Fact
sheet as at 26 November 2020
This
information typically comes from an informal email group that has been
functioning since 1 May 2016. Over 100 active members include present and past
MAAS employees and volunteers, other Government employees and contractors, a
wide range of other people with skills in engineering, architecture and the
arts, and general museum members and supporters with many relevant skills and
experiences. Volunteers and employees have in the past been ordered to present
a favourable view of the ‘move’ of the museum, and employees feel that if they
express dissident views they will be discriminated against for future
employment Museum jobs are scarce and highly sought after, so this fear is
understandable. Other correspondents who have Government jobs or ties to
Government projects have similar concerns. In a rational democracy, such fears
should be groundless, but the irrational and arbitrary decision-making that is
demonstrated in these submissions cause people to lose confidence in democratic
processes.
The following FACTS have been proven over the six years. Our first
fact sheet was submitted to the Government in August 2017 and no contradictory
material has emerged even though they have been brought to the attention of all
concerned. On Monday 21 January 2019, for example, the Premier, the Arts
Minster and other politicians received, by registered mail and by email, an
updated fact sheet, with a covering letter formally requesting comment or
refutation, but consistently there has been no response. These matters were
also presented in a 1:1 interview with Ms Havilah at PHM at 12 noon on
Wednesday 6 November 2019 and she was invited to present any evidence of error
in any point. She has not been able to do so, and neither has any Government
politician or agency. (It is agreed that any communication with her is
equivalent to direct communication with the Arts Ministry / Department of
Premier and Cabinet, who are the executive arm of the proponents of this
project.) This sheet is the latest version and has been presented through the
normal channels to INSW, Create Australia and MAAS Museum, requesting that all
errors be reported to us We undertake to publicise widely any response. Full
references supporting each fact are available: check
https://powerhousemuseumalliance.com/ or email tomlockley@gmail.com
1. The idea of moving the
Powerhouse Museum was not researched. It
was an announced political decision in late 2014. CIPMO, Infrastructure NSW and
MAAS museum authorities have clearly stated that their actions have resulted
from this announced decision, and there was no pre-announcement research into
alternative strategies for the laudable objective of improving the cultural
facilities of Western Sydney.
‘The Powerhouse Museum will move
from Ultimo to Parramatta (Parramatta Advertiser,
November 26, 2014 10:35 am)
2. People with significant
experience and / or academic qualifications in museum work have been almost systematically
excluded from decision-making processes. Trustees
2014-20 have had no such people; no such people were found in an audit of
Johnstaff employees who prepared the 2018 Business Case; there were no such people involved in the
architectural work of the 2019-20 design competition; in the released SO52 documents no such people figured among addresses
involved in the planning; the firms who conducted the consultation processes
2017-20 (Elton consulting and Aurecon)
employed no such people. We have been able to document only a few hours of
consultation with any such people during the entire process.
3. There was no initial consultation
with stakeholders about the basic ‘move’ idea.
Even the trustees of the museum and Parramatta Council learnt of the idea from
reading about it in the newspapers.
4. This state of
affairs has continued: There has never been any later
consultation or research into alternatives to moving the Powerhouse Museum to
the site chosen by the Government in Parramatta. Sham consultations since mid-2017
have typically consisted of asking people what they wanted to see in the new
museum and asking for suggestions about the use of the Ultimo site. No notice
has been taken of the voluntary input from Inquiry submissions and the
avalanche of general criticism, often from very highly qualified and / or
experienced museum people. PR firms have been employed to present a favourable
image of the project, and the results of the ‘consultations’ do not reflect
this general criticism, only minor suggestions resulting from the consultations
being recorded in their final reports.
5. ‘Moving’ the Powerhouse is a very bad idea. Of all possible projects
for enhancing the cultural facilities of Western Sydney, it is hard to find one
that is more expensive, more destructive and more inefficient: The largest
objects have to be the last out of Ultimo and the first into any new building
at Parramatta, with consequent massive costs for storage and transit. There
will be a considerable resultant time delay, unnecessary with almost any other
project. The specially strengthened floors (for supporting heavy exhibits) and
ceiling (for suspending aircraft and other similar items), as well as the
extensive steam reticulation network, will be wasted at Ultimo and must be
replicated at considerable cost at Parramatta. The Harwood building, a state of
the art curatorial and storage facility in a great heritage building, will need
to be replaced at huge cost, with inferior facilities remote from any museum,
at Castle Hill. This process wastes, at the very least, some hundreds of
millions of dollars above what would be required for any other cultural /
educational project.
6. The magnificent soaring
galleries of the existing building cannot be replicated in Parramatta within the proposed new building. The proposed site is smaller
than the Ultimo site, and even now we are not clear on how much commercial
non-museum operations will impinge on the core mission of the museum. A further
complication is the unanimously expressed desire of Parramatta Council and
other significant organisations for the retention of heritage buildings on the
site. The unresearched decision to include a Planetarium within the museum (now
apparently abandoned) added further difficulties.
7. The
currently planned process involves a massive degradation of the Ultimo site, again for the purpose of building
commercial / residential towers to assist budgeting. There is a calculable
value of heritage in institutions such as the Powerhouse Museum, and this has
been totally ignored by the Government. The July 4 2020 announcement that three
iconic items would be retained at Ultimo and that the museum would remain open
was pleasing, but there has been no diminution in the process of removing items
from the Powerhouse Museum and no guarantee that the Harwood Building and the 1988
additions will be retained.
8. The
proposal has been the subject of almost universal criticism. The Government has been forced to hold two Legislative
Council Inquiries. Both attracted over 150 relevant submissions. Apart from the
Government submission, all organizational submissions, including those of the
National trust, only two gave qualified support for the move, and all others
completely opposed it. Of the over 100 individual submissions, some from very
highly qualified people, none supported the ‘move’. Non-Government witnesses
were universally condemnatory of the idea. The Save the Powerhouse Facebook page exemplifies the views of the general public with over 20,000 people involved in active
support. Mr Baird, asked at the Inquiry to name one arts group in favour of the
move, did not do so even when given three weeks to research the topic. We,
also, cannot find a legitimate grass-roots
organisation that recommends the ‘move’.
9. The site chosen by the
Government had been specifically rejected by the elected council prior to its
dissolution to enable forced council amalgamation. The land deal
was finalised by the unelected administrator, and has only
recently been approved by the Parramatta Council, Resolution 2790 which only
passed by the Mayor’s casting vote, a later recission motion being only
narrowly lost. The ‘Fleet Street’ precinct has a very strong
level of support as an alternative.
10. The Government has changed the
Business Case ‘Base Case’ criterion. The
Base Case is what happens if the status quo
is maintained as per TPP 08-5 section 4.2.
Logically, this should be the situation of the museum prior to the Government
decision of November 2014 but on 2 September 2018 we were advised that the
Government had changed the Base Case to the Government’s decision to ‘move’ the
museum. We have constantly sought details of the process, rationale
and legality of this decision without any response. It makes it very difficult for the project to have basic scrutiny.
11. The Government has falsely
claimed that the total project has been properly overseen by independent review
panels and peer review process. The Peer
Review process has been comprehensively shown to be false information. There
was no oversight as described by Mr Harwin on 29 August 2017. Despite
comprehensive enquiries, including a GIPA application, no information at all is
available about the formation, composition, processes
and findings of the claimed six independent review panels. There is no sign of
their influence in any released document. We have been able to identify no
members of any panel, and the Government has refused even to list the qualifications
or verify the independence of the panel participants. Everything is ‘cabinet in
confidence’ beyond the names and dates (month only) of the panels: #1:
December 2016 –
MAAS review report; #2 February 2017 - MAAS New Museum in Parramatta
review report; #3: January 2018 - New Museum in Parramatta report; #4:
March 2018 - New Museum in Western Sydney report #5: April 2018 -
MAAS Ultimo report #6: - November 2018 - New Museum in Parramatta report.
We were told that there is only a single report document for each review panel.
This demonstrates
the major overarching problem, that of excessive secrecy from this Government
throughout the whole period of this process. What information we do have
indicates that this project would be destructive of world-class heritage,
hugely expensive, and unless halted, will waste hundreds of millions of dollars
in producing an outcome far inferior to what could otherwise be obtained by
rational evaluation and decision-making process. This view is so widely held
that any imputation that the process is a reaction by inner city silvertails against cultural progress in the western
suburbs is a ridiculous slander.
We submit
that the Powerhouse Museum is an item of world heritage. Its custodianship is
an unmitigated honour for our state political leaders. They hold it in trust
and have the duty to pass it on, if not improved, at least preserved. It is not
a disposable toy of a few ill-advised people. Changes need to be made, but as a result of appropriate research and consultation rather
than the current haphazard, ignorant and authoritarian lack of due process.
Further. the
only satisfactory resolution to the current situation is outlined in the
following agreed statement:
1.
Parramatta must get a magnificent new museum and/or
other cultural facilities on a site that is democratically approved and of a
type that is properly
researched and
democratically selected
2.
Australia’s only museum of applied arts and sciences
must remain where it is: in the most accessible site for the city the
state, the country and the world. It must retain its
iconic traditional exhibits, in its unique heritage building, with appropriate
facilities and funding
3.
All Powerhouse Museum buildings, including the Harwood building, must be
preserved, integral to the museum.
Responsibility for this statement is
taken by Tom Lockley, tomlockley@gmail.com, 0403 615 134, PO Box 301 Pyrmont 2009.
26 November 2020.