Page 4239 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
refers to an appropriate level of funding. Of course we are in favour of an appropriate level of funding, but I go on to make some more points.
Paragraph (2)(d) in my motion refers to making public the recommendations of the live music interdirectorate committee. That is one of the more frustrating things, because when you look at the government’s response to the planning committee’s inquiry into live community events, on five or possibly more occasions they say that the IDC has looked at this and made recommendations, but it does not say what the recommendations are. This is incredibly frustrating. If the government has done the work to look at these issues, why does it not share this with the public? I am, in fact, in the process of trying to do an FOI request on this subject. It is obviously a matter of public importance. Clearly, Dr Bourke’s motion has made it even more obvious that the public is concerned about this. It should be public.
In paragraph (2)(e) I have referred to the timing, and I have just mentioned that. Paragraph (2)(f) is to refocus the proposed scoping study for the performing arts hub to also address the lack of purpose-built venues for dance rehearsal and performance in Canberra. This has been a lack for a long time. I do not know what is going to happen to the Canberra Dance Theatre when the development in the ANU Exchange has finished, because I am aware that they are in temporary accommodation there next to the food co-op. I know the food co-op has a new home, but I have not heard that the dance theatre have.
This year I went to see Quantum Leap, and I must say that Quantum Leap, to my mind, is the absolute highlight of the ACT’s dance calendar for the year and one of the absolute best performances of the year. But this year we went out to the Q Theatre. I am not saying anything against the Q Theatre, but it is a much smaller venue than it has been at before and, of course, it is not in Canberra. I assume the reason they went there was a lack of facilities in Canberra. I cannot think why else they would, given that, to the best of my knowledge, it is still funded by the ACT government.
Paragraph (2)(g) is to revisit order-of-occupancy issues with regard to the friction between residential planning and live music venues. This was something that the planning committee covered at great length in its report. I was disappointed that not much was done about this in terms of the government’s response. This is a real issue. We had Toast and Gypsy Bar close down, and we have had McGregor hall close down. While I agree that was not because of that friction, McGregor hall was one of the few venues where live music could be loud and could be late because there were no residences around it. Places for people to be loud and late are not that common. I guess there is still Mooseheads and a few other very inner city ones, but it is an ongoing issue in Canberra
With the order-of-occupancy issues, we were looking at how we dealt with conflict between residential activities and activities which created significant amounts of noise. It is happening also out in Belconnen with the Lighthouse Bar, an existing bar which has some great live music. The DA has been passed for a residential development next to it, and certainly the licensee is of the belief that that will very likely lead to the demise of the Lighthouse. We need to have better decision making as far as these things are concerned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video