CITY OF CANBERRA

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17954, 5 December 1932, Page 9

CITY OF CANBERRA

MANY MISCONCEPTION’S NEW ZEALANDER’S EXPERIENCE SYDNEY, Nov. 24. Except for the few who have actually paid a visit to the Federal capital city, New Zealanders afe credited with having a poor conception of Canberra. If this is so, there is every excuse. Thousands of Australians know very little about theircapital city, so it is scarcely |o be expected that New Zealanders wfliild be better informed.

The New Zealand conception of Canberra was mentioned this week in the Magistrate’s Court, when an auctioneer was charged with selling- in Canberra without first having secured a territory licence. On his behalf it was explained by a solicitor that he was a recent arrival from New Zealand. Immediately he reached Sydney he took out an auctioneer’s licence and went to Canberra under the impression that it was part of New South Wales. He thought his State licence would be legal within the capital territory. Defendant told his solicitor that the general impression in New Zealand was that Canberra was comprised of Parliament House and one dr two buildings thereabouts.

The solicitor said that the sale was “just starting to get a move on” when it was stopped; partly by compulsion on the part of the police, and partly because his client did not want to break the law. It was estimated that he lost at least £IOO through the sale being stopped. He did not tliink that the breach of the law was very serious. The Magistrate: So serious that they can fine him up to £2OO. In New South Wales I think they can fine him nothing else. Defendant, who lives at Bondi, Sydney, was lined £?. And so it is that at least one New Zealander’s conception of Canberra has undergone a change. There are guides iii Canberra now* and they would he delighted to have an opportunity of enlightening others.