Chapter 2 The Immigration Bridge Australia Proposal
Background
Germination of the IBA proposal
2.1
In 2001, a community group, the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme
Steering Committee (the Steering Committee) from the Cooma District of New
South Wales resolved to commemorate Australia’s history of migration since
1788. It was decided that commemoration would be through the establishment of a
significant community funded ‘national monument’ that would be located in the
nation’s capital – Canberra.[1]
2.2
In 2002, the Steering Committee approached the National Capital
Authority (NCA) for its support and to request it to investigate possible sites
for the memorial within Canberra and seek advice on what shape it might take.[2]
2.3
Upon deliberation of the choices presented to it by the NCA, the Steering
Committee decided the memorial would take the form of a ‘bridge to immigration
across Lake Burley Griffin between the National Museum of Australia (NMA) and
Lennox Park’. The bridge is intended to be gifted to the nation to mark
Canberra’s centenary in 2013. In addition, the bridge would ‘showcase leading
edge technology in its design’; allow access for mobility impaired persons and
be ‘cyclist friendly’.[3]
2.4
In 2005, the Steering Committee was replaced by a not-for-profit company
limited by guarantee, based in Canberra bearing the name Immigration Bridge
Australia (IBA).[4]
2.5
IBA stated that the purpose of the Immigration Bridge would be to:
… recognise the immense contribution made to Australia by
migrants from all over the world since 1788; complete a significant element of
the recreational plans of the Griffin Legacy identified by the NCA; link the
major tourist and study attractions of the Parliamentary Triangle with the
National Museum of Australia and the ANU; contribute to the awareness in the
Australian community of the need to record their personal and family history;
and provide a unique opportunity for the community to have that shown in
perpetuity on a national monument in Australia’s capital.[5]
2.6
The IBA proposal was officially launched at Parliament House on
4 December 2006 and has since that time received sponsorship from SBS
Television which has included the filming and regular showing of a commercial
to promote the IBA campaign.[6]
2.7
For Immigration Bridge to be formally considered, IBA will need to lodge
a works application with the NCA for assessment. The works approval process is
outlined and discussed in Chapter 3.
The Griffin Legacy
2.8
In 2004, the NCA released The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the Nation’s
Capital in the 21st Century. This document discussed the future
planning for Canberra by seeking to draw out the original unrealised design
elements of the nation’s capital (as envisaged by the Griffin Plan[7])
that were of continuing value, while accommodating the modern metropolitan
needs of the populace. [8]
2.9
The Griffin Legacy sought to make changes within the realm of
Canberra’s planning through amendment to the NCP, a strategic document which
underpins the planning requirements for Canberra and the Territory. The main
principles of the NCP are enshrined in the PALM Act.
Amendment 61 to the NCP
2.10
The Griffin Legacy as noted includes original elements of Walter
Burley Griffin’s designs for Canberra. Notably, ‘a bridge over Lake Burley
Griffin connecting Acton Peninsula to the southern side of the lake’ was included
in Griffin’s 1912, 1913 and 1918 plans, but not in his gazetted 1925 plan.[9]
2.11
In 1997, the winning entry for the design of the NMA also included a
bridge across the West Basin linking the NMA to the Parliamentary zone.[10]
2.12
In 2006, through The Griffin Legacy a number of amendments to the
NCP were proposed, one of which related to the West Basin Area of Lake Burley
Griffin (the Lake) – Amendment 61.[11]
2.13
Amendment 61[12] incorporated a number of
planning principles and policies into the NCP one of which included changes to
the waterfront promenade of the Lake with the aim to ‘link national attractions
with a continuous pedestrian network, including a high-span pedestrian bridge
connecting the National Museum and the Parliamentary zone.’[13]
2.14
The suggested location of the Immigration Bridge is in the same place
where a high span pedestrian bridge was approved under Amendment 61 to the NCP.[14]
The indicative waterfront promenade provided through Amendment 61 is shown in
Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Amendment 61: Indicative Waterfront Promenade
with Pedestrian Bridge
Source National
Capital Authority
2.15
Amendment 61 to the NCP provides that a high span pedestrian bridge
linking the NMA and the Parliamentary zone is permissible.[15]
2.16
In its Review of the Griffin Legacy Amendments, the committee found
that Draft Amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61 needed further consideration and could
be improved upon.
2.17
In addition, the committee commented that:
In considering this matter further, the committee examined
the NCA’s 2004 report, The Griffin Legacy, Canberra – the Nation’s Capital
in the 21st Century. In that report, the NCA set out a plan for
West Basin which is moderate in tone, less dominated by development and much
more inclusive through the use of extensive green area. Evidence to the
committee suggested that the scale of development for West Basin should
configure more closely to the NCA’s 2004 proposal.[16]
2.18
As a result, the committee recommended that the ‘Minister for Local
Government, Territories and Roads move to disallow Amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61
so that the National Capital Authority has the opportunity to further refine
the amendments taking into account issues raised in the committee’s report.’[17]
A pedestrian bridge across the Lake and the Griffin Plan
2.19
Walter Burley Griffin’s early plans which include a bridge in the same
area as provided for under Amendment 61 to the NCP is a matter of contention. There
is an issue of whether a pedestrian bridge linking the NMA and Parliamentary zone
is reflective of elements contained in Walter Burley Griffin’s early designs for
Canberra. Figure 2.2 shows Walter Burley Griffin’s competition winning design.
2.20
As noted earlier, Griffin’s final gazetted plan of 1925 as approved by
the Federal Parliament, did not include the pedestrian bridge that appeared in
his previous plans.[18]
2.21
A number of opponents to a bridge in the area as suggested by the IBA
proposal put the argument that a pedestrian bridge does not conform to
Griffin’s original plan for West Basin.
2.22
In line with this opposition, Dr John Gray stated:
It would be difficult to argue that the proposed bridge
reflects Walter Burley Griffin's original intentions for the lake. A pedestrian
bridge at this site was never envisaged by Griffin nor by the National Capital
Development Commission (NCDC). The latter followed closely Griffin's original
intentions in the 1960s.[19]
2.23
On the point that early plans for Canberra show a low bridge in the area
of the proposed bridge, but that this bridge did not appear in Griffin’s gazetted
1925 plan, Mr Townsend noted:
In this area of the lake, Griffin indicated a small road
bridge helping to define West Basin as a nearly complete circle, part of
Griffin’s intended geometrical and symmetrical plan for the central part of the
lake.
However, the lake turned out differently. East and West Basin
are no longer part of a symmetrical design and shorelines are softer and more
natural. What was originally to be a small bridge joining the southern shore to
a finger of land jutting from the Acton shore would now have to cross a large
expanse of water in a different location. Griffin’s concept was for a low,
elegant structure. A bridge built in its place today would have to be high,
massive and inelegant as well as blocking views up, down and across the lake.[20]
Figure 2.2 1912 Plan, Walter Burley Griffin’s competition
winning design
Source Image
courtesy of the National Archives of Australia
2.24
The National Trust of Australia (ACT) (the Trust) stated that in
Griffin’s 1911 winning entry plan, the two main bridges which now exist, that
is Commonwealth Avenue Bridge and Kings Avenue Bridge, were intended to be the
dominant crossings of the Lake. The third crossing was intended to be a more
subdued lower level crossing, giving landscape dominance to the two main
bridges. The Trust added that the existing landscape would be compromised by
the proposed bridge and found that:[21]
… anything that intrudes on the simplicity and elegance of the
original scheme is to be avoided absolutely, unless there is no feasible alternative.
In this case, the imposition of a structure that has no logical connection to
the lake system, traffic planning or the central landscape plan is without justification.[22]
2.25
Dr David Headon provided a solution to the concerns raised in relation
to Griffin’s original intent and the possible impact on Lake vista. Dr Headon
noted:
The arguments against an ‘Immigration Bridge’ will probably
revolve around the visual and someone’s interpretation of Griffin’s ‘intent’.
The first can be overcome simply by hiring the best architect with the best
design, and a credible budget. Yes we can. The second is more complex, but it
is worth noting that Griffin had no less than five connections across the lake.
The bridge would make four, and that includes Scrivener Dam. I believe such a
bridge would be consistent with the philosophy of a democratic capital held by
both Marion Mahony and Walter Burley Griffin.[23]
Advice provided by the ACT Government
2.26
In regard to the IBA proposal the Australian Capital Territory Planning
and Land Authority (ACTPLA) advised that ‘the ACT Government determined in 2006
to agree in-principle to cede Territory land to the Commonwealth Government,
subject to confirmation of the intention to construct the bridge.’[24]
2.27
The ACT Government agreed to cede Territory land to assist the process
associated with the consideration of the proposal by allowing the NCA to have
complete land administration. ACTPLA stated:
The decision acknowledged the advantage of land at both ends
of the bridge being in one ownership would remove any difficulties associated
with duplicate administrative arrangements, including maintenance.[25]
2.28
The ACT Government’s land grant is subject to a number of conditions
which include:
n the ACT Government
would ‘review its in-principle support if the decision on whether or not to
build the bridge has not been made or acted upon before 2009
n that in the event
that the Territory proceeds to cede the land there will be a need for the
Commonwealth Government to provide some form of peppercorn compensation if the
land is to be declared National Land
n that appropriate
recognition will be requested of the Immigration Bridge Group for the Territory
Government’s contribution if the bridge proceeds.’[26]
2.29
In addition, ACTPLA stated that in the case that the land has not been
transferred to the Commonwealth Government before an application from IBA is
received that ‘it would be pleased to participate with the National Capital
Authority in the design analysis process for the bridge and any development
approval process.’[27]
Advice provided by the NCA
2.30
In 2002, the Steering Committee approached the NCA for support and
advice on the possible location and form that a memorial to immigration may
take. [28]
The NCA provided the Steering Committee with three possible options for
location and form. The Steering Committee communicated to the NCA that it had
decided on the bridge option for the form of memorial to immigration, but had
not opted for a particular location for the bridge.[29]
2.31
In early June 2002, the NCA prepared a brochure detailing the three options
for a form of memorial. These were:
n ‘a bridge connecting
the NMA to the Parliamentary Zone
n an individual sculpture
or monument
n a parkland with
interpretive material.’[30]
2.32
The brochure also noted three options for location. These were:
n ‘Lake Burley Griffin
(between Acton Peninsula and Lennox Park)
n Kings Park
n Section 27 Parkes –
adjacent to Peace Park.’[31]
2.33
In July 2002, the Steering Committee wrote to the NCA to advise that it
had been decided that the memorial would take the form of a bridge that would span
the Lake ‘between Lennox Gardens and Acton Peninsula.’[32]
2.34
The ‘commemorative bridge proposal’ was considered by the NCA in its
meeting of July 2002. The NCA Board noted that ‘any such proposal would require
detailed consideration of issues such as sailing on the lake; scale, form and
quality [of the bridge structure].’[33]
2.35
In November 2003, the NCA Board ‘agreed to support in-principle the
concept of a high quality, long span pedestrian bridge commemorating
immigration and linking Acton Peninsula with Lennox Gardens’. The NCA took into
consideration Griffin’s original plans and the winning design entry for the NMA
when making its decision to provide its in-principle support for the proposal.[34]
2.36
In June 2006, the NCA informed its Lake Users Group (LUG)[35]
of the IBA proposal. The LUG responded in March 2007 with a one page document
outlining its concerns and conclusions about the proposal. These concerns
centred on how a proposed bridge could impede use of the Lake and that if a
bridge did go ahead in the suggested location, that it conform with the
suggested design requirements.[36]
2.37
Of the concerns outlined to the NCA in regard to the IBA proposal the
LUG stated:
Whilst the proper concerns of the Group are focused on the
possible impact of any such development on the use of the lake it would be fair
to say that there are more general individual concerns among members about the
proposal and its promotion but as a Group we are agreed those matters are
outside our charter.[37]
2.38
In August 2006, following a private meeting the NCA held in regard to
the IBA proposal with the Canberra Yacht Club (CYC), feedback was received about
the possible negative impact the bridge may have on sailing activities on the Lake.[38]
2.39
In September 2006, the NCA then advised IBA that it needed to take into
consideration and consult with various groups on Lake user issues.[39]
The NCA noted that it ‘would be upon the proponents to demonstrate that they
were able to address each of those concerns before they could receive a works
approval.’[40] Further, the NCA stated:
We do provide advice and we have made it very clear to the
proponents of the bridge that they are going to have to undertake extensive
consultation. They have sought to facilitate that, particularly with key
stakeholders. They are well aware of the issues they will need to address. Once
we say, ‘These are the concerns, these are the people you need to speak to,’ it
is up to the proponents to do that. If they have not done that, when they come
back to us that is a risk they have taken.[41]
2.40
In early 2009, the NCA convened another meeting of the LUG and invited IBA
to meet with Lake users. This included new members to the LUG who previously
had not had the opportunity to comment on the IBA proposal. Through this
meeting and further to its comments in March 2007, the LUG was able to provide
direct feedback to IBA in regard to its design brief for the bridge.[42]
2.41
The NCA also advised IBA that it needed to undertake discussion with the
winner of the NMA design, so that any moral rights might be addressed before a
formal application was submitted for approval.[43]
2.42
In its overall advice provided to IBA concerning consultation the NCA
stated:
…the authority has encouraged Immigration Bridge Australia to
undertake extensive consultation with the ACT government; the National Museum
of Australia; moral rights holders, including designers of the museum; and the
Lake Users Group, which is a representative body convened by the NCA. The NCA
specifically requested that IBA undertake detailed consultation with
representatives of the Canberra yachting and rowing communities.[44]
2.43
The NCA noted that it has a dual role in relation to commemorative
works: to provide advice to the proponents of the proposed works as to the
appropriateness and suitability; and to give the works approval as the
regulator.[45] In this capacity, the
NCA has also been assisting IBA in drafting its design brief for the proposal.[46]
Elements of the proposal
The concept design
2.44
The IBA proposal is currently in its concept design form. The concept
design is the early design phase of the bridge project.
2.45
IBA advised that the concept design phase is not the intended final
design for the bridge and is using the images prepared for the concept design
to fundraise. IBA stated:
The process that has been undertaken to date has been to
produce a concept for a bridge, and it is nowhere contended by IBA that this is a final design. This design was put together as a concept and as a basis for
giving people ideas for the raising of funds. There [have] been…several
discussions with the NCA and the Lake Users Group. The most recent meetings
with the NCA have been to set up and discuss a process that would be followed.[47]
2.46
The known specifications of the Immigration Bridge to date are that it
will be a 400 metre long bridge crossing the Lake in the area of the West Basin
linking the NMA with the Parliamentary zone[48] at Lennox Gardens.[49]
2.47
Amendment 61 to the NCP provided for a ‘high span’ pedestrian bridge
linking the NMA and the Parliamentary Zone.[50] However, the NCA has
given its in-principle support to the ‘concept of a high quality, long span pedestrian
bridge’ in the same location.[51]
2.48
The concept drawings prepared for Amendment 61 and for the Immigration
Bridge vary in their design. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show an Artist’s impression of
the concept designs for the Immigration Bridge and Figure 2.5 shows an artist’s
impression of the area relevant to Amendment 61.
Figure 2.3 Artist’s impression of the
concept design for the Immigration Bridge
Source Immigration
Bridge Australia, viewed 23 April 2009, <www.immigrationbridge.com.au>
Figure
2.4 Aerial depiction of the Immigration Bridge concept design
Source Immigration
Bridge Australia, viewed 23 April 2009, <www.immigrationbridge.com.au>
Figure 2.5 Amendment 61 – Artist’s impression of West
Basin
Source National
Capital Plan Amendment 61-West Basin, p. 14.
2.49
The Walter Burley Griffin Society noted that a high span pedestrian
bridge would ‘allow clearance for masts’.[52]
2.50
Mr John Holland noted that to allow for adequate clearance of all watercraft
on the Lake, there would need to be ‘3 times the average clearance of
Commonwealth [Avenue] Bridge at its centre’, which would ‘have implications for
lake views and aesthetics.’ Mr Holland added that ‘the minimum clearance must
apply at each end of the bridge, as well as its centre, as sailboats cannot aim
for dead centre in normal winds, let alone high winds.’[53]
2.51
To accommodate sailing craft, Mr Holland advocated that ‘an arch span
foot bridge would be higher at the centre than the sides if the arch was to be
the footpath. If the arch were to support a 20 metre high path below it, the
suspension members would need to be rigid’. It was also noted that ‘suspension
bridges supported by cables will sway in high winds’[54]
and could alarm pedestrians.
2.52
The Immigration Bridge design is also planned to include a ‘History Handrail’
made of stainless steel which would have engraved ‘the names of the migrants, the
year of their arrival and the country of their origin.’[55]
2.53
The roof of the bridge could be made of solar panels. IBA has stated
that a solar panel roof would:
…leave the History Handrail and the stories of migration on
the surfaces of the Bridge bathed in light, protect visitors from the worst of
the elements and at the same time generate green electricity for the grid and
be responsible for nearly 800 tonnes of CO2 abatement per year.[56]
2.54
The ACT Government noted that ‘there was a prospect that the southern
anchor for the bridge, [at the Lennox Gardens end] where the land would be
ceded, may comprise some form of café or small tourist shop.’[57]
2.55
In its March 2007 response to the IBA proposal, in addition to outlining
the negative impact on sailing on the Lake, the LUG suggested particular design
specifications if the proposal were to proceed. In particular, the LUG
suggested:
n ‘12 metres minimum
clearance height of the bridge over the lake, from the normal water level
n as few as practicable
pylons in the lake with 70 metres minimum span between pylons
n minimal vertical
profile and design features to minimize the effect of the bridge on the wind
n a soft collar to be
installed on all pylons from 1 metre below to 1 metre above the normal water
level
n designed to Austroads
Part 14, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Bicycles and also the local
Roads Act Standard “DS13”.’[58]
2.56
The LUG also noted that it was difficult to comment on the proposal as
there are no specifications available to comment on. In response to its concerns
about specifications in regard to the IBA proposal, the LUG commented that ‘In
general terms they [IBA] indicated that they believed those concerns could be
accommodated.’[59]
2.57
To arrive at a design brief, the NCA has stated that IBA will need to
reconcile heritage value considerations and Lake user concerns. The NCA stated:
At the moment, our in-principle support remains unchanged,
and that relates to the fact that it was a formal decision of the authority and
the authority has not considered the matter again since then. But these
heritage management plans are there to help guide and act as a framework for
potential development, and I do not think the authority would have good reason
to withdraw support for the proposal. …It is now for the proponents to innovate
and to try and find a solution that addresses both of these concerns [heritage
values and Lake user concerns]. Certainly, this lays out a new set of criteria
that they will have to consider and meet. …I think it is fair to agree that
this now makes for a very challenging design brief. I do not think we should
declare them irreconcilable but, yes, there is definitely a challenge to be met
there.[60]
The design brief
2.58
The IBA stated that the NCA is assisting it in preparing a design brief
for the proposal. The IBA noted that the final design brief would include
information about site, planning, lake and bridge usage requirements,
environmental and heritage aspects and impact on the vista. The IBA stated:
The most recent meetings with the NCA have been to set up and
discuss a process that would be followed. In conjunction with the NCA we will
be producing a design brief. The criteria within the brief more than likely
will include siting, planning, lake and bridge usage requirements,
environmental and heritage aspects, visual impact studies et cetera. This will
be written into a design brief, which IBA will then use as the basis for
producing a final design. The final design will then need to be submitted to
the NCA for works approval, which in effect is also the development approval.[61]
2.59
IBA added that ‘the design finally given to the NCA will need to include
an understanding of the design brief and the way in which IBA is going to meet
the obligations that it has.’[62]
2.60
IBA envisaged that a design brief would take three months to complete
and would include:
…car parking, how the bridge lands, where it lands, height
restrictions, height clearances et cetera. It has to be a very detailed brief …to
cover the significance of this site and the significance of this project within
the total ACT environment and especially within the triangle and the lake.[63]
2.61
Dr David Headon suggested that an appropriately funded, design
competition for the bridge would yield the desired design result. Dr Headon
stated:
Far too often key buildings, plaza areas and design features
in Canberra have been under-funded to the point of embarrassment. This design
feature must have no expense spared in order to be an ornament to the nation’s
capital city, not an eyesore. European cities seem to experience little trouble
creating elegant, visually compelling pedestrian bridges in some of their most
sensitive, central real estate.[64]
2.62
IBA mentioned that it had discussed the possibility of engaging a design
competition. IBA stated:
After getting the design brief we have to make a decision as
to how we proceed with design. We have talked about whether a competition is
feasible. I believe it is.[65]
The proposal timeline
2.63
The NCA has not at this stage ‘undertaken any design review nor received
any application for Works Approval related to Immigration Bridge.’[66]
2.64
IBA has stated that it expects that it will take between 18 months to
two years for the proposal to be developed into its design phase and reach the
end of the works approval stage.[67]
2.65
This timeframe takes into account: that the IBA Board has decided to
wait until it has sufficient funds to cover the design consultant’s fees for
the next design phase; that IBA has applied for and is awaiting Deductible Gift
Recipient (DGR) status; and the time that it will take to put together a final
design brief.[68]
2.66
Over the 18 months to two year timeframe to reach and complete the works
approval process, IBA conveyed that it will be involved in seeing the proposal
through a set of stages. IBA stated:
The achievement of the final design solution will require a
staged process of preliminary meetings and discussions with the NCA and further
detailed meetings with lake users and the public to hopefully set on a design
suitable for public presentation and feedback. The application documentation
will then be prepared and it will contain the things that we will be setting
out in the design brief. It is also important to mention that the design proof
is to be approved by the NCA; it is not a thing that we do in isolation. The
final application for the development approval will include environmental
impact statements, heritage impact statements, visual impact statements,
construction methodology, construction period and continuous lake usage while
the bridge is being built. That is the process to date that we have discussed
with the NCA and that we understand we will be following.[69]
2.67
On the process outlined by IBA in relation to moving the proposal from
its concept design stage to its design brief stage the NCA commented:
…it sounds as though they [IBA] were proposing to run a
preliminary design process which drew out, through a public consultation
process, concerns and tried to develop design solutions which addressed those
concerns. On the face of it, that sounds like a good thing because that would
mean that the public was well aware of the issues surrounding the proposal well
before we did a formal consultation.[70]
The Immigration Bridge Australia organisation
Governance structure
2.68
The IBA organisation consists of a Board responsible for the ongoing
management of the IBA proposal and its associated business activities. The
Board includes: a Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Company Secretary, Treasurer, six
Board Members and a Special Adviser.[71] IBA noted that its Board
has wide experience including: a former Chief of Army, an architect and
engineer and the former Commissioner for the Snowy Hydro-Electric Authority who
is also the current Mayor of Cooma. In addition, IBA stated that members of the
Board have previous experience with the NCA’s works approval process.[72]
IBA added:
The Board is wider than that, of course, and it has the
ability to seek professional advice when it is required.[73]
2.69
The Board contracts the services of a Campaign Director who is responsible
for ‘the ongoing work of the campaign …the operations of the website, the
operations of the History Handrail program, [and] approaches to government’.[74]
2.70
Administrative support and financial advice and auditing of the IBA’s
financial statements is provided by a private sector company that is contracted
to do so.[75]
2.71
In addition, IBA has associations with a number of community and
corporate sponsors[76] and honorary ambassadors[77]
on a voluntary and goodwill basis.
Accountability and transparency mechanisms
2.72
IBA is an incorporated,[78] not-for-profit company,
limited by guarantee with tax exempt status and has formally been in existence
since 2005.[79]
2.73
As such, IBA is a legally recognised business entity which may operate
Australia-wide and is required to adhere to provisions contained in the Corporations
Act 2001 (Cwlth)[80] (the Corporations Act) with
regard to its governance structure, operations, financial management and
disclosure.
2.74
As IBA is limited by guarantee, if the company is wound up (or ceases to
exist), the company’s members are only liable for the amount they undertook to
contribute to the company.[81] IBA’s constitution
provides that each member must contribute a maximum of $10 each towards meeting
any outstanding obligation to the company. As at 30 June 2008, the number of
members of IBA was nine.[82]
2.75
IBA’s structure is prescribed under the Corporations Act which provides
the minimum requirements for a not-for-profit company. Therefore IBA must:
n ‘have at least 3
directors and 1 secretary
n have at least 1
member
n have a registered office
address and principal place of business located in Australia
n have its registered
office open and accessible to the public
n be internally managed
by a Constitution or Replaceable rules
n maintain a register
of its members
n keep a record of all
directors' and members' meeting minutes and resolutions
n appoint a registered
company auditor within 1 month of its registration
n keep proper financial
records
n prepare, have audited
and lodge financial statements and reports at the end of every financial year
n send to its members a
copy of its financial statements and reports, unless the member has a standing
arrangement with the company not to receive them
n hold an Annual
General Meeting once every calendar year within 5 months of the end of its
financial year
n receive and review an
annual company statement and pay an annual review fee. A charitable or
not-for-profit company may be eligible for a reduced annual review fee if it
meets the criteria under the definition of 'special purpose company' in
regulation 3(a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Corporations (Review Fees) Regulations
2003
n lodge notices
whenever changes to its officeholders, office addresses, constitution and its
name occur within specified timeframes as determined by the Corporations Act
2001.’[83]
2.76
In regard to its operations and disclosure activities, IBA stated:
We are a not-for-profit company incorporated under the
provisions of the Corporations Law of the Commonwealth. It is not, as was
suggested at one stage, an association incorporated under a territory or state
associations corporation act. We provide to ASIC all of the necessary annual
returns, and those returns include a copy of the audited accounts to the end of
the financial year. Those accounts are audited by the WalterTurnbull audit
division. …Those audited accounts are available publicly …they are public
documents. So this is quite a transparent process.[84]
Fundraising and corporate sponsorship
Estimated cost of the IBA proposal
2.77
IBA estimated that the total cost of building the Immigration Bridge
will be $30 million. IBA arrived at this amount through discussion with
the NCA and the inclusion of a $4 million buffer. IBA explained:
Fundraising campaigns for community projects have to involve
a target. IBA sought assistance from the NCA in estimating the cost of building
the bridge, which led to a range of $22 million to $26 million being
recommended. Prudently, IBA therefore decided that the target should reasonably
[be] set at $30 million.[85]
Fundraising mix and methods
2.78
In regard to the fundraising and advertising components of its campaign
IBA stated that it sought a mix of private and public sector funding consisting
of direct investment or cash donation through to corporate sponsorship. IBA
stated:
Most successful community projects involve funding
contributions from three sectors: corporations, the public and governments. In
this project, substantial contributions from Bendigo Bank, ActewAGL, SBS and
others were sought, and gained, to provide initial capital. A campaign to
attract public participation in the project through the History Handrail
program was initiated and also the migration book, collecting stories of
migration, was attached to that.[86]
2.79
IBA has sought and received tax exemption and is now ‘pursuing DGR
status (for the purpose of attracting larger tax deductible donations)[87]
from the Commonwealth Government in addition to ‘seed capital to get the
development approval process underway’.[88]
2.80
Further, IBA has sought funding from the Commonwealth Government, but
has not been successful. Of its efforts, IBA stated:
Regrettably, the IBA’s initial request of the previous
federal government was not agreed to on the grounds, inter alia:
…while acknowledging the symbolism of the bridge to
commemorate migration and its relationship to the Griffin Legacy, it does
represent a capital work project, which is more appropriately the
responsibility of local government authorities.[89]
2.81
IBA has stated that it would help its campaign if it received funding
from the Commonwealth Government. IBA explained:
…if the Commonwealth supported it, it would bring the project
to fruition much earlier than it ordinarily might happen by expediting all the
early-stage costs that are involved and then, of course, the commencement of construction.[90]
2.82
IBA further commented that it may receive funding from the Commonwealth
Government once the IBA proposal has received ‘strong’ support from the
community. IBA stated:
It would be prudent under normal circumstances, especially
given the fact that this is in the national capital, is part of the National
Capital Plan and is a piece of infrastructure for Canberra for which project
the government under normal circumstances would be expected to put in [a]
considerable sum—somewhere between $10 million and $15 million. But we
cannot expect the federal government to put that in, knowing what we do of
politics in general, unless we can demonstrate that the project is likely to be
a success to begin with. Once we have demonstrated, through public support—and
the public support for it has been extremely strong; we also have strong
support from corporates, as we said—that we have a viable and supportable
project, we expect that the government will then be in a position to assist the
project.[91]
2.83
Dr David Headon commented that Commonwealth Government assistance would
boost the profile of IBA’s campaign and stated:
Such a campaign should be funded in part, or wholly, by the
Australian Government. The campaign thus far has been something of a micro
success in eliciting impressive rank-and-file support, but this can and must be
expanded. The campaign needs re-invigoration and clever, carefully targeted
marketing of the bigger end of town.[92]
The History Handrail Project
2.84
The History Handrail project and associated Migration Book are the main
drawcards for collecting donations from private citizens, to fund the
construction of the Immigration Bridge. The History Handrail is intended to consist
of the names of migrants, their year of arrival and country of origin. Each migrant’s
arrival history will also be separately recorded in the Migration Book.[93]
2.85
For those individuals who are not able to reserve a place on the History
Handrail after the Immigration Bridge is built (if the proposal proceeds), they
will be able to record their history in the Migration Book at no charge.[94]
2.86
IBA is selling each name place on the History Handrail of the Immigration
Bridge for $110. For this amount, the purchaser of the name place receives a
‘commemorative certificate and receipt’ and ‘the name and the information given
is displayed on the IBA website from that time and is searchable by any name or
date contained therein.’[95]
2.87
IBA has made available 200 000 places on the History Handrail which is
expected to raise $22 million[96] of the $30 million
estimated to be needed to build the Immigration Bridge.
2.88
If the IBA proposal does not eventuate, IBA has stated that it will
offer a refund for the name places already purchased. Of its refund policy, IBA
advised:
It is stated in the IBA terms and conditions and in other
information that IBA has given out that, in the event of the project not being
built, a refund will be available for History Handrail purchases.[97]
2.89
In regard to where the funds for the refund will come from, IBA
explained:
As far as the funds raised are concerned, the History
Handrail project, we said in the chance that the bridge project did not go
ahead that we would be offering a refund. That means basically we have had to
not access those funds and therefore those funds have been quarantined and have
not been able to be put towards marketing or have not been able to be put
towards furthering the design process as we put it at the moment. We can only
use unencumbered funds for that.[98]
2.90
On its website, IBA notes that if the proposal does not proceed that the
refund of $110 will incur a $15 administration fee.[99]
This will mean that people who have tentatively purchased a place on the as yet
intangible History Handrail will only be eligible to receive $95 of the $110
that they paid to IBA.
2.91
Further to this, in the IBA’s audited financial statements, the
qualification appears that IBA’s History Handrail liability requires it to
refund 85 percent of handrail sales in addition to the amount for the
Goods and Services Tax.[100]
2.92
Taking into account the information available through the IBA’s
financial statements and its website, it is difficult to ascertain what the
exact refund would be to consumers if the IBA proposal did not reach
completion.
2.93
IBA have to date collected just over $1 million in cash and sponsorship,
the bulk of which is the cash component.[101] In regard to the amount
collected from the History Handrail program, IBA has to date sold about 6000
places or three percent of the 200 000 places available and collected around
$600 000. About 3000 of those places have been purchased by Canberra residents.[102]
Advertising and promotion
2.94
For advertising and promotion, IBA indicated that it has relied on
in-kind support from various corporate sponsors as it does not have a specific
marketing budget.[103] In-kind advertising
sponsorship includes SBS Television which has filmed a commercial and airs it
regularly. The principal sponsor of the IBA proposal is Bendigo Bank with
ActewAGL the sponsor in the capital.[104]
2.95
IBA has also invited ‘eminent Australians …to become honorary
ambassadors for the bridge, and the project’ in order to promote the proposal
throughout the wider community.[105]
2.96
In addition to the advertising and promotion that the Immigration Bridge
has received, IBA has promoted its proposal to a variety of multicultural groups
and institutions throughout Australia. IBA stated:
We asked every single migrant group that we could access to
our launch in Canberra, also our launch in Melbourne. We had a regional launch
in Griffith which involved migrant groups and a regional launch in Cooma as
well. We are in the process of contacting as many as we possibly can and we
have been doing that and we do have a large amount of support from migrant
groups all over Australia.[106]`
2.97
The committee understands that the Immigration Bridge is currently in
its early phase or concept phase and as such no structural specifications are available.
2.98
However, the committee believes that different bridge structures could
impact Lake users, vista and heritage values of the Lake and its surrounds in
different ways.
2.99
The committee reiterates its findings from its 2007 Review of the
Griffin Legacy Amendments report which highlighted community concern about
Lake-use, vista and heritage in regard to Amendment 61 which included a bridge in
the suggested location.
2.100
The committee notes that IBA appreciates its responsibility to take the
proposal from the concept design stage to the final design phase stage and that
it needs to consult in regard to Lake-user issues, vista and associated
heritage values.
2.101
The committee finds that the IBA refund policy for its History Handrail
project is unclear. The committee suggests that the IBA clarify its policy in
the obligations it has outlined in its financial statements and have this
information available on its website on the same page as information for
purchasing a name place is located.
2.102
The committee also understands that IBA’s financial statements are available
for a fee from either ASIC or through a financial broker.
2.103
The committee suggests that in the interest of improving its
transparency and accountability IBA makes its financial statements available on
its website.
Recommendation 1 |
|
2.104
|
The committee recommends that in the interest of improving
its transparency and accountability Immigration Bridge Australia:
n clarify
its refund policy in relation to the History Handrail program; and
n make
its financial documents publicly available on its website. |