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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3043 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

relationship, it is a real pity to enter into such a venture if you really have no way of knowing what your community, the community you represent, truly thinks about it.

A significant section of the Chinese community, those people in this community of Chinese heritage, a large, growing, influential and significant section of this community, in their discussions with me through their representatives, have been supportive of the proposal. Nevertheless, the broader community simply has not been involved. To the extent that we are to propose this as a special relationship, a sister city relationship, between this community and the Beijing community, I think that is a real pity.

To some extent I think this case almost represents how not to progress a sister city relationship. No real empathy has been developed within the Canberra community for the development of a special relationship between the people, not the governments, of Canberra and the people of Beijing. So I have major criticisms of the Chief Minister and the government for the way they have handled this. I think it has been handled extremely badly, with no consultation and with no attempt to genuinely justify why we should have a special relationship with Beijing.

That is not to say that I do not think sister city relationships have a role to play. I think they certainly do. I think they are a good thing. To some extent I was quite impressed by the information that the Minister for Education provided tonight. In fact Beijing, in its first sister city relationship, and we would be one of many, entered into a relationship with Tokyo. I think that provides significant food for thought. It is a great example of two historically warring enemies.

As the minister indicated, prior to and during the Second World War they were engaged in perhaps the most bloody conflict of the century. There are estimates that between 20 million and 40 million Chinese died in that conflict at the hands of the Japanese. Fifty years later the people of Beijing, having suffered the most appalling atrocities at the hands of the Japanese, were prepared, on a people to people basis, to enter into this sort of relationship with the people of Tokyo. I think that is a very significant fact. I think there is a real role for sister city relationships over and above economic advantages, but let us not be too holy about it.

There is very good reason for the ACT to engage with China, the sixth largest trading partner that Australia now has. There are very significant reasons for us to engage with the fastest growing economy and one of the most powerful economies in the world. Let us acknowledge that there are very good solid economic reasons for us to engage with China and for us to forge a special relationship with Beijing.

I think we need to recall in the context of this debate that what the government is proposing here is a municipal arrangement. This is not a government-to-government arrangement. In the context of sister cities, the Chief Minister in effect is acting in her role as mayor of Canberra, not as Chief Minister of the ACT. I think that is a factor that has been overlooked in the debate by those who have spoken against the proposal. This is a relationship being developed by mayor to mayor on behalf of the people, not by government to government, and it is a quite significant factor.

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