Page 457 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, that is different from your initial statement and that is a correct statement on your part; but your initial statement was that Mr Connolly does not seek to have people informed, and Mr Connolly rightly pointed out that he does seek to have people informed and has argued for that. Your subsequent statement, in clarification, was a little different; so could you withdraw the first one and stick with the second.
Mr Kaine: Madam Speaker, I accept the fact that he wants to have them informed, but not in a language they can understand. Other than that, I withdraw any imputation.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Kaine.
Mr Connolly: Anyone reading the transcript will know that that is nonsense.
Mrs Grassby: Madam Speaker, that is not right. I listened to Mr Connolly's speech. Mr Connolly's remark was that the police would contact the interpreter service. We have an extremely wonderful interpreter service in this country. I know, because I have used it myself for people. Let me tell you that he has already said that the policeman is bound to do that for the person. That is what the Bill is saying; that the man has the right to ask for an interpreter service.
MADAM SPEAKER: I believe that Mr Kaine withdrew any imputation of ill intent on Mr Connolly's part.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, given your ruling, I would ask that you ask the Attorney to withdraw the suggestion that my statements are predicated on the desire to grandstand through press releases.
Mr Connolly: I withdraw any suggestion that Mr Humphries would be seeking to make political capital in issuing a press release.
MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, the fact of life is that nobody is requiring through this Bill a policeman who might be monolingual to tell an accused person anything. That is why in subparagraph (iii) we talk about a police officer informing the person, or causing the person to be informed. That is why that provision is there. It is designed, I believe, to cover the situation of a person who does not understand the language and who needs to have someone else come and interpret for them. That is why that is there; but it needs to be made explicit. I think that getting an interpreter at one o'clock in the morning is not a real problem. If the telephone interpreter service is not available then, there is nothing in the Bill preventing that person from being advised of their rights the following morning. I would prefer, of course, for them to be advised straightaway; but, if they cannot be advised straightaway, the following morning is certainly available.
It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that if the Government wants to take credit for having been revolutionary, for having established clearly an expansive basket of rights for citizens of the Territory, it ought to back them up appropriately with a capacity for those citizens to understand what their rights are. For those in this community who do not understand English very well, I think that we have to accept that these rights are of less value unless they can be interpreted for them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .