Page 4814 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
regulate interpreter services in the courts of Australia's States and Territories as well as the Commonwealth. Mr Speaker, the Government view is that it is better to go down that course than to have an attempt to reinvent the wheel and pass this legislation.
Mr Collaery: Oh, what a tag-along. What a stupid argument. What a crazy approach. This is the multicultural Labor Party.
MR CONNOLLY: I would note that this legislation was not introduced by the Alliance Government when this man was in power. This man who seeks to grandstand, who loves the stunts, who loves the froth and bubble but shies at the hard work, is in fact suggesting that this national multicultural agenda report is a waste of time, that we should thumb our nose at the process of the other States and Territories and go it alone. We say, Mr Speaker, that this is a stunt and it is unnecessary. The cackle opposite leads me to no other conclusion than that this is a political stunt. There are two Bills before us.
Mr Collaery: To give migrants rights.
MR CONNOLLY: He is bleating about migrants' rights, Mr Speaker. The Government is determined to progress a standard system which has been endorsed by the Attorneys-General of the other States and Territories, not a stunt like Mr Collaery's proposal. At the end of the day, if the Assembly wants to have its day and show who is boss, no doubt this will be passed. It will not cause any particular concerns until the Labor Government next year has to repeal it and replace it with legislation which will comply with the national system.
Ms Maher: At least we would have something in place in the meantime.
MR CONNOLLY: This suggests that there is nothing in place at the moment, which presumably is your view. These people have not even done their research. They do not know what the position is at the moment. They are probably unaware of Australian Federal Police general instruction No. 34, which presently requires a police officer to obtain the services of an interpreter when interviewing a person the officer has reasonable grounds for believing does not have an adequate command of English. The standing orders of the Australian Federal Police, as presently in force, make provision for an interpreter service. Did you know that? Of course you did not.
The Commonwealth has recently enacted the Crimes (Investigation of Commonwealth Offences) Amendment Act 1991, which commenced on 1 November 1991. Section 23N of that Act, now presently the law in force in this Territory, requires the use of an interpreter when the accused or suspect is unable to communicate orally with reasonable fluency in English.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .