Page 1829 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
only the sensitivity of the people of Canberra to that tag but also the inaccurateness of the comment when they say, "Canberra today did this". They should be more responsible, as, indeed, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation have agreed to become more responsible. When referring to the decisions of the Federal Parliament they will now, I understand, be saying exactly that.
What we also have to realise is that, notwithstanding that 50 per cent of the population of the ACT is now employed in the private sector, a substantial amount of that private sector is here because it directly services the public sector which exists in the ACT. Fifty per cent is involved in the private sector; but, substantially, that private sector services the public sector in the ACT. So we should not say, in my view, "Do not refer to Canberra as being the seat of government". That is one of the attractions of Canberra. It is one of the ways in which the ACT should be promoted. It is on that positive note that any activity arising out of this motion, and the activities of the ABC and other groups involved with the promotion of the ACT, should be based. That is the line that they should take.
We should also be mindful that, while we are the seat of the Federal Government, we are a substantial player in the region. Canberra is a substantial player in the region. We are not talking about just the Australian Capital Territory and the residents within it; we are talking about the Canberra region. When we look at what it is that we wish to promote and defend and protect, it is the Canberra region. Substantial numbers of people who work in the ACT reside in Queanbeyan and bordering New South Wales. When we start to address the question of how we defend the ACT from such scurrilous attacks as were outlined by a range of earlier speakers, we have to be mindful that it is not just the ACT that we are defending. We have that wider context.
It should be done, as Mr Humphries suggested, on a multipartisan basis. I believe that all of the Independents here support the proposition. But there is a concern that, for short-term political gain, there are those amongst us who deride Canberra for decisions that this Assembly has made. That is something that I think we should rebuke and reject. It is not appropriate, in my view, when we make decisions in this Assembly on particular issues - whether on circuses, on pornography, or on any of a range of other matters that we discuss - that members of this Assembly turn around and start saying, "Oh, look at them. Look at the scumbags. They are in there. They have made us the porn capital of Australia", and other such things. When we sheet home the blame for the name that Canberra has, people in this Assembly should be very well aware that some of the blame resides with them and their attitude to the ACT and to Canberra, and, indeed, to this Assembly.
In supporting the proposition put up by Mr Kaine, I believe that all members and all constituents in the ACT should be mindful that the blame does not have to be sheeted home only to the people in Victoria and members for this Federal seat or that Federal seat; we should also look at our own doorstep, Mr Deputy Speaker.
MS SZUTY (12.02): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support Mr Kaine's motion bringing the article in the Melbourne Age to the ACT Legislative Assembly's attention. I must admit that so far I have been disappointed with the tone of this debate. It appears to have degenerated into a debate on how Labor and Liberal policies variously affect the ACT. As a member of the Tourism Committee, I have seen many cases where Canberra is used as a substitute for the Federal Parliament,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .