House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Public Works Committee: Adelaide Convention Centre Redevelopment PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: ADELAIDE CONVENTION CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT Mrs VLAHOS House of Assembly Taylor Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:37): I move: That the 411^th report of the committee, entitled Adelaide Convention Centre Redevelopment, be noted. The expansion and redevelopment of the Adelaide Convention Centre (ACC) in 2010 is part of the $394.208 million investment to revitalise the Riverbank precinct. A budget of $350.32 million has been allocated for the redevelopment of the ACC. The prime objective of the redevelopment is to re-establish the ACC as one of the world's premier conference centres, ensuring its continued competitiveness and contributing significantly to South Australia's tourism and economic growth for the future. It is also to assist in unlocking the full potential of the city's Riverbank precinct. The key objectives for the project in terms of the asset's functionality and design include: the ACC will integrate with the Riverbank precinct and assist it to realise its full potential; the development will also be a world leader in operational functionality and flexibility of use; the design will reflect the operator's requirements for accessibility, functionality and commerciality; and the design will ensure that there is seamless connection between the existing ACC and the new components and an impression of a single building for the visitor to the redeveloped ACC. Over the next 25 years, the project will generate around $1.92 billion in economic benefit for the state from delegate spend and associated pre and post-event tourism. It will also generate around 1,784 additional jobs in South Australia (both directly and indirectly) per year over the same period. The project is anticipated to commence in October 2011, with stage 1 complete in April 2014 and stage 2 complete by June 2017. Pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works. Mr PENGILLY House of Assembly Finniss Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:39): Quite clearly, the opposition supports this project; there has been no argument about that whatsoever from day one. We actively supported this project in the committee. However, I think that it needs to be put on the record that the opposition is far from satisfied with the approximately $40 million that is unaccounted. The $350 million for the Adelaide Convention Centre is one thing, but the $40-odd million for the bridge to connect the Convention Centre to the other side of the river is a debatable point. Nowhere was it satisfactorily explained to the committee where this bridge would be. It was suggested that it may come in somewhere between the Convention Centre and the Festival Theatre. Any questions that were asked by the member for Waite or myself received a fairly scant answer, and I have to say there is a lack of accountability about this issue. The diagrams that went with the project for the Convention Centre did not indicate in any way, shape or form where that bridge may or may not come in. We tried to discover whether they wanted to have a Y-shaped bridge so that one section went to the Convention Centre and one came down to the Festival Theatre, and just what was the upshot of it. We think it is an important matter that needs to be put out sooner rather than later to get some clarification on this. This matter, quite clearly, garnered quite a bit of media interest from television, radio and print media. I think the government is hiding something here, and it was of great concern to us that we could not get any straight answers on it. I would go to the extent of saying that public servants involved, and employees of various departments and the Convention Centre were put in a difficult spot, because I am of the view that they probably knew more than they let on but were not allowed to do anything about it. This is an issue that is not going to go away. We will support the project, we want it to get going, we want it to be a great success for the state—absolutely no question about that whatsoever—and we want it moved on, but the opposition notes in supporting this motion that it is far from satisfied with the subject of a footbridge across the Torrens. Motion carried.