Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (8 April) . . Page.. 707 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

The community has played a major part in the development of the park, principally by way of the Canberra/Nara Sister City Committee - a committee which is made up of a broad spectrum of community representatives. Members will be aware that it was only after consulting with the committee that the Government resolved to retain the word "peace" in the title of the park. The committee believes that the name "Canberra/Nara Peace Park" expresses perfectly the relationship between the citizens of our two cities, which has been built up by many of our citizens and many of our schoolchildren paying reciprocal visits to Nara. I can report to members that the committee was dismayed by, as they called it, "the racism and bigotry displayed over this issue". It is important that we do not lose sight of the aims of this peace park and the sister city relationship between Canberra and Nara. Those things are particularly important.

That was why I was very disappointed when I heard Mr Whitecross burning up the airwaves in condemning the Government for failing to listen to the community on this issue. Clearly, he has a very strange idea of what constitutes the Canberra community and what listening is all about. Mr Whitecross seems to think that we should simply accept the views of Digger James, who does not live in Canberra, and maybe John Howard, who does not live here either. Indeed, I think that would be a very strange set of bedfellows - Digger James, John Howard and Andrew Whitecross. It was a very novel, new definition of community consultation: "Do not listen to the views of the Canberra-based committee that was set up to do this job; instead, listen to the advice of out-of-towners". I can only think that Andrew got a little befuddled towards the end of the week and forgot who lives in Canberra and who does not.

I would be very disappointed if those opposite did not support this approach on the peace park. I was hopeful early in this debate that it would not become a political issue. Certainly, I know that the relationship between Nara and Canberra was something very important to Rosemary Follett, Ms McRae and others who have been very much part of it. I hope very much that it was a momentary lapse from Mr Whitecross and that he did not really mean what he said at all.

Mr Berry: It was spot on.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Berry now says that it was spot on. I think that is a pretty unfortunate approach, Mr Whitecross.

Mr Berry: I think you are misinterpreting what he said and what his position is.

MRS CARNELL: No, not at all. I actually have the transcript, Mr Berry. What we will end up with next week, if Mr Berry and Mr Whitecross both believe that it is appropriate to take the views of Digger James and John Howard on the issue of a park name in Canberra, will be Mr Whitecross telling me that I should pay attention to Jeff Kennett on public sector policy, Rob Borbidge on native title or maybe Pauline Hanson on multiculturalism. I have to tell you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that I will not be doing that, because I believe we must keep this issue at a local level. We must not put ourselves in a position where we allow people who do not even live in this city to dictate what we should call a park or what the timeframe of our opening a park should be.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .