- Canberra Defence Precinct Tranche 1 Australian Defence Force Academy Living-in Accommodation project
Department of Defence
2.1The Department of Defence (Defence) seeks approval from the Committee to proceed with the proposed Canberra Defence Precinct Tranche 1 Australian Defence Force Academy Living-in Accommodation project.
2.2The project aims to replace existing Living-in Accommodation (LIA) facilities and associated infrastructure at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) in Canberra, ACT, with suitable accommodation that will support recruitment, retention, and the wellbeing of Trainee Officers.
2.3The current LIA facilities are approaching their end of life, pose health and operational hazards and do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the current or forecast numbers of Trainee Officers.
2.4The project will demolish the existing Trainee Officer LIA facilities at ADFA.
2.5The project has an approved budget of $1.252 billion, however the estimated cost of delivery of the project is $1.018 billion (excluding GST).
2.6The project was referred to the Committee on 28 November 2023.
Conduct of the inquiry
2.7Following referral, the inquiry was published on the Committee’s website and via media release.
2.8The Committee received three submissions, five supplementary submissions and one confidential submission. A list of submissions is at Appendix A.
2.9On 18 March 2024, the Committee conducted a site inspection of the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA).
2.10The Committee held both a public and in-camera hearing at Parliament House, Canberra on 3 May 2024. A transcript of the public hearing is available on the Committee’s website.
Need for the works
2.11Trainee Officers (cadets) live on the ADFA campus while undertaking military and tertiary academic studies (in partnership with the University of New South Wales) for a minimum of three years, depending on their chosen degree, and are provided with accommodation, car parking and limited storage during that period.
2.12The existing LIA buildings at ADFA were built in the early 1980s and are approaching their end of useful life, presenting health, psychosocial, safety and security risks for trainee officers. In November 2022, over 450 cadets had to be accommodated off-campus due to the presence of black mould in the cadet accommodation. Affected buildings were not re-occupied until a health certificate could be issued following remediation of the mould. The mould in 22 of the 23 ADFA Cadet LIA buildings has now been remediated and these buildings are occupied. One LIA building is in the final stage of mould remediation, which is due to be completed in April 2024.
2.13The existing LIA buildings do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the current cohort of Trainee Officers and will not accommodate the forecast cadet growth numbers at ADFA. Defence believes that replacement of the current ADFA LIA facilities and associated infrastructure with contemporary, safe and suitable accommodation will support recruitment and retention.
2.14In its submission to the Committee, Defence stated:
Concerns about the state of the existing ADFA LIA were raised during the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, noting that the ADFA cadet accommodation is a ‘breeding ground’ for unacceptable behaviour due to its ‘cluster-plex’ design.
2.15Unacceptable behaviour at ADFA has been an issue since its creation. In 2011, the Australian Human Rights Commission tabled a review into the treatment of women at ADFA which found 74.1 per cent of female cadets and 30.3 per cent of male cadets reported experiencing ‘unacceptable’ gender or sex-related harassment behaviour and that 53.7 per cent of female cadets and 33.4 per cent of male cadets reported experiencing an ‘unacceptable’ general harassment or discrimination behaviour. The ongoing Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide discusses elements of workplace culture at Defence which in some instances have lead to physical and psychological abuse or bullying by peers and chain of command.
2.16The new facilities will address this concern by ensuring clear lines of sight throughout the facilities that allow for passive surveillance. Staff will be accommodated on each floor of the LIAs ‘with clear lines of sight down the corridor to entry to bedrooms and overlooking the common area’. Ensuite bathrooms will be provided in each room. In contrast, current floor layouts are segregated into corridors of four bedrooms with a shared bathroom. Defence states this means poor behaviour can go unnoticed by residents or staff.
Committee comment
2.17The Committee recognises that the current accommodation is at end of life and in need of replacement due to a number of issues including the ongoing presence of black mould, and the lack of accessible rooms for injured cadets or cadets with a disability. There is also very limited room for students to meet socially or for collaborative study.
2.18The Committee notes the evidence presented by Defence that the ‘cluster plex’ design of the current facilities are a contributing factor in the poor behaviour of cadets as referenced in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, however, observes that the Royal Commission Report did not focus on the building layout but rather focussed on the culture as the heart of the problem.
2.19The Committee expects that Defence will focus on improving the behaviour of its cadets through continued social education and fostering cultural change and will not rely on the improved building layout to prevent incidents of poor behaviour occurring in the LIAs.
2.20While the project presents an opportunity to redesign the LIAs to reduce the ‘cluster plex’ nature of the accommodation, after inspecting the existing facilities, the Committee considers that the need for the works is evident on several fronts. The constricted layout, limited capacity and general poor state of repair justifies the need for replacement of the accommodation.
Options considered
2.21Defence considered the following three options for the project:
- Option 1 – Do nothing. This option would require increased maintenance and offered limited opportunities for improvements and enhancements. The current LIA facilities accommodate 1,104 Trainee Officers and therefore do not meet the need for forecast growth, nor address the psychosocial, safety and security risks posed by the current LIA layout.
- Option 2 – Refurbish existing LIA and New Build LIA. This option involves retaining and refurbishing the current LIA buildings and the construction of an additional LIA to meet current and forecast capacity requirements. Defence discounted this option as the estimated cost of refurbishment was approximately 80 per cent of the new build replacement cost, and would not address the psychosocial, safety and security risks linked to the ‘cluster-plex’ design of the current facilities.
- Option 3 – New Build LIA (preferred option). This option ‘involves the demolition of existing LIA buildings, construction of 1,500 new LIA rooms for Trainee Officers, offices for up to 100 supervisory staff collocated within the new LIA buildings, and associated car parking.’ Defence states that this option will address the constraints associated with the existing LIA, deliver contemporary and safe accommodation, and include design solutions to address the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles.’
Scope of the works
2.22The scope of works of Defence’s preferred option includes the following work elements:
- demolition of existing LIA and construction of 1,500 new LIA rooms for Trainee Officers and offices for up to 100 supervisory staff collocated within the new LIA buildings;
- 1,600 car parks for Trainee Officers and supervisory staff;
- multi-purpose study/common spaces within the accommodation buildings to enable study and engagement between Trainee Officers;
- shared external spaces, landscaping, and access to existing ADFA precinct amenities; and
- engineering services and supporting infrastructure.
- Defence advised the Committee that it intended to build six lots of four-storey LIA buildings. When queried by the Committee if four lots of six-storey buildings would be more cost efficient and retain valuable land for future use, Defence stated that initially the project was limited to the four-storey design due to National Capital Authority heigh restrictions.
- However, after further questioning, the Committee was informed that although the National Capital Authority had offered to revise the height restriction to allow for the building of six storey LIAs, Defence stated it had not explored this option due to concerns that the required changes to the National Capital Plan would delay the project and impact on delivery timings.
- When querying the cost savings that six storey LIAs might afford, Defence told the Committee that the change would result in a saving of approximately $6 million which was not significant in the overall scale of the project.
- The project has yet to gain major works approval as required under the National Capital Plan.
- The Committee also asked about the inclusion of electric vehicle and electric bicycle charging capacity. Defence stated that the proposed carparks will:
…be suitable for electric vehicle parking at any level of the carparks. Provision for future electric vehicle and electric bicycle charging is provided for the carparks. Facilities for electric bicycle storage and charging is provided in the carparks. General bicycle storage is provided in the LIA precinct.
Committee comment
2.28While the Committee understands that revising the LIA designs to four buildings that are six storeys may impact the project delivery timeframes and would only result in an approximate saving of $6 million, it believes the greater value lies in the unused land savings. ADFA has a limited campus and the ability of Defence to use the space in the future is worthy of greater consideration.
2.29The Committee notes that the proposed design has yet to be approved by the National Capital Authority and may be subject to change as a result of that process.
2.30The Committee does not agree with Defence’s decision to not include electric vehicle charging stations in the proposed car parking. Given the youthful demographic of the cadets and the increasing take-up of electric vehicles, it seems short-sighted to not build this capacity from the outset. The Committee notes that there is yet to be a Defence-wide policy on providing electric vehicle charging stations, however considers that there is ample time to finalise that policy and revise the car park design prior to construction. This will be cheaper and simpler than attempting to retro-fit charging stations in the future.
2.31The Committee recommends Defence work with the National Capital Authority to revise the current height restrictions at the ADFA and Duntroon Campuses.
2.32The Committee recommends the design of the proposed Living-in-accommodation buildings be altered to increase the height to six storeys.
2.33The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence report back to it with the final design once approved and signed off by the National Capital Authority.
2.34The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence install EV chargers, or conduits to facilitate later EV chargers, in the proposed car parks.
Design
2.35In its initial documentation, Defence advised that the design was to be durable and fit-for-purpose. When asked whether other entities with experience in university accommodation were consulted in the design phases, Defence responded:
A review of contemporary university accommodation has been undertaken, including an inspection of contemporary student accommodation facilities at the Australian National University. Elements of student accommodation that are provided at universities have been incorporated into the design, such as floor layouts that allow surveillance by the use of straight corridors, ensuites to bedrooms and common areas for social interactions.
2.36Given the aspirations for increased pro-social cadet behaviour and improved workforce recruitment and retention attached to the proposed work, the Committee would prefer to see evidence-based design. This could include, for example, comparison with similar national and international facilities and the use of data and proven experience linking the proposed elements of design with increased pro-social cadet behaviour and workforce recruitment and retention.
Committee comment
2.37The Committee notes that the design is a standard model that is largely identical to other short-term training accommodation being built by Defence at other establishments. Given the special position of ADFA, and the length of time that cadets are in the accommodation, it is disappointing that Defence did not seek to investigate best-practice student accommodation and incorporate those into this design where practical. It appears to be a significant missed opportunity.
Committee process
2.38In the period between referral and the public hearing the design and estimated cost of the project changed significantly due to Defence continuing to work on and fine-tune the project.
2.39While the project was referred to the Committee at a P80 cost confidence level, the design was only at a low percentage of completion. This resulted in changes occurring to both the estimated cost and the proposed design throughout the inquiry process.
2.40After reviewing the original submissions from Defence, the Committee asked 24 additional specific questions to gain the necessary information for a proper inquiry. Defence’s response is in supplementary submission 1.2.
Committee comment
2.41The Committee does not consider that the original documentation provided by Defence for this project was adequate. There was not enough information across a range of issues, particularly the specifics of design. For example, Defence did not originally provide floor plans for the buildings. This delayed the Committee’s inquiry while additional information was requested and provided.
2.42Equally importantly, the lack of information prevented members of the public and interested businesses and organisations from commenting on the proposed designs prior to the public hearing taking place. Although the Committee was pleased that the Department of Defence was able to provide an update on the revised design at the site inspection and at the public hearing, the public submission window had closed on 29 January 2024, several months before the update was provided. This limited the ability of the public to comment on the actual design of the works.
2.43The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence refer future projects for Public Works scrutiny at a design level of 50 per cent or greater to enable fair and transparent community consultation and to prevent significant changes from occurring during the inquiry process.
Community and stakeholder consultation
2.44Defence held four community consultation sessions at ADFA between 6 December 2023 and 8 February 2024 and these were advertised in local newspapers in the Canberra and Queanbeyan regions. The sessions were attended by 125 individuals; mostly ADF personnel and Trainee Officers.
2.45A number of issues were discussed including:
- Facilities and services
- Availability of sufficient car parks
- Project construction timeline and process
- Trainee Officer room design
- Building and room design
- ICT, utilities and security
- Cost, operation and contract management
- Environmental sustainability
- Existing LIA facilities.
- Key stakeholders, including Federal, State and Local Members of Government, and local community and business groups were offered a personal briefing about the project.
Cost of the works
2.47The project was submitted to the Committee on 28 November 2024 with an approved budget of $1.252 billion, based on 5 per cent design completion. After further work, Defence revised the estimated cost of delivery of the project to $1.018 billion (excluding GST).
2.48Should the project cost less than the approved budget of $1.252 billion, Defence proposes to allocate the savings to other Defence priority works, however the Committee was not provided with any further information regarding what projects were deemed ‘priority works’.
2.49Defence notes the proposed works will increase annual operating costs from $13.1 million to $20.4 million due to the increase in the number of cadets living at ADFA, the addition of 48 offices for supervisory staff, and the 250 per cent increase in built area (roughly 60,000 square metres in total).
2.50At the public hearing, Defence told the Committee that costs borne by Evoenergy to upgrade the incoming power supply would be paid for by Defence as part of the project budget.
2.51Defence provided further details on project costs in its confidential submission and during an in-camera hearing.
Committee comment
2.52The Committee notes that this project was submitted at an unacceptably early stage of design, and that this resulted in the change to the estimated project costs mid-way thorough the inquiry. The Committee also notes that several costs in the detailed costings were removed, or altered, as a result of changes to both scope and construction methodology during the inquiry.
2.53The Committee is of the opinion that it is not best practice to approve projects with budgets above and beyond the estimated delivery cost of the works, inclusive of the standard risk and escalation provisions.
2.54The Committee is concerned by the significant increase to the ongoing operating costs despite the inclusion of a number of energy efficient and sustainable principles incorporated into the design.
2.55The Committee notes that details of the financial arrangement between Evoenergy and Defence were not included in the original submission to the Committee.
2.56The Committee recommends that the project be approved for the estimated delivery cost of $1.018 billion (excluding GST).
2.57The Committee recommends that Defence consider design options which would further reduce the ongoing operating cost of the finalised build.
2.58The Committee recommends that Defence advises it of the estimated cost of the required power supply upgrades once agreed with Evoenergy.
Revenue
2.59There will be no revenue generated by this project.
Public value
2.60Defence submits that this project’s public value includes:
- Economic impacts: the project will promote opportunities for small to medium enterprises through construction sub-contractor packages.
- Employment opportunities: the project is expected to generate employment opportunities for up-skilling and job training to improve individual skills and employability on future projects. Defence anticipates that, over the life of the Project, around 375 personnel could be provided with employment opportunities.
- Local industry and Indigenous business involvement opportunities: the project will promote opportunities for small to medium local enterprises through construction trade packages.
- Existing infrastructure services: the project will require upgrades to the incoming high voltage feeder to the base, and this is being coordinated with the utility provider, Evoenergy.,
Committee comment
2.61The need for the replacement of the ADFA LIA buildings is clear. The recruitment and retention of ADFA officers at the start of their careers is an important part of maintaining the capability of the ADF, and fit-for-purpose accommodation is an essential pre-requisite.
2.62The Committee notes that this is one of the largest public works considered by this Parliament. Given this, the Committee considers that:
- The documentation given to the Committee at the outset should have been more specific and thorough.
- The project should not have been referred to the Committee until the design was further developed.
- The design concept should have been given more thoughtful consideration.
- The costs should have been further refined prior to Committee referral based on a more detailed design.
- Approval processes for the National Capital Authority should have been further advanced prior to referral.
- Despite these issues, the Committee has received enough information to assess the project and considers there is public value in the works proceeding.
2.64The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the following proposed works: Department of Defence – Canberra Defence Precinct Tranche 1 Australian Defence Force Academy Living-in Accommodation project.
2.65Proponent entities must notify the Committee of any changes to the project, scope, time, cost, function, or design. The Committee also requires that a post-implementation report be provided within three months of project completion. A report template can be found on the Committee’s website.