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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 377 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The ACT Supreme Court is exactly that: It is the supreme court that deals with laws of this Territory. The justices that we have are also, with one exception, Federal Court judges, and it is appropriate to recognise that. But, of course, when they practise as Federal Court judges, they practise in the Federal Court. If Mr Osborne's motion was to remove a symbol of the Commonwealth from a Federal court, it would be entirely inappropriate. But he has not done that. He has put up a motion that has encouraged us, first of all, to note that the Supreme Court passed from the Commonwealth's jurisdiction in 1991, as part of that process of self-government. Those of us who were there from the beginning - I see Mr Wood, Mr Berry and Mr Humphries - waited, as part of that process, to get the Supreme Court. We felt much more complete that self-government had come to us at that time, in 1991.

The motion asks us to note that the court is the Territory's judicial body - it is the judicial body for this Territory, not for the Commonwealth - and that the court's building continues to display the Commonwealth coat of arms prominently. Of course, we do know that lawyers and judges are very keen on precedent. They are slow to accept change. As far as the law goes, that is probably entirely appropriate. But, on an issue of symbolism, it is also appropriate that we request that they now recognise their role and identify the court in the way that it ought to be identified - as the ACT Supreme Court. It would be just as ludicrous to have the Union Jack, and only the Union Jack, or the British coat of arms hanging over the Federal Court or over our High Court. It would be entirely inappropriate. It might recognise some history - and there is an element of history in the fact that that coat of arms remains - - -

Mr Wood: Why do we have an Australian flag in here?

MR MOORE: Mr Wood interjects, "So, why do we have an Australian flag here?". I think he knows the answer to that question. It is displayed, along with our own ACT flag, and recognises that we are part of the Commonwealth. But it is appropriate, for example, that each of our schools displays the ACT flag.

In this case, we are talking about a specific coat of arms on a building associated with one of the most important functions of the Territory. Because it is one of the most important functions of the Territory, it becomes even more important as a symbol of this Territory's ability to look after its own affairs and, interestingly enough, as a symbol of this Territory's judiciary making its decisions about this Territory and the people of this Territory. That is the symbolism that is involved, and that is why the Commonwealth coat of arms should be taken down and replaced with the coat of arms of the city of Canberra, the coat of arms that sits behind the head of Mr Speaker.

That having been said, it is probably also an interesting time for us to begin to look at the coat of arms itself and ask why the coat of arms on the front of this building says "For the King, the Law and the People" and the coat of arms here says "For the Queen, the Law and the People", and whether it is appropriate for this Territory to retain either the King or the Queen on the coat of arms. Personally, I believe that it is not; but, clearly, we need to go through a process with a coat of arms, and it seems to me that this may be the time to begin to look at our own coat of arms and ask, "Does this coat of arms need modification?". To me, it does need some modification. I think that that would be an issue.

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