THE PRESS SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1978. Financing the Arts Centre

Press, 29 April 1978, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1978. Financing the Arts Centre

“The Press” accepts Cr Thompson’s rebuke that the news media have not put all the facts about the Christchurch Arts Centre before the public. Other demands on our news space have prevented us from reporting in as much detail as Cr Thompson—and probably members of other local bodies—require for a proper assessment of whether the centre deserved his council’s financial support We cannot accept, however, the criticism that, “If the press is supposed to be the watchdog, it certainly is not doing a good job of watchdog.” Because the dog has not barked it would be unfair to assume that the dog has been asleep: if “The Press” had uncovered anything alarming about the finances of the centre we should certainly have reported it.

As the statement reported on page 3 of this issue from the chairman of the centre (Mr P. D. Dunbar) makes clear, the 550,000 a year sought from territorial local bodies is not a subsidy of the activities of the various groups which work under the centre’s umbrella. It is primarily to ensure the safety of the thousands of members of the public who patronise these activities. The centre has inherited a valuable collection of old buildings, some of considerable historical interest or architectural merit; but they are old buildings, built before today’s more stringent building standards were envisaged, and many are —or were—fire risks or earthquake risks.

To bring these buildings up to acceptable standard, and to maintain

them, cannot reasonably be a charge on the tenants of the site. The tenants range from the vigorous but far from affluent Court Theatre to a score of individual artists and artisans. They all have their own members or supporters who have contributed generously in time and money to ensure the maintenance of their chosen activity. Several of the city’s architects, engineers, business firms and others have acted as consultants or suppliers without payment. No more can reasonably be expected of them.

The Arts Centre, like the Town Hall, is a civic amenity. No other New Zealand city can match either of these assets, ancient and modern. The Town Hall runs at a loss, which is made up by local bodies’ grants, so does the Queen Elizabeth II Park sports stadium. Local bodies should be gratified that the Arts Centre is making such modest demands on their purses. They should also be encouraged by the modest profit shown in the centre’s latest accounts. The profit is entirely attributable to increased patronage and more intensive use of the site’s facilities. The very success of the centre, however, has made the protection of the public from the risks of fire and earthquake more urgent. If the Heathcote County’s finances are so strained that every expenditure of the order of $1650 this year has to be profoundly questioned, there must surely be economies other than the Arts Centre contribution which could be made without hardship to Heathcote ratepayers.