Page 454 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Having then looked at the clauses proposed to be amended, I would have to say that this goes further than the law in any other State in requiring and guaranteeing access to that information in a way that is comprehensible to the non-English-speaking person. It is significant that we go far further than New South Wales. The New South Wales Bail Act only says that you have a right to be told that you can talk to a lawyer and you have a right to a telephone to get in touch with a lawyer. It is rather similar to the phrase that we would be familiar with from American crime movies.
Our proposed law says that you have the right to a lawyer and the right to use a telephone, in the facilities provision at the end of this; but it also says that you have a right to have recourse to the services of a competent interpreter. It also says, and this is another important addition, that you have the right to communicate with any person of your choice who can be expected to assist you with the bail. So, we are going beyond the New South Wales Act and what is often understood to be the common law position that is not actually legally enforceable in Australia whereas it is in America - the right to a lawyer - and saying that you have a right to a lawyer, a right to an interpreter, and a right to any person whom you want to come in to assist you.
The problem with Mr Humphries's proposal is that I think it is going too far. It is saying that the police officer making the initial contact must be able to speak to the person in a language that the person is able to understand. Mrs Grassby tells me that there are 120 languages that are certified to the telephone interpreter services in Australia.
Mrs Grassby: No, there are 120 languages spoken in Australia.
MR CONNOLLY: There are 120 languages spoken in Australia. While we have a very competent police force, they do not all speak 120 languages. We have a telephone interpreter service.
The process guaranteed under this legislation, which is, as I say, a significant breakthrough in Australia, a significant guarantee of recourse to the services of a competent interpreter, would be this: The person is charged and is at the downstairs counter in Civic Police Station. It is clear to the police officer that they cannot speak or understand what is being said to them. The police officer, speaking only English, will get on the phone to the telephone interpreter service. The telephone interpreter service will go through the process of trying to talk to the person, and often will be able to do it straightaway; but it is not uncommon in Canberra for there to be a bit of running around and toing-and-froing as the interpreter service tries to track down a person who speaks some obscure dialect - - -
Mr Berry: And is qualified.
MR CONNOLLY: As Mr Berry reminds me, the person has to be a competent interpreter; so we are talking about the qualified person through the telephone interpreter service. I really think, Mr Humphries, while we endorse entirely the sentiment that a person has a right to understand the proceedings against them, that this is a significant breakthrough that we are producing here. It is a guarantee that the arresting police officer, who, more likely than not, will speak only English, although we encourage more multicultural officers in the AFP - it is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .