Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4211 ..

MR CORNWELL (9.30): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is rare, but not unique, for the Speaker to come down to address the chamber. There is a certain symmetry in this. At the beginning of this Assembly, I addressed the chamber in relation to the prayer. It appears that, in the closing stages, I am going to address it again, in relation to this rather strange amendment. I am wondering whether, in fact, the Greens intend to pick off each piece of legislation that comes through this place if there is any reference to the Queen in it - in which case, it is a rather clumsy method of dealing with the matter.

This action shows all the hallmarks of being hurried. It seems strange to me that we have decided to target this particular piece of legislation, when the Greens appear to have overlooked standing orders 53, 268 and 269 of our own Assembly. We have not even had the Constitutional Convention - let alone the referendum - but already our friends the Greens are moving into a republic by stealth. This is very interesting. I can understand Ms Tucker's views on this. I am a member of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. I make no apology for that. I can understand that Ms Tucker might be a republican. But tell me, Ms Tucker: Have you and your colleague in the Greens consulted the community on this move?

Ms Tucker: Yes - through you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

MR CORNWELL: You have? All the time we hear from the Greens, "Consultation is required. We cannot make decisions unless we consult the community". To echo your views, Ms Tucker, I do not believe that you have consulted enough. I do not think you have consulted thoroughly. I know many people in the community who simply would not wear what you are suggesting. So, where is your much-vaunted process of community consultation? I think you really should await the referendum outcome before you address these issues in such a piecemeal fashion. It does not seem to me to make any sense. It is a hurried consideration. I notice that you have not moved an amendment to delete any reference to God. There is, in fact, an oath in the proposed amendments that ends with the words "So help me God!". We abolished the prayer here. We changed it; but now - - -

Ms Tucker: No, we did not abolish the prayer. We have a silent prayer.

MR CORNWELL: No; we changed it to a prayer or reflection. Did you have trouble getting your tongue around the words "So help me reflect", or something like that? I am not 100 per cent sure how you could do it. Obviously, you found that a little too difficult. I really think, however, that if you were going to take the same approach you could at least have been consistent in deleting the reference to the Almighty. After all, it might offend some people. I seem to remember that that was the line that you last ran, in spite of the fact that various people, non-Christians, wrote in and said, "We are not offended at all by the prayer".

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know what would be the cost of changing this. The Greens are very interested in saving paper. We know that. They are very interested in trees - those things that grow and are green. I am naturally concerned at the massive amount of money that may be wasted. I am also concerned that this is one of these one-off things that may very well leave this court out of step with other jurisdictions. It seems to me that it would be better to leave the matter alone until we get some sort of decision from a referendum in relation to whether or not we have a republic.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .