government A shared language is a fundamental agencies to progressively realise these component of someone’s cultural identity. rights. Article 30(4) of the Disability Convention reiterates this when it states: 3.1.3 What is required under the Human Rights Act Persons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with Government agencies are bound by the others, to recognition and support of anti-discrimination provisions of the Human their specific cultural and linguistic Rights Act (HRA), including its reasonable identity, including sign languages and accommodation requirements. “Reasonable deaf culture. accommodation” refers to creating an environment that will ensure equality of The Disability Convention states that opportunity, including for people with to enable disabled people to live disabilities. It applies to the provision of independently and to participate in society, goods and services as well as employment,

52 A New Era in the Right to Sign as set out in sections 52 and 29 of the HRA A further five complaints or enquiries respectively. were about access to NZSL–te reo Mäori (trilingual) interpreters, the funding and When providing services for disabled regulation of NZSL interpreters or the people, the Court of Appeal has said that availability of NZSL courses.147 there is a presumption that a provider will make the necessary accommodation unless This chapter focuses in particular on two it is unreasonable.146 This would include sectors. First it considers the funding and ensuring a deaf person can access services provision of NZSL interpreters in the health using NZSL. sector, either by the Ministry of Health or district health boards (DHBs). Secondly, Between January 2000 and December it considers funding for deaf people to 2012, the Commission received a total access NZSL support in employment, of 396 complaints and enquiries related primarily through the Ministry of Social to discrimination or broader human Development’s (MSD’s) contract with rights issues for deaf people. Of these, 79 Workbridge. specifically mentioned NZSL. Typically these NZSL complaints and enquiries related Access to employment and to health, to difficulties deaf people experienced alongside the right to education, impact accessing NZSL interpreters or resources significantly on deaf people’s right to an when dealing with a range of agencies or adequate standard of living. They are also parts of their life. Specific agencies or sectors areas where previous research has shown mentioned are listed in the table below: persistent inequalities for deaf people.148

Specific agencies or sectors Courts or legal proceedings 10 Prisons 2 Tertiary education or training 8 Airlines 2 Compulsory education sector 7 Financial advice 2 Work and Income 6 Recreation 2 Health 5 Community organisations 2 Employment 5 Church 1 Police 3 Real estate 1 Child, Youth and Family 3 ACC 1 Inland Revenue Department 3 Electoral office 1 Political processes 3

53 3.2 Health sector Provision of interpreter services has been an explicit expectation of the What is required health service for many years. The most recent relevant legislation is the Before the passage of the NZSL Act, all NZSL Act 2006. health and disability providers were already bound by the Code of Health and Disability Most DHB and core disability support Services Consumers’ Rights. Four of the 10 services service specifications explicitly rights covered in the Code reinforce the refer to the requirement to provide access importance of access to NZSL interpreters to NZSL interpreters. Hospitals, rest homes and resources. These are the rights to: and providers of residential disability care (where there are five or more residents) are 1 effective communication – Right 5 bound by and audited against the Health and Disability Services Standards.150 These 2 be fully informed – Right 6 too require access to interpreters, including NZSL interpreters where appropriate. 3 make an informed choice and give informed consent – Right 7 The Ministry of Health does not directly fund most DHB services. However, it does 4 have one’s cultural needs taken into set out expectations about the provision account – Right 2(3). of NZSL interpreters. Before 2006, the accountability provisions in the Operational A 2007 discussion paper proposed a Policy Framework (OPF) of the Crown national approach to interpreting and Funding Agreement stipulated the need translating services in Aotearoa-New to make services available to people who Zealand. It noted “it would be impossible are deaf. This was to be done through the for these rights to be respected without provision of interpreters and devices to the provision of interpreter services for assist communication.151 The Ministry of those who are unable to understand spoken Health does not ask explicitly for targets English”.149 and goals in this area, so these are left for DHBs to determine. In material provided to this Inquiry, the Ministry of Health stated that: In 2006, these OPF accountability provisions were expanded. They included [The Code] is well understood and a requirement that each DHB provide “an promoted in relation to providing outline of how [it is] responding to the interpretation for deaf people … NZSL Act” as part of its plan for advancing

54 A New Era in the Right to Sign the health objectives of the NZ Disability or resources in NZSL. Monitoring against the Strategy.152 Yet, while the expectation plan is voluntary and the Commission has is clear, the monitoring responsibilities been informed that only a small number of are not. In information supplied to the DHBs undertake such reporting, though some Commission for this Inquiry, the Ministry of of these have reported regularly. Health clarified that it does not currently collect monitoring information from the 3.2.2 What is provided DHBs related to this OPF requirement. Ministry of Health funded services

The Office for Disability Issues (ODI) is part Disability Support Services in the Ministry of of the Ministry of Social Development. Health has a contract with Deaf Aotearoa In its 2011 review of the NZSL Act, the NZ to provide interpreter services for deaf Office noted that Crown entities, such people. These services are delivered through as DHBs “are not obliged to provide DANZ’s subsidiary organisation, iSign.155 As NZSL interpreters under the NZSL Act or the contract states, the services are to enable translate information on their services”. It deaf people to access public health and then went on to state that Crown entities disability support services and information. are, however, required to have regard to They are to enable deaf people to be fully the Disability Convention and the anti- informed of their rights and responsibilities.156 discrimination provisions of the Human This annual funding was increased by Rights Act. In addition, the ODI could have $300,000 in July 2007 to $458,612 per year. usefully clarified that providing interpreters The ODI’s 2011 review of the NZSL Act noted is an explicit expectation within health that “further increases will be considered by sector contracts. It is also a requirement of the Ministry of Health”.157 the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights “where necessary and From 1 October 2011, the Ministry allocated reasonably practicable”.153 This reflects an additional $100,000 per annum to DANZ international case law which stipulates that for the provision of NZSL interpreter services informed consent for deaf people requires by iSign. This brought the annual funding to access to sign language interpreters.154 just over $550,000. Background information provided in that contract variation noted The DHBs’ primary means for monitoring that DANZ would not have been able to progress in improving access to health for maintain services, including its interpreter deaf people is likely to be against their New booking service, under existing funding levels Zealand Disability Strategy Implementation because of rising operational costs.158 The Plans. These may not necessarily include additional $100,000 per annum was to meet details about access to NZSL interpreters both increased operational costs and, in the

55 2011/12 financial year, to complete user to access NZSL interpreter services. If an testing and trialling of video phones. enquiry falls within the scope of a specific contract, the booking service is required In order to clarify what is covered by this to provide timely access to a professional, contract, DANZ and the Ministry of Health qualified NZSL interpreter. have outlined those health-related services DHB funded services where the Ministry funds access to a NZSL interpreter. These are attached as Appendix The Ministry of Health surveyed DHBs in 2 to this report. They cover a broad range 2002/3 about their requirement to provide of health services including those provided NZSL. The October 2003 Cabinet paper on by disability non-government organisations the NZSL Bill noted: (NGOs). Services funded by DHBs or the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) While most district health boards are outside the scope of this contract. The (DHBs) are believed to have policies Ministry of Health contract also covers around accessing interpreters there interpreter services for life skills that impact is a need to ensure that policies on health outcomes for deaf people and are comprehensive, specify the use their families. Examples include budgeting of qualified interpreters, and that advice, driver licensing and testing, and DHB services and information are parenting support services. accessible.159

Booking requests made by iSign need to fit In 2005/6 the Ministry contracted the within the types of services covered by the National Foundation for the Deaf to contract and also its annual funding limit. In undertake a subsequent survey. Of the 19 practice, iSign confirmed this means regular DHBs that responded, about two-thirds (13) bookings are typically approved in short- had NZSL policies.160 term blocks, so that expenditure against yearly funding can be closely monitored. Even when NZSL interpreters are generally provided by DHB-funded services, deaf The Ministry’s contract with a booking people can face significant barriers if agency, in this case iSign, provides deaf the health provider retains an element people with a greater degree of certainty of discretion about deciding whether an and consistency when seeking an interpreter interpreter is necessary. This is further than if they had to negotiate with each exacerbated because booking of interpreters individual health provider. The booking for DHB-funded services is typically initiated service’s role is not to question the need by the healthcare provider (as the paying for an interpreter but to enable deaf people client) and not at a deaf person’s request.

56 A New Era in the Right to Sign

In May/June 2012, the Sign Language 1 A deaf person with severe and enduring Interpreters Association of New Zealand mental health needs has a care (SLIANZ) consulted with deaf community manager who communicates through members on its code of ethics. Several writing notes, rather than through a comments were made about some DHBs’ qualified interpreter. An interpreter reluctance to book NZSL interpreters is provided for review meetings with if a deaf person could lip-read, or if an the psychiatrist, held every couple of unqualified communicator was available. months. However, there has been no This suggests some DHBs may benefit interpreting for this person’s regular from information about why a trained home visits from the local DHB-funded interpreter fluent in NZSL is necessary. The mental health team. It is concerning Commission understands that SLIANZ and that the deaf person involved did not DANZ have recently written to a provincial realise they could ask for an interpreter DHB raising concerns about the use of in these situations. unqualified communicators. 2 A community support worker for a During this Inquiry an interpreter provided deaf person refused to book or use an the Commission with two recent examples interpreter for house visits, claiming where frontline receptionists at accident these were unplanned so it was and emergency services had informed her impossible to book an interpreter in that interpreters could only be requested advance. The support worker would between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. In turn up at the client’s home, check the both cases the situation was only resolved client was all right using a thumbs-up because the interpreter insisted on being gesture, and then proceed to consult put through to the hospital’s interpreter only with family members at the booking agency. address. The client became unwell and required hospitalisation, displaying In submissions to this Inquiry, mental health symptoms that were not picked up by professionals and interpreters working the support worker. in this field shared examples of deaf people not being provided with necessary 3 A severely ill deaf person was interpreter services. These were described hospitalised in a mental health unit. as common or typical experiences and The hospital relied on a hearing some had resulted in devastating outcomes. support worker, with very limited Examples include: NZSL skill, to interpret treatment to this deaf person.

57 The Commission is also aware of positive outside the contract’s criteria or cannot be mental health initiatives for deaf people met within the current level of funding. developing within some DHBs, including DHB funded services those led by the three Wellington region DHBs. Access to NZSL interpreters and information in NZSL cannot be solely a 3.2.3 What is needed reactive process, dependent on deaf people asserting their right to an NZSL interpreter Ministry of Health funded services or NZSL resources. In particular, it is The demand for NZSL interpreters continues difficult for many deaf people to question to exceed current funding levels. In the a decision by someone in authority that an 2011/2012 year iSign exceeded its budget by interpreter is not necessary. 10 per cent. While Ministry of Health funding increased in October 2011, the contract Clear NZSL policies and expectations scope was also broadened to include are vital. Otherwise, as one DHB noted, deafblind people. frontline staff may not be aware of the organisation’s responsibility to provide The Commission has been informed that NZSL interpreters or feel they do not booking services and interpreters themselves have the authority to authorise such have sometimes provided interpreter payments. This DHB recommended that services free of charge. This happens when DHB websites should include information interpreting funds have been depleted, clearly stating that a deaf person has the funding criteria have not been met or right to request an NZSL interpreter across when there is a lack of clarity around who the full range of DHB-funded services. will pay that cannot be solved before the Quality NZSL translations, using video- appointment. Reasons cited for giving pro clips, are a valuable way to provide website bono services include deaf people’s need to information in an accessible format for access time-sensitive information so they deaf people. can make health decisions and provide informed consent.161 There is no transparent means to monitor DHBs’ current provision of NZSL interpreter Ongoing monitoring of the scope, uptake and services and NZSL resources or how cost of the Ministry of Health’s contact with much they cost. Nor is there any evidence DANZ would provide valuable information of monitoring against requirements to on access to NZSL interpreter services. It provide interpreters as set out in the OPF, would be helpful if DANZ is able to report sector standards, Code of Rights or service on requests for NZSL interpreters that fall specifications.

58 A New Era in the Right to Sign

One barrier identified by some DHBs is costs of all interpreter services, including that information about budgeting and NZSL interpreters. Anecdotal evidence expenditure is held by the provider arm provided by some DHBs suggests these are of the DHB, not its funder arm. A piece of not often used by deaf people. One DHB work would need to be done to pull out recommended that allocating some existing information on how NZSL interpreters are resources specifically to NZSL interpreter used and to separate this budget from the services, and then monitoring uptake, general interpreter budget. would be a useful first step.

Possible pilot for pooling interpreting funds Another DHB noted that, because all its NZSL interpreters are booked through Some DHBs already use an external the same agency, this would potentially booking service for all or some of their make it simpler to track its use of them. It NZSL interpreting requirements. There is timely to consider how best to monitor was support from a number of DHBs for a and coordinate access to NZSL interpreters sub-regional pilot that would pool existing across DHBs. The integration of planning NZSL interpreting budgets and trial working and funding services between the three with a single booking agency to provide Wellington region DHBs potentially provides these services. The pilot would test the the chance to better record and track access effectiveness of this approach in removing to and expenditure on NZSL interpreter barriers deaf people face accessing NZSL services. interpreters. It would look at how to improve monitoring of DHBs’ use of NZSL Similarly, one Auckland DHB noted the interpreter services and consider the close working relationship between DHBs potential to reduce costs through some in Auckland and Northland was “a great economies of scale. opportunity to make a difference for the deaf community and for consistency across There should be an open tendering process the upper North Island”. There are also for any such pilot, with priority given to likely to be benefits from DHBs sharing good meeting the needs of deaf people accessing practice about ensuring deaf people are able DHB-funded services. Even in circumstances to access NZSL interpreters. These would where a preferred provider is selected, there usefully look at ways to overcome access should be some flexibility for instances barriers including in rural areas, emergency where another interpreter or booking situations, at short notice or after hours. service is most appropriate to meet a deaf person’s preferences or specific needs. DHB-funded primary care providers have general interpreter budgets to cover the

59 3.3 Job support and training work meetings, supervision, professional support funding development and staff events. It also is used for NZSL translation services and assistive devices such as modified fire 3.3.1 What is required alarms. All government departments should be guided, so far as reasonably practicable, This funding is capped at $16,900 per by the principles in section 9 of the NZSL person in any 12 month period.163 MSD’s Act. Specifically section 9(c) that requires Job Support Fund Operational Guidelines that “government services and information stipulate that no applicant can receive should be made accessible to the deaf more than $16,900 from all MSD sources. community through the use of appropriate Workbridge advised the Commission that means (including the use of NZSL)”. it is only able to make payments above the Job Support yearly limit if directed to The Commission notes the relative progress do so by MSD (for example, to back pay an that government agencies have made invoice from a previous year). in developing internal human resources policies which recognise the right for deaf The Commission was informed that some staff members and job applicants to access employed deaf people aged over 65 NZSL interpreters.162 This section of the have experienced difficulties accessing Inquiry report focuses instead on the extent Workbridge funding. These raise concerns to which government funding for work- about potential age discrimination. related or training costs is available for Workbridge advised that a deaf person who deaf people to purchase NZSL interpreter is over 65 and in employment is eligible services and resources. for an exemption to the upper age limit. Workbridge is also able to apply to MSD for a waiver if a deaf person is unemployed and 3.3.2 What is provided requires Job Support funding to re-enter the Job Support fund workforce. These decisions are made by The Ministry of Social Development MSD based on individual circumstances.164 provides Workbridge with funds that disabled people can access for Job Support The MSD guidelines also note “given to enable them to do their job. Employed the capped nature of Job Support, care deaf people can apply to this funding to should be taken to ensure that the NZSL help with the additional work-related costs interpreters are used to the best advantage directly related to being deaf. This can of the applicant”.165 There is no pool cover the costs of interpreter services for of contingency funding for unexpected

60 A New Era in the Right to Sign additional costs. The guidelines describe the estimated cost of additional Training Job Support as “a fund of last resort”, after Support required to complete the course. reasonable accommodation has been taken into account. This includes employers’ 3.3.3 What is needed responsibility to provide NZSL interpreters Job Support fund for deaf staff. Government departments are expected to draw on organisational Interpreter fees have increased in recent resources to meet their good employer years yet the maximum payment under the obligations, in the first instance. Then they Job Support fund has remained unchanged should seek assistance from Job Support in for more than 10 years. For some deaf more exceptional circumstances.166 people this means their Job Support funding runs out before the end of the Training Support fund year, effectively limiting their labour force In addition, Workbridge administers the participation. Yet at the same time many Training Support Fund. It provides financial other deaf people access a very small support when a disabled person undergoes proportion of their yearly limit. In 2011/12 training, education, an assessment period the average amount of Job Support funds or work experience as part of their plan used by deaf people for NZSL interpreter to gain employment. It may be used to services was just $4139.168 pay for NZSL interpreters including for job interviews. The lifetime limit for each Given the strong equity and efficiency individual is $15,600. Over the last five arguments for increasing employment years, the average level of Training Support amongst deaf people, it is timely to funding that deaf people received for reconsider the adequacy of this fund. Deaf NZSL interpreter services has fluctuated. It people in jobs that require significant ranged from $1175 in 2009/10 to $537 and amounts of communication need more $657 per person per year in the last two assistance than is currently available. financial years respectively.167 The Job Support funding does not Requests for additional Training Support differentiate between the number of funding may be approved at the discretion hours someone works, the type of paid of MSD. Typically this relates to situations employment, or the extent to which the job when someone runs out of funding role requires a deaf person to communicate needed to complete a course that has with hearing people. Yet all of these factors a direct employment outcome. In these impact on the amount of NZSL interpreter instances, MSD makes the final decision and translation services that a deaf based on information supplied, including person is likely to require to participate

61 in the labour force. The following case employment of deaf staff. However, study is just one example of how capped evidence to date suggests that they funding can impede deaf people’s ability do not provide sufficient incentive for to work fulltime. The cap can also hinder organisations to develop specific roles employment in fields where a deaf person’s for deaf staff to work with predominately knowledge of Deaf culture and language is hearing audiences. The Commission a key requirement for the job. encourages agencies to set aside specific budgets for such positions, but is mindful Good employer obligations, alongside that official recognition of NZSL has come Job Support as funding of last resort, at a time of economic constraints and are important levers for supporting the public sector budget cuts.

Case study: Employment of Deaf advocates

The nationwide Health and Disability Consumer Advocacy (HDCA) service employs three deaf people to work as advocates with the deaf community.169 They provide education to health consumers about their rights and the options available to resolve any complaints. The Deaf advocates also educate providers about responding effectively to deaf people who use their services as well as to family members who are deaf.

There is a large demand for the Deaf advocates’ work across a wide range of health providers. Deaf advocates exhaust their $16,900 annual limit and are therefore unable to meet this demand. Instead they face having to reduce their hours, because they are unable to work without funding for NZSL interpreters.

Education and training courses provided by health and disability advocates are free of charge, so it is difficult to charge providers to cover the cost of the NZSL interpreter working alongside a Deaf advocate. The advocacy service does not have sufficient funding to cover this level of interpreting costs.

A couple of DHBs have indicated they might be open to discussions about sharing the cost for interpreters from their disability awareness training budgets. However, this requires ongoing negotiation with every provider. It is very time-consuming and provides no ongoing or sustainable funding security.

62 A New Era in the Right to Sign

The number and proportion of deaf people Workbridge. Nor was Workbridge able to likely to be employed in roles that require confirm the number of deaf people who such intensive use of NZSL interpreters is have run out of Job Support funds, as it is relatively small. The Commission therefore reliant on individual deaf people notifying recommends that explicit provision is Workbridge that their Job Support funds made for the Job Support annual cap are depleted. The responsibility to manage to be increased for deaf workers in capped funding rests on deaf people and situations such as these. In the case of Deaf can be an additional administrative burden advocates specifically, the Commission on top of worrying that there will be hopes that greater regional collaboration insufficient funding to cover the full year. and transparency around current DHB Training Support fund expenditure will provide avenues for joint DHB support for such roles. The lifetime cap on the Training Support fund limits its effectiveness in enabling There may also be opportunities for deaf people to undertake education and employers with a large number of deaf training in order to gain open employment. staff to combine Job Support funding and, It is becoming harder for deaf people to get through economies of scale, reduce the paid work without formal qualifications. NZSL interpreting cost per staff member. Yet participating in tertiary education One example is the Kelston Deaf Education is very difficult without access to NZSL Centre (KDEC). The centre disestablished interpreter services. As already noted in its interpreter positions because of funding the education chapter, the Training Support cuts. Then an arrangement was made fund is insufficient to cover the interpreting with staff and Workbridge to transfer an costs of fulltime study on many courses, agreed percentage of staff members’ Job let alone subsequent career development Support funds to KDEC to administer. The or retraining. In addition, deaf people in Commission has been informed that this has self-employment who require interpreters resulted in a significant reduction in NZSL to build up their business are ineligible for interpreter costs for the group of deaf staff Training Support if that business does not at KDEC. show income streams that meet minimum wage criteria. Further steps are needed The Inquiry requested information from to ensure that the Training Support fund MSD about the number of deaf people realistically enables deaf people to move whose annual Job Support funds had run into decent work. out in less than 12 months. This information was not held by MSD because it is not DANZ commented that it had several times required for monitoring its contract with used its own funds to cover the cost of

63 interpreters for job interviews or urgent ODI suggests “it is useful for departments workplace meetings such as disciplinary to have an agreed policy on using sign meetings. This happened when a deaf language interpreters” and that “budgeting person had not applied for Support Funds (including a budget for interpreter services) or had exhausted their entitlement. Given will be a crucial part” of such policies.171 Its the importance of procedural fairness in 2011 review noted: any disciplinary meeting, any state sector employer should provide NZSL interpreting As these are principles rather than in these circumstances. directions, government departments also consider the reasonableness Other submitters stated there is a lack of these actions in terms of the of clarity around funding available to magnitude of cost, resourcing and pay for interpreters for job interviews. timeliness.172 This information should be transparent and consistent, and the funding must be 3.4.2 What is provided available at short notice. Demand for NZSL DANZ’s 2010 Deaf Way report found interpreting for job search activities or significant variability in communication job interviews is likely to remain high. It access for deaf people across government may also increase given the tight labour agencies, even where national policies market and more intensive job search existed: requirements related to welfare reforms. Therefore it is timely to review whether the Work and Income, for example, Training Support fund is sufficient to cover have a clear national policy as well interpreting costs linked to “cold-calling” as dedicated staff to ensure that employers and job interviews. interpreters are available for deaf people when needed, but local provision is still seen as patchy 3.4 Other government agencies depending on the interest and awareness of local staff.173 3.4.1 What is required The ODI advised government agencies The most comprehensive information in 2009 on providing NZSL interpreters. about access to NZSL interpreters occurs It clearly spelt out the importance of in relation to the NZSL Act’s interpreting assuming that an interpreter will be needed requirements in legal proceedings.174 It is for any meeting or event where deaf people much more difficult to identify how other will be present as well as in response to government agencies are meeting the any request from a deaf person.170 The guiding principles in the NZSL Act. The

64 A New Era in the Right to Sign

ODI has not asked government agencies to This Inquiry approached the ODI for provide New Zealand Disability Strategy information on government agencies’ plans since 2007/08 and no longer policies on use of NZSL interpreters. It publishes these. asked whether the ODI has specific budgets for NZSL interpreters or communications Submitters to the NZSL Act Review in NZSL. The ODI does not have this reported varying ability to access information. It confirmed it had previously government services or information in tried to obtain information about the level NZSL, even within the same agency.175 The of expenditure by government agencies on review’s final report includes a section on NZSL interpreters. However, agencies did key government agencies’ implementation not systematically collect this information. of the Act. This collates some important As payments for NZSL interpreters were information about activities undertaken coded to various expenditure codes within by government agencies. However, it does and across government agencies, collated not assess the extent to which the guiding data was not easily available. Agencies principles in section 9 of the Act have been could not disaggregate the data to identify realised. However, the report’s conclusions expenditure on NZSL interpreter services. and recommendations do identify concerns Booking services’ databases might be an about poor practice, specifically: alternative source of such information.

Translation services Government agencies that tend to have face-to-face interactions with Evolving technology and improved deaf clients have policies on the use broadband capacity across New Zealand of NZSL interpreters. These appear to offers some new options for increasing be appropriate and to demonstrate access to NZSL interpreter and translation the principles set out under the NZSL services. For example, Seeflow NZSL Direct Act for government departments. enables deaf NZSL signers to use the However, it appears that some staff internet to record and send a message to may be unaware of their department’s participating organisations who pay for the policies, or are not applying them. English language translation.177 A number This situation needs to improve. of government agencies have used Seeflow Departments need to have, and to consult with the deaf community. For to implement, clear processes for example, the Electoral Commission sought interacting with deaf clients and for deaf people’s views about the mixed the use of NZSL interpreters.176 member proportional (MMP) review and the percentage of deaf submitters per capita exceeded that of the general population.

65 Seeflow also produces NZSL translations of insufficient demand to sustain a locally- key information from government agencies. based interpreter.179 The Commission also

Video remote interpreting supports this development and the proactive role taken by the government agencies that On 17 May 2013, at the close of New initiated it, including the ODI. Zealand Sign Language Week, the Minister for Disability Issues announced that four Guidelines are being developed by the MBIE government agencies have jointly funded on the appropriate use of VRI, drawing on a video remote interpreting (VRI) initiative. established good practice in Australia and This uses video internet technology to the United States of America. These will connect a remotely-based NZSL interpreter include, but not be limited to, the use of VRI with a face-to-face meeting between a in health settings. The MBIE has received hearing government worker and a deaf a volume of material to aid developing person. The VRI service will start from those guidelines. A steering group has been 1 September 2013, initially in selected formed comprising officials from the funding provincial areas where there is a shortage agencies, MBIE, Sprint and a representative of sign language interpreters.178 of the Hutt Valley DHB. The Commission welcomes the development of these ACC and the Ministries of Education, guidelines, and stresses the importance of Health and Social Development have early and ongoing consultation with DANZ provided $300,000 per annum for this and SLIANZ. service, on an ongoing basis. This funding will be transferred to the Ministry of 3.4.2 What is needed Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) who will deliver the VRI service Despite clear advice from the ODI, some through its existing agreement with government agencies restrict access to Sprint International New Zealand. Sprint NZSL interpreters to instances where they has supplied a video relay service since have initiated the contact with a deaf June 2009. The Commission understands person. This impedes deaf people’s ability Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand will be to access information generally. The Inquiry subcontracted to develop and deliver is particularly concerned that it limits deaf outreach tasks including deaf awareness people’s ability to question an agency’s training to frontline staff. decisions or make a complaint.180

DANZ welcomed the VRI initiative Without sufficient information about particularly in remote rural areas where agencies’ NZSL policies and expenditure on a small deaf population means there is NZSL interpreter services, it is very difficult

66 A New Era in the Right to Sign to monitor their effectiveness in enabling Consultation with DANZ and SLIANZ should deaf people to access NZSL interpreters. also encompass how the roll-out of VRI The ODI’s 2011 review concluded that can best contribute to the vision of the “promoting best practice, and closer New Zealand Disability Strategy and the monitoring of implementation activities, is requirements of domestic laws and policies an appropriate way to address many of the and the Disability Convention. How can VRI issues identified by submitters”.181 Current enable deaf people to have access to the information gaps frustrate the ability to appropriate form of interpreting needed to do either. Ideally such monitoring would access information and services? focus both on the actions of government agencies and also the minimum practice Concerns have been raised with the standards expected of any contractors Commission that VRI could make or break including external booking agencies. the sustainability of NZSL interpreters in smaller provincial and rural areas. It would When announcing government agencies’ be a perverse unintended consequence if funding for video remote interpreting the the VRI roll-out to provincial areas removed Minister noted that further information the option of face-to-face interpreting by will be shared with the deaf community undermining the financial sustainability for from August 2013. It is important that local interpreters. Conversely, retaining a material identifies both the opportunities provincial NZSL interpreter workforce could and limitations of VRI, particularly be supported by basing some VRI staff in those circumstances where face-to-face those areas. interpreting is still required. Submitters to this Inquiry have emphasised that great care must be taken to ensure that 3.5 Other interpreting gaps the quality of interpreting is not reduced, especially in high risk settings including Increased flexibility in the scope of the mental health and emergency services. Ministry of Health’s contract with DANZ These and other limitations are reiterated in recent years has improved the cover of in overseas practice guidelines.182 NZSL interpreter services. However, there are still many situations where there is no Similarly, the New Zealand guidelines government funding for these services. being developed should address these concerns and identify the challenges and DANZ, iSign and other stakeholders in requirements in specific circumstances, the deaf community say the following including general medical, mental health, instances are examples of where deaf educational and legal settings. people are still unable to access funded

67 NZSL interpreter services. These include: There are also no trilingual interpreters in other languages, including Pacific a access to courts where the deaf languages. person is not a party or witness but may be supporting a child or other Deaf relay interpreters family member who is appearing in Another gap is the need for deaf relay court interpreters to communicate with deaf people who have minimal language skills.184 b some tertiary education institutions, This includes deaf people with learning particularly private training disabilities or those who have had little or establishments no language learning opportunities. A deaf c important internal family discussions relay interpreter works between a qualified (e.g. about whether a parent will NZSL interpreter and the deaf person to move into residential care) break down the information into more visual forms so that it is better understood. 183 d public events including expos Deaf relay interpreters are also helpful in situations requiring communication e weddings with a deaf refugee or migrant who uses f church services a sign language other than NZSL. If a deaf relay interpreter is required this will be in g art workshops, performances and addition to the NZSL interpreter, effectively theatre. at least doubling the costs involved.

Deafblind interpreters In addition there are specific groups within the deaf community who face additional A deafblind interpreter is used exclusively barriers when attempting to access NZSL with one deafblind person. This may involve interpreter services. These are outlined tactile signing, where the deafblind person below. places a hand gently on the interpreter’s hands to understand what the interpreter Trilingual interpreter services is signing. The deafblind interpreter usually There is no government funding tagged sits next to the deafblind person and works specifically for trilingual interpreter services as their sole interpreter. This means they for Mäori. Therefore it is difficult to obtain cannot also interpret for other deaf people interpreters for tangihanga, and for iwi, present. Therefore, additional interpreters whänau and hapü hui. This is of particular will be required for deaf participants as concern given the high proportion of the well as an individual interpreter for each deaf population who are Mäori. deafblind person attending. Again this

68 A New Era in the Right to Sign typically doubles or trebles the interpreter 3.6 NZSL interpreter workforce costs. Professional, quality NZSL interpreters are The Ministry of Health’s increased funding crucial. They enable deaf people’s freedom to DANZ in October 2011 to include of expression and opinion and their ability deafblind interpreting costs is a positive to communicate and access information example of an agency recognising these and services in NZSL. Interpreters provide additional costs. However, there is currently a language bridge that is essential for deaf no formal training for deafblind interpreters people to be fully included and have the or deaf relay interpreters, and no protocol opportunity to achieve their aspirations and for when a deafrelay interpreter should be full potential. employed. A full analysis of workforce development Travel and accommodation costs issues for NZSL interpreters is outside For those outside the main cities there are the scope of this Inquiry. However, it is significant travel costs for transporting impossible to adequately recognise the interpreters, especially to smaller regions. place of NZSL as an official language In addition to flights, airport transfers without valuing the role played by the and/or rental car costs, there may be interpreters. This section briefly summarises accommodation and meal costs if the job the largely self-regulated nature of NZSL ends late or starts early. As already noted, interpreter services and identifies the VRI is sometimes a viable option but there opportunities that better data collection are times when a face-to-face interpreter is and coordination of current resources could necessary or preferable (including for large provide for the NZSL workforce too. group meetings or performances). Ministry of Justice standards

Monitoring gaps in access to NZSL Section 7(3) of the NZSL Act requires the interpreter services should not be entirely presiding officer in any legal proceedings dependent upon complaints from deaf to ensure that a competent interpreter groups or individuals. The Commission is available. In 2006, the Ministry of suggests that a centralised point should be Justice issued instructions to courts and identified within government for reporting tribunals identifying the qualifications for and monitoring gaps in service provision. It a “competent interpreter”. These specify could help clarify the instances where no that the minimum standard for interpreting funding is available as well as those where in court is to hold the Diploma of Sign contractual requirements to provide an Language Interpreting, have two years’ NZSL interpreter have not been met. post-graduation experience and be a

69 member of a professional interpreting body. competence. Both bodies have a process These instructions were reviewed in 2011 for dealing with complaints about their and no changes made to the policy. members.

SLIANZ membership requirements At present, SLIANZ maintains a directory There are no regulated minimum interpreter of qualified members and provides standards outside court settings. SLIANZ mentoring and ongoing professional members must meet the minimum development. It monitors a minimum qualification levels to be an NZSL standard of qualification for its members interpreter. They must follow SLIANZ’s and provides an avenue for consumers to code of ethics and code of practice raise complaints about NZSL interpreters. and participate in a minimum of four SLIANZ also enforces its code of ethics and professional development events a year. code of conduct. It forms partnerships with SLIANZ and the New Zealand Society of DANZ and interpreting organisations in Translators and Interpreters (NZSTI) each Australasia. All this is done on a voluntary have codes of ethics requiring interpreters basis. The passage of the NZSL Act has to only undertake assignments within their not led to any infrastructural support for SLIANZ’s work. But the workforce development issues signalled in this report, including potential registration processes and a more robust complaints mechanism, are unlikely to be sustainable without some external resourcing.

ODI expectations

The ODI’s advice to government agencies outlines the competencies, qualifications, skills and characteristics that someone should expect to find in a professional sign language interpreter. It also notes that “at present there is no system to assess or rank the competency levels of NZSL interpreters after graduation”.185 Several suggestions have been made to the Commission by some interpreters. These include the need for a formal registration Sonia Pivac. © Adrian Malloch. process with sanctions, or requirements

70 that new graduates should work alongside 3 insufficient liaison between different an experienced interpreter. community and institutional booking services (e.g. those run by Issues of fluctuating demand tertiary institutions), that created an Until recently much of the workforce exaggerated sense of an interpreter development debate has centred on an shortage insufficient supply of NZSL interpreters. However there are also demand issues 4 inadequate notice for bookings coupled linked to funding constraints and limited with insufficient flexibility to work appreciation of the value and role of around interpreters’ availability. NZSL interpreters. In November 2012, SLIANZ undertook a work survey of NZSL The following two quotes from NZSL interpreters.186 Just over half of the 39 interpreters express this tension: respondents considered interpreting work to be their fulltime job, yet none worked more I also have heard of deaf people than 30 hours per week. Many interpreters desperate for interpreters but not stated there was not enough available work being able to get one, while on the to be able to rely solely on income earned same day, an interpreter is not able to through interpreting. This situation was work. There needs to be a solution to exacerbated outside university terms. resolve this.

Coordination and information gaps Book your interpreter before you The survey identified coordination and book your meetings. Ask us for times information gaps relevant to this Inquiry. when we are available before booking The gaps limited deaf people’s access to everything. NZSL interpreters. These included: This Inquiry supports the need for further 1 limited understanding about the work on developing a comprehensive benefits of using interpreters or the approach to workforce development issues requirements for government agencies for NZSL interpreters. to provide access to information and services through NZSL

2 confusion within both the deaf community and the wider public about what funding is available for NZSL interpreters and in what areas

71 Recommendations That the Ministry of Health:

That government agencies and District 8 continues to monitor the scope, uptake Health Boards: and value of its contract with Deaf Aotearoa and explores options for 4 develop and/or review their NZSL Deaf Aotearoa to report on requests interpreting and translation policies, for NZSL interpreters that fall outside including through close consultation the contract’s criteria or cannot be met with the deaf community, monitor their within the current level of funding. effectiveness and share good practice models of providing access to NZSL That the Ministry of Social Development: interpreting and translation services 9 reviews Job Support funding including

5 allocate sufficient funds to meet the adequacy of the yearly limit, ways current demand for NZSL interpreter to reduce the administrative burden and translation services and explore on deaf people and the feasibility of options to monitor demand for, supply contingency funding for situations of and expenditure on these services where a person needs additional (including associated travel costs and support (including access to NZSL for deafblind, deaf relay and trilingual services) to undertake their paid job interpreting). 10 explores how the Training Support

That District Health Boards: fund could better meet the additional costs incurred by deaf people when 6 consider a sub-regional pilot that undertaking education or training would pool existing budgets for NZSL necessary to gain employment in the interpreter services and trial working open labour market. with a single booking agency to provide these services. That Workbridge:

That government agencies: 11 monitors and reports on expenditure of Job Support and Training Support 7 explore the option of allocating current funding on NZSL interpreter and expenditure on NZSL interpreting translation services, including the services to an external booking service number and proportion of deaf people that has experience working with deaf whose Job Support funding runs out people. before their annual funding renewal anniversary.

72 A New Era in the Right to Sign

That the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment:

12 develops reporting mechanisms for measuring uptake of video remote interpreting (VRI), in consultation with other government agencies, to enable government agencies to make comparisons between usage of VRI and face-to-face interpreter services.

That the Office for Disability Issues and relevant government agencies:

13 scope a project on workforce development issues for NZSL interpreters to inform the proposed NZSL strategy, in consultation with the proposed interim Expert Advisory Group on NZSL and the Sign Language Interpreters’ Association of New Zealand (SLIANZ).

73 4 Promoting and maintaining NZSL as an official language of New Zealand

The [New Zealand government] should take specific measures aimed at preserving ... languages, by ensuring that adequate funding is allocated for specific programmes.✝

4.1 Why language promotion language. These included stigmatisation, and maintenance is important poor rates of educational and employment participation, social alienation and A culture’s visual and verbal language isolation. is its most profound and vital means of expression. It embodies the history, In international and domestic law, the New values and traditions of a people. Zealand Government has obligations to Language binds people together and maintain and protect NZSL. The focus of with their environment. It enables this chapter is on how this is implemented the transfer of the culture from and how it might be better achieved. It sets one generation to the next, it is the out relevant international and domestic expression of individual and collective law provisions along with current initiatives identity. It is a means of survival.187 addressing how NZSL can be maintained and promoted. Options for improvement For a language to live, it must be taught are also considered including models and used to communicate, first and operating in other countries where sign foremost by those who have it as their language is formally recognised. primary language. It must also be available to the broader population in order to build 4.1.1 Lessons from te reo Mäori an appreciation and knowledge of the language. Both needs are heightened in This chapter often draws on the Waitangi the case of official languages. History tells Tribunal’s observations and proposals of the disabling impacts when deaf people made in Ko Aotearoa t‘nei about te reo were denied and prevented from using sign Mäori, given similarities in the issues and

74 A New Era in the Right to Sign treatment of te reo Mäori and NZSL. Both these include declining numbers at the languages have official language status. deaf schools and fewer opportunities to The cornerstone for protecting both te reo be immersed in sign language. There is and NZSL is ensuring that each language also inadequate resourcing to support deaf can be accessed, transmitted and learnt children and their families to learn and within families and through education. use sign language. Other factors include As highlighted by the Waitangi Tribunal’s those infant cochlear implant programmes findings, “It is literally true that the that discourage the use of sign language, survival of te reo depends on [children]”. and biotechnologies that select against deafness.189 There are concerns about the maintenance of NZSL, as there are For indigenous peoples across the about te reo Mäori. Modern threats world, the protection and maintenance to the survival of sign languages, in of language is vital to identity and New Zealand and elsewhere, centre on wellbeing.190 The ability to access and factors that either reduce the size of speak te reo Mäori is regarded as central the deaf population and/or the signing to Mäori identity.191 population.188 As noted in chapter 1,

An NZSL interpreter interprets for Louise Agnew (left) while Garth McVicar speaks, accompanied by Tai Hobson and Susan Couch. © NZ Herald/M Mitchell.

75 Te reo Mäori is a taonga. It is the Article 21 explicitly mentions countries’ platform upon which mätauranga responsibilities around “recognising and Mäori stands, and the means by promoting the use of sign languages”.195 which Mäori culture and identity are This requirement is informed by the general expressed. Without it, that identity obligations in the Disability Convention, – indeed the very existence of Mäori including the importance of closely as a distinct people – would be consulting with and actively involving compromised.192 disabled people in this work.196

Similarly, access to NZSL is pivotal to deaf In addition, recognition and promotion people’s ability to learn, communicate of sign language are clearly linked to and participate in society. Internationally, the issues raised in previous chapters of access to sign language has been shown this report. The Disability Convention to be a strong predictor of health and provisions recognise the significant role wellbeing for deaf people.193 that education plays in transmitting and maintaining sign language.197 Similarly, the The next section considers what Disability Convention sets out governments’ international and domestic standards responsibilities to facilitate the use of sign require for NZSL to be adequately languages in official interactions and enable maintained and promoted. deaf people to access public information and facilities.198 4.2 What is required In addition the Disability Convention 4.2.1 International obligations requires states to “recognise and support Deaf people’s cultural and linguistic As noted in the introductory chapter, identity”.199 Article 21 of the Disability Convention sets out the measures required to respect, 4.2.2 Domestic obligations protect and promote disabled people’s The New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006 right to freedom of expression and opinion. Countries are required to progressively Great hopes were held for the NZSL Act, realise these rights to the maximum extent particularly by the deaf community. It was possible given their available resources. the culmination of more than 20 years These rights include the freedom to seek, of activism by them. During its passage receive and impart information on an equal through Parliament it was described as a basis with others.194 “milestone for the deaf communities” and measure of “immense significance”.200 It

76 A New Era in the Right to Sign was heralded as “an important component during the passage of the Act indicated of the attitudinal change needed to bridge that it was intended to effect substantive the divide that can limit people’s ability change and improvement. In 2011, the to participate fully in society” and as a review concluded that “while the NZSL measure of benefit to all. Act is not functioning as well as it might, this may be the result of poor practice As people, as a community, and rather than being attributable to the NZSL as a nation, we all benefit from Act itself”.204 Arguably, the threshold recognising, understanding, and requiring government departments to be supporting New Zealand Sign guided by the Act’s principles only “so far Language as being core to the culture as reasonably practicable” weakened the of the Deaf community.201 legislation’s effectiveness.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 The importance of promoting NZSL was clearly signalled in the NZSL Act. As already As noted in the introductory chapter, noted, section 9 sets out the principles that section 20 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act government agencies must be guided by (NZBORA) encompasses the rights of “so far as reasonably practicable” when linguistic minorities to use their language. exercising their functions and powers. Two This is framed as a negative right. For of these specifically mention the promotion deaf people, this means they shall not be of NZSL.202 denied the right to use sign language within the deaf community. There is a positive The Act was reviewed during 2010 and obligation on the state to avoid known 2011 under a requirement in section 11 that threats to this right. However, on its own, the Minister report on its operation and this NZBORA provision does not impose whether any amendments to its scope and a duty to promote minority languages, contents were necessary or desirable.203 including NZSL. Submissions to the review indicated that many of the hopes and expectations that the deaf community had for the Act had 4.3 What is provided not been realised. While the review made a number of recommendations, it did not The key government agencies with various recommend any changes to the legislation. responsibilities for aspects of language policy include the Ministry of Education, The NZSL Act did not create enforceable the Tertiary Education Commission, Te Puni rights other than a right to use NZSL Kökiri, the Mäori Language Commission, in legal proceedings. However, debate the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the

77 Office of Ethnic Affairs, the Ministry for initially in a 1992 discussion Culture and Heritage, the Ministry of Social document commissioned by the Development, and the Ministry of Business, Ministry of Education that proposed Innovation and Employment. The Human a national languages policy.209 Rights Commission facilitates a language More recently the Human Rights policy network, Te Waka Reo.205 Commission has promoted the need for a national languages policy. The Several of these government agencies have recommendations of both were been involved in some NZSL promotion and supported and amplified in a 2013 maintenance activities. These include: position paper by the Royal Society of New Zealand.210 a The Ministry of Education funded the development of resources for Currently the main sources of NZSL support Year 7 and 8 students to learn and learning are provided by the two Deaf introductory NZSL in schools.206 Education Centres, the NZSL Teachers Association, Deaf Aotearoa NZ, Auckland b The Tertiary Education Commission University of Technology, Victoria University’s part funded the development of an Deaf Studies Research Unit (DSRU), the online NZSL dictionary by the Deaf NZ Federation of Deaf Children and many Studies Research Unit of Victoria individual deaf NZSL tutors working in local University. community adult education providers.

c The Ministry of Social Development DANZ undertakes a public communication provided a one-off small fund role about NZSL and the deaf community. to Deaf Aotearoa NZ to support It maintains positive links with the DECs, NZSL Week through its Making a the NZ Federation of Deaf Children and key Difference Fund. government departments. DANZ organises the annual NZSL Week, which is mostly d A limited number of government funded by charities. It also provides other agencies provide some information year-round NZSL promotion activities such as in NZSL on their websites207 or in deaf awareness and NZSL courses. DVD format. But most do not, as some submitters to the NZSL Act The NZSL Teachers’ Association is a voluntary Review noted.208 organisation of NZSL tutors who teach NZSL in adult education night classes and e NZSL has been included in national private settings. It provides professional language policy discussions, development and registration of NZSL tutors.

78 A New Era in the Right to Sign

It also develops and distributes resources for 4.4 What is needed: the learning and teaching of NZSL. A strategy to promote and protect NZSL Auckland University of Technology is the site of New Zealand’s only NZSL interpreter The NZSL Act has been criticised for not training programme, providing a bachelor strengthening any of the “promotion- degree in NZSL Interpreting. It also offers orientated rights and mechanisms usually papers towards a certificate in NZSL and associated with language planning”.211 Deaf Studies. Currently, most of the responsibility for protecting and promoting NZSL falls on the The DSRU is housed in the School of Applied non-government sector where funding is Language Studies at Victoria University and precarious. In some cases NZSL is provided undertakes NZSL research and language by organisations or individuals with documentation. It produced the first NZSL minimal resourcing and no formal standards dictionary in 1997 and the online NZSL of competence. dictionary in 2012. The unit publishes many other research publications on NZSL and As yet there has been no overarching the deaf community. Victoria University strategy developed by Government to provides a certificate course for deaf people ensure the protection and promotion of on how to teach their language. It also NZSL. DANZ criticised the 2011 findings offers NZSL courses that can be credited of the NZSL Act Review for ignoring the to undergraduate degrees, supervises need for a NZSL language strategy. Such postgraduate research and teaches occasional a strategy would link all activities related postgraduate courses. to Deaf culture and use of NZSL across all government departments. In 2012, Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mäori (the Mäori Language Commission) funded the With no sign language strategy in addition of Te Reo Mäori translation to the place each [government] department online Dictionary of NZSL in partnership with does its own thing so there is no DSRU and DANZ. consistency or linkages, plus decisions are made by hearing non-NZSL The New Zealand Federation of Deaf users.212 Children is a voluntary organisation for parents of deaf children. It provides some There have also been calls for an NZSL resources to parents and families and overarching national language strategy, has a mentoring programme and regional including by the Royal Society of New branches that organise local networks and Zealand in its 2013 paper on Languages activities. 79 in Aotearoa New Zealand.213 The paper that “neither the Treaty nor the importance considered the status and issues relating of the language were paramount “in the to maintenance and protection of diverse design of the Mäori language strategy.214 languages in New Zealand. It proposed that a unitary national framework be In Ko Aotearoa t‘nei, the Tribunal helpfully established to cover all languages. This spelt out what it considered was necessary framework should ensure sufficient for an effective language strategy. These recognition of NZ’s biculturalism and are that it: linguistically diverse makeup. a has an overarching and aspirational There are advantages of an overarching vision owned by both the unitary language strategy which covers community and government both the official languages and other language groups. These include improved b is sufficiently resourced – in the coordination and more efficient and Tribunal’s words, “Mä te huruhuru, strategic use of resources. The strategy te manu ka rere” (“Birds can fly could build on what has been learnt from only with feathers”) the development and trajectory of the Mäori language strategy. This includes c prioritises the rights of the concerns raised by the Waitangi Tribunal language users

Supporters use Deaf cultural applause to congratulate Green MP Mojo Mathers on her maiden speech in Parliament, 14 February 2012. © NZ Herald/M Mitchell.

80 A New Era in the Right to Sign

d increases the linguistic and cultural Partnership with the deaf community competency and responsiveness of would give real effect to the Government’s the broader community obligations under the Disability Convention and the NZSL Act. There appears to e reflects wise policy. be strong support amongst the deaf community for working in partnership with The Tribunal emphasised the vital role of the Government. Most recently, this was education in language revival. It was highly expressed at a March 2013 public forum critical of what it saw as the education for government and deaf community system’s failure to meet the actual and stakeholders. This was held to discuss projected language needs and demands of the official recognition of NZSL that took tamariki and whänau. place in Wellington prior to the Deaf View 3 conference. 4.4.1 Partnership

The Tribunal emphasised the importance of 4.5 Models of language partnership. Te reo Mäori cannot be made maintenance and promotion secure by either Mäori or government efforts alone. The future of both te reo Partnership requires that the Government Mäori and NZSL is dependent on partnership accepts its responsibilities in relation – “the ability of both sides to co-operate, to both te reo Mäori and NZSL as New participate, and contribute.”215 The Crown Zealand’s official languages. This requires is obliged to act in partnership with Mäori the Government to be willing to share under the Treaty of Waitangi and “share a responsibility and control with the substantial measure of responsibility and communities that use and maintain these control with its Treaty partner”.216 languages.

Thus the Tribunal clearly envisaged For NZSL, it involves deaf people having partnership as not simply a process, but a voice and being given a lead role in as the means to realise Treaty obligations. improving their status in New Zealand It contrasted such a partnership with society.218 As the Waitangi Tribunal the Crown’s development of the current emphasised, sharing responsibility Mäori Language Strategy. While Mäori and control means communities have were consulted they were not involved in meaningful input into key decisions about decision-making and the Tribunal considered their language. It also requires research the strategy lacked ambition and specific expertise and logistical and financial targets.217 support. 219

81 To date, the obligation on government of te reo Mäori as a living language and as agencies to partner or at least to actively an ordinary means of communication. The engage with the deaf community about functions of Te Taura Whiri include to: maintaining and promoting NZSL has been inconsistently met. The quality of advice a advise on measures to give effect and guidance provided to government to Mäori language as an official services is also inconsistent. There is no language of New Zealand monitoring of when and if government agencies consult with representatives of b promote the Mäori language the deaf community on matters relating to NZSL or with whom they consult. c administer competency standards for interpreters in legal The Commission proposes that this could proceedings be improved with the establishment of a formalised partnership mechanism. Models d report to the Minister on matters operating in other contexts for this type relating to the Mäori language. of purpose are considered in the following sections. Te Taura Whiri has a Board of five Commissioners, appointed by the Minister As described in the introduction to this of Mäori Affairs. Commissioners are report, different approaches to recognising, appointed because of their Mäori language maintaining and promoting sign language sector experience, expertise, leadership, have developed around the world. These and ability to revitalise the Mäori language. include countries that have created an The Board appoints a single employee, entity with custodial responsibilities for the Chief Executive/Tumuaki, for a set maintaining and promoting the language. term of three years. All of the operations Some of these models are considered of Te Taura Whiri are managed by the here, including the approach used in New Tumuaki. Te Taura Whiri is largely funded Zealand for te reo Mäori. by the Government, and in the 2011/2012 financial year received $3.2 million from 4.5.1 Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mäori the Crown. (Mäori Language Commission) The Waitangi Tribunal recommended a The Mäori Language Act 1987 established new approach to partnership. This included Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mäori (the Mäori expanding the role and powers of Te Taura Language Commission, also known as Te Whiri so that it would: Taura Whiri). Its role is to promote the use

82 A New Era in the Right to Sign

a take the lead role in the Crown’s deaf education that resulted in educational responsibility for Mäori language and attitudinal barriers for sign language revival with equal representation users in society. About 6000 deaf people in from the Government and Mäori on Flanders use VGT as their first or preferred its board language, compared to about 4000 signing deaf people in New Zealand. b have powers to require public sector agencies to produce Mäori The 2006 decree recognising VGT: language plans a recognised VGT as the first or c set targets for training of te reo preferred language of the deaf teachers and approve education community in Flanders curricula for te reo b established an advisory board, a d hold public sector agencies committee of experts to advise the accountable for their government about policies related responsibilities towards te reo.220 to Flemish Sign Language

This greater role for Te Taura Whiri better c established a centre of excellence reflects the original intentions of the Mäori to support research on VGT. Language Act. The advisory board has monitoring and 4.5.2 Sign language protection in advisory functions. It offers advice, Flanders, Belgium responds to requests from government, and can participate in government working Reviews of sign language protection groups. measures have identified Flemish Sign Language (VGT) as one of the more It has a maximum of 15 members. Potential effective examples of implementation members may be drawn from six categories following legal recognition of a signed including deaf associations, deaf schools, language.221 It provides a useful comparison VGT teachers/tutors, VGT research with the NZSL Act, given the close timing linguists, parents of deaf children and of each country’s recognition (both in interpreters. Not all of these categories are April 2006), and similar socio-historical required to be represented nor numerically circumstances. These include relatively balanced. The only stipulation is that half or small national populations and a welfare more members must be deaf VGT users. state. There is also a tradition of oralist

83 Members of the advisory board participate expert information about VGT, including in an individual capacity rather than all relevant advice to government, is representing organisational affiliations. now more centralised. It is publically However, most members work in available on the advisory board’s website organisations that support their board and translated into VGT. The advisory role by considering meetings as part of board plays a watchdog role. It alerts their paid employment. Officials from government agencies to relevant court other government ministries or agencies decisions (for example around access to are invited to attend meetings when VGT in education) and the implications for appropriate.222 government agencies.

Appointments to the advisory board are The decree also created a budget for a managed by the Ministry of Culture which contestable fund that enables organisations provides meeting administration and to operate as centres of excellence in secretariat functions. The advisory board research on VGT for a four-year period. has an operational budget of ¤20,000 To date, this funding has been provided to (Euros) per annum, to cover monthly half- the Flemish Sign Language Centre in the day meetings, attendance fees (¤42 per member per meeting), travel, interpreters, an annual report, public outreach and a website.

In addition the government allocates ¤37,000 annually to fund projects that promote VGT in the community. The advisory board calls for project applications, sometimes with a specific theme such as deaf children. It makes recommendations to the Minister about which projects to fund. The advisory board has the discretion to recommend allocating funds to one major project or to split them between several applicants. On the completion of projects the advisory board Jeremy Borland (left) is interpreting the briefings evaluates them and reports to the Minister. at the Civil Defence headquarters into NZSL for television viewers. Pictured with Christchurch Mayor Since the advisory board was established, Bob Parker. © NZ Herald/S Ivey.

84 A New Era in the Right to Sign

Linguistics Department of the University of dictionaries. TDK duly established the Antwerp. The size of the budget allocation Turkish Sign Language Scientific Approval is determined by the government of the Committee (Türk ˙Işaret Dili Bilim ve Onay day. In 2012, this was at a rate of ¤85,000 Kurulu – TI˙DBO). The committee members per annum. The functions of a VGT centre are four academics, one representative of excellence are aligned with four goals from the Turkish Language Association, in the decree relating to promotion and two from the Turkish Deaf Federation and development of VGT. The VGT Centre is four people from various government governed by a board consisting solely of departments. deaf members, including Deaf Association representatives. This structure for monitoring, protecting and developing Turkish Sign Language has One criticism of the Belgium model is been criticised by Turkish deaf linguist Okan that the decree recognising VGT did not Kubus for its lack of deaf expertise and include early childhood and education in leadership.223 The two deaf representatives the advisory board’s mandate. As a result, on this committee are heavily outnumbered its work has had little impact on the use by a majority of non-deaf members who of VGT in these two key sites of language have no direct experience with Turkish Sign maintenance and promotion. Language and the deaf community. The committee also operates within a medical 4.5.3 Sign language in Turkey paradigm, rather than a linguistic one. This is in contrast to the legislative intent Turkish Sign Language (TI˙D) was recognised to empower the TI˙D community. Kubus’s in the 2005 Disability Act (no. 5378) assessment is that the committee has not which aims to improve education and achieved any practical advances in the communication for sign language users. The situation of the TI˙D community since it was legislation supports the use of TI˙D in deaf established. education and the training of Turkish Sign Language interpreters. 4.6 Options to improve Under the legislation, monitoring of maintenance and promotion the protection and development of TI˙D of NZSL was assigned to the Turkish Language Association (Türk Dil Kurumu – TDK). This New Zealand has a stated commitment association has a much broader mandate to maintain and promote NZSL in its as its primary goal is protecting the domestic legislation and international Turkish Language and producing Turkish treaty commitments. But, as outlined

85 above, implementation has been limited NZSL Act does not establish any entity to and ad hoc. facilitate this partnership and to lead, advise on, and monitor the use and promotion Like te reo Mäori, the bedrock of language of NZSL. This contrasts with those maintenance and promotion for NZSL is a overseas jurisdictions which confer formal strategy that prioritises access to language recognition on sign language and with in families and education for children and domestic provisions for te reo under the whänau. As others have shown, it is timely Mäori Language Act. to develop a national language strategy and policy that prioritises maintaining and In 2005, the Justice and Electoral Select promoting both of New Zealand’s official Committee considered submissions on the languages. It is important that a strategy for NZSL bill and recommended that “serious NZSL is based on a clear vision and: consideration” be given to establishing an advisory group that could: a recognises the right to language as a human right, including the a monitor the effects of the legislation Government’s obligations under the against its stated purposes Disability Convention b provide a focus for contact between b prioritises access to NZSL from government and the community early years and through schooling c look at new areas in which work c reflects and is informed by could be done.224 participation of, and consultation with, deaf people This recommendation has not been implemented. Given the inconsistent d prioritises an increase in trilingual approach by the Government agencies interpreters to NZSL, the Commission suggests that this recommendation be reconsidered. e is sufficiently resourced Options for delivering on these functions and achieving partnership between the f promotes understanding and use of Government and the deaf community are NZSL to hearing communities. briefly considered below and conclude with the Commission’s preferred option of Such a NZSL Strategy should be based on establishing an NZSL Statutory Board. a partnership between the Government and the deaf community. However, the

86 A New Era in the Right to Sign

Option A: NZSL Commission broader, and arguably requires a non-academic An NZSL Commission, similar in function home. It might be difficult to maintain a to Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mäori could be strong community – government partnership established. Te Taura Whiri, like the Human within a university context. An advocacy role Rights Commission, is an autonomous also potentially conflicts with a university’s Crown entity. mandate for independent critical scholarship.

Option C: Statutory board An NZSL Commission could provide a permanent space for deaf leadership on A statutory board, similar to the Belgium strategic NZSL issues. It could also be a model, is another option. Statutory boards partnership between the Government and are independent bodies established by NZSL users by having government agency statute to carry out specific functions. representatives on its board. This option would require legislative change However, establishment of an NZSL and some costs, though less than an NZSL Commission would involve significant Commission. Some of the advantages of a cost. This seems untenable in the current statutory board are that it could: fiscal climate. Another disadvantage of this option is that it would require legislative a model a strong and formal partnership change. between government agencies and the deaf community, particularly Option B: University-based institute given its independent role An NZSL custodial body could be established at one of the New Zealand b have a greater degree of permanence universities. This would most logically build than an expert advisory group, and on work currently being undertaken by therefore be in a position to develop DSRU at Victoria University of Wellington a longer-term NZSL strategy for the or through AUT’s Deaf Studies and NZSL promotion and maintenance of NZSL interpreting courses. However it is far from certain that either university would be in a c ensure greater transparency and position to adopt this role. accountability in the provision of NZSL advice and guidance through Language maintenance and development a formal appointment process for activities such as teaching, documentation board members representing the and research, fit well within an academic deaf community, other NZSL users environment. On the other hand, language and other key stakeholders. promotion is qualitatively different, much

87 The functions of the statutory board Conversely its very informality may give it would be to provide advice and guidance a relatively lower profile than a statutory to government agencies about NZSL and body and may not provide a strong sense of monitor progress in making the language permanence and commitment to its role. more accessible. It would have a strategic role and lead the development of an For these reasons, in the interim the NZSL strategy in the broader context of a Commission recommends establishing an national language strategy. Expert Advisory Group on NZSL. It will also take further work and consultation to The Commission also supports the bringing establish a Statutory Board. Its role would together of community and government be to develop options for establishing an representatives to progress a broader NZSL Statutory Board and to provide that national languages strategy for Aotearoa advice to the Ministerial Committee on New Zealand. It would be appropriate for Disability Issues. The Commission considers an NZSL Statutory Board to represent NZSL that the Office for Disability Issues is best users in such work. placed to progress this recommendation.

Terms of reference and appointment The Ministry of Education plays a key role process in enabling not only access to NZSL but also its maintenance and promotion. Therefore, The terms of reference and appointment the Commission’s strongly preferred option process for both the statutory board is that the Ministry is the agency charged and expert advisory group should be with leading the development of a NZSL transparent. These should be based on Statutory Board. demonstrated skills and experience around maintaining and promoting NZSL. Both The Commission acknowledges the role groups would comprise representatives of of other government agencies in the organisations that have a clear and specific promotion and maintenance of NZSL. focus on advancing the interests of the Therefore it recommends that decisions deaf community and the status of NZSL. about a lead agency are made by the Members would include other recognised Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues. experts who have demonstrated experience in developing, promoting and protecting Option D: Expert advisory group NZSL. An expert group on NZSL would provide a measure of independence, is relatively The Statutory Board and Expert Advisory inexpensive and easily established without Group should each include a majority of the need for legislation or regulation. members who are deaf NZSL users.

88 A New Era in the Right to Sign

Recommendations

That the Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues:

14 progresses options for establishing an NZSL Statutory Board in 2014/15 to oversee the promotion and maintenance of NZSL, in consultation with the proposed interim Expert Advisory Group on NZSL.

That the Office for Disability Issues, in consultation with deaf community stakeholders and other NZSL users:

15 establishes an interim Expert Advisory Group on NZSL, with a majority of deaf NZSL users as members, by 31 December 2013, for the purposes of advising the Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues on options for establishing an NZSL Statutory Board that would:

a develop a strategy for the promotion and maintenance of NZSL

b advise, guide and monitor government agencies’ use and promotion of NZSL

c provide NZSL expertise into a national languages strategy.

89 Appendix 1

Terms of reference for the NZ Sign Language Inquiry

The Human Rights Commission will inquire 3 The promotion and maintenance of into: NZSL as an official language of New Zealand with reference to: 1 The right to education for deaf people for users and potential users of NZSL, i the use and development of NZSL from diagnosis through to lifetime as outlined in international human learning with reference to: rights standards (documents)

i inclusion in education at all levels ii ensuring that opportunities to learn via NZSL NZSL are widely available in New Zealand. ii the availability of NZSL and the promotion of the linguistic identity 4 The Commission will consider, as a of the deaf community. result of the Inquiry, whether to make (related to Article 24 of the Disability recommendations on: Convention) i changes to legislation, regulations,

2 The rights of deaf people to access policies, practices and procedures communication, information and ii the value of developing national services, and the right to freedom frameworks, mechanisms, of expression and opinion, through standards, guidelines or codes of the provision of professional NZSL practice to give effect to NZSL interpreter services and other NZSL as an official language of New services and resources. Zealand (related to Articles 9, 19, 21, 27 of the Disability Convention) iii a timetabled approach with clear benchmarks for the implementation of the recommendations from the Inquiry.

90 A New Era in the Right to Sign

Appendix 2

NZSL interpreter support available through the Ministry of Health’s contract with Deaf Aotearoa NZ

The following list provides examples of the • Home nursing service (such as palliative interpreter services which can be provided care provided through a hospice) through iSign to support deaf people’s • Midwife access to health and disability support and • Optometry life skills. Additional interpreter services • Physiotherapy may be provided where Deaf Aotearoa considers that a deaf person would benefit • Private hospital appointments from support from an interpreter to access • Speech therapy such services. • Radiology.

Health services Disability support services Counselling and rehabilitation (if not For example: funded by DHB or courts), for example: • Adapting house environment (fire • Alcohol alarms, health and safety) • Drug • Hearing dog meeting/introduction • Marriage • Assessment and service co-ordination • Trauma. • Meetings/AGMs for deafblind people • Residential services and rest homes (if Mental health services not funded by DHB). Private medical treatment (if not funded by DHB), for example: Life skills • Audiology For example: • Chiropractor • Complementary medicine • Budget advice • Dentist • Citizen’s Advice Bureau • Medical specialist • Driver licensing/testing • GP and nurse appointments • Parenting support services.

91 Appendix 3

List of abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning ACC Accident Compensation Corporation

AODC Advisor on Deaf Children

AUT Auckland University of Technology

BLENZ Blind and Low Vision Network

DANZ Deaf Aotearoa NZ

DEANZ Deaf Education Aotearoa NZ

DEC Deaf education centre

DHB District health board

DPO Deaf people’s organisations

DSRU Deaf Studies Research Unit (at Victoria University)

DVD Digital video disc

EFTS Equivalent fulltime student

ENT Ear, nose and throat

FTE Fulltime equivalent

HDCA Health and Disability Consumer Advocacy

HRA The Human Rights Act 1993

HRC The Human Rights Commission

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

KDEC Kelston Deaf Education Centre

LED Language and Education

MBIE Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

MLA Mäori Language Act 1987

MMP Mixed member proportional

MSD Ministry of Social Development

NEG National education goals

NGO Non-government organisation

NZBORA New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

NZDS New Zealand Disability Strategy

92 A New Era in the Right to Sign

Abbreviation Meaning NZFDC New Zealand Federation for Deaf Children

NZSL New Zealand Sign Language

NZSTI New Zealand Society of Translators and Interpreters

ODI Office for Disability Issues

OPF Operating policy framework

ORS Ongoing Resourcing Scheme

RTD Resource Teacher: Deaf s plus a number Section of legislation (eg, s20 of the NZBORA)

SLIANZ Sign Language Interpreters Association of New Zealand

TDK Türk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Association)

Te Taura Whiri Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mäori (The Mäori Language Commission)

The Commission The Human Rights Commission

The Disability Convention The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The Inquiry The New Zealand Sign Language Inquiry

TİD Turkish Sign Language

TİDBO Türk İşaret Dili Bilim ve Onay Kurulu (Turkish Sign Language Scientific Approval Committee) UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNCROC Convention on the Rights of the Child

UNCRPD or CRPD The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities UNDRIP The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Committee

UNHSEIP Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Early Intervention Programme

VGT Flemish Sign Language

VRI Video remote interpreting

VUW Victoria University of Wellington

93 Endnotes

* The original whakatauki was first coined in 2 New Zealand House of Representatives, New 1987 for Mäori Language Week by Tïmoti Zealand Sign Language Bill As Reported from Karetu at the request of Hera White at Wintec, the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, Hamilton who was wanting a phrase to (2005), New Zealand Sign Language Act Review encapsulate the idea of the value of language 2011, (Office for Disability Issues, 2011); R. hence this whakataukï and its widespread McKee, “The eyes have it! Our third official use today. Over time there has been different language: New Zealand Sign Language,” versions and different translations but the Journal of New Zealand Studies, 4-5 translation we are using here is “My language, (2006),129-148. my awakening.” 3 Section 5(2)(h) of the Human Rights Act 1993. ** Quote from Dr Terje Basilier (1974), translated into English from Norwegian by Ms Hilde 4 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group Haualand, and quoted in Haualand, H. and Disability Rights in Aotearoa NZ 2012. A report Allen, C. (2009) “Deaf People and Human on the human rights of disabled people in Rights” (2009), World Federation of the Deaf, Aotearoa New Zealand. Accessed 17 July 2013. p. 20. Accessed on the World Federation of the http://www.dpa.org.nz/other-publications. Deaf’s website on 26th June at: http://www. 5 McKee, (2007),132. wfdeaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Deaf- People-and-Human-Rights-Report.pdf. 6 Collins-Ahlgren, “Aspects of New Zealand Sign Language” (unpublished doctoral thesis, ✝  United Nations Committee on the Elimination Victoria University of Wellington, New of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Zealand, 2009) cited in McKee, (2010), 6. observations of New Zealand. Eighty-second session, 11 February-1 March 2013. Page 5. 7 “Prelingually deaf” refers to people who were born deaf or who become deaf before spoken 1 M. Jokinen, “The Linguistic Human Rights of language was well established. It usually refers Sign Language Users” in Rights to Language: to people with a severe or profound level of Equity, Power and Education, ed. R Phillipson hearing loss. (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000), 203-213; L. Siegel, “The argument 8 McKee, (2010), 6. for a constitutional right to communication and language”, Sign Language Studies, 6, 9 T.G. Reagan, Language Policy and Planning for no. 3 (2006): 255- 273; and H. Hauland and Sign Languages (Washington DC: Gallaudet C. Allen Deaf People and Human Rights. University Press, 2010),157. (Finland: World Federation of the Deaf and 10 McKee, (2010), 7. the Deaf and Swedish National Association of the Deaf, 2009) cited in R. McKee, 11 E.D. Faingold, “Language rights and language “Recognising and realising linguistic human justice in the constitutions of the world” in rights: The case of NZSL,” in Proceedings of Language Problems and Language Planning, 28, Language and Education (LED) Conference, no. 1, 11-24; and J.G. Turi, “Language and law (Auckland:University of Auckland, 2011),16. in the era of globalisation” in V.G. Lerda (ed.), Which Ôglobal village?Õ: societies, cultures, and

94 A New Era in the Right to Sign

political-economic systems in a Euro-Atlantic 24 Waitangi Tribunal, Ko Aotearoa t‘nei: a report perspective (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002), into claims concerning New Zealand law and 193-202. policy affecting MŠori culture, Te Taumata Tuatahi, (2011), 161. 12 International Disability Alliance’s Forum for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 25 Waitangi Tribunal (2011) Ko Aotearoa t‘nei: Te Disabilities Contribution to the Office of the Taumata Tuarua, Vol. 1, section 4.4.7. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights thematic study to enhance awareness 26 Waitangi Tribunal (2011) Ko Aotearoa t‘nei: Te and understanding of the Convention on the Taumata Tuatahi,167. Rights of Persons with Disabilities, focusing 27 Ibid, 169. on legal measures key for the ratification and effective implementation of the Convention, 28 Article 19 of UNDRIP and articles 3(c) and 4(3) 15 September 2008, 31. of the UNCRPD and section 9(1)(c) of the NZSL Act. 13 Reagan, (2010). 29 World Federation of the Deaf submission, 14 McKee, (2011) “Action Pending: Four years Recognition of sign language as an official on from the New Zealand Sign Language Act language in the Constitution and/or special 2006.” Victoria University of Wellington Law legislation and International Disability Review, 42, no. 2 (2011): 287. Alliance’s Forum for the Convention on 15 McKee, (2007),140. the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Contributions to the Office of the United 16 Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Tribunal on the Te Reo MŠori Claim (WAI 11) thematic study to enhance awareness and (Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1986). understanding of the CRPD, focusing on legal measures key for the ratification and effective 17 M. Durie, (2005) “Race and Ethnicity in Public implementation of the Convention, 31. Policy: Does it Work?” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24 (2006): 4. 30 UNCRPD, Article 2.

18 New Zealand Sign Language Bill (123-1) 31 UNCRPD, Article 9(e). (explanatory note) at 1. 32 UNCRPD, Article 21(b). 19 R. Hayley and R. McKee (2009) “Motives and outcomes of the New Zealand Sign Language 33 UNCRPD, Article 21(b), 21(e). legislation: a comparative study between 34 M. Wheatley, and A. Pabsch, Sign Language New Zealand and Finland,” Current Issues in Legislation in the European Union, (Brussels: Language Planning, 10, no.3 (2009): 1. EUD, 2010), 18. 20 McKee (2010) and McKee (2011). 35 A. Butler and P. Butler, The New Zealand Bill 21 McKee (2011), 284. of Rights Act Ð a commentary, (Wellington: LexisNexis NZ Limited, 2005), 529 citing the 22 Waitangi Tribunal (1986) paragraph 4.2.8. Court of Appeal in Mendelssohn v Attorney- General [1999] 2 NZLR 268, 273, (1999) 5 23 It reads “Whereas in the Treaty of Waitangi the HRNZ 1, 6 (CA). Crown confirmed and guaranteed to the Mäori people, among other things, all their taonga: 36 Human Rights Committee, Concluding And whereas the Mäori language is one such observations of the Human Rights Committee: taonga.” New Zealand, CCPR/CO/75/NZL, (2002), paragraph 9.

95 37 Office of the Minister for Disability Issues “New Book Ð Te Pukapuka o NgŠ WhŠnau Ð An Zealand Sign Language Bill” policy proposal to introduction for the families and whŠnau of the Cabinet Social Development Committee, children diagnosed with a hearing loss, (2013), (2003), paragraph 3. 4.

38 Sections 21(1)(f) and (g) of the Human Rights 47 Marschark and Hauser, 39. Act 1993. 48 ibid., 54; and T. Skutnabb-Kangas and S. 39 Section 21(1)(h) of the Human Rights Act 1993. Bucak, “Killing a mother tongue: How the Kurds are deprived of linguistic human rights” 40 Over this 13 year period the Commission in T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (eds.) received a total of 55,745 complaints and Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic enquiries. Discrimination, (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995) cited in Wheatley and Pabsch, 15. 41 These are likely to be conservative estimates of the total number of complaints and enquiries 49 Marschark and Hauser, 54; Wheatley and from deaf people and/or relating to NZSL. This Pabsch. is because not all records contain information about the nature of the disability discussed. 50 Wheatley and Pabsch, 15 and T. Humphries, T et al, “Language Acquisition for deaf children:  42 A. Toth, “Bridge of Signs: Can Sign Language Reducing the harm of zero tolerance to the use Empower Non-Deaf Children to Triumph over of alternative approaches,” Harm Reduction Their Communication Disabilities?” American Journal 9, no. 16 (2012): 2. Annals of the Deaf 154, no. 2 (2009). 51 ibid. 43 “Voice Thru Your Hands homepage.” Voice Thru Your Hands. Accessed 14 July 2013 http://www. 52 McKee (2011), 277. voicethruyourhands.org.nz/information/our- purpose-i-1.html. 53 McKee (2007),133.

44 Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand, Deaf Way: A 54 McKee (2011), 287. New Service Delivery Model, (Deaf Aotearoa, 55 C. R. S. Brown, “Severe to profound hearing 2010),13. Accessed 14 July 2013. http://www. loss – Are we really managing it in New deaf.co.nz/yk-files/7f415a7813efd37a482b1f1 Zealand?” The New Zealand Medical Journal: ba8095137/Deaf+Way+Report+Final.pdf. Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association 45 McKee, (2011), 284 and New Zealand House of 123, no. 1313 (2010), 6. Representatives, New Zealand Sign Language 56 ibid., 7; Marschark and Hauser, 15, 33 & 37 and Bill As Reported from the Justice and Electoral Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand (2010), 32. Select Committee. Commentary, (2005); and R. McKee, V. Manning, R. Noble et al, Towards an 57 Marschark and Hauser (2012), 37. NZSL Strategy: Report of a survey of priorities for action on NZSL Report of a working group 58 Ministry of Education, Progress on the convened by Human Rights Commission, (2010). Aggregation of Sensory Resources project and Accessed 14 July 2013. http://www.victoria. early thinking on achievement targets. (2011) ac.nz/lals/about/staff/publications/NZSL- Internal Memorandum. Priorities-Survey-report.pdf. 59 Kelston Deaf Education Centre services the 46 M. Marschark and P. Hauser, How Deaf Children northern half of the North Island and Van Asch Learn: What Parents and Teachers Need to Deaf Education Centre services the lower North Know, (New York: Oxford University Press, Island and the South Island. 2012), 39 and Ministry of Education, The Family

96 A New Era in the Right to Sign

60 Fitzgerald & Associates for the Ministry of 70 Ministry of Education (2008), 2, 6 and 22. Education, Scoping Support for New Zealand Sign Language Users Accessing the Curriculum 71 Ministry of Education feedback to the Office for Part II, (Ministry of Education, 2010), 4. These Disability Issues to inform the review of NZSL figures are based on population estimates of Act, 31 January 2010. severe and profound deafness, i.e. children who 72 Summary of information supplied by the Ministry will have limited access to spoken language of Education to the Inquiry, 6. and who could benefit from accessing a fully visual language. 73 New Zealand Federation for Deaf Children provides information kits to families that include 61 Wheatley and Pabsch, 18. supporting information from the Ministry of 62 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Education. Persons with Disabilities, Article 24 (4). 74 Ministry of Education (2013), 84. 63 National Education Guidelines. Accessed 14 75 Humphries, T. et al (2012) and S. R. Easterbrooks, July 2013. http://www.minedu.govt.nz/Boards/ and S. K. Baker, Language Learning in Children LegalObligations/NationalEducationGuidelines. who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Multiple aspx. pathways, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2002), cited 64 National Education Goal 2, 4 and 7. in Fitzgerald and Associates (2010).

65 Special Education Policy Guidelines. 76 Easterbrooks and Baker, 6. and Fitzgerald and Ministry of Education. Accessed 14 Associates, 6. July 2013. http://www.minedu.govt. 77 R. Wilson, Report for Review of the Role of the nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/ Advisor on Deaf Children, (report commissioned SpecialEducation/AboutUs/ContextOfOurWork/ by the Ministry of Education, 2011), 16-17. SpecialEducationPolicyGuidelines.aspx. 78 Ministry of Education (2013). 66 Ministry of Education, The New Zealand Curriculum, (2007), 14. 79 The DVD Sign with your Baby: New Zealand Sign Language for babies and toddlers was produced 67 “Universal Hearing Screening Programme.” by Handmade Productions Aotearoa with a grant National Screening Unit. Accessed 28 March from the Ministry of Education. 2013. http://www.nsu.govt.nz/current-nsu- programmes/newborn-hearing-screening.aspx. 80 Wilson (2011), 16-17. With the exception of These services are also provided to some older three AODCs who are Deaf and fluent NZSL children including those with late onset and users, the AODC proficiency levels in NZSL injury-related deafness and deaf children who are insufficient to provide NZSL teaching and migrate to New Zealand. learning support to children and families.

68 Ministry of Education (2013). 81 Fitzgerald and Associates, Part II, 17.

69 Eligibility for entry into GSE Early Intervention 82 Paterson (2004) cited in Fitzgerald and services is for babies that have “bilateral Associates, Part I, 6. moderate or greater sensori-neural or long 83 Marschark and Hauser, 15, 37, 40 and 43. term conductive hearing loss”. Ministry of Education, Newborn Hearing Screening Early 84 Humphries et al, 16. Intervention Programme Resource Folder, (2008), 9. 85 UNCRPD, Article 25(d).

86 Fitzgerald and Associates, Part II, 8.

97 87 Ibid., 27. National Plan for the Education of Deaf and Hearing Impaired Children and Young People in 88 Tahana, Y. and Shuttleworth, K., “Tribunal: Aotearoa/New Zealand, (Third revised version, Köhanga reo in Crisis”, New Zealand Herald, 2010), 28-29. 18 October 2012. Accessed 1 May 2013. http:// www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_ 105 Deaf Education Aotearoa New Zealand, id=1&objectid=10841293. National Plan for the Education of Deaf and Hearing Impaired Children and Young People 89 Deaf Education Aotearoa New Zealand, Gap in Aotearoa/New Zealand, (Second revised Analysis Report (education), (Auckland: DEANZ, version, 2005). 2006, 22. 106 Deaf Education Aotearoa New Zealand (2010), 90 McKee (2007), 140. 8.

91 Swanwick and Gregory (2008) cited in 107 This taskforce targets whole-school Fitzgerald and Associates, Part I, 9. improvement through development of inclusive practices and the Ministry has developed initial 92 Davis (1991) cited in Fitzgerald and Associates. resources to support this. 93 Fitzgerald and Associates, Part II, 8-12. 108 “Better Public Services – supporting 94 Ibid.,8. vulnerable children.” Accessed 21 May 2013. http://www.minedu.govt. 95 “How special education works.” nz/theMinistry/BetterPublicServices/ Ministry of Education. Accessed 1 SupportingVulnerableChildrenQs.aspx. May 2013. http://www.minedu.govt. nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/ 109 Ministry of Education Feedback to inform the SpecialEducation/ServicesAndSupport/ Office for Disability Issues’ review of the NZSL HowSpecialEducationWorks.aspx Act, 31 January 2010

96 Ibid. 110 “Success for All – Every School, Every Child.” Ministry of Education. Accessed 14 July 97 Deaf units are established within a regular 2013. www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/ school by either the DECs or the school itself. EducationPolicies/SpecialEducation/ OurWorkProgramme/SuccessForAll.aspx and 98 Fitzgerald and Associates, Part II, 8-12. “Improved Achievement and Strong Cultural 99 The degree of deafness is measured and Identity for Deaf and Hearing Impaired categorised in descending order of severity, as: Students.” Ministry of Education. PowerPoint mild – moderate – severe – profound. presentation. Accessed 20 June 2013. http:// www.kdec.school.nz/DataStore/Pages/ 100 The fund holder is the DEC for their enrolled PAGE_327/Docs/Documents/Integrated%20 students. For other students, the Ministry of services%20for%20Deaf%20HI-%20 Education is typically the fund holder though, programe%20alignment18July11%20 in a few cases, a specialist service provider may %5BCompatibility%20Mode%5D.pdf. have this role. 111 Ministry of Education, “Improved achievement.” 101 Ministry of Education, The Family Book, 78. 112 The new board includes six parent 102 Ibid., 77. representatives, one staff, two principals and two student representatives. It is able 103 Ibid., 75. to co-opt up to four other members to help ensure a balance of Deaf community and Mäori 104 Deaf Education Aotearoa New Zealand, representatives.

98 A New Era in the Right to Sign

113 Ministry of Education, Progress on the 125 Fitzgerald and Associates , Part II, 8. Aggregation of Sensory Resources project and 126 Ibid. early thinking on achievement targets, (Internal Memorandum, 2011). 127 Fitzgerald and Associates, Part II, 5.

114 Fitzgerald and Associates, Part I, 4 and P. 128 Ibid., 30. Ladd, Understanding Deaf culture: In search of deafhood, (2003) cited in H Reffeland R. McKee, 129 Waitangi Tribunal (2011), 153-169. “Motives and outcomes of the New Zealand Sign Language legislation: a comparative study 130 Waitangi Tribunal, Ko Aotearoa tënei Ð Factsheet between New Zealand and Finland,” Current 6: Te Reo MŠori, (2011), 1. Issues in Language Planning 10, no. 3 (2009): 4. 131 Ibid. 115 Ministry of Education, Progress on the Aggregation 132 Achieve: The National Post-Secondary Education of Sensory Resources project and R. McKee and Disability Network Inc. Kia Orite: Achieving E. Smith, Report on a Survey of Mainstream Equality, (Tertiary Education Commission, and Class Teachers of ÕHighÔ and ÕVery High NeedsÔ the Ministry of Education, 2004). Accessed Deaf Students in Mainstream Schools, (Victoria 19 July 2013. http://www.minedu.govt. University: Wellington, 2003), 6. nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/EducationSectors/ 116 Fitzgerald and Associates, Part I, 4. TertiaryEducation/DisabilityCodeOfPractice.pdf

117 Ministry of Education, Current issues in the 133 Human Rights Commission, Better Information sensory sector and overview of the Aggregation for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights in the of Sensory Resources project, (Memorandum, 23 Information Age, (Human Rights Commission: May 2011), 2. Auckland, 2012), 4.

118 Reffel and McKee, 3. 134 In this report the phrase ‘NZ interpreter services and resources’ is used to encompass NZSL 119 See for example: McKee (2003), cited in interpreters and NZSL translations, such as Fitzgerald and Associates, Part I, p. 29. video-clips. 120 McKee (2007), 133. 135 Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand Inc. (2010); Office 121 Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand for Disability Issues (2011). “Deaf Way Report.” Disability Strategy: Making a world of difference: Deaf Aotearoa. Accessed 15 July 2013. http:// Whakanui Oranga, Objective 3.5, (2001), 16 www.deaf.co.nz/for-you/useful-info/deaf-way- and United Nations Convention on the Rights of report. Persons with Disabilities, Article 24 (3)(b). 136 Office for Disability Issues (2011),16, paragraph 122 Full NZSL access to the curriculum through 66. a professional NZSL interpreter could cost between $45,000 and $50,000 per annum which 137 Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand (2010), 6. is substantially more than the ORS allocated 138 Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand (2010), 24. funding of $10,561 (high needs) and $18,209 (very high needs) per annum. 139 Office for Disability Issues (2011); Deaf Aotearoa 123 McKee and Smith. New Zealand (2010) and submissions to this Inquiry. 124 E. Winston. “Language myths of an interpreted education.” Tiem Centre. Accessed 20 June 140 Office for Disability Issues (2011). 2013. http://www.tiemcenter.org/wp-content/ 141 Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand (2010), 25. uploads/2012/06/Myths-of-Interpreted-Ed-Mole- online-2004.pdf. 142 Ibid.

99 143 UNCRPD, Article 9 (1). 158 Information supplied by the Ministry of Health about their interpreter services contract with 144 UNCRPD Article 9 (2)(e) explicitly mentions Deaf Aotearoa NZ. sign language interpreters while articles 9(b), (f) and (g) require information to be accessible 159 Paragraph 40. including new information and communication technologies. 160 Ministry of Health, Ministry of HealthÕs Sector Plan for the Removal of Language Barriers to 145 UNCRPD Article 21. Deaf People, (internal document supplied to the Inquiry by the Ministry of Health, 2006), 4. 146 Smith v Air New Zealand Ltd [2011] NZCA 290, [2011] 2 NZLR 171. 161 Similarly, another health sector agency gave examples of where they have agreed to pay 147 The remaining seven complaints or enquiries interpreter fees so that a Deaf person could were about access to NZSL generally. attend an event that was not covered by any funding source, even though the matter was 148 Deaf Aotearoa NZ (2010), 19. unrelated to their specific service. 149 Office of Ethnic Affairs, Office for Disability 162 For example, Ministry of Health Access to NZSL Issues and Office of the Health and Disability Interpreters Policy. (Internal document supplied Commissioner, A National Approach to by the Ministry to this Inquiry, 2006). Interpreting and Translating Services in Aotearoa-New Zealand. (Discussion paper, 163 Ministry of Social Development Job Support January 2007), 7. Accessed 15 July 2013. Fund Operational Guidelines, (2008), paragraph 1.7. This 2008 version is currently 150 Health and Disability Services Standards 2008. under review. Accessed 15 July 2013. http:// Accessed 15 July 2013. http://www.hdc.org. www.workbridge.co.nz/supportfunds/ nz/media/235802/national%20approach%20 Support_Funds_Handbook_May_2008. to%20interpreting%20and%20translating%20 doc?phpMyAdmin=erPd9jHFDWM8mHVIALA7 discussion%20paper%202007.pdf. opOQmA3. 151 Ministry of Health 2013/14 Operational Policy 164 Ministry of Social Development (2008), 17, Framework, section 9.15.3, 103. Wellington: paragraph 2.2.2. Additional information Ministry of Health. Accessed 30 July 2013. supplied by Workbridge May 2013. http://www.nsfl.health.govt.nz/apps/nsfl.nsf/ menumh/Accountability+Documents. 165 Ibid., paragraph 9.4

152 Ibid., section 2.2.7d, 12. 166 Ibid., paragraph 1.22

153 Right 5 – the Right to Effective Communication. 167 Data supplied by Workbridge, May 2013. These figures divide the total amount of Training 154 Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Support funding used by Deaf people for [1997]3 SCR 624 (Canada). interpreters in a given year by the number of 155 iSign is a not for profit organisation with Deaf people making those applications. charitable status. 168 Data supplied by Workbridge, May 2013. These 156 Specialist Services (Interpreter Services) service figures divide the total amount of Job Support specification, used for the Ministry of Health’s funding used by Deaf people for interpreters, contract with Deaf Aotearoa. in a given year, by the number of Deaf people making those applications. 157 Office for Disability Issues (2011), 23.

100 A New Era in the Right to Sign

169 “Advocates with a specialist focus.” Health 181 Office for Disability Issues (2011) paragraph and Disability Commission. Accessed 29 July 122. 2013. http://advocacy.hdc.org.nz/about-us/ advocates-with-a-specialist-focus. 182 See for example, Video Interpreting Task Force, Standard Practice Paper: Video Remote 170 Office for Disability Issues, Effective Interpreting, (Registry of Interpreters for the communication with deaf people: A guide to Deaf, Inc, 2010). Accessed 15 July 2013. http:// working with New Zealand Sign Language www.rid.org/UserFiles/File/pdfs/Standard_ interpreters, (2009). Accessed 15 July 2013. Practice_Papers/VRI_SPP.pdf. http://www.odi.govt.nz/resources/guides-and- toolkits/working-with-nzsl-interpreters/guide- 183 However, as ODI’s advice notes, public events to-effective-communication-with-deaf-people. organised by government agencies should doc. provide NZSL interpreters.

171 Ibid, 70. 184 Deaf Aotearoa NZ 2010.

172 Office for Disability Issues (2011), 4. 185 “Effective communication with deaf people.” Office for Disability Issues. Accessed 19 July 173 Deaf Aotearoa NZ (2010), 24. 2013. http://www.odi.govt.nz/resources/ guides-and-toolkits/working-with-nzsl- 174 “Using New Zealand Sign Language In Court, interpreters/2-know-interpreter-competent. English Courts 057.” Ministry of Justice. html. Accessed 15 July 2013. http://www.justice. govt.nz/publications/global-publications/u/ 186 SLIANZ, NZSL InterpretersÔ Work Survey using-new-zealand-sign-language-in-court- (unpublished raw data, November 2012). english-courts-057/publication. 187 K. Johansen, Cultural Tradition and Human 175 Office for Disability Issues (2011) paragraph 60. Rights: the Aotearoa New Zealand experience. Paper presented to the Fourth Beijing Forum on 176 Ibid., paragraph 127. Human Rights, 21-23 September 2011. 177 Accessible online at: http://www.seeflow. co.nz/direct. 188 McKee (2011), 278.

178 “Better, easier access to frontline government 189 M. Häyry, Rationality and the Genetic Challenge services for Deaf New Zealanders”, 17 May Ð Making People Better? (Cambridge: Cambridge 2013 press release from the Minister for University Press, 2010); W. Fletcher, ‘Genetic Disability Issues. Accessed 15 July 2013. http:// fault linked to hereditary deafness’ in BioNews www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1305/S00358/ 553 (2010) and S. Spain, “Researchers pinpoint better-easier-access-to-frontline-govt-for-deaf- gene fault causing deafness” in BioNews 676 nzers.htm. (2012).

179 “Deaf Aotearoa supports the use of Video 190 The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Remote Interpreting”, 17 May 2013 press Peoples highlights the historic injustices of release from Deaf Aotearoa. Accessed 17 May colonisation including its impact on the decline 2013. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1305/ of indigenous languages. As a result, there is S00107/deaf-aotearoa-supports-the-use-of- a responsibility on governments to protect video-remote-interpreting.htm. indigenous peoples’ language rights.

180 In contrast, government agencies that have 191 The Royal Society of New Zealand Languages signed up to Seeflow Direct provide an in Aotearoa New Zealand, (information Paper, accessible way that deaf people can use NZSL 2013), 4. to provide feedback on that agency’s services. 192 Waitangi Tribunal (2011), 154.

101 193 Skutnabb-Kangas and Bucak, in Skutnabb- Health and Disability Commissioner’s Office, Kangas & Phillipson (eds.) Linguistic Human the Human Rights Commission, Statistics New Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, Zealand and the Ministry of Civil Defence (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995). and Emergency Management. The Ministry of Social Development also provides some NZSL 194 Communication is expressly defined in the information, including Work and Income, Child, Disability Convention as including languages Youth and Family and the Office for Disability both spoken and signed (Article 2). Issues.

195 UNCRPD, Article 21(b) and 21(e). 208 Office for Disability Issues (2011), paragraph 59, 15. 196 UNCRPD, Article 4(3). 209 J. Waite, Aotearoa: Speaking for Ourselves, 197 UNCRPD, Articles 24(3)(b) and (c). Further (Learning Media: Wellington, 1992). discussion of these requirements can be found in the education chapter of this report. 210 The Royal Society of New Zealand (2013).

198 UNCRPD, Articles 9(2)(e) and 21(b). 211 Reffel and McKee 2009, 15.

199 UNCRPD, Article 30(4). 212 Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand, “Symbolic Gestures Do Not Support Deaf,” (press release, 200 Dyson, R (2006) New Zealand Sign Language 6 October 2011). Accessed 16 April 2013. http:// Bill. New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 616, www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1110/S00027/ 13774. symbolic-gestures-do-not-support-deaf.htm 201 Dalziel, L. (2006) New Zealand Sign Language 213 The Royal Society of New Zealand (2013). Bill. New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 616, 13774; Goudie, S. (2006) New Zealand Sign 214 Waitangi Tribunal (2011), 163. Language Bill. New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 616, 13774. 215 Waitangi Tribunal (2011), 161.

202 Subsections 9(a) and (b). 216 Ibid.

203 New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006, section 217 Waitangi Tribunal (2011), 163-165. 11. 218 Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand (6 October 2011). 204 Office for Disability Issues (2011), paragraph 121, 26. 219 Waitangi Tribunal (2011), 161-163.

205 The Royal Society of New Zealand (2013), 4. 220 Waitangi Tribunal (2011a) and the Waitangi Tribunal website. Accessed 16 April 2013. 206 Chapter 2 of this report outlines the Ministry of Education’s pivotal role in enabling students’ 221 Reagan, (2010); V. Krausneker, The Protection access to education through NZSL and deaf and promotion of sign languages and the rights parents’ access to interpreter services. These of their users in Council of Europe member help them contribute to and participate in their states: needs analysis, (Strasbourg: Council of child’s core educational activities. Chapter 3 Europe, 2008.) describes how government agencies, including 222 H. Heyerick, Personal Communication: interview crown entities such as DHBs, provide access to between Rachel McKee and Isabelle Heyerick, NZSL interpreter and translation services. Executive Coordinator of Vlaams Gebarentaal 207 Those that provide some NZSL information Centrum / Flemish Sign Language Centre and on their websites include the Electoral member of the Advisory Board on VGT, 16 Commission, the Ministry of Health, the August 2012.

102 A New Era in the Right to Sign

223 O. Kubus, “The Legal Status of Turkish Sign Language and the current language planning,” (unpublished English translation by author of original manuscript: “Der rechtliche Status der Türkischen Gebärdensprache und die gegenwärtige Sprachplanung” in Das Zeichen 86, (2010), 382 – 389; and R. McKee, personal communications with O. Kubus, Turkish Deaf linguist and World Federation of the Deaf representative in 2010 and 2012.

224 New Zealand House of Representatives, New Zealand Sign Language Bill As Reported from the Justice and Electoral Select Committee: Commentary, (Wellington, 2005), 5.

103