Page 458 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.55): Let me briefly respond. While I awfully accused the Opposition of trying to write a press release on this, the Opposition is trying to suggest that this Government is not concerned about the rights of non-English-speaking persons. What I said in my speech, and reiterate, is that this provision is more robust than anyone else has done. This is leading edge stuff. This is guaranteeing the access to an interpreter service, a thing which - - -
Mr De Domenico: Make it state of the art.
MR CONNOLLY: It is, Mr De Domenico. What you are proposing potentially causes a cumbersome and ineffective process for police officers who, themselves, do not speak all the languages. We have the right to an interpreter service, which is the most important right that we can grant, and the only real right that we practically can grant.
What I also should mention is a question that Mr Stevenson asked of me, and one that all members should have an answer to. Mr Stevenson said, "What happens if a police officer does do this?". What happens if we do have the cynical police officer, that Mr Humphries said would not exist within the AFP but might exist in other parts of Australia? Clause 52 of the Bill does say that it is not in itself an offence for a police officer not to comply; but that you can proceed under the AFP discipline Act, which would lead to a disciplinary proceeding against a police officer for failing to comply with a lawful direction. So, there is a sanction there and if there was any evidence, which defence lawyers would be quick to grab, the police could be sanctioned.
So, we have a requirement for the police to get in touch with the interpreter service. We have a process of sanction which anyone who feels that they were not properly advised would be able to pursue. I think that in that we have a very robust defence of the rights of non-English-speaking persons, rights that this Government is pledged to protect and does so in this Bill.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Humphries's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 8 NOES, 9
Mrs Carnell Mr Berry
Mr Cornwell Mr Connolly
Mr De Domenico Ms Ellis
Mr Humphries Ms Follett
Mr Kaine Mrs Grassby
Mr Moore Mr Lamont
Ms Szuty Ms McRae
Mr Westende Mr Stevenson
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .