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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4418 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I agree with you that those things were most unedifying and a sign of a lack of cooperation between two levels of government, but why do you assume that that is our problem rather than the Federal Government's problem? Where is the evidence that it was our problem rather than theirs?

Mr Speaker, as I say, we are seeing a grasping at straws in order to obviate a very obvious problem with the Opposition's performance on planning over the last three years. What we have seen from Mrs Carnell in the last few days, when she has talked about the need to rethink the responsibilities of the respective governments in the ACT over land, is a very good example of moving towards solving a problem with a structural change. At the simplest level, this is about the ACT Government being able to choose the colours of the pavers in Civic and the Commonwealth looking after the national triangle. That is an appropriate division of responsibility. That is what we should be working towards. Things which are genuinely the concern and the responsibility of the citizens of this Territory - things like what their Civic Square looks like - should be decided by the representatives of the people of Canberra, not by the Federal Government.

Both the Commonwealth Government and the ACT Government, I think, believe that Canberra's image as the national capital is extremely important. As the national capital, Canberra has to be presented and maintained in such a way that visitors are attracted to come here, to enjoy the experience of being here, and to become ambassadors for the national capital when they leave, particularly if they are Australians. To achieve those goals, there has to be a clear sense of who is responsible for what. The citizens of Canberra should not feel that they are living in a museum or paying for the lights at Parliament House. The Federal Government needs to present a cutting-edge image of Australia to the nation and the rest of the world, and it can do that by successfully negotiating a better balance in these matters. Mr Speaker, to achieve those outcomes we have to work in a partnership, and that is what this Government has attempted to do in the last three years.

The Commonwealth Government should accept full responsibility for the maintenance and presentation of those areas of the city which are associated with its role as the national capital. That obviously includes things like the Parliamentary Triangle, the main entrance roads to Canberra, Anzac Parade, the War Memorial, the airport and its approaches, the Duntroon-Russell precinct, diplomatic precincts, the Governor-General's residence and so on. There are very large parts of the city outside those areas which are presently under the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government and which ought to be the responsibility of the ACT. We discovered, for example, with the recent FAI Rally of Canberra that it was necessary to obtain the NCA's approval to conduct a rally through Stromlo Forest - a forest which the Federal Government has conceded is the responsibility of, and is owned fully by, the ACT. What possible interest does the Federal Government have in a forest well away from any national approach?

Mr Speaker, we have put on the table the need for reform in this area. We have progressed these issues by putting them up squarely to the Federal Government. It was last May that the ACT put to the Prime Minister the need to have reform of these arrangements between the two governments. That was reform which could have been advanced during the time of the previous ACT Labor Government, but was not.

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