Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 28 February 2011:

(1) How much land is proposed to be cleared to house the planned Northam Detention Centre facility.

(2) What due diligence did the department engage in relating to the suitability of the site prior to making a public announcement that it intended to transfer 1 500 male detainees to the location.

(3) What were the terms of reference required to be satisfied in the due diligence exercise.

(4) Is it usual for the department to advise the Minister of any constraints on a potential detention site; if not, why not.

(5) Did the department advise the Minister of any caveats in respect to the Northam site; if so, what were they.

(6) In hindsight, would it have been prudent for the department to have more thoroughly investigated adverse issues affecting the site; if not, should the department have paid greater heed to the constraints on the land.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) 29.41 hectares.

(2) The Department of Immigration and Citizenship consulted the Department of Defence to identify any known issues and obtained a copy of an environmental and heritage report. Construction consultancy firm, GHD was engaged to undertake a preliminary site assessment to determine whether a facility could be constructed on the site.

(3) GHD was engaged to undertake a preliminary site assessment and assess the feasibility of the site as a potential location for occupancy as a detention centre. The brief included a requirement to undertake soil contamination analysis and a survey of services for planning purposes. Defence officials familiar with the site were consulted to identify whether there were significant impediments to construction, including possible munitions, heavy metals and other toxic materials such as asbestos.

(4) It is not normal practice for the Department to disclose the advice it provides a Minister.

(5) It is not normal practice for the Department to disclose the advice it provides a Minister.

(6) The Department was aware of constraints, but the extent of those constraints was not obvious until environmental approvals were received and the detailed site feature survey was conducted in preparation for construction to begin. It is common for site issues to become apparent only when this type of survey is conducted, which is why project budgets have contingencies built in and contracts include latent conditions clauses. The constraints are being addressed in the design of the centre.