Sixty Eighth Annual Report

Sixty-Fifth General Report

In accordance with Section 16 of the Act, the Committee tabled its sixty-seventh Annual Report on 10 March 2004. In 2004 the Committee tabled nine reports with a total estimated value of $540 million. A list of the works reported on in 2004, and their estimated costs, is provided at Appendix A. Summaries of the reports tabled in 2004 follow, together with the Government response to each report

Site Remediation and Construction of Infrastructure for the Defence site at Randwick Barracks, Sydney – Interim Works (First Report of 2004)

The first report of 2004 presented interim findings and recommendations in relation to the proposed site remediation and construction of infrastructure for the Defence site at Randwick, Sydney. The proposal to carry out remediation and infrastructure works at Randwick Barracks was referred to the Committee for consideration and report on 12 December 2002. The project was estimated to cost $85.4 million and it was envisaged that works would commence in June 2003, and be completed in 2006.

The need for the works was prompted by the nationwide rationalisation of Defence logistics and supply arrangements, which resulted in the closure of much of the former Navy Stores at Randwick Barracks. Defence decided to prepare the surplus portion of the Randwick site for sale and eventual residential development.

Late in 2002 Defence wrote to the Committee requesting that remediation of Stage 1A of the site, estimated to coast $4.6 million, be approved as a separate medium work prior to consideration of the remainder of the project. Early approval of this project element was sought to enable Defence to meet revenue targets for the 2002 – 2003 financial year. The Committee approved this request on the understanding that the remainder of the works would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.

A public hearing into the proposed redevelopment works was scheduled to take place in Randwick on 16 April 2003. On 9 April 2003 Defence requested that the hearing be postponed indefinitely to enable the Department to refine elements of the project scope and funding.

In October 2003 the Committee received a letter from Defence stating that the Department was proceeding with three ‘medium works’ projects at the Randwick site prior to Committee consideration of the works. The reason given for commencing these works was that Defence was obliged to meet certain commitments to the Randwick City Council. In reply, the Committee expressed serious concern at the further disaggregation of the project and emphasised that the work elements defined as ‘medium works’ had been part of the total works package referred to the Committee in 2002. The Committee was disappointed that contracts valued at over $8 million had been let without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and requested that Defence prepare for a public hearing into the works already progressed as early as practicable in the 2004 sitting year.

A public hearing into the ‘interim works’ was conducted at Randwick on 12 March 2004. Work elements addressed at the hearing were:

• construction of a new community facility;
• establishment and embellishment of the Randwick Environmental Park;
• works associated with the relocation of army units from the disposal area;
• preparation of land for sale, including removal of vegetation and remediation works, and
• preparation for sale of Stage 1B and parts of Stages 5 and 6.

Significant matters raised at the public hearing included:

• Procedural Matters. The Committee explained that Defence’s action in proceeding with works referred prior to the completion of the Committee’s inquiry into those works constituted a breach of the Act. Defence responded that it was working to prevent the repetition of such an error.
• Contamination. Several public submissions expressed concern at contamination of soil and ground water at the disposal site. Defence elaborated on the level and extent of contamination at the site and explained the contamination testing processes used.
• Remediation. The Committee sought to ensure that the site would be remediated to a level fit for residential development. An independent site auditor explained the execution and validation of the remediation process. The Committee identified a regulatory gap in the execution and monitoring of remediation works.
• Environmental Issues. Questions were raised regarding the removal of vegetation at the site and the proposed formation of a detention basin in an existing ephemeral wetland. Defence assured the Committee that future development of the site would include landscaping and that the detention basin proposal had been reviewed by local and State environmental authorities.
• Ecologically Sustainable Development. Defence explained that ecologically sustainable development principles would be manifested in both the planning of the site and the recycling of materials.
• Traffic Management. Local residents expressed concern that traffic from the site may create a nuisance through headlight glare, dust and fumes. Defence stated that it would continue to work with the Randwick City Council to address these issues.
• Consultation. In response to criticism from some local residents, Defence described its consultation with the community and relevant trade unions.
• Occupational Health and Safety. Witnesses expressed fears that contamination at the Randwick site may present a health risk to both local residents and workers. The Committee expressed the view that remediation work at the site should be executed in such a way as to ensure the safety of workers and residents.
• Commitments to Council. The Randwick City Council submitted that Defence had failed to deliver the Randwick Environmental Park and Randwick Community Centre by November 2003 as promised, and requested that Defence provide additional funds for each project by way of compensation. Defence explained that, while the budget for the ‘interim works’ was capped at $8.75 million, contingency funds would be value-managed to deliver as many of the Council’s requirements as possible. The Committee also obtained an agreement from Defence to provide a retractable partition wall for the preschool occupying part of the community centre.

In the light of the evidence received, the Committee recommended that:

• a map showing the extent and distribution of contaminants at the Randwick Barracks disposal site be placed on the project website for ready access by members of the public;
• an appropriate regulatory body be given responsibility for monitoring the execution of contamination remediation works to ensure proper health, safety and environmental controls are exercised; and
• the remaining portion of the works referred by Defence in December 2002 be subject to a thorough investigation by the Committee at the earliest opportunity and prior to the commencement of any further work elements.

Government Response

The Government responded to the Committee’s report by way of a motion moved in the House of Representatives on 2 June 2004 by the Hon Peter Slipper MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, to the effect that it was expedient for the works to proceed.

Proposed Fit-out of New Leased Premises for the Department of Health and Ageing at Scarborough House, Woden Town Centre, ACT (Second Report of 2004)

The Committee’s second report of 2004, tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 2 June 2004, presented findings in relation to the proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Health and Ageing at Scarborough House, Woden Town Centre, ACT. The work was referred to the committee on 12 February 2004 at an estimated cost of $18.5 million.

The need for the work was driven by the Department’s objective of consolidating its Canberra activities at two sites, and the organisational and operational benefits expected to flow from such rationalisation.

Works required to meet the Department’s objectives included:

• integration of building services into base-building works; and
• general office fit-out to meet departmental requirements.

Issues raised during the Committee’s consideration of the proposal included:

• Costs. The Committee questioned the Department on the savings to be gained through collocation, comparative leasing costs, relocations costs and arrangements for contingency and escalation.
• Building Amenities. Aspects of the amenity of the proposed building addressed by the Committee included child-care facilities, cycle accommodation, fire safety arrangements, provisions for people with a disability and the personal workspace provided for employees.
• Consultation. The Committee inquired into the agency’s consultation with staff and with the Australian Greenhouse Office.

The Committee recommended that the proposed fit-out proceed.

Government Response

An expediency motion in relation to the proposed work was passed in the House of Representatives on Thursday, 3 June 2004.

Mid-life Upgrade of Existing Chancery Building for the Australian High Commission, Wellington, New Zealand (Third Report of 2004)

The proposal to carry out a mid-life upgrade of the existing chancery building for the Australian High Commission in Wellington, New Zealand was referred to the Public Works Committee on Wednesday 12 May 2004 and formed the subject of the Committee’s third report for that year. The proponent agency for the work was the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The estimated cost of the work was $9.309 million.

In its evidence to the Committee, DFAT stated that, while the chancery building remained structurally sound, it was 26 years old and had not undergone any major works since its construction. As a result, certain amenities and building services were no longer adequate.

Work elements required to bring the facility up to modern standards included:

• modernisation of building services;
• improvement of security arrangements;
• consolidation of functions and occupation;
• renovation, reconfiguration and refurbishment of working accommodation; and
• resurfacing of external paved areas.

The Committee addressed the following issues during the course of its investigation:

• Provision for People with Disabilities. DFAT explained that the proposed refurbishment would address current inadequacies in the provision of facilities and access for disabled persons.
• Removal of Hazardous Materials. The Committee was informed that asbestos sheeting used in the construction of the building would be removed by appropriately qualified contractors operating under the highest safety standards.
• Options Considered. The Committee was interested to learn why DFAT had selected the proposed accommodation option. DFAT explained that a report by its consultants had indicated that the selected option would best serve DFAT’s accommodation requirements. A copy of the report was subsequently provided to the Committee.
• Security Provisions. DFAT assured the Committee that the works proposal would enhance the security of the chancery and its occupants.
• Base-Building Costs. The Committee requested and obtained a detailed breakdown of costs for base-building works included in the proposed upgrade.
• Space. DFAT confirmed that there would be sufficient space for the chancery to remain operational while works were carried out. DFAT also outlined its intentions in respect of future use of surplus space in the building.
• Seismic Building Codes. The Committee requested and received supplementary information from DFAT regarding the building’s compliance with applicable local earthquake codes.
• Energy Efficiency. The Committee sought to ensure that the range of energy conservation measures described in DFAT’s submission had been discussed with the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) and would be implemented.

Having considered the evidence presented to it, the Committee recommended that the proposed mid-life upgrade of the existing chancery and the Australian High Commission in Wellington proceed at the estimated cost of $9.309 million.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting the works to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 12 August 2004.

Provision of Facilities for Headquarters Joint Operations Command, NSW (Fourth Report of 2004)

The Committee’s fourth report of 2004 addressed the provision of facilities for Headquarters Joint Operations Command near Bungendore, NSW. The work, proposed by the Department of Defence was referred to the Committee on 31 March 2004 at an estimated out-turn cost of $318.08 million.

Defence attested that the establishment of a purpose-built, integrated facility of this type was critical to its operational objectives and would result in operational and administrative efficiencies.

The scope of works proposed by Defence comprised:

• construction of a headquarters building;
• provision of command, control, communications and information systems;
• construction of access and service roads;
• provision of engineering services and infrastructure;
• provision of corporate facilities, including recreational, messing and accommodation areas; and
• associated grounds and engineering works.

Major areas of Committee interest were:

• Site Selection. Defence explained that, unlike other areas considered, the Canberra-Queanbeyan region provided superior opportunities for back-to-back postings and spouse employment.
• Security. Defence assured the Committee that, while the facility was currently assessed at a low to medium security risk, the capacity existed to increase security should the threat level increase.
• Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Principles. The Committee was keen to ensure that the private consortium responsible for the construction of the Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HJOC) would realise Defence’s intentions in respect of ecological sustainability. Defence stated that such considerations, including waste management and energy use, would be addressed in the tender proposals.
• Traffic Management and Road Safety. Several submissions raised concerns regarding the increased traffic that would be generated by the facility and its impact upon the safety of local roads. Defence undertook to provide impact assessment advice to the local authorities. Defence stated further that it was investigating the viability of a bus service to the site.
• Social Infrastructure Impacts. Defence anticipated that, in early 2005, it would have access to survey data indicating where incoming personnel and their families would reside. Defence stated that when this information became available, it would meet with relevant social services to discuss any impacts of the HJOC project.
• Local Employment. The committee inquired whether the decision to deliver the project through a private consortium would reduce opportunities for local tradespeople. Defence responded that no difficulties of that kind were evident and that local businesses would be employed if local industry had the capacity to support the project.
• Impacts on Neighbouring Properties. The Committee received submissions from the Carwoola Community Association, ACT Forests and the Molonglo Radio Observatory, all of whom own properties in the vicinity of the HJOC, expressing concerns regarding the local impacts of the proposed development. Defence stated that the proposed work would not impact local communications services or farming practices, and added that noise, external lighting and visual impacts would be minimised. Defence also expressed an intention to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with ACT Forests. The Molonglo Radio Observatory raised concerns relating to the potential impact of radio frequency interference (RFI) from the HJOC facility on its sensitive radio telescope. Defence outlined a number of RFI mitigation strategies that would be employed at the site and undertook to engage in further consultation with the Observatory.
• Consultation. At the public hearing, Defence confirmed that it would continue consultation with relevant government agencies, neighbours and other stakeholders.
• Project Delivery. Defence attested that its decision to fund the HJOC project through private financing had been based on a business case which had indicated that the option represented superior value for money. Defence undertook to update the Committee on the progress of the project following the selection of the successful joint venture partner.

The Committee made five recommendations in respect of the HJOC proposal; namely that:

• Defence and its private consortium partners liaise with the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation Sustainability Programs Division to ensure that the HJOC facility meets the highest possible standards for the minimisation of waste production and energy use;
• Defence liaise with the Greater Queanbeyan City Council and the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority in respect of traffic management and road safety issues arising from the proposed development;
• Defence continue close consultation with the University of Sydney Molonglo Radio Observatory and implement all possible radio frequency interference mitigation measures during both the construction and operation of the HJOC facility to ensure that the Molonglo Radio Observatory can continue to operate without interference;
• Defence provide it with reports on the progress of works and associated costs at each stage of completion of the HJOC project; and
• the proposed provision of facilities for HJOC, NSW proceed at the estimated cost of $318.08 million.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting the works to proceed was passed in the House of Representatives on 12 August 2004. In moving the motion, the Hon Peter Slipper MP noted that Defence had agreed to the Committee’s recommendations.

Proposed Development of Land at Lee Point in Darwin, for Defence and Private Housing (Fifth Report of 2004)

The fifth report of 2004 considered a proposal to develop land at Lee Point Road, Darwin, NT for Defence and private housing, which was referred to the Committee for consideration and report on 26 May 2004. The proponent agency for the work was the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) and the estimated cost was $40 million.

According to DHA, the work was necessitated by an expected increase in the Defence housing requirement in Darwin from 1,766 homes at 30 June 2004 to 1,895 by 30 June 2007.

Works to be undertaken under the proposal comprised:

• installation of infrastructure and essential services;
• landscaping; and
• construction of approximately 725 dwellings.

Issues of significance raised during the inquiry included:

• Design Detail. Several submissions were critical of the level of design detail provided in the DHA’s statement of evidence. The Committee requested that DHA provide it with more detailed information following the selection of the DHA’s joint venture partner. The Committee also sought assurances that the design objectives stated by DHA would be key features of the development. The DHA subsequently supplied the Committee with a revised list in which the design objectives were expressed in mandatory rather than discretionary terms.
• Quality of Development. Questions were also raised as to the quality of the development in terms of lot size and access to facilities and services. DHA responded that the proposed development would contain a mixture of lot sizes, adding that a trend towards smaller lots was occurring in most Australian capital cities. DHA’s submission highlighted the range of existing services and facilities in the vicinity of the development, but the Committee took the view that new-comers to Darwin might be better served by a purpose-built facility that would provide a meeting place for families and promote a sense of community.
• Environmental Considerations. The Committee was interested to know how DHA intended to balance its stated commitment to ESD principles with the need to reduce servicing costs per dwelling. DHA expressed the belief that it could comfortably satisfy both objectives within the proposed lot size and yield. The Committee was concerned to learn that there was no nationally agreed rating system for the energy efficiency of homes in tropical areas and requested that DHA investigate ways to minimise the use of air-conditioning. DHA also assured the Committee that measures would be taken to address water management issues and to protect local vulnerable flora.
• Heritage Considerations. DHA supplied the Committee with legal advice to the effect that Native Title had been extinguished over the proposed development lots.
• Site Considerations. DHA informed the Committee that the Defence radar facility adjacent to the Lee Point Road site was to be relocated and would therefore have no impact upon the development. Further, DHA guaranteed that alternative access through the site to the Darwin Hospital would be maintained.
• Public Consultation. A submission made by a local resident was critical of the public consultation conducted by DHA in respect of the proposed development. The Committee requested that DHA place planning details on the development website and that this be updated regularly to improve public access to information.
• Opportunities for Local Industry. A spokesperson for the DHA stated that the provision of opportunities for local businesses and industry was an important feature of the development proposal.
• Selection of a Joint Venture Partner. DHA explained that the first stage of the selection process for the joint venture partner would be based on capability and would include the capacity for innovative design.
• Value for Money. The Committee requested that DHA provide it with a confidential analysis showing yield and dollar value for different combinations of lot sizes, including lots of 800, 750 and 600 square metres. DHA undertook to provide this information in two stages: after the development of a plan with the joint venture partner; and upon the completion of the approval process.

The Committee’s report into the proposed work contained the following recommendations:

• that the DHA furnish it with updated information regarding the design and costs of the proposed Lee Point development after the selection of the joint venture partner, following the completion of the planning approval process, and thereafter upon the completion of major project milestones;
• that the DHA explore the possibility of including a purpose-built community centre within the proposed Lee Point housing development;
• that the DHA continue to investigate and utilise all possible design measures to facilitate the minimal use of air-conditioning throughout the Lee Point housing development;
• that the DHA develop and implement energy efficient measures specifically designed for use in tropical regions;
• that the DHA place details relating to the planning and execution of the Lee Point development on its project web site, and that these details be updated regularly as further information becomes available;
• that the DHA undertake a comprehensive program of community consultation through which members of the public may have input into the Lee Point housing development proposal;
• that the DHA conduct a thorough analysis of the projected yield and value of the Lee Point site using different combinations of lot sizes, and that this information be provided to the Committee upon the completion of the development plan and upon finalisation of the planning approval process; and
• that the proposed development of land at Lee Point, Darwin, for Defence and private housing proceed at the estimated cost of $41, 381,480 pending the fulfilment of the preceding recommendations.

Government Response

The Government responded to the Committee’s fifth report by means of an expediency motion in the House of Representatives on 9 December 2004. The Hon Dr Sharman Stone, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, noted that the DHA had accepted the recommendations made by the Committee.

Fit-out of New Leased Premises for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet at 1 National Circuit, Barton, ACT (Sixth Report of 2004)

The Committee’s sixth report of 2004 addressed the proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM & C) at 1 National Circuit, Barton, ACT, at an estimated cost of $23 million. The work was referred to the Committee on 24 June 2004.

The need for the work was prompted by the imminent expiry of the lease on its current premises and reduced amenity caused by overcrowding and ageing and inadequate infrastructure. To rectify these problems, the Department elected to lease new premises at 1 National Circuit for a period of 15 years, and to undertake its own fit-out.

Works required to meet PM & C’s objectives included:

• integration of essential building services into base-building works;
• fit-out to meet operational requirements, including appropriate security provisions; and
• general office fit-out.

The Committee’s inquiry into the work focussed on the following issues:

• National Capital Authority (NCA) Approvals. The Committee sought to ascertain whether the Department’s proposal would comply fully with the requirements of the NCA, particularly in respect of the roof and traffic management.
• Fire Safety and Emergency Evacuation. PM & C assured the Committee that all necessary fire safety and emergency evacuation provisions would be taken into account in the new building.
• Staff Consultation. In its written evidence, the Department outlined its staff consultation process. The Committee was particularly interested to learn about consultation undertaken in relation to the proposed floor plan layout and the Department’s decision not to provide on-site child-care.
• Energy Efficiency. PM & C emphasised that it was engaged in discussions with the AGO regarding energy efficiency and water conservation measures.
• Breakdown of Costings. The Committee requested and received confidential cost breakdowns for preliminaries, margin costs, professional and authority fees, contingency allowances and security costs. The Committee was also supplied with details of PM & C’s current and future rental costs.
• Future Expansion. The Department explained that the proposed new premises would allow for future expansion. The Committee remained curious as to why the estimated cost of the PM & C proposal was identical to that of a comparable - but 3,000 square metres larger - fit-out project being undertaken in the same street.

Having considered the evidence presented to it, the Committee recommended that the proposed fit-out proceed at the estimated cost of $23 million.

Government Response

On 9 December 2004, the Hon Dr Sharman Stone moved in the House of Representatives that the works proceed.

Fit-out of New Leased Premises for the Attorney-General’s Department at 3 - 5 National Circuit, Barton, ACT (Seventh Report of 2004)

The seventh report of 2004 addressed the proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) at 3-5 National Circuit, Barton, ACT. The work was referred to the Committee on 24 June 2004 at an estimated cost of $23 million.

The need for the work was prompted by the AGD’s wish to consolidate its three Canberra head office facilities into a single purpose-built building, and the operational benefits expected to flow from consolidation. The decision to relocate was considered timely due to the expiry over the next three years of the Department’s existing leases. The degenerating condition, increased maintenance costs and reduced amenity of the current premises provided further impetus for the move.

Issues addressed in the Committee’s report on the work included:

• Future Expansion. The AGD informed the Committee that it had obtained staff projections for the next 25 years.
• Consultation. The Department explained that, at the time of the public hearing, consultation with staff had not been extensive as floor plans were yet to be finalised, however the project plan allowed for the development of a consultative forum at a future date.
• Advance Preparation. The Committee expressed concern at being asked to commit Commonwealth monies to a project not scheduled for commencement until 2007. The AGD explained that, as its proposal was interdependent upon the proposal put forward by PM & C, it was advantageous that both project should be considered concurrently by the Committee. The Department added that while it was not customary to enter leasing arrangements so far in advance, it had secured financial benefits for the Commonwealth. Details of the lease were subsequently provided in confidence to the Committee.
• Costings. The Committee raised concerns at the lack of detail provided in relation to costings and design. The AGD responded that it had developed a strong business case and did not foresee any significant variations to the proposal before the Committee. The Committee also sought to clarify why the project budget included significant expenditure in the 2004 and 2005-2006, if construction was not to commence until 2007. The Department explained that these figures had related to an earlier relocation date and undertook to keep the Committee apprised of the revised figures.
• Ecological Sustainability. AGD assured the Committee that it had held discussions with the AGO and the new premises would achieve at least a 4½-star energy rating.
• Car Parking. Noting the shortage of parking spaces in the Barton precinct, AGD explained that it had attempted to maximise the number of parking space available to staff in the new premises, adding that provision had also been made for cyclists.

In respect of the AGD proposal, the Committee:

• formally requested that the Department provide it with an update of the fit-out costings and design of the proposed development closer to the commencement date of construction;
• formally requested that the AGD advise it of any revision to the original budget figures for the proposed development; and’
• recommended that the proposed fit-out proceed at the estimated cost of $23 million.

New East Building for the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, ACT (Eighth Report of 2004)

The eighth report of 2004 comprised an inquiry into the proposed construction of a new East Building for the Australian War Memorial (AWM) was referred to the Committee on 24 June 2004 at an estimated cost of $11.6 million.

The AWM explained that the work was required to free up space in its main building to allow for expansion of the Post-1945 Conflicts galleries, which currently rate the lowest in term s of visitor satisfaction.

Specific work elements required to meet the AWM’s objectives included:

• construction of a two-storey building providing some 3,000 square metres of floor space;
• construction of an underground tunnel linking the new building to the Memorial;
• fit-out to meet the AWM’s requirements; and
• provision of rear access from the existing car park.

At the public hearing, the Committee questioned the AWM on the following issues:

• Compliance with Site Master Plan. As the AWM is situated in a designated area under the provisions of the National Capital Plan, there is a requirement for the proposal to be approved by the NCA. The NCA presented to the Committee a number of outstanding matters of concern in relation to the proposed building, including the nature of the roofing material and external wall treatments, the location of mechanical plant and exhaust vents the mesh perimeter cover, car-parking arrangements and the height and character of the building.
• Consultation. The Committee sought to ensure that the AWM would undertake appropriate consultation with the NCA, staff and the AGO.
• Ecological Sustainability. The AWM assured the Committee that it would meet the requirements of Environment ACT in respect of water management.
• Design Features. The Committee questioned the AWM on specific design features of the building, such as access and aggress, the proposed tunnel and provisions for people with disabilities.
• Project Delivery. The AWM reported that the proposed work would be delivered by means of a Document, Design and Construct contract, as this method had proved successful in the delivery of the ANZAC Hall project.
• Local Employment. The AWM stated that a number of local contractors had already informally expressed interest in the project.

In the light of the evidence presented to it, the Committee recommended that:

• the AWM continue to liaise with the NCA in respect of the roofing and building fabrics utilised in the construction of the new East Building to ensure that suitable high quality materials are used, in keeping with the standards of the AWM precinct; and
• construction of the new East Building proceed at an estimated cost of $11.6 million.

The Government responded by way of a motion moved in the House of Representatives on 9 December 2004 by the Hon Dr Sharman Stone granting approval for the works to proceed.

Development of a New Collection Storage Facility for the National Library of Australia at Hume, ACT (Ninth Report of 2004)

The Committee’s ninth report of 2004 presented findings and recommendations in relation to the development of a new collection storage facility for the National Library of Australia (NLA) at Hume, ACT. The work, estimated to cost $9.9 million, was referred on 24 June 2004.

The NLA submitted that the work was necessitated by the continued growth of its collection and the fact that all current storage facilities are at, or nearing, capacity. The need was further compounded by the imminent expiry of the NLA’s lease on its existing repository at Hume.

The Committee’s report on the proposal addressed the following issues:

• Land Acquisition. The NLA’s statement of evidence reported that the proposed development site had not yet been purchased. The Committee wished to know if the requisite approval of the ACT’s Land Development Agency had been acquired, and whether there was a chance that the preferred site may not be attainable. A letter from the NLA subsequently confirmed that the sale had been approved.
• Site Access. The NLA explained that an existing adjacent street would provide access to the site during the construction of the proposed new access road to the facility.
• Future Expansion. Noting that the proposed facility would meet the library’s storage needs until 2013, the Committee inquired whether the proposal represented the most cost-effective long-term storage solution. The NLA replied that there was some further storage capacity at its Parkes premises and that it was considering a long-term strategy in consultation with other national collecting agencies.
• Site Selection. The Committee asked the NLA to explain why the Hume site was the preferred option. The NLA explained that the decision had rested largely upon cost and accessibility factors.
• Compliance with the Development Control Plan. The NCA submitted that the NLA’s proposal contained three features which were inconsistent with the required Development Control Plan for the area. These issues, specifically the proposed setback of the building, possible future expansion and the direction of the gable end of the roof, were addressed at the public hearing.
• Fire Protection and Security. The NLA assured the Committee that the building would have appropriate fire and security provisions.
• Environmental Sustainability. The NLA confirmed its intention to consult with the AGO regarding the environmental sustainability of the new facility.
• Local Employment. The NLA stated that no problems had been identified in respect of the local building industry’s capacity to deliver the project.

The Committee recommended that the proposed development of a new collection storage facility for the NLA at Hume, ACT, proceed at the estimated cost of $9.9 million.

Government Response

On 9 December 2004 the Government responded to the Committee’s report by way of a motion in the House of Representatives to the effect that it was expedient for the work to proceed.