Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to welcome the tabling of this report and to adopt the comments of the chair of the committee, Senator Lundy, with respect to the process which has been undertaken in this matter. As she points out, this was not an inquiry into either the concept of a bridge across Lake Burley Griffin at approximately that position or the particular design that the bridge, if it goes ahead, ought to adopt. The reason is that one is in the past—that is, the concept of a bridge at that point in the lake has already been determined and decided by the National Capital Authority, back in 2006—and the specific question of the design of a bridge is yet to be considered; the proponents are not yet ready to bring that proposal on for specific consideration. But I have to say that, as one listened to the submissions made and the witnesses who presented to this inquiry, one had to come to the conclusion that many proceeded on the basis that we were indeed inquiring into just those things. This is based on an unfortunate tendency of some people to reject any notion of change in the appearance of Canberra.

The recommendations of the report, as Senator Lundy has indicated, suggest that the proponents of the Immigration Bridge proposal attempt to reconcile the concerns—about the heritage value of the lake and so on—of lake users, particularly rowers and sailors, with their plans before they proceed to the design stage. I warmly support that recommendation. But I have to say that those who have made submissions hesitant about or even critical of the proposal to build the bridge across the lake ignore a number of important considerations. First of all, it is worth pointing out that the Immigration Bridge proposal is a community driven endeavour to create a major new monument of national significance in our national capital. I welcome the community based decision here to drive and to fund this new monument in the middle of the national capital. It is a refreshing approach to the architecture and design of our city that it should be a community initiated proposal rather than one initiated by government, as is usually the case.

The second point I want to make is that the monument will honour the contribution of migrants to modern Australia. There is at present no such monument within the national capital, a city which itself has been substantially built by people from overseas. It is a great omission in the design and layout of the national capital and it should be rectified. A proposal as grand and visionary as this is an appropriate response to that need.

The third point is that the Immigration Bridge proposal and the Immigration Bridge Australia proponents have properly prosecuted the case for their proposal through the appropriate stages. They have sought and obtained a variation to the National Capital Plan to allow the concept of a bridge over the lake to occur at this point. They have sought and obtained cross-party support from the federal parliament and from state parliaments for the concept of a bridge of this kind. They are seeking public donations but they have held off on the major push for public support for the bridge until the design of the bridge has been completed and presented for approval in the appropriate way. They appropriately have not committed to a design as yet because they wish to ensure that they have got the best possible design to address the sorts of issues that were raised during the inquiry. They suggest that a design competition might be possible to make this happen.

The other point which I think is overlooked by many people in this debate is that the bridge lies on the site of a proposed bridge actually envisaged by Walter Burley Griffin himself. On page 12 of the committee report one can see, though not very clearly, the winning design submitted by Walter Burley Griffin, and it contained a bridge at approximately that point across the lake. So those who generally rely on the vision of Walter Burley Griffin as a bible for Canberra’s planning in some cases seem to have abandoned that consideration when it comes to considering whether a bridge on this location is appropriate in these circumstances. In my view it clearly is within the vision foreshadowed by Walter Burley Griffin.

My appeal to the community is to give this proposal a fair go. This proposal is a bold, imaginative idea which will see ordinary Australians driving the construction of a new national monument in their national capital. That is a community based approach which we have not seen in the past with respect to the creation and development of our national capital. I welcome it very warmly. If it succeeds, it will be the biggest community initiated investment and community funded investment in the history of Canberra. We should not lightly turn such an investment in the national capital aside.

It does not need to be held back by people who apparently cannot see the wood for the trees. I say that quite deliberately because, frankly, some of the arguments that were put forward to the inquiry suggesting that there was not a need for a bridge or that the bridge was inappropriate in some way relied on arguments that bordered on the absurd. We heard, for example, that winds at that point in the lake would be too strong and people would be frightened to cross the lake when winds of that kind were blowing. Apparently people are not affected by those winds a few hundred metres away at the Commonwealth Bridge. Children would be unable to sail up to the Captain Cook fountain if the bridge went ahead, according to another witness. A third argued that the bridge would be a haven for crime. I reject all of those suggestions. I think we fail to appreciate the grandeur of the vision that has been put forward when we resort to such arguments.

This is a proposal which deserves to have its day in court, and its day in court is in effect consideration of a design proposal by the National Capital Authority when the proponents are appropriately funded and in a position to bring such a design forward. No-one should interpret the report of the joint standing committee as any kind of repudiation of that approach. Indeed, the committee quite expressly understands that it is the way in which the proposal should proceed and it is appropriate for the idea to be considered on its merits when the time comes and not be pre-judged before that point.

Question agreed to.