Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s report entitled Inquiry into the Immigration Bridge proposal. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Since its inception, Canberra has been designed with the highest ideals in mind. Its design elements are unique and it is home to some of the most distinctive landscape design and architecture in the country. Canberra, as our national capital, is the chosen location to commemorate aspects of our democracy and our history. The Immigration Bridge Australia proposal seeks to commemorate the contribution that migrants have made to Australia. The proposed 400-metre bridge would, if successful, cross Lake Burley Griffin in the area of West Basin, linking the National Museum of Australia with the Parliamentary Zone at Lennox Gardens.

While the objective of recognising the contribution migrants have made to Australia’s development is worthy, the proposal to build a bridge in this location has provoked concerns from many in the community. In view of this, the committee was pleased to receive the reference from former Minister Debus to inquire into the Immigration Bridge proposal. The committee had been made aware of the proposal through evidence at previous inquiries, and it was clear that there was some confusion within the community about the status of the proposal, the works approval process and the method adopted by Immigration Bridge Australia to raise funds for the construction of the bridge. The confusion in the community has been exacerbated by the television advertising and sale of family plaques on the History Handrail of the proposed bridge despite the actual design of the bridge not being available and a development application for the bridge not yet having been submitted to the National Capital Authority.

This report traverses the history of the proposal from its roots in the vision by migrant workers from the Snowy Mountains to commemorate the contribution of migrants to Australia’s development, including the role that the National Capital Authority has played over the years in supporting this proposal and the amendment that inserted the footbridge into the National Capital Plan as part of the Griffin Legacy amendments. The report also details the final development approval process and required statutory consultation measures, including heritage assessment, that will ultimately determine whether or not the bridge proposal proceeds in its current form, in a different form, in a different location or not at all. Not surprisingly, the bridge proposal raised passionate views both for and against, but a uniting sentiment was that the national capital was the appropriate location for commemorating the contribution of Australia’s migrants.

The committee’s objective was never to adjudicate on whether the Immigration Bridge ought to proceed or not. What the report does is to provide clarity into how the proposal got to this point and what checks and balances are in place as the organisation of Immigration Bridge Australia moves towards making a development application to the National Capital Authority. The committee received over 80 submissions, and there is now increased awareness of the consultation processes as the IBA—Immigration Bridge Australia—advances its proposal.

The committee made three recommendations, which, if implemented, will improve aspects of this process. First, Immigration Bridge Australia, in improving its transparency and accountability, should clarify its refund policy to contributors in order to make sure that, if the project does not proceed, people understand the nature of the investment and whether they will get their money back. The committee has recommended that IBA make its financial documents available on its website in the interests of accountability and transparency.

The committee also recommends that if the proposal proceeds and the bridge, as is currently suggested, is ceded to the Commonwealth then the government should ensure that agreement to receive the bridge is met by an appropriate level of government funding to make sure that the National Capital Authority is in a position to manage its ongoing maintenance. Thanks to an Audit Office report, we are all aware of the situation of the ongoing pressures on the National Capital Authority in having the appropriate resources to manage national capital assets, and that audit report informed this recommendation.

The last recommendation encourages Immigration Bridge Australia to reconcile the competing issues relating to lake users, as well as the vista and heritage values of Lake Burley Griffin and its foreshores. If Immigration Bridge Australia finds that this challenge cannot be met or their development application for the proposed bridge is unsuccessful then Immigration Bridge Australia should, in the committee’s view, consider changing the location of the bridge or propose an alternative memorial to migration.

These three recommendations, we believe, will not only increase the accountability and transparency that the committee believes is necessary but provide the clarity that I think many in the community have been seeking about the current status of this bridge. It is not a fait accompli; it has very formal and specific approval processes yet to be gone through. The committee notes the commitment by Immigration Bridge Australia to spend the better part of the next two years, as they have foreshadowed, in consulting extensively with the community above and beyond the statutory consultation requirements. In conclusion and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of the groups, organisations and individuals who contributed to this inquiry, and I would also like to extend my thanks to the hardworking staff of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories.