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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 7 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 1780 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

would fill a number of symbolic roles, and appropriately should be looked up to by Australians in those circumstances. It is very easy for us in this present debate to foist petty indignities onto our present Australian head of state, and the extent to which that has already begun, I think, is a very poor sign of Australians' respect for constitutional processes.

Even if we have this debate and we come to a conclusion at the end of the debate, it is important for us to try to keep symbols of national unity together and not to splinter on these issues. If republicans feel that it is all right in the course of this debate to denigrate the Queen and her office and to do these sorts of things to her office and her position, it makes it very easy for similar things to be done to an Australian-born head of state or an Australian-resident head of state after a successful republican debate and referendum is held. That is a very dangerous step. Ms Follett said in her remarks when she introduced this legislation:

I think it is true to say that the swearing of allegiance to the Queen is very much the exception rather than the rule.

I did some research on that subject, and I have to say that I do not think what she said was true. I am not sure in what context she was making those remarks. Certainly, in respect of the swearing of new citizens of Australia that is true, but that is only one case. I have looked at the situation with respect to oaths or affirmations for the swearing in of members of the other parliaments in this country, and the model proposed by Ms Follett would indeed be the exception, not the rule.

In the Commonwealth Parliament, for example - and we know the views of the Federal Government at the moment - there is a requirement in section 42 of the Constitution for every senator and member of the House of Representatives to swear an oath or make an affirmation, and the oath or affirmation as it is printed in the Constitution is to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors - of course, that is updated. That is the requirement for all members of the Federal Parliament. Indeed, all members swear that oath or make that affirmation at the moment. In Victoria, there is a requirement to swear an oath to Her Majesty and Her Majesty's heirs and successors according to law, or to make the affirmation. In New South Wales there is a requirement under section 12 of their Constitution Act of 1902 to swear an oath in the name of the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It also refers in print to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, but that again is updated.

In South Australia, no member of parliament may take a seat unless they have sworn an oath, which is again to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law. In Western Australia, no member of the Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly shall sit or vote therein unless they have subscribed an oath, which in the schedule is to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. In Tasmania, there is a slightly different arrangement. The Promissory Oaths Act 1869 somewhat strangely uses the following words: "I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty the King, according to law, so help me God".

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