Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (4:50 PM) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fifth, sixth and seventh reports of the committee for 2003 relating to the redevelopment of the Australian Institute of Sport, Bruce, ACT; the provision of facilities for the co-location and re-equipping of 1st Aviation Regiment at Robertson Barracks, Darwin; and the RAAF Base Tindal perimeter security fence, Katherine, Northern Territory.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR —by leave—I thank the House. I will first discuss the committee's fifth report of 2003, entitled Redevelopment of the Australian Institute of Sport, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory. The purpose of these proposed works is to provide facilities at Bruce capable of supporting elite athlete training and, more generally, to enable the Australian Sports Commission to fulfil its statutory role in developing Australian sport. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $65.4 million. As the Commonwealth agency responsible for the development of participation in sport at both the elite and the community levels, the Australian Sports Commission seeks to maintain and develop its reputation and capabilities as a world leader in sports development; as a national centre of excellence in elite sports development, training and education; as a national leader in the development of Australian sport; and in the delivery and expansion of sports training and development services.

The proposed refurbishment of the Australian Institute of Sport will also enable the Sports Commission to deliver the federal government's 10-year plan for Australian sport: Backing Australia's Sporting Ability—A More Active Australia, which was announced in April 2001. The work is necessitated chiefly by the fact that many of the facilities at Bruce are around 20 years old and are no longer adequate for their purpose. Many training facilities are outdated and no longer provide athletes with a competitive advantage in international competition. Much of the office and residential accommodation is substandard, cannot accommodate current technologies and work practices and, in some cases, does not meet occupational health and safety requirements. The ad hoc nature of past development and refurbishment also means that facilities require rationalisation to increase amenity and efficiency.

Works required to meet the Sports Commission's objectives comprise new residential, dining and education facilities for athletes; a new AIS service hub comprising a range of new testing and training facilities; the upgrade of technology and the airconditioning of training halls and the AIS Arena; extension of the gymnastics hall; a new combat sports facility; an aquatic testing and training facility; improvements to the existing pool complex; an upgrade of trunk engineering and support infrastructure as required; and any necessary demolition. Members of the committee inspected the site of the proposed works and noted particularly the necessity of upgrading the athletes' dining and residential facilities. While there were no major concerns raised in relation to the Sports Commission's proposal, the committee was interested to hear how any delay or alteration to the construction of the new Gungahlin Drive may affect the project.

The committee was informed that the road alignment agreed upon by the ACT government and the National Capital Authority was also the alignment preferred by the Australian Institute of Sport as it will minimise noise and air pollution impacts on the campus. The Australian Sports Commission stated that it would be concerned should the route of Gungahlin Drive be altered. The committee also wished to know if the Sports Commission anticipated any impact upon project costs and timing to result from increased competitiveness in the Canberra construction sector following the recent bushfires. The Sports Commission replied that it believed local industry would be able to meet the demands of the project and added that the bulk of construction works would not commence for some 18 months, when more normal industry conditions may be expected to prevail.

I now move to the committee's sixth report for 2003, entitled Provision of facilities for the collocation and re-equipping of the 1st Aviation Regiment at Robertson Barracks, Darwin, NT. The report addresses a range of new facilities necessary to support the relocation to Robertson Barracks of the 1st Aviation Regiment and the equipping of the regiment for the introduction into service of the new Tiger reconnaissance helicopters. The cost of the proposed works is estimated at $75 million. The defence policy white paper—Defence 2000—confirmed the need to improve the firepower, protection and mobility of Australia's ground forces. To meet this requirement, Defence intends that two squadrons of armed reconnaissance helicopters should be introduced into service by 2004-05.

The armed reconnaissance aircraft will be a significant new capability for Defence. Twenty-two Tiger helicopters are to be procured under the armed reconnaissance helicopter project, 17 of which will be operated by the 1st Aviation Regiment. The restructuring and co-location of the regiment is necessary to optimise the combat power of this capability. At present the 1st Aviation Regiment is spread across several Australian military bases, with its headquarters, surveillance and technical support squadrons based at Oakey in Queensland, one reconnaissance squadron and an operational support squadron at RAAF Base Darwin and a second reconnaissance squadron at Lavarack Barracks in Queensland. Under the proposed new arrangements the regiment will be organised into five squadrons, all of which will be accommodated at Robertson Barracks.

The decision to base the armed reconnaissance aircraft at Robertson Barracks also provides operational synergies with the 1st Brigade's ready deployment formation, located at RAAF Base Darwin. This unit has the high-mobility capability most consistent with the 1st Aviation Regiment's intended capability. Works required to meet the defence objective include 1st Aviation Regiment headquarters facilities; a logistics precinct; an aircraft repair and maintenance workshop; a vehicles and stores repair and maintenance workshop; hangars and shelters for aircraft; training facilities, including a flight simulator; associated engineering services; and living-in accommodation for 110 personnel.

It is anticipated both by Defence and by the Northern Territory Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development that the works will be of immediate benefit to the local economy. It is Defence's intention to adopt a contracting methodology that will maximise opportunities for local small to medium enterprises to become involved in the project. It is estimated that some 150 personnel will be employed on site during the two-year construction phase of the works, with further job opportunities being generated off-site from the manufacture and supply of materials and equipment. Some issues relating to the defence proposal were raised by the Northern Territory Regional Airspace Users Advisory Committee and Darwin International Airport.

Specific concerns held by these bodies included air safety implications of the defence proposal, the potential for Tiger helicopters operating from Robertson Barracks to disrupt civil aviation operations at Darwin airport and the ongoing validity of defence arrangements in relation to the proposed helicopter flight path. Both written and verbal evidence received by the committee demonstrated that Defence is aware of the issues surrounding air traffic management and is working to address them. At the public hearing, Defence stated that the results of a safety case investigation into airspace management at Robertson Barracks had just become available to the effect that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority approved the defence proposal. Written confirmation of this approval was subsequently forwarded to the committee, to the Northern Territory Regional Airspace Users Advisory Committee and to Darwin International Airport.

Defence stated further that it had made a policy commitment that, excepting emergency or conflict situations, civil aircraft in the Darwin area would be given priority at all times. Defence assured the committee that Tiger helicopters would use Robertson Barracks as a departure and arrival point only. It is proposed that the aircraft will follow a specified flight corridor to undertake operations well away from residential and environmentally sensitive areas. Both Defence and officers of the Northern Territory government stated that the future development of the land below the proposed flight corridor for residential use was unlikely.

In view of the approval of the aviation safety case and Defence's commitment to the resolution of any future air traffic management issues, the committee recommends that the work proposed for the collocation and re-equipping of the 1st Aviation Regiment and Robertson Barracks proceed at a cost of $75 million. I wish to thank the people who assisted the committee during the inspection and public hearing. They certainly made matters a lot easier.

The third and final report to which I must refer is entitled RAAF base Tindal perimeter security fence, Katherine, NT—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, being a member of that committee. The objective of the project is to enhance security at RAAF Base Tindal by means of an alarmed perimeter security fence some 13.9 kilometres in length. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $9.25 million. The defence submission identifies three principal elements which constitute the need for the proposed perimeter security fence—namely, the protection of defence property and capability, the prevention of injury claims, and the inadequacy of the current security arrangements.

As the home base of 75th Squadron, a tactical fighter squadron equipped with FA18 Hornet aircraft, RAAF Base Tindal plays a key role in maintaining Australia's air combat capability. Loss or damage of base property and aircraft through theft or sabotage could impair the base's ability to fulfil its role. Protection of the base and the aircraft is therefore essential. As the base perimeter is not adequately controlled and signposted, there is also concern that injury to persons entering the area may give rise to damages claims against Defence.

Security at RAAF Base Tindal currently consists of a passive, or non-alarmed, fence which is patrolled by defence personnel and guarded at key points during times of increased security. The existing fence does not comply with the present defence security policy, is poorly sited and is inadequate as a deterrent to, and an indicator of, intrusion. Works associated with the construction of the new perimeter fence will include a weldmesh security fence equipped with intruder detection systems and security cameras; a standard cattle fence outside the security fence to prevent activation of the alarm by livestock; a sealed, all-weather access road inside the fence; a maintenance track/firebreak outside the fence; a computerised control system located inside the base; and civil works, including culverts and drainage channels.

Prior to the public hearing, Defence informed the committee of four major changes that had arisen to the construction plan for the new fence. I just noticed that the member for Lingiari is now in the chamber. Clearly this is a matter that has a great impact upon him and his constituents. The changes include amendment of the fence alignment to reduce the overall length from 17.7 kilometres to 13.9 kilometres and to provide improved access to Katherine's civil air terminal, the use of weldmesh instead of chain mesh, the installation of an intruder detection system with security cameras in place of taut wire technology, and sealing of the proposed all-weather road. Defence believes that these alterations to the original proposal will improve the through-life costs and performance of the fence.

At the public hearing, Defence explained that the fence would be designed to a British standard, which is more stringent than the comparable Australian standard and would also comply with the relevant sections of a raft of national and departmental codes, standards and regulations. In response to a request from committee members, Defence confirmed in writing the currency of all applicable policy guidance documents.

At the hearing, the committee noted that changes to the original fence alignment had resolved potential difficulties associated with public access to the Tindal civil terminal. The Mayor of Katherine, who was present at the hearing, indicated his support for the proposal. In considering the culvert design proposed by Defence, committee members expressed concern that, without rigorous maintenance, waterborne debris may block the steel security screens and undermine the fence structure during times of high water. Defence witnesses concurred and assured the committee that the issue would be addressed under the proposed maintenance plan.

In view of the harsh climatic conditions prevailing in the Katherine region, the committee was interested to know the expected design life of the fence and its components. Following the hearing, Defence supplied a document indicating a life expectancy of between 10 and 15 years for the detection technology and cameras, 20 years for the all-weather road, and up to 50 years for the culverts, poles and plinths. At the request of the committee, Defence also supplied a detailed cost breakdown of the impact of the proposed design amendments upon the total project budget. Having reviewed this information, the committee recommends that the works proposed for the construction of the RAAF Base Tindal perimeter security fence proceed at the estimated cost of $9.25 million.

Once again, I would like to thank all those involved in the inspections and hearings conducted at Tindal and in Darwin and in the reporting process. I also record the committee's special thanks to the secretariat, which assisted us in tabling these reports today.