Page 453 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that this clearly is a nonsense unless that person gets informed of that right in a language that he or she will understand. The Bill actually contemplates the circumstances of persons sitting in the cell who might not have an understanding of the English language. In those circumstances that person has, in effect, no benefit from subparagraph (iii) in paragraph 13(1)(c) unless they can understand what is being told to them. Again, a person being told that they can apply for bail will have no benefit from that advice unless they actually understand what the advice is.
There is a very vexed question here about resources and about how much we can afford to provide to people in certain circumstances. The cost of interpreters in our courts already, I suspect, is a very high one at this stage. The right of people to get those sorts of interpreters does incur some considerable expense to the public purse. But the fact is that this Bill actually says that a person shall be advised of their right to an interpreter. It seems to me that that is a nugatory kind of advice unless they actually get something flowing from it.
I assume that, having made the decision to give them access to those resources, they actually get that person in; but I have no doubt, Madam Speaker - I regret to say this - that there is a very real potential for that to be abused by some people on occasions. I am not making a reflection on our police. I am saying that there is every capacity for that to be abused at some point. Someone could come in to some person sitting in a cell who might not understand a word of English and say, "Hey, mate, you have the right to an interpreter if you want one. Do you want one?". The occupant looks up blankly and the person says, "He does not want one", and goes back out. That can happen. That sort of thing happens in other States. I hope that it has not happened in the ACT; but it can happen, and we need to rectify that by this kind of amendment.
We are talking about inserting after the word "informed", at the beginning of that paragraph, the words "in a language that the person is likely to be able to understand". We are not talking about having an absolute requirement which might, in some way, cause difficulties in satisfying these requirements. We are not talking about having to actually find a person that the policeman is absolutely positive will be able to speak the same language as the person accused, but we are talking about a reasonable attempt being made to synchronise the advice of that person's right with their actual knowledge of that right. I think, Madam Speaker, that if we are going to have a grand sounding provision like this in our legislation we have to make sure that it is backed up properly by a provision which actually makes it of some use to the person who is going to get the benefit.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.43): Madam Speaker, I must confess that when I first saw this amendment and spoke with Mr Humphries about his series of amendments I said, "Yes, Gary, I think we can probably be with you on that one", because the purpose and goal of the amendment is something that everyone would agree with. I am sure all members of this chamber would agree that it is a desirable goal that anyone who is before the criminal justice system have access to information in a language that they are able to understand. I note that the amendment says "able to understand", not, as you were referring to, "likely to understand". There is clearly a difference and having "able" is a far more onerous provision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .