Bills

Emergency Management (Australian Sign Language Interpreter) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:19): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Emergency Management Act 2004. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The intent of this bill is a very simple one; that is, to take an initial step toward ensuring that vital information is available in as many accessible formats as possible so that all people can have the information they need to have their basic right to safety in times of emergency, such as bushfire or flood. As I have discussed previously in this place, following the bushfires at Sampson Flat earlier this year Dignity for Disability has been consulting with the community about how to improve access to evacuation information and other information relevant to emergency. To that end, we recently held at public meeting at Parliament House, which was very well attended.

A variety of groups and individuals with varying degrees of involvement with a range of disabilities were in attendance. In particular, there was a large representation from the Deaf community. I am going to talk more about that meeting shortly, but first I want to put on the record my thanks, on behalf of Dignity for Disability, to all those who attended this meeting and began this very important conversation. Before I go on, I also want to put on the record my gratitude to Ms Karen Walker from parliamentary counsel who drafted the bill we now have before us.

As I am sure members can imagine, the Sampson Flat bushfire event raised a number of questions for Dignity for Disability regarding the equality and, indeed, quality of the information provided to South Australians at that time. The issue around sign language interpretation for emergency broadcasts during the Sampson Flat bushfires was first raised with me when somebody told me they had noticed that no interpreter was present at the first television conference the government held during the fires. They complained about this and an interpreter was made available for the broadcast of subsequent conferences.

Whilst it is great when we try to look out for each other as a community, I think most members would agree with me when I say that it should not be up to individual community members to make sure that services are available to everyone every time, particularly in an emergency situation when people already have many of their own priorities and concerns. This is why I put forward the proposal that Auslan interpretation become a part of the state emergency management plan, to ensure consistency and to ensure that people can focus on ensuring their safety and the safety of those around them in a practical sense at these difficult times.

Before I go into more detail about the bill itself and Dignity for Disability's campaign around the issues of access to assistance in emergencies, I want to talk briefly and generally about Auslan to assist some members who may not have had much experience with it or with the Deaf community. Australian sign language, more commonly known as Auslan, is recognised as the official sign language of Australia. It was first recognised by the Australian government as a community language other than English around the 1980s and 1990s, although of course the language itself predates this recognition considerably.

Auslan is its own language, separate from English. Unlike the archaic signed English, Auslan has its own syntax, grammar and nuances which are not based on English. In the same way that many Aboriginal Australians might speak Pitjantjatjara, Kaurna or some other Aboriginal language as a primary language, for many deaf Australians Auslan is their primary language and English and other languages come second. In fact, article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, the article that deals with equal access to education, states:

3. States Parties shall enable persons with disabilities to learn life and social development skills to facilitate their full and equal participation in education and as members of the community. To this end, States Parties shall take appropriate measures, including:…

b. Facilitating the learning of sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity of the deaf community;

It is somewhat difficult to obtain the exact figure, but Australian census data and other data from recent years suggests that about 7,000 Australians use Auslan to communicate at home or as their primary language and that most deaf people (around 82 per cent) use sign language every day to communicate.

The Deaf community has developed a very strong sense of identity and culture over time. Many deaf people—in fact, I would go as far as to say most deaf people—do not see themselves as having a disability but, rather, a distinct cultural background. I hasten to add here that I understand and respect this distinction but, for the purposes of this speech, I will use the umbrella term 'people with disabilities' for the sake of clarity and expediency.

Some members may have heard Young Australian of the Year Drisana Levitzke-Gray talk about the concept of deaf gain as opposed to hearing loss. Drisana is an amazing young woman who is living proof of the benefits of recognising and promoting Auslan, and I strongly suggest that members look her up if they are interested in learning more about Auslan and about Deaf culture.

As for Auslan interpretation, a person gains their professional accreditation as an Auslan interpreter through the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) in order to become a professionally recognised interpreter. When this bill was originally drafted, parliamentary counsel had left the definition of what constitutes an interpreter open to be simply 'a person fluent in the language of Auslan'.

However, at the public meeting held shortly after the first bill, the first draft of this bill became available. It was obvious from members of the Deaf community present that there was unanimous support for restricting this definition to 'an accredited Auslan interpreter' to avoid a situation in which someone without the correct level of training might attempt to provide the service, meaning that people who rely on Auslan interpretation might get inaccurate information. We have restricted the definition of an Auslan interpreter accordingly in this iteration of the bill.

Whilst I am on the subject of interpreters, I think it is important to talk about something that will be vital to the success of this bill if it is passed into law. Ensuring that Auslan interpreters are used for emergency information broadcasts not only means making sure that only professionally accredited interpreters are used, but we must ensure that existing professional interpreters also get adequate additional training to help them understand the nuances of the jargon that is sometimes used by emergency services workers to describe the gravity of events to ensure that this information is interpreted accurately and to avoid overstating, or indeed understating, what is actually happening.

I would particularly like to thank Ms Amber Venner of Communication Republic for helping me to understand the particular needs of professional interpreters in this regard. Similarly, the training of the media, such as camera operators, will be of great importance. This has been raised with me several times by many people. Some members may recall that there was an issue during the Queensland floods involving an Auslan interpreter who was provided during those emergency broadcasts. The camera kept zooming in on the then premier Anna Bligh when she was speaking, thereby cutting the interpreter out of the frame and out of view.

I would like to thank Mr Brett Casey, CEO of Deaf Services Queensland, for getting in touch with me about how this issue has been addressed from a policy perspective in that state. I look forward to continuing that conversation to ensure that the interpretation provided under this bill would be of the highest standard. But, of course, this bill is not a fix for all the barriers which deaf and hard of hearing people continue to face in our society. In particular, Dignity for Disability would like to see Auslan promoted as a language other than English in more schools across South Australia so that more people have the opportunity to learn Auslan and the many special benefits that can provide.

As one example, a recent media report from Queensland related to an incident where a car crash occurred in Sunnybank in Queensland, and 11-year-old Emmett Fisk was quick to offer his assistance to paramedics when he realised that one of the drivers was Deaf. Emmett, whose grandparents are Deaf themselves, used his sign language skills to relay the driver's injuries to paramedics. That is just one example of the many benefits that learning Auslan can provide in broader society.

Dignity for Disability has chosen to move forward with the Auslan component of this bill first. Because of the measures that have been suggested in our consultation thus far, this component has the simplest legislative solution. But, of course, that is not to say that the Deaf signing community is the only one not having its needs met with regards to emergency information.

The need for captioning to also be available as part of these broadcasts was raised as an important measure to assist people who are not deaf but hard of hearing, since that is an ever-increasing segment of the community as our population ages. It was also suggested that captions may be of assistance to some people whose primary spoken language is not English, such as people who have come to Australia from other nations.

I have had some preliminary discussions with professional caption providers, and it is my understanding that, given that the majority of the types of broadcasts to which this bill would relate, such as the media conferences held during the Sampson Flat bushfires, and since the majority of these conferences are scripted, it would not be very difficult to implement comprehensive and accurate live captioning as part of the process by providing caption providers with a copy of that script.

I thank Mr Kyle Miers from peak advocacy body Deaf Australia for making very strong representation to me about his belief that, if captioning is to be provided in these broadcasts, it should be opening captioning so that the captioning is an intrinsic part of the broadcast rather than closed captioning, which means that the captions are only valuable if an individual's television is caption enabled and that person deliberately selects for captions to be displayed on the television. I quite agree that this is preferable, and we will continue to pursue this option.

Other matters that were raised with me related to the use of technology. Smartphone apps and text messaging were suggested as a great way to communicate information to people who are deaf or hard of hearing, for example, but at the same time these methods were described as being not necessarily readily available for some of the elders in our community for whom technology is not necessarily a big part of everyday life.

So, it is clear that the need for a variety of options and formats in which to access this information will be vital, as well as having it in languages other than English, for not only the deaf but also for culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Dignity for Disability believes that people with intellectual and cognitive impairment have also been neglected in this area. It is vital that information be made accessible in formats such as easy English and using visual prompts to assist people with low literacy. We are in discussions with the CFS about this issue in particular, and I understand that the CFS is currently in the process of developing these kinds of resources. I look forward to being able to report to members on the progress of the development of those resources very soon.

As I have already raised in this place, there were also suggestions from the Physical Disability Council of South Australia in particular that the government develop a register to allow for people who may feel particularly at risk during emergencies to be identified so that emergency services personnel are aware prior to arriving at a person's residence that they may require some extra assistance and what form that assistance must take.

As a starting point, Dignity for Disability is investigating the possibility of expanding the existing Telecross REDi program which is already used to monitor and maintain contact with people who may be at risk during a heatwave. I would like to take a moment to thank the CFS and in particular CFS firefighter Justin Baxter who is also captain of the Dalkeith station who attended the public meeting and I would like to thank the CFS for the goodwill and open-mindedness that they have shown so far in this project. I am confident that we will be able to work together to make long-lasting positive change.

This is by no means an extensive or exhaustive list of the issues regarding emergency planning and people with disabilities. Dignity for Disability is also eager to look at how we can allow for safe and accessible physical evacuation processes as well as information sharing. However, we put this bill forward and start this dialogue today in the hope that it will begin the journey towards genuine access and comprehensive safety planning for all.

It is easy and, frankly, lazy to believe that people with disabilities are putting burden on society by requesting special treatment or that we are simply vulnerable by nature. As Dignity for Disability has done with the Disability Justice Plan, we must recognise that the barriers people with disabilities face are not intrinsic. They are the result of a society and systems which have failed to keep up with the rapidly growing diversity of the people they are supposed to serve and it is up to all of us here today to change that. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.