Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Report No. 26, 56th Parliament Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee March 2020

Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Report No. 26, 56th Parliament Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee March 2020

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee

Chair Mr Duncan Pegg MP, Member for Stretton1

Deputy Chair Mr Jon Krause MP, Member for Scenic Rim

Members Ms Sandy Bolton MP, Member for Noosa

Mr Mark Boothman MP, Member for Theodore2

Ms Cynthia Lui MP, Member for Cook

Mrs Charis Mullen MP, Member for Jordan

Committee Secretariat

Telephone +61 7 3553 6662

Fax +61 7 3553 6699

Email [email protected]

Technical Scrutiny +61 7 3553 6601 Secretariat

Committee webpage www.parliament.qld.gov.au/itdec

Acknowledgements

The committee acknowledges the assistance provided by the Department of Environment and Science, the Department of Housing and Public Works and the staff of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service at the Mon Repos Turtle Centre.

1 On 4 February 2020, the Leader of the House appointed the Member for Bancroft, Chris Whiting MP, as substitute Chair of the committee for the Member for Stretton, Duncan Pegg MP, to attend the committee’s meetings and hearings from 10 to 11 February 2020. 2 On 7 February 2020, the Leader of the Opposition appointed the Member for Bundaberg, David Batt MP, as substitute member of the committee for the Member for Theodore, Mark Boothman MP, to attend the committee’s meetings and hearings from 10 to 11 February 2020.

Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Contents List of Tables iii Abbreviations iv Chair’s foreword v Recommendation vi Committee conclusions vii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Role of the committee 1 1.2 Scope of the inquiry 1 1.3 Inquiry process 2 2 Background 3 2.1 Location and site 3 2.2 Turtle conservation and research 4 2.3 Historic and cultural heritage 4 2.4 Regional tourism 5 2.5 Turtle experiences at the centre 5 2.5.1 Mon Repos Turtle Encounters 5 2.5.2 Mon Repos Turtle Tales 6 2.6 Operation and stakeholders 6 2.6.1 Operational responsibilities 6 2.6.2 Stakeholders 6 3 Terms of Reference 9 3.1 Purpose of the work 9 3.2 Necessity and advisability of the work 9 3.2.1 Option assessment process 10 3.2.2 Scope of public works 11 3.2.3 Photographs of the redeveloped facility 12 3.3 Suitability of the works for the purpose 12 3.3.1 Location and site suitability 12 3.3.2 Size and scale 13 3.3.3 Access to and from the site 14 3.3.4 Café and catering facilities 16 3.3.5 Technical and environmental performance 17 3.3.6 Department response to stakeholder views 18 3.4 Value for money achieved by the work 18 3.4.1 Benchmarking 19 3.5 Estimated revenue and project costs 20 3.5.1 Project costs 20 3.5.2 Estimated recurrent costs and revenue 21 3.6 Public value of the work, including the impact of the work on the community, economy and environment 22 3.6.1 Community 22

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee i Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

3.6.2 Economy 23 3.6.3 Environment 24 3.7 Procurement methods for the work 26 3.7.1 Project time frames 26 3.7.2 Major consultants and contractors 26 3.8 Balance of public and private sector involvement in the works 27 3.9 Performance of the constructing authority and consultants and contractors for the work 27 3.9.1 Compliance with contractual obligations 28 3.9.2 Timely completion of works 28 3.9.3 Requests for information 28 3.9.4 Variations to the project 29 3.10 Other issues raised by stakeholders 30 3.10.1 Local artwork 30 3.10.2 Traffic management in the region leading to Mon Repos 30 3.11 Future developments 30 3.11.1 Negotiations to purchase neighbouring land 30 3.11.2 Future business opportunities 31 3.11.3 Project evaluation 32 Appendix A – Detailed questions asked of the Department of Environment and Science 33 Appendix B – Submitters 35 Appendix C – Witnesses at public briefing 36 Appendix D – Witnesses at public hearing and forum 37 Appendix E – Project budget as at November 2019 38 Appendix F – Approved variation costs as at 3 February 2020 39 Statement of Reservation 44

ii Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

List of Tables

Table 1: Project budget ...... 20 Table 2: Estimated recurrent costs ...... 21 Table 3: Estimated revenue ...... 21 Table 4: Ticket price increases, 2018/19 to 2019/20 ...... 21 Table 5: Project time frames ...... 26

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee iii Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Abbreviations

BAS Building and Asset Services division (within DHPW)

centre Mon Repos Turtle Centre

conservation park Mon Repos Conservation Park

DHPW Department of Housing and Public Works

QPWS Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (within DES)

RFIs Requests for Information

WBBEC Wide Bay Burnett Environment Council

iv Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Chair’s foreword

This report presents a summary of the Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee’s examination of the public works inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre. All inquiry participants were unanimous in their position that the redeveloped Mon Repos Turtle Centre is an important addition to the local tourism offering in the Bundaberg area and Queensland as a whole. Importantly, the design and construction of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre has achieved an appropriate balance between meeting tourism and community expectations, and ensuring that conservation of the marine turtles at Mon Repos continues. While lessons can always be learnt from public work projects such as this, the committee is satisfied that the project has and will continue to deliver a range of environmental, economic and community benefits. On behalf of the committee, I thank those who made written submissions to the inquiry, and took the time to appear as witnesses at the Bundaberg public hearing. I also thank the Department of Environment and Science, the Department of Housing and Public Works, and Parliamentary Service staff for their support throughout this inquiry. It was unfortunate that I was unable to attend the site inspection and public hearing. I therefore thank Chris Whiting MP for acting as Chair during this time. I also thank my committee colleagues for their valuable contributions throughout. In closing, I commend the work of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service representatives, and the many volunteers who work to protect the nesting turtles and provide a unique and world-class visitor experience at the Mon Repos Turtle Centre. I commend this report to the House.

Duncan Pegg MP Chair

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee v Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Recommendation

Recommendation 1 32 The committee recommends the Legislative Assembly note the contents of this report.

vi Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Committee conclusions

The committee has concluded that it is satisfied that: • the work was necessary and advisable • the work was suitable for its purpose • the work was reasonable value for money • the cost, and estimated recurrent costs of the work are reasonable • the work has had, and will continue to have, a positive impact on the community, the economy and the environment • the procurement methods adopted were appropriate • the balance of public and private sector involvement in the work was appropriate • the construction work was completed according to specifications, within the revised construction work program, and that contractual obligations were met by appointed contractors.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee vii

Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

1 Introduction

1.1 Role of the committee The Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee (committee) is a portfolio committee of the Legislative Assembly which commenced on 15 February 2018 under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly.3 The committee’s primary areas of responsibility include: • Innovation and Tourism Industry Development and Cross River Rail • Environment and the Great Barrier Reef, Sciences and the Arts. Under section 94 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, the committee has the following responsibilities to the extent that they relate to the committee’s portfolio areas: a) the assessment of the integrity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of government financial management by— i. examining government financial documents ii. considering the annual and other reports of the auditor-general b) works (public works) undertaken by an entity that is a constructing authority for the works if the committee decides to consider the works c) any major works if the committee decides to consider the works.4 1.2 Scope of the inquiry The terms of reference for the inquiry, as set out in section 94 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, were to examine the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre and report to parliament on: a) the stated purpose of the works and the apparent suitability of the works for the purpose b) the necessity for, and the advisability of, the works c) value for money achieved, or likely to be achieved, by the works d) revenue produced by, and recurrent costs of, the works or estimates of revenue and costs for the works e) the present and prospective public value of the works, including, for example, consideration of the impact of the works on the community, economy and environment f) procurement methods for the works g) the balance of public and private sector involvement in the works h) the performance of— i. the constructing authority for the works ii. the consultants and contractors for the works; with particular regard to the time taken for finishing the works and the cost and quality of the works i) the actual suitability of the works in meeting the needs and in achieving the stated purpose of the works.

3 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, section 88 and Standing Order 194. 4 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, sections 94, 96 and Schedule Dictionary.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 1 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

1.3 Inquiry process On 16 September 2019, the committee resolved to conduct a public works inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre (centre). On 19 September 2019, the committee sought a written submission from the Department of Environment and Science (department or DES) addressing the terms of reference and responses to specific questions. Refer to Appendix A for details of these questions. On 25 September 2019, the committee invited stakeholders and subscribers to make written submissions addressing the terms of reference. Submissions closed on 15 November 2019. Eight submissions were received. Appendix B contains a list of submissions received. The committee held a public briefing with representatives from the department and the Department of Housing and Public Works (DHPW) on 3 February 2020. The committee undertook a site inspection of the centre on 10 February 2020. The committee held a public hearing on 11 February 2020 in Bundaberg. Lists of participants at the public briefing and public hearing are provided in Appendices C and D. Inquiry documents, including submissions, correspondence from the department, answers to questions on notice and transcripts of the briefing and hearing are available on the committee’s webpage.

Members of the Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee visiting the centre.

2 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

2 Background

2.1 Location and site Constructed within the Mon Repos Conservation Park (conservation park), the centre is located near Bargara Beach on the Southern Great Barrier Reef coast, 14 kilometres from the city of Bundaberg. The area within the conservation park was declared in 1990 as an ‘environmental park’ and in 1994 it was re-gazetted as a ‘conservation park’ under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.5 A map of the Mon Repos Conservation Park is provided below. Figure 1: Map of Mon Repos Conservation Park

Source: Department of Environment and Science, March 2020.

5 Department of Environment and Science (DES), submission no. 8, p 18. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) is custodian of all Queensland terrestrial and marine protected areas and Forests under the Nature Conservation Act 1992, Marine Parks Act 2004 and the Forestry Act 1959 respectively.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 3 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

The 45 hectare conservation park is bounded to the west by cane land owned by Bundaberg Sugar Ltd, to the east by the Great Sandy Marine Park, and conservation areas to the north and south. On part of the southern boundary is a privately owned former caravan park.6 The street address for the property is 141 Mon Repos Road, Mon Repos, Bundaberg. The Real Property Description of the site is Lot 222 on SP149060. 2.2 Turtle conservation and research Mon Repos has a long history as a significant marine turtle breeding place in Australia and internationally.7 Home to the largest concentration of nesting marine turtles on the eastern Australian mainland, Mon Repos is the most significant loggerhead turtle rookery in the South Pacific. Successful breeding here is critical if the loggerhead species is to survive. In smaller numbers the Flatback and Green turtles and, intermittently, the Leatherback turtle also nest along the Bundaberg coastline.8 The centre is an important contributor to conservation efforts to support marine turtles. Renowned as the focal point for Australian marine turtle research, the centre has a long history of marine conservation, scientific research and education programs. The centre purports to support global consciousness and appreciation of marine turtles and advance community conservation awareness.9 Research space in the centre provides facilities and amenities that support innovations in the long-standing marine turtle research program. The department advised that, ‘the design of the new centre was informed by a panel of relevant experts, including key researcher Dr Col Limpus’. The department also stated; ‘Volunteer participation and contributions to the turtle research program will continue to be embraced’.10 The committee observed the research facilities within the centre during their site visit in February 2020, including a purpose-built temperature controlled incubation laboratory. 2.3 Historic and cultural heritage The centre’s design and its immersive interpretive displays incorporate the significant historical and cultural heritage value of the area, including: First Nations peoples’ connection with the land and key historic heritage values of the Conservation Park including the South Sea Islander Wall, its history with aviation pioneer Bert Hinkler, and as the first telegraph station connecting Australia to the rest of the world.11 First Nations people have a deep connection to the land and sea along the Mon Repos and Bargara coastline, where they have co-existed for thousands of years with the annual turtle populations. For generations the area has provided food resources from the rocky coastline, sandy beaches and the Burnett River. The coastal land provided marsupials, reptiles, bush foods and medicines in the dry rainforest, paperbark swamps and coastal woodlands.12 A heritage listed large rock wall was built by South Sea Islanders as they cleared rocks to prepare land for sugarcane crops. Their work was integral to the sugar industry and this wall stands as a testament of their contribution to the district.13

6 DES, submission no. 8, p 9. 7 DES, submission no. 8, p 18. 8 DES, ‘Information on Mon Repos Turtle Centre’, www.parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/mon-repos/turtle- centre.html. 9 DES, submission no. 8, pp 10, 13. 10 DES, correspondence received 25 November 2019, Attachment 2: Response to submissions, p 5. 11 DES, submission no. 8, p 15. 12 DES, submission no. 8, p 18. 13 DES, submission no. 8, p 18.

4 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Mon Repos has a European connection through its name. In 1884, the sugar pioneer Augustus Barton built a summer residence in the region and named his house Mon Repos, which is French for ‘my rest’. In 1893, France chose Mon Repos Beach as the connection point for a telegraph cable stretching from New Caledonia to Australia. For thirty years this cable played an important role connecting Australia to the rest of the world.14 In 1912, the pioneering Australian aviator Bert Hinkler made his first successful flight at Mon Repos beach. Born in Bundaberg, Hinkler built his first glider when he was just 19, transporting each piece to Mon Repos by bicycle. In 1928, he became the first person to fly solo from England to Australia.15 2.4 Regional tourism The centre is an important contributor to the local ecotourism sector in the Bundaberg region, and to Queensland tourism. The importance to ecotourism is indicated by visitations to Queensland’s protected areas which host over 58 million visits to the state each year, support over 650 commercial tour operators and 15,000 direct tourism industries.16 Ms Katherine Reid, of Bundaberg Tourism, advised that: ‘Tourism injects more than $460 million into the Bundaberg region economy, employing in excess of 5,000 people and contributing over 10 per cent to the GDP’.17 Ms Reid said the vision of the new centre is to be a world-class ecotourism attraction.18 The Mon Repos turtle encounter is recognised as Australia’s premier turtle experience. With nature based experiences being the highest driver of visitation in Queensland, its success is inherently important to the Bundaberg region—socially, culturally, environmentally and economically. … The redeveloped Mon Repos Turtle Centre provides new experiences that immerse visitors in the lives of marine turtles and turtle researchers. It has increased the opportunities for visitors to explore, engage and have fun learning about marine turtle research and conservation, as well as to continue to provide the guided turtle encounters on the beach that Mon Repos is famous for.19 2.5 Turtle experiences at the centre Visitation to the centre has previously been heavily concentrated around the annual turtle breeding season. One clear, stated purpose of the new centre is to attract visitors to the site throughout the year with a range of experiences.20 Entry to the centre is free, but there are admission fees for the Turtle Encounters and Turtle Tales experiences, as described below. 2.5.1 Mon Repos Turtle Encounters From mid-November to February, visitors can book a Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) ranger-guided walk along Mon Repos beach at night to watch female turtles nesting. From mid-January until late March, visitors are able to watch hatchlings leaving their nests at night.21 Tickets are available for booking online. Bookings and ticket sales are managed by Bundaberg Tourism.22 Tickets prices for the

14 DES, submission no. 8, p 18. 15 DES, submission no. 8, p 18. 16 DES, submission no. 8, p 16; based on average of Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre estimates for National Park Generated Value for Queensland. 17 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 6. 18 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 1. 19 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 6. 20 DES, submission no. 8, p 12. 21 DES, ‘Mon Repos Turtle Centre’, www.parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/mon-repos/turtle-centre.html. 22 Bundaberg Tourism, ‘Bundaberg Visitor Information Centre’, www.bundabergregion.org/turtles/mon-repos- turtle-encounter.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 5 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

2019-20 season range from $14 for concession holders and children aged 5-14 years, to $27 for adults aged 15 years and older. A family ticket costs $65. Tickets for a turtle encounter include access to Turtle Tales, described below. Visitors who book a turtle encounter are arranged into groups in order of their ticket purchase (bookings open two months prior to the commencement of the season). The centre opens at 7pm, at which point visitors will be placed in their turtle encounter group for the night. QPWS rangers call the group and guide them to the beach once turtles arrive. Visitors are advised that the wait-time may be several hours, and there is no guarantee they will see a turtle.23 2.5.2 Mon Repos Turtle Tales New immersive interpretive displays in the centre’s theatre feature light-emitting diode (LED) surround screens to provide short, immersive and educational films. The interactive Junior Discovery Zone provides young visitors with a hands-on opportunity to learn about turtle nesting and hatching. Entrance to these features within the centre, entitled Turtle Tales, is open for visitors all year, seven days a week.24 Tickets range from $9 for a child to $33 for a family, and are available for purchase at the centre.25 The department advised that these features will provide additional opportunities for the region to benefit from the attraction outside of the peak turtle season, during the otherwise uneventful remaining six to seven months of the year.26 2.6 Operation and stakeholders 2.6.1 Operational responsibilities The department advised that the centre is owned by the Queensland Government, and represented and operated by QPWS.27 2.6.2 Stakeholders 2.6.2.1 Public and visitor interaction The new centre is to open year-round and may accommodate 300 visitors indoors. Historically, the centre only operated in the turtle nesting season and attracted over 30,000 visitors per season. However, the department advised that with the new centre being open all year, visitors are projected to increase to between 60,000 and 100,000 per year.28 2.6.2.2 Operational staff The centre is staffed by existing and new QPWS positions funded by the department to deliver the services at the new centre.29 QPWS employed five new seasonal jobs at the centre in its first 2019/20 season.30 The new centre features staff office facilities, meeting spaces and a laboratory with a range of upgraded features for researchers to undertake their work.31

23 DES, ‘Mon Repos Turtle Centre’, www.parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/mon-repos/turtle-centre.html. 24 DES, submission no. 8; the centre is open all year except for Anzac Day and Christmas Day. 25 DES, ‘Mon Repos Turtle Centre’, www.parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/mon-repos/turtle-centre.html. 26 DES, submission no. 8, p 12. 27 DES, submission no. 8, p 12. 28 Mr Guy Thomas, Director Asset Services, DES, Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 3. 29 DES, submission no. 8, p 30. 30 DES, submission no. 8, p 12. 31 DES, submission no. 8, p 10.

6 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

2.6.2.3 Volunteers For over 50 years Mon Repos has been supported by a large number of community volunteers. Volunteers fought to have the area declared a conservation park in the early 1980s and since that time have been an integral part of the programs focused on turtle conservation, ecotourism and revegetation.32 Concerning the volunteer workforce at Mon Repos the department advised: Mon Repos has a proud tradition of community involvement, and the new turtle centre will see volunteers continue their important work assisting Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff with marine turtle conservation and education.33 In February 2020 the department advised the committee of the scale of the volunteer workforce during the current 2019/20 turtle season: At the moment, 66 volunteers rotate through the nightshift, which is an increase of about 15 on previous years. Also, we have nearly 20 daytime volunteers who are new to this season. There has been an increase in the number of volunteers available. They greatly assist with managing people. They provide information. They provide services. They direct people around the site.34 Recognition of the value of the volunteers to the centre and in the Bundaberg region was shared by stakeholders. For example, Mayor Jack Dempsey of the Bundaberg Regional Council stated: One of the most important aspects of this is our volunteers. We have such a rich source of volunteers. We have many young volunteers coming through, as well as more senior volunteers who are very young at heart. Whilst the structure is here and people from different departments are providing support for research into the environment and looking after the different animal species, this is about building future capacity through volunteers, which helps not just this centre but also goes across the whole community. … This centre lets people from all over the world come to have a magical experience and it provides opportunities for us to continue to work together, so it is very important to recognise the life aspect and how that will enrich other people.35 2.6.2.4 Business partnerships Bundaberg Tourism manages the online booking and ticketing processes for the Mon Repos Turtle Experience. This arrangement has been in place for a number of years. Ms Katherine Reid, CEO, Bundaberg Tourism, advised the committee that: As a not-for-profit organisation, we do retain a small commission for that service which covers the facilities and the staffing to manage that ticketing as well as going back into marketing of the turtle experience.36 Ms Reid reported that, since the opening of the new centre, the rate of commission to Bundaberg Tourism had reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.37 During the public hearing, Ms Reid spoke about the importance of setting an appropriate governance and management model to realise the full potential of the centre:

32 DES, ‘Mon Repos Turtle Centre’,www.parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/mon-repos/pdf/mon-repos-turtle-centre.pdf 33 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2. 34 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 5. 35 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 2. 36 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 21. 37 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 21.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 7 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Bundaberg Tourism is committed to working in collaborative partnership with all stakeholders, including the department and traditional owner groups. We enjoy a great relationship with the rangers and volunteers on the ground here in Bundaberg and have worked together with them throughout the seasons in responding to the customer feedback received and challenges faced. The success of a year-round, world-class experience at Mon Repos is dependent on the establishment of an appropriate governance and management model. The model needs to allow the Mon Repos Turtle Centre to respond to commercial opportunities and challenges and remain contemporary and attuned to the expectations of the target market. By creating a more sustainable business, Mon Repos will be able to contribute more fully to both the tourism economy and local communities and deliver good value for money from the government’s continued investment. You may note that those two lines were actually taken directly from the department’s direction paper for the Mon Repos concept master plan developed back in June 2014. Nearly six years later, the need for a sustainable and cooperative business model, or the passion and willingness of the tourism industry, has not changed. This is a unique project. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Queensland parks and the Bundaberg region. It is hoped that, moving forward, the stakeholders will be able to work in an inclusive and collaborative manner to deliver social, environmental, cultural and economic benefits for the Bundaberg region and of course the state of Queensland.38 The department advised the committee: Future opportunities for business partnerships to operate commercial or other ventures at the centre, are the subject of current consideration. Further expressions of interest will be considered for any other opportunities related to the new centre and its operations once the centre becomes fully operational.39 2.6.2.5 First Nations peoples The centre incorporates First Nations peoples’ traditional and cultural knowledge into new visitor interpretation modules.40 The department advised First Nations peoples were involved throughout the project, and the new centre features traditional artwork and knowledge.41 The department further advised that the centre provides potential for commercial opportunities for Indigenous business, and stated: Initial Expressions of Interest have been sought from local First Nations groups to partner in commercial offerings at the new facility, including the operation of the food and beverage and retail facilities.42

38 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 7. 39 Submission no. 8, p 12. 40 Submission no. 8, p 7. 41 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2. 42 Submission 8, p 12.

8 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

3 Terms of Reference

3.1 Purpose of the work The department stated the purpose of the work was to replace the ageing Mon Repos Turtle Centre with a new centre to provide a year-round, world-class ecotourism attraction for visitors to experience and learn about the marine turtle nesting and hatching. New quality, accessible scientific research facilities in the centre will showcase 50 years of Mon Repos research history and promote new innovations in marine turtle research. The new centre is designed to meet projected regional tourism growth demands, relieve pressure on sensitive parts of the park, and support future revenue growth through new products and new business opportunities.43 3.2 Necessity and advisability of the work The department stated that the need and timing for the work was influenced by a number of factors, with its stimulus impact on the State’s ecotourism industry and regional economies being a key driver.44 The work was informed by three primary departmental drivers: the Queensland Ecotourism Plan, State Infrastructure Plan, and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services Gateway Visitor Centre Master Plans.45 Further, in 2016 strategic tourism planning undertaken for the Bundaberg North Burnett Tourism Region identified the Mon Repos turtle experience as a key product development and ‘hero experience’ opportunity to grow tourism in the region.46 The department advised that from an asset management perspective, strategic decisions needed to be made regarding existing facilities on the site. 47 The ageing existing Mon Repos facility and visitor amenities were inadequate to support a contemporary world-class wildlife encounter ecotourism experience, and incapable of delivering the community’s expectations for the site into the future. Facilities that existed prior to the redevelopment vision commencing include: • A small ageing visitor centre (that couldn’t fully accommodate all-weather patronage) • Visitor amenities/toilet building (with pit toilets) • A covered amphitheatre (a recent addition retained within the redevelopment) • Ageing boardwalks • A roadway and carpark (that had well exceeded its use by date) • Pathways (that were not well designed or well defined) • A temporary (15 years) rented transportable donger as the QPWS office • A basic amenities block for turtle researchers and volunteers.48 For example, one consequence of the small size of the old visitor centre was that visitors often endured extended periods sitting outside in wet or humid conditions while waiting to view turtles, which presented challenges particularly for families and older people. The age and size of the facilities together with the fact that the centre was only open during turtle season (October to March) limited potential opportunities for ecotourism growth and related offerings across the year.49

43 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 1-2; DES, submission no. 8, pp 14-16. 44 Submission no. 8, pp 23-24. 45 Submission no. 8, p 23. 46 DES, submission no. 8, p 25. 47 DES, submission no. 8, p 25. 48 Submission no. 8, p 10. 49 DES, submission no. 8, pp 21-22.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 9 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

During the master planning process, the department identified that a new gateway visitor centre would enable the range of experiences for visitors to be greatly expanded. Opportunities identified included: ‘partnerships with commercial tourism operators, First Nations groups, and research and education organisations to provide year round marine turtle experiences and complementary ecotourism, regional economic growth and accommodation and hospitality industry benefits’.50 3.2.1 Option assessment process The department advised the work was informed by a master planning process involving stakeholder working groups and community consultation. It was then evaluated through a 2-stage options process: a strategic assessment followed by project-specific consideration.51 After being assessed against the department’s Total Asset Management Plan, three primary options were considered: 1. Maintain status quo. 2. Replace the asset and focus the centre on core business. 3. Improve facilities to generate direct economic activity, raise agency profile and engage local communities.52 Option three was selected by the department ‘as both turtle conservation and local economies were dependent on an ongoing sustainable investment at the site’.53 The department next considered six project-specific options in the second stage evaluation that involved consideration of project and site-specific factors, including potential staging of works to available funding envelopes: 1. Refurbishment of the existing facilities. 2. Enhance and upgrade existing visitor facilities. 3. Acquire an alternative site and construct new turtle centre facilities. 4. Demolish and rebuild new facilities on the existing site with additional car parking. 5. Demolish and rebuild new facilities on the existing site and acquire land for car parking. 6. Demolish and rebuild new facilities on the existing site and seek alternate parking and transport arrangements; or combinations of the above.54 The department advised that options 3 and 5 were both considered viable alternatives, however external factors meant these could not be realised. In choosing option 6, the department advised: This option was selected as the best available option given the department was unable to secure any alternate land under terms acceptable to the government. Designing and establishing a brand new building provides significant benefits as a contemporary structure using modern sustainable design and materials. It has enabled a fit for purpose customised solution to house state-of-the-art immersive interpretation and world class facilities for peak visitation periods.

50 DES, submission no. 8, pp 21-22. 51 DES, submission no. 8, p 25. 52 DES, submission no. 8, p 25 53 DES, submission no. 8, p 25 54 DES, submission no. 8, p 25

10 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Building new facilities on an existing disturbed footprint of an old carpark minimised clearing and disturbance. It also allowed some improved environmental balance with retreat of existing facilities away from the beach. Visitors retain the significant benefit of having the primary interpretive and staging facility in close proximity to the main nesting beach at Mon Repos. This provides significant logistical advantage for tour groups. Car parking on the Conservation Park has been limited to a minimum providing primary access for general visitors to the new turtle centre. This has been designed and resulted in the least amount of clearing required while meeting development conditions and statutory obligations for disability access and fire and emergency needs. Off-site parking will be provided on nearby regional council land during the turtle season, with a shuttle bus service providing visitors on tours immediate access to the centre. This arrangement provides superior visitor management by controlling access and allowing some pre-visit information to supplement the visitor experience. The option of acquiring adjacent land from Bundaberg Sugar at some stage in the future, to provide for alternative overflow parking and to secure an environmental buffer from future township development (mainly light impacts) will continue to be a strategic objective in the department’s forward acquisition plans.55 3.2.2 Scope of public works The scope of works was outlined in the department’s Functional Design Brief in November 2016 and included: • Realising the community’s master planning vision of a year-round educational and tourism destination, promoting Queensland’s significant conservation efforts. • Construction of the new turtle centre incorporating a state-of-the-art interpretive space for marine turtle education; promotion of First Nations cultural heritage and European history of the area; a café and dining experience; merchandise and retail precincts; and contemporary visitor facilities catering for circa 300 people. • Incorporated within the design is a marine turtle research facility, meeting spaces and staff office facilities. • External works including refurbishment of the outdoor visitor amphitheatre, new boardwalks, pathways, car parking, access road, signage and landscaping. • New connections to town potable water supply and trunk main sewerage services have been established as part of the works, as well as upgrades to main power supplies and communications links.56

55 DES, submission no. 8, pp 27-28. 56 DES, submission no. 8, p 10; DES, Mon Repos Turtle Centre Functional Design Brief, November 2016; DES, submission no. 8, Attachment 1.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 11 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

3.2.3 Photographs of the redeveloped facility

Committee conclusion The committee is satisfied that the work was necessary and advisable. 3.3 Suitability of the works for the purpose 3.3.1 Location and site suitability The department advised that the Mon Repos project was designed around its history and conservation importance: The development has been undertaken largely on the disturbed footprint of previous development on the Conservation Park and adjacent to the retained covered amphitheatre. The visitor infrastructure is sited in close proximity to other infrastructure that supports park operations. It is ideally situated for visitors to have a short walk to the nesting beach while being settled behind the sensitive dune area for minimal impact to the beach.57 The department spoke to some of the limitations associated with the size of the site, which in turn has been a key influence in the design and delivery of the centre’s surrounding infrastructure: One of the constraints with Mon Repos is the size of the site. All the way along there has been consultation with the key neighbours, which are the existing caravan park and also Bundaberg Sugar, which basically is the western neighbour to the site. There have been ongoing discussions with what is occurring on the site and also discussions in relation to the potential acquisition of land, so that we can increase the size of the footprint of the site. …

57 Submission no. 8, pp 18-19.

12 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

We stand ready to acquire more land, so if the opportunity presents we will be looking at options to acquire more land to increase the footprint. Hence we might be able to provide a greater environmental benefit through additional plantings and buffering from light from the Bundaberg area to the beach and also possibly to extend the facilities in that area over time.58 The department advised the committee that some of the initial problems associated with the site were currently being addressed: In any case, it was always envisaged that the government would take a staged approach to the Mon Repos development, and further work is continuing to realise the long-term vision to optimise parking options as close as possible to the site. Like any large, complex project of this scale, it was anticipated there would be site and technical challenges faced in delivering the new turtle centre.59 3.3.2 Size and scale According to the department, the new centre was designed to accommodate peak visitation numbers of up to 300 people per day, while sensitive to the overall site environment.60 The department further advised the committee that any activities that attract visitors during the day would have minimum impact on the site: As for impacts at night-time, I cannot see any significant difference, because we are limited by the number of people. We still only take a maximum of 300 people a night. That has not changed. During the daytime the turtles are rarely present on the beach.61 The department’s Functional Design Brief identified that the centre would optimally attract visitors throughout the year and outside of the turtle nesting and hatching season, in order to ‘ensure the centre is commercially viable’.62 The department stated: The original modelling that was done as part of the market sounding and economic benefit work indicated that the current visitation numbers of about 30,000 visitors a year would approximately double. Much of that increase in visitation would be in what is the traditional low season. One of the key objectives of the project was to spread the visitation offering through the course of the year. From the traditional October-April period, when I think the average of around 30,000 people a year visit, we would then be able to extend the offering to that April-October period and, as I say, extend that by at least double.63 However, during the public hearing stakeholders submitted that it was not possible to accommodate 300 people in the centre in comfort at any one time. Representatives from Bundaberg Tourism attested to the need to reduce the group size of visitors for the turtle encounter due to a lack of space to accommodate people within the centre: The department’s submission states that the new centre has been designed to accommodate peak visitation numbers of 300 people in indoor comfort while being sensitive to the overall site environment. From visitor feedback through our visitor information centres and online review sites such as TripAdvisor and Facebook, the centre cannot comfortably accommodate 300 people in indoor comfort and puts extraordinary strain on the rangers and volunteers trying to manage this number of people in the given space. Based on the challenges with the space, the team have had to decrease turtle tickets available each night, and a further review of the visitor experience and visitor

58 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 4-5. 59 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2. 60 Submission no. 8, p 19. 61 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 5 62 DES, submission no. 8, Attachment 1, p 2. 63 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 3.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 13 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

flow through the centre will really need to be assessed for future use to truly showcase best practice and sustainable visitor use of one of the state’s best wildlife experiences.64 Ms Katherine Reid of Bundaberg Tourism estimated only 150 people at most could be comfortably accommodated in the interior of the centre.65 Citing space limitations in the central area, and in the new theatre, Ms Reid stated that each group for the night-time tours ‘is around 50 now, so it has reduced [total visitors] overall to around 27,000 tickets [during the turtle season]’.66 3.3.3 Access to and from the site One of the key issues raised during the committee’s inquiry into the centre was the suitability of the car parking facilities for visitors accessing the centre. The car park is located approximately one kilometre from the centre, and visitors to the night-time turtle adventure are required to take a shuttle bus from the car park to the centre. Mayor Jack Dempsey of the Bundaberg Regional Council attested that car park availability had dropped from the previous 100 spaces accommodating the old centre, to just 22 in the small car park at the end of Mon Repos Road.67 According to Mr Andrew Murchie of Murchie Constructions Pty Ltd, the car park construction was different to the design at tendering stage. Mr Murchie stated, ‘From the start of the project, the car park was put on hold. Those works were redesigned. The area of the car park was smaller, from memory, than what was actually built’.68 3.3.3.1 Car parking Stakeholder views in relation to accessing the site were generally unfavourable to the car park arrangements, with the exception of the Wide Bay Burnett Environment Council (WBBEC), who stated: In principle, WBBEC supports this proposal, as it is likely to result in less impacts on sea turtles due to traffic noise and light from vehicles.69 In contrast, Mayor Dempsey of the Bundaberg Regional Council was critical of the department for their ‘lack of adequate planning, initiative and foresight regarding visitor car parking’, and the reduction in the number of available car spaces in the car park.70 Mayor Dempsey stated: Fundamental to creating a world class ecotourism facility is ensuring the visitor experience is also world class. Unfortunately, no adequate options were identified in the planning for the project to provide appropriate visitor parking. As a result, there is no long-term plan for how car parking will be managed into the future. Rather, the redevelopment of the Centre will see a reduction in the total number of on-site car parking spaces provided. This is contrary to standard development practice in Queensland, where it is a basic requirement that development provides for their own car parking requirements on the development site.71 Bundaberg Tourism was also critical of the car parking arrangements and the impact on the potential accessibility of the site:

64 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 7. 65 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 7. 66 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 9. 67 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 3. 68 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 15. 69 Submission no. 3, p 1. 70 Mayor Jack Dempsey, Bundaberg Regional Council, public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, p 3. 71 Submission no. 4, pp 2-3.

14 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Car parking is key supporting infrastructure for any visitor experience. Car parking has the ability to control the movement of people to minimise impact on the surrounding natural environment. As discussed extensively by our Mayor Jack Dempsey, the current last-minute stopgap of cars parking on the verge of Mon Repos Road and at the elevated point on the southern end of Mon Repos beach is less than desirable and is the topic of many visitor complaints and discomfort. It also contradicts the functional design brief that states in the public parking section 'ideally cars should park with lights facing away from the beach and potentially on lower ground'. To encourage visitation all year round and in fact meet the works goal of doubling visitor numbers with the redeveloped turtle centre, car parking to allow ease of access and control of visitor flow is essential. With only 27,620 tour tickets available for the 2019-20 season, to meet the target of 60,000 stated by the department, daytime accessibility and experience offering is integral to the centre’s success.72 Mr David Baker, co-owner of the Turtle Sands Caravan Park, commented on the department’s use of what was considered known to be a public council car park: The state government is using council to subsidise the Mon Repos Turtle Centre redevelopment by using a council car park for its own use. A public car park was constructed to serve the public—not serve the Mon Repos Turtle Centre. It is not in the public interest that council be called upon to subsidise development merely because that development is unable or unwilling to provide the necessary onsite visitor car parking spaces.73 Mayor Dempsey attested that more onsite car parking could be delivered to the centre in a turtle sensitive way immediately behind the centre on lands that are currently owned by Bundaberg Sugar.74 Negotiations undertaken by the department to expand the site’s footprint in the future are discussed later in this report. 3.3.3.2 Shuttle bus from car park to centre According to the department, ‘the shuttle-bus arrangement works well during the night-time tours at the moment. It worked well last year and it is working well this year’.75 However, the committee heard from some stakeholders that the shuttle-bus was inconvenient and intrusive. Mayor Jack Dempsey of the Bundaberg Regional Council attested to receiving reports of poor visitor experiences, especially from families with young children using the car parking arrangements at night- time: Council has had feedback from several families who have booked evening tours since the new centre opened. For these families who took young people to the centre, being held at the centre long into the evening without access to a private vehicle to leave if they needed is unacceptable. Under current arrangements if parents with tired children wish to leave the centre when no tour is going to happen or if their child falls asleep, they must wait for a shuttle bus to ferry them back to their vehicle. This has left many families tired and unhappy with the experience at the new centre. These visitors did not have a world-class experience.76 Mr David Baker, co-owner of the Turtle Sands Caravan Park was critical of the shuttle bus operation and its impact on his guests at the caravan park: Whilst we have not complained about this, it does have an impact on the caravan park's operation. Of a night, vehicles are arriving up until probably 7.30 or eight o'clock and from there two or three

72 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 6. 73 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 11. 74 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 4. 75 Mr Geoff Brittingham, public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 5. 76 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, pp 3-4.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 15 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

buses transport people back and forward up to the centre. Of course, people are arriving back and then leaving at all times of the night. You have lights, noise and people talking.77 3.3.3.3 Department response to stakeholder views In response to concerns of stakeholders on the car park arrangements, the department advised: • For the popular night time turtle tours, DES will continue to shuttle visitors to the centre on buses from the carpark that is located approximately 1 kilometre down the road. DES is also improving pedestrian access to encourage visitors to walk to the centre from the end of Mon Repos Road. • This significantly reduces traffic near the new centre and was a successful arrangement during construction across the last turtle season. • Daytime visitors will have ample access to carparks close to the centre. A bus standing area and parking facilities for push bikes will also be available.78 Committee comment The committee acknowledges the issues raised by stakeholders regarding access and car parking arrangements for the Mon Repos Turtle Centre. The committee encourages the Department of Environment and Science and all relevant stakeholders to continue to work towards achieving measures that enhance the visitor experience at the centre. 3.3.4 Café and catering facilities The Mon Repos Functional Design Brief outlined minimum features to support the provision of a café linked to the main entry foyer. While the design brief noted the café would be outfitted by others, the shell of the café would ‘include, but not be limited to; drainage, grease trap, kitchen extract, ac/ventilation, power supply outlets (including 3 phase), gas supply and reticulation, lighting and suitable floor, wall and ceiling finishes’. The design brief also set out specifications for a cafe to accommodate a commercial kitchen capable of serving 150 meals per hour, an indoor area with capacity for 150, and for the design to be multi-mode for differing types of functions, both in and out of season.79 A number of stakeholders commented on the catering facilities in the new centre. For some stakeholders, the facilities incorporated in the new centre fell short of their expectations formed from the department’s initial design brief. Bundaberg Tourism submitted that recommendations concerning the catering facilities were shared; … at a round table with the architects and DES Project Manager at a meeting held in the Bundaberg Regional Council offices during the planning stages, and it is highly disappointing that the food element was not taken into consideration for the long-term economic sustainability and holistic visitor experience of the Centre.80 Ms Katherine Reid of Bundaberg Tourism attested: Another element of the visitor experience is the provision of food and drinks. This is especially important in the Bundaberg region with culinary tourism one of our key economic drivers and hero experiences. … The department’s submission includes the scope of the works for the turtle centre redevelopment, which mentions a cafe and dining experience as part of the works undertaken. Unfortunately,

77 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 11. 78 DES, correspondence dated 25 November 2019, Attachment 2: Response to submissions, p 2. 79 DES, submission 8, attachment 1, pp 16-17. 80 Submission 5, p 2.

16 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

according to the commercial operator asked to provide food service, these basic requirements of a commercial kitchen were not included in the suitable shell. With no ventilation, available plumbing or space to install appropriate dishwashing appliances, the only option in providing a food service is currently pre-prepared packaged items. The lack of suitability in the design of the food service space, in addition to no commercial EOIs going out in a timely manner, meant that a local cafe was approached on 21 December [2019] during peak holiday season to save the day and provide a food service to the turtle centre for the season. With no ability for cooking on site and no dishwashing facility in accordance with food safety legislation, all food items are packaged, increasing single-use item waste, including food wrappers and coffee cups. Not having a suitable space for a commercial kitchen also greatly limits the daytime operation and the business viability—which will be the key to doubling visitor numbers—and also greatly restricts the ability to use the space for events as previously intended in the submission. This is a missed opportunity.81 Ms Reid also spoke to the completed design of the central and café area within the centre: Included in the functional design brief in relation to the cafe, it also states that air-conditioned indoor seating capacity needs to be for 150 people and the cafe is intended to have a strong visual and physical design relationship to the function and event space. Unfortunately, the interior of the centre according to the operator does not comfortably seat 150 people. It is not air-conditioned and unfortunately the cafe’s small servery window does not have any sort of quality relationship with the rest of the space.82 3.3.4.1 Department response to stakeholder views Master planning and later market sounding undertaken on behalf of the department informed the most desirable and functional provisions associated with the food preparation and service areas, including kitchen design, nominal sizes and base inclusions. The department advised the committee: In recognition that food and beverage services use a wide range of equipment depending on the proposed catering style and offering, the design provides the necessary preparation benches, sink and servery and the flexibility to adapt the space to suit their preferences. This is an industry standard practice where the service provider can tailor the space to suit their specific business needs.83 3.3.5 Technical and environmental performance A number of stakeholders reported that the lack of air-conditioning in the centre was uncomfortable, especially in the summer months, during the peak turtle season.84 Bundaberg Tourism submitted that installing air-conditioning in the visitor area of the centre would attract people to the indoor space, not only during peak season but ‘during the day and outside of the season for visiting and events’.85 The department’s Functional Design Brief required the use of natural ventilation and minimum use of air- conditioning in the centre, through the appropriate use of thermal mass in the building design. Areas with air-conditioning (staff and laboratory area) were to be designed to be air tight and utilise heat recovery

81 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 6. 82 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 7. 83 DES, correspondence dated 25 November 2019, Attachment 2: Response to submission, p 4. 84 For example, Katherine Reid, Chief Executive Officer, Bundaberg Tourism, Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 7. 85 Bundaberg Tourism, tabled paper, 11 February 2020, p 2.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 17 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre ventilators.86 The committee heard that the design requirement was a ‘very rare requirement’ and necessitated a range of bespoke details that allowed air movement through the building.87 3.3.6 Department response to stakeholder views In response to submissions expressing concern over the perceived limitations to the site, the department advised: … stakeholders, including Bundaberg Regional Council, regional tourism bodies and local environmental groups, were engaged to ensure there was an appropriate balance between meeting the current and future needs of industry and the community, and ensuring appropriate conservation outcomes that will not compromise the protection of the turtles and habitat – the very reason for the centre’s existence.88 Committee comment The committee commends the Department of Environment and Science for its contributions in developing a facility that allows visitors to witness up close nesting and hatching activities with minimum impact to the turtles, the beach and the surrounding ecosystem. The committee commends the Department of Housing and Public Works for managing the construction of a unique visitor centre with challenging design specifications. The committee also welcomes the department’s current efforts to address issues associated with existing car parking arrangements, and its consideration of options for the purchase of additional land from neighbouring land owners. Committee conclusion The committee is satisfied that the work was suitable for its purpose. 3.4 Value for money achieved by the work The department advised the work complied with the relevant government policies that deliver value for money outcomes by maximising benefits and managing project risks, such as, the Queensland Government Procurement Policy and the Capital Works Management Framework.89 Complementary to these policies, the department advised that standard government contract documentation was used for the project that cover off on risk to the State as Principal for engagement of consultants and contractors, and ensure the building works and associated services are compliant and meet legislative and other statutory requirements.90 Tenders were called for through the Queensland Government eTenders website and evaluated via a panel process, with value for money criteria, including the total cost and estimated breakdown of costs, given the highest weighting.91 A vision and business case for the development of the site was completed as part of the QPWS Master Plan: A Master Plan for Queensland's Parks and Forests, which was released in 2014.92 However, as the project received additional funding, the committee questioned whether a further business case was undertaken. The department advised that it did not revisit the economic modelling as the additional funding received from the Building Better Regions Fund was a shared submission between the state,

86 Submission 8, Attachment 1, p 26. Mon Repos Turtle Centre Functional Design Brief, November 2016 87 Mr Andrew Murchie, public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 16. 88 DES, correspondence dated 25 November 2019, Attachment 2: Response to submissions, p 1. 89 DES, submission no. 8, p 28. 90 DES, submission no. 8, pp 28-31. 91 DES, submission no. 8, pp 28-29. 92 DES, submission no. 8, p 24.

18 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Bundaberg Council and the Commonwealth, and that there was a separate, standalone project plan and business case prepared to warrant the funding submission to the Commonwealth: That was effectively a shared submission between the state government through the department, Bundaberg Regional Council and the Commonwealth government. It was not that we just enhanced the funding by doubling the amount without any sort of grounding; there was a project plan and case put as part of the funding submission to realise those works. It is just that we did not basically go back to redo the entire original documentation.93 DES advised that professional expertise was provided by Building and Asset Services (BAS) within DHPW (now QBuild) that achieved value for money through management reviews of costs, design and construction works to ensure the project remained within design specifications and forecast costs.94 Construction of a new purpose building solution for the coastal environment with a 50 year life projection was designed to achieve a ‘low-maintenance, high-quality product that will blend with the environment over time’.95 The department advised that the use of sustainable elements and materials in the centre will minimise maintenance and repair costs.96 Whole-of-life-cycle reduction in costs are anticipated with the use of passive design elements that reduce heating and cooling coupled with energy efficient appliances and equipment.97 Reduced operating costs are anticipated through partnership opportunities and from external contractors related to the new centre and its operations, such as: commercial offerings, for example, the operation of the food and beverage and retail facilities; cleaning and horticultural servicing items; and maintenance of technology for interpretive elements.98 3.4.1 Benchmarking There are few comparative public works projects of this type. At the public briefing, in response to a question on this from the committee, the department responded: In terms of other wildlife centres, they are not common. Having wildlife interactions is obviously not all that common internationally and certainly nationally. The only similar thing in Australia is the Phillip Island Penguin Centre in Victoria. It is a very large operation, obviously, and it is on a different scale to Mon Repos, but the principle is very similar where there is a single species drawcard into an area and there is an industry developed around it. There are other similar ideas around visitor centres. … Cradle Mountain in Tasmania is establishing a new visitor centre as well. Internationally they are not common. There are some boutique examples, but Mon Repos stands out as a unique product offering.99 The committee noted that the capital cost of the centre is comparative with the estimated project cost for Cradle Mountain Visitor Centre of $17.5 million, with the major building contract valued at $12 million.100 Committee conclusion The committee is satisfied that the work was reasonable value for money.

93 Mr Guy Thomas, DES, Public briefing, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 8-9. 94 DES, submission no. 8, p 30. 95 Mr Guy Thomas, DES, Public briefing, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 11. 96 DES, submission no. 8, p 30. 97 DES, submission no. 8, pp 30 31. 98 DES, submission no. 8, p 30. 99 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 7. 100 DES, submission no. 8, p 32.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 19 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

3.5 Estimated revenue and project costs 3.5.1 Project costs According to the department, the total $22.65 million investment in the site was committed in stages identified through the Mon Repos Master Plan as planning progressed. Relevant contributions and allocations were provided by the department, as set out in the table below. Table 1: Project budget

Funding source Capital Operation DES $7,350,000 $275,000* • $1.2m Base capital works program • $6.5m Revitalising parks capital works program Significant regional infrastructure projects programs $10,000,000 Commonwealth Government $3,750,000 Bundaberg Regional Council $1,5500,00 Total $22,650,000 $275,000 Source: DES, submission 8, p 35 *Includes estimate of staff labour cost The Bundaberg Regional Council attested to assisting in the development of the centre by ‘delivering or securing’ more than $5.75 million in funding for the Centre, including: … investing $1.5 million in local wastewater infrastructure to support the centre’s redevelopment.101 3.5.1.1 Cost escalations The Mon Repos redevelopment project was master planned and scoped as a scalable project contingent on availability of funding for each stage. Consequently it was budgeted to be delivered over several stages. The department advised an initial $10 million investment from the Queensland Government Significant Regional Infrastructure Projects Program was boosted with QPWS Capital Works funding of $3.6 million towards delivering on the master plan vision. Through the early project concept and detailed design work, this initial $13.6 million investment was prioritised towards delivering the focal point of the master plan vision, the new Turtle Centre building.102 As the project progressed, opportunities to leverage additional funding contributions from Bundaberg Regional Council and the Australian Government Building Better Regions Fund with a matching State contribution meant the full extent of the master plan vision for the site could be realised.103 The department submitted: Probably the key component of the additional funding was $7.5 million under the Building Better Regions Fund, which was jointly funded between the state and Commonwealth governments. Because the state cannot apply for those grants in its own right, the Bundaberg council effectively sponsored or offered one of their grants as part of that program to see those enhanced works undertaken.104 For a detailed copy of the project budget as at November 2019, refer to Appendix E.

101 Submission no. 4, p 1. 102 Submission no, 8, p 35. 103 DES, correspondence dated 25 November 2019, Attachment 2: Response to submission, p 6. 104 Mr Guy Thomas, DES, Public briefing, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 8.

20 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

3.5.2 Estimated recurrent costs and revenue The department provided the post implementation recurrent budget as set out in the tables below.105 Table 2: Estimated recurrent costs

Expense item Estimated budget expense Depreciation $540,000 Salary & wages (additional) $216,750 Maintenance & servicing $285,000 Utilities & Rates $135,000 Consumables & outgoings $53,000 Inventory $75,000 Shuttle bus for turtle tours $150,000 TOTAL $1,454,750 Table 3: Estimated revenue

Revenue item Estimated budget forecast Tours & merchandise $549,000 TOTAL $549,000

Concerning ticket revenue, the department advised the committee in November 2019: The pricing schedules for accessing the vastly improved suite of offerings available from the new facility will be adjusted in time to improve revenue earnings, and all revenue from the facility will be reinvested back into its operation.106 Ms Reid of Bundaberg Tourism noted that ticket prices increased significantly for the 2019/20 season, in comparison to the previous season, ‘because there is so much more to the immersive experience at the centre’.107 A comparison of the ticket prices for the Turtle Encounter for both the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons were provided by Bundaberg Tourism.108 Table 4: Ticket price increases, 2018/19 to 2019/20

Ticket Type 18/19 $ 19/20 $ Adult 12.80 27.00 Concession 6.65 14.00 Child 6.65 14.00 Family 30.75 65.00 Education 2.80 12.00

105 Submission no. 8, p 33. 106 Submission no. 8, p 30. 107 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 21. 108 Bundaberg Tourism, correspondence dated 11 February 2020.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 21 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

As noted earlier in the report, Bundaberg Tourism further submitted that due to ‘the challenges of the space’ within the centre and in order for staff to better manage the flow of visitors, the number of available tickets for sale to the Turtle Encounter had been reduced for the 2019/20 season to 27,620.109 Committee comment While noting the ticket price increase and simultaneous reduction in the number of tickets available, the committee is satisfied that on balance, the cost, and estimated recurrent costs of the work are reasonable. Committee conclusion The committee is satisfied that on balance, the cost, and estimated recurrent costs of the work are reasonable. 3.6 Public value of the work, including the impact of the work on the community, economy and environment The department advised that ‘the economic, environmental and social impacts generated by the turtle centre redevelopment are overwhelmingly positive and strongly align with a number of the Advancing Queensland’s Priorities’.110 3.6.1 Community The project was initially envisioned through a Concept Master Planning process involving input from key stakeholders and community consultation, including a community survey, which occurred in 2013-14.111 Stakeholders included local Bundaberg Regional Council, tourism industry associations, Traditional Owner representatives, the Sea Turtle Alliance, conservation groups, park volunteers, local community and Tourism and Events Queensland.112 The department advised that the type of issues raised included: … potential impacts on the site, the future role of volunteers, what sort of business opportunities there might be, light impacts and impacts from visitors.113 The department continued to seek input from key stakeholders during the final planning and design phases of the project.114 Broader social impacts generated by the centre include a range of new opportunities for locals as well as national and international visitors, and options for all levels of government to partner with local businesses and engage with First Nation people and other community interests.115 First Nations peoples have been involved throughout the project, and the new centre features traditional artwork and knowledge. Business and employment opportunities for traditional owners are currently being explored. The project also features strong collaboration with the Bundaberg Regional Council and the local tourism industry. These partnerships realised funding support, good tourism outcomes and the potential for future business opportunities.116

109 Public briefing, pp 6, 7, 9. 110 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2. 111 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 4. 112 DES, submission no. 8, pp 37-39. 113 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 4. 114 DES, submission no. 8, p 37; Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2. 115 Mr Guy Thomas, Director Asset Services, DES, public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2; DES submission no. 8, pp 37-38. 116 Mr Guy Thomas, Director Asset Services, DES, public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2.

22 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Mr Guy Thomas, Director Asset Services, Department of Environment and Science advised that the centre will be a focal point for the community to enjoy and benefit from into the future, with many community members volunteering over many years.117 Committee comment The committee acknowledges and commends the continued important work of volunteers in assisting QPWS staff with marine turtle conservation and education. 3.6.2 Economy The department advised that the centre has provided a major boost for local employment. Well over 325 workers and 25 subcontractors were involved in the project during its construction. This included over 20 building apprentices, and the project delivered nearly 10,000 registered training hours. Almost all businesses, suppliers and workers involved in the project were from Queensland, with most of those from the local Bundaberg area.118 Upon request from the committee, DHPW provided a percentage of local and Queensland companies contracted to undertake construction of the centre and the surrounding facilities. As defined in the Queensland Procurement Policy, ‘local’ Zone 1 is defined as being within a 125 kilometre radius of where the goods or services are to be supplied. • Local contractors – 66% • Queensland based contractors – 100%.119 Murchie Constructions Pty Ltd also advised that the work has provided a boost for local employment:120 We increased our staff. At one stage we had 27 staff directly employed by us on the site. We increased our numbers by approximately 10 for that particular project.121 At the public hearing, Mr Murchie told the committee that the high involvement of local subcontractors and suppliers provided an opportunity for them to showcase their workmanship to the industry and promote their business and assist in procuring future work.122 We procured as many local subcontractors as we could which obviously supported the local economy. We employed only a few specialist subcontractors that were not local. We had to use some nominated contractors from other areas because their skill set was not available locally. For example, the specialised roof system required the roofing contractor to come from Brisbane. A large percentage of the materials was purchased locally for the project. Although not part of our contract, the blue laminated structure came from Hyne Timber in Maryborough. It was all locally sourced spotted gum. A very large proportion of this project, probably larger than that of other projects of similar size, comprised materials and personnel sourced locally to contribute to our economy here. 123

117 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2. 118 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 1-2. 119 Department of Housing and Public Works, correspondence dated 11 February 2020, p 1. 120 Submission no. 6, pp 1-2. 121 Mr Andrew Murchie, Managing Director/Project Manager, Murchie Constructions Pty Ltd, public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 17. 122 Submission no. 6, pp 1-2. 123 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 17.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 23 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Gross annual stimulus to the Bundaberg regional economy generated by the new centre is ‘projected to generate $8.5 million per year and create 12 new jobs for local businesses, particularly tourism operators and hospitality providers’.124 The centre will provide a range of potential opportunities for locals, in particular business and employment opportunities for traditional owners, the Bundaberg Regional Council and the local tourism industry. The department stated that ‘these partnerships realised funding support, good tourism outcomes and the potential for future business opportunities’.125 Committee comment The committee notes the employment opportunities created for local business and commends the Department of Housing and Public Works and stakeholders for the proportion of local companies contracted to perform the works. 3.6.3 Environment No significant environmental issues were identified with the project.126 The department advised that the work incorporated high standards of environmental management in the design and construction phases.127 The redevelopment works meet or exceed the Guiding Principles and the 6 Best Practice Criteria as outlined in the 2015 Best Practice Ecotourism Guidelines. The new Turtle Centre incorporates a range of sustainable design features, including choice of building materials, passive design features and equipment provisioning. Rainwater harvesting has been incorporated into the works and will be used to supplement water needs of the new centre. DES is currently planning a major upgrade of its renewable power systems across the State. It is anticipated Mon Repos will be included in this process. 128 Some submitters were concerned about the potential impacts from the work on turtles during the planning, design, construction and operating phases, in particular from lighting.129 The department advised the work was informed by the need to balance the constraints of the narrow site with the long-term sustainability of the turtle nesting environment. For example, the department advised that shuttle services are being used during the busy turtle season, noting that this was successfully trialled last year and is consistent with many other sensitive high-profile areas such as Cradle Mountain in Tasmania.130 In response to a related question from the committee at the public briefing about the light mitigation measures incorporated in the project design and construction, the department advised: Fundamental to the design that the architects presented to us was an ability to make sure that no light was projected from the site and also that ambient light from the centre would not have any adverse impacts on the turtles. Once again, there are some fairly passive and unique design features incorporated into the new building. For instance, there are no external-facing doors or windows on the eastern side of the building that are open during the season. They all have special seals to ensure

124 Mr Guy Thomas, Director Asset Services, DES, public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 1-2; Bundaberg Tourism, submission no. 5, p 1. 125 Mr Guy Thomas, Director Asset Services, DES, public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 1-2. 126 DES, submission no. 8, p 42. 127 Mr Guy Thomas, Director Asset Services, DES, public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 1-2. 128 DES, correspondence received 25 November 2019, Attachment 2: Response to submissions, p 6. 129 See for example, Wide Bay Burnett Environment Council, submission no. 3; Mr Stephen Bennett MP, Member for Burnett, submission no. 1. 130 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 1-2.

24 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

there is no light leakage from there. There are doors there, but they have been specially designed. Air vents in the building all point to the west of the site to ensure there is no ambient light there. Previously, a fairly significant light or video screen was incorporated as part of the amphitheatre. That was removed, so light has been mitigated there. It is also quite a dark site. We have tried wherever possible to minimise the use of any external lighting at the site. We did have designs for turtle-friendly lights that use high-technology LED lighting, but we have reduced lighting wherever possible, so it is quite a dark site at night to try to mitigate that.131 Mayor Dempsey, Bundaberg Regional Council, commented on the council’s Reducing Urban Glow project as a measure to minimise light spill.132 One aspect that is world-class is the Reducing Urban Glow project. I want to emphasise the assistance we are getting from the state and other authorities, because this is a world first to protect and enhance not only our turtles but also other marine and shoreline species, such as birds that are affected by predators on our shorelines and so forth. The Bundaberg region is leading the way and that is thanks to everybody working collaboratively.133 The department submitted that the new centre will influence broader environmental awareness and consciousness of issues including threatened species protection and impacts of climate change.134 WBBEC agreed: The benefits of this project that will enhance the world class visitor experience, including improved protection and understanding of our endangered nesting sea turtles, cannot be underestimated.135 Committee comment The committee notes that the centre’s innovative world-class design and visitor interpretation will encourage visitors to appreciate and learn more about protecting and conserving the park and marine turtles, and promote a broader understanding of environmental awareness. The committee is satisfied that the work has had, and will continue to have, a positive impact on the community, the economy and the environment. The committee also notes the potential for the public work to continue to create further benefits to the region and the state of Queensland as the project matures and opportunities arise. Committee conclusion The committee is satisfied that the work has had, and will continue to have, a positive impact on the community, the economy and the environment.

131 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 4. 132 Reducing Urban Glow in Bundaberg project is a collaboration between Bundaberg Regional Council, project partners and technical experts. The project uses smart technology to measure urban lighting levels and makes that data available to the community to reduce the negative impact of lighting on both nesting and hatchling marine turtles. https://www.bundaberg.qld.gov.au/know-your-glow 133 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 2. 134 Submission no. 8, p 39. 135 Submission no. 3, p 1.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 25 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

3.7 Procurement methods for the work 3.7.1 Project time frames Stage one of construction of the centre included building new interpretive facilities and a theatrette, including the installation of mains water and sewerage pipes in July 2018. On 29 July 2018, the Queensland Government contracted Murchie Constructions to build the new centre.136 Stage two of the project included external works to complement the new centre and make the conservation park more accessible with new visitor facilities and interpretive materials outside the centre. External works include the upgraded amphitheatre, boardwalks, pathways, road and car parking.137 The table below details the major project time frames. Table 5: Project time frames

Stage / milestone Start Finish Concept master planning September 2013 June 2014 Master planning consultation December 2013 February 2014 Secure SRIIP Funding June 2016 Updated Master Plan November 2016 Functional Design Brief November 2016 Architectural design March 2017 June 2018 Interpretive design April 2017 December 2017 Building tender period August 2017 June 2018 Stage 1 works August 2018 November 2019 Stage 2 construction works August 2019 December 2019 Source: DES, submission 8, p 11. 3.7.2 Major consultants and contractors The following major consultants and contractors were engaged throughout the project: • Lat 27 Multidisciplinary design consultants were engaged by DES to develop a community consulted concept Master Plan and Project Brief in 2014. They were engaged again in 2016 by the Department of Housing and Public Works (DHPW) to provide a detailed Project Brief due to their pre-existing work on the project and the efficiencies that could be gained in a reduced lead time. • Business and Asset Services (BAS) division, DHPW was engaged by QPWS in July 2016, consistent with the Queensland Government Capital Works Management Framework, to provide professional contract management and administration services for the project. BAS also acted as Superintendent Representative and provided procurement services. • Richard Kirk Architects Pty Ltd were engaged by BAS as Principal Consultant for the construction project in 2017. • ARUP were engaged by Richard Kirk to provide engineering services.

136 http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/6/29/bundy-business-will-bring-new-mon-repos-turtle-centre- to-life 137 DES, submission no. 8, p 20.

26 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

• Focus Productions were engaged by BAS to provide the interpretive design and construction. • Hyne and Son were engaged by BAS in August 2017 as the primary timber structure supplier, through a sole supplier arrangement under the Buy Queensland initiative. The local Maryborough based company specialises in laminated timber beams. • Murchie Constructions, local Bundaberg builders, were engaged by BAS as principal contractors to undertake the turtle centre construction in 2018. • T.C.L. Landscape Consultants were engaged by BAS for the external design and civil construction works for Stage 2 of the project in 2019.138 Committee conclusion The committee is satisfied that the procurement methods adopted were appropriate. 3.8 Balance of public and private sector involvement in the works The department advised that BAS was engaged by the DES to engage contractors, administer the project and manage major procurements as the Government’s recognised expert construction and development entity. In terms of private sector involvement in the work: All construction and consultancy work associated with the project has been undertaken by private sector contractors appointed by BAS.139 The department advised that the public sector work is limited to procurement, contract administration and project management.140 In terms of the criteria used when deciding whether work should be undertaken by the private or public sector, the department advised that ‘consistency with Queensland Government policy, efficiency, value for money, capacity and capability were primary criteria used’.141 Committee conclusion The committee is satisfied that the balance of public and private sector involvement in the work was appropriate. 3.9 Performance of the constructing authority and consultants and contractors for the work The department engaged BAS (DHPW) as the Queensland Government’s expert building and construction authority to undertake key project roles on its behalf, including contract administration, to ensure consistency with all government policies, processes and contemporary standards. BAS procured and appointed the primary contractors for the project based on the requirements of the Queensland Government Procurement policy, the Capital Works Management Framework, and with careful consideration to, and evaluation of, each contractor’s demonstrated experience and capabilities as outlined in their tender and offer documents. Each of these contractors had to demonstrate financial capacity, relevant experience and successful completion of a range of projects of a similar nature. All appointed contractors were assured as having appropriate licences and were appropriately registered business entities for delivery of their respective professional services.142

138 DES, submission no. 8, p 12. 139 DES, submission no. 8, p 48. 140 DES, submission no. 8, p 48. 141 DES, submission no. 8, p 49. 142 DES, submission no. 8, p 49.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 27 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

According to the department, this due diligence translated to a high quality of finish to the required standards, such that the department was therefore satisfied with the overall build quality of the new centre and associated works.143 3.9.1 Compliance with contractual obligations In terms of the works being completed in accordance with contractual obligations, the department advised it understands from BAS, who administered the contract on its behalf, that: … the works have largely been completed in accordance with contractual obligations, notwithstanding finalisation of some contracted works to achieve finishes, including the normal range of post construction trade defects liability and maintenance period.144 3.9.2 Timely completion of works The department advised the project was originally planned for completion in time for the 2018 turtle season, or November-December 2018. However, following the tendering process and commencement of the construction project, a revised work program was planned for completion in mid-2019. The project reached practical completion, including stage 2 works, in early November 2019 consistent with the revised work program to have the centre open for the start of the 2019/20 turtle nesting season.145 According to the department, initial project delays were experienced as a result of some initial site complexities that could not have reasonably been foreseen.146 Murchie Constructions submitted that there were a large number of Requests for Information (RFIs) submitted throughout the project, and due to the increase in the scope of the work and the volume of changes to the project, there were a significant number of variations to the project.147 The department informed the committee that outstanding items will continue to be addressed through the formal defects liability period.148 3.9.3 Requests for information Murchie Constructions provided the following statistics in respect to RFIs: • 311 formal RFI’s were submitted with some RFI’s containing one (1) question, while others contained up to fifty-three (53) questions • In order to keep the project moving, meetings were held on a weekly basis to discuss the RFI’s and during these meetings a further 155 RFI’s were discussed that were not formally submitted under the RFI System • Due to the large number of RFI’s, there were a large number of drawing revisions issued. The Floor Plan was revised twenty-three (23) times during construction • All in all, there were 717 new or amended drawings issued during the course of the project, and 187 changes to sections of the Specification were received.149 Speaking to the high number of RFIs, Mr Andrew Murchie of Murchie Constructions stated: The nature of the works meant it was quite a bespoke project. A lot of the RFIs were generated around sorting out details that were not quite clear in the documentation or still had to be developed

143 DES, submission no. 8, p 49. 144 DES, submission no. 8, p 51. 145 DES, submission no. 8, p 50; Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 4. 146 DES, submission no. 8, p 50. 147 Murchie Constructions, Submission no. 6, p 3. 148 DES, submission no. 8, p 49. 149 Murchie Constructions, submission no. 6, p 3.

28 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

further. The number of RFIs was more than what we would normally experience, but given the nature of the project, it was to be expected that there would be a significant number.150 3.9.4 Variations to the project While the centre has reached practical completion, the department submitted that; ‘There was additional works issued as a variation to the builder during the course of that [construction] time for all the external works’.151 Murchie Constructions submitted that, after works commenced there were significant changes to the scope of the works, which ‘contributed to the extended time it took to complete the works’,152 and listed some of those changes: • Immersive and Interpretive fit-out scope changes resulting in additional works to the building services in order to accommodate the fit-out scope of works • Request for construction of new boardwalks • Request for refurbishment of existing Amphitheatre • Request for additional external works (concrete paths, landscaping extent changes) • Request for provision of sewer and town water to Research Base • Request for Rookery Road upgrade to accommodate bike path / walkway and new road surface.153 Murchie Constructions stated: Murchie Constructions believe that the Architectural brief and the briefs of other consultants may not have been aligned resulting in some difficulties with the construction documentation.154 BAS confirmed that there were numerous variations as the project progressed, as indicated by the list of approved variation costs provided by BAS as at February 2020 (refer to the table at Appendix F). The department advised that there are a number of variation claims yet to be assessed or evaluated by BAS as part of the normal due diligence processes.155 The committee noted the statement made by Murchie Constructions concerning the cost impact of the RFIs and variations associated with the project: Due to the extremely high volume of changes and hundreds of plan changes issued, Murchie Constructions and the subcontractors were impacted significantly with substantial administration costs in order to manage these changes and additional works that were issued throughout the project.156 Committee comment The committee acknowledges the complexities of the architectural design of the building and unique requirements of the project. The committee is satisfied that construction work was completed according to specifications and within the revised construction work program, and that contractual obligations were appropriately met by appointed contractors.

150 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 16. 151 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 4. 152 Murchie Constructions, submission no. 6, p 2. 153 Murchie Constructions, submission no. 6, p 2. 154 Murchie Constructions, submission no. 6, p 2. 155 DES, submission no. 8, p 51. 156 Murchie Constructions, submission no. 6, p 3.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 29 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

The committee commends the work of the contractors involved in the design and construction of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre. Committee conclusion The committee is satisfied that construction work was completed according to specifications, within the revised construction work program, and that contractual obligations were met by appointed contractors. 3.10 Other issues raised by stakeholders 3.10.1 Local artwork Mr Greg Barnes of the Bundaberg Regional Council submitted that the Council had previously approached the state government and suggested that a collection of artwork, created by local artist Mr Arthur Clark and in the care of the Council, be incorporated into the design of the new Centre for display. According to Mr Barnes, the collection, known as Denizens of the Deep, was ‘absolutely suitable’ for the centre. In reference to the collection not being included in the final design of the centre, he stated: ‘I think that is a great opportunity that was lost. Whether it can be incorporated now I do not know, but certainly at the design level way back then it should have been incorporated’.157 3.10.2 Traffic management in the region leading to Mon Repos During the course of the inquiry the committee travelled by vehicle from Bundaberg to undertake a site visit of the centre. The committee observed no new signage to direct people to the centre or inform people of the parking and transit arrangements, nor did the committee observe road upgrades to the surrounding road network. The issue of traffic safety was also brought to the attention of the committee by Mr David Baker of the Bundaberg Regional Council, when he noted that the department did not prepare a traffic impact assessment for the project. He stated that, ‘the state government failed to ascertain whether the estimated increase in visitor numbers would trigger a warrant for intersection upgrades, road design upgrades or road pavement upgrades either to the state controlled road network or the local government controlled road network’.158 Mr David Baker, Co-owner of the Turtle Sands Caravan Park, commented on the impact of traffic leading into the centre car park, especially at night-time: I am informed that the state government did not prepare a traffic impact assessment for the Mon Repos Turtle Centre project. If this is the case, the state government failed to ascertain whether the estimated increase in visitor numbers would trigger a warrant for intersection upgrades, road design upgrades or road pavement upgrades either to the state controlled road network or the local government controlled road network. The state government's decision to proceed with the redevelopment failed the public interest test because the state government did not have a considered basis to assess traffic safety when making the decision to proceed with the redevelopment.159 3.11 Future developments 3.11.1 Negotiations to purchase neighbouring land In acknowledging the limited capacity and location of the current car park, the department stated: Ideally, adjacent sugar cane land might one day be acquired for addition to the Conservation Park to provide future low impact parking options and a further buffer to any future town developments.

157 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 19. 158 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, pp 10-11. 159 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020, p 11.

30 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

This remains a goal for the future, however negotiations with the land owner through planning proved unsuccessful. It is anticipated that the aspiration to acquire part of the adjacent land might be able to be realised at some later date. It is DES’ intention to continue to engage with the land owners (Bundaberg Sugar) at strategic intervals.160 The department further stated: … there is an opportunity to rehouse the camp for the volunteers, as well as another option that we are looking at. Primarily, one of the biggest conservation benefits will be to plant up a strip of land that is currently bare or has sugarcane on it with a vegetated light barrier. That would be a big conservation outcome for the turtles.161 The Bundaberg Regional Council alluded to a stalling of negotiations between the department and Bundaberg Sugar, reporting that ‘Bundaberg Sugar is open to the resumption of negotiations for the provision of land behind the centre to the department for the purposes of expanded car parking’.162 The department advised the committee: DES has had extensive contact with Bundaberg Sugar throughout this time. While aspirations to acquire some of their adjacent land early in the planning phases to minimise the setting constraints was desirable, and could have afforded a greater community access benefit at peak visitation times, and an environmental buffer to any future adjoining development, the department was unable to realise Bundaberg Sugar’s terms for advancing the arrangement.163 The department subsequently informed the committee that: Our most recent meeting with Bundaberg Sugar was in January this year [2020]. There have been some promising developments from that meeting and hopefully we will be able to meet again shortly. We stand ready to acquire more land, so if the opportunity presents we will be looking at options to acquire more land to increase the footprint. Hence we might be able to provide a greater environmental benefit through additional plantings and buffering from light from the Bundaberg area to the beach and also possibly to extend the facilities in that area over time.164 3.11.2 Future business opportunities The department advised the committee that, in association with the Mon Repos Centre: Future opportunities for business partnerships to operate commercial or other ventures at the centre, particularly local First Nations peoples, are the subject of current consideration. Initial Expressions of Interest have been sought from local First Nations groups to partner in commercial offerings at the new facility, including the operation of the food and beverage and retail facilities. Further expressions of interest will be considered for any other opportunities related to the new centre and its operations once the centre becomes fully operational.165 Bundaberg Tourism commented on the business and investment opportunities that may be generated from the development:

160 Submission no. 8, p 21. 161 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 5. 162 Submission no. 4, p 3. 163 DES, correspondence received 25 November 2019, Attachment 2, p 2. 164 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 5. 165 Submission no. 8, p 12.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 31 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

We see it is absolutely vital to tourism in the Bundaberg region. It is one of the three main pillars of our tourism strategy. It remains a super important part of our plans to bring people to the Bundaberg region, and we have to remember that people come here for the turtles but then they do other things—they stay at places and they go to other places, so it is a destination that attracts people here who then do other things, so it is more than just that one experience, which is why we are passionate about getting it right.166 The department stressed that work is continuing to realise the long-term vision for the centre as a world-class ecotourism experience: The turtle centre has always been one of the key products in the Bundaberg region, and it will be interesting to see how that develops and the draw that may have into the city. Hopefully it will result in an increase in overnight stays. I know it is the Holy Grail of tourism offerings to get people to stay. The expectation is that it will do two things: it will become a daytime stop-off area rather than just being an overnight or night-time tour. It is more likely people will stay there. There are some direct tourism offerings attached to the turtles and the centre, but there are also more niche product offerings that are probably going to be available in terms of the centre being there and the trails that are being provided. … I think it would be fair to say that we are still in early days. I think those opportunities are going to be realised once the centre is in full operation and people see what the offering is and how people respond to it.167 3.11.3 Project evaluation In noting that ‘it was always envisaged that the government would take a staged approach to the Mon Repos development’,168 the department advised the committee that: As part of its established continuous improvement procedures, the department has commenced evaluating this project. As a key partner and overseer of the project we have asked QBuild, Housing and Public Works, to participate in a detailed review of the design, construction and contract administration elements to ensure improvements can be made where required and successful aspects shared on future projects.169

Recommendation 1 The committee recommends the Legislative Assembly note the contents of this report.

166 Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February, p 22. 167 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, pp 2, 6. 168 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2. 169 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 3 February 2020, p 2.

32 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Appendix A – Detailed questions asked of the Department of Environment and Science

GENERAL 1) Provide a description of the work including: a) the location b) the site c) the existing facilities d) an overview of the proposed functions/uses e) an overview of the work undertaken as part of the project. 2) Provide copies of: a) the project feasibility study and the business case for the project b) the Project Brief c) the Project Evaluation Report d) the site plans 3) Provide an outline of the major project time-frames. 4) Provide a list of the major consultants and contractors for the project. 5) Advise who will: (a) own the centre, and (b) operate the centre.

A) THE PURPOSE OF THE WORK 1) What is the purpose of the work? 2) How does the project align with the department’s strategic and asset management plans? 3) How will the project contribute to the department’s service delivery strategy?

B) THE SUITABILITY OF THE WORK FOR ITS PURPOSE 1) What are the functional requirements of the centre? 2) How will the work be suitable for its purpose in terms of: a) location and site b) size/scale c) functional performance (eg. functional spaces, space allocations, space groupings and their functional relationships, quality and standards of the design and construction, circulation, access, safety, and security, and general planning and design) d) technical and environmental performance (eg. heating and cooling, lighting, plumbing and electrical provisions, materials, information technology provisions, equipment) 3) What consideration, if any, has been given to future development on the site?

C) THE NECESSITY FOR, AND THE ADVISABILITY OF, THE WORK 1) Why is the work necessary? 2) How was the need for the work established? 3) Why is it necessary to undertake the project now? 4) What options were considered? 5) Why is the selected option the best one?

D) VALUE FOR MONEY LIKELY TO BE ACHIEVED, BY THE WORK 1) What steps has the department taken to ensure that value for money will be achieved with the project? 2) How does the project represent value for money in terms of: a) cost factors, including whole-of-life costs and transaction costs b) non-cost factors such as fitness for purpose and quality, and c) the advancement of government priorities. 3) Provide benchmark comparisons of (a) construction costs & (b) operating costs of other, similar centres

E) THE COST OF AND RECURRENT COSTS OF THE WORK 1) What is the whole-of-life Net Present Value Cost for the project? 2) Provide a copy of the most recent project budget – this should be detailed, not a summary. 3) Provide a copy of the budget analysis for the project showing the budget outlays (both capital

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 33 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

and recurrent), the revenues (if any) and the funding source(s) (including details of any financial arrangements). 4) Provide details of any cost escalation, and the reasons for any increase.

F) THE PUBLIC VALUE OF THE WORK, INCLUDING THE IMPACT OF THE WORK ON THE COMMUNITY, ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT Impact of the work on the community 1) What consultation was undertaken when planning the project? 2) What are the social impacts associated with the project? 3) What strategies and options has the department developed to deal with significant social impacts of the project? 4) Provide a copy of the analysis of the social impacts of the project. Impact of the work on the economy: 1) How will the work impact on the economy, including the tourism sector? 2) Provide and copy of the economic analysis of the project including: a) the cost/benefit or cost effectiveness analysis, and b) the whole-of-life Net Present Value or whole-of-life Net Present Value Cost for the project. 3) Local Industry Policy a) How does the project comply with the Government’s Queensland Charter for Local Content? 4) How does the project comply with the Queensland Government Building and Construction Training Policy? Impact of the work on the environment: 1) Provide a copy of the environmental analysis for the project. 2) Environmental issues: a) Are there any significant environmental issues associated with the project? b) If there are any significant environmental issues, what is being done to address them? 3) What environmentally sustainable design features have been incorporated into the redevelopment?

G) PROCUREMENT METHODS FOR THE WORK 1) Provide details of the procurement strategy for the project including: a) The method used b) The selection criteria c) Who tendered d) What they tendered e) Who was selected. 2) Why was the particular procurement system selected and what makes it preferable to other delivery options? 3) Outline the approach taken to the selection and appointment of consultants for the project. 4) Outline the approach taken to ITC procurement for the project.

H) THE BALANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN THE WORK 1) What work will the public sector and the private sector undertake? 2) Provide an estimated cost breakdown of work by the public and private sectors. 3) What criteria was used when deciding whether work should be undertaken by the private or public sector?

I) THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTING AUTHORITY AND THE CONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTORS FOR THE WORK 1) Is the department satisfied with the work of each of the consultants and contractors to-date? 2) Is the work being completed: a) according to specifications? b) on time and within budget? c) in accordance with contractual obligations?

34 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Appendix B – Submitters

Sub # Submitter

001 Stephen Bennett MP, Member for Burnett

002 Turtle Sands Holiday Park

003 Wide Bay Burnett Environment Council

004 Bundaberg Regional Council

005 Bundaberg Tourism

006 Murchie Constructions Pty Ltd

007 Confidential

008 Department of Environment and Science

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 35 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Appendix C – Witnesses at public briefing

Department of Environment and Science • Mr Guy Thomas, Director Asset Services • Mr Geoff Brittingham, Acting Executive Director Southern Parks and Forests

Department of Housing and Public Works • Ms Michelle Catterall, Executive Director, Regional Operations, QBuild

36 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Appendix D – Witnesses at public hearing and forum

Bundaberg Regional Council • Mayor Jack Dempsey Bundaberg Tourism • Ms Katherine Reid, Chief Executive Officer • Mr Ross Peddlesden, Chair Turtle Sands Holiday Park • Mr David Baker, Co-owner Murchie Constructions Pty Ltd • Mr Andrew Murchie, Managing Director/Project Manager Bundaberg Regional Council • Mayor Jack Dempsey • Mr Greg Barnes, Councillor Member for Burnett • Mr Stephen Bennett MP

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 37 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Appendix E – Project budget as at November 2019

Element Stage 1 Stage 2 Total Revised Budget Building Turtle Centre Turtle Centre Base contract value $ 8,500,000 $ - Timber Frame Supply $ 1,120,000 Turtle Centre Construction Contingency* $ 1,000,000 $ 1,600,000 EOT's $ 70,000 $ 130,000 Kitchen fitout $ - $ 200,000 ERGON Infrastructure Costs $ 20,000 $ - Information technology costs $ 75,000 Office/retail furniture $ 200,000 sub-totals $ 10,710,000 $ 2,205,000 $ 12,915,000 Other works Phase 1 civil works $ 245,000 QPWS Work shed $ - $ 40,000 Research camp and facility $ - $ - sub-totals $ 245,000 $ 40,000 $ 285,000 Fees Sewerage and water fees $ 1,500 $ - Qld fire services fees $ 13,500 $ - CSQ training levy $ 14,000 $ - Qleave Fee $ 45,000 $ - sub-totals $ 74,000 $ 74,000 Professional fees Architectural Design Fees $ 1,100,000 $ - Architectural Design Contingency* $ 300,000 Professional Services $ 150,000 $ 155,000 Project Management & support $ 330,000 $ 250,000 Building and Asset Services Costs other $ 116,000 Building and Asset Services $ 400,000 $ 160,000 sub-totals $ 2,396,000 $ 565,000 $ 2,961,000 Stage 2 Park upgrade Landscaping $ 150,000 Roadworks $ - $ 950,000 Boardwalks $ - $ 310,000 Ampitheatre upgrade $ 260,000 Sewer Upgrade costs $ 135,000 $ 80,000 Landscape Architect $ - $ 115,000 sub-totals $ 135,000 $ 1,715,000 $ 1,850,000 Interpretive Costs Interpretive focus Internal $ - $ 2,000,000 Interpretive Building Works $ 50,000 $ 125,000 Park signage and interpretive experience on $ 500,000 Interpretive Design Fee's and contingency $ 200,000 sub-totals $ 50,000 $ 2,825,000 $ 2,875,000 Sewerage & Water Services (BRC) Provision of services $ 1,550,000 sub-totals $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000

Total Project Order of Cost $ 15,160,000 $ 7,350,000 $ 22,510,000 Source: DES, submission no. 8, p 34.

38 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Appendix F – Approved variation costs as at 3 February 2020

Description Approved Value Grease Trap $ 1,055.65 Planter Lighting -$ 27,114.41 Mechanical Changes $ 15,187.60 JBD 3D Scan and site check $ 4,074.25 Flow test water main $ 1,738.28 Mains water connection to building -$ 16,768.04 Wind and rain sensor to skylight louvers $ 16,887.63 Store and deliver the Hyne Timber to site $ 35,353.69 Additional building pad materials $ 16,753.75 Repairs to existing toilet sewer pipe $ 524.40 Delete Screen Room -$ 63,670.96 Underground Submains to Sewer Pump Station $ 4,616.48 Electrical mains $ 53,595.41 Relocate existing unidentified services found under new building $ 7,194.82 Connect existing building to new transformer and disconnect generator $ 5,219.90 Additional electrical services as per drawing E02.02 (rev C) $ 15,960.52 Provide 90x45 LVL pole plate to services duct to support soffit sheeting $ 2,167.82 Alterations to water service and tundishes to incubator room (RFI 56) $ 1,808.90 Supply and install rainwater head to downpipe on grid C/3 to allow downpipe $ 2,279.16 Alter glulam packers to allow installation to stainless steel tree columns $ 14,971.87 Galvanised steel support frames for big ass fans $ 2,569.25 Surveyor to locate sewer pump station and reference to new building $ 1,340.00 Dry Fire Services $ 11,784.15 Changes to GT2 gutter for downpipe installation at grid C/3 $ 2,334.67 Trap primer to charge floor wastes in courtyard $ 4,655.29 Lighting to Entrance & Exit $ 2,913.25 CBR Testing to Rookery Road $ 2,956.25 Provide copper flashings around mechanical penetrations and behind WCT $ 9,658.22 Stage 1 - Wet Fire services $ 24,132.68 Delete Relief Air Dampers RAD-01 and RAD-02 and provide cross talk attenuator $ 6,167.28 Blygold Treatment to AC units for supplement unit to Immersive Space $ 3,044.40 Supplemental AC unit to Immersive Space $ 19,404.83 Provide Cleaners sink to Room - Store 1.06 $ 1,840.48 Hyne Timber - Install replacement primary Glulam member T-107 $ 571.69 Seal exposed Ply sheeting $ 4,128.00 Additional Flashings above LS1 Louvre behind WCT3 $ 4,714.19 Change Tapware and Drill Hole in Basin for PWD $ 403.56 Additional Costs for Solid Copper S2 Light Fittings in Lieu of Powder Coated Copper Finish $ 0.00 Wall Cladding WCT3 East of LS1 louvres to be WCT1 on North Elevation $ 517.49 Provide Double GPO for Drink Fountain and Provide Double GPO for Electronic Trap Priming Device $ 1,508.00 Provide Tie Cable Between A/V & Comms Rack $ 10,157.68 Gates and signage $ 1,616.06 Immersive Space Smoke Detector and Light $ 2,263.95 Provide exclusion zone to Ergon Transformer $ 1,631.12

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 39 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Turtle Tanks Structure Soffit Sheeting $ 2,896.95 Service Road Timber Bollards $ 0.00 Staff Bathroom Floor Grates $ 336.15 Boardwalk Amendments following Building Certifier document review $ 602.50 Removal of Pipe that Contained Asbestos $ 900.00 Changes to Stainless Steel Infill Panels to Copper on Doors W03.01 to W03.09 $ 32,578.25 Sand Pit Wall Thickness Changes to Accommodate Services $ 967.36 Timber Cap to Wall of Cleaners Cupboard Room 23 (RFI 223) $ 431.25 Delete Reed Switches to Windows for A/C Control Purposes -$ 1,784.34 Neaten up Amphitheatre footing & rumbled boulder install $ 995.00 Penetrations required in selected columns in Plant Area $ 450.00 Replace landscaping with Asphalt to disabled carpark $ 871.18 Electrical & Communications pits in roadway to be class D trafficable $ 23,488.75 Supply and install 2 x push to exit buttons to entry & exit gates $ 839.00 Install gravel pathway from service road to building $ 940.00 Remove trees for boardwalk construction $ 300.00 Safe Tray to AV Room Was Split to Protect Switchboard $ 614.00 Repairs to timber retaining wall adjacent Rangers Hut $ 469.39 Changes to Fire Hydrant Behind New Besser Block Wall $ 532.00 Pack Out Wall in Cleaners Cupboard for Cleaners Sink Waste $ 696.62 Infill framing to skylight fins - girt size $ 3,235.03 Addition of Wastop Valve to Stormwater Headwall $ 4,240.49 Fire Safety Door Signage $ 617.50 Additional site establishment from Boral for Primer seal done in 2 stages $ 3,225.00 Civil Engineering Inspections for Stage 1 Civil Works $ 2,483.35 Delete Provisional Sum for Stage 2 Road works -$ 25,875.00 Provide Surface Mounted Baby Change Table in Lieu of Recessed $ 1,587.14 Provisional Sum Adjustment - Concrete path stage 2 Research Base -$ 4,450.30 Spray fibre cement posts to boardwalks $ 1,227.65 Amenities Clarifications - Shower Screen and Mirrors $ 486.37 Removal of asbestos pipe from boardwalk $ 450.00 Provide OA2 as copper grille. $ 460.00 Increase Width of Window Frames to Cover Glulam Fin Bolt Holes - W07.01, W07.02, W07.03, W07.04 $ 1,070.00 Provide Nogging to Wall for Wall Mounted Handrail Brackets $ 1,829.39 Additional saw cutting and removal of Asphalt (Stage 2) $ 2,063.50 Alter Waste Pipe to 1no. Sink and 1no. Vent $ 597.50 Alter Waste Pipe to 2no. Basins and Cleaners Sink $ 846.90 Alter Size of DB03 Due to Equipment Layout Changes to AV Service Room $ 2,577.85 Correct Deflection in Awning on Northern Elevation (RFI 267) $ 1,007.27 Install stormwater discharge bubbler to the turtle tank roof downpipe $ 593.00 Change in HB1 hand basins $ 4,925.54 Additional dowels to Grid 1 $ 5,556.43 Provide concrete slab and thickening to support fence post $ 589.16 Addition of concrete plinths in service area $ 846.45 Provide New Guinea Rosewood Jambs to door openings D00.1 & D00.2 $ 783.40 Removal of trees surrounding existing turtle centre & amenities block $ 2,902.50 Damage to underground bore water line $ 774.95

40 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Change Sandpit Thickening Trench Mesh from L11TM200 to L11TM500 $ 766.20 Reinforcing Changes for Down Pipe Pocket Grid K-2 $ 388.91 Service Penetration to Hob Wall at Services Trench $ 587.94 Additional Reo for 5 Pipe Penetration $ 262.80 Alterations to Eastern Handrail HR2 in Immersive Space $ 486.88 Roller shutter to Main Switchboard Cupboard -$ 5,318.84 Flashing and cladding changes to each end of the services duct $ 3,440.80 Rectify Decking Oil to Tiered Seating $ 3,242.32 Alterations of shop drawings for Ops Lower Ceiling $ 650.00 Temporary entry to Turtle Centre $ 20,898.03 Hardening of roadway edge $ 135,817.65 Hardening of walkways $ 38,055.00 Communication Cabling $ 46,580.26 Additional Carpentry Services in preparation of turtle season $ 16,447.50 Hot Water System $ 1,990.73 Relocation of security equipment $ 0.00 LPG Service Pipe $ 2,827.04 Additional drafting costs to change AC duct back to standard Gal sheet metal $ 1,230.00 Planters to Courtyard (Supply and deliver to Bundaberg) $ 51,292.88 Planters delivered to Mon Repo $ 2,174.06 Ops Room Joinery $ 294.17 Delete sink and zip boiler on elevation 2 -$ 7,147.35 Delete Reception Desk J01.04 -$ 7,351.67 Polished Concrete $ 0.00 Lockers & Appliances $ 3,390.76 Hearing Loops (Infrared) $ 16,506.63 UHF and VHF Radio Equipment $ 12,634.48 Changes to PA System $ 34,026.87 Telstra Cel Fi Booster $ 5,814.68 Repairs to Rookery Road $ 7,981.88 Remobilisation costs for rigging company due to works running over Christmas break $ 5,951.31 Installation & maintenance of time lapse camera $ 2,710.63 Supply and install hot water service to sink in Tea/Kitchenette $ 427.80 Delete stainless steel water service and install copper water service in lieu -$ 2,037.96 Seal Exposed hardwood wall girts $ 5,231.25 Projector & Screen to Meeting Room $ 13,203.15 iPad control to Interpretative & Immersive Space $ 6,931.60 Additional WIFI $ 47,551.07 Zip Water Fountain $ 512.72 Additional copper flashings $ 4,531.05 Boardwalks & Amphitheatre (Stage 2) $ 568,302.00 Camera Cabling from Beach Cameras to Monitors in QPWS Office $ 7,249.29 Retail space floor box conduit changes $ 3,251.88 Screen Room AC to be used in AV room $ 702.00 Paint A/C unit fascia black in Op's Room $ 412.00 Provide No 4 Finish to exposed stainless steel items $ 28,813.75 Changes to Glulam Fins $ 30,433.53 Provide additional under flashing to WCT2 cladding between Glulam Fins $ 6,493.78

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 41 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Supply Fire Alarm System Equipment in Black $ 5,600.75 Paint Client Supplied WAP's Black $ 4,922.43 Additional Cleaners Double GPO outside PWD (RFI 234) $ 230.00 Stage 2 External Works - Rookery Road, Research Base, Rev A 20/09/19 $ 1,226,986.00 Landscape changes - 10 hose taps connected to bore water $ 20,427.15 Existing Fire Tank Demolition Change $ 657.50 Connect Potable Water to existing Rangers Office $ 4,603.31 Rectification of existing 900mm stormwater pipe road crossing $ 1,252.00 Provide telstra cabling and connection to existing Rangers Office $ 1,637.00 Demolish and remove from site existing Mon Repos Light Sign $ 873.34 Supply and install Geo fabric or equivalent to the base of the beach side sand dunes, to prevent the garden mulch falling into the swale drain $ 1,044.40 Under bench GPO's in incubator room to be mounted at front of the benches $ 568.25 Extent of internal blinds and operation of the blinds (RFI 251) $ 14,217.95 Amphitheatre Lighting $ 5,895.84 Landscape tidy up at Front Entry $ 1,512.00 Supply and installation of standby generator $ 21,358.10 Irrigation to all soft landscaping $ 60,035.24 Retail space changes $ 3,368.50 Curbing to bitumen leading to front entry $ 920.00 Additional mulch to carpark turn around $ 3,774.50 Additional Line Marking $ 1,224.00 Remove Time Lapse Camera $ 1,033.75 Changes to DGPO's, data and tv outlet $ 3,150.83 Turtle Trail Changes $ 14,276.00 Lights to Kitchen & meeting & training room $ 1,065.00 Covers to Fire emergency buttons $ 534.00 Office lighting VPR 006 $ 5,279.33 Delete observation deck Stage 2 (Part of VPR 002 Works) -$ 47,400.93 Delete fence to Research Base (Part of VPR 002 Works) -$ 33,275.77 Construct Stage 2 Roadworks as Full Depth Pavement in Lieu of Design Nominated $ 19,386.55 Supply & Install Electric Magnetic Lock & Card Reader to Door to Comms Cupboard $ 2,074.40 Supply and Install Additional Security Keypad as Directed $ 1,954.00 Transport Furniture to MRTC $ 1,006.25 Kissing Gates to Both Boardwalks - Mount Higher $ 273.75 Skylight Louvre Controls & Kitchen Lights $ 1,004.80 Relocate cleats on tree columns - cut and weld $ 837.90 Supply & Install Stainless Steel Enclosure and Subboard to Amphitheatre $ 10,894.05 Additional data cabling for Wap Locations as directed by IT Department $ 13,265.82 Supply Data to LED Sign/Screen Adjacent to Entry Path $ 2,979.04 Widen the asphalt pathway (Turtle Trail) $ 13,679.38 Generator Automatic Transfer Switch $ 13,198.48 Skylight louvers updated to Breeze way Altair louvres as Colt have gone into receivership. Sizing and framing adjusted to suit. $ 0.00 Awning downpipes stainless steel 316 to be replaced with natural copper. $ 1,277.00 Façade light spill louvers updated to AMBPS, AME 100 system, replacing colts PR 100 louver. $ 177,377.49 Removed from Architects drawings $ 0.00

42 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Stainless steel grade switched from 304 – 316 to avoid tea staining. $ 11,238.05 Fixing to be black headed, stainless steel grade downgraded to 304 Edges to be stained black -$ 544.93 Color change from COC 141 – Coir 2 types used to avoid cutting framework. -$ 4,551.65 Removal of extraction to cleaning cupboard -$ 851.81 Amendment WC wall position for certification compliance AS1428.1 $ 0.00 Minor amendment to detail. Removed gravel strip in front of fins and extend deck and board dimensions. $ 0.00 Root barrier (RB1) applied to the southern hob on grid line 4. (provision for future planting not in scope.) $ 0.00 Amendment to wall angle in interpretive wall at top of walkway to comply with AS1428.1. Amendments to set decking set out to simply geometry. $ 0.00 Fans in meeting and training room to be standard height to avoid projector beam. $ 0.00 Door D00.1 and D00.2 supported by stainless steel PFC channels. $ 28,971.34 Area of PEB 2 added in the entryway under the light fins ESCR2. $ 0.00 Kitchen exhaust clashing with purlins $ 0.00 Relocation of floor boxes and wastes in the court yard x1 floor box added and x3 floor wastes added $ 0.00 Planters removed from the design. $ 0.00 Removal of the Tallowwood screen in front of the kitchen. -$ 2,538.37 Sound attenuator added to and meeting and training room vent. To comply with meeting and training room acoustics. $ 3,104.60 Addition of a floor wastes and service for hot and cold-water supply as per ‘170925_1489 Turtle Park Finish Schedule – Final’ FCA Finish Schedule to for kitchen island. $ 0.00 Change to the design of the entrance desk $ 0.00 Joinery cupboard to be provide for Fire indication panel (FIP) $ 0.00 Amendments to the turtle tank roof size and profile. $ 0.00 Additional framing required to support the air conditioning unit. $ 0.00 Extension of the hob to support south façade extension walls. $ 1,728.02 The location of vent pipe has been included on the architectural drawings and added to the schedule as VP1. $ 0.00 Detail provided for the entrance soffit. To Include pressed copper turtle pattern. $ 4,146.57 Locations indicated on drawings for GPO’s and added to schedule $ 0.00 Plant and Vent locations indicated on drawings. $ 0.00 To comply with AS4422:1996. Sun State Sands included as a local supplier $ 0.00 Removed from schedule (WL6,7,8) $ 0.00 Added to Finish Schedule (WL9, PT6) $ 0.00 Colour change 722 Verosol – 9900 Necro $ 0.00 Clear coating applied to interior glulam structure with x2 coats Clear coating applied of exterior glulam to be painted with a x3 coat system. Coating shall be Cutek, Sikkens, Cabot’s Innergrain or equal approved. Product to be applied in accordance with 0671 Paint Specification and SP003_Arup Glue-Laminated Timber Specification to manufactures requirements. Sample to be approved by Architect. $ 74,984.48 Service drawings to be amended to avoid clashing. $ 0.00

Source: DES correspondence dated 11 February 2020, pp 2-7.

Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee 43 Inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre

Statement of Reservation

44 Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee STATEMENT OF RESERVATION - INQUIRY INTO THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MON REPOS TURTLE CENTRE

The Palaszczuk Labor Government’s handling of the Redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre is symptomatic of how it has governed Queensland for the past five years – fiscally reckless, no accountability and consistently over promising whilst always under delivering.

The department stated that the purpose of the work was to replace the ageing old centre with a new ‘world-class’ attraction for visitors. Whilst no one can deny that redevelopment has resulted in an impressive structure containing extensive educational material it certainly falls short of a ‘world-class’ benchmark. Any reasonable Queenslander would expect that for an investment of $22.65 million, prospective visitors would be afforded with the basic amenities of a carpark, a working kitchen or even air-conditioning. Sadly, for Queensland taxpayers and prospective centre visitors alike, the Palaszczuk Labor Government’s definition of a ‘world-class’ doesn’t even include the same benchmark amenities that local supermarkets have.

During the committee’s public hearing in Bundaberg on 11 February 2020 local witnesses attested to how the Palaszczuk Labor Government’s self-described ‘world-class’ attraction was falling far short of delivering a ‘world-class’ experience for visitors. Bundaberg Regional Council Mayor Jack Dempsey explained to the committee that:

Under current arrangements if parents with tired children wish to leave the centre when no tour is going to happen or if their child falls asleep, they must wait for a shuttle bus to ferry them back to their vehicle. This has left many families tired and unhappy with the experience at the new centre. These visitors did not have a world-class experience. Jack Dempsey, Mayor, Bundaberg Regional Council, Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020.

Redevelopment of the centre has actively made centre accessibility much worse than previously. During the public hearing the committee was informed by Mayor Dempsey that the current parking ‘enhancements’ will actually reduce the car parks from 100 to 22. Staggeringly, the Managing Director of the construction contractor Andrew Murchie revealed to the committee during the public hearing that it took 14 months for the department to resolve the parking issues which ultimately resulted in significantly fewer parks for centre visitors.

Ms Katherine Reid Chief Executive Officer highlighted the impact on visitor experience from the sub-standard kitchen at the redeveloped centre stating that:

With no ability for cooking on site and no dishwashing facility in accordance with food safety legislation, all food items are packaged, increasing single-use item waste, including food wrappers and coffee cups. Not having a suitable space for a commercial kitchen also greatly limits the daytime operation and the business viability—which will be the key to doubling visitor numbers—and also greatly restricts the ability to use the space for events as previously intended in the submission. This is a missed opportunity. Katherine Reid, Chief Executive Officer, Bundaberg Tourism, Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020

The committee was also informed by Ms Reid that the redeveloped centre failed to accommodate large numbers of visitors outlining that:

Unfortunately, the interior of the centre according to the operator does not comfortably seat 150 people. It is not air-conditioned and unfortunately the cafe’s small servery window does not have any sort of quality relationship with the rest of the space… The department’s submission states that the new centre has been designed to accommodate peak visitation numbers of 300 people in indoor comfort while being sensitive to the overall site environment. From visitor feedback through our visitor information centres and online review sites such as TripAdvisor and Facebook, the centre cannot comfortably accommodate 300 people in indoor comfort and puts extraordinary strain on the rangers and volunteers trying to manage this number of people in the given space. Katherine Reid, Chief Executive Officer, Bundaberg Tourism, Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020

The successive years of incompetence from the Palaszczuk Labor Government has cost the region and Queensland tax payers greatly. The handling of the redevelopment has led to a budget that has blown out by millions of dollars to deliver a sub-standard facility. The lost opportunity was accurately contrasted to the committee by the sitting local member for Burnett Stephen Bennett MP stating that:

What I do not understand is that the funding model started in 2013 at $8 million. It has now increased to $24 million or $25 million; I believe that is where it will end up. I do not see that there are budgetary considerations for future stages. That is my point about a missed opportunity. If it had encompassed a master planned design from day one, with an investment like that we could be realising our aspirations now. Clearly, my role now is to go back to government and look for more money to get those aspirational things that should be part of a year-round visitation experience. Stephen Bennett, Member for Burnett, Public hearing transcript, Bundaberg, 11 February 2020. Inexcusably, as costs blew out by millions over the years the department didn’t even consider doing an updated business case as revealed by the following dialogue during the public briefing on 3 February:

Mr KRAUSE: Mr Thomas, was there an updated business case or financial model completed for the centre when the costs went from around $8 million to $10 million to $22 million, or was there not an updated business case put together in the department?

Mr Thomas: No.

Mr KRAUSE: There was not?

Mr Thomas: No.

As Queensland’s State debt hurdles towards $92 billion under Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk this committee’s inquiry into the redevelopment of the Mon Repos Turtle Centre should convey at least one clear finding about this government – it is very good at spending money, but the outcomes of government spending simply don’t measure up to the promises of government, nor Queenslanders’ reasonable expectations about what should be achieved from significant spending.

Jon Krause MP Mark Boothman MP Member for Scenic Rim Member for Theodore