Agenda of Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 21

4/8/2022

REPORT TITLE: Crowther Reinterpreted: A Permanent Response

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Director City Futures

Cultural Programs Coordinator

Public Art Coordinator

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to present:

1.1.1. The process, findings and impact of Stage 1 of Crowther Reinterpreted, which saw a series of four temporary public art projects installed on or adjacent to the statue in order to raise awareness and provide a platform for discussion.

1.1.2. The methodology for Stage 2 of this project, which considered what a permanent response to the William Crowther statue, with temporary signage in Franklin Square.

1.1.3. The proposal for Stage 3 of this, which is for the partial removal of the Crowther statue (the bronze component).

1.1.4. The rationale and proposal for Stage 4 of this project, which is for a permanent interpretive response at the Crowther statue site, reflecting the broader, complex story of Crowther, and his actions against William Lanne.

1.2. This report sets out the community benefit to date, in terms of opportunities for a difficult issue to be publicly expressed and discussed, but also for ongoing benefit to palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal people and the broader community in proposing a permanent solution for the Crowther statue, which reflects Hobart’s Capital City vision and majority public sentiment.

2. Report Summary

2.1. This is a project that responds to an action set out within the City’s Aboriginal Commitment and Action Plan (ACAP), which is the result of multiple engagement processes, where palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal people have expressed their pain about the continued presence of the Crowther statue in Franklin Square.

2.2. William Crowther was a 19^th Century medical practitioner and politician who stole the skull of palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal man William Lanne and was removed from his medical position as honorary medical officer as a result.

2.3. Stage 1 of the Crowther Reinterpreted Project was incredibly impactful with the following outcomes:

2.3.1. Throughout 2021, four varied, contemporary, temporary public artworks were installed in or near the William Crowther statue in Franklin Square by artists Allan Mansell; Roger Scholes working with Greg Lehman; Julie Gough; and Jillian Mundy

2.3.2. A ten month long YourSay survey gathered 186 responses from the public about the temporary artworks and respondents views on the future of the Crowther statue.

2.3.3. Considerable local and national media attention and approaches from several researchers at Australian Universities wishing to follow and document the Crowther Reinterpreted project.

2.4. Stage 2 of the Crowther Reinterpreted has followed a process that has included:

2.4.1. Informal and formal consultation with external and internal stakeholders to obtain further reflection on the temporary Stage 1 project and to gain perspectives on how the City should respond permanently to the Crowther statue.

2.4.2. Analysis of the YourSay survey for Stage 1 of the project.

2.4.3. Research into precedents, legislation, and strategic alignment for this project.

2.5. It is proposed that the City bring change around this statue for the following reasons:

(i) Showing leadership – it is our asset, we are a capital city

(ii) Reconciliation and truth telling – making a clear and physical effort toward change

(iii) Historical validity - Considering the statue in depth raises questions regarding the significance of Crowther to contemporary Hobart

(iv) Connection to current values of Hobart – is Crowther’s presence right for our city now and into the future?

(v) Equitable representation – the City of Hobart currently has only seven named statues, all of causasian male figures.

(vi) Cultural safety – the palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal community have made it clear that the statue is a culturally unsafe element.

(vii) The life of an asset – what should the life of any asset like this be?

2.6. The proposal enclosed here is for the following:

2.6.1. Stage 3: Crowther Reinterpreted – removal of the bronze component of the statue to a relevant collection, and addition of temporary signage.

2.6.2. Stage 4: Crowther Reinterpreted – addition of permanent, commissioned interpretive elements onsite telling the complex story of Lanne, of Crowther, of the 19^th Century context and of the rationale behind the removal in the 21^st Century.

2.7. Considerable engagement has been undertaken prior to, throughout and after the first stage of the Crowther Reinterpreted project to assist in the development of this proposal.

2.8. The project reflects strategic alignment with the City of Hobart Strategic Plan and the City of Hobart Aboriginal Commitment and Action Plan.

2.9. Each of stages 3 and 4 would require the submission of a Development Approval application including the appropriate heritage assessments.

2.10. The likely costs of the project would be:

(i) Stage 3 Crowther Reinterpreted $15-20,000 2022-2023 financial year

(ii) Stage 4: Crowther Reinterpreted $50,000 2023-2024 financial year

3. Recommendation

That:

1. In recognition of the Council’s 2020 Aboriginal Commitment and Action Plan and the submissions received in response to the Crowther Reinterpreted project, Council support the proposal for partial removal of the William Crowther statue from Franklin Square - the bronze component – to the City’s Valuables Collection, pending further negotiations with local collecting institutions, for a permanent location for this element (Stage 3).

(i) This partial removal would be subject to receipt of planning approval by the Council and be paired with the instatement of temporary signage on the Franklin Square site, explaining the project.

2. Subsequently, that officers develop a detailed proposal, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, for commissioning new, permanent, interpretative and/or sculptural elements to be installed beside the Crowther plinth (Stage 4). This would form the basis of a future report to the Council.

3. Following the completion of the Crowther Reinterpreted project, the Council support the development of a Monuments Policy to inform future additions or removals to the City’s collection.

4. Background

A public art project that emerged from engagement with local Aboriginal people

4.1. This Crowther Reinterpreted project emerged as a result of a number of different engagement processes:

4.1.1. For the permanent public art project Two Islands, a formal engagement process was undertaken in 2016. During a series of meetings with different palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal organisations, the presence of the William Crowther statue in Franklin Square was raised repeatedly, often with members of meetings reflecting significant and ongoing psychological pain about this issue.

4.1.2. The subsequent Two Islands sculpture in Franklin Square, which has a soundscape as a key part of the work, includes voice recordings from a number of different local palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal people expressing their disquiet at the continued presence of the Crowther statue in the square.

4.1.3. Detailed and formal engagement for the development of the City’s Aboriginal Commitment and Action Plan (the ACAP), also saw regular mention of the Crowther statue as an ongoing issue for palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal people and a desire for action to acknowledge the story not told via the bronze or its stone plinth.

4.1.4. A resultant action was incorporated into the ACAP, under the Visibility and Truth Telling action that was approved by the Council at the end of 2019:

“Undertake an interpretation project to tell the layered story of Crowther in Franklin Square, in collaboration with Aboriginal people.”

The story of William Crowther and William Lanne

4.2. William Lodewyk Crowther was born 1817, in Holland, died 1885 Hobart. He arrived Hobart 1825. In 1860 he was appointed one of the four honorary medical officers at the Hobart General Hospital. In 1869 he was suspended from this role over the mutilation of the body of William Lanne. Crowther was an Australian politician, who was a member of the Legislative Council from March 1869, holding the seat until his death. Crowther was Premier of Tasmania for less than one year from 20 December 1878 to 29 October 1879.

4.3. William Lanne’s family was thought to be one of the last living traditionally on mainland Tasmania. With his family he was removed to Wybalenna in 1842 and then, with other survivors to Oyster Cove, and then to Orphan School in Hobart from 1847 – 1851. Lanne was described as joyful and having a love for the sea and the outdoors. He worked the whaling ships and was said to have “the best eyes in the straits”. In 1864 he made official complaints to the colony about the treatment of palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal people. He died in March 1869 in Hobart, at age 34 from a mix of cholera and dysentery. After his death, Lanne’s skull was removed by Crowther, his feet and hands removed by George Stokell and his body stolen from its grave in St David’s Cemetery (now St David’s park).

STAGE 1: Four temporary public art works installed throughout 2021

4.4. The resulting project from the ACAP action, was Crowther Reinterpreted, with the first stage a series of four temporary public artworks installed beside or on the Crowther statue throughout 2021. The four works presented diverse perspectives and aimed to acknowledge, question, provoke discussion or increase awareness about the story of Crowther and Lanne. The works were installed one after the other throughout the year, each in place for approximately two months. (Refer Attachment A).

4.5. The temporary art works were as follows:

4.5.1. Truth Telling, by Allan Mansell, which saw the actual bronze figure of Crowther transformed, with red head and hands, a bone at his feet, a saw in one hand and an Aboriginal flag in the other. Mansell wished to both register Crowther’s culpability (the red hands), but also flip the identity of the statue, seeing it as a more fitting place for Tasmanian Aboriginal man, William Lanne, whose skull was stolen by Crowther.

4.5.2. The Lanney Pillar, by Roger Scholes working with Greg Lehman. This project was a sculptural pillar standing beside the Crowther Statue, with the most clearly documented fact of the case as large scale text on the work “Lanney tells all: William Crowther Stole my head”. Within the sculpture was a 3 minute film that could be watched onsite, with a QR code to a longer film entitled The Whaler’s Tale, providing a history of William Lanne.

4.5.3. Breathing Space, by Julie Gough placed a grey timber crate over the Crowther bronze, and a grey stained plywood cover over the text on the stone plinth. Having avoiding entering the park for decades due it its presence, Gough’s desire was to have just two months where it was possible to walk through the park without seeing the figure of Crowther.

4.5.4. Something Missing, by Jillian Mundy placed a viewing box beside the Crowther statue to enable passers-by to view a film of the same name. The film was a compilation of a series of around 100 vox pops video recorded in the park by Jillian Mundy over a month, while Julie Gough’s work was in place. Mundy wanted to understand the level of knowledge about Crowther and to see what the response would be when those she interviewed found out more information about his actions of the 1860s.

STAGE 1: Impact of the temporary public art projects – YourSay survey, forum and letters received

Throughout each of the projects a YourSay survey was open to any member of the public.

4.6. The purpose of the engagement was to :

(i) Understand the level of community knowledge around Crowther and Lanne’s history.

(ii) Gather feedback on the temporary artworks and how these works may have affected the community.

(iii) Seek ideas around a future permanent response to the Crowther statue.

4.7. With the full engagement report provided as an attachment (refer Attachment B), the following provides an overview of the key results:

(i) 186 respondents completed the online survey

(ii) 31 individuals contributed to the online discussion forum

(iii) There were 2.4k Visits to the project page on YourSay Hobart

4.8. Analysis of comments showed the following in response to the question regarding what the City should do as a permanent response:

(i) 83 comments suggested the statue should be removed (with 20 of these respondents noting that if it couldn’t be removed, reinterpretation was the next best thing).

(ii) 55 comments suggested that the statue should be reinterpreted to better reflect the narratives presented throughout this project, allowing opportunities for education and truth telling.

(iii) 34 felt that the statue should remain unchanged.

(iv) 36 suggestions were made for a new artwork to sit in place of or parallel to the Crowther statue.

(v) 23 comments were made on this needing to be an approach led by the Aboriginal community.

4.9. Analysis of the comments showed the following about the respondents prior knowledge and initial response to the public art projects:

(i) 60 comments suggested respondents felt more informed in their thinking after viewing the artwork/s

(ii) 41 comments referred to the importance of truth telling

(iii) 19 comments suggested shock upon learning the story of Crowther’s treatment of Lanne’s body

(iv) 20 comments suggested that the presence of the statue was unacceptable given Crowther’s actions

(v) 20 felt the artworks provided a catalyst for important discussions about Hobart’s history

(vi) 14 felt inspired to research further

(vii) 20 comments expressed gratitude that the project looked at this history

4.10. Analysis of the comments showed the following for those who were critical of the public art project, its aims and its expenditure:

(i) 11 comments suggested history could not be rewritten

(ii) 7 comments suggested that judging past actions by modern standards was unconstructive

(iii) 9 comments suggested the project was disrespectful

(iv) 6 comments suggested the project purposefully created division

(v) 4 felt that the project fell outside Council’s remit

(vi) 5 felt the project was a waste of ratepayers money

4.11. Following are a series of quotes from the submissions to YourSay, giving a sense of the range of views:

(i) It’s highlighted a moment in history that many of us don’t know anything about. It’s shown what memorialization of these figures does to the Aboriginal community and why we as an inclusive society must be more mindful of all aspects of our history.

(ii) They have not changed my thinking, however, they have disappointed me in their very narrow, and very one-sided approach. I believe that this is an inflammatory and divisive act by the HCC. The lack of balance in these art projects supports only one side of the "story" - so how is the public being truthfully informed by this? The public will listen to the predominate narrative and will judge this man and his life's work by that narrative - so how has this been fair?

(iii) Remove the statue, as the Aboriginal community have been requesting and demanding for many years. While the Hobart City Council supports the statue remaining in the CBD, they can only be seen to support the racist and horrific actions of William Crowther.

(iv) Do not change and or alter history - it is through history that we understand ourselves our past our present and inform our future - the sanitisation of the past to suit the objections of a few limits what future generations will understand about their history there are far more important things to put time energy and money into - this is simply nonsense.”

(v) There are too many statues of white men all over Hobart and Tassie and Australia. So, if this one stays in place, add another statue or similar that tells other stories, preferably from the Aboriginal perspective. And also from the perspective of women.

(vi) Before I thought it was just another statue. It looked good. I should have known better. Now, I'm disgusted.

(vii) This temporary artwork is confronting in its bluntness and yet subtle in its execution and has already provoked terrific responses amongst the community. The fact that we are even having these open community conversations is an important first step in the healing process to a more equitable and humane society.

(viii) Leave it unchanged. I don’t think it is possible to legitimately interpret past events through contemporary perspective. Crowther was following a well worn path of previous scientists who did what we now see as horrible acts, but many of which made them better informed and advanced knowledge in their field.

4.12. The City also received a series of letters from members of the public throughout the life of the project from mid 2020 (in response to Mercury articles about the statue), through to mid 2022:

(i) 14 letters were received/recorded in this time

(ii) 6 of the letters wrote in support of either the Crowther Reinterpreted project or a permanent response regarding the statue, with a number of respondents congratulating the City on approaching the complex story of Crowther and taking action, with others reflecting their support for removal of the statue.

(iii) 8 letters received were critical of the project, for a range of reasons from information seen as inaccurate, through to requesting the City cease activity regarding the statue.

STAGE 1 IMPACT: An individual palawa perspective

4.13. The following was received via email during Stage 1 and gives a sense of the impact for one palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal woman, Michelle Maynard, of the temporary projects:

It’s hard to live in a city where genocide has been committed and to walk on this country everyday feeling like it's all forgotten.

Standing in front of Allans work filled me with mixed emotions. I felt so proud and glad that Allan was having an opportunity to speak truth through this work and be heard. For a moment I felt relief because it wasn't just Allan being heard, it was all of us. Finally spoken, out in the open, devastating truth that resided heavy and heartbroken in my own heart.

To have someone say 'hey we want to support you to tell your story... to express your thoughts and feelings about atrocities that have wounded your people...' it says we value you and your story, it says you and your history and your story are important. It's a powerful thing, a kind of holding of aboriginal people to speak our truth. An important acknowledgement on so many levels. An act that allows healing. There needs to be much more of this.

STAGE 1: Impact of the temporary public art projects – media and research attention

4.14. There was considerable, national media attention for the project with the following statistics captured to date via media monitoring:

(i) 6 local print media articles

(ii) 6 online media articles, including a lengthy article in the Guardian Online.

(iii) 22 segments on radio and television including a 6 minute feature (NITV) and a 16 minute ABC Artworks feature

(iv) 1 longer form reflective article in local literary magazine (Island Magazine)

4.15. The City’s Arts and Culture team have also been approached by a number of different University researchers throughout Australia who are currently conducting research in this area and wish to know more about the project and also to include it as a case study. Most significantly, two researchers from Macquarie University have already included the project in a paper entitled Monumental Changes: History isn’t always written by the victors (Bronwyn Carlson and Terri Farrelly) and are in discussions with the Arts and Culture team about the project being the subject of a chapter of a forthcoming book.

STAGE 2: Considering a permanent response to the Crowther statue

4.16. In considering a permanent response to the Crowther statue the following methodology was followed:

(i) Consideration/analysis of YourSay results, as described above.

(ii) Discussions (often one on one) with a series of external stakeholders directly connected with the project (refer below).

(iii) Discussion with relevant internal (City of Hobart) stakeholders.

(iv) Initial assessment of planning and heritage parameters and implications.

(v) Further formal engagement with relevant external stakeholders.

4.17. A series of discussions with direct external stakeholders helped to clarify the intents of this project and shape an initial proposition. Discussions were held with:

(i) Allan Mansell, Julie Gough, Roger Scholes, Jillian Mundy, artists for the project.

(ii) Greg Lehman and Maggie Walter, UTAS, Tasmanian Aboriginal academics (Greg also an artist for project).

(iii) Kate Warner and Tim McCormack, Pathway to Truthtelling and Treaty, State Government.

(iv) Russell Dobie, Heritage Council of Tasmania.

(v) Brendan Lennard, local Heritage expert (previous role, Senior Heritage Officer, City of Hobart).

(vi) Sarah Wilcox, palawa networking, communications and community development.

(vii) Representatives from the State Government’s, Department of Communities/Office of Aboriginal affairs, Closing the Gap project.

(viii) Tony Brown, State Government, Aboriginal Heritage, panel member for selection of artists for Stage 1 public art project.

(ix) Denise Robinson, palawa Arts researcher, facilitator and creative producer.

(x) Dr Terri Farrelly and Professor Bronwyn Carlson, Department of Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University .

(xi) Ian Morrison and Ross Latham, State Library of Tasmania.

(xii) David Sudmalis, Acting Director, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.

4.17.2. As a broad summary of the above conversations, there was a unanimous desire for truth telling on the Franklin Square site and for there to be enough information, in this location, for people to make up their own mind on the events before, of and since 1869. The temporary projects were seen as a good start to the process, already ‘making history’ by provoking discussion increasing the level of knowledge around these events in the wider population. A substantial number of those that we met with expressed a desire for removal of the statue, although some wished for it to stay, either as a representation of the ideas of the time (its historic significance), or to remain as a provocation for change for the broader population - like a ‘stone in the shoe’. Few wished for the Franklin Square site to be a place for the memorialisation of Lanne, given the lack of relevance of this site to him and his lack of choice in being part of this chapter of history.

4.18. A series of discussions with internal City of Hobart stakeholders were held in order to define any asset related issues or legislative parameters around the Crowther Statue and site:

(i) Neil Noye, Director City Life (Heritage and Planning)

(ii) Sarah Waite, Senior Cultural Heritage Officer

(iii) Ben Ikin, Senior Statutory Planner

(iv) John Fisher, Senior Manager Bushfire Resilience / Manager Parks

4.18.2. Any critical points from these conversations are included in sections 6, 7 and 8 of this report.

4.19. Further formal engagement with relevant stakeholders was managed by the City’s Community Engagement Team, with potential respondents asked what the City’s permanent response to the Crowther statue should be. A number of methods for response were provided, including survey, letter, email, phone call and face to face meeting. (For the full report please refer Attachment B)

4.19.1. Feedback was requested from a number of relevant groups

· Aboriginal organisations (21 contacted)

· Aboriginal individuals (multiple contacted)

· Historical/heritage organisations (7 contacted)

· Relevant State Government departments (5 departments contacted)

· Known descendants of Crowther (3 contacted)

4.19.2. We heard back from the following via survey, face to face meetings, or written submissions:

· 9 Aboriginal organisations

· 10 individual Aboriginal community members (some individuals contacted through their organisation responded as an individual)

· 5 Historical/heritage organisations

· 5 relevant non-Aboriginal stakeholders

4.19.3. In summary:

· 18 of the 19 responses from Aboriginal organisations and individuals support the removal of some or all of the William Crowther statue.

· The responses from the historical associations was varied. The Royal Society of Tasmania support the removal of the Crowther statue from Franklin Square. The Professional Historians Association (Vic & Tas) stated that they want the reinterpretation of the statue to be led by palawa voices. Hobart Town (1804) First Settlers Association stated they want the statue to remain in place. The Tasmanian Historical Research Association noted that there was a divergence of opinion within their committee so no submission was made. Cultural Heritage Practitioners Tasmania stated that any interpretation or reinterpretation of culturally significant places should be undertaken in line with the Principles of the Burra Charter.

4.20. The Arts and Culture team have had initial conversations with State Libraries Tasmania and TMAG about the possibility that the bronze component of the statue could be relocated to their collections.

The broader context for this project – local, national, international precedents or alignments

4.21. The approach and timing of this project aligns with other projects and developments happening here, nationwide and around the world:

4.21.1. The Tasmanian State Government published a significant report in 2021, entitled Pathway to Truth-Telling and Treaty, written by Professors Kate Warner and Tim McCormack. This report puts forward a series of 24 recommendations, one of which is the establishment of a Truth-Telling Commission.

4.21.2. Dark MOFO just launched their second RECLAMATION WALK project, with approximately 3000 people choosing to walk with members of the local Aboriginal community from the Cenotaph to Franklin Square. All of the statues in the square were covered up with fabric, the water in the fountain replaced with water from Cockatoo Hills and fires were kept continuously burning in the public space as a symbolic act of Tasmanian Aboriginal reclamation.

4.21.3. After being continually defaced, interpretation panels developed the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, reflecting various aspects of Aboriginal history, culture and contemporary community, were placed to surround the John Bowen monument at Risdon Cove.

4.21.4. In the USA alone, over the past few years, almost 250 statues/memorials have been removed or are scheduled for removal (since 2020) as a result of the catalytic event of the death of George Floyd and the subsequent protests.

4.21.5. While there have been many other examples across Europe, the removal and damage of the Edward Colston statue during 2020 protests (Colston was a key figure in the slave trade), aligns with this project as the City of Bristol has been surveying members of the public in an effort to gauge the best way to move forward. An independent commission showed that 80% of respondents wished for the statue to be displayed, damaged, in one of the City’s museums. Of the 20% who did not want it displayed there, half of these wished for it to be back on its plinth in Bristol. (source: Article in The Guardian, Feb 3 2022).

4.21.6. Although unconnected with statuary, another locally relevant precedent is the change of the name of the Denison Electorate to Clark in 2017. It is understood that this was due to the reputation of Denison who was known to be harsh in his treatment of convicts, sought to limit democracy and self-government and supported convict transportation against the wishes of Tasmanian people (Source: ABC News July 21, 2017).

Why should the City make a change to this statue now?

4.22. Showing leadership – This project requires leadership, as a capital city, to confront the difficult history of an asset owned by the organisation. Other Australian cities are keenly observing this project, as a way to understand how they might deal with their own difficult historic monuments.

4.23. Visibility and Truth telling – the city has made a clear commitment in the ACAP to visibility and truth telling. This will require physical changes to our public spaces to tell these difficult stories where they can be seen by all.

4.24. Historical validity – Considering the statue of Crowther in depth raises the following questions:

(i) Is he significant enough to be a figure in our main outdoor civic space in Hobart?

(ii) Is this location relevant/still relevant to Crowther’s history, given his longest and most publicly known role was as a Legislative Councillor (in his brief stint as Premier, Crowther’s office is believed to have been in what is now the Treasury Building).

4.25. Connection to current values of the City of Hobart - is Crowther’s presence right for our city now and into the future?

4.26. Equitable representation – Central Hobart has one, formal, civic park. The three statues in the park are all representations of male, Caucasian figures. At this point there are no named monuments to women in Hobart (all women are shown as anonymous figures), or any other non-caucasian figures.

4.27. Cultural Safety– the City has many processes in place to ensure physical safety of its occupants, but there are few for cultural safety. The palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal community have been clear that the continued presence of the Crowther Statue in Franklin Square is an issue of palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural safety.

4.28. The life of an asset: This project has raised the question of how long any one monument should stay in place.

4.28.1. Jillian Mundy’s film Something Missing was created during the exhibition period of Julie Gough’s work, so Crowther was concealed by a crate. During this time she filmed discussions between herself and almost 100 passers-by in the park, starting with the question, “Do you know who is in the box?”

5. Considering options for further Action

5.1. Based on the broad community engagement to date from 2021-mid 2022, four options have emerged for a permanent response to the Crowther statue, these are as follows:

(i) To do nothing on site, leaving the statue as is without additional interpretation,

(ii) To leave the statue in place, with the addition of interpretation providing further information about Crowther, Lanne, Crowther’s actions against Lanne and the historical context from the 19^th, 20^th and 21^st centuries,

(iii) To remove the bronze component of the statue – the figure of Crowther – leaving the stone plinth in place. Accompanied by interpretation, as described above.

(iv) To completely remove the full statue (bronze and plinth), and install interpretive elements onsite, with further information as described above.

5.2. Considering the engagement from 2021/2022, responses from the majority of participants (including members of the general public, heritage and Aboriginal organisations) have been supportive of either partial (iii) or full removal (iv) of the statue from the site. Irrespective of their view, a high proportion of participants have recommended the addition of interpretive information onsite to explain the complex stories of Crowther, Lanne and the historical context.

5.3. Given existing heritage legislation, option (iv) as described above would be unlikely to receive a planning permit.

5.4. Based on the described consultation and the City’s commitment under the Aboriginal Commitment and Action Plan, the recommendation for a permanent response to the Crowther statue is option (iii) as described in section 5.1.

5.5. This proposal also responds to the engagement with Aboriginal organisations as part of the development of the Two Islands Project (in 2016).

5.6. Any change to the existing site, including removal or addition, would be subject to a further Development Application, which would require assessment under existing state and local government heritage legislation, in line with the current planning scheme.

5.7. Should the recommendation be endorsed for removal of the bronze element of the statue, it would be retained within the City’s valuables collection, pending further and detailed conversations with potential collecting institutions.

6. Proposal and Implementation

6.1. A two stage process is proposed to work towards a permanent response to the William Crowther statue.

6.2. Following the preceding work, the stages are titled STAGE 3 and STAGE 4:

STAGE 3: Crowther Reinterpreted

6.3. It is proposed that the following occur as part of STAGE 3:

(i) Remove bronze figure from stone plinth

(ii) Retain stone plinth as is

(iii) Instate temporary, but substantial, signage, describing the project to date, the rationale for removal and expected next steps

(iv) Retain bronze figure within City of Hobart valuables collection, with the aim of negotiating a permanent new location within the TMAG or State Library collections.

6.4. This proposal would require the submission of a Development Approval (DA) application in order to have a Planning Permit for partial removal.

6.5. Along with the standard requirements, the DA submission would include the following:

(i) Design for temporary signage to be instated after the partial demolition

(ii) Addendum to the existing Franklin Square Conservation Management Plan

(iii) Heritage Impact Assessment (for partial demolition and temporary signage)

STAGE 4: Crowther Reinterpreted

6.6. It is proposed that the following occur as part of STAGE 4:

(i) Commission permanent interpretive/sculptural elements to sit in relation to the remaining plinth in the park

(ii) Removal of temporary signage installed in STAGE 3 of the project

(iii) Installation of new interpretative elements in Franklin Square

6.7. The permanent interpretive elements to sit adjacent to the Crowther plinth would be of a significant scale and be designed, like a public artwork, to tell a story in themselves and to also hold text and visual content.

6.8. The content of the new interpretive elements would cover the following topics:

(i) The story of William Crowther’s actions against William Lanne

(ii) The story of William Crowther

(iii) The story of William Lanne

(iv) The 19^th Century context

(v) The story of why a statue needed to be removed.

6.9. It is likely that several different academics, historians, and or other experts would contribute to the content for the interpretation with a significant component written by palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal people.

6.10. The instatement of permanent interpretive elements would require the submission of a Development Approval Application.

6.11. Along with the standard requirements, the DA submission would include the following:

(i) Heritage Impact Assessment (for new interpretive elements).

7. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

7.1. The project reflects alignment with the City’s Community Vision, particularly the phrase “We are brave and caring”.

7.2. The project aligns with pillars 2, 3 of the City’s Strategic Plan, in particular the following Outcomes and Strategies:

7.2.1. Outcome 2.1: Hobart is a place that recognises and celebrates Tasmanian Aboriginal people, history and culture, working together towards shared goals.

Strategy 2.1.1 Demonstrate leadership in Aboriginal social justice in partnership with Aboriginal people.
Strategy 2.1.2 Highlight Tasmanian Aboriginal history and culture, including acknowledgement of the darkness of our shared experience, through interpretation, naming, arts and events.

7.2.2. Outcome 3.2: Creativity serves as a platform for raising awareness and promoting understanding of diverse cultures and issues.

Strategy 3.2.1: Use the creative arts as a platform for encouraging participation in public life and raising awareness of important issues.

Strategy 3.2.2: Support arts and events as a means of story sharing and sparking conversations about ideas, histories and diverse cultures.

Strategy 3.2.4: Support creative and cultural initiatives that invite people to engage with Tasmanian Aboriginal history and culture.

7.3. As previously noted in the background section of the report, this proposal responds directly to the City’s Council endorsed Aboriginal Commitment and Action Plan, in particular Action 6 (and the relevant item under the action):
Support truth telling across the City, including the acknowledgement of the atrocities committed during invasion.

(i) Undertake an interpretation project to tell the layered story of Crowther in Franklin Square in collaboration with Aboriginal people.

7.4. To guide thinking regarding monuments (new or existing) beyond the Crowther Reinterpreted Project, the City’s Heritage and Arts Teams would investigate the development of a Monuments Policy for the City of Hobart.

8. Financial Implications

8.1. There will be no financial impact on the current (2021-2022) Financial Year.

8.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

8.2.1. 2022-2023 Financial Year
Stage 3: Crowther Reinterpreted. This stage has not been costed in detail, but would be expected to cost between $15-20,000, dependent upon any specialist requirements for removal of the bronze component, archaeological requirements for temporary signage and any costs associated with site complexities.
This would be a cost from the Public Art fund (projects budget).

8.2.2. 2023-2024 Financial Year
Stage 4: Crowther Reinterpreted: This stage has not been costed in detail, but would be expected to cost approximately $50,000.
This would be a cost from the Public Art fund (projects budget).

8.3. Asset Related Implications

8.3.1. Should the recommendation for partial removal be approved, the following steps would occur regarding assets:

(i) The bronze component of the work would be temporarily reassigned within the asset system to the City’s Valuables collection.

(ii) The Crowther Statue asset would be redefined in the system to include the plinth and the temporary signage.

(iii) If approval is received for transfer to TMAG’s collection, the bronze component will be deaccessioned from the City’s Valuables collection.

9. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

9.1. The statue is located within the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme, in Franklin Square, Hobart.

9.1.1. Franklin Square has a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) that was prepared by Ferndene Consulting in 2015.

9.1.2. This CMP is not a legislated part of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme, but would be used as a reference (in addition to the principles of significance assessment in the Burra Charter).

9.1.3. The statue is identified as being highly significant under criteria a d and f (as listed below) and the following description is provided in the document as reasoning behind the assessment of significance:

9.1.3.1. The statue of Dr William Crowther is of high significance. Dr Crowther was eminent within the Hobart community as a medical practitioner, politician and Premier and was associated with controversy regarding treatment of the remains of Tasmanian Aboriginal people. The placement of this statue is consistent with the Victorian commemoration of civic figures in urban spaces.

9.1.3.2. Criteria a: The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Tasmania’s history.

9.1.3.3. Criteria d: The place is representative of the characteristics of a class of heritage places.

9.1.3.4. Criteria f: The place has a strong or special meaning for any group or community for cultural or spiritual associations.

9.2. Franklin Square is listed on the State Heritage Register, and as such any change to the park must be assessed against the significance indicated in this listing (and also against the general principles of significance assessment set out in the Burra Charter).

9.3. An independent heritage consultant, Lucy Burke-Smith, from Purcell, has provided a preliminary Memorandum of Heritage Advice regarding the heritage implications for partial removal (refer Attachment C for full detail). The following is a verbatim summary from the advice:

9.3.1. While this assessment is preliminary in nature it draws the following conclusions:

· The Crowther memorial is a contributory feature of Franklin Square in that it is a Victorian memorial reflective of the commemoration of public figures in civic parks as was the practice of the day.

· The removal of the bronze would not directly impact the significance and values of Franklin Square.

· It is questionable if the significance of the Crowther memorial itself meets any threshold for inclusion against the THC Assessment Framework.

· There is sufficient cause to consider that the counterpoint argument to criterion f brings a strong case to an exercise in truth telling consistent with contemporary social values and reconciliation.
(Note: criterion f is a reference to the criteria for significance of the statue, stated in the current Conservation Management Plan for Franklin Square).

· The THR Datasheet identifies that Franklin Square is significant for its townscape and social associations, and as it is regarded as important to the community’s sense of place.2 It is important to ensure the continuity of these values in line with contemporary social, community and political sentiment. It is our opinion that the contemporary social, community and political sentiment regarding the Crowther monument detracts from the values of Franklin Square itself. The removal of the Crowther monument would protect the values important to the community’s sense of place by ensuring inclusivity, avoiding marginalisation and facilitating truth telling

9.4. Should the proposal for partial removal be approved, the following would be required in terms of the current Hobart Interim Planning Scheme:

9.4.1. Submission of an addendum to the CMP, prepared by a relevant heritage professional.

9.4.2. Submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment for the partial removal and temporary signage work.

10. Environmental Considerations

10.1. Given the nature of this project, which proposes moving an existing element of a statue to a new location, without any disposal of material, there are no significant environmental considerations for this project.

11. Social and Customer Considerations

11.1. palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal people have clearly communicated, in a number of ways that there would be significant benefit to their community by the removal of the Crowther Statue and the instatement of additional interpretation onsite in relation to:

(i) public truth telling; and

(ii) public acknowledgement of the decades of activism in continuing to keep the story of Crowther’s actions against Lanne current, and considered in decision making.

11.2. It is not only palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal people who have a desire for truth telling and change, as the engagement, social media commentary, and media attention have shown.

11.3. There are definitely members of the community who do not wish for any part of the statue to be removed, but the various modes of engagement for this project suggest that these views are the minority, rather than the majority.

12. Marketing and Media

12.1. Should the recommendations be approved, a communications plan that continues to express the complexity of this project in a careful and transparent way would be developed, with the following priorities:

(i) Ensuring that the general public have access to information about all aspects of the project, and the process to date, so that they can have an informed response.

(ii) Ensuring that the Elected Members are provided with briefing material, as needed, to allow for informed responses in any debates on public platforms.

(iii) Aligning the various key messages of this project with the appropriate City of Hobart spokespeople, to ensure the benefits and opportunities provided by this approved action are communicated with clarity and consistency across multiple communication channels and media platforms.

13. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

13.1. In addition to the engagement processes that prompted the initiation of this project (refer Background section for detail), four different forms of engagement were undertaken throughout 2020-2022:

13.1.1. Initial scoping of the project with internal and external stakeholders including individuals from the palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal community, the City’s Heritage and Parks officers and direct descendants of Crowther.

13.1.2. Public engagement via online and printed YourSay survey throughout each of the four artworks, which received 186 responses to the survey and had 31 participants in the online forum:

13.1.2.1. The detail and analysis of this work is shown in the Background section and in Attachment B). The survey was advertised via onsite signage next to each of the temporary artworks and regular social media posts to remind members of the public to provide input

13.1.3. Face to face meetings with direct external and internal stakeholders for the project (16 meetings), conducted by the Arts and Culture team at the culmination of Stage 1 of the project to understand the impact of the temporary artworks and options for a permanent response:

13.1.3.1. The detail and summary of conversations is included in the Background section of this report.

13.1.4. Broader, formal engagement was conducted with the key communities/groups for this project:

· All listed Aboriginal organisations and key Aboriginal individuals not associated with Tasmanian Aboriginal organisations (21 organisations contacted)

· Key local historical/heritage organisations (7 contacted)

· Relevant state government departments (5 contacted)

· Known descendants of Crowther (3 individuals contacted)

13.1.4.2. The detail and analysis of this engagement is included in Attachment B.

14. Delegation

14.1. This matter is delegated to the Council for determination.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Katy Cooper

Director City Futures

Jane Castle

Cultural Programs Coordinator

Judith Abell

Public Art Coordinator

Date: 29 July 2022

File Reference: F22/65830; 16/427-002-004

Attachment a: Four Temporary Public Artwork ⇩

Attachment b: Community Engagement Summary Report ⇩

Attachment c: Memorandum of Heritage Advice ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 88

4/8/2022

Memorandum: Community, Culture and Events Committee

Out in the Open Program – Summary of Events

Introduction

The purpose of the report is to provide Elected Members with a summary of the 2022 Out in the Open program, held between February and June 2022. The program included 71 separate activities, activating the city on 64 days over the four months.

Out in the Open was the outcome of changes made to the City’s Activations and Events program originally endorsed by Council on 9 August 2021, in the report entitled Summer Activation Program:

That program, included a series of events originally from 15 January until 3 April 2022 including:

(i) A waterfront weekend on Parliament Lawns in January to coincide with the 50^th anniversary of the Salamanca Market.

(ii) A ‘food truck palooza’ involving businesses in the City of Hobart Food Truck program to gather for a community event.

(iii) ‘Seven speakers over seven days’ to highlight the Speakers’ Corner program.

(iv) ‘Busking in the street and voices in the park’ over a week in February.

(v) ‘Host your own street party’ to encourage the community to come together to host their own party.

These events were to be delivered within the $200,000 budget sourced from a reallocation of funds from the 2021-22 Taste of Tasmania budget.

Necessary Change

Due to the rapid escalation of the COVID-19 situation and health advice in Hobart in mid-January 2022, the above program was reconsidered and the waterfront event celebrating the Salamanca Market 50^th was postponed days before it was due to occur.

At the Special Council meeting held on 20 January 2022, the report entitled COVID-19 - Business Support and Engagement Package was endorsed. It explained:

“…In considering the current restrictions and community safety priorities associated with COVID-19, it is necessary for the remainder of the program to be reconsidered, whilst at the same time maintaining the social and economic benefits of activating the city throughout summer. The Activations and Events team are working with the Community Programs and Creative Hobart teams to develop activities that engage artists, arts workers and event suppliers at this time when there is continuing uncertainty for the creative industries.”

On 24 January, in the memorandum to the Chief Executive Officer entitled Updated Events and Activation Program February to June 2022 the new program, working with the same budget, was summarised and approved.

Called ‘Out in the Open - A fresh season of events for Hobart’, the program included both the ambition and features of the original program, re-shaped to respond to community concern about COVID-19. Events were all delivered outdoors in a COVID-safe way, activating the city over nearly five months with continuous, smaller-scale public activity bringing people out into the fresh air of Hobart’s open spaces.

Summary of Outcomes for Out in the Open

During this period of continuing uncertainty for the community, the creative industries and associated services in Hobart, the measures of success for Out in the Open were distinctly different to the usual measures for events, such as attendance and scale.

Counting the number of people attending each event was neither a priority, nor practical indication of success for Out in the Open. The priority was for people walking by, or even driving by, for those in shops and offices nearby, to see that the city was active. Whether visiting, living or working in Hobart, the aim was to inspire people to feel safe enough to come out in the open, join-in and interact with the city.

As detailed below, the program was very well received by the public and feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Gratitude was the emotion most often expressed to officers.

Small-scale, continuous activation and investment in the community were the key measures for this program. In summary, the outcomes were:

(i) Out in the Open comprised 71 separate events, across the six programs listed below, staged on 64 days between February and June 2022.

(ii) 206 artists and arts workers were engaged, plus 47 businesses that service the events industry in Hobart.

(iii) Over $95,500* was paid to artists and arts workers. That is, almost 50% of the total budget.

(iv) In addition, there were 54 collaborating partners from Hobart’s creative industries and community sector, with whom the Events and Activations team worked with to deliver Out in the Open.

(v) Less than 1.2% of the total budget for Out in the Open was spent outside of Tasmania.

The Activations and Events team collaborated with the Community and Culture, Creative Hobart, Marketing and Communications, Salamanca Market, Parks and Reserves, Fabrication Services, City Infrastructure, Smart and Sustainable teams and other units across the organisation to develop and deliver the Out in the Open program.

The Program for Out in the Open

Out in the Open was delivered as planned, free of charge to the public, and included:

1. BUSTIN’ OUT THE BUSKERS

Start and finish dates	7 February to 5 June 2022
Number of separate events	36
Number of artists involved	19
Investment in art/events sector	$5,940
Event collaborators	Island Entertainment, UTAS School of Music, Music Tasmania

Based on the City’s ongoing Busking and Street Performance program, this was a fun, lively chance for talented and aspiring artists to perform in public with the City of Hobart’s support. The Events and Activations team provided promotion, infrastructure and decoration, as well as a modest income guarantee to performers in addition to them being able to collect money from their audience.

Buskers were able to choose their own site from the 25 listed in the Busking and Street Performance Guidelines. The experienced buskers only selected the few sites where amplification is permitted for example Salamanca Plaza and Franklin Square the most popular locations chosen.

For a relatively modest investment, this program had a significant impact as live performance can in public spaces when it’s regularly programmed. This Busking and Street Performance program builds on a culture of activation in the streets of Hobart. Continuing to actively program music in the city, listening to the users and audience to make recommendations to adjust the guidelines if the environment changes, could encourage more live performance in public spaces.

2. OUR WINDOW IN WELLINGTON

Start and finish dates	8 – 20 February 2022
Number of separate events	18 days from 10.30am - 5.30pm
Number of artists involved	51
Investment in art/events sector	$5,000
Event collaborators	Optus, Wide Angle Tasmania, Very Short Film Festival Tasmania, Screen Tasmania, Second Echo Ensemble, Music Tasmania, Beaker Street Festival, Terrapin Puppet Theatre, Performing Lines Tasmania, Tasdance Rummin Productions, Drill, Dyslexia Support and Advocacy Inc., UTAS School of Media, Blue Cow Theatre, Van Diemen’s Band, MADE

This event, originally planned as a live broadcast of the 2022 Winter Olympics, required a quick change in programming due to licensing restrictions for the Winter Olympics. A program of 95 Tasmanian-made films, documentaries, music clips, animations, theatre and dance films was screened from 10.30am-5.30pm each day. The films were sourced from over 50 film makers and producers, providing activation of the space, as well as exposure and income for Tasmanian film makers who were paid a fee per-minute of screen time.

Wellington Court has been successfully used in the past for this public screen, activating an area that has been associated with unsocialble behaviour. When asked, the surrounding businesses were pleased to have a screen and activation in the area again. Out in the Open branded signage and on-sreen slides were used to identify the City of Hobart’s support.

The popularity of this activity as well as previous use of the Optus screen in Wellington Court to screen the Tokyo Olympics last year provides support to whether a permanent public screen, used for broadcast of live events or screening of significant footage, should be considered in further placemaking in the City. A permanent scren in Wellington Court could help to establish the area as destination or a location with a larger capacity could be considered. Similar to how Melbourne’s Federation Square screen is used for public broadcasts and special occasions.

3. SPEAKERS CORNER #HOBARTSPEAKS

Start and finish dates	23 February – 13 April 2022
Number of separate events	8
Number of speakers involved	8
Investment in art/events sector	$2,000
Event collaborators	UTAS School of Science, Beaker Street Festival, Wooden Boat Festival, TEDxHobart

Designed to promote the City of Hobart’s Speakers Corner, a skilled and engaging professional speaker was programmed every Wednesday for 8 weeks to deliver an oration to an unknown and mainly unsuspecting audience in Salamanca Plaza. This program followed the City’s existing Speakers’ Corner Guidelines with one exception, the time of day. Lunchtime was tested as a busier time of the day with more pedestrian traffic, the Speakers’ Corner hours of use at Salamanca Plaza are between 10 am – 12 pm Monday to Friday.

The Events and Activations team set-up bean bags, branded signage, sanitiser stations, props to create a suitable atmosphere and a billboard listing the speaker and topic.

Although Salamanca Plaza is not a place where people generally gather to sit and eat lunch, we were able to gather enough people to the area to make it a vibrant location. Some small change to the infratructure/signage could make this space more conducive to public speaking. All programmed speakers asked if they could speak on a Saturday during the market, which is not permitted currently in the guidelines.

4. DRIVE-IN CINEMA

Start and finish dates	1-3 April 2022
Number of separate events	3
Arts workers involved	14
Attendance	308 cars/788 people
Investment in art/events sector	$16,100
Event Collaborators	Three food vans Tassie Open Air Cinemas

Leading up to this event there was a strong feedback that it would be popular. Many Hobartians have fond memories of our drive-in cinemas and this free event was the least likely of all to be cancelled or postponed due to COVID. Three different films were screened over the three nights: Strictly Ballroom, Shaun the Sheep and Edward Scissorhands. All were popular, with the best numbers on the second and final nights as word of mouth spread. Three food trucks were scheduled to operate each evening and reported good trade.

The Regatta Grounds provided an excellent location. A traffic Management Plan plan was in place and although cars started queuing earlier than anticipated, only very few were turned away once capacity was reached. The feedback from the audience was very positive with many people asking for the program to continue.

This event could be restaged relatively easily and the City’s program could be seen as a proof of concept for the City to partner with event companies to run the activation again in the future.The age range of the patrons was surprising on each night, from very young children to older people. An unexpectedly high number of young adults attended, especially P-plate drivers. The audience was highly appreciative and it drew a lot of positive attention on social media.

5. MY STREET

Start and finish dates	Available April /June 2022
Number of separate events	3
Number of artists involved	25
Investment in art/events sector	$9,025
Event collaborators	Lenah Valley community, Lenah Valley Drama School, Mt Nelson Community, Mt Nelson Store, Mt Nelson School, Mt Nelson Volunteer Fire Brigade, Fern Tree Community, Fern Tree Volunteer Fire Brigade, Island Entertainment

Promoted as the micro version of a good-old street party, these events were intimate, very local and community-led in design and delivery. Whilst we were surprised to only received four expressions of interest, the three events delivered (the fourth is scheduled for late October) were successful, simple in their format and achieved their objective of bringing neighbours together to unite in a safe, supported and fun local environment. At each event, many community members were keen to express their gratitude to the City of Hobart for this initiative.

Each event ran for three hours on a Saturday or Sunday and ended by 6pm. Musicians, circus performers, and other entertainment, food vans, furniture, fire pits, sound systems, lighting and other decorations were provided by the City of Hobart. Other than the sound system, all other infrastructure came from Council-owned events equipment.

All of the venues, chosen by the local committee, were Council-owned parks. They worked perfectly. Numbers were limited to a maximum of 200 people where space allowed. There was a celebratory atmosphere at each event, created by the people attending and the occasion itself. The age range was diverse. Considering the number of people attending each event (estimated at 80 in Fern Tree, 180 in Lenah Valley and 110 in Mt Nelson), the cost of delivery was modest. There have been a number of requests for this program to continue and interest from other Councils (including Melbourne) in the concept.

6. HOBART’S LONG WATERFRONT WEEKEND

Start and finish dates	Friday 20 - Sunday 22 May 2022
Number of separate events	3 (days)
Number of artist/arts workers	59
Investment in art/events sector	$57,459
Event collaborators	TasPorts, Mawson’s Hut, Lady Nelson, PW1, Brooke Street Pier, MAC01, Terrapin Puppet Theatre, Island Entertainment, Mistral / Windeward Bound, Beam Scooters Neuron Scooters, Latino Festival, Tony Sprent (Steam Crane Expert), Hobart Social Skates, State Government Department Health of Health vaccination clinic (at PW1), TMAG, ML Egeria, MV RONA, Maritime Museum, UTAS School of Arts, Red Decker Sightseeing Bus

This event was an elongated version of the original Waterfront Weekend program scheduled for 21-22 January 2022 but postponed due to COVID-19. For three days, the Hobart Waterfront became a long celebration of the harbour, its connection to the city and the characters who inhabit that space. Talented performers, permanent businesses including food and beverage outlets, galleries and other attractions featured in the program. As designed, there were no spaces thoughout the precinct where people gathered in large numbers.

Entertainment and activities stretched from Princes Wharf 1 (PW1), across the Esplanade past Brooke Street Pier and into Mawson Place, then surrounding the fishing fleet and cruise vessels, finishing up near MAC1 on Hunter Street. On the Saturday, this event alongside Salamanca Market bolstered numbers and retained people in the area for longer. The Events and Activations team worked closely with TasPorts in the initial concept, planning and delivery of the event. Our priority was to both promote and include existing businesses therefore we did not install stages, remove car parks or close roads.

This style of event is a good model for the activation of other business areas, there were no road closures and no interruption to business. With early enough engagement businesses were able to make a special offer on the day, be a venue for the entertainment, or create an activity that was part of the program. It also allowed for the way that different spaces could be used and considered in future placemaking, for example the tables and benches and umbrellas along the waterfront at various locations as additional places to eat or The Taste lawn furniture installed on the platform opposite Mawson Place as to relax or be entertained.

REcommendation

That the Community Culture and Events Committee notes the information contained in the memorandum titled “Out in the Open Program – Summary of Events” being a summary account of the activities undertaken between February and June 2022.

Louisa Gordon

Senior Advisor Activations, Events and Grants

Katy Cooper

Director City Futures

Date: 26 July 2022

File Reference: F22/72290; 22/4

People	We care about people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
Teamwork	We collaborate both within the organisation and with external stakeholders drawing on skills and expertise for the benefit of our community.
Focus and Direction	We have clear goals and plans to achieve sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the Hobart community.
Creativity and Innovation	We embrace new approaches and continuously improve to achieve better outcomes for our community.
Accountability	We are transparent, work to high ethical and professional standards and are accountable for delivering outcomes for our community.