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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 374 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

In this place, Mr Speaker, of course, behind you the coat of arms of the city of Canberra is prominently displayed. That trend to reflect the current political arrangements in respect of such buildings is a process which has been continued, to the best of my knowledge, throughout all major public buildings which are directly owned by the ACT Government and which have been erected since self-government. For example, in the Magistrates Court building next to the Supreme Court, we see the coat of arms of the city of Canberra displayed very prominently.

Mr Speaker, the court consists of four judges, a master and a registrar, as well as their support staff. Those officers are the highest judicial officers of the Territory. Indeed, as Mr Osborne noted in his remarks, for the very first time since self-government, the ACT appointed a new judge to that court to increase the size of the bench. The separation of the ACT from the Commonwealth's jurisdiction was emphasised, however, at the time of the appointment of that fourth judge, because, for the first time, a judge of the Supreme Court of the ACT does not hold a simultaneous commission as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

The Commonwealth has made a policy decision that the Federal Court and the Supreme Court should be separated and that henceforth Supreme Court judges will not also hold Federal Court appointments. I might put on the record, Mr Speaker, that that is a matter of some regret to the ACT, particularly since, at the moment, appeals from a single judge of the Supreme Court lie to the Federal Court of Australia, and it has been the practice to have at least one brother judge of the judge being appealed against sitting on the appeal in the Federal Court. That policy will have to be reconsidered as those with simultaneous appointments retire or die off. We have seen clear signals that the Commonwealth wishes to separate the ACT Supreme Court from Federal courts. Mr Speaker, I think that, as a matter of principle, we have to accept the changes which that envisages and we have to ask ourselves how we can engineer a situation where our ACT Supreme Court is best positioned to reflect the role that it plays now in the affairs of citizens of the ACT.

Mr Speaker, I note that this motion "calls on the Government", rather than "directs the Government", to arrange for the Supreme Court building to display the coat of arms of the city of Canberra. The Government will certainly take on board any call which the Assembly makes upon it to take such a course of action. The ACT Government, of course, will negotiate with the Supreme Court - as a separate arm of government and one with some measure of independence under the doctrine of the separation of powers - as to how this issue should be progressed.

I say that because I have to put on the record that there is some concern on the part of the Chief Justice about the proposal to remove the Commonwealth coat of arms. In that respect, I should point out that there is also a concern in that it has been suggested that, in fact, it may not be that the ACT Government is the legitimate owner of the coat of arms of the city of Canberra. The suggestion has been made that, in fact, that ownership has passed to the National Capital Authority rather than to the ACT Government. That is an interesting argument. It has been put to the Government, and we will be exploring that issue very vigorously. It obviously ought, as a matter of principle, to be a coat of arms

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