Page 1830 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and almost always in a pejorative sense. We have come to know this phenomenon as Canberra bashing. Despite recent attempts to curb this national pastime, it flourishes throughout Australia, and any attempts to negate it are met with retorts alleging whingeing and the inability to recognise our privileged position within the national agenda.
Most Canberra bashing is generated by people who live outside the ACT choosing to ignore the fact that people live and work here. This ignores the fact that Canberra has only four Federal Parliament representatives and cannot in all fairness be held to be to blame for all the decisions coming from Capital Hill. The impression I have gained from press articles and from recent attempts by the media to change this attitude is that people interstate still feel that public servants are villains who have ruined the country and that they and their masters are unique to Canberra. This flies in the face of logic when it is considered that most MPs and senators do not live in Canberra. Even the public servants who do have often been transferred from interstate. The guilt by association that Canberra suffers is the result of people ascribing to all residents some role in the bad news that has befallen the Australian economy in recent years. As we now have self-government and our industry base is shifting from the public sector to the private sector, this observation is no longer appropriate.
The Standing Committee on Tourism and ACT Promotion has recognised the phenomenon of Canberra bashing in the terms of reference for its current inquiry. My fellow members of that committee, Mr De Domenico and Mr Lamont, also took part in a forum organised as a result of an anti-Canberra-bashing drive undertaken by local ABC radio station, 2CN. Local enthusiasm was generated by this campaign, which included a link-up to Melbourne to allow an exchange of views on the subject. However, it appears from the Melbourne Age article referred to in Mr Kaine's motion that we have not achieved much. There is no doubt in my mind that Canberrans suffer as a result of Canberra bashing, and that the ACT also suffers because of the negative feelings such stories and headlines generate. A promotional campaign a few years ago urged Canberrans to become ambassadors for their city; but I can understand that that may be difficult, if not impossible, when the rest of Australia associates us only with the Federal Government, harsh decisions, large memorials and good roads. The consequences are a lowering of the self-esteem and morale of the people who live and work here in Canberra.
It is important that we, as members of this ACT Legislative Assembly, promote Canberra as much as we can and act as ambassadors for our city and our Territory. It seems to me to be most important that this Assembly, or the Canberra community, or anyone, for that matter, come up with an appropriate name for the Federal Parliament - perhaps "Capital Hill", or "the House on the Hill", or perhaps another name. If we come up with an appropriate name for the Federal Parliament that sticks, we may well be able to eliminate much of the Canberra bashing that affects us now. I support Mr Kaine's motion, and I urge my fellow members to support it also.
MR MOORE (12.06): It seems to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that members will be supporting this motion, as, indeed, I will be; but I cannot help thinking that we are just a little precious. Had I been dealing with a similar situation in the schoolyard with one of my children, I guess I would say, "When people are having a go at you, perhaps they are jealous". I think people have a very good reason to be jealous, because Canberra is a beautifully planned city. It is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .