Page 4950 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (9.25): I find it ironic in the extreme that Mr Collaery, who last year made an art form of blocking debate on Bills by invoking section 65 of the self-government Act by saying that the Opposition could not introduce a private member's Bill because it would involve the expenditure of money, now says that the Bill that the Assembly passed yesterday on interpreters will require money to be spent on interpreter services, and berates us for not having appropriated money for the Bill, necessarily, he says, requiring the appropriation of money, that he yesterday sponsored. That is the very type of legislation that, on his logic of last year, would not have been allowed. But I will take that point no further.
The ACT does provide interpreter services in the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court. The Federal review that I referred to yesterday found that the provision of services here was appropriate in terms of national standards. The Chief Magistrate, at present, has a committee advising him on appropriate legal training for interpreters, which is a key element. It is one thing to have people who are proficient in interpreting; it is another thing to have people who are proficient interpreters and have some understanding of the legal process so that they can apply their technical interpretation skills to the legal context. Work is in fact being done on that, and I need say little further. I thank Mr Stefaniak for his remarks in relation to some of the fine default procedures which the Government announced in the budget context.
MR COLLAERY (9.26): I would like to respond briefly to what the Attorney said. If my remarks are examined in Hansard, it will be revealed that I indicated that a language service - and you, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, know well what I am talking about - has nothing to do with provision of the legal powers to provide interpreters and translators. I am referring to a community accessible language service, which the Victorian Government has set an Australian standard for. It is an excellent scheme, which you, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, no doubt know about; and it is something that we have to catch up on.
We are not to blame. It should have been developed well prior to self-government, and we are working through those issues and plugging the gaps as we go. I observe that the Labor Party has not been able to plug that gap. We in the Alliance Government did not either, but we were moving towards it. I am simply trying to push the issue along. Mr Connolly made some comment to suggest that somehow what I am pressing is inconsistent with the enjoinder in section 65 of the self-government Act. That is a quantum leap. Mr Connolly has not practised in the courts of the ACT, and I do not know what he is talking about in regard to the Supreme Court and translators-interpreters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .