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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 7 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 1786 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

The Territory is just not like that. The constitution we operate under, the self-government Act, is different and that is reflected in the way we conduct ourselves. We have always had our swearing-in conducted before the Chief Justice of the ACT. There is no role there for even the Governor-General, who does retain some reserve powers in relation to the government of the ACT. He has never been present at any of our swearing-in ceremonies, and I do not imagine that he ever would be. He does retain some reserve powers, which have never been exercised. There has never been any interest expressed in the exercise of those reserve powers. The Territory is different, and I think our swearing-in ceremony should reflect that difference.

Mr Humphries took issue with my statement that I thought the current oath or affirmation was the exception rather than the rule, but he compared our oath or affirmation only with other oaths or affirmations in parliaments. If you look more generally at the question of oaths or affirmations, as contained in the Oaths and Affirmations Act, you will see that there is a vast range of oaths and affirmations that have no reference whatsoever to the Queen.

Mr Humphries: Such as?

MS FOLLETT: I think Mr Humphries was drawing something of a longbow. Mr Humphries has asked for examples. I can give them to him: The taking of an oath or the making of an affirmation for various offices - that can cover a huge range of offices; the oaths or affirmations for witnesses in courts.

Mr Humphries: What sorts of offices?

MS FOLLETT: Any office as contained in the legislation. You are the Attorney-General; look it up. I have the book here. For witnesses in court; for interpreters who have to take an oath or make an affirmation, whether they are interpreting into English, in a written, spoken or sign language form; for verification of signatures on documents; and so on. None of those oaths or affirmations require a reference to the Queen; it is in the legislation. I stand by the comment I made. The examples Mr Humphries gave of swearing oaths and making affirmations to the King indicate how long it is since some people have thought about the issue at all. I am in favour of this parliament being up to date in its procedures, in its processes. We do not have a Speaker in a wig and gown or heavy chains of office, as do some older parliaments. We reflect modern practice in a modern society, and removing the reference to the Queen is very much a part of that reflection of our own current society.

Mr Moore indicated that he would support the amendment that has been circulated in Mr Osborne's name. That is probably better than nothing; but I do stand by my fundamental position, and that is that, if we want to reflect what we really are about as ACT Assembly members, it is not appropriate for us to swear allegiance to the Queen. Our allegiance here is simply not to the Queen, without any disrespect to her or to the office she holds; our allegiance is to the people of the ACT. Even if Mr Osborne's amendment does succeed, there should not be any option for members of this Assembly in swearing their allegiance to the people of the ACT. I think it is fair enough if you want to

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