Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3041 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
You state that the Commonwealth Government is supportive of your Government's China policies and initiatives-does this apply specifically to the sister city proposal? I would appreciate copies of any correspondence between you and the Commonwealth on the proposal."
The Chief Minister responded to that letter on 28 August, just over a week or so ago, thanking me for my letter and purporting to provide the information that I had sought. The Chief Minister did repeat some of the things that she mentioned in her speech about the links that already exist and the fact that there has been a range of negotiations. An MOU resulted from a meeting between the Canberra/Beijing Cooperative Business Council at its meeting in March 2000 in Canberra. Ms Carnell also mentioned visits between the two cities, opportunities for business, and the desire that Beijing has expressed over the past few years to enter into a sister city relationship et cetera.
Then, in relation to the specific question of whether we have had any approaches from any other cities, I was somewhat surprised to be advised that, in addition to the fact that we had been negotiating with Beijing for some years, over the last three years the following cities had also approached Canberra with regard to developing sister city relations: Zakopane in Poland, Port Moresby, Samara in Russia, Atlanta in the United States, Ottawa in Canada, Ãanakkale in Turkey, Pretoria in South Africa and Beijing in China. The Chief Minister advised that the only one of these approaches that had been responded to in any positive way, that in effect had not been unilaterally rejected or denied by the ACT government, was that of Beijing.
I think it is very unfortunate that we in this Assembly learn in this way, after the event, that in fact eight cities over the last couple of years have made an approach. I think it is a pity that none of this has been put on the table, that none of it has been exposed to the light of day and that none of those initiatives have been pursued.
That begs a number of questions, of course, about things other than the arrangement with Beijing. It begs a question or two about the sister city notion and the sister city relationships. Exactly what are they? What are they intended to achieve? Why is it that we enter into those sorts of relationships in any event? To the extent that the Chief Minister sought to answer that question in her correspondence to me, she talked about-
Ms Carnell: If you had listened to my speech, it was in there.
MR STANHOPE: Yes, I am acknowledging that. The Chief Minister did seek to acknowledge the benefits. She indicated that there are significant economic benefits and that these are reflected in the cooperative arrangements that are resulting from the work, in particular, of the Canberra/Beijing Property Business Council.
In response to some of the other specific questions that I asked the Chief Minister, she gave me specific advice in relation to the support. The question that I asked in particular was this:
I note that there has been extensive consultation with relevant organisations. I would like to know the names of the organisations consulted and their responses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .