Page 4093 - Week 14 - Thursday, 25 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not theatres, they nevertheless take performances away from the Theatre Centre, and it is our intention that we should not duplicate facilities. If there are facilities in the ACT that handle performances, we do not need to spend millions of dollars replicating them.
Secondly, the Theatre Centre is having some trouble in attracting all the shows it would wish because of technical limitations such as the size of the stage, the size of the fly tower, and so on. We have listed those. It is also, according to many, not quite the right size. There is an argument, which I accept, that we need 2,000 seats in order to provide an economic theatre, so that we can attract the crowds and get the shows in and out quickly and in that way be economic. Thirdly, there is another factor which causes troubles to the Canberra Theatre Trust, and that is a policy of the major funded and non-funded touring companies, which now require that the Canberra Theatre Trust underwrite the risk of any venture. Some of the non-funded ones, supposedly entrepreneurial, seem to wish to take no risk at all. Obviously the theatre company cannot accept the considerable risk that is often entailed.
For these reasons, while the Canberra Theatre Trust is continuing to provide high quality entertainment, it is nevertheless finding it difficult to attract all the shows it would wish. We believe that the construction of a 2,000-seat lyric theatre, though it would bring increased productions to Canberra, would not bring them in sufficient numbers to justify the very considerable expenditure that that theatre would entail. There was an expectation that there would be an 800-seat theatre specifically for drama, and we recognise that as a very high priority. There have been suggestions that perhaps the existing theatre could be remodelled to take 800 only, but we believe we cannot justify pulling 400 seats from the present theatre to enable the creation of a more specialist theatre.
The Canberra Theatre is filled beyond 800 seats on many occasions and it serves adequately, if not perfectly, as a drama theatre now, so we did not propose a replacement drama theatre of some 800 as has been frequently expected. It may be that the Playhouse Theatre will be demolished. I would regret that. I think that, if we could have our time again, that would be seen as unnecessary. If it is demolished as part of the casino project, it would need to be replaced as a matter of high priority.
Mr Speaker, my colleagues on the committee, Dr Kinloch and Mr Stefaniak, may have something more to say about the Playhouse, and certainly the Link theatre space which we wish to keep. I will conclude by making greater comment on those matters that we have recommended, or that we have flagged that we will recommend in our substantive report, as providing the cultural precinct, at this stage, on section 19.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .