Page 4097 - Week 14 - Thursday, 25 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this national capital, will have for its cultural facilities, and the committee secretary had the same stance. In other words, we were concerned about the vision of the city for the future.
I endorse what my two colleagues have said. This is a unanimous report; we had relatively little disagreement in coming to these conclusions. Although some of them do seem to be contentious, they were not contentious for us by the time that we arrived at our final conclusions. Although some of us might have had different points of view at the beginning of the process, we were unanimous by the end. Let me talk briefly again about that vision.
Mr Stefaniak has already indicated that sections 3.18 to 3.23 relate to the possibility of a national theatre. I would just want to add this comment: who would have thought that our city would ever have had in it a national gallery of the dimensions and extent of the one across the lake? It is extraordinary for a city of a quarter of a million. But, of course, it is not being built for a quarter of a million; it is being built for the 20 million or 25 million people of Australia. Similarly with the National Library; how fortunate we are to have these national institutions.
The question of the national theatre I believe is in that same area. We do not have the population to justify the 2,000-seat theatre that we support. It is not economically feasible, as any careful look at the evidence reveals, especially that chart on page 8. But, if this is put in the same relationship to Canberra as the National Gallery and the National Library, then a wonderful national theatre surely should be on the drawing boards eventually. It is something the nation needs and might eventually afford, although perhaps this particular year is not the happiest time to be dealing with it.
I come to some of the short-term issues that Mr Wood has already raised, and come again to the question of Childers Street. We are dealing here with some immediate problems, as indeed the department of the arts is dealing with those problems. I note that the department of the arts is currently circulating a discussion paper on small-scale performing arts spaces, and our committee and the options in that document are really very close. We have to come to the recognition that the Tau Theatre has been destroyed and that there are other small theatres that do not have adequate space.
I would like to reflect on what we saw when we went to Childers Street. It is not in such a state of neglect as I had been led to suppose. It is still a sturdy building, but there are serious problems related to fire hazards. At first sight you would think it was a very poor quality building; but we understand that, given enough basic refurbishing, it could become a useful theatre for the sorts of needs that small groups have for the next five, 10
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .