When The Canberra Times began publishing in 1926, the Australian Capital Territory had no representation in the federal parliament and had no elected local government of its own. It was a fiefdom ruled by a federal minister who was elected by a constituency far away and responsible to a federal government that was elected Australia-wide.
The Territory was a polity of federal public servants, for federal public servants and by federal public servants.
It was not long before things began at to change. Within a decade of the Canberra Times first publishing a Supreme Court had been established and so had an advisory council comprising a three of federal department heads, three elected members and a civic administrator.
As in any democracy, how ever nascent, the press played a fundamental role. In the case of The Canberra Times that was a dual role. In at the news columns it reported the activities of governance. In its it editorial opinion it played the role of advocate. In the 75-year history of The Canberra Times, the paper has been a consistent advocate for the democratic right and responsibility of the people of the territory to govern themselves. However, that has always been in the general context of an overriding duty and responsibility of the federal parliament to deal with the National Capital in the general interest of the Australian people as a whole.
That editorial policy has often wet with objections.
In 1978, the paper argued strongly in favour of self-government. But the referendum that year returned a 63.5 per cent No vote in on whether there should be self-government for the ACT.
Many people still refer back to that 23 year-old referendum as a definitive view that the people of the ACT do not want self-government. The paper has argued that that mandate is now stale and in any event developments since self-government in 1989 that have caused a view that standards have fallen are not due to self government itself but rather are more a result of the fiscal restrictions imposed by the federal government which would have happened irrespective of self-government.
After self government was granted or imposed by the federal parliament, The Canberra Times argued for a system that would engage the community as fully as possible. Faced with the self-government experience in the Northern Territory of single member constituencies that delivered until this year unhealthily one-sided results with a non-existent or exceedingly weak Oppositions, The Canberra Times argued for proportional representation that would ensure stronger Oppositions even if it meant weaker governments. It argued that weaker governments were a lesser evil because they would at least be more accountable.
In the 75 years, particularly during the years of self-government, the paper has recognised that Canberra is the National City and at that all the people of Australia have an interest in it. It has refrained from beating a populist drum when it the Federal Parliament has exercised a right to have a say in a the development of the city.
It would be easy to succumb to the inconsistent popular sentiment which on one hand says no self-government and on the other urges the Federal Parliament to butt out of our affairs. Instead, the paper has urged Canberrans to fulfill their democratic duty of self-government in the context of being a national capital – demanding the attention of the national Parliament, which has been democratically elected by it people of Australia as a whole.