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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2510 ..

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, on the last point of order, I would ask Mr Hargreaves to withdraw that reference to the Chief Minister.

Mr Berry: Which one?

MR HUMPHRIES: He referred to her as a "silly woman". I think it is highly inappropriate. Members of the other side of the chamber have taken that point before, Mr Speaker.

Mr Hargreaves: Without reservation, I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr Berry: I am happy to withdraw any imputation against Mr Murphy, but there has been petty corruption of the process, and I think that needs to be addressed.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I am pleased that that was withdrawn. I thought it was a pretty cheap shot. My question is to the Attorney-General. Minister, you will recall that this Assembly passed a motion, from memory, last year in relation to the replacing of the Commonwealth coat of arms with the ACT coat of arms outside the Supreme Court building. You can imagine my surprise, Minister, when I was recently going past that building and discovered that the coat of arms had not been replaced. Can you tell me why you have chosen to ignore the will of this Assembly and have not done as the Assembly has requested and replaced the Commonwealth coat of arms with the ACT coat of arms?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Osborne crash tackles an issue of high sensitivity between the judiciary and the Executive. Perhaps he is a braver man than I am, but I have taken a more cautious approach than he has on the issue of the coat of arms on the court. I have to advise the house that two problems have emerged with the changing of the coat of arms on the court. The first and fundamental problem is that the building is nominally a building under the control of the Supreme Court, and the Government is not technically able to move in and take down the coat of arms.

The second problems is a more interesting problem that Mr Osborne may not be aware of. An issue has been raised about to whom the coat of arms on the piece of glass behind you, Mr Speaker, belongs. The coat of arms of course is technically the coat of arms for the city of Canberra, and the city of Canberra was granted a coat of arms many years go, probably in the 1920s, by the authority in London which is responsible for the granting of coats of arms. The name of that authority, I am advised, is the Garter King of Arms.

Mr Speaker, an issue has been raised as to whether it is possible for the ACT to place its coat of arms on the Supreme Court. In other words, the issue of whether the Territory actually owns the arms of the city of Canberra has been raised. I am not sure on the answer to that question and the issue, I understand, has been raised with the relevant authority, which is the Garter King of Arms in London. I am not aware of any response yet to that issue. I did raise the issue only a few weeks ago with the head of my

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