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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4216 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

If we take the view that the oath or affirmation is of no importance, then that is fine. We can just lightly gloss over those matters and say, "Who will ever read the oath or the affirmation?". But, if they mean anything at all, then the words are serious and need to be taken seriously. I have to say that I think there is a serious problem with promising - swearing on a Bible - to serve the people of the Australian Capital Territory in an office which should be impartial and which should not serve any individual but which should be serving the law.

MR MOORE (9.52): I seek leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak again on this matter.

Leave granted.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries has raised some very interesting issues. The first and most important of those issues is the question of swearing and affirming at all. I think we should ask ourselves the really important question - whether or not it actually makes any difference in a court of law. It seems to me that somebody who is going to lie in a court of law is going to lie anyway. I think that it is anachronistic for us to be swearing at all. It is a question that we could well deal with in the next Assembly. I am sorry to shock my conservative colleagues with a suggestion of that kind; but there we are. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that, very regularly - every day at the beginning of this Assembly - we pray or reflect on our responsibilities to the people of the ACT. As happened today and as has happened on other occasions, we have stood in this place and taken quite significant action to defend people in Queanbeyan. So, we accept that our responsibilities to the people of the ACT have much broader ramifications in terms of the community as a whole. We recognise that, obviously, with our regional approach.

Similarly, somebody who swears that they will well and truly serve the people of the Australian Capital Territory in the office of referee in the Small Claims Court will well and truly serve the people of the ACT - who have, in effect, employed them, paid them and put them in the position - by making sure that they deal justly with everybody who comes before them. I have no problem with that. I understand that your interpretation was the opposite to that. I am saying that there is this other interpretation, which seems to me just as sensible and just as logical. I am very comfortable with it. I have no problem in expecting that people will do that and will interpret it in that way. It would be very clear to anybody who is an appropriate person to fulfil this task that they would, by the very nature of the task, ensure a just outcome for whomsoever it is that appears before them. That is why I am still comfortable with this wording.

MS TUCKER (9.55): I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I must say that my interpretation also is that, when you say, "I will well and truly serve the people of the ACT", it is about giving a sense of your allegiance to your area. To suggest that in some way this person would be freed of responsibility to well and truly serve those outside the ACT - that is, the people they are actually

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