AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Alternative Law Journal

Alternative Law Journals (AltLJ)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Alternative Law Journal >> 2000 >> [2000] AltLawJl 36

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Editors --- "DownUnderAllOver: Developments around the country" [2000] AltLawJl 36; (2000) 25(2) Alternative Law Journal 90

DownUnderAIIOver
A regular column of developments around the country

Federal Developments

Warning: new privacy laws may be bad for your health!

Consumer access to health information

Privacy protection in an electronic age is increasingly on the agenda. The European Union has taken the lead in developing an enhanced framework for the protection of privacy, now in place across most of Europe. This has included ensuring an adequate level of protection for consumers against privacy abuses in the private sector as well as in the public sector where awareness of these issues is relatively well established. The Australian government has undergone a number of backflips in terms of its own intention to provide a similar level of protection for citizens of this country. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 has finally been tabled in the current session of the Commonwealth parliament.

Ostensibly the Private Sector Bill is intended to complement and extend the protection provided by the existing Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). This Act has for over a decade provided a means of monitoring and promoting privacy in the public sector and ensuring a means of redress for consumers in the event of privacy abuse by public sector agencies. As was demonstrated by a recent case in the Magistrate's Court involving a Health Insurance Commission employee found regularly browsing the files of Asian women and consumers of IVF services, this level of supervision is vital. Interestingly the case also demonstrated some shortcomings of the existing Privacy Act. The employee was actually prosecuted for breach of privacy provisions in the legislation governing the Health Insurance Com­ mission rather than the Privacy Act itself. Breach of the Privacy Act may lead to compensation for an aggrieved consumer but does not generally give rise to criminal sanctions.

Unfortunately it appears that the new Private Sector Bill does nothing to upgrade the existing Privacy Act. Rather, what is proposed by way of regulation for the private sector falls far short of even the limited privacy regime currently applicable in the public sector. At the time of writing, consumers and privacy advocates have not had access to the Bill itself but only a description of Key Provisions. However the frame­ work proposed is described by the government as a 'light touch' co-regulatory approach to privacy regulation. Others have suggested it treats consumers as a 'soft touch' because the proposed regime is so ineffectual.

The first major problem with the Bill is that it is 'co-regulatory', that is, what is envisaged is a series of industry codes developed and enforced by industry bodies and only broadly supervised by the Privacy Commissioner. Second, the default framework pro­ vided in the Bill is full of holes in terms of what actually might constitute a privacy abuse. Third, the enforcement mechanisms are weak. Take the example of a health consumer who seeks access to their personal health record maintained by a private medical specialist. The health 'industry' has proved notoriously resistant to allowing consumer access to their personal health information. The Access principle described in the Key Provisions does not advance the cause. It has a list of at least ten reasons the medical specialist might seek to hide behind in order to justify a refusal of access. One reason is the possibility that providing access might be 'likely to prejudice the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of (any) criminal offences or breaches of (any) law imposing a penalty or sanction'.

The Privacy Commissioner has said that he will develop a set of guidelines to assist practitioners and complaints bodies in assessing consumer requests for access. Although he acknowledges that the general principle should be that consumers should have access to their personal health information he proposes that these advisory guidelines will set out a hierarchy of access. This is certainly consistent with what many in the health sector, for example, the Australian Medical Association, have been promoting for years. However, it is completely inconsistent with the general direction of reform in this area such as the Privacy and Access Act 1997 (ACT) and the views of consumer organisations or of more progressive medical groups such as the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.

The aggrieved consumer must then take their claim to a health 'industry' body for determination. It is difficult to see why consumers would have much confidence in the interest or ability of such a body to produce a result in their favour. If the complaints body does not find in the consumer's favour, the Key Provisions do not give the consumer any right of appeal from its decision. Furthermore, the Privacy Commissioner does not have a right of review even if he considers the matter raises issues of public interest. He does have the power to revoke industry codes, however one would expect that this would be a power exercised only as a last resort.

Consumer groups and privacy advo­ cates are hoping that the process of lob­ bying to date and as the legislation passes through parliament may result in some improvement of the Private Sector Bill. However, at this stage many of us con­ sider that as proposed privacy legislation, the Bill is completely misguided and a great disappointment. The inadequacy of the proposed legislation in regard to the interests of health consumers in particu­ lar, has led key health consumer organi­ sations to urge that the health provisions be removed from the current Bill and dealt with entirely separately.

Meredith Carter

Meredith Carter is the Executive Director of the Health Issues Centre, Melbourne.

Mutated genetic privacy laws

Genetic information has been argued to be different to ordinary personal information because the information is predictive, shared between relatives, allows inferences to be drawn, deals with probabilities rather than certainties, lasts for a whole lifetime and makes up an intimate part of a person's identity information. Despite these differences the federal government has introduced a 'light touch' Private Sector Bill (the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 referred to above). This Bill will effectively apply the Privacy Commissioner's National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information to all personal information including genetic information, by means of enforceable codes developed by separate industries within a basic legislative framework.

The extent of coverage for genetic information by these proposed amendments remains unclear. The National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information have been modified to make special provision for 'sensitive information', which includes 'health information'. These terms are further defined using broad terms, such as 'health' and 'disability'. The Privacy Commissioner has said that 'clearly personal health information also includes genetic information'. How­ ever, it is not clear whether genetic information is 'sensitive information' for the purposes of the scheme and therefore attracts the additional restrictions for collection and use. The Privacy Commissioner's view 'is that the question of whether genetic information requires specific additional protection is a separate issue that may warrant further investigation'.

Another interesting feature of the proposed legislation is the way it deals with consent to collect genetic information. This is significant, as collecting 'sensitive information' generally requires consent, but this is not an express requirement for collecting other forms of personal information. Genetic information collected from a 'healthy' person for a purpose unrelated to a person's illness or disability, such as their predisposition to make risky investments or slack off work (assuming a deterministic world!), may not be 'sensitive information' for the purposes of the amendments. Collection of this genetic information there­ fore may not require consent. However, the terms 'health' or 'disability' are broad and flexible terms which could be applied to cover all genetic information. This uncertainty could be clarified in the Bill. Alternatively, these and other concerns about genetic information may be dealt with through specific industry codes. Once industries develop codes the challenge will also be to ensure the codes are consistent across industries. Clear guidance on the meanings of these terms or effective industry codes covering all genetic information are essential.

The federal government's privacy Bill seeks to protect the genetic information itself (by attaching the privacy

'right' to the information). An alternative scheme, proposed by Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja seeks instead to regulate the collection of the genetic material from which the genetic information is later derived, based on the principle that no one should have or use genetic information without specific authorisation. This proposal is a stand alone scheme dealing with each of the issues detailed in the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information as well as a range of the other important privacy related issues including consent, ownership and genetic discrimination. This alter­ native scheme also applies to genetic information consistently and across all industries, with the exception of some legislation areas such as law enforcement. This approach avoids a patch­ work of privacy principles.

The government's proposed co­ regulatory approach for privacy presently seems to have overlooked the spe­ cial nature of genetic information. Given the ease with which genetic information can be derived from genetic materials (such as a DNA sample) and the rapid improvements in technology for determining genetic information, Senator Stott Despoja's consistent approach across all industries may have some merit. In the meantime, we wait to see whether genetic privacy will be delivered by the Private Sector Bill.

Charles Lawson

Dr Charles Lawson is a Visiting Fellow at the Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University.


Practical reconciliation or practical racism?

• Having gagged debate on the Senate Bill to override mandatory sentencing laws in the NT, the government faced renewed pressure with the threat of a few conscience-stricken backbenchers crossing the floor in support of a Private Members Bill.

• In light of this threat, the PM stepped up his efforts to 'persuade' the NT to pursue alternative sentencing measures, with the carrot of additional Commonwealth funding (which is sorely needed for health and education programs for Aboriginal people in the NT).

• Given his government's previous intervention in relation to Tasmania's anti-gay laws and the NT's euthanasia laws, the PM's refusal to take stronger action on the basis of 'States' rights' seems inconsistent to say the least.

• Why the difference when it comes to a law with a disproportionate impact on Aborigines? Coupled with its insulting attitude towards the stolen generation and reconciliation, the government seems to have made a firm commitment to 'wedge politics'.

• In a stirring display of compromise, the government has seized the middle ground between the stridency of One Nation and the subtlety of 'dog whistle' messages. • FD

ACT

Safe injecting places: state of play

The Supervised Injecting Place Trial Act I 999 was passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly on 23 December 1999. The stated object of the Act is the con­ ducting of an independently evaluated scientific trial of the public health benefits and risks of such places.

• The period of the trial is limited to two years.

• Criteria by which the scientific trial is to be assessed are required to be approved.

• The Legislative Assembly and the public are to receive interim reports each six months.

• An important role is given to an Advisory Committee composed of persons representing the law enforcement, medical, legal, social and business communities in Canberra including representatives of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Medical Association, the Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia and the Di­ rector of Public Prosecutions.

The result will be a supervised injecting facility where persons addicted to heroin and other controlled substances can administer these drugs to themselves in circumstances where there is access to clean and sterile hypodermic needles, where they are close to medical attention if required, where counselling and information services are provided and where information can be collected by the government in order to better understand and treat the growing drug problems in the ACT.

Crimina/law aspects

Possession and use of prescribed sub­ stances such as heroin, speed and cocaine are still illegal in the ACT whether inside or outside a SIP, but the Act allows for law enforcement proto­ cols which direct the Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions not to take action against a person from making use of the facility in accordance with the object of the Act. The AFP have formulated a draft protocol which is currently being considered. Once it has been accepted it will be forwarded to the Advisory Committee for their views and approval before being put into force. No criminal proceedings can be brought against the staff of the facility for action done in good faith in their capacity as a member of the staff.

The facility

The ACT Department of Health and Community Care has narrowed the list of potential sites to four and the next step is for the Advisory Committee to make a recommendation to the Minister. A list of parties interested in running the facility is being examined and, at this stage, it seems the most likely outcome will be joint management by a number of current providers of drug rehabilitation and care services in the ACT.

The legislation makes it clear that the Minister can only approve a site after he is satisfied that:

• it is safe and hygienic for the purposes of injecting;

• it is a site recommended by the Advisory Committee;

• there are law enforcement and management protocols in place to control and protect the operations of the facility and its staff; and

• approved criteria for the scientific study have been presented to the Legislative Assembly.

The present timetable is to open the SIP by the end of June this year.

International treaties

The International Narcotics Control Board has said that such supervised injecting places are not in line with Australia's international treaty obligations.

The response of the ACT Minister for Health and Community Care is that the ACT is very comfortable that it is acting within the relevant treaties. There are specific exceptions which allow the use of prohibited narcotics for scientific and medical purposes including clinical trials. Countries like Ger­ many, the Netherlands and Switzerland have taken a similar view and still remain parties to the treaties.

Patrick Brazil and Brendan Ding

Dunhil/Madden Butler, Canberra

Note: The ACT item in the last issue (Vol25, No I Feb 2000, p.40) was wrongly attributed to Fiona Dalton. The writer was in fact Tara Munro.

NSW

Dick doesn't get his gun: Sully J, well done

One of the myths in the gun debate has been that, like our US cousins, we have a right to bear arms. It seems to be as a result of the 1688 Bill of Rights, or even Magna Carta, as I recall the assertions made in the past.

Sully J of the NSW Supreme Court seems to have disposed of this myth once and for all in a decision of 3 March 2000, Commissioner of Police v Davies [2000] NSWSC 107.

Richard James Davies applied for a licence under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The Commissioner rejected the application in accordance with the criteria specified in s.ll of the Act. Mr Davies appealed to a Local Court magistrate who allowed the appeal. The Commissioner took the matter to the Supreme Court.

It was submitted on Davies' behalf that the provisions of s.ll of the Act breached fundamental common law rights. Sully J stated: 'I must confess that I really do not understand this sub­ mission'. He found that the legislation implemented a public policy objective to regulate the possession of lethal weapons. One of the ways this objective was achieved was by applying the s.11 criteria Sully J said:

If it be the case that Mr Davies, were there no firearms legislation of the kind now in place, would have some general common law right to have a firearm in his possession, (a question as to which it is not now necessary to come to any conclusion), it would not at all follow that the Legislature of New South Wales could not lawfully legislate so as to restrict, or even abrogate, such a common law right.

The argument to the contrary is not sup­ ported by any authority, either as to the existence of the suggested common law right, or as to the basis (or bases) of the suggested incapacity of the New South Wales Parliament to legislate so as to restrict, or even abrogate, any such common law right.

It was also submitted for Davies that the provision under which the licence application was rejected infringed certain rights emanating from 'those pre-Constitutional freedoms that were part of the received law and such other Acts that were in force in New South Wales on 25 July 1828 ... ' The Court was given a list of 13 enactments and citations of various decisions between 1833 and 1861. In response, Sully J stated:

The Parliament of New South Wales has constitutional standing to legislate for the peace, order and good government of the State. I do not understand how legislation such as the Firearms Act 1996 could be characterised as being other than legislation enacted in aid of precisely that peace, order and good government. It was not submitted that there is some particular provision of the New South Wales Constitution that forbids the enactment of legislation such as the Firearms Act 1996. If, then, the Fire­ arms Act 1996 is within the constitutional power of the Parliament of New South Wales, as in my opinion it clearly is, then the various references now being given by learned counsel for Mr Davies to statutes and curial decisions are irrelevant for present purposes.

Other arguments rejected by Sully J concerned the alleged invalidity of the Act on the grounds of retrospectivity, conflict with Chapter III of the Com­monwealth Constitution and the imposition of double jeopardy, in conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United States Constitution (rejected, in the first instance as inapplicable and in the second case for relevance).

This decision made my day. • PW

Northern Territory

Brain drain

In the wake of funding cuts, restructuring and reviews, a senior lecturer in law at the Northern Territory University has stuck his neck on the block by writing to the local Darwin newspaper highlighting what he sees as elements of dysfunction in the management of the University. Peter McNab's claims have received coverage in print and visual media. The Chancellor of the University has responded, also by letter to the editor in the Northern Territory News, accusing the lecturer of making 'one-sided and inaccurate public assertions'. Ron McKay was forced to face this criticism when he made his twice-yearly address to staff and students in late March. Peter McNab was greeted with applause and cheers when he entered the meeting in a lecture theatre packed with approximately 400 staff and students. Mr McKay was challenged, heckled and booed throughout his address. When he reached the issue of low morale within the university, Mr McKay said: 'There are various ways you can deal with it, this issue of morale. One is, if you are really unhappy here you can leave.' His comments caused an outrage among those attending the meeting who chanted 'shame shame shame'. His option seems to ignore part of the basis of the initial comment by Mr McNab, that there is a 'brain drain' from the Northern Territory University. • FH


Mandatory sentencing chief magistrate scandal

The Mandatory Sentencing debate in the Northern Territory took on a new dimension upon the broadcast of a story by the ABC focusing on the circum­ stances of the appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the Northern Territory, Hugh Bradley.

The 7.30 Report broadcast in March alleged that Chief Magistrate Bradley had received a secret two-year remuneration package when he was appointed by former Chief Minister Shane Stone QC. Both Mr Stone and Chief Magistrate Bradley declined to be interviewed on camera. Current Chief Minister Denis Burke announced within days of the report that he would terminate the remuneration package.

The Report focused on judicial independence and the perceptions of bias that may arise from undisclosed packages. While the Report made it clear that there was no suggestion that Chief Magistrate Bradley has done the government's bidding during his two years as Chief Magistrate, it high­ lighted a decision he had made in which he said: 'I can't totally disregard the bonds which not only our community but our government and our parliament have towards property offences'. That decision was criticised on appeal by Justice Angel, who said Chief Magistrate Bradley had 'not only ignored or overlooked the clear sentencing principles in relation to juveniles, but also overlooked some key features of the case.

The North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Commission has now made a formal application that Chief Magistrate Bradly not preside over a mandatory sentencing case on the basis that there are perceptions that he is not impartial in such cases.

These events have also coincided with 'civil disobedience' by some sec­ tors of the Territory's legal fraternity. In February, lawyer Russell Goldflam committed an act that could make him liable to 14 days imprisonment by stealing a pencil and breaking it before the Legal and Constitutional Senate Reference Committee conducting an inquiry into Mandatory Sentencing. Police Fire and Emergency Services Minister Mike Reed said Mr Goldflam is a '...dill who is breaking pencils and expecting to get some national attention.' He has not been arrested.

In March another lawyer, Chris Howse committed a similar act of pencil theft and property damage and turned him­ self in to the local police station. Police refused to charge him because no com­ plaint had been laid. Chief Minister Burke has labelled such actions irrational and unprofessional. • FH

Queensland

Court of Appeal Pro Bono Scheme

The Queensland Court of Appeal has launched a pro bono scheme involving senior barristers in assisting people who are appealing against a conviction for murder or manslaughter. When an appellant has been convicted of murder or manslaughter and has been refused Legal Aid for their appeal, the Senior Deputy Registrar (Appeals) invites the appellant to take part in the Scheme: 25 senior barristers have agreed to provide advice and advocacy in such cases.

In launching the scheme, Justice Margaret McMurdo, President of the Court of Appeal noted that since July 1999, statistics have been kept by the Court of Appeal's Research Officer on the success rates of unrepresented litigants. Since these statistics have been kept, 19 of 66 unrepresented litigants before the Court of Appeal in criminal matters (almost 30%) have been successful.

The number of unrepresented litigants before the Court of Appeal is clearly on the rise. In the Queensland Court of Appeal in 1998-1999, 47 civil matters were heard where at least one party was unrepresented, up from 20 in 1997-1998; 102 criminal matters were heard where at least one party was unrepresented, up from 74 in 1997-1998, an increase of over 37%.

Justice McMurdo noted that com­ plaints about the rise in numbers of unrepresented litigants feature in the Annual Reports of all the nations' courts. 'A major factor in this increase is cuts in funding to Legal Aid. Chief Justice Gleeson has bemoaned that 28 per cent of litigants appearing before single High Court Judges are now unrepresented; he queries whether macro-economically these legal aid cuts can be justified.'

Justice McMurdo stated:
The Scheme should ensure that the real issues in these serious cases are placed before the Court of Appeal, resulting in greater access to justice to those most at risk oflengthy periods of imprisonment. Nevertheless, this Scheme, developed to improve an imperfect situation, cannot absolve Government from its responsi­ bility to provide adequate Legal Aid funds.

The Scheme will be reviewed after 12 months to assess its viability and effectiveness and to consider whether it can be extended. • JG

Victoria

Pro-bono firms recognised

Melbourne's larger commercial law firms may lose their slice of the 30--40 million dollars in annual revenue earned from outsourced State government legal services following a change in policy announced in February by Attorney- General Rob Hulls. He indicated that the 'monopoly' over Victoria's State legal work enjoyed by 'top-end-of-town' law firms may come to an end, as a firm's commitment to providing free legal services -or 'working pro-bono' -may be considered as a relevant factor in the government's legal services tendering process.

Whilst the costs of legal services and a firm's particular expertise will remain over-riding concerns for the government, Hulls' new policy will require future firm candidates to submit their policy on pro-bono work, in addition to their records of actual provision of free­ legal services. Hulls stressed that it would not be compulsory for firms to participate in pro-bono work to be awarded legal ser­ vices contracts, but it would now be one of the deciding factors.

A 1999 survey found that of the 500 lawyers who participated, most agreed that pro-bono work constituted part of their professional obligations. How­ ever, only around 10% could provide an accurate report as to how many pro-bono hours they had carried out in a given time. The Victorian Law Foundation's Pro-Bono Secretariat, Voluntas, is an organisation which aims to co-ordinate and facilitate pro-bono practices for Victorian lawyers. Amanda Roberts, co-manager of Voluntas, welcomes the Attorney-General's move, stating that the new policy promotes good corporate citizenship and social justice. • MR

Western Australia

Big fish and little fish

The criminal justice system of Western Australia managed two 'triumphs' in March 2000. Alan Bond, who had pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to act honestly as an officer of a company with intent to defraud the company and its shareholders to the extent of $1.2 billion, was let out three years early. Aboriginal leader (Ted Wilkes) was fined $820 and ordered to pay $4545 costs after being found guilty of taking a feed of (undersized) fish from a local dam.

Little fish

Ted Wilkes was first tried for being in possession of totally protected fish (eight undersized marron) contrary to s.46(b) Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (WA) in December 1997. He sought to lead evidence of a right to fish as an incidence of native title by way of defence to the charge. The magistrate said not to bother - native title was irrelevant to the charge.

The magistrate was put right by a majority decision of the Court of Appeal: Wilkes v Johnson (23 June 1999, <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASCA/1999/74.html>). The majority (Wheeler and Kennedy JJ) found that native title holders are subject to the Fish Resources Act but may be entitled to the defence in s.211 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) The Native Title defence is significant as it provides that the exercise of certain native title rights are not to be subject to a State law, but it does not exempt native title holders from the whole criminal law: The defendant must: (1) be engaged in hunting, fishing, gathering, cultural and spiritual activities for personal, domes­ tic or non-commercial purposes; (2) be exercising native title rights. If the defendant is not native title holder or native title has been extinguished, the defence will fail; (3) be defending a charge to an activity that the State has a discretion to permit.

The case was sent back to the magistrate for rehearing. In the second trial, the magistrate found that Wilkes was not exercising native title rights. Press reports suggest that the magistrate relied on the absence of any ancestral connection with the land or water to reject the native title defence. In any event, Wilkes was convicted, fined $820 and ordered to pay $4545 costs. • MF and PN

Big fish

Readers may recall that in February 1997, Alan Bond pleaded pleading guilty to two counts of failing to act honestly as an officer of a company. An element of the offence was intent to defraud the company and its shareholders. The fraud was in the amount of $1.2 billion. The indictment was presented by the Commonwealth DPP. Bond was sentenced to three years imprisonment on each count to be served (partially) concurrently. The result was that the amount of time that would be served for the offences was four years. The maxi­ mum penalty for the offence was ten years. The Commonwealth DPP appealed the length of Bond's sentence. The appeal was allowed by the WA Court of Criminal Appeal, with the result that Bond would now be required to serve seven years in prison.

Bond appealed the extension of his sentence. It now transpires that the Commonwealth DPP did not have Common­ wealth legislative authority to make the appeal. The High Court has found that the Commonwealth DPP relied upon Western Australian legislation for authority to make appeals and this was not constitutional. Mr Bond raised the following grave constitutional questions:

Is the decision to appeal against what is alleged to be an inadequate sentence for offences against State laws to be taken by Commonwealth or State officials? Does the political responsibility for that decision (which is a decision that can be attended by public controversy) lie with a Commonwealth or State Minister? Can one integer of the federation unilaterally vest functions in officers of another integer of the federation? [Bond v The Queen [2000] HCA 13 (9 March 2000) para 14]

All of the questions were resolved in Bond's favour and, as a result, he is now free to go fishing. • TH

Mandatory sentencing remains order of the day in the west ...

Spare a thought for kids in the west as the dust settles on the $5 million Howard/ Burke deal that will require Northern Territory police to divert juveniles facing minor property charges to new pro­ grams and will also see the establishment of long overdue Aboriginal Interpreter Service. The effect of the Criminal Code (WA) is that a person (including a child) who is found guilty, for the third time, of entering a place ordinarily used for human habitation with intent to commit an offence must be detained or imprisoned for at least 12 months. In the case of a child (aged 10-17) the court may, in addition to the custodial sentence, make an intensive youth supervision order: Young Offenders Act(WA). If the court makes this order, the child is released pending the satisfactory completion of the order. However, in evidence to the Senate Inquiry into Mandatory Sentencing, the Western Australia Government stated that 83 children had been subject to the mandatory 12 months since February 1997 and only 9 children had received intensive youth supervision orders. Mandatory 12 months will continue to apply to Western Australia children dealt with for a third offence - no matter how minor the circumstances of the offence (for example, stealing food to eat).

In evidence to the Senate Inquiry on Mandatory Sentencing, Western Australian Government officials half­heartedly suggested that interpreters of Aboriginal languages were arranged as needed on an ad hoc basis. In truth, interpreters are not engaged at all for the Court of Petty Sessions. When that court sits in Kununurra or Derby or Roebourne or any other remote location in Western Australia, a substantial number of Aboriginal defendants do not follow the proceedings at all. It seems that the non-existent Aboriginal Interpreter Service will continue to be non-existent on the western side of the WA/NT border. • MF

DownUnderA//Over was compiled by Alt.LJ committee members Fiona Dalton, Martin Flynn, Jeff Giddings, Tatum Hands, Fiona Hussin, Patricia Neurater, Michael Ryall and Peter Wilmshurst along with invited writers listed under their items above.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2000/36.html