Sixty-ninth Annual Report

The year 2005 was an exceptionally busy one for the Committee with twenty-three reports addressing works to the value of $990.853million.

A brief summary of each report and the Government response is given below. Copies of all reports are available on-line at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pwc/reports.htm or in hard-copy from the Committee Secretariat.

Sixty-eighth Annual Report

In accordance with Section 16 of the Act, the Committee tabled its sixty-seventh Annual Report on 16 March 2005. A list of the twenty-two works reported on in 2005, and their estimated costs, is provided at Appendix A. Summaries of the reports tabled in 2005 follow, together with the Government response to each report.

Fit-out of New Leased Premises for the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources in Civic, ACT (First Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 6 December 2004. The proponent agency was DITR.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was the condition of its current premises and the imminent expiry of all existing leases. In addition, DITR stated that its current premises were inefficient, difficult to secure and did not provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to:

• enhance operational efficiency and cohesiveness;
• create greater flexibility and more efficient management of internal staff movements;
• reduce environmental impact;
• provide better staff facilities;
• improve security arrangements;
• increase space efficiency; and
• improve visitor access and facilities.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• integration of electrical, ventilation, communications, security, fire and hydraulic services into base-building construction;
• office accommodation, including meeting and training rooms, IT/communications rooms, storage; workstations and loose furniture; and
• staff facilities, including amenities room, parenting rooms, carer’s room, first-aid rooms, break-out areas and a prayer room.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $19.4 million, including contingency and escalation; project management; and design documentation.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• future rental costs;
• the size of the building;
• re-use of existing furniture;
• energy conservation issues;
• child-care facilities;
• consultation; and
• the construction program and contingency arrangements.

Recommendations

The Committee recommended that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $19.4 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 16 March 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 17 March 2005.

New Housing for Defence Housing Authority at McDowall, Brisbane, Queensland (Second Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 6 December 2004. The proponent agency was the Defence Housing Authority (DHA).

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was to reduce reliance by Brisbane Defence personnel on Rental Assistance. DHA reported that 24 per cent (336 houses) of the Defence housing requirement in Brisbane was provided through Rental Assistance.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to provide 50 houses to meet the operational requirements of Defence, mainly to service the nearby Enoggera Army Base.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• 40 conventional and ten small housing lots;
• 2 two park areas with a total area of 6,170 square metres;
• internal roads and footpaths;
• access roads; and
• stormwater, drainage, sewerage, communications and electrical services.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $17.5 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Defence housing requirements;
• the site selection process;
• environmental considerations including, contamination, biofiltration, water usage, trees and shrubs, and transient koalas;
• consultation;
• the nature of the development in respect of layout, design, gas supply and integration into the surrounding community; and
• traffic management issues.

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that the DHA continue to engage in close consultation with owners of neighbouring properties and the wider McDowall community; and
• that the work proceed at the estimated cost of $17.5 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 25 May 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 26 May 2005.

Provision of Facilities for Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre Additional Accommodation and Related Works, Maribyrnong, Victoria (Third Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 6 December 2004. The proponent agency was DIMIA.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was to provide additional accommodation at the MIDC with improved amenity and regard to the personal needs and dignity of residents.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to:

• separate different detainee groups;
• accommodate approximately 50 more residents;
• improve amenity for residents, particularly women and children;
• improve resident recreation and access to outdoor facilities;
• provide improved reception and visitors facilities;
• improve disabled facilities for residents and facilities;
• increase privacy for detainees;
• install security cameras;
• improve occupational health and safety (OH&S) provisions for staff; and
• provide some self-catering facilities.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise additions and/or improvements to the following facilities:

• accommodation;
• processing;
• visiting;
• food preparation;
• dining; and
• general storage.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $7 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Purpose
• ensuring humane and non-punitive detention; and
• the separation of categories of detainees.

• Need
• the requirement for 50 additional places;
• detainee numbers;
• detainees with ties to the Melbourne community;
• the transfer of detainees to Melbourne for medical reasons;
• other detention facilities;
• the proposed Broadmeadows facility; and
• the refurbishment of existing facilities.

• Scope
• the project delivery schedule;
• proposed security measures;
• the use of portable buildings;
• building codes and standards;
• space per capita;
• room occupancy levels;
• privacy for detainees;
• access to outdoor recreation areas;
• medical facilities;
• ablutions and laundry facilities;
• the provision of self-catering facilities;
• the disparity in quality between existing and new accommodation; and
• proposed configuration of detainee areas.

• Value for Money
• related works.

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that, in order to maintain a reasonable level of amenity, the current maximum occupancy of the MIDC be increased by no more than 20 places, with a total maximum occupancy in surge periods of not more than 100 detainees.
• that the portable accommodation units used in the proposed works be of an acceptable standard to ensure a reasonable level of comfort and amenity for detainees.
• that, in respect of building codes and standards, DIMIA consult with appropriate government and professional bodies to establish a national benchmark for the construction and fit-out of Immigration Detention Centres and Immigration Reception and Processing Centres.
• that in order to fulfil DIMIA’s objective of providing “humane and non-punitive detention infrastructure”, the Department reduce the number of detainees accommodated in the existing double-bunk rooms at the MIDC to two persons per room. Moreover, the Committee recommended that, wherever possible, occupancy of new ensuite rooms should be kept below the maximum of four, especially in cases where the detention period is prolonged.
• that in order to fulfil DIMIA’s objective of providing “humane and non-punitive detention infrastructure which provides a clear regard for the personal needs and dignity of residents”, the Department install bedroom doors or bed-curtaining in all rooms at the MIDC to ensure an appropriate level of privacy for detainees.
• that, in respect of the ratio between living/recreation space, amenities and occupancy, DIMIA consult with appropriate government and professional bodies with a view to establishing a national benchmark for room occupancy and related indoor and outdoor recreation areas, ablutions, kitchen and laundry facilities at Immigration Detention Centres and Immigration Reception and Processing Centres.
• that in order to meet the stated project objective in terms of the provision of “humane and non-punitive” detention facilities, DIMIA expedite the proposed routine maintenance and upgrade of existing ablutions and accommodation facilities in order to reduce the disparity in quality of accommodation between the old and new wings of the MIDC.
• that DIMIA give consideration to using the proposed new Zone A of the extended MIDC for the accommodation of families in order to allow children greater access to the centre’s largest outdoor recreation area.
• that on the basis of the evidence presented, and subject to the acceptance of recommendations 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, the proposed provision of facilities for MIDC Additional Accommodation and Related Works proceed at the estimated cost of $7 million.
• that DIMIA provide a response to the Committee in respect of the Department’s intention to adopt the recommendations made in the report.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 25 May 2005.

Government Response

DIMIA agreed to implement the Committee’s recommendations and the expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 June 2005.

Development of On-Base Housing for Defence at Puckapunyal, Victoria (Fourth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 9 February 2005. The proponent agency was DHA.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was based upon a Defence Housing Forecast (DHF) indicating that Puckapunyal would have a steady requirement over the next 5 years to house 412 Defence Families, 80% on base. DHA added that this number would increase should the School of Military Engineering and School of Infantry be relocated to Puckapunyal in the future. DHA reported that, due to Puckapunyal’s remote location, off-base housing is limited, and the sourcing of additional suitable properties at short notice is difficult.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to provide 80 on-base houses to meet the operational requirements of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• 80 houses; and
• stormwater drainage, communications, sewerage reticulation, gas and electrical services.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $19.6 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Defence housing requirements;
• previous works at Puckapunyal;
• site selection;
• the nature of the development;
• a range of environmental considerations; and
• consultation.

Recommendations

The Committee recommended that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $19.64 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 1 June 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 2 June 2005.

Defence Science and Technology Organisation Ordnance Breakdown Facility, Port Wakefield, South Australia (Fifth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 9 February 2005. The proponent agency was Defence.

Need

Defence reported that prevailing safety requirements at its existing ordnance testing sites at Edinburgh, SA and Port Wakefield, SA limited investigation to small-size ordnance. The proposed work would address this deficiency by enabling research into a wider range of explosive ordnance and weapons.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to provide a facility that would enhance Defence research capability in respect of explosive ordnance and weaponry.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise the following elements:

• control room;
• cutting building;
• disassembly building;
• two explosive ordnance storehouses;
• storage building;
• engineering services; and
• security provisions.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $8.4 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• security and safety;
• environmental and heritage issues, including soil contamination, flora and fauna, waste disposal and cultural heritage;
• building standards and energy use ratings;
• associated works at the site;
• the land acquisition procedure;
• consultation; and
• local employment opportunities.

Recommendations

The Committee recommended that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $8.4 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 1 June 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2005.

Australia House Defence and Lightwells Refurbishment, Australian High Commission, London (Sixth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 9 February 2005. The proponent agency was DFAT.

Need

DFAT reported that Australia House is some 90 years old and required the replacement of the original ‘Crittal’ window frames and glazing in the three building lightwells, and repairs to the drainage systems and brickwork.

The refurbishment of Level Four, occupied by Defence, was required due to changes in Defence staffing, access and functions, and the ageing of the current fit-out, which is had become dysfunctional and no longer met OH&S requirements.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to refurbish lightwells and Level Four to modern standards, to ensure:

• compliance with current OH&S regulations;
• the continuation of an acceptable standard of amenity for tenants;
• the ongoing viability of the aspect in respect of income generation; and
• to redress degradation of lightwell areas.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• construction of temporary accommodation and the relocation (to Levels 5 and 6) of the existing Level 4 tenant (Defence) to facilitate proposed works;
• demolition and removal of the existing Level 4 fit-out;
• refurbishment of base building finishes and services;
• new office fit out for Defence;
• additional toilet and shower facilities;
• high pressure cleaning of lightwells;
• repairs to damaged lightwell areas;
• replacement of damaged cast iron drainage pipework;
• replacement of glazing facing into the lightwells; and
• removal of old and non-used surface ductwork and other miscellaneous pipework, services and fittings in the lightwells.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $11.98 million, including

• construction costs;
• consultants’ fees;
• project management and supervision;
• travel expenses; and
• British Government Value Added Tax (VAT) of 17.5 per cent.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• the program of works at Australia House, including previous refurbishments and the proposed concurrent execution of security works;
• heritage issues;
• local government approvals;
• codes and standards, including OH&S and access equity requirements; and
• energy conservation measures.

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $11.98 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 22 June 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 June 2005.

Mid-Life Upgrade of Existing Chancery at the Australian High Commission, Singapore (Seventh Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 16 February 2005. The proponent agency was DFAT.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was that the existing Chancery building is inadequate for it purpose because:

• it does not meet current Australian and Singaporean Building Requirements;
• it requires upgrades to comply with OH&S and Building Code of Australia standards;
• entrance, reception and representational areas do not meet DFAT (and occupying agencies) standards;
• current workplace layout is not functional;
• service provision and core environmental services require upgrading to increase amenity; and
• the current arrangement of tenant agencies is not cost-effective.

Purpose

DFAT stated that the proposed refurbishment would:

• maintain the High Commission as the primary owner/occupier of the building;
• provide efficient, high quality accommodation and representational facilities that meet the current requirements of the High Commission;
• provide an opportunity for the consolidation of current tenant accommodation within the building and the potential for the accommodation of other functions within building.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• upgrade of building mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and fire engineering services and removal of hazardous materials;
• refurbishment of existing and new Access Control, Security and Secure Communication systems;
• refurbishment of mail, drivers’ and cleaners’ rooms;
• new office fit-outs for tenant agencies, including consolidation of tenant operations to four of the five floors, leaving the third floor vacant; and
• minor modification of the entry driveway and resealing of bitumen surfaces.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $12.7 million based on August 2003 prices.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• previous works at the Chancery;
• building occupancy levels;
• environmental issues, including energy conservation measures and hazardous materials;
• building codes and standards; and
• building services.

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $12.7 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 22 June 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 June 2005.

New Consulate-General, Bali, Indonesia (Eighth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 15 March 2005. The proponent agency was DFAT.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was that the former Consulate-General building in Bali is no longer suitable to fulfil its consular and representative role. Specifically:

• the building does not meet minimum standards for security, functionality or OH&S;
• building structure and services have aged to the point where maintenance is impracticable; and
• the floor area is inadequate to meet the requirements of the tenant agencies.

Following the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in September 2004, the Consulate-General was relocated, initially to a hotel and, in November 2004, to a townhouse complex. Whilst providing a higher level of security than the original premises, the temporary offices still fall short of DFAT’s security requirements. DFAT added that the proposed new Consulate-General building would redress this shortcoming.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to provide a new building to house the Australian Consulate-General in Bali. The building will serve as Australia’s ongoing representative office in Bali and will house DFAT, DIMIA and the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• construction of 1,000 square metre, single storey Consulate-General building to meet Australian codes and standards;
• controlled pedestrian and vehicular access;
• attached services wing;
• controlled access carparking;
• fully landscaped surrounds within fenced and walled compound, including publicly accessible commemorative garden;
• installation of new engineering services infrastructure including mains electricity and on-site substation, stand-by generator, water reticulation/storage and treatment, storm water drainage, on-site sewage treatment and telecommunications; and
• integrated fit-out to tenant specifications, including security measures, transformer and generator, air-conditioning, electrical switchgear, water pumps and purifiers, fixed partitions and doors, floor coverings, ablutions and tea rooms.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $7.15 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• building design, including, floor space, staffing levels, use of imported materials and seismic and climatic considerations;
• security and access to the Memorial Garden;
• energy conservation measures; and
• building codes and approvals.

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $7.15 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 22 June 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 June 2005.

Construction of Chancery, Vientiane, Laos (Ninth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 15 March 2005. The proponent agency was DFAT.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was the dysfunctional and poor condition of the existing Chancery. Specifically:

• the premises do not provide adequate facilities in respect of security, access, services, layout, amenity or space;
• ad hoc accommodation of operational functions has resulted ion a layout which is dysfunctional and does not fulfil modern office requirements;
• the building does not meet Building Code of Australia (BCA) or OH&S standards.

Further, DFAT added that Australia’s relationship with Laos will continue to grow, placing additional demands upon the embassy.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to provide a new building to house Australia’s permanent mission to Laos. The building will house DFAT, DIMIA, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Defence, the AFP and a new facility for the Australian Medical Clinic.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• construction of 1,645 square metre, two-storey Chancery;
• controlled pedestrian and vehicular access;
• services enclosure at rear of site;
• carparking;
• security wall;
• engineering services including mains electricity and on-site substation, stand-by generator, water reticulation/storage and treatment, storm water drainage, on-site sewage treatment and telecommunications;
• integrated fit-out to tenant specifications, including security measures, fixed work-stations, fixed partitions and doors, compactus storage units, window treatments and floor coverings, ablutions, tea rooms, and tenant-specific modifications to building services.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $11 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• project costs;
• building codes and standards;
• environmental considerations, including climate, the proposed basket catchment facility and the impact of the works upon neighbours;
• floor space;
• leases;
• the use of imported materials;
• staffing;
• access equity; and
• OH&S requirements.

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $11 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 22 June 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 June 2005.

Reserve Bank of Australia Business Resumption Site (Tenth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 11 March 2005. The proponent agency was the RBA.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the referring agency, is the requirement for the RBA to continue to function in the event of disaster or emergency. As Australia’s central bank, with responsibility for monetary policy and the maintenance of financial system stability, the RBA oversees elements critical to the operation of Australia’s financial system and to the implementation of monetary policy.

Purpose

The purpose of the proposed work was to provide a resilient and secure secondary site that would enable the RBA to sustain all critical business and information technology and communications functions if access to the Head Office should be lost due to malfunction or disruption of essential infrastructure.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise a two-storey building of approximately 4,850 square metres, including:

• office accommodation for 55 permanent staff;
• emergency work stations for 165 staff;
• enclosed offices, meeting rooms and ancillary spaces;
• a 240 square metre data centre and 20-seat dealing room at the core of the ground floor;
• intensive and resilient data communications;
• 65 permanent and 100 additional car-parking spaces;
• robust security measures;
• landscaping;
• electrical, mechanical, hydraulic and fire services; and
• fit-out of interior office areas.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $38 million, including:

• loose furniture;
• fittings;
• office equipment;
• landscaping;
• professional fees;
• contingencies;
• escalation; and
• GST payable.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• revenue and cost matters including relocation costs and GST;
• staff issues such as relocation of personnel, child-care facilities, space per employee and access equity;
• the use of the facility;
• energy consumption and Green Building initiatives;
• electricity supply; and
• the quality of evidence.

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $38 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 22 June 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 23 June 2005.

Holsworthy Program – Special Operations Working Accommodation and Base Redevelopment Stage 1 (Eleventh Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 11 May 2005. The proponent agency was Defence.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was prompted by the Government’s approval in December 2001of the establishment of a permanent counter terrorist capability.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was:

• the establishment of Army’s Full time Commando Capability, based upon the 4 th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (Commando);
• the establishment of the Tactical Assault Group (East), to become an organic element of the 4 th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (Commando);
• the establishment of the Incident Response Regiment;
• the establishment of Special Operations Command, including the Master Planning of the Special Operations Combat Services Support Company; and
• the first stage of the redevelopment of Holsworthy Barracks.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

4 th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (Commando)

Works associated with the establishment of the 4 th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (Commando) would comprise:

• new refurbished facilities for the 4 th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (Commando), including working and logistic accommodation, vehicle hardstands and security infrastructure; and
• working and logistic facilities for the Tactical Assault Group (East), are incorporated within the 4 th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (Commando) works.

Incident Response Regiment

Works associated with the Incident response regiment would comprise:

• new working accommodation for the Incident Response Regiment, including working and logistic accommodation, vehicle hardstands and security infrastructure; and
• laboratories for the Incident Response Regiment at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation’s Fishermans Bend, Vic, establishment.

Holsworthy Base Redevelopment Project

Associated engineering and services infrastructure works would include:

• upgrading of electrical communications links;
• upgrading of street and pedestrian lighting;
• upgrading of the water supply system to dual supply for domestic and fire usage; and
• environmental and storm water remediation works.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $207.7 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• associated works at Fishermans Bend;
• building services including air-conditioning, child-care facilities and access equity provisions;
• fire protection services;
• consultation;
• environmental considerations such as water usage, removal of hazardous materials and ecologically sustainable development (ESD) initiatives;
• siting options;
• project delivery; and
• local impacts.

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $207.7 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 17 August 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 August 2005.

Proposed CSIRO Entomology Bioscience Laboratory at Black Mountain, Canberra, ACT (Twelfth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 11 May 2005. The proponent agency was Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was that ageing buildings at the CSIRO Black Mountain Campus:

• do not meet contemporary research standards;
• have, in some instances, structural constraints which prevent them being refurbished to a level commensurate with current and evolving laboratory standards;
• do not meet current OH&S standards; and
• cannot accommodate anticipated Division growth.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to provide international standard accommodation to meet CSIRO Entomology research requirements.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• construction of a new two-storey, 2,313 square metre Entomology Bioscience Laboratory (Building 179) including laboratories, roof-top plant room, ablutions, staff areas, lifts, stairs and workstations;
• refurbishment of existing Building 101, including conversion of existing laboratories to office accommodation, new reception, exhibition, seminar and meeting spaces, new registry, new staff canteen, upgrade of ablutions, and new disabled access;
• refurbishment of existing Building 135, including new laboratories on level one, selective refurbishment, new floor treatments, repainting and new services as required;
• construction of covered walkways to link the new Building 179 with Buildings 101 and 135; and
• associated site works and landscaping, including demolition of redundant buildings and sheds.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $14.5 million including escalation costs, contingencies, professional fees and authorities charges.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• heritage issues;
• geotechnical issues;
• amenity for occupants including barrier-free access, space per employee and parking facilities;
• consultation;
• removal of hazardous materials;
• ESD initiatives;
• statutory approvals, including those from the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) and the National Capital Authority (NCA);
• the project schedule; and
• costs.

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that the CSIRO take all necessary steps to identify and ensure the safe removal and disposal of hazardous materials from the site of the proposed works;
• that the CSIRO continue discussions with the National Capital Authority to resolve outstanding design issues; and
• that the proposed construction of a new entomology bioscience laboratory for the CSIRO at Black Mountain, Canberra, ACT proceed at the estimated cost of $14.5 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 17 August 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 August 2005.

Operational Upgrade, Darwin Detention Facility, Berrimah, NT (Thirteenth Report 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 26 May 2005. The proponent agency was DIMIA.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was the urgent requirement to provide appropriate accommodation for illegal foreign fishers (IFFs), who were being apprehended in Australian waters in increasing numbers. DIMIA explained that the existing practice of detaining IFFs on their vessels was becoming increasingly difficult to manage and had been criticised by the Indonesian Consulate in Darwin, public scrutiny bodies and a Northern Territory coronial inquiry.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to establish a safe and secure land-based detention facility for IFFs apprehended in Australia’s northern waters.

Scope

DIMIA proposed an upgrade of the existing contingency immigration detention accommodation at Defence Establishment Berrimah, to serve as a permanent detention centre. This would require a range of new and additional facilities, including:

• additional buildings or modification of existing demountables to support delivery of Immigration Detention Standards;
• refurbishment of existing administration building;
• provision of improved amenity and safety for detainees, including illumination of pathways, cyclone provisions and recreational equipment;
• improved security, including monitoring and additional fencing; and
• upgrade and modification of existing site services.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work, based on preliminary designs, was $8.215 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Project Costs
• cost of existing facilities; and
• undetermined costs.

• The Need for the Work
• use of existing facilities; and
• detainee numbers.

• Scope of Works
• provision for families and women with children;
• use of demountable buildings;
• parking facilities; and
• project delivery.

• Present and Prospective Public Value of Works
• public consultation;
• consultation with NT and local government;
• proposed name change;
• visual impact;
• shared use of Defence land; and
• opportunities for local business and industry.

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that in order to ensure appropriate scrutiny of expenditure, DIMIA should supply the Committee with regular updates on project costs throughout the operational upgrade of the detention facility;
• that in view of the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the plans for the proposed family zone at the detention facility, the Committee strongly recommends that families including women and children are not detained at the facility;
• in the event that there is a demonstrated need for the short-term detention of families at the detention facility, in order to ensure appropriate provision of security, amenity and space for families, women and children, DIMIA better utilise available space to enlarge the proposed family zone, which should include appropriate separation of all facilities, adequate indoor recreation space and a secure outdoor area of a suitable size to accommodate the relocated play equipment from the existing large, grassed recreation area;
• that in order to ensure appropriate scrutiny of the proposed works, DIMIA should supply the Committee with an update on the proposed delivery methodology and the application of Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines to this process, when this information becomes available;
• that DIMIA conduct a public meeting in respect of the proposed works to provide the local community members with the opportunity to learn about, and comment upon, the proposal;
• that in recognition of the importance of appropriate local consultation on Commonwealth developments, DIMIA undertake consultation with the relevant NT Government agencies throughout the execution of the proposed works to ensure an acceptable outcome for all parties;
• that DIMIA continue to consult with the office of the NT Chief Minister to find an appropriate alternative name for the upgraded detention facility; and
• that the proposed operational upgrade of the detention facility at Berrimah, NT, proceed at the estimated cost of $8.125 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 17 August 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 August 2005.

Upgrade Patrol Boat Facilities, HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin, NT (Fourteenth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 11 May 2005. The proponent agency was Defence.

Need

Defence reported that the proposed work was necessitated by a Government decision to replace the existing FREMANTLE Class Patrol Boats with new ARMIDALE Class Patrol Boats (ACPBs), which is a larger vessel and therefore requires the extension of existing wharf infrastructure. In addition, Defence stated its intention to enhance ACPB capability by the construction of a Standby Crew facility and upgraded facilities and equipment for the Port Services Organisation, which is responsible for the management of Darwin Naval Base (DNB) harbour.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to provide:

• facilities at DNB for the berthing and effective operation of eight ACPBs; and
• more suitable facilities for the DNB Port Services Organisation.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works comprised two elements approved by the Committee in July 2004 as a separate medium work, estimated to cost $5.53 million, namely the:

• extension of the southern wharf to 197.8 metres to provide three alongside berths for the ACPBs, stairs and platforms and service connections; and
• modification of service connections at the northern wharf to allow for emergency berthing of two additional ACPBs.

The remainder of the works would entail:

• extension of synchrolift (vertical ship lift) by 12 metres;
• extension of three existing land berths to provide hardstand storage;
• modification of existing support cradles to accommodate ACPB hull size and shape;
• construction of an additional 250 kilolitre fuel tank to increase fuel holding capacity;
• construction of a Standby Crew facility to provide working accommodation for two standby patrol boat crews; and
• provision of a new facility for the DNB Port Services Organisation.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $19.17 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Environmental Considerations
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
• environmental management plan;
• excavation of hardstand area;
• dredging; and
• ESD and energy management.

• Zoning and Approvals

• Scope of Works
• support cradles;
• synchrolift;
• working accommodation; and
• fire protection services.
• Economic Considerations
• construction workforce; and
• economical design solutions.

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that Defence maintain close consultation with the NT Department of Lands, Planning and Environment to ensure minimisation of damage to the marine environment occasioned by dredging activities at HMAS Coonawarra;
• that in view of the importance of fire protection and evacuation measures, Defence supply it with details of the fire protection system proposed for the Standby Crew and Port Services Organisation building, including any departures from the requirements of the BCA, when these have been determined; and
• that the proposed upgrade of patrol boat facilities at HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin, proceed at the estimated cost of $19.2 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 17 August 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 August 2005.

Redevelopment of Kokoda Barracks, Canungra, Queensland (Fifteenth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 11 May 2005. The proponent agency was Defence.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was that

• buildings at the Barracks had aged to the point where their efficient use is no longer feasible; and
• most of the facilities, particularly those used for training delivery are equipped with outdated technology, do not meet OH&S standards, and require high levels of maintenance.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to provide the working and domestic accommodation and engineering services infrastructure required for the ongoing delivery of effective training at the Canungra Military Area.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works proposed for the redevelopment of Kokoda Barracks would comprise:

• correction of working and training accommodation deficiencies;
• rationalisation of messing facilities;
• improvements to living-in accommodation for trainees;
• upgrading of the engineering services infrastructure; and
• disposal of redundant, high maintenance facilities.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $86.7 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Barracks services, including living-in accommodation, medical and child-care facilities, sewage treatment and power supply;
• building design issues such as climatic considerations, air-conditioning, roofing and workstations;
• removal of asbestos;
• heritage issues; and
• traffic management.

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that Defence continue consultation with the DEH regarding any heritage issues that may arise from the redevelopment of Kokoda Barracks; and
• that the proposed redevelopment of Kokoda Barracks, Canungra, Queensland, proceed at the estimated cost of $86.7 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 17 August 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 August 2005.

Redevelopment of Willis Island Meteorological Office, Coral Sea (Sixteenth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 2 June 2005. The proponent agency was Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was that the existing facilities are either nearing the end of their useful lives, or have already exceeded it. The BOM’s assessment of Willis Island identified a need for redeveloping the facilities, based on:

• substantial damage to the structural support of existing facilities, with some areas no longer able to be made safe for operational use;
• health and safety hazards for stationed staff, visitors and maintenance staff as a result of the presence of asbestos in the buildings and ageing services infrastructure;
• the considerable cost of maintaining the existing facility, which is expected to increase over time; and
• the need to enhance the station’s desirability as a staff posting.

The BOM added that it wished to maintain a presence at Willis Island due to its unique maritime location, its long climatological history and its front-line warning capability for tropical cyclones approaching north-east Queensland. The BOM had also been asked to include Willis Island in a global meteorological network, which would assist in understanding global climate change.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to replace facilities on Willis Island — including facilities required by the BOM to staff, operate and house their meteorological office — that have significantly deteriorated and exceeded their economic lives, and that also present potential health and safety hazards.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise the demolition and removal of the following facilities:

• meteorological office, accommodation, messing and recreational structures;
• power house and paint store;
• balloon filling and hydrogen storage building;
• cyclone shelter and flammable storage bunkers;
• fresh water storage tanks;
• external paths and paving; and
• underground services.

The following existing system elements were proposed for reuse:

• desalination plant;
• fire and salt water pumps;
• enviro-cycle sewage treatment plant; and
• fuel storage tanks and refilling pump.

The proposal included the construction of the following new facilities and services:

• meteorological office, messing area, accommodation, recreational area, powerhouse;
• hydrogen generator building and gas storage, including associated site works;
• relocation of fuel storage tanks to new fuel area;
• new underground services including communications, power distribution, water, sewage and fire hose services;
• relocation of satellite dishes and radar tower; and
• refurbishment of the salt water pump building.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $7.691 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• procedural issues
• alternatives considered
• the future requirement for the office
• hazardous materials
• environmental issues Environmental Management Plan
• the project schedule and its impact on operations
• costs

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that the BOM provide the Committee with updates of the project schedule and costs as the works progress;
• that the BOM supply the Committee with budgetary details of items omitted from the commercial-in-confidence quantity surveyor estimate for the project when such information becomes available; and
• that the proposed redevelopment of Willis Island Meteorological Office, Coral Sea, proceed at the estimated cost of $7.691 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 13 September 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 14 September 2005.

Proposed Refurbishment of the Royal Australian Mint, Canberra, ACT (Seventeenth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 16 June 2005. The proponent agency was DoFA.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was that consolidating operations into a single building would allow the Mint to enhance visitor experience through the introduction of new interpretive galleries. DoFA added that the two Mint buildings (Process and Administration) had not had any major upgrade works undertaken since they were built in 1965. Certain non-structural elements of the buildings had passed their useful economic life resulting in OH&S, BCA and fire safety non-compliance issues that could only be rectified by major refurbishment.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to:

• preserve the heritage value and make best use of the Mint buildings;
• address code non-compliance issues;
• provide a more efficient use of space by the Mint, thereby providing the opportunity to lease the additional available space (3,000 square metres) to another agency, thereby increasing the revenue and return on investment on the asset;
• improve overall energy efficiency usage;
• enable the Mint to fulfil its charter by providing a building that meets its functional requirements more efficiently; and
• extend the life of the building by at least another 25 years.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise refurbishment of both the Process and Administration buildings as follows:

Administration Building

Works required to the Administration Building would comprise:

• internal demolition to create an open floor plate;
• new building mechanical, electrical and fire services;
• new male, female and disabled access toilets;
• new commercial quality carpet to office areas;
• new suspended acoustic tiled ceilings and new light fittings;
• new lift located adjacent to the main entrance;
• roof painting and safety system;
• new staff parking arrangements;
• refurbishment of existing stone flooring to lobby; and
• stairs upgraded to comply with the BCA.

Process Building

Works for the Process Building would comprise:

• new floor coverings to office, public and exhibition areas;
• new ceilings to office, public and exhibition areas;
• refurbishment of existing concrete and timber floors in process areas;
• new amenities including staff toilets and showers, public toilets, and tea room;
• new building entry at ground floor;
• new public and staff parking arrangements;
• new public forecourt and entry courtyard providing access into the Mint;
• new basement tunnel link to vault;
• new goods delivery security gates to southern end of Process Building;
• new public lift to foyer area to serve the ground and first floor and;
• refurbishment of existing concrete and timber floors in process areas.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $41.2 million budgeted over three years from 2005 to 2008.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Project Cost Estimate
  • cost-benefit analysis.
• Options Considered
• Heritage Considerations
  • heritage impact statement;
  • architectural context; and
  • NCA concerns.
• Building Design
  • office configuration;
  • sound attenuation;
  • provision for persons with a disability;
  • landscaping; and
  • car parking.
• Environmental Considerations
• Air-Conditioning
• Removal of Hazardous Material
  • previous projects; and
  • cost of removing hazardous materials.
• Project Delivery
• Consultation
• Tenancy of Administration Building
• Revenue Derived from the Project
  • increase in visitor numbers; and
  • cafeteria.
• Post-Refurbishment Operation.

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that DoFA advise the Committee of the project delivery strategy to be employed, and the reasons for the specific strategy, once this has been determined; and
• that the proposed refurbishment of the Royal Australian Mint building, Canberra , proceed at the estimated cost of $41.2 million

Tabling

The report was tabled on 11 October 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 12 October 2005.

RAAF Base Amberley Redevelopment Stage 2, Queensland (Eighteenth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 23 June 2005. The proponent agency was Defence.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was prompted by:

• the relocation to RAAF Base Amberley of No 33 Squadron, elements of the 9 th Force Support Battalion, and the arrival of new Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft at the end of 2008, all of which will require the provision of new facilities as there are no suitable existing facilities at the Base; and
• the need to replace or upgrade existing Base services infrastructure, which will also address shortcomings in the existing communications and trunk road systems.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to ensure that RAAF Base Amberley can operate effectively as a Defence base over a thirty year planning horizon.

Scope

Facilities for the MRTT

Works for the MRRT would comprise:

• new aircraft parking apron with an aircraft washpoint;
• new Squadron Headquarters, Maintenance Complex and Ground Support Equipment shelter;
• extension of the refuelling system with hydrant points on the apron;
• upgrade of the main runway and parallel taxiway;
• new office facility for the Logistic Management Unit; and
• simulator facility.

Facilities for the 9th Force Support Battalion

Works for the 9 th Force Support Battalion would comprise:

• new combined Battalion Headquarters and Logistic Supply Company office and stores building;
• new office, stores and maintenance facilities;
• new are fuel and vehicle washpoint; and
• new office and stores facilities and a separate Petrol Platoon complex.

Base Engineering Services Infrastructure

Associated services infrastructure and engineering works would comprise:

• upgrade of electrical reticulation, central emergency power station and service supervisory systems;
• upgrade of water, sewerage and stormwater reticulation, including rehabilitation of the sewage treatment plant;
• upgrade of communications infrastructure and networks; and
• provision of new link roads and upgrade of existing roadway.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $285.6 million.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Options Considered
  • MRTT Location on Base.
• Project Delivery
  • contracting methodology.
• Consultation
• Local Impact
  • workforce; and
  • traffic considerations.
• Hazardous Materials
  • building services;
  • building management systems;
  • air-conditioning; and
  • water reticulation.
• Security
• Future Projects.

Recommendations

The Committee recommended that the work proceed at the estimated cost of $285.6 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 2 November 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 3 November 2005.

Relocation of RAAF College; RAAF Base East Sale, Victoria and RAAF Base Wagga, New South Wales (Nineteenth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 23 June 2005. The proponent agency was Defence.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was prompted by:

• the Defence Efficiency Review, which found that cost efficiencies could be achieved through the closure of Point Cook Base Vic;
• Defence policy, which seeks to decrease the number of bases; and
• the inadequacy of No 1 Recruit Training Unit facilities at RAAF Base Edinburgh, SA.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to:

• replace aged facilities and infrastructure;
• ensure compliance with current OH&S standards;
• produce cost efficiencies;
• address deficiencies associated with overcrowding and dysfunctional layout of existing facilities.

Defence added that the proposed work would also support the Government’s commitment to regional Australia.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would involve the relocation of:

• RAAF College Headquarters from Point Cook to RAAF Base Wagga;
• The Officer Training School from Point Cook to RAAF Base East Sale; and
• No. 1 Recruit Training Unit from RAAF Base Edinburgh to RAAF Base Wagga.

RAAF Base East Sale

Works to provide for the RAAF Officer Training School would comprise:

• purpose-built Staff and Administration Headquarters;
• purpose-built Officer Training School facilities;
• purpose-built external and physical training facilities;
• purpose-built living-in accommodation for the Officer Training School, comprising four two-storey buildings with 30 beds each;
• new combined all-ranks mess; and
• domestic support facilities, including upgraded clothing store and additional car-parking.

RAAF Base Wagga

Works to provide for the Headquarters RAAF College and No 1 Recruit Training Unit will comprise:

• refurbishment of existing building to provide administrative facilities for the Headquarters RAAF College;
• administration and training facilities for the No 1 Recruit Training Unit, including Staff and Administration Headquarters, classrooms and an indoor physical training area;
• purpose-built external training facilities;
• purpose-built living-in accommodation for No 1 Recruit Training Unit, consisting of three two-storey buildings and a single-storey building for Specialised Training Section recruits and the Military Skill Instructor course, communal recreation facility and minor refurbishment of existing living-in accommodation for senior non-commissioned officers; and
• base domestic support, including refurbishment of airmen’s mess kitchen and servery, extension and refurbishment of medical and dental facilities, new psychological unit accommodation, new ground training equipment store, minor upgrades to registry and stores, and some additional car-parking.

Engineering Services

The works would also include associated upgrades to engineering services to provide for the new and expanded facilities.

Demolition

The relocation project would leave vacant some facilities at RAAF Base Edinburgh which may be available for demolition following the conduct of an asbestos survey. Specific buildings to be demolished had not been identified as RAAF Base Edinburgh was undergoing a comprehensive heritage survey.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $133.4 million. This figure comprises:

• $65.6 million for RAAF Base East Sale;
• $66.7 million for RAAF Base Wagga; and
• $1.1 million for demolition, and furniture and fittings relocation costs at RAAF Base Edinburgh and Point Cook Base.

The cost estimate included:

• construction costs;
• professional fees;
• furniture and fittings;
• escalation; and
• contingency.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• the consolidation of RAAF College;
• planning considerations;
• environmental considerations including ESD and protection of native flora and avifauna;
• impact upon Base population;
• accommodation standards;
• messing arrangements;
• traffic management;
• OH&S;
• demolition works;
• consultation; and
• the economic and social impact of the works upon the local communities.

Recommendations

The Committee made the following recommendations in respect of the proposed work:

• that Defence supply it with a comprehensive list of all buildings to be demolished at RAAF Base Edinburgh, together with all associated demolition and asbestos removal costs, as soon as practicable following completion of the necessary surveys; and
• that the proposed works associated with the relocation of selected RAAF College Units to RAAF Base East Sale and RAAF Base Wagga proceed at the estimated cost of $133.4 million

Tabling

The report was tabled on 2 November 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 3 November 2005.

CSIRO Minerals Laboratory Extensions at Waterford, Perth, WA (Twentieth Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 16 June 2005. The proponent agency was CSIRO.

Need

According to the proponent agency, the work was necessitated chiefly by the continued increase in staff numbers at the Waterford facility, WA. CSIRO attributed this increase to:

• the great success of hydrometallurgical research;
• increasing engagement with the Australian minerals industry and continued CSIRO investment;
• the growing demand for, and prominence of, minerals research in WA;
• the recent renewal of the Parker Centre for a further seven years; and
• future anticipated growth in staff numbers to meet the hydrometallurgical research needs of the minerals industry.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to:

• provide accommodation for an additional 30 staff;
• provide improved amenities for staff, students, collaborators and visitors;
• replace existing sub-standard seminar and canteen facilities;
• redress current inadequacies in respect of storage and technical support amenities;
• improve efficiency and communication among staff students and collaborators; and
• create safe, consolidated and accessible accommodation for research instruments.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• development of a new single-storey wing on the southern side of the Koch Building;
• a three-floor extension to the eastern side of the Koch Building;
• an extension to the western end of the Becher Building
• reconfiguration of and alterations to the interior of the existing buildings;
• associated landscaping and site works; and
• extension and upgrade of mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and fire services as required.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $12 million. This figure includes:

• escalation;
• contingencies;
• professional fees; and
• authorities’ charges.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Future Requirement
  • collaborative master planning.
• Site Considerations
  • land ownership;
  • geotechnical considerations; and
  • Flooding
• Applications and Approvals
• Scope of Works
  • design concept; and
  • air-conditioning and ventilation.
• ESD
  • consultation with the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO);
  • water use; and
  • disposal of hazardous waste.
• Consultation
  • organisations and authorities;
  • local residents; and
  • staff.
• Amenity for Staff
  • workspace;
  • child-care; and
  • parking.
• Occupational Health and Safety and Access Equity
• Traffic Management
• Project Schedule
• Costs
  • Sale of Demountables.
• Present and Prospective Public Value

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $12 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 9 November 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 1 December 2005.

Fit-out of New Leased Premises for AusAID at London Circuit, City, ACT (Twenty-first Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 10 August 2005. The proponent agency was AusAID.

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was prompted by:

• the expiry on 31 July 2007 of AusAID’s current lease;
• ageing infrastructure and services in the current 30 year-old premises, which have exceeded their economically useful life;
• the inability of the current premises to meet modern standards in respect of OH&S, disability access, security, building code requirements, ecological sustainability and energy efficiency, security and general amenity and presentation;
• high ongoing maintenance and/or refurbishment costs associated with remaining in the current, ageing premises;
• the low usable floor space efficiency ratio and inflexible floor plate of the current premises; and
• the fact that the current leased area is slightly surplus to the agency’s needs.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to:

• provide improved security and operational efficiencies;
• allow AusAID to relocate to new premises coincident upon expiry of the lease on its existing premises;
• provide a customised integrated fit-out designed to meet AusAID’s needs;
• provide maximum flexibility for the accommodation of staff and operations; and
• ensure compliance with relevant building codes, meet modern environmental standards and deliver associated cost efficiencies.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• integration of electrical, mechanical, communications, security, fire and hydraulic services into base-building works; and
• tenant fit-out above base building, including reception, executive offices, workstations, breakout and meeting spaces; computer room, storage, conference and training facilities, first aid room, amenities, parent/carer room, kitchens and ablutions, sick room, multi-denominational prayer room and ASIO T4-standard secure areas.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $10.45 million inclusive of GST; or $9.5 million, exclusive of GST.

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Options Considered
• Location
• Scope of Works
  • space requirements;
  • proposed crisis centre; and
  • system elements.
• Amenity for Employees
  • car parking;
  • bicycle and motorcycle parking;
  • child-care;
  • work spaces; and
  • impact upon employee population.
• Access Equity
• ESD
  • Australian Building Greenhouse Rating; and
  • water conservation
• Project Delivery.

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $9.5 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 9 November 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 10 November 2005.

Fit-out of New Leased Premises for the Australian Customs Service at 1010 LaTrobe Street, Melbourne Docklands (Twenty-second Report of 2005)

Referral

The work was referred to the Committee on 14 September 2005. The proponent agency was the Australian Customs Service (Customs).

Need

The need for the work, as reported by the proponent agency, was the imminent expiry of Customs’ current lease at 414 LaTrobe Street, Melbourne.

Purpose

The stated purpose of the work was to relocate Customs headquarters to premises currently being constructed at 1010 LaTrobe Street, Melbourne Docklands, known as the Port 1010 Building.

Customs expected relocation to provide the following benefits:

• increased cost effectiveness, with lower energy consumption and improved environmental initiatives;
• better building services;
• greater infrastructure efficiencies in staff amenities, training facilities, conference/meeting facilities and floor layout;
• integration of security and air-conditioning requirements into base building;
• improved provision for public contact;
• minimisation of internal churn costs; and
• greater operational and resource utilisation efficiencies.

Scope

The referring agency submitted that the works would comprise:

• integration of services into the base building works;
• fit-out to meet Customs’ specific requirements; and
• architecturally designed office accommodation.

Cost

The estimated cost of the proposed work was $ 12.507 million

Issues Raised

The following issues were raised by the Committee and addressed in its report:

• Project Approval
• Ministerial approval; and
• State Government approval
• Security
  • proposed sky bridge;
  • other tenants;
  • access to roof; and
  • proposed incident room.
• Options Considered
  • relocation to Melbourne Airport
• National Monitoring Centre
  • space
  • air-conditioning
• Staff Amenity
  • access to public transport and services
  • parking
• Consultation
  • staff
  • Community and Public Sector Union.
• ESD
• Project Delivery
• Future Expansion

Recommendations

The Committee recommen ded that the proposed work proceed at the estimated cost of $12.507 million.

Tabling

The report was tabled on 7 December 2005.

Government Response

The expediency motion permitting this work to proceed was passed by the House of Representatives on 8 December 2005.