Page 3153 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 11 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
other arguments about the ethical role of interpreters in providing directional advice to explain the cultural significance of responses which may, in the Australian context, give a differing nuance, or indeed meaning, to the reply.
I have formed the view, both as a practitioner and from my membership until recently of a NAATI advisory committee, that Australia should move towards a national uniform standard of interpreter access in civil, criminal and administrative jurisdictions. The Standing Committee of Australian Attorneys-General is an appropriate forum for this issue to be pursued in, and I commend this matter to the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Michael Duffy, and other Attorneys - noting that useful national guidelines have already been developed by the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
There is general agreement in Australia that NAATI level 3 is the appropriate standard for police and court interpreting. Given the fact that there are more than 70 languages commonly used in Australia, and that interpreters at level 3 or above are available in only 34 of those languages - including deaf oral and deaf sign - it is clearly necessary to leave the court with discretion to find a competent interpreter outside NAATI accreditation.
The test of competency includes the nature and complexity of the proceedings. For example, proceedings which involve merely entering the defendant's plea may not require such a high standard of competence as for defended proceedings. However, by making NAATI accreditation the primary requirement, a standard of independence and skill is immediately assessed. This should encourage police and judicial officers not to use a relative or friend but to adopt the Administrative Appeals Tribunal guideline, developed by Mr John Kiosoglous in Adelaide, which is that they should first go to level 3 and, failing that, level 2 with requisite experience, and, failing that again, a recognised interpreter with extensive experience in the legal environment.
Sadly, the interpreting and translating profession in Australia is neither adequately recognised nor properly remunerated. I was pleased to join with the ACT branch of the Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators and Reid TAFE last year in a seminar on aspects of the interpreter-translator profession in this Territory.
With regard to comparative law, the amendments I have introduced today are modelled largely on the Victorian experience. In New South Wales there is no legislative requirement, so far as I can determine, for courts or police to access a legal interpreter. In South Australia the legislation guarantees the right to an interpreter in any proceedings where the witness's native language is not English and the witness is not reasonably fluent in English. Likewise, in South Australia, the summary
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .