Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I present three reports of the committee, as listed at item 11 on today’s Order of Business. I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the Committee’s tenth, eleventh and twelfth reports of 2007.

The Committee’s tenth report relates to a proposed collocation of CSIRO Ecosciences and Health precincts with those of the Queensland Government, and in this sense represents an important strategic alliance between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland.  It will have the effect of harnessing the extensive research being undertaken by the CSIRO and by scientists of the Queensland Government’s departments of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Natural Resources and Water, and the Environmental Protection Agency, and avoid duplication of research.

The new facility will enable the CSIRO to dispose of three sites on which it occupies buildings that are currently over 40 years old that will require significant Commonwealth funding for refurbishment and modification to meet the basic scientific and safety requirements of the CSIRO.

Furthermore these properties are dispersed across the Brisbane metropolitan area with buildings fragmented across the individual sites precluding the opportunity to realise benefits from critical mass created through the collocation of CSIRO Divisions and its scientific collaborators.

Mr President, by electing to collocate there is considerable potential for financial savings to accrue to the Commonwealth, not only in terms of the avoidance of the need to maintain buildings that do not meet acceptable standards, but also through the capacity to collocate a critical mass of scientific research with the capacity to deliver the best return on investment.

The new facility is to be constructed on a cost-share basis with the Queensland Government meeting the majority of the total cost of $371.23 million. 

The estimated cost to the CSIRO is expected to be $85 million.  This will be derived from the sale of three properties with the balance coming from CSIRO capital funds.

Mr President, I turn now to the Committee’s eleventh report that relates to the proposed RAAF Base Amberley Redevelopment Stage 3 project.

These proposed works build on works undertaken in previous stages of the redevelopment of RAAF Base Amberley.

Stage 1 was the subject of a Committee report to Parliament in 1998 that addressed a general upgrade of facilities needed to enhance operational, training, aircraft maintenance, logistics support, and improvements to engineering facilities and the demolition of redundant facilities.

Stage 2 was the subject of Committee inquiry in 2005 that focussed on the development of facilities associated with the introduction into the ADF of new Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft and other related infrastructure works.

Mr President, the current works reflect the changing operational requirements of RAAF Base Amberley. 

It has recently been announced by the Government that the F/A-18F Superhornet Bridging Air Combat Capability will operate from Amberley from 2010.  Amberley also supports elements of the strategic Lift capability with the introduction of the Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft and the C-17 about which I will have more to say shortly.

New training accommodation, a new Headquarters building for the Combat Support Group, the provision of additional fuel storage facilities, an upgraded RAAF Security and Fire School, the rationalisation of maintenance facilities and the demolition of some facilities that are now inappropriately located are some of the works proposed.

While the Committee recognises the importance and the need for the current project, equally it is important for Defence to recognise the need to ensure that projects of this magnitude take into consideration the range of issues that have a bearing on the wider community.

The Committee was particularly concerned to ensure that Defence addresses a number of issues related to the provision of infrastructure services associated with the sustainability of the base.  These include water and power.

While the Committee is satisfied that the department will exercise responsibility in terms of water consumption and energy usage, we have asked that it report to us in due course on the measures it has implemented to conserve the use of water and energy.

The proposed works will have some impact on the local community. 

Mr President, the Amberley State School that will be brought within the proposed new medium security fencing will need to be relocated, and a new school provided. 

Recently the Prime Minister announced that the Federal Government would contribute $26.8 million toward the cost of a new Amberley School to replace the existing school.  Other issues affecting the local community are the subject of ongoing consultations with various community groups by Defence, and will hopefully be resolved.  The Committee has requested Defence to keep it informed of the progress of these consultations.

The Committee has recommended that these proposed works to be undertaken at an estimated cost of $331.5 million proceed.

Finally Mr President, I would like to address a few words to the Committee’s twelfth report relating to the C-17 Heavy Lift Infrastructure.

Works for this project will be undertaken at RAAF Base Amberley, RAAF Base Darwin, RAAF Base Edinburgh, RAAF Base Pearce, and RAAF Base Townsville.

The decision to acquire four C-17 Globemaster aircraft was taken by the government in 2006.  The first two of these aircraft are already in service with the remaining aircraft due for delivery in February and March 2008.

The Committee considered the proposed works as ‘repetitive works’ since the nature of the project is similar at all bases.

The works largely involve the strengthening and widening of runways, taxiways and aprons to take into account the weight of the aircraft as well as the increased payload it is able to carry, and some modifications to cargo handling facilities. The exception is the proposed works at RAAF Base Amberley which, because it will be the home base for the new aircraft, will need to incorporate additional features including new and larger warehousing and cargo storage facilities, an aircraft simulator, a new Headquarters building for No 36 Squadron that will operate the aircraft, and additional training facilities for load masters and maintenance crews.

Until the new facilities are provided, some of the previous redevelopment works associated with RAAF Base Amberley will be shared with the Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft.  At those bases identified as deployment bases, tests are currently being conducted on the strength of existing airstrips and taxiways so that operations of the C-17 are able to continue albeit at less than full operational capacity.

The Committee has recommended that the works associated with the C-17 Heavy Lift Infrastructure at RAAF Base Amberley, RAAF Base Darwin, RAAF Base Edinburgh, RAAF Base Pearce, and RAAF Base Townsville proceed at an estimated cost of $268.2 million.

In concluding Mr President, I would like to thank all those who contributed to these inquiries, including my fellow Committee members, officials of the CSIRO and the Department of Defence, and for the assistance of the Committee Secretariat.

Mr President, I commend the Reports to the Chamber.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate remarks from Senator Carr.

Leave granted.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: 10th report of 2007: CSIRO collocation with the Queensland Government...[in] eco-sciences and health and food sciences precincts, Brisbane, Queensland.

I rise to make a few comments about the Standing Committee’s report on CSIRO’s plans to consolidate and re-locate its research facilities in Brisbane.

This proposal continues CSIRO’s longer-term plans to consolidate its research facilities and exploit collocation possibilities with state-based research agencies and with universities.

If properly executed, such a strategy can have much to commend it.

How does one judge such projects?

Collocation with other researchers and other agencies is one criteria—and it is pleasing to note the emergence of a number of important research precincts around the country.

But the obvious, and most important, criteria is this—does the process of consolidation provide better facilities in which important research can be undertaken?

Does the relocation improve CSIRO’s capacity to undertake its research mandate?

In recent days it has been suggested by some within CSIRO that this might not be the case.

It has been suggested that members of the Standing Committee on Public Works might not have been given the full story by CSIRO witnesses.

I do not seek to judge this matter, but the concerns that have been expressed do appear to me to be significantly important to warrant further consideration.

Those expressing these concerns are not opposed to CSIRO’s strategy of collaboration and co-location—they, like so many others can see its potential advantages.

As I have suggested, their concern is otherwise.

It is a pity that the Staff’s submission on this project was submitted late and not received by the Committee but their concerns warrant consideration for all that.

What the staff question is a process that fails to deliver improved research facilities and potentially compromises their research effort.

They strongly dispute, expressed one CSIRO witness before the committee, that the absence of car parking and the need to use public transport is “the sole area of staff concern.”

Contrary to the evidence provided to the Committee, their concerns are more fundamental, and go to the heart of their research practice.

One of the sites to be sold is the CSIRO waterfront facility at Cleveland. It provides the Division of Marine and Atmospheric research with the facilities to undertake practical experimental research in seawater and in a marine environment.

The facility provides direct access on a daily basis to aquaculture facilities, boatsheds and seagoing equipment as well as providing saltwater of sufficient quality and quantity to enure the continuity and validity of marine research.

CSIRO now proposes to move that research to Boggo Road—an inner-city, inland site.

It obviously lacks direct water access and it does not appear to have adequate on-site facilities for this Division’s practical research.

To compound matters, early last month staff were told that the small scale saltwater facilities planned for the Boggo Road facility had been dropped.

What is the option?

Staff have now been told that the options now under consideration for experimental marine research include a site on Bribie Island (a four hour round trip ) or the AIMS facilities south of Townsville.

Neither is a satisfactory alternative.

South east Queensland is undergoing acute growing pains and the pressure on its marine environment requires sustained, dedicated research.

Once gone, the waterfront facilities at Cleveland will be irreplaceable—the move has every potential to undermine CSIRO’s research capacity.

It must be all the more galling to watch irreplaceable research assets sold to provide land for further residential or commercial development!

There are other legitimate concerns.

Does this new facility have sufficient private workspaces for writing up research?

At Cooper’s Plains, what provision has been made for staff from Food Science Australia who will be losing their existing slaughterhouse and meat processing facilities?

Is it still the case that no effective options to replace these have yet been developed?

Underlying all these concerns is the complaint of staff that their representatives in the project management process are not being listened to and that their legitimate concerns are being ignored.

I understand that these, and other concerns have now been conveyed to CSIRO’s most senior managers.

I hope that these concerns are adequately resolved before it becomes impossible to address them properly.

In particular, I hope to see a satisfactory resolution to the Marine Science Division’s need for adequate access to saltwater close to their research facilities.

What we must ensure is that any process of consolidation opens up options for improved research, rather than detracting from them.

Question agreed to.