Hi Team,

Once again, I would like to say a massive thank you to everyone involved.

With the support of Councillor Peter Ristevski, this matter is now heading to the next council meeting. We’re hopeful that, with the strong backing shown through this petition, Council will recognise that a mistake has been made and take the necessary steps to address it.

In the meantime, please continue sharing the petition with your family, friends, and across your networks. The more signatures we gather, the stronger our message will be.

Thank you all for your continued support — your voices are making a real difference.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING 

Re: Renaming of Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre

1. Community Consultation and Governance

What specific community consultation was undertaken with local residents prior to the decision to change the name of Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre?
How many submissions were received during the public exhibition period and how many of those supported the name change?
What direct notification was sent to:
Casula residents
Regular patrons
Local artists
Cultural stakeholders
Community groups

Was any independent community survey conducted to measure support for the renaming prior to the decision being finalised?
Does Council accept that changing the name of a long-standing cultural institution constitutes a decision affecting community identity?
If the report states the renaming would “foster community engagement,” how was this conclusion reached in the absence of broad, measurable community consultation?

2. Tourism and Economic Justification

Was a formal tourism impact study commissioned prior to approving the name change?
Were visitor projections prepared comparing:
“Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre”
“Liverpool Powerhouse”

Was a cost–benefit analysis prepared quantifying expected increases in visitation or revenue attributable solely to the rebrand?
Can Council provide any empirical evidence that the new name would attract more domestic or international visitors?
If no evidence-based modelling was undertaken, on what objective basis were claims such as “enhance tourism” and “elevate profile” made in the report?

3. Financial Transparency

The report identifies approximately $37,000 in costs from operational savings. Please provide a full itemised breakdown of that figure.
What are the projected total costs associated with:
Website redevelopment
Marketing collateral replacement
Signage updates
Printed materials
Staff time allocation
Brand rollout implementation
What is the estimated total whole-of-life cost of the rebrand over three years?
Were any external consultants engaged? If so, what were their fees?
Given Council’s recent operating deficits, how was this expenditure prioritised over infrastructure, parks and essential services?

4. Risk Assessment

The report categorises the risk as “Low.” What objective criteria were used to determine this rating?
Was reputational risk to an established and historically recognised cultural institution assessed?
Was brand confusion risk evaluated in relation to other similarly named institutions?
Was the potential for community backlash formally assessed prior to approval?
Does Council now accept that significant community opposition indicates the risk profile may have been understated?

5. Community Identity and Cultural Significance

How was the historical and cultural significance of the “Casula Powerhouse” name factored into the decision?
Was any heritage or brand equity valuation undertaken to assess the goodwill attached to the existing name?
Does Council acknowledge that Casula Powerhouse has built recognition within the arts sector across Greater Sydney over many years?
If community awareness was considered low, why was increased marketing not pursued instead of renaming?

6. Ongoing Accountability

Will Council commit to publicly reporting:
Annual visitation data
Revenue changes
Tourism impact metrics
Community satisfaction measures
Over what timeframe will Council assess whether the rebrand has delivered measurable benefit?
If the anticipated benefits do not materialise, will Council consider reverting to the original name?