Public Works Committee: State Government Office In Port Adelaide

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:41): I move:

That the 567^th report of the Public Works Committee, entitled 'Workplace fit out at the state government office in Port Adelaide', be noted.

Following an expression of interest, the government has entered into an agreement with EPC Pacific Propriety Limited regarding the construction of a five-storey building in Port Adelaide. The agreement includes the sale of the land at Lot 107 Nile Street, Port Adelaide, by the government to the developer, the private construction and ownership of the new building by the developer and a 15-year lease for the office accommodation and car parks by the government.

The aim of this project is to stimulate and improve activity in the Port Adelaide area by encouraging and supporting its economic and social development. The government is actively participating in the renewal of Port Adelaide by leveraging its ongoing requirement for office accommodation. The government will locate 500 employees to the area in support of the revitalisation strategy for Port Adelaide.

The building itself will incorporate approximately 6,000 square metres of office space over the ground floor and levels 3 to 5; eight secure car parks on the ground floor, with an additional 142 car parks over levels 1 and 2; 40 secure bicycle parks, change facilities, lockers and amenities; and approximately 380 square metres of retail space on the ground floor. The government has committed to leasing the office accommodation and the 150 car park spaces.

The fit-out works for the office accommodation will be integrated into the construction, which will reduce the costs and time frames often experienced with office fit-outs due to reworks and realignment of key infrastructure. As such, the fit-out will be completed by the end of April 2018 in time for the building to be handed over by the developer to the government for occupation in May. The cost of the fit-out has been provided to the committee in confidence, as the contract for this work is still to be tendered and there is concern that the release of this information may affect the bids received for the work.

I would like to thank my fellow committee members for considering the project and for the bipartisan support—the members for Colton, Torrens, Finniss and Unley—and also committee staff for their assistance and those who came to present to the committee. 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 (Finniss) (11:43): This was somewhat of an interesting project that came before the Public Works Committee. This government does not seem to be able to get it right at Port Adelaide. When I was a lad going to boarding school, I used to travel on the Troubridge, which used to come in and up to port, and it was full of hustle and bustle. There was shipping everywhere and people everywhere and the place was abuzz.

Along came containerisation and the wharfies disappeared at a great rate, and then Kevin Foley, Mike Rann and Co. decided that they were going to reinvent Port Adelaide and shut down shipyards like Searles. They were going to put in all this housing around the port, around Birkenhead Bridge and south of that, but that struggled.

The government just does not seem to know what to do with Port Adelaide. They do not seem to be able to get it right. You cannot reinvent something that cannot be reinvented, quite frankly. This project in itself is going to create some interesting scenarios because, in essence, they want to shift hundreds of public servants out of the city to Port Adelaide. I am not quite sure what the public servants are going to think about that.

I suspect that if they live in the city or the surrounding suburbs close to the city, and they use public transport (or whatever other means) to get into the city and they are here in five or 10 minutes, they are not going to take it all that graciously when they are told that they have to move to Port Adelaide to work. I think that is going to be something of a debacle for them. That is yet to unfold, of course. The actual concrete, bricks and steel, etc., that go into the project are all fine, and the fit-out is highly expensive and will look great, but they have to get the people down there to work.

What sorts of incentives are they going to provide to public servants to move to Port Adelaide? It would be very hard to find out from this government—they are not very transparent, quite frankly—but, in due course, it will open. It will have people running around, beavering away doing what they have to do, but it raises the bigger issue of how on earth they are going to reinvigorate Port Adelaide. To my way of thinking, Port Adelaide people, people from Lefevre Peninsula and that area, are traditionally proud people. They are working people, but they have had their heart ripped out by losing what they had at Port Adelaide, in my view, which is all very sad. Some would say that that is progress, and that may well be the case as well.

Of course we supported this project. We were not going to reject it and put in a minority report. We asked many questions on it and, by and large, we got answers, but I think what the parliament needs to do is watch over this project over the next couple of years. I will not be here, of course, in another few months, but they need to watch to see how it goes, how they go getting people down there to work and how successful and viable this project is in the longer run. We supported the project. With those few words, I will resume my seat.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:47): Thank you, member for Finniss, for your supportive words and your bipartisan support. With that, I commend this report to the house.

Motion carried.