Pyrmont History Group, Powerhouse Museum interest group.
Spokesperson: Tom Lockley
Questions for the government regarding the museum ‘move’.
Presented to Mr Limkin on 4 May 2018.
Contents
Questions arising from New Powerhouse Museum in Parramatta:
Questions arising from the Press Statement 28 April:
Questions arising from the so-called Business Plan summary:
Originals printed in small
quantities by Tom Lockley, PO Box 301 Pyrmont 2009
Comments and suggestions
welcome…..
4 May 2018
Introduction
Yesterday I was assured by Mr Price,
whom I believe is the Executive Support Officer of MAAS, that our questions
would be answered, not completely ignored by the government, as has been the
case with the questions asked at the ‘consultation’ meetings last July. Not one
of our significant questions was answered, or even acknowledged, as part of the
‘consultation’.
Please note that I am also a museum volunteer,
but only of nine years’ experience. These questions draw on the experience and
knowledge of people far more qualified and far more experienced than I.
Based in the assurances made by Mr
Price, we have, however, in the time available to us, tried to prepare an
up-to-date summary of many questions that urgently require answers. Work has
been carried on until after midnight this morning.
We apologise for any consequent
typographic errors and realise that there is some repetition of questions.
Please feel free to ring me for
clarification of any matter, any time, on 0403 615 134.
Most of these questions can be answered
with the help of a few mouse clicks from governmental records, so we hope for
some response. We suggest that answers be circulated as they become available.
Tom Lockley
The basic question
The absolutely
crucial question is why the government has made a determination that the
Powerhouse Museum will be relocated to the banks of the Parramatta River. The
overwhelming circumstantial evidence is that this was completely unresearched. Clear
evidence also indicates that this idea wastes hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds and destroys unique heritage assets. How can
this incompetence be excused? If the previous assertions are incorrect, why has
the government not released some proof of their competence during the 3 years,
six months and nine days since the project was announced? What further
non-violent, democratic actions are left to us to reverse this totalitarian and
incompetent edict?
General questions.
Many
are substantially the same as those previously asked, and they are indicated by
**.
We asked many questions at the last
consultative meeting but none have been answered. Why
not?
How is it that none of our questions
were answered, yet the Telegraph has been fed details of what is happening in
advance? For example, the establishment of the Planetarium, the proposed use of
the present building for a theatre performance space?
Why has the matter
of the preferred site not been discussed by the new elected council? It should
be noted that one of the last acts of the previous elected council was to ask
that the selected site be retained as open space. This had been their
consistent policy. See https://powerhousemuseumalliance.com/what-the-experts-say/parramatta-council-minutes-document-early-concerns-for-proposed-relocation-of-the-powerhouse-museum-tom-lockley/
Study of recent
council minutes indicate that not only has the land matter not been discussed,
but also the elected council has had no debate, and passed no resolution
supporting the ‘move’. Why not? Why can the Mayor and the government claim the
support of Council for this ‘move?’
**Why have we not seen the full
business cases and the material on which they were based? We the taxpayers paid
for them and if it is such a good idea why don’t we see the proof of this?
**If the Business
Plans are withheld, what is the objection to releasing the facts presented to
the government by the specialist consultants that have been employed to prepare
the business plans?
**Why is there no evidence of wide
consultation and research about the basic move idea?
There is evidence that not even the MAAS trustees, or the Director of MAAS were
consulted before the announcement was made. The National Trust, and the International Council on Monuments
and Sites, Museums Australia and Museums NSW are among the many organisations
that oppose the move and have suggested better alternatives. Other groups
opposing the move include the Design Institute of Australia, the North
Parramatta Residents Action Group, the Professional Historians Association of
NSW, the Australian
Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Materials, the National Association
of Visual Arts , Museums and Galleries Australia, the
Australian Ceramics Association,
the . Australian Society for History
of Engineering and Technology, Engineers Australia, Engineers Australia NSW
División, and the Greater Western Sydney Action Heritage Group. Why has no
notice been taken of their reasoned arguments against the move? Can you tell us
of all the organisations that are in favour of the move?
**There is clear evidence that even the
destruction of the Powerhouse museum and consequent resale of the land would
not provide any significant amount of surplus funds that can be put towards the
erection of a suitable museum at Parramatta. The removal and appropriate
storage of the exhibits alone will cost the amount received from the site sale.
If this is wrong, why don’t you release your figures to prove this?
**PHM and its buildings are
extraordinarily valuable items of national heritage. What value is being placed
on this aspect of the ‘move’ idea?
**Can we be assured that suitable
investigations have been regarding the logistics of the ‘move’? Matters that
immediately come to mind include major items such as the Boulton and Watt, the
Catalina, the air ambulance, the Apollo rocket engine. The cast iron of the
Boulton and Watt engine, for example, is extremely fragile. The care of smaller
items is also a matter for grave concern. Peter Root was largely responsible
for setting up the current museum and has been a consultant for the preparation
of the business case. Will you publish the terms of reference given to the consultants
and the reports that they gave, especially the work of Peter Root and
associates? If not, why not?
**In view of the fact
that over recent years, there has been many staff cuts, particularly of
trained curators, is enough expert staff available to handle this enormous
move? We would also like to see the publication of the protocols to be used in
moving these valuable materials.
**There is overwhelming evidence that
Parramatta citizens and organisations would prefer other alternatives, eg
development of the Fleet Street precinct, to the erection of a new museum
building on the suggested site, with skyscraper development of Fleet Street. Why
is this being ignored?
**Concern remains
about flooding of the Parramatta site. This is a potential major flaw in the
move plan. Is there really no better alternative? Can
the scientific studies made on this matter be released? If not, why not? We
have many volunteers with experience in these matters who would like to check
for themselves that the available data has been properly used.
The government
has stated that over
500,000 individuals and business have been consulted and that the consequent
conclusion was drawn that there was overwhelming support for the ‘move’. Can we
have full details of the manner of consultation and the results that have been
obtained? What sort of information about the project was given to the
respondents to enable them to make a reasoned judgement? Can you give
independent assessors access to the consultation reports of these 500 000
people? Were they collected by researchers or were they online surveys? Can you
provide the websites involved? We are unable to locate more than ten or twenty
people that have been subjects of research studies conducted by government
agencies and, as at the sham ‘consultation’ meetings held last July, they were
asked what they wanted to see in the new museum at Parramatta, never the basic
question of should the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences be moved to
Parramatta, or what alternatives were preferred. This is very poor practice. Can
the government provide evidence to the contrary?
In our previous question booklet we proved that no attempt was made by Parramatta
Council under administration to conduct research until some
time after March 2017.
**Why were there no council
representatives on the relevant committee for at least the first two years of
the project planning? ( see the list of steering committee members on https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/DBAssets/InquiryOther/Tran
script/10346/Answers%20to%20questions%20on%20notice%20-%20Arts%20NSW%20-%2028%20September%202016.pdf
) . Could the relevant authorities provide a list of all (if any)
Parramatta people who participate in planning committees since September 2016?
Please also provide the method of selection of these people and the terms of
reference of the committees..
The
Daily Telegraph on April 18 this year referred to a SECRET report, prepared in
2014, that showed that $500 million was needed to make repairs to the Powerhouse building to overcome water
leaks, mould etc. Why is this so vastly different from the NSW Infrastructure
Recreation and Arts Baseline Report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers in
June 2012, and why is it so different from our experience as volunteers? This
is the only thing we have seen that gives a reason for the move, so if it
exists why is it nor released for us to see and examine?
The Daily Telegraph on April 18 said that the
current museum was inadequate for many purposes. Can you please tell us of
exhibitions that have had to be declined because of bad facilities, and if the
area of the Wran additions was already inadequate,
why was it reduced by a third by the recent building of a classroom in this
area?
The present museum, according to the Daily
Telegraph, is uninviting and there is regular and persistent feedback to this
effect from the clients. Our experience is that people were greatly impressed
by the heritage of the building, its history, the relevance of its display, and
the amazing standards of workmanship. Could we see the research done on all
feedback on these issues?
Can we see the regular and persistent feedback
referred to in the Telegraph of April 18 that people say that the museum
uninviting and does not deliver a contemporary cultural experience? If that is
the case, why has there been no effort to update
the signage etc in the traditional areas of the museum?
Our
experience is that people are impressed by the heritage of the building, and
particularly by its history and the relevance of many exhibits to this particular
structure.
Can we see the research that says that criticism of the building outweighs the
appreciation of this wonderful heritage building?
**Can the government produce any scientific evidence, or
name any expert individual or group, that informed the Government’s strategic
decision in 2015 to relocate the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta? The move was
suggested in the infrastructure report issued 3 November 2915 and Mr Baird
announced the government’s strategic decision on November 28 and we cannot find
any research or investigation that was carried out during this period. We can
provide a comprehensive list of suitable researchers that were not engaged for
this purpose.
**The
volunteers and employees have been asked to ‘toe the party line’ and support
the government policy in regard to the ‘move’ in our interactions
with the public. This may give the impression that the volunteers and indeed
the staff are in favour of the ‘move’. There is considerable evidence that this
is far from the case. One senior volunteer carried out a survey that indicated
that there was a strong majority of volunteers opposing the ‘move’. Can we be
assured that there will be no implication in any statements about the ‘move’
that it has support of volunteers?
**Will
the museum continue as Australia’s only museum of Arts and Sciences, and if so
what is the rationale for moving it from the current position, which is far
more accessible from intrastate, interstate and overseas? Or is it intended to
abandon the idea of an institution dedicated to the linkages, and resulting
synergies, between sciences and the applied arts? The exploitation of these
linkages will be increasingly important in the world of the future.
Questions
arising from New Powerhouse Museum in
Parramatta:
This impression of
the new building does not show any tower residential area in the site, which
has been suggested. Also the lower level entries are
clearly below even moderate flood levels. Why?
Please
explain why the facilities planned for this museum cannot be far more easily
made available in the existing museum at Ultimo.
Questions
arising from the Press Statement 28 April:
We have heard loud
and clear that the people want a major cultural institution in Western Sydney. This is true, and applies also to the supporters of of the Ultimo Powerhouse. However, no evidence has been
found that people specifically want the Powerhouse Museum at Parramatta. Can
the government explain why this is the preferred project?
Questions
arising from the so-called Business Plan
summary:
1. The
Government plans to retain cultural space at Ultimo. It is separately
considering the options for the Ultimo site, including the establishment of a
Creative Industries Precinct and a plan for a Design and Fashion museum and a
Broadway-style lyric theatre. Where is the plan for the area, plus the needs
analysis? Or is this yet another ‘thought bubble’ idea?
2. The
Business Case for the Powerhouse Museum in Western Sydney Project was prepared
between April and December 2017 by the Cultural Infrastructure Program
Management Office (CIPMO) within the Arts, Screen and Culture Division of the
NSW Government’s Department of Planning and Environment. Please explain why the
NSW parliament was told on that this material was not available.
3.
The
Business Case takes as its starting point the Government’s decision to locate
the Powerhouse Museum on the Riverbank site in Parramatta.
This development on this site was opposed by the elected council prior to the
administrator, when at their last meeting they passed Resolution
16646, Minutes, 9 May 2016 (p22), one of several resolutions to this effect
passed by the elected council. The land deal was signed by the non-elected
administrator a matter of days before the elected council could act. Why did
the state not wait for the elected council to negotiate this matter? The task
of the administrator is to act as caretaker, not policy maker.
4. The three options … are
based on international benchmarking and consumer preference research.
May we see it please?
5. All three [proposals]
encompass levels of functionality consistent with a “Museum of International
Standard”, including a large scale touring hall for
temporary exhibitions, temporary and permanent galleries for the display of the
MAAS collection, dedicated education spaces, a library and research space,
auditorium facilities to host lectures and other public events, and associated
food and beverage facilities and visitor amenities.
Is it not true that the present museum has all these facilities also? So why
destroy it?
6. The decision before
Government, therefore, can be characterised as a choice between two worthwhile
investment options, trading off the superior customer experiences of Option 3
against the lower capital cost offered by the smaller Option 1.
Why are there not other options, such as those
suggested by NPRAG and other groups?
7. Infrastructure NSW has
conducted a number of reviews of the Powerhouse Museum
project as it has developed, including a review of the Business Case undertaken
in February 2018. Why can’t we see them?
8. This review critically
examined a number of the assumptions underlying the economic appraisal and BCRs
in the Business Case, and required sensitivity testing
of those assumptions to be undertaken.
What assumptions? May we receive the report, please?
9.
We also believe that the cases have been subject
to ‘peer review’. If the government refuses to release their review, please at
least name the reviewer(s), give their / his /her terms of reference, and state
the duration of the review and the location and disposition of their / his /
her report.
10. In February 2015, the then
NSW Premier and Deputy Premier announced the Government’s decision to relocate
the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta. Is
this not an error? Parramatta Advertiser November
26, 2014 The
Powerhouse Museum will move from Ultimo to Parramatta to provide Western Sydney
with better access to science and technology education. After months of
speculation, Premier Mike Baird made the announcement today as part of a plan
to boost cultural offerings outside of central Sydney
11.
In p3 under the heading Strategic context and on p 4 under the heading Problem Description
it is implied that the MAAS trustees triggered the relocation proposal: eg comment on p3 regarding the 2014 MAAS Business Case, arguing that the current operations at Ultimo were
becoming unsustainable.; the comment on p3 that MAAS initiated and led the development of the planning framework;
on p3 that in mid-2016 MAAS commenced
work on the preparation of a Business Case for the relocation on p4 the
comment that the MAAS has argued its
existing premises…which is reaching the end of its useful life and is no longer
fit for purpose.; on p8 the phrasing of the statement regarding A Collections Relocation and Logistics
Report... could be interpreted as having been prepared by the MAAS; on p4 a
statement is made that the MAAS is
increasingly struggling to meet its obligations under the MAAS Act…
Yet
in UH transcript of Monday, 14 November 2016. Page 36, Professor Shine stated Along with my fellow trustees and the then
museum director, I became aware of the proposal to relocate the Powerhouse
Museum to a cultural precinct planned for Parramatta through the publication of
the State Infrastructure Strategy in 2014. We request that documentation of
the trustees’ initiative in this matter be produced. Otherwise, can the
government please confirm that the ‘move’ initiative is entirely their own, and
that they have responsibility for its appalling quality?
12. The
business case summary, eg table 1 page 8 contains no information about how the
figures were obtained. They might as well have been plucked out of the air for
all the information they give about the business case. How can anyone make a
rational judgement of the validity of the business case when absolutely no
supporting research is available?
13.
Once again
the question is asked as to why the business case is ‘Cabinet in confidence’.
This should only apply to discussions made within the cabinet, leading to the
convention that Cabinet speaks with one voice, having deliberated the matter in
question and determined a policy. This government has extended it to denying
information about the business case itself, and the consultant’s terms of
reference and reports that contribute to the business case, and even to
material such as that provided by Peter Root Associates to assist the
consultants.
The business case details released show no analysis of the present situation.
We had wondered why the business case did not examine alternative strategies,
as required by Treasury Paper tpp 08-5, Guidelines
for the Construction of Business Cases, but the government’s arbitrary act
of choosing this one option for improving the cultural facilities of Western
Sydney has precluded the effectiveness of this requirement. Why?
14.
The aim
of the project is to improve the cultural facilities of Western Sydney. The
government has pre-empted any discussion of alternative ways of proceeding. Why
were alternatives not identified and examined? The government’s case is not
helped by the fact that moving the Powerhouse Museum exhibits, and establishing
a suitable building, is far more expensive than just about any option. See the list
of submissions containing reasoned objections and alternatives that was
presented to the Upper House Inquiry, page 3-4.