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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4212 ..

MR CORNWELL (continuing):

I will, however, concede one thing: It is probably very appropriate that this premature move has been made in relation to a small claims court. One could make an unflattering comparison, I suppose, with the amendment, if not with its mover. Of course, I would not do that, because that would be inappropriate and I probably would be hauled up by the Deputy Speaker. Please let us have some commonsense on this. This has obviously been a hurried, last-minute thought. I suggest that we leave the matter at least until after the referendum, because I really cannot see the point of such a pre-emptive strike.

MR CORBELL (9.35): I was not going to speak in this debate; but the opportunity to address the Speaker in debate and not be warned by him is one that is presented to me rarely, and I wanted to take that opportunity. Madam Deputy Speaker, all I can say is: What an extraordinary argument it is, when all that a constitutional monarchist can put forward is that this issue is a small claim. I would have thought that, for a constitutional monarchist, anything that had to do with removing the Queen, the head of state, from any oath would have been a very big deal indeed. What a bizarre situation it is when the only argument that a constitutional monarchist can put forward is that it is a small claim and, really, we should not be pre-empting the debate.

I want to address that very point. I do not know whether Mr Cornwell has noticed; but the Queen plays virtually no role whatsoever in the government and administration of the Territory. Indeed, the Queen, or her representative, does not in any way approve Bills passed by this Assembly and gazette them. That is an action taken by the Chief Minister on behalf of the Territory. It seems to me that that is a fundamental misunderstanding on his part.

I am very pleased indeed, as a republican, to see the Greens moving these amendments, because they place the primacy of this parliament and the operation of our administration in the Territory where they belong - with the people - and base them in the people, not in the Crown. That is why I believe that these amendments are appropriate. We do not need our officers to be swearing allegiance to a head of state who resides in another country. What we need, instead, is officers of our administration - whether they be in the courts or in this Assembly - to be swearing allegiance to, and affirming that they will act in the best interests of, the people of the Territory. That is not something that is in the oath at the moment. There is no reference to acting in the best interests of the Territory; there is reference only to being faithful and bearing true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

That seems to me to be a complete anachronism. Why on earth should we not change it? Indeed, it seems to me that, if there is any place in Australia which has the potential of returning two delegates of a republican strain to the Constitutional Convention, it is this Territory. Polling has demonstrated again and again that the proportion of the population supportive of the concept of a republic is higher here in the Territory than it is in any other State or Territory in Australia. I think that is a good thing. I think it shows that the amendments moved by Ms Tucker are relevant to people in the Territory and, I would argue, reflective of the wishes of a majority of people in this Territory. Mr Cornwell, unfortunately, is in an ever-dwindling minority which increasingly has less and less relevance in Canberra today.

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