1. Non-Discrimination
2. Legal Principle [ICCPR Articles 14, 26]
3. Pro-Democracy

The Bill enshrines language services in primary legislation to protect the right of all Australians, regardless of English proficiency, to access justice, health care and government programs without discrimination. By codifying TIS National’s functions and fee-charging authority, the Act ensures stable, transparent and accountable delivery of interpreting and translation services across federal and state jurisdictions. [Judgment]

Access to information in one’s own language is fundamental to informed civic engagement and participation in democratic institutions. Ensuring professional standards and training pathways through a clear statutory framework strengthens public confidence and promotes social cohesion. [Judgment]

At minimal cost to the Commonwealth, the Bill provides legal certainty for existing operations, secures pre-existing arrangements, and safeguards 24/7 support for emergency, medical and legal interpreting, which in turn supports effective government service delivery and protects vulnerable individuals. [Judgment]

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection
2. Egalitarianism

The Bill largely restates powers and functions that TIS National already exercises under existing administrative arrangements, rendering the new legislation a formality that adds complexity without meaningful benefit. [Judgment]

By expressly authorising fee-charging, the Act risks creating cost barriers for low-income individuals and small non-profit organisations reliant on interpreting services, potentially undermining equitable access for the very communities it aims to serve. [Judgment]

The broad delegation and rule-making powers granted to the Secretary may reduce parliamentary oversight and increase the risk of politicisation of language services, as rules could be made or varied without sufficient transparency. [Judgment]