Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.