Page 4824 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To start with, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that I have to wring any more votes out of the ethnic community. I have them, Mr Stefaniak has them, Mrs Grassby had them, and the Labor Party has some too; but they will come to terms with this vote today. I do not wish ill on them; I think it is very sad that we could not have had a bipartisan debate on this Bill.
I will answer the first taunt first, and that is: Why did I not do it as Attorney? I will tell you why I am bringing in about 20 Bills over the short timeframe. It is because I could not get the types of criminal law reform initiatives that I wanted when I was Attorney. Let us be quite frank about it. We were deluged with catch-up legislation following the self-government takeover. I am sure the Chief Minister understands exactly what I am saying. Both of our governments have been blunted by the need to deal with catch-up legislation that should have been passed before self-government or should have been left for us in better draft form.
Let us be quite frank about it. The lawyers in the Government Law Office working on criminal law reform have been largely deflected by the need to do catch-up legislation of the type they are all working on now, such as the recovery of proceeds of crime legislation and all the rest that we should have had done far earlier. National crimes legislation should have been drafted in readiness, and so on.
That does not exculpate those advisers to Mr Connolly who, somewhat ungraciously, I gather, have seen the need to put the boot into these two Bills. I will not forget that, of course, and I say that advisedly.
I remind Mr Connolly and his advisers that it was in April 1986 that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General - the foremost lawyers, the first law officers in the land - got together and agreed that each jurisdiction should consider the adoption of guidelines governing the use of interpreters in the Australian legal system. It was so many years ago. In those intervening years I did not have the same confidence that Mrs Grassby had. I had to find interpreters at night. I had to find interpreters to take to the Belconnen Remand Centre at all hours of the day and night. I did not experience the same ease of access that Mrs Grassby speaks about; nor do I in any way level any criticism at the interpreters here. (Quorum formed)
I was referring to the parlous situation we have been in for so many years. Mr Connolly referred - and I referred to it earlier - to the report of April 1991 of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. I stress that I had not seen that report when I gave drafting instructions for this matter; nor did I see it until I brought the Bill down. That is a fact. At paragraph 2.12.1, page 36, it concludes, on the situation of access and equity, that:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .