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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4210 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

These amendments relate to the appointment of referees for the Small Claims Court. Under this Bill, the referee has to take an oath or make an affirmation of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This process matches the appointment of magistrates under the Magistrates Act. The oath or affirmation of office included in the Schedule to the Bill virtually copies the Schedule in the Magistrates Court Act. However, the wording included in the Schedule to the Magistrates Court Act must have been originally drafted many years ago. The first line of the oath says:

I ... swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, and Her heirs and successors ...

The law requiring magistrates, and now referees, to swear allegiance to the Queen is really an antiquated relic of our judicial system and does need to be changed. The oath does not even mention allegiance to Australia or Australians. It is ludicrous that our magistrates and referees should be required to swear an oath to a foreigner. There would be few Australians alive today, irrespective of their views on whether or not Australia should be a republic, who would regard such an oath as a true expression of their national loyalty.

This oath is a totally inadequate expression of what the referee or magistrate is taking an oath for - committing themselves to serve in their office according to law and without fear or favour. It has nothing to do with the Queen. This oath is even more anachronistic when you consider that members of the Legislative Assembly no longer need to swear allegiance to the Queen when they take their oath of office. The MLA's oath of office was amended in 1995. Why should judges have to swear allegiance to the Queen when other key office-holders in the ACT do not? This amendment will not reduce the importance of this oath, nor reduce the required commitment of referees or magistrates to their job.

As Australia makes its inevitable move towards a republic, references to the Queen will need to be removed from many pieces of legislation. I understand that the New South Wales Labor Government had already begun this process through its tabling of the Oaths and Crown References Bill in the New South Wales Parliament in 1995; but I gather that that Bill was defeated by the conservative elements in the New South Wales upper house.

As the Greens have said at various times in this Assembly, we do not believe that we should have to put off important reforms in the ACT just because they are ahead of the thinking in other States. I believe that the Assembly should take the opportunity, while this Bill is before us, to start to remove references to the Queen in our legislation, by fixing up the oath taken by magistrates to make it more relevant to their real responsibilities to the people of the ACT and not to their outdated responsibilities to a royal family 16,000 kilometres away. Labor, through Mr Wood, I think, or Mr Whitecross, actually did suggest that we put in our amendments the reference to serving the people of the ACT. That idea is integrated into the amendments that I have moved. I acknowledge that input. I think that was a sensible suggestion.

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