W hen Walter Burley Griffin was sacked as federal capital director of design and construction in 1921, it did not take long for Federal Capital Commission bureaucrats to begin meddling with his naming plans for Canberra's streets and avenues. Federal Avenue, the main axis linking Capital Hill and Market Centre at Russell Hill, was swiftly renamed Kings Avenue, and Australia Circuit in the Blanfordia 4 precinct (now Forrest) was renamed Empire Circuit. Little of that tendency to meddle - or to kowtow to the monarchy and its acolytes - appears to have changed over the years.
On February 7, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, evidently on the advice of officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, announced in Parliament that Parkes Place, named after the Father of Federation, Sir Henry Parkes, was to be renamed Queen Elizabeth Terrace to mark the diamond jubilee of the Queen's accession to the throne. This was in addition to a $5 million contribution from the people of Australia to the establishment of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, and the issuing of a jubilee stamp and coin by Australia Post and the Royal Australian Mint.
It is not the first time Sir Henry Parkes has been sidelined to make way for the Queen. A $5 note issued in 2001 featuring the portrait of the man described by The Times of London as ''the most commanding figure in Australian politics'' (along with Catherine Spence on the reverse) was later dropped in favour of a note with the Queen's visage on one side and a view of Parliament House on the other.
The parliamentary zone name-change, Gillard told Parliament, was ''historical protocol'' and would ''complement the names of the adjacent streets, Queen Victoria, King Edward and King George terraces''. But what of our obligation to honour and commemorate the great men and women of Australia and their achievements?
Australia is replete with streets, hospitals and other geographical landmarks named after the Queen. Many Australians would argue that a further show of deference, especially one that diminishes the memory and contributions of a great Australian statesman, is unwarranted. That it should have originated on the watch of a Labor government - a party ostensibly committed to an Australian republic - is doubly depressing. Prince Charles and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, are due in Canberra next month to oversee the official renaming of Parkes Place. Leaving the name Parkes Place well alone and having the royal couple plant a eucalyptus there instead would have been a more appropriate gesture, and one reflecting a healthy regard for our own national achievements and place in the world.
Police set example
F
ront-line police work carries with it a significant risk of injuries to officers and to members of the public. In terms of its use of non-lethal force, however - particularly with regard to electro-shock weapons - ACT Policing rates as one of the more restrained of Australia's law enforcement agencies. That is one of the conclusions to be drawn from a report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman into the use of Tasers (defined as drawing, aiming or discharging the device) by specialist response teams from their introduction in August 2011 to April 2012. It found that in that time, officers used Tasers 31 times, discharged them three times, aimed them at a person without discharging them on 16 occasions, and drew them from their holsters 12 times. In 14 of the 31 incidents, those facing the response teams were armed. On the three occasions that Tasers were discharged by police sergeants, two incidents involved a person running at officers brandishing a knife and the third occurred after an officer was allegedly assaulted. Warnings were issued before the officers discharged the Tasers.
The most contentious aspect of the report was the finding that barely half the officers who drew their Tasers tried first to verbally de-escalate the confrontation, though the authors noted this may be because officers had simply forgotten to record it in their formal reports.
The report is very different to one by the NSW Ombudsman into Taser use by NSW police. It found this week that in 27 cases, officers were not under serious threat and should not have discharged their Tasers at all. Perhaps NSW police commanders would benefit from studying ACT Policing's approach to the operational use of the devices.
No comments:
Post a Comment