Page 4825 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have in place well-established language organisations. In Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT there are no State- or Territory-provided language services. In the Northern Territory and Queensland there are limited services. The Commonwealth Telephone Interpreter Service operates in all States and Territories.
Those of us who know about these matters know that the TIS, as it is known, does a great job; but it is not available to assist lawyers in the many exigent circumstances we have. The report goes on in that paragraph to say:
The situation in those States which have well established State language service organisations is clearly superior to those in other States or Territories.
Just in terms of access and equity, we have to catch up on a vacuum in our situation. I simply do not accept Mrs Grassby's confidence that the situation is okay, or her statement that the Ethnic Communities Council in the ACT is content to await uniform legislation.
I now address myself to the uniform legislation aspect. Contrary to the stunt alleged to be before the house today, I said in my introductory speech on 11 September 1991 - it was a careful speech, I thought, and it was researched personally without the assistance of the staff that Mr Connolly has - that I had looked at comparative legislation in Australia and found that there was similar legislation in South Australia guaranteeing the right to an interpreter and that we had found legislation in Victoria.
I cannot see why it is a stunt for us to bring in legislation when other responsible jurisdictions have done it. I stress that the legislation that I have had drawn, with the competent assistance of our parliamentary drafting office, might well be the model, since it is the last cab off the rank. Why does Mr Connolly constantly feel so tag-along in his approach to his role as Attorney-General? Why cannot he be confident in the work of our draftspersons? I feel that he has fallen under the sway of that particular conservatism that inhibits government criminal law reform in the ACT. It is a worry. It is a worry that, if I am ever back in the job, I will attend to very promptly, I assure you.
A main conclusion of the Commonwealth inquiry, at paragraph 4.6.2, is that the Commonwealth should encourage the States to adopt uniform legislation. It is not put any higher than that - that the Commonwealth should encourage it. So, from April 1986 to now we get this marvellous statement that the Commonwealth should encourage the States to adopt uniform legislation. No working party came out of that recommendation and produced a draft uniform Bill. Go back
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .