HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOBILONG PRISON

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:11): I move:

That this house—

(a) condemns the government for not conducting adequate local consultation on the effect of the proposed extensions to the Mobilong Prison facility, having regard to the need for improvements in public infrastructure services to cater for an increase in prisoner transfers and visitations as well as prison staff; and

(b) calls on the government to consider the increased load on local infrastructure and services and, as a matter of urgency, prepare and publish a regional impact statement in relation to the said extensions.

I refer to the news release on Thursday 21 September 2006 (budget day) that Mobilong would be expanded to accommodate 760 men and 150 women prisoners. This has since been expanded to 940 men and 230 women. The news came as a surprise to the local council—the Rural City of Murray Bridge—as promises had been made by the government that the council would be informed before any announcement was made. During question time, I asked the Attorney-General:

Why did the government fail to advise the Mayor and the Rural City of Murray Bridge Council that the new prison would be located at Murray Bridge before the announcement was made?

The following explanation was given:

At a meeting with council in June 2006, attended by a correctional services CEO Peter Severin and the Director of Prison Infrastructure John Case, Mr Severin informed council that there were no plans for any site in South Australia at that time. At the same meeting, Mr Severin said he would engage council if, and when, Murray Bridge became an option for the new location. He further advised that thorough community consultation and engagement would occur prior to any decision.

The Attorney-General's reply was, 'All will be revealed in the budget'. Later in the afternoon session, the Treasurer announced the project as part of the Appropriation Bill. The Treasurer said:

A new prison precinct will be established near Murray Bridge. The precinct, adjacent to the existing Mobilong Prison, is expected to be fully operational by 2011-12. The precinct will include: a new 760 bed—men's prison—increasing capacity from the overcrowded Yatala Labour Prison by 419 beds; and a new 150 bed—women's prison—increasing capacity by 58 beds.

In the same speech, the Treasurer said:

As a result, the Yatala Labour Prison and the Adelaide Women's Prison will be closed. Also removed from the Northfield site will be the pre-release centre, and that land will be available for to the development.

He added:

The new prisons will free up the Northfield site for significant housing development.

This development will generate significant additional revenue for the state in so many ways, revenue it seems it is not prepared to share with the Rural City of Murray Bridge council, which will be faced with many additional infrastructure and service costs as the expansion is constructed and becomes operational.

In the same question time session before the Treasurer's announcement, I also asked the Attorney-General the following question:

Will the Attorney-General advise the house what plans the government has made to upgrade existing infrastructure and services at Murray Bridge to cater for the significant increase in activity resulting from the projected tripling of the current prison capacity?

—to which I added the following explanation:

The Chief Executive Officer of the Murraylands Regional Development Board has raised concerns regarding the adequacy of current services, including housing, transport, education, health, mental health and counselling services.

In his reply the Attorney-General was again evasive and deceptive, choosing to avoid answering the direct question about government plans to support local council and even implying that he did not know for sure what was in the budget—and that announcement was due within the hour. He also suggested, quite incorrectly and unfairly, that the council and I were ungrateful for the decision to place one of the state's major prison facilities near Murray Bridge, again avoiding the obvious point that promises made and common courtesies had been ignored in the government's attempt to make political gain from the announcement.

The success of such a major project will depend in part on establishing a relationship of trust and cooperation between the two levels of government—something this government clearly does not respect or understand. The point of my question, which the Attorney-General so deliberately avoided, was that the government had failed dismally in providing a reasonable level of communication—more particularly, two-way communication—with its intended project partner. Despite assurances from various government sources to the contrary, this has continued.

The Rural City of Murray Bridge council formed the New Prisons and Secure Facilities Project Working Party specifically to consider and identify matters of importance and concern to the community and to provide a discussion forum for the interested parties to maintain communication on the numerous areas of concern. The group includes local government officers and councillors, the local regional development board, local public services (including hospital and police), local health services, representatives from prison infrastructure, the Department of Health, mental health operations, transport organisations, the Office of Regional Affairs, and other interested community groups and services. Council has acknowledged that the participation and cooperation of these various departments and services is welcomed, but its attempts to elicit reasonable responses from ministers in some departments have been less favourable.

In the minutes of the working party's meeting of February 2008 it was 'noted and appreciated that the department of corrections continue to work with council on this project'. The minutes of a subsequent meeting on 16 May this year noted that on 7 February council had written to the minister concerning several items of infrastructure, including the upgrade of Bremer Road, stormwater systems, independent overflow to reduce the drain on council services during storms, internal development of the site, and bus services. At that time, on 16 May, no substantial response had been received from the minister and it was resolved to again write to the minister requesting a response to matters raised.

On 21 May a letter was received from minister Zollo explaining that the matters had been referred to appropriate staff to investigate and prepare briefing papers for the government to consider. It is my understanding that relevant discussions took place, although no subsequent response was made to the local council. In her letter of 21 May, minister Zollo also pointed out that, as Minister for Correctional Services, she was unable to respond to the matter of public transport services between Murray Bridge and Adelaide. She explained that that was a matter for the Minister for Transport.

This has highlighted one of council's continuing frustrations: the need to deal with so many different ministers for the various aspects of the development. At the most recent meeting of the working party on 15 October, Mayor Arbon again referred to this problem and its capacity to hinder inquiries and progress on their deliberations. It must be said a state government cross-agency project steering committee has been formed, but the council's request to have an observer present at its meetings has been refused. It seems that the lack of efficient and productive communication is a recurring theme within this government.

Council has been left holding the baby on several other aspects of this development. The issue of whether the development would be a rateable project is now the subject of conflicting advice. It was understood, through minister Zollo, that as it was a public-private partnership it would be rateable. Council believes that this will be a state prison, not a regional one; and as such it should not be required to subsidise the project. Since that time it has been made clear that Treasurer Foley has no intention of paying council rates, to such an extent that he would be prepared to change legislation in order to avoid doing so.

The matter of transport service needs has the potential to become a critical factor in this expansion project. Locating such a major prison facility in a regional centre some 80 kilometres from the city hub from where regional transport services depart will present many challenges to a transport system that is already regarded as inadequate. The transport needs of visitors, staff, staff families, and others whose professions will require them to meet with prisoners, will require frequent and regular services that currently do not exist.

Council's view, which was shared by others, was that a metro ticket system should be introduced, and early indications were that such a system could be dovetailed with the requirement for visitors to book their visits in advance. Council has since been advised that there will be no metro ticket service, the reason being that it might set a precedent for other peri-urban areas to demand a similar service. As the mayor pointed out at the time that statement was made at the working party's October meeting, this is hardly a precedent. Other regional centres close to the city are not playing host to a very substantial state facility; therefore, there is no precedent.

There was enthusiastic agreement at that meeting that efficient, effective transport will be vital to the success of this project. There was much debate about the likelihood of people relocating to live in the district, a factor which greatly affects demand for transport services, both prison-specific and public. Some previous experience suggests that two-thirds of the estimated 500 workers will relocate, but the suggestion has been put that many would choose not to uproot the entire family for a commutable distance.

As for families and partners of inmates, the belief is that, as the facility will be high security with many inmates serving longer terms, their families will relocate. Other experience indicates that the socioeconomics of inmate families will limit the number that are willing and able to shift. A study of the same matter in Lithgow determined that were very few partners or families who relocated to that town. It is easy to see how these factors will place high demands on transport services.

The last direct contact with the minister on the bus problem was in mid-July, which resulted in an assurance that the government would investigate some 'creative ways' to solve the problem. One can only guess what they may be, and whether the problem the government seeks to solve creatively is the actual transport problem or that of finding a creative way to shift the responsibility and cost of a solution to local government and the community.

The council has been extremely proactive in addressing the social impact of the prison expansion. It has conducted public forums and established the New Prisons and Security Facilities Project Working Party to identify and consider all of the concerns the local residents and business community have in relation to the potential effects on local infrastructure and services. This has led to council—I stress 'council'—having to commission a Strategic Community Impact Study to deal directly with the social impact and ultimately develop a regional action plan.

I applaud council's initiative in accepting responsibility for what would seem to be a state government responsibility. An approach to the government to fund this project was rejected, partly, I am told, because notice was too short. It would not have been unreasonable to think that far from claiming too little notice, government should have recognised the inevitable need for such a project during the prison expansion planning stage and initiated it itself.

While another application for funding may be lodged, it seems unfair that a substantial amount of ratepayers' money should have to be committed to a project that was precipitated by a state government decision to build a state facility.

Another facet of government's lack of understanding of or care for the social impacts of this expansion is in its response to an inquiry concerning the capability of local schools—preschool, primary and secondary—to manage the influx of a possible 500 extra students. The Department of Education and Children's Services reply to that inquiry declared that an assessment had found that the DECS-owned schools have:

Adequate capacity in teaching space accommodation to absorb the addition of almost 500 primary and high school students.

It goes on:

The establishment of the new prisons and secure facilities in Murray Bridge will have no impact on the school system in the region and...education facilities will adequately accommodate any additional families moving in to the area.

This response drew gasps of disbelief when it was read out at the October meeting. The reference to 'teaching space accommodation' could well be a carefully chosen phrase, but nobody could seriously believe that floor space alone would provide adequate education for students. Adequate education is a product of many things, of which space itself is only one. Is the department referring to yard space or classroom space? Is it proposing to dump some old transportables on even more of the open space that is treasured by staff and students? Has it considered that some of these additional students may require additional services and support such as special counselling? Has it established adequate interagency support from the district office?

Perhaps most disturbing of all: the funding cuts proposed by this government will reduce the capacity of many schools, including some in Murray Bridge. Was this possibility factored in to the DECS response? Not very likely. It might make an interesting agenda item for a meeting of the State Government Cross Agency Project Steering Committee, to which council has been denied access.

In my closing remarks I would add that there will be no room at the local hospitals and no room at the local clinics. The health authority have said that there is no room for any additional services for prisoners in the town. There are other issues with the forensic mental health facility, as with the prison, on attracting professional services to the town. I commend the motion.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (12:27): I rise to oppose the motion of the member for Hammond. I reject any allegation that community consultation regarding the decision to construct a new prison precinct at Murray Bridge has been inadequate. I am somewhat distracted with the children in the gallery, but it seems to me that the main concern of the member for Hammond is that local government was not told (just before the budget) that it was going to happen. He harped on about that for quite some time. I can understand local government being a little bit miffed about it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KENYON: But it is hardly a major concern. What it stems from is a complete misunderstanding of the way the budget process works. You can forgive the member for Hammond for that because he has never been here when the party currently in opposition has been in government. He has never had any experience of budget processes before, so it is forgivable that he misunderstands the need for—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond was listened to with courtesy by members opposite. I expect him to show the same courtesy to the member for Newland.

Mr KENYON: It is quite forgivable that there is a certain amount of angst on that side, and I do not condemn them for that. However, I will make a few points as we go along. In 2007, the government contributed $40,000 towards a regional impact report that was prepared by QED on behalf of the Rural City of Murray Bridge. So, one of the points about the regional impact statement seems to have been taken care of already (last year), and it was funded by the government.

The regional impact report considered and provided comment on a range of issues, including impact on transport and traffic movement, housing, urban growth planning and employment. The report also provided a social and economic analysis of the new prisons project and the impact of this on the Rural City of Murray Bridge.

A consultation strategy was prepared to guide subsequent communication with the Murray Bridge community on issues relating to the development of the new prisons project. In conjunction with the local council, the Rann government continues to conduct an ongoing community consultation program to assess all of the public infrastructure services that might be affected by the construction of the prison. Public meetings have been held and submissions have been received from the community. The consultation process is ongoing.

Throughout the process of developing a new prison design, the Department for Correctional Services has identified public infrastructure that is likely to be most affected by the new prison. Much of this information has been gathered throughout the public consultation process that has already occurred, and the government will continue to report back to the community through this consultation process. Additionally, information is being provided to other government and non-government agencies for them to include in their local area development planning.

The Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services is the chair of an interdepartmental government services group that is considering the impact of new prisons on the services in Murray Bridge. The chief executive has attended a number of public forums that have been held in the local Murray Bridge community about the new prisons project and, where issues have been raised that are not the direct responsibility of the Department for Correctional Services, the chief executive has undertaken to contact his counterparts in other departments and raise these issues. A community consultative committee will ensure that matters of concern to the local community can be addressed.

The Rann government is committed to liaising and working with the Murray Bridge council. The Minister for Correctional Services in another place, the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport have all met with the mayor of Murray Bridge on separate occasions to discuss various questions that the mayor has had about the new prisons project and supporting infrastructure.

The government will continue to work with the local council. The relationship between the government and the local council is a positive one. Furthermore, once the preferred bidder is announced, the government will employ a community liaison officer. This person will be responsible for ensuring an information flow and to act as a reference point between the project team, the department and local residents. The combined work of this interdepartmental committee (and I hope that is not a 'Yes Minister' interdepartmental committee but an interdepartmental committee of another sort) and the appointment of the community liaison officer will be sufficient to address community concerns. The government is confident that any issues raised will be adequately addressed through this process.

In short, the government has already provided the local council with funding to develop a report to research the impact of the prison on the local community. The report has been completed and has been widely shared with the Murray Bridge community. For all these reasons, the government does not support this motion.

At the risk of setting myself up for a fall at a later time, it is often said that nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I have found that often in politics complaining about a lack of consultation is of a similar ilk. If that is all someone can say about a project, what it essentially means is that they agree that this is the right thing to do and they are just trying to make some sort of political point on the fringes. They are just trying to round up a few blokes and have a bit of a crack here and there; that is all it seems to me to be.

We could always undertake consultation in a better way; that is always possible. However, one could hardly say, from the points I have outlined, that it has not happened at all. Members can make their own judgment about how good it is to move a motion such as this to make the situation seem so much worse than it is, but it does not do much for me. I urge members opposite as well as members on this side of the house to vote against this motion.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:33): I wish to make a contribution in support of the member for Hammond's motion. I commend him not only on the motion but also on the way in which he presented his facts that form the basis of the need for this motion to be supported by the house.

I also recognise the presence in the gallery today of the mayor, Allan Arbon, whom I have met many times through my previous local government experience and who has proven to me every time I have spoken to him that he talks with a degree of passion and forcefulness and a commitment to the area that he represents. He certainly would not want to hear flippant remarks made in this chamber about the community that he serves. He only wishes to see remarks enforced by the member who represents his area about the real needs of the Murray Bridge community. I have no doubt that the member for Hammond, in presenting this motion, is very serious about it.

The member for Newland commented that things could be better but he believes that, overall, the level of communication has been quite strong. The member for Hammond has given us a very different impression from that. From my discussions with the member for Hammond about every issue he brings to the party room and to me as an individual member of parliament, I know that he is very serious about what he does. He is not flippant about his role.

I do not believe that this motion is purely a political opportunity. I think that the member for Hammond has introduced this motion because of the seriousness with which it is viewed within the Murray Bridge community. It is essential for members in this chamber to reflect upon the fact that we might make decisions that are important—and every day there are important decisions to be made—but we have to bring the community along with us.

Having worked in regional South Australia for the majority of my professional career and having been involved in local government, where I was used to working with governments about the needs of communities and where opportunities might exist and where opportunities were presented to it, on some occasions the communication level was quite good but, sadly, on other occasions it was not anywhere near what it should have been.

I wish to declare a minor interest in the matter. Murray Bridge is not a community that I am personally very familiar with—I have been there only a few times. However, in my previous role as CEO of Yorke Peninsula council, when there was a media-based call (I think it was) for expressions of interest from communities that were interested in having a women's prison in the area, I wrote to the then minister and expressed an interest in a women's prison being based in the central-southern Yorke Peninsula area. We identified a particular spot. That did not come to fruition.

In my discussions with the Hon. Stephen Wade, who has the shadow portfolio responsibility for corrections, he has told me about the serious level of overcrowding that exists within the prisons in this state. I think even the new one that will be built will be at 120 per cent of its capacity, something like that. When I am in Adelaide, the home in which I reside is across the road from the men's prison on Grand Junction Road, so I see a prison just about every day I am in the city and I have some perspective of the impact on a local community of such a facility.

Governments have to make decisions. I understand that. When the political tide turns and our side of the chamber swaps to the right of the Speaker and we form government, there will be occasions when we will have to make hard decisions. I understand that is one of the responsibilities of government. However, I also appreciate the fact that it is not hard to give some degree of advance warning. The member for Newland might have focused in his initial comments on the fact that it appeared that the member for Hammond's notice of motion is brought purely because the council was not told. Well, it goes further than that.

It would not have been very hard, on the day of the budget being presented in September 2006, for a call to have been made to mayor Allan Arbon or the CEO of The Rural City of Murray Bridge to say, 'We are aware that you want to know what is happening. This is the announcement that is intended to be made at 2 o'clock this afternoon when the Treasurer stands up to make his speech about the budget. I want to give you a bit of a heads-up. You are sworn to secrecy on this and cannot tell anyone else, but I want you to be aware that this announcement will be made so that, when you are contacted for a comment immediately after the budget is released, at least you will have some perspective on it.'

It is obvious from what I have heard from across the chamber that that did not occur, and that is where consultation needs to be improved. I understand that decisions need a degree of confidentiality, but it is also important to respect the fact that you do not become mayor of a place such as the regional city of Murray Bridge unless you have a capacity to understand the issues and are able to keep issues confidential when they come to your attention, and a capacity to represent people—as we do in this chamber. For no call to have been made to mayor Allan Arbon or the CEO at the time to give them advance warning of what was to happen—even if it was only an hour beforehand—I think is very disappointing. That is part of the notice of motion, but it is an important issue that could have been overcome.

I think it is also very disrespectful to not undertake investigations to ensure the infrastructure of the community can accept such a large development. I know the PPP prison is valued at about three quarters of a billion dollars in total—$760 million, or something like that. That is the figure I have in my head. It is an enormous investment. It will bring in hundreds of people to the facility as inmates. Also, there will be the staff associated with that, and the families (be they associated with staff or inmates) who will move to that area. You have to consider the social and infrastructure capacity of that community to accept that number of people.

We have been told that DECS has the facility to accept another 500 students, but I find that amazing. Any facility that has that sort of unused capacity must have had a very large population in the past. Transport issues will be immense for this community and will need to be sorted out. You might have to make a decision to provide a service that probably would not be provided in other communities, but you need to recognise the particular needs of some communities.

That is part of the reason I came into parliament—to ensure that regional communities have a voice. I know that people who live in regional South Australia are continually frustrated about the divide that exists between metropolitan and regional areas. They are frustrated about the focus on expenditure within metropolitan areas. I understand that 75 per cent of the South Australian population lives within Adelaide and I know that focus on investment will always occur, but it is important that we respect what regional people need, also.

I want to enforce this in my closing comments: the member for Hammond is serious about this. He is not a man who is prone to make loose comments. He is a man who ensures that the people he serves have the best voice possible and, with his big loud booming voice, he does it better than most; there is no doubt about that. He jumps up and down and screams at times because he needs to enforce the fact that he is not here to make silly comments but, rather, to enforce what people want. I find the member for Hammond has made a wonderful transition into the parliament, coming from a farming background into such a responsible role. It is a credit to him. He does it because he truly believes in people. He has that attribute. I know Mayor Allan Arbon and the councillors who serve on the Rural City of Murray Bridge also have that attribute because they all want to make a difference.

It is important that we in this parliament actually recognise that we can engage the people of Murray Bridge, inform them of what will happen as a result of this development and give them the opportunity and ability to be involved in order to ensure that the absolute best decisions are made. Instead of hasty decisions being made by people who have no real perspective on what it will do to the community, we should engage the local people and use their expertise in order to ensure that the best decisions are made for the state's needs—because we all understand that we must relocate the prison—and that the outcome is positive. No-one wants to see this development become a negative on the Rural City of Murray Bridge; and that is why the council wants to be involved in the ongoing committee that meets about this issue. It wants to ensure that it can give its position on every issue that is discussed so that the local perspective is taken into consideration.

We all understand that the big boys who run the departmental offices have to make decisions, but if we use the knowledge and expertise of the local people we will get the absolute best decision. I commend the member for Hammond on his motion. I know this side of the house strongly supports the honourable intention of the motion. I would hope that the rather silly remarks made by the member for Newland do not reflect the position held by all government members and that there is universal support for this motion.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:42): I will speak briefly because it has been well put by the member for Hammond. Again, it was a very good speech and he covered the subject well—and he was capably backed by the member for Goyder. I do not want to repeat what has been said because it is on the record and I fully support it. As a country member I appreciate the member for Hammond raising an issue which, in a country community such as Murray Bridge, can have huge impacts. When there has been a huge change in operations the local council should not only be told about it but also be part of the decision making process. I cannot understand why a minister who is in charge of a situation such as this does not take charge of the situation and regularly liaise with the council, particularly the mayor, in order to take the council with them on various decisions, so when announcements are made everything is cordial, sorted out and above board, and there is no controversy.

I am sorry, but this minister is one of the ministers to whom I referred earlier as a dud. She does not do that. She regularly gets run over by senior ministers. The government cause is push, push and the minister—

Mrs Geraghty: That is just a load of rubbish.

Mr VENNING: The minister has not done what I think a responsible minister should do. I know that when the Hon. Stephanie Key was a minister she would do it all the time. She would not only consult the council but also the local member. Then when a matter arises, we cannot go berserk because we already know about it. Any heat in the issue has been diffused. I have been in this place long enough but I cannot understand it. When the member for Goyder is a minister—and he will be—if there is a controversy, I hope he talks to the local member—friend or foe—about the problem. The government always has problems, usually money and cost—'We can't afford to do this, but we will try to do it over the next few years'—but it should at least get the local member's confidence about what is happening. In this instance we got nothing.

Mayor Arbon is a very straight player and a professional man and I cannot understand why he was not involved in the loop; I do not understand it. I understand he is in the precincts of Parliament House today for lunch—so I hope the honourable member feeds him well. There are ministers on the other side who cooperate well with members—although the government has sacked a couple who did it very well. All I can say is that, in this instance, this minister ought to be a bit more pro-active, learn from experienced members of parliament, work with the local member, whether or not the member is a member of their party, work with the local government, particularly mayors, and cover this.

This is a classic case. The location of a prison is controversial at best. We know the state has to have a prison. We know it has to be built somewhere. We appreciate the community of Murray Bridge for allowing it to be built there and for supporting it so far, but with an increase such as we are seeing here, I would have thought that it would have been politically smart to do the work before any announcement was made. Again, I commend the member for Hammond on this matter. I agree with what the member for Goyder said; that is, the member for Hammond is a big fellow and can be quite intimidating.

Mr Pederick: I've never scared you, Ivan.

Mr VENNING: He was the deputy whip and I do miss him now that he has gone up the scale. He is heading for a ministry, too. I think he will be wise enough to learn that, when you are a minister—and I am sure the member for Napier is the sort of person who would be a good minister because of the sort of person that he is.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: No, you get to know people personally, don't you, and you can see what sort of minister they will be. The member for Enfield would also be a very good minister because he does his work and the background research. It is not about politics. When you are the minister, you are the minister, you are there, you have arrived. If you are to remain a minister and you are to remain in government, you have to do the work. You have to predict where your hotspots will be and defuse them—and you can. We have had some very good experts at that. You have some good ministers. In this instance, I am afraid this minister should have done it better. It is not too late, support this motion and we can move on. Again I commend the member for Hammond and urge the house to support the motion.

Motion negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT