Page 4971 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY: In regard to the first half of Mrs Dunne’s question, I will check that. I cannot tell whether Mrs Dunne thinks that there is a problem or if she just wants to know, but I will make sure that I have a fully factual answer for her.
In terms of the second half of the question, we have discussed this many times. We have an extensive range of protections in place for staff, ranging from training and clinical techniques through to physical security responses.
ACT Supreme Court—coat of arms
MR HANSON: My question is to the Attorney-General: it has been reported in the Canberra Times that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has decided not to include the Canberra coat of arms in the new Supreme Court building and is considering creating a new insignia. I have been approached by many in the legal profession who have expressed outrage at the decision not to include the coat of arms and who have apparently taken to refusing to bow when entering the courtroom. When did you first become aware that the Chief Justice had decided not to include the existing coat of arms in the new courtrooms?
MR RAMSAY: I thank Mr Hanson for the question. There has been some consideration around a new coat of arms. In terms of the particular date, I will take that on notice. It was several months before the opening of the new building.
MR HANSON: Minister, whose decision is it to place or not place a coat of arms in the court buildings and court rooms? Is that the government’s decision or is it the judiciary’s decision?
MR RAMSAY: It is a matter that we have worked very closely on with the judiciary and that is certainly something that we take very seriously not only in terms of the working of the court but also the separation of powers and the rightful place of the judiciary—
Mr Hanson: On a point of order, I fear that you may not get to the direct answer before sitting down. If I could, on a point of order of relevance—and I appreciate he has only just started—the question is: in law, whose decision is it? Is it the judiciary or is it the government that makes these decisions?
MADAM SPEAKER: Attorney-General to the point, you have most of your two minutes left.
MR RAMSAY: Thank you very much. It is a matter that we believe is important for us to work together with the judiciary on. In terms of the decision within the court building, the judiciary has made clear that they would prefer not to have the current Canberra coat of arms.
One of the things that we will continue to do is invest in the best access to justice. Our investment in—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video