Page 4815 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I will not read the provision fully; but it requires the provision of interpreter services for Commonwealth offences, which are so defined, under that Commonwealth legislation, as to include an offence against the law of the ACT which is punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months - that is, what is commonly known as an indictable offence. The definition of "investigating official" includes a member of the AFP. So, Commonwealth law presently in force makes provision for interpreters in the case of indictable offences. There is a slight gap with summary offences; but, again, police standing orders cover that.
The Magistrates Court (Amendment) Bill, which again makes certain requirements for the provision of interpreters, has certain difficulties with its inconsistency with the Evidence Bill of 1991 of the Commonwealth, which was introduced into the House of Representatives on 15 October just past. That Commonwealth law, when passed, will be binding on the courts of this Territory and it covers the provision of interpreter services in a court.
The Commonwealth Bill provides that a witness may give evidence about a fact through an interpreter, unless the witness can understand and speak the English language sufficiently to enable the witness to understand and to make an adequate reply to questions that may be put about a fact. That will apply to all provisions in the ACT.
The ACT Bill that Mr Collaery has put forward proposes that where a court is satisfied that the defendant does not have sufficient knowledge of English or is unable to hear or speak, so that the defendant cannot understand or participate in proceedings, it shall not hear or determine the proceedings unless there is an interpreter.
In short, the Evidence Bill 1991 of the Commonwealth provides for a right in a witness to give evidence through an interpreter, unless the witness can understand and speak English sufficiently. There is a somewhat different test in Mr Collaery's Bill. So, there is scope for confusion, although of course the Commonwealth law will prevail.
So, Mr Speaker, both of these Bills are unnecessary. We all would agree, I am sure, that the provision of interpreter services is essential in the courts, and the Government's commitment to that is clear by our support for the implementation of this report and the efforts that I have made. I would be quite happy, if anyone doubted that, to table the correspondence that I have had with the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate, the Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and other relevant senior officials with a view to moving on national and uniform provisions for the provision of interpreter services in the courts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .