Page 1767 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The final recommendation, recommendation 5, is:
The Committee recommends that the funding made available for the conversion of the Fitters’ Workshop be retained for funding and construction of the purpose-built building for Megalo at the Kingston Arts Precinct be retained and applied for that purpose.
I also want to point to the fact that we heard from a number of people, including the National Trust, in relation to this being a multi-use space and a performance space, that it is not just about the performance itself but about the uniqueness that the building has in having this as a performance space. I would like to refer to comments from the Creative Director of the Centenary of Canberra around this particular point. They were included in the report and were obtained through an FOI request from Mrs Dunne. The first point states:
While Print might appear to be an excellent fit with glass, I personally feel there’s a danger that the space will become quite audience passive. While the glass workshop itself is an exciting making-place, it is still mainly a spectator activity and a print workshop is even less dynamic—and exhibition spaces for both tend to be quite delicate and passive. I would love to imagine that there could be a combination of glass and print exhibitions in this space (perhaps on a rotating calendar) as well as leaving some gaps for performance and more active engagement with the space. I believe this kind of rotation/shared calendar would animate the beautiful old space more dynamically with a wider range of offerings for a wider demographic than would a single focus on prints …
Moving towards 2013 there will be an increased need for flexible spaces, and this is one of the very few which makes sense in terms of the size of audience which might be accommodated.
It is worth pointing to those sorts of comments from the creative director of the centenary. And we heard other comments to that effect.
I note that the committee commissioned the acoustic reports. Both of those reports came up with very similar findings. It is worth pointing to those, because there have been a number of comments made about those particular reports. They did find that it was a unique space. There have been comments made about the limited types of performances that could be in there. Yes, it is a particular type of performance, but there are a number of different music forms and art forms that can be accommodated within the criteria. That point is worth making in terms of comments that have been made that it is restrictive and there would not be many sorts of performances that could be in there.
I will restrict my comments to that. I appreciate the involvement of everyone who made submissions and gave evidence. As I said, people were very passionate about it. That became very clear throughout the whole process. I do hope, as I have said, that people take the report on its face value. There was a lot of work put into this. A lot of consideration went in from the committee. Again I want to point out the fact that this in no way was about impacting on Megalo’s reputation. I know I have already said it, but I refute any claims that have been made to that effect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video