Mr BAYLEY – Minister, I’d like to start with Heritage and specifically the Cenotaph. As you know, the Cenotaph is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register because it has, and I quote:
Historic cultural heritage values because of its prominent landmark within Hobart.
Perhaps, it’s through you minister to the Heritage Council, but, of course, the Heritage Council made a submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission where it raised a number of concerns and flagged information that would help the Heritage Council – both the number of visual renders that it identified needed to be done. It identified a whole range of emissions from various reports and raised main areas of concerns and said at this stage that the Heritage Council does not consider the design mitigation measures and the iconic architecture will necessarily be sufficient to offset the likely adverse impacts. Did the Heritage Council get answers to all of its questions through that process, and did it change its view at the end of the day?
Ms OGILVIE – Again, a long preamble. I will do my best. The Heritage Council’s representation agreed with the issues raised in the draft and final integrated assessment report that the multi-purpose stadium would have an impact on the heritage values of the Cenotaph.
In its representation, the Heritage Council recommended a landscape plan be developed by a suitably‑qualified heritage landscaper for screen planting to minimise the view lines from the Cenotaph to the stadium. This recommendation is reflected in Schedule 4 of the draft order.
The Heritage Council met with and consulted with RSL Tasmania to understand its concerns while formulating the Heritage Council representation, and suggestions that the Heritage Council should have advocated for the protection of the Cenotaph from the proposed development are inconsistent with the council’s regulatory obligations under Tasmania’s resource management and planning.
Mr BAYLEY – With respect, my question was about whether the questions that it raised in its representation were addressed: the various visual renders, the omissions from the report, et cetera.
Ms FORD – Through you, minister, the Heritage Council, in providing its submission to the draft report back in May, did identify – it basically agreed with the findings – well, they weren’t findings, the views in the draft integrated impact assessment report. Then it proceeded to make some recommendations around mitigation in its submission. What then happened is they did not attend the hearings and invited the planning commission to put written questions to them.
The chair of the Heritage Council at that time was about to leave. In fact, she left on 30 June. The hearings were after that and there were no further written questions put to the Heritage Council. Its view was its submission to the draft report had covered the things that it was concerned about, and it had provided a range of recommendations to mitigate the impact if the decision was to proceed with the stadium.
Mr BAYLEY – Was the information requested that would assist the Heritage Council delivered?
Ms FORD – I’m not sure what additional information you’re referring to.
Mr BAYLEY – Additional photo montages.
Ms FORD – Yes, sorry. That was part of the material released in the hearing.
Mr BAYLEY – The omissions in the reports, it lists a whole range of different omissions in the reports in relation to The Goods Shed, the Engineers Building, the Cenotaph, and other issues.
Ms FORD – It was not of the view that it needed to provide further advice to the panel unless it was specifically asked for. It was satisfied that its submission had been provided back in May. To finish that off, those recommendations around conditions formed the basis of conditions that inform the draft order.
Mr BAYLEY – Thank you. Minister, the RSL was obviously very clear. They wrote to the upper House just last week:
RSL Tasmania is not anti‑development, but we are steadfastly pro‑remembrance. We believe progress must never come at the cost of values, heritage and identity that define Tasmania.
Similarly, in some ways the Planning Commission picked up on that. It recommended that the project should not proceed, and it said explicitly:
The panel does not accept that because the proponent chose this site for the stadium, the stadium’s size, shape, or functional requirements should be given precedence over the heritage values and cultural significance of the Cenotaph.
As minister for Heritage in charge of protecting this heritage, what do you say to people who want heritage prioritised over a poor site selection, let’s face it, a poor site selection that had no genuine input into it. What do you say when they’re seeing heritage values sacrificed because of this development, and you are supporting it against the expert advice?
Ms OGILVIE – I think you and I are probably never going to agree about the stadium no matter which impacts we’re going to reflect on. We will just say that’s a bit of a baseline. In relation to heritage, our team has done the work, and I think I spoke last night as well on this topic too, and identified some of the heritage issues on the site itself, outside of the RSL, that had been worked through also. The reality is that this government has made a decision to move ahead with the stadium. I’m part of the government, we are locked in. I will do everything I can, much like the TAFE issue, to work with what I’ve got to do the best I can do in the circumstances in which we have arrived.
Mr BAYLEY – Is there anything in the Budget that is aimed at addressing any of the heritage issues associated with the Cenotaph?
Ms OGILVIE – My understanding is that those are conversations between the RSL and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation. I think that’s where the Budget sits. Am I getting nods? Yes.
Mr BAYLEY – In terms of the heritage values of the Cenotaph, as Heritage minister, is there anything in the Budget that seeks to mitigate or address the impacts that will come?
Ms OGILVIE – No, because those heritage values and that question is a conversation between the RSL and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, because that is where the funds sit. It sits within the corporation itself. What I am always happy to do is to try and negotiate or assist with a dialogue between the two parties. If there are things that can be done, I’m really happy to help do that. That’s what I did to assist the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra as well. Legitimate, genuine concerns can sometimes be met with good solutions. I did read out, I think in the text, a little bit about the plantings and those sorts of things. I’m really happy to help. It’s a matter of finding a solution to an imperfect situation.
CHAIR – Professor Razay.
Mr BAYLEY – Minister, you mentioned the conversations you had with the TSO. I will get to that later, but I am interested in conversations with other tenants in that neck of the woods. When it comes to historic, cultural heritage, the building of the stadium will have a significant impact on the Hunter Street buildings – the IXL building, the Jam Factory and, indeed, the arts school. Have you had conversations with the owners? I will come back to the arts school later, but –
Ms OGILVIE – We are the owners of the arts school.
Mr BAYLEY – I know you are of that building. Have you had conversations with the owners of those buildings about the impacts and how to address their concerns?
Ms OGILVIE – Certainly, I have been in dialogue with many people. I do understand that there is a concern about in Hunter Street how the car park in front of the Henry Jones is closed. It used to be an open street. There is some consideration of whether that should be opened. I’ve certainly been asked to think about that, which I’m happy to do.
I do know that there is general concern about the cultural precinct and how it might all work, particularly with crowds, et cetera. I also understand that work is happening with Macquarie Point with the flows of people and traffic. As I say, I’m not the minister for Macquarie Point. What I have done is pull together a meeting of the leaders of our cultural organisations, the ones that sit in that precinct. We had one meeting. I’d like to reconvene that to have that dialogue –
Mr BAYLEY – Who was part of that, sorry?
Ms OGILVIE – TMAG, Salamanca Arts Centre, Hedberg and Theatre Royal. I think I’ve included everybody – TSO as well. Really recognising that the neighbourhood and our cultural precinct, which is such a tourism drawcard as well, needs to be heard in this conversation. We’ve endeavoured to do that.
Mr BAYLEY – What do they say, out of interest?
Ms OGILVIE – Well, it’s interesting, I’m happy to go into it. Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, in particular, was interested – and I liked this idea very much – in getting works out of storage and displaying them in a new environment within the stadium or within the precinct.
One of the huge challenges we have in the arts, you would appreciate, is there’s never enough money and many of our arts organisations are in historic and heritage buildings. When there is money, it’s the roof that needs to be fixed first. We have a museum and art gallery that is replete with amazing stuff, but most of it is in storage and only brought out for exhibitions. I would love a situation where we see kind of like an art bank, where we’re able to bring artefacts and things out of storage and put them in other environments. I know you don’t like the stadium, we won’t agree on that, but imagine if the stadium had potential to be an extension of the art gallery, so that we could have objects and display things there – that would be helpful. That’s the first one.
In relation to others, we’re in general agreement around the challenges of not wealthy arts organisations in old buildings and that is something that I have been turning my mind to, whether we can find other ways of dealing with that. I love the art school –
Mr BAYLEY – Can I ask about the art school then in relation to the lease. I know you can’t tell us about the terms necessarily, I’m not sure, but what’s the security of the art school down there and what’s the government’s intention with that building long term? When I say long term, I mean 10 to 15 years and beyond. Is it to remain an art school and a centre of creative arts?
Ms OGILVIE – That’s actually the university’s call. I’m not sure if the building actually doesn’t sit in my portfolio, but my understanding is there’s something like a 30‑year lease left on it. I’m seeking clarification.
Mr JACOBI – Through you, minister.
Ms OGILVIE – The university owns it.
Mr JACOBI – Yes, it’s university – well, it’s only recently extended the lease, as far as I understand it.
Mr BAYLEY – For 30 years?
Mr JACOBI – I believe it’s for a significant period of time.
Ms OGILVIE – I am open to all sorts of dialogue. If people are able to identify what will make them happy and what will help, as the Arts minister, I’m happy to do that. Again, I say, totally recognising that we’re in an imperfect situation.
