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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4300 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

There are a series of guidelines that guide the committee in its decision making and in its recommendations to the government. But to suggest, through legislation, that the process should be prescriptive-in the way that Ms Dundas has suggested in her amendment-is unnecessary.

A couple of myths need to be put to bed. The first is the myth that the Place Names Committee in some way has sought to perpetuate the preponderance of male names in place naming. Let me turn to the most recent example: the suburb of Gungahlin and the motion of disallowance that was raised by Ms Dundas in the last sitting.

The theme of the suburb of Gungahlin is industrialists. The committee searched broadly for opportunities to name after both men and women within the theme of industrialists. It was not possible to do that within the theme as it was defined. Indeed, the theme of industrialists had to be significantly expanded to include unionists and small business operators in order to find women who could be commemorated.

That is a commentary on the Australian community and society in the past. But the whole point of place naming is to reflect the historical evolution of our society. Canberra's place naming, not Canberra's nomenclature, is unique.

Whilst I have no difficulty with the expansion of the criteria of industrialists to include unionists and small business operators, I think it highlights the issues the Place Names Committee faces. It is unreasonable in the extreme to suggest that the Place Names Committee is seeking to perpetuate an agenda of only recognising men.

As Ms Gallagher has pointed out, three of the five members of the Place Names Committee are women-very well-respected women from a range of fields: a journalist, and a historian. I am not familiar with the field of expertise of the third member. The Place Names Committee unanimously agreed that this legislation is unnecessary.

I know that members of this place, including me, sometimes like to feel that they are expert on a whole range of issues, but it is incumbent on members to treat the advice of the Place Names Committee seriously. I am not asking you to accept that advice, but I am asking you to take it seriously and to take account of the issues the Place Names Committee seeks to address in place naming and of the fact that, progressively over the past three to five years, a much broader range of men and women from all fields of endeavour and of public service are being commemorated. And that is the way it should be.

The earlier naming of Canberra suburbs reflect the mores of the time. The suburbs in the inner north and the inner south of Canberra are overwhelming dominated by men because it was only men who were deemed worthy of public commemoration. That was wrong, but those were the mores of the time. That was society as it then existed.

Go to the suburbs of Gungahlin now, particularly the suburbs developed since self-government, and you will see a far greater diversity of names of people and levels of public service being commemorated-indigenous people, women, people who work in the community sector, people who work as unionists and people who work in a range of other fields of endeavour. And that is entirely appropriate.

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