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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 375 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

which belongs to the ACT community in the name of the ACT Government. We will be taking steps, if there is any doubt about that question, to resolve that issue in favour of the ACT. I do not anticipate any problem on that score. So, there is a question of negotiation with the Supreme Court about that matter. As I say, I will take back to the Supreme Court the view of the Assembly, should this motion be passed today.

Mr Speaker, there is also a question of the ACT considering the heritage implications of the coat of arms which lies on the face of the building and elsewhere within the building. About two or three years ago, there was an assessment made of the heritage status of the Supreme Court building. Mr Speaker, that resulted, I understand, in a decision to not at that stage list the building for heritage classification; but the issue is, I understand, to be returned to at some point. On that basis, I propose the following amendment, which has been circulated in the chamber:

Paragraph (4), omit "in place of the Commonwealth coat of arms".

Mr Speaker, for heritage reasons, it might be considered appropriate to leave in their present positions some of the coats of arms as they occur around the building. The motion seems to suggest that there is only one coat of arms on display in the building. In fact, there are several. I think, to clarify the matter, should the Assembly support this motion today, it would be appropriate for there to be an ACT or city of Canberra coat of arms displayed prominently in a number of positions around the building. I am not certain that that necessarily means that we should remove any particular coat of arms from its present position as it now stands, as it is going to remind members that there are coats of arms of jurisdictions which have ceased to have sway over many courts in this land. Particularly if you travel out to Yass, for example, you can see the royal coat of arms over the building of the Yass Local Court. I do not think anyone would argue that they should be removed, given their historical value.

So, Mr Speaker, this is a matter for negotiation. The points Mr Osborne raises in the chamber carry significant weight in the eyes of the Government, and the Government will certainly not be opposing this motion. However, I move the amendment which has been circulated in my name and suggest that it gives us the opportunity to consider that question in negotiations with the Supreme Court.

Let me close by making an important point about the need to negotiate. We forget that there are three arms of government in our Westminster system. The Supreme Court - or the court system, generally - is an arm of government. It is not merely a mechanism to serve government; it is an arm of government, the third arm of government. It has certain independence on that basis. Therefore, we ought to treat with some sensitivity the question of what protocols surround the operation of the court and the way in which the court's needs are met through central government funding. Nonetheless, it is entirely appropriate that the ACT be in a position to exercise influence over a building which it owns, which it operates and which it funds. That is the point of this motion, Mr Speaker. For that reason, the Government will not be opposing the motion and will be urging the Assembly to support the amendment which I have just moved.

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