House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Parliamentary Committees Public Works Committee: Old Parliament House Redevelopment PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE REDEVELOPMENT Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Little Para Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:06): I move: That the 433^rd report of the committee, entitled Old Parliament House Redevelopment, be noted. The committee has been presented with a proposal to upgrade Old Parliament House at a cost of $13.686 million. Faced with an ageing and progressively dysfunctional facility, in 2009-10, the legislature engaged consultant Swanbury Penglase Architects to investigate the current condition of the building and to propose a scope of works to create a wholly functional, fully accessible building to meet the legislature's long-term requirements. The following works are proposed: the installation of a new freestanding external lift which will provide access to multiple levels; a new opening through the existing north wall to provide more direct access to the main ground floor level without the need to traverse steps; a new link structure at ground floor level to connect with the lower ground level of Parliament House and to provide an entry point from North Terrace; the creation of a void through removing slabs at the north end of the former chamber to act as circulation space and to provide a sense of the original volume; a new building code and access-compliant stair at the north end of the former Legislative Council chamber; a compliant ramp connecting the courtyard level with that of the veranda to the east of the Kingston Room; the creation of three additional ministerial or members' offices; improved meeting rooms, including the provision of support service space; one additional meeting room; the replacement of electrical, communication, mechanical, fire, hydraulic and vertical transportation services that will also include specialist audio services to meeting rooms; and conservation works, including addressing dampness, roof and timber work issues. In addition, new toilets will be added at ground and first floor levels, and there will be an accessible toilet at first floor level. The toilets in the courtyard will be refurbished and the plant room will be relocated to a new plant room. This project aims to undertake upgrade works in Old Parliament House to enable it to be wholly functional and a fully accessible part of the Parliament House facility. In particular, it aims to achieve the upgrade in a manner that is sensitive to the heritage and historical context of the building. The project aims to be completed by October 2013. 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 PENGILLY House of Assembly Finniss Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:09): Whilst the opposition ultimately supported this project, it is important to note that they have not been comfortable with the way this project has been progressed or put to the committee, and that it has caused considerable discussion and a great deal of angst with some people over exactly what was proposed, how it was gone about and how long it took to come to Public Works. It is a public building of considerable importance and historical value, there is no question about that, but for a considerable amount of time I was unable to find out exactly what was going on. My inquiries before it came to the committee were such that it appeared that the minister had no knowledge about it. It was being taken on board by officers of the parliament and pushed through there (who went to Treasury before they went anywhere else), and in my view what was going on was far from publicly accountable, and it made it desperately uncomfortable. It was also suggested that it was a project of the Joint Parliamentary Services Committee. It never was and neither should it be, so these things need putting on the record. Trying to get to the bottom of some $14 million worth of expenditure that was taking place without, seemingly, anyone in government having any knowledge of it I do not think is right, I do not think it is proper. In this place (whether in the other place or in this place), we are always open to scrutiny on expenditure of money. I do not doubt that much of this work has to take place. We did an on-site inspection. I am of the view that we are done over on many of these projects by people who put in for working on jobs and that the taxpayers of this state pay inordinately above the amount they should pay to get projects done—and for the life of me I think this is probably one of those projects. It will come up, it will be a valuable building, and it will provide certain accesses that are not there now. It will help people with disabilities, and it will provide meeting rooms once again. The total disruption that is taking place in this facility at the moment because no-one thought about what was going to happen in their haste to get this project up has caused certain problems for members in having functions and trying to get rooms. Another fact that needs to be put on the record is that parliamentary officers have been put over the other side of the road in other buildings for months and months, well before anything has happened down there—and hardly anything has happened now, I might add. Parliamentary officers have been over the other side of the road at substantial cost to the taxpayers of this state when they could have still been working in that building. That was a matter I raised in the hearing; that worries me. There seems to be a bit of an attitude that if you are going to do something you go ahead and spend taxpayers' money and you do not really care about it. Well, I am afraid I do, and I have to say from my inquiries that there are members on the government side who feel the same way. I think this was a very, very poorly handled project. Ultimately, it will come to fruition, but there is going to be disruption for a couple of years. We could have probably gone on for some time in the Public Works Committee hearing on the matter but, notwithstanding all that, it is important to put a few of these things on the record. It has created a certain amount of discomfort amongst members of JPSC, of joint committees around the place, of parliamentary members and of members of the Public Works Committee. I do not think it is good enough. If we do something like this again, it is certainly something that needs to be discussed in here and put on the record. However, as I indicated, the Liberal members of the committee will be supporting the project. I would like to see it completed in about half the time that is proposed so that we can get some sort of functionality back into this place. With those few words, the opposition does support the project.