There needs to be a new national commitment to the ACT. Without this, Canberra's special status as Australia's capital will continue to be eroded and the ambition of past prime ministers, such as Ben Chifley and Sir Robert Menzies, will be compromised. Australians today too often view Canberra as just a city full of federal politicians.
The distinctive place of Canberra was recaptured fleetingly by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the recent opening of the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University. Rudd said, ''As the Government refreshes Australia's national commitment to the ANU, we intend to recognise its unique place in the national educational firmament.'' He spoke of the special role of the ANU in Canberra and how it had been created through strong federal leadership.
ANU vice-chancellor Ian Chubb said the remarks were a ''significant turnaround, given that over the years the way successive governments have recognised and supported the ANU has slowly diminished''.
Chifley led the creation of the ANU by an Act of Parliament in 1946. When he was defeated at the 1949 federal election, the task of developing Canberra as the national capital fell to Menzies. Faced with comments such as Canberra being ''a cemetery with lights'' and ''the ruin of a good sheep station'', he publicly declared an ambition to ''build up Canberra as a capital in the eyes and minds of the Australian people''. He brought energy and ambition to the task, as well as the political will to achieve his goals.
This spirit needs to be recaptured today, with a renewed focus on the unique place of Canberra not only as the seat of national government but as a city for all Australians. Past governments have failed to achieve this. John Howard was unable even to make Canberra his home, while other politicians have more commonly referred to Canberra with derision rather than as a model city for the nation.
When it comes to party policy, there is no evidence of an ambition to drive the next stage in Canberra's development. None of the recent consultation draft of Labor's national platform, the federal platform of the Liberal Party or the policy documents of the Greens or Nationals even mention the national capital. While party policies have brought a strong focus to the improvement of northern Australia and other regions, there is a striking lack of vision when it comes to Australia's national capital.
The fact that Canberra is off the policy radar shows up in how federal governments allocate scarce funding. The ACT receives its fair share of support for national projects such as the broadband network, but when it comes to additional discretionary payments for local community projects, the ACT can fare poorly.
Our system of government means that specific project grants can be affected by local and state political considerations. For example, the Howard government was prepared to allocate millions of dollars of extra funding to save the Mersey Hospital, which just happened to fall in a marginal seat in Tasmania. When it comes to the Rudd Government's recent budget, $22billion was allocated for nation-building infrastructure projects. The centrepiece was $8.5billion for improvements to roads, rail and ports around the nation, but none of these funds were committed to the ACT. This money is being invested in urban infrastructure to create jobs and make Australian cities more productive and better places to live. The fact that the ACT has lost out is a source of great concern.
These funding outcomes reflect the major legal and political problems facing the ACT. First, Canberra has only a few representatives in the Federal Parliament. Tasmania has a population of nearly 500,000 people, and has five representatives in the Lower House and 12 in the Senate. The ACT with about 350,000 people has only four members across both chambers, the same as the Northern Territory, with its population of about 200,000. Per capita, the ACT has fewer federal representatives to fight for its interests than any other state or territory.
This undoubtedly has an impact in the competition for federal funding and resources, especially when no ACT representative sits in the federal cabinet or shadow cabinet.
In fact, not only does the ACT have the worst level of federal representation, it is the only jurisdiction without a federal minister. The Northern Territory, for example, has Warren Snowdon in the Labor ministry.
Second, Canberra has no truly marginal seats. When it comes to the division of resources between areas, there can be little political incentive to fund local projects in the ACT. This makes the ACT an unlikely target for discretionary funding.
Third, Canberrans are treated as second-class citizens under the Constitution. A person living in the ACT did not get to vote in any referendum until after 1977. Since then their vote is still worth only half of that of someone living in a state because it counts only for the national tally and not the separate state count. In addition, where the Constitution confers rights and benefits, such as freedom from discrimination due to place of residence, these are often expressed or have been interpreted by the High Court to only protect states and their people.
These structural problems make it harder for our local political leaders to address the environmental, economic and other challenges facing Canberra. The very fact that, according to the constitutional settlement of 1901, the national capital was created inland and at a distance from other major cities continues to cause significant problems. These include the fact that the ACT is projected to be the hardest hit overall by climate change of all the states and territories. As the national capital, Canberra is also uniquely vulnerable to shifts in federal funding and employment. These challenges represent an ongoing threat to the quality of life of the people of the ACT.
With the Federal Government embarking on unprecedented nation-building in areas such as transport and infrastructure, Canberra needs to be seen as central to such plans. Its role as the national capital and as a model Australian city needs to be reasserted. As the Federal Parliament's Committee on the National Capital and External Territories recommended in 2008 in regard to the National Capital Authority, the Commonwealth should ''affirm its direct and enduring commitment to the future of Canberra as a planned national capital on behalf of all Australians''. That committee, chaired by Senator Kate Lundy, recognised a number of areas where the Commonwealth should better engage with the ACT, such as in regard to preparing a sustainable transport plan.
More broadly, the Commonwealth could do more to improve funding of development and infrastructure in the ACT that will benefit the local community.
This should be part of a contemporary vision of Canberra as the nation's capital.
The Rudd Government should recapture the vision of Chifley and Menzies in developing Canberra as a capital and city of which all Australians can be proud.
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor at the University of NSW and a visiting fellow at the ANU College of Law.