Interpreter policies, practices and protocols in Australian Courts and Tribunals

According to the 2006 Census, over half a million people in Australia do not speak English well or at all. Many of these residents may need to access the justice system at one time or another. Being able to understand and be understood in one‘s own hearing or trial is a human and legal right. For those who do not speak the language of the legal system that right can only be exercised through the provision of adequate and competent interpreting services. In Australia, court interpreters are not required to be qualified. Generally NAATI accreditation will be desired, where such is available. However, no preference or monetary incentive is given to the best-qualified interpreters. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is dissatisfaction about the state of court interpreting from the courts and tribunals as well as from the practising interpreters themselves, especially from those who are highly qualified. On the one hand, judicial officers and tribunal members complain about the poor quality of interpreting services and the lack of availability of interpreters in some languages. On the other hand, interpreters complain about the poor working conditions and low remuneration and the lack of recognition for their work and their qualifications. In 2009, The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) organised a conference on working with interpreters: ―The use of interpreters in courts and tribunals‖, held in Fremantle, Western Australia from 12-14 March. At that conference it became apparent that there were no consistent practices around Australia on the use of interpreting services. This national survey is the result of the recommendations arising from that conference and was jointly funded by AIJA and the University of Western Sydney‘s Interpreting and Translation Research Group, which the author led at the time of the study. The general aim of this exploratory study was to conduct an overview of current interpreting practices in Australian courts and tribunals for bilingual or multilingual cases to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for a consistent national protocol on working with interpreters in the justice system. The project consisted of three parts: 1. A review of the publicly accessible guidelines and policies for working with interpreters found on relevant web sites (see Appendix 1); 2. A survey of tribunal members, magistrates and judges using an on-line questionnaire; and 3. A survey of interpreters through another on-line questionnaire (see Appendix 2).