Keeping the Royal Coat of Arms
In Parliament last week, The Hon Peter Breen introduced the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill that is designed to end the practice of displaying the royal arms of the United Kingdom on our courts and Parliament and some other public buildings.
In Parliament, I said in opposing this bill “I would point out that it is incorrect to call it the coat of arms of the United Kingdom-it is the Royal coat of arms-and the proposal is to replace them with the New South Wales coat of arms. The New South Wales coat of arms includes the lion and the kangaroo, sheaves of wheat and the rising sun. The lion is not unique to Australia, nor is the rising sun. Would the motto “Newly risen, how brightly we shine” be a motto likely to be changed today? In other words, coats of arms are not necessarily relevant to all aspects of our culture, but they are part of our history and heritage and should remain.
The Government assures us that the royal coat of arms will not be removed dependent upon the opinion of the Premier to remove them. The opinion of the Premier is important-and I draw attention to his opinion given today on matters like rugby league and meat pies. Does Mr Carr take advice from John Singleton on issues such as the removal of these symbols and coats of arms? Every Premier can have different viewpoints on these matters. They are too important to be left to the Premier of the day.
The Christian Democratic Party opposes this Bill for four reasons.
First of all, the State arms are inappropriate for use by the Governor and the courts. The royal coat of arms symbolise the sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. The State coat of arms has always symbolised the Executive Government of the State. It is for this reason that the State coat of arms is used on the letterhead of government departments, and the royal coat of arms is used on judicial letterhead.
The judges are totally independent of the Premier and the Government of the day. That independence is symbolised by the fact they are appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the Government. Once appointed they are independent and free from interference by the Executive Government.
All the Judges in this State have sworn allegiance to the Queen and have also sworn to “well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II in the Office of a Judge…” The use of the State coat of arms would suggest that judges are servants of the State, of the Executive Government. This is not the case, and any suggestion to this effect is completely inappropriate. In the same way, the Governor is appointed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Premier and is independent of Executive Government; for it to be otherwise would give the wrong impression. The arms of the State, which include a kangaroo, have their rightful place, but I would hope that would not be in our courtrooms. Our courts are not kangaroo courts, and we would not wish to endorse legislation that could be ridiculed by the assertion that our courts are in fact kangaroo courts.
The second reason we oppose the bill is that it is an attack on our heritage. The royal coat of arms has developed a local identity and has become identified with the sovereign in her capacity as Queen of Australia. This is because they have been used in this State since 1788. Accordingly, they have enjoyed a continuous use for over 200 years. They form part of the social and physical heritage and history of this State. In these circumstances they should not be discarded. The royal coat of arms is displayed in many buildings, particularly courts and Government House. They have great heritage value.
We are an independent and mature nation. We should be proud to keep symbols that originated in other places. It does us no credit to disown our history. We value our language, the common law, and traditions and values that we have inherited and Australianised. Similarly, we should value the symbolism of the royal coat of arms.
The royal coat of arms, which was built into a large number of heritage courthouses in this State, which are still in use as courts, is as much a part of the fabric of those buildings as any column, ceiling or façade. Where would this stop? Would we remove Ionic columns from the front of neo-classical buildings because they are Greek? Would we remove the statues of mercy and justice at the Chief Secretary’s building? It would be an act of barbarism to remove those coats of arms-akin to the recent destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban. The Royal Coat of Arms are as much a part of the fabric of the buildings now as they were when the buildings were constructed, and as such they are part of our architectural and legal history.
The third reason why we oppose this bill, is that it is an example of creeping republicanism. Such a trend is inherently undemocratic. The issue of whether Australia should or should not become a republic was put to a referendum in 1999. It was decisively rejected by all six States. The “No” vote in New South Wales was 53.57 per cent. There is no mandate from the community to make this change.
The fourth point for opposing this bill concerns the cost. The removal of the existing royal coat of arms and its replacement by the State coat of arms will involve a substantial, unnecessary and unwarranted monetary cost. This must be met by the taxpayers. The expenditure will confer a detriment but not a benefit. It cannot be justified. I would have been more impressed if this bill had concluded with the following words: “The bill shall take effect on a day to be proclaimed by Her Excellency the Governor on the production of a certificate under the hand of the Premier first published in the Gazette certifying that the cost of implementing the Act will in no way reduce or come from funding for schools, hospitals, railways and other public transport, or the police.”
This bill is poorly crafted. It involves too many amendments and opposing viewpoints on whether the New South Wales Coat of Arms will replace all existing representation of the Royal coat of arms. I cannot support the bill.”
THIS IS GORDON MOYES.
