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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4214 ..

MR MOORE (9.42): Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that you could rightly be accused here tonight of observing that there are some people who are more conservative than others. I have made this observation myself. If the accusation that my observation was inappropriate comes my way, then it is something that I will wear; but I have to say, in particular having heard Mr Cornwell and Mr Stefaniak speak, that I am convinced that there are people in this Assembly who are more conservative than others. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not the first time that I have observed this, in particular, from these two gentlemen. The irony is that they should mention this matter just prior to the Constitutional Convention, at a time when we are considering the possibility of a republic. I am surprised that these two gentlemen in particular, and perhaps others, have not observed that, really, we are an example of a republic and what a republic is about in Australia. Where is our legislation checked by an administrator or a governor? It is not. Granted, there are references to the Governor-General in our self-government Act. He does have a final power. But that final power does not in turn go to the Queen.

Mr Berry: Yes, he does. Look at the Andrews Bill.

MR MOORE: Mr Berry interjects. There is one sense in which the Governor-General has a final power. We can have a look at the Andrews Bill. Indeed, the Andrews Bill could go through only with the royal assent. To take it in two or three steps, you might make that point. I think it is an interesting observation that the ACT is the closest thing to a republic that we have in Australia. Therefore, although I see myself as an ultraconservative on most issues, on this issue I am going to drag myself a little to the left and try to sharpen up my ideas. I have a great fear that I will become a communist if I make this move; but I am going to take a risk, and I am going to support my Green comrade, Ms Tucker, on these amendments.

MR WOOD (9.45): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to say of Mr Stefaniak that he has a good sense of what is going to happen. I have already indicated that, should I survive into the next Assembly - and I will make no predictions about that - I intend to see that we get a better and more appropriate coat of arms. It is quite inappropriate to have a coat of arms for the city of Canberra in the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. So, Mr Stefaniak, if you are here too, I will invite you to join a committee of the Assembly to look at this matter.

MR MOORE (9.46): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make one further observation. For the second time in this Assembly, the Speaker has come down to join in the debate and, for the second time, he has lost.

MS TUCKER (9.46): I want to thank people for their very insightful comments on this matter. I was very interested in Mr Cornwell's comments when he suggested that I should be consistent and remove God. I had not realised that you held the Queen in such high esteem. But I understand now that it really is very important to you, and I hope that it does not cause you too much concern - although perhaps what you did mean was that we had removed the necessity for a loud prayer, a spoken prayer. I am reassured that the Queen is not held in as high esteem as God. My comment on that is that it was never designed to make it impossible for someone to pray; it was so that we would have our own prayer. So, I have to clarify that. I thank Mr Cornwell for pointing to the standing orders, because that is something we can look at, and I thank members for their support.

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