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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 146 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

and to hold the Convention Centre for that stage. Some other accommodation places in Canberra had taken bookings. Hundreds of hours of planning had been undertaken by people within the private sector and within the Chief Minister's Department. I have no doubt that hundreds of hours of Public Service time were expended on this project - hundreds of hours of Public Service time now wasted.

The submission I refer to set out a list of some of the negative impacts of the decision to move CHOGM from Canberra to Brisbane. I will read those out because I think they are quite significant. I do not think it is an exhaustive list. According to the combined business communities of the ACT, the Prime Minister has damaged the reputation of Canberra as a national and international destination for key conference organisers. He has lost significant national and international exposure for the Australian capital region. He has caused the loss of significant revenue for the region. He has caused the loss of business for a number of traders, with significantly reduced lead time in which to find alternative business for the period. He has negated the considerable effort already expended promoting Canberra as a competitive world-class convention destination. He has reduced participation by the national capital in the centenary year of Federation. (Extension of time granted) He has raised questions about the long-term ability of Canberra to fulfil some aspects of its role as the national capital. To some extent the business communities are being more than kind to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has degraded and degenerated Canberra as the national capital in a way that I do not think any other Prime Minister in Australia's history has done. Riding on the back of his decision not to live here and his decision to scorn Australia as the national capital, his decision to remove this significant conference simply confirms in the minds of all Canberrans and all Australians that our Prime Minister, the leader of our nation, has so little respect for Canberra as a national capital that he has diminished it in the eyes of all Australians and perhaps throughout the world.

The diminishing of Canberra as the national capital will have the most severe impacts on Canberra in the long term. The people of Australia, through the actions and attitudes of their Prime Minister, will be encouraged to scorn and belittle the national capital, to scorn and belittle Canberra. We know that in the past we have struggled significantly to raise the reputation and standing of Canberra in the eyes of the Australian people.

Unfortunately, it is an aspect of the Australian character and personality to translate into their attitude to Canberra as the national capital some of the attitude which Australians have towards figures of authority and towards authority generally. That impacts on us negatively in so many ways. We are held responsible for so many of what the people throughout Australia regard as some of their other problems.

To the extent that Canberra does rely so heavily on tourism, mainly national tourism, this attitude of the Prime Minister is so incredibly damaging to us. We do rely extensively on tourism from Australians to generate and drive the industry base here in the ACT. I think only one per cent of tourists to the ACT are from overseas. For 99 per cent of our tourism we rely on Australians. To the extent that the Prime Minister continues to disseminate this incredibly damaging view of Canberra, he damages us more and more.

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