Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee’s report entitled Inquiry into the Immigration Bridge proposal, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

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 history. The Immigration Bridge Australia proposal seeks to commemorate the contribution that migrants have made to Australia. The proposed 400-metre bridge will 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 that migrants have made to Australia’s development is worthy, the proposal to build a bridge at this location has provoked concerns in parts of the community. In view of this, the committee was pleased to receive the reference from Minister Debus to inquire into the Immigration Bridge proposal. The committee had been made aware of the proposal through evidence in 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 the IBA 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 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 in the Snowy Mountains to commemorate the contribution of migrants to Australia’s development, including the role the NCA has played over the years in supporting this proposal and the amendment that inserted the footbridge into the National Capital Plan. 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 for and against, but a uniting sentiment was that the national capital was the appropriate location for commemorating the contribution of migrants. The committee’s objective was never to adjudicate on whether the Immigration Bridge should proceed or not. The report provides clarity on how the proposal got to this point and what checks and balances are in place as the IBA 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 process as the IBA advances its proposal. The committee made three recommendations which, if implemented, will improve aspects of the process. First, the IBA, in improving its transparency and accountability, would clarify its refund policy and makes its financial documents available on the website. The committee also recommends that, if the proposal proceeds and the bridge is ceded to the Commonwealth, the government ensure that agreement to receive the bridge is met by increased government funding to the NCA to manage its ongoing maintenance. The final recommendation encourages the IBA to reconcile competing issues relating to lake users and the vista and heritage values of the lake and its foreshores. If the IBA finds that this challenge cannot be met, or its development application for the proposed bridge is unsuccessful, then the IBA should consider changing the location of the bridge or proposing an alternative memorial to migration.

In conclusion, I take this opportunity on behalf of the committee to thank all groups, organisations and individuals who contributed to the inquiry.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also make some comments on this report. I know that the member for Canberra, Annette Ellis, would like to be here this evening. She is unavailable, but I have the privilege of being able to make some comments. I thank the member for Canberra for the work that she has done on this inquiry. It is a particularly important inquiry to this local community. It highlights the role that parliamentary committees can play in enabling discussion and debate on issues that are important. Nobody can doubt the sentiments put forward by Immigration Bridge Australia in terms of recognising the role that migrants have played in this country, but it is also important to understand that there are legitimate concerns within the local community, particularly lake users, about the proposal. This inquiry has enabled those competing interests to put forward submissions and a proper formal discussion to go forward.

The proposed bridge has been described as 400 metres in length and it would cross Lake Burley Griffin in the area of the West Basin, linking the National Museum of Australia with the Parliamentary Zone at Lennox Gardens. Immigration Bridge Australia is a not-for-profit organisation that is putting forward this proposal. It is dedicated to commemorating the significant role that migration has played in this country. It has roots going back, as the other committee member mentioned, to the Snowy Mountains scheme.

Whether you are a migrant descended from those who came out in the First Fleet or subsequent fleets, somebody who came out post the Second World War, an Asian migrant post-Vietnam, a skilled migrant or someone who has roots in family that have brought you to this country, each one of those Australians has played an important role and will continue to play an important role in our local community. They have unique and interesting stories to tell, and Immigration Bridge Australia, in seeking to commemorate migration, want to enable those people to have a commemorative monument in the form of a bridge. This would enable them to not only have their stories told through the website they are doing at the moment but also have their names inscribed on that bridge. Through that process they are raising funds to enable the bridge to be constructed.

The sentiments being put forward by Immigration Bridge Australia would be welcomed generally throughout the broader Australian community and I do not think there would be any conflict with that desire. But there are lake users—whether they be the sailing club, the rowing club, the dragon boat club or others who may just enjoy the vista as it currently is or have concerns as to heritage values—who have got real concerns about this proposal. We have had more than 80 submissions put to the inquiry. We have had two public hearings here in Canberra with a range of different issues discussed and debated. The role of the committee was not to adjudicate on whether this bridge proposal should go forward or not. It was to ensure that proper public consultation and discussion could go forward. I know that Immigration Bridge Australia has been following this inquiry intently, and so has the National Capital Authority.

The inquiry has sought, as part of that process, to enable discussion to proceed and as a result it has made three recommendations. The first is to ensure that there is improved transparency in relation to Immigration Bridge Australia. As I have said, they are raising funds towards the construction of this bridge. It is important, the committee felt, that there be some increased transparency in relation to this, including as to some advertising that has been done in relation to this. It is important that the refund policy be made clearer. Also, the financial statements in terms of the funds raised should be publicised on the body’s website. Those are the issues that are dealt with in the first recommendation.

The second recommendation goes to the committee wanting to ensure that if this bridge is built the National Capital Authority receives proper funding for it. It is one thing to build a bridge; it is another thing to have the government then needing to maintain it. If the bridge is built, it is important that funds be made available to the National Capital Authority for the ongoing funding of maintenance.

The third recommendation goes to the issue of competing interests. It goes to the need for Immigration Bridge Australia to continue to work with those stakeholders who have concerns, as we know they do, and to seek to resolve them if this bridge is to be approved through the National Capital Authority. That is recognising that there could possibly be alternative locations for the bridge. If they are not able to progress with this particular proposal, they may seek another way of recognising migration to this country. (Time expired)