Page 2745 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Throughout the year we have many national events that bring visitors to Canberra from all over the country. It is in our community's interest to promote a more real picture of Canberra as home to 300,000 residents who pay taxes, contribute to the national agenda, and have the same problems and hopes that the rest of the country has. If we all defend our city at every possible chance and do not accept the arguments that come from friends and relatives that despite us as individuals this is a soulless place, we may eventually force Mr Carleton to abandon the old hackneyed story-line he presented on Sunday.
MR MOORE (3.53): Madam Speaker, I have two things to say on this. The first one is that if people now recognise what a biased program 60 Minutes is they ought to turn off their television at that time or change to a different channel. That will show up in the ratings. That is a positive response. Secondly, Toyota, realising what a biased program 60 Minutes is, should consider whether they should continue funding it.
Mr Kaine: "Please consider".
MR MOORE: "Please consider" - I think we have the wrong cars. They should not interfere editorially, but just consider whether or not they should fund it.
MR WESTENDE (3.54): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that those of us who have lived in Canberra for many years, if not all our lives, are pretty touchy when it comes to outsiders criticising our home town. We do not like it, and neither we should. However, the same could apply to any other town or city. When we think of the rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney and the lengths people go to, in not only continuing this rivalry but actually building on it, we can see that Canberra is pretty small fry in these stakes. It is natural for people to defend the place in which they live and it is equally natural for passers-through to pass some judgment on the place. Obviously, the traveller will pass judgment on quick observations and experiences. If these experiences happen to be not pleasant they will be inclined to say that they did not like the place. We are all guilty of passing quick judgments like this. From this viewpoint it is probably best for Canberrans to take a certain amount of this type of criticism on the chin, but not the nonsense that Mr Carleton peddles.
Obviously, as the national capital, we stand to attract criticism by the very nature of it being the capital and the seat of government. The public service has always been an easy target for criticism; but it can be a rather awesome and frustrating task for the uninitiated, for anyone from the general public, to actually receive quick satisfaction in their inquiries. Let us face it; even corporate giants, with all their resources, rely on specialist consultants in the area of government liaison. It is no wonder that people build a bad impression of government at work. Madam Speaker, the other difficulty that we face in Canberra is that it is a modern city, a planned city, so all the roads, buildings and parks are relatively new. It looks fresh and it looks affluent. We all know that jealousy is a curse. It only proves that Mr Carleton and his cohorts are just plain jealous. As a planned city, Canberra should look aesthetically good and it should function efficiently.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .