PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES EDUCATION CENTRE—TONSLEY PARK

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:17): I move:

That the 421^st report of the committee, Sustainable Industries Education Centre—Tonsley Park, be noted.

In November 2010 the master planners for the Tonsley Park redevelopment proposed that the SIEC be included in the adaptive reuse of the Mitsubishi vehicle assembly plant, rather than a new build in the north-west corner of the site. An adaptive reuse is a process whereby the primary function of an older structure is adapted for purposes other than those originally intended. The proposal to pursue an adaptive reuse of the Mitsubishi vehicle assembly plant was taken by the master planners to set an environmentally sustainable standard for the site and approved by government.

The current proposal is to build the Sustainable Industries Education Centre for $103,588,075. The Sustainable Industries Education Centre will transform education and training for the building and construction industry in South Australia through a new delivery model emphasising interaction between building and construction disciplines, sustainability practices and industry linkages. It will be an integral part of the proposed Tonsley Park redevelopment, contributing to the adaptation of the region's economy, the development of new industries and the diversification of the workforce.

It will provide a cornerstone investment on the redevelopment and a focus for sustainable industries and infrastructure development. It will co-locate and link industry and education providers to maximise student participation and pathways. It will comprise the first purpose-built facilities for the collocation of VET and higher education in metropolitan Adelaide. It will demonstrate and showcase sustainable technology to enhance the education experience and stimulate new opportunities for the uptake of new clean technologies.

It will consolidate five existing TAFE SA building and construction training sites into a single hub and reduce the metropolitan TAFE footprint by approximately 25,000 square metres. It will increase TAFE SA building and construction course numbers by 16 per cent, with new training in renewable energy and water operations offered, and it will increase places in construction management, planning and engineering by 21 per cent, including pathway programs to facilitate articulation between VET and university.

The Sustainable Industries Education Centre will ensure that core sustainability skills are embedded across tertiary building and construction qualifications and that specialised skills needed for industry to adopt leading-edge clean technologies and practices are readily available. The project is scheduled to be completed by late 2013, with training delivery in early 2014. The committee notes that the SIEC forms part of a wider master plan for the Tonsley Park site currently under development, and which the committee looks forward to viewing when finalised. Given this, and 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 HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:20): Sadly, I must advise the house that the opposition members of the committee do not agree with this report and have submitted a minority report. I think this is unfortunate. It is always better if parliamentary committees are able to report unanimously, so that the subjects of those reports have credibility. It is not a decision taken lightly for opposition members to make a minority report, and we have done it very rarely in Public Works—very rarely indeed—but where government members, for one reason or another, will not include in the report concerns legitimately raised by the opposition, we have little choice.

Therefore, I must point out to the house that there was considerable concern within the committee, and certainly by members on this side, that the evidence given was given in the context that a master plan for the Tonsley precinct had not been signed off by cabinet at the time of that evidence being given, and the committee understands it still has not been signed off. So, in effect, we had a significant proposal for expenditure coming forward to the committee to start work on a component part of a project for which no master plan existed or had been approved. The committee also heard that the business case for the entire project had not been completed, and had therefore not been signed off by cabinet.

This is the sort of cart-before-the-horse investment by government that gets us into a pickle, and the current government would well understand, after the State Bank collapse, how you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and billions of dollars, on projects that have not been thought through and have not been properly scrutinised. I just remind the house that one of the reasons why this Public Works Committee (in its current form) was constituted in 1994 was as a result of an election, during which commitments had been given by members on this side that we would do what we could to prevent the State Bank type of farragoes from recurring. The Public Works Committee had been scrapped some years earlier by the then Labor government.

So, it is inappropriate, in our view, for the government to spend $103 million on a component public work when the master plan and broader project had not been resolved. I note that this is not the first time the government has done this. Members on this side have criticised the government for making similar decisions with regard to the Convention Centre, where the master plan for the Riverbank precinct remained incomplete but the project was brought forward.

We heard earlier of another project involving a turnaround on the Gawler line for rail, where, again, because the overall master plan for our rail redevelopment had not been worked through, the government had to come back to the committee and seek millions of dollars of more money to put in a turnaround point so that the trains could actually turn around in Gawler and come back into Adelaide. Well, that turnaround facility is very handy, and it would be nice, if you send trains out of town, to be able to bring them back. Why did we not think that through and include it in the original project? Because the master plan had not been complete.

You miss things, forget things and make mistakes when you do not have the master plan right, and you build the thing in component parts without having put the jigsaw together. This is part of a general concern for members on this side that master plans for the electrification of rail and the Riverbank precinct have not been complete—and this is the third example. The practice of bringing forward public works projects involving the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars in cases where master plans have not been completed is unprofessional. It lacks fiscal rigour and it is a recipe for waste and disorder.

If the government is unable to complete its broader master plans, subordinate projects should not advance until broader planning is adequate and the business case has established the viability of the project. It is to protect the taxpayer that this must be so. The current Labor government appears to have learnt nothing from its past mistakes, and this process being used to advance this project is simply a repeat of lessons that should have been learnt in the past.

We also note with concern revelations during evidence that a local manufacturer—in particular, Siemens Turbomachinery Services—appears to have expressed an interest in operating their business at the site to be used for this Sustainable Industries Education Centre at Tonsley Park, because it contains a 50-tonne crane and other ideal facilities for their business. However, the committee heard that they had been turned away.

There is serious doubt about whether we have selected the right location within the site for this TAFE facility and whether it perhaps could have been built at another location on the site and the more suited industrial infrastructure that is being used now for the TAFE might have been made available for Siemens or another similar company. It makes no sense to build the TAFE at one of the best locations within the site, with important infrastructure that could be used by manufacturers and industry, where there appear to be numerous alternatives within the Tonsley precinct for the TAFE.

When this project was announced, the government's stated aim was to create smart jobs, a high-tech innovation park, etc. The refusal by the government to allow Siemens to utilise the facility demonstrates that the government has now put the hasty construction of a Tonsley TAFE ahead of attracting high-tech jobs to the location. One can only assume from that there is an indecent haste to cut a ribbon for a new TAFE before the next election so as to secure a favourable election outcome, rather than to ensure that taxpayers' money is wisely and properly invested.

Members on this side were also concerned that the government had made ironclad commitments at the time the project was announced not to rezone the site for residential purposes, yet it was revealed in evidence to the Public Works Committee that between one-third and one-quarter of the site is now to be used for residential high-rise apartments and commercial retail. The project is starting to look more like a money-making property development than a job-creating high-tech precinct. Governments have an obligation to deliver on the promises they make. In this case, that faith seems to have been breached.

We also note that what started as a project to be run by the minister for industry and trade and DTED, who have prime carriage, has now drawn in the Land Management Corporation and the Minister for Infrastructure, as well as the minister for employment, training and further education. Management and control arrangements are looking complex, with obvious overlap, risking poor cost control and overlapping layers of management.

The Liberal opposition supports the construction of the Sustainable Industries Education Centre at Tonsley and does not wish to block the project from proceeding, but we do express our concern in this minority report that the government risks bungling the project by proceeding with this component part without having completed either a master plan or a business case. We also point out, as I mentioned, that the proposed development of the former Mitsubishi site is not proceeding in accordance with the promises and assurances given by state Labor when the project was first announced. We are also concerned that the number and arrangement of ministers and departments involved in managing the project is convoluted and a recipe for mismanagement.

The Public Works Committee is, in my view, one of the most useful and functional committees in the parliament, for two reasons. First, by statute, certain projects over a dollar value must be referred to it. I think other committees would benefit from similar statutory support. That means that a project cannot proceed until the Public Works Committee has had a good look at it, to protect the taxpayers' money.

The second reason that the Public Works Committee works effectively is that, by statute again, a quorum cannot be present unless opposition members are sitting at the committee. That means that the government cannot shoot off on a frolic of its own, as it can on other committees, and make decisions that are clearly partisan, and that a level bipartisan involvement in approving projects is required, by statute. Both those things are very important.

Members on this side, my friend the member for Finniss, and I have done our very best to work in a bipartisan way on the committee in all of the projects we have had before us. We regret having to submit minority reports, but if we feel we are not being listened to, if we feel that reports are not including our concerns and if we feel that reports are not a fair and accurate reflection of all of the views of members of the committee, then we feel that the taxpayer is disadvantaged. It is their money, not ours. We must ensure it is protected. That is why my friend the member for Finniss and I have submitted this minority report. In this case, we do not agree with the committee's findings. I say to all stakeholders that they should view the report, as a result, with some scepticism, and read the minority report before they make judgements upon it.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:30): I have heard what the member for Waite has said and I am not in a position to debate in detail what happened in the committee, but I think he did provide some useful advice to the government in terms of projects and how they are funded and so on. Putting that aside, this is a good project. We as a state need to invest a lot more in trade training and technical training. I have heard the catchcry about a skills shortage for so long that I am sick of hearing it. It has been repeated ad infinitum for the last 20 or more years. We have to come to grips with this issue, and the consolidation of the TAFE campuses at Tonsley Park is an opportunity to ensure that we have the latest and best training facility, particularly for building and construction, but it will go beyond that, ultimately. We need to make sure that we are genuinely a highly-skilled and smart state.

We are only basically recovering from what happened more than 20 years ago when the technical high schools were closed down. Goodwood Tech was allowed to linger on before it was euthanased a bit later. Our state, in terms of its education, has not really got serious about technological training until comparatively recent times. It is good to see that high schools, including two in my electorate (Aberfoyle Park High and Reynella East College), have made significant improvements and provision for improved technical training, but we still have a long way to go.

The skills shortage that faces us is considerable. We still have many people who are not getting the opportunity to pick up a skill or a trade, and I will not elaborate in relation to SACE but SACE was meant to provide an encompassing education for those who go to university and the majority who do not. We may see, over time, a greater focus on people being able to get a technical or technologically-based education.

One of my wishes when I was minister for TAFE was that TAFE would have its own high schools, because I did not believe DECS was fair dinkum about providing the necessary technical training. Maybe the minister responsible for TAFE will consider creating a specialised TAFE high school focusing on technology as a feed-in not only to TAFE itself but to the universities as well at what will become, no doubt, the surplus campus at O'Halloran Hill.

I have mentioned before in this place that we used to have some very good facilities at Underdale for training people—training technical teachers, purpose-built workshops which cost millions of dollars and purpose-built facilities for training what were called home economics teachers but who do more than that. Sadly, the University of South Australia was allowed to destroy those purpose-built buildings. I heard the member for Morphett recently talking about one of his relatives who had to do the theory at university to become a technical teacher or a home economics teacher, but then had to do the practical at TAFE, when we already had the integrated facility at Underdale, but that has been destroyed.

I hope that we have learnt from that and that this Tonsley Park centre can and will go beyond building and construction—I am sure it will—as part of a TAFE focus. I commend the government for this commitment of $103 million. According to the member for Waite and the member for Finniss, the government may not have gone about it probably in the way they would like, but, nevertheless, I think that we should focus on the fact that it is going to happen, it will happen and it will make a significant contribution to skills training in this state. I strongly support this project.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:35): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments, and following on from my colleague the member for Waite on the fact that we put in a minority report, as well as the comments the member for Fisher made. I indicate that the member for Waite and I actually support the project. We think that the project will probably be a good project; however, there was much left out of the whole thing that should have been there in relation to the site, which is disappointing.

I reiterate the words of the member for Waite that our Public Works Committee needs to operate very much in a bipartisan manner, quite frankly. A lot of the time it does, but when you have things thrust down your throat and when you do not have the opportunity to make useful suggestions into the project, it gets a bit untidy. The fact is that government members have pushed in, we have these projects thrust upon us at committee and we just have to deal with them. Ultimately, we could have had a far better plan over the whole area and far better use could have been made of it.

The actual project will be a good project and it will be a benefit to South Australians, particularly to young South Australians and the more mature-age students as they come along. It has a number of issues (which I remember were discussed in the committee) about getting people from the other side of Adelaide to the facility (transport arrangements) and wherever they have to come from to go there. Ultimately the project will benefit South Australia. Let me just reiterate the words of the member for Waite that it could have been a lot better if it had all been thought out better.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (11:37): I commend the member for Waite for making it obvious to the rest of the members in this place that this is a minority report from this committee. I just want to say that I support the proposal; however, as the member for Fisher indicated, I am also very concerned about the comments which have been made over many years and which continue to be made that we have a shortage of skilled tradespeople out there.

I think that we lost the opportunity when the GFC hit. I thought that we had an opportunity then to start training a lot more people for the time when we came back on track. Unfortunately, I think that we may have lost a bit of an opportunity there because we had two or three years to be able to consolidate ourselves, get the training into the existing locations and to ensure that, taking into account what is going to happen in the resource industry in the top end of South Australia and also interstate, we would have that skills availability.

As the member for Fisher has indicated, I am supporting this motion even though it is a minority report. One thing I want to say is that, whilst this facility is going to be fairly great and it is going to consolidate a lot of training opportunities in the Tonsley Park area, this government and all members in this house must ensure that we do not forget the regional areas. Lots of people require skills training and they are looking for the opportunities. I have a fear that, if we start to consolidate everything in the metropolitan area, people in the regional areas will suffer.

Facilitating training in the metropolitan area is a lot less expensive for people who live in the metropolitan area. However, if we do not increase and improve the facilities in the regional areas, people coming down from the country will have to pay for accommodation and travel, and some of those people just do not have that money. Whilst I agree that it is a great facility, we must not forget the regions. I want to reinforce that: please do not forget the regions. I commend this report to government, but, in future, please ensure that we do not forget the regions.

Motion carried.