Committee of Inquiry
The Premier announced the formation of a Committee of Inquiry into the Regent Theatre in February 1975. Louis F Pyke, Chairman of Directors of Costain Australia Ltd, acted as Chair. Pyke was accompanied by architect Ronald G Lyon, theatrical producer Harry M Miller, and consulting engineer R Milton Johnson, who had served on the committee of the CBA banking chamber inquiry. FT Cron, from the Premier's Department, was appointed Secretary. Records in the inquiry files reveal that discussions had taken place between Louis Pyke and Norm Gallagher about the possibility of Gallagher appearing on the Committee. Cron considered this to be a 'dangerous move', and suggested that Gallagher be approached to provide a written submission instead.³⁸ There is no evidence on file to suggest that Gallagher or the union did so; nor did Gallagher appear at the public hearings, despite being invited.

Running concurrently with the Committee of Inquiry, the newly formed Historic Buildings Preservation Council (HBPC) was considering a submission by the Save the Regent Theatre Committee to include the Regent and Plaza theatres on the register of historic buildings. Many of the organisations that made submissions to the Committee of Inquiry also provided information to this Council. The HBPC investigation had a narrower focus than the Premier's inquiry, determining if the building

had such historical or architectural importance that its addition to the Register of historic buildings could be recommended.³⁹

The terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry firmly linked the future of the Regent Theatre to the City Square project. The Committee was directed to investigate

the desirability and technical and economic feasibility of retaining the Regent Theatre as part of the future City Square project, having regard to its present condition and any architectural or historic merit it may possess.⁴⁰

Shortly after the Inquiry was announced, advertisements appeared in the press calling for written submissions. The Committee approached various individuals and organisations for advice, and also inspected the theatres on a number of occasions. In addition to these submissions, a public hearing was held over three days in July with a number of witnesses called, including members of the Save the Regent Theatre Committee, MCC's Town Clerk, representatives of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, and several individuals involved in the arts and venue management. The files of the Inquiry, which include a transcript of the three-day hearing, reveal that the issue had become a battle between the community, which wanted to see the theatres used, and the Council and many in the architectural profession who were pushing for the City Square, believing that the Regent and Plaza theatres were impediments to a successful development.

Unsolicited letters in the inquiry files indicate consistent support for the Regent's survival from members of the general public who remembered attending the theatre in its heyday. One correspondent recalled 'the terrific orchestra and pianos of Isador Goodman'.⁴¹ Another suggested that the theatre 'should be reopened for the showing of old beautiful and timeless classics'.⁴² And surprisingly, two letters were received from a thirteen-year-old boy from Niddrie who composed a poem in support of the Regent.⁴³ But some members of the public were not in favour of saving the grand old picture palace. A correspondent from Emerald suggested the theatre

is not in anyway noteworthy as an architectural masterpiece, being simply and solely an ordinary picture theatre similar to many more in the city and suburbs [...] there is far too much mere sentiment about both conservation and the presvervation [sic] of buildings.⁴⁴

One wonders, given the description of the Regent as 'an ordinary picture theatre', if this correspondent had ever been inside the theatre! Many of its supporters would have argued that there was nothing remotely 'ordinary' about the Regent.

As this last letter indicates though, the architectural style of the Regent and Plaza theatres was not highly regarded by everyone, particularly those in the architectural profession. In 1975 a letter from a group of architects appeared in the newspapers, claiming that the 'important matter' of the Civic Square

is perhaps not understood by those who feel the Regent Theatre, which would limit this development, should be preserved if only for sentimental reasons, because there can be little architectural and obviously no economical reasons.⁴⁵

The architects argued that the theatres had served their purpose as cinemas and were not suitable as live venues.

While some progress had been made in changing society's attitudes towards the preservation of historic buildings, there was still a strong bias in favour of nineteenth-century buildings. The glittering architecture and plaster ornamentation of a twentieth-century picture palace were not considered worth saving. It would also take some time before the social or cultural significance of a building made it worthy of preservation. This attitude was reflected in the Council's evidence to the Inquiry. Town Clerk, FH Rogan argued that

we submit that there was nothing innovatory about the Regent Theatre, that externally it is not attractive. There were no aesthetic values, in fact it could be generally agreed that the bulk of that building is ugly when viewed from the outside. It was built by commercial people, for commercial reasons, to maximise their return.⁴⁶

MCC argued that 'in their present form both buildings are little more than shells'.⁴⁷

This description was adamantly contested throughout the Save the Regent Theatre Committee's campaign, which was supported by the National Trust's submission. The Committee argued that the Regent was structurally sound, had excellent stage facilities, large seating capacity, first class acoustics, and was in an ideal location in the city. It

is one of the finest - if not the finest - examples of the great picture palaces. [It] represent[s] an era in the lifestyle and entertainment of the people of this State.⁴⁸

Both the Committee and the National Trust referred to the recent trend of converting old picture palaces in the United States and commented that the same could be done with the Regent.⁴⁹ In her closing address Loris Webster even suggested that a Board of Commission comprising the Council and the State Government be established to retain ownership and management of the theatres.⁵⁰ Ironically, the arrangement Webster suggested is similar to the deal negotiated in the 1990s that finally enabled the Regent to reopen in 1996.